Again

Ok, so I fell off several wagons in the last couple of months.  I hate the way I feel and now I'm starting over (again).  I've got to try and remember what was working last time:

1 - plan what I'm going to eat. Get all food entered into the planner at the beginning of the day. I'm naturally lazy and it's less work to stick to the plan than to go back and change it.

2 - Eat at specific times. The more structure, the better. My particular body seems to have hunger pangs right about 10am, noon, and 3pm. Add in coffee in the morning and a small dinner when I get home, and that's 5 small meals a day.

3 - Portion control. I cannot cook for myself. Sorry, in my case it just cannot be done. If I have food available, I will eat it. So buying food that's already divided into single portions does help.

4 - Keep to the middle of things you like. There are foods I LOVE and foods I LOATHE. If I try to subsist on food I don't like, I simply won't eat it - and then I'll get hungry and rebel by eating anything tasty I can catch. If I try to subsist on foods I LOVE, even if they're technically ok (like watermelon), portion control goes out the window. Stick to foods you like, avoid the foods you loathe, and use the plan-friendly foods you LOVE as rewards.

5 - Beware the processed food monster. Read labels. Know what's in what you're eating. Points are a great indicator - but they're only part of the story. Sugar, salt, and sugar "substitutes" are all sneaky little devils just waiting to trip you up. And they're in nearly everything that comes in single portions. BEWARE - HERE THERE BE MONSTERS.

6 - Give yourself permission to be hungry. A lot of my problems with food are that I use it as a drug for emotional control. I get hungry, then I get cranky, then I get snippy with my boss... Part of getting control over my eating means being hungry sometimes. Accept it, deal with it, and find other ways to calm your temper. (Open for suggestions!)

7- Exercise is not optional. It doesn't have to hurt and it doesn't have to even be about losing weight, but you have to move a little extra every day. My particular body tends to get stiff and painful when I don't make the effort to at least take a walk every day.

8 - Water. When the hungry gets to be too much, start with a bottle of water. It won't stop the hungry, and it won't make you feel better, but do it anyway. I often mistake being thirsty for being hungry and often end up dehydrated which feels just awful. Drink some water - then drink some more water.

9 - Do not buy what you don't want to eat. Very big deal. The last time I got tripped up started with being stressed out at Walmart and just throwing things into the cart so I could get out of there. Ended up with a cart full of baked goods and Little Debbies... It's best to go grocery shopping with a list and stick to it. Easier said than done - but worth the effort. And if I haven't gotten the groceries by the time church lets out on Sunday - DO NOT GO. Honor thy fear of crowds and shop during the quieter hours when you're less likely to panic.

10 - VARIETY - Huge Huge issue. I fall into patterns and they make me comfortable...right up until I realize I've just fallen off the wagon to alleviate the boredom. Try new tastes and flavors. Shop at different grocery stores sometimes. One week Ralphs, the next Trader Joe's, etc. Keep mixing it up and keep paying attention. Once you feel you've got a handle on it, you are in the most danger of slipping.

There's more, but that's a start...

Fine. I'm the Bad Guy. I'm entirely OK with that.

Ok, so a now ex-friend posted on FB that he thought Chik-Fil-A was so great and he was going to now donate money to fight gay marriage.

I need to be clear here - I couldn't give a flying f**k about Chik-Fil-A.  They can go fry themselves in their own vats for all I care.

I cared very much that someone who I had thought was a friend could so callously relegate me to some sub-class of people who apparently cannot feel love and attachment so their relationships don't matter.

Pissed off does not adequately describe my reaction to this.

I removed him from my friends both on FB and my real life.

Then I posted on FB that if you don't support gay marriage, take me off your FB friends list.  I genuinely did not think this was going to be a big issue.  Everybody on my FB list knows I identify as gay.  Most of them know that my sister is in a non-legal marriage with another woman and they've been together for over a decade.  Some of them are friends with her as well.

So it came as a real shock when my brother said he was against it.  And his daughter.  And another of my nieces.  And a nephew....

They kept popping out of the woodwork.  I tried a couple of times to reason with them.

Then things came to a head and I've removed them from my FB and my life.

