Skeptic movement in flux

I’ve noticed over the past year, many changes in the skeptical community. There has been a huge surge in communication, podcasts and internet activity that allowed for growth and exchange among the 3 groups – Center for Inquiry (Skeptical Inquirer/CSICOP/CSI), Skeptics Society (Shermer’s Skeptic) and JREF (Randi’s). I always thought they each provided a different perspective and approached the philosophy with different tools and, certainly, different personalities. That is a great thing. What felt even greater was the recent sense that the cross-pollination could make for a united, more influential movement. Old wounds were being forgotten.

I’ve met lots of great skeptics over the past 10 years that I have been following these groups. It’s pretty awesome for us to be able to frequently come together in the same place. That’s becoming more and more frequent. We now visit each others neighborhoods (mostly in Las Vegas, I think) and mingle. Nice.

I don’t know what is going on at CFI these days. I’m skeptical of both sides (multiple sides, perhaps). See Hemant’s post on this. But, in this case, change is good. CFI needs a freshening up. Dr. Kurtz has great influence and vision but the guards must change. (25 years is the limit at any one job.) I firmly believe that organizations like this are HARD to manage. The ideas spark disputes and the opinions are contentious with all those geniuses in the room.

All I can say is, this is a fantastic community. I think we might have just turned and faced the same direction – forward. I hope so.

Edit: fixed some typos. 6/5/09

Creationism – Sham Inquiry

There has been a concerted effort to package creationist views in such a way as to sound so convincing and correct (at least politically) in order to gain public support and demonize evolution.

In the 20th century, special creation, as an explanation of all life on earth, was so obviously nonscientific that it ended up as a problem in the modern education system. As religion, it was prohibited from being taught in public schools. Evolution, developed from Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection in 1849, was the clearly acceptable scientific explanation to be included in the school curriculum. Scientific creationism was developed as an alternate view in the post-Sputnik science atmosphere of the 1960s [1]. “Scientific” was added as a credibility bauble. It was simply tacked on the front and various science-like trappings were added.

The method utilized in creationist arguments is to pick apart the scientific evidence, looking for anomalies or observations that cast doubt on the concept of evolution. Creationists excel at simplifying and mischaracterizing science into straw man arguments, then shooting them down with a self-righteous chuckle. Their philosophy is peppered with “bits of science, variously chopped, twisted, crushed, mangled and blended” [2] aimed at the average population who does not know enough about the scientific process and standards and who never learned enough about the basics of biology in high school. Creationists use scientific principles (like thermodynamics) as far as it will take them for the purposes of their arguments. The explanations will not extend too far in case it could be revealed how inappropriate they are [3].

The premise of creationism is miraculous and outside the bounds of natural law and human understanding [4]. It is a stellar example of a nonfalsifiable theory. There is no coherent creation theory or that of its modern version, “intelligent design”. The philosophy is invoked when it is convenient – when a biologic process appears to be lacking an evolutionary explanation. Corollary theories, such as flood geology, are soundly at odds with modern knowledge. There is no research, no testable hypotheses, but they will staunchly say that there is [5].

Creationists practice dismissals of accepted scientific evidence such as geologic time, genetics, developmental biology and the fossil record. A particularly infuriating ploy (committing the logical fallacy called “moving the goalposts”) is the standard response to finding a transitional fossil that fills in an evolutionary gap. They conclude it did not actually fill a gap, it created two more gaps. There are never enough transitional fossils to convince [6]. The argument of personal incredulity is committed because they just can not imagine that some things can be so. It does not fit with their preconceived notion and is rejected. Actually, creationism literature provides excellent examples of many other logical fallacies including arguments from authority, non sequiturs, ad hominem, inconsistency and probably several others.

Creationists like to debate scientists. It appears to put them on equal footing. It is difficult to argue with an ardent creationist. There is no logic. Logic and reason are anathema to religion and therefore are not respected in the creationist court. Yet, they will fervently use terms like “truth” and “facts” and “common sense”. They will use arguments that are decidedly unscientific and illogical, but still sound very convincing to an unwary audience.

