Blogger Blah

I "upgraded" to the new blogger that google now owns. It seems they turned a lot of the names of people who have commented to "anonymous". Very disappointing.

So here's the rub

I admit it. Sometimes I go to church with my folks when I am visiting over the holidays. It always confirms for me that I don't agree in a very real and basic way with many things preached and put over by the LDS faith. I don't mind spending time with my folks and it's usually for a christmas service in an "outside of Utah" congregation so they are groovy and end it after an hour.

Sometimes they speak about the family of Abraham and being adopted into it etc. It seems that mormon "patriarchal blessings" which assign the recipient to the heritage of one of the tribes of Israel, have created some discomforts with racial issues over who is IN the covenant family of Abraham and who is not. They had to give a long drawn out speech about how "it doesn't really matter, we are adopted if we behave, etc....so pay no mind to the assignment in the blessings" etc. How about saying..."this is all about as real and important as Dungeons and Dragons rankings are to real life". That would really clear it up.

Occam's razor would cut right through the cognitive dissonance and quickly declare that the simple solution is "This is all bullshit".

Another axiom to which I object is the idea that the world is doomed the end is near and there is no hope of escape. I don't believe the days of mankind must needs be numbered. We know from our best research that our sun will probably turn into a red giant someday, charring the earth to cinders as it grows to engulf it. So, yah, we should find some other ways of living or places to live in this vast universe beyond the solar system, or at least beyond the reach of the eventual Solar "prostate" swelling, long before that happens. That will not happen for a few billion years.

We are far more likely to destroy ourselves before the Sun has a chance. The sad irony is that religious believers may be the source of the destruction, the ones who bring it about. Just as it is suspected that christians may have set the Great Rome fire of July 19, A.D. 64 to "bring about" the fulfillment of prophecies about Rome's destruction.

I am waxing tangential here, but I think sometimes things are written down and become more important than they really were, simply because the writing survived long enough. Something like "Rome shall burn" may just have been a taunt at a sporting event. "Rome is going down...God damnit!" yelled by a Venice fan during a Gladiator match. Suddenly it is prophetic because someone set fire to the city to make it so!?

This prophecy stuff is weird. When it's gloomy, it amounts to premeditated murder. "The king of suchandsuchland shall die on the third day of they 7th week of the 9th moon of the year 86" or something...sounds like "plans" not prophecy. Maybe we should arrest these people who suggest 1/3 of the waters will be poisoned. What exactly did John the Revelator have in mind? John the damn terror plot planner.

To make it through the 90 minutes of concession I choose to make to family harmony each year, I like to change words of Hymns mostly in my head. I like changing words to ad humor to life in many cases. Like the wintery (usually holiday) song "Walking in a Winter Wonderland":

Later on
We'll conspire
as we dream
by the fire
to face unafraid
the [baby] we made
walking in a winter wonderland!

This makes the song far more honest about its message.

So in church, take "Jesus Said Love Everyone" or any other hymn...and replace "love" with "rub" to fully entertaining effect.
(yes I am a mental juvenile ok?) Though I thought to do this many years ago while sitting in a sunday service in a "singles" congregation watching two hot women in their 20's dressed for church give eachother intense back rubs during the long droning speeches. That's when I knew men of faith were not fulfilling all the purposes of their creation leaving these babes just with eachother and the only apparently socially acceptable physical contact in church-circles: girl on girl massage.

Jesus said [rub] everyone
treat them kindly too
when your heart is filled with [rubs]
others will [rub] you

or

As I have [rubbed] you
[rub] one another
this new commandment
[rub] one another
etc. (because I don't know how to spell shalmehn-gno because I am not a rabbi)

It also works with the Beatles:

She [rubs] you ya ya ya
She [rubs] you ya ya ya
With a [rub] like that
You know you should be glad....ooooooh!

Ok I will spare you all any more levity. Just know that laughter is great medicine and the louder the better.
=sw

Kama Sutra

SML commented on a recent blog and requested more Kama Sutra stuff. So I decided there was only one high brow way to combine my western education and upbringing with the Kama Sutra in any way that is at all tasteful.

