I wonder, what would prof. Pavlov do?

Après avoir longtemps dormi, j'ai donc eu tout mon temps pour lire tranquillement Cyberpresse avant de déjeuner-dîner. Aujourd'hui, je suis tombé sur cet article décourageant expliquant que les Américains du petit état du Dakota du Sud vont encore faire un référendum sur l'avortement. Ils en avaient déjà fait un il y a 2 ans !

Au premier référendum, des monothéistes au cerveau atrophié par la Bible avaient pondu une loi pour interdire l'avortement purement et simplement. Cette loi a heureusement été battue. Persévérant comme toujours dans leur croyance intrinsèquement mauvaise et fausse que l'avortement est un meurtre, les évangéliques reviennent maintenant à la charge avec une autre loi, presque aussi arriérée, qui interdirait l'avortement SAUF dans les cas de viol ou d'inceste.

Comme si ce n'était pas déjà assez débile de vouloir autant restreindre l'interruption volontaire de grossesse, un porte-parole d'une organisation pro-vie a déféqué ceci: "Personnellement, je pense que l'avortement ne devrait jamais être permis, mais il faut tenir compte de l'opinion de la majorité. Avec quelques années d'éducation, il sera peut-être possible d'éliminer les exceptions."

Avec quelques années d'éducation ?! Quoi ?! Mais de quelle genre de démagogie parle-t-il ? Laver le cerveau des jeunes avec la Bible jusqu'à ce qu'ils imaginent qu'un embryon est autre chose qu'une boule clonale de cellules sans conscience ?

Les fondamentalistes religieux ne peuvent pourtant pas être assez nombreux pour remporter un vote pareil... S'ils ont une avance dans les sondages sur la question, je soupçonne que c'est à cause d'un effet pervers répandu un peu partout aux États-Unis: même les religieux plus modérés, qui ne vont pas à l'église très souvent et qui ne lisent pas la Bible au sens littéral, continuent néanmoins de définir le bien et le mal en fonction du christianisme. Des gens qui avouent ouvertement qu'il y a des imperfections et des erreurs dans la Bible s'entêtent malgré tout à croire, au fond d'eux-mêmes, qu'il y a quelque chose de supérieur et de "pur" là-dedans.

Suivant le même pattern, des gens qui acceptent le fait qu'un embryon n'a pas de système nerveux développé et donc aucune conscience humaine s'entêtent, par une répulsion instinctive fondée sur les mauvais enseignements religieux qu'on leur a répétés dans l'enfance, à croire qu'un humain a une "âme" dès sa conception. Ces modérés-là, même s'ils refusent l'interdiction totale de l'avortement en raison des cas de viol et d'inceste (pour lesquels ils ont encore plus de répulsion), croient que même si l'avortement n'est pas un pur meurtre, il demeure néanmoins quelque chose de relativement "mal" qu'il faut éviter dans la mesure du possible. Et ce "mal" que je mets entre guillemets, c'est encore une fois un tentacule de la grande erreur monothéiste abrahamique...

Quand les Américains sortiront-ils de leur cocon chrétien pour voir le monde extérieur, pour voir les autres religions, l'agnosticisme, l'athéisme, l'Histoire qui a créé les religions, et s'apercevoir que c'est leur définition du bien et du mal qui ne tient pas debout ?

PS - Think you know what the picture at right is? I bet you're wrong!

Read this week's BioBites!

1.) Wondering how big your carbon footprint is? TierneyLab at the NY Times unveils details about a gizmo for your phone that uses GPS to track your carbon usage by movement and will be available soon.

2.) Worried about finding a mate with a good MHC match? Check out ScientificMatch.com where, for a saliva sample and a mere $1000, you can find one!

3.) As reported by e! Science News, a new study shows that HIV has been around longer than we thought - since about 1900.

4.) Also from e! Science news: eating too much is bad for your brain.

5.) The Discovery Channel reports from across the Charles River at MIT, where they were able to create smell receptors in the lab. Someday this could lead to artifical noses that could detect things like drugs, explosives and cancer!

6.) Ring a bell and a dog moth salivates?

7.) Having problems with your teenage son? Maybe he has a mutation in his DAT1 gene, as reported by ScienceDaily.com.

8.) Check out the amazing images that won this year's National Geographic Best Science Images awards.

9.) Word associations with the word organic? Farming. Food. TVs?

Please note that I have discovered all of these. If any of these psychological conditions already have a name, then they were named after I wrote this post.

10. While driving a car, the need to lean our heads to the left or the right depending on which way we're turning. We're not NASCAR drivers. Turning right into the local quickie mart is not the same thing as entering a curve at 180 miles per hour with four cars surrounding us 2 inches away.

