Wikipedia offers a great big list of gay-themed films here.
I find the list useful when searching for something new to watch, although I've begun to prefer shows that retain the same cast of characters. Recommended TV shows are Noah's Arc, Beautiful People, Queer as Folk (British and American version), Little Britain, Little Britain USA, and the first two seasons of Torchwood (the show went south in the third season, R.I.P.) Also worth a try is anything with Kathy Griffin and the Graham Norton Show. Peep Show occasionally works a gay theme into the plot as well, although none of the characters are gay.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Fiscal Conservatism Awakens
When the wars began, the Wall Street Journal rolled over in its sleep. Hundreds of billions of dollars flew away. The final cost we may never know. When Obama tried to pass health care reform, the Wall Street Journal transformed overnight into an advocate of fiscal conservatism. The idea of poor people receiving medical care from the government must be quite alarming to their constituency.
I'm Still Amazed
In 1976, California's sodomy law was repealed. Imagine. It used to be illegal for two males to be together. It was considered a prerogative of law enforcement to interpose itself in the bedroom of two consenting adults.
By the present time, 2009, the electorate has progressed so far as to be willing to debate the idea of enshrining gay marriage into law. I never expected such a possibility to arise. Even though gay marriage has suffered many defeats at the voting booth, the margin of defeat in many cases is not all that bad.
A long road has been traveled in a political and ideological sense. I can remember when newspapers printed lies about us with impunity. I used to wonder how journalists and newspaper editors could be so ignorant after graduating from college. Apparently they were all just afraid to write anything different from what had been written before. Fear of change seems to be universal. Demonstrating that change is not always bad--that's half the battle. I think the visibility of gay people was essential in overcoming prejudices.
It is reassuring to observe so many steps made in the direction of understanding. Society remains concerned with ethics and efficiency. No human lives are considered insignificant. Society expects each member to perform to their maximum potential and shows an interest in integrating each member to the best of his or her abilities. This is a better scenario than gay males growing up assuming that they are already social rejects, candidates for drug addiction, crime, prostitution or suicide. Rather than such unpleasant outcomes, a brighter future is suggested. Most of the gay men I have known have had professional careers and many have had monogamous partners. I would call this a step in the right direction, toward stability and happiness.
For society as a whole, increased overall efficiency is the significance of gay rights. Instead of a certain percentage of individuals growing up thinking that they are worthless or inferior, they can grow up with a better semblance of normality. Such a development serves to turn back the hands of the Doomsday Clock.
By the present time, 2009, the electorate has progressed so far as to be willing to debate the idea of enshrining gay marriage into law. I never expected such a possibility to arise. Even though gay marriage has suffered many defeats at the voting booth, the margin of defeat in many cases is not all that bad.
A long road has been traveled in a political and ideological sense. I can remember when newspapers printed lies about us with impunity. I used to wonder how journalists and newspaper editors could be so ignorant after graduating from college. Apparently they were all just afraid to write anything different from what had been written before. Fear of change seems to be universal. Demonstrating that change is not always bad--that's half the battle. I think the visibility of gay people was essential in overcoming prejudices.
It is reassuring to observe so many steps made in the direction of understanding. Society remains concerned with ethics and efficiency. No human lives are considered insignificant. Society expects each member to perform to their maximum potential and shows an interest in integrating each member to the best of his or her abilities. This is a better scenario than gay males growing up assuming that they are already social rejects, candidates for drug addiction, crime, prostitution or suicide. Rather than such unpleasant outcomes, a brighter future is suggested. Most of the gay men I have known have had professional careers and many have had monogamous partners. I would call this a step in the right direction, toward stability and happiness.
For society as a whole, increased overall efficiency is the significance of gay rights. Instead of a certain percentage of individuals growing up thinking that they are worthless or inferior, they can grow up with a better semblance of normality. Such a development serves to turn back the hands of the Doomsday Clock.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
A Tale of Two Clinics
In my town, there were once two clinics. One was devoted to counseling poor pregnant women in the hopes that they put their offspring up for adoption instead of having an abortion. It is in a nice section of town in a quaint old house and is staffed by three or four counselors.
Another clinic was devoted to distributing medicine and medical advice to people infected with the HIV virus. It was located on a remote stretch of highway in a trailer and served by one nurse.
Guess which one shut down due to lack of funding?
The AIDS clinic was really a life-saver. I know, because I used to drive an AIDS patient to the clinic to pick up his meds. It was ill-funded even while operational. Sometimes the meds were unavailable due to lack of supply. The nurse on staff (there was only one nurse) had no recourse. Many HIV patients go on unscheduled vacations from their medicine due to lack of funding. All the price breaks announced by Big Pharma are only for the benefit of people in Africa, not for Americans.
By the way, the building that once housed the AIDS clinic has been transformed into a headquarters for the local Republican party.
Another clinic was devoted to distributing medicine and medical advice to people infected with the HIV virus. It was located on a remote stretch of highway in a trailer and served by one nurse.
Guess which one shut down due to lack of funding?
The AIDS clinic was really a life-saver. I know, because I used to drive an AIDS patient to the clinic to pick up his meds. It was ill-funded even while operational. Sometimes the meds were unavailable due to lack of supply. The nurse on staff (there was only one nurse) had no recourse. Many HIV patients go on unscheduled vacations from their medicine due to lack of funding. All the price breaks announced by Big Pharma are only for the benefit of people in Africa, not for Americans.
By the way, the building that once housed the AIDS clinic has been transformed into a headquarters for the local Republican party.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
My Favorite Living Celebrity
There is at least one living celebrity that I would like to know, assuming I had a magic wish granted to me by a genii: Ian McKellen, the actor who played Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings. I don't really know much about the Shakespearean actor, other than he is one of the few out gay men in Hollywood and has had a great career. That he played Macbeth implies depth and profundity, which no doubt came in useful during his LOTR gig.
Gandalf is one of my favorite characters of all time. I can't but think of him as a role model for what I would like to become, if I could. The magic helps, naturally, but he is always saying wise things that speak to the heart.
Tolkien was a great writer. I don't know why literary critics put him down, but perhaps it is because they come from an academic environment, where the analytical faculties are favored to the exclusion of all else. They judge literature using left-brain criteria. Such critics miss the point of art. They would be better off as proofreaders. Being a good critic means knowing the human animal--what he is and what he can be. There must be a bias favoring writers that really get it, whether or not their prose conforms in every respect to established conventions. An analyst concerns himself with details, but the details of the parts are inferior to the sum of the whole. Critics need to get off their high horse once in a while. Just because something is wildly popular does not make it bad.
Gandalf is one of my favorite characters of all time. I can't but think of him as a role model for what I would like to become, if I could. The magic helps, naturally, but he is always saying wise things that speak to the heart.
Tolkien was a great writer. I don't know why literary critics put him down, but perhaps it is because they come from an academic environment, where the analytical faculties are favored to the exclusion of all else. They judge literature using left-brain criteria. Such critics miss the point of art. They would be better off as proofreaders. Being a good critic means knowing the human animal--what he is and what he can be. There must be a bias favoring writers that really get it, whether or not their prose conforms in every respect to established conventions. An analyst concerns himself with details, but the details of the parts are inferior to the sum of the whole. Critics need to get off their high horse once in a while. Just because something is wildly popular does not make it bad.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Water on the Moon
This is the best news I've read all year. Scientists have discovered water on the Moon. The Moon is better equipped to support life than it at first appeared.
If we ruin this planet, a handful of us may find a second chance on a smaller satellite orbiting around the Sun. There may be enough water to sustain a small village.
If we ruin this planet, a handful of us may find a second chance on a smaller satellite orbiting around the Sun. There may be enough water to sustain a small village.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Why Blog?
The blog receives few comments, which sometimes concerns me. Does my writing do me any credit? Am I making any sense at all? Such doubts may occur to other bloggers as well. But if a blog only receives ten hits per day, with most of these being click-and-go, then one can't expect much feedback.
Why should someone bother reading an unpublished amateur, when there are best-selling luminaries online, offering their thoughts in many cases for free? I don't know. If the quest for readership were all that mattered, then no one would bother blogging. There are heavy hitters servicing just about every conceivable niche. When I visit Border's, I'm overwhelmed by the many different books and writers that I've never even heard of before. I haven't enough remaining time in my life to read all the books, even if the inventory never changed. This is the golden age of literature. Books are plentiful, cheap, well-constructed, proofread until nearly perfect, and can even be ordered online without ever leaving one's home.
I view my blog as a public journal for recording my thoughts, ideas and opinions. It is safer than a word processor, because if my computer ever dies, the articles remain secure in the cloud. In my day, I have seen many a hard drive crash and be irrecoverable. Besides, my thoughts may be useful or at least amusing to others. Who am I to assume otherwise? In the case of a certain cult classic game, there are obvious reasons for players to read igor's little insights. I can't imagine playing that game without my trusty regen.bat, which protects against sudden death.
The blog is more for me than anyone else. I like reading my own material, because I tend to agree with myself. No big surprise there. My blog is my favorite blog of all. I'd rather write on it or read it than watch my favorite show. Since February, the blog has really cut into my television watching. I have a massive backlog of shows I have been meaning to watch. This is the golden age of television, as well, although not television news.
Writing is both therapeutic and an effective exercise of the mental faculties, which slide toward decay in a world of canned entertainment. Whenever someone feels troubled over an issue, they should write about it. Reviewing one's own writing can be instructive, like looking into a mirror. I am aware of at least some of my faults, if not all. I also see some good qualities, which is why I continue.
