I have a friend on facebook who answered the profile question regarding political views as "the right ones", and his religious views as "not a big fan". He graduated JD Cum Laude, John Marshall Law School in 2000.
On September 11, he posted the following status/follow-up comment, due to the limitations of space allowed in facebook posts:
"XX is disturbed that some people may feel that his nuanced opinions on certain issues make him less of an American. I would remind these people that as an American Indian I am likely one of the only true Americans that they know.
As one of the few true Americans that most of my friends know, meaning that I am 1/8 American Indian, I would remind people that over 11,000,000 Indians have died as a direct result of colonization of our native lands. When you consider the death toll of 3,000 lives at WTC (which is horrible and inexcusable by any stretch) remember that no less... ... Read More3,666 Native Americans have died for every person that died in WTC. This of course is more than a similar event every day for a year. Just something to think about when you refuse to look for deeper truths and more meaningful lessons to be learned."
My response:
"And just how many "true Americans" died in internecine warfare during, and after the colonization of "their" land, not to mention from the time they themselves migrated from the Russian steppe, over an ice bridge, onto the North American continent?
I really don't care about how much "Native" American you are, to try to place things in that nonsensical a perspective is insulting."
Earlier in the day, he had a wall post about how his perception of many people's patriotism is "blindly following a flag, and stop questioning what's right", and how it seemed to be somehow connected to 9/11.
I followed up my comment above with the following:
"And I don't just mean the comment, but all your musings regarding patriotism.
To me, true patriotism means a Hell of a lot more than following a flag, and certainly more than trying to get people to question their own feelings on the matter with some holier-than-thou stance.
I do apologize if I seem to be taking a tone, but this self-important, "I'm too good to blindly follow" attitude that many of my generation have pisses me right the Hell off.
You want to eschew religion, patriotism, or any other belief system you like, by all means go ahead. That is your right. But don't you dare claim some moral superiority because of it.
Just as my belief in some things doesn't make me better than others, your disbelief of the same doesn't make you better than anyone else.
To forestall people attacking me, you certainly have a right to your opinion, and thank God for it. But if you are going to express it in a public forum, such as facebook, be prepared for other opinions to come at you."
Long story short, this person seems to be an individual who thinks that his opinion is just the pinnacle of all that is around him. He seems to be agnostic, having the opinion that once a person's soul gains heaven, they have no reason to be nice, ergo, Heaven is filled with a$$holes, whereas Hell is filled with people who are trying to be nice enough to get out of it.
Was I wrong to lay into this person as I did? Please note, the term friend is used in the context of facebook. This is not actually a person with whom I interact outside of that forum.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Racist Transformers? Or overly sensitive audience?
I have yet to see "Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen". Make no mistake, I WILL see the movie. I have been a Transformers fan from the git go in the early 80s.
I have seen every episode of the old cartoon series, several from subsequent series (my opinion, none as good as the original), and many of the newest series, "Transformers Animated" (geared to the 8-11 age bracket. I watch with my kids).
The newest series deals with something the original never did, until the movie in 1986, and that is death. I am lucky enough (or unlucky enough) that my kids understand the concept, and even seem to have a full understanding of the concept of having a soul, a topic touched upon in the series under the guise of each robot having a "spark" (When good-guy leader Optimus Prime thinks he has died, he asks those around him, "Is this the Well of Allsparks?"). The "spark" concept is one that was broached in previous series, notably the "Beast Wars" spin-off of the 90s, but it seems to be explored a little more thoroughly in the current series.
But I digress. The Transformers movie from a couple of years ago was fun for fans, and while not a cinematic masterpiece, an okay movie. It had the idea of a powerful artifact called the Allspark, and the presence of such a thing became the motivation for transformers on Earth, as opposed to the original story, which placed the transformers here 4 million years ago, and in some form of robotic stasis until the modern time.
This new approach has the transfomers (Autobot good guys and Decepticon bad guys) arriving on Earth as meteors and disguising themselves as vehicles to search for this lost artifact.
By the end of the first movie, the Decpticons are on the run, their leader deactivated and dumped into the ocean, and a message from Optimus Prime sent to space inviting other Autobots to join those who survived on Earth. Good guys win, human companion of the Autobots gets the girl, and a happy ending is achieved.
The second movie, subtitled "Revenge of the Fallen" (ROTF) adds new layers to the story. I haven't seen the movie yet, so whatever I say is based upon reviews that contain spoilers and what I know from the various comic books stories that have been written over the years. I haven't read them, but I have read enough about them to have a pretty decent idea as far as source material is concerned (any mistakes should be forgiven).
The title itself gives things away, and has double meaning. It refers to the fallen Decepticons from the first movie, specifically Decepticon leader, Megatron (dumped into the ocean), and it refers to an ancient transformer, said to be, depending upon who you speak to, the FIRST Decepticon (Each transformer wears an allegiance symbol. A red robotic face for the Autobots, and a purple one for the Decepticons. The Decepticon symbol bears a strong resemblance to the face of the Fallen). According to the comics, The Fallen is said to be the transformers equivalent of Judas, since he betrayed a dozen other transformers first built by the transformer machine-god Primus. His actual name has been lost to the sands of time, and he is simply referred to, because of his actions, The Fallen.
In the movie, The Fallen and several Decepticons have visited Earth in the distant past, terrifying ancient humans, presumably Aztecs, Incas and the like.
But again, I digress from my point.
This second movie introduces several new characters, both Autobot and Decepticon. Some are fan favorites, and others, while possessing names that fans will recall from older incarnations of the Transformers, are new. Two such characters are Skids and Mudflap, also known as the Autobot twins.
In the first movie, Optimus Prime explains how the transformers are able to speak English. They tapped into the world wide web, and presumably learned not only the language, but much about human cultures. In the Autobot Jazz, this came across as an easygoing character who enjoyed all that life had to offer when he wasn't fighting in a war (and sounded like a black man while doing so). In Autobot Ironhide this came across as a profound understanding and appreciation of weapons. Autobot Bumblebee was able to communicate using what could only be assumed to be a satellite radio hookup, since he had near instant access to any radio transmission he needed to get a point across.
Different personalities arose as a result of different focuses on the same available data.
Enter ROTF. Autobots Skids and Mudflap have been covered the most in the media, because they are "jive-talkin', gangsta robots" who represent "stereotypically racist" characters.
Robots who turn into Chevy vehicles. Are racist. Because they talk and act like a couple of buffoons, and with a certain inflection.
What in the world has happened to the "cultural sensitivity" in this country? Buffoonish robots who don't read and behave like a couple of hoodlums are "racist"?
Let's go over what I said a few moments ago. The characterizations are formed on these robots as a result of what they glean from the Internet. To say that there is no shortage of material that is offensive and "acceptable" there is an understatement. Virtually anything the Wayans brothers have ever done would be more than enough to form personalities and behaviors that would seem "racist" in anything other than a black man behaving like a buffoon.
And that's the problem.
It seems that racial stereotypes are acceptable, as long as they are coming from one person or another, but NOT from a white guy (or CG robot).
Maybe it is time for people to relax a little, and not worry about racial issues when they are perceived.
Or, apply that sensitivity to any and ALL instances of such insensitivity, especially when the source is one who SHOULD be offended by the crap he is calling funny.
So-called comedians like Chris Rock, who make a career out of making racially insensitive and downright insulting comments and calling it "comedy", do not help matters at all.
"Bruno" will be opening soon. Sasha Baron Cohen has made a movie in which he plays a flamboyantly gay man, and records people's reactions to him and his flamboyance. He did something similar with "Borat", and was sued many times for it. Now, he is targeting homosexuality, and doing so in a disgustingly vulgar manner.
Yet many critics love the movie. They think it is funny to see Cohen behaving outrageously and baiting people into situations that will embarrass them. They think that his antics as a homosexual and his vulgarity in speech and action are funny.
Yet the same time they offer praises for Cohen, they lambaste ROTF, complaining that there is vulgarity, potty humor, and stereotypical behavior. Such things, they say, don't belong in a "kids movie" like ROTF. Yet ROTF carries a PG-13 rating for that very reason.
PG-13 does NOT denote a kids movie, regardless of the subject matter or source material.
