Is An Eye For An Eye Ever Justified?

As I’m sure you’ve heard/read/seen, the United States conducted a mission in which Osama bin Laden “passed away.” At first, I was quite shocked. Everything we’d been told about bin Laden was that he was . Moreover, he hadn’t been in the news in ages, and all of a sudden — boom. Then, I felt empathy. Yes, I understand that this person was seen as a security threat to the United States and in some cases, the world, but it is my belief that no matter the crime, taking life is never the solution, nor is it justifiable.

Some of the archived footage of President Obama talking about bin Laden ( and ) and just my general feelings about President Obama make me think that Obama’s original intention in this mission was not to take an eye for an eye. President Obama doesn’t seem like the kind of president who is out for ‘revenge.’ Rather, I think the initial intent was to capture. Some have already , and others think . Others still, think that for the United States (and the world). Other than some of the footage I’ve seen of Obama talking about bin Laden, and my own intuition, I have no hard evidence. There may be some out there, but I haven’t come across it. Mind you, I haven’t looked very hard, either.

The “An-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye… ends in making everybody blind,” is often to Mahatma Gandhi. In looking at the wiki article for “,” Jesus Christ is also quoted as saying: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’. But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” However, there is no reference to a specific passage from the Bible (or other book), so I don’t know if that’s accurate.

Byron Katie often says, “.” When I first heard that, it took me a some time to wrap my head around what that is really saying. Defense is the first act of war. So, not the aggressor, but the defender. Sounds a bit strange, yes? She’s so eloquent that instead of trying to paraphrase her ‘thoughts’ on the topic, I decided just to include a YouTube video of her talking about the concept:

While Katie is referring to defense in a communication-sense, I think that her ideas on this topic can be extrapolated to other areas of interaction. As an example: think about a school-yard bully. On the playground, the bully pushes another kid down. In one scenario, the kid gets up, retaliates, is seen by one of the people “on-duty” for lunch and is subsequently sent to the principal’s office. Another way this first scenario could play out is the two get into some sort of brawl whereby both are left injured. In the second scenario, the kid gets up and walks away. The kid does not allow the antagonism of the bully to get to her/him. The kid just ‘brushes it off’ and leaves the situation. More times than not, the bully, who is actually seeking some sort of reaction from someone, will not follow the kid as s/he walks away, but instead, will seek out another person to bully.

Now, the two scenarios I’ve presented leave little to be desired. Many people would want the kid to retaliate or have someone reprimand the bully for what they have done — and I can understand this. But looking at this scenario systemically, the problem is much deeper. The questions that need to be asked are less about the kid and the bully, and more about the environment’s in which these two roles have grown up in. That is, what kind of things are happening in the bully’s environment such that would make the bully more likely to be a bully and what kinds of things are happening in the kid’s environment such that would make the kid more likely to be bullied? If we begin looking into the roots of the problem, we see through the veil, so to speak, and gain a better understanding of the world around us, especially as it relates to ‘unrest.’

We Have To Do This! No, We Don’t. We Have to Take In Nourishment…

I was talking to my partner about still having to write a post today and she looked at me kind of funny. When she did, I noticed the error in my speech and proceeded to say, “I want to write a post today.”

A few years ago, there was a character () from that had a great line (from , for all you fans), which I think exemplifies the point I’m emphasizing:


Leonard: Shut up Howard! Sheldon, we have to do this.

Sheldon: No we don’t. We have to take in nourishment, expel waste, and inhale enough oxygen to keep our cells from dying. Everything else is optional.

While Sheldon is making an argument for getting out of going to give a presentation, he also makes a valid point that there really isn’t anything we have to do.

I often find the people I speak with tell me they (have) to do this or they have to do that, without realizing what it is that they’re saying – without realizing what it is that they’re committing themselves to. Remember I wrote about the importance of our words and . Think about the way your biology would respond to feeling required to do something, when it really wasn’t as dire as all that.

