The name started off innocuously enough. We had neighbors with questionable...sources of income. Gal and I joked that we should get a dog, name it Shotgun, then walk around the house yelling, "Honey, where's the shotgun?". Corny, I know, but it got us started joking about names for our dog that revolved around guns. At some point Gal thought about our plinking pistol (Mark I), and the name ceased to be a joke. It stuck.
When we lived on campus and had our illegal pet, we wanted a dog, but knew we would get caught by campus houseing and lose both pets. As soon as we moved to our current abode, we set about finding a pet which returned love and affection on a regular basis. We tried all of the local animal shelters in one day, but the selection was limited (we needed a puppy which would be able to get used to 2-year-old Gizmo). The last shelter we tried was in the next county, set back in a holler, and we arrived just in time to see the shelter's director preparing to leave. She decided to take a chance on us and left the shelter open for us to peruse on our own. After about 30 minutes, we picked out a tan and white puppy (imaginatively named "Biscuit" by the staff), about 3 months old, who was excited to see us, but when we left he quickly calmed down and sat off by himself. To the best of our reconing, he was a beagle/labrador mix (beagldor) On the way home that day we called the shelter director and told her we wanted "Biscuit"
I had to work the day the dog renamed Ruger came home (Biscuit? really, lets not depress the dog any more than necessary), so Gal had the job of driving 45 minutes with an untested puppy. Ruger started off in the back seat, moved to the passenger seat, and ended up in Gal's lap resting his head on her chest. That's how I found them when I got home, Gal on the couch with Ruger laying on her chest.
Since that day Ruger has functioned as our alarm system, couch warmer, and Gal's shadow. He's funny, scary-smart, and gets along great with the rest of the his siblings. Gizmo tollerates him, and Abby (cat #2) thinks he's the best toy ever. I've owned golden retrievers in the past, and Ruger is by far as smart as that breed and intuitive to boot. His car ride/bonding moment on the way home has solidified him as Gal's biggest fan. He has begun planning her arrival earlier and earlier. First it was when the garage door went up, then when she called to say she was on her way home from work ( I always end our phone conversations with, "I love you, babe."), and now he even recognizes her ring tone on my phone*.
Mark Twain said it best, "The more people I meet, the more I like my dog." I think I can stop meeting new people.
-Guy
*Zale's jewelers recently put out a commercial which uses the same sound bite for their commercials that I have for Gal's ringtone. When we sit watching TV at night, that commercial coming on can bring Ruger out of a dead sleep with his head up looking for Gal.
January 18, 2011
January 17, 2011
Empty Symbology
When I read an article from an online newspaper, I try to read through the comments section. You find all manner of individuals with differing points of view. These individuals may point out new concepts I have missed, or may challenge me to define my own views and occasionally change my mind. But there are certain comments which run so far against the grain of common sense that I just can't bend my mind to see the logic of them (for risk of breaking something delicate).
In the midst of the comments section of this article by John Lott, a reader makes a long statement with the general gist of "guns scare me, m'kay?". In the midst of a number of mental gymnastics (carrying guns makes the gun a first response in disagreements, etc.), this is the section which caused my frontal cortex to experience severe heartburn:
But this is a fantasy of the commenter's making. I'm a laid back kind of guy; I have never been in a fight in my life, no detention, no police reports exist on me. If I cannot outright avoid conflict, then I deflect it so I won't be the direct recipient. But I am a realist and literalist at heart. It's a select few who live in a world where they will never have to worry about their personal safety. I realize that even by avoiding conflict, conflict can still visit you. It doesn't consume my thoughts, creating a living nightmare of dark shadows and bloodthirsty shades. It simply keeps me aware of my surroundings and gives me (an extremely small level of) comfort that if the situation degrades to the point where I have no other choice, I have one last option to continue living for another day.
Oh, and lastly, I noticed that the majority of commenters who decried the point of Mr. Lott's article were from states where the people are denied the right to carry with relative freedom (i.e., New York, Chicago, Massachusetts, California, etc.). They kept missing two important pillars which support the opposition to gun control extremism:
1. The 2nd Amendment protects us from loss of our ability for self reliance and defense. (Go ahead, bring up the militia and collective rights concepts. We'll have a nice discussion.)
