My Brain Never Tires

There's this phrase that I don't like much. It goes: "You've got your head in the clouds." I think it means that I am a thinking person. Which is why the phrase strikes me as ridiculous. It would be more accurate to say that I have my head cerebrally located -- perhaps differing from the bodily locations where others sometimes keep their heads? Another meaning of the phrase "head in the clouds" is the notion that I'm not here on earth. I do not understand why it's not possible to be a thinker, a dreamer, and a realist at the same time. There are so many false dichotomies that seem to persist in day-to-day living.

I like to think about dichotomies sometimes -- true or false. I took a logic course a long time ago and I remember reading the tactics for challenging statements of this sort. A dichotomy sets up a sort of "if" . . . "then". . . scenario. For example, "If God created the world, then evolution is false." Or vice-versa. I know that's a big can of worms and I do not wish to get into a debate at the moment. But why is so little merit given to the notion that God creating the earth and evolution could co-exist? Why are so many things considered offhandedly wrong just because we want something else to be right? The best way to challenge the argument seems to mean that you must take one side or the other. I kind of like to consider the possibility that both might be true or both might be false.

There are so many things that exist in tandem. You might say the world is much more gray than it is black and white. But it is comforting to see the black and white more clearly than the gray. For example, villains should be like the ones in cartoons, or like Voldemort: all evil. But then you get heroes who are not completely good. Face it, none of them are. Peter Pan was kind of a self-righteous snot; Harry Potter rarely trusts his friends; Odysseus got all his friends killed and made up stories constantly. I could go on. If the heroes can have flaws, even traits we would consider "evil" then why can't the villains have some good in them?

Or is it that fear of the unknown that people wish to avoid. That fear that if you look into the eyes of the villain and see that he's only human then you won't want the hero to take him out anymore? And what does it mean for the rest of society? It appears to mean that bad can exist in the shape of good. Which means that it takes work to tell what is right and what is wrong. It's easier just to pretend that all things operate on extremes. Isn't it?

Spring Is Here

Every season change brings something new. For me that usually means a sinus infection, a cold, or bronchitis. I think it's just a nasty head-cold this time around. I was thinking today that had it not been spring break I might have had to miss class a few times this week. Lucky for me it is spring break and I can just go ahead and sleep in. And totally waste my spring break week on stuff that isn't fun at all.

The real question, of course, is: am I back to blogging? I don't know for sure. As usual I have many ideas on stuff to blog about. My running commentary on life has little to no outlet without the blog. It's kind of upsetting actually. I miss the therapeutic aspect of typing away my thoughts into an angry or comic rant. Whichever fits my mood.

I think that part of the reason I don't blog much anymore is that constrictive feeling of knowing that so many people I am personally acquainted with will read my writing. Not to say I mind that. I kinda like it that people I know think my stuff is worth reading. On the other hand, I do have to temper it a little. However, there is this thought that I would probably temper my writing even if people I know didn't read it. The fact is, someone I know will likely come across my words and I would not wish to be unkind.

What's the big deal about anonymous blogging anyway? Why is it so frightening for people who know us to know what we are thinking? Yes, it's easier to be honest when you're talking to faceless names on a computer -- who have no nonverbal communication to boot. But is that right? Or is this one of those things that goes beyond right and wrong and is defined more by personal preference, attitude, and ability to assert one's real personality?

You tell me. If you've a mind.

New Perspective

This article on race relations in today's America intrigued me. The author has taken a courageous stand in pointing out how the legislative attitude toward civil rights is no longer beneficial. His work could be easily missunderstood -- which acounts for the length and apologetic tone of the article. But he says what needs to be said. Looking for places of hidden racism is not going to find jobs, education, and opportunity for those in impoverished neighborhoods. We need to focus on community solutions to the persistent problems of inequality and stop overemphasizing overt racists. It's time to give our attention to positive efforts.

Spring Cleaning

I was planning to go to the gym this morning. Instead I got my workout doing spring cleaning. My muscles are much more sore than they usually are after a gym workout. I guess climbing on counters and step stools to dust cupboards and trim will do that to you. The amazing thing is I am nowhere near done with the cleaning. Although, I think I have cleaned the dirtiest spots in the house.

