I mentioned earlier that someone at work has the same first name as me. For the sake of example, I'll replace my real name with "Dust." To differentiate between us ideas have been proposed and used, such as to specify the team we work on, to call me "Dust Prime," to refer to him as "the other Dust," etc. One idea was to use "Dust number one" and "Dust number two."
Someone else in my office meets with a kid every week as part of Big Brothers and Big Sisters who has the same first name as me. When the kid was referenced as "Dust number three" yesterday, I recalled that this is what my mom calls me now.
I think my mom's purpose in life is to work with young kids. She loves the baby through elementary stages of life. As a result, she has very fond memories of when I was in that age range. When I speak with her I am often reminded of how I am different now than I was then. My mom refers to my persona in this wonderful stage in my life as Dust number one.
Like most kids, I grew into a teenager that did not always see eye to eye with my parents, and so there were occasionally clashes. I also did not want to be seen in the Dust number one persona at that time. My mom refers to my persona in this trying stage of life as Dust number two.
Since I am not the same person I was in high school and early college, my mom now refers to me as Dust number three.
For the obvious confusion reasoning involved, I think I am going to encourage other ways to distinguish myself from other Dusts. Now that I have had time to think about it, I think I like "Dust Prime." It has a nice ring to it.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
the double bind
I hate having to make decisions when all options are less than ideal. I am sure most people are like that. I wrote the following poem in one of my more cynical moments a while back and decided against brightening it up later. It is meant to be pessimistic and it will stay that way. This is not about any specific situation, so don't read too much into it. It's just about bad situations in general.
Cursed if I do
Blocked if I don't
Bad if I will
Worse if I won't
Whatever choice
Whatever plan
I do commit
I show my hand
It will be wrong
Not ever right
Cause that's the lot
I cast tonight
I thought it through
I worked real hard
Doesn't matter
It's in the cards
When I decide
To not decide
It's then I find
That's no free ride
Cursed when I do
Blocked when I don't
Bad when I will
Worse when I won't
Monday, August 28, 2006
the lovable loser
I don't really enjoy most perfect characters. I am sure there are exceptions, but I typically am happier reading or watching a story about someone who does not really have it going on. Those characters are more genuine and funny than the perfect characters, and as a bonus they don't tend to fall into the fantasy category that I dissed a few months ago.
The best lovable losers are the ones who have problems with the opposite sex. I appreciate the male ones the most, so I have an appreciation for Arthur Dent (Hitchhiker's Guide), as well as Dilbert and Jon Arbuckle. The characters serve as a perfect reminder that a majority of us really don't have any clue what the other sex is thinking or feeling. The lovable losers just do a worse job of hiding it than most of the rest of us. That's what is so lovable about them.
The problem that I have with these characters is that the authors cannot leave well enough alone. In the movie The Hitchhiker's Guide Arthur ends up with a girl he should have never ended up with. Dilbert has been in and out of relationships. Now even Jon Arbuckle, the guy who couldn't get a date with a female baboon unless her date to the prom stood her up, and even then only if he wore a paper bag over his head, is in a serious relationship with Liz, the veterinarian who all too recently couldn't stand him. Sure, she is dealing with amnesia, but still...
I don't know why things have turned around for Jon, but I have three theories.
The best lovable losers are the ones who have problems with the opposite sex. I appreciate the male ones the most, so I have an appreciation for Arthur Dent (Hitchhiker's Guide), as well as Dilbert and Jon Arbuckle. The characters serve as a perfect reminder that a majority of us really don't have any clue what the other sex is thinking or feeling. The lovable losers just do a worse job of hiding it than most of the rest of us. That's what is so lovable about them.
The problem that I have with these characters is that the authors cannot leave well enough alone. In the movie The Hitchhiker's Guide Arthur ends up with a girl he should have never ended up with. Dilbert has been in and out of relationships. Now even Jon Arbuckle, the guy who couldn't get a date with a female baboon unless her date to the prom stood her up, and even then only if he wore a paper bag over his head, is in a serious relationship with Liz, the veterinarian who all too recently couldn't stand him. Sure, she is dealing with amnesia, but still...
I don't know why things have turned around for Jon, but I have three theories.
- Jim Davis needed to make the comic strip align better with the movies.
- Jim Davis had run out of "single Jon" material, so he decided to try his hand at "relationship Jon."
