If there's one thing people like more than idolizing a celebrity, it's tearing them down once they've put them on their pedestal. The latest (and most unlikely) hero to be put to the grinder is the great golf phenomenon that is Tiger Woods.
Tiger Woods is such a private celebrity that you rarely hear anything about his personal life. The only time he usually makes news is when he wins a golf tournament, or is in a golf tournament, or has a kid. But other times, he remains out of the news. I like that about him. He stays out of the limelight except on the course.
I like Tiger Woods, in general. I think he's inspirational, hard-working, and a master of his craft. I have always admired him, and if I watched golf at all, it was only for him. He made the sport actually exciting for me. He's the only reason I will watch it.
Years ago, I remember waking up in the early morning hours to some TV program where Tiger was saying that he always makes goals, even ones he doesn't think he'll reach right then. His theory was that if you have lofty goals, you'll try harder just to reach them, and succeed at least in some of them. When I heard that, I thought, "Wow, Tiger Woods has goals." It never occurred to me that Tiger set goals to win all those tournaments. I suppose I never really thought how he did it, just that he entered the tournament and hoped to win. But that he made it his goal to win, that impressed me, and it inspired me to have my own goals to reach. It was a turning point for me, and I adored Tiger even more for that bit of wisdom.
That's why for me, it's so shocking to see the headlines on both Yahoo! and MSN about Tiger Woods' accident this past holiday weekend. They're calling it a PR Nightmare, with people demanding Tiger tell the public the truth about what happened. It's the biggest news on Twitter and Facebook. This type of rumor-mongering just solidifies my disdain for social media. For one thing, how many people commenting on Tiger Woods ever really watched him play? All they know is that he's a celebrity, and he had an accident, and somehow they turn it into a domestic abuse case. I'm not going to lie, I myself visited TMZ for stories about the incident. And when they reported their version of a domestic squabble escalating to violence, I found it plausible. That certainly happens more often than say, a wife breaking the back windshield of her husband's SUV to pull him out to safety. And sadly, I believed the more plausible story.
But I blame the media for that because they gave out just enough information to pique my interest. If they had just said Tiger Woods had been in a minor car accident, but was now doing ok, I would have been happy with that. But they also had to report that his wife, Elin, smashed the back windshield of his SUV to save him. That's when I had to go to TMZ to learn more details of this heroic deed. But that's not what I heard from TMZ.
When Tiger released his statement, I realized that I was going off the deep end believing these wild accusations. I had no proof of what TMZ claimed, just anonymous sources citing stuff for money. It was just pure speculation. And that's when I realized, perhaps things aren't what they seem, but it's not for me to worry. It's Tiger's life, his personal life. As Jason Whitlock said, he didn't run over a puppy. He didn't kill anyone, or hurt anyone, but himself. He was the only one wounded in this whole affair and people are turning on him. It's so crazy the amount of rampant speculation going on about this incident. If I were Tiger, it would make me hate people, and their insatiable desire to know everything about his life.
It's rather disheartening for me because whenever anyone disparages the media, I take the media's side, in that they are just reporting what is interesting. It's true of course, but interesting. In this case, I can see why people have such a disdain for the media. As Whitlock says, the media are sensationalizing this incident to make money. And it's true. That's how they make their money. Because people will only pay attention to the sensational, not the commonplace. It's like what they do with Barack Obama. They build him up, then they tear him down. And when he's down, they'll figure out where to go from there.
Some bloggers are saying that Tiger owes us the truth, and an apology if necessary. We, after all, should know everything about his life - that is entertaining, of course, because it somehow affects our lives in some way. I find that ridiculous. In the end, he didn't hurt anyone, just himself, and some property, which he can certainly pay to get fixed. The only thing Tiger owes us is great golf - and I'm not even sure he owes us that.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Friday, November 27, 2009
On Getting Better with Age
It seems that we spend most of our childhoods wanting to reach that golden age of 21.
We think that older people can do everything we can't do. They can drive (at 16), and vote (at 18), and drink alcohol (at 21). Because of all these milestones, we long to be older; that is, until we reach that milestone of 21 and there are no more "fun" restrictions to overcome. After 21, or 25 (when you can go on a cruise on your own), there are no more restrictions to what we can do with our lives. We can do what everyone else can. And for some reason, when we reach that point of being able to do everything we've always wanted, we feel sad. Then, we wish were younger, 21 again, or even younger. We envy the younger generation, and their youthfulness, and their vitality.
As someone who has passed those milestones in life, it has occurred to me that, for some reason, they are particularly upsetting when passed. How dare people think I'm an adult. Like the times when someone calls me ma'am, or when they don't ask for my i.d. I often wonder, why is it that when it comes to age, I am fine with my age but when it comes to other people, I don't want to be perceived as old? I wish it were possible just to be happy with who I am, age and all.
When I was younger, I never cared how old I was. In fact, children often want to be perceived as older, more mature. That's why they will tell you proudly they're five and a half. You never hear an adult tell you they're 40 and a half. They wouldn't say that, let alone want to admit they're 40.
And yet, as I was telling my friend, who keeps harping on the fact that she's so very old (she's not), that in the context of the world, we are very young, and will always be very young. After all, the world is millions of years old. Buildings, institutions, governments are much older. And in all the years of the world's existence, how much of it will we get to appreciate in our lives, which is just a blot in the grand scheme of things? Yes, if you think you are the center of the universe, you may consider yourself old. But if you really consider the universe, you will never be old. The universe scoffs at anyone who says they're old.
You are lucky, is what you are. You are lucky to have lived so long that you can even deem yourself old. I wonder when people say they are old, if they were facing death's door if they would still think they were old? I doubt it. Because we all seem to think we are too old to do anything, but too young to die.
And as I told my other friend, it's not like younger people think they're young. Not at all. They think they're old. They just might think that you're older. And really, how you feel about your age is in context of who you hang out with. If you're with older people, you'll feel younger, and vice versa.
I was watching an episode of "Friends" the other day and it made me realize the extent to which we skew our views towards youth. In that episode, Joey was going to try out for an audition in which he played a 19 year-old character. And when his friends seemed incredulous that he could play a 19 year-old, Joey got somewhat defensive and tried to prove that he could, with hip clothes and such. It didn't work, of course, but the point of the show hit home for me. And that was that, we are always trying to get people to think we're younger, when in fact, being perceived younger, isn't necessarily a compliment. And also, our obsession with youth is largely of our own creation. The young don't know that they should be obsessed with being young. They're too busy learning all the ins and outs of life to realize they've got it so good (so older people think). But since we keep telling them, and everyone, that being younger is better, it becomes a stronger and stronger conviction until we actually get everyone to believe it's true, even though it's not wholly true.
Being perceived younger isn't actually a compliment, really, if you think about it. It might be nice that people think your face still retains some sort of youthful exuberance, but in reality, your face isn't the only factor in how people judge your age. They judge it by your attitude. If you act younger, ie. more immature, people will think you're younger. I remember when I was getting on a public bus in college, and the bus driver yelled at me that I should have gotten a high school bus pass. After my initial shock that he had yelled or even cared enough to yell, I blurted out, "I'm not in high school. I'm in college." For which mistake he felt embarrassed, and started being nice to me. But the funny thing was that even though I felt somewhat flattered that he thought me younger than I was, I also felt somewhat insulted that he thought I was younger than I was. And actually the first thought that popped into my mind when he said that was, "Do I look that stupid?" Seriously, I was rather insulted.
A few days ago I was thinking that perhaps I should look at youth and aging differently, change my own perspective so to speak, since I myself have been buying into this youth-obsessed culture that hasn't turned out many positive images and some rather tragic disfigurements. What I realized was that there's a reason that younger people look the way they do and why we are so attracted to younger people's faces. It's because evolutionary-wise, they need more help. Younger, inexperienced people need more help for just that reason - they're inexperienced. So their faces look more attractive to us. That way we'll be more likely to help them. Like babies. Imagine if younger people were uglier to us, would we be as compelled to help them? I think not. So evolutionary-wise, this youthful look gets us more help from the older people around us.
The thing is, however, that as people get older, they still crave this feature off themselves that aroused others to help them. It's like a drug. And once the magic wears out, they feel bitter and sad, craving the attentiveness they used to inspire.
The real question they should ask themselves, however, is, "Do I really need that attention?" The beauty of getting older is that you don't just get older, you get wiser. And with your newfound wisdom, you will indeed need less help from the people around you because your experiences have already taught you what you need to learn. Therefore, you could look at age not as that you're just getting older, but that you're getting more independent and smarter.
In my mind, the real root of the youth-obsessed culture comes not from the young but from the old who want to be young again. If they could just take their age and be proud of it, and throw it back in the face of the young, they could be happy. Young people can be arrogant and ignorant as young people will, but one day, they will be old too (and probably if they were so arrogant as youths, very bitter). No one stays young forever. One day they will be just as old as you, and they will understand.
The solution I propose, is a question of semantics. But words often mean a great deal. And so I propose that instead of saying I am so-and-so years old, we say instead, I am "so-and-so years smart and independent." Or if you want to be really proud of your age, "I'm so-and-so years better." After all, having the experience of so many years is not a curse, it's a blessing that we all wish for.
We think that older people can do everything we can't do. They can drive (at 16), and vote (at 18), and drink alcohol (at 21). Because of all these milestones, we long to be older; that is, until we reach that milestone of 21 and there are no more "fun" restrictions to overcome. After 21, or 25 (when you can go on a cruise on your own), there are no more restrictions to what we can do with our lives. We can do what everyone else can. And for some reason, when we reach that point of being able to do everything we've always wanted, we feel sad. Then, we wish were younger, 21 again, or even younger. We envy the younger generation, and their youthfulness, and their vitality.
As someone who has passed those milestones in life, it has occurred to me that, for some reason, they are particularly upsetting when passed. How dare people think I'm an adult. Like the times when someone calls me ma'am, or when they don't ask for my i.d. I often wonder, why is it that when it comes to age, I am fine with my age but when it comes to other people, I don't want to be perceived as old? I wish it were possible just to be happy with who I am, age and all.
When I was younger, I never cared how old I was. In fact, children often want to be perceived as older, more mature. That's why they will tell you proudly they're five and a half. You never hear an adult tell you they're 40 and a half. They wouldn't say that, let alone want to admit they're 40.
And yet, as I was telling my friend, who keeps harping on the fact that she's so very old (she's not), that in the context of the world, we are very young, and will always be very young. After all, the world is millions of years old. Buildings, institutions, governments are much older. And in all the years of the world's existence, how much of it will we get to appreciate in our lives, which is just a blot in the grand scheme of things? Yes, if you think you are the center of the universe, you may consider yourself old. But if you really consider the universe, you will never be old. The universe scoffs at anyone who says they're old.
You are lucky, is what you are. You are lucky to have lived so long that you can even deem yourself old. I wonder when people say they are old, if they were facing death's door if they would still think they were old? I doubt it. Because we all seem to think we are too old to do anything, but too young to die.
And as I told my other friend, it's not like younger people think they're young. Not at all. They think they're old. They just might think that you're older. And really, how you feel about your age is in context of who you hang out with. If you're with older people, you'll feel younger, and vice versa.
I was watching an episode of "Friends" the other day and it made me realize the extent to which we skew our views towards youth. In that episode, Joey was going to try out for an audition in which he played a 19 year-old character. And when his friends seemed incredulous that he could play a 19 year-old, Joey got somewhat defensive and tried to prove that he could, with hip clothes and such. It didn't work, of course, but the point of the show hit home for me. And that was that, we are always trying to get people to think we're younger, when in fact, being perceived younger, isn't necessarily a compliment. And also, our obsession with youth is largely of our own creation. The young don't know that they should be obsessed with being young. They're too busy learning all the ins and outs of life to realize they've got it so good (so older people think). But since we keep telling them, and everyone, that being younger is better, it becomes a stronger and stronger conviction until we actually get everyone to believe it's true, even though it's not wholly true.
Being perceived younger isn't actually a compliment, really, if you think about it. It might be nice that people think your face still retains some sort of youthful exuberance, but in reality, your face isn't the only factor in how people judge your age. They judge it by your attitude. If you act younger, ie. more immature, people will think you're younger. I remember when I was getting on a public bus in college, and the bus driver yelled at me that I should have gotten a high school bus pass. After my initial shock that he had yelled or even cared enough to yell, I blurted out, "I'm not in high school. I'm in college." For which mistake he felt embarrassed, and started being nice to me. But the funny thing was that even though I felt somewhat flattered that he thought me younger than I was, I also felt somewhat insulted that he thought I was younger than I was. And actually the first thought that popped into my mind when he said that was, "Do I look that stupid?" Seriously, I was rather insulted.
A few days ago I was thinking that perhaps I should look at youth and aging differently, change my own perspective so to speak, since I myself have been buying into this youth-obsessed culture that hasn't turned out many positive images and some rather tragic disfigurements. What I realized was that there's a reason that younger people look the way they do and why we are so attracted to younger people's faces. It's because evolutionary-wise, they need more help. Younger, inexperienced people need more help for just that reason - they're inexperienced. So their faces look more attractive to us. That way we'll be more likely to help them. Like babies. Imagine if younger people were uglier to us, would we be as compelled to help them? I think not. So evolutionary-wise, this youthful look gets us more help from the older people around us.
The thing is, however, that as people get older, they still crave this feature off themselves that aroused others to help them. It's like a drug. And once the magic wears out, they feel bitter and sad, craving the attentiveness they used to inspire.
The real question they should ask themselves, however, is, "Do I really need that attention?" The beauty of getting older is that you don't just get older, you get wiser. And with your newfound wisdom, you will indeed need less help from the people around you because your experiences have already taught you what you need to learn. Therefore, you could look at age not as that you're just getting older, but that you're getting more independent and smarter.
In my mind, the real root of the youth-obsessed culture comes not from the young but from the old who want to be young again. If they could just take their age and be proud of it, and throw it back in the face of the young, they could be happy. Young people can be arrogant and ignorant as young people will, but one day, they will be old too (and probably if they were so arrogant as youths, very bitter). No one stays young forever. One day they will be just as old as you, and they will understand.
The solution I propose, is a question of semantics. But words often mean a great deal. And so I propose that instead of saying I am so-and-so years old, we say instead, I am "so-and-so years smart and independent." Or if you want to be really proud of your age, "I'm so-and-so years better." After all, having the experience of so many years is not a curse, it's a blessing that we all wish for.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
HAPPY THANKSGIVING!
More than any other holiday, I have the fondest feeling for Thanksgiving. My family didn't even celebrate this holiday with the "traditional" dinner until recently, but even so, there has always been a feeling on Thanksgiving that is positive. After all, when you create a holiday (thank you, Abraham Lincoln!) based solely on the idea of giving thanks for all the things you have in life, it can't help but put you in an appreciative and happy mood.
So on this Thanksgiving, as I celebrate with my family, I'd just like to say thanks for all the wonderful things I have in my life. For my wonderful family and friends, my sweet and darling cuties, my life experiences that have led me to this moment where I feel that things are coming together - thank you. Thank you for the ability to make use of what I have. Thank you for every gift I have been given. Thank you. I appreciate them all.
HAPPY THANKSGIVING!
So on this Thanksgiving, as I celebrate with my family, I'd just like to say thanks for all the wonderful things I have in my life. For my wonderful family and friends, my sweet and darling cuties, my life experiences that have led me to this moment where I feel that things are coming together - thank you. Thank you for the ability to make use of what I have. Thank you for every gift I have been given. Thank you. I appreciate them all.
HAPPY THANKSGIVING!
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
When Productive Members of Society are Criminals
Roman Polanski - he's the reason I thought of this topic. They had an article about him getting out on bail in Switzerland even though experts thought that he would not be granted it, being such a huge flight risk. But apparently he put half his money on the line and put his family's apartment as collateral in case he runs.
I am an artist but as much as I love art and Polanksi's film, "The Piano," even I believe that he needs to serve time for the crime he committed. I can't believe it when people say that he should be let go because the case was so many years ago. Would they say that if he were a regular old Joe Schmo on the street that had drugged and raped a 13 year-old-girl? I don't think so. Would people forgive Phillip Garrido for kidnapping Jaycee Lee Dugard since he did it 18 years ago? I don't think so. Would they forgive him if he happened to be a world-renowned director? The likelihood becomes much higher.
