If happiness could be a pile of money, would it be wrong to request a donation of one dollar from each of the 300 million or so citizens of the USA? All donations could be given directly to me. After all, its such a small amount to be given and it would make such a huge impact on my happiness.
Now that I set the stage properly with a scenario of subject matter and thought to go along with it……
If anyone was in an auto accident and thrown face first into, or thrown though the windshield, I would think nothing of someone making a request of their insurance company or some charitable entity to pay for cosmetic surgery. I would also think the worse of the company that would refuse someone who just survived such an accident and refused them in kind.
But then that would be using common sense, logic, and the proper amount of appropriate compassion. Today we have had a compleat generation or two of people who have barely heard the word “NO” as an answer given to what they have asked for, (realistic or not) net alone that answer being a stern “NO”. Followed by an explanation of how unrealistic they are in making such request. ( not that all questions and requests should be answered with a no. Just the crazy ones.)
Because these people haven’t heard the great answer of “NO” all they know is to constantly push against boundaries. Making the boundary the enemy, so all attempts must be made to erode them away. It’s the boundary that is keeping them from true bliss, happiness, feelings of self-worth. It the barb wire fence of boundaries that keeps people from becoming accomplished and therefore successful in life. That’s the thought process they convince themselves of. They believe they are entitled to having everything they want. It’s that frame of mind along with the attitude “you owe it to me”.
Yet these same people except certain boundaries or are all to willing to create some new ones of their own, so long as it doesn’t confine them or their desires. They are used to acting without ever contemplating that a society without boundaries is a worthless society, caustic, a sign of a decadent and decline.
From UK daily mail
Transsexual says “to exhausting being a woman,” wants public taxpayers to pay to change him back. As if now, two wrongs will make a right? Because the public payed for his first surgery, now he thinks the public has an even greater responsibility for the second. Only basing his need on fleeting emotional demands.
“A transsexual who had a £10,000 sex change on the NHS to become a woman now wants the taxpayer to foot the bill for a further £14,000 of surgery so she can become a man again.
Chelsea Attonley, 30, who was born a boy and called Matthew, said she now finds being a woman ‘exhausting’, is tired of putting on make-up and wearing heels, and now accepts that she should always have stayed a man.”
Throughout this story he gives the impression though it’s a bit offensive, summarizing his view of femininity and the female sex to nothing more than “heels and makeup.” Women are more than the way they speak, the makeup and clothing they wear. Women aren’t carictures that can be easily copied by some Nip-n-Tuck style of self-mutating surgery and then swiping on some lipstick as the finishing touch to being a new age woman.
He goes on to complain that women aren’t so easy in excepting him as an equal. But then he only sees the goal of becoming woman as high heels and a slathering of lipstick after vanity surgery.
In life we have to except it’s not always “Fair”, there aren’t any equal outcomes to every kind of efforts made. And so self-worth, or individual happiness comes from ones “Self”, not from modern skills and talents of some Frankenstein like surgeon willing to fix the mentally ill with the myth of reassignment surgery.
According to Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, said that transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex change is “biologically impossible,” and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder.
If the man from the UK Daily story (or anyone else in those same shoes) desires to be happy, let him or her gain employment and save-up for and spend their own money on whatever they feel will make them happy. Expecting society to spend taxpayer money on his happiness out of some misguided compassion for him in his plight. Is denying society their own happiness in place of yours.
It’s not naive of me to believe we can bring out the best in people if you know just how to act. Some times that means having to say, with no uncertainty of terms….”NO!”
We are all equal. Different, but equal, which means that no one is better than me. That no ones own happiness can then be dependent on commandeering money (of which money equals hours of ones life) in order to find happiness at the expense of another’s.
Vanity surgeries, because you believe that is what will make you happy is the responsibility of the individual buyer to provide for ones self. There is no difference to buying a vacation, no one would expect another person, a neighbor, another tax payer, to provide that to them for the sake of finding happiness. It’s not society job then to make anyone happy. And so the answer should always be a resounding defining roar of “No! Absolutely NOT on the publics dime!”
All the best to everyone.
Do you have any thoughts?
Transsexual Chelsea Attonley who had £10k surgery on NHS wants to be man again | Daily Mail Online http://t.co/a7r40GoONx
Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: Transgender is ‘Mental Disorder;’ Sex Change ‘Biologically Impossible’ | CNS News
“Voicing your opinion isn’t enough”, said Sergio Uzurin a protester in front of Macy’s flagship store in New York. “You have to disrupt business as usual for this to happen and that’s the only thing that ever made change. That’s the real way democracy’s function.”
Unfortunately Sergio doesn’t, or is unwilling to understand that in order for democracy’s to function while preserving individual freedom requires the “Rule of Law”, not a mob redefinition of the law.
Apparently it’s no longer PC to call a criminal a criminal & a preplanned riot a travesty!
St. Louis-area mall closes on Black Friday as Ferguson protests spread http://news.yahoo.com/calm-comes-troubled-ferguson-protests-dwindle-across-u-050740438.html?soc_src=mediacontentsharebuttons&soc_trk=tw via @YahooNews
I get it: I absolutely understand why a person would want, if possible, to be in control of death.
