Nope, it was the first time I'd ever visited "Thatcher, AZ."
We went through it intentionally (which you sorta have to do) because I wanted a window into what made my HS drama teacher, who so hated me, and better understand, possibly what made her tick. It was, at the time, a very small town (and predominantly Mormon.) I didn't learn much from the trip -- well, not as much as the fact that her daughter, my same age ran away from home...
well thats a clue right there. why do kids run from their homes? id have to think that there was something unhealthy for the kiddo and perhaps mamas rigidity was the cause?
... and Mormons and hippies didn't exactly have an affinity in the '60's... :) Gawd, she hated me ... LOL. Was the only class in HS I flunked. "Drama." Go figure. Not only that, but I had that "F" the 4th week of class, (she TOLD me) and it was unalterable.
did she say why? usually when someone has that sort of reaction to another person its an unconscious jab at someone from their past who you remind them of. but, i think everybody has one of those teachers tho most dont do f's they just do c's or d's. my high school bio teacher was going to flunk me because i wouldnt kill a frog for dissection. he had one of those grocery boxes full of live frogs and he passed them out individually with a pin and watched as each student stuck the pin in the frogs..i dunno..i wanna say spine or brain but really i cant remember where the kill zone was... ive blocked that out. but i couldnt do it. literally could not. he tried to force my hand, literally gripping and shoving it toward the frog and i told him if he didnt stop i would bite him. so he took the rest of the frogs in the box and dumped them on me and told me to leave the class and that i had flunked. i needed bio to graduate, it was a requirement so that wasnt happenin. i went home and told my father what happened. he got all sorts of REALLY RED in the face and the next day he went in and had a chat with this teacher while i waited outside in the hall. voices were raised, threats were made, dad was an old army man who didnt suffer fools well, and the result was that i had to diagram the dissection on paper rather than cut and kill, and then he wouldnt flunk me. all of his tests were essay and he scored me down on everything. i ended up with a d but at least it wouldnt prevent me from graduating.
Oddly, I had other teacher (all of 'em, actually, who somewhat love me, having me in their class, but oy, not her.) Even our choir director, who loved to say: "You want Blood, Sweat and Tears? I'll give you blood, sweat and tears," and who booted me out of class the day after the dress code was stuck down, and females could wear pants, because I wasn't wearing pants "that zipped on the side." Even he liked me, although reluctantly, but not her.
is she still alive? you oughta pay her a visit and say hey remember me? why did you do that to me? id love to do that to the bio guy but he died in the 80s.
i remember when the dress codes changed! the world is such a different place these days. geesh. i think i was in 4th or 5th grade then. i remember that skirts had to be of the length that if you were kneeling (catholic school:) there had to be a 2 in flap of material left over. then the pants thing came and that was such a big deal. my schools were divided into grades k-3 then 4-8 and then 9-12. one of the 8th grade boys declared that girls looked stupid wearing pants and to protest this dawning of feminine power he came to school wearing a grass skirt for a few days then he switched to a kilt. he said if girls could wear pants then he could wear a skirt! lol. what a dweeb. funny the memories that get triggered.
I a small town in North Eastern Arizona) I so well knew the place I could and did tell her exactly what the back of the house, including the yard, its contents, right down to colors, and fence looked like, and when we did a drive by of the back, it was as I "remembered" (?) Again -- there was no way I could have a "present life" memory of the place, which sort of lead me to be more accepting of possibilities of the notion of past life memories.
i wonder if youve maybe driven by it in the past and have forgotten?
Nope, it was the first time I'd ever visited "Thatcher, AZ."
We went through it intentionally (which you sorta have to do) because I wanted a window into what made my HS drama teacher, who so hated me, and better understand, possibly what made her tick. It was, at the time, a very small town (and predominantly Mormon.) I didn't learn much from the trip -- well, not as much as the fact that her daughter, my same age ran away from home...
... and Mormons and hippies didn't exactly have an affinity in the '60's... :) Gawd, she hated me ... LOL. Was the only class in HS I flunked. "Drama." Go figure. Not only that, but I had that "F" the 4th week of class, (she TOLD me) and it was unalterable. Oddly, I had other teacher (all of 'em, actually, who somewhat love me, having me in their class, but oy, not her.) Even our choir director, who loved to say: "You want Blood, Sweat and Tears? I'll give you blood, sweat and tears," and who booted me out of class the day after the dress code was stuck down, and females could wear pants, because I wasn't wearing pants "that zipped on the side." Even he liked me, although reluctantly, but not her.
how often do you think about people who you either know or once knew? how far back does this thinking go?
Me? "Too much," I've been told.
I would think the answers would be as individual as the responders, really. I can chart/have charted two specific times in my childhood where I got, due to specific traumatic events, "stuck" for a while, and years later (decades later, perhaps) had to extracte myself and move forward, which created in me, essentially a "late bloomer" in some social ways, thus, I suspect, keeping memories created during those time frames, more relevant, intact, and "present" than might be so for others.
and those memories pop up at different times?i think if you go thru a period where youve isolated yourself socially often that isolation is simply a physical isolation and perhaps you were more of an observer of others during that time and maybe thats why the memories have stayed. if the memories are of things other than the traumatic event anyway. thats how it happens for me. ill be driving down the highway or walking the dog in the woods and ill think about someone or some scene from the past will play out in my head. not necessarily traumatic but its more like watching a movie. today for instance i was waiting for a ride from my mechanic and i was thinking of the woman who lived down the street from me when i was a child. she was someone i was forbidden to visit with but she always gave me cool stuff like melted candle wax to make jewelery out of and her yard was always filled with violets in the spring and shed let me pick them. she was probably my nicest neighbor but i was not allowed to go there. when the thought hit today i was thinking about her mud room. she had a cactus plant on the shelf, it was a souviener from somewhere and i liked it and was always trying to touch it and shed always say that will stick you stay away from it. i have no idea why that hit me while driving down rt 91 today but it did. sometimes ill flash on an old friend that i havent seen in years or a snippet of a conversation i had with a friend decades ago. i figger the mind is processing something in the present and the lesson is an old one and that the connection is an automatic one but it requires some introspection to get to the root of it. but its often hard to connect the dots since what we are currently processing is often even less acessible than those past events.
