Monday, October 11, 2004
Censorship
I'm not an extremist on this issue; I think that censorship is often acceptable, even NECESSARY, especially when it's used to protect our kids from things they shouldn't see. Today, however, I encountered a degree of censorship that merged on the surreal.
We'd rented the DVD for a lovely British movie called "Beautiful Thing"; it's a sweet, raw story about 2 working-class boys who escape from the harsh realities of their lives into each other's arms. My husband and I had seen it in the theater when it was released in America, and I'd seen it a couple of times since on TV, but due to the sexual nature of some of the scenes it hadn't been the entire movie those other times... which is perfectly fine, as there's a limit as to what you can show in programs on channels that accept advertising. I was looking forward to seeing the entire movie again at last... but I was in for a nasty surprise.
The movie, as we saw it today, barely made sense; I've got to wonder if someone who wasn't familiar with the plot could have even followed it. They cut out every scene that had any nudity (I don't mean altered what was shown to not show the bare butts, I mean just cut out the scenes entirely), every scene that had sex, every scene that showed that they'd just HAD sex, every scene that even had a KISS except for one peck early on... in other words, they cut out everything that showed that the relationship was forming, everything that showed the relationship PERIOD. This, in a movie ABOUT this very relationship!!!!!!!
What was left was a bunch of trivial stuff about the other characters, mainly; at one point, we hear that one of the boys has been called names at school, but you can't tell WHY because we haven't seen anything that could lead to his classmates finding out he was gay, or much of anything to show US that he was... a wonderful movie had been reduced to something not worth watching.
I was REALLY aggravated, especially since there'd been nothing to indicate to us that this was a PG-rated version of the movie; I was taking a dim view of Blockbuster at that point. I decided to check the Internet Movie Database to see how long the original movie had been, and thus how much was missing; to my amazement, they showed the same length for the movie as the version I had. Blockbuster was exonerated, and I next figured this must be an American version of the movie, dictated by our homophobia as a nation, and I went to the Amazon UK site to see how long the movie was supposed to be... and THEY had the same running time, too.
I started feeling that "am I crazy, or what?" thing in my head, and I asked my husband if he remembered the scenes I did; he didn't, really, but he HAD recognized that the movie didn't make sense, when that hadn't been the case originally, and of course that there'd been some love scenes before whereas now there were none. It turned out that he had the probable explanation for this; the British have apparently gone to wild extremes to protect kids from pedophiles, to the point that parents are no longer allowed to film their kids' sporting events or plays, etc, because such films might "fall into the wrong hands," and therefore it was highly likely that scenes in a movie showing boys who could be presumed to be underage, nude and in sexual situations, would get chopped up to serve the same purpose.
It's not that I don't see their point, but we're not talking little kids here, we're talking boys that could easily be 18, and normal teenaged activity rather than adults seducing teens... and it just offends me right down to my bones when someone's artistic work, whether it be a book, painting or movie, is wrecked to serve whatever the cultural whims are at that time. I hope there are original copies of the movie still locked safely away somewhere, so that when the laws change it can be re-released in its original form, and the beautiful story can be seen again as it was meant to be.
We'd rented the DVD for a lovely British movie called "Beautiful Thing"; it's a sweet, raw story about 2 working-class boys who escape from the harsh realities of their lives into each other's arms. My husband and I had seen it in the theater when it was released in America, and I'd seen it a couple of times since on TV, but due to the sexual nature of some of the scenes it hadn't been the entire movie those other times... which is perfectly fine, as there's a limit as to what you can show in programs on channels that accept advertising. I was looking forward to seeing the entire movie again at last... but I was in for a nasty surprise.
The movie, as we saw it today, barely made sense; I've got to wonder if someone who wasn't familiar with the plot could have even followed it. They cut out every scene that had any nudity (I don't mean altered what was shown to not show the bare butts, I mean just cut out the scenes entirely), every scene that had sex, every scene that showed that they'd just HAD sex, every scene that even had a KISS except for one peck early on... in other words, they cut out everything that showed that the relationship was forming, everything that showed the relationship PERIOD. This, in a movie ABOUT this very relationship!!!!!!!
What was left was a bunch of trivial stuff about the other characters, mainly; at one point, we hear that one of the boys has been called names at school, but you can't tell WHY because we haven't seen anything that could lead to his classmates finding out he was gay, or much of anything to show US that he was... a wonderful movie had been reduced to something not worth watching.
I was REALLY aggravated, especially since there'd been nothing to indicate to us that this was a PG-rated version of the movie; I was taking a dim view of Blockbuster at that point. I decided to check the Internet Movie Database to see how long the original movie had been, and thus how much was missing; to my amazement, they showed the same length for the movie as the version I had. Blockbuster was exonerated, and I next figured this must be an American version of the movie, dictated by our homophobia as a nation, and I went to the Amazon UK site to see how long the movie was supposed to be... and THEY had the same running time, too.
I started feeling that "am I crazy, or what?" thing in my head, and I asked my husband if he remembered the scenes I did; he didn't, really, but he HAD recognized that the movie didn't make sense, when that hadn't been the case originally, and of course that there'd been some love scenes before whereas now there were none. It turned out that he had the probable explanation for this; the British have apparently gone to wild extremes to protect kids from pedophiles, to the point that parents are no longer allowed to film their kids' sporting events or plays, etc, because such films might "fall into the wrong hands," and therefore it was highly likely that scenes in a movie showing boys who could be presumed to be underage, nude and in sexual situations, would get chopped up to serve the same purpose.
It's not that I don't see their point, but we're not talking little kids here, we're talking boys that could easily be 18, and normal teenaged activity rather than adults seducing teens... and it just offends me right down to my bones when someone's artistic work, whether it be a book, painting or movie, is wrecked to serve whatever the cultural whims are at that time. I hope there are original copies of the movie still locked safely away somewhere, so that when the laws change it can be re-released in its original form, and the beautiful story can be seen again as it was meant to be.
Sunday, October 10, 2004
What would you sacrifice to do what's right?
We all like to think of ourselves as noble sorts, always ready to jump in and right wrongs; the reality is that most people don't even have the courage to speak up when they see someone behaving badly, much less make a REAL sacrifice to combat wrongdoing.
Could YOU be an exception? Let's see... how many times have you been present when someone was being gossiped about, or flat-out badmouthed, and said nothing, even though the most you risked was the disapproval of a jerk? How many times have you seen a loved one, friend or even just an acquaintance doing something you knew was wrong, but didn't say anything because you didn't want to "rock the boat" for something "trivial," although all you risked was a few minutes of embarrassed anger? If you didn't say "zero" to both of those questions, what are the chances you'd risk DEATH to do the right thing?
We've become increasingly unwilling to "risk" anyone's ire or retribution; some folks won't even report being robbed, raped or beaten up for fear that the perpetrator will track them down and do them further harm, so it's no surprise that people are unwilling to speak up when they see wrongdoing... we always imagine that whoever we speak out to or "tell on" will "get us."
How many of us, then, would risk making the ultimate sacrifice? If you witnessed a crime committed by a member of the Mafia, or by a major druglord, and you knew that they'd be exerting all their power to kill anyone who agreed to testify before they could get on the witness stand... would you agree to testify? If, furthermore, as often happens in these cases, you'd have to enter the witness protection program, give up your family, friends, career, and everything you'd built in your life, and STILL be at permanent risk of being killed for testifying... would you do it?
I'm that rare person who'll step in and defend total strangers if they're being picked on, and get in people's faces if they're doing something wrong, even if they're friends; if someone can't do me actual harm, I don't sweat it, and I'm at a loss as to why anyone DOES. When it comes to risking being killed, though, and/or giving up everything I have, to do the right thing... I just don't think I could do it. I'm in AWE of people who can. If you think you could do it, my hat's off to you.
Could YOU be an exception? Let's see... how many times have you been present when someone was being gossiped about, or flat-out badmouthed, and said nothing, even though the most you risked was the disapproval of a jerk? How many times have you seen a loved one, friend or even just an acquaintance doing something you knew was wrong, but didn't say anything because you didn't want to "rock the boat" for something "trivial," although all you risked was a few minutes of embarrassed anger? If you didn't say "zero" to both of those questions, what are the chances you'd risk DEATH to do the right thing?
We've become increasingly unwilling to "risk" anyone's ire or retribution; some folks won't even report being robbed, raped or beaten up for fear that the perpetrator will track them down and do them further harm, so it's no surprise that people are unwilling to speak up when they see wrongdoing... we always imagine that whoever we speak out to or "tell on" will "get us."
How many of us, then, would risk making the ultimate sacrifice? If you witnessed a crime committed by a member of the Mafia, or by a major druglord, and you knew that they'd be exerting all their power to kill anyone who agreed to testify before they could get on the witness stand... would you agree to testify? If, furthermore, as often happens in these cases, you'd have to enter the witness protection program, give up your family, friends, career, and everything you'd built in your life, and STILL be at permanent risk of being killed for testifying... would you do it?
I'm that rare person who'll step in and defend total strangers if they're being picked on, and get in people's faces if they're doing something wrong, even if they're friends; if someone can't do me actual harm, I don't sweat it, and I'm at a loss as to why anyone DOES. When it comes to risking being killed, though, and/or giving up everything I have, to do the right thing... I just don't think I could do it. I'm in AWE of people who can. If you think you could do it, my hat's off to you.
Saturday, October 09, 2004
What should they teach in public schools?
The short answer: things that the kids'll need in their adult life... all of those things that can be taught in school BUT don't require ridiculous expenditure to teach... and nothing else. When the taxpayer is footing the bill, every penny should go towards producing real value; private schools can be free to have their own standards, as long as they don't take public $, and as long as they ARE teaching the basics, but public schools need to provide something of value to the public, in the form of kids that can hold down jobs thanks to what they've been taught.
What will our kids need to have successful adult lives in America?
1) Fluency in English. If we allow kids to reach adulthood not being able to speak the language that business is done in in this country, we have failed them in the worst possible way, because virtually no one will hire them.
2) The ability to read and understand what they've read (aka "reading comprehension"). There aren't many non-menial jobs for those who can't make sense of the written word.
3) The ability to express themselves clearly and accurately in writing. We're in big, BIG trouble with this one, if what I see online is any indication; a horrifying % of people posting can't spell, don't know how to make a plural, or capitalize, or punctuate, and have no clue whatsoever as to grammar and mechanics... and no, spellcheckers are NOT enough to make up the difference. In most offices, the workers have to write up a variety of things, and raises and promotions do NOT go to those who can't put 2 words together such that someone reading them doesn't recoil in dismay.
The top 3 are so crucial that you can make a case for nearly the entire school day to be taken up with just them for those kids who aren't up to snuff.
4) Basic math. Arithmetic (+-*/), a grasp of fractions and decimals, enough geometry to do things like calculate the square footage of a room, and enough simple algebra to do things like alter recipes to feed different #'s of people... and that's IT. Math beyond what's actually necessary SHOULD be available as an elective, for those who want to get into science, engineering, etc, but there's no benefit to forcing everyone to take it.
5) Computer use. We're rapidly getting to the point where anyone who can't use a computer will be considered illiterate, so every student should know the basic workings of a modern PC, how to use all the common programs, especially Word, and how to get around online, with emphasis on how to track down information.
6) Life skills. Kids should learn how to balance a checkbook, make a budget, write a resume, fix a leaky faucet... all the little things that adults are expected to know how to do that parents aren't bothering to teach kids any more.
7) Health. Nutrition, the dangers of smoking, drinking and drugs, and disease-avoidance are important... but the biggie is Sex Ed. Any child who doesn't know how babies are made, and how to prevent it, and how AIDS gets transmitted, and how to reduce the chances of getting it, is at terrible risk, and most parents don't know the facts, much less have the time and willingness to pass them along.
And that's all they need.
I can hear the protests now: what about science, history, languages? My reply is: Why should we keep teaching those things, just because YOU were taught them? Have you USED any of that stuff? Do you know anyone that has? While these are all worthy areas of knowledge, they are NOT necessary for the overwhelming majority of adults, and so shouldn't be paid for by the taxpayers... at least, not for everyone. You can make a case for having science available as an elective, which kids who can pass an appropriate math test could be allowed to take, since we DO want kids to go into the sciences, but... what careers are there in history and languages, other than teaching those things? You can't make a case for even having them available.
What about art and music? Well, let's see: How many people make a living as artists? You can make a case for teaching GRAPHIC arts, as there's some $ in that, and the computers will already be paid for... but art supplies are expensive, and the taxpayers get no return for them. Music has been shown to help with math, but once we've eliminated most of the math, what's the point in having kids blaring away on the French horn (or whatever) instead of learning skills that they'll NEED?
Geography and social science? No jobs require them, so what's the point?
Home economics... does that even exist any more? It's a good idea for kids to learn basic cooking and sewing skills, but the cost is prohibitive, and it's too easy to get through life without knowing that stuff these days... so, no.
How about electives that teach a worthwhile skill, like auto shop class? If the $ is there to fund it, a class that gives kids a skill they can make $ with upon graduation is a good idea... but that's a pretty big IF, when you can't guarantee that any of the kids will need or use those skills. This is probably a no, except in those poorer neighborhoods where many kids would certainly use the skills if they had them.
And gym class? Kids are supposed to be running around and playing on their own... why do we have to pay for the equipment for them to do all these different sports? My memory of gym class is that, by the time everyone had changed clothes, and roll call was done, and we'd marched along to whatever field we were supposed to be on and set up, we'd have about 10 minutes for the athletic kids to mess around with a ball while the rest of us watched, and then it was time to gather everything up and head back to the locker rooms... where's the benefit of THAT, not just to the taxpayers but to the kids themselves? If it can be shown that kids need some exercise during the schoolday, which is unlikely as most kids have been doing nothing but stand around during gym class since it was invented, have them all power-walk, or do aerobics, or anything that doesn't require a bunch of expensive equipment for only a handful of kids to use.
Why even bother to suggest such a big change? The point of education used to be to stick a bunch of info into kids' heads that they didn't need and would never use, or even remember for the most part, because "we the people" thought it was a good idea to do so (why, I have no idea)... and all it cost was a pittance given to the one teacher who taught every subject to every grade, so why not do it if it made parents feel like they were bettering their kids? Education is EXPENSIVE nowadays, though, and there are many things that kids NEED to know to be successful in adult life that can realistically be called the responsibility of the schools to teach them, so we need a totally different concept of what a school should be doing with the taxpayers' $.
Yes, the idea of learning just for the sake of knowing is a nice one, but it's not practical in today's world. Under my proposed system, anyone who wanted to learn subjects not taught in school could do just what they do NOW under those circumstances; read and learn by themselves, and later on take courses in college in that area (think how many subjects there are that are already only taught at college level, and note that no harm has come from it). Not many people would have the courage to publicly "admit" to this point of view, but I've got to wonder; if people were allowed to VOTE on this issue, knowing that their tax burden would be based on what was being taught, and that the ability of the kids to eventually pay taxes depended on what they'd learned, how many would be willing to pay for subjects that don't teach practical knowledge?
What will our kids need to have successful adult lives in America?
1) Fluency in English. If we allow kids to reach adulthood not being able to speak the language that business is done in in this country, we have failed them in the worst possible way, because virtually no one will hire them.
2) The ability to read and understand what they've read (aka "reading comprehension"). There aren't many non-menial jobs for those who can't make sense of the written word.
3) The ability to express themselves clearly and accurately in writing. We're in big, BIG trouble with this one, if what I see online is any indication; a horrifying % of people posting can't spell, don't know how to make a plural, or capitalize, or punctuate, and have no clue whatsoever as to grammar and mechanics... and no, spellcheckers are NOT enough to make up the difference. In most offices, the workers have to write up a variety of things, and raises and promotions do NOT go to those who can't put 2 words together such that someone reading them doesn't recoil in dismay.
The top 3 are so crucial that you can make a case for nearly the entire school day to be taken up with just them for those kids who aren't up to snuff.
4) Basic math. Arithmetic (+-*/), a grasp of fractions and decimals, enough geometry to do things like calculate the square footage of a room, and enough simple algebra to do things like alter recipes to feed different #'s of people... and that's IT. Math beyond what's actually necessary SHOULD be available as an elective, for those who want to get into science, engineering, etc, but there's no benefit to forcing everyone to take it.
5) Computer use. We're rapidly getting to the point where anyone who can't use a computer will be considered illiterate, so every student should know the basic workings of a modern PC, how to use all the common programs, especially Word, and how to get around online, with emphasis on how to track down information.
6) Life skills. Kids should learn how to balance a checkbook, make a budget, write a resume, fix a leaky faucet... all the little things that adults are expected to know how to do that parents aren't bothering to teach kids any more.
7) Health. Nutrition, the dangers of smoking, drinking and drugs, and disease-avoidance are important... but the biggie is Sex Ed. Any child who doesn't know how babies are made, and how to prevent it, and how AIDS gets transmitted, and how to reduce the chances of getting it, is at terrible risk, and most parents don't know the facts, much less have the time and willingness to pass them along.
And that's all they need.
I can hear the protests now: what about science, history, languages? My reply is: Why should we keep teaching those things, just because YOU were taught them? Have you USED any of that stuff? Do you know anyone that has? While these are all worthy areas of knowledge, they are NOT necessary for the overwhelming majority of adults, and so shouldn't be paid for by the taxpayers... at least, not for everyone. You can make a case for having science available as an elective, which kids who can pass an appropriate math test could be allowed to take, since we DO want kids to go into the sciences, but... what careers are there in history and languages, other than teaching those things? You can't make a case for even having them available.
What about art and music? Well, let's see: How many people make a living as artists? You can make a case for teaching GRAPHIC arts, as there's some $ in that, and the computers will already be paid for... but art supplies are expensive, and the taxpayers get no return for them. Music has been shown to help with math, but once we've eliminated most of the math, what's the point in having kids blaring away on the French horn (or whatever) instead of learning skills that they'll NEED?
Geography and social science? No jobs require them, so what's the point?
Home economics... does that even exist any more? It's a good idea for kids to learn basic cooking and sewing skills, but the cost is prohibitive, and it's too easy to get through life without knowing that stuff these days... so, no.
How about electives that teach a worthwhile skill, like auto shop class? If the $ is there to fund it, a class that gives kids a skill they can make $ with upon graduation is a good idea... but that's a pretty big IF, when you can't guarantee that any of the kids will need or use those skills. This is probably a no, except in those poorer neighborhoods where many kids would certainly use the skills if they had them.
And gym class? Kids are supposed to be running around and playing on their own... why do we have to pay for the equipment for them to do all these different sports? My memory of gym class is that, by the time everyone had changed clothes, and roll call was done, and we'd marched along to whatever field we were supposed to be on and set up, we'd have about 10 minutes for the athletic kids to mess around with a ball while the rest of us watched, and then it was time to gather everything up and head back to the locker rooms... where's the benefit of THAT, not just to the taxpayers but to the kids themselves? If it can be shown that kids need some exercise during the schoolday, which is unlikely as most kids have been doing nothing but stand around during gym class since it was invented, have them all power-walk, or do aerobics, or anything that doesn't require a bunch of expensive equipment for only a handful of kids to use.
Why even bother to suggest such a big change? The point of education used to be to stick a bunch of info into kids' heads that they didn't need and would never use, or even remember for the most part, because "we the people" thought it was a good idea to do so (why, I have no idea)... and all it cost was a pittance given to the one teacher who taught every subject to every grade, so why not do it if it made parents feel like they were bettering their kids? Education is EXPENSIVE nowadays, though, and there are many things that kids NEED to know to be successful in adult life that can realistically be called the responsibility of the schools to teach them, so we need a totally different concept of what a school should be doing with the taxpayers' $.
Yes, the idea of learning just for the sake of knowing is a nice one, but it's not practical in today's world. Under my proposed system, anyone who wanted to learn subjects not taught in school could do just what they do NOW under those circumstances; read and learn by themselves, and later on take courses in college in that area (think how many subjects there are that are already only taught at college level, and note that no harm has come from it). Not many people would have the courage to publicly "admit" to this point of view, but I've got to wonder; if people were allowed to VOTE on this issue, knowing that their tax burden would be based on what was being taught, and that the ability of the kids to eventually pay taxes depended on what they'd learned, how many would be willing to pay for subjects that don't teach practical knowledge?
Friday, October 08, 2004
A pleasant memory
My husband got me some lovely flowers today (there IS a reason I keep him around, lol), and the unusual color reminded me of some flowers I'd seen nearly 20 years ago:
It was my mother's birthday, and I was done with my last class and heading for my car, when I had the urge to stop and look at the display of flowers at one of the many stalls set up along the main drag of the campus; $ was very tight at that time, and of course I'd already bought my mother a gift, but there were some very pretty brightly colored mixed bouquets for only $3-$4, and I went with the urge and bought her one.
When I got home, my mother was very pleased with the flowers, and put them in a vase in a prominent place. Shortly thereafter, my father showed up, and for literally the ONLY time in at least my lifetime, HE had gotten her flowers, too, in the same light purple as the ones I got today; you should have seen his face when he saw MY flowers. Belligerent and ill-natured as ever, he loudly demanded where the other flowers had come from, as if there was any other possible source besides me, and as if some sort of wrongdoing had taken place to put them there (in his mind, ANY action taken that didn't fit with his whims was indicative of wrongdoing). My mother gamely tried to make much of his flowers, but he was too busy glowering at me to notice.
It got better; with everyone there, it was officially time for her to open her gifts... and it turned out that the slimy S.O.B. hadn't gotten her one; the flowers were a substitute, NOT an addition. She handled this revelation by frostily declaring her intention to go change for dinner, and stalking from the room. As soon as she was out of hearing range, he hissed furiously, "Why did you get her flowers?!!" Smug and triumphant, I loftily shot back, "Why DIDN'T you get her a GIFT?" All he could do was fume, because he KNEW he'd pulled a shoddy stunt by trying to slide flowers in in place of a gift, and he knew we ALL knew, and that MY flowers made him look even worse.
My mother made it quite clear over the days that followed how she felt about all of this; when he started trying to regain some of his lost ground by saying every hour or so "Aren't those flowers nice?" she'd respond with "Yes, and the OTHER ones are nice too." She even went so far as to make a point of telling me that this was going on, and adding a few choice comments about what he'd done after all the effort she made for HIM on all of HIS birthdays.
I don't know what gives me a bigger thrill looking back; the way I managed to metaphorically kick his ass, which was probably the biggest victory of my teenaged life, or the realization that came many years later, that I'd had the only urge of my life to buy flowers for my mother on the exact same day that my father had the same unique urge... which of course was NOT a coincidence.