However, when writing, exercise caution concerning negative events or emotions. For instance, many political writers indulge their spleen to excess. Their hatred is tribal in nature and does not seem grounded in reality. For instance, Limbaugh and Coulter are forever going on about liberals. They do not know what they are talking about. Theirs is non-productive writing. Perhaps they make a great deal of money through their writing. Money is not as important as ethics. I would not trade places with either of them for all the money in the world.
Be careful with the digging up of old bones, such as conflicts, infatuations, or traumas of the past. Sometimes it is best to leave old bones undisturbed in their grave, particularly if one has moved on. By thinking about a subject, one gives it energy. Monsters can rise from their slumber to haunt us once again. Deny them your power. Rather than brood, focus instead upon the present.
However, some of us are reflective by nature and seem to have no choice but to analyze events in the past in the hopes of arriving at a better understanding. There may be instances when one chooses to travel into subterranean caverns in search of self-knowledge. It is a dangerous journey, with fell creatures lurking in the shadows. Here there be dragons. But such an expedition can prove cathartic. Old memories can serve as an instruction, maybe even a useful one, for myself and others. I will only be around for so long. After I am gone from this earth, the only record I leave behind may be stories. They needed to be birthed. I carried them to term and placed them in a nest somewhere out in the world. Then I returned to the sea.
By writing a story, I transcend it. The beast is dissected, with every part labeled. It is pinned down, framed and hung upon a wall. Thereafter, its power over me diminishes. If this is the attitude that a writer takes, then excavations of old bones can be constructive rather than destructive.
Avoid alcohol, the bane of all writers, because in the long run it inspires melancholy thoughts. For an inhibited, reserved writer, booze may seem like just the thing. A friend of mind refers to it as mental lubrication. I have not found it to be helpful at all. As for marijuana, it relaxes the analytical faculties, reducing the quality of prose. Reading, in particular, becomes far more challenging. I doubt marijuana would be of much use to a writer, unless he suffers from writer's block. If therapy is the main goal, rather than prose quality, then marijuana may be of benefit.
For my part, I prefer sobriety when writing or reading. The only drug that I have found useful for intellectual work of any kind is caffeine in the form of coffee, chocolate, or tea. Some writers swear by nicotine, which is supposed to improve concentration, although I have never observed any such benefit. However, if nicotine seems beneficial, then I would suggest absorbing it through a patch, rather than smoking, or else using a vaporizer on unprocessed, cured tobacco. The tobacco in most cigarettes has harmful additives, and combustion renders tobacco more carcinogenic. The goal would be to maximize the benefit and minimize the harm. However, you could easily become addicted to nicotine, which is one of the most addictive substances known to man. This is the main reason that I avoid it.
Sharing one's thoughts with others is not a bad idea, because there is a slim possibility that your output may be of benefit to others. However, I must add with reluctance a warning. On today's Internet, everything is traceable, archives are kept forever, lawsuits are becoming more common, and government oversight of private power is insufficient. A private individual of modest means should consider the many benefits of remaining as anonymous as possible. Of course, there is no such thing as total anonymity, but there is such a thing as "good enough" anonymity. Even at the cost of clarity, it may be prudent to refrain from mentioning keywords such as names and places, at least until such things are rendered irrelevant by the inexorable march of time. There are exceptions, such as a wealthy writer with a lawyer on retainer. It is all right to be the knight in shining armor, if you can afford the suit and horse. Otherwise, remain in the forest among the trees, dressed in green.
Why should someone bother reading an unpublished amateur, when there are best-selling luminaries online, offering their thoughts in many cases for free? I don't know. If the quest for readership were all that mattered, then no one would bother blogging. There are heavy hitters servicing just about every conceivable niche. When I visit Border's, I'm overwhelmed by the many different books and writers that I've never even heard of before. I haven't enough remaining time in my life to read all the books, even if the inventory never changed. This is the golden age of literature. Books are plentiful, cheap, well-constructed, proofread until nearly perfect, and can even be ordered online without ever leaving one's home.
I view my blog as a public journal for recording my thoughts, ideas and opinions. It is safer than a word processor, because if my computer ever dies, the articles remain secure in the cloud. In my day, I have seen many a hard drive crash and be irrecoverable. Besides, my thoughts may be useful or at least amusing to others. Who am I to assume otherwise? In the case of a certain cult classic game, there are obvious reasons for players to read igor's little insights. I can't imagine playing that game without my trusty regen.bat, which protects against sudden death.
The blog is more for me than anyone else. I like reading my own material, because I tend to agree with myself. No big surprise there. My blog is my favorite blog of all. I'd rather write on it or read it than watch my favorite show. Since February, the blog has really cut into my television watching. I have a massive backlog of shows I have been meaning to watch. This is the golden age of television, as well, although not television news.
Writing is both therapeutic and an effective exercise of the mental faculties, which slide toward decay in a world of canned entertainment. Whenever someone feels troubled over an issue, they should write about it. Reviewing one's own writing can be instructive, like looking into a mirror. I am aware of at least some of my faults, if not all. I also see some good qualities, which is why I continue.
However, when writing, exercise caution concerning negative events or emotions. For instance, many political writers indulge their spleen to excess. Their hatred is tribal in nature and does not seem grounded in reality. For instance, Limbaugh and Coulter are forever going on about liberals. They do not know what they are talking about. Theirs is non-productive writing. Perhaps they make a great deal of money through their writing. Money is not as important as ethics. I would not trade places with either of them for all the money in the world.
Be careful with the digging up of old bones, such as conflicts, infatuations, or traumas of the past. Sometimes it is best to leave old bones undisturbed in their grave, particularly if one has moved on. By thinking about a subject, one gives it energy. Monsters can rise from their slumber to haunt us once again. Deny them your power. Rather than brood, focus instead upon the present.
However, some of us are reflective by nature and seem to have no choice but to analyze events in the past in the hopes of arriving at a better understanding. There may be instances when one chooses to travel into subterranean caverns in search of self-knowledge. It is a dangerous journey, with fell creatures lurking in the shadows. Here there be dragons. But such an expedition can prove cathartic. Old memories can serve as an instruction, maybe even a useful one, for myself and others. I will only be around for so long. After I am gone from this earth, the only record I leave behind may be stories. They needed to be birthed. I carried them to term and placed them in a nest somewhere out in the world. Then I returned to the sea.
By writing a story, I transcend it. The beast is dissected, with every part labeled. It is pinned down, framed and hung upon a wall. Thereafter, its power over me diminishes. If this is the attitude that a writer takes, then excavations of old bones can be constructive rather than destructive.
Avoid alcohol, the bane of all writers, because in the long run it inspires melancholy thoughts. For an inhibited, reserved writer, booze may seem like just the thing. A friend of mind refers to it as mental lubrication. I have not found it to be helpful at all. As for marijuana, it relaxes the analytical faculties, reducing the quality of prose. Reading, in particular, becomes far more challenging. I doubt marijuana would be of much use to a writer, unless he suffers from writer's block. If therapy is the main goal, rather than prose quality, then marijuana may be of benefit.
For my part, I prefer sobriety when writing or reading. The only drug that I have found useful for intellectual work of any kind is caffeine in the form of coffee, chocolate, or tea. Some writers swear by nicotine, which is supposed to improve concentration, although I have never observed any such benefit. However, if nicotine seems beneficial, then I would suggest absorbing it through a patch, rather than smoking, or else using a vaporizer on unprocessed, cured tobacco. The tobacco in most cigarettes has harmful additives, and combustion renders tobacco more carcinogenic. The goal would be to maximize the benefit and minimize the harm. However, you could easily become addicted to nicotine, which is one of the most addictive substances known to man. This is the main reason that I avoid it.
Sharing one's thoughts with others is not a bad idea, because there is a slim possibility that your output may be of benefit to others. However, I must add with reluctance a warning. On today's Internet, everything is traceable, archives are kept forever, lawsuits are becoming more common, and government oversight of private power is insufficient. A private individual of modest means should consider the many benefits of remaining as anonymous as possible. Of course, there is no such thing as total anonymity, but there is such a thing as "good enough" anonymity. Even at the cost of clarity, it may be prudent to refrain from mentioning keywords such as names and places, at least until such things are rendered irrelevant by the inexorable march of time. There are exceptions, such as a wealthy writer with a lawyer on retainer. It is all right to be the knight in shining armor, if you can afford the suit and horse. Otherwise, remain in the forest among the trees, dressed in green.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
My Favorite Celebrity
If I could travel back in time and spend a year with any celebrity from any time in recorded history, it would be Oscar Wilde.
Wilde was a gifted storyteller. His contemporaries raved about him. He got himself invited to all the best parties just because he could hold a room spellbound with his stories, insights and wit.
I'd like to go back in time as a young man, in order to compete with and take the place of Bosie, the homme fatale that led Oscar to his financial and social ruin. I'd have been a better influence, I think. Not as reckless, but curious and eager to learn.
In many ways, I think of Oscar Wilde as the Christ-figure of the gay community. The impression is inescapable. Of course, Oscar's fate was milder by far, but he lived in better times. Had Jesus lived in the modern age, he would have survived to a ripe old age. I do wish Jesus came back today and ran for President. But I suspect few people would vote for him. He'd be far too liberal.
Another person I'd like to have known was Robert Ross, Oscar's best friend and the executor of his literary estate. In some ways, Ross is even more interesting than Oscar--more sensible in many ways, wise, good, and cautious. He came out in the 1800's, which boggles the mind a bit. Courage was not something he lacked.