- Jim Davis wanted to get some free publicity like what Cathy Guisewite got when her main character (who had been a female lovable loser) tied the knot.
Sunday, August 27, 2006
valuable
Two things that seem unrelated for the first time seemed related to me this week. Once again, I drafted for two fantasy football leagues today. I also started classes again at KU, including an accounting class that is focused on public corporation valuations. That is a complicated way to say, "deciding whether investing in a company is a good idea."
Part of why I enjoy fantasy football is because I have a philosophy of finding things that are more valuable than other people think are valuable. So, when I am in the draft I avoid most of the hyped players, and pick up more unheralded players with the same value, only I don't pay as much for the unheralded players. Likewise, I enjoy following stocks (I don't buy much), and reading people explain why they pick specific stocks. Buying into flashy company can be exciting, but investors who aren't looking for "sexy" stocks will make more money by buying value.
I was explaining this to Golden today, and she pointed out that that is how she picked her significant other. I mockingly took offense at the fact that she didn't consider me a sexy pick, but I appreciated the sentiment.
I think this is how we both approach most areas of our lives, though. If we were to go after what (or who) is popular now, we would give up a lot of value in the long run. I'd rather have value than flare, and I'd rather be deep than sexy any day of the year.
Part of why I enjoy fantasy football is because I have a philosophy of finding things that are more valuable than other people think are valuable. So, when I am in the draft I avoid most of the hyped players, and pick up more unheralded players with the same value, only I don't pay as much for the unheralded players. Likewise, I enjoy following stocks (I don't buy much), and reading people explain why they pick specific stocks. Buying into flashy company can be exciting, but investors who aren't looking for "sexy" stocks will make more money by buying value.
I was explaining this to Golden today, and she pointed out that that is how she picked her significant other. I mockingly took offense at the fact that she didn't consider me a sexy pick, but I appreciated the sentiment.
I think this is how we both approach most areas of our lives, though. If we were to go after what (or who) is popular now, we would give up a lot of value in the long run. I'd rather have value than flare, and I'd rather be deep than sexy any day of the year.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
eatin' and screamin'
In honor of baby NJ. Much appreciation to Golden for the idea.
[Original Lyrics]Eatin' and screamin'
And poopin' and peein'
Plannin' and dreamin'
Each night of his alarms
That he will get into your arms
So if you're looking
To find love that you can share
All you gotta do is
Hold him and change him and love him
And show him that you care
Show him that you care
And just for him
Do the things that he likes to do
Rock in the chair just for him
Cause you won't calm him
Thinkin' and prayin'
Wishin' and hopin'
Eatin' and screamin'
And poopin' and peein'
Plannin' and dreamin'
His crying will start
That will get him into your heart
So if you're thinkin'
Of how great true sleep is
All you gotta do is
Hold him, and change him
And squeeze him and love him
Just do it
And after you do
He will be yours
Show him that you care
And just for him
Do the things that he likes to do
Rock in the chair just for him
Cause you won't calm him
Thinkin' and prayin'
Wishin' and hopin'
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
shake dust
I don't know how often this happens for other people, but on occasion I don't get something. For example, someone might use a double entendre and I might be at a loss at what everyone is laughing at. One of my coworkers has pointed out that something like this may be happening with my blog name.
I have already explained the shakedust name in a previous post. What I have been told, though, is that "shake dust" is a drug reference having to do with a powdery substance. After some initial thoughts that this may be true, my googling the term has not turned up anything yet. "Gold dust" is apparently slang for cocaine, though.
Regardless, I am not changing my name because a few people somewhere may use it as an obscure drug reference. It'll take more than that to shake me from this name.
I have already explained the shakedust name in a previous post. What I have been told, though, is that "shake dust" is a drug reference having to do with a powdery substance. After some initial thoughts that this may be true, my googling the term has not turned up anything yet. "Gold dust" is apparently slang for cocaine, though.
Regardless, I am not changing my name because a few people somewhere may use it as an obscure drug reference. It'll take more than that to shake me from this name.
Monday, August 21, 2006
back to school
Tomorrow is my first day back at KU for the school year. I anticipate that this semester will be among the most difficult of all my semesters. This is not completely because of the content, but because Golden and I are still adjusting to the impact that NJ has on our lives, and me going to school two nights out of the week and doing homework does not bode well. I know we can survive, though.
