December 28, 2004
RACISM, SLAVERY, CONFEDERACY
Owen of Boots & Sabers has
an intriguing post on what the Confederate flag
actually means, and he brings up some good points. However, I'm going to go off on a couple tangents.
First, to take light exception to this statement:
1. Slavery was an abomination of humanity and the South was wrong to fight to defend the practice.
Actually, slavery was a tradition passed down from the dawn of civilization, and was spoken of approvingly in the Bible. Back in the day, you had to be a real extremist wacko to be an abolitionist.
Other than that, I agree with the statement.
Now, in the comments to the post, Jib of Jiblog says this:
Southern racism is the way it is because Southern bigoted whites interact with minorities everyday. Wisconsin racism is the way it is because white bigots do not interact with minorities.
Mostly true. I grew up in an all white town, and spoke to exactly one black man before I joined the Navy. My feelings towards blacks were entirely shaped by what I saw on television: Gordon & Susan from Sesame Street; Sanford & Son; Flip Wilson; The Jeffersons; Good Times; Bill Cosby (the Saturday morning cartoon, not the sitcom); Sammy Davis, Jr.; Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, etc.
Notice that these folks were generally either well-mannered or at least funny/curmudgeonly. Nobody was bitter, or hateful, or cursing, or even irresponsible.
Good thing I stopped watching television in the early 80's.
Given the stereotypes Wisconsin's pasty white small-town Scandahoovians are picking up from cable these days (not that network is any better at providing role models of color), it's a wonder all the little snow-honkys don't run away screaming every time they see a real live black man.
Pure ignorance plus bad stereotypes about gansta rappers equals Wisconsin Brand Racism.
All true.
And I don't have any solutions to offer.
Except maybe don't let you kids watch anything but Nick at Nite until they join the Navy.
Posted by: Harvey at
11:21 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 334 words, total size 2 kb.
1
well, i have to say that racism is instilled in people when they are too young to form their own opinions. one of my earliest memories was riding in the car with my father and my big brother (in Reno, NV, about 35 years ago) and we stopped at a stoplight, and a black man started to cross the street, and my father said " Look, kids! That's a Spook!" being only 2 years old at the time, and the internet hadn't been invented by Al Gore yet, i couldn't verify that the black man wasn't a government official, so i had to assume that black people were bad, etc, etc.
i'm glad now, that i recognized my father's racism for what it was in my childhood, when it's not too late to change your programming, and have fought for many years to forget it. i think that i'm mostly recovered from racism now, i have friends from different races than my own, i speak Spanish, i'm trying to learn Maya, and every time i see a new black person in my little town, i do my best to give them a warm welcome. yet, the word "spook", i can't stop associating with black people.
i'll stop rambling now.
thanks, Harvey.
Posted by: moehawk at December 29, 2004 01:22 AM (RgstD)
2
I grew up in Berryland, a housing project on Milwaukee's north side and attended Carleton school which was diversified to 50/50 by white flight.
Fortunately, my inborn white bigotry was fixed by diversity training while at Marquette University, or else I would never have learned about other people in the world.
Posted by: Brian J. at December 29, 2004 07:51 AM (V04ml)
3
It took diversity training? Please tell me you're being sarcastic.
Harv - one problem I have is that there are still a number of people/organizations that benefit from poor race relations between black and white. We are likely to see increased nationwide issues in regard to the Hispanic population.
And God forbid you are a minority succeeding in the white man's world. Instead of succeeding, you've 'sold out'.
Posted by: TBFlowers at December 29, 2004 08:45 AM (6XIpi)
4
...and this is where I say "Thank God for my parents".
They taught by action, having all manner of friends about the place constantly. Loved to party, those people. The entire color spectrum present, [as it were] plus lesbians! {Who really knew how to give birthday presents!}
I grew up secure in the knowledge that we were all the same. Everybody was A-Okay. Until, of course, we moved from L.A. to a small southeast Texas town. One of the first things I heard a denizen of that burgh say was: "Somebody finally killed that &$%^#* $%@*."
