Been a long damn time since I posted anything.
Update: Passed the Calculus class with an 'A.' Kudos to me. Whatta relief the class is over.
Come to think of it, regarding education, it seems to be going downhill fast. Frankly, that Calculus 'A' is the first grade I've had to actually WORK for in a great many years. And believe you me, I'm no rocket scientist brainiac. But school has certainly been no challenge to me, rest assured. Any of you think school is difficult these days?
Eh. Who am I to complain? I feel for parents, however. The people with smart kids have to deal with bored smart kids. That's a dangerous combination, to be sure. A smart kid who's bored. I can't even imagine what kinds of evil such a child could come up with. Scary, isn't it?
Update: Going up to Salt Lake City in October for the Exmormon Conference. Should be good. Last year was very good.
Update: Bought a Hayabusa two weeks ago. VERY cool! Here's a picture: http://www.orangecountysuzuki.com/new_vehicle_detail.asp?sid=5529422E-02X8K30K2004J1I29I35JPMQ1331R0&veh=6005&pov=116791
Let me know what you think! Wanna go riding in So. CA? Drop me a line.
--Wag--
Monday, August 30, 2004
Friday, July 23, 2004
Sex Education
I posted the following elsewhere in response to another person's post. Although it was started in response to her post, I think you'll get the gist if you start in the middle of our discussion here.
--------------------------------------
It isn't a liberal vs. conservative debate though judging from the viewpoints of the participants it could be seen as such. The misperception of the real problem is what gets people thinking about this issue dogmatically and myopically and therefore debating about it from a very weak position. They simply don't wish to give the other side the credibility they deserve. And that's just plain stupid.
To wit, the "conservatives" rightly claim through much of their diatribe that the responsibility for educating kids about sex lies with the parents. And they decry those who would usurp their ability or right to do so. I wholly agree with that premise. The problem is, most parents, especially conservatives, don't or won't teach their kids about sex. If they talk about it at all, it's very frequently on a minimus level and it's couched as an embarrassing topic, if not in the words chosen during discussions, then definitely by the tone of voice and the body language of the parent squirming like a bug stuck on a pin. It's a supreme form of hypocrisy. So, to qualify the credit given a second ago, I agree with the thought and the principle of parents teaching their kids about sex and their responsibility to do so but the reality is, most parents . . . . Okay, I'm repeating myself.
Which demands, by the necessity created by chicken-shit parents, public sex education. Here's where the "liberals" get it right. Kids are going to have sex as soon as they learn about it or the moment they hit puberty, whichever comes first. Who's going to stop them? Parents aren't home most of the time and kids have a lot of unsupervised time, more than ever and earlier and earlier in their lives. To wit, it used to be that kids didn't have sex until they could drive a car, now they have a key to the house at age 11 for when they come home from school for three hours of alone time before momma comes home from work. Hell, kids have been having sex throughout all history even when they WERE being watched every minute of every day by their parents. Does anyone think they're going to stop now when by comparison, they have very little supervision?
Not a chance.
So, if we know they're going to have sex, let's teach them how to do it right. No, I'm not talking about breaking out the Kama Sutra for their ultimate pleasure though it could easily be debated that such is a good thing, especially for kids new at sex. What I'm talking about is teaching kids how NOT to fuck up their lives with sex. (Now there's a double-take!) Because you're not going to stop kids from having sex.
At least teach them how to prevent pregnancy and WHY preventing pregnancy at their age is a good thing. Teach them how to minimize their chances of disease so they don't go around spreading it if they have it or getting it if they don't have it. It's very simple: you're not going to stop kids from having sex.
I'm not a proponent of abortion as birth control, necessarily but I am a proponent of birth control as abortion prevention. This is the only territory where it becomes a legitimate liberal vs. conservative argument. But one of the many ways in which conservatives kick themselves in the nuts is they forget that abortions are primarily caused by irresponsible sex. Read that: Uneducated irresponsible sexual practices. Kids who get pregnant "by mistake" did it because they didn't know about any form of birth-control because their shy, embarrassed (selfish) parents didn't teach them about it. But the same people who are against abortion aren't doing their jobs to prevent it, ie., teaching their kids how not to get pregnane when they have sex because dammit, As much as you might like to, you're not going to stop them from having sex.
Why do I say selfish? Because the parents are more interested in preserving their so-called dignity or privacy or whatever they don't even consider the harm which could be caused by their kids not learning about sexual responsibility. But they don't want anyone else teaching their kids about it either. Utterly insane.
As I alluded to at the beginning of this post, it shouldn't be about politics. It's a life debate. And the prevention of one of life's disasters. Or more importantly, about taking one of life's greatest pleasures and keeping it from becoming one of life's greatest disasters. Here is an issue which should be the MOST non-political of them all and yet, it tends to be one of the most political. All the more reason to believe both sides are badly weakened by their own dogma on this issue.
So, all you antagonists of Sex Ed, bring on ANY objection which can be raised about prevention of sex education, public or private, and I'll blast you with my keyboard bazooka over it.
'Cause prevention of Sex Ed at any level is the prevention of life itself.
--Wag--
P.S. I should mention that I, myself, do not have kids, originally not by choice but as time has passed, we're actually glad we don't. Having said that, one might ask, "How the hell does he know anything about what it's like to have to teach a kid about sex?" Look, stupid, I was a kid once and dang. Wouldn't you know it? I was screwed up by my own anal retentive parents and it would sure be nice if I knew that someone else were being spared that fate.
--------------------------------------
It isn't a liberal vs. conservative debate though judging from the viewpoints of the participants it could be seen as such. The misperception of the real problem is what gets people thinking about this issue dogmatically and myopically and therefore debating about it from a very weak position. They simply don't wish to give the other side the credibility they deserve. And that's just plain stupid.
To wit, the "conservatives" rightly claim through much of their diatribe that the responsibility for educating kids about sex lies with the parents. And they decry those who would usurp their ability or right to do so. I wholly agree with that premise. The problem is, most parents, especially conservatives, don't or won't teach their kids about sex. If they talk about it at all, it's very frequently on a minimus level and it's couched as an embarrassing topic, if not in the words chosen during discussions, then definitely by the tone of voice and the body language of the parent squirming like a bug stuck on a pin. It's a supreme form of hypocrisy. So, to qualify the credit given a second ago, I agree with the thought and the principle of parents teaching their kids about sex and their responsibility to do so but the reality is, most parents . . . . Okay, I'm repeating myself.
Which demands, by the necessity created by chicken-shit parents, public sex education. Here's where the "liberals" get it right. Kids are going to have sex as soon as they learn about it or the moment they hit puberty, whichever comes first. Who's going to stop them? Parents aren't home most of the time and kids have a lot of unsupervised time, more than ever and earlier and earlier in their lives. To wit, it used to be that kids didn't have sex until they could drive a car, now they have a key to the house at age 11 for when they come home from school for three hours of alone time before momma comes home from work. Hell, kids have been having sex throughout all history even when they WERE being watched every minute of every day by their parents. Does anyone think they're going to stop now when by comparison, they have very little supervision?
Not a chance.
So, if we know they're going to have sex, let's teach them how to do it right. No, I'm not talking about breaking out the Kama Sutra for their ultimate pleasure though it could easily be debated that such is a good thing, especially for kids new at sex. What I'm talking about is teaching kids how NOT to fuck up their lives with sex. (Now there's a double-take!) Because you're not going to stop kids from having sex.
At least teach them how to prevent pregnancy and WHY preventing pregnancy at their age is a good thing. Teach them how to minimize their chances of disease so they don't go around spreading it if they have it or getting it if they don't have it. It's very simple: you're not going to stop kids from having sex.
I'm not a proponent of abortion as birth control, necessarily but I am a proponent of birth control as abortion prevention. This is the only territory where it becomes a legitimate liberal vs. conservative argument. But one of the many ways in which conservatives kick themselves in the nuts is they forget that abortions are primarily caused by irresponsible sex. Read that: Uneducated irresponsible sexual practices. Kids who get pregnant "by mistake" did it because they didn't know about any form of birth-control because their shy, embarrassed (selfish) parents didn't teach them about it. But the same people who are against abortion aren't doing their jobs to prevent it, ie., teaching their kids how not to get pregnane when they have sex because dammit, As much as you might like to, you're not going to stop them from having sex.
Why do I say selfish? Because the parents are more interested in preserving their so-called dignity or privacy or whatever they don't even consider the harm which could be caused by their kids not learning about sexual responsibility. But they don't want anyone else teaching their kids about it either. Utterly insane.
As I alluded to at the beginning of this post, it shouldn't be about politics. It's a life debate. And the prevention of one of life's disasters. Or more importantly, about taking one of life's greatest pleasures and keeping it from becoming one of life's greatest disasters. Here is an issue which should be the MOST non-political of them all and yet, it tends to be one of the most political. All the more reason to believe both sides are badly weakened by their own dogma on this issue.
So, all you antagonists of Sex Ed, bring on ANY objection which can be raised about prevention of sex education, public or private, and I'll blast you with my keyboard bazooka over it.
'Cause prevention of Sex Ed at any level is the prevention of life itself.
--Wag--
P.S. I should mention that I, myself, do not have kids, originally not by choice but as time has passed, we're actually glad we don't. Having said that, one might ask, "How the hell does he know anything about what it's like to have to teach a kid about sex?" Look, stupid, I was a kid once and dang. Wouldn't you know it? I was screwed up by my own anal retentive parents and it would sure be nice if I knew that someone else were being spared that fate.
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Calculus Update
I should update my progress in my Calculus Class. This has been a geek's adventure, I assure you. Tonight begins my fourth week of the eight-week summer course. Normally, it's 16-weeks which is to say I'm really bustin' my hump to learn this shit in a maniacally fast, compressed course. Do you think the instructor will cut us any slack as to how much material we cover? Nope. The entire textbook is listed on on syllabus and she's right on track with all of it so far.
Yeesh. (And if you think the word "yeesh" is outdated and old-fashioned, you're right. Who cares?)
Last week's experience was an eye-opener: We had our first big exam but before I tell you how I did, you have to listen to this story first. Unless you hate my stories, then skip to the bottom and find the score. And on your way down there, blow me.
So, the weekend before last, July 2, to be precise, I spent all evening after work on Friday studying until 10:00pm. Then all day Saturday studying from 8:00am to 10:00pm. Then Sunday, I taught piano from 9am to 10:30am, then did bookkeeping work for a client until 2:00pm, then came home and studied from 2:30pm until 10:30pm. Monday, I had the day off from work and studied from 8:00am to 6:00pm and my brain finally said, "Fuck you, Wag. I'm not working on this any more." I told my brain, "Me either," and closed everything up and went to a movie with my woman. Spider Man 2, I think.
And after all that, I didn't feel any more competent with derivatives and differentiation than I had on Friday evening before I started that marathon. Damn.
Tuesday, I studied at lunch time and got nowhere. That evening, I asked the instructor a couple of questions and she cleared some things up. That night, I was able to make some headway, and I studied until 11:00pm. Next day, lunch, same thing; evening, instructor cleared some things up; evening study session, made a little more headway. Thursday, the day of the big exam came and at lunch, I was able to make things click. FINALLY!!! I went through the review with no troubles at all. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Whatta relief! I finally felt ready for the exam.
That evening, the instructor lectured for an hour on the next section of the class. Then a short break. Then the big moment! I was ready to shine. She hands me the test and I looked at the first question! Nothing. It was like looking at an essay about the ancient Egyptians, written in Ancient Sumerian. Crap. As I have on past tests, I read through the entire thing to see if I could at least do a couple of other questions and at least get SOMEthing right. Still nothing. The entire test was a mystery.
