Home

Don Gila's Thoughts and Questions

Recent Entries

You are viewing the most recent 20 entries.

31st March 2006

9:38am: ON SHEEP, WOLVES, AND SHEEPDOGS
This is a good read a little long but worth it. Some will say it's cheesy but theres more than a grain of truth in it. btw, I know i haven't updated in forever and I still haven't covered Sams birth but it is what it is, I'v been a little busy. Within the next week I put it all up there. Until then enjoy.

DG



ON SHEEP, WOLVES, AND SHEEPDOGS
By LTC(RET) Dave Grossman, RANGER,
Ph.D., author of "On Killing."

Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always, even death itself. The question remains:

What is worth defending?
What is worth dying for?
What is worth living for?

- William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997 One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: "Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident."


This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another. Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep. I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me, it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf." If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.

Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools. But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours. Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports, in camouflage fatigues, holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa." Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.

Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero? Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed, right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into "warriorhood", you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference. There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population.

There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: Slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself. Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke- Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision. If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

For example, many police officers carry their weapons in church. They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs. Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying a weapon. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.

I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"

Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them. Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones were attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"

It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up. Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear, helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.

Gavin de Becker puts it like this in "Fear Less", his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling." Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level. And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes. If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself..."Baa."

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from "sheephood" and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.

"If It Weren't For The United States Military"
"There Would Be NO United States of America"

15th February 2006

12:13pm: The Great Fake Out (s) and some other thoughts...
Jen and I have gone to the hospital twice in the past week or so thinking she was in labor- once for lots of close together contractions and once for what looked like water breaking. It was horribly frustrating to come back home. We both felt the same pretty much and reacted the same way also- which is unusual. We both sat there for a few minutes saying nothing (when we finally realized birth was no longer iminent) and broke the silence with a heartfelt "this sucks". I feel stupid but it isn't one of those fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, Shame on me" situations. It's more like "fool me twice and I have to get over it". Oh well, we are better prepared after two rehearsals.

Holly had her baby on the 11th of FEB, (Jen's due date-- her due date was 3 March). She and Zack (Zak?) are reportedly recovering nicely. She had to have an emergency C-Section but everything is ok now. I'm happy for her/them. I'm just trying to be ready for mine. Jen's parents are here with us right now, nice to have help around when the event happens.

I really dislke getting personal on blogs (especially mine) and it's hard to explain why here b/c well- frankly I don't like being personal on blogs. Some of it is mild paranoia you never know whos out there and some of it is that I reserve that for one on one conversation- that's how I build and maintain friendships. I think any of you who know me would agree I am that way. But if you don't talk about personal things there isn't as much of a reason to have a blog. I do it for discussion elsewhere but there isn't much discussion here. There are plenty of things work, interest and family wise that I'd rather not talk about, each for their own reasons but I guess you just do what you can. It is what it is. I ain't bothering to spell check this one either.

4th February 2006

10:53am: The face of the future
Here you go- the face of the future. you saw it here first.

picture
picture

this just in! Also... the right foot of the future.

picture

23rd December 2005

11:46am: Tickle the Fetus
I think it is really hilarious that you can startle a baby before he is born. I have done it probably a handful of times. If Jen is laying down for a bit or just sitting still (I'm told babies are rocked to sleep by walking, moving, etc. so when she stops moving he wakes up) and I put my hand on her belly or as i do just lean over and kiss her belly Sam (the baby) kicks hard and fast. It really cracks me up. I just picture him going " whoa-what-was that!?!" or "AH-wasn't-sleepin-on-the-job!" or whatever baby's exclaim when they are startled from half sleep.

(Another related story) I was told that you could hear the baby's heartbeat if you place a toilet paper tube against the belly (look I don't know if I was stupid enough to believe it or just humoring her or what) but you have to press fairly hard to seal the tube against the belly. On the third press as I was searching around he kicked it hard enough to move it off my ear and move my head. It was pretty hilarious. I will miss it a little when Jen isn't pregnant anymore.. but hey I'll have a baby to comfort me then so I'll be ok.

21st December 2005

4:11pm: Thinking of Holly
I had my teeth cleaned today, which like usual is a small bit painful but always reminds me of my sister(Holly). She is a dental hygienist and a great one at that. She graduated at the top of her class in a program I probably couldn't have worked hard enough to get into even. I do think I am a little more intelligent than she is but she is a harder worker and probably has the better combination of smarts and dedication. I will always be proud of her for doing so well in school. I always wish she was working on my teeth rather than someone else.

