I've just had probably the most charming birthday ever. Besides getting my DVD box-set of THE PRISONER, the chef whipped up a cake with none other than the Incredible Hulk on the top, made out of bright green marzipan with the trademark scowl on it's features. Even the bottom of the pants had the sufficient tears and rips. Wonderful timing, considering 2003 is to be the 'Year of the Hulk' (Ang Lee's movie). But there was one mistake, one capital mistake the chef had made that tore apart the very fabric of the space time continuum.
The pants weren't purple.
Horror of horrors...
ROB: Thank you for that passage. Uh...I didn't even know I was part of a 'crowd' here. Now I'm really worried.
BERMANATOR: In cases like this, P.A., the best I could suggest is removing yourself from western civilization utterly, but I don't know too many people who enjoy that scenario.
If it's any comfort, reincarnation is a wonderful concept and something you might want to look into - that we all achieve different forms of existence resulting from whatever deeds we committed previously.
For example, the fellows who continued to take photos of Princess Di as she lay slowly dying in her car will probably become short-lived maggots in some random housefly's brood buried within a cocker spaniel's excrement.
To the Washu/Chris crowd...
In my early teens I was at the peak of my comics-collecting. In my New York binges I pursued Marvel back issues relentlessly; especially Fantastic Four. Some issues I found from over a decade earlier cost me $25-$50.
I was pawing through a box of those last night and pulled out an old Thor. It was issue #193, co-featuring the Silver Surfer. I leafed through the pages. It was part II in a three-issue saga about Loki stealing the Odin ring, taking Asgard and finally creating the demon, Durok the Demolisher, to wreak havoc on Earth with the intent of destroying Thor. When the Surfer comes to Thor's aid he is left to handle Durok on his own; in the course of the battle he is briefly taken out. Gerry Conway wrote a really nice passage for this scene, which goes on for two pages (beautifully drawn by John and Sal Buscema):
SO DO THE NOBLE FALL...
FOR THEY ARE EVER CAUGHT IN A TRAP OF THEIR OWN MAKING...
A TRAP..WALLED BY DUTY..AND LOCKED BY REALITY.
'GAINST THE GREATER FORCE THEY MUST FALL..
...FOR, AGAINST THAT FORCE THEY FIGHT..
BECAUSE OF DUTY...BECAUSE OF OBLIGATION.
AND WHEN THE NOBLE FALL..THE BASE REMAIN.
THE BASE...WHOSE ONLY PURPOSE IS THE CORRUPTION OF WHAT THE NOBLE DID PROTECT...
WHOSE ONLY PURPOSE IS...TO DESTROY.
TO DESTROY..
...AND DESTROY
...AND DESTROY
THE NOBLE: WHO, EVEN WHEN FALLEN, RETAIN A VESTIGE OF STRENGTH.
...FOR, THEIRS IS A STRENGTH BORN OF THINGS OTHER THAN MERE FORCE. THEIRS IS A STENGTH SUPREME...
THEIRS IS THE STRENGTH...
...TO RESTORE.
The panel-to-panel transition worked really well. Good piece of craftsmanship.
Just thought I'd share that.
Alex,
I have to say it...I cannot hide the need to say it...I'm utterly, genuinely sorry to read that about your son. I do hope a brighter future awaits you and your spouse.
I personally believe that everything in nature has soul.
What is soul, anyway? I know I got it; people tell me all the time.
One thing I know: you can't teach it.
I think animals have soul. Dogs and cats (the animals with which I'm most familiar) certainly have personalities. They understand things you say and very definitely have feelings.
Still, I don't mind eating animals. Guess I sold my soul for bacon, man! :)
But is "having soul" the same thing as "having A soul?"
Hmmmm.......(she ponders and ponders...).
(PS: thanks for keeping the debate around here both vigorous and civil. That is sooooo unusual when topics like this crop up in other places. I'm done with the debate myself, but I'm enjoying reading your continued thoughts. Thanks for being candid and reasonable).
Cindy, with all due respect, your question, however well-meant it may be in this case, is essentially just an attempt to get people's feet onto the old slippery slope. It's an attempt to set rules, essentially. It's also indicative of a gap in your knowledge. Roe v. Wade did not give women complete authority to frivilously end a pregnancy in the third trimester. In the third trimester, the Supreme Court adjudged, the state does have some interest.
But in effect, it's just another version of the question, "If it's a human being one second after it leaves the womb, why isn't it a human being one second before?" It amounts to special pleading for the anti-choice definitions, pure and simple.
I generally stay out of abortion debates, because, since my son died and we had to abort two unviable fetuses, I'm a hard-ass on the issue. My wife and I make the decision, and we don't give a rat's hairy behind for other people's opinions on our decisions. But I have observed certain ploys that come up, over and over, on both sides. Sorry Cindy, but your question is the leading edge to such a ploy, even though I'm sure you meant it sincerely. A pro-choicer who picks it up and treats it seriously is in for a long, fruitless argument.
--Alex
XANADU,
I'm glad you're back... delighted.
:)
My statement you refered to was candid-- I was posting under the influence of Peg and Cookie.
I understand the degree of courage that Peg had to muster when posting about her Christian faith here. I respect her adherence to her beliefs and I don't think anyone could challenge her sincerity. Since I am a Christian too I knew that my post would not put me in a good light with Peg, whom I consider to be a friend. Still, I felt compelled to share my own experience-- not to condone abortion or expose my inability to stick with the ship no matter whom it ended up drowning, but to show that even with resolve and conviction mitigating circumstances can put extreme english even on a long and passionately held belief.
I do agree, abortion is a horrible thing. I don't think we'll ever be on the same page as those who are pro-abortion on demand, but I think both sides could make a few common sense concessions that might move us toward the middle.
Outlawing all abortion probably isn't going to happen but...
QUESTION TO THE PRO-CHOICE AMONG US:
I think most pro-choice advocates would agree that a full term baby that is 8 months or 9 months that is perfectly healthy and posing no danger to it's mother should not be legally killed.
To accomodate a woman's right to choose, she could have the baby removed... but she should not have the right to demand the death of a healthy child that could live on his own without her.
Any of y'all disagree with that statement?
Cindy
Little Washu: My thinking on souls comes from the attempts to reconcile science and spiritualism. I'd like to believe that I have a soul/spirit, but I am also devoted to the facts of biology and evolution. So logically, if humans have souls, and we are animals, shouldn't other animals have souls too? I can't buy the idea that only we have souls, no other animals do. That just doesn't work for me.
The belief that animals have souls has led me down some twisting paths. I am now a vegan, and that is hard. Also, it's hard to find good shoes (I buy my leather ones used; that's my compromise). Yet inevitably, I must hurt animals b/c it's embedded in our culture-- my car's tires are vulcanized with animal fat, etc. So on some level I am always a little bit morally compromised. What's a soul to do?
Bermanator
BERMANTOR: Do animals have souls? Well, can 'consciousness' be directly connected to 'soul'? I believe there's degrees of sentience in lifeforms. Dogs and dolphins are two such examples, and might qualify as having souls of their own if such an argument is true.
Jon,
You're absolutely right: Isaac Newton...one of the greatest minds in history...was a Theologist. It IS important to keep a couple of things in mind about that:
1) He lived in a time without the technological resources to understand what was going on around us. Everyone was raised to believe Man was the center of the universe and no tools yet existed to even frustrate that notion.
2) Newton grew up on the Bible; when you grow up on something it's pretty much with you for the rest of your life - particularly in those primitive times. Indeed, throughout his life Newton had a childlike faith and lived like a conscientious Puritan.
The ironies about Newton left me thinking of him for a long time being to physics what Jefferson was to the subject of slavery...
He was a man who'd developed two kinds of calculus to solve the problem of celestial motion. Before the age of 28 he'd singled-handedly destroyed the medieval concept of the world as a structure moved by the invisible but ever-present hand of God. There was no longer a place in the cosmos, it seemed, for the providential involvement of a supreme being in the affairs of Man. All this delivered, ironically, by a man who would commit the rest of his life to Theology. The course of his studies itself was a closed circle as he'd been raised on and fascinated by, from what I remember reading, the book of Daniel; his work in astronomy and celestial mechanics all grew out of his consuming interest in the book of Daniel! After his stunning but brief work in mechanics he would return full circle to his beginnings. He would proceed in an effort to PROVE the existence of a deity - one of the results being a dictionary of prophetic symbols that was to demonstrate the physical and religious occurrences attached to prophetic verse - using approaches similar to those used in the Principia. To the extent of PROVING anything he failed.
David: Actually, I just thought the positing about "successful marriage" was intended as a bit of tongue in cheek humor, which got a chuckle from me, and a tart "men are pigs" comment from the wife.
Rick & Xan, re the conception of evil: I've often considered the notion of a person's actions being labelled 'evil' a description that is more likely something conferred upon the person's behaviour by others, rather than something inherent.
A short time ago, TVO, our education channel aired a documentary of edited testimony from the trial of Adolf Eichmann, and I was left with the impression of how this man seemed wholly comfortable in being able to carry the airs of a bureaucrat, thinking himself perfectly justified in carrying out the duties of his office. Within his eyes he felt he was performing necessary logistics of his society's professed aims, timetabling trains to ferry Jewry to work and concentration camps throughout Nazi controlled Germany and Poland, without the slightest realization of of the fact of sending millions of innocents to their deaths. In the same breath, Eichmann and many others considering Jews themselves to be 'evil', to have been the cause of all the failures of Germany to ascend as a nation, and as a result to be brutally dealt with.
BOS
Peg: That's lousy. It's nice to see someone handle it so well, but that doesn't modify the lousiness.
Religion stuff: Well, Isaac Newton was a devout Christian, and my unimpeded areligious brain ain't beating him in the brains department anytime soon, unless my singing deodorant idea really, really flies. I'm not a religious person, and I probably agree with more of Rob's points than anyone else's -- but Reason (as opposed to reason) elevated to the level of dogma is as pernicious as any religious creed. And as soon as Stephen Hawking (in _A Brief History of My Unread Bestseller_) starts into the schtick about a universe without any need for a God because it never started in the first place, based on one model, Stephen Hawking is blowing just as much smoke out of his ass as anyone with yet another piece of the true cross or yet another psychic hotline to sell.
And that's why my god is Crom.
Cheers, Jon
No questions, Rob. Just the theory that either you were molested by snake-handling Baptists at a very young age or you failed your Dianetics entry quiz and the Sc*entologists didn't want you.
L.
{insert snapping clams here}
"Move on and quit jumping down people's throats when they state their beliefs on this board."
1) Nearly always, when anyone summarizes his or her opinion, it is a "vast generalization".
2) I'll assume you raced through my posts with the cursory glance I give Bush's comments in the news. So, you probably missed some crucial points I was trying to make. And I happen to think they were good ones. If there's a CONCEPT I really have to take issue with, I have to summarize the REASONS I take issue with it. Inevitably, my gripes about human nature tend to surface like boils. These are tangents of my OWN beliefs, which I state from the gut, worded in the way I feel I need to word them. It is my own feeling that religion could be among our undoings. It is...a "belief" of mine...which I am stating here on the board just like everyone else.
