Two new SAINTS were added today. Wow! Big day for so many people in this crazy world!
The news covering the event sparked a surprising comment from my sweet wife who grew up Catholic but has been essentially irreligious most of her life. She was openly critical of the goings-on in Rome, asking me, "What gives the Pope the right to judge some former popes of deserving the rank of 'Saint'?" Naturally my retort had to do with exactly that term - RANK!
I had to explain again how foolish the whole system of the Catholic church has always been, but that within that foolish belief system, the sitting Pope, with his team of cardinals (and whatever extended church governmental advisors he taps) has the perfect right to make that delineation. And can do it for anyone he chooses. After all, the whole business is simply that - a business set in the mental concrete of a madness accepted and solidified through the ages. If I thought millions of people were going to see my words here and if I cared what they thought of me personally, I would need to avoid saying how abjectly foolish the whole concept is. Not too many years back, I would also be putting myself in danger of some vindictive action on the part of fanatical believers of any ilk. And please understand again, they are ALL THE SAME, in my estimation. "They" meaning all believers in any supreme being of any name or slant. None of it makes sense or has proven to be good for humanity.
My wife's point was that if someone actually dies and deserves to be called a "saint" then it should be "God" who makes the call. Trying not to laugh, I had to point out the obvious - that none of the whole concept of belief in a supreme being has anything to do really with what a supreme being directs. It is ALL simply what human beings, fearful of the unknown, conceived and foisted upon other ignorant humans.
The same power of the Pope over sainthood even extends to millennia gone by! At some point around forty years ago, the sitting Pope apparently decided that old St Chris really wasn't all he had been cracked up to be. He got demoted, even after all the centuries of "hearing the prayers" of travelers. I Googled St Christopher to check my minimal knowledge of the matter and got into reading some of the website that is proudly educating the public about all things Catholic. Their sub-head is "Inform - Inspire - Ignite." Well, a brief reading of that home page did ignite some laughter for me. Those very pompous folks who made the decision to demote old Chris, along with Ursula and apparently many other traditional saints, made the call because the basis of the early proclamations of sainthood had been in "legend" and in "Pagan mythology!" Hey, you there, with the power of almost infinite information available here on the Web, read ANY of the information relating to the foundations of religious belief itself. It is ALL based in legend and "Pagan mythology." That's all there is, folks!!
So good luck, Catholics. Now you have a couple more saints who apparently are ready and waiting to hear your prayers. In my view, if a human wants to get on his or her knees and suffer the degradation of actually praying, it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference what name of god or saint is called upon. Why not try Tinkerbell!
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Misplaced Modifiers
A morning television reporter told us that Prince William "almost accidentally beaned Kate" when throwing (bowling?) during their cricket fun in New Zealand.
What was actually told to us by this sentence construction? Well, the real meaning of the wording, taken literally, was that Kate got hit on the head (bean) by the ball William threw and it was questionable as to whether he meant to hit her. We could hope it was an accident, but the report was that it was "almost" an accident. So subliminally, William must have wanted to hit Kate on the head. It would have been so simple to say it correctly by merely placing the "almost" just after the word "accidentally" rather than before it.
Misplaced modifiers are rife within the English language. In fact, in one case - the use of the word "only" - the norm is to place it in a sentence completely incorrectly and to confuse the meaning of what is being communicated. Oddly enough, the traditional misplacement of the word "only" is so ingrained in our daily conversation that any attempt to correct the malady would probably cause more confusion than would the continuation of the abuse! (James Thurber advised to leave it alone!)
Consider this construction of the lyric of an old favorite song: "I only have eyes for you." What that wants to say is that "my eyes won't wander to the ogling of others" (or something similar), but what is actually being said is that "my lips are not for you; my nose is not for you; my thoughts even, are not for you. No, it's only my eyes that are for you!" We would hate to see the lyric line changed to properly express that "I have eyes for only you" because that would require a total adjustment of the musical phrasing. But wouldn't it be nicer if our intended communications were literally saying what we feel?