Incidently, she happens to be pregnant with a son (my future nephew) and I can't wait to meet him. My wife is pregnant with her nephew as well(REALLY can't wait to meet him), and Jen due earlier to boot. All this waxing sentimental makes me miss Holly quite a bit.

Here's to Holly... *gettin misty eyed*

5th December 2005

2:24pm: Charity Vs. Welfare
I stole this from Brad Plumers site which I mentioned a while ago. I’ll explore what I think after the article. My thoughts are often random so… be forgiving if it isn’t all coherent as a whole. And Brad my computer won’t let me post to your blog or I would have commented there.

*****

Church: The Ultimate Safety Net

Why do people join and participate in church? Okay, lots of reasons, obviously, but one reason, perhaps, is that churches can provide a very powerful safety net, according to this interesting paper by Dehejia, DeLeire and Luttmer. Joining a church can, in theory, help a person maintain his or her happiness and/or consumption during times of income instability—happiness because, perhaps, the person builds up all that social capital through the church and, of course, finds solace in god during rough times. Consumption because other members of the church can pitch in and help when, say, a member loses a job. As it turns out, this really does seem to happen. White households who contribute to a religious organization were able to insure about 30 percent of their consumption against income shocks (this effect wasn't statistically significant for blacks). For black households, meanwhile, attendance at church could offset about three-fourths of happiness loss from income shocks, although this effect was, again, statistically insignificant for whites (which doesn't mean it doesn't exist.)

Why the racial disparity? One theory has it that for African-Americans, church is the only community out there—so blacks who don't join a religious organization have fewer ties to the community and less social capital. Hence, church is that much more important for insuring one's happiness during hard times. Whites, meanwhile, may have more social networks available to them outside of church. Alternatively, looking at consumption insurance, white churchgoers are more likely to help each other out during income shocks with cash—which would show up on the data—whereas black churchgoers with favors and other in-kind services. (One might also think that the loans, etc., given out in predominantly white churches during hard times could make the recipients feel guilty, and hence help explain why white churchgoers seem to get less of a happiness effect. Really, these are just theories being tossed about.)

At any rate, it's also pretty easy to see why so many chuchgoers—especially white churchgoers—oppose the welfare state, and are unlikely to be swayed by, say, Jacob Hacker's argument that government-provided social services can insure against income shocks. Churchgoers already have insurance against risk, and it works extremely well, perhaps better than the government could do. Why does it work so well? Partly because there are so few free-riders—as I've discussed before, Laurence Iannaccone has suggested that some churches employ strict rules, religious observations, etc., in order to keep "unserious" members of the church out. Of course, that also means that the church, by its selective nature, is a poor and imperfect substitute for the welfare state. Still, try telling that to churchgoers.
-- Brad Plumer 11:09 AM || Comment (0) || Trackback (0)

*****

The first paragraph is evidence and some speculation as to why people join churches. The second is speculation as to why there are racial differences in results which I somewhat disagree with. And the third paragraph is commentary.

Incidentally, I disagree with the statement (( …that some churches employ strict rules, religious observations, etc., in order to keep "unserious" members of the church out.)) That hasn’t been my experience. Well on second thought I think that refers to behavioral standards, which is true but then again any society can be said to be this way. Convicted murderers aren’t “serious” about conforming to societies rules so they are “kept out”. I don’t see that as unfair. But with a church, not many alcoholic, whore-mongering, chain-smoking gamblers ((a description of Bender from Futurama)) are going to feel comfortable in a church or accepted as equal members while they continue said behavior.

And his conclusion ((Of course, that also means that the church, by its selective nature, is a poor and imperfect substitute for the welfare state.)).

I draw the same conclusion but I don’t see it as negative. I am not a fan of the welfare state. Pragmatically, churches work and are efficient in this way because they are selective. My thinking is there are several reasons that a church or its members would be less helpful, monetarily, than they otherwise could be. Those who need help month after month yet who have never contributed to the church or the needs of others draw less sympathy than if the reverse is true. Also, genuine need is easy to see as well as poor financial habits when it is person to person. I’m not saying stupid people don’t deserve sympathy- it just shouldn’t be in the form of cash. When everyone has a say in how much support is given to the brothers in need- from their own wallet- there is more scrutiny as to where it goes and how to go about it.

