Gay Rights, Religion, and Stupid Assumptions

Okay, this post might get me some flak. So be it.

I saw a post in FB which went "I might lose friends over this but I support Gay Rights" and a person had commented "You don't read your bible do you? How do two men or two women make a baby?" (Okay, I admit I fixed the spelling mistakes)

Say what?

How does the concept of equal rights for people no matter what their sexuality is become the ability to bear a child? And what does reading the bible have to do with being able to bear a child? If only Christians were capable of bearing children we'd have a lot smaller world population. Considering the huge number of people following other faiths out there, this obviously is not the case.

I've read the bible. I've actually studied it and all I can say is that it really does require a lot of faith to accept it as written. I mean a LOT of faith. There are so many contradictions in it that my head swims from them. And I am referring to just the Old Testament. Add in the New Testament and you really need to be distanced from any rational thought to believe in all this.

Now there are good things to the bible. It does teach us to be good to one another and to be forgiving and tolerant. If you accept those particular parts of it as your doctrine. If you go for the other parts - an eye for an eye, no tolerance, etc - then you get the religious fanatics. unfortunately, too many people go for the eye for an eye policies.

I have my personal faith and my moral beliefs follow the basic tenets of being a good person, treating others fairly, and living my life without hurting others. I know I have taken my beliefs from the bible - no lying, no cheating, no judging others, etc - and yet because I don't follow an orthodox faith (Catholic, Protestant, Hebrew, Islam, etc) I am told that I will not get into Heaven.

Let me take you on a little tour through history and the bible.

Before churches were built, men gathered to worship God on hillsides and in clearings. Then they built the Tabernacles and later stone churches. Religion changed from being a personal faith where each man carried God inside him and could pray to Him anywhere and at anytime to having to go to a House of God on certain days and at certain times so that God would hear him.

Now the cynical part of me says "Priests and clerics figured out how to use fear to control their populations" and "Someone figured out how to make money pretty early". Or well, since money didn't exist as such then, it was mostly a barter system still, someone figured out how to collect goods by using a tithing system.

But I digress. If one looks objectively at religion and the bible is used more as a history book, one can see how religion became organized and used to control people. It is still being used to control people today. Not for their benefit either. Religious leaders don't like people who think and especially those who question.

But one of the things I really like to point out to people is that the bible is written by people who talked to God. In their day, they were considered Holy Men touched by God and the bringer of His Word to the people. Nowadays, we lock up people who claim to talk with God in insane asylums.

So, our religions are based on the words of people we would now consider to be insane. Think about that.

Every time someone tells me that something is against God's will and especially that it is in the bible, I throw this back at them "Judge not, lest ye be judged." The quote is from Matthew 7:1 but there are several other references throughout the bible about judging and condemning and putting obstacles in the way. All of these references refer to not judging others so that a worse fate will not fall on you.

Yet people judge. Constantly.

I try to live my life without judging others. I don't care what a person's sexuality, religious beliefs, political leanings, gender, age, language, culture, or any of the countless other things people use to make judgments are. What I care about is how the person acts around me and if they are a person that I want to continue to be around. Period.

That doesn't mean I don't make judgments, I'm just as human as any one else. But my judgments are usually based on the actions and sometimes the fashion and eating habits of people. I don't need to know and I don't care about a person's sexuality. I certainly don't think it has anything to do with whether or not a person is a caring, capable person.

I think we need to have faith in something bigger than ourselves. But we need to think for ourselves as well and not blindly accept someone else's interpretation of a philosophy (which is what religion really is) and a moral code. We need to be able to question it, to test it, and make sure it is for the betterment of all of us. And we need to accept that not everyone will agree on the proper way to follow their faith.

Isn't that what it really is all about anyway? Faith.

PS. No, I did not capitalize the bible at any time. If anyone is offended by that, sorry you're so easily offended but this is my blog and my choice. It is simply a book to me.

On Being Famous and Death

I've actually had a couple of opportunities to become famous. But I shied away from them like they were the plague. It's much more important to me that I have my personal space and life and that's something that's lost when a person becomes famous.

Every couple of weeks there's another death announced of some famous person. Sometimes it's someone I don't know at all; other times I go "Awww, no." It doesn't matter that I never met the person or really knew them, I knew how their work had affected my life and that made them special to me. So, along with all their other fans, I grieved at their passing.

There's a dichotomy in all of us that most of us don't realize. We want to be well known so that when we die there are lots of people who will mourn us. We want to be loved by everyone and know we'll be missed. But the price of being well known is to lose our privacy since every movement, every word, every outfit is scrutinized and criticized and commented on. Including many that we don't do. Pictures are taken whether we want them to be or not. Rumours abound, whether true or false, and are taken to be truth anyway. Any problem we try to deal with is blown up and announced to the world.

So our need for privacy fights our need to be loved by everyone. Obviously, many people have a stronger need to be in the spotlight and become famous. Most of us want our privacy or lack the confidence to expose every aspect of our lives to the public and so we don't become famous. But just because we don't have most of the world ready to mourn us when we die doesn't mean we don't have people who will mourn us.

We are a weird species. We live in the moment yet we're driven by future events. Our primary drives are to reproduce, survive, and be remembered. Death preys on our minds no matter how young or old we are. Of course, it becomes more of a conscious awareness as we age but even when we are very young we are still preoccupied with our manner of death. How will I die? How many people will miss me? How will I be remembered? Will anyone remember me?

I know that when I die there will be a small group of people immediately affected - my spouse, child, in-laws, sister and her family, my friends. If word is spread either through an obituary or by word of mouth, there will be other people who will think "That name is familiar" and might remember me from when I worked with them. But the overall number will be less than a hundred, mostly because it's been a while since I worked and people forget co-workers after a couple of years.

Which is fine with me.

I know my husband thinks the world should mourn when I die. He thinks that they don't know just how special a person they will be losing. I think he has an overblown appreciation of me but that's okay, because he loves me. :)

One of the reasons we are drawn towards being famous is so that we can influence other people. I know I like to think that I have influenced some people over the years. that I've helped people to open their eyes and really see the world and how their actions, reactions, and thinking have been driven by other people and not their own choices. I know I have shown one person at least how to be more objective and not assume that another viewpoint is correct without checking out the facts himself. So I haven't influenced thousands of people but one person can influence another who can influence another who can influence another, etc. So, given enough time, I might have influenced hundreds of people without ever meeting them.

And in the end, isn't that the best memorial a person can have?

A Book Review

Hmm, been busy and tired for the past few weeks but didn't think it's been as long as it has been since I last posted. Sorry about that.

A few weeks ago I got an email from Chapters/Indigo Books about a new Hercule Poirot mystery. Now since Agatha Christie is dead and has been for several years, I was surprised to get this notification. But, apparently the estate of Ms. Christie was approached about a new novel and after considerable discussion, approved the request.

Naturally, every Poirot fan out there was excited and worried about a new novel. How good is this author at recreating Christie's style? How well does she know Poirot? Too many times, authors have tried to write about characters and worlds that are not their own and have done bad, no horrible works which have destroyed some or all of the pleasure people got from that world and characters.

The reviews looked good, perhaps too good. I don't usually pay attention to reviews as I like to judge myself but in this case I wanted to see what other people were saying. Unfortunately, I have no idea who most of these reviewers are so I don't know how well their opinions and mine would mesh. However, I was willing to take the chance.

The BBC has adapted all the novels written by Christie about Poirot and they have been performed fabulously by David Suchet, who, without any doubt, has faithfully captured the essence of Poirot. It is him that I picture when I read a Poirot mystery. I might quibble with some of the adaptations not being entirely true to the novels (Murder on the Orient Express in particular) but never with Mr. Suchet's performance of Poirot.

So, with that in mind, I opened the book and started reading.

The author, Sophie Hannah, has done an excellent thing - she has introduced a character never before heard about to be the main narrator of the story but she does do some scenes from Poirot's viewpoint. Christie did the same in many of her stories, telling most of it from Hastings' viewpoint but with the occasional scenes from Poirot's viewpoint. Hannah brings in an Scotland Yard Inspector, younger than Poirot but with some experience under him. Like Hastings, Catchpool is stereotypical British and many of Poirot's habits are annoying to him. And like Hastings, he says things that help Poirot solve the case.

There were a few times when I felt that the story tripped me up. When I read, I like an author who can make me feel like I'm gliding through the story, catching me up into it and taking me along until the end. When something doesn't fit right, when the writing is off, it's like stubbing a toe or hitting a bump. There were a few places when I thought "That isn't precisely how Poirot would act or what he would say" but very few places were like that. Less than five anyway. And they were all in the first three chapters. Like Christie, Hannah kept her chapters short.

Overall, I was pleased with the book. If anything, it was too short. I want more Poirot. But the story was the right length, not dragged out and not compressed. Poirot was there, even if there were a few times when he seemed to fade a bit into the background rather than stand forth. Catchpool is a character with obvious flaws, one of which played an important part and perhaps was too prevalent. But he is a likable character and has the potential to become as much a favourite supporting character as Hastings or Japp.