3) I had to make clear to Peg what I meant about "reasoning" with people of faith, particularly when a social issue is argued in a religious context. I really had no desire to get into the matter of blind faith again. That's why I said, "believe as you will...".
4) I WAS about to move on till you brought me back to this. Now, unless you need anything else from me I'm ready to move on.
Any further clarifications needed?
BOS asked:
> "(and many people seem to regard "successful marriage"
> in those terms)": Am I to infer from this that I am to be
> seen as some species ignoring extinction, clutching in
> futility to what you perceive as a cultural anachronism?
Ehhhmmm ... it sounds as if there's a very good question in there somewhere, but I'm afraid I just can't parse it. Could you rephrase, please?
Ahh, I think you are asking me whether I consider marriage an "evolutionary anachronism." Of course not. I'm a happily married man, myself. I was merely suggesting there may be other ways to adjudge a marriage successful than either stability or longevity. I've observed some marriages that achieve one or both which I would nevertheless call rotten. And I don't automatically regard a separation or divorce as a failure.
Peg: If you label as a life or baby whatever results from the union of spermatozoan and egg, then Mother Nature or God or whomever kills babies all the time. Hundreds of them. Thousands of them. Maybe even more than humans abort by mechanical and chemical means, I don't know.
If you can acknowledge that and then object to our "playing God" by choosing when and whom to abort, my response is that we "play God" all the time in other arenas. I don't regard this one as terribly different.
Rob,
At the risk of incurring your proselytizing yet again--and usually I ignore your vast generalizations--I must point out that the following statement is patently false, or, at the very least, cannot be proven one way or the other:
"There are brilliant people who are also religious, or they are at least believers. It is, nevertheless, an impeding mind-set."
An impeding mind-set for what? For not believing that there is no God? Look: Peg believes. Cindy believes. And maybe a few others that haven't said anything, but you've written quite a bit on how believers are misinformed and even mentioned the word "zealot" to describe those that posted or would post in response to your own brand of dogmatic statements.
Like I said, I normally wouldn't jump into the middle of this, but for someone who can speak so intelligently you seem to have your own impeding mind-set when it comes to people stating their beliefs and your sense of outrage at their beliefs.
Live and let live. Especially on this board where I've seen, with a few exceptions, intelligent people arguing and debating in a civil manner. You are on record as being a non-believer. Move on and quit jumping down people's throats when they state their beliefs on this board.
(Ok, that last statement is probably out of line, but I'm keeping it in there, consequences be damned. Rob, I know you'll respond because you're Rob, but I've said my piece.)
Xanadu:
Good to see the rumours of your demise were greatly exaggerated. Welcome back.
Byebye, BOS
A bit, as Mel puts on her face. Out to dance, and eat.
Peg: Good god, mother-in-law and then a burglary. What's next next for you, a plague of locusts? In all seriousness, I hope you and husband get through this, and a little insurance softens the blow, at least for the property loss. I know the sense of invasion will take a bit longer.
Bermanator: Animals and a soul? Hmmm, that's one for a bit of consideration. The notion of a soul's existence in man brings debate; the extension of the concept to our fellow species is an interesting premise.
Now, the beasts of the field and the birds of the air do have intelligence, albeit less in comparison to ours, along with other comparatives of self and socialization that match up to human in behaviour patterns. But they do appear to lack the concept of abstract conception, in terms of self-awareness, language, religion, the lot. (I've yet to see beavers enter a church of their making) Perhaps that's where the thinking of a soul for animals breaks down, but more in the fact that the soul seems to be a creation of us as abstract conceptualists. We are the only species that professes its possible existence, and that would seem to be a solid argument against the soul's being at all.
This is one to play with for awhile, and sadly I'm just about out the door. Wouldn't mind picking it up later.
BOS
Peg,
First I was going to include this in my last precis. Then I decided not to and just give my own position on things in my own way. Now I changed my mind again.
Thus, on the matter of "being able to reason with one so extreme", well...let me put it this way: A Creationist, as an example, will discard the lessons from the Scopes Trial or what we're learning in the labs; that person's faith, in his/her mind, is the unalterable reality. Whether there's contrary evidence or not. No facts, no geometrically perfect arguments will change that person's mind about it. Strictly in this sense I just wouldn't be able to "reason" with this person. That's simply the way it is with most people who hold to a faith. That's what I meant. It's my experience. One I'm not playing semantics with. I remember vividly Sagan, in his last days, trying in vain to lay out logical fact-driven arguments about our place in the universe with a religious audience; it seemed like Joseph Priestley trying to explain the molecular structure of grass blades to grazing bovine. And do NOT mistake that crack as equating YOU with bovine; I am challenging a mind-set. There are brilliant people who are also religious, or they are at least believers. It is, nevertheless, an impeding mind-set.
Also, I understand you were trying to point out man's responsibility in his "God-given dominion"; I sat back to spin out a long spiel why the "dominion" concept itself has been a destructive one. I also sought to say little has been "GIVEN" to us; we TOOK it all...generally at the expense of others or the earth itself.
Typo slipped by me:
I mean "perceived", not "percieved".
In the evolutionary chain the highest creature of one class is directly contingent upon the lowest creature of the order above. Scientists only recently found the evidence to conclude our earliest ancestors used up their resources swiftly as voracious predators, driving mammals into extinction and turning fertile earth into barren plains. We were a species of waste and rapacity from the outset and that beginning reaches down to this day in the Enrons and WorldCons all around us; we are certainly not denied our heritage. Organisms evolve through the mechanism of competition and the survival of the more viable forms. Ever abused, such a conception was irresistible and its flavor of economic laissez-faire in the 19th century provided the blank check I spoke of earlier. We’re still carrying that check around in our vest pockets.
Even as I type this I’m hearing a report on the radio about a revival of whale-killing - not because we need it, with today’s technology - but because it still generates great capital. In spite of the lessons of history, in spite of the wealth of wisdom we have to tap from we are truly one with our primordial ancestors: we haven’t changed a bit.
Whoever Jesus really was - historical records from those days and those accounts don’t exist and Western religions blindly thrive on the myth-figure shaped by Constantine, no questions asked - his legacy is but a parable, nothing more. Every century sees the belated "Second Coming" and nothing ever materializes. Yet, how comforting it is to know there will always be a second coming. No: there are no Gods; there are no messiahs. We are an animal at the top of the hierarchy always ready to move in on what it wants while using its power of ideas to relinquish itself of guilt and responsibility. No great beings were there to "give" us any "dominion". We TOOK it and NAMED it our dominion; it was in our genes...not because of some supreme being granting them to us but because of the way we interact with environment, adapting to it by MAKING it adaptable. This may seal our heriditary fate if we can't find a way to deal with it.
How I wish we could remove the blindfolds of faith and confront our own nature directly. We might then rely less on rationalization to defend our acts. Here is a historical fact about faith, one which I know will be discarded by the zealots here, an example of how it’s used as a tool to control: the process of degeneration, the idea that the species can change from a more complex to simpler form makes extinction a possibility. It means those forms that cannot adapt as environment changes eventually disappear. Survival of the fittest. In the 17th and 18th centuries theological doctrines rejected the concept, along with the idea that species could become extinct. The species must have remained fixed and constant from the Creation. Any evolution, degeneration or extinction would detract from the perfection of the world. What the Lord creates must be perfect. It followed that fossils could not have been the remains of extinct animals. This law freed man to do as he pleased: he could interact with and exploit the earth and all the lower orders, and what he percieved as the lower order (remember this was White European, the "highest" racial order), free of concern about waste. A grand provision for economic and political power. This is the kind of blank check religion typically offers; never mind pursuing the facts if we can live with a clear conscience.
Out of convenience we are constrained by how we perceive things not by the need to know.
Just to say,I posted my thanks to all on the other board. And I think it's time to move on in subject matter. We've been level headed so far, and I don't want to raise pulses and tempers further. Back to lurking for a while....
Rob,
I find your statement
"People embracing world views this extreme cannot be reasoned with; logic, history and empirical evidence hold no weight"
to be generalizing, inaccurate, and personally offensive. Just because someone believes in a supreme being (while you do not) does not strip them of all intellectual capacity or the ability to learn. They may not come to the same conclusions as you or agree with you. I am not certain if you are being sarcastic or extreme or just ill-written with this statement; an effort to be more temperate in future would be appreciated.
In regards to imposing belief structures - many laws that appear to be attempts at legislating morality or beliefs are not such, but instead seek to impose societal structure; examples might include murder or stealing (which in some belief structures and societies *are* acceptable under various circumstances; this is an example of values or morals with which many folks happen to agree).
To put this in context of the abortion debate, I ask - if someone was being murdered against their will, and you could try and prevent it, would you? That is the quandry in which many pro-life proponents find themselves. (The same is probably true of vegans regarding animals, to consider a different viewpoint; it makes the blood splattering of fur far more understandable.) One might not seek to impose prayer in school, or to force everyone to keep the sabbath, or to legislate any number of other ideologies of a personal belief structure. Politics and belief should generally, I'm sure you will agree, be kept separate. (An aside - to me Christianity is all about personal relationships and salvation, not about seeking to run governments and countries. From a biblical standpoint, Christians are called to follow the laws of man unless they conflict with the laws of God.)
However, in this case you would allow what you consider to be murder (and hence for many Christians, against God's law) to be not only legal, but funded with your personal tax dollars. It's not about belief or morality or principles to those who are pro-life proponents -it's about sanctioned death. This is why it is so emotional.
Heather: Thanks – I appreciate your comment on the other board, though you may need to review the chapter on personal sacrifice again.
Peg: Thank you, I recognize that you were explicating the logic behind religious thinking in these matter, not proselytizing – and though I am not religious and we disagree 'til 26 weeks, I respect your personal POV.
Rob: I'm curious, doesn't the very nature of society mean that sometimes our personal "right" to behave as we desire or to pursue our personal interests regardless of consequence is limited by a consensus view of what is legal, ethical or moral? Is that not society "imposing" a consensus "worldview" or "value system" on individuals? It seems to me that the logical outcome of a world were everyone is entitled to do whatever the hell they personally desire is a shortcut to anarchy, and that is not a position I can support.
Cindiana: Wow, your personal experience, and your willingness to share leaves me in awe. It does illuminate the slippery nature of "abstract philosophical position"vs. "rubber-meets-the-road reality".
P.A., David Loftus, BOS, Lynn, et al involved in "dominion": Point the first – it's a religious perspective, and since man wrote the book, of course we get top billing. Point the second – we ARE the dominant species of the planet at this moment. We're not very good at it, but until we Uplift the dolphins and apes, we're it. Consider it a divine plan, freak of evolution, whatever – we are it – we get to use the resources, we get to fill up the space with what we want, we get to eat the other life on the planet. Are we very good at it? Not very. Will we get better? Maybe. Will anything care in a million years? Not likely. Should we take this as a license to do and act without regard for the other lives that share this exceedingly small and fragile little globe? Of course not, but I am very species centric – we've won this round of evolution, we get to decide. I don't need the rationalization of "soul" to defend it.