The Kama Sutra was once emailed to me in its entirety, with pictures and all, while I was in college. I am sure the beautiful woman who sent it to me was aching for my attention but my uptight religiously indoctrinated conclusion was she was mocking me. Naturally, that's why a hot college girl you always chat to in the mac-lab emails you the Kama Sutra.

Aaaargh...how not to live with regret!? The point is, at the tender age of "college freshman" I knew exactly what it was and read EVERY word and studied the pictures.

While it IS my goal to be free thinking and address any topic whatsoever, I am not trying to make a porn-blog. Therefore...

Today I combine my love of Middle English Poetic Meter (Iambic pentameter), and other forms as well, with the MOST tasteful Kama Sutra pictures I could possibly imagine...which are still very sexy....from a clothing ad campaign in Turkey. I borrow them shamelessly from Fresh99.com.

I will not endeavor to refer to these Kama Sutra positions by their real names...and now...I digress.

For each depiction
I shall write a poem:

You rise, an ocean crashing on the rocks
Before, upon me... hair is as a mist
Two hands lay palms to rest upon my shins
My arms embrace you; heels support my back
You are within me, I am within you

my love is sweet fate
we want the very same things
this one she likes most

Some may live for fast cars
Some lust for cool phones
Some long to drink fine wine
And some to walk brilliant rows
I live for only one thing that soon comes to mind
To be possessed in your legs, give your neck a dulcet kiss
and see that look on your face, it's the reason I live.

Treat me as your chair
Your comfy leather couch
I will always be there
To... to... cup your breasts
As you crab walk over me
Yes, what I remember
And what you recall
May seem different at first look
Though the intensity is what we share
The focus for eachother
The diverted stare
Lost in the dream we made real
Catching each other's eyes in our wall of mirrors
We both seek heaven ahead, me through you and you on our bed.

There you go.
If you liked those, I will make more some time.

=sw

Interpreting Population

After my recent "sexy-time" post, I am now discussing some of the possible consequences.

I have been browsing the CIA world fact book and noticed that, in the world, there is huge discrepancy in population between males and females between the ages of 15-64 (using the CIA data's age ranges). It appears there may 51,732,166 more men than women in this age range. Then there is the age of 0 to 14 where there are 48,977,175 more males than females.

In the older ages the women live longer so there are 56,986,505 more women 65 and older than men. This still means that there are 43,722,836 more males than females in the world and there really are 100,709,341 more males than females that are under 65.

Think about it, under the age of 65, there are One-hundred-Million more males than females in this world.

Nature tries to even out population. If left to nature, gender populations curiously balance. The balance even seems to correct for war, risky behaviors of young men driven by testosterone and other factors.

The apparent explanation for the population difference lies largely with cultural attitudes of countries on the Asian continent, primarily China and India.

China has about 43,494,720 more males under 65 than females.


India has 33,320,388 more males than females in this same range.


Each has well over a billion people in total.

Do we credit the Kama Sutra?



These 2 countries account for about 76% of the gender discrepancy, with their neighbors and the culturally similar diaspora of each world wide accounting for a good portion of the rest.

There are really two different attitudes with one result, more boys.

In China, I have gathered that the general feeling is that because Boys can carry on the family name in the traditions of the culture, they are sometimes preferred. Under a "one-child-only" (per couple) policy, proud chinese families may opt to go for a boy and not a girl in order to carry on the name. Some feel a duty to the needs of the state regarding reproduction generally.

In India, it seems to lean more toward the traditional notion that sons care for parents while daughters cost the parents a large dowry or "wedding gift". In addition to this Dowry, given to the family of whomever the girl marries, the daughter is also "given away" to this other family who now benefit from her economic contributions.

I can see that it makes sense in one family to consider these options, but there are externalities created when some choose to have sons.

In China, the microcosmic family planning regarding the propogation of a surname through male offspring does not seem to take into account the global issue of with whom the propogation can possibly take place. With so many families choosing for boys, there simply aren't girls in the country for every boy to marry with whom they can continue family lines.

