The Number 23, And From the Music Vault XVII: The Beatles

No it’s not a review of that Jim Carrey movie, it’s my age as of this day.  Oh yeah.  I rule.

Alright to the Music Vault [since I didn’t want to waste a post on my own birthday, I want to dedicate this entry to the Beatles.  One of my top 5 musical groups of all time, the Beatles were better than the sum of their parts, and each part was quite formidable by itself.  John, Paul, George, and Ringo, come on what else can I say?  As to my favorite songs, screw it.  All of them, particularly everything from Rubber Soul to Sgt. Peppers.  Most especially Norwegian Wood, I Wanna Hold Your Hand, and And Your Bird Can Sing.

Now here’s one for me:

Innumeracy

I love books.  I love learning new ideas.  I especially love ideas which are new and yet which are immediately relevant to society.  Such ideas exist in John Allen Paulos’s book Innumeracy.  I picked this book up recently at my local Half Priced Bookstore [along with Thus Spake Zarathustra by Nietzsche..woohoo!] and I’ve immediately been draw to this book.  I think the main reason is that I myself am pretty ignorant when it comes to mathematics and numbers [irony I guess since my Dad has a Masters in Math :P] and this book is quite good at showing how ignorance of numbers, statistics, probability and the like can have negative effects on society and how we interpret what people say and understanding what what they say means.

The book makes use of numerous real world scenarios and historical anecdotes to drive home the point about our numerical illiteracy.  Issues such as probability of death show that we’re much more likely to die in a car wreck than by a terrorist attack, yet we live in a constant fear of another “9/11″ while we drive still drive like maniacs, oblivious to the fact that if we really knew the hard facts on the subject we should worry less about terrorism and worry more about driving safely.  In the back of our minds we might no that the car wreck is more likely, but I think some people like to think of their death as an exotic or sexy event, and thus fear the terrorist attack much more than they should.  This book will make you think by presenting quirky nuggets of fact and by providing realistic “what ifs?” as well as examples that have already happened.

Other major topics this book comments on are:

• coincidences and luck
• the consequences associated with innumeracy and thus belief in pseudoscientific topics such as tarot cards and crystal balls
• our lack of ability to grasp the scale of large numbers [such as saying:  "Oh throw a million or a billion at the issue, as long as we get results"] 
• how numbers effect us in our daily lives [economics, budgets, stocks, averages in sports, insurance probabilities, etc.]
• How lack of numerical knowledge can lead to anxiety because of inability to grasp what is being said by statistics or probabilities

I’m still reading but will list five math and number misconceptions Paulos lists in the foreword of the book which I think are relevant:

1. Math is nothing more than computation
2. Math is a hierachical subject [First comes arithmetic, Next comes Algebra, Then Calculus...]
3. Math and narration are not unrelated activities [storytelling can be as effective in math as in other domains]
4. Math is for the few
5. Math numbs us or limits our freedom

This book certainly will make your brain cogs spin.  I like books like this because they put me on a edge a bit, make me reexamine things, make me take a look at myself and my own faults.  I myself am not great with numbers I will admit, but I endeavor to understand them.  And I can balance my checkbook so hah!

The History Boys

I saw this movie recently and thought it quite excellent.  It’s one of those films that is reliant on ideas and witty dialogue which some people might find tedious due to the lack of explosions and CGI but I found it quite charming and also thought it quite interesting because of it’s portrayal of the study of history and the idea of truth [it's also British RenegadeofPhunk!] .  This movie also is interesting to me because it provides a view of homosexuality which isn’t seen in American film, namely where homosexuality is not automatically something to be ashamed of.  The movie has several gay characters or characters who are questioning and I find it refreshing to see a movie that shows the issue realistically and as something normal, not an abnormal thing to be cured.  Anyway here’s a link to a scene I quite like where the students and their teachers are discussing the Holocaust, and how it should be portrayed or described by historians:

The movie has also made me reflect on myself and how good of a historian I might be.  The issue of detachment from the subject at hand and being able to not look back in a Presentistic way is something I believe I will be quite good at [when it comes to most historical topics].  Often times when pondering the ideas now usually held to be evil or barbaric [such as antisemitism, Social Darwinism, xenophobia and the like] I often times scare myself that I can [almost] get into the frame of mind where those ideas are correct.   This is good I think because I don’t believe I’ll be overtly unfair to one side or the other, but I also wonder if it’s a flaw in my character to so easily be able to slip into different worldviews.  I wonder if the lack of a moral compass which always points the same way is good thing. 

I find myself with few life rules.  About the only one I hold is “Don’t be rude”.  I’ve found that to do me fairly well, but am not sure it will provide me with enough boundaries in life.  But my ability to detach is amazing I find.  Even when describing myself [such as my "Vigorous Self-Criticism" page] I think I’ve done a decent job of knowing myself.  I spent many years in introspection and I believe I’ve honed my ability to detach and look inward or on any subject unemotionally to a very good point.

Is the US Constitution outdated?

Sacrilege you say?  Zack questioning the US Constitution?  Surely not.  But I will in at least one respect.  The US Constitution sets age minimums in order to hold various offices.  They stand at such:

• Representative=25 years (Article One)
• Senator=30 years (Article One)
• President=35 years (Article Two)

The reason that I think that the US Constitution is becoming outdated in one respect is that these age limits are outdated.  When the Constitution was written in 1787 the average lifespan of a person was probably 30-40 years.  In effect people couldn’t become government representatives till the twilight of their lives.  At that age term limits didn’t really matter because a person probably wasn’t going to live through many terms.  Maybe 10 years in office, perhaps 20 [if lucky] and then death right?  But today, people serve for literally decades.

One matter that can be stricken off the list is Presidency, because of an Amendment that limited terms to two [after FDR was elected to four terms].  Previously it had been tradition for Presidents to serve only two terms [based on Washington's example], so the Presidency really doesn’t matter for the point I want to make.

The point I wish to make deals with Congressional seats.  Today the average life span in America is heading towards 80 years, and has already reached it for women.  There are no term limits for these positions, and with reelection of encumbents almost certain [90%+ average I'm sure] these Senators and Representatives basically can hold these seats till death.  That they don’t usually is because they are aiming for a higher position [such as a Senate seat or Governorship which is a springboard for the Presidency].  However there are some positions which are basically the pinnacle of the US government.  These seats are usually in the Senate.  Senators once in the seat can serve basically till their deaths as long as they don’t do something incredibly stupid to lose their seats.  As evidence look at Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy, or Strom Thurmond of SC [who served till he was 99].  These men can serve till they die [and with top of the line medical care they could live a very long time indeed!].  And my question is…should there be term limits on the US legislature seats? 

I think yes.  Not something terrible like two, but something like five terms.  5 Senate terms would be 30 years of service.  If a Senator can’t get their fill of power and public service in 30 years they either aren’t doing their jobs or they shouldn’t be their in the first place.  Frankly I think our “senior” legislature need an infusion of new blood, which can only be brought about by removing some Senators form office [unless you want to expand the size of the Senate to say 4 for each state].

As to the House I would say 15 terms.  That’s 30 years as well.  Might as well be fair.  The House has more turnover than the Senate, but still I think those longstanding members should either be forced to move upward to the Senate or to another job after 30 years.  Too much time in the same job leads to complacency, and few are able to resist.  And it’s not like all that experience is necessarily better.  My guess is that after a few terms the Senators start to lose touch with their fellow men [not that they weren't already, as rich people tend to serve LOL].  Under my system there would always be experienced people, but also new people coming in with new ideas.

[I don't even want to talk about increasing the size of the US Congress...which is sorely needed].

Movie Questions V: If the movie was just a bit longer…

Usually the episodes in my movie question series deal with a specific movie and a specific part of that movie, but this time I just want to give out some food for thought.  What if movies were just a bit longer?  What if instead of ending on the high note they went just a bit longer, to a point when the characters come tumbling back to reality and the happy ending is shown to really be a plateau before the inevitable crashing back to earth. 