Wilde was a gifted storyteller. His contemporaries raved about him. He got himself invited to all the best parties just because he could hold a room spellbound with his stories, insights and wit.
I'd like to go back in time as a young man, in order to compete with and take the place of Bosie, the homme fatale that led Oscar to his financial and social ruin. I'd have been a better influence, I think. Not as reckless, but curious and eager to learn.
In many ways, I think of Oscar Wilde as the Christ-figure of the gay community. The impression is inescapable. Of course, Oscar's fate was milder by far, but he lived in better times. Had Jesus lived in the modern age, he would have survived to a ripe old age. I do wish Jesus came back today and ran for President. But I suspect few people would vote for him. He'd be far too liberal.
Another person I'd like to have known was Robert Ross, Oscar's best friend and the executor of his literary estate. In some ways, Ross is even more interesting than Oscar--more sensible in many ways, wise, good, and cautious. He came out in the 1800's, which boggles the mind a bit. Courage was not something he lacked.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
On Courage
Many people live in fear of various fates, such as poverty, disease, or death. It is possible for some to avoid poverty and disease. However, death is assured for every mortal, although in the future, I foresee some progress being made on this front. Even if scientists do find a way to extend the human lifespan, how will they forestall the end of the Universe? These are complicated matters. I like to listen to scientists and hear their insights for solving problems. Governments that only pay attention to opinion polls are bound to make costly mistakes. The scientist, also, must be heeded, because it is possible that he really knows something. Most of us just have opinions. It is incredibly difficult to ever really know something. If in doubt, consult other scientists.
Humans do not fear death; what they fear is the unknown. Death is the great unknown. We fear what will come during death and after death. Will there be pain? Will the pain be intense? After the pain ends, will there be an afterlife full of torment? Will we be reincarnated into a lower or a higher form? How will we be remembered: as heroes, as average folk, or not at all? These are the questions that may occur to a soldier, a cancer patient, or an elderly person. They are eternal questions that have been asked from ancient times to the present.
Different seers have supplied different answers. Some answers flatter our ego. These I view with suspicion. Man is ruled by his ego too much. It is a known weakness and must be guarded against. Even very intelligent people succumb to the weaknesses of their ego.
Other answers seem pessimistic--for instance, the idea that everything is only material, random and irrelevant, without any higher purpose. That I view with suspicion also. I assign an ethical value to actions based upon what I perceive as the likely outcomes. It is true that this is subjective on my part. But every human being lives in a subjective state of mind. Objectivity is possible to approach, but in the long term, it is not a sustainable state for a human being. At least I have never seen pure objectivity in anyone I have ever met. It is my opinion that outcomes are important. We should want the good to prevail. To this end, good people should not serve evil. It is sometimes difficult to determine what is good and evil, however. This is why freedom of speech is important, in order to have open discussions with others, that we may arrive at a more accurate answer. Many minds are better than just one way of thinking.
I am not sure what comes after death, because I have not crossed the river Styx. In due course, I will know, and everyone alive today will also know. "Knowing" may not be the right choice of word for an inanimate corpse. I am not sure how to phrase the concept. Death is the great leveler. We will be equal then, even if we were not equal in life.
Finding courage is as simple as recognizing that death need not be feared. Death is a transition from one state into another, from being into non-being. What seems important to an individual may not be so important in the greater scheme of things. We live in small worlds. When we die, our small world is destroyed, and what is left is the greater world to which we return in total, leaving nothing behind. Our constituent parts will be used by other organisms according to the cycle of nature. Our thoughts and ideas, which we flattered ourselves as being special, are already shared by others and will still be considered by others in the future. We are replaceable; or if not, then perhaps we were unnecessary in the first place. Nature is a superb engineer who designs redundancy in all of her systems. Even the Earth is replaceable; or if not. . . does it matter to the Sun? I think that the Sun will go on shining, whatever happens to the Earth. There are probably beings similar to us in other locations in the Universe, too far away for us to contact.
What is there to worry about? What is there to fear? All that is ever at stake is time, and just a short span of time at that. The extra-cautious may live longer. Is life, then, just a contest to see who lives the longest? Is it a contest to see who acquires the most possessions before the end? What kind of a contest is that?
To me, what is more important is living in an ethical manner, which seems simple enough to do. Be honest, when you can. Share your ideas with others, if it is possible. Live with forthrightness. Try to contribute whatever it is that is within you, that spark of light that can be found in the doing. It may not always be possible. Life is an opportunity, although nothing is certain. Some lives are cut short by the vagaries of fate. Never fear, there are others. No sooner does one light fade than another shines.
Of course, there has always been the problem of evil in the world. The present time is not all that much worse than times past. In many ways, the present is better. Think about the Dark Ages. Would you want to have lived during that violent and uncertain period, when the climate was colder? Reading history is necessary if you want to make an accurate comparison between the past and the present. It is tempting to assume that we have the hardest situation of all, but many of our ancestors had a harder time still.
Many good people despair, because evil-doers sometimes have the upper-hand. The wicked are often rich and strong and less concerned with ethics than with power over others. If another does harm to you, even to the point of death, then their crime weighs upon their soul, not yours. The harm wrought by an evil-doer serves to increase the intensity of your light and the light of others. Even in the darkness, light pours forth. Do not underestimate its power. At first, the light seems like nothing. You may not even be aware of it at all. But it carries the force of right, and there is no greater force. Try as it might, the darkness can never be victorious, because it is nothing and cannot create, because it has no energy.
A spiritual crime marks the perpetrator, diminishing their power in manifold ways. It is difficult enough to determine what is right, without tripling one's bets by doing any harm. Others may commit all manner of evil, even in the name of God. They may use underhanded methods to get ahead, to claim a victory over you. Over the generations, such ways are bound to return to harm their own bloodlines in ways they cannot foresee. In harming you and yours, they harm their own kind even more. Few believe this, but history offers evidence. It is a strange thing, almost like a law of the Universe. But do not use this belief in karma as an excuse for doing nothing, for accepting without resistance any evil that ever happens. That too is a mistake.
Humans do not fear death; what they fear is the unknown. Death is the great unknown. We fear what will come during death and after death. Will there be pain? Will the pain be intense? After the pain ends, will there be an afterlife full of torment? Will we be reincarnated into a lower or a higher form? How will we be remembered: as heroes, as average folk, or not at all? These are the questions that may occur to a soldier, a cancer patient, or an elderly person. They are eternal questions that have been asked from ancient times to the present.
Different seers have supplied different answers. Some answers flatter our ego. These I view with suspicion. Man is ruled by his ego too much. It is a known weakness and must be guarded against. Even very intelligent people succumb to the weaknesses of their ego.
Other answers seem pessimistic--for instance, the idea that everything is only material, random and irrelevant, without any higher purpose. That I view with suspicion also. I assign an ethical value to actions based upon what I perceive as the likely outcomes. It is true that this is subjective on my part. But every human being lives in a subjective state of mind. Objectivity is possible to approach, but in the long term, it is not a sustainable state for a human being. At least I have never seen pure objectivity in anyone I have ever met. It is my opinion that outcomes are important. We should want the good to prevail. To this end, good people should not serve evil. It is sometimes difficult to determine what is good and evil, however. This is why freedom of speech is important, in order to have open discussions with others, that we may arrive at a more accurate answer. Many minds are better than just one way of thinking.
I am not sure what comes after death, because I have not crossed the river Styx. In due course, I will know, and everyone alive today will also know. "Knowing" may not be the right choice of word for an inanimate corpse. I am not sure how to phrase the concept. Death is the great leveler. We will be equal then, even if we were not equal in life.
Finding courage is as simple as recognizing that death need not be feared. Death is a transition from one state into another, from being into non-being. What seems important to an individual may not be so important in the greater scheme of things. We live in small worlds. When we die, our small world is destroyed, and what is left is the greater world to which we return in total, leaving nothing behind. Our constituent parts will be used by other organisms according to the cycle of nature. Our thoughts and ideas, which we flattered ourselves as being special, are already shared by others and will still be considered by others in the future. We are replaceable; or if not, then perhaps we were unnecessary in the first place. Nature is a superb engineer who designs redundancy in all of her systems. Even the Earth is replaceable; or if not. . . does it matter to the Sun? I think that the Sun will go on shining, whatever happens to the Earth. There are probably beings similar to us in other locations in the Universe, too far away for us to contact.
What is there to worry about? What is there to fear? All that is ever at stake is time, and just a short span of time at that. The extra-cautious may live longer. Is life, then, just a contest to see who lives the longest? Is it a contest to see who acquires the most possessions before the end? What kind of a contest is that?
To me, what is more important is living in an ethical manner, which seems simple enough to do. Be honest, when you can. Share your ideas with others, if it is possible. Live with forthrightness. Try to contribute whatever it is that is within you, that spark of light that can be found in the doing. It may not always be possible. Life is an opportunity, although nothing is certain. Some lives are cut short by the vagaries of fate. Never fear, there are others. No sooner does one light fade than another shines.
Of course, there has always been the problem of evil in the world. The present time is not all that much worse than times past. In many ways, the present is better. Think about the Dark Ages. Would you want to have lived during that violent and uncertain period, when the climate was colder? Reading history is necessary if you want to make an accurate comparison between the past and the present. It is tempting to assume that we have the hardest situation of all, but many of our ancestors had a harder time still.