In some ways, I really feel as if I've had three, possibly four wholly separate lives, and at the end of each one, there's been a process of starting over almost from scratch. It seems memories towards the end of those "lives" are more vivid than others -- almost like brightly colored book marks between chapters.
i like this idea and think its an apt description. we do seem to have chapters in our lives and the chapters seem to begin and end at some pivotal point. ill have to think a bit on the how many chapters thus far aspect of it but i really like that description. when we think of the future we cant even imagine the turns in the road up ahead and how taking those turns can set us off on a whole new course.
Of lovers/partners past, unless they are in my present, I rarely think about them at all, and if so, it's because something specific has reminded me of them.
yep not so much about exs. more of an in general how often do we have positive memories or thoughts about people in our everyday world both past and present. i was thinking more of what bds quote about how right this very minute someone somewhere was thinking we were an idiot. not necessarily an ex but anyone really. maybe the person ya cut off in traffic, the person who sits next to you at work or the checker at the market who has to smile atcha anyway or just someone who thinks someone is an idiot for no good reason at all. cant please everybody. shrug. and then i was thinking that this was perhaps not the best way to frame the world because its probably more likely that a greater number of other someones are thinking good thoughts about us right this moment but we are less aware of their thoughts both by facial expression and maybe proximity. but i think most of us tend to pay more attention to the actions or thoughts of negative people and negative encounters perhaps because we are more aware of them? but i prolly have a good 20 or 30 positive thoughts about various different people, both in my present and from my past, during the course of a day and it stands to reason that others have similar thoughts about others. and given the multitude of people we interact with in the course of a day its very likely that some of those positive thoughts were about us! !
I just now realized, for instance, that on my day trip to Sedona a couple of weeks ago, which extended to a drive up the switchbacks to Flagstaff, I took my traveling companion by the place where I lived for five years, and at the time, never once thought of any of the "roommates" I had there, including my first partner. (I did remember the dog I had, though.) :) I remember the dog as we were driving away, but while we were there, slowly creeping past it, my former home, I was only "in the present" really,
hmmm. but was their an embodied response to the home itself. a "calling" to home? ive had that feeling when ive visited places ive lived in my life. almost like the years have peeled away and im turning into the driveway again and its never been about the people as much as its been about the place. home is such a powerful symbol, more so than people
contradictory as that sounds. I was pleased it, unlike the town had changed little -- the same pine trees dotted the area which had been there thirty some years before. The road was paved, but other than that, it was virtually unchanged, and I was already on a bit of a "high" being in that clean clear Flagstaff air. My time spent in Flagstaff was a wonderful phase of my life -- my return there didn't evoke so much memories of people or events as it did simply return to me a sense of peace and well being.
a simpler time?
I a small town in North Eastern Arizona) I so well knew the place I could and did tell her exactly what the back of the house, including the yard, its contents, right down to colors, and fence looked like, and when we did a drive by of the back, it was as I "remembered" (?) Again -- there was no way I could have a "present life" memory of the place, which sort of lead me to be more accepting of possibilities of the notion of past life memories.
i wonder if youve maybe driven by it in the past and have forgotten? or the colors and fence make sense to you artistically so they would be a logical choice? although i do think that certain objects can pull us toward them in a "known" way. i had tht experience recently in a place that sold eastern religious statues. i literally felt called to one of them and nearly bought it but figgered if i did id have some yahoo neighbors reporting me to the town. instead i took a photo of it and enlarged it, framed it and its hangin on the wall now!
thanks owl..i really appreciate it...i am good...not "idolizing" in any way..lol..not at all..she was so not "perfect" in many ways..no way could i ever deny that...but still i felt that "L" word deeply......and i can soooo relate to what you said about seeing or wanting to see or imagining seeing a former everywhere...did that one several years ago.....good thing i havent ever felt the need to repeated that again..lol...this time, no, never go by her house, never look at other cars to see if i see her, never go past her work, havent looked at pictures in quite a while now..shoot there was one occasion she was actually at the same place i was and i never knew it till someone mentioned she was there the next day...i was like, really? where? and they said, umm, like 2 tables away...!!! yes, i can be oblivious, but that is what i mean...not looking, pining, living in the past...nothing like that at all..yeah if i could change things i would..but it takes two to want to be together..i so get that...a friend told me, that you just have to find someone who loves you as much as you love them...very very true.....maybe my post saying i have missed opportunities was taken wrongly...i meant dating opportunities......i have not become a hermit hiding, wallowing in self pity...i need and want to go out, be around people, laugh, smile, sing, flirt, dance..i do and just enjoy the now......however, i know my heart is not ready for a gf/lover...simple as that. i just know i am not at a place to share this scabbed over heart....scabs are too easy to rip off and get all infected and gross...no...need to wait till the scars heal and are less visible...
and anyway i would rather share my scarred, patched, disfigured healed heart than a clean pristine shiny one...because the clean pristine shiny one....has probably never known love....
thanks for caring enough to respond.......(wish we had a "hug" smilie)
Well, one of the few things I actually know about romatic relationships is that you'll never be able to hold a new love, as long as your hand is wrapped around, and holding tight to the old one... <--NO ___________________________________________
you are absolutely 100% correct....i know i have missed opportunities because of this...and people saying, gosh she is so sweet and she really likes you, why dont you just go out with her....... go for it, she would be perfect for you....... how can you pass that up, she is gorgeous...... and the best: you're so pretty and such a wonderful intelligent person, people would love to date you, just get over it...(love that one... NOT!)...
cant. sorry...my feelings, once they develop are deep, deep, deep....i am not one of those that can turn that off like a water faucet.....wish i could....the people i know like that, many times, i think, wow, they're so lucky they move on to the next so quickly...guess that is just not how i am programed.....the good part is that, if my history is any sort of an indicator, it will only be two years before i am ready to go forth and try again....
so yes, you are right...completely....and why it is not fair to anyone else for me to put myself out there when i know my heart is still, and will be for a long time, unavailable....
