Deep Forest - Forest Hymn

I loved this song from the first time I heard it!

Bridge of Sighs (2007 Remaster)-Robin Trower

Just a great song!

The current state of affairs

 

The Youngbloods - Get Together (Audio)

Another time, another era--hard to believe it actually existed when you see all the hatred around us now.....Rest in peace, Jesse Colin Young. 

Lyrics to Get Together: 

Love is but a song to sing

Fear's the way we die

You can make the mountains ring

Or make the angels cry

Though the bird is on the wing

And you may not know why

Come on people now

Smile on your brother

Everybody get together

Try to love one another

Right now

Some may come and some may go

We shall surely pass

When the one that left us here

Returns for us at last

We are but a moment's sunlight

Fading in the grass

Come on people now

Smile on your brother

Everybody get together

Try to love one another

Right now

Come on people now

Smile on your brother

Everybody get together

Try to love one another

Right now

Come on people now

Smile on your brother

Everybody get together

Try to love one another

Right now

Two good ones

 

Lola Young - Messy (Official Video)

Love her, love this song…..

Rather apt

 

The politics of vengeance

In my former workplace, there were two large research groups that more or less intensely disliked each other and did everything they could to make life difficult for the other. I never knew the reason why, and over time I never got a good explanation. When I started working there, I worked for the person who was the head of the research institute at that time. My research group leader worked directly for him, and so we enjoyed a rather privileged status in the sense that the institute leader looked out for us and our interests. But he was not particularly friendly with the leader of the other large research group, and when that man eventually became institute leader, he placed his own people as heads of different groups and sections and expanded his reach and power. He also made life difficult for those who worked for the former institute leader. I never had particular problems with the new institute leader, even though I clashed a couple of times with the younger leaders who worked for him. Those clashes became a bit more frequent over time, especially when they involved encroachment into areas that they knew little to nothing about. In the end, it evolved into a battle for control, a battle that our side lost simply because we were no longer in power, and because the politics of vengeance became a dominant force in how our daily lives were run. Tit for tat. If one institute leader's employees had previously been pushed aside, frozen out or ignored when it came to important decision-making, the other institute leader made sure, via his lackeys, that the same treatment was dealt out to his opposition when he became the leader. The effect on our department was, as you can imagine, not beneficial. What started out as a diverse research institute with small but productive research groups was little more than a research monoverse headed by one of the lackeys when I left. That lackey had complete control. His attitude toward others was haughty; he was the best, so the rest could get lost, and he did his level best to get rid of the small but productive research groups, something that the former institute leader had not done. The younger people, on whom any research future depends, chose not to do research; they looked around and breathed in the hostile atmosphere and thought, why bother, when we can choose more lucrative jobs in the private sector? And why should they have chosen to do research at our institute, when the only real option was to work for him? Other leaders who looked at the loss of research in the department shook their heads and wondered why. I know why. The lackeys were in complete control, and they wasted no time in trying to get their (perceived) opponents (scientists they deemed useless) to quit by making their lives miserable, under the guise of 'increasing efficiency', 'saving money', and 'improving the kind of research that was done'. I was at meetings where several of my colleagues were publicly humiliated and told that they were slackers who were just taking up space and collecting their salaries. If the lackeys could have fired them immediately, they would have. Luckily, this country has rules in place prohibiting mass firings in the public sector. This type of behavior was still going on when I left my workplace. 

I should make the point that academic research science is far from a democracy and is headed by a number of leaders who brook no opposition. If you cross them or don't agree with them, you end up on their 'enemies list', slated for being pushed aside, frozen out or ignored when it comes to important decision-making and giving much-needed advice. You can believe it or not, but it's true. The tiny little microcosm of life where I used to work was merely representative of the larger world of government and politics. In other words, there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to behaving badly and governing badly. Just google Machiavelli and you'll see how far back this goes. 