While I can understand people's argument that he did it so many years ago, it was a youthful indiscretion, he's sorry about it, and even the girl that he raped has said that she thinks that he should go free - my feeling is why can't he suck it up and just go to jail? Martha Stewart did it. She had the resources to run. Paris Hilton did it. Why can these female celebrities do it and this guy, who is supposed to be such a wonderful artist, not do it? Take a plea, a few years in jail is probably what he'd get and he wouldn't have to run anymore. Obviously, he is a greater artist than he is a person. As a person, he is a coward, and one who refuses to serve time for what he did. My friends and I were talking about him once and what a terrible and tragic life he's led. Unbelievably, his wife was Sharon Tate, and she and his unborn child were killed by Manson's followers. But a tragic past doesn't give him a pass. If it did, a lot of people in jail would be acquitted. The Menendez brothers might be free now.
I'm not saying that Polanski isn't a great artist and his work couldn't revolutionize the world. If I knew him personally, I might find it in my heart to forgive him and say that he's a changed man and not the man he was 30 or so years ago. I could see that. But I think I would also feel that if he kept trying to run away from jail, he's a coward. If it's going to happen, accept it. Make what you can of it. Write a movie based on your experience in jail like you did about your experience in the holocaust, like "The Piano." I would respect him a lot more if he just stopped trying to get out of punishment for something he knew he did was wrong. Just take your lumps and move on with your life.
Why is it that some people are defending him when the crime he committed would be pretty heinous if done today? Just because it happened decades ago does not mean it was not heinous then. And just because he is a famous director that makes good movies does not mean he should be let off scott-free.
Of course, Hollywood directors and musicians are not the only ones who get the royal treatment. Other productive members of society are also given the "Get out of jail" free card when it comes to their misdeeds as well.
Case in point: a girl I knew was a nurse at a hospital and was sexually assaulted by one of the doctors, a heart surgeon. Sadly, I learned, this sort of thing is not a rare occurrence. But the even sadder part was that although she complained about him, nothing was done about it because this doctor was one of the preeminent heart surgeons in the hospital. They gave him a pass on this and with other nurses he assaulted because he had the ability to save people's lives.
Now while I can understand why people look away in the case of the doctor - because after all, people might die if he was in jail and not in the hospital to save them - I don't see that the same argument applies to making a movie. Movies touch people and they enlighten them, but it's not the same direct correlation as the doctor-patient beneficial touch.
Here's the thing I was debating in my head though: Does being a productive member of society in some way give you freer reign to act badly? Not all the people we admire are so-called "good people." Back in the old days, in Greek mythology, their heroes were really bad - killers, adulterers, you name it, they did it. The Bible also has stories of heroes who also do bad things. But we still think well of them because of their good deeds. Is it then that if someone does something good, it should outweigh the bad, instead of the other way around? Should we give them a pass because they are part good, not all bad?
Maybe our society is too puritanical. Everyone has to be so good and it's impossible to be so good, at least all of the time. But it does seem, to me, at least, that even being a puritanical society we seem to be most lenient to those who have a rare gift to give back to society.
I am an artist but as much as I love art and Polanksi's film, "The Piano," even I believe that he needs to serve time for the crime he committed. I can't believe it when people say that he should be let go because the case was so many years ago. Would they say that if he were a regular old Joe Schmo on the street that had drugged and raped a 13 year-old-girl? I don't think so. Would people forgive Phillip Garrido for kidnapping Jaycee Lee Dugard since he did it 18 years ago? I don't think so. Would they forgive him if he happened to be a world-renowned director? The likelihood becomes much higher.
While I can understand people's argument that he did it so many years ago, it was a youthful indiscretion, he's sorry about it, and even the girl that he raped has said that she thinks that he should go free - my feeling is why can't he suck it up and just go to jail? Martha Stewart did it. She had the resources to run. Paris Hilton did it. Why can these female celebrities do it and this guy, who is supposed to be such a wonderful artist, not do it? Take a plea, a few years in jail is probably what he'd get and he wouldn't have to run anymore. Obviously, he is a greater artist than he is a person. As a person, he is a coward, and one who refuses to serve time for what he did. My friends and I were talking about him once and what a terrible and tragic life he's led. Unbelievably, his wife was Sharon Tate, and she and his unborn child were killed by Manson's followers. But a tragic past doesn't give him a pass. If it did, a lot of people in jail would be acquitted. The Menendez brothers might be free now.
I'm not saying that Polanski isn't a great artist and his work couldn't revolutionize the world. If I knew him personally, I might find it in my heart to forgive him and say that he's a changed man and not the man he was 30 or so years ago. I could see that. But I think I would also feel that if he kept trying to run away from jail, he's a coward. If it's going to happen, accept it. Make what you can of it. Write a movie based on your experience in jail like you did about your experience in the holocaust, like "The Piano." I would respect him a lot more if he just stopped trying to get out of punishment for something he knew he did was wrong. Just take your lumps and move on with your life.
Why is it that some people are defending him when the crime he committed would be pretty heinous if done today? Just because it happened decades ago does not mean it was not heinous then. And just because he is a famous director that makes good movies does not mean he should be let off scott-free.
Of course, Hollywood directors and musicians are not the only ones who get the royal treatment. Other productive members of society are also given the "Get out of jail" free card when it comes to their misdeeds as well.
Case in point: a girl I knew was a nurse at a hospital and was sexually assaulted by one of the doctors, a heart surgeon. Sadly, I learned, this sort of thing is not a rare occurrence. But the even sadder part was that although she complained about him, nothing was done about it because this doctor was one of the preeminent heart surgeons in the hospital. They gave him a pass on this and with other nurses he assaulted because he had the ability to save people's lives.
Now while I can understand why people look away in the case of the doctor - because after all, people might die if he was in jail and not in the hospital to save them - I don't see that the same argument applies to making a movie. Movies touch people and they enlighten them, but it's not the same direct correlation as the doctor-patient beneficial touch.
Here's the thing I was debating in my head though: Does being a productive member of society in some way give you freer reign to act badly? Not all the people we admire are so-called "good people." Back in the old days, in Greek mythology, their heroes were really bad - killers, adulterers, you name it, they did it. The Bible also has stories of heroes who also do bad things. But we still think well of them because of their good deeds. Is it then that if someone does something good, it should outweigh the bad, instead of the other way around? Should we give them a pass because they are part good, not all bad?
Maybe our society is too puritanical. Everyone has to be so good and it's impossible to be so good, at least all of the time. But it does seem, to me, at least, that even being a puritanical society we seem to be most lenient to those who have a rare gift to give back to society.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
The Fatalness of "I Don't Know"
I've come to really hate it when people say, "I don't' know." That's because I subscribe to the theory that if you say, "I don't know," you will never know.
You see, your brain works by doing what you command it. So if you say, "I don't know," your brain takes that as a command that you don't know, and it never thinks about it, never tries to solve your problem. So in a day, week, month, year, or decade when you again ask your brain the same question, your brain will say, "I don't know." That's what you told it, and that's what it will give you.
That's why whenever my friends say, "I don't know," when I ask them what their goals are, I admonish them and tell them to replace it with, "I know," or "I'll figure it out." But it's so ingrained in them, this fallback, "I don't know" that no matter how many times I've told them, they still revert back to that three-word-phrase that accomplishes nothing.
It's human nature, I suppose, to look into your head, see a blank, and respond, "I don't know." Heck, I used to do it. That was until I learned that when you do that, you'll never get the answer you seek, because your brain won't know you're seeking it. It'll think you quit on it, and so it'll quit on you. The brain is like a muscle. You have to work on it, practice it, and use it and it'll perform miracles. Seriously, miracles. It's amazing what it can do if you keep asking more of it. But if you just let it slide and go to mush watching TV or whatever because it's not fun to think too hard about anything, you'll find that one day, your brain won't be there for you - because you were never there for it.
I had a great example while discussing this topic with my friend. I come up with some great ideas talking to my friends. They say, the feeling you get when you discuss things with friends is almost akin to the feeling you get with meditation. You're relaxed and ideas come to you easier.
In any case, I had asked my friend what she wanted to do with her life. And again, she had answered with the ever-dreaded, "I don't know." And I told her, "Don't say, 'I don't know,' say, 'I'll figure it out." To which she repeated, "I'll figure it out." And then a second later, "But I really don't know." And for some reason then, I launched into a tirade about Albert Einstein. Albert Einstein and his Theory of Relativity. And I said the reason that Einstein discovered the Theory of Relativity was because he kept thinking and thinking and thinking about it. He kept working on the possibilities of what it could be and thinking about it. And finally because of all his hard work and thinking, he figured it out. Einstein was a genius, of course, but things still didn't come to him just like that. He didn't say, "I don't know. I don't know what the Theory of Relativity is."
And then it just came to him out of the blue without him trying. Things like that don't come to you unless you make them, unless you think about it, and seek out the truth. They don't come to you if you're lazy. If you're lazy, you don't get it and you don't deserve to get it. You don't deserve that little miracle of inspiration that is the greatest high you'll ever feel. Those who work at it, they're the ones who get and who deserve to get it.
By saying, "I don't know," you kill the thought right there. It never has the chance to seed, to root, and grow inside you. You already killed it. There's no sunlight, no water. It's dead. The only way to bring it back again is to say, "I'll figure it out," and create that seed, and water it, and give it sunshine. Then and only then will it be able to grow until it becomes something like a beautiful blossom, a miracle that blesses you with amazing insight.
You see, your brain works by doing what you command it. So if you say, "I don't know," your brain takes that as a command that you don't know, and it never thinks about it, never tries to solve your problem. So in a day, week, month, year, or decade when you again ask your brain the same question, your brain will say, "I don't know." That's what you told it, and that's what it will give you.
That's why whenever my friends say, "I don't know," when I ask them what their goals are, I admonish them and tell them to replace it with, "I know," or "I'll figure it out." But it's so ingrained in them, this fallback, "I don't know" that no matter how many times I've told them, they still revert back to that three-word-phrase that accomplishes nothing.
It's human nature, I suppose, to look into your head, see a blank, and respond, "I don't know." Heck, I used to do it. That was until I learned that when you do that, you'll never get the answer you seek, because your brain won't know you're seeking it. It'll think you quit on it, and so it'll quit on you. The brain is like a muscle. You have to work on it, practice it, and use it and it'll perform miracles. Seriously, miracles. It's amazing what it can do if you keep asking more of it. But if you just let it slide and go to mush watching TV or whatever because it's not fun to think too hard about anything, you'll find that one day, your brain won't be there for you - because you were never there for it.
I had a great example while discussing this topic with my friend. I come up with some great ideas talking to my friends. They say, the feeling you get when you discuss things with friends is almost akin to the feeling you get with meditation. You're relaxed and ideas come to you easier.
In any case, I had asked my friend what she wanted to do with her life. And again, she had answered with the ever-dreaded, "I don't know." And I told her, "Don't say, 'I don't know,' say, 'I'll figure it out." To which she repeated, "I'll figure it out." And then a second later, "But I really don't know." And for some reason then, I launched into a tirade about Albert Einstein. Albert Einstein and his Theory of Relativity. And I said the reason that Einstein discovered the Theory of Relativity was because he kept thinking and thinking and thinking about it. He kept working on the possibilities of what it could be and thinking about it. And finally because of all his hard work and thinking, he figured it out. Einstein was a genius, of course, but things still didn't come to him just like that. He didn't say, "I don't know. I don't know what the Theory of Relativity is."
And then it just came to him out of the blue without him trying. Things like that don't come to you unless you make them, unless you think about it, and seek out the truth. They don't come to you if you're lazy. If you're lazy, you don't get it and you don't deserve to get it. You don't deserve that little miracle of inspiration that is the greatest high you'll ever feel. Those who work at it, they're the ones who get and who deserve to get it.
By saying, "I don't know," you kill the thought right there. It never has the chance to seed, to root, and grow inside you. You already killed it. There's no sunlight, no water. It's dead. The only way to bring it back again is to say, "I'll figure it out," and create that seed, and water it, and give it sunshine. Then and only then will it be able to grow until it becomes something like a beautiful blossom, a miracle that blesses you with amazing insight.
Monday, November 23, 2009
How to be Stupid: Don't Read
I was talking to my friend the other night about how stupid people are. No, not in general, because I'm not one of those people who think people are genuinely just stupid. I meant in terms of that they don't do what's good for them, even when it's right there in front of them, even when it's really simple. And one of those simple things that people could do to improve their lives but don't is read a book.
Yes, read a book. But people don't. They go, "Oh, it's so boring!" And they don't read, when books have all this wisdom - hundreds, thousands of years of wisdom, numerous people lives and experiences for you to learn from and benefit from.
I, myself, have always been a book lover. I read so much as a kid. I would go to the library on my own and choose as many books as they would let me borrow, and I would eat them up. I loved how they would open up so many different worlds, and how they made anything seem possible, and how they ended happily. If anything, the reason why I am an optimist today is not because it's inborn, it's because I read books. In fact, I told my friend, the idea of being a realist scares me. Why would you want to live just in this world?
Books are the best form of escape. I was thinking about this when I was talking to my friends about drug use and I really wanted to ask, "Why do people do drugs?" If you really want to escape, read a book. It has no terrible side effects and you'll feel good when you're reading, and after. If you want peace, meditate (re: my post, "The Need for Meditation & Self-Reflection"). That will have a lasting effect and no nasty "down" period. If you want to be less inhibited, practice it. Yes, practice it. Take an acting class, and learn to come outside yourself. Those effects will last. You'll be more peaceful, happy, and uninhibited than you ever thought possible. And you won't have to take a drug to keep feeling that way. It'll be long-lasting. It's not as easy as imbibing alcohol or lighting up a bong, but it'll last more than a few hours, and you won't be destroying your body in the process. Indeed, you'll actually be helping your body and yourself get even better.
All those things are free. (Well, class may not be, but it's worth it). That's why they say the best things in life are free. They really are.
Books are free, from the library. All you need is a library card. And yet, how many people take advantage of that? It's because it's free that people discount its value. If books and libraries cost thousands of dollars, we'd look at them differently. But because they can be free, we go, "They're worthless." When in fact, the opposite is true. They're one of the most valuable things in the world.
If you want a conspiracy theory - the smart people of the world made books free so that people would discount their value, and not read, and not become as smart as them.
If you want a sociological theory - the smart people of the world made books free so that people would become smarter, but people discounted their work because it was free.
I, myself, though I loved books, didn't realize how extremely valuable they actually were until I read it in a book (Yes, "The Success Principles" by Jack Canfield). In it, he said what I basically said above, which is that books have thousands of years of wisdom right there at your fingertips for you to read and apply to your life. If there's something you want to do, someone has already done it, and you can read a book and it'll tell you how they did it. That's why people are stupid not to read. If you just go through life on your own, without making use of the advice of thousands of years and experiences, you're going to make mistakes - mistakes that other people have already made, and learned from, and can teach you from repeating, so that you can be even more successful than them. If you just go through your life trying to do it all on your own, you're going to spend most of your life learning what you could have read in a book. That's why Canfield suggests reading every day, whenever you can. It's the people who read who have the advantage. Why do you think that such a majority of people in prisons are illiterate? It's because they didn't have the power to read a book and improve their lives. Books give you access to other people's knowledge, experiences, and ideas and that can only give you more options in your life than you thought you had - the option to make better choices, and find better solutions.
The thing I found most dumb is that we pay for all these quick fixes, these immediate sources of happiness to make us happy for one moment. One moment, until we do it again, and need to pay for it again. When in fact, if we would work hard, and struggle, and learn how to accomplish the peace, the freedom, the escape from reality we need, eventually we would succeed and earn a happiness that could last us a lifetime.
Yes, read a book. But people don't. They go, "Oh, it's so boring!" And they don't read, when books have all this wisdom - hundreds, thousands of years of wisdom, numerous people lives and experiences for you to learn from and benefit from.
I, myself, have always been a book lover. I read so much as a kid. I would go to the library on my own and choose as many books as they would let me borrow, and I would eat them up. I loved how they would open up so many different worlds, and how they made anything seem possible, and how they ended happily. If anything, the reason why I am an optimist today is not because it's inborn, it's because I read books. In fact, I told my friend, the idea of being a realist scares me. Why would you want to live just in this world?
Books are the best form of escape. I was thinking about this when I was talking to my friends about drug use and I really wanted to ask, "Why do people do drugs?" If you really want to escape, read a book. It has no terrible side effects and you'll feel good when you're reading, and after. If you want peace, meditate (re: my post, "The Need for Meditation & Self-Reflection"). That will have a lasting effect and no nasty "down" period. If you want to be less inhibited, practice it. Yes, practice it. Take an acting class, and learn to come outside yourself. Those effects will last. You'll be more peaceful, happy, and uninhibited than you ever thought possible. And you won't have to take a drug to keep feeling that way. It'll be long-lasting. It's not as easy as imbibing alcohol or lighting up a bong, but it'll last more than a few hours, and you won't be destroying your body in the process. Indeed, you'll actually be helping your body and yourself get even better.