But the point is that characterizations performed by a "comedian" who makes a career out of making people feel/look foolish, even if he has to act as an over-the-top homosexual to do it, is funny. Having computer generated robots who have a legitimate story reason (though to my knowledge it is not addressed in the movie. Taking the previous explanation about the web, and extrapolating that new arrivals could conceivably find material on the web that is not considered offensive, one really doesn't need to think too hard to explain the "racist" behavior of the two new 'bots) for behaving as they do is enough to get all kinds of "anti-defamation" groups up in arms, is not, apparently, funny.
To say that there is a double standard at work would be an understatement.
Maybe it's time we re-evaluate just how important race and racial sensitivity really is. After all, we have Michelle Obama's "baby's daddy" elected to the highest executive office in the land. With credentials like that, I don't know how there can be so much concern for CG robots that are green and orange, one sporting a "gold tooth", and both talking and behaving like a white guy with his pants around his knees, a t-shirt that is 4 sizes too big, and a baseball hat cocked to the side, which is seemingly "racist".
I have seen every episode of the old cartoon series, several from subsequent series (my opinion, none as good as the original), and many of the newest series, "Transformers Animated" (geared to the 8-11 age bracket. I watch with my kids).
The newest series deals with something the original never did, until the movie in 1986, and that is death. I am lucky enough (or unlucky enough) that my kids understand the concept, and even seem to have a full understanding of the concept of having a soul, a topic touched upon in the series under the guise of each robot having a "spark" (When good-guy leader Optimus Prime thinks he has died, he asks those around him, "Is this the Well of Allsparks?"). The "spark" concept is one that was broached in previous series, notably the "Beast Wars" spin-off of the 90s, but it seems to be explored a little more thoroughly in the current series.
But I digress. The Transformers movie from a couple of years ago was fun for fans, and while not a cinematic masterpiece, an okay movie. It had the idea of a powerful artifact called the Allspark, and the presence of such a thing became the motivation for transformers on Earth, as opposed to the original story, which placed the transformers here 4 million years ago, and in some form of robotic stasis until the modern time.
This new approach has the transfomers (Autobot good guys and Decepticon bad guys) arriving on Earth as meteors and disguising themselves as vehicles to search for this lost artifact.
By the end of the first movie, the Decpticons are on the run, their leader deactivated and dumped into the ocean, and a message from Optimus Prime sent to space inviting other Autobots to join those who survived on Earth. Good guys win, human companion of the Autobots gets the girl, and a happy ending is achieved.
The second movie, subtitled "Revenge of the Fallen" (ROTF) adds new layers to the story. I haven't seen the movie yet, so whatever I say is based upon reviews that contain spoilers and what I know from the various comic books stories that have been written over the years. I haven't read them, but I have read enough about them to have a pretty decent idea as far as source material is concerned (any mistakes should be forgiven).
The title itself gives things away, and has double meaning. It refers to the fallen Decepticons from the first movie, specifically Decepticon leader, Megatron (dumped into the ocean), and it refers to an ancient transformer, said to be, depending upon who you speak to, the FIRST Decepticon (Each transformer wears an allegiance symbol. A red robotic face for the Autobots, and a purple one for the Decepticons. The Decepticon symbol bears a strong resemblance to the face of the Fallen). According to the comics, The Fallen is said to be the transformers equivalent of Judas, since he betrayed a dozen other transformers first built by the transformer machine-god Primus. His actual name has been lost to the sands of time, and he is simply referred to, because of his actions, The Fallen.
In the movie, The Fallen and several Decepticons have visited Earth in the distant past, terrifying ancient humans, presumably Aztecs, Incas and the like.
But again, I digress from my point.
This second movie introduces several new characters, both Autobot and Decepticon. Some are fan favorites, and others, while possessing names that fans will recall from older incarnations of the Transformers, are new. Two such characters are Skids and Mudflap, also known as the Autobot twins.
In the first movie, Optimus Prime explains how the transformers are able to speak English. They tapped into the world wide web, and presumably learned not only the language, but much about human cultures. In the Autobot Jazz, this came across as an easygoing character who enjoyed all that life had to offer when he wasn't fighting in a war (and sounded like a black man while doing so). In Autobot Ironhide this came across as a profound understanding and appreciation of weapons. Autobot Bumblebee was able to communicate using what could only be assumed to be a satellite radio hookup, since he had near instant access to any radio transmission he needed to get a point across.
Different personalities arose as a result of different focuses on the same available data.
Enter ROTF. Autobots Skids and Mudflap have been covered the most in the media, because they are "jive-talkin', gangsta robots" who represent "stereotypically racist" characters.
Robots who turn into Chevy vehicles. Are racist. Because they talk and act like a couple of buffoons, and with a certain inflection.
What in the world has happened to the "cultural sensitivity" in this country? Buffoonish robots who don't read and behave like a couple of hoodlums are "racist"?
Let's go over what I said a few moments ago. The characterizations are formed on these robots as a result of what they glean from the Internet. To say that there is no shortage of material that is offensive and "acceptable" there is an understatement. Virtually anything the Wayans brothers have ever done would be more than enough to form personalities and behaviors that would seem "racist" in anything other than a black man behaving like a buffoon.
And that's the problem.
It seems that racial stereotypes are acceptable, as long as they are coming from one person or another, but NOT from a white guy (or CG robot).
Maybe it is time for people to relax a little, and not worry about racial issues when they are perceived.
Or, apply that sensitivity to any and ALL instances of such insensitivity, especially when the source is one who SHOULD be offended by the crap he is calling funny.
So-called comedians like Chris Rock, who make a career out of making racially insensitive and downright insulting comments and calling it "comedy", do not help matters at all.
"Bruno" will be opening soon. Sasha Baron Cohen has made a movie in which he plays a flamboyantly gay man, and records people's reactions to him and his flamboyance. He did something similar with "Borat", and was sued many times for it. Now, he is targeting homosexuality, and doing so in a disgustingly vulgar manner.
Yet many critics love the movie. They think it is funny to see Cohen behaving outrageously and baiting people into situations that will embarrass them. They think that his antics as a homosexual and his vulgarity in speech and action are funny.
Yet the same time they offer praises for Cohen, they lambaste ROTF, complaining that there is vulgarity, potty humor, and stereotypical behavior. Such things, they say, don't belong in a "kids movie" like ROTF. Yet ROTF carries a PG-13 rating for that very reason.
PG-13 does NOT denote a kids movie, regardless of the subject matter or source material.
But the point is that characterizations performed by a "comedian" who makes a career out of making people feel/look foolish, even if he has to act as an over-the-top homosexual to do it, is funny. Having computer generated robots who have a legitimate story reason (though to my knowledge it is not addressed in the movie. Taking the previous explanation about the web, and extrapolating that new arrivals could conceivably find material on the web that is not considered offensive, one really doesn't need to think too hard to explain the "racist" behavior of the two new 'bots) for behaving as they do is enough to get all kinds of "anti-defamation" groups up in arms, is not, apparently, funny.
To say that there is a double standard at work would be an understatement.
Maybe it's time we re-evaluate just how important race and racial sensitivity really is. After all, we have Michelle Obama's "baby's daddy" elected to the highest executive office in the land. With credentials like that, I don't know how there can be so much concern for CG robots that are green and orange, one sporting a "gold tooth", and both talking and behaving like a white guy with his pants around his knees, a t-shirt that is 4 sizes too big, and a baseball hat cocked to the side, which is seemingly "racist".
Friday, June 19, 2009
Haven't been feeling too witty...
Which is why there has not been much posting. Like any. For a while.
Kids are out of school, and the lovely June weather has felt more like early October with the cold and the rain. I can see my breath in front of my face at work. I thought we were in the midst of a GLOBAL warming cycle. I think I've ranted about this before, so I will simply reiterate: For any phenomenon to be GLOBAL, there cannot be such wildly local variances.
Anyway, kids are kids. They can drive one batty. Coop them up for a few days of their summer vacations because of the colder temps and rain, and that multiplies. Add a general lack of proper sleep for their supervising daddy, and you have frayed nerves, headaches all over the place, and all-around crankiness.
And that's just from Wyfster putting up with me (I kid. Really. My wife has been great, as always).
