OMG I love this promo for
The Expendables!
I don't normally make blogs this short but this pretty much makes it worth it.
Have fun and Thanks to Stallone and the others for this. Here's hoping the movie lives up to its hype:
"If testosterone could mate with an explosion, this movie would be its offspring." -IGN
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Monday, August 9, 2010
Bob Satiacum Puyallup tribal leader, convicted felon
I ripped this off completely, from Wikipedia:
---
"Robert (Bob) Satiacum (1929– March 25, 1991) was Puyallup tribal leader, convicted felon, and an advocate of native treaty fishing rights in the United States. He was convicted of attempted murder and other charges in 1982, but fled to Canada to avoid a prison term. He was later convicted of child molestation in Canada in 1989.
"Satiacum was a 1947 graduate of Lincoln High School in Tacoma, Washington, where he was a star athlete. He first came to the public attention in 1954, when he was arrested for illegally fishing in the Puyallup River in Tacoma, Washington. Satiacum was convicted, but the Washington State Supreme Court overturned the conviction. This led to years of legal wranglings over the issue, as well as to "fish-ins" by Satiacum and his cadre of celebrity supporters (most notably Marlon Brando, who was arrested with him on March 2, 1964).
"This ultimately culminated in the historic Boldt Decision, which held that treaties signed with native tribes and the federal government in the 1850s entitled the tribes to fifty percent of the total fish harvest.
"Satiacum was prominent the 1970 action at Seattle's Fort Lawton that resulted in the creation of United Indians of All Tribes and ultimately of the Daybreak Star Cultural Center.
"In the 1980s, Satiacum ran afoul of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) for allegedly selling cigarettes illegally. He was convicted, but fled to Canada before he could be sent to prison. Satiacum was re-arrested in Canada but in 1987, he became the first U.S. citizen to be granted refugee status in Canada. This decision was later reversed by the Federal Court of Canada.
"He died in Vancouver, British Columbia in 1991, following his arrest on a warrant."
---
I met Bob Satiacum in 1981. I spoke with him. I shook his hand.
I was fresh from the service. I was dating a very attractive girl who introduced me to her friends from school who she had known most her life. I became a part of that group.
---
"Robert (Bob) Satiacum (1929– March 25, 1991) was Puyallup tribal leader, convicted felon, and an advocate of native treaty fishing rights in the United States. He was convicted of attempted murder and other charges in 1982, but fled to Canada to avoid a prison term. He was later convicted of child molestation in Canada in 1989.
"Satiacum was a 1947 graduate of Lincoln High School in Tacoma, Washington, where he was a star athlete. He first came to the public attention in 1954, when he was arrested for illegally fishing in the Puyallup River in Tacoma, Washington. Satiacum was convicted, but the Washington State Supreme Court overturned the conviction. This led to years of legal wranglings over the issue, as well as to "fish-ins" by Satiacum and his cadre of celebrity supporters (most notably Marlon Brando, who was arrested with him on March 2, 1964).
"This ultimately culminated in the historic Boldt Decision, which held that treaties signed with native tribes and the federal government in the 1850s entitled the tribes to fifty percent of the total fish harvest.
"Satiacum was prominent the 1970 action at Seattle's Fort Lawton that resulted in the creation of United Indians of All Tribes and ultimately of the Daybreak Star Cultural Center.
"In the 1980s, Satiacum ran afoul of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) for allegedly selling cigarettes illegally. He was convicted, but fled to Canada before he could be sent to prison. Satiacum was re-arrested in Canada but in 1987, he became the first U.S. citizen to be granted refugee status in Canada. This decision was later reversed by the Federal Court of Canada.
"He died in Vancouver, British Columbia in 1991, following his arrest on a warrant."
---
I met Bob Satiacum in 1981. I spoke with him. I shook his hand.
I was fresh from the service. I was dating a very attractive girl who introduced me to her friends from school who she had known most her life. I became a part of that group.
Enjoy watching, Lie To Me, on Fox? Check this out....
When I heard Fox was putting on a TV show with the excellent and cool actors Tim Roth and Kelli Williams, and it was about what its about, I was very pleased to hear the news and looked forward to it starting. I haven't been disappointed.
Some have complained about the accuracy being off the mark sometimes, but hey, its a TV SHOW. When they say, that the face of a character is doing something, its up to that actor (and yes, the director) to display that affect, but look, its on a schedule, and a budget so if they actor doesn't display the facial expression perfectly, give them a break.
I found this show so fascinating for several reasons. One, I had once been on a path to a career in the espionage field and two, I worked for someone in this area of facial affect recognition. Allow me to explain....
Back in the late 1980s, my now ex-wife got a job working at the University of Washington. I was already working there for MCIS. The Psychology Department was looking for artist types. Its funny because she would never listen to me about computers. At the time, I was trying to learn all I could to get a better job, which did happen.
My argument to her had been that one day everyone will need to know how to run a computer. Her argument was, she was an artist, who doesn't care about computers. We had been raising our 3 year old son about then, and needed money. So she found a job ad that was interesting, and she tried out for it and got hired.
It was Dr. John Gottman's lab. He'd put out ads for someone, as it turned out, to run one of his computer labs. Ironically, the artist who would never need to understand how to use a computer got that job managing people who were using computers. I had to laugh.
A Doctor there, needed artist types because of their innate ability to deconstruct the face in their mind, quickly and accurately. Dr. Gottman had come up with the Specific Affect Coding System (SPAFF), based upon Dr. Paul Ekman's Facial Affect Coding System (FACS, now, Facial Action Coding System).