I want to say that generosity inspires generosity to you and others. See that in the positive sense rather than negative. Generosity should not be in order to receive from others or to be seen doing it but because it is the right thing to do. But it is easier to help one you know would help others and has helped others before. See Matthew 6:2, also on giving see Mark 12:41-44, 2 Corinthians 8:1-8, 2 Corinthians 9:7, and James 2:16.

The way that a church supports each other (member to member) shouldn’t be confused with how it should support the needy outside the church. This also needs to be done as we (as Christians) are called to minister to the poor (once again not necessarily through cash). See the earlier reference in James for a good understanding of this.

I guess mainly I want to state why I have problems with a welfare state. 1. It is wrong to take by force what one has earned and give it to another one. 2. It never solves the problem and it is counter-productive. It sets up (in the US) a bureaucracy that is inefficient and will never go away. It sustains poverty rather than solving the problem. Free money is highly addictive so almost no one will ever receive it and want vote it away. And where is the incentive to get off of welfare? 3. Socialism doesn’t work.

I’m not un-compassionate. I just don’t think it is the government’s job to fix poverty, especially with other peoples money (for reason #1). If I want to help or give money to the poor (and I do) that is my choice and it should remain my choice, not for the government to choose for me. Personally, I do think handicapped people should be taken care of by the government. But not anyone and everyone deserves that just because they are poor. Life is hard and those who don’t, won’t, or can’t contribute to the group as a whole don’t deserve the same standard of living as those who do.

To say it more clearly “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” 2 Thessalonians 3:10 Anyone who thinks different has never watched survivor. ;)

Any thoughts are welcome.

29th September 2005

8:34am: update
Here is a site just about the Ponzai (Ponzi)


http://home.nycap.rr.com/useless/ponzi/
8:20am: Social Security
Do people really not know that social security is a scam? I have been saying this for a while but here is a good description for those who have never heard of Ponzai or his scheme.

http://www.neolibertarian.net/articles/westmiller_20050926.aspx

17th September 2005

7:12pm: 20,000 more WON..
Last week Jen and I had another sonogram and.. I guess mostly Jen had a sonogram. any way, we found out that our baby is a boy. We are both very happy and have shared the news with our families. This sonogram was not as huge an event as the last one though. The baby is pretty cramped in there so you can't see all of him at once.

My sister who is also pregnant should find out in the beginning of October. I am hoping she will have a boy also. I had such great time with my cousins of similar age and sex Mark on my fathers side and Dan on my mothers side. They are some of the best friends I had especially when I was growing up. I hope that my children will be able to share that with their cousins as well. I will post the pictures from the last sonogram we had by wednesday I hope. But they didn't really capture the "dude parts" on the pictures.

27th August 2005

2:24am: Meyers Briggs test.. sort of.
I took an online (free) version of the Meyers Briggs test a little bit ago. Basically, that means it was free instead of about 100 bucks and it might be a little less reliable. Here is the link to the site.

http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp

Mine came out to be INTJ with J being the least strong with an 11% next to it. I checked out the INTJ description and the INTP descriptions and found that they are both sort of true but not to where I would say I would be 100% predictable. (Well "duh" right?) I would say maybe 75% so it was helpful and interesting to do.

I did find one major difference (which I might be able to explain) and I have a question that it brings to mind. The difference is that it says that I should be a perfectionist and I am really far from it. I think this might be because dad was a perfectionist about many things and I averted from being that way for whatever reason. This is not to reflect negatively on dad mind you, he never imposed perfectionism on me, but it could be that there only needs to be one perfectionist around at a time. i.e. I didn't have to be a perfectionist b/c he made sure things were finished well.

My question or what I wonder is why are all the ones I read glowing descriptions? There’s no bad combination of traits? Or ones that predispose us to certain negative aspects? I think they should at least acknowledge whose nerves you will grate on or vice versa. Not for practical purposes but for curiosity.


I also wonder if certain types tend to go the "dark path" more often. I wondered this for a while but came to two conclusions. It would be unethical to try to predict criminality because no one should be punished because they might do something wrong. Another one that just came to me- we are all capable of evil we just need to be appealed to differently.

