Composing a Life. By Mary Catherine Bateman

Comment on:

Composing a Life. By Mary Catherine Bateman

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0452265053/storycirclenetwo


Mrs. Bateman has a way of writing that comes across as
scholarly and intelligent, and at the same time is
familiar and friendly. She writes and comments of
things we can all associate with. Taken as a
self-help book, I could not agree with many ideas and
ideals that she seems to be presenting. Nor can I
agree with some of her suppositions, that are
sometimes hidden within her stories.

Read as a muse, biography, or just for fun, I found
the content and presentation somewhat entertaining.
However, as she weaves a tale, I found that sometimes
she interjects an allusion, proposition, or conclusion
that is presented to “make sense” based on the facts
presented, but that I really needed to catch myself in
order to realize it is just her opinion, her argument,
and may be very wrong.

The concept of the first chapter takes, to me, the
idea that improvisation should free us from judging
our lives based on society’s ideal of success; and
frees us to decide for ourselves what is fulfilling in
our own lives. I must respectfully point out the
dangers of this thought process.

Pg 2: “Many of the most basic concepts we use to
construct a sense of self or the design of a life have
changed their meanings: Work. Home. Love. Commitment.”
The author’s overall proposition of composing a life
using improvisation is intriguing. However, I feel in
doing this she tries to assert that it is okay to
justify any cognitive dissonance we chance to feel
over any of our personal perceived wrong-doing or
failure by choosing to re-define what is wrong, or
what is failure. Thus, she seems to suggest it’s okay
to compose a life that is self-centered, self-serving
and self-gratifying where external obligations,
traditional or personal ideals and commitments can be
changed on a whim. Improvisation can be a necessary
component in composing life, but I believe there are
ideals, traditional values, and responsibilities that
should not be compromised or ignored. Accepting the
consequences of ones actions are the hallmark of
freedom of choice.

Pg6 “In fact, assumptions about careers are not unlike
those about marriage; the real success stories are
supposed to permanent and monogamous.”
In realizing that due to circumstances beyond our
personal control, personal ideals about career and
marriage do not always meet our expectations. This is
absolutely no reason to abandon an ideal about
marriage, or career. Nor is it any reason to abstain
from teaching our children traditional family ideals
that are the fabric of a successful society and a
successful, fulfilling life.

Pg9 “We must invest time and passion in specific goals
and yet at the same time acknowledge that these are
mutable.” To me, the flavor surrounding this concept
seems to suggest it’s okay to find a cop-out, and
break a personal commitment. I think this is
dangerous thinking if the commitment involves those
who are close to you.


I dashed through the middle chapters that followed
life's journey of 5 different woman. These woman are
not Jane Doe's of society, and lived very unique
lives. The stories are told retrospectively, and they
kind of plod along through the chapters (ala Ernest
Hemmingway). I found them hard to follow at times
without more careful reading. As a result, I found it
difficult as a reader to share their experiences. The
author also occasionally interjects personal
perspectives, which disturbed me a little. I found
myself more wanting to share in their stories without
methodically being forced to analyze and find
meaningful purposes for both their unfortunate and
intentional events.

The concluding chapters wrap up in the twilight-ish
period of the woman's lives, where the author displays
her almost finished portraits of their lives and then
uses them in the exercise to create the portrait of
her own life. I think there is much that is inspiring
and uplifting about the book. The greatest lesson I
learned is that if you understand the different and
changing roles you play, your dynamic commitments, and
evolving and de-volving priorities, you can find ways
to work within them to find self-fulfillment and you
can achieve altruistic or life-long ambitions, and
these things do not have to be accepted as repressive
limitations in the big "portrait" of your life.

But, like much in entertainment media these days, you
get the bad with the good. I felt the conclusions of
the author exemplify the current attititude of
post-modernism, where the universe revolves around the
rights of the individual. Her attitude in the book
comes across as anti-establishment, anti-authority,
and anti-religion. Though post-modernistic ideals are
popular in society today, I believe many are an
obvious illness to our society and culture.

Sometimes I felt the author blurred the consequences
of misfortune along with those that the character's
brought on themselves. As if it's okay to do wrong,
exercise poor judgment, or offend those around you
then toss away remorse as long as you gain experience,
insight, or some personal growth or advancement. One
VERY obvious thing I think the author failed to point
out in her intensive study of her process of finding
one's self: I believe the 5 woman in the book truly
found themselves when they weren't looking for it or
pursuing it. The most pleasing aspects of their
life-portraits were detailed at those times when they
were completely caught up in serving those around
them.

