Rage in society

I've been thinking about rage for some time. The world is teeming with rage-filled people. Every day, there is another news story about a terrorist attack, someone being stabbed, shot, pushed in front of a subway train, terrorized by an ex-husband, murdered by an ex-husband, not to mention road rage and the inability to make a mistake in traffic without possibly losing your life over it. The list of rage-induced behaviors is long and everyone has an unfortunate story to tell. When you've been the recipient of another's rage, it's not likely that you'll forget it any time soon, if you live to tell the tale. 

What is rage? It is defined as violent uncontrollable anger. You certainly understand viscerally what rage is when you are unfortunate enough to experience it via another human being. Both men and women feel rage, but men are more likely to express their rage outwardly (acts of aggression) whereas women are less impulsive. Perhaps women weigh the consequences more, for various reasons. For women, not acting on their rage is often smarter, especially if the other person (usually a man) is likely to use violence against them in his rage outburst. It makes more sense to try to be a peacemaker in the interest of self-preservation; I would guess that is true for many women who would rather not end up bloodied and bruised at the hands of an angry man. The children of abusive parents learn that lesson very young; they learn to deflect, distract, and to dilute others' anger (and sometimes their own) in order to avoid potential abuse. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Women can say the same when dealing with violent men. 

There is such a thing as righteous anger. Righteous anger stems from a perception of injustice, that an injustice has been done to oneself, another person, another group of people. Righteous anger is not frowned upon as long as it does not lead to wanton violence and killing of those perpetrating the injustices. In our civilized societies, there are laws and courts to deal with the perpetrators of injustice. Those who hurt others out of their uncontrollable rage should pay the price--jail. We may rejoice when a perpetrator experiences karma--gets paid back for his or her transgression--but it still is best that they are dealt with under the law. We don't want vigilante justice to take hold in society. We had that once in the early days of our nation, and it was a brutal daily life for many people, especially when the vigilantes were the self-appointed 'sheriffs'. That didn't work out well. 

The anger in society is out of control. One need only witness the wars, conflicts, outward threats, veiled threats, and otherwise hostile interactions between nations, religions, leaders, etc. Aggressive rhetoric promotes aggression. Why do we elect politicians who foment hostility and aggression, even violence? Why is the world filled with angry old male politicians? Why do we want to be led by them? I'm not saying that women are necessarily better leaders, they're not. But in our civilized nations, more women should have the chance to lead countries. Nor am I saying that anger has no purpose, but continual anger lived out on a daily basis means that random acts of violent aggression, often with fatal incomes, will only increase. Is that what we want? Is that the world we want for our children and grandchildren? It is possible to identify societal problems, enforce laws, and promote peace without resorting to violence and vigilante thinking. It is possible to use anger constructively. More people should invest in anger management courses; I think they'd benefit from them. And perhaps it's time to kick the habit of watching too many violent tv series that depict murder and violence of all kinds graphically. I for one am mighty tired of all these kinds of shows and the behaviors they depict--indiscriminate use of guns and knives, stalking, murder, torture, serial killing, rape, kidnapping, home invasions, abuse of women, spousal abuse, and rage of all kinds. Why is this entertainment, day in and day out? What does it do to the minds of those who watch this as entertainment? It certainly is not entertainment. 

 

Winter darkness

I probably write a post about winter darkness each year, and each year I end up feeling the same way about winter darkness as I did the year before, so I put pen to paper to say that I don't like it. The winter days are too short, the nights are too long. It gets dark between 3:30 and 4 pm, and stays dark until around 8 am when light starts to filter through the clouds. The sun doesn't formally rise however until after 9 am. This morning sunrise was at 9:19 am and sunset was at 3:19 pm. That amounts to six hours of daylight and eighteen hours of darkness. 

Sometimes I wake up (unwillingly) in the middle of the night, turn on the light, and look at the clock. I did that this morning; the clock showed 6:30 am and it was still pitch black outside. I thought to myself, I can get through December and January, but after that, I'm ready for the light and warmth of spring. Imagine a world without the sun. Imagine our planet trying to survive without the warming sun. I wouldn't want to live in that world. It's no wonder our ancestors feared the dark and worshipped the sun. I would have done the same. 

You never know what's lurking in the dark, and even if it's not a real danger or threat, there is a tendency when I wake up in the middle of the night for my thoughts to veer in a pensive direction. Normally I wouldn't mind that, but in the middle of the night, I do. Because my mind races with all sorts of thoughts, blown out of proportion, that seem almost trivial and silly in the light of day. One thing I've learned--don't make any important life decisions at 3 am in pitch darkness. That's never a good idea. 

Darkness evokes feelings of emptiness, sadness, fear, loneliness and depression. Fear of the unknown, the void, the emptiness. Fear of not mattering to a soul, fear of being alone in the universe. Darkness feels all-encompassing, as though it will envelope and swallow you. Summer darkness is less intense than winter darkness, but I still don't like it. Daylight and sunlight bring feelings of contentment, happiness, safety, togetherness and joy. Daylight ushers in a lightness of spirit. In the daylight, in the warmth of the sun, I feel the sense of possibility--that anything can be tackled as long as there is light. 

Loneliness and longing

At Christmas mass last night, the priest gave a short sermon about God's longing for us. He meant that God did not want to be alone, he wants to be with man whom he has created. He seeks us. He wants us to accept him into our lives. Somehow, when he said this in just this way, I felt a certain empathy for God. I thought--was it possible for the divine to feel loneliness? Or is loneliness just a human emotion? I don't think so, but how can we ever know? The only thing I know is that when I feel lonely, it has more to do with my spirit and less to do with the corporeal. When I feel lonely, I also long for fellowship but mostly for understanding. In this context, loneliness is associated with the longing to be understood by those around me but also by the divine. It's possible to feel alienated from both at times, thus creating a feeling of loneliness (longing). God also wants man to understand him as much as is humanly possible. So that makes me wonder if our feelings are (a small) part of what defines the 'divine'. Lots of questions, but no answers, as always when it comes to faith and spirituality. We accept a lot on trust, and that's fine. But I like the idea that God can feel loneliness; after all, if he created all things, then he understands loneliness, and he understands that loneliness is part of the human condition. 