In India it is a similar problem. It is all good and well to be the smart family that brings in the dowry and keeps the next generation of sons in the family rather than the one that has daughters, has to pay up and lose the "retirement plan". Yet, when too many families do this, there will not be women, nor dowries to be had. Still these sad sons can do nothing with life but support their parents. They are like modern Eunuchs who must endure a lonely life without the prospect of marriage, yet as fully functioning men with all their natural desires intact.

Before I jump into what it all means, let's check into how it is done.

Not to "split heirs" here, but sometimes, as in animal breeding practices, centrifuges are used to divide the male sperm from female sperm. Thus ensuring that an artificial insemination is with the right stuff for the desired outcome...err....result.



That's right, the fathers bring the gender destiny to the reproductive picture. A quick global apology on behalf of all men to medieval women who were shunned, mistreated or even killed for not "giving their man" a son when commanded.



Even modern women still read "wives tales" about "what to do when" to pre-determine the gender of a child.

There is the dirty secret of rumored intentional drowning of girls, abandonment to exposure or starvation death. Abortion is probably a large part of the picture.

These figures already account for the living, so orphaned girls cannot serve to reduce the discrepancy.

What does it all mean?

It means that there are 50 million single men who can't find a wife anywhere on the planet...and there will be 50 million more growing into age 18 soon, long before the other 50 million are 65.

They won't all be Chinese and East-Indian. Many upper class, rich, goodlooking men from these cultures will marry women from other societies. That is natural, though also does not resolve the descrepancy, not by one soul. So there are still 100 million men on earth with no marriage prospects or no chance at any kind of exclusive relationship with a woman. Isn't this a formula for unrest?

What are these men up to? We have established that this gender discrepancy can transfer to anyone around the world, so these men could be from anywhere. They are available to be recruited by terrorist groups who promise them exactly what they cannot find in life, but must die to get (70 virgins or some impossible ratio). An over-abundance of men on the earth makes some seem expendable for war or suicide bombings to some cultures. The needs of this 100 million could be part of the source of pressure to traffic women from poorer countries into sexual slavery. Moldova is a prime example of a country whose young women are frequently lured into sexual slavery in places like Turkey with the promise of reputable jobs. Even if some 7% or so of the single men are gay, that still leaves 93 million men with no wives. Add on the double reduction for each lesbian couple, and the insanely self-serving anti-social practice of polygamy and the discrepancy goes right back up.

Perhaps western countries at near gender parity, could have a campaign like "Make girls for peace".

I believe this is a serious social problem of our time. It stems from simple household economics or pride which do not translate to a macro-scale. The best case scenario would be that we have a lot of extra peace-keeping troops at hand. Educated, nerdy, lonely, horny peace-keeping troops with loaded guns they never have cause to fire.
=sw

Holiday update

Christmas with the family! I always enjoy being with my family. I do love all my family and they are each great in their own way.

My dad likes to keep the dish network on the church propaganda channel. Every day is like sunday indeed. For God's sake can we turn off the church and eat? It really is just like family-friendly fascism. I am all propaganda'd out. I never want to hear another church Elder talk about how faith can move mountains as if Mount Saint Helens is 1/2 gone because some Priest was "practicing".

The promises church speakers make are like the fake presents that are still under the tree in the museum on December 27th. No one is racing to open them because they know there is actually nothing of value inside. It is just all show, glitz, and mood setting.

I sometimes postulate that if investing tangible time and value into something that is no more provable than a fantasy brings someone to occasional idealistic selflessness, there may still be some good in it. I know that the religious systems to which people subscribe are not necessary for human beings to improve their character or care for one-another. They may actually be inefficient obstacles that, on balance, create more suffering and misery than they inspire goodness.

I listened to some of the " Slayer, Christ Illusion" album a week or so ago. It won a grammy, so it must be worth something. The music is solid and of a high quality in the genre. Much of what they make is for their own pleasure, though they do suggest that religion is a mass delusion.

I think if people want to hope for something that could be and can't be disproved, that is their own business. Faith, being the human hopes and dreams that may yet be, is at the core of human existence. We are reality generating machines and we can bring about many of of our dreams which have yet to exist.