This was all very fascinating. Ekman had people out training Judges, Attorneys, Law Enforcement, CIA, etc. Basically, we heard, you could use this to practically read someone's mind. It was amazing to watch and I don't know why it didn't occur to me sooner to create a TV show around this. Even though I didn't, I'm glad someone else did.
Dr. Gottman is still out there doing his work and has a web page about his work at The Gottman Relationship Institute.
brief paper
They would take couples who were having trouble in their relationship, bring them in, interview them, wire them up, face them to one another in a small room, with remote video cameras, then have them talk about things that will be most informative in their relationship situation. Later, these video tapes would be coded for time and facial expressions using proprietary software for later analysis. It was all very fascinating.
I was pleased to have helped them at the lab in setting up, actually, fine tuning their PC computers environments. I don't think Dr. Gottman ever even knew I had done that work as I was volunteering my time, and doing it to help my wife at the time, run her lab more easily. This all lead to our becoming friendly with Dr. Gottman and his assistant, the very cool Stephanie. We had dinner with her and her oceanographer husband once and it was a very pleasant evening. I remember a party at Dr. Gottman and his wife's house that was also a very memorable occasion.
All this lead to our getting involved with the BBC and a documentary they shot on the lab and the work they were doing. It aired in Great Britain on the caveat from us, that it never be shown in the US. It hasn't. What was funny, was back then, the media in the UK tore us apart for a variety of things such as being "emotional exhibitionists", my favorite.
Now, what with all these "reality shows", it makes me laugh. But back then, it was a little difficult to deal with, when all we were doing was trying to help a good group of people doing very good research.
The documentary involved a film crew following my wife and I around for an entire week. It started on Sunday, then on Tuesday, we went into the lab for a three day stay. We were the first couple to do this in their new "apartment lab". That was the point. The Doctor in Charge (DOC), wanted to have a semi controlled situation. I had a University Psychology degree (Awareness and Reasoning Division, Phenomenology), my wife ran one of his computer labs. He knew us, trusted us, felt we were intelligent and stable (well, I was anyway).
So we agreed to do it. Plus, we were told the BBC would pay us. They tried to get us $2,000 but in the end, we got $1,000, a lot of money to us then. Did this compromise us in anyway? Being friends of the lab and being paid for it? I do not believe so, not at all. To be fair, the DOC told us too, to just be ourselves and not worry about him or his research. Be honest. What a guy!
We had to wear some blue vests, with electronics in them, testing our heart rate, breathing, etc. We were monitored at nearly all times, there were two one way mirrors, and many video cameras near the ceiling. We were given some tasks to perform, like build a tower out of some art supplies. How did we interact? What would we do? What did it mean?
We were in the lab all the next day, then part of the following day. The film crew were all very nice, and got some pick up shots at times, and their interviews with all of us, then on Friday, they headed back to the UK.
Once, we got a bit stressed out and needed some time off, so the DOC let us walk off under a nearby bridge to get some quiet time. My wife, cried a little, we talked, then headed back after about 45 minutes. It was funny that they film crew wanted to follow us getting away from the film crew but the DOC had to be stern say, "No, don't you get it, they need to get away from YOU." Once we came back it went smoothly through the rest of the week. We did get some privacy in the bathroom and after 8pm we shut it down and had the rest of the night off until the next morning when it started all over again.
In the end, Dr. Gottman got some good press out of it which helped his funding. And he has done very well over the years passed, although we have lost touch.
There is only one thing that I could mention here of interest.
About a year or so later, I split up with my wife. Why we split up, is really not of interest here. The point is, at the end of the documentary, Dr. Gottman was asked how we did; how was our marriage, would we make it or break it. In the years since, I have watched this documentary and when I get to the end, where the BBC producer asked the question, its interesting in hindsight to notice his reaction. Think, Lie to Me.
The first time I saw it, we were still married. The last time I watched it, was with my son, who was three when it was shot, and 19 when we watched it together. It was his idea to watch it, he wanted to know what happened. I refused to let him watch it all his life. There were things in it a kid really didn't need to hear, honest comments from his mother, myself, others.
So, while we watched it a few years ago (he's 22 now), I carefully watched Dr. Gottman's face. His comments were, that we had a good sense of humor and that counts for a lot in a marriage or relationship, that we had our problems like anyone, but he thought in the end, we'd make it.
But that's not what happened. So, was is his research faulty?
No. when I now look into his eyes, I can see exactly what he was thinking. And he realized at that moment, that because she was his employee, because we were friends, he couldn't say what he truly believed. You see, I think he knew right then and there, that we weren't going to make it. But how, could he say it. Because then, would he contribute to it happening? He would have to see us again that next time and on a regular basis.
So, how could he answer honestly. That doesn't make him a bad person or researcher, it makes him what he has always been since I've known him, a very good Human being. A kind and caring person. I believe he wanted to answer honestly, but let's face it, how many out there are a Dr. Lightman from Lie To Me? I'm not, though I admire his tenacity and sociopathic tendencies; but then, I can't be that way either.
As an interesting anecdote, several years later, I received a call from my now ex wife. She was excited and said she had just talked to a producer for the night time TV news show, 20/20. They wanted to possibly have us on their show as a follow-up program to Dr. Gottman's BBC documentary, more so because he had ended the documentary saying we'd make it, but it was obvious that we hadn't. So, it seemed apparent to me that they wanted to ask the quetion that this begged: did this mean his research was faulty?
She said she had spoken to the woman from 20/20 for fifteen minutes and now she wanted to talk to me. Would I consider a phone call? She sounded excited at the prospect of a trip to New York as she'd never been. I had grown up going to the east coast to visit family during the summer times. I was excited at the prospect but not as much as she was.