Really, do you really have to go to the next concert, concert, concert, or concert? Will your life be if you don’t go? I can understand really wanting to do something, but we now know the importance of our words on our biology, why would we unnecessarily over-stress the body with this over-the-top language?

I can understand that nobody’s perfect and from time-to-time, (like today), even I slip up and use language that I have been socialized into using. I’d like to think that most times, I catch it, but I’m fairly certain that there are times when I don’t. Even though I’ve read all that I’ve read on this subject, I still flub simple things like (having) to do something versus (wanting) to do something. I know that I may sound trivial, but while this difference seems minute, the subtle shift for your biology is tremendous.

Let’s think of it this way… Your are superior to [directly above] your kidneys. One of the main functions of your adrenals is to secrete hormones in response to stress. So, when your body is stressed (as interpreted by your brain), the sends a message to the adrenals to produce cortisol [] and epinephrine [] also known as adrenaline. As from Bruce Lipton’s “,” when our cells are ‘preparing for battle,’ they can’t be simultaneously taking in nutrients and growing.

So, the next time you think you have to do something, remember what that will do to your adrenals and the overall health of your body.

With Love and Gratitude

Dr. Emoto, love and gratitude, water crystal, healing intention, power of wordsAnytime I write something to another person, I nearly always end the message with: With Love and Gratitude. I’ve been asked on a number of occasions why it is that I do this. I usually give people the abridged version (spreading joy) or something like that. I thought it would be good to have a post here explaining why it is that I use these four words to sign off on what I’ve said. Initially, I will refer you to two posts I have already written here having to do with the importance of our words & thoughts (for ourselves and for others).

Sometime during the summer of 2005, I had the chance to see the documentary, What The Bleep Do We Know!? Much of what was offered in the film was not new to me (given my unique exposure to many esoteric influences while growing up), but there was something that I found uniquely interesting about one of the clips from the movie that I’ve included here.

Dr. Emoto, Masaru Emoto, Hidden messages in water, water messages, healing intentionAfter watching the documentary, I was so happy that there was science being done to “back-up” the sorts of things that I already thought to be true. During the Fall of that same year, I was able to get a copy of Dr. Emoto‘s book: “The Hidden Messages in Water.” I didn’t want to take what the movie was telling me at face value, so I wanted to read his book. After reading his book, I was confident that there had to be something to the experiments he was doing. So this is half the story. The other half involves a piece of synchronicity.

At the same time I was reading about Emoto’s work, I happened upon an email (or maybe I stumbled onto the site, I really don’t remember exactly how it happened) regarding “The Go Gratitude Experiment.”Go Gratitude Logo The ‘experiment’ was all about Gratitude. I really enjoyed getting the “42 knew views on Gratitude” [spelling intended] and I still have the emails they came in. Some of the work by the Go Gratitude folks has shifted over to a new website (Blooming Humans), but from what I can tell, it’s essentially the same message: Gratitude matters.

After reading Emoto’s book and pairing it with the knowledge from the “Gratitude Experiment,” I was so pleased that I printed off a document containing the words “Love & Gratitude” filling the page in size 80 font and taped the words in different parts of my room. I put one on each wall, I put one on the face of the shelf just above where my computer monitor was and I even put some in my closet and drawers (why shouldn’t my clothes radiate Love & Gratitude, right?)

At first, I was a little shy signing off emails to people “With Love and Gratitude.” It didn’t necessarily feel appropriate to have the word “love” in certain kinds of emails. That word can be quite ‘charged’ for some folks, and I didn’t necessarily want to invoke those sorts of feelings when they were reading my email. Eventually, as I got into the habit of signing off emails “With Love and Gratitude” to people, it would sometimes just slip out when signing off emails that were of a more business-like nature. As this started to happen more and more,Emoto, Masaru Emoto, hidden messages in water, water crystals, love and gratitude I began to realize that my initial trepidation was unnecessary. In fact, I began to relish sending emails to people as it allowed me the chance to say what I needed to say, with love and gratitude.

