Monday, November 07, 2005
An excellent point from Joel Osteen
Today, Joel gave the following quote from Titus 1:15
"To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their mind and their conscience are defiled."
He also paraphrased it as, "We don't see others as they are, but as WE are"... and it's a wonderful example of how there are some piercing insights in the Bible whether you believe in God or not, which makes it well worth a little study.
Have you ever had someone assume you lied or did something else wrong when they've never witnessed anything but perfectly virtuous behavior from you, or had them assume you were mad or otherwise upset when you were totally calm, or had a lover suspect you of cheating on them when you've never so much as glanced at anyone else, and wondered what the heck was going on? Sometimes that sort of irrational thinking comes from having been burned by misbehaving people in their lives, but usually it's a HUGE red flag about them; they assume that you're thinking, feeling and acting as THEY do despite all the evidence to the contrary, and that tells you that they're NOT nice folks no matter how pleasant they usually seem to be. The liar assumes that everyone's lying, the thief assumes that everyone steals, the untrustworthy one assumes that no one can be trusted... and that last one is a BIG one, because if you're trying to get close, romantically or otherwise, to someone who hangs back from trusting you at the level they should be, for no valid reason, you're going to regret it if you trust THEM.
You can use this concept in a more general way as well, both online and in real life; bad people, EVIL people, have a big blind spot about the fact that they ARE bad/evil, and that people in general are NOT, which makes them assume that all sorts of things are meant with ill intent that no normal person would ever intend that way. If you're having a friendly interaction with someone, and suddenly they turn on a dime and get nasty about some innocuous thing you said that they've inexplicably twisted into some sort of attack on them, every alarm in your head should start screaming, because, although a badly burned person might also see insults where they weren't intended, and where no reasonable person would see them, ONLY a thoroughly bad person will turn into a rabid dog in the middle of a situation where people have been making nice.
The point of Osteen's sermon isn't so much for you to judge the behavior of others, but for you to look at your own heart; next time you find yourself certain that someone lied, cheated on you, attacked you, or whatever, ask yourself if the facts truly back that up, or if you're making an unwarranted assumption because you've been burned... or because the behavior you're perceiving is merely a projection of your own less-than-ideal behaviors.
The final case is if you're an observer of a situation like this; for the sake of all concerned, depart from the standard observer reaction and blame the ATTACKER, rather than the victim, internalize that the attacker's behavior means that they're a bad person even though you yourself weren't the victim, and remember the evidence of their badness for future reference... because the next victim could very well be YOU.
"To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their mind and their conscience are defiled."
He also paraphrased it as, "We don't see others as they are, but as WE are"... and it's a wonderful example of how there are some piercing insights in the Bible whether you believe in God or not, which makes it well worth a little study.
Have you ever had someone assume you lied or did something else wrong when they've never witnessed anything but perfectly virtuous behavior from you, or had them assume you were mad or otherwise upset when you were totally calm, or had a lover suspect you of cheating on them when you've never so much as glanced at anyone else, and wondered what the heck was going on? Sometimes that sort of irrational thinking comes from having been burned by misbehaving people in their lives, but usually it's a HUGE red flag about them; they assume that you're thinking, feeling and acting as THEY do despite all the evidence to the contrary, and that tells you that they're NOT nice folks no matter how pleasant they usually seem to be. The liar assumes that everyone's lying, the thief assumes that everyone steals, the untrustworthy one assumes that no one can be trusted... and that last one is a BIG one, because if you're trying to get close, romantically or otherwise, to someone who hangs back from trusting you at the level they should be, for no valid reason, you're going to regret it if you trust THEM.
You can use this concept in a more general way as well, both online and in real life; bad people, EVIL people, have a big blind spot about the fact that they ARE bad/evil, and that people in general are NOT, which makes them assume that all sorts of things are meant with ill intent that no normal person would ever intend that way. If you're having a friendly interaction with someone, and suddenly they turn on a dime and get nasty about some innocuous thing you said that they've inexplicably twisted into some sort of attack on them, every alarm in your head should start screaming, because, although a badly burned person might also see insults where they weren't intended, and where no reasonable person would see them, ONLY a thoroughly bad person will turn into a rabid dog in the middle of a situation where people have been making nice.
The point of Osteen's sermon isn't so much for you to judge the behavior of others, but for you to look at your own heart; next time you find yourself certain that someone lied, cheated on you, attacked you, or whatever, ask yourself if the facts truly back that up, or if you're making an unwarranted assumption because you've been burned... or because the behavior you're perceiving is merely a projection of your own less-than-ideal behaviors.
The final case is if you're an observer of a situation like this; for the sake of all concerned, depart from the standard observer reaction and blame the ATTACKER, rather than the victim, internalize that the attacker's behavior means that they're a bad person even though you yourself weren't the victim, and remember the evidence of their badness for future reference... because the next victim could very well be YOU.
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Is it time to give up Cosmo?
I was reading the November 2005 issue today, and on page 94, in a little pink bubble, it said "In the past year... 82 percent of Cosmo online readers have booty-called a guy. 84 percent have received a booty call."
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?!!
Even assuming that the online readers are younger and more sexually active and casual about it than average... WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?!!
When I was a kid, a girl that could be summoned in the middle of the night to come over and jump into bed existed only in the imaginations of very young and very immature guys, and the concept of a girl who'd call a guy for no other reason than for him to come over and have sex hadn't been IMAGINED yet in even the wildest fantasies of the horniest guys... when did this sort of behavior suddenly become the NORM?!! :-O
It's not just that I never did any such thing, it's not just that no one I know ever did any such thing, it's that I had no idea that ANYONE other than a few wild types was doing it except in cases like when people recently broke up and were desperate to make some sort of connection again... and the degree of shock with which I reacted to what's allegedly a common thing in this day of AIDS, impoverished single moms, and men wanting to stay single longer while women's fertility still ends at the same age, tells me that I'm not just out of the age range for a Cosmo reader (which tops off at 30, I think), I'm apparently out of the whole "concept of myself as a woman" range as well.