I'm reminded of my former workplace when I look at what is going on at the highest levels of US government. I'd like to tell you that the politics of vengeance is unique to the current administration, but it is not. Eliminating your (perceived) enemies in the name of victory and control becomes paramount to the types of leaders whose goal is to crush their opposition. The question is--who are the enemies of the current administration? All those who did not vote for him? All those who oppose him? All those who tried to undermine him and bring him down? If all of the above, that's going to be a mighty long list of people on whom to exact vengeance. And vengeance comes in all flavors--mocking, public humiliation, bullying, firing, demoting, shoving aside, freezing out. I've been privy to all of that kind of behavior in my former workplace. And I grieved the loss of a civilized workplace for several years after the lackeys took over. We are witnessing exactly this now in the US. And if this is the goal of power in the present administration, the country and its average ordinary citizens will suffer from the fallout. In a few years, there won't be much of a country left to govern. It will have been razed to the ground. Perhaps that is what his supporters want. But they destroy their own lives in the process. 

Hubris and bad behavior

I have begun to reflect on the following--to all those who think that the president's behavior is strong and heroic. You would do well to remember that you take for granted that those around you, who behave decently and kindly toward you as a matter of course, may one day no longer do that. We depend upon the good behavior of others around us to get through our lives. When or if we can no longer depend upon that, society as we know it is over. When we act like the president does toward others he doesn't like or who he deems unworthy of him, we injure others. There is no sane leader in the free world who behaves like him. I know the signs of a bully from previous experience. We can pray for them, yes, but we cannot let them rule a country and/or the world. Those who want that are misguided in my book. 

Hubris, defined as excessive pride, is not a good look on most people, and definitely not on the president. Just saying. It's embarrassing to listen to leaders brag about themselves. But he does. How would most people react if each of us suddenly decided to do the same and act excessively prideful. For example, I could say the following and reiterate it to anyone who would like to hear it ad nauseam. I was the smartest student in my grammar school class, the smartest student in my high school class, valedictorian of my high school class, went on to college and graduate school and received my doctorate in tumor cell biology. I worked for forty years as an academic research scientist, published nearly one hundred articles in my field, mentored Masters and PhD students (most of them women), and empowered women any chance I got. Because for a while there, I was one of two women who were senior scientists in my department. And that wasn't easy, because some of my workplace leaders behaved like the president--they were vengeful, spiteful and mean. If you didn't agree with everything they said, they froze you out and/or ignored you. But back to bragging about myself (thank you, Mr. President). I was a gifted and innovative research scientist (I know that because the reigning American guru in my field told me my work was excellent) and a damn good writer. I've published six books of poetry and one book about passive-aggressive leadership in the workplace, the latter which sold fairly well in the first few years after it was published. I started writing this blog in 2010, and have slowly built up a readership. At present, about a thousand people view my blog each day. I changed my life in my early thirties by moving to Norway and building a life here, learning a new language, and working for over thirty years in a foreign country. My husband and I never made a ton of money, but we've traveled through Europe and the USA on a budget. We are doing fine financially, have no debt, and are enjoying our retirement. I'm currently relearning Spanish and learning Italian online. I'm so clever. I taught myself how to garden after being gifted an allotment garden in 2016, and am quite good at it. I love to travel and to write. I'm so smart. I've accomplished a lot, and it's so great. Look at me, how great I am. You'll never find a greater person than me in the whole world.........blah blah blah ad nauseam. 

You get my drift. Would most people enjoy hearing me spout all this every time I opened my mouth? They would not. And I would never in a million years behave like this. But that is what is now held up as correct behavior, at least in the current political arena. We applaud this in our leaders. 'Look at me, I am so great. The greatest the country has ever seen'. But we would never want our spouses or children to behave like this. Why not? Why not encourage and applaud this behavior in others around us? Perhaps more people should try this as an experiment in their daily lives, just to see the effects on those who support bullies. I don't call this behavior good behavior, I call it bad behavior. But perhaps more people should try it, just to see the effect on loved ones. Guaranteed the divorce rate will shoot through the roof. 

Am I better than most people? I am not. Am I a better Christian than other Christians? I am not. I awake each day with gratitude for another day, another chance to try to be a good person. I have lived my life according to the values that were inculcated in me by my parents, who were humble people. They are my heroes and my role models, and I will forever love them for it. 