As an example think of V for Vendetta.  V has just toppled the government and blown up Parliment.  Happy ending, overthrow of government, things are going to go well right?  Well imagine if the movie went another 10 minutes…you got all these disciplines of V, and the leader is gone…what now?  Sounds like a power vacuum to me.  What’s going to happen?  My guess is that the crap is going to hit the fan when people all start doing whatever they want due to the lack of the Norsefire structure to control people.  The one rallying point for a new government went and blew himself up…so who was going to be to lead a new government?  One of the leftover Norsefire guys?  A new man?  Seems like a fragile place to leave a populace V.  Good job there buddy. 

Another example.  Happy Gilmore.  Fun movie…he’s just won theTour Championship, he got the girl, his grandma got her house back, he’s on good terms with his vagabond caddie, Shooter McGavin shown to be a total douche bag.  What could go wrong?  Oh yeah…this is an violent man prone toward fits of anger who is proud [PROUD!] of the fact that he took off his ice skate and tried to stab someone!!!!   Anyone else thinking this guy isn’t exactly a well balanced human being?  What do you see in his future swammi…I see domestic battery.  I see assault.  I see DUIs and neglect of his elderly relative.  I see civil lawsuits and criminal trials.  I see fistfights which land him in prison making him a homeless man’s Mike Tyson. . .  

See what I’m getting at folks?  Extend the movies a bit and you don’t have the fantasy, you have all too much our reality.  So anyone out there got any movies they think would be good for this type of treatment?

*Also of note…if you think it’s coincidence that this is the 5th movie question article and I used V for Vendetta as an example you don’t realize that I think of everything when writing this blog.  I was totally all over that link before I ever posted this thing.  That’s right…I rule.

[This post better attract such filmophiles as cinepro and silentkid]

Thoughts on Survivalism/Disaster Preparedness

Lately I’ve been hanging out at www.zombiehunters.org, a tongue in cheek joke but still a [semi]serious website which makes some good points about life preparedness using the hook of a zombie epidemic [not to mention that some people like to talk about guns...and the best thing guns are used for is to waste the undead, or as the Zombie Squaders would say, make dead things deader].

The basic issues that are talked about usually can be boiled down to individual preparedness and individual resourcefulness in case of anything that might alter our current way of life.  Things such as self sufficiency in food and water, finding independent forms of power so that you aren’t forced to rely completely on “the grid” and other forms of behavior that could be useful in case of societal breakdown or unrest usually fall into this issue.

Originally I got interested in this issue when I was hanging out on Mormon message boards.  The Mormons [among their other fun pastimes] are sort of the original disaster prepared folks because they’ve always been into food storage [which was more about the coming Latter Days, but also doubles as good advice in case of some sort of disaster!].  So anyway, here’s why I think preparedness  and survivalistic behavior can be useful.

1) Disaster…the zombie issue is obviously a fun way to get you thinking, but the possibility of disaster is possible.  Perhaps not some world disaster or national disaster that leads to the breakdown of society, but what about a local disaster?  Katrina?  Flooding in Iowa?  Earthquakes?  Rolling blackouts?  I basics of being prepared usually means having some common sense stuff in case you’re left to fend for yourself for a few days.  A bare minimum of say 5 days worth of food and water that could keep you from panicking while the government gets their crap together could be very useful right?

2) A fundamental behavior change from excess to conservative use of goods…I think this is number one for me.  The odds of a zombie outbreak or a worldwide breakdown in civilization is pretty nil…but learning behavior which encourages financial frugalness and the smart use of resources is behavior I’d like to see.  Not only is could it prove useful to have some extra supplies [both material and financial] sitting around it’s good life planning.  The idea that you’re going to salt away say 5% minimum of every paycheck could prove the difference between a solid retirement and working till you die.  This is something everyone can do as well…

3) Financial problems…say you lose your job and have to be unemployed for a couple months.  Wouldn’t it be a bit easier to survive if you have a few extra cans of beans in the pantry.  You might grow tired of eating food staples, but it would certainly remove one issue from your mind.  When you can check food off your worries list you are getting rid of a major issue.  Also being moderate in your spending during the good times and saving a bit here and there could be useful in a very real sense.

I also like the site because they like to “what if?” stuff [always good times].  I also like zombie movies and disaster movies in general, and I’m also just a generally cautious and far thinking type of guy.  I have learned to enjoy the moment, but not to the exclusion of providing for myself in the future.

Movie Questions IV: That weird scene in The Shining

Well there’s a lot of weird stuff going on in the Shining, but the thing I’ve always wondered about is this scene:

WTF?  I never could figure out this scene.  Rob Ager gave it a shot and said that it has something to do with the systematic oppression of Native American theme that’s all through The Shining….but I still don’t know what a bear performing fellatio has to do with Indian Oppression.  It’s a quality 10/10 on the movie question unanswerability scale.  Most people probably will just shake their heads and say “it’s Kubrick and King, they’re both wackos.  Geniuses, but wackos.  They could have a gorilla farting on an orangutan and it would be hailed as genius in some circles”.  Actually most people will never think anything about it cause they won’t stumble across this blog, and they’ll be poorer for it.  Those lame-os.

*Also about the Shining, did anyone else not think that Jack Nicholson would have been [partly] justified if he brutally murdered that wet blanket Shelley Duvall?  I mean is there any jury in the world that doesn’t let him get off on a “temporary insanity” *wink wink* defense?  Her character is without a doubt the most shrill irriating exasperating woman to be put on film since Adrian told Rocky to not box Apollo in Rocky II.  Seriously.  No wonder he drank and talked to the hotel.  And it wasn’t like the hotel exactly had to twist his arm to go for the axe….just saying.  She was sorta culpable right?  The kid would have been a tragedy, the mom, partially justifiable.

[God I'm going to burn in hell for this post...seriously folks I'm just kidding.  I'm just spitballing here.  I don't advocate the murder of Shelley Duvall.  It's just a movie and a book.  And in the book nobody gets killed except for the Jack Nicholson character...and he doesn't even use an axe.  He uses a croquet mallet...are you distracted yet?  Please leave on that note.]

Things I Hate III: Mistaking Roman Names

Well I don’t really hate this issue, just that it irks me.  This is problem largely comes about due to Shakespeare is my guess.  He called a Roman general named Gaius Julius Caesar, Julius Caesar.  Calling him this isn’t incorrect, but it’s not as correct as calling him Gaius Julius Caesar, his full name.  Let me explain:

Roman nobility was based on this triple name…the praenomen, the nomen, and the cognomen.  Some people also had other names besides the three, but I’ll leave that aside for a moment.

Gaius was his praenomen, basically equivalent to the given name in modern society.  As an equivalent my praenomen would be Zack.  There were very few praenomen in Roman society, around 40.  And about 17 accounted for 90%+ of the Roman names.  And if you want to get technical 3 Names probably covered 50%+ of the Roman praenomen, those names being Marcus Gaius and Lucius.  This was partly based on two things, Romans were more focused on the family, and not so much family individuals, and also because fathers tended to name children after themselves, leading to the same names being used in families over and over again.

The most important name in a Roman name was the nomen, that is the 2nd name.  Julius was Gaius Julius Caesar’s nomen.  It showed to which family he belonged.  The family was most important in Roman society so this name was most important. 

Caesar was a cognomen.  Cognomen were names added to families to divide families into branches.  Some families had numerous branches, and some had one or two.  And some families eventually used cognomen simply as tradition or to appear more “noble”.  The cognomen was an interesting thing in Roman society.  It often could be a joke or could be a descriptor.  A example would be the cognomen “Albinus” which meant blonde hair.  The cognomen “Nero” often meant black hair”.  The cognomen “Caesar” meant….well translations are different but most ususally mean either thick hair, a fine head of hair, etc.  Basically they’re saying the Julius family had alot of hair [which is totally ironic cause the famous Gaius Julius Caesar was fairly bald]. 

So that’s my Roman history lesson for the day.  I should also probably comment on the naming conventions of women in Roman society…but I’ll do that later unless anyone asks about it specifically.

