In the increasingly-complicated world of digital technology, there is crossover between the functions of different devices. For example, telephones commonly take photos, surf the Internet, and play music. I personally own a computer, and I own CD players, but I do not possess an “iPod”, “smartphone”, or any other smaller device that plays digital music files.
I probably own a couple hundred 33 rpm “record albums”, as well as dozens of “45s” and even a good number of “78s”.
(Perhaps there might already be people reading this that do not realize that these numbers refer to the speed that the record needs to turn to accurately reproduce the recorded sounds. The earliest of these three formats rotated at 78 revolutions per minute, whereas the revolutionary “long-playing” records -- “LPs” -- rotate at 33 revolutions per minute, and the popular “single” records, generally with one song on each side (like the earlier 78s), rotate at 45 revolutions per minute.)
All three of these formats depend on a “needle” following grooves in the surface of the record, and all are subject to scratches and wear. LPs are particularly subject to “warping” -- for the needle to accurately follow the grooves, the record needs to remain relatively flat. Fans of the newer technologies note that CDs and MP3s are dramatically less subject to wear and damage. CDs are easier to carry around than records, and MP3s, being digital files, hardly need to be carried around at all, and can even be transmitted wirelessly. There continues to be debate about the precise audio characteristics of the different formats, with some record purists maintaining that records have a better “sound”, while acknowledging problems with things like wear, scratches, and even dust.
I love record albums. On a superficial level, the fact that record albums are dramatically larger than CDs means that everything associated with their packaging is larger -- especially the photographs or other artwork. Occasionally, record albums were packaged with posters or other extras. CDs still have photographs and other artwork, and are commonly packaged with CD-sized booklets containing additional photos or lyrics or other information, but they are always at least somewhat limited by the relatively small size. There are also less tangible benefits to record albums. I like holding them, and I have a certain enjoyment of the entire process of “playing” a record.
At the same time, I have slowly acquired a few CDs, and a certain appreciation for some of their apparent advantages over records. They certainly seem less fragile and subject to wear, and their size makes them easier to transport. The fact that modern technology has made it possible to duplicate them yourself is also a plus, but there are complicated legal and moral issues here. This brings up the entire issue of cassette tapes, which I have not mentioned.
It was possible for home users to make their own cassettes long before it was possible to make their own CDs or digital media files. For example, I have a much-loved series of cassettes that I recorded off of radio broadcasts. I also have a cassette I purchased from a local band in a third-world country. Cassettes enjoy some of the benefits of CDs, with their small size and relative convenience, and also make it possible for anyone to easily copy a record, CD, or other cassette. They are not packaged with large photographs, artwork, or posters. Unfortunately, cassettes are perhaps the most subject to wear of all the common music formats.
Record albums, pre-recorded (store-bought) cassettes, and pre-recorded (store-bought) CDs all share one profound attribute lacking from more current digital media: They generally contain multiple songs grouped together, in a specific order, sometimes with a subtle, or even obvious, theme that links them together. At the very least, the songs tend to represent a sort of snapshot of what the artists were doing during a given time period.
Yesterday I was listening to one of my records by David Bromberg. I had never HEARD of David Bromberg, until I repeatedly heard ONE of his songs on campus radio while I was in college. I liked that song so well that I eventually purchased the album containing that song. David Bromberg is an amazing musician, capable of playing many instruments and many styles of music, and it turns out that the album contained a wonderful assortment of his music. I later purchased more of his albums. Though I still enjoy that first song, it is not necessarily my favorite song on the album. AND my tastes continue to evolve. There are songs on the album that I do not appreciate much, but I realize that perhaps someday I WILL.
If I was in college today, and heard that song on campus radio, there is a good chance I would purchase just THAT SONG, and nothing more. Since David Bromberg’s music is so varied, if I decided to purchase another David Bromberg song, without hearing it, there is a good chance it would be so different from the initial song that I might decide not to risk my money on any more of his music.
