Happy Mother's Day!

I can't think of a better way to usher in this year's Mother's Day than hearing my daughter's last high school solo as I did at the pop show last night. I might have a few choice words to say about the teacher who thought it was all about him and thanked everyone for "his" success just short of the baker who made his favorite danishes of his childhood.

Everyone, indeed, EXCEPT the kids singing their hearts out.

Sorry, buddy, it ain't about you and never was. And I'll leave it right there for now before I start to use language that will get this post rated adults-only.

Which would be a mistake because the concert shouldn't have been about the teacher at all.

It's all about the kids.

Not just my kid, of course, and there were some lovely performances, but I'll admit I thought my daughter's was best. Those of you who frequent this blog probably know I'm a huge fan of my daughter's singing as has been noted (subtly) here and here and here.

Well, that hasn't changed and, last night, she went with jazz and sang this fantastic number. Although not the song I would have chosen, did I love it? Yes I did. I'm now convinced she can sing anything like a professional.

Who was this concert about?

If you guessed "the kids," you're damn right.

Way to go, baby!

I have updated my video homepage for anyone who wants to download the video. And her audio singing can be heard here and here any time.

Seeing your child succeed at something she loves? That's about the best present a mother can get (though she got me an AWESOME bouquet as well).

P.S. My camera work stunk big time. I could not get my arm to stop shaking. It doesn't, I think, detract from her voice. That's all her.

P.P.S. I did not realize how egotistical my original title was. I just felt so privileged to have my daughter's gift for today!

Read more...

More on Japan's Recovery

We just passed the year mark on Japan's great tsuanami/earthquake disaster (or rather, it's latest one). I remember because I heard about it the "next" day on my daughter's/sister's birthday. I've mentioned before how frustrated I am in getting information on the recovery of this great nation from such a devastating event and that still goes. Still, I stumbled across some before/after pictures that show how much work has already been done to recover. Just the clearing of debris impresses the hell out of me. I particularly like the first three pictures in the series:

Before the tsunami:

After the tsunami:

 

And now: 

Does that impress me? Damn straight. More pictures can be found here. Good for you, Japan. I wish you the best.

If anyone else has news on the recovery they could share, I welcome more information.

P.s. I did a search to see if I could find more. 

Here's one from three months after the disaster: Wow

Here's another from six months: Amazing - where do you even put all that debris?

Read more...

On My Own

I've always had an affinity for Epinine, easily my favorite role from the musical "Les Miserables" (please imagine the appropriate accent). It was always easy to imagine myself as the girl who loved but was overlooked and underestimated in return. I'm not alone, by even the smallest stretch, in feeling like that, at least occasionally, but I have, perhaps, spent more time than was healthy feeling so.

Admittedly, it's one reason why I'm reluctant to include unrequited love in my novels - too sad - and I'll have to get past that. Life has plenty of dark to go around and books without them are unrealistically ideal. But I digress.

My point is that I have just completed what is likely one of the most benign, tidiest, easiest, least nasty divorces in history. Which is a good thing, even if divorce itself isn't. Amazing that such a thing can still be so very sad, the death of a dream, even if the marriage itself wasn't living up to it. However, endings are also harbingers of change. And change is all about new beginnings and new opportunities, even if they aren't readily available.

So, that's what I'll wish for the man who was so recently my husband, that this provides him the opportunity to find what will make him happy.

And I will strive to do the same.

Read more...

Thinking "Man's" God

Been a while since I talked religious philosophy.

If Jesus came back and saw what's going on in his name, he'd never stop throwing up.

-Woody Allen

I know, most of you haven't missed it, but my daughter wanted me to watch "Religulous" with her and it got me to thinking. Now, though I can appreciate seeing the craziest extremists of religion discussing their view  as a basis to consider religion a bad idea altogether, I'm not going to take that stance.  Though that did happen in the movie. I don't even want to take the stance. I don't think religion, per se, is evil.