Rick: Again, regarding my post on the other board – I have never claimed an ability to read minds or discern motivation, nor do I particularly need to. I have said, more than once, that I reserve the right to judge other people's actions, as they can judge mine. If one acts in an evil fashion, you are evil. What is evil? Well, much of my list of six is a good starting point – as well as the lists of everyone else. I made no claim that I was the ultimate arbiter of men's souls. Nor do I feel any need to weigh the potential of redemption in my ordering. As this was a hypothetical exercise, no one need fear my rampaging moralism or value system. But after much thought and debate with myself – this is the list and the order in which I placed them – if I were presented with a situation that pits one thing against another, this is the way the cards will fall. For me. Alone.
Looking back over my post on the other board, perhaps I was not clear stating that my hierarchy was direct riff on Harlan's initial query – If we consider a situation that only involves reward, my six are as good a list as any, but when that same situation involves threat – the pitting of one thing against another – this is the way and specific value list with which _I_ will resolve the conflict.
Your mileage may very.
Thanks for the considerate responses. However, just to ensure you didn't misunderstand, my post did *not* claim...
- Animals are incapable of thought or emotion. As for a soul I am not certain either way.
- That being granted dominance meant it should be used as an excuse, nor that we have managed our dominion well.
My post did say that we should be expected to be responsible, and it was meant to imply that we have not been very successful and are suffering those consequences. I could not imagine Jesus being pleased with all that we have done to the earth and it's inhabitants. We know more now than did some of our predecessors, and so should be even more driven to limit our negative impact.
In response to some of the messages about abortion, I agree that it can be difficult to face the consequences of pregnancies. I think the fundamental difference of opinion is twofold.
I believe all people can have some value in some way, even if we personally cannot know or understand or imagine it. Therefore abortion is prejudging that no matter what happens, their life (and maybe suffering) would have been useless, irredeemable, and of no value to themselves or others; that there would be no possibilty whatsover of overcoming their situation. I simply am incapable of believing that of an unborn child. In fact, I do not believe myself fully capable of that kind of judgement of anyone - at best I can judge their acts, perhaps, for which there may be deserved consequences. (I also don't believe in the death penalty, at least I'm consistent.)
Secondly, I believe that a baby is a human being (a separate life, not just another part of my body) as soon as it is conceived. Therefore to have an abortion is murder, at a very early stage in life. The baby hasn't consented, it has been killed on the basis of someone else's will. On that premise, it becomes in for a penny, in for a pound - just when is it okay to murder someone and when isn't it. I believe that unless it is to save the life of the mother it isn't. I do not condone the use of violence to prevent abortion, but do support peaceful protest and education. Legislation is an imperfect solution; if people do not believe it is murder than they cannot share the same view. It is much harder to comprehend abortion as murder than it is to see someone shot in the street as such.
I realize not everyone will agree with either of these points. I am not trying to convince you by my arguments, nor militant about changing the world (though influence would be acceptable). I merely attempt to make it clear why we might disagree.
Scot: Windows XP has a function that allowss you to run programs 'as if' they're running in an earlier version of Windows (that you choose). It's a fairly easy process that I can't walk you through because the XP is on my parents' computer, not mine, but rummaging around in the Help index should get you through it quickly.
This is all contingent on IHNMAIMS being compatible with an earlier Windows, mind you. If it isn't, ignore my advice.
Jon
The main problem with Lynn's comment is the reference to "copyright notices." They have not been required in the US since March 31, 1988.
The other problem is that it may be entirely unnecessary for Matthew to prove prior conception; there is a very high probability that there's something in the potential defendant's files that would point to the source. But this is more a litigation issue than a copyright issue.
Sorry about the double post. I don't know what happened there...
Lynn & David: I have read When Elephants Weep. I found it incredibly moving and it contributed to my decision to go vegan. It is highly anecdotal in nature, but that's OK. Most of my proof that animals have thoughts and feelings comes from anecdotes about my cats anyway.
BOS: I know we are animals. I think you may be mincing words here, b/c I agree with you. My point was that we are animals who evolved from other, different animals, so why are we the only ones who have a soul? It seems absurd to me that, althought we merely refined our progenitors' qualities (a big cerebrum, an upright gait, and fine motor skills w/opposable thumb), we somehow obtained a soul out of nowhere. The other developments existed in earlier animals (and in animals extant today), so why not the soul too? The idea that only humans have a soul suggests that either the soul is a freak mutation and would have to serve some adaptive purpose, or that animals must have them as well. If we want to be logical about this, of course.
Yes, my phrasing was inexact, but we're pretty much on the same page, aren't we? I'm not being arrogant; I'm saying, if we're all animals and have a hell of a lot more in common with other mammals than differences, why should we be so special? Or, rather, why aren't we ALL equally special and ensouled, as we are all miracles of a sort.
And we're just a flash in the pan compared to the saurians. It's hard to imagine Homo sapiens sapientus being around 300 million years.
Bermanator
Lynn & David: I have read When Elephants Weep. I found it incredibly moving and it contributed to my decision to go vegan. It is highly anecdotal in nature, but that's OK. Most of my proof that animals have thoughts and feelings comes from anecdotes about my cats anyway.
BOS: I know we are animals. I think you may be mincing words here, b/c I agree with you. My point was that we are animals who evolved from other, different animals, so why are we the only ones who have a soul? It seems absurd to me that, althought we merely refined our progenitors' qualities (a big cerebrum, an upright gait, and fine motor skills w/opposable thumb), we somehow obtained a soul out of nowhere. The other developments existed in earlier animals (and in animals extant today), so why not the soul too? The idea that only humans have a soul suggests that either the soul is a freak mutation and would have to serve some adaptive purpose, or that animals must have them as well. If we want to be logical about this, of course.
Yes, my phrasing was inexact, but we're pretty much on the same page, aren't we? I'm not being arrogant; I'm saying, if we're all animals and have a hell of a lot more in common with other mammals than differences, why should we be so special? Or, rather, why aren't we ALL equally special and ensouled, as we are all miracles of a sort.
And we're just a flash in the pan compared to the saurians. It's hard to imagine Homo sapiens sapientus being around 300 million years.
Bermanato
David:
"If one measures "dominance" in terms of longevity and stability (and many people seem to regard "successful marriage" in those terms), then Saurians WERE the dominant species in the history of the planet."
Quite right, but that doesn't preclude the possibility that saurians, without the climatic change brought on by the asteroid at the end of the Cretaceous Period, could've generated a species capable of evolving into creatures capable of cogent abstract thinking.
"(and many people seem to regard "successful marriage" in those terms)": Am I to infer from this that I am to be seen as some species ignoring extinction, clutching in futility to what you perceive as a cultural anachronism?
Lynn, re the Sponge: your comment makes me consider more seriously the line from "Stripes" by John Larroquette where he wishes he could be a loofah...
Yes, I know the loofah is a vegetable, geez, Mel, I'm trying to make a joke here...
BOS
Um, computer question here: Can someone -- anyone -- tell me how to get my copy of "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream" to work in Windows XP? Or would it be easier to hunt down an older computer and install it on that? Any advice would be muchly welcome; please email me and we'll go from there, if go we can. Thanks!
LYNN: So, in other words, the sponge is the Strom Thurmond of the animal kingdom?
And just mail the poor bastard his pizza menu, already. Those dinner combinations can be a BITCH to negotiate...
Harlan...
Are there certain kinds (or maybe, ways) of writing that you've outgrown doing? I don't mean good versus bad writing.
I think you KNOW what I mean.
H
Oh, and Marshall Blonsky was the guy who did the King interview.
Oh, and LYNN:
Yes, I have much admiration for the sponge too.
Clever little fucker.
Dave, you are the king of the left-handed compliment. I submit to you that this is one subject where an entirely scientific point of view will be lacking. Having lived with animals my entire life (my mother should have been a vet), and having no small amount of experience with warm-blooded animal behavior (mostly pack, some flock, limited herd), I can honestly tell you, for every emotion in the human spectrum, there is an analogous counterpart in animals. I think the biggest misconception that humanity has of itself, is that somehow they've become exempt from the rest of the spectrum (the ugly animalistic tendencies) merely because we have language and can think abstractly about things like emotion and sentience. The real research begins when we stop watching the animals to see how they're like us, and start watching ourselves to see how we're like the animals.
L.
PS. Peg, I cast no aspersions on your religious beliefs. I only seek to weight 2,000 years of enlightenment against 10 million years of evolution.
DAVID'S QUOTE:
"In these terms, humans are not dominant at all. We're an evolutionary aberration ... a short-lived if virulent disease, a planetary virus."
Why? Why have we evolved into the one species that does actual harm to the planet? Where did we begin to go wrong? (Coincidentally, I'm turning off my AC as I'm writing this. Ahem.)
It might be simply the tried-and-true catchphrase of 'too smart for our own good'. I mean, how did we get to so easily fuse unbelievable ingenuity with mind-blowing idiocy?
The dinosaurs really died for one reason and one reason only: they were big, and they were dumb. They had a LOT more time than us to get smarter, and they blew it. As for the human race, we're not big, but we can still be dumb.
We don't need an asteroid.
Y'know, on the evolutionary scale, the one creature I have the most respect for is the sponge. I mean, over millions of years, this animal has had every possible chance to evolve and at every opportunity has just said, ".... Nah."
L.
BOS chided PAB thus:
> Remember, if it wasn't for Chicxulub, the Saurians
> may well have become the dominant species, and we might
> never have come into being.
If one measures "dominance" in terms of longevity and stability (and many people seem to regard "successful marriage" in those terms), then Saurians WERE the dominant species in the history of the planet. (Sharks and cockroaches have 'em beat in longevity, for example, but not in adaptation and flexibility -- saurians spread through ALL habitats.)
In these terms, humans are not dominant at all. We're an evolutionary aberration ... a short-lived if virulent disease, a planetary virus.
I second Lynn's recommendation of _When Elephants Weep_. Not the most scholarly or well-written book, and one of the coauthors, the infamous Jeffrey Moussaief Masson, is a bit of a loon (not on this topic, but elsewhere in his tumultuous life), but there are some fascinating stories in it ... not only about our longtime buddies the primates and elephants, but such startling creatures as the devilish octopus.
A similarly fascinating if weakly written tome is _The Parrot's Lament, and Other True Tales of Animal Intrigue, Intelligence, and Ingenuity_ by Eugene Linden (see my mixed review on Amazon).
Cindy: Thanks for your wonderful, thoughtful story. A little honesty about the complexity of life and its critical issues goes a long way. I once interviewed a pediatrician who performed abortions in a small town (the text is on my Web site), and he said a number of folks who gave him grief about it, picketed his offices and such, quietly changed their tune when their teenage daughters got pregnant.