It was my mother's birthday, and I was done with my last class and heading for my car, when I had the urge to stop and look at the display of flowers at one of the many stalls set up along the main drag of the campus; $ was very tight at that time, and of course I'd already bought my mother a gift, but there were some very pretty brightly colored mixed bouquets for only $3-$4, and I went with the urge and bought her one.
When I got home, my mother was very pleased with the flowers, and put them in a vase in a prominent place. Shortly thereafter, my father showed up, and for literally the ONLY time in at least my lifetime, HE had gotten her flowers, too, in the same light purple as the ones I got today; you should have seen his face when he saw MY flowers. Belligerent and ill-natured as ever, he loudly demanded where the other flowers had come from, as if there was any other possible source besides me, and as if some sort of wrongdoing had taken place to put them there (in his mind, ANY action taken that didn't fit with his whims was indicative of wrongdoing). My mother gamely tried to make much of his flowers, but he was too busy glowering at me to notice.
It got better; with everyone there, it was officially time for her to open her gifts... and it turned out that the slimy S.O.B. hadn't gotten her one; the flowers were a substitute, NOT an addition. She handled this revelation by frostily declaring her intention to go change for dinner, and stalking from the room. As soon as she was out of hearing range, he hissed furiously, "Why did you get her flowers?!!" Smug and triumphant, I loftily shot back, "Why DIDN'T you get her a GIFT?" All he could do was fume, because he KNEW he'd pulled a shoddy stunt by trying to slide flowers in in place of a gift, and he knew we ALL knew, and that MY flowers made him look even worse.
My mother made it quite clear over the days that followed how she felt about all of this; when he started trying to regain some of his lost ground by saying every hour or so "Aren't those flowers nice?" she'd respond with "Yes, and the OTHER ones are nice too." She even went so far as to make a point of telling me that this was going on, and adding a few choice comments about what he'd done after all the effort she made for HIM on all of HIS birthdays.
I don't know what gives me a bigger thrill looking back; the way I managed to metaphorically kick his ass, which was probably the biggest victory of my teenaged life, or the realization that came many years later, that I'd had the only urge of my life to buy flowers for my mother on the exact same day that my father had the same unique urge... which of course was NOT a coincidence.
Thursday, October 07, 2004
The big switch
I think that's what Dr. Joyce Brothers called it; what she was referring to is how men can be at each other's throats, figuratively or even literally, and then once the game, or business meeting, or fight is over, they do a complete 180 and are suddenly buddies... in the movies, they're typically shown getting amicably drunk together and singing, and that's apparently a fairly accurate portrayal of how it works (if my husband can be believed).
Another point that Dr. Brothers made about this is how foreign this behavior is to women; women tend to either like or dislike someone, and NOT to flip-flop about it from one moment to the next. While it DOES seem a little odd for someone to be able to flip a mental switch and have intense emotions evaporate... or is that my estrogen talking, lol? No, I think it really IS odd, as men don't do that sort of emotional about-face in other situations; it's a learned response, not a natural one. That doesn't make it wrong, though; while the suppression of ALL emotions is provably bad, might it not be a GOOD thing to get over belligerent and combative feelings once the need for them passes? Men might be onto something with this.
While it's reasonable to expect that a person might be angry somewhat beyond the event that caused the anger, an excellent case can be made that a mature adult does NOT need to keep being actively upset days or weeks later; often, women DO keep fuming on and on, though, which confuses and aggravates men, who think that when an argument is over the bad feelings that went with it should be over too, and that there's something wrong with a woman if that's not how she's behaving.
This issue goes beyond social gender differences in handling conflict and its resolution, though; perhaps the best point that Dr. Brothers made about this is that in the workplace, it's CRUCIAL to be able to do the big switch... because you can't still be pissy about how someone stole your idea last week when you and them have to work together on a project NOW, and how well you do depends on your ability to work well together. Men get an edge over women in the office by their ability to do the big switch, because women's INability to do it gets them seen as immature, unprofessional, and not "team players"... and thus not top candidates for raises and promotions. Presumably, it's the very fact that men have historically worked outside of the home (and played sports together and fought wars together) that made it necessary for them to develop this behavior pattern in order to be successful; now that women are doing all of these things, we need to take a look at what has been proven to work well and learn from it.
Ladies, while we DO still have the correct procedures for... well, pretty much everything, this is one area that the guys have the right idea; whether at work or at home, we need to learn to drop our negative feelings when the conflict is over. The getting drunk and singing together is optional, though.
Another point that Dr. Brothers made about this is how foreign this behavior is to women; women tend to either like or dislike someone, and NOT to flip-flop about it from one moment to the next. While it DOES seem a little odd for someone to be able to flip a mental switch and have intense emotions evaporate... or is that my estrogen talking, lol? No, I think it really IS odd, as men don't do that sort of emotional about-face in other situations; it's a learned response, not a natural one. That doesn't make it wrong, though; while the suppression of ALL emotions is provably bad, might it not be a GOOD thing to get over belligerent and combative feelings once the need for them passes? Men might be onto something with this.
While it's reasonable to expect that a person might be angry somewhat beyond the event that caused the anger, an excellent case can be made that a mature adult does NOT need to keep being actively upset days or weeks later; often, women DO keep fuming on and on, though, which confuses and aggravates men, who think that when an argument is over the bad feelings that went with it should be over too, and that there's something wrong with a woman if that's not how she's behaving.
This issue goes beyond social gender differences in handling conflict and its resolution, though; perhaps the best point that Dr. Brothers made about this is that in the workplace, it's CRUCIAL to be able to do the big switch... because you can't still be pissy about how someone stole your idea last week when you and them have to work together on a project NOW, and how well you do depends on your ability to work well together. Men get an edge over women in the office by their ability to do the big switch, because women's INability to do it gets them seen as immature, unprofessional, and not "team players"... and thus not top candidates for raises and promotions. Presumably, it's the very fact that men have historically worked outside of the home (and played sports together and fought wars together) that made it necessary for them to develop this behavior pattern in order to be successful; now that women are doing all of these things, we need to take a look at what has been proven to work well and learn from it.
Ladies, while we DO still have the correct procedures for... well, pretty much everything, this is one area that the guys have the right idea; whether at work or at home, we need to learn to drop our negative feelings when the conflict is over. The getting drunk and singing together is optional, though.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
If we could all look alike
Imagine if we all looked EXACTLY alike, so that we were absolutely indistinguishable from each other; you can imagine that men and women look alike except for the genitals, or that men and women have some of the other differences we're used to, such as height and body hair (I'D imagine that every man had a hairy chest, of course), but at the very least all men would look alike, and all women would look alike... and in either case, civilization as we know it would be altered out of recognition.
Think how much of human society is based on beauty; we all want to look beautiful and to have sexual partners who are beautiful, we want to look at beautiful people on TV and the silver screen, and of course on computer screens and in magazines (ahem)... much of art circles around portrayals of the beautiful, and advertising depends on it... people who are beautiful get higher grades in school, are paid more on the job, and get better treatment and more friends throughout their entire lives. The beautiful usually get their way, get whatever sexual partners they want (including the wealthy, powerful and famous), get treated like something special... the non-beautiful spend much of their lives in pursuit and service of the beautiful, and it's such a basic part of human nature that we don't even think about it.
There's more to physical appearance than just beauty or the lack of it, of course, and we'd have to consider how the removal of those thing would affect us, too. For example, we make all sorts of judgments based on skin color, hair color, age, height, weight, and the size of various body parts; most people only date within their own race, we usually have a preferred hair color, we worship youth, the taller candidate tends to win an election, we see weight as indicative of the person's level of virtue and general value as a human being (if you think I'm exaggerating, ask any obese person), a woman can get breast implants and go from being ignored by men to being ardently pursued, a man with big hands and feet will be the subject of much speculation... every nuance of our appearance influences how we react to each other.
If we could all look alike, if we couldn't have our way through life smoothed by beauty, or didn't have to struggle more than our circumstances should require due to unattractiveness, if we could make no judgment whatsoever about a person based on their appearance, if every interaction we had with people was based solely on each person's intelligence and personality... the mind boggles, doesn't it? How would we choose our sexual and romantic partners if there was nothing to base having instant lust for any particular person on? What about our desire for sexual novelty, when everyone looks the same; could we even function sexually if we couldn't single out anyone as being "hot"? How many of us would be able to build a romantic relationship without mutual attraction to pave the way, blinding us to each other's faults until we're in love?
What would the entertainment and advertising industries do without being able to use beauty to market movies, music, and everything from cars to canned soup?
How could we have racism if there was no way to know who was what race? What would racists do with all their hate?
Imagine a world where we could only win love, popularity and success by developing ourselves as human beings, rather than by enhancing and using our looks; would it lead to utopia... or would we be just as unhappy as we are now, because we don't all have equal levels of intelligence, humor, warmth, and other personality traits, and so some of us would STILL be favored, and DISfavored, for things we were born with?
Think how much of human society is based on beauty; we all want to look beautiful and to have sexual partners who are beautiful, we want to look at beautiful people on TV and the silver screen, and of course on computer screens and in magazines (ahem)... much of art circles around portrayals of the beautiful, and advertising depends on it... people who are beautiful get higher grades in school, are paid more on the job, and get better treatment and more friends throughout their entire lives. The beautiful usually get their way, get whatever sexual partners they want (including the wealthy, powerful and famous), get treated like something special... the non-beautiful spend much of their lives in pursuit and service of the beautiful, and it's such a basic part of human nature that we don't even think about it.
There's more to physical appearance than just beauty or the lack of it, of course, and we'd have to consider how the removal of those thing would affect us, too. For example, we make all sorts of judgments based on skin color, hair color, age, height, weight, and the size of various body parts; most people only date within their own race, we usually have a preferred hair color, we worship youth, the taller candidate tends to win an election, we see weight as indicative of the person's level of virtue and general value as a human being (if you think I'm exaggerating, ask any obese person), a woman can get breast implants and go from being ignored by men to being ardently pursued, a man with big hands and feet will be the subject of much speculation... every nuance of our appearance influences how we react to each other.
If we could all look alike, if we couldn't have our way through life smoothed by beauty, or didn't have to struggle more than our circumstances should require due to unattractiveness, if we could make no judgment whatsoever about a person based on their appearance, if every interaction we had with people was based solely on each person's intelligence and personality... the mind boggles, doesn't it? How would we choose our sexual and romantic partners if there was nothing to base having instant lust for any particular person on? What about our desire for sexual novelty, when everyone looks the same; could we even function sexually if we couldn't single out anyone as being "hot"? How many of us would be able to build a romantic relationship without mutual attraction to pave the way, blinding us to each other's faults until we're in love?
What would the entertainment and advertising industries do without being able to use beauty to market movies, music, and everything from cars to canned soup?
How could we have racism if there was no way to know who was what race? What would racists do with all their hate?
Imagine a world where we could only win love, popularity and success by developing ourselves as human beings, rather than by enhancing and using our looks; would it lead to utopia... or would we be just as unhappy as we are now, because we don't all have equal levels of intelligence, humor, warmth, and other personality traits, and so some of us would STILL be favored, and DISfavored, for things we were born with?
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
How well do you know...
... the people in your life?
If you said/thought "very well," and you probably did, as that's what most people think... guess again. We all think we're terrific judges of character, but studies, and real-life experience, show us otherwise. Do you think YOU are an exception? Ask yourself this: How many times has someone you thought was wonderful lied to you, betrayed you, cheated on you, hurt you? If you didn't say "zero," it means that either you HAVE been fooled by people you did NOT know as well as you thought you did, or you've been living in a cave your entire life; we've all endured endless pain because it turned out that we did NOT really know people we thought we knew... people who ended up being baddies.
Why does it prove that you didn't really know a person if they mistreat you? Unless you're an emotional masochist, you don't keep people around that you believe are going to hurt you at some point, so, conversely, if you DO keep someone in your life, it indicates that you believe they will NOT hurt you, in other words you trust them... and when someone abuses your trust, it comes as a nasty surprise. If you know someone, really KNOW them, NOTHING they do comes as a surprise to you, so, if they DO surprise you, and haven't had a head injury or other trauma that would have caused their personality to change, it indicates a distinct lack of understanding of their true self on your part... which means you did NOT know them well.
Don't feel bad about this unfortunate revelation; remember, EVERYONE gets fooled all the time, not just you. Think about it: How many times have people you know described being mistreated by people THEY thought were wonderful? More times than you can count, right? It's apparently a somewhat pitiful facet of human nature that we believe what people tell us, we believe that anyone who acts nice for 30 seconds IS nice, we believe that anyone we're having sex with, or live with, or grew up with, or gave birth to, is automatically nice... and, since statistically they CAN'T all be, we're wrong over and over, and thus get kicked in the emotional teeth over and over.
Can we learn how to tell in advance which people are going to behave badly? We can certainly cut people out of our lives at the FIRST sign of bad behavior; oh, I know, no one will actually DO that (except me), but it CAN be done. Barring that... I think we're just screwed, because any sociopath or con artist can tell you how easy it is to keep one's true self hidden.
Can we at least learn to tell when people are outright lying? Sadly, we can't even do that much; studies show that even people who are supposedly EXPERTS in telling when others are lying don't do any better when tested than blind guessing would do, and most of us are NOT experts... and that's why the shitty people of the world can get us over and over, because we just don't have a clue.
It's not just the bad stuff about people that we don't know, though; have you ever been surprised that someone you thought didn't like you did you a favor, or someone you thought hated animals adopted a stray kitten, or someone you thought was insensitive showed your friend major compassion when they got fired? We make snap judgments about people, and, once we decide that we don't like them and/or that they don't like US, we become blinded to their true selves, and thus won't really know them no matter how long they're in our lives... come to think of it, avoiding snap judgments is a good idea to protect us from hidden bad behavior, too, and yes, deciding on no evidence that someone is nice/sweet/trustworthy DOES count as a snap judgment. Maybe that's a big part of why we're so easily fooled; we decide what people are like before we know them well enough to validly tell. I wonder if that's a human nature thing or a cultural thing... I sure hope it's the latter, because then at least we'd have a chance at learning better.
Beyond what's good or bad about them, people can just surprise us in general, because we don't pay attention and don't remember what we've observed, and so don't know even those things about them that we SHOULD know; even seemingly trivial things can end up being important, and even if they don't, we can't say that we know anyone if we don't keep track of EVERYTHING that sheds light on their personality.
The place where we most need to focus on REALLY getting to know people is in the romantic arena; we'll be alot happier if we stop seeing relationships as the emotional equivalent of fast food and accept that, although we FEEL like we know someone as soon as the first rush of love or lust hits, we DON'T... we've got to wait until every aspect of their personality is familiar to us before we decide if we want to be with them long-term. In the not so distant past, anyone we got involved with had known, and been known by, our family, and everyone else we knew, their entire lives, so we had people to tell us what they were really like; now, all we usually have is our own judgment about our would-be partners, so we'd better use it as best we can.
If you're on the brink of letting someone into your life as a lover, or even as a close friend, try a little test; see how well you can predict what they'll do, say or think in each situation you face together, and see how well you score. Try the same thing with your family and closest friends. You'll learn a great deal about them, and, if you can keep track of it all, and be objective in how you analyze it (it's hard, but doable), you'll start being able to predict their behavior more accurately.
That'll only take you so far, though, so you need to do one more thing; keep reminding yourself that you don't know people as well as you think you do. No, it's not "romantic" or comforting to think about it, but it won't harm the good people in your life, and it WILL help protect you from the bad ones... and wouldn't it be nice to be able to get away from a bad person BEFORE they diss you for once?
If you said/thought "very well," and you probably did, as that's what most people think... guess again. We all think we're terrific judges of character, but studies, and real-life experience, show us otherwise. Do you think YOU are an exception? Ask yourself this: How many times has someone you thought was wonderful lied to you, betrayed you, cheated on you, hurt you? If you didn't say "zero," it means that either you HAVE been fooled by people you did NOT know as well as you thought you did, or you've been living in a cave your entire life; we've all endured endless pain because it turned out that we did NOT really know people we thought we knew... people who ended up being baddies.
Why does it prove that you didn't really know a person if they mistreat you? Unless you're an emotional masochist, you don't keep people around that you believe are going to hurt you at some point, so, conversely, if you DO keep someone in your life, it indicates that you believe they will NOT hurt you, in other words you trust them... and when someone abuses your trust, it comes as a nasty surprise. If you know someone, really KNOW them, NOTHING they do comes as a surprise to you, so, if they DO surprise you, and haven't had a head injury or other trauma that would have caused their personality to change, it indicates a distinct lack of understanding of their true self on your part... which means you did NOT know them well.
Don't feel bad about this unfortunate revelation; remember, EVERYONE gets fooled all the time, not just you. Think about it: How many times have people you know described being mistreated by people THEY thought were wonderful? More times than you can count, right? It's apparently a somewhat pitiful facet of human nature that we believe what people tell us, we believe that anyone who acts nice for 30 seconds IS nice, we believe that anyone we're having sex with, or live with, or grew up with, or gave birth to, is automatically nice... and, since statistically they CAN'T all be, we're wrong over and over, and thus get kicked in the emotional teeth over and over.
Can we learn how to tell in advance which people are going to behave badly? We can certainly cut people out of our lives at the FIRST sign of bad behavior; oh, I know, no one will actually DO that (except me), but it CAN be done. Barring that... I think we're just screwed, because any sociopath or con artist can tell you how easy it is to keep one's true self hidden.
Can we at least learn to tell when people are outright lying? Sadly, we can't even do that much; studies show that even people who are supposedly EXPERTS in telling when others are lying don't do any better when tested than blind guessing would do, and most of us are NOT experts... and that's why the shitty people of the world can get us over and over, because we just don't have a clue.
It's not just the bad stuff about people that we don't know, though; have you ever been surprised that someone you thought didn't like you did you a favor, or someone you thought hated animals adopted a stray kitten, or someone you thought was insensitive showed your friend major compassion when they got fired? We make snap judgments about people, and, once we decide that we don't like them and/or that they don't like US, we become blinded to their true selves, and thus won't really know them no matter how long they're in our lives... come to think of it, avoiding snap judgments is a good idea to protect us from hidden bad behavior, too, and yes, deciding on no evidence that someone is nice/sweet/trustworthy DOES count as a snap judgment. Maybe that's a big part of why we're so easily fooled; we decide what people are like before we know them well enough to validly tell. I wonder if that's a human nature thing or a cultural thing... I sure hope it's the latter, because then at least we'd have a chance at learning better.
Beyond what's good or bad about them, people can just surprise us in general, because we don't pay attention and don't remember what we've observed, and so don't know even those things about them that we SHOULD know; even seemingly trivial things can end up being important, and even if they don't, we can't say that we know anyone if we don't keep track of EVERYTHING that sheds light on their personality.
The place where we most need to focus on REALLY getting to know people is in the romantic arena; we'll be alot happier if we stop seeing relationships as the emotional equivalent of fast food and accept that, although we FEEL like we know someone as soon as the first rush of love or lust hits, we DON'T... we've got to wait until every aspect of their personality is familiar to us before we decide if we want to be with them long-term. In the not so distant past, anyone we got involved with had known, and been known by, our family, and everyone else we knew, their entire lives, so we had people to tell us what they were really like; now, all we usually have is our own judgment about our would-be partners, so we'd better use it as best we can.
If you're on the brink of letting someone into your life as a lover, or even as a close friend, try a little test; see how well you can predict what they'll do, say or think in each situation you face together, and see how well you score. Try the same thing with your family and closest friends. You'll learn a great deal about them, and, if you can keep track of it all, and be objective in how you analyze it (it's hard, but doable), you'll start being able to predict their behavior more accurately.
That'll only take you so far, though, so you need to do one more thing; keep reminding yourself that you don't know people as well as you think you do. No, it's not "romantic" or comforting to think about it, but it won't harm the good people in your life, and it WILL help protect you from the bad ones... and wouldn't it be nice to be able to get away from a bad person BEFORE they diss you for once?
Monday, October 04, 2004
A weird thing to be grateful for
My mother created a very odd "food atmosphere" in my family of origin, and, while most of the elements of it, such as how it didn't bother her that her only child HATED everything she made (sigh), were grim, there's ONE thing she got right; she handled each meal as if we were all on a perpetual diet. It wasn't until I reached adulthood, and started experiencing how other people ate, that I realized that we didn't eat like normal families (assuming there IS such a thing), and that her eternal concern about how many calories SHE was eating had trained me to naturally expect to eat in a way that many dieters have to torture themselves into adopting and sticking to... which I become more grateful for with each passing year, as my metabolism slows down and keeping my weight under control gets harder.
The biggest difference in how we ate was that there was no such thing as serving yourself, much less having seconds, in our household; my mother planned the meals so that we each got one small serving of each dish, and that was it-there was no extra, EVER. I got used to having small meals, and to feeling "done" after I'd eaten my one little plateful, and as a result, even if I'm eating at someone's house that DOES have serve-yourself platters of food, I eat one plateful and that's it.
We had no bread of any sort on the table, not even for holiday meals... so, I don't eat bread with dinner, unless I'm at a restaurant with REALLY good sourdough. Every woman I know who loves bread is a pudge, so I'm extra-grateful for this one.
We only had dessert once a week, and even then it was a small, portion-controlled dessert; when I started going out with the man I later married, I stopped having dessert with my mother, as I normally had it with him, and once we got married and weren't going out all the time, I actually forgot about desserts entirely... a real stoke of luck.
I never, EVER, saw my parents eat after dinner, so the concept of the midnight snack was, and is, utterly foreign to me; since whatever you eat right before bed, or get out of bed to eat, tends to turn right into fat, this is a very good habit to NOT have acquired.
There was no such thing as gravy, or sauces for veggies, at my mother's meals; when I hear people weeping and wailing about having to have their meat and veggies plain, I'm glad that I've always had mine that way. I even have potroast without any gravy, which is apparently sacrilegious, but having greasy liquid on my meat just seems icky to me... and besides, I like meat too much to blot out the taste by putting anything on it. (Veggies I don't eat at all, but that's a whole other essay.)
My mother was doing reduced-fat dairy long before it became popular; because that's all I ever had, and what I was used to, to me, regular sour cream, cottage cheese, or yogurt are heavy and gross (I only eat full-fat cheese, though, as none of the low-fat ones are fit for human consumption).
Cooked breakfasts were only a fantasy in our house, with the occasional holiday exception; all we ate in the morning was a bowl of cereal, which never thrilled me much, so I gave up breakfast when I went to college.
Lunch was the same sort of sandwiches over and over... so I gave that up, too.