This leaves me in a no-woman's land magazine-wise, for the same reasons I've kept my subscription to Cosmo all these years; there just isn't ANY woman's magazine that really fits me. I already get a fashion magazine, so what I want are articles about health, beauty, women's issues, the psychology of figuring out and getting along with all sorts of people, and maybe a little humor; the problem is that I do NOT want all the articles about kids (since I don't have any), cooking (since I don't), crafts (ditto), and stuff relevant to much older women (retirement, grandkids, etc), and that eliminates every women's magazine I've ever seen... so what the heck am I supposed to read if I don't get Cosmo?
It's not that I hadn't noticed that the magazine and I were no longer a perfect fit; the endless sexual tips are either things I've known about for 15 years, things I no longer possess the flexibility to do, or things that'd be too weird to do with someone I've been with for so long, and most of the personal stories seem silly and childish because those involved are so much younger and thus are experiencing things for the 1st time that are old hat to me... but there are always plenty of interesting articles, too, so it didn't bother me much. Now, though, I'm finally seeing that the young single woman of today is so different from me that a magazine aimed at her is seriously missing the mark with me; I think I've got about a year still left on my subscription, but after that I guess that'll be it... I'll have to do some test runs on Redbook and LHJ and such and see which, if any, has enough of the kinds of articles I like to make it worthwhile subscribing to.
As George Carlin pointed out in an old special of his that I saw recently, every activity that 3 or more people do in this country has a magazine dedicated to it; there've gotta be at least a couple of other women over 30 who'd like a magazine NOT dedicated to mommyhood and Martha Stewartish stuff, so... how about it, magazine moguls?
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?!!
Even assuming that the online readers are younger and more sexually active and casual about it than average... WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?!!
When I was a kid, a girl that could be summoned in the middle of the night to come over and jump into bed existed only in the imaginations of very young and very immature guys, and the concept of a girl who'd call a guy for no other reason than for him to come over and have sex hadn't been IMAGINED yet in even the wildest fantasies of the horniest guys... when did this sort of behavior suddenly become the NORM?!! :-O
It's not just that I never did any such thing, it's not just that no one I know ever did any such thing, it's that I had no idea that ANYONE other than a few wild types was doing it except in cases like when people recently broke up and were desperate to make some sort of connection again... and the degree of shock with which I reacted to what's allegedly a common thing in this day of AIDS, impoverished single moms, and men wanting to stay single longer while women's fertility still ends at the same age, tells me that I'm not just out of the age range for a Cosmo reader (which tops off at 30, I think), I'm apparently out of the whole "concept of myself as a woman" range as well.
This leaves me in a no-woman's land magazine-wise, for the same reasons I've kept my subscription to Cosmo all these years; there just isn't ANY woman's magazine that really fits me. I already get a fashion magazine, so what I want are articles about health, beauty, women's issues, the psychology of figuring out and getting along with all sorts of people, and maybe a little humor; the problem is that I do NOT want all the articles about kids (since I don't have any), cooking (since I don't), crafts (ditto), and stuff relevant to much older women (retirement, grandkids, etc), and that eliminates every women's magazine I've ever seen... so what the heck am I supposed to read if I don't get Cosmo?
It's not that I hadn't noticed that the magazine and I were no longer a perfect fit; the endless sexual tips are either things I've known about for 15 years, things I no longer possess the flexibility to do, or things that'd be too weird to do with someone I've been with for so long, and most of the personal stories seem silly and childish because those involved are so much younger and thus are experiencing things for the 1st time that are old hat to me... but there are always plenty of interesting articles, too, so it didn't bother me much. Now, though, I'm finally seeing that the young single woman of today is so different from me that a magazine aimed at her is seriously missing the mark with me; I think I've got about a year still left on my subscription, but after that I guess that'll be it... I'll have to do some test runs on Redbook and LHJ and such and see which, if any, has enough of the kinds of articles I like to make it worthwhile subscribing to.
As George Carlin pointed out in an old special of his that I saw recently, every activity that 3 or more people do in this country has a magazine dedicated to it; there've gotta be at least a couple of other women over 30 who'd like a magazine NOT dedicated to mommyhood and Martha Stewartish stuff, so... how about it, magazine moguls?
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Could this explain some UFO and ghost sightings?
I found a fascinating article here
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s818193.htm
called "Mystery of the Min Min lights explained," which, although it doesn't make reference to UFO's or any of the various glowing apparitions people have seen at night all over the world, might well explain some of them... unless something about the geography and weather conditions are totally unique in that one spot, which doesn't seem reasonable to assume.
Here's the basic idea:
"An Australian neuroscientist claims he can conjure up the mysterious Australian outback phenomenon of the Min Min lights, now that he has worked out what causes them.
Professor Jack Pettigrew, of the University of Queensland in Brisbane claims the lights are actually an inverted mirage of light sources which are, in some cases, hundreds of kilometres away over the horizon."
As soon as I read that, I wondered if the 2 UFO's I've personally seen (both of which were seen by many other people and made it into the news as unidentified, FYI, although of course that didn't constitute proof in my mind of aliens being involved, as I didn't see any) could have been this sort of mirage; they were just glowing discs of light with no details, and where we were living when my parents and I saw them was pretty similar to the outback in appearance and climate, which I'd think would increase the odds of that being the cause.
"Pettigrew studied the phenomenon in the Channel Country, Western Queensland, where he said it has been disturbing the locals for many years.
'I talked to old timers out there who had seen it and they were terrified by it,' he told ABC Science Online. 'It's a bit embarrassing for them because hardened outback men can be brought to tears by this thing. It really is quite alarming.'
'Just imagine you were sitting in your living room and a light appeared hovering in the middle of the room and as you moved your head to try and see the cause of the light, the light moved with you.'"