Talking about Dr. King, in 1968. I remember the moment like it was yesterday. My heart nearly stopped as I struggled to understand what he meant and why he'd said such a thing in the first place. I know what pump at the now defunct gas station we were at, how my mother's face looked and the way she hurried to finish so we could leave.
I'm closer to understanding, but it's still something I have trouble with...
Great post! Sorry for the long-ness of my comment!
Posted by: pam at December 29, 2004 10:21 AM (l6NIn)
5
Actually, I don't know if the Navy fixed my racism.
I mean, is it racist to say that - while you're in boot camp - you should NEVER... EVER... let a white guy call cadence while you're marching?
Seriously. That white guy from Ohio might be a wonderful human being, but he's terminally rhythm-impaired.
It was just nicer havin' a brother dishin' out the walkin' rhymes.
True fact. Call it racist if you will. They were just better at it.
As for my parents, they never really mentioned race one way or the other.
Except that my dad always referred to Brazil Nuts as "nigger toes".
The guy was born in 1916, so I tend not to hold it against him too much, considering that Al Jolson was still wearing blackface back in his day.
Posted by: Harvey at December 29, 2004 04:56 PM (tJfh1)
6
I grew up in a Navy family. I wasn't aware of bigotry until I was about 14. I knew my grandparents (both MidWestern and Southern) used words they should not with regard to people who looked different than we did, but it was explained away by my folks as sometimes 'older generations' thought of things in ways we did not and were not accurate.
I was surprised when I found people my own age with the same closed mindedness as those 'old people'. I was on a date once and the guy used the "evil 'n'" word and I had him take me home immediately. I had an in law use that word in my house once and told them if they ever used it again, they would never be welcome back. It hasn't happened again.
That said, I am guilty to some degree of stereotyping now... for instance, if you say 'mass murderer', I NEVER think 'black person', I think 'whacked out white person'.
Posted by: Bou at December 29, 2004 07:02 PM (ogaj7)
7
I grew up in Jackson Ms. in the 60's so I have seen racism up close and personal. when I was young there was an effort by society to teach us not to define ourselves by the color of our skin. The older white generation of parents in many cases, gave the children a different view. Now, the parents are the ones who teach that the color of our skin is not important and society and culture is making racism rise again with allowing slurs in rap and other music and older blacks trying to convince the younger ones that things are racist when they are not.
Yes, racism still exists, no doubt, but now it is is being perpetuated by both sides. Rednecks and those who profit or have power by promoting the vicim status for blacks.
Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at December 29, 2004 07:12 PM (bsmsM)
8
Bou - Oddly, when I think of serial killers, I think of people from Wisconsin...
Jeffrey Dahmer, Ed Gein...
Posted by: Harvey at December 29, 2004 07:25 PM (ubhj8)
9
Racism - I truly beleive that the human race is superior than all other races.
How often is the term used incorrectly? Nowadays, there are many more bigots than racists I believe (I don't know if that was ever different).
I don't like a lot of what is portryaed as mainstream black culture. I don't like a fair amount of what I see in hispanic culture. I think that any culture that does not promote honest hard work, good communication skills, and intelligence is not a good thing. And minorities do not have a monopoly on this problem.
Racism takes generations to fight. I think we've done a good job in America. Are we and have we been perfect? Heck no! But today I live nextdoor to blacks and hispanics in a middle class neighborhood. My daughter is closest to our black neighbor's daughter and a vietnamese girl from her class. In my opinion, the racism fight has already been won. We're in the mop up phase, fighting pockets of resistance on both ends of the spectrum. This southern, white, Dixie proud, 'conservative' feels we just have to make sure that the momentum continues in the right direction. We'll be fine on the racism front. Not that it will be easy.