-- Edited by My Turn at 18:58, 2008-12-04
Well, again, to a large degree, it boils down to "choice," I guess. True, we need to grieve loss, but I think grief is an active process, and often, while we may think we're doing that, actually, we're just refusing to move on.
My experience is that for me, anyway, it typically takes about half the life of a relationship for me to get ... "beyond" it. In other words, if a relationship lasts eight years, it's usually four years before I can wholeheartedly think about another relationship. Even so, there needs to be a willingness to let go -- for the benefit of both parties involved. There are ups and downs, good days and bad, but it's not until you stop feeding the beast that it begins to move away from your door.
For me, the time between relationships is valuable for introspection, self discovery and advancement, and learning the lessons gifted to me in the relationship past -- both the happy ones, and the ones not so happy. I've found too, that we can sometimes idealize something lost way out of proportion so that it eclipses reality, and is impossible to ever "match" in intensity, because it's an untrue picture of reality. I was partnered for many years with a woman whose husband suddenly died (this was about a year before she and I met.) During her grieving the loss (with me) she elevated the man to sainthood. He became less human, and more perfect for a long time, and I don't even want to be in that situation again, because when it comes to a ghost, mere mortals will always come up short.
And I don't know any people, although I'm sure they're out there, who can just "turn feelings off like a water faucet." I don't know that one needs to, really. I still have positive feelings about ... most of my exes, and it's reciprocated, if I can believe them. What I've learned too, is that there's a trap in believing a relationship is something you "have" -- that you somehow are an "owner" of it. The cliche is that love is a verb, and I think that applies to relationships, too. You can't ever "lose" something you don't first own, and that, I think, is ultimately the key.
When my first parnership ended I hurt so bad I forced myself to go through a deprogramming process. I saw "her" car everywhere ... it didn't even have to be the same color, or exactly the same make. Finally, what I did was fill a big tub with ice cubes, and stick my feet in it, and force myself to look at a bulletin board upon which I'd thumb tacked about thirty different pictures of that car from magazines and stuff, until I just couldn't stand it.
It worked.
I was still sad the person was no longer in my life the same way, but I realized it was what it was, and I needed to get proactive about moving on, and returning to life in the present, and it wasn't gonna happen without work. There are things you can do, but if you've found comfort in your heartache, and don't do them, then really, you're just wasting precious time. I don't mean that to sound harsh, but it's the truth. We have a finite number of days walking around on this planet. How we spend them, is, in final analysis, our choice. If your choice is to stay where you are, understand it's a choice, not something anyone has "done to" you, and that you may change it any time you wish. People usually make changes when present behavior ceases to "work for them." If how you feel is working for you, then there's no reason to change, I guess.
Well, one of the few things I actually know about romatic relationships is that you'll never be able to hold a new love, as long as your hand is wrapped around, and holding tight to the old one... <--NO ___________________________________________
you are absolutely 100% correct....i know i have missed opportunities because of this...and people saying, gosh she is so sweet and she really likes you, why dont you just go out with her....... go for it, she would be perfect for you....... how can you pass that up, she is gorgeous...... and the best: you're so pretty and such a wonderful intelligent person, people would love to date you, just get over it...(love that one... NOT!)...
cant. sorry...my feelings, once they develop are deep, deep, deep....i am not one of those that can turn that off like a water faucet.....wish i could....the people i know like that, many times, i think, wow, they're so lucky they move on to the next so quickly...guess that is just not how i am programed.....the good part is that, if my history is any sort of an indicator, it will only be two years before i am ready to go forth and try again....
so yes, you are right...completely....and why it is not fair to anyone else for me to put myself out there when i know my heart is still, and will be for a long time, unavailable....
hallmark quote: "somewhere tonight someone is thinking of you fondly!" it never occurs to me to think that anyone is thinking of me
i have heard of that....i know for me, there are, well, is, really only one that i think about every single day.....and i have often wondered if that person does too....i doubt it....or if they do, it is probably not in a good way.....i sometimes wish they did have thoughts of me in the same way i do... but i am sure i have been erased.... sigh...if only a time machine were real.....
Well, one of the few things I actually know about romatic relationships is that you'll never be able to hold a new love, as long as your hand is wrapped around, and holding tight to the old one...
hallmark quote: "somewhere tonight someone is thinking of you fondly!" it never occurs to me to think that anyone is thinking of me
i have heard of that....i know for me, there are, well, is, really only one that i think about every single day.....and i have often wondered if that person does too....i doubt it....or if they do, it is probably not in a good way.....i sometimes wish they did have thoughts of me in the same way i do... but i am sure i have been erased.... sigh...if only a time machine were real.....
but other than that....nope, cant really say i think that much about people from my past....and when i do it is very rarely....and not so much with nostalgia or longing or whatever....perhaps, more like, wonder what ever happened to such and such.....
Yanno, I lost two posts here last evening. Not my typical attention seeking ones, or the one liners, but the brainier variety. Neither "stuck". I thought those days were gone, I only had that happen here once before. It corrected itself. gawd knows which messageboard or forum last nights posts went, but I guarantee there's a wise azz out there that replied to it something like "looks like someones GPS is broken".
lol! its been tricky going after 1am at least thats been my experience. it times out. ive given up a couple of times but usually the back arrow that owl suggested has worked.
