To slightly amend my last post...

In my last post, I tried to explain that sometimes bad things had to happen for humans to survive. ( I don't know if us surviving is the paramount goal of the planet). Since writing that, I have re-read the plans that Alberta Canada has for killing hundreds (or more) wolves. It seems that the tar sand mines are driving out the caribou, the natural prey of the wolf. It didn't say anything about killing the caribou, just that they'd be driven from the area. Well, duh. Predators go where the prey goes. Caribou are constantly on the move, and with them, the wolves. Now I'm not a naturalist or any sort of expert on this, but it seems to me that this is a case of unnecessary genocide. When the food source dries up, the wolves will vacate themselves from the areas in question, right? Why do they feel the need to kill them, unless this is just another case of human bloodlust and any excuse will do? Are they going to be paying hunters for pelts or something? How will this work? Are they going into where there is prey to be had and kill wolves that are not a danger to anyone? If so, why? Wolves don't like humans and all of their noise and pollution, they are not scavengers. They hunt, they live in groups. We're not talking about even rogue bears wandering into camps and hurting people. These wolves haven't hurt anyone, and if the food source leaves, they likely won't. They'll just move on, like so many animals do when humans come to ruin everything.
Like I said in the last post, unfortunately, until we find and make affordable to all, alternative fuels, there are going to be a lot of innocent animals killed in the name of "humanity". But in this particular case, let's look into this thing and see if these wolves are causing any problems, are likely to, or exactly WHY they are not being given the chance to move with the caribou herds. Please let friends know about this. You can start at this address....  act.credoaction.com    and look up all you can about this situation. Pass it on. If that link doesn't work, it's on my Facebook page at PamWellner, okay?
When we have NO choice, that is one thing, but when we DO, THAT creates the definition of HUMAN, doesn't it?
Just re-thinking,
Dragonfly

The oil crisis...my head is about to explode

I want to say that I'm one of those "nuts" that believes in saving the environment and everything living IN it if humanly possible, okay? I have sent signatures, donations, letters, all sorts of stuff to support saving the rain forests, owls, wolves, a LOT of natures miracles over the years, but here's the thing...Until and unless we, as a planet, find SOME way to significantly slow the growth of US, I'm afraid that everything else is going to suffer for us being here. Now, there is technically plenty of land available for everyone, just some places are not one's first choice, but COULD be made habitable, like they did for Las Vegas and a LOT of California, so space isn't the issue. What unfortunately IS the issue is that we aren't creating artificial building materials fast enough to replace wood, and we can't develop other sources of energy fast enough to save a LOT of real estate...I mean ocean space, forests, ice fields, etc. that flora and fauna alike NEED for their survival. 
The cold hard truth is, for right now, there are hard choices being made. Yeah, are SOME resources being taken or animals killed for no real reason and could be avoided? Absolutely. BUT there are just a finite number of places that can be mined for fossil fuels, and that sucks, truly. If I could have three wishes, one would be that we could all magically be able to afford electric cars AND that the power would already be available to power them. That is NOT going to happen, not in MY lifetime, for sure, but I'm 60, so maybe not TOO long a wait. Even IF they GAVE everyone an electric car today for free, we don't have the power to fuel them at this point. I don't know HOW they missed THAT little problem before they started pushing them on us. They don't seem to have a clue how this will work. They are still trying NOT to have rolling blackouts around the country just to supply HOUSES with adequate electricity. Now electricity takes either coal or wind to create, so that is not the primary reason I'm here today. The reason is because of the cars we have RIGHT NOW. It is a sad truth that we need oil, and a sadder truth is that it isn't always located in convenient places. Sometimes, and the more we use up, the more this is true, it is located in the middle of nowhere. And the middle of nowhere is where most animals try to live, as far from US as possible (can you blame them?) Now, I have just read that Canada, in an effort to find more oil "locally" so we can tell the Middle Eastern suppliers to take a giant leap, is going to be killing off thousands of wolves in the area in which they'll be looking. Reading this put a giant knot in my stomach and made me want to strap on winter wear and get up there to protest, but this stopped me...Say I'm a person with a family (more sympathetic that a single old lady), and I need gas (therefore crude oil) to get to my miserable little job to feed and clothe my family. Okay, so I have a choice, and think about this...I realize this is not unlike "Sophie's Choice" here, but this is what it comes down to...which is more important to me, my family and literally their lives, OR the wolves? Sucks, huh?? But that is where the world is now. I want to save every single living creature and plant on this pathetic blue planet, and if I could give my life so that could happen, I would happily do it, but it won't. In this system of things, and by that, I mean the pre-Armageddon and new Eden  (ask me if you're interested), these are the choices we're having to make. AND if we have to choose our families before, say in this case, the Canada wolves, which would we choose for them? Poison/ a merciful bullet, OR slow starvation? Hunters have been culling the deer, elk and moose populations forever, and the survivors are better for it, basically. I realize it's not natural selection we're talking about here, but rather unnatural selection. We were supposed to, if you're a Creationist, all be able to share the planet without problems like this, and if you're an Evolutionist, aren't you disappointed we haven't solved this problem yet?
It's simply a cold, hard fact that we are going to have to either kill or move some animals so that we can keep going, at the least until we solve this energy crisis. What I'm hoping is that science keeps viable embryo's of everything we are killing off right now so that once we HAVE whipped the issues of power AND population control,  we can bring back everything we have/will destroy. We owe nature, at the VERY least, that much. There are few things more beautiful than seeing wolves in the wild, playing in the snow, totally free, but at the price of what? We demand that the industrial community fix things so that these, and other animals don't die, and we should. BUT, unfortunately, they can't do it overnight. Major changes, whether by us or nature, move pretty much on what I call "Glacier time", which is SLOW, and that is just how it is. Some things, like natural changes and scientific breakthroughs (and the PAYOFF from same) take time, lots of it. 
Sometimes I wish this planet would shake mankind off of it like the destructive fleas that we are, and it probably will at some point,(this is a WHOLE different blog) but until then... What are we supposed to do? Be real, and honest. Real solutions to real big problems are NOT instantaneous, or pain free, sorry. Should someone have been working on this a LOT sooner? Yeah, but it still doesn't change the fact that we need what we do. So, who's it going to be? Where would you suggest they look for oil and natural gas? In your literal backyard, where your children are? Probably not. Would you leave your home to move to wherever was more convenient so that an oil rig could be put where your household is right now? Doubtful. We need to spend more time and money working on alternate methods of getting to the fuels without disturbing nature. THAT is what your new cause should be. Maybe we should stop saying DON'T GO THERE and start working on STEP CAREFULLY, huh?
Just thinkin' out loud here,
Dragonfly







