I just took yet another personality test, but this one had far more interesting questions, and I couldn't predict their intentions. For the first time ever, I tested as an INFJ--and reasonably strong on all of the letters. The J shocked me so much that I went and read a few of the INFJ descriptions that I could find, and then I compared them to the INFP description (which I've thought I am since middle school), and I'm beginning to wonder if this test has categorized me better than I've ever categorized myself.
I'm always trying to figure out who I am and why I am the way that I am (in general), and this easily fits into both types. I've always found myself different--even from other INFPs. Ultimately, no one I've ever met remotely interacts with the world the way that I do. Do you know anyone that went to state-level math competitions *and* performed in your high school musicals? Is this person a talented musician *and* a kick-ass computer programmer?
I've always been laid-back and messy, but I've never been disorganized, per se. I hate lists, but I know the personality types of everyone I know. I haven't done dishes at my own house in a year, but I hand-washed most of the dishes at my friend's house last week--because I felt like it.
Ultimately, I'm organized and decisive about things that matter to me (like concepts and people), but I'm excessively disorganized and indecisive about things that don't matter to me... like chores and getting out of bed.
I've been very surprised to find on OkCupid that the vast majority of my matches are INTJs. There are a small number of INFPs and even fewer INFJs. Note that I noticed... and remembered. Until now, it has surprised me that my best friend is an INTJ. I communicate much better with the INFPs that I know, but ultimately, my values are more aligned with my INTJ friends (her boyfriend is an INTJ too). Likewise, my organization of people tends to offend my INFP friends (a little); It's interpreted as cold-hearted or closed-minded. Okay, I'll admit: Not only do I keep up with the personality types of everyone I know, but I have a fair idea of their IQs too. Really.
Along the value lines: I know four INFPs, and three of them still live with their parent(s). Out of four INFPs, one got a college degree by 22. Two of the remaining are working on their degrees in their mid twenties and the fourth got her degree in her early thirties. None of them are atheists. Other than me, all of the NFs that I know are either Christians or believe in some sort of ephemeral spirit realm (e.g. The Secret). All of the NTs that I know are atheists (note: not all of the NFs are girls and not all of the NTs are guys).
Why am I different? I'm still working on that.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Home
I was thinking last night about a test I took a while ago.
What Word Are You?
I'm: Home.
Originally, I didn't think anything of it. I still don't think much of the test, as it's pretty clearly an advertisement for a book.
Despite this, I was thinking about the word "home." There's the cliché, "Home is where the heart is," and it's incredibly true. We've heard it so much, though, that we may only see this for its obvious interpretation. I grew up in Asheville, NC, so Asheville will always be home to me.
That isn't why I'm writing this blog entry.
I've been asked many times how I knew I was in love. Every time, I've failed to give a good answer, but the answer came to me the other night: "Home." When you're in love, Home isn't where you grew up. Home isn't where you spent most of your life. Home isn't a city, state, or your native country. Home isn't where you pay rent or where you sleep at night.
Home is a person. Wherever I am, if I'm with her, I'm home.
I've been homeless for more than a year.
What Word Are You?
I'm: Home.
Originally, I didn't think anything of it. I still don't think much of the test, as it's pretty clearly an advertisement for a book.
Despite this, I was thinking about the word "home." There's the cliché, "Home is where the heart is," and it's incredibly true. We've heard it so much, though, that we may only see this for its obvious interpretation. I grew up in Asheville, NC, so Asheville will always be home to me.
That isn't why I'm writing this blog entry.
I've been asked many times how I knew I was in love. Every time, I've failed to give a good answer, but the answer came to me the other night: "Home." When you're in love, Home isn't where you grew up. Home isn't where you spent most of your life. Home isn't a city, state, or your native country. Home isn't where you pay rent or where you sleep at night.
Home is a person. Wherever I am, if I'm with her, I'm home.
I've been homeless for more than a year.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Perfection
I am not perfect.
I am intelligent.
I am educated.
I am knowledgeable.
But I am not perfect.
I am strong.
I am emotional.
I am insightful.
I am intuitive.
But I am not perfect.
I am creative.
I am musical.
I am artistic.
I am fluid.
But I am not perfect.
I am well spoken.
I have good grammar.
I have good spelling.
I have good diction.
But I am not perfect.
You think you write better than me.
You think I can't draw.
My music is too loud for you.
I am not the same as you.
And I shouldn't need your approval.
You are not perfect.
I am intelligent.
I am educated.
I am knowledgeable.
But I am not perfect.
I am strong.
I am emotional.
I am insightful.
I am intuitive.
But I am not perfect.
I am creative.
I am musical.
I am artistic.
I am fluid.
But I am not perfect.
I am well spoken.
I have good grammar.
I have good spelling.
I have good diction.
But I am not perfect.
You think you write better than me.
You think I can't draw.
My music is too loud for you.
I am not the same as you.
And I shouldn't need your approval.
You are not perfect.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Mere Christianity
Recently, Richard Dawkins published a book called, "The God Delusion." This manifesto discussing Dawkins' atheist viewpoint made a lot of press, both good and bad. NPR's Fresh Air had him as a guest on March 28, 2007. The next day, Fresh Air had Francis Collins, a Christian scientist, on the show to discuss his belief that faith in Christianity was compatible with his scientific viewpoint.
Twenty five minutes (25:00, actually) into the podcast version of this show is where Collins begins his discussion of his initial atheism and his transformation to a Christian. At 27:38, he mentions a book written by an Oxford Scholar who was an atheist who wanted to back up his atheism, and the results had an unexpected outcome--"Mere Christianity," by C.S. Lewis.
This notion perplexed me. How could a reasonable atheist be converted to Christianity, especially one smart enough to be a part of the sequencing of the human genome? As a result, I picked up my copy of the book and began to read it (a Christian friend of mine gave it to me many years ago). The results might surprise you.
The foundation of Lewis' argument is morality. Lewis discusses the detail that humans tend to have a common view of what is moral and what is immoral. He states this as a fact. Lewis misses the detail that this isn't a fact and that different people and cultures do actually have different definitions of morality: e.g. abortion, capital punishment, slavery, women's rights, genocide, rape, consumption of animal flesh, etc... For each of these examples, there are (or have been) people that fall on either side of the discussion of the morality of the topic. In Christianity, Lot was considered a righteous man, though he gave his own daughters up to be gang-raped. Slavery is condoned in the new and old testaments of the bible. God *supposedly* performed a genocide of his own when he spared Noah and his family, while wiping out all the rest of humanity. Clearly, morality isn't the black-and-white issue that Lewis and Christians tend to believe it is.
