Saturday, November 12, 2005
Thank you, veterans
It's not enough, is it? 2 measly words for people who spent months, or years, away from their families, friends, homes, and all the pleasures, large and small, that we take for granted as part of our daily existence... who endured all the hardships of the military life... who lived in danger of a sort it's hard for civilians to imagine, since even those living in the most dangerous parts of our cities tend not to have bombs being fired at them... and who consequently were in fear for their lives at all times, despite which they had to function, fight, keep fighting, and not let the fear consume them even when death seemed inches away... how can 2 words sum up what we owe them?
Veterans used to command far more respect in this country; the Vietnam War changed the national attitude forever... to our everlasting shame. It doesn't matter what the war is, or the "police action," it doesn't matter what the politics are behind it, anyone who puts it all on the line in the service of this nation, our allies, and the principles we believe in deserves every bit of respect, love and support we can give them, today and every other day.
My gratitude for this free nation, and the safe and comfortable life I lead in it, goes out to all the veterans of every war; your courage is part of what makes this country great.
Veterans used to command far more respect in this country; the Vietnam War changed the national attitude forever... to our everlasting shame. It doesn't matter what the war is, or the "police action," it doesn't matter what the politics are behind it, anyone who puts it all on the line in the service of this nation, our allies, and the principles we believe in deserves every bit of respect, love and support we can give them, today and every other day.
My gratitude for this free nation, and the safe and comfortable life I lead in it, goes out to all the veterans of every war; your courage is part of what makes this country great.
Friday, November 11, 2005
A sad story on eBay
I've spent a great deal of time (and of course $) on eBay over the past few years, mostly building up my collections; my husband, to his everlasting credit, doesn't complain about the $ or that the house is blanketed by my stuffies and figurines and such... unlike most men, he's neither repelled nor emasculated by these sorts of things, and even likes many of them. I'm obsessive about my collections, and my husband, although not a collector per se (he's a packrat, which is different), is also an obsessive type and understands my desire to have everything in existence that fits my criteria; and, although he was spoiled rotten as a kid, he also understands that, because I had so little during my own childhood, I REALLY enjoy having stuff now.
Not every couple deals with one of them being a collector so smoothly, of course, but, as long as the amount of $ involved isn't excessive (which is a problem far more often since eBay was created, making it possible for collectors to acquire their items more easily), the collector can usually proceed with nothing more than some grumbling or eye-rolling from the other person... but what if the collection is REALLY big? At what point does the spouse have the right to demand that no more room in their home be taken up by the collection? And an even bigger question; at what point does the spouse have the right to demand that the collection be REDUCED for any reason other than the desperate need to sell everything they own during a financial crisis?
I took a break from writing this to ask my husband, without preamble, if he'd ever expect me to get rid of, or downsize, any of MY collections; his reply was "Only if we were on the verge of starvation and we'd already sold all of MY stuff." It's not as if he could ever "make" me sell my things any more than he can make me do anything else, but it's good to hear anyways, because...
There's an eBay member who shares one of my passions, and whose name has appeared on many auctions that I've bid on; there was a time when she'd be bidding on nearly everything I was, and trust me, that's alot of auctions. Then, I didn't see her for a while, and wondered what had happened to her; recently, I found out, because she's reappeared... as a seller. Each of her auctions carries the explanation that her husband's making her get rid of a bunch of her stuff; I recognize plenty of the things she's got listed, because I bid on most of them when she won them, so she's not just saying that to get higher bids, she's really being forced to sell off her collection.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-(
Even though she outbid me on some things, and drove up the price on others, I'd NEVER have wished this on her, or on any other collector; even though I've won several of her auctions, with more on my list, I'm still VERY dismayed to see what's happening to her. I can imagine the pain it must be costing her to pack up all those beloved items and mail them to new owners, all those things that made her happy, that made her collection something to be proud of... and we're not talking a few items here, we're talking HUNDREDS-she's got more auctions being listed all the time, and lots of them are for multiple things.
She's having to spend an insane amount of time handling all these auctions, and is taking a significant financial loss on some of the stuff, in addition to the dead loss for auctions whose items don't sell; what possible reason does her husband have for making her give up the things she loves AND lose all that time and $, rather than having one of the places that buys whole collections, estates and such just come and get it over and done with quickly?