Actually I recall the last line of one of them was a recent quote I heard, "never forget that to someone, somewhere, we are the idiot". Ouch, though true.
yes, yes, but if weve managed to go thru life without at least a few people thinkin were idiots then were too involved in people pleasing and not involved enough in self pleasing. (now that phrase made me chuckle:) but for everyone who thinks someone is an idiot there is this hallmark quote: "somewhere tonight someone is thinking of you fondly!" it never occurs to me to think that anyone is thinking of me for any reason unless im standing between them and the elevator at quittin time so its interesting to me to consider both of those possibilities. which leads me to a question. how often do you think about people who you either know or once knew? how far back does this thinking go?
Me? "Too much," I've been told.
I would think the answers would be as individual as the responders, really. I can chart/have charted two specific times in my childhood where I got, due to specific traumatic events, "stuck" for a while, and years later (decades later, perhaps) had to extracte myself and move forward, which created in me, essentially a "late bloomer" in some social ways, thus, I suspect, keeping memories created during those time frames, more relevant, intact, and "present" than might be so for others.
In some ways, I really feel as if I've had three, possibly four wholly separate lives, and at the end of each one, there's been a process of starting over almost from scratch. It seems memories towards the end of those "lives" are more vivid than others -- almost like brightly colored book marks between chapters. My "second life" if you will, was essentially 4th-8th grade. I have such strong memories of my 2nd and 3rd grade teachers, but only a speaking memory of my 1st grade teacher, whom I loved, but don't really remember loving her in a "present memory" way, if that makes any sense. I remember very little about 6th grade at all, either at home, during play, or in school.
Perhaps because the next "different life" was heralded by a traumatic incident, the body/mind develops some sort of self preservation thing of numbness, and like a an LP record with a scratch on it, keeps skipping and looping back to the cut immediatiately before, rather than playing the "present" music.
Of lovers/partners past, unless they are in my present, I rarely think about them at all, and if so, it's because something specific has reminded me of them. I just now realized, for instance, that on my day trip to Sedona a couple of weeks ago, which extended to a drive up the switchbacks to Flagstaff, I took my traveling companion by the place where I lived for five years, and at the time, never once thought of any of the "roommates" I had there, including my first partner. (I did remember the dog I had, though.) :) I remember the dog as we were driving away, but while we were there, slowly creeping past it, my former home, I was only "in the present" really, contradictory as that sounds. I was pleased it, unlike the town had changed little -- the same pine trees dotted the area which had been there thirty some years before. The road was paved, but other than that, it was virtually unchanged, and I was already on a bit of a "high" being in that clean clear Flagstaff air. My time spent in Flagstaff was a wonderful phase of my life -- my return there didn't evoke so much memories of people or events as it did simply return to me a sense of peace and well being.
I wonder if some of us, in our memories remember different things -- in other words, I wonder if some of us (perhaps due to a right/left brain thing??) more remember faces, or events, or words, or buildings, and any variance of those, and others remember feelings, and senses, or if everyone has a potpourii of all jumbled together? I have a strong sense/feeling about buildings in general. Twice in my life (once in grade schoo, the other in high school) I drove past a house there was no way I could have ever seen before, and yet I knew that house intimately. The second time that happened (it was on a trip with a friend through a small town in North Eastern Arizona) I so well knew the place I could and did tell her exactly what the back of the house, including the yard, its contents, right down to colors, and fence looked like, and when we did a drive by of the back, it was as I "remembered" (?) Again -- there was no way I could have a "present life" memory of the place, which sort of lead me to be more accepting of possibilities of the notion of past life memories. I remember reading an explanation of deja vu once before, but I've forgotten it now. Hmm. I know there is the possibility that a situation is remarkably similar to some other, but sometimes, that just doesn't apply, or work out according to ... logic. :)
Yanno, I lost two posts here last evening. Not my typical attention seeking ones, or the one liners, but the brainier variety. Neither "stuck". I thought those days were gone, I only had that happen here once before. It corrected itself. gawd knows which messageboard or forum last nights posts went, but I guarantee there's a wise azz out there that replied to it something like "looks like someones GPS is broken".
lol! its been tricky going after 1am at least thats been my experience. it times out. ive given up a couple of times but usually the back arrow that owl suggested has worked.
Actually I recall the last line of one of them was a recent quote I heard, "never forget that to someone, somewhere, we are the idiot". Ouch, though true.
yes, yes, but if weve managed to go thru life without at least a few people thinkin were idiots then were too involved in people pleasing and not involved enough in self pleasing. (now that phrase made me chuckle:) but for everyone who thinks someone is an idiot there is this hallmark quote: "somewhere tonight someone is thinking of you fondly!" it never occurs to me to think that anyone is thinking of me for any reason unless im standing between them and the elevator at quittin time so its interesting to me to consider both of those possibilities. which leads me to a question. how often do you think about people who you either know or once knew? how far back does this thinking go?
I think about, nearly weekly, sometimes even moreso of three non-related women from my early days. One dates back to when I was six, one at 12 and one at 16. To me they were remarkable, awesome people. I loved and admired each of them the best a child, preteen and young adult could. They were all women and all brilliant teachers. To the first I was the perfect student, to the second she was the perfect mentor, the third? That was a combination of the first two that rapidly morphed into my first relationship.
"Candidate A is Franklin D Roosevelt, Candidate B is Winston Churchill, and Candidate C is Adolph Hitler.
earlier today cnn had an interview with roosevelts grandson. they dragged him on to discuss what the obama kids might find when they moved to the white house. he on the other hand had a new book to peddle and seemed a bit annoyed whenever they switched the convo back from his book to the obama kids. it was never clear why the grandkids came to live at the white house and he didnt elaborate much on his experience there despite living in the white house for 12 years. 12 years, whew. but they did show the old jungle jim and slide that eleanor had installed on the grounds and a couple of pictures of he and his sister inside. he said that eleanor was distant, remote with him and yet cited her as having the most profound influence on his life. the grandkids also had very odd nicknames something like sistie and bistie.