You’re welcome to take the test and discuss your personality or mine.

((Update))
After some thought, I guess there are people out there who do things I don't understand.. mostly people who act irrationally or are ruled by emotion. But it is more than that b/c not all people who are guided by emotion are equally frustrating. One particular person comes to mind as the most difficult to understand. There are also numerous others that would be good to have a better understanding of.

I wonder how predictive the results of combining different indexes would be like, IQ, an ethical/moral index, as well as personality. I think it would be interesting and more accurate. It would be no surprise though more information in should equal more info out.

19th August 2005

10:36am: News and Politics Blogs
I read these about daily for politics learning and news. a few are libertarian and I also read the other side as well.



http://www.qando.net/ Probably my favorite site or the best reading anyway. Libertarian. Fair and critical of both sides though leans slightly to the right. A monthly libertarian magazine can be downloaded in pdf format. I recommend the first issue for understanding what they intend to do with it. Then any after that whatever catches your interest.


http://www.samizdata.net/blog/ Run out of Britain mostly but covers UK, USA, and Australia closely as well as world issues. Pretty good reading. You can search the site for old discussions which can be interesting.

http://www.neolibertarian.net/ Have been reading this one for only a short while but it seems good too. Near to "Q and O blog"

Lefty left left.. left-aroo!!

http://left2right.typepad.com/main/ This is probably the best site I have read because it is based on an understanding of finding middle ground. David V. is particularly startling in finding a path between so far but I find the following commentary high valuable and less rhetoric than other sites. Highly technical as I believe it is primarily run by college professors. Highly quotable, you will find gems on this site that will sum up how you feel about an issue or that encapsulate a particular thought very, very well.

http://plumer.blogspot.com/
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ These two are descent for points of thought. I don't think they take follow on comments..

http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com/ This guy (Matthew) starts out ok but the posts of those who frequent it are borderline retarded by the 4th comment.. after that it is mindless rhetoric and OPINION and often far from what began the discussion. Interesting reading if you know to leave when you've had your fill.


I don't have any more right side sites but I'd like to find a moderate right-ish site. If you know any please share.

Happy hunting.

10th August 2005

2:40pm: What would I carry?
On a lighter note and in the spirit of Monica Snyder games..



Leave a post to tell me who you are and I will tell you;

-- What future or current revolution you would fit best in and the part you would play.

-- What three weapons (main, heavy/crew served, and hold out) you would be armed with.

-- Your personalized revolution style (fighting, etc.)

I await to give you consultation.
10:32am: The best 31,950 Won I ever spent..
picture
picture
picture
picture


On Saturday (August 6th) Jen and I went to a Korean hospital (Shin OB women’s hospital) for a sonogram. We had heard it was not very expensive and they would see us on a walk in basis. We took a taxi down to the hospital which is about a mile or two from our apartment. We walked in and talked to on of the receptionist and she directed us to the "foreign liaison person" I don't know what her title is but she deals with non-Koreans and probably those who don't speak Hangul (the Korean language). She was very knowledgeable and helpful and exceptionally friendly, she also knew some of our friends from church who had gone to the hospital for treatments, mostly dealing with pregnancy. So we finished talking to her, she got Jens medical history etc. and then she told us there would be about 20 minute wait as the doctor was seeing someone currently.

After the short wait we went into the room and they took Jen around the corner to (I assumed) put on a gown or whatever. I sat down for a minute and then a nurse came and gestured for me to hurry over to where Jen had gone. I came around the corner and Jen was on the table and the baby was already on the monitor. Now understand that words really can't do justice to the experience, but I will do my best. They showed the baby (12-13 weeks) you could see it moving, the teeth and spine show up very well, I was really surprised how well you could see the fingers and hands already. We also got to listen to the heart beat which was also amazing. During all that, I was really struck by how amazing current medical tech is.. You really get euphoric seeing all this. Pictures don't really capture the experience when you have seen the baby move. So we do all this and Jen and I are just awestruck. We leave and pay on the way out. How much does it cost? 31,950 Won (or about $30). That is also freakin' amazing I don't know what it costs in the States but you get really appreciative of Republic of Korean that all this is possible for so little money. It irritates me when people talk as though no other country outside the US might have medical care that isn't out of the stone age, BTW.

1st August 2005

11:51am: Why DID the chicken cross the road?
WHY DID THE CHICKEN CROSS THE ROAD?