Heck, screw the time and $; a central element of her life is being taken away!! WTF?!! Obviously her husband made her stop buying, and that's why she vanished from eBay for a while, which could MAYBE be justified if they were out of room to store anything new... but why was he unsatisfied with that, making it necessary for him to force her to get rid of so many of her precious things? WHY? I asked my husband for his opinion, and he said, "Because he's an @sshole who likes to control his wife." Is that it? The husband decided he didn't want to look at her sweet collectables any more, and chose to flex his marital muscles by pushing her to sell them?
Why is she acceding to his demands? Is she afraid he'll leave her if she doesn't? Did he intimidate her? Try to make her feel guilty for taking up space with her display shelves? Accuse her of loving her collection more than him? Because nothing that anyone could ever do or say could make ME do anything, I'm always at a bit of a loss to understand how these things happen; however it occurred, it's mean-spirited and cruel, and sucks big time.
If I lost just ONE of my collectables, I'd agonize over it for the rest of my life; I cringe to contemplate what this poor lady is going through. I hope karma brings her something good to make up for this...
Not every couple deals with one of them being a collector so smoothly, of course, but, as long as the amount of $ involved isn't excessive (which is a problem far more often since eBay was created, making it possible for collectors to acquire their items more easily), the collector can usually proceed with nothing more than some grumbling or eye-rolling from the other person... but what if the collection is REALLY big? At what point does the spouse have the right to demand that no more room in their home be taken up by the collection? And an even bigger question; at what point does the spouse have the right to demand that the collection be REDUCED for any reason other than the desperate need to sell everything they own during a financial crisis?
I took a break from writing this to ask my husband, without preamble, if he'd ever expect me to get rid of, or downsize, any of MY collections; his reply was "Only if we were on the verge of starvation and we'd already sold all of MY stuff." It's not as if he could ever "make" me sell my things any more than he can make me do anything else, but it's good to hear anyways, because...
There's an eBay member who shares one of my passions, and whose name has appeared on many auctions that I've bid on; there was a time when she'd be bidding on nearly everything I was, and trust me, that's alot of auctions. Then, I didn't see her for a while, and wondered what had happened to her; recently, I found out, because she's reappeared... as a seller. Each of her auctions carries the explanation that her husband's making her get rid of a bunch of her stuff; I recognize plenty of the things she's got listed, because I bid on most of them when she won them, so she's not just saying that to get higher bids, she's really being forced to sell off her collection.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-(
Even though she outbid me on some things, and drove up the price on others, I'd NEVER have wished this on her, or on any other collector; even though I've won several of her auctions, with more on my list, I'm still VERY dismayed to see what's happening to her. I can imagine the pain it must be costing her to pack up all those beloved items and mail them to new owners, all those things that made her happy, that made her collection something to be proud of... and we're not talking a few items here, we're talking HUNDREDS-she's got more auctions being listed all the time, and lots of them are for multiple things.
She's having to spend an insane amount of time handling all these auctions, and is taking a significant financial loss on some of the stuff, in addition to the dead loss for auctions whose items don't sell; what possible reason does her husband have for making her give up the things she loves AND lose all that time and $, rather than having one of the places that buys whole collections, estates and such just come and get it over and done with quickly?
Heck, screw the time and $; a central element of her life is being taken away!! WTF?!! Obviously her husband made her stop buying, and that's why she vanished from eBay for a while, which could MAYBE be justified if they were out of room to store anything new... but why was he unsatisfied with that, making it necessary for him to force her to get rid of so many of her precious things? WHY? I asked my husband for his opinion, and he said, "Because he's an @sshole who likes to control his wife." Is that it? The husband decided he didn't want to look at her sweet collectables any more, and chose to flex his marital muscles by pushing her to sell them?
Why is she acceding to his demands? Is she afraid he'll leave her if she doesn't? Did he intimidate her? Try to make her feel guilty for taking up space with her display shelves? Accuse her of loving her collection more than him? Because nothing that anyone could ever do or say could make ME do anything, I'm always at a bit of a loss to understand how these things happen; however it occurred, it's mean-spirited and cruel, and sucks big time.