It IS scary to see something inexplicable like that, although it surprises me to hear that such macho men would admit that... especially since they've undoubtedly been told that they were imagining things to begin with. (One of the coolest aspects of science explaining facets of the unknown is that those who've maintained that people who claim to have experienced them are lying or crazy have to eat alot of crow.)
"When Pettigrew first encountered the Min Min he thought it was the planet Venus: 'But it didn't set. It went down to the horizon and then sat on the horizon for some time.'
On a later occasion while driving with colleagues, the three saw what they thought was the eyeshine of a cat about 50 metres in front of their vehicle. However when they stopped and turned out the headlights, it was still there, bobbing around as if it had a life of its own.
'We had a big argument - no one could agree what it was and how far away it was.'
Pettigrew and his two companions drove across the plains and used a car compass to work out how far away the light was, but had to drive five kilometres before there was any change in the direction of the compass.
'We calculated it was over 300 km away which was over the horizon,' Pettigrew said.
They later found out there had been a car driving straight towards them at the time they had seen the light."
That sure has a cause and effect feeling to it, doesn't it? If they thought it might be a cat, though, that sounds as if the lights were very close to the ground, whereas the one he thought at 1st was Venus was obviously much higher up... does that mean that it had to come from a light source higher up off the ground than a car's headlights, and if so what would that source be?
Here's the science behind the mirages:
"Pettigrew - who been reading about the Fata Morgana in which landforms that are beyond the horizon appear to float above it in an inverted form - thought this might help explain the Min Min lights.
Such mirages are caused by a temperature inversion, where cold dense air is trapped next to the ground under a layer of warmer air. A certain shape of temperature inversion will mean that light near the ground will be refracted in such a way that it travels in a curved path around the globe.
'It's like the way light travels in a fibre optic, no matter which way you bend the fibre,' he said. 'The light is being carried hundreds of kilometres by this layer of air that traps the light and stops it from being dispersed.'"
Isn't that WILD? You'd think they'd have checked for that shape of temperature inversion in areas with lots of UFO sightings... but, as always, the stigma of being involved with anything with the taint of the paranormal chases the scientists away.
"To test his theory that Min Min lights were actually a night-time phenomenon caused by the same factors that cause Fata Morgana, Pettigrew then set out to demonstrate he could produce one.
'I actually created a Min Min,' he said.
First he chose a night which had the right weather conditions: a cool evening following a hot day with little wind. He then drove 10 kilometres away over a slight rise into a watercourse, below the normal line of site of such a distant light. Six observers witnessed the light of the car float above the horizon, Pettigrew reports."
Did the observers see ONE light or TWO? That's a significant omission, since most people only see 1 UFO at a time; do a car's headlights blend together to make an oval patch of light for this phenomenon, even part of the time, or, if not, could motorcycle headlights be responsible for some sightings?
"In the light of the morning after the demonstration, Pettigrew said there was a spectacular Fata Morgana of a distant mountain range, which supported the idea that the Min Min had been due to the specific atmospheric conditions at the time.
'A mountain range that was normally not visible [because it was over the horizon] floated up off the horizon and gradually got dissected by fingers of blue sky, which finally sunk below the horizon as the sun warmed the air.'"
That seems beyond the realm of coincidence; I'm convinced. My research turned up some other theories about the Min Min lights, but none of the other theorists claim to have created the effect, so this one sure seems to be the winner; now, if only some group of skeptics would duplicate this experiment in America, or one of the science channels would pick up on this idea... anything to get the word out.
"The chances of seeing Min Min and Fata Morgana are higher in the Channel Country because it is flat with gentle hollows, where cold air is particularly likely to get trapped, and because there is usually a clear view of the horizon."
The next time I read about somewhere being a locale for UFO sightings, or other sorts of nighttime lights that are being attributed to ghosts and such, I'm going to try to find out what the geography of the area is; I know from experience that there ARE spirits, although I've never seen them in the form of lights, and readily admit the possibility of intelligences in the universe existing that'd be advanced enough to have spaceships, but... how can the "Min Min effect" NOT be responsible for at least some of this stuff?
Why would I be so eager to have this figured out when it'd quite possibly eliminate one of my "unknowns"? Because I'm on the path to "The Truth" rather than clutching to a worldview, and the more static I can clear from the screen the clearer my perception of that truth will be; if it turns out that every experience I've had with the unknown was caused by the sort of gov't mind-control ray that the crazies keep insisting exists, I'd much rather I know that than be left believing in things that don't exist... I don't need for there to be anything mystical in the universe, just that everything out there be knowable, and one day known.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s818193.htm
called "Mystery of the Min Min lights explained," which, although it doesn't make reference to UFO's or any of the various glowing apparitions people have seen at night all over the world, might well explain some of them... unless something about the geography and weather conditions are totally unique in that one spot, which doesn't seem reasonable to assume.
Here's the basic idea:
"An Australian neuroscientist claims he can conjure up the mysterious Australian outback phenomenon of the Min Min lights, now that he has worked out what causes them.
Professor Jack Pettigrew, of the University of Queensland in Brisbane claims the lights are actually an inverted mirage of light sources which are, in some cases, hundreds of kilometres away over the horizon."
As soon as I read that, I wondered if the 2 UFO's I've personally seen (both of which were seen by many other people and made it into the news as unidentified, FYI, although of course that didn't constitute proof in my mind of aliens being involved, as I didn't see any) could have been this sort of mirage; they were just glowing discs of light with no details, and where we were living when my parents and I saw them was pretty similar to the outback in appearance and climate, which I'd think would increase the odds of that being the cause.
"Pettigrew studied the phenomenon in the Channel Country, Western Queensland, where he said it has been disturbing the locals for many years.
'I talked to old timers out there who had seen it and they were terrified by it,' he told ABC Science Online. 'It's a bit embarrassing for them because hardened outback men can be brought to tears by this thing. It really is quite alarming.'
