41 posts tagged “opinion”

The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way.
--Bertrand Russell

While trying to come up with something to write about today, I visited a quote site where I found the quote above.  The first thing that popped into my mind was that of religion.   Wars have been fought over differences of opinion about religion and evangelicals of different faiths, particularly Christianity, attempt to convert others to their faith, believing that uniformity of belief to be a worthy goal to strive for.  Not merely content to share their beliefs with those who ask, some attempt to enforce their beliefs by changing laws to conform to such beliefs, while more extreme members of various religions will use literal force to impose their beliefs on others in what they believe is service to their faith.

In contrast, I read an entry on Wilford Tibbetts' blog today about the Amish.  Unlike many religious people, whose faith is largely a matter of securing their ticket to heaven, for the Amish, their faith isn't merely a belief, it's a lifestyle.  The Amish do not proselytize or spend a lot of time talking about their faith; they quietly live it, while content to allow their neighbors to live according to whatever beliefs they have.  They are content to coexist peacefully with their neighbors with different beliefs and lifestyles and have no desire to impose their beliefs on others.

It's too bad that more religious people don't follow the example of the Amish.

Most of us were raised to believe that any sort of self-pity is an emotion that must be avoided like the plague. We were taught that when someone asks, "How are you?", we are to reply "Fine", regardless of our actual circumstances. It didn't matter whether we just lost our job, our mother just died, and our house burned down all in the space of a week; "Fine" was still the only appropriate response.

But why?

Self-pity is merely another way of saying "compassion for the self". It is an understandable emotion when times are tough, especially for a prolonged time, a way of acknowledging that we deserve better. Having to smile, smile, smile in the face of disaster is a form of denial, pollyannaism.

If we can never feel sorry for ourselves, that is, have any compassion for ourselves, then how can we feel it for others? Like charity, compassion begins at home.

Sometimes feeling sorry for ourselves can spur us into a "I'm mad and not going to take it any longer" mode that makes us work to change what we can about our situations. But there are many shitty situations we can't change by ourselves, or at all, and it's unrealistic to expect someone to always feel glad in such an instance.

Of course, when self-pity becomes entrenched and becomes a way of life that immobilizes a person from attempting to help themselves, it has gotten out of hand and should be overcome.

But not all compassion for the self is like this. Most of the time, if a person allows themselves to acknowledge thoughts of self pity, it will eventually run its course and the person will move on.

I imagine I'm going to get hammered on this one, as what I've said goes against conventional wisdom, but this is how I see it.

I've noticed that our society gets hung up on trendy buzzwords, which are used to death for a period of time, then slowly disappear only to be replaced by the latest buzz word du jour.

When a word or a phrase is hot, one will encounter it everywhere: in want ads, names of businesses, product names, hear it on TV, and so on.

One of the more recent trendy buzz word seems to be "solutions". As if everything in life is to be viewed as a problem that one must find a "solution" for.

I've seen an employment agency listed in the want ads called "Staffing Solutions". I've also encountered, "Hair Solutions", "Breakfast Solutions", "Landscape Solutions", and the like.

Entering "solutions" at the Yahoo search engine brought up, among many others:

Ecommerce Solutions

Network Solutions

Privacy Solutions

Solutions for Your Home

Google Business Solutions

Climate Solutions

And so on, ad nauseum.

I remember back in the early 80s, one of the buzz words then was "interface". I'd see this word constantly in want ads, as in "Must interface well with others". Mercifully, this trend did not last long, and we no longer see "interface" used as a synonym for "get along with".

I imagine that "solutions" will have an equally short lifespan of trendiness, when it will be inevitably replaced by the latest inane banality.

Most people by now have heard of the justice of the peace in Louisiana who recently refused to marry an interracial couple.  When I first heard the news, it boggled my mind, as I could not imagine such a thing happening anywhere in the United States in 2009.  I'm not at all surprised that such racism still exists now, but it was a shock to see such an overt expression of it.  One would think that he would be well aware of the Supreme Court decision of 1967 which made interracial marriage legal in all fifty states.

The judge, Keith Bardwell, said, "I don't do interracial marriages because I don't want to put children in a situation they didn't bring on themselves.  In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer."  Yeah, they might grow up to be, oh, President of the United States or something.

He added that he came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, Bardwell is also of the opinion that that most interracial marriages do not last long.

My disgust for his racist attitudes aside, what business of his is it to speculate on how long any individual marriage will last, regardless of race or any other characteristics, or to predict how any children born of that union will fare?  He's a justice of the peace, not a social critic or a psychiatrist/psychologist, and it's his job to conduct marriage ceremonies for anyone who requests it who meet the legal requirements, regardless of his personal opinions.   If he will not perform a legal function of his office, then he needs to find another line of work.

Thoughts?

"Men need respect, women need love".

I've heard this assertion from the pop psychologist crowd more times than I'd care to mention. Their underlying point is that men and women differ so profoundly as to be almost two different species.

What a load of BS.

I'm not going to go into a long discussion of sex differences here, as that would take many entries and open a can of worms I'm not willing to attempt to recan at this time, but I'll confine myself to this single assertion.

The above statement is made in the context of intimate personal relationships at a committed level. Though I'm no big expert in committed relationships, to be sure, there are a few things that are fairly obvious to me that conflict with this assertion.

Women do indeed need love in a committed relationship. That is so obvious as to not need mentioning. But what is love without respect? A woman who is loved by a man who doesn't equally respect her is in an unhealthy relationship. Love without respect isn't love at all.