 

The Warrior Within- 'Vagina Sculpture' at Wasilla High School

I posted the title just as it was on the one article. Have you seen this lovely piece of art? Is anyone that is making a ridiculous fuss over it aware that most modern sculpture like this is SUPPOSED to be evocative, make you actually THINK and see what you will in it? And are you further aware that your mind is particularly perverted if you think anything about birth is bad? The only BAD thing about the birth of something is the OMG moment YOU had because it might just, mainly because YOU made such a big fuss over it, have to have "the talk" with your kid because of it. OH NO! The inhumanity of it! We MUST cover up everything that resembles a vagina, birth  and anything else that could hasten THAT horror show. And I say horror show because if you are freaking out over this thing, you have NO business explaining sex, birth, body parts or anything else delicate to your kid, you'll scare them to death. So what if this is depicting the "birth" of two warriors from a slit-shaped opening in a rock? Have you taken a hand mirror and looked at your vagina lately? it does NOT look like this rock, or at least shouldn't. YES, something is emerging from something else. WHY does your mind automatically go THERE? Being in the kitchen with you when you pit a peach, an olive or prune must be very traumatic for anyone there. Does the removal of an avocado seed with a knife remind you of a C section? Come on, really? People, grow up. The emergence of something beautiful from something else beautiful is something to enjoy. Like a butterfly emerging from a cocoon, right? 
Some people can see something sexual in anything, and because THEY are obsessed, they assume the rest of the world is, too. What about a hot dog in a bun? Should they be banned, too. A hot dog bun looks about as much like a vagina as a peach or that statue, and OMG, we ALL know what the hot dog means. The vendor of this treat should be immediately banished to pervert jail (we won't even go into all the things you can "squirt" or put onto this obscenity and what THEY could represent...and then of course, there is the corny dog, slathered with mustard, oh dear lord, where will it end???? Oh and tacos, EVERYone knows what a taco really is, right? We are ALL of us running to hot dog vendors, and making runs for the border to partake in the symbolic eating of genitalia. And when the hot innards of a churro come spewing out, is THAT supposed to represent sperm?? I mean, a churro is long and cylindrical, right? So it MUST be a penis. My brain is about to explode with all the references I'm trying to come up with to show these paranoid people just how silly they are being about this. I cannot go on, if for no other reason than talking about all this food has made me hungry ( and no, I do NOT mean horny). Oy veh, 
Just sayin'
Dragonfly

My dear Mr. Clooney

Today is an open letter that I pray gets to George Clooney through the electronic miracle of Twitter. My hope is that someone that follows me will re-tweet to someone who follows them, and so forth. IF this does get there, this is my message and hope for George.