The three main classes that I am taking this semester (besides a four-week simple lecture course) are Statistics, Accounting, and Finance. This brings me to the topic of math, since all three of these subjects involve numbers.
When I was growing up I was pretty good in math. It made sense. As I got into high school I was less good in math. This may surprise some of my audience.
The main problem is that a lot of the more complicated math is taught as a series of steps to memorize rather than a logical representation of how to get from point A to point B. If I am given the reason why a formula structured the way it is what the practical value of what I am learning is it generally sticks. Otherwise I tend to memorize long enough to pass a test. This is why I am relatively good at problems that rely on logical deduction, but I don't do as well on problems that require me to have memorized information ahead of time.
Here's hoping I get the background information for everything I need in Stats. I have less hope about Finance. I have no hope with Accounting.
The three main classes that I am taking this semester (besides a four-week simple lecture course) are Statistics, Accounting, and Finance. This brings me to the topic of math, since all three of these subjects involve numbers.
When I was growing up I was pretty good in math. It made sense. As I got into high school I was less good in math. This may surprise some of my audience.
The main problem is that a lot of the more complicated math is taught as a series of steps to memorize rather than a logical representation of how to get from point A to point B. If I am given the reason why a formula structured the way it is what the practical value of what I am learning is it generally sticks. Otherwise I tend to memorize long enough to pass a test. This is why I am relatively good at problems that rely on logical deduction, but I don't do as well on problems that require me to have memorized information ahead of time.
Here's hoping I get the background information for everything I need in Stats. I have less hope about Finance. I have no hope with Accounting.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
have mercy
A short comment was made at my office the other day stating that maybe God doesn't show mercy. While I don't agree with this, I don't fault the conclusion. Even C.S. Lewis pointed out that he was in danger of viewing God as evil or uncaring.
This issue is relevant for me, though, because a foundational theme of Christianity is that God is merciful. If you don't believe that God is somewhat merciful, you have to believe that either the crucifixion was con game or that it didn't happen at all. Belief in God is not really Christianity if it doesn't accept this mercy.
The following is not an indictment of those who do not see mercy in God, but rather a question of whether there is even any way for us to determine whether He is merciful.
When this issue of God's mercy is bothering me the step I usually take is to question how I would interfere if I were God. I think that there would be two complications that I would run into if I were God. First, I don't believe that abolishing all pain is a good thing, because having a cushy life really does make a person rotten. An all-knowing God would be well aware of this. Second, I would have to allow people a semblance of free will. Otherwise, all of creation is just an elaborate marionette set.
About abolishing all pain, I have observed that almost always if someone has selfless demeanor it came out of some sort of pain. A lot of people turn more evil when they go through pain, but few or none who haven't had to deal with pain are not at least selfish. This fact would make the process of how I interfered with others' lives harder because people want cushy lives. No matter how cushy their lives are now, they want them to be just a little cushier. Unless everyone knew for sure that everyone else's life was equally cushy God would appear unfair. People are unique, though, so such a "fair" setup hardly seems ideal.
The second problem I would run into is that I could not stop every evil act that someone might commit because I would eventually be removing free will. If I said that I would simply not allow truly evil things like murder or rape to occur, the complication that I would run into is that since people now don't know about murder and rape, they will still think me unmerciful because I have not removed the next worse evil from their world. Maybe there are more horrible crimes than this that God did decide to remove from existence, but that act of mercy is lost on me because I don't know anything of that evil. If I keep on removing the ability to perform evil acts, eventually there is no such thing as free will.
After I have worked through this logic, as I have done hundreds of times, I always conclude that I have no means of knowing that God is unjust, so I have to go on faith that God is or isn't unmerciful. This is not a conclusion that I enjoy, because I don't like answers that do not completely address my concerns.
I have to live with this being a faith issue, though. It is like baby who has no way of knowing whether his parents are caring for him or if they are just meeting enough of his needs to keep from being reported to the authorities. A baby does not have any frame of reference for what a caring or an uncaring household looks like. In the same way, I have no frame of reference for what a universe ruled by a caring or an uncaring God would look like, so I have to accept that this is something that I cannot deduce through logic, like a lot of things that have to do with God.
I sometimes think that using logic to define God is like washing my hair. Lather, rinse, repeat. Lather, rinse, repeat. Lather, rinse, repeat. At least I have clean hair.