Anyway, I said, sure, sounds good. We hung up. I waited for maybe ten minutes, wondering what was to come, and the phone rang. It was the producer from 20/20. We talked. In the course of our conversation, I came to realize my ex had done what she always did so well, shaded the truth, made herself look good, etc., etc., etc.
Being I have a degree in Psychology, I understand clearly the need for truth in research, so I told the brutal truth. I told her my ex will do that and I won't. If they want me on the program I would go, but I would only tell the truth and I wouldn't make Dr. Gottman look bad as I didn't think he in any way deserved it. As for this comments on our marriage, I explained what happened. This was about fifteen minutes into our talk and my phone notified me I was getting a call. I begged to be excused for a moment, saying that it was probably my ex. The producer said she understood, I put her on hold.
My ex sounded excited, and said, "Well, what did she say?" I said we were still talking and that I'd call her back when we were done. She said, "Oh". Disappointed.
I got back to the producer. She seemed truly fascinated by what I had to say and we laughed from time to time. I said if you put my ex and I on camera and she lies, I will tell the truth and it may not be the show you are looking for. She thought that was interesting and I realized I may be killing myself a free trip to NYC. I love NYC and hadn't been there for a long time. Then my phone notified me I was getting a call. I took it. It was my ex.
I told her I was still talking. She sounded very disappointed, she even said, what is so interesting that you are still talking? I said I don't know, I'm just answering questions, but again, I would call her back when I was done. I went back to the producer. We talked for a little while longer when the phone again notified me my ex was impatient. I told her I'm still on the phone with the producer, and I'll call you when we're done. It was a short call and she was now pretty annoyed. I went back to the producer.
Overall, we were on the phone for forty-five minutes, long distance to New York City. It was nice talking to NY again. She asked me, what did I think, is it going to happen? I said, I don't think so, but who knows? Maybe.
It never came to be. I never heard another thing about it. Dr. Gottman has done well all these years since, so I'm happy to guess that it didn't adversely affect his career or research.
If you find this kind of research interesting, or if you just like Tim Roth, you really should watch, Lie To Me. Its just too much fun, and if you want to know how accurate, or even try to figure out how this all works, tune into Dr. Ekman's web site after the show. Have fun!
Dr. Paul Ekman
Some have complained about the accuracy being off the mark sometimes, but hey, its a TV SHOW. When they say, that the face of a character is doing something, its up to that actor (and yes, the director) to display that affect, but look, its on a schedule, and a budget so if they actor doesn't display the facial expression perfectly, give them a break.
I found this show so fascinating for several reasons. One, I had once been on a path to a career in the espionage field and two, I worked for someone in this area of facial affect recognition. Allow me to explain....
Back in the late 1980s, my now ex-wife got a job working at the University of Washington. I was already working there for MCIS. The Psychology Department was looking for artist types. Its funny because she would never listen to me about computers. At the time, I was trying to learn all I could to get a better job, which did happen.
My argument to her had been that one day everyone will need to know how to run a computer. Her argument was, she was an artist, who doesn't care about computers. We had been raising our 3 year old son about then, and needed money. So she found a job ad that was interesting, and she tried out for it and got hired.
It was Dr. John Gottman's lab. He'd put out ads for someone, as it turned out, to run one of his computer labs. Ironically, the artist who would never need to understand how to use a computer got that job managing people who were using computers. I had to laugh.
A Doctor there, needed artist types because of their innate ability to deconstruct the face in their mind, quickly and accurately. Dr. Gottman had come up with the Specific Affect Coding System (SPAFF), based upon Dr. Paul Ekman's Facial Affect Coding System (FACS, now, Facial Action Coding System).
This was all very fascinating. Ekman had people out training Judges, Attorneys, Law Enforcement, CIA, etc. Basically, we heard, you could use this to practically read someone's mind. It was amazing to watch and I don't know why it didn't occur to me sooner to create a TV show around this. Even though I didn't, I'm glad someone else did.
Dr. Gottman is still out there doing his work and has a web page about his work at The Gottman Relationship Institute.
brief paper
They would take couples who were having trouble in their relationship, bring them in, interview them, wire them up, face them to one another in a small room, with remote video cameras, then have them talk about things that will be most informative in their relationship situation. Later, these video tapes would be coded for time and facial expressions using proprietary software for later analysis. It was all very fascinating.
I was pleased to have helped them at the lab in setting up, actually, fine tuning their PC computers environments. I don't think Dr. Gottman ever even knew I had done that work as I was volunteering my time, and doing it to help my wife at the time, run her lab more easily. This all lead to our becoming friendly with Dr. Gottman and his assistant, the very cool Stephanie. We had dinner with her and her oceanographer husband once and it was a very pleasant evening. I remember a party at Dr. Gottman and his wife's house that was also a very memorable occasion.
All this lead to our getting involved with the BBC and a documentary they shot on the lab and the work they were doing. It aired in Great Britain on the caveat from us, that it never be shown in the US. It hasn't. What was funny, was back then, the media in the UK tore us apart for a variety of things such as being "emotional exhibitionists", my favorite.
Now, what with all these "reality shows", it makes me laugh. But back then, it was a little difficult to deal with, when all we were doing was trying to help a good group of people doing very good research.
The documentary involved a film crew following my wife and I around for an entire week. It started on Sunday, then on Tuesday, we went into the lab for a three day stay. We were the first couple to do this in their new "apartment lab". That was the point. The Doctor in Charge (DOC), wanted to have a semi controlled situation. I had a University Psychology degree (Awareness and Reasoning Division, Phenomenology), my wife ran one of his computer labs. He knew us, trusted us, felt we were intelligent and stable (well, I was anyway).