Though, when one loses contact with reason and begins to state as reality things for which one merely hopes, there is some confusing self-delusion going on. One must always be prepared for the possibility that one's assumptions could be superceded by better science, knowledge and understanding.

Christmas also brought some good times touring through Seattle. Fresh fish, Coffee, Espresso, Lattes, Capucino and ...did I mention the Coffee? I have visited the Museum of Flight, Pacific Science Center, Puget Sound and the family all went to the holiday ball-breaker, "The Nutcracker".

I like hearing Tchaikovsky. This ballet, which I had never seen before, has been around long enough that it has popularized its music as Christmas music. It is an enjoyable ballet with enough material to give different companies some room for interpretation. I can still feel some old notions of royal social order in the dance.

The dances with a man and a woman seem to show the man turning tipping, arranging and manipulating the woman whose overwhelming power is to keep his interest focused only and continually on her and to captivate him at her side through it all. It is the love détente, each feeling in control in the manner he or she prefers.

Ballet seems to have a medieval quality of nearly worshipping women as precious objects on a pedastal, though these dancers really are admirable athletes. The men are secondary on this stage, though they seem to be able to do the flutter jumps well, the lightness of which belies the strength they need to perform them. Yet, nothing holds a candle to the women on point. What a wonder to behold. It makes one admire Russian culture.

There is my Christmas update, enjoy.

=sumwun

All that Swearing in Congress

Democrat Keith Ellison will soon be sworn in as the first Muslim United States Congressman. In his private swearing-in ceremony he has chosen to put his hand on a Koran and not on a Bible.

There seems to actually be an uproar about this, though I think there should not be. This is America, we have religious freedom. The swearing-in symbolism is not fixed in stone and really means that you are putting your name upon all that is holy to you that you will perform your duties including upholding our Constitution.

I think atheists should likewise be free to swear in with a symbolic gesture of their choosing. Personally I would not take offense to swearing on a Bible because I am sure it would send the right message to my constituents, plus it is an old document that represents moral ideals, even if its actual messages are antiquated.

Of course one should have the right to forego religious exercizes if he or she sees fit.

I bet Stephen Colbert would swear in on a literal stack of Bibles just so he could claim later that he had sworn in on a stack of Bibles for comic exaggeration that was ironically true.

If the congressman elect, Mr. Ellison, wants to symbolize his swearing in using his own religious preference then God Bless American religious freedom.

We can be grateful to the wisdom and values of those, many christians among them, who founded our country. Yet, this is not a Christian nation by legal definition, only by the faith choices of many of its citizens.

Why not mention Flag burning here as well.

Americans ought to be able to burn their own flag in protest. This seemed to happen at least once in the 60's protest era. I am sure it was driven by psychadelic drugs right?

I find burning the flag to be offensive. It is a symbol of our nation, our beautiful banner imbued with meaning, sacrifice, history and honor. Although, if you aren't committing arson, breaking fire codes or burning someone else's property, I think flag burning should never be outlawed. That would be contrary to the spirit and nature of our country.

I probably wouldn't even burn a foreign flag, though I think America is a free country and should not repressively ban speech even if it offends me (and perhaps many others).

And finally, you know, I just might swear in on a Carl Sagan book. I mean when I am inevitably up for swearing in as a congressman.

=sw

The Old T-Bone

A repressed upbringing can lead to some amazing innovations. In Utah, at BYU sometimes girls will direct vodka into their bodies in a manner that could never be called "Drinking". I have named it "Cooch Bonging". You can use your imagination, but it apparently gets these college girls intoxicated while allowing the easy and honest rationalization "I did not drink anything".

This reminds me of a Jewish neighbor who asks you to push the elevator button on the sabbath...because initiating the use a device on the sabbath is entirely wrong while benefitting from another's use of a device is just far enough into the grey area to rationalize.

Though religious people often look down upon rationalization they are often the keepers of the flame and the main innovators in this sphere.

When I was much younger, I felt so much guilt about sex. Like many religious people, I simply wanted both approval and acceptance of my society AND the fulfillment of all my desires. Thus we innovate. Some of the things religious people do to rationalize their way out of their own beliefs are really creative and fun.

