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.