If she writes more Poirot mysteries, I will certainly be trying to get my hands on them. I give her a 9.75 out of 10. Aside from the little hiccups in her writing, I had figured out who was involved and most of how it was done between the halfway and three-quarters marks. Some of it from the very beginning. With Christie, it usually took me almost three-quarters of the book to figure out most of who did it and how and rarely was I certain of any of my reasoning before I was two-thirds of the way through. Still, there was one surprise in it. So, overall, I am happy with the book.

If you are a Poirot fan, get the book. If you like mysteries and have never read Christie's Poirot, start reading them.

Love and Life

Love is the strongest power in the world. Love can move mountains. As long as you love you live.

Love is fragile.

Of all the sayings about love, and there are lots more than the few I quoted, that last statement is the truest. Love is fragile. Everyone has heard of couples deeply in love who become the bitterest enemies. Because love and hate are flip sides of the same emotion.

Yes, the same emotion not opposite emotions.

Human beings are complicated and we tend to identify things in complex manners which we then try to break down into the simplest components we can. Emotions are perhaps the hardest for us to deal with because they are all interlinked. And the love/hate emotion is the most complex one of all.

Negative emotions are the easiest for us to experience. Positive emotions need support to survive. they need the determination of the person to feel them and not let them be overwhelmed by the negative emotions. Negative emotions can grab us and pull us into them very quickly and very easily and exert a grip we have to fight to escape. Positive emotions lift us up and make us drop our defenses so that we are more vulnerable.

So why bother with positive emotions? Because they are better for us. They show us all that is and can be good and help us be better people. But, yes, they leave us exposed to those who don't fight negative emotions.

Love is the worst for making us vulnerable because we want so much to be loved in return and to please the person we love and have them be pleased with who we are. Love that isn't returned will die or be turned into hate. Thus the reason why two people who loved deeply can become the bitterest enemies. The coin flips, the emotion is turned over and love becomes hate in equal measure.

Usually, love that is not returned will die away, sometimes in bitterness, sometimes not. It depends on the situation. Sometimes, love is eroded as events occur to make a person think that their love is not appreciated or returned or valued.

That's what happened with me. I used to worship my mother. She was the world's greatest mother in my eyes. As I got older and saw more of her flaws my opinion didn't change. She had sometimes overcome her flaws and sometimes had given into them but she was always trying to be the best she could be. And I loved her for it. She inspired me.

Then my father died and my mother was on her own. She rose to the challenge magnificently. She grieved then set about making her life her own. I was so proud of her.

I got pregnant for a second time but this time something went wrong and I ended up losing the baby. My husband and I talked it over and decided that was it, no more trying for children. I had lost the baby to the same illness that my second sister had lived with and I didn't want to run the risk of having it happen again if we tried for another child. I thought it was a genetic condition.

My mother, seeing one of her last chances to have more grandchildren being taken away, decided that was a good time to tell me I was adopted. No, no that wasn't a good time. Telling me during my first pregnancy would have been a better time so that I could have known the family medical history was pointless. Telling me after I had just lost my baby was a bad time.

And how do I know she told me only because she wanted more grandchildren? She told me so. She also told my brother he was adopted because he and his wife were debating having more kids because of what had happened with me. If nothing had happened, she would never have told us.

Some of the love I had for her died when she did that. How could a mother say such a thing to her child? Because despite not being born from her I had been her child since I was a couple of months old. For years I told myself that she had also done it out of love for me, to let me know I couldn't rely on the family medical history for any potential problems, and because she didn't want me making a rash decision by thinking there was a genetic flaw to worry about.

But her words stayed at the back of my head and whenever they tried to come out I'd push them back. I didn't want to bring that back up and open old scars. I didn't want to have her confirm that she was disappointed I kept to my decision not to try for another child.

However, telling me seemed to open a floodgate. For several years nothing was mentioned about me being adopted then I started getting little "confidences" when I spoke with Mom. Well, maybe my father had really been my father. There were three other children my birth mother had had and one looked a lot like me.

Well, I wondered. How did she know so much about my birth mother? Was this a person I had met when i was younger and never knew the biological relationship? Why is Mom bringing this up?

Then we decided to move back to the same city again. Mom had commented on not being able to see me and my daughter as much as she wanted. She was never close to y husband. So now we'd be in the same city and able to get together whenever we wanted. Or so we thought.

But Mom was always busy with some activity or plans with friends. Calling her was pointless since she wasn't home or was about to head out or have someone by or another call would interrupt us. So I told her to call me since I was almost always available. I know she complained about me never calling to my sister because she'd bring it up with me once in a while and I'd remind her I have tried calling. She tended to forget details like that though.

And every time we talked she'd say "We have to get together and spend the day" and I'd tell her "anytime, just let me know when you're free". The only days I wouldn't have dropped everything to spend time with her would have been days when I had a doctor's appointment. But she was always too busy.

Yet somehow it was my fault because I wasn't able to get over and visit at any time. I took the buses so I was restricted to their schedule, which wasn't great. I certainly couldn't afford to hop a cab over to visit every week.

And my love died a bit more.

When my mom died earlier this year from lung and bone cancer, she had almost completely destroyed the love I had felt for her. I cried for the first day because despite everything she was my mom and I had loved her. But my grief was already ebbing by the next day and before the week was out it was like she had been dead for years except for still thinking it was her when the phone rang in the evening or seeing something I thought she'd like made for her. Even that faded in a few weeks.

My mom wasn't perfect. But she changed a lot during the years when we moved away. Before we moved, we spent time together. Not every week but every second month we'd get together and spend some time together. Mom was driving then so she'd come over and pick up me and my daughter. She stopped driving while we were gone and when she did, she still used the buses to get around.

When we moved back, Mom moved in with her boyfriend of several years and became dependent on him to be driven around. She stopped using the buses. And he wasn't the type to be willing to drive around for someone he hardly knew. I was willing to work with the bus schedule.

But I was getting the impression that Mom didn't really want to spend time with me or my daughter. Somehow, whether because she had finally told me I was adopted or because she had rearranged her life to not have me in it when I moved away, it wasn't important to her to make the time to spend with me or to rearrange her plans to spend time with me. Or at least that was how it seemed to me.

I will drop anything, except doctor appointments (:P), to spend time with anyone who asks me for it. A friend calls and asks if it's all right to drop by in ten minutes or so, no problem, come on by. Meet up with them someplace? Sure, just will take some time to get there.

I know how important it is to let people know you want them in your life. Because love is fragile and can be killed so very, very easily. I'm sorry Mom. I used to love you a lot. I miss you and wish things had been different. But you rebuffed all the times I tried to reach out to you and let you know I still loved you and wanted to be with you. I do still love you. Just not as much as I used to.

Self Image, Esteem, and Analysis

I was talking with a friend who was applying for a job and had to answer one of those personality questionnaires some companies still use. He said it wasn't the first part that was annoying, how would you describe yourself, but the second part, how would your friends describe you, that made him wonder who thinks up these things. How are we supposed to know how our friends would describe us? It's not something we normally discuss.

It reminded me of the questionnaires I got in my course when we were doing the social interaction module. I wondered if someone mixed up the forms they were to give my friend. But it also got me thinking about self analysis.

One of the hardest things to do is to take an honest look at ourselves. We have our own self-image of who we think we are and sometimes, well okay usually, it doesn't completely match with who we really are. Because you know, we want to be people who keep our tempers, who react well under pressure, who have a witty and charming response to other people in any situation. We don't like admitting we have flaws and we really hate it when someone else points out our flaws.

Several years ago I took a good long hard look at myself. I had just experienced an event which tore apart my world and made me wonder who I was and where I was from and where I wanted to go. It took time but I looked at who I was and had been and decided on who I wanted to be. Some things I didn't need to change. Some things I had to change. And some things needed to be changed but for whatever reason couldn't be changed so I had to figure out a compromise.

To illustrate, I was a person who cared about others, that could stay. I cared too much about what other people thought, that had to change and could be changed without losing the ability to care. I didn't like confrontations and couldn't change that fact but needed to find some way to handle it. Well, if I wasn't strong enough to handle confrontations then I would have to be able to let other people do their ranting and raving without taking it personally and let it slide off. then I would have to work around the other person to do whatever needed to be done. That I could do.

Our self image and self esteem are vital to our interactions with other people. One message I'm always giving to people younger than me is that no matter what anyone else says, the only person they need to have approval from is their self. There will always be people willing to criticize, complain, tear down, walk over, and generally treat you as if you don't matter. Because you don't matter to them so why should they matter to you?

Despite how it sometimes seems, there are actually more decent people around than nasty people. But the people who don't personally know you won't put themselves out to defend you, they have no reason to do so. So it seems, from our viewpoint, as if there are more uncaring people out there than not.

In the end we all have to decide who we want to be. When people hurt us we have a choice. We can let them walk over us and make us feel worthless. We can stand up and fight back, making ourselves feel more miserable as anger and bitterness take over because the other person won't care and won't change. Or we can ignore the other person and be who we want to be.