There Will Be Blood and No Country For Old Men

I watched this double feature recently, and both of these movies are excellent in my opinion.  There Will Be Blood is more driven by the captivating performance of Daniel Day Lewis [a favorite actor of mine, particularly in Last of the Mohicans and Gangs of New York]  while No Country for Old Men is driven more by the ensemble cast and the plot, but the movies seem very similar to me.  They are both dark with no clear resolution, they have protagonists who aren’t really heros.  They both are cynical and take a look at the darker underbelly of society.  They both show alot of underhanded behavior based in greed.  And they’re both excellent movies. 

In my opinion Blood is slightly better, but Old Men is better made.  The atmosphere in Old Men is absolutely amazing while being understated with it’s often absent music and sound, while Blood tends to be propelled by it’s frantic and playful score.   Blood has more pace to it, while Old Men’s pacing is stagnant at best and at a standstill at worst.  And yet, and yet…it’s still a compelling film.  If nothing else that weapon that Chigur uses is worth the price of admission.  The characters are real as well.  No superhero characters.  Most of the characters are just Schmoes trying to do their best.  And the best is obviously being made up on the fly half the time.  Good movie.  Realistic.

There Will Be Blood I liked mainly on the performance of Daniel Day Lewis and the fact that it’s a historical piece which I usually am a sap for.  There probably is also a message in their about oil and that killing happens over it here and abroad.  Need to get Rob Ager on that.

Man I’ve been watching too many movies lately.  And writing about the movies as well.  I also have seen American Psycho recently.  That movie is screwed up.

People Like Me

Recently while emailing with Gigi [who runs the blog www.gigidiaz.wordpress.com] she expressed her frustrations at the lack of what I would call “depth” in the people she knows.  I know exactly what she means.  Or so I think, because I’ve often found myself dealing with this same thought.  I have all this stuff running threw me, anger and irritations and angst and often times lust and joy and I wonder if people out there in the world are the same as me, or if they only have a couple of emotions, “aight” and “good”.  When I ask most people how they’re doing they say either “I’m alright” or “I’m good”.  You know what I mean don’t you folks? 

I myself have been foolish enough to say something besides these template answers, and I ususually just get stares like “who is this psycho?”  I mean am I the weirdo, or are they the weirdos?  Do I have too much depth or don’t they have enough?  Or do they have depth but they don’t want to show it because they’ve bought into the foolish notion that “I’m good” and “I’m alright” are the only correct answers? 

Despite the saying that some people where their emotions on their sleeves…I haven’t seen any lately.  Maybe I’m not looking hard enough, but it’s a weird place to be in.  Despite my ability to ask people for their opinions, how do I know what they’re saying is true?  Is this me being cynical?  This is the hardest thing about being an individual, all I have to go on is my own perception.  Harder still is trying to gain self perception.

I perceive myself as a layered person, someone who thinks about numerous things, trying to look at the surface of the matter and try to peak between the sheets as well.  Interested in many things, interested in my own layers, looking within myself trying to figure out what the layers are, identify them, figure out my character, and trying to be realistic about it.  I’m a flawed person, that’s for sure, and I do my best to know my flaws and try to overcome them.  Honesty within one’s own mind is a difficult thing to attain, without no one to keep an eye on me except, well me.  ALright I’m rambling~I actually wanted to write about the emotion of love itself, but instead can’t because I’m not really sure what love is.  Despite all the words and musical notes wasted trying to encompass love, I still haven’t seen an agreed upon definition.  And is there a difference between loving someone and being in love?  Can one love multiple people at once (and I mean in a social sense, not love mom and dad and Aunt Judy sense)?  These things I ponder, and yet have not reached answers.

From The Music Vault XVI: The Doors

Leaving aside the issue that Jim Morrison was a total wacko [hello "Lizard King"?] the doors were an excellent band.  They were blessed and cursed to be fronted by such a “character” as Morrison.  When he wasn’t exposing himself and being wierd he still found time to sing and write some amazing songs.  Hmm…best songs:  Light My Fire, Break on Through, Love Her Madly, LA Woman, Roadhouse Blues, People are Strange, Hello I Love You, Riders on the Storm etc etc etc.  I like this song as well:  “Touch Me”:

Super Troopers and Beerfest

I recently saw Beerfest again, and can I just say that the Broken Lizard comedy troupe is excellent.  Sure they’re not top flight comedians, but they’re decent comedic writers and they make funny movies.  Not overly long, hilarious slapstick [which is rare, most slapstick is just retarded], funny site gags and gross out humor.  Just funny movies [with interesting premises which can relate to the common people.  I mean who hasn't had to deal with cops and who doesn't think beer is funny?].  The snozberries taste like snozberries!

The Worst thing about having a Myspace page…

Can’t sleep, time to blog it out right?  The worst thing about having a myspace page was logging on and having the status say “single”.  God I hated that.  Name, age, and single.  Man that sucked.  And it happened every time I logged on.  I have no luck with the fairer sex.  Not sure why…maybe I’m just too withdrawn.  Maybe I’m bad at making first moves.  Maybe I suck.  Either way, I yearned to have that say “in a relationship” but never was so.  Oh well.  Now I don’t have a myspace page so there!  Take that myspace!

Just me being bitter at 4 40 in the AM.

Minimizing the bad in life associations

I wrote this on my “quitting a message board” page, but thought it deserved it’s own post in case no one reads that [I will of course ignore the fact that no one will probably read this either :P]:

Hmm…lately I think my problem has been that the board isn’t fun anymore.  I think that’s my main reason for wanting to quit.  When I first logged on it was fun, now it’s just alot of sniping at people.  I guess this tends to happen when you build up history, history of enemies and debates and insults that people don’t forget.  Myself included of course.  But I think my main issue is that it’s just not fun anymore.  It’s drama.

And that’s not what I want.  I want to look forward to logging on somewhere for a laugh, I want to escape from my daily grind, not exacerbate it with alot of rude behavior and general rubbish [which of course I add on too sometimes, no doubt about it].  When reading a message board [or dealing with something that is a grind in general, tough job, people, whatever] you have to cut your losses a bit.  It’s just that life is difficult enough when you don’t go stepping out of your way in landmines.  It’s just not worth it.  Sure there are great people, but are they worth the aggrevation brought about by a few irritants?  Lately I’ve been thinking…not so much.  And this sort of philosophy could be extended to all of lifes little episodes.  If things are bad why go through them unless you have to?  I mean some things are necessary, but you can choose who you associate with.

Marriages can be founded in Religion?

Caveats: I’m not married, not religious.  These are just some thoughts.  Take them with that grain of salt.

For the past few years I’ve read several message boards and something that’s constantly coming us is people who lose religious faith, and wake up to the realization that they have nothing in common with their spouse.  They married when both believed the same thing, and when one changes belief, it fundamentally changes the relationship.  The reason is that people believe marriages can be built solely on the issue of shared religion.  Which I guess is true as long as they belief the same.  Because religion provides social networking opportunities and spiritual fulfillment [for some] and also if two people believe they can get through the tough times because they’re married “in the gospel”. 

This all changes though if one of the spouses changes belief.  The apostate spouse often wakes up to learn that they have nothing in common with their spouse.  They love their spouse, but don’t like their spouse.  They aren’t as compatible with their spouse as they might be with some other person.  Things go downhill, as both realize they don’t have much in common except that they went to the same church.  The change in belief can also lead to changes in political, social, and moral views.  Leading to a radical personality change.  Leading to either an unhappy marriage [for the kids of course] or divorce.

Some can make it through [as evidenced by some of the people who battle on in difficult marriages, but they sacrificed the chance to search for personal compatability in favor of going with the person they're going with.  Part of this is the issue that young people want to have sex, and marriage is the only place where sex is acceptable.  So young horny people marry whomever so they can get it on.  But once those passions are fulfilled and children start to arrive, what do they have in common?  Often times not enough. 

