Accents and Languages

Ask anyone who has learned more than one language and they will tell you that English is probably the hardest language to learn, especially if it isn't your first language. Although many English speaking people will say French is hard because of the masculine/feminine structure, most people whose first language is something besides English or French agree that English is harder.

It's easy to see why. We have all sorts of rules which have contradictions - best example is the I before E rule. It goes "I before E except after C or when sounding like A as in neighbour and weigh." Which sounds like it would cover everything, right? Wrong. It's when the combination sounds like E that you have to know which way a word is spelled. For example niece, liege, and siege follow the I before E rule but leisure and seizure don't.

Then there's British English versus American English, which is more for how words are said rather than spelled unless it relates to OR. British words usually have an U in them like neighbour. American words don't have the U - neighbor.

Then there are all the words that sound alike but are spelled differently - to, too, two, sew, so, sow, toe, tow, read, red, etc - or are spelled the same but sound different - I can read the book, I have read the book.

Then, of, course, there are all the punctuation rules as well.

That's the writing side. Speaking it brings new problems. Because now we get into regional accents. Some places also have speech idioms, things like adding sounds (um, ah, er, etc) to words, local words or phrases, and different sentence structure and syntax (ex. no, it wasn't me).

Imagine, for example, learning to speak English in one area and moving to another where the people add sounds to words like ah. Since some words actually do end with an sh sound, it can confuse a non-native listener. I'm going to the park-ah. She was wearing a parka. To someone for whom English is a new language it can be confusing to know if both sentences refer to  parks or parkas.

So, it's no wonder English is confusing to people.

But you know, all those accents make for some interesting listening. Sure, there can be some embarrassment from mishearing or misunderstanding what someone says. But as long as everyone keeps a sense of humour then it can be a bonding experience. It is still up to the native speaker to be patient with the other person and make sure they can understand one another.

Which is another post.

Clean Language

Ask anyone who knows me and one thing they will all tell you is I never swear. The policy in my house is also no swearing unless there's a really good reason - like cutting yourself. But outside my house you can swear a blue streak as long as you want.

There's a few reasons why I have and follow this policy. Mostly it's because I feel that people who swear are being lazy thinkers. It's easy to throw in a few curse words into any sentence to make people aware that you don;t like something. It's challenging to express yourself without swearing.

Now I don't go ballistic on people who do swear in my house but they will get "The Look". It's remarkably effective. Probably because I treat people as adults who really should know better and expect them to behave as adults. So being given The Look is equivalent to being told to act their age.

I find it amusing how people will change on a subconscious level when they aren't being pressures. I took a course and it was all guys except for me. The teacher tried to enforce a no swearing rule but it was pointless. The guys were too used to swearing when they spoke. Yet, before the course was over, no one was swearing in class and when one did slip it was always followed by them turning quickly and apologizing to me.

What did I do to make this happen? Nothing. I simply ignored anyone who was swearing and if addressed answered with respect and absolutely no swearing. So, in this case, it was a change by example situation. I think it was the fact that i wasn't making a fuss over the swearing that impressed the guys and got them to change on their own. Or at least to stop swearing while they were around me.

I've listened to so-called comedians who tell jokes with so much swearing in them that people aren't laughing at the jokes. They're laughing at all the swearing. I don't find that funny. If the joke can't stand on it's own then it isn't a joke worth telling.

I guess the way I look at it is that swearing was supposed to be something rarely heard and then only in cases where attention had to be grabbed immediately. Someone was hurt or about to be hurt? Loud swearing got people there to help.

Some people can't seem to talk without every few words being some swear word or other. So I have to sort through what they just said to find what they just said. Swearing was meant to grab the attention and it works really well at distracting me from the other words around them.

Now, I do have a couple of sayings for when I need to get attention although I rarely use one nowadays. My daughter loves it though. It was something I learned from my grandmother. When she was mad enough to swear she would say "Horse feathers!"  My daughter still uses that and she loves the reactions she gets from people hearing it for the first time.

Myself, people know I'm upset if I say "Bloody hell" or "Sacre bleu". Sometimes I'll just use "Bloody" when describing something. The funny thing is that in Britain saying "Bloody hell" is considered swearing a blue streak. Good thing I don't live in Britain then. Lol.

What I find amusing about people swearing is the fact that they are using language originally derived from a legal term. Being so fond of words I often like to check on the origins of words in use. And today's favorite swear word - was a legal term for being found under carnal knowledge. When one of my moods hit me I like to point out to people how impossible it is for certain things to have carnal knowledge. Naturally, I get blank looks and have to explain.

At least I find it funny.

Beauty is in the Mind of the Beholder

The popular saying is, of course, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but the truth is that it is actually in the mind. It is what we think is beautiful, graceful, dignified, etc. that defines what we classify as beautiful, graceful, dignified, etc. And it is as varied as the number of people that exist in the world.

Oh, we can agree on generic boundaries but ask a group of people as individuals to rank a series of pictures and you'd be surprised at the results. A percentage will rank the same pictures in the top group although the order will probably vary. But if you were to give 50 people 50 photos to sort through, the odds that the same number of photos and the same photos would end up in the same classifications are not 100%.

Take a look at any poll that lists percentages of respondents. It is rare to have a poll where the top person/object/ideal etc is over 90%. Most of the time the percentage will be under 80%. The difference will usually be in polls that rate political issues, news issues, social or religious beliefs, etc. Things that are not defined by an abstract concept.

Because beauty is an abstract concept. We are conditioned in part by society's acceptance of what is beautiful, pretty, attractive, ugly, etc. Don't believe me? Look at the history of fashion models and see how the size of the models has changed as society's beauty image has changed.

Art, poetry, and music are the areas where the definition of beauty is challenged the most by critics. Personally, I find abstract art to be ridiculous when considered as a serious art form. I'm not good at drawing but I can paint as well as or better than any abstract artist. At least, in my opinion. Because it is an opinion that sets up an  art form as serious art. That opinion is always expressed by a group of art critics. Professional art critics. (Hmm, how can I get a job as one because I can't believe they had training for that job.) (That was a sarcastic comment btw not to be taken seriously).