Plato: For the greater good.

Karl Marx: It was a historical inevitability.

Machiavelli: So that its subjects will view it with admiration,
as a chicken which has the daring and courage to
boldly cross the road, but also with fear, for whom
among them has the strength to contend with such a
paragon of avian virtue? In such a manner is the
princely chicken's dominion maintained.

Hippocrates: Because of an excess of light pink gooey stuff in its
pancreas.

Jacques Derrida: Any number of contending discourses may be discovered
within the act of the chicken crossing the road, and
each interpretation is equally valid as the authorial
intent can never be discerned, because structuralism
is DEAD, DAMMIT, DEAD!

Thomas de Torquemada: Give me ten minutes with the chicken and I'll find out.

Timothy Leary: Because that's the only kind of trip the Establishment
would let it take.

Douglas Adams: Forty-two.

Nietzsche: Because if you gaze too long across the Road, the Road
gazes also across you.

Oliver North: National Security was at stake.

B.F. Skinner: Because the external influences which had pervaded its
sensorium from birth had caused it to develop in such a
fashion that it would tend to cross roads, even while
believing these actions to be of its own free will.

Carl Jung: The confluence of events in the cultural gestalt
necessitated that individual chickens cross roads at
this historical juncture, and therefore
synchronicitously brought such occurrences into being.

Jean-Paul Sartre: In order to act in good faith and be true to itself,
the chicken found it necessary to cross the road.

Ludwig Wittgenstein: The possibility of "crossing" was encoded into the
objects "chicken" and "road", and circumstances came
into being which caused the actualization of this
potential occurrence.

Albert Einstein: Whether the chicken crossed the road or the road crossed
the chicken depends upon your frame of reference.

Aristotle: To actualize its potential.

Buddha: If you ask this question, you deny your own chicken-
nature.

Howard Cosell: It may very well have been one of the most astonishing
events to grace the annals of history. An historic,
unprecedented avian biped with the temerity to attempt
such an herculean achievement formerly relegated to
homo sapien pedestrians is truly a remarkable occurence.

Salvador Dali: The Fish.

Darwin: It was the logical next step after coming down from
the trees.

Emily Dickinson: Because it could not stop for death.

Epicurus: For fun.

Ralph Waldo Emerson: It didn't cross the road; it transcended it.

Johann von Goethe: The eternal hen-principle made it do it.

Ernest Hemingway: To die. In the rain.

Werner Heisenberg: We are not sure which side of the road the chicken
was on, but it was moving very fast.

David Hume: Out of custom and habit.

Jack Nicholson: 'Cause it (censored) wanted to. That's the (censored)
reason.

Pyrrho the Skeptic: What road?

Ronald Reagan: I forget.

John Sununu: The Air Force was only too happy to provide the
transportation, so quite understandably the chicken
availed himself of the opportunity.

The Sphinx: You tell me.

Mr. T: If you saw me coming you'd cross the road too!

Henry David Thoreau: To live deliberately ... and suck all the marrow
out of life.

Mark Twain: The news of its crossing has been greatly exaggerated.

Molly Yard: It was a hen!

Zeno of Elea: To prove it could never reach the other side.

Chaucer: So priketh hem nature in hir corages.

Wordsworth: To wander lonely as a cloud.

The Godfather: I didn't want its mother to see it like that.

Keats: Philosophy will clip a chicken's wings.

Blake: To see heaven in a wild fowl.

Othello: Jealousy.

Dr Johnson: Sir, had you known the Chicken for as long as I have,
you would not so readily enquire, but feel rather the
Need to resist such a public Display of your own
lamentable and incorrigible Ignorance.

Mrs Thatcher: This chicken's not for turning.

Supreme Soviet: There has never been a chicken in this photograph.

Oscar Wilde: Why, indeed? One's social engagements whilst in
town ought never expose one to such barbarous
inconvenience - although, perhaps, if one must cross a
road, one may do far worse than to cross it as the
chicken in question.

Kafka: Hardly the most urgent enquiry to make of a low-grade
insurance clerk who woke up that morning as a hen.

Swift: It is, of course, inevitable that such a loathsome,
filth-ridden and degraded creature as Man should assume
to question the actions of one in all respects his
superior.

Macbeth: To have turned back were as tedious as to go o'er.