Marriages within religion that lack anything beyond the most basic compatibility issues [hey you're a woman, I'm a dude, we're young and we go to that Church, lets get married and get freaky] are like building brick houses without mortar.  Sure it’s fairly solid, but there’s no mortar to fill in the cracks.  And if you look closely, you realize that the bricks move about and cause friction within the house.  Subtle movements, but ever so slowly they shift until they collapse.  Why?  Because relationships can’t be built on one issue.  You need numerous levels of compatability.  Both in case of changing opinions, but also fall back positions in case of arguments.  You have to have common ground to fall back on.  Alright…so you disagree about religion and GOd…but perhaps you like the same books and movies and you like talking to each other and you like to both go dancing etc etc.  Find more compatability folks.

The Downfall of the Roman Republic

I’ve been reading the Masters of Rome series by Colleen McCullough recently, and was also asked in an email [by sailgirl] what I think led to the downfall of the Roman Republic.  Here’s what I think:

1) The Roman Empire had become too big to be managed by a small Senate.  The system was set up to govern a small city state and perhaps the surrounding area, but the system was too rigid to allow for the flexibility needed when the Senate woke up and realized they had a world empire.  Eventually the inefficient system led dynamic characters such as Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Caesar and Octavian to cut thrown the political red tape and do things autocratically.  This led to efficiency because these men were extrodinary organizers and political/military actors.  It didn’t work eventually because the dynastic nature of the Emperor meant that less able men came to power eventually because of their families, rather than their iniate ability.

2) The Roman Empire was fueled by conquest.  Conquest means military might.  Eventually the military leaders stopped working through normal governmental and legislative channels and started taking over the government with their armies.  This led to numerous Civil Wars [almost constant Civil War if you want the truth from 90 BC with Marius/Sulla to 30 BC when Octavian consolidated power after finally defeating Antony].  This is the primary reason I guess.   Autocratic military leaders simply took power away from the few who held it.  Power was consolidated by Civil Wars into fewer and fewer hands till one person held it.

3) The Roman society in general.  The client-patron relationship was extremely important to Roman society and largely impacted society because it kept people from acting in the way they thought they wanted.  The system existed such that clients did the bidding [particularly in the manner of voting] of the patrons, and at the top of this system were a few men who basically controlled the government [the same men who were the rich political people.  The whole system was about continuing power in the hands of the same families].  Conflict between the old families and “New Men” (novus homo) brought about continual conflict within society.  The general system of unrest between the orders [first it was patrician vs plebian, but later it was simply the old rich nobles vs the new rich men such as Marius] created an atmosphere where people could take power through violence. 

4) The army system changed.  Starting with Gaius Marius armies were recruited from the poor Romans[proletariat or capite censi~"head count"].  Previously armies had been recruited only from landowners who had enough wealth to provide for their own equipment.  The bringing of poor Romans into the army meant that the soldiers became dependent on their general for money [bonuses and loot] rather than the State.  In effect armies no longer existed as Roman armies, but as the private armies of their general.  Again the client patron system existed where the general undertook to provide for his armies [such as money and land] in exchange for voting support and military support when it came to it.  This fostered the system where men could take over the government, because his soldiers weren’t fighting for Rome anymore they were fighting for their general’s prestige and political survival and also for their own monetary compensation.

Me and God

I’m largely an apatheist, that is the issue of God doesn’t matter to me.  And I believe this to be true by and large, except when I try to articulate on the issue, then I’m an atheist I guess.  But largely I’m apathetic to the issue.

The issue doesn’t matter to me because God has disappeared from my life.  When you want to make God an issue he becomes an issue, but if you don’t actively make him a part of your life he will evaporate a bit at a time.  This has been my experience.  When you’re going to Church and praying and reading scriptures you are adding water to your God-bucket.  But if you stop, the water just sits there.  In time the level will go down.  Go enough time without putting any water into your God bucket and it will go dry.  Enough dry time and you start to forget what the water tasted like.  That’s my experience. 

Of course you’re not reliant on that water for living.  There are numerous other buckets you can drink from.  You can drink from the friends bucket and the job bucket and the books bucket and the movie and art and pet buckets.  All quinch the thirst we as humans have for activity, knowledge, contentment.  All allow us to pass the time, bring us quality, all us to keep going and growing as humans and as people.  None are essential I don’t guess, but all bring what you put into them.  If you go looking for high quality friends you will have high quality nourishment from them.  You read good books and watch good movies and get good exercise and so and so forth all adds quality to your life.  Ultimately God water is optional.  If it works for you, metabolizes the right way then that’s great.  If not, well keep looking for nourishment that fulfills you.

Hmm…71 entries

Guess it’s time for a  break.  I’ll be back in a few weeks [or a few hours depending on my mood.  I tend to do stupid stuff when I post entries at 4 30 in the AM].

Not that anyone cares right?

*Crickets churping*

Cloverfield…The Crappening

[note: this movie experience was free, so I thought I'd give it a shot]

I watched some of Cloverfield tonight.  I say some because it sucked and I didn’t feel like watching the whole thing.  If there was a good ending I didn’t see it.  If there was some deeper meaning to this film I didn’t notice it, because I was too  busy trying not to vomit at the shaky camera work! This movie, sucked.  The characters all sucked and I felt myself hoping they would die immediately.  I felt no sympathy for them nor worried about them because they all struck me as the moronic partygoing preppies who I hate in real life, and who I hate doubly in film because they are even more one dimensional and wooden than the morons I meet it real life. 

I couldn’t follow the plot, was there a plot?  I couldn’t follow what was going on, the camera work was crappy at best and Jason Bourne-esque at it’s worst.  God I hope the monster ate them all.  Was there a monster or was it like Blair Witch where they end up standing in the corner in time out?  God movies nowadays…

The camera work should be mentioned again…I’m sure there are critics who will swoon at the fact that the camera work is amateur and irratic [read: edgy and original] but I didn’t like it.  If I want to deal with amateur camera work I’ll watch idiots on youtube doing the Strikeout from Beerfest.

 Also…when did movies get so short?  85 minutes?  Goodness.  Are we getting so ADD as a society that a movie can’t even last 90 minutes anymore?  Yeesh.  The movies get shorter and the prices get higher.  Soon I’ll be watching hour long movies for 10 bucks. 

I didn’t even see The Crappening, err…the Happening rec.  It sucked I’m sure.  The plants did it?  OMG that’s lame.  I knew it would suck without seeing it because it’s an M. Night Schamamalalalalamamamyan film, and his films have gone steadily downhill.  Sixth Sense (1999)?  9.5/10. Unbreakable (2000)? 7.6/10 [imho this movie was decent].  Signs (2002) 6.5/10 [despite the fact that the aliens are allergic to WATER, which is 2/3 of this planet's makeup], The Village 4/10 (2004), and Lady in the Water (2006) was 0/10 [and included that same annoying girl as in The Village] so I figure The Happening must have been -4/10 or something like that.

Christianity: Anti-Knowledge? Anti-Learning?

Religion is supposedly about finding God’s message, inner peace, and some greater knowledge of the spiritual world and the afterlife. Yet the very Bible preaches against the learning the truth. Knowledge and education is the very downfall of man according to the Bible. And I would summit that learning and becoming educated is very low priority in all religions. To start:

Genesis 2:17 states: “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

The key part is the “tree of knowledge”. All knowledge leads to both good and evil because from knowledge one gains information (the good) and evil (the knowledge may not be what is expected, the information may lead to a belief being smashed, the information creating a new way of thinking) and because knowledge is something to be kept only to special people. Knowledge is power, and if everyone has access to all the information, everyone is equal.

Which leads to religion. Religion is about control and obiedience. Control by people who are more learned (the preacher) and obiedience to the knowledge and authority that comes from being in “the know”. Knowledge has always been held sacred, and keeping the knowledge away from everyone else has always been important. Ancient priests would have been put out of business if everyone had the secrets of the Gods, but by holding the secrets about how to do rituals and read and write (priests also were some of the only writers in dark periods of history such as the European Dark Ages) the priests had power. Priests with writing skills and ritualistic power had religious power (rituals, offerings, priestly skills), economic power (wills, economic records, money controlled by churches etc), political power (religious power was political power, knowledge of the gods, middleman between Kings and Gods), and social power (ability to control people by being the middleman between God and the people).  All of these forms of power can only be continued if the knowledge the priests hold is kept secret from the majority.  If people learn the secrets of the Gods the priests become expendable. 