I turned back to page 1 and read the first problem about 500 times. Still nothing. Looked around the room at 45 other students, busily working away. Bastards. They knew what they were doing. I felt like an alien from another planet. Or at least from some other country. Damn. Now there are people getting up handing in their completed tests. Either they are 90% brains or they just gave up easier than I do. I nearly got up and surrendered myself.
What the hell. I looked at the first question again, sweat pouring from my brow. (Okay, the A/C was turned off and it was hot in there just on general principles but doesn't that sound cool? ". . . sweat pouring from my brow." Sometimes, I crack myself up!)
For whatever reason, a crack opened up on some remote part of my brain and a little pinpoint of light shone forth. "I think I understand this question all of a sudden and for no real reason at all." The answer made sense. I got excited and colored in the little box on my scantron. The next question popped out at me too and I colored that box in too! The third one as well! Hey, I'm starting to get this! (Later, I discovered that I got the third one wrong but that's the breaks.) I began working and the test was making more and more sense. I worked through everything and by the time I was done, I was one of three people left in the classroom and triumphantly handed in my test. Whew! I was done and I was confident I had actually done a good job! Well, I had.
The instructor gave me the answer key on the way out the door and I realized I had missed three questions, 9 points. I had gotten a 91. And the three I missed? One of them, I missed a minus sign. Another, I used the wrong bracket symbology. (Yes, there is a difference between "()" and "[]" if you ever take Calculus.) The third I just flat out got wrong and I suspect it was because in a long list of algebra, I missed a minus sign early on in that one too. But who knows for sure.
But a 91. Wow. I was suprised at myself, to be real frank about it. And pleased, to be sure.
And that's about as exciting and adventurous as I can make a post about Calculus. But since that's the only thing really going on in my sorry life at the moment, you'll have to take it or leave it. If you want something better, read the "Dental Times" post from May in the archive section. ;-)
--Wag--
Yeesh. (And if you think the word "yeesh" is outdated and old-fashioned, you're right. Who cares?)
Last week's experience was an eye-opener: We had our first big exam but before I tell you how I did, you have to listen to this story first. Unless you hate my stories, then skip to the bottom and find the score. And on your way down there, blow me.
So, the weekend before last, July 2, to be precise, I spent all evening after work on Friday studying until 10:00pm. Then all day Saturday studying from 8:00am to 10:00pm. Then Sunday, I taught piano from 9am to 10:30am, then did bookkeeping work for a client until 2:00pm, then came home and studied from 2:30pm until 10:30pm. Monday, I had the day off from work and studied from 8:00am to 6:00pm and my brain finally said, "Fuck you, Wag. I'm not working on this any more." I told my brain, "Me either," and closed everything up and went to a movie with my woman. Spider Man 2, I think.
And after all that, I didn't feel any more competent with derivatives and differentiation than I had on Friday evening before I started that marathon. Damn.
Tuesday, I studied at lunch time and got nowhere. That evening, I asked the instructor a couple of questions and she cleared some things up. That night, I was able to make some headway, and I studied until 11:00pm. Next day, lunch, same thing; evening, instructor cleared some things up; evening study session, made a little more headway. Thursday, the day of the big exam came and at lunch, I was able to make things click. FINALLY!!! I went through the review with no troubles at all. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Whatta relief! I finally felt ready for the exam.
That evening, the instructor lectured for an hour on the next section of the class. Then a short break. Then the big moment! I was ready to shine. She hands me the test and I looked at the first question! Nothing. It was like looking at an essay about the ancient Egyptians, written in Ancient Sumerian. Crap. As I have on past tests, I read through the entire thing to see if I could at least do a couple of other questions and at least get SOMEthing right. Still nothing. The entire test was a mystery.
I turned back to page 1 and read the first problem about 500 times. Still nothing. Looked around the room at 45 other students, busily working away. Bastards. They knew what they were doing. I felt like an alien from another planet. Or at least from some other country. Damn. Now there are people getting up handing in their completed tests. Either they are 90% brains or they just gave up easier than I do. I nearly got up and surrendered myself.
What the hell. I looked at the first question again, sweat pouring from my brow. (Okay, the A/C was turned off and it was hot in there just on general principles but doesn't that sound cool? ". . . sweat pouring from my brow." Sometimes, I crack myself up!)
For whatever reason, a crack opened up on some remote part of my brain and a little pinpoint of light shone forth. "I think I understand this question all of a sudden and for no real reason at all." The answer made sense. I got excited and colored in the little box on my scantron. The next question popped out at me too and I colored that box in too! The third one as well! Hey, I'm starting to get this! (Later, I discovered that I got the third one wrong but that's the breaks.) I began working and the test was making more and more sense. I worked through everything and by the time I was done, I was one of three people left in the classroom and triumphantly handed in my test. Whew! I was done and I was confident I had actually done a good job! Well, I had.
The instructor gave me the answer key on the way out the door and I realized I had missed three questions, 9 points. I had gotten a 91. And the three I missed? One of them, I missed a minus sign. Another, I used the wrong bracket symbology. (Yes, there is a difference between "()" and "[]" if you ever take Calculus.) The third I just flat out got wrong and I suspect it was because in a long list of algebra, I missed a minus sign early on in that one too. But who knows for sure.
But a 91. Wow. I was suprised at myself, to be real frank about it. And pleased, to be sure.
And that's about as exciting and adventurous as I can make a post about Calculus. But since that's the only thing really going on in my sorry life at the moment, you'll have to take it or leave it. If you want something better, read the "Dental Times" post from May in the archive section. ;-)
--Wag--
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
At least we had chainsaws.
While I lived in Missouri, Grandpa and I and my brothers and sometimes my deadbeat dad would go out into the forest every fall and start cutting firewood. The trick was, you had to cut it two years ahead of time in order for it to cure adequately for the stoves. We already had this year's wood stacked but we needed to get on with next year's supply. On the average, each tree would yield about a cord of wood. (Despite what people may say, it isn't physically possible to get a cord of stovewood into a standard 8' pickup truck. Sellers will sell a pickup truckload as a cord but believe you me, it ain't a cord.)
It took 23 cords for each of our families ours and grandpa's to stay warm through the winter, so we would cut a minimum of 50 trees every year, just to be sure we had enough plus a little extry. Needless to say, we only cut dead trees of which there always seemed to be plenty. Wood heat was the only heat we had for the winter, hence, the large amount of cutting we needed to do. Also needless to say is, wood heat is far more satisfying with which to warm up next to a Franklin style stove. Yet, I remember several occasions when I would wake up in the middle of the night due to the freezing cold because the fire had died out. A stack of six blankets made it possible to roll over and go back to sleep, however.
You may be familiar with the ferocity of Missouri winters in the Ozarks. One night, I jumped out of bed - and nearly right back in 'cause the floor was so cold - to find that the fire had gone completely out. Since I had to pee, I shivered my way downstairs to use the bathroom. Ever been so cold you could move around the house without walking? All you have to do is let your shivers vibrate you in the direction you're going.
Anyhow, I went over to restart the fire but the woodbox was empty. Dang. I went running back upstairs hoping the exertion would help warm me up a little. Glanced at the clock in my room as I put on a pair of pants: 2:34am. Sheesh. I stopped at the pants 'cause I figured the trip to the woodpile was going be relatively quick. I opened the door to the house and was confronted by a near-gale force wind. (Later the next morning, the weatherman announced that the temperature the prior night had dropped to -40F with a wind chill of -72F. I figure at 2:34, I hit my front door at the coldest possible part of that night.)
I nearly froze to death in the short, 100 feet to the woodpile, filling a wheelbarrow and bringing it back to the house. Remember I was only dressed in my Wranglers. No shirt, no shoes, no gloves, no coat. I barely was able to carry one armload into the house and fortunately, I had the presence of mind to bring some small pieces in with me to light a new fire. Lighting a match was a problem though. When your fingers no longer bend, you can't grip a little tiny match any more. I went to the kitchen with a tightly rolled newspaper and lit it at the stove. Dangerous, to be sure. I could've burned down the house along the way. But I didn't. Got the fire going and fortunately, it took on the first try.
An hour later, I was still warming myself by that fire. The cold was more than I'll ever be able to forget. Of course, the family was unaware of what I had done, not that it mattered. It did make me realize that over the course of the time we spent in Missouri, my father had basically kept that fire going every night for all that time and we never knew it, really. Except to complain every morning about having to refill the empty wood box and to notice we were warm and mostly toasty when we got up. When you're poor as church mice, having "free" wood heat was about as much as you could ask for.
--Wag--
It took 23 cords for each of our families ours and grandpa's to stay warm through the winter, so we would cut a minimum of 50 trees every year, just to be sure we had enough plus a little extry. Needless to say, we only cut dead trees of which there always seemed to be plenty. Wood heat was the only heat we had for the winter, hence, the large amount of cutting we needed to do. Also needless to say is, wood heat is far more satisfying with which to warm up next to a Franklin style stove. Yet, I remember several occasions when I would wake up in the middle of the night due to the freezing cold because the fire had died out. A stack of six blankets made it possible to roll over and go back to sleep, however.
You may be familiar with the ferocity of Missouri winters in the Ozarks. One night, I jumped out of bed - and nearly right back in 'cause the floor was so cold - to find that the fire had gone completely out. Since I had to pee, I shivered my way downstairs to use the bathroom. Ever been so cold you could move around the house without walking? All you have to do is let your shivers vibrate you in the direction you're going.
Anyhow, I went over to restart the fire but the woodbox was empty. Dang. I went running back upstairs hoping the exertion would help warm me up a little. Glanced at the clock in my room as I put on a pair of pants: 2:34am. Sheesh. I stopped at the pants 'cause I figured the trip to the woodpile was going be relatively quick. I opened the door to the house and was confronted by a near-gale force wind. (Later the next morning, the weatherman announced that the temperature the prior night had dropped to -40F with a wind chill of -72F. I figure at 2:34, I hit my front door at the coldest possible part of that night.)
I nearly froze to death in the short, 100 feet to the woodpile, filling a wheelbarrow and bringing it back to the house. Remember I was only dressed in my Wranglers. No shirt, no shoes, no gloves, no coat. I barely was able to carry one armload into the house and fortunately, I had the presence of mind to bring some small pieces in with me to light a new fire. Lighting a match was a problem though. When your fingers no longer bend, you can't grip a little tiny match any more. I went to the kitchen with a tightly rolled newspaper and lit it at the stove. Dangerous, to be sure. I could've burned down the house along the way. But I didn't. Got the fire going and fortunately, it took on the first try.
An hour later, I was still warming myself by that fire. The cold was more than I'll ever be able to forget. Of course, the family was unaware of what I had done, not that it mattered. It did make me realize that over the course of the time we spent in Missouri, my father had basically kept that fire going every night for all that time and we never knew it, really. Except to complain every morning about having to refill the empty wood box and to notice we were warm and mostly toasty when we got up. When you're poor as church mice, having "free" wood heat was about as much as you could ask for.
--Wag--
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Classy Calculus
Last night, I started a Calculus Class. Bleah. I've been sweating it for about three weeks now but I need this class in order to get into the university in the fall.
Now, I'm no dummy. When I've wanted to learn something in the past, I've been able to damn well learn it and learn it well. But the fact that keeps sticking in my craw is that when I took College Algebra about 20 years ago, I pulled a very difficult "C." Add to that the fact that the first chapter of this Calculus textbook is a College Algebra review and while working through it, I discovered I really suck at it.
Still.
So, last night's class was rather an eye-opener. I followed it fairly well, however, the teacher is very fast and covered a lot of Algebraic material which I only barely caught a grip on. And this is the easy part of the class! Conceptually, I'm fine with the material. It's actually doing the work that seems to be causing me a lot of grief.
Sigh.
All in the name of making me a better person, I suppose. In some ways, this should be a fun class but now that I'm in it and spent an s-load of money getting into it, I'm going to ride it out and see if I can at least pull a "C" by the end of the class. I know, it's setting my sights low but at least I'll be able to use that to get into the University!