For the sake of argument, though, let's disregard this difficulty in Lewis' "proof" and continue. The foundation of his argument depends on one additional claim. Given that we humans have a common notion of the moral ideal, the moral ideal must actually exist... it must have a source or an example. Unfortunately, this logical claim breaks down very, very quickly. Lewis claims that we can't call a line crooked without having a notion of what a straight line is; we would notice being wet, but a fish would not; if the universe had no light, then there would be no creatures with eyes, and we would not be able to comprehend the difference between light and dark. Each of these examples is flawed.
First of all, a blind person is capable of comprehending the difference between light and dark, specifically that one is the presence of photons within a specific frequency range and the other is the absence of them. Likewise, a deaf person is capable of understanding that sound is merely vibration of air molecules. While we have never experienced it, we are capable of comprehending that space is silent--with no matter to vibrate, there can be no sound. We are perfectly capable of imagining that a substance exists and that something travels through that substance. Take as an example ether. At the beginning of the twentieth century, scientists were looking for evidence of the "ether." As it turns out, it was rather, um, ethereal. Scientists imagined that light traveled through this "ether" and assumed that they could figure out how fast the Earth was traveling through the "ether" by measuring the speed of light in various directions. As it turns out, they were wrong. Just like imagining darkness in a universe with no light, we imagined the "ether" in a relativistic universe.
Next, implying a fish does not feel wet because it is a water creature implies that a human would not feel dry because he is not a water creature. Likewise, it implies that we are not capable of appreciating air because we have never experienced a vacuum. This is an inappropriate example, so I'm having a very difficult time coming up with an appropriate counterexample.
Most importantly, the biggest flaw in Lewis' argument is the notion of a straight line. This brings us to mathematics and geometry. I prefer the example of a circle. A circle is the collection of points on a plane that are a specific distance from another arbitrary point on the plane. We are capable of comprehending each of these logical ideas, but sadly, none of them exist. A point is a man-made concept, an infinitesimally small dot. An atom is infinitely larger than a point. No one has ever seen a point, and no one ever will. The same is true of a plane. The same is true of a circle. No one has ever seen a circle, and no one ever will. It's a concept. The fact that we are capable of imagining the concept does not prove the concept exists.
Furthermore, it's important to point out that the concept of a circle is a human construct, and its lack of real-world existence is not a hindrance to the furthering of mathematics or physics--not unlike how the lack of god's existence hasn't affected religious apologists.
Twenty five minutes (25:00, actually) into the podcast version of this show is where Collins begins his discussion of his initial atheism and his transformation to a Christian. At 27:38, he mentions a book written by an Oxford Scholar who was an atheist who wanted to back up his atheism, and the results had an unexpected outcome--"Mere Christianity," by C.S. Lewis.
This notion perplexed me. How could a reasonable atheist be converted to Christianity, especially one smart enough to be a part of the sequencing of the human genome? As a result, I picked up my copy of the book and began to read it (a Christian friend of mine gave it to me many years ago). The results might surprise you.
The foundation of Lewis' argument is morality. Lewis discusses the detail that humans tend to have a common view of what is moral and what is immoral. He states this as a fact. Lewis misses the detail that this isn't a fact and that different people and cultures do actually have different definitions of morality: e.g. abortion, capital punishment, slavery, women's rights, genocide, rape, consumption of animal flesh, etc... For each of these examples, there are (or have been) people that fall on either side of the discussion of the morality of the topic. In Christianity, Lot was considered a righteous man, though he gave his own daughters up to be gang-raped. Slavery is condoned in the new and old testaments of the bible. God *supposedly* performed a genocide of his own when he spared Noah and his family, while wiping out all the rest of humanity. Clearly, morality isn't the black-and-white issue that Lewis and Christians tend to believe it is.
For the sake of argument, though, let's disregard this difficulty in Lewis' "proof" and continue. The foundation of his argument depends on one additional claim. Given that we humans have a common notion of the moral ideal, the moral ideal must actually exist... it must have a source or an example. Unfortunately, this logical claim breaks down very, very quickly. Lewis claims that we can't call a line crooked without having a notion of what a straight line is; we would notice being wet, but a fish would not; if the universe had no light, then there would be no creatures with eyes, and we would not be able to comprehend the difference between light and dark. Each of these examples is flawed.
First of all, a blind person is capable of comprehending the difference between light and dark, specifically that one is the presence of photons within a specific frequency range and the other is the absence of them. Likewise, a deaf person is capable of understanding that sound is merely vibration of air molecules. While we have never experienced it, we are capable of comprehending that space is silent--with no matter to vibrate, there can be no sound. We are perfectly capable of imagining that a substance exists and that something travels through that substance. Take as an example ether. At the beginning of the twentieth century, scientists were looking for evidence of the "ether." As it turns out, it was rather, um, ethereal. Scientists imagined that light traveled through this "ether" and assumed that they could figure out how fast the Earth was traveling through the "ether" by measuring the speed of light in various directions. As it turns out, they were wrong. Just like imagining darkness in a universe with no light, we imagined the "ether" in a relativistic universe.
Next, implying a fish does not feel wet because it is a water creature implies that a human would not feel dry because he is not a water creature. Likewise, it implies that we are not capable of appreciating air because we have never experienced a vacuum. This is an inappropriate example, so I'm having a very difficult time coming up with an appropriate counterexample.
Most importantly, the biggest flaw in Lewis' argument is the notion of a straight line. This brings us to mathematics and geometry. I prefer the example of a circle. A circle is the collection of points on a plane that are a specific distance from another arbitrary point on the plane. We are capable of comprehending each of these logical ideas, but sadly, none of them exist. A point is a man-made concept, an infinitesimally small dot. An atom is infinitely larger than a point. No one has ever seen a point, and no one ever will. The same is true of a plane. The same is true of a circle. No one has ever seen a circle, and no one ever will. It's a concept. The fact that we are capable of imagining the concept does not prove the concept exists.
Furthermore, it's important to point out that the concept of a circle is a human construct, and its lack of real-world existence is not a hindrance to the furthering of mathematics or physics--not unlike how the lack of god's existence hasn't affected religious apologists.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Talking with a girl that has a boyfriend
The other day, I upset one of my friends. She knew I had an interest in a girl (but not which girl). When she found out, her response was "You know she has a boyfriend, right?" My response: "So?" The obvious question ensued: Would I really want to date a girl that left her boyfriend for me?