It all comes down to personal opinions for how popular any piece of art, music, and writing is. While I would never buy an abstract painting, i would buy landscapes and animal pictures. Same for music, there are certain genres I can't stand (grunge) while there are others that I can listen to forever. Same for certain authors. While there have been relatively few authors I can't stand, I will give most a few tries with different stories to see if I like their style.

Which leads to what made me pick today's topic. I take public transport and a few years ago a project was put forth to add signs with poetry written specifically for the buses. They could be any subject but had to fit on the signs. So most people who contributed to the project wrote free form poetry.

Now, I've written free form poetry but I always kept a beat with it. Blame it on my upbringing, I was taught that poetry was supposed to have rhythm if not rhyme. So even free form still had a beat. Otherwise all I was reading (or writing) was prose in non-standard form.

This is where the concept of beauty comes in. To me, a well-written poem has rhythm, might have rhyme, and has a beat that's easy to pick up and follow. The words might not be clear in imagery and meaning but the piece flows together. It is beautiful.

But the poems on the buses? Shudder. The sentences are of varying lengths so there's no beat, no rhythm. It's like listening to a person speaking quickly with a break between each sentence. I have the impression of being jerked from sentence to sentence. So I tend to no longer read the poems.

Which is probably doing someone a disservice. There might be a great piece of poetry on one of the buses that I will miss. Because it's like walking through a museum of Picasso paintings. I tune them out so I will most likely walk straight past a Rembrandt that's been slipped in.

Because to my mind, beauty has form.

Food

Let's face it, we can't survive without eating. However, many of us fall into picky eater habits. It can start when we're kids if we're already picky eaters but gets worse as we grow up unless we are encouraged to eat a wide variety of foods and experiment.

My family was pretty standard for meals. Then I got engaged/married and learned about a whole new world of foods. Part of that was helped along by working in an International style restaurant/deli/catering business. This was where I learned to love croissants.

So, while raising our family, we decided to try as many foods as we could afford. Finances have often been an issue and we've had to buy the standard foods but we do try to experiment when possible. Part of that now is researching recipes online. Back then, some was looking through cook books and a lot was free form experimentation.

Yesterday, we did a combination. We took ideas from recipes and did a free form experiment. Once major problem we have is the amount of food allergies and intolerances in the family. Not to mention food preferences and dislikes. The girls have the allergies and intolerances while the guys have specific dislikes. So making a meal we all like beyond the standards is difficult.

In this case, the meal was made specifically for the guys. It was done for variety as well as to show them that the girls are willing to put a lot of effort into something they won't have any benefit from. While it would be nice for the guys to reciprocate, they won't even think about it.

So, the meal was put together and set to baking. Now, one of the guys is actually a friend of the family living with us while he attends college. He says he likes all sorts of foods and spices but we've discovered he actually doesn't. No surprise really. Trying to get him to accept that he can tell people he doesn't like specific foods is all right is something we're working on. Trying to get him to think of us all before himself is a bigger challenge but one he needs to learn before he gets his own family.

Anyway, the meal was not one of our better successes. The food was deliberately cooked so that there would still be some crunch to the harder fruit and veg eatables. It was also an unusual (for us) combination of flavors. Mom and Daughter cut up the meat and vegetables and Daughter did up the spices. She tends to like food a bit spicier than the rest of us although she claimed it wasn't spicy.

Overall reaction - Dad ate two servings and declared it all right. Not the best ever done, a bit spicy, and the combination was weird but fair. Border said it was too spicy and wasn't cooked through. He also thought there were potatoes in it and there weren't any. It was just another example of how he doesn't know food as well as he thinks he does.

So, that recipe was a bust and we won't be trying it again. Today we'll do a standard meat and potatoes meal, got steaks thawing. Tomorrow we're planning on a baked center cut ham steak with pineapple slices. Just need to figure out the side dishes to go with it. Later this upcoming week we're planning on a Chinese meal.

I admit the Chinese food from the restaurant is better than our home version but our home version isn't that bad. Just need to find a better sauce for the beef broccoli and cook it a bit longer so the broccoli is softer. But I have to say that Daughter makes a fantastic egg roll filling, much better than the restaurant's egg roll.

There are some foods I haven't tried yet, mostly because I've heard that they are quite spicy. Something I will need to learn to change if I ever get my dream of being able to travel around the world. Although, at this point in my life, I doubt I'll get that dream. I am hoping that this summer I will get a chance to attend the multicultural fair and try some foods. That will probably be the closest I get to trying other foods.

I just wish I could afford to try more foods. There's a whole world of gastronomical pleasures out there and I want to try them. .

Semantics and Arrogance

One thing I end up doing a lot when I get into discussions is opening the link to the dictionary and copying the meaning(s) of a word or set of words for everyone to see. Mostly because I've found that people don't always know the real meaning of the words they are using.

It's all the fault of the English language, of course. It is continually evolving so over time the meanings of words change or are expanded. Take semantics for example, there are three recognized definitions (even though two of them have two parts each) for it and while similar in nature, there are distinct differences in the meanings.

Our understanding of the meanings of words and the differences in our understands cause opposition to ideas we would normally agree on or insult a person when no insult was intended or confuse a person so that they don't understand a discussion and, unless they ask for clarification, can make them look like they don't know what they are talking about.

Semantics, going with definition 3b, are also used to get society to accept something it would otherwise categorize as wrong. This is because the label used for an action is justified by the label into something acceptable.

For example. if you were to take something from some one else you would be accused of stealing, which is both illegal and immoral. Yet, if it could be argues that the object in question was vital for communal survival or that the owner had no legal right to said object then it would be an appropriation or reclamation of goods and therefore, by society's laws, legal and no one would discuss the moral issue of the action.

