Schvotsky. What is it?
It is an old country remedy for a cold:
Boil whiskey with bacon bits in it, lemon slices, honey and cayenne.
Blend to desired strength, spicier the better.
NO WATER! :)
Drink.
You sweat, you numb out, you drink as many as required.
Your illness begins to not bother you so much.
First time I had it I was sick with a flu or cold or something at 11.
My had grandfather stopped by and told my mom, his daughter, "make him schvotsky!" (shhhh vot ski)
I'm not sure of the spelling, I've never found it referenced anywhere and Grandpa is dead these past many years. What a great loss to the local diesel engineering industry.
If he said it, my mom did was she was told. I knew as a child, that this was a great thing. See, that's how I got my pellet gun. He had said, "What do you want
for your birthday, today?"
I said, (looking tentatively at my mom and her face showing a don't do it look):
"I want a BB gun"
We went to the store, I got a gun. My mom tried to argue once on that trip.
He said something to her and that was the end of it. I never heard about it again from her. (Ah, Life is good. "NO, you'll put your eye out." "But Grandpa, Mom!")
Anyway, at the time I was feeling miserable.
After they gave me the schvotsky, I felt like, Oh God, I felt GREATTTTTTT!!!!
My first real alcohol experience. And....
I LOVED my GrandFather!!!! I mean, I did feel so much better and it cleared up my breathing a bit too.
Wow, the old country really knows some fixatives!
He was Romanian, or Bulgarian or something (my Grandmother was Czech or Slavic or something, and my own dad was Irish...which I lean to, go figure).
The only other recipe I've found like this was Chinese:
Garlic, ginger, cayenne, lemon, honey
Ginger. Huh. Interesting. I might try incorporating that.
Be well!
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
The Outer Limits Feature being written
'SAW' WRITERS DOING 'THE OUTER LIMITS' FEATURE
FEAST and SAW writers Marcus Dunstron and Patrick Melton have been tapped to write a feature film for MGM based on the Anthology series.
Hailed as “the best program of its type to ever run on network TV” by acclaimed author Stephen King, this sci-fi fantasy original series ignited the imagination of viewers with the help of such distinguished guest star appearances by Academy Award WinnerÒ Robert Duvall (Tender Mercies), Adam West (“Batman”), Eddie Albert (“Green Acres”) and Star Trek alumni William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy and James Doohan.The 1960s debut of the macabre series broke new ground by blurring the line between fact and fiction with dark introspective storylines. Fans became hooked as the series continued to challenge the human mind by making the unbelievable seem like a terrifying reality. As television’s longest running science-fiction anthology, “The Outer Limits” has garnered several awards, including four Cable Ace Awards, two Gemini Awards and two Saturn Awards.
From Rich Goellnitz We love horror movies on Facebook
FEAST and SAW writers Marcus Dunstron and Patrick Melton have been tapped to write a feature film for MGM based on the Anthology series.
Hailed as “the best program of its type to ever run on network TV” by acclaimed author Stephen King, this sci-fi fantasy original series ignited the imagination of viewers with the help of such distinguished guest star appearances by Academy Award WinnerÒ Robert Duvall (Tender Mercies), Adam West (“Batman”), Eddie Albert (“Green Acres”) and Star Trek alumni William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy and James Doohan.The 1960s debut of the macabre series broke new ground by blurring the line between fact and fiction with dark introspective storylines. Fans became hooked as the series continued to challenge the human mind by making the unbelievable seem like a terrifying reality. As television’s longest running science-fiction anthology, “The Outer Limits” has garnered several awards, including four Cable Ace Awards, two Gemini Awards and two Saturn Awards.
From Rich Goellnitz We love horror movies on Facebook
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
North Korea says its ready for dialog and war. How about War?
Pyongyang says that in response to the US and South Korea military exercises, spawned because of the North having sunk a ship of the South, that they are ready for dialog or War. I'm starting to think, we should remove the government of North Korea. Why?
Because, they are deluded, far beyond 99% of all other governments in a way that is severely damaging to their people, they are a threat to the local region, the are becoming a threat to the international regions, and it is just wrong to allow a government like that to exist. If we are willing to take out a Saddam Hussein, if we are willing to try to help work out the problems in Afghanistan, North Korea would seem a viable option too.
We don't, we won't, try to help a country if they are not in a state where we can do some good; they would need a viable governmental structure to allow setting up a reasonable alternate State to run things. We made that mistake in Somalia and don't plan to do it again any time soon.
What gets me so annoyed, is seeing countries where the government is far beyond the pale on treating its people poorly. When people are dying in a country of starvation, when they are being killed systematically by their own government, THEN is the time for not just the United States to step in, but the entire world.
If you ask me, Israel should be leading this charge for the world. As much as they have complained (and for good reason) about the Holocaust, and all their pandering about "never forget, never forget", it seems to me, they have forgotten plenty too quickly. Perhaps they don't have the resources financially, but they should have the moral resources because of their own past experiences, subjugation and constant attempted annihilation, throughout history.