All those things are free. (Well, class may not be, but it's worth it). That's why they say the best things in life are free. They really are.
Books are free, from the library. All you need is a library card. And yet, how many people take advantage of that? It's because it's free that people discount its value. If books and libraries cost thousands of dollars, we'd look at them differently. But because they can be free, we go, "They're worthless." When in fact, the opposite is true. They're one of the most valuable things in the world.
If you want a conspiracy theory - the smart people of the world made books free so that people would discount their value, and not read, and not become as smart as them.
If you want a sociological theory - the smart people of the world made books free so that people would become smarter, but people discounted their work because it was free.
I, myself, though I loved books, didn't realize how extremely valuable they actually were until I read it in a book (Yes, "The Success Principles" by Jack Canfield). In it, he said what I basically said above, which is that books have thousands of years of wisdom right there at your fingertips for you to read and apply to your life. If there's something you want to do, someone has already done it, and you can read a book and it'll tell you how they did it. That's why people are stupid not to read. If you just go through life on your own, without making use of the advice of thousands of years and experiences, you're going to make mistakes - mistakes that other people have already made, and learned from, and can teach you from repeating, so that you can be even more successful than them. If you just go through your life trying to do it all on your own, you're going to spend most of your life learning what you could have read in a book. That's why Canfield suggests reading every day, whenever you can. It's the people who read who have the advantage. Why do you think that such a majority of people in prisons are illiterate? It's because they didn't have the power to read a book and improve their lives. Books give you access to other people's knowledge, experiences, and ideas and that can only give you more options in your life than you thought you had - the option to make better choices, and find better solutions.
The thing I found most dumb is that we pay for all these quick fixes, these immediate sources of happiness to make us happy for one moment. One moment, until we do it again, and need to pay for it again. When in fact, if we would work hard, and struggle, and learn how to accomplish the peace, the freedom, the escape from reality we need, eventually we would succeed and earn a happiness that could last us a lifetime.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Why Do People Go to the Gym?
I know it sounds like an odd question to ask since obviously we all know why people go to the gym; to work out and lose weight. So I suppose I should rephrase my question to, "Why do people go to the gym to work out and lose weight?"
I always saw commercials for gyms like Ballys, 24 Hour Fitness, and so on, but I never really realized how popular they were until I went off to college and discovered that everyone in L.A. pretty much works out. I guess coming from the suburbs I didn't realize how health conscious every one in the city was -- constant dieting (re: my post, "What Non-Fat Really Means") with even skinny people saying how fat they are, and working out. The guys in our dorm especially would always be working out. Then they would ask us for tape measures to measure the size of their biceps. They competed with each other for biggest muscles on our floor and so forth. And the girls that knew them, thought they were the biggest, silliest dorks ever. Endearing dorks, but dorks nonetheless.
When I discovered this other side of life, try as I might I could not understand what the obsession with gyms was. I always found it the oddest thing that people would drive to the gym (just a few miles away) just so that they could run or bike in place. Wouldn't it be more cost-effective (and more environmentally friendly) if they just walked or biked to the gym? Yet people would pay a membership fee and for gas, and use their cars, and drive to the gym when they could have had a free workout on their way to the gym.
And yet, for all my criticism, I did go to the gym for almost a year. I won't deny it. It was a good experience. The gym was located in my office building, and for three days a week during lunch, my coworker and I would take the elevator down (not the stairs, I know) 15 floors and go work out together. It was a great time to bond and gossip about our fellow coworkers. Most days we used the elliptical, sometimes the stairmaster, treadmill, or some other equipment. I have to say that when it comes to working out, as with a lot of things in life, it is a lot more fun when you have someone to come along with you. The days where I went to the gym alone and read or wrote were not as entertaining as when my coworker came with me.
But I must say also say this, and that was that my membership that year was free. I didn't have to pay and yet I went habitually to make the most of it. While everyone in our office had a free membership, rarely did anyone go except for my coworker and me. And when our office closed before our membership expired and I still had time to go to the gym, except that I would have to drive, I didn't go. Maybe it wasn't convenient any longer, or maybe I just didn't want to violate my principle of not doing something I viewed as so impractical; but whatever the reason, my gym experience ended there.
I'll note, the gym has some equipment that the average person doesn't, and indeed, if you really want to bulk up, or use their pool or sauna, the gym is the best place to go. But for other things like yoga, or aerobics, or sit-ups - which you can do at home - why would you waste your money each month on a membership fee? Most people I know pay that fee and rarely exercise anyway. They just hoped when they bought the membership that it would spur them to work out. But the inconvenience of having to drive to the gym is just too much for them. This makes no sense to me. It's like pouring money down the drain. I always want to tell people, "If you want something to force you to work out, give me your money and I'll do it."
But I suppose it's just the mentality in America that someone or something can help you do something better than you can do it yourself. We're a consumer society after all. Why make your coffee when Starbucks will make it for you? Why cut your own hair when only a hair dresser can cut it right? Why cook your own burger when McDonalds can do it faster? For that reason perhaps, Americans seem to have the mindset that if they want something done right, someone else has to do it for them.
In the end, my experience with the gym taught me that as much as I can see the worth of going there to work out, I wouldn't pay for it. I suppose it's because I'm a do-it-yourself sort of gal. I'd rather buy a workout DVD and work out at home, whenever I want. I think I got this trait from my father, who always learns how to do things, and then proceeds to do it himself. I like that. And I like that in this economy, the do-it-yourself mentality has become more popular; since, after all, not doing it yourself can waste money most people can't afford to waste nowadays.
As Plato said, "Necessity is the mother of invention."
I always saw commercials for gyms like Ballys, 24 Hour Fitness, and so on, but I never really realized how popular they were until I went off to college and discovered that everyone in L.A. pretty much works out. I guess coming from the suburbs I didn't realize how health conscious every one in the city was -- constant dieting (re: my post, "What Non-Fat Really Means") with even skinny people saying how fat they are, and working out. The guys in our dorm especially would always be working out. Then they would ask us for tape measures to measure the size of their biceps. They competed with each other for biggest muscles on our floor and so forth. And the girls that knew them, thought they were the biggest, silliest dorks ever. Endearing dorks, but dorks nonetheless.
When I discovered this other side of life, try as I might I could not understand what the obsession with gyms was. I always found it the oddest thing that people would drive to the gym (just a few miles away) just so that they could run or bike in place. Wouldn't it be more cost-effective (and more environmentally friendly) if they just walked or biked to the gym? Yet people would pay a membership fee and for gas, and use their cars, and drive to the gym when they could have had a free workout on their way to the gym.
And yet, for all my criticism, I did go to the gym for almost a year. I won't deny it. It was a good experience. The gym was located in my office building, and for three days a week during lunch, my coworker and I would take the elevator down (not the stairs, I know) 15 floors and go work out together. It was a great time to bond and gossip about our fellow coworkers. Most days we used the elliptical, sometimes the stairmaster, treadmill, or some other equipment. I have to say that when it comes to working out, as with a lot of things in life, it is a lot more fun when you have someone to come along with you. The days where I went to the gym alone and read or wrote were not as entertaining as when my coworker came with me.
But I must say also say this, and that was that my membership that year was free. I didn't have to pay and yet I went habitually to make the most of it. While everyone in our office had a free membership, rarely did anyone go except for my coworker and me. And when our office closed before our membership expired and I still had time to go to the gym, except that I would have to drive, I didn't go. Maybe it wasn't convenient any longer, or maybe I just didn't want to violate my principle of not doing something I viewed as so impractical; but whatever the reason, my gym experience ended there.
I'll note, the gym has some equipment that the average person doesn't, and indeed, if you really want to bulk up, or use their pool or sauna, the gym is the best place to go. But for other things like yoga, or aerobics, or sit-ups - which you can do at home - why would you waste your money each month on a membership fee? Most people I know pay that fee and rarely exercise anyway. They just hoped when they bought the membership that it would spur them to work out. But the inconvenience of having to drive to the gym is just too much for them. This makes no sense to me. It's like pouring money down the drain. I always want to tell people, "If you want something to force you to work out, give me your money and I'll do it."
But I suppose it's just the mentality in America that someone or something can help you do something better than you can do it yourself. We're a consumer society after all. Why make your coffee when Starbucks will make it for you? Why cut your own hair when only a hair dresser can cut it right? Why cook your own burger when McDonalds can do it faster? For that reason perhaps, Americans seem to have the mindset that if they want something done right, someone else has to do it for them.
In the end, my experience with the gym taught me that as much as I can see the worth of going there to work out, I wouldn't pay for it. I suppose it's because I'm a do-it-yourself sort of gal. I'd rather buy a workout DVD and work out at home, whenever I want. I think I got this trait from my father, who always learns how to do things, and then proceeds to do it himself. I like that. And I like that in this economy, the do-it-yourself mentality has become more popular; since, after all, not doing it yourself can waste money most people can't afford to waste nowadays.
As Plato said, "Necessity is the mother of invention."
Living For Others - On Social Networking
In my previous post ("No Way Out - On Suicide & Mass Killings"), I said that we must not forget that we live for others, but also that, we can't only live for others. We need to live for ourselves too. It seems, however, with the advent of popular social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter, that living for others is exactly what we are doing.
I actually thought about this topic when Miley Cyrus (yes, Miley Cyrus!) caused a big uproar when she suddenly and abruptly canceled her popular Twitter account. I read an article about the rap she did to explain why she canceled it, and what she said was actually very insightful. She said that she wanted to start living in the moment and stop living for other people. And when she said that, I thought, "Wow, this girl is on to something." She realizes that whenever she tweets about her pimples or about her problems, she's not living in the moment, but rather trying to get the approval of millions of people she doesn't know. She's trying to get their approval that her pimple is ok. And finally when she really dug deep and thought about it, she realized that she was living for other people's approval instead of for her own.
And that when online social networking becomes a problem because you start to think that every little thing that happens to you is important in some way to other people, and that they need to know it in order to connect with you more, in order to like you more. You aren't full as a person without other people to tell you you're ok. What Miley said made me realize that a lot of people are living like this now, people I know too. And I liked Miley more for her statement because I realized that she had put into words my disdain for these social sites.
My experience with online social networking began a few years ago with MySpace. I used to have an account until I canceled it, and that was after two years of inactivity. I couldn't stand MySpace because you had to put out so much of your personal information out there, like your relationship status, and then whenever you last logged on, it time-stamped it so that everyone would know. It was like Big Brother watching you. At least for me, I'm a really private person.
When I had already stopped signing in, MySpace made a push to become more like Facebook with instant updates, and they would email me these updates of what my "friends" were doing. And the thing was, my friends were doing everyday things like going to Starbucks or getting their car fixed, and yet they felt they needed to share this information with the world. I guess I just don't get it. Why do some people feel the need to tell others the personal minutiae of their daily lives? I could just as soon write, "Cleaning cat poop. Not fun! :P" But why? I don't care to share that, but a lot of people do.
I guess the question is: What is wrong with me? Why don't I want people to know I'm cleaning cat poop at the moment I'm cleaning it and that it's not fun? Wouldn't it be nice for someone to feel sorry for me and write something supportive? I guess. But it feels to me like that would be trying to get someone's approval. Like there is some deep-seated void in me that I think needs to be filled by connecting with other people via an impersonal medium, without having to connect face-to-face.
My other problem with Facebook and all those other social networking sites, is that it can be so fake. It leads people to be fake too. I once read an article (yes, I read a lot of articles) about this guy who wanted to test the strength of his Facebook "friends" by inviting all 1,000 plus of them to a party. Well, about 200 or so people said yes or maybe. So the guy decorated and bought food and alcohol for 200 people, and he waited and he waited. And in the end, one girl showed up. One girl. Out of 200, out of 1,000 so-called friends, leaving him to conclude that Facebook "friends" are not really friends after all. At least not dedicated ones.
That's the thing. Even with MySpace I noticed it. People would just "friend" you just to "friend" you. They didn't want to really be your friend or know what was going on in your life. They just wanted you to be their friend so that their friend count would rise. And while I must admit it was really nice when people I used to know back in the day found me and wanted to be my "friend," I found it rather off-putting when they didn't even send me a message of "Hello, how are you?" or anything. They just wanted the extra point on their list. Some people collect thousands of friends and they're called "collectors" because that's what they do. They collect friends like baseball cards because they find some sort of validation in having other people see that they have lots of "friends."
And while I understand the need for movie stars and celebrities to want to have a massive following - since that's the way they make their living, through their fan base - I remain befuddled as to why the average person needs this amount of attention. Are they trying to vicariously be celebrities in their own rights?
The other reason social networking lends itself to phoniness is because whenever you write a friend a comment that everyone you know can read, there is a filter that it passes through that it wouldn't normally pass through if you were just say, chatting with your friend. When you know the whole world can read whatever it is you are writing to each other, you tend to write in a way so that you appear a certain way - more enthusiastic, more supportive, more racy. And in a way, you have to because you know that other people are reading and they'll form opinions of you based on what you write. So you feel the need to craft an image of yourself that you want people to see and believe. But is it the real you? Is it truly you or is it you trying to please others?
If you really think about it, social networking is not about connecting socially. It's about becoming more self-involved, thinking that every little thing you do matters to other people. After all, when you seek others' approval, it's not because you care about them. It's because you care about what they think about you.
I actually thought about this topic when Miley Cyrus (yes, Miley Cyrus!) caused a big uproar when she suddenly and abruptly canceled her popular Twitter account. I read an article about the rap she did to explain why she canceled it, and what she said was actually very insightful. She said that she wanted to start living in the moment and stop living for other people. And when she said that, I thought, "Wow, this girl is on to something." She realizes that whenever she tweets about her pimples or about her problems, she's not living in the moment, but rather trying to get the approval of millions of people she doesn't know. She's trying to get their approval that her pimple is ok. And finally when she really dug deep and thought about it, she realized that she was living for other people's approval instead of for her own.
And that when online social networking becomes a problem because you start to think that every little thing that happens to you is important in some way to other people, and that they need to know it in order to connect with you more, in order to like you more. You aren't full as a person without other people to tell you you're ok. What Miley said made me realize that a lot of people are living like this now, people I know too. And I liked Miley more for her statement because I realized that she had put into words my disdain for these social sites.
My experience with online social networking began a few years ago with MySpace. I used to have an account until I canceled it, and that was after two years of inactivity. I couldn't stand MySpace because you had to put out so much of your personal information out there, like your relationship status, and then whenever you last logged on, it time-stamped it so that everyone would know. It was like Big Brother watching you. At least for me, I'm a really private person.
When I had already stopped signing in, MySpace made a push to become more like Facebook with instant updates, and they would email me these updates of what my "friends" were doing. And the thing was, my friends were doing everyday things like going to Starbucks or getting their car fixed, and yet they felt they needed to share this information with the world. I guess I just don't get it. Why do some people feel the need to tell others the personal minutiae of their daily lives? I could just as soon write, "Cleaning cat poop. Not fun! :P" But why? I don't care to share that, but a lot of people do.
I guess the question is: What is wrong with me? Why don't I want people to know I'm cleaning cat poop at the moment I'm cleaning it and that it's not fun? Wouldn't it be nice for someone to feel sorry for me and write something supportive? I guess. But it feels to me like that would be trying to get someone's approval. Like there is some deep-seated void in me that I think needs to be filled by connecting with other people via an impersonal medium, without having to connect face-to-face.
My other problem with Facebook and all those other social networking sites, is that it can be so fake. It leads people to be fake too. I once read an article (yes, I read a lot of articles) about this guy who wanted to test the strength of his Facebook "friends" by inviting all 1,000 plus of them to a party. Well, about 200 or so people said yes or maybe. So the guy decorated and bought food and alcohol for 200 people, and he waited and he waited. And in the end, one girl showed up. One girl. Out of 200, out of 1,000 so-called friends, leaving him to conclude that Facebook "friends" are not really friends after all. At least not dedicated ones.
That's the thing. Even with MySpace I noticed it. People would just "friend" you just to "friend" you. They didn't want to really be your friend or know what was going on in your life. They just wanted you to be their friend so that their friend count would rise. And while I must admit it was really nice when people I used to know back in the day found me and wanted to be my "friend," I found it rather off-putting when they didn't even send me a message of "Hello, how are you?" or anything. They just wanted the extra point on their list. Some people collect thousands of friends and they're called "collectors" because that's what they do. They collect friends like baseball cards because they find some sort of validation in having other people see that they have lots of "friends."