Hi, I will try not to take up too much of your time, but I wanted you to know that you are not even close to being alone with the issues you are struggling with. I too suffer with chronic pain, in too many places to even bother mentioning, but I do it every single day. I have considered NOT suffering any longer many, many times, but for some stupid reason, keep going. I don't take anything for my various pains because I could not function otherwise, which, I would imagine is part of why you no longer do. 
The other, and more profound, reason that I am writing to you is the statement you made about being alone in a crowd. THAT touched a big nerve in me. I feel MORE alone WITH a lot of people around me than when I am actually alone, mostly because the more people that are around me, the less I can be myself. I can be what everyone expects me to be...witty, urbane, charming, and most of all, amusingly funny. That seems to be my job since I was a kid and used humor as a shield against the bullies. Very few people realize that I suffer from not only bipolar disorder, but panic and anxiety issues and agoraphobia. That is because I have learned to be a consummate actress. I can SEEM to be just fine and very friendly for short bursts of time, but I can't maintain it for long, and the older I get, the harder it seems to be to do.
I watch you at these big events, with your seemingly charming new girl at your side, and I see the weariness in your face. I know that a part of you enjoys these things, mainly, it would seem, so you can continue your little "battle of wits" with your good friend, Brad. I think that it's stuff like that ongoing pranking  that actually keeps you going some days. I think it's the quirkier things about you that make you the happiest and the most willing to keep doing what you do. And I know that acting is a job, it's not the easy treat that most think, it is work. And it is work that you are brilliant at. Nice being able to "put someone else on" for a while, isn't it, and not be yourself? I get that.
You do a lot of philanthropic work that I know you must enjoy doing, but I know also that it doesn't totally fill the holes in your life, either. I understand that you have not ruled out marriage and fatherhood, that's a good thing, but George, know that although those are worthy goals, and I'd love to know that you could pass your wonderful thoughts and actions on to another generation, also remember that you should try to be really, truly comfortable before you do this.
I won't keep you any longer except to say I love the work you do, onscreen and in the world, I look forward to hearing new good things about your life, like Ms. Kiebler seems to be for you...and if you ever want a kindred spirit to talk to, you can always talk to me. Just tweet me and I'll send you my email address, or leave a message here for me. That's all for now, thanks for the indulgence today
Dragonfly

Whitney, Adele and Matt...oh my.

I have come to realize something. This country simply cannot exist without stuff that is either SO trivial or so NOT our business, and I mean every single DAY. 
First up, and I do NOT mean to alienate ANYONE today, but I feel that my job here when I signed up to do a blog was to do at least one of three things while I'm here. Either to make you laugh, think or smile (there IS a difference between laughing because you're amused or smiling because something rings true or you just like it), and today I hope to make you think, so...first up is Whitney Houston.
I am SO weary of people slinging the word ICON around like it means something totally different. The closest definition that I could find that wasn't religiously based was "picture or image".  She was/is NOT an icon, the implication being that she was more than a mere mortal, which she certainly was NOT. Was she a great singer, yeah, sure. She was a very talented girl and her songs were memorable, no issue there at all, but I'm sorry, once you get involved with a drug using loser, sell your family/children out for a buck while you air your rather sordid life out on a "reality" show for money to ostensibly buy more drugs while you scar your kid(s), as is obvious now, for life, you are no longer much more than any other flesh peddler who sells themselves/others for money. I totally understand being self-destructive, okay? But when you not only destroy yourself, but your kid, you are NOT to be celebrated, but maybe pitied. She had every chance to turn her life around, and didn't. She was just as determined to self-destruct as Lindsay Lohan obviously is. Do people stumble and fall sometimes? Of course, a lot of us do. BUT, the difference is that SOME actually WANT to conquer their demons (Drew Barrymore, Robert Downey, Jr, etc ), and eventually GET it and do so, and those that do NOT, like Miss Lohan and the really tedious Charlie Sheen. And yet there are those that just eat up every word written about these people. Whitney Houston's death was something of a tragedy, in that she has left some terrible ripples to settle, namely her poor daughter, who endured the humiliation of their life, and living it on TV every week. I hope that poor child ends up in a loving and stable environment where SHE can get some help, finally. The rest of it, the specials and all that, just glorify the sad person Ms. Houston had become, and all the bad stuff gets swept under the rug, and suddenly she's some sort of angel. It's so sad that the world has to come to a screeching halt because someone that has chosen a destructive life died, is all I'm saying. 
And then we have Adele. If there is a worldwide shortage of false eyelashes and hair extensions, falls, tracks and other hairpieces, I know where they went. Is this girl a talented singer, yeah, she's good, but again, she's being elevated to ICON status, and WHY??? There are plenty of singers JUST as good or better. Okay, she's had some serious health scares (which were really none of anyone's business), and apparent issues with a very absent father (again, SO not something she should be airing in public), and does she really have SO little faith in her fans that she has to make such a deal about this "sex tape" thing? Does it actually SAY it is really HER? I couldn't find anything that explicitly said so, just implications, but maybe I'm not that good at researching porn. And if she is SUCH an angel, WHY in the world would she buy a ridiculously huge mansion when she doesn't need it and could be doing something philanthropic with a little of her money? Sure, it's her money to spend any way she wants, but man, WHERE do so many famous people GET the "handlers" they have to help them decide what TO do and NOT to do with themselves and their fame and money? And are they SO oblivious to the world that they cannot SEE the bad decisions these people are making for them. Be grownups, for heaven sake!! Michael Jackson, as messed up as that poor soul was because of his father, went on some simply obscene shopping sprees in his time, BUT before he did that, he did a LOT of good with his earnings FIRST. As much crap as happened to him as he grew up, and as much as it warped his self-image, He still managed to live his life with some dignity. Was he eccentric, YEAH, of course. Did he harm anyone in the process but himself? No. His kids grew up NOT in the spotlight that he could have so easily exploited for money, but didn't, and because of that, they seem pretty well grounded and normal. I do not wish Adele any ill will. I am happy to see someone NOT a size 0 making good in the world, that's terrific, but all the hoopla, take about half the eyelashes and hair OFF and just be a really good singer, would you?
As for Matt Bomer. He has come "out". Was it a surprise to anyone, really? I've seen models on a catwalk with more manly walks, come on now. At one point, in the entertainment industry, it WAS considered brave to admit you were gay, NOW it's a snooze. In the movies and on TV, gays play straight, straight play gay, Aussies, Irish and others play American, and American's play everything. No one cares any more. At least all he really did was acknowledge his family at an award ceremony and didn't make a DEAL out of it, and for that, I thank him profusely. Someone famous actually downplayed something!! He simply thanked his family, and you were to take it from there. I applaud the minimalist approach for a change.  Apparently someone gay took a cue from Neil Patrick Harris, less is more. 
Am I interested in other people's lives, sure. Famous people, of course, it can be interesting. But their dirty laundry? Well I have seen enough "mighty" fall to know that EVERYONE has problems, even the rich and/or famous. I'd much rather hear about the good stuff they do than the embarrassments they make of themselves and all the time and money wasted in glorifying it.
Sorry I'm on a rant today, but just sayin'
Dragonfly