Overall, I cannot recommend this book.

If There Never Were Nine Planets, My Horoscope is Skewed

From the LA Times today:

"...astronomers meeting in Prague, Czech Republic decided the rocky ball of ice on the outer edge of the solar system was too small and insubstantial to merit inclusion with the other eight planets.

"Members of the International Astronomical Union voted nearly unanimously to demote Pluto to "dwarf planet" status, a new category that also includes the large asteroid Ceres and the recently discovered Kuiper Belt object UB313."

We've known for a little while that there were either always only eight planets, or more than nine. In the same class as Pluto, there are at least 2 other heavenly bodies identified that have at least an equal significance in our system's realm of "planets."

So, why does astrology place destiny-guiding significance on Pluto, and all the while ignore these others? How can I have confidence that luck is on my side because Pluto is far from Aries, if I now know that another unknown heavenly body of equal substance as Pluto is driving right accross it?

Shamans and Scientists: The Medical Science Wars

In much the same way that ancient societies often turned to the Shaman or another religious figurehead for support, direction, and advice, our society today increasingly turns to the scientist to lend support for a cause, answer questions, solve problems, or provide direction. Today, no other industry uses the Shaman-like influence of scientists more than does the practice of medicine. The market for selling wellness is rich. While being bombarded daily by science that is trying to convince us of how we can or should feel, do we stop to consider whether it is the services of a scientist or that of a Shaman that we truly desire? What do we expect science to do for us, or for society? Do we desire a pill to make us feel better, or a system of understanding about what makes us feel the way we feel?

Remembering the Sokal Hoax

Founded in 1979, the academic journal Social Text embraced ideas of radical politics and controversial views and, by 1996, had a readership base of a few hundred elite academics. The Spring 1996 issue of Social Text was devoted to a study of the so-called 'Science Wars' between the physical sciences, and the humanities or social sciences. In this issue was an article by an unlikely contributor, a New York University physics professor, Alan Sokal, titled: "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity." The point of the article's argument was that the (perhaps abstract) scientific concept of 'quantum gravity' would free scientists from the tyranny of 'absolute truth' and 'objective reality.'

On the day that the Spring issue of Social Text appeared in print, Sokal published a letter in the academic trade publication Lingua Franca stating that “Any competent physicist or mathematician (or undergraduate physics or math major) would realize that it [his Social Text article] is a spoof." The letter ridiculed "how readily they [Social Text] accepted my implication that the search for truth in science must be subordinated to a political agenda." Sokal, speaking of how his article exploited the lack of scientific logic used by Social Text academics wrote:

“I also employed some other strategies that are well-established (albeit sometimes inadvertently) in the genre: appeals to authority in lieu of logic; speculative theories passed off as established science; strained and even absurd analogies; rhetoric that sounds good but whose meaning is ambiguous; and confusion between the technical and everyday senses of English words.”

Commentary about the incident raged for several months in published scientific debate, spurred on by some apparent non-acceptance by the editors of Social Text to admit they were duped in publishing the Sokal article. Perhaps to Social Text, admission that they were duped was not important in the context of their cause. After all, they might argue it’s more important to recognize that other theories about the nature of science exist, even if some of them are silly or are discovered to be wrong.

Stanley Aronowitz, former Social Text editor, had the following comments: http://physics.nyu.edu/~as2/aronowitz.html

“What it [our increasing dependence of science] means is that scientific knowledge is not immune from broad cultural or narrow political influences and its methods cannot function as a filter. Cultural change, as much as internal debate among scientists, contributes to science -- social and natural -- as an evolving activity; what the scientific communities believe to be the case today may be revised, even refuted tomorrow. And, reasonably, logically, this must include the most accepted propositions. If this is so, and science reflects on the social and cultural influences, on its visions, revisions and its practices, and perhaps more to the point, on its commitments, then there is hope for a liberatory science.”

In an afterward, Sokal’s comments included the following:
http://physics.nyu.edu/~as2/afterword_v1a/afterword_v1a_singlefile.html

“…But they [public-policy or social, economic, political, cultural and ideological factors] have no effect whatsoever on the underlying scientific questions: whether atoms (and silicon crystals, transistors and computers) really do behave according to the laws of quantum mechanics (and solid-state physics, quantum electronics and computer science).”