In my psychology class last week I was surprised by another student. We will call her K. K is about my age and bright. She is more of a follower than a leader type, but she's a regular girl. She's mildly earthy in that cocktail waitress sort of way. I met her in class my first day and so far I like her. She is definitely not generic. Last week I sat in my usual spot. I mean, I thought it was my usual spot. It turned out that someone had moved all the chairs around and I confused my usual spot with another spot. Consequently, I did not sit next to K like I ordinarily do. K sat in her usual spot. When our teacher, we'll call her Bobblehead, announced the beginning of class K raised her hand to ask a question. I should have mentioned that we received back some papers and a recent exam all graded.

K asked, "To get the full 10 points on my papers do I need to have no errors of grammatical?"

Bobblehead appeared not to comprehend the question. Understandably. After a moment Bobblehead told K that grammatical errors would reduce the grade.

I did not want to laugh at K. She's a nice girl and I like her. But I was rather shocked that any student would think she would not be downgraded for grammatical mistakes in a paper. In my college days I learned quickly not to split infinitives, splice commas, or dangle participles. Nobody got away with that kind of funny stuff at the 'Dale.

I know I am attending a community college now. I know the standards and requirements are less than the effort I accustomed myself to back in the day (I feel like a dinosaur). Still, I could not help but want to make this story into a funny anecdote to tell other intellectuals -- or to tell myself as the case may be.

Later in class we had to gather in groups and write a sentence to define something we were supposed to be learning that day. The sentence that my group constructed included a big fat dangling participle. I pointed this out and suggested we change it. I received blank stares from my classmates and some muttering about having no memory of such complex matters.

In conclusion, I think I will not make the "errors of grammatical" story into a funny anecdote to add to my repertoire. I think I will just let it slide. I am relieved that I can still get good grades if I keep to the established grammatical rules.

A Perfect Analogy

If you're feeling outraged about the stupid government giving money to people who have totally screwed up I recommend you read this (it's a short analogy, so it won't take up much time). It will make you laugh for a while. Then you can get back to crying when you realize how true the analogy is.

What Heros Are Not Made Of

Lights, camera, action. An explosion like a blossom opens into the sky showering the world with debris. There is fire and noise and smoke. The heat of the explosion, you can almost feel it. Except, you're sitting in a cozy, butt-forming chair with your head leaning against the head rest of luxury cinema seating. So, you cannot actually feel the warmth. In fact, it's quite cold around you. That's why you brought your sweater. It is always cold at the theater.

I am as much an action movie fan as the next person. Believe me. I like the spectacular explosions because they are not real so nobody got hurt. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie is not real either. Or should I say fortunately? I have come to a few conclusions about society and movies which I would like to share. Since this is where I spout off, well, just hear me out.

The word hero immediately conjures the image of the current version of a hero. Some total bada$$ with a need to save hundreds of people from certain death. Just because. Well, because he's damn cool and kinda ruthless and a badguy and women like him. Oddly enough, he has not noticed the fact that he has no life and no friends and no reason to want to save people and he's a stereotype. I think if you were to ask most people who their hero was they would not mention someone they know who blows things up and always has a snappy comeback before leaving to let others bag the bodies. No, they would probably mention a friend or relative who helped them through a tough time. I would talk about my husband because he has supported me through all of the changes I've made over the past year and a half -- despite the fact that some of those changes were inconvenient to him. An abused child might bring up the teacher or friend who gave him the courage to go to the authorities. An alcoholic might remember the friends or relatives who pushed her into rehab even after she messed up their lives.

What am I talking about? Am I seriously saying that heros are everyday people? That's so cliche. Isn't it? I do not think so. Because for every one of those small time heros there's a person who would not have done the same. Let me compare two fictional people who wanted to achieve greatness. Perhaps you can judge which of them was more of a hero.