It's hard to be who you want to be because there's so much pressure to conform and be one of the regular people, the "normals", to have the approval of others, and to fit in. Someone someplace will not approve of something you do or say and will be very happy to give you their opinion on how you should be acting. Just smile, make an appropriate polite and noncommittal response (I prefer "I'll have to think about that"), and let it slide away. It is your life and it is your choice on what sort of person you are.

There is only one person who lives with you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, every year of your life. So if you can look in a mirror and like the person looking back at you, you're ahead of the majority of the species.

There are still things I would like to change but realize I probably never will change. When I look at myself in the mirror, aside from wishing I was prettier, I like the person I see. And I know it's been a long, tough road getting to this point but the journey is worth it. Because I am a person I am proud of. That's really all that counts.

Pondering

First off, sorry about the long delay between posts. Life has been a bit hectic and a lot stressful. But for now things are peaceful. I know they won't stay that way but still, I'm taking advantage of it.

So I try very hard to distinguish between stupid acts and people really being stupid. Sometimes, simple ignorance is to blame. I can't blame a person for not knowing something although I can blame them for not seeking knowledge. But generally speaking, I can find a reason for a person doing or believing something without thinking they are inherently stupid.

But seriously, who believes dinosaurs still exist?

There was a picture of Stephen Spielberg posing with a "dead" dinosaur that was going around the Internet and people actually thought he had killed a dinosaur for one of his movies. Honestly folks? Please tell me this was a mass joke. *sigh*

I look at the pictures and posts people put online and shudder when I see simple spelling mistakes. I'm not even talking leet speak here but people trying to use plain English. I know I sometimes type too fast and mix up letters but that's why I proof-read before I post. I don't just rely on the spellchecker to notice mistakes. But some people don't even use the spellchecker.

I have to come to the conclusion that, yes, there are actually people that are stupid. Not just that they are uneducated or struggling with a language that is not their natural language but actually stupid. How else can one explain why these people do not want to make life better for themselves by getting an education?

I know many people find learning hard and the school systems badly need to be overhauled to help people learn and not simply memorize facts but there are groups and individuals who are willing to help people learn on their own so they can be better citizens. Not as many as needed but there is help out there.

So, all I can conclude when someone isn't willing to learn is that they really are stupid and feel sorry for them. Because no one will hire them or if they do hire them, they will be stuck in menial dead-end jobs. But, of course, it will never be their fault, right?

Pride, Prejudice, and Sexual Orientation

I like to think of myself as fairly intelligent, tolerant, and open minded. I have had many people tell me I'm unique in that I don't judge people by colour, gender, or sexual orientation. I don't know how or why I have that mindset because my parents certainly had their share of prejudices. But there are certain things I don't understand, no matter how hard I try, concerning how people act and react when it comes to sexual concepts.

I have several friends who belong to the LGBT community. I know 5 transgendered people, two of whom I met before they transitioned, two I met after they had transitioned, and one that was in the process when we first met. The two who transitioned after I met them I hadn't know for too long so it was easy enough to switch gender labels when referring to or talking with them. The one in the process simply made it easier because I went with that person's preferred goal.

The two who had already transitioned were the ones who confused me. I wouldn't have known they were transgendered if they hadn't told me. As far as I was concerned they were the guy and the gal I met and I would have assumed were always those genders. I didn't see any reason for them to tell me.

That's what confuses me is the need, one might almost say desperate need, of LGBT people to tell everyone they meet that they are LGBT. Are they trying to find out immediately who is prejudiced so they know who to avoid? Are they so defined by their sexual orientation that they have to get that label out there immediately? I don't define my friends by their orientations any more than I would their political affiliations although there are people who also thrust their political affiliations right into the faces of people they have just met.

Myself, I like introductions to be "Hi. I'm ________. Nice to meet you." not "Hi, I'm ________, I'm gay/bi/transgend." or "Hi, I'm __________. I'm a Liberal/Conservative/PQ/Green Party?Democrat/Republican." I don't know about other people but by skipping the pleasantries and jumping straight into personal facts you tell me a couple of things you might not have intended to say.

First, you're insecure/nervous/scared/proud/aggressively defensive about whatever you just told me. Your tone of voice and body language will tell me which of those adjectives applies. Second, you either are expecting to be rejected or want a fight over the issue. Third, you have no concept of personal space and the idea of getting to know someone and setting up a good first impression.

The idea that some things should be kept private is not part of the current culture. Or sure people will sometimes precede a post with "Might be TMI" or "TMI" but usually they will just say whatever they want and not seem to care about whether or not people want to read or hear about it. Then they wonder why people get upset.

For me, the fun in meeting new people is getting to know them. To be able to sit and have a conversation where I don't know what answers I'll get to my questions and what stories I will get to hear. Will I learn something new from this person? Can we be friends? Is this the start of a long friendship or a brief passing of two souls?  Will I walk away from this meeting with the knowledge that I have another person to share my world with?

Getting to know someone is like a dance. You start slowly and build up. You exchange pleasantries and cautiously move into more complicated steps (subjects being discussed). You don't jump in and land on the other person's toes by throwing personal facts in immediately.

I understand there's some need in people to put forth their sexual orientation. After all we are sexual animals. Our genetic imperatives are survive and reproduce so we are always assessing everyone we meet as potential mate, potential rival, or non-threat. Sex is a very natural part of who we are. In the immortal words of Gil Grissom "The only thing unnatural about sex is not having it.." Although there are some truly asexual people out there but they are like albinos - naturally occurring but not a typical representation of the species.

So one could say the need to declare oneself as LGBT is a way of determining if the person you feel is a potential mate is of the same persuasion is a valid argument IF the declarations were made primarily to the people one is attracted to. But when you are telling a person of the opposing gender this fact, are you trying to tell they that you aren't available as a potential mate? Because hat's the only reason I see that would make sense. But the people I ask don't know why they tell people their orientation immediately. They think they do but their body language isn't agreeing with their answers.

So maybe I'm closer to the truth. Maybe it is something associated with being LGBT that makes people put their orientation out there immediately to clear the air about whether or not they are available as a potential mate and find out if any potential mates are around. After all, if heterosexual is the "normal" state then it will be assumed by both parties that the other person is exactly what they seem to be.

Then too, there is the perception people have that they have to meet certain standards to be considered whatever gender and orientation they are. Transgendered people in particular seem to feel they have to meet exaggerated standards of genders to be considered a "true" male or female. So a guy has to be a more "manly man" than a natural born male and a girl has to be more "girly girl" than natural born females.

Which is foolish. By letting other people dictate the standards that allow them to feel you are male or female you're empowering their prejudice. If you think you are a particular gender and act the way you feel is natural for yourself then you are whatever gender you claim to be. Standards change when enough people support the changes. By supporting the attitude that whatever a person does is fine for them and that there are no gender-specific actions we can change society's standards on what defines a male and a female and allow their roles to expand as they should to encompass every role as possible.

By letting people's prejudice define your actions you empower the prejudice not tolerance and certainly not yourself. Tolerance is harder to spread than prejudice but once it takes hold it makes sweeping changes in attitudes. Only by encouraging and spreading tolerance can we ever be in a world where people don't define themselves by their orientations, colour, gender, and any other condition we can find to judge people. Instead we'll be in a world where everyone introduces themselves with "Hi. I'm ________. Nice to meet you."

Fighting Cancer

There are a lot of hard things to deal with when fighting cancer. There's the treatments, surgeries, medicines, pain, concern of loved ones, struggling to eat healthy and exercise, and dealing with mortality.

But the hardest part is keeping your morale up.

Especially since you often need to keep the morale of the people who love you up as well.

Finding out you have cancer is like someone suddenly telling you that everything good in the world has been taken away. Your first thoughts are denial (not me!) followed by disbelief (it's a mistake) followed slowly by acceptance (I do have it) and then the struggle begins.

It's hard enough to find good news but when you are facing the fact that you have a disease that will kill you, unless it's one of the treatable cancers, or not if it's survivable it seems you hear even more about the people who don't survive or hear horror stories about people in so much pain they want to die. Let's face it, people like to share news of events so when loved ones die they post about it. They don't always post about the good milestones - being cancer free for 5 years or however many years it's been - unless it relates to themselves.  So it's easy to hear all the negative stories and not hear about the good ones.

But even harder to deal with, is the attitude of our loved ones. We need to think of ourselves as strong, as capable of fighting this disease, of making it through the treatments, and to be as healthy as we can be. So having people tell us or treat us as if we are helpless and fragile doesn't help us. Even when we are weak and throwing up everything and don't have the strength to lift anything or the stamina to move around much, don't tell us how weak and sick we are!  Help us find something to smile or even laugh at. Reassure us that tomorrow we'll be feeling better. Express faith that we'll get through this and be better and stronger for it.

I have an extremely rare cancer. I can't do the chemo or radiation therapies because they don't work on this cancer. I don't need to take any medicine because there isn't any pain and won't be until the end. Mostly what it does is make me look overweight and the surgery has taken away part of my stamina and my immune system is compromised. As the cancer grows it has several effects. It is a weight bearing me down. It eats away at my stamina so I tire easily. Bending over makes me feel nauseous. So I become restricted in what i can do and require more assistance. I will be going for another major surgery and hoping not to lose any more internal organs and that I can recover with more stamina than I currently have. I got back most of my stamina after the last surgery so hope to repeat that.