And while I understand the need for movie stars and celebrities to want to have a massive following - since that's the way they make their living, through their fan base - I remain befuddled as to why the average person needs this amount of attention. Are they trying to vicariously be celebrities in their own rights?
The other reason social networking lends itself to phoniness is because whenever you write a friend a comment that everyone you know can read, there is a filter that it passes through that it wouldn't normally pass through if you were just say, chatting with your friend. When you know the whole world can read whatever it is you are writing to each other, you tend to write in a way so that you appear a certain way - more enthusiastic, more supportive, more racy. And in a way, you have to because you know that other people are reading and they'll form opinions of you based on what you write. So you feel the need to craft an image of yourself that you want people to see and believe. But is it the real you? Is it truly you or is it you trying to please others?
If you really think about it, social networking is not about connecting socially. It's about becoming more self-involved, thinking that every little thing you do matters to other people. After all, when you seek others' approval, it's not because you care about them. It's because you care about what they think about you.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
In Praise of Whole Milk
As a supplement to my previous post ("What Non-Fat Really Means")...
A coworker of mine once told me about a Russian doctor who helped a 70 year-old woman look 40 years old. He did this by putting her on a strict diet of natural foods. Absolutely nothing processed. She could eat meat but nothing with hormones. And for milk, he suggested drinking whole fat milk, because the non-fat, low-fat varieties had chemicals added to make them that way. Only whole fat was good for you, he said. After a few months on this diet, the woman started looking years younger, her ailments (which she had plenty of before) started to go away, and she was healthier than ever. Looking at her "after" pictures, my coworker said, you could not tell that she was 70. She looked like a woman decades younger.
Well, after hearing my coworker speak so enthusiastically of this doctor and wanting the anti-aging effects he accomplished with this woman, I changed my consumption of low-fat milk (which was the only low-fat thing I drank), and switched to whole milk. I had drank whole fat milk for most of my life until I switched. I don't know why or when exactly I switched, but I did. So now it was just a switch back. It was difficult at first because I wasn't used to the thicker consistency anymore. (Incidentally, the creamier consistency is one of the reasons people tell me they can't drink whole milk.) But, once I got used to it, I found I liked it, again. It was pretty good.
And the funny thing is, it had a side effect. I started to lose weight. Even though I was already slender (too slender from what people told me), I started to lose weight. It was the weirdest thing because I could just not keep the weight on.
Of course, there might be other factors as to why I started shedding the pounds, one of them being I had told myself that I could use to gain weight. And of course, when one tells oneself to gain weight, one usually ends up losing weight. I think it's because of this mechanism - I'd read in a success book - that according to your mind, if you have to gain weight, then you need to be underweight first. And because you tell your body you must be underweight first, it starts to lose weight to match your thinking. This way you can then gain weight like you want, since it probably thinks that whatever the weight you are at the moment is your normal weight. That, or you just don't like telling yourself you "should" do something, and so you rebel and go the other way. In any case, I would think the same effect probably applies if you want to lose weight. But I don't think many people want to try it that way.
The other thing I discovered, after I started drinking whole milk, is that it's much easier for me to lose weight whenever I want. Before, like everyone else, gaining weight was easy and getting it off was hard. But now, it seems the opposite effect is true. And I am much better at controlling it.
Maybe it wasn't the whole milk entirely, but I feel as if it helped in some way. Maybe it makes me fuller, more satisfied, and so my brain tells me not to each as much.
Whatever it is, I like whole milk now. I can't go back to less than whole.
A coworker of mine once told me about a Russian doctor who helped a 70 year-old woman look 40 years old. He did this by putting her on a strict diet of natural foods. Absolutely nothing processed. She could eat meat but nothing with hormones. And for milk, he suggested drinking whole fat milk, because the non-fat, low-fat varieties had chemicals added to make them that way. Only whole fat was good for you, he said. After a few months on this diet, the woman started looking years younger, her ailments (which she had plenty of before) started to go away, and she was healthier than ever. Looking at her "after" pictures, my coworker said, you could not tell that she was 70. She looked like a woman decades younger.
Well, after hearing my coworker speak so enthusiastically of this doctor and wanting the anti-aging effects he accomplished with this woman, I changed my consumption of low-fat milk (which was the only low-fat thing I drank), and switched to whole milk. I had drank whole fat milk for most of my life until I switched. I don't know why or when exactly I switched, but I did. So now it was just a switch back. It was difficult at first because I wasn't used to the thicker consistency anymore. (Incidentally, the creamier consistency is one of the reasons people tell me they can't drink whole milk.) But, once I got used to it, I found I liked it, again. It was pretty good.
And the funny thing is, it had a side effect. I started to lose weight. Even though I was already slender (too slender from what people told me), I started to lose weight. It was the weirdest thing because I could just not keep the weight on.
Of course, there might be other factors as to why I started shedding the pounds, one of them being I had told myself that I could use to gain weight. And of course, when one tells oneself to gain weight, one usually ends up losing weight. I think it's because of this mechanism - I'd read in a success book - that according to your mind, if you have to gain weight, then you need to be underweight first. And because you tell your body you must be underweight first, it starts to lose weight to match your thinking. This way you can then gain weight like you want, since it probably thinks that whatever the weight you are at the moment is your normal weight. That, or you just don't like telling yourself you "should" do something, and so you rebel and go the other way. In any case, I would think the same effect probably applies if you want to lose weight. But I don't think many people want to try it that way.
The other thing I discovered, after I started drinking whole milk, is that it's much easier for me to lose weight whenever I want. Before, like everyone else, gaining weight was easy and getting it off was hard. But now, it seems the opposite effect is true. And I am much better at controlling it.
Maybe it wasn't the whole milk entirely, but I feel as if it helped in some way. Maybe it makes me fuller, more satisfied, and so my brain tells me not to each as much.
Whatever it is, I like whole milk now. I can't go back to less than whole.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
What Non-Fat Really Means
I'll give you a hint: It doesn't mean skinny.
Regular vs. Diet
When I was working at this company, they provided us with free sodas every day. The thing was, they gave us a choice between regular and diet, and to my surprise, every one of my coworkers, besides me, chose diet. I thought this was the strangest thing in the world considering that I was about the thinnest person in the company. But it seemed that everyone in the company, average or above, felt that they needed to be on a diet.
I guess I shouldn't have been too surprised. I mean, this was L.A., after all. Everyone's on a diet in L.A. Still, not being exposed to that sort of hyper-dieting I was taken aback. Even people who I considered a healthy weight, who didn't need to lose weight, would always feel that they could stand to lose a few pounds. Why?, I thought. They were perfectly fine. But somehow they got it into their mindset that they would never be skinny enough.
And when I would try to convince my coworkers who might actually have some weight to lose, that non-fat or diet stuff was not good for you, they discounted my claims even with my thin figure. I had to figure that they had been so completely brainwashed by the food industry to think that non-fat food was a necessity that they looked at me, and put my slender weight off to good genetics and nothing more.
But that is not the truth. The truth is, I don't eat much. Compared to most Americans, I eat very little. And my skinny friends are a lot like me. They don't eat much either. They also drink regular soda. But the thing is, they also don't deprive themselves. It's not like they are unhappy with food. They love it! There's something to that, don't you think? But if I were to tell a dieter of this causal link between skinny girls and regular soda, they would probably again just chalk it up to good genes. They can drink regular soda because they're already skinny. But it seems to never occur to them that regular soda helps keep us skinny.
I Can't Get No Satisfaction
Let me explain. And so I don't sound like the people in my previous post who believe that whatever happens in their personal experience is true everywhere, let me refer to a study I read. Although I don't remember the particular article because it has been some time since I read it, I remember the point it made, and it was this: Non-fat food actually makes you eat more. Yes. That's right. Let me repeat that: Non-fat food actually makes you eat more. That doesn't seem to make any sense, but if you listen to your body's point of view, it actually makes a world of sense.
See, your body is always trying to keep you healthy and fully satisfied. That is the best way for you to keep your energy up and charged for whatever task you might need it for. When there is extra energy, your body stores it as fat, to be used later. If you don't use that fat, well, then it builds up. The problem with non-fat food lies in the fact that it doesn't satisfy you. And because it is non-fat, it replaces the fat it would have had with a lot more empty calories. Calories which your body then stores as fat. Fat actually satisfies you more. That's why if you eat a regular fat food, you'll feel satisfied. If you eat one that is non-fat, it will not satisfy you, and since you are not satisfied, you will eat even more of that non-fat food, and even more until you feel satisfied. All the while, you are consuming even more calories than if you had just eaten the regular food. And the sad part is, not only will your body store all those extra calories as fat, but you will still be left feeling unsatisfied.
It is a sad fact, in another study done, that when you eat non-fat foods, your brain does not enjoy it as much as if you eat regular food. Somehow, you think you are depriving yourself, and you are. This even holds true when you eat regular food that you thought was non-fat. Just the idea of it being non-fat, makes your enjoyment of it less, and leaves you deeply unsatisfied with it.
The other problem with non-fat foods is that people think it's good for them, and so that means that they can eat more of it without watching themselves. And since the non-fat food is not satisfying, they eat more and more. And then, since people think they are being so good by depriving themselves of regular food or junk food by eating this so-called "good" non-fat food, when they get a chance they reward themselves by indulging in regular food, and overeating it, because they deprived themselves of it and the satisfaction of it in the first place. It all makes for a terrible cycle, because if they had just eaten the regular food, they would have felt full and satisfied, and that would be it.
Non-Fat or Pro-Skinny?
But non-fat food makes you want to eat more non-fat food. It makes sense, doesn't it? I mean, if I was in the food industry, I would love to sell non-fat foods. Because I would know that not only could I charge more for it (it is special, after all), people would end up buying more of it because they would still be unfulfilled by it and also at the same time, think that eating more of it was good for them. I'd rake in so much money that way. It makes me wonder: Don't people realize that non-fat food makers make money if you remain fat? Of course, then you'll keep buying their products to keep the weight off. And since you already started eating their food and don't want to gain even more weight, you keep eating their food, even though it's what's probably causing you to keep the weight on.
There was a study that also said that skinny people enjoy their food more. I can see that. Whenever I eat, I try to enjoy whatever I eat, and really savor the taste of it. For people who want to lose weight, however, I've noticed - and the study also says - they tend to just shovel their food in without really tasting it. This means they get less satisfaction, and they end up eating more because they consume more calories before their stomach can react (within 20 minutes) to tell their brain that they are full.
Whenever I see someone eating non-fat food, I want to ask them, "Does that help? I mean, do you find that you are losing weight since you've started to eat that?" Because I think that people just consider that it's good for them, without considering that it might be actually doing them harm. But I don't question people and their diets, because it's not my place. I have no M.D. after all, so who would believe me? I'm just a skinny girl who knows what works for her.
I do have one suggestion for the non-fat food industry because I don't, in fact, think that they are evil or anything. They are just selling a product that works and that people buy. But, I think if they were really interested in helping people lose weight, they would change their label from "non-or-low-fat" to "pro-skinny." Yes. I know it sounds weird. But actually, I think it will work. The problem with the label "non-fat," is that it is a negative idea, and it makes you think of the thing they took out, ie. fat. So you feel in a sense that the food has something less, it's not whole. But if you change the label to "pro-skinny," it makes you feel that the food is whole and will help you be what you want, ie. skinny. And you won't feel you have to eat more of it to fill that void because it's already a whole, and besides, it reminds you you want to be skinny, not non-fat.
For those who like metaphors - If I was selling a glass of water, say, and it was 99% full, I could say that it was "low-air". This glass has very little air, is what I am selling. But then that makes you think of the air in the product, and it makes you want to drink that 1% more of water, just so you'll have your intake of 100% water. Of course, instead of just drinking that 1% more of water, you end up drinking a lot more because you don't know how much that 1% is, and you want to make sure you got it in. If instead, I was selling the glass of water and I simply called it "water," you'd feel it was whole at it was and that you didn't need to drink more for it to be whole.
The Inverted Food Pyramid
I could go on and on about this topic. It is a passionate topic for me, I guess because of the weight issues I discussed in my previous post (A Skinny Bitch's View). But I'll just note one last observation I made and that is that the rise of obesity in the United States seems to correlate with the issuance of the food pyramid. I have a special scorn for the food pyramid, having grown up learning the Four Basic Food Groups in grade school. I loved the Four Basic Food Groups. There was so much food to eat, and you could eat a sandwich and fulfill all the groups. That was great.
And then for some reason, whoever it was felt that they had to mess with a good thing and release the now defunct Food Pyramid. Maybe it was in the name of progress or in the name of doing something new just to get attention, but it was terrible. For starters, it ranked food by how good it was for you, and it touted that complex carbohydrates - breads, pastas, and such - were what people should be consuming the most. In my mind, people saw this and started putting an arbitrary value on the worth of their food, probably consuming more pasta and breads, and started gaining weight. And then because they were gaining weight, the food industry broke out with even more diet foods. And because these people had gained weight, they started to eat these diet foods, and on and on until they gained weight that became really hard to take off. Then about the time that the obesity epidemic got really bad, the experts finally realized that the Food Pyramid didn't work after all.
When it comes down to it, what the Food Pyramid, non-fat foods, and skinny girls can teach us, is that if you want to be a healthy weight, eat regular food and enjoy it. That's my delicious advice.
Regular vs. Diet
When I was working at this company, they provided us with free sodas every day. The thing was, they gave us a choice between regular and diet, and to my surprise, every one of my coworkers, besides me, chose diet. I thought this was the strangest thing in the world considering that I was about the thinnest person in the company. But it seemed that everyone in the company, average or above, felt that they needed to be on a diet.
I guess I shouldn't have been too surprised. I mean, this was L.A., after all. Everyone's on a diet in L.A. Still, not being exposed to that sort of hyper-dieting I was taken aback. Even people who I considered a healthy weight, who didn't need to lose weight, would always feel that they could stand to lose a few pounds. Why?, I thought. They were perfectly fine. But somehow they got it into their mindset that they would never be skinny enough.
And when I would try to convince my coworkers who might actually have some weight to lose, that non-fat or diet stuff was not good for you, they discounted my claims even with my thin figure. I had to figure that they had been so completely brainwashed by the food industry to think that non-fat food was a necessity that they looked at me, and put my slender weight off to good genetics and nothing more.
But that is not the truth. The truth is, I don't eat much. Compared to most Americans, I eat very little. And my skinny friends are a lot like me. They don't eat much either. They also drink regular soda. But the thing is, they also don't deprive themselves. It's not like they are unhappy with food. They love it! There's something to that, don't you think? But if I were to tell a dieter of this causal link between skinny girls and regular soda, they would probably again just chalk it up to good genes. They can drink regular soda because they're already skinny. But it seems to never occur to them that regular soda helps keep us skinny.
I Can't Get No Satisfaction
Let me explain. And so I don't sound like the people in my previous post who believe that whatever happens in their personal experience is true everywhere, let me refer to a study I read. Although I don't remember the particular article because it has been some time since I read it, I remember the point it made, and it was this: Non-fat food actually makes you eat more. Yes. That's right. Let me repeat that: Non-fat food actually makes you eat more. That doesn't seem to make any sense, but if you listen to your body's point of view, it actually makes a world of sense.
See, your body is always trying to keep you healthy and fully satisfied. That is the best way for you to keep your energy up and charged for whatever task you might need it for. When there is extra energy, your body stores it as fat, to be used later. If you don't use that fat, well, then it builds up. The problem with non-fat food lies in the fact that it doesn't satisfy you. And because it is non-fat, it replaces the fat it would have had with a lot more empty calories. Calories which your body then stores as fat. Fat actually satisfies you more. That's why if you eat a regular fat food, you'll feel satisfied. If you eat one that is non-fat, it will not satisfy you, and since you are not satisfied, you will eat even more of that non-fat food, and even more until you feel satisfied. All the while, you are consuming even more calories than if you had just eaten the regular food. And the sad part is, not only will your body store all those extra calories as fat, but you will still be left feeling unsatisfied.
It is a sad fact, in another study done, that when you eat non-fat foods, your brain does not enjoy it as much as if you eat regular food. Somehow, you think you are depriving yourself, and you are. This even holds true when you eat regular food that you thought was non-fat. Just the idea of it being non-fat, makes your enjoyment of it less, and leaves you deeply unsatisfied with it.
The other problem with non-fat foods is that people think it's good for them, and so that means that they can eat more of it without watching themselves. And since the non-fat food is not satisfying, they eat more and more. And then, since people think they are being so good by depriving themselves of regular food or junk food by eating this so-called "good" non-fat food, when they get a chance they reward themselves by indulging in regular food, and overeating it, because they deprived themselves of it and the satisfaction of it in the first place. It all makes for a terrible cycle, because if they had just eaten the regular food, they would have felt full and satisfied, and that would be it.