Many good people despair, because evil-doers sometimes have the upper-hand. The wicked are often rich and strong and less concerned with ethics than with power over others. If another does harm to you, even to the point of death, then their crime weighs upon their soul, not yours. The harm wrought by an evil-doer serves to increase the intensity of your light and the light of others. Even in the darkness, light pours forth. Do not underestimate its power. At first, the light seems like nothing. You may not even be aware of it at all. But it carries the force of right, and there is no greater force. Try as it might, the darkness can never be victorious, because it is nothing and cannot create, because it has no energy.
A spiritual crime marks the perpetrator, diminishing their power in manifold ways. It is difficult enough to determine what is right, without tripling one's bets by doing any harm. Others may commit all manner of evil, even in the name of God. They may use underhanded methods to get ahead, to claim a victory over you. Over the generations, such ways are bound to return to harm their own bloodlines in ways they cannot foresee. In harming you and yours, they harm their own kind even more. Few believe this, but history offers evidence. It is a strange thing, almost like a law of the Universe. But do not use this belief in karma as an excuse for doing nothing, for accepting without resistance any evil that ever happens. That too is a mistake.
The Difficult Assignment
I remember when I first went to work at my last company, one of the senior people on my team took a dislike to me--I would say an instinctive dislike, like that of a dog for a cat. For a long time, I did not understand why, because I never sought any conflict with others. I think the main problem was that I was male, and she didn't like any of the men in our department, but she disliked gays even more. Since I was both gay and male, that represented a double whammy. The fact that I didn't subscribe to her particular religious beliefs represented the icing on the cake.
She was more subtle than most and knew ways of getting her ends without being too obvious about it. For instance, she found a way to get our boss to transfer her most difficult assignment to me. She had received the task a couple of years ago, but with her cunning had managed to put it off with a variety of excuses. She admitted that it was too difficult for her, which may have been an indiscretion on her part, although she never expected that I would solve it by myself. She was hoping by the confession to discourage me. But I like challenges, if they only involve mind work.
She calculated that since I was just starting out with a new language, the hard stuff would do me in. I'd get canned, and she could work her social magic to get a new recruit that she liked better, preferably a straight white female. Anytime I went to ask her questions about the assignment, she would obfuscate or make a belittling remark questioning my intelligence or work ethic. I took a hint and remained alone in my cubicle, talking to no one, doing nothing but thinking, reading the reference manuals and absorbing many things. I looked at old programs and studied how other programmers went about handling similar chores. Remember, when reinventing the wheel, it is best to reinvent as little as possible. Whenever I found good ideas, I adopted them or made notes of them for future use.
The assignment involved displaying data in realtime on a mainframe screen. Our customer desired the capability of sorting a list of names by alphabetical order (with lowercase and uppercase taken into consideration), and/or by date, and/or by category, and/or by subcategory, and/or by status, and a couple of other fields that escape my memory at this time. Up to ten different flags could be selected or unselected and would alter the results. In SQL, this is a simple matter that requires just a few statements. In the old programming languages, it is not such a simple matter. There was no "SORT" command available of any kind. It was necessary to reinvent the wheel, and that is what I did. I created a series of sorting algorithms, using flags (indicators) to keep track of each of the many different stages of my subroutine. Nested loops held sorts within sorts within sorts. It was a sordid (sorted) affair.
The code was written over a decade ago, and today I am not sure whether my sorts could have been characterized as bubble or insertion sorts. Wikipedia disparages the bubble sort to such an extent that I suspect there would have been complaints over efficiency if I had used it. But I had a vague memory of the various sorting techniques I had learned in college, and "bubble sort" seemed like a fun, nifty name, so that was the label I applied to my technique, whether it was accurate or not. Everything took place in memory, by necessity, without any temporary data files, which meant that each time the user advanced to the next page, the sorting had to be performed all over again. There was not a large amount of data involved.
I was careful to document the program with remark statements, although I have my doubts over how much they helped in understanding the process. The older languages rely quite a bit on GOTO statements, which are rightfully associated with spaghetti code. I tried to use structured techniques, such as subroutines, as much as possible, but it was not always possible due to the limitations of the language, particularly in a realtime environment. As for object-oriented techniques, forget it.
Yes, there were plenty of bugs I had to iron out, but in the end it worked and remained largely unchanged for the next ten years. I think that was one of the tasks that earned me my first raise and guaranteed my job security.
Now of course she wanted to know how I solved it. When I told her I used a bubble sort algorithm, she had no idea what I was talking about and didn't want to know. She never liked listening to technical explanations. Her interests concerned the social hierarchy, and she much more intrigued by the higher-ranked individuals than by anything having to do with the peons. She assumed I had borrowed all the code from another programmer. So she went around asking the other senior programmers if they had helped me in any way. She spent much of every day whispering and gossiping with others, usually about other people in the department or about her husband, who she detested. Only about half her day was ever spent by the computer. No, other than helping with advanced syntax, the senior programmers hadn't had much interaction with me at all. In fact, some of them were unaware I was working there. Some programmers live in their own insulated world and are not quick to notice changes in the outside world, even in their own department.
She was always alert for the risk of someone giving me any assistance or advice, and always sought to nip that in the bud whenever she could. For my part, I am by nature reluctant to ask others for help, especially strangers. If someone else helps me, then I tend to keep an internal ledger with their contribution marked down for future repayment. She did succeed, however, in damaging some of the working relationships I tried to build with others, because she was politically connected, and her boss thought she was the perfect Christian. She did all the little political things. I could see the writing on the wall, in terms of my future at that company. But if you work in such an environment, then perhaps you should do as she did, if climbing up the corporate ladder is your goal.
She was more subtle than most and knew ways of getting her ends without being too obvious about it. For instance, she found a way to get our boss to transfer her most difficult assignment to me. She had received the task a couple of years ago, but with her cunning had managed to put it off with a variety of excuses. She admitted that it was too difficult for her, which may have been an indiscretion on her part, although she never expected that I would solve it by myself. She was hoping by the confession to discourage me. But I like challenges, if they only involve mind work.
She calculated that since I was just starting out with a new language, the hard stuff would do me in. I'd get canned, and she could work her social magic to get a new recruit that she liked better, preferably a straight white female. Anytime I went to ask her questions about the assignment, she would obfuscate or make a belittling remark questioning my intelligence or work ethic. I took a hint and remained alone in my cubicle, talking to no one, doing nothing but thinking, reading the reference manuals and absorbing many things. I looked at old programs and studied how other programmers went about handling similar chores. Remember, when reinventing the wheel, it is best to reinvent as little as possible. Whenever I found good ideas, I adopted them or made notes of them for future use.
The assignment involved displaying data in realtime on a mainframe screen. Our customer desired the capability of sorting a list of names by alphabetical order (with lowercase and uppercase taken into consideration), and/or by date, and/or by category, and/or by subcategory, and/or by status, and a couple of other fields that escape my memory at this time. Up to ten different flags could be selected or unselected and would alter the results. In SQL, this is a simple matter that requires just a few statements. In the old programming languages, it is not such a simple matter. There was no "SORT" command available of any kind. It was necessary to reinvent the wheel, and that is what I did. I created a series of sorting algorithms, using flags (indicators) to keep track of each of the many different stages of my subroutine. Nested loops held sorts within sorts within sorts. It was a sordid (sorted) affair.
The code was written over a decade ago, and today I am not sure whether my sorts could have been characterized as bubble or insertion sorts. Wikipedia disparages the bubble sort to such an extent that I suspect there would have been complaints over efficiency if I had used it. But I had a vague memory of the various sorting techniques I had learned in college, and "bubble sort" seemed like a fun, nifty name, so that was the label I applied to my technique, whether it was accurate or not. Everything took place in memory, by necessity, without any temporary data files, which meant that each time the user advanced to the next page, the sorting had to be performed all over again. There was not a large amount of data involved.
I was careful to document the program with remark statements, although I have my doubts over how much they helped in understanding the process. The older languages rely quite a bit on GOTO statements, which are rightfully associated with spaghetti code. I tried to use structured techniques, such as subroutines, as much as possible, but it was not always possible due to the limitations of the language, particularly in a realtime environment. As for object-oriented techniques, forget it.
Yes, there were plenty of bugs I had to iron out, but in the end it worked and remained largely unchanged for the next ten years. I think that was one of the tasks that earned me my first raise and guaranteed my job security.
Now of course she wanted to know how I solved it. When I told her I used a bubble sort algorithm, she had no idea what I was talking about and didn't want to know. She never liked listening to technical explanations. Her interests concerned the social hierarchy, and she much more intrigued by the higher-ranked individuals than by anything having to do with the peons. She assumed I had borrowed all the code from another programmer. So she went around asking the other senior programmers if they had helped me in any way. She spent much of every day whispering and gossiping with others, usually about other people in the department or about her husband, who she detested. Only about half her day was ever spent by the computer. No, other than helping with advanced syntax, the senior programmers hadn't had much interaction with me at all. In fact, some of them were unaware I was working there. Some programmers live in their own insulated world and are not quick to notice changes in the outside world, even in their own department.
She was always alert for the risk of someone giving me any assistance or advice, and always sought to nip that in the bud whenever she could. For my part, I am by nature reluctant to ask others for help, especially strangers. If someone else helps me, then I tend to keep an internal ledger with their contribution marked down for future repayment. She did succeed, however, in damaging some of the working relationships I tried to build with others, because she was politically connected, and her boss thought she was the perfect Christian. She did all the little political things. I could see the writing on the wall, in terms of my future at that company. But if you work in such an environment, then perhaps you should do as she did, if climbing up the corporate ladder is your goal.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Vast Riches
Ever wondered what Internet advertising pays? Here's an insider's view:
$4.72 is the total payout for hosting ads on this site for over a year. I removed the ads, because it is not worth $5 to annoy myself and my users with advertisements. I did not bother requesting a payout of the paltry sum.
