There's a Little African American Spot on the sun today

I posted about this in my other blog, but since this is the place that I expound safely on my random thoughts I will go into it a bit more because it is interesting to me.

My son was joking when he changed the 'King of Pain' lyrics by Sting (that begins by 'There's a little black spot on the sun today.') Obviously this use of the word 'black' isn't inappropriate and needn't be replaced with anything, but the sense of taboo bleeds from the other use via the word 'black' itself, divorced of the other context in which it is used in a questionable manner.

I think it speaks to what people are doing when they replace so-called insensitive language with euphemism. The language or word itself, and saying it, becomes the performative or taboo act. There is very little thought to actual thoughts of racism, injustice, or just plain bad feelings that people harbor one another.

In church the other day a woman was reading a letter from her son that was on a mission in Africa, and in refering to the black Africans, called them African Americans. Which is absurd, but what else are people going to do when every syllable is scrutinized for ill will?

This extends beyond racism. Many times when people have bad feelings toward each other, the actual behavior or outward signs of it become the focus and the most important thing. I feel this is unfortunate because it actually encourages people to not ever actually consider just addressing and replacing those bad feelings. Most of their focus is checking their outward behavior toward that person, probably for the benefit of third parties and how they themselves are perceived. Real change, real attempts at improving the goodwill expressed one person toward another, are very rare. And because of all the fuss about words or deeds, they aren't what most people address even in the behavior of others.

And those attempts at inward introspection and change are certainly not encouraged by the notion of politically correct speech. In fact in my opinion the accusations of such these days, when clearly made in contexts where there is no actual racism, are in themselves a sign of bad will and hostility from those who level the accusations, and certainly opportunism for political purposes.

This also relates to Obama's slip. The notion of racial or gender insensitivity has been conceived and nurtured as an attack against conservatives, so it is very rarely that anyone will bring it up when a liberal slips, and when they do, they want to get out of it by default. Obama wants very much to say hey, I am the good guy (by definition because I am a liberal). And I think a lot of people want to say that on his behalf, because again, the charge is really only leveled when it can be useful against conservatives. I am quite certain that if there weren't still a primary contest it wouldn't have ever become a story.

But that doesn't work when the words themselves, and not the meaning behind them, become the focus of criticism by opportunistic detractors.

Hey, sweetie.

LOL!

It is so funy when these people hang themselves in their own nooses.

They come up with these social straightjackets for political purposes and it is so interesting to see them twist painfully when it backfires.

Sadly, though, it changes little on the political landscape.

McCain still looks like a CHEWED PIECE OF SPEARAMINT GUM.

Who would Jesus bomb?

Who would Jesus bomb?

Uh... well probably similar to who would Jesus flood. Everyone. Except eight people, right?

Just like, who would Jesus burn? Everyone except four people.

But one problem particularly with using the scriptures in this particular debate, other than many of the people that would ask this question aren't fans of them and bumper sticker type questions aren't meant to be actually responded to, is that the scriptures are even worse than conference about containing anything known as 'women's wisdom,' at least if that means having any produced by women.

I am serious when I say that I am actually not sure I would really want to be in the hands of a bunch of women to decide my fate for being a wicked sinner. Probably before I got burned or flooded I would be gossiped about then bombed. Or my clothes hair weight or housekeeping would be criticised and then I would be gossiped about and then bombed. Unless I happened to be inside their little clique.

OF COURSE I am just stereotyping, except for the gossip part. I have heard some pretty creative ways for women to justify gossip. Men don't usually say things like 'well I am not going to keep anything from my WIFE so I have to tell him why I heard so and so went to the store on Sunday!'

Gossip really deserves its own post because it is much like anything else in that the reason behind it (incidentally, just like Sabbath keeping) usually defines the harm in it or lack of harm. And some people would get off the hook here too, because I do think that motivation like so many things determines harm and it is not some blanket statement like saying something about someone not present. So even if women are telling their husbands for the same reason they would spread it around the ward (telling a juicy story about others' faults or misfortunes) to entertain themselves or their husbands) it is the same act. And just like people use the spirit of commandments keeping to get out of trouble, it can get them into trouble just as easily. But more to the point, any of the actual character differences that I could identify between the sexes, I am not sure women come out so great.

But at the very most charitable toward women, men are at least as wise and virtuous, most of the time righteous men could speak for me. I don't share the obsession either with homemaking (as defined by anyone) except for my kids and don't think that if I would want to have any kind of idea that would be distinguishable form a man's.