A blogger wrote of death, “Death is not Brad Pitt in Meet Joe Black. Death is not anything like you have seen in the movies. There is no quiet symphony, there are no fireworks. Death can be violent and messy, or it can be as quiet as a shadow, and it can create some of the worst memories imaginable — memories that will never fade. Many of us, sadly, know this.” Shumaker
For several years I watched someone I love slowly die. But by watching their death slowly creep forward, limiting our ability to reminisce about those golden times, or memories of the past. And they always seems to have passed by far too quickly then we both expected. I saw personally how easy it is to misguide my emotions, my feelings, and most of all my compassion(s) toward their final and last struggle in life because I couldn’t or wasn’t prepared to let go.
We’re not supposed to be totally in control of every aspect of living. And in living there are no guarantees, warranties, or return policies. In fact, today we are preoccupied with removing risk and fear in life, that we sometimes forget really how to live it. Or how we could impact others while living it.
It’s that fear that drives many to be on the lookout for genetic markers, they then subject themselves to countless amounts of testing, not to mention the awful amounts of money spent on such. It scares me, as it would scare most of us. Testing for genetic markers not only runs up cost of medical insurance and treatments of those people who are pandering to fear, but it reduces opportunities for everyone in the proses. It opens a door in our thoughts and what should scare us more than those questions that come after going through that doorway, is our over simplified attempts to reduce fear and prolong the inevitable.
Should I ever be diagnosed with such awfulness, that same disease, what then?
How would I then choose to live, to interact with…what attitudes would I express, but most of all (and I’m afraid the least thought of question of all)…How will my choices on how I live today effect those around me when I’m inevitably gone? That scares me.
Rather than accept a horrible death, 29-year-old Brittany Maynard refused. She found out a year ago that the dreadful headaches she was suffering from weren’t normal and that they weren’t going to go away. Maynard had terminal brain cancer. A few days after her diagnosis, she had a partial craniotomy and a partial resection of her temporal lobe. This spring she found out not only had her tumor come back, but that it was even more aggressive. Her doctors told her she had six months to live.
In an interview with People magazine, Maynard shares, “I’ve discussed with many experts how I would die from it, and it’s a terrible, terrible way to die.”
Maynard doesn’t want to die a terrible death. “Being able to choose to go with dignity is less terrifying.”
In another interview she was asked, if she was terrified with planning her suicide / death… Brittany cut the reporter off and said, I’m not killing myself, or committing suicide per say, cancer is killing me—I’m deciding when.
Advocates of death with dignity, claim that it isn’t suicide in deciding your time of death if you are in the process of dying and seeking the option to hasten an already inevitable and imminent death. But then, doesn’t everyone living today fit into just such a painting with a broad brush?
Looking for assistance no matter how grim the circumstances or health condition, that also involves other person who may also have a claim to dignity within life as well; they may have taken an oath to their chosen profession to do no harm. in essence everyone in the medical field fight against all odds of 100% of all people eventually dying. Is asking another person with medical background to help you end your life not also asking, so to speak, for assistance in finding a hit-man? Perhaps someone might think I am being cold with that hit-man statement. But really, if you’re looking to kill someone, even if that someone is you, aren’t you acting in the same manner when looking for that “thing” that will end life just the same?
When it comes to suicide people who would make such a choice already have countless ways to commit suicide, why do we then need government to make laws in regulating it? It’s ironic that tax money that has built the best medical system in the world, a system that uses technology to protect and preserve life against all odds would now be forced to provide life ending prescriptions.
It’s a complicated issue at best, and far too complicated to address everyone’s emotions satisfactorily. This is why I’m on the side of individuals making that choice for themselves, minus the inclusion of any governmental assistance and any attempt to popularize medical assistance as being compassionate in providing specific prescriptions to cause death. For me it is when we regulate every aspect of an already complicated and personal issue, we place people in charge of making choices (To allow or not) to allow for us to make such a choice outside of our own personal choice, which will ultimately cause misguided compassion, guided by emotional feelings, to choose or to make choices, only based on a societal impact. When life, no matter who’s life that is among the living, is just looked at as if their just another number, because we all fit within the definition that the advocates of death with dignity uses to twist compassion with this subject along with government who will then decide when individuals can’t decide for themselves? Who decides with auto accidents….will we then give assistance based on some newly remembered statements of the victims own policies on this issue? Will we then have to make societal decisions to see who is worthy of medical assistance based on survival and future contributions as opposed to present rehabilitation costs, or some other qualifier in determining quality of life? Is quality of life suddenly going to be redefined to include motor skills, because I’m sure someone out there would consider it to be just as life ending to be confined to a wheelchair as some other life ending affliction or cancers? Will a parent decide for their adolescent children? Should they?
When it comes to life and death there is no one shoe fits all public policy. So there is no room for government—be it, city, local, county, state, or federal government, which should regulate such matters.