So we agreed to do it. Plus, we were told the BBC would pay us. They tried to get us $2,000 but in the end, we got $1,000, a lot of money to us then. Did this compromise us in anyway? Being friends of the lab and being paid for it? I do not believe so, not at all. To be fair, the DOC told us too, to just be ourselves and not worry about him or his research. Be honest. What a guy!
We had to wear some blue vests, with electronics in them, testing our heart rate, breathing, etc. We were monitored at nearly all times, there were two one way mirrors, and many video cameras near the ceiling. We were given some tasks to perform, like build a tower out of some art supplies. How did we interact? What would we do? What did it mean?
We were in the lab all the next day, then part of the following day. The film crew were all very nice, and got some pick up shots at times, and their interviews with all of us, then on Friday, they headed back to the UK.
Once, we got a bit stressed out and needed some time off, so the DOC let us walk off under a nearby bridge to get some quiet time. My wife, cried a little, we talked, then headed back after about 45 minutes. It was funny that they film crew wanted to follow us getting away from the film crew but the DOC had to be stern say, "No, don't you get it, they need to get away from YOU." Once we came back it went smoothly through the rest of the week. We did get some privacy in the bathroom and after 8pm we shut it down and had the rest of the night off until the next morning when it started all over again.
In the end, Dr. Gottman got some good press out of it which helped his funding. And he has done very well over the years passed, although we have lost touch.
There is only one thing that I could mention here of interest.
About a year or so later, I split up with my wife. Why we split up, is really not of interest here. The point is, at the end of the documentary, Dr. Gottman was asked how we did; how was our marriage, would we make it or break it. In the years since, I have watched this documentary and when I get to the end, where the BBC producer asked the question, its interesting in hindsight to notice his reaction. Think, Lie to Me.
The first time I saw it, we were still married. The last time I watched it, was with my son, who was three when it was shot, and 19 when we watched it together. It was his idea to watch it, he wanted to know what happened. I refused to let him watch it all his life. There were things in it a kid really didn't need to hear, honest comments from his mother, myself, others.
So, while we watched it a few years ago (he's 22 now), I carefully watched Dr. Gottman's face. His comments were, that we had a good sense of humor and that counts for a lot in a marriage or relationship, that we had our problems like anyone, but he thought in the end, we'd make it.
But that's not what happened. So, was is his research faulty?
No. when I now look into his eyes, I can see exactly what he was thinking. And he realized at that moment, that because she was his employee, because we were friends, he couldn't say what he truly believed. You see, I think he knew right then and there, that we weren't going to make it. But how, could he say it. Because then, would he contribute to it happening? He would have to see us again that next time and on a regular basis.
So, how could he answer honestly. That doesn't make him a bad person or researcher, it makes him what he has always been since I've known him, a very good Human being. A kind and caring person. I believe he wanted to answer honestly, but let's face it, how many out there are a Dr. Lightman from Lie To Me? I'm not, though I admire his tenacity and sociopathic tendencies; but then, I can't be that way either.
As an interesting anecdote, several years later, I received a call from my now ex wife. She was excited and said she had just talked to a producer for the night time TV news show, 20/20. They wanted to possibly have us on their show as a follow-up program to Dr. Gottman's BBC documentary, more so because he had ended the documentary saying we'd make it, but it was obvious that we hadn't. So, it seemed apparent to me that they wanted to ask the quetion that this begged: did this mean his research was faulty?
She said she had spoken to the woman from 20/20 for fifteen minutes and now she wanted to talk to me. Would I consider a phone call? She sounded excited at the prospect of a trip to New York as she'd never been. I had grown up going to the east coast to visit family during the summer times. I was excited at the prospect but not as much as she was.
Anyway, I said, sure, sounds good. We hung up. I waited for maybe ten minutes, wondering what was to come, and the phone rang. It was the producer from 20/20. We talked. In the course of our conversation, I came to realize my ex had done what she always did so well, shaded the truth, made herself look good, etc., etc., etc.
Being I have a degree in Psychology, I understand clearly the need for truth in research, so I told the brutal truth. I told her my ex will do that and I won't. If they want me on the program I would go, but I would only tell the truth and I wouldn't make Dr. Gottman look bad as I didn't think he in any way deserved it. As for this comments on our marriage, I explained what happened. This was about fifteen minutes into our talk and my phone notified me I was getting a call. I begged to be excused for a moment, saying that it was probably my ex. The producer said she understood, I put her on hold.
My ex sounded excited, and said, "Well, what did she say?" I said we were still talking and that I'd call her back when we were done. She said, "Oh". Disappointed.
I got back to the producer. She seemed truly fascinated by what I had to say and we laughed from time to time. I said if you put my ex and I on camera and she lies, I will tell the truth and it may not be the show you are looking for. She thought that was interesting and I realized I may be killing myself a free trip to NYC. I love NYC and hadn't been there for a long time. Then my phone notified me I was getting a call. I took it. It was my ex.
I told her I was still talking. She sounded very disappointed, she even said, what is so interesting that you are still talking? I said I don't know, I'm just answering questions, but again, I would call her back when I was done. I went back to the producer. We talked for a little while longer when the phone again notified me my ex was impatient. I told her I'm still on the phone with the producer, and I'll call you when we're done. It was a short call and she was now pretty annoyed. I went back to the producer.
Overall, we were on the phone for forty-five minutes, long distance to New York City. It was nice talking to NY again. She asked me, what did I think, is it going to happen? I said, I don't think so, but who knows? Maybe.
It never came to be. I never heard another thing about it. Dr. Gottman has done well all these years since, so I'm happy to guess that it didn't adversely affect his career or research.
If you find this kind of research interesting, or if you just like Tim Roth, you really should watch, Lie To Me. Its just too much fun, and if you want to know how accurate, or even try to figure out how this all works, tune into Dr. Ekman's web site after the show. Have fun!