Aranowitz may suggest that because how scientists interpret effects and observations about nature is greatly influenced by social and cultural biases, their conclusions should not be set up as scientifically indisputable. Scientists should be willing let go of even the most fundamental scientific theories in a search for greater understanding. Further, scientists shouldn’t have to use a supposed established scientific premise as a basis for new understanding, or even depend on current tools for observation to achieve a more pure description.

Sokal, on the other hand, may argue that regardless of the influences, practical observation and understanding leads to application of scientific theory to a useful end for society. Practical application also leads to further understanding. Whereas society and culture may drive the direction of science, the empiric knowledge gained is not changeable by either one.

Although the “Sokal Hoax,” as it came to be called, may have appeared to give a black-eye to the academics advocating the scientific ideals of Social Text, it has defined what they had described as the Science Wars. So, in that respect, it was a Social Text victory for legitimacy of their views of science. There was really no clear winner, and a debate over what is important about the nature and use of science lives on.

Relativistic versus Purist Science

As the Sokal Hoax demonstrated, the schism among scientists lies within a basic scientific philosophy. There is what could be called purist science that is perhaps more concerned with discovering a pill to make you feel better. Relativistic science, on the other hand, could be the term to describe the emphasis on discovering and manipulating what influences our feeling better. An advocate of relativistic science will put the greater emphasis on understanding science as a social and cultural process and entity, much like Shamanism or religion of past cultures. The advocate of purist science emphasizes understanding science as nature and physical processes in order to discover practical applications for humankind.

Physicists and mathematicians usually delve into the purist science. Perhaps like Sokal, they have a rigid definition of science and put priority on using objective testing and the scientific method. They attempt to control or calculate for every variable, and to eliminate any human influence of data in order to reach valuable scientific conclusions.

The other type of scientist is described as more relativist, and involve many (but not all) social scientists as perhaps were the editors of Social Text. Rather than eliminate the human variable, they attempt to use it to make their findings more useful. They might argue that since science is ultimately done by and for humankind, trying to remove the human variable from science is not only impossible but renders the end product less valuable.

The War

Given the same scientific challenge, the purist scientist and relativist scientist will likely come up with different data sets, have different theories based on different (not necessarily opposing) conclusions, and predict different phenomena. The Science War is about the legitimacy, validity, and usefulness of the alternative conclusions, which are ultimately based on a difference of scientific philosophy.

The Shamanistic ideal that our society seems to expect of medical science is fertile battleground for the two types of science. Should scientists focus on finding a pharmacologic agent to reduce an “epidemic of obesity?” Or, should scientists focus on discovering what “obesity” truly means in our society and create strategies for improving public health associated with weight? How should scientists address or respond to social issues surrounding the epic use of psychotropic drugs in children? Who should decide what treatments health insurance or Medicare covers: the practitioner or payor? How should scientists respond to the rising costs associated with science and technology in health care, and the inequality in its availability to the masses? To each of these challenges, purist and relativist scientific ideals will accordingly emphasize the importance of different points and formulate different strategies.

Evidence Based Medicine and its Antagonists

Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) is a term being heard more and more. EBM is perhaps a purist view and practice of medicine that is based on what we can conclude using the scientific method. The gold standard for EBM is the randomized controlled trial (RCT), which is a scientific study that attempts to account for the especially human variables that are seen to confuse data in a scientific analysis. The ultimate goal of the RCT is to be able to accurately predict how a medical intervention will impact the health of the individual. The objective of EBM is to identify the value, or the benefits as compared to the risks and costs, of using any medical intervention.

There are medical practitioners, scholars, and professional medical organizations that give little credence to the practice of EBM. They advocate a more relativistic view of medical science. Akin to the academics of Social Text, they disagree with rigid definitions within the practice of science in medicine for a more broad view of what constitutes health and wellness. They are more prone to use terms like holistic medicine, natural medicine, or alternative medicine.

The ideals of what is important within these two views of medical science are radically different. Whereas better health is the common goal, the EBM purist may place more importance of demonstrating wellness, while the medical relativist may put more importance on feeling better. For example, practitioners with a more purist philosophy will advocate that treatment of back pain focus on the apparent physiologic pathology within the anatomy that’s creating the pain. The more relativist practitioner will focus on all factors that may influence the individual’s perception of pain in an attempt to custom formulate an effective individual treatment regimen.