Since Emoto’s work was published, there have been a number of critics, which I suppose is to be expected, and some of them even raise important points. The clincher for me is Dean Radin. I’ve spoken about Dean Radin before a number of times on here. He is a Senior Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences and is the “author or coauthor of over 200 technical and popular articles, a dozen book chapters, and several books.” In 2006, Dean Radin (along with Emoto and other researchers) sought out to test the effects if distant intention on water crystal formation. They used a double-blind method (an experiment in which the experimenters and the participants both do not know which group is experimental and which is the control) and their results:

Results indicated that crystals from the treated water were given higher scores for aesthetic appeal than those from the control water (P = .001, one-tailed), lending support to the hypothesis.

A couple of years later, Radin set out to replicate the findings — again. This time, it was a triple-blind study. A triple-blind study is when the experimenters, the participants, and the evaluators, all, do not know who is receiving treatment and who is not receiving treatment. And again, their results:

Results suggested that crystal images in the intentionally treated condition were rated as aesthetically more beautiful than proximal control crystals (p = 0.03, one-tailed).

I had already believed the water crystal experiments to be true, but after reading the papers published by Radin, now I can be much more sure that they are true. So there you have it. Now you know why I sign-off my emails and comments with:

With Love and Gratitude


Dr. Emoto, love and gratitude, water crystal, healing intention, power of words

The Scientific Evidence for Telepathy: Psi Phenomena, Part 1

telepathy, esp, psychic, fortune teller, psi, I’ve touched on psi phenomena in a couple of other posts (What if we were all telepathic? and Would you take a pill to make you smarter?), but I didn’t really go into the details of what Charles Tart calls, “The Big Five.” In doing research for an upcoming series of posts on my thoughts of American public policy (which I briefly touched on here), I thought it might be good to also do a series of posts covering ‘the big 5,’ which are: telepathy, clairvoyance or remote viewing, precognition, psychokinesis, and psychic healing. I thought because I’d already touched on telepathy back in January, it would be best to start with it.

Let’s start with a definition. Telepathy is the scientific term for what some may call “mind-reading.” It is being able to pick up information from someone else’s mind. Some of the first scientific studies done in order to measure telepathy (in the 1930s) were done by J.B. Rhine, who is considered to be the father of modern parapsychology. He would have participants “read his mind” and guess the shape that was on the card he was holding (known as Zener cards). Rhine’s studies produced statistically significant results, time and time again. The one downfall to this method of experimenting is that it’s hard to know whether or not Rhine was measuring telepathy or clairvoyance (it is possible that the participants were divining the future [what card will turn up next?])

The second set of experiments conducted (starting in the mid-70s and still going on today) to test for telepathy are known as the Ganzfeld experiments. In these experiments, the participant would be subjected to sensory deprivation. To do this, the participant sits in a relaxing chair in a sound-proof room. The participant wears ping-pong balls that have been halved (and there is a red light that is shone on them). Ganzfeld Experiment, sensory deprivation, The participant also puts on a pair of headphones that play white noise. While in this state of sensory deprivation, another participant (the sender), will be shown random images that they will then try to mentally send to said participant. During the sensory deprivation period, the (receiver) speaks out loud and describes what they see. At the conclusion of the experiment, the participant is removed from the  sensory deprivation state and is then shown a number of random images and asked to identify the image that they were being sent. To insure internal validity, the two participants have no way of physically contacting each other during the experiment. Meaning, the sender can’t hear what the receiver is saying out loud. The results from these Ganzfeld experiments have, like the Zener cards before them, produced statistically significant results.

One of the more recent (and different) studies being conducted on telepathy is being done by Rupert Sheldrake. It is affectionately known as telephone telepathy. A common lay-person example of telepathy is knowing who is on the phone before you answer the phone. Sheldrake took this idea and made it into an experiment. In fact, you can even sign-up and do this experiment yourself! The experiment works like this:

  1. Register as an experimenter.
  2. Add friends.
  3. Call to initiate the experiment.
  4. A random friend is selected.
  5. Friend calls the experiment system.
  6. System calls the experimenter.
  7. Experimenter enters a guess.
  8. Call is connected.

