(specifics are intentionally withheld)
I went to a presentation not too long ago on campus that was quite bad. I was sitting near the back and I was very tempted to leave by about twenty minutes in. At that point we were still in the introduction and hadn't gotten to the body of the presentation.
I decided that it would be rude to leave early and that I should set a good example (several students did choose to leave early). I stayed for the entire hour and a half presentation, which turned out to be quite the feat. I had to fight myself to stay attentive and to stay in my seat. I contented myself by deciding to blog about it later and hopefully offer some constructive ideas to avoid some of these presentation mistakes.
The introduction did in fact take longer than twenty minutes. Someone was there to introduce the presenter, and that lasted approximately fifteen seconds. The presenter then took the time to tell us all about himself, his credentials in the field of his presentation, the people he was dedicating his presentation to, and the sources of his presentation. Let me just reiterate that he had not made a point until more than twenty minutes into the presentation.
So, some constructive things: keep it short and to the point! That applies to the actual content as well, but an introduction should be very short. In fact, a lot of presentations don't even need an introduction! Going straight into the content tends to hold people's attention much better.
That brings up another point: holding people's attention is essential. You can have a fantastic presentation content-wise that will have absolutely not impact on those listening if you do not hold their attention. Length is a key aspect of this, people lose interest quickly. In fact, in a presentation to college students it is ideal to keep it to under half an hour. It's not always possible to do so, but it is something to strive for. As for this particular talk, the presentation lasted for about eighty minutes followed by five to ten minutes of Q & A.
Visuals are important in presentation. You don't always have to have visual aids, but you should have something for people to look at. You can be your own visual aid if you walk around and talk animatedly. It's fine if you are the kind of person who is nervous enough to need a podium to stand behind, but if so you should have some sort of electronic visual component. In this case the presenter had powerpoint slides of his outline projected during the talk. Powerpoint can work, but an outline is a lackluster visual aid. Putting up just key words and phrases is better. Another option is prezi, which is what the wifey uses when she gives a presentation. Even just a simple outline can be visually stimulating when using prezi.
The presenter did have a few videos to use as audio/visual aids, but the videos did not happen until after an hour of presentation. At that point it was a welcome addition, but there were some problems there as well. The videos were presented without the presenter telling us WHY we were watching the videos. They clearly did fit in the presentation, but more explanation was necessary as to what point was being made with the videos. Also, it would have been better to space the videos out rather than speaking for an hour and then watching some videos.
A final critique: presentations must have a point. This presentation had an interesting title that didn't make any claims or points (which is fine), so I was interested to find out what points the presenter was going to make. I left the presentation and still didn't know what points were trying to be made. It was very haphazard with bits and pieces of things but no main point. Because there was no main point there was very little for me to grab ahold of as a takeaway. When I'm running a meeting (or in one) I try to reiterate the takeaways I want my subordinates to have so that action can come from the meeting. In this case I did not retain much of anything due to a lack of things to grab onto.
It was a frustrating experience, hence the post. A few people occasionally mention to me that I should do more than complain about problems in my blogging. Point taken, but my counter-point is that problems are wonderful things. Problems show us the opportunities to do things better. If you are never shown the negative side of things you will never achieve excellence. I hope that in this post I was able to actually give you some takeaways or positive ideas as to how to present better. While I am no great presenter myself, I certainly have the critic's ability to see problems with presentation. I will endeavor in the future to point out the opportunities corresponding to the problems I blog about.
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Friday, September 27, 2013
New diet and my thoughts on cooking
So wifey and I have been making some changes lately in an attempt to boost our chances of conception. One of the changes is our diets, which we started today. Mine is basically the diet outlined here (thanks to my brother for the idea). The basic idea is to boost my testosterone, and how that plays out in my diet is the following:
Breakfast every day will be three strips of bacon and three eggs. Lunch will be a large salad with meat (some form of steak), veggies, and nuts. Dinner will vary day to day.
Sounds pretty tasty to me! Time will tell if I get sick of it. There was a time a few years ago when I was considering joining the air force that I had to lose some weight so I changed my diet. At the time I pretty much ate the same thing 6 days of the week. I ate oatmeal for breakfast, chicken with rice and veggies for lunch, and steak with rice and veggies for dinner. Fruit was also interspersed. It worked pretty well at the time, with regular exercise I lost around 25 pounds.
The current diet will give me much more flexibility, with different snacks I can have and no set dinner. I think I'll get used to it very quickly, shouldn't be a problem. Exercise is the harder thing to get into, that starts next Monday. Urgh.
I don't really cook much anymore now that I have wifey around. She is certainly a much better cook with me. Don't get me wrong, I'm a decent cook, but she is excellent. She also really enjoys making new dishes or just experimenting and seeing what happens (almost always a success).
The creative process of cooking really appeals to me. I don't consider myself to be a very creative person, I'm more of an optimizer than a creator. Still, taking raw materials and transforming them into something that they're not is very fulfilling, especially when it's something you can enjoy afterwards. And let me tell you, I'm a man who enjoys his food.
When I was growing up I did a lot of baking, but I kind of stopped doing that when I got to college. I've found that baking is not as exciting because it's so precise. Baking is a science in which precise measurements are needed in order to get chemical reactions to happen properly. Cooking is much more of an art form where experimentation and exploration can lead to delicious discoveries. In baking you always need a recipe (unless you're an amazing baker of course), in cooking you can take a dish or a concept and just start heading in that direction until you get somewhere you like. The last time I made a nice dinner for wifey I decided to make stir-fry even though I never had before. No recipe needed, just made some choices based on previous cooking knowledge and wound up with a decently good stir-fry. That's a lot more fulfilling then following a recipe and getting the result the recipe promises.
Clearly some kitchen experience is a good idea before trying to make dishes without a recipe, but I definitely recommend some experimentation in your cooking. If nothing else, at least buy a bunch of spices and find out how you like to use them. Cooking is a life skill that will serve you well throughout your life.
Breakfast every day will be three strips of bacon and three eggs. Lunch will be a large salad with meat (some form of steak), veggies, and nuts. Dinner will vary day to day.