If I lost just ONE of my collectables, I'd agonize over it for the rest of my life; I cringe to contemplate what this poor lady is going through. I hope karma brings her something good to make up for this...
Thursday, November 10, 2005
A bit of wisdom from Shakespeare
I have no particular fondness for Shakespeare, but it's clear that the man had a good grasp of human nature; a perfect example of this can be found in "Much Ado About Nothing," the 1993 movie of which I saw tonight
http://www.blockbuster.com/catalog/DisplayMoreMovieProductDetails.action?movieID=108423&channel=Movies&subChannel=sub#Cast
and found reasonably enjoyable due to the high caliber of the actors involved. The central theme of this play is "people are SO gullible"; that may not be what you were taught in 10th grade English class, but it's true all the same.
One of the easiest ways to trick someone is to make them think that they've stumbled on some information by accident; a suspicious person may doubt what they're told if it's contrary to what they prefer to believe, but it's a VERY rare person who overhears a conversation and doesn't believe whatever is said, perhaps because we love to think we've discovered secrets... it's not as if people are any more honest when they're speaking to others than when they're speaking to us, after all, and the requirement of PROOF for any claims made still applies (not that anyone ever bothers to apply it). Shakespeare uses this concept twice, against both halves of a stubborn couple, Beatrice and Benedick, who bicker constantly and haven't realized that they're in love; in each case, he has people plot to talk when the victim will hear them about how the other one loves them so much... and they both fall for it.
The more clever demonstration of gullibility in the play is an example of what I talked about in my post of 10-27-05, that people are foolishly certain that whatever interpretation they come up with, or are GIVEN, of what they see is true, because they SAW it with their own eyes; not 1 person in a million pauses and says, "But wait a minute, just because I saw X does NOT mean that Y is what was happening... it could also have been Z, not to mention A, B, C, etc." Hero and Claudio are about to be married, but the evil Don John and Borachio play a trick to turn Claudio against his betrothed; Borachio gets Margaret to make whoopee with him in Hero's window, with her back to the outdoors so that her face will be hidden from observers, and, when John brings Claudio and Don Pedro to witness said whoopee, Borachio calls out Hero's name to make them think that she's the one he's shtupping... and they're both utterly convinced that the sweet and virtuous Hero was in fact getting it on with that scumbag on the night before her wedding.
That Don Pedro should be so easily duped is bad enough, but how could Claudio, who being in love with Hero should have doubted she was doing anything wrong even if her face WAS clearly visible, be so easily convinced that she was the shtuppee? Why did he not go charging up to her room to see what was actually going on? Because it's human nature to be stupid, to be quick to believe ill of the virtuous, to jump to conclusions and not look for proof, and, worst of all, to totally believe what a known evil person tells us even though we should NEVER believe them and ALWAYS assume they've got ulterior motives that'll lead to some nice person getting the shaft. What Claudio SHOULD have done would have been to say, "I don't know who that woman is, as her face isn't visible, but it can't possibly be Hero; it must be that one of the men is in love with her, and so chose her room to get laid in, and called out her name in the heat of passion-let's go up there and find out who's taking advantage of our host's hospitality by using his daughter's room for an assignation!!"... but instead of showing what SHOULD have happened, Shakespeare wisely had Claudio act according to human nature, which is unfortunately the only believable way to have him respond to what he's seen.
I know I'm like a broken record on this subject, but it needs to be said until everyone gets it: Someone with a history of bad behavior is a BAD person, and, no matter how charming they are, you should never believe what they say or side with them in any dispute. Someone with a proven track record of virtue is a GOOD person, and, no matter how uncomfortable they may make you, you should believe them, side with them, and DEFEND them. And last, but far from least, when someone good, or of unknown virtue, is accused of something, don't believe it automatically, don't believe it on circumstantial evidence, don't believe it because you see some little thing that fits the story, demand PROOF, and withhold your negative judgment until you get it. The power of the evil people of the world would shrink to a tiny fraction of what it is now if even a small % of people started doing these simple, logical things; isn't that worth a little bit of effort?
http://www.blockbuster.com/catalog/DisplayMoreMovieProductDetails.action?movieID=108423&channel=Movies&subChannel=sub#Cast
and found reasonably enjoyable due to the high caliber of the actors involved. The central theme of this play is "people are SO gullible"; that may not be what you were taught in 10th grade English class, but it's true all the same.