The lack of sleep comes from having lost one car to total structural breakdown. a few inches of play in the rear axle makes for sideways driving. Fun fun. Anyway, since we are to one car, this means that Wyfster gets home about the same time I should be clocking in at work. I told them the situation, and it's cool there, but this means I have been gettign into work later. Which means I have been working later. The past few days, I have been on the clock until the wee hours, one day just beating the birds chirping the morning by about a half-hour or so.
Wyfster looks forward to our vacations to Florida each year. It's one week to visit my dad, and take in the sun, sand, ocean, and other Florida treasures. I think I'm looking forward to this vacation more than I have any previous ones.
Don't get me wrong, I like my job. My co-workers are all on different shifts than mine, so I get along with them just fine, because I don't have to work with them for extended periods of time. I don't mind the work itself, and I like to think I'm good at it. Since my boss hasn't complained, I take that to be a good thing (especially since he has "overlooked" a couple of minor industrial accidents, and still wants me around. Seriously. A faulty overflow alarm led to my trying to put about 300 gallons of oil more into a 14,000 gallon outside tank than it could hold. The clean-up took a couple of hours, and my boss STILL likes me, and wants to keep me around. The company owner's reaction to the overflow was to chuckle and say "Well, we haven't done THAT in a while"). Seriously. I work for great people, and that can make all the difference in liking your job.
Having said all that, I really am looking forward to getting the Hell away from it all for a week.
I would prefer more time away, but I'll take what I can get. Maybe my witticism batteries will recharge, and I can keep this blog going.
Or at the very least, not snap at the cats for eating so loudly.
Did I mention I need a vacation?
Kids are out of school, and the lovely June weather has felt more like early October with the cold and the rain. I can see my breath in front of my face at work. I thought we were in the midst of a GLOBAL warming cycle. I think I've ranted about this before, so I will simply reiterate: For any phenomenon to be GLOBAL, there cannot be such wildly local variances.
Anyway, kids are kids. They can drive one batty. Coop them up for a few days of their summer vacations because of the colder temps and rain, and that multiplies. Add a general lack of proper sleep for their supervising daddy, and you have frayed nerves, headaches all over the place, and all-around crankiness.
And that's just from Wyfster putting up with me (I kid. Really. My wife has been great, as always).
The lack of sleep comes from having lost one car to total structural breakdown. a few inches of play in the rear axle makes for sideways driving. Fun fun. Anyway, since we are to one car, this means that Wyfster gets home about the same time I should be clocking in at work. I told them the situation, and it's cool there, but this means I have been gettign into work later. Which means I have been working later. The past few days, I have been on the clock until the wee hours, one day just beating the birds chirping the morning by about a half-hour or so.
Wyfster looks forward to our vacations to Florida each year. It's one week to visit my dad, and take in the sun, sand, ocean, and other Florida treasures. I think I'm looking forward to this vacation more than I have any previous ones.
Don't get me wrong, I like my job. My co-workers are all on different shifts than mine, so I get along with them just fine, because I don't have to work with them for extended periods of time. I don't mind the work itself, and I like to think I'm good at it. Since my boss hasn't complained, I take that to be a good thing (especially since he has "overlooked" a couple of minor industrial accidents, and still wants me around. Seriously. A faulty overflow alarm led to my trying to put about 300 gallons of oil more into a 14,000 gallon outside tank than it could hold. The clean-up took a couple of hours, and my boss STILL likes me, and wants to keep me around. The company owner's reaction to the overflow was to chuckle and say "Well, we haven't done THAT in a while"). Seriously. I work for great people, and that can make all the difference in liking your job.
Having said all that, I really am looking forward to getting the Hell away from it all for a week.
I would prefer more time away, but I'll take what I can get. Maybe my witticism batteries will recharge, and I can keep this blog going.
Or at the very least, not snap at the cats for eating so loudly.
Did I mention I need a vacation?
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Gay men and beauty contestants...
unless noted by actual quotes, all statements are paraphrased from the actual comments
So, Miss California (Carrie Prejean) is being alternately pilloried and praised. She was asked a question at the Miss USA pageant by gay activist and celebrity gossip Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr. (aka, Perez Hilton, who takes his nickname and name for his blog from his friendship with noted heiress Paris Hilton). Several members of the audience didn't like her honest answer, and would have preferred a politically correct answer.
Mr. Lavandeira would have preferred that as well. When speaking to Larry King, he said that Miss USA should be politically correct, since she represents all of the US. His expected answer to his question about gay marriage was not what he received, and he was unhappy, as evident by a hate-filled video blog in which he called the contestant a "dumb bitch".
Personally, I think that her answer could have been a little more articulate, as many answers given at these events could be (does anyone even know what the question asked of Miss North Carolina was? I looked, but couldn't find a transcript or video).
Mr. Lavandeira said that he expected an answer that was weak, and said that it should be up to the states. However, it HAS been up to the states. Same-sex marriages have been voted DOWN in EVERY election they are brought up (the only exception I can find was a vote to amend the state constitution in Arizona). Same-sex marriage exists only because of decisions in the courts, rather than based upon the will of the people, CONTRARY to what Mr. Lavandeira says would be appropriate.
If left up to the states, as Mr. Lavandeira says it should be, recent history has shown that the states are more in line with Miss Prejean's opinion, nullifying his arguemnt that she would not represent American values.
Mr. Lavandeira should learn more about that which he speaks, before insulting someone with whom he disagrees. Contrary to what the gay rights movement in America would want you to think, gay marriage is NOT the law of the land, and has never been approved by the majority of the people.
California, the most liberal state of the union, approved at the ballot box by an overwhelming margin, to NOT allow same-sex marriage. This led to hate-filled diatribes by celebrities and protests that in other circumstances would have been termed hate crimes against religious groups that had little to nothing to do with the lack of approval in the state.
The judiciary across the nation has a problem. Too many are ignoring the will of the people in favor of special permissions and laws for a minority. In attempting to offer "equal protection", they are instead setting up an environment where "unequal rights" are being granted.
Let me be clear. I think that marriage is one man and one woman. This is not to say that I am against homosexuals expressing their love for one another, but it IS to say that marriage is something that is just not an option for them to do so. It comes down to something that sounds rather simplistic, but if you don't meet the requirements, you don't get to join the club.
How about this? I'll start referring to myself as a homosexual. I sleep with my wife, and am not attracted at all to men, but I am a homosexual.
You mean I can't do that? Because I don't meet the "requirements" set down to define something, I can't call myself that?
Hmm.... funny how it works when turned around, isn't it?
So, Miss California (Carrie Prejean) is being alternately pilloried and praised. She was asked a question at the Miss USA pageant by gay activist and celebrity gossip Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr. (aka, Perez Hilton, who takes his nickname and name for his blog from his friendship with noted heiress Paris Hilton). Several members of the audience didn't like her honest answer, and would have preferred a politically correct answer.
Mr. Lavandeira would have preferred that as well. When speaking to Larry King, he said that Miss USA should be politically correct, since she represents all of the US. His expected answer to his question about gay marriage was not what he received, and he was unhappy, as evident by a hate-filled video blog in which he called the contestant a "dumb bitch".
Personally, I think that her answer could have been a little more articulate, as many answers given at these events could be (does anyone even know what the question asked of Miss North Carolina was? I looked, but couldn't find a transcript or video).
Mr. Lavandeira said that he expected an answer that was weak, and said that it should be up to the states. However, it HAS been up to the states. Same-sex marriages have been voted DOWN in EVERY election they are brought up (the only exception I can find was a vote to amend the state constitution in Arizona). Same-sex marriage exists only because of decisions in the courts, rather than based upon the will of the people, CONTRARY to what Mr. Lavandeira says would be appropriate.
If left up to the states, as Mr. Lavandeira says it should be, recent history has shown that the states are more in line with Miss Prejean's opinion, nullifying his arguemnt that she would not represent American values.
Mr. Lavandeira should learn more about that which he speaks, before insulting someone with whom he disagrees. Contrary to what the gay rights movement in America would want you to think, gay marriage is NOT the law of the land, and has never been approved by the majority of the people.
California, the most liberal state of the union, approved at the ballot box by an overwhelming margin, to NOT allow same-sex marriage. This led to hate-filled diatribes by celebrities and protests that in other circumstances would have been termed hate crimes against religious groups that had little to nothing to do with the lack of approval in the state.
