For Irene

That's not her real name. Irene represents that person you know who thinks socialized health care is socialism. Irene is not very smart. She doesn't even know what socialism means, and I don't have the year or so it would take to teach her. But I'm going to explain something for her in very small words.

Pretend there is a big bucket. You have some potatoes. In fact you have a few potatoes you can spare, so you put them in the bucket. Your neighbours all put potatoes in the bucket. Everyone in town puts potatoes in a bucket. There are lots of potatoes in the bucket.

One day you have no potatoes. So you take some potatoes out of the bucket. Now you have potatoes.

This is how insurance works. Lots of people pay in, and when one of them needs some, they get some out.

Now, pretend you and all your neighbours have a big bucket. You have some potatoes. In fact you have a few potatoes you can spare, so you put them in the bucket. Your neighbours all put potatoes in the bucket. Everyone in town puts potatoes in a bucket. There are lots of potatoes in the bucket.

One day you have no potatoes. So you take some potatoes out of the bucket. Now you have potatoes.

This is how socialized health care works. Lots of people pay in, and when one of them needs some, they get some out.

Obviously, it is VERY different to insurance.

Quickie

Why can't debates include beliefs?

Here's a simple explanation to begin with. I've mentioned it before, so forgive me, and I've spoken about it humorously, but, read it carefully and see what the problem is.

My husband is part polar bear. I am a tropical animal. I am always too cold, he is always too warm. We do annoy each other with this, as it's hard to compromise on a temperature we are sharing. But that isn't the REAL problem. The REAL problem is how it gets spoken about. It goes like this:

I say "I'm cold".

He says "It's not cold".

See the difference there? I am making a statement about my feelings. He is stating what he considers to be a fact.

I could argue with his fact, because "cold" is a relative term, but I'm not really trying to argue that. I'm talking about my own experience.

He, on the other hand, cannot argue about my experience because he isn't me.

Who is right, and who is wrong? This cannot be answered. Or, the answer may as well be "orange" because a fact can only be argued as a fact, and an experience can only be experienced.

He COULD say "I don't believe you are cold" but that doesn't solve anything. It is my heartfelt belief that I am cold. Nothing is going to stop me believing that. You can't talk me out of being cold. Even if I pretend I'm warm, I still feel cold.

I COULD tell him that his idea of what is or is not cold is wrong, but I can't prove it, because I'm only basing my theory that it's wrong on my own feelings.

Facts and data are one thing. Feelings and beliefs are quite another. They don't work as opposing positions.

This Blog Is NOT About Dog Treats

Over the last few years there have been so many articles, rumours, recalls, reports, and worries about dog treats that I have lost count. Dogs have died. Vets have given out warnings.

People are still buying dog treats.

I am sympathetic, but I still shake my head.

But if you read the title carefully, this blog is NOT about dog treats. It's about cause and effect, and I am desperately concerned about my species and their apparent inability to follow "If X, then Y".

If you like, you can look at human treats. Perhaps this sort of thing could be a basic primer. Again, this blog is NOT about human treats. But riddle me this:

Humans know, because they've been told often enough, that certain foods are healthier than others. Some folk are extremist about it, and that's their prerogrative, while others ignore any advice on nutrition completely. Somewhere between the two, most people know that some food items are best eaten rarely, as a treat. This is because they know that "If you eat junk treats all the time, then you will get sick." It makes no sense to opt for sickness, so most of us remember that. Nevertheless, some people eat far more junk treats than the human system can deal with and they get sick. And then they complain about it.

There's this old joke, where a man goes to his doctor and says "Doc, when I do this (action) it hurts!" so the doctor says "Well, stop doing it then." Ha ha ha ha ha. (O.o)

OK. If the action is walking, it's hard to avoid. If it's guzzling 4 litres of pop every day, maybe a lifestyle adaptation could be made. Oh, the unfairness of it.

I currently see one of my key roles in the life of my grandchildren as that of a teacher. The wise elder deal. Evolution prefers children to have grandparents, otherwise we'd all die as soon as our kids were of breeding age. Some research has been done on this, there is an obvious advantage to having older people around or there wouldn't be any. Nature is not wasteful.

And one of the things I aim to teach them is cause and effect. they teach it to themselves in a way, but sometimes pointing it out speeds the process up. I am especially keen on teaching #4 grandson that climbing on unsteady objects is a bad idea after what he did to his head last week.