Sounds pretty tasty to me! Time will tell if I get sick of it. There was a time a few years ago when I was considering joining the air force that I had to lose some weight so I changed my diet. At the time I pretty much ate the same thing 6 days of the week. I ate oatmeal for breakfast, chicken with rice and veggies for lunch, and steak with rice and veggies for dinner. Fruit was also interspersed. It worked pretty well at the time, with regular exercise I lost around 25 pounds.
The current diet will give me much more flexibility, with different snacks I can have and no set dinner. I think I'll get used to it very quickly, shouldn't be a problem. Exercise is the harder thing to get into, that starts next Monday. Urgh.
I don't really cook much anymore now that I have wifey around. She is certainly a much better cook with me. Don't get me wrong, I'm a decent cook, but she is excellent. She also really enjoys making new dishes or just experimenting and seeing what happens (almost always a success).
The creative process of cooking really appeals to me. I don't consider myself to be a very creative person, I'm more of an optimizer than a creator. Still, taking raw materials and transforming them into something that they're not is very fulfilling, especially when it's something you can enjoy afterwards. And let me tell you, I'm a man who enjoys his food.
When I was growing up I did a lot of baking, but I kind of stopped doing that when I got to college. I've found that baking is not as exciting because it's so precise. Baking is a science in which precise measurements are needed in order to get chemical reactions to happen properly. Cooking is much more of an art form where experimentation and exploration can lead to delicious discoveries. In baking you always need a recipe (unless you're an amazing baker of course), in cooking you can take a dish or a concept and just start heading in that direction until you get somewhere you like. The last time I made a nice dinner for wifey I decided to make stir-fry even though I never had before. No recipe needed, just made some choices based on previous cooking knowledge and wound up with a decently good stir-fry. That's a lot more fulfilling then following a recipe and getting the result the recipe promises.
Clearly some kitchen experience is a good idea before trying to make dishes without a recipe, but I definitely recommend some experimentation in your cooking. If nothing else, at least buy a bunch of spices and find out how you like to use them. Cooking is a life skill that will serve you well throughout your life.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
A forced post
Here I am forcing myself to start writing this post.
I feel so unmotivated today. I feel like I should be talking about procrastination or something since that's what I'm doing. It's not so much that I procrastinate the important things though. I've been doing my work and getting stuff done pretty well, despite still having a long to-do list.
I'm just not doing the less-important things that I should be doing. Blogging is a prime example. I was in Canada over the weekend without a computer, so I took a little hiatus. Then when I came back I was exhausted yesterday, and now I'm really just forcing myself to keep typing.
Another thing I should be doing is reading. One of my goals for this semester is to read three books I have not read before. I started "The Octopus" by Frank Norris in the Vancouver airport but I haven't touched it since coming home. The first chapter was very good, the descriptions were beautifully done.
I should also be doing some more cleaning around the house. A couple of my areas are falling behind and I just haven't done what I should on a timely basis. I definitely do have a problem with laziness. It's just so much easier to turn on a video game or the internet and content myself with that then to actually challenge myself to do something worthwhile.
I don't want to be too much of a downer, so I think I'll just end this post. My writing is so much better if I start before 11 PM, but tonight I started around 12:45 AM. Urgh. I need a good night's sleep and the clarity of a new day. Carpe crastinum.
I feel so unmotivated today. I feel like I should be talking about procrastination or something since that's what I'm doing. It's not so much that I procrastinate the important things though. I've been doing my work and getting stuff done pretty well, despite still having a long to-do list.
I'm just not doing the less-important things that I should be doing. Blogging is a prime example. I was in Canada over the weekend without a computer, so I took a little hiatus. Then when I came back I was exhausted yesterday, and now I'm really just forcing myself to keep typing.
Another thing I should be doing is reading. One of my goals for this semester is to read three books I have not read before. I started "The Octopus" by Frank Norris in the Vancouver airport but I haven't touched it since coming home. The first chapter was very good, the descriptions were beautifully done.
I should also be doing some more cleaning around the house. A couple of my areas are falling behind and I just haven't done what I should on a timely basis. I definitely do have a problem with laziness. It's just so much easier to turn on a video game or the internet and content myself with that then to actually challenge myself to do something worthwhile.
I don't want to be too much of a downer, so I think I'll just end this post. My writing is so much better if I start before 11 PM, but tonight I started around 12:45 AM. Urgh. I need a good night's sleep and the clarity of a new day. Carpe crastinum.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
The segregation of information
The advent of modern communications technology has brought an incredible availability of information to your average American. If you want to know about something, you google it. If you have a particular interest in something you can join any number of communities on the internet that support that interest. I myself am a member of boardgamegeek.com, the best resource (and community) out there for board gaming.
In addition to interests, the internet makes it easy to surround yourself with similar opinions. People generally do not like to be challenged in their opinions, so they become friends with those who hold similar beliefs. Social media is a prime example of this, in that you choose who you "follow", and therefore the information you receive.
Now, some people do choose to follow and pay attention to people and organizations that they do not agree with, but these people are in the minority. Most of us only really like to pay attention to those who agree with us. It's far more comfortable to only talk to and listen to people who agree with you. You don't have to have your opinions challenged.
Despite the people and organizations you affiliate yourself with, there always do crop up a few ideas that you disagree with. I feel that most people do not actually take the time to consider ideas that they disagree with. Far more often people simply read things just to disagree with them, like waiting for a break in a conversation so you can tell someone how wrong they are. Reading the comments section on most websites is like walking through a minefield of hatefulness.
I'm not claiming that we should all just hold hands and sing around the campfire and forget about our differences, but what we should do is actually give respect to other people's opinions and beliefs. No one person has perfect knowledge. We all have many opinions on various issues, and statistically speaking some of our opinions are uninformed. Some of my current beliefs will be simplistic or ridiculous to my future self. That's part of growing older, becoming more informed. This process does not happen on its own, it requires actual effort. You must read, you must learn, you must understand different sides to issues. To not seek out new information is to allow your mind to become stagnant.
Take some time to consider different viewpoints. Truth is outside of yourself.
In addition to interests, the internet makes it easy to surround yourself with similar opinions. People generally do not like to be challenged in their opinions, so they become friends with those who hold similar beliefs. Social media is a prime example of this, in that you choose who you "follow", and therefore the information you receive.