What to give up for Lent (and it's not chocolate)

To all the 'devout' Christians out there, this about says it all. Who in God's name cares if you give up chocolate for Lent? God? A better decision--stand up to your esteemed leaders and tell them how to behave. Will you admonish them for behaving like bullies? Will you do that for the rest of us who are not as devout as you are? Thank you. 

My laugh for the day

It made me laugh, but it's really not a laughing matter, how much things cost nowadays.....

Sunday mornings

Sunday mornings. In a city. Oslo, to be precise. Sunday mornings in early March. Spring is right around the corner. You can feel it in the air. The hope and promise of spring. March and April are perhaps my favorite months of the year, although the summer months rival them, at least in terms of garden life. But right now, life is returning to the city, to the garden, to us all. The sun feels warmer on my face when I sit on the bench in my garden after having filled the bird feeder. I love watching the small birds fly to and fro, eating seeds and chattering away. The snowdrops, the real harbingers of spring, are poking their heads up and starting to bloom. 

There is a peace that I love on early Sunday mornings when I walk to St. Olav church. The sun is shining and there are very few cars or people about. There is the occasional jogger or dogwalker, but by and large I have the sidewalks to myself. It is at these times that I love being in a city. I know I'm surrounded by people and I like that, but they're not milling about me as they would be during mid-summer. So I'm enjoying the peace and quiet time, walking up Teltusbakken and past our allotment garden, then walking along Kjærlighetsstien and the park/playground until I reach Akersveien. I then walk past Our Savior's Cemetery and then past St. Olav bookstore. Akersveien is one of my favorite streets in Oslo; it is peaceful, perhaps due to the religious feelings engendered by the church, bookstore and cemetery. It fills me with the peace and feelings of safety from childhood, when all seemed (mostly) right with the world, when Sundays meant going to church with family and then coming home and eating afternoon dinner together. When I walk along Akersveien, I forget that I am living in a nonsensical world that gets crazier by the day. 

March is an unpredictable month in terms of the weather, I know that. So I enjoy the little tastes of spring that we are given on days like these, when the sun shines, when I feel like I have no cares in the world, when it feels as though the peace of the divine is shining down upon us. 

Group thinking and things I've learned along the way

As those who know me know, I don't like group thinking. I don't like being told how or what to think by well-meaning but ultimately know-it-all groups. I never have, even when I was a child in school. I prefer being able to weigh both sides of a societal or political issue in the peace and quiet of my private space. In solitude. I don't want anyone explaining a situation to me unless I have specifically asked for advice about it. Does that make me difficult to live with? At times, probably. However, when it comes to personal issues, I am very loyal to those I care about. I'll side with them, no questions asked, unless what they've done or are doing is of a truly criminal nature. But again, loyalty is a personal decision, not a group one. If I make a mistake concerning this, I'm the only one who has to answer for it. 

Given the current political climate, I'm glad I don't subscribe to group thinking. I'm glad I don't belong to one political party. I'm glad that I try to think for myself, to reason things out based on the information and news available. But there's the rub. Where to get unbiased news and information? It's getting harder and harder each day. So what do I do? I read newspapers and articles from both sides of the political spectrum. I remain politically independent. I don't belong to either major political party. In the current political climate, some might call that cowardly. I call it smart. You're not going to force me to hand over my intelligence to a mob. I'm not interested in mob thinking. Again, I've been like this for many years, since grammar school. Since I sat at the dinner table when I was a teenager and debated the important political issues with my father, who was both intelligent and kind. We two were the only ones interested in doing this in my family. I'm glad I got that training from him. We didn't always agree, but I learned to discuss and debate an issue and to defend my ways of thinking. Sometimes I changed my mind if I saw the wisdom in the other's point of view. But that was the point, we were able to discuss and debate, something that is long-gone in our current society. Nowadays, if someone disagrees with you, especially on social media or online, you'll find yourself the recipient of a barrage of hate comments, troll comments, laughter emojis or anger emojis. I have yet to read a comment that says 'hey, that's an interesting point. Thanks for posting. You gave me something to think about'. One of the reasons I closed the ability to comment on my blog was because the comments were either spam-like or downright hostile. One of the last ones I received from an anonymous (of course) poster before I shut the comments section said that he/she wished that I would die. I've got to wonder why, since I certainly don't set out to offend anyone when I write my posts. But I'm certainly not going to tolerate such things or even pursue them. My blog, my rules. If you don't like what I write, feel free to go elsewhere for your entertainment.