I don't appreciate the galoot (Todd, was it?) who smeared pro-choicers as folks who regard abortion as "contraception." I don't know anyone who treats it that lightly. If you can't make a coherent and plausible case for the opposition, then you haven't grasped the issue yet.
Peg: We never had dominion over the earth and all its creatures, and we never will. Thinking we did has got us in a mess o' trouble and will ultimately destroy not only our species, I think, but most of the rest of life on the planet as we know it. Helluva shame, not to mention an insult to whatever Creator one might wish to posit.
I see Frank shot his mouth off once again, this time about genealogy. Spoken like a fellow who didn't/doesn't get along with his folks, I'll bet. Of course people can go nuts about it, like anything else, but looking into one's roots can -- as someone else noted -- introduce you to dozens of interesting relatives you never knew existed. In recent years I've found lots of my wife's, and a few of my own (and I was already aware of and in regular touch with more than a hundred) -- not only across this continent, but possibly overseas. Lovely people, most of them.
I also suspect that if more people knew how many thieves, drunks, prostitutes, and just plain losers lurked in their own family tree, they might have a bit more perspective on their amour-propre and the frailties of others.
PA & Peg~ I highly suggest a book called "When Elephants Weep: The Emotional Lives Of Animals".
Most people know about Koko the gorilla, she of kitten named Ball and the cute fingerpaintings. Most don't know about the male gorilla named Michael who entered the program at the same time as Koko, and I was stunned, absolutely stunned to hear Michael recount the memories he has of his orphaning at the hands of poachers. He doesn't have as rich a vocabulary as Koko, but you can see the memory in his face as clearly as I could see a painful memory in each and every face in this room. When the keepers asked Michael if he remembers his family, after a long silence he slowly replied, "Men came. Much screaming. Much red. Michael alone."
I know why Dian Fossey gave her life for them.
L.
CEP~ If there was inaccurate advice offered, it seems I was the one who offered it. I'd be eternally grateful if you'd correct my misunderstandings about the copyrights of cyber-publications.
Sincerely,
Lynn
cavalaxis-at-digitalcarrion-dot-com
PS. Jim Davis ~ I'm *workin'* on it, *workin'* on it. L.
P.A.:
"After all, we evolved from animals."
Simply put, wrong. We are animals, and will always be a species. Part of this world, not owners of it. I've always felt that that arrogance, as much as those who believe that some being placed us here, is one of the ways we justify any spurious claim of being appointed caretakers, or that we are appointed the dominant species hereabouts. We were simply lucky enough to win the evolution sweepstakes.
Remember, if it wasn't for Chicxulub, the Saurians may well have become the dominant species, and we might never have come into being.
BOS
Peg, re: animals-- I really enjoyed reading your posts, as always. Like Rob, I'm troubled by the idea that everything on the Earth is under our dominion. Seems we've done a lousy job.
I've never been quite sure if there's such a thing as a "soul" or life beyond the physical. I'd very much like to believe there is. If so, why would humans have souls and animals not? After all, we evolved from animals. We are not so special in having dominion over the Earth-- the dinosaurs had it for 300 million years. We should be so lucky. So, if humans have souls, why not animals? I know the Bible says not, but is this logical? They seem to have feelings, and some even have thoughts. Apparently chimps have the mentality of a human 4 year old, and dolphins and elephants seem just as complex as humans in many ways, and certainly more respect for the planet than we do. Why did God give us dominion and not them?
Bermanator
The brief is on the way to the Ninth Circuit in San Fiasco. So now... we wait. Until the Tuesday after Labor Day, on which day AOL will find out how much of its lunch has already been eaten when it sees the amicus briefs. Plural. (Have fun, Belinda. You'll only have three weeks to respond.)
I intend to ask Harlan for permission to post the briefs we've filed, AFTER all of the briefing is complete. That will be early to mid October. Now, they won't make much sense to y'all (I'm not sure they make much sense to ME, and this is the [number in excess of 2^5] appellate brief I've done). "Legal brief" is even less accurate than "honest politician," and even less common--14,000 words plus various other required parts will put even a college student to sleep, before considerating the mandatory stilted style. But these 100-page documents might make good hamster bedding if you're desperate.
As an aside, Matthew Davis should contact me by e-mail (go to the website, authorslawyer dot com, and look at the navigation bar). I'm afraid some inaccurate advice was offered on his copyright problem.
Peg,
"God gave humans dominion over the earth and all the creatures and creation in it."
Had you not included this classic reductio ad absurdum - a blank check used incessantly by Man as an excuse to raze the earth, use up his resources and destroy without conscience - I'd have not bothered responding to your post. Any comment on the question of some supreme being would be a redundancy here; one I've wearied of. My views on the topic have fattened the archives. So, I needn't press on about it. People embracing world views this extreme cannot be reasoned with; logic, history and empirical evidence hold no weight. The rapture and self-assurance beliefs bring to us - their consoling removal of all quagmires - come first in the human hierarchy of needs. Any alternative that might threaten that condition will be ruled out. Thus, there's no way I can talk to you on the matter.
I will, however, express this point: a quaint notion like "God-given dominions" thoroughly alarms me. It virtually crosses the boundaries of personal belief and becomes a dictum. It is the inability to distinguish between what is man-made and what might be the paradoxical creation of an imaginary (therefore also man-made) being. However recondite the concept, it is part of a world view that compels people to vote in laws that mandate morality: I am, in essence, to live by YOUR beliefs; I am to think and act according to YOUR injunction; even the content of school books must follow YOUR guidelines. You see, I resent that. I don't seek to attack one's world view until one seeks to impose it on ME. And that is precisely what YOU are doing when you take away pro-choice rights. Embrace your beliefs as you will; impose them on others and opposition will always be there to greet you at the clinic door.
Please bear in mind this is not an attack upon you; it is an attack upon a concept (our "dominion") - a vile one at that. I use the personal and possessive pronouns here as a substitute to mean ALL those who seek to impose their beliefs on others.
Well, being both a father and a libertarian, I'll excuse myself from the discussion re: parenting and abortion.
1) I am a father and damn proud of it.
2) As a libertarian, I firmly believe that a person's body is their own property, and, with the exception of engagement in crime, no other person or organization has any right to enforce their viewpoint, or take subsequent actions upon that right. Choice is my perogative, and I feel my right to choose is dependent upon how well I defend the right of others to do same.
With that, I leave those who wish to continue the thread. I'll be over in the corner, listening to my Elvis and Buddy Holly records.
BOS
Peg,
You know I am with you as a Christian and as such, you know how I feel about abortion. BUT almost seven years ago I was faced with having to walk the walk and it made me softer with regard to those who have been in similar positions.
I was pregnant with my final surprise when a routine ultrasound at 16 weeks took my legs right out from under me on the abortion issue. My doctor called me into his office and told me that there seemed to be a problem with the baby. He said the skull of my developing infant was bowed out in the front and flat in the back and he was afraid that it could mean that the baby had not only a misshapen skull but horrific brain abnormalities.
He suggested that I go to San Antonio for an amniocentesis at once to determine what we should do. I told him it did not matter what the result of the test would be-- I woud never terminate my pregnancy. He said he respected that and he gave me a hug. He said that he would still like me to have the test so he could know how best to handle my pregnancy.
Okay, I can handle this. God sent this baby to me and I understood that for whatever reason I would accept it with an open heart.
Then I was knocked for one more loop.
My husband, who married me when I was a struggling single mother of four and who adored not only me but my babies as well broke down and cried when I told him.
This is a Texas man, a fifth generation rancher and 15 year veteran cop who could handle ANYTHING. He doesn't cry. He never hesitated taking on me and my pack. He took the added noise, responsibilities and expense that came along with his choice to go from single childless man to father of four then five... now one more brick had been placed on his back.
He cried.
He never tried to change my mind.. never argued with me about it. After the fact he told me later that all he could think of was how he would be able to feed, cloth and care for the others with the expense of a child who would probably never have enough of a mind to even be aware of the world around him.
I drove myself to San Antone for the test, I needed to be alone to think. On the long drive I considered what I should do if the worst were to be confirmed by the test. I had to think about what it would mean to the others and to my husband... not just me.
Isn't this a HORRIBLE confession! All my life I had been a firm believer in the sanctity of human life... not even condoning the use of IUDs because of their mechanism to prevent implantation of a human embryo. Now a whole new twist had presented itself.
What I decided was that if the test confirmed my worst fear that I would have the doctor do a c-section. It would be bad.... God how bad it would be, but I would have him wrap the baby in a blanket and hand it to me and I would comfort it until it died.
No D&C , no saline, no partial birth abortion. Deliver it the way you'd deliver any of my babies and treat it with the respect and kindness that deserved as a human being... even if it was deformed and lacked the ability to comprehend anything at all.
In the end God pulled me off the hook. The old physician who was from Israel and had a beautiful accent hooked me up to his state of the art ultrasound machine. He said,
" I see nothing wrong with this baby." He did the amnio and for ten days I waited for the results clinging like the drowning to what he had said.
The lab called and said the baby was genetically perfect and did I want to know what it was? It was a girl... my Paris.
Now I am more careful about what I pronounce to be true and right. The gray area has divided the black and white. I still loathe abortion and wish there were no more of them. I can see that maybe a compromise could be in order in some situations. Once it has a nervous system, a brain and a beating heart; I think the baby should be given a chance to live. Even if it's an outside chance. I don't think they should be killed with a pair of scissors or burned with salt or cut to pieces.
I am pro-life in the way that I regard the unborn... but the militance has gone from me replaced by a resolve to let God be the Judge, I'm not qualified and hypocrisy tastes really bad.
Cindy
Lynn, sometimes I even annoy myself...............
-TODD
Another thought on abortion:
I just wanted to add that I think the decision to terminate a pregnancy on the grounds that the child "is better off dead" is not necessarily as short-sighted and presumptious as has been described. My personal belief is that there are some social situations so horrific that a child has no place there. I'm certainly no expert in these matters, but my observations have been that there are some situations where a baby is going to die through the actions of the parents--the only choice is whether it happens before or after it can feel the pain of the violence and neglect and abuse.
In an ideal world, as has been stated numerous times before, no child has to die. In this world, babies are battered until they are brain-dead, kept alive by machines until all the examinations picking up evidence of abuse are completed. Given a choice between having people abort their pregnancy or having to see more babies with small circular burns on their bodies, from where the parents stubbed their cigarettes out on them, I vote for abortion everytime.
Pam and I watched a show tonight on hot dogs, featuring the world-famous PINK'S dogs.
Yes, they may be the worst food in the universe outside of drinking lard right from the microwave but DAMN this show made me want to go out and grab a Nittany Lion Primal Scream with mustard.
http://www.wqed.org/tv/natl/hotdogs/
And for Pink's direct: http://www.net101.com/rocknroll/pink.html
Todd, I never said I hated you. I said sometimes you annoy the living shit out of me. There's a distinct difference. Hell, my mother annoys the living shit out of me, and I love her very, very much. I have all kinds of people in my life that annoy me (SUCH AS PEOPLE WHO WANT THEIR PIZZA MENU MAILED TO THEM) but I cherish every moment I spend with them. Okay, I won't go so far as to say I cherish every moment I spend with you, Todd, but I still read your posts, mostly because you're sane and intelligent. And not everyone here can make that claim.