Less than 10 years ago, my folks moved out of the SE and into the midwest. They too noticed the difference in cultures. In the south, blacks are not outnumbered and have a big say in daily government and life. Out in the midwest, generally blacks are outnumbered. As a result, they either assimilate more quickly into 'mainstream' culture or are easily outvoted. People outside of the south say that they 'have no racism issues', but it likely lies buried under the surface because the 'issues' are never really dealt with. (I may have worded this wrong but the gist of it is correct)
In general nowadays, there is an extreme jealousy towards those who have become successful, regardless of race. How can a capitalistic society push on if media and society constantly deride any individual who acheives success via traditional channels - not winning the lottery, not winning a lawsuit vs. big corp., not as a musician/actor/artist. I think that may be a more important issue in the future.
And when did Redneck become such a dirty word? I know plenty of wonderful redneck people. Seen quite a few here today in Kansas City. We need to do away with that term too.
Posted by: TBFlowers at December 29, 2004 09:51 PM (6XIpi)
10
I grew up in a neighborhood that was maybe 20% minority, and went to a highschool that was 60% black in Rockford, IL.
No blinders here.
I grew out of the racism my dad instilled in me, but I may still be considered racist because of some of the opinions I've formed about racism, especially towards black people.
I started writing about this here, then deleted it.
If I'm going to take fire, I'll do it back at my place and not start a war here at Harv's...
Posted by: Graumagus at December 30, 2004 11:10 AM (4CXV4)
11
Harvey - Glad you put your comment after Bou's. I was going to say something about when I hear Harvey is from Wisconsin, I think maybe Harv had an Uncle Ed, and used to go drinking with some guy named Jeffrey. But I won't now.
Posted by: That 1 Guy at December 30, 2004 08:49 PM (grwHe)
12
I have these little 'place' fantasies... when all those who hold a 'y' chromosome in my household make me nuts and I feel like running away... forever... I picture myself someplace quiet and secluded. I'm x'ing Wisconsin off my list now!
Posted by: Bou at December 30, 2004 11:14 PM (ogaj7)
13
Gee, T1G, thanks for keeping quiet on that one :-P
Bou - try Mexico. Cheap beer & donkey shows :-)
Posted by: Harvey at December 31, 2004 04:01 PM (ubhj8)
Posted by: rdtgfd at January 28, 2005 12:39 AM (f4kuj)
15
I grew up with no minorities and if any one that is racist comes by me I am gong kick their ass.
Posted by: at February 04, 2005 08:47 PM (oTy1E)
16
I am white and I think all people are equal and if somebody disagrees fuck them
Posted by: at February 04, 2005 08:49 PM (oTy1E)
17
I'm REALLY white and I think some people are VASTLY superior to others, but it's all about IQ, not race, so fuck me :-)
Posted by: Harvey at February 05, 2005 11:23 PM (ubhj8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 22, 2004
ON EVOLUTION
I've seen a
couple of
posts on the topic of evolution recently, both of which led to... enthusiastic... discussion in the comments of said posts.
Which leads me ask to the following question:
Has anyone actually READ Darwin's "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection"?
I mean, it's available, unabridged, on the web for free, so cost can't be a factor.
The obvious stumbling block is that it's written in that prepositional-phrase-laden, nigh-impenetrable prose so common to 19th century authors, but it's certainly no more challenging than wading through the Bible.
I bogged down around Chapter 9, myself, but have good intentions about finishing it eventually, and carry an e-book version around on my PDA for which I paid a mere couple bucks or so.
What I *did* read was quite persuasive. Darwin supports his theory by examining mind-bogglingly huge stacks of observed natural phenomena. What I liked about it is that he cites examples from biologists who spent decades in their field of study. These aren't offhanded remarks from laymen, these are the condensed records from people who know whereof they speak.
Darwin does not (so far as I've read), postulate that evolution is the means by which life arose from non-life. He merely proposes evolution as the mechanism by which new species branch from a common ancestor. Speculation on the origin of life itself is not dealt with, nor do I wish to deal with it here.
All I'm saying is that those who wish to denigrate Darwin's theory should invest some time to learn exactly what it is they're dismissing.
