I can find humor in almost any situation. Humor is one of my main coping mechanisms. At funerals, I will often make jokes as I cry. There are those who will find this inappropriate or unsettling. So be it. Truth is complicated, and we are all different.
At the same time, if we choose to live around others, we must find a way to deal with each others feelings. Among the most frustrating phenomenons in human interaction are not being taken seriously, and not knowing whether to take someone else seriously.
Since I use humor as a coping mechanism, and am aware that some may be troubled by this, I try to always be ready to clarify my true feelings, and be aware of the true feelings of others. I do this by being straightforward. If I have made a joke, and someone incredulously asks, "Are you SERIOUS?" I will tell them the truth. Likewise, when I am serious, but someone incorrectly assumes that I am joking, I will attempt to assure them that I am serious.
This is the point at which I draw a clear line. Some people refuse to clarify their true feelings, and seem to believe that causing someone emotional pain makes their joke even funnier. Others refuse to acknowledge when someone is no longer joking.
This is a difficult subject to discuss, and definitely calls for examples. Imagine a situation with a group of people, especially children. One child snatches something away from another child, and then the children toss it between themselves while the original owner of the item tries to grab it back. This is a common scenario, and most people would consider it "playing around", and it MIGHT involve laughter by everyone involved. However, it could easily degenerate into crying and/or fighting. Even if it degenerates into clear emotional and/or physical pain, there are those who may continue to insist that it is all "in fun". This is a case in which people may be refusing to accept that what is "fun" for some is "serious" for others, or it may be that they ACCEPT it but still see no need to modify their actions.
This same basic scenario may play out in an infinite number of ways, with the common thread being that one or more people are "serious" while one or more people are "just having fun." Sometimes, those who are "just having fun" may truly be unaware that others are "serious", or those who are "serious" may be truly unaware that others are "just having fun."
This issue is perhaps more complicated than it appears to be, since it combines elements of communication, sensitivity to others, and questions regarding whether or not to modify one's own behavior in deference to the feelings of others. Personally, I find little humor in causing pain to others, even if I claim it is "in fun". At the same time, if I am having fun, and a complete stranger passes by and takes offense, I will not necessarily alter my activities.
More importantly, if I SAY I am serious, then I AM serious.
Truth is complicated.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Thursday, February 16, 2012
CPR
I recently read an article on the World Wide Web regarding an unfortunate case in which someone had collapsed at work, and a supervisor stopped a fellow employee from performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and now the person is dead.
As with many articles on the World Wide Web, there was a place at the end where readers could leave comments. The vast majority of the comments were very upset by the incident. Many stated that the supervisor was responsible for the death of the employee. This all occurred at a major corporation, and many stated that the corporation should be sued for the death of the employee.
Based on what was presented in the article, I agree that the supervisor was wrong to have stopped the co-worker from performing CPR. However, the comments illustrate the phenomenon that Americans wildly overestimate the effectiveness of CPR in saving a person’s life. Currently, the FACT is that CPR is truly effective somewhere between two and thirty percent of the time, depending on a variety of factors. This means that, statistically, there is a seventy to ninety-eight percent chance that the employee would have been dead even if CPR had been administered by the co-worker. The idea, voiced by many of the commenters, that the supervisor should be charged with manslaughter, or even murder, seems to be a bit of a stretch.
Then there is the commenters’ widespread notion that this major corporation should be sued for the death of the employee (based on the idea that by preventing CPR, the supervisor caused the death of the employee). Even with CPR, the employee probably would be dead, so this idea has little merit. Still, it remains true that the supervisor was wrong, and that CPR MIGHT have helped keep the employee alive. I have already discussed monetary damage awards in my earlier blog entry entitled “Damages”. Even if the supervisor WAS directly responsible for the death of the employee -- which this supervisor was NOT -- I fail to see the “correctness” of taking a large amount of money from this corporation, or from the corporation’s customers, or from all of the customers of the insurance company that insures the corporation, and giving it to the heirs of the dead employee. Fire, or even jail, the supervisor, if that is what the law deems appropriate, or perhaps punish the supervisor’s superiors, for failing to adequately train the supervisor -- but no amount of money will bring back the dead employee, and the idea that money will compensate for the death seems to me to be obscene.