This issue is relevant for me, though, because a foundational theme of Christianity is that God is merciful. If you don't believe that God is somewhat merciful, you have to believe that either the crucifixion was con game or that it didn't happen at all. Belief in God is not really Christianity if it doesn't accept this mercy.
The following is not an indictment of those who do not see mercy in God, but rather a question of whether there is even any way for us to determine whether He is merciful.
When this issue of God's mercy is bothering me the step I usually take is to question how I would interfere if I were God. I think that there would be two complications that I would run into if I were God. First, I don't believe that abolishing all pain is a good thing, because having a cushy life really does make a person rotten. An all-knowing God would be well aware of this. Second, I would have to allow people a semblance of free will. Otherwise, all of creation is just an elaborate marionette set.
About abolishing all pain, I have observed that almost always if someone has selfless demeanor it came out of some sort of pain. A lot of people turn more evil when they go through pain, but few or none who haven't had to deal with pain are not at least selfish. This fact would make the process of how I interfered with others' lives harder because people want cushy lives. No matter how cushy their lives are now, they want them to be just a little cushier. Unless everyone knew for sure that everyone else's life was equally cushy God would appear unfair. People are unique, though, so such a "fair" setup hardly seems ideal.
The second problem I would run into is that I could not stop every evil act that someone might commit because I would eventually be removing free will. If I said that I would simply not allow truly evil things like murder or rape to occur, the complication that I would run into is that since people now don't know about murder and rape, they will still think me unmerciful because I have not removed the next worse evil from their world. Maybe there are more horrible crimes than this that God did decide to remove from existence, but that act of mercy is lost on me because I don't know anything of that evil. If I keep on removing the ability to perform evil acts, eventually there is no such thing as free will.
After I have worked through this logic, as I have done hundreds of times, I always conclude that I have no means of knowing that God is unjust, so I have to go on faith that God is or isn't unmerciful. This is not a conclusion that I enjoy, because I don't like answers that do not completely address my concerns.
I have to live with this being a faith issue, though. It is like baby who has no way of knowing whether his parents are caring for him or if they are just meeting enough of his needs to keep from being reported to the authorities. A baby does not have any frame of reference for what a caring or an uncaring household looks like. In the same way, I have no frame of reference for what a universe ruled by a caring or an uncaring God would look like, so I have to accept that this is something that I cannot deduce through logic, like a lot of things that have to do with God.
I sometimes think that using logic to define God is like washing my hair. Lather, rinse, repeat. Lather, rinse, repeat. Lather, rinse, repeat. At least I have clean hair.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
all you need is love
From All You Need is Love by The Beatles.
The reason the song has been going through my head, though, is that Chase currently has an advertising campaign using the song as a backdrop to people making purchases with credit cards. Am I the only person who thinks this is the dumbest song a credit card company could pick to encourage people to make purchases with its cards? I have an idea for a minor rewrite so Chase can keep the same tune but the lyrics will be more applicable.
As idealistic as I think the song is, I like it. While I am quite sure this is not what McCartney and Lennon were trying to say, God is love, and I think you can follow the logic of why I like the song from here.All you need is love.
All you need is love.
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need.
The reason the song has been going through my head, though, is that Chase currently has an advertising campaign using the song as a backdrop to people making purchases with credit cards. Am I the only person who thinks this is the dumbest song a credit card company could pick to encourage people to make purchases with its cards? I have an idea for a minor rewrite so Chase can keep the same tune but the lyrics will be more applicable.
All you need is stuff.There. That's better.
All you need is stuff.
All you need is stuff, more stuff.
Stuff is all you need.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
barks has bite
At the end of last week it seemed everywhere I turned to for news decided that news content need not actually be news. I must have heard about or read about Paris Hilton getting bitten by her dog four or five times. In what universe is this valid news? Even considering her celebrity status, she didn't get bitten hard enough for it to be news. I'd bet if Ted Dansen or Hillary Duff or Derek Jeter had been bitten by a dog that no news outlet would have reported it unless it was a serious bite. So why should I care about Paris?
I think this probably annoys me more because I think most celebrity news is unbearably shallow.* What difference does it really make who Brad Pitt ends up with or whether Michael Jackson is bankrupt? Why should I care about celebrity relationships in an environment where it's way out of the norm for someone to be married longer than it takes for their driver's license to expire?
