There have been many time in the last 12 months where it's felt like I'm swimming underwater, dragged down by an undertow, and I'd never reach the light again. I started surfacing in the fall, but they were gasping breaks for air, and then the fear would drag me down again. Since Christmas, I'm getting stronger, till it feels more like I'm swimming on the surface most of the time now. Moreover, there are times when I can look down and see to the bottom, when the water I'm swimming through seems crystal clear and it's more like I'm flying. I feel more like the person I'm meant to be every day. It's time to focus on bringing the external in line with that, since this is the last thing holding me back. Ah, but the flesh resists reshaping!
Lily Allen isn't talking precisely about the same fear, but it's related:
And the ultimate goal -- no embedding for this one, kids, sorry.
Twisting by the Pool--Dire Straits featuring the cutest little blonde guitarist the 80s had to offer.
I have opinions on things and I like to talk about them.
13.6.09
11.6.09
mind dump
Random phrases to remove from my consciousness:
-Beautiful like a statue of some god
-Like gentling a horse... no sudden moves to spook him
Actually, all the others seem gone, so just that one for now.
-Beautiful like a statue of some god
-Like gentling a horse... no sudden moves to spook him
Actually, all the others seem gone, so just that one for now.
8.6.09
argh sputter @#$#@ spit: or, On Climate Change Science
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howlett/?p=960
My first reaction whenever I read a "let's revisit the climate change 'debate'" article is from the gut: tear hair, gnash teeth, pound head, sputter... recognizing that this feeds the arguments in the article just frustrates me more.
So let me begin by stating that I am not a scientist. Contrary to popular belief, however, I am capable of rational thought, logic and analysis. I have read the arguments of the climate change resisters, and I have reviewed some (certainly not all) the evidence proffered by the IPCC. And I have analysed motivations on both sides, which is certainly more within my bailiwick than reading core samples or statistical data.
I understand that there are people who profit from panic. Unfortunately, I cannot wrap my head around how the people I see arguing for a change in our world to combat human-induced climate change are going to profit, at least in the ways attributed by the other side. Not without accepting that there are vast secret societies running major games on the international scene. Knowing intimately the way that environmental organizations work... I say, no.
I have not seen the shadow of giant conglomerates aiming for world domination, an increase in oil prices, an end to oil companies, a worldwide socialist government, or any of the other equally crazy end-results suggested by the deniers. The people I see arguing for change stand to profit by having... some nature left, some clean air, some drinkable water. Clearly they must be part of a communist plot, with such mighty goals.
I do understand resistance to change. This is an integral part of human nature, along with an infinite capacity for denial, and a vast desire to not lose power gained. So it's very easy to see where people might not embrace a new approach to living that might mean better quality of life but maybe less 'stuff', when 'stuff' in our current context means status and power.
The "let's not change till the science is absolute, and everyone on the planet 100% agrees" is baloney. Scientists know there is no absolute proof. On this basis, the few hundred or so members of the Flat Earth Society would keep us from taking cruises. We'd still be smoking.
What is threatened most if we change? Apparently economy, although Nicholas Stern among others has demonstrated that there is an excellent counter argument to that. What is threatened most if we accept the strongly-evidenced man-made climate change theory and do not change? Um, our ability to continue as a species. I'm on side with evolution on this one. The Precautionary Principle is one of my favourite things.
I do, at least, agree with the blog post author -- at least I think he's making this point -- that there are other corollary benefits to change that may mean more to some people; and that technology is not a magic bullet to change everything.
People need to change, and anyone who has read advice columns to women about not trying to change men knows how that will play out.
My first reaction whenever I read a "let's revisit the climate change 'debate'" article is from the gut: tear hair, gnash teeth, pound head, sputter... recognizing that this feeds the arguments in the article just frustrates me more.
So let me begin by stating that I am not a scientist. Contrary to popular belief, however, I am capable of rational thought, logic and analysis. I have read the arguments of the climate change resisters, and I have reviewed some (certainly not all) the evidence proffered by the IPCC. And I have analysed motivations on both sides, which is certainly more within my bailiwick than reading core samples or statistical data.
I understand that there are people who profit from panic. Unfortunately, I cannot wrap my head around how the people I see arguing for a change in our world to combat human-induced climate change are going to profit, at least in the ways attributed by the other side. Not without accepting that there are vast secret societies running major games on the international scene. Knowing intimately the way that environmental organizations work... I say, no.
I have not seen the shadow of giant conglomerates aiming for world domination, an increase in oil prices, an end to oil companies, a worldwide socialist government, or any of the other equally crazy end-results suggested by the deniers. The people I see arguing for change stand to profit by having... some nature left, some clean air, some drinkable water. Clearly they must be part of a communist plot, with such mighty goals.
I do understand resistance to change. This is an integral part of human nature, along with an infinite capacity for denial, and a vast desire to not lose power gained. So it's very easy to see where people might not embrace a new approach to living that might mean better quality of life but maybe less 'stuff', when 'stuff' in our current context means status and power.
The "let's not change till the science is absolute, and everyone on the planet 100% agrees" is baloney. Scientists know there is no absolute proof. On this basis, the few hundred or so members of the Flat Earth Society would keep us from taking cruises. We'd still be smoking.
What is threatened most if we change? Apparently economy, although Nicholas Stern among others has demonstrated that there is an excellent counter argument to that. What is threatened most if we accept the strongly-evidenced man-made climate change theory and do not change? Um, our ability to continue as a species. I'm on side with evolution on this one. The Precautionary Principle is one of my favourite things.
I do, at least, agree with the blog post author -- at least I think he's making this point -- that there are other corollary benefits to change that may mean more to some people; and that technology is not a magic bullet to change everything.
People need to change, and anyone who has read advice columns to women about not trying to change men knows how that will play out.
7.6.09
Need mental music
Ok, I actually need coffee. Someone mentioned the Lower Deck, and suddenly I feel a terrible lot like seeing Signal Hill. Part of me wishes it were 6 years ago (and thus, 40 pounds and one defunct relationship ago).
The sound is terrible in this, and Jason's not singing, and it's not at the LD, but still...
At least this is at the Deck:
The sound is terrible in this, and Jason's not singing, and it's not at the LD, but still...
At least this is at the Deck:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)