I genuinely do not understand how they think this is some political or ideological issue.  This is my life.  They are saying my love is second-class and my relationships are worthless.

Ok then.  They no longer deserve my love and I'll build my relationships elsewhere.

Supposedly, I'm the bad guy here - you're never supposed to cut-off family.  You're supposed to give them unconditional love.  Bullshit.  They don't love me.  I'm just calling them on it.  They are bigots and I'm saying so to their faces.

Every time they use their good friend Jesus to support hate and discrimination, they might as well take out their bibles, open them to their favorite passage, and piss on it.

Ramblin

When somebody presses me for a religious affiliation, these days I tend to say, “The closest thing to what I believe is Buddhism, but I’m not a Buddhist.“  I put it in quotes here because it really has become a canned answer.  Since most people who press me for a religious affiliation tend to be some flavor of Christian and expect some flavor of Christian as a response, I usually get blank, confused stares and then a shrug of the shoulders and a change of conversation.  Which, happily, is the response I’m generally going for. 

I love so many things about the Buddhist philosophy, and think Siddartha got so much stuff right that it kinda blows my mind sometimes.  But I can’t get fully onboard because of the insane layers of dogma and the lack of respect for human imagination.  Particularly music.

Lots of people get around this stuff, take what works and call themselves Buddhists anyway.  I have no problem with that.  But for me, the distrust of dogma runs pretty deep. 

Back many years ago during an election cycle, a friend of mine was proposing a personal project where he dug into the planks of all parties to find out where he truly stands politically.  I sent him this and occasionally like to revisit it to see if my opinions have changed:

Remember, my friend, that saying and doing are two entirely different things. I don't care which color in the political kaleidoscope you land on, just make sure in your research you remember to consider what people who call themselves republicans, democrats, libertarians, etc. do in the real world.

I strongly believe that government has overreached itself and needs to be pruned back to an acceptable level. This was something the republicans were preaching from Alaska to Florida - yet once in office, republicans have pursued the exact opposite direction. I don't mean to pick on them, every political group has these inconsistencies. I'm a registered democrat, but the Clinton years blew that out of the water for me (don't get me wrong - I'd take Billy over any Bush any day).

I'm for gay marriage, legalizing drugs and the death penalty in certain cases. I'm for birth control, sex ed and multi-cultural religious education in schools. I'm against teaching intelligent design in a Science class, but see no reason why you shouldn't mention it in a Political Science class. I have deep concerns about abortion and think we have a decent compromise allowing legal abortions in the first trimester. I'm for stem cell research and against circumcision of children (let 'em get it done as adults if they want it). I want alternative fuels and vehicles that run them NOW, but I think, since we're over there, we should find a way to win this Iraq thing. (Can't really call it a war somehow) I like capitalism, but I don't understand how a nation can consider itself civilized without making basic food, shelter, education and healthcare available to everyone (they don't have to avail themselves, but the safety net should be in place). We have the resources to do it - why isn't it getting done? I don't think illegal immigrants should have licenses, and I'd be all for gun control, except I refuse to mess with the Bill of Rights. If you take one of those rights away, the rest will fall just as quickly. I have the right to free speech until I yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Other people have the right to have guns until they SHOOT SOMEBODY...and we already have laws on the books about that. We don't need more.

I have no idea where I fall on the political spectrum these days. I'm not a hypocritical bully (most of the time) so I can't call myself republican and I have a spine, so democrat doesn't really fit either.

So, what do I believe now?

I believe I’m a bad writer who can’t focus well for long periods of time.  Beyond that, I’d add that I believe from what I’m reading that yes, Global Warming or Climate Change or whatever we’re calling it these days, is real.  I don’t believe humans are the root cause, but I do believe we are accelerating and exacerbating the problem.  On the other hand, although I cannot remember the name of the person (I think a woman) who countered Malthus, I think she was somewhat right.  Humans are adaptable.  It’s one of our best traits and we maintain this adaptability with technology.  The technology to solve a population problem is almost always available, for example de-salination plants, but it may not be cost-effective at the beginning stages.  Once the problem becomes pressing enough, or the technology improves, the cost-benefit analysis changes and we sail merrily along into the next big issue.

