Posts
So, I stopped off at Taco Bell the other night, on my way home from work. Long night, just didn't feel like cooking when I got home, and I wanted to try the new XXL Chalupa. Looked tasty in the commercials, and on the big sign on the store front and on the menu. Then I got my order, opened the box. Shell was all droopy, meat was about a third of what was in the picture, lettuce and such were almost absent.
Most of you will read this and just think, "Yeah, that's how that works, the picture's never like the actual item." We've grown complacent, fine with restaurants showing us a picture of something, and then taking our money and giving something far, far short of it. Not only fast food, but even many of the sit-down restaurants. And I may be alone in this, but when I go someplace to eat, my decision is influenced by not only the description but by the picture. I say it's time that this stopped, and I hope that you all will join me. Next time I go someplace to eat, and the food served falls that very far short of the picture, I will be taking it back to the counter, asking for my money back, and telling them exactly why. I will then send an E-mail to their corporate contact, telling them about. Maybe if enough of us do this, and they start losing the money, things might change.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Midgets
Yeah, kind of a random thought thread. Was pndering some things to do with one of my game designs earlier, things to add. Decided to add the trait "Midget" to one. Or maybe "Dwarf". And then the thought occurred to me that some might take offense. This was followed by not caring.
I support the right of any disadvantaged group to choose how they are called. I don't really have problems with that. However, I will call a midget a midget until they think of something to call themselves that doesn't make me giggle from irony. Because I see all these TV show titles focusing on them, and I can really only think the same thing: Any midget coming up me and getting upset, insisting that the term is "Little Person/People", will cause me to squat down to his level and look at him with a very serious look. I will then, in a slight Irish accent, AS IS MY ANCESTRY, say to this person, "So, you're insistin' you're one of the little people, eh? Well, my ancestors and my people have known about you for many centuries. I'm just wonderin', which type are you? Leprechaun? Elf, maybe? You're not quite big big and vicious enough to be a red cap. Your eyes are a bit big, maye you're a boggart? Naiad? Selkie?
"Or maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't choose to go by a title that has, for a couple thousand years, meant and included every other word that fucking offends you. Because if you're going to be dumb enough to use a term from my ancestors, I'm gonna include all the rest that go with it, pixie."
I support the right of any disadvantaged group to choose how they are called. I don't really have problems with that. However, I will call a midget a midget until they think of something to call themselves that doesn't make me giggle from irony. Because I see all these TV show titles focusing on them, and I can really only think the same thing: Any midget coming up me and getting upset, insisting that the term is "Little Person/People", will cause me to squat down to his level and look at him with a very serious look. I will then, in a slight Irish accent, AS IS MY ANCESTRY, say to this person, "So, you're insistin' you're one of the little people, eh? Well, my ancestors and my people have known about you for many centuries. I'm just wonderin', which type are you? Leprechaun? Elf, maybe? You're not quite big big and vicious enough to be a red cap. Your eyes are a bit big, maye you're a boggart? Naiad? Selkie?
"Or maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't choose to go by a title that has, for a couple thousand years, meant and included every other word that fucking offends you. Because if you're going to be dumb enough to use a term from my ancestors, I'm gonna include all the rest that go with it, pixie."
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Long History of Abuse...
I am a bit of a hedonist. And I enjoy indulging in the pleasures that this world has to offer. And I get people telling me that I'm wrong because of religious mandates, and that things should not be indulged in. It usually ends up with me wondering and asking why these things would be in this world, and why they would give such pleasure and enjoyment, if they were not to be indulged in. This generally prompts one of two answers.
One is that, well, God didn't put them here, the Devil did. They were put here to tempt us, and lead us astray. You know what, this only works if one of two things is true. One is, the Devil is as strong as God, strong enough that God cannot stop him. In this case, a lot of the rhetoric just doesn't really work. The other way for this to be true is if God condones it, in which case he may as well do it himself. If I watch you kill a family, and I stand there and do nothing to stop you or report it, I have committed almost as bad an atrocity as you.
And then there's the worst one I hear, to explain either the original oddity, or the previous answer when I question it. "We're being tested". You know what? I have been in an abusive relationship. After it ended, I went and did some research, kust to help myself over and past it. It was primarily mental and emotional. Things like, being demanded of things I hated, or put into uncomfortable or painful situations, and being told afterwards that it was a test, to see if I really loved her. Told that I was worthless or useless without her. Et cetera. I also recognized my enabling behavior, such as thinking/saying that she should test me, or that she was right.
If you have to cause someone pain, put them in a bad situation, or dangle someone they'd enjoy in front of them, in order to test their love for you, that is not love. That is cruel, and abusive. It smacks of insecurity. And yet, the people that spout this claptrap will say that otherwise, without God, they are nothing. Sound familiar? I am not an atheist, or against belief in some form of creator. But this type of "morality" needs some serious reexamination, to say the least
One is that, well, God didn't put them here, the Devil did. They were put here to tempt us, and lead us astray. You know what, this only works if one of two things is true. One is, the Devil is as strong as God, strong enough that God cannot stop him. In this case, a lot of the rhetoric just doesn't really work. The other way for this to be true is if God condones it, in which case he may as well do it himself. If I watch you kill a family, and I stand there and do nothing to stop you or report it, I have committed almost as bad an atrocity as you.
And then there's the worst one I hear, to explain either the original oddity, or the previous answer when I question it. "We're being tested". You know what? I have been in an abusive relationship. After it ended, I went and did some research, kust to help myself over and past it. It was primarily mental and emotional. Things like, being demanded of things I hated, or put into uncomfortable or painful situations, and being told afterwards that it was a test, to see if I really loved her. Told that I was worthless or useless without her. Et cetera. I also recognized my enabling behavior, such as thinking/saying that she should test me, or that she was right.
If you have to cause someone pain, put them in a bad situation, or dangle someone they'd enjoy in front of them, in order to test their love for you, that is not love. That is cruel, and abusive. It smacks of insecurity. And yet, the people that spout this claptrap will say that otherwise, without God, they are nothing. Sound familiar? I am not an atheist, or against belief in some form of creator. But this type of "morality" needs some serious reexamination, to say the least
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Because I never claim to be "good"...
In fact, let's be honest: I often to refer to myself as evil, and/or wicked, or other similar terms. However, I just stumbled across some of these, while looking for one particular quote I liked, and thought I'd share.