I really didn't contradict myself before.

For anyone that read me yesterday, it MAY seem as if I contradicted myself when first I explained that knowing you have a problem is not the same as curing it. That is not really in opposition to what I said further down when I explained how to quit doing something self-destructive. People have weaknesses of all different sorts. Some are no big deal, some are phobias, and some are full-blown mental conditions. I was not saying one could cure oneself of a particular problem, just that you could get most things under a certain amount of control. I'm bipolar, and it's chemical and permanent, BUT with the help of the right drugs and a HUGE amount of constant self-control, I can manage my little world most days, most times. I HAVE had a couple of breakdowns, and may have more, don't know, but the individual issues that I have, I maintain varying amounts of control over. The social issues are easier to manage, like what I talked about yesterday. Falling victim to the Prince Charming syndrome is very easy to do, especially if you are in dire need of being rescued. It's something I have to keep in mind every day, that I cannot have someone fixing everything for me at every turn, I have to try to care for myself and THEN, if someone comes along, and I'm FREE to accept their help on a reciprocal type basis, that is another thing, OR if a real friend sees me struggling and offers (with it firmly established that there are NO strings, then it's on THEM if they demand sexual payment down the line, but I still should be cautious). I guess they used to call women like what I'm talking about as "kept" women. Their men (often married to others) did everything for them, and they were basically just around for sex, and maybe a little housecleaning or something. Anyway, my point is that KNOWING you use sex as a weapon is the first step to CONTROLLING that urge to do that, not curing whatever makes you feel that you cannot do these things for yourself, or learn. I'm not saying you should never ask a male friend for help with something, especially if you're single, BUT if you're doing that with single men, and you're married, you have GOT to accept that this is unhealthy behavior on your part. Being married implies that you are faithful to your mate, and doing things that would say otherwise is very confusing. Married men shouldn't go to other women for stuff that they should be going to their wives for, either. That is blatant advertising, whether you want to admit it or not, and if/when you get a response from your single male/female friend that says "okay, you want to play house, even though you're married, I'm game", you cannot then call "foul". Lots of married people cheat, and unless you're wearing a sign that says something like "I'm just too naive for my own good", you can't get mad at the person that responds to your "ad"
I just wanted to clarify that to everyone. I hope I didn't actually muddle it up even more.
Just sayin' (or trying to)
Dragonfly

The Prince Charming Syndrome...