I was in a discussion last night which ended with us declaring that it was all semantics for our arguments. Take away the justifications and excuses for actions and you get a pretty stark picture. But all this applies only to humans. As far as we, as a species, are concerned, justification exists only for us. Animals do things because "it is their nature". Humans, though, can rise above their natures by justifying their actions as beneficial to society.

Boy, are we an arrogant species.

I'm not comfortable with black and white viewpoints. I like grey shades because I understand about justifying our actions. Even people who say they prefer people to speak the truth and be blunt really don't like being given the plain facts, especially when they reflect badly on themselves. But we are raised in the belief that we are a superior species and our arrogance in this belief applies to everything we do.

Especially when it comes to how we interact.

Call a spade a spade, or if you're being a sneaky person, a shovel. Because usually that quote refers to the spade shape seen on cards but since a spade is also a shovel, if a person is not used to the other meaning they will get the wrong imagery. And, like most people, they won't make sure they understand and will eventually make a comment showing they misunderstood and be upset because they will look like a fool.

This is why I always paraphrase whatever is said to me so that I can make sure I understand. Which is why I usually end up quoting definitions from the dictionary. Which is why I usually watch my vocabulary and try not to use outdated words or words that can be misinterpreted. But sometimes my sense of humor kicks in and I make jokes and puns.

As I said last night, a cat killing a bird is still murder most fowl.

Writing

So, expanding a bit from yesterday's post, writing is something I love to do. I love words and how I can use them to paint images in my reader's head. One of my hobbies is painting and, while I'm no artist, I like being able to bring colour to an object. Watching an artist creating a masterpiece is an experience I enjoy. Being able to do the same thing with words is an achievement I never get enough of.

As I stated yesterday, I try to keep my style light and easy. But I have trouble with short sentences. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. So I try to keep from having my sentences be too short and choppy. I also try to keep them from being overly long and complicated. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I don't.

I like comparing writing to painting because there is so much similar in both creations. Take a good look at a painting. You shouldn't be able to see brushstrokes unless you're really close and analyzing it. But the length of a brushstroke will impart different motions and impressions. A long, gently flowing stroke is great for slow-running water or long grass blowing gently in the wind. Short, choppy strokes are used for rushing water, violent wind gusts, quick motion of any animal or human subjects, showing short hair or small items.

If you take a careful look at those last two sentences you'll see I used the same trick with punctuation. The first sentence flows while the second one gives short burst images. Words in general are my paint, punctuation, syntax, sentence structure, and vocabulary are my brushes, my highlights, my shadows, and my brushstrokes. Like any artist, I started learning the basics then moved on to more complicated and complex techniques.

When I first started painting, I would apply a base coat and leave it. The objects were nice but very flat-looking with their colours. Then I learned about adding highlights and shadowing. And adding more details like trims or jewels. I painted lead miniatures for several years and now I paint plaster houses for my Christmas village. The first miniatures I did were solid blocks of colour. The last ones I did had patterns painted on blank areas like cloaks and tunics. Faces looked wind-roughened or tanned or protected from extreme weather. Eyes had the whites showing behind the coloured irises. Shadows could be seen in the creases of clothing and between fingers. I even added a shield with a heraldic design on it to one miniature because it looked like it needed it. (I cheated and got someone to sketch the design because I can't draw but I painted it on the shield).

Writing has undergone the same metamorphoses. I look at the first stories I ever did (yes I still have some of  them) and my writing is childish. Very much like grades one and two with simple sentences. Except for the fact that I wrote them before I started school, you can tell that they were written by a child no older than 7. By the time I was in my teens, my vocabulary was equivalent to a college student. And my writing style was also comparable to a college student. Looking at one of my writing assignments, my high school English teacher told me I was either stupid or a professional writer and since he knew I was neither I had to stick to proper sentence structure while writing in his class. It was what they called a back-handed compliment.

Strangely enough, that compliment has been the only comment given about my writing that I ever took seriously. At that time I also gave serious thought to being a professional writer. Writing had always been something I did for fun. Yes, I had all these stories and ideas in my head wanting to get out but it was still just fun. Did I have it in me to be a professional writer?

Around the same time (okay, later that school year), we took a class trip to Montreal and Toronto to meet some Canadian authors. I got the chance to ask them how they wrote their books. Did they do one all at once, break it down into so much a day, or simply write when the mood took them? Most of them had a schedule. they knew when their creative times were and they scheduled their working hours around that. Because it took a lot of work to put out a book. I knew some of the steps involved but here was where I learned how much work goes into making a book ready for publication.

And you know something, it didn't sound like fun anymore. It sounded like a way to burn out my creativity by trying to force structure on it. Which was a warning that came through very clearly. Writing without structure did not make you a professional writer. Structure could strangle or kill creativity so you had to watch for the signs and learn when to take a break but you needed to plan your schedule with the breaks to meet your commitments. Most writers would start in another career and write on the sides until they could get themselves known and become popular enough to turn to writing full time.

Nowadays that isn't quite the same. With the Internet a well-written blog can make it's author Internationally known in a few days. And the response of readers can be known instantly. In some ways it's terrifying for a writer and in other ways it's exhilarating. But a tough skin is needed for anyone who posts their writing on the Internet. Not everyone will agree with your words. Not everyone will be polite in their disagreements. Not everyone will respect your views and will attack your opinions as if you had physically attacked them.

For myself, I'm writing again because it's fun. I don't expect to get a huge readership, or if by some strange happening I do then wow, so I write for my pleasure and hope whoever does read these posts enjoys it as well. It also gives me a way of thinking through subjects that come to my attention and puzzle out anything that confuses me. I'm just using a public means and seeing if anyone wants to come along for the ride. :)

Tricks of the Trade

In any profession, doesn't matter what it is, you'll find that there are specialized tools, tricks, and even languages related to that profession. Part of it is due to the needs of identifying techniques, procedures, and pieces necessary for the profession to work and part is due to our need to belong to an exclusive club.

