Bohemian Rhapsody, Muppet Style!

OK, it's official: The Muppets are rockin' YouTube! This one's easily an even match for Beaker's "Ode to Joy" I posted a couple weeks ago:



Gotta love that ending. Poor Kermit. He's the only "normal" guy in the ocean of weirdness that makes up the Muppet cast. I'm surprised he didn't go totally postal by now after decades of dealing with it; I would have. :P

Oh yes. While I'm here, there's a new version of Beaker's "Ode to Joy" available in YouTube HD (as is Bohemian Rhapsody above); here it is for those of you with computers powerful enough to run HD video streams:



What's so cool about both of these videos is I not only laugh my head off but also the music just has me rocking back and forth with a huge smile on my face. These things are just pure, digitally encoded fun!

It's nice to see The Muppets taking advantage of the YouTube craze to boost their popularity. These videos are going viral; even Jonathan Paula (producer of Is It a Good Idea to Microwave This, my favorite YouTube video series) has the Bohemian Rhapsody one among his favorites on his channel.

Ode to Joy

I just had to share this; it just puts a huge smile on my face every time I watch it. :)

Love of the Heart Divine

For our veterans, and the loved ones they left behind when they went off to war.

Love of the Heart ...

Hosted by eSnips

Music and Lyrics by Chris de Burgh
Performed by John A. Ardelli (vocals) and Brian Morton (instrumental track)

Human Arrogance

"There are other forms of intelligence on Earth . . . Only Human arrogance would assume the message must be meant for man." - Spock, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

I must admit, I don't really know that much about climate change. Oh, I'm familiar with the scientific principle and theory behind it; I've seen An Inconvenient Truth. I would hardly call myself an "expert" on the subject, though; I really don't have much to say about it. So when I heard that was going to be the topic of "Blog Action Day" this year, my first thought was, What the heck am I going to say about that?

Of course, I've had plenty of time to think about it since the topic was announced. When I looked back at my previous blog postings including last year's Blog Action Day post "Cause and Effect: The Dynamics of Poverty," I realized that my strength was talking about psychology and the way people think. So that's the way I'd like to approach the subject: from the Human perspective.

I've heard many differing opinions and theories on climate change. Some believe it's inevitable; others believe it's preventable. Some believe Humans are the cause of it; others believe it's just a natural temperature cycle of the planet. However, whether you believe Humans are the cause of it, whether you believe it can be prevented or even if it should, there is one overriding thought I have when I think of the subject:

If the cause is us, it is Human arrogance that has done the damage.

Christianity has more influence on Western culture than probably any other religion. One of the central tenets of Christianity, particularly in the Old Testament, is that Earth was created exclusively for the use of Man because Man was ostensibly the smartest of God's creations; in fact, this is stated in The Bible's very first chapter:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. - Genesis 1: 27-30

Of course, this passage is one of those "chicken and the egg" situations. Did we come to the belief that we were superior to all creatures on the Earth because The Bible told us to, or was it written into The Bible because we already believed this? In either case, though, it's pretty clear that this passage has influenced the way Humankind has treated this world of ours over the past 6000 years or so, particularly in the Western world and among Christians worldwide.

When I read that passage from Genesis, I can't help but ask myself: what made Humans think they were so much better than everyone and everything else? Just because we can perceive a little bit of the way the Universe works? What makes us think that there aren't other creatures out there with just as sophisticated an understanding of our world? What makes us think there aren't other creatures who understand this world better than we do?

"Well, you've never seen any other creatures create vessels to take them into space or technologies to communicate around the world or techniques to feed millions of people or cure deadly diseases," etc. When you think about it, though, that doesn't really mean anything. Our biggest advantage as a species isn't our intelligence; it's our bodies: opposable thumbs, bipedal locomotion; these things give us huge advantages in tool use which other animals don't have.

Dolphins may be as intelligent or more so than we are; maybe the only reason they haven't developed technologies like ours is because they lack the ability to manipulate tools with the dexterity we can. Maybe elephants would've learned to travel to other stars by now if they had hands to build the machines; their trunks are of relatively limited utility. Maybe crows might've overthrown us by now if they didn't have to manipulate everything with an awkward beak.

Our belief in our intellectual superiority rests only on the most flimsy of foundations: our accomplishments. If you really look at them, most of our accomplishments are due not so much to intelligence but our numerical superiority (6.79 billion of us, at last count) and our bodies' remarkable flexibility in tool use. If our minds were trapped in bodies without those abilities, and if there were less of us, we would likely be no more "advanced" than dolphins.

"But chimpanzee bodies are just as dexterous as ours," one might argue. "How come they aren't at least our equals?" OK, maybe chimps aren't as intelligent as we are; since they have virtually the same physical capabilities, that's hard to dispute. But how can we possibly know how intelligent any other species is if that species can't demonstrate its intelligence through advanced tool use only because of the limitations of its body?

For millennia, Humans have behaved like the lords and masters of this planet, as if everything was ours for the taking regardless what other creatures it may hurt. We dump toxins in the water until we create disgusting legacies like the Sydney Tar Ponds. We're careless with toxic technologies until accidents like Chernobyl contaminate hundreds of square kilometers of land. We use devices to move around that spew thousands of toxins into the air yearly.

Because we've developed this mindset that the Earth is ours to use, we also get the subconscious feeling that the Earth is eternal; no matter what we do to it, the Earth will always provide. It doesn't occur to us, however, that the very physical laws of our Universe make infinity impossible. Even a resource as vast as the Earth has limitations; we can only take so much before we have to start giving back lest we use up the resource.

One of my good friends believes that Humankind simply isn't powerful enough to have had enough impact on the planet to cause climate change. "The planet's been warming and cooling for billions of years," he argues. "No way Humans are so much different from other animals that anything we do could possibly have a global impact on the environment; we're just one species among millions."

Did we cause global warming, or is it just a natural cycle? If you ask me, it doesn't really matter. The simple fact is, putting things into the environment that kills plant and animal life (and plenty of things Humans put into the environment does this on enormous scales) can't possibly be a good idea; to me, that's common sense. Yet, because we as a species believe this planet is here "just for us," we don't care what dies so long as we accomplish what we want.

But other creatures hurt, just like we do. If you accidentally step on a cat's tail, it yells; it feels pain. If you put a lobster in a pot of boiling water, it screams; it feels pain. We've all felt pain. It's something a vast majority of us avoid because, as physical sensations go, it's probably the least pleasant of all. Knowing what it's like, why would we want to inflict that on any creature?

"But they're only animals; they're not smart like us." So? Not every Human is smart, either; believe me, I've encountered my share of stupidity in my life, as we all have. Still, even if I met a Human being who was mentally handicapped with no more intelligence than a chimpanzee, I'd still feel compassion for them if they were in pain or dying. It's not about how smart the person is; it's about having some understanding of how they feel.

So why is it so hard for most of us to extend that metaphor to all creatures? Just because a dog doesn't look like us doesn't mean it doesn't have the same feelings we do. Just because insects look so ugly to our eyes (as I'm sure we do to theirs) doesn't mean they don't feel pain when they're injured. Indeed, how do we know they don't experience grief at the death of a loved one like we do? How do we know they don't experience love?

We don't.

If we did cause climate change, maybe that's poetic justice. Maybe global warming is nature's way of making us feel the suffering we've caused to the "lesser" creatures we share this planet with.

"I don't know about you, but my compassion for someone is not limited to my estimate of their intelligence." - Dr. Jillian Taylor, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

Dating

In my earlier post "Sex Education: Time for a Reform," I mentioned that I intended to go to my local library to find Victor Malarek's book The Johns - Sex for Sale and the Men who Buy It. Well, it took me a while to get it (the book was on reserve for two other readers ahead of me) but, last week, it finally became available. I picked it up last Friday; I finished it today.

Most of it talked about things I agreed with already and might've even written myself. However, there were a few things in there that took me by surprise and altered my perceptions considerably; I'll be tackling some of those ideas in future postings. For now, however, I'd like to start with something I read in an early chapter that got me thinking about something a lot of people, particularly in meatspace, have asked me.

I'm single right now. People often ask me if I intend to pursue another relationship. The answer is not a simple "yes" or "no." I don't believe in "pursuing" relationships the way most people think of it; I don't believe in "dating." I've said that to many people, male and female alike, but when pressed to explain I was never able to put into words what I meant. However, strangely enough, something I read in The Johns helped me, finally, to come up with a clear explanation.

In Chapter Four, "Single By Choice," Malarek talks about men who go to prostitutes because they've given up on the dating scene in frustration because they haven't been able to "get any" through conventional dating. I found that attitude a bit disquieting. These men apparently have the attitude that, if they show a woman a good time, that obligates her to performing "favors" for the man at the end of the night.

Charles, an office manager from Dallas, Texas (quoted from page 52 of Malarek's book) is typical of this attitude (emphasis mine):

I spend and I spend and I spend, and I don't even get a kiss goodnight. I take them to fancy restaurants to wine and dine them, and all they do is whine and whine. They complain and bitch incessantly about stuff that makes me want to yell, "Shut the fuck up! Your boring life sucks. Get over it." But I listen, hoping that maybe after she's finished her rant, we can have sex when I take her home.

I've overheard countless guys make those kinds of comments: "I spent all that money on her and she wouldn't even have sex with me!" Whenever I hear things like that, it makes my skin crawl and, from what I've heard of the experiences of my dating female friends, that seems to be the prevalent attitude of men who "date;" they feel treating a woman to a night out gives them the right to expect sexual favors at the end of the night.

To me, this kind of attitude is just a whitewashed form of prostitution. When you get right down to it, what these men are saying is that if you can't get sex out of a woman then spending time with her is a waste of time; in effect, they're saying, "Sex is all women are good for."

If that is what "dating" is all about then I want no part of it. The very idea of specifically trying to woo someone I'm only just getting to know to climb into bed with me is repugnant to me. As I said in "Sport Nookie," I don't want someone I barely know touching me in the most intimate way two people can touch. When I've tried to explain that, particularly to men, I'm often met with puzzled stares. Occasionally, I'm accused of being homosexual. They just don't get it.

To me, going out with someone has nothing whatsoever to do with sex. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm not attracted to the woman I'm asking out; what I mean is that the night out itself has nothing to do with that. In that sense, going out with a new female friend and a new male friend are virtually the same experience for me. I buy a beer and a meal for both for the same reason: if I ask someone out, I want to have a good time and get to know them.

The sad thing is, though, that even women tend to assume I have a hidden sexual agenda if I try to treat them to a night out. That's the main reason why I usually don't ask women out. It's not because I can't or I don't want to; I just don't want a woman to assume I'm asking her out only in the hope of getting into her pants. Unfortunately, because that's what most men in the dating scene seem to be looking for, that's now what most women seem to expect on a date.

In my posting "Revelation," I spoke of the irrevocable connection between friendship and love. In brief, my theoretical "formula" of romantic love is, "Attraction+Friendship+Trust=Romantic Love." In other words, I believe love, and therefore healthy sexual relationships, grow out of friendships, not out of attraction. It's when you feel attraction, friendship and implicit trust, all for the same person, that love ignites.

So I do not "date." Instead, I work on making friends, male and female alike. Before the friendships get close, gender doesn't matter; I simply enjoy the company and get to know them. Only once friendships get close do I make a distinction between the male and female friend. Essentially, I look at any close female friendship to someone I'm attracted to as a potential romantic possibility in the future.

Now that doesn't mean I "pursue" my close female friends trying to start a sexual relationship, either; that, too, would be a form of "dating." What I mean is that I'm aware that any woman I'm attracted to who is also a close friend could be a potential romantic relationship if, at some point in the future, she ever becomes attracted to me.

The point of "dating" is to try to entice someone sexually. That is the part I don't believe in. My way of thinking is that I don't have the right to push myself on someone who is not attracted to me; either she is or she isn't. That is what I mean by close female friends being potential romantic relationships. If a close female friend ever becomes attracted to me, then is the time to pursue a romantic relationship because only then is it truly "real."

This applies even if I fall in love with someone. The way I see it, if you truly love someone, you respect them and their boundaries. No matter how much I might want to express my love to a woman intimately, if she's not attracted to me, I'm not going to make any effort to try to push her into a relationship she doesn't want. Instead, I just show her my love in other ways, through friendship and support in hard times, with a fierce loyalty.

Many men just don't get that. In fact, most of my male friends who know I have feelings for someone will give me all kinds of unsolicited advice on how to seduce them. They just can't seem to grasp the idea of being "just friends" with a woman they "love." I think that, too, is a symptom of the stereotypical male point of view that sex is the "ultimate goal" of forming a relationship with a woman; they can't imagine wanting to stay around if they don't get it.

Seduction, to me, is a form of manipulation; you manipulate the woman into feeling something for you she might not otherwise have been inclined to feel. This makes it artificial. You sweep her off her proverbial feet and she's caught up in the whirlwind of romance, sex and endorphins and, for a time, thinks you're the best thing that ever happened to her but, when the seduction wears off, the illusion collapses and she wonders what possessed her to be with you.

I've seen many women go through this cycle. A man arrives, often when they're at their most vulnerable, and they fall for his charms. More often than not, however, these guys turn out to be bad news because most guys who deliberately seek out to seduce a woman, particularly in the first date or two, are always bad news. I even saw one man who seduced an otherwise decent woman so thoroughly that she got into bed with him before he even learned her last name.

That's the danger of actually trying to initiate a sexual relationship. Even seducing a woman you love is just as dangerous. How? Well, to her, the "love" created from seduction is still an illusion. When the illusion wears off for her, she will most likely realize she made a mistake. In the end, both parties get hurt. In some cases, even the original friendship can be lost because of all the awkwardness afterward.

So why do men try to seduce women? In effect, for the same reason the men above who gave up on dating pay for prostitutes; they have this irrational belief that they "need" sex. A man may trick himself into believing he's "in love" with a woman he's strongly attracted to and delude himself into thinking his pursuit of her is "romantic" but all he's really doing is creating an illusion, a fantasy into which both he and the woman he pursues are ultimately drawn.

I've said it before and I'll continue to say it: sex, to me, is just another way to say, "I love you." Granted, it's the most beautiful, and intimate, way, but it's not one that's appropriate for all relationships; whether it's appropriate depends not only on how I feel but how the other person feels as well. If I'm in love with someone, of course I'll hope she might feel the same way some day but, if she doesn't, I'm happy as long as she's in my life and I'll be there for her regardless.

But I'll never try to make that happen; it either happens naturally, or it's not meant to happen at all.

That is why I don't date.

That's also why I can't say whether I'll pursue another relationship or not because that depends, not on whether I want one, but whether I ever again find myself in love with a woman who also loves me back.

So my answer is this: Yes, I'd like to be in another relationship some day but, if it never happens, so long as there are people in my life that I love and who love me back, regardless of how that love is expressed, I'll be content.

An Apology

Ideals, by definition, are one's vision of "perfect" behavior. Of course none of us are perfect; we all fall short of our ideals. That doesn't negate their purpose, however. Ideals offer us a benchmark, a goal to constantly reach for. In reaching for our ideals, one can usually manage to live up to them a majority of the time. When you do fall short of your ideals, and you realize it, you apologize, make amends and hopefully learn from that mistake.

This is the very concept upon which the Catholic Sacrament of Penance (also known colloquialy as "confession") is built. The Catholic Church recognizes that people aren't perfect, that we are all "sinners" and that we will make mistakes. The Sacrament of Penance offers one an opportunity to admit one's mistakes and confess to them. In effect, God forgives us when we have the courage to recognize our imperfections, admit to them and try to learn from them.

I'm not Catholic but I believe in God and go to Sacred Heart every Saturday to pray for the people I love. I chose a Catholic church simply because the persons I love most are Catholic. I have never participated in the Sacrament of Penance; I prefer to confess my mistakes in the open, ideally directly to the people they affect. Even my most personal mistakes I prefer to confess to people I love and trust, not a priest, therapist or counselor who does not know me.

Recently, I was guilty of a hypocrisy. I'm here to admit it and apologize.

During recent turmoil in my life, discussed at length in the pages of this blog, I frequently lamented the fact that people tended to judge me without even trying to get my side of the story. Most of these people were taking the opinion of a single individual who'd had a recent conflict with me as if that one opinion painted a complete picture of me, my life and who I am.

I know how frustrating it can be when people form opinions of you without ever even having spoken to you. That's why, ideally, I make a point of getting the other person's side of the story before I form an opinion of someone. However, recently there was someone online whom I judged unfairly without getting their side of the story.

I didn't do this deliberately; I didn't even realize I was doing it until very recently. Over the last few years, I've had many frustrations, some of which upset me to the point of affecting my judgment. That's what happened here; I ended up getting caught up in someone else's negative opinion about someone because I simply didn't have the emotional energy to investigate for myself.

Now that I'm finally clear of that former mess, however, I can look back on my own actions with a more objective eye. When I did, I was forced to realize that I was doing to this person the very thing others were doing to me that I found so frustrating: I was judging her without getting her side of the story.

I began to realize my mistake when I started reading her blog regularly. I first went there mostly to watch her reactions to my friend when he made digs at her (something he delights in doing, unfortunately). However, as I read more and more of her blog, and as she and I started exchanging E-mails (originally prompted when she wanted to discuss some comments I'd made to her blog) I began thinking, Hm. She doesn't seem anything like what I was led to believe.

I have since made a point of getting to know her, at least as much as she has been willing (her opinion of myself was also skewed by the opinion of the aforementioned individual with whom I'd had the conflict). That's when I began to realize how badly distorted my perspective of her was. As I got to know her better, I realized there was a lot more to the story than my friend's side. I should have known that but I was too blinded by my own pain at the time to see it.