Non-Fat or Pro-Skinny?
But non-fat food makes you want to eat more non-fat food. It makes sense, doesn't it? I mean, if I was in the food industry, I would love to sell non-fat foods. Because I would know that not only could I charge more for it (it is special, after all), people would end up buying more of it because they would still be unfulfilled by it and also at the same time, think that eating more of it was good for them. I'd rake in so much money that way. It makes me wonder: Don't people realize that non-fat food makers make money if you remain fat? Of course, then you'll keep buying their products to keep the weight off. And since you already started eating their food and don't want to gain even more weight, you keep eating their food, even though it's what's probably causing you to keep the weight on.
There was a study that also said that skinny people enjoy their food more. I can see that. Whenever I eat, I try to enjoy whatever I eat, and really savor the taste of it. For people who want to lose weight, however, I've noticed - and the study also says - they tend to just shovel their food in without really tasting it. This means they get less satisfaction, and they end up eating more because they consume more calories before their stomach can react (within 20 minutes) to tell their brain that they are full.
Whenever I see someone eating non-fat food, I want to ask them, "Does that help? I mean, do you find that you are losing weight since you've started to eat that?" Because I think that people just consider that it's good for them, without considering that it might be actually doing them harm. But I don't question people and their diets, because it's not my place. I have no M.D. after all, so who would believe me? I'm just a skinny girl who knows what works for her.
I do have one suggestion for the non-fat food industry because I don't, in fact, think that they are evil or anything. They are just selling a product that works and that people buy. But, I think if they were really interested in helping people lose weight, they would change their label from "non-or-low-fat" to "pro-skinny." Yes. I know it sounds weird. But actually, I think it will work. The problem with the label "non-fat," is that it is a negative idea, and it makes you think of the thing they took out, ie. fat. So you feel in a sense that the food has something less, it's not whole. But if you change the label to "pro-skinny," it makes you feel that the food is whole and will help you be what you want, ie. skinny. And you won't feel you have to eat more of it to fill that void because it's already a whole, and besides, it reminds you you want to be skinny, not non-fat.
For those who like metaphors - If I was selling a glass of water, say, and it was 99% full, I could say that it was "low-air". This glass has very little air, is what I am selling. But then that makes you think of the air in the product, and it makes you want to drink that 1% more of water, just so you'll have your intake of 100% water. Of course, instead of just drinking that 1% more of water, you end up drinking a lot more because you don't know how much that 1% is, and you want to make sure you got it in. If instead, I was selling the glass of water and I simply called it "water," you'd feel it was whole at it was and that you didn't need to drink more for it to be whole.
The Inverted Food Pyramid
I could go on and on about this topic. It is a passionate topic for me, I guess because of the weight issues I discussed in my previous post (A Skinny Bitch's View). But I'll just note one last observation I made and that is that the rise of obesity in the United States seems to correlate with the issuance of the food pyramid. I have a special scorn for the food pyramid, having grown up learning the Four Basic Food Groups in grade school. I loved the Four Basic Food Groups. There was so much food to eat, and you could eat a sandwich and fulfill all the groups. That was great.
And then for some reason, whoever it was felt that they had to mess with a good thing and release the now defunct Food Pyramid. Maybe it was in the name of progress or in the name of doing something new just to get attention, but it was terrible. For starters, it ranked food by how good it was for you, and it touted that complex carbohydrates - breads, pastas, and such - were what people should be consuming the most. In my mind, people saw this and started putting an arbitrary value on the worth of their food, probably consuming more pasta and breads, and started gaining weight. And then because they were gaining weight, the food industry broke out with even more diet foods. And because these people had gained weight, they started to eat these diet foods, and on and on until they gained weight that became really hard to take off. Then about the time that the obesity epidemic got really bad, the experts finally realized that the Food Pyramid didn't work after all.
When it comes down to it, what the Food Pyramid, non-fat foods, and skinny girls can teach us, is that if you want to be a healthy weight, eat regular food and enjoy it. That's my delicious advice.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Review: I Hate the New Yahoo! Home Page
Ok, "Hate" is a strong word, but it does mean "don't like," right? And I don't like it. It's not like I'm apathetic to it. I really feel strongly that it sucks.
I've been using Yahoo! for a long time now. I found its format to be the best when it came to showcasing headlines and features I'd like to read. It was great. I was so addicted, I would spend hours of my day reading its featured stories and playing its games. (The games page is fine - they didn't change that, thank goodness!) But the usual home page sucks! (Yes, I know I've already said that). What are they trying to do? Be like Facebook? There's just too much stuff and too much white space around that stuff. It's so distracting. I can't focus on a single element of the page like I used to. Now it's all one big jumbled mess.
And to top it off, their menu list on the side is so irritating now. Just scrolling over the list, it will pop up a tab (that has to load) with more on that topic - like a list of news articles, log on access, or search bar. WTF! If I want to learn more about that topic, I'll click on the link and open a new page. But having it load right there - and be so much smaller to read - is just too much clutter. They're an irritating imposition. You have to wait for them to load. It's annoying! Especially if your mouse just accidentally slid over the link and you have to wait while it loads a tab you didn't even want to open.
I suppose they were trying to make this page people's default home page by making it possible to do everything from it. But it's just too much. Did they not test this on users before they released it?
I guess they did give me fair warning. I kept the old home page for a few months now, and I was happy with it. Even when they said they would change the page, I thought, "Fine, I'll accept it when it happens." Well, it's happened and I hate it. And I must say, in my defense, that I have been with Yahoo! through many metamorphoses of its home page and I have stuck with it, because in all those times, it still managed to be user-friendly and aesthetically pleasing. What happened?! Did they give the job of reformatting it to a couple of young college grads because they thought they were hip, but who turned out to know nothing about aesthetics? It's so annoying.
And I thought that maybe I would get some relief from the familiarity of MSN's home page, only to find that they have changed their home page as well! And strangely enough, their change is almost identical to Yahoo! in the increase of white space. It's not quite as annoying as Yahoo!'s for me, but maybe that's only because I only use MSN's incidentally. But it has my same critique of there being too much white space. Way too much. I can hardly focus on each category because the amount of white space is so overwhelming. People don't need this much white space unless they're in mental institutions.
Why is it that these companies that have a solid base of loyal customers start all over in the attempts of luring new customers while throwing a pie in the face of their old ones? (Hello, Windows Vista anyone?) Can they not merge the two aspects, combine old and new so that old customers have some features which give them the familiarity they like and new customers can be enticed by new improvements? I guess not. :(
Aargh! Every time I look at the page it annoys me. And yet by habit I still look at it. Although to Yahoo!'s chagrin, perhaps, I barely look at it as much as I used to. It's too irritating. I guess that's a good thing for me because I was considering that I spent too much time reading stories on there. Now with this change, I really don't feel like being on their page if I can help it.
Having said that I guess I should reiterate my stance that people are allowed to try new things (and fail). How else do you know if it will work or not unless you try it out? Yes, so they tried this and hopefully they will try something else - really really soon.
In the meantime, I guess that just gives me more time to write on my blog. Whoopee!
I've been using Yahoo! for a long time now. I found its format to be the best when it came to showcasing headlines and features I'd like to read. It was great. I was so addicted, I would spend hours of my day reading its featured stories and playing its games. (The games page is fine - they didn't change that, thank goodness!) But the usual home page sucks! (Yes, I know I've already said that). What are they trying to do? Be like Facebook? There's just too much stuff and too much white space around that stuff. It's so distracting. I can't focus on a single element of the page like I used to. Now it's all one big jumbled mess.
And to top it off, their menu list on the side is so irritating now. Just scrolling over the list, it will pop up a tab (that has to load) with more on that topic - like a list of news articles, log on access, or search bar. WTF! If I want to learn more about that topic, I'll click on the link and open a new page. But having it load right there - and be so much smaller to read - is just too much clutter. They're an irritating imposition. You have to wait for them to load. It's annoying! Especially if your mouse just accidentally slid over the link and you have to wait while it loads a tab you didn't even want to open.
I suppose they were trying to make this page people's default home page by making it possible to do everything from it. But it's just too much. Did they not test this on users before they released it?
I guess they did give me fair warning. I kept the old home page for a few months now, and I was happy with it. Even when they said they would change the page, I thought, "Fine, I'll accept it when it happens." Well, it's happened and I hate it. And I must say, in my defense, that I have been with Yahoo! through many metamorphoses of its home page and I have stuck with it, because in all those times, it still managed to be user-friendly and aesthetically pleasing. What happened?! Did they give the job of reformatting it to a couple of young college grads because they thought they were hip, but who turned out to know nothing about aesthetics? It's so annoying.
And I thought that maybe I would get some relief from the familiarity of MSN's home page, only to find that they have changed their home page as well! And strangely enough, their change is almost identical to Yahoo! in the increase of white space. It's not quite as annoying as Yahoo!'s for me, but maybe that's only because I only use MSN's incidentally. But it has my same critique of there being too much white space. Way too much. I can hardly focus on each category because the amount of white space is so overwhelming. People don't need this much white space unless they're in mental institutions.
Why is it that these companies that have a solid base of loyal customers start all over in the attempts of luring new customers while throwing a pie in the face of their old ones? (Hello, Windows Vista anyone?) Can they not merge the two aspects, combine old and new so that old customers have some features which give them the familiarity they like and new customers can be enticed by new improvements? I guess not. :(
Aargh! Every time I look at the page it annoys me. And yet by habit I still look at it. Although to Yahoo!'s chagrin, perhaps, I barely look at it as much as I used to. It's too irritating. I guess that's a good thing for me because I was considering that I spent too much time reading stories on there. Now with this change, I really don't feel like being on their page if I can help it.
Having said that I guess I should reiterate my stance that people are allowed to try new things (and fail). How else do you know if it will work or not unless you try it out? Yes, so they tried this and hopefully they will try something else - really really soon.
In the meantime, I guess that just gives me more time to write on my blog. Whoopee!
Sunday, November 15, 2009
The Monogamous Nature
A few months ago I read an article arguing that humans are not by nature supposed to be monogamous. I decried the line of reasoning presented.
The author, herself, was going through a divorce with her husband of so many years, with which she also had a few children. They no longer loved each other and they each had cheated on the other. While going through this rough patch in her life, she met with her other three female friends, who -- with the exception of the lone single girl who took depression meds -- were also unhappy with their respective husbands. Even the woman who appeared to have the most ideal husband was actually pretty unhappy with him because he made her feel incompetent and he wouldn't sleep with her. So they and this author, with their unhappy relationships, decided perhaps that long-term relationships are just not feasible for humankind. Anthropologically speaking, they theorized that humans are only supposed to mate for a span of three to four years - just enough time for the baby to grow up and start walking and talking. Not for a lifetime. Especially now that we live so much longer than we used to, it seemed to them, unfeasible to think we could live happily ever after with one person.
There are so many things I find wrong with her arguments, not the least of which is the fact that she took a few personal experiences and tried to apply it to the whole of humankind. As I wrote in my previous post ("Seeing is Believing or Is it?"), just because it's in your personal experience does not mean that it's a universal truth. But for some reason, some people believe that everyone must feel how they feel.
If there is any universal truth, it is that people are different. What works for some people, doesn't work for others. If it did, we would all drive the same cars, have the same jobs, and enjoy the same activities. But this does not happen.
Saying that your marriage sucks, so therefore humans aren't meant to be monogamous, is like me saying, I can't sing, so therefore humans aren't meant to sing. Just because your relationship didn't work out, doesn't mean that monogamy is wrong for everybody. Maybe you didn't find the right guy. Maybe you guys let it deteriorate to the point where there was no saving it. Maybe you weren't taught the skills to make it work. Or maybe marriage just isn't right for you. Notice I said you, not everybody. Just because something is not right, doesn't work for you - like say you look terrible in pink - does not mean it applies to everybody. Because for some people marriage does work. Some people are happily married and for a long time, and they make us jealous. But why would they make us jealous, if long-term monogamy is not what we really want? And why is it, if we are supposed to only be with one mate for three to four years at a time, that divorce is so hard on us? So hard that, on average, people who divorce live ten years less than people who are never divorced.
It annoys me when people say that maybe humans aren't meant to be monogamous. I always wonder what their ulterior motive is and they usually have one. Usually it comes from a guy who doesn't want to commit to his girl, or a girl who wants to explain why her guy doesn't want to commit. But excuse me, if people aren't meant to be monogamous, why do we try to be? Why do we still get married? And not just that, why do so many cultures hold the institution of marriage to be sacred? We never wanted to do this, it was not in our natures, but somehow someone convinced us that we should get married and we did it? Just because? We didn't like it but we decided to follow this person? Really? True - sometimes people can be persuaded, even brainwashed, to buy into things they wouldn't normally like - like trolls and pink tights. But those fads only last a while, a couple of years at most. The institution of marriage has lasted for thousands of years. Thousands of years. How is it possible that it has lasted so long when we naturally aren't meant for it?
What I told a friend when she brought up this idea that humans aren't meant to be monogamous - besides that I hate it when people say that - was that there are a lot of things we aren't meant to do. We aren't meant to wear clothes, or live in buildings, or fly in airplanes, or drive cars, or buy our food at the supermarket. We aren't meant to eat Twinkies or donuts or potato chips. But we do. We do it because we've found that it works for us. Is it in our nature? Who knows? But it works for a lot of people. Maybe not everyone, but a lot of people.
What my point boils down to is that everyone has their own tune to march to in this life. Just because yours didn't work out for you, doesn't mean you automatically need to apply your failure to something innate in the human species. Isn't it just as possible that humans evolved to be monogamous and that some humans are not as evolved as others? Or maybe, to have a kinder conclusion, isn't it possible it's just like a talent, like singing? Some people are just better at it than others. And some people are willing to work harder to be better at it than others.
The author, herself, was going through a divorce with her husband of so many years, with which she also had a few children. They no longer loved each other and they each had cheated on the other. While going through this rough patch in her life, she met with her other three female friends, who -- with the exception of the lone single girl who took depression meds -- were also unhappy with their respective husbands. Even the woman who appeared to have the most ideal husband was actually pretty unhappy with him because he made her feel incompetent and he wouldn't sleep with her. So they and this author, with their unhappy relationships, decided perhaps that long-term relationships are just not feasible for humankind. Anthropologically speaking, they theorized that humans are only supposed to mate for a span of three to four years - just enough time for the baby to grow up and start walking and talking. Not for a lifetime. Especially now that we live so much longer than we used to, it seemed to them, unfeasible to think we could live happily ever after with one person.
There are so many things I find wrong with her arguments, not the least of which is the fact that she took a few personal experiences and tried to apply it to the whole of humankind. As I wrote in my previous post ("Seeing is Believing or Is it?"), just because it's in your personal experience does not mean that it's a universal truth. But for some reason, some people believe that everyone must feel how they feel.
If there is any universal truth, it is that people are different. What works for some people, doesn't work for others. If it did, we would all drive the same cars, have the same jobs, and enjoy the same activities. But this does not happen.
Saying that your marriage sucks, so therefore humans aren't meant to be monogamous, is like me saying, I can't sing, so therefore humans aren't meant to sing. Just because your relationship didn't work out, doesn't mean that monogamy is wrong for everybody. Maybe you didn't find the right guy. Maybe you guys let it deteriorate to the point where there was no saving it. Maybe you weren't taught the skills to make it work. Or maybe marriage just isn't right for you. Notice I said you, not everybody. Just because something is not right, doesn't work for you - like say you look terrible in pink - does not mean it applies to everybody. Because for some people marriage does work. Some people are happily married and for a long time, and they make us jealous. But why would they make us jealous, if long-term monogamy is not what we really want? And why is it, if we are supposed to only be with one mate for three to four years at a time, that divorce is so hard on us? So hard that, on average, people who divorce live ten years less than people who are never divorced.
It annoys me when people say that maybe humans aren't meant to be monogamous. I always wonder what their ulterior motive is and they usually have one. Usually it comes from a guy who doesn't want to commit to his girl, or a girl who wants to explain why her guy doesn't want to commit. But excuse me, if people aren't meant to be monogamous, why do we try to be? Why do we still get married? And not just that, why do so many cultures hold the institution of marriage to be sacred? We never wanted to do this, it was not in our natures, but somehow someone convinced us that we should get married and we did it? Just because? We didn't like it but we decided to follow this person? Really? True - sometimes people can be persuaded, even brainwashed, to buy into things they wouldn't normally like - like trolls and pink tights. But those fads only last a while, a couple of years at most. The institution of marriage has lasted for thousands of years. Thousands of years. How is it possible that it has lasted so long when we naturally aren't meant for it?