C is HITLER? Well, I guess that blows the "follower" theory huh?
lol i blew that one, eh? im glad tho that i didnt pick him as the fearless leader. tho now that i think about it, he was a good leader in that he got people to follow him and sign onto his craziness.
Yanno, I lost two posts here last evening. Not my typical attention seeking ones, or the one liners, but the brainier variety. Neither "stuck". I thought those days were gone, I only had that happen here once before. It corrected itself. gawd knows which messageboard or forum last nights posts went, but I guarantee there's a wise azz out there that replied to it something like "looks like someones GPS is broken".
lol! its been tricky going after 1am at least thats been my experience. it times out. ive given up a couple of times but usually the back arrow that owl suggested has worked.
Actually I recall the last line of one of them was a recent quote I heard, "never forget that to someone, somewhere, we are the idiot". Ouch, though true.
yes, yes, but if weve managed to go thru life without at least a few people thinkin were idiots then were too involved in people pleasing and not involved enough in self pleasing. (now that phrase made me chuckle:) but for everyone who thinks someone is an idiot there is this hallmark quote: "somewhere tonight someone is thinking of you fondly!" it never occurs to me to think that anyone is thinking of me for any reason unless im standing between them and the elevator at quittin time so its interesting to me to consider both of those possibilities. which leads me to a question. how often do you think about people who you either know or once knew? how far back does this thinking go?
I think, in part, I liked this puzzle/question because it touched upon what I've long pondered, which is what exactly is it we want from our president? What is it we think will make him or her a "good" president?
I want someone who is intelligent, who knows the issues inside and out, can think creatively and a couple of steps ahead and who has a proven track record of accomplishment. In this day and age id also want someone who didnt flinch, who was calm in a crisis and who didnt give up in the face of great obstacles.I look at the difference between sarah palin and hillary clinton. i think one is clearly qualified to be president and one (at this time anyway) is not.
My thoughts about that reply are pretty much the same as about the affair, which is that we can't find fault, really, in the answer to a question which should have never been asked in the first place. I know a myriad of excellent leaders whose personal lives are in chaos -- it's possible to separate the two, and more than we might know actually do every day. But the question remains: is it "important" we know if Bill Clinton smoked pot in college? Really? Again, that seems to be a thing of the times, similar to JFK's Catholicism. You know, JFK actually gave a whole major speech, similar to Obama's on race, about his being a Catholic. A whole speech. It was that much an issue, back then.
I wouldnt care if someone smoked pot in college but i would care if he or she were doing lines of coke in the present or if they were abusing any substance, really. With the way the world is today a clear head is needed. it amazes me that we have anyone who is willing to go thru the disruption to their lives that this vetting process requires or how there is anyone who can make it thru that process who in their cululative life to date has never done anything "wrong." There are varying degrees of wrong I guess but someone who has done nothing that might be called into question? thats someone who must have set their sights on elected office at the age of 8 or something. lol and i wonder if it limits the quality of candidates that we do get? quality being of the ability sort and not the character sort. there have been studies that indicate that leaders, both political and corporate often participate in the same type of indescretions that clinton participated in. maybe its the alpha in them, who knows? As long as they dont pilfer from the people or do harm to the country i dont much care what they do in their personal lives.
OK, I've tried and tried to make this "work" on the last post, and it won't "stick" (BD's comments) and the green doesn't show up. Let me try again here:
PSYCH: A would be fun to hang out with and but I dont think id want someone who habitually downed 10 martinis a day making important decisions while under the influence tho if he really did this on a regular basis he might not feel the alcohol in the same way as someone who didnt. he might, however, while on a tear, decide to take the astrological forecast a bit too seriously and thats a bit scary.B. Mr b has a case of flop sweat going on. Hes too risky and again there is the question of impaired thinking because of the drinking C. Mr C appears to be a virtuous man however that kind of self control is rare. He appears to honor his commitments as evidenced by his military record and his fidelity in marriage. We dont know what his position in the military was or why he was honored. Aside from that there is not enough known about their leadership abilities to indicate which of the three would be thebetter leader. C makes better personal decisions im not sure that a politicians personal life should have any bearing on their professional life or if it even transfers over to the political life at all. If all other qualifiers are equal and the leader had an agenda i could sign onto id go with A. ------------------------
OK, Since BD apparently used invisible ink, I'll try one more time, and then just .... idunno what. :)
BD:
-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 08:17, 2008-12-03
Yanno, I lost two posts here last evening. Not my typical attention seeking ones, or the one liners, but the brainier variety. Neither "stuck". I thought those days were gone, I only had that happen here once before. It corrected itself. gawd knows which messageboard or forum last nights posts went, but I guarantee there's a wise azz out there that replied to it something like "looks like someones GPS is broken".
Actually I recall the last line of one of them was a recent quote I heard, "never forget that to someone, somewhere, we are the idiot". Ouch, though true.
I've been losing some too, recently -- attributed it to my slow dial up connection. Seems there's something about longer posts, which take longer to load, or something. Anyway, when I get that "in my gut" feeling that it's gonna go south, I've taken to quickly copying, and pasting into an empty email, until I see that it has posted. Sometimes, clicking back works, but not always.
I do promise you this, though -- I really do believe it's just a "glitch" this time, and certainly nothing censorship related.
I've only removed one post on this message board -- it was mine. For a little time, every time I hit "quote" the prior message would come up, and I'd reply to it, but then when I clicked "submit" the post would show up as a new post ... like second one. I'm not explaining well, I know. Anyway -- it should have said "edited by Nightowl" but it didn't -- it just posted a whole new post in addition to the one I was trying to edit.
"Candidate A is Franklin D Roosevelt, Candidate B is Winston Churchill, and Candidate C is Adolph Hitler.