Anyway, back to Paris. I think maybe a cameraman and reporter should be assigned to follow her 24/7. It would be a shame for the world to be deprived of an inside story if she does something groundbreaking like stubbing her toe or forgetting to eat breakfast. Inquiring minds want to know.
* In an effort not to look like a hypocrite, I acknowledge that sports news is shallow too. I sometimes enjoy the competition involved in sports, but sports news isn't any more relevant to my actual life than celebrity news is.
I think this probably annoys me more because I think most celebrity news is unbearably shallow.* What difference does it really make who Brad Pitt ends up with or whether Michael Jackson is bankrupt? Why should I care about celebrity relationships in an environment where it's way out of the norm for someone to be married longer than it takes for their driver's license to expire?
Anyway, back to Paris. I think maybe a cameraman and reporter should be assigned to follow her 24/7. It would be a shame for the world to be deprived of an inside story if she does something groundbreaking like stubbing her toe or forgetting to eat breakfast. Inquiring minds want to know.
* In an effort not to look like a hypocrite, I acknowledge that sports news is shallow too. I sometimes enjoy the competition involved in sports, but sports news isn't any more relevant to my actual life than celebrity news is.
Monday, August 14, 2006
what a personality
Forrest asked me a couple days ago about two recent posts: Ambivalent and Beliefs. The questioning had something to do with what caused me to take such a gaurded approach in life. That's an interesting question because I don't completely know and because I am very intrigued in what forms people's personalities.
What is amazing to me is that seemingly insignificant stuff can greatly influence a person's approach to life. A key disappointment, an influential friend, or a lost loved one, or a TV show can impact the outlook, humor, belief system, and general being of a person for the rest of his or her life.
Since I can see that simple things like that have had such an impact on me throughout life I am a little concerned about how those sorts of things will impact NJ or any siblings he may have in the future. This is not something I can control very easily. If I succeed in not screwing him up too bad, how can I keep something else from doing the job for me?
I can be assured of one thing. I'll be watching for those potentially pivotal experiences as well as I can. Perhaps by being there I can help him be as well-adjusted as a kid can hope to be. Or perhaps that'll screw him up more.
As an addendum, Forrest asked whether my cautious personality was due to being burned at some point in my childhood when I was not cautious enough. I think this is probably true. Burn me once shame on you. Burn me twice isn't going to happen.
What is amazing to me is that seemingly insignificant stuff can greatly influence a person's approach to life. A key disappointment, an influential friend, or a lost loved one, or a TV show can impact the outlook, humor, belief system, and general being of a person for the rest of his or her life.
Since I can see that simple things like that have had such an impact on me throughout life I am a little concerned about how those sorts of things will impact NJ or any siblings he may have in the future. This is not something I can control very easily. If I succeed in not screwing him up too bad, how can I keep something else from doing the job for me?
I can be assured of one thing. I'll be watching for those potentially pivotal experiences as well as I can. Perhaps by being there I can help him be as well-adjusted as a kid can hope to be. Or perhaps that'll screw him up more.
As an addendum, Forrest asked whether my cautious personality was due to being burned at some point in my childhood when I was not cautious enough. I think this is probably true. Burn me once shame on you. Burn me twice isn't going to happen.
Saturday, August 12, 2006
our sixth year
Today is Golden's and my sixth anniversary. It leaves me in a quandry. I don't want to drip sap on my blog for every brithday, anniversary, etc, but I want Golden to know I appreciate her on this special occasion. In an attempt to be caring without sappy this year (on the blog) I will simply list some of the reasons I love being with Golden.
- She looks past my every flaw (except my tendency to make us late for church).
- There is a lot more to her than she advertises. People write her off as being boring, so she tells me. Anyone who cares to dig deeper knows better.
- She is way funnier than almost anyone ever realizes.
- She is and will be a good mom.
- We both understand each other's personality (introverted) needs.
- We were made for each other.
Happy Anniversary, Golden!
Thursday, August 10, 2006
cc
Since NJ was born several little things in our lives have changed. Everything we do now has to have him in mind. Aside from having to pause the TV every thirty minutes to an hour, we have also started using closed captioning so we don't miss anything while he cries. Using closed captioning used to be unbearably annoying. I used to think it required too much attention. Now I view it as a life saver.
There are a few things I still find annoying. The text sometimes covers an important part of the screen. There are a lot of typos. The text often lags the programming. All in all, though, I'm thankful.
