The Pain Scale

Sadly for most of us, the older we get, the more aches and pains become part of our daily existence. Lately I seem to have done some minor damage to a body part, and while healing I gave some thought to the "Pain Scale". Anyone who has been to a doctor for anything pain related has heard of it, or seen the chart. "On a scale of one to ten, how badly does it hurt?" is the way it goes. Supposedly this gives your health care provider an idea of how serious the pain is. But how effective is this?

First of all, how do we define the one and the ten? How do we quantify it? Is a sunburn worse than a stubbed toe? Is it a stabbing pain or a dull pain? Can they be compared? Personally, I have never been shot or stabbed, nor have I been severely burned, or given birth. I would imagine that those things would be up there on the ten side of the scale, but never having experienced them, how can I compare my toothache, or broken toe or pulled muscle to a gunshot wound?

Of course, even with similar injuries, people's perception of the pain associated with them are different. A boxer or martial artist, used to a certain degree of low-level injury, might become so used to pain that he ignores it, while the same injury might cause someone else to scream in agony. Some providers have linked descriptions to some of the numbers, I would find this to be pretty helpful since it puts quantifiable labels to the numbers.







Of course, there are still different types of pain. A heavy throbbing pressure can be as debilitating as feeling like a sharp object is being inserted into your eyeballs.




While writing this blog post I came across a new scale that might take off:

Classic Rock Bands with No Original Members

What makes a band? Is it the band members? The songs? Some combination? The Who's famous lyric: "I hope I die before I get old" came true for many rockers from the so-called Classic Rock Era, but many more of them are still out on the road filling arenas, or perhaps the wooden benches at various state fairs. For the purpose of this discussion I'm dividing those old bands into two categories. The first is the "solo artist". Typically the solo artist is the "star". Whether or not he or she wrote the songs that are being performed, that person is the one thing that doesn't change. The star hires sidemen, musicians who work for the star. Sidemen may work with a star for years, or they may change with every album or tour. Bill Joel can get rid of a guitarist on a whim, but only Billy Joel is Billy Joel.

The second category is "the band". A band may consist of 3, 4, or more, equal members or there may be a core membership with auxiliary members who be fired by the core. Some bands, like the Beatles and Led Zeppelin, once they settled on a stable membership (post Pete Best for the Beatles and post New Yardbirds for Led Zeppelin) they existed only as the familiar incarnation; Plant, Paige and Jones did not hire another drummer and the members of The Beatles never performed as The Beatles once they broke up. Other bands had no problem replacing members, nor did it appear that their fans had any problem. Deep Purple's most well-known and commercially successful incarnation did not include the original singer or bassist. Occasionally there are disagreements about who has the rights to use the band's name when the original members have gone separate ways. There were once briefly two versions of the progressive rock band Yes, each consisting of original members, and members from the not-original-but-most-well-known version. Eventually the courts decided who had the rights to use the name.

The rock groups that originated in the sixties and seventies are typically in their late sixties to late seventies. It's a regular occurrence to hear of some famous rocker dying of heart disease or some other malady associated with old age. Some of them are still touring, often with one original member! I recently made a comment about the Yardbirds that was not well-received by their current guitarist. The Yardbirds, if you are unfamiliar with them, were a short-lived blues-rock band in the late sixties. They are most well-known for the guitarists who played with them: Eric Clapton, Jeff Beck, and Jimmy Page, but also not so well known for members forming Renaissance and Box of Frogs. Sometime in the nineties The Yardbirds reformed with drummer/songwriter Jim McCarty and guitarist/bassist Chris Dreja, who were original members joined by some younger musicians. A few years ago Dreja retired; the Yardbirds continued with McCarty the only tie to the Yardbirds' heyday. I made the comment that the Yardbirds were basically a Yardbirds tribute band. Now technically they're not a tribute band, due to the presence of that one original member, but what about them, other than the presence of one man, makes them The Yardbirds?

There are various things that make a band unique, that makes their sound stand out from everyone else. Often it's the singer. A frontman (or woman) in many cases defines a band. Can you imagine Aerosmith without Steven Tyler? Other times it's the guitarist. Rarely, however, does the uniqueness extend to the bassist and drummer, at least in the eyes of the run-of-the-mill fan. The heart, the core of a band is going to vary from band to band. But in my opinion, The Who ceases to be The Who after Keith Moon died, and even less so when John Entwistle passed. For me, John's bass and Keith's manic drumming were indispensable parts of the band.