Now, some people do choose to follow and pay attention to people and organizations that they do not agree with, but these people are in the minority. Most of us only really like to pay attention to those who agree with us. It's far more comfortable to only talk to and listen to people who agree with you. You don't have to have your opinions challenged.
Despite the people and organizations you affiliate yourself with, there always do crop up a few ideas that you disagree with. I feel that most people do not actually take the time to consider ideas that they disagree with. Far more often people simply read things just to disagree with them, like waiting for a break in a conversation so you can tell someone how wrong they are. Reading the comments section on most websites is like walking through a minefield of hatefulness.
I'm not claiming that we should all just hold hands and sing around the campfire and forget about our differences, but what we should do is actually give respect to other people's opinions and beliefs. No one person has perfect knowledge. We all have many opinions on various issues, and statistically speaking some of our opinions are uninformed. Some of my current beliefs will be simplistic or ridiculous to my future self. That's part of growing older, becoming more informed. This process does not happen on its own, it requires actual effort. You must read, you must learn, you must understand different sides to issues. To not seek out new information is to allow your mind to become stagnant.
Take some time to consider different viewpoints. Truth is outside of yourself.
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Infertility
Wifey and I got married in June of last year, so it's been one year and roughly three months since the big day. We kind of expected the "normal" thing that seems to happen to all of our Catholic friends: get married and then get pregnant within three months.
It didn't happen.
After about three months we started trying a little more scientifically (using NFP).
No pregnancy.
Problems started evidencing themselves with Wifey's hormones, so we started seeing a doctor, and had some blood work done. Things weren't looking quite normal, but they didn't look too bad. So we kept at it, getting more and more discouraged as the months went by. We knew the next step was to get me tested and to have more blood work done on her, but I definitely procrastinated. It's hard to admit that things might not be what they're supposed to be with your body.
The Friday before last we had me tested and she got some more blood work done. Last Monday we got the results back.
Things do not look good.
Wifey's hormones are doing very strange things. I have some problems with my sperm. We don't know exactly what is wrong yet with either of us. I have an appointment with a urologist tomorrow, and Wifey has started taking a couple of medications to hopefully regulate things better.
The thing is, it would be one thing if just one of us had fertility issues. With both of us, it seems (at least at the moment) like our chances of conceiving are very slim.
It's been a rough week to say the least. Poor Wifey has been getting sick from the medication, and both of us have been very emotionally exhausted.
It's hard to come to grips with the fact that our life might just not go the way we hoped and planned it would. For both of us, the idea of marriage carries with it the idea of raising a family together. I was all ready to have kids, get a good job, buy a house, and raise our children. Now it looks like that might not be what happens.
I know the good Catholic thing to do is to "be open to the plan God has for your life", but I always though that raising a family was the plan He had. He equipped me to be a good father. He gave me the desire for fatherhood. He brought me and the love of my life together. Why this? What did we do wrong?
I know it isn't something we did wrong. I know it with my head, but it doesn't feel that way with my heart.
I am trying to come to a better understanding of suffering, and to unite my suffering to the suffering of Christ on the cross. I haven't really suffered a lot in my life, so this is a bit of a new experience for me. I'm usually the one helping out others who are suffering.
I posted a facebook message on Monday asking for prayers. Several people have approached me since then (of course) asking me how I'm doing and if I need any help from them. I certainly appreciate people asking what they can do, but please just pray. You can ask me how I'm doing, but if I say "fine" then please just let it be. There are only a few people I would really want to talk with about this, and if you're one of them then I will talk to you about it. If I do need to just release something cathartically I may blog about it. Please don't do the "but how are you doing - really?" thing. I appreciate that you care about me, but this is not something I want to be reminded of all the time.
One last thing, I know just about everyone will immediately think of adoption as an option. It may very well be an option, but there is also a chance that it won't be (for various reasons I don't want to get into here). We are certainly open to adoption if that winds up working and being our best option, but that is definitely not certain.
Thanks for reading, and please pray for us.
It didn't happen.
After about three months we started trying a little more scientifically (using NFP).
No pregnancy.
Problems started evidencing themselves with Wifey's hormones, so we started seeing a doctor, and had some blood work done. Things weren't looking quite normal, but they didn't look too bad. So we kept at it, getting more and more discouraged as the months went by. We knew the next step was to get me tested and to have more blood work done on her, but I definitely procrastinated. It's hard to admit that things might not be what they're supposed to be with your body.
The Friday before last we had me tested and she got some more blood work done. Last Monday we got the results back.
Things do not look good.
Wifey's hormones are doing very strange things. I have some problems with my sperm. We don't know exactly what is wrong yet with either of us. I have an appointment with a urologist tomorrow, and Wifey has started taking a couple of medications to hopefully regulate things better.
The thing is, it would be one thing if just one of us had fertility issues. With both of us, it seems (at least at the moment) like our chances of conceiving are very slim.
It's been a rough week to say the least. Poor Wifey has been getting sick from the medication, and both of us have been very emotionally exhausted.
It's hard to come to grips with the fact that our life might just not go the way we hoped and planned it would. For both of us, the idea of marriage carries with it the idea of raising a family together. I was all ready to have kids, get a good job, buy a house, and raise our children. Now it looks like that might not be what happens.
I know the good Catholic thing to do is to "be open to the plan God has for your life", but I always though that raising a family was the plan He had. He equipped me to be a good father. He gave me the desire for fatherhood. He brought me and the love of my life together. Why this? What did we do wrong?
I know it isn't something we did wrong. I know it with my head, but it doesn't feel that way with my heart.
I am trying to come to a better understanding of suffering, and to unite my suffering to the suffering of Christ on the cross. I haven't really suffered a lot in my life, so this is a bit of a new experience for me. I'm usually the one helping out others who are suffering.
I posted a facebook message on Monday asking for prayers. Several people have approached me since then (of course) asking me how I'm doing and if I need any help from them. I certainly appreciate people asking what they can do, but please just pray. You can ask me how I'm doing, but if I say "fine" then please just let it be. There are only a few people I would really want to talk with about this, and if you're one of them then I will talk to you about it. If I do need to just release something cathartically I may blog about it. Please don't do the "but how are you doing - really?" thing. I appreciate that you care about me, but this is not something I want to be reminded of all the time.