In fact, I do not know how any “modern” college student would be lucky enough to be exposed to the full range of David Bromberg’s music. Perhaps they might hear him in concert -- though I understand he has dramatically cut back on his performance schedule, and of course some day he will cease to perform publicly, as all musicians some day do. Perhaps someone will recommend that they listen to his music -- but that never happened to ME. My entire love of David Bromberg’s music traces back to that one song, which led to the purchase of the album, which led to the purchase of other albums.
I am not qualified to discuss all the subtle benefits of listening to an entire album of music, an album that contains songs you would not necessarily CHOOSE to listen to. As you repeatedly listen to an album, your tastes WILL evolve. Songs that you never noticed, or even songs that you initially disliked, may become your favorites. This is a good thing.
This truly becomes a much larger issue. Someone with their iPod can ask, “Why should I spend even one second of my precious time listening to music that I did not specifically CHOOSE to listen to? Life is too short for that.” I cannot adequately answer that question, but I know that you SHOULD spend time listening to music that you did not specifically choose to listen to, and music that no one else chose for you. I suppose it has to do with the fact that we cannot know what we enjoy before we experience it for the first time -- and even then, we cannot know what we MAY enjoy with repeated experience, or as we ourselves evolve.
Truth is complicated.
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Friday, April 13, 2012
Cancer
My father died of cancer. He died a few decades ago, when he was in his early seventies. That's kind of an awkward age at which to die. You can't really say, "He died young," but you also can't say, "He lived a long life." Aside from the cancer, he spent most of his life healthy, strong, and active. He lived about ten and a half years after his cancer was first diagnosed. From the time he was diagnosed until the time he died, he had the full range of cancer treatments used at that time, including surgeries, months of radiation treatment, and years of chemotherapy.
The first step in his treatment was months of radiation therapy. He did some research prior to beginning treatment, and found that his best chance -- the place most likely to be able to cure his particular cancer -- was at a major university hospital, hundreds of miles away, in a region where the weather stays pleasant most of the year. So he arranged for his treatment, hopped on a plane, and lived in a motel for a few months. The actual treatments and medical appointments did not take up much of his time. While not busy being treated, he went sightseeing, took long walks, read books, and attended some university classes. At this completion of his initial series of radiation treatments, he returned home to a midwestern winter, tanned, toned, and energetic. He would joke about the fact that after his return, people who had heard about his cancer would say, "You LOOK good!" -- always with the emphasis on the word "look", since they believed that he was in fact dying.
I have already admitted that he DID die, following a full range of treatments over more than a decade. There are different ways to look at those ten and a half years. Certainly, the cloud of cancer was always there -- although there was always SOME hope of a sort of "cure", or at least a few more good years. Eventually, some of the treatments, and some of the progress of the disease, left him with some permanent discomforts and disabilities, such as the possibility that he might need to get to a bathroom in a hurry, and might not make it in time.
Truth is complicated. Another way to look at those ten and a half years is to say he lived them ... well, I like to say he lived them like a beer commercial. Aware of his own mortality, and of the ticking clock, he lived life to the fullest. About a year after his initial diagnosis, he built -- with his own hands, and the help of a more experienced friend -- a cabin in the country. Three years after his diagnosis he took his first trip all the way around the world. I say "first" because seven years after his diagnosis he took his SECOND round-the-world trip (in the opposite direction; we used to say it was to get back in sync with where he was supposed to be). He had always been a traveler, but the travels got more adventurous and exotic. In fact, shortly before his death he had to cancel an African safari, in order to have surgery on a newly-discovered tumor.
There is a downside even to living life to the fullest. On some occasions, he became less patient ... the clock was ticking. He sometimes had less tolerance, deciding, for instance, that if he had never enjoyed eating some particular food, he would no longer eat it, and instead eat the food that he enjoyed. This is not to say he became selfish and self-centered. If anything, he became more compassionate, and encouraged others to also live life to the fullest -- though I should acknowledge that these are MY words, not his; he wasn't one to regularly use phrases like "live life to the fullest".