First of all, I don't know the guy, despite the fact that he was there. I know next to nothing about him. He's a completely random stranger. For all I know, he beats her. What I do know:
a) His name.
b) She behaves differently when he's around than she does when he's not around.
c) He gets nervous at the notion that a guy might be trying to talk to his girlfriend.
Between (b) and (c), I would say that they don't have a particularly strong relationship.
For the record, she smokes. I couldn't date anyone that smokes. Obviously, then, this blog isn't about her; it's about my position on making relationships with women that already are dating someone else.
Women and men are in very different positions when it comes to dating. A beautiful woman of any type is likely to have men lined up waiting for her to become single. Obviously, this isn't true for all women, but it's definitely not true for most guys. For those of us that aren't interested in (or capable of) dating a dozen women at once, it's difficult to ever be noticed.
All guys claim to be the caring, compassionate man that women tend to be interested in. Few of us really are. Since all guys claim to be the mythical "good guy," the only way to prove it is with time.
There are many aspects to relationships, especially relationships between the different genders. I tend to get along better with women than I do with men, and as a result, I tend to look to have females as friends instead of males. My reasons for this are different from what other people claim. I get along better with women because I have more in common with them. As Annika puts it, she thinks of me as one of the girls because I tend to think more like a girl would.
So, why would I be interested in talking with a girl that already has a boyfriend?
a) for the same reason that I would talk to a guy that already has a girlfriend: she might turn out to be a really interesting person.
b) it's good to have women that will vouch for me.
c) perhaps when she's single again, we may find that we're interested in each other.
d) friends make much better lovers than strangers.
3) meeting people and making friends is a great way to meet new people and make new friends. (duh.)
First of all, I don't know the guy, despite the fact that he was there. I know next to nothing about him. He's a completely random stranger. For all I know, he beats her. What I do know:
a) His name.
b) She behaves differently when he's around than she does when he's not around.
c) He gets nervous at the notion that a guy might be trying to talk to his girlfriend.
Between (b) and (c), I would say that they don't have a particularly strong relationship.
For the record, she smokes. I couldn't date anyone that smokes. Obviously, then, this blog isn't about her; it's about my position on making relationships with women that already are dating someone else.
Women and men are in very different positions when it comes to dating. A beautiful woman of any type is likely to have men lined up waiting for her to become single. Obviously, this isn't true for all women, but it's definitely not true for most guys. For those of us that aren't interested in (or capable of) dating a dozen women at once, it's difficult to ever be noticed.
All guys claim to be the caring, compassionate man that women tend to be interested in. Few of us really are. Since all guys claim to be the mythical "good guy," the only way to prove it is with time.
There are many aspects to relationships, especially relationships between the different genders. I tend to get along better with women than I do with men, and as a result, I tend to look to have females as friends instead of males. My reasons for this are different from what other people claim. I get along better with women because I have more in common with them. As Annika puts it, she thinks of me as one of the girls because I tend to think more like a girl would.
So, why would I be interested in talking with a girl that already has a boyfriend?
a) for the same reason that I would talk to a guy that already has a girlfriend: she might turn out to be a really interesting person.
b) it's good to have women that will vouch for me.
c) perhaps when she's single again, we may find that we're interested in each other.
d) friends make much better lovers than strangers.
3) meeting people and making friends is a great way to meet new people and make new friends. (duh.)
Monday, March 26, 2007
The Importance of God
Many people perceive atheists as being just as fanatical as religious fundamentalists. We are the evil, amoral people that remove prayer from schools, that refute the Pledge of Allegiance, that oppose the Ten Commandments, and that kill unborn babies. If God doesn't exist, why do Atheists make such a big deal about it?
As discussed in a previous blog, atheists are not amoral. We have our own definition of morality. Since atheism is not an organized religion, each of us has our own definition of morality, but this is no different from Christianity. So far as I'm aware, no living Christian follows the morality as defined in the Bible (e.g. disobedient children should be killed). Just as we atheists do, Christians also find their own moral middle ground.
Oddly, while Christians find atheists to be amoral (without morals), atheists tend to find Christians to be immoral (going against reasonable societal morals). For example: First Amendment Rights. The very first amendment to the US Constitution explicitly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion[.]" Conservative Christians are trying their hardest to go against this--they are trying to legislate their own interpretation of morality, according to their own religion, which is explicitly prohibited by the first amendment. The most blatant of these is the promotion of the Ten Commandments, that people explicitly believe these should be law. At least of six of these commandments reek of religion. The ones that don't: you shall not murder; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Arguably, the commandment "you shall not commit adultery" is a religious commandment (or sexist, based on the definition of adultery), and all remaining commandments are either explicitly religious, or are things that can't be made into law anyway (e.g. you shall not covet your neighbor's house...).
This brings us to the Pledge of Allegiance. In 1954, the "God" of Christianity was legislated into the morning ritual of children, nationwide. Based on this, George H. W. Bush has even stated publicly that atheists are not citizens because this is one nation under God. According to our First Amendment rights, though, he is the one at fault; he is the one going against our nation's founding--not me.
I have every right to practice the religion (or lack thereof) of my choosing. Congress is in the wrong by respecting any religion. Since public school is provided by the government, it is unconstitutional for public school to be used by the government as a method of pushing religion of any sort, and especially as a method of religious indoctrination (can we say intelligent design?).
Claiming the immorality of aborting a four-celled zygote is a religious claim--not one based in science or any form of logical reasoning. This is no more a person than identical twins being considered one person, or a chimera being considered two. Yet, this religious reasoning is behind why stem cell research is effectively illegal in the United States. The rest of the world is continuing in this field without us.
Why do atheists care whether other people believe in god? We only care to the extent that they push their beliefs off on other people. We care that they attempt to legislate their (by our standards) faulty morality on us. If we were not treated as less human, less American, less moral, then we wouldn't care what other people believe. If our First Amendment rights were not being stifled, we wouldn't have a problem. If religious fundamentalists were not blocking scientific research and science education, we would be fine to allow them to live in their own ignorance. We don't take issue with the religious views against premarital sex so long as it doesn't affect educating people about reality. We don't focus on people that believe the Earth is flat because they aren't trying to legislate these unfounded beliefs.
Why do I care that other people believe in God? Because they care that I don't.