Because I hated my mother's food so much, I ate slowly, as befitting someone who'd lost their appetite, and drank a great deal of milk (which later became diet soda) to gag it all down; my mother tried to harangue me out of these things, with no success, which is good because 2 of the most common weight-loss tips are to eat slowly and to drink alot of non-caloric beverage with your food to fill you up more quickly. It was freaky to realize that the revoltingness of the meals I had to eat gave me beneficial eating habits, but it's the simple truth.
To a "normal" person, the scanty meals we used to have would seem unpleasantly different from what they were used to; if they could hear the sort of ugliness that often got said at the table, though, they'd forget about the food and think how unlike the warm family gatherings they enjoyed our meals were... and there's probably a connection there, as my mother, the emotional "boss" of the house, was as withholding with affection as she was with food. To me, though, looking back, although I'd have liked to at least have gotten to have the occasional meal that was less like eating at a prison cafeteria, all the mealtime oddities that I learned growing up have served me in good stead as a weight-conscious adult... and I AM grateful.
The biggest difference in how we ate was that there was no such thing as serving yourself, much less having seconds, in our household; my mother planned the meals so that we each got one small serving of each dish, and that was it-there was no extra, EVER. I got used to having small meals, and to feeling "done" after I'd eaten my one little plateful, and as a result, even if I'm eating at someone's house that DOES have serve-yourself platters of food, I eat one plateful and that's it.
We had no bread of any sort on the table, not even for holiday meals... so, I don't eat bread with dinner, unless I'm at a restaurant with REALLY good sourdough. Every woman I know who loves bread is a pudge, so I'm extra-grateful for this one.
We only had dessert once a week, and even then it was a small, portion-controlled dessert; when I started going out with the man I later married, I stopped having dessert with my mother, as I normally had it with him, and once we got married and weren't going out all the time, I actually forgot about desserts entirely... a real stoke of luck.
I never, EVER, saw my parents eat after dinner, so the concept of the midnight snack was, and is, utterly foreign to me; since whatever you eat right before bed, or get out of bed to eat, tends to turn right into fat, this is a very good habit to NOT have acquired.
There was no such thing as gravy, or sauces for veggies, at my mother's meals; when I hear people weeping and wailing about having to have their meat and veggies plain, I'm glad that I've always had mine that way. I even have potroast without any gravy, which is apparently sacrilegious, but having greasy liquid on my meat just seems icky to me... and besides, I like meat too much to blot out the taste by putting anything on it. (Veggies I don't eat at all, but that's a whole other essay.)
My mother was doing reduced-fat dairy long before it became popular; because that's all I ever had, and what I was used to, to me, regular sour cream, cottage cheese, or yogurt are heavy and gross (I only eat full-fat cheese, though, as none of the low-fat ones are fit for human consumption).
Cooked breakfasts were only a fantasy in our house, with the occasional holiday exception; all we ate in the morning was a bowl of cereal, which never thrilled me much, so I gave up breakfast when I went to college.
Lunch was the same sort of sandwiches over and over... so I gave that up, too.
Because I hated my mother's food so much, I ate slowly, as befitting someone who'd lost their appetite, and drank a great deal of milk (which later became diet soda) to gag it all down; my mother tried to harangue me out of these things, with no success, which is good because 2 of the most common weight-loss tips are to eat slowly and to drink alot of non-caloric beverage with your food to fill you up more quickly. It was freaky to realize that the revoltingness of the meals I had to eat gave me beneficial eating habits, but it's the simple truth.
To a "normal" person, the scanty meals we used to have would seem unpleasantly different from what they were used to; if they could hear the sort of ugliness that often got said at the table, though, they'd forget about the food and think how unlike the warm family gatherings they enjoyed our meals were... and there's probably a connection there, as my mother, the emotional "boss" of the house, was as withholding with affection as she was with food. To me, though, looking back, although I'd have liked to at least have gotten to have the occasional meal that was less like eating at a prison cafeteria, all the mealtime oddities that I learned growing up have served me in good stead as a weight-conscious adult... and I AM grateful.
Sunday, October 03, 2004
The electoral college
From now until after the election, I'll have a little graphic thing at the bottom of the page (because it warped my sidebar out of shape when I tried to put it there) showing the latest analysis from a site that predicts, based on the most recent polls, how many electoral votes each candidate is likely to have... and therefore who's likely to win. Since I've seen some carping about how terrible it supposedly is to still have the electoral system, I figured this was a good time to comment.
Why don't we just elect the president directly, by counting up the votes and declaring a winner? Because, if we did it that way, we could have a situation with a candidate who had intense support in one part of the country, and not much in the rest, and a 2nd candidate who had moderate support everywhere, where the 1st candidate had more total votes and would win, even though they were NOT the more popular candidate in most of the country... and the president MUST have people throughout most of the nation that want him, or he does NOT represent the nation as a whole.
The electoral college prevents this scenario from occurring, because a candidate gets the same # of electoral votes from a state he's "won" regardless of what % of the vote he got there, and therefore could NEVER win based on major popularity in just one part of the nation.
Don't think that candidates would narrow the focus of their vote-getting efforts if they didn't have to worry about electoral votes? They'd be foolish if they DIDN'T do so, because currently they have to exert a great deal of effort to get a few votes in the undecided areas so that they can get the electoral votes in those states, but freed of that constraint they can get many more total votes by expending that same effort on getting more people in the areas that already like them stirred up enough to go vote... it's alot easier to become popular in a few states than in all of 'em, let's face it.
Don't think victory via localized popularity would be bad if it DID happen? Think again; If you live in the South, would you want a president who doesn't care about your issues because he targeted the western states? If you live in California, do you want a president who can ignore you because he targeted the Bible Belt? You could take any 2 sections of the country and ask the same question; America is so huge that we truly have parts that are as different from each other as if they were different countries. Furthermore, if a candidate was focused on just one area, he'd lose all incentive to try to be at least vaguely centrist and to try to cater to every special interest group, which could leave alot of people out in the cold; he'd be as liberal or conservative as his chosen "zone," and only worry about those special interests groups that reside there. If you don't like it when a president from "the other party" is in office NOW, I guarantee you that you'd like it far less if someone from that party who has no reason to worry about ALL the voters goes to the White House.
For someone to get the job as the most powerful human being on the planet, he (or she, but I don't see that happening soon, do you?) needs to get 270 electoral votes, and if he can do that it means he's the more popular candidate in most parts of the nation... which is how it should be, how it MUST be. Those who complain about the electoral college generally don't understand why it exists or why we need it, and would rather believe that the founding fathers just tossed the concept into the Constitution because they felt like adding an extra and unnecessary step into the voting process, rather than learn the facts; hopefully, I've at least provided food for thought on the subject.
Why don't we just elect the president directly, by counting up the votes and declaring a winner? Because, if we did it that way, we could have a situation with a candidate who had intense support in one part of the country, and not much in the rest, and a 2nd candidate who had moderate support everywhere, where the 1st candidate had more total votes and would win, even though they were NOT the more popular candidate in most of the country... and the president MUST have people throughout most of the nation that want him, or he does NOT represent the nation as a whole.
The electoral college prevents this scenario from occurring, because a candidate gets the same # of electoral votes from a state he's "won" regardless of what % of the vote he got there, and therefore could NEVER win based on major popularity in just one part of the nation.
Don't think that candidates would narrow the focus of their vote-getting efforts if they didn't have to worry about electoral votes? They'd be foolish if they DIDN'T do so, because currently they have to exert a great deal of effort to get a few votes in the undecided areas so that they can get the electoral votes in those states, but freed of that constraint they can get many more total votes by expending that same effort on getting more people in the areas that already like them stirred up enough to go vote... it's alot easier to become popular in a few states than in all of 'em, let's face it.
Don't think victory via localized popularity would be bad if it DID happen? Think again; If you live in the South, would you want a president who doesn't care about your issues because he targeted the western states? If you live in California, do you want a president who can ignore you because he targeted the Bible Belt? You could take any 2 sections of the country and ask the same question; America is so huge that we truly have parts that are as different from each other as if they were different countries. Furthermore, if a candidate was focused on just one area, he'd lose all incentive to try to be at least vaguely centrist and to try to cater to every special interest group, which could leave alot of people out in the cold; he'd be as liberal or conservative as his chosen "zone," and only worry about those special interests groups that reside there. If you don't like it when a president from "the other party" is in office NOW, I guarantee you that you'd like it far less if someone from that party who has no reason to worry about ALL the voters goes to the White House.
For someone to get the job as the most powerful human being on the planet, he (or she, but I don't see that happening soon, do you?) needs to get 270 electoral votes, and if he can do that it means he's the more popular candidate in most parts of the nation... which is how it should be, how it MUST be. Those who complain about the electoral college generally don't understand why it exists or why we need it, and would rather believe that the founding fathers just tossed the concept into the Constitution because they felt like adding an extra and unnecessary step into the voting process, rather than learn the facts; hopefully, I've at least provided food for thought on the subject.
Saturday, October 02, 2004
Forwarded emails, grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
One of the great mysteries of life is why people think they're ever, EVER, making anyone happy by forwarding garbage emails... and virtually ALL sorts of emails that get mass-forwarded ARE garbage.
People get terribly offended when I say that; their usual retort is, "But, it's a way to show people I care, and that I want to keep in touch." First off, you do NOT show "caring" by sending out what is essentially spam to people, and secondly, it is NOT "keeping in touch" to pass someone else's email along. If you truly want to keep in touch with people, invest 30 more seconds and type "Hi, how have you been?" and send THAT instead (using BCC so they don't realize you've sent it to everyone), and if you actually CARE, write a real email, detailing what's going on in your life, and asking about theirs... and then send it to the 500 people you're convinced you care about.
For every category of garbage email, there's an excuse for sending it:
"Inspirational" emails ("The Rose of Friendship," "Beautiful Women Week," etc) get defended on the grounds that they brighten people's day... sorry, but no. If someone has sent that sort of tripe to YOU in the past, by all means retaliate, but otherwise you can safely assume that they do NOT enjoy it, so quit sending it to them. The very worst of these are the ones that insist you have to send it back to the nimrod who sent it to you, or you're not really their friend; frankly, I don't think there's EVER an excuse to send ANYONE a forwarded email that requires them to send anything back, so don't send this sort of thing to people that you aren't actively eager to tick off.
If your forwarded emails are outright religious in nature, it SHOULD go without saying that under no circumstances should you send them on to those you're not CERTAIN share your beliefs; it should, yes, but you'd be amazed at how many people are sure that it's always "right" to send an email if it has a reference to God in it. My response to this sort of attitude is to hit "Reply All" and send a message to the entire group that I find the email offensive because it contradicts my beliefs; not only does that stop the emails, it usually gets rid of the sender too (someone that disrespectful doesn't qualify to be my friend, so it's no loss).
Political emails are popular right now, for the obvious reason, and people feel virtuous about sending out "important information" about politics to their friends, but it's not a remotely "friendly" gesture to send political "stuff" meant for Democrats to a Republican, or vice versa... and adding on that "you should read this regardless of your chosen party," or, worse, "you'll like this regardless of who you're planning to vote for" does NOT make it any better, it's in fact an even bigger insult, to suggest that the recipient is so stupid that they can't tell that the material is TOTALLY partisan and thus NOT something people on both sides want to read. If you know that someone shares your political views, by all means share these sorts of things with them if you think they have nothing better to do with their time than read them, but do NOT send them out blindly... and if you keep sending this sort of thing to someone you KNOW isn't of your party, with the thought that you'll "educate" them, let's just say that with "friends" like you they don't need any enemies.
Chain letters have migrated to the internet, and they're just as moronic now as they ever were; it's embarrassing to have any association with people that think it necessary to propagate this nonsense. There's just no excuse to believe that you're going to bring magical benefits to someone if you pass a chain letter to them and persuade them to pass it to others, so there's no excuse whatsoever to forward these emails. To those who say "but, the poem is so pretty, I wanted to share it," I reply; then delete the rest of the email (you know, the part that threatens doom if you don't forward it), and just send the poem... but only to those who send that sort of thing to YOU, of course.
People like to believe that adding their name to something, and inducing others to do so, is an easy way to affect change, but "online petitions" are a contradiction in terms; nothing that goes around via email can actually be a petition in the true sense-you can't SIGN it. Any moron can type up a list of names into an email and pass it along (and they can add cities, states, and whatever other info you see with the names, too), so no one with the power to take any sort of action thinks that receiving a list of names via email means anything, and you're absolutely wasting your time participating... doubly so since most of the petitions are fakes anyways, and will never even GET to anyone in power. If you want to influence your elected officials, the heads of corporations, etc, you still need to write a REAL letter, sign a paper petition, or call them (not that that does much good either, most of the time, granted).
Then, there are the most aggravating emails of all; the hoaxes. People seem to think they're doing a good deed by sending these out, but as anyone with a triple-digit IQ knows: there's NO way to "track" email forwarding, so neither you nor anyone else will get anything if you forward emails, there's no sick kid or grieving family member anywhere who wants you to pass anything around, and there's no possible scenario under which news about health threats, criminal activities, or radical changes in how the internet works (email tax, lol) will show up FIRST in forwarded emails (if the stories were true, they'd be front-page news all across the country). These aggravate me so much that I take the time to go to a hoax site, such as
http://www.snopes2.com/
look up the hoax, do a "Reply All," and give everyone the URL to the proof that the email was a hoax... and I include a lecture about why it should be obvious when something is a hoax for good measure. You wouldn't believe how many emails I've gotten from total strangers thanking me for pointing out to the hoax-senders that all the drivel they forward is fake, and I've gotten many people to start looking things up before they hit "Forward"... and yes, I've gotten rid of a few obnoxious people who were offended that I didn't take their emails as gospel.
There are 2 possible exceptions to the "forwarded emails are garbage" rule: (1) A truly funny joke/story/image that has NOT been floating around the internet forever (200 sets of email addresses above the joke are a clue here) IS usually welcome... just be careful about sending sexual humor to people you don't know well, as you might inadvertently give offense. (2) Holiday greetings, as long as you're mindful of religious content and who it goes to.
Under the limited circumstances where it's ok to forward something, show a little common sense; don't send huge files, or bunches of files that add up to alot, to people with free email accounts, as NOT all of them have been upgraded to hold 50MB, delete all the email addresses of other people, as these can be used by strangers to contact them, and while you're at it delete all the notes from other people-just send the actual email.
Are you wishing that a few people you know could see all of this, and maybe get the hint? Fight fire with fire; send them an email with my URL. :-)
People get terribly offended when I say that; their usual retort is, "But, it's a way to show people I care, and that I want to keep in touch." First off, you do NOT show "caring" by sending out what is essentially spam to people, and secondly, it is NOT "keeping in touch" to pass someone else's email along. If you truly want to keep in touch with people, invest 30 more seconds and type "Hi, how have you been?" and send THAT instead (using BCC so they don't realize you've sent it to everyone), and if you actually CARE, write a real email, detailing what's going on in your life, and asking about theirs... and then send it to the 500 people you're convinced you care about.
For every category of garbage email, there's an excuse for sending it:
"Inspirational" emails ("The Rose of Friendship," "Beautiful Women Week," etc) get defended on the grounds that they brighten people's day... sorry, but no. If someone has sent that sort of tripe to YOU in the past, by all means retaliate, but otherwise you can safely assume that they do NOT enjoy it, so quit sending it to them. The very worst of these are the ones that insist you have to send it back to the nimrod who sent it to you, or you're not really their friend; frankly, I don't think there's EVER an excuse to send ANYONE a forwarded email that requires them to send anything back, so don't send this sort of thing to people that you aren't actively eager to tick off.
If your forwarded emails are outright religious in nature, it SHOULD go without saying that under no circumstances should you send them on to those you're not CERTAIN share your beliefs; it should, yes, but you'd be amazed at how many people are sure that it's always "right" to send an email if it has a reference to God in it. My response to this sort of attitude is to hit "Reply All" and send a message to the entire group that I find the email offensive because it contradicts my beliefs; not only does that stop the emails, it usually gets rid of the sender too (someone that disrespectful doesn't qualify to be my friend, so it's no loss).
Political emails are popular right now, for the obvious reason, and people feel virtuous about sending out "important information" about politics to their friends, but it's not a remotely "friendly" gesture to send political "stuff" meant for Democrats to a Republican, or vice versa... and adding on that "you should read this regardless of your chosen party," or, worse, "you'll like this regardless of who you're planning to vote for" does NOT make it any better, it's in fact an even bigger insult, to suggest that the recipient is so stupid that they can't tell that the material is TOTALLY partisan and thus NOT something people on both sides want to read. If you know that someone shares your political views, by all means share these sorts of things with them if you think they have nothing better to do with their time than read them, but do NOT send them out blindly... and if you keep sending this sort of thing to someone you KNOW isn't of your party, with the thought that you'll "educate" them, let's just say that with "friends" like you they don't need any enemies.
Chain letters have migrated to the internet, and they're just as moronic now as they ever were; it's embarrassing to have any association with people that think it necessary to propagate this nonsense. There's just no excuse to believe that you're going to bring magical benefits to someone if you pass a chain letter to them and persuade them to pass it to others, so there's no excuse whatsoever to forward these emails. To those who say "but, the poem is so pretty, I wanted to share it," I reply; then delete the rest of the email (you know, the part that threatens doom if you don't forward it), and just send the poem... but only to those who send that sort of thing to YOU, of course.
People like to believe that adding their name to something, and inducing others to do so, is an easy way to affect change, but "online petitions" are a contradiction in terms; nothing that goes around via email can actually be a petition in the true sense-you can't SIGN it. Any moron can type up a list of names into an email and pass it along (and they can add cities, states, and whatever other info you see with the names, too), so no one with the power to take any sort of action thinks that receiving a list of names via email means anything, and you're absolutely wasting your time participating... doubly so since most of the petitions are fakes anyways, and will never even GET to anyone in power. If you want to influence your elected officials, the heads of corporations, etc, you still need to write a REAL letter, sign a paper petition, or call them (not that that does much good either, most of the time, granted).
Then, there are the most aggravating emails of all; the hoaxes. People seem to think they're doing a good deed by sending these out, but as anyone with a triple-digit IQ knows: there's NO way to "track" email forwarding, so neither you nor anyone else will get anything if you forward emails, there's no sick kid or grieving family member anywhere who wants you to pass anything around, and there's no possible scenario under which news about health threats, criminal activities, or radical changes in how the internet works (email tax, lol) will show up FIRST in forwarded emails (if the stories were true, they'd be front-page news all across the country). These aggravate me so much that I take the time to go to a hoax site, such as
http://www.snopes2.com/
look up the hoax, do a "Reply All," and give everyone the URL to the proof that the email was a hoax... and I include a lecture about why it should be obvious when something is a hoax for good measure. You wouldn't believe how many emails I've gotten from total strangers thanking me for pointing out to the hoax-senders that all the drivel they forward is fake, and I've gotten many people to start looking things up before they hit "Forward"... and yes, I've gotten rid of a few obnoxious people who were offended that I didn't take their emails as gospel.
There are 2 possible exceptions to the "forwarded emails are garbage" rule: (1) A truly funny joke/story/image that has NOT been floating around the internet forever (200 sets of email addresses above the joke are a clue here) IS usually welcome... just be careful about sending sexual humor to people you don't know well, as you might inadvertently give offense. (2) Holiday greetings, as long as you're mindful of religious content and who it goes to.
Under the limited circumstances where it's ok to forward something, show a little common sense; don't send huge files, or bunches of files that add up to alot, to people with free email accounts, as NOT all of them have been upgraded to hold 50MB, delete all the email addresses of other people, as these can be used by strangers to contact them, and while you're at it delete all the notes from other people-just send the actual email.
Are you wishing that a few people you know could see all of this, and maybe get the hint? Fight fire with fire; send them an email with my URL. :-)
Friday, October 01, 2004
Isn't it romantic?
Imagine a beautiful blonde at the prom with a friend, pining for the absent lover who's much older and didn't want to hang out with a bunch of kids, or do anything as "romantic" as going to the prom. Imagine the blonde dancing with the friend, and the friend suddenly stopping, pointing... and it's the lover, looking so handsome in his tux and white satin scarf. Imagine the 2 of them moving onto the dance floor, the lover wrapping his scarf around the blonde to bring them close together as "Save the Last Dance for Me" plays and they begin to move together, gracefully and in perfect synch as if they've danced together many times before. Everyone else stops dancing, and the promgoers stand and watch in amazement at this glamorous older man holding one of their own with such strength and tenderness. The couple becomes more confident together, and their moves become more elaborate and dramatic, but they hardly seem to be aware of what they're doing as they look into each other's eyes, lean forward to touch noses, smile, and laugh at nothing. The lover leads the blonde through a series of twirls, then down into a deep dip, then back up, around, and into a kiss that nearly melts the paint off the walls.
Can you imagine anything more lovely, more romantic? Does it change anything if I tell you that the beautiful blonde is a man? It shouldn't; love is love, no matter what the genders are of the people involved. As I watched the scene I just described (it's from an episode of "Queer as Folk"), I was smiling and misty-eyed, and it never even crossed my mind until later, when a classmate of the blonde's came after him with a baseball bat, that to some people, romance can only exist between a man and a woman, and 2 men showing affection, or any hint of couplehood, is somehow offensive and ugly. With all the violence and hate in the world, some people still find it necessary to object to love... how utterly pitiful.
Kudos to all those involved with QAF for making it easy for any reasonable person to see that relationships of ALL gender combinations can be wonderful... and for giving the viewers that dance.
Can you imagine anything more lovely, more romantic? Does it change anything if I tell you that the beautiful blonde is a man? It shouldn't; love is love, no matter what the genders are of the people involved. As I watched the scene I just described (it's from an episode of "Queer as Folk"), I was smiling and misty-eyed, and it never even crossed my mind until later, when a classmate of the blonde's came after him with a baseball bat, that to some people, romance can only exist between a man and a woman, and 2 men showing affection, or any hint of couplehood, is somehow offensive and ugly. With all the violence and hate in the world, some people still find it necessary to object to love... how utterly pitiful.
Kudos to all those involved with QAF for making it easy for any reasonable person to see that relationships of ALL gender combinations can be wonderful... and for giving the viewers that dance.
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Shame, shame, SHAME
A friend of mine told me today about taking a trip to the emergency room with a friend who was in great pain and distress, only to be told by the doctor, "She's not in pain, she's CRAZY." Yes, the friend IS a mental health patient, but that's NOT the same as being crazy, as a doctor damn well knows, and even if she WAS crazy, that would hardly disqualify her from other health problems and the right to medical care... and for a doctor to make a disgusting comment like that to a patient's friend is a DISGRACE. Luckily, there's a little bit of justice here; they reported the evil S.O.B. and got him FIRED.