Though I was busy living my own life, I was privileged to be involved in many of the travels, and, like all his loved ones, shared and helped with the various experiences. A few months before he died, Halley's Comet made one of its regular visits to our neck of the solar system. It was my father's first and last opportunity to view the famous comet, but at that time it was almost invisible to the naked eye. I set up my small telescope out in our icy driveway (it was January), and my weakened father made his way out to it, assisted by a cane hand-carved long ago by his father. He grumbled all the way to the telescope -- that was sometimes his way -- but he viewed the comet, and thanked me for ... well, I'm not sure whether he said, "Making me look at it," but he MIGHT have.
A few weeks later, we were amazed to learn that aggressive chemotherapy had succeeded in obliterating a tumor that had previously been called "incurable". A few weeks after THAT, a CT scan was done to confirm that the tumor had totally disappeared. THAT tumor had indeed vanished, but the scan revealed new tumors. He lived a month or two after that.
My father died too young. But the same cancer that ultimately ended his life also contributed to his life in positive ways. I cannot quite bring myself to say, "The cancer was a good thing." I will never know what might have become of his (and my) life without the cancer. Everyone dies. My father lived a good life. I miss my father.
Truth is complicated.
The first step in his treatment was months of radiation therapy. He did some research prior to beginning treatment, and found that his best chance -- the place most likely to be able to cure his particular cancer -- was at a major university hospital, hundreds of miles away, in a region where the weather stays pleasant most of the year. So he arranged for his treatment, hopped on a plane, and lived in a motel for a few months. The actual treatments and medical appointments did not take up much of his time. While not busy being treated, he went sightseeing, took long walks, read books, and attended some university classes. At this completion of his initial series of radiation treatments, he returned home to a midwestern winter, tanned, toned, and energetic. He would joke about the fact that after his return, people who had heard about his cancer would say, "You LOOK good!" -- always with the emphasis on the word "look", since they believed that he was in fact dying.
I have already admitted that he DID die, following a full range of treatments over more than a decade. There are different ways to look at those ten and a half years. Certainly, the cloud of cancer was always there -- although there was always SOME hope of a sort of "cure", or at least a few more good years. Eventually, some of the treatments, and some of the progress of the disease, left him with some permanent discomforts and disabilities, such as the possibility that he might need to get to a bathroom in a hurry, and might not make it in time.
Truth is complicated. Another way to look at those ten and a half years is to say he lived them ... well, I like to say he lived them like a beer commercial. Aware of his own mortality, and of the ticking clock, he lived life to the fullest. About a year after his initial diagnosis, he built -- with his own hands, and the help of a more experienced friend -- a cabin in the country. Three years after his diagnosis he took his first trip all the way around the world. I say "first" because seven years after his diagnosis he took his SECOND round-the-world trip (in the opposite direction; we used to say it was to get back in sync with where he was supposed to be). He had always been a traveler, but the travels got more adventurous and exotic. In fact, shortly before his death he had to cancel an African safari, in order to have surgery on a newly-discovered tumor.
There is a downside even to living life to the fullest. On some occasions, he became less patient ... the clock was ticking. He sometimes had less tolerance, deciding, for instance, that if he had never enjoyed eating some particular food, he would no longer eat it, and instead eat the food that he enjoyed. This is not to say he became selfish and self-centered. If anything, he became more compassionate, and encouraged others to also live life to the fullest -- though I should acknowledge that these are MY words, not his; he wasn't one to regularly use phrases like "live life to the fullest".