One of the easiest ways to trick someone is to make them think that they've stumbled on some information by accident; a suspicious person may doubt what they're told if it's contrary to what they prefer to believe, but it's a VERY rare person who overhears a conversation and doesn't believe whatever is said, perhaps because we love to think we've discovered secrets... it's not as if people are any more honest when they're speaking to others than when they're speaking to us, after all, and the requirement of PROOF for any claims made still applies (not that anyone ever bothers to apply it). Shakespeare uses this concept twice, against both halves of a stubborn couple, Beatrice and Benedick, who bicker constantly and haven't realized that they're in love; in each case, he has people plot to talk when the victim will hear them about how the other one loves them so much... and they both fall for it.
The more clever demonstration of gullibility in the play is an example of what I talked about in my post of 10-27-05, that people are foolishly certain that whatever interpretation they come up with, or are GIVEN, of what they see is true, because they SAW it with their own eyes; not 1 person in a million pauses and says, "But wait a minute, just because I saw X does NOT mean that Y is what was happening... it could also have been Z, not to mention A, B, C, etc." Hero and Claudio are about to be married, but the evil Don John and Borachio play a trick to turn Claudio against his betrothed; Borachio gets Margaret to make whoopee with him in Hero's window, with her back to the outdoors so that her face will be hidden from observers, and, when John brings Claudio and Don Pedro to witness said whoopee, Borachio calls out Hero's name to make them think that she's the one he's shtupping... and they're both utterly convinced that the sweet and virtuous Hero was in fact getting it on with that scumbag on the night before her wedding.
That Don Pedro should be so easily duped is bad enough, but how could Claudio, who being in love with Hero should have doubted she was doing anything wrong even if her face WAS clearly visible, be so easily convinced that she was the shtuppee? Why did he not go charging up to her room to see what was actually going on? Because it's human nature to be stupid, to be quick to believe ill of the virtuous, to jump to conclusions and not look for proof, and, worst of all, to totally believe what a known evil person tells us even though we should NEVER believe them and ALWAYS assume they've got ulterior motives that'll lead to some nice person getting the shaft. What Claudio SHOULD have done would have been to say, "I don't know who that woman is, as her face isn't visible, but it can't possibly be Hero; it must be that one of the men is in love with her, and so chose her room to get laid in, and called out her name in the heat of passion-let's go up there and find out who's taking advantage of our host's hospitality by using his daughter's room for an assignation!!"... but instead of showing what SHOULD have happened, Shakespeare wisely had Claudio act according to human nature, which is unfortunately the only believable way to have him respond to what he's seen.
I know I'm like a broken record on this subject, but it needs to be said until everyone gets it: Someone with a history of bad behavior is a BAD person, and, no matter how charming they are, you should never believe what they say or side with them in any dispute. Someone with a proven track record of virtue is a GOOD person, and, no matter how uncomfortable they may make you, you should believe them, side with them, and DEFEND them. And last, but far from least, when someone good, or of unknown virtue, is accused of something, don't believe it automatically, don't believe it on circumstantial evidence, don't believe it because you see some little thing that fits the story, demand PROOF, and withhold your negative judgment until you get it. The power of the evil people of the world would shrink to a tiny fraction of what it is now if even a small % of people started doing these simple, logical things; isn't that worth a little bit of effort?
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
How do we know what "The Truth" is?