While trying very hard to look like science, apologists will claim that evolution is not science but a “belief” and dogma, styling evolution as a religion, calling evolutionists intolerant, pompous, arrogant, deceitful, engaging in indoctrination, elitist and afraid [7]. Clearly, they attempt to dilute science and blur distinction in the eyes of the public. They will latch onto and publicize disputes among scientists [8]. In this way, they manufacture a controversy in science where there simply is none.

Without any solid claims originating from their own position, all that the creationist side can do is attack. They are experts of “conjuring tricks employing inaccuracy, misrepresentation, dazzling numbers and layers of confusion” [9] In this vein, they will style evolution as a religion, calling evolutionists intolerant, pompous, arrogant, deceitful, engaging in indoctrination, elitist and afraid [10].

No evidence is required, or desired, beyond that of the Bible. There is no respect for science, its methods or principles. The conclusion precedes everything. It is not a search for knowledge, it is a story to support a religion where revealed knowledge is seen as truth and will not be forsaken. Creationist motives are blatantly obvious. They wish to show evolution is false in support of a supernatural creator. Creationists have been wildly successful in convincing the public that a supernatural view is reasonable and legitimate, even if they have not convinced them with a lame scientific argument. The ideological argument is harder to reject.

For these reasons, creationists are science pretenders of the worst kind.

References

(2005). “Kitzmiller vs Dover”, US District Court For The Middle District Of Pennsylvania.

Godfrey, L. R. (1981). “Science and Evolution in the Public Eye”. Paranormal Borderlands of Science. K. Frazier, Prometheus Books.

Issak, M. (2007). The Counter-Creationism Handbook, Univ of Calif. Press.

Kitcher, P. (1982). Abusing Science-The Case Against Creationism, MIT Press.

Popper, K. (1963). “Falsificationism”. Scientific Inquiry (1999). R. Klee, Oxford Univ Press.

Scott, E. C. (1995). “Creationism, Ideology, and Science”. The Flight from Science and Reason (1996). P. R. Gross, N. Levitt, M.W. Lewis, New York Academy of Sciences.

Toumey, C. (1996). Conjuring Science, Rutgers Univ Press.
———–

[1] Scott, p. 508
[2] Kitcher, p. 82
[3] Ibid., p. 91-96
[4] Scott, p. 514
[5] See the Institution for Creation Research website at http://www.icr.org/evidence/ where it will take you several clicks to get to any content, none of which can be considered “evidence” of any sort.
[6] Isaak, p. 113-125.
[7] Toumey, p. 125-6.
[8] Kitcher, p. 55.
[9] Ibid., p. 120.
[10] Toumey, p. 125-6.

Back to Sham Inquiry contents page.

Help! Crazy emo kids!

Now, everyone calm down. I don’t think emo kids are crazy. But, I do wonder about a few. I have posted before that the most hits I get are for the pictures of Gerard Way of My Chemical Romance. It’s obvious people Google images of G and visit my site (just the photo) and comment (on just the photo). I can’t tell you how many say “I luv U Gerard, marry MEEEEE!” I get scared at that.

Yo, I am not affiliated with the band. I am not them. I do not want to hear your love odes to your fantasy man. Please. Stop.

So, I am removing the picts. Administration of comments like this is getting old. I don’t authorize most because they are in some foreign language or are too odd to allow.

It does make me think that there are many kids who have seriously lost touch with reality (srsly!). I think they need help and I’m not the one to do that. Life between 12 and 20 are pretty gnarly times – your body and your brain are on natural drugs, you are trying to find your place in the world, the world pretty much sucks all around. Sorry about that. But, you mellow out and things get better. MUCH better. I am hoping those kids make it through OK.

What’s the Reason for the Season

How’s your holiday season going so far? Gee, it’s only the first week in December. Since I noticed decorations on display at the craft store when I was looking for Halloween paraphernalia, it feels like December 25 should be, like, next week. But it’s the next FOUR weeks, actually.

I’m not a big fan of Christmas. First, my family does not celebrate any religious aspect of this time of year (or any time of year). So, I don’t warm up to people preaching “Jesus is the Reason for the Season”. Nice rhyme but the tilt of the earth’s axis is the reason for the seasons. Too bad that doesn’t sound as catchy. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it any less true.