Right now though, I need more help than normal doing things. My husband and daughter are more than willing to help. All I have to do is ask. So I ask. They know how much my independence means to me so they don't make a fuss about it. My mother-in-law and one of my best friends get upset when I mention needing more help because they think I shouldn't be doing anything, that everything should be done for me because I'm sick. They don't understand how demoralizing that attitude is.

If you treat a person like they are helpless and they let it do it, they become helpless. If you treat them like everyone else, they prove themselves more capable than they thought. Cancer can be beaten and has been beaten. Even the terminal ones can be beaten back for a while. But the mental state, the morale, of the person fighting cancer makes the difference.

Eventually, everyone dies. We're mortal. That is our fate. How we die and when we die isn't always within our control. How we face death, that is within our control. Cancer patients learn to face mortality and decide how we are going to face death. Some people give up. Some people never have time to get out of the denial stage. Most of us face it with humour, strength, love, and a determination to live as long as we can.

Which means we fight to keep our morale high and rely on our loved ones to help us even as we help them keep their morale high. In the end, that's what matters. Helping one another.

Reactions

June 4, 2014, Wednesday evening, a little past 7 PM AST, a 24-year-old man walked out of his home dressed in camouflage and carrying a couple of guns and a bow. He walked down the street of his neighbourhood knowing someone would call the police because there are a lot of kids in that area. Then he waited for the police to respond and walked up behind the first one and shot him. He then shot the two officers responding as back up and the two officers following them. Of the 5 officers, 3 died instantly or before help could get to them. Then the young man walked away and a massive manhunt started.

The area was bound by woods on one side and residential streets on the others. the wooded area had a ravine that cut through it and a high fence that followed the ravine. So the police barricaded along the ravine, down the main streets bordering the area in a large triangular shape and locked down the area. Residents were asked to stay inside and make sure their doors were locked.

By Thursday morning, all schools were closed, all businesses in the area closed, and the city buses were kept off the streets. Any cars trying to leave the zone were searched and no vehicles were allowed in. The gunman was spotted a few times walking across back yards or along side streets and his location reported to the police. Police came in from other areas to help search. The public was asked not to post the locations of police cars and searchers because the gunman was watching social media.

Moncton is a city of about 140, 000 people and the police force is a bit over 200 members. It took almost 200 police officers to man the barricades so the additional help was badly needed. Prince Edward Island, the smallest of Canada's provinces, sent 5 officers which sounds like it isn't much until you realize the entire province has about 25 officers in total. Officers came in from the nearest big cities - Fredericton, Saint John, and Halifax. In total, 300 officers manned the barricades and searched the locked down zone. The zone encompassed 4 residential subdivisions so it wasn't a small area.

I live in that locked down zone. I had not been listening to the radio so wasn't aware of what was happening Wednesday night. Thursday morning I found out, like many of my neighbours, from someone calling to make sure I was all right. My daughter had heard the news but both I and my husband were passed out when she came out of her room to tell us. So she made sure our door was locked and stayed up for a while keeping an eye on the various sites, twitter feeds and news updates.

For most of the people in the locked down zone, the close to thirty hours between the shootings and the time when he gave himself up were terrifying. Moncton is just about the last place I would have ever expected something like this to happen. The people who saw the shootings and the people who had small kids to worry about were traumatized and are in need of counselling help. A lot of people are wondering how secure our city is and are obviously shaken by the experience. But they will recover and eventually it will fade into the background. The families and friends of the slain officers will never forget and will have this be part of their lives forever.

We lived in Toronto and in Dartmouth, part of the Halifax Municipality. We had shootings occur anywhere from one street to three streets close by and various locations in both cities. When we were in Toronto, the mall across the street from where I worked had a store robbed and shots fired while I was at work one day. We lived on the only neutral street between two gangs, although the gangs didn't fight one another. In Dartmouth, one of the worst areas in town was separated from us by one street and a fence. It had cleaned up a lot before we moved but there were plenty of robberies and knife attacks and the occasional shooting during the twelve years we lived there.

For us, being in a locked down zone was unique but mostly it was an inconvenience. We had plans for the day and weren't able to get out. We spent the day waiting to hear if they had caught the guy. Hubby and I went to bed hoping they'd catch him so we could get out the next day. We needed groceries and he had presentations he was supposed to get done. Our daughter stayed up so she heard when they caught him a little after midnight. We found out when I got up with the cats. Life, for us, was back to normal.

My city is still returning to normal. Outwardly, it looks like everything is back to normal. Buses are running, schools are open although they had been closed Friday along with all government offices. Businesses are open. But there are signs of differences. The police are much more visible and you don't see just one car at a time any more. People are walking up to officers and hugging them. The area in front of the RCMP office is covered with small gifts of flowers, teddy bears, candles, etc in memory of the fallen officers. Churches and community centres are open for counselling and comfort. Announcements are frequent on the radio about the donation website for the families and about the funereal service to be held tomorrow.

At least they stopped the "Moncton is strong and will survive" announcement in a voice of doom. Honestly, the voice was so deep it sounded more like doom than something to encourage and support people. I think it was making the situation worse rather than helping but that's my opinion.

For all the fact that Moncton is a small city in size, in outlook and attitude it is a small town. Very few things are open past 9 PM (which is better than the 6 PM shutdown it had 15 years ago) and the bus service stops between 9 and 10 PM, depending on the route. This despite the fact that several companies have people working stock overnight and their shifts start at 11 PM or midnight. The first buses start running around 6:45 AM and some people need to be at work by 7 AM or even earlier. But that's the public transit service and another subject.

As I was saying, there is a small town attitude and mentality here. So this comes as even more of a shock than it would in a larger city. The fact that the signs were there and ignored are a matter of concern and I can foresee a lot of scrutinizing occurring in the next few weeks.

Despite people saying they won't let this change their lives and that Moncton will keep it's community spirit, I know from my own experiences there will be changes. Whether or not they are good changes will be seen. As far as I;m concerned, there won't be any changes. I'm already back to leaving my door unlocked. The crime rate here isn't high enough for me to worry yet. In the meantime, I'll keep an eye on my city.  

Audience Expectations

In which audience refers to readers.

As I've mentioned, I have a list of comics that I go through every day. Some are daily comics, some weekly. I know which ones are which obviously so check only when I know they are supposed to update. Several of the comics run single strip or a small series of related strips. But some of the ones I follow involve complicated ongoing plots so the stories can take several weeks or months to complete an arc and often refer to events already gone by.

Since I write I know that sometimes to tell a story properly you need to do things to the characters that the audience doesn't like. Also, you sometimes throw in the side plots or red herrings to show more of the world you've created and placed out there for the readers to enjoy. Which also means that sometimes things become predictable for any reader who is well read.

One of the comics I read is currently in the slower part of the story line and revealing things that many of us saw coming. One advantage (or disadvantage depending on your viewpoint) for comic artist/writers is that with readers being able to leave comments you get immediate feedback. And people being people, the dissatisfied readers are always more vocal than the satisfied readers. So of course, with today's reveal, most of the first comments made have been negative. Mostly people complaining about the comic being boring or too serious or too predictable, etc.

Okay, I can understand the reactions but seriously people, why are you taking the time to complain if you're that bored or unhappy with the comic? Could it be because you've fallen into the habit of thinking the artist is writing the story for you? Reality check people. Artist/writers/anyone who creates do it because they want to create. If you like it, great. Everyone wants to be appreciated. But if you want things done a certain way - do them yourselves.

We've become too much of a "me culture". We need to remember, and teach our children, that people do things to share with others. Yes, they are trying to please their audience but the audience isn't paying them to be creative. Even supporters for web comics are not paying the artists to provide stories of the supporters' wishes unless that is the agreement the artist enters with them. the supporters are helping the artist pay their normal bills so that the artist can continue to create and bring their world and characters to our screens on a regular basis.

If I pick up a book and hit a slow section I have a choice to continue reading or close the book or even skip ahead and see if it gets more interesting. That might make me more willing to go back and read the slower section at another time so I know what I missed. Usually I read on unless it's really a bad book. In which case it joins the few I've picked up over the years and never finished.

What I don't do is go to the writer's website and send them a message or leave one on the site complaining about the slow section I've gotten stuck in. I know some people will do that and I wonder at their mentality. It's different with comics in the fact that we're already on the website and able to leave comments. But still, I wonder at people who do this. Yes, you're unhappy. Yes, you're bored. But did it really make you feel better to take that ten seconds or minute to write a comment letting the artist know just how much you don't like the current strip? How about stopping to think about why you feel the artist has to keep you interested every step of the path he or she is drawing and laying out for your entertainment? Why not leave a comment about how you've enjoyed the story so far but really prefer the faster pace or more humorous story lines?

Anyone can criticize. Few people know how to critique. Even fewer people seem to understand the value of a compliment.

As I was always told growing up - if you can't say something nice, say nothing at all.