Let's face it, from forming groups in school to joining organizations and clubs as adults, we want to belong to something exclusive. Something that not everyone can be part of. And we love it when we're talking about our work and we see a non-member either looking impressed or their eyes glaze over as our discussion goes past them. It gives us a feeling of being superior.

I guess it is something important to our psyche, our ego. We all need to feel needed. In our personal lives and in our professional lives. It's one of the reasons why some people can't retire. If they can't work then they've lost a reason to be needed.  This is especially true for single people, perhaps even more so for people who have lost their loved ones either through death or divorce.

One of the most important trick of any trade is the language associated with it. When language changes, either through changing technologies or just through natural evolution, the person who doesn't keep current with their profession's lingo is going to notice it and feel even less needed. Because it shows their knowledge is obsolete. Often, retired people will try and stay as current as they can in their old field so they feel they are still capable of being a viable member of that group. Some retirees are willing to let go and spend their retirement pursuing other interests. They learn the new lingo of their hobbies.

Now most professions are easy to get into and learn their lingo, you just have to study any text books or how-to books on the subject. That gets you a beginner's guide so that you can show some professionalism without claiming to be an expert. But some organizations and professions have stricter requirements for people getting into them. You can't just toss off a few terms and look like you know something. You have to really understand the terms.

Writers know this best and this is the one area that will give most of us the hardest time when we write about specific events or procedures. When we need more to our stories and characters than simply a profession casually mentioned. For example, John was a plumber and he was fixing the main line at the corner of West Main and 43rd Street when the accident occurred. This is a great line to introduce your character and the starting event but what if there was no main line at that intersection? What if there was no intersection of those two streets? A map of the city helps give a location but research has to be done to determine the underlying structure of a city. Most of that can be done online nowadays. But any plumber in that city reading the story and knowing one or more facts were wrong and that the terminology was wrong will give a bad review of the story and the writer.

So writers deal with their own lingo as well as the lingo they need for their stories. Which is why most stories don't deal with the nuts and bolts of professions. We brush over them, hoping that if our editor or proof readers don't catch any mistakes that any readers will forgive us minor flaws. A good writer will try and find out if their usage is right but we also won't spend a long time trying to find out if there really is a main line at West Main and 43rd and a plumber would be called to fix it. It's called artistic license.

The main tricks writers concentrate on are tone, voice, and style. How we write is just as important, if not more so, as what we write about. Anybody can have a great idea. In fact some of the best stories came about because someone the writer knew said "Wouldn't a story about (subject) be great?" and the writer's imagination took off.

I've read books that were well written but the subject was boring (to me anyway) and books where the subject was fascinating yet the writing was bad. I've slogged through some books because I wanted to see how the story developed but sometimes the writing is too ponderous that it doesn't matter how interested I was at the start. I'll either give it up or, more often, hop to the end to see what the final resolution was. If I'm lucky I'll be able to figure it out but sometimes I can't.

Personally, I try to keep my writing style light and easy. I use short, upbeat sentences as much as possible. But I like a well written complex sentence so I will throw those in some times. A lot depends on who I'm writing for. When I'm trying to get complicated thoughts out of my head I'm writing for myself. So my sentences will be longer, composed of compound or complex statements. My vocabulary will become more complex as I use the extensive amount of words I know to better express what I am thinking or feeling.

When I write for other people, I watch my vocabulary because I know that not everyone knows all the words I do. Also words have shifted in meanings over the years as our language evolves so I have to make sure I'm not using slang that's outdated or using words whose meanings have shifted and no longer mean what I had first learned them to mean. But that's just another trick of the trade.

A Strange Twist of Humour

As I mentioned in my intro, I have a twisted sense of humour. It tends to poke it's head up at the most inappropriate times too. Usually when I'm stressed or startled or scared. Luckily, I learned how to keep a filter between my brain and my mouth. Also my hands so even though most of what I type is free form from my brain there is still a filtering system in place.

But there are times when my sense of humour leads me to some interesting thoughts. Songs are a great source for this. I like some of the lines because they raise questions and comments.

For example, the song "Signs". It has this one line "Long haired freaky people need not apply" and my brain's response is this - so does that mean short haired freaky people can apply? Or long haired non-freaky people? What about mid-length hair, does it matter if you're freaky or not?

Another song, Meatloaf's "I Won't Do That" also leads itself to questions. He'll do anything for love but he won't do that. Won't do what? He lists all the things he'll do but not that. Stand on his head naked in a rainstorm while singing "Chantilly Lace"? Hopscotch his way across town? What won't he do?

Okay, in case you don't know the line refers back to the verse before it is sung where three things are listed, two good and the third something that he won't do - forget how she's feeling, etc. However, it isn't really clear with the way the song is worded. Which leads wonderfully to the questions.

My sense of humour comes into play with the things my brain comes up with for what he won't do. I can easily pass the time thinking up strange and twisted things that he won't do. Eat butterscotch and chocolate pudding at the same time. Wear plaid. Skip along the road singing "You Are My Sunshine". Wear a chain of daisies in his hair.

My mind can go on.

The problem with my sense of humour is that often I'm the only one who finds things funny. I can understand that. But there are times when my humour will match with someone else. And I find that my sense of humour matches well with other people's senses of humour, especially British comedies. Also I tend to have a sarcastic streak that teams up with the sense of humour.

At least I know that I get a lot of enjoyment from Life.

Stereotypes, Tempers, and General Observations

Sorry about the lack of posts. Real Life has been wanting some attention.

One thing I get amusement as well as confusion from is stereotypes. I understand we, as a species, have a need to catalog everything, to give it labels, and be able to identify certain traits and features with a catch-all statement. And, sometimes, the stereotypes fit.

Due to recent events in my life, I've been dealing with things that have showcased one particular stereotype. Redheads and their tempers. Redheads have a reputation for having quick, passionate, fiery, and nasty tempers.