As I stated in “Damages”, perhaps there could be some sort of voluntary pool into which sympathetic individuals could contribute money to go to the heirs of the dead employee. That would be fine with me.
Actually, I am a bit less sympathetic since the employee is already dead, and beyond the reach of monetary compensation. IF the employee had been left alive but disabled due to the actions of a supervisor, then monetary compensation seems more valid … but the idea that the employee’s HEIRS are now entitled to a million dollars (many commenters stated that the corporation should now be sued for millions of dollars) seems far-fetched.
Truth is complicated.
As with many articles on the World Wide Web, there was a place at the end where readers could leave comments. The vast majority of the comments were very upset by the incident. Many stated that the supervisor was responsible for the death of the employee. This all occurred at a major corporation, and many stated that the corporation should be sued for the death of the employee.
Based on what was presented in the article, I agree that the supervisor was wrong to have stopped the co-worker from performing CPR. However, the comments illustrate the phenomenon that Americans wildly overestimate the effectiveness of CPR in saving a person’s life. Currently, the FACT is that CPR is truly effective somewhere between two and thirty percent of the time, depending on a variety of factors. This means that, statistically, there is a seventy to ninety-eight percent chance that the employee would have been dead even if CPR had been administered by the co-worker. The idea, voiced by many of the commenters, that the supervisor should be charged with manslaughter, or even murder, seems to be a bit of a stretch.
Then there is the commenters’ widespread notion that this major corporation should be sued for the death of the employee (based on the idea that by preventing CPR, the supervisor caused the death of the employee). Even with CPR, the employee probably would be dead, so this idea has little merit. Still, it remains true that the supervisor was wrong, and that CPR MIGHT have helped keep the employee alive. I have already discussed monetary damage awards in my earlier blog entry entitled “Damages”. Even if the supervisor WAS directly responsible for the death of the employee -- which this supervisor was NOT -- I fail to see the “correctness” of taking a large amount of money from this corporation, or from the corporation’s customers, or from all of the customers of the insurance company that insures the corporation, and giving it to the heirs of the dead employee. Fire, or even jail, the supervisor, if that is what the law deems appropriate, or perhaps punish the supervisor’s superiors, for failing to adequately train the supervisor -- but no amount of money will bring back the dead employee, and the idea that money will compensate for the death seems to me to be obscene.
As I stated in “Damages”, perhaps there could be some sort of voluntary pool into which sympathetic individuals could contribute money to go to the heirs of the dead employee. That would be fine with me.
Actually, I am a bit less sympathetic since the employee is already dead, and beyond the reach of monetary compensation. IF the employee had been left alive but disabled due to the actions of a supervisor, then monetary compensation seems more valid … but the idea that the employee’s HEIRS are now entitled to a million dollars (many commenters stated that the corporation should now be sued for millions of dollars) seems far-fetched.
Truth is complicated.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Newt Gingrich
For months, and continuing today, political supporters of President Obama have pointed to the lack of a dominant Republican Presidential candidate as "evidence" that potential Republican voters are divided, and unsatisfied with the present pool of candidates. The truth is that Republican voters are remarkably united in their desire to have ANYONE other than Barack Obama elected President in 2012, and the lack of a clear frontrunner MAY indicate only that most Republicans would be satisfied with most of the candidates.
Increasingly, however, Newt Gingrich seems to be splitting off from this view, instead embracing the idea that the winner of the 2012 Presidential election should be anyone other than Mitt Romney. I suppose if you came right out and ASKED him directly whether he would prefer Romney to Obama, he would say that he WOULD, but his recent words and actions seem to indicate otherwise.