Whitehead: Clearly, having fallen victim to the fallacy of
misplaced concreteness.

Freud: An die andere Seite zu kommen. (Much laughter)

Hamlet: That is not the question.

Donne: It crosseth for thee.

Pope: It was mimicking my Lord Hervey.

Constable: To get a better view.

borrowed or stolen from eserver.org/philosophy/chicken.txt

Choose your favorite or give me your best shot.

I say "Why not?"

15th July 2005

10:35am: "The Dreaded Rear Admiral
http://www.snpp.com/guides/rear.admiral.html

I don't know whether to feel relieved or disappointed.

6th April 2005

10:01pm: Education
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/04/04/no.more.red.ap/index.html

I have read a little of this article and the prmise alone is.. worth commenting on..

It's not as bad as it seems but is this what's important about teaching these days?

Thoughts anyone?

"I don't think changing to purple or green will make a huge difference if the teaching doesn't go along with it," Jones said. "If you're just looking at avoiding the color red, the students might not be as frightened, but they won't be better writers."

good..

"It's taken a turn from 'Here's what you need to improve on' to 'Here's what you've done right,"' Powell said. "It's not that we're not pointing out mistakes, it's just that the method in which it's delivered is more positive."

misguided..

I always recall my teachers pointing out the good and the bad.. (and I was not a good writer so it wasn't all negative as a student anyway) Red was just authority, easy to see. This isn't a huge self esteem article like I thought it would be, so I won't go there.

Thoughts anyone?

5th April 2005

10:20pm: another movie..
So I finally saw American Beauty. I thought the directing and camera/scene shots were masterful, but it was strange. What I pulled from it were two things. The first, it reminded me that work that is a means to an end i.e. not the job you love kind of work should be kept as far emotionally from you as you can. To restate, if it is a means to an end, keep that in mind and don't let it consume your emotions. Worth remembering.

And the second, I guess, I think the movie was trying to show that most people have their own interpretation of "the good life" or Beauty. That's about it for the broad view. I wouldn't put equal value on everyones opinion, but they have a right to have one.

For JJ,
I get less and less fond of flawed characters as time goes on. This was not a huge example of that, but a small reminder as there was no pure hero or even I would say a hero. I would say there was a protagonist but that's about it. I understand flawed characters, to show that we are all flawed and no one is perfect but the reasons I see it used aren't to lessen pressure on people. T reason always seems to be a cynical- you can't trust anyone/ you can only count on yourself/ the-world-is-trash kind of sentiments. I like movies where a hero isn't invincible, but his heart is, that's a character that inspires. Not; hey I'm invincible (never gets scratched until the build up for the ending regroup) and I save the world without breaking a sweat but I'm also a pedophile (or asshole/ or people user).

I prefer Frodo Baggins over Frank Castle or Hell-boy most of the time.

I do like characters with weaknesses but not tragic flaws. Well.. Hector was great (from Troy) Achilles less so and oh my goodness did I hate Paris (think- Hector's brother).

Feel free to comment on any and all.
Current Mood: thoughtful

3rd April 2005

10:39pm: Napoleon Dynamite
I'm afraid of the answers I'll get, but I must know... What exactly was so freaking brilliant about Napoleon Dynamite? It had a few good quotes and I like dogs having their day as much as the next guy... but this was hardly a revenge of the nerds kind of come-up-ance. I must be missing something. It took me till 3/4 of the way through the movie to know it was set in the late 90's/2000ish time. So I say again what was so brilliant? I just see a naked emperor.
Current Mood: confused

25th March 2005

3:48pm: Oops!
I'm such a nerd for writing what I wrote. oh well.
2:14am: Introduction
(borrowing a phrase of introduction from a friend of mine-librarygorilla)

Enter the hero.


I am trying this as an experiment in many things. An experiment in leadership or the things that make for good leadership in my opinion. An experiment thus, in discussion conducted in civility, learning, truthfulness and having fun.

I suppose this will also be where I talk about things I experience. Not outright venting hopefully, as I think restraint is important and one who doesn't think before they speak is bound for trouble.

Having said this, speak your mind at all times but please keep it clean and be civil ladies and gentlemen.

I'm not a very formal person actually so if you plan to frequent don't yawn yet.

I guess, eh you'll see..
Powered by LiveJournal.com

Advertisement