I've never understood, having grown up hearing about their historical plight year after year, why they aren't the moral center of the world. Yet I hear things about their issues with the Palestinians on a constant basis that makes me wonder, what in the hell they are thinking about. OK, I don't want to get into a big diatribe on Israel, I never do, nobody does, but that's another matter.
My point is, someone, should be leading this charge and I'd like to know why it should be the US? But, I don't care. Someone, should start doing something about the bully governments in the world. Should we invade Iran? No, I really don't think so, they have a viable country, screwed up as it is. These church and state countries, need to grow up, wise up, and put an end to this.
But North Korea, is a different kind of animal. Where Iran walks a kind of line, North Korea stepped over that line a long, long time ago. I don't really think we should go to full out war with them, but some action should be taken to destabilize this paranoid regime until the fall and their people can start to live actual lives in a fairly free and open society. Something that should be a right, the world over by this time.
Where do we get a pay off in all our cavorting around the world blowing things up? In the future. We need to calm this world down, to systematically eliminate the leaders and governments that are keeping their own people, and thereby, all peoples, down from growing into a vast economy of good living.
Case in point: the Niger River yearly oil spills need to be ended. These spills are said to be, by Amnesty International, to be the size of an Exxon Valdez oil spill, every year, for the past fifty years! With no clean up yet. The $600 million dollars that region has gotten from the oil companies deal of 40%/60% in favor of the Niger government, with those proceeds having never made it back to the region affected by the oil production by those foreign companies, has all or mostly gone into the pockets (that is, most likely, Swiss bank accounts) of those charged with the protection of their own people.
I will never understand how you can be put in charge of protecting a country full of people, men, women, aged, children, handicapped, and then take advantage of them. Those government officials should be called to task by the World Court and held accountable. The people who have died from this catastrophe, from this outrage, should be tallied, and murder charges brought forth on those Government officials.
But then, even they, are not to find their special place in a Christian's Hell, like the government of North Korea.
Because, they are deluded, far beyond 99% of all other governments in a way that is severely damaging to their people, they are a threat to the local region, the are becoming a threat to the international regions, and it is just wrong to allow a government like that to exist. If we are willing to take out a Saddam Hussein, if we are willing to try to help work out the problems in Afghanistan, North Korea would seem a viable option too.
We don't, we won't, try to help a country if they are not in a state where we can do some good; they would need a viable governmental structure to allow setting up a reasonable alternate State to run things. We made that mistake in Somalia and don't plan to do it again any time soon.
What gets me so annoyed, is seeing countries where the government is far beyond the pale on treating its people poorly. When people are dying in a country of starvation, when they are being killed systematically by their own government, THEN is the time for not just the United States to step in, but the entire world.
If you ask me, Israel should be leading this charge for the world. As much as they have complained (and for good reason) about the Holocaust, and all their pandering about "never forget, never forget", it seems to me, they have forgotten plenty too quickly. Perhaps they don't have the resources financially, but they should have the moral resources because of their own past experiences, subjugation and constant attempted annihilation, throughout history.
I've never understood, having grown up hearing about their historical plight year after year, why they aren't the moral center of the world. Yet I hear things about their issues with the Palestinians on a constant basis that makes me wonder, what in the hell they are thinking about. OK, I don't want to get into a big diatribe on Israel, I never do, nobody does, but that's another matter.
My point is, someone, should be leading this charge and I'd like to know why it should be the US? But, I don't care. Someone, should start doing something about the bully governments in the world. Should we invade Iran? No, I really don't think so, they have a viable country, screwed up as it is. These church and state countries, need to grow up, wise up, and put an end to this.
But North Korea, is a different kind of animal. Where Iran walks a kind of line, North Korea stepped over that line a long, long time ago. I don't really think we should go to full out war with them, but some action should be taken to destabilize this paranoid regime until the fall and their people can start to live actual lives in a fairly free and open society. Something that should be a right, the world over by this time.
Where do we get a pay off in all our cavorting around the world blowing things up? In the future. We need to calm this world down, to systematically eliminate the leaders and governments that are keeping their own people, and thereby, all peoples, down from growing into a vast economy of good living.
Case in point: the Niger River yearly oil spills need to be ended. These spills are said to be, by Amnesty International, to be the size of an Exxon Valdez oil spill, every year, for the past fifty years! With no clean up yet. The $600 million dollars that region has gotten from the oil companies deal of 40%/60% in favor of the Niger government, with those proceeds having never made it back to the region affected by the oil production by those foreign companies, has all or mostly gone into the pockets (that is, most likely, Swiss bank accounts) of those charged with the protection of their own people.
I will never understand how you can be put in charge of protecting a country full of people, men, women, aged, children, handicapped, and then take advantage of them. Those government officials should be called to task by the World Court and held accountable. The people who have died from this catastrophe, from this outrage, should be tallied, and murder charges brought forth on those Government officials.
But then, even they, are not to find their special place in a Christian's Hell, like the government of North Korea.
For real, best movie Interview on YouTube, EVER!
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)