9. When a friend offers to get the tab, we say, "At least let me get the tip." This is not being nice; it's being annoying. The friend said he had the tab. If he's dumb enough to pay for the whole thing, he'll get the tip, too.

8. A woman's need to wash the dishes before putting them in the dishwasher. A corollary to this is a woman's need to clean the house before the maid comes.

7. Our need to look behind us when we trip over absolutely nothing. There was nothing in front of us when we were walking the first time. That's why we didn't see anything. Nothing is going to magically appear now that we look like an idiot. "Oh, look. See, there was a cinderblock in my way. I never just trip over nothin'."

6. When we were in grade school, we never wanted to look smart. As adults, we always want to look smart; thus, the need for such asinine statements as, "That's what I was going to say." Yeah, well, you didn't. If you had thought of it first, you would have said it. Don't piggyback off of someone else's insight.

5. While watching a comedian, the need to tell those around us that we can identify with what the comedian is saying. This is not needed. The fact that we are laughing demonstrates that we identify with the joke. Otherwise, we wouldn't be laughing. Here's a joke: "If this place were any flatter, I'd swear we were in Choybalsan." See, that's not funny. Unless you are one hell of a geography nut, you wouldn't know what Choybalsan, Mongolia is like.

4. The need to stop the gas pump at a round figure. It takes $75 to fill up my car, and that's using 87 grade. Is $75.02 really going to break me? Is it that much harder for me to balance my checkbook with that extra two pennies hanging out there?

3. The belief that everything was better when we were doing it. When we were in school, the school was better than it is today. Fashions in every other generation were dorky, but my Polo shirt with the collar turned up was damn cool. And don't get me started on how great my plaid pants were.

2. The perceived need to talk quietly in a bookstore. It's a bookstore, not a library. People are perusing the books. They're not cramming for a final. (And if you are in a bookstore cramming for a final, suck it up. It's a bookstore.) I don't think anyone is going to be bothered by your talking considering there is a bean grinder whirring away like a jet engine in the middle of the store.

1. The need to be the first person to like something popular. I've liked U2 long before most people in the United States knew who U2 were. This bugs me. Also, long ago, I observed that U2 has a lot of Christian messages in their songs. So, it now bothers me when I read about "the Christianity behind U2." I have so little thunder in life, I hate it when people steal it.

Ya sé, solamente es una película. Pero cada día observo comportamientos parecidos a mi alrededor. El hipnotizador es nuestras costumbres, las víctimas somos todos (o casi todos), y la palabra mágica es el sonar del teléfono.

Si no me crees, mira a tu alrededor. Fíjate en un espacio de trabajo cualquiera. Busca una persona que esté concentrada en sus tareas, ya sea con su ordenador, o conversando con otra persona, o leyendo. Suena su teléfono. Nuestra pobre víctima deja lo que está haciendo, independientemente de cuál sea su importancia, y descuelga.

Este comportamiento que acabo de describir puede parecerte normal. De hecho, es fácil observarlo. Siendo estrictos, deberíamos decir que es un comportamiento común o frecuente; lo de "normal" es discutible. Y en este post, precisamente, pretendo profundizar en la ética de dicho comportamiento, aportar razones en contra de la misma, y sugerir una nueva ética en cuanto a nuestra relación con el teléfono.

Pensemos por un momento en el otro, en la persona que llama por teléfono. Cuando llamas por teléfono a alguien me imagino que agradeces que tu interlocutor responda rápidamente a tu llamada, y te preste atención mientras habla contigo. Las ventajas de esto están claras. Sin embargo, pensemos también en el precio que hay que pagar para conseguir esto, poniéndonos, ahora, en el lugar de la persona que recibe una llamada. El teléfono suena. No sabes quién es. Solo sabes que el teléfono suena, y hasta que le prestes atención no dejará de sonar. De hecho, el teléfono está perfectamente diseñado para ser un auténtico tocapelotas. Es como si dijera: "hazme caso, o te martirizaré con mi sonido hasta que te vuelvas loco". Habitualmente, lo coges. Para hacer esto, has de abandonar momentáneamente la tarea que estabas haciendo. Y, lo que es más grave, has de abandonarla sin tener ni idea de la importancia relativa de la llamada que estás recibiendo. Quizá sea el embajador de Fiji para decirte que has sido nombrado cónsul honorario, lo cual merece la pena; pero quizá sea alguien de un call centre ofreciéndote cambiar tu grapadora eléctrica a un nuevo modelo por 4,95 €, lo cual, desde luego, es una pérdida de tiempo. En cualquier caso, interrumpes lo que estás haciendo, y atiendes el teléfono.