Most religious figures still hold several (if not all) of these controll mechanisms today. The Pope still holds significiant social power (control of Catholics on birth control, etc) religious power (still the Vicar of God, head of church), political power (religion via the social positions it supports drives how many vote and the Pope is head of a State, the Vatican City) and economic power (churches that have significant economic resources have alot of power, history of economic power in the Catholic Church in Europe). And the reason he has these things? Because at the beginning of all of Christianity, the leaders claimed to have knowledge that others didn’t, and they still have knowledge because they are God’s anointed.Gaining knowledge is unwanted by religious leaders because knowledge can cast doubts on the belief in the religion (doctrinal changes, history, science) and because knowledge can show in the infallibility of the church, and thus the infallibility of God.  Knowledge about natural history can show that some things taught by Christianity as fact [a literal world flood, the Earth is 6-7000 years old etc etc] simply aren’t true.  Knowledge about history can show how the Bible has come to be, not as a single edition book but as a book written and rewritten in numerous languages, not to mention with certain books added and retracted depending on who the editor was.  And on and on and on.  Not to mention the history of various Churches themselves which have led to numerous deaths, wars, violence, and destruction.  Most people are ignorant of any historical indiscretions by a religion, and yet they’re members.

For hundreds of years the knowledge was kept away from the people in the Catholic Church. It was about controlling the people, because by keeping the peasants ignorant the priests were (and knew) the only way to heaven. Another control mechanism. Today we can read and write and research, and yet many (and I believe the majority) of religious people don’t have any real knowledge of their religion. People say their Christian or Catholic or Baptist or whatever, but if asked couldn’t explain church history, church doctrine or anything of real consequence about their religion that wasn’t told to them by a church authority. Why? Because people are willing to be controlled by their church leaders and are I believe encouraged to be ignorant about their religion and its history. I don’t know how anyone can be a member of a religion, considering the acts that all churches have done.

Doctrine? The Bible currently to this day says to kill the homosexuals and adulters (Leviticus Chp 20) among tons of other violent themes. The Koran has several violent themes. All texts preach violence in one hand, then turn around and have another message. Yet the average religious person has no knowledge of their scriptures or the things their buying into by being in a religion. Why? They don’t want to become educated and because learning is discouraged.

Runaway Jury: Book vs Movie

I loved Runaway Jury the book, I hated Runaway Jury the movie.  Here’s why:

1) The book was focused on a tobacco case, the movie on a gun case.  I’m POed that they didn’t go with the tobacco issue.  Tobacco kills hundreds of thousands a year in America via lung cancer/heart disease/etc.  Guns kill thousands a year.  I’m not too good at math but I think hundreds of thousands is a few more than thousands a year.  Why not make the movie about tobacco?  I mean tobacco is already a bad guy so why didn’t they just beat up on it a bit more?  Yeesh this issue in the movie really irritated me.  Of course I think it’s all about…

2) The change in the motivation of the main characters.  In the book they’re trying to stick it to Tobacco because the mother of the girl died of lung cancer, which she did through her own personal choice of smoking.  That’s it.  Revenge and they wanted to make a big ole chunk of money.  For themselves.  Sound kinda greedy?  It is.  IN the movie they changed it to revenge in order to provide for a  bankrupt town that had been the victim of a school shooting and then lost a legal case about it.  The gun angle is alot more sympathetic because it includes gun deaths [of youths], school shootings, and a bankrupt town made righteous again.  In the book it’s all about private revenge with a side of enriching themselves through a gigantic cherade.  In the book they are certainly antihero-esque, while in the movie they are righteous dogooders.

3) The change in which jurors go or stay.  The book is about showing that the protagonists created a jury that would follow Nicholas Easter [Gary Cusack].  The whole point was to get rid of any people who might make waves or be alternative leaders.  In the movie they don’t get rid of the provactive leader characters [particularly the former miltary guy, who is a Colonel in the book but a Seargeant in the movie] so that their is conflict over the verdict.  In the movie it’s hard to think that Easter can lead such a conflicted group to a verdict as easily as he does.  In the book its easy to see because he picks a bunch of sheep rather than thinkers for the jury.

4) The change in the character of the plaintiff.  In the book and movie the defence team is bad and corrupt and all about being underhanded.  In the movie the plaintiff [Dustin Hoffman] is about being honest. Yet in the movie they attempt to bribe a juror via her boyfriend.  So this move to clean up the image of the winner seems to be going down the same path as the motivation of the protagonist couple.  By cleaning up their general behavior they become more likable, rather than the book form where everyone is a little shifty character and behavior wise.

At the end of the day the movie is alright, but the book [like most books] is better and I think is a more accurate portrayal of society [where everyone is perfect and where people do stuff for personal revenge and money as much as they might do it for some cause like helping a hometown].  This book is also the last good legal thriller John Grisham wrote [imho] before he started pumping out crap, so to see it made into a radically different movie really irritates me.

A movie/comedy website shoutout

www.the-editing-room.com

I want to give a shoutout to The Editing Room.com.  I’ve found it’s movie rewrites/edits to be hilarious.  Thought you, my loyal readership [especially silentkid who is an excellent movie reviewer in his own right] would like a link to another interesting site.

 *Yes this is me throwing a bone out in lue of a real post.  Cut me some slack.  I’m tired and I wanna go home.  I’m tired and I wanna go to bed.  I had a little drink about an hour ago…

RIP George Carlin

HBO is running a marathon of George Carlin specials at the moment, and I’m still in shock he passed away.  He’s probably my favorite stand up comedian [and the best rant comic ever].  Even though I disagreed with him for most of my life [me being a theist and him being a stone cold atheist]  he certainly made me think, and isn’t that what good social comedians do?  Make you think?  Anyway he had a long career and hopefully he made a few people change their minds.  Here’s a fave video of Carlin:

Thoughts on the Constantly Splintering ExMormon Movement

I’ve been watching what I’d call an “exmormon movement” happening on the Internet for the last few years, and just wanted to jot down my thoughts and opinions as to what is going on and why it’s happening.

In my opinion the transition from Mormon to Exmormon is one of moving rapidly from one absolute position to another position which stands as a complete opposite to the position held when Mormon.  Here are a few examples: group think to passionate individuality, theist to atheist, teetotaler to alcohol consumer etc. What I want to focus on the most though is the issue of moving from group thinking toward individual thinking.  It appears to me that exmormons are passionate about defending their individual space and rights and newly found code of ethics because of offenses to their individuality suffered as Mormons.   What I want to focus on is the issue of individuality and how it effects exmormons as they leave the LDS Church.

A swing can be noticed is a general movement from group think to passionate individualism.  Mormonism [I think most would agree] is a culture which strives for conformity.  What I’ve noticed about exmormons is that they are passionate about expressing their individuality.  This phenomenon [particularly on the Internet] can best be seen by the splintering exmormon movement.  For every exmormon you can just about find a unique set of beliefs and each will define themselves differently.  Exmormon, Antimormon, New Order Mormon, Cafeteria Mormon, Post Mormon, etc etc etc.   Groups of people who have something in common, leaving the Mormon church, but who upon leaving find themselves disagreeing with exmormons about how to proceed after leaving the Church.  Exmormons find themselves out and about, untethered to any moral system and thus go about finding something new or creating a new life view.

Mormon culture is best marked by comformity and following the status quo, and in my opinion exmormons first and foremost want to break out of those issues of following rules and Mormon cultural mores.  For example look at how many exmormons [on large boards such as Recovery from Mormonism] revel in alcohol consumption [to the point of weekly threads celebrating the fact.] I think this behavior is as much about offending things they formerly held sacred [perhaps in an attempt to break out of the group think they had previously participated in] as much as it is about knocking back a few cold ones.