Now that I have, though, I'd like to apologize publicly and for the record to "Bonobobabe." I castigated her for the way she runs her blog. Specifically, I criticized her choice to censor some comments and sometimes make the whole blog private in order to avoid my friend's comments. I thought she just didn't have the stomach to deal with the inevitable troublemakers blogging brings; I thought she should just get out of the proverbial kitchen if she couldn't stand the heat.

Although I cannot go into detail suffice it to say that, having gotten her perspective, I now understand why she did what she did. I still maintain she should open her blog up to the wider public (in my opinion, there's not much point in having a blog that isn't open to the public; the whole point of a blog is to express your ideas to society at large) but I now understand, and respect, her decision to make it private.

I'd also like to point out that I am, at this point, not on any side here. Having seen both perspectives, hers and my friend's, I feel that they both have made mistakes. I now consider them both friends. If, some day, they ever wish to try to come to some sort of understanding, I'd be happy to help them "clear the air." As someone who's heard both sides, I'm in a unique position to help; all they have to do is ask.

Even the best of us are hypocrites once in a while. To err is Human; we all make mistakes. The difference between someone who makes a mistake and a true hypocrite, however, is the person guilty of hypocrisy who refuses to admit it and apologize for their mistake.

In this situation, I was a hypocrite. I realize that now.

I apologize.

Internet Neutrality

I just stumbled onto a group on Facebook called "Dissolve the CRTC." In brief, it's a group who believes that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission has strayed from its mandate to protect the interests of Canadians in the media in favor of corporate interests; the group is advocating the dissolution of the CRTC to replace it with a more neutral organization.

On their website, they had an article called "Canada's Internet Explained" which linked to this video on YouTube:



What concerns me here is the concept of "Internet neutrality" (also known as "network neutrality"). For more details, I strongly recommend watching the video above; it explains it very well. However, in brief, the principle of Internet neutrality states that ISPs may not restrict the type of equipment, protocols or content you can use and access on the Internet. Everything connected to the network is equally accessible to everything else.

This blog, for example, is just as easy to access as a huge media giant like CNN. If you type in "http://pedalingprince.blogspot.com" then, "http://www.cnn.com," both sites come up just as easily. In effect, I can compete directly with CNN, reaching just as wide an audience; if I happen to have a story more interesting than anything CNN has at the time, I could conceivably "scoop" them. Me, one man, one computer, competing against a worldwide media giant.

Of course, that's not the nature of this particular blog; I'm not a journalist, but you get the idea. Anyone out there who wants to compete against anyone else on the network, whether that someone else be a major worldwide corporation or a single person sitting at a single machine, the playing field is completely level. Unlike with traditional media, the individual can conceivably generate just as much exposure for themselves as any major media outlet.

This is one of the Internet's founding principles; it's something we all understand about it instinctively. What concerns me is the fact that this concept has been given a name. Why does that concern me? Until now, the concept described by the term was part of the "common sense" of the Internet. It didn't have to be defined; it's part of what makes the Internet what it is. The fact that it has to be defined, however, implies that this is no longer "common sense."

If "Internet neutrality" is no longer common sense then it stands to reason that something is changing about this fundamental nature of the Internet; if this is true then it also stands to reason that at least some part of the Internet is no longer neutral. In fact, it's not. There have been many stories in the media lately of major ISPs restricting access to competitors' sites and technology; this is a violation of Internet neutrality.

Now that I think about it, though, violations of Internet neutrality aren't really new. AOL, for example, is most famous for its restrictive interfaces and proprietary protocols that make it very difficult to use non-AOL products to connect to their network. AOL, therefore, is probably one of the earliest examples of a company that violates the principles of Internet neutrality by attempting to control how its users connect to the network.

Of course, AOL used to be fairly unique in this. Most ISPs would allow you to access the network free and clear with any platform and/or software you wanted to use; so long as it was compatible with the Internet's protocols and you knew how to use it you could use it. Unfortunately, however, the idea of trying to control how an ISP's users connect is starting to go "mainstream;" most of the major ISPs today have been guilty of this in some way, shape or form.

That's why I prefer smaller, independent ISPs. They have no motivation to restrict their users' access because their open, unrestricted access itself is their biggest advantage over the bigger ISPs. That's why I chose Eastlink; they offer decent broadband speeds with no restrictions. I can use whatever computing platform, browser, E-mail client etc. I want and visit any site I want. That's the way it should be. That's what makes the Internet the powerful tool it is.

Most people tend to just go with what the majority uses. Windows, for example, is the most common computer operating system not because it's the best but because it's what everyone's used to. The problem is, once people get used to something, even if it's not the best product available, people tend not to aim any higher; they get used to the performance of a given product and stick with it because it's familiar.

The videocassette format wars, for example. VHS and Betamax ("Beta" for short) were the major formats. As we all know, VHS won that war but what most of us don't know is that VHS was actually the technologically inferior format; Beta had superior resolution and sound quality but (in the beginning) fell short in recording time which was its downfall. Due to its superior quality, Beta continued in professional video use but for home use it disappeared entirely.

Beta did fix its recording time issues; later versions of Beta allowed recording times to rival VHS and Beta picture and sound quality continued to be superior. So why didn't Beta trounce VHS? For the same reason that the Macintosh doesn't trounce Windows: once people are used to something, they tend to stick with it because it's familiar even when better products or services are available. Most people prefer conformity; they prefer to be part of the majority to "fit in."

Being in the minority, however, can have advantages. Most Macintosh users, for example, don't have virus protection. Why? The Mac is in the minority; there just aren't as many out there. A virus written for Macs won't spread nearly as far as one written for Windows so most virus writers focus on Windows so their viruses will spread. Also, the Mac has superior security; writing a virus for a Mac is therefore much more difficult in the first place.

If it wasn't for Internet neutrality, Microsoft might very well have prevented Mac users from accessing the Internet in the first place. It is Internet neutrality that allows Mac users like myself to access the Internet equally with Windows users or, for that matter, users of other even less common systems like Linux, Solaris, Amiga OS and so on. Everyone has the right to access the network with whatever compatible piece of technology they wish; that's as it should be.

Big media giants are trying to change that. They want to restrict the Internet and monopolize public media access the same way they once did when newspapers, television and radio were the only major worldwide media accessible to the public. Back then, if you wanted to be heard by the world, you were at the whim of the companies that ran these media; if they didn't want to put you on, you were out of luck.

If you want to be heard on the Internet, go to any of a plethora of blogging services, get a page up there and, within minutes, your words can be seen by anyone in the world who wishes to read them. Get on YouTube and you can even let people around the world see and hear you with less restriction even than traditional television. There are no channels or range restrictions; a video on YouTube is instantly global the moment it goes live on the network.

The Internet is, in effect, the ultimate evolution in freedom of speech; restricting Internet access would, therefore, amount to censorship. Do we want to go back to the days when the major media decided what we, the public, sees, or do we want to be able to decide for ourselves what we want to see?

"When liberty is taken away by force it can be restored by force. When it is relinquished voluntarily by default it can never be recovered." - Dorothy Thompson

Sex Education: Time for a Reform

I caught a promotional interview on CBC News with Victor Malarek for his new book, The Johns - Sex for Sale and the Men who Buy It. In it, he talks about human trafficking and how myths about the "need for sex" and outdated attitudes about women drive men to seek poor, uneducated women from developing countries in order to find women they can pay to dominate totally and live out their most disgusting sexual fantasies with.

According to Malarek, much of what's causing (or at least reinforcing) unhealthy attitudes about women and sex is the Internet. Everyone knows the Internet is swimming in porn but what a lot of people don't know is that it doesn't have to stop at porn; if you're looking for a body to live out your fantasies on, you can find women who'll agree to do almost anything for money and the global nature of the Internet makes it easy for men to find these women anywhere in the world.

He goes on further to say that all this objectifies sex, turning it into a commodity to be bought and sold purely for the man's needs. The women aren't doing it because they want to (despite what most men hiring them think); about 96% of them are doing it because they have no choice either because they're caught with a pimp that won't release them or because they simply don't have the ability to raise the money they need in any other way in their given situation.

Worse, some of these women didn't even enter the "profession" willingly; some were drugged, kidnapped and sold into prostitution against their will. Why? Because the sex trade is growing faster than any other organized criminal enterprise right now, drug trafficking included. Why? Like any other business venture, it's profitable because there's a demand for it, and that demand is driven, in turn, by these "needing sex" myths men perpetuate for their own benefit.

"It's about men," Malarek says, "and men still control. [Prostitution is] probably the last bastion they control." So, these men are looking for control, not relationships. Porn does not teach relationship skills, only the mechanics of sex (and even in that it's often unrealistic or outright inaccurate); the only way to break that control is to bring about true equality between men and women by learning an appreciation for the beauty and value of loving relationships.

I haven't read his book (yet), but he said something while explaining this that really hit a nerve in me and prompted me to sit down to write this. He said:

We have to really start talking to boys, at very young ages, about relationships, about love . . . about being involved . . . We can no longer have sex education for kids and say, 'This is a penis, this is a vagina.' . . . they're way more sophisticated than that [thanks] to the Internet. You have to start talking to them about relationships; you have to start talking to them about the equality of young women, of all women and girls. You have to start talking to them about dignity.

A lightbulb went on over my head the moment I heard that.

When I was in late elementary and early junior high, sex education was taught but it was still pretty sparse, focusing almost totally on the mechanics. We were actually given diagrams of the male and female reproductive systems and most of the discussion revolved around the biology of sex; from what I understand, aside from increased emphasis on sexually transmitted disease (particularly HIV), very little has changed in this regard today.

Even back in my day, long before the Internet, I always felt that this was a waste of time. By the time this was even brought to our attention, about 95% already knew how sex was done; the parts we didn't understand, how it affects people, the power of the emotional drive and so on wasn't even touched on. Today, with the Internet bombarding our young people with a plethora of sexual imagery, any class about the mechanics of sex today, to me, seems totally pointless.

I think it's time for total reform of sex education. It should start in Grade Six, I'd say. After a brief discussion about the mechanics (to dispel any myths) covering maybe a class, two at most, then the focus should shift on to the emotional impact of sex, the intimacy of the act, how it affects the judgment, the dangers of how early sex disorts judgment in a relationship, how to build a balanced, equal partnership, and so on.

In fact, people are so screwed up about relationships right now that I think this needs to be more than a subject covered as a segment of a bigger class like science (as it was in my day); it needs to be a subject in and of itself. Perhaps we could call it, "Relationship Education." It'd be a class that explores, not sex, but the emotional dynamics shared by two people who are intimately involved, learning to share each other's lives in a fair and equal way.

We can't stop young people from learning about sex and the domination of women through society; it's everywhere today. What we can do, however, is help them understand what to do with that knowledge and hopefully instill in them an appreciation for equal love, and dignity, for both partners in a relationship, man and woman (or between two men or two women in the case of homosexual relationships).

When my local library opens on Tuesday, I'm going to look for Mr. Malarek's book; I get the feeling he and I think a lot alike on this subject.

"For me, everything boils down to dignity: the dignity of another Human soul. If we don't have that, we lose everything." - Victor Malarek

New Computer!

Well, although it's going to be hard on the old pocketbook, I decided it was finally time to bite the bullet and get a new computer. I realized my old iMac just wasn't up to the task anymore when I started having trouble playing YouTube videos and I got sick and tired of not having a functioning DVD-ROM drive (the one on the old machine died quite some time ago, the very first hardware failure I've ever had on a Macintosh).

So, I am now the proud owner of a 20" Widescreen iMac! Driven by a 2.66 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor with 2 GB 1067 MHz DDR3 RAM, this thing's got power to spare! Plus, as the RAM is expandable to 8 GB, this thing will grow with me as software requires more and more power (I never did upgrade the RAM on my old machine; who has 256 MB of RAM nowadays?! :P)! Thank God I'm on vacation this week; I forsee a lot of late nights with this thing. ;)

That being said, although my evaluation of this machine is still preliminary, I have a few quibbles:

1. While I'm getting used to it more quickly than I thought I would, I'm still not a big fan of this keyboard. As a 95 wpm typist, keyboard feel is critical to me and I find this "flat" form factor a bit awkward. On the other hand, looking around at the other non-Apple computers at Future Shop, I can't help but notice that the "flat" form is becoming the norm for all keyboards. Might as well get used to it, I guess.
2. The keyboard that comes with this machine also lacks a numeric keypad. I suppose I'll get used to that, too, but right now whenever I go to enter a number, I find myself reaching to the right and my fingers finding nothing but mouse and wood (or air when it's in my lap). Maybe when my pocketbook recovers from the purchase of this thing, I'll sell this keyboard and get one of the full sized versions (they're still flat, though).
3. I miss my Page Up and Page Down keys, which this keyboard doesn't have, either (again, the full sized one does). Like the keypad, I keep reaching for them out of force of habit.
   
4. I'm having trouble transferring my Apple Mail E-mail archives. It's odd; some mailboxes transferred without a hitch, others didn't. I want to hold onto my archives; I have archives of my sent mail going back to March of 2000 and they'd go back further if not for a hard drive crash I had. I think I might be able to rescue the lost data but it'll involve importing a few mailboxes manually.

I was about to write a fourth quibble but I'm just realizing it might not be relevant. Just let me try something here...

Ah, OK. Never mind. I was about to complain that there are no USB ports on the front of this machine which makes using a portable USB "key" drive a real pain but I just realized there is an easily reachable free port, not on the machine itself, but at the left of the keyboard (intended primarily for the left handed who hook their mouse in there but it's still a USB port like any other). I just tried plugging my portable drive in there; it works fine. OK; one problem solved. ;)

Now, on the plus side:

1. Fast. 'Nuff said. :P
2. The screen is much brighter, much higher quality and the wide screen gives me a lot more screen real estate to work with; I'm even finding it an advantage in word processing (and I thought I was going to find it awkward :P).
3. Despite the flat form factor, the keys on the keyboard are nice and firm yet responsive, giving good tactile feedback yet responding to a near feather touch. I'm actually thinking, aside from the missing keys, I'll eventually come to prefer this keyboard over the old fashioned keyboards which "rise up" with each row.
   
4. The keyboard is small enough to use in my lap (where it is right now) which is actually more comfortable than using it on the desk.
5. This thing has nearly ten times the storage capacity of my old machine; no more "out of disk space" messages. Plus, with a functional DVD-ROM drive, even if I do run out of space some day I can always transfer less used files to DVD to free up drive space.

Those are my initial impressions. So far, my most serious issues are with the keyboard. Looks like I can get used to the feel but I think, eventually, I'm going to break down and get this baby's bigger cousin so I can get my full set of keys back. However, for the time being, this works. :)

By the way, any of you out there who've been waiting for E-mail from me you'll be getting replies soon. I was just waiting until I got this new machine. Now that I have it, it'll be a lot easier to catch up on E-mail, Facebook and lots of other stuff without the machine bogging down and taking forever to do anything. :P

I think this thing's going to be worth the financial headaches. ;)

Boundaries

I've always been a person who likes to get close to people both physically and emotionally. I love to hug. I've been described by several people as "nurturing" because I'm always willing to lend a friendly ear and emotional support to anyone who needs it; when I do, I tend to get very emotionally involved with the person whom I'm listening to. At times, I tend to almost "lose myself" in the life of the other person. I call it being an "open person."

"Open people" have a lot of difficulty learning the concept of "boundaries." We tend to view boundaries as barriers people put up because they're afraid, if others knew certain things about them, they'd think they were strange or bad people and no one would like them. So, "open people" often seek to break down boundaries. Our logic? "You don't have to hide your true self from me; I'll understand. I have weird things about myself, too, you know."

Because of that, the lesson that boundaries are more often about a person's sense of self and privacy rather than shame is a difficult lesson for "open people" to learn. Most of us take years to learn this lesson; some never learn it. Unfortunately, this lack of respect for boundaries, though it's with all the best intentions, has some rather nasty side effects.

When we get really close to someone, "open people" tend to get a sense of "entitlement" regarding a person's life. That is to say we start to get the idea that we have a "right" to know everything about a person; if a person tries to hide anything from us, we look upon it as an insult. "You don't trust me," we think. Unfortunately, this attitude opens up the door to abuse; feeling one has a "right to know" makes one feel justified in invading the other person's privacy.

The thing that blindly eludes us about this is that no matter how much someone may trust and love us, there are just some things we all want to keep to ourselves. One of my favorite Captain Kirk quotes is, "[We all have] ugly, savage things we all keep buried, that none of us dare expose." When we try to expose them in another person, from our perspective we're just trying to forge a closer relationship but, from the other person's point of view, we're intruding.

This ends up creating a dichotomy. We feel we're getting closer to someone by trying to pry into their private thoughts and feelings but they feel repelled by us. "Who the hell is this guy, thinking he has a right to know this stuff about me?" they think. Of course, our defense to that is, "Well, I don't hide anything from you," which is often true; "open people" tend to lower their boundaries in the hope of encouraging others to lower theirs.

It doesn't work that way, though; just because you tell someone your deepest, darkest secrets does not in any way obligate them to tell you anything. So what you end up with is one person expecting the other to tell them everything and, when they don't, trust breaks down. You start assuming, if the other person isn't telling you everything that, "Oh, they must be hiding something." Trust breaks down and, with it, the relationship.

For "open people," it's just hard to understand that someone can love and trust us yet still not want to tell us every single thing in their lives or every single thought that goes through their heads.

Several times of late, I've mentioned on this blog a friend I love deeply. Thinking about her tonight, and thinking about the concept of boundaries, I began to realize that one of the biggest reasons I love her so very much is the simple fact that she taught me this lesson where others, up to now, had failed.

She is one of the most private people I've ever met. The only reason I've been even mentioning her here in public lately, sans name, is because of the abuse "The Wolf" subjects her to; abuse must be be forced into the light if it is to be stopped. Ironically, one of the issues she has with "The Wolf" is this very idea of lack of boundary respect; he doesn't trust her so he also expects her to tell him everything about her and this runs in diametric opposition to her nature.