Even though I won't argue the religious fanatics have done plenty of harm to innocent people in the past and today (pretty much all religions, don't think yours is innocent), or that you don't have to be a fringe creepy nut to do considerable harm, I absolutely won't tell anyone they aren't entitled to believe as they want (or not believe). I want religious freedom, want to believe as I choose, damn it, and I can't have that if I try to take it away from someone else. Them's the rules. There's been plenty of secular harm going on, too, and I won't shoulder the blame for it; why should reasonable religious folks pay the price for the crazies?

This isn't the dark ages and we, as the human race, are overdue for some growing up.

If you're hoping I'll tell you the answers, no luck. I don't got 'em. Don't even want 'em. I'm fine not knowing everything.

But, I do think it behooves anyone to take out their beliefs and examine them, look 'em over, check 'em for soundness. Many of us get our religious beliefs from scriptures or people interpreting some form of scripture, which means that there might be aspects that, as decent human beings, we might not be entirely be comfortable with. I think understanding that, accepting that everything we're fed isn't to be taken at face value is a good thing to know because - and I might get some flack for this - our religion should never get in the way of our consciences or lead us to apathy when something wrong is happening. That's right, I don't think religion should lead our way - I think most of us have a better sense of what is right and wrong than the most religious fanatics out there. We just have to listen to our inner selves and not squash our natural decency.

Why do I think that? Well, partially because religious belief, of some form or another, is so widespread. People want to do the right thing and are humble enough to be concerned that they might need guidance. If religious leaders were as interested in doing the right thing as followers in general, religion wouldn't have done nearly as much harm as it has. A dash of critical thinking on the part of followers might have been helpful as well to keep those tending toward megalomania from causing so much destruction.

And that is what I want to talk about, taking out the tenets of your faith and separating the wheat from the chaff.

Here are some basic tenets and practices:

• We are all God's children he loves us all
• Except certain people of certain races/colors/geographical areas/intelligence levels/social levels/etc.
• People who don't have the right faith will spend eternity in torment no matter how kind they are to others.
• People who have the right faith (specific faith, mind you, not Christianity/Muslim/etc) can be forgiven most everything no matter how horrible the crime
• To be a good [your religion here] you must convert others for their own good
• I am justified in treating people who violate tenets of my religion differently, poorly, even with violence. 
• I am justified in deciding who of my neighbors is going to hell.
• If I feel something is sinful, I am obligated to try to make it illegal and punish others for it. 
• No one has the right to infringe on my beliefs. 
• My particular "messiah" was divine and proved it with miracles and/or resurrection.
• Any other "messiah" was patently false, even if they did exactly the same things as mine did.
• Treating people decently (particularly sinners/infidels) is not as important as piety
• Certain acts are only right or wrong, with no gray area. 
• Except killing, which is okay if you're doing it for the right reason and have God's backing but a dire sin if you don't.
• And sex, which is okay if you're doing it for procreation ONLY and with one's spouse of the opposite gender, but not under any other circumstance.
• And stealing which is okay if you're only tricking the ignorant out of their money instead of hacking into their bank accounts without their permission
• and, well, you get the idea. 
• Obeying God's law is absolute. 

Now, some of you might have found the tone of that list caustic. There's a reason for it. Like the math problem previously, assumptions are part and parcel of a number of gentler sounding tenets that are part and parcel of most religions. One can't have the one true religion without everyone else being false. One can't embrace the notion of hell without being comfortable with the notion that some of the friends and neighbors you have are headed that way.

The problem I have with this kind of thinking, and why I don't believe there is one true religion or that whatever God(s) exist cares what name is on the church you go to is that, to believe that this is his/her/their priority, he/she/they'd have to be intolerant and more interested in hearing one's praises than in one's "children" treating each other kindly, that control of one's children is more important than watching them think independently or entertain a different notion.

 And I don't.