I like the priest who celebrated mass last night because he seems to be a peaceful, non-combative soul, not aggressive in speech or manner. He does not attack his congregation with fire-and-brimstone sermons, but engages them in a kind way with sermons that speak of the power of love (agape). I found myself thinking of Pope Francis, who seems to be made of the same cloth. Francis recently exhorted priests to shorten their sermons, which is wonderful advice, especially for priests who insist on just repeating the words of the gospels and not offering any reflections on the relevance of the gospel words. We don't need the gospel words reiterated verbatim; we're perfectly capable of understanding the words. I want a reflective approach to sermons, or you can mostly skip them in my opinion. In the world we live in now, we need more priests who are willing to truly reflect on the words of the gospels and offer advice on how to live with faith in a world such as ours. 

I wrote to a friend of mine recently who is going through a tough time that having hope for change, hope that things can get better, is the essence of our faith. A message of redemption--that it's never too late to change the path we're on or to ask for forgiveness or to make amends. That is the message of Easter but also of Christmas. We wait during Advent for the birth of a being who was sent to us by God. We open our hearts to this baby in the hope that we will be blessed and transformed. Babies and small children can do that to you--open your heart and transform your spirit. No wonder that God decided that Christ would start life as a baby. When you think about it, it makes perfect sense. But in order to be transformed, we need to accept ourselves for who we are with all our faults and peccadilloes and to ask God to enter our lives. Sounds easy, but for many people, it's not. But by accepting him into our lives, the loneliness associated with the longing to be understood can lessen. 

Reflections on his life from Camus

Here's to hope, faith, persistence and resilience at Christmastime and in the new year......

Reflections on life from Albert Camus. 

“My dear, 

In the midst of hate, 

I found there was, within me, 

an invincible love. 

In the midst of tears, 

I found there was, within me, 

an invincible smile. 

In the midst of chaos, 

I found there was, within me, 

an invincible calm. 

I realized, through it all, that; 

In the midst of winter,

I found there was, within me, 

an invincible summer. 

And that makes me happy. 

For it says that no matter 

how hard the world pushes 

against me, within me, 

there’s something stronger,

something better, 

pushing right back. 

Truly yours, 

Albert Camus,” Summer in Algiers

Life is a one-way street

Our lives are often referred to as the 'roads' or 'paths' we're on. Moving through life does feel like being on a road, albeit with detours that can track us off or lead us back eventually to the main road. The main road should include a sign that reads 'destination unknown'. Because although we're moving straight ahead, it's not always clear what our destination is. Some would say heaven or the afterlife, some would say a void if they don't believe in an afterlife, and others don't give it much thought at all. All of us keep plodding forward, although the word plodding implies heaviness and grimness. Life can weigh us down at times with its problems, so it's not always easy to have a light step. 

Whether we walk lightly or doggedly, one thing is certain. There is no reverse, no going back. We can't walk backward, can't reclaim past years, can't go back to living in the past, as much as we might like to sometimes when life gets difficult. Sometimes, the desire is strong to return to a time when life seemed less burdened, less weighed-down with societal and personal issues. But the reality is that they were there too in the past; we just tackled them differently because we were younger and the whole of life was still ahead of us. We were naïve in a good way; we didn't have the life experience that we do now. Perhaps we reacted more impulsively to certain situations on which we would use more careful consideration now. It's hard to know for sure. 

Although we can't walk backward into the past, we can walk more lightly when we forgive ourselves and others on the road with us. Forgiveness of others lightens our burdens; it unencumbers us. It clears the path ahead for new experiences, new adventures, kinder lives, and gentler spirits. We don't walk alone on our one-way street of life; we walk together with those we love and care about. 

Inclusive workplaces?

One of the trends/ideas that surfaced in my former workplace around fifteen or so years ago was the idea of having the workplace be inclusive. I googled the term 'inclusive workplace' recently, and this is what popped up as the first link: Inclusive Workplace - Canadian Association for Supported Employment

An inclusive workplace is more about culture than anything else. It is about creating a workplace where everyone is treated with respect and valued for their contributions. In an inclusive workplace, colleagues and customers are treated with dignity, respect and equality, and these values are reflected in the company’s mission and vision. Policies and procedures are implemented and managed so that employees’ rights are preserved.

It sounds nice, reads well, and leaves a good taste in your mouth. My question is what happens when workplaces are not inclusive even when they purport to be so? When it's all talk and no action? When there are no consequences for treating employees disrespectfully? What then? What happens when a disrespectful culture is what defines a workplace? What happens to employees' self-esteem and sense of self when they are not valued for their contributions?

I bring this up because today I met with a former colleague whom I haven't seen in a while. She still works at my former workplace but wants to retire soon. It's been three years since I left my workplace behind, and I don't miss it. More specifically, I don't miss the workplace culture. I don't miss the lack of real interest in employees, the lack of interest in their contributions, the many indifferent leaders, or the unending talk about change and how employees should just acquiesce to leaders' wishes. I don't miss the tasks that were assigned to me that ended up stranded halfway because they were tasks that required the collaborative efforts of several individuals. In other words, they were not tasks that one person alone, without personnel or a budget, could perform. It was sad, really, because I poured my heart and soul into several of them, but without support from above and below, they ended in limbo. Luckily, I could focus on my cancer research projects, and they were successful because they were well-designed and supported. I wouldn't have had it any other way, since being a research scientist was my chosen profession. I did not study science for many years and pursue a doctoral degree to become an administrator, but that's what my department would have preferred I ended up as. But had they really wanted that, they would have supported me with personnel and a budget. As it was, I had to supply my own budget for a specific department activity by writing a grant proposal for it. That was my initiative and I got grant support, not for myself, but for my department. All well and good, but this is not how things should have been run. Money should have been appropriated by my department for the task at hand. My department never had much money to spare. It was chronically overstaffed with mediocre leaders and understaffed with competent employees who knew what they were doing and who were willing to work with me on solving some of the departmental issues. In the end, we concluded that the department talked a good fight but couldn't 'put their money where their mouth was', as we say in the States. Sad, because some of the tasks could actually have been successfully accomplished and finished. 