The judiciary across the nation has a problem. Too many are ignoring the will of the people in favor of special permissions and laws for a minority. In attempting to offer "equal protection", they are instead setting up an environment where "unequal rights" are being granted.
Let me be clear. I think that marriage is one man and one woman. This is not to say that I am against homosexuals expressing their love for one another, but it IS to say that marriage is something that is just not an option for them to do so. It comes down to something that sounds rather simplistic, but if you don't meet the requirements, you don't get to join the club.
How about this? I'll start referring to myself as a homosexual. I sleep with my wife, and am not attracted at all to men, but I am a homosexual.
You mean I can't do that? Because I don't meet the "requirements" set down to define something, I can't call myself that?
Hmm.... funny how it works when turned around, isn't it?
Monday, April 20, 2009
I really have a strange child...
My daughter, Sprout, in order to prevent me from eating the ears off her chocolate Easter Bunnies, has chomped all the ears off herself. Sort of the chocolate equivalent of "If I can't have them without worrying about them first, then NO ONE will!"
Problem is, I'm all talk when it comes to snarfing the ears off my kids' bunnies. Sally Forth I am not (read that comic for YEARS, and I just the other day got the double entendre in the name).
I'm more like Ted. And Sprout is becoming more and more like Hillary. We talk about subjects that are silly, while Wyfster (our Sally) sits in the background rolling her eyes. I'll give you an example.
I saw, for the first time the other day, a TV show on Spike TV called "Deadliest Warrior". The premise is simple. A group of 4 experts call in specialists in (mostly) archaic weapons and fighting styles. They take measurements of these weapons in use (speed of projectiles, force of a strike, penetration power, etc), add in information about the typical example of the specific warrior class (Samurai, Vikings, Apache warriors, etc) like height, weight, etc.
All this data is fed into a complex computer program that then takes the data, and runs 1000 simulations of a one-on-one combat between two of the warrior classes (Apache Warrior versus Roman Gladiator, for example), and after 1000 simulations, they indicate which warrior would emerge victorious (the Apache beat the Gladiator, BTW).
Sprout and I watched a couple of episodes, and actually debated on one (Viking versus Samurai). My daughter figured the Viking's larger frame and brute force would overcome the Samurai's slight build and speed. It was close, but the Samurai was victorious.
But the point is that my daughter formed an opinion regarding a hypothetical combat between two warriors who would never meet on the field of battle.
I'm not quite sure what this says about my 7-year-old daughter, or my skill (or lack thereof) as a parent. My daughter is sarcastic, yet respectful. Vicariously violent (through such things as this TV show, for instance), but gentle as any other little girl you can find. She's a fantastic student, yet suffers from a slight case of test anxiety, and worries if her scores are not perfect (though my wife and I are VERY careful to make sure to not put that kind of pressure on her).
I thought daughters weren't supposed to be such paradoxes until at least the pre-teen years.
What in the world did I do wrong (or right)? And what am I going to do when she gets to be totally unpredictable?
I can only hope that she remembers how much she likes spending time with daddy, and how much she likes talking with mommy, and her pre-teen and teen years are as abnormally easy as her infancy was.
Or else I could end up as more of a basket-case than I am already.
Problem is, I'm all talk when it comes to snarfing the ears off my kids' bunnies. Sally Forth I am not (read that comic for YEARS, and I just the other day got the double entendre in the name).
I'm more like Ted. And Sprout is becoming more and more like Hillary. We talk about subjects that are silly, while Wyfster (our Sally) sits in the background rolling her eyes. I'll give you an example.
I saw, for the first time the other day, a TV show on Spike TV called "Deadliest Warrior". The premise is simple. A group of 4 experts call in specialists in (mostly) archaic weapons and fighting styles. They take measurements of these weapons in use (speed of projectiles, force of a strike, penetration power, etc), add in information about the typical example of the specific warrior class (Samurai, Vikings, Apache warriors, etc) like height, weight, etc.
All this data is fed into a complex computer program that then takes the data, and runs 1000 simulations of a one-on-one combat between two of the warrior classes (Apache Warrior versus Roman Gladiator, for example), and after 1000 simulations, they indicate which warrior would emerge victorious (the Apache beat the Gladiator, BTW).
Sprout and I watched a couple of episodes, and actually debated on one (Viking versus Samurai). My daughter figured the Viking's larger frame and brute force would overcome the Samurai's slight build and speed. It was close, but the Samurai was victorious.
But the point is that my daughter formed an opinion regarding a hypothetical combat between two warriors who would never meet on the field of battle.
I'm not quite sure what this says about my 7-year-old daughter, or my skill (or lack thereof) as a parent. My daughter is sarcastic, yet respectful. Vicariously violent (through such things as this TV show, for instance), but gentle as any other little girl you can find. She's a fantastic student, yet suffers from a slight case of test anxiety, and worries if her scores are not perfect (though my wife and I are VERY careful to make sure to not put that kind of pressure on her).
I thought daughters weren't supposed to be such paradoxes until at least the pre-teen years.
What in the world did I do wrong (or right)? And what am I going to do when she gets to be totally unpredictable?
I can only hope that she remembers how much she likes spending time with daddy, and how much she likes talking with mommy, and her pre-teen and teen years are as abnormally easy as her infancy was.
Or else I could end up as more of a basket-case than I am already.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Don't know why I was thinking of this last night at work...
Just had a memory skip across the gray matter last night while I was hosing dirt and oil off a truck.
The time is the mid to late 90's (the date is not really that important). The place is Montgomery College, in the cafeteria. There's a performer singing cover tunes while playing a guitar, and the students are paying about as much attention to him as they do the college's radio station (little more than a glorified PA system that is run by students and piped into the cafeteria).
Suddenly, a door on the far side of the cafeteria bursts open. The students closest react, and a student comes charging into the cafeteria. As he makes his way through (jogging), the reaction from the first students spread. Minor reactions spread into a commotion, as students realize what they are witnessing.
The student jogging through the cafeteria wears a red bandanna, looking (facially, anyway) like a bandit from an old western, well-worn size 10 sneakers, and nothing else.
As he passes in front of the performer, who was singing "Tears in Heaven" by Eric Clapton, the performer pauses in his singing and playing for a second, taking in what has interrupted his "show". He blinks, shakes his head, and continues from where he paused his singing.
The streaker leaves the cafeteria through the Student Activities office, to his girlfriend's car, poised to make an escape. His friends laugh at what has just transpired, one nearly falling off his seat, and one friend, while not laughing as uproariously, nonetheless has a sadistic, self-satisfied grin on his face.
A short time later, the streaker's friends are let in on the secret, as the streaker returns, fully clothed, and is taken by campus police for questioning.
The streaker (to protect his identity, we'll call him Dan) was actually put up to his stunt. And I was the one who put him up to it. I wasn't the one who spurred activities like this. I simply wasn't the type to encourage behavior like this.
So I explained:
Shortly before the "done in a flash" event, Dan was sitting with his girlfriend, myself, and a couple of other friends, just hanging out in the Student Activities area. It had been observed that things were kinda dead in the cafeteria, and someone had made the suggestion to do something about it. This degenerated into Dan saying that he would streak the cafeteria, if he was paid for it.
My brain started hatching a plan.
Dan and I had been friends. We still were, as of this event (and, truth be told, after it), friends, but not quite as good of friends as we had been. He had done something. It was important enough to alter our friendship, but not important enough to leave the impression on me so that I would remember it now.
Anyway, Dan also owed me 5 bucks.
In a moment of sadism, I offered him the opportunity to wipe out that minor debt (and a bag of Doritos) if he would streak the cafeteria. He agreed, and I knew that he would want to take credit for it (much like a criminal leaving taunting clues for a cop). I decided to encourage him to do something that he would bury himself for because he had committed some minor wrong to me, and, let's be honest, I did it for poops and giggles.
And damn it all if Dan didn't perform almost exactly as expected. To his credit, he didn't rat me out, convincing the campus police he decided to do it on his own.
If it had been a little colder, it would have been a little more satisfying, but revenge for whatever the wrong was was served that day, and all it cost me was a bag of Doritos (the money had already been more or less written off by me).
And I and my friends learned what a truly sadistic, twisted individual I can be.
