"Understandest thou what thou readest?"

"Reading is fundamental" indeed. I wholeheartedly agree with the NBA reading program and many other such programs on reading. Maybe what is needed is to get the "fun" back into "fundamental."

The question of understanding is beyond recognizing the printed figures. The question is with regards to the knowledge gained of the fundamental exercise. Is it that understanding (more than the reading) should be the base? Is reading an act in the quest of something else? Should reading be enough?

I read for a lot of reasons: I read to relax (and fall asleep), I read for the entertainment of my person, I read to learn and increase learning, I read (to fill the time and space) instead of something else I should be doing and I read because it is fundamental. Yet I wonder if I should always strive to understand what I read. If you have picked up very technical materials and tried reading for understanding at times, it seems but an exercise in futility. Yet those are the kind of material that demands understanding (and often without the fun).

Being that this is Sunday, let's consider the source of the question. I like the question and the sources from which I borrow it. The first was Jesus to the Jewish leaders of his day when they had asked about the resurrection of the dead and illustrating their side of the argument with the law of Moses and the tale of seven brothers and one wife. Now I have to digress a bit on this story of seven brothers who all ended up with one woman; one after the other. The story goes that in this family of seven brothers, the oldest married himself a wife and died before they could have offsprings. According to tradition (the law of Moses), his second brother took his wife to raise offspring (for his dead brother). Let's pause here for a second. ... ... ... This brother also died (without offsprings). The third, fourth through the seven brothers all married the same woman and died without offspring. Then they asked their question regarding to whom the woman will be married to in the resurrection of the dead since they all had her. Jesus was alarmed at the question which he showed by the questions: "

understandest thou what thou readest?

" to paraphraze.

Why I recommended the pause was to allow for someone else to understand what they read. I was moved within the story for a different reason that the Jewish leaders. Did anybody else think this or was it just me that was wondering why the brothers are dying for one woman? Did anyone question her cooking methods? Did they check to see if she had any effects that these brothers should have stayed away from? How pretty was she? Did not Moses also recommend a letter of seperation (and I would think that death of four brothers may qualify for reasons of divorce)? But that's just me. I really do think that some investigations are warranted. I really do think someone should try to understand this situation. That is one good reason why it is good to understand what is being read.

[TO BE CONTINUED]

in love WITH

Am I the only one to whom this is a pretty HUGE revelation? That couldn't be, could it?

I know that for some of us it recently feels like it is okay to come out of hiding and be ourselves again. If you found yourself single and alone last Tuesday, I am referring to you. Valentine is immortal and understandably so, that does not make everyone happy. :D SMILE anywayz. Besides it is safer to be again; the chocolates, flowers, candles, jewelries, strawberries, dinners and expectations are gone (for now). You are no longer going to be on the spot with the spotlight on you for another season. Despite that alone feeling; I hope you still have love.

Love of life is key. Living; that is the hard part but live as if you got only one life (because you do). To live, you need love.

Not that you need to be loved, NO! You need to love.

And here in lies my revelation: "in love with" is a total misnomer. Love is too conk to be shared (even on unequal grounds). It knocks one over and out and that is not something you partner and contract on. "Relationship" - now that is something you could be "in ... with" other party. Relationship of any kind is a partnership but not love. Love is a gift one gives without expectations. ...
...
...

Just let that last phrase sink in and then reflect on it for another three seconds. Maybe I will explain more later but for now just agree with me that you could not be in love WITH someone else. You could be in some kind of relationship WITH whomever. Just because you love who you are with does not imply you are in love WITH who you love. There is not such "WITH" conjuction when it comes to love. You give love PERIOD

Like any gift, it may be received (well or not), rejected and/or ignored but that is the way it is. Give the gift of love and discover the wonders that make living "the life" that it becomes.



You have no choice - the sooner you accept this one and only condition for love, the easiest it is to live with love.

"security", "assurity" & "worst case scenario"

By my own admission, I am an "IT" guy.

Spam mails are nothing much more than annoyances. They have always existed - in hardcopy they were termed "junk" mail and no matter how valuable some of them become (e.g. PCH), they are still nuisances. A lot of the ISPs implement filters to sift the berage of these such electronic messages.

Another nuisance but a lot more malicious are the electronic viruses, trojans and spywares. How about the phishing quest and identity theft? I could understand someone trying to steal my information in order to assume my identity and mask theirs to pursue malice. It is very bad but I understand the bad intention. Why destroy my documents for fun just to satisfy some curiosity and/or for bragging rights? None of the end results is pretty or admired.

CCTV has its main stay in the United Kingdom but it is a "BAD" four letter word in the United States (not just an acronym). In other countries of the world, the government spying on citizens is no big deal and I love the protection that the legal system offers for both "evil doers" and relatively "good citizens" of the United States. Do I mind that the White House may have misinterpreted the rules in the name of "protection"? Do you?

How about corporate citizenship? How many incompetent corporate executives have to go to jail before the hiring practices are called up by US congress for legislation? Democrats - don't get excited; it is not going to happen anytime soon. Does Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX for short) work and how well? Does HIPPA really protect or does it stifle patient care? How much of all these could be managed within properly defined business ethics and without legislation? Should the punishment be corporal to deter bad business behavior? What should the price be and who should pay?

Talking about payment, what about insurance companies? NOLA is still reeling of the effects of Katrina, Rita, FEMA's Michael D Brown's over exaggerated qualifications, Mayor Ray Nagin's self proclaimed competence and the partisan corporation of the the Democratic governor of LA - Kathleen Blanco with the "White House" as it is called. As if the handicap is not enough, the city and other city's citizens affected by the recent devastations of the hurricanes are discovering how much insurance and assurance they had paid the insurance corporations for over several years. I bet it is very disheartening to discover that your hurricane insurance only covered the instance of another house colliding with yours but not the mere tree damages. Who writes these policies? Better yet why should someone need a lawyer to explain sentences in the same language that is supposed to cover understood circumstances? Unfortunately one does in order to protect oneself.

In the same spirit of explaining the fine prints - security, assurity, protection and deterence do not all mean the same thing.
[below are my examples]
1. CCTV provides assurity in the case where an action is already purported and expressed. The conspicuous placement of such equipment may deter some faint-hearted conspirators than the fain. CCTV is not primarily for protection; its security purpose is to record the action.
2. Long walls are for protection and deterence than for assurity. Not that it has worked too tremendously along the US-MEX border but it does provide some protection in the areas where the walls exist and are too high and too rigid to overcome.

No condition is permanent and not all conditions are available at all times to be planned for and for the security options to be worked out. That should not be a crutch to hold on to for not planning or for the limited vision within the plan. Having a plan is a good start but do not buy generic solutions because your security recipe is never generic.

There is no security; there is no assurance and life is always the worst case scenario. Therefore plan to live within your scenario!

Is not EAZY to be me

By way of introduction if you will:
I am comfortable in my own skin (like that is supposed to mean anything but it does) and everyone else should be.

I get to enjoy what I do and what I don't. It is great to be in my line of work. I get to enjoy the way I live and the life I lead outside of my handiwork. It is rewarding to live in such a community and with such people around to enrich my life and help define meaning to just another ordinary being. I get to participate in moments and events that I could not have planned nor could I have found if I were to strive for it alone on my own. What a joy it is to have friends that care so much to enrich my experience.

I want to do so much more; I want to be a lot better. You may think "insatiable"; I think "agitation" & "growth" - that is what it is and it is what it is.

I am not done and that is the uneazy part.

... take a stroll alongside []