Here's another popular one. A more recent musical offering, this one from Fleetwood Mac, features this "hook" line in two phrases: "Thunder only happens when it's rainin'; players only love you when they're playin'." Of course, poetic license allows the completely erroneous statement that thunder has to have rain along with it. That's patently false, but we allow it easily as a musical notion. And in that sense, no music that becomes popular can be terribly criticized; it did, in the face of terrible odds, become popular! Now, that first phrase, while having the "only" modifier misplaced, doesn't cause a notable change in the meaning (which is still the totally false statement anyway!) But the second phrase, with the "only" placed where it is, purposely mirroring its placement in the first phrase, totally destroys the meaning the writer wished to convey.
"Players only love you when they're playin'." - Wrong! Sidestepping any extensive philosophical discussion of the meaning of "love," it is still just a badly worded statement. A "player" (insincere, get-what-you-can-get-at-any-expense kind of person) will not "only" love you; he will also hate you, and hurt you, disrespect you, abuse you, deceive you, etc., etc. What the words actually mean to convey is that a "player" will "love" you only when he's playing. Then he will move on and it won't surprise anyone if both parties know going in that he is a "player."
What I find fascinating about this particular song lyric is that unlike the first song example above, this is one of those that COULD have been written with absolutely proper arrangement of the modifier and still have been very singable. In fact, I enjoy singing it that way in my head, and I think it might have improved the original to have placed the words in the correct alignment for clear meaning. Try it in your own head (if you can recall the tune at all): "Thunder happens only when it's rainin'; players love you only when they're playin." The word "only" in this arrangement actually can become much more of a tilting point in each phrase - a fun word to emphasize twice - not to mention (which I am going a lo - o - ng way to mention) the words now clearly state the idea the song was meant to get across.
I could go on and on, but then, I already have! Check out more if interested.
What was actually told to us by this sentence construction? Well, the real meaning of the wording, taken literally, was that Kate got hit on the head (bean) by the ball William threw and it was questionable as to whether he meant to hit her. We could hope it was an accident, but the report was that it was "almost" an accident. So subliminally, William must have wanted to hit Kate on the head. It would have been so simple to say it correctly by merely placing the "almost" just after the word "accidentally" rather than before it.
Misplaced modifiers are rife within the English language. In fact, in one case - the use of the word "only" - the norm is to place it in a sentence completely incorrectly and to confuse the meaning of what is being communicated. Oddly enough, the traditional misplacement of the word "only" is so ingrained in our daily conversation that any attempt to correct the malady would probably cause more confusion than would the continuation of the abuse! (James Thurber advised to leave it alone!)
Consider this construction of the lyric of an old favorite song: "I only have eyes for you." What that wants to say is that "my eyes won't wander to the ogling of others" (or something similar), but what is actually being said is that "my lips are not for you; my nose is not for you; my thoughts even, are not for you. No, it's only my eyes that are for you!" We would hate to see the lyric line changed to properly express that "I have eyes for only you" because that would require a total adjustment of the musical phrasing. But wouldn't it be nicer if our intended communications were literally saying what we feel?
Here's another popular one. A more recent musical offering, this one from Fleetwood Mac, features this "hook" line in two phrases: "Thunder only happens when it's rainin'; players only love you when they're playin'." Of course, poetic license allows the completely erroneous statement that thunder has to have rain along with it. That's patently false, but we allow it easily as a musical notion. And in that sense, no music that becomes popular can be terribly criticized; it did, in the face of terrible odds, become popular! Now, that first phrase, while having the "only" modifier misplaced, doesn't cause a notable change in the meaning (which is still the totally false statement anyway!) But the second phrase, with the "only" placed where it is, purposely mirroring its placement in the first phrase, totally destroys the meaning the writer wished to convey.