As discussed in a previous blog, atheists are not amoral. We have our own definition of morality. Since atheism is not an organized religion, each of us has our own definition of morality, but this is no different from Christianity. So far as I'm aware, no living Christian follows the morality as defined in the Bible (e.g. disobedient children should be killed). Just as we atheists do, Christians also find their own moral middle ground.
Oddly, while Christians find atheists to be amoral (without morals), atheists tend to find Christians to be immoral (going against reasonable societal morals). For example: First Amendment Rights. The very first amendment to the US Constitution explicitly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion[.]" Conservative Christians are trying their hardest to go against this--they are trying to legislate their own interpretation of morality, according to their own religion, which is explicitly prohibited by the first amendment. The most blatant of these is the promotion of the Ten Commandments, that people explicitly believe these should be law. At least of six of these commandments reek of religion. The ones that don't: you shall not murder; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Arguably, the commandment "you shall not commit adultery" is a religious commandment (or sexist, based on the definition of adultery), and all remaining commandments are either explicitly religious, or are things that can't be made into law anyway (e.g. you shall not covet your neighbor's house...).
This brings us to the Pledge of Allegiance. In 1954, the "God" of Christianity was legislated into the morning ritual of children, nationwide. Based on this, George H. W. Bush has even stated publicly that atheists are not citizens because this is one nation under God. According to our First Amendment rights, though, he is the one at fault; he is the one going against our nation's founding--not me.
I have every right to practice the religion (or lack thereof) of my choosing. Congress is in the wrong by respecting any religion. Since public school is provided by the government, it is unconstitutional for public school to be used by the government as a method of pushing religion of any sort, and especially as a method of religious indoctrination (can we say intelligent design?).
Claiming the immorality of aborting a four-celled zygote is a religious claim--not one based in science or any form of logical reasoning. This is no more a person than identical twins being considered one person, or a chimera being considered two. Yet, this religious reasoning is behind why stem cell research is effectively illegal in the United States. The rest of the world is continuing in this field without us.
Why do atheists care whether other people believe in god? We only care to the extent that they push their beliefs off on other people. We care that they attempt to legislate their (by our standards) faulty morality on us. If we were not treated as less human, less American, less moral, then we wouldn't care what other people believe. If our First Amendment rights were not being stifled, we wouldn't have a problem. If religious fundamentalists were not blocking scientific research and science education, we would be fine to allow them to live in their own ignorance. We don't take issue with the religious views against premarital sex so long as it doesn't affect educating people about reality. We don't focus on people that believe the Earth is flat because they aren't trying to legislate these unfounded beliefs.
Why do I care that other people believe in God? Because they care that I don't.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Annika's New Place
Friday evening, shortly after officially moving in, Annika called me up excited about her new place. She wanted to show it off. So, I called and apologized to the guys I had just agreed to meet for dinner (Montie from Veto! plus a friend), went home to get my camera, and promptly drove out to see what all of the fuss was about.Oh. I see. Yes, it's beautiful. Technically, the Grey Goose Vodka bottles belong to a roommate that doesn't drink any more. Yes, I'm an *amateur* photographer. Any serious photographer would have noticed and MOVED the freaking camera case that was in the way of the nice photo.
There was a basket of candy on the island in the kitchen, and I kept telling myself that if I started in on the Life Savers, that I would never stop. I tried. I really tried. I tried for a really long time. Then I gave in and took a photo of the first.Prior to arriving at the house, I went with Annika to Ikea (the mother ship) so that she could buy some new dishes and traditional Swedish food. I have no idea if I like the food she kept showing me, since I had to ask her what it was. Of course, I've never had smoked roe before. I've had caviar on sushi, but never simply as caviar. I don't know how to tell you if I like it or not.
The Pool Boy was waiting for us back at the house. He had the chicken wings. None of us knew how to properly cook buffalo wings. They had already been marinaded in buffalo sauce. So, Annika puts them in the oven. Not a bad idea if I do say so myself.We had no idea what temperature to set the oven to or how long to let the wings cook. Since Annika didn't have a candy thermometer, I left the meat-cooking to her. The only way I know to cook meat well is with a thermometer. It involves a bunch of elbow grease and heat from friction. Are you up to the task?
Do the wings look done to you? Just kidding... this was just a gratuitous photo.
Meanwhile, on the opposite side of the room, Annika's manfriend has had a long, hard day working on blueprints. Errr, I mean, The Pool Boy has had a long, hard day of cleaning pools and keeping women happy. Yes, that's the ticket!
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.Seriously, though. What the fuck is up with the low-carb barbecue sauce? BBQ is supposed to be high in sugar. It's not BBQ without the brown sugar. There is something seriously wrong with any diet that tells you it's okay to drink a glass of lard, but it's not okay to eat an apple or an orange.
It seems he really was working on a blueprint.For those of you that are sickeningly curious, this is what the comforter looks like up close. The texture! Oh, the texture! And for the record, I didn't get to see what it was really like under the covers. The Pool Boy had too much work to do. ;)
Somewhere along the line, Annika got a hold of my camera and went crazy taking photos of her bookshelves. She's really proud of her book shelves. Here are the few photos that looked good:
Anyway... Queen Annika had to log onto MySpace to check up on her loyal subjects. She went through all of her photos and showed me what all of her minions/slaves do in order to praise her.
Hey, he's asleep! Now we can have some real fun with the camera... Well, not really. We didn't do anything we wouldn't have done with him awake and in the room.I was on my way out, and I saw something that I thought would make a really cool photo. So, I asked Annika to go back to where she was just standing, and I took a photo.
Crap... It's out of focus. That's not going to work. Well, maybe it will work as a small image.
The flash is a very bad thing. Very bad. Very, very bad. I'll say this as many times as necessary to get the point across. I don't like using the flash unless absolutely necessary.So, I took a few more shots without the flash before heading out the door. I think these are a bit better. By the way, it was Annika's idea to climb up on the counter top. I had nothing at all to do with this. I just took the photos. O:-)
To Annika's credit, the above photo was a five second exposure, and the next photo is eight seconds. She did a fabulous job of staying still for the camera.
For the next shot, I tried to add a little bit of light with my flashlight, but the LEDs were way too blue, so it looks like Annika is watching TV. The original was much bluer. This is the best I could do without making it not look like a real photo.
While I may bitch about her breathing causing her left hand to blur, this was still a 3.2 second exposure with a two second lead-in. I didn't expect her to hold her breath for the photo. The lighting in the room made the original exceptionally yellow. This photo has been adjusted to reflect the actual color of the room, as seen in the close-up of the comforter (there was more light available at that time).Looking at this last photo's time-stamp, I've realized that I didn't adjust the time on the camera when I came back to California from North Carolina. The time stamp is 3:48AM. You do the math. I didn't overstay my welcome that much.