The truth is, sometimes doing the right thing takes some guts and I think men come out well on that score too, or at least with resolve - little capriciousness or (Frailty thy name is what?). That is why fathers usually do the disciplining. They usually go into the kids' bedroom with a belt (metaphorically speaking of course) intending to do their duty as a father to try to turn their kids into respectable members of society. Because, not in spite of the fact that, they LOVE THEM.

The women (and men like them) all say, OH NOOOOO, I LOVE my kids. I don't want to hurt them. They are sorry. I am sure. They won't do it again, I promise.

And then you get Lot and his daughters.

WISDOM is being able to defend one's position, if it is worth having at all. If it isn't why would we want to have a certain opinion at all much less advocate it widely? And how do we know an opinion is that strong? One of the ways I do that is by floating my ideas out there as far as I can and listening to those who don't agree with me. At the very least I should know for myself how I account for things that people will say. That is how we can become stronger and wiser. I have often ben surprised when it seems that people haven't exposed themselves to an opposing point of view, not before they have an opinion at all because that is understandable, but I always try to do that before I would make an opinion that would involve criticism of others lifestiles or personal morality.

I am often interested to hear the very strong opinions that call themselves antimaterialist to name one (these come from many different sectors). It is sad to me that there sometimes doesn't seem to be much of a desire to let people off of the hook that the proponents let themselves off of for the luxuries they would claim for themselves. It is a very tricky business trying to argue that WE need something but somene ELSE doesn't. One person's necessity is another person's ridiculous extravagance, and it always goes both ways. So of course it would be better to get rid of the need to characterize or make assessments of the way other people spend money at all.

Overall the main theme to many of my religious/morality posts is that I feel much better when I can blame mistaken thinking or cultural myths for being bad instead of the people who think them them. And I apply the golden rule here, and usually try to, because I would personally rather be wrong about something in my head rather than in my heart, and would rather that someone make that judgement about me - that maybe you could think that my ideas are wrong and thus you could perhaps enlighten me but that my actions might not be. That way we can all evaluate our world vies and make adjustments that lets millions of people off the hook instantly instead of having to condemn them with philosophies of men. Of course it depends on one's purpose if it would be a good thing for everyone, there do seem to be a few people that like to think others are in the wrong, but I am hoping that it is a small group and that it could shrink. If it ever does I think there are lots of potential benefits. In a world where it is hard to forgive, it seems like that would be a great thing if eliminating their sins just by a parameter shift is a remarkable opportunity if ever possible.

And I certainly don't want to have opinions about other people being bad without making sure that I am understanding or representing their views as best I can. If I am making casual statements about large groups of people before I ask a representative why they feel the way I do. It might be painful to ask for feedback from people that don't agree with me, but there is little use getting it from those who we know already feel the same. In this case it is clearly no pain no gain. Only with PAIN will we gain wisdom, just like all of those people who suffer and die in this world. Again, I think God knows what he is doing.

After all, there are many people among us preaching religion. Some selling it for money, some wanting the pride. Flattery and telling people they are already good is their theology. Maliciousness is their original sin. Telling people they are better than others is how they win converts, because we are all so wanting and willing to believe it and willing to practice it as a ritual.

I fear that this religion gets MANY converts among Mormon women. It is easy for them to accept a theology of superiority with the equating of housekeeping with homemaking. That is way too easy, after all, one just has to spend their time vacuuming and then poof they are righteous. Or canning, one mustn't forget canning. Then, how convenient, it just happens that the things that MOST Mormon women must qualify as righteous like, because most of them are crafty homebodies. Gee, how convenient for Most Mormon Women. I wonder who thought of that - because oops I didn't see quilting or canning or scrap booking in the scriptures. And I am not knocking these things if other people like it, (of course any more than the things I like if these are considered what RIGHTEOUS women do.)

But if other women they like these things, all they have is doing something they like. They have a hobby. They can congratulate themselves that they have their hobbies just like I have mine but they don't get to call it religion or least of all righteousness and call what I LIKE, NOT righteousness. After all, anyone of us actually just does something in the church because they like it or it makes them happy they should be very careful, because liking something is its own reward. Christianity according to scripture is about being willing to do things that you don't like for people you don't like. And one should be very ware of needing to convince themselves that lucky them, the things that they like are what God wants them to do with their life. Everyone feels that way initially. It is a long process to get educated that it isn't true. It is called conversion.