Person No. 1 is Batman, portrayed so brilliantly in the recent flicks. He's obviously a special guy given everything from day one, but deciding to learn what he can despite his privilege. We see him use his money and power for good although it would be so easy to do otherwise (right?). He goes out at night and rescuses people from common criminals. He makes the world a better place and by the way he has a really cool car. No one quite notices the fact that his life is empty with no family or close friends. I mean, he's out doing cool things all the time, why should we care that he's all alone? Surely, the cool things must be more fulfilling than human interaction. Surely, depriving himself of human brotherhood must be working for him.

Person No. 2 is George Bailey from the Christmas movie It's a Wonderful Life. He's just an ordinary guy with dreams who grew up in a loving, supportive family. We watch George as he is trapped doing a job he hates in a town he wants to leave, surrounded by his friends and family whom he kinda takes for granted. At the same time he's all about doing good things for the people around him. George does not allow his complaints about the life he's had change the fact that he's a caring, compassionate person willing to sacrifice for others -- even to the detriment of his own reputation. It is not until the end of the film that life's frustrations build to a head and George finds himself angry at everything he loves. He is about to be ruined as far as he can tell. Despite the fact that he has given his all no one seems to have come through for him. And then it happens. They all show up at his house and promise to help him no matter what the cost. Heavenly intervention aside, a person cannot help but tear up at that ending. Or at least, I can't and I've seen that movie almost once a year since I was a young child.

It's clear to you that I think George Bailey is the true hero between the two characters. Perhaps it is because I too have delusions of grandeur. I would like to be a cool, loner like Batman. But I don't want to miss out on the greatest part of life. I don't want to miss out on companionship, family, and the connection that comes when an ordinary person helps another ordinary person in need. A cool car and an explosion are unneccessary for courage. Courage is just the simple will to live in the moment showing compassion to everyone you meet. George Bailey will always be a greater symbol of heroism to me than Batman. Not because he destroys evil, but because he nurtures goodness.

The Closing of the American Hospital

I have been very interested in the health care crisis -- as it's being called -- for the past few years. Recently, the news has been grim. Doctors are quitting in droves especially emergency physicians. Of the doctors remaining many are unhappy with working conditions. Fewer people go to medical school to be doctors and many of them go into specialties instead of family or emergency medicine because the pay and hours are better. PAs and NPs tend to see more patients often than the M.D.s or D.O.s. In some practices it is common for patients never to speak to the real doctor. There are many reasons for these and other problems in our health care system. One reason being that you get what you pay for. When you force doctors to get the same pay (and sometimes no pay) no matter how well they do you're going to get a lot of doctors who would rather spend more time home with their families. Rising costs have not been met with the money necessary to ameliorate them -- unless you count the government wanting to borrow its brains out and institute socialized health care. It is interesting to read the solutions people come up with concerning what to do about medical care in the U.S. The fact is, things are likely to bottom out in the next ten years if something is not done. So, what should we do?

Well, here's the socialized medicine version and here's the free market idea. Think about it.

Coming Up With Stuff

I have lots to write about, but before I start my rants I think you should read this guy's words. Kind of inspiring, really. Take note of some of the comments afterward if you have the time.

The Funny Thing Is . . .

I remember a year ago people were telling me why I shouldn't care about the economy and why we didn't need a candidate who understood the economy. I was rooting for Ron Paul along with all the other crazies who know something about economics. I listened to so many people dismiss the economy as an unimportant issue. It's only a year later.

Ah, the irony.

Blame Feminism

I am grateful to the feminist movement for paving the way for women in the workforce. If I couldn't go out of the home and work I'd be bored, angry and probably alone. I don't think anyone would want to be around me. My mind is just too active to be content at home. Feminism has benefited the treatment of women overall. Yet there is one area of the feminist movement that's a big pet peeve of mine.

This may sound shallow but I am an attractive woman. I am pretty, insightful, funny, and intelligent. I like to dress up without overdoing it. Nobody of the male sex ever tells me I look nice or have a cute top on or my necklace is pretty. At least, not unless I fish for the compliment and I don't do that because it's immature. People tend to laugh at my jokes (the less obscure ones). People seem to like me. So, that's all okay. When I am out in public I attract quite a few looks and some catcalls or comments from gross-looking alpha males -- and not gross-looking ones -- who I don't even know. This gets old. Really. Fast. On the one hand I am mildly flattered that they noticed I'm good looking. On the other I would prefer some respect. This may not sound like much of a dilemma, but hear me out.