Holiday time is frequently a trigger for bad memories: people miss lost loved ones, they remember disappointments or tragedies, or they sadly realize that they can’t share any joy with someone because they are alone. It’s highly insensitive to push a happy, joyful message to these folks and call them Scrooges or Grinches when they fail to join the festivities.

Xmas time for me is full of anxiety. With divorced parents on my side and various relatives spread out in the state, I worry about getting in the required visitations. I have to cart along two small children and a dog. They don’t. I have to work pretty hard to figure out appropriate gifts for those who have what they need. They don’t. When in doubt, they just hand out cash. They can send out cards and greetings. I don’t have time.

This year, I’m quite the “Grinch”. I don’t have any enthusiasm for putting up the tree. I don’t feel motivated to light up the house or festoon the interior. I might make cookies this year because the kids like that and they make thoughtful gifts. But, generally, I do not embrace the consumer excess and overexertion that goes with the holiday preparation.

I heard that among the common toy requests in children’s letters to Santa are the wishes for parents to come home from Iraq or Afghanistan, for everyone to get along (at home and in the world), and for snow to fall. How simple are those wishes. I wish the same. I want all those soldiers home from a senseless war. I want us to stop fighting abroad and at home about faith and what it means to be a good person. I wouldn’t mind a dusting of snow to make everything clean, quiet and a pretty background for the twinkling lights.

New Species. New ideas. Moving on.

This site is going on hiatus. I’ve run out of topics, but not bigger ideas. I’m going to pursue those independently but it will take a while. Plus, I’m not motivated enough (it’s summer) to write new articles – which is what generates traffic to the site.

I’m going to leave thinking happy thoughts.

First, there are always lots of announcement regarding new species. Whether they are actual new species or those reclassified as new based on DNA analysis, it’s still exciting. However, I am fervently against cryptozoologists using these new species discoveries as strong support for CZ. It’s apples and oranges. There is a complete difference between discovering new species no one has likely ever seen, recognized or even imagined and those that have attained legendary status without solid evidence of actual existence. I would argue there are no good examples of cryptozoological successes in the modern era. They can cite gorillas, komodo dragons, okapis, etc. but today, finding a new type of bovine or several new sea slugs is not cryptozoology. It’s zoology at its most straightforward. Kudos to the scientists. It’s awesome. I will await the discovery of Mokele-mbembe, the Ahool, the Thunderbird, etc. I may be skeptical that it will happen but I hope to be proved wrong.

Second, while way too many people are sadly ignorant and misinformed regarding biology (and science, in general), the general public appears to be more concerned about climate change induced by man. Republicans are way out of step with the public and totally in denial about things like fossil fuel use, and the need for conservation and alternative fuels. No matter what your motivation – whether it be from the scientific data, a sense of environmental responsibility or some economical reason – there is no good reason to support business as usual. Times change and we should evolve as a civilization. I’m hopeful we’ve turned a corner.

Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
- Bertrand Russell (Link)

I’m doubtful. Signing off.
S.H.

Deconstructing ’scoftic’

To preface, I’m not against new words. I’ve shared my love of witty neologisms such as the portmanteau words “blobjects”, “blobsquatch”, “blurfos” and the like. In those cases, we can describe ’something that is not accurately depicted’. And, something that can’t speak for itself.

The buzz on Cryptomundo has developed over using the word “scoftic”, a designation you give to a person with regards to a topic of questionable legitimacy, such as Bigfoot.

From Cryptomundo:
Is ‘Scoftic’ a Useful Term?
Posted by: Loren Coleman on April 28th, 2007

Do you think the term differs enough from “skeptic” to be useful? Do you think the term has demonstrated evolved development of the discussion? Is it demeaning? Dismissive? Definitely useful? Worthy of deployment throughout hominology and cryptozoology? Defensively debatable? Definitive?

A “scoftic” is described as follows: “the programmed skeptic who is defined more by a pre-determined mindset than the results of any thoughtful probing of the evidence”; “a cranky skeptic”; one who displays “unhealthy skepticism”; “someone who…gives witness testimony no weight whatsoever, on ideological grounds, and who asserts numerous other bits of unreasonable dogma, such as that the quantity of reports is insignificant”; one who exhibits “fanaticism behind a pose of reasonableness” and who uses “fine print” and/or “qualifiers” when considering evidence.