Please note: The negative aspects of Roosevelt and Churchill are exaggerated, and Hitler would have found it difficult to conduct any extra-marital affairs given that he was first married in a bunker shortly before his death.
The points made by the puzzle are nevertheless valid.
We all tend to make ethical judgements based on conditioned and subjective views of what is right and proper.
And we all tend to make snap decisions in assessing whether something is right or wrong, before seeking the full story.
The need to examine what really lies beneath the surface when judging good and bad will become increasingly important as ethics and ethical issues become genuinely popular mainstream concerns.
Powerful organisations, politicians and the media are very clever at 'spinning' and distorting information so as to control public opinion.
Therefore modern ethical issues such as corruption, environmental action, humanitarianism, the excesses of globalisation, etc., cannot be judged on face-value and what the political and corporate leaders say, nor even by any measurement and survey instruments over which they have influence.
Judging important matters such as ethics on the surface is no basis for proper judgement, moreover we make it very easy for those who seek to deceive and exploit us when we fail to question and examine things properly before deciding.
Transparency, scrutiny, and a public demand for truth are the drivers for real ethical accountability."
I am a firm believer that no matter how much we emotionally or financially invest in public servants their truth and fiber never really comes to light until their lies and flaws have surfaced.
OK, I've tried and tried to make this "work" on the last post, and it won't "stick" (BD's comments) and the green doesn't show up. Let me try again here:
PSYCH: A would be fun to hang out with and but I dont think id want someone who habitually downed 10 martinis a day making important decisions while under the influence tho if he really did this on a regular basis he might not feel the alcohol in the same way as someone who didnt. he might, however, while on a tear, decide to take the astrological forecast a bit too seriously and thats a bit scary.B. Mr b has a case of flop sweat going on. Hes too risky and again there is the question of impaired thinking because of the drinking C. Mr C appears to be a virtuous man however that kind of self control is rare. He appears to honor his commitments as evidenced by his military record and his fidelity in marriage. We dont know what his position in the military was or why he was honored. Aside from that there is not enough known about their leadership abilities to indicate which of the three would be thebetter leader. C makes better personal decisions im not sure that a politicians personal life should have any bearing on their professional life or if it even transfers over to the political life at all. If all other qualifiers are equal and the leader had an agenda i could sign onto id go with A. ------------------------
OK, Since BD apparently used invisible ink, I'll try one more time, and then just .... idunno what. :)
BD:
-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 08:17, 2008-12-03
Yanno, I lost two posts here last evening. Not my typical attention seeking ones, or the one liners, but the brainier variety. Neither "stuck". I thought those days were gone, I only had that happen here once before. It corrected itself. gawd knows which messageboard or forum last nights posts went, but I guarantee there's a wise azz out there that replied to it something like "looks like someones GPS is broken".
Actually I recall the last line of one of them was a recent quote I heard, "never forget that to someone, somewhere, we are the idiot". Ouch, though true.
OK, I've tried and tried to make this "work" on the last post, and it won't "stick" (BD's comments) and the green doesn't show up. Let me try again here:
PSYCH: A would be fun to hang out with and but I dont think id want someone who habitually downed 10 martinis a day making important decisions while under the influence tho if he really did this on a regular basis he might not feel the alcohol in the same way as someone who didnt. he might, however, while on a tear, decide to take the astrological forecast a bit too seriously and thats a bit scary.B. Mr b has a case of flop sweat going on. Hes too risky and again there is the question of impaired thinking because of the drinking C. Mr C appears to be a virtuous man however that kind of self control is rare. He appears to honor his commitments as evidenced by his military record and his fidelity in marriage. We dont know what his position in the military was or why he was honored. Aside from that there is not enough known about their leadership abilities to indicate which of the three would be thebetter leader. C makes better personal decisions im not sure that a politicians personal life should have any bearing on their professional life or if it even transfers over to the political life at all. If all other qualifiers are equal and the leader had an agenda i could sign onto id go with A. ------------------------
OK, Since BD apparently used invisible ink, I'll try one more time, and then just .... idunno what. :)
PSYCH: A would be fun to hang out with and but I dont think id want someone who habitually downed 10 martinis a day making important decisions while under the influence tho if he really did this on a regular basis he might not feel the alcohol in the same way as someone who didnt. he might, however, while on a tear, decide to take the astrological forecast a bit too seriously and thats a bit scary.B. Mr b has a case of flop sweat going on. Hes too risky and again there is the question of impaired thinking because of the drinking C. Mr C appears to be a virtuous man however that kind of self control is rare. He appears to honor his commitments as evidenced by his military record and his fidelity in marriage. We dont know what his position in the military was or why he was honored. Aside from that there is not enough known about their leadership abilities to indicate which of the three would be thebetter leader. C makes better personal decisions im not sure that a politicians personal life should have any bearing on their professional life or if it even transfers over to the political life at all. If all other qualifiers are equal and the leader had an agenda i could sign onto id go with A.
-----------------------------
I like the thinking above (in green.) A couple of thoughts I had, before I saw the answers: Drinking does not a bad leader make. Doesn't a good leader make, either, of course, but some people (like FDR) are, I think, so far above the norm, that even if they are diminshed a little the next morning by their activities the night before, they still are far above the average Joe in making wise decisions.
Was Bill Clinton a "bad" president because he had a marital affair? I'd take his marital infidelity in the White House over GWB's pious religous ferver any day of the week, and a few days that aren't even in the week.
I think, in part, I liked this puzzle/question because it touched upon what I've long pondered, which is what exactly is it we want from our president? What is it we think will make him or her a "good" president?
I think that partly depends upon the time -- what has gone before, and what kind of situation the country finds herself in at present. I also wonder about things like integrity, and honesty.
Bill Clinton hedged on more than one question -- there was also the infamous "I didn't inhale." My thoughts about that reply are pretty much the same as about the affair, which is that we can't find fault, really, in the answer to a question which should have never been asked in the first place.