But with the oldest two I can sit and discuss this sort of thing. I find it necessary to do it several times, but they are listening, because you can hear them warning each other: "If you do that then........"

"If you break Nona's pot, she'll kill you."

Sage advice.

The point is, chldren do learn this. They pick it up pretty fast. It does save their lives. It's what stops them touching hot things, running in the road, or getting murdered by their grandmother.

So why do adults have such a hard time with it? Hmm?

I don't think a day goes by that I don't see, hear, or read about somebody who is a perfectly sane, intelligent adult who is COMPLETELY ignoring the laws of cause and effect, as if it doesn't apply to them.

I am not going to furnish you with examples, just in case you recognize yourself among them. That would be awkward. Because IF I call somebody out on their stupidity THEN they tend to be offended and unhappy.

Business Ethics

I expect you've all been a victim of corporate greed at some time or other. Because Martin used to be in the motor industry and I got an inside scoop on prices, I know about 10,000% markups, like the case of the $27.00 screw. This may be an extreme example, but it's far from unique, and a 1000% markup is quite normal these days, a good example is the popcorn at movie theatres.

Generally, when the greed is happening among my competitors, I follow a live and let live attitude. If they want to overcharge, and people want to pay it, let them.

Here's an example for you at "Lucy's Basement Bargains":

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/6pcs-Wholesale-Lot-Steampunk-Antiqued-Silver-Owl-Charms-Pendants-Jewelry-/360649027804

6 owls for $9.99

This is not a bargain. I sell them at 10 for $2.95, and in fact I buy them at 5 cents each. Of course, to get that wholesale price you do need to buy hundreds at a time, and most people would not want to, which is why there is a market for retail quantities and prices, but I'm just demonstrating a typical example of why "caveat emptor" is so important.

One reason "Lucy" may well sell them at such a grossly over-inflated price is that she includes the word "Steampunk" in her title. The Steampunk bandwagon is massive, if you hadn't already noticed. So this is a sort of magic word. Quite what is steampunk about an owl, I don't know, but there it is.

You notice she also has "Antique Silver" in the title. In the description she says it is antique silver plated zinc alloy, but "Lucy" is not daft. She knows that:

a) Buyers don't read that far, and
b) Even when they do these terms are meaningless.

It isn't actually plated anything, it's Tibetan Silver, an alloy that contains little or no silver at all. It's a metal I love and won't hear a word against, still, passing it off as something it's not, ain't quite cricket.

Her buyer (so far only one) saw the words antique silver and Steampunk, and the price faded into the sunset.

She also sells these:

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Gears-Cogs-Clock-Parts-20pcs-Lot-Antiqued-Brass-Steampunk-Altered-Art-Jewelry-/360704163999

These cost 5 cents each, wholesale, too.

Well, power to you Lucy. Well done.

No, I mean it. She's not doing anything illegal. This is standard modern business practice, it is capitalism working the way it's supposed to. She's putting food on her table, the customer is happy, and there's nothing wrong with it.

But personally, I couldn't do it. I shall never be wealthy because I couldn't sleep at night if I was overcharging people.

Ethics in business are a bit of a stumbling block really. Out there, in internet shopping land, are lots of people waving money at the screen, desperate to part with it, to get stuff. More stuff. Lotsa stuff. And I take full advantage of that, which is hard enough to reconcile with my personal ethics. So I keep my prices down, put free gifts in, offer a top-notch service etc, and have an easy conscience.

I have competitors but I try not to be compeitive. Oh, I could be. I don't play much in the way of games or sports, but when I do, I am very competitive indeed.

Maybe it's because I started out at craft shows, which had a community feel to it, but I enjoy talking to and actively helping out fellow sellers. I like to encourage those who are new. I'll offer advice and ideas. I'll warn them of pitfalls. I'll share some (not all!) of my wholesalers. And generally speaking this is how "we" are, those of us who sell crafts and craft supplies. We are a warm, supportive community.

There are exceptions, however.

Shortly after my daughter started selling her chainmail on Etsy, I stumbled upon another chainmail seller who I'll refer to as Grumpypants, because it sums her up nicely. One of the more negative folk I've run into at Etsy. I had seen her whiny posts complaining about lack of sales, but hadn't had anything to say to her. I had opinions, obviously (boring work, overpriced) but one keeps that sort of thing to oneself. The reason I eventually "met" Grumpypants was that she offered me some advice. Not that I asked for any.