Wish me luck!
--Wag--
Now, I'm no dummy. When I've wanted to learn something in the past, I've been able to damn well learn it and learn it well. But the fact that keeps sticking in my craw is that when I took College Algebra about 20 years ago, I pulled a very difficult "C." Add to that the fact that the first chapter of this Calculus textbook is a College Algebra review and while working through it, I discovered I really suck at it.
Still.
So, last night's class was rather an eye-opener. I followed it fairly well, however, the teacher is very fast and covered a lot of Algebraic material which I only barely caught a grip on. And this is the easy part of the class! Conceptually, I'm fine with the material. It's actually doing the work that seems to be causing me a lot of grief.
Sigh.
All in the name of making me a better person, I suppose. In some ways, this should be a fun class but now that I'm in it and spent an s-load of money getting into it, I'm going to ride it out and see if I can at least pull a "C" by the end of the class. I know, it's setting my sights low but at least I'll be able to use that to get into the University!
Wish me luck!
--Wag--
Saturday, June 19, 2004
X1 Search Part Deaux
I suggest that it's only fair that since I ripped the X1 Search Software a minor new one (see below) I should also direct your attention to the minor rebuttal comment made by Josh. Please note his comment in response to my previous blog entry.
Regrettably, having little use for X1 Search, I have not tried it myself. (I rarely have past e-mail I have to find.)
I suggest, however, that giving your product away for free is no way to get someone to value it enough to actually install it and use it. I should add that in the software world, it is plain suspicious but I went through that already. Free products just don't merit any respect.
Ideally, Josh, my recommendation to you is to have you get some press releases out there in the hands Ziff-Davis, et. al. and have people pay for your product. Give them a discount, for cryin' out loud but don't give it away for free. I refer you back to my memory of 100's of AOL disks promising 1,000's of free hours from time to time in the past few years. Not ONCE have I ever used their product, even when free software only had to be checked for viruses.
One last thing, Josh. I did read a couple of reviews which indicate that there MAY BE spyware and adware in X1 Search. Particularly, quoting Jim Halloran from http://www.jimohalloran.com/archives/000302.html:
". . . the licence agreement . . . suggests that "adware" or "spyware" might be insalled along with X1. The relevant section of the licence agreement:
'4. Third Party Content. Your use of the Software may take you to web sites operated by third parties. We do not endorse (and those third party sites do not endorse us or the Software) nor are we affiliated with these third party web sites and we are not responsible for any content that appears on these sites.
... additional popups and redirections to third party web sites are classic symptoms of a machine with adware or spyware type programms installed. Later, the following appears in the licence...
YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT YOU DOWNLOAD AND/OR USE THE SOFTWARE AND ALL THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE MADE AVAILABLE IN CONJUNCTION WITH OR THROUGH THE SOFTWARE AT YOUR OWN DISCRETION AND RISK'
Which suggests that third party software will be installed along with X1.
I don't know for sure whether spyware is packaged with X1 or not because I didn't install it, but the fact that the licence allows for it is enough to stop me from trying it out.
Of course most people don't read the licence, so they get away with it, but its amazing how many programs actually disclose the fact that they're installing spyware on your machine in the licence agreement."
Wag again, here:
Frankly, Josh, if there isn't any adware or spyware in X1 Search at this very moment, the license agreement leaves it wide open for future inclusion of spyware or adware, not to mention the evil, dare I say it? POPUPS!!! Woo hoo! Just what I need on my already over-burdened PC's and wideband connections!
Ergo, I won't soon be installing your software, even if you do send me another free one! Sorry. But good luck to you, nonetheless!
(Ed Foster, are you observing this one?!! heheheh)
--Wag--
Regrettably, having little use for X1 Search, I have not tried it myself. (I rarely have past e-mail I have to find.)
I suggest, however, that giving your product away for free is no way to get someone to value it enough to actually install it and use it. I should add that in the software world, it is plain suspicious but I went through that already. Free products just don't merit any respect.
Ideally, Josh, my recommendation to you is to have you get some press releases out there in the hands Ziff-Davis, et. al. and have people pay for your product. Give them a discount, for cryin' out loud but don't give it away for free. I refer you back to my memory of 100's of AOL disks promising 1,000's of free hours from time to time in the past few years. Not ONCE have I ever used their product, even when free software only had to be checked for viruses.
One last thing, Josh. I did read a couple of reviews which indicate that there MAY BE spyware and adware in X1 Search. Particularly, quoting Jim Halloran from http://www.jimohalloran.com/archives/000302.html:
". . . the licence agreement . . . suggests that "adware" or "spyware" might be insalled along with X1. The relevant section of the licence agreement:
'4. Third Party Content. Your use of the Software may take you to web sites operated by third parties. We do not endorse (and those third party sites do not endorse us or the Software) nor are we affiliated with these third party web sites and we are not responsible for any content that appears on these sites.
... additional popups and redirections to third party web sites are classic symptoms of a machine with adware or spyware type programms installed. Later, the following appears in the licence...
YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT YOU DOWNLOAD AND/OR USE THE SOFTWARE AND ALL THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE MADE AVAILABLE IN CONJUNCTION WITH OR THROUGH THE SOFTWARE AT YOUR OWN DISCRETION AND RISK'
Which suggests that third party software will be installed along with X1.
I don't know for sure whether spyware is packaged with X1 or not because I didn't install it, but the fact that the licence allows for it is enough to stop me from trying it out.
Of course most people don't read the licence, so they get away with it, but its amazing how many programs actually disclose the fact that they're installing spyware on your machine in the licence agreement."
Wag again, here:
Frankly, Josh, if there isn't any adware or spyware in X1 Search at this very moment, the license agreement leaves it wide open for future inclusion of spyware or adware, not to mention the evil, dare I say it? POPUPS!!! Woo hoo! Just what I need on my already over-burdened PC's and wideband connections!
Ergo, I won't soon be installing your software, even if you do send me another free one! Sorry. But good luck to you, nonetheless!
(Ed Foster, are you observing this one?!! heheheh)
--Wag--
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
Marriage
My wedding anniversary is this Sunday. June 20th. I will have been married . . .
. . . 15 years.
Fifteen years. Never thought I'd say I'd done anything for 15 years. Just like I never could imagine myself saying something like, "15 years ago . . . ." Well, 15 years ago, I got married and have been with the same woman since then.
Here's where I start to sound like an old man. It's had its ups and downs. We've yelled and screamed at each other. We've been to marriage counselling together. Moved around together, lived in ratty apartments together, drove junky cars together, the works. More recently, we've bought a condo and a house together, lived in nice accommodations, mid- middle-class, drive decent cars which have no problems getting us from A to B. In the last 8 years or so, we've had a great life together.
The nice thing is, it seems to keep getting better and better. Sex gets progressively better, our conversations are more meaningful, we fall more in love with each other every day, and more and more we both forget what life was like before marriage.
We never had kids. My wife, regrettably, was unable to have children. And yet, looking back, we are actually glad we didn't. We think it would have been good in our lives and we would have truly loved kids in our home. Retrospectively, however, we feel very satisfied with our lives and with the things we're able to do simply because we don't have children in our home. It sounds materialistic, however, were we to be presented with the opportunity or responsibility of children at this point, we would take it on with no hesitation whatsoever. But we no longer seek children and we no longer regret the absence of children in our home.
Our marriage is a huge success. It's something we worked on and that effort is paying off in very large dividends.
Best of all, as I mentioned above, we're still in love. We fall more in love with each other every day. Her heart and mine are so entwined, we can't separate them any longer. We have mutual respect and admiration for each other and we treat each other as if we were the most important people in the universe.
We draw closer and closer every moment. Neither of us can wait 'til we see each other at the end of the day and if we had our preferences, we'd be together 24 hours a day. And never regret a moment of any of it. If I could go back, would I change anything, knowing what I know now? Absolutely. But the difference would be that we would have reached this pure elation many years ago instead of it taking as long as it did.
This is where we wish to be and how we wish to be. Nothing is more important to us than our life together and we really expect to keep making the most of it day by day.
The rose of our life is the sweetest of them all.
--Wag--
. . . 15 years.
Fifteen years. Never thought I'd say I'd done anything for 15 years. Just like I never could imagine myself saying something like, "15 years ago . . . ." Well, 15 years ago, I got married and have been with the same woman since then.
Here's where I start to sound like an old man. It's had its ups and downs. We've yelled and screamed at each other. We've been to marriage counselling together. Moved around together, lived in ratty apartments together, drove junky cars together, the works. More recently, we've bought a condo and a house together, lived in nice accommodations, mid- middle-class, drive decent cars which have no problems getting us from A to B. In the last 8 years or so, we've had a great life together.
The nice thing is, it seems to keep getting better and better. Sex gets progressively better, our conversations are more meaningful, we fall more in love with each other every day, and more and more we both forget what life was like before marriage.
We never had kids. My wife, regrettably, was unable to have children. And yet, looking back, we are actually glad we didn't. We think it would have been good in our lives and we would have truly loved kids in our home. Retrospectively, however, we feel very satisfied with our lives and with the things we're able to do simply because we don't have children in our home. It sounds materialistic, however, were we to be presented with the opportunity or responsibility of children at this point, we would take it on with no hesitation whatsoever. But we no longer seek children and we no longer regret the absence of children in our home.
Our marriage is a huge success. It's something we worked on and that effort is paying off in very large dividends.
Best of all, as I mentioned above, we're still in love. We fall more in love with each other every day. Her heart and mine are so entwined, we can't separate them any longer. We have mutual respect and admiration for each other and we treat each other as if we were the most important people in the universe.
We draw closer and closer every moment. Neither of us can wait 'til we see each other at the end of the day and if we had our preferences, we'd be together 24 hours a day. And never regret a moment of any of it. If I could go back, would I change anything, knowing what I know now? Absolutely. But the difference would be that we would have reached this pure elation many years ago instead of it taking as long as it did.
This is where we wish to be and how we wish to be. Nothing is more important to us than our life together and we really expect to keep making the most of it day by day.
The rose of our life is the sweetest of them all.
--Wag--
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
Depression
A mini-essay I wrote some months ago in response to an individual who had a family member suffering from depression.
--------------------------
Regarding depression, I am a firm believer in a number of things about it. These beliefs have evolved over time and may evolve further. However, I can say that looking back on my own bout with manic depression and the subsequent bouts with uber severe depression I know how it worked on me. It is undoubtedly different in many respects for other people but some of my thoughts below may ring true for those who read them.
Over time, depressive thinking may actually cause the chemistry in the brain to get into the "habit" of functioning in depression mode all the time. It requires meds to get out of this mode and get the brain back into the "habit" of being 'postively' charged with 'positive' chemistry. By the way, that's an analogy not a statement of the good humors of quack medicine.
For me, a drug called nomifensine maleate (sold under the brand name Merital, and don't ask me why I remember any of those three words after all this time!) was what kicked me back into "positive" mode in 1986. It was withdrawn from the U.S. by the FDA because a major side-effect is anemia, among others. I took the drug for about three months and it really did do the trick. Got my brain chems back in order. Made it so I could start to think again.
I was also in counselling during that time and although the counselling itself didn't ring any big bells with me, it did keep me thinking about making improvements and focusing on "getting better." Regrettably, it was during my mission for a cult religion so there were several concepts about depression which because of that cult, I couldn't conceive of until many years later. Much of what I'm writing here is from hindsight into my own depressive dynamics and the things it took to heal me of it.