'Just imagine you were sitting in your living room and a light appeared hovering in the middle of the room and as you moved your head to try and see the cause of the light, the light moved with you.'"
It IS scary to see something inexplicable like that, although it surprises me to hear that such macho men would admit that... especially since they've undoubtedly been told that they were imagining things to begin with. (One of the coolest aspects of science explaining facets of the unknown is that those who've maintained that people who claim to have experienced them are lying or crazy have to eat alot of crow.)
"When Pettigrew first encountered the Min Min he thought it was the planet Venus: 'But it didn't set. It went down to the horizon and then sat on the horizon for some time.'
On a later occasion while driving with colleagues, the three saw what they thought was the eyeshine of a cat about 50 metres in front of their vehicle. However when they stopped and turned out the headlights, it was still there, bobbing around as if it had a life of its own.
'We had a big argument - no one could agree what it was and how far away it was.'
Pettigrew and his two companions drove across the plains and used a car compass to work out how far away the light was, but had to drive five kilometres before there was any change in the direction of the compass.
'We calculated it was over 300 km away which was over the horizon,' Pettigrew said.
They later found out there had been a car driving straight towards them at the time they had seen the light."
That sure has a cause and effect feeling to it, doesn't it? If they thought it might be a cat, though, that sounds as if the lights were very close to the ground, whereas the one he thought at 1st was Venus was obviously much higher up... does that mean that it had to come from a light source higher up off the ground than a car's headlights, and if so what would that source be?
Here's the science behind the mirages:
"Pettigrew - who been reading about the Fata Morgana in which landforms that are beyond the horizon appear to float above it in an inverted form - thought this might help explain the Min Min lights.
Such mirages are caused by a temperature inversion, where cold dense air is trapped next to the ground under a layer of warmer air. A certain shape of temperature inversion will mean that light near the ground will be refracted in such a way that it travels in a curved path around the globe.
'It's like the way light travels in a fibre optic, no matter which way you bend the fibre,' he said. 'The light is being carried hundreds of kilometres by this layer of air that traps the light and stops it from being dispersed.'"
Isn't that WILD? You'd think they'd have checked for that shape of temperature inversion in areas with lots of UFO sightings... but, as always, the stigma of being involved with anything with the taint of the paranormal chases the scientists away.
"To test his theory that Min Min lights were actually a night-time phenomenon caused by the same factors that cause Fata Morgana, Pettigrew then set out to demonstrate he could produce one.
'I actually created a Min Min,' he said.
First he chose a night which had the right weather conditions: a cool evening following a hot day with little wind. He then drove 10 kilometres away over a slight rise into a watercourse, below the normal line of site of such a distant light. Six observers witnessed the light of the car float above the horizon, Pettigrew reports."
Did the observers see ONE light or TWO? That's a significant omission, since most people only see 1 UFO at a time; do a car's headlights blend together to make an oval patch of light for this phenomenon, even part of the time, or, if not, could motorcycle headlights be responsible for some sightings?
"In the light of the morning after the demonstration, Pettigrew said there was a spectacular Fata Morgana of a distant mountain range, which supported the idea that the Min Min had been due to the specific atmospheric conditions at the time.
'A mountain range that was normally not visible [because it was over the horizon] floated up off the horizon and gradually got dissected by fingers of blue sky, which finally sunk below the horizon as the sun warmed the air.'"
That seems beyond the realm of coincidence; I'm convinced. My research turned up some other theories about the Min Min lights, but none of the other theorists claim to have created the effect, so this one sure seems to be the winner; now, if only some group of skeptics would duplicate this experiment in America, or one of the science channels would pick up on this idea... anything to get the word out.
"The chances of seeing Min Min and Fata Morgana are higher in the Channel Country because it is flat with gentle hollows, where cold air is particularly likely to get trapped, and because there is usually a clear view of the horizon."
The next time I read about somewhere being a locale for UFO sightings, or other sorts of nighttime lights that are being attributed to ghosts and such, I'm going to try to find out what the geography of the area is; I know from experience that there ARE spirits, although I've never seen them in the form of lights, and readily admit the possibility of intelligences in the universe existing that'd be advanced enough to have spaceships, but... how can the "Min Min effect" NOT be responsible for at least some of this stuff?
Why would I be so eager to have this figured out when it'd quite possibly eliminate one of my "unknowns"? Because I'm on the path to "The Truth" rather than clutching to a worldview, and the more static I can clear from the screen the clearer my perception of that truth will be; if it turns out that every experience I've had with the unknown was caused by the sort of gov't mind-control ray that the crazies keep insisting exists, I'd much rather I know that than be left believing in things that don't exist... I don't need for there to be anything mystical in the universe, just that everything out there be knowable, and one day known.
Friday, November 04, 2005
Is it Christmas already?
I didn't think it was... but then why did eBay put a red graphic header with ornaments and snowflakes on my "My eBay" page a couple of days ago? Since when does Christmas come the day after Halloween? What'll they do on Thanksgiving, switch to a turkey graphic for one day and then go back to the red one?
The advertising circulars that come with the newspaper have been showing Christmas stuff for the past few WEEKS, with said pages coming BEFORE the ones for the faster-arriving holiday, Halloween... and they have NO ads for anything for Thanksgiving, which also comes long before Christmas.
My 1st thought about all this is "Are they out of their minds?", but if people didn't WANT the stores to have Christmas stuff as early as August (Hallmark wins the honor for that one), they wouldn't carry it; they're interested in maximizing their income from every square foot of store space, and every advertising dollar, and if they weren't making a good profit they'd be selling other things instead.