No, she took it upon herself to "advise" me that my photos weren't very good.

I know this. I'm not stupid. It's like being told you are tall, or short, or fat, or whatever. WOW! GOSH! Really? No. I need a better camera, and/or more powerful lighting for indoor shots, but most of all I need a better attitude towards photography, which I simply find to be a chore. It's time consuming, frustrating, and I hate it. But I wasn't going to tell her that.

So I simply said "Yes, it's true, unfortunately I am far too busy shipping orders to take new photos!" which shut her up.

But what made it worse, was that her photos aren't any better. If anything, they're worse than mine. Soon, I saw her seeking advice on how to improve them, as she was sure this was the reason for her lack of success, and then she vanished.

There are two things to note from this anecdote, two patterns that she showed.

1. Whiny, negative people don't last long in business.
2. People criticize things they are actively doing themselves.

Yes, that pot calling the kettle black. It is HUGE on Etsy.

Recently a lady decided she'd have a big rant about people selling turquoise that is really only howlite or magnesite. She said sellers doing this were liars, which is a pretty strong accusation.

Quite apart from the fact, however, that it's standard practice to market it as turquoise because that is what buyers enter in the search engine when they are looking for that stone, there is a whole definition confusion with regard to gemstones, which I discussed at my Old Bazaar blog: http://oldbazaar.blogspot.ca/2013/01/whats-in-name.html

But that's neither here nor there, when I went to look at her shop, there were a few...well, let's say hard to identify gemstones on her designs. This was not helped by blurred photos (maybe I should have "advised" her) but I'll offer quite a large sum of money to wager that several of them were not what she claimed them to be. Pot/Kettle.

Then there were her "sterling silver" findings. Now, you can buy very similar charms and beads in several different materials, but not identical. Manufacturers of sterling silver findings do not use the same moulds as the alloy findings. There may be a good technical reason for that, but the fact is, they don't. And I sell Tibetan silver findings, and I am so familiar with the more popular ones that I recognize them as easily as my own children. From a distance. Even blurred. To put it another way, I know damn well that at least some of her "sterling silver" findings are Tibetan silver.

Tibetan silver is a better choice for what she makes, as it doesn't tarnish. Cleaning all the itty bitty bits of her designs if it were sterling would be tedious, and the customer really wouldn't enjoy it, but then they wouldn't be very happy to discover they've paid $35.00 for earrings contructed of parts that cost pennies. If selling howlite as turquoise is lying, then selling an alloy as sterling is blatant fraud.

I'm just assuming her Swarovski crystals are not, either. Of course I could be wrong, but......if these earrings were really made from sterling, genuine Swarovski, and gems as named, then she couldn't make them for $35.00, simple as that.

But I said nothing. Can't actually prove it. None of my business anyway. Caveat Emptor.

Yesterday in a private forum a question arose about copyright infraction. Having been copied blatantly on eBay (my competitor even saw fit to use the same names for the designs that I used) I do understand what it feels like. And there isn't much you can do about it, unless the design has been registered. This is part of life when you create designs. Heat/kitchen.

Anyway, it cropped up because one of our number asked an honest question about making a gift based on a design she had once seen, but couldn't remember where. Another person (who we'll call Duckface, based on her avatar) pretty much accused her of stealing her design. She then went on to call all those who use the ideas of others "lame" and said they were of poor character.

There ensued a discussion about just how original a design can be. It's impossible to say that any idea you ever have is original. But that wasn't the issue here.

The issue was that Duckface has an Etsy store. It's very nice, but original? Um, no.

It includes gemstone tree of life pendants made with wire, a design that has been around for decades. It's extremely popular, very pretty, and there are thousands of people making and selling them. Oh, and if you like them? I can pick them up at $4 wholesale. But let's not go there.

Several of her "original designs" are earrings I sell myself. I've been selling them successfully for years. I suppose I could call them my designs, but that would be silly, as they consist of Tibetan silver charms, and a couple of beads, hung on earwires. It's a very fast, cheap way of making earrings, I can make 100 pairs a day (and make a good profit selling them for $2, too). Nothing wrong with them, they're very popular, but most people don't try to claim they are "unique" or "original".

Her hypocrisy drove my daughter to calling her out on it, noting also that she'd criticized me just a few days ago for jumping on bandwagons. Well, she decided to move on from the group. I wish her well. She's not a bad person, just a silly one.