Now, if we could temporarily mute NJ and set his cries to closed captioning. I'm sure we'd get more sleep. For now, all we have is a baby swing and a prayer.
There are a few things I still find annoying. The text sometimes covers an important part of the screen. There are a lot of typos. The text often lags the programming. All in all, though, I'm thankful.
Now, if we could temporarily mute NJ and set his cries to closed captioning. I'm sure we'd get more sleep. For now, all we have is a baby swing and a prayer.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
i want to believe
On the X-Files Mulder has a poster in his office that exclaims, "I want to believe." Throughout the show he lives that life philosophy out. I think a lot of people like that about Mulder. I am much more like the skeptic Scully than the Mulder who wants to believe the unbelievable, though. If there is something that annoyed me about the show it was that the idealistic Mulder was always right and Scully, while always logical and intelligent, was never right until she started believing Mulder.
In most areas of life I am very happy being the skeptic. It's actually fun, probably wrongly so, to pick apart how a lot of the, "I want to believe," folk act. The constant superstition and conspiracy theories are quite entertaining. Of course, it's all fun and games until someone loses and eye or until I start looking at my own beliefs. When I look at my beliefs about God I reach a point where I cannot rely on logic alone.
Before I go further I need to point out that I undeniably believe in a personal God, and that He is the God described in the Christian Bible. I have attempted to go down the path of "What if there is no God?" in my mind many times, but at my core I always know better. While I can follow a lot of the logic of the atheist, I don't think I will ever be able to comprehend true unbelief in any higher power.
Here is my confession. Probably the hardest issue that I have dealt with in my Christianity is grasping what logic must be sacrificed for faith. I know that it would be just as much of a crime to fall into superstition as to worship rationality, but where is the happy medium? I have to accept that while there are issues that don't make sense to me about what I understand about what I believe to be a loving God, that this is not a reason to deny Him.
The question that I am dealing with is this. At what point is true hard hitting questioning about God a good thing, and at what point is it simply sowing doubt? At what point are my internal questions me trying to make sure what I believe about God is truth, and at what point am I making excuses for the things I don't want to have to accept? Is it wrong that I don't always want to believe? How bad is it to be the Scully or the Thomas?
In most areas of life I am very happy being the skeptic. It's actually fun, probably wrongly so, to pick apart how a lot of the, "I want to believe," folk act. The constant superstition and conspiracy theories are quite entertaining. Of course, it's all fun and games until someone loses and eye or until I start looking at my own beliefs. When I look at my beliefs about God I reach a point where I cannot rely on logic alone.
Before I go further I need to point out that I undeniably believe in a personal God, and that He is the God described in the Christian Bible. I have attempted to go down the path of "What if there is no God?" in my mind many times, but at my core I always know better. While I can follow a lot of the logic of the atheist, I don't think I will ever be able to comprehend true unbelief in any higher power.
Here is my confession. Probably the hardest issue that I have dealt with in my Christianity is grasping what logic must be sacrificed for faith. I know that it would be just as much of a crime to fall into superstition as to worship rationality, but where is the happy medium? I have to accept that while there are issues that don't make sense to me about what I understand about what I believe to be a loving God, that this is not a reason to deny Him.
The question that I am dealing with is this. At what point is true hard hitting questioning about God a good thing, and at what point is it simply sowing doubt? At what point are my internal questions me trying to make sure what I believe about God is truth, and at what point am I making excuses for the things I don't want to have to accept? Is it wrong that I don't always want to believe? How bad is it to be the Scully or the Thomas?
Monday, August 07, 2006
ambivalent, part two
About a month ago I posted on the difference between being ambivalent and being indifferent. I think my description was confusing to a few people, so before I get into today's topic, let me clear this up so that what I say later makes more sense. Someone who is ambivalent toward an issue has not picked a side because he or she sees the validity of both sides. Someone who is indifferent could care less about either side's validity.
A good example might be an outside observer to an argument over whether Captain Kirk or Captain Picard was a better captain. A fan of the original Star Trek and The Next Generation might be ambivalent about the points made about each captain. Someone who is not a fan of either show would indifferently wonder whether people who argue over such topics have a life.
In short, if you're ambivalent you care and if you are indifferent you don't.
Last week one of my coworkers sent me a link to a story about a scandal on the cover of Babytalk magazine. Apparently, the cover picture for the magazine was of a baby being breastfed. There was a significant backlash from some readers over the decision to use that picture.