He, however, because he lacks trust, seems unable to learn the lesson that I have fought so hard to learn about her: just because she doesn't tell you everything does not mean she doesn't trust you or that she's trying to deceive you; she just prefers to play her cards close to the vest. She keeps the details of her personal business to herself mostly for the sake of simplicity; oftentimes, problems are easier to deal with when the fewest people possible are involved.

That, of course, isn't always true, either. There's always the old saying, "no person is an island;" every now and then, you need to tell people your problems in order to get help with them (like with abuse). However, again a lesson that's hard for us "open people," is that decision must be theirs even if it's unwise. In other words, if she chooses to handle something on her own that she shouldn't be, it's not mine nor anyone else's place to come charging in to "help" uninvited.

That being said, in my previous posting I described the hypothetical situation of someone preparing to jump off a bridge to drown themselves. Only situations like that, immediately life threatening, should one disregard a person's boundaries in order to save their life. Aside from that, however, we must accept that sometimes those we love will make choices in life that, from time to time, will hurt them and they have a right to make those choices.

That's a hard thing to do. As I said before, she tends to put herself directly in the path of harm far too frequently. I try to advise her, I try to convince her to do what I feel is the right thing but, in the end, I always have to accept the choices she makes and their consequences. It's hard to watch her get hurt but, though it's often hard on me, I've learned to do it; it was necessary in order to earn her trust.

The thing is, I've never met anyone like this woman. It didn't take me long to realize she was something special; I'd never been more determined to get close to someone as I was with her. In the beginning, before I'd learned what she eventually taught me, I found her tendency to keep to herself frustrating. I was perceptive enough to realize she wanted, even needed, a friend and I was anxious to prove she could trust me; it was disheartening when she wouldn't.

However, I had observed other people trying to pry their way into her heart; those who pried all failed. There were only a handful of people who managed to scale the walls she surrounded herself with and they all had two things in common. One, they were persistent; those who didn't give up survived. Two, they did not pry; they waited for her to come to them.

That's when I realized, if I wanted to get close to this woman, that's what I had to do: be there for her, keep reminding her I'm there if she needs a friend but, if she didn't want to talk, stand back and give her the space she needs. I waited for over a year. I stayed in touch, called her regularly, let her know I was thinking about her but I'd avoid asking direct questions; I'd just ask how she was doing in general.

As I got to know her, I began to be able to read her mood solely by the tone of her voice. If I knew something was bothering her, I'd simply say, "You sound depressed/stressed/angry etc." Sometimes she'd talk about it; sometimes she wouldn't. If she didn't, I'd simply say some variation of, "Well, if you change your mind, call me any time, OK? I'm here." As time went on, she took me up on that offer more and more.

Eventually, she began to lower her boundaries voluntarily. She began to confide in me about aspects of herself I never, in my wildest dreams, thought she'd ever discuss with anyone. Before I knew it, we were talking every single day. Sometimes we'd be on the phone for many hours; the longest I remember so far I think was about five and a half (that's is rare, though; most of our conversations average between 15 minutes and an hour and a half).

Today, whenever she needs a friend, whether she needs a shoulder to cry on, someone to vent to, someone to share her joys with or just someone to relax and chat with for a while, I'm the first person she calls. I do the same; I tell her things I tell no one else.

Still, she doesn't tell me absolutely everything; I don't tell her everything about me, either. Before I met her, I used to feel offended when people would keep things from me; now, having gotten to know the heart of a person so private I understand: boundaries aren't about trust; they're about establishing identity. Keeping a few things to yourself helps keep you from losing yourself in another person and giving that person too much power over you.

That is one of the many reasons I love this woman so much; she taught me what is probably the most valuable lesson I've ever learned about what closeness really means. I feel far closer to her than I've ever felt to anyone because she showed me her heart willingly. Prying may have eventually yielded the same information but it wouldn't be nearly as special; it's so much more intimate when someone opens up to you solely on the strength of their trust in you.

Ironically, I know her 10 times better than "The Wolf" could ever hope to. It's not in his nature to respect boundaries but, even if he could learn that lesson right now it's too late for him; by trying to pry his way into her heart, he's irrevocably damaged even the slimmest chance she'd ever trust him to the level she trusts me. Given the danger he represents, I feel that's for the best; it'll make it easier for her to break away when she finally summons the strength to do so.

Sometimes I think it's unfortunate I couldn't have learned this lesson earlier; it might've saved the relationships I recently lost. However, my friend believes everything happens for a reason; I'm starting to agree. If I had learned this lesson earlier, if I had saved those relationships, I might be miserable now; both of those relationships needed to end. One, I just wasn't compatible with; the other was a pacifistic Annie Wilkes. I think it's best I'm free of them.

Honestly, though I have no "romantic" relationship right now, I feel far more fulfilled in my friend's love than I ever did with my girlfriends.

Between our lives, there are boundaries; between our hearts, there are none.

Maybe that is the ultimate definition of healthy love.

Control

In my family while I was growing up, everyone it seemed had the skill of manipulation down to a fine art. I used to hate being manipulated or guilt-tripped into anything. In my younger days, sometimes I would catch myself doing the self same thing to people in my life. Even today, I occasionally backslide into guilt-tripping territory but, by and large, I've learned not to do it because I know all too well how it feels and I don't want to make people feel that way.

We all try to dominate, control or manipulate others in some way, shape or form whether we realize it or not. Most people consider this to be a bad thing; often it is but, like many things in life, whether it's good or bad really depends on the circumstances. It's been my experience that whether it's a good thing or bad thing depends largely on the motivation behind the person trying to exert the control.

To illustrate the point, let's draw examples from two popular movies that most of you have probably seen: Forrest Gump and Titanic.

In Forrest Gump, when Forrest's mother tries to get him into school, the principal tells her he can't accept him because his IQ is five points too low. However, the principal implies that, if she was to grant him a sexual favor or two, he might be persuaded to look the other way. Obviously she doesn't want to have sex with the man but she also doesn't want Forrest relegated to "special classes." So she agrees to the sex.

In this case, the principal manipulates Forrest's mother to have sex with him. He isn't doing this to help Mrs. Gump or Forrest for that matter; he's doing it solely for his own pleasure. This is a case of bad manipulation: manipulating a person to do something that benefits him alone. Selfish manipulation like this is inevitably destructive to the person being manipulated; this was undoubtedly not one of Mrs. Gump's happier memories.

In Titanic, Jack comes upon Rose getting ready to commit suicide by jumping off the back of the ship. He manipulates her into reconsidering what she's doing by describing in intimate detail how painful what she's about to do is likely to be. In the end, this breaks Rose's resolve and she decides not to go through with it.

In this case, Jack manipulates Rose out of committing suicide. Doing so is of no direct benefit to him; he does it solely to help her. This is a case of good manipulation: manipulating a person to do something that benefits them. There are times when it's necessary to manipulate someone for their own good; a person about to commit suicide convinced to live is probably among the best of examples.

Now, fiction has the advantage of being a bit more black and white than real life. In both of these cases, the motivation behind the manipulator was absolute black or white. One was entirely selfish; the other was entirely selfless. Unfortunately, real life is rarely so cut and dried. The trouble with manipulation is the very nature of manipulation most times makes it extraordinarily complex both in motivation and execution.

For example, the friend I've mentioned before whom I love so dearly has an unfortunate predilection for putting herself directly in harm's way. Now this is one of those situations where manipulation, theoretically, is good; if she's putting herself in danger, like Jack with Rose it makes sense for me to try to talk her out of it. Unfortunately, the situations are more often than not a hell of a lot more complicated than Jack and Rose's.

First of all, it's often like pulling teeth just to get her to recognize danger in the first place. One incident I remember was she was going boating. She said there'd be drinking which is never a good idea when boating. Since I couldn't stop the drinking I asked her to wear a life jacket; she refused saying, "I can swim." I tried to tell her that, under the influence of alcohol, even good swimmers drown but I simply could not convince her to put on that life jacket.

Second, even when she does recognize danger, she often doesn't seem to care. She seems convinced that, if she were to die, no one would miss her. When I tried to explain how much it would hurt me if she died, I remember her exact words to me: "You'll survive." Well, maybe my body would survive but my soul wouldn't. She's claimed a huge piece of my heart; if she died, that piece would die with her and I doubt there'd be enough heart left to keep me going.

Now the problem is she's clearly putting herself at risk in situations like this but, again, it's not totally cut and dried like fictional situations often are. It's not like she's hanging off the back of a ship threatening to jump. She's not trying to hurt herself; she's just being reckless.

How far you can go trying to control a person also depends on the situation. For example, if she was standing on a bridge threatening to drown herself, I'd be perfectly justified in grabbing her and physically restraining her. However, I would not be justified going down to the dock where she's boating, grabbing her and forcing a life jacket over her head. Actually trying to hurt oneself is different from just being careless with one's safety.

Of course, where do you draw that line? Sometimes it actually seems like she has a death wish, deliberately putting herself in situations like the boating and drinking which she herself would admit were dangerous; she'd defend her actions saying, "If God wants to take me, He will; if He doesn't, He won't." Is she trying to put herself in situations where she'll die without having to do it by her own hand? If so, is that the same as actually threatening to drown herself?

See what I mean about it being complicated? It's a no-brainer that she should be wearing that life jacket so my attempts to convince her to do so in and of themselves are obviously the right thing, but how do you decide how far to go when you're trying to get someone to do something for their own good?

As it happened, she didn't wear the life jacket and she ultimately got through the night safely though I was terrified the whole night; I was never so glad to get a call from her as I was that following day.

Of course, attempts to manipulate someone in a positive way aren't always tied to safety or life-or-death situations. For example, when I got out of high school, I wanted to take a year off to figure out what I wanted to do with my life before I went to college. My uncle, however, pressured me hard to go to college right out of high school because he thought that was the right thing to do.

Now, he had the best intentions; he was trying to give me a head start. However, in this case he was wrong. He ultimately pushed me into a business management course at Cape Breton University that I absolutely hated; in the end, I just couldn't do it. Maybe if I'd taken a year I might've realized what I know now: that I really wanted to make films. Maybe if I'd realized that then and gotten into the industry, I might've made something of myself by now.

Not that I blame my uncle; I don't. No one can manipulate you unless you let them (remember my friend above did not wear that life jacket I tried so hard to convince her to wear). Still, if it hadn't been for his influence, I certainly wouldn't have wasted two years of my life in a course that has been of little or no use to me in life.

Ultimately, though, I think it turned out for the best. The most important thing in my life is to always be there for the people I love. Making a film tends to be an all-consuming thing; you have very little time for anyone or anything but the project. I don't want to be that way and, if I had gotten into the industry the way I wanted, I probably would be that way.

Still, I continue to write screenplays; I'd just prefer to leave the execution of them to other people whose vision I trust to bring my stories to life. You can always get up from writing a screenplay if someone needs you; getting away from a film you're directing, however, with all the actors and crew being paid by the hour waiting for you, is way more difficult.

Therein lies the biggest problem with trying to manipulate someone: you never really know what the ultimate outcome will be. No one's perfect. You might think what you're pushing someone to do is the right thing but that doesn't mean you're right.

For example, my friend is in an abusive relationship that she obviously needs to get out of. Now she doesn't want any interference so if I wanted to manipulate her into acting I could, say, threaten to call the police. The problem is, she'd resent that so, even if it did force her to act, she'd probably end up back with him in the end and I'd be risking damaging our friendship as well at a time when she needs a friend probably more than she ever has.

Of course, even if I did call the police, that also would probably make the situation worse. The abuse is not physical (yet; it's definitely headed in that direction) and abuse cases where there's no physical injury are notoriously difficult to prove. In the end, when the police leave, he'd be angry that they were called and would likely take his anger out on her. Transition House warned me about that possibility (though I'd already surmised that).

Unfortunately, that's why I often feel so helpless when someone I love's in trouble. Sometimes, it's obvious what the solution is and I know where I need to try to push them. Other times, however, situations can be much more complicated and, while I know my loved one's in trouble, I might not have any idea what to do to help. In these situations, all I can do is pray for them, be there for them and hope they survive.

That, however, is one of the hardest things to do in life. Particularly with my friend above, I sometimes wish I had access to Star Trek-type technology like transporters so, if I saw she was about to do something foolish or dangerous, I could just beam her away from the danger. She probably wouldn't like that but at least I'd know I wasn't going to lose her to some senseless, avoidable tragedy.

I often wonder why God guided me to this woman and gave me such love for her. Maybe if I was able to actually do something to help her I might understand but, most of the time, I'm rendered powerless by circumstance. Sometimes I just want to go to her, grab her by the shoulders and scream: "What is wrong with you?! Can't you see the danger you're in?!" then drag her out of the situation, kicking and screaming if need be.

But I can't do that. Just like I had the right to stay in my abusive situation with Lisa for 12 years, so too does she have the right to stay in hers. I will say this: watching her situation has given me a whole new respect for my friends who stuck by me through the "Lisa years." They must've been going ballistic worrying about me and I must've been just as frustrating as my friend above is to me; I never listened to them any more than she listens to me.

In the end, we all try to manipulate the people in our lives. How and why is mostly a function of the kind of person you are. The good person will try to use manipulation to help those they love; the bad person will use manipulation to get what they want out of people. Even when you're manipulating someone for good reasons, though, you still need to remember that old saying:

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

"Sport Nookie"

"I need sex."

This is a concept that's really starting to annoy the hell out of me. I hear this everywhere lately: in advice columns, in TV, in movies, even from my friends. Everybody talks about "needing" sex as if it was as critical to one's survival as air, water and food.

OK. It's natural to want sex. It is, after all, the most fluent language one Human being can "speak" to express love for another; this makes it our greatest pleasure. It's also necessary to the survival of our species as a whole; if everyone stopped having sex right now, our species would die off completely in a space of 100 years or so. So, as a species we "need" it, yes, but as individuals, we don't.

On the Golden Girls episode "Love Me Tender," Dorothy was having a sexual fling with a man she had nothing in common with except that they had great sex. Sophia felt Dorothy was cheapening herself doing this; Dorothy objected, saying, "I am a grown woman and I have needs." Sophia replied, "Needs! You need food. You need air. You need a better wrinkle cream. You don't need sport nookie!"

Sophia was right; one does not need sex to live. Yet, somehow, more and more people today are getting it into their heads that sex is something that people need.

There are people out there who never have sex their entire lives. Are they unhappy? Sometimes, but not always. For the most part, the only people who suffer in a life of celibacy are those who buy this notion of "needing" sex. Those who recognize sex is not a "need," however, are often quite happy celibate; some even choose a life of celibacy because they prefer the simplicity of a life not tied to the inevitable emotional complications of intense passion.

Despite that fundamental truth, I continually encounter person after person who, in the grip of loneliness, feel they "need" sex to fill the void or who "need" sex as a stress reliever, losing themselves in the endorphin rush to try to forget all their problems. Sex sought out as a "quick fix" inevitably bears no emotional connection or meaning to the person in your bed. That's because love takes time to develop; sexual attraction does not.

Two people can be attracted to each other the moment they meet then immediately jump right into bed with each other before they even know each other's names. Now the endorphin rush of touch and arousal feels good in the moment but it's a mere shadow of the feeling of being touched, caressed, held and joined with someone you truly love and who truly loves you.

Love is born from the heart, not the skin; it's not possible to love someone from the first moment you meet. If you go out seeking sex as a "quick fix" you won't find love; you'll just find empty pleasures of the flesh. In the end, it doesn't fill the void of loneliness and, when you come off the high of the physical pleasure, the stress is still there.

To further complicate matters, the endorphin rush of sex radically alters ones judgment. When we have sex with someone for the first time, our brains instinctively "imprint" on that person. At a subconscious level, the cave person within now thinks, "This is my mate." This is a powerful drive, forever altering the way you see that person. Unfortunately, the drive is so powerful that people tend to get confused and think that this drive is "love."

So here's what often happens: lonely people, desperate for love, look for it by seeking sex. When they find sex, the endorphin rush tricks their brains into thinking they're "in love" so they think they've found what they're looking for. They're so glad to have found what they think is "love" that they don't bother to examine it and realize that all they're feeling is shallow pleasure.

This illusion of "love" is so powerful that their endorphin-soaked brains even trick them into believing they love this person more than their best friend. If you really stop and examine that, however, you realize that this is not possible. A real friendship develops over many years. How can two people, only having just met or even known each other for a few weeks or months, possibly understand each other better than longtime friends in just a single night together?

Yet that's exactly what the endorphin rush of sex makes you believe in the moment; it's that powerful. The problem is, it is an illusion; in the final analysis, you really know this person no better after a night of sex than you know your next door neighbor you only see in the hall occasionally. Would you trust someone you barely know to handle you at your most vulnerable? Most of us would say no.

Yet those who get into bed and have sex with people on first meeting are doing just that. In bed with another person, the clothes off, nothing between your body and the body of the person before you but your skin and theirs, is probably the most vulnerable one Human being can be to another, not only physically but emotionally as well. The outcome of such an intimate act inevitably imprints itself in our souls at our most fundamental, primal emotional level.

Because that vulnerability is so deep, loveless sex isn't merely empty; it's dangerous. You're exposing your body and the most primal level of your emotional awareness to another person whom you know virtually nothing about. How do you know this person can be trusted with your deepest emotional drives if you know nothing about them?

That's why abusive relationships are so common. Blinded by the endorphin rush, addicted to it, wanting more, we overlook red flags in our partner's behavior. To complicate matters further, Western Culture's "romantic ideal" is "'till death do us part." We so much want that fairytale romance we see in the movies that we're willing to hang onto a relationship sometimes even when a person does things to us that, if anyone else had done to us, we would never forgive.

So, in the end, that "quick fix" can lock you into a relationship with someone who, far from making you feel loved, only makes you miserable, far more miserable than loneliness ever made you.