First off, I believe wholeheartedly that being a member of said cult was what caused my depression. In it, failure is on the menu of emotions every hour of every day. You can only fail so many times before you believe that NOTHING you do will ever amount to anything worthwhile. After suffering defeat after defeat at the tempting hands of an imaginary Satan, you finally realize life is not going to amount to anything for you, nothing you do is ever going to be good enough and you're NEVER going to make it to see god.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Well, you're not going to go see god but that's because he isn't there, not because you're a shithead or a fuck up! LMAO!
Of course, all of that leads to despair and depression and eventually, in my case, suicide or attempted suicide. How many times have you seen people attempt suicide when it appears, externally, that they have everything going for them? Health, intelligence, money, apparent happiness, apparent familial love and affection. The works. How could a guy with all of those things commit suicide? Those of us who are or have been depressed understand all too well.
How to overcome it? Well, the drugs are a must. The counselling is also a must during the course of the drugs and possibly afterwards. I will say this about counselling, however. It must be with a quality counsellor. Notice I didn't say "qualified." The degrees on the wall are meaningless, as far as I can tell. The term quality is used VERY deliberately. Someone who is going to make you take responsibility for your own depression and the cure of it. NOT someone who is going to just dope you up and exclusively rely on drugs to "cure" you. It takes effort on your part and an extreme sense of responsibility for yourself.
It also requires belief. Or more specifically, a change of belief. A necessary attitude change will come with deliberate effort and the proper use of anti-depressants. But changing beliefs is critical, in my opinion for overcoming depression.
For example, cult religions teach you you're a failure and you're worthless. I say, it is OKAY to have failures in life and that such failures are NOT what make you worthless. Everyone fails from time to time but the guys who stay in failure mode get depressed. OR, they were depressed to begin with and they can't deal with the failure in a normal, mature, adult fashion. Failure is a learning experience and dealing with it is a skill that can be learned. But having a failure is NOT a reason to stop living or to stop feeling good about oneself. Do you believe this? You should. It's true.
Small failings do not matter. Cults teach people that every little sin is a major enough sin to keep you out from god. That would destroy the hopes of anyone who took it seriously. It sure did for me. "What if I forget to repent of some little thing I did when I was 9 years old?" Gag me. It's a waste of effort and a waste of energy. And very depressing, to say the least. If you wake up in the morning and sit around watching DVD's or watching daytime T.V. all day, yeah it was a wasted day. So what? No reason not to get moving the next day and do some other productive things. You set goals as a way of planning and thinking ahead. Not so you can use a list of failed activities to beat yourself up later! I see people do it all the time. "I can't get anything done." "Nothing ever works out for me." So? That's life. You keep plugging and stop worrying about the little momentary losses of self-discipline. They don't matter all that much and what's in the past is in the past. Shut up to yourself about it.
You also have to believe it's okay for life to happen. In fact, if it isn't happening, that is something to be depressed about. Okay, that was too circular but you probably get my drift!
You have to believe it is okay to feel good about your successes. Cults teach you that if you had a success of some kind it was because of God, not because you're a good person or because you're smart or because you worked hard. "Pride goeth before a fall." That is a load of crap. If you accomplish some thing, take pride in it. It is okay. Believe me! It's true! You don't have to go boasting about it to everyone but if the opportunity arises to tell of your experiences, go ahead! There is nothing wrong with being a success. In fact, there is everything right about being a success. And remember, little successes are just as wonderful as big successes. Just because you didn't make a million bucks last year, doesn't mean your success at getting a good grade in a school class is NOT worth celebrating. Celebrate, goddammit! It is a good thing WORTH celebrating!
Those are some things that come to mind just brainstorming at the moment. There are plenty of other things I will likely think of and if I do, I'll bring them up also. The bottom line is, you have to make your own healing work. Depression is one of those things which has to be done with a lot of work. Some people can never get off the anti-depressants. That's okay too. Just keep taking them and let them do their job. If you can get off of them, fine but do so very carefully and WITH the advice of your counseller. Ultimately, however, drugs or not, you are going to have to take the bull by the horns to make your life work. It's your responsibility.
And within your reach.
--Wag--
--------------------------
Regarding depression, I am a firm believer in a number of things about it. These beliefs have evolved over time and may evolve further. However, I can say that looking back on my own bout with manic depression and the subsequent bouts with uber severe depression I know how it worked on me. It is undoubtedly different in many respects for other people but some of my thoughts below may ring true for those who read them.
Over time, depressive thinking may actually cause the chemistry in the brain to get into the "habit" of functioning in depression mode all the time. It requires meds to get out of this mode and get the brain back into the "habit" of being 'postively' charged with 'positive' chemistry. By the way, that's an analogy not a statement of the good humors of quack medicine.
For me, a drug called nomifensine maleate (sold under the brand name Merital, and don't ask me why I remember any of those three words after all this time!) was what kicked me back into "positive" mode in 1986. It was withdrawn from the U.S. by the FDA because a major side-effect is anemia, among others. I took the drug for about three months and it really did do the trick. Got my brain chems back in order. Made it so I could start to think again.
I was also in counselling during that time and although the counselling itself didn't ring any big bells with me, it did keep me thinking about making improvements and focusing on "getting better." Regrettably, it was during my mission for a cult religion so there were several concepts about depression which because of that cult, I couldn't conceive of until many years later. Much of what I'm writing here is from hindsight into my own depressive dynamics and the things it took to heal me of it.
First off, I believe wholeheartedly that being a member of said cult was what caused my depression. In it, failure is on the menu of emotions every hour of every day. You can only fail so many times before you believe that NOTHING you do will ever amount to anything worthwhile. After suffering defeat after defeat at the tempting hands of an imaginary Satan, you finally realize life is not going to amount to anything for you, nothing you do is ever going to be good enough and you're NEVER going to make it to see god.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Well, you're not going to go see god but that's because he isn't there, not because you're a shithead or a fuck up! LMAO!
Of course, all of that leads to despair and depression and eventually, in my case, suicide or attempted suicide. How many times have you seen people attempt suicide when it appears, externally, that they have everything going for them? Health, intelligence, money, apparent happiness, apparent familial love and affection. The works. How could a guy with all of those things commit suicide? Those of us who are or have been depressed understand all too well.
How to overcome it? Well, the drugs are a must. The counselling is also a must during the course of the drugs and possibly afterwards. I will say this about counselling, however. It must be with a quality counsellor. Notice I didn't say "qualified." The degrees on the wall are meaningless, as far as I can tell. The term quality is used VERY deliberately. Someone who is going to make you take responsibility for your own depression and the cure of it. NOT someone who is going to just dope you up and exclusively rely on drugs to "cure" you. It takes effort on your part and an extreme sense of responsibility for yourself.
It also requires belief. Or more specifically, a change of belief. A necessary attitude change will come with deliberate effort and the proper use of anti-depressants. But changing beliefs is critical, in my opinion for overcoming depression.
For example, cult religions teach you you're a failure and you're worthless. I say, it is OKAY to have failures in life and that such failures are NOT what make you worthless. Everyone fails from time to time but the guys who stay in failure mode get depressed. OR, they were depressed to begin with and they can't deal with the failure in a normal, mature, adult fashion. Failure is a learning experience and dealing with it is a skill that can be learned. But having a failure is NOT a reason to stop living or to stop feeling good about oneself. Do you believe this? You should. It's true.
Small failings do not matter. Cults teach people that every little sin is a major enough sin to keep you out from god. That would destroy the hopes of anyone who took it seriously. It sure did for me. "What if I forget to repent of some little thing I did when I was 9 years old?" Gag me. It's a waste of effort and a waste of energy. And very depressing, to say the least. If you wake up in the morning and sit around watching DVD's or watching daytime T.V. all day, yeah it was a wasted day. So what? No reason not to get moving the next day and do some other productive things. You set goals as a way of planning and thinking ahead. Not so you can use a list of failed activities to beat yourself up later! I see people do it all the time. "I can't get anything done." "Nothing ever works out for me." So? That's life. You keep plugging and stop worrying about the little momentary losses of self-discipline. They don't matter all that much and what's in the past is in the past. Shut up to yourself about it.
You also have to believe it's okay for life to happen. In fact, if it isn't happening, that is something to be depressed about. Okay, that was too circular but you probably get my drift!
You have to believe it is okay to feel good about your successes. Cults teach you that if you had a success of some kind it was because of God, not because you're a good person or because you're smart or because you worked hard. "Pride goeth before a fall." That is a load of crap. If you accomplish some thing, take pride in it. It is okay. Believe me! It's true! You don't have to go boasting about it to everyone but if the opportunity arises to tell of your experiences, go ahead! There is nothing wrong with being a success. In fact, there is everything right about being a success. And remember, little successes are just as wonderful as big successes. Just because you didn't make a million bucks last year, doesn't mean your success at getting a good grade in a school class is NOT worth celebrating. Celebrate, goddammit! It is a good thing WORTH celebrating!
Those are some things that come to mind just brainstorming at the moment. There are plenty of other things I will likely think of and if I do, I'll bring them up also. The bottom line is, you have to make your own healing work. Depression is one of those things which has to be done with a lot of work. Some people can never get off the anti-depressants. That's okay too. Just keep taking them and let them do their job. If you can get off of them, fine but do so very carefully and WITH the advice of your counseller. Ultimately, however, drugs or not, you are going to have to take the bull by the horns to make your life work. It's your responsibility.
And within your reach.
--Wag--
Monday, June 07, 2004
X1 Search
The fact that I got an X1 Search program CD for free in snail mail today tells me that there is very likely Adware or Spyware or both included with the product. Who spends money on a mass-mailing of their product without getting compensated in some way by somebody? Absurd to think that just out of the goodness of their heart they will just give you their product. Great as it may be, and there are good reviews of it out there, I'm instantly suspicious of "free" software.
Not the least of which includes the 100 or so "free" AOL disks I've gotten over the years. Wish I'd kept all of those. I'd have quite the collection by now. I just use them as coasters and the X1 disk will have the same fate.
--Wag--
Not the least of which includes the 100 or so "free" AOL disks I've gotten over the years. Wish I'd kept all of those. I'd have quite the collection by now. I just use them as coasters and the X1 disk will have the same fate.
--Wag--
Relationships
A concept I have yet to encounter in my admittedly superficial and very amateur study of philosophy is the nature of relationships in regard to people who are givers and people who are takers.
It is frequently said, for example, that every marriage requires a lot of effort and work, that each partner must give 100% (or 110%, depending on who's math is considered!). And that's where the sage advice of the ages ends. You must give 100%. But is that realistic or even possible? I suggest that it is but with an additional elements to consider.
Essentially, my thought circles around the question that if you have a marriage relationship where both spouses are each trying to give 100%, who's doing the taking? Hopefully, both are also taking 100% because you simply cannot have a giver when there is no taker. Yet, just as there are often people who rarely give or who don't give enough, whatever "enough" is, there are also those who simply don't take enough.
Can you give 100% of the time AND take 100% of the time? Perhaps it ultimately becomes the same thing. Read on.
We speak of givers as being generous and kind and "altruistic" but we never speak of takers as being any of those. Yet, that is exactly what a taker really is if you consider the context of a healthy relationship. Indeed, many relationships which are NOT healthy or "normal" are generally a result of a disruption in the balance between giving and taking during the course of the relationship.
Nobody can always be a giver or always be a taker otherwise balance in the relationship is disrupted. The time frames for each role is not utterly critical unless they become excessively long. A caretaker spouse, for example, caring for an ill spouse year after year will eventually get completely used up unless there are other relationships in which that individual is able to become the taker. This brings up the idea that giving and taking cannot be limited to just a relationship between two people. It is in fact, a universally applied circle of reciprocation where the deficit of one is fulfilled by the gifts of another, a third party. In relationships where a jealous spouse will not allow the significant other to pursue outside interests is going to prevent the refills so necessary to the health of the relationship. The gas cap is locked and the key is thrown away.