This got me to thinking about the issue of breastfeeding in public. I don't mention this to stir up a heated discussion on the crimes or merits of it. I mention this because this is just one topic of many where I don't see many people who are ambivalent like me. I can see where people might get offended from a cultural context. I can also see where this is something beautiful that God created to create a bond between baby and mother. There is no point in arguing with someone who has a strong opinion about this because this is not an issue where people will voluntarily choose to see the merits of the opposing view.
There are actually a lot of issues like this that I am very ambivalent about. Yes, there are a lot of issues where I have a strong stance, but there are probably as many where I have so far refused to completely accept either position at the exclusion of the other. A lot of these issues that I am still contemplating are political and cultural issues. My position is not for a lack of caring, but due to the fact that often neither side has completely perfect (or completely erroneous) logic.
I think the reason that I feel somewhat alone in my ambivalence is that the people who get air time are the partisans. Not only that, they are also more likely to want to share their opinions to convert the undecided or opposition. Plus, who wants to waste time listening to you if your strong opinion is that you haven't picked a side?
So, if I don't share my opinion about some issue with you, it could be that I haven't come to a precise conclusion on it yet. That's a good thing. Or maybe it's a bad thing. I don't know for sure. I haven't decided yet.
A good example might be an outside observer to an argument over whether Captain Kirk or Captain Picard was a better captain. A fan of the original Star Trek and The Next Generation might be ambivalent about the points made about each captain. Someone who is not a fan of either show would indifferently wonder whether people who argue over such topics have a life.
In short, if you're ambivalent you care and if you are indifferent you don't.
Last week one of my coworkers sent me a link to a story about a scandal on the cover of Babytalk magazine. Apparently, the cover picture for the magazine was of a baby being breastfed. There was a significant backlash from some readers over the decision to use that picture.
This got me to thinking about the issue of breastfeeding in public. I don't mention this to stir up a heated discussion on the crimes or merits of it. I mention this because this is just one topic of many where I don't see many people who are ambivalent like me. I can see where people might get offended from a cultural context. I can also see where this is something beautiful that God created to create a bond between baby and mother. There is no point in arguing with someone who has a strong opinion about this because this is not an issue where people will voluntarily choose to see the merits of the opposing view.
There are actually a lot of issues like this that I am very ambivalent about. Yes, there are a lot of issues where I have a strong stance, but there are probably as many where I have so far refused to completely accept either position at the exclusion of the other. A lot of these issues that I am still contemplating are political and cultural issues. My position is not for a lack of caring, but due to the fact that often neither side has completely perfect (or completely erroneous) logic.
I think the reason that I feel somewhat alone in my ambivalence is that the people who get air time are the partisans. Not only that, they are also more likely to want to share their opinions to convert the undecided or opposition. Plus, who wants to waste time listening to you if your strong opinion is that you haven't picked a side?
So, if I don't share my opinion about some issue with you, it could be that I haven't come to a precise conclusion on it yet. That's a good thing. Or maybe it's a bad thing. I don't know for sure. I haven't decided yet.
Saturday, August 05, 2006
i have nothing
Every week I go to Blockbuster to use the free rental coupon that I get with online. I figure that the coupons are half the value we get out of the online subscription because we can choose to rent something on the spur of the moment. I have made the following observations in my experiences in the store.
- New releases are only roughly in alphabetical order. That makes attempting to find a more obscure title all the more frustrating because I have to search through the majority of the new releases to find the title.
- I don't know why some people don't get the online service. When I see someone with $18 worth of movies for one weekend it doesn't make much sense to me. We were encouraged onto the online service when Blockbuster started charging almost five dollars per rental.
- The same people ask me whether I want to sign up for online service every month or two. They don't seem to remember that I told them I already had the service last month.
- It may be a little nitpicky, but it annoys me that on most movie covers the actors' and actresses' names are placed over someone else's picture.
- I always feel weird looking through the older movies to rent. It's like some part of me thinks it is only normal to rent new releases.
- There is no such thing as a good parking lot next to a Blockbuster. The parking spaces and the driving lanes are big enough for a Yaris, maybe, but not much else.