People often look back on old fashioned romantic values, saving sex for later in the relationship (waiting until one is married traditionally), with a dismissive eye. "This is 2009, not 1909," they'll say. Granted, perhaps the rules of conduct back then were a little too stringent but, in principle, I think our forefathers were onto something. There is value in letting a relationship develop unfettered by the blinding endorphin rush of sexual pleasure.

Worse yet, the idea that one "needs" sex doesn't only create bad relationships; it also can damage otherwise good relationships. Consider the case of a man and woman, happily married, then the wife say loses her sex drive because of some illness or emotional problem. If her husband subscribes to the theory that one "needs" sex, what happens? He pressures her into having sex even if she doesn't want to; occasionally, this can even lead to rape.

In a recent "Annie Mailbox," I actually read a letter from someone who said that one partner denying another sexual pleasure in a relationship is "abuse." That, actually, was the catalyst that started the posting you're now reading. Reading that angered me. If you love someone, really love them, then their presence in your life should be fulfilling enough. You can always give yourself sexual release if you want it that badly, but you can't give yourself love.

That being said, I do agree that someone deliberately withholding sex as a punishment is abusive; I'm speaking here of people who simply don't want sex for whatever reason. One should never feel "obligated" to have sex. Old chauvinistic attitudes about a "wife's duty" to her husband are born, not out of "need" but out of selfishness. Emotionally healthy sex is always about showing love to the other person, not seeking your own selfish pleasure.

Myself personally, I haven't had sex since August 2006, just shy of three years ago. Am I suffering because of this? Not at all. I may not have sex but I do have love. There is someone in my life now that I love more than I've ever loved anyone and they love me. The fact that our relationship isn't sexual is irrelevant; their love is the most precious thing in my life. I'm happy with that.

It's so much more fulfilling to feel loved than have sex.

That doesn't mean I haven't been tempted; I have been. There have been times when I wanted sex badly enough that I thought of having a cheap one night stand. I am, after all, only Human. I haven't actually had a one night stand, however, because I have never been in bed with a woman I didn't love and I want to be able to say to any woman I'm with in the future, "I don't go to bed with women I don't love."

I have never had sex with a woman I didn't love. When I get into bed with a woman, I'm there to show her how much I love her. A friend of mine recently offended me deeply when he implied, if I was rich, I would "buy" the love of a woman I love. "I'm a man, John!" he said. "Don't insult my intelligence and tell me you wouldn't try to buy her love if you could!"

Sex can be bought; love cannot. It's not possible for me to buy love and I would never buy sex; I never want a woman to touch me in that way unless she wants to because she loves me.

My friend above sometimes accepts the "services" of women whom he pays for sex. If that's what he wants in life, more power to him, but I sometimes worry about him. He's never going to find love that way and he's putting himself at risk of being hurt. Despite the insult, he is a good friend and I don't want to see him sell himself short just because, like so many before him, he feels he "needs" sex badly enough to pay for it.

I feel sorry for anyone who pays for sex. Anyone who does that cannot understand love and the true intimacy of the sexual act.

Sex is, in the end, the most profound way one Human being can express love for another. It's a powerful force and, like like all powerful forces, it must be respected. Sex must not be treated as a commodity that can be bought. It must not be treated as a need one's partner is obligated to provide. It must be treated with respect as the ultimate language of love and the progenitor of new life.

In the words of Sophia Patrillo, we don't need "sport nookie;" we need love. Sex is not love; one can have love without it.

Being loved is far more fulfilling, than sex alone could ever hope to be.

Storm

Everyone knows there's someone in my life now I'm very worried about. I've not mentioned her by name but I've talked about her in my previous posts The Wolf and Silent Witness Nova Scotia. What I haven't talked about, however, is what this is doing to me. There's nothing more difficult in life than watching someone you love get hurt when there's not a thing you can do about it, especially when you have to watch it for a long time.

I stumbled across this song today. I get emotional every time I hear it because, if I had a talent for music as well as words, I could have easily written this. This is exactly the way I've been feeling, both about her and my sense of powerlessness to protect her.



And that's why I haven't been around much. This is the way I feel most of the time as of late.

Silent Witness Nova Scotia

Sorry I left you all in the dark about my experiences on my trip to see Star Trek; it's a long story I see no reason to get into. Suffice it to say that, aside from the film itself (which was excellent, by the way), the trip was a total bust; between the incessant rain and a plethora of other issues, I was very glad to be heading home on Sunday.

Right now, though, I have something much more important to talk about.

I mentioned in my previous posting "The Wolf" a friend who's in serious trouble (who shall continue to remain nameless). One of the commenters on that posting quoted a French proverb: "People always make the wolf more formidable than he is." In other words, maybe I'm worrying too much. Being so close to the situation, perhaps I'm overstating the danger; my friend might not be in nearly as much danger as I think.

So, realizing I might need a more balanced perspective, I consulted with Transition House anonymously, seeking their opinion. Dealing with situations like this is what they do; if anyone would know how serious the risk was, they would.

In my last conversation with their outreach office, I spent more than an hour on the phone, the first 30 minutes explaining the entire situation, every event I could remember, good and bad, over the last three years my friend has been in this situation. The only things I left out where the names and/or any facts that might lead to the parties' identities; aside from that, the person I was talking to came to the end of that 30 minutes knowing everything I know.

I was in for a shock. Not only was I right to be concerned but after I finished my story the person I was talking to, who has decades of experience in these situations, actually didn't think I was concerned enough. She said that "the wolf" was exhibiting the classic patterns of a person who would resort to violence. That's when she told me about Silent Witness Nova Scotia.

From the website:

Since 1990 more than 80 Nova Scotia women have lost their lives due to violence. For 36 women, their deaths came at the hands of their intimate partners, forever silencing their voices. The time has come to end their silence. Silent Witness Nova Scotia is a group of organizations and individuals working together to raise these voices.

Through community involvement and support, free standing, life-size, red, wooden silhouettes, each one bearing the name of a woman whose life ended violently as a result of domestic violence, are created. Because these women no longer have a voice the silhouettes are called Silent Witnesses.

As of this writing, due to an unfortunate "wrong place, wrong time" situation, my friend is currently convinced I'm just trying to cause trouble and won't speak to me. I suspect her partner had a large part in convincing her of this and is trying to isolate her from me; Transition House agrees. Since I only found out about the "Silent Witness" exhibit after she stopped speaking to me, I have no way of letting her know what Transition House told me.

I can only pray that she doesn't become Silhouette 37 before I can reach her again. :(

Star Trek IMAX: Day 1

Ever since I found out the new Star Trek film was going to be showing in IMAX I just knew I had to go to Halifax and see it at Bayer's Lake's IMAX facility. Yup. If you're going to see a big science fiction action film, you gotta go big, and nothing's bigger than IMAX. ;)

So that's where I am right now, gentle readers. To be more precise, I'm in Lower Sackville at my best friend Robert Martell's house where I'll be staying. While I'm here, of course, I'll be taking the opportunity to spend some time with my good friend Rob; living 395 kilometers away from each other, we don't get as much "hanging out" time as we'd like.

Whoever said that "getting there was half the fun" never tried "getting there" on a cold, wet, drizzly day on a bicycle. OK, I didn't bike all the way here; I would have but I didn't have the 16+ hours to spare it would have taken to bike all the way from Sydney to Lower Sackville. So instead I took Acadian Lines with my bike in a bike bag in the cargo hold under the bus.

Taking the bike on the bus was pretty convenient, actually; when I hit Dartmouth I just slipped the bike out of the bag and it was ready to roll. Navigating, on the other hand, went less than smoothly.

When I checked Google Maps, there were two possible routes to Lower Sackville from the bus terminal. One was to take the Evangeline Trail; the other was to take the Bedford Bypass. I was originally going to take the former but Rob pointed out that there are seven sets of traffic lights on the Evangeline Trail; on the bypass, no lights at all and no intersections, being a highway. That made sense to me; it was 100 meters further but, with no stopping, I'd make better time.

Now this morning, while I'm already on the bus, I get a call from Rob. "I just found out the Bedford Bypass is prohibited to bikes; you'll have to use the Evangeline Trail." Of course, at that point, I already had the Bedford Bypass maps printed and, since I was already three hours out of home, I couldn't go back and print new ones at that point so I figured, OK, I can handle this; I'll muddle through somehow when I get there.

When I got there, the first part of the trip was OK since I still have to go up the same streets in the beginning. I went down Akerly Boulevard and made the right onto Windmill Road. This put the rain in my face. OK. Before I knew it, I was passing a sign that said "No Slow Moving Vehicles." *SIGH* Somehow, I ended up taking the wrong exit and, before I knew it, I was on that "prohibited access" highway with no way off.

At that point, I figured to hell with it. The highway was identical to highways like the Sydney Bypass which I traverse semi-regularly in Cape Breton all the time. I figured, at that point, it would be safer to just stay on the highway and get it over with than try to do a U-turn with all this high speed traffic. So I stuck to it. I guess I did the right thing; a police cruiser went right by me and didn't even slow down. I guess this "prohibited access" thing isn't enforced, anyway.

Mind you, I'm not one to break traffic law and I was profoundly uncomfortable doing that. If I could've found a safe way to exit that highway and find an alternate route I would have and you can bet I'm going to be planning a new route to go back (with Rob's help) that'll allow me to avoid that problem on the return trip. I only hope this stupid rain will bugger off before then; it'll be a lot easier to avoid mistakes like that if I can f*BEEP*ing see... :P

Anyway, right now I'm just waiting for Rob to get home from work. In the meantime, I'm hanging out with his mother and his wife and the menagerie of cats underfoot (Rob's wife just worships cats; I swear she must be a reincarnated ancient Egyptian... :P).

I have to say, writing my blog on Rob's computer is also a major plus. He has an iMac, too, but a much newer model than my own; it's dramatically faster. Plus, he also has a digital camera so I'm hoping, unlike on my other blog entries, I'll actually have some pictures to go along with my stories this time. ;) Not yet, though; like I said, I still have to wait for Rob to get home. ;)

So stay tuned, everyone! I'll keep you posted! ;)

The Wolf

I pretty much dropped off the face of the Earth, at least as far as cyberspace goes, these past months. Those of you who know me only online have probably wondered where I've been. Some of you probably speculated it was some doltish despondency over Riin; others probably thought it was some pedomorphic polemic with Lisa. Maybe a few of you, those who don't encounter me in meatspace, even wondered if I was still alive.

As strange as it may sound, my absence from the online world has had nothing to do with any of those things. Indeed, what's kept me away is something I've never spoken of on this blog before. It's about someone I've never spoken of on this blog before, at least by name.

There have been many people who've come in here and asked me, "Why do you plaster your whole life out on a blog where everyone can see it?" For those who ask this question, it's often difficult for them to grasp my answer: "I do not plaster my whole life out on this blog; what you see here is only a fraction of what's going on in my life. This represents maybe 25% of my daily experiences; the remaining 75%, I never say a thing about here."

That's why this blog was so Riin-heavy for so long. It's not that Riin was the only thing I was thinking of; she was not. However, she was the only thing I wanted to talk about here. I originally started talking about her here in hopes she would read what I said. Eventually, however, that ceased to be important and it simply became habit. Other problems in my life? Deal with them myself or with friends. Riin problems? Toss 'em to the wolves in cyberspace.

In truth, something has been eating my soul for a long time. A worry, a pain, greater than any worry or pain I've ever known in all my 36 years of life. The worst I've ever talked about here, yes even the extraordinary pain of losing Riin, is only a mere shadow of the misgivings that now besiege me.

Why have I never mentioned this?

Simply put, the details are just too profoundly personal, to me and to other parties involved. The other parties wouldn't want their business trumpeted around the globe; I respect that. The feelings these events have stirred in me, too, are things far too personal to talk about here.

I'm a pretty open person but, as Captain Kirk once said, "[We all have] ugly, savage things we all keep buried, that none of us dare expose." Some things I just won't talk about except with those I trust implicitly. Anything that personal does not go on a blog, does not go in an E-mail, does not go in a chat, does not go in a cell phone text. Some things are just too personal to risk to a vagaries of the "security" of information technology.

The problem is, though, I need to talk about things. When something's bothering me, I have to get it off my chest. The problem with situations this personal is that my outlets for talking about them are extremely limited.

I can think of only four people in all the world I can discuss this with. Among those four, how much I love them notwithstanding, I can only talk completely openly about certain aspects. For example, with one, I can discuss the actual events in detail but have to keep how I feel about them in careful check most of the time. With another, I can't discuss the events in detail but I can speak in intimate detail about how the events make me feel.

So. I cannot talk about the details here. So I will speak metaphorically:

Someone I love, more than I've ever loved anyone, is being stalked by a wolf in sheep's clothing. My problem: I can't get them to look at the predator long enough to see them in the moments they take off that sheep skin because they either don't want to face the truth, or are too afraid to face it. At this point, I honestly don't know which it is; probably a bit of both.

Three out of the four people I talk to see the wolf. The fourth is the one the wolf preys upon and that person, being so close to the issue and so vulnerable, is unable to see the wolf behind the wool. The three who see the wolf try to advise me but their picture is incomplete because they are the ones I can't talk about the events with; I can only discuss the events with the one on whom the wolf preys so the first three have a hard time seeing the big picture.

Now, the wolf's prey has so convinced themselves that this wolf is a sheep that they've actually laid themselves down in the wolf's den, and the wolf guards the door. I'm terrified. I don't know what to do. I'd be willing to die for this person but for all my caring, for all my love, there's nothing I can do if the prey won't even try to run. Being willing to lay down one's life for someone means little if doing so won't accomplish anything.

No matter where I turn to for advice in this, I keep getting back the same answer: "There's nothing you can do."

Why is it, whenever I love someone, sooner or later I have to hear those words?

I'm not worried about losing this person's friendship. This person has been fiercely loyal to me for a long time and I trust them implicitly, at least as far as their loyalty goes. Their judgment, however, I do not trust. Anyone who would deliberately put themselves at the mercy of a wolf would either have to be mentally unbalanced or profoundly self destructive; either way, not the poster child for sound judgment.

I am, however, worried that this person is going to get hurt. Badly. I feel like I'm watching them stand in the middle of an open field with a boulder hurtling towards them from above. I keep telling them to look up and see it but they don't want to believe there is a boulder so they just stand there and won't look up. If I don't do something, the boulder will crush them. I can't just stand there and watch but, if I try to save them, the boulder may crush me.

Whether you imagine it as a boulder coming to crush them or a wolf coming to eat them, my problem remains. I'd be willing to let the boulder crush me or the wolf eat me if it would save this person. The problem is I don't know how to convince them to move out of the boulder's path or leave the wolf's den because they just flatly refuse to see the truth (which is something this person, unfortunately, is prone to; deluding themselves into believing what they want to).

Sometimes I wonder if loving someone really matters. Sometimes it seems, no matter how much you love someone, it's just plain futile; all you end up doing is watching while this person you love gets hurt and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

I wish I knew what to do.

Eternal Cyclone of the Human Heart

Computers are extraordinarily complicated devices. Every single piece of software ever written for a computer has bugs in it somewhere. This isn’t because the programmers don’t understand how the computer works; they do. The problem is there’s just so much to keep track of that it’s simply beyond the capacity of the Human brain to keep track of it all.

It seems the Human heart follows a similar dynamic. I have said many times in the pages of this blog that I’ve come to understand love; I still believe that. However, like the programmer who understands the computer but can’t keep track of all the minute details, so too can I understand love and still make mistakes. Feelings are just too complex; even if you understand them, there are just too many to keep track of.

When I said I no longer loved Lisa, I was only partially correct. I am not in love with her; that I know. However, recent events have forced me to acknowledge what my heart, still hurting from recent wounds, was trying to keep buried to avoid the pain:

I still love Lisa.

I’ve been back and forth about this so many times that I’m probably starting to sound crazy to some of my regular readers. If you think that, I don’t blame you; even I sometimes wonder. However, at this point, I have to acknowledge once and for all that I probably will always love Lisa whether I want to or not (that probably also means I still love Riin somewhere deep down though, honestly, right now I don’t feel it).

So. What prompted this revelation? It’s a weird story; bear with me:

The day following Lisa’s recent call, I got a call from her stepfather demanding that I return Lisa’s TV. This took me by surprise. The agreement when she left (which I have since confirmed with Lisa) was that I was to keep the TV. So, basically, I had no idea where this was coming from. However, I was totally unable to talk him out of it so I resigned myself to getting a new TV and got it ready for him to pick up.

The next day, I wanted to call him and find out exactly when he was coming in because my mom was coming in to drive me into town to get a new TV; I didn’t want to keep her waiting. My only phone now is a cell phone and I have limited daytime minutes so I decided to use my office phone.

Now, my office phone doesn’t come up on Call Display. Lisa’s stepfather wasn’t home so, when I called and Lisa didn’t see my name on the Call Display, she decided to answer. When I heard her voice, I was taken aback at first then, once I collected my wits, I decided to take a deep breath, stay calm and not act like a total idiot like I did last time. Gently, I started trying to get our long-overdue conversation started.

At first, it seemed hopeless; Lisa flatly said she didn’t have anything to say. However, as the conversation went on, the ice finally started to melt when she realized that I genuinely regretted the way I had behaved when she called on Sunday; the ice finally cracked when I openly apologized. Though we both agreed I was overly harsh, we also agreed that Lisa asking me to leave her mother’s wake was wrong on her part; she apologized, too.

Once apologies were made on both sides, we finally opened up a little and talked about how we each have been feeling these past few months. It was a difficult and very slow process but, bit by bit, we began to explore the damage on both sides and acknowledge our culpability, both of us, in causing it. It was such a relief; it’s been a long time since I’ve been able to have such a balanced, heart-to-heart with Lisa like that.