I realize that whole books are written about this, and by highly qualified doctors that specialize in psychological issues, but. KNOWING how something works and being a builder of the particular thing are usually two different things. One can READ about, study and otherwise become as educated as possible about, say, orgasms, but until and unless you've actually HAD one, you do not KNOW, okay? Fair enough? We could use riding a bicycle as an example if it'll make my more inhibited readers comfortable. Seeing one being ridden, reading the manual, even building one does NOT mean you can just hop on and do it perfectly. Mental illnesses, for the most part, are the same thing. A doctor can recognize the SIGNS of a particular illness, but unless they've had/have it, they can't know just how it feels, trust me on this. I can talk clinically about MY mental issues all day long if you want, but that does NOT make them go away, or even make having them less emotionally/physically painful to have, just means I know a lot about them. Knowing your leg is broken doesn't mend it, right? Same with the "head" stuff, folks. KNOWING does not equal CURING, necessarily. Knowing I have an extreme phobia to hypodermic needles, and that it is irrational doesn't make me cringe, feel sick, and sometimes cry less when one comes at me, so. I hope this makes the point.
The particular "syndrome" I'm talking about today is the Prince Charming syndrome. And I'm addressing someone that's looking for one, not that has the syndrome herself. I have dealt with it in the past, and this sweet friend, who shall remain nameless, is battling with it right now. Problem is, she doesn't realize it, and although I have tried broaching the topic in the past, I have been waved off as wrong. I am not wrong, and she is self-destructing before my very eyes and I have GOT to do something even if it means she has to be mad at me for a while. If it helps, then so be it.
Like I said, I've been there, so it's not like I haven't gone through this myself. We had different reasons, it would seem, for getting to this place, but the road is something that just gets you there. I personally was a VERY naive teen and young woman. I knew NOTHING about sex until my at the time (I was 18) boyfriend bought me the sexual bible "Everything you ever wanted to know about sex, but were afraid to ask". That book saved me a LOT of trouble, BUT since I suffer from bipolar disease, it just went so far. It taught a whole lot about sex, but not about relationships and why we have them. THAT was also an issue for me, and my dear friend (as is being bipolar, which makes all this a lot harder). I personally grew up with a very sexually proficient mother and a very sexually backwards father. I say proficient because, as per her own words, as a young woman, any man that asked her for sex, or just tried for it, got it. She had no real father figure growing up and had NO idea how to behave correctly to their advances, so she just assumed since they wanted sex, it was the right thing to do. Along the way somewhere, she learned it was also a great way to get what she wanted from men, and she "dangled" that treat in front of any man she wanted/needed something from. She married my dad, she said, because HE didn't ask. I don't know if I believe that because she later said he was, although very inept at it,  a fiend for sex, so. So when I got to the age where I was finally getting noticed, I realized the power of sex, BUT I held out, mostly out of fear, and I found out from watching my friends what giving in would get you, which was dumped, and for some reason, somehow, I managed to hang on until I was 20, BUT I did a LOT of dangling. If you had called me on it, however, I would have said "what are you talking about? I'm just being friendly, that's all. If he thinks it's anything more, it's in his head". Well, that, on reflection is NOT true. I was looking for Prince Charming. The one, like I thought my dad was, that wanted ME, not just the sex, subconsciously. I truly believed that the friendly looks, quick touches, glances, smiles, "cooking for a friend", dressing to my advantage, all of that was just being "friendly". Well, you can be friendly to a tiger, but eventually, you're going to get eaten, and when you do, you're going to say "what did I do to deserve THIS?" What you did was basically ask the tiger to make a meal of you. Now before anyone yells at me about the rape thing, that is different. That is beyond wanting SEX with someone and, instead, wanting to overpower them, totally different animal. No one ASKS to be raped, but sexual attention, by "accident", that's a whole other story. Say the rapist is a tiger with rabies, and that is a different animal that will attack anyone for no reason, okay? A regular, sane tiger, though, can take just so much teasing, however innocent, before he tries to make you a sandwich, literally. I have always done better with men as friends in part because they don't play the same games women do and a lot of other valid reasons, BUT I will also admit that PART of the reason is that I KNOW, usually, that a man is more likely to respond to my requests for help, sympathy, protection...whatever, than a woman. Not that my women friends that I have managed to cultivate late in life aren't there for me. I have learned HOW to be friends with women, but it took a LONG time, and a lot of trust.The difference here between women vs men friends is that (barring gay male friends) many women will stab you in the back in a heartbeat over a good man, and the only problem with a male friend is keeping him just that, a friend, which can be difficult, but it IS doable, usually if he doesn't consider YOU doable, follow me? You cannot treat a heterosexual male friend like you would a girlfriend, it's not fair to them. You have to treat them like YOU are another guy. Guys do not generally hug or touch each other without good reason, cook for each other, or other girly stuff. If you DO those things...including making wardrobe comments, cut their hair, massage a sore muscle, tend to them too much when they're sick, you are saying, and quite plainly, to THEM "I am available to you, I am showing you my skills and attributes so you will pick me as a mate", trust me on this. YEARS of research here. I even was sending out this signal at the low points of both marriages because I was looking to get rescued by, yeah, you guessed it, Prince Charming. He was to swoop in, convince me that HE would treat me better than lunkhead, accept my baggage (kids, pets, whatever) and to leave said lunkhead and go with HIM instead. And I have been rescued, but keep reading. Also, I want to throw in for anyone that considers this being innocent...using your children/pets as a way to get a males attention, for instance, Pookie needs rescuing from the tree, Baby made cookies, valentines, etc, is STILL advertising, really, honest. It's rationalization. I KNOW how hard it is NOT to do it, AND to admit to doing it, but you have GOT to see it to get past it. Now, the catch-22 of this little vignette is this...There ARE Prince Charming types out there, also known as rescuers, and they WILL rescue you from your apparent dilemma, BUT, once you are no longer in peril, they are going to be, even if they don't realize it, looking for another damsel in distress, that is THEIR  PC syndrome. My wonderful brother was a PC for years before he finally got tired of rescuing and found a wonderful woman that rescued him right back and they are wonderful for each other, but that doesn't always happen. Being a "helpless princess" in constant need of help is very tiring. You CAN be JUST needy enough, my good women friends tell me, to keep a man happy and around for life, (they NEED, most of them, to be needed, just like us, but don't let them know we know that), But a real PC will whisk you out of your situation, get your straightened out, and then, very often, he's off to the next quest. SO, you need to learn how to rescue yourself. Being generally needed is one thing... having a job, helping with the kids, just being a partner is a good thing, and sure, you can be "helpless" once in a while, just so you can remember how wonderful he is and how, although you CAN do most stuff yourself, just like HE can, it's nice to be needed (if you think for one second he doesn't know how, or can't learn, to cook, sew on a button or do laundry, you need more help than I have to give)... BUT being the hero EVERY day is a much bigger job than most men want, and trust me, you would get tired of it after a while. Too MUCH of something is just as bad as too little, sometimes. 
This is something I have YEARS of experience with, but I have learned that it's a MUCH better thing to treat a male friend like his other male friends do than constantly get my feelings hurt because I put myself on the buffet then wonder why good old what's his name suddenly tried to jump me, "out of nowhere", and lose him as a possible REAL JUST friend.*Are there jerks out there that are just jerks, no matter what? Yeah, but we know what we're doing, don't we, really? Build a good base of women friends who have no possible ulterior motives to be your friend first, THEN you can actually maybe be "one of the guys." But you have GOT to rescue yourself first. My first ex-husband is in the process of trying to rescue me, and himself, right now, and it's really tempting to let him step in and do that, BUT there is a reason he's my ex, and I have to remember that. It hasn't changed over the years, so I am trying to be friends for now, and if we are having problems with just THAT, how could we go back to anything more? I will have to find a way to get myself safe. The dragons are at the door, but I will muddle through.