Sheldrake says that the average success rate is 42%, “which is hugely significant statistically.” And he’s right. By sheer chance, in the way that Sheldrake has organized the experiment, you’d expect a success rate of 25%.

Sheldrake on Telepathy:

My research on telepathy in animals (summarized in my book Dogs That Know When Their Owners are Coming Home and published in detail in a series of papers (listed here) led me to see telepathy as a normal. . . aspect of communication between members of animal social groups. The same principles apply to human telepathy.

Rupert SheldrakeSheldrake also provides links to opportunities to contribute to the research of telepathy with both online and offline experiments (one of the offline experiments I mentioned above, telephone telepathy).

Because of the sheer volume of skepticism towards the field of parapsychology, the field has been subjected to extremely high standards. In all that I have read about telepathy (both from supporters and skeptics), it is clear to me that telepathy is not a fluke or a one-time event. Telepathy is a very real phenomenon. More than that, I believe, we all possess the ability to be telepathic.

Luongo and the Canucks Need Energetic Help!

I had the chance to watch the end of the Stanley Cup Playoffs . Vancouver won the first three games of the series and Chicago has won the most recent two. The coach of the Canucks pulled a bold move in benching his starting goaltender, , for game 6. It had seemed that the recent play of Luongo versus the Blackhawks in the last two games ( and ) where Luongo had let in 10 goals on 40 shots (for a save percentage of .750 over the two games) warranted a shake-up, in the coach’s mind. Typically, a good goalie will have a save percentage somewhere above .900 (meaning, the goalie will stop 9 pucks for every 10 shots he faces). Conversely, goalies who aren’t regarded so well, usually have save percentages that are below .900. Almost no starting goalies have save percentages below .850, much less .800!

Some fans have tried to draw meaning from patterns of Luongo’s play against the Blackhawks during other years of playoff games. For instance, last year, in the , Chicago was the team that knocked Vancouver out of the playoffs, winning 4 games out of the 6. In the final three losses of the series, Luongo allowed 16 goals (: 5 goals; : 6 goals; : 5 goals). His save percentage in those three games: .821.

In the , the Blackhawks, again, were the team that eliminated the Canucks from the playoffs, winning 4 games out of the 6. In , Luongo allowed 5 goals and in the game-deciding , Luongo allowed 7 goals. The evidence would lead one to believe that Luongo might have a tough time of it when the game is on the line, but I don’t think that’s the case.

In Luongo’s international play, he has , most recently during the that were held in Vancouver. Not only were the Olympics being held in Canada, they were being held in Luongo’s home building! This would also seem to negate the argument by some that Luongo has a hard go of things playing in his home building (looking at the stats, there seem to be more games where Luongo allows more goals when playing at home than playing on the road in the series against Chicago).

Luongo is not a ‘green’ or rookie goalie by any stretch of the imagination. He’s been around the block. In fact, he’s reached some pretty important milestones. Earlier this year, he became the . At the age of 32, he’s the 6th youngest goalie to reach 300 wins. In his NHL playing career, he’s never had a season with a save percentage below .900 and his career save percentage is .919, which puts him at . Some would argue that save percentage is a useless stat given that the career save percentage leaderboard is full of goalies playing in today’s modern hockey era. When looking at career leaders for (a system developed in an effort to more accurately measure a goalie’s performance), . When looking at the single season leaders for this same stat, (including the #1 single season).

So, to say that Luongo is not a good goalie would be a fallacy in the largest way. There has to be something else at play here. You can’t even really say that Luongo doesn’t perform when the game is on the line. In probably the , against the United States in the Gold Medal Game, in Canada, in his home arena, being watched by over two-thirds of the country — — that’s a big-time game. If he was going to crumble under pressure, it would have been there (he allowed 2 goals on 36 shots, save percentage = .944).