Lastly, the larger photos that blogger shows you when you click on the images are still a quarter the size of the originals. See this version of the last photo for comparison.
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Honesty
I've learned over the years that there are varying levels of honesty when it comes to relationships. There's the blatant dishonesty that comes with cheating or using someone to get something you want. Then, there's lying about more personal stuff. To quote Dr. Gregory House, everyone lies. Maybe it isn't quite that simple. Perhaps it isn't a lie. Perhaps you just withheld the truth as a personal detail due to insecurities, but it's still dishonest.
I knew for a long time that my ex wasn't a good match. Once she stopped lying to herself about whom she was, it was pretty clear to me that we had some major differences. There were plenty of things about me that drove her nuts. The difference is that I knew that the things about her that drove me nuts couldn't be changed. I also knew that I could live with it. As a result, I never spoke up.
Was that dishonest? Yes. She had always told me that I was a good enough catch that my issues were worth dealing with. As it turns out, that wasn't true. I think that deep down she believed that she could change me, or that I would change myself in order to keep her. The detail she missed is that the things that drove her nuts about me are personality traits. They are things that are side effects of who I am. I can no more change that I'm lazy and messy than I can decide I want to be a misogynist pig, sleeping with a different woman every night. Sure, I could exercise to get more energy so that I'm not as lazy, but that's not going to change the fact that I don't particularly care that I have a path between the kitchen, the bathroom, my computer, and my bed. (You can't see it, but my mother is reading this and laughing, since that's how my room has *always* been, no matter how hard she tried to get me not to be like her.)
Why didn't I speak up? Multiple reasons:
1) Selfish reasons. I figured if she knew that she bothered me as much as I bothered her, that she would call an end to the whole thing and walk out. Despite many details about her annoying me, I was still decently happy with the relationship. Yes, I kept my mouth shut to keep her around, just like she pretended to be exactly what I was looking for in order to keep me interested to begin with.
2) Humane reasons. Since I left my first wife, I think she always had a fear that I would wind up leaving her too. I didn't want her to think that I ever had reason to do this again. After all, what's a strong relationship without security?
3) Noble reasons. Considering that she had her own self-esteem issues, I had absolutely no interest in making her uncomfortable with any part of herself. I didn't fully realize this at the time, but when I met her, she was a shell of the person her father had brainwashed her to be. There was very little about her that was truly her. I did my best to allow her to be whatever she wanted, liberating her to think and act for herself (I don't claim I did a *good* job...). The ultimate irony here is that in helping her to grow to become her own person, she eventually decided she needed to leave me.
Since this is a blog entry about honesty and not a blog entry about my last relationship, I'm not going to go into details any more than that. It's obvious that I was dishonest by leaving out details. The big question is the morality of it. Was it right or wrong? I think that depends on the relationship and specifically the people within the relationship. I think people should be mature enough to handle the truth, but not everyone is. I think this level of honesty is critical for a strong relationship--if you are worried that the other person might take offense and even potentially leave you if you say what you really think or feel, then you don't have a relationship at all.
"Security" is the big word in the whole thing. If you don't have security, you don't have a relationship--you have an acquaintance. If you can't trust someone enough to tell them what you really think about them, you don't have a relationship. If you can't trust your partner with people of the opposite sex, you don't have a relationship--you have an arrangement.
In closing, I'll leave you with this acronym: SHAT. SHAT is the most fundamental requirement for a solid relationship:
Security
Honesty
Acceptance
Trust
I knew for a long time that my ex wasn't a good match. Once she stopped lying to herself about whom she was, it was pretty clear to me that we had some major differences. There were plenty of things about me that drove her nuts. The difference is that I knew that the things about her that drove me nuts couldn't be changed. I also knew that I could live with it. As a result, I never spoke up.
Was that dishonest? Yes. She had always told me that I was a good enough catch that my issues were worth dealing with. As it turns out, that wasn't true. I think that deep down she believed that she could change me, or that I would change myself in order to keep her. The detail she missed is that the things that drove her nuts about me are personality traits. They are things that are side effects of who I am. I can no more change that I'm lazy and messy than I can decide I want to be a misogynist pig, sleeping with a different woman every night. Sure, I could exercise to get more energy so that I'm not as lazy, but that's not going to change the fact that I don't particularly care that I have a path between the kitchen, the bathroom, my computer, and my bed. (You can't see it, but my mother is reading this and laughing, since that's how my room has *always* been, no matter how hard she tried to get me not to be like her.)
Why didn't I speak up? Multiple reasons:
1) Selfish reasons. I figured if she knew that she bothered me as much as I bothered her, that she would call an end to the whole thing and walk out. Despite many details about her annoying me, I was still decently happy with the relationship. Yes, I kept my mouth shut to keep her around, just like she pretended to be exactly what I was looking for in order to keep me interested to begin with.
2) Humane reasons. Since I left my first wife, I think she always had a fear that I would wind up leaving her too. I didn't want her to think that I ever had reason to do this again. After all, what's a strong relationship without security?
3) Noble reasons. Considering that she had her own self-esteem issues, I had absolutely no interest in making her uncomfortable with any part of herself. I didn't fully realize this at the time, but when I met her, she was a shell of the person her father had brainwashed her to be. There was very little about her that was truly her. I did my best to allow her to be whatever she wanted, liberating her to think and act for herself (I don't claim I did a *good* job...). The ultimate irony here is that in helping her to grow to become her own person, she eventually decided she needed to leave me.
Since this is a blog entry about honesty and not a blog entry about my last relationship, I'm not going to go into details any more than that. It's obvious that I was dishonest by leaving out details. The big question is the morality of it. Was it right or wrong? I think that depends on the relationship and specifically the people within the relationship. I think people should be mature enough to handle the truth, but not everyone is. I think this level of honesty is critical for a strong relationship--if you are worried that the other person might take offense and even potentially leave you if you say what you really think or feel, then you don't have a relationship at all.
"Security" is the big word in the whole thing. If you don't have security, you don't have a relationship--you have an acquaintance. If you can't trust someone enough to tell them what you really think about them, you don't have a relationship. If you can't trust your partner with people of the opposite sex, you don't have a relationship--you have an arrangement.