Of course, to a certain extent Malthus was right, too.  And anyone who passed third grade earth science should know that every organism has limits.  Overpopulation will always lead to either running out of resources (starvation), breeding of disease (plague), or drowning in it’s own output.  Humans are just another species on the planet and we are responsive to the same environmental pressures as any other critters.  I grew up in Michigan, where they have a deer hunting season every year.  One of the explanations they give to tender young children who are sobbing their eyes out over daddy heading off to kill Bambi’s mom is that without hunting season the deer will overpopulate the woods and starve.  It’s kinder to thin the herd and give the survivors a better chance.

Still don’t know if I buy that reasoning.  Partially because it’s my standard emotional response to identify with the underdog or in this case victim.  Thinning the herd makes logical sense, until it’s you or someone you love that doesn’t make the cut.  Then it’s barbaric and unfair.

In fact (yes I’m heading out on another tangent), I’ve found that any logical idea taken to an extreme is bound to end up at best as ludicrous, at worst as genocide.  The secret of making things work, whether it’s political systems or baking, is always in the balance.  Capitalism is not the great satan, but allowed to run riot without regulation it really does discount people in favor of cash.  Actually, given the basic greedy nature of us funny, talking apes, almost any economic or political system gets overrun by greed sooner or later.  It seems to be a fundamental  characteristic of the species.

But build in some checks and balances that allow for the flawed nature of individuals, and almost any political or economic system can work – until someone finds a way around the rules.  And someone is always looking for a way around the rules.  Always.  Hell, I’ve rolled through a couple of stop signs myself occasionally, and I fully believe in the traffic laws.

Anyway, this rambling post brought to you by a woman stuck at home waiting for a server to crash.  Expect another pointless diatribe right around Christmas when I will once again be at home and on-call for days.  Oh the joy.

Government

Here's the problem as I see it, there are different sectors of our national life and they have unique concerns. Trying to apply one model to all sectors ensures failure for all of them.

Business\Economic Sector - concerned with benefitting those who have the money to invest more. If you are not an investor, you are a servant to those who are.

Government Sector - concerned with benefitting the most number of people. It provides infrastructure and military protection that no individual can afford. It mediates conflicts between individual rights and corporate interests.

Healthcare\Social Services Sector - concerned with benefitting the greater society by assisting those who cannot physically or financially aid themselves.

Education Sector - concerned with benefitting the society as a whole by providing the future generation with skills and knowledge that will be needed to physically and financially benefit themselves and others.

Capitalism is a great model, for the Business Sector. It is absolutely the right model to apply there. But the last few administrations have all made the critical error of trying to apply the right model for the Business Sector to the other three sectors, where it is not helpful and in most cases is actually detrimental.

Government operating to benefit investors is universally recognized as corruption. Government is supposed to regulate industry and require individual sacrifice in return for providing social stability and reliable economic growth.

Healthcare\Social Services operating to benefit investors is in direct opposition to the foundational goals of benefitting the society as a whole by taking care of the people who cannot take care of themselves.

Education operating to benefit investors creates a foundational rift between the rich and the poor that ensures eventual revolution.

Perhaps there should be a separation between Business and State even more clearly than we need and require the separation between Church and State.

10 Commandments

1. Don't kill - if you can avoid it. Unless you have to for (immediate) defense of self or others, or to eat. Notice, this does not say "Don't kill nice people" or "Don't kill people in your particular group" or even just "Don't kill other humans".
2. Don't steal - exceptions are made for literal starvation, otherwise if it's not yours, behave.
3. Don't lie - if you can avoid it. Telling your grandmother you love her meatloaf is fine.
4. Don't rape - period. Really? Somebody actually has to state this one? Wow.
5. Don't maim, torture, mutilate, kick, etc. - Again...Really???? Tell me this is a rule everybody just knows...
6. No slavery - period.
7. Treat people equally - until their actions earn either praise or caution.  Then be fair, and if you can't be fair, err in the direction of kindness.
8. Educate yourself - and others, when it's not obnoxious.
9. Think things through - just this one would help immensely.
10. Control only yourself - let other people make their own decisions.