So who are all these people who're buying Christmas doodads so far in advance? Aren't the sales that start at 6AM on the day after Thanksgiving bad enough, without stockpiling fa-la-la-la-la trappings before we've even carved our jack-o-lanterns? I can see how folks who want the limited-edition "collectible" Christmas ornaments (Hallmark again) would buy them as soon as they come out to be sure to get them, but why on Earth would anyone buy any of the other things now, when the good stuff and the full selection to pick from aren't out yet, and, more to the point, the sales haven't started yet? Where's the joy in paying full price for unspectacular merchandise months in advance? I could make some sense of it if the focus of the ad campaigns, and the shopping that resulted from them, was buying GIFTS well in advance, as that's a smart idea that allows you to get people what they'd like instead of what you could find on the half-empty shelves on December 24th, but what's the point in having the wrapping paper and cards so long before they'll be used?
Here's a thought: Instead of pursuing the form of Christmas now, why don't we get started on the substance of it instead, and turn our attention to giving to others; this year more than ever before there are many places that could really use all the time, $ and goods you can donate to help the less fortunate, and all your loved ones, and even liked ones, could use some cheer and caring and holiday spirit to buoy them up after the year we've had... we can still deck the halls next month.
The advertising circulars that come with the newspaper have been showing Christmas stuff for the past few WEEKS, with said pages coming BEFORE the ones for the faster-arriving holiday, Halloween... and they have NO ads for anything for Thanksgiving, which also comes long before Christmas.
My 1st thought about all this is "Are they out of their minds?", but if people didn't WANT the stores to have Christmas stuff as early as August (Hallmark wins the honor for that one), they wouldn't carry it; they're interested in maximizing their income from every square foot of store space, and every advertising dollar, and if they weren't making a good profit they'd be selling other things instead.
So who are all these people who're buying Christmas doodads so far in advance? Aren't the sales that start at 6AM on the day after Thanksgiving bad enough, without stockpiling fa-la-la-la-la trappings before we've even carved our jack-o-lanterns? I can see how folks who want the limited-edition "collectible" Christmas ornaments (Hallmark again) would buy them as soon as they come out to be sure to get them, but why on Earth would anyone buy any of the other things now, when the good stuff and the full selection to pick from aren't out yet, and, more to the point, the sales haven't started yet? Where's the joy in paying full price for unspectacular merchandise months in advance? I could make some sense of it if the focus of the ad campaigns, and the shopping that resulted from them, was buying GIFTS well in advance, as that's a smart idea that allows you to get people what they'd like instead of what you could find on the half-empty shelves on December 24th, but what's the point in having the wrapping paper and cards so long before they'll be used?
Here's a thought: Instead of pursuing the form of Christmas now, why don't we get started on the substance of it instead, and turn our attention to giving to others; this year more than ever before there are many places that could really use all the time, $ and goods you can donate to help the less fortunate, and all your loved ones, and even liked ones, could use some cheer and caring and holiday spirit to buoy them up after the year we've had... we can still deck the halls next month.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Stubborn stupidity
That was a phrase an ex-boyfriend of mine used to describe the behavior of people who refused to alter what was clearly stupid behavior no matter how consistently bad, or even self-destructive, the results were, or how many times that was pointed out to them; I adopted it because it's alliterative and a good shorthand term for the practice of making a conscious and deliberate choice to be a moron... and I've had to use it all too many times in dealings with my husband.
His specialty in this area is passionately dedicating his every waking moment to the most worthless time-wasting activities when there are important and time-sensitive things that need to be done, and I mean things that are important to HIM; his refusal to do things for anyone else when he's supposed to is a whole different essay. A typical example would be when he has an event of some sort that he's eagerly looking forward to, but when the day for it comes he's glued to his computer, surfing and posting on forums, refusing to get ready to go even after he's been repeatedly prompted; when he finally gets moving he suddenly decides he has to take a shower, which process includes him wandering around the house half-dressed for most of an hour before even entering the bathroom, and when he comes out he has to eat something, search the house for 20 different items to take with him, and of course spend some more time on the computer... so by the time he goes speeding down the street (as if he can make up all the lost time by driving faster) the event is well underway, and by the time he gets there it's often mostly over.
As you can imagine, events that I'm also involved with require me to hound him endlessly throughout the day/evening to try to get him ready on time... and yes, he has the nerve to complain about me trying to not let him screw things up by not allowing him to pull his usual stunts. Once, about 5 years ago, he announced that he was going to "prove" that he could get ready on time without any prompting from me, and that once he'd proven this I'd have no excuse to nag him about it ever again; responding that I'd be perfectly happy to not spend more time riding herd on him than on my own preparations, I insisted that we have a written definition of what "ready" meant... specifically, that he had to be outside of the house and able to get into the car and leave without going back inside for ANY reason, which crushed his plans of claiming to be "ready" and then doing 500 more things before he'd actually be willing to go, lol... that he agree to it and sign it, and that, if he failed, that'd be proof for all time that he could NOT get himself ready on time without being constantly monitored and prodded. Given those circumstances, how hard should he have worked to prove his point, and how STUPID would he have to be to mess up? It wasn't even close-he missed being ready on time by over an hour.
This is on my mind today because there's an insanely important project that he's been dragging his feet about dealing with for MONTHS that I'm trying to get him to finish; in a new twist, I've offered him the chance to do something he complains constantly about us never doing together, go to the movies (I loathe movie theaters, and don't have time to spend 2 hours sitting in the dark doing nothing, so I normally have no interest in going), if he gets the project done before a movie he wants badly to see, "Wallace & Gromit," vanishes from the nearby multiplexes. WEEKS have gone by, and, for all his many claims of "I'm really really really gonna work on it TONIGHT," and "There's no excuse for me to not finish it by the end of THIS weekend," he's STILL not done, and the movie's nearing the end of its run; he's spent many, MANY hours doing useless stuff during this time period, despite being periodically reminded of what he needs to do, and when asked why he's doing those things instead of the project, his standard reply is "I don't know."
If they ever make stubborn stupidity an Olympic event, he's a shoo-in for the gold medal.
