Depression and Me

I'm not really depressed. My therapist told me, early on, that I was dysthymic, which meant instead of the ultra-highs with depression, I just get "exhilarated".

Hmmph.

I'm on a mood leveler, Lexapro, 30mg/day (one 20mg tablet and a second tablet snapped in half). It's a daily practice, one I've tried to keep to with religious fervor, because if I wind up skipping a day...or more...when I run out...and don't or can't renew the prescription...dumbass...I get kinda emotionally unstable.

I feel less grounded, less centered, less in control of my emotions and reactions to them and to other people (hey sweetie!), more reactive (in a bad way), less thoughtful or mindful of what's happening to me as a result.

But I'm not under indictment for anything that I've done while off my meds. And that's a good thing!

From the Revolution Health Network,

Exercise isn't a cure for depression or anxiety. But its psychological and physical benefits can improve your symptoms.

"It's not a magic bullet, but increasing physical activity is a positive and active strategy to help manage depression and anxiety," says Kristin Vickers-Douglas, Ph.D., a psychologist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

So right now I'm aware that I need to exercise and that I'm not making the time to do that.

Dumbass? Yes...

So Obama won the election, strange people are coming for Thanksgiving next week, Christmas is coming and there are birthdays right behind Christmas.

I'm fat, I hate the way I look, I have no money of my own and I'm afraid to go back to work.

Sigh.

I suppose confession is good for the soul, but there's no guarantee that it'll be my soul that it's good for.

What I Know

I've previously said that all politicians lie and if I haven't, well, they do.

From The Hunt for Red October:

I'm a politician, Dr. Ryan. Which means that when I'm not kissing babies, I'm stealing their lollipops.

I love that line!

But another thing to remember is that "journalists", "the media", the people who cry that "the public has a right to know!" have an invisible agenda that always takes precedent over any responsibilities they might have to the public:

Let's you and him fight.

"You Gotta Be Twice As Good"

The Black Informant has an interesting post up:

As long as I can remember, this has been the advice given to many bright-eyed Black kids as they looked down the street of possibilities. This advice oftentimes was given by adults who lived in an era where being “twice as good as White folks” was practically a requirement if you wanted to move ahead.

Not to be racist or anything, but why doesn't he include the rest of the advice?

Luckily, that ain't that hard.

National Firearms Day

Oooh! The Only Life has a great idea!

So, we propose that each year, the Saturday after the first Monday in November be proclaimed National Firearms Day. This day will be in celebration of those elected officials who support the 2nd Amendment, and in defiance of those who oppose it. We feel that this day more than any other is appropriate for its symbolism and ability to send a very loud and pointed message to our elected officials.

That's the second Saturday in November this year-November 8th!

h/t Say Uncle

The Culture of the Now

Last night, I was able to watch a little more than half of the third episode of the show "Fringe".

I was probably okay with it, even with the gross image of the mad scientist (one of the good guys!) drilling a hole into a patient's head with a little electric drill. Did I mention the total lack of anesthesia? Consent forms? A sterile environment?

Yeah. Let's just have a hole drilled in a guy's head right now, and worry about way bad infection later on. Oy.

Apparently it all took place in one 24-hour period. Hmm, the lead investigator never goes home to sleep, never changes her clothes, runs hither and yon all day long and is just fine chasing down a bad guy and pointing a gun at him.

Um. And no pesky internal affairs asking how the bad guy got away from her (he committed suicide by stepping in front of a speeding bus).

So. She's still chipper at the end of the day, after witnessing one murder and one suicide, having drawn her gun and been ready to shoot (Condition Red, I believe). She doesn't need any down time or a drink or a a couple of pills. No, she just wants the mad scientist's son to play her a little Bach on the piano. In the lab.

"Nah," he says. "Bach is too stuffy. What you need is some jazz." And he starts noodling around, playing a version of a jazz standard (Someone to Watch Over Me, maybe?).