Well, I've met a lot of people over the years and have had a chance to see a good portion of them get angry. Blondes and brunettes have a wide variety of tempers - quick, slow, mean, passionate, slow to go, quickly gone, ones that hold grudges, ones that release everything and expect everyone else to let go of the issue after the blowup. Redheads though, while some may be slower to get angry than others (mostly because we've learned to keep a tight control on our tempers), all have one thing in common. Our tempers are vindictive.

I have not yet met a redhead who hasn't had a nasty, petty, vindictive streak tied directly to their temper. Some of us have learned to control our tempers so that we can get irritated and upset without loosing that vindictive urge.Others flash immediately into it if you push them. But whether the redhead in question is normally quiet and self-contained or passionate about Life, you can bet that when they get angry the first thought that goes through their head is how can I get back at whoever made me angry in the most painful, destructive way possible?

Now I know someone will probably say that I can't say that about every redhead. That somewhere out there is an exception or several exceptions. That like blondes and brunettes, there are redheads who don't show nasty, vindictive tempers. That just means they can control their tempers better. People who think they know me would say that I'm not a vindictive person.

Boy, are they wrong. I just have an extremely tight control on it.

It's been a hard struggle to get to the point where I can let go of my anger. Some things have happened in my life that I still feel anger over despite the fact that they happened a long time ago and most of the people involved in the incidents are out of my life now. I try not to bring up those memories and, when they do get stirred up, to let them go. Hasn't worked too well yet.

But I've noticed that while some blondes and brunettes can hold grudges until the mountains sink into the seas, every single redhead can bring up instances of where they've been wronged in their lives. We hold grudges until the seas dry up, mountains become plains, and the stars go out. And we will plan revenge even if we never act upon it. Because we know acting on it is wrong and we want to be better people than that.

On the flip side of having the worst tempers in the world, redheads seem to be the most generous at helping others. I think that's because we're willing to put ourselves at risk by caring for others. People can't get you mad unless you care, either about the other person or about the subject matter that's making you angry. I think that because we know how much being angry and hurt causes pain and destroys our self-confidence that we want to protect others and so we put ourselves out there to draw that away from the people we care about.

One of my best friends has been hurt several times because of caring for others yet guess who is the first to offer help if I say I need some? You got it. I understand because i am still doing the same thing. I know that a situation has the potential to end up hurting me and possibly my family yet I can't stand aside and not help.

However, just because I can't keep from helping others doesn't mean I recklessly open myself and my family to being hurt. I know how to protect myself as much as possible. I also know that caring leaves me vulnerable because the person has already gotten past my armour. I can only hope that the person will prove to be someone who also considers others and will do everything they can to make the situation work out as well.

And for those who aren't as caring and considerate, I can only accept that I will be hurt again and try to toughen myself for those inevitable times when I will get hurt and angry. At least I've developed the reflex to not say anything until I get my temper under control.

I Have Readers

Oh wow, people are actually reading. *Waves to the unknown readers* Thanks for dropping by and I hope you're enjoying my ramblings. If you want to leave suggestions for me to write about go ahead. I don't mind if you post anonymously.

Sorry I haven't noticed before now. Been a bit distracted so I tend to write, publish, and take off without looking at the screen that comes up. I actually looked at it today though.

Story Telling and Stage Fright

For as long as I can remember I have loved to write. As soon as I learned to read I started putting my own stories together. When events happen to me I sit back and think of how to tell them.

But....I get stage fright when telling my stories to anyone but kids.

Oh I can write them down but when it comes to verbally relating something, I pull within myself and stick to the facts. I know why this is so, it has to do with my childhood experiences. I have never been comfortable speaking in front of groups of people. I don't like being in the spotlight or the center of attention.

In short, I don't have the confidence to put myself forward. Now that doesn't mean I'm not confident of what I can do, because I know what I can do well and what I can't do at all. Public speaking falls under the can't do list. That also includes telling my stories with the flair I want to put into them.

I don't know how common this is. I've met some writers and found most of them to be very confident people with strong personalities. But we've also met in situations where they were able to sit down and talk with us (I was with my classmates) and not standing up reading or reciting their works. Of course, these were also people who had been writing for more years that I had been alive too.

My friends and family find my reaction confusing. They know me fairly well and are surprised that I don't have the confidence to talk about my strengths. I've tried to explain but I don't think they can understand.

One thing that was driven into my head as I was growing up was to not brag. Bragging was almost the worst thing a person could do. All it showed was an inflated sense of importance (pride) and usually involved blowing things out of proportion. In other words, it was almost the same, if not actually the same thing, as lying.

There's a fine line between having pride in yourself and being prideful. Unfortunately, it's not one easily taught and most people struggle with finding the balance. For myself, I know what I can do and I take pride in being able to do what I can but I shy away from telling anyone what I know I can do.

I know I can tell a good story. I know I can read a story to kids and be involved and act out scenes and voices and generally be a story teller for a while. But let it be one of my stories or it be an adult I'm talking with and my stage fright kicks in with a vengeance.

So I let my words speak on the printed page. Well, typewritten words on computer screens most times. All the voices and arm motions and movements will have to be in your head. I'll at least try to help with indications in my stories like *waves right hand dismissively* adding in comments or descriptions of voices and actions. :)

Rules Are Rules But Are They Reasonable?

Every now and ten I see a news story that has me shaking my head, wondering what are people thinking? Today had such a story.

A two-year-old girl was suspended from a daycare because she brought in a cheese sandwich.

The day care has a policy of no outside foods because of severe allergies especially to peanuts. A good policy in theory. An excellent one to implement. A stupid way to resolve a conflict.

C'mon folks, she's two years old. She doesn't understand what is going on beside the fact that she isn't allowed to see her friends. I'm pretty sure she didn't make the sandwich and smuggle it into the daycare.