One last thing, I know just about everyone will immediately think of adoption as an option. It may very well be an option, but there is also a chance that it won't be (for various reasons I don't want to get into here). We are certainly open to adoption if that winds up working and being our best option, but that is definitely not certain.
Thanks for reading, and please pray for us.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Ramblings of a rambler
I came up with the title of my blog (Ramblings of an interested party) after Wifey read the first couple of posts and mentioned that I basically just ramble a lot. I decided to own that and put it in the title (a big improvement on my first title, "Catchy title that makes me sound really insightful", or something like that). This particular post will be even more rambling than usual!
I was thinking earlier on some of the reasons why I'm blogging. It has kind of lost its novelty at this point (to be expected), but I am definitely committed to keeping at it. One reason is that I find it rather therapeutic. I've never been much of a writer. I hate writing papers, my diary had two entries in it growing up, and I never moved forward with the idea I had once in college for a Young Adult series. But this experience of blogging has been rather enjoyable, I'm not quite sure why.
I have had to curtail my expectations of other's enjoyment of the blog. Part of me yearns to be regarded as some sort of sage, to be lauded for my intelligence and keen insights. That's not going to happen. I don't have the discipline to become one of those full-time bloggers or people who turn their blog into a book. And that's fine! In the end, I blog for me. As long as I'm blogging for my own benefit, it won't be a disappointment when I don't get readers or a post sucks (a few of them have).
The biggest benefit I'm getting is engaging my mind. When I was growing up I read like crazy. My mom had to force me to go play outside because I was inside reading too much. Sometimes I would just take a book outside and go sit in a tree to read. As I've gotten older I find that I don't take the time to read as much. One of the reasons is probably the internet. Now that I can read endlessly on various interests I don't take the time to discover new interests and new worlds in fiction. That's a shame really. Writing has forced me to actually think about things instead of just looking for entertainment or information.
One thing I have to keep an eye on is my amount of negativity. It is so easy to always tear down without building up. It is certainly my tendency to point out problems more than offering solutions. I do believe that pointing out problems is good and necessary, but I don't want it to become a crutch to take the place of solution-based critical thinking.
So far I'm quite happy with this experience. Next on the list of learning to blog is going to be blogging about topics I thought of days or weeks before. My M.O. has been to blog about whatever is currently on my mind, hence why some posts (like this one) are a little more out there and unfocused. Topic ideas are certainly welcome if there's something you'd like to hear my thoughts on. Time to tackle some interesting subjects!
I was thinking earlier on some of the reasons why I'm blogging. It has kind of lost its novelty at this point (to be expected), but I am definitely committed to keeping at it. One reason is that I find it rather therapeutic. I've never been much of a writer. I hate writing papers, my diary had two entries in it growing up, and I never moved forward with the idea I had once in college for a Young Adult series. But this experience of blogging has been rather enjoyable, I'm not quite sure why.
I have had to curtail my expectations of other's enjoyment of the blog. Part of me yearns to be regarded as some sort of sage, to be lauded for my intelligence and keen insights. That's not going to happen. I don't have the discipline to become one of those full-time bloggers or people who turn their blog into a book. And that's fine! In the end, I blog for me. As long as I'm blogging for my own benefit, it won't be a disappointment when I don't get readers or a post sucks (a few of them have).
The biggest benefit I'm getting is engaging my mind. When I was growing up I read like crazy. My mom had to force me to go play outside because I was inside reading too much. Sometimes I would just take a book outside and go sit in a tree to read. As I've gotten older I find that I don't take the time to read as much. One of the reasons is probably the internet. Now that I can read endlessly on various interests I don't take the time to discover new interests and new worlds in fiction. That's a shame really. Writing has forced me to actually think about things instead of just looking for entertainment or information.
One thing I have to keep an eye on is my amount of negativity. It is so easy to always tear down without building up. It is certainly my tendency to point out problems more than offering solutions. I do believe that pointing out problems is good and necessary, but I don't want it to become a crutch to take the place of solution-based critical thinking.
So far I'm quite happy with this experience. Next on the list of learning to blog is going to be blogging about topics I thought of days or weeks before. My M.O. has been to blog about whatever is currently on my mind, hence why some posts (like this one) are a little more out there and unfocused. Topic ideas are certainly welcome if there's something you'd like to hear my thoughts on. Time to tackle some interesting subjects!
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Syria, or "Have we learned nothing?"
President Obama has been campaigning for us to bomb Syria. For some days the Obama administration has been talking about how they believe that President Assad of Syria has used chemical weapons on his people recently as part of his military operations attempting to quell the rebellion in his country. Syria has been embroiled in a civil war for a couple of years now.
Obama said back in December that:
Once it was determined that Assad did use chemical weapons against his people, Obama was forced to begin preparations to carry out "consequences" against Assad. The administration said that their plans were to place "no boots on the ground", but rather to just send bombs into Syria. There are many problems with this:
1. By attacking Assad and his forces, we are by default supporting the rebel forces. The problem here is that the rebel forces are strongly linked to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda of course is an active enemy of the United States. Therefore by opposing Assad we are supporting our enemies. What's even more confusing is that we have already been providing aid to the rebel forces.
2. While our bombs are always targeted with the latest technology, there is bound to be collateral damage. There will be innocents unintentionally killed by the US if bombs are launched.
3. Assad's regime has a few fairly powerful allies. When I say fairly powerful I mean China, Russia, and Iran. All of these countries support Assad to some extent. Do we really want to attack someone who is supported by them? There were some panicked thoughts flying around the internet last week that Obama was going to start World War 3. I know it seem unlikely, but we as a nation have this idea that another World War will not happen any time soon. Obviously this is a very in-depth issue but I believe that peace in the world is far more tenuous than we would like to believe.
4. The distinction Obama has drawn of chemical weapons being "unacceptable" comes off feeling a little arbitrary. The attack referenced by the Obama administration killed a little less than 1500 people. While that certainly is terrible and tragic, total casualties in the civil war are above 100,000. The fact that America has not become involved in the face of so much evil and death until one attack that "crossed the line" seems to say that we don't care THAT you kill people, just HOW you kill people. Go ahead and kill them if you're using guns or explosives, but chemical weapons are off limits.