2. Gun culture is ingrained in the very make-up and social DNA in the parts of the country beyond the city lights. Reliance on self is paramount in many decisions of daily life. One of those decisions includes the choice to be self sufficient until the proper authorities arrive to take control of the situation. This grassroots society has a stoic strength which has (and will continue to) stand against attempts to take rights away from those perceived as the minority.
Jeez, I'm tired.
-Guy
Update: Wow, sorry for that rant. I finished up a 12 hour shift, came home, saw that comment, and just "had" to write about it before I went to bed. Note to self: get a couple of hours of sleep and then see if a comment still chaps your posterior...
In the midst of the comments section of this article by John Lott, a reader makes a long statement with the general gist of "guns scare me, m'kay?". In the midst of a number of mental gymnastics (carrying guns makes the gun a first response in disagreements, etc.), this is the section which caused my frontal cortex to experience severe heartburn:
"I chose to live in a peaceful society, so I don't carry a weapon as a symbol of my choice. Now, if there were killings taking place on every other corner, I would have to examine this principle anew. In the meantime, I am not armed for a reason: I am showing my peaceful intent every day, every hour, when I am out in the community. An armed person might potentially save someone in the course of a lifetime, but in a generally peaceful world, an armed person is a sign of danger, risk and possible accident, the same as someone would be who choose to drive 85 in a 35 MPH zone.Oh, I could spend a whole post on this one (it's been a long day so I won't), but suffice it to say I am happy for this man. He lives in a world devoid of danger, where his life and well being serve as a personal talisman against the encroachment of worldly evil. His decision to paint myself, my wife, and others like us as nexuses of danger and pervading darkness within our communities shows a distrust which goes beyond mere dislike for those who carry. It smacks of elitism. From his lofty pedestal, this commenter tells me that he is a symbol of what society should strive to be, a more evolved creature who shuns not only the possibility of unsolicited violence, but also the means to defend against this possibility. He lives in a super-plush world.
We have to find a way to live peacefully with each other. If we cannot do that, then I would choose not to live in our society and, lacking effective recourse, elect to live in a more peaceful place."
But this is a fantasy of the commenter's making. I'm a laid back kind of guy; I have never been in a fight in my life, no detention, no police reports exist on me. If I cannot outright avoid conflict, then I deflect it so I won't be the direct recipient. But I am a realist and literalist at heart. It's a select few who live in a world where they will never have to worry about their personal safety. I realize that even by avoiding conflict, conflict can still visit you. It doesn't consume my thoughts, creating a living nightmare of dark shadows and bloodthirsty shades. It simply keeps me aware of my surroundings and gives me (an extremely small level of) comfort that if the situation degrades to the point where I have no other choice, I have one last option to continue living for another day.
Oh, and lastly, I noticed that the majority of commenters who decried the point of Mr. Lott's article were from states where the people are denied the right to carry with relative freedom (i.e., New York, Chicago, Massachusetts, California, etc.). They kept missing two important pillars which support the opposition to gun control extremism:
1. The 2nd Amendment protects us from loss of our ability for self reliance and defense. (Go ahead, bring up the militia and collective rights concepts. We'll have a nice discussion.)
2. Gun culture is ingrained in the very make-up and social DNA in the parts of the country beyond the city lights. Reliance on self is paramount in many decisions of daily life. One of those decisions includes the choice to be self sufficient until the proper authorities arrive to take control of the situation. This grassroots society has a stoic strength which has (and will continue to) stand against attempts to take rights away from those perceived as the minority.
Jeez, I'm tired.
-Guy
Update: Wow, sorry for that rant. I finished up a 12 hour shift, came home, saw that comment, and just "had" to write about it before I went to bed. Note to self: get a couple of hours of sleep and then see if a comment still chaps your posterior...
January 11, 2011
January 10, 2011
There's no way...
...that this can be abused. None whatsoever, from any part of the political spectrum.