"It's better to be good than evil, but one achieves goodness at a terrific cost." -Stephen King
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Blaise Pascal
"Those who forget good and evil and seek only to know the facts are more likely to achieve good than those who view the world through the distorting medium of their own desires." -Bertrand Russell
"Life - the way it really is - is a battle not between bad and good but between bad and worse." -Joseph Brodsky
"When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I've never tried before." -Mae West
“Hear no evil, speak no evil - and you'll never be invited to a party” -Oscar Wilde
"Nature, in her indifference, makes no distinction between good and evil." -Anatole France
“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” -Steven Weinberg
"It's better to be good than evil, but one achieves goodness at a terrific cost." -Stephen King
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Blaise Pascal
"Those who forget good and evil and seek only to know the facts are more likely to achieve good than those who view the world through the distorting medium of their own desires." -Bertrand Russell
"Life - the way it really is - is a battle not between bad and good but between bad and worse." -Joseph Brodsky
"When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I've never tried before." -Mae West
“Hear no evil, speak no evil - and you'll never be invited to a party” -Oscar Wilde
"Nature, in her indifference, makes no distinction between good and evil." -Anatole France
“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” -Steven Weinberg
Friday, September 10, 2010
Useless Advice
So, I was reading through a thread on Fetlife, a guy who was looking for advice, thinking he was being "too nice". He saw it as at least a potential problem in himself. Kudos for him, looking for advice and help, seeking self-improvement. But then there were all the replies that were only, "You have to love yourself first" or "Don't be a doormat", as the total of their post.
Why the fuck bother typing anything? Seriously. Particularly as someone who's gone through something similar, I read these with some annoyance. It's like standing on a dock, seeing someone drowning, and calling, "Hey, dude...you should get out of the water."
If someone's looking for help, and all you can think of is to spout stale platitudes and sayings...unless you can add something concrete or constructive, you would only be wasting your breath, and the other person's time.
Why the fuck bother typing anything? Seriously. Particularly as someone who's gone through something similar, I read these with some annoyance. It's like standing on a dock, seeing someone drowning, and calling, "Hey, dude...you should get out of the water."
If someone's looking for help, and all you can think of is to spout stale platitudes and sayings...unless you can add something concrete or constructive, you would only be wasting your breath, and the other person's time.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Bumper Sticker
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
Saw this as a bumper sticker on someone's car. And it irked me, and the first thought to pass througb my head was that pontificating from an ignorant perspective just makes you seem pretentious. The "eye for an eye" phrase, from the passage of the Bible, was not meant as a cry for vengeance, but instead as a cry for temperance. In the time at which it was written, this was intended to mean that the punishment should match the crime. An eye for an eye, instead of the tradition of the time, which was a life for an eye. Personally, I'm thinking...yeah, "eye for an eye" thus seems more fair and just.
I support punishment matching a crime. Generally. I also think, though, that extenuating reasons be allowed for certain crimes.
Saw this as a bumper sticker on someone's car. And it irked me, and the first thought to pass througb my head was that pontificating from an ignorant perspective just makes you seem pretentious. The "eye for an eye" phrase, from the passage of the Bible, was not meant as a cry for vengeance, but instead as a cry for temperance. In the time at which it was written, this was intended to mean that the punishment should match the crime. An eye for an eye, instead of the tradition of the time, which was a life for an eye. Personally, I'm thinking...yeah, "eye for an eye" thus seems more fair and just.
I support punishment matching a crime. Generally. I also think, though, that extenuating reasons be allowed for certain crimes.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Mmm, Cruelty...
So, the "Organic" and "Cruelty-Free" food craze amuses me. The Organic bit...okay, I can kinda see. But when it costs at least 66% more than the regular stuff, fuck that. "Cruelty Free" meats, though... Yeah, this concept is just ridiculous. Let me make this clear: This is an animal born and raised for the sole purpose of being kiled at the peak of it's health, and then chopped, sliced, and turned into food. If you think about it critically, raising a creature and making it as healthy as possible for the best yield from it's death...is cruel. Not smacking it, shocking it, starving it, overfeeding it, whatever, doesn't make it any less cruel.
I love my meat. I am not going to stop eating it, and I am a very far cry from ever saying that eating meat is cruel. There are damned few animals I wouldn't eat except in the most dire consequences, and those are the ones I know personally and those that I've been told taste repulsive. I just say, let's have some damned honesty. You cannot go to the store and buy "cruelty free" meat.
"Here you go, cow. A beautiful pasture. A doctor to help ensure your health and well-being. The best of treats and food. Kindness, pleasure and contentment. Happy? Ecstatic? Good. Now, hold still and ignore this ax..."
http://www.illwillpress.com/CFREE22.html
I love my meat. I am not going to stop eating it, and I am a very far cry from ever saying that eating meat is cruel. There are damned few animals I wouldn't eat except in the most dire consequences, and those are the ones I know personally and those that I've been told taste repulsive. I just say, let's have some damned honesty. You cannot go to the store and buy "cruelty free" meat.
"Here you go, cow. A beautiful pasture. A doctor to help ensure your health and well-being. The best of treats and food. Kindness, pleasure and contentment. Happy? Ecstatic? Good. Now, hold still and ignore this ax..."
http://www.illwillpress.com/CFREE22.html
Saturday, May 8, 2010
A Nice Harass
Tell me what seems wrong with this scenario, so I can tell whether I’m just imagining things. We have two employees of a random company, let’s call them Jimbo and Skippy. Jimbo’s talking to some coworkers while on break, just random conversation. In the course of discussing various subjects, Jimbo starts talking about some combat/fighting training he’s had. He’s able to discourse on subjects of violence, and injuring others, etc. Some other coworker overhears, is made uncomfortable, and reports it to a manager. That manager later has a meeting with Jimbo, informs him of the situation…and admonishes him not to do it again before sending him on his way.
Skippy is having a discussion similar in tone, but different in subject. Skippy’s conversation turns to sex. They keep it very low-key, almost clinical, calm and detached. More general comparisons of desires and experiences. Some other coworker overhears, is made uncomfortable, and reports it to a manager. That manager later has a meeting with Skippy, informs of the situation…and then informs him that he is fired, and will be hearing from company lawyers about signing papers saying that company was not responsible for his actions. In addition, everyone still employed by the company has to then go through mandatory sexual harassment training.
Seriously, what is wrong with this picture? If I were talking with a coworker about martial arts or other combat training, and the myriad ways to hurt someone, or poisons, or even vivisection, I’d be likely to only get a slap on the wrist at most. But discussing sexuality, something that gives so much pleasure to just about every human on this planet, even discussing it in only general terms, can lead to huge repercussions for even those not involved with the original discussion. And these problems can be caused by the most innocuous statements or jokes, and by someone eavesdropping or listening in on a conversation that they weren’t involved in. It seems like it should be the opposite way around.