There's a lot of it about. I see it regularly, these are just two examples. Those who complain loudest about what they consider to be "wrong" are so often found to be guilty of it that it boggles my brain why they draw attention to themselves.

Of course, this is not restricted to craft sellers, or to sellers in general, it's something humans do. How many loud public critics of morality have we seen over the years hoisted by their own petard, the any-gay preachers caught with their gay lover, or the anti-drug campaigners found with a pocket full of cocaine. To err is human, I guess. None of us are perfect. We all do naughty things sometimes. I know I do. But I don't make a big public song and dance about how evil it is while I'm doing it.

People are weird.

Why Bad Grammar is the Same as Religious Fundamentalism

Step by Step.

1. Freedom of speech is a contract between the government and the citizen. It is otherwise irrelevant.

2. What you say, and, most especially, what you write, is public domain.

3. You won't go to jail for what you write because of free speech laws (see 1)

4. However, once "out there" there's no reeling it back in.

5. It's not illegal.

6. But it's still wrong.

7. People will notice.

8. They may point it out to you.

9. You can't expect otherwise.

10. Cause and effect.

11. Suck it up cupcake. 

I'll Get To The Point Eventually; This Is A Test

This blog is for my wise, wise son. He's currently very excited that his newborn son is very advanced for his age. Well boy, imagine how proud I am that you are so old for your years.

You've heard me tell you about James as a child. He was demon spawn. He was such hard work that if he'd been my first child, he'd have been my last. But luckily I had experience and support and somehow we managed to raise him into a human being. Along the way something even more magical than that happened.

He is now coming out with concepts that I didn't discover until I was in my forties. All my kids thrill me like this, but because it's James doing it, i.e. the "difficult" one, it is just that bit more special. It means his executive skills have matured.

So, this blog is inspired by him and dedicated to him.

You hear me talk about balance a lot on these pages, in many and various ways. Some of you agree with me, some don't understand, and some think it's a nice idea but impossible. For me it is everything. It is the concept that runs my life. Therefore it is awfully hard for me to understand why it's not important to others - and frequently it isn't.

A lot of people I meet, including plenty of intelligent people I admire and respect, are not big on balance. Not in any obvious way, anyway, and certainly not in a way that they talk about it. Perhaps they find it in their own way, maybe only subconsciously, but they appear to be more of the "all or nothing" persuasion.

By this I mean, people whose opinions are heavily affected by the concepts of "always" and "never". These are concepts I tend to avoid, because I don't think they work.

I'm not talking about scientific data here. If you mix red with blue you will always get purple. Not that sort of thing.

The sort of thing I have in mind are pronouncements. "I would never do that." "That is always the best way."

I much prefer usually, sometimes, and seldom, because they are more realistic.

I've also been told that I'm a moral relativist and that this puts me in league with the scum of the Earth.

Well, so be it.

Now, we could do the religious aspect thing here, as we often do, where I reject the teachings of the Bible unless I like them, and I get two sets of reactions, those who share that rejection, and nod vigorously, and those who gasp in horror at the very idea, and we could use this as an example of just how good or bad absolutism is based on that.

But I think that's a cop-out. That's ethics by proxy. If you base what's right and wrong on very old books then you end up with Shariah, and......no.

The world changes, and so do we, and right and wrong are moving targets.

Oh sure, there are taboos. There are things that are fairly steady in the right and wrong area, no question, but there aren't many.

Cannibalism
Incest
Pedophilia
Bestiality

I know individuals and societies have others, but these are the only taboos deserving of being taboo, in my humble opinion. That's all it is too. My opinion. It's not worth much.

Now, there are other things that are wrong, but not always. There are grey areas. For a taboo to be worth its salt, it has to be always wrong. And always is a very difficult word.

Obviously opinions vary and there are a long list of activities considered taboo in some places and not others.

When we get silly taboos what do we do?

Read this. You don't have to approve, just take in the information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_meat

Surprised at all?

Your opinion is not what matters, what matters is WHY you hold that opinion.

And, exactly the same applies with every single taboo, be it religious, sexual, food, or otherwise. There are things you shudder at, because you always have.

It's not wrong to shudder, but it's wrong to never ask yourself why you shudder, you see? Question everything. It was a lot of questioning that pared that list down to 4 for me, and if I was dying of starvation after a small plane crash in the mountains, and the pilot was already unconscious from loss of blood, I could probably reduce it 3. Don't say you wouldn't, because you don't know.