I can understand why the lone survivor of a popular classic rock band might feel that the band name might draw more fans than their own name. Paul McCartney might be able to fill arenas without calling his band "The Beatles", but "Foreigner" surely has a better draw than "The Mick Jones Group" or "The Yardbirds" than "The Jim McCarty Band".

The bottom line regarding whether a band is the band from back "in the day" is whether it is accepted by the fans. For me, the decision to see a band that was popular in my youth where there is a dearth of original members would hinge on my own subjective views. Everyone else is welcome to their subjective views. Whatever works!

Frank

As I take my afternoon walk on work days, I pass a lot of apparently homeless people. A lot of them seem to have mental issues, talking to themselves or to unseen entities. Seeing one particular guy me me think of a man named Frank who used to shop at the store here I worked.

Frank was probably in his fifties. He often wore old faded army fatigues and had a heavy beard. I don't think Frank was homeless - he always seemed to have plenty of money, so if he was, he had a fairly reliable source of income. Frank, however, had some eccentricities.

Frank was convinced that the CIA was tracking him through the UPC codes on food packaging. After he made a purchase he would take a small pocketknife out and cut the UPCs off and throw them away. On a few occasions other customers would see him take out the knife and assumed that because he was talking to himself he was somehow a danger. No, only the UPC codes were in danger. Every once in a while he would use profanity when talking to his invisible friends. He would always apologize when I asked him to keep his language clean.

Frank also was very concerned with order. Some days we would find Frank taking tuna cans or Oscar Meyer bologna packages off a shelf, rotating them according to date, and turning all the labels the same way. The first time we saw him Loss Prevention followed him around for two hours thinking he as a shoplifter, but he was actually doing a service for us. Frank in a checkout lane was also a challenge. He always paid in cash with exact change. He would pull out a little change purse and root throw the coins, somehow perceiving that one specific nickel was preferable in a given exchange.

Frank was harmless; a little weird, but harmless. Nonetheless, he made a lot of people uncomfortable. He wasn't doing anything to overtly cause the discomfort, but some people's worldview didn't allow for people like Frank.

One day, which happened to be my day off, an employee reported to Loss Prevention that Frank was taking items out of the bulk food bins with his bare, unwashed hands. He was confronted by Loss Prevention, who threatened to throw him out of the store. Frank responded by saying that he would throw the Loss Prevention employee out of the store. Frank was banned from all the company's stores and I never saw him again.

But here's the odd thing. Frank was a germaphobe. Whenever he purchased anything from bulk foods he would wrap the scoop in a plastic bag, then put his hand inside another plastic bag, and only then would he scoop his purchase into a third plastic bag. There is no way that he was putting his bare hands in those bins. Frank was falsely accused because someone was unsettled by his difference from what they considered normal. And he was thrown out and banned on the basis of that false accusation and the overreaction of the person who confronted him. Would it even have been an issue if it had been one of the dozens of clean cut people who didn't talk to themselves or cut the UPC codes off? Obviously not, because that kind of behavior was and still is routinely ignored.

I think about Frank whenever I pass some of our downtown street people. I don't know their stories or how I they got to the place where they find themselves today. I didn't know Frank's story either, but I always treated him with respect and I work hard to suppress incipient judgement against these folks that I see downtown.

Opinion Disguised as Truth

Many of you have a strong opinion that the things that you believe are truth, while what everyone else believes is a lie. My opinion is that having that opinion is perfectly okay, as long as you make no attempt to coerce me into arranging my life to conform to your opinion. Now some of you may assert that your opinion isn't simply opinion, but it what the deity of your choice has ordained as "the way it is". You may, of course, accept that premise without evidence, but if you are going to require me to accept your premise, and structure my life accordingly, you're going to have to come up with some objective evidence. 

What is objective evidence? What form might that evidence take? For starters, it would have to be something that isn't dependent upon already believing. Much of the "evidence" takes the form of personal stories and anecdotes. Getting that prime parking spot is not proof that there is a God. Praying that your incurable disease is cured and then having no signs of the disease isn't even evidence of the power of prayer. The vision that you saw or the voice that you heard certainly isn't objective evidence. Any of those things might be sufficient for you to believe in your favorite version of your deity, but aren't enough to be actual evidence. 

In the last paragraph I used the term "favorite version of your deity". What I'm referring to with that phrase is the phenomenon whereby people who ostensibly follow the same religion hold completely different views of how that religion's deity works. To use Christianity, the dominant religion in the United States, as an example, there are distinct differences among the major denominational traditions, and sometimes even within a given denomination. Christians famously brand other Christians as "not true (or real) Christians", judging by a standard that they may or may not fully understand. This tendency isn't limited to Christians; the sectarian violence in the predominately Muslim Middle East testifies to that. 