Good Actor vs Good Character Development

So the discussion raging around our place tonight concerned actors and whether or not they made the roles they are famous for or they were handed well developed characters that they made their own.

In other words, could any actor fill a particular role or are certain characters so well developed that any actor could play them?

Certain characters have been played by more than one actor and fans have their favourites. Some roles are so well developed that actors can be switched around and no one really sees a lot of difference except for the physical appearance. Comparing the written character to the one the actor brings to life we have to look at the physical description as well as the personality.

James Bond is one example. Fans are split on whether Sean Connery or Roger Moore played the best Bond with some fans holding out for some of the other actors. If you read the books, some of the actors match the physical description of Bond but the personality is just vague enough that each actor has been able to take the character and build as they see Bond. But the essence of Bond is his role as a secret agent and the stereotype associated with him - dashing, brave, inventive, a lover and a fighter, and asking for a martini, dry, shaken not stirred. Bond is a stereotype character and any actor can play him.

Captain Jack Sparrow is a character that is a bit stereotypical, the drunk pirate, but his personality is so lively and rich in detail that it is hard to see any one but Johnny Depp playing him. Yet that very richness of detail makes it possible for another actor to assume the role. Will they be as good at it as Depp is? Probably not just because he is a very talented actor and makes each role uniquely his in some way. Imitators can't seem to capture that easy flowing wit and movements that are so much a part of the character of Jack Sparrow. Johnny Depp was able to change his appearance to match the description of Jack so there's no discrepancy between the written character and the one portrayed by Depp. In this case the written character and the actor are perfectly matched and no other actor would be able to do as well in the role.

In the Harry Potter series, the role of Dumbledore was played by two actors because Richard Harris unfortunately died. Richard looked and sounded like Dumbledore as he was written. He was replaced by Michael Gambon who wasn't as tall and had gray hair and a shorter beard. Physically, Micheal did not match the character of Dumbledore and he received criticism because he didn't match the character. As an actor, he did an excellent job showing us Dumbledore's personality and spirit. Yet, because his physical appearance was so well defined and such an integral part of his character, he wasn't a good match for it. Richard Harris was and is considered the essential Dumbledore by fans. This is a character who can not be portrayed by any actor who can not match the physical description.

There was a series of TV movies done on the Richard Sharpe books written by Bernard Cornwall. His two main characters, Richard Sharpe and Patrick Harper, are well written and described in the books. Yet the actors don't match teh description. Sean Bean is taller and has lighter hair than Richard Sharpe while Daragh O'Malley is much shorter than Harper's seven foot height. Yet, having seen the actors in the roles, one can't imagine any other actors filling those roles. In this case the well written characters were taken by talented actors and made to fit them instead.

So what does this show? Judging by these examples (btw this is a bad thing to do, using a small sample base to form opinions), a well written character will be the standard by which any actor filling the role will be judged. Yet a talented actor can take any character and make it their own even if it is well written to begin with. Even if given a bad script and poorly written lines, a talented actor can still make the character he or she is playing stand out. Provided, of course, that the director lets them act and doesn't hold them to precisely what's written.

But then, most good actors learn to spot good scripts from bad ones so they can stay away from those roles once they get themselves established.

Colour Stereotypes

I often wonder when we developed the concept of stereotyping. While we seem to have always had a tendency to categorize people, places, and events, stereotyping has really exploded in the past century or so. All you have to do is look at history to see how things have changed.

Take colours for example. Although we have been trying to move away from stereotypes, certain colours are still thought of as gender specific choices. Pink is still a girl's colour and blue is still a boy's colour. Yet, there are more fashions utilizing blue as a colour of choice in female clothing than pink in male clothing.

Certain colour combinations make sense. I don't and never will like pink on a redhead. To me the colours clash. Yet I've seen some shades of pink that can work well with certain shades of red hair. So I will never tell a redhead not to wear pink. It simply isn't my choice.

There are few colours I don't like, mostly sickly looking colours or neons. I'm not a big fan of pink but I like little touches of it. My favourites tend to blues, greens, copper and golds. So my house decor tends more to those shades than any others. But if you look around, you'll find almost every colour represented someplace.

Colour preferences are very personal but I've known people who won't wear certain colours because they aren't "girl colours" or "boy colours". Kind of silly, in my opinion, but it's something they take seriously. So I try to remember that.

But, still, I wonder how the current stereotypes got set in place. Pink used to be a popular colour worn by men before it became known as a "dandy's choice" and eventually became acceptable for women only. Blue has always been popular for both sexes yet somehow it became a boy's colour.

I can understand certain shades becoming associated with the two genders as well as they are extensions of the colour chart from the base colour. Yet red has been considered a boy's colour more than a girl's despite how close to pink it is. Which simply shows once again that logic does not apply to the actions of humans.

Personally, I like the fact that we're moving away from at least one stereotype in life. Although, it still is a bit of a surprise to see men wearing pink it is also nice to see it happening more often. Especially since some of the shades being produced are so gorgeous. It almost makes me willing to wear pink shades. Almost.

Perspective

One of my favourite quotes is "Perspective is everything." Because it truly is.

We have to be aware of the fact that we see everything, and I do mean everything, through our values, our opinions, our expectations, and especially our experiences. One factor that few people consider is how our culture and language affect our values and our perceptions of what is important.

A person from a Third World country views the standard of life very differently from a First World country and for a good reason. To a person from a country where living on a few hundred dollars or less a month is considered to be living well the amount of money a person in the First World country is phenomenally wealthy. Whereas the person from the First World country is amazed at the absolute poverty the people in the Third World countries live in.

I heard of a family that saved for five years, yes years, to buy a bicycle. A bicycle. One that cost the equivalent of fifty dollars. To anyone in the First World countries a bicycle that costs a hundred dollars can be saved for in a couple of weeks to a few months maximum (thinking allowances saving here for this time period). To us that bicycle is a luxury item. To that family, it allowed the father to take three times the amount of goods to market in one-fifth the time so he was able to increase the standard of living for his family.

There is literally a world of difference in the thinking of people in the First World countries from people in even the Second World countries let alone the Third World countries. We can afford to concern ourselves with issues of ethics and religion and human rights. Even the poorest person makes more money and, in countries with universal health care, have access to better health care than the upper middle class of the Third World countries.  Their rich class is comparable to our rich class unfortunately. At least on the lower and middle levels.

So it's no surprise that conditions that we wouldn't stand for in the First World countries are accepted as part of the working conditions in Third World countries. But what we don't look at is the fact that people survive on less money in those countries better than our citizens survive in our countries. Yes, the quality is lower but the people actually living below the poverty lines are fewer in those countries. That's using a poverty line that takes into effect the health of the family unit as well as it's income. The poverty line for a First World country is a higher financial figure than for the Third World country.

Which goes to show just how messed up the economics of our planet are. Well, along with several other factors. But, try to imagine it, a family can afford to buy enough food to feed them for a year in the Third World country for less money than a family in the First World country spends in a month.

Perspective, people. Perspective.

Fads

There just seems to be something in our natures that makes us want to jump on the bandwagon when something starts to be popular. Luckily, most fads are short-lived but the more technological we become, the wider spread and longer lasting fads are becoming.

Yes, the Internet is at fault. *humourous sarcasm*

Seriously, though, the Internet is responsible for the spread of fads at the world-breaking speeds they now travel. Before it could take months or even years for a fad to travel around the world. Now, it's instantaneous. Or as close as we can get.

Some fads are obvious and people get involved just to be a part of something funny and light-hearted. Other fads take on a life of their own for no reason anyone can explain. They will be wildly popular and then when their fame breaks, everyone will deny being part of the fad, despite evidence to the contrary. Which doesn't make sense unless you consider how much some people need to be considered "cool", "hip", or whatever term currently means part of the popular group. And no, I don't know the current slang. :P

I can understand not wanting to be reminded of a fad that has lost it's appeal. What I don't understand is the backlash that usually goes against the fad when it falls. While something or someone is popular, I hear how much people "love" it/them. When the fad is falling out of favor, I hear how people "hate" it/them. If I liked a fad enough to be part of it, I'll admit I was. I had liked it after all and I see nothing wrong in liking something that is not popular.

But I appear to be a minority.

Of course, I also seem to be in the minority for liking fads. There are very few that I have liked and usually have involved songs. I'm not usually attracted to singers, although I appreciate a good looking man and a deep voice will make me melt. But I've never been prone to crushes on people. I don't know enough about them to really have any feelings for them. I look at the fact that their job is to entertain me and judge them on that. I will be sad when a celebrity I liked dies because that means I can no longer see them act or hear any new music from them. I'm also sorry that their families are not grieving for their loss but it's not my personal loss.

Mostly what I wonder at is why a fad becomes popular. Sometimes it's easy to figure out. A song or dance will be fun and upbeat and make people feel good to sing along or dance. But fads like copying someone's hair style or fashion sense don't make sense to me. My colouration won't let me wear the same clothes or colours as somebody else. I might not really like the hairstyle or it might be completely wrong for my face and hair. Yet, I see people copying the look no matter how good or bad it is on them.

Then again, they say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I've never been good at giving or receiving flattery.