The other 3 are not necessary for survival, so there's no excuse.

Now the thing is, beyond the taboos there are many things considered good and bad. Depending on where you live these value judgements will vary dramatically in importance and therefore they all end up being opinions.

What is an opinion worth? That depends entirely on what you base it on. On the face of it, no opinion ranks higher than another one. There are times when a minority opinion turns out to be the wiser one, but at the time, that isn't always easy to judge.

You can't have missed the flap caused in the media by the removal of a popular TV personality due to his homophobic (we'll come back to that) statements.

I don't even watch TV and I've heard of this show - "Duck Dynasty." I don't know much about it and will refrain from an opinion because it would be rather unfair to base an opinion on ignorance (note that remark.) Do I HAVE an opinion, despite never having watched it? You bet I have. It's worth nothing.

Now, apparently one of the gentlemen on this show chose to share HIS opinion, and the world heard it. As a result the company who own the show have "let him go." I don't know if this is permanent or not, as there's a clamour by fans to get him back, but the damage is done. The argument has started.

A friend of mine posted the following yesterday, and it's very pertinent.

I’m going against my own better judgement by even MENTIONING the following, but I’m less intrigued by WHAT is said than the utter stupidity BEHIND the remarks.
Fox News’ Megyn Kelly, defending Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson, who was suspended for anti-gay remarks:

“I grant you, he did not say this in the kindest way – but why can’t there be a debate about it? Why can’t there be a back-and-forth, a discussion — you know, that’s how he feels, and you say how you feel...”

Here’s the thing Megyn, we’ve had that conversation. We’ve had that debate for decades. What more do you think we need to say here? And what new info did this clown supposedly bring to the table here? He’s not the first guy who’s ever said, “Them homersexuals is bein’ immoral ‘cause th’ Bible.” He’s not exactly breaking new ground here. How long are we supposed to sit back and listen to the same tired, unconvincing, insulting arguments and over and over?

Kelly isn’t calling for a debate — and neither are the rest of Roberston’s defenders. She’s asking for the right to hurl insults at people in the LGBT community, while members of that community shut up and take it. Sorry folks, that part of the “debate” is over.

Dumb ass bitch. Yeah, I said,”bitch.” 
Her, and Palin, and Coulter.
The last thing I need to hear is a lecture on the First Amendment by people like her.

In my world, the argument started before this. It's been going on ever since I first came on to the internet in 1997. No doubt it will go on forever. And it crops up in relation to similar pronouncements by people in the public eye, as well as by ordinary mortals expressing an opinion. One they would do better keeping to themselves.

There are many opinions like that. Right or wrong are not set in stone (see above), and therefore while your opinion could be either, it's often a good idea to

SHUT THE FUCK UP

Somewhere in our liberated relativist society a lot of people have got the idea that being entitled to their opinion also means they have the right to share it.

Well.........

There are lots of people who don't seem to have a filter between their opinions and their mouth. These are not stupid people. It's tempting to see them that way, but on many other occasions they display great wisdom, and indeed, excellent values. They may in other ways be kind, useful, and entertaining too. In fact they may be 99% wise.

We could therefore say they have a slip of wisdom, rather than a slip of the tongue, because for it to be said, it has to be in there. Better that it stays in there.

What possesses them to come out with it? They do know better. They do know what the result will be. They do know it won't be good.

But like a small child behaving badly when he KNOWS he's going to get into trouble, they say it anyway.

Before I go any further I want to remind you of an important thing here. We are talking about balance. This applies to the person as much as it does to the value of the opinion.

There are no saints and no sinners. (I wrote a whole blog on my thoughts behind that statement if you want to read it http://chovblog.blogspot.ca/2013/07/saints-and-sinners.html )

Humans do things we call good, and things we call bad. The same human can do both within a matter of minutes. It is crazy to write off a human with a statement, and just as crazy to write off the human making the statement.

Which brings me to the example.

I play this game with myself on social media where I get a point for everytime somebody makes a stupid statement, and I say nothing. (I get 2 points for ignoring it if it's a factual error, rather than an opinion.)

So I bring it here. And surprisingly this one came up two days before the gentleman with the beard opened his mouth.

I actually gave myself 3 points for ignoring the following:

"Hating those who hate homosexuals is just as bad as hating homosexuals."