So would Jesus let suffer and get sick and die? To be lonely and afraid and abandoned?

Everyone.

That is God's wisdom. Not women's wisdom, and not men's wisdom. It is the kind I don't happen to understand the reason for, I admit it. It is the kind that I would change if I could because I am imperfect and weak and don't want to be punished and don't want to see my children or anyone that I love punished. I don't happen to share that wisdom. Not yet. And we shouldn't listen to any man or woman who pretends to. Or question things that they think are unfair about this wisdom.

The title of this post I actually swiped from Slade. He made this point when we gave talks on 'Love' for V-day. I made the point that there are things that love isn't. It isn't always tolerance. It isn't always pacifism. It isn't always indulging. It isn't always affinity (we will probably get credit for loving our enemy according to the scriptures, but very little for loving the people that it comes natural for us to love. Life isn't about seeking our own comfort level or else there wouldn't be any point to it. That is probably why we have our comfort level removed from us so often.

So Slade made a very good point and I thought I would swipe it, because his talk went over surprisingly well. He was also building on one of my points that the 'Men loves your wives even as Christ loved the church' is comparing for men, marriage to the calcification. And I have seen my husband suffer. He used to, before I got sick, think that nothing bad had happened to him. But he didn't say much about it, just dealt with it.

Because HE IS A MAN. I guess most of the time I prefer a man's approach and if I had the choice I would try for it instead of my own, at least when it is different which is as seldom as possible.

---------
This makes reference to some kind of protest statement by feminists around conference time. You can read my brother's JKH3's blog for the family feud. I don't know if I know all that many about the specifics, I was probably just trying to stay awake during conference.

Animal intelligence and other things that don't exist

Now when it comes to animals as individuals, no one could be a bigger softie than me. I can't even leave the house without my dog in tow anymore, though I am thinking about trying a different strategy due to the dog hair in my car. I used to hand raise my hamsters. I saved a snake from a certain death at my mom's house by promising to escort it personally to the other side of Oracle Rd. I kicked in fourty bucks and cab fare out of the goodness of my own heart.

But seriously animals are total idiots. Horses as case in point. Does anyone know the reason they have to put a horse down if it breaks its leg, even in our day and age. JP3, you are a veteranarian, why don't you tell us?

Just kidding, but sometimes my brother knows so much about things that I wouldn't be surprised.

IT IS BECAUSE HORSES ARE TOO STUPID NOT TO STEP ON THEIR LEG EVEN IF IT IS BROKEN.

You would think they could set the bone and splint it, and in some species including our own (sometimes) that works, but not in horses. They will keep trying to trot around on their broken leg like there's no tommorow. That is probably why we are able to break them into manual servitude so easily.

Even my beloved bulldog doesn't qualify as smart. I won't fool myself at all on that score.

Today as he shows his increasing heat tollerance he showed that as unable as he is to tolerate the heat he is equally unwilling to stay out of the kitchen, so to speak. Ok it is his favorite room, for more reasons than one.

I tried to get him to stay downstairs because it is SO much cooler down there but he dutifully trotted up and down the stairs every time I went up and down with laundry or dishes or whatever in his continuing search to escape the feelings of insecure atachment he attained in his puppyhood (thanks to luvabulldog, as always). It makes me cringe to think that he spent the first summer of his tender little life outside ALL DAY. At least he got sprayed down with a HOSE afterward. I wonder during the summer whether he would like the hose any more than in the winter. He seems to have a problem now even with his warm bubblebath, so I am pretty sure the hose came in a distant second to how much he liked the mud and filth he had to run around in all day before he came in.

So animal lovers, I am with you. I am infinitely tender toward these creatures, particularly those that I am attached to like those in my care. Including the two legged variety.

But in the cases of those animals with less than you would call human-like sentience, it is not a good idea to anthropomorphize.

EVEN PITA PUTS DOWN THREE QUARTERS OF THE ANIMALS THEY RESCUE!

So as I say, I love animals, just like I love the planet and want to save the world, etc. And I suppose horses have even fewer brains than some of the animals that we have no reservations about eating, like pigs.

But they are not people. And just as any cause to be taken up on a banner or on a bumpersticker, there are complicated issues involved in any moral or philosophical issue like whether a dog is smiling.

And the answer is yes MY dog is smiling, because he knows he has hoodwinked about ten years of manual servitude from me.