The giver's reservoir of giving must be filled up from time to time. That need can be filled by the other party in the relationship, however, it is often times not enough. The giver frequently has to go to other sources to refill the reservoir. And the other person in the relationship must allow that to happen. If the giver never gets a chance to refill the tank, the individual starts to decay and a multitude of problems result, both for the person and for the relationship.
Imbalance in the relationship comes when one or the other is always or nearly always the giver and the other is nearly always or is always the taker. While this may seem like an ideal situation in theory (they are made for each other and all that), the reality is that the relationship is out of balance. In fact, both are being selfish, both are not considering the consequences of their actions and furthermore, each of the spouses is enabling the other to continue in their unhealthy pattern(s) of behavior.
People fluctuate between being a giver and a taker. On a given day, you may see a spouse in a marriage giving well over 100% while the other is taking it all in and giving back very little. Three days later or even 10 minutes later the roles may be reversed and you'll see the other spouse giving and the other taking. Regardless of who is doing the giving, there is active participation for both giver and taker. But people do not consider the taker in any virtuous sense. There is never a time when one or the other is a 100% giver or taker but over a long period of time, adding it all up should establish an evenness which indicates balance, overall, to the relationship.
Ideally, each person in the marriage will be constantly aware of the needs of their spouse and when that individual needs to give, the one should step up and take and when that individual needs to take, the other needs to give. A sensitivity and concern for the spouse is, of course mandatory in the course of a relationship. Being aware of the needs of a partner is essential to the discernment of whether or not it is time to be a taker or a giver. Many times, a giver desires to be a giver simply out of satisfaction at the pleasure or gratitude of the taker.
However, determining the needs of a lifemate is rather a delicate art. Certainly, if you offer a solution or a gift to satisy a perceived need and it is, in fact, flatly rejected, it's time to back off. You either got it wrong perceiving the actual need, or the individual does not need to be in the role you were thinking. Same thing, really. Time gives the experience needed to be able to consistently get it right. At times, when feeling the emptiness of not being able to fill one role or the other, it is even necessary to ask. Either way. Sometimes, you may need to ask your partner to take from you for a while as you be the giver. And it isn't even about role-playing at that point and it doesn't cheapen the efficacy of the giving. in fact, it can enhance it because then you know that your partner is willing to accommodate your needs.
Faking it is not *always* a bad idea but if you're an insincere taker, you cause the other person to receive a mixed message about what kinds of things are needed or necessary in the relationship. Overdone, it can easily cause mistrust. Feeling the need to fake it may indicate other problems in the relationship and at that point, it would be good to identify that problem and solve it for what it is. While it is a dishonesty to graciously take what is given when gratitude is not truly felt, it may make it more satisfying to the giver. An occasional "fake" may be just as healthy as genuine appreciation, either as giver or taker, however, as mentioned, overdoing it can be hazardous.
If one partner to a relationship never takes from the other, it can cause all kinds of trauma in the individual and ultimately, to the relationship. Can we say "rejection?" The giving person is never adequately fulfilled if, in fact, the individual's "gifts" cannot or will not be received by an effective and generous taker. If both are giving to and neither are taking from the other, they cannot be fulfilled and will nearly always feel a rejection of self. And yes, it can get personal. That such feelings are not expressed in a relationship is rather irrelevant. They are generally always there in such a circumstance.
There ARE relationships which allow BOTH parties to be takers. But these are nearly always relationships of a business nature wherein the buyer and the seller both take from a given transaction and receive value as a result of it. And they never or rarely change roles. Indeed, if the transaction doesn't go well it can be reversed so that both parties are restored to their original condition and once again, neither are givers or takers. This analogy is not a good one in the context of social science, however, because in this case, there is a tangible item of worth and a clear trade-off in regard to the fact that each has to take. In fact, the very introduction of a giving or a taking element into a business transaction can alter the dynamic rather drastically. Giving and taking can be a good thing here but it can be easily abused. Hurt people are a result and unnecessarily so.
Takers abuse givers but givers abuse takers as well. Givers frequently play the martyr or takers frequently take unrealistic advantage of the giver. Accusations fly and both parties begin to bring up harbored grudges and hurt feelings. In such a situation, it is important to realize that the giver is potentially the problem. That dynamic should be explored fully. Does the giver never become the taker? Is the giver monopolizing the give portion of the relationship? Is the taker never allowed to be the giver? And does that individual finally start rejecting the excessive giver as a form of passive resistance? In a long-term relationship, it would be easy for a taker to feel abused and never really know or understand what is going on. Yet, that person has the skill and agility needed to subconsciously push the buttons of the excessive giver and make life a difficulty. And never completely understand why.
Being an excessive giver is not necessarily a good thing. It is smothering and can be perceived as condescending and patronizing. It gets more and more difficult for a taker to be effectively gracious about the gifts and ultimately, passive-aggressive rejection begins to become patternistic and becomes the facilitator for damaging and destroying the health of the relationship.
Then there is the issue of keeping score. It is self-defeating. The score-keeper is not really interested in the relationship itself or the other person but is concerned primarily with his or her own merit as a partner in the relationship. Excessive givers are notorious for this but it isn't their exclusive domain. Excessive takers can easily get into the role of believing they are there to make the giver feel good about their "self" and proceed to make themselves constantly play the role of taker and even demand the gifts of the giver, erroneously believing they are truly doing their partner a favor at every turn.
Some people are more capable of giving and others more capable of taking. Money relationships are a good example of this. Two friends, one rich and the other poor but still friends on a level that supercedes their social status, will often encounter such a dynamic. The rich one pays for everything and the poor one goes along for the ride. In an psychologically warped relationship, the poor one always feels bad that he can't reciprocate and never realizes that it is his companionship, something about his personality or character that the rich person desires and hence, he does what he can to maintain that relationship. That the costs of going to dinner and a movie are borne by the rich individual is incidental and does not affect his desire to continue to do so. Of course, the poor individual can also abuse the relationship but then the merits of the relationship are compromised and it rapidly decays into a non-relationship.
The same is true of marital relationships. Some individuals are more capable of giving than taking. Others are more capable of taking than giving. But each should realize that it is to the benefit of both if they can turn the quarter over on occasion and switch roles. This is one of the areas where "work" is required. It generally means doing the difficult thing and stepping up to the plate as needed. Thus, the taker can be generous, considerate, compassionate, and willing to give up the role of taker and become the giver as it is needed. The giver, of course, can do so as well and become the taker in the relationship, even if only for a short time.
Which leads to the next comment, people who are 100% givers and never take, are, in reality, rather selfish in that they don't satisfy the need of the other person in the relationship wherein that individual's need to become a giver is not satisfied. On occasion, as frequently as needed, you must be a 100% taker so your partner can be a 100% giver. And vice-versa.
Balance is then attained and we find ourselves giving 100% of the time and taking 100% of the time.
The two then become one.
--Wag--
It is frequently said, for example, that every marriage requires a lot of effort and work, that each partner must give 100% (or 110%, depending on who's math is considered!). And that's where the sage advice of the ages ends. You must give 100%. But is that realistic or even possible? I suggest that it is but with an additional elements to consider.
Essentially, my thought circles around the question that if you have a marriage relationship where both spouses are each trying to give 100%, who's doing the taking? Hopefully, both are also taking 100% because you simply cannot have a giver when there is no taker. Yet, just as there are often people who rarely give or who don't give enough, whatever "enough" is, there are also those who simply don't take enough.
Can you give 100% of the time AND take 100% of the time? Perhaps it ultimately becomes the same thing. Read on.
We speak of givers as being generous and kind and "altruistic" but we never speak of takers as being any of those. Yet, that is exactly what a taker really is if you consider the context of a healthy relationship. Indeed, many relationships which are NOT healthy or "normal" are generally a result of a disruption in the balance between giving and taking during the course of the relationship.
Nobody can always be a giver or always be a taker otherwise balance in the relationship is disrupted. The time frames for each role is not utterly critical unless they become excessively long. A caretaker spouse, for example, caring for an ill spouse year after year will eventually get completely used up unless there are other relationships in which that individual is able to become the taker. This brings up the idea that giving and taking cannot be limited to just a relationship between two people. It is in fact, a universally applied circle of reciprocation where the deficit of one is fulfilled by the gifts of another, a third party. In relationships where a jealous spouse will not allow the significant other to pursue outside interests is going to prevent the refills so necessary to the health of the relationship. The gas cap is locked and the key is thrown away.
The giver's reservoir of giving must be filled up from time to time. That need can be filled by the other party in the relationship, however, it is often times not enough. The giver frequently has to go to other sources to refill the reservoir. And the other person in the relationship must allow that to happen. If the giver never gets a chance to refill the tank, the individual starts to decay and a multitude of problems result, both for the person and for the relationship.
Imbalance in the relationship comes when one or the other is always or nearly always the giver and the other is nearly always or is always the taker. While this may seem like an ideal situation in theory (they are made for each other and all that), the reality is that the relationship is out of balance. In fact, both are being selfish, both are not considering the consequences of their actions and furthermore, each of the spouses is enabling the other to continue in their unhealthy pattern(s) of behavior.
People fluctuate between being a giver and a taker. On a given day, you may see a spouse in a marriage giving well over 100% while the other is taking it all in and giving back very little. Three days later or even 10 minutes later the roles may be reversed and you'll see the other spouse giving and the other taking. Regardless of who is doing the giving, there is active participation for both giver and taker. But people do not consider the taker in any virtuous sense. There is never a time when one or the other is a 100% giver or taker but over a long period of time, adding it all up should establish an evenness which indicates balance, overall, to the relationship.
Ideally, each person in the marriage will be constantly aware of the needs of their spouse and when that individual needs to give, the one should step up and take and when that individual needs to take, the other needs to give. A sensitivity and concern for the spouse is, of course mandatory in the course of a relationship. Being aware of the needs of a partner is essential to the discernment of whether or not it is time to be a taker or a giver. Many times, a giver desires to be a giver simply out of satisfaction at the pleasure or gratitude of the taker.
However, determining the needs of a lifemate is rather a delicate art. Certainly, if you offer a solution or a gift to satisy a perceived need and it is, in fact, flatly rejected, it's time to back off. You either got it wrong perceiving the actual need, or the individual does not need to be in the role you were thinking. Same thing, really. Time gives the experience needed to be able to consistently get it right. At times, when feeling the emptiness of not being able to fill one role or the other, it is even necessary to ask. Either way. Sometimes, you may need to ask your partner to take from you for a while as you be the giver. And it isn't even about role-playing at that point and it doesn't cheapen the efficacy of the giving. in fact, it can enhance it because then you know that your partner is willing to accommodate your needs.
Faking it is not *always* a bad idea but if you're an insincere taker, you cause the other person to receive a mixed message about what kinds of things are needed or necessary in the relationship. Overdone, it can easily cause mistrust. Feeling the need to fake it may indicate other problems in the relationship and at that point, it would be good to identify that problem and solve it for what it is. While it is a dishonesty to graciously take what is given when gratitude is not truly felt, it may make it more satisfying to the giver. An occasional "fake" may be just as healthy as genuine appreciation, either as giver or taker, however, as mentioned, overdoing it can be hazardous.
If one partner to a relationship never takes from the other, it can cause all kinds of trauma in the individual and ultimately, to the relationship. Can we say "rejection?" The giving person is never adequately fulfilled if, in fact, the individual's "gifts" cannot or will not be received by an effective and generous taker. If both are giving to and neither are taking from the other, they cannot be fulfilled and will nearly always feel a rejection of self. And yes, it can get personal. That such feelings are not expressed in a relationship is rather irrelevant. They are generally always there in such a circumstance.