My point with this post is that my former workplace was not really interested in inclusiveness. You were left on your own, left alone, to work it all out. Emphasis on alone. I spent most days alone in my office. I don't envy others as a rule, but when I hear people describe their workplaces in glowing terms, I envy them. I wish I had had another type of experience during the past decade; I wish that I hadn't felt abandoned, ignored, bypassed or irrelevant. I have gained a perspective and understanding now that I no longer work there. How much of it had to do with age and how much of it had to do with a dysfunctional workplace, I'll never know. I do know that the turnover rate among lower-level employees was high. I do know that there was a lot of dissatisfaction among many employees. Many of them said and still say (when I meet them socially) pretty much what I've written here; they did and do not feel appreciated by their leaders, and many of them worked very hard, so laziness was not an excuse for the disrespect. It's odd how a dysfunctional culture can gain traction and then end up permeating every aspect of one's work life. It's odd when you gain perspective after no longer working there--that the workplace wasn't an inclusive one. Had it not been for one leader (a friend of mine) who worked there briefly and tried her best to change the culture (and failed) during the last four or five years of my work life, those years would have been among the loneliest ever. I have a friend here, in her early sixties, who is still working and feels that she still has a lot to give. She doesn't want to retire. But she is treated poorly by her workplace (not my former workplace); she is bypassed, ignored, and frozen out of major decisions. She calls it harassment. I think it is. But nothing will change and she will end up leaving that workplace because as one person, she cannot fight a team of indifferent leaders who don't care about her or whether or not she is happy at work. It's pervasive, the non-inclusive workplace. But it's more common than one might think. 

Winter darkness

The darkness of winter is beginning to descend upon us now. Saturday December 21, which is the winter solstice, will be the shortest day of the year. We are already beginning to experience shorter days, with today's sunrise at 8:39 am and sunset at 3:28 pm. I remember when I first moved to Oslo in the late autumn of 1989. It was difficult to get used to the shorter days, even though the days get shorter in New York too. But not as short as in Oslo. For example, in Manhattan, today's sunrise was at 6:54 am and the sunset will be at 4:30 pm. In other words, sunrise is almost two hours earlier in NYC and sunset about one hour later in NYC compared to Oslo. Of course that makes a difference to your body. 

I remember that I was tired a lot during the first winter I lived here. The darkness didn't bother me in any other way. I didn't suffer from SAD (seasonal affective disorder), which is a kind of winter depression. But I missed the longer days, or at least my body did. And now, having lived here for over thirty years, I finally understand why Norwegians are almost sun-worshippers once the summer comes. I've become one as well. The summers are the complete opposite of winters--long days with a lot of light. That too took some getting used to. If we were out on the town partying until 1 or 2 am in the 1990s, we'd come home and try to sleep, and it was hard because at mid-summer, the sun was already starting to shine. For example, on June 20 of this year, which was the summer solstice and the longest day of the year, sunrise in Oslo was at 3:53 am and sunset at 10:43 pm. And even when the sun goes down at almost 11 pm, the light in the sky doesn't really fade away until around midnight. That's the nice part of summer, because if the weather is nice and warm, you can sit in the garden until at least 11 pm if you want to. 

I hope we have fewer gray days this winter than last winter. Last winter was one of the worst in memory, and I'm not the only one who feels that way. Many Norwegians I know feel the same. It was a cold, icy, snowy and gray winter that began in mid-October. This year we've been lucky; we've had a mild autumn, with temperatures around 50 degrees F throughout most of October and well into November. It's only really the last week or so that temperatures have dipped below freezing. Today we were back up to around 50 degrees F. 

Whatever this winter brings, I'm prepared. I bought several down-like vests, a new long outer down-like coat with a hood, new studded boots so that I can walk on the ice (I can flip the studs in and out as needed), and thermal gloves. But I'm still hoping for a mild winter with very little snow. I can't do much about the darkness though. 

Caring for the birds in winter

The natural world keeps our hearts and minds calm and sane. In this poem, it is a crow that changes the mood of the observer, who is having a bad day. The simple act of shaking snow down onto the observer saves the rest of his otherwise bad day from being a total loss. Nature has a way of doing that. Of course the crow has no way of knowing that nor did it shake down the snow deliberately. Birds are interesting creatures that open a window onto the natural world. I love watching them in the garden during the summer months, as I've written about before. So many different birds--sparrows, magpies, crows, small robins, blue tits, bullfinches--the list is long. Sometimes seagulls show up, but not often. 

This winter, I'm going to go to the garden every other day to feed the birds. I haven't done that before, although I do feed the birds that land on the balcony outside our kitchen window. Those birds are mostly pigeons, although we do get a few magpies and sparrows too. They all love sunflower seeds. I bought a nice and presumably sturdy standing bird feeder station on Amazon (where else do you get such a wide selection?) and am waiting for it to be delivered. I'll find a good place for it in the garden once I get it. Here is a link to the feeder if anyone else is interested in buying something similar: Urban Deco Bird Feeding Station With Feeders - Bird Feeders Hanging Station Heavy Duty Bird Feeder Pole With Bird Feeders For Small Birds - Bird Feeder Stand With Bird Bath Tray And Bird Feeder Tray : Amazon.co.uk: Garden

Caring for the birds in winter is important for so many reasons. They are little creatures who grace our lives with their beauty and their antics. They make us laugh, but they also make us ponder nature's ways. A world without birds, without their squawking and chirping and singing, would be a dead world. They make us forget ourselves, forget our trials and tribulations, for a few moments. It is worth taking care of them just for that alone. 

Reflections on the two greatest commandments

I reflected on this passage from the New Testament yesterday, which was the gospel reading at mass, after listening to the priest's sermon yesterday morning. 

Matthew 22:36–40

[36] “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” [37] And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. [38] This is the great and first commandment. [39] And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. [40] On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” 

In these unsettling days of political rancor and vitriol, I thought about what the first commandment means for each of us. The priest said it best. It means that every aspect of our daily lives is infused with a love of God. Every aspect. That means that we live aligned with the precepts of God. We live aligned with the life of Jesus. It is the goal of our short life on this earth. It was the way that the priest said it that made me sit up and take notice. Every aspect of our life should be infused with an awareness of God, in the sense that what we are doing at any given moment could be an opportunity for the recognition of God in our lives. God is in the wings of our daily activities. God is the background, God shows us how to love. It means being aware, awake, having a good heart, being kind, humble, and respectful, and willing to serve others, because by being all these things, we show our love for God and for ourselves. That makes possible the second commandment, to love our neighbors as ourselves. Because it is not possible to love others without first loving God and then ourselves. That love of self is what provides the basis for all other earthly love. Love of God comes first, and because God loves us, we can love ourselves, and can thus love our neighbors. 

We are not loving God, ourselves, or our neighbors when we promote hatred and deliberately seek turmoil, when we are instigators of hate and vitriol in our lives and the lives of others. I have known a number of Catholics up through the years who felt that their church attendance on Sundays made them good Catholics. The other six days of the week they could do and say as they liked. They could make racist statements, be foul-mouthed, could behave unethically at work if necessary (the ends justify the means), and could be aggressive, domineering and even violent toward family members. I cannot presume to know the mind of God, but I have a hard time as a human being understanding that church attendance alone made them good Catholics. Yet I've never, in all my years of church attendance, heard this theme discussed in a sermon. Why? Why are priests afraid to take up this topic? Nowadays, the same can be said for the anti-abortionists; if you are anti-abortion, you are a good Catholic/Christian. But if you are against social welfare plans for taking care of young children in need, elderly people in need, sick people and disabled people in need, when you criticize sick people for being lazy, where are your Christian values then? Doesn't being pro-life mean being pro-all life? 