What I told a friend when she brought up this idea that humans aren't meant to be monogamous - besides that I hate it when people say that - was that there are a lot of things we aren't meant to do. We aren't meant to wear clothes, or live in buildings, or fly in airplanes, or drive cars, or buy our food at the supermarket. We aren't meant to eat Twinkies or donuts or potato chips. But we do. We do it because we've found that it works for us. Is it in our nature? Who knows? But it works for a lot of people. Maybe not everyone, but a lot of people.
What my point boils down to is that everyone has their own tune to march to in this life. Just because yours didn't work out for you, doesn't mean you automatically need to apply your failure to something innate in the human species. Isn't it just as possible that humans evolved to be monogamous and that some humans are not as evolved as others? Or maybe, to have a kinder conclusion, isn't it possible it's just like a talent, like singing? Some people are just better at it than others. And some people are willing to work harder to be better at it than others.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Seeing is Believing or Is It?
Why is it that people believe they have to see things to believe them? On one hand, you don't want to be naive. But on the other hand, how can you see everything the world has to offer in order to believe in it? And why is that people take their personal experiences and try to apply it as a universal truth to the whole of humankind? I hate it when people do that. Just because it's in their personal experience does not mean that it exists everywhere; but somehow, people grow up and still believe that they are the center of the universe.
I once had a coworker from Colorado, whom I was trying to convince, during the 2008 Presidential Election, that Obama would carry the state. This I gathered from all the polls the media had been doing. He had a slim lead, but a lead nonetheless in Colorado, and that had remained unchanged for several months. But this coworker said to me that Colorado was a conservative state and that Obama would not take it because everyone she knew didn't like him; and everyone those people knew didn't either. And so how could he possibly win when everyone she knew wasn't voting for him? I tried to tell her that the data was telling another story, but she countered that if she couldn't see it with her own eyes, she wouldn't believe it.
And so I said to her: "Do you believe in Siamese Twins?" (By that I meant the conjoined twins that must sometimes undergo surgery to be separated.)
"Yes," she answered.
"And have you ever seen Siamese Twins in person?"
"No," she said.
"But you believe they exist," I said. "Even though you have never personally held one, you believe they exist. You don't believe that the media just made them up."
And to my surprise, she relented and said, "Touche," that my point was valid.
And it is. Just because it doesn't happen in your sphere of knowledge doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Consider how many things in life would not exist just because you would not be able to personally touch them.
My friend's mother had the same point, when she said that she didn't think Obama would win the election. One or some of her Latino friends told her they didn't like him, and neither did any Latino they knew; so she declared that Latinos didn't like him. Even when I told her - according to the news polls - that he was leading by a majority in the Latino vote, she still believed her few Latino friends were right.
My guy friend started saying that it looked like McCain would win because he didn't believe people would vote for Obama for such and such reason. And that's when I said, "I think Obama will win."
"By how much?" another friend asked.
"By a landslide."
That shocked everyone and my friend that had asked the question said, "You're really optimistic."
And maybe I am. But the truth was that I was following the polls every day, and even though polls can be wrong, it would be hard for them to be that wrong, given that he had such a big and steady lead for several months. And I had a good feeling about him. People generally liked him as a person, which has often boded well for a presidential nominee.
The thing is though, I believed the data and the stories about his wide base of enthusiastic supporters; and everyone else believed their own personal experiences.
On another topic, my guy friend has the same mindset. He'll say, "All guys are like this. All guys are like that." And he truly believes it and thinks he's right. And the disturbing part is that he convinces his girlfriend to accept this fact. But the truth is that "All guys are not like that." But he hangs out only with guys who act the way he believes all guys act, so that's the truth he sees. And his girlfriend hangs out with those same guys, and sees the truth he sees as well. Fortunately for me, I have had a chance to hang out with other guys and see guys who are not like "that", who are the complete opposite of "that", and so I know that this universal truth he tries to impose on every guy is not true. But the thing is, when you believe something, you set about trying to find ways to prove yourself right. And if you try to do that, most times you'll find ways to prove yourself right. But that doesn't mean it's the truth; not the whole truth, at least.
I also often have had debates with my good friend who believes in being realistic. She also is one to say that she needs to see it to believe it. Otherwise, she's very skeptical of it. But I said to her once, "That's fine, but does that mean that things can only exist if you see them? What about the things you don't see? Do they not exist because you can't see them? And what about the things that don't exist yet? The things that someone imagines and brings to life, like televisions and airplanes once were, but don't exist yet? Does that mean that these things can never exist because they are not real now?" And after that line of questioning, she started to relent her staunch support for being realistic.
People often say I'm unique in my thinking, but I often think it's other people who are unique in their thinking. It boggles my mind to think that they can be so engrained in the idea that things don't exist without their experience of them. Because the world is so big and there are so many things in it which boggles the human mind, I wonder if it is their way of feeling that they have some control over the world. To limit the number of things that can exist to them perhaps helps them to deal with their life, and makes it less overwhelming and scary. Maybe this perspective makes them think that they matter more because everything needs to be filtered through them to be real.
That I can understand. But it makes me wonder why I don't believe the same. Why it makes me actually happy to know that lots of things exist beyond what I know. Maybe it's because I like to think that the world is huge, and that there are so many things to learn and discover. And even if I am a small cog in the vast space of the universe, it's a good thing because there are all these ways that the universe can surprise us. Maybe it's because I read so many stories as a kid and so my imagination and world-view expanded.
Or maybe, it's just because I'd like to believe that anything is possible.
I once had a coworker from Colorado, whom I was trying to convince, during the 2008 Presidential Election, that Obama would carry the state. This I gathered from all the polls the media had been doing. He had a slim lead, but a lead nonetheless in Colorado, and that had remained unchanged for several months. But this coworker said to me that Colorado was a conservative state and that Obama would not take it because everyone she knew didn't like him; and everyone those people knew didn't either. And so how could he possibly win when everyone she knew wasn't voting for him? I tried to tell her that the data was telling another story, but she countered that if she couldn't see it with her own eyes, she wouldn't believe it.
And so I said to her: "Do you believe in Siamese Twins?" (By that I meant the conjoined twins that must sometimes undergo surgery to be separated.)
"Yes," she answered.
"And have you ever seen Siamese Twins in person?"
"No," she said.
"But you believe they exist," I said. "Even though you have never personally held one, you believe they exist. You don't believe that the media just made them up."
And to my surprise, she relented and said, "Touche," that my point was valid.
And it is. Just because it doesn't happen in your sphere of knowledge doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Consider how many things in life would not exist just because you would not be able to personally touch them.
My friend's mother had the same point, when she said that she didn't think Obama would win the election. One or some of her Latino friends told her they didn't like him, and neither did any Latino they knew; so she declared that Latinos didn't like him. Even when I told her - according to the news polls - that he was leading by a majority in the Latino vote, she still believed her few Latino friends were right.
My guy friend started saying that it looked like McCain would win because he didn't believe people would vote for Obama for such and such reason. And that's when I said, "I think Obama will win."
"By how much?" another friend asked.
"By a landslide."
That shocked everyone and my friend that had asked the question said, "You're really optimistic."
And maybe I am. But the truth was that I was following the polls every day, and even though polls can be wrong, it would be hard for them to be that wrong, given that he had such a big and steady lead for several months. And I had a good feeling about him. People generally liked him as a person, which has often boded well for a presidential nominee.
The thing is though, I believed the data and the stories about his wide base of enthusiastic supporters; and everyone else believed their own personal experiences.
On another topic, my guy friend has the same mindset. He'll say, "All guys are like this. All guys are like that." And he truly believes it and thinks he's right. And the disturbing part is that he convinces his girlfriend to accept this fact. But the truth is that "All guys are not like that." But he hangs out only with guys who act the way he believes all guys act, so that's the truth he sees. And his girlfriend hangs out with those same guys, and sees the truth he sees as well. Fortunately for me, I have had a chance to hang out with other guys and see guys who are not like "that", who are the complete opposite of "that", and so I know that this universal truth he tries to impose on every guy is not true. But the thing is, when you believe something, you set about trying to find ways to prove yourself right. And if you try to do that, most times you'll find ways to prove yourself right. But that doesn't mean it's the truth; not the whole truth, at least.
I also often have had debates with my good friend who believes in being realistic. She also is one to say that she needs to see it to believe it. Otherwise, she's very skeptical of it. But I said to her once, "That's fine, but does that mean that things can only exist if you see them? What about the things you don't see? Do they not exist because you can't see them? And what about the things that don't exist yet? The things that someone imagines and brings to life, like televisions and airplanes once were, but don't exist yet? Does that mean that these things can never exist because they are not real now?" And after that line of questioning, she started to relent her staunch support for being realistic.
People often say I'm unique in my thinking, but I often think it's other people who are unique in their thinking. It boggles my mind to think that they can be so engrained in the idea that things don't exist without their experience of them. Because the world is so big and there are so many things in it which boggles the human mind, I wonder if it is their way of feeling that they have some control over the world. To limit the number of things that can exist to them perhaps helps them to deal with their life, and makes it less overwhelming and scary. Maybe this perspective makes them think that they matter more because everything needs to be filtered through them to be real.
That I can understand. But it makes me wonder why I don't believe the same. Why it makes me actually happy to know that lots of things exist beyond what I know. Maybe it's because I like to think that the world is huge, and that there are so many things to learn and discover. And even if I am a small cog in the vast space of the universe, it's a good thing because there are all these ways that the universe can surprise us. Maybe it's because I read so many stories as a kid and so my imagination and world-view expanded.
Or maybe, it's just because I'd like to believe that anything is possible.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Lifelong Solitary Confinement vs The Death Penalty
A few weeks ago I read an article on Yahoo! saying that ending the death penalty could save millions of dollars:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091020/ts_alt_afp/usexecutionjustice.
Being a lifelong pro-death-penalty advocate myself, I found the article enlightening. And it served to convince me that maybe the death penalty isn't the best use of our tax dollars after all.
I think, like most people, that my support for the death penalty lay in the notion of equal justice ie. "an eye for an eye." If you kill someone heinously, and intentionally, you don't deserve to live. You should die. And if you could die in the same way you killed your victim(s), even better. That would be ideal. But the thing is, that doesn't happen.
Ideally, evil people deserve to die so that they can never hurt anyone again. But who is truly evil? There are always extenuating circumstances - like abusive parents, a lack of education, mental disease - that lead some people to be more likely to kill. And then, justice is rarely applied with equal force. If you're poor or black, you're more likely to be sentenced to death than if you're white or rich.
My friend, when I told her about the high cost of execution, argued that it was worth it because it deters people from committing murder. But I countered that it really doesn't. Because as I said, if I was thinking of murdering someone, I wouldn't consider that I would get caught. Because if I considered I would get caught, I wouldn't do it. Plain and simple. Regardless of the penalty. The other thing is that, the death penalty is used so rarely (how many executions do you remember in your state?), that it becomes ineffective. I read a study that in order for it to be truly effective, we would have to put people to death for the smallest of crimes - like stealing a loaf of bread. And every time. No leniency. Then, and only then, would it be an effective deterrent because people would be afraid of doing anything wrong. But as it is now, you always have extenuating circumstances, and if you get a good lawyer and a sympathetic jury, chances are good you'll avoid a death sentence.
My friend then suggested that we limit the number of appeals that death row convicts can make. A point others have made. Indeed, the appeals are the reason why applying the death penalty costs so much. But as it said in the above mentioned article, that would raise the chance that we would put an innocent person to death, and we can't do that. There have been a number of death row cases cleared because of DNA evidence. Imagine if we had put those innocent people to death. Imagine how many innocent people have died for other people's crimes.
So, in my mind, I have begun turning in a way I never thought I would before - against the death penalty. Maybe it's the sign of the times that I think money matters more than putting someone to death. When we are facing so many budget crises, does it make sense to put so much money towards people who already hurt our society in one way? Isn't that them hurting us twice - if they're truly guilty - by committing the crime and then making us pay for them to pay for it? That money could go towards much better use - to medical research, to aid children and families, to educate people - why should we use it on someone who isn't deserving of it?
And that was when I thought that lifelong solitary confinement might be a better punishment. My friends decried the idea when I told them, saying we don't have enough space or money for everyone to be in solitary confinement. But I brought up the fact that the death penalty costs millions, more than an extra cell would. And then my other friend argued that it wouldn't solve the problem of money because if people were sentenced to lifelong solitary they would keep appealing their sentences much like death row inmates. But I countered that if they were indeed sentenced to solitary, they couldn't appeal their sentences nearly as much. The reason death row inmates get so many appeals is because the state doesn't want to put someone innocent to death. But they wouldn't have to worry about that if the person were to remain alive. Imagine if every convict kept appealing their sentences, I said. It would drown the judicial system. But since they're not going to be put to death - a thing that cannot be undone - there's no reason for them to keep appealing.
The idea that a truly rotten criminal would not be able to have any sort of human contact, any sort of life at all, and that they would wake up each day to nothingness until their inevitable end makes me ok with it as a replacement for the death sentence. And if they are innocent, they would still live to be exonerated one day, and their time alone hopefully would have served some benefit to them (like Captain Coffee in my post: The Need for Meditation & Self-Reflection).
Since my idea is in the minority, and my idea, it probably will not come to pass any time soon. I am not against some sort of capital punishment, but if it costs us too much, I am up for replacing it with a better alternative. After all, if we abolished the death penalty and had more money to spend on freeways, therefore lightening your commute to work - wouldn't that be a better benefit to society?
In the end I think we really need to evaluate the price we pay to make others pay.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091020/ts_alt_afp/usexecutionjustice.
Being a lifelong pro-death-penalty advocate myself, I found the article enlightening. And it served to convince me that maybe the death penalty isn't the best use of our tax dollars after all.
I think, like most people, that my support for the death penalty lay in the notion of equal justice ie. "an eye for an eye." If you kill someone heinously, and intentionally, you don't deserve to live. You should die. And if you could die in the same way you killed your victim(s), even better. That would be ideal. But the thing is, that doesn't happen.
Ideally, evil people deserve to die so that they can never hurt anyone again. But who is truly evil? There are always extenuating circumstances - like abusive parents, a lack of education, mental disease - that lead some people to be more likely to kill. And then, justice is rarely applied with equal force. If you're poor or black, you're more likely to be sentenced to death than if you're white or rich.
My friend, when I told her about the high cost of execution, argued that it was worth it because it deters people from committing murder. But I countered that it really doesn't. Because as I said, if I was thinking of murdering someone, I wouldn't consider that I would get caught. Because if I considered I would get caught, I wouldn't do it. Plain and simple. Regardless of the penalty. The other thing is that, the death penalty is used so rarely (how many executions do you remember in your state?), that it becomes ineffective. I read a study that in order for it to be truly effective, we would have to put people to death for the smallest of crimes - like stealing a loaf of bread. And every time. No leniency. Then, and only then, would it be an effective deterrent because people would be afraid of doing anything wrong. But as it is now, you always have extenuating circumstances, and if you get a good lawyer and a sympathetic jury, chances are good you'll avoid a death sentence.
My friend then suggested that we limit the number of appeals that death row convicts can make. A point others have made. Indeed, the appeals are the reason why applying the death penalty costs so much. But as it said in the above mentioned article, that would raise the chance that we would put an innocent person to death, and we can't do that. There have been a number of death row cases cleared because of DNA evidence. Imagine if we had put those innocent people to death. Imagine how many innocent people have died for other people's crimes.
So, in my mind, I have begun turning in a way I never thought I would before - against the death penalty. Maybe it's the sign of the times that I think money matters more than putting someone to death. When we are facing so many budget crises, does it make sense to put so much money towards people who already hurt our society in one way? Isn't that them hurting us twice - if they're truly guilty - by committing the crime and then making us pay for them to pay for it? That money could go towards much better use - to medical research, to aid children and families, to educate people - why should we use it on someone who isn't deserving of it?
And that was when I thought that lifelong solitary confinement might be a better punishment. My friends decried the idea when I told them, saying we don't have enough space or money for everyone to be in solitary confinement. But I brought up the fact that the death penalty costs millions, more than an extra cell would. And then my other friend argued that it wouldn't solve the problem of money because if people were sentenced to lifelong solitary they would keep appealing their sentences much like death row inmates. But I countered that if they were indeed sentenced to solitary, they couldn't appeal their sentences nearly as much. The reason death row inmates get so many appeals is because the state doesn't want to put someone innocent to death. But they wouldn't have to worry about that if the person were to remain alive. Imagine if every convict kept appealing their sentences, I said. It would drown the judicial system. But since they're not going to be put to death - a thing that cannot be undone - there's no reason for them to keep appealing.