Posted by: Harvey at
10:53 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Okay, I'm a practicing Catholic - been Christian my whole life, no need to be born again... I have always believed that creationism and evolution can and must coexist. The bible is a work of man/men inspired by God. The bible was written as a means for God to speak to the world. It had to be written in terms that the general public could understand - the world being created in many millenia would be too mind-boggling for the average man to fathom (they thought Earth was flat and the Sun and the rest of the heavens revolved around it, right?) To humans of these times everything was pretty miraculous and believing that "poof" we sprung from the ground was easier than believing that it took several million years to get the recipe for humans, etc. just right. The thing that gets most creationists hung up is the "God created man in his own image" thing. First of all what exactly does that mean and second of all what does God look like if that's IS what it means? Maybe God is more "apelike looking" or maybe it just took a few thousand or million years for humans to get "done" kind of like the baking process. When's the last time any of these creationist saw God face to face? Most of our ideas of what God and Jesus look like came from the times of the middle ages, the renaissance and the like, when artists started depicting religious writings through illustrations and paintings.
I'm not a literalist when it comes to religion. I know that I don't know everything and that the priests don't know everything and the writers of the Bible didn't know everything. You have to have faith, but you also have to look at the hard facts before your eyes. Sure, there are miraculous things that happen all the time, but most things are confined to the laws of physics - which like all other things were created by our higher power, the greatest physicist of them all. Right?
And that's all I have to say about that...
Merry Christmas, Harvey!
Posted by: Momotrips at December 22, 2004 11:30 PM (IlAxX)
2
Very well stated, Momo.
And Merry Christmas to you, too :-)
Posted by: Harvey at December 23, 2004 09:41 AM (tJfh1)
3
First, thanks, Harvey, for the link to the Origin of Species, I'm reading through it right now. I'm a born again Christian and have been very interested in creation. The English translations of the Bible we have today don't perfectly reflect the Hebrew text. The word used in the Tora that we read as day in Genesis actually has a double meaning in Hebrew. It can mean age or day, and is used for both in Genesis. Also, the Bible states the earth is a sphere. I believe the passage is in Job. The ancient Greeks also were aware of this. It wasn't until the middle and dark ages that people lost that knowlege and started believing the Earth was flat. The Catholic church making that doctrine didn't help much in recovering the knowlege.
Creation as described in Genesis fits hand in hand with how current science believes the Universe was created. As Momo stated, He is the greatest physicist; He created physics. However, the more and more I'm looking into evolution theory as it stands today, it has some HUGE gapping holes. Carbon dating and it's partners for dating older things is notoriously inaccurate. Chips of bone from the same fossil have been sent to several universities and the results usually have a window of error around 200 million years. The scientists tend to pick the number that best fits with when they believe the fossil existed. There's also a severe lack of transitory species. They should be the norm, and the final species abnormal, yet that is not the case.
There are more examples, but this gives you an idea if you weren't aware. I'm not saying the world must have been created in 6 days because of these holes, only that evolution is by no means completely filled in with the answers. It is, however, the best explanation we have so far. Before people were aware of nuclear reactions, they believed, and had worked out pretty solidly, that the sun was actually molten iron generating static electricity through it's movements which would create heat and light. (Outline of Science, 1927 Chapter 9)
Merry Christmas, Harvey and Momo and anyone else who suffered through this incredibly long comment!
Posted by: Junglejake at December 23, 2004 12:27 PM (GeNwL)
4
Nobody's saying that Darwin had it mostly wrong; what many people refer to as 'evolution' and what Darwin observed on the earth and recorded in his books is quite possible - and observable - on earth. In fact, most creationists with at least half of a scientific background believe in intra-species adaptation, or what is called "Microevolution". On a small scale, it's what happens when bacteria mutate and become more dangerous to humans. On a larger scale, it's responsible for different types of birds, even different forms of the same bird.
However, what I strongly disbelieve and what a scientist has yet to prove without drawing from wild assumptions and creative liberty, is that one species could evolve from another.