Trench Warfare

In contrast to the battle waged only among the purist and relativist scientists of the Sokal Hoax, the science wars in medicine are a kind of trench warfare where the battles mostly involve non-scientists and are often over public or social policy. Consider the purist versus relativist approaches or attitudes toward the following issues, as they have to do with medical science:

Nearly every recognized professional medical organization advocates routine childhood vaccination based on consensus of scientific analysis of data. The American Chiropractic Association, however, officially states that individuals should have the freedom of choice to not immunize themselves or their children, and provides speculative comments about the legitimacy of the scientific data and how it was used to instigate government vaccination programs without a complete understanding of safety.

Research scientists continue to be at the forefront of the stem-cell debate when the debated issues more keenly impact political influences and cultural values.

The State of Washington's health commissioner is an elected, versus appointed position.

Alaska almost passed a law that Naturopaths can be primary care providers (i.e., gatekeepers for Medicare patients access to coverage.)

Government funding of the Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine within the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is both criticized and praised by scientists

Who’s Winning?

Over the last several years there has become a strong influence of EBM in our society’s approach to medical care. The FDA demands RCT's for new medications, and health insurance companies use scientifically formulated technology assessments as a guide to insurance coverage. Society has placed value in having a mathematical prediction versus basing health decisions on apparent opinions or consensus. Society has made it a priority to try to understand whether or not any chosen health intervention will cause more harm than better health, and to determine a way to place a value on care in a communally-funded health care system. An EBM approach has provided a means for society to find answers that are convincingly applicable to a majority.

Advocates of a more relativist approach to medicine will view EBM as ignoring the unique needs of the individual. Practitioners and scientists who subscribe to a more relativist-based approach to medicine use similar strategies that the academic relativists of Social Text used in order to counter the emphasis that society has placed on EBM. They publish scientific journals on MEDLINE. They discredit RCT's and the practical value of structured medical studies. They accuse the FDA’s actions as biased and mock the social standing of EBM advocates, while claiming their own view toward medical science is just as pure, and more practical. They point out how much the purists do not, and cannot know about the cause and effect relationships of their rigorous studies, and how their “placebo effect” tends to cure more ills than their pills.

Who Will Win?

Despite EBM’s proven ability to provide society with quantitative answers about costs and effectiveness, the plain nature of purist science (for instance, the scientific method of merely proving the negative, Popperian theory, and such) doesn't lend itself or its proponents as decisively authoritarian as were the Shamans of old. An apparent cold and callused, mere prediction is not always what society wants to hear.

The edge for the purists of EBM is that the capitalistic nature of our social healthcare system cannot in wisdom base financial decisions without a sense of mathematically valid data. Therefore, the purists of EBM currently have most of the money, or at least more credibility among those with the money.

The subtle edge that the relativists have is that they may be better able to see how science drives public policy and social attitude, and are more capable of using this to their advantage. They are better able to influence the masses and direct the mob, so to speak. Perhaps they better understand the role of the Shamans of old.

Conversely, the bane of the medical relativists, as Sokal very well demonstrated, is that their scientific views or conclusions can't maintain the intellectual integrity that they very often portray. There is some tendency that their scientific suppositions and theories of cause and effect, much like the ancient Shamans, often require an allowance for the existence of the super-natural, can be mathematically shown to be essentially implausible, or simply boil down to a jargon of pseudo-science similar to Sokal’s spoof article in Social Text.

The medical science war continues to wage on within our courtrooms, legislative sessions, campaign trials, and budget meetings. The medical science wars will be won by whatever point of view best provides that which society demands (or is perceived to demand) of its system of healthcare. Should society demand the socially influenced answers of a Shaman, it will seek out a relativist. Should society require the cold hard predictions of a scientist, it will look to a purist. More likely than not, society will take the answer that suits the current need, and then sell it as either the relativistic feel-good choice, or the purist’s mathematically calculated best choice, or both, regardless of from which side it originates.

To the Victor go the Spoils

It is an understatement to say that there is much at stake in the medical science war. The influence that medical science has on markets, public and social policy, and the power it has in commerce threaten to totally alienate the true purpose of the original intent. The actual health and well-being of humankind becomes all but lost to ulterior motives and money-based agendas. This insight can cause anyone to become dismayed at the prospect of being misled or cheated in any personal attempt to rid oneself of disease, or to surrender any altruistic ideals of creating a healthier society. However, one must not loose sight of the ability to understand the motives behind the participants in the medical science wars, and true intent of medical science to improve health.