Personally, I blame the myriad religions that teach that sex is something to be ashamed of and hidden away, so that any openness leads to offense, disgust, and/or embarrassment. One would think that it would be obvious by now that honesty tends to be better than repression.
Skippy is having a discussion similar in tone, but different in subject. Skippy’s conversation turns to sex. They keep it very low-key, almost clinical, calm and detached. More general comparisons of desires and experiences. Some other coworker overhears, is made uncomfortable, and reports it to a manager. That manager later has a meeting with Skippy, informs of the situation…and then informs him that he is fired, and will be hearing from company lawyers about signing papers saying that company was not responsible for his actions. In addition, everyone still employed by the company has to then go through mandatory sexual harassment training.
Seriously, what is wrong with this picture? If I were talking with a coworker about martial arts or other combat training, and the myriad ways to hurt someone, or poisons, or even vivisection, I’d be likely to only get a slap on the wrist at most. But discussing sexuality, something that gives so much pleasure to just about every human on this planet, even discussing it in only general terms, can lead to huge repercussions for even those not involved with the original discussion. And these problems can be caused by the most innocuous statements or jokes, and by someone eavesdropping or listening in on a conversation that they weren’t involved in. It seems like it should be the opposite way around.
Personally, I blame the myriad religions that teach that sex is something to be ashamed of and hidden away, so that any openness leads to offense, disgust, and/or embarrassment. One would think that it would be obvious by now that honesty tends to be better than repression.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
The Type A Personality Weight Loss Program!
Guaranteed Results! No change in diet needed!
First, make sure to keep your regular job. Then add another job, at least part-time. The next step is to pick 2-4 long-term goals, and a handful of hobbies. Once you have all of these set up…work towards all of them with the energy and intensity to complete and finish them all early. Add in semi-regular workouts, to increase the burn. And remember, if you can’t do all of it…you’re a loser. If you’re not at least somewhere among the best, there’s no point playing the game.
Just try it, and watch the pounds melt off. And remember, I’m not just the creator…I’m also psychotic.
First, make sure to keep your regular job. Then add another job, at least part-time. The next step is to pick 2-4 long-term goals, and a handful of hobbies. Once you have all of these set up…work towards all of them with the energy and intensity to complete and finish them all early. Add in semi-regular workouts, to increase the burn. And remember, if you can’t do all of it…you’re a loser. If you’re not at least somewhere among the best, there’s no point playing the game.
Just try it, and watch the pounds melt off. And remember, I’m not just the creator…I’m also psychotic.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Respect
Today’s lecture, boys and girls, is on respect. Specifically, just a couple aspects of showing that respect for someone you know, and supposedly enjoy the company of.
This rant has primarily been prompted by recent events, but it’s been an ever-present issue of mine. If you have some issue with me, or really with anyone you know…SAY SOMETHING. Seriously, am I the only one who finds it disrespectful and downright cowardly to hear these types of things second- and third-hand? How little must you think of someone to not bring these things to them? To have some problem, but not be willing to tell it to the one person most central to it.
Or is it simple cowardice? I know I can be intense, maybe even frightening, and for most humans to confront me is probably something akin to a lamb trying to stare down a wolf. But when you have been asked to be forthright, to be honest and plain, to do otherwise seems to show no regard for my wishes, no respect for my wants. It shows that you don’t think enough of me to actually listen to what I want, and/or you don’t have enough courage to actually risk saying something negative.
Now, one more point. Repeat after me, boys and girls: Double standards are BAD. Hypocrisy is BAD. Getting angry at someone else for doing the exact same thing you did, in a like situation, is ignorant and selfish. Expecting someone else to hold to standards that you, yourself, do not is likewise ignorant and selfish. Granted, selfishness seems to be a great trait of the human species…but maybe you could at least be a little bit subtle about it, hmm?
This rant has primarily been prompted by recent events, but it’s been an ever-present issue of mine. If you have some issue with me, or really with anyone you know…SAY SOMETHING. Seriously, am I the only one who finds it disrespectful and downright cowardly to hear these types of things second- and third-hand? How little must you think of someone to not bring these things to them? To have some problem, but not be willing to tell it to the one person most central to it.
Or is it simple cowardice? I know I can be intense, maybe even frightening, and for most humans to confront me is probably something akin to a lamb trying to stare down a wolf. But when you have been asked to be forthright, to be honest and plain, to do otherwise seems to show no regard for my wishes, no respect for my wants. It shows that you don’t think enough of me to actually listen to what I want, and/or you don’t have enough courage to actually risk saying something negative.
Now, one more point. Repeat after me, boys and girls: Double standards are BAD. Hypocrisy is BAD. Getting angry at someone else for doing the exact same thing you did, in a like situation, is ignorant and selfish. Expecting someone else to hold to standards that you, yourself, do not is likewise ignorant and selfish. Granted, selfishness seems to be a great trait of the human species…but maybe you could at least be a little bit subtle about it, hmm?
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Supposed to be 2-way...
This topic has been bouncing around in my head for a few days now. It has taken me this long to post it because I have also been suffering from the flu, which was also the inspiration for this topic.
Specifically, while ill I considered calling in sick to work. Yet my current employer places less value on the health and well-being of it's employees, and more value on having people to man the phones. I say this because staying out sick counts as an official "occurrence", meaning I can get fired for it, despite being ill myself and contagious to others. So, I went to work anyway, light-headed, running a fever, etc.
And this is not the first employer I have seen this type of attitude from. It seems that the larger the company, the less loyalty and regard they have for their employees. Yet, those same companies punish displays of "disloyalty", like attempts to unionize, seeking other employment, etc. Even saying something negative about the employer can result in summary termination. So, these companies want absolute, blind loyalty, yet give absolutely none in return.
And nobody complains about this? Right now, I'm wondering what the Health Dept. might have to say about the company requiring employees to come in feverish and contagious, or risk firing...
Specifically, while ill I considered calling in sick to work. Yet my current employer places less value on the health and well-being of it's employees, and more value on having people to man the phones. I say this because staying out sick counts as an official "occurrence", meaning I can get fired for it, despite being ill myself and contagious to others. So, I went to work anyway, light-headed, running a fever, etc.
And this is not the first employer I have seen this type of attitude from. It seems that the larger the company, the less loyalty and regard they have for their employees. Yet, those same companies punish displays of "disloyalty", like attempts to unionize, seeking other employment, etc. Even saying something negative about the employer can result in summary termination. So, these companies want absolute, blind loyalty, yet give absolutely none in return.