It seems that in this crazy, mixed-up world it's okay for a man to make a gross sexual comment to an attractive woman. However, it is not okay for him to tell a female friend that she looks nice today or something more benign. This frustrates me to no end. I mean, not that I don't get enough compliments from Craig and not that my self-esteem depends entirely on my looks. But, you know, if I have to hear the offensive comments it would be nice to have them balanced with the thoughts of nice guys. I blame 1990s feminism for this problem. It was then that compliments became sexual harassment. Someone should have climbed up on a soapbox 15 years ago and reminded the world that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. The same goes for compliments.

A Different Perspective

The combination of politics and psychology in this psychiatrist's opinion fascinates me. I have long wondered about the public hatred for GWB. Not that I approve of much of his actions as president. However, I have legitimate complaints. I don't sit around talking about how he looks like a monkey. Nor do I actually hate him. I merely disagree with some of his policies. As a young voter I also have enough memory to know that a lot of Bush's actions gain precedent from the actions of his predecessors (Reagan, Bush the elder, Clinton) believe it or not.

Of course, the articles talks about a lot more than the general animosity against George W. Bush. It's quite interesting even if I don't understand all of it.

Citizens Of Blank

One of my college professors used to give short soliloquies on how we should not identify ourselves as citizens of any particular nation. He said we should be "citizens of the world." I remember thinking, "What does that even mean?" every time he said that. My student evaluations reflected my confusion on the subject. As I ruminate, I remember that the idea of being a "citizen of the world" and not of any one particular country has become old hat. At least, since I was a kid. The term itself is so vague that I do not think I can actually define it in a blog post. I can, however, diss it to my heart's content.

I am not here to point out why any particular country is better than any other country. I like my country best because it's where I was born. I am a part of my nation. I am invested in its political process, its laws, and its people. I speak the language primarily spoken here. I discuss and debate values based upon a common upbringing with those around me. In some senses, my childhood was not very common. I do not understand the desire to go out and make another country's culture into my own culture. This has become a popular practice of late. I am not sure why; although, Allen Bloom had a lot to say about that. I am interested in learning about other cultures. Sometimes other cultures annoy me -- I notice only the children of Mexican descent trying to sit on my parked car when I look out the window, for example. Sometimes my own culture annoys me -- hugs are practically illegal here. At the same time, I respect other cultures for what they are and only make value judgments based on obvious moral wrongs (e.g. human sacrifice). I also appreciate many of the distinctly American notions that we bat around on an everyday basis.

One of the things I love about my nation is private property laws. In the U.S. we get a lot of crap thrown at us for being "materialistic." But that is part of what we are. Frankly, we started this country because we got fed up with paying taxes. We like our stuff and we don't like other people trying to take it away from us. That's not really a problem. I mean, buying a house is a right of passage to adulthood. I'm fine with that. I just bought a home and will move into it within the next two months. I'm stoked. I plan to make sure it's secure and well maintained. You know why? Because it's my house. My own property. It's important to me.

That's really the bottom line of why I care about the country where I was born and the place I have made for myself in my own community. It is mine. I have moved from place to place a lot. I have finally found a good place to call my home. I like it because it belongs to me. I want to make my community a better place because it's a part of my life. I appreciate many things about my country including the rule of law and the right to vote.

Today was chosen to be a day of remembrance and celebration. It's not a day to remember all the things I hate about my country or all the horrible things my government has done. It's a day to remember what I value about my country and why I will continue to work for its betterment. It's a day to remember that I am a citizen of the United States of America and that does have meaning. It gives me a sense of identity that being a "world citizen" never could. I know who I am based partly on the fact that I live in this place and I comply with its rules. I try to change the rules I disagree with, yes. And I appreciate the fact that I am free to work against the laws that disrupt my moral code. I appreciate the fact that I can go out and suggest everybody vote for a guy just because I agree with his principles -- and even though I always knew he would never win. I really love my country.