It’s a hard enough of a choice to make for individuals on how they would like to be remembered by you because of those choices they make on how they will live, or die, after they are diagnosed with some terminal illness? I would like to think anyone’s choice would be on the side of being a positive for those we would leave behind. After all life is all about the memories. In the case of my loved one who I had to watch slip away. Slowly losing their memories, their ability to tell jokes, their ability to recognize my face, who then on top of it all had to lose their motor-skills…I will always remember their face when a bit of time that was longer then we both expected went by before we could spend time together again, it was that light in their eyes (the faintest of memories remembered before that too was snuffed out), and that embracing hug…that joy…for both of us, that also gave calm and peace before their passing. And for me it was their lasting message of “I love you–now go live your life in a positive way”, even though their best efforts didn’t allow them to speak.
And that is why no amount of government regulation, for or against, can ever decide or get in the way of someone’s personal decision being made on this issue. At the same time we as the living should realize, we don’t really have the right to demand of our government or modern medical doctors or system to end life on request without also having that request become a negative impact. No matter how small that impact may be at first, it’s the living that has to deal with that slippery slope that could lead to abuse at some point. And to those who plan to end it all because of some unbearable affliction, you don’t get to cast a vote on how society should live life after you’re gone. You only should get to decide how, if anything, is going to affect you’re life.
Let me also say this, if we can ban smoking in public places, then we can also ban parking lots outside of bars, and the removal of all alcohol sales opportunities at public events. Both of which only promotes drinking and driving. If we are interested in public safety why be half assed about it. Right?
In theory if it protects the public then government has the uncomfortable job of serving and protecting regardless of political party policy.
A theoretician is someone who bathes in theory’s of the what if’s—Instead of the what is….or the true facts of what is. Take the Ebola out break in Africa. The theoretician says we can not close off all travel to and from the affected countries, because health-care workers couldn’t then get into these places, and the epidemic would certainly spread. This is an exercise of theory, the what if’s, paralyzing any can do wisdom or any attempts into taking action while using common sense.
The truth….we can close off travel to and from, as well as doing the job of protecting people and countries that don’t have Ebola as of yet, while continuing to limit it greatly. And we can just as easily provide special air rescue travel of specialized specialists to aide the affected people in those same countries.
It seems we have no problems in quarantining our first case of Ebola in America for the sake of public safety. But the irony is…to the unrealistic theoretician, placing a quarantine on travel is a recipe for some perceived disaster, or a manifestation of racism, or even building a larger wall of unfairness in the world. So we shouldn’t do it, nor is there any good reason to….right?
We shouldn’t act as though we can do nothing in the face of our fears except raise the invitation flag to our yet unrealized fears in becoming those same new realties within our lives.
It seems we as a nation have excepted and popularized the idea to ban smoking in public places, and within enclosed places as a public safety issue, because it kills. What? And with our elected theoreticians policies on Ebola we don’t really see the irony? We can for all intent and purposes “quarantine” people from publicly smoking because it does the same thing Ebola would, though be it at a slower rate of time it takes for death to accrue. And with the Ebola out break, our elected officials act as if it’s cruel and unusual punishment to quarantine travel to and from…Yep! It all makes sense to me.
What says you?
All the best to everyone.
Is the hoopla over recent NFL abuse cases / domestic violence over done, over reported, or even magnified to the extent of abusive reporting by big media?
Let me just state it right here and now. Abuse of any kind is wrong! No if’s, or and’s, or but’s, are expectable excuses, it just plain wrong!
Having that said now, why is the NFL embroiled in an demotic violence witch hunt? With 4 such cases or arrests now made, why are the other NFL stories of related drug cases, or other violent acts by other NFL players or former players so under reported?
I have grown real tired of the politicization of certain cases for nothing more then making political points by using such stories as exclamation points. Because such reporting has nothing to do with ending such behaviors in society by making them into a bigger public awareness campaign. If that was truly the design of such reporting we would have little room to avoid stories of much bigger effects towards individual’s personally, and all the ill effects to the public in general that those stories would explain. Yet these stories are barely reported on some back page of some no name newspaper somewhere. It gives an impression of hiding something for later use in a sort of manipulation story, not all that different than the present demotic violence stories currently. Where is the news magnification, the public outcry, and the social demand for government to change it all? Instead we have this on going witch hunt of a real problem in the NFL while avoiding the bigger picture within society just under the surface.
Are kids worth protecting at all? And at any and all costs?
This year, 2014 right up to my posting of this story, there have been, or are on going cases in or out of court, of over 300 teachers who have abused kids in their schools just this year, while under their care. And we are magnifying 4 domestic violence cases in the NFL for that same time period of time. Domestic violence in the NFL isn’t suddenly something new. It’s been going on for years. But with today’s reporting, it is being made to sound out of control and ramped. On a percentage bases is it all that different to the population at large? I’m not making a case or any justification of domestic violence here, just an unusual reporting of it.
One such segment of the population with a higher percentage of accounts of domestic violence as reported, is the very same segment that also has the job of investigating all other reports of domestic violence–police officers. Where is the same degrees of reporting those stories if we must shine a lime light onto this dark corner of society if we hope to change it? How does reporting on the NFL change the real segment of population with the same but more prevalent problem?
Going back to our public teachers, aren’t teachers government employees? Don’t we deserve better and more efficient government? Aren’t our kids our future? Then why aren’t these stories in the news daily if necessary to get that better government, who would better manage their employees if it were brought into the light? Yet it’s our media, that evil in our lives who plays politics with the NFL, expecting public outrage to get government moving in regulating everything except the media and itself.