No. Scratch that.  I won't.

Almost every tenet that claims exclusivity or fosters animosity between people can be readily explained by human beings wanting to use religion to control other people, to give them a way to punish, horror stories to frighten them to piety (if not sinlessness), to increase the size of one's flock. I'd much rather believe such contradictory and divisive notions come from unscrupulous humans than think God is a petty vindictive tyrant who prefers sycophantic fawning by the worst possible villains over people who treat others with compassion and acceptance. I'd much rather believe that than believe in a God who is comfortable dooming everyone who didn't figure out which of the eighty-five jillion religions was the one and only to everlasting torment. I'd much rather believe that God is as helpless in some ways to stop terrible things from happening than that he does them to teach some group of people a lesson. (And it's so ironic that religions are so divisive because the original teachings frequently boil down to the Golden Rule).

I don't believe in a higher power who is intolerant, petty, unkind, self-absorbed and vicious or at least more so than I am myself. Oh, I won't tell you you're wrong if you think he is. You can believe whatever you want, but I won't do it. And using hell to scare me won't work because I don't believe in that either. I don't think there's only torment or blissful harmony. I think the struggles we go through are to make us stronger, to teach us to be better people, which would be wasted if we died only to retire in challenge-less luxury or if we were given no chance to try again if we didn't quite come up to scratch (let alone the torments).

I mean, why in the world would I feel good about worshiping someone who hated the bulk of the human race, who was going to make them suffer an eternity of unhappiness? Bad enough to think God feels that way - why would you want to worship such an individual?

And, here's the kicker, my answer is the same even if I'm wrong, because I won't worship someone nasty like that just because he's powerful. Power doesn't impress me; merit does. I wouldn't give such a god the satisfaction of my worship and would prefer to go to hell than kiss up to a bastard like that. I'd prefer to spend an eternity in damnation with all the people I most admire than spend eternity basking in comfort and the company of the most sanctimonious cretins I've ever known.

If I let someone else's sense of right and wrong, my belief in some petty higher power cause me to do harm to someone else, or even allow me to look the other way while it happened, I still have to answer for that. Perhaps to God, but, just as important, definitely to myself. Not saying I haven't made mistakes (with more to come), but I'm willing to answer for each and every one. I made the choices. I'll live with the consequences. And I would still be responsible even if someone else convinced me to do them.

So, I toss away everything that seems contrived for aggrandizement of a particular "god" or institutions and focus on doing the most good and not harming anyone if I can avoid it. That's it. And I'm very happy with it. Heck, I'd go to hell for my way of thinking, which is as faithful as it gets.

I don't think it will come to that, though.

I didn't say all that to convert anyone, by the way, only to explain how I got to where I am and why I believe what I believe. By all means, keep your own faith - I'm only asking you to take a good look at it. Have you ever done something, argued for something, you didn't really think was right because your religion told you to? Have you ever kept silent when something you felt was wrong was happening because others of your faith were doing it or supporting it? If so, perhaps you need to rethink it, make sure your faith is in keeping what what you really believe.

And act accordingly.

Oh, and if  you'd like to debate the topic with me, that's just fine, too.

Read more...

Some Clarification on my Divorce

First, before I say anything more, I have to thank you all for your support. One side effect about being dropped (apparently without any hesitation or remorse) by the person you thought was the love of your life is that you feel pretty much unlovable. The support of people I've grown fond of without even meeting, the reminders that there are people who still care, is more precious to me than I can express. 

But I think I've given the impression that my husband, soon-to-be ex, is a hateful malicious cretin, and that's not fair. I know, because I've been married to a hateful malicious cretin and the divorce went somewhat differently. So did the marriage.