And nobody complains about this? Right now, I'm wondering what the Health Dept. might have to say about the company requiring employees to come in feverish and contagious, or risk firing...
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Struck a chord...
A friend of mine wrote this, as a song. I repost it here because it (for obvious reasons) struck a bit of a chord with me. I have a more involved post in mind for later, but just don't have the time to post it right now. Hopefully my schedule will improve soon...
The auther's name is Danae Dunning, also listed at the bottom.
"Not For You"
I gave all of myself to you
Would have done anything for you
But you shut me out
And pushed me away
You just gave me up without a fight
And when I left, you didn't even say goodbye
My songs are not for your ears
My body is not for your eyes
My kisses aren't for your lips
You had it all
Yet threw it away
I'm not for you anymore.
Why didn't you say what's on your mind
You didn't even bother to try
Don't you dare say you're sorry
And that you'll always love me
I have forgiven, but I won't forget
Just go away and let me move on.
My songs are not for your ears
My body is not for your eyes
My kisses aren't for your lips
You had it all
Yet threw it away
I'm not for you anymore.
Danae Dunning 2010
The auther's name is Danae Dunning, also listed at the bottom.
"Not For You"
I gave all of myself to you
Would have done anything for you
But you shut me out
And pushed me away
You just gave me up without a fight
And when I left, you didn't even say goodbye
My songs are not for your ears
My body is not for your eyes
My kisses aren't for your lips
You had it all
Yet threw it away
I'm not for you anymore.
Why didn't you say what's on your mind
You didn't even bother to try
Don't you dare say you're sorry
And that you'll always love me
I have forgiven, but I won't forget
Just go away and let me move on.
My songs are not for your ears
My body is not for your eyes
My kisses aren't for your lips
You had it all
Yet threw it away
I'm not for you anymore.
Danae Dunning 2010
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
List 1: These things I believe
Yeah, haven't been able to post as often as I'd like. Busy life, and honestly wanting it a little busier. And so, as a filler type of thing, and also when I can't think of a more involved post (or more than an outline for one), I have decided on an occasional List. For example, this one came to me as I thought about all of the rediscovering myself I have since leaving the abusive relationship, and the lying user.
I am not e religious person, and could only barely be even considered a spiritual person. But that does not mean that I do not have beliefs and morals, things that I personally believe in.
1) I believe that there is a Creator. However, I personally don't think that such is a being is personally knowable or understandable by humanity. Which would explain the several dozen different religions. I follow my heart, and what I feel to be right, instead of what any book may tell me.
2) Honesty and honor are about the most important virtues to me. I don't make promises that I know I won't be able meet (which leads to me actually just sounding noncommittal). I don't lie, unless it's to hide a greater surprise as a result. But, it is too often as Juvenal said: "Honesty is praised, and left in the cold."
3) I'm terrible at even 'Social Lying'. It's because I really don't hide all that much of myself. Pretty much anyone can me anything, and I will at least endeavor to answer it honestly. Just never ask me something, unless you're sure you want to hear the answer.
4) Cynicism is loving the world too much to be happy with seeing it be less
5) I'm either hedonistic, or polyamorous. I'm really not sure. I like sex, I like pleasure, I even like just giving pleasure. And I don't believe that sex is necessarily exclusive to love or relationship. I do, however, personally require some level of trust and knowing the person beforehand, though. (yeah, for some of you this'd seem obvious. Again, I am in rediscovery of myself)
6) Violence and anger can be positive, productive things.
7) Dreams should be cultivated. Calling someone a "dreamer" should not be a negative, even if those dreams are tacitly impossibly. Dreams give hope, and goals, or even just simple joy.
8) It is important to value the little things. The simple pleasures of, for example, a good pipe tobacco, some chocolate milk, and something decent to watch on TV.
9) I honestly think people need to be more vocal and active about the things they believe in and cherish. Too often it seems that people just say something quietly to a few of their friends...and then they wonder why nothing ever changes. If you have some problem with someone, tell them. They might take offense...but to do otherwise means that it will just fester in you, and likely lead to something more hurtful later.
There'll likely be more later. For now, I have things to go do. :)
I am not e religious person, and could only barely be even considered a spiritual person. But that does not mean that I do not have beliefs and morals, things that I personally believe in.
1) I believe that there is a Creator. However, I personally don't think that such is a being is personally knowable or understandable by humanity. Which would explain the several dozen different religions. I follow my heart, and what I feel to be right, instead of what any book may tell me.
2) Honesty and honor are about the most important virtues to me. I don't make promises that I know I won't be able meet (which leads to me actually just sounding noncommittal). I don't lie, unless it's to hide a greater surprise as a result. But, it is too often as Juvenal said: "Honesty is praised, and left in the cold."
3) I'm terrible at even 'Social Lying'. It's because I really don't hide all that much of myself. Pretty much anyone can me anything, and I will at least endeavor to answer it honestly. Just never ask me something, unless you're sure you want to hear the answer.
4) Cynicism is loving the world too much to be happy with seeing it be less
5) I'm either hedonistic, or polyamorous. I'm really not sure. I like sex, I like pleasure, I even like just giving pleasure. And I don't believe that sex is necessarily exclusive to love or relationship. I do, however, personally require some level of trust and knowing the person beforehand, though. (yeah, for some of you this'd seem obvious. Again, I am in rediscovery of myself)
6) Violence and anger can be positive, productive things.
7) Dreams should be cultivated. Calling someone a "dreamer" should not be a negative, even if those dreams are tacitly impossibly. Dreams give hope, and goals, or even just simple joy.
8) It is important to value the little things. The simple pleasures of, for example, a good pipe tobacco, some chocolate milk, and something decent to watch on TV.
9) I honestly think people need to be more vocal and active about the things they believe in and cherish. Too often it seems that people just say something quietly to a few of their friends...and then they wonder why nothing ever changes. If you have some problem with someone, tell them. They might take offense...but to do otherwise means that it will just fester in you, and likely lead to something more hurtful later.
There'll likely be more later. For now, I have things to go do. :)
Monday, February 22, 2010
On Top Of That Mountain
Yeah, I added a country song to the playlist. Not my usual run of music, but with one of my jobs being Waffle House, I have to listen to a lot of it. And this one, "Find Out Who Your Friends Are" by Tracy Lawrence, struck me.