So there, just for the record, I don't hate you.
L.
Peg, your posting on not having children is beautiful. Though a gal, you speak my words exactly....and the words of my wife! We made the same decision, and yes, we also agreed that any child of ours would remain our child if it happened: but fortunately, unlike many folks who desire to abort their pregnancies, we had the brains to make sure we didn't have the child!
I didn't really read your follow-up post because the debate has gone from powerful when I first started getting involved in abortion discussions (20 years ago) to just too goddamn boring to go through it again. No one side will convince another side they are right. And, surprise surprise, no one party will change the ways of the world as they sit today......remember how Reagan was going to have wimmen back in those illegal Mexican hangar closets? If any one President was going to shoot the abortion world all to hell it was him!!! Ooops, guess not. It is not going to be made illegal, so folks can relax about that.
And folks who think I'm praying for this because of my strong Conservative views can put away their political-philosophical blinders. I am pro-abortion. I would want that choice, even though I know we would not have it done if the baby was going to be as healthy as could be expected upon birth. Of course, I am also pro-death to fucking morons in the world who are so goddamn stupid that they list abortion as one of a handful of effective birth-control devices. Ooops, more expensive and painful than a goddamn condomn or pill....that's o.k., rip 'er out!
See, there is always that political hypocrisy.....pro-death sentence and pro-life. Anti-death sentence and allow the choice to abort. I ain't a hypocrit.....abort and kill those I loathe. That's me.
No wonder Lynn hates me ::grin::
-TODD
Happy Birthday greetings to Ray Bradbury!
From one who survived "Boot Camp" at Great Lakes IL to one of my favorite Authors!
John
I realize these views will not go over well with most folks here. Up to this point, like Bern, I have been terribly impressed with the level of clear headed debate on this topic (and others) along with the absence of name calling and war cries. I hope that this post will be received in similar manner.
Some prolifers are vegans, some do try to save whales and boycott animal testing, what have you. However, I can offer some insight to the biblical perspective of believing abortion is murder but pork chops are not. It's human life that is considered sacred, not animal. Animal sacrifices were common, as was livestock and the consumption of meat. God gave humans dominion over the earth and all the creatures and creation in it. (I believe that God wishes we would be [more] responsible with that creation, and that we also have to live with the consequences of the choices of our dominion). All things in it were created to serve the good of man in some way. (It's clear we have not discovered all those yet, and that many have chosen to exploit uses of earthly objects or creatures which do not benefit man in the long ruin). So, being pro-life in the abortion debate and being carnivorous is not a contradiction from a biblical perspective.
As you might expect, I am pro-life. I believe this not only from a religious standpoint, but that medical science can genetically prove a human being is such at the earliest stages of development and so abortion is murder regardless of whether it is viable outside the womb. I can understand the choice to abort to protect a mother (similar in a way to murder in self defense) but feel it is equally valid to personally choose to sacrifice yourself for that other life. I can comprehend why those with different beliefs might not be of the same opinion, but that does not stop it from being murder in my eyes, and makes me wish I could somehow ensure my tax dollars did not go toward federal funding of this tragic practice. While the right to choose may be democratic, to me abortion in most circumstances represents a cold and inhumane act that proves we are still capable of savagery.
This is the age old question of when is it acceptable to take another life? If it is not legal to kill another person then abortion should likewise not be legal; to save a life could be mitigating circumstances (such as when a policeman shoots a suspect who is going to kill someone else). To believe that a baby is better off dead, regardless of why, is amazingly presumptious and shortsighted. To believe a human being does not have a right to live just because it might be sick, or because it was fathered by a horrendous human being, or because it may have to live in poverty with assistance from the state, sells short the capacity of a human being to overcome circumstance, disability, and tragedy to live a meaningful live and touch the lives of others in a positive way. We show more respect of life to death row prisoners and animals; how can anyone assume an unborn child is beyond redemption? I believe the use of abortion to avoid responsibility for the consequences of your actions is even more reprehensible.
The world is not perfect. If abortions were to stop, there would be a burden, a cost. Someone might have to give up their education. The state would have to support. There could be suffering, and crime. But if we allow ourselves to kill a life because of the cost, we are in danger of losing our own humanity.
Been away for a week, my word are you folks prolific! Still letting some things sink in but I've a couple of initial offerings...here's the first.
PA Berman: As someone who does not have kids nor any desires/plans for them (*snip snip* all done), I am happy with my decision. I chose to not have children because I do not like children or their company. I do not go *ooooh* or *ahhhhh* or giggle at the site of young cuteness. I do not get warm gooey fuzzies when somehow a child develops an affection for me. We tell our nieces and nephews that I am "mean aunt Peggy"; heck, I think I was not found of children even when I was one! Many people cannot fathom this, and will inevitably explain that it would be different if it were my own. I don't hate children, and can even relate to them when needed; I just don't want to be around them for the most part.
I also believe children can invariably sense when they are not wanted and so I would not voluntarily place a child in that situation. My husband and I both agreed we did not want children before the marriage. In the event of the unexpected, we agreed we would keep a child because we felt we would be decent parents and did not want to abandon a child we created, and we both believe abortion is murder. The better half has since become more tolerant of youngsters; he now thinks he might have enjoyed some aspects of parenthood but still does not regret our choice.
I do not feel particularly well placed to judge parents in the subtleties of child rearing but there are times when it seems obvious the struggle is not going well. I cannot help but question the methods of a parent who feels the need to be abusive (mentally, physically, emotionally, whatever) in order to raise their child. At the other end of the spectrum, discipline has it's place in parenting, and I think many parents today are afraid or disapprove of using that parenting tool. Note that I do not equate a proper spanking with abuse, and honestly believe that some children require strong tactics.
Venk: Pulling one's children around? Christ, we fear taking ours anywhere, knowing how fast they can disappear.
Jim Davis: I'm one for "Devil In Disquise", "Return to Sender", and "Heartbreak Hotel"...
BOS, who, after completing exhaustive biological and genetic testing, can now confirm Mojo Nixon's assertion that Michael J. Fox has no Elvis in him...
Of course, the kidnapping, forced confinement and illegal exhumation charges levied by the Canadian actor and the estate of the King of Rock and Roll are still pending.
Alex, the born-again EC artist wasn't Jack Davis, who continued to work for Gaines for decades. It was Graham Ingels, who signed his work "Ghastly. Gaines still sent him checks. Dunno if he cashed'em.
Allow me to tell you how my day went...
FUUUUUUUCK!!!
...thank you for listening.
Anyone who's going to Dragon*Con this year, they have the schedule up at www.dragoncon.org.
Jim,
When putting peaches in the fridge, store them in Ziploc or somesuch bags, and only after they're ripe. Peaches area high-humidity fruit, and refrigerators tend to strip humidity from food. Same goes for apricots, pears, nectarines, mangoes, kiwis, plums and melons.
Regards,
Joseph
And I've always had a soft spot for "(Marie's the Name of) His Latest Flame". Does that make me officially Uncool?
DARYL: Thank YOU. There's a lot more I wanted to write vis-a-vis the whole race issue, but you summed it up beautifully, so there's no need.
While we're kinda on the subject, here's a good article about Elvis's supposed racism: http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/living/0802/12elvisracist.html
I never believed he said what was attributed to him, myself. Did he have some of the prejudices that any white southern man growing up in the 50's would've had? Sure. But this was also a man with an intense feeling for rhythm and blues, and it would've been a mind-boggling act of cognitive dissonance to love the music while hating its creators. Personally, I like some of Elvis's stuff; the early Sun singles and his late 60's "comeback" recordings are genuinely great. Is it accurate to say, as John Lennon did, that "before Elvis, there was nothing"? Absolutely not. But his talent WAS tremendous, no matter how horribly he squandered it later in his career.
SOME OF MY PET PEEVES:
You know when you buy some peaches in the supermarket, and they look and feel firm and ripe with beautiful amber-and-red swirls on the skin, and you're really looking forward to feeding off them for the next few days, and you put them in the fridge, and they suddenly metamorphose into this sodden mulch, so when you grab one and bite into it, it tastes like a mouthful of wet toilet paper, and you stand there sputtering and spitting, wondering if you're the butt of some cosmic joke?
I HATE that.
The use of "impact" as a verb.
Women who look perfectly fine, but panic and get plastic surgery that transforms them into grotesque cat-women-slash-space-aliens after seeing ONE frown line in the mirror.
Driving in traffic and never, EVER hearing jazz or classical music blare from other people's car stereos. (As opposed to hip-hop, rap-metal, and classic rock.)
Todd~ You annoy the living shit out of me anyway. ::grin:: So don't worry, you're covered.
Seriously, I'm at home from work today because it seems every bit of stress in my body has chosen to reside in the left side of my neck. It had been giving fits yesterday and this morning about 4am, I woke up in tears because I couldn't move without pain shooting up into my skull. So I can't drive, and I know I can't sit in front of the computer all day. And I'm pretty sure it all boils down to one project manager's fault. (I'm double allocated. Again. When will these people learn 100% is the LIMIT of time I can give. I have a life outside my cube! And this line of conversation is making my neck tense up again... Owie.)
Soma is our friend.... Soma is our friend....
L.
Project Managers:
As one (by job description, not title) I have to agree with Lynn; we're irritating on general principle. We can be pains in the ass. This is usually because we operate in a universe that removes anyone's self-importance or status when it comes to managing projects. Where I'm concerned, it's like a big game of Tetris with time and machines. The projects keep coming and you gotta twist and turn them to fit available slots. Now imagine some rabid dingo calls and asks that his project, snug at the bottom of the pile needs to be moved because Lieutenant Suck-Up of Tyco Industries needs to catch an earlier flight to his convention in Pigsknuckle. That's why most people dislike project managers. It makes us dispassionate, with that glazed, distant expression that eventually thickens into something like a Greek theatre mask by the time they use the phrase "This is more important than you realize!" While it is understandable that things need to be done, some things can't.
Peeves:
The Consumer Culture. The assumption that anything should be available at any time in a pretty package for a reasonable price. This extends from bread and milk to color copies to happiness, love, reparations, whatever. While it's great to WANT, it isn't someone's god-given right to have all material needs granted.
The Service Culture. The indutry that feeds this selfish, slothy and spoiled class of people by competing for their short attention spans and access to their credit cards. While I'd like to send out a big "fuck you" to Miss Cleo and her ilk, at least people are spending their money on her and not holding up the line at Kay-Bee Toys returning a toy they bought last Christmas without a receipt.
People who truck their kids around like they're some court-ordered boulder chained to their leg.
People who attach amplifiers to their exhaust so their new Honda Civic (with the racing stripes and ridiculous spoiler) can sound like the '72 Mustang owned by the jackass who thinks not having a muffler makes his ride sound "tuff".