My first marriage was horrible, filled to the brim with emotional and sometimes physical abuse. Ever been on the floor of your kitchen while your spouse tried to throttle you? I have. I hated living with him and stayed for years longer than I should out of obligation until it dawned on me that letting myself be treated like that was the worst possible example for our one child. As a possession, my first husband felt I had no right to leave. I will spare you the specifics on the threats and the name calling he used, but they included, at the least, the threat that I would never see my daughter again, that he'd prove I was psychotic and would be paying him through the nose for the foreseeable future. His mother seconded the notion and threatened me, too.

I left anyway.

During the course of the divorce (and beyond) he:

• Tried to get me arrest for forgery (signing his mother's Christmas card)
• Called CPS on me and the people who were supporting me numerous times with escalating and readily disproved allegations of abuse, both physical and sexual. The repeated calls were so outrageous, the local law enforcement charged him with obstruction of justice and tried to indict him.
• Set a detective on me.
• So frightened the psychologist hired to evaluate us' receptionist so badly that the psychologist changed his view of him radically (he'd been favoring my first husband because my husband, as a cop, knew how to take the tests with the "right answers - I'm a little off - and because I seemed too rigidly moral???)
• Threatened my lawyer and his secretary (making my lawyer his sworn enemy)
• So scared our mediator that he was unhinged that she took to locking the door to where I was and ended up giving me tips to get custody during the trial. My lawyer ended up at the picture window with the gun he'd fetched from his car, saying "All I need is a clear shot." I'm not kidding.
• Threatened me in the court room so that the judge repeatedly chewed him out and put extra sanctions on him (which he ignored). As a cop, my first husband tried threatening the cops working the courtroom (different jurisdiction from his own) and pushed the judge to calling up my first husband's boss (Sheriff) to complain about his behavior. There were extra cops in our courtroom standing strategically around us with their hands on their guns at all times. 
• He failed to make house payments (court ordered) on the house in both our names, and water payments so my daughter spent nearly a month in a house with no water. Also, it was growing a horrible black mold (from a water leak months old) and had so much trash (when I came to clean it up for sale) that it took three trips with a 30' trailer to clear it out. 
• After refusing to allow us to sell the house, he declared bankruptcy, forcing me to do the same or be saddled with all his debts in addition to my own.
• Since the divorce was final, he has repeated and at length told our daughter horrible stories of my infidelity (never happened), my neglect of her (false), and my physical abuse of him (say what???). 
• Cost of the three years of divorce (just on my side) was upwards of $35K.

That my daughter has managed to grow up a bright loving generous self-starting teenager is a miracle.

My current husband is young and, from my view, thoughtless, immature, and self-absorbed. But there is no meanness in him. If he is leaving most of his responsibility behind, he is also setting out with almost nothing and doing so by choice. I have all the debts, the kids, the house, both cars and most of the stuff. He has a few essentials, his motorcycle and minimal job prospects because he's never really worked. Since he didn't fix his motorcycle, his lack of reliable transportation isn't helping him.

He loves someone else, but he also wasn't happy. With nothing and his life a chaotic model of uncertainty, he's happier than he was while he was here and financially secure, which argues he did the right thing for both of us. I have no more interest in making my marriage a prison for my husband than I was in staying in one where I felt a prisoner. We're reached agreement everything ahead of time, have a marriage settlement agreement signed, notarized and filed. We went to the "about the kids" seminar required for divorces involving children together yesterday with no animosity. Come April 9, we'll go in together on our no-fault no-contest divorce and be done with no lawyers involved.

If I am hurt, grieved, and frustrated by things my husband does and the naive or self-centered way he looks at things, or by the sense of abandonment and lack of self-worth I have as a result, I am also grateful that this is as easy and simple as it could be, that he is facilitating me moving on with my life. And much of my grief is self-inflicted given that I loved him to excess and he merely didn't.

I am also fortunate that my husband's family is keeping me even if he isn't. My MIL has taken over watching my daughter during the day and has been my strongest support.

My first husband has granted me a frame of reference so that, despite some pain and sense of betrayal, I can also appreciate that there's no meanness or greed. And that argues a much healthier outlook for the children we share.