In closing, I'll leave you with this acronym: SHAT. SHAT is the most fundamental requirement for a solid relationship:
Security
Honesty
Acceptance
Trust
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Moral Certitude
We the People of the Me, in Order to form a more perfect world, do hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that there is no universal morality, that there is no definitive right and wrong, that only reason can guide us on our path.
How can right and wrong be defined if there is no supreme example of what is right or wrong? Simple: it can't. This should be abundantly obvious, as there are clearly moral gray areas. Is it immoral to steal if you are starving? The more appropriate question is whether it's moral not to give food to a starving person. The answer to this question is rather straight forward, but the reasoning isn't immediately obvious.
If we rely on the above givens, logic can give us a list of moral priorities. These are not moral certitudes (with one exception), but priorities.
1) Survival of Life
2) Survival of the Habitat
3) Survival of the Species
4) Survival of the Individual's Genes
5) Survival of the Individual
6) Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
7) Property
The only moral certitude is that life must survive. This is the highest priority on all scales. We must not allow any event so destructive that it will wipe out all life, be it by our own causing or of otherwise natural causes.
The notion of Darwinian Natural Selection could be taken to imply that the survival of one's own genes is the highest priority. This is true, but it has many levels. As we share genes and DNA with all life, we are also responsible for the survival of our genes at that level. We are responsible for protecting the survival of our genes, but this directly includes our own immediate family. We are therefore also responsible for protecting the genes of our ancestors, but not at the expense of our own species. We are responsible for protecting our species, but not at the expense of our own habitat.
Does this mean that we can't exploit our own habitat? No, but only as long as we aren't destroying its usability for the propagation of life--as long as we aren't wantonly destroying life. Is it our responsibility to prevent the natural extinction of species? Not necessarily. It's our responsibility if we are the cause. It's our responsibility if we are affected. It's our responsibility if it affects the entire planet.
This much should be abundantly obvious. What about less obvious questions? Is it moral not to give food to a starving person? This starving person shares our genes. It is to the benefit of the species for each individual to be willing to come to the aid of another. This has the benefit of making the species more cohesive. This is what makes society work. This general concern for the well-being of the species causes the (communist) voluntary redistribution of wealth that is otherwise known as charity. There are a select few that take advantage of this generosity. This behavior has not been selected out because it does work--but only when there are a relatively small number following this behavior. The reason this obviously bothers us is because it involves blatantly putting the survival of an individual’s genes above the survival of the species. It puts us directly in competition with each other, as opposed to having us help each other.
What about marriage? Birth control? Celibacy prior to marriage? Choosing not to have children? Feminism has done wonders in that it allows women (and men) the freedom to be themselves--the freedom to choose for themselves.
This is wonderful, but there are downsides that have come with the feminist movement(s). If everyone were to choose a career over family, then there would be no children to propagate any of our genes--our species would fail. If intelligent people were less likely to have children because they are too busy supporting their own desires, then intelligence would be selected out of the gene pool. Obviously, even a small number of intelligent people will benefit the whole species, but even small selective pressures can remove genes in their entirety over the vast spans of time that are considered by evolution.
The capitalistic society of the United States has reached a point where the people best able to thrive within the society are the least likely to reproduce. You don’t see the scientists and engineers that make technology and medicine producing a dozen offspring. No. This only occurs in cultural groups that are not educated enough to understand the biology behind sexual reproduction and cultural groups that can’t afford the birth control to stop having children. The problem isn’t that these groups are reproducing in large numbers. Absolutely not. These are large groups and within them are many people with various incredibly useful genes. Unfortunately, these people are more likely to succeed in leaving these cultural groups, and as a result, they are less likely to have as many children. (I wish I had research to back this up… but these claims just make sense to me.)
Am I claiming that birth control is bad? No. I am claiming that choosing to not having children is bad. In choosing to not have children, you are accepting that there is nothing in your genetic structure that is worth passing on to future generations of the human species. Am I claiming that we should have rampant sex and create as many children as possible? Well, if that’s what the competition is doing… (just kidding.) No, we should have as many children as we can support. It’s important that our offspring also be capable of using whatever beneficial genes they have. If they are raised to be incapable of taking advantage of their inherent gifts, then they will have difficulty properly offering these genes to the benefit of the entire species.
Marriage is not morally critical. This falls into the pursuit of happiness. It is important that each and every child has enough support to be able to grow to his or her full potential. This does not necessitate that the parents be married. This does not even necessitate that both parents even be around. It’s entirely possible to raise children in a single-parent household. It is, however, easier to provide for the children if there are more adults providing. It is important for the parents to do what they must to promote the survival of their own genes within their offspring. What logically follows is hard-wired into most species: that the parent will protect their offspring with their own life. Unfortunately, this could involve protecting the offspring from the other parent.
Lastly, what about religion? Any religion which conflicts heavily with the above will have dire effects on one of the following: a) the followers b) the rest of the species/world c) the religion itself. Christians once went on crusades to destroy all non-Christians. This form of Christianity no longer exists. The Christianity of the bible no longer exists. The various Christian sects each have their own interpretation of what should be followed and what should be ignored. Radical Islam is currently attempting to destroy all non-Muslims. They have really pissed off a large group of people, and now the dumb want to wipe them out. Eventually, one of the above three possibilities will occur, and as a result, the world will be very different.
This is by no means a definitive guide to how you should live. This is simply a proof-of-concept that a god is not necessary to define right and wrong. Much of what I have claimed is speculation on my own part. I do not expect all of this to hold up to rigorous scientific research. This is simply meant as a strategy guide for approaching your own decisions. I suspect the top five items in my list of priorities are not likely to change. The remaining two could easily be expanded, but this expansion has been left out of this first write-up.
How can right and wrong be defined if there is no supreme example of what is right or wrong? Simple: it can't. This should be abundantly obvious, as there are clearly moral gray areas. Is it immoral to steal if you are starving? The more appropriate question is whether it's moral not to give food to a starving person. The answer to this question is rather straight forward, but the reasoning isn't immediately obvious.
If we rely on the above givens, logic can give us a list of moral priorities. These are not moral certitudes (with one exception), but priorities.
1) Survival of Life
2) Survival of the Habitat
3) Survival of the Species
4) Survival of the Individual's Genes
5) Survival of the Individual
6) Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
7) Property
The only moral certitude is that life must survive. This is the highest priority on all scales. We must not allow any event so destructive that it will wipe out all life, be it by our own causing or of otherwise natural causes.