It's bad enough for regular people to be ignorant, but for a doctor to have that sort of attitude, and that sort of CONTEMPT for someone who has a serious PHYSICAL ailment, one that they should be getting sympathy for rather than disdain, is absolutely beyond belief; they need to start testing more than a would-be doctor's knowledge of the body... they need to test them to see if they have any humanity and compassion, too.
If you're not sure what the issue is here, and want to know the facts, as opposed to the mean-spirited nonsense that people pass around, here it is:
The term "mental health" creates the illusion that people who suffer from mental health issues are somehow in a different category than other people with health problems, and it just ain't so. Anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, and all the rest are PHYSICAL ailments, caused mostly by improper levels of chemicals in the brain called neurotransmitters, and sometimes due to abnormalities in the brain itself; the fact that the problem is in the most important and mysterious organ in the body means that these illnesses are quite serious and difficult to treat, but it does NOT mean that they're caused by stupidity, weakness, cowardice, laziness, lack of willpower, the desire to get attention, or any of the other nasty claims that people save for ONLY for the victims of these disorders. Many years ago, doctors didn't know that "mental illnesses" were just regular illnesses that happened to affect the brain, but now they DO know, and have even begun to identify the genes involved for the majority of cases that are genetic, and WE need to know too, so that we can give support rather than abuse to the afflicted.
A big stumbling block to laypeople grasping that mental illnesses are true physical illnesses is the dreadful mis-naming of the 2 biggies, depression and anxiety, to make it sound like they're emotional, eg psychological, problems instead of illnesses. To clarify: Depression the disorder is NOT the same as feeling depressed, and anxiety the disorder is NOT the same thing as feeling anxious; it was stupid of the medical profession to give diseases the names of the emotions that their symptoms resemble, and we need to make a conscious effort to not be fooled by that unfortunate choice... people with mental illnesses can NOT just "cheer up" or "calm down" as if all they had were stubborn bad moods rather than chemical imbalances. People are still being sent to shrinks for these illnesses, although talking doesn't treat them any more than it treats any other illness (you might feel better to be able to vent to someone, but that does NOT make you any less sick), and this adds more weight to the idea that it's "all in their heads," in other words that they're IMAGINING that they're sick, or are not really sick at all.
The word "crazy" shouldn't be in the vocabulary of any medical professional, as it is NOT a medical term. For someone to be considered actually insane, they have to have a catastrophic break with reality, which you do NOT see in the huge majority of mental health patients; even those who hear voices, for example, usually still know what's real and what's not, although obviously those who are the worst off can't make that distinction. If someone is truly insane, their behavior, and usually their appearance, is frightening to us, but that does NOT mean that it's ok for us to view them as somehow contemptible, any more than a cancer patient whose face and body are ravaged by the disease should be seen that way. As for those who are insane and violent, or "evil," they need to be locked away where they can't do harm, but they should also get whatever treatments are available to bring them as close to normal as they can come... they didn't ask to be sick, nor are they sick as some sort of divine punishment, and they shouldn't just be left to suffer as they too often are.
If you're a regular reader here, you know that I take a hard and uncompromising position against wrongdoing and wrongdoers; I believe in kicking people's butts when they do deliberate evil, large or small, and NOT shrugging it off and letting them still reap the benefits of social acceptance... I do NOT make excuses for people, I am NOT a bleeding heart, and I am NOT a touchy-feely type, not by any stretch of the imagination. What I'm saying here is the medical and scientific truth, and I'm taking the time to say it because it absolutely infuriates me when seriously ill people, people who are in misery and agony every moment of every day, are made to feel like they're "bad" somehow because they didn't manage to have their physical abnormalities be somewhere OTHER than in their brains. It infuriates me when innocent people suffer because they're afraid of being labeled "crazy" if they seek help, and so don't get medical care; all too many of these people waste their entire lives being sick when there are meds that would help them... and some of them of course end up worse than sick. It infuriates me when doctors brush aside those that DO find the courage to ask for help, and refuse to treat them, or give them some med that is 30 years out of date with horrible side effects because they can't be bothered to do any research, and then write them off as lost causes. And most of all, it infuriates me when doctors add to the stigma against the "mentally ill" by showing ugly attitudes like my friend encountered.
If you yourself have inadvertently done wrong by treating a mental health patient as if they were anything other than an ill person deserving of compassion, you can make good by changing your tune now, and by educating others. If, however, you're unwilling to give up the easy target that a depressive (etc) presents, and would rather keep telling them to "snap out of it" or "cheer up" or "quit trying to get attention"... go back and read the title of this essay again.
It's bad enough for regular people to be ignorant, but for a doctor to have that sort of attitude, and that sort of CONTEMPT for someone who has a serious PHYSICAL ailment, one that they should be getting sympathy for rather than disdain, is absolutely beyond belief; they need to start testing more than a would-be doctor's knowledge of the body... they need to test them to see if they have any humanity and compassion, too.
If you're not sure what the issue is here, and want to know the facts, as opposed to the mean-spirited nonsense that people pass around, here it is:
The term "mental health" creates the illusion that people who suffer from mental health issues are somehow in a different category than other people with health problems, and it just ain't so. Anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, and all the rest are PHYSICAL ailments, caused mostly by improper levels of chemicals in the brain called neurotransmitters, and sometimes due to abnormalities in the brain itself; the fact that the problem is in the most important and mysterious organ in the body means that these illnesses are quite serious and difficult to treat, but it does NOT mean that they're caused by stupidity, weakness, cowardice, laziness, lack of willpower, the desire to get attention, or any of the other nasty claims that people save for ONLY for the victims of these disorders. Many years ago, doctors didn't know that "mental illnesses" were just regular illnesses that happened to affect the brain, but now they DO know, and have even begun to identify the genes involved for the majority of cases that are genetic, and WE need to know too, so that we can give support rather than abuse to the afflicted.
A big stumbling block to laypeople grasping that mental illnesses are true physical illnesses is the dreadful mis-naming of the 2 biggies, depression and anxiety, to make it sound like they're emotional, eg psychological, problems instead of illnesses. To clarify: Depression the disorder is NOT the same as feeling depressed, and anxiety the disorder is NOT the same thing as feeling anxious; it was stupid of the medical profession to give diseases the names of the emotions that their symptoms resemble, and we need to make a conscious effort to not be fooled by that unfortunate choice... people with mental illnesses can NOT just "cheer up" or "calm down" as if all they had were stubborn bad moods rather than chemical imbalances. People are still being sent to shrinks for these illnesses, although talking doesn't treat them any more than it treats any other illness (you might feel better to be able to vent to someone, but that does NOT make you any less sick), and this adds more weight to the idea that it's "all in their heads," in other words that they're IMAGINING that they're sick, or are not really sick at all.
The word "crazy" shouldn't be in the vocabulary of any medical professional, as it is NOT a medical term. For someone to be considered actually insane, they have to have a catastrophic break with reality, which you do NOT see in the huge majority of mental health patients; even those who hear voices, for example, usually still know what's real and what's not, although obviously those who are the worst off can't make that distinction. If someone is truly insane, their behavior, and usually their appearance, is frightening to us, but that does NOT mean that it's ok for us to view them as somehow contemptible, any more than a cancer patient whose face and body are ravaged by the disease should be seen that way. As for those who are insane and violent, or "evil," they need to be locked away where they can't do harm, but they should also get whatever treatments are available to bring them as close to normal as they can come... they didn't ask to be sick, nor are they sick as some sort of divine punishment, and they shouldn't just be left to suffer as they too often are.
If you're a regular reader here, you know that I take a hard and uncompromising position against wrongdoing and wrongdoers; I believe in kicking people's butts when they do deliberate evil, large or small, and NOT shrugging it off and letting them still reap the benefits of social acceptance... I do NOT make excuses for people, I am NOT a bleeding heart, and I am NOT a touchy-feely type, not by any stretch of the imagination. What I'm saying here is the medical and scientific truth, and I'm taking the time to say it because it absolutely infuriates me when seriously ill people, people who are in misery and agony every moment of every day, are made to feel like they're "bad" somehow because they didn't manage to have their physical abnormalities be somewhere OTHER than in their brains. It infuriates me when innocent people suffer because they're afraid of being labeled "crazy" if they seek help, and so don't get medical care; all too many of these people waste their entire lives being sick when there are meds that would help them... and some of them of course end up worse than sick. It infuriates me when doctors brush aside those that DO find the courage to ask for help, and refuse to treat them, or give them some med that is 30 years out of date with horrible side effects because they can't be bothered to do any research, and then write them off as lost causes. And most of all, it infuriates me when doctors add to the stigma against the "mentally ill" by showing ugly attitudes like my friend encountered.
If you yourself have inadvertently done wrong by treating a mental health patient as if they were anything other than an ill person deserving of compassion, you can make good by changing your tune now, and by educating others. If, however, you're unwilling to give up the easy target that a depressive (etc) presents, and would rather keep telling them to "snap out of it" or "cheer up" or "quit trying to get attention"... go back and read the title of this essay again.
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Should we separate sex and love?
Let's start out by ignoring the effects of unplanned pregnancy and disease; it's reasonable to assume that science will eliminate these problems at some point, and we won't have to have our natural desires shrouded with fear any more. Imagine that, with no negative physical consequences to sex, we could agree that our decision to have sex should be based on... well, what SHOULD we base it on?
Some people believe that sex should just be about 2 horny people getting together for mutual enjoyment and then going their separate ways; most of these people are of course men. Most women, and the more "evolved" men, cringe at that attitude, but really, what's wrong with it? No one is lied to, fooled, or hurt, everyone gets what they wanted... where's the problem? I know, I know, women get sucked in emotionally far too easily, and so form expectations of phone calls and dates that they're disappointed if they don't get; can't we "train" women to stop setting themselves up for grief by changing the social conditioning girls get, though? Yes, there's a biological urge for a woman to latch onto a man that she had sex with so that he'll provide for her if he has impregnated her, but there's also a biological urge for a girl to start having babies as soon as she's physically able, and we've squashed THAT one pretty thoroughly, so we CAN work around biology to some extent. On the other hand, if you're so hot for someone that you had to run home and jump into bed with them, why wouldn't you WANT to see them again, and try for a relationship with them? Then again, you don't try for a relationship with everyone that you have a good time with, which your friends are undoubtedly grateful for; if there were no potential for harm, why NOT treat sex like a sport rather than ONLY as part of an emotional attachment? Is there any real need to treat sex as something in a different category once we take out our current reasons for doing so?
On the other side of this issue, there are those who want to only combine sex with love, to deepen the experience and create a safer atmosphere for them to let loose; naturally, most of these people are women. The love/sex combo DOES lead to a more intense, safer experience in some ways, but being with someone we'll never see again can bring a different kind of freedom, as we don't have to care what they'll think about us later, plus we get the excitement of the new and illicit. The sex/love combo also means that we're moving forward towards getting a lasting relationship built, as opposed to just flings... but, is that always a desirable thing, especially if you're young(ish) and/or don't plan on having kids? If you want to start a family, of course you wouldn't want to waste time sleeping around, you'd want to save your energy for finding the right person, but that doesn't apply to everyone, so... hmmmmmmm, without the warnings about getting diseases and pregnant, it's hard to make a case for saving sex for when it's joined with love, other than that "crushed expectations" thing that COULD be changed.
Ideally, then, for those not trying to form relationships soon, and under no biological pressure to procreate soon, sex would be based on consenting adults wanting to have a good time; imagine how radically our culture would change if things worked that way!! Don't get excited yet, though; when you look at the realities of the current day once again, when you add the risk of pregnancy and disease back into the picture, when you think that you could be creating a life, or catching something that could lead to death, it's still better to see sex as part of a relationship, with love involved, or at least on the horizon-sorry, guys. However, one CAN hope for the day when all of our twisted ideas about sex, and about nudity, gender, what love is really like, and everything else that muddies the waters, will fade away... imagine what sex, what LIFE, will be like then. :-)
Some people believe that sex should just be about 2 horny people getting together for mutual enjoyment and then going their separate ways; most of these people are of course men. Most women, and the more "evolved" men, cringe at that attitude, but really, what's wrong with it? No one is lied to, fooled, or hurt, everyone gets what they wanted... where's the problem? I know, I know, women get sucked in emotionally far too easily, and so form expectations of phone calls and dates that they're disappointed if they don't get; can't we "train" women to stop setting themselves up for grief by changing the social conditioning girls get, though? Yes, there's a biological urge for a woman to latch onto a man that she had sex with so that he'll provide for her if he has impregnated her, but there's also a biological urge for a girl to start having babies as soon as she's physically able, and we've squashed THAT one pretty thoroughly, so we CAN work around biology to some extent. On the other hand, if you're so hot for someone that you had to run home and jump into bed with them, why wouldn't you WANT to see them again, and try for a relationship with them? Then again, you don't try for a relationship with everyone that you have a good time with, which your friends are undoubtedly grateful for; if there were no potential for harm, why NOT treat sex like a sport rather than ONLY as part of an emotional attachment? Is there any real need to treat sex as something in a different category once we take out our current reasons for doing so?
On the other side of this issue, there are those who want to only combine sex with love, to deepen the experience and create a safer atmosphere for them to let loose; naturally, most of these people are women. The love/sex combo DOES lead to a more intense, safer experience in some ways, but being with someone we'll never see again can bring a different kind of freedom, as we don't have to care what they'll think about us later, plus we get the excitement of the new and illicit. The sex/love combo also means that we're moving forward towards getting a lasting relationship built, as opposed to just flings... but, is that always a desirable thing, especially if you're young(ish) and/or don't plan on having kids? If you want to start a family, of course you wouldn't want to waste time sleeping around, you'd want to save your energy for finding the right person, but that doesn't apply to everyone, so... hmmmmmmm, without the warnings about getting diseases and pregnant, it's hard to make a case for saving sex for when it's joined with love, other than that "crushed expectations" thing that COULD be changed.
Ideally, then, for those not trying to form relationships soon, and under no biological pressure to procreate soon, sex would be based on consenting adults wanting to have a good time; imagine how radically our culture would change if things worked that way!! Don't get excited yet, though; when you look at the realities of the current day once again, when you add the risk of pregnancy and disease back into the picture, when you think that you could be creating a life, or catching something that could lead to death, it's still better to see sex as part of a relationship, with love involved, or at least on the horizon-sorry, guys. However, one CAN hope for the day when all of our twisted ideas about sex, and about nudity, gender, what love is really like, and everything else that muddies the waters, will fade away... imagine what sex, what LIFE, will be like then. :-)
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Progress in figuring out nutrition
In the October issue of "Discover," there's a wonderful article called "The Inuit Paradox" that covers a fascinating topic; how scientists are just now STARTING to figure out how the people who used to be called "Eskimos" (it's not PC to call them that anymore, for reasons that escape me), the Inupiat and the Yupiks of Alaska, the Canadian Inuit and Inuvialuit, Inuit Greenlanders, and the Siberian Yupiks, were able to not only survive, but be healthy, on a diet that our so-called "wisdom" says should be very UNhealthy... well, more specifically, the article outlined what they've learned, but every new fact meant that there was something else that they should have figured out LONG ago-it just ticks me off no end how willing they've been to ignore what people with brown faces have been doing for centuries, or millennia, as if they had nothing to teach us.
The subtitle to the article is, "How can people who gorge on fat and rarely see a vegetable be healthier than we are?"; the supposed experts didn't know where these folks were getting the vitamins that we've been taught come from plant foods... primarily because they hadn't bothered to study what they WERE eating. And, despite the popularity of low-carb diets, there was confusion as to how they don't end up obese, and with massive heart disease, with half of their calories coming from fat; we're so programmed to fear fat that it blinds us to reality, the primary element of which is that for healthy weight and heart you just need to not stuff your face and sit on the couch... do you think any of these "primitive" people count calories or fat grams? It's no coincidence that in societies where everyone eats traditional, "primitive" foods, obesity is rare, even among the older folks who don't do as much physical labor; like all other animals, humans will eat the right foods in the right amounts if we live close to nature, and that's why we need to learn from those who have these sorts of diets.
What's the traditional Inuit diet? "... seal and walrus... moose, caribou, and reindeer.... ducks, geese... ptarmigan.... crab... salmon, whitefish, tomcod, pike, and char... cooked, dried, smoked, or frozen... whale meat... muktuk, which is whale skin with its underlying blubber" Sounds pretty gross, doesn't it? It's OUR diet that's gross, of course, and, our diet that's unhealthy; thanks to them adopting our foods, "type 2 diabetes, obesity, and other diseases of Western civilization are becoming causes for concern there." Isn't it bad enough that we have a dreadful diet without passing it along to every other culture?
Anyways: "These foods hardly make up the 'balanced' diet most of us grew up with, and they look nothing like the mix of grains, fruits, vegetables, meat, eggs, and dairy we're accustomed to seeing in conventional food pyramid diagrams... How did people get along on little else but fat and animal protein?... One might, for instance, imagine gross vitamin deficiencies arising from a diet with scarcely any fruits and vegetables." WE certainly get told that we'll have all sorts of deficiencies if we don't eat those things, right? It turns out, though, that: "vitamin A, which is oil soluble, is also plentiful in the oils of cold-water fishes and sea mammals, as well as in the animals' livers, where fat is processed."
What about vitamin C? "Raw caribou liver supplied almost 24 milligrams, seal brain close to 15 milligrams, and raw kelp more than 28 milligrams. Still higher levels were found in whale skin and muktuk... raw muktuk can serve up an impressive 36 milligrams in a 100-gram piece... Weight for weight, it's as good as orange juice." Kelp, which isn't meat, is cheating a little, but the point is that if you eat their diet you can get all your nutrients; our processed foods, and our plant-based foods (most of which, as I've pointed out before, couldn't possibly have been more than trivial parts of the diets of early tribes), are the exact opposite of what these people who lived off the land and sea ate and stayed healthy with.
As to the high % of fat in their diets, and the LACK of health problems caused by it; the fact that they only ate what they needed, and got plenty of exercise, if of course key, but the other part of it is that the fat of wild animals is healthier than that of domesticated animals: "Farm animals, cooped up and stuffed with agricultural grains (carbohydrates) typically have lots of solid, highly saturated fat.... Wild animals that range freely and eat what nature intended... have fat that is far more healthful. Less of their fat is saturated, and more of it is in the monounsaturated form (like olive oil). What's more, cold-water fishes and sea mammals are particularly rich in polyunsaturated fats called n-3 fatty acids or omega-3 fatty acids. These fats appear to benefit the heart and vascular system." Omega-3 fatty acids have been talked about for some time (although it bears repeating, especially for those who've convinced themselves that all meat is "unhealthy"), but the idea that a different diet gives an animal a different fat composition is a new one on me... and a REAL eye-opener. Can you believe they're just now finding this out, after all the years of frenzied study of fat?
We know far, FAR less about nutrition than we think we do... but we're learning, at LONG last. Sadly, there's not much from the traditional "Eskimo" diet that most of us can adopt, other than eating more fish if you can tolerate it and can find some without mercury and other poisons, but at least science is finally turning away from "food pyramids" and looking at diets that we have PROOF, as in centuries' worth, are healthy for us.
The subtitle to the article is, "How can people who gorge on fat and rarely see a vegetable be healthier than we are?"; the supposed experts didn't know where these folks were getting the vitamins that we've been taught come from plant foods... primarily because they hadn't bothered to study what they WERE eating. And, despite the popularity of low-carb diets, there was confusion as to how they don't end up obese, and with massive heart disease, with half of their calories coming from fat; we're so programmed to fear fat that it blinds us to reality, the primary element of which is that for healthy weight and heart you just need to not stuff your face and sit on the couch... do you think any of these "primitive" people count calories or fat grams? It's no coincidence that in societies where everyone eats traditional, "primitive" foods, obesity is rare, even among the older folks who don't do as much physical labor; like all other animals, humans will eat the right foods in the right amounts if we live close to nature, and that's why we need to learn from those who have these sorts of diets.
What's the traditional Inuit diet? "... seal and walrus... moose, caribou, and reindeer.... ducks, geese... ptarmigan.... crab... salmon, whitefish, tomcod, pike, and char... cooked, dried, smoked, or frozen... whale meat... muktuk, which is whale skin with its underlying blubber" Sounds pretty gross, doesn't it? It's OUR diet that's gross, of course, and, our diet that's unhealthy; thanks to them adopting our foods, "type 2 diabetes, obesity, and other diseases of Western civilization are becoming causes for concern there." Isn't it bad enough that we have a dreadful diet without passing it along to every other culture?
Anyways: "These foods hardly make up the 'balanced' diet most of us grew up with, and they look nothing like the mix of grains, fruits, vegetables, meat, eggs, and dairy we're accustomed to seeing in conventional food pyramid diagrams... How did people get along on little else but fat and animal protein?... One might, for instance, imagine gross vitamin deficiencies arising from a diet with scarcely any fruits and vegetables." WE certainly get told that we'll have all sorts of deficiencies if we don't eat those things, right? It turns out, though, that: "vitamin A, which is oil soluble, is also plentiful in the oils of cold-water fishes and sea mammals, as well as in the animals' livers, where fat is processed."
What about vitamin C? "Raw caribou liver supplied almost 24 milligrams, seal brain close to 15 milligrams, and raw kelp more than 28 milligrams. Still higher levels were found in whale skin and muktuk... raw muktuk can serve up an impressive 36 milligrams in a 100-gram piece... Weight for weight, it's as good as orange juice." Kelp, which isn't meat, is cheating a little, but the point is that if you eat their diet you can get all your nutrients; our processed foods, and our plant-based foods (most of which, as I've pointed out before, couldn't possibly have been more than trivial parts of the diets of early tribes), are the exact opposite of what these people who lived off the land and sea ate and stayed healthy with.
As to the high % of fat in their diets, and the LACK of health problems caused by it; the fact that they only ate what they needed, and got plenty of exercise, if of course key, but the other part of it is that the fat of wild animals is healthier than that of domesticated animals: "Farm animals, cooped up and stuffed with agricultural grains (carbohydrates) typically have lots of solid, highly saturated fat.... Wild animals that range freely and eat what nature intended... have fat that is far more healthful. Less of their fat is saturated, and more of it is in the monounsaturated form (like olive oil). What's more, cold-water fishes and sea mammals are particularly rich in polyunsaturated fats called n-3 fatty acids or omega-3 fatty acids. These fats appear to benefit the heart and vascular system." Omega-3 fatty acids have been talked about for some time (although it bears repeating, especially for those who've convinced themselves that all meat is "unhealthy"), but the idea that a different diet gives an animal a different fat composition is a new one on me... and a REAL eye-opener. Can you believe they're just now finding this out, after all the years of frenzied study of fat?