$4.72 is the total payout for hosting ads on this site for over a year. I removed the ads, because it is not worth $5 to annoy myself and my users with advertisements. I did not bother requesting a payout of the paltry sum.
Obama on the Economy
Republicans picked up two governorships yesterday.
I suspect local issues are a huge factor in both races, but there is another obvious factor and that is Obama. His policies regarding the economy have been neither intelligent nor innovative. He is nothing like FDR. I don't understand the wisdom of throwing money at fat cats on Wall Street, the same rascals that wrecked the economy in the first place. Perhaps they donated money to the politicians, but that is no excuse. "Cash for Clunkers" is difficult to defend as well. He is also spending a fortune on foreign wars that have no possibility of benefiting the United States in any way, shape, or form. Obama has spent a pile of money without much benefit accruing for ordinary people. If the Democrats lose again in 2012, the reason will be a lack of ideas. Rather than show themselves to be different from Republicans, some Democrats look like right-wing conservatives themselves.
The following proposals would save money, make money, and give hope to ordinary people. Stop the wars, create new jobs programs that will hire the unemployed in meaningful and useful work, increase the funding for Americorps and the Peace Corps, legalize marijuana and let law enforcement focus on real crimes, increase funding for education, connect rural communities to broadband Internet service, and build mass transit to reach more communities so that our highways serve trucks, instead of cars, and people do not feel the need to purchase cars.
Right now, the Peace Corps is a joke. In return for working two years in an underdeveloped country, a volunteer is given $6000, or enough to purchase a moped and a computer. Such a volunteer would find more profit in working at McDonalds. Americorps awards $100 per month of service and a stipend that supposedly pays living expenses. These amounts should be quintupled, at least. They were adequate for 1980, but guess what, there has been inflation since that time.
As for education, there is a shortage of funds for graduate research assistants, who cannot pay all the fees and living expenses based upon their minimum-wage (or below) salary. Those working toward a Ph.D. or Master's degree are compelled to take out loans which must be repaid at a later date on a paltry professor's salary. College professors should be paid more to reflect the enormous investment in time and effort that they made in earning their degrees. All too often, universities cut back on scholarship and research, while spending freely on games.
How do we pay for all these proposals? Simple. End the wars and reduce military spending. Done. The budget deficit can be pared down and eliminated in ten years, as well. No additional taxes--in fact, taxes can be reduced. The United States has carried the cross of world security for too long. It is time for other countries to step in and share the burden.
Republicans express no interest in any of these proposals. Republicans want more war. They can never get enough. Republicans prefer to give taxpayer money to big businesses while running up the budget deficit. When trying to drum up public support for these core GOP beliefs, Republicans talk about abortion, gays, God, and guns. The only chance for reforms gaining any traction lies with the Democrats, but many Democrats are just Republicans in disguise. What we need in Washington are more liberals that are willing to try brave new ideas.
I have found one Republican that makes good sense to me: Ron Paul. The Democrat that I like best is Barney Frank. I may not agree with them on everything, but the times I have heard them speak on television or the radio, I have been impressed. Not all politicians are bad. Whenever someone talks against politicians, I mention those two names, the standouts, who have a strong sense of ethics and are not afraid of taking a bold position on an issue.
I suspect local issues are a huge factor in both races, but there is another obvious factor and that is Obama. His policies regarding the economy have been neither intelligent nor innovative. He is nothing like FDR. I don't understand the wisdom of throwing money at fat cats on Wall Street, the same rascals that wrecked the economy in the first place. Perhaps they donated money to the politicians, but that is no excuse. "Cash for Clunkers" is difficult to defend as well. He is also spending a fortune on foreign wars that have no possibility of benefiting the United States in any way, shape, or form. Obama has spent a pile of money without much benefit accruing for ordinary people. If the Democrats lose again in 2012, the reason will be a lack of ideas. Rather than show themselves to be different from Republicans, some Democrats look like right-wing conservatives themselves.
The following proposals would save money, make money, and give hope to ordinary people. Stop the wars, create new jobs programs that will hire the unemployed in meaningful and useful work, increase the funding for Americorps and the Peace Corps, legalize marijuana and let law enforcement focus on real crimes, increase funding for education, connect rural communities to broadband Internet service, and build mass transit to reach more communities so that our highways serve trucks, instead of cars, and people do not feel the need to purchase cars.
Right now, the Peace Corps is a joke. In return for working two years in an underdeveloped country, a volunteer is given $6000, or enough to purchase a moped and a computer. Such a volunteer would find more profit in working at McDonalds. Americorps awards $100 per month of service and a stipend that supposedly pays living expenses. These amounts should be quintupled, at least. They were adequate for 1980, but guess what, there has been inflation since that time.
As for education, there is a shortage of funds for graduate research assistants, who cannot pay all the fees and living expenses based upon their minimum-wage (or below) salary. Those working toward a Ph.D. or Master's degree are compelled to take out loans which must be repaid at a later date on a paltry professor's salary. College professors should be paid more to reflect the enormous investment in time and effort that they made in earning their degrees. All too often, universities cut back on scholarship and research, while spending freely on games.
How do we pay for all these proposals? Simple. End the wars and reduce military spending. Done. The budget deficit can be pared down and eliminated in ten years, as well. No additional taxes--in fact, taxes can be reduced. The United States has carried the cross of world security for too long. It is time for other countries to step in and share the burden.
Republicans express no interest in any of these proposals. Republicans want more war. They can never get enough. Republicans prefer to give taxpayer money to big businesses while running up the budget deficit. When trying to drum up public support for these core GOP beliefs, Republicans talk about abortion, gays, God, and guns. The only chance for reforms gaining any traction lies with the Democrats, but many Democrats are just Republicans in disguise. What we need in Washington are more liberals that are willing to try brave new ideas.
I have found one Republican that makes good sense to me: Ron Paul. The Democrat that I like best is Barney Frank. I may not agree with them on everything, but the times I have heard them speak on television or the radio, I have been impressed. Not all politicians are bad. Whenever someone talks against politicians, I mention those two names, the standouts, who have a strong sense of ethics and are not afraid of taking a bold position on an issue.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Fighting Blogger
In some ways I like Blogger, which is why I've stayed. However, the Blogger engine does not permit much freedom in customizing the design and fails to support subcategories. What I want are the following, in order of importance:
1. Subcategories extending to a minimum of two levels, although more would be better. Ten levels of subcategories would be optimal. A blog without categories is like a book without a table of contents.
2. A more robust Comment feature, one that does not drop comments by accident without any explanation.
3. Useful gadgets for the blog. Most of the add-ons are annoying gimmicky substitutes for content that the writer should instead provide.
3. The ability to customize the header in any way, shape, or form.
4. The ability to customize the appearance of the rest of the blog.
5. Better templates.
6. The ability to delete an article while editing, before publishing. Right now, Blogger stores everything, whether the article is empty or not.
I am considering moving over to Wordpress. The cost in terms of broken links would not be all that high. The only downside as I see it is lack of advertising support, but I can afford five bucks for sure.
If I do make the move, never fear. My last message here will link to the new site.
I sure am glad I mowed the blog last week. There won't be as much moving to do. I anticipate the move taking a couple of hours. But first, I need to examine Wordpress and make sure the grass really is greener on the other side of the fence. Reports of security vulnerabilities in Wordpress are quite alarming. Perhaps that explains why somebody out there is hitting my router with port-scans. Yes, I do have a Firewall. D'oh!
As for LiveJournal, that is now owned by a Russian company. Sorry, Russian readers, but I do not have a high overall opinion of Russian democracy, right at the moment. The fact that they laid off a bunch of programmers in San Francisco and moved the jobs over to Russia does not sit well with me, either. It is just another thorn in the side of our ailing country. San Francisco is one of my favorite cities in the world. Don't mess with SF.
As for Myspace, it is owned by Murdoch, and no more need be said on that score. Windows Live Spaces may be worth considering. I'm not that much of a Microsoft h8r; after all, I use Windows XP. They probably have the security angle covered. I'll just bet they don't bother with categories (#1 on the list above) or for that matter any other innovation. A Microsoft solution aims for a solid and sound imitation of the other players in the market without getting ahead of them. Reports of browser incompatibility are not too surprising. Microsoft still expects everyone to use IE. More troublesome for me is that Microsoft censors the word "democracy" in China.
1. Subcategories extending to a minimum of two levels, although more would be better. Ten levels of subcategories would be optimal. A blog without categories is like a book without a table of contents.
2. A more robust Comment feature, one that does not drop comments by accident without any explanation.
3. Useful gadgets for the blog. Most of the add-ons are annoying gimmicky substitutes for content that the writer should instead provide.
3. The ability to customize the header in any way, shape, or form.
4. The ability to customize the appearance of the rest of the blog.
5. Better templates.
6. The ability to delete an article while editing, before publishing. Right now, Blogger stores everything, whether the article is empty or not.
I am considering moving over to Wordpress. The cost in terms of broken links would not be all that high. The only downside as I see it is lack of advertising support, but I can afford five bucks for sure.
If I do make the move, never fear. My last message here will link to the new site.