Things I've learned, especially during the last ten years--

• Those who shout the loudest are usually those who have little to say, or nothing to say that's of any value. You can shout in my face, be aggressive or threatening, and I'm still not going to convert to your way of thinking. I will 'listen' to you, as in, my eyes will be focused on your face and you will think I'm listening to you, but I'm really not. I learned that technique in the third grade when a teacher, who was particularly odious, singled out her pet scapegoats for her particular brand of mobbing. She was a bully, and the school let her continue as a teacher. Her modus operandi was to instill fear; she succeeded with some students, I'm sure. She only succeeded in awakening an anger in me that can truly scare even me when it is fully unleased. And I learned to unleash it as an adult. You would not like to be in my presence if you have wronged me or another that I care about. Why am I so preoccupied with fairness and justice for others? I need only think back to that teacher and how she treated some fellow students, and I know why. Or I think back to a time when I was treated poorly by another. You would not like to know some of the thoughts that ran through my head at those times. But then, I could not act on my anger. I was a child/young adult, and I was constrained by my upbringing ('be nice') and my religion ('be kind to others'). It took a long time to understand that anger is a good emotion, and when used correctly, can actually be helpful in changing your current situation or changing your life. 
• The above post also applies to those priests who like to bark out their sermons from the pulpit. Who think they know best. Do you win me over with your fire and brimstone sermons? You do not. And as many of you know, I have been (and remain) in non-agreement with some of the positions that my religion stubbornly will not discuss (female priests and married priests). And I was and remain furious with them for not prosecuting their pedophile priests, however small the number, for the criminals they were and are. The church, as my father used to say, is not infallible. It is filled with fallible men, and that must be understood.
• I don't particularly like bureaucracies (just ask my former colleagues), but I've come to admit that they are necessary. Yes, some of them are too big. No, I don't think that they should be completely dismantled. What happens when you do the latter? You disrupt a society that needs bureaucracies in order to function, a society where some of its people rely on disability and/or welfare payments, health insurance, etc. We are not all wealthy billionaires. I only object to bureaucracies when they micromanage all aspects of people's lives and/or careers and when they try to convert non-bureaucrats (e.g. scientists, doctors) to a bureaucratic way of thinking, which is what happened in my former workplace. 
• Disruption and creating chaos are tactics to get a society to accept group thinking. Think about it. If you disrupt the functioning of a society and create chaos, and then you come along as the great leader who will save society, you gain followers. They think, oh, the savior has arrived. I will follow him or her. I will be loyal to him or her, and I will badmouth all the others who try to stop him or her.
• Social media and the AI algorithms that power them play a huge role in the creation of group thinking. Take Facebook, for example. If you like a particular group or page, your feed will be inundated with posts having to do with that particular topic (in my case--gardens and gardening). If you extrapolate to political posts, you'll find that if you click 'like' on some 'leftist' or 'rightist' post, your feed will suddenly be filled with posts from left-leaning or right-leaning newspapers and organizations. After a time, that is all that you will read or focus on. And the algorithms are clever, they'll always find a new group for you to peruse and agree with. I call it subtle brainwashing. It's the same with tv; if you watch one channel that pushes a right-wing agenda, you'll eventually end up thinking like them if that's your only source of information. Why do the right-wing stations think they're the only ones who present 'the facts and the truth'? How do they 'know' that? They don't, but they're telling you that they're the only ones who know the truth and have the real facts. It's insidious. And the left-wing channels do the same, they're no better. 
• Group thinking leads to intolerance of other ways of thinking. Think about it. Each time we are 100% certain that our way of thinking is the 'right' way of thinking, we close the door to others. We close the door to diverse ways of thinking, to innovative and creative solutions to problems. We close the door to compassion and empathy. The woke movement, while it may have been well-meaning at the start, has also become intolerant of those who don't accept its ways of thinking. It is possible to believe a certain way and have the intelligence to understand that those who think and believe differently are still worthy of our respect and empathy. If this is not the case, what is the definition of civilization and humanity?
• Schools should teach students how to think critically and objectively in order to face an ever-increasing polarization of society. As far as I can see, they do not at present. They have abdicated that role. Parents must therefore try to fill the gap. But they are often tired and without time to do so. I think back to my father's role in my life. He did that job. He taught me to think critically and objectively, even when he was very tired, and I love him for it. There should be more men like my father in the world. 