"Everybody wants to slap your back/wants to shake your hand/when you're up on top of that mountain
But let one of those rocks give way then you slide back down look up/and see who's around then
This ain't where the road comes to an end/This ain't where the bandwagon stops
This is just one of those times when/A lot of folks jump off"
Maybe it's just a matter of how a person was raised, though I think it more a matter of standards and honor, but this is why I, honestly, refer to many more people as 'acquaintances' than I do as 'friends'. There's also the term some people like to use, 'fair weather friends'. This is a misnomer. Friendship is, or at least should be, a shared gift. If they're only around for the good times, they're not a friend. I don't expect people to go to quite the lengths I do (let's be honest, I know that I have some codepency issues, and quite possibly some martyr/savior complex). But I'd hate to think that I am in a minority of one for feeling contempt for those who walk around from a true friend when they're low.
I have some who will likely learn my views on this harshly. People who, when I was at my lowest, criticized me for it, turned their backs on me, and then had the unmitigated gall to tell me they'd love to see me again when I'm better. I was even so low that my first thoughts turned to ways to get better faster, to have them back. It makes me appreciate even more the ones who constructively criticised, and prodded me, and stuck it out. Because I have no doubt that the ones who left will see me again, smiling and having a great time, and will actually come to me smiling and asking how I'm doing. And my smile will disappear as I tell them I'm doing wonderfully, but since they walked away when I was low, then they should do us both a favor and just keep fucking walking.
"Everybody wants to slap your back/wants to shake your hand/when you're up on top of that mountain
But let one of those rocks give way then you slide back down look up/and see who's around then
This ain't where the road comes to an end/This ain't where the bandwagon stops
This is just one of those times when/A lot of folks jump off"
Maybe it's just a matter of how a person was raised, though I think it more a matter of standards and honor, but this is why I, honestly, refer to many more people as 'acquaintances' than I do as 'friends'. There's also the term some people like to use, 'fair weather friends'. This is a misnomer. Friendship is, or at least should be, a shared gift. If they're only around for the good times, they're not a friend. I don't expect people to go to quite the lengths I do (let's be honest, I know that I have some codepency issues, and quite possibly some martyr/savior complex). But I'd hate to think that I am in a minority of one for feeling contempt for those who walk around from a true friend when they're low.
I have some who will likely learn my views on this harshly. People who, when I was at my lowest, criticized me for it, turned their backs on me, and then had the unmitigated gall to tell me they'd love to see me again when I'm better. I was even so low that my first thoughts turned to ways to get better faster, to have them back. It makes me appreciate even more the ones who constructively criticised, and prodded me, and stuck it out. Because I have no doubt that the ones who left will see me again, smiling and having a great time, and will actually come to me smiling and asking how I'm doing. And my smile will disappear as I tell them I'm doing wonderfully, but since they walked away when I was low, then they should do us both a favor and just keep fucking walking.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
GA State Patrol
So, I was arrested on November 30th, Thanksgiving weekend. Not a big charge, just driving on suspended license. But I spent 5-6 hours in jail, had to spend almost $250 to get out and get my car back. Had to get my mother to come up and bond me out, and to drive me to the other end of the county to get my car out of impound (about an hour drive). So, I call the Department of Driver's Services the very next day, to figure out what's going on, and how to get the license reinstated. They tell me: No, my license isn't suspended, all that's on it is two notes that I can't get a CDL. They recommend that I come in and get an MVR to prove it. I do, that very next day, and go ahead and get my license redone with my new address (haing recently moved) while I'm there. Then I go to court for the ticket. And the prosecutors/solicitors have already dismissed the case or decided not to pursue it or whatever, because they already discovered that my license wasn't suspended. So I then call the GSP to try to get back my money.
I am told by the GSP...that they are still in the right. The lieutenant I spoke to supposedly watched the video and everything. And I hereby call him either a liar or a fool. Now, I did not present my license to the arresting officer, but I did explain to said officer that it was with my other documents in the boxes in the car, for my move, and I OFFERED TO DIG THROUGH AND GET IT! The officer refused, said it wasn't necessary. GSP Lieutenant Brown says that my arrest is still valid, because I could've been arrested for not presenting that license. So, if the GSP pulls you over in GA, you apparently have to force your license on them; if they refuse to see it, it's your fault. Ladies, if you keep your license in your purse, you're fucked.
So, I do the responsible thing and get my license updated with new address, and that counts against me. I offer to get my license out from where I had it packed with my other documents, to keep them all safe...and the OFFICER'S refusal to let me is somehow MY fault.
Before I spoke to the lieutenant, I was also told to speak to the legal department. When I did, I was interrupted and told that they weren't responsible for that money, because none of it was paid to the GSP. I find that to be a rather interesting precedent. So, if someone were to bash in their windshields, that person would not be responsible for the repair costs. Because, of course, none of that money was paid to them. Therefore, it's the mechanic's responsibility.
And what makes this even more lovely, is the fact that each person I spoke to jumped so quickly to a position of high defense and self-righteousness that I was interrupted often, and gave up on going through several of these points with the actual people. So, when Lt. Brown told me the part about me having my license remade with my new address (or 'reissued' as he called it), like I'm legally supposed to do after having moved, I had given up by that time on having him hear me. The GSP is incompetent, ignorant, and will defend their position with lies and/or further ignorance. As well as with defenses that, last I heard, are not legal ("well, maybe you shouldn't have been arrested for that, but we could have aressted you for this, instead.") All compounded by an assumption of guilt, necessitating proof of innocence; I had always thought it was supposed to be the other way around.
I am told by the GSP...that they are still in the right. The lieutenant I spoke to supposedly watched the video and everything. And I hereby call him either a liar or a fool. Now, I did not present my license to the arresting officer, but I did explain to said officer that it was with my other documents in the boxes in the car, for my move, and I OFFERED TO DIG THROUGH AND GET IT! The officer refused, said it wasn't necessary. GSP Lieutenant Brown says that my arrest is still valid, because I could've been arrested for not presenting that license. So, if the GSP pulls you over in GA, you apparently have to force your license on them; if they refuse to see it, it's your fault. Ladies, if you keep your license in your purse, you're fucked.
So, I do the responsible thing and get my license updated with new address, and that counts against me. I offer to get my license out from where I had it packed with my other documents, to keep them all safe...and the OFFICER'S refusal to let me is somehow MY fault.
Before I spoke to the lieutenant, I was also told to speak to the legal department. When I did, I was interrupted and told that they weren't responsible for that money, because none of it was paid to the GSP. I find that to be a rather interesting precedent. So, if someone were to bash in their windshields, that person would not be responsible for the repair costs. Because, of course, none of that money was paid to them. Therefore, it's the mechanic's responsibility.