The proper response to this would have been to penalize the parents who let her bring in the sandwich. Make the parents pay a penalty or sit through a video showing some child reacting to peanuts so they know just how serious this allergy can be. Instead the parents and the child are all being penalized. Because now the parents need to make sure their daughter is being taken care of during the suspension period so either they dish out more for a babysitter or one of them takes time off work to be home.

Want to bet they still have to pay for the suspended days at the daycare?

So, because a couple of parents forgot the rule, although how they could with all the signs around, and no one at the daycare was double-checking to make sure parents weren't sending food with their kids, a family now has the additional financial burden of either lost time at work or an additional babysitter plus paying for the days unused at the daycare plus having their child learn really early in life that life isn't fair and a mistake can hurt several people at once.

Do I think the punishment was reasonable? Obviously not.

A flat fine would have been better. I know there will be people saying "but a child could have been hurt if that had been a peanut butter sandwich instead of cheese". Yes but it didn't happen. And a child, especially a two year old child, should not be punished because the adults were not responsible with their actions.

Rules are there for a reason. But the response to breaking them should be appropriate to all the people involved. A daycare is not taking care of children like the regular school system does. The children are younger and need to be considered when punishments for rule breaking are handed out. They don't understand about suspensions. All they understand is that they aren't being allowed to see their friends. Children that age require an immediate punishment so they understand the rule they broke and the results of breaking the rule. Children of school age understand more about delayed or extended punishments.

This is just one example of how people over-react with punishments. There's an old saying "Make the punishment fit the crime". I think we need to bring that back into force. But mostly we need for people to sit down and look at what they are doing when they determine punishments for breaking rules. I know the point is to make sure the person doesn't break the rule again but some of the punishments being put forth are extreme and completely inappropriate.

Or maybe we should just send them to their rooms until they've learned their lesson?

Laughter, The Best Medicine

Anyone who has picked up a Reader's Digest magazine recognizes that title. Laughter really is the best for helping people deal with all sorts of situation, including health issues.

But people have all sorts of senses of humour. Some people prefer the old classic form of humour. Other people prefer slapstick. Some people prefer  what is referred to as "body humour" where various parts of the body are used, like making noises with your underarms. Some people like profane humour.

Myself, I like the classics, where humour is used without profanity or rude noises and the jokes are funny on their own. I also enjoy slapstick comedy. I guess that's one reason why I like British comedies, they combine both.

On top of that, I have a twisted sense of humour. I can find something funny in things other people find shocking or are very serious about. I also like puns, which can be a bad thing. Some times.

One thing that practically everyone agrees is important is having laughter in their lives. There are some people who follow religions where laughter is considered evil or bad unless in very certain circumstances. I don't know how that belief got started unless the founders of those religions had met someone like me. In which case I would love to go back in time and get the people like me to be more careful.

I guess that's something I have trouble understanding with certain people. How can something that makes us feel good be wrong? If there is a deity out there, then wasn't our sense of humour a gift to us to be shared? I don't mean that making fun of someone is a good use of humour. It isn't. But sharing in things that make us feel better must be right.

Of course, that leads into a philosophical debate involving religion and I'm not going there.

Laughter helps us be healthier too. We need to bring more laughter into the world. But please people, no profanity. If the joke can't stand on it's on without profanity then it isn't funny to begin with and should be quietly buried. I'll do my best not to make puns except with people I know also enjoy them.

Well. I'll try anyway. :P

Preempted

I had an idea for today's post but something more important has come up. In order words, Life interrupted.

My mom was told a few months ago that she has lung cancer and wasn't expected to live much longer. Well, she did turn 80 last summer so I've been expecting some sort of health issue to rise up before long. I wasn't expecting this although upon thinking it really wasn't a surprise.

My father used to smoke so my mom got exposed to a lot of secondhand smoke. He died a couple of decades ago from a stroke. So the fact that it was my mom who ended up suffering from his bad habit isn't all that surprising.

Yesterday I got a call from my sister. Mom was taken to the hospital in severe pain. The cancer has spread a lot so it looks like this might be the end.  I'll be heading up in a while to see her. In some ways I would prefer not to, it's been a few months since I've seen Mom and my sister said she's lost about 20 pounds. Mom is a small woman and doesn't have the weight to lose. Also, if she's in as much pain as I think she might be too drugged to be aware of who is around her.

The past few years have had a lot of family drama and this is a situation that puts me in a nasty spot. The eldest of my sisters is currently talking only with me because my mom and other sister and brother don't want anything to do with her. However, she is Mom's firstborn and I think she has a right to know what is happening. I'm worried that if Mom is coherent when I go in she'll ask me not to tell my sister. Yet if I tell my sister and she tries to get here before Mom dies that will just cause tension and fights with my other sister.

It's a no-win situation. Although if Mom is in as much pain as I think, I hope she doesn't last for much longer. It took a week for Dad to die after his stroke and he didn't know any of us the last few days. That was very hard to deal with as was trying to handle each day never knowing if that was going to be the day when he died. I don't want to repeat that with Mom.

All I can do today is go see her and then decide what I'm going to do. At least I will get to say good bye to her.

Fashion Rules

So the Academy Awards just went by and, like usual, there was a lot of comments about the fashions of the stars. What I found funny was that today on the radio the DJ talked about some fashion critic's "rules for people over the age of 40". According to him, if you are over 40 you should not be wearing horizontal stripes, double-breasted blazers, capris, and a couple of other items I forget now.

Well, here is my response. If you are anything except average or skinny, don't wear horizontal stripes. Unless you are dressing formally, don't wear a double-breasted blazer. Capris are for warm weather so that is the only time you should be wearing them. Personally, I think they look better on most people than shorts do unless the cuffs of the capris are too tight and cutting into the legs.

Fashion is, for all extents and purposes, for people who are in good shape. It doesn't matter how old you are.  Larger sized people and super skinny people require different designs for their clothes to look good. This is simply a fact that is ignored by a lot of designers. They design for the average sized model which are representative of people in good shape.