Sometime opening your eyes can be the most painful thing you can do.
We don’t need some super strength to accept those things we can’t change. But we a kind of unwavering strength to change the things we can’t accept! A unified strength of standing up to those who hold their deceptive powers as public do-good’ers.
We shouldn’t dispense the law within the court of public opinion in an unequal disposition towards what’s popular on any given day. It seems society is unwilling to stand up to evil no matter where it exerts, but rather it is only interested in finding an acceptable level of evil that they can tolerate. While using the least amount of efforts posable. And everything else is considered collateral damage.
So what damages society to a larger degree some abuse in the NFL, or the almost unheard of child abuse in school–4 cases in the NFL vs. 300 unheard of cases in our public schools in 2014. And with a track record of the police, according to FBI statistics, are we to call a potential secret abuser to investigate a report of domestic violence?
I suggest we stop sweeping dirt under the rug while complaining about some visible missed prices that sticks out like a sore thumb within the NFL.
What says you?
All the best.
When it comes to seeing our government and its officials acting stupid, this has to be it.
WASHINGTON — Half of the U.S. Senate wrote the National Football League’s commissioner Tuesday to urge that he push the Washington Redskins to change their name.
“The NFL can no longer ignore this and perpetuate the use of this name as anything but what it is: a racial slur,” the lawmakers told Commissioner Roger Goodell in 50 identical letters.
They went on to say: “The Washington, D.C. football team is on the wrong side of history,”
The last I checked it is impossible to be on the “wrong side of history” because history doesn’t pick sides—it simply is what happens, or had happened. So what does that statement really mean? For these Senators to have ruffled feathers over a NFL team name is somewhat laughable when it is DC that makes a living on word play. Changing and rearranging “words” and their definitions in an effort to massage and manipulate the public’s perception on issues.
Ever ask a Senator to explain what it means to have a “cut” (or a reduction, or a balancing) in budgets? With any answer received we all could ask…Would that be a cut in present expenditures or future tax increases? Again definitions are many, when defining the same things or words, almost as many as there is elected officials.
When looking at official government application or paperwork like those of the census and others, we would find ethnicity boxes. Check the box that applies to the applicant is the question mostly asked. Are you “White or African-American, American Indian, Latin…” maybe it’s not all that political correct as I stated it but you get the picture because you’ve seen it. Why can’t the government take the lead of changing its own predispositions to color biases? Why do we need to create voter blocks based on divisions along color of skin? Just as it was in the Travon Martin case, definitions of color were mixed and remixed into an ethnically cleansing soup. When the governments focus should have been case facts and unnecessary violent acts that happen all too often to all ethnicities in America, instead of who the (victim or the perpetrator) was and what their color of skin is. What a missed educational opportunity the Government had in ending racial handicapping.
It is government that seizes the advantage in keeping the color preferences alive, fueling the fires of prejudices in the minds of the public. If they only would have listened to MLK’s I have a dream speech? They might have taken up the torch of attempting to unite the citizenry into this great melting pot that is America over the tactic of defined voter classes and new political victims?
Instead of picking and choosing between violent tragedies, holding onto some of them for political gain above others; like in the Travon Martin case, climbing over themselves to get into the lime light while saying publicly nothing about the “Children of color” murdered in Chicago streets and other big cities, instead quietly accepting, spinning, and redefining terms and events as being acceptable collateral damage in their minds. Where are the public rebukes by officials? Where are the consistencies? Where are all of the common sense approaches to new ideas instead of preserving the game play (I’ll take “revolving definitions of political word usage for a $100 please) status-quo?
None of these 50 senators who are complaining to the NFL to change the team name the “Washington Red Skins” are willing to cleanse the racial biases in their own hearts and minds, while taking up the true motto of impartiality—judging things not on the color of skin but by the content of character. Common sense seems to be extinct in DC?
If a name change of the NFL team the “Red Skins”—also known as the “Skins” is a must!
Because Washington DC loves word games, let the “Talisman Wars” begin. Let the Washington Red Skins change their mascot and all team talisman symbols, let them be changed to the “Red Potato” AKA. Also known as a “Red Skin”. Unless vegetables can be racists… this problem has been solved!
It seems like in that popular movie a few years ago, I see dead people. But when I gaze into the reflection pool I fail to see the need for my old habits to die within. Perhaps habits are just insignificant, or maybe I’m feeling a bit insignificant myself?
How can you tell when you’re insignificant in the world?
Life was good and went on as usual. The bills were paid. The yard was manicured and maintained and the mail didn’t pile up in the mailbox. The woman that lived in this quiet neighborhood, rumored to be a person that traveled a lot, and so with the homes appearance of being empty, wasn’t all that unusual.
Automatic payments that maintained the façade suddenly couldn’t maintain the appearance–the bank account ran dry. So the mortgage holding company foreclosed on the property. Still, nobody noticed what had happened inside the house. Nobody wondered out loud what had become of the owner. Perhaps over the years people whispered, took guesses among themselves as to what became of their neighbor. Did they ask each other if they had seen her lately? Did they bother themselves to get to know the woman, knock on her door, visit, or chit-chat for a time regularly when she was home or last seen?