Remember making out? It used to be so wonderful when it was all you had. It seems that once we have gone all the way, we gloss over the journey far too readily. Making out can be a fun destination or at least a very scenic route on the map-o-love.

Now to "boning the T". This is just one of the things I used to do to avoid the cognitive definition of having sex with my first real girlfriend, you know, so I could honestly tell my church leaders "I have never" this or that and not "technically" be lying.

I wish to address this topic in an entirely crude way. I mean as to the level of detail. Like a caveman would construct a "crude hammer"...not a "nasty hammer". Ah...the "nasty hammer", that's a blog topic for another day....ANYWAY...I will now begin speaking in crudely formed symbolism.

Imagine a view of girlfriend-heaven from just south of heaven, round about the kneecaps, looking north. This is a 22 year old I am speaking of, just so you know. I was a late bloomer ok? I was 24! Wait I think that's too much info....so yes, again...the view looking up into heaven...symbolized by looking along a street in Brugge Belgium.



Ok, this is a rather wide gate, though it is symbolically about right...thighs on the left and right...the shingled roofing (symbolizes a girl-garden) and the statue of St. Taurus (not his real name) in the middle.

Now here is the T...


This T would be imprinted say on a bed...or in this case a street and symbolizes the space at the top of the lady-thighs where they open ever so gently left and right only to stop at the wall at the top. With me? So if you are a good old-fashioned gentleman wanting to let's say "drive your bus" into the gate, you might do so in this manner and direction:



It's a big gate here, so we needed to compensate by using a rather large bus. Let's call it "the express to coitusville".

Now pretend you were raised in an inhumanly uptight religion, and all your natural desires made you an enemy to God and destined for hellfire. Now suppose that you were still attending regularly and driving your bus through the gate was the worst possible choice you could make because it would ruin your life and get you kicked out of your social circles, church and maybe even your school. Now you would need to innovate.

Some "comers" to the game, like Pete opted for driving up...this is pretty good because it is fun, and it gives some tire track action to St. Taurus, (which is important) and unloads the passengers up on the roof instead of down in Cervical Cafe where they might do something evil like order a latte or inseminate something. Here is an example of Pete's method, 3d bus action thanks to Google Sketch-up...



Another perfectly viable option would be to drive your bus down from the top, sure you have to make a pretty firm bend-back to get it to go that way, though it is equally as rewarding and fun and leaves the passengers on the bed-rock. Allow me to depict this technique using my huge and heavy bus:



As you can see, the Front or "Tip" of the bus is hanging just above the street, showing us the underside of the "vehicle". The motion of the bus is pointing directly into the T as can be seen in the final frame below:



There you have it friends, Boning the T.

I recommend everyone spice up their bus trips from the regularly scheduled route and explore some of the incredible innovations brought about by a collision of healthy natural desires and whacky religiously repressed thinking. I think you'll find that recalling the days where you were using your limits directs you to some new found fun.

Some people do these funny things out of ignorance, like Louis XVI, until they figure it out or it is explained to them. Others know what they are doing so as not to do what they think they shouldn't.

To "fill you in" on the story, boning the T only lasted a few weeks until, with a sweet charming "wanna put it..." I did. I have been enjoying the excellent cervix at the coitus cafe ever since.

=sw

Scarves, Symbolism and History

I read an outline of islamic women's head coverings on the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/europe_muslim_veils/html/1.stm

I remember my grandma used to wear a large folded silk square on her head. She was a christian woman and probably wore it out of the fashion of her time. I have usually associated women's head coverings with older women or stories of ancient women.

I think the tradition of wearing head coverings is much older than islam. Note this Bible verse from the New Testament which predates the founding of islam by hundreds of years:

"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head,since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. (1 Corinthians 11:3-10)"

I don't believe in any of that. I think any human can pray or not pray to whatever they will or nothing at all, with a head covered or not. I quote it to point out that the head covering as a muslim political symbol is a co-opted anachronism.