His specialty in this area is passionately dedicating his every waking moment to the most worthless time-wasting activities when there are important and time-sensitive things that need to be done, and I mean things that are important to HIM; his refusal to do things for anyone else when he's supposed to is a whole different essay. A typical example would be when he has an event of some sort that he's eagerly looking forward to, but when the day for it comes he's glued to his computer, surfing and posting on forums, refusing to get ready to go even after he's been repeatedly prompted; when he finally gets moving he suddenly decides he has to take a shower, which process includes him wandering around the house half-dressed for most of an hour before even entering the bathroom, and when he comes out he has to eat something, search the house for 20 different items to take with him, and of course spend some more time on the computer... so by the time he goes speeding down the street (as if he can make up all the lost time by driving faster) the event is well underway, and by the time he gets there it's often mostly over.
As you can imagine, events that I'm also involved with require me to hound him endlessly throughout the day/evening to try to get him ready on time... and yes, he has the nerve to complain about me trying to not let him screw things up by not allowing him to pull his usual stunts. Once, about 5 years ago, he announced that he was going to "prove" that he could get ready on time without any prompting from me, and that once he'd proven this I'd have no excuse to nag him about it ever again; responding that I'd be perfectly happy to not spend more time riding herd on him than on my own preparations, I insisted that we have a written definition of what "ready" meant... specifically, that he had to be outside of the house and able to get into the car and leave without going back inside for ANY reason, which crushed his plans of claiming to be "ready" and then doing 500 more things before he'd actually be willing to go, lol... that he agree to it and sign it, and that, if he failed, that'd be proof for all time that he could NOT get himself ready on time without being constantly monitored and prodded. Given those circumstances, how hard should he have worked to prove his point, and how STUPID would he have to be to mess up? It wasn't even close-he missed being ready on time by over an hour.
This is on my mind today because there's an insanely important project that he's been dragging his feet about dealing with for MONTHS that I'm trying to get him to finish; in a new twist, I've offered him the chance to do something he complains constantly about us never doing together, go to the movies (I loathe movie theaters, and don't have time to spend 2 hours sitting in the dark doing nothing, so I normally have no interest in going), if he gets the project done before a movie he wants badly to see, "Wallace & Gromit," vanishes from the nearby multiplexes. WEEKS have gone by, and, for all his many claims of "I'm really really really gonna work on it TONIGHT," and "There's no excuse for me to not finish it by the end of THIS weekend," he's STILL not done, and the movie's nearing the end of its run; he's spent many, MANY hours doing useless stuff during this time period, despite being periodically reminded of what he needs to do, and when asked why he's doing those things instead of the project, his standard reply is "I don't know."
If they ever make stubborn stupidity an Olympic event, he's a shoo-in for the gold medal.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
The psychology of punishment... and a thing of beauty
I came across this page today
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/608487.stm
called "Should smacking be illegal?", which asks
"Hitting a child with a cane, belt or any other implement is to be outlawed in England. However smacking is to remain an acceptable form of punishment.
Do you think the proposals go far enough to protect children from abuse, or do you think parents should be left with some freedom to discipline their offspring? Tell us what you think. "
which had all the expected responses posted from the 3 primary camps: "Oh no, you should NEVER hit a child, no matter how awful their behavior is and how indifferent they are to other punishments," "I got beaten as a kid, and it did me a world of good, so it should still be allowed," and "Well, a few slaps are ok, but beatings and the use of belts and such are NOT"... and the following fascinating reply:
"I went to school in England and got the cane or paddle numerous times, and never resented it. One time a teacher hit me with his hand and I disliked him from then on. Dogs feel the same attitude. If you hit a dog with your hand the dog, it will become alienated from you. If you use an object, such as a rolled up newspaper it will still be fond of you. So I would outlaw slapping by hand but approve of using a cane."
Alex May, USA
It can't have escaped Mr. May that a cane would cause MUCH more pain to a child, and carry a much higher probability of bruising, welts or other sorts of damage than a hand would, so clearly he thinks the "personal" nature of slapping with the hand is a VERY big deal... but is it? Is a creature as bright as a dog unable to grasp that the newspaper it's being whacked with is being wielded by the human; does it think the paper's just flying around, and the human's hand is just coincidentally attached to it? Is even the tiniest child unable to grasp this? I can't dismiss this concept too quickly, though, because I remember a woman telling me a few years ago about learning in a parenting class she was taking that you should always hit your child with an object, not your hands, because otherwise the child would come to be afraid of your hands... but that she was going to ignore that because she believed, correctly, that she couldn't judge as well how hard she was hitting her child if she used an object. I was puzzled then, and now, at where the teacher came up with this idea of a child fearing the hand that slaps them; I've certainly heard plenty of people say how afraid they were when the belt or switch was brought out to punish them, but no one has ever mentioned fear of their parents' hands, and I've seen plenty of children get a smack and then cling and clutch at the hands and arms of the parent, wanting to be held, and clearly not afraid of the palm that jut hit their backside, so... what gives? I'm honestly curious as to whether in some reasonable % of cases there's some sort of emotional problem caused by slapping a child that even so vicious an implement as the cane doesn't impart, and if so what the psychological pathway is that allows the mind to believe that the cane (or paddle or slipper) hitting them is somehow not connected to the adult wielding it; a search on this topic turned up nothing but more debating (and porn sites), rather than the psychological articles I'd hoped for, sadly.
Here's another interesting post:
"I am 75 years old. Until the age of 8, I was smacked on the bum for important transgressions, but never without a prior warning that what I had been doing was wrong, and if I persisted, I'd be smacked. When I was 8 years old, my father sat me down after I'd done something well deserving of a smack, and told me that I had reached the age of reason; instead of smacks, I'd get a lecture. Believe me, after the first lecture, I'd have voted for restoring the smacks."