Life of Pi, The Wild Robot, and Conclave--all excellent films

Traveling to and from the USA gives me the opportunity to catch up on my movies on the plane. On my recent flights to and from New York, I watched two excellent movies, Life of Pi from 2012, and The Wild Robot from 2024. I don't know why I didn't see Life of Pi earlier; there was a lot of hype surrounding the film when it first came out, and I often avoid films that are over-hyped because they often don't live up to all the fuss. But Life of Pi delivered. The director, Ang Lee, has made films like Brokeback Mountain, which was also excellent. He seems to be an eclectic filmmaker, which intrigues me. Life of Pi is an unusual (some would say very strange) story about a young man from India who is traveling to Canada with his parents and brother and some of their zoo animals (that are to be sold) to start a new life. They are traveling on a cargo ship that hits rough seas and capsizes, killing nearly everyone on board except Pi, a hyena, an orangutan, a zebra who has injured its leg, and a Bengal tiger named Richard Parker. All of them end up in one lifeboat, with the expected consequences. The hyena kills the zebra and the orangutan, and the tiger kills the hyena, leaving Pi alone with the tiger in the boat. Pi understands that he can't stay in the boat with the tiger, so he fashions a boat out of life rafts and attaches it to the life boat. The movie is essentially about the relationship that develops/evolves between Pi and Richard Parker. It is not a comfortable relationship by any means, and Pi knows that he can never trust the tiger to not attack him. But he trains him to keep his distance, and a wary relationship between the two results. When Pi is finally rescued, he is asked to recount his survival story to the insurance company that insured the cargo ship; they want to know what happened to the ship and how he survived for over two hundred days in the Pacific Ocean. He tells them about the animals in the lifeboat and the tiger, and they do not want to believe that this was possible--that he could coexist with a Bengal tiger for so many days. He then tells them a second story--that the orangutan was his mother, the zebra was a sailor who had been friendly to him on board the cargo ship, the hyena was the odious cook on the ship, and the tiger was Pi himself, essentially saying that the cook had murdered his mother and the sailor, and that Pi had murdered the cook. The insurance company has problems with the second story, and though they do not really accept the first story, they end up using it (fewer moral implications). Pi himself tells a visitor who arrives at the beginning of the film and who has asked him to recount his strange story, that either story will suffice as an explanation for his survival. It's a film that captures your attention and draws you along for the ride. 

The Wild Robot is a beautiful animated film about an intelligent robot called Roz who ends up shipwrecked on an island inhabited by various wild animals. Roz is designed to serve human beings, but in their absence, she sets about trying to offer her services to the different animals with whom she comes into contact. They begin to flee when they see her, but she ends up befriending a fox named Fink and taking care of a little gosling that she names Brightbill, together with Fink. Along the way, she helps the animals on the island deal with surviving the winter and with showing them how important it is that everyone try to work together. I won't give away the ending, but it is very touching, as is the entire film. It's heads and shoulders above most of the drivel that passes for animated films these days, which are for the most part bland, boring and poorly-animated (perhaps generated on demand by AI programs?). I can wholeheartedly recommend The Wild Robot. It's already a classic in my book. 

And finally, Conclave. I saw it at the movie theater last night. It's an excellent film about the process of electing a new pope in the Catholic church. That might not sound so interesting, but trust me, it is, because the process encompasses the humanity, the foibles and failings, the politics, the drama, and the gossip involved. It's a riveting film with excellent performances by Ralph Fiennes, Stanley Tucci, and Isabella Rossellini, and it has one heck of a surprise ending. I think it's destined for Oscar recognition, and that would be well-deserved. 

Inconsistencies

The odd times we live in have given rise to inconsistencies that are just begging to be commented upon. 