So in the face of all of this, why did the Obama administration start advocating bombing Syria? Their reasoning that chemical weapons are unacceptable in warfare stems from the Geneva Conventions. The particular Geneva Convention that deals with chemical warfare came into being in 1929. Warfare has changed a considerable amount since 1929. Regardless of advances in technology however, the fact remains that warfare kills combatants and innocents no matter how it is conducted. This fixation on so-called "inhumane" ways of killing people doesn't particularly matter. Does a soldier care if he was killed via bleeding out from a bullet hole or via asphyxiation from some gas? Does a civilian care if they were killed via a stray bomb or via some bio-chemical weapon?
Yes, there are some terrible side effects of various chemical weapons that leave permanent damage to survivors. For that matter, the same could be said of exploding weapons or depleted uranium ammunition. As well, think of the atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. How are chemical weapons any worse than the methods of warfare the United States used in those cases?
The impression that I have is that the Obama administration is considering attacking a country for the president's reputation. Obama made that so-called "red line" statement back in December that it would be unacceptable for Assad to use chemical weapons and that there would be consequences if he did. Well, now it looks like he has. What should Obama do? Clearly his opinion is that he should start bombing in order to stay true to his word. He can't look weak by not following through on his promise of consequences.
That particular idea actually showcases weakness. There are times when having to swallow your words is the right thing to do. Obama was wrong to make the sweeping declaration he made in December. The right thing to do, the strong thing to do, is to acknowledge the fact that he was wrong. Proceeding on a course without regard to the consequences just so as to not appear weak shows that he is, in fact, weak. A strong man knows how to admit failings.
The truth of the matter is, the situation in Syria has no good solution, at least no good solution that the US can help implement. Our military involvement in the civil war would necessitate helping one side, and as much as we like a good heroic story there are no heroes here. Neither side is good. Neither side is friendly to us.
Yesterday and today the idea of Assad turning over his chemical weapons to Russia has been floated and supported, most notably by Vladimir Putin. It is possible that Obama will be willing to use this idea to save face while not attacking Syria. Time will tell, but it is telling that this idea was not one advocated by the administration until Putin supported it. Diplomatic relations were not the go-to idea. Bombs were.
This whole situation reminds me of when the United States supported a rebellion in another region in the Middle East back in the late 1970s and 1980s. The government forces were supported by the Soviet Union, and in our Cold War wisdom we were willing to give money and weapons to anyone rebelling against the USSR's allies. The war was in Afghanistan. The rebel groups were called the Mujahideen. One young man involved in the Mujahideen was named Osama Bin Laden. Twelve years ago today he orchestrated a devastating terrorist attack on the United States. This is our legacy of involvement in Middle Eastern wars. This is what happens when we meddle in affairs that are too complicated for us to know the results of our interference. This is what happens when we support militant extremists.
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Have we learned nothing?
Obama said back in December that:
“The use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable. And if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences, and you will be held accountable." (source)
Once it was determined that Assad did use chemical weapons against his people, Obama was forced to begin preparations to carry out "consequences" against Assad. The administration said that their plans were to place "no boots on the ground", but rather to just send bombs into Syria. There are many problems with this:
1. By attacking Assad and his forces, we are by default supporting the rebel forces. The problem here is that the rebel forces are strongly linked to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda of course is an active enemy of the United States. Therefore by opposing Assad we are supporting our enemies. What's even more confusing is that we have already been providing aid to the rebel forces.
2. While our bombs are always targeted with the latest technology, there is bound to be collateral damage. There will be innocents unintentionally killed by the US if bombs are launched.
3. Assad's regime has a few fairly powerful allies. When I say fairly powerful I mean China, Russia, and Iran. All of these countries support Assad to some extent. Do we really want to attack someone who is supported by them? There were some panicked thoughts flying around the internet last week that Obama was going to start World War 3. I know it seem unlikely, but we as a nation have this idea that another World War will not happen any time soon. Obviously this is a very in-depth issue but I believe that peace in the world is far more tenuous than we would like to believe.
4. The distinction Obama has drawn of chemical weapons being "unacceptable" comes off feeling a little arbitrary. The attack referenced by the Obama administration killed a little less than 1500 people. While that certainly is terrible and tragic, total casualties in the civil war are above 100,000. The fact that America has not become involved in the face of so much evil and death until one attack that "crossed the line" seems to say that we don't care THAT you kill people, just HOW you kill people. Go ahead and kill them if you're using guns or explosives, but chemical weapons are off limits.
So in the face of all of this, why did the Obama administration start advocating bombing Syria? Their reasoning that chemical weapons are unacceptable in warfare stems from the Geneva Conventions. The particular Geneva Convention that deals with chemical warfare came into being in 1929. Warfare has changed a considerable amount since 1929. Regardless of advances in technology however, the fact remains that warfare kills combatants and innocents no matter how it is conducted. This fixation on so-called "inhumane" ways of killing people doesn't particularly matter. Does a soldier care if he was killed via bleeding out from a bullet hole or via asphyxiation from some gas? Does a civilian care if they were killed via a stray bomb or via some bio-chemical weapon?
Yes, there are some terrible side effects of various chemical weapons that leave permanent damage to survivors. For that matter, the same could be said of exploding weapons or depleted uranium ammunition. As well, think of the atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. How are chemical weapons any worse than the methods of warfare the United States used in those cases?
The impression that I have is that the Obama administration is considering attacking a country for the president's reputation. Obama made that so-called "red line" statement back in December that it would be unacceptable for Assad to use chemical weapons and that there would be consequences if he did. Well, now it looks like he has. What should Obama do? Clearly his opinion is that he should start bombing in order to stay true to his word. He can't look weak by not following through on his promise of consequences.
That particular idea actually showcases weakness. There are times when having to swallow your words is the right thing to do. Obama was wrong to make the sweeping declaration he made in December. The right thing to do, the strong thing to do, is to acknowledge the fact that he was wrong. Proceeding on a course without regard to the consequences just so as to not appear weak shows that he is, in fact, weak. A strong man knows how to admit failings.