Rob, USA
Is that memory colored by decades of frustration and aggravation due to lectures from authority figures (parents, teachers, bosses, wife), or did Rob REALLY, at the tender age of 8, think to himself that he'd rather be HIT than talked to? That seems vaguely crazy, but it made me think of something my grandmother said when I was about that age; "Your mother always talks and talks about every little thing-I don't know how you stand it. When I was a child, I'd rather have had a good, firm slap rather than all that talk, talk, talk-wouldn't you?" "NO!!" I'd gasped in reply, horrified... and she'd looked surprised that someone wouldn't think physical pain, and the risk of injury, was better than just being talked to. Now mind you, my grandmother and her siblings were beaten as children, so she wasn't just fantasizing this concept because she was tired of listening to my mother's yapping, she knew what the experience of being slapped felt like; maybe it's just an older generation thing?
The ability to feel pain, and the powerful negative reaction we have to it, is nature's way of making sure we avoid, and try hard to escape, any situation where we might get injured; what, then, could make people prefer pain to hearing the sound of a human voice, however protractedly? I suppose it'll remain a mystery-it's not like they can test this stuff on kids, after all.
And now for the thing of beauty: In the November 2005 issue of Vogue is an ad for a spectacular gown by Tadashi; it's made of one of my favorite fabrics, changeable taffeta, and the colors are a vibrant purple and GOLD, with the material ruched over the upper body and pleated on the sweeping skirt so that you get the full effect of the fabric being different colors depending on the angle it's viewed at. I went to their website, and they DO have a smallish pic of the dress, but they've made it a little tricky to get to; 1st, go here
http://tadashicollection.com/tadashi.html
click on where it says "Collection" at the bottom of the page, and then go to page 16. Sadly, they don't have the colors right, so you'll have to imagine that what looks like blue and grey is purple and gold, but still... isn't it GORGEOUS?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/608487.stm
called "Should smacking be illegal?", which asks
"Hitting a child with a cane, belt or any other implement is to be outlawed in England. However smacking is to remain an acceptable form of punishment.
Do you think the proposals go far enough to protect children from abuse, or do you think parents should be left with some freedom to discipline their offspring? Tell us what you think. "
which had all the expected responses posted from the 3 primary camps: "Oh no, you should NEVER hit a child, no matter how awful their behavior is and how indifferent they are to other punishments," "I got beaten as a kid, and it did me a world of good, so it should still be allowed," and "Well, a few slaps are ok, but beatings and the use of belts and such are NOT"... and the following fascinating reply:
"I went to school in England and got the cane or paddle numerous times, and never resented it. One time a teacher hit me with his hand and I disliked him from then on. Dogs feel the same attitude. If you hit a dog with your hand the dog, it will become alienated from you. If you use an object, such as a rolled up newspaper it will still be fond of you. So I would outlaw slapping by hand but approve of using a cane."
Alex May, USA
It can't have escaped Mr. May that a cane would cause MUCH more pain to a child, and carry a much higher probability of bruising, welts or other sorts of damage than a hand would, so clearly he thinks the "personal" nature of slapping with the hand is a VERY big deal... but is it? Is a creature as bright as a dog unable to grasp that the newspaper it's being whacked with is being wielded by the human; does it think the paper's just flying around, and the human's hand is just coincidentally attached to it? Is even the tiniest child unable to grasp this? I can't dismiss this concept too quickly, though, because I remember a woman telling me a few years ago about learning in a parenting class she was taking that you should always hit your child with an object, not your hands, because otherwise the child would come to be afraid of your hands... but that she was going to ignore that because she believed, correctly, that she couldn't judge as well how hard she was hitting her child if she used an object. I was puzzled then, and now, at where the teacher came up with this idea of a child fearing the hand that slaps them; I've certainly heard plenty of people say how afraid they were when the belt or switch was brought out to punish them, but no one has ever mentioned fear of their parents' hands, and I've seen plenty of children get a smack and then cling and clutch at the hands and arms of the parent, wanting to be held, and clearly not afraid of the palm that jut hit their backside, so... what gives? I'm honestly curious as to whether in some reasonable % of cases there's some sort of emotional problem caused by slapping a child that even so vicious an implement as the cane doesn't impart, and if so what the psychological pathway is that allows the mind to believe that the cane (or paddle or slipper) hitting them is somehow not connected to the adult wielding it; a search on this topic turned up nothing but more debating (and porn sites), rather than the psychological articles I'd hoped for, sadly.
Here's another interesting post:
"I am 75 years old. Until the age of 8, I was smacked on the bum for important transgressions, but never without a prior warning that what I had been doing was wrong, and if I persisted, I'd be smacked. When I was 8 years old, my father sat me down after I'd done something well deserving of a smack, and told me that I had reached the age of reason; instead of smacks, I'd get a lecture. Believe me, after the first lecture, I'd have voted for restoring the smacks."
Rob, USA
Is that memory colored by decades of frustration and aggravation due to lectures from authority figures (parents, teachers, bosses, wife), or did Rob REALLY, at the tender age of 8, think to himself that he'd rather be HIT than talked to? That seems vaguely crazy, but it made me think of something my grandmother said when I was about that age; "Your mother always talks and talks about every little thing-I don't know how you stand it. When I was a child, I'd rather have had a good, firm slap rather than all that talk, talk, talk-wouldn't you?" "NO!!" I'd gasped in reply, horrified... and she'd looked surprised that someone wouldn't think physical pain, and the risk of injury, was better than just being talked to. Now mind you, my grandmother and her siblings were beaten as children, so she wasn't just fantasizing this concept because she was tired of listening to my mother's yapping, she knew what the experience of being slapped felt like; maybe it's just an older generation thing?
The ability to feel pain, and the powerful negative reaction we have to it, is nature's way of making sure we avoid, and try hard to escape, any situation where we might get injured; what, then, could make people prefer pain to hearing the sound of a human voice, however protractedly? I suppose it'll remain a mystery-it's not like they can test this stuff on kids, after all.