Instead, it appears, nobody batted an eyelash, or had enough concern to offer anything other than rumors to each other about the women’s absence.
Neighbors rarely heard from her because she kept to herself. This was the excuse and their reasoning.
No one was aware that anyone visited with her recently, or ever.
It was not common for her to leave for a week or two—even when she traveled back to Europe, it was not uncommon for her to be gone for a month or two, not seeing her wasn’t all that odd, the neighbors said.
The truth was, she had died some 6 years earlier. No one took it upon themselves to care, or ask each other when she was last seen. The woman was just out of sight, and just that fast, out of mind.
Who is more insignificant? This poor woman who apparently had no one in her life to care about her, or make her feel important enough to spend some time with her; or were the neighbors who thought small action on their parts as only being insignificant, only being concerned with the comings and goings of their own lives, barely capable of even take notice, placing guesses with each other on where is may be, instead of how she was? How sad, how empty?
Do we owe anything to society for there to be any improvement to it? Isn’t society built on the shoulders of individual’s that have gone before us? So what have learned or unlearned from our ancestors?
It seems the lottery of life isn’t built of any grounding positive principles anymore? The kind of good principles where everyone living is a winner. The kind of principles that impact or can impact everyone for the good, with good actions rather than ill actions. Society has become self-centered, self-absorbed, and fully engulfed with–what’s in it for me kinds of attitudes. It seem, as a society we consider ourselves as life’s lotto winners if everyone would only accept living in a judgment free zone, a boundary less existence, that has yet to come grips with letting go of religious confining boundary’s, or moral codes, or judgment calls. But then without values or boundary’s the sum total of life’s experience is insignificant isn’t it?
When was the last time you saw your neighbor…did you check up on them…help them…care about their lives just a little to want to listen to them? Or are you more of a person that sees themselves as life’s lotto winners already just picking up your prize and asking, “What’s in it for me?” before taking any action?
Of course, if I expect to win the lottery of life doesn’t that mean that someone else or a lot of people have to lose?
Image, so many people who see life and living it, as being so insignificantly important, that the only effort made are selfish ones. What’s in it for me… seeing no real value to act, no real return for actions made, people only moving through the motions yet completely empty…the living dead.
People aren’t defined by what they do for their living, or by their personal possessions they have or can still obtain. It isn’t the dreams we dream that defines us, or makes us different. It’s not the dreams that we capture or those that happen to just slip through our fingers, that breathes life into–or kills our successes. Therefore it isn’t the popularly defined meaning of what success is that produces success—for even the poor at heart and pocket, have great ability to succeed, to expose shared hidden successes, by giving of one’s self, or by gifting to society a better content of individual character.
Character is that public education so often miss-taught. We learn it through observations of others, contemplating what we see and hear while looking for some kind of acceptance of it, within a reflection of our own personal values. Then deciding over time how to act towards others by the use of our newly found character.
If we place our security on stuff, or value our actions upon receiving stuff, we will become more personally involved in search of more stuff to fill the value void.(That hollow shell of the walking dead) It’s difficult to satisfy the increasingly emptiness inside, that void, by denying the interconnectedness to our neighbors, to our society, while only looking out for number one.
Individually our courage is always tested when we are most venerable, and feel that our actions are the most insignificant. If you’re struggling with that, it means that you’re progressing, and living. The living dead don’t think, or think through their actions before they act. They just go on oblivious to their surroundings, and other people’s silent needs.
No matter how many mistakes that we make, refusing to smile at someone, or shaking someone’s hands while saying hello, how are you? No matter how little time that we have, the most valuable gift that we all have is our time. When we understand that, we will choose to act accordingly to how we would like to be remembered when we are gone. We all have a limited amount of heart beats—who knows how many we have left? Will we use them to make a difference? Improvements can happen no matter how slow the progression seems, if we choose to act positively, with a sense of purpose. And that puts us all ahead of those who aren’t even trying.
If you want to be successful, to be one of life’s lotto winners, and make an improvement to yourself, community, or society, you must respect one rule.(1) Never to lie to yourself say that you don’t know what to try.
People who are alone, who feel themselves as only being insignificant to others, are easily impressed with the smallest of individual acts.
It’s limited actions and self-absorbed inactions, that defines people as the living dead. It’s not that I see dead people in order to point finger at them, but I’m tired of looking into the reflection pool and seeing what could have been–if only I hadn’t been one of the living dead?
(For the story that inspires this post click on the link)
Woman’s auto-payments hid her death for six years http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/07/us/michigan-mummified-body-found/index.html?sr=sharebar_twitter
Walking just off the beaten path
It seems the only memories that adults have of childhood fun is too often caped by their negative experiences. Just imagine back when you were a kid and when you first stepped into dog crap! What exactly where you doing, or what thoughts were going through your mind right up to that point when you took that step? You probably don’t remember? Or you don’t know or have forgotten the whys or even the where’s to those times. Were they were happy fun times that then suddenly changed? Being so much younger than, then now, did you change your views of having fun in grassy fields, despite the uncomfortable memory and feeling of yucky on your shoes?