I wanted to kick the smug son-of-a-bitch in the balls. The show's writers and almost certainly the producers just made their allegiance to the current hipster generation known.

Hipster? You know, the generation that doesn't like anything that was created before their tastes were formed, decided, jelled.

I suppose it's actually more of an attitude than a generation, but it's an attitude that dismisses history as irrelevant, favors appearance over substance, the culture of the now over civilization.

Had the investigator stopped (shot) the piano player and insisted on her Bach, I would have been thrilled! To see a character with values other than those of the culture of now and to see her maintain, defend, demand those values would have been wonderful.

As it is, "Fringe" is just another stupid show.

Thoughts Upon Having Read John Ross' "Unintended Consequences" For the Fourth Time

Gah. That's a big book. More minor details stood out--FN continued to develop the Browning automatic rifle, culminating in the model D (Wikipedia has an interesting article on that)...gosh, I don't know what else.

Thinking about the plot, that's big too. But we're not at that point yet, and I hope we never get there. Purposeful, self-directed, political / bureaucratic assassination is somewhat too anarchic for my taste.

The writing is terrible. But Ross finished the book, told an exciting story, created memorable characters. I still read it, so what's he got that I haven't?

Who Am I?

Curtis Lowe has an amusing post up re political experience, and who has it or has had it.

Enjoy.

September 11, 2001

I haven't blogged about 9/11 before. I was home that day with Samantha, who was not yet 8 months old. Everything on the television was the news about the first plane flying into the World Trade Center towers.

Then the second plane hit. And the Pentagon was hit by a plane. And a fourth plane crashed in Pennsylvania.

In the days and weeks and months and years that followed, I was angry that my country had been attacked, and that we were not able to strike back, directly, cleanly, at those who had initiated the attack.

I was a Democrat that day, until I saw the damage and said to myself "Thank God the grownups are in charge."

Politicians and news commentators and people with political influence muddied the waters, trying to convince us that we must have deserved, did deserve, the attack. Those of us who wanted revenge joked grimly about turning the Middle East into a sea of glass.

But the grownups were in charge and pursued a more rational response, trying diplomacy and firing warning shots. The US invaded Afghanistan and then Iraq, fighting the terrorists and those who lead them on their ground, taking the fight to them.

If there may have been further attempts of terrorism on the US, they have been foiled.

In my time, I have hated and it is a self-destructive choice. I do not hate the people and the countries who have chosen terrorism as their path to power, but I do not question their failures or their deaths. I don't care. Die already.

Aargh

John Farnam's Quips is now officially on my "once a week peek" list. This is just too frustrating. The man's a damn tease!

The Problem of 05Aug08

John Farnam's last update to his "Farnam's Quips" was 05Aug08. I know that Mr. Farnam is a busy man, but for the love of God, update your dang site!

Thank you.

Quote for the day

Talking to gun control advocates is like talking to five year-olds. Tell a five-year-old it's time for bed, and he'll say "No." Ask why not, and he'll say "because." That's his whole reasoning, unfounded - "because". But that's a subject for another post.

from Home on the Range

Pondering the Unthinkable

My daughter goes to a private school. As a parent, I volunteer my time there and so I'm fairly familiar with the physical layout of the school.

The front door of the school opens directly onto the administrative office. Someone opens that door, and steps inside.

*boom* *boom*

That was the two women at the front desks. They're dead or dying. No one has called 911.

*boom*

That was the large window that glasses in the director's office. He's dead or wounded.

*boom*

That was anyone at the copier, or anyone coming in from the hallway.

Three steps into the hallway and one step to the right is a K/1 classroom. Six steps to the left is a 1/2 classroom.

Is someone scrambling for a phone?

Farther down the hall are two K/1 classrooms that face each other. There are two more classrooms past them.

A teacher or teacher's aide might be opening a door, looking out in the hall.

At the end of the hall, a left turn takes you out onto a fenced-off playground. There's an exit gate in the fence.

This could be a lunatic, a vengeful ex-spouse or ex-lover, a gang banger. And unless they choose to take hostages, it's all over in less than a minute.