How could a bill which says "you can't make threatening statements about congress creatures" later be misused? Because every politician, congressman, and senator has the morals of a newborn child, without malice, greed, or powermongering tendencies.
*gag* I think I just threw up a little...in the back of my throat...from the irony.
Now all that a politician from any segment has to do is look around, point to a statement/image that they find threatening, and it can be construed as so. The examples provided were clearly defined as being for political purposes. They were not hit lists. They were not burnt effigies. They were not manifestos telling how to bring about the death or injury to politicians. These were methods to explain the focus of an agenda.
What do you get when you look down a scope with crosshairs? You get a reduced field of view. All your attention is focused on what is within the reticle, all other information at that time is extraneous. The same goes for the target analogy. You focus totally upon that target and what it is attached to. What next? If the same maps shown in this clip had red dots instead of crosshairs/targets?
-Oh, red dots show violent intent. They could have used blue, green, or yellow. Happy colors!
-Oh, red dots like lasers. Like laser sights on guns! Don't guns have 'red dot' sights? Oh, the humanity!
Nope, nothing to see here folks. No infringements or shady motives to observe. Move along.
-Guy
BTW, did you notice the little side-step on the freedom of speech issue? I would like a full, detailed answer to that question...
How could a bill which says "you can't make threatening statements about congress creatures" later be misused? Because every politician, congressman, and senator has the morals of a newborn child, without malice, greed, or powermongering tendencies.
*gag* I think I just threw up a little...in the back of my throat...from the irony.
Now all that a politician from any segment has to do is look around, point to a statement/image that they find threatening, and it can be construed as so. The examples provided were clearly defined as being for political purposes. They were not hit lists. They were not burnt effigies. They were not manifestos telling how to bring about the death or injury to politicians. These were methods to explain the focus of an agenda.
What do you get when you look down a scope with crosshairs? You get a reduced field of view. All your attention is focused on what is within the reticle, all other information at that time is extraneous. The same goes for the target analogy. You focus totally upon that target and what it is attached to. What next? If the same maps shown in this clip had red dots instead of crosshairs/targets?
-Oh, red dots show violent intent. They could have used blue, green, or yellow. Happy colors!
-Oh, red dots like lasers. Like laser sights on guns! Don't guns have 'red dot' sights? Oh, the humanity!
Nope, nothing to see here folks. No infringements or shady motives to observe. Move along.
-Guy
BTW, did you notice the little side-step on the freedom of speech issue? I would like a full, detailed answer to that question...
January 9, 2011
Psychology Is Not Politically-based
The most recent hubbub this weekend revolves around the mass shooting in Arizona: 3 dead, 14 wounded, and a psychologically disturbed individual was taken into custody. The victims of this tragedy, their families, and the family of the shooter are in our prayers. I've been in a self-induced media/internet seclusion for the past 48 hours, so the extent of my information until today came from 3rd-hand news from Gal via a phone conversation with her mother. All I knew was that somebody with a gun went postal and shot a congress woman. Boy, I should have stayed in seclusion for the well-being of my blood pressure.
Every article I have read (I won't link to them, all it takes is a quick Google search) had comment sections in which people were extolling the political leanings of the sick individual and "How _insert political pundit/talkinghead/media outlet here_ caused him to go batsh!t crazy and fulfill his blood lust on helpless victims". There was even some wrinkled rag of a newspaper out of Britain that had a whole piece about the subject.
I'm going to take a moment to selectively alter a Morbo quote: Psychosis does not work that way!
If someone becomes mentally ill, their thought patterns cease to work properly. In their mind, cause and effect are no longer on speaking terms, rationality has been diluted with paranoia, and they have become a lonely stranger within their own skin. Media has the same amount of influence on them that a cloud of mayflies has on an Abrams main battle tank running at full throttle. They are not trying to find truth in what reality is presented to them, they are set on finding some way for reality to conform to what they want to believe. It's like trying to determine what a person looks like based on a reflection in a house of mirrors. The more you try to move around and make the image coalesce, the worse your perception gets.