There really must be some other reason that Luongo can’t seem to exercise his “ghosts” with regard to playing against the Blackhawks in the Stanley Cup Playoffs. I haven’t watched all of these games (either this season or the last two seasons), so I can’t really say whether or not Luongo is being supported by his defense or if he’s just letting in what some would call “easy” goals. From just collecting some data for this post, it is clear to me that something else is at play.

There has to be some sort of energetic dissonance. Let me explain a little more. A few months ago, I wrote a post that briefly touched on and how there may be beliefs at play that affect the way players perform. Additionally, I pointed to the idea that there could also be a need for some work to be done on the energetic relationship of a team. There could be dissonance on an energetic level that requires work (just like when there are psychological issues you see a therapist). However, these energetic relationships are sometimes harder to see (with the naked eye). They need to be — for lack of a better word — intuited.

between the Canucks and Blackhawks is Tuesday night in Vancouver. I have no idea how well Luongo (or the Canucks) will play. If Luongo and/or the Canucks enlist the services of someone capable of effecting change on an energetic level, I have no doubt that the Canucks will win the game (as they have seemed to have been then better team all year — for the best record in the NHL). If the team fails to recognize that there is an energetic dissonance, it is quite possible that the Blackhawks send the Canucks to early “tee-times” for the third straight year.

Your Words and Thoughts Affect Others – Believe It!

A week ago, I did a post on how our and mentioned that I would be doing a post about how our words not only affect our reality, but the reality of others. In pulling together some outside resources for this post, I was quickly overwhelmed. There is an abundance of material that supports the fact that our words have contribute to the lives of those around us.

In 1993, came out with a book called “.” In it, Dossey explains prayer and healing, describes factors that influence the efficacy of prayer, and cites evidence that support the conclusions.

In 1998, Elisabeth Targ, daughter of famous American physicist, author, and ESP Researcher, , was part of a research team that did a study called: “.” The conclusion of the study:

These data support the possibility of a DH effect in AIDS and suggest the value of further research.

In 2000, researchers conducted a systematic review of the available data on the efficacy of all forms of distant healing in the . The article was called: “.” The conclusion of the study:

Given that approximately 57% of trials showed a positive treatment effect, the evidence thus far merits further study.

In 2003, researches from the published an article in called: “.” The conclusion of the article [emphasis added]:

Previous laboratory research in this domain suggests that DHI [Distant Healing Intention] effects warrant serious study, but most scientists and funding agencies are unaware of the evidence or the relevant literature. By following these evolving guidelines, researchers’ designs and their ultimate publications will conform more closely to the quality of standards expected by scientific journals, and such publications will in turn attract the attention of a broader range of scientists. This seems especially important for alternative healing research in general and for distant healing in particular;  both realms enjoy broad public support but have largely eluded serious attention by mainstream science.

There are even books that have been published that claim to teach the reader . One more study I wanted to mention was one done by the on the to work at a distance.

This pilot study shows that healing intent can be directed at distance, and suggests that healing by prayer is measurable.

Each year, more and more evidence is published to support the effect that our words and thoughts have on those around us. The is a good place to keep an eye on, especially their yearly conferences. Researchers come from all over the globe to talk about their findings with their colleagues. The that I mentioned earlier always has fascinating research that is relevant in this arena. These particular studies are focused on the effect that our words and thoughts have on the healing of others (at a distance). However, in the book I mentioned by Dossey, there’s a chapter called: “When Prayer Hurts: An Inquiry into ‘Black Prayer.'”

To close, I’ll share a first-person experience I had that demonstrates exactly what I’m talking about. During some sort of group bonding or orientation process, the facilitator had us all stand in a circle. He told us we were going to do a little experiment. He picked the smallest girl and put her in the middle of the circle and picked me (one of the stronger males of the group) to go outside and wait in the hall. While I was gone, he told the group that he was going to bring me back into the room and have me try and lift the girl in the middle of the circle and that they were to send positive thoughts and energy towards me. After a few minutes, he called me back in and asked me to lift the girl in the middle of the circle — swoosh! I lifted her with ease! It felt like I could have lifted her with one hand and swung her around like a rag doll.