I am not a citizen of meaninglessness. I am a citizen of the US. Now, for some fireworks . . .

My 25% Latino Makes All The Difference

I just discovered this blog about Stuff White People Like. I have not been so amused in a long time. It's all so true and so hilarious. I am reminded of many of my white acquaintances at the very white college I attended. I guess I fall into the category of the "wrong kind of white people." Because I only like a few things on the blog and for totally different reasons than those given.

It Seemed Relevant

I found this interesting article on women's mental health issues. It seemed relevant and excellent. Society has a way of stigmatizing women that is often ignored. It's nice to hear a positive message once in a while.

I'll leave you on that note with an inspiring quotation:

After awhile you learn the subtle difference between holding a hand and chaining a soul, And you learn that love doesn't mean leaning and company doesn't mean security, And you begin to learn that kisses aren't contracts and presents aren't promises, And you begin to accept your defeats with your head up and your eyes open, with the grace of an adult, not the grief of a child, And you learn to build all your roads on today because tomorrow's ground is too uncertain for plans. After awhile you learn that even sunshine burns if you get too much. So plant your own garden and decorate your own soul, instead of waiting for someone to bring you flowers. And you learn that you really can endure... that you really are strong, that you really do have worth.

Anonymous

On One Condition

The worst thing a person can do to another is offer conditional love. I submit that it is the cause of much sorrow and darkness. Perhaps the greatest cause. I would rather be hated than be the recipient of conditional love. To say that affection will only come if the object of affection does what the giver wants is a sentence of living death. You think I am being too extreme? Well, let's partake of an example then.

My favorite tv show is Smallville (I'm sure you all knew that). The relationship on Smallville that most interests me is the one between Lex Luthor and his father Lionel Luthor. It portrays the results of conditional love. I know, this is fictional, but stories can often illustrate to us what we find confusing in real life. When we first meet Lex he is the subject of his father's will. Lex is strong willed and emotional. He desires to be a good person and the audience cannot help but like him. Lionel is ruthless in his treatment of Lex. He places Lex in charge of a Luthor Corp plant and demands Lex achieve perfection in all his business dealings. Lex tries passive aggressive strategies to bypass his father's inflexible standards. Somehow Lionel is always one step ahead of Lex. It's like a horrible game between father and son. Nothing Lex does is good enough for Lionel. Lionel pits Lex against himself just to teach Lex how to be strong. We get a few flashback moments between Lex and Lionel. What we learn is that Lionel has always told Lex that he is weak and pathetic. That's how he tries to be a good father to Lex. Even when Lex does the right thing Lionel can find some mistake in it. Lionel himself is committing the greatest mistake a father can commit: conditional love. It is a mistake that teaches Lex he must be a perfect son or forever live ashamed and angry. Later in the series Lionel turns his life around and tries to reach out to his son. He is eventually able to offer the unconditional love that Lex never knew. But then it is too late. Lex is a bitter young man who refuses to believe his father could love him. Lex has taken conditional love to the next level. He distrusts everyone around him. He drives away even his closest friends because he constantly manipulates them in order to keep their friendships. And they tire of it. He is a lonely, sad, dark, obsessive, manipulative person.

So I repeat, the worst thing you can do to another human being is offer love based on their performance of your standards or wishes.

At the same time unconditional love can be taken to an extreme or used in an unhealthy manner. It's kind of like the battered wife principle: don't allow the abuser back into your life without proof of full repentance because that's unhealthy. Don't allow someone to take advantage of you just because you love them. Limits must exist in order for unconditional love to work. Those limits, however, should never be more important than the love we have for those around us. First offer the love, then the limits. If you go the other way round the person will probably never realize you care.