Case in point: One night I was working at our local hospital and got called to the ER to draw on a patient who was suffering a psychological break. Phlebotomists draw blood. Most people consider us a necessary nuisance who comes along, pricks them, leaves, and is soon forgotten; like a mosquito you don't slap (usually). This patient was totally different. He was convinced that They were after him, the music from his heavy metal band was filled with evil messages, and that everyone was bent on causing him harm*. First and foremost of all of this was his belief that his faith (Jehovah's Witness) precluded him from having his blood drawn. He was convinced that his ability to spend eternity in paradise was on the line if his blood was removed from his body for testing. Long story short, he eventually agreed to one tube being drawn (a syringe is a tube, right?) which allowed me to get enough blood to not have to bother with him again while he was at the hospital. (For the record, J's Witnesses have issues with blood transfussion, not blood draws).
The point is, this patient was having major psychological issues. Judging from what commenters' posted (and some media outlets espoused), the blame for this guy's issues lay in his religion. The religion told him to do _____, so he takes it to the extreme and ends up as a threat to himself and the public at large. In reality, this guy would have latched on to whatever helped make sense of his addled brain. It could have been political, religious, social, philosophical, or something entirely made up by the individual. The end result would have been the same: both the patient and the individual in the recent shooting had a break with reality. No single choice on their part made the event more or less likely to occur. It would make as much sense to blame their actions on the clothes they were wearing when the event occurred.
-Guy
* ie, Buffalo Springfield: Paranoia strikes deep/into your life it will creep/it starts when you're always afraid/step out of line, the men come and take you away.
Every article I have read (I won't link to them, all it takes is a quick Google search) had comment sections in which people were extolling the political leanings of the sick individual and "How _insert political pundit/talkinghead/media outlet here_ caused him to go batsh!t crazy and fulfill his blood lust on helpless victims". There was even some wrinkled rag of a newspaper out of Britain that had a whole piece about the subject.
I'm going to take a moment to selectively alter a Morbo quote: Psychosis does not work that way!
If someone becomes mentally ill, their thought patterns cease to work properly. In their mind, cause and effect are no longer on speaking terms, rationality has been diluted with paranoia, and they have become a lonely stranger within their own skin. Media has the same amount of influence on them that a cloud of mayflies has on an Abrams main battle tank running at full throttle. They are not trying to find truth in what reality is presented to them, they are set on finding some way for reality to conform to what they want to believe. It's like trying to determine what a person looks like based on a reflection in a house of mirrors. The more you try to move around and make the image coalesce, the worse your perception gets.
Case in point: One night I was working at our local hospital and got called to the ER to draw on a patient who was suffering a psychological break. Phlebotomists draw blood. Most people consider us a necessary nuisance who comes along, pricks them, leaves, and is soon forgotten; like a mosquito you don't slap (usually). This patient was totally different. He was convinced that They were after him, the music from his heavy metal band was filled with evil messages, and that everyone was bent on causing him harm*. First and foremost of all of this was his belief that his faith (Jehovah's Witness) precluded him from having his blood drawn. He was convinced that his ability to spend eternity in paradise was on the line if his blood was removed from his body for testing. Long story short, he eventually agreed to one tube being drawn (a syringe is a tube, right?) which allowed me to get enough blood to not have to bother with him again while he was at the hospital. (For the record, J's Witnesses have issues with blood transfussion, not blood draws).
The point is, this patient was having major psychological issues. Judging from what commenters' posted (and some media outlets espoused), the blame for this guy's issues lay in his religion. The religion told him to do _____, so he takes it to the extreme and ends up as a threat to himself and the public at large. In reality, this guy would have latched on to whatever helped make sense of his addled brain. It could have been political, religious, social, philosophical, or something entirely made up by the individual. The end result would have been the same: both the patient and the individual in the recent shooting had a break with reality. No single choice on their part made the event more or less likely to occur. It would make as much sense to blame their actions on the clothes they were wearing when the event occurred.
-Guy
* ie, Buffalo Springfield: Paranoia strikes deep/into your life it will creep/it starts when you're always afraid/step out of line, the men come and take you away.
