Home

Look · Out · Below


Falling Puns Ahead

Recent Entries · Archive · Friends · User Info

* * *
Dining on Elephants

I write this on the one week one day anniversary of a horrible mistake. A ghastly mistake that may have ended my marriage. A mistake that showed me a series of friends I did not even know I had. A series of friends who showed me I could change. I write this on the one week anniversary of that change.

In the past, I have been an angry and depressed man, whether I realized or acknowledged it. I have been willing to change, but let’s face it, what change helps an angry and depressed person. My friends and amazing wife showed me what change helps; any positive change.

Any positive change? Yes. My wife is taking an algebra class in her college session this term. In mathematics, any  negative number is decreased by some measurable amount when a positive number is added to it. For example, -134 becomes -129 if I add +5 to it. -129 is less negative than -134. Depressions are also lessened if positive things are added. Another example of this is if I have a depression in my back yard that is 5 ft, 3 inches deep and I fill in with 4 inches of dirt, it now only sits 4 ft 11 inches below the rest of my lawn. In other words, it is now less depressed.

See yet? Any amount of positive change, no matter how small, has an overall effect of making things less depressive and less negative. Please note that I am not saying this small positive change removes negativity or depressiveness. It simply lessens it. The old saying “Anyone can eat an elephant one bite at a time,” truly comes into its own here.

As I said at the beginning of this post, this is an anniversary. Looking back I am sure that I am less depressed and less negative and less angry than I was a week ago. Cured? No, simply less because I have shown myself with the help of others that I can produce positive change. Change is not willingness. For years I have been willing to change. During those years I have had opportunity to change. I have wished for change but I also did not change. “If wishes were fishes…”

            This week I made change. Changes that are small and measurable and leave me that much more positive that I can continue to change. I will have times that my depressiveness, anger and negativity will show through. It will be less than it was before my change though. Change is now a part of my life. I have stopped adding zero (no change) and begun moving in a positive direction.

            It is not an easy or pleasant path. It requires that I be aware of things I have said and done that I am not only not proud of but ashamed and sickened by. Things that because they are in the past I cannot ever change. With positive change it is required that I realize I cannot dwell on the past. I must maintain an awareness of the past so that I can measure my change against it. I also must be aware that change is not a constant thing but tends to occur in fits and starts so that I can effectively integrate the changes into my life.

            Being willing to change doesn’t do a thing for anyone. All the willingness in the world with no action leads to no change and a continuation of life as it is right now. Thanks to my wife, family and friends, I have stopped being willing to change and am now changing. The changes are not fast or huge. They are however, positive changes and are causing me to be less angry, less negative, and less depressed. So as I take the next bite of my elephant I say to all of you who read this “bon appetite”.

Current Location:
Home
Current Mood:
cheerful cheerful
Current Music:
TV
* * *
Exercising Freedom
                Freedom of religion is defined as “are you Catholic or Protestant?”, freedom of speech is the right to apologize for what someone else said that offended a third party, and the right to bear arms means that people may wear short sleeved shirts during the year. Excuse me? During this particular writing, I intended to focus on the first amendment of the Constitution, specifically the last two sections.

The first amendment of the Constitution of the United States (ratified by the First Congress on September 25, 1789) states the following:

 

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

In recent months, it seems to me that the rights stated at the beginning of this post are what people, both elected officials and the voters, have come to believe. It has become un-American to criticize the government or members thereof. How is this un-American? The final section of the first amendment gives each and every citizen the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Grievance, as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary, is a cause of distress (as an unsatisfactory working condition) felt to afford reason for complaint or resistance. For complaint. The Constitution gives the right of complaint to the government. Would not using the rights given by this document be more American? Many people seem to think this way. That criticizing the government weakens the same government by some measurable amount.

In the field of quality assurance, it is the job of the investigators to verify the quality of the product or service. If the product or service is found to be unsafe, improperly manufactured, or weak, it is the investigators duty to report this to their employers. Making statements about how individuals feel concerning certain aspects of the government’s operation or laws is how voters have a chance to act as quality inspectors.