"I Have A Bad Feeling About This"

Emotions are an interesting concept. I say this partly because I have sequestered most of my emotions. I tend to be extremely logical. To a fault in fact. Mr. Spock in Star Trek: The Original Series and I would get along very well. We both make the same mistake, we fail to evaluate the emotional level of those around us. The question then becomes, how did I get this way? Did I, like Spock, choose to emulate the behavior required of me? Did I ignore my emotions because I was taught that they are unacceptable and perhaps even evil? A Vulcan does not have emotions. A Christian should control her emotions.

It all sounds eerily the same does it not? We are societally afraid of our emotions. Especially in the Christian evangelical setting. The strange thing is, there are many in evangelical churches who rely solely on their emotions to understand God. You know all those slogans about how Jesus is "my best friend" and we have "to be on fire for God." (By the way, if you're on fire you should stop, drop to the floor and roll around to put the fire out, only then should you continue reading this blog post.) I am not writing this to condemn or vilify Christian evangelicals. I think there are many good things that they do. Outreach is definitely one of their strengths and I applaud them for it. On the other hand, I am pointing out a logical anomaly in their doctrine.

Many evangelical churches despise the notions of doctrine and theology. Yet these are important things. Wars have been fought over different interpretations of biblical passages. You cannot convince me that doctrine and theology should be ignored in favor of experiences. I am not saying we should wage war over it now, heck, we have freedom of religion so we can discuss it freely. I encourage a positive response to the questions of what different doctrines mean. I am merely pointing out that doctrine is important (not all important, no, not more important than God). I do not think it is possible for humans to know everything about God. There are things we have to accept. At the same time, the wishy-washy drivel you sometimes learn in church is not helpful.

It is not so much the positive aspect of that drivel that I want to discuss. It is more the negative aspect. The continual need to tell the youth that their feelings are invalid or they should be ashamed of them. The fact is, obsession is a problem. Feelings are not. They are feelings, neither wrong nor right, but simply there. It is healthy to accept them for what they are and discuss them without hurting anyone. It is also helpful for parents to teach children how to express their feelings appropriately as they grow older. What would you rather have: A child who throws her ice cream cone on the ground because she wanted a piece of gum instead of ice cream (I can't justify her decision, no)? Or a child who says, "I really wanted gum not ice cream"? Okay, duh. The second alternative. Well, telling the child that she is spoiled and cannot have everything she wants is going to get you the former. Telling the child that you love her, you understand why she wants gum, but today we are having ice cream might still get you a tantrum. But it won't get you a child who goes through the rest of her life believing her needs are invalid and she should be ashamed of them.

There is nothing wrong with feelings. Even feelings that are rebellious toward a parent or authority figure. The fact is, children need to know they are individuals. They will never learn to live with their independence if they are not allowed to disagree. Pulling away from an angry child or withdrawing as if hurt when a child disagrees is damaging. In a rather evangelical sounding statement, I submit that God would not do that to his children. Even if he could not agree with us, he would not walk away to a distance or make us believe that we are always guilty of something (even just having a feeling). Why is it that evangelicals treat the youth this way? Not just in their own homes even, but everywhere? There could be many valid reasons. In fact, I am open to hearing them if you wish to join in the conversation. I am expressing my opinion and my hope that things will change for the better. That is all.

People Are Gullible

This post is meant to precede a series of my thoughts on religion in the U.S. today. I would draw your attention to this article found on the NeuroLogica Blog. It's an interesting description of how psychics ply their trade (i.e. dupe people so they can make money).

After reading the article linked above I felt creeped out. This is not because I ever believed in psychics. Personally, I think it's all hogwash. This is because I have known preachers of Christianity who have employed the same methods to get money from people and have called it the gift of prophecy. I do believe that God can speak to us today. I am not denying his power. But I also think that most people who claim to be prophetic and then utter vague incantations that could be applicable to anyone are frauds. Most of what they say is geared to get a bigger offering. Or they might actually believe they are prophetic. That is possible. Let me try an example to help you understand. If you tell a Christian that she "reads the Word a lot" and "should remain strong in the Word to accomplish her destiny" then you are certainly not saying anything new or unheard of. Chances are if the person identifies herself as a Christian then she does read her Bible a lot. The whole thing about "destiny" is vague and inscrutable. It does not mean anything. For the record someone who claimed to be a prophet actually gave me the above "prophecy." Personally, it did more harm then good. I went around wondering what the heck that meant and where that left me for a couple years after that. I could have actually been doing something useful. But no, some weirdo said something that didn't make sense and my upbringing had taught me not to ignore such people.