"Players only love you when they're playin'." - Wrong! Sidestepping any extensive philosophical discussion of the meaning of "love," it is still just a badly worded statement. A "player" (insincere, get-what-you-can-get-at-any-expense kind of person) will not "only" love you; he will also hate you, and hurt you, disrespect you, abuse you, deceive you, etc., etc. What the words actually mean to convey is that a "player" will "love" you only when he's playing. Then he will move on and it won't surprise anyone if both parties know going in that he is a "player."
What I find fascinating about this particular song lyric is that unlike the first song example above, this is one of those that COULD have been written with absolutely proper arrangement of the modifier and still have been very singable. In fact, I enjoy singing it that way in my head, and I think it might have improved the original to have placed the words in the correct alignment for clear meaning. Try it in your own head (if you can recall the tune at all): "Thunder happens only when it's rainin'; players love you only when they're playin." The word "only" in this arrangement actually can become much more of a tilting point in each phrase - a fun word to emphasize twice - not to mention (which I am going a lo - o - ng way to mention) the words now clearly state the idea the song was meant to get across.
I could go on and on, but then, I already have! Check out more if interested.
Good Morning Good Sense!
Good Morning America featured a story about "Fight Church" which I found both sickening and amusing. Even satisfying! Those goofy preachers need to be knocked in the head by someone - why not each other?!
As I have long mused about boxers (or fighters of any ilk), if enough of them finally knock each other senseless (and in one sense, they have already attained that status), then the rest of us would be free of their foolishness. How delightful it would be to awake to the realization that massive numbers of religious fools have beaten one another to oblivion! Then there might be Peace on Earth!!!
As I have long mused about boxers (or fighters of any ilk), if enough of them finally knock each other senseless (and in one sense, they have already attained that status), then the rest of us would be free of their foolishness. How delightful it would be to awake to the realization that massive numbers of religious fools have beaten one another to oblivion! Then there might be Peace on Earth!!!
Saturday, March 29, 2014
The Pain of Being
Some have experienced the "lightness of being" - apparently even an unbearable lightness, whatever that could be. I, on the other hand, experience more pain.
Yours truly will be heading out in an hour or so to again try my hand at golf, which has gone better than expected in the first three rounds after a full year away from the clubs to play a round of surgeries. And I know just what pains to expect as I make my consciously slower and gentle swings. Naturally I will walk much of the course, trying desperately to rebuild my physical strength; however by the last three or four fairways, I will give in to the need to ride along with a playing companion who will have his EZ-Go and will nicely have hauled my clubs for me the whole round.
From experience I know to stay upright and erect as possible to avoid some of the pain in my back. No, this is not related to my cancer or surgeries - it's simply some of the familiar pain I have lived with for decades. During the first part of the golf match, while forcing myself to walk as straight and tall as my back will allow, I am forced by time considerations to "hop" into the cart at four of the longer sections of concrete and asphalt (street) crossings between greens & tees. Each time I then need to exit the cart for the next shot, my back screams at me for the change of position and I usually have to grab the cart to hand-over-hand pull myself back to the fully upright stance for walking. My playing buddies, when noticing this, always ask whether I am going to be able to finish the round, to which I have to answer, "I wish I knew."
This morning's round is already in question as I practically collapsed on my first step from the bed. But since I walked for the length of my home and started the coffee brewing, I have been able to manage a convincing uprightness. Now the next problem is leaving this chair I have occupied for over half an hour. The challenge is a bit daunting!
But life, as I know it, is still worth while.
Yours truly will be heading out in an hour or so to again try my hand at golf, which has gone better than expected in the first three rounds after a full year away from the clubs to play a round of surgeries. And I know just what pains to expect as I make my consciously slower and gentle swings. Naturally I will walk much of the course, trying desperately to rebuild my physical strength; however by the last three or four fairways, I will give in to the need to ride along with a playing companion who will have his EZ-Go and will nicely have hauled my clubs for me the whole round.