My father used to quote GK Chesterton, who said that The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried. My father passed away nearly forty years ago, and my mother over twenty years ago. They were both Christian people who tried in the best way they knew how to instill Christian values in their children. They never had much money, never owned a home, and were never the top dogs in the workplace. But they were good, solid people, with solid values and kind hearts. I cannot ever remember them verbally attacking people of other races and creeds. They were not foul-mouthed people. They were generous and hospitable and literate, interested in good books and good conversation. Were they perfect? No. But they were people who were aware of the presence of God in their daily lives. I've written a lot about my parents through the years and will continue to do so. They are my inspiration when it comes to living a Christian life. 

The four important F's

My friend Cindy, who is a retired minister, sends me different spiritual and inspirational reflections as she comes across them and thinks I might like them. She sent me this little piece of wisdom a few weeks ago that I've shared further with other friends. It's essentially a statement of what is important in life, lest we forget at times. 

FAITH, FAMILY, FRIENDS, FITNESS

Basically all the things we need to have a good life, not a good materialistic life, but a good spiritual life. Again, no judgment as far as materialism goes, but when we have all we need in that department and still feel unfulfilled, why is that? It's what Matthew Kelly calls 'the want beyond the want'. We want more than a materialistically-comfortable life. We want a family that we love and that loves us, likewise good friends whom we love and who love us. And then there is our faith in God, which underlies all of the other things. Our faith shows us the importance of real love for others, and for ourselves. Our bodies should reflect self-care, not in an obsessive way, but in a respectful way. Don't abuse, overuse, or overdo anything that could harm the body. Physical fitness goes hand in hand with mental and spiritual fitness. It's a good place to start to get in touch with what we really want. God gives us all we need to get started. We simply have to pay attention to the call, to get outdoors, to walk, to appreciate the beauty of nature, to do something that gives us balance and peace. We have to have faith that we are important to others and to God. We are. 

September in New York

My annual trip to New York this year was taken a bit later than usual. I normally travel during the last week of August/first week of September, but this year, in connection with a high school reunion that was scheduled for Saturday September 21st, I arrived in New York on September 18th. My friend Judy, who lives in Oregon, also planned to attend the reunion, so we decided to meet in Manhattan for two days before heading north for our reunion. We stayed at the Warwick Hotel on West 54th Street, where I stayed last year when I met my friend Cindy who flew in from Illinois for a visit. On the first day of our two days together, Judy and I walked the 1.45 mile-long High Line (Visitor Info | The High Line) in perfect weather--sunny and warm, and then walked down to the Memorial (The Memorial | National September 11 Memorial & Museum (911memorial.org) at the site of the former World Trade Center Twin Towers, where we visited the Pools and then the Oculus (Oculus Transportation Hub | World Trade Center (officialworldtradecenter.com). The following day we walked through Central Park starting at Columbus Circle and exited at East 79th Street in order to visit the Metropolitan Museum of Art, where we spent the better part of an afternoon. In the evening, we went to see the biographical musical Hamilton at the Richard Rodgers Theater on West 46th Street, which was superb. I had been a bit sceptical about seeing it because there was a lot of rapping, but suffice it to say that it blew me away--both music and lyrics. When we exited the theater and walked back to the hotel via Times Square, we were both amazed at the vibrancy, energy and life of the city and of the people hanging around there. It brought to mind the old saying--New York is the city that never sleeps. That seemed to be the case at around 11 pm on a Friday night in September. 

Our high school reunion on Saturday proved to be an enjoyable one; of the one hundred or so students we graduated with, about twenty-five attended the afternoon brunch that was held at a restaurant in Yonkers. It was fun to catch up with everyone, although three hours was too short a time to really talk in depth with everyone. I don't know if there will be future reunions; I doubt it, but who knows? At least ten of our classmates have passed away in the intervening years. It's hard to believe it's been fifty years since we all graduated from high school. 

After the reunion, I had lunch at Harvest on Hudson (Harvest on Hudson | Italian Restaurant in Hastings, New York (harvesthudson.com) with my friends Gordon and Mary-Ann, both of whom I know from my Memorial Sloan-Kettering Days, and spent some time with Jola, also from my Memorial Sloan-Kettering Days. I also managed to meet Stef for lunch at Horsefeathers (Home | horsefeathers (horsefeathersny.com) in Tarrytown. Horsefeathers has been around since 1981 and was the site of many a get-together with family and friends when I lived in New York. And then I spent the remainder of my time in New York at my second home--Jean's house. I always look forward to being there. Maria came down from Albany and we all hung out together as we love to do. We made a trip to the small town of Pawling in upstate New York, had lunch there and then wandered around the small shops. The following day we spent the afternoon with Maria's sister Margarete and her son Zac. I always return to Oslo from New York in a happy frame of mind and with a lot of energy to spare. That's because I am together with close friends and family. Just being together with people who truly know and love you is a gift from God. I know that's true because our get-togethers are blessed with grace, understanding, peace, and love. We love each other in the best possible way--acceptance of who we are, where we are in life, what we believe in, and genuine wishes for the others' happiness and wellbeing. I've said it before many times, but I'll say it again--I cannot imagine my life without my close friends. God has been good to me and I am grateful for them. 

I'll post some photos of my trip in my next post. 

Thoughts and prayers and reflections on mass school shootings

The recent Georgia shooting once again has shifted the focus off the victims and onto the shooter--Colt Gray--a teenage boy with a disastrous home life. Yes, he had a terrible upbringing. But not everyone who has such an upbringing finds a gun and kills his or her peers and teachers. And while I'm commenting on these types of shootings, has it ever occurred to anyone that the majority of shooters are teenage boys and not girls? I'm not sure why this is. 

What kind of father buys a mentally-troubled son an automatic rifle (AR15) for Christmas? An evil father is the answer. If you read M.Scott Peck's People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil, you'll find that he describes such a family--parents who bought their (suicidal) son a gun for Christmas. They were all in therapy with Peck for some reason, but Peck described the parents as evil for essentially placing an instrument of death into their son's hands. As if to say to him, 'feel free to kill yourself'. The book was published in 1983, before the age of social media and school shootings. Peck found dealing with the parents very unsettling and held out little hope for the possibility that they could change. The entire case bothered him enough to write about it. 