Reading the rest of the post and the myriad, varied, well-thought out and some narrow-minded responses, I have my own thoughts.

The term originated with regards to Bigfoot discussions. But, it can easily jump topics and apply to the paranormal biggies – UFOs, ghosts, psychic powers. Since it generated so much response, I have no doubt that, no matter if it’s a useful word or not, it WILL continue to be used. Culture is like that. It’s now a meme, ready to spread, who knows how far.

There are distinct problems with the description. First, when we are talking in these forums about subjects on the fringe of science, or even reality, we mean something specific when we use “skeptic” but not everyones version is the same. Some use the word as a negative connotation, as if to suggest that the skeptic doesn’t belong in this group that pursues more ‘positive’ thoughts. The skeptic is the “non-believer”. And, frequently we all like to be around those who think like us, not those who question or debate.

On the other hand, “skeptic” can be a proud label to hold. True skeptics are critical thinkers and quite often know a whole lot about the multiple facets of the subject they discuss. Doubt is necessary to progress and essential to science. Most non-scientists (and some scientists) have entirely failed to grasp that. Practicing skepticism is scientific.

I’ve been involved in the “skeptical community” for many years. They are the most intelligent, articulate, witty and FAIR people I have ever met. However, there are times when even a good person falls into the trap of ad hominem comments, quick and unfair dismissals and exhibitions of bad temper. We all do it. Since I have spent time in both camps, I have observed that proponent group members are far more sensitive to debates. Any hint of skepticism during discussion triggers a red flag. The skeptic will be immediately marked and potentially censored, even if the talk has been very civil. While we all want to listen to what we want to hear, you must open up to all sides in order to strengthen the foundation of your own. We must consider dissenting views. Scientists are used to criticism and are less easily offended.

False skeptics who love to deny things just because it’s fun aren’t all that pervasive in our discussion forums. They aren’t interested enough to put in the time and effort.

I strongly disagree with allegation that one who gives eyewitness testimony little weight is beyond skeptical. I have said before and no matter what proponents say, anecdotes are not good evidence. If you propose, as evidence, that “I know what I saw”, I will probably scoff because you only think you know what you saw and you can’t repeat it or allow me to reproduce it. It’s only your interpretation. You need more than that to convince me.

This early on, the debaters can’t even decide who is a “scofic”. For example, at first it was used to describe Ben Radford. Then, in later posts, Ben is called a reasoned skeptic, and a considerate one at that. He’s usually welcomed into the debate even if he says things proponents don’t agree with.

Here is my definition of ‘scoftic’ – a person who ridicules a hypothesis or idea while showing a lack of consideration for data, evidence or reasoned conclusions.

Now, there are certainly people who do this. Mostly, these people are ignorant of the topic at hand. But, I can go to a skeptical-themed conference or listen to a podcast and hear the occasional scoffing, especially if the guard is down when you feel like you are among your own kind. I cringe when I hear it and I wish it wouldn’t occur. One point to remember is that skeptics who examine paranormal claims have heard the so-called evidence and related arguments over and over. There is hardly ever much that is new so we tend to have come to a decision on the topic some time ago. We’re still waiting, hoping, to hear about some juicy new evidence.

So, to answer the questions posed in Loren’s blog post:

Do you think the term differs enough from “skeptic” to be useful?
Yes, the terms mean different things.

Do you think the term has demonstrated evolved development of the discussion?
Pardon me? I think it’s going to mean whatever a person wants it to mean. Therefore, it will certainly be used as a derogatory label when a person exhibits outright disagreement with one’s own position.

Is it demeaning?
Not necessarily but it will certainly be used that way.

Dismissive?
Yes. One is in all likelihood stating that “I will no longer listen to you because you disagree with my personal stance on the issue”.

Definitely useful?
Not very.

Worthy of deployment throughout hominology and cryptozoology?
No, not if you want to have reasoned debate and discussion. You ought to debate evidence and issues, not label people or their positions.

Defensively debatable?
Sure, we can debate all day and night. We’ll just dance round and round.