The notion of Darwinian Natural Selection could be taken to imply that the survival of one's own genes is the highest priority. This is true, but it has many levels. As we share genes and DNA with all life, we are also responsible for the survival of our genes at that level. We are responsible for protecting the survival of our genes, but this directly includes our own immediate family. We are therefore also responsible for protecting the genes of our ancestors, but not at the expense of our own species. We are responsible for protecting our species, but not at the expense of our own habitat.
Does this mean that we can't exploit our own habitat? No, but only as long as we aren't destroying its usability for the propagation of life--as long as we aren't wantonly destroying life. Is it our responsibility to prevent the natural extinction of species? Not necessarily. It's our responsibility if we are the cause. It's our responsibility if we are affected. It's our responsibility if it affects the entire planet.
This much should be abundantly obvious. What about less obvious questions? Is it moral not to give food to a starving person? This starving person shares our genes. It is to the benefit of the species for each individual to be willing to come to the aid of another. This has the benefit of making the species more cohesive. This is what makes society work. This general concern for the well-being of the species causes the (communist) voluntary redistribution of wealth that is otherwise known as charity. There are a select few that take advantage of this generosity. This behavior has not been selected out because it does work--but only when there are a relatively small number following this behavior. The reason this obviously bothers us is because it involves blatantly putting the survival of an individual’s genes above the survival of the species. It puts us directly in competition with each other, as opposed to having us help each other.
What about marriage? Birth control? Celibacy prior to marriage? Choosing not to have children? Feminism has done wonders in that it allows women (and men) the freedom to be themselves--the freedom to choose for themselves.
This is wonderful, but there are downsides that have come with the feminist movement(s). If everyone were to choose a career over family, then there would be no children to propagate any of our genes--our species would fail. If intelligent people were less likely to have children because they are too busy supporting their own desires, then intelligence would be selected out of the gene pool. Obviously, even a small number of intelligent people will benefit the whole species, but even small selective pressures can remove genes in their entirety over the vast spans of time that are considered by evolution.
The capitalistic society of the United States has reached a point where the people best able to thrive within the society are the least likely to reproduce. You don’t see the scientists and engineers that make technology and medicine producing a dozen offspring. No. This only occurs in cultural groups that are not educated enough to understand the biology behind sexual reproduction and cultural groups that can’t afford the birth control to stop having children. The problem isn’t that these groups are reproducing in large numbers. Absolutely not. These are large groups and within them are many people with various incredibly useful genes. Unfortunately, these people are more likely to succeed in leaving these cultural groups, and as a result, they are less likely to have as many children. (I wish I had research to back this up… but these claims just make sense to me.)
Am I claiming that birth control is bad? No. I am claiming that choosing to not having children is bad. In choosing to not have children, you are accepting that there is nothing in your genetic structure that is worth passing on to future generations of the human species. Am I claiming that we should have rampant sex and create as many children as possible? Well, if that’s what the competition is doing… (just kidding.) No, we should have as many children as we can support. It’s important that our offspring also be capable of using whatever beneficial genes they have. If they are raised to be incapable of taking advantage of their inherent gifts, then they will have difficulty properly offering these genes to the benefit of the entire species.
Marriage is not morally critical. This falls into the pursuit of happiness. It is important that each and every child has enough support to be able to grow to his or her full potential. This does not necessitate that the parents be married. This does not even necessitate that both parents even be around. It’s entirely possible to raise children in a single-parent household. It is, however, easier to provide for the children if there are more adults providing. It is important for the parents to do what they must to promote the survival of their own genes within their offspring. What logically follows is hard-wired into most species: that the parent will protect their offspring with their own life. Unfortunately, this could involve protecting the offspring from the other parent.
Lastly, what about religion? Any religion which conflicts heavily with the above will have dire effects on one of the following: a) the followers b) the rest of the species/world c) the religion itself. Christians once went on crusades to destroy all non-Christians. This form of Christianity no longer exists. The Christianity of the bible no longer exists. The various Christian sects each have their own interpretation of what should be followed and what should be ignored. Radical Islam is currently attempting to destroy all non-Muslims. They have really pissed off a large group of people, and now the dumb want to wipe them out. Eventually, one of the above three possibilities will occur, and as a result, the world will be very different.
This is by no means a definitive guide to how you should live. This is simply a proof-of-concept that a god is not necessary to define right and wrong. Much of what I have claimed is speculation on my own part. I do not expect all of this to hold up to rigorous scientific research. This is simply meant as a strategy guide for approaching your own decisions. I suspect the top five items in my list of priorities are not likely to change. The remaining two could easily be expanded, but this expansion has been left out of this first write-up.
Sunday, January 7, 2007
Photos from the Queen Mary
Well, I went and enjoyed an evening at the Queen Mary last night. I went to see Veto! again, and after two visits, I think I'm unofficially part of the show.
Anyway, waiting for everything to start, I walked around a bit and took a few photos. Here are the better ones:
Anyway, waiting for everything to start, I walked around a bit and took a few photos. Here are the better ones:
Thursday, January 4, 2007
I pissed off my ex today (again)
FUCK, THIS WEARS ME OUT!
oh, you want the details?
Well, I have a habit of not trusting people... of assuming they will get details wrong, count change incorrectly, send me in the wrong direction, tell me something when they don't have a clue, say a word when they meant something else, or just flat out be dumb. Part of this is why I am an atheist, as I rarely take things at face value. There are very few people that I trust to be right. In fact, the more time I spend with a person, the more I figure out what types of things they don't screw up and what types of things they might need a little help with. I try my hardest to never just assume that I know best, but I just can't ignore an error that I see. I may be able to restrain from saying or doing anything, but that doesn't stop my brain from focusing on the error and figuring out exactly what is wrong with it.
I think a perfect example of how my method *does* work is when I'm talking with the other programmer about how something should be designed. One of the two of us will present an initial idea. My brain, in attempting to comprehend the idea, winds up punching as many holes in the idea as possible, specifically finding the most obvious flaws. Then, one of the two of us will determine whether the flaw is really there (or if I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill), and if so, we'll figure out an approach to work around the flaw, or even replace the original idea altogether. All of this occurs in a matter of minutes, possibly at a marker board, and neither of us is offended if the other points out that we are wrong.
Having worked with Hisham for a year and a half, I've also figured out that in many situations, when I don't understand what he's saying, he doesn't either--it's often a vague idea that needs clarification for the both of us. I know where to rely on him, and where not to.