Read more...

The Problems With Statistics

I think I've mentioned statistics before and why tend to be leery. Maybe on one of my other blogs. Fortunately, Relax Max provided an example on his blog post. Fun with numbers! Go there first if you want to see the problem and solve it without seeing the answer 'cause I'll be doing some math below but bear with me.

The problem:

Suppose that a barrel contains many small plastic eggs. Some eggs are painted red and some are painted blue. 40% of the eggs in the bin contain pearls, and 60% contain nothing. 30% of eggs containing pearls are painted blue, and 10% of eggs containing nothing are painted blue. What is the probability that a blue egg contains a pearl?

This is quite solvable for everything but the total number of eggs.With four variables and four equations, it's workable to solve the ratios of red(R), blue(B), pearl(P) and empty(E) eggs.

.4*(R+B)=P
.6*(R+B)=E
.3P+.1E=X
.7P+.9E=Y

Now, I could show the steps, but I'm too lazy, but, from this, we can deduce that the pearl:empty ratio of blue eggs is 2:1 and of red eggs is 14:27. The ratio of pearl:empty for the total, of course is 2:3 and the ratio or blue:red eggs is 9:41

That doesn't count the eggs BUT, unless we accept the notion that there are partial eggs involved, we can figure out a least possible number of eggs. When I did this in my head on the way home, I misdid the proportions of red and blue to 8:41 and realized we'd need a factor of 49, but I realized my mistake later and revised it to factors of 50, including 100. However, that's wrong, too. If we have to keep ourselves to whole numbers (which seems logical), the per red egg proportions have to be right, too and you can't do that with a total number of red eggs of 30 or 60.

My calculations give me a minimum number of eggs of 6150; however, if any of you find a smaller number I'm more than willing to compare notes.

So, why the math problem? Are any of you still with me? Because, with all those numbers I've tossed out like I'm knowledgeable and have said something significant and absolute, there are these important little things called caveats and I have to thank soubriquet for pointing out (on RM's blog) that, without making some pretty important assumptions, you can't deduce anything. He/she pointed out a few (I'll make those green) and I'll note all the others ones I think of absolutely necessary to reach any numerical conclusion:

• 100% of the plastic eggs in the bin are painted red or blue (why would you paint plastic eggs?). There are no other colors of eggs in the barrel (or, if there were, they've been repainted red or blue)
• Only a blue painted egg is counted as blue, no matter what the original plastic color
• The eggs painted red and blue are in the bin
• We're dealing with whole eggs, not fractions of eggs that would be counted as "empty"

If any of the first three aren't true, it can't be solved. If the last part isn't true, one cannot limit the eventual total.

So what? Right? Except we, the people, are constantly bombarded with statistics all the time, oftimes touted as "facts". What we're generally not bombarded with are the caveats and assumptions which go into just about every scientific "fact" (limitations in detection, for example) and, to an even greater degree, all those more nebulous "facts" many treat like absolutes.

"XX% of the YY populace thinks ZZ," for example.

Here are some of the assumptions necessary for that last statement to mean anything:

Whatever sample they used is representative of the whole. Let's face it, chances are this is an estimate using a "sample" of the YY populace since few organizations have the wherewithal to ask any entire population (with the possible exception of say, Polar Bear Club members or something) a question. Chances are, they chose a "representative sample" that might be representative and, just as easily, might be completely unrepresentative of the whole. Let's also note that few organizations have ever asked any sample and received 100% feedback, so it's not just the sample asked but the sample that was willing to reply. I don't know about you, but just thinking those that are willing to answer polls have the same mindset as those who won't bother seems suspect. Geography might make a difference. Social class, race, gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation, those might make differences, too. If the sample is too restrictive or weighted, you won't get a meaningful answer unless that bias is included in the YY descriptor. However, narrowing down the YY descriptor makes the answer more meaningless to everyone else as well.