Beyond that look at exmormon activity on the Internet.  It is all about staking out individual space and protecting turf.  Take a look at message boards alone.  Boards for debate, boards for recovery from Mormonism, boards for post mormons, boards for new order mormons who want to  find some new way within the Church.  And the exmormons who appear on these boards argue with each other over how to define the newly ex-church members, how to treat the church, etc etc etc.  Members who are passionately anti everything Mormon.  People who want to build bridges.  People who want to convert Mormons.  People who want to rant about Mormons.  People who want to talk about everything except Mormonism, but with people who are exmormons.  On and on and on and on.  Once again splintering off from each other as they split themselves away from the Mormon Church.  Not everyone is unique, and people will find people like themselves who hold roughly the same believes and feelings toward the Mormon church and also the world at large.

Note from feedback: I think exmormons want to protect and stake out their individuality doubly because mormons refuse to recognize their individuality.  Mormons are more likely to lump exmormons together simply as people who want to attack the church [or people who left the Church in order to sin].  They don’t want to recognize that exmormons are not a homogenous group who think and feel the same but are individuals who leave the church for different reasons and define themselves differently from other exmormons.  Thus exmormons are doubly moved to stake out their little patch of individuality due to the stigma they feel as exmormons from mormons.

 

Can VH1 not wait…

Jeez.  I’m a fan of vh1’s “We Love the…” series as much as anyone but they’ve gone too far.  They’ve started the 2000’s and we aren’t even out of the decade!  WTF?  Man…they did every decade [several times] and now they can’t even wait two more years for the decade to end?  This is insanity.  *cue the twilight zone music*

Things that were created just to irritate God I: The Encyclopedia

What?  The Encyclopedia?  That wonderful multivolume set of books [that I used to copy most of my 4th grade essay on Washington] was created to irritate God?  Surely not!  Tell us more Zack!

Certainly my loyal reader.  The first Encyclopedia was created by a group of Enlightened Europeans [mostly Frenchmen, including Voltaire, Rousseau and Diderot] during the 18th century as an Enlightened [ordered and rational] attempt to compile as much knowledge as possible.  Basically they were trying to play God with knowledge, and they really tried, to the tune of almost 72,000 articles. 

In essence the “Encyclopedists” were saying…”God is all knowing?  Well guess what…we’re going to write and describe everything and compile as much knowledge as humanly possible just to prove that we humans are all knowing too.  Oh yeah we rule.  Now pass the croissants and the wine!” [alright they didn't pass the croissants and the wine~as far as we know]  But their general plan also included making knowledge widespread while giving the FU to religious guys who had previously been the main gatekeepers of knowledge.

It also irritated the Catholic church [God's organized Church] by praising those lovable Protestants [Renegade Catholics] and questioning church dogma all while providing a general idea of religious tolerance.  The whole thing got banned by royal decree for awhile when religion was described as a branch of philosophy and not defined as the end all and be all of moral advice and knowledge.  So that’s the story of how the much loved reference material was created.

Thoughts on the Harry Potter series

I started reading this series back in 1999 when I was 14 and thought it was just the greatest thing since sliced bread up to the 6th book or so.  As I aged I sorta lost interest in the series, but of course finished the series last year, partly outta obligation to follow through and add closure to a book series I had read and also to find out finally if Dumbledore was gay [alright not really.  I read that newstory and thought, why didn't the issue get mentioned in the book?  It would have been a landmark issue making Dumbledore the most famous fictional homosexual character in history.  In a book series where a major theme was tolerance how could Rowling not mention this issue?  But I digress...]

Since I’ve got a bit of free time on my hands [see the Quitting a Message Board page] I’ve gone back and reread most of the series in the week.  Here are my thoughts on the series:

1) It will be important because it led a whole generation to reading.  I’m not kidding on this issue.  People you wouldn’t believe are fans of the series have read them.  Hopefully they continued the practice, and I’m guessing at least a portion will continue to read. [Hopefully]

2) Too many duex ex machina endings.   Yeah they’re fun and Barty Crouch Jr was a cool touch in Goblet of Fire, but it got repetitve after awhile.  Every book was pretty much the same [except the last, which was more road show than go to Hogwarts].  The reason I liked books such as Prisoner of Azkaban was that Voldy wasn’t in it.  I liked the Sirius Black angle.  Nice change of pace. 

3) Harry needed a bit more of a character arc.  He was too one dimensional I think.  Ron and Hermione had alot of change [and changed each other].  Harry largely was the same, despite his angst ridden trip through puberty.

4) The books were good because Rowling didn’t really sell out.  SHe didn’t sell out to reader expectations that much.  She killed off characters which were popular [Dumbledore, Sirius, Lupin, Moody, Tonks] when she wanted too.  I think she sold out with the Snape angle but it wasn’t that bad of selling out.  And the relationships at the end of the movie seemed natural. 

5) She did good of keeping characters relevant.  I thought Draco was useless during Books 4 and 5 [making me wonder why he was mentioned] , but he comes roaring back in 6, and Rowling did the right thing keeping him relevant.  Same thing with Neville. 

6) Books in order of how much I like them: 3, 4, 7, 5, 6, 2, 1

7) Rowling did a good job of really fleshing out her alternate magical universe.  Creating a bureaucracy, and creating factions within the larger story [Order, Death Eaters, Ministry] was no small task for the writer, and the books create a believable world.  Politics, major issues, history all existed, making the story much more fun and layered [and probably also which will eventually lead to extended universe type stuff ala Star Wars].

Depression and Religion

I’ve been writing a lot about depression, and want to dedicate this entry to the issue of depression and how it relates to religion [my opinions of course].  I’ll list pros and cons religion might have on depression:

Pros

• A clear purpose-The issue of purpose in life and finding “the meaning of life” is something that troubles alot of people.  It did me.  The search for purpose and meaning can be a tumultous experience in which you might begin to question yourself and everything in your life.  If you are unable to find meaning or purpose, you might find yourself unhappy and uncertain about what to do with life.  This was a prime problem for me.  I was uncertain about what career to head toward and got mired in the muck of uncertainty.  It’s a complex issue, but if you have something in your life that is constant [such as religious belief] you might be able to stave off becoming too depressed.  I suffered a crisis of faith and it really compounded my problem, because the loss of faith can act negatively just as it can gaining of faith can work positively.  Religions usually can be boiled down to simple stuff if you try, and saying “follow ‘God’s commandments’ and you’ll get into heaven.  The idea of heaven and following rules provides purpose and meaning. 
• Hope from a higher power-The idea of a higher power is attractive to some, especially to flawed humans.  The idea of an all knowing power is attractive because if the power is all knowing, then he probably knows which course of action is right and wrong, and if you can provide the correct way of acting, I think it provides hope that you, by proxy, can act correctly and ethically.  This goes hand in hand with the idea of reaching a heavenly paradise and along the way head towards the correct way of acting and find the meaning of life.