There ARE relationships which allow BOTH parties to be takers. But these are nearly always relationships of a business nature wherein the buyer and the seller both take from a given transaction and receive value as a result of it. And they never or rarely change roles. Indeed, if the transaction doesn't go well it can be reversed so that both parties are restored to their original condition and once again, neither are givers or takers. This analogy is not a good one in the context of social science, however, because in this case, there is a tangible item of worth and a clear trade-off in regard to the fact that each has to take. In fact, the very introduction of a giving or a taking element into a business transaction can alter the dynamic rather drastically. Giving and taking can be a good thing here but it can be easily abused. Hurt people are a result and unnecessarily so.
Takers abuse givers but givers abuse takers as well. Givers frequently play the martyr or takers frequently take unrealistic advantage of the giver. Accusations fly and both parties begin to bring up harbored grudges and hurt feelings. In such a situation, it is important to realize that the giver is potentially the problem. That dynamic should be explored fully. Does the giver never become the taker? Is the giver monopolizing the give portion of the relationship? Is the taker never allowed to be the giver? And does that individual finally start rejecting the excessive giver as a form of passive resistance? In a long-term relationship, it would be easy for a taker to feel abused and never really know or understand what is going on. Yet, that person has the skill and agility needed to subconsciously push the buttons of the excessive giver and make life a difficulty. And never completely understand why.
Being an excessive giver is not necessarily a good thing. It is smothering and can be perceived as condescending and patronizing. It gets more and more difficult for a taker to be effectively gracious about the gifts and ultimately, passive-aggressive rejection begins to become patternistic and becomes the facilitator for damaging and destroying the health of the relationship.
Then there is the issue of keeping score. It is self-defeating. The score-keeper is not really interested in the relationship itself or the other person but is concerned primarily with his or her own merit as a partner in the relationship. Excessive givers are notorious for this but it isn't their exclusive domain. Excessive takers can easily get into the role of believing they are there to make the giver feel good about their "self" and proceed to make themselves constantly play the role of taker and even demand the gifts of the giver, erroneously believing they are truly doing their partner a favor at every turn.
Some people are more capable of giving and others more capable of taking. Money relationships are a good example of this. Two friends, one rich and the other poor but still friends on a level that supercedes their social status, will often encounter such a dynamic. The rich one pays for everything and the poor one goes along for the ride. In an psychologically warped relationship, the poor one always feels bad that he can't reciprocate and never realizes that it is his companionship, something about his personality or character that the rich person desires and hence, he does what he can to maintain that relationship. That the costs of going to dinner and a movie are borne by the rich individual is incidental and does not affect his desire to continue to do so. Of course, the poor individual can also abuse the relationship but then the merits of the relationship are compromised and it rapidly decays into a non-relationship.
The same is true of marital relationships. Some individuals are more capable of giving than taking. Others are more capable of taking than giving. But each should realize that it is to the benefit of both if they can turn the quarter over on occasion and switch roles. This is one of the areas where "work" is required. It generally means doing the difficult thing and stepping up to the plate as needed. Thus, the taker can be generous, considerate, compassionate, and willing to give up the role of taker and become the giver as it is needed. The giver, of course, can do so as well and become the taker in the relationship, even if only for a short time.
Which leads to the next comment, people who are 100% givers and never take, are, in reality, rather selfish in that they don't satisfy the need of the other person in the relationship wherein that individual's need to become a giver is not satisfied. On occasion, as frequently as needed, you must be a 100% taker so your partner can be a 100% giver. And vice-versa.
Balance is then attained and we find ourselves giving 100% of the time and taking 100% of the time.
The two then become one.
--Wag--
Friday, May 21, 2004
Pride
"Pride goeth before a fall," it is said. But it's an incomplete statement. It should read, "False pride goeth before a fall."
There's an important distinction there. People are entitled to feel pride but it must be pride which is well deserved, otherwise, it will create problems for the poor slob. Especially once the falsity is discovered by others.
I submit to you that pride, well-placed and well-deserved, is a good thing. It motivates. It creates desire for further achievement and excellence. If you step back to look at something you've done and you see that it's very wonderful, it's okay to feel a sense of pride at your accomplishment. To feel that all is well in the world because you're in it now. To know that when you put your foot forward, good things come about.
Problems come when people attempt to express pride in something which is not theirs to claim.
Another problem with pride comes when, though an accomplishment is the result of the hard work and talent of the individual and he or she has every right to be proud of it, there is sometimes a tendencey to NOT stay motivated and cease to work on new or better things. Ever been in a conversation with a person who says, "I remember once when I . . . ." Yeah? But what have you done since then? Recently? Dwelling on past success is okay but working toward future success is something deserving of renewed pride while old pride is decaying with the passage of time.
Another human error which can happen while feeling pride is to forget to acknowledge the hand of others in one's success. Yeah, you may have done a boatload of hard work and you may have demonstrated great talent, but could you have gotten there without the condescension of other people? Other's providing you your instruction, patience, facilities, resources, etc.?
One final rambling thought is that boasting and bragging is a very offensive practice. Yeah, it's okay to FEEL pride but telling everyone about it when it isn't appropriate is not necessarily going to score you points with them, especially if you're all about claiming credit for an accomplishment instead of acknowledging the aid you received from others. Bosses do it rather frequently. A pat on the back brings no mention of the secretaries and assistants who did the leg work. Granted, the manager did a fabulous job creating and bringing together resources but even the greatest ideas are worthless without some muscle behind it.
That muscle power needs to be acknowledged.
Segway that discussion into one about humility. After basking in the glow of your own pride, time to move on and get some more things done, some more kudos to add to your curriculum vitae. I have to point out that many if not most things which are done exceptionally well and deserve to be pointed out with pride are done by people who love to do what they do. Such people WILL move on and continue doing exceptional things. They are to be revered and respected, to be sure. They feel pride in their excellence, but it doesn't stop them from continuing to be excellent and to become more so as time goes on.
A truly humble person will continue to develop their abilities and their strengths and as they do so, their reasons to be proud will continue.
--Wag--
There's an important distinction there. People are entitled to feel pride but it must be pride which is well deserved, otherwise, it will create problems for the poor slob. Especially once the falsity is discovered by others.
I submit to you that pride, well-placed and well-deserved, is a good thing. It motivates. It creates desire for further achievement and excellence. If you step back to look at something you've done and you see that it's very wonderful, it's okay to feel a sense of pride at your accomplishment. To feel that all is well in the world because you're in it now. To know that when you put your foot forward, good things come about.
Problems come when people attempt to express pride in something which is not theirs to claim.
Another problem with pride comes when, though an accomplishment is the result of the hard work and talent of the individual and he or she has every right to be proud of it, there is sometimes a tendencey to NOT stay motivated and cease to work on new or better things. Ever been in a conversation with a person who says, "I remember once when I . . . ." Yeah? But what have you done since then? Recently? Dwelling on past success is okay but working toward future success is something deserving of renewed pride while old pride is decaying with the passage of time.
Another human error which can happen while feeling pride is to forget to acknowledge the hand of others in one's success. Yeah, you may have done a boatload of hard work and you may have demonstrated great talent, but could you have gotten there without the condescension of other people? Other's providing you your instruction, patience, facilities, resources, etc.?
One final rambling thought is that boasting and bragging is a very offensive practice. Yeah, it's okay to FEEL pride but telling everyone about it when it isn't appropriate is not necessarily going to score you points with them, especially if you're all about claiming credit for an accomplishment instead of acknowledging the aid you received from others. Bosses do it rather frequently. A pat on the back brings no mention of the secretaries and assistants who did the leg work. Granted, the manager did a fabulous job creating and bringing together resources but even the greatest ideas are worthless without some muscle behind it.
That muscle power needs to be acknowledged.
Segway that discussion into one about humility. After basking in the glow of your own pride, time to move on and get some more things done, some more kudos to add to your curriculum vitae. I have to point out that many if not most things which are done exceptionally well and deserve to be pointed out with pride are done by people who love to do what they do. Such people WILL move on and continue doing exceptional things. They are to be revered and respected, to be sure. They feel pride in their excellence, but it doesn't stop them from continuing to be excellent and to become more so as time goes on.
A truly humble person will continue to develop their abilities and their strengths and as they do so, their reasons to be proud will continue.
--Wag--
The Golden Rule
The Golden Rule (TM) has long been a favorite of Christianity and philosphers trying to characterize and codify human morals.
As far as I can tell, Buddhists don't often know about the Golden Rule or don't care about it if they hear of it. I could be wrong, but I believe Buddhists simply say, "Treat people well and you'll be treated well." I like the simplicity and the implied cause and effect approach of that but I digress. Not to mention, I'm not the least bit qualified to discuss Buddhism in depth.
What is the Golden Rule? It says, and I gleefully paraphrase, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Essentially, the Golden Rule is a simplified code of ethics but as you'll see below, it has serious pitfalls.
Christians, using the Golden Rule, attempt to explain WHY you should treat people well. The reason is very selfish, not the least bit altruistic: Selfishness. Self-centeredness. Treat people well simply because you hope they are also going to treat you well? Okay, I realize there is a subtle difference between the Golden Rule and the "Buddhist" philosophy I quoted above. But the difference IS there, barely noticeable, and determined to look innocent while in reality, lying in wait to deceive, as it were.
The implication is, if you treat someone well, you should expect them to treat you well. Or worse, if you treat someone badly, you could expect reprisals from them. Hogwash. How could anyone possibly imply that because you treat them a certain way, the other guy would or should respond in kind? I think it's a naive point of view and it baldly implies that everyone is going to act like you do. That won't happen unless we all become robots who act exactly the same 'cause we all have the same programming.
Absurd.
Just 'cause you treat a person badly is no reason to believe he will abandon some code of ethics to which he holds in order to avenge himself on you. Nor should one be so naive as to assume that if you treat a person well he will abandon a life of crime and suddenly start treating you like a saving saint. (Okay, it happens, but rarely.) In fact, to assume either of those premises to be true would be grossy prejudicial and inconsiderate.
And here's the worst part of the Golden Rule: It assumes, much like the above, that how YOU want to be treated is how other people want to be treated. Pigs' swill. It's a very lazy way to shuffle off responsibility for other people from you to . . . the other person? I can't imagine that how *I* wish to be treated is the same way everyone else wishes to be treated. Okay, maybe a few, but not all and probably not very many, either.
Bear in mind, I've taken a Devil's Advocate position here in hacking at the Golden Rule. In essence, however, it's only flawed when put into practice in an unthinking way. But if used by thoughtful, intelligent people, it has a great deal of value. Most people who espouse the Golden Rule really haven't put a lot of thought into it. They misinterpret its meaning because they had it spoon-fed to them from the pulpit and they gobbled it up without considering the application of it carefully, if at all. The end result is, it gets perverted as described above.
What in the hell am I talking about? Here's the bottom line: I wish to be treated well but specifically, I wish to people to take a look at me, figure me out, and decide how *I* wish to be treated. I do NOT want people to treat me like they wish to be treated. I'm different from everyone else. I don't like the same things other people do. I love things which other people despise. Of course, I have some common interests with other people and that frequently gives us a good starting point, along with shared culture and backgrounds. But for a person to assume that I'm, "Like this," or "Like that," or worst of all, give no thought whatsoever to the question and slot me in with the rest of humanity is, well, inhuman.
The Golden Rule should be put into practice but not in the shallow way in which it is carelessly lofted from the pulpits of churches. People must consider that what they wish for and what their contacts wish for should be thought of carefully, with care for the character and inner desires of each individual. Otherwise, the benevolence of the Golden Rule becomes shoddy at best, tortuous at worst.
Indeed, The Golden Rule could be said to be a bane to stupid people and a boon to smart people using it sincerely.
Frankly, I think the Golden Rule lost its lustre many many years or centuries ago when people erroneously decided that treating everyone the same was an appropriate interpretation of the Golden Rule.