We know far, FAR less about nutrition than we think we do... but we're learning, at LONG last. Sadly, there's not much from the traditional "Eskimo" diet that most of us can adopt, other than eating more fish if you can tolerate it and can find some without mercury and other poisons, but at least science is finally turning away from "food pyramids" and looking at diets that we have PROOF, as in centuries' worth, are healthy for us.
Monday, September 27, 2004
There really IS windchime karma!! :-O
In my post of August 6, I detailed the ridiculous amount of trouble I had to go to to replace the windchime a friend had given me, and that some lowlife had stolen, before the friend could see that it was gone and be upset by it; I said at the time, half-facetiously, that making this sort of effort to protect someone's feelings over a $5 doodad would earn me some good "windchime karma"... and it turns out that there IS such a thing.
There was a windchime that my husband and I used to "visit" at a store that sold pricey artsy stuff; it was quite elaborate, about a yard long, and going for $250-way, WAY more than I was willing to pay for such a thing. It finally sold, or was sent back to the supplier, and I didn't see it for about 5 years... until it showed up on eBay (mind you, I was NOT doing any searches for windchimes-it showed up in a search I was doing for something else). After I got over the shock of seeing it, I almost didn't bother adding it to my watch list, because I don't waste space on things that are out of my price range, but the starting price wasn't bad, and I had the urge to see what happened, so I put it on my list.
And yes, I WON it, for about a TENTH of what it had been selling for all those years ago; I couldn't believe my eyes. I could still hardly believe it when the box came, and I took it out and held it up... for about 2 seconds, as it's literally too heavy for me to support the weight. The windchime that I'd drooled over, that I'd never expected to see again much less own, was MINE.
I invested alot of time and emotional energy over a windchime, and in return karma sent me the windchime of my dreams. Windchime karma; I asked for it, and I got it. :-)
There was a windchime that my husband and I used to "visit" at a store that sold pricey artsy stuff; it was quite elaborate, about a yard long, and going for $250-way, WAY more than I was willing to pay for such a thing. It finally sold, or was sent back to the supplier, and I didn't see it for about 5 years... until it showed up on eBay (mind you, I was NOT doing any searches for windchimes-it showed up in a search I was doing for something else). After I got over the shock of seeing it, I almost didn't bother adding it to my watch list, because I don't waste space on things that are out of my price range, but the starting price wasn't bad, and I had the urge to see what happened, so I put it on my list.
And yes, I WON it, for about a TENTH of what it had been selling for all those years ago; I couldn't believe my eyes. I could still hardly believe it when the box came, and I took it out and held it up... for about 2 seconds, as it's literally too heavy for me to support the weight. The windchime that I'd drooled over, that I'd never expected to see again much less own, was MINE.
I invested alot of time and emotional energy over a windchime, and in return karma sent me the windchime of my dreams. Windchime karma; I asked for it, and I got it. :-)
Sunday, September 26, 2004
Magical beings
Most kids growing up in America are told by their parents that certain magical beings exist:
1) Santa, who knows everything you're doing, is passing judgment that will control how many toys you'll get for Christmas, has a flying sleigh that can somehow get to every child's home in the world in one night and can carry all of their gifts (or is the sack supposed to be magically bottomless?), and can get silently into and out of every home to deliver presents, even homes with no chimney.
2) The Easter bunny, who carries enough candy for all the children in his (bottomless?) basket, HOPS all around the world in one night (gee, that sounds familiar, lol), and sneaks unheard into kids' homes to leave them sweets.
3) The tooth fairy, who somehow knows when a child loses a tooth, and, if and only if that child puts the tooth under their pillow (isn't that sorta gross?), will sneak unheard into their home (!!!), take the tooth (and do WHAT with it?), and leave $ in its place.
Kids are effortlessly convinced that these beings are real, because they believe whatever they're told; kids under the age of 7 can't tell reality from fantasy, so, no matter how ridiculous the details of the myth of the magical person are (flying reindeer?), or how similar the basics are, it never occurs to kids that anything we tell them exists might NOT exist, even though they've never seen any proof that... whoops, I forgot one:
4) God.
For those of you who want to protest that last entry, be honest; did you or did you not believe in God from early childhood because your parents TOLD you He existed, just like all the other magical beings? I can remember all the way back in grammar school when I, having already rejected the idea of there being a God, was telling the other kids that they were only whichever religion they were because their parents were that religion; when they insisted that they'd still be Methodists, Baptists, whatever, even if their parents weren't, because it was "right," I'd laugh in their faces and ask them to point out one single kid that had defied their parents and picked a different religion... which of course they couldn't do, as there's no such thing. I'd follow up by adding that they wouldn't even believe in God if their parents hadn't told them to, and, when they denied that, I'd remind them that they'd believed in Santa, the Easter bunny, and the tooth fairy (which by then we knew didn't exist) just because their parents had told them they were real, and that they'd believe ANYTHING their parents told them to... which was absolutely true, but even at that age people do NOT want to hear that sort of truth, so you can imagine the outraged sputterings. The kicker of course came when I gave them the inevitable conclusion, that since all the other magical beings our parents had told us about didn't really exist, it was logical to assume that God didn't either... I don't think I've managed to cause greater shock in all of the years since, hehehehehe.
I've become more intellectually consistent in my old age, and thus have realized that since I can't DISprove the existence of God, I can't be sure He doesn't exist; still, it's useful to look at WHY people believe what they do, because to find the truth we need to be able to separate centuries-old hearsay from what we have actually experienced ourselves... and yes, some people DO claim to have had personal experiences with God, including people I respect, which is why I keep my mind open on the subject.
Do YOU believe in what you yourself have seen and experienced... or do you believe what people have TOLD you is true? I don't just mean your belief in God, or any other deity, I mean ghosts, ESP, angels, or any other beings or energies you believe in as well; how many unprovable things do you believe in based solely on the claims of others? If you didn't say "zero"... wouldn't it be a good idea to ask yourself "why"?
1) Santa, who knows everything you're doing, is passing judgment that will control how many toys you'll get for Christmas, has a flying sleigh that can somehow get to every child's home in the world in one night and can carry all of their gifts (or is the sack supposed to be magically bottomless?), and can get silently into and out of every home to deliver presents, even homes with no chimney.
2) The Easter bunny, who carries enough candy for all the children in his (bottomless?) basket, HOPS all around the world in one night (gee, that sounds familiar, lol), and sneaks unheard into kids' homes to leave them sweets.
3) The tooth fairy, who somehow knows when a child loses a tooth, and, if and only if that child puts the tooth under their pillow (isn't that sorta gross?), will sneak unheard into their home (!!!), take the tooth (and do WHAT with it?), and leave $ in its place.
Kids are effortlessly convinced that these beings are real, because they believe whatever they're told; kids under the age of 7 can't tell reality from fantasy, so, no matter how ridiculous the details of the myth of the magical person are (flying reindeer?), or how similar the basics are, it never occurs to kids that anything we tell them exists might NOT exist, even though they've never seen any proof that... whoops, I forgot one:
4) God.
For those of you who want to protest that last entry, be honest; did you or did you not believe in God from early childhood because your parents TOLD you He existed, just like all the other magical beings? I can remember all the way back in grammar school when I, having already rejected the idea of there being a God, was telling the other kids that they were only whichever religion they were because their parents were that religion; when they insisted that they'd still be Methodists, Baptists, whatever, even if their parents weren't, because it was "right," I'd laugh in their faces and ask them to point out one single kid that had defied their parents and picked a different religion... which of course they couldn't do, as there's no such thing. I'd follow up by adding that they wouldn't even believe in God if their parents hadn't told them to, and, when they denied that, I'd remind them that they'd believed in Santa, the Easter bunny, and the tooth fairy (which by then we knew didn't exist) just because their parents had told them they were real, and that they'd believe ANYTHING their parents told them to... which was absolutely true, but even at that age people do NOT want to hear that sort of truth, so you can imagine the outraged sputterings. The kicker of course came when I gave them the inevitable conclusion, that since all the other magical beings our parents had told us about didn't really exist, it was logical to assume that God didn't either... I don't think I've managed to cause greater shock in all of the years since, hehehehehe.
I've become more intellectually consistent in my old age, and thus have realized that since I can't DISprove the existence of God, I can't be sure He doesn't exist; still, it's useful to look at WHY people believe what they do, because to find the truth we need to be able to separate centuries-old hearsay from what we have actually experienced ourselves... and yes, some people DO claim to have had personal experiences with God, including people I respect, which is why I keep my mind open on the subject.
Do YOU believe in what you yourself have seen and experienced... or do you believe what people have TOLD you is true? I don't just mean your belief in God, or any other deity, I mean ghosts, ESP, angels, or any other beings or energies you believe in as well; how many unprovable things do you believe in based solely on the claims of others? If you didn't say "zero"... wouldn't it be a good idea to ask yourself "why"?
Saturday, September 25, 2004
OK, it's time to talk about boobs
First, we'll have the daily synchronicity report; there were a couple of items an eBay seller had offered nearly a month ago that he'd faked a problem with the listing for because someone had (illegally) offered him big $ for them and he had agreed to take it (he admitted as much in an email to me, but I didn't report him because I wanted those items). I wanted to see if he'd re-offer them, which usually happens if the person making the illegal offer flakes, so I didn't remove the auctions from my watch list... until today, when I decided I didn't need to keep them any more, and deleted them. Guess what the seller re-listed on eBay just a few hours later? Coincidence? Nope.
OK, now to the boobs... or did you just skip right down here, lol? Did you know that in Brazil, what's considered most desirable is SMALL boobs (and a BIG butt)? They have massive #'s of breast REDUCTIONS there every year, gotten by women trying to fit into the mold of what the men around them find the most appealing... just like the women here, but in the opposite direction. I've read that the pernicious influence of American culture is starting to change that (we're like a VIRUS, have you ever noticed?), but for now the traditional ideal of beauty is lingering.
In some cultures, breasts aren't even seen as sexual; they're seen as a nursing tool, and nothing more. (In those cultures, it's common for the woman's legs to be highly eroticized and kept hidden in public in the same way that women in this culture have to cover their breasts; whatever men can't see is what they obsess over.) If aliens were to land, how would we explain to them that a woman who wants to feed her baby in America has to go hide out of sight, or drape a towel or blanket over herself and the baby even if it's 100 degrees, because we're so psycho that we'll freak out if we should happen to see a nipple being used for its intended function? Breastfeeding in public is legal as long as the woman is somewhere she has a right to be, and most states have passed laws to explicitly protect breastfeeding women from being, say, made to leave stores or restaurants, but most women still go to great lengths to hide this natural, wholesome act because laws don't keep them from being hassled by uptight idiots.
Although a woman in America can have her nipples showing as part of breastfeeding, if she wants to keep them visible afterwards and sunbathe topless, she's out of luck. Topless beaches are the norm in Europe, though, and no one thinks twice about it, which is really how it SHOULD be; after all, MEN can go topless (which I think is pretty spiffy, especially if they have hairy chests). In most so-called primitive cultures, women don't have to cover their breasts EVER, and that means they don't have to strap them into uncomfortable contraptions meant to keep them in place, stop them from jiggling, and try to hold back the sagging that comes with time. Did you ever wonder whose idea bras and such were to begin with? A MAN, of course, but what was the purpose behind the decision that some parts of a woman's natural body had to be permanently encased in tight wrappings of some form? Did you ever stop to think that no other human body parts are subjected to this sort of thing (at least not since foot-binding went out of fashion in China)?
A girl's first rite of womanhood is usually the first time she puts on a training bra (what is the bra supposed to train them to do, did you ever wonder?); this uncomfortable undergarment, that will become even more uncomfortable when she gets to school and the boys start snapping her straps, is the beginning of the love/hate relationship she'll likely have with her breasts for the rest of her life. As soon as possible, she'll probably get a bra with padding and/or "push-up" to make them larger and more noticeable... unless they get big, in which case she's likely to be embarrassed about them. Every woman I know who has naturally full breasts has been unwilling to show them and/or in denial about how big they are; it's a source of great amusement to me how each one of them has had the exact same conversation with me claiming that their huge boobs were only 36C when they were each at least 38D... and the latter is very common among the voluptuous, according to a friend who's worked many years in the lingerie section of a department store. You'd think that, in a culture where big boobs are worshipped, women would be eager to put on the biggest size bra they could justify, but it just doesn't work that way.
The other thing with busty women is the difficulty in getting them to wear a bra that gives any support, as such bras are seen as "granny bras," with the result that before they hit 30 they sag as badly as women 20 years older; then, they discover that, although men like big boobs, they often do NOT like big SAGGY boobs, and they grow to hate their boobs as much as the tiny-breasted do. The sad thing is that in cultures where women don't wear bras, EVERY woman has saggy boobs, and no one cares; by fighting the sag, we've turned it into an issue. Isn't civilization great?
In my admittedly non-expert view, natural breasts are pretty much all beautiful, and ANY natural breasts look better than the fake ones, which are not only usually freakishly big but have shapes not found in nature, and the nipples too high or low... what do men SEE in boobs that look like they were glued onto the chest, anyways? If the hypothetical aliens were to ask why women were getting foreign objects inserted into their bodies to wildly alter the size and shape of said parts, and why by doing so they'd be considered far sexier than before, what could we tell them? Think about it, ladies, if a man you were attracted to turned out to have pec or butt implants, would you shrug and still be drooling, or would you recoil and be too grossed out to pursue sexual relations with him?
All this fuss about modified sweat glands surrounded by fat; we've gotta be the weirdest species in the universe, lol.
OK, now to the boobs... or did you just skip right down here, lol? Did you know that in Brazil, what's considered most desirable is SMALL boobs (and a BIG butt)? They have massive #'s of breast REDUCTIONS there every year, gotten by women trying to fit into the mold of what the men around them find the most appealing... just like the women here, but in the opposite direction. I've read that the pernicious influence of American culture is starting to change that (we're like a VIRUS, have you ever noticed?), but for now the traditional ideal of beauty is lingering.
In some cultures, breasts aren't even seen as sexual; they're seen as a nursing tool, and nothing more. (In those cultures, it's common for the woman's legs to be highly eroticized and kept hidden in public in the same way that women in this culture have to cover their breasts; whatever men can't see is what they obsess over.) If aliens were to land, how would we explain to them that a woman who wants to feed her baby in America has to go hide out of sight, or drape a towel or blanket over herself and the baby even if it's 100 degrees, because we're so psycho that we'll freak out if we should happen to see a nipple being used for its intended function? Breastfeeding in public is legal as long as the woman is somewhere she has a right to be, and most states have passed laws to explicitly protect breastfeeding women from being, say, made to leave stores or restaurants, but most women still go to great lengths to hide this natural, wholesome act because laws don't keep them from being hassled by uptight idiots.
Although a woman in America can have her nipples showing as part of breastfeeding, if she wants to keep them visible afterwards and sunbathe topless, she's out of luck. Topless beaches are the norm in Europe, though, and no one thinks twice about it, which is really how it SHOULD be; after all, MEN can go topless (which I think is pretty spiffy, especially if they have hairy chests). In most so-called primitive cultures, women don't have to cover their breasts EVER, and that means they don't have to strap them into uncomfortable contraptions meant to keep them in place, stop them from jiggling, and try to hold back the sagging that comes with time. Did you ever wonder whose idea bras and such were to begin with? A MAN, of course, but what was the purpose behind the decision that some parts of a woman's natural body had to be permanently encased in tight wrappings of some form? Did you ever stop to think that no other human body parts are subjected to this sort of thing (at least not since foot-binding went out of fashion in China)?
A girl's first rite of womanhood is usually the first time she puts on a training bra (what is the bra supposed to train them to do, did you ever wonder?); this uncomfortable undergarment, that will become even more uncomfortable when she gets to school and the boys start snapping her straps, is the beginning of the love/hate relationship she'll likely have with her breasts for the rest of her life. As soon as possible, she'll probably get a bra with padding and/or "push-up" to make them larger and more noticeable... unless they get big, in which case she's likely to be embarrassed about them. Every woman I know who has naturally full breasts has been unwilling to show them and/or in denial about how big they are; it's a source of great amusement to me how each one of them has had the exact same conversation with me claiming that their huge boobs were only 36C when they were each at least 38D... and the latter is very common among the voluptuous, according to a friend who's worked many years in the lingerie section of a department store. You'd think that, in a culture where big boobs are worshipped, women would be eager to put on the biggest size bra they could justify, but it just doesn't work that way.
The other thing with busty women is the difficulty in getting them to wear a bra that gives any support, as such bras are seen as "granny bras," with the result that before they hit 30 they sag as badly as women 20 years older; then, they discover that, although men like big boobs, they often do NOT like big SAGGY boobs, and they grow to hate their boobs as much as the tiny-breasted do. The sad thing is that in cultures where women don't wear bras, EVERY woman has saggy boobs, and no one cares; by fighting the sag, we've turned it into an issue. Isn't civilization great?
In my admittedly non-expert view, natural breasts are pretty much all beautiful, and ANY natural breasts look better than the fake ones, which are not only usually freakishly big but have shapes not found in nature, and the nipples too high or low... what do men SEE in boobs that look like they were glued onto the chest, anyways? If the hypothetical aliens were to ask why women were getting foreign objects inserted into their bodies to wildly alter the size and shape of said parts, and why by doing so they'd be considered far sexier than before, what could we tell them? Think about it, ladies, if a man you were attracted to turned out to have pec or butt implants, would you shrug and still be drooling, or would you recoil and be too grossed out to pursue sexual relations with him?
All this fuss about modified sweat glands surrounded by fat; we've gotta be the weirdest species in the universe, lol.
Friday, September 24, 2004
Control of children; the pendulum swings
A hundred years ago, a child had no rights whatsoever in the United States to protection from whatever their parents felt like doing to them; the cultural belief in those days was that a child was a virtual slave of the parents, especially the father, and that outsiders shouldn't interfere no matter what was going on. It was also very common in those days for children to receive whippings and beatings the likes of which would get a parent thrown in jail these days as standard punishment, and it was hard to pin down when "acceptable discipline" shaded over into abuse... and no one bothered to try, as it wasn't seen as an issue, not then nor for the whole of human history prior to that time.
Things changed at the beginning of the last century, when a man in New York administered a beating to his little girl that was so savage that the neighbors actually became alarmed and came to the scene to find the child terribly injured. They summoned the police, but, as there were no laws against beating your child in those days, there was nothing they could do. The desperate neighbors actually went to the SPCA looking for help; yes, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to ANIMALS had long since existed, how's that for irony, but of course they had no help for the child either.
Finally, the neighbors carried the child to the courthouse, right into the courtroom, and laid her on the floor in front of the judge. The girl's injuries were so horrible that grown men burst into tears at the sight of her, and the members of the press who were present were so deeply moved that they wrote articles denouncing the lack of protection for children from this sort of treatment; the outrage that rose up in response to the articles led to the first-ever laws being passed restricting what parents could do to their kids, laws that eventually were adopted everywhere, leading to the astonishing progress that has been made in providing for the best interests of American children. This has inarguably been a good thing, overall; abuse of children is illegal now, as it should be, and parents have had to re-think what degree of punishment was reasonable and necessary to keep their kids in line, which was inarguably needed at that time.
As always, though, the pendulum of public opinion, law, and enforcement of law, has swung PAST the ideal level and off into the level of the excessive and fanciful; people have somehow gotten it into their heads that, contrary to what all available information would tend to show, kids can be controlled and trained in proper behavior without ANY sort of discipline, in other words without ever subjecting them to anything "unpleasant," and thus that a parent who tries to punish a child for misbehavior is being unnecessarily cruel and should be seen as an abuser. As a result, parents often hesitate to administer so much as a single slap to a child for fear that authorities might be notified, and if that slap takes place in public the chances of interference become VERY high; we have lost our ability to tell the difference between discipline and abuse, just as we've lost the ability to tell the difference between affection and molestation (remember when giving piggyback rides was called sexual abuse?).
For children too young to understand or remember parental lectures on what they're not supposed to do, and who tune the lecture out by the 3rd word in any case, verbal discipline is a waste of time, and modern methods such as time-outs have limited effect that rapidly evaporates once they've been used a few times; this is why children are wildly out of control these days, and why you see tearful parents on every talk show whining about how they "can't" get a 5 year old to do what they're told. When tiny children are running the households and doing as they please because the parents have no way to make them mind, it's time to wake up as a culture and realize that the modern idea of discipline does NOT work; furthermore, we do NOT do our children a favor by sending them out into the world with no clue as to how to listen or obey, or how to take the feelings of others into account, because that forces non-parental adults to try to make up for it on the fly (as any teacher or manager at a place that hires teens can attest to), and this gets our kids seen as troublemakers... because they ARE. Most importantly, kids WANT their parents to enforce rules, and they'll keep pushing until they have the security of a structure that rules provide, so if you fail to give them that you're also failing to give them a crucial element of emotional stability.
What does that mean? It means that we have to look back at the rest of human history, in which children WERE under control and being trained by parents to take their places in society, and re-learn how to be the ones in charge. This does NOT mean reverting to making it legal to beat children, as that is NOT necessary, but it DOES mean that we need to not make parents feel like criminals, or TREAT them literally as criminals, for administering a spanking or a slap; a SMALL amount of attention-getting pain WORKS in getting even the youngest child to rethink the wisdom of whatever bad behavior they've been punished for, which is the entire POINT of punishment.
But, what about some of the extreme "reparenting" solutions offered by people like Dr. Phil, who advocates doing things like taking everything out of a child's room except their bed, and that includes ALL of their toys, and making them "earn back" each and every one of their possessions through proper behavior? (Dr. Phil actually SAYS "No one will call Child Protection Services because you took toys away," so he IS aware of the need to give parents an alternative to physical punishment in the current extreme, fearful climate.) I have no doubt that these things will work, and I think they're a great idea for parents who're too afraid, or just unwilling, to give so much as a swat on the backside, but consider; which solution will cause a child more pain, a slap or being without their toys and such for WEEKS? We're enlightened enough as a people to grasp the concepts of mental and emotional cruelty and suffering, so we need to ask ourselves if it's ok to cause a child endless misery because we're unwilling to give a single slap; a slap causes pain for just a few minutes, which sure seems better than the days and weeks of internal pain a child would go through from having everything they care about taken away... doesn't it?