Even stipulating that certain phenomena "proves" that the supernatural exists, how would one prove that anyone's favorite deity was behind said supernatural occurrence?  Spiritually-minded people tend to interpret the unexplained in the context of what they already believe. I don't know how many times I have heard the assertion that someone "miraculously" surviving a car wreck, plane crash, tornado etc somehow validates an entire theology. Even if divine intervention kept your car from going through the rail and into the ravine, how do you know it was the god that you previously believed in and not a god from some unknown pantheon, or angels, or aliens? Spoiler alert: you don't. 

Since you can't, or won't, provide evidence that your religious beliefs are objectively true (I once had someone argue that religious beliefs weren't subjective, since they came from God, and were in fact objective, for that same reason. No.) you can have no expectation that anyone else should be compelled to adhere to them, or live in a society that mandates them. 

Why Do Wedding Officiants Need to Be Ordained?

No, ship's captains are not empowered to officiate at weddings. Other than that, the rules and regulations regarding who may serve as a wedding officiant vary from state to state, and even within some states. In some jurisdictions notaries are authorized, in others, the county or city clerk. In some states you can effectively declare yourself married by simply filling out the proper paperwork. Judges are often on the list of approved officiants, and then of course there's clergy. But who defines "clergy"?

In Nebraska, where I reside, the law refers to "preachers of the gospel", which would seem to rule out ministers from any religion other than a Christian denomination, but in practice, Nebraska makes no attempt to decide who is a "real" minister & who isn't, and rabbis, imams and ministers ordained online are all recognized, or at least ignored. In fact, Nebraska Statute 42-114 states that if someone says that they're authorized to perform marriages and the couple believes that the officiant is authorized to perform marriages, then the marriage is valid. Part of me wishes they would excise "preachers of the gospel", but the other part of me just wants to leave well enough alone!

There are several states that have a narrow definition of who is authorized to officiate a wedding ceremony that specifically rules out ministers ordained online. These rulings have in general been spurred by court cases where someone is attempting to invalidate a prenuptial agreement or avoid alimony by claiming that being married by an online minister means that theirs was not a valid marriage. In most cases the legislation isn't unambiguous, and in some states there are contradictory court rulings. The big question is: why is this a subject in which the state has an interest?

In some religions, marriage is a sacrament that is to be consecrated by that religion's holy man or woman. In others, it's a matter of the minister, as representative of their religion, giving his or her blessing or approval for the marriage. In those cases, it makes sense to have an officiant who is in sync with the couple's faith, but that should be the business of the couple; the state should have no role in deciding whether a particular minister is in fact in sync with the couple. Of course, in most places there are secular options. As I mentioned above judges, active or retired, can usually officiate, as well as other designated government representatives.  But for many people, weddings done by a judge or city clerk lack the warmth and uniqueness that they are looking for. In many places, including my own state, the alternative is either a professional officiant who isn't affiliated with any church, or a friend or relative who has received an online ordination.

For those who aren't looking for a spiritual blessing on their union, but just want to have a nice ceremony, why should the  credentials of the officiant be an issue that the state takes note of? In most cases the couple isn't looking for counselling, in fact they're probably looking to avoid counselling! What can a minister who was ordained in an established denomination offer a couple that a professional, experienced officiant can't? There's the possibility that a seminary graduate has had some training in how to conduct a wedding, but possibly not. And considering that the government should constitutionally have no role in religion, why are some state governments and state courts making judgments as to which ordinations are valid and which are not?

I would propose that all references to religious affiliation be removed from marriage statutes and that a marriage be registered and considered valid if the paperwork was filled out correctly. Professional wedding officiants could still operate as they do now, but without the necessity of getting the online ordination. It might even reduce the number of inexperienced friends and relatives performing wedding services - now, anyone who gets an online ordination thinks that they are now qualified to officiate a wedding, when in fact they are only legally authorized to officiate a wedding, the ordination doesn't give one a magical ability to write coherent and smooth-flowing services, or become an effective public speaker.

It's probably not going to happen any time soon, but government should get out of the wedding business, other than issuing the licenses.

Anti-Discrimination Ordinances

The other day a video was posted on Facebook showing a City Council meeting where testimony for an anti-discrimination measure was being discussed and public testimony received. The video was seven years old, but the issue is still relevant. A local landlord and business owner was testifying against a proposed anti-discrimination ordinance - his arguments boiled down to two things: religious freedom and the ability of businesses to run their operations without fear of lawsuits.