We the People of these United States, in order to form a more perfect Union…That is the beginning of the preamble for the Constitution. How can the Union become more perfect if it is not rigorously tested? How can the testing be effectively done if everyone is forced to agree that perfection has been reached and no further testing will be allowed? Each and every citizen has the right, and I would not hesitate to say the need, to act as quality inspectors for their local, state and federal government. If we do not, who will? Rights, like anything else, become dusty and forgotten if left unused. Like muscles, they must be exercised or they will atrophy.

This piece is my exercising of that right; my use of freedom of speech to point out that a government untested by the people becomes a government no longer for the people.

Current Location:
My Computer
Current Mood:
contemplative contemplative
Current Music:
Doctorin' the Tardis-The Timelords
* * *
Generic Ramblings
Caution: The ramblings ahead are printed in black block letters on a simple white background. They are in no way recognizable as something a well know corporation would have put out. All corporate sponsored ramblings have easily recognizable color, font, and symbology. This generic rambling contains none of these requirements.

I find myself getting frustrated at large portions of the American people for various reasons: The current ones are Intelligent Design and Elected Officials.

  • Two of my children live in Kansas and are being fed an oxymoron in place of an experimentally provable (and portions of the theory have been proven in multiple experiments) scientific theory. I have no trouble with people's faith. Each person is entitled to believe what they want. However, if a state is going to require that a Judea-Christian creation theory is taught alongside evolution should they not also require that all major religion's creation theories be taught. Since in portions of the Southwest the population is made up of a significant percentage of native Americans, should not the Pueblo theory of creation, or maybe the Mayan (heck with their theory it is only seven years until the rebirth of the world) be taught. If a state is going to require equal time for religious belief in school, then include all religions. However, I am of the personal belief that faith and spirituality are a personal thing and should not be forced upon us in school.

  • The commonwealth (shorthand for We could be a state but then ALL federal laws and statutes would have to apply to us) I live in elected a governor that I would not have voted for if my state of residence (commonwealth of residence?) were here. On the flip side, the other major candidate was not someone I would have voted for either. In fact, after listening to a month of mudslinging with NO post-election plans that yielded anything beyond "I intend to better use our money for roads and shrink state government" mouthings, I determined that had I been in a position to vote in the election I would have voted for the single independent candidate because he had said nothing about the other two. Sad reason I realize but I face it squarely.

  • Would our schools please ensure that people who graduate understand that the elected government is divided into three portions:
    • The judicial branch (the Supreme Court) who determines the constitutionality of a law, but may not create the law.
    • The legislative branch (Congress which is made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate) which may write laws, levy taxes, declare war and peace.
    • The executive branch (the office of the President) who is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, who appoints judges to the Supreme Court and who may veto laws.
  • Notice that the President may not raise or lower taxes...Congress may not appoint judges (though they may accept or decline the appointees).
Please listen to what your candidates are saying and balance this against what powers the office they are attempting to be elected to are. Let us find a set of candidates that will promise things that their office powers actually encompass!

I realize that my ramblings have gone from one side to the other, but that is why I stated they are ramblings. This ends the generic ramblings of the above mentioned nature.

Current Mood:
frustrated frustrated
Current Music:
The One and Only - Chesney Hawkes
* * *
The Anti-Christ
Last night, my wife informed me that "You are the anti-christ...but that's not necessarily a bad thing!" (emphasis hers). Not bad? This out of the simple observation of mine that one can listen to The Hallelujah Chorus by Handel and the School House Rocks song Interjections! and merge the two. She further informed me that if Satan came to our front door I would reduce him to tears and convince him that he did not exist. This I am willing to agree is a good thing, but I am not sure if being the anti-christ is a "not bad" thing.

Vonnage then informed me that not only could I convince Satan that he did not exist but would continue on and explain to several other pantheons that they were no longer required and could move on into whatever afterlife deities move onto. I accept the fact that I am primarily an agnostic. I do not believe that I would ever intentionally tell off a god, goddess, angel, demon (well maybe them) or otherworldly being. Not intentionally.
Current Mood:
amused amused
Current Music:
Samples from The Goonies by John Williams
* * *