As I was going through the checkout, the guy behind the counter handed me the movie and started to say, "I have Nothing..." then he stopped. After a short pause he started again with a wry smile, "I have Nothing for you." That made the movie worth getting.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
one-armed olympics
In Lady in the Water there is a character who works out the right half of his body but not the left. He claims it is some kind of scientific experiment he is running. Now that Golden and I are frequently holding the baby to calm him down, transport him, or to do whatever, we have been learning to do things with one arm or hand that we would normally do with two. I feel kind of like that character.
Need to make a snack? Cart the kid around the kitchen in one arm, and put together a sandwich with the other. Need to type something on the computer? Hunt and peck with one hand. Need to take a drive? Imitate Britney Spears. Okay, I don't do the last one because I'm more innocent than her.
If I were a more poised I might be mastering doing things with one hand by now. Not me, though. I still drop things or avoid attempting stuff that seems a little too complex. So, if you need me to lend you a hand some time, I might be able to oblige with the one. NJ needs the other one, though.
Need to make a snack? Cart the kid around the kitchen in one arm, and put together a sandwich with the other. Need to type something on the computer? Hunt and peck with one hand. Need to take a drive? Imitate Britney Spears. Okay, I don't do the last one because I'm more innocent than her.
If I were a more poised I might be mastering doing things with one hand by now. Not me, though. I still drop things or avoid attempting stuff that seems a little too complex. So, if you need me to lend you a hand some time, I might be able to oblige with the one. NJ needs the other one, though.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
vote for me
Yesterday was primary election day in Kansas. I know I probably should have voted, but I didn't have the opportunity to investigate the politician's stances and histories like I would have liked. I just didn't feel comfortable casting a vote without doing a more thorough investigation. I will vote in November, though.
One of the biggest reasons that I am relieved about the primaries being over is that I will get a reprieve from the automated phone calls we have been receiving. We have gotten between five and eight recorded political calls a day for a short stretch. I know this is a situation where the person who gets their name out the most will probably win, but this has to stop somewhere. In future years I'll think twice about scheduling time at home immediately before election day.
Why is it that adding my name to the FTC's "Do Not Call" list keeps companies from calling me about switching my long distance, but political organizations are able to slip through some loophole and leave me message after message? Again, I know this is probably a situation where if you don't do it and your opponent does, you have probably seriously damaged your election prospects. If no one was permitted to take these tactics, though, then I wouldn't have to be checking my caller ID eight times a day.
One of the biggest reasons that I am relieved about the primaries being over is that I will get a reprieve from the automated phone calls we have been receiving. We have gotten between five and eight recorded political calls a day for a short stretch. I know this is a situation where the person who gets their name out the most will probably win, but this has to stop somewhere. In future years I'll think twice about scheduling time at home immediately before election day.
Why is it that adding my name to the FTC's "Do Not Call" list keeps companies from calling me about switching my long distance, but political organizations are able to slip through some loophole and leave me message after message? Again, I know this is probably a situation where if you don't do it and your opponent does, you have probably seriously damaged your election prospects. If no one was permitted to take these tactics, though, then I wouldn't have to be checking my caller ID eight times a day.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
a little off the sides
My parents went back home yesterday. They were here to see NJ, but while they were here my dad took on two tasks that I wouldn't have figured out how to deal with.
On the first or second day they were here, my parents saw a mouse in the kitchen. This concerned me because my mom is not a rodent fan. We laid out traps and my dad eventually figured out that the mouse came through one of three holes in the wall in the garage. He installed a rubber sweep under the door between the garage and the rest of the house and got my canned foam to fill in the holes.
My dad also has this thing about wanting to trim trees. Given that I have been complaining about having to mow under one of the trees in my back yard, I was happy that he was interested in trimming the tree. Twenty-three bags of branches later and the lawn just got easier to mow.
Before:
After:
Maybe I'll figure out how to deal with this stuff on my own some day. I'm not holding my breath.
On the first or second day they were here, my parents saw a mouse in the kitchen. This concerned me because my mom is not a rodent fan. We laid out traps and my dad eventually figured out that the mouse came through one of three holes in the wall in the garage. He installed a rubber sweep under the door between the garage and the rest of the house and got my canned foam to fill in the holes.
My dad also has this thing about wanting to trim trees. Given that I have been complaining about having to mow under one of the trees in my back yard, I was happy that he was interested in trimming the tree. Twenty-three bags of branches later and the lawn just got easier to mow.
Before:
After:
Maybe I'll figure out how to deal with this stuff on my own some day. I'm not holding my breath.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