That blue guy on Oprah again

In the 'some people never learn' department, I saw that blue guy that was on Oprah (who had turned himself blue by ingesting silver which is obviously not a good idea to ingest and you would think that he would know that now) while I was in the UK doing an interview on one of those shows.

And he still takes silver!

And he doesn't seem to be getting any other benefits from it, really, and I say 'other' if looking like a Smurf can be construed as a benefit.

It bolsters my theory that there really is not with some people anything that could actually happen to them to make them say 'gee, maybe I am wrong about that.'

Yes, it CAN hurt

I have found that my war against naturopathy is not only fought completely alone, but it makes people very angry, an I am not really sure why. Because pretty much the thing that people say about my articles is that I make really good points that they haven't heard before anywhere else and they really don't know exactly how to counter many of them but that somehow they just in their gut don't agree. This is why I really think people should try to stop thinking with their guts.

Because I have seen the harm that it can do. I had a cousin die

http://www.helium.com/items/1027218-people-argument-pursue-natural

(I can't do links to day so sorry about cutting and pasting if you want to read the rest of this but I am sure that you know how.)

Why some people don't like to discuss how much money they make

This is really a filler blog because I keep thinking of something new to put on this one and haven't been able to think of much lately. I have been either just doing silly family stuff or Helium lately (it pays much much better) and am neglecting all of my important pointificating.

But I have often wondered in the past why I never seem to get the etiquette right when it comes to the appropriateness of mentioning to the actual number how much money Slade makes. I didn't really see anything wrong with it really, certainly when he only made 3.35 no one else thought it was a problem either. People love to talk about how much they pay for things and save with coupons and such, and in general people like to talk about their talents and accomplishments at certain things. If someone is young or pretty or thin often they like to talk about it. Or if they have run a certain number of miles or made a certain number of quilts. And in this case I wouldn't be even talking about my own accomplishments at all because I am pretty much a freeloader at the moment.

Some people argue that they don't want to know how much people make because it would make them have bad feelings toward that person if the other person made more. I can't say as I sympathize with that, nor does my husband. Slade and I would absolutely never have bad feelings toward anyone else no matter how much more than us they made. But when I slipped one time and miscalculated after Slade started working and mentioned his income and I got a big verbal spanking from a certain relative, it has made me think about why ever since. Especially when I heard that relative saying how proud they were of another person for the good money they made, it made me wonder when it is ok to talk about salary without any such censure.

Then it hit me. People like to not know the specific dollar amount that someone makes nor do they like to reveal how much they themselves make because some people like to speculate about others' incomes, and of course it is much more fun and flexible to do so without conclusive proof to end their fun. And many others and often the same people like to mischaractarise their own incomes. The I'm so poor and can't afford anything game. Particularly things that they don't want to afford.

This is why I haven't liked the whole income taboo, and certainly not because we make a lot of money at all. It is because I hate these kind of games. I really don't want to characterize or mischaracterize my own financial situation at all beyond what it actually is, nor am I interested at all in what anyone else makes particularly if I weren't actually right about what I thought. If I had any actual opinions on someone else's income which I really am not interested in anyway, I wouldn't want it to be based on idle speculation.

I say, if people really feel that it is taboo to discuss incomes, they should extend that to even vague discussion of them including people saying they are poor and can't afford things like everyone else supposedly can. I also hate it when people say oh they or you can obviously afford x when they don't know what they are talking about and interestingly they don't seem to want to know. I feel that if someone doesn't want me to know an actual number, they shouldn't expect me to believe them when they tell me how poor they are. And if someone wants to speculate that someone else is so rich then they should be willing to look at the sad truth of their tax statement, and certainly not be offended that someone is breeching social ettiquette if they simply want to have people talking about how much money they have and not being right. If people think that incomes are so taboo that I would actually vote for them not talking about them at all, but ironically it is the same people that love to speculate and hate to know. It has to be for these reasons, otherwise it doesn't make sense. In fact I am quite sure that this is why the person that I offended was offended, because it ended her ability to speculate that we might be in fat city and that was no fun.

It is all in the numbers folks. I should say it is all in the careful avoidance in order to characterize the numbers. I say total openness or don't use lack of knowledge to help you say something critical of another person. Just my two cents, or however much, I am not saying.

Of course if I am not yet right about this I would like to hear other theories, but I really think this is it. Nothing else makes as much sense or is as consistent with people's behavior.