I know a myriad of excellent leaders whose personal lives are in chaos -- it's possible to separate the two, and more than we might know actually do every day. But the question remains: is it "important" we know if Bill Clinton smoked pot in college? Really? Again, that seems to be a thing of the times, similar to JFK's Catholicism. You know, JFK actually gave a whole major speech, similar to Obama's on race, about his being a Catholic. A whole speech. It was that much an issue, back then.
What we seem to agree upon here, is that we were not given enough information about the "candidates" upon which to base any strong opinion as to their competency for service in the office.
In 2008, both major party candidates were claiming ownership to "change." They both sensed that was what the country wanted. Well, duh. :) We've just had eight years of GWB. But had they followed Bill Clinton's presidency, I suspect the campaigns would have taken a different strategy. I think it's important for our president to be "human." I mean, in theory, we could have some magnificent computer, which always chose the "right" answer to every question in office one day, running the country. That computer might have kept us out of Iraq, and the present financial crisis we are now facing. But is that enough?
GWB made an astute observation in his recent interview, when he said "the people" wanted Obama on the TV explaining policy the next four years. There is that element, too, and I don't think its importance may be overstated. Wall Street dips and rises according to "confidence" in our leadership, right? I suppose one might have "confidence" in a computer, but not confidence to make the decision, and when it comes to us as a nation, I think that's always vital. Why else do our presidents always bring the speech home to "When I was in Iowa, I met Edna Sparks, who lost her job in January ... stand up, Edna" or "...mothers and wives like Sylvia Green, whose husband was killed in Iraq ... please stand up, Sylvia." Why else would we go through those staged rituals, if it wasn't because we need to have a sense that the president is in touch with the people, and has an understanding of their/our needs which a computer simply cannot aquire? "Smart" has many shades, doesn't it. Some might think the computer the most smart -- infallibly so, but a computer doesn't have "people smart" and I think that's something we need in the top office.
Seems a president has to be able to relate to people in order to inspire and lead people, and that the ones who history will deem the biggest losers are those whose arrogance allowed them to think they didn't "need" the people. Nixon made a point to ignore "the people." Let the people he was ignoring them, and watching a football game on TV instead of paying any attention to the throng gathered outside the White House gates, demanding we get out of Viet Name. Then came: "I'm the decider." 'Nuff said.
I like "risk taker" ... to an extent. I think risk is best taken when employed by someone smart, who has a keen eye for examining the angles beforehand. JFK was a risk taker in office -- and an danged lucky one, at that. I think the most hazardous "risk" presidents sometimes take is that they bet against the American people. Eventually, that always comes back and bites them in the butt.
HW Bush make a big deal (I think it was him) about not liking broccoli. I wouldn't vote a person because they were vegetarian, although I can't really see anyone who makes that pronouncement about themselves getting elected in this country for decades to come -- we like our "meat eaters" too much, and there's a lot of money invested in our continuing to like it. Even so, with the obesity rates in this nation what they are, some suggestions by example from the top couldn't hurt, really.
BoxDog wrote: PSYCH: A would be fun to hang out with and but I dont think id want someone who habitually downed 10 martinis a day making important decisions while under the influence tho if he really did this on a regular basis he might not feel the alcohol in the same way as someone who didnt. he might, however, while on a tear, decide to take the astrological forecast a bit too seriously and thats a bit scary.B. Mr b has a case of flop sweat going on. Hes too risky and again there is the question of impaired thinking because of the drinking C. Mr C appears to be a virtuous man however that kind of self control is rare. He appears to honor his commitments as evidenced by his military record and his fidelity in marriage. We dont know what his position in the military was or why he was honored. Aside from that there is not enough known about their leadership abilities to indicate which of the three would be thebetter leader. C makes better personal decisions im not sure that a politicians personal life should have any bearing on their professional life or if it even transfers over to the political life at all. If all other qualifiers are equal and the leader had an agenda i could sign onto id go with A. -----------------------------------------------------------
I like the thinking above (in green.) A couple of thoughts I had, before I saw the answers:Drinking does not a bad leader make. Doesn't a good leader make, either, of course, but some people (like FDR) are, I think, so far above the norm, that even if they are diminshed a little the next morning by their activities the night before, they still are far above the average Joe in making wise decisions.
Was Bill Clinton a "bad" president because he had a marital affair? I'd take his marital infidelity in the White House over GWB's pious religous ferver any day of the week, and a few days that aren't even in the week.
I think, in part, I liked this puzzle/question because it touched upon what I've long pondered, which is what exactly is it we want from our president? What is it we think will make him or her a "good" president?
I think that partly depends upon the time -- what has gone before, and what kind of situation the country finds herself in at present. I also wonder about things like integrity, and honesty. Bill Clinton hedged on more than one question -- there was also the infamous "I didn't inhale." My thoughts about that reply are pretty much the same as about the affair, which is that we can't find fault, really, in the answer to a question which should have never been asked in the first place. I know a myriad of excellent leaders whose personal lives are in chaos -- it's possible to separate the two, and more than we might know actually do every day. But the question remains: is it "important" we know if Bill Clinton smoked pot in college? Really? Again, that seems to be a thing of the times, similar to JFK's Catholicism. You know, JFK actually gave a whole major speech, similar to Obama's on race, about his being a Catholic. A whole speech. It was that much an issue, back then.
"Candidate A is Franklin D Roosevelt, Candidate B is Winston Churchill, and Candidate C is Adolph Hitler.
Please note: The negative aspects of Roosevelt and Churchill are exaggerated, and Hitler would have found it difficult to conduct any extra-marital affairs given that he was first married in a bunker shortly before his death.
The points made by the puzzle are nevertheless valid.
We all tend to make ethical judgements based on conditioned and subjective views of what is right and proper.
And we all tend to make snap decisions in assessing whether something is right or wrong, before seeking the full story.