Now, however, I am a different person. Aside from the fact that in Revelations it suggests that prophecy has ended, it's illogical to pay attention to every bit of reasoning that comes from the mouth of someone who claims to have a prophetic gift. Many Christians act like someone is an "unbeliever" if she questions the words spoken by a "prophet." I would say no. Paul did tell us to test the spirits. I consider it a matter of common sense. Why believe everything someone says? Especially when there is no way to prove them wrong. People who claim to be prophetic are often believed -- for a while at least -- by evangelical protestants. I have seen this time and again. Someone claims to have this "gift," stands up and makes a prophecy. The time for the prophecy runs out and nothing happened. Unless, of course, you search the news and stuff. You can always find something that will coincide with the prophecy and could be what the person meant. Yeah, I call bullsh**. If there are multiple events that could be interpreted as the prophecy, but nothing definitive than it's obviously not sensible to go on listening to every word that person says. Furthermore, I have known several people who actually make stuff up to reinforce others opinion of them. They lie. It's a sad commentary on today's religious culture in the U.S.

My favorite of the methods some so-called prophets use to gain credibility is the argument against those infernal "unbelievers." The person will hold their religious meeting -- seance-- and then they will see someone walk out of the meeting less than halfway through. The person will then come up with multiple stories concerning people who "don't believe" and who have "already gone home to gossip about this meeting." Essentially, the "prophet" wants the followers to realize that they are special for believing in his meeting. Frankly, it's creepy. People who have to put others down in order to reinforce their own reputations are up to no good.

On the other side of things I have known people who are overly critical of other Christians beliefs. Again, sad commentary on today's religious culture. But perhaps not completely. The fact is, we have the freedom to believe what we want to believe in this country. That is a huge plus. So long as we have that freedom I cannot dismiss everyone I disagree with. Religious freedom is one of our most important rights. So go on, believe what you believe. I would never make a law against your gullibility.

Inventing Slurs

I wish people would stop creating new racial slurs and labels of a negative sort. I mean, you never really know when you're going to end up saying something totally insensitive anymore. Maybe we should take the route of George Orwell's 1984 and start shrinking the language instead of coming up with new meanings for words. He tried to make a good point with that whole idea, but I really think he missed something.

My Annual "I Don't Get The Oscars" Post

Yes, the nominations are in for the Oscars. As usual I have only seen one of the movies nominated for Best Picture and Best Director. That would be Juno. It's very good. Somehow I don't think it deserves Best Picture, despite the fact that it's the best movie I've seen all year. Of the other movies nominated for that award none of them were popular at all. I think I'd be interested in seeing There Will Be Blood. But the others don't sound up my alley. As for best actor, well, I'm glad Viggo Mortensen finally got a nomination. I doubt he will win, but that's okay. He should get some more roles and that's all I'd like to see from him. I hope to see Ellen Page take Best Actress home with her. She was amazing in Juno.

Of course, the movies that I actually watched mainly received technical nominations. Those would be Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, Ratatouille, Transformers and 3:10 to Yuma. Speaking of which, I am very disappointed that none of the actors in Yuma were nominated for Oscars. That movie was incredible. I plan to buy it, soon. It's so sad that Westerns have lost their place as notable movies anymore. At least the '90s are over. The only Oscar nominated films in the '90s were crappy, message flicks that bored me to tears. I mean, at least I can say that a few movies on the Oscar Nominations list interest me rather than that I do not want to see any of them ever. That's a little bit better than things used to be.

Ah, Logic #14

The media gets it wrong all the time. This presidential primary race is solid proof of that fact. I totally wish the media would stick to reporting and analyzing and get out of the business of predicting. It takes real research and education to predict. Yes, that means more than the research and education necessary to report what's happening.