Las consecuencias

Interrumpir tu tarea puede tener varias consecuencias. La más evidente es que sales del flow o concentración profunda, y volver a entrar necesitará de unos buenos 20 minutos probablemente. Es tiempo perdido, tiempo que nadie va a recuperar. Una segunda consecuencia, que solo se da a veces, es que las personas que dependen de ti sincrónicamente sufren un fenómeno de stall, es decir, se quedan mirando alrededor, embobados, como si estuviesen en un ascensor, sin saber muy bien qué hacer, esperando a que acabes de hablar por teléfono. Esto suele ocurrir cuando estás hablando con alguien cara a cara, o en una reunión, te suena el teléfono, y lo atiendes. Los demás sufren stall. Ni que decir tiene, esto no es solo una pérdida de tiempo no solo tuya si no también de los demás, si no que, además, es de muy mala educación. El mensaje que les transmites a tus compañeros es: "sois menos importantes que una llamada".

Además de estas consecuencias directas, existe una gran variedad de situaciones más o menos relacionadas con ellas. Te las describo con algunos ejemplos, todos ellos observados por un servidor en los últimos dos o tres años:

• Estoy sentado en la tercera fila de una sala de conferencias, donde un ponente nos da una charla acompañada de las consabidas "diapositivas" de PowerPoint. Un teléfono móvil suena en la primera fila. Un señor encorbatado saca el móvil del bolsillo de la chaqueta, lo observa unos segundos mientras el móvil se desgañita sonando, y finalmente lo atiende y mantiene una conversación de uno o dos minutos sin moverse de su asiento.
• Estoy en una reunión con otras cuatro personas, en una sala con la puerta cerrada. Una de las personas está presentando su trabajo al resto. Suena su móvil, que está sobre la mesa. Todos nos quedamos quietos, mirando el móvil que se sacude como un abejorro. La propietaria del móvil anuncia que es una llamada importante, la atiende y los demás nos miramos o dibujamos tonterías en nuestros cuadernos mientras la chica del teléfono habla en voz bastante alta. Tras diez minutos así, dos personas salen de la sala (me imagino que hartos de la situación) sin decir nada. Finalmente, la chica del móvil termina de hablar, pero nadie sabe dónde están los dos que faltan, y la reunión se cancela catastróficamente.
• Un compañero de trabajo me pide ayuda con un problema de programación. Me siento con él en su ordenador y juntos trabajamos un rato, él al teclado, yo a su lado. De pronto suena su teléfono. Sin decirme ni una palabra, sin mirarme si quiera, descuelga y se pone a hablar. Yo (que tengo poca paciencia para estas cosas) decido darle unos minutos, pero tras cinco o seis, le sonrío lo mejor que puedo, me levanto y me voy. Al cabo de media hora aproximadamente, mi compañero aparece por mi despacho, asoma su cabeza, y me dice "ya acabé; cuando quieras seguimos".

Creo que es evidente que cualquiera de las situaciones que he descrito es desastrosa desde un punto de vista organizativo e insolidaria desde una perspectiva humana. Estas situaciones molestan a las personas, crean un clima de tensión y enfado, y contribuyen a extender un nefasto estilo de trabajo basado en las interrupciones y en la atención a corto plazo.

¿Pero por qué?

¿Por qué es insolidaria la gente de esta manera? No las tengo todas conmigo, pero creo que hay dos factores que contribuyen a ello:

• Por una parte, somos perros de Pavlov. Estamos condicionados a coger el teléfono cuando suena. Ni lo pensamos. Igual que los perros salivaban cuando oían la campana, nosotros descolgamos el teléfono cuando lo oímos.
• Por otra parte, algunos de nosotros creemos que responder un teléfono que suena es un acto solidario con la persona que está al otro lado de la línea. Dicho de otro modo, no responderlo sería insolidario con la persona que llama.

La primera razón es de índole conductista, y el único modo de deshacernos de ella es romper con el condicionante pavloviano. La segunda razón es de índole ética y es netamente falsa. Permíteme que me explique.

¿Qué significa que tu teléfono suene? Piénsalo por un momento. No, no significa que debas cogerlo. No seas perro de Pavlov. Significa que alguien quiere hablar contigo. El sonar del teléfono te muestra una intención o deseo de otra persona. De forma similar, otras señales a tu alrededor te muestran que otras personas desean comunicarse contigo también. Por ejemplo, la persona con la que estás teniendo una conversación en ese preciso instante, evidentemente, desea comunicarse contigo (de hecho, lo está haciendo). Algunos de los emails que te llegan muestran lo mismo. El lenguaje no verbal de personas que te rodean puede mostrar cosas similares. Tu ordenador, una impresora, u otros dispositivos también te pueden enviar mensajes reclamando tu atención. Es decir, en cualquier momento dado, somos susceptibles de recibir numerosas señales mostrando la intención o el deseo de otras personas o partes de comunicarse con nosotros. Es cada uno de nosotros quien decide, en última instancia, cómo priorizar esas señales, a quién atender primero, e incluso a quién no atender.