I think head coverings can be attractive on women. I like the way women use dress to enhance their beauty. In the case of a muslim head covering, it can be a very positive statement of faith, virtue and identity that can also be beautiful.

I am not happy with the idea that the head covering is imposed on any woman rather than chosen. At certain lengths, it becomes an insult to women's freedom, individuality and dignity. I also think that some levels of coverage create anti-social situations and security concerns.

A Turkish or French muslim who wears the hijab as a personal religious choice is a bright spot in a free society to me. Yet at the extremes of the Taliban enforcing repressive systems upon women, I believe any symbol thereof becomes incendiary.

The Naqib and the Burkah seem to me to reduce the status and human dignity of women and are not socially viable in the west, even though they are often tolerated. I think the human face is important to identifying who it is you are dealing with and what their intentions are. Also, perhaps unfortunately, these "over everything" coverings have been used by some muslim women to commit suicide bombings in some areas of the world. Sometimes these coverings are used to smuggle lawbreaking men away from justice, in disguise.

Headscarves are banned in French schools. This seems to be what they have chosen to do to reduce the likelihood of religious tension among classmates. Though, to someone who desires to follow the counsel of her faith, it may be a big sacrifice. Perhaps something akin to asking a catholic girl to go to school without a shirt on.

In much the same way that a child can be sent home for wearing the wrong t-shirt to school, I believe that in some situations it is appropriate to curtail symbolic dress in schools. This is especially important if what one person is proud to wear causes enormous tension in classmates.

In another way, the headscarf can be a symbol of anti-semitism. When many muslim societies wrongly deny the holocaust, muslim dress styles tend to symbolize anti-jewish feelings to some people.

On the other side of this debate, there is a lot of rhetoric in France speaking of muslim immigrants who won't integrate or change their faith. The immigrants are accused of being the cause of many problems in France like crime or economic issues. All of this is hauntingly familiar from the rhetoric used in Germany in the 1930's against jews.

I think of politicians in their suits, gang members and their representative attire, mini-skirts on Wall Street or hemp sweaters in San Francisco and I realize the cloth-speech is all around us.

In a truly free society we should all be able to wear what we chose. Though symbolism seems to permeate clothing like a language of its own.

=sw

Gender and Communication

I heard a couple of friends of mine who are women in their twenties talking about their boyfriends not being "trained yet". This whole concept may be intended to be quaint but I find it basically offensive in principal. As if men were animals destined to servitude.

Maybe I just shouldn't hang out with any woman in her "I am finding myself, so I hate men" days.

I understand some women may at times feel the need to iterate claims to self worth into their lover's minds. Women don't want injustices imposed upon them assumptively as if that were the natural order of things.

I am a Man. I know we were all women until that awesome gene was activated with its significant cascading effects. I sometimes feel I need to remind women that men are human beings with blood coursing through their veins. Our bodies have an organ that is analogous to each and every organ in the female body even though physically men and women are gloriously different in some naturally intriguing ways.

I see so much ignorance and poorly formed communication between men and women. It is as if each exchange is 90% presumption, 9% what mom or dad taught and about 1% real understanding. Sometimes when I speak with a woman I get a sense that she thinks she "knows men" and that I am just the same in every way and that nothing I say matters and won't change her preconceived notions. I don't doubt this is like the experience some woman may have communicating with men.

Women often ask: "What are you thinking?" My male answer is "Well a lot." With some things, I can't put any of it into words either because it is so abstract, sublime or internalized. Maybe it's my narrow corpus callosum that keeps me from putting the verbs with the notions. At least it cannot be done quickly. Maybe I just don't feel the need to explain my thoughts on command to anyone or maybe I am just relaxing and trying not to form thoughts that can be shared. Maybe I am thinking things I think you will not find acceptable and because I want to keep you in my life I know not to talk about all my notions. Maybe I don't function like your girlfriend's do so I don't have a bonding token at hand at every or any moment.

The mean little misogynist in me sometimes has contempt for women's packaged emotions. They seem cliché to me sometimes because they are so readily verbalized like little products on a shelf. I am empathetic and sensible enough to abstract myself from my subjectivity long enough to see that women likewise find my approach to emotions lacking because of how not-readily-sharable it is.