If I'm there, I'm probably dead in the hallway or the office. And there's nothing I could do to change the outcome. Aside from response time issues, California is a "may issue" state; the city of Los Angeles defers to the county of Los Angeles, and both of them are "won't issue".

I'm glad I often tell my daughter that I love her.

So. I'm at the mercy of fate, just like everyone else.

Mere Peace

When I drive my daughter to school, at some point, she's there and I'm on my way back. On the classical station, I've been hearing ads between the music for a performance of the local master chorale.

November 18th, the chorale will present 3 pieces: Haydn's Mass in Time of War; Andriessen's The City of Dis or: The Ship of Fools, the first section of a five-part opera-in-progress based on Dante's La Commedia; and Tormis's God Protect Us From War.

From the program notes:

Opening in a minor key, the gloomy timpani again utter frenzied throbbings when the music suddenly blossoms with trumpet fanfares, a dance-like tempo accelerating as the chorus insistently intones, “Dona nobis pacem,” an entreaty for peace. (Haydn's Mass)

And:

Featuring chant-like melodic motifs and the underlying tones of a gong, the impression of an ancient prayer wrapped in a mysterious veneer comforts us... (Tormis's God Protect Us From War)

Peace. Comfort. The absence of war, conflict, disagreement. Consensus.

Not victory. Oh, God no. Not success. Not even prayers for the well-being of the troops.

Peace. As in, "Bring the troops home!" As in, "No blood for oil!" As in, "peace in our time".

How is that peace maintained? By whom? At what cost?

"Don't know" And "don't care"

But peace is good! And right! And must be made now! So that the peaceful lotus-eaters are not disturbed in their dreams of...peace.

Interesting. I had not realized that peace is an artifact, made by man. I'm not saying that war is the natural state of mankind, but peace is something made, something that does not exist naturally, without support, without attention paid to it, without the infrastructure to wage war...to make peace.

This selection of music for the performance is an affirmation--a re-statement--of the obligatory, not-up-for-discussion chant "Peace good! War bad! Peace good!" There's no consideration, no room for consideration, of how peace is made. And kept.

Kenn Blanchard - A Reply

Kenn Blanchard has a post up titled Violence in Our Society. He asks several questions that I'd like to try to reply to:

How can we stop the violence in our society?

I believe that violence is part of the human nature; so is the seeking after of truth and salvation. I don't believe that it can be stopped, only struggled with.

I see two ways of combatting violence: 1) Inappropriate violence must be met with sudden and overwhelming violence in response, and 2) the unchecked and uneducated impulse towards violence must be controlled and re-directed into honest pride.

But social engineering is a road paved with good intentions, viz. the War on Poverty.

What can we do to repair our communities without given [sic] up the essential liberties that made this a great nation?

I can't comment to this without knowing more about who 'we' and 'our communities' are, as well as the 'essential liberties'.

What are you willing to do to protect your family from violence?

An interesting question! While I think I'm willing to do violence to others to protect my family, I've never been put to that test and God willing, I never will.

But what about non-violent methods? I'm not active in my neighborhood (not 'community'), I don't belong to a church, I don't set a good example for boys and young men by leading a Boy Scout troop. I'm pretty much a schlub.

What are your working in to make that a reality?

Again, I'm a schlub.

Can we stop violence?

As I said already, it's part of human nature. It's part of my nature, yet it does not drive me or consume me. I'm untrained in martial mayhem, yet big enough to do serious damage to small, weak or unsuspecting victims--but I don't. I own guns and have enough ammunition on-hand to kill a dozen, a score, a hundred--but I don't.

Why not?

Because I have more tools in my emotional and intellectual toolbox than only violence. The urge to do violence is bound closely to feeling disrespected; I have other ways to respond to the feelings of being dismissed, ignored, or looked down upon.