Most people who follow a particular religious or spiritual path view its tenets the same way they do scientifically proven facts or other things for which there's inarguable evidence; they feel such complete certainty about the rightness of their beliefs that they "know" that what they believe is true. We're all aware that there are many religions, all of which have the same amount of proof to back them up, namely NONE, and many of whose believers possess total certainty that they know "The Truth"; if you ask one of the faithful how, with all that in mind, they're sure that THEIR belief system is the right one from all of those choices, they'll say, "I just know"... but HOW do they know? I'm not talking about those people who say they've actually SEEN God, or Allah, or Zeus, etc, who're basing their claims on what they truly believe is evidence (and may well be-I can't prove that they haven't all seen a deity), I mean those people who've decided based on no evidence they can point to, no personal experience they've had, that a certain "truth" is the right one; how do those people come to "know" that their beliefs are correct, and what makes them trust that "knowing" when they're constantly proven wrong about other things that they "knew"?
Since there are countless flavors of spiritual and religious belief but only one reality, nearly all of those people who "know" must be wrong, but none of them will ever admit it, or even entertain the suggestion that their personal "knowing" might be utterly meaningless, in fact that it almost certainly is... but, doesn't SOMEONE have to have it right, or at least be the closest to right? How do the people, if any, who actually DO have "The Truth" tell that they've got the real deal, since all they have is the same "knowing" that all the people with "incorrect" beliefs have? How can an objective non-believer judge whose "knowing" is accurate, even in part? If a believer has a crisis of faith, what can they use to convince themselves that what they used to believe is true; how can they prove to themselves that it's the belief and not the DISbelief that's "right"?
And it can get even trickier; people like me, who combine science, personal experiences and observations, and best-guess analysis of the unseen to form a spiritual path, have to ask ourselves, "How many times do things have to happen according to the 'rules' I see for how the universe works before I can REALLY accept them as proven? 10? 100? 1000?" and "How long does everything that happens in my life and the lives of everyone I know have to run as the 'rules' would dictate before I can REALLY be sure it's not all coincidence? A year? 5 years? 50 years?" At what point can we, can *I*, can anyone, validly say, "I KNOW that what I believe to be true IS 'The Truth'"?
Since there are countless flavors of spiritual and religious belief but only one reality, nearly all of those people who "know" must be wrong, but none of them will ever admit it, or even entertain the suggestion that their personal "knowing" might be utterly meaningless, in fact that it almost certainly is... but, doesn't SOMEONE have to have it right, or at least be the closest to right? How do the people, if any, who actually DO have "The Truth" tell that they've got the real deal, since all they have is the same "knowing" that all the people with "incorrect" beliefs have? How can an objective non-believer judge whose "knowing" is accurate, even in part? If a believer has a crisis of faith, what can they use to convince themselves that what they used to believe is true; how can they prove to themselves that it's the belief and not the DISbelief that's "right"?
And it can get even trickier; people like me, who combine science, personal experiences and observations, and best-guess analysis of the unseen to form a spiritual path, have to ask ourselves, "How many times do things have to happen according to the 'rules' I see for how the universe works before I can REALLY accept them as proven? 10? 100? 1000?" and "How long does everything that happens in my life and the lives of everyone I know have to run as the 'rules' would dictate before I can REALLY be sure it's not all coincidence? A year? 5 years? 50 years?" At what point can we, can *I*, can anyone, validly say, "I KNOW that what I believe to be true IS 'The Truth'"?
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
The latest blog exchanges
When I 1st heard about BlogSnob early last year, it seemed like a neat idea; the more times you showed their box, the more times your ad got shown, leading to more hits to your blog... in theory. The reality was that people didn't click those ads very often, and once they got the bright idea to include paid ads (which meant in practice that MOST of what they showed were the paid ads), it became totally worthless, and that pretty much soured me on the whole concept of blog exchanges.
When Blog Explosion, and the now numerous similar services, came out, I didn't get involved, not because they wouldn't lead to increased hits, but because they made you work to get them, and all the hits you'd get in return would be from people who were trying to build their own accounts and not intending to actually read your blog... yeah, there've gotta be exceptions, but overall it just seemed like a way for people to see their counters go up faster without really affecting their readership much.