Then there are the fads like the current one - selfies. I remember growing up and people being on vacation and getting someone to take their picture so they have a solid memento of their trip. They were called vacation pictures. Or family photos. Even if you ended up trying to hold the camera and catch yourself in the picture it was still considered to be normal pictures. Now they are called selfies and are hugely popular, especially if you can get a group together for it.

Um, wouldn't having a group in it make it a group picture and not a selfie? *shakes head* Silly me, of course it's a selfie of whoever took the picture. Unless, the person taking the picture isn't in the picture or is holding the phone for the person who owns it, right? No? Well, then, I guess I really don't understand selfies.

What I do know is, you won't catch me doing it. Aside from the fact that I don't like having my picture taken, if I want a picture of me then I'll be getting someone else to take it.

I guess I just fail at following fads. I think a good percentage of the reason is that I don't just follow mindlessly. I'm also not really a leader so I kind of stand to the side and make my own decisions. At least I can get a good chuckle from most fads. That's just my sense of humour again.

Imagination

Part of being human is being creative and using your imagination. Watch kids and you'll see that the ones that use their imagination and make up new rules for games and new games as well are the kids who will be having the most fun and sparking the others. Kids who don't use their imagination end up doing the same things over and over and end up bored with life.

Yet, as adults, we rarely encourage kids to use their imaginations. Society tries to crush the creative spark because creative people don't conform. There's been a movement in society over the past decade or so to allow people to be more creative. Parents are becoming concerned over how much time their kids spend on computers. Teachers are concerned over how much information has to be taught and how little interest kids have in learning it. Even businesses are starting to realize that they need innovative people or else their businesses won't grow.

But you can't teach people to be imaginative. It can be encouraged with games and getting kids and adults to free form play time. Arts and crafts can help encourage the use of imagination as well. In fact, encouragement is the biggest factor for people using their imagination. If they are in an environment where they are encouraged to be creative, their imagination will blossom. If they are in an environment where rules are enforced strictly and truth is emphasized in all things (or at least wild imaginings are discouraged) then their imagination is stunted and their creativity is killed.

I started making up stories as soon as I figured out what they were. Mom used to read to us every night until we learned to read. So by the time I was 5 I had been reading and making up stories for over a year. I was still learning to write at that age but I knew my letters and could form simple sentences. By the time I was 9 I had several scribblers filled with poems and stories.

I was lucky, my imagination was encouraged because I had also been taught the difference between imagination and reality. So naturally, I was attracted to a creative person for my mate and we both encouraged our daughter to use her imagination. But we also knew one important fact - imagination actually needs information to feed it.

Any creative person knows that the more you know and experience in life, the more you're able to imagine things that might be possible or are completely improbable. People that aren't very creative or don't want people to be creative, try to restrict information. There are a few reasons for that. One, not realizing that imagination needs information, they think people don't need to know more than what is absolutely necessary to do their job. This is changing as more and more jobs require more information to handle the technology used in those jobs. Second, they don't want people to be individuals because individuals are harder to control. For people who rely on controlling the people under them, ensuring that the only information they get is what is "approved" means they can control how their subjects think, act, and react. Third, people without imagination think that the way they got raised is fine for the next generation and so enforce the same restrictive behaviour.

Teaching children the difference between reality and imagination without destroying their imagination isn't really as hard as some people think. It starts with talking to your kids about everything they read and watch. When your kids sit down to watch cartoons (and later live action shows), talk to them about how it isn't real and why people can't really do the things the cartoons are doing. When they read stories, talk about how a person used their imagination to make up the story to share with others. Explain the difference between fiction and non-fiction. In essence, talk with your kids.

When my daughter was young, her friends used to come over to our place after school until their parents came home. My rule was simple: homework first then play. It took a few days to get into the routine but then they did and they found out that they had more time to play in the late afternoon and evening. Their parents were also pleased because they didn't have to fight to get homework done before bedtime and their kids marks came up. That was because I tried to make doing homework fun as well (it can be done) and encouraged imagination play.Of course, that was also before computers became such an integral part of every home and life.

If asked, a lot of people would say that kids seem to enjoy computer games rather than playing games like the ones we used to. This really isn't true. Kids like playing and if you encourage them to play non-computer games by playing with them, they have as much or more fun. But you have to play with them. For a lot of parents, they don't have the time or energy to play or they also sit at the computer and play games. As a result, we are seeing more and more kids that are socially awkward and inept, withdrawn, and more interested in computers and electronic devices (*cough* cell phones *cough*) than in interacting with other people.

Which is a great disservice to our upcoming generations.

Imagination needs to be encouraged and a healthier balance struck between electronic life and real life. I wish teachers had the time to give students a chance to be creative every day at the start of classes. Simply by assigning a daily project - write or draw or compose a song about a random subject to be presented in class the next day. Nothing long, just something to take up a few minutes of class time at the start of the day to get the kids actively creative and interested in learning. By letting the kids do their own project on a subject chosen by the homeroom teacher, every kid has a chance to use their imagination and try out different ways of being creative.

But teachers don't have the time to do that. Even though it's something they aren't marking, just displaying where kids can look at them, it takes up time that is already overfull with the information needed to be taught. So our kids lose out by not having their imagination encouraged at home or in the school system.

But we can change that. If we're parents or even aunts and uncles, we can encourage the kids we know to be creative and we can also encourage our own creativity. Do it every day. Go ahead, try it.

Ask someone randomly for a subject and then see what you can think of doing up with that subject.

Now Appearing...

It's always fun to see a sign and deliberately take it as posted. For instance we passed a store advertising the following

      INFANT
TERRY SLEEPER
      2

Well, obviously any parent knows they are selling the terrycloth sleepers for infants at $2 each.

However..

Taking the sign as posted it can be taken several ways.

First, as a horror movie - It creeps, it crawls, it uses it's cuteness to disarm you. It's the Infant Terry Sleeper...2

Second, as a birth announcement - of an infant called Terry Sleeper the Second.

Third, as an announcement - that there are two infants called Terry Sleeper.

Fourth, a sales ad - Having trouble getting your infant Terry to sleep? Worry no more with these patented Terry Sleepers, guaranteed to get your little ones to sleep in no time. Now for only $2. Disclaimer, will not work on infants not named Terry.

Did I mention I have a weird sense of humour? Although the first one was my husband's contribution. :)

Signs are really fun when they use abbreviations.  Because whoever puts them together just doesn't bother reading them. Especially when using Assorted because they always use just the first three letters. That's right, anything assorted becomes an ass.

It gets really fun when the same abbreviation can mean more than one word. Most of us understand what is meant and automatically interpret correctly. But now, imagine English is not your first language and you're trying to interpret abbreviations. It's no wonder people who learn English as a second language have trouble with it.

This is one I saw the other day

Ret. Most common meanings are retired, returned, and retro(active), But I've also seen it used for retail and retainer. In this case it was for a retainer since it was listing a service and ended Ret. Req. meaning retainer required.

Req is another confusing one since it can mean required or requested. It helps that in either case it means something is needed and can usually be figured out from the rest of the sign or advertisement.

But I think the sign I'll remember for a while was this one:

Ass Breath Mints 1.99

I just walked away trying not to giggle.

Blog Hopping

So, like many people, I have a group of blogs I check on a regular basis. Some are checked daily and some are checked once a week. Because by now I know how often they tend to get updated.

But this can take a lot of time. Luckily, I have the time to spare since I'm retired. Although I keep thinking about starting a home-based business. Some days though I have other commitments so I don't have time to do a lot of blog reading.

I've also dropped blogs and picked up new ones over the years. Sometimes it's because the blogger has stopped updating regularly, sometimes it's because I've lost interest, and sometimes it's because the subject matter has become something I don't agree with or find disturbing. Granted, that's actually been a rare case.

Usually, I drop a blog because the blogger has stopped updating all together or else so sporadically that it's months between posts. One person actually switched to FaceBook so I was able to add her there and be advised when she did update her blog.

Some people use feeds to keep track of the blogs they follow but I've never bothered. I get enough email as it is not to include feeds from blogs. I tend to prefer having to actually check blogs as I can figure out which ones I like by how often I'm willing to check them out. Sometimes a new blog starts interestingly but then something turns me off it. It could be the writing style, it could be the posts themselves.

Writing style is definitely a huge factor in how well I like a blog. The most interesting subject in the world can be butchered by poor writing. That's one of the reasons I try to keep my blog's style light and breezy. It doesn't always work because there are some subjects I take very seriously and find difficult to write about in anything less than a serious manner.

Then there are the days when That Mood strikes. When I can't be serious and have to be smart-alecky, sarcastic, and engage in all manners of puns. Luckily or unluckily, it's been a while since That Mood has struck so I can keep to my usual weird, twisted sense of humour. I'm not sure if it's lucky or not when That Mood strikes because while I enjoy it, I'm not sure how funny other people find it.

One thing I do find is that it's hard to find a good humourous blog. Writing humour is vary hard and it has the potential to fall flat so easily. Comics make a good substitution and I have a long list of comics I check just as regularly as the blogs. In fact that's how I start, by checking comics first to get in a good mood if I'm not already there. Which, of course, adds time to my reading.