We also need to keep in mind what the child psychologists keep telling us about the importance of punishment happening right at the time of the misdeed, so that the child can connect the 2 in their mind; the "parenting methods" that require you to make a child suffer for days or weeks as a result of bad behavior (because you took away what they care about, be it toys, TV or whatever) just don't make sense when looked at from that angle, because all the kid sees is mommy and daddy are mean and won't let them have their toys-they can't remember what they did last month to cause this to happen. And what sort of joy is the household in general having when the kid has no toys or can't watch TV and is upset every minute of the day?
We can't keep letting kids run wild and essentially raise themselves because we're too fearful to discipline them; we're finally starting to see that, which is WHY experts like Dr. Phil are recommending "commando parenting" as a way to take back control of our children. Hopefully, this first little reversal of the swing of the pendulum back towards the center will lead us in the near future back to the idea that one smack on the rear end is the way to get a child squared away with the least suffering for them, and thus end up doing what is truly best for kids; teaching them how to behave, and doing it without having to plan a protracted, cruel campaign against them as if they were war prisoners being tortured rather than our loved ones.
All of the above does NOT mean that we should substitute slapping for using our BRAINS, however; if we can't out-think little kids, we're in BIG trouble. Even more important than realizing that talking 'til we're blue in the face is a waste of time, and that LIMITED physical punishment is effective and less cruel than anything else that actually works, is the revolutionary concept that we can use psychology, common sense, and a little bit of planning to steer our kids into doing what we want them to do withOUT relying on the implied threat of future punishment. The exhausted, stressed-out parents of the modern world may find it difficult to muster the energy to think things out in advance and set them up so that it's easy for a child following their natural instincts to do things the right way, but no one said that being a parent wasn't going to be challenging; if we're going to prevent the pendulum from swinging too far back in a desperate attempt to get control of our kids, we've GOT to switch our focus to setting our kids up for success rather than to letting events unfold randomly and then jumping in when it's too late with yelling and punishment.
If we do all that, and get good at it, maybe 20-30 years from now we'll be wondering why it was ever necessary to punish a child to make them behave or teach them to be good people; can you think of a better goal for us as a nation to strive for?
Things changed at the beginning of the last century, when a man in New York administered a beating to his little girl that was so savage that the neighbors actually became alarmed and came to the scene to find the child terribly injured. They summoned the police, but, as there were no laws against beating your child in those days, there was nothing they could do. The desperate neighbors actually went to the SPCA looking for help; yes, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to ANIMALS had long since existed, how's that for irony, but of course they had no help for the child either.
Finally, the neighbors carried the child to the courthouse, right into the courtroom, and laid her on the floor in front of the judge. The girl's injuries were so horrible that grown men burst into tears at the sight of her, and the members of the press who were present were so deeply moved that they wrote articles denouncing the lack of protection for children from this sort of treatment; the outrage that rose up in response to the articles led to the first-ever laws being passed restricting what parents could do to their kids, laws that eventually were adopted everywhere, leading to the astonishing progress that has been made in providing for the best interests of American children. This has inarguably been a good thing, overall; abuse of children is illegal now, as it should be, and parents have had to re-think what degree of punishment was reasonable and necessary to keep their kids in line, which was inarguably needed at that time.
As always, though, the pendulum of public opinion, law, and enforcement of law, has swung PAST the ideal level and off into the level of the excessive and fanciful; people have somehow gotten it into their heads that, contrary to what all available information would tend to show, kids can be controlled and trained in proper behavior without ANY sort of discipline, in other words without ever subjecting them to anything "unpleasant," and thus that a parent who tries to punish a child for misbehavior is being unnecessarily cruel and should be seen as an abuser. As a result, parents often hesitate to administer so much as a single slap to a child for fear that authorities might be notified, and if that slap takes place in public the chances of interference become VERY high; we have lost our ability to tell the difference between discipline and abuse, just as we've lost the ability to tell the difference between affection and molestation (remember when giving piggyback rides was called sexual abuse?).
For children too young to understand or remember parental lectures on what they're not supposed to do, and who tune the lecture out by the 3rd word in any case, verbal discipline is a waste of time, and modern methods such as time-outs have limited effect that rapidly evaporates once they've been used a few times; this is why children are wildly out of control these days, and why you see tearful parents on every talk show whining about how they "can't" get a 5 year old to do what they're told. When tiny children are running the households and doing as they please because the parents have no way to make them mind, it's time to wake up as a culture and realize that the modern idea of discipline does NOT work; furthermore, we do NOT do our children a favor by sending them out into the world with no clue as to how to listen or obey, or how to take the feelings of others into account, because that forces non-parental adults to try to make up for it on the fly (as any teacher or manager at a place that hires teens can attest to), and this gets our kids seen as troublemakers... because they ARE. Most importantly, kids WANT their parents to enforce rules, and they'll keep pushing until they have the security of a structure that rules provide, so if you fail to give them that you're also failing to give them a crucial element of emotional stability.
What does that mean? It means that we have to look back at the rest of human history, in which children WERE under control and being trained by parents to take their places in society, and re-learn how to be the ones in charge. This does NOT mean reverting to making it legal to beat children, as that is NOT necessary, but it DOES mean that we need to not make parents feel like criminals, or TREAT them literally as criminals, for administering a spanking or a slap; a SMALL amount of attention-getting pain WORKS in getting even the youngest child to rethink the wisdom of whatever bad behavior they've been punished for, which is the entire POINT of punishment.
But, what about some of the extreme "reparenting" solutions offered by people like Dr. Phil, who advocates doing things like taking everything out of a child's room except their bed, and that includes ALL of their toys, and making them "earn back" each and every one of their possessions through proper behavior? (Dr. Phil actually SAYS "No one will call Child Protection Services because you took toys away," so he IS aware of the need to give parents an alternative to physical punishment in the current extreme, fearful climate.) I have no doubt that these things will work, and I think they're a great idea for parents who're too afraid, or just unwilling, to give so much as a swat on the backside, but consider; which solution will cause a child more pain, a slap or being without their toys and such for WEEKS? We're enlightened enough as a people to grasp the concepts of mental and emotional cruelty and suffering, so we need to ask ourselves if it's ok to cause a child endless misery because we're unwilling to give a single slap; a slap causes pain for just a few minutes, which sure seems better than the days and weeks of internal pain a child would go through from having everything they care about taken away... doesn't it?
We also need to keep in mind what the child psychologists keep telling us about the importance of punishment happening right at the time of the misdeed, so that the child can connect the 2 in their mind; the "parenting methods" that require you to make a child suffer for days or weeks as a result of bad behavior (because you took away what they care about, be it toys, TV or whatever) just don't make sense when looked at from that angle, because all the kid sees is mommy and daddy are mean and won't let them have their toys-they can't remember what they did last month to cause this to happen. And what sort of joy is the household in general having when the kid has no toys or can't watch TV and is upset every minute of the day?
We can't keep letting kids run wild and essentially raise themselves because we're too fearful to discipline them; we're finally starting to see that, which is WHY experts like Dr. Phil are recommending "commando parenting" as a way to take back control of our children. Hopefully, this first little reversal of the swing of the pendulum back towards the center will lead us in the near future back to the idea that one smack on the rear end is the way to get a child squared away with the least suffering for them, and thus end up doing what is truly best for kids; teaching them how to behave, and doing it without having to plan a protracted, cruel campaign against them as if they were war prisoners being tortured rather than our loved ones.
All of the above does NOT mean that we should substitute slapping for using our BRAINS, however; if we can't out-think little kids, we're in BIG trouble. Even more important than realizing that talking 'til we're blue in the face is a waste of time, and that LIMITED physical punishment is effective and less cruel than anything else that actually works, is the revolutionary concept that we can use psychology, common sense, and a little bit of planning to steer our kids into doing what we want them to do withOUT relying on the implied threat of future punishment. The exhausted, stressed-out parents of the modern world may find it difficult to muster the energy to think things out in advance and set them up so that it's easy for a child following their natural instincts to do things the right way, but no one said that being a parent wasn't going to be challenging; if we're going to prevent the pendulum from swinging too far back in a desperate attempt to get control of our kids, we've GOT to switch our focus to setting our kids up for success rather than to letting events unfold randomly and then jumping in when it's too late with yelling and punishment.
If we do all that, and get good at it, maybe 20-30 years from now we'll be wondering why it was ever necessary to punish a child to make them behave or teach them to be good people; can you think of a better goal for us as a nation to strive for?
Thursday, September 23, 2004
Synchronicity with Stephen King
I've been passionate about King's writing since I was a teen, and I don't just mean the novels, I mean the short stories too (which don't sell nearly as well, for reasons that escape me, especially with the short attention spans people have these days). In my not remotely humble opinion, King is the greatest writer who ever lived, and a new book from him has always been cause for great jubilation for me.
The most extreme example of this has been my intense eagerness over the excruciatingly slow appearance of the novels of the Dark Tower series
http://www.thedarktower.net/
the first book of which came out in 1982, and that's no typo..... 22 YEARS of being in suspense, wanting to see how it ended up (this was one of the many reasons King fans were having heart attacks when he got hit by the car-we'd never have known how it ended if he had died). I'd gotten the 5th book of the series for Christmas last year, and didn't know that anything else had been released... until today.
I was going through some blogs, and I saw something, SOMETHING, that clued me in to the 6th book having been released; weirdly, I can't remember what I saw, and after I brought up Amazon.com and looked it up, and went back and tried to find whatever the reference was that I'd seen so that I could post a thanks to whoever's page it was on, I couldn't find it , and mind you I hadn't closed any windows. This really freaked me out, especially after I checked my history and didn't find anything there either; no site that I'd seen today had any mention of the book that I could find, but I'm SURE that I SAW something that made me go check Amazon-I had to have. I'm resisting the feeling that I had a psychic flash, because it just doesn't seem possible to get one from something trivial like books... although, I DID used to get them all the time about songs and videos coming on... no, let's leave it as "I saw something and somehow couldn't find it again 2 minutes later," or it'll make me nuts.
If you noticed that I said "bookS," that was on purpose; when I did a search on Amazon for book #6, I discovered that, in wild departure from the way the books have been spaced for the past 2 DECADES, although book #6 was just released in June, book #7, the final book in the series, has ALSO been released. And WHEN, you ask, was it released? YESTERDAY!! :-O
There HAD to have been references to book #6 all over the place when it was released, but I was so caught up in my grief at a loved one living out her last few weeks during that time that they could have put a billboard on my front lawn and I wouldn't have seen it; it's worthwhile to notice from that how opportunities can pass by you when you're distracted mentally to the point of being unaware of what's going on around you-karma does NOT make allowances for this sort of thing, which is why we have the saying about how opportunity doesn't knock twice. This time around, however, I WAS paying attention, and karma provided me with beautiful synchronicity, allowing me to get not just book #6 but also, mindbogglingly, book #7, that I've been waiting over half my LIFE for, as soon as it became available; they've been ordered and are on their way to me. I don't know where I'm going to find the time to read them (I suppose I'll just have to get alot less sleep for a few days), but it'll be worth it. :-)
The most extreme example of this has been my intense eagerness over the excruciatingly slow appearance of the novels of the Dark Tower series
http://www.thedarktower.net/
the first book of which came out in 1982, and that's no typo..... 22 YEARS of being in suspense, wanting to see how it ended up (this was one of the many reasons King fans were having heart attacks when he got hit by the car-we'd never have known how it ended if he had died). I'd gotten the 5th book of the series for Christmas last year, and didn't know that anything else had been released... until today.
I was going through some blogs, and I saw something, SOMETHING, that clued me in to the 6th book having been released; weirdly, I can't remember what I saw, and after I brought up Amazon.com and looked it up, and went back and tried to find whatever the reference was that I'd seen so that I could post a thanks to whoever's page it was on, I couldn't find it , and mind you I hadn't closed any windows. This really freaked me out, especially after I checked my history and didn't find anything there either; no site that I'd seen today had any mention of the book that I could find, but I'm SURE that I SAW something that made me go check Amazon-I had to have. I'm resisting the feeling that I had a psychic flash, because it just doesn't seem possible to get one from something trivial like books... although, I DID used to get them all the time about songs and videos coming on... no, let's leave it as "I saw something and somehow couldn't find it again 2 minutes later," or it'll make me nuts.
If you noticed that I said "bookS," that was on purpose; when I did a search on Amazon for book #6, I discovered that, in wild departure from the way the books have been spaced for the past 2 DECADES, although book #6 was just released in June, book #7, the final book in the series, has ALSO been released. And WHEN, you ask, was it released? YESTERDAY!! :-O
There HAD to have been references to book #6 all over the place when it was released, but I was so caught up in my grief at a loved one living out her last few weeks during that time that they could have put a billboard on my front lawn and I wouldn't have seen it; it's worthwhile to notice from that how opportunities can pass by you when you're distracted mentally to the point of being unaware of what's going on around you-karma does NOT make allowances for this sort of thing, which is why we have the saying about how opportunity doesn't knock twice. This time around, however, I WAS paying attention, and karma provided me with beautiful synchronicity, allowing me to get not just book #6 but also, mindbogglingly, book #7, that I've been waiting over half my LIFE for, as soon as it became available; they've been ordered and are on their way to me. I don't know where I'm going to find the time to read them (I suppose I'll just have to get alot less sleep for a few days), but it'll be worth it. :-)
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
How did humor evolve?
When and why did the first caveman respond to another caveman falling flat on his face with the erratic bursts of sound known as laughter? What evolutionary value did this have, and why was someone being hurt a cause for others to feel mirth, rather than something less mean-spirited? How did enjoying the pains of others give us the benefit necessary for a new trait to propagate through the species?
There's no real reason for assuming that the first amusement was from an unintentional bit of physical comedy, of course; I just chose that because it could have happened when our species was still pre-verbal, but there's no proof that humor goes back that far. There's nothing to say that the first incident of humor wasn't in response to the first time someone meant to say a word meaning "food" and said a word meaning "excrement" instead... but I can't see any evolutionary value to THAT, either.
How did it help a person, or a tribe, to be more successful if they enjoyed seeing, or hearing about, other people suffering of being made fools of? And yes, that IS the basis for virtually every joke and sort of humor other than puns; try to think of some jokes that don't hinge on someone being hurt, fooled or humiliated, or on the idea that a certain subgroup of people, such as women or minorities, are inferior in some way, and you'll see what I mean. Is CARING about others such a terrible thing somehow that callous disregard for the feelings of others, as evidenced by laughing at their discomfiture, is beneficial?
People are usually amused by puns and other plays on words, too, even those that don't embarrass anyone; but WHY are we amused by them? How did this amusement lead to those people who felt it to being more likely to have more children to pass their tee-hee-hee genes to?
Even beyond why we find things funny, why do we LAUGH? How is making those unattractive sounds a good thing? We laugh for all sorts of reasons besides humor, such as when we're socially anxious, and those other kinds of laughter carry valuable information to others, but why laugh because someone slipped on a banana peel? (Do you suppose that's ever REALLY happened, other than in cartoons?) Why pass along to others that we're insensitive-what's the benefit in THAT?
This one's got me totally stumped; I can't find ANY reason for our ability to be amused, or to be amused at such cruel things, or to make noise to indicate our amusement, to have evolved, much less to have stayed as part of human nature for millennia. There MUST be one, though, because everything in our bodies and brains takes energy to create and pass on, so nothing in our nature is worthless; I see a great deal of research ahead of me...
(PS It's possible that humor is somehow connected to the soul, in which case we wouldn't expect to be able to see a scientifically valid benefit for it, but I'm not going to take the easy way out and decide that that's the reason; I figured I should add it in here for the sale of completeness, though.)
There's no real reason for assuming that the first amusement was from an unintentional bit of physical comedy, of course; I just chose that because it could have happened when our species was still pre-verbal, but there's no proof that humor goes back that far. There's nothing to say that the first incident of humor wasn't in response to the first time someone meant to say a word meaning "food" and said a word meaning "excrement" instead... but I can't see any evolutionary value to THAT, either.
How did it help a person, or a tribe, to be more successful if they enjoyed seeing, or hearing about, other people suffering of being made fools of? And yes, that IS the basis for virtually every joke and sort of humor other than puns; try to think of some jokes that don't hinge on someone being hurt, fooled or humiliated, or on the idea that a certain subgroup of people, such as women or minorities, are inferior in some way, and you'll see what I mean. Is CARING about others such a terrible thing somehow that callous disregard for the feelings of others, as evidenced by laughing at their discomfiture, is beneficial?
People are usually amused by puns and other plays on words, too, even those that don't embarrass anyone; but WHY are we amused by them? How did this amusement lead to those people who felt it to being more likely to have more children to pass their tee-hee-hee genes to?
Even beyond why we find things funny, why do we LAUGH? How is making those unattractive sounds a good thing? We laugh for all sorts of reasons besides humor, such as when we're socially anxious, and those other kinds of laughter carry valuable information to others, but why laugh because someone slipped on a banana peel? (Do you suppose that's ever REALLY happened, other than in cartoons?) Why pass along to others that we're insensitive-what's the benefit in THAT?
This one's got me totally stumped; I can't find ANY reason for our ability to be amused, or to be amused at such cruel things, or to make noise to indicate our amusement, to have evolved, much less to have stayed as part of human nature for millennia. There MUST be one, though, because everything in our bodies and brains takes energy to create and pass on, so nothing in our nature is worthless; I see a great deal of research ahead of me...
(PS It's possible that humor is somehow connected to the soul, in which case we wouldn't expect to be able to see a scientifically valid benefit for it, but I'm not going to take the easy way out and decide that that's the reason; I figured I should add it in here for the sale of completeness, though.)
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Thai tattoos
I've been watching the National Geographic Channel's Taboo series again, and, as usual, learned something fascinating: in Thailand, tattoos aren't for adornment, they're a deeply spiritual thing; not like in the cultures where it creates a deep bond with their society and history, but in the sense that the recipients believe that the tattoos have actual POWER, can protect them from harm and death, and that gods and spirits (including animal types) can possess them via the tattoos.
I watched in awe as man after man described the horrible accidents that happened to him, or rather all around him, from which he walked away without a scratch, and as a steady stream of men were "possessed" (there was nothing subtle about it, so you could see when it happened) both during the tattoo process and after having the tattoos "recharged" (which they do once a year). No, I don't see there being anything magical in the tattoo ink, or in the process of placing these huge and elaborate designs into the flesh, but it's obvious that the pain, the circumstances, and their belief system combined to make the recipients' minds open up and channel... who knows what (I consider the jury to be out on possession and the idea of spirits that are essentially minor deities).
For so many men to be so sure that having these tattoos would make them virtually invincible, and mind you it was all men who had horribly dangerous jobs who were getting them for protection, there has to be SOMETHING going on; my guess would be that they learn to gather and focus energy via the process and that this is what protects them, but I know too little about it to do more than speculate. They showed a man who had just been tattooed being required to test the tattoo; he was whacked repeatedly on the back with a machete, and all it left were some faint scratches. Now, I know well that it's a common "trick" in Eastern cultures to use the "blade didn't cut" bit to "prove" spiritual something or other, and I know how it works; a blade doesn't actually cut unless there's a sawing motion involved (this is why the guillotine blades were at an angle), so if you can meet the blade squarely it won't cut... but, could the machete-swinger have enough control to just make light scratches? It would seem like he'd have to, but a different man described being attacked by an ENEMY with a machete, grabbing for where he thought the wound was and discovering there was no blood, no wound, and the enemy sure wasn't playing a game, so...
No, I haven't suddenly become naive and credulous, but there's ample evidence of people who can exert inexplicable levels of control over their bodies, preventing them from suffering pain or injury under circumstances that Western eyes can barely stand to look at, and this feels like an extension of that, of men learning to tap into spiritual energy and channel it to protect themselves. I don't see the mechanism, though, and I wish I did, as always when I see intense spiritual experiences that I can't share; these men are enduring hours and hours of extreme pain every year because what they get in return makes it worth it to them... and I'd dearly love to experience, even for a few minutes, what that is.
I watched in awe as man after man described the horrible accidents that happened to him, or rather all around him, from which he walked away without a scratch, and as a steady stream of men were "possessed" (there was nothing subtle about it, so you could see when it happened) both during the tattoo process and after having the tattoos "recharged" (which they do once a year). No, I don't see there being anything magical in the tattoo ink, or in the process of placing these huge and elaborate designs into the flesh, but it's obvious that the pain, the circumstances, and their belief system combined to make the recipients' minds open up and channel... who knows what (I consider the jury to be out on possession and the idea of spirits that are essentially minor deities).
For so many men to be so sure that having these tattoos would make them virtually invincible, and mind you it was all men who had horribly dangerous jobs who were getting them for protection, there has to be SOMETHING going on; my guess would be that they learn to gather and focus energy via the process and that this is what protects them, but I know too little about it to do more than speculate. They showed a man who had just been tattooed being required to test the tattoo; he was whacked repeatedly on the back with a machete, and all it left were some faint scratches. Now, I know well that it's a common "trick" in Eastern cultures to use the "blade didn't cut" bit to "prove" spiritual something or other, and I know how it works; a blade doesn't actually cut unless there's a sawing motion involved (this is why the guillotine blades were at an angle), so if you can meet the blade squarely it won't cut... but, could the machete-swinger have enough control to just make light scratches? It would seem like he'd have to, but a different man described being attacked by an ENEMY with a machete, grabbing for where he thought the wound was and discovering there was no blood, no wound, and the enemy sure wasn't playing a game, so...
No, I haven't suddenly become naive and credulous, but there's ample evidence of people who can exert inexplicable levels of control over their bodies, preventing them from suffering pain or injury under circumstances that Western eyes can barely stand to look at, and this feels like an extension of that, of men learning to tap into spiritual energy and channel it to protect themselves. I don't see the mechanism, though, and I wish I did, as always when I see intense spiritual experiences that I can't share; these men are enduring hours and hours of extreme pain every year because what they get in return makes it worth it to them... and I'd dearly love to experience, even for a few minutes, what that is.
Monday, September 20, 2004
A non-karma-related point from Joel Osteen
I wish I had a transcript I could copy into this post, because Osteen gave a wonderful sermon today about the importance of not taking offense, and how harboring bad feelings poisons you (and has no effect whatsoever on the object of your ire).
The idea that having any kind of bad feelings has a negative impact on all areas of your life is one of his biggest themes, and it's a good one; negativity draws other negativity to itself with amazing power. And what's the point of wasting time and energy feeling angry at someone who cut you off on the freeway anyways? It's not just that they'll never know or care; they may not even be aware that they did it, and even if they were it's likely that they were just in a mad rush to get to work, and aren't bad people messing around on the freeway for funsies.