Now, I don’t remember exactly what it was that Lisa said that prompted this but, at one point, she said something that gave me a serious case of the giggles. I don’t know how she does it but every time we fight or discuss anything emotional she always finds some way to get me laughing. Once that happened, the ice shattered. Everything came pouring out, good and bad, on both sides.

I was surprised, though, at how much positive we had to talk about. Oh, we had a lot of back and forth about our many misunderstandings, sure, but we also talked about developments in her family (one of her aunts got engaged; the wedding’s August 1) and new developments in my life. We even caught up with each other on wrestling which was a blast (I'd been aching to ask her opinion on the upcoming Shawn Michaels/Undertaker match at WrestleMania XXV ;)).

Ironically, it’s only blind luck that Lisa and I even got to talk. If her father had been home and/or if I hadn’t decided to use my office phone, Lisa never would have picked up my call. It was just one of those moments where you knew something was just meant to happen.

I also don’t think it’s coincidence that, only a day prior, I actually added Lisa to my prayers for the first time since her mother died. In my Prayer of Petition to her, I asked St. Rita to guide Lisa, help her to resist hurting people when she’s angry (which is something, unfortunately, she tends to do; she admits so herself) and to give her an opportunity to make amends to those she has already hurt.

In St. Rita’s Prayer of Petition, it says, “We promise, if our petitions are granted to make known your favor and to glorify God for His gift.” In other words, if St. Rita answers your prayer, you’re supposed to let people know that she did so that others will know that they can come to her for help, too. That being said: St. Rita did answer my prayer; she gave Lisa an opportunity to make amends with me and she did. We made amends with each other.

Now, when I say “made amends,” let me be crystal clear: We are not talking about “getting back together.” If this experience has taught us anything, it’s that Lisa and I get along much better when we don’t have to deal with each other 24/7. We’re meant to be friends, not lovers. That’s the main reason Lisa and I failed; we were trying to force our relationship into being something it’s not.

There’s still a lot to talk about; it’s still a long road ahead. However, I think it’s a road worth traveling.

I hope Lisa will think so, too, as time goes on.

An Unexpected Call

Guess who I got a call from last night.

Lisa. Of all people.

I tore a strip off her, good and solid. I maintained decorum of speech, mind you; I didn't resort to swearing or name calling. However, I made it abundantly clear exactly how I felt about her decision to kick me out of her mother's wake, something I've been wanting to tell her for quite some time.

I think the way I reacted took her by surprise. From the tone of her voice when she first called, I think she was expecting me to be conciliatory and wanting to work things out. I did want to work things out. Once. Not anymore. Not since I discovered she was capable of callousness of such a magnitude that she could take away a man's one and only chance to say goodbye to someone they loved in life as Lisa did when she had me asked to leave the wake.

I asked her why she did that. Know what she said?

"I was afraid you might start something with me."

Those were her exact words.

It's been my experience that most of us, when dealing with others whom we don't know or understand, tend to fill in the pieces we don't know about a person with pieces of our own personalities. Now, despite having known me for 12 years, Lisa never really understood me. Maybe understanding me was simply beyond her ability. Maybe she didn't care enough to even try to get to know me.

In either case, put simply, she does not know me (not nearly as well as she should, or as well as she thinks she does).

Seeing me arrive at her mother's wake, Lisa had to make her best guess how I might behave. Since she doesn't know me, she thought about how she might react in my place. Lisa has always reacted first, thought later; she knows full well, if she came to, say, my grandmother's wake and was upset with me at the time she would not be able to keep her feelings to herself. So she projected that onto me, assuming I would do the same.

Well I didn't. Not even when I was asked to leave (and, if there was ever a legitimate reason to be angry, that was it).

I know I've made mistakes. I haven't always handled situations with Lisa the best possible way. Still, I just can't get my mind around how she could've shared my life for 12 years and known so little about me that she'd think I would do something so reprehensible as to make a scene at somebody's wake.

If that's all she thinks of me, I'm also at a bit of a loss to understand why she even bothered to call me in the first place.

That's what's bothering me the most. When I asked her point blank why she called, all she'd say is, "I just needed to hear your voice." Well, that might make sense in a normal relationship context but not after everything that's happened. I could tell by the tone of her voice; she wanted to say something but I think, when I snapped back at her so hard, she lost her nerve and decided not to say what was on her mind.

The call dropped (or she may have hung up; I'm not sure) before I could get an answer to that. I've been trying to reach her ever since. She wouldn't pick up her phone last night and it's off now. Evidently, she refuses to face me.

I wish she'd at least have enough intestinal fortitude to face the consequences of her actions like an adult and at least tell me why she called.

I think she has a responsibility to at least explain that.

A Visitor from Ann Arbor

Hm... I wonder who this is...?


"Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory" in Ann Arbor huh? Well, whoever it is landed on my blog as a result of a Google search for "Riin's Rants" and ended up at my posting The Pedomorphic Pharisee.

Well, if this person was looking for info on Riin, he/she certainly got an eyeful...

Nice to know my humble little blog is managing to spread some truth about her, particularly to someone who lives in her hometown who, presumably, has the opportunity to meet her in the flesh; at least it gives this poor person a chance to polarize the hull plating before they get subjected to Riin's ruthless reviling (and her small-minded views eventually give her reason to do that to everyone she meets sooner or later).

A Fundamental Flaw

No matter how much we learn about love, it seems we're all vulnerable to making the same mistakes.

Ever since Lisa left, I've been looking back at my life and wondering where it all went wrong. I examined not only my relationship with Lisa but my relationship with Riin as well. Once I compared the two, I realized that the failure of both relationships can be traced back to one simple thing:

Selfishness.

Not my selfishness; theirs.

Not that I haven't been selfish sometimes. We all are; it's Human nature. However, there's a certain threshold of selfishness one should not cross. When one wants one's own way from time to time, that's normal, even natural; when one starts to think they're the center of the Universe and everything revolves around them, that is when one crosses the line from healthy selfishness to excessive selfishness.

Lisa's mother died on January 12, 2009. I was devastated. She was good to me for the 12 years Lisa and I were together. She did a lot for me, and she loved me; I've always appreciated that. So I decided, though Lisa and I weren't speaking at the time, that I wanted to go and pay my respects to her. I went to her wake to say goodbye.

Pretty much the moment I came in the door, one of Lisa's relatives approached me and said, "Thank you for coming out; we really appreciate it. However, Lisa doesn't want to see you; we're going to have to ask you to leave."

I was not prepared for that. I would have left on the spot except that my mother and my sister were still inside and they had to drive me home; I couldn't leave until they did. Eventually, they came out and said that Lisa had spoken to her father and that they'd let me in after all to pay my respects. Of course, after the way I was "greeted," I was profoundly uncomfortable. It was all I could do to go in for 15 seconds and say my goodbyes before I had to get out of there.

At first, I didn't fully register what Lisa had done. I knew her mother's death had hit her hard and I was still thinking about how much she must be hurting; I wanted to help. However, as time has passed, I've had time to go over what happened in my head and to discuss it with my friends. We all came to the same conclusion:

Asking me to leave the wake was the most profoundly selfish, childish act Lisa has ever been guilty of.

If there was ever a situation where Lisa should have put aside her differences with me, even if only for the two days covering her mother's wake and funeral, this was it. But she couldn't. Instead, she made her own mother's wake all about her. I wasn't there to see her; I was there to say goodbye to her mother. But, of course, in Lisa's world, everything is about her; in her world, the mere fact that I'm there means I must be there to see her.

It's not like this is something we can go back and do later; she robbed me of my one and only chance to say goodbye to someone I loved.

What love I had for Lisa died that day. I cannot forgive her for that. Ever.

Then, there's Riin. Her rabbit died. Those rabbits are like her children; they mean everything to her. Out of kindness, I express a simple condolence. Instead of appreciating it, or at least keeping her mouth respectfully shut, she decides to vilify me in public on her blog for it. I can almost hear what she was thinking: "He's just using my bunny's death as an excuse to talk to me."

Once again, it wasn't about her personally; it was just one Human being expressing condolences to another. I would do the same for anybody. But again, like Lisa, Riin thinks everything in the Universe is about her. That's why she has a blog. She thinks that what she thinks is the most important thing in the world and that everyone should listen to her because she knows better than everyone else so she blathers on her blog to spread her "wisdom" to the world.

Great loss, particularly death, has a way of revealing a person's true colors. In the case of both Lisa and Riin, death brought out their fundamental selfishness. Despite Riin's assertion on her blog that she "practice[s] compassion towards all living things" and Lisa's claims that she still loves me, neither one of these women are capable of compassion. To them, their feelings are more important than anyone else's; if people have to get hurt so they can be happy, so be it.

At the risk of sounding arrogant, I think that what I've discovered about love is something that very few people nowadays realize. However, even after all I've learned about love, I still am vulnerable to bad relationships. That's the frightening part: knowing what I know didn't help me; I still made all the same mistakes everyone else does.

It took me years to figure out what these two women really were; in Lisa's case, it took over a decade. OK, back when I met Lisa I hadn't yet learned what I now know about love so I have some excuse for how the relationship got started but I have no excuse for taking 12 years to figure out what she really was.

Actually, now that I think about it, it's worse than that. I did know that Lisa was selfish even within the first year of our living together. I just didn't want to see it; I didn't want to admit it was as bad as it was. So, no matter how badly she treated me, no matter how much of my life she took over, no matter how much she took me for granted, I just took it.

Why?

I have a friend who once went through the exact same crap I did. Their "significant other" treated them just as badly and took them just as for granted as Lisa did me. I gave them good advice; I told them this person was beneath them and that they needed to get out. I know that's good advice. I know it's the right thing to do...

So why is it so hard for me to do it?

That's why I worry about this friend. I know what they're going through. Unfortunately, that also means I know how hard it is to do the right thing and I'm afraid they're going to get trapped and abused in a bad relationship for years.

Just like I did.

I have another friend who I, for the most part, disagree with as far as relationship philosophy goes. However, they were right about one thing. Before I met Lisa, indeed before I even had my first romantic relationship, they once said to me, "You're going to fall for the first woman who shows you any attention, then you'll get stuck with her and regret it."

They were 100% right.

Lisa was the first woman to ever show me any attention. I grabbed the opportunity, pushed the relationship into physical intimacy way too fast before I learned anything about her. Then, being the hopeless romantic not wanting to have my first relationship fail, I then spent the next 12 years trying to convince myself Lisa was something she was not.

Did I learn from that? No. I did the exact same thing with Riin. It wasn't as bad; at least I was friends with her for a few months before we became romantic and it took me only five years instead of 12 to figure out her true nature. Nevertheless, however, it was the exact same pattern all over again: I got into a romantic relationship way too fast before I took the time to really get to know the woman.

I thought I was in love with Lisa and Riin. I did love them... but I don't know anymore if I was ever really in love with them.

I don't love them now. Not anymore.

I've said here before that I've been "in love" with four women, including Lisa and Riin. Now, examining my feelings for all four, I realize I've only ever truly been in love with one of them. I've known this woman for a long time and we've never had a romantic relationship. So, in her case, I know I haven't blinded myself by making the relationship sexual like I did with Lisa and Riin; with her, I know, for the first time in my life, the love is real.

Despite how I feel, however, I don't think I'll ever pursue her. I may understand love, but that apparently doesn't help me; I still screwed up twice. This woman means the world to me; I do not want to lose her. I'd rather have her as a friend and keep her in my life than try pushing it and risk losing her. Besides, although she loves me, it's clear she's not in love with me; I respect that.

Of course, that doesn't mean I would oppose it if our friendship ever evolved to become romantic on its own; I'm just not going to try to make it happen. I'm just going to be thankful that this woman is in my life and let our love guide us to whatever fate wills. If it ever does become romantic, I'll take things extra slow to make sure that our relationship is solid enough that, if the romantic relationship doesn't work, I won't lose my friend.

I guess I figured love out; I just haven't figured out relationships. It seems that the two things, while related, are definitely distinctly different things.

As far as relationships goes, I think Bonobobabe* is far wiser than me. She made a recent posting on her blog about how she was going to approach a relationship she was considering; it's probably the best article I've ever read anywhere about how to get a relationship off to a healthy start.

When it comes to romantic relationships, I think I'll follow her advice from now on.

*Regarding this link: I said in a previous posting that Bonobobabe didn't want anyone linking to her blog. However, when I asked her for permission to re-post her posting on relationships here to share it with a wider audience, she told me that now allows people to link to her blog. So, for the record, the link is with her permission. ;)

Break in the Troll Case!

I just got a call from the constable.

I know who the troll is!

I'm not going to reveal the name here just yet, not until formal charges are filed. However, it was, as I suspected, a former employee at my workplace; I recognized her name (yes, now I know for sure it is a woman ;)). The weird thing is, though, she's not anyone I know really well. In fact, if it's the woman I think it is, I've only ever had one conversation with her. There was a reason for that; I didn't like her much. It would appear that feeling was mutual...

The constable will be talking to her within the next few days. In the meantime, we'll be investigating at my workplace to see if she might've had any "professional" reason to dislike me that might've prompted her to do all this.

Stay tuned!

Bonobobabe

One of my friends, Tom Frost Jr., has had a bit of an online feud going with a woman who goes by the online handle "Bonobobabe." She has two blogs, one public knitting blog called Woolly Musings, and one private blog (which, out of respect for her wishes, I will not link to here); I stumbled across her knitting blog while doing a search for info on my troll.

In one entry on her private blog, she mentioned that she made it private because she was trying to avoid a "stalker;" she was referring to Tom. She said she wasn't sure if he had the address of the blog. Well, he does; I gave it to him the day I discovered it.

Why? Put simply, over the past two years, I have had it up to my eyeballs with people, particularly people online, who immediately judge people on the basis of one small area of their lives, slapping labels like "stalker" on many who, while they might make pests of themselves, are otherwise harmless, good people.

Tom is a good example. He is a highly unusual individual, no doubts there. However, I've gotten to know him fairly well over the past year. I originally wrote him when he posted a comment to Riin's blog to which I originally took offense. I wrote to tell him how I felt. I didn't expect a reply; I just felt the need to express my ire. To my astonishment, he not only apologized to me but actually went to Riin and asked her to remove his comment.

This caught my attention; in his shoes, that is exactly what I would have done. That's when I realized Mr. Frost was truly a man of honor. Honorable people seem to be in unfortunately short supply these days, particularly online. So, at that point, I decided to get to know Tom better. As we corresponded, I discovered that he was one of the most interesting, kind and unusual individuals I've met online. He has since become someone I regard as a friend.

Yes, Tom is a bit obsessive compulsive. Of course, that is one of the points of identification I share with him; I am a bit OCD myself. Yes, Tom's obsessiveness might make him fairly persistent in sharing his point of view but he is otherwise harmless. If he doesn't like you he might try to get under your skin but he'd never hurt you.

That is, in fact, exactly why it troubles me that Bonobobabe slaps the label of "stalker" on him. I had the same label slapped on me as well. The simple fact is, neither Tom nor myself would ever hurt anyone. Yes, we both sometimes make pests of ourselves to make our points, but being a gadfly does not make someone a stalker.

Bonobobabe at one point whines that she has a right to an "online presence;" she feels that Tom is trying to take that away from her by harassing her into silence. The thing she fails to grasp however is that, when you have an online presence, you have to accept the fact that there are always going to be people who comment on you. You're not going to like all of them, and they are not all going to like you; that goes with the territory of being a blogger.

As far as I'm concerned, the term "stalker" should never be applied to anyone unless they actually physically follow someone around, invade private accounts (like E-mail, bank accounts etc.) or they make threats. Other than that, not every person who decides to follow someone's public image is a stalker no matter how annoying they might be.

The troll on this blog is an excellent example. He or she is bloody annoying, no denying that. However, as a blogger, that's the risk I take. I put up with this idiot for over a year and did absolutely nothing about them because, by putting my life out in cyberspace, I invited comment; I deal with it. It wasn't until they decided to physically threaten me, complete with my street address in the threat, that they crossed the line from gadfly to stalker.

In the Star Trek episode "Elaan of Troyius," Elaan, the Dohlman of Elas, had to learn polite behavior before she married the leader of Troyius, a marriage that was intended to make peace between the two warring worlds. As the leader of her world, that was her obligation, but she spent most of the episode complaining bitterly about it.

Captain Kirk castigated her for her attitude, saying: "If you enjoy the privileges and prerogatives of being a Dohlman, then be worthy of them. If you don't want the obligations that go along with the title then give it up!"

With a little paraphrasing, I could apply the every same sentiment to Bonobobabe (and, by extension, all bloggers): if you enjoy the privileges and prerogatives of having an online presence then be worthy of them. If you don't want the hassles that go along with the territory then give it up.

The Dohlman of Elaas ultimately went through with her marriage, preventing a war.

Likewise, I think Bonobobabe should continue to maintain her online presence if that's what she wants; I simply think she needs to learn to deal with the consequences, good and bad, of that choice. I mean, what's the point of having an online presence if no one knows you're there? I think she should open her blog back up to the public, suck it up and deal with people she doesn't like.

Ultimately, that's what we all must do in life.

---

On January 7, 2009 3:52:14 PM AST, Tom Frost Jr. wrote:

It appears that you might have succeeded in shaming her into slightly reducing the extent to which she censors us "stalkers": I see she just _approved_ a response by _you_ there!

Yes; I was somewhat surprised to see that. Not that there was anything particularly inflammatory about my comment itself but I thought she might have something against me since I admitted responsibility for deliberately trying to lead you back to her blogs.

I'm _not_ holding my breath, on the other hand, for her to approve any of _my_ responses there . . .

If you were holding your breath, you could breathe easy now, anyway. Go back and take a look; you'll see what I mean... ;)

Anyhow, in my latest . . . response there, I actually _complimented_ her, for doing her latest promotion of her eating habits in an uncharacteristically-for-her, devoid-of-negativity way. Specifically, she connected a certain set of dots which I'd never connected before:

[Editor's Note: In the blog posting in question, Bonobobabe was talking about how so many people tell her they "feel better when they eat meat" to which I replied in my comment that I feel better when I eat vegetarian.]