But then again, isn't that why people blog?

Good vs Great Authors

Everybody has their favorite genres and will compare authors in different genres to determine which ones are the best. Well, there's two things to consider here - first, different genres require different styles of writing and second, social mores determine how freely authors could write.

It is best to compare authors within the same genre and, if possible, within the same time era. But a truly great author will bypass time and be applicable to any period simply because the story has great characters and a well developed plot.

But first we should look at what makes a writer great.

An average writer will have average characters, none will really stand out and few readers will feel strongly about any of the characters. The plot will be easily anticipated and the story can often be classified as typical. Average writers will sell some books and might have a following of casual readers. They write the books that are easy to put down at any time.

A good writer will have characters you like or love and characters you dislike or hate. There will be unexpected plot twists and you'll want to read on to see what is happening. It might be a bit harder to lay the book down but it can be done.

A great writer will have characters you love, characters you hate, characters you love to hate, and characters you hate to love. The plot will have so many twists and turns and often have a few subplots running along as well that you need something to help keep the story straight. These are the books that are almost impossible to set down.

Being an avid reader, I have a high standard for writers to reach. There are multitudes of average writers. There are a good group of good writers. But there are only a handful of great writers. Part of the problem is that I've read so much that I can figure out a plot line quickly. I can look at where I'd put in twists and see if the author is better than me. If I can picture in my head the characters, the locations, and the action than an author gets my seal of approval.

It's a balancing act that few people master. As an author, you need to have strong characters, an intriguing plot, and a rich, vibrant world as the backdrop. Too much description and the reader loses interest. Too little and the reader can't clearly see the location or people. Language is also important - too much common slang and people in other time periods won't understand. Words that are in common usage can change their meanings over time but authors have no control on that.

Let's look at two of today;s best known authors in the fantasy genre. J.R.R. Tolkien and George R.R. Martin. Both have written long epics with multiple main characters that the story flows between. There is the main plot and multiple subplots. Both have characters that people love and hate. Both have enough plot twists and turns to make a labyrinth appear to be a straight corridor.

The major difference between the two writers is that Tolkien wrote of an epic quest while Martin writes of a realm and the struggle for someone to rule it. But Tolkien wrote in a time period where sex scenes were taboo and cursing was considered uncouth and coarse. So he had to pick a subject where he could describe his world and play out his king-making story without going into all the politics that Martin writes about.

The other difference between the two authors is that Martin has characters that people hate to love. Tolkien's characters are all clear-cut. They are on the side of good or on the side of evil. Sometimes they might be doing bad things for good reasons or because they've been mislead by someone they trusted but you can pretty much say if they are on the side of light or darkness.

Martin's characters are generally clear cut as well. But he slips in a few that leave you wondering if they are good or bad. They do bad things but they also do good things. Just as you think "Aha, a villain" the character does something heroic in nature. Martin writes those rare characters, the ones you hate to love.

The other major difference between the two is the amount of description they write. Tolkien believed in describing details perhaps to a fault. While most of his descriptions were good, he would occasionally spend too much time describing a place and the people in it. Martin gives a basic description of a new location then uses the actions occurring in that area to bring out details.

Martin has the advantage over Tolkien in that he writes in a period where an author can write in sex scenes and coarse language and not have a fuss raised about it or his books banned. But Martin does not write gratuitous sex scenes. Sure, some really aren't necessary to the plot lines but they show the interactions between characters and relate to how the motives of certain characters are affected. Take out the scenes and it will have little effect on the story.

But that means that Martin was able to write about the power plays of people trying to claim the throne. Tolkien wasn't able to write that type of story, not if he wanted his book published. I would have liked to see what Tolkien could have done if he lived in today's society.

Taking all that into consideration though, my analysis of the two authors is that Martin is the better writer of the two. Not by much though. Mostly it's because his characters are more complex and not so clearly defined as being good or evil. They're more human.

TMI and GTF

Every generation likes to be different and to "shock" the generations previous. But there are limits that shouldn't be crossed.

Too Much Information (TMI) can push and might cross the lines. TMI is simply saying things that really should be kept private and some people don't mind hearing or reading it. That's fine, as long as it isn't hurtful to anyone. Personally, I don't want to hear about someone else's sex life and the activities they get involved in. I think that should be kept between the person and his/her partner(s). Same thing for hearing details about sicknesses or surgeries. Not really subjects I like discussing.

GTF, on the other hand, is always crossing the line and is usually hurtful to someone. What got me on this subject was an article asking if a comedian telling a joke about a star's miscarriage was going too far. No, I don't know what the joke actually was. Nor will I go looking for it. To me, that was not comedy and definitely went too far. I can't understand how anyone could be asking if it went too far. It should be an automatic response of going too far.

I understand that some people handle difficult situations by joking about them. That's fine if it relates to yourself and your experiences. But never at someone else's expense. Whether or not you like someone, your should respect their privacy and feelings. A traumatic experience, and a miscarriage is traumatic whether or not the baby had been wanted, should be handled with respect and dignity. Not used to poke fun at someone.

I'm sure if it ha been the other way around that the comedian would not have found it funny for the star to make a joke at his expense. Too few people look at how they would feel if the words were said against them rather than by them.

TMI is simply people not filtering their thoughts before speaking. GTF is being malicious, petty, cruel, and bullying. And lest you be someone denying that fact, think about it. The phrase is Going Too Far not Pushing The Limits. If you have to ask if something is GTF then the answer is most likely Yes.

Hero Stereotypes

In literature, which translates to TV and movies as well, most heroes are stereotypes of some sort. The noble or gallant hero who searches out wrongs to right them, the romantic hero who searches for their true love, the tragic hero who succeeds despite every tragedy ever conceived of happening to him/her, the peasant hero who half the time is a noble hidden from enemies shortly after birth by being raised by a poor family, the reluctant hero who is dragged kicking and screaming into doing great deeds and often showing more courage than people who are supposed to be courageous. etc.

Heroes and villains are clearly defined in children's literature and not so clearly defined in adult literature. But you can still tell a hero from a villain because of the stereotypes. Once in a rare while, an author creates characters that you're not sure if they are the heroes or the villains because sometimes they are the one and sometimes the other.

But most stereotypes don't leave you with that problem. If a character is a hero at the start of the book then he/she will be a hero throughout the book. A villain might start out disguising their nastiness but they will rarely be depicted as a hero first and their villain natures will quickly be shown.

In some ways, it makes stories predictable. By the time I've met all the main characters in a story I know which roles they are playing and can figure out who will triumph in the end. It then becomes the journey which will hold me or not.

Stereotypical heroes can be predictable but, being human, I do have my favorites. A well-written character will be forgiven whatever stereotype they are based on and when I encounter an author who is able to keep me guessing on whether a character is a hero or a villain then I'm in seventh heaven.

Part of the stereotyping seems to be naming the hero. Certain names seem to be considered appropriate for certain roles. Take, for example, the reluctant hero. For some reason, a good third or more of the reluctant heroes I've read or seen in movies and TV shows are named Sam - Samuel, Samson, Sammem, Samwise, Samwell, Samantha, Trissam, etc. There just seems to be something about the name that says "reluctant hero".

Reluctant heroes also seem to be the ones who think they are more cowardly, less intelligent, weaker, and/or have some disability to overcome - being overweight, being lame, being nearsighted, illiterate, etc. Often they have a case of hero worship for another main character and compare themselves unfavorably to their hero. Sometimes their hero will encourage them to be braver or overcome their disability, if possible like illiteracy. Sometimes they will need to rescue their hero although not very often.  Most times they will stumble into something where they are the only ones who can make it out to warn their heroes or save people dear to the heroes.

In case you haven't figured it out yet, the reluctant hero is my favorite. Probably because this is usually an average person who manages to rise above their fears and show that they have as much or more courage than the people everyone looks up to. They are also usually the people supporting the main hero and offering the encouragement needed for the main hero to continue on his/her quest. Reluctant heroes can be the main characters but they are usually the sidekicks who become main characters.

Because, you know, that's how stereotypes work.

Oxymorons

Most people know what an oxymoron is supposed to be - a combination of words with opposite or very different meanings. Jokes get made about them all the time. But the real oxymorons seem to be accepted much more readily.

For example, I see headlines about famous people taking secrets to the grave. Yet the magazines are apparently telling what those secrets are. Which makes it an oxymoron. A secret taken to the grave is secret only if no one knows about it. That's the definition of a secret - something no one else knows.

Yet people will read and believe the articles. I can understand why the term secret is still used. No one wants to read about the knowledge or the information that so-and-so took to his/her grave. It doesn't sound scandalous.

If I had a secret to take to my grave, I would make certain no one knew it and there was nothing around that even hinted at it. Otherwise it would be the secret I kept in life. And that someone spilled once I was no longer living.

But no one wants to see "Someone who might be famous but probably isn't spills the secrets of a famous person who had trusted him/her with them" or "Secrets of so-and-so exposed". Well, actually, that second headline might get attention. But see the words "The secret so-and-so took to the grave" and you get people buying the magazine like crazy.