 Cons

• The issue of one way of thinking-religion tends to be kinda, absolute in their ways of thinking.  The lack of give in some dogma can lead to disillusionment and ultimately loss of faith and belief in a religion.  Losing the religious community can be tough enough [loss of social connections, family strains, etc] but loss of faith in something many people see as a beacon of goodness and enlightenment can lead once again to the uncertainty.  If you were wrong about religion [something you thought you were so right about], what else might you be wrong about?  Once again the same issues arise.  What about my career?  Family?  Am I doing the right stuff in those areas?
• Issues we’re unable to come to grips with- I always had issues with the idea that God could forgive and forget.  Perhaps this is because I couldn’t forget, and thus couldn’t forgive myself.  If sin is real, how can you just forget your sins and offenses?  The inability to forget sins and mistakes can lead to guilt, issues of self doubt because of the inability to follow God’s rules correctly. 
• The issue of contentment in life-As I mentioned above religion can provide contentment and purpose because of the [somewhat] rigid rules of acting that come from religious dogma.  The problem then becomes…what if the dogma and pursuit of heaven aren’t fulfilling?  What if you find yourself, inspite of yourself, disagreeing with the religious dogma that you have tried so hard to believe and follow?  I think that it can be a downer to follow a way of thinking in good faith and come off, uncontented.  The general feeling of being off kilter or being off balance is one of the leading depression issues.  My view of human nature is that people like secure things.  Even if they do alot of thinking outside the box and vigorious self criticism, most people like to have something they can depend on.  Family, job, faith.  Some sort of bedrock is important I find.  It keeps people grounded and gives them somewhere to retreat too and regroup.  Without an “Alamo” to fall back to you mind find yourself backpedding and tripping up rather than backing up under control.
• The issue of inclinations viewed as unnatural-It’s gotta be depressing to be brought up thinking one way of acting is correct such as heterosexuality, but to have inclinations toward homosexuality.   I myself am not homosexual, but I am sympathetic to anyone who has trouble finding a path between how they want to live and how they feel they have to live [according to their religion].  
• Failures of behavior as sins-This was something that I dealt with.  I know we humans are imperfect, but when you are given a rigid line of rules which you’re naturally going to offend, guilt can start to build because of inability to live up to that set of rules.  Sins aren’t just mistakes, they are offenses against God’s law.  Mistakes can be dealt with, but you have to wonder what it’s like to offend God?  Will he respond again?  This of course can be combined with issues such as the lack of answered prayers.  Is he not answering my prayers because I’ve sinned? 
• Unanswered prayers-Since prayers which are requests for miracles usually don’t happen, praying and not recieving can be kinda depressing.  Is God ignoring me?  Does God not like me?  And of course the worst question for the theist…Is He/she/It even there?  Disillusion with religion because of lack of explicit God action can be a aggrevating factor in depression.  It doesn’t lead to depression in itself [as most people probably just shrug their shoulders and try again later] but if you’re on a real downer and you don’t get any response from the Almighty well…it can once again complicate issues. 

I think all these issues show that depression isn’t usually one big thing [although it can be such as with Post Partum Depression or depression from a dead family member] but is often a bunch of little things which combine to be worst than the sum of the small problems.

Dear Readers and From the Music Vault XV: Lynyrd Skynyrd

Been doing this blog about 4 months now [and 60 posts] and just wanted to see whose reading or visiting.  Please drop a comment and you’ll probably get a large fortune of diamonds and gold bullion.  Trust me…Cmon…

oh yeah:

From the Music Vault I present Lynyrd Skynyrd.  You have to be Southern to understand why this band is soo important.  You have to have family members who get upset if you listen to any songs that aren’t from the Ronnie era to see why this band has continued to be important as a group but also culturally.  Free Bird and Sweet Home Alabama are classics of Southern Rock.  Enjoy!

Honesty

Lately I’ve been much more honest than I have historically been.  Both privately and publicly [writing on this blog about my struggles with depression being the most important.  I kept most of this quiet for along time because I was ashamed in a sense to be in such a predicament, considering all the comforts of life that I have in comparision to people in 3rd world countries and even the poverty stricken in my own country. 

Not sure why I'm acting this way.  Perhaps because keeping stuff bottled up wasn't working too well for me [and I'd been doing it for 22 years] so I decided to try something else for a change.   Having done this, and telling people how I truly feel has brought me a lot of contentment of late.  Previously I would have been too embarrassed to say what I truly thought, but lately I’ve been thinking “screw it”.  If I recognize a hottie well then I’ll say it.  If I think someone is important to me, well then I’m going to tell them.  It behooves me to be honest with people who have helped me in the past and continue to bring joy into my life.  So honesty is the best policy for me.

Dealing with Depression Stigma

So this stigma exists, how do you deal with it?

Frankly I think it’s difficult to deal with the stigma because of the difficulty in understanding depression and what it does to people.  If you’ve been deeply depressed then you know what it’s like.  If not, well you don’t.  I’ve written numerous blog entries dealing with depression, and yet I still feel like I haven’t described it sufficiently.  Writing about depression feels like writing a book that will never be finished.  Every time you reach what you think is the last page, the binding of the book stretches just a bit and you know there is more to be written.  This is continous and mighty frustrating.  How can you defeat something when you can’t even define it?  Can you defeat it?

Perhaps the worst problem in fighting stigma against depression is one of definitions and symptoms.  My definition of depression and experiences dealing with depression are going to be different than most other people.  The words I use might strike a cord with some people who felt the same way, but others will just think it’s some whiny guy who needs to stop, well whining.   

I think mental illnesses in general are something [some] people are suspicious of because they often don’t have any external signs [which makes it easy to not know who is suffering from these illnesses, and thus need treating].  Some people like to see material evidence when it comes to medicine and health issues.  Even if they don’t see it, they like to know that someone somewhere in some laboratory can see the evidence.   Even if the evidence is under a microscope they’ll never see which they probably wouldn’t understand, some people just like to know there’s evidence they can seek out if they so wish. 

I myself fell into this category of being skeptical until I found myself depressed.  I myself thought that depressed people were just these brittle wimpy folks who, already a moment away from crying anyway, just needed to toughen up a bit.  Maybe play a sport rather than sit in the back of English class drawing or writing poetry.  Now I realize how callous these types of thoughts are considering what I’ve been through, but to someone whose never been there the depressed person is probably just seen as a whiner who’s acting sad for attention. 

*That’s the worst stigma.  It’s an act for attention!  You’re not really sad…you just want people to sympathize.  Particularly for men to be depressed.  The stigma I thought of a friend of mine in high school who in retrospect was probably depressed went like this: “ewww you’re sad.  You’re just acting that way so the girls will think you’re sensitive type.   Stop acting like that.  You don’t feel that way, you’re just hamming it up in some scheme to get laid.  Stop being a poser!”  I think men facing depression deal with that issue, of depression being a fundamentally feminine trait because it shows weakness.  For some men, well being feminine is wrong, not so much bad in itself but because being manly is right.  Particularly jock types.  I think alot of men learn their behavior as via physical activities like sports, and gain a distinct way of thinking about such things. 

I think that alot of the hay that people who are skeptical of psychiatry and depression [such as scientologists] is founded in these principles of “it’s all in our mind”.  Well of course it’s all in our mind!  Since I can’t look into anyone else’s mind and see what they’re thinking, well I can’t be certain what they’re thinking.  Of course you combat this by trusting people based on experience where they’ve told me something and it’s been true.  In return these people [you call them friends, family, acquaintances, and medical professionals] will believe you when you tell them you’re suffering.  Having people who believe and are supportive are important, oh so important to dealing with depression, because they are instrumental in giving you some positive energy, when you only want to sit in your cocoon of negativity.

At the end of the day some people will be skeptical of mental illness because they don’t have first hand experience or can’t see external evidence of mental illness, and thus will be skeptics [and that doesn't make them bad] who won’t understand your depression.  I’ve found that it’s easier to just not mention depression around these sort of folks.  It could just be a negative if they rip into you or question your sincerity, which is bad for all concerned, particularly [me] the depressed person.  It might just send me on a downer, and the other guy, well screw him LOL.  He’s the jerk you made me feel bad.  [Edit: Some people are just butt heads who are meanies.  Others are just clueless who don't know they're being mean because they don't know if they're hurting people.  Again the issue of not being able to tell who is depressed externally plays into this.  You may hurt a depressed person by saying something callous and not even know you're hurting someone.]

  Personally I don’t want people to gain first hand experience of depression [cause it sorta...sucks] so I’ll just be content that they aren’t in a place I’ve been.  Some people will believe you and sympathize, and these people [family, friends, and medical professionals] will be important by helping you deal with your depression.  Support is key, and having people to just say, “I’m thinking of you” and “I know you’re suffering and hope you feel better..” well those people, I just can’t say how important it is to have people who take a minute and just send a little positive energy my way.  You’ll never win over everybody, but you don’t need to.  You only need to win over the important people.  Close friends, family are key.  Medical people are professionals trained in diagnosing mental health issues but friends and family are all important because of their position as long time parts of the depressed person’s life and because of the depressed person’s mutual love of the friends/family.  Believe from them is instrumental in climbing out of depression.

 Just a thought~

Movie Questions III: Tim grab the dang gun!