The truth of the matter is, the situation in Syria has no good solution, at least no good solution that the US can help implement. Our military involvement in the civil war would necessitate helping one side, and as much as we like a good heroic story there are no heroes here. Neither side is good. Neither side is friendly to us.
Yesterday and today the idea of Assad turning over his chemical weapons to Russia has been floated and supported, most notably by Vladimir Putin. It is possible that Obama will be willing to use this idea to save face while not attacking Syria. Time will tell, but it is telling that this idea was not one advocated by the administration until Putin supported it. Diplomatic relations were not the go-to idea. Bombs were.
This whole situation reminds me of when the United States supported a rebellion in another region in the Middle East back in the late 1970s and 1980s. The government forces were supported by the Soviet Union, and in our Cold War wisdom we were willing to give money and weapons to anyone rebelling against the USSR's allies. The war was in Afghanistan. The rebel groups were called the Mujahideen. One young man involved in the Mujahideen was named Osama Bin Laden. Twelve years ago today he orchestrated a devastating terrorist attack on the United States. This is our legacy of involvement in Middle Eastern wars. This is what happens when we meddle in affairs that are too complicated for us to know the results of our interference. This is what happens when we support militant extremists.
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Have we learned nothing?
Sunday, September 8, 2013
Masculinity and Emotions
There is a stereotype that to be masculine means to have very little (or no) emotions, to be stoic regarding the experiences you have. This stereotype is perpetrated by men who are uncomfortable with emotions (both their own and other people's) and who therefore suppress their emotions. Having taken Psychology 101 I feel qualified to diagnose this as repression, something that is widely considered to cause lasting damage to the psyche.
Repression of emotions doesn't just damage the men who do it, it also sends shockwaves through their families and damages friendships. Many men repress their emotions so much that they are not capable of showing true affection for their wives and children. Some repress all of their emotions except one and pour all of the other emotions into that one, anger. Anger is seen as a "masculine" emotion and therefore acceptable for a man to exhibit.
Consider the effect this repression has on relationships. Many men do not get married because they do not show emotions and affections to women. Many men who do get married do not show emotions and affection to their spouse to the extent that the marriage falls apart. The marriage covenant is a total gift of self, and an important part of the self is the emotions. Failing to give your total self in marriage is not truly partaking in the marriage covenant.
(Side note, I made the connection between emotions and affections above without explaining. To truly have affection for someone one must feel emotion. To have "affection" without emotions is merely to appreciate someone for the way they make us feel or the things they can do.)
When it comes to parental relationships, the lack of emotion shown by fathers has a drastic effect on their children. Girls need a father to model for them both what it means to be loved and esteemed by a man and what it means to be loved and esteemed by their heavenly Father. The stereotypical "daddy issues" stem from men not showing a proper amount of emotion and affection to their daughters. Boys need a father to model for them what it means to be a man. One important facet of manhood is that of personal responsiblity. A boy needs to see that his father loves him but still holds him accountable for his actions. Love without accountability leads to boys who never grow up, always expecting the world to give them their life on a silver platter. Accountability without love leads to resentment, rebellion, and repression of the son's own emotions.
Repressing emotions has also caused a lack of brotherhood in friendships. There is far too much loneliness in the modern world. Men's relationships with each other are often based only on common interest. True friendship between men is based on who the men are and their desire to have the other grow in the various areas of their lives. I would call that brotherhood.
In the end, emotions are a natural part of the person. Men who suppress their emotions are neglecting a part of themselves and they or their families will suffer consequences in the future. There are certainly men who are too emotional, but that is not as typical of a problem. Emotional health can only come through practicing the proper use of your emotions. Repression is extremely unhealthy.
Repression of emotions doesn't just damage the men who do it, it also sends shockwaves through their families and damages friendships. Many men repress their emotions so much that they are not capable of showing true affection for their wives and children. Some repress all of their emotions except one and pour all of the other emotions into that one, anger. Anger is seen as a "masculine" emotion and therefore acceptable for a man to exhibit.
Consider the effect this repression has on relationships. Many men do not get married because they do not show emotions and affections to women. Many men who do get married do not show emotions and affection to their spouse to the extent that the marriage falls apart. The marriage covenant is a total gift of self, and an important part of the self is the emotions. Failing to give your total self in marriage is not truly partaking in the marriage covenant.
(Side note, I made the connection between emotions and affections above without explaining. To truly have affection for someone one must feel emotion. To have "affection" without emotions is merely to appreciate someone for the way they make us feel or the things they can do.)
When it comes to parental relationships, the lack of emotion shown by fathers has a drastic effect on their children. Girls need a father to model for them both what it means to be loved and esteemed by a man and what it means to be loved and esteemed by their heavenly Father. The stereotypical "daddy issues" stem from men not showing a proper amount of emotion and affection to their daughters. Boys need a father to model for them what it means to be a man. One important facet of manhood is that of personal responsiblity. A boy needs to see that his father loves him but still holds him accountable for his actions. Love without accountability leads to boys who never grow up, always expecting the world to give them their life on a silver platter. Accountability without love leads to resentment, rebellion, and repression of the son's own emotions.
Repressing emotions has also caused a lack of brotherhood in friendships. There is far too much loneliness in the modern world. Men's relationships with each other are often based only on common interest. True friendship between men is based on who the men are and their desire to have the other grow in the various areas of their lives. I would call that brotherhood.
In the end, emotions are a natural part of the person. Men who suppress their emotions are neglecting a part of themselves and they or their families will suffer consequences in the future. There are certainly men who are too emotional, but that is not as typical of a problem. Emotional health can only come through practicing the proper use of your emotions. Repression is extremely unhealthy.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Introspection
In my Business Policy class this evening the professor was lecturing on Analysis. One of the most common problems with analysis that he talked about is that people don't analyze their analysis. To rephrase, people in a business setting often use a form of analysis but do not analyze the form they are using: why they are using it, how useful it is, and then later how accurate the analysis was.
This concept certainly applies in our personal lives as well. We accumulate knowledge over the course of our lives, but to use that knowledge well requires introspection. It is not enough to know something, an educated person must also know how they know it. How it came to your attention, why it came to your attention, and what action is demanded based on the knowledge are all questions to ask yourself. Asking yourself these questions will greatly improve your ability to use knowledge.