No. It isn't. If you cannot see why it's different, we may have to go right back to step one, but this blog has already gone past the length where most people are willing to tackle it.

So, briefly, it's different because while both of these are opinions, which you are indeed entitled to, they are based on very different things.

Hating homosexuals is based on prejudice and bigotry. It doesn't matter if you "read it in the Bible", because it's a prejudiced and bigoted interpretation of said book. There are plenty of Christians who see it differently. So it's your choice to interpret it that way. There is no get out clause here. There is no passing the buck and blaming God. You have chosen to excuse your personal hatred by quoting scripture. That's pretty low. That's no different to beating your wife or child and quoting scripture. In fact virtually everything a human can do, can be justified by quoting scripture. And has been. Slavery, genocide, you name it.

But let's not forget, there are homophobes who are not religious. They don't even have a convenient excuse for it. I use the term homophobe deliberately. Some people object to it, saying they are not afraid of homosexuals. REALLY? So what's the problem then? How do they affect you if it's not causing an irrational fear? Phobia is a special type of fear, it's baseless. It's not like fear of tigers. Oh you find what they do disgusting, do you? Don't even get me started on that one. People who throw stones etc. But you know, I find prejudice disgusting, so......checkmate.

We won't dwell on this, if need be I can write another whole blog on the topic, done it before, bound to do it again. Suffice to say that one way or another an opinion like this, based on negatives such as hate, fear, elitism (oh yes it is, "I'm better than him") are a certain type of opinion, the lowest type of opinion. In a world where opinions have little value, these have the least of all.

Hating bigots is different. BTW, I don't like the word hate, but everyone else is using it, so I'm leaving it there. Hating bigots is based on righting a wrong. When I've said this before I've been told "two wrongs don't make a right." It's a very silly statement. Let me introduce you to the Paradox of Tolerance:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tolerance

That's far more concise than I could ever be, but having been accused of "being intolerant of the intolerant" I understand it only too well.

Ultimately I think this is a form of logic that requires emotional intelligence to be fully understood, which is not something you hear from me very often, as I try to keep that aspect of things out of arguments.

But if we are to be fully wise, we must balance logic with kindness. I'd even be willing to let kindness take over, and throw logic right out of the window. I'd appeal to your better nature, assuming you have one.

James, my son, your balance of logic and kindness is second to none. Your recognition of the value of keeping mouths SHUT when judgements and opinions are not appropriate makes you wise beyond your years. I hope - I like to think - I have taught you well. Raise that little man to be that kind of man too. The world needs more of them.

Yōsei

This blog will be a bit more "all about me" than usual. It's not something I write about a lot because other things are more interesting, but I'm not exactly shy either so I'm quite capable of it. And in any case it's in response to a question that asked about individual ways of dealing with something, so here's mine.

The question was in reference to positive thinking and all that goes with it, including people who are fake. I gave a short answer, and I'll copy it here:

There is a balance. It is possible to resist the urge to "vent" all the time, without being fake. But it's possible that, 1) upbringing/culture makes a difference, 2) basic personality makes a difference, 3) life experience makes a difference. 

Quite often it is possible to analyse an experience (quickly) by choosing to look at the positives, and brush off the negatives. Simple example, if I were snowed in, I could complain about it, or I could enjoy it, because it means I don't have to run errands. Most things in life have a good side and a bad side, both need to be acknowledged, but it is a choice as to which one we dwell on.

But this isn't really the whole of it. So I'll expand.

I do, absolutely, believe that life is what you make it. That is why a positive attitude makes life better. If you are constantly pessimistic, quite apart from any effect that has on events, it means you are not as cheerful as you might otherwise be. I like being cheerful. I prefer it. Therefore, I will behave in a way that improves my cheerfulness.

I don't believe in "fake it 'til you make it." I understand that it works for some people, and all power to them, but I am no good at self-delusion. If I am not happy, if I am not positive, there's a reason for it, and I neither wish to pretend, nor can I.

Yes, these two positions can work together, in fact they work together just fine. It's called balance. It's called reality.

I further believe that while attitude is a conscious choice, it is influenced heavily by what we are taught, what we have experienced, and so on. I was raised believing that being cheerful and positive was beneficial, not just to myself, but to everyone around me, and I've never found this to be incorrect. Therefore I stick with it.