I sure am glad I mowed the blog last week. There won't be as much moving to do. I anticipate the move taking a couple of hours. But first, I need to examine Wordpress and make sure the grass really is greener on the other side of the fence. Reports of security vulnerabilities in Wordpress are quite alarming. Perhaps that explains why somebody out there is hitting my router with port-scans. Yes, I do have a Firewall. D'oh!
As for LiveJournal, that is now owned by a Russian company. Sorry, Russian readers, but I do not have a high overall opinion of Russian democracy, right at the moment. The fact that they laid off a bunch of programmers in San Francisco and moved the jobs over to Russia does not sit well with me, either. It is just another thorn in the side of our ailing country. San Francisco is one of my favorite cities in the world. Don't mess with SF.
As for Myspace, it is owned by Murdoch, and no more need be said on that score. Windows Live Spaces may be worth considering. I'm not that much of a Microsoft h8r; after all, I use Windows XP. They probably have the security angle covered. I'll just bet they don't bother with categories (#1 on the list above) or for that matter any other innovation. A Microsoft solution aims for a solid and sound imitation of the other players in the market without getting ahead of them. Reports of browser incompatibility are not too surprising. Microsoft still expects everyone to use IE. More troublesome for me is that Microsoft censors the word "democracy" in China.
Category: Medicine
Asthma
Back Pain: 1, 2, & 3
Dandruff
Dentistry 1 & 2
General Philosophy Regarding Medicine
Graves Disease/Hyperthyroidism
Psychology: Asperger's Syndrome
Vitamins and Nutritional Supplements: Vitamins
Nota Bene: writer is not a licensed caregiver--just an opinionated patient.
This Table of Contents was created because the Blogger engine does not support subcategories.
Back Pain: 1, 2, & 3
Dandruff
Dentistry 1 & 2
General Philosophy Regarding Medicine
Graves Disease/Hyperthyroidism
Psychology: Asperger's Syndrome
Vitamins and Nutritional Supplements: Vitamins
Nota Bene: writer is not a licensed caregiver--just an opinionated patient.
This Table of Contents was created because the Blogger engine does not support subcategories.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Farewell, Conservative Anglicans
Upset by gay clergy, conservative Anglicans are defecting to Catholicism, which is ironic from a historical perspective. The Anglican Church was created after King Henry VIII could not secure a divorce from the Pope. Upset by Church marital laws, the King dissolved the religion in England and created a new one. The ancestors of the Catholics slew the ancestors of the Anglicans and on some occasions burnt them alive for heresy.
Today, the Church of Rome takes an active role in denying the right of gay people to marry, donating millions of dollars to advertising campaigns. Contrast today's political activism with two issues from the recent past. The Church condoned abuse against children committed by its supposedly celibate clergy over the years. During the Holocaust, the Church remained obedient and passive while the Nazi government seized the Jews and other minorities for death camps. The best that can be said is that the Church of Rome has made strange choices regarding the battles that it chooses to fight.
Today, the Church of Rome takes an active role in denying the right of gay people to marry, donating millions of dollars to advertising campaigns. Contrast today's political activism with two issues from the recent past. The Church condoned abuse against children committed by its supposedly celibate clergy over the years. During the Holocaust, the Church remained obedient and passive while the Nazi government seized the Jews and other minorities for death camps. The best that can be said is that the Church of Rome has made strange choices regarding the battles that it chooses to fight.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
My Readers
My readers hail from the following locations:
Most are in the English-speaking world--no surprise there. The top cities supplying the most visitors are, in order: Penza, Russia and Atlanta, Georgia. These cities account for the largest orange dots on the map. After the top two, we have New York, London, Oslo, Brisbane, Sydney, Austin, San Diego, Olympia, Seattle, Melbourne, Houston, Athens, "not set" (unknown location, due to privacy settings), Los Angeles, San Francisco, Paris and several other cities.
This data comes from google-analytics, a utility that many webmasters use to evaluate their sites. The average time spent on the site is the juiciest detail. If a reader spends less than a minute, then the site repelled him for some reason (poor design or content, most likely). The more time a reader spends, the better. I expected the highest average time to be from the United States, but was completely mistaken:
Countries where English is not the native language show higher average times. Those visitors require more time to interpret what for them is probably a second language, learned in school. In the same way, I would require more time to read a French site.
I'm not sure how to interpret all of this data, but I do like the idea of the blog being read in faraway places that I've never visited. I wonder what the reader in Bolivia thinks about the blog, for instance. Once, I wrote an article about the recent coup in Honduras. Someone out there replied, but their text was written in Chinese characters, and I could not publish it because I didn't know what it meant. I rejected the comment, but the person left a similar comment two more times, until I changed the settings on the blog to disallow anonymous comments.
The data itself does not tell me much, other than this site is good enough to capture attention for an average of 1.86 pages and 2.09 minutes per visit, which isn't too bad, considering most people click and then leave before a minute gets clocked. Servers may visit my site on a daily basis to scan for keywords for marketing purposes or to inspect the AdSense code. In some cases, they grab the text, create a summary and then put a summary of my content on a web page, along with summaries of content from other blogs, organized by key words. I think this technique is intended to generate ad revenue.
All of the data collected by google-analytics is technical in nature, and so of less interest to a writer than to a webmaster, who frets over whether his site plays well with all the browsers and screen resolutions. More interesting questions would be, what do the readers believe, and do they agree or disagree on this or that article? These are unknowns, although the data gives little hints.
What does screen resolution mean? In my experience, those with very high screen resolution are either involved with technology, graphic design or games; well-to-do financially, or both. High status has a strong association with high screen resolution.
All of these resolutions are about the same, in what I call the lower to middle-class spectrum of screen resolution. Only when I extend the list do I notice some unusual resolutions, such as 2560 x 1600, which indicates a power user, someone with an unusually expensive monitor. Today as I write this, such monitors cost eleven hundred dollars and up at NewEgg.com, although in the future they will become cheaper. Such a person probably has a fast internet connection, as well, such as a T1.
The smaller resolutions, such as 800 x 600 and 800 x 480, do not indicate poverty. Someone could be logging in from a mobile device. Also, I have noticed that many people, no matter how much money they have, just don't bother upgrading their computer. It's perceived to be a hassle. They use their computer until it breaks, and then buy a new one. Whatever screen resolution is on their new system, they will live with until the new computer also breaks. They just don't care about screen resolution.
Most are in the English-speaking world--no surprise there. The top cities supplying the most visitors are, in order: Penza, Russia and Atlanta, Georgia. These cities account for the largest orange dots on the map. After the top two, we have New York, London, Oslo, Brisbane, Sydney, Austin, San Diego, Olympia, Seattle, Melbourne, Houston, Athens, "not set" (unknown location, due to privacy settings), Los Angeles, San Francisco, Paris and several other cities.
This data comes from google-analytics, a utility that many webmasters use to evaluate their sites. The average time spent on the site is the juiciest detail. If a reader spends less than a minute, then the site repelled him for some reason (poor design or content, most likely). The more time a reader spends, the better. I expected the highest average time to be from the United States, but was completely mistaken:
Countries where English is not the native language show higher average times. Those visitors require more time to interpret what for them is probably a second language, learned in school. In the same way, I would require more time to read a French site.
I'm not sure how to interpret all of this data, but I do like the idea of the blog being read in faraway places that I've never visited. I wonder what the reader in Bolivia thinks about the blog, for instance. Once, I wrote an article about the recent coup in Honduras. Someone out there replied, but their text was written in Chinese characters, and I could not publish it because I didn't know what it meant. I rejected the comment, but the person left a similar comment two more times, until I changed the settings on the blog to disallow anonymous comments.
The data itself does not tell me much, other than this site is good enough to capture attention for an average of 1.86 pages and 2.09 minutes per visit, which isn't too bad, considering most people click and then leave before a minute gets clocked. Servers may visit my site on a daily basis to scan for keywords for marketing purposes or to inspect the AdSense code. In some cases, they grab the text, create a summary and then put a summary of my content on a web page, along with summaries of content from other blogs, organized by key words. I think this technique is intended to generate ad revenue.
All of the data collected by google-analytics is technical in nature, and so of less interest to a writer than to a webmaster, who frets over whether his site plays well with all the browsers and screen resolutions. More interesting questions would be, what do the readers believe, and do they agree or disagree on this or that article? These are unknowns, although the data gives little hints.
What does screen resolution mean? In my experience, those with very high screen resolution are either involved with technology, graphic design or games; well-to-do financially, or both. High status has a strong association with high screen resolution.
All of these resolutions are about the same, in what I call the lower to middle-class spectrum of screen resolution. Only when I extend the list do I notice some unusual resolutions, such as 2560 x 1600, which indicates a power user, someone with an unusually expensive monitor. Today as I write this, such monitors cost eleven hundred dollars and up at NewEgg.com, although in the future they will become cheaper. Such a person probably has a fast internet connection, as well, such as a T1.
The smaller resolutions, such as 800 x 600 and 800 x 480, do not indicate poverty. Someone could be logging in from a mobile device. Also, I have noticed that many people, no matter how much money they have, just don't bother upgrading their computer. It's perceived to be a hassle. They use their computer until it breaks, and then buy a new one. Whatever screen resolution is on their new system, they will live with until the new computer also breaks. They just don't care about screen resolution.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Optimism
I decided to write a list of all the things I feel optimistic about.
1. People are still writing excellent applications--games, utilities, browsers. In fact, they are better than ever and can do more than ever. And they're giving 'em away, in many cases.