Dr. Paul Ekman
Friday, August 6, 2010
King Tut's chariot needs vehicle ID Number in New York?
Have you ever had to deal with some stupid city official, be it a cop, a teller at the DMZ, or some ridiculous city administrative assistant that you were trying to get help from, but all they would do is spew nonsensical process, rules and laws at you without any consideration for either you as a person, or reality as an occurrence?
This has to be the stupidest news of this very new Month:
"One of the most exciting finds at the glittering King Tut exhibit is a simple wooden chariot. Even 3,000 years ago there was no gold leaf. The chariot's charm is it appears to have been driven by the young king. It did hit a bump on the road when it arrived in New York. When traffic officials discovered the truck carrying the chariot classified it as a vehicle, they demanded a vehicle identification number. Problem solved though by the time it was unveiled yesterday." -- NPR
Oh my God, ha ha, you have to be kidding me! People are laughing at this? This really isn't very funny. Once they realized that this was a museum piece, that should have ended it. Even if that didn't put an end to it, once someone said this was the chariot of King Tut, that should have ended it.
It actually seems to me that really, really, someone should be fired over this, over wasting valuable city funding, on wasting even a second extra on such a completely stupid issue. Who, in the world, really, would worry about a 3,000 year old vehicle needing registration?
This is simply the worst of Bureaucracy. Or maybe I should just think...only in New York?
For more detail on this antique including some info on the New York foolishness:
A chariot’s long road from ancient Egypt to Times Square from HoumaToday.com
This has to be the stupidest news of this very new Month:
"One of the most exciting finds at the glittering King Tut exhibit is a simple wooden chariot. Even 3,000 years ago there was no gold leaf. The chariot's charm is it appears to have been driven by the young king. It did hit a bump on the road when it arrived in New York. When traffic officials discovered the truck carrying the chariot classified it as a vehicle, they demanded a vehicle identification number. Problem solved though by the time it was unveiled yesterday." -- NPR
Oh my God, ha ha, you have to be kidding me! People are laughing at this? This really isn't very funny. Once they realized that this was a museum piece, that should have ended it. Even if that didn't put an end to it, once someone said this was the chariot of King Tut, that should have ended it.
It actually seems to me that really, really, someone should be fired over this, over wasting valuable city funding, on wasting even a second extra on such a completely stupid issue. Who, in the world, really, would worry about a 3,000 year old vehicle needing registration?
This is simply the worst of Bureaucracy. Or maybe I should just think...only in New York?
For more detail on this antique including some info on the New York foolishness:
A chariot’s long road from ancient Egypt to Times Square from HoumaToday.com
I burned my draft card....
I was just today accosted from my own tiny little personal post office box by an insidious and nefarious notification requiring me to attend Jury Duty in Port Orchard, Washington, our county seat!
I'm thinking of defecting to Canada.
I know they said no more draft dodgers, but I've seen the draft, and this ain't your mama's draft notice.
OK, it ain't your papa's draft notice either.
I'm not a big fan of being on Jury Duty. I've served my country in the military. I've served it in doing search and rescue in the mountains. But I'd rather do any of that, than do Jury Duty.
Not to change the subject or anything, but I'd just like to state here and now, that I burned my draft card. Yes, I had a draft card. Yes, that was a long time ago.
I'll never forget it, the day I did it. I was in the parachute shop one day (my AFSC in the Air Force).
It was around the day half way through my military career, wherein I had just realized that I had packed maybe my 10,000th, 230 pound, B-52 drag chute and about a bit more of that in personnel chutes; when I ran across my draft card in my wallet.
So I pulled it out and said, "I've had it, I'm burning my draft card", and proceeded to burn it right there in the shop.
We had a motto for living the Air Force life. The Air Force put the view they wanted people to think we had on a bumber sticker:
"Air Force! A Great Way of Life"
Close, ours was slightly different and went:
"Air Farce. A Rat's Way of Life."
Matter of opinion and orientation, I suppose.
And easily achieved, as Craig found out when he took the "Great Way of Life" bumper sticker and rearranged it a little so it now said our motto. Out of rebellion and humor, he put it on his clothes locker, in his room, in the on-base barracks. We didn't have closets, we had clothes lockers, but good enough.
Anyway, our Squadron Colonel, on inspecting the rooms one day, did not find it amusing.
So about the time that draft card was burning down to my fingers, someone said, "You damn fool, you're already IN the service!"
But I said, "I don't care, I've had it!"
He then went on to say I could still be put in jail for that kind of thing. See we had recently discovered that we could be fined and jailed simply for getting a sun burn. Damaging Government property, they called it, they called us.
It simply all underlined the surreal nature of living the military life.
And I suppose, in the end, the truly salient and succulent nature and spice of my rebellion was somewhat lost, upon his declaration indicating the absolute control that our Government had over us. We were owned. And it sucked. And there was nothing we could do about it, until we timed out and became civilians again. And then would have to start doing our local government civic duties. Something some of us looked quite forward to.
Either way, I have jury duty....
I'm thinking of defecting to Canada.
I know they said no more draft dodgers, but I've seen the draft, and this ain't your mama's draft notice.
OK, it ain't your papa's draft notice either.
I'm not a big fan of being on Jury Duty. I've served my country in the military. I've served it in doing search and rescue in the mountains. But I'd rather do any of that, than do Jury Duty.
Not to change the subject or anything, but I'd just like to state here and now, that I burned my draft card. Yes, I had a draft card. Yes, that was a long time ago.
I'll never forget it, the day I did it. I was in the parachute shop one day (my AFSC in the Air Force).