Unless he knows something about Romney, and something about Obama, that I do NOT know, I find this to be deeply troubling for someone seeking the Republican nomination to challenge Obama next fall. At this point, given the likelihood or at least the possibility that Romney will be the Republican nominee, Gingrich seems to be working more FOR the re-election of President Obama than he is working AGAINST the re-election of President Obama.
Many Americans are working for the re-election of President Obama. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with working for the re-election of President Obama. He might be the best candidate. However, for one of those seeking the Republican nomination for President, it is puzzling and deeply troubling.
There are some, perhaps including Gingrich himself, who argue that even the most vicious personal attacks against Mitt Romney serve to harden and prepare him for the contest against Obama. While there may be a small degree of truth in this, I see it as an unintended consequence of Gingrich's true malice toward Romney.
IF Mitt Romney is the eventual Republican Presidential candidate, and Barack Obama defeats him, then I will believe at least some of the credit or blame should be assigned to Newt Gingrich. I do not know Newt Gingrich, and I cannot claim to know what is in his head, let alone his heart, but I have faith that he is politically experienced and knowledgable, and I cannot understand how HE could be looking at the present situation any differently than I am looking at it. Unless he truly IS working to secure the re-election of President Obama, then his only semi-plausible explanation is that he believes Mitt Romney has absolutely NO chance of defeating Barack Obama, with or without the assistance of Newt Gingrich, and therefore his weakening of Romney's candidacy is insignificant. IF this is his explanation -- and I am NOT saying that it IS -- then he would be guilty of either horrendous judgment, great arrogance, or presumed ability to predict the future ... none of which I particularly desire in a President of the United States.
The situation remains fluid, with three recent wins by Rick Santorum. I do not claim to know who will win the Republican nomination. At this point, Newt Gingrich does not seem to deserve it.
Increasingly, however, Newt Gingrich seems to be splitting off from this view, instead embracing the idea that the winner of the 2012 Presidential election should be anyone other than Mitt Romney. I suppose if you came right out and ASKED him directly whether he would prefer Romney to Obama, he would say that he WOULD, but his recent words and actions seem to indicate otherwise.
Unless he knows something about Romney, and something about Obama, that I do NOT know, I find this to be deeply troubling for someone seeking the Republican nomination to challenge Obama next fall. At this point, given the likelihood or at least the possibility that Romney will be the Republican nominee, Gingrich seems to be working more FOR the re-election of President Obama than he is working AGAINST the re-election of President Obama.
Many Americans are working for the re-election of President Obama. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with working for the re-election of President Obama. He might be the best candidate. However, for one of those seeking the Republican nomination for President, it is puzzling and deeply troubling.
There are some, perhaps including Gingrich himself, who argue that even the most vicious personal attacks against Mitt Romney serve to harden and prepare him for the contest against Obama. While there may be a small degree of truth in this, I see it as an unintended consequence of Gingrich's true malice toward Romney.
IF Mitt Romney is the eventual Republican Presidential candidate, and Barack Obama defeats him, then I will believe at least some of the credit or blame should be assigned to Newt Gingrich. I do not know Newt Gingrich, and I cannot claim to know what is in his head, let alone his heart, but I have faith that he is politically experienced and knowledgable, and I cannot understand how HE could be looking at the present situation any differently than I am looking at it. Unless he truly IS working to secure the re-election of President Obama, then his only semi-plausible explanation is that he believes Mitt Romney has absolutely NO chance of defeating Barack Obama, with or without the assistance of Newt Gingrich, and therefore his weakening of Romney's candidacy is insignificant. IF this is his explanation -- and I am NOT saying that it IS -- then he would be guilty of either horrendous judgment, great arrogance, or presumed ability to predict the future ... none of which I particularly desire in a President of the United States.
The situation remains fluid, with three recent wins by Rick Santorum. I do not claim to know who will win the Republican nomination. At this point, Newt Gingrich does not seem to deserve it.