2. Television these days--certain shows--are incredibly good. Shows like Nova, Horizon, the old (pre-jail) Martha Stewart Show, the David Attenborough documentaries (mammals, insects, birds), Seinfeld, The Catherine Tate Show, Mad Men, Peep Show, The Graham Norton Show, Little Britain, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. . .even Dr. Who. They are ten times better than the television fare available just two decades ago.
3. Although there is turmoil elsewhere, at least the U.S. is at peace on the domestic front.
4. Books are better than ever. Smarter, with better writing and better illustrations and more perfect knowledge. And bookstores are (almost) giving them away.
5. Food at the grocery store is better than ever. More diverse, and in some cases, such as pistachios, cheaper. Iran blew the whole pistachio monopoly back in 1976 when they took the American hostages. California producers started growing, and the rest was history. The best thing about pistachios today is that they no longer contain that icky red dye that used to stain fingers.
Well, five is about all I can manage today. Maybe one more.
6. NASA is still exploring and astronomers are still discovering new information about the cosmos. If you really want to read the good news in the world, filter out *.business and *.politics and just read *.science.
1. People are still writing excellent applications--games, utilities, browsers. In fact, they are better than ever and can do more than ever. And they're giving 'em away, in many cases.
2. Television these days--certain shows--are incredibly good. Shows like Nova, Horizon, the old (pre-jail) Martha Stewart Show, the David Attenborough documentaries (mammals, insects, birds), Seinfeld, The Catherine Tate Show, Mad Men, Peep Show, The Graham Norton Show, Little Britain, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. . .even Dr. Who. They are ten times better than the television fare available just two decades ago.
3. Although there is turmoil elsewhere, at least the U.S. is at peace on the domestic front.
4. Books are better than ever. Smarter, with better writing and better illustrations and more perfect knowledge. And bookstores are (almost) giving them away.
5. Food at the grocery store is better than ever. More diverse, and in some cases, such as pistachios, cheaper. Iran blew the whole pistachio monopoly back in 1976 when they took the American hostages. California producers started growing, and the rest was history. The best thing about pistachios today is that they no longer contain that icky red dye that used to stain fingers.
Well, five is about all I can manage today. Maybe one more.
6. NASA is still exploring and astronomers are still discovering new information about the cosmos. If you really want to read the good news in the world, filter out *.business and *.politics and just read *.science.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Who are the Prohibitionists?
If you are scared of cannabis, then you still have plenty of company. Mostly old timers, as it turns out:
This chart was found on a recent posting on the NORML web site.
I wonder how much those who are 65+ really know about cannabis. Do they base their opinion upon government propaganda? The government is concerned with political expediency and is not a reliable source on this particular subject.
Cannabis has been a taboo topic for a long time. Some people feared being called a pothead if they dared to speak out in favor of legalization. But the times, they are a-changing. I see the discussion of cannabis moving from the sidelines into the mainstream, where it belongs. People who never use it nevertheless recognize that cannabis poses less danger to society than the Powers-That-Be would have us believe. Prohibition of cannabis has even less scientific basis than the Prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s. Cannabis is safer. Later generations will look back upon the Prohibition years as collective hysteria.
The disparity in opinion between liberals and conservatives is not surprising. Modern-day conservatives seem to relish the idea of inflicting severe punishment for other people's peccadillos. Some favor making prison a nasty and brutish trauma as well. This draconian policy is not without costs. Conservatives have been in power for so long in the United States that today our prison system has over two million people. Such a huge amount of incarceration has consequences for the economy and the well-being of poor families. The cost is a long-term drain upon the national resources. If Americans were presented with a bill detailing the cost of Prohibition over the last century, the total would surely eclipse the budget deficit. Meanwhile, Holland gets by just fine with a liberal policy toward cannabis.
This chart was found on a recent posting on the NORML web site.
I wonder how much those who are 65+ really know about cannabis. Do they base their opinion upon government propaganda? The government is concerned with political expediency and is not a reliable source on this particular subject.
Cannabis has been a taboo topic for a long time. Some people feared being called a pothead if they dared to speak out in favor of legalization. But the times, they are a-changing. I see the discussion of cannabis moving from the sidelines into the mainstream, where it belongs. People who never use it nevertheless recognize that cannabis poses less danger to society than the Powers-That-Be would have us believe. Prohibition of cannabis has even less scientific basis than the Prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s. Cannabis is safer. Later generations will look back upon the Prohibition years as collective hysteria.
The disparity in opinion between liberals and conservatives is not surprising. Modern-day conservatives seem to relish the idea of inflicting severe punishment for other people's peccadillos. Some favor making prison a nasty and brutish trauma as well. This draconian policy is not without costs. Conservatives have been in power for so long in the United States that today our prison system has over two million people. Such a huge amount of incarceration has consequences for the economy and the well-being of poor families. The cost is a long-term drain upon the national resources. If Americans were presented with a bill detailing the cost of Prohibition over the last century, the total would surely eclipse the budget deficit. Meanwhile, Holland gets by just fine with a liberal policy toward cannabis.
Asperger's Syndrome
Psychology attempts to classify individuals into various categories. Often this is like trying to put round pegs into a square hole. The good doctor observes similarities among individuals and attempts to generalize, which is only natural. Generalization works quite well in tackling other matters, such as corn, soybean, insects and animals. Humans are incredibly complex, though, and some individuals are quite difficult to classify. This presents a challenge for the psychologist. Theories tend to miss the mark when working with individuals. A psychologist should remain flexible and not take any one theory as absolute Gospel. There are infinite permutations, particularly in a diverse population spanning the globe. In addition to innate traits, there are societal and familial influences to consider. Psychologists therefore have a difficult time of things, and I don't envy their job. They grapple with the most intricate puzzle of all, H. Sapiens.
This morning, at random, I entered "love" in Wikipedia just to see what the article would say. I have loved plenty of people in my life. It's kind of a crazy feeling, which the article confirmed. "Love" led me to an article on "love-shyness," which is a condition in which an individual is unable to establish a relationship with another person, usually an opposite-sex person. The heterosexual author of the theory suggests that love-shyness is confined to heterosexuals, but I'm skeptical of that, being gay myself. I have felt love-shyness before, even around the same sex. This so-called condition is also quite a common plot in situation comedies.
One of the proposed causes of love-shyness was hypoglycemia, which I may have to some degree, and "Asperger's Syndrome," a term I have come across before. Science fiction author Piers Anthony wrote on his blog (I forget which monthly posting) that his father probably suffered from AS.
In reading about this syndrome or disorder (the psychologists have not reached a consensus over which slot to place AS in), I felt a bit taken aback. The description sounded a little like me. I've been accused of pedantry, for instance. I certainly do like big words. The description of early childhood and adolescence did not seem off base for me, either. When I was a child, one girl called me a "walking, talking encyclopedia." This seemed to echo the description that Hans Asperger applied to four boys that he diagnosed with AS. He called them his "little professors." Adolescence was a challenging period, but it is for many gay people, due to the hostility one may find in high school just for being different.
Syndrome is a scary word. This was a test for my ego. Did I suffer from AS? Do I suffer from AS? At first I thought, maybe. However, I have this memory-resident program running at all times in the background of my operating system. It is a handy little utility called "Question Authority." I have enough experience with academia to remain unfazed by fancy terms.
Upon reflection, it sounds to me like the establishment has found a label to put on nerds. Everyone wants to place a label on everyone else. It seems to make things easier. But humans cannot be classified like insects, not in the way that some would like to do. There are some that prefer to take a pathological view of others. They will look for a difference, and instead of interpreting the difference as a simple variation, which may be adaptive in certain scenarios, they think it is a symptom of either an illness or moral evil. I am more familiar with this sadistic attitude than most people, being homosexual. One of the main drives in human beings is ego fulfillment, and one of the paths to this end is the belittlement of others. If others are sick or wrong, then that implies that you, the observer, are better than they are. And is that so? When you point a finger at another person, three fingers are pointing back at you.
I visited a forum for "Asperger's Spouses," where I found supposedly normal wives complaining about the eccentricities and perceived effeminacy of their heterosexual husbands. They were convinced their husbands had AS. The term seems like just another label used to beat other people over the head with. If you can diagnose someone with XYZ, then you're automatically right forever, and they're automatically in the wrong, no matter what the circumstances. The diagnosis sounds like a convenient weapon to me.
How normal is normal functioning? The nations of the world often slay each others' people by the thousands or even by the millions. This is a demonstrated and documented fact about normal, sane people. How rational are normal people, if violence is their answer? It seems closer to the truth to confess that the majority is not such a sterling model of sanity to begin with. Normal is just not that great. Look at the results.
The criteria for AS includes a difficulty in understanding humor, social nuances and figures of speech. AS'ers also have a tendency to have a narrow range of interests. They may memorize railroad schedules, catalog information, or movie times, something I've never done. Based upon these and other criteria, I decided I'm about 25% closer to AS than the general population, but not quite there. I can sit by a computer almost all day writing, programming, reading, or researching. I like these activities a great deal. But in other ways, I am unlike AS people. I'm not clumsy, but have average physical dexterity. I don't have any problem with small talk, love humor, and watch comedies on a daily basis. I don't shy away from abstract concepts, and I'm not confined to one narrow area of interest. Dungeon Crawl may be a minority subject, but if every person with a niche interest is AS, then that implicates all of academia along with me. I like everything taught at college. There aren't many subjects I don't find interesting. I'm more of a generalist than the AS diagnosis predicts.