Because "private lives of the stars" is another oxymoron. Once people becomes famous they don't have a private life. Often, their family members don't either. For some strange reason, we seem to feel that a person gives up the right to privacy once he/she becomes famous. We think we have the right to root through their history and hold up every mistake to the light of day. Yet, let anyone try and do that back to one of us and privacy laws get quoted and lawsuits are threatened.

But this post is about oxymorons not double standards. Although the two can go hand in hand. Most double standards are or can be considered oxymorons. A lot of oxymorons are concepts that should be able to go together but for one reason or another don't so that rather than being truths they have become oxymorons. Probably the biggest oxymoron out there is common sense. Because it really isn't that common any more. Which is a shame because the world needs more of it. Maybe if we got it we'd be able to turn that other big oxymoron back into a truth instead. World peace.

Attitudes and Platitudes

The problem with having a normally cheerful, upbeat, slightly sarcastic, and often tongue-in-cheek attitude is that people don't tend to take negative comments seriously. On the Internet, whether in posts or through emails, I try and make sure people know when I'm not being serious. I use emoticons where they'll show up and otherwise put my mood in asterisks.

So when a friend posted "Sometimes, just sometimes things happen for a reason and it leads to something even better. Just breathe and think positively." my response was "I'm running out of positive thoughts. Care to share some?" Rather than realizing I was being serious, she thought I was being tongue-in-cheek and liked my post. If I had been cheeky, I would have added ":P" after so the emoticon would have shown up. But at the time I answered I was feeling down because of all the bad things that had been hitting one after another for the past couple of months. I really could not have come up with a positive thought if someone had paid me. Although that would have been a positive thought to think someone would pay me for my thoughts.

I wasn't looking for a platitude in response. I'm good at giving those so I don't need them back. *being sort of cheeky with that line but also serious* But I was looking for a touch of sympathy and maybe even some concern. I'm not a person who shouts my cares to the world but I watch my friends so I can see when they need a bit of cheering up or cheering on or just plain cheering for accomplishing something. So when I post something that should shout to them that I need some cheering up I expect them to be watching for it as well.

Foolish me. I should know by now that few people are like me and watch others for those subtle signs that tell of problems in their lives. Too many people are used to the current generation's tendency to tell all and expect people to come out and say they are having troubles. I'm not that way though.

I have no trouble with people telling their life stories online. Personally I think there's too much information sometimes and that certain things should stay private but that's my attitude and applies to my life. If I'm asked, I'll give advice but otherwise I'll keep it to myself. Except in the case of my daughter, of course, but even there she'll usually come looking for advice when she wants it. Generally speaking though, unless I know a person will consider my advice carefully, I give out platitudes with my advice. It's sort of my way of showing that I know the person doesn't really want to follow my advice but is asking to make me feel like my opinion is valued.

I don't expect anyone to follow my advice blindly. The only piece of advice I've ever given that I do expect to be followed is "Listen to the advice you get offered and consider it carefully. What works for one person might not be the best solution for yourself but at least give the person offering the advice the respect of considering their words seriously." After all, everyone is unique. But often what works for one person will work for another. It might need a bit of modification for the specific situation and personality but the overall theory works. However, you have to consider the advice given and not simply dismiss it.

I think the most important advice I can give anyone, and yes it is a platitude, is to know yourself and to realize that everyone sees things differently. Learn to see how your friends act and react so that you can understand them better and be wary of assuming that people act for the same reasons you do. Because I can assure you, they won't always have the same reasons or responses. I just need to watch anyone, friend or stranger, to realize that.

Labels, Double Standards, and Gender Equality

I often wonder when we started applying labels to everyone and everything. Obviously, the more complicated our language became, the more labels got created. But did the first cavemen have specific grunts for "Weird, nonconformist person not popular, ignore him/her"?

It seems we have to label people even though one label doesn't fully describe any body. Yet we try and make a label that does. "He's a conservative." "She's a Luddite." "They are Russian." That describes one factor - political leanings, religion, or nationality - but doesn't describe the person.

There's also the fact that some labels are double standards and sexist. A guy can do something and be cheered for it. A woman does it and she's made to feel ashamed. Sometimes it works the other way but not often. Usually when it does it involves something that is traditionally considered to be a female trait or responsibility.

So why do we try to pic people into categories and gender roles? Part of it is the way we got programmed genetically during the years our survival depended on clan structures and low technology. When it took several men working together to bring down enough animals to provide for the clan, the hunters had to be able to survive the rigors of the hunt. Men are, generally speaking, stronger and faster and more aware of danger than females. Females are, generally speaking, more attuned to tending for and raising the children and handling the domestic work, although some of that could require a lot of strength. Ever chop wood?

For the clans' survival, gender roles became established traditions and people were set into roles that utilized their skills best. People good at cooking became the bakers and cooks, people with deft hands sewed clothes and made objects needed for other jobs. So they got labels - Baker, Blacksmith, Hunter, Woodsman, Washerwoman, Tailor, etc.

As our technology developed it became easier for people to cross gender defined lines and take up other jobs. But simply because it was easier to physically do the job didn't mean it was socially acceptable to do so. We are not a species that adapts quickly and our mental attitudes are the slowest to change. We are quick to assume, faster to speak, slow to accept we can be wrong, and nearly impossible to get to apologize or admit we were wrong.

We use our traditions, our cultural standards, and our religions to keep people in narrowly defined roles. There has been some improvement over the past half century towards gender equality but there is still a lot of resistance. Children are still taught at home first so old attitudes get set in them before they start mixing with other children and ideas.

A good portion of the problem is that society tends to define what is morally right and wrong. As society changes, the morals also change. But people who are raised believing one thing is right tend to resist changes in society especially when it now tells them that what they were raised to believe in is wrong. Their society is what they try to hold on to and enforce on the new evolving society.

What we need to learn to do and teach our children to do is to look at the standards our society is setting without our standards getting in the way. A task that is practically impossible because we don't know how to be impartial. As impartial as I try to be, I know my views and values influence my judgement and thus my interpretation and evaluation of any changes society is making. But I at least make the effort and when I doubt my own impartiality I give myself time to let the concepts rattle around in the back of my brain before pulling them back out to look at them again.

Sometimes I change my opinion and sometimes I don't. But I accept the fact that I will not approve of all the changes made in society. Then again, I am but one person so my views have to be part of the whole and not the sole viewpoint. And when the majority decide against how I feel, I will accept it. Doesn't mean I'll like it but society is not one person.

Quizzes. Memes. and Other Internet Fun

Back when the Internet was first developed no one had any idea of the outbreak of quizzes, memes, social media, and sheer knowledge that would flood it. Of course, there's also all the fake knowledge out there as well as porn. Put any combination of words in a search engine and you will get a hit.

Don't believe me? Try five random words and see what comes up.

Quizzes, memes, and games probably take up the most time of anyone surfing nowadays. Although there are some sites where you can lose hours just checking it out (*cough* Cheezburger *cough*). It can be fun to take some of the quizzes just to see what questions get asked and what results you get.

For instance, I took one for alignment as per Dungeons and Dragons. Now most people would say I'm Lawful Good but I came out as Neutral Good, something I happen to agree with for once. But the questions made no sense for me. What were the pictures they asked me to choose from? None of the crests were ones I'd really have so I picked the one most visually appealing (which was probably the point instead of the emblems on them). Some things they referenced went straight over my head because I didn't know anything about the options listed.

Which is a truth I find with most quizzes. Most of the time the questions seem to have no reverence to the subject but somehow my answers give clues to how much I am a person of Neutral Good alignment or a person whose clothing style would match Jack Sparrow or how Sven would be my best friend or whatever the quiz is for. Reminds me of the application questionnaires for employment only the quizzes don't ask the same questions over and over again and usually entertain me a lot more.

So quizzes are entertaining. They are meant to be entertaining, same as memes. Memes are meant to share humour by taking a picture and captioning it. Some of them are very funny. Some aren't. Which is the nature of humour after all. We all find different things funny. The popular ones get spread around the Internet so depending on where you surf you can see the same meme several dozen times.

Or, if your friends are varied and don't share the same friends with you, you can see it several dozen times on FaceBook. Social media is the dumping ground for anything people want to share. See a funny picture? Share on FB. Seen a funny meme? Share on FB. Seen a good joke? Share on FB.

I'm lucky that my friends list is still small so I don't get tons of whatever popular meme or picture is going around. I do have a couple of friends who constantly post links sharing pictures, memes, and jokes. Some are ones I want a copy of so I follow the link back to see if I can take a personal copy of the picture. But usually I look, maybe smile, and continue on.

The Internet can be a place of fun but it can also take up a huge chunk of my time. Luckily, I have friends who are willing to spend time scanning through all those sites to share links so I don't have to scan through all those sites looking for pictures to share. It's thanks to them that I can take quizzes, read memes, laugh at pictures, videos, and jokes, and know without any doubt that the Internet is better for having all this shared.

And in case anyone is wondering, that last paragraph was mostly written as tongue-in-cheek. The first line is completely serious.