Si es así, ¿por qué le concedes una prioridad más alta a un teléfono sonando (a veces sin saber si quiera quién está al otro lado) que a tu interlocutor cara a cara, o que a una habitación llena de personas que te escuchan?

La solución

Creo que necesitamos:

• Romper el condicionante pavloviano que nos empuja a responder compulsivamente al teléfono, sin pensar en lo que estamos haciendo.
• Dejar de dar prioridad preferente a la persona que llama por teléfono, por encima de otras personas que están a nuestro alrededor.

En definitiva, se trata de recuperar el control sobre el buen juicio de uno. Ser capaz de sopesar las señales que recibes y decidir a quién atiendes en cada momento, sin permitir que un instrumento maquiavélico y dictatorial como el teléfono decida por ti. Se trata de salir de esa hipnosis que nos ha convertido en robots al servicio del que llama, cuando quiera, en cualquier situación, y nos hace sus esclavos.

¿Y cómo será?

¿Cómo será un entorno laboral en el cual las personas opten por una nueva ética del teléfono? Creo que puedo darte algunas pistas, porque, en mayor o menor medida, llevo años haciéndolo. Las personas que me llaman por teléfono a menudo lo saben bien: soy un tipo raro con el teléfono, porque a menudo no respondo. Les frustra enormemente. No respondo al teléfono. No es que no esté. Simplemente, oigo el teléfono sonar y decido no cogerlo, o lo silencio, o es que lo tengo desconectado. Desde el punto de vista de una persona "hipnotizada", esto es inadmisible. Me han llegado a gritar "¡a ver si coges el teléfono cuando te llamo!". Lo que esos individuos no ven es que las personas que estaban hablando conmigo en esos momentos, o las personas con las que yo estaba reunido en esas ocasiones, no fueron interrumpidas, ni les hice perder el tiempo. Yo soy dueño de mis decisiones en este sentido. Decido, cada vez, si he de responder el teléfono o no. A veces lo hago y a veces no. Pero siempre es una decisión consciente, no automática.

Si todos funcionásemos así, usaríamos el teléfono muchísimo menos, y mucho más los medios de comunicación asíncronos, como el email. Trabajaríamos mejor, con menos interrupciones, más concentrados. Las colaboraciones serían más fluidas y más armoniosas, porque no habría tantas interrupciones y pérdidas de tiempo colectivas. Ahorraríamos dinero, porque el email es más barato que el teléfono.

Llegará. El teléfono desaparecerá, poco a poco. Quizá no lo vea yo, pero ocurrirá. Mientras esperamos, podemos asomarnos al futuro e irlo creando, o seguir hipnotizados. ¿Qué dices?

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.1562872&w=425&h=350&fv=oid%3Dtri6enuzsxa3%26noLink%3D1]

Throughout time, great thinkers have theorised, and other great thinkers have added to the theories. Our modern society is a direct result of this train of learning. Thomas Malthus came up with a theory about massive population causing catastrophe. This in turn was picked up by Charles Darwin, famous for his evolution theory, and Darwin’s theory was an influence in Sigmund Freud’s psychological analysis of the psyche which has become the cornerstone of modern society.

Freud believed that man had inherent aggressive tendencies driven by primal drivers that were a by-product of our evolutionary journey from animal to human. These traits, given the right conditions, could be triggered and result in violent mob action.

The Elite’s feared this type of reaction, as they remembered the fate of the French royalty at the hands of starving French revolutionaries. If the mob could “go off” at any time, and the instinct for this violence was untreatable, then it would be necessary to create a system that would “appease” these instincts, while they set up a control structure to make mass reaction impossible. Enter the consumer culture.

Edward Bernays, Freud’s Nephew, went on to break Freud’s work into business and politics with his propaganda work in the CPI during WW1, and then into the manipulative process of “The engineering of consent” in marketing and politics in later years.

The requirement now seen by the elites, to control this perceived natural human aggression would lead to the creation of behavioural psychology, a system of processes designed to work on the Pavlovian primal drivers in conjunction with Skinnerian radical behaviourism where all organismic action is determined and not free. Skinner would go on to play a central role in Education philopsophy unto this very day.