Definitive?
No, because we won’t agree to whom it applies. And, we can hardly be definitive about anything regarding these topics. Too many questions are still unanswered. In pursuit of the answers, we’ll get nowhere and no respect if we chose to surround ourselves with a circle of our own making.

Paint It Black and Take It Back

Sigh…

There seems to be nothing exciting going on these days in the paranormal world. Oh, sure there is the current UFO flap that peaked with the O’Hare report and the Black Triangles. But, honestly, I’ve not been keeping up because UFOs don’t grab me (at least one hasn’t grabbed me yet).

All the air has gone out of Cryptomundo for me lately. Are things really so blah or is it just me?

It is Spring (so says the calendar) which may account for the lack of fun stories meant to break up the winter blues. Since a real Spring has yet to appear in the northeastern U.S., many of us are incubating viruses and passing them on. (ah-CHOO!) My daffodils, with their heads hung low, look miserable. Much like how I feel.

As frequently happens to me, I go through phases of interest. Sometimes I go on a writing jag, sometimes I devour books. I’m not in the mood to do either. I’ve been listening to music, been feeling I should pick up the gee-tar again, checking out new tunes in my favorite pop-punk category and adding to my LaLa want list.

Thanks to my current infatuation with My Chemical Romance: The Black Parade, I’ve painted my nails black, texturized my hair and threw out all my wool blazers and turtlenecks. My 3-year old is bopping along in the back seat to Dead! and Famous Last Words

Why do people sing about death? Dress like vampires? Like to watch horror movies? I can’t imagine it so I’d like to know. I’ve always been fascinated by gothic and vampire themes. But, take note: just because it’s really fun to get into these things does not mean that there is any validity to them. Plus, they’re probably unhealthy for your psyche too.

I end this rambling thought-spillage with a parental moment: What will my children use on me to rebel? They can’t get me with the occult/paranormal, heavy metal, punk, goth (“Dye your hair purple? Cool, let’s go!”) Been there, done that. So, perhaps I’ll rue the day my girls become born again Christians who like country music. Then, I’ll know I failed as a parent.

In the spirit of Blog Against Theocracy

In the spirit of Blog Against Theocracy, I’m expressing some thoughts on this theme. Please do not be offended. I am not opposing religion here, just a specific way in which it is used.

My decision to forgo religion in my life has come about from the same process as my decisions to be pro-evolution and (generally) anti-paranormal.

I was raised in a moderate, church-going family where I learned about religion and the Bible before I knew anything about alternative philosophies and views of the world. I learned about Genesis and stored it away, not really needing any deeper meaning until college.

I read and believed lots of first hand accounts of ghosts, UFOs and Bigfoot in popular books. These were all interesting stories delivered to me with certitude.

I credit Stephen Jay Gould’s books with turning on the light in my brain. He could take something that appeared straightforward (to me) and peel away the surface to reveal hidden agendas, misguided thinking and really baseless assumptions. The seed of doubt was planted and it grew heartily. The view of the world and everything in it changed for me. I can’t imagine how little I would understand of nature and my place in it if I had continued to utilize only those childhood stories.

While many start out the same way as I did, with Sunday school and only basic science education, it’s obvious that not many people go on to investigate what we know and how we know it. I waivered back and forth, like a pendulum, swinging between belief and unbelief in religion and paranormal phenomena. I am now at a place with which I am comfortable. It’s OK to say “I don’t know.” I am becoming secure in my reasoning and feel content with my personal values and ethics. Evidence guides my decisions. I am not credulous. You are likely not telling me the whole truth.

In order to understand and truly appreciate, life – mine and others – I do not need the concept of a personal god or explanations outside of the realm of human knowledge. I certainly do not need the catch-all, irrefutable hypotheses such as “God did it”, it was “God’s will” or that it is beyond human understanding or intelligence.

Even if you are a religious person, you must respect that science and reason have gotten us far in this world. Science is our best method of finding things out. It may not be perfect but, like Democracy, it appears to be the best method we’ve got. In both, it is best to keep religion out of the equation.

That’s why I recently wrote my congressmen loudly voicing my disgust over the current administration’s frequent acts of white-washing scientific reports and censoring governmental scientists because the facts led them to conclusions that are distasteful to the Republican agenda. From birth control methods to global warming, natural resource reserves to endangered species – this administration is completely devoid of reason and integrity. Instead, it appears they believe that humans have every right to plunder the earth. It’s ordained by God! Their faith is of utmost importance.