The issue of not taking offense ties into another theme of his, that of not judging when you don't know a person's story or anything about them; he points out, correctly, that most times when people take offense, it's at something unintentional, something the other person did or said because they're having a bad day, or are distracted, or are absent-minded, or are naturally outspoken, rather than from arrogance or meanness. We're often quick to label someone a bad person because they snapped at us or were rude, but think about it; YOU sometimes snap at people and are rude, and do you think that makes YOU a bad person? (It amazes me how quick we can be to condemn others for trivial things, while falling all over ourselves to forgive atrocious behavior.)
Sometimes, of course, people DO mean to give offense... but how do you tell? First, develop a habit of shrugging off behavior that doesn't matter, especially from people who don't matter; if a total stranger tells you that your jacket is ugly, so what? If a belligerent twit argues with your opinion, why care? If the person shooting their mouth off isn't someone who's a part of your life (this goes double for people online), isn't someone who has earned your respect, why should their opinion count for anything with you? If they try to be nasty, why play along with them and be hurt? While you probably can't shrug off attempts by your loved ones to be hurtful (it CAN be done, but it's hard for most people), it's quite easy to look at the ugly spoutings of some no-life jerk with nothing better to do than try to upset a total stranger as laughable, and thus to be amused... the added benefit to this is that you'll really aggravate them when you respond to their attempts at kicking you in the teeth with condescending laughter at their childishness.
Once you've developed the ability to not be offended by worthless types, make sure that when you respond to them (as you'll oftentimes have to) that your words, tone, expression and body language all convey unruffled calm; online, make sure that anything you post/send looks like your "regular stuff," ie no all-caps, cursing, or anything else that an objective reader would say was indicative of upset on your part. Then, wait for the magic words from the suspect; "There's no need to get upset/offended/mad," or "What are you getting upset/offended/mad about?" or a similar phrase that indicates their belief that you HAVE had that sort of response, despite the total lack of evidence... because these lines tell you that the person was TRYING to be offensive, and is just blindly assuming that you GOT offended because that was their plan, and that's the response they normally get from that behavior-in other words, they make a HABIT of doing this sort of thing, which tells you that they're not the sort of person you should EVER be concerned about.
This has gone far afield from what Joel Osteen talked about, and is probably something he'd recommend NOT trying to analyze, but I'm a practical sort, and like to have ways to decisively deal with all sorts of people, so I say; don't raise your blood pressure and ruin your day by taking offense at the rude behaviors of others, whether intended or not. It's better for your health, it keeps you from possibly lashing out at people who never intended offense, and it'll thwart the plans of the troublemakers when you can blandly reply to their "voicings of concern" aka proddings to try to make you madder; "But, I'm NOT upset/offended/mad-if I were, I'd ACT upset/etc," leaving them to sputter helplessly trying to deflect attention from the fact that they were clearly EXPECTING to have upset you, that that was their intention from the beginning.
As I always say, evil is at its base stupid; once you're on to 'em, it's very hard for them to ever "get" you. :-)
The idea that having any kind of bad feelings has a negative impact on all areas of your life is one of his biggest themes, and it's a good one; negativity draws other negativity to itself with amazing power. And what's the point of wasting time and energy feeling angry at someone who cut you off on the freeway anyways? It's not just that they'll never know or care; they may not even be aware that they did it, and even if they were it's likely that they were just in a mad rush to get to work, and aren't bad people messing around on the freeway for funsies.
The issue of not taking offense ties into another theme of his, that of not judging when you don't know a person's story or anything about them; he points out, correctly, that most times when people take offense, it's at something unintentional, something the other person did or said because they're having a bad day, or are distracted, or are absent-minded, or are naturally outspoken, rather than from arrogance or meanness. We're often quick to label someone a bad person because they snapped at us or were rude, but think about it; YOU sometimes snap at people and are rude, and do you think that makes YOU a bad person? (It amazes me how quick we can be to condemn others for trivial things, while falling all over ourselves to forgive atrocious behavior.)
Sometimes, of course, people DO mean to give offense... but how do you tell? First, develop a habit of shrugging off behavior that doesn't matter, especially from people who don't matter; if a total stranger tells you that your jacket is ugly, so what? If a belligerent twit argues with your opinion, why care? If the person shooting their mouth off isn't someone who's a part of your life (this goes double for people online), isn't someone who has earned your respect, why should their opinion count for anything with you? If they try to be nasty, why play along with them and be hurt? While you probably can't shrug off attempts by your loved ones to be hurtful (it CAN be done, but it's hard for most people), it's quite easy to look at the ugly spoutings of some no-life jerk with nothing better to do than try to upset a total stranger as laughable, and thus to be amused... the added benefit to this is that you'll really aggravate them when you respond to their attempts at kicking you in the teeth with condescending laughter at their childishness.
Once you've developed the ability to not be offended by worthless types, make sure that when you respond to them (as you'll oftentimes have to) that your words, tone, expression and body language all convey unruffled calm; online, make sure that anything you post/send looks like your "regular stuff," ie no all-caps, cursing, or anything else that an objective reader would say was indicative of upset on your part. Then, wait for the magic words from the suspect; "There's no need to get upset/offended/mad," or "What are you getting upset/offended/mad about?" or a similar phrase that indicates their belief that you HAVE had that sort of response, despite the total lack of evidence... because these lines tell you that the person was TRYING to be offensive, and is just blindly assuming that you GOT offended because that was their plan, and that's the response they normally get from that behavior-in other words, they make a HABIT of doing this sort of thing, which tells you that they're not the sort of person you should EVER be concerned about.
This has gone far afield from what Joel Osteen talked about, and is probably something he'd recommend NOT trying to analyze, but I'm a practical sort, and like to have ways to decisively deal with all sorts of people, so I say; don't raise your blood pressure and ruin your day by taking offense at the rude behaviors of others, whether intended or not. It's better for your health, it keeps you from possibly lashing out at people who never intended offense, and it'll thwart the plans of the troublemakers when you can blandly reply to their "voicings of concern" aka proddings to try to make you madder; "But, I'm NOT upset/offended/mad-if I were, I'd ACT upset/etc," leaving them to sputter helplessly trying to deflect attention from the fact that they were clearly EXPECTING to have upset you, that that was their intention from the beginning.
As I always say, evil is at its base stupid; once you're on to 'em, it's very hard for them to ever "get" you. :-)
Sunday, September 19, 2004
Dreaming about my dream house
We all do it, right? With the exception, one assumes, of the very wealthy, who already HAVE their dream homes, we all have radiant visions of what we'd want if we won the lottery and could have any sort of home we wanted.
I'd like my home to be one of those insanely modern concrete and glass ones that looks like a spaceship taking off... or, the traditional Spanish manse with pale pink stucco, deep red tile roof, and a central courtyard (I'm such a mass of contradictions, lol).
I'd like the interior to have slightly pearlescent pinkish white walls; it'd be like living inside a seashell. The carpet would be a dense pile shag, the kind your toes sink into, in a light, chic shade of taupe; it's my favorite light neutral. The furniture would be a blend of mid-century and mod (just think "retro" if you're not a design buff and can't visualize what I mean), with dashes of modern; curvy and organic, therefore, but with an edge. Deep shades like cobalt, amethyst and raspberry sorbet would make the rooms warm, the exact opposite of the gray on gray that is often part of any remotely modern decor.
I'd also want it to have:
Arched doorways, curved stairways; right angles are just not aesthetically appealing.
An intercom that reaches every room; we had that in one of the homes I lived in as a kid, and it saved endless hollering.
Stained glass; I'd like a custom WALL of glass, probably in the entryway, so that people coming in the front door would gasp in amazement as they stepped into a magical world of color.
An elevator; if you've every had an attack of bursitis in your hip, you'll understand.
A huge saltwater tank, with fancy fish, little shrimps and crabs, and most importantly, sea horses.
A hummingbird garden, and yes there is such a thing, filled with the plants they like best, feeders, and nesting boxes, so that I could have a whole flock of them living there during the warm months when they're here; they're exquisite little creatures that always give me a thrill to see.
Tall, welcoming trees, one of which would have a nice padded swing attached to it in such a way as not to damage it. (Before you snicker, swinging is excellent exercise for the thighs, and more relaxing than yoga.)
An indoor swing for when the weather is bad... maybe in the room with the stained glass, just imagine...
Fountains and other water features, inside and out; the sound of moving/falling/splashing water is so soothing.
Windchimes around the house and throughout the gardens, of all different sorts and sizes so that every area would have a unique "song."
An interior lap-swimming pool that generates a current for you to swim against so that you never have to do turns, and can basically swim in place.
Bidets in every bathroom; if you don't know, I'm not gonna tell you, lol.
Large windows at the correct angle to catch the prevailing breeze, and to fill the rooms with natural light.
Art in every room (not just the traditional framed kind, but also sculpture, art glass, and some extreme modern stuff); complex pieces that you could see something new in every time you looked at them.
A gameroom with air hockey, classic arcade games, and a whole wall of pinball machines.
My husband wants a basement, and it's a nice idea to have all his mess in one part of the house, one that no visitor would want to go to; he could have a mass of computer equipment, soundproofing so he can blast the awful music he likes, a mini-kitchen where he could grow fungus to his heart's content, a bathroom that could be sealed off and self-cleaned/sterilized like an oven... and electrodes in all the chairs so I could zap him via remote control when I needed him for something.
I DID say it was a dream, hehehehehe.
I'd like my home to be one of those insanely modern concrete and glass ones that looks like a spaceship taking off... or, the traditional Spanish manse with pale pink stucco, deep red tile roof, and a central courtyard (I'm such a mass of contradictions, lol).
I'd like the interior to have slightly pearlescent pinkish white walls; it'd be like living inside a seashell. The carpet would be a dense pile shag, the kind your toes sink into, in a light, chic shade of taupe; it's my favorite light neutral. The furniture would be a blend of mid-century and mod (just think "retro" if you're not a design buff and can't visualize what I mean), with dashes of modern; curvy and organic, therefore, but with an edge. Deep shades like cobalt, amethyst and raspberry sorbet would make the rooms warm, the exact opposite of the gray on gray that is often part of any remotely modern decor.
I'd also want it to have:
Arched doorways, curved stairways; right angles are just not aesthetically appealing.
An intercom that reaches every room; we had that in one of the homes I lived in as a kid, and it saved endless hollering.
Stained glass; I'd like a custom WALL of glass, probably in the entryway, so that people coming in the front door would gasp in amazement as they stepped into a magical world of color.
An elevator; if you've every had an attack of bursitis in your hip, you'll understand.
A huge saltwater tank, with fancy fish, little shrimps and crabs, and most importantly, sea horses.
A hummingbird garden, and yes there is such a thing, filled with the plants they like best, feeders, and nesting boxes, so that I could have a whole flock of them living there during the warm months when they're here; they're exquisite little creatures that always give me a thrill to see.
Tall, welcoming trees, one of which would have a nice padded swing attached to it in such a way as not to damage it. (Before you snicker, swinging is excellent exercise for the thighs, and more relaxing than yoga.)
An indoor swing for when the weather is bad... maybe in the room with the stained glass, just imagine...
Fountains and other water features, inside and out; the sound of moving/falling/splashing water is so soothing.
Windchimes around the house and throughout the gardens, of all different sorts and sizes so that every area would have a unique "song."
An interior lap-swimming pool that generates a current for you to swim against so that you never have to do turns, and can basically swim in place.
Bidets in every bathroom; if you don't know, I'm not gonna tell you, lol.
Large windows at the correct angle to catch the prevailing breeze, and to fill the rooms with natural light.
Art in every room (not just the traditional framed kind, but also sculpture, art glass, and some extreme modern stuff); complex pieces that you could see something new in every time you looked at them.
A gameroom with air hockey, classic arcade games, and a whole wall of pinball machines.
My husband wants a basement, and it's a nice idea to have all his mess in one part of the house, one that no visitor would want to go to; he could have a mass of computer equipment, soundproofing so he can blast the awful music he likes, a mini-kitchen where he could grow fungus to his heart's content, a bathroom that could be sealed off and self-cleaned/sterilized like an oven... and electrodes in all the chairs so I could zap him via remote control when I needed him for something.
I DID say it was a dream, hehehehehe.
Saturday, September 18, 2004
What is art?
That didn't used to be such a big question; everyone used to know what was art and what was not, and there was no gray area. Art wasn't something just anyone could make, but it was something everyone could enjoy. Then, the modernization of the world started to affect how art was created...
For the record, I do NOT think that something has to be pretty, happy, easily understood or photorealistic to be art; art can be ugly, it can make you sad, angry or revolted, it can take time to figure out, and it can be abstract (up to a point). In a world where learning art isn't something that just a privileged few get to do, though, in a world where artists don't have to focus on doing portraits and religious art because that's where the $ is, and especially in a world where millions of people have Photoshop, in my mind there has to be more to art that just the creation of some sort of recognizable image:
Art should show you something new.
Art should indicate that its creator has a unique and powerful vision.
Art should make you react.
Art should make you think and/or feel intensely.
A couple of the traditional beliefs about art no longer apply:
Art does NOT require any training; outsider art is a brilliant example of what people with no background of any sort in art can produce with just whatever materials they can scrounge and their innate talent. Yes, making certain types of art DOES need to be learned, but far from all, and learning those techniques does NOT guarantee that what you create is art.
Art does NOT require pricey materials; outsider art is once again proof. Yes, some sorts of art DO need expensive stuff to make them, but the most innovative art uses unexpected materials, including things we normally look at as "garbage."
There's nothing too radical about what I've said so far; plenty of art experts say similar things. My ideas of what do NOT constitute art, though, consistently get me into debates:
Anything that looks like a wallpaper pattern is NOT art.
Anything that a 2 year old could duplicate, or that looks like it WAS made by a 2 year old, is NOT art.
Anything that shows technical skill but has no message or meaning is NOT art.
Anything that was generated using a computer, no matter how flashy and elaborate, with no message or meaning is NOT art.
Anything that goes beyond abstract to become meaningless blobs of color is NOT art.
Anything that is created by randomness, such as by throwing paint-filled balloons at a canvas, is NOT art.
And finally:
If you create something that's fabulous and innovative, but someone else did it first, their stuff is art; yours isn't.
Doing something new does NOT guarantee that you've produced art, though; this will come as a surprise to those "artists" who have claimed things like basketballs floating in an aquarium
http://www.artnet.com/Galleries/Artwork_Detail.asp?G=&gid=154249&cid=58631&which=&aid=9741&wid=423917150&source=exhibitions&rta=http://www.artnet.com
http://www.c-m-arts.com/exhibitions/koons2004/01.html
(I hasten to add that many of Jeff Koons's works ARE art), a piece of string pinned to a wall (I couldn't find a photo, but you know what a piece of string looks like), and, most famously, a crucifix in a container of urine
http://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/502.html
http://www.renewal.org.au/artcrime/pages/serrano.html
are art, not to mention the people who have collected these things, usually to the tune of big bucks (the string one was a gift to the collector). I DO see many of even the most extreme pieces of modern art as true art; the sculpture of a head created from the artist's (Marc Quinn) own frozen blood
http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/manson/manson6-4-8.asp
http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/visarts/globe/issue7/bod012.jpg
is a prime example (it was reported as having been accidentally "melted" a couple of years back, but luckily that was just a publicity stunt), but way too much of it is just utter nonsense with no vision behind it that the creators laugh all the way to the bank about having gotten some witless sap to purchase.
I'm sure that many readers will disagree with some or all of this; these days, art is about as subjective as anything ever gets. I think that the most important thing is that we look at art, or alleged art, think about it, and draw our own conclusions.
For the record, I do NOT think that something has to be pretty, happy, easily understood or photorealistic to be art; art can be ugly, it can make you sad, angry or revolted, it can take time to figure out, and it can be abstract (up to a point). In a world where learning art isn't something that just a privileged few get to do, though, in a world where artists don't have to focus on doing portraits and religious art because that's where the $ is, and especially in a world where millions of people have Photoshop, in my mind there has to be more to art that just the creation of some sort of recognizable image:
Art should show you something new.
Art should indicate that its creator has a unique and powerful vision.
Art should make you react.
Art should make you think and/or feel intensely.
A couple of the traditional beliefs about art no longer apply:
Art does NOT require any training; outsider art is a brilliant example of what people with no background of any sort in art can produce with just whatever materials they can scrounge and their innate talent. Yes, making certain types of art DOES need to be learned, but far from all, and learning those techniques does NOT guarantee that what you create is art.
Art does NOT require pricey materials; outsider art is once again proof. Yes, some sorts of art DO need expensive stuff to make them, but the most innovative art uses unexpected materials, including things we normally look at as "garbage."
There's nothing too radical about what I've said so far; plenty of art experts say similar things. My ideas of what do NOT constitute art, though, consistently get me into debates:
Anything that looks like a wallpaper pattern is NOT art.
Anything that a 2 year old could duplicate, or that looks like it WAS made by a 2 year old, is NOT art.
Anything that shows technical skill but has no message or meaning is NOT art.
Anything that was generated using a computer, no matter how flashy and elaborate, with no message or meaning is NOT art.
Anything that goes beyond abstract to become meaningless blobs of color is NOT art.
Anything that is created by randomness, such as by throwing paint-filled balloons at a canvas, is NOT art.
And finally:
If you create something that's fabulous and innovative, but someone else did it first, their stuff is art; yours isn't.
Doing something new does NOT guarantee that you've produced art, though; this will come as a surprise to those "artists" who have claimed things like basketballs floating in an aquarium
http://www.artnet.com/Galleries/Artwork_Detail.asp?G=&gid=154249&cid=58631&which=&aid=9741&wid=423917150&source=exhibitions&rta=http://www.artnet.com
http://www.c-m-arts.com/exhibitions/koons2004/01.html
(I hasten to add that many of Jeff Koons's works ARE art), a piece of string pinned to a wall (I couldn't find a photo, but you know what a piece of string looks like), and, most famously, a crucifix in a container of urine
http://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/502.html
http://www.renewal.org.au/artcrime/pages/serrano.html
are art, not to mention the people who have collected these things, usually to the tune of big bucks (the string one was a gift to the collector). I DO see many of even the most extreme pieces of modern art as true art; the sculpture of a head created from the artist's (Marc Quinn) own frozen blood
http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/manson/manson6-4-8.asp
http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/visarts/globe/issue7/bod012.jpg
is a prime example (it was reported as having been accidentally "melted" a couple of years back, but luckily that was just a publicity stunt), but way too much of it is just utter nonsense with no vision behind it that the creators laugh all the way to the bank about having gotten some witless sap to purchase.
I'm sure that many readers will disagree with some or all of this; these days, art is about as subjective as anything ever gets. I think that the most important thing is that we look at art, or alleged art, think about it, and draw our own conclusions.
Friday, September 17, 2004
When did American homes get so stinky?
My recent revelation about how the sorts of phone service related ads being shown have changed got me paying closer attention to what else is being advertised on TV these days, and a strange and scary pattern emerged; we've apparently become obsessed with making our homes smell like fruit and flowers and such. When did our living areas start smelling so bad that this became necessary?
I wish I'd bought stock in an air freshener company, because there's some big $ there these days. The choices are nearly infinite: The old-style unpowered ones come in glass and plastic, in every color, in shapes that range from utilitarian to cutesy to artsy, with liquid or solid scented stuff in fragrances that cover the spectrum from simple one-note scents to elaborate aromatherapy blends. The newer, powered ones, which can be battery or electrical, offer us fans, lights and visible puffs of... whatever that smoky stuff is... and, most surreal of all, a thing like a CD player that spews a whole series of scents from discs that look like CD's.
Then, there are the candles, the sprays (some of which are air sanitizers, whatever that is), Febreze, which you're supposed to spray on all your cloth surfaces, fabric softener that they make a big deal of the scent of in ads with no mention of the softening ability... since when does everything in our homes have to be artificially scented?
Want to know what's REALLY odd? I can't remember the last time I saw an ad for perfume (or body spray, does that even exist any more?); is everything supposed to be scented EXCEPT us? I DID see some ads for men's cologne, though... maybe men have gotten stinkier too? ;-)
Imagine what foreigners think when they come to this country and see American TV, and American ads, for the 1st time; do they go back home and tell their friends that all we care about are cell phone plans and making our homes smell sickeningly sweet? We are a disturbingly weird country, lol.
I wish I'd bought stock in an air freshener company, because there's some big $ there these days. The choices are nearly infinite: The old-style unpowered ones come in glass and plastic, in every color, in shapes that range from utilitarian to cutesy to artsy, with liquid or solid scented stuff in fragrances that cover the spectrum from simple one-note scents to elaborate aromatherapy blends. The newer, powered ones, which can be battery or electrical, offer us fans, lights and visible puffs of... whatever that smoky stuff is... and, most surreal of all, a thing like a CD player that spews a whole series of scents from discs that look like CD's.
Then, there are the candles, the sprays (some of which are air sanitizers, whatever that is), Febreze, which you're supposed to spray on all your cloth surfaces, fabric softener that they make a big deal of the scent of in ads with no mention of the softening ability... since when does everything in our homes have to be artificially scented?
Want to know what's REALLY odd? I can't remember the last time I saw an ad for perfume (or body spray, does that even exist any more?); is everything supposed to be scented EXCEPT us? I DID see some ads for men's cologne, though... maybe men have gotten stinkier too? ;-)
Imagine what foreigners think when they come to this country and see American TV, and American ads, for the 1st time; do they go back home and tell their friends that all we care about are cell phone plans and making our homes smell sickeningly sweet? We are a disturbingly weird country, lol.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
Sexual desire in long-term relationships
How many times have you heard a man who: hasn't told the woman he's settled into couplehood with that he loves her, paid her a compliment, or done anything romantic or thoughtful for her in months, gave her a gym membership and a blender for her birthday, forgot their anniversary entirely, walks around the house in ragged old underwear with his gut hanging over the waistband, scratching his balls and picking his nose, leaves a mess for her to pick up in every room he enters, and can't be bothered to do his share of the tasks vital to the running of HIS home and the care of HIS kids... complaining that his woman isn't interested in sex with him any more?
In the olden days, a man could treat his home like a hotel and his wife like a maid, and do nothing for the household except bring home a paycheck, and still get laid, because that was the trade-off that he had made with his wife; her services as mother of his kids, housekeeper and sexual receptacle in return for him financing their lives... but that's NOT the deal most couples have today. Even more importantly, in the old days the woman didn't expect to want or enjoy sex, and the man didn't expect her to either; she was just expected to grit her teeth and go along with it... and this is the crucial point, fellas-no woman who ever lived has become sexually eager from any of those "traditional" male behaviors described above, so unless you expect YOUR woman to just grit her teeth and have joyless sex with you, you have to clean up your act if you want more sex. If you want your woman to feel desire, you have to do enough of the work on the home front to free up time and lower her stress, treat her like a valuable part of your life rather than as a sort of privileged domestic, and walk around the house looking (and SMELLING) like someone a woman would WANT to have sex with.