Posted by: Pietro at December 23, 2004 12:35 PM (DaRhZ)
5
Junglejake - I'd be interested in more information about the inaccuracy of radioisotope dating. I'm aware that the processes used have their limitations but the 200-million-year variance sounds a bit extreme
Anyway, here's a link to some radioisotope dating information:
http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html
A quick googling has a lot of Christian "young-earth" sites on top. Explanations by people who actually DO such dating tend to be further down, but the above link is a good start. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any completely "straight" information sites near the top. They seem to be specifically a part of one side or the other of the "young-earth" argument, so there's a feeling of agenda defense in some of these.
By the way, Darwin DOES address the "lack of transitory species" problem in fairly extensive detail (see Chapters 6 & 9)
Pietro - Well, species-to-species evolution is what Darwin's book is all about. You might give it a try.
The thing about his work is that he's familiar with thousands and thousands of different kinds of plants and animals, not the mere dozens or hundreds that you or I know, so he might be able to fill in those gaps that you currently dismiss as wild assumptions.
But it's your time, so I'll leave it up to you as to whether you should spend it reading that particular book
Posted by: Harvey at December 23, 2004 06:18 PM (ubhj8)
6
I'm a Christian (practicing) and a man of science (Tech University). But:
If the human body is intelligent design then why do we have an air intake portal that is so easily flooded and lead to asphyxiation.(sp)
And even worse, why (particularly in females) was a sewage outlet put so close to a recreation area?
Posted by: tbflowers at December 23, 2004 09:38 PM (6XIpi)
7
Oh, and it's been ages, but I have read Darwin's work.
I think the biggest thing 'most folks' have a problem with is that Darwin does not beleive in evolution being a constantly improving process. Evolution does NOT necessarily mean an improvement. If a being evolved consistently better, one could argue that evolution is truly guided.
But if I remember correctly, Darwin explains that evolution is nothing more than random mutations, without a purpose. It is up to nature (the environment/habitat) to decide if the evolution is suitable enough (or not a hinderance) for survival.
Darwin, our Copernicus, was a genious. Doesn't mean he was flawless, just way ahead of his time.
Posted by: TBFlowers at December 23, 2004 10:08 PM (6XIpi)
8
TB - First, since you're going that direction, the answer would be that he must work for the Department of Celestial Planning - just another bureaucrat, packing a lunch & bustin' his hump every day. And what about the nose? Did he REALLY think it was a good idea to put a nasty, wet, dripping thing like that upside down over your mouth?
Speaking of ahead of his time, one of the most interesting things about his work for me is that he did it all without any knowledge of genes or DNA. All he knew of were mysterious, unexplained "tendencies" for offspring to be similar (although not exactly the same as) their parents, with no specific cause or consistency.
Or as Richard Dawkins puts it:
"the non-random survival of randomly varying hereditary elements"
Posted by: Harvey at December 24, 2004 07:04 AM (ubhj8)
9
he did it all without any knowledge of genes or DNA.
EXACTLY - a visionary/trailblazer
Posted by: TBFlowers at December 24, 2004 03:00 PM (6XIpi)
10
First, Harvey you're doing a great job at making Frank J look bad on IMAO! Way to go! I just checked these comments about 10 minutes ago, and will get you the info, but I think I have it at home. It was, obviously, one of those things with an agenda (debunking evolution), but I checked the data online and it was valid. The specific incident had to do with an early human (pre-Sapien(SP)). The guy dug him up, suspected when he was alive, then sent a sample to Cambridge which came out with an outrageous number. This caused him to send 4 samples to 4 other colleges and another to Cambridge, and they all came out vastly different. He took the one that was closest to his predicted date and threw out the rest. I'll find the source and get you the name of the guy who was dug up (like Lucy, this fellah got a new name, too).
For some fantastic information on this subject coming from educated people for and against evolution, go to www.talkorigins.org Very cool site!
Keep up the funny, Harvey!