From experience I know to stay upright and erect as possible to avoid some of the pain in my back. No, this is not related to my cancer or surgeries - it's simply some of the familiar pain I have lived with for decades. During the first part of the golf match, while forcing myself to walk as straight and tall as my back will allow, I am forced by time considerations to "hop" into the cart at four of the longer sections of concrete and asphalt (street) crossings between greens & tees. Each time I then need to exit the cart for the next shot, my back screams at me for the change of position and I usually have to grab the cart to hand-over-hand pull myself back to the fully upright stance for walking. My playing buddies, when noticing this, always ask whether I am going to be able to finish the round, to which I have to answer, "I wish I knew."
This morning's round is already in question as I practically collapsed on my first step from the bed. But since I walked for the length of my home and started the coffee brewing, I have been able to manage a convincing uprightness. Now the next problem is leaving this chair I have occupied for over half an hour. The challenge is a bit daunting!
But life, as I know it, is still worth while.
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Punctuation is Still a Good Thing?
One fellow who contributes often to a forum I read is guilty of this manner of ending sentences with question marks - hardly ever meaning it is an actual question. I use it here just to highlight the fact that punctuation is important.
The comma is the feisty little punctuation mark that I have always found helpful in writing. Yet over the last few dacades, critics of "good writing" have tried to limit the use of commas, thinking that people have fallen into an over-use of this punctuation. But a comma, properly placed, can clarify meaning. Commas can aid in allowing a reader to virtually hear the little nuances in the spoken word.
I was startled this morning when I happened to read again a post of mine from two years ago - startled because in my effort to limit my use of commas in that writing, I left myself misunderstanding my own sentence. Had to laugh out loud.
An early line of my post was: "My sweet wife found out back in December that the awesome child prodigy was to perform . . ."
When I began to read it this time, the meaning was lost after the first few words, in the comical idea that "my wife was found in December - out back." Out back of what? Or maybe at the Outback Steakhouse? So now I wish that I had used, more freely and correctly, the commas I am prone to employ. Meaning, the sentence would be more properly read as: "My sweet wife found out, back in December, that the awesome child prodigy . . ." That is much to be preferred over the humorous misread of: "My sweet wife, found (out back) in December, . . ."
My sweet wife can be found right here, right out front in my daily life; the need for commas was found out, back in December! (Actually, found out just today, but - you get my drift.)
The comma is the feisty little punctuation mark that I have always found helpful in writing. Yet over the last few dacades, critics of "good writing" have tried to limit the use of commas, thinking that people have fallen into an over-use of this punctuation. But a comma, properly placed, can clarify meaning. Commas can aid in allowing a reader to virtually hear the little nuances in the spoken word.
I was startled this morning when I happened to read again a post of mine from two years ago - startled because in my effort to limit my use of commas in that writing, I left myself misunderstanding my own sentence. Had to laugh out loud.
An early line of my post was: "My sweet wife found out back in December that the awesome child prodigy was to perform . . ."
When I began to read it this time, the meaning was lost after the first few words, in the comical idea that "my wife was found in December - out back." Out back of what? Or maybe at the Outback Steakhouse? So now I wish that I had used, more freely and correctly, the commas I am prone to employ. Meaning, the sentence would be more properly read as: "My sweet wife found out, back in December, that the awesome child prodigy . . ." That is much to be preferred over the humorous misread of: "My sweet wife, found (out back) in December, . . ."
My sweet wife can be found right here, right out front in my daily life; the need for commas was found out, back in December! (Actually, found out just today, but - you get my drift.)
Thursday, February 27, 2014
Pretty Happy
Would have been perhaps a bit happier if when I went online at 4:00 this morning I had seen my Lotto numbers lined up in last night's drawing. But I can wish myself a "Happy Birthday" anyway, and Google seemed to be doing that as well, with their name spelled out in celebratory pastries this morning. I assume this is for everyone to see, so who knows what other birthday is being toasted on this date - other than the late Liz Taylor and the far "later" Henry Longfellow. So far, I haven't seen any explanation for Google's sweet offerings.