--Wag--
As far as I can tell, Buddhists don't often know about the Golden Rule or don't care about it if they hear of it. I could be wrong, but I believe Buddhists simply say, "Treat people well and you'll be treated well." I like the simplicity and the implied cause and effect approach of that but I digress. Not to mention, I'm not the least bit qualified to discuss Buddhism in depth.
What is the Golden Rule? It says, and I gleefully paraphrase, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Essentially, the Golden Rule is a simplified code of ethics but as you'll see below, it has serious pitfalls.
Christians, using the Golden Rule, attempt to explain WHY you should treat people well. The reason is very selfish, not the least bit altruistic: Selfishness. Self-centeredness. Treat people well simply because you hope they are also going to treat you well? Okay, I realize there is a subtle difference between the Golden Rule and the "Buddhist" philosophy I quoted above. But the difference IS there, barely noticeable, and determined to look innocent while in reality, lying in wait to deceive, as it were.
The implication is, if you treat someone well, you should expect them to treat you well. Or worse, if you treat someone badly, you could expect reprisals from them. Hogwash. How could anyone possibly imply that because you treat them a certain way, the other guy would or should respond in kind? I think it's a naive point of view and it baldly implies that everyone is going to act like you do. That won't happen unless we all become robots who act exactly the same 'cause we all have the same programming.
Absurd.
Just 'cause you treat a person badly is no reason to believe he will abandon some code of ethics to which he holds in order to avenge himself on you. Nor should one be so naive as to assume that if you treat a person well he will abandon a life of crime and suddenly start treating you like a saving saint. (Okay, it happens, but rarely.) In fact, to assume either of those premises to be true would be grossy prejudicial and inconsiderate.
And here's the worst part of the Golden Rule: It assumes, much like the above, that how YOU want to be treated is how other people want to be treated. Pigs' swill. It's a very lazy way to shuffle off responsibility for other people from you to . . . the other person? I can't imagine that how *I* wish to be treated is the same way everyone else wishes to be treated. Okay, maybe a few, but not all and probably not very many, either.
Bear in mind, I've taken a Devil's Advocate position here in hacking at the Golden Rule. In essence, however, it's only flawed when put into practice in an unthinking way. But if used by thoughtful, intelligent people, it has a great deal of value. Most people who espouse the Golden Rule really haven't put a lot of thought into it. They misinterpret its meaning because they had it spoon-fed to them from the pulpit and they gobbled it up without considering the application of it carefully, if at all. The end result is, it gets perverted as described above.
What in the hell am I talking about? Here's the bottom line: I wish to be treated well but specifically, I wish to people to take a look at me, figure me out, and decide how *I* wish to be treated. I do NOT want people to treat me like they wish to be treated. I'm different from everyone else. I don't like the same things other people do. I love things which other people despise. Of course, I have some common interests with other people and that frequently gives us a good starting point, along with shared culture and backgrounds. But for a person to assume that I'm, "Like this," or "Like that," or worst of all, give no thought whatsoever to the question and slot me in with the rest of humanity is, well, inhuman.
The Golden Rule should be put into practice but not in the shallow way in which it is carelessly lofted from the pulpits of churches. People must consider that what they wish for and what their contacts wish for should be thought of carefully, with care for the character and inner desires of each individual. Otherwise, the benevolence of the Golden Rule becomes shoddy at best, tortuous at worst.
Indeed, The Golden Rule could be said to be a bane to stupid people and a boon to smart people using it sincerely.
Frankly, I think the Golden Rule lost its lustre many many years or centuries ago when people erroneously decided that treating everyone the same was an appropriate interpretation of the Golden Rule.
--Wag--
Thursday, May 20, 2004
Why do people need a god?
I pretty much ignore religion for the most part these days except from a philosophical position. Some religions have their philosophical tenets which have value. The Golden Rule for example, though I think that belief is not carried to the level it should be. (Another topic for another day, I suppose.)
Nature does its thing, inexorably and unstoppably. The best thing man can do is delay its onslaught with shelter and disease control. An irresponsible parent who places a greater importance on an individual pasttime rather than on the well-being of his child is personally responsible for whatever harm comes to that child as a result. Yet, we read of such things regularly.
Second, we have to be careful to keep a grip on ourselves and our reality. The way I look at it, everything we do has consequences and whatever behaviors we engage in will have their benefits or detriments in the short and long run. There are a whole range of natural events, however, over which we have no control. The aforementioned irresponsible parent sets events in motion and causes a child to be 'left behind.' Such a parent has abandoned whatever degree of control he could have exercised over events in the immediate future.
The inexperience and fear of a child takes over from there. Nature, if you will. It would have been a mercy for such a child to die cataclysmically and immediately but coincidence and chance often preclude that from happening. They generally suffer a great deal before they succumb.
I agonize over the ordeal of such ill-fated children. It's very easy for me to place myself in their position and come very close to pure empathy with them. And choked with emotion over the suffering they must have endured. (There have been studies which suggest that nature floods the body with pain-killer chems and starts to shut down in order to prevent such pain as much as possible. That eases my mind about the suffering of small children and animals.)
Where I started to go with this second thought is that most of us have an inherent need and longing for a protective cloak over our stupidity and from the uncontrollable factors of our lives. We need to be careful we don't allow such compelling needs to push us into an irrational wishful belief in an all-powerful protector; just because we feel there SHOULD be one or we can't accept that there may not be one. Belief in god should be well thought out and based on intelligence, not reactionary emotion. Not trying to convince, lecture, or patronize. Just kind of outlining my own thought process as I dismissed a belief in God. Frankly, I think it's just fine not to know either way and to live life accordingly whether or not you believe. As long as you can make some degree of sense out of your belief.
As children growing up, our parents, ideally, are always there to kiss it better when we skin a knee or bonk a noggin. Is that the source of our desire to have a loving god watch over us as adults so that when things go badly, we can rely on his influence to make things better? A natural outgrowth of a learned thought pattern which says, "Take care of meeeeee?" I had that to a degree but not as much as some people. I was badly abused by my parents whereas the younger half of my nine siblings got treated more nicely. Perhaps that's the reason I didn't have much trouble dispensing with a belief in god and why my siblings may never do so.
Of all the theories of god, the watchmaker theory seems the most believable. Fits the circumstantial evidence the best. However, it would be the most difficult theory to prove. If god is ever discovered or chooses to reveal himself, we'll likely find that he's either a grandfatherly type who was just taking a nap and forgot to set his alarm, or we'll find he's more like a little kid with a magnifying glass aimed at the anthill of the earth and when he gets back around to us, we're gonna get fried!
Either way, we'll have more cause to hate him than love him. We'll look at him and say, "Why did you let millions of people starve to death, die of AIDS, die of crusades and inquisitions and holocausts and disease and earthqukes and other sorts of suffering?" "Benevolent" or not, if there's a god, there's plenty more reason to hate him than love him! My opinion, of course.
In the movie, "Pitch Black" there's a line by Riddick who says, "Yeah, I believe [in god] and I hate the motherfucker." I love that. It expresses my sentiment perfectly, except, of course, for the belief part. At least, it used to express my passion up to the point where I realized I could let go of my hatred of god since there was no god to hate.
Just my perception of the topic. Maybe more to come.
--Wag--
Nature does its thing, inexorably and unstoppably. The best thing man can do is delay its onslaught with shelter and disease control. An irresponsible parent who places a greater importance on an individual pasttime rather than on the well-being of his child is personally responsible for whatever harm comes to that child as a result. Yet, we read of such things regularly.
Second, we have to be careful to keep a grip on ourselves and our reality. The way I look at it, everything we do has consequences and whatever behaviors we engage in will have their benefits or detriments in the short and long run. There are a whole range of natural events, however, over which we have no control. The aforementioned irresponsible parent sets events in motion and causes a child to be 'left behind.' Such a parent has abandoned whatever degree of control he could have exercised over events in the immediate future.
The inexperience and fear of a child takes over from there. Nature, if you will. It would have been a mercy for such a child to die cataclysmically and immediately but coincidence and chance often preclude that from happening. They generally suffer a great deal before they succumb.
I agonize over the ordeal of such ill-fated children. It's very easy for me to place myself in their position and come very close to pure empathy with them. And choked with emotion over the suffering they must have endured. (There have been studies which suggest that nature floods the body with pain-killer chems and starts to shut down in order to prevent such pain as much as possible. That eases my mind about the suffering of small children and animals.)
Where I started to go with this second thought is that most of us have an inherent need and longing for a protective cloak over our stupidity and from the uncontrollable factors of our lives. We need to be careful we don't allow such compelling needs to push us into an irrational wishful belief in an all-powerful protector; just because we feel there SHOULD be one or we can't accept that there may not be one. Belief in god should be well thought out and based on intelligence, not reactionary emotion. Not trying to convince, lecture, or patronize. Just kind of outlining my own thought process as I dismissed a belief in God. Frankly, I think it's just fine not to know either way and to live life accordingly whether or not you believe. As long as you can make some degree of sense out of your belief.
As children growing up, our parents, ideally, are always there to kiss it better when we skin a knee or bonk a noggin. Is that the source of our desire to have a loving god watch over us as adults so that when things go badly, we can rely on his influence to make things better? A natural outgrowth of a learned thought pattern which says, "Take care of meeeeee?" I had that to a degree but not as much as some people. I was badly abused by my parents whereas the younger half of my nine siblings got treated more nicely. Perhaps that's the reason I didn't have much trouble dispensing with a belief in god and why my siblings may never do so.
Of all the theories of god, the watchmaker theory seems the most believable. Fits the circumstantial evidence the best. However, it would be the most difficult theory to prove. If god is ever discovered or chooses to reveal himself, we'll likely find that he's either a grandfatherly type who was just taking a nap and forgot to set his alarm, or we'll find he's more like a little kid with a magnifying glass aimed at the anthill of the earth and when he gets back around to us, we're gonna get fried!
Either way, we'll have more cause to hate him than love him. We'll look at him and say, "Why did you let millions of people starve to death, die of AIDS, die of crusades and inquisitions and holocausts and disease and earthqukes and other sorts of suffering?" "Benevolent" or not, if there's a god, there's plenty more reason to hate him than love him! My opinion, of course.
In the movie, "Pitch Black" there's a line by Riddick who says, "Yeah, I believe [in god] and I hate the motherfucker." I love that. It expresses my sentiment perfectly, except, of course, for the belief part. At least, it used to express my passion up to the point where I realized I could let go of my hatred of god since there was no god to hate.
Just my perception of the topic. Maybe more to come.
--Wag--
Thursday, May 13, 2004
Living up to your labels
I once read a quote which said, "If you treat others as they are and as they should be, they will become what they are and what they should be."
How many times have we performed above and beyond our true ability simply because someone looked up to us and expected it? Or worse, how many times do we do less than what we are capable of doing because . . .
Gasp!
. . . nobody's paying attention.
Hmmmmmmmmm.
--Wag--
How many times have we performed above and beyond our true ability simply because someone looked up to us and expected it? Or worse, how many times do we do less than what we are capable of doing because . . .
Gasp!
. . . nobody's paying attention.
Hmmmmmmmmm.
--Wag--
Dental Times
Went to the dentist this morning. Lemme tell ya something: There ain't NOTHING in the world better than a dentist who knows how to do his job without causing you enough pain to make the Texas Chainsaw Massacre look like a day out picking daisies.
As a child, dentistry was done with a hammer and chisel with an occasional hacksaw thrown into the mix. It was always done with two people. The dentist, wearing his mask (so little kids wouldn't be frightening into fits of screaming as they gazed into his maniacally grinning, sadistic face), and the dental assistant. The dental assistant was quite often rather decent looking and as I got to be a teenager, at least that much was appreciated.
Her looks were always deceiving though. Her job was to stretch your lip down past your bellybutton so the dentist could have an unimpeded view of your choppers. Not only that but he had to have room for a whole inventory of equipment in order to do his torture, er, work on your mouth.