The time is the mid to late 90's (the date is not really that important). The place is Montgomery College, in the cafeteria. There's a performer singing cover tunes while playing a guitar, and the students are paying about as much attention to him as they do the college's radio station (little more than a glorified PA system that is run by students and piped into the cafeteria).
Suddenly, a door on the far side of the cafeteria bursts open. The students closest react, and a student comes charging into the cafeteria. As he makes his way through (jogging), the reaction from the first students spread. Minor reactions spread into a commotion, as students realize what they are witnessing.
The student jogging through the cafeteria wears a red bandanna, looking (facially, anyway) like a bandit from an old western, well-worn size 10 sneakers, and nothing else.
As he passes in front of the performer, who was singing "Tears in Heaven" by Eric Clapton, the performer pauses in his singing and playing for a second, taking in what has interrupted his "show". He blinks, shakes his head, and continues from where he paused his singing.
The streaker leaves the cafeteria through the Student Activities office, to his girlfriend's car, poised to make an escape. His friends laugh at what has just transpired, one nearly falling off his seat, and one friend, while not laughing as uproariously, nonetheless has a sadistic, self-satisfied grin on his face.
A short time later, the streaker's friends are let in on the secret, as the streaker returns, fully clothed, and is taken by campus police for questioning.
The streaker (to protect his identity, we'll call him Dan) was actually put up to his stunt. And I was the one who put him up to it. I wasn't the one who spurred activities like this. I simply wasn't the type to encourage behavior like this.
So I explained:
Shortly before the "done in a flash" event, Dan was sitting with his girlfriend, myself, and a couple of other friends, just hanging out in the Student Activities area. It had been observed that things were kinda dead in the cafeteria, and someone had made the suggestion to do something about it. This degenerated into Dan saying that he would streak the cafeteria, if he was paid for it.
My brain started hatching a plan.
Dan and I had been friends. We still were, as of this event (and, truth be told, after it), friends, but not quite as good of friends as we had been. He had done something. It was important enough to alter our friendship, but not important enough to leave the impression on me so that I would remember it now.
Anyway, Dan also owed me 5 bucks.
In a moment of sadism, I offered him the opportunity to wipe out that minor debt (and a bag of Doritos) if he would streak the cafeteria. He agreed, and I knew that he would want to take credit for it (much like a criminal leaving taunting clues for a cop). I decided to encourage him to do something that he would bury himself for because he had committed some minor wrong to me, and, let's be honest, I did it for poops and giggles.
And damn it all if Dan didn't perform almost exactly as expected. To his credit, he didn't rat me out, convincing the campus police he decided to do it on his own.
If it had been a little colder, it would have been a little more satisfying, but revenge for whatever the wrong was was served that day, and all it cost me was a bag of Doritos (the money had already been more or less written off by me).
And I and my friends learned what a truly sadistic, twisted individual I can be.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Hollywood and the rationality of a 5-year-old...
So, I am shopping in Weis market, and use the automated check-out. Squirt, my 5-year-old son goes down to bag the groceries. I had to re-bag them, but, what are you gonna do? He was pleased with himself that he could help. Anyway, while I was re-bagging the groceries, my son looks at the Redbox (great thing for movies, as long as you don't procrastinate in returning videos), and spots the indicator for the movie "Milk" (he reads better than the other kids in his class).
His eyes get wide, and he excitedly says, "Daddy! There's a movie about milk! That's so cool!"
What, I think. I look at the Redbox kiosk, and spot what Squirt did. There, amongst all the mini-posters for the latest movies, is a plain red card that has the title "Milk", and the primary actors (don't know why there wasn't a mini-poster, but...) written in high contrast, back-lit white.
I grin slightly, and explain to my son that the movie was about a man whose name was Harvey Milk. I explained that he was a political figure in California who was killed by a political rival. When my son asked why that would happen, I explained that the why was less important than the fact that a person had been murdered.
A lot of people would wonder how I could speak to my 5-year-old child about such things, but my kids (Sprout, my daughter, is 7 years old) both already have an awareness of things such as life, death, and murder.
I blame religion. We teach kids at a young age about the 10 commandments, which means that young kids need to know what "covet", "murder", "steal", and "honor" mean. Blast it all if that doesn't mean that kids end up having questions about some things that too many adults who try to raise kids with no religion want to pretend little kids shouldn't hear about.
But I digress.
My son was slightly disappointed that "Milk" was not a movie about what we call in our home "moo juice", and accepted that the movie was about a person named Milk.
It also allowed me to make a point that might have been missed by many non-parents. You find a chance to make a point, even if it is not one that you would think is "logical". I explained to my son that the thing to remember was that Mr. Milk's murder by Dan White was important. It was not necessary to go into what Mr. Milk stood for, because that was secondary to the taking of the life of a human who had done nothing wrong under the law.
Through my kids, I am trying to make them understand that it is more important to put aside distinctions and see others simply as people, and not their "identity".
It's a message that bears repeating, on days other than Martin Luther King's birthday.
His eyes get wide, and he excitedly says, "Daddy! There's a movie about milk! That's so cool!"
What, I think. I look at the Redbox kiosk, and spot what Squirt did. There, amongst all the mini-posters for the latest movies, is a plain red card that has the title "Milk", and the primary actors (don't know why there wasn't a mini-poster, but...) written in high contrast, back-lit white.
I grin slightly, and explain to my son that the movie was about a man whose name was Harvey Milk. I explained that he was a political figure in California who was killed by a political rival. When my son asked why that would happen, I explained that the why was less important than the fact that a person had been murdered.
A lot of people would wonder how I could speak to my 5-year-old child about such things, but my kids (Sprout, my daughter, is 7 years old) both already have an awareness of things such as life, death, and murder.
I blame religion. We teach kids at a young age about the 10 commandments, which means that young kids need to know what "covet", "murder", "steal", and "honor" mean. Blast it all if that doesn't mean that kids end up having questions about some things that too many adults who try to raise kids with no religion want to pretend little kids shouldn't hear about.
But I digress.
My son was slightly disappointed that "Milk" was not a movie about what we call in our home "moo juice", and accepted that the movie was about a person named Milk.
It also allowed me to make a point that might have been missed by many non-parents. You find a chance to make a point, even if it is not one that you would think is "logical". I explained to my son that the thing to remember was that Mr. Milk's murder by Dan White was important. It was not necessary to go into what Mr. Milk stood for, because that was secondary to the taking of the life of a human who had done nothing wrong under the law.
Through my kids, I am trying to make them understand that it is more important to put aside distinctions and see others simply as people, and not their "identity".
It's a message that bears repeating, on days other than Martin Luther King's birthday.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Irresponsible "science"
The president yesterday signed an executive order undoing an order signed by his predecessor, banning the use of federal monies to fund embryonic stem cell research.
Embryonic stem-cell research has been able to continue, just lacking the funding of the federal government. In the years since George W. Bush banned the use of federal funds, research has continued, both in the United States, and overseas.
To date there have been no therapies developed by used embryonic stem cells, yet adult stem cells have produced treatments for many conditions.
Yet there is celebration that the embryonic research will not be funded by the people (several hundred millions dollars have been privately raised and spent in the 7 1/2 years since President Bush banned federal funding), as though the additional money will create cures that were non-existent before. The cells don't care about the money involved in research, nor do they care where the money came from. The funding ultimately means nothing to the research.
But to those who have to pay for the funding now, it means quite a bit.
Not all Americans think that the destruction of human embryos will yield the results that such informed individuals as Michael J. Fox do. Setting the ethical considerations aside for a moment, I can only help but wonder if there has been a whole lot of thought put into what the development of a treatment might mean.
In Barcelona, a Columbian woman had her trachea, which had collapsed due to tuberculosis, replaced with one that had been grown by using a prepared (cells that could have caused an immune reaction, i.e. organ rejection had been stripped off) donor's tracheal segment, and treated with the patient's own stem-cells (harvested from her bone marrow) to aid in growing the replacement in a lab. She has shown no signs of rejection, mainly because of the application of her own stem cells.
How exactly can one use something developed using stem cells not their own (embryonic) and not expect some degree of rejection? While I'm certain some scientist somewhere has an idea about that, but there is no practical information to show that there would not be rejection of a treatment developed with embryonic cells. The reason this is a concern is that the embryonic cells contain DNA that does not match the patient. The DNA sequence of the embryonic stem cells is unique unto itself, showing compatibility with the DNA of its progenitors (mother and father), but separate from any other DNA sequence in the world.