The media implying that child abductions and murders are suddenly episdemic in nature when they are just focusing on that same annual statistic ignored year after year by the four-minute picture press.
Developers who believe that the best use of undeveloped land is a mall or more housing.
I'm sure there are more, but I've got about sixty pop-up windows to close and get to work.
Get this one... Paris, my six year old came home from her first day at Kindergarten. I asked her if she missed me... she got this funny look on her face and said that she cried and cried for me. This was odd because I had never had one cry for me before on the first day of school. She said that she was crying so hard that she started screaming and they could hear her in the 8th grade. She said the principal had to be called, and he told her to go sit in the corner and " think happy thoughts." She said after she sat there for an hour he let her get out of the chair in the corner but then she began to cry again so he sent her back to " think more happy thoughts." she said 10 times she was sent back to the corner.
I asked her if the principal had been nice to her and she said yes.. except when he made her go to the corner. I said, " Which principal was it?" She replied that it was the one with the
" gray hair."
I left the room for a minute and came back.. she was watching Sponge Bob.. and I said, " He made you sit in the corner-- really?
She said, " Noooooo-- I was just joking."
I said, " About all of it?"
She said, " Uh huh! But I did get some tears in my eyes."
She wanted me to think she missed me. LOL! I doubt if she gave me a second thought! I'm with my kids so much that by the time they go off to school they are ready to be on their own.
Funny kid.
:)
Cindy
Brian, EC went further than that. Once Bradbury got that check from them, they made adapting his stories a regular thing--and used his name on their covers. Worked out well for both sides. But William Gaines was a strange duck, ultimately ethical, even if he had to be prodded occasionally. He continued to make payments to the artists on those EC stories for reprints and adaptations, even though they were not "entitled" to any under the original employment agreements. How many people doing reprints of '50s material could say the same?
I recall, too, that one of the artists --Jack Davis, I believe-- was very unhappy with the checks, because he'd become a born-again Christian, and was embarassed by his early horror work.
--Alex
Lynn, the comic company that Bradbury got payment from was none other than the famous "Entertaining Comics," publishers of _Tales from the Crypt_, _The haunt of Fear_, _Weird Science_, and much more.
They also did a space-travel story titled "Upheaval" which, while not credited to a certain fantasist, is _uncannily similar_ to one of his stories...
Well, as one of those dreaded creatures; an MBA (that's right; one of the sources of what's wrong with the world is me) with a minor in labour relations obviously my degree has come in handy for my choice of vocation.
Still, the degree didn't come into service for a few years, during which I tossed garbage, drove truck, backhoe, and bulldozer (got to admit, the ability to study helped me to get the tickets I needed to operate heavy equipment faster than some) to do my share in keeping lights on and bills paid. Many of my co-workers ribbed me about the sheepskin, to which I gently responded "Make sure you keep my phone number".
That suggestion worked out rather nicely for a couple of them who had sense enough to listen.
BOS
John Pickett,
I love your list.
:)
Cindy
Lynn Sez: "And project managers. Nothing in specific about project managers, just project managers in general annoy the living shit out of me."
Uh, well, ummmmmmm, I'll keep as far away from you as I can, Lynn.
-TODD
LYNN: Glad to see someone else mentioning psycho and Ann Coulter in the same breath. First time I saw her -- back before the Presidential elections, when I watched CNN, MSNBC, etc., on a daily basis -- I thought, "Hey, she's kinda cute...in an anorexic way, of course." Then she started talking. "Fuck me!" I thought (not literally, of course). It was one of those lessons that we males ocassionally need: reminding us that even psychos can come wrapped in fairly attractive packages. (God, or whoever is in charge, help us and our secondary brains).
--DTS
P.S. HEATHER: though I haven't read her work, I do know a former newspaper editor ("Dallas Morning News") who highly recommends Catherine Coulter's novels.
John,
You work at a bus station, too? I only work at the local one on weekends. My favorite is when it's my fault the bus left without them. It's my fault they arrived at 8:59 and didn't make it when the bus left at 9.
A brother in buses,
Bill
Pet Peeves
Stupid people questions I get at work
Here are a few examples
"My sister is coming in on a bus. Do you know when she will arrive?"
Of course the caller has no idea
A. when she left
B. Where she is coming from
C. Oh she did'nt say when she was coming exactly other then she'd be here today maybe.
My bus was due in at 2:30PM is it here yet?
A look at my watch shows it's now just 1:45PM
I need to know if the 2:30PM bus to Jacksonville,Fl. is on time today as I plan to catch it next week.
I've never been to Tampa Fl. before can you give me the address to the station there? Ok I give them the address their next question amazed even me.
"Where in Tampa is that near to?"
Of course the most popular question I get is
"Do you have any buses running to New York today?
Yes we have 4 buses a day to New York.
Do they go anywhere else?
Other Pet Peeves
Email telling me I can get larger breasts naturally (Being a single guy living alone this is VERY important info to know!)
People who jumped on the "patriotic american" bandwagon after 9/11
My pet peeve is wet bread.
Darryl,
YOU are lovely. You made me think. Tomorrow I will respond after I have steeped on it a bit.
Yours in Admiration,
Cindy
Chuck~ That's just it. I have a degree and I know what it's like to come home smelling like shit after a day of making pittance wage. On the other hand, my husband has the kind of natural leadership qualities that would have made him a general in a previous life, but because he has no college degree, most managers look at him as the "Guy Who Lifts Heavy Stuff." And he is struggling right now to get past that.
Makes me want to go postal on a group of VP's that are so dense as to not see what a talented resource they have, more likely because they're used to harvesting his ideas and taking credit for themselves (one of my other pet peeves, you noticed).
Darryl, one of my other pet peeves is men in auto parts stores that can't seem to understand that a) yes I have tits and b) yes I do know what I'm talking about when I want a part. My bleeding edge breaking point is men that assume anything about me because I'm female. And project managers. Nothing in specific about project managers, just project managers in general annoy the living shit out of me.
L.
Matthew~ Yeah, you should be pissed. The crux of the matter lies in whether or not you had a copyright notice on your web publication, and whether you can date a copy of the material to a date prior to the publication of the book.
Listening to the inestimable Mr. Bradbury speak at ComicCon, he told a story about how a comic book company had taken his stories whole cloth and adapted them to the graphic form. His reaction was to send them a very nice letter congratulating them on their success and then note, very gently, that they must have been too busy to send him a check for his work. He got a check two weeks later. Personally, I think they'd laugh at you for that approach. Then again, they might not.
L.
Oh, yeah. One day, I was driving behind a guy in a pickup that had a bumper sticker that read, "Forget World Peace, Visualize Using Your Turn Signal". He then made a left turn without signalling. Maybe the sticker was put there by the previous owner.
I saw a T-shirt that read: "Don't let your mind wander. It's too small to be out by itself."
Darryl,
You write some powerful stuff, mister.
Chuck
As a sometimes very occasional poster here I was hoping somebody might have some idea as to whether I have any recourse to the problem below.
I run a website about an sf author - bibliographies, essays, reviews, and general comment about him and his works. One of his early books has just been republished by iBooks (the people who published "Troublemakers". I was looking at a copy of this book while I was in Barnes and Nobles across from the NY Public Library and was astonished to see that about 400 words of mine had been ripped from off my website and reprinted verbatim on the inside front page "about the author" section. Is this legal? Am I justified in being not flattered and instead really very pissed off?
2001: a Harlan Odyssey. I read once that Harlan actually did change his mind about the movie after he saw it again years later. Turns out, the first time he saw the movie, it was the original cut, which Kubrick himself didn't like. Kubrick apparently realized what it was about 2001 he didn't like and re-cut the thing. It's amazing what a little nip and a tuck can do for a movie. I'd LOVE to see what Welles' version of MAGINIFICENT AMBERSONS would have been like.
Lynn,
I have known and read about people who weren't able to go to college, who ended up better read that people who graduated from Hah-vud. Dick Cavett wrote about how he was awed by Groucho Marx's broad and deep knowlege of literature and history, even though Groucho never went to college. You sound purty durn smart to me, Mrs. Nice Lady.
Pet Peeves. How to count them? I almost collide with them when driving to work. People whose level of basic competence is so low, they can't be trusted to tie their own shoes without accidentally hanging themselves, yet the state gives them a licence to drive a vehicle. How does that happen? A guy can't make himself breakfast without accidentally getting his butt caught in a toaster, but he can drive a honkin' big pickup truck.
One Major Pet Peeve: Spammers. Internet advertising can be effective, but not when you send 3,000 copies of the same ad to everybody on the net. The spam is getting less and less effective, I think about 0.0025 per cent now, so they send MORE AND MORE AND MORE.
One more peeve: Evil fuckers like Strom Thurmond live to be 1,000 years old, but Gilda Radner, who only was a sweet, great lady who made people laugh and made her hubby immensly happy, dies in her prime.
Goddamnit. Who IS running the show here?
Say, Frank. Although I disagree with your opinion on geneology, I think the whole of your rant sounded a little like George Carlin. Way to go.
Chuck
PS: Spammers. Hate 'em.
"Geneology--who the fuck cares where you came from, it is more important that you are here now."
Genealogy isn't all about living in the past. It can also help you find relatives in the present, who you may not know you have.
Other pet peeves:
People who wait to make a left turn, from the right-hand side of the lane
People who refuse to merge
(insert a bunch of other traffic irritants here)
People who post a question to a message board, that a two-minute web search could have answered. I'll be the first to admit that the internet is not an all-knowing oracle, but it's a good place to start. And if you've posted the question, then you obviously have access, so why not USE it, you twit? But you're too friggin' lazy to look it up yourdamnself, so you foist it onto everyone else on the board, you miserable piece of...
*pause, deep breath*
So yeah, stupid drivers. Can't stand em.
Mitch
Darryl -
Well, well put and thank you.
Lynn, re anti-intellectualism: Interesting question. I don't get the real bright lights; they go into the AP classes. When I do get a really sharp one, often they are given respect for being smart, and kids seem a bit envious. The worst they get is the perception that they're stuck up, which maybe they are. I recommend them for AP and hope it helps them.
Maybe it's just my whitebread, middle class school, but they seem to want to get good grades. When I was a kid, I never told anyone my grades b/c they were good, and I was enough of a geek already. Now, they shout out their grades with great pride. Seems odd to me, but I'm glad they're proud of themselves.
I've also had several students tell me they admired me for my brains. They think it's cool that I have Hamlet memorized. This all makes me hopeful. I don't know about you, but when I was in public school, the words "dexter" and "brainiac" were common epithets. I tried to hide it under a barrel.
It's not so much the kids who taunt the intellect, it's older people. My brother, for instance, loves to retort to any political debate we have with, "Well, your problem is you're all colleged out. You don't live in the real world." As if being informed makes you out of touch-- huh? I've also noticed that people seem to dislike intelligent politicians. Look at the fate of Jimmy Carter to see that. Dubya seems to coast along on his "just a good old boy" image when really, he's an upper crust blue blood to the core.