The facilitator then said that was enough and asked me to put her down and go back out into the hall. While I was there, he asked the group to now send me negative thoughts and energy, while I was trying to lift the girl. He called me back into the room and I went to lift her. Nothing. I thought maybe I was just a little tired from lifting her before, so I steeled myself and got set… lift… and nothing. I couldn’t even get her heels off of the ground. The facilitator then went on to explain what had just happened. He explained to us the power of our thoughts and energy on those around us and more importantly, the power of a group of thoughts on one individual (or to extrapolate, on other groups).

Your thoughts and words have an impact on your life and your thoughts and words have an impact on the lives of those around you. Next time you catch yourself thinking something negative, will you replace it with a positive thought?

What Will They Think Of Us?

I don’t really remember much of the history I was taught in grade school or high school for that matter. Having been raised in the , I was taught a lot about the history of Canada. From what I remember, there was something about and , and that’s about all I can remember. Oh, one more thing. I remember one of my 8th grade teachers being really passionate about . Some may think less of me for not knowing the history of one of the countries I am a citizen in (and more importantly, grew up in), and to some degree they may be right.

During my undergrad, I took one in history that was called, “.” So, for 16 weeks, 3 hours a week, we covered everything that happened in the world up to the year 1500. Needless to say, I’m sure some things were brushed over. I do, however, remember talking about , , and . I remember covering the , the various kings, and even the . As a class, we really went through the material quite quickly and out of necessity. I wonder what future generations, say, 9 or 10 generations from now, will be studying when they look back on our time?

Will the scold us for being too concerned with our technology? Will they look back and laugh because we killed each other because we wanted money? How about if we killed because we looked different from each other? Will they wonder how we ever lasted so long working 40+ hour work weeks? Will they laugh at the idea of a “work week”? Will they be confused as to why we didn’t treat each other as equals? Will they be confused at how we live with nature? Will they look at our relationship to nature and wonder how we were ever able to get nutritious food from the Earth? Will they read with terror about how we didn’t treat the Earth (read: ) with more care? Will they wonder if we really knew what we were doing this whole time? Will they think we were “that” generation?

I didn’t realize the value of a survey course until long after I had taken it. The very definition of a survey course is that you’re getting a brief overview of a lot of material. I think it is important to have this overview of information to be able to make better decisions about things. Having an overview affords one the ability to better recognize how things interact with each other. For instance, one example from this could be the drive to make more money causes the 40+ hour workweek to be not only pushed from bosses, but welcomed by employees (as they can make more money).

As I remember back to these times I’ve had thinking about history, I wonder what future generations will think of us. How will we fit into the bigger picture of history? Will we be viewed favorably? Will we look foolish? Will we be commended as the generation that ended hunger? What about as the generation that ended war? How about the generation that in one felt swoop, lifted every man, woman, or child, out of poverty, and into a state of abundance? I believe that we can do this. I believe that we have the power and we have the technology.

Given that we have the ability to solve so many of the world’s problems — I wonder what they will think of us… if we don’t.

Earth Day is Every Day

Forty some odd years ago, United States Senator from Wisconsin, called for an environmental to be held on April 22nd, 1970. During that year, over 20 million people participated. Many great things happen each year on Earth Day, most of which all have to do with the Earth in some way. It is estimated that over . I think it’s great that we have a ‘day’ dedicated to the Earth, but shouldn’t everyday be Earth Day?

In doing some research for this post, I found something rather interesting that speaks to humans being . When Earth Day was first organized in 1970, it coincided with the centenary of , who established the world’s first officially socialist state. In some of the news reports after the event, Time has a quote from a delegate from Mississippi of the Daughters of the American Revolution: “” How off-the-wall is that? “…Live in an environment that is good for them…” Oh, the humanity, right? It just goes to show that people searching for a conspiracy will always find a conspiracy.