Why is it as adults we constantly look for the hidden crap in life? Can’t we just except there are risks in life? Shouldn’t we be more in tune with our attitudes towards these uncomfortable risks? Because our attitudes are the only obstacles in getting to that land where the impossible is possible finely arriving at happiness? We should all be more accepting at times in working hard in achieving our goals, remembering you have to get your hands a little dirty once in a while because every kind of success both big and small like grassy fields have hidden crap along the way!
I had this opportunity to go to a public event where there was plenty of diversity. Young and old from the ages of brand new to 100 years, represented by every type of ethnicity the world had to offer. There was singing, dancing, games, food & drink, and all kinds of other fun in the sun. For the kids plenty of toys—things to climb, swings, and small hand toys (balls etc.) to play a verity of games with. It was a good time for people watching, as well as friendly competitions like the pie eating, or watermelon eating contests. This day had all of the essential ingredients needed for the well-designed machinery of an all-around good afternoon lubricated into a well running social event sustained with the suns warmth, suntan lotion, and cold drinks.
Watching some young kids I noticed out of the corner of my eye. A girl talking to another girl, not so surprising to see all by its self, but these two were different kinds of different, not to say ethnicities as well. Again no real shock here for me but for the intolerant type, I’m sure they were thinking “what gives”?
I notice the kids were playing around with all the different toys, following each other, encouraging each other even challenging each other to some games that they made-up on the fly. Other kids soon joined in to the fun, turning into a real cornucopia of ethnicities while interacting peacefully sharing in that thing we all could use in our life once in a while called… fun!
I was beginning to think of this day, or this place as just a dream that I was having. It seemed too much like that impossible dream Marten Luther had in his speech “I have a dream”, where he hoped that people would judge people not on the color of one’s skin but by the content of character. But then it seemed I was just dreaming?
Somehow adult humans seem to forget their inner child and the ability to dream the impossible while making the impossible possible happen. Is that really too much to ask?
All though I was somehow reminded of all of the rhetoric in the news that was being bantered around of late, the Travon Marten trial events with all of the racist comments seen on the internet (Facebook and twitter and alike), not to say or add into the mix the social hucksters of hate–you know the types I’m talking about? Those ex-minister’s or self-proclaimed ones, those community leaders who seem to have an endless supply of money for themselves while claiming to be the voice of the poor, as they empty the poor’s pockets, in exchange they filling their minds with social contempt. Yes those people, the ones who make the news in an effort to divide a nation by claiming not to judge by color of skin, but by protecting and promoting one skin color problems over the others. Casing guilt, and blame towards, and within the content of characters possessed within the oppositions skin color for public popularity and personal gain. Somehow all of this rhetoric reminds me of children complaining about dog crap on their shoes. We know better, by making constant complaints just a person’s personal game being played out so they will not have to get their hands dirty in making an effort on their own.
Last I checked Racism (the hatred of a different ethnicity simply by the virtue of hating that person because they were born into it) never seems to be accepted as the same car driven home into the minds of others in reverse by the race baiters.
At what point in life does the birth of racism breathe its first breath of hatred?
Wisdom is supposed to be a collection of experiences, values or views, timeless principles–whether they are moral or religious tenets, in the pursuit of any and all discoveries of the truth. For truth needs no consensus or public popularity to prove it exists, it simply stands on its own as fact!
So where does racism come from? How is it so appealing to people who would individuality accepts the persona, the disposition, the nature, and the temperament of racism as a value? The forgetfulness of humans who would practice racism, must have first have forgotten the golden rule–Treat people in the same way that you would have them treat you in return. Or the last 6 of the 10 commandments for those who claim to be religious but would build a façade out of religious belief–thinking they are being religious and yet accepting the smallest degree of agreement to those who would express their own brand of racism while claiming some religious superiority? Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, you guys shouldn’t be throwing any stones–if you know what I mean?
Yet Sharpton Still Gets Pass: rape hoaxer Tawana Brawley begins paying defamation damages 25 years later… http://nyp.st/13Emx4E via @nypost
How could anyone think a collection of adults in society or in government could eliminate the racist view or even the curriculum within the secret school of racism that seem to exist? No amount of government regulations or even a branded mindset of “social justice”, or “collective salvation” will ever remove the self-chosen thoughts of division. Critical thinking could if used properly. It could eliminate the closed mindedness of racism, or people choosing to see everyone else in terms of ethnicity. Racist thoughts are only based on assumptions without testing them for verified results of truth. Remember truth can stand on its own, and doesn’t need any support to do so. It is deceptive humans that have conceive the ideas in an effort to manipulate, to change truth as they rationalize to themselves and others there is no need for any applications of self-examination to their attitudes or definitions of truth. Racism exercises tenants of mental gymnastics, bending and twisting, massaging at will in order to cast blame while doing the exact same things to others. Even claiming to be offended doesn’t create an exemption to offend.
The secret school of racism does exist because from my views of reality on this day it seems people can celebrate of all types of ethnicities coming together under the sun. Even those people kids with preconceived hidden thoughts deep within their minds, that I’m sure have at least for one moment in time allowed themselves a rest from the taxing energies of hate. Not allowing these feelings to boil to the surface and being expressed outwardly does show proof positive it can be controlled by choice.