Before I discuss his points, I'll review the concept of "protected class" as it applies to anti-discrimination laws. Many people believe that some people are in a protected class, and that by being part of that protected class one has extra legal protections. For example, one of the protected classes is "race". Ask the average person what this means and they'll say that a person who is a part of a minority race (i.e. Black, Native American, etc) can't be fired, at least not without a lot of extra paperwork. The incorrect assumption in this example is that "protected class" refers only to the minority. What it does mean is that no one can be discriminated against because of race. Everyone can be categorized by race, even the majority. The same goes for gender - the protected class isn't "women", the protected class is "gender", which everyone has (at least according to traditional definitions). It is true that some businesses will walk on eggshells to avoid lawsuits by minority members, this is their choice and does not reflect the way the laws are written. No one "belongs to a protected class", it is a protected classification or category that cannot be used against you.

One of the arguments that opponents of broadening anti-discrimination laws bring forth is that requiring them to treat people that they disapprove of equally tramples their own religious freedom. Few would argue that it would be acceptable to discriminate in hiring or housing against someone because they were black (although it surely happens), yet religious justifications were among the many rationalizations used by segregationists over the years, even going back to condoning slavery on biblical grounds. More often than not the religious argument is merely a cover for basic, unvarnished bigotry when simply declaring oneself to be a bigot is unacceptable. The premise of the argument that "preventing me from discriminating is discriminatory" or "condemning my bigotry is bigoted" stands on an extremely shaky foundation.

One of the things that has become obvious to me in over 40 years working for various businesses in different industries, is that the fear of a lawsuit is often the only thing that motivates a business owner to "do the right thing". The business owner testifying in the video that I referred to brought up how he thought that discrimination lawsuits were often frivolous and retaliatory and that he never discriminates. He may very well be unique. Every business that I have ever worked for said all the right things, ran the sexual harassment seminars and punished discrimination and harassment when they had no other choice. One of the companies with whom I associated was a local grocery chain. They had clear guidelines about sexual harassment and discrimination. However it became clear that their policies were for the sole purpose of preventing lawsuits when the company continued to do business with several outside contractors and consultants who engaged in sexual harassment of the company's employees. They were in no danger of a lawsuit if a complaint was lodged against someone outside the company, so they took no action because they didn't have to. As much as we'd like to believe that everyone will always do the right thing, most businesses don't operate that way.

There really is no good reason not to support laws and ordinances that outlaw discriminatory behavior by businesses. The arguments against them, despite being couched in terms of leadership, religious freedom, capitalism and mom's apple pie, and just excuses to engage in bigotry.

Forgiveness

I've been thinking a lot about the concept of forgiveness lately. When do we forgive? How do we forgive? How often do we forgive? Can we forget once we forgive? Does forgiveness imply being free from consequences? The major religions have spent time talking about forgiveness; one holy man suggests that people "sin no more", but also to forgive "seventy times seven". Not being an adherent of any of the major religions I have had to formulate my own take on forgiveness.

To me, forgiveness is the process whereby we "set at naught" a harmful action that someone has taken against us or against someone that we care about in order to provide a "second chance" to repair the relationship. That means acting as if the harmful action had not taken place when interacting with that other person. That is the external manifestation of forgiveness, a benefit to the person who is in need of forgiveness. That's the easy part. The difficult part is to mentally treat the offender as if the offense had not happened, getting rid of any anger and resentment that the offense had caused. This is a benefit to the forgiver as well; carrying around a lot of resentment and anger cannot be healthy.

In my opinion forgiveness cannot be truly offered if remorse is not present. I'm defining remorse as an honest recognition of the wrongness of the offending action and a pledge to discontinue those actions. If you "forgive" someone who has no remorse for their harmful actions, you are not forgiving them, i.e. offering them an opportunity to heal the rift in your relationship, you are merely enabling them, giving them cover to continue their hurtful actions. A saying that I have heard several times recently is "I forgive, but I don't forget". This gets right to the heart of the matter. I can forgive you if I believe that you are remorseful, but by remembering the offense I protect myself by not allowing a continual cycle of offense/forgive/re-offend. By not forgetting I allow myself to see a pattern if one occurs.

I am proposing no "etched in stone" rule, or suggesting that only one "second chance" should be offered. Every situation is different. In my own life I do not require an apology from those who have wronged me, only that the harmful actions, those things that have caused a need for forgiveness, cease.

We all make mistakes. We all do and say things that cannot be undone or unsaid. If a person is truly remorseful and has truly embarked on a new path, then we should recognize a genuine change. Forgiveness is a way to heal past hurts, but it shouldn't be a way to allow those who would harm us to continue their harm.