But I would not want to delete my ability to do violence, because I might need it at some point. I trust my own judgement as to whether I need to be violent. I don't trust everyone else's judgement about their need to be violent and spend most of my time in Condition Yellow.

Mr. Blanchard continues with a long ranty paragraph about rabid PETA advocates, unsocialized dogs, ignored children, the failure of parenting, time-saving devices, the lack of interpersonal skills, and the exploitation of the lonely and confused.

Children and the elderly have become the targets of everything wicked. Why because their innocence offends the very nature of the world today. What are you going to do about it?

Children and the elderly are always targets of the wicked, because they are easy prey. I look out for my own family, and to the extent that I can, I keep an eye on those around me as well. But I can't save everybody and I refuse to feel shame for not being able to do what I am incapable of doing.

Thoughts On Owning A Nuclear Weapon

Disclaimer: I Am Not A Philosopher.

When discussing the Second Amendment with an anti, the question of whether individuals should be allowed to possess nuclear weapon often comes up, dragged in as the ultimate absurdity.

I am comfortable with my understanding and/or interpretation of the Second Amendment, which is that the individual should be equipped comparably ("well regulated") to a regular soldier (modern light infantry).

To me, this means at least a semi-automatic rifle in a military caliber. Full auto or select fire? Sure. Grenade launcher? Sure. Mortar? Eh...yeah, okay. Heavy machine gun? Um...okay. 20mm cannon? Yikes...but yes.

Artillery? No. A tank? Strangely enough, yes. Rocket launcher? No. Bazooka or TOW? Yes. Flamethrower? I honestly don't know.

I see that my acceptance or rejection of the above seems to be based on the individual pulling the trigger. A firearm must be aimed at a chosen target by the shooter for the weapon to be effective.

A mortar is not aimed the same way, nor as precisely. I believe a tank is aimed precisely and so I have no quarrel with ownership of one (or hell, even several).

But drive one into my neighborhood and I'm going to be uncomfortable with that, to the point of looking for a bazooka or other tank-killer. To me, taking a tank into a residential or business area is a declaration of intent to cause great harm, out of proportion to your individual capability.

So what about a nuclear weapon?

Is it a defensive weapon? Not really. It's a terror weapon, a weapon of mass destruction that kills out of proportion to its existence, its...quantity.

So, should individuals be allowed to possess nuclear weapons?

No, in the strongest possible terms. Like a tank driving down a neighborhood street, individual possession of nuclear weapons is a statement of intent to cause great harm, way out of proportion to the individual's capability otherwise. It should be an automatic death sentence for the individual, no appeal, no stay of execution, shoot on sight.

"But what if he's got a deadman switch and kills lots of people even when he's dead?"

I know that all of those deaths would be a horrible tragedy. But you can't negotiate with Evil, and that's what individual possession is.

And I realize that this is close to what the antis believe, that guns kill out of proportion to the individual's capability, and that they (and those who possess them) are Evil, and that only the police or the military should have guns.

But the police and the military have no secret gift or talent that makes them moral or just or especially qualified to deal with Evil. Bad Guys with guns are Evil and can only be stopped by Good Guys with guns.

IANAP.

Moral Actions

Disclaimer: I Am Not A Philosopher.

A recent High Road thread, "What's with mock assault rifle sales for kids?", got me thinking about moral actions.

(One more time: IANAP)

Moral actions are those actions that have consequences for the actor. So, I blink, I twitch, I snore--these actions have no discernable consequences for me.

I choose to own and shoot guns. At a very basic level my choices (actions) have consequences. I am constrained by law as to the way in which I may possess them (e.g., access to those guns by others, especially children; transporting them; carrying them concealed).

On another level, the firing has a consequence (*BANG*, recoil, ejection of a fired cartridge, et cetera).

The most important consequence of gun ownership is that I must observe and obey the Four Rules: Treat all guns as if they are loaded, never point the gun at anything you do not intend to destroy, keep your booger-hooker off the bang switch and always know what's behind your target.

So my moral actions lead to behavior which is moral.