Anyway, that's my rant for the day.
Bermanator
First, and most important, much thanks Darryl, for the insight of times both past and present in the POV or race. Sobering, and a bit frustrating.
Many know the feelings I have for the three little souls I've woven into my own, and how I'm far stronger for their presence and life within mine. To think, at one time I'd resolved never to be a father, fearing to be a repetion of the self-hating sub-human who sired me. That's one self-misconception I am dammed happy to admit to, and proud to have proved wrong.
...Of course, ask again when they begin dating and driving, and then ask how I feel.
Peeves:
Small: People who talk in a theatre.
Large: The ones who walk past those who are homeless on our streets, and self-righteously sneer "Get a Job", not considering for a moment the numerous terrible things which can drive a person to such desperation, each circumstance being entirely beyond the affected person's fault.
...And, it's a small turn of fate that could place any of us there in their place.
BOS
Jim Hess~ Pull your head out of your ass. http://www.catherinecoulter.com/ is the writer Heather was speaking of, not the Right Wing Psycho Ann Coulter.
And you wonder why Harlan gets cranky... jeez.
L.
Sitting in a left-hand turn lane and again realizing that the oncoming line of monster trucks/SUVs/4x4's renders me unable to see the oncoming cars for about 100 or so metres back.
Seeing someone use a baby carriage as a portable crosswalk.
SUV ads that tout the naturalness and nature-lovingness of the vehicles they promote.
Ads with squeaky voiced pubescent girls in tight and/or revealing clothing (apparently, Humbert Humbert got a job on Madison Ave.).
Roadwork. I don't hate it; I'd just like a new approach that caused smaller, more manageable chunks of road to be inactive at one time.
Alex Krislov: I have to ask. Reading a book in the Dog Pound because you got stuck at a game you didn't want to be at, or reading a book during one of an NFL game's long downtimes? I'm amazed you didn't end up in a sports highlight reel, anyway.
Jon
Heather: The name is ANN Coulter. And people wonder why Harlan is cranky. I know you may not think of Ms. Coulter, owing much to her politics, but, pleaseeeeee get the writer's name right. If nothing else.
Until next time. . .
Pet Peeves: Noam Chomsky.
Just kidding, Frank, just kidding! Put down those typing fingers, they're loaded.
Number one pet peeve: People who take some things you say so goddamn seriously that you have to fucking smile wide and yell "It's a joke, sheesh!" and still want to punch their lights out when their befuddled look remains frozen on their face.
Kinda goes for some things that are typed on boards like this as well. It's harder to get that sarcasm or slight jiggly jibe over the 'net as it is, but when some things are totally blown out of proportion it gets even harder not to jab your own eyes out.
-TODD
I just loves going after my buddy Frank, who sez that one of his pet peeves is: "Geneology--who the fuck cares where you came from....." then goes on to tell people to effectively live in the here and the now.
But, Frankie, you make this statement immediately after taking another shot at reparation and/or apologies.
Ahem, like you said, let's live in the here and the now (or however you put it....I'm too lazy to page back).
-TODD
Peeve:
People who don't resaearch things properly, leading them to believe in such coackamany as pseudoscience and non peer-reviewed scientific papers.
Re: Children
I was a typical guy, thinking that someday I’d have a relationship and kids, but in an amorphous, ethereal, “someday” way. When I got married and we had one, then two children, life changed. That’s what is known as understatement.
As I’ve said on this board before, nothing can prepare one for the introduction of a child into life. It’s the hardest, most wonderful thing I’ve ever encountered. I’ve often described it as being part of the world’s largest club – you know about it, but until you’re a member, there are no words to describe membership, no rules, no instructions. I love it. YMMV.
Cookie and Cindiana, you both sound like wonderful mothers to me. Cookie’s being a little too hard on herself (which is a positive thing where childrearing is concerned). I don’t think you have to worry too much about your kids, they have love – 80% of what they need to survive in the world if you ask me. Cindiana, I have had the same reaction when our first went into kindergarten, our second will start on Wednesday.
Rich, my “father is really proud” moment came when my first son was about 10 months old. He started understanding English, and my wife was holding him. She asked “Where’s your daddy?” as she had a thousand times before. This time, he pointed to me. It was his first time doing something like that. I could barely speak, tears ran down my cheeks. I felt like I could conquer the world.
I’ve always admired people who decide they don’t want children of their own. Recognizing that is also a wonderful thing, as there is little worse than an unwanted child. I have plenty of friends who have decided to remain childless, they enjoy ours, then go home. More power to you. Had I not met my wonderful wife, I might be with you.
Pet peeves:
People who think they’re cool because of what they’re wearing instead of who they are.
People with more money than brains.
People who drive the hugest, most polluting SUV’s on the planet, and never take them off road.
Hollywood’s definition of sexy, ‘cause they tend to discard women just when they are achieving it.
Most politicians.
Knee-jerk reactions, especially politically. Left or right.
People who think they can pigeonhole you because of the job you do (props to Lynn).
People who act like the world is out to screw them, so they’re going to do the screwing first.
Loud people (and I’m one!)
Pet peeves?
People who have seen POKEMON and SAILOR MOON and automatically presume all anime is exactly the same.
Okay, time for my ritual Busting on Frank. Today's episode, his desire for a written apology for slavery.
It'd be nice, but it's sort of an empty gesture. It wouldn't have much effect on current politics. I think that the sacrifice of half a million soldiers should be more of a monument than a simple apology. This doesn't mean I'd prefer reparations to an apology; I think an apology is just empty, reparations a bad idea, and I'd prefer to see the effort go into building a better society. (Okay, so I didn't "bust" so much as offer a counteropinion...)
Okay, pet peeves. Loud, concussive music played at top volume. Bad arguments. Belief in paranormal bullshit. Cheap sentiment. Vindictiveness towards the less fortunate. Most religions. Snobbery passing itself off as elitism. Self-righteous modern art.
To Lynn, re her peeve of people who are touchy about hugs: I'm afraid I'm one of those people, Lynn. And there's good reason for it; some of us weren't exactly well-liked when we were young, so invading someone else's space feels risky, and having one's space invaded makes us _very_ defensive and suspicious. It'd be nice to not feel this way-- but it'd be nice to not have hay fever, too.
Take note: the Feds are talking of going after "file-sharing" instead of leaving it in the civil courts. http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2121102,00.html
Pet Peeves: People who sit at traffic stops and wait until the green light before signaling a left turn. Plastic jewel-boxes for CDs, instead of the nifty cardboard gatefolds (which cost more). Restaurants who blast commercial radio stations or loud music at patrons. Movie previews that reveal the whole damn story in miniature. Politicians who shove their religious beliefs on the rest of us. Urban renewal as practiced in my city, where beautiful or historic architecture is plowed over for parking lots, sports stadiums and national chains. The myth of the liberal media. The dominance of sports in society.
Alex~
YES! Add to my list people that say stupid things like, "Wow, that's a twenty dollar word" or "Oh, SAT word, huh?" Using the word "enigmatic" or "rhapsodic" in a sentence should not cause the conversation to come to a screeching halt. Folks, it's not as if you can stop and look it up in the middle of a meeting. You don't know what it means, make a mental note to look it up later and MOVE THE FUCK ON.
A close friend and I have been having this ongoing discussion about the anti-intellectual climate in our culture. I think we've pretty much boiled it down to one conclusion: People equate intellectual with "elitist" when such is not always the case, and people who are intellectual tend to be of the ilk that believe being an intellectual somehow makes them "elite," and thus they treat everyone around them like mouth breathers. Believe me, I hate mouth breathers just as much as anyone, but just because you can discuss the origins of socialist political theory in the Middle Ages, doesn't mean you're worth anymore salt than the guy who washes your car. Being intellectual makes you a richer person, not a better one. Being anti-intellectual makes a person's own insecurities all the more apparent.
Bermanator, do you see this in your classes? Is it still the same way it was when I was in school, the smart kids segregated and to some extent, persecuted?
L.
People who play their music *really* loud without any regard for their neighbors or other people in traffic.
People who talk on cellphones while driving (which has been proven to have the same rate of accidents as drunk driving).
People who take credit for a subordinate's hard work.
People who assume that because you have a service job, you have no brain, and thus are not fit to discuss literature, politics, religion or any other "highbrow" subject. Also, people who assume that because you have no degree, you obviously couldn't get into college, and therefore might as well have a service job.
People who think that having an education somehow precludes them from getting dirty, as in changing a tire or digging a stuck car out of the mud.
People who treat their animals (and children) as if they were things, not living creatures.
People with no sense of humor.
People who are touchy about giving and receiving hugs. (I respect that, it just bugs me. Seems like you're hiding something.)
People who are oblivious to their surroundings.
Hypocrites & Liars
Small, repetitive noises.
L.
Pet peeves? Hmm.
People who resent literacy. Quote from a book, just a schlubb book, not, lawdhelpus, a classic, just an ordinary printed during the last 40 years book, and you're a "snob" parading your esoteric learning. Hey, go be semi-literate, but don't wear it as a goddamn badge of honor.
For that matter, don't ever try to read a book while sitting in the Cleveland "dog pound," the bleachers at the football game. The regulars are genuinely offended by the sight. One beer-swilling tank-top with a belly the size of a Franklin stove yelled at me, "Go to a library if you wanna do that!"
Drivers who think you're obliged to turn right on red, even if you don't want to.
People who condemn a whole musical form because they didn't like the three examples of it they've heard. Rock is childish, country is for hicks, opera is for snobs, jazz is dead, rap is obscene, etc. Listen to twenty or thirty sides and _then_ give me an opinion. Otherwise, shut the hell up and listen.
Oh, and my daughters' pet peeve: having a set of parents who tend to break into song so much, the kids think they're living n a musical (g).
--Alex
Frank: Some pet peeves right off the top of my head--
People who don't signal for turns, esp. when you could have proceeded but were waiting for them to go straight.
Tailgaters.
People who don't spay or neuter their pets and then don't take care of their pets' offspring.
People who are chronically late but refuse to wear a watch
People who never apologize even when they know they're wrong
People on Usenet who bottom post and put all the previous thread's message above their reply
People who forward chain letters and hoaxes via e-mail
The sound of a chainsaw
People who flick their cigarette butts all over the place, esp. on my front lawn and porch area
People who don't vote
People who think their car is so hot that they take up 2 spaces in the parking lot
That's just for starters.
Bermanator
Re: my desire to be a failure as a parent, David Loftus snarked:
"It shouldn't be. It should be refreshing. The obsession with not failing, with "being a good parent" (however one interprets that) is what makes for so many bad ones."
I beg to differ, sir. I don't think it's a burning desire to be a good parent that makes for so many bad ones. I think that many people have children b/c it's the thing to do, like having and SUV or a dog. I think if more folks thought seriously about what it means to be a parent before they conceived a child, asked themselves if they *really* could handle it, and consciously behaved in a way that they felt would be successful, there would be fewer bad parents.