Organ transplants take place all the time. Sometimes they take with minimal rejection, sometimes the body rejects transplanted organs all together. But rejection is something that needs to be considered, and as far as I have heard, embryonic stem cell research CAN lead to cures for all kinds of maladies, but has not been used TO cure anything, and I doubt that much consideration has been given to the potential of rejection, with research going instead to finding the "cures" that scientists are sure are there.
But this is very poor science. The conclusion is that these cures are hiding in embryonic stem cells, and all the scientists need is a few more dollars to break though whatever barrier stops them, but there is nothing to indicate that such can be accomplished, other than the preconceived conclusions. The research could very well lead to data that indicates embryonic stem cells cannot be used for what scientists and celebrities KNOW is there.
If that is the case, will the research stop, or will money be wasted, while proven treatments using non-embryonic stem cells sit with no further expansion or exploration of what could be?
As for the ethical concerns, it goes back to the presidential campaign.
Candidate B.O. was asked, "when does life begin?" His response is that the answer was "beyond his pay grade". It seems that he has decided he can determine that now, and I would love to see him asked this question now.
His decision to free up federal funds (which are few and far between these days thanks to the bailouts) for embryonic research seems to indicate that he KNOWS that life does not begin at conception, otherwise he would not be willing to allow federal money to be used to research that would destroy lives (since an embryo is post-conception).
So the question MUST be asked, not only of the president, but of those who support the idea of embryonic stem cell research:
When does life begin?
Unless that question can be definitively answered by science, in a way that does not apply some standard that is different than recognizing what is alive in another situation, then the destruction of human embryos in the name of science MUST be halted, lest the science have the taint of irresponsibility about it.
The ends cannot justify the means when the means involves innocent human lives, if we are to stand where we are and condemn the kind of vivisection that took place in Nazi "research" labs.
Take the time to apply responsible science before taking the "next step" and deciding that embryos are nothing more than "just" cells.
Each of us, at one point, were embryos.
We owe it to future generations to remember that, and not destroy them in the selfish pursuit of "the greater good".
Embryonic stem-cell research has been able to continue, just lacking the funding of the federal government. In the years since George W. Bush banned the use of federal funds, research has continued, both in the United States, and overseas.
To date there have been no therapies developed by used embryonic stem cells, yet adult stem cells have produced treatments for many conditions.
Yet there is celebration that the embryonic research will not be funded by the people (several hundred millions dollars have been privately raised and spent in the 7 1/2 years since President Bush banned federal funding), as though the additional money will create cures that were non-existent before. The cells don't care about the money involved in research, nor do they care where the money came from. The funding ultimately means nothing to the research.
But to those who have to pay for the funding now, it means quite a bit.
Not all Americans think that the destruction of human embryos will yield the results that such informed individuals as Michael J. Fox do. Setting the ethical considerations aside for a moment, I can only help but wonder if there has been a whole lot of thought put into what the development of a treatment might mean.
In Barcelona, a Columbian woman had her trachea, which had collapsed due to tuberculosis, replaced with one that had been grown by using a prepared (cells that could have caused an immune reaction, i.e. organ rejection had been stripped off) donor's tracheal segment, and treated with the patient's own stem-cells (harvested from her bone marrow) to aid in growing the replacement in a lab. She has shown no signs of rejection, mainly because of the application of her own stem cells.
How exactly can one use something developed using stem cells not their own (embryonic) and not expect some degree of rejection? While I'm certain some scientist somewhere has an idea about that, but there is no practical information to show that there would not be rejection of a treatment developed with embryonic cells. The reason this is a concern is that the embryonic cells contain DNA that does not match the patient. The DNA sequence of the embryonic stem cells is unique unto itself, showing compatibility with the DNA of its progenitors (mother and father), but separate from any other DNA sequence in the world.
Organ transplants take place all the time. Sometimes they take with minimal rejection, sometimes the body rejects transplanted organs all together. But rejection is something that needs to be considered, and as far as I have heard, embryonic stem cell research CAN lead to cures for all kinds of maladies, but has not been used TO cure anything, and I doubt that much consideration has been given to the potential of rejection, with research going instead to finding the "cures" that scientists are sure are there.
But this is very poor science. The conclusion is that these cures are hiding in embryonic stem cells, and all the scientists need is a few more dollars to break though whatever barrier stops them, but there is nothing to indicate that such can be accomplished, other than the preconceived conclusions. The research could very well lead to data that indicates embryonic stem cells cannot be used for what scientists and celebrities KNOW is there.
If that is the case, will the research stop, or will money be wasted, while proven treatments using non-embryonic stem cells sit with no further expansion or exploration of what could be?
As for the ethical concerns, it goes back to the presidential campaign.
Candidate B.O. was asked, "when does life begin?" His response is that the answer was "beyond his pay grade". It seems that he has decided he can determine that now, and I would love to see him asked this question now.
His decision to free up federal funds (which are few and far between these days thanks to the bailouts) for embryonic research seems to indicate that he KNOWS that life does not begin at conception, otherwise he would not be willing to allow federal money to be used to research that would destroy lives (since an embryo is post-conception).
So the question MUST be asked, not only of the president, but of those who support the idea of embryonic stem cell research:
When does life begin?
Unless that question can be definitively answered by science, in a way that does not apply some standard that is different than recognizing what is alive in another situation, then the destruction of human embryos in the name of science MUST be halted, lest the science have the taint of irresponsibility about it.
The ends cannot justify the means when the means involves innocent human lives, if we are to stand where we are and condemn the kind of vivisection that took place in Nazi "research" labs.
Take the time to apply responsible science before taking the "next step" and deciding that embryos are nothing more than "just" cells.
Each of us, at one point, were embryos.
We owe it to future generations to remember that, and not destroy them in the selfish pursuit of "the greater good".
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Which came first? The chickening out, or the getting out of it?
I find myself in an interesting position.
I had a root canal done the other day. I have taken rotten care of my teeth, and it's a wonder I don't have more problems. Novocaine is really good stuff. Get a shot of that placed by a dentist who knows what he is doing, and chickening out of a dental procedure suddenly seems like too much effort (mostly because if you try to drink anything while running away, you'll drool like an infant because of numbed lips. At least for a coupe of hours).
I'm pretty sure I had a point...
Oh right. Root canal.
Okay, so I go in and endure several x-rays, Novocaine (did I mention that's good stuff?), some drilling (heard it, but didn't feel a blasting thing), and with the application of the filling, I smell cloves (?). But the whole procedure, from the fist glimpse of the Blessed Novocaine Needle to the last x-ray to make sure all's well before leaving, it took less than an hour.
Overall, I would recommend that you do all you can to avoid the root canal. Take care of your teeth. But if you must see the dentist for the procedure that gets too much of a bum rap, make sure he knows his way around a needle. It'll make things go by pretty easy.
Jury Duty on the other hand...
Jury duty is hard enough on a good day. When you live in a county that has just arrested 2 judges for corruption and a week-long docket of something on the order of 80 trials to get through with only four judges/courtrooms, it can make things s-l-o-w w--a--y d---o---w---n.
Where I live, the rules are pretty simple. You are called based upon your possession of a driver's license (rather than voter registration, as is/was usually done). You show up on Monday at 8:30, wait until you are either called to a voir dire (if you need to ask, look it up), or the day is over (about 4 or so). If you haven't been selected for a jury by this point, you get to come back and do it all again the next day. And the day after that. If it stretches to a full week, and you still haven't been placed on a jury, they thank you, and send you home.
Basically, jury duty around these parts is one trial or one week, which ever happens to you first.
I got away with only one day. Not because i was selected for a jury, but because My son was running a temp of 102, and my lovely bride had to be able to get to work the next day.
For me, jury duty was the longest 8 hours of my life. Out of 150 people or so, only 40 were called for a voir dire. This was after one of the judges came down, explained the process to us, explained that he alone had about 22 cases on his docket for the week, and might get to 3 or 4 if he were lucky, and that the other three judges had similar caseloads (that's where my math came in above).
I and a couple of contractors were given permission to be dismissed early, because of our situations. Based upon the 8 hours on Monday with a whole lot of nothing going on, I shudder to think what the other 147 people had to go through.