A final point that should be obvious but too often gets ignored: your woman would feel more desire if the sex was more to her liking, which means more kissing and foreplay (with emphasis on oral sex), more romance and tenderness, and less rough pawing of delicate female body parts.
Ladies, if your man has dampened desire, he may have taken on too much at work, and is swallowing all the stress, because, well, that's what men do; try to get him to do an intense workout, and/or give him a full-body massage, and that alone may be enough to kick-start his libido. If that's not it, take advantage of the male passion for novelty and start shaking things up: try and initiate sex at different times of day (men have the highest level of testosterone in the early AM, just FYI), in different places (including outside if you're up for it), and in different ways, which can mean anything from a different position to getting a French maid costume and offering to... well, use your imagination. Just keep in mind that men are highly visual creatures, so anything you do that gives him something hot to look at, from watching porn together to having sex with the lights on in front of a mirror to coming to bed in a lace teddy instead of sweats, will get you bonus points.
Once you get past the hot-and-heavy early rush of lust for your partner, you have to put some conscious thought into keeping the sex lively and your desire high; if you don't do that, and if you get lazy about your grooming, your consideration for each other, and the catering to each person's specific sexual turn-ons, of course things will fizzle-life is NOT a romance movie. Don't begrudge your partner a little effort; think of how much benefit YOU will get once the sheets are smoking again.
In the olden days, a man could treat his home like a hotel and his wife like a maid, and do nothing for the household except bring home a paycheck, and still get laid, because that was the trade-off that he had made with his wife; her services as mother of his kids, housekeeper and sexual receptacle in return for him financing their lives... but that's NOT the deal most couples have today. Even more importantly, in the old days the woman didn't expect to want or enjoy sex, and the man didn't expect her to either; she was just expected to grit her teeth and go along with it... and this is the crucial point, fellas-no woman who ever lived has become sexually eager from any of those "traditional" male behaviors described above, so unless you expect YOUR woman to just grit her teeth and have joyless sex with you, you have to clean up your act if you want more sex. If you want your woman to feel desire, you have to do enough of the work on the home front to free up time and lower her stress, treat her like a valuable part of your life rather than as a sort of privileged domestic, and walk around the house looking (and SMELLING) like someone a woman would WANT to have sex with.
A final point that should be obvious but too often gets ignored: your woman would feel more desire if the sex was more to her liking, which means more kissing and foreplay (with emphasis on oral sex), more romance and tenderness, and less rough pawing of delicate female body parts.
Ladies, if your man has dampened desire, he may have taken on too much at work, and is swallowing all the stress, because, well, that's what men do; try to get him to do an intense workout, and/or give him a full-body massage, and that alone may be enough to kick-start his libido. If that's not it, take advantage of the male passion for novelty and start shaking things up: try and initiate sex at different times of day (men have the highest level of testosterone in the early AM, just FYI), in different places (including outside if you're up for it), and in different ways, which can mean anything from a different position to getting a French maid costume and offering to... well, use your imagination. Just keep in mind that men are highly visual creatures, so anything you do that gives him something hot to look at, from watching porn together to having sex with the lights on in front of a mirror to coming to bed in a lace teddy instead of sweats, will get you bonus points.
Once you get past the hot-and-heavy early rush of lust for your partner, you have to put some conscious thought into keeping the sex lively and your desire high; if you don't do that, and if you get lazy about your grooming, your consideration for each other, and the catering to each person's specific sexual turn-ons, of course things will fizzle-life is NOT a romance movie. Don't begrudge your partner a little effort; think of how much benefit YOU will get once the sheets are smoking again.
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
The long-distance revolution
My long-distance company has added a monthly fee to my bill, where previously there had never been one; with that, what was apparently the LAST calling plan offered by ANY major long-distance company with no monthly fee bit the dust. I discovered the latter when I started searching for a new company to give my business to; ATT, MCI and Sprint seem to have decided that the best way to combat the explosion of 10-10 dial-arounds, calling cards and cellular plans is to make what they have to offer look even LESS appealing to consumers.
Dismayed, I tried to think of what the most recent ads for bargain long-distance plans were that I'd seen, and realized that I haven't seen a single ad from a long-distance company in a long, long, LONG time... I honestly think it's been at least a couple of YEARS. When did we go from having an ad about a long-distance plan every 5 minutes to having them totally disappear? :-O
A 2nd realization occurred; for quite a while, there had been an endless stream of ads for the 10-10 dial-arounds, but I haven't seen one of THEM in ages, either... it sort of freaks me out that I never noticed any of this.
What have we got in replacement of the prior ads? A million and one ads for cellphones and the plans for them. *I* refuse to waste $ on a cellphone, but I can see more clearly now how everyone else has gotten so sucked in by them-it's all we see anymore, and what we want is what we see.
Because some months I don't make ANY long-distance calls, I'm going to hook up with some no-name company with no monthly fees; with luck, I'll end up with one that beats the 3¢ a minute that I've been paying for long distance with 10-10-297 (my official carrier was charging me quite a bit more even with an ultra-savings plan) so I can just make calls like a normal human being without having to dial extra #'s, but one way or the other I'm giving up on the former "Big 3" of long distance and tossing my $ at whoever wants to profit off the 5-hour calls I make when I DO use long distance (and that's not a typo-if you think my blog posts are long, you should hear my conversations, lol).
My husband told me that he thought we could plug a BlackBerry (with a cellular connection) into my computer and I'd be able to use my speakers and mic to carry on phone conversations; if I end up getting one to allow me to place my eBay bids while out to dinner (or wherever), that's probably what I'll end up doing. As you can imagine, my husband is salivating at the idea of getting such an advanced gadget, but I'm not convinced quite yet that it's justifiable to be that self-indulgent; in the meantime, we'll have to grit our teeth and pick from the list of companies we've never heard of and trust one of them with our long distance dollars... and be grateful that we CAN search online, rather than being at the mercy of the familiar companies.
Maybe we should go back to sending smoke signals....
Dismayed, I tried to think of what the most recent ads for bargain long-distance plans were that I'd seen, and realized that I haven't seen a single ad from a long-distance company in a long, long, LONG time... I honestly think it's been at least a couple of YEARS. When did we go from having an ad about a long-distance plan every 5 minutes to having them totally disappear? :-O
A 2nd realization occurred; for quite a while, there had been an endless stream of ads for the 10-10 dial-arounds, but I haven't seen one of THEM in ages, either... it sort of freaks me out that I never noticed any of this.
What have we got in replacement of the prior ads? A million and one ads for cellphones and the plans for them. *I* refuse to waste $ on a cellphone, but I can see more clearly now how everyone else has gotten so sucked in by them-it's all we see anymore, and what we want is what we see.
Because some months I don't make ANY long-distance calls, I'm going to hook up with some no-name company with no monthly fees; with luck, I'll end up with one that beats the 3¢ a minute that I've been paying for long distance with 10-10-297 (my official carrier was charging me quite a bit more even with an ultra-savings plan) so I can just make calls like a normal human being without having to dial extra #'s, but one way or the other I'm giving up on the former "Big 3" of long distance and tossing my $ at whoever wants to profit off the 5-hour calls I make when I DO use long distance (and that's not a typo-if you think my blog posts are long, you should hear my conversations, lol).
My husband told me that he thought we could plug a BlackBerry (with a cellular connection) into my computer and I'd be able to use my speakers and mic to carry on phone conversations; if I end up getting one to allow me to place my eBay bids while out to dinner (or wherever), that's probably what I'll end up doing. As you can imagine, my husband is salivating at the idea of getting such an advanced gadget, but I'm not convinced quite yet that it's justifiable to be that self-indulgent; in the meantime, we'll have to grit our teeth and pick from the list of companies we've never heard of and trust one of them with our long distance dollars... and be grateful that we CAN search online, rather than being at the mercy of the familiar companies.
Maybe we should go back to sending smoke signals....
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Friends vs followers
People often tell me things like "It must be SO wonderful to be so smart/funny/fearless/etc," unaware that their tone has more than a little envy in it... as if being the focus of attention were something to ENVY, instead of a pain in the butt and a thankless duty.
Does that not make sense? Do you wish that YOU were the sort of person who effortlessly attracted an appreciative audience, or that people would want to hang around with and look up to, or did you wish that as a kid? If so, prepare to be disillusioned, because there's NOTHING that any sane person would want about being the "center" of a group.
Yes, yes, it's nice to see that people think you're cool at a social gathering (for about 5 minutes, unless you're supremely shallow or naive)... but if you pause, or, heaven forbid, stumble, in your standup routine, impassioned monologue, or whatever, people will turn on a dime and ***poof***, they're gone, leaving you wondering how you could have thought they were so friendly, and why you bothered to exert the effort for them. This is a watered-down version of the dynamic every famous person experiences; people that are being entertained by you might act really friendly, but they do NOT want to be your friends... they want a one-way transfer of energy and enjoyment from you to them. Does that sound like something YOU would want? Me neither; years ago, I wised up and stopped being the floor show for people other than trusted friends.
It's not just attentive strangers you have watch out for if you're the gregarious and amusing sort; the REAL "danger" is sycophants, those fake, 2-faced, born-to-be-follower types who'll come out of the woodwork to gather around a "leader," basking in reflected glory, accepting the steady stream of love, support and assistance that comes from a leader (and it takes ALOT of time and effort to provide all of that, trust me), enjoying the ready-made social group and party atmosphere that the leader provides, and claiming eternal friendship... but, unlike with actual friendship, the follower doesn't give anything back, or even act as if they see the leader as a human being with needs and feelings (to which they should show sensitivity), one to whom they owe much and should be able to be counted on to reciprocate to at least once in a while. In other words, the one who's the center of attention, the center of the group, has the "honor" of making all the effort for everyone and getting nothing in return... how good does THAT sound to you?
Wait, it gets better: Any time the leader has a setback in their life, the sycophants will be sniggering and crowing about it behind their back... and sometimes to their face.... AND, if, or should I say WHEN, the leader does something to displease a sycophant, such as not being a doormat for them where bad behavior is concerned, the sycophant will turn on the leader like a rabid dog; the first clue the leader gets about this is usually snippy commentary about how "controlling" they are (you know, for being the one who makes all the effort for the others, which they've always been happy to lay back and accept, and even DEMAND), how they "expect people to kiss their feet," and other distortions of the dynamic of exactly whose idea the foot-kissy behavior WAS, and how the leader is overbearing, bossy, blah blah blah (never realizing how bad THEY would look if the person they followed like lapdogs really WAS all those terrible things)... and suddenly, the person who has exerted all of the effort, not to mention all of the caring, in the "relationship" suddenly finds themselves with, at best, someone who stalks off leaving bad feelings behind, or, at worst, an actual enemy.
What on Earth is behind this twisted behavior? I've heard that the Chinese character for gratitude is the same as the one for resentment... and that the character for admiration is the same as the one for resentment... probably NEITHER is true, but the point behind the belief that they ARE is one of the ugliest aspects of human nature; people, particularly weak and/or follower types, DO resent those that they see as "having superior qualities," because they feel lessened by comparison, and those who are able to give, because they HAVE something to give, while they see themselves as only being able to take.
The last time, both in the sense of most recent and, hopefully, in the sense of the final time in my life, that I got sucked in by this sort of thing is with the "psycho bitch" whose online destruction by the members of the forum she spent her life on I've chronicled several times on this blog; much as it pains me, I've learned that I have to bring somewhat of an accountant mentality to new relationships, and consciously measure whether what I'm getting back from each person is approximating what I'm giving them... followers are too lazy to give anything (which is of course part of why they're followers to begin with-being a leader, or even an independent, takes alot of work), but a FRIEND will automatically give back as fast as they receive.
If you're the "leader" of YOUR social group, take an honest look at the give-to-get ratio between you and each of your friends, and see if they really ARE all friends (which they may well be-NOT all followers are sycophants, thank goodness), or if any of them are just followers who are waiting to turn against you and flounce off to a new leader. If you're NOT the leader, look at your relationship with the one who is, and ask yourself if you're treating them as a friend... or if that admiration/gratitude/resentment thing is going on. And finally, if you've envied those that others flock to follow... I hope you've seen how lucky you are NOT to be one of them.
Does that not make sense? Do you wish that YOU were the sort of person who effortlessly attracted an appreciative audience, or that people would want to hang around with and look up to, or did you wish that as a kid? If so, prepare to be disillusioned, because there's NOTHING that any sane person would want about being the "center" of a group.
Yes, yes, it's nice to see that people think you're cool at a social gathering (for about 5 minutes, unless you're supremely shallow or naive)... but if you pause, or, heaven forbid, stumble, in your standup routine, impassioned monologue, or whatever, people will turn on a dime and ***poof***, they're gone, leaving you wondering how you could have thought they were so friendly, and why you bothered to exert the effort for them. This is a watered-down version of the dynamic every famous person experiences; people that are being entertained by you might act really friendly, but they do NOT want to be your friends... they want a one-way transfer of energy and enjoyment from you to them. Does that sound like something YOU would want? Me neither; years ago, I wised up and stopped being the floor show for people other than trusted friends.
It's not just attentive strangers you have watch out for if you're the gregarious and amusing sort; the REAL "danger" is sycophants, those fake, 2-faced, born-to-be-follower types who'll come out of the woodwork to gather around a "leader," basking in reflected glory, accepting the steady stream of love, support and assistance that comes from a leader (and it takes ALOT of time and effort to provide all of that, trust me), enjoying the ready-made social group and party atmosphere that the leader provides, and claiming eternal friendship... but, unlike with actual friendship, the follower doesn't give anything back, or even act as if they see the leader as a human being with needs and feelings (to which they should show sensitivity), one to whom they owe much and should be able to be counted on to reciprocate to at least once in a while. In other words, the one who's the center of attention, the center of the group, has the "honor" of making all the effort for everyone and getting nothing in return... how good does THAT sound to you?
Wait, it gets better: Any time the leader has a setback in their life, the sycophants will be sniggering and crowing about it behind their back... and sometimes to their face.... AND, if, or should I say WHEN, the leader does something to displease a sycophant, such as not being a doormat for them where bad behavior is concerned, the sycophant will turn on the leader like a rabid dog; the first clue the leader gets about this is usually snippy commentary about how "controlling" they are (you know, for being the one who makes all the effort for the others, which they've always been happy to lay back and accept, and even DEMAND), how they "expect people to kiss their feet," and other distortions of the dynamic of exactly whose idea the foot-kissy behavior WAS, and how the leader is overbearing, bossy, blah blah blah (never realizing how bad THEY would look if the person they followed like lapdogs really WAS all those terrible things)... and suddenly, the person who has exerted all of the effort, not to mention all of the caring, in the "relationship" suddenly finds themselves with, at best, someone who stalks off leaving bad feelings behind, or, at worst, an actual enemy.
What on Earth is behind this twisted behavior? I've heard that the Chinese character for gratitude is the same as the one for resentment... and that the character for admiration is the same as the one for resentment... probably NEITHER is true, but the point behind the belief that they ARE is one of the ugliest aspects of human nature; people, particularly weak and/or follower types, DO resent those that they see as "having superior qualities," because they feel lessened by comparison, and those who are able to give, because they HAVE something to give, while they see themselves as only being able to take.
The last time, both in the sense of most recent and, hopefully, in the sense of the final time in my life, that I got sucked in by this sort of thing is with the "psycho bitch" whose online destruction by the members of the forum she spent her life on I've chronicled several times on this blog; much as it pains me, I've learned that I have to bring somewhat of an accountant mentality to new relationships, and consciously measure whether what I'm getting back from each person is approximating what I'm giving them... followers are too lazy to give anything (which is of course part of why they're followers to begin with-being a leader, or even an independent, takes alot of work), but a FRIEND will automatically give back as fast as they receive.
If you're the "leader" of YOUR social group, take an honest look at the give-to-get ratio between you and each of your friends, and see if they really ARE all friends (which they may well be-NOT all followers are sycophants, thank goodness), or if any of them are just followers who are waiting to turn against you and flounce off to a new leader. If you're NOT the leader, look at your relationship with the one who is, and ask yourself if you're treating them as a friend... or if that admiration/gratitude/resentment thing is going on. And finally, if you've envied those that others flock to follow... I hope you've seen how lucky you are NOT to be one of them.
Monday, September 13, 2004
My feminine intuition applies to physics
I've said since I first heard about dark energy that it was nothing but an invention by the eggheads to try to make up for the errors in the math that went with their theories-heck, I just posted about it a couple of days ago. Today, I read in an article in the September issue of "Discover" written by the man who COINED the term "dark energy," professor of theoretical astrophysics and cosmology Michael Turner:
"Perhaps the most radical idea, and the one I am pursuing now, is that there's no dark energy at all. (Remember, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.) Instead, our incomplete understanding of gravity is at fault, and when we understand it better, we'll no longer need to invoke dark energy."
YES!!!!!!!! I can't tell you how satisfying it is to me to see the guy who invented the theory admitting that it's "fake," and to see that my intuitive grasp of the situation was RIGHT.
Since he made the point about "foolish consistency," I decided to try to think about this issue from the opposite side; what if there IS energy in the universe that's creating the effects that are making the equations come out wrong, but has thus far evaded detection? What could that energy be? What energy is there that I know of that science hasn't found yet? It finally, very belatedly, occurred to me that KARMA could be the "dark energy" that exerts a repulsive (as opposed to attractive) gravitational force that causes cosmic acceleration.
!!!!!!!!!!!! How could I have missed that possible connection all this time?
No, I still don't think that anything "hidden" is responsible for what the astrophysicists are observing, but it's mindblowing to me to see that I hadn't even considered the possibility of the role karma might be playing if it turned out that they were RIGHT about dark energy; I'm grateful to Professor Turner, both for admitting that he was wrong and for prodding me about the need to look at EVERY possibility in my search for the truth, even those that seem IMpossible to me.
"Perhaps the most radical idea, and the one I am pursuing now, is that there's no dark energy at all. (Remember, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.) Instead, our incomplete understanding of gravity is at fault, and when we understand it better, we'll no longer need to invoke dark energy."
YES!!!!!!!! I can't tell you how satisfying it is to me to see the guy who invented the theory admitting that it's "fake," and to see that my intuitive grasp of the situation was RIGHT.
Since he made the point about "foolish consistency," I decided to try to think about this issue from the opposite side; what if there IS energy in the universe that's creating the effects that are making the equations come out wrong, but has thus far evaded detection? What could that energy be? What energy is there that I know of that science hasn't found yet? It finally, very belatedly, occurred to me that KARMA could be the "dark energy" that exerts a repulsive (as opposed to attractive) gravitational force that causes cosmic acceleration.
!!!!!!!!!!!! How could I have missed that possible connection all this time?
No, I still don't think that anything "hidden" is responsible for what the astrophysicists are observing, but it's mindblowing to me to see that I hadn't even considered the possibility of the role karma might be playing if it turned out that they were RIGHT about dark energy; I'm grateful to Professor Turner, both for admitting that he was wrong and for prodding me about the need to look at EVERY possibility in my search for the truth, even those that seem IMpossible to me.
Sunday, September 12, 2004
Some thoughts about 9-11
So much has been said about 9-11, at so much length, in so much detail, and with such extreme adjectives, that it's hard to grieve, in a way, because every grief-filled thought seems repetitive and derivative, whether in my head or written down.... still, I tried:
Part of what makes America great is our ability to care deeply about others, even total strangers. Did you know that the charitable giving that's standard for Americans is unheard of in some countries? And that the flood of well-wishes, gifts and $ that anyone whose hard-luck story makes the news gets is likewise unimaginable in many places? In America, even an ANIMAL that gets into the news will get $ and offers of adoption-that's how eager Americans are to get emotionally involved and give of themselves.
Our collective agony at the deaths of so many innocents at the hands of agents of evil is thus perfectly understandable, but it's not just that they died, but that they didn't die fighting, for their lives, for their loved ones, or for a cause... that their deaths were so utterly senseless. The loved ones of military personnel who die in action can have the comfort of knowing that their dearly departed died for something they believed in, but the innocents who died as the result of skulking, cowardly evil didn't get the chance to fight, or the choice to try to combat the enemy, so what comfort can THEIR loved ones find?
How many of those who died forgot to kiss a loved one good-bye that day, or had loved ones who forgot to kiss THEM? How many of them had people they loved that they never expressed that love to, or vice versa? How many of them had had fights with loved ones that they hadn't resolved, and now never CAN resolve? How many of them had loved ones that they hadn't contacted in far too long?
On the positive side, out of our grief at the tragedy of 9-11 came many good things, such as the surges in blood donations, charitable giving, volunteering, and patriotism... and, the biggest of all, and the best tribute to the fallen-the explosion of people contacting loved ones that had slipped out of their lives, telling them how they felt, and welcoming them back into their lives. I hope that the many who lost pieces of their hearts on 9-11 can take at least a little bit of comfort in that.
Part of what makes America great is our ability to care deeply about others, even total strangers. Did you know that the charitable giving that's standard for Americans is unheard of in some countries? And that the flood of well-wishes, gifts and $ that anyone whose hard-luck story makes the news gets is likewise unimaginable in many places? In America, even an ANIMAL that gets into the news will get $ and offers of adoption-that's how eager Americans are to get emotionally involved and give of themselves.
Our collective agony at the deaths of so many innocents at the hands of agents of evil is thus perfectly understandable, but it's not just that they died, but that they didn't die fighting, for their lives, for their loved ones, or for a cause... that their deaths were so utterly senseless. The loved ones of military personnel who die in action can have the comfort of knowing that their dearly departed died for something they believed in, but the innocents who died as the result of skulking, cowardly evil didn't get the chance to fight, or the choice to try to combat the enemy, so what comfort can THEIR loved ones find?
How many of those who died forgot to kiss a loved one good-bye that day, or had loved ones who forgot to kiss THEM? How many of them had people they loved that they never expressed that love to, or vice versa? How many of them had had fights with loved ones that they hadn't resolved, and now never CAN resolve? How many of them had loved ones that they hadn't contacted in far too long?
On the positive side, out of our grief at the tragedy of 9-11 came many good things, such as the surges in blood donations, charitable giving, volunteering, and patriotism... and, the biggest of all, and the best tribute to the fallen-the explosion of people contacting loved ones that had slipped out of their lives, telling them how they felt, and welcoming them back into their lives. I hope that the many who lost pieces of their hearts on 9-11 can take at least a little bit of comfort in that.
Web Counters