1. _I_ feel better when I eat meat (unlike her), _exactly_ like in her responding-to-that-concept blog title. She (and to a lesser extent, you) equates meat with junk food, which I don't.

That only speaks to the point I made on her blog that perhaps some people's bodies simply work differently. Maybe your body handles meat well; mine doesn't. Simply speaking, you, I and everyone has to decide to eat what feels right for each of us; no one standard fits every body.

However, I _would_ be happy if I could just kick the _extreme_ _version_ of that habit which I've developed lately (and which then spiraled out of control thanks to my Bible-thumping, anti-Muslim-bigot, "friend" taking me to McDonald's _thrice_ as often as _even_ _I_ _want_ to go there).

Funny you should bring that up. On a recent day trip to visit a friend I caught sight of a McDonald's when I got into her town. For some reason, I suddenly had a monster craving for a Big Mac. I didn't cave, though; like I said, my body feels too good when I keep meat out of my stomach and I wasn't about to subject myself to the... digestive problems McDonald's used to cause me... :P

But I also feel better . . . when I jump right into a creek regardless of the temperature . . .

Define "regardless of the temperature." We talking "polar bear" swims here?

[H]er censorship of that latest response there by me, is also a typical example of her ignorant, "better"-than-yours-or-mine, brand of - or in her case, I think complete lack of - humor.

As it turns out, she might not be so lacking in humor after all... ;)

Fiction and the Theory of the Universal Wavefunction

I've just come from reading the comments on the latest Yehuda Moon comic. This posting started out at a comment there but, as I wrote, it became clear this was going to be a lot longer than a simple comment; I felt a blog posting would be more appropriate. Besides, this gives me an opportunity to promote Yehuda Moon and the Kickstand Cyclery a little. ;)

So, what is it that's got my inner tube in a pinch? A comment made by someone under the name of roderick. I, and several others, had made a few comments about Yehuda's riding position on his new Rapid Blue Line (a steel framed custom bike made by the shop in the comic). Roderick's reply:

people [sic] are giving a cartoon advice [sic]

This isn't the first time I've encountered people with his attitude, and not only on Yehuda Moon; my uncle has a similar attitude about all fiction. I've never understood such people. I mean, what's the point of fiction if one can't get into the fictional world? What's the point of reading a comic if, at least while you're reading it, you're not imagining the characters as flesh and blood people? Why do people like roderick even bother to read comics?

When one reads fiction, the natural tendency of the reader is to put themselves in the place of the characters. In my case, regarding the above comic, I was wondering why Yehuda chose a particular riding position which, if I was in his place, I would not have chosen. Most readers got what I was trying to ask; there were two particularly illuminating comments made by Paul and Chris Moore that explained it nicely.

I do not like roderick's tone. It's bad enough that he apparently thinks we're crazy for getting into a comic so deeply. OK, he has a right to his opinion, but does he have to be so sarcastic about it? People like roderick, the way I see it, are the Grinches of the fiction world; they know they can't get into the spirit of things the same way everyone else can so they try to make everyone else who can feel foolish for doing so.

Well, up yours with a studded tire, roderick. Be damned if I'm going to let your Grinchy attitude spoil my enjoyment of Yehuda Moon and the Kickstand Cyclery, or any other reader's enjoyment, for that matter.

So. For all the rodericks out there, let me offer you a thought that perhaps, one day, might help you join in the fun with the rest of us.

There is a theory in quantum physics called The Theory of the Universal Wavefunction. In layman's terms, subatomic particles exist as waves, essentially existing in all of their potential energy states simultaneously. From the perspective of our reality, this implies that for any event that has more than one possible outcome, all outcomes do, in fact, happen, each outcome creating an alternate "quantum reality."

Now we, making choices in our reality, only experience one outcome; the other outcomes are experienced by alternate versions of ourselves that are created at the branching point. That is to say, if I experience an event that has five possible outcomes, I experience one and four copies of me in alternate realities experience the other four. So, every event with more than one possible outcome, essentially, creates "branch" realities.

In theory, since every possible event happens at every branch point, it stands to reason that there must be a virtually infinite number of realities out there, some very similar to our own, some radically different depending on what events occurred at each branching point. Now, if this is true and, for every possibility there exists a universe where it happened, this has a very interesting implication when it comes to fiction.

Infinite possibility implies that virtually any combination of events one can imagine must have happened in some reality somewhere. In other words, if this theory is correct, it would be impossible to imagine a world that does not exist because, given infinite quantum variations, any combination that can be imagined must exist in an alternate reality somewhere.

In effect, any fictional world that you have ever read about, watched on TV, seen in a movie, watched in a play or even read in a comic must exist as a reality in some universe somewhere.

Now the barriers between quantum realities are fixed. We can't cross from one reality to another (at least in this reality ;)); if we could, it'd make life pretty confusing (see the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Parallels" for a good example of why it's better to keep quantum realities separated ;)). So, we can't go out and visit Yehuda Moon and his friends, but at least we can take comfort in the fact that they are out there. Somewhere.

So, to roderick and others like you, next time you read a comic, watch TV, go to the movie or read a good book, remember Kiri-kin-tha's First Law of Metaphysics: "Nothing unreal exists." There's no shame in giving advice to fictional characters because, like you and me, they are flesh and blood people.

Somewhere... out there. :)

---

On December 29, 2008 8:22:20 AM AST, the mostly reverend wrote:

is it just possible you've overreacted to his little comment? it's not the first time someone has observed--let's assume tongue-in-cheek--that it DOES seem a bit odd to be getting so wrapped up in a cartoon.

Actually, I'll admit I exaggerated my response a bit for dramatic effect. :) Still, I do believe in The Theory of the Universal Wavefunction and I do believe the theory I describe here regarding fictional universes. Further, I was also quite serious when I said I don't understand how people like that can even enjoy fiction; isn't the whole point of fiction to lose yourself in it (so long as you know when it's time to come out ;))?

one might even suggest that it's a bit odd that someone could get so wrapped around a tree trunk that they'd post something on their blog about it.

i'm certainly not suggesting that it's TRUE, i'm just sayin' . . .

;-))

Actually, truth be told, I've always wanted to do a posting on my ideas about the Theory of the Universal Wavefunction; roderick's comment simply provided an ample opportunity. :)

Idiots and Trains Don't Mix

I don't remember exactly how I stumbled across this; I had been searching for Star Trek bloopers and somehow got sidetracked (no pun intended). Anyway, when I saw this, I remember a shiver just going right up my spine. Bicycle wheels can slide on railway tracks, particularly under wet conditions and/or when the tracks cross at a steep angle; if that had happened to this guy...



As a year round cyclist myself, absolutely under no circumstances would I ever do this. I do not cross a railway crossing when the signals are running if a train is approaching. Period.

I wish I could talk to this guy for just 30 seconds to find out where he was going that was so gosh darn important...

---

On Dec 28, 2008, at 6:18:42 AM AST, Darren Alff wrote:

I don't think it's cool to call anyone an idiot. It was the biker's choice to cross the tracks. He made it across without any problems. If he had crashed or something, then I could understand this whole video, but otherwise, I don't see what the big deal is.

The big deal, Mr. Alff, is that cyclists have enough trouble gaining respect from motorists without wantonly violating traffic law. The crossing signals were running; his cross was illegal. Besides, as I've said, if he had slipped and fell (common for cyclists on railway tracks), he would have been rail salsa. In my opinion, the cyclist did something incontrovertibly foolish; that is where he earned the label "idiot" at least as far as his riding prudence goes.

Merry Christmas!

I realize not everyone is Christian; heck, I'm not. Yes, I observe a Catholic prayer ritual but that originally started with a Catholic friend I wanted to pray for. Later, when I realized that most of my friends and loved ones are Catholic, I decided to adopt that particular ritual on a permanent basis; had my friend been Protestant, Anglican or, for that matter, a Hindu or Buddhist, the prayer could just as easily have been drawn from one of those traditions.

I believe in God. Period. Specific religious tradition is irrelevant.

Whatever my religious beliefs are now, however, I have always celebrated Christmas and I always will.

I just got a Christmas greeting from a good friend. Regular readers may recognize him; he's commented here under the identities "Wanderer," "Lonnie" and "L" in the past. He's not Christian; he follows Buddhist traditions. As a fellow non-Christian, he has his own ideas about the value of Christmas which closely mirror mine. I'd like to share his Christmas greeting with you, making a few comments of my own along the way:

Once again the Christmas season is upon us. For many of you that means time with family, friends and business associates. For those of you of non-Christian beliefs, it is a time to reflect on the past year and to look forward to the next as the short days of winter encourage more time indoors with a good book and perhaps a warm fire. But there are many who have none of these Blessings. Millions of people around the world are homeless, jobless, are grieving for loved ones who are no longer with them. I encourage you to open a compassionate heart and offer a prayer for the less fortunate.

For those of you who believe in prayer, you might want to send one my way; I'm alone this Christmas for the first time in 36 years.

In these "politically correct" times it seems dangerous to offer a holiday greeting such as "Merry Christmas" for fear of offending those of other beliefs. Yet, in my experience, my friends who are Jewish, Buddhist, and Muslim, take no offence and usually return the greeting with a cheery smile and often a warm handshake or embrace. Wishing a Merry Christmas is not meant to offend, but to extend warmth, friendship and good will into a world that is far too often cold and uncaring.

I wish more non-Christians would understand that. I actually read a blog entry recently on We Move to Canada where the author actually complained to the HR department at her workplace because someone had put religious-themed Christmas decorations in a cubicle which she shared with someone else. Personally, I think that's way overreacting, and I said so in comments to her posting.

Non-Christians, in my opinion, are getting way too sensitive about religious-themed messages, particularly when it comes to Christmas. The way I see it, a shared cubicle is semi-public space. Having to share decorating space with the other person who uses it is analogous to having someone you don't like the look of sit next to you on a bus; so long as their decorations don't crowd out yours and vice versa, that's just something you have to deal with in public.

Now, this same person also wrote an entry about a Christmas card she got that was obviously intended to push a Christian agenda. Now I understand why she's upset with that. It's one thing to simply display decorations themed around one's religious beliefs; it's quite another to launch an attack against the beliefs of another. Going back to our bus analogy, that's like the person sitting next to you telling you to move because they don't want to be near you.

If she, or anyone else, has a problem with Christmas, that's their right. However, such people need to remember that not everyone feels the way they do. They also need to remember that not every person wishing people Merry Christmas is trying to push a religious agenda; for most people, myself among them, it's simply meant as an expression of goodwill which transcends the holiday's religious origins.

That being said, I'd like to leave you all with Lonnie's Christmas wishes; he expresses how I feel about the season perfectly:

So, I offer to all of you… Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, Pagan, Wiccan, Native American, and those of you who celebrate religious beliefs I have not even heard of, a warm and wonderful season to correspond with the winter solstice… In other words,

Merry Christmas!

The Unicorn and the Elf

A Poem by John A. Ardelli

While wandering through the forest one day, the Unicorn came upon an Elf
Sitting below a weeping willow, sitting all alone by himself.
He looked so sad, the Unicorn felt she had to know what was wrong.
"Why do you cry?" she said with concern. "Have you been sitting here long?"

With a sigh, he nods, not raising his head. "I've been here 24 days.
"But the trees are so dense and I got lost; it's like trying to go through a maze.
"I tried to find my way back out of this place, but I just end up back at this tree,
"So all I can do is just sit and wait here and hope my friends will find me."

"I know this forest most intimately well," the Unicorn tenderly said.
"Climb unto my back; I'll take you somewhere where you can sleep and be fed."
The Unicorn knelt low to the ground and invited the Elf up to ride.
"Once you're strong again, I'll take you where you want; just let me be your guide."

Grateful, the Elf climbed onto her back and she carried him into the night.
By dawn, they came to a great, sunny clearing and he could barely believe the sight
For before him stood a great Unicorn herd. "Meet my family," the Unicorn said.
"The grass here is soft and the fruit here is sweet; here you can rest and be fed."

Three days he stayed with the Unicorn herd; they welcomed him into their home,
But he began to miss his trek through the forest; he felt a strong urge to roam.
"I'll go with you," said his Unicorn mate. "I'll guide and watch over you.
"All I ask is, wherever my travels take us, you'll take good care of me, too."

Happy that he is no longer alone, the Elf agrees with a smile.
He climbs back up on the Unicorn's back and they travel the woods for a while.
At first, their journey was a happy one with frequent returns to the herd.
At first, it is not at all hard for the Elf to keep his faith and his word.

But then the skies cloud; the storms start to come. Wind pulls the Elf off her back.
They try to protect each other against the storm's relentless attack.
Nine days of storms and their spirits finally break; there is a terrible fight.
Wounded, the Elf and the Unicorn turn and walk away from each other in the night.

At first, the Elf thinks to himself, "Good riddance; she was just in my way."
But as time went on, he felt more and more sad and realized he wanted her to stay.
He went in search of his Unicorn and found the Unicorn herd
But, he having hurt one of their own, they turn their backs and say not a word.

Sadly, he turns and goes back into the woods and goes back to sit by his tree.
But now he's twice as sad as he was; now he knows what it's like to be free.
He waits there now in the hope that she will someday return to him again.
Sometimes he gets up and goes through the woods, searching for her now and then.

The Elf's sad spirit is heavy to bear. His soul is falling apart
For the Unicorn and her family she loves have left their horn prints on his heart.

For Lisa Brewer
December 22, 2008

Riin Gill and Annie Wilkes: Separated at Birth?

"The meaning of life is to seek happiness. Practice compassion toward all living things. Find peace. Knit more." - Riin Gill, A Happy Fuzzy Blog

"Ri-i-i-i-ght..." Dr. Evil, Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery

In my December 7 entry "Rudy" I mentioned briefly that I had dropped Riin a quick note of condolence on the passing of her rabbit; this is what I sent to her:

From: John A. Ardelli <gelfling@syd.eastlink.ca>
Subject: I'm Sorry
Date: December 7, 2008 9:35:29 PM AST
To: Riin Gill <***********************>

Riin,

I just have one thing to say:

I'm SO sorry about Rudy. I just started crying the moment I read your blog posting.

I wish there was something I could do to help.

For what it's worth, my thoughts will be with you.

John A. Ardelli
http://pedalingprince.blogspot.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/vofv/

That's all there was to it; just a simple, heartfelt expression of sympathy.

I was discussing this with my dearest friend later, wondering if sending that was a mistake; she didn't think so. She said, if she were in Riin's place and received a kind word like that after losing someone important to her, even if it came from someone she didn't want to hear from, she would have appreciated the gesture. That was exactly what I thought when I wrote it. I figured Riin would be mature enough to take it in the spirit in which it was intended.

Apparently, I gave her too much credit; from her most recent blog entry:

Thanks to everyone who commented or emailed after my last post. I really appreciate your kindness. [Except for StalkerBoy. Dude, what part of the police telling you never to contact me again do you not understand? (This is a rhetorical question. Do NOT answer.) I will not press charges THIS time (and this time ONLY) given the circumstances, but get it through your thick skull. I do not want to hear from you ever again. Your words do not bring me comfort because they remind me of your existence. I do not want to be reminded of your existence. Do not ever contact me again. This means leave me the fuck alone.]

Sorry to everyone else. I try to keep my dirty laundry off the blog, but it couldn't be avoided this time.

Ooohkaaayyy...

Here, briefly, are my thoughts on this:

First, she didn't decide not to press charges because of "the circumstances;" she decided not to press charges because, if she had taken that E-mail I sent her to the police, she would have been laughed right out of the station and she knows it. So, since she couldn't hurt me that way, she decided to make a big public show of her indignation in the hopes of scaring or shaming me. Nice try, my pharisaic nymph, but I stand by what I did; I am neither ashamed nor afraid.

Second, she claims that she couldn't avoid putting her "dirty laundry" on the blog this time. Balderdash. Apple Mail, like all mail clients, offers a "Reply" button; if she felt the need to say something to me she could just as easily have responded in E-mail. The only reason she did it in the open on her blog was to grab attention and play the victim, both of which are things that Riin has down to a fine art; she's an expert at manipulating sympathy out of people.

And to think I was actually thinking about going back to reading her blog regularly once this troll mess was over.

My judgment of character is usually spot on. I thought there was actually a perspicacious paragon under the skin of the pharisee but, if she can respond to such a simple act of kindness with that kind of venom, there is no paragon; there couldn't be. Riin is truly hypocrisy incarnate. "Practice compassion toward all living things" she says, yet she feels no compassion for anyone whatsoever; she just pretends to to make herself look better in others' eyes.

I once read Misery over the phone to her (she used to like it when I'd read to her). My original intention was to read a chapter a night but I couldn't help but notice that she would frequently ask me to read more. We got through the entire novel in less than two weeks (and Stephen King books are pretty thick to read aloud in such a short time).

Looking back on that now, I have to wonder if maybe she liked it because she could identify with it. Specifically, I think she was identifying with the character Annie Wilkes. If you ask me, Annie Wilkes and Riin Gill were both cut from the same cloth. Both understand the feelings of others yet don't have any compassion for them, both think the world is out to get them and both think they are the most important people in the universe.

The only difference between Annie Wilkes and Riin Gill seems to be in the area of violence. Where Annie is extraordinarily violent, Riin is extraordinarily pacifistic. Other than that, however, they're virtually twins emotionally.

Riin Gill = Annie Wilkes on Valium.

'Nuff said.

---

On December 14, 2008 12:24:22 AM AST, Wanderer wrote:

She says,"Practice compassion toward all living things..." quoted pretty much verbatim from the Dammapada, or the Buddhist equivalent of the Bible. Is Riin trying to convince people she is Buddhist?

