What I Learned About Shit From The Compost Heap

It seems to me that Blogs are primarily concerned with the following three things: Life, Relationships, Shit. Shit is that stuff that happens to you out of the blue and is generally considered to be unpleasant. Whether we like it or not, we live in a world where things naturally get worse over time, so deal with it. For those of you who don’t know what a Compost Heap is, it is a pile of shit which you have to clean up. Here are some pointers:

1 Shit smells. Most people generally recognize its’ presence.

2 Shit tends to deteriorate so the smell increases. Your friends will recognize that you are in shit.

3 Shit tends to accumulate. Your friends will ask you what you intend to do about your shit.

4 Shit requires an action plan. Your friends will ask you how you plan to deal with your shit.

5 Shit requires immediate action. Your friends will ask if they can help.

6 Shit tends to stick to other things. Some of your friends will start to avoid you in the interests of self preservation.

7 Shit requires you to get serious. Wear old clothes if you intend to move it. Develop an attitude.

8 Shit has to be shoveled somewhere. If you like to throw your shit, stand up wind so it doesn’t blow back on you. This is important.

9 Shit sticks to everything. Use a Teflon shovel.

10 Shit loves to victimize. At all costs, avoid responsibility. Blame anything that is reasonably believable to the great unwashed.

11 Shit tends to come in piles. Start at the top with the easiest shit. Use it as a confidence builder.

12 Shit tends to keep falling on you due to gravity. Never shovel shit from the bottom or it will fall on you

13 Bury your old clothes covered in shit. Over time, you will forget all about your shit.

14 Think positively. Positive thinking is like an antibiotic to shit.

15 Smile. Smiling allows you to spot incoming shit at a greater distance.

16 Never open your mouth without having your brain in gear. Missed shit tends to come out.

Just Deal With The Top

I was reading about how to complain intelligently the other day. The contents of that piece was generally along the lines of "Just deal with the top". It sort of makes sense, because if you deal with anyone under the top the leader has to support his staff or they will stop making decisions and the organization will go to pot. It got me to thinking about God. Why not contact him directly??? God knows full well what is coming down the pipe and what he / she chooses to tell you / do with you isn’t filtered through any subordinates. Sometimes God doesn't answer, because the question is something that you can work out for yourself. Sometimes if you happen to think about something you want to do and God thinks it’s a good idea he / she will set you off on a series of events to make it so. Other times, if you are in a mess he / she will get you out of it with a little sweat equity on your part to remind you not to do it again. Of course, he / she does not come down and say, "Here is your itinerary for the day". Naturally, you can always say no to God because you have "free will" but then again where else can you have a wild, yet interesting ride??

Deja Vu

I got up today with the horrible thought that everything is always the same but it just seems different because we use different words and phrases to describe things. In other words we are living in a swamp called Deja Vu populated with eventful alligators which sometimes bite us on the proverbial ass just to be mean. Here’s an example. Most of us are going to be parents someday or are parents now, or have been parents. Some of us may never be parents, but will be managers of either our personal lives or maybe even managers of subordinates. Anyway you get the point. Here is a view of the American Election written in parental terms. The United States, God Bless Them, have become accidental parents to the world whether they like it or not. I don’t know how it happened as parenthood is a mysterious happening beyond my simple mind. I’m not very good at history but didn’t previous parenting go like this: Spain in the 1500’s, Britain from about 1600 - 1950 up to the political dissolution of the Commonwealth although Commonwealth membership may still exist??? In fact I seem to recall that the United States was very naughty somewhere in the 1700’s with their fight for independence somewhat along what the Iraqui’s are doing today. The United States probably used the same methods commensurate with the available technology of the 1700’s. I suspect that the British soldier in 1700 wasn’t particularly enthusiastic about going over to America to fight uncivilized natives in awful surroundings when compared to cultured Britain and its’ obvious benefits. In other words I don’t think that people have changed much over the millania. Parents also cannot abandon their children even if you are sick to death of them and they are collectively driving you batty. To continue the analogy doesn’t the child think that his parents are the worst abomination on earth and hopelessly out of touch with reality??? Like it or not, it seems to me in its’ simplest terms President Bush is stuck in the role of the parent and since there is no parenting manual it’s learn on the run and feverently hope for the best or even better yet guess right for the long term. The Kerry / Edwards ticket plays the role of the "parental expert" which has lots of advice, such as Let America be America Again,, do everything faster, quicker, more humane, at least accurately, or even let the children find their own way on their own again. Same old, same old again, the expert providing guidance on something without having any real world hands on experience beyond academia known collequally as the Congress and / or Senate.

Iraq

There seems to be a lot of angst about Iraq and it’s getting to the point where it fair makes one’s head swim in circles. Since I read somewhere that a child looks upon things very simply without a lot of complications here is a little question and answer session between a Daddy and his little child to explain Iraq.
 
Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government.
People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Uh?? Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men - fifteen of them Saudi Arabians - hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings in New York and Washington, killing 3,000 innocent people.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless un-American Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to the American Administration and tells them what to do.
Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because the American Administration hears voices.
A: Yes! Democracy listens!!!

True Love

True love is selfless love. Without interfering with anyone’s beliefs, culture, etc. the only person that can give you true selfless love is God because he / she is the only one who is 100% "soul". All you have to do is ask !! Selfless love won’t cost you a thing but after awhile you might get the urge to pass it on. If this urge should occur God might ask you to do something for him / her . He / she may not tell you outright but, hey, a little sweat equity into something worthwhile is not a bad thing. The rest of us mortals, are part "soul" and part three dimensional occupants of a 3 dimensional world which is basically deteriorating over time. Since everything is deteriorating then sometimes we fall short of selfless love because of aches, pains, tiredness, disease etc. and unexpected events that may plague us out of nowhere. Thus when the rubber hits the road "Love for a man / woman means tolerance and patience ,just like to a little child" .

Relationships

I have been reading a lot of blogs and most of them seem to concern relationships. One of the major problems seems to be how do you know if a relationship is going anywhere? Well, if a young lady hears any one of, or multiples of the following from a gentleman than there is room for serious doubts:

1) I love you.
2) I won't do anything to hurt you.
3) I respect you.
4) I like spending time with you.
5) I'm not seeing anyone else.
6) I wouldn’t / won't lie to you.
7) I've been checked (for name your poison) and I'm clean.
8) I have never cheated on anyone.
9) I’m always sincere.
10) I’ve never known anyone like you.

These are obviously comic book responses from an acquaintance / friend that has other things on his mind. On the other side of the fence if a young lady says "Let's Be Friends" the young gentleman has just been hit by an euphemism which means "Go away as fast as possible without causing any social bloodshed and preferably before my friends realize I made a mistake."

Interpretation

One nice thing about blogging is that you learn things that you might not have otherwise learned. For instance, I always assumed that when interpreters signed for deaf people they literally translated what was being said word by word. T’ain’t necessarily so. It seems that deaf students, just like the hearing students, need to use their eyes for visual communication clues in order to accurately interpret what is being said. Deaf sign language in North America, is not the same language as BSL in Britain or Auslan in Australia. All three sign systems developed independently with different lexicons, grammars and syntax’s. When hearing people see interpreters communicating ASL messages into English and vice versa, they get the impression that the interpreters are literally translating both languages word for word, but what they are really doing is not translation, it’s interpretation. The difference being that the interpreters must rearrange word order, delete words that don’t add meaning, and add words that do add meaning. Interpretation is a judgment call in many cases, and as such, is more of an art than a science. Here is an example:

English Sentence:

In any language of a particular group, everyone agrees upon and follows the same social rules, and agrees upon common rules for their language so the entire group can communicate.

Here's the ASL version:

Language that for people one group same together, each other social understand same rule share. People one group together polite agree same, all same way agree proper with language for same rule all share communication.

People

We all live in an universe where things naturally deteriorate over time. Most people, unless they have horseshoes, lead ordinary lives with only a variation on the details. People are predominately insecure creatures. That’s why they want to dress, think the same, and belong to organizations that have their "values". The trick for success is to become an independent thinker and to look for opportunities that the ordinary person misses or ignores because of their in built lack of confidence.

Novels In A Nutshell

Successful novels seem to be based on the 3 essential ingredients of story, relationships and objectives.The story is what you want to do with the characters, events, and changing circumstances to make it interesting for the reader. Relationships are about how the characters relate to their acquaintances, friends and soulmates and the events that come between them. Objectives involve the resolution to the following questions:

1. We always want what we can't have.
2. We always dream of what we can't have.
3. We're always attracted to the ones that don't want us.

If You Were God

If you were God for the sake of argument and you knew that the top 1/6th of humanity was controlling the other 5/6th ‘s of humanity including the 4/6th ‘s of humanity consisting of the Middle Class through the use of economics, organized religion, and opinion what would you do to break the monopoly?? Why not let everyone deal direct?? Let’s see. If we are made in the "image" of God then the reverse is also true that God is the same as our "image". Thus it follows that our relationship to God is no worse or better than a relationship to any living, dynamic and wildly creative person. There is nothing that prevents us from having God as a personal friend and to talk to him / her directly without intermediaries. If you want to take it a step further and give God first "dibs" just remember it doesn't automatically mean a nice house, riches, and lots of "neat" friends. It also means that you might be called upon to put some sweat equity into the relationship through the use of your brain with a lot of hard thinking and questioning. God also thinks long term well past your lifetime so it doesn't necessarily mean you will know what part you played in God’s drama. This is the basis of "faith" because you can’t see the future and you are dependent on someone that doesn’t necessarily tell you what is going on. Anyone for a wild yet interesting ride??