The political party of family values, headed by two powerful and wealthy men, have fathered seventeen children between them via six different women. The same party is pushing for the birth of more children in the USA, but is not anti-divorce or anti-adultery or pro-marriage for that matter. Family values? Don't make me puke. Having more children is all well and good, but I'm assuming that if they're not pushing for polygamy in order to achieve that goal, this means that in monogamous marriages, wives should be willing to have more than one child, despite the fact that it costs a fortune at present to raise a child, buy a home, and pay monthly expenses. So is the party of family values willing to give young couples a break so that they can have large families? And do women get a say in how they want to live their lives? Just asking. This brings me to the next point.

If the party wishes to return to 1950s America, when family values were apparently sacrosanct, when women stayed home to raise children (more than one) while men as heads of the family worked to provide for their families, then I'll say to the younger men who like this philosophy, get your asses in gear. Or get off your asses. Get out there and hustle for an education and high-paying jobs. 1950s America is no place for losers. You're a loser if you don't make a good salary and provide a house for your family. And you can forget about getting any help from mommy or daddy. Men in America at that time, unless they came from truly wealthy families, did not get help from anyone. They made it on their own. So get out there and work for a living instead of living at home with mommy and daddy until you're thirty. Stop living life through your devices. Stop moaning and complaining that women aren't interested in you. They will be if you show them that you can earn money. THAT was 1950s America. It was no place for men who were losers in the job market, whiners, or complainers. And there was no safety net. 

The men who support the current political regime are the men most likely to lose under it. It is not a regime that supports losers, the poor, the uneducated. It says it does and says it will, but it won't. It will enrich the already-rich. Because most politicians at present, in both parties, have grifter tendencies. They are interested in enriching themselves. That's the world we live in, that's the world we've become. Eat or be eaten. It's about survival of the fittest. And those at the top of the food chain got there by eating those at the bottom of the food chain. Study Darwin and you'll learn all about evolution, which as much as you'd like to deny it, is a reality and a fact of life. 

And of course, along with the new regime, comes the resurgence of viewpoints about how women should behave. Women, like children, should be seen and not heard, unless they're the 'dollies' on Fox News as my friend calls them. If you look 'glam', you're acceptable to men. If not, you're invisible. The non-glam women should just know their place, in relationships and in society at large. They should acquiesce to men. When I was younger, I had a conversation with a priest friend of mine where we disagreed about the New Testament passage that talks about wives obeying (submitting) to their husbands. What is often ignored is the second part of that equation--the admonition for husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church. I told the priest, when men can achieve that, when they can love their wives as Christ loved the church, then come talk to me about wives acquiescing to their husbands in all things. I haven't met one man who has managed that type of love, not one. The priest had no response, because he knew I was right. And while we're on the topic, why should women listen to others less intelligent than themselves about how to live and think? There are so many women I know who are far more intelligent than many men. How they think and feel about their lives is far more important to me than what some random men (read--politicians) I do not know or care about, think. 

Is the party of family values going to do something about the dying middle class? Will they continue to blame the less fortunate for their status in life? Because no matter what, a civilized society will always have to carry the less fortunate, because that is what civilized societies do. My father used to say that. Christ, who was a wise man, once said that 'the poor you will always have with you'. What kind of society blames it citizens for not being financially successful when that same society makes it impossible to for its citizens to get ahead? If you're in debt up to your ears because of high prices for everything, you have no chance. The rich blame the poor for being poor. But perhaps the truly rich should look at the advantages that they've had from birth. They are not the advantages that the poor have had, that's for sure. And trust me, if you haven't had those advantages, you can scramble and struggle an entire lifetime to achieve success and never reach the level of wealth and success that the rich enjoy. Because many of the rich inherited their wealth; they did not work or struggle for it. Average ordinary people, who belong to the middle class that I was born into, worked hard to get what they have. Most of them have achieved moderate success. Most of them are financially-comfortable. But most of them would go under if faced with staggering medical bills as a result of some illness that required expensive treatments or full-time nursing care. And most of them are careful with money, with how they spend it. That is not something the truly rich need to worry about. The current level of hypocrisy in society is appalling. Perhaps it's always been there, but I see it in its entirety now. We need to call it out at every opportunity. The time to rise up against it is now.