Sleep during the night was minimal and fitfull for me due to too much on my mind and too many sore muscles from hard work on the patio refurbishing we've been doing the last two weeks. Got the new gazebo up yesterday and stablized against potentially high winds; now it's raining lightly on our unfinished raw ground where I need to get a stronger fellow to put down some flagstone. We're likely to have a down-pour that will halt all progress on the work for days. Looks as though we will be entertaining guests in less-than-lovely conditions.
One of the closest friends of my youth is due to arrive here tomorrow, along with her new guy I haven't met. In fact, I haven't even seen Anita since 1968, and it's only through the Internet that we have reconnected recently. Now I know she has been twice widowed and is a retired law enforcement veteran of many years in Wisconsin. They have driven out to Arizona for visiting & sight-seeing and now are heading here and all around California to visit friends and family. I'm glad our long friendship can have this brief re-visit over this one weekend, and that "'Niter" will help me celebrate turning 69 - which happened officially a few hours ago.
Happy Birthday to us, including Liz, Hank and all other Google friends!
Sleep during the night was minimal and fitfull for me due to too much on my mind and too many sore muscles from hard work on the patio refurbishing we've been doing the last two weeks. Got the new gazebo up yesterday and stablized against potentially high winds; now it's raining lightly on our unfinished raw ground where I need to get a stronger fellow to put down some flagstone. We're likely to have a down-pour that will halt all progress on the work for days. Looks as though we will be entertaining guests in less-than-lovely conditions.
One of the closest friends of my youth is due to arrive here tomorrow, along with her new guy I haven't met. In fact, I haven't even seen Anita since 1968, and it's only through the Internet that we have reconnected recently. Now I know she has been twice widowed and is a retired law enforcement veteran of many years in Wisconsin. They have driven out to Arizona for visiting & sight-seeing and now are heading here and all around California to visit friends and family. I'm glad our long friendship can have this brief re-visit over this one weekend, and that "'Niter" will help me celebrate turning 69 - which happened officially a few hours ago.
Happy Birthday to us, including Liz, Hank and all other Google friends!
Friday, February 21, 2014
Impressions
"End Session" That's what it says at the end of my online banking activity. This morning's session ended after the successful transfer of $29 to assure that yesterday's $75 check will clear. But I still have an available savings balance of 83 cents if another situation should occur.
Okay, sure, we do have another account for most household expenses and personal needs. That account will still have upwards of $100 remaining at the end of the month if we are careful for the next week. Might blow part of that fortune on my birthday "celebration" on the 27th.
From 2:25 until around 4:30 this morning, I struggled with many matters, including the above, and forced myself to stay above DEpression. The result of all that thinking brought me to this topic of IMpressions when I re-awakened at 6:15.
People here in my little senior village see me as successful in real estate and readily stop me on the street or at the golf pro shop, etc., just to comment or ask advice about properties and such. It's very nice to have that respect. And in general, my wife and I have always carried ourselves with an air of success. Friends and acquaintances simply assume that we do quite well, befitting our residence here on the golf course among many fairly wealthy neighbors. Hardly any of them could guess that our nice-looking clothing once belonged to someone else. I often wonder if some golfing buddy here who is my size has figured out that the sweater he dropped off at the thrift store last week is the one I am now proudly wearing. He may not as easily identify the shoes - my most recent find is a pair of top-of-the-line golf shoes that cost me $3! I have to assume that these came from a widow who didn't want to see her deceased husband's new shoes gathering dust in the closet.
My constant activity around our village, listing and selling properties, has really given folks the most ludicrous (and a bit frustrating) impression: Big money!