And what makes this even more lovely, is the fact that each person I spoke to jumped so quickly to a position of high defense and self-righteousness that I was interrupted often, and gave up on going through several of these points with the actual people. So, when Lt. Brown told me the part about me having my license remade with my new address (or 'reissued' as he called it), like I'm legally supposed to do after having moved, I had given up by that time on having him hear me. The GSP is incompetent, ignorant, and will defend their position with lies and/or further ignorance. As well as with defenses that, last I heard, are not legal ("well, maybe you shouldn't have been arrested for that, but we could have aressted you for this, instead.") All compounded by an assumption of guilt, necessitating proof of innocence; I had always thought it was supposed to be the other way around.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
New dress code
So, one of my jobs, DialAmerica, has decided to change their dress codes. Which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, normally. However, the changes involve now making it a termination offense...to have piercings and tattoos that people were HIRED WITH. People who have been with the company for months, years, now find themselves forced to make a choice between removing these piercings and adornments or losing their job. And I acknowledge, yes, it's their choice. But it is not a choice that they should be forced to make. Because these things were fine when the person was hired.
If they had an issue with these, it should have been a rule before hiring. Because it is NOT RIGHT to have someone come in to an interview, see that they have 2 or more facial piercings, tattoos running from their hands to the base of their jaw, or whatever, and tell the person that they are perfectly acceptable. Then let them get established, start doing well, let them train others because of how GOOD THEY ARE at their job. And then kick their legs out from under them by telling them that they are no longer acceptable, and FORCE them to make that choice after they have become established. Particularly at a call center environment, where the customers will never see these employees, employees that tend to post superb sales figures for their employers. I could've sworn that always taught that people who work hard and did well at their jobs...were rewarded.
And the odd part is, this rule would apply to roughly half of the sales floor employees. Thus, if these employees decided to push back some, and counter these strong-arm tactics, DialAmerica would be harming itself, as well. All these employers have to realize is that if DialAmerica actually enforced this rule to the letter, they would have to fire half their workforce. Yes, they can replace those people, but it would take time and money to find and hire new workers, plus the 2+ weeks put into training before those people are productive, and even more time before the new ones reached the levels of the experienced ones. There have been rumors of the company trying to woo new clients. I doubt those clients would be very impressed to see that DialAmerica has to abandon calls, lose and anger customers because they suddenly dropped half their workforce. In addition, if one really wanted to strike a blow: Such an employee would have plenty of free time, to do things like hang out near the company. And such a person could be very vocal to a potential new client, about how their former employee cannot keep it's word to an employee, so what kind of treatment will they give to someone that they would want to get every penny possible from...? You people are employees, not serfs, and you are only powerless if you LET YOURSELF BE. All it takes is the willingness to stand up for what is right.
"Wisdom is knowing what to do next; virtue is doing it." -David Starr Jordan
If they had an issue with these, it should have been a rule before hiring. Because it is NOT RIGHT to have someone come in to an interview, see that they have 2 or more facial piercings, tattoos running from their hands to the base of their jaw, or whatever, and tell the person that they are perfectly acceptable. Then let them get established, start doing well, let them train others because of how GOOD THEY ARE at their job. And then kick their legs out from under them by telling them that they are no longer acceptable, and FORCE them to make that choice after they have become established. Particularly at a call center environment, where the customers will never see these employees, employees that tend to post superb sales figures for their employers. I could've sworn that always taught that people who work hard and did well at their jobs...were rewarded.
And the odd part is, this rule would apply to roughly half of the sales floor employees. Thus, if these employees decided to push back some, and counter these strong-arm tactics, DialAmerica would be harming itself, as well. All these employers have to realize is that if DialAmerica actually enforced this rule to the letter, they would have to fire half their workforce. Yes, they can replace those people, but it would take time and money to find and hire new workers, plus the 2+ weeks put into training before those people are productive, and even more time before the new ones reached the levels of the experienced ones. There have been rumors of the company trying to woo new clients. I doubt those clients would be very impressed to see that DialAmerica has to abandon calls, lose and anger customers because they suddenly dropped half their workforce. In addition, if one really wanted to strike a blow: Such an employee would have plenty of free time, to do things like hang out near the company. And such a person could be very vocal to a potential new client, about how their former employee cannot keep it's word to an employee, so what kind of treatment will they give to someone that they would want to get every penny possible from...? You people are employees, not serfs, and you are only powerless if you LET YOURSELF BE. All it takes is the willingness to stand up for what is right.
"Wisdom is knowing what to do next; virtue is doing it." -David Starr Jordan
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Truisms
Just a short post tonight, busy with domestic tasks....
Practice what you preach.
No hypocrisy, no complacency! Mean what you say, and fight for what you claim to believe in.
Good and evil are not black and white, there are shades of grey. But you still feel in your heart which is which, and should know the paths to take.
Embrace darkness as much as light. Both have something to teach. For example, sometimes evil only fears an equal.
Don't just stare into the abyss. Make the abyss blink first.
Practice what you preach.
No hypocrisy, no complacency! Mean what you say, and fight for what you claim to believe in.
Good and evil are not black and white, there are shades of grey. But you still feel in your heart which is which, and should know the paths to take.
Embrace darkness as much as light. Both have something to teach. For example, sometimes evil only fears an equal.
Don't just stare into the abyss. Make the abyss blink first.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
A quote...
To accompany the other post:
"Doesn't the good book have something to say about killin', preacher?"
"Yyyes. But, it is somewhat fuzzier on the subject of kneecaps."
-Zoe and Shepherd Book, from the TV show Firefly
"Doesn't the good book have something to say about killin', preacher?"
"Yyyes. But, it is somewhat fuzzier on the subject of kneecaps."
-Zoe and Shepherd Book, from the TV show Firefly
Peace, and the need for War
I have a dislike for those who say things like, "Violence solves nothing", and similar naivete. People who proclaim peace to be the highest possible ideal, and honestly think that worldwide peace should be embraced, and that no violence, for any reason or end, should be pursued.
Peace requires war. This is not to say that "Might makes right" or "The strong should dominate the weak", or any similar things said by the proponents of the opposite side. Simply that, while people of peace build and beautify the world, people of battle make it possible for them to do so. The problem with a world of perfect peace is this: It only takes one nonbeliever in that philosophy, to destroy and dominate the rest. Without people willing to do violence, to fight and defend right, beauty, and tranquility, these things cannot last long.
Proponents of peace like to set Ghandi as the pinnacle to attain. However, I think it is incorrect to claim him as a model of nonviolence. He did commit violence. It was simply directed differently than what is the norm. He directed his physical violence inward, rather than outward. Outwardly, however, he did battle mentally and emotionally against his enemies, attempting to instill them with guilt, remorse, and other emotional pains. Sun Tzu, author of The Art Of War, would have admired his strategy.