Though I was busy living my own life, I was privileged to be involved in many of the travels, and, like all his loved ones, shared and helped with the various experiences. A few months before he died, Halley's Comet made one of its regular visits to our neck of the solar system. It was my father's first and last opportunity to view the famous comet, but at that time it was almost invisible to the naked eye. I set up my small telescope out in our icy driveway (it was January), and my weakened father made his way out to it, assisted by a cane hand-carved long ago by his father. He grumbled all the way to the telescope -- that was sometimes his way -- but he viewed the comet, and thanked me for ... well, I'm not sure whether he said, "Making me look at it," but he MIGHT have.
A few weeks later, we were amazed to learn that aggressive chemotherapy had succeeded in obliterating a tumor that had previously been called "incurable". A few weeks after THAT, a CT scan was done to confirm that the tumor had totally disappeared. THAT tumor had indeed vanished, but the scan revealed new tumors. He lived a month or two after that.
My father died too young. But the same cancer that ultimately ended his life also contributed to his life in positive ways. I cannot quite bring myself to say, "The cancer was a good thing." I will never know what might have become of his (and my) life without the cancer. Everyone dies. My father lived a good life. I miss my father.
Truth is complicated.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Scars and slack
I was recently involved in an argument/conflict with a person who suffered a great personal tragedy a few decades ago -- an especially tragic death of a loved one.
Our disagreement had no particular connection to that tragedy, though I suppose a person could make the argument that everything in life is connected, or at least that everything in life that follows a great tragedy is somehow connected to that tragedy. Still, there was no tangible relationship between the two topics.
I discussed the situation with several friends and relatives. Everyone I consulted expressed the view that I was “right” and the other person was “wrong” -- though of course these were MY friends and relatives, listening to MY side of the story, so this is certainly no proof that I was right. One relative, however, expressed the opinion that since this other person had suffered that great personal tragedy, I must “cut them some slack”, forgive their sins, and bow to their will.
This is a complicated issue, related to strength of emotion (discussed elsewhere in this blog), and dependent upon the precise details of the situation. My GENERAL response, however, is that there is simply no practical way to go through life analyzing each other’s past tragedies. I assume that we ALL have scars. Some are more visible than others, and some are worse than others, but on a practical, general level I am uncomfortable favoring one person over another based on my perception of their scars. Ideally, we should ALL treat each other with compassion, and with the awareness that we all have scars, and we should be willing to cut EVERYONE some slack.
I am speaking only in generalities. I believe there are specific cases in which people absolutely SHOULD receive special consideration because of their past tragedies -- but I also believe that this should generally be more directly related to that past tragedy. OR if YOU choose to give them special consideration, and it is YOUR choice, fine.
The general problem with giving preferential treatment to those with known past tragedies is that we end up favoring THEM over all the people with less-known past tragedies, including ourselves. This is not a situation that I feel qualified to judge, nor do I feel ANY mortal is qualified to judge. We all have scars. We all deserve slack.
Beyond that, the truth is complicated.
Our disagreement had no particular connection to that tragedy, though I suppose a person could make the argument that everything in life is connected, or at least that everything in life that follows a great tragedy is somehow connected to that tragedy. Still, there was no tangible relationship between the two topics.
I discussed the situation with several friends and relatives. Everyone I consulted expressed the view that I was “right” and the other person was “wrong” -- though of course these were MY friends and relatives, listening to MY side of the story, so this is certainly no proof that I was right. One relative, however, expressed the opinion that since this other person had suffered that great personal tragedy, I must “cut them some slack”, forgive their sins, and bow to their will.
This is a complicated issue, related to strength of emotion (discussed elsewhere in this blog), and dependent upon the precise details of the situation. My GENERAL response, however, is that there is simply no practical way to go through life analyzing each other’s past tragedies. I assume that we ALL have scars. Some are more visible than others, and some are worse than others, but on a practical, general level I am uncomfortable favoring one person over another based on my perception of their scars. Ideally, we should ALL treat each other with compassion, and with the awareness that we all have scars, and we should be willing to cut EVERYONE some slack.