Having lived with Bonnie for about five years, I know her much better than I know Hisham. Unfortunately, I know not to trust her to catch her own mistakes. I'm not entirely certain of the process that goes on inside her brain, but I know that she knows me well enough to know when I've caught a mistake, and it pisses her off, as she knows by the fact that I'm distracted, or perhaps my expression changes. My brain is so distracted by the fact that Las Vegas isn't south of Los Angeles, that I'm suspicious of whether it's six hours out of the way on a trip to the Grand Canyon. As a result, while I'm trying to see the map in my head, I miss the part of the story where she says she would rather just got to Vegas for a weekend than for a day. In the end, it doesn't matter how far out of the way Vegas is, but I've already pissed her off by the fact that I even noticed that she was wrong.
I think in her mind, it's a double-whammy. The first is the fact that something caught my attention above the *story* that she was telling. The second is the fact that I don't trust her to be right or to necessarily know what she's talking about. But how could I ever trust someone to actually think about anything if they believe in something as unsubstantiated as astrology or homeopathic medicine? I have a hard enough time trusting a grocery store that even caries homeopathic products.
For the record, one of many reasons she left me was because of my logical opinions of astrology. When she decided that she believed in it after I told her what I thought of it, she decided to keep it from me. In fact, she kept many of her newfound beliefs from me throughout our entire relationship, as I would undoubtedly ask questions to understand. She always took this as me trying to prove her wrong, so as she moved away from atheism and towards, um, blatant stupidity, our relationship dwindled.
Seriously! There is absolutely no basis for thinking that the position of the moon in the sky relative to the planets and constellations has absolutely any bearing whatsoever on absolutely anything! When we first got together, she believed in homeopathic medicine. When I explained the physics behind why it's impossible, she *claimed* to understand and not believe, but she's always fervently claimed that there is something to be said about the placebo effect (agreed, but there's nothing good to be said about selling a complete sham to people who believe it can cure their cancer).
If you (the reader) hate me now, I completely understand. Just keep in mind I was a wee bit ticked while writing this.
oh, you want the details?
Well, I have a habit of not trusting people... of assuming they will get details wrong, count change incorrectly, send me in the wrong direction, tell me something when they don't have a clue, say a word when they meant something else, or just flat out be dumb. Part of this is why I am an atheist, as I rarely take things at face value. There are very few people that I trust to be right. In fact, the more time I spend with a person, the more I figure out what types of things they don't screw up and what types of things they might need a little help with. I try my hardest to never just assume that I know best, but I just can't ignore an error that I see. I may be able to restrain from saying or doing anything, but that doesn't stop my brain from focusing on the error and figuring out exactly what is wrong with it.
I think a perfect example of how my method *does* work is when I'm talking with the other programmer about how something should be designed. One of the two of us will present an initial idea. My brain, in attempting to comprehend the idea, winds up punching as many holes in the idea as possible, specifically finding the most obvious flaws. Then, one of the two of us will determine whether the flaw is really there (or if I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill), and if so, we'll figure out an approach to work around the flaw, or even replace the original idea altogether. All of this occurs in a matter of minutes, possibly at a marker board, and neither of us is offended if the other points out that we are wrong.
Having worked with Hisham for a year and a half, I've also figured out that in many situations, when I don't understand what he's saying, he doesn't either--it's often a vague idea that needs clarification for the both of us. I know where to rely on him, and where not to.
Having lived with Bonnie for about five years, I know her much better than I know Hisham. Unfortunately, I know not to trust her to catch her own mistakes. I'm not entirely certain of the process that goes on inside her brain, but I know that she knows me well enough to know when I've caught a mistake, and it pisses her off, as she knows by the fact that I'm distracted, or perhaps my expression changes. My brain is so distracted by the fact that Las Vegas isn't south of Los Angeles, that I'm suspicious of whether it's six hours out of the way on a trip to the Grand Canyon. As a result, while I'm trying to see the map in my head, I miss the part of the story where she says she would rather just got to Vegas for a weekend than for a day. In the end, it doesn't matter how far out of the way Vegas is, but I've already pissed her off by the fact that I even noticed that she was wrong.
I think in her mind, it's a double-whammy. The first is the fact that something caught my attention above the *story* that she was telling. The second is the fact that I don't trust her to be right or to necessarily know what she's talking about. But how could I ever trust someone to actually think about anything if they believe in something as unsubstantiated as astrology or homeopathic medicine? I have a hard enough time trusting a grocery store that even caries homeopathic products.
For the record, one of many reasons she left me was because of my logical opinions of astrology. When she decided that she believed in it after I told her what I thought of it, she decided to keep it from me. In fact, she kept many of her newfound beliefs from me throughout our entire relationship, as I would undoubtedly ask questions to understand. She always took this as me trying to prove her wrong, so as she moved away from atheism and towards, um, blatant stupidity, our relationship dwindled.
Seriously! There is absolutely no basis for thinking that the position of the moon in the sky relative to the planets and constellations has absolutely any bearing whatsoever on absolutely anything! When we first got together, she believed in homeopathic medicine. When I explained the physics behind why it's impossible, she *claimed* to understand and not believe, but she's always fervently claimed that there is something to be said about the placebo effect (agreed, but there's nothing good to be said about selling a complete sham to people who believe it can cure their cancer).
If you (the reader) hate me now, I completely understand. Just keep in mind I was a wee bit ticked while writing this.
Wednesday, January 3, 2007
A few new photos
I spent Christmas week with my family in North Carolina, and with my brand spanking new camera, I got around to taking a few photos. This is just a few of them. The included photocast can be viewed with any photo compatible RSS reader.
Monday, January 1, 2007
Minority Status
According to my mother, we no longer have to check the "Caucasian" box when asked our race. I am now "Appalachian," and we are considered a minority. :) We are among the last cultural groups which are still acceptable to make fun of (e.g. Beverly Hillbillies). While I may not strike you as the redneck type, remember that cultural groups do not distinguish based on IQ, income, or education. The fact that I actual speak English correctly does not make me any less of an Appalachian than the next native (Think of how big of an uproar there would be if an African-American were denied protection simply because they come from an affluent household).
So, this affluent German/Scots-Irish white boy is now a minority thanks to my ancestors that settled in the Appalachian Mountains many, many generations ago, and thanks to the fact that none of them chose to leave. Ironic, eh?
So, this affluent German/Scots-Irish white boy is now a minority thanks to my ancestors that settled in the Appalachian Mountains many, many generations ago, and thanks to the fact that none of them chose to leave. Ironic, eh?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)