The fact is that we are victims of a behavioural control programme that has existed for nigh on a century. Our parents for several generations have passed the mantle down to us just as they were instructed. As Skinner said, "Society attacks early, when the individual is helpless." The mind is under scientific attack from your first visit to school. As you grow, you are cast into the social net where consensual validation (popular opinion classifies what is normal)  sets the standard of normality.

From the earliest years we are indoctrinated to “respect authority” and to take up our slot in the hierarchy. We are attuned to a value system based on financial success where one must ruthlessly climb to the top of the heap. Those that are crushed underfoot are weak. How the waters between right and wrong have been muddied by the misconception that in business, as in life, one must put the company above the person. We are also misled in the conception that government has led us through a progression in history, and that we are on a constant path of improvement when even in the earliest of times, great minds like Aristotle understood that the cycle, monarchy, aristocracy, democracy and finally chaos, was in action.

You have all seen advertising that is based on one of the most fundamental drivers, Sex. From the Blond draped across the bonnet of a car, to the subliminal letters spelling out the word “SEX” in the ice cubes in a glass of a famous Vodka. The woman always seductively “mouths” the chocolate bar, and the man is always flanked by women. All of it is phallic symbolism. Buy the product that satisfies your sexual drivers.

You have all sat glued to a TV while your team nets another goal and screamed at the top of your lungs in victory. Back the sport that satisfies your tribal drivers. Just like in Pavlov’s experiments, the bell rings and the dog salivates

In truth, this society is suffering from an infection. This mental illness is so severe, we cannot even see that it is there. What is worse is that this illness is engineered for us and has an obvious outcome. Only what is it? . (see link for an analysis of the sick community by Erich Fromm.   http://www.erich-fromm.de/data/pdf/1954a-e.pdf

So then I ask you, what is normality then?

How the hell would you know!

Yours in Humanhood

Antireptilian

J'explique mon hilarité. Premièrement, une longue mise en situation: hier, Annie - la maudite chanceuse est encore en vacances ! - a découvert qu'elle pouvait acheter des jeux vidéo en ligne sur notre Wii avec sa carte de crédit. Elle a acheté la suite du jeu Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles auquel nous avons tant joué à l'époque du Game Cube. Contrairement au massacre de monstres dans des dongeons qui constitue l'essentiel de Crystal Chronicles, le titre suivant, My Life As A King, consiste à reconstruire une cité qui était en ruines dans le jeu précédent. Le joueur incarne un enfant-roi qui hérite d'une ville pratiquement déserte et doit gérer ses ressources pour rebâtir le tout.

Hé bien alors que j'observais Annie qui tentait d'apprendre les rouages de son nouveau jeu, elle a rencontré pour la première fois un des personnages: un tout petit pingouin bleu qui, dès son entrée en scène, s'est mis à l'insulter, la traitant de minable et entraînant une poursuite puérile à travers les rues virtuelles de son village. Après la poursuite futile, le petit pingouin s'est présenté bien pompeusement comme un être génial qui n'a à peu près rien à foutre de personne, et ce faisant a déclaré son nom: Pavlov !

Hahahah !

Haha !

Et voilà, ceux qui ne connaissent pas personnellement mon ami le soviet ne comprennent pas du tout pourquoi je ris.

C'est tordant, tordant...

If you just graduated from high school, you're already familiar with how little deviation from the 'group perspective' is allowed. If you're just entering college, then you have a great opportunity to start thinking for yourself! In college you'll be able to seek out others that feel the way you do, persuade others of your beliefs and do heavy-duty research to verify your beliefs. It's also an opportunity to have an open mind for the first time in your life. You'll be free to explore ideas, dangerous ideas, in the privacy of your dorm room, the library stacks or under the stars on the quad. After all, religion and politics are the most fun and interesting topics to talk about and debate with your friends, complete strangers, or that cute girl at the frat party. Believe us, you're not going to stand out in the crowd as the laid-back frat brother or the flirty girl that loves bar parties. Those are a dime a dozen.

Please join us in the quest to break the phenomenon of 'group think'. At riseupRochester we encourage diverse views on diverse issues. Have something to say? Write an article here! Disagree? Leave a comment.

Won't you join us? Make your college experience something worth remembering, somthting worth looking back upon. I hope that this site will be come yours just as much as it is ours at this point. College is a battleground where hearts and minds are won over with ideas. So throw your ideas into the mix!

Bienvenidos al Suplemento de Zuplemento (SUPdeZUP ó SdZ)

Hoy estrenamos la primera de muchas tiras de "Sopa, Seco y Jugo". Me pregunto:
¿Para cuantos personajes y artistas hemos sido el espacio para que estrenen su material?