I am speaking only in generalities. I believe there are specific cases in which people absolutely SHOULD receive special consideration because of their past tragedies -- but I also believe that this should generally be more directly related to that past tragedy. OR if YOU choose to give them special consideration, and it is YOUR choice, fine.
The general problem with giving preferential treatment to those with known past tragedies is that we end up favoring THEM over all the people with less-known past tragedies, including ourselves. This is not a situation that I feel qualified to judge, nor do I feel ANY mortal is qualified to judge. We all have scars. We all deserve slack.
Beyond that, the truth is complicated.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Political labels
Political labels -- terms like “liberal” and “conservative” and “left” and “right” and even “Republican” and “Democrat” -- are a necessary evil. Necessary, because they express certain valid and valuable ideas, and greatly streamline communication. Evil, because, like many labels, they are almost always oversimplifications, are sometimes misleading or in themselves political, and sometimes make meaningful communication more difficult. As with ALL words, each of us has our own continually-evolving internal definition of each term, which may or may not resemble any other person’s definition.
In contemporary American society, there tends to be a close relationship between “liberal” and “left” and “Democrat” on one side and “conservative” and “right” and “Republican” on the other, though each of the terms has at least a slightly different meaning, and theoretically there can be conservative, right-leaning Democrats, as well as liberal, left-leaning Republicans, though the reality tends to be that Democrat politicians are judged by HOW liberal and left-leaning they are, while Republican politicians are judged by HOW conservative and right-leaning they are, with the less extreme members of both parties being labeled “moderate”. When it comes to actual VOTERS rather than politicians, there is nothing saying a registered Republican cannot be a left-leaning liberal, and there can be conservative, right-leaning registered Democrats.
This is a strange area of terminology for me. As a general rule, I strive to choose my words with a certain degree of precision. With political labels such as these, I do almost the opposite, striving for a certain degree of vagueness. I freely interchange terms like “liberal” and “Democrat”, even while I believe the truth is that there are plenty of conservative Democrats. In short, the truth is complicated.
With regard to the six terms I listed above, I personally am most comfortable using “right” and “left” to describe political leanings. One of the reasons is that they seem to be the least emotion-charged; there is nothing particularly “good” or “bad” about the terms “right” and “left”. One could argue that there is nothing intrinsically good or bad about the words “liberal” or “conservative” or “Republican” or “Democrat”, but in our current polarized society ALL of these terms -- including “left” and “right” -- have taken on some emotion-charged attributes.
Another reason I use “right” and “left” is that they seem to be the vaguest and most generic of the six terms, and therefore the most accurate. The fact is that none of these labels necessarily predict the behavior or beliefs of the person claiming the label. I believe it is mostly those on the opposing side of the issues that BELIEVE the labels accurately reflect the behavior and beliefs of the person. While there are stereotypes associated with the various labels, these stereotypes are at best generalities that do not necessarily apply to any single individual, and at worst these stereotypes just plain wrong.
As I already stated, I view these labels as necessary. There are times when it is good to be able to make references to a broad, general group of people or ideas, such as “liberal” or “conservative”. At the same time, we should always be aware that these terms are only generalities, and can never be relied upon to precisely represent a person or idea.
Among the factors that complicate the truth of these terms is that any given unique individual may have different views on different issues. For example, someone may be a “fiscal conservative” while being a “social liberal” -- and it is impossible to determine whether that same person will choose to register as a Democrat, Republican, or Independent.
Still, while any individual may have totally unique, thoroughly complicated opinions, most attempts to fruitfully examine or discuss a particular issue must involve a certain degree of oversimplification, such as “Republicans favor THIS approach, while Democrats favor THAT approach.”
It is unfortunate that many insist on “spinning” both their own views and those of their opponents. For example, in our current society the Republican Party generally favors LESS government, while the Democratic Party generally favors MORE government -- but even this statement is not only an oversimplification, but inflammatory. As an extension of this idea, a Republican can truthfully argue that Democrats tend to favor higher taxes, while a Democrat can truthfully argue that Republicans tend to favor cutbacks in all sorts of programs that may improve the lives of common people. An ordinary voter can be forgiven for wanting both lower taxes AND a continuation of government programs.