The father of the Georgia shooter has stated that he bought his son a gun because he wanted him to stop playing video games and get outdoors. I can think of a hundred other ways for him to entice his son to spend time outdoors--teach him how to swim, boat, surf, camp, golf, ride a motorcycle, grow his own food, etc. There are a myriad of activities that this teenager could have participated in, but no, it had to be hunting animals for sport, which in my book is already questionable. Why do you need to shoot animals for sport, and why do you need an automatic rifle to kill them? Why make a hunter out of someone who has an unstable home life and personality to boot? Because you yourself are an unstable and aggressive individual with anger issues. It's only natural to pass that along to your children and to defend doing so. 

If I were the parents of murdered schoolchildren, I would be furious if someone offered me 'thoughts and prayers' in response to losing my children. There are too many thoughts and prayers, and while it's fine to pray for the victims of tragedies, it's not enough. Not for the parents and families of the dead. Not for the parents and families of all of the 50 dead individuals from all of the school shootings this year alone. Fifty people dead because young people who should never had access to guns, got access to guns. But God forbid we change the laws and make it nearly impossible for them to get access.

One possible solution? When parents buy a gun and have children in the home, they should have to sign a statement saying that they will be responsible for use of said gun by their children, should that happen. They will be legally and financially responsible for any injuries and/or deaths caused by said gun if fired by their children. Families of the victims should be able to sue the gun owners and the gun store owners in order to receive reparations. Only when we begin to force parents who are gun owners to ante up, will there begin to be some changes.

Childless cat ladies and Catholic-school nuns

I wonder if JD Vance thinks about what he says before he opens his mouth. In that respect, he and Trump complement each other. Neither of them really thinks before he speaks. That was a golden rule in my house growing up--think before you speak. Another rule was--if  you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. Both Vance and Trump could benefit from some introspection and reflection before they open their loud-mouthed traps. 

Much has been made of Vance's comments about childless cat ladies running the country. My first thought after his utterance was--WHO? Who is he referring to? Politicians? Teachers? Family members? Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, both powerful politicians, have children. Likewise Kathy Hochul, governor of New York State. In 2023, there were about 30% women in Congress; the overwhelming majority of Congressmen are men. Men run the USA, and that's true in pretty much any area of society you choose to look at. It's changed somewhat in scientific research and in the medical health field, thank God. So who is Vance referring to? Teachers? Grammar schools these days have many female lay teachers. Vance didn't grow up Catholic; he converted to Catholicism as an adult, so I doubt he meant Catholic school nuns, but in the rest of my post, I'll focus on them. 

If Vance had grown up Catholic, he'd probably have attended a Catholic grammar school, which in my day was governed by nuns (it didn't matter if they were Carmelite, Dominican, or Sisters of Mercy nuns). They ran the schools, often with an iron hand. They were disciplinarians, but also remarkably educated women, many with masters and doctoral degrees, who imparted their love of knowledge to us, or at least to those of us who were interested in gaining an education. I remember my senior year high school advanced biology teacher--Sister Margaret Costa. She is directly responsible for my choosing to major in biology in college, after having worked independently in her lab for one year, studying fruit fly genetics, learning how calculate chromosome loci, and studying population genetics and evolution. She provided instruction and the necessary supplies, and then left us on our own to get the intended results. If you made a mistake, you could start your experiment over, as long as there was enough time to do so. If you made a mistake, you learned from it. She didn't chastise us for making mistakes. And that's important, because in laboratory work, you make mistakes. You learn from them and you can start over. That was high school. In grammar school, girls were encouraged to open their mouths, to answer questions, to debate, to speak in front of the class. The female lay teachers were nowhere near as interesting as the childless nuns. Many of the nuns seemed to love children, in contrast to the female lay teachers, who were often uncaring and sometimes even mean. And that brings me back to childless cat ladies. I don't know if the nuns kept cats in their convents. If they did, I'm sure the cats had wonderful and pampered lives, with plenty of affection and love. 

Vance's assumption is that if you are childless, you don't understand family values or what children need, and that your childlessness makes you self-focused and selfish. He couldn't be more wrong. Just because you are childless does not mean you cannot or do not love children. It does not mean you cannot take care of children. It does not mean you don't value family life. I could not have my own children due to health problems when I was younger. But I have always enjoyed being around children. When I was a teenager, I worked at a daycare center for one summer, and loved it. I loved being around the kids, and several of them came to love me, one in particular. I will never forget him--Butch--who sought me out constantly so that he could sit in my lap. He felt protected by me, and of course when I was a teenager, I didn't understand that. I just knew that I felt great affection for him. He was an adopted child who later ended up on the wrong road and who died young. My heart twists with sadness when I remember him as a six-year old. When I was twelve years old, I started babysitting for the children in my neighborhood, and enjoyed that as well. And now I have a step-granddaughter whom I love. So it hurts when people say that childless women don't know how to raise children or how to care for them, or that they are selfish and not interested in promoting family values. It's simply not true. The nuns were childless (by choice of vocation) and were wonderful women, most of whom were good with children. If Vance has a problem with women like the nuns 'running the country' and being childless, he should push for changes in his church that allow priests and/or nuns to choose their vocation and to marry. But he won't. 

One last point. Many women with children have done and are doing lousy jobs of raising them, usually because if they are married, they are married to men who are not committed to family life or their wives. The wives take out their frustrations on their children. I saw a lot of this when I was growing up in my neighborhood. Men who were fooling around on the side and barely saw their children because of their so-called important careers. Men who drank and abused their wives and children. Are these family values? Are you automatically enrolled in the 'family values' program simply because you have children? You are not. You shouldn't have children for the sake of having children or because peer pressure around you forces you to have children, or because your parents and siblings nag you to have children. You should have children because you are in a committed relationship, where both parties love children and put their interests ahead of their own. You should have children because you enjoy family life. And family life is often messy and unpredictable. I applaud many younger men who have prioritized family life at the expense of their careers. Vance should focus more on changing federal policies to make it easier for men to make these choices, such that women could again begin to rely on the men in their lives when children come along. As it is now, I don't see how high-powered Wall Street careers are conducive to anything but greed and more greed. They are certainly not conducive to family life. I always remember my brother, God rest his soul, who was fired from one of his Wall Street jobs because he wanted to spend more time with his children. He got his wish at the expense of his health and eventually his life. He never regretted his choice, and I got a chance to see how much he loved his kids. It's not just women who can love and take care of their children; men too do a great job too of raising children. Why don't we as a nation make it easier for both men and women to raise children? Why focus only on childless women? Why stigmatize a group in this way? Why is there so much unkindness and ignorance in politics, society, and the world? 