The wording of the question would be accurate enough to capture the opinion stated (or the thought expressed means what was asked).  Seems obvious but I've been on the receiving end of a few questions that were as misleading and answerless as the famous "So, do you still beat your wife?" question. Asking a mixed political group "Do you think Democrats in Congress/the Senate/your State government have failed to stand up to Republicans enough?" will get you different result than asking "Are Democrats causing our political problems?" but either can be lumped as "disapprove of Democrats." Given how different the questions are and how differently the mitigations are depending which camp you're in, lumping them as the same just shows you how misleading a statistic can be. Or let's try this: "Would you want your child to marry someone of the same gender?" vs. "Do you think people should be able to marry someone of the same gender?" Think they'd get the same answer ("approve of gay marriage")? Before you get too spun up on these intolerant parents, remember that not wanting your child to be gay doesn't mean you wouldn't accept them if they were any more than not wanting your child to be autistic means you'd smother them in their sleep if they were. It's all in how the question is worded which may or may not have anything to do with how the conclusion is worded. But, for the statistic to have meaning, we have to assume they are the equivalent.

People questioned say what they mean. Any time you take a poll, you are also dependent on the respondee to tell you what they actually think in a way that represents what they'll do/think/did. A poll that asks something relatively benign ("Do you like Chinese food?") is more apt to get accuracy than a poll that asks something sensitive ("Have you had sex with someone other than your spouse?") but some people won't answer correctly anyway. Anonymity might buy back some of that, but anyone who thinks a blind poll will garner only untarnished truth when asking "Have you ever had sexual fantasies about a relative?" or "Would you ever engage in premarital sex?" is probably delusional.

 There's more, of course, especially if we move from what seems like easy-peasy ground of what actually is (and we've already seen how misleading statistics can be for that) to predicting things based on trends.

Talk about voodoo.

Read more...

Sometimes Things Do Work Out

So, there are many reasons why this is a tough week. My husband moved out (when I objected to him happening to invite his unemployed new soulmate at dinner time expecting me to feed her too three days in one week). He couldn't understand why that would bother me. Even the poor girl was desperately uncomfortable (and he's told me she hates to be around me - apparently being rude to me is just fine).

Does anyone else need an explanation?

So the same week I file for divorce and have flu-from-hell, along with my two smallest children, and loan my van to my soon-to-be-ex for his birthday campout with his girlfriend and his cronies, I also get to run the Valentine gauntlet in every store.


And I look at my Amazon.com wishlist, to see if there's something there I could get myself that would cheer me up (yes, I did buy several manga, too) and I notice that a ring I'd put on there back when I was still thinking of myself as a married woman is now out of stock. Now, it's not a pricy ring. I like colored stones, always have, and don't much care if they're "genuine" gemstones or semi-precious or CZ or whatever. And I actively prefer silver to gold. Always have. So, when I saw this dramatic ring on amazon.com, I just loved it:

But I can't buy myself a $155 ring. There are too many priorities that preclude it. So, when I went down my wishlist and saw it was now out of stock, I wasn't really surprised. Missed that window, I thought. But I was curious to see if there were other multicolor CZ rings out there. Surely this wasn't the only example!

So, I looked, and, sure enough, there were quite a few. Some were quite nice, though none appealed like the first one I'd seen until I saw this one.

 

Look the same to you? Yeah, me too. And this beauty was a whopping  $38.26.  Heck, even I can afford that, so this was my Valentine's Day gift to myself, as pathetic as that sounds. By the way, if you feel like you MUST spend $155+, the first one is now back in stock.

I did worry that the real thing would be clunky or heavy or muddy or dangerously sharp and catch on clothes or children. But it was gorgeous, fit nicely on my hand and seems very comfortable there. 

So, sometimes things work out after all. And my daughter gets a jewelry box inside another box that she can play with for HOURS.

Read more...