Peace requires war. This is not to say that "Might makes right" or "The strong should dominate the weak", or any similar things said by the proponents of the opposite side. Simply that, while people of peace build and beautify the world, people of battle make it possible for them to do so. The problem with a world of perfect peace is this: It only takes one nonbeliever in that philosophy, to destroy and dominate the rest. Without people willing to do violence, to fight and defend right, beauty, and tranquility, these things cannot last long.
Proponents of peace like to set Ghandi as the pinnacle to attain. However, I think it is incorrect to claim him as a model of nonviolence. He did commit violence. It was simply directed differently than what is the norm. He directed his physical violence inward, rather than outward. Outwardly, however, he did battle mentally and emotionally against his enemies, attempting to instill them with guilt, remorse, and other emotional pains. Sun Tzu, author of The Art Of War, would have admired his strategy.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Burnt Bridges
**sigh**
So I finally sent out an apology this evening. One that I should have sent...hell, almost a year ago. I screwed over two friends, because I listened to a selfish twit, rather than what I knew to be right, and rather than to my own sense of honor and decency.
These friends had been good to me, even helping me out by giving me a cel phone and letting me join onto their plan. That way, I'd have communications. Then, a short time later, I committed myself to a relationship, with a selfish twit. And she pleaded with me to switch to her family's plan, and begged, and whined. I kept refusing her, telling her that I had made a commitment, these friends had done me a favor and I owed it to them to stick with the promises that I had made. But eventually she wore me down with her insistence that I take the easy plan, and that favors done for me don't matter. And so I sacrificed my honor, for her, and for ease.
I sent an apology tonight... but it was too little, too late. At least I can take some slight measure of comfort in knowing that I tried.
So I finally sent out an apology this evening. One that I should have sent...hell, almost a year ago. I screwed over two friends, because I listened to a selfish twit, rather than what I knew to be right, and rather than to my own sense of honor and decency.
These friends had been good to me, even helping me out by giving me a cel phone and letting me join onto their plan. That way, I'd have communications. Then, a short time later, I committed myself to a relationship, with a selfish twit. And she pleaded with me to switch to her family's plan, and begged, and whined. I kept refusing her, telling her that I had made a commitment, these friends had done me a favor and I owed it to them to stick with the promises that I had made. But eventually she wore me down with her insistence that I take the easy plan, and that favors done for me don't matter. And so I sacrificed my honor, for her, and for ease.
I sent an apology tonight... but it was too little, too late. At least I can take some slight measure of comfort in knowing that I tried.
Found this...
Rereading one of my books. I liked it. It's from "The Runelords", by David Farland. The character making the statement is known as Days, his position as part of an order of men dedicated to chronicling the lives of important people.
""Men who believe themselves to be good, who do not search their own souls, most often commit the worst atrocities. A man who sees himself as evil will restrain himself. It is only when we do evil in the belief that we do good that we pursue it wholeheartedly. ... I'm glad you question yourself. Men don't become good by performing an occasional kindly deed. You must constantly reexamine your thoughts and acts, question your virtue."
""Men who believe themselves to be good, who do not search their own souls, most often commit the worst atrocities. A man who sees himself as evil will restrain himself. It is only when we do evil in the belief that we do good that we pursue it wholeheartedly. ... I'm glad you question yourself. Men don't become good by performing an occasional kindly deed. You must constantly reexamine your thoughts and acts, question your virtue."
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Religious does NOT equal moral
Random memory and thought struck me just the other day. Can't remember what triggered it, but this has been bouncing around in my head for a few days now. It strikes me as unbelievable how so many of the overly types equate religion and morality, and how so many of them fall short of what they preach.
The memory triggered was me being told that I could not be any kind of a moral person, because I wasn't Christian. And at the time, it was gotten second hand from someone who claimed to find the statement as offensive as I did...but who later said it themselves. And the original person to say it...was a reverend, who had also committed rape and child molestation. This person somehow thought they had anyplace to call me amoral, because I don't share the same religion that he apparently later adopted. Both of these same people also had no problems with lying to get what they wanted...and no problems betraying people who had done things for them, even encouraging me to do the same. I even ended up screwing over two friends who had done me a favor at the behest of these people, something that even now I feel guilty about.
No, I am not Christian. In fact, I follow no organized religion. I was raised Southern Baptist, but I left the flock early. I think I was eight; at a sleepover with a friend, I turned to him, and told him I couldn't think of myself as Christian anymore. My mother, and at least most of the rest of my family has never asked, probably don't need to, and they don't judge. Because they know I still have morals, and I have honor. And to those religious types who equate the two: I don't need the fear of a father-figure deity, or the fear of an eternal punishment in the afterlife, to make me so. I do it on my own, knowing in my heart what is right and what is wrong. And I act on it without needing the carrot of some ephemeral reward. Unique concept, huh?
The memory triggered was me being told that I could not be any kind of a moral person, because I wasn't Christian. And at the time, it was gotten second hand from someone who claimed to find the statement as offensive as I did...but who later said it themselves. And the original person to say it...was a reverend, who had also committed rape and child molestation. This person somehow thought they had anyplace to call me amoral, because I don't share the same religion that he apparently later adopted. Both of these same people also had no problems with lying to get what they wanted...and no problems betraying people who had done things for them, even encouraging me to do the same. I even ended up screwing over two friends who had done me a favor at the behest of these people, something that even now I feel guilty about.
No, I am not Christian. In fact, I follow no organized religion. I was raised Southern Baptist, but I left the flock early. I think I was eight; at a sleepover with a friend, I turned to him, and told him I couldn't think of myself as Christian anymore. My mother, and at least most of the rest of my family has never asked, probably don't need to, and they don't judge. Because they know I still have morals, and I have honor. And to those religious types who equate the two: I don't need the fear of a father-figure deity, or the fear of an eternal punishment in the afterlife, to make me so. I do it on my own, knowing in my heart what is right and what is wrong. And I act on it without needing the carrot of some ephemeral reward. Unique concept, huh?
Thursday, January 7, 2010
A note on traditions...
“Traditionalists are pessimists about the future and optimists about the past” -Lewis Mumford
Maybe it's just being here in The South, but it seems that there is a lot of talk of tradition. And, most notably, it seems to come from people who have little or no idea what they're talking about, no knowledge of the history of the traditions they preach, and/or not enough backbone to stand up for what they preach. I also may be alone in this thinking, but it seems odd to follow a tradition that's only a century old, two at most, when the older tradition was the opposite.