Agradezco pidan en los comments a R. A. Winkelmann que vuelva a montar su colección de Ron & Vodka en Internet. Gracias, disfruten de esta edición regular con ¡8 artistas!:

[algunas imágenes se agrandan al clickearlas, duh]

.

Borlo “La Gente Seria No Merece Respeto”
por Carlos A. Etcheverry

[Incluye soundtrack al clickear]
Fuente: http://www.r-ev.net

.

.

Ron & Vodka
por R. A. Winkelmann

Fuente: http://winkelmann.deviantart.com/

.

Die Schroedingers Katze
Por Noiryaguara
Fuente: http://decadentiacoprofaga.blogspot.com

.

“Dibujitos”
Por Javo01
Fuente: http://javo01.deviantart.com/

.

“Raul Warming!”
Por Basileonardo
Fuente: http://basileonardo.blogspot.com/

por Liniers [Argentina]Fuente: http://autoliniers.blogspot.com (website no oficial)

.

carefuckyou

Por Luto [Colombia]

[Si no te abre la imagen, gracias a Blogger, puedes ver la entrada aqui]
Fuente: http://lutocorps.blogspot.com

.

[Clickea la imagen para ver la tercera entrega de estos 4 artistas]

Ça y est, je suis réveillé. Samedi ! J'aime le samedi, parce qu'il n'est pas suivi d'un lundi comme l'est le dimanche, ce congé boiteux où on ne peut même pas se coucher tard. Ce matin, après m'être réveillé à 11:00, j'ai constaté que je suis encore tout seul à la maison. Comme hier soir. Papa est parti à Joliette jeudi pour une sorte de congrès de je-ne-sais-quoi, alors que Maman et Annie sont parties hier à Québec pour le show de Céline Dion et prolongent leur escapade à Montmagny pour l'immense party annuel de mononc' Claude à son chalet au bord du fleuve.

Juste pour souligner encore plus le fait que tout le monde voyage alors que moi je me limite à un vas-et-viens entre l'hôpital et la maison, cette nuit alors que je jasais avec mes collègues Caro et Pavlov sur MSN, Louiiiiiiise Lemay elle-même, la globe-trotter, l'accoucheuse du Bénin, la grimpeuse de monts japonais, s'est connectée pour chatter en direct de... Moscou. Ben oui. Elle est allée sur le terrain pour constater l'austérité des Russes et l'inflation économique de leur capitale. Et Pavlov de lui réclamer une grosse cuiller en bois comme souvenir...

Bref, les gens se promènent partout. Surtout en médecine; c'est un domaine de voyageurs. Tiens par exemple, Geneviève, une des deux externes avec qui je fais mon stage de gériatrie, revient d'un voyage en Écosse. Et moi, quelles excursions ai-je faites cette année ? Montmagny pour voir mon grand-père maigrir dans un CHSLD, Saint-Vallier pour photographier un écureuil roux, faire ricocher des galets sur le Saint-Laurent et manger du fromage en grains chaud qui fait "skwic" ? Ah oui, Québec le soir du show de Paul McCartney, quand même...

Un jour il faudra bien que je me mette à voyager un peu plus. Sigh... Quand je serai patron.

When you're cool like me, you've got this insatiable urge to write a review on every book you read.  I don't know if it's because book reports were my strongest subject during my formative years or what, but I've just got to do it.  It's like Dracula and blood, Tommy Lee and sex, Paris Hilton and tastelessness; it can't be fought.

So, other than my "official" website, I like to post my book reports, uh, that is, my book reviews on Amazon.com.  Only the coolest people on planet Earth do that.  Now you may or may not know this, but people can actually vote on whether they found your review helpful or not. 

Cool as I am, I'm no scientist.  That being said, I've discovered a trend, something on the scale of Ivan Pavlov . . . when you post a positive review, people vote on it as very helpful.  But, when you write a negative review, people vote that you weren't helpful at all.  By the way, I have no idea if the Pavlov reference was accurate.  Run with me people, run with me.

Anyway, I happen to think that my reviews are always helpful, you know, because I've got a healthy ego.  Just because I write a bad review on a book, that doesn't mean the review wasn't helpful.  I simply point out what didn't work for me.  I think people that read my reviews are so smitten with the author they're looking at, they can't fathom said author could ever write a book that wasn't God's gift.  I've got news for you folks, some writers can produce real stink bombs.  Myself excluded, of course.

So there we go.  I will now quote Forest Gump on the subject with, "That's about all I have to say about that."

Was this slightly tongue-in-cheek article helpful to you?  YES    NO    (Report this)

Christianity: What does it mean to you to trust in Christ?

Obama says he is redeemed through Jesus Christ and that it is a daily source of sustenance and strength. He further explains that, "If I can get myself out of the way, that I can maybe carry out in some small way what He intends. And it means that those sins that I have on a fairly regular basis, hopefully, will be washed away."