There is an epic individual obligation in choosing a relativistic approach or a purist approach to any given medical science issue. In making the choice, it is important to remember that the basic difference between the two resides in philosophy that may be based on an ideal of what is right or wrong, or for better or for worse. Given the situation, does the decision require the advice of a respected Shaman or relativist, or that of a scientific purist? Is the true hope for a pill to make one thin, or a better understanding of obesity? Is the true priority the feel-good approach to coping with cancer, or the best way to rid a tumor from the body? This kind of inner understanding can challenge some long-held beliefs, but is essential in making the proper choice.

The second obligation in making a choice is to understand how answers are presented, and the influences, motives and integrity of anyone with an answer. The decision-making individual must learn and recognize marketing psychology, fallacies of logic, and human tendencies. A part of this is to recognize how both one’s own common sense and emotions can be manipulated equally as well as scientifically derived statistics to wrongly convince a point.
The individual’s, and therefore society’s understanding of science from a contrasting relativistic and a purist point of view ultimately drives how medicine is practiced. Only through wise understanding of science and how it is used can the individual avoid adverse influences and pitfalls inherent in the marketing and commerce of medicine. Thus, there is a tall order for knowledge demanded upon the individual consumer of health care if society is to continue to advance its overall health.

Copywritten

website: writersontheloose.com

Ode to the WOTL

On a lazy afternoon surfing the Web
I Googled some words, hoping to be led
to intelligent insight on the days events
or a fresh take rather than the same old rants

Instead I found something unique, I thought
No pop-ups, selling something it's not
The pages are beige, the topics diverse
"I'll stay awhile, I could do worse"

What is this site called WOTL?
Google hit it, but it may just as well
be one of those freaky fringe groups on Yahoo
or some would-be bloggers with nothin' better to do

"Writers" it says, "columns" and "comments"
It sounded easy, simple, and to make sense
But there seemed plenty of critisism and blather
in comments to the cut-n-pasted "columns" of each other

I returned next day, I don't know why
On second look there, I decided to try
my own post, er, "column" of wisdom and wit
Then I stayed and browsed other "writers" a bit

Who are these people, I asked again?
Their words and bios I began to scan
Some seem okay, talented and sincere
Overall, a friendly place they have here

There are the keyboard happy, they type outloud
and those who simply chat with heads in a cloud
Some go on to the beat of their own drum
Hey, where did all these Mormons come from?

Alas, however, my journey's at an end
No one with a fifty will donate or lend
I, for one, am no longer free or "loose"
to author my own ravings, ponderings or muse

Good bye, all, but no so long
I'll continue to lurk and comment as long
as Lonsberry and all the rest of you
humor me with intelligence in the columns you do

dras nawledge

Tribute to a lover of Cowboy Poetry

I know him from letters sent home from a war
To a beautiful woman with baby child in care
"A family man I’ll be" he promised her then,
And a family man he ever was once he saw her again.
I know him from the tales of his life I’ve been told
The smallest part of all he was I can’t possibly know.
About a farmer, an inventor, a fine wood craftsman,
An artist, an entrepreneur, a carpenter, a businessman.

I know him from a child’s most fond memories
Of a house on a rivershore, surrounded by tall grass and high trees.
In the living room, soft shag carpet beneath a friendly grandfather clock.
In the bedroom, "loaded guns with hair triggers in a cabinet with no lock."
Fine aromas of apple cider, candied popcorn and canned apricots in season
Mingling with smells of sawdust and oil paints wasn’t bad for some reason
Outside, as the dogs chase and the rabbits timidly hide
There is splashing and exploring under the afternoon shade.

Later, the locust compete with the Virgin River’s song
And the Watchman catches fire when the day’s almost gone.
Then back inside around the chair with footrest raised
There is chatter and laughter and many an admiring gaze
Up at bright blue eyes that would twinkle like stars all the while
But would quickly burst even brighter at every frequent smile.
"No Santa is coming," he’d tease with a cheer,
"I got him with a shotgun on my roof way last year."

Scarred knuckles, callused palms, fingernails all cracked and bruised
Were badges of honor and valor given to him by the tools that he used.
Hammers, planes, lathe, a wall decorated with saws
Coffee cans full of router bits, wooden dowels, and awls
These and more were all there for those skilled hands to create
In a magical workshop amid wondrous sounds and shimmering light
Dozens of little chairs, tables, babycribs; his toy guns were the best.
All finely crafted and painted to withstand a grandchild’s worst test.