If you look back through history, you can see how society's views on how good a person looks changed. For a time plus sized models were "the norm" then super skinny models became "the norm" and now models are healthier and more of an average size. All models are considered examples of beautiful people but their body shapes have always determined what fashions could be worn..

Fashion, like art, is subjective. We listen to a group of experts telling us that this is fashionable and this is not fashionable or is outdated fashion. We develop our sense of style based on what the experts tell us. Which, in one way, is good because we learn what is considered fashionable by society's current rules. But the rules change.

Classic fashion, as it is called today, was at one time considered cutting edge. It was daring, clothes followed the body rather than hiding it, but it was also widely accepted so that eventually it became more than a trend and instead became a style. In effect, it became respectable fashion.

I find that age gives a quality of it's own to fashion. A young person will view fashion much differently from a person who is considered mature. Younger people are more willing to try the more outrageous fashions, the cutting edge fashions that might be fads or might end up staying as a fashion style. And, as a society, we accept and even encourage that attitude. Older people have seen more fashion disasters come and go so they are usually more reluctant to try unconventional fashion statements.

But not always.

Yet our society discourages experimentation by older people. As that critic said, people over 40 are not supposed to wear fashion better suited for the younger generations. Fashion critics are harder on people wearing age-inappropriate fashion. Certain styles are considered fashionable for certain age groups.

I've looked at the various celebrities in their fashions and read the comments by the fashion critics. A lot of celebrities look younger than they are (well some look older too) and they look fine in fashions considered suitable for the younger generations. Some do end up wearing outfits that make them look older but part of that is also hair and makeup choices.  It is always interesting to see if the critics pick up on the total picture or concentrate on just the outfit.

I have my own sense of style and sometimes I agree with the critics but other times I don't. When I don't I try to figure out why. Is it just that I don't like a particular fashion trend? Or is there some other reason?

One feature of MSN's website is the weekly Hit and Diss fashion watch. I don't always check it out but about once a month or so I do. And I noticed that when the woman is wearing something that shows off her bust, it has to be a major fashion flaw for the outfit to get a diss.  There might be a slight criticism uttered for some minor flaw but the outfit can still be given a hit rating. Too much cleavage is another turn off in most cases although a few outfits can get a hit with a lot of cleavage being shown.

So, fashion critics are human after all and are not immune to sex appeal. But that doesn't mean their approval overrides my sense of fashion. Same for any "expert" in any field, I will consider your viewpoint under my rules and standards and if I disagree with you, then all it means is that I don't agree with you. I have the right to my viewpoint and I will at least do more research to find out what I can on the subject before deciding if one of us is right or wrong. But fashion, like I said before, is subjective and it all comes down to personal opinions.

Which is one reason why I don't follow fashion trends. I find what I feel looks good on me and buy that. Or, when necessary, buy the closest I can find because nothing for sale looks good on my body shape. Some days I think I should take up sewing again.  But that just leads into choosing fabric, which is it's own subject for discussion.

I guess the point I was trying to make is that while there should be certain fashion rules in effect (like for horizontal stripes and those awful bandage dresses which should be banned), no rules should be applied based on age. I understand why people try to make these rules though. Because some people just don't have any fashion sense. But that can be applied to people at any age.

Song Parodies

People have liked taking songs and making them their own, whether by changing the tempo or by changing the actual words, for a long time. It's been easier in the past few decades to see this because of our mass media in particular radio and television. Let us not forgot our faithful friend, the Internet, as well. The Internet has given us a virtual explosion of parodies especially related to games.

My daughter plays Minecraft, a game which I find hard to credit as being a game and instead term it an artistic challenge. So she likes looking for parodies of popular songs and has found a couple of people who do the parodies extremely well. Even I like them and I know very little about the game.

Like everyone else who writes, I've tried my hand at song writing, particularly parodies. Mostly because then I don't need to worry about the music. But I have written some original poems that I feel could be set to music quite well and even managed a few with a chorus. However, parodies remain my favorite fare.

In particular, I like to make them into food parodies.

I can't say it that was inspired by Weird Al's parodies of Michael Jackson's songs but I suspect that his concepts worked their way into the back of my brain and eventually influenced me. I generally do these just for my own fun but a while ago I posted one on one of my sites and had a friend help me a bit with the lyrics. I highly recommend collaborating when possible. One mind can work well and in a way be a genius but two minds are absolute brilliance together. We're able to see flaws in the other person's work that we'll ignore in our own. :P

So the one we did was 50 Ways to Bake Your Brownies based on 50 Ways to Leave Your Lover by Paul Simon. Another one that I thought over was Carry Out Takeout Son for Carry On Wayward Son by Kansas.

Some songs lend themselves very easily, in my opinion, to parodies while others take a lot of thought. Both of the above came to me while I was listening to them and also thinking about cooking. Obviously I was thinking about making brownies and trying to figure a way to make them different from the usual mix. The other song I was semi listening to and the line "There'll be peace when you are done" got changed to "There'll be pizza when you are done". Hehe. My mind can be funny.

Thinking up parodies got me to thinking about why people like to do them. In one way I think it's because it's easier to take something someone has already done and modify it. Every year I post in my journal a Christmas poem and I like taking the rhythm of The Night Before Christmas and using that as my base. I could do up a new poem completely from scratch and create a new rhythm every year. But it's easier and has become a tradition to use the same rhythm. The words are always new but by using a familiar beat it's easier to form the sentences.

But in another way it's harder because you have to stay true to the beat. An original poem or song or recipe means you can experiment and try different combinations without trying to make them fit any pattern. But by using an established form - a well-known song or poem - you have to stay within the boundaries created by the original artist or writer.

In a way it's a tribute to the original creator, a way of saying you like their work so much that you want to keep it while still making it distinctly yours as well. As long as you aren't taking commercial advantage of that and are crediting the original composer, group, or writer then I don't see anything wrong with creating parodies. It's like copying a person's fashion sense or way of speaking or walking. Imitation is still the greatest form of flattery and parodies are imitations in one way.