It was around the day half way through my military career, wherein I had just realized that I had packed maybe my 10,000th, 230 pound, B-52 drag chute and about a bit more of that in personnel chutes; when I ran across my draft card in my wallet.
So I pulled it out and said, "I've had it, I'm burning my draft card", and proceeded to burn it right there in the shop.
We had a motto for living the Air Force life. The Air Force put the view they wanted people to think we had on a bumber sticker:
"Air Force! A Great Way of Life"
Close, ours was slightly different and went:
"Air Farce. A Rat's Way of Life."
Matter of opinion and orientation, I suppose.
And easily achieved, as Craig found out when he took the "Great Way of Life" bumper sticker and rearranged it a little so it now said our motto. Out of rebellion and humor, he put it on his clothes locker, in his room, in the on-base barracks. We didn't have closets, we had clothes lockers, but good enough.
Anyway, our Squadron Colonel, on inspecting the rooms one day, did not find it amusing.
So about the time that draft card was burning down to my fingers, someone said, "You damn fool, you're already IN the service!"
But I said, "I don't care, I've had it!"
He then went on to say I could still be put in jail for that kind of thing. See we had recently discovered that we could be fined and jailed simply for getting a sun burn. Damaging Government property, they called it, they called us.
It simply all underlined the surreal nature of living the military life.
And I suppose, in the end, the truly salient and succulent nature and spice of my rebellion was somewhat lost, upon his declaration indicating the absolute control that our Government had over us. We were owned. And it sucked. And there was nothing we could do about it, until we timed out and became civilians again. And then would have to start doing our local government civic duties. Something some of us looked quite forward to.
Either way, I have jury duty....
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Gulf Oil Spill, no more oil spill? Worse news ever! For some....
I'm hearing through all the news media, that BP says, we've cleaned up 75% of the oil. The Obama Administration says, we agree with BP and its been peer reviewed. Peer review is a very important thing. It lends it credibility. It means, it may very well be true. Although, you do need to look at just who these peers ARE. Still, let's give them the benefit of the doubt.
Whenever something like this happens, and it becomes, or hits a point, where its considered as "fixed" as its gonna get (we'll still have to clean up the beaches), then what?
What happens then, is those people who make (made?) a living in this region, who have made nearly no money this year at all, who have seasonal jobs, who have to live on the money from this Summer to make it until the next Summer; these people are now going to be left damaged in the wake of the worst man made disaster in the history of the world.
They won't be getting recompensed. Even if they are, they won't get all the money they are losing, either through BP or the Government not believing their claims, even if they are true, be it through monies they usually make and do not claim (under the counter, tips, smuggling, etc.); whatever the reason, many if not most of these people are now going to be forgotten, not only by BP, a foreign company, but also by our, and these people's own, Government.
This, is just wrong. This, is just business as usual.
Just hope it doesn't happen to you, in your region, related to your job. Because, you could be next.
Whenever something like this happens, and it becomes, or hits a point, where its considered as "fixed" as its gonna get (we'll still have to clean up the beaches), then what?
What happens then, is those people who make (made?) a living in this region, who have made nearly no money this year at all, who have seasonal jobs, who have to live on the money from this Summer to make it until the next Summer; these people are now going to be left damaged in the wake of the worst man made disaster in the history of the world.
They won't be getting recompensed. Even if they are, they won't get all the money they are losing, either through BP or the Government not believing their claims, even if they are true, be it through monies they usually make and do not claim (under the counter, tips, smuggling, etc.); whatever the reason, many if not most of these people are now going to be forgotten, not only by BP, a foreign company, but also by our, and these people's own, Government.
This, is just wrong. This, is just business as usual.
Just hope it doesn't happen to you, in your region, related to your job. Because, you could be next.
Dating, with sanity
Obnoxiously Picky or Simply Discriminating: Dating with Sanity
OK now, let's be real. If you want a relationship, you need a set of aesthetics or values that you absolutely want and/or absolutely don't want, in a person. Then you need to find someone that matches up to those valuations.
Of course they need to find you acceptable too, but that's a whole other article in itself. After all, here and now? This, is all about you.
The problem at this point is that for most people, you aren't going to find that person with those absolutely right requirements. And so typically, you just need to compromise. Some. Just compromise some. Not too much, because then what's the use at having considered all this in the first place? So feel free to compromise at least once in a while, but reasonably so.
So, how does one define compromise?
I would suggest you not go about defining it as one of my ex-wives did. In her view, first the other person was to compromise halfway. I was always amenable to this as it only seems fair that both people should compromise halfway.
Then it was her turn. She would compromise (maybe) halfway too, but she gauged things a bit differently than I. You see, she would compromise half of the way between the distance from wherever she was originating from in her view, just to where I had compromised to (which you may note, if you're paying close attention, is the actual half way point).
Which means that, in this oh so clever style of compromise, it requires one person to compromise in the very least, a full half of the situation, while the other would only have to compromise a quarter's worth. The odd thing about this, was that she really believed that she was compromising halfway. And typically, possibly because she was such a knock out, I didn't notice. Not at first anyway.
Now don't get me wrong, this is great style of compromise that is obviously quite good for one of the party's involved. It's just not really so great for the other person, or a long term relationship.
Back to the point. I look at it this way, I have my basics in what I want from someone. No, that's not quite right, I have a basic design in what I "need" from someone. The rest is all negotiable. I do want someone who is in good shape. I'd prefer someone whom I find attractive and has some inherent degree of caring about what she looks like. Someone, that is, who will at least make an attempt at it. But looks aren't the whole thing. Not by a long shot.
Preferably, she should also have a brain. A brain is good. Sexy, after all, comes, from the brain. I like sexy. In fact, I find that an absolutely, very positive trait in a woman.