The Ten Commandments explained for our Pharisee politicians

I don't need angry belligerent quasi-religious know-it-alls screaming to me and others about how we should live and behave in a Christian way. I know how to live and behave in a Christian way and have been doing so and trying to follow the tenets of my faith (Catholicism) since I was a child. I've met plenty of hypocrites who claim to be Christian. Therefore, a list of what I and many other women don't need from politicians who think they know it all:

• we don't need advice on sex, reproduction, having children, raising children, or taking care of a family
• we don't need advice about work life, career choices, time spent at work, time spent at home
• we don't need advice on how to spend money. We're doing just fine, thank you. We're not half as greedy as most of you
• we don't need men telling us how to live our lives, how to think, how to feel, how to act. We don't need your views thrust at us every time we turn around
• Here's some advice for you--get over yourselves or go to hell. Take your pick.

Here are the Ten Commandments listed up for those politicians who don't seem to understand their own hypocrisy and who need explanations for what they mean:

1. You shall have no gods before me.  
2. You shall not make any idols to worship.
3. You shall not take the Lord's name in vain. 
4. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.
5. Honour your father and your mother.
6. You shall not kill.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness.
10. You shall not covet your neighbour's goods.

It's hard to understand how current politicians can spout Christian rhetoric yet not live by it. The orange-haired man is worshipped as a god by the Republican Party (goes against commandment 1). Money is worshipped by most politicians whose greed and sliminess never cease to amaze me (goes against commandment 2). They put most ordinary average people to shame with their wealth, their homes, their private jets, their lives of luxury. Get over yourselves. How many of them go to church on Sunday, whether they be Catholics or Protestants (commandment 4)? How many of them have committed adultery and lied about it (commandment 7)? Adultery is not just reserved for the Democrats. How many of them can say that they have not stolen or lied to protect themselves and/or their families? Lying and hypocrisy (see commandments 8 and 9). Again, not just reserved for the Democrats. How many can say that they are not envious of others, often bitterly so? How many can say that they don't attack their competitors in a destructive way merely because they envy them their poll numbers or success (see commandment 10)?

The main commandment given by Christ was to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself. I am sure that if Christ was to return to our modern society, the modern-day Pharisees would find all sorts of fault with him--too liberal, too forgiving, too extremist, hangs out with the dregs of society, talks about visiting prisoners and the sick, despises using church buildings for business dealings. I could go on and on. Christ would be considered a dangerous radical, a hippie, a good-for-nothing living off society's wealth. The media and social media would have a field day with it all. We like to think we would accept Christ for who he is, but I don't think the majority would. Christ said "For I was hungry and you gave Me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave Me something to drink, I was a stranger and you took Me in, I was naked and you clothed Me, I was sick and you looked after Me, I was in prison and you visited Me." Doing all these things is a tall order for many who try their best to be caring and kind, but what Christ asks of us is likely to be considered extreme by many people. That's why it's not easy to be a true Christian. We were never promised that it would be easy. 

When the quasi-religious Pharisees of our time put their money where their mouths are and stop lecturing the rest of us, we may listen to you. But until that day, buzz off. When you approach your constituencies with humility and the will to serve your constituencies, come talk to us. When you decide to cut ties with and not make cushy deals with lobbyists in order to enrich yourselves, come talk to us. Until that happens, buzz off. And try your best not to hold your bibles upside-down when lecturing the rest of us on how to live.   

Gray and rain are the new normal, wind too

There's an autumnal feeling in the air, supported by weather forecasts predicting lower temperatures, several days of rain, and if no rain, cloudy and gray skies. And it's still only August 20th. Too soon. 

Gray and rain are the new normal. I cannot remember a summer that has been quite like this one--rainy days interspersed with a few sunny ones. We awake to mostly gray skies each day. It's been warm and humid for Oslo; temperatures in May, June and July hovered around 70 degrees during the day, with a few warmer days. So neither the garden nor I are complaining, just commenting. Although I am complaining a little bit, as too much grayness and rain can lead to depression. I know this first-hand, because when the sun comes out, I'm a different person--motivated, cheerful, energetic. All the things I'm not on gray days. The Norwegians have a saying--det finnes ikke dårlig vær, bare dårlig klær. Translated it means, there is no such thing as bad weather, only bad clothing. Essentially, you should learn to dress for bad weather since it can suddenly be a reality when you are outdoors. I don't agree with this statement; bad weather exists independently of the type of clothing you wear. You cannot prepare for all eventualities. It's a statement meant to keep you positive about weather developments. It has the opposite effect on me, and when people say it to me thinking that it will cheer me up, I want to clobber them. 

Weather has become the main topic of conversation among most people. People are constantly checking their weather apps on their phones. I know I do several times a day, wondering when the rain is going to start, or if a sunny day is predicted, when the gray clouds will roll in. Because they usually do at some point. 

Wind is the other new normal. Wind has become a part of life when it never was before. I began to notice this a couple of years ago, because being out on our boat has become an iffy affair for me. I don't like being out on the water when it's windy: I don't like the resultant waves and choppiness. Back in the 1990s, there were weeks with stable, sunny, non-windy weather. Temperatures may not have been hot, but it was warm and nice outdoors and wind was not a problem. Gray skies were not so prevalent either. Who knew it would change so much in our lifetime? 

The weather has become erratic. One nice day followed by several days of grayness and rain. Storms are now much more intense and more frequent than when we were children. The frequency of hurricanes has increased, likewise the frequency of tornadoes. In other parts of the country and in other countries, there are forest fires and wildfires that produce smoke that enters the atmosphere, changing the weather patterns, like last year when the Canadian wildfires sent smoke into the northeast US states. The fallout of hurricanes on the northeast coast of the USA has become dangerous--storm surges, flooding, high winds, and rain. Lots of rain. Not to mention what the hurricanes do to Caribbean and the parts of the world where they originate. The recent fallout from hurricane Ernesto led to flash flooding in Connecticut that killed two women. Major highways in NY and NJ were closed due to flooding. Flights were cancelled. People who live in basement apartments were told to seek higher ground. 

Erratic weather is a reminder that we live on a planet in a solar system that is constantly changing. Our planet is changing. Climate change is real, whether it is natural or man-made. What difference does it make whether we created it or whether it would have occurred anyway? The fact of the matter remains is that we're in the middle of it and have to deal with it. And it's not going to be an easy task. 