Sitting in my high tower, braiding my hair into a ladder and just sayin'
Dragonfly

Okay, this is just wrong

My friend, and a great writer, Jennifer Griffith, wrote about this two weeks ago, but I am a bit slow about some things, and I don't like stepping on anyone else's blog, either. She writes, when not writing books, the blog "Cotton Candy for the Soul" right here...check her out...anyway, I had to say Something about this or I'd feel terrible. Hostess is soon to be no more? Can this be true? No more Twinkies, Cupcakes, Snoballs...etc?? Come ON. I realize that things are getting pretty brutal in the world, but losing something as basic as Wonder Bread...really? I grew UP with this stuff, and I am OLD. HOW, with more kids than ever, not to mention the folks who may not have kids, but DO have the munchies, are we to survive THIS abomination? Is there a person over 40 that has not sucked the filling out of a Twinkie with a straw, just to see if it could really be done, OR peeled the top off of a Hostess Cupcake to save it for the end? There will be no more trifles being built by Americans because the Twinkie is the American version of a ladyfinger, and you cannot make a trifle without them, period. And like Jennifer said, what about other desserts? We are talking about basically the first official "junk food" here, folks. I know that there are plenty of toddlers and tokers to keep Hostess in business, come on now. Wonder is the best white bread of the bunch. It builds strong bodies 12 ways, after all!
I don't know if they are in the type of bankruptcy where you are truly dead and gone forever, or the kind where you keep going, but you're protected by law from your creditors until you get caught up, but if it's the second, PLEASE help. Neither Little Debbie, Archway or the Girl Scouts  have a THING that compares with a beautiful, golden Twinkie or a cute pair of cupcakes with that adorable squiggle on top. There are many pretenders, but only ONE Hostess. If there is a "Snoball"s chance in the world of saving Hostess, let's DO it, America. We have pulled together for less, haven't we?
I have to get to the store now and see if it's too late...I hope not. IF for no other reason, know that if you buy, buy, buy, they will keep until you are ready for them. Maybe that's the problem, maybe people stocked up and aren't eating. If that's the case, cut it out and start eating. If you're waiting for the end of the world to have a "Hostess fest", well, I think it's time, don't you? Just read the news, and you'll have the sudden urge for that creamy center, the chocolaty top, the springy outsides, all of it. We have an amphibian and a baseball glove running for President, how much more do you need to get hungry for those luscious treats??
Just sayin'
A suddenly hungry Dragonfly, out.