January 3, 2011
Well.....now what? (Gal)
So, I'm not really good with the whole "decision making process". I did manage to make it through four years of college and obtain a degree in nursing though. Since the Hubs has informed everyone about our bun in the oven, there is no need to elaborate on that. We just have to make a lot of decisions right now that I'm not really comfortable making. Since he has his BS in Biology and MBA and I have my BSN we both have great backgrounds for careers. However, we are discovering that you can't do as much with a Biology degree and an MBA as we once thought. It could be the fact that we are in a small town and just don't have the opportunities in our area. Thus bringing on the first decision we have: To move or not to move? We are considering (if by definition of the word considering one means about 99% sure) moving to a larger town that is within an hours drive. That will hopefully place us in an area where Guy has more opportunities for jobs. However, this move would also place me in the position where I may have to change jobs too. It would be an hours drive to work. Something I would prefer not to do unless otherwise inevitable. If I change jobs I risk losing my vacation and sick leave also the options I may have for when "Embry" is born. If I moved to a hospital within the same company I would not lose this. So the next decision is to stay with the same company so as not to lose those benefits? My gut says yes. Which is ok. I can hopefully transfer to a different position within the same company. Ok. Thats two major decisions to make. On to the third. Guy made a proposal this afternoon. "Would you like to go back to school?" Hmmmmm..... Well, I could I guess. We've been planning on him going back to school again to get a nursing degree. He mentioned me going back to school and he would work full time hopefully at this big and better job he could find. I would plan on working part time also while going to school. How is this all going to work out with a baby? I have no clue. So as you can see, there are quite a few decisions to make in the coming months. My decision making skills are fixing to get slung against the wall.
December 27, 2010
Sheesh, it's been a while...
We've been busy. Since we last spoke:
I've finished my M-B-A. There was much weeping and knashing of teeth, but oddly enough it was done by our professor and not by the class. When you teach the entire capstone course like you would an undergraduate management course, the higher education powers that be don't take it too kindly. The students were ok (we were just doing what we were told), but our prof won't be teaching that class ever again. This little graduation event also means that I never have to set foot on that particular campus again unless I just want to. I had some good times there, but I'm ready for a change in scenery.
Gal moved to OB a while back and is now working night shift. While this isn't a new experience for her (she started off working in ER on night shift), it is a bit of an adjustment for the household. The sleep schedule is the toughest part for her, especially until her work schedule gets back to making her three work days a week consecutive.
Christmas went well considering our schedules. Gal was on call the night of 24/25 and I had to work the 26th, but we still had time to visit the Kentucky relatives. Ruger joined us for the trip and got to wrastle with Gal's parent's German Shepard mix, Storm. Everyone was happy except the cats. They'll get over it.
And last, but certainly not least, Gal and I are expecting our first child. For the meantime, we don't plan on finding out the sex of Embry (as Gal's brother has nicknamed the kid; short for embryo), and he/she is due to be born in late summer. We couldn't be happier.
-Guy
I've finished my M-B-A. There was much weeping and knashing of teeth, but oddly enough it was done by our professor and not by the class. When you teach the entire capstone course like you would an undergraduate management course, the higher education powers that be don't take it too kindly. The students were ok (we were just doing what we were told), but our prof won't be teaching that class ever again. This little graduation event also means that I never have to set foot on that particular campus again unless I just want to. I had some good times there, but I'm ready for a change in scenery.
Gal moved to OB a while back and is now working night shift. While this isn't a new experience for her (she started off working in ER on night shift), it is a bit of an adjustment for the household. The sleep schedule is the toughest part for her, especially until her work schedule gets back to making her three work days a week consecutive.
Christmas went well considering our schedules. Gal was on call the night of 24/25 and I had to work the 26th, but we still had time to visit the Kentucky relatives. Ruger joined us for the trip and got to wrastle with Gal's parent's German Shepard mix, Storm. Everyone was happy except the cats. They'll get over it.
And last, but certainly not least, Gal and I are expecting our first child. For the meantime, we don't plan on finding out the sex of Embry (as Gal's brother has nicknamed the kid; short for embryo), and he/she is due to be born in late summer. We couldn't be happier.
-Guy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)