Not precisely. I remember her mentioning Buddhism as an inspiration for some of her beliefs, though. I just tried a Google search on "Riin" and "Buddhism;" I found a comment on The Yarn Harlot where she calls herself an "atheist/pantheist/Buddhist hybrid," whatever the heck that means...

Being vegan and speaking a few catch phrases does not make one a Buddhist! A true Buddhist would firstly NOT refer to anyone as "Stalker Boy" but have compassion and understanding for that person and realize that every person has a right to be on this planet. (Or some other planet for that matter) A true Buddhist would attempt to help someone they perceive to be a stalker achieve a less threatening way of inter-being with others. A true Buddhist would forgive, and not make threats of calling the police.

In other words, "practice compassion toward all living things."

Here's the thing. If Riin considers herself to be a theological "hybrid" of some kind, fine. Choose the beliefs she wants to follow and reject the others; that's her right. However, I believe it to be the height of hypocrisy on her part for her to specifically quote a tenet of one of those beliefs prominently on the front page of her blog that she so blatantly does not follow.

The more I learn about Riin, the more she reminds me of my ex-wife, a woman I would call "Psycho Bitch" if I were not so damned understanding of her mental illness. Actually, my ex was touched when I saw her and expressed my sorrow that her dog had died.

Then I guess she and Riin aren't that much alike. That's the way I would have expected Riin to respond, the way I would expect any rational human being to respond.

I think you are better off wothout Riin, and I hope this will help you see that.

Oh, I already know that. The only reason I'm still on Riin's blog is to watch for further comments from the troll. Once the troll is caught, I'll have no further use for it.

Christian Elitism

Somebody close to me recently accused me of being an atheist; they claim my late grandmother told them this.

I find this highly dubious. My grandmother knew what my beliefs were; I've told her point blank that I do believe in God (if not necessarily the strict Christian interpretation of said deity). Of course, on the other hand, this person is quite prone to mishearing what others say because she spends most of her time telling people what she thinks and tends to block out, and sometimes actually interrupt and talk over, things she doesn't want to hear.

As the conversation went on, I got the definite impression that she drew this conclusion herself without any help from my grandmother. This conclusion was based on a statement she made during the conversation. I made the comment that I don't necessarily take The Bible as literal fact based largely on the unavoidable fact that The Bible is a 2000+ year old document that's been translated and retranslated so many times that its accuracy cannot be strictly relied upon.

When I said that, she said, "Anyone who doesn't believe in The Bible doesn't believe in God because The Bible is God."

Is it now? Well, if that's true, so much for the "there's only one God" theory. Given the sheer popularity of The Book (the King James Version was, after all, one of the earliest books ever set in print), there must be literally billions of Copies out there. By this woman's logic, that means there must be billions of Gods.

I imagine she didn't mean it that literally; I'm just a little miffed so I'm on sarcasm overdrive here. I'm guessing that what she meant was that, if you don't believe in The Bible, then you don't believe in God. Obviously, that's where her belief that I am an atheist comes from; if I don't believe strictly in The Bible then I must not believe in God.

I take profound offense to that very concept.

Given that the original writers of The Bible believed that the Earth couldn't have been created much more than 4000 years before the birth of Christ, it stands to reason that The Bible, even the very first, original version of its earliest texts, could not be any older than 6008 years old; this planet, according to modern estimates, is about 4.54 billion years old. If God created the Earth then He must have existed long before this Book.

I'm not saying The Bible isn't a Good Book; It is. It is one of the finest road maps of moral and ethical behavior ever committed to paper. However, this woman believes that The Bible was written by God, using humans as His instruments.

The Bible was not written by God; even Biblical scholars acknowledge that. The Bible is a book about God written by humankind. Does that make it any less important to Christian belief? No. It simply means that, like everything else ever written, it is merely the writers' interpretation of the subject matter. In other words, The Bible describes the Christian interpretation of God.

In that word "interpretation" lies the key to my own beliefs. I do believe in God, but I have my own unique interpretation of Him. One of the key concepts in my own beliefs about God actually flies in the face of a key concept in traditional Christian belief: that Christianity is the "One True Belief." That idea says, in effect, "We know the 'real' God; anyone who does not agree with us is wrong."

My central belief is the diametric opposite of this: I believe it is the height of human arrogance to assume that we, as a species, are even close to advanced enough to understand anything about a life form as advanced as God must be. Therefore, in my view, Christians or, for that matter, a believer of any faith who believes their beliefs are the "One True Belief" are displaying a level of hubris that, to me, calls their very judgment into question.

The other thing that concerns me about beliefs so strict is that such beliefs cannot adapt to changing times. All belief systems, if they're going to remain relevant to modern society, must adapt to advances made in society. For example, the moment we discovered that the Earth was more than 6008 years old, the traditional Christian Story of Creation could no longer be taken literally; creating the Earth obviously took a lot longer than six days.

Personally, I think too much emphasis is often placed on details like this which, in the final analysis, have no relevance whatsoever to the teachings of The Bible. So God took a little longer to create Heaven and Earth than Genesis says. So what? All that means is the people writing this particular interpretation simply didn't have the knowledge and technology needed to learn the true age of the Earth and only guessed on the basis of surface observation.

That doesn't change the idea, however, that this planet was created by an Intelligent Force which the writers have chosen to call God. All it means is that God is so far above us on the evolutionary scale that, beyond the fact that He created this world, we really know virtually nothing whatsoever about Him. In other words, acknowledging that Earth was created in billions of years instead of six days does not automatically dismiss the concept of God.

Therein lies the problem. The woman I've been talking about believes, if you question word one of The Bible, you don't believe in God; that includes such obviously incorrect, and ultimately irrelevant, details as the time Creation took.

This woman is one of the most intelligent people I've known in my life. However, for someone of such keen intellect, she is astonishingly closed-minded in some areas; religion is one of them. This is one of the reasons why I tend not to trust her judgment. I trust her intentions certainly; she means well and is often very helpful to those she loves. However, her judgment is frequently impaired by her priggishness.

I do not appreciate being told I don't believe in God on the basis of a fallacious argument, especially since she apparently told Lisa's mother that I was an atheist. This is particularly troubling given that I've been saying prayers for her, her husband and for Lisa on a regular basis. Now I'm concerned that I'm going to look like a hypocrite or, at the very least, a fraud.

The fact is, I believe in prayer; I always have. Until recently, however, my "praying" was always of an "informal" nature. By that I mean, when I prayed, I'd generally just "talk to" God, or the spirits of my loved ones who passed on, as if I was talking to a friend. Lately, however, with so much turmoil in my life, I've felt a need for a more formal, ritualistic approach to prayer.

Through a Catholic friend, I have discovered of late that some of the most beautiful prayer rituals I've ever encountered come out of Catholic belief; I have therefore chosen a Catholic prayer and prayer tradition as my prayer style of choice. Although I am not Catholic, I choose to respect, and honor, Catholic traditions when it comes to praying because of my admiration for Catholic prayer and ritual.

One of the concepts in Catholic praying I found most intriguing was the concept of the patron saint. This, actually, fits with my beliefs about the spirit world. I have mentioned on this blog previously that I view the spirit world as a sort of "chain of command" with the spirits of those who pass on being the medium by which requests to God are made; the idea of patron saints, who speak to God on your behalf, fits nicely into this belief.

So, I chose a patron saint to whom I now pray regularly: Saint Rita of Cascia. Several times a day, and at least once before bedtime, I say her Prayer of Petition to ask her to help the people I love in my life. There is a certain comfort in the formal ritual of the prayer; by repeating the exact same words every time, it gives me a stronger sense that my prayer is actually being heard. Also, reading a formal prayer, to me, is a sign of respect to both St. Rita and God.

My beliefs about God have not changed; I'm not converting to Catholicism. I simply choose to honor Catholic rituals when it comes to prayer simply because I love and respect their style of prayer and because the concept of patron saints fits so well into my established belief systems. Also, most of the people I love in my life, outside of family, happen to be Catholic; it seems appropriate to honor their beliefs when praying for them.

We all must interpret God in our own way. Some of us may even choose not to believe in Him. However, I maintain, and have always maintained, that the specific details of a person's religious beliefs, or lack thereof, are irrelevant provided that their belief system follows the simple Golden Rule:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

In closing, let me clarify something unequivocally:

I am not an atheist.

Rudy

This has been a horrible day, not only for me, but for everyone I've heard from so far today, both in meatspace and cyberspace. One friend is worried about family. Another is having conflicts with their spouse. Myself, Lisa left me officially today; her father came in to get her stuff and, while he made it clear we're still going to be friends, Lisa will not be coming home. I've tried to talk to her; she flatly refuses and her parents, naturally, are taking her side in that.

Merry f*BEEP*ing Christmas. :(

However, when I just went to do a "troll sweep" if Riin's blog, I saw that Riin is having a worse day than any of us.

Rudy, Riin's pet bunny, has died.

Rudy meant the world to Riin. I've never been more sorry that I'm not able to be there for her anymore.

I broke silence and sent her a brief E-mail of condolence. I had to. I don't expect her to reply but I needed her to know my thoughts are with her.

Goodbye, Rudy. I'm sorry I never got to know you.

---

On December 7, 2008 11:21:35 PM AST, Wanderer wrote:

I have often heard . . . that the Universe . . . never gives us more than we can handle.

If that's true, then why do some people commit suicide?

Good Advice: Easy to Give, Hard to Follow

"It's not easy to understand other people's problems, but it's very easy to think you do." - Mokey Fraggle, Fraggle Rock, "The Preachification of Convincing John"

Lisa and I have decided to make our breakup official, though we're having trouble agreeing exactly when. I want it to be January 24; that way, we won't have to deal with packing stuff up until after Christmas. Lisa wants to leave January 10; I'm trying to talk her out of that because, if she leaves that early, that means we have to deal with the logistics of it over Christmas. However, at least we have agreed that the final breakup will be in January.

It's not that I don't understand why she wants to leave as soon as she can; I do. Besides the pain we're causing each other, her mother is quite ill right now; she wants to go home and help. Normally, I would consider the time, more than a month from now, adequate; it's simply the timing of it, right through the Christmas season, that's troubling me. I'm only asking for 14 more days so we can have a peaceful Christmas unfettered by sorting and packing.

Unfortunately, the contention over this initiated a rather fierce exchange of fire last night; shields took a beating on both sides. The thing is now, while she's away at her parents', I'm surprised to discover that I'm actually missing her badly for the first time since this snafu began a year ago. I don't know why; I just do. I've even been posting how much I miss her to my Facebook profile and changed my relationship status from "Single" to "It's Complicated."

Like most people, I've known my fair share of people with relationship problems. Also like most people, I have had my fair share of relationship problems; first my breakup with Riin, now my breakup with Lisa. In the first case, Riin initiated the breakup; in the latter, I initiated it. In both cases, the person who initiated the breakup was hoping for a smooth separation; in both cases, it didn't turn out that way.

I've seen elements in my current situation with Lisa and in my past situation with Riin in a lot of the relationship problems other people in my life have had. Now, when I'm advising a friend on what to do about their relationship problems, I'm almost always able to give sound advice. Following that advice myself, however, would seem to be much harder.

For example, last night during our argument over the date of our breakup, Lisa hit me over the head with a broomstick. Now, if a friend were to come to me and say that their partner had done that to them, my first advice would be to charge them with assault. Further, if their relationship had a repeated pattern of physical abuse in it, as mine with Lisa does, my next advice would be to get out immediately.

Objectively, I know that's good advice. However, being in the situation makes it much harder to look at it objectively. Yes I know it's probably for the best that Lisa and I are separating. However, while she's away visiting her parents this weekend, I can't help but miss her terribly and I wonder, "If I'm missing her this much now when she's only away for a few days, how the hell am I going to get through her leaving for good? I don't want her to leave."

This makes it easier to understand why women whose partners do horrific things to them, even extremes like beatings and sexual assaults, sometimes still want to go back. No, wait; that's not quite right. I do not understand why; even being in it myself right now I don't understand why I feel this way. I have no more understanding of why women sometimes stay in bad situations, either. It's more accurate to say that I understand how they feel.

I've heard women even in the most reprehensible situations say, "I can make this work. He can be a better person. I just have to try harder." The thing that scares me is that right now, in this moment, I'm having the exact same thoughts about Lisa: "I can make this work. She can be a better person. I just have to try harder."

There are probably some cases where that's true. However, I've been with Lisa for 12 years; in all that time, it has not gotten better no matter how hard I've tried. Lisa drags behavior out of me that I simply do not exhibit with anyone else because, with Lisa, I often find myself desperate trying to communicate with her, and desperation sometimes makes people do things out of character (like how hard I pushed Riin; I don't usually act like that but I was desperate).

If I had a friend who'd been in a relationship for more than a single year, never mind 12, whose relationship showed such repeated patterns of abuse as my relationship with Lisa has, I would be begging them to get out. I can sit here and know full well that's good advice; I know it's advice I should follow. Yet I still miss her. I still don't want her to leave. I still spent all night tonight wanting to call her (miracle of miracles, I managed not to do that at least).

Why is it so easy to know the right thing to do and yet so hard to do it?

I'm sitting here thinking how sad our next anniversary will be; August 17, 2009 will be a very sad day. I'm thinking about all the years I've put into this relationship and I can't help but think I should still be trying to hold it together. I do still love Lisa but, like Riin, she no longer trusts me and simply won't listen. Of course, this time, that feeling is mutual; I don't trust her right now, either.

This would be easier if I could just have this one last peaceful Christmas but, if Lisa insists on leaving January 10, that'll cast a pall over my Christmas spirit no matter where I spend it. Her family has offered to let me spend it with them, as has become tradition (and, although I've given thought to traveling this Christmas, more and more I'm thinking I'd rather spend one more with them) but that'd be really awkward under the circumstances.

I don't know what to do. Should I try again? Probably not.

But I can't help but want to.

This is Getting Scary...

I hate to admit that (since I'm sure it'll give my troll plenty of satisfaction), but it is...

I just got the following comment on my previous post from Riin's ex-husband today at 12:49:12 PM AST:

This morning, a friend pointed me to this:

"I've stopped following the blogs of Peter A. (after a childish comment he made about me at Yehuda Moon and the Kickstand Cyclery)..."

I didn't leave that "childish" comment. In fact, I'd never heard of the webcomic in question until I followed the link this morning.

Evidently, not every troll is functionally illiterate.

I know that the above was written by the real Peter; I know what ISP he uses and there's a connection in my StatCounter log from that ISP around the same time as his comment.

I noticed that my troll, for a brief period, did start using proper grammar and spelling around the same time that he/she tried to impersonate Riin on my blog. Either that was a different troll or, more likely, my troll decided to start running his/her postings thorough grammar and spell check before posting them to disguise their origins, knowing I'd identified the unique grammar and spelling mistakes they habitually make.

It never occurred to me, however, that this comment on Yehuda Moon would've been from the troll. Why? This is what makes it so scary:

Until today, I have never mentioned Yehuda Moon and the Kickstand Cyclery on this blog; comments on Yehuda Moon also can't be Googled because the comments are hidden by default. I also never E-mailed anyone about it (I was waiting for a while to see where it was going before I recommended it to anyone). I had only mentioned it to a handful of people in meatspace. So there's no way anyone could have found out I was reading Yehuda Moon unless:

1. They are a cyclist who already knew of the comic and was already reading it.
2. They are on a cycling group where the comic was mentioned (that's how I found it).
3. They are somebody I know personally in meatspace whom I see regularly present day.

When I saw the comment by "Peter," I assumed Option 1 or 2. Peter is a cyclist; he doesn't ride often but he does have a bicycle. So it seemed likely to me that either another cycling friend showed him Yehuda Moon or he discovered it himself on a cycling group. Since I figured the troll wasn't likely to know about the comic and, as Peter points out, the comment was written with proper grammar and spelling, I figured it had to be him; it couldn't be the troll.

To be honest, it never occurred to me that the troll would impersonate Peter anyway. Why would they? I mean I can understand why they'd try to impersonate Riin in order to stir up trouble twist the knife but Peter? I never would have guessed that. Besides, since Peter doesn't know me that well, I can quite reasonably see how he might've come to the conclusion that I make a habit of chasing married women (Riin, incidentally was the first, and only, one).

Given that, I could certainly have forgiven him a certain amount of rancor towards me. It wasn't what was said that I thought was "childish" as much as I thought saying it in a public forum as an obvious attempt to embarrass me was (similar to the way I viewed Riin saying Peter should "grow a brain" was also childish, in part, for the same reason).

Actually, looking back on it in hindsight, that's probably exactly what the troll was trying to accomplish: to embarrass me. Unfortunately, he/she succeeded, though not exactly as they planned. The comment itself didn't embarrass me but it did cause me to accuse someone of something they didn't do; that is more embarrassing to me than anything the troll could possibly do to me.

That's the first battle the troll has won in some time; I intend to make it the last.

You are free to read or not read my blog as you wish, but I'd appreciate not being called "childish" on the basis of a comment I did not make.

Agreed. Please accept my sincere apologies. I simply didn't anticipate that this could possibly be the troll. I should have come to you first (I still have your E-mail address in my archives from my early days with Riin) and asked you if that comment was actually from you; I didn't.

From now on, if I ever see anything posted publicly ostensibly from you that offends me that doesn't appear on your blog, I will double check first with you to make sure the comment is genuine before I say anything public. Further, I'm going to start second guessing anything like this ostensibly coming from anyone who was ever involved with Riin. I've evidently underestimated this troll; I'll have to be more vigilant until he/she is finally caught.

Also, to demonstrate my honorable intentions, I'm going to show this posting to Yehuda Moon author Rick Smith and ask him to remove that comment. Whoever did this has no right to speak under your identity or any identity that is not their own.