What is... being snarky, Alex?

Before I start, I want to tell you this. I have watched "Jeopardy!" since the sixties, when it first came on the air and the host was Art Fleming. It was a game show where you actually had to know something, usually something generally considered arcane, or obscure knowledge/facts to win against your opponents, and really, yourself, too. Even as a kid, I was keenly interested in this sort of stuff. Normal learning, beyond the couple of things in school that could actually capture my attention, like spelling and science, bored me to tears, so in spite of the IQ I inherited I only did fair in school after about 3rd grade, but I was pretty darn good at Jeopardy. They don't much teach what I call data obscura in school. They want you to know the big stuff, the broad strokes. Anyway, I grew up and slowly but surely became known to everyone as the trivia queen. Now there are a LOT of things I know nothing about, but there are also many things I know something about. You don't have to be a scholar of anything really to do well on this show, just have a lot of trivial facts stuck in your head; and a reasonable ability to figure probable odds against two other people doesn't hurt. Some days, I do better than the champ of the day, know the final question that no one else gets, and other days, blah, not so good. But that's not what I'm here today about, exactly.
The reason I'm here is Alex Trebek. I have always liked Alex, had a serious crush going for many years over him, in fact, BUT...
Mr. Trebek has always taken it upon himself to not so subtly correct the pronunciation of words by the players, even when the word could go either way. If you didn't say it the way HE did, he would repeat your response and say it the way HE thought it should have been said. A bit snooty, but tolerable. I mean sometimes it CAN go either way, and even if not, if they said it good enough for the judges to accept, WHO made him the grammar police? I can't imagine that they tell him to do this, it's actually sort of rude, isn't it? I will admit freely and without duress that I can be a real word Nazi, especially spelling-wise, can't help it. If I'm not sure what you mean, I will say it back the way I have always heard it to find out, and if I think you NEED to know how to correctly spell something, like on a credit or job application, I WILL point it out to you most times, as a true favor.  I am constantly being asked to spell things for people and asked what a word or phrase means, and if I don't know, I'll look it up and get back to you. But we are just talking about being helpful when it counts here, he's become, in his senior years, rather, well, snarky to the contestants. He is now not only correcting EVERY TINY little perceived grammatical error, but he makes fun of syntax, regional pronunciations, the way the contestants wager on Double and Final Jeopardy answers and even when interviewing them, he makes jokes about them, often at their unknowing expense, at least he obviously believes so. 
You see him look into the camera and convey an expression that just screams "do you believe this idiot got on my show?" He seems to always ask questions in the interview portion that are pointed at making the most fun of the contestant. Now I don't know if the writers are doing this for the amusement of those watching, or if he takes something that should be straightforward and skews it to make the person look foolish. Either way, this needs to stop. He has stopped being the witty, intelligent host, and has become a really snarky, judgemental, superior acting jerk, and I just hate to see this happening. He makes WAY too many editorial comments during play, ruining the rhythm of the players, and for no better reason than some lame attempts at either some sort of humor or a show of superiority. He is NOT a talk show host, he is a GAME show host. It is not his job to take jabs for the approximate 22 minutes of the show. If he wants to be a snob on the air and act superior to everyone else there, let him get some sort of talk show like William Buckley did, or David Frost, or even Bill O'Reilly (sorry Bill). I don't recall anywhere in the rules of the game where it says that the host will be illuminating while humiliating. He does it pretty much every day now, so check it out if you don't believe me. I think he's having some short-circuiting in his brain or something. He IS the venerable host of the show, not the first, but the longest and best known, like Pat Sajak on Wheel of Fortune...At least Pat just got a bit tipsy way back when and maybe looked a bit foolish himself on occasion, but I don't recall him ever making a contestant look stupid for guessing wrong. He always seems to feel bad for them even if the answer is SO obvious to those of us at home and not trying to think in front of millions of people.
Wake up and smell a bit of humility, Alex. I can't wait to see what you have to say to Watson the computer next week. I hope they taught Watson better manners while they taught it to respond to the game.
Just sayin'
Dragonfly out for now, thanks for coming
 

At what point did having a complete thought buy you a label?