The American Heritage Dictionary defines Christianity as such:

The religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, sent by God. They believe that Jesus, by dying and rising from the dead, made up for the sin of Adam and thus redeemed the world, allowing all who believe in him to enter heaven. Christians rely on the Bible as the inspired word of God.

So if you are a Christian, knowing you are redeemed, meaning your sin debt has been paid in full, there should be no doubt that no matter how many times you screw up in God's eyes, you are still saved. Of course, as a Christian, you should then pursue an even closer relationship with God which naturally keeps you from sinning as much as you did when you were not saved. Yes, you will sin, we all have and will, but as Christians, we should never stray from the path as we once did. I had to review that little clip several times because when Obama says, "And it means that those sins that I have on a fairly regular basis, hopefully, will be washed away.", moderator, Rick Warren chuckles but Obama never cracked a smile. Perhaps he was trying to get the answer we Christians wanted to hear out of the way so he could to move on to another point? Perhaps he was having problems getting his point across? As a Christian, I have no problem explaining what Jesus Christ did for me and I have fervor sharing the Gospel to those who want to learn more, so as you can see, Obama's response so far, left me scratching my head. Does he doubt his salvation? Did he not attend a church who's doxology reads:

"You promise to all who trust you forgiveness of sins and fullness of grace, courage in the struggle for justice and peace, your presence in trial and rejoicing, and eternal life in your realm which has no end."

Most people would gloss over it and continue to listen; when I heard it, I just thought that sounded rather awkward. He continues to his next point...

"But what it also means, I think, is a sense of obligation to embrace not just words but through deeds. The expectations I think that God has for us, and that means, thinking about the least of these, it means acting, well, acting justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly... with our God. And that, I think trying to apply those lessons on a daily basis, knowing that you're gonna fall a little bit short each day and being able to kind of take note, saying, "Well, that didn't quite work out the way I think it should have but maybe I can get a little bit better." It gives me the confidence to try things, including things like running for president, where you're gonna screw up once in a while."

I think I get the gist of his conclusion but it still leaves me confused. After all, why would I be rewinding my DVR to gain a better understanding of his response? I know there are several degrees of Christ following. The more you choose to have Christ be the model of your life, the more the Light of Christ shines for others to see. Kind of like the "lighthouse in the dark storm" metaphor. Some will have a 100,000 watt bulb in the lighthouse, others may have 10 watts, while others may even have a three-way bulb. You are given by God the light bulb that best suits you, how much you want to let this bulb shine for others is totally up to you. At least, 75% of the population of this country are Christians and they're not all of the same degree. Some are close to the lighthouse while others are way off course. After this initial question posed to Obama, I feel like the lights are on but the glass is a little foggy and not allowing as bright a light to shine through.

Abortion: 40 million abortions since Roe v Wade. At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view.

Obama plays this answer in as diplomatic a way as possible. Not wanting to step on anyone's toes, he quickly points out that the answer will vary depending on where your viewpoint comes from and that his ability to answer that question with specificity is "above my paygrade." Ironically enough, he then, at length, proceeds to answer on his general thoughts with specificity - I think.

Point 1 for him: "There is a moral and ethical element to this issue. And so, I think, anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue, I think, is not paying attention."

Point 2 for him: "I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe versus Wade and I come to that conclusion not because I am pro-abortion, but because ultimately I don't think women make these decisions casually. I think they wrestle with these things in profound ways. In consultation with their pastors, or their spouses, or their doctors, their family members..."

Honestly, the rest of his response started to sound like radio static because like a Pavlov dog, my ears will only start to listen once I hear the answer to the question given. Was he not being redundant when he stated in his first point that if you deny the issues, then you're not paying attention? Hello?!! Hey Obama, in the dictionary, under "redundant" it says "see Redundant"! He continue by stating he's pro-choice, that abortions have not gone down even during the Bush Administration, he wants to work together to reduce unwanted pregnancies, healthcare needs to be available, blah, blah, blah, then all of a sudden, he manages to get to the real crux of the question - I think.

"If you believe that life begins at conception then, and you are consistent on that belief, then I can't argue with you on that because that is a core issue of faith for you. What I can do is say, "Are there ways that we can work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies?" So that we actually are reducing the sense that women are seeking out abortions, and as an example of that, one of the things I've talked about is how do we provide the resources that will allow a women the choice to keep a child?"

Nope. I don't think he answered the question posed on him. He managed to avoid the question by taking two steps back and explaining that perhaps if women are more educated and provided the resources we would control the number of abortions. But the problem remains the same. There are still going to be a large number of women who are going to get abortions. So, Mr. Obama, you still need to address at what point does a baby get human rights? I didn't appreciate the smoke and mirrors response.