However it is also important that she have it stocked with some actually interesting stuff. Sexy and all is fine and dandy, but you have to have something to talk about beyond, locking eyes, and heated moments.
Some street smarts are always a good thing, as is a strong (or any) personality. But not so "smart" or not so strong, to the point of it being "difficult" (read that, annoying) to get along with, well, not so good.
I mean, a "wiseguy" can be funny, but a constant "smart ass" is just a real pain in the same.
Most definitely she should like sex (as opposed to NOT liking it) or at very least have an interest in it and a desire of some sort to actually have it, at least once in a while. Or, possibly show a passing fancy toward it.
It would be very nice too if she were of a patient and understanding nature, with a good sense of humor, better yet, a great sense of humor; as that always comes in handy. Especially through the tough times and if you have ever been in a relationship with me, you'd understand. Not to mention that patience and understanding go along really quite well with sex, as the more patient and understanding the woman is, the better the chances are of actually culminating in our having sex together.
I do find it extremely very attractive when a person is able to have some degree of respect for their partner. I don't know, maybe its just me. Like in where they are not too ashamed or too shy to let others know about it? About what? About how they feel about you, without looking away, not acknowledging you, or out right denying knowing you. As well as being able to maintain that attitude over the long haul.
Let me take a moment to say a word or two about respect in a relationship. You could argue that one needs to deserve respect rather than just having it supplied, without any care or responsibility afforded to its being freely given. Especially when its obvious that they certainly don't deserve it. I have always thought that one needs to earn respect. I wholeheartedly agree on that.
I mean, one should never simply expect respect from people, but rather one should be deserving OF it. Then again, its nice if you just give someone the benefit of the doubt and give them the respect out of shear politeness, until they prove they don't deserve it, and not just assume that they don't deserve it, without giving them a chance to first prove your justification for your disdain.
Now on the other hand, some do take one's lack of expecting respect as a queue not to have any respect for them whatsoever. This is a quantifiable misapprehension about the significance of one not expecting something, but being therefore, deserving of it nonetheless.
Too many times I've seen where a couple loses respect for each other which pretty much heralds the end of what was once a marvelous relationship. So I do think that when one does this in a relationship, especially as a serial offender, it first and foremost at that point then becomes a personality failing within them self.
After all, if you don't respect someone, then what in the hell are you doing with them in the first place? Or at this point? So please, do you both a favor and Leave. Besides, and I can't say this in strong enough words, what does it say about you if you are with someone you have no respect for? So rather than just hate someone because you are too stupid to not be with them, simply bugger off. OK?
Another trait I most definitely do not want in someone is that of being a "workaholic". Or any kind of an "aholic" for that matter. Being rich is of course preferable. A "richaholic" sounds like a most perfect disease to me and I will need to look into a study of that somewhat further. Anyway it follows that workaholics can become rich. But I don't believe in pressing my luck either; so I think that being rich is not a requirement, merely a preference.
Regarding "workaholism" (or bi-polarism, manic/depression-ism, OCD-ism, or those extreme opposing dimensions of autism or of the coma bound), I do believe it to be fundamentally important not to attach myself to someone like that. If they are there, if it happens in your family, or to friends, then most definitely, you have a responsibility and hopefully a desire to care for and protect these loved ones.
In the end, on choosing who I want, I want someone who will Be There. Someone who is Interested in Being There For Me and who will Be There With Me. Someone who is, well, interested IN me. And for that matter I also greatly appreciate someone who doesn't look for any excuse to be interested in anything else, BUT me. Which isn't to say that I want all her attention, I just don't want her regularly seeking reasons to get, or be away from me. If you see what I mean.
And again, if that's the case, why would she be there, or remain there? Its weird, but people do, you know.
And so from those few, relatively benign points onward I do believe that a person is their own person. And that it is then that whoever they are individually makes them intriguing and likely worth being around.
Mostly in Life I've learned that I don't want to be around someone who makes my existence difficult. After all, your partner, a partner, any partner should be there at least in part, because they make and want to make, your life LESS difficult. Not more difficult as so typically seems to happen. Don't you think that sounds oh so very nice? Maybe even somewhat Appealing? Maybe like a LOT even, like very appealing?
So, I believe that by having a few basic ideas at hand and an open mind, with a penchant for compromise, you will very likely find that special person. A person with whom you will enter into a fair and loving relationship, leaving you both quite able and ready to enjoy not only just each other, but also the challenges to face you both ahead.
Hopefully, this person will be one who will make it all seem less complicated for you, at least in some ways. Or maybe in many ways, and you will both enjoy Life to the fullest, right there in the world alongside one another.
And a hot LBD (Little Black Dress) just wouldn't hurt none too much, either....
OK now, let's be real. If you want a relationship, you need a set of aesthetics or values that you absolutely want and/or absolutely don't want, in a person. Then you need to find someone that matches up to those valuations.
Of course they need to find you acceptable too, but that's a whole other article in itself. After all, here and now? This, is all about you.
The problem at this point is that for most people, you aren't going to find that person with those absolutely right requirements. And so typically, you just need to compromise. Some. Just compromise some. Not too much, because then what's the use at having considered all this in the first place? So feel free to compromise at least once in a while, but reasonably so.
So, how does one define compromise?
I would suggest you not go about defining it as one of my ex-wives did. In her view, first the other person was to compromise halfway. I was always amenable to this as it only seems fair that both people should compromise halfway.
Then it was her turn. She would compromise (maybe) halfway too, but she gauged things a bit differently than I. You see, she would compromise half of the way between the distance from wherever she was originating from in her view, just to where I had compromised to (which you may note, if you're paying close attention, is the actual half way point).