Hi folks,
I try REALLY hard to be apolitical, and pretty much everything else except for two things...
simply an Earthling and a nice, decent person to all. Here's the problem with that. It would seem that if you are stupid enough to be smart enough to have a real opinion about something, anything, you will be hunted down by the  "Label police" and given one. I don't ever make sweeping comments about politics or war or anything, really, just comments about specific events. Do I think war is stupid, barbaric and a total waste of lives, time, money, etc.? Yes, of course. Is anything ever going to change in this system of things, not likely...so. I don't rally, march or otherwise get involved in large ways. I will make my private contributions where and when I can to anything I believe in, but I have this one tiny problem that seems to be a big one for some people. I have a problem with blind loyalty. Now, if you are my friend, my job, even my country (again, not a Nationalist, but I DO love living where I am, and am generally proud to be here),I'm pretty much your gal, okay? BUT if any of these entities do something heinous, I'm afraid that I will have to say something to them about it, which usually means that I lose a friend, job or people I know that ARE Nationalists and believe in the "My country right or wrong" PERIOD theory. If you feel that way about your country, then how about if your boss or friend did something horrible, but they were under pressure and it was, in your mind, excusable? Like say, your friend was under extreme pressure at work, home, everywhere, to do a better job, be a better spouse, neighbor, parent, child, everything, and one day, they snap and bring a gun to work, or even home, and shoot co-workers or their whole family due to the mounting and unbearable stress they are under? Is that okay with you?
I am bringing this up, of course, because of the soldiers that killed, and then peed on, the "enemy", because they were SO stressed about being there, doing what they do for the service, seeing all they've seen, etc, making what they did AFTER the enemy is dead okay. 
I've known many veterans of more than one war, and they've seen terrible things done by some. The thing is this. SOME people join the service for the express purpose of behaving badly, to put it mildly. They are looking for a license to do whatever comes to mind because they will have the excuse of "extreme pressure" to fall back on. Is having to go to these places, risking your life, worrying about getting captured and who knows what done to you scary and unbelievable pressure? Of course. Did anyone put a gun to their heads and MAKE them do unspeakable things WAY beyond what this country expects? NO. We are supposed to be an honorable place where we don't commit atrocities AND take the time and pleasure to video them!! If these boys were SO scared and worried about their lives, why, and how did they find the time to tape their act, and obviously have fun doing it? When you are scared for your life, you do what needs doing and you get the hell out of there, period. You don't have an impromptu "pee party". I realize that this was "mob mentality" at work here, and individually, these young men would probably have never done this thing, but as a group, they were tested, stressed, pushed to the limits before being sent over there, and either this type of behavior didn't come out, or was ignored as part of being the type of person needed for this type of mission. I know that the military overlooks a LOT of bad behavior to get the types to do "wet work" for them, but what is next? Do they get to cut out and eat the hearts of the enemy? Just how barbaric do they get to be, in the name of democracy? Even in barbaric times, very often, the enemy had respect for the dead on the other side.
I know, realistically, that war will always be with us in this system of things, and as long as there are wars, there will be dogs fighting IN them, but this country is already a joke to so many other countries, do we really need to be working SO hard to alienate EVERYONE?
I will say this, I don't think that court-martial is an appropriate punishment, I think that jail time for atrocities, psychological help and re-assignments are more in order for these individuals. We certainly expect other countries to punish their own for war crimes, don't we? We have helped hunt down, for instance, Nazis for what they did, right? Playing favorites is not right, I'm sorry. Bad behavior (and that is the nicest way I can put it) is bad behavior, no matter WHO is doing it, right? This was a sickening form of bullying, not that any type is acceptable, of course, but desecrating dead bodies, AND making a video while doing it, like it's a party or something, sorry, no. But for this view, I am a pinko, Liberal flake who doesn't understand the pressures of war. Well, I sure know the pressure of private "war". Does having been raped count as being put under tremendous pressure? I think it does. Surviving not only the rape, but having to hear the rapist laugh and ask if I enjoyed it was indescribable. Does that give me the okay to hunt this bastard down and not only kill him but maybe cut off his penis? I doubt it. I would, at the least, spend time in a psych ward somewhere... and this is why. HIS bad behavior doesn't excuse mine. Would a TON of people support my actions? Probably. Would I feel good about what I'd done? Probably that small, savage part of me, yeah, for a bit. But in the long run, I could not look back later and consider myself a victim of a crime anymore, because I fought fire with more fire, After the fact, after I had time to take a breath. After that, I'm just being a criminal too, aren't I? Taking revenge and getting justice...when did they become the same thing?
I'm just sayin'
Later, Dragonfly out