So, we come back to where I started this ramble. I'm in an interesting position.
I had a root canal and jury duty close enough together that I can compare the two with fresh memories of both.
While nothing hurts like dental pain, at least it can be dulled with drugs (Novocaine. Ask for it by name). Jury duty can be dull, but its a dull that seems like it LEADS to pain.
And no needle contains enough magic elixir to make that pain (not to mention lost time that you will never get back) go away.
I had a root canal done the other day. I have taken rotten care of my teeth, and it's a wonder I don't have more problems. Novocaine is really good stuff. Get a shot of that placed by a dentist who knows what he is doing, and chickening out of a dental procedure suddenly seems like too much effort (mostly because if you try to drink anything while running away, you'll drool like an infant because of numbed lips. At least for a coupe of hours).
I'm pretty sure I had a point...
Oh right. Root canal.
Okay, so I go in and endure several x-rays, Novocaine (did I mention that's good stuff?), some drilling (heard it, but didn't feel a blasting thing), and with the application of the filling, I smell cloves (?). But the whole procedure, from the fist glimpse of the Blessed Novocaine Needle to the last x-ray to make sure all's well before leaving, it took less than an hour.
Overall, I would recommend that you do all you can to avoid the root canal. Take care of your teeth. But if you must see the dentist for the procedure that gets too much of a bum rap, make sure he knows his way around a needle. It'll make things go by pretty easy.
Jury Duty on the other hand...
Jury duty is hard enough on a good day. When you live in a county that has just arrested 2 judges for corruption and a week-long docket of something on the order of 80 trials to get through with only four judges/courtrooms, it can make things s-l-o-w w--a--y d---o---w---n.
Where I live, the rules are pretty simple. You are called based upon your possession of a driver's license (rather than voter registration, as is/was usually done). You show up on Monday at 8:30, wait until you are either called to a voir dire (if you need to ask, look it up), or the day is over (about 4 or so). If you haven't been selected for a jury by this point, you get to come back and do it all again the next day. And the day after that. If it stretches to a full week, and you still haven't been placed on a jury, they thank you, and send you home.
Basically, jury duty around these parts is one trial or one week, which ever happens to you first.
I got away with only one day. Not because i was selected for a jury, but because My son was running a temp of 102, and my lovely bride had to be able to get to work the next day.
For me, jury duty was the longest 8 hours of my life. Out of 150 people or so, only 40 were called for a voir dire. This was after one of the judges came down, explained the process to us, explained that he alone had about 22 cases on his docket for the week, and might get to 3 or 4 if he were lucky, and that the other three judges had similar caseloads (that's where my math came in above).
I and a couple of contractors were given permission to be dismissed early, because of our situations. Based upon the 8 hours on Monday with a whole lot of nothing going on, I shudder to think what the other 147 people had to go through.
So, we come back to where I started this ramble. I'm in an interesting position.
I had a root canal and jury duty close enough together that I can compare the two with fresh memories of both.
While nothing hurts like dental pain, at least it can be dulled with drugs (Novocaine. Ask for it by name). Jury duty can be dull, but its a dull that seems like it LEADS to pain.
And no needle contains enough magic elixir to make that pain (not to mention lost time that you will never get back) go away.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
It makes me like my cats all that much more...
It seems that some people forget that it costs nothing to be nice.
Sure, people disagree about all sorts of things. Married couples do it. Friends do it. Acquaintances do it. Total strangers do it. It's part of being human and having opinions that are yours and yours alone.
But when is it appropriate to say something, without being spiteful? If you disagree with a person, do you make random comments about how you want to harm them if they speak of something you don't want to hear? Do you simply ask them to not behave in such a manner? Or do you simply ignore it, and allow things to proceed as they will?
I personally think that disagreement is great. Robust debate is what keeps people thinking, keeps minds sharp, and allows for people to exchange ideas and concepts that one might not think about otherwise. But does that mean that civility should take a break?
Is it possible to disagree about something and NOT make things personal? Maybe gently communicate to a person that you would like to change the subject from the debate at hand, and oh, by the way, how is your brother?
I'd like to think so. I know several people who like to discuss topical issues, several who like to talk shop, and still others who want to talk about nothing more than personal feelings, relations, and the weather. If you want to change from one type of conversation to another, great. Make it known, and I'll change gears. I'm easy.
But if you don't make it known, can a person really be held to blame for continuing on one conversational track, while you have already switched?
If you haven't guessed it, I pay attention to politics and frankly the world around me. I know that most of it I cannot control, impact, and according to some, should even care about. But I do. I have cast some small amount of thought to running for public office (a thought that was dismissed, because I really don't want to put my wife and children through all that).
I have a curiosity about damn near everything, and as far as I am concerned, I have never, nor will I ever, stop learning. And I have a serious desire to make sure I understand the world that I am leaving to my kids, so I can teach them all I can about what I have observed in it. Learning from books is one thing. Learning from the spoken words of one who has observed, or better yet, experienced something is miles and away better.
Discussion about most any topic is a fantastic way to learn, especially if you do not agree with what is being said. As soon as you close your reception of that with which you disagree, you have taken yourself out of the learning continuum, and planted yourself firmly in a single stage of immovable ignorance.
To take things one step further, and not only stop listening, but insult what you disagree with, and you have simply deepened the ignorance.
It is in that ignorance that we, as a society, find ourselves. Many think themselves above it, but frankly there is no person alive who has any excuse to not be civil. I am not saying that one needs to gush over what anyone else says. The last thing the world needs is more suck-ups. But to toss basic civility out the window and engage in the self-aggrandizement of casting insults shows not only that one's opinion is weak, but that one lacks the ability to carry on as a decent human being.
Too many people think that they can say what they like, to whomever they like, at any time they like, and then tell all their friends how clever they were for "putting thus-and-so" in his/her place. Their friends all laugh about it, tell their friend how great he/she is, and go on with a skewed sense of the world around them. This is how stereotypes form.
It is wrong, unfair, and makes the world a worse place for our children to grow up in. It is how white children who have never met a black person hate those with dark skin upon first meeting them. Parents who pass on closed-minded prejudices have a greater impact on the world of tomorrow than all the civil rights bills passed by Congress. Decency has taken a holiday in the modern world, where one opinion must rule over all, and you can't conform, then you need to get over it and if you can't, then you can "suck it".
Morgan Freeman in the "Bonfire of the Vanities" said it best:
"Be decent to each other, like our mothers taught us."
Disagreements over whatever issues there are, be it sports teams, politics, or favorite ice cream flavors, are natural, and will occur no matter what is desired.
But Mama Wolfknight didn't teach me to insult others over those disagreements. I was taught to be better than that. Be bigger than the small ones who feel the need to insult because they have nothing else to fall back on. Recognize that those who do so are people who shouldn't be seen as worthy of hate, but of pity, because they can only lash out in such a sad manner.
But above all, be decent. Even to those who show you hatred. Respect costs your soul less than hate.
Sure, it sounds like something from an after-school special.
But maybe it's a lesson that needs to be reviewed once in a while.
At least if we want a decent world.
Sure, people disagree about all sorts of things. Married couples do it. Friends do it. Acquaintances do it. Total strangers do it. It's part of being human and having opinions that are yours and yours alone.
But when is it appropriate to say something, without being spiteful? If you disagree with a person, do you make random comments about how you want to harm them if they speak of something you don't want to hear? Do you simply ask them to not behave in such a manner? Or do you simply ignore it, and allow things to proceed as they will?
I personally think that disagreement is great. Robust debate is what keeps people thinking, keeps minds sharp, and allows for people to exchange ideas and concepts that one might not think about otherwise. But does that mean that civility should take a break?
Is it possible to disagree about something and NOT make things personal? Maybe gently communicate to a person that you would like to change the subject from the debate at hand, and oh, by the way, how is your brother?
I'd like to think so. I know several people who like to discuss topical issues, several who like to talk shop, and still others who want to talk about nothing more than personal feelings, relations, and the weather. If you want to change from one type of conversation to another, great. Make it known, and I'll change gears. I'm easy.
But if you don't make it known, can a person really be held to blame for continuing on one conversational track, while you have already switched?