I'm not sure what point you were trying to make by saying that striving to be a good parent dooms one to failure. Thinking too much is never a good thing, of course, but thinking to little isn't much of a virtue to tout. I don't care what other people would think of my parenting skills; I do care that my kids feel well-raised, fairly treated, and can look back on their childhoods fondly.
If that's "moaning," then so be it.
Bermanator
COOKIE: Thanks you're a dish...or should that be a dessert?
--DTS
Okay, you bookmobeeles..I ask this again. Do you know anything about this Catherine Coulter? I realize New York Times bestseller is no great indicator of talent these days--if you're in vogue, you're in vogue. But I'm curious what you think of her style. Only seen the one book (cassette, that is) and I still stand by my movie-of-the-week comment about the storyline I read but..I dunno. I thought the story was kinda nifty. And I have no idea why..but I wish I knew this guy she ends up marrying. No extreme--far as I can tell--amounts of 'romance' in this piece. I guess it just reminds of what James Bond MIGHT have been like if he wasn't so damn formal..
or summat. Will figure it out whether you feedback or not. Just found this kinda interesting.
H
Darryl, you said a mouthful my friend. That is my idea of reparations as well; at least a goddamned apology signed by the entire Senate and congress.
----------
Ok, new topic: Favorite pet peeves.
Geneology--who the fuck cares where you came from, it is more important that you are here now. Self esteem doesn't come from the knowledge that you were descended from the damn Mayflower. People have a fetish about their family tree that I do not understand. I don't care to know if I come from a line of either murderers or saints; I just know that life is more important in the now.
Cell phones going off at the movies: New law; we have a cell phone shoved up the owner's ass if it goes off.
Christian rock: Rock music is the Devils music, let's leave it that way. Bands like, Creed are out to destroy rock,not save it.
Liberals who want censorship: This is an oxymoron. Liberals have a history, and being PC is not an option. Civil liberties are the hallmark of Liberal thought, so it is sad to see certain feminists and other lefties trying to censor pornography or rap music or whatever makes them offended. Love what you love and turn the damn channel when you are offended. First amendment is not a loophole.
People who are easily offended by swearing: Fuck em.
Nostalgia junkies who think that their time was better or more noble than now. Face it folks, the old days sucked.
Knee-jerk Noam Chomsky critics: These are people who learn of the man's work from second hand knowledge and pontificate about what they do not understand. Either respect the man or don't but don't lie about his ideas.
Born again patriots: 9/11 brought these yabo's out of hiding. Waving a flag does not make you American, believing in freedom does.
Europe bashers: Americans are good at this stuff as well. We only put down these countries because we know they have better health care and more freedom of the press; not to mention better food and drink. Well, not England.
People who talk about how awful the rich are, but live like kings themselves: Walk the talk.
Oh yeah...Daryl reminds me of something.
Met this woman. Beautiful. I'm talking beautiful--a tall, outdoorsy, natural...beauty. Young woman, about 23. She trained me at a McJob recently. Left for a new job, so I only had contact with her over a two day period.
We talked. I'm not saying the conversation STARTED when I mentioned she was pretty and had she ever considered modelling?--yeah, THAT pretty--but this anecdote of hers blew me away.
I spoil the story by telling you, outright, she's part Aboriginal. Up here, that means Indian. Tribes. Got it? She's part Scottish and part Aboriginal. She mentioned this and the first thing out of my mouth was, "You don't LOOK it." (Silly, we humans.) Anyway, what she related, that blew me away was this:
She used to go into clubs with her friends as a teen. One time, she went into this club that was mainly Aboriginal based--they were the dominant culture, is what I mean.
Now..imagine this: BECAUSE she didn't look Aboriginal, she got hassled by the inhabitants. I'm talking threatening. I'm talking someone wouldn't think twice to walk up to you and knife you cos you 'weren't one of us.' A rowdy bunch of people, okay?
On this one occasion, she goes into this bar, gets this kind of snubbing...
and then..mentions to someone that she's part Aboriginal.
And all is forgiven. They immediately start treating her like a bud. Like one of them. The same people, who not five minutes earlier, would have been willing to club her in a back alley.
Discrimination. It's fucked as far as _I_ can see. Imagine that. Being the same looking person and faced with those two extreme options.
Perhaps that's an old story ta some of ya, but it simply blew me away. Boy...
Darryl's wonderful note reminds me of the single best argument against reparations for slavery. If they're ever granted, then white dopes'll have a field day saying, "How can you complain about crime, police brutality, and black poverty? We've just paid up for slavery, so anything else is probably yer own dam' fault."
David Loftus mentioned the bit about cahs handouts being part of reparations. I just don't expect that to happen: rather, figures like Randall Robinson are asking that funds be applied to somehow rectify the matter-- say, endowing chairs to research slavery, funding museums, commissioning statues and public plaques, etc. Of course, the people who'd administrate these funds'd find themselves with a decent income for a long while. Very little of that cash'll wind up in the hands of, say, a family of sixth-generation Arkansas sharecroppers.
Let me know what you think of this guy's brand of humor:
http://www.reynoldsunwrapped.com/
As usual, Darryl has shown himself to be smarter than the rest of us since he only posts infrequently and, because of that, has yet to post with something that can even remotely (if at all) be conceived as being disagreeable.
Reparations: No.
And the points Darryl make are interesting in that no amount of reparations will address the issues he brings up. It's a societal and cultural issue and this issue will only be addressed as generations are replaced; generations that judge a person by who they are instead of what they look like.
And it's not just the overt racism of calling someone a nigger. It's asking a black guy you know what he thinks of OJ getting off as though his opinion somehow counts more than anyone else's. Or, what he thinks about how accurate "Good Times" is, even though he doesn't live in Chicago or was brought up in an upper-middle class neighborhood. Or, listening to the news and hearing about the "urban dwellers" which always seems to me to be a euphemism for "predominantly black neighborhood". It's subtle and harder to pick up on, but it's racism still the same.
Switching train tracks, now:
I never said I hate my parents. Correction: I never said I hated my father as silence was always best in his turbulent presence. Don't recall if I ever said it to my mother, but I kinda doubt it. I've never been one, even as a child, to utter absolutes of hate or love. My wife was the first person I ever said "I love you" to (and that includes trying to get into women's pants; I was an asshole at times, but I never said the words just to get laid). I said it to my mother as she lay dying of cancer in the hospital, but not really sure to this day (and she died ten months ago) if there was any actual emotion behind the words. I've never said those words to my father.
Which is why, every morning, I tell Mackenzie I love her. I don't know if she can understand me or not, but I damn well know it was never said to me by my parents and it couldn't hurt her. Based on my experiences growing up, I'm trying to do the opposite of how I was raised.
Is it inevitable that a child will tell his or her parents that he or she hates them? Don't know, but I personally don't think anything is invevitable. But, then again, I'm a pessimistic optimist, so what do I know?
Back in de-lurk mode:
Reparations: As a black man, I have a couple of thoughts on this issue. Personally, I don’t know that I’d take the money, even if it were offered. While my family (and myself) have been personally and constantly wronged by the aftermath of slavery, I don’t know that reparations would be fair. I could tell you the stories (my father lost both parents when he was 8 (couldn’t afford medical care), the youngest of 12 children, soon after, he had to stop the awful “separate but equal” school he was attending in order to help his family, chopped cotton, cut sugar cane, etc.) but it would be a long story. His mother was full-blooded Native American (whose trials and tribulations would make a compelling story, too). I would not want dollars. I’d settle for an apology, and a chance. I want a chance to fuck up, and have people say that everyone makes mistakes, rather than “What did you expect.” I don’t want you to treat me differently, but I do want a chance to take the job, do a good job, and to be judged on the job I do, rather than the color of my skin. I don’t want special privileges, I just want an equal opportunity. When I lived in the south, I can’t tell you how many times I was blatantly told that I didn’t get the job because I was black. In those words. This was in and before 1983. I can’t tell you how many times I was told that I should be white, because I was thought to be smart, and spoke traditional English. I know that there have been other groups who have been discriminated against, but to equate white immigrants’ issues with slavery is misguided at best. In one or two generations, nearly every white immigrant family is assimilated into larger society. In my personal experience, that simply isn’t true with blacks. (Thanks to Jim Davis for initially raising that point).
Have we come a long way? Certainly. Do we have a long way to go? Most certainly. There are men being dragged behind cars in Texas, and synagogues being burned in California. Certain human beings have always looked to differences, rather than similarities, to give themselves an ego boost. I had a Korean acquaintance tell me the other day that her parents were “light-skinned Korean, not dark-skinned.” That type of thinking is so foreign to me that I could simply stare, slack-jawed, and shake my head in wonder.
I have never been one to blame all bad experiences on racism. If someone spits on you while shouting the “N” word, when you are jogging and someone throws a bottle at your head while shouting the “N” word, when you can’t trace your ancestry beyond 1870, because your ancestors were counted in the census without names in most cases, and without last names in all cases (yeah, I know about Roots, free blacks and all that, but the vast majority of us can’t), when your _father_, not some nameless, faceless slave but your _father_ can’t be anything but a laborer, because he’s black/native american and has a strong back, I think racism is validly claimed. You talk to me about the trials and tribulations of immigrants. My family has been in the US for at least 5 generations (all that we can trace) and we’re still being treated badly. Not because we’re stupid or lazy, but because our ancestors had an abundance of melanin in their skin. That’s generally not true of the second or third generation white immigrant families. I keep hearing about this “colorblind society,” (from both whites and conservative blacks – like Ward Connerly) I have only experienced it intermittently.
Reparations? I’d settle for being able to drive a nice car without police suspicion, to browse through a store without being followed by security, to walk down a street without having people lock their car doors while I wait to cross at the light.
DTS: That song is "Sometimes I'm Happy" by Vincent Youmans and Irving Caesar.
P.S. I NEVER told my parents I hated them.
But I understand this is not the norm.
COOKIE: The lyrics you quoted below -- "Sometimes I love you, sometimes I hate you...But when I hate it's because I love you" -- do your what the song's title is? Thanks.
--DTS
PAB moaned:
> Someone posted the quote re: parenting, "It's
> not a question of whether you'll fail, but
> how you'll fail." I find that enormously
> depressing and discouraging
It shouldn't be. It should be refreshing. The obsession with not failing, with "being a good parent" (however one interprets that) is what makes for so many bad ones. Like so many other activities that matter in life, if you give up caring so much about doing it right (or the worse flip side, avoiding making any mistakes), you'll relieve a lot of stress in advance and likely do a much better job.
> --I'm not fond of failure, esp. not in the most
> important job I'll ever have.
True, but who's going to define success or failure for you? Nobody, except maybe your kids themselves, and you don't have much control over how they turn out or what they'll think of you. Too many people judge their success or failure as parents by how OTHER people -- some of them parents themselves, some of them not -- judge them, and that's a mug's game.
"Signs" is neither skiffy nor sci-fi. I thought it was fine. But o