Which means that, in this oh so clever style of compromise, it requires one person to compromise in the very least, a full half of the situation, while the other would only have to compromise a quarter's worth. The odd thing about this, was that she really believed that she was compromising halfway. And typically, possibly because she was such a knock out, I didn't notice. Not at first anyway.
Now don't get me wrong, this is great style of compromise that is obviously quite good for one of the party's involved. It's just not really so great for the other person, or a long term relationship.
Back to the point. I look at it this way, I have my basics in what I want from someone. No, that's not quite right, I have a basic design in what I "need" from someone. The rest is all negotiable. I do want someone who is in good shape. I'd prefer someone whom I find attractive and has some inherent degree of caring about what she looks like. Someone, that is, who will at least make an attempt at it. But looks aren't the whole thing. Not by a long shot.
Preferably, she should also have a brain. A brain is good. Sexy, after all, comes, from the brain. I like sexy. In fact, I find that an absolutely, very positive trait in a woman.
However it is also important that she have it stocked with some actually interesting stuff. Sexy and all is fine and dandy, but you have to have something to talk about beyond, locking eyes, and heated moments.
Some street smarts are always a good thing, as is a strong (or any) personality. But not so "smart" or not so strong, to the point of it being "difficult" (read that, annoying) to get along with, well, not so good.
I mean, a "wiseguy" can be funny, but a constant "smart ass" is just a real pain in the same.
Most definitely she should like sex (as opposed to NOT liking it) or at very least have an interest in it and a desire of some sort to actually have it, at least once in a while. Or, possibly show a passing fancy toward it.
It would be very nice too if she were of a patient and understanding nature, with a good sense of humor, better yet, a great sense of humor; as that always comes in handy. Especially through the tough times and if you have ever been in a relationship with me, you'd understand. Not to mention that patience and understanding go along really quite well with sex, as the more patient and understanding the woman is, the better the chances are of actually culminating in our having sex together.
I do find it extremely very attractive when a person is able to have some degree of respect for their partner. I don't know, maybe its just me. Like in where they are not too ashamed or too shy to let others know about it? About what? About how they feel about you, without looking away, not acknowledging you, or out right denying knowing you. As well as being able to maintain that attitude over the long haul.
Let me take a moment to say a word or two about respect in a relationship. You could argue that one needs to deserve respect rather than just having it supplied, without any care or responsibility afforded to its being freely given. Especially when its obvious that they certainly don't deserve it. I have always thought that one needs to earn respect. I wholeheartedly agree on that.
I mean, one should never simply expect respect from people, but rather one should be deserving OF it. Then again, its nice if you just give someone the benefit of the doubt and give them the respect out of shear politeness, until they prove they don't deserve it, and not just assume that they don't deserve it, without giving them a chance to first prove your justification for your disdain.
Now on the other hand, some do take one's lack of expecting respect as a queue not to have any respect for them whatsoever. This is a quantifiable misapprehension about the significance of one not expecting something, but being therefore, deserving of it nonetheless.
Too many times I've seen where a couple loses respect for each other which pretty much heralds the end of what was once a marvelous relationship. So I do think that when one does this in a relationship, especially as a serial offender, it first and foremost at that point then becomes a personality failing within them self.
After all, if you don't respect someone, then what in the hell are you doing with them in the first place? Or at this point? So please, do you both a favor and Leave. Besides, and I can't say this in strong enough words, what does it say about you if you are with someone you have no respect for? So rather than just hate someone because you are too stupid to not be with them, simply bugger off. OK?
Another trait I most definitely do not want in someone is that of being a "workaholic". Or any kind of an "aholic" for that matter. Being rich is of course preferable. A "richaholic" sounds like a most perfect disease to me and I will need to look into a study of that somewhat further. Anyway it follows that workaholics can become rich. But I don't believe in pressing my luck either; so I think that being rich is not a requirement, merely a preference.
Regarding "workaholism" (or bi-polarism, manic/depression-ism, OCD-ism, or those extreme opposing dimensions of autism or of the coma bound), I do believe it to be fundamentally important not to attach myself to someone like that. If they are there, if it happens in your family, or to friends, then most definitely, you have a responsibility and hopefully a desire to care for and protect these loved ones.
In the end, on choosing who I want, I want someone who will Be There. Someone who is Interested in Being There For Me and who will Be There With Me. Someone who is, well, interested IN me. And for that matter I also greatly appreciate someone who doesn't look for any excuse to be interested in anything else, BUT me. Which isn't to say that I want all her attention, I just don't want her regularly seeking reasons to get, or be away from me. If you see what I mean.
And again, if that's the case, why would she be there, or remain there? Its weird, but people do, you know.
And so from those few, relatively benign points onward I do believe that a person is their own person. And that it is then that whoever they are individually makes them intriguing and likely worth being around.
Mostly in Life I've learned that I don't want to be around someone who makes my existence difficult. After all, your partner, a partner, any partner should be there at least in part, because they make and want to make, your life LESS difficult. Not more difficult as so typically seems to happen. Don't you think that sounds oh so very nice? Maybe even somewhat Appealing? Maybe like a LOT even, like very appealing?
So, I believe that by having a few basic ideas at hand and an open mind, with a penchant for compromise, you will very likely find that special person. A person with whom you will enter into a fair and loving relationship, leaving you both quite able and ready to enjoy not only just each other, but also the challenges to face you both ahead.
Hopefully, this person will be one who will make it all seem less complicated for you, at least in some ways. Or maybe in many ways, and you will both enjoy Life to the fullest, right there in the world alongside one another.
And a hot LBD (Little Black Dress) just wouldn't hurt none too much, either....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)