The idea that a truly rotten criminal would not be able to have any sort of human contact, any sort of life at all, and that they would wake up each day to nothingness until their inevitable end makes me ok with it as a replacement for the death sentence. And if they are innocent, they would still live to be exonerated one day, and their time alone hopefully would have served some benefit to them (like Captain Coffee in my post: The Need for Meditation & Self-Reflection).
Since my idea is in the minority, and my idea, it probably will not come to pass any time soon. I am not against some sort of capital punishment, but if it costs us too much, I am up for replacing it with a better alternative. After all, if we abolished the death penalty and had more money to spend on freeways, therefore lightening your commute to work - wouldn't that be a better benefit to society?
In the end I think we really need to evaluate the price we pay to make others pay.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Carrie Prejean - Drama Queen
It pains me to write about Carrie Prejean, the Drama Queen, and extend her 15 minutes of fame. But she is in the news, and as ignorant and narcissistic as she is, she's also entertaining.
On one hand, I understand where she is coming from because I, myself, was not for gay marriage at one point. The concept didn't even come up until I went to college. And then, most of my friends and people I knew were for it, but I couldn't reconcile the idea in my head. Like most people, I had grown up with the idea that the term "marriage" was for a man and woman. Let the gay people have all the rights they wanted, but the term "marriage" could not be theirs. It just wasn't right. That's what I thought and no one tried to convince me otherwise. After a time, however, for whatever reason -- becoming more open to new ideas, I guess -- I became ok with gay marriage, even thinking it was a good idea. The idea takes some getting used to but once you get used to it, you're fine with it. I think that's what gay marriage advocates need to realize. What they need to do is to get people used to the idea first, and then, and only then, will people be ok with allowing a law for it. If you try to force people, they'll resist and fight harder and more passionately just to resist you. They'll label you as "wrong" and any fight with them will be an uphill battle.
Going back to Carrie Prejean -- her problem is that she's not a good role model. She has no credibility. If she had just said her piece at the pageant, lost, and let it go saying that she believed in "opposite sex marriage" and that's why she said what she said, things would have blown over. But she had to go out and rile gay marriage advocates by giving speeches in favor of traditional marriage. So then everyone against her dug up all this dirt on her - and there was a lot of dirt to be had - and it turned out what with the boob job, semi-nude photos, and sex tape that Carrie was not as it were a good role model. To be able to preach morality effectively, one has got to be oneself above reproach. And she definitely is not.
The other problem with her is that she's a hypocrite; just as Meredith Vieira pointed out on GMA. She says one thing and does another. She says in her book that one shouldn't try to get attention by showing skin, but she shows her breasts in photos and she sends her boyfriend a sex tape of herself. It is apparent that she thinks that whatever she does is good, but that anyone else who does the same thing is not. I think the most telling evidence of her mindset is her reaction when the lawyers for the California pageant showed her the sex tape of herself. When she first saw it, she said, "That's disgusting," until the camera panned to show her face, and she realized it was her. Like I said, in her eyes, if someone else does it they're disgusting. But when she does it, she has a good reason. That's another problem with trying to be holier-than-thou; it's too easy to prove you're not.
In her interview with Larry King, you can see how immature she is when she refuses to speak when Larry asks her a question she doesn't like, and then refuses to respond at all for a few minutes on live television. Can you say 'Drama Queen'? And then she tells Meredith Vieira that people are trying to silence her, and whatever happened to free speech? She should be able to speak her mind. And in the same sentence, she whines that people are calling her all these terrible names and it isn't right. Well, you should know something, lady: Calling you terrible names is also a facet of free speech. You say something they don't like; they say something you don't like -- that's the nature of free speech.
In any case, it seems that some of those organizations that used to solicit her presence are now abandoning her. It's a good move considering girls with sex tapes generally lose their respectability and ability to preach moral values.
On one hand, I understand where she is coming from because I, myself, was not for gay marriage at one point. The concept didn't even come up until I went to college. And then, most of my friends and people I knew were for it, but I couldn't reconcile the idea in my head. Like most people, I had grown up with the idea that the term "marriage" was for a man and woman. Let the gay people have all the rights they wanted, but the term "marriage" could not be theirs. It just wasn't right. That's what I thought and no one tried to convince me otherwise. After a time, however, for whatever reason -- becoming more open to new ideas, I guess -- I became ok with gay marriage, even thinking it was a good idea. The idea takes some getting used to but once you get used to it, you're fine with it. I think that's what gay marriage advocates need to realize. What they need to do is to get people used to the idea first, and then, and only then, will people be ok with allowing a law for it. If you try to force people, they'll resist and fight harder and more passionately just to resist you. They'll label you as "wrong" and any fight with them will be an uphill battle.
Going back to Carrie Prejean -- her problem is that she's not a good role model. She has no credibility. If she had just said her piece at the pageant, lost, and let it go saying that she believed in "opposite sex marriage" and that's why she said what she said, things would have blown over. But she had to go out and rile gay marriage advocates by giving speeches in favor of traditional marriage. So then everyone against her dug up all this dirt on her - and there was a lot of dirt to be had - and it turned out what with the boob job, semi-nude photos, and sex tape that Carrie was not as it were a good role model. To be able to preach morality effectively, one has got to be oneself above reproach. And she definitely is not.
The other problem with her is that she's a hypocrite; just as Meredith Vieira pointed out on GMA. She says one thing and does another. She says in her book that one shouldn't try to get attention by showing skin, but she shows her breasts in photos and she sends her boyfriend a sex tape of herself. It is apparent that she thinks that whatever she does is good, but that anyone else who does the same thing is not. I think the most telling evidence of her mindset is her reaction when the lawyers for the California pageant showed her the sex tape of herself. When she first saw it, she said, "That's disgusting," until the camera panned to show her face, and she realized it was her. Like I said, in her eyes, if someone else does it they're disgusting. But when she does it, she has a good reason. That's another problem with trying to be holier-than-thou; it's too easy to prove you're not.
In her interview with Larry King, you can see how immature she is when she refuses to speak when Larry asks her a question she doesn't like, and then refuses to respond at all for a few minutes on live television. Can you say 'Drama Queen'? And then she tells Meredith Vieira that people are trying to silence her, and whatever happened to free speech? She should be able to speak her mind. And in the same sentence, she whines that people are calling her all these terrible names and it isn't right. Well, you should know something, lady: Calling you terrible names is also a facet of free speech. You say something they don't like; they say something you don't like -- that's the nature of free speech.
In any case, it seems that some of those organizations that used to solicit her presence are now abandoning her. It's a good move considering girls with sex tapes generally lose their respectability and ability to preach moral values.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
The Need for a Life Skills Class
(This post coincides with my recent posts on meditation and suicide.)
Each time I hear about some tragic shooting caused by fear and despair it reiterates in my head how much we all would be helped if there was a Life Skills Class provided in schools to teach everyone how to deal with life's challenges.
At the very least, all elementary schools should teach a class on bullying and what to do if you are being bullied, and how to handle it. The younger kids are taught this the better. They need to know that when they are bullied, it doesn't mean they are weak or that there is something wrong with them. They need to know that the fault lies with the bully and not with them, and that they are not alone. Millions of kids are bullied everywhere around the world. But the bullying does not have to ruin their life. They need to know that they can turn to someone for help, that their teachers and guidance counselors and other school staff will be there for them, support them, and take them seriously if they say someone is bullying them. They need to know that it's how they react to adversity that gives them character. It's when they are not taught this, when they are left to believe that the whole world is against them instead of for them, that they may react violently because they don't know any better and at the same time, they feel they have nothing to lose.
Because older students need support too, past elementary school I think it should be mandatory that all teachers discuss bullying with their students during the beginning of the school year, and also recommend a book that would help them deal with it. It would take just 15 minutes, but that would be enough. Sometimes all you need is to be reminded you're not alone, and you're not the only one feeling crummy. At least you would think that the world was not so cold, and that people care about each other.
In these classes or discussions, bullies could also be taught how to better handle themselves, how the issues they have do not have to manifest themselves out into teasing or debasing someone just so that they can feel better about themselves. They should also know that there is someone to talk to about their issues - even if it's a crisis helpline - and a book recommended that can help them deal better. Books change lives. The wisdom of the ages are in books. And everyone should know that when a person feels really good about themselves, when they really love themselves, they show that love to others; and it is only the person that has hatred towards themselves that projects it onto others.
Granted, bullying is not the only problem in life and there are other challenges that people face that they may not know how to resolve. That's where the Life Skills Class comes to play. The Life Skills Class would teach them how to resolve conflict, and ways to deal with life's challenges. They could be taught how to deal with arguments and with disappointments in a productive way via examples from history and successful people who overcame great obstacles to achieve their goals. If this was an extra class, like music or art, just once a week in elementary school, it would make a big difference. If you teach people that they can find better solutions, they'll find better solutions.
Lastly, if the bank meltdown of 2008 has taught us anything it's that Americans don't know how to handle their money, so why not teach them? Why not have a high school class devoted to teaching teenagers how to handle their money wisely and save for their future so that they will become fiscally responsible adults when they start working? They teach us calculus, which most of us never use, but they don't teach us how to handle an everyday aspect of our lives like money?
I remember talking with my coworker who made a lot more money than me but spent it all each month on things like designer purses and clothes and then had barely enough savings to pay for unforeseen expenses like dental work and car trouble. She would have to borrow money from her brother to pay for stuff. Meanwhile, she continued to eat out every meal and go partying during the weekends. This was a capable girl, who, like a lot of Americans, cared too much about what everyone else thought and wanted to keep up with the Joneses. Thus, she overspent and lived paycheck to paycheck. When I think about her and people like her, it makes me more adamant in the idea that a class on fiscal responsibility would have helped her, could still help her now.
Of course that is not to say that a class would help everybody, could help everybody. Because there are people who can't be helped and people who don't know how to help. But I think it if it helps one person, one person that could hurt a lot of other innocent people, it would be worth it.
In the end, it's the way people are taught - or not taught - to react to life's challenges that decides whether they find productive or destructive ways to channel their frustrations. It's all about education. If they learn better, they can do better.
Each time I hear about some tragic shooting caused by fear and despair it reiterates in my head how much we all would be helped if there was a Life Skills Class provided in schools to teach everyone how to deal with life's challenges.
At the very least, all elementary schools should teach a class on bullying and what to do if you are being bullied, and how to handle it. The younger kids are taught this the better. They need to know that when they are bullied, it doesn't mean they are weak or that there is something wrong with them. They need to know that the fault lies with the bully and not with them, and that they are not alone. Millions of kids are bullied everywhere around the world. But the bullying does not have to ruin their life. They need to know that they can turn to someone for help, that their teachers and guidance counselors and other school staff will be there for them, support them, and take them seriously if they say someone is bullying them. They need to know that it's how they react to adversity that gives them character. It's when they are not taught this, when they are left to believe that the whole world is against them instead of for them, that they may react violently because they don't know any better and at the same time, they feel they have nothing to lose.
Because older students need support too, past elementary school I think it should be mandatory that all teachers discuss bullying with their students during the beginning of the school year, and also recommend a book that would help them deal with it. It would take just 15 minutes, but that would be enough. Sometimes all you need is to be reminded you're not alone, and you're not the only one feeling crummy. At least you would think that the world was not so cold, and that people care about each other.
In these classes or discussions, bullies could also be taught how to better handle themselves, how the issues they have do not have to manifest themselves out into teasing or debasing someone just so that they can feel better about themselves. They should also know that there is someone to talk to about their issues - even if it's a crisis helpline - and a book recommended that can help them deal better. Books change lives. The wisdom of the ages are in books. And everyone should know that when a person feels really good about themselves, when they really love themselves, they show that love to others; and it is only the person that has hatred towards themselves that projects it onto others.
Granted, bullying is not the only problem in life and there are other challenges that people face that they may not know how to resolve. That's where the Life Skills Class comes to play. The Life Skills Class would teach them how to resolve conflict, and ways to deal with life's challenges. They could be taught how to deal with arguments and with disappointments in a productive way via examples from history and successful people who overcame great obstacles to achieve their goals. If this was an extra class, like music or art, just once a week in elementary school, it would make a big difference. If you teach people that they can find better solutions, they'll find better solutions.
Lastly, if the bank meltdown of 2008 has taught us anything it's that Americans don't know how to handle their money, so why not teach them? Why not have a high school class devoted to teaching teenagers how to handle their money wisely and save for their future so that they will become fiscally responsible adults when they start working? They teach us calculus, which most of us never use, but they don't teach us how to handle an everyday aspect of our lives like money?
I remember talking with my coworker who made a lot more money than me but spent it all each month on things like designer purses and clothes and then had barely enough savings to pay for unforeseen expenses like dental work and car trouble. She would have to borrow money from her brother to pay for stuff. Meanwhile, she continued to eat out every meal and go partying during the weekends. This was a capable girl, who, like a lot of Americans, cared too much about what everyone else thought and wanted to keep up with the Joneses. Thus, she overspent and lived paycheck to paycheck. When I think about her and people like her, it makes me more adamant in the idea that a class on fiscal responsibility would have helped her, could still help her now.
Of course that is not to say that a class would help everybody, could help everybody. Because there are people who can't be helped and people who don't know how to help. But I think it if it helps one person, one person that could hurt a lot of other innocent people, it would be worth it.
In the end, it's the way people are taught - or not taught - to react to life's challenges that decides whether they find productive or destructive ways to channel their frustrations. It's all about education. If they learn better, they can do better.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
The Need for Meditation & Self-Reflection
Each time I read a news story about a massacre, I keep thinking, "If only they had meditated. If only they had gone deeper inside themselves. Things might be different." I know it sounds like such a silly, small thing to prevent such huge tragedies, but sometimes - actually, most of the times - in life, it's the small things that matter most.
My own experience with meditation changed me entirely and my perspective on the world.
Some Background: The first time I tried meditating, it wasn't a great experience. I was reading a book and it suggested doing it for 15 minutes a day. The technique it suggested for doing it was the standard -- find a dark place, relax each part of your body, be conscious of your breathing. It didn't work for me for two reasons. One, I didn't have my own room then and so whenever anyone would walk in, I would imagine what they thought of me sitting there with my eyes closed and I wouldn't be able to relax. And two, I could never get to that "deep place" they talk about in the span of 15 minutes. After a few tries, I gave it up.
Years later, after a number of books, even writing books, recommended it, I felt compelled to try meditation again. The kicker was Jack Canfield's The Success Principles. Canfield, of Chicken Soup for the Soul fame, told two inspiring stories that led me to consider giving meditation another shot. The first was about a man named Jerry Coffee, a Captain and pilot in the Vietnam War. Captain Coffee spent seven years in solitary confinement as a POW, but when he first entered his cell, instead of thinking that this would be the end of him, he decided to find the positive in his situation and to use it to his advantage to learn more about himself and God. In that time, he spent many hours each day meditating and reviewing his past experiences in order to find a way to make himself a better person. Over time, he came to fully know and accept himself. After his release, he became a motivational speaker, and Canfield notes that he is the most loving, peaceful man he has ever met, because of that time he had alone in his cell. Though he wouldn't have done it again, Captain Coffee said that he wouldn't have traded his experience for anything, because it made him who he was.
Though it was Captain Coffee's story which touched and inspired me to believe significant change was possible with meditation, it was Canfield's experience with a meditation retreat that gave me the added push and structure for which to carry it out. For an entire week, seven days, during this retreat, they meditated from 6am to 10pm at night, taking breaks only for meals and for quiet walks. Canfield recalls how the first few days he questioned what he was doing when all his friends were out having fun and he was there doing nothing. He would fall asleep sometimes. It wasn't until the fourth day, he said, that he had a remarkable breakthrough which brought him peace, and wisdom, and insight. It changed his life forever.
After reading Canfield's account, I decided to go on my own meditation retreat. But instead of paying money and going elsewhere, I decided to do it at home, on my own. I had some time, so I set aside a whole week where I would meditate and ignore the rest of the world ie. tv, internet, phone. From yoga, I learned to relax my body and that I relaxed better lying down. I must say, spending that week in meditation was one of the hardest things I've ever done. Time went by so slowly, it dragged like a turtle walking in mud. Nevertheless, I pretty soon got used to the routine and even liked it, especially because whenever I got up from meditating I appreciated my time awake so much more. I also ate healthier and since I couldn't go out for food, I made do with whatever I had, finding creative solutions like crushing overripe bananas into a milkshake with strawberries. I fixed my meals creatively, something I had never really done before.