I know him from the big family reunions we all shared
Blue Levis, a grand broad smile, cowboy hat on silver head.
He was the one who would get me to know
The bitter taste of pine gum and how to whittle a whistle from willow.
At night ‘round the campfire his eyes brightly reflecting each spark
And in a storyteller’s voice, clear and calm he would start
To tell tales of places and long past things both done and seen
His voice in the cool mountain air carried us off in his dream.

I know him from many trips to the Park over the years.
Good friends still talk about all those grand adventures.
Park entry and inner tubes with seats of his own design and making
He would cordially provide us without even our asking.
"Don’t let the Rangers tell you you can’t use ‘em," he’d say
"Start up high near the Narrows, you can float all the way."
North, on the drive home we picnic stop at a campus plaza
Around a sculpture whose features are uncannily familiar.

I know him even though I’m growing with age
And all of these memories begin to dim and to fade.
I’ve my own family now, my own child to rear.
I’m sad that we no longer have Grandfather near.
He has left us, for now, we will miss him for sure.
Those twinkling blue eyes, how I long to see them once more.
Though Grampa’s not here (he’s in a much better place)
I can see his twinkling blue eyes in my own son’s bright face.

Copywritten

Captain Kirk’s Star Trek: The most/least racist television series of all time

The core crew of the Enterprise consisted of 2 White Americans, 1 Western European, 1 Eastern European, 1 Asian, 1 African American, and 1 alien. With Spock, the alien, excluded, this is an adequate representation of human cross-culture where traditional racist mores would be expected and obvious. Instead we see no distinction created or inferred based on any of the character’s ethnic heritage. Scottie is quite obviously a Scotsman and has even been seen in kilt, but is accepted by all as having no equal in the engine room, nor as a lesser choice for third in command. Sulu, the Asian, navigates the Enterprise, and is subject to the same dangers and fate as his non-Asian shipmates. The fact that he is non-white is rarely, arguable never, pointed out at all. During the series, Chekov must have represented the enemy of the Cold War to television viewers. He even speaks with a thick Russian accent bordering on a speech impediment. Is Chekov ever looked down on, excluded, or singled out? Never. O’hura, besides being the only female, is black. Many character interactions with O’hura border on sexism, but that’s the point. There is never a color issue. In contrast, the white American ship’s doctor, “Bones” McCoy, is the only member with a nickname, and is the only one with a conflicting temperament. Now there is Spock, the alien. In many episodes his alien heritage, including the fact that he is half-human, is the focus of conflict. In a sense, Spock serves to represent any or all those of a minority ethnic culture and the struggles they face in being inherently different than the majority in several ways. A major focus of the series as a whole was not only the successful struggle undertaken by Spock in these matters, but by the majority as well. Always a happy, resolved outcome following any Spock-versus-Human conflict. So, not only did Kirk’s Star Trek demonstrate a non-racist human society, but also served to teach us, through the alien, Spock, how the Utopia would be achieved.

Captain Kirk’s Star Trek unabashedly thrust stereotypical racism into American households during its tenure. Captain Kirk, the self-serving, dominating white-American hero (from Idaho no less) led a band of rubber-stamped subservient ethnic minorities including a Western European, an Eastern European, an Asian, and an African American. Each character is cast into a proper mold befitting common racist sentiment. Scottie, the Scotsman (how trite) is loud, quick to fib, and rumored to have a weakness for liquor- is there a Scottish racist stereotype missed? Not since Mr. Bojangles has there been a portrayed character as repressed due to ethnicity than Mr. Sulu. Not doing unless he is told, never speaking unless spoken to. It’s not surprising the Asian was cast as the closest thing to a robot. Pitiful. Captain Kirk is not a big man, but be sure that Mr. Chekov, the Russian, is a full six inches shorter. Americans had nothing to fear of the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War, especially if the enemy were small and of slightly lower intelligence, as was Chekov. There is no more a sickening portrayal of racism on television than in the character of the sexy communications officer O’Hura. In order to omit the obvious fact that she is black, she is made into an inanimate object of lust. The BlackMan has been destroyed in Captain Kirk’s universe, and such is the lot of his woman. McCoy, the white ship’s doctor, carries unashamed prejudice and disdain toward the alien shipmate, Spock, who is really the only source of character conflict due to being “different.” This episode-to-episode conflict seems to suggest that if only Spock would himself realize his “place” as do the other ethnic minority characters, there would be no conflict.