Men who mistreat women

The Norwegian monarchy has come in for its share of criticism lately, what with the upcoming wedding of the king's daughter to a shaman, and the recent revelation that the son of the future queen has a (alleged) penchant for abusing the women in his life. Normally I don't care at all what goes on in the monarchy; I grew up in a country that went to war to rid us of the British monarchy. In this day and age kings and queens are good for PR but they have nothing to do with running a country. Thankfully. The current king and queen are good and decent people who have represented Norway well. I am sure that they are quite shellshocked by the recent doings of the future queen's son. 

Firstly, a young man who allegedly abuses women in this manner is not only a coward but a morally-weak person. He does not deserve any leniency at all as far as the criminal justice system goes. If he did what he is alleged to have done to one woman in particular--the most recent casualty--he borders on being a psychopath and is a danger to others. Hardly to himself; these types tend to put themselves first, being the egocentric moral vacuums and emotional vampires that they are. He seems to enjoy behaving badly when he is under the influence of alcohol and cocaine. I've seen enough aggressive and mean alcoholics in this country to last me a lifetime. I saw a few of them when I was a child too, so it's not necessarily country-specific. However, what is different here is how quickly some people 'turn' when under the influence of alcohol. Like Jekyll and Hyde. It's scary. 

Secondly, men who abuse women physically and psychologically deserve a special place in hell. When such abuse happens in your twenties (as in this case), it can scar you for life. It destroys trust, hope, faith, and belief in a better life and in a better relationship. One thing that helps is to talk about what happened with family and friends, as was the case here. And then to get the police involved, because physical abuse of others is a crime and should be prosecuted as such. The young women (two more have revealed similar instances of abuse by the same young man) are being interviewed by the police, as well they should. I'm hoping these women press charges so that this moral vacuum of a man will be forced to have his day in court. A reckoning. He will definitely have it when he meets his maker. Do I feel any compassion for him? No, I don't. And I doubt I ever will. Perhaps his mother can forgive him; perhaps his ex-girlfriends will be able to do the same one day. But I doubt it. 

This young man has now lawyered-up and it's anyone's guess if he will face prosecution. He did issue a statement saying he was sorry for behaving in this manner to his (now ex-) girlfriend (much like Diddy, another pathetic excuse for a real man, or Johnny Depp). The only reason Diddy made a statement was because there was a video that went viral of him abusing his former girlfriend, kicking her while she lay on the hotel floor in front of the elevators, and him dragging her by her hair back to their hotel room from which she had tried to escape. Another man under the influence of God knows what combination of drugs and alcohol. Another man who said that this violent person is not who he really is. Really? If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. He, and all the other abusers, do what they do because they get away with it for the most part. The women don't press charges; they should. The men blame the women (she nagged me, she made me do it). If it's true that the women nagged them, I can only imagine why (please stop drinking, please stop doing drugs, please stop yelling at me, please just talk to me). And if you are that unhappy with the women in your life, for God's sake, get a divorce or end the relationship. But no, you need to have complete power and control. Because in the end, abuse is all about power and control. I can hurt you, so I will, to keep you in line, to keep you under my thumb. The world would be a much better place without these aggressive tyrants who poison the lives of those with whom they come into contact. 

I made a decision a while ago, and have mostly stuck to it, that I will never travel to countries that do little or nothing to stop abuse of women. And I've traveled a fair amount in my life; those countries will never see my money. I'm not listing those countries here; it's easy to go online and google 'countries that have the highest rates of abuse of women'. I'd love if the tables turned, just once, so that male perpetrators experienced the abuse these women experienced. Then perhaps they would understand how harrowing it really is. Laws need to change, to become more stringent. The length of prison terms needs to increase drastically. We don't need to go backwards to a time when women 'obeyed' men. I find all of that kind of talk pure nonsense. If women can't live in a world where they can expect the same treatment under the law as a man, then they're better off single. Perhaps that's one reason why an increasing number of women don't want to marry or have children. It should at least be considered. 

The Paris Olympics

Apropos my last post, about unity being dead in the USA. The USA is not the only country with such problems. France has had its share of divisive politics and events over the past few years. The Paris Olympics seems to have united the country, at least for the time period within which the Games were held. The Paris Olympics were wonderful. Of course it helped to have Paris as the 'background' against which all else occurred. But it was mostly the Games themselves. They were riveting and exciting, with athletes whose excellence shone at every turn. It was a thrill to watch them perform. I haven't watched the Olympics (winter or summer) in years; I can't tell you why this one appealed to me. But it did. I was so impressed with Team USA's performances and wins. It made me proud of my country to see them do so well. Apparently many in the USA are in agreement with me; apparently it was the most-streamed Olympics of all time (Paris Olympics ratings soar 82% over Tokyo Games, delivering big boost to NBC’s Peacock streamer | CNN Business). Here in Norway, we streamed the games on MAX (formerly HBO Max), which did a great job. What was nice was that we were able to watch what we wanted when we wanted--live events and past events. We looked forward to our evening viewing. MAX did a very good job and provided a good overview of what was going on. 

What was also nice was that for two blessed weeks, the media didn't focus ad nauseam on the angry orange-haired man and his sidekick clone. We didn't have to hear about the former's latest tantrum/tirade. We could ignore it in favor of something that actually united the country. Thank God for that. In fact, thank God for two blessed politics-free weeks. We were able to breathe easy and relax. Relax. That's something very few of us do anymore. Of course the media tried their darndest to make a scandal out of everything, including the opening ceremony's alleged parody of the Last Supper. If it was indeed that, it was disrespectful and unnecessary. If it wasn't, it was a tempest in a teapot. I found that entire segment boring; in fact, the entire opening ceremony could have been cut down to three hours and that would have been fine. But I'm not going to nit-pick the entire opening ceremony. It is what it is. None of the opening or closing ceremonies are ever spectacular shows. The Paris Olympics closing ceremony ended on a beach in LA with Snoop Dogg and Dr. Dre singing and a scantily-clad young woman twerking to the music. Vulgar in my book, unless you like women twerking. I don't. But hey, that's all part of it. Something for everyone, I guess. I enjoyed the segment with Tom Cruise, with Cruise doing what Cruise loves to do most in this world--jump from high places, into a packed stadium and out of a plane. God bless the guy; he's 62 and in better shape than most 62-year olds I know. I wouldn't do any of it, but I enjoy watching him do it. 