Men's hair length, for example. Historically, longer hair has been more common in Western culture. Germanic, Norse, Pictish, American Indian, and Celtic warriors all had long hair. For some of these, it was even a mark of honor; if a warrior's hair was short, it signified dishonor, most often from running away from battle, or being beaten. Short hair was the mark of the inept and the cowardly. Later, long hair became symbolic of wealth and power. Simple farmers hacked theirs off, because they could afford niether the time nor the money to care for long hair, it became tangled, would get fleas or lice. The wealthy, the scholarly, people of prestige, on the other hand... You want to see traditional hair length? Pull out a dollar bill. George Washington. Long hair. Granted, it's a wig on there. But that means that not only did he wear long hair, but he PAID extra money for it. Unless you think the founder of the country and the first president couldn't afford one with short hair...?
Another is the concept of the "nuclear family". This one's even more recent. Historically, this is a very recent "tradition". This is the concept of the wife staying home, cleaning house all day, cooking dinner for her husband to come home to as he sits with his pipe after a long day of being the sole breadwinner. NEW concept. It is only recently that the middle class of Western societies have been wealthy enough to even attempt this. The older tradition was that everybody worked, at every aspect of the family's earning. The wife worked the field almost as much as the husband, and even the children worked the fields. Or, the children were sent away to apprentice to someone else, in which case they worked a forge, or a stable, or something similar. Even worse, I've only met one person who has claimed to believe in this life, and stuck to it. The others either had a home-based business, earning income for the family unit. Or, I have seen far too many of these hypocrites, who claim belief in this "tradition", yet while their live-in significant other works they...sit. They leave the housework for the last minute, if they do any, they leave even the childcare for their other to do when they get home. You want to claim this belief, and say you want to live this way? Try actually matching words to action. I know, weird concept.
“People are always talking about tradition, but they forget we have a tradition of a few hundred years of nonsense and stupidity, that there is a tradition of idiocy, incompetence and crudity” -Hugo Demartini
Maybe it's just being here in The South, but it seems that there is a lot of talk of tradition. And, most notably, it seems to come from people who have little or no idea what they're talking about, no knowledge of the history of the traditions they preach, and/or not enough backbone to stand up for what they preach. I also may be alone in this thinking, but it seems odd to follow a tradition that's only a century old, two at most, when the older tradition was the opposite.
Men's hair length, for example. Historically, longer hair has been more common in Western culture. Germanic, Norse, Pictish, American Indian, and Celtic warriors all had long hair. For some of these, it was even a mark of honor; if a warrior's hair was short, it signified dishonor, most often from running away from battle, or being beaten. Short hair was the mark of the inept and the cowardly. Later, long hair became symbolic of wealth and power. Simple farmers hacked theirs off, because they could afford niether the time nor the money to care for long hair, it became tangled, would get fleas or lice. The wealthy, the scholarly, people of prestige, on the other hand... You want to see traditional hair length? Pull out a dollar bill. George Washington. Long hair. Granted, it's a wig on there. But that means that not only did he wear long hair, but he PAID extra money for it. Unless you think the founder of the country and the first president couldn't afford one with short hair...?
Another is the concept of the "nuclear family". This one's even more recent. Historically, this is a very recent "tradition". This is the concept of the wife staying home, cleaning house all day, cooking dinner for her husband to come home to as he sits with his pipe after a long day of being the sole breadwinner. NEW concept. It is only recently that the middle class of Western societies have been wealthy enough to even attempt this. The older tradition was that everybody worked, at every aspect of the family's earning. The wife worked the field almost as much as the husband, and even the children worked the fields. Or, the children were sent away to apprentice to someone else, in which case they worked a forge, or a stable, or something similar. Even worse, I've only met one person who has claimed to believe in this life, and stuck to it. The others either had a home-based business, earning income for the family unit. Or, I have seen far too many of these hypocrites, who claim belief in this "tradition", yet while their live-in significant other works they...sit. They leave the housework for the last minute, if they do any, they leave even the childcare for their other to do when they get home. You want to claim this belief, and say you want to live this way? Try actually matching words to action. I know, weird concept.
“People are always talking about tradition, but they forget we have a tradition of a few hundred years of nonsense and stupidity, that there is a tradition of idiocy, incompetence and crudity” -Hugo Demartini
Friday, January 1, 2010
Positive Rage
There's a phrase or quote tossed around a lot, and it annoys me to hear it: "Those you allow to anger you, you allow to control you." There are variations. I counter this with: "The world needs anger. The world often continues to allow evil because it isn't angry enough." -Bede Jarrett
Anger is a natural emotion, as much a part of the human makeup as is love, happiness, sorrow. The problem is not anger, but rather an overwhelming anger, one that burns unchecked. I admit I have problems with this as well. But sometimes, anger is not only to be expected, but is something that SHOULD happen. There are things that happen in this world, or even between groups as small as two people, to which the proper response IS anger.
Maybe the distinction is between unfounded anger...and a righteous fury. Because those who've spent much time around me know the difference. I laugh at insults, I have little or no shame. But I hate wrong. Mine is a righteous fury, because in retrospect, the main things I have gotten enraged over...have been, betrayals, lying. The seeming general specialties of the human species.
And in reference to the specific quote that started this: First, anger is natural; to say you do not feel anger, let others anger...that's an outright lie. Second, I'd like to meet the person who sees me at even my median rage, and thinks that anyone has anyh control over me right then. Thirdly, the only way you can even marginally apply that quote, is to repress your anger. And it will find other ways of coming out.
Anger is a natural emotion, as much a part of the human makeup as is love, happiness, sorrow. The problem is not anger, but rather an overwhelming anger, one that burns unchecked. I admit I have problems with this as well. But sometimes, anger is not only to be expected, but is something that SHOULD happen. There are things that happen in this world, or even between groups as small as two people, to which the proper response IS anger.
Maybe the distinction is between unfounded anger...and a righteous fury. Because those who've spent much time around me know the difference. I laugh at insults, I have little or no shame. But I hate wrong. Mine is a righteous fury, because in retrospect, the main things I have gotten enraged over...have been, betrayals, lying. The seeming general specialties of the human species.
And in reference to the specific quote that started this: First, anger is natural; to say you do not feel anger, let others anger...that's an outright lie. Second, I'd like to meet the person who sees me at even my median rage, and thinks that anyone has anyh control over me right then. Thirdly, the only way you can even marginally apply that quote, is to repress your anger. And it will find other ways of coming out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