[I]n light of this experience, I would say your dearest friend is wise to ask you not use her name.

I can understand your frustration and I sympathize, but please do not take this to be indicative of the way I ordinarily treat people. This was an error in judgment on my part; I simply didn't anticipate that anyone would impersonate your identity in an attempt to get to me. Again, I give you my word, I will not repeat the mistake.

"I won't underestimate him again." - Captain James T. Kirk, Star Trek, "Balance of Terror"

As for my friend, she doesn't like anyone using her name online; she doesn't even have a Facebook profile (which is extremely rare these days; everyone I know has one, aside from her). Her request that I not use her name has nothing to do with me; she trusts me as implicitly as trust her. She's simply a very private person, and I respect that.

The only names I use freely on this blog are the names of persons, like yourself, whose names are already out in cyberspace or persons who have given me express permission to use their names (such as my friend Robert Martell; he doesn't have a blog or online presence but I asked his permission before using his name in a recent posting).

In light of that wisdom, I've abberviated [sic] my last name in this comment, and ask that you do the same, and not link to my blog.

I will respect your wishes here. However, I submit that it won't accomplish anything. I don't link to your blog very often but I have in the past; your name and links to your blog are already in archived posts. It's far too late to change them now; links to them via Google will persist for many years.

Besides, given everything that's happened over the past year, I would ask that you give me the benefit of the doubt and assume that this was an isolated error in judgment (which it is) and allow me the same freedom to link back to your blog, when appropriate, as any other blogger would have.

OK. Now that I've made my apologies, that leaves me with one very serious question:

Who is this troll?

The warrant has been issued by now; it's just a matter of time before I find out, and I'll feel a lot better once I do.

---

On December 2, 2008 9:34:33 AM AST, Monica wrote:

I do know Peter. We've been friends since 1983, so I feel I can speak to his character. (I'm the one who introduced him and Riin, by the way, fwiw!)

I know; Riin told me the whole story, back in the day. ;)

I'm also the one who pointed him to your comment.

I suspected as much when he said "a friend." ;)

I knew straight off that Pete would not have made that comment. Pete is neither vindictive nor careless; he blogs under his real name and is sensitive about comments he makes online.

Thanks for bringing this to his attention, then. Obviously, I don't know him well; all I do know of him was filtered through Riin's perceptions. Unfortunately, Riin's perceptions of him weren't exactly flattering; from what she said about him, it seemed perfectly possible he might've made a comment like that. Combine that with the fact that I did not anticipate that the troll would think of impersonating him and you can understand why I assume it was him.

I guess that's something else I need to bear in mind: take anything Riin has ever said about anyone with a whole shaker of salt... :P

I have no desire to accuse anyone of something they didn't do (or wouldn't do); I know all too well what it feels like. :( Thank you for setting the record straight.

I had composed most of an email to you to say this when I decided I'd let Pete address it himself.

I appreciate that as well. I believe, when you make a mistake (by "you," I mean people in general, not you personally ;)), you should have the backbone to stand up, admit it and apologize.

The only time I don't confront someone directly when I have a problem with them is in situations like this troll situation; I can't confront someone if I don't know who to confront. :P If I knew who it was, though, I guarantee I'd be talking to them personally rather than bringing in the police. Indeed, once I find out who it is, in addition to charging them, I intend to confront them eye-to-eye and ask them one simple question:

Why?

Maybe I'll get an answer; maybe I won't. Either way, I feel I have to ask.

Addiction

My dearest friend (she prefers me not to use her name online) often says that everything happens for a reason. Recent experience has me wondering if there may be some truth to this idea. I've been through some painful experiences recently but, I must admit, most of them have taught me something or brought something great into my life. Even my relationship with Riin, as badly as it ended, still taught me things about life, the universe and everything.

Now, perhaps the troll has taught me something valuable. Until he/she drew my attention back to Riin's blog, I had planned never to look at it again. However, in monitoring it recently to watch for activity from the troll, I have rediscovered the reason I liked to read Riin Gill's writing in the first place, long before we fell in love. The woman has some truly sharp insights; her ideas on the way the world works are still, to this day, the most interesting I've ever read.

Before the troll, I wasn't able to see this because then I was visiting Riin's blog, not to enjoy her writing, but looking for opportunities to contact her. Now, however, reading her blog without this agenda, I'm able to relax and just enjoy her pearls of wisdom (no sarcasm; I mean that). Actually, I find her writing even better now because, having known her, I can now see her writing in light of the person she is which only allows me to see it in greater depth.

I don't follow many blogs. I've stopped following the blogs of Peter Alway (after a childish comment he made about me at Yehuda Moon and the Kickstand Cyclery) and The Yarn Harlot (while I enjoyed her writing, I didn't enjoy it enough to deal with running into Riin's comments there). Actually, the only blogs I still follow regularly now are Northeastern Pennsylvania Bicycle Messengering and We Move to Canada; a blog has to be really good before I'll follow it.

Grudgingly, I must admit that I have the troll to thank for helping me rediscover Riin's blog. I think, after this is all over, I'm going to keep visiting it; things on there often really make me think, and I like things that give me something to ponder.

Riin's most recent posting is an excellent example. She talks about an incident at a Valley Stream, New York Walmart where shoppers broke the door down five minutes early and trampled an employee to death; they were oniomania sufferers who couldn't wait any longer for an after Thanksgiving sale the store was opening early for. Apparently, some of them even refused to leave the store when they were told it was closing after the death.

I agree with Riin's feelings on the event. Certainly, shopping is an addiction for some people and these people definitely need help. However, seeing Riin's ideas through the lens of our former relationship and what I know of her as a person, I do take exception to her ideas about the solution to the problem. Riin suggests:

[M]aybe [addicted shoppers] need to stop shopping for a while. Stop looking at ads. Stop listening when other people talk about what they bought. After a detox period, if you need to buy something, ask yourself, do you actually need it, or do you just want it?

Think about it for a while. If you just want it, do you really want it? Or do you just feel like buying something? You might decide you'd be just as happy without it. It's ok to buy something you want occasionally, but think about why you want it. Would it really bring you happiness? Don't buy it if you can't afford it. Don't buy it if it harms others, or if it harms you. And don't shop just to get a high from shopping.

One of Riin's strengths is that she is capable of breaking addictions through sheer willpower; if she decides something is bad for her, she can pretty much just stop doing it cold turkey. Unfortunately, one of Riin's weaknesses is she cannot see things from the point of view of others; she therefore doesn't recognize that we're not all capable of doing that. The advice she gives would work for her if she suffered from oniomania but it might not work for others.

This seems too familiar. I used to drink heavily. Riin used to take exception to this not only because she was worried about my health but also because of a fundamental issue she has with drinking in general. She wanted me to quit completely. Because she can do that with addictions, she automatically assumed I could; when I couldn't, she thought that meant I loved my drinking more than I loved her.

I know from experience: this is not the way addictions work.

When you're addicted to something you know is bad for you, you know you have to stop, but that knowledge doesn't help. Knowing its bad for you can help you stop in the short term but once you do, as time goes on, the craving for your addiction grows stronger and stronger. Eventually, you start to look for excuses to start again. Sooner or later, usually after a particularly stressful day, you just say, "To hell with it" and start the cycle all over again.

My drinking is a good example. After Riin left, I did quit. I knew my drinking was in large part responsible for my losing her; that was my initial motivation, and it was strong enough to keep me away from it for several months. However, as time went on and I realized she wasn't coming back, I started thinking, "Why am I doing this? It's not going to bring her back. Why should I deprive myself if she's not here, anyway?" That became my excuse.

So I did go back to drinking. I didn't mention it on the blog because I was too ashamed after everything I'd said to admit it. If someone had asked me if I was drinking again I would've told the truth (I can't do otherwise; it's against my nature) but, fortunately, the topic never came up. Until now.

I am not saying, by the way, that Riin is responsible for my drinking; she's not. I freely admit I was using her as a scapegoat, an excuse to drink. However, at least I recognize this; knowing this gives me a chance to deal with it. She may have been the catalyst but, like everyone else, the ultimate responsibility for my actions rests with me.

That being said, this past summer I finally realized I needed help. I knew I had two choices; I could either go to Alcoholics Anonymous or I could make a pact with a friend I trusted to control it.

Of course, this is a very personal problem for me. I don't have a problem with people knowing I have the problem, but the person who helps me with it must be someone I trust implicitly. On realizing that, I realized that AA was out; there was no guarantee I'd meet anyone at AA meetings I could trust. So, I decided to make a pact with a friend I trusted (the one I mentioned earlier).

My original pact was simple. "I will drink only two beers a day, Friday, Saturday and Sunday; I will drink no beer any other day of the week." Now I knew this pact would be hard to keep, so I also promised my friend, should I ever break the pact, that I would tell her.

Of course, the problem with keeping this agreement was the fact that I know I have no willpower when there's cold beer in the house. I prefer beer in cans and most canned beer comes in packs of eight. I wasn't sure, once I had two from a fresh pack, I would have the willpower to stay out of the other six. So I decided to switch to imported beer which was available in individual cans. That way, I could buy only two at a time.

I found a beer, a German import called Holsten Maibock, that was absolutley delicious. As a side benefit, it was also 7% alcohol and came in big 500 ml cans so it still provided a bit of a buzz even after only two. So that's what I started to drink, replacing my old favorite Moosehead Dry Ice.

Now here's the problem. Those who have been following the story with Riin will know that one thing I excel at is figuring out loopholes in agreements. For example, when Riin told me not to "call [her], E-mail [her] or write comments on [her] blog," I agreed to that. To get around that, I sent her snail mail, since that wasn't one of the three things I promised; that way, I could keep my word in the strictest sense and still be able to contact her.

Well, the same thing happened to the above agreement. One night, after the agreement was made, Lisa and I went to the casino for a snack at The All Star Grille. Instead of getting a snack, however, we decided to splurge on wine. Before I knew it, we had drank a litre each. I didn't feel I was breaking my vow because my vow was aimed specifically at beer; technically, I still hadn't broken my word.

However, the next day, I recognized that this was a loophole that had to be plugged. So, next time I talked to my friend, I amended my agreement to include all alcohol, not just beer. In the process she, bless her heart, actually talked me into making the agreement more strict. From then on, it was no other alcohol and two beers each Friday and Saturday but not Sunday. I haven't drank on Sunday since.

After a while, however, I began to miss the feeling of being mind numbingly plastered. Unfortunately, that is one of the things that keeps people drinking; it can be fun. So I started thinking of ways I could get back that feeling without breaking my word. I hit upon the idea of finding a stronger beer. I knew that imported beers were often strong, but I wasn't sure if there was any such thing as a beer that was more than 7% alcohol.

Then, one day, I was riding my bike and saw a cyclist proceed straight through an intersection in the right turn only lane. As a strong advocate of vehicular cycling, I felt compelled to stop him and discuss it with him. Over the course of our discussion, he happened to mention that he was headed for the liquor store and, when I brought up that I wished I could find a stronger beer, he said the beer he was going for was 10%.

So I'd found a new beer: Faxe 10%. When I first got it, both the cyclist and the staff at the liquor store told me it didn't taste very good and suggested I buy something else with it in case I didn't like it. Instinctively, however, I had a feeling I was going to like it just fine and just got the Faxe 10%. I was right. I don't know what they were talking about; it was delicious, not to mention it went right to my head. "Finally, I got the 'drunk' back!" I thought.

Drinking Faxe 10%, however, I discovered something else about alcohol addiction I didn't know before, at least about how it affects me: the stronger the beer, the stronger the pull of the addiction. Since starting with Faxe 10%, I've found myself tempted to break my word. Now, being obsessive compulsively honest, I talked to my friend about these temptations; this, in turn, helped me keep my word, knowing how disappointed she would be in me if I broke it.

Faxe 10% is also the only beer that makes me sorely tempted to lie. Over and over, I've had the thought that, if I was to drink more than two of them on a Friday night, if I didn't tell her, my friend would never know the difference. These thoughts disturb me. Under normal circumstances, I do not lie; the fact that this stuff is tempting me to do so makes me wonder if drinking this particular beer is a good idea...

Faxe 10% also pushed me to be a little more creative in my interpretation of my agreement. For example, I couldn't drink more than two on Friday night, but I managed to get around that by drinking two when I get home and saving another two for after midnight; technically, after midnight is Saturday and I've kept my word. Of course, the downside of that is that I have no beer Saturday night; that made Saturday the most difficult day of the week.

This weekend, I finally ended up breaking my word. However, the way which I broke it taught me something important and I now know that, thanks to my friend and her support, there is a way out of this addiction.

This Saturday afternoon, I was thirsty and we were almost out of pop. I decided to have one of Lisa's beers. Because of medication she is taking, she drinks Coors Light which, at 4% alcohol, is at the other end of the scale strength-wise from Faxe 10%. That's how I rationalized my choice; I figured it's just this side of non-alcoholic beer, anyway, so it won't hurt.

In a way, I was right about that. The experience of drinking Coors Light was radically different from the experience of drinking Faxe 10%. After my first Faxe 10%, I just crave the second one and can hardly wait to get the can open; after drinking a Coors Light, on the other hand, I didn't feel any craving and, in fact, it was several hours after the first one that I had the second one, and then only because I was thirsty again and I still hadn't gotten out for groceries.

That's when I realized that Faxe 10% was such a bad influence. Ever since yesterday, I've been giving serious thought to doing something I never thought I'd ever do: switch to light beer.

The thing is, I like the taste of Coors Light just as much as I like the taste of Faxe 10% so it was still enjoyable. Plus, Coors Light bottles have a unique feature I haven't found on any other beer. The label has a picture of mountains on the front. When you first get the beer, they're white but, once the beer is cold, they turn blue to let you know the beer is cold enough to drink. I hate warm beer so I find that feature very useful. :)

The most important thing I learned that afternoon, however, is that Coors Light doesn't drive my addiction. I can drink Coors Light just like any other beverage. At 4% alcohol, it has little or no effect on me so I can relax and enjoy the taste without worrying about how smashed I'm getting. Besides, it's also the favorite beer of my friend; if she ever comes to visit, I'll know that the beer I have on hand will be something she likes. ;)

I'm going to have to talk this out with my friend and make a final decision before next weekend. However, I'm 99% sure at this point that I'm going to make the switch to Coors Light because it does not drive my addiction; it'll allow me to continue to enjoy a relaxing beer after a hard week without having to feel the pressure of the addiction. Maybe some day I'll give it up completely; maybe I won't. Either way, though, it's clear that Coors Light is a safe alternative.

So, what's the point of all this?

This is one addict's story: mine. Riin would have everyone believe that fighting addictions is only a matter of willpower for everyone. As someone who has been addicted to something, I can tell you right now: it's not that simple.

I used to think the way Riin does. I used to look down on smokers, for example, particularly because their addiction pollutes the air around them, affecting the health of others as well as themselves. However, having been in the grips of an addiction, I now have much more sympathy for what they're going through, and much more respect for those who've managed to beat their addictions.

That's a sympathy that seems to be beyond Riin's grasp. It's not that Riin has bad intentions; she doesn't. She did try to help me with my alcohol addiction, and I love her for that. The problem was she didn't recognize that I wasn't her. She didn't recognize that I didn't necessarily have the willpower she does and, by extension, my inability to break my addiction didn't necessarily say anything about how much I loved her.

This is also why my aforementioned friend is having much greater success helping me with my addictions. She understands addictions; most intelligent Cape Bretoners do because alcohol is such a huge part of our culture here. So she also knows that helping me through this addiction is a matter of baby steps, not "cold turkey" quitting. If Riin had taken this approach, she probably could've helped me, but she didn't understand the strength of the addiction.

I agree with Riin that the shoppers who killed that Walmart employee need help; I simply don't think she understands how difficult addictions really are for people to deal with.

I sincerely hope she never does; having been there, I wouldn't wish an addiction on my worst enemy.

---

On December 1, 2008 3:36:00 AM AST, Wanderer wrote:

As one who has fought SEVERAL addictions, I strongly urge you to stop feeding yours. Having two beers a day, two days a week is still giving in to the addiction and it will eventually take control again.

In your case, that may be true; in mine, the approach I've been taking has given me more control over my addiction than I've ever had before.

What you're suggesting here is the same thing Riin suggests: just quit. It doesn't work that way for all of us. Some of us have to quit in baby steps; I am one of these people. Although things have not been perfect, I am drinking far less than I ever have. This is in contrast to what happened when I tried to quit cold turkey; when I had a setback when using that approach (and setbacks are inevitable) I fell off the proverbial wagon hard, drinking myself into a stupor.

Remember, though I may not have Riin's strength, my word is a strength; I do not break my word. I've never given my word about my drinking before because I was afraid to, knowing the power of the addiction. However, with the help of my friend, by giving my word on taking specific, small steps towards the goal, I am making progress. Using this approach, when I do have a setback, it tends to be relatively mild and is addressed immediately.

This would seem, therefore, to be the right path for me.

I'm glad to hear you've found a way to deal with your addictions but, remember, everyone is different. What works for you might not work for me just as what works for Riin might not work for everyone (as she seems to think).

When I make the switch to light beer (I have decided, in the hours since posting this, that I am going to do so; amending my pact with my friend this week will make the decision "official"), it'll be another step in my goal. I don't necessarily want to quit drinking altogether (though I'm not opposed to the idea if I had good reason to) but I do want to quit getting drunk altogether; that is the addiction I'm fighting, and light beer might just be the answer.

I am addicted to everything I've ever done, good and bad...

There's a good example of a difference between you and I, then; I get addicted to some things but I don't get addicted to everything. Maybe my approach wouldn't work for you because you're constantly being pulled by addictions of all sorts; maybe my approach works for me because I'm dealing with only one addiction. Or, maybe it's because of some other unknown difference between our respective psychologies.

Whatever the explanation, though, what I'm doing now is clearly working for me; that's all I need to know.