So in full view for everyone to see or to take notice of these kids aged from 3 to 7-year-olds playing without a care in the world, with no animists towards racism, no one was seeking any dividing forces of color, or even noticing ethnicity. They see the endless possibilities of collaboration to achieve fun expressed in discovery of just what it means to “judge not, unless you are judged.” they value other little people by their content of characters and in sharing in the fun. So it easy to see every negative is taught and learned from adult examples or the lack thereof….??
Somehow in a world where adults rule the day, claiming great wisdom and the only ones to have the ability to teach children, it seem some of the great wisdom is purposefully over looked allowing their own biases and temptations though secretly held within; they are teaching biases, prejudices or at the very least they have failed to teach the importance to fight against those negative thoughts within the mind once they are thought of. Instead they choose to rely on the government to pass regulations, laws, or create greater amounts of manipulative peer pressure through political correctness; as if partialities are a forgone conclusion as being able to eliminated racism in the minds of people who have actively chosen to practice it. There is no time travel, there is no such thing as correcting the wrongs of the past by engaging in the same actions but in reverse in the present. It is impossible to eliminate ones offence by also offending another. It is just as impossible to please everyone at the same time, all of the time.
At some point all people, if not then the people in government must certainly realize that “people changed against their will are of the same opinion still”.
The power of racism is therefore in each one of us and we could end it once and for all if only we would choose to do so? The proof of that is right here… as I watch these playing kids. We could all embrace the lost knowledge of our childhood wisdom instead of casting it aside as being unwise, inexperienced, and childish. Because the way I’m seeing it these kid who are strangers are interacting with each other peacefully and having fun. This isn’t because of some lack of experience or any problem for them, its adults refusing to be adults.
Ending the hidden and secret schools of racism is only possible if individual adults stop going down that well beaten pathway and stop applying for those teaching positions that seem to be always available! Collectively we can’t change today instantaneously, but certainly we can impact tomorrow’s results with today’s actions.
Have you had that “OH” moment when you at first meet someone new? Certain kinds of people may spark your interests, motives, or lusts, but not talking about them right now? Not excluding the above…but talking about being social, but nor necessarily limited to just being social either; just allowing for you to produce your own excuses for going out meeting people. But the question still applies all the same. Have you had that “Oh” moment when you are quietly telling yourself, you have just reached you’re limit with this person, what ever that limit is? But the only response you can visualize or say out loud, usually with some kind of funny, or surprised expression of…. OH!
You know the look? Because you all have been there.
Like take this chance meeting–the person and you are engaged in conversation, small talk, when the other person says. “I was once in an insane asylum, but doing better now. Those therapists can do wonders you know?”
“OH”! Quickly you start to fumble with the right excuse, without offending, while looking nonchalant for the exit. It isn’t that anyone cares why they were in the asylum, or if they are better now? You don’t care to find out for sure. Your not going to be a social experiment of sorts as seen in a horror movie? Nore are you asking why would anyone say that just out of the gate, by blurting it out to a would be stranger……you?
Or how about; you’re sitting at the bar enjoying a drink while unwinding. You strike up a conversation with someone, when the conversation moves to how unclean the bathroom is, and how few people wash their hands after using the bathroom. The other person is picking at the beer nuts and offers up the comment. “Yea, have you seen the bathroom sinks, and water fosses? They are just gross. I think someone even took a crap in the sink once, and it never got cleaned up properly. I just looked at it in horror and moved out the door again.” Looking up and making eye contact with you they adding. “Beer nuts?” sliding the bowl over while taking another few, and popping them into their mouth.
Not wishing to make accusations or assumptions, or even asking any questions to any facts there of, on this subject matter. You respond in the usually way, “OH!” extending a flat hand and saying. “No thanks, to those nuts.”
How about when you ask someone out on a date— The women says she needs to watch her figure and would like a salad. But then orders finger foods, drinks, and a stake….? Looking up at you responding. “Not to worry, she has an active metabolism.”
You don’t want to question her? Of course you want to believe that? But you can’t say. “Are you eating for two?” just another way in asking are you pregnant? Instead you have nothing else to say but…”OH”!
Or that one that is constantly on the cellphone while you’re eating dinner with her? You’re thoughts play different scenario’s— she’s setting up another date after you buy her dinner? Maybe just another date for drinks with a guy she likes better than you? No matter the thoughts of possible excuses running around your head. Your response is…”OH” in that moment, because if you’re buying dinner aren’t you also buying exclusivity of her attention? I know. OH!
How about this one I saw on TV once. Two people found each other, dated awhile, fell in love. While on their way up to the marriages alter, one confesses to the other because they’re riddled with guilt, so they whisper. “I want to start our union with compleat honesty.” You node your head in compleat agreement. They go on. “I once was a dude. But surgery was even more successful than my wildest dreams.”
I know that one is rare! But with all of the crazy reasons for getting altered with surgery, net alone more and more stories in the world of people changing themselves. There is an increasing chance of just this happening to someone in real life? Then what? Is this fraud, or robbery of individuals making good faith choices in their own lives? Will it be an “OH” moment? Or….?