I just sat down and watched Jurassic Park for the first time in along time, and I’ve reached the part where the two dino experts and the two kids are running from the raptors in the control room.  Alan and Ellie [the adults] are holding the door and Lex [the girl kid] is trying to get the computer up, and Tim is standing there like a piece of driftwood!  Why don’t you grab the dang gun Tim!  These are the types of movie acts that just irritate me.  Characters who don’t do anything but whine and complain and stand around waiting to be saved.  You suck Tim.  This is a 1/10 for unanswerability…why don’t you grab the gun Tim?  Because you suck is the answer!

Sidenote on this movie: I was 8 when it came out in ‘93, and I was scared to death by the dinos when I was 8.  I had my eyes closed for the whole T Rex attack and the raptor scenes [contrary to some opinions I am slightly wimpy, despite my rugged facade].  Now it’s just a excellent movie.  I think it’s one of the Top 5 combo  action/science fiction films.  The effects hold up well even if the characters are fairly irritating.  I still wish the dinosaurs had eaten Hammond like they did in the book.  That was sweet and the way these things should always go down.  I wanted Richard Attenborough eaten by a bunch of compys!

100%, Expert, Guitar Hero’s Most Difficult Song

I’m of two minds about this achievement.  On the one hand you have to give it up to someone who has this type of determination/natural dexterity to achieve 100% on the hardest level on the hardest song.  But on the other hand…damn.  I guess I should just go along with the people who say “get a life” and “learn to play a real guitar”.  But damn he got 100% on this song.  That’s crazy.  Kudos.

Depression Stigma: External and Internal, Guilt and Shame

I wrote on this issue of stigma attacted to the mental illness of depression, now I want to break it down a bit further and talk about the two different types I’ve seen.  External and Internal.   External being based on being “shamed” by others and internals being based on internal “guilt trips”.

External stigma is based on how others may treat you if they know you suffer from depression.  I myself have kept my depression fairly quiet until lately because I didn’t want anyone treating me as some sort of weirdo.  Not sure what all the out of the ordinary treatment may entail.  Being treated as if you’re “delicate”, people tiptoeing around you, or avoiding upsetting you because they don’t want to make you worse [or push you over the edge=suicide].   That is passive stigma. 

The aggressive stigma is being treated like you’re faking or you’re acting like you’re acting sad just to reap the benefits [I'm not sure what the benefits are, I guess the passive stigma could be considered good if it means you aren't treated as bad as you normally would be].  I’ve also seem aggressive stigma take the form of people asking, “what do you have to be depressed about?” or trying to shame you into toughening up because we could be alot worse.  Yes I know that my any misery I have as a middle class American citizen is nothing compared to someone living in a 3rd World country, but damnit it is my misery!  Yeah it’s only a tropical storm compared to the hellish Category 4 Hurricane a Rwandan deals with, but when you’re in the eye of that tropical storm it still is no picnic. 

But the worst stigma is internal stigma.  This is stigma that I, as a depressed person, gave for myself.  The reason this stigma is so bad is that it cannot be turned off or avoided.  You can avoid alot of the external stigma I mentioned above simply by not telling people that you’re depressed.  It’s really easy.  The only real signs that a person is depressed is their meds and their counseling if they’re managing their depression well.  Hospitalization is for severe depression, something I avoided thankfully.  But other than the meds or the trips to the counselor there are no outward signs you’re depressed.  There is no ramp for depressed people, we take the stairs like everyone else.  We don’t lose our hair like someone going throught chemotherapy.  It’s all internal.  All in our mind.  And it’s easy to hide the feelings away.

But internal stigma, internal stigma is the worst because you can’t shut it out.  You can hide in your room and avoid people, avoid dealing with anyone who might tell you to get your life in order or “man up”.  But you can’t hide from your internal monologue.  I was my own worst critic.  I found every fault with myself when I was going untreated, and made up a few [something which tends to happen when you get in that way of thinking].  I was a loser, a wimp, ugly, stupid, unattractive, useless, a wuss, pathetic, crybaby, dumbass, and on and on and on.  You can’t shut that off.  You cannot quiet it, cannot turn down the volume, cannot pull the plug.   Well you can…if you commit suicide. 

But that didn’t happen to me.  So here I am.  The internal stigma, I’m not sure where it comes from.  I guess part of it is society and pop culture.  TV and movies are full of happy characters having a good time and making love and so forth.  Depression is only used as a negative in society.  It’s a plot device used in dramas to show a character is suffering from a mistake.  It’s also something that criminals do right?  They are depressed, and then they go out and kill someone or rob someone or become druggies or alcoholics.  But really it’s easy to connect the dots…make a mistake—>depression—>become a criminal.  It’s hard to deal with depression when you’re bombarded with images of depression as a bad thing.  A weakness.  A character flaw.

Of course there’s also the religious problem I mentioned previously.  In religion there is alot of black and white, right and wrong absolutist thinking.  When you’re living, you’re either doing it the right way [God's way!] or you’re doing it the wrong way, the sinful way.   That’s it really.  You’re either doing it the right way or the wrong way.  And you’re given a huge story about this great guy in the sky who will fill you with a Heavenly light.   I myself never felt this Light.  Never.  I thought I did, I thought I grasped it for a second, but really I never did.  I don’t know.  There was nagging doubt about the whole thing with me. 

I think that’s what powers the internal stigma.  Doubt.  Self doubt.  When you’re doubting your self it’s hard to really do anything in earnest.  It’s hard to have any “get up and go” when there’s a voice in your mind saying, “you’ll fail anyway, come on Zack….you know you’re just a screwup”.  It all begins with doubt.  Doubt leads to pessimism and eventually just total lack of self worth and self esteem.  That’s where it begins and it leads to inertia.  That’s what depression really is.  Inertia.  Indecisiveness.  Sitting and spinning your tires.  Lack of motivation and it all begins with mental willpower.

Stigma attached to depression

I, long sufferer of this mental illness, can be the first to tell that depression carries a stigma against it.  Not sure why, I guess in the most basic sense it’s the perception of weakness within our minds perhaps or a character flaw that makes us weak.  Whatever the reason, I think it’s something that attracts stigma because of our competitive society where we practice a survival of the fittest way of life.  If you’re sick you should get healed, and if you don’t get healed you’re weak, and if you are weak then there’s something wrong with you.  The problem is that mental illnesses can’t be healed with a long rest and a bowl of chicken soup.  Even the medicines that are being developed to control mental illnesses often are very unique in acting with an individual’s brain chemistry.  The right dosage may take very long to find [it took me probably 6 months to find the correct dosage], and even then, the meds may only take you so far.  The frame of mind and the position you are in life are just as important as the meds in my honest opinion.  I think alot of chronically depressed people would agree. 

For myself I carried this illness for a long time without ever seeking treatment.  I was prejudiced against myself, of what was going on in my head.  I saw it as a weakness, something to simply be willed out of existence.  But it didn’t work for me.  Some people can do that perhaps, and I couldn’t.  So I was one of the weak ones I guess.  I wonder if this disease can even be completely cured, rather than simply managed.  Personally I think managing it is hard enough.   I don’t know how you can cure the disease because it’s something that will leave scars and memories even after the worst has long since passed.   My broken bones might heal and I’ll remember the pains only as a lack of use of an ankle, but depression, well it’s not just an ache.  It’s something that takes on a life of its own and I think the stigma is instilled by the self as much as by anyone else.  I certainly kept my condition fairly quiet, perhaps because I’m ashamed of showing weakness. 

Fundamentally depression is percieved as a weakness, and weakness is something that American’s for one [fueled by capitalist principles of competition, and perhaps evolutionary competition] do not like to admit.  As much as people might be for grand displays of emotion, emotions only are good when they’re the good ones [love, passion for another, happiness].  Not many people want to see the darker emotions because they don’t want to be reminded that they too could fall into such a condition, [unless it's celebrities or something, celebrities are a different breed than the major rank and file and thus don't count].   Depression is a disease that I believe anyone can fall into given the right circumstances and life situation.  It’s not discriminatory, but instead is an equal opportunity illness.  That’s what makes it truly dangerous is that symptoms can be hidden, and people can suffer without anyone knowing that something is going on.

I also wonder if I felt this way because of religion.  I don’t know.  Growing up I seemed to think that happiness meant I wasn’t sinning and that if I felt bad I must be sinning in some