Los Angeles 2028--we'll see what time brings. In the meantime, I hope to make another trip to Paris in the coming years. After having seen it now for two weeks, I look forward to returning to the city. I've been there four times, twice with my friend Gisele who passed away last October. I know she would have enjoyed watching these Olympics and seeing Paris. Had she lived and been well, she would have bought an apartment in Paris; that was her dream that sadly did not come true. As I was watching these Olympics, I thought of her and our wanderings around Paris--eating, shopping, visiting museums, taking a bus tour to champagne country and visiting Versailles. My husband and I have been to Paris twice; the first time we went to the Moulin Rouge to see a show. We've also walked around Paris, visited Versailles, and taken a boat trip on the Seine. All of these are nice memories that the Paris Olympics brought back for me.  

Watching the Paris Olympics

Let's see.......while we were on vacation, the world situation continued on its present path and in some instances, worsened. The saving grace since we returned home has been watching the Paris Olympics. I watched the entire opening ceremony and enjoyed it, although it could have been a hour shorter and no one would have missed some of the filler entertainment. I thought it was very cool that they used the Seine River as the basis for all that occurred. I know also that it was a risky decision, given that the weather is very unstable and unpredictable, everywhere you go these days. And as luck would have it, it rained for most of the evening. But we got to see some really good entertainment, capped off by a phenomenal performance from Celine Dion. The media have had mixed reactions to the opening ceremony, but I don't get hung up on all of that. If we stay focused on the impressive jobs the young athletes are doing, then the Olympics have been a success so far. The USA swimming and gymnastic competitors (women and men) are doing a fantastic job. Congrats to Katie Ledecky and Simone Biles and her team for outstanding work that led to their gold medals. Watching them win was thrilling. But it's also cool to see the other countries win gold--Leon Marchand--the swimmer from France (and their hero at present), and Sarah Sjostrom--the swimmer from Sweden, just to name two. 

I haven't been an avid Olympics watcher for many years. I don't know why this year I'm suddenly more interested. The number of daily events is overwhelming, so there's no possibility to watch more than a couple of sporting events and go about one's day at the same time. I grew up in a home that watched the Olympics, especially swimming, diving, track and field, and gymnastics. The USA currently dominates the medal board; I read today that as of July 31, the USA leads the medal count with 30 medals, followed by France with 26 and China with 19. That number of course will change over the coming days, but it's good to see a truly united USA doing so well. I wish that would apply to its politics. 

I root for my country to win, but I also root for other countries. I've always done that, even when I was young. Norway's beach volleyball team (men) is winning its games and is poised to take a gold medal eventually. Norway will also do well once track and field starts, as they have some truly excellent runners. It will be interesting to see how the USA does when those events begin. 

There's a positivity surrounding all sports events that is refreshing in this day and age. Perhaps that is one reason I am enjoying the Olympics--it's not all doom and gloom. The world still manages to unite in this way every four years without aggression, accusations, non-sportsmanlike behavior, etc. I'd like to think it could carry over into daily life. I'm optimistic, but I'm a realistic optimist, or an optimistic pessimist. However you look at life, if you have some time, check out the Olympics. There's something for everyone. 

Words to live by

I love this.....

Driving in downtown Oslo will drive you insane

Recently, my husband purchased a new electric bike at a store that just happens to be located in downtown Oslo. He asked me if I would drive him there because there are new traffic restrictions due to the closing of Ring 1 (the innermost traffic ring) and the bus routes have been changed. Additionally he's still getting over a sprained ankle and walking long distances would be uncomfortable, so I told him I would drive him. We both know what that entails. Generally speaking, we stay as far away from downtown Oslo as possible, at least where driving is concerned. And we've lived here for over thirty years. 

People don't believe me when I tell them that I'd rather drive in Manhattan or on the NJ Turnpike out to Newark Airport than drive in downtown Oslo. I've driven in Manhattan for years, have made my share of mistakes, but have always had the chance to turn right or left at the next traffic light and circle around the block. It helps that much of Manhattan is designed as a grid, with clearly-defined blocks, streets, and avenues. Not Oslo. It's an old city, so you would think they would cut motorists some slack for exactly that reason. You would think that they would allow for driving mistakes. They do not. After fifteen minutes of dealing with two-way streets that become one-way streets, streets that are only for bicycles and pedestrians, streets that are only for buses, trams and taxis, streets where you can't make a left in order to turn around--you're ready to vomit. I mean that literally. You're driving at the same time as you're trying to interpret all of the idiotic symbols for bikes, cars, trams, etc. You're left wondering where to go and how to get where you want to go. You consider pulling over to the curb and just abandoning your car. On my way home the other day, a trip that should take no more than ten minutes took me thirty minutes. I was on a road out of the city, after having passed the Opera and the Central Train Station, when I finally decided to make an illegal U-turn so that I could turn around. This, after having passed signs that prohibited me from making left and right turns. The only way I could proceed was forward. Both my husband and I agree that driving in downtown Oslo will make you nauseous because of the high level of anxiety and because your heart is constantly in your mouth. Driving in downtown Oslo will drive you insane, or if not insane, it will give you a heart attack and/or destroy whatever peace of mind you had at the start of the day. It's not for the fainthearted. 

Of course we're dealing with the Green Party when we talk about driving in Oslo. The Green Party doesn't want us to drive at all and has made it as difficult as possible with all of the restrictive traffic regulations and policies. Their stated goal is to rid the city of cars from the downtown area up to and including traffic Ring 2 by 2025. The level of insanity that currently exists will ensure that happens. People will give up rather than fight. The Green Party would rather you used bicycles, scooters, buses, and trams to get around. All well and good if Norway wasn't a winter country almost half the year. All well and good if public transportation worked every time you got on a bus or tram or train. I don't think they care too much that the downtown area stores will suffer from restrictive traffic policies. Delivery trucks will have a hard time (they complain already) delivering goods to stores. I guess the Green Party thinks that we should sit on our rear ends all day at all of the wonderful cafes that can be found in all of the closed-off pedestrian-only streets, drinking cappuccinos and eating pastries and gaining weight. Oh wait, you can do that in good conscience as long as you get back on your electric bike to bike home. 

I don't know what tourists think, but I can guess. My husband thinks driving in England on the left side of the road is easier than driving in downtown Oslo. If I was a tourist, I would do my homework and not rent a car in Oslo. There's no point. I'm not even sure I would rent a car to drive from Oslo out into the countryside. You need to know what you're doing--how to get out of the city and how to get back. Yes, we have Google Maps, Maps, Waze, etc. to help us. I don't know how much they will help, to be honest. Driving in Oslo approaches nightmare status. Bergen is no better. Who wants or needs the aggravation?