First was the vacuum. I'm convinced this was for the sole purpose of drowning out the noises of the drill as he gleefully plowed through your teeth, spraying particles all over your chest. That little bib they clipped on you was nowhere NEAR large enough to keep that garbage off your shirt. Someone coulda made a mint selling rubber dental shirts but noooooo. All you got was this little insignificant paper postage stamp clipped to your collar.
So now you have a vacuum cleaner whining in your ear, a drill whining in your other ear, a dentist with hands the size of Montana reaching into the back of your throat and a general all-around cavalcade of crap all over your tonsils. Oh, and the assistant always had one hand dragging your cheek over HER shoulder with one hand at the same time she held your lip down at your waist with her other hand.
One assistant actually stapled my lip to my belly so she could root around in my mouth with yet another vacuum cleaner as the dentist hammered away at my teeth. Add to that the little rubber wheel stop. Same thing they use in the garage behind your car but the only difference is, this one goes in your mouth. They even buy them at the same auto parts store. I know, 'cause I've seen 'em. They wedge that puppy in between your teeth because they know damn well that first chance you get, you're biting fingers off.
Then there's the needle as long as your arm. That was always a good one. Why do they need a needle so long? I'll tell you why: So the dentist is out of your reach when he sticks you with it. If the needle were any shorter, you'd grab his man-berries and wrench 'em off him.
Ah, the memories.
Laughing gas hadn't been invented yet. The dentist would talk to you. The objective, of course, was to divert your attention from the pain in your mouth to the task of trying to talk with all this crap hanging from your jaws. It always came out the same:
Ggggahhhhahhghhghghghehehehehgggheghgggeeee.
That was because your tongue was either clamped to the roof of your mouth or stapled to your chin. That stapler got quite the use in that dental office.
The scariest thing about talking to the dentist with a mouth full of Snap-On tools was that the dentist always understood you. Must have been a class in Dental school on how to understand people who were A) in extreme pain, B) had your arm down their throat and C) hated your guts for doing your job. But understand you they did and they kept a rousing conversation going with you the entire time you were there.
Again, just to distract you from the pain. I'm sure dentists at the conventions would compare notes on who could cause the most pain before a patient cold-cocked 'em. If it was a big muscle-bound guy, the dentist got more points for it.
"Yeah, yesterday I had this kid in my office and I inadvertently drilled a hole in his left nostril. Oops. Clumsy me. I had just asked him if he had a girlfriend, my favorite distraction question for teenage boys, and just as he started to answer me, I nailed him. He never let out a peep! That's whatcha gotta do, use the right question, the right timing, and pretend like you do that kind of thing every day."
"Oh, that's nothing, bro. I had this guy in my chair a couple weeks back, 6'4" and outweighed me by 75 lbs. Good sense of humor. I had my most luscious assistant leaning over his face, dragging cleavage wafting perfume and the whole bit. I was just telling stories and at that moment, I was talking about my trip to Lake Tahoe and the huge Bass I had caught. All of a sudden, I 'slipped' and drove a chisel right through his jaw under the last molar. He winced a little, but didn't even groan. Boobs, man. That's all I have to say. Boobs. Works every time. And the best thing about it was the repair work on his jaw and back molars paid for my new fishing boat. I have it on order right now!"
I can hear the "ooohs" and "aaaahs" over that one.
But that was the good ol' days. It isn't like that any more.
This morning, my dentist whipped out a small digital camera probe and plugged it into a T.V. monitor. He pokes it into my mouth and shows me, tooth by tooth every little thing going on in my mouth. Lotsa neat little white castles lined up in rows.
"Looks like you need to floss a little more in front there." "Started smoking, didn't you? Bad boy." "I see a little rough spot back here we can sand off."
My teeth must be like a diary. I was waiting for him to tell me the last time I had sex but he had enough discretion to leave that one alone.
I complained about a spot in my back molar where food gets stuck all the time. He fixed that, cleaned my teeth, polished up and I was done.
I nearly fell asleep in his chair. And no pain killers or gas through any of it. How many of you can say that about YOUR dentist? Neener neener neener. I know most of you are so terrified at the dentist you're leaving claw marks in the arms of his chair. Sleeping is not even a remote possibility for you, even WITH the gas.
In short, my dentist is no fun, really. But in a dentist, that's the best thing about him. I'll take my boring ol' dentist over my childhood dentists any day.
--Wag--
As a child, dentistry was done with a hammer and chisel with an occasional hacksaw thrown into the mix. It was always done with two people. The dentist, wearing his mask (so little kids wouldn't be frightening into fits of screaming as they gazed into his maniacally grinning, sadistic face), and the dental assistant. The dental assistant was quite often rather decent looking and as I got to be a teenager, at least that much was appreciated.
Her looks were always deceiving though. Her job was to stretch your lip down past your bellybutton so the dentist could have an unimpeded view of your choppers. Not only that but he had to have room for a whole inventory of equipment in order to do his torture, er, work on your mouth.
First was the vacuum. I'm convinced this was for the sole purpose of drowning out the noises of the drill as he gleefully plowed through your teeth, spraying particles all over your chest. That little bib they clipped on you was nowhere NEAR large enough to keep that garbage off your shirt. Someone coulda made a mint selling rubber dental shirts but noooooo. All you got was this little insignificant paper postage stamp clipped to your collar.
So now you have a vacuum cleaner whining in your ear, a drill whining in your other ear, a dentist with hands the size of Montana reaching into the back of your throat and a general all-around cavalcade of crap all over your tonsils. Oh, and the assistant always had one hand dragging your cheek over HER shoulder with one hand at the same time she held your lip down at your waist with her other hand.
One assistant actually stapled my lip to my belly so she could root around in my mouth with yet another vacuum cleaner as the dentist hammered away at my teeth. Add to that the little rubber wheel stop. Same thing they use in the garage behind your car but the only difference is, this one goes in your mouth. They even buy them at the same auto parts store. I know, 'cause I've seen 'em. They wedge that puppy in between your teeth because they know damn well that first chance you get, you're biting fingers off.
Then there's the needle as long as your arm. That was always a good one. Why do they need a needle so long? I'll tell you why: So the dentist is out of your reach when he sticks you with it. If the needle were any shorter, you'd grab his man-berries and wrench 'em off him.
Ah, the memories.
Laughing gas hadn't been invented yet. The dentist would talk to you. The objective, of course, was to divert your attention from the pain in your mouth to the task of trying to talk with all this crap hanging from your jaws. It always came out the same:
Ggggahhhhahhghhghghghehehehehgggheghgggeeee.
That was because your tongue was either clamped to the roof of your mouth or stapled to your chin. That stapler got quite the use in that dental office.
The scariest thing about talking to the dentist with a mouth full of Snap-On tools was that the dentist always understood you. Must have been a class in Dental school on how to understand people who were A) in extreme pain, B) had your arm down their throat and C) hated your guts for doing your job. But understand you they did and they kept a rousing conversation going with you the entire time you were there.
Again, just to distract you from the pain. I'm sure dentists at the conventions would compare notes on who could cause the most pain before a patient cold-cocked 'em. If it was a big muscle-bound guy, the dentist got more points for it.
"Yeah, yesterday I had this kid in my office and I inadvertently drilled a hole in his left nostril. Oops. Clumsy me. I had just asked him if he had a girlfriend, my favorite distraction question for teenage boys, and just as he started to answer me, I nailed him. He never let out a peep! That's whatcha gotta do, use the right question, the right timing, and pretend like you do that kind of thing every day."
"Oh, that's nothing, bro. I had this guy in my chair a couple weeks back, 6'4" and outweighed me by 75 lbs. Good sense of humor. I had my most luscious assistant leaning over his face, dragging cleavage wafting perfume and the whole bit. I was just telling stories and at that moment, I was talking about my trip to Lake Tahoe and the huge Bass I had caught. All of a sudden, I 'slipped' and drove a chisel right through his jaw under the last molar. He winced a little, but didn't even groan. Boobs, man. That's all I have to say. Boobs. Works every time. And the best thing about it was the repair work on his jaw and back molars paid for my new fishing boat. I have it on order right now!"
I can hear the "ooohs" and "aaaahs" over that one.
But that was the good ol' days. It isn't like that any more.
This morning, my dentist whipped out a small digital camera probe and plugged it into a T.V. monitor. He pokes it into my mouth and shows me, tooth by tooth every little thing going on in my mouth. Lotsa neat little white castles lined up in rows.
"Looks like you need to floss a little more in front there." "Started smoking, didn't you? Bad boy." "I see a little rough spot back here we can sand off."
My teeth must be like a diary. I was waiting for him to tell me the last time I had sex but he had enough discretion to leave that one alone.
I complained about a spot in my back molar where food gets stuck all the time. He fixed that, cleaned my teeth, polished up and I was done.
I nearly fell asleep in his chair. And no pain killers or gas through any of it. How many of you can say that about YOUR dentist? Neener neener neener. I know most of you are so terrified at the dentist you're leaving claw marks in the arms of his chair. Sleeping is not even a remote possibility for you, even WITH the gas.
In short, my dentist is no fun, really. But in a dentist, that's the best thing about him. I'll take my boring ol' dentist over my childhood dentists any day.
--Wag--
Tuesday, May 11, 2004
Ha!
I've wanted a Blog since I first heard about 'em. I couldn't tell you why, however. Just one of those irrational things that don't bear explanation, even if you had one.
I just think the word sounds cool.
Blog.
Kinda beautiful and putrid at the same time. It starts out rolling nicely off your tongue and then collapses at the end, face down in the gutter.
But that's just incidental. The frosting, if you'll forgive the bad cliche.
I see people using their blogs for spewage. I suppose I may do some of that here too.
Others are using their blogs to post technical solutions to problems. If I discover anything worthwhile that I couldn't find on a T.S. web site, I'll put it up. Not that I'm a technogeek or anything. I just hate it when a company has crappy technical support. Maxell, are you listening? But before I digress too far . . . .
I'm mystified by one thing, however: Some people are putting up blogs (me) and they aren't really sure who or what will be reading it and why. Just some random info up on the internet. You never know if it has any worth. Is that okay? Or is that even moral or ethical? If nobody reads what you've written, have you just wasted your time and effort?
Eh, who cares? I don't. It changes my life not at all!
I think I may just be jonesing to write something. Anything. Some of it will be spewage, I have little doubt. Other stuff I write may be worthy of some attention. (Is THAT what it's all about? A bunch of us attention-whores hoping for a little recognition? It feels pretty close to the mark.)
Stay tuned. If you're there. I'll put up more spewage some time.
--Wag--
I just think the word sounds cool.
Blog.
Kinda beautiful and putrid at the same time. It starts out rolling nicely off your tongue and then collapses at the end, face down in the gutter.
But that's just incidental. The frosting, if you'll forgive the bad cliche.
I see people using their blogs for spewage. I suppose I may do some of that here too.
Others are using their blogs to post technical solutions to problems. If I discover anything worthwhile that I couldn't find on a T.S. web site, I'll put it up. Not that I'm a technogeek or anything. I just hate it when a company has crappy technical support. Maxell, are you listening? But before I digress too far . . . .
I'm mystified by one thing, however: Some people are putting up blogs (me) and they aren't really sure who or what will be reading it and why. Just some random info up on the internet. You never know if it has any worth. Is that okay? Or is that even moral or ethical? If nobody reads what you've written, have you just wasted your time and effort?
Eh, who cares? I don't. It changes my life not at all!
I think I may just be jonesing to write something. Anything. Some of it will be spewage, I have little doubt. Other stuff I write may be worthy of some attention. (Is THAT what it's all about? A bunch of us attention-whores hoping for a little recognition? It feels pretty close to the mark.)
Stay tuned. If you're there. I'll put up more spewage some time.
--Wag--
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