(Also, if you're interested in an interesting, but very long, discussion on this, check out this link:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread47371/pg1
Yeah, it's a conspiracy website with a bunch of wackos, but I liked going there and talking God and politics with those heathen liberals =D
Posted by: Junglejake at December 28, 2004 03:12 PM (GeNwL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 21, 2004
BUILD IT BIGGER, BUILD IT BETTER, BUILD IT BECAUSE YOU CAN
Blogdaughter Tammi of Road Warrior Survival took a little quiz, and came out a "
True Chicagoan".
I don't need a quiz to know who I am.
Although I'm required - by virtue of being born in Wisconsin - to hate Illinois and everything in it, I love Chicago with a deep and abiding passion.
I love big cities in general. There's just something awe-inspiring about being in a place where - for decades or even hundreds of years - men have looked at what nature had to offer, found it wanting, and built a world in the shape of their visions.
I have a weakness for the higher end of civilization - possibly from my Naval travels to some seriously run-down, third-world hell-holes - and I adore wallowing in the hyper-modernity of America's population centers.
San Francisco, for example, makes me positively GIDDY with civilization-love. That city is, from the ground up, PURE insanity. It's nothing but hills. And when you have hills, you build roads AROUND them. It's the only sensible thing to do.
The streets in San Francisco are - almost without exception - a grid of squares, the purity of their angles such as to make Pythagoras aroused from beyond the grave. Topology be damned. The roads shall be straight and true, as men desire. The hills over which they shall be laid are but the merest of obstacles to be overcome.
It's a sign of the same wonderful, audacious madness that made men believe they could walk on the moon.
That "because it can be done" madness that makes me glad to be an American.
Because here, that blessed madness is normal.
Posted by: Harvey at
05:52 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 298 words, total size 2 kb.
December 06, 2004
TRY DRINKING HEAVILY
Nick of Patriot Paradox (who I will be crushing like a bug (no offense,
VW) in the Weblog Awards in the "
Best of the Top 100 - 250 Blogs" category. If it's been more than 24 hours since the last time you voted for me, please vote for me again. And don't forget to use your spouse's computer, too. And that one at work isn't doing anything. And how about your co-workers? I'll be they don't have a voting cookie on THEIR machines)
has a question:
How does one "learn" time management, and teach oneself to study?
Ok, so maybe the title of this post isn't the best answer. It's actually Matty O'Blackfive's all-purpose advice. Works better for paratrooping-related activities, I guess.
Anyway, my serious advice is as follows. I've read this in several self-help books. It was supposed to have been something that one of the old robber barons (either Andrew Carnegie or Henry Ford, depending on who tells the story) paid a consultant $25,000 for:
1) Make a list of the 6 most important things you have to do today.
2) Prioritize the list
3) Start with #1 and work your way down the list. If you don't finish all 6, don't worry about it. If you can't finish them this way, you couldn't have finished them any other way.
Simple, yet effective.
Other thoughts on studying based on my personal experiences: I found that the most important thing was being familiar with the notes I took in class, since all the test answers were in there somewhere. Since I was delivering pizza at the time, I put all those "behind the wheel" hours to good use. I read my notes into a tape recorder, verbatim, then played the tape over and over while I delivered pizzas.
If you don't have a lot of drive time, this still might help. Just play your note-tape in the background while you blog (or whatever else you're doing). You still get SOME exposure, even if it's not as good as concentrated studying.
And a couple of little get-going tricks:
First, I understand the urge to procrastinate. But if you're going to do it, at least do it in a way that will allow you the best shot at NOT procrastinating. For example, if you have to read a chapter for a boring class, open your book, put it in your lap, then ignore it and start blogging. If you decide to stop screwing around, at least you'll be able to jump right in to what you're supposed to be doing.
Second - Reverse procrastinate. Tell yourself that you'll get around to the fun thing really soon, but just not quite yet. Get a kitchen timer. Set it for 5 minutes. Promise yourself that you'll set the stupid, boring book down and do that fun thing if you'll just read your chapter for 5 tiny minutes first. Five minutes is usually enough to get yourself warmed to the task of what you're supposed to be doing. But if you're still not in the mood after 5 minutes, DO NOT HESITATE to close your book and go enjoy yourself. You kept your promise, and that's enough.