Given that it was Earth Day, I decided to go and take the to see what my carbon footprint was like. I remember doing this several years ago in a globalization class I took during my time as an undergraduate. I was a little disappointed to see that the number of Earths it takes to live my lifestyle has gone up (even slightly) and I would rate myself on the low-end of most Americans, in part, because I live in Hawaii.

When was the last time you ? I haven’t planted a tree since I was in grade school and that’s a little embarrassing coming from someone who prides himself on “loving” the Earth. If you haven’t planted a tree, have you done something else for the Earth today? When I used to live in a city, I would often pick up trash that I saw circling the streets. I know, it’s not much, but it was my way of contributing to the health of the planet. More than that, if I saw something that was recyclable on the top of the garbage pile, I would pick it up and place it into the proper bin, (which was usually a few steps away). I’m reminded of a scene in the movie Independence Day near the beginning of the film where one of the protagonists is an environmental buff who keeps finding one of his co-worker’s coke cans in the garbage when the recycling bin was a few steps away.

Today’s post has been a bit of a potpourri of thoughts about Earth Day. I wanted to end this post with a “hat tip” of sorts to a quote that I always remember when someone tells me that “today is Earth Day.” To my knowledge, every day is Earth Day. We just happen to celebrate it this one day out of the year. I think it’s great that there is a whole day dedicated to the Earth, (there’s also , and a whole , too), but I really think we need to remember that we should “celebrate” Earth Day every day. Buy the product that has “greener” packaging; pick-up a product that is healthier for the environment; hang dry your clothes; take the bus; walk; use the dishwasher; recycle; reuse! There are so many things we can do, every day, to ‘befriend’ the earth.

Pets Are So Much More Than Just “Pets”

dog standing, dog, smiling, happy, joy, joyfulThe value of having pets far outweighs any of the negatives associated with having a pet. Humans and animals have coexisted for quite some time. Beyond the time of when humans (hunted) animals, someone must have decided that it was going to be a good idea to make one of those animals part of their family. In doing so, the idea of “owning” pets and animals was born. While I understand the word “own” and contextually it might be easier to use this word, but do you really think you own your pet?

Yes, with certain animals, convention tells us that we need to ‘train’ our animals to respond to our commands. And yes, I will admit, I issue commands that I expect my dog to follow, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think there is a better way to do it. Let’s take a look at the language piece of this, first.

According to the [emphasis added]:

  • There are approximately 77.5 million owned dogs
  • Thirty-nine percent of households own at least one dog
  • There are approximately 93.6 million owned cats
  • Thirty-three percent of households own at least one cat

Using these statistics, it is accurate to say that 1 in 3 households has a pet (and it wouldn’t be a stretch to say that 1 in 2 households has a pet). Notice that when I referred to these statistics, I said has a pet rather than owns a pet. About 10 years ago, there was an interesting movement in Boulder, Colorado, that advocated the In its place, guardianship. Humans are the ‘guardian’ of their pet, rather than the owner of their pet. This quickly picked up steam and similar in the following year. As of April of this year, ““

As I’ve written about before, . In the near future, I will do a post about how our words can affect others (which will cat, cat sleeping, cuddly cat, cute cat, tabby cat, playfulbe more relevant to this post). The subtle difference between ownership and guardianship may really be enough to change the attitude of the “owner” such that they care just a little bit more for their animals. I’d like to think so.

Beyond the ownership vs. guardianship debate, having a pet can prove wonders to the health of the ‘carers.’ There have been scientific studies done (and many books written) on the topic of the many positive benefits to having a pet (a sampling:  and ). Two more things I want to touch on before I wrap this post up. The first has to do with animals and their consciousness and the second has to do with animals and our workspace.