What should not be disputed is that we are all human beings and all have thoughts and feelings, all have a heart and soul, and morally equal worth.

As for women "training" their men, For God's sake just treat me with the same respect you feel you deserve and you can expect me to treat you with that same respect.
=sw

Notwithstanding

I am Canadian born so I got a dose of the sarcasm and humor that anglo-saxon roots bring with it. I am ok with joking around. My self confidence stands up under all kinds of teasing. Some people know how to pull off a good dig and can take them back in stride. Though, I am the kind of person who feels there is a line.

There is a kind of immature sarcastic insult that can be endured, tolerated but is eventually nothing more than haranguing or harassment.

When you know you are respected and accepted by your peers, jokes and sarcasm have a context that is truly not painful or insulting. I think as a (one time) Canadian I have a wonderful personality feature called openness. There is a friendly park surrounding my soul, with few to no barriers. One could say there is a symbolic boundary over which people can easily step into my friend-space and interact with my world. Sometimes people misbehave and have to be escorted to the edge of my friend-space and banned or sent on a break. Mostly, though, I am patient, tolerant and accepting. I sincerely desire to know the features of another persons personality and life and to see the good in them. I usually try to have enough respect and decency for others not to attack them personally or place insulting hurtful labels on them.

My goat can be easy to get, it's right over a short wall on my property. I expect people to respect me and what is mine as I offer the same to them. I honestly don't know the proper way to deal with people who don't live by the same social contract. I just want to be treated properly and I agree to do the same for others.

I heard about the Canadian (NATO) forces taking over in Afghanistan. Though soldiers, they intuitively wanted to show restraint against their fellow men. As one of the Canadian soldiers said when interviewed about the first encounter, "We got our noses bloodied". So they recommitted themselves to go after the Taliban tribal fighters and terrorists with full force. They should have known, but at the same time, these are the kind of people they are. Like other Canadians before them in the World Wars, they will get the job done and be on the victorious side.

Occasionally my inherent benefit of the doubt is offered to the wrong kind of person. Perhaps their insecurities clash with my own or they regard my openness as weakness. Maybe they are attracted to the same women, you know, like we are Moose or Elephant Seals in competition.

It doesn't come naturally to me to use a credible threat or even an implied one to deter someone from annoying me. If I am to the point of saying I'll do something, I just might. So I don't go there. All I can do is show my displeasure, state my disagreement. Sometimes that makes it seem like I can no longer be joked with, teased or insulted. That's unfortunate. It's all about the spirit of the thing. It is easy to pick out other's vulnerabilities or fears and play on them. It's just not nice.

I think some of the fittest humans evolved being nice. I think it takes highly adapted intelligence to make love not war.

I don't want a society where violence is the path to respect. That doesn't seem to be in harmony with the rule of law or any other high minded human ideal.

Now, when I speak of haranguing I don't just mean..."Hey Jerk". I am talking about things that amount to possible life-ruining besmirchment of character that in the first place were never true. When these kinds of labels are used even for humor, it can anger and dismay the target of these, greatly reducing happiness. It becomes an honor issue. Just desserts must be eaten, but dishonoring someone makes it gauntlet dropping time.

I still am too nice and Canadian to really stand up in the right way. Another powerful thing to do would be not to dignify insults with a response. I have yet to be secure enough and of a magnitude of character where I can get that done properly either. So I settle with getting pissed off and using a few stern words. That alienates people...I can feel it happen.

There are people around me that I know have heard how annoyed I can get when I was unfairly prodded and insulted. I am sure that they never hear a balanced view. It is clear I cannot interact with some people in the same way I once could, because they heard my character portrayed by the very person who got on my nerves.

I am a grown man and I feel like I am still in junior high.

My achilles heel is that I see bullies as people who are just as insecure and lonely as I sometimes feel. I can't dehumanize them. So I muddle on not handling them exactly right. Oh well, all I can do is be me and hope that others will get to know me instead of just stopping at the insults, labels and the outburst.
=sw