The Capital Times (Madison, WI) column mentioned above, "Rob Zaleski: What's with mock assault rifle sales for kids?" purports to find no good reason for children to have airsoft rifles which are patterned after an AR-15 or M16.

His complaints are that such a toy might be dangerous to an (un)intended target ("You could shoot someone in the eye!"), or to its user if the police mistake it for a real rifle and shoot the kid. QED, it's too dangerous and shouldn't oughta be allowed.

Mr. Zaleski is a columnist for a paper that proudly styles itself as "Wisconsin's Progressive Newspaper", so I feel safe in assuming that he is liberal in his views. I wish that I could engage him in dialogue and ask his views on teen driving and teen abortion, but I'll presume that he favors both. I will presume also that he prefer that teenagers go through Drivers' Ed and sex ed.

Driving and sex are moral actions, in that they have (or can have) consequences. Education that teaches the consequences of those actions--therefore, moral education--benefits both individuals and society.

But education is not confined to a specific time and place and subject, it can happen anywhere, at any time, from anyone. Even in play, with toy guns.

The Four Rules of safe gun handling can be learned in play, but more than just those rules is learned playing Cops and Robbers (or what have you). It may have been Kim duToit who wrote about little boys learning about morality through play of just this sort: being the good guys, rounding up the bad guys, and an enactment by the group (society) of enforcement of the rules (laws), accepted by all.

So, moral behavior can be learned and practiced through play. With boys, it'll probably be mock-violent. Eh--what are you going to do?

I do not believe that Mr. Zaleski is evil, nor that his individual actions will have evil consequences for his grandson (mentioned in the column). But I do believe that he does not feel that playing with toy guns can be morally educational.

So he won't be giving his grandson a toy gun, which is to say: "Grandson, I see no purpose in giving you such a toy. I do not feel that you can be trusted with it, and you cannot learn anything from it."

But I feel that such a toy (especially from him, the grandfather), given with the caveats of the Four Rules, could be a powerful moral experience for the child that I could weep for the loss of such an opportunity.

Last night on TV

I haven't watched TV on a regular basis for quite some time, because I've gotten out of the habit. But last night I had the time and I watched some or most of three shows:

Supernatural, on the WB

Invasion, on CBS

and Law and Order: SUV, on NBC

So what did I think?

In no particular order:

Law and Order has been telling grim fairy tales for a long time, and is now targeting younger and younger teens as its audience.

Plus the usual liberal kool-aid...

(But remember there's no media bias!)

Supernatural is chasing the X-Files audience...scary enough without being stupid about it, worth another look I suppose.

But Invasion left me dumbfounded. In last night's episode, the good guys chase a rich man's beautiful wife because she's pregnant with an alien baby. (That's bad.)

In the end, she's reported dead (missed how) and the team blows up her expensive, beautiful house. The final shot of that was a good guy walking (walking!) away from the house, down the slope, as the house explodes in the background--no distress, no fear, no remorse, no doubt. (That's good.)

What the--?

Okay, if the slasher movies of the '70s and '80s taught us all anything, it's that having sex kills.

So bad SF of the '00s teaches us that...we learned nothing?

Secondly, the good guys are, um, dweebs. Biologist Girl (Carla Gugino) spent all her time pursuing a Ph.D., Computer Guy 1 lacks social skills (just a guess), Computer Guy 2 is a dwarf with an on-line gambling problem, Charles Dutton is big and black, and the token white guy is very unmemorable.

Nobody on the good guys seems to have sex.

Indeed, they are concerned--obsessed--with people who do have sex.

That is, the bad guys. Well, bad girl in last night's episode.

She's beautiful, sexy, strong, smart, seemingly one step ahead of the team, and married to a rich, powerful older man.

God, this sounds like high school: The cheerleader and the football captain, in other words.

And the nerds completely destroy the hot girl who's having sex--kill her and burn her house to the ground.

So the slashers are the good guys, out to keep anyone from having sex?

I don't watch TV anymore on a regular basis...