Sign-on Names on the World Wide Web (www)

I don’t use my real name when posting to the www.

Actors have stage names, authors use pen names, truckers have handles. Even though these names are not actual, they still create and maintain an identity for the individuals using them.
Unfortunately, sign-on names used on the www have come to be used for the opposite effect. For the criminal, the anonymity of a www sign-on name offers immunity from retribution and escape from justice. For the psychopath it can become a means for living any personal delusion or fantasy. The immature use sign-on’s in a desperate game for attention. The coward can now be offensive, rude, accusatory, hateful, provocative, brash or abusive without fear of personal retaliation.

I don’t use my real name when posting to the www. Real names are used everyday by real people. People who have families, have titles, carry reputations, keep bank accounts, and make money transaction over the www. Real people have names that are shared with others by relation or happenstance. Names that are associated with corporations, products, political causes, and other individuals of notoriety.

Unfortunately, a real name that is available on the www can be associated with other information, tracked down and hacked-out to reveal personal information of a real individual. Character can be assassinated, accounts hacked into, personal property stolen, and security threatened. Real names can be usurped out of vice, or used by criminals to ruin both the good name and the individual it stands for.

Do know that the name you use for sign-on, whatever it may be, represents you as a person. Realize that whatever you type, whatever you submit represents who you truly are inside, regardless of whatever name you used at sign-on. Know who you are when you submit or post. Your posts create the real and true identity for yourself. Are you a psychopath, criminal, juvenile or coward? Or, are you a fellow human being, with some fault and ignorance, but without guile?

I don’t use my real name when posting to the www. But, what I submit is really me.

dras

How to know when you need out of the "No Spin Zone"

How to know when you’ve had enough “O’Reilly Factor”

(Reference: “Are You An Extremist?” Thursday, August 25, 2005. By Bill O'Reilly http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166709,00.html )

Bill O’Reilly wants you to know whether or not you an extremist, and listed the following bulleted questionnaire on “Talking Points."
But, we also want you to know when perhaps you’ve had too much Bill O’Reilly.

• If you think Michael Moore reports accurately, you're an extremist.
BUT, if you begin to believe Michael Moore can report nothing but purely fabricated lies – you may be getting too much O’Reilly.
• If you think the documentary "Outfoxed" tells the truth about this network, you're in the extreme zone.
But, if you think the documentary “Outfoxed” is a nothing but a jealous attack by a network that is losing face with the public due to news programs on the Fox network. – you may be getting too much O’Reilly.
• If you agree with Reverends Falwell and Robertson that gays and abortionists caused God to allow 9/11, you're an extremist.
But, if you begin to think a news topic is important (or newsworthy) only if it frequently mentions 9/11, gays, and/or abortionists– you may be getting too much O’Reilly.
• If you still think Terri Schiavo is aware of her surroundings, this extreme is for you.
But, it you start to think the Terry Schiavo story is absolutely the most influential event to happen in our society since 9/11– you may be getting too much O’Reilly.
• If you believe an open border is good for the USA, you have entered extreme territory.
But, if you agree that closing the US border is the simple solution to any associated issue or domestic problem– you may be getting too much O’Reilly.
• If you feel foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, and convicted child sex offenders should not serve long prison terms, say hello to the extremist label.
But, if you frequently use the words “foreign terrorists” and “convicted child offenders” in the same sentence when discussing the news– you may be getting too much O’Reilly.
• If you agree that Allah is OK with slaughtering civilians, you're extreme.
But, if you begin to believe that anyone with an “extreme” position on any one issue, is also someone who would be “OK with slaughtering civilians” – you may be getting too much O’Reilly.
• If you admire the philosophy of the Third Reich, you're there.
But, if you frequently bring up Nazism when discussing current domestic issues– you may be getting too much O’Reilly.
• And if you agree with everything President Bush has done, you're an extremist.
• And if you think everything he's done has been wrong, put a big 'E' on your forehead as well.
But, if you believe that every presidential action is always either right or wrong – you may be getting too much O’Reilly.
• And finally, if you applaud when Barbra Streisand talks geopolitics or when a right wing talk show host urges a nuclear strike on Iran, welcome to the wonderful world of extremism.
But, if you begin to believe and constantly fear that all society is wrought with “extremism” that plagues every footstep and threatens to destroy every personal contentment or bit of joy to be had in life – you may be getting too much O’Reilly.

-dras