As far as men go, yes, we most definitely need respect. But if I were in a committed relationship, I'd certainly expect to be loved, otherwise, what's the point of the commitment?

I neither expect nor necessarily desire undying love in my many casual relationships, nor is a high level of respect expected. But if I were in a long term commitment where the woman merely respected me without loving me, it might as well be a business relationship.

Love and respect. Two equal sides of the coin. For both men and women.

And, by the way, I am from Earth. I expect my women to be from Earth. To hell with this Mars and Venus shit.

I woke up this morning to find that President Obama has been awarded the Nobel Prize, which left me scratching my head.

Don't get me wrong, I voted for the guy and think he shows a lot of promise.   But I think it's premature, to say the least, to award him such a prize so early in his administration.   I am sure there are others who deserve it more at this particular point in time.   I'd been under the impression that the prize was awarded on the basis of actual accomplishments, rather than on the hope of promise.

It's quite possible that in a few years, Obama would rightly deserve the prize on the basis of accomplishment, but awarding it now makes me wonder if he's being given the award mainly because he's not George Bush.

Nevertheless, it's going to be amusing watching the indignant reactions from the far right wingnuts, as they get their collective boxers/panties in a wad while they froth at the mouth.

I haven't done a language rant in awhile, so here goes.

The offense of the day is:

"Alot"

This spelling abomination is used by people to mean "a lot".  It's a mistake I didn't see years ago, even by people with generally atrocious spelling and grammar.  It apparently is a fairly "new" mistake, that I'm seeing more and more.  And what makes "alot" different from other language errors, is that I'm seeing it used more often by people who generally don't make frequent spelling and grammar mistakes.

I've often wondered why people in increasing numbers have started to run the two words "a lot" together.  First, let's look at the definition of the phrase "a lot".

A lot

Very many, a large number; also, very much. For example, A lot of people think the economy is declining, or Sad movies always made her cry a lot. It is sometimes put as a whole lot for greater emphasis, as in I learned a whole lot in his class. It may also emphasize a comparative indication of amount, as in We need a whole lot more pizza to feed everyone, or Mary had a lot less nerve than I expected. [Colloquial; early 1800s]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer.
Copyright © 1997. Published by Houghton Mifflin.

Is it that they don't understand what a word "lot" means?  Here's a couple of definitions of the word "lot" that relate to the phrase "a lot":

Lot

a piece of land having the use specified by the attributive noun or adjective: a parking lot; a used-car lot.

a distinct portion or parcel of anything, as of merchandise: The furniture was to be auctioned off in 20 lots.

a number of things or persons collectively: There's one more, and that's the lot.

Often, lots. a great many or a great deal: a lot of books; lots of money.

I'm guessing that they're confusing "a lot" with the bona fide word, "allot", which is a verb that has an entirely different meaning from "a lot":

Allot

to divide or distribute by share or portion; distribute or parcel out; apportion: to allot the available farmland among the settlers.

to appropriate for a special purpose: to allot money for a park.

to assign as a portion; set apart; dedicate.

Personally, I think the rise of "alot" has quite a bit to do with the fact that increasingly fewer people read regularly, so they are spelling "by ear", rather than imitating what they've seen in print.

So ends the spelling lesson of the day.

The other night I was changing stations while listening to the radio in the car.  I happened upon a station where they were talking about a survey of Americans who had been married at least once and it said that out of that groups, 76% had been married only once, 20% had been married twice, and only 5% had been married three or more times.  A spokesman for the religious right group, Focus on the Family, said that the results were proof positive that most Americans still believe in and supported "biblical marriage".

Feel free to roll your eyes now.

Before I comment I on the faulty logic surrounding this conclusion, I have to point out that Christians didn't invent marriage; that marriage existed well before the Abrahamic religions did.  One should also be aware that there's more than one kind of marriage mentioned in the Bible.  So one would have to ask "Which type of so-called 'biblical marriage' are you talking about?"

But let us return to the original faulty assumptions made here.

First of all, the 76% of people who had been married once in their lifetimes were not necessarily currently married -- they'd just been married only once in their lives.  This included widowed and divorced people, as well as the currently married.  

It's quite possible that many of those not currently married may have simply chosen to live with any subsequent romantic partners and decided not to involve the government or the church in any new relationships.  In other words, such people remaining legally single had nothing to do with any adherence to fundamentalist ideas about marriage.  Similarly, there are no doubt many others who hadn't found another partner yet at the time of the survey, but who are open to being married again.

Secondly, out of the 25% who have been married more than once, this includes widowed people who have married again.  Are these FotF fundamentalists saying that it's "unChristian" to be married more than once regardless of circumstances?  I'm guessing that quite a number of religious people would beg to differ on this point.

Third, it would seem to me that many people who have a string of failed marriages and have several divorces under their belts have a misplaced belief in the institution of marriage and would do better not involving the legal system in their personal, intimate relationships in the first place.  Marriage doesn't fit everyone and there's no shame in that. 

Using myself as an example, I've only been legally married once, but they're definitely barking up the wrong tree if they think I'm a supporter of "biblical marriage".   I'm one of those people in the third category who is better off remaining legally unencumbered, as marriage as it is currently understood is a bad fit for my non-monogamous, libertine lifestyle.  Unlike those who have several marriages and divorces under their belts, I learned my lesson the first time.

Thoughts?