The meditation itself was going slow. By the fourth day, I still hadn't had a breakthrough like Canfield, but I pushed on, and by the fifth day, it came. I had this realization - I guess, is the best word for it - and I started seeing my entire life through that realization. Pretty soon, what had seemed like endless time to me seemed like flitting time as I tried to apply my realization to my life, and then it seemed there wasn't enough time to do it before my week was up. But I managed to complete it in that time; and it changed me. It changed me dramatically. It was the breakthrough I had been wanting my whole life and it came then at that moment, and it was beautiful. I am just not the same person I was before I took that week. I am the same, but something inside me turned. My good friend, who I have known for years, said that she noticed the change in me, that I wasn't the same person. The best way to describe it is to say that I have much more peace inside than I ever knew before, and I feel how nice it is to have it.
That is why I believe that this small, simple thing called meditation can have such grand, magical effects.
I was telling my friend how it's ironic that such an egotistical thing as spending a whole week inside yourself has the effect of making you less egotistical outside and with everyone else. I think every single person would benefit from having that time to know themselves. Every time someone commits a violent act like mass murder or murder suicide, I think that perhaps if they could have gone inside themselves, if they could have realized that it wasn't as bad as they thought, they could have invoked the power of their mind to find another way. I think that if meditation were mandatory or championed by the government in schools, people would learn to deal with their problems better. They'd find better solutions to their challenges. The world would be a more peaceful place. But I also know that any sort of mandatory meditation would be frowned upon by the far right who would accuse us of trying to brainwash their kids to be liberals, or see it as a huge waste of time and money. (Funny, because I think the far right needs to meditate the most, being as they are the most self-centered.)
The thing is, as Canfield says, people believe too much what they think in their heads. It's usually not as bad as they think it is, or wouldn't homeless, starving people commit more violent crimes? It's not true, all the terrible things you imagine. And yet, because it occurs in your head, where you decipher reality from fiction, it's hard for people to tell the difference sometimes. That's why it's so important to see your thoughts in a non-judgmental way, to see them just as thoughts, and not as some sort of ultimate, be-all, end-all truth.
Meditation helps you to do that.
My own experience with meditation changed me entirely and my perspective on the world.
Some Background: The first time I tried meditating, it wasn't a great experience. I was reading a book and it suggested doing it for 15 minutes a day. The technique it suggested for doing it was the standard -- find a dark place, relax each part of your body, be conscious of your breathing. It didn't work for me for two reasons. One, I didn't have my own room then and so whenever anyone would walk in, I would imagine what they thought of me sitting there with my eyes closed and I wouldn't be able to relax. And two, I could never get to that "deep place" they talk about in the span of 15 minutes. After a few tries, I gave it up.
Years later, after a number of books, even writing books, recommended it, I felt compelled to try meditation again. The kicker was Jack Canfield's The Success Principles. Canfield, of Chicken Soup for the Soul fame, told two inspiring stories that led me to consider giving meditation another shot. The first was about a man named Jerry Coffee, a Captain and pilot in the Vietnam War. Captain Coffee spent seven years in solitary confinement as a POW, but when he first entered his cell, instead of thinking that this would be the end of him, he decided to find the positive in his situation and to use it to his advantage to learn more about himself and God. In that time, he spent many hours each day meditating and reviewing his past experiences in order to find a way to make himself a better person. Over time, he came to fully know and accept himself. After his release, he became a motivational speaker, and Canfield notes that he is the most loving, peaceful man he has ever met, because of that time he had alone in his cell. Though he wouldn't have done it again, Captain Coffee said that he wouldn't have traded his experience for anything, because it made him who he was.
Though it was Captain Coffee's story which touched and inspired me to believe significant change was possible with meditation, it was Canfield's experience with a meditation retreat that gave me the added push and structure for which to carry it out. For an entire week, seven days, during this retreat, they meditated from 6am to 10pm at night, taking breaks only for meals and for quiet walks. Canfield recalls how the first few days he questioned what he was doing when all his friends were out having fun and he was there doing nothing. He would fall asleep sometimes. It wasn't until the fourth day, he said, that he had a remarkable breakthrough which brought him peace, and wisdom, and insight. It changed his life forever.
After reading Canfield's account, I decided to go on my own meditation retreat. But instead of paying money and going elsewhere, I decided to do it at home, on my own. I had some time, so I set aside a whole week where I would meditate and ignore the rest of the world ie. tv, internet, phone. From yoga, I learned to relax my body and that I relaxed better lying down. I must say, spending that week in meditation was one of the hardest things I've ever done. Time went by so slowly, it dragged like a turtle walking in mud. Nevertheless, I pretty soon got used to the routine and even liked it, especially because whenever I got up from meditating I appreciated my time awake so much more. I also ate healthier and since I couldn't go out for food, I made do with whatever I had, finding creative solutions like crushing overripe bananas into a milkshake with strawberries. I fixed my meals creatively, something I had never really done before.
The meditation itself was going slow. By the fourth day, I still hadn't had a breakthrough like Canfield, but I pushed on, and by the fifth day, it came. I had this realization - I guess, is the best word for it - and I started seeing my entire life through that realization. Pretty soon, what had seemed like endless time to me seemed like flitting time as I tried to apply my realization to my life, and then it seemed there wasn't enough time to do it before my week was up. But I managed to complete it in that time; and it changed me. It changed me dramatically. It was the breakthrough I had been wanting my whole life and it came then at that moment, and it was beautiful. I am just not the same person I was before I took that week. I am the same, but something inside me turned. My good friend, who I have known for years, said that she noticed the change in me, that I wasn't the same person. The best way to describe it is to say that I have much more peace inside than I ever knew before, and I feel how nice it is to have it.
That is why I believe that this small, simple thing called meditation can have such grand, magical effects.
I was telling my friend how it's ironic that such an egotistical thing as spending a whole week inside yourself has the effect of making you less egotistical outside and with everyone else. I think every single person would benefit from having that time to know themselves. Every time someone commits a violent act like mass murder or murder suicide, I think that perhaps if they could have gone inside themselves, if they could have realized that it wasn't as bad as they thought, they could have invoked the power of their mind to find another way. I think that if meditation were mandatory or championed by the government in schools, people would learn to deal with their problems better. They'd find better solutions to their challenges. The world would be a more peaceful place. But I also know that any sort of mandatory meditation would be frowned upon by the far right who would accuse us of trying to brainwash their kids to be liberals, or see it as a huge waste of time and money. (Funny, because I think the far right needs to meditate the most, being as they are the most self-centered.)
The thing is, as Canfield says, people believe too much what they think in their heads. It's usually not as bad as they think it is, or wouldn't homeless, starving people commit more violent crimes? It's not true, all the terrible things you imagine. And yet, because it occurs in your head, where you decipher reality from fiction, it's hard for people to tell the difference sometimes. That's why it's so important to see your thoughts in a non-judgmental way, to see them just as thoughts, and not as some sort of ultimate, be-all, end-all truth.
Meditation helps you to do that.
Monday, November 9, 2009
In Praise of Anh "Joseph" Cao
Apparently, people were buzzing about this Vietnamese-American Republican Representative from Louisiana, and that's how I went on to read about him. I didn't think much about him when I saw that he was the lone Republican to cast his vote for health care reform, but other people were obviously much more curious as to what sort of person would dare defy the Republican Party. Funny enough, as soon as I started searching for more about him, a Politico article from Yahoo! popped up to satiate my curiosity.
By all accounts, he seems to be an enthusiastic, hard-working, intelligent man who cast the vote for the people of his district, which is majority Democratic. Republicans probably hate him now, but he's a hero to Democrats for making their health care bill "bipartisan". Instead of just saying "no" to oppose the Democrats as the rest of the Republicans did -- the moniker "Party of No" might just be apt after all -- he found a reason to say "yes". He got the concession that the new health care reform would not expand abortion coverage. He didn't compromise his principles but got them heard and carried out.
For taking the road less traveled and helping pass health care reform, I praise him.
By all accounts, he seems to be an enthusiastic, hard-working, intelligent man who cast the vote for the people of his district, which is majority Democratic. Republicans probably hate him now, but he's a hero to Democrats for making their health care bill "bipartisan". Instead of just saying "no" to oppose the Democrats as the rest of the Republicans did -- the moniker "Party of No" might just be apt after all -- he found a reason to say "yes". He got the concession that the new health care reform would not expand abortion coverage. He didn't compromise his principles but got them heard and carried out.
For taking the road less traveled and helping pass health care reform, I praise him.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Nancy Pelosi Brokers Passage of Health Care Reform Bill
Well I've just been schooled. I opened up my Yahoo! homepage to read an article that it was Nancy Pelosi's tireless hard work and leadership that helped pass the health care reform bill in the House. And here I was giving most of the credit to Obama.
Live and learn. I don't know much about the Speaker of the House, but having read just that article about her and how hard she worked and compromised and won over her former rivals makes me think she is to be admired. It makes me especially proud to think that she, a woman, managed to do what many men before her had failed to do - pass health care legislation. And she works with mostly men too, which can't be easy.
So here it is. Nancy Pelosi deserves the credit, and I give it to her.
Live and learn. I don't know much about the Speaker of the House, but having read just that article about her and how hard she worked and compromised and won over her former rivals makes me think she is to be admired. It makes me especially proud to think that she, a woman, managed to do what many men before her had failed to do - pass health care legislation. And she works with mostly men too, which can't be easy.
So here it is. Nancy Pelosi deserves the credit, and I give it to her.
Health Care Reform Comes One Step Closer
In a close vote, the House of Representatives passed a landmark health care bill, bringing the United States one step closer to health care reform and coverage for a majority of Americans:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33748707/ns/politics-health_care_reform
It didn't seem possible just this summer with all those volatile town hall meetings and people decrying any sort of reform. But wait a few months later and something that naysayers never thought would happen is in fact happening: People are starting to accept the idea of reform.
I, at least, give much of the credit to Barack Obama. Much credit goes to the man who didn't break, who didn't flinch, who didn't argue when it seemed that the whole country opposed his efforts. Instead of attacking his critics and telling everyone it was "his way or the highway," Obama responded by going in front of the American people and telling us what health care reform was all about, why we so desperately needed it, and most of all, he showed us that the reason he wanted it was because he cared about us as people and he was willing to compromise in order to bring it to us. He persisted, patiently, perhaps knowing that people need time to accept change. And that's exactly what happened. After a few months, the violence of the town hall meetings subsided, more people came over to accept the controversial public option, and health care reform - about 60 years in the making - is one step closer to happening. He did it.
I love Obama because he is a prime example of how believing in something (even something it seems that everyone else deems near impossible to accomplish - hello Mr. President!) and working toward that goal diligently, patiently, and persistently brings you to the satisfying culmination of attaining it! All the principles of my success books come true in Obama and it is a treat to see. It is a treat to see whenever anyone makes you believe it's possible!
Earlier Saturday (before the bill passed), I was telling my friend how it's so annoying how people, SNL for example, and even John Stewart, were turning on Obama and ridiculing him for not accomplishing anything yet. I was telling her it was because of Americans' need to have results right away; immediately; NOW!; because everything in our culture has become so quick, we don't know patience anymore. But that's not how progress happens. And I was telling my friend how annoying it is that they were decrying Obama taking on so many projects at once, and not accomplishing anything. Jon Stewart derided him for this, saying, like other critics, that Obama should have taken on fewer projects and accomplished one of them. My take on it was that he took on so many things at once not so that he could fix them all right away, but so that they could get started working on the solutions right away. Figuring the solutions would take time but if you start on it early (like my teachers used to tell me), it's more likely to come to you. I could imagine Obama's smart enough to think like that. It disheartens me that others seemingly don't.
It's so funny (in the strange, sad sense) how people can turn on you so instantly. They start seeing everything wrong with you when they used to love you. My friend said that she believes in having a healthy dose of skepticism because "you know what they say about absolute power." Yes, absolute power corrupts absolutely. I'm not saying that it would be a good thing if everyone was so totally in love with Obama they couldn't see his faults or point them out. And maybe it's a good thing that people oppose him because it keeps him in check so his head doesn't get to be too big and he thinks he can do anything he wants. The challenge might even serve to strengthen his resolve. What gets to me is that people are so quick to write him off. And it's especially harsh because it is the people that were on his side. But then I have to consider that maybe they just needed something to make fun of him for because there's so little, and attacking him gives them better ratings. But whatever the reason, it worries me that some people will take SNL seriously and start believing that caricature of him that hasn't accomplished anything instead of seeing the real situation and person.
I guess he'll just have to prove them wrong.
I was telling my friend how when people started turning on Obama, it made me think of this part in Harry Potter that I hadn't bought into before. It was the part in one of the later books when Harry starts telling everyone that Voldemort is alive. No one wants to believe him. They actually turn against him for saying it even though he was their hero. He was the "boy who lived," the one who had vanquished "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named." But none of that mattered. As soon as he said something they didn't like, something they feared, they turned on him. Reading that part, it didn't ring true to me. But now that I see how the world and people can be, I see how perceptive J.K. Rowling really is about them.
This has been my long and windy way of saying, "Have a little faith in people." Progress comes if you believe.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33748707/ns/politics-health_care_reform
It didn't seem possible just this summer with all those volatile town hall meetings and people decrying any sort of reform. But wait a few months later and something that naysayers never thought would happen is in fact happening: People are starting to accept the idea of reform.
I, at least, give much of the credit to Barack Obama. Much credit goes to the man who didn't break, who didn't flinch, who didn't argue when it seemed that the whole country opposed his efforts. Instead of attacking his critics and telling everyone it was "his way or the highway," Obama responded by going in front of the American people and telling us what health care reform was all about, why we so desperately needed it, and most of all, he showed us that the reason he wanted it was because he cared about us as people and he was willing to compromise in order to bring it to us. He persisted, patiently, perhaps knowing that people need time to accept change. And that's exactly what happened. After a few months, the violence of the town hall meetings subsided, more people came over to accept the controversial public option, and health care reform - about 60 years in the making - is one step closer to happening. He did it.
I love Obama because he is a prime example of how believing in something (even something it seems that everyone else deems near impossible to accomplish - hello Mr. President!) and working toward that goal diligently, patiently, and persistently brings you to the satisfying culmination of attaining it! All the principles of my success books come true in Obama and it is a treat to see. It is a treat to see whenever anyone makes you believe it's possible!
Earlier Saturday (before the bill passed), I was telling my friend how it's so annoying how people, SNL for example, and even John Stewart, were turning on Obama and ridiculing him for not accomplishing anything yet. I was telling her it was because of Americans' need to have results right away; immediately; NOW!; because everything in our culture has become so quick, we don't know patience anymore. But that's not how progress happens. And I was telling my friend how annoying it is that they were decrying Obama taking on so many projects at once, and not accomplishing anything. Jon Stewart derided him for this, saying, like other critics, that Obama should have taken on fewer projects and accomplished one of them. My take on it was that he took on so many things at once not so that he could fix them all right away, but so that they could get started working on the solutions right away. Figuring the solutions would take time but if you start on it early (like my teachers used to tell me), it's more likely to come to you. I could imagine Obama's smart enough to think like that. It disheartens me that others seemingly don't.
It's so funny (in the strange, sad sense) how people can turn on you so instantly. They start seeing everything wrong with you when they used to love you. My friend said that she believes in having a healthy dose of skepticism because "you know what they say about absolute power." Yes, absolute power corrupts absolutely. I'm not saying that it would be a good thing if everyone was so totally in love with Obama they couldn't see his faults or point them out. And maybe it's a good thing that people oppose him because it keeps him in check so his head doesn't get to be too big and he thinks he can do anything he wants. The challenge might even serve to strengthen his resolve. What gets to me is that people are so quick to write him off. And it's especially harsh because it is the people that were on his side. But then I have to consider that maybe they just needed something to make fun of him for because there's so little, and attacking him gives them better ratings. But whatever the reason, it worries me that some people will take SNL seriously and start believing that caricature of him that hasn't accomplished anything instead of seeing the real situation and person.
I guess he'll just have to prove them wrong.
I was telling my friend how when people started turning on Obama, it made me think of this part in Harry Potter that I hadn't bought into before. It was the part in one of the later books when Harry starts telling everyone that Voldemort is alive. No one wants to believe him. They actually turn against him for saying it even though he was their hero. He was the "boy who lived," the one who had vanquished "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named." But none of that mattered. As soon as he said something they didn't like, something they feared, they turned on him. Reading that part, it didn't ring true to me. But now that I see how the world and people can be, I see how perceptive J.K. Rowling really is about them.
This has been my long and windy way of saying, "Have a little faith in people." Progress comes if you believe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)