I saw references to a couple of new exchanges today, and decided to give them a look-see because they were being recommended by the bloggers whose sites I read about them on; if someone dedicates a post to a service, and with praise rather than complaint, that gets my attention. The 1st new one is BlogMad; if you look in my sidebar, you'll see an animated gif with a weird eyeball thing-that's it. I can't tell you much about it because they haven't actually started it up yet, they're just accepting registrations; you can't even read what little info is on their site until you sign up... but all they ask for is your email addy and a password, so it's not like it's a big deal to get into the system right now (they're going to be asking for more info later, of course)-just click the image and you're on your way. It appears that it'll be using the BlogSnob model of showing an ad for your blog on another member's site every time your blog displays an ad, but they're still a hair vague about it all, which is proper for something that's just a gamma (eg not quite a beta); the way they're signing people up, and giving a choice from a whole page of banners, when they're not even operational yet is so ballsy that it sort of charmed me into giving them a try... I'll be interested to see how well it works when they set it motion.
The 2nd new exchange is BloggerSwap, which was given a rave review in a post that mentioned how dreadful BlogSnob is (which tells me that the blogger has a clue about these things), is using the BlogSnob model but with images rather than text in a big ugly box, and supposedly brings in plenty of traffic; sadly, I can't point out where the link for this one is on my blog, because they're having some sort of site problem and my attempts at registration keep getting an error message that my email addy is invalid, grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. By the time you're reading this they'll hopefully have everything running smoothly again, so give them a try at
http://www.bloggerswap.com/
It'd sure be nice to have a blog exchange that works the way it's supposed to; keep your fingers crossed.
Edit: It turns out that BloggerSwap won't let you sign up with an email addy that has a hyphen or underscore in it, at least not at the moment (I HOPE it's just a short-term glitch), although you CAN switch over to an addy like that after you've registered with an acceptable addy... but then you have to wait for this alteration to your account to be approved before your ad gets shown anywhere, which makes no sense at all, GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR. Oh well, when you get something for free there's a limit as to how much you can gripe (but STILL!!).
When Blog Explosion, and the now numerous similar services, came out, I didn't get involved, not because they wouldn't lead to increased hits, but because they made you work to get them, and all the hits you'd get in return would be from people who were trying to build their own accounts and not intending to actually read your blog... yeah, there've gotta be exceptions, but overall it just seemed like a way for people to see their counters go up faster without really affecting their readership much.
I saw references to a couple of new exchanges today, and decided to give them a look-see because they were being recommended by the bloggers whose sites I read about them on; if someone dedicates a post to a service, and with praise rather than complaint, that gets my attention. The 1st new one is BlogMad; if you look in my sidebar, you'll see an animated gif with a weird eyeball thing-that's it. I can't tell you much about it because they haven't actually started it up yet, they're just accepting registrations; you can't even read what little info is on their site until you sign up... but all they ask for is your email addy and a password, so it's not like it's a big deal to get into the system right now (they're going to be asking for more info later, of course)-just click the image and you're on your way. It appears that it'll be using the BlogSnob model of showing an ad for your blog on another member's site every time your blog displays an ad, but they're still a hair vague about it all, which is proper for something that's just a gamma (eg not quite a beta); the way they're signing people up, and giving a choice from a whole page of banners, when they're not even operational yet is so ballsy that it sort of charmed me into giving them a try... I'll be interested to see how well it works when they set it motion.
The 2nd new exchange is BloggerSwap, which was given a rave review in a post that mentioned how dreadful BlogSnob is (which tells me that the blogger has a clue about these things), is using the BlogSnob model but with images rather than text in a big ugly box, and supposedly brings in plenty of traffic; sadly, I can't point out where the link for this one is on my blog, because they're having some sort of site problem and my attempts at registration keep getting an error message that my email addy is invalid, grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. By the time you're reading this they'll hopefully have everything running smoothly again, so give them a try at
http://www.bloggerswap.com/
It'd sure be nice to have a blog exchange that works the way it's supposed to; keep your fingers crossed.
Edit: It turns out that BloggerSwap won't let you sign up with an email addy that has a hyphen or underscore in it, at least not at the moment (I HOPE it's just a short-term glitch), although you CAN switch over to an addy like that after you've registered with an acceptable addy... but then you have to wait for this alteration to your account to be approved before your ad gets shown anywhere, which makes no sense at all, GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR. Oh well, when you get something for free there's a limit as to how much you can gripe (but STILL!!).
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?