The need to examine what really lies beneath the surface when judging good and bad will become increasingly important as ethics and ethical issues become genuinely popular mainstream concerns.
Powerful organisations, politicians and the media are very clever at 'spinning' and distorting information so as to control public opinion.
Therefore modern ethical issues such as corruption, environmental action, humanitarianism, the excesses of globalisation, etc., cannot be judged on face-value and what the political and corporate leaders say, nor even by any measurement and survey instruments over which they have influence.
Judging important matters such as ethics on the surface is no basis for proper judgement, moreover we make it very easy for those who seek to deceive and exploit us when we fail to question and examine things properly before deciding.
Transparency, scrutiny, and a public demand for truth are the drivers for real ethical accountability."
It is time to elect the world leader, and yours is the deciding vote. Here are the facts about the three leading candidates:
Candidate A: He associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologers. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks up to ten Martinis a day.
Candidate B: He was ejected from office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a large amounts of whisky every evening.
Candidate C: He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and hasn't had any extra-marital affairs.
Which of these candidates would be your choice?
hmmm and none of the above is not an option? lol. Rudy G, bush, and carter?
A would be fun to hang out with and probably would be more open and less reactive to lifes behavioral variations. he also has a balance in where he sees events coming from. the smoking and the astrologer indicates that he believes that outside influences create circumstances over which he has no control but hes also enough of a pragmatist to have cultivated some pols to move things along indicating that hes also aware of his own ability to influence events. but I dont think id want someone who habitually downed 10 martinis a day making important decisions while under the influence tho if he really did this on a regular basis he might not feel the alcohol in the same way as someone who didnt. he might, however, while on a tear, decide to take the astrological forecast a bit too seriously and thats a bit scary.
B. Mr b has a case of flop sweat going on. Hes too risky and again there is the question of impaired thinking because of the drinking
C. Mr C appears to be a virtuous man however that kind of self control is rare. He appears to honor his commitments as evidenced by his military record and his fidelity in marriage. We dont know what his position in the military was or why he was honored. Those are admirable qualities but not necessarily things that make a good leader, perhaps they might even make a better follower. The vegetarian, non smoking, occasional drinking, lifestyle indicates that he thinks well of himself and cares for his body but this is not typical behavior in the world and id wonder if hed be able to sort out his own choices from the more common choices and less healthy choices and reach out to those who made those other choices with compassion and understanding.
Aside from that there is not enough known about their leadership abilities to indicate which of the three would be the better leader. C makes better personal decisions im not sure that a politicians personal life should have any bearing on their professional life or if it even transfers over to the political life at all. If all other qualifiers are equal and the leader had an agenda i could sign onto id go with A.
-- Edited by Psych Lit at 23:14, 2008-12-02
Well, I believe you just voted for Nixon. I can't prove the astrologist part, but I wouldn't be surprised, he probably had them dress the part and drag their crystal ball over to Camp David every now and again. And really, with the little info given I would tend to lean toward A myself. Not that 10 martinis and infidelity is any better than "coke" and whiskey guy, but for the fact all three choices show A and B to appear more "risk takers", more in charge of their own behavior, reckless or not. With little more than this info it seems to me that "C" is a follower, not a leader. A respectable follower, but a follower all the same. As a bridge or pathway option for leadership change I would say "C" might be a healthy one term choice. I would refer to "C" as Gerald Ford.
It is time to elect the world leader, and yours is the deciding vote. Here are the facts about the three leading candidates:
Candidate A: He associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologers. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks up to ten Martinis a day.
Candidate B: He was ejected from office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a large amounts of whisky every evening.
Candidate C: He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and hasn't had any extra-marital affairs.
Which of these candidates would be your choice?
hmmm and none of the above is not an option? lol. Rudy G, bush, and carter?
A would be fun to hang out with and probably would be more open and less reactive to lifes behavioral variations. he also has a balance in where he sees events coming from. the smoking and the astrologer indicates that he believes that outside influences create circumstances over which he has no control but hes also enough of a pragmatist to have cultivated some pols to move things along indicating that hes also aware of his own ability to influence events. but I dont think id want someone who habitually downed 10 martinis a day making important decisions while under the influence tho if he really did this on a regular basis he might not feel the alcohol in the same way as someone who didnt. he might, however, while on a tear, decide to take the astrological forecast a bit too seriously and thats a bit scary.
B. Mr b has a case of flop sweat going on. Hes too risky and again there is the question of impaired thinking because of the drinking
C. Mr C appears to be a virtuous man however that kind of self control is rare. He appears to honor his commitments as evidenced by his military record and his fidelity in marriage. We dont know what his position in the military was or why he was honored. Those are admirable qualities but not necessarily things that make a good leader, perhaps they might even make a better follower. The vegetarian, non smoking, occasional drinking, lifestyle indicates that he thinks well of himself and cares for his body but this is not typical behavior in the world and id wonder if hed be able to sort out his own choices from the more common choices and less healthy choices and reach out to those who made those other choices with compassion and understanding.
Aside from that there is not enough known about their leadership abilities to indicate which of the three would be the better leader. C makes better personal decisions im not sure that a politicians personal life should have any bearing on their professional life or if it even transfers over to the political life at all. If all other qualifiers are equal and the leader had an agenda i could sign onto id go with A.
It is time to elect the world leader, and yours is the deciding vote. Here are the facts about the three leading candidates:
Candidate A: He associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologers. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks up to ten Martinis a day.
Candidate B: He was ejected from office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a large amounts of whisky every evening.
Candidate C: He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and hasn't had any extra-marital affairs.
Even he liked me, although reluctantly, but not her. 
...(wish we had a "hug" smilie)
NOT!)...
but i am sure i have been erased....
sigh...if only a time machine were real.....
i have already seen this before and know the answers, so i wont spoil it....