Taking this a step further, I always find it interesting and helpful to reflect upon how I think in general, not just how I think about specific issues. Knowing how you take in and process information is important to a good understanding of self. Another part of this is knowing your reactionary tendencies. For example, many people have an immediate reaction of defensiveness when someone mentions a constructive criticism to them. Oftentimes this is an inappropriate reaction, so it is useful to know if that is your tendency so that you can strive to overcome it.
I am a fan of strategy in general and strategy games in particular. Strategy games keep my mind active and give me the joy of solving an optimization puzzle. Through playing games and then reflecting on my strategy afterwards (something a lot of people never do), I have come to discover some of my strategic weaknesses. A minor one is the tendency to try strategies that are considered to be less optimal just to see if I can make it work. The largest strategic weakness I have is the tendency to project, to think that others will think how I think. It has certainly lost me plenty of games. Remembering my tendency to project while playing games allows me to actively work against my tendency and compete more effectively.
The same idea can apply to thinking in any area in your life. Knowing how you think allows you to overcome areas that challenge you and can lead to great benefits in all facets of your life. Also remember to reflect upon your weaknesses in your thinking and view them as opportunities to improve yourself. I highly recommend taking the time to think about how you think.
This concept certainly applies in our personal lives as well. We accumulate knowledge over the course of our lives, but to use that knowledge well requires introspection. It is not enough to know something, an educated person must also know how they know it. How it came to your attention, why it came to your attention, and what action is demanded based on the knowledge are all questions to ask yourself. Asking yourself these questions will greatly improve your ability to use knowledge.
Taking this a step further, I always find it interesting and helpful to reflect upon how I think in general, not just how I think about specific issues. Knowing how you take in and process information is important to a good understanding of self. Another part of this is knowing your reactionary tendencies. For example, many people have an immediate reaction of defensiveness when someone mentions a constructive criticism to them. Oftentimes this is an inappropriate reaction, so it is useful to know if that is your tendency so that you can strive to overcome it.
I am a fan of strategy in general and strategy games in particular. Strategy games keep my mind active and give me the joy of solving an optimization puzzle. Through playing games and then reflecting on my strategy afterwards (something a lot of people never do), I have come to discover some of my strategic weaknesses. A minor one is the tendency to try strategies that are considered to be less optimal just to see if I can make it work. The largest strategic weakness I have is the tendency to project, to think that others will think how I think. It has certainly lost me plenty of games. Remembering my tendency to project while playing games allows me to actively work against my tendency and compete more effectively.
The same idea can apply to thinking in any area in your life. Knowing how you think allows you to overcome areas that challenge you and can lead to great benefits in all facets of your life. Also remember to reflect upon your weaknesses in your thinking and view them as opportunities to improve yourself. I highly recommend taking the time to think about how you think.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Cardinal Dolan on the Colbert Report
I don't normally watch TV but I happened to turn it on tonight because the wife is out of town and I was a bit bored (never a good reason, feel free to give me crap about that). I watched the end of The Daily Show with John Stewart and was staying tuned for The Colbert Report when I noticed on facebook that Cardinal Dolan of New York was going to be the guest. Interesting! So I kept watching and quite enjoyed the guest spot.
A lot of the guest segment was devoted to Colbert asking Cardinal Dolan questions about Pope Francis. One of the questions was regarding Pope Francis saying something regarding Christ saving atheists. Colbert jokingly asked why he should go to mass then if he didn't need it to get to heaven (Colbert is Catholic). I quite enjoyed Cardinal Dolan's answer regarding that we don't go to mass to "win heaven", we go to mass to give thanks to God.
At another point Colbert brought up the "Who am I to judge?" quote from Pope Francis regarding homosexuals. Cardinal Dolan gave a very good answer regarding that Christ told us that we cannot judge people. We can judge actions, but not people. He gave a good example of Bernie Madoff, that he (Dolan) cannot judge Madoff as a person because he does not know his soul or his heart. He can judge Madoff's actions, but not Madoff as a person. Excellent example in my opinion.
The guest segment was nice and long. They even took a commercial break in the middle of the segment, which I haven't seen on the Report before. Cardinal Dolan was in very good humor throughout, he laughed a lot at Colbert when Colbert was putting on his thick satirical personality.
I am sure that some will be a little put off by a Cardinal going on a comedy news show (on Comedy Central no less). In the end though, I thought that it was quite excellent. Dolan was able to show a side of Church authority that most people never see in their lives. He was humorous and good-natured but clearly cared about the content that he was giving. He was very approachable and reasonable.
Colbert went pretty easy on Dolan, which is to be expected. It is telling that Cardinal Dolan was Colbert's first guest after a short hiatus. Colbert does not attempt to hide his Catholicism, though it could be questioned how in line his views are with the Church's teaching on several issues. An interesting clip to watch if you haven't seen it before is his interview of an atheist named Phillip Zimbardo. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/149094/february-11-2008/philip-zimbardo
I believe that good will come of this particular interview. We need more engagement of the culture while not watering down truth. Bravo to Cardinal Dolan for being willing to do this interview.
A lot of the guest segment was devoted to Colbert asking Cardinal Dolan questions about Pope Francis. One of the questions was regarding Pope Francis saying something regarding Christ saving atheists. Colbert jokingly asked why he should go to mass then if he didn't need it to get to heaven (Colbert is Catholic). I quite enjoyed Cardinal Dolan's answer regarding that we don't go to mass to "win heaven", we go to mass to give thanks to God.
At another point Colbert brought up the "Who am I to judge?" quote from Pope Francis regarding homosexuals. Cardinal Dolan gave a very good answer regarding that Christ told us that we cannot judge people. We can judge actions, but not people. He gave a good example of Bernie Madoff, that he (Dolan) cannot judge Madoff as a person because he does not know his soul or his heart. He can judge Madoff's actions, but not Madoff as a person. Excellent example in my opinion.
The guest segment was nice and long. They even took a commercial break in the middle of the segment, which I haven't seen on the Report before. Cardinal Dolan was in very good humor throughout, he laughed a lot at Colbert when Colbert was putting on his thick satirical personality.