Here's a tiny look inside the reality of my realty success. Home sales are not brisk but we had a dozen escrows here that involved me last year. These manufactured homes are selling now for above $100,000 but only last spring, we were finding it hard to sell for more than $85,000. My sales over-all just barely averaged the 100k level for the year. People think of a 6% commission as part of most sales, so they tend to think I earn $6,000 every time I'm part of a home sale. Don't I wish! Truth is, that $6,000 is typically split between my agency (if I listed or sold the property) and some other agency (whose agent listed or sold). The $3,000 on my side is then split between my broker (40%) and me (60%) - so I would earn $1800 on a 100k sale.
That amount isn't bad for having struggled through many small responsibilities and paperwork over an average of three months to complete the sale, all the while handling problems and concerns with an "at your service" attitude and smile.
But the real truth for me is that when I began suffering with cancer and had to rely on pain meds, then worked through three surgeries and down time, I was aware that I couldn't trust myself to be on top of every situation. So I began co-listing all my new business with another associate, splitting the work - and the commissions. Now take that $1800 and see where it ends up. $80 goes out first for Errors & Omissions insurance. Then the remaining $1720 is split evenly with that associate who helps me avoid most of the errors and omissions I would probably commit on my own.
So the folks who see me as getting rich from local home sales would be shocked to learn that my net income from real estate last year was less than their social security income. And I dare not tell them. I'm better served by their incorrect impressions because "nothing succeeds like success!"
Okay, sure, we do have another account for most household expenses and personal needs. That account will still have upwards of $100 remaining at the end of the month if we are careful for the next week. Might blow part of that fortune on my birthday "celebration" on the 27th.
From 2:25 until around 4:30 this morning, I struggled with many matters, including the above, and forced myself to stay above DEpression. The result of all that thinking brought me to this topic of IMpressions when I re-awakened at 6:15.
People here in my little senior village see me as successful in real estate and readily stop me on the street or at the golf pro shop, etc., just to comment or ask advice about properties and such. It's very nice to have that respect. And in general, my wife and I have always carried ourselves with an air of success. Friends and acquaintances simply assume that we do quite well, befitting our residence here on the golf course among many fairly wealthy neighbors. Hardly any of them could guess that our nice-looking clothing once belonged to someone else. I often wonder if some golfing buddy here who is my size has figured out that the sweater he dropped off at the thrift store last week is the one I am now proudly wearing. He may not as easily identify the shoes - my most recent find is a pair of top-of-the-line golf shoes that cost me $3! I have to assume that these came from a widow who didn't want to see her deceased husband's new shoes gathering dust in the closet.
My constant activity around our village, listing and selling properties, has really given folks the most ludicrous (and a bit frustrating) impression: Big money!
Here's a tiny look inside the reality of my realty success. Home sales are not brisk but we had a dozen escrows here that involved me last year. These manufactured homes are selling now for above $100,000 but only last spring, we were finding it hard to sell for more than $85,000. My sales over-all just barely averaged the 100k level for the year. People think of a 6% commission as part of most sales, so they tend to think I earn $6,000 every time I'm part of a home sale. Don't I wish! Truth is, that $6,000 is typically split between my agency (if I listed or sold the property) and some other agency (whose agent listed or sold). The $3,000 on my side is then split between my broker (40%) and me (60%) - so I would earn $1800 on a 100k sale.
That amount isn't bad for having struggled through many small responsibilities and paperwork over an average of three months to complete the sale, all the while handling problems and concerns with an "at your service" attitude and smile.
But the real truth for me is that when I began suffering with cancer and had to rely on pain meds, then worked through three surgeries and down time, I was aware that I couldn't trust myself to be on top of every situation. So I began co-listing all my new business with another associate, splitting the work - and the commissions. Now take that $1800 and see where it ends up. $80 goes out first for Errors & Omissions insurance. Then the remaining $1720 is split evenly with that associate who helps me avoid most of the errors and omissions I would probably commit on my own.
So the folks who see me as getting rich from local home sales would be shocked to learn that my net income from real estate last year was less than their social security income. And I dare not tell them. I'm better served by their incorrect impressions because "nothing succeeds like success!"
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)