Marriage: Define marriage.

Finally, he gets applause from the audience (because he finally answers a question?) by clearly stating that marriage is a union between a man and a women, AND he adds, "As a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix." So naturally, Rick Warren, begs the question of whether Obama should put his money where his mouth is by ammending the constitution with this definition. Immediately, he answer that he wouldn't because historically we never defined marriage in the Constitution. OK, logistically he's got a point there. As a believer, I understand that God has given us a "free will" to do as we please. As an American citizen, we are given the inalienable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As a Christ-follower, we also understand that we are to not be stumbling blocks for other and that we always need to pursue His will for His glory. So in this instance, he tries to please God with his words of the definition of marriage but then also pleases the party that supports him. We cannot serve both sides because eventually, one side will suffer.

That's a lot to chew on, isn't it? It is for me. I'm trying to understand this because I feel there is a duty as a citizen to know the candidates and a Christian to know how God wants me to see the candidates for who they are. If I appear to sound against Obama, it's not my intention. McCain will be seen with the same scrutiny when I get to see what he says.

This is not from the Onion---but an old clip, offered without irony, from a Horizon magazine article, 1972. Because the text image above is blurred, I quote its key section here:

Using conditioning techniques, therapists, above, try to cure a homosexual by giving him electric shocks when pictures of men appear and the "reward" of no shock for pictures of sexy women.

As for the reference to Skinner raising his daughter in a glass box---I don't know what, exactly, is being referred to there.

Thirty-two months after an Indian Institute of Technology professor was killed on the campus of the Indian Institute of Science, “terror” returned to the pensioners’ paradise that no longer is, shortly after lunch this afternoon.

The question is not why Bangalore, but why did it take so bloody long?

Seriously.

Why did it take so long for these smart-assed sons of bitches to set off half a dozen bombs just as we were about to hit the sack for our afternoon siesta in our “sleeper cells”, when they could have done it yesterday, or day before, or last week, or last month?

The rocket scientists dressed as “intelligence sources” and “security experts” are already busy adding one and one and making it eleven: It was a Friday. It happened at 1.30 pm or shortly thereafter. Ergo, you know who was behind them.

Those bearded, fez-wearing, menacing-looking guys who procreate like hell, send their children to madrassas, and receive their cheques from strange places.

Any time now, the State government will blame central intelligence agencies for not alerting them. The Centre, in turn, will blame some unpronounceable outfit whose benefactors are across the border.

By primetime, the Prime Minister (depending on the toll obviously) will make a macho statement something to the effect of “We will not cow down to terror”. The Union home minister, whose very sentence-construction sends terrorists scurrying for cover, will pronounce that “such incidents will not deter the government from pursuing its policy of dealing with terrorists in a resolute manner.”

Tomorrow morning, the Congress which is in the opposition in Karnataka will blame the BJP, which is in power, for being interested in anything but governance. The BJP in turn will blame the Congress for revoking POTA and making this a soft-state. Editor types will stand up and say it is time for “moderates” to speak out.

And just when the TV guys were rubbing their hands in glee that something finally had happened to keep them busy over the next 36 hours, bam, the toll is just two. How do they fill “We, the People” and “Big Fight” and “Weekend Edition” this weekend?

Yes, it sounds all too flippant.

Two people have killed, several more injured, how can we be so joyful and jokey about such a serious “menace” like terrorism that is “eating into the vitals of our system” and taking “innocent lives”?

We would.

If they would.

The truth is security in India is a joke. You know it, the terrorists know it, it’s just that our political and administrative and police masters think that we don’t. So, like Pavlov’s pups, we are supposed to feel concerned about what happened in the “IT capital” this afternoon; we are supposed to slam terrorism “in no uncertain terms”.; we are supposed to light a candle in our hearts and mourn.

For what?

Truth is we have been there, done that, and bought the lousy blood-stained T-shirt several times before: in Hyderabad, in Bombay, in Delhi, in Jaipur, in Coimbatore, and not necessarily in that order. In buses, in trains, in markets, in temples, in auditoriums.

And you don’t need rocket scientists dressed as “intelligence sources” or “security experts” to tell you that it will happen again in Hyderabad, in Bombay, in Delhi, in Jaipur, in Coimbatore, and not necessarily in that order, in buses, in trains, in marekts, in temples, in auditoriums, some time soon.

Hopefully, later if not sooner.

The truth is security in India is a joke. Unfortunately, it is on you.

This piece also appears on rediff.com

Photograph: Karnataka Photo News