But there's always the flip side. Parodies can become more popular than the original work. And when that happens knowing that the work is a parody is important. Parodies are usually done to be humorous but sometimes they are done respectfully and with a seriousness of their own (which technically means they are no longer parodies but instead a homage or tribute). A good example would be the song "Every Breath You Take" originally done by The Police that had it's main beat and chorus used in the song "I'll Be Missing You" by Puff Daddy and Faith Evans. Despite the fact that about 20 years lay between the two songs and The Police were no longer recording as a group, many people thought that The Police had taken the song and modified it. No folks, it was written by Sting but even he says it was inspired by another song.

Creativity tends to build upon previous work.

Probably best known for his parodies, Weird Al has a long history of taking the work of contemporary artists and making them as funny as possible. He always makes sure he has approval for his parodies because he does make them into his albums. However there are a lot of parodies out on the Internet that are done without approval. Some will still credit the original artist but some won't. I think credit should be given where due but I'm not going to go around reporting anyone who doesn't credit the original source. At least as long as no one is getting money for it. I do believe in copyrights and monetary rights for creative work but that's another post.

Parodies are meant to be fun and they usually are. I think they should be encouraged as exercises in schools' creative writing classes. I think adults should sit down once a month or more and see who can come up with the best ideas for a parody. I think we need more fun in our lives.

But that's just my opinion.

There Are Days

When I wonder why I am still here.

There have been more than enough times in my life when I have come extremely close to dying and yet, I'm still here. There have been days when I wonder why I stay with my family because, let's face it, no one can get on your nerves better than family. Yet, I'm still here. There are days when I wonder why I turn on the computer and waste my time on the Internet. Yet, I'm still here.

Luck, love, boredom, these are the easy answers. But are they the true answers?

I'm still living because it isn't my time to go yet? I'm still living because those other times were warnings of what could happen? I'm still living because I somehow managed to avoid going over the edge into darkness aka death? Or is it all luck that has kept me alive.

Luck that my family was around and able to get to me the two times I almost drowned? Luck that someone yelled my name and I stopped just before the car would have hit me? Luck that Dad went out into the living room and saw the fire before it cut us off in the family room? (Okay, that wasn't as close a call as the others because we had a door to outside in the family room but we would have been out in the middle of winter with no outerwear) Luck that the odds favored having a seizure rather than the instantly fatal heart attack when my electrolyte levels dropped dangerously low?

Some people would say that I'm still here because I haven't finished my life's work or that I haven't been called forward or my time hasn't come yet. They have faith in an ulterior reason for all of us being here. Call it God, Allah, Gaea, Fate, Destiny, whatever. Now I have my beliefs but I'm not going into them right now. I might post sometime, might not. But that's not the subject of today's post. Today's post is about why I am still living and what I am doing with my life.

As I tell people, we don't have expiration dates. No one knows the date of their death, unless they are able to see the future and yes I know a couple of people who really can see glimpses of the future. No lottery numbers though, never those. *sighs* All we know is that we are mortal and at some point we all die.

Now most people try to deny their mortality. It's sort of a survival instinct, weird as that sounds. But by not thinking about being mortal they don't waste time worrying about it. Some of us learn to accept mortality and we don't fear it nor do we worry about it. We simply accept it as a fact of life and concentrate on living for today and planning for tomorrow. Other people need to be faced with a life-threatening situation or to be told they have a terminal disease to accept that they are mortal after all.

Then they have their "epiphany" and realize that money and possessions are not as important as the people in their lives. They want people to remember them in a good way and not as grasping, selfish, self-centered, money-grubbing, use whatever terms you want here. I never had that because I had learned a long time ago that people are fragile and we can lose them so easily. Possessions can be replaced even if not by an exact copy. People can not be replaced.

So am I still here because I still have something to do in my life? Is that why I have always had the urge to write, to express my thoughts and ideas and creativity? Am I here to share these thoughts with people I know or don't know and get them to have their epiphany without the life-threatening situations or terminal diseases?

I doubt it. But, hey, if anyone who reads this, if anyone ever reads it, takes the time to think about my views and maybe agree with them, then I guess it's worth it. I've shared some wisdom I learned. :)

As for why I'm still with my family, well I love them. Sure there's the fear of being alone but there's also the loyalty of living most of my life with the person I chose to live with and being responsible for the person we chose to bring into this world. In some ways I'm looking forward to being alone at some point, at not being responsible for anyone else, to be able to do what I want when I want and not worry about anyone else. I never really had a chance to be on my own, I was always living with someone else. But that's a possible future when my spouse dies and my daughter has moved on with her own life. Of course, I could die first but that would mean Life really is unfair. Hehe.

That also requires me to be able to live on my own, something which is becoming a concern of it's own. Right now I could live on my own. I'd have a few issues but nothing I couldn't overcome. But in five years, ten, twenty? I don't know. I'd have to make some changes and definitely find someplace else to live but I think I could manage it for the next ten years anyway.Depends on my health.

Which leads into the time spent on the computer instead of doing more productive things like housework. Easy enough to answer. Housework is tiring, boring, and tiring. If I was on my own it would be easier because then I'd just clean as I go but with three other people in the house, I'm usually cleaning up after them and I don't want nor should I have to do that. Also four people make lots more dirty dishes than just one person.

Maybe we'll get a dishwasher again the next place we move to, I miss it more than I realized I would. Made me lazier than I realized. At least I haven't resorted to using a maid service, mostly because we can't afford one. Besides, I'd probably end up being one of those people who clean up before the service comes because I don't want them to see how messy my place is. *looks around* Then again, maybe not. We have that "lived in" look. Lol.

I'll never have the answer to the question of why I'm still here (living) but that's all right. As long as I am here I can go on living life one day at a time and enjoying the friendships I have and hope to make in the future. After all, friends and family are what make life worth living.