Elevatorgate

Elevatorgate.
Oy.
Not as quick as I'd like recap:

One man, possibly clueless, probably drunk, asked one woman, who had already indicated that she was not interested in making any sexual connections that evening, back to his room.  They were in an elevator at 4am.
The woman involved (Rebecca Watson) happened to mention this in an off-hand way during a videoblog she was doing on other subjects.  It was casual, calm, and not in any way aggressive or whiny.  She said, "Guys?  Don't do that."  She said it made her uncomfortable and left it there, going on to other more interesting subjects, I believe it was robots.  At this point, there were a few people paying attention, mostly college kids and Skeptics (notice the capital S).

People in college are at a specific point in their psycho-social development.  One where they are still negotiating what is and isn't appropriate conduct for sexual advances and a few of the female students at a specific college strongly disagreed with the original blogger's stated preference not to be propositioned when she had already indicated she was not interested.
The original blogger (Rebecca) happened to be giving a speech at this specific college and called out one of the female students who had disagreed with her as an example of someone who undermines feminism.

And the internet began to roil.

There were lots of arguments back and forth about whether the speaker should have called out the student (who was present at the lecture) or whether that was an abuse of power\privilege.  There was another thread to the discussion that kind of took over, and that was whether any real offense had happened in the elevator.
Several well-regarded Skeptical blogs (capital S again) jumped into the troubled waters, usually on Rebecca's side.  A couple on the side of the student.  Apologists for the Elevator Guy (now referred to as EG) showed up.  Most of this was following along totally expected lines.  Until a best-selling author and revered Skeptic (Richard Dawkins) jumped into the mix with a completely bizarre comment comparing the elevator pass to genital mutilation and suggesting that Rebecca sit down and shut up.

Manure, meet Ventilating System.

The atheist and skeptical communities are filled to the brim with social misfits.  We're all geeks in one form or another.  Usually, that gives us a sense of connection and we celebrate it.  Unfortunately, in the particular areas of sex and romance, that lack of social understanding makes things...more difficult.
Turns out a lot of people have trouble with empathy on both sides of the gender divide.  Men, who can't see why the woman in question was uncomfortable, and women, who can't see why anyone would find it confusing.
It is confusing.  The guys are right on that much.  Social rules are complex and depend on a lot of things that don't translate well into bullet points - body language, facial expression, vocal tone, etc., etc. And even then, the rules change with each environment and each different person.
The situation in the elevator made the original videoblogger uncomfortable.  It was a personal reaction to a complex combination of factors.  She called it out in the way of giving a clue to future men who might be inclined to do the same thing in the same environment that this was not the way to approach her.
The exact same situation might have flattered the college student.  She's a different person in a different place in her life with different experiences and different expectations.
The exact same situation might have terrified another woman.  If her history led her to be wary and aware of the possibilities of sexual assault in an enclosed space with a stranger.
Social interactions vary.  It's tough to nail down specific rules that work all the time in every situation with every different person.  And it's difficult for lots of people to deal with that lack of clarity.

My take on the original video - Rebecca said nothing out of line.  She described a situation, stated her personal preferences and got on with her life.
My take on calling out the student - That seems a little awkward.  I would have taken another route but I can agree to disagree on that one.
My take on the response from Dawkins - Holy motherfucking shit, man!  What the fuck was that about, motherfucker?  (Sorry, my weird sense of humor is surfacing there.  I have also started carrying around packs of chewing gum in case I find myself in an elevator with the man, I intend to chew quite loudly.) - but seriously, while I can appreciate that the man was probably trying to bring a little perspective to a heated internet thread, those comments were tone-deaf given the absolute kindest possible interpretation.  He may have meant well, but what he did was tell another person that they had no right to speak for themselves.  All Rebecca said was that the encounter made her uncomfortable.  She wasn't screaming for anybody's head on a platter or calling EG a rapist.  She absolutely had a right to express her own feelings on the situation.  Period.  Dawkins, however much I respect his contributions on other subjects, is dead wrong on this one.

Sensing a Theme

http://www.atheist.ie/2011/06/dublin-declaration-on-religion-in-public-life-opinions-welcome/

I prefer Declaration A, myself.