I suspect the psychologist's viewpoint is influenced by their occupation. They must deal with disturbed individuals suffering from behavioral problems. They spend less time with the well-adjusted than with the troubled. So their viewpoint is apt to assume a pathological bias. There was a famous study once in which a psychologist sent several normal volunteers, mostly graduate students, to mental hospitals. Each of the volunteers claimed to be hearing voices, but mentioned no other symptoms. Almost all of them were admitted and diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia, manic-depression, or something similar. After a few months, the "patients" revealed the experiment to the hospitals and published the results. This scandal exposed the fallibility of psychological diagnosis.
It would be well for people who have been told they are some kind of label to take the diagnosis with a grain of salt. Perhaps the esteemed professional is correct, perhaps he is mistaken, or there is a third possibility, perhaps he is both correct in some ways and mistaken in other ways. No one is God. No one is omniscient, no matter what they may claim. No matter what their rank in the social hierarchy, each person generates their own internal version of reality which differs to some degree from objective reality. J.R.R. Tolkien once wrote, "Even the wise cannot see all ends." And in the Bible it says, "We see the world as through a glass [mirror] darkly."
There is much in the realm of psychology that remains a mystery, more so than in the other sciences. Psychology today remains in its infancy. In any case, if one is diagnosed, it's not the end of the world. As for AS, there are certainly worse things to be than that. It seems rather mild in comparison to some of the other classifications.
As a computer programmer, I have known on a professional basis many nerds, and some of them probably did suffer from AS or HFA (High-Functioning Autism). I remember several guys and even a couple of women that almost never interacted with the others around them. They tended to be heterosexual. They did not even say hello to me in passing. I sometimes felt offended by this behavior, but then I learned that they were this way to everyone, by no means just me. They were pretty good programmers, if unlikely to wear the latest fashions. They were shy and not apt with small talk. The truth is that they were probably afraid of the so-called normal people. They did not understand us, and for this reason hesitated to engage us in conversation. But if you asked them a question and were patient enough to listen to them, they could interact well enough for the purpose of the job.
I am reminded of the bitter complaints of wives of AS sufferers. If nerdiness bothers a woman, then she should not marry such a man in the first place. Who is really to blame for the marriage: the socially naive nerd, who is gullible and often the victim in social settings, or the so-called normal partner? It is a good idea to know one's boyfriend well before putting a ring on one's finger. Marrying someone just because they are willing to support you is seldom a good idea. Desperation is not a good reason for marriage either. But if one does marry for these reasons, allowances should be made for the other person's eccentricities. One can't expect a nerd to transform overnight into Prince Charming. It's asking too much.
My advice to psychologists is to go a little easier on the nerds. Don't give them such a hard time. You need them to wrestle with all the technical problems in today's world. Of course, when a married couple comes in for counseling, it may be an easy thing to target the least socially sophisticated spouse and pile all the blame upon him, because he will be less likely to seek confrontation. This is an easy path to take, but not necessarily the right one.
This morning, at random, I entered "love" in Wikipedia just to see what the article would say. I have loved plenty of people in my life. It's kind of a crazy feeling, which the article confirmed. "Love" led me to an article on "love-shyness," which is a condition in which an individual is unable to establish a relationship with another person, usually an opposite-sex person. The heterosexual author of the theory suggests that love-shyness is confined to heterosexuals, but I'm skeptical of that, being gay myself. I have felt love-shyness before, even around the same sex. This so-called condition is also quite a common plot in situation comedies.
One of the proposed causes of love-shyness was hypoglycemia, which I may have to some degree, and "Asperger's Syndrome," a term I have come across before. Science fiction author Piers Anthony wrote on his blog (I forget which monthly posting) that his father probably suffered from AS.
In reading about this syndrome or disorder (the psychologists have not reached a consensus over which slot to place AS in), I felt a bit taken aback. The description sounded a little like me. I've been accused of pedantry, for instance. I certainly do like big words. The description of early childhood and adolescence did not seem off base for me, either. When I was a child, one girl called me a "walking, talking encyclopedia." This seemed to echo the description that Hans Asperger applied to four boys that he diagnosed with AS. He called them his "little professors." Adolescence was a challenging period, but it is for many gay people, due to the hostility one may find in high school just for being different.
Syndrome is a scary word. This was a test for my ego. Did I suffer from AS? Do I suffer from AS? At first I thought, maybe. However, I have this memory-resident program running at all times in the background of my operating system. It is a handy little utility called "Question Authority." I have enough experience with academia to remain unfazed by fancy terms.
Upon reflection, it sounds to me like the establishment has found a label to put on nerds. Everyone wants to place a label on everyone else. It seems to make things easier. But humans cannot be classified like insects, not in the way that some would like to do. There are some that prefer to take a pathological view of others. They will look for a difference, and instead of interpreting the difference as a simple variation, which may be adaptive in certain scenarios, they think it is a symptom of either an illness or moral evil. I am more familiar with this sadistic attitude than most people, being homosexual. One of the main drives in human beings is ego fulfillment, and one of the paths to this end is the belittlement of others. If others are sick or wrong, then that implies that you, the observer, are better than they are. And is that so? When you point a finger at another person, three fingers are pointing back at you.
I visited a forum for "Asperger's Spouses," where I found supposedly normal wives complaining about the eccentricities and perceived effeminacy of their heterosexual husbands. They were convinced their husbands had AS. The term seems like just another label used to beat other people over the head with. If you can diagnose someone with XYZ, then you're automatically right forever, and they're automatically in the wrong, no matter what the circumstances. The diagnosis sounds like a convenient weapon to me.
How normal is normal functioning? The nations of the world often slay each others' people by the thousands or even by the millions. This is a demonstrated and documented fact about normal, sane people. How rational are normal people, if violence is their answer? It seems closer to the truth to confess that the majority is not such a sterling model of sanity to begin with. Normal is just not that great. Look at the results.
The criteria for AS includes a difficulty in understanding humor, social nuances and figures of speech. AS'ers also have a tendency to have a narrow range of interests. They may memorize railroad schedules, catalog information, or movie times, something I've never done. Based upon these and other criteria, I decided I'm about 25% closer to AS than the general population, but not quite there. I can sit by a computer almost all day writing, programming, reading, or researching. I like these activities a great deal. But in other ways, I am unlike AS people. I'm not clumsy, but have average physical dexterity. I don't have any problem with small talk, love humor, and watch comedies on a daily basis. I don't shy away from abstract concepts, and I'm not confined to one narrow area of interest. Dungeon Crawl may be a minority subject, but if every person with a niche interest is AS, then that implicates all of academia along with me. I like everything taught at college. There aren't many subjects I don't find interesting. I'm more of a generalist than the AS diagnosis predicts.
I suspect the psychologist's viewpoint is influenced by their occupation. They must deal with disturbed individuals suffering from behavioral problems. They spend less time with the well-adjusted than with the troubled. So their viewpoint is apt to assume a pathological bias. There was a famous study once in which a psychologist sent several normal volunteers, mostly graduate students, to mental hospitals. Each of the volunteers claimed to be hearing voices, but mentioned no other symptoms. Almost all of them were admitted and diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia, manic-depression, or something similar. After a few months, the "patients" revealed the experiment to the hospitals and published the results. This scandal exposed the fallibility of psychological diagnosis.
It would be well for people who have been told they are some kind of label to take the diagnosis with a grain of salt. Perhaps the esteemed professional is correct, perhaps he is mistaken, or there is a third possibility, perhaps he is both correct in some ways and mistaken in other ways. No one is God. No one is omniscient, no matter what they may claim. No matter what their rank in the social hierarchy, each person generates their own internal version of reality which differs to some degree from objective reality. J.R.R. Tolkien once wrote, "Even the wise cannot see all ends." And in the Bible it says, "We see the world as through a glass [mirror] darkly."
There is much in the realm of psychology that remains a mystery, more so than in the other sciences. Psychology today remains in its infancy. In any case, if one is diagnosed, it's not the end of the world. As for AS, there are certainly worse things to be than that. It seems rather mild in comparison to some of the other classifications.
As a computer programmer, I have known on a professional basis many nerds, and some of them probably did suffer from AS or HFA (High-Functioning Autism). I remember several guys and even a couple of women that almost never interacted with the others around them. They tended to be heterosexual. They did not even say hello to me in passing. I sometimes felt offended by this behavior, but then I learned that they were this way to everyone, by no means just me. They were pretty good programmers, if unlikely to wear the latest fashions. They were shy and not apt with small talk. The truth is that they were probably afraid of the so-called normal people. They did not understand us, and for this reason hesitated to engage us in conversation. But if you asked them a question and were patient enough to listen to them, they could interact well enough for the purpose of the job.
I am reminded of the bitter complaints of wives of AS sufferers. If nerdiness bothers a woman, then she should not marry such a man in the first place. Who is really to blame for the marriage: the socially naive nerd, who is gullible and often the victim in social settings, or the so-called normal partner? It is a good idea to know one's boyfriend well before putting a ring on one's finger. Marrying someone just because they are willing to support you is seldom a good idea. Desperation is not a good reason for marriage either. But if one does marry for these reasons, allowances should be made for the other person's eccentricities. One can't expect a nerd to transform overnight into Prince Charming. It's asking too much.
My advice to psychologists is to go a little easier on the nerds. Don't give them such a hard time. You need them to wrestle with all the technical problems in today's world. Of course, when a married couple comes in for counseling, it may be an easy thing to target the least socially sophisticated spouse and pile all the blame upon him, because he will be less likely to seek confrontation. This is an easy path to take, but not necessarily the right one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)