If you haven't guessed it, I pay attention to politics and frankly the world around me. I know that most of it I cannot control, impact, and according to some, should even care about. But I do. I have cast some small amount of thought to running for public office (a thought that was dismissed, because I really don't want to put my wife and children through all that).
I have a curiosity about damn near everything, and as far as I am concerned, I have never, nor will I ever, stop learning. And I have a serious desire to make sure I understand the world that I am leaving to my kids, so I can teach them all I can about what I have observed in it. Learning from books is one thing. Learning from the spoken words of one who has observed, or better yet, experienced something is miles and away better.
Discussion about most any topic is a fantastic way to learn, especially if you do not agree with what is being said. As soon as you close your reception of that with which you disagree, you have taken yourself out of the learning continuum, and planted yourself firmly in a single stage of immovable ignorance.
To take things one step further, and not only stop listening, but insult what you disagree with, and you have simply deepened the ignorance.
It is in that ignorance that we, as a society, find ourselves. Many think themselves above it, but frankly there is no person alive who has any excuse to not be civil. I am not saying that one needs to gush over what anyone else says. The last thing the world needs is more suck-ups. But to toss basic civility out the window and engage in the self-aggrandizement of casting insults shows not only that one's opinion is weak, but that one lacks the ability to carry on as a decent human being.
Too many people think that they can say what they like, to whomever they like, at any time they like, and then tell all their friends how clever they were for "putting thus-and-so" in his/her place. Their friends all laugh about it, tell their friend how great he/she is, and go on with a skewed sense of the world around them. This is how stereotypes form.
It is wrong, unfair, and makes the world a worse place for our children to grow up in. It is how white children who have never met a black person hate those with dark skin upon first meeting them. Parents who pass on closed-minded prejudices have a greater impact on the world of tomorrow than all the civil rights bills passed by Congress. Decency has taken a holiday in the modern world, where one opinion must rule over all, and you can't conform, then you need to get over it and if you can't, then you can "suck it".
Morgan Freeman in the "Bonfire of the Vanities" said it best:
"Be decent to each other, like our mothers taught us."
Disagreements over whatever issues there are, be it sports teams, politics, or favorite ice cream flavors, are natural, and will occur no matter what is desired.
But Mama Wolfknight didn't teach me to insult others over those disagreements. I was taught to be better than that. Be bigger than the small ones who feel the need to insult because they have nothing else to fall back on. Recognize that those who do so are people who shouldn't be seen as worthy of hate, but of pity, because they can only lash out in such a sad manner.
But above all, be decent. Even to those who show you hatred. Respect costs your soul less than hate.
Sure, it sounds like something from an after-school special.
But maybe it's a lesson that needs to be reviewed once in a while.
At least if we want a decent world.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Michael Phelps, a dopey swimmer...
Okay, so Michael Phelps has been photographed using a bong. According to reports, he didn't seem to be a stranger to it either.
Now the media is eating him alive. Sponsors are dropping his endorsements of their products. He's basically being roasted alive worse than that welfare-receiving single mother with the dozen plus two kids.
Now, I'm of the opinion that Phelps SHOULD suffer some. This is someone who was a hero. He was supposed to be better than his contemporaries. During the Olympics the reporters oohed and ahhed about how Phelps got to where he was with having never failed a drug test.
Looks like he finally failed one.
But at the same time, the media's failure in all this needs to be brought to light.
Sure, he was photographed by probably an amateur using a cell-phone camera who turned around and sold it to a tabloid for some cash. And that trickled into the "legitimate" media, and became a huge story.
There almost seems to be some bitterness in the voices of some of the mainstream media talking heads covering this story. Almost like they feel betrayed. How could this... kid who they built into an icon do this to THEM?
I think that it may be a little different.
I think the media is put off by the fact that it was not one of their own to "out" Phelps as a pot-head, but rather some guy who happened to be at the party (the right place at the right time). I think the bitterness has to do with the parallel to the lack of due diligence that took Dan Rather down.
They bought into the phenomenon aspect of Michael Phelps, and didn't bother to do more than look at the surface. He never failed a drug test, so he's gold. Had they dug deeper, as they did in the case of another "instant celebrity" figure like Joe the Plumber, maybe they would have found Mike's pot connections. But they didn't.
They bought their own hype. And now they have egg on their face, because a tabloid with a picture taken by an amateur out-did them. Since they cannot blame themselves, they can take solace in the fact that Phelps, while still having never failed a drug test, will lose all his multi-million dollar deals, and the icon that they were duped into propping up will take the fall, and they will report each and every blow he takes on the way down.
Meanwhile, we will watch either disappointed ("He seemed like such a nice kid") or gloating ("Huh. Punk kid. I never did like him. He seemed too good to be true"). We will tune in to see what merchandising deal he lost now. And the media will be, once again, held to no standard but whatever they decide is a appropriate now.
The media of course will not say anything, and will attack those who say that the media bears any responsibility. After all, they just report the news. But when they make the news, and they deny it, that never gets reported. The media thinks that their job is to make sure that public figures are held accountable, but who does the accounting of the media?
It's asked "who watches the watchers". I would like to ask, "who reports on the reporters?"
How long will we allow the media to behave with impunity, never held accountable for what they say or do to get the story?
Yup. Michael Phelps is human. He's a 21 year old who smokes pot. Why is this a story?
The question should be, why is Michael Phelps known to anyone outside of the swimming world?
Fame, it seems is fickle, especially when the media is involved.
What they have given, they can take away. I hope Michael has some non-swimming related job to fall back on. I'm sure when he starts there, the media will let us know, so they can close this book before anyone looks too closely at their failure.
Now the media is eating him alive. Sponsors are dropping his endorsements of their products. He's basically being roasted alive worse than that welfare-receiving single mother with the dozen plus two kids.
Now, I'm of the opinion that Phelps SHOULD suffer some. This is someone who was a hero. He was supposed to be better than his contemporaries. During the Olympics the reporters oohed and ahhed about how Phelps got to where he was with having never failed a drug test.
Looks like he finally failed one.
But at the same time, the media's failure in all this needs to be brought to light.
Sure, he was photographed by probably an amateur using a cell-phone camera who turned around and sold it to a tabloid for some cash. And that trickled into the "legitimate" media, and became a huge story.
There almost seems to be some bitterness in the voices of some of the mainstream media talking heads covering this story. Almost like they feel betrayed. How could this... kid who they built into an icon do this to THEM?
I think that it may be a little different.
I think the media is put off by the fact that it was not one of their own to "out" Phelps as a pot-head, but rather some guy who happened to be at the party (the right place at the right time). I think the bitterness has to do with the parallel to the lack of due diligence that took Dan Rather down.
They bought into the phenomenon aspect of Michael Phelps, and didn't bother to do more than look at the surface. He never failed a drug test, so he's gold. Had they dug deeper, as they did in the case of another "instant celebrity" figure like Joe the Plumber, maybe they would have found Mike's pot connections. But they didn't.
They bought their own hype. And now they have egg on their face, because a tabloid with a picture taken by an amateur out-did them. Since they cannot blame themselves, they can take solace in the fact that Phelps, while still having never failed a drug test, will lose all his multi-million dollar deals, and the icon that they were duped into propping up will take the fall, and they will report each and every blow he takes on the way down.
Meanwhile, we will watch either disappointed ("He seemed like such a nice kid") or gloating ("Huh. Punk kid. I never did like him. He seemed too good to be true"). We will tune in to see what merchandising deal he lost now. And the media will be, once again, held to no standard but whatever they decide is a appropriate now.
The media of course will not say anything, and will attack those who say that the media bears any responsibility. After all, they just report the news. But when they make the news, and they deny it, that never gets reported. The media thinks that their job is to make sure that public figures are held accountable, but who does the accounting of the media?
It's asked "who watches the watchers". I would like to ask, "who reports on the reporters?"
How long will we allow the media to behave with impunity, never held accountable for what they say or do to get the story?
Yup. Michael Phelps is human. He's a 21 year old who smokes pot. Why is this a story?
The question should be, why is Michael Phelps known to anyone outside of the swimming world?
Fame, it seems is fickle, especially when the media is involved.
What they have given, they can take away. I hope Michael has some non-swimming related job to fall back on. I'm sure when he starts there, the media will let us know, so they can close this book before anyone looks too closely at their failure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)