There is a benefit involved in every choice we make. Some people find benefits in being negative, even in being extremely negative, or even self-destructive. Maybe it gets them attention, which they enjoy, maybe it gives them excuses for their "bad luck," whatever it is, they see it as a benefit so they continue with it. Their choice, not mine.

On the other hand some people get benefits from being fake, or from being frivolous, so that there is zero negativity. They never take anything seriously, and they never worry about anything at all. This can include staying solvent and keeping promises, however. Presumably this works for them. Again, that's their choice, but it's not mine.

The choice to lean towards the negative, or to be fake or frivolous sometimes impacts me, however, and this is when I can no longer shrug it off. If somebody is grumpy and as a result they are rude to me, or simply create a bad atmosphere, I may not be very tolerant about it. If an ultra carefree person is also ultra unreliable I soon lose interest in their presence in my life. Simple cause and effect.

And this is because I believe that it is all largely choice. Opinions differ on that of course. We will always hear "I can't help it." when a person is called out for their attitude, and it's very much a matter of opinion as to whether this is true.

Often it gets turned around, and around...we have frivolous people demanding that we lighten up if we object to their cavalier attitude to an injustice, for example, and ....issues be damned, we end up with attitude vs. attitude.

Bottom line is that I take a pragmatic approach. If I can affect events, I shall. If there is something I can do to change things for the better, then let me at it. If I can't, if there is nothing that can be done about it, then I may as well get on with it, because railing against it is a waste of energy.

Two examples.

1.

The weather. It's no secret that I hate winter. Not going to pretend I enjoy it. Certainly not going to go to a lot of trouble to "make the best of it." Cold sucks. I find nothing good in it at all. Snow can be fun in certain circumstances but I'd be quite willing to miss out on that. So, that's my position on the weather.

BUT....there's no point whining about it, because it's not going to go away. The solution is to move to a hot climate, and one day I SHALL. Meantime, I mostly shut up, because no amount of negativity will improve the weather. It's a waste of time, energy, and the tolerance of others for me to drone on about how cold I am. I keep it to an absolute minimum, or if asked.

AND....I'm not very tolerant towards those who whine about it a lot, especially if:
1) They aren't actually obliged to be out in it much. Ask my husband about working outdoors for most of the winter, and then try whining at me, OR
2) These are the same people who whine all summer about being too hot.

So. Yeah. I'm cold too. Suck it up.

2.

Global climate change. While others fight over how much impact humans are having, or what the implications will be, I see two groups whose attitudes I don't share.

Group 1 are agonizing over what is going to happen. Probably not sleeping at night. Some may be driven to suicide for all I know. They aren't scientists, nor leaders with any power to do anything it, so they feel pretty powerless, and their reaction to this powerlessness is angst.

Group 2 don't give a shit. They wouldn't lift a finger to prevent a worsening of the situation, and they certainly have no intention of trying to help, if anything they are busy contributing to it.

I care. I care deeply. But until I am given full instructions on what to do to help, I shall keep calm and carry on.



We don't have to deny negative stuff. In fact if we do, if we pretend there are no problems, we add to them, so it's actually a harmful attitude. If we care, we don't have to stress over things, we can do whatever we can to help, and hope that others will do the same. Generally speaking, if enough of us care, and do what little we can to help, that is probably good enough.

In our own lives if we act instead of worry or whine, it tends to bring better results.

If I sometimes seem impatient with those who worry or whine AND not act, it's because I genuinely believe they are shooting themselves in the foot. And I see it a lot. Sometimes it exhasperates me.

http://chovblog.blogspot.ca/2013/09/and-yet-you-are-still-here.html

Of course, I don't dismiss the value of complaint.

"If you are silent about your pain, they’ll kill you and say you enjoyed it." - Zora Neale Hurston

Again, there is a balance.

If it gets results, it is not complaint at all, it is activism.

Whether you choose to tolerate a situation or not largely depends on which is easiest. Both tolerance and intolerance can be pro-active, they can be used to reach an objective, to achieve a greater good.

"The strong give up and move on, while the weak give up and stay."

So, ultimately I would say, if complaining works for you, go for it. If it makes your life better, then it is the logical choice. If it gets the desired results, if it creates opportunities, if it allows for clear thought, if it enables you to express yourself, then by definition it isn't actually negative. It's strategic.

But if it is self-defeating, if it makes a bad situation worse, if it affects your relationships, if it causes problems with employment or advancement therein, if it brings you down.....it's probably worth considering a different attitude.