I am sure that some will be a little put off by a Cardinal going on a comedy news show (on Comedy Central no less). In the end though, I thought that it was quite excellent. Dolan was able to show a side of Church authority that most people never see in their lives. He was humorous and good-natured but clearly cared about the content that he was giving. He was very approachable and reasonable.
Colbert went pretty easy on Dolan, which is to be expected. It is telling that Cardinal Dolan was Colbert's first guest after a short hiatus. Colbert does not attempt to hide his Catholicism, though it could be questioned how in line his views are with the Church's teaching on several issues. An interesting clip to watch if you haven't seen it before is his interview of an atheist named Phillip Zimbardo. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/149094/february-11-2008/philip-zimbardo
I believe that good will come of this particular interview. We need more engagement of the culture while not watering down truth. Bravo to Cardinal Dolan for being willing to do this interview.
Sunday, September 1, 2013
Football: overrated and an occasion for immorality
Football is overrated.
I would say that that statement might be controversial, but really anyone with half a brain is pretty much forced to agree with me. Football is overrated on a consistent basis by fans who worship the game and the players.
This is fact. Many football fans actually do worship the game and the players (and some coaches). Football is the most important thing in these people's lives. I'm not using hyperbole here! There are people who would agree when I say that football is literally the most important thing in their lives.
That's incredibly sad.
I don't mean "that's sad" as in "look at those losers", I mean it as in "these poor people choose to immerse themselves in the world of football instead of finding meaning in their own lives." Many people would rather ignore the crap going on in their lives and just focus on a game that excites them. How terrible! Instead of living their lives and being in actual relation with those around them, they would rather sit on the couch, eat stuff, and watch something other people are doing.
Of course, this isn't just football, there are many forms of entertainment that people choose to lose themselves in. Football comes to mind today because I saw an advertisement for the NFL season starting up that said "It's ok to shed a tear." My first inclination was to roll my eyes but it made me think about the people who actually do get emotional about football returning.
Another sad thing about this situation: football is a great sport! I actually quite enjoy watching football and considering the strategy behind how it is played. I love sports that have an actual break in the action where new tactics can be thought out and then implemented (the other major one of course that comes to mind is baseball). I also loved playing football the few times I have in my life, though I can't say I'm any good at it. But I have absolutely no interest in being a football fan!
How could I be interested in being a football fan? The game is followed so rabidly by the people who worship it that it leads to all sorts of disgusting things. The behavior of pro football players is substantially more reprehensible than other pro athletes. The amount of vehicular homicide, rape, actual homicide, and other smaller crimes like dog fighting that happens is disgusting. This is what happens when men are worshipped as gods. They act as those there are no limits on what they can do. They act like this because society TELLS them there are no limits on what they can do.
Not only that, but these men are held up as role models to young boys. And what do they tell the young people who idolize them? "You can be whatever you want to be." A message that definitely sinks in when the people who tell you this are doing whatever they want to do. No wonder highschool boys start acting based on this message. A recent example is the Steubenville rape case.
When you are holding people who act immorally (or at best amorally) as heroes, this is the end result.
So what is the answer? Should you not like football? I would certainly not go so far as to say that. I also don't think there is anything wrong with being a fan of a particular team. But always keep in mind the level of interest that you have in this fallen institution. If you're a fan I encourage you to try to improve the football mindset by keeping your interest at a healthy level and not supporting those whose interest in unhealthy. Also, please don't support players for your team whose behavior is disgusting.
If you're not a fan, then don't be opposed to football for some stupid reason like "it's a stupid game about big men hitting each other". Be opposed to football because of its popularity as a religion and the behavior that it promulgates in our society.
I would say that that statement might be controversial, but really anyone with half a brain is pretty much forced to agree with me. Football is overrated on a consistent basis by fans who worship the game and the players.
This is fact. Many football fans actually do worship the game and the players (and some coaches). Football is the most important thing in these people's lives. I'm not using hyperbole here! There are people who would agree when I say that football is literally the most important thing in their lives.
That's incredibly sad.
I don't mean "that's sad" as in "look at those losers", I mean it as in "these poor people choose to immerse themselves in the world of football instead of finding meaning in their own lives." Many people would rather ignore the crap going on in their lives and just focus on a game that excites them. How terrible! Instead of living their lives and being in actual relation with those around them, they would rather sit on the couch, eat stuff, and watch something other people are doing.
Of course, this isn't just football, there are many forms of entertainment that people choose to lose themselves in. Football comes to mind today because I saw an advertisement for the NFL season starting up that said "It's ok to shed a tear." My first inclination was to roll my eyes but it made me think about the people who actually do get emotional about football returning.
Another sad thing about this situation: football is a great sport! I actually quite enjoy watching football and considering the strategy behind how it is played. I love sports that have an actual break in the action where new tactics can be thought out and then implemented (the other major one of course that comes to mind is baseball). I also loved playing football the few times I have in my life, though I can't say I'm any good at it. But I have absolutely no interest in being a football fan!
How could I be interested in being a football fan? The game is followed so rabidly by the people who worship it that it leads to all sorts of disgusting things. The behavior of pro football players is substantially more reprehensible than other pro athletes. The amount of vehicular homicide, rape, actual homicide, and other smaller crimes like dog fighting that happens is disgusting. This is what happens when men are worshipped as gods. They act as those there are no limits on what they can do. They act like this because society TELLS them there are no limits on what they can do.
Not only that, but these men are held up as role models to young boys. And what do they tell the young people who idolize them? "You can be whatever you want to be." A message that definitely sinks in when the people who tell you this are doing whatever they want to do. No wonder highschool boys start acting based on this message. A recent example is the Steubenville rape case.
When you are holding people who act immorally (or at best amorally) as heroes, this is the end result.
So what is the answer? Should you not like football? I would certainly not go so far as to say that. I also don't think there is anything wrong with being a fan of a particular team. But always keep in mind the level of interest that you have in this fallen institution. If you're a fan I encourage you to try to improve the football mindset by keeping your interest at a healthy level and not supporting those whose interest in unhealthy. Also, please don't support players for your team whose behavior is disgusting.
If you're not a fan, then don't be opposed to football for some stupid reason like "it's a stupid game about big men hitting each other". Be opposed to football because of its popularity as a religion and the behavior that it promulgates in our society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)