Check out this story from the net; Belgian discovers his wife used to be a man after 19 years via @Telegraph http://soa.li/QE4xMLT
As you can see there are lots of different “OH” moments in life. Just how we respond to them is even a more interesting than the events where your responses were just… OH!?
Do you care to share? Come on be brave, light our giggle fuse, and let everyone enjoy past fireworks of real life happenings with those “OH moments.”
All the best.
Bathroom multitasking is being presented as greener, better for the earth? Is there a limit to being too green, for us citizens of the earth? Should we be going yellow in the showers for the new green life-style? Under a story published with the title “Have you ever peed in the shower”, they explain the how’s and the why’s, as well as the ins and outs of your fellow earthly neighbors and their bathroom habit’s.
Have you ever peed in the shower?
Almost 75 percent of poll-takers have.
Let’s start with a few facts: Toilet flushing accounts for almost 27 percent of indoor water use in a home. The amount used per flush ranges from a gallon in eco-friendly models to a whopping seven in older types. Where are we going with this? We beseech you: Save water. Save the planet! Pee in the shower! OK, we won’t insist. But it isn’t really that gross. Unless you have an infection, urine is sterile and nontoxic. Proponents of “urine therapy” even believe it can help treat athlete’s foot. Heck, Dr. Billy freely admits that he is a shameless shower squirter. http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/30646209/ns/today-today_health/t/peeing-shower-filthy-or-fine/#.UPxf2nwnxLk.twitter via @todayshow
If you noticed within this story they state that people who would practice this ritual would save water over every kind of toilet produced? An all-around good thing? But do we need to save more water with eco-friendly toilets, or produce even friendlier ones, coming in the near future? At least one country has taken the leadership role, the Netherlands? Story is as follows.
If only George Costanza had lived in the Netherlands. A city councilman in the town of Aa en Hunze is encouraging residents to pee in the shower in order to conserve water. Politician suggests going green by going yellow in the shower http://on-msn.com/13lIKWI via @msnNOW
If saving water is of top priority, why don’t we just go all in? Think of the savings with eliminating the toilet? The carbon foot print from the production facilities eliminated because the shower seems to be the answer? On the other hand think of all of those showers per day that people would take just to flush….. You know? So a rational person has to question the true savings in water consumption? Perhaps eliminating the shower then? For that same water savings, and carbon footprint savings to boot? We don’t all have to take daily showers do we? But we need to have access to the use of a toilet, and at times, several times per day. Just saying! But I thought that was just plain oblivious?
So if you must? Here are some fast and loose rules of the road in “Bathroom multitasking”.
One must only urinate in his or her own shower.
One should wait until the water is flowing.
One should only urinate in her shower when there are absolutely no drainage problems. If your shower collects standing water, do your very best to refrain from peeing into it. I don’t know why since urine is technically very sterile, but it just feels gross. (And yes, apparently that is where I draw the line.) Besides do you know just how hard it is to aim for that little hole in the floor? You probable already do know, if tried it?
Do not urinate in the bath.
One must never urinate in the shower at the gym. Just way this rule, when I have already said and it is true …”urine is technically very sterile”, you have to accept that it is gross to stand in someones elses puddle.
One must never urinate in the shower when a houseguest. see the above rule…
One should try very hard not to urinate in a shower shared with roommates. this is obvious! But if it is a request by said roommate or roommates, you may want to question motives?
One must never urinate in the shower when bathing with another person. Unless, of course, it’s by request. Still questioning motives here as well.
Never urinate in the bath or the shower in a hotel.
Never poo in a shower, unless you have a plunger handy. That should be without saying, plunge away at the mess without standing in the shower. Unless you’re at a hotel, and it is checkout day. But really think about it first……
Just some rules of the road, of course if you’re willing, and ready to become more yellow then green? Remember going green has some extra work to it, in saving the planet that is. A trade-off has to be realized then, and you’re compliance if you’re unwilling, will also become more of a future regulation passed by some government agency? How they are going to know if you’re complying with these new reg’s is well…… let’s just say big brother is going to enforce them. If you get my drift. I’m personally hoping this becomes a reality long after I have peed my last though. Big brother and I don’t agree much!
The only other option for saving water, and going to the bathroom at the same time, is to stop drinking so much water, soda pop, beer, and any other liquid where water is the main source or ingredient. This way you’ll go less to the bathroom, flush less, and there is less demand for liquid products, less pressure on natures water supplies as well. All for leaving more water with nature where it belongs. At least according to those who are ultra-green. If we don’t start saving water soon we will all have a future of bathing in recycled water/sewage, and the beer made of it…. I don’t need to mention why we should just start peeing in the shower then, if you get my mental picture right? Or is this just to far, on the wrong side of things?
But then I have faith and a strong belief in the human ingenuity able to work out these problems for some kind of improved future. Because a future of recycling water (and you can pick the way this will be accomplished in your mental mind’s eye) isn’t really moving forward as a society, that is also at the top of its innovation game. Going green with recycling water or peeing in the shower has some kind of resemblance of a third world modern recreation, with some modern conveniences thrown in for good measure.
So would you? Could you? What other inconveniences would you put up with, all to satisfy some unrealistic God complex, that man can save totally, what we for the most part don’t, and can’t 100% completely effect by mans actions, or can be totally control by them?