For now, I will continue to freely interchange these political labels, realizing all the while that they are oversimplifications, and not particularly accurate, and that the truth is complicated.
P.S. The recent death of Andrew Breitbart is a great tragedy for all of us, regardless of label. The world needs more people like Andrew Breitbart.
In contemporary American society, there tends to be a close relationship between “liberal” and “left” and “Democrat” on one side and “conservative” and “right” and “Republican” on the other, though each of the terms has at least a slightly different meaning, and theoretically there can be conservative, right-leaning Democrats, as well as liberal, left-leaning Republicans, though the reality tends to be that Democrat politicians are judged by HOW liberal and left-leaning they are, while Republican politicians are judged by HOW conservative and right-leaning they are, with the less extreme members of both parties being labeled “moderate”. When it comes to actual VOTERS rather than politicians, there is nothing saying a registered Republican cannot be a left-leaning liberal, and there can be conservative, right-leaning registered Democrats.
This is a strange area of terminology for me. As a general rule, I strive to choose my words with a certain degree of precision. With political labels such as these, I do almost the opposite, striving for a certain degree of vagueness. I freely interchange terms like “liberal” and “Democrat”, even while I believe the truth is that there are plenty of conservative Democrats. In short, the truth is complicated.
With regard to the six terms I listed above, I personally am most comfortable using “right” and “left” to describe political leanings. One of the reasons is that they seem to be the least emotion-charged; there is nothing particularly “good” or “bad” about the terms “right” and “left”. One could argue that there is nothing intrinsically good or bad about the words “liberal” or “conservative” or “Republican” or “Democrat”, but in our current polarized society ALL of these terms -- including “left” and “right” -- have taken on some emotion-charged attributes.
Another reason I use “right” and “left” is that they seem to be the vaguest and most generic of the six terms, and therefore the most accurate. The fact is that none of these labels necessarily predict the behavior or beliefs of the person claiming the label. I believe it is mostly those on the opposing side of the issues that BELIEVE the labels accurately reflect the behavior and beliefs of the person. While there are stereotypes associated with the various labels, these stereotypes are at best generalities that do not necessarily apply to any single individual, and at worst these stereotypes just plain wrong.
As I already stated, I view these labels as necessary. There are times when it is good to be able to make references to a broad, general group of people or ideas, such as “liberal” or “conservative”. At the same time, we should always be aware that these terms are only generalities, and can never be relied upon to precisely represent a person or idea.
Among the factors that complicate the truth of these terms is that any given unique individual may have different views on different issues. For example, someone may be a “fiscal conservative” while being a “social liberal” -- and it is impossible to determine whether that same person will choose to register as a Democrat, Republican, or Independent.
Still, while any individual may have totally unique, thoroughly complicated opinions, most attempts to fruitfully examine or discuss a particular issue must involve a certain degree of oversimplification, such as “Republicans favor THIS approach, while Democrats favor THAT approach.”
It is unfortunate that many insist on “spinning” both their own views and those of their opponents. For example, in our current society the Republican Party generally favors LESS government, while the Democratic Party generally favors MORE government -- but even this statement is not only an oversimplification, but inflammatory. As an extension of this idea, a Republican can truthfully argue that Democrats tend to favor higher taxes, while a Democrat can truthfully argue that Republicans tend to favor cutbacks in all sorts of programs that may improve the lives of common people. An ordinary voter can be forgiven for wanting both lower taxes AND a continuation of government programs.
For now, I will continue to freely interchange these political labels, realizing all the while that they are oversimplifications, and not particularly accurate, and that the truth is complicated.
P.S. The recent death of Andrew Breitbart is a great tragedy for all of us, regardless of label. The world needs more people like Andrew Breitbart.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Serious
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)