That's about all I've got. I'm thinking blogdaughter Tammi of Road Warrior Survival probably has a few tricks up her own sleeve. Barring winter driving conditions, she usually manages to get a lot of stuff done.
Posted by: Harvey at
09:01 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 575 words, total size 4 kb.
1
The real trick is to focus your concentration directly on what is being said - make it "the most interesting thing you've ever heard in your life". Think of it this way... you're listening to catch mistakes that you will argue with! And maybe you are - but trying to catch your teacher out in a mistake gives things an added zest that is simply missing when you just listen to take notes. You might apply the same thing to reading... does the reading match what you are hearing in lectures? If not, why not. If so, how closely. Can you catch mistakes? Can you bring this up in class and put the teacher on the spot?
Making a game of things gives you a reason to find out something new. Things that are fun are easier to learn - give yourself a reason to make it fun. For most bloggers - the idea of arguing a point is very appealing - it's why we blog. Take your blogging skills and put them to work in a different way.
Posted by: Teresa at December 06, 2004 11:20 PM (nAfYo)
2
Notecards.
I make notecards of questions and answers or statements and I carry them around everywhere I go.
Standing in line anywhere you pull them out and go through them, 5 minutes here, 10 minutes there really adds up.
Posted by: Machelle at December 07, 2004 08:18 AM (ZAyoW)
3
Teresa - ALL I did in college was criticize my profs. Funny thing is, most of them LIKED it. I mean, how often do they get a student who will actually make them THINK? :-)
Machelle - Amen, sister. I had plenty of those, too. Mostly definitions. Figured if I could explain what all the key words & phrases meant, I'd be in pretty good shape for the test.
Posted by: Harvey at December 07, 2004 07:16 PM (ubhj8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
LIFE IS GOOD
BeeBee of Angle of Vision shows
the kind of gratitude I love to see people share:
Sometimes IÂ’m simply overwhelmed that I have so much. People who care about me and who I care about, a nice safe home that is kind and respectful to everyone who is in it, enough money for my needs, food on the table, and clothes in my closet that IÂ’m not ashamed to wear.
The really crazy part, that completely astounds me, is those are just the basics of my life.
Every single day I have more; more love, more affection, more anything I want.
I'm familiar with the feeling. I often feel like my life is filled to overflowing with blessings.
I credit this in part to the fact that I spent 4 years living on a ship and being forced to cram all my worldly possessions into 8 cubic feet or so of storage space. The good thing about that experience is that it forced me to consider the true value of every item I owned. "Comfort shopping" was an alien concept. Any item I acquired had to bring me more pleasure than the thing I had to throw away to make room for it.
It taught me a lot about how to let go of material possessions. The key is that, quite often, it's not the THING that's valuable, it's the memories associated with it. I learned to make do with small touchstones and icons. A letter, a picture, a keychain, a book, a CD - and these still kept as warm as the larger things I had to forgo.
I have a house of my own now, with comparative acres of storage space, but I'm still pretty good at throwing things away.
Drives Beloved Wife crazy sometimes.
Yet I still keep enough little things - important things - to remind me of just how good I have it.
VERY good, indeed.
Posted by: Harvey at
07:08 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 327 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Thank you Harvey.
I'm grateful to you, feel a kindred spirit out there in the World Wide Web.
It's nice to remember, to feel grateful, to know, what's important, isn't it?
Both of us are very lucky people.
Posted by: BeeBee at December 07, 2004 04:35 AM (V1fcb)
2
Remind me of that next time you catch me grousing about something ;-)
Posted by: Harvey at December 08, 2004 01:25 PM (tJfh1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
53kb generated in CPU 0.0151, elapsed 0.1186 seconds.
72 queries taking 0.1092 seconds, 202 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.