I think one of the main draws to having an animal around is the pure joy that can be seen in them. That is, animals do not hold grudges, they’re not vindictive, they’re ever-present to the moment at hand. I think that part of their infinite joy stems from their lack of ‘stuff.’ As humans, we have lots of ‘stuff’ that we deal with. We have our stress from work, stress from news, stress from family, stress from kids, stress from friends, stress, stress, stress! Animals — none of it. They live for the moment they are in. When your dog whines at the door, it’s moment-specific. S/he wants to go out and play (or relieve themselves). They’re not thinking three steps ahead that when you let them out, they can run around the tree, sniff over by the bush, and then drink some water. It’s specifically in that moment that they want to go out. I think that because of this, they are much closer to a state of pure joy, more often. When I look at animals, I can feel this warming sensation in my heart. I think this is from that infinite joy they have that my heart is connecting with.

The second thing I wanted to talk about is actually quite practical. Did you ever notice being at your computer that your cat may come and sit on your keyboard or distract away from your monitor? Or maybe as you were moving your mouse to click on something, your dog came and pushed your hand off the mouse with your snout? It is my belief that our animals do this as a service to us. That’s right, a service. They can see the “bigger picture” around us and can tell that we’re in some sort of funk with what we’re doing at the computer and that we may need a break. Or, maybe that specific time that we were spending working on that project or idea would be better done at a later date. The next time your dog/cat (or salamander!) disrupts your computer time, think twice before you push ’em away.

Cell Phone Etiquette: Necessary Evil vs. “Old-Fashioned” Manners

Have you ever been out to dinner with people when suddenly you hear the (vibration) of a cell phone and then one of the people has their head buried in their phone? How about walking down the street and hearing someone talking to what looks like thin air? Or what about in the grocery store, seeing someone carrying on a conversation while deciding which box of breakfast bran to select? [] Cell phone are ubiquitous these days. In a , researchers polled over 3000 adults 18 or older and found that 85% owned a cell phone.

We know that cell phones aren’t going away anytime soon, especially because 96% the demographic between 18-29 in the survey above indicated that they had a cell phone. In doing some digging for this post, I found an talking about cell phone etiquette. As the technology has advanced, so to have the ways in which we connect with our mobile phones. To keep up with the necessary niceties, there’s an talking about some of the ‘okay’ and not-so-okay times to check your phone.

You’d think that since this issue has been around since the inception of cell phones that we’d eventually kick some of the dirty cell phone habits. This seems not to be the case. In a who polled over 2000 US adults from a nationally representative sample:

75% of US adults say mobile manners are worse now than in 2009.

The scary part about that survey to me is that 20% of people admitted to these same ‘bad manners,’ but will continue doing so because “everyone else is doing it.” The first thing I notice about this is that something is not right with the numbers. If 20% of the people are admitting to bad cell phone behavior, but 75% of the same respondents are saying that the behavior has gotten worse since 2009, ‘something’s gotta give.’ Either people are lying about their bad behavior (or maybe they don’t think when they do it that it’s bad). Given the plethora of articles written across the web about the ‘lack of cell phone etiquette’ (, , and ), I’m going to say that there is probably a little bit of at play.

I can see the reasoning and logic behind those that would advocate using their phones in social situations. In fact, this article I Will Check My Phone At Dinner And You Will Deal With It” from TechCrunch published in February has stirred quite the debate among the commenters. Even the title is a little inciting and at first glance, one may pre-suppose an air of bravado from the author. After reading it, the author makes the argument that supplementing dinner conversation with interesting facts from Wikipedia enhance the conversation rather than hinder it. Many of the comments that I read that received (high regards from other readers) seem to disagree.

As a counterpoint to this article, there was a survey done by of over 1000 Americans about their cell phone use. When asked “What is your level of tolerance when you encounter… someone interrupting a conversation to take a call?” 37% of respondents answered that was “very annoying.” There’s another interesting article (which also has ) that talks about people being so fed up with fellow cell phone users that they have turned to to keep people off of their phone.

I haven’t owned a cell phone for the last couple of years in part because I’ve been on the move (Canada, USA, and New Zealand) and in part because to keep a Canadian/American number through my travels abroad (and still be initiating/receiving “local” calls to/from Canada and the US). However, I have a feeling that I’ll be re-acquiring a cell phone in the near future and when I do, you can be sure that you won’t often find me interrupting in-person conversations for something happening on my phone.