And now for the thing of beauty: In the November 2005 issue of Vogue is an ad for a spectacular gown by Tadashi; it's made of one of my favorite fabrics, changeable taffeta, and the colors are a vibrant purple and GOLD, with the material ruched over the upper body and pleated on the sweeping skirt so that you get the full effect of the fabric being different colors depending on the angle it's viewed at. I went to their website, and they DO have a smallish pic of the dress, but they've made it a little tricky to get to; 1st, go here
http://tadashicollection.com/tadashi.html
click on where it says "Collection" at the bottom of the page, and then go to page 16. Sadly, they don't have the colors right, so you'll have to imagine that what looks like blue and grey is purple and gold, but still... isn't it GORGEOUS?
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
I blinked, and I missed it
The doorbell rang, and my husband passed out candy. A few minutes later, it happened again, and that was it-I hadn't even finished my dinner, and Halloween was over without me having seen a single kid in costume. We spent countless hours over the past few days trying to get our decorations found and set up, and there were kids at the door for less than 30 seconds.
Halloween just isn't my holiday, clearly.
It was pretty grim for me as a kid, too, since my "costume" was my tutu and a paper towel tube with a star glued to it, compared to the other kids whose mothers made or bought them a different cute costume every year, I'd get sent out as a 5th wheel with some neighbor's kids because my parents couldn't be bothered to pry their butts off of the couch and walk me around... and, at the end of it all, came my father's happiest moment of the year, when he threw out all my candy (and I do mean ALL of it). The one decent Halloween I had as a kid was when my mother somehow agreed to let me spend the night at another little girl's house that night, and I was taken trick or treating by her nice parents; when we got back to their house, I wasn't aware that my mother hadn't made her usual efforts to make sure that her will was enforced even in her absence, and thus had NOT told them to throw my candy away (I was still years away from understanding how psychos hide their sickness from people outside of the family), so I was braced to give up my haul, but the demand that I do so never came... and for a few golden hours, that night and the next morning, I was able to scarf candy like a normal kid (when I got home the rest of the candy was tossed out, of course, but I still felt as if I'd won a great victory over my parents).
A few years later, when I was too old to trick or treat anymore (it wasn't like it is today back then, with even teenagers begging for candy), I got stuck with having to give up my entire evening on Halloween passing out candy at our front door; I received no reward for this, of course, but by that point I'd realized that my mother was so certain of being obeyed that she didn't actually check to be sure I wasn't up to something, and thus that it wasn't difficult to smuggle a few pieces of the candy intended for other kids to my room, to be saved for times when I knew I'd be alone in the house long enough to really draw out the consumption of each piece to maximize my enjoyment of it.
What's most astonishing about my parents' warped handling of the candy issue is that when I got old enough to have $ in my pocket and make my own food choices (which wasn't until college, can you imagine?), I did NOT do what basic human nature would normally dictate that a person with that background do, which would be to pig out on candy at every opportunity... I almost never even ate other sweet things like cookies. I lost a sizable chunk of weight during the summer between high school and college, and have spent the rest of my life severely restricting my food intake; the "junk" part of what little I eat has always been mainly chips, because I crave salt rather than sugar. Heck, I don't even LIKE many kinds of candy, not even most chocolates; the candy we had for the kids who didn't come today has been sitting out in plain view for several days, and I haven't had a single piece... that's almost un-American, isn't it? Still, with my metabolism doomed to slow down a little bit each year for the rest of my life, it's a GOOD thing that I don't crave sweets; since I've been totally able to avoid the pudginess that my mother has never been able to overcome, I guess she who laughs last can laugh loudest about this issue.
Halloween just isn't my holiday, clearly.
It was pretty grim for me as a kid, too, since my "costume" was my tutu and a paper towel tube with a star glued to it, compared to the other kids whose mothers made or bought them a different cute costume every year, I'd get sent out as a 5th wheel with some neighbor's kids because my parents couldn't be bothered to pry their butts off of the couch and walk me around... and, at the end of it all, came my father's happiest moment of the year, when he threw out all my candy (and I do mean ALL of it). The one decent Halloween I had as a kid was when my mother somehow agreed to let me spend the night at another little girl's house that night, and I was taken trick or treating by her nice parents; when we got back to their house, I wasn't aware that my mother hadn't made her usual efforts to make sure that her will was enforced even in her absence, and thus had NOT told them to throw my candy away (I was still years away from understanding how psychos hide their sickness from people outside of the family), so I was braced to give up my haul, but the demand that I do so never came... and for a few golden hours, that night and the next morning, I was able to scarf candy like a normal kid (when I got home the rest of the candy was tossed out, of course, but I still felt as if I'd won a great victory over my parents).
A few years later, when I was too old to trick or treat anymore (it wasn't like it is today back then, with even teenagers begging for candy), I got stuck with having to give up my entire evening on Halloween passing out candy at our front door; I received no reward for this, of course, but by that point I'd realized that my mother was so certain of being obeyed that she didn't actually check to be sure I wasn't up to something, and thus that it wasn't difficult to smuggle a few pieces of the candy intended for other kids to my room, to be saved for times when I knew I'd be alone in the house long enough to really draw out the consumption of each piece to maximize my enjoyment of it.
What's most astonishing about my parents' warped handling of the candy issue is that when I got old enough to have $ in my pocket and make my own food choices (which wasn't until college, can you imagine?), I did NOT do what basic human nature would normally dictate that a person with that background do, which would be to pig out on candy at every opportunity... I almost never even ate other sweet things like cookies. I lost a sizable chunk of weight during the summer between high school and college, and have spent the rest of my life severely restricting my food intake; the "junk" part of what little I eat has always been mainly chips, because I crave salt rather than sugar. Heck, I don't even LIKE many kinds of candy, not even most chocolates; the candy we had for the kids who didn't come today has been sitting out in plain view for several days, and I haven't had a single piece... that's almost un-American, isn't it? Still, with my metabolism doomed to slow down a little bit each year for the rest of my life, it's a GOOD thing that I don't crave sweets; since I've been totally able to avoid the pudginess that my mother has never been able to overcome, I guess she who laughs last can laugh loudest about this issue.