That’s despicable and entirely un-American. I am livid. How dare they judge themselves superior and privileged over other peoples and cultures and over all other life on the planet. They take no personal responsibility. They only take more money and power. If their god thinks that’s OK, that god doesn’t deserve worship from me.

I don’t feel like hedging my bets and believing in a god just because it couldn’t hurt. It can hurt. If you live your life thinking you must first serve a higher being rather than the greater good of your fellow humans and animals, you fail to adequately respect and serve those of the present and completely disregard prospects for the future. You fail to be a responsible human being. You fail.

Mr. President, you fail.

The Jackson Coincidence

For 11 days this month, it appeared I had entered an alternate world where some higher force was interacting in my life.  Do I believe in fate? Prayer? Karma? No for all three.

Coincidence? Yes. Well, this event seemed to be slightly more “spooky” than coincidental. See what you think.

I have been searching for a dog for my family for 4 months. My acceptable criteria were rather specific: young (but at least 1 year old since a puppy would be more than I could manage right now), must be friendly with kids, intelligent and trainable and preferably under 20 pounds in weight. I was very partial to Papillons because they were imminently suitable to my conditions. However, they are popular and expensive dogs, quickly snapped up from rescues and newspaper ads. I would visit the local shelter occasionally where I had absolutely no luck with small dogs there at all. (It was chock full of pit bulls abandoned by their city owners.)

I was scouring Petfinder.com and the Papillon breed rescue sites. The following is my take on these rescue organizations. Most of the dogs listed were outside my state. I quickly learned that rescue organizations are highly prejudiced toward adoptions near to the dog’s current location. Since they do a home visit and check references, I was unlikely to be acceptable as a candidate. Honestly, for the small breed rescues in particular, the current foster keepers ideally want the dogs to go to homes without children, but with a fenced yard, and experienced dog owners who were home all the time. Retired persons were preferred.

OK. How could I, without the fence, who works full-time during the day, with two young children, manage to obtain one of these dogs? Now, I do have dog experience. Our last pet was a rescued racing greyhound that did fine with us until he passed on from kidney disease. Purchasing a dog from a pet store was completely distasteful to me and promotes careless breeding. Plus, I don’t trust them. However, with the options I had after 4 months of fruitless searches, and some positive stories from pet buyers around me, it was beginning to look like the only viable option. I wanted a dog and no one was willing to give me a chance on adoption.

So, I decided to limit my search to Papillons and resigned to a long wait if necessary until we would be ready to commit to a puppy.

On March 10, I found a local adult Papillon up for adoption that seemed perfect. I responded to the notice on Petfinder immediately with an application and followed up with the rescue organization. The administrator was very nice and we had a good chat. She forwarded my application to the dog’s foster Mom. It seemed very promising.

The dog’s name was “Jake”, a name that didn’t suit us. Lots of adopted dogs have their name changed by new owners. I thought he looked like a “Jackson” and thought I would suggest that to the kids. I had my hopes up too high, already renaming him in my head. On March 12, after Jake’s current keeper never followed up on a promised home visit, she called and said she didn’t think he would be suitable for our smaller daughter since she was apprehensive about active dogs and he was too jumpy. I was angry. Shouldn’t I make that decision? I didn’t plan to allow my dog to continue jumping and display unwanted behaviors that I could reasonably adjust. My hopes were dashed and I was miserable all week.

On Friday, March 16, Petfinder delivered another set of search results to me. On the top of the short list of newly adoptable Papillons (and Pap mixes) was a bundle of black fur listed as approximately 2 years old, fostering in my town. His name was “Jackson”.

I checked out his webpage. From the little picture and description, he looked to be a good fit. I was momentarily stunned by this coincidence! I quick did another application. I already had the details for my three local references. I emailed the foster Mom letting her know directly we were interested.

It snowed heavily that weekend. I heard nothing in response. I wanted to visit the scheduled meet and greet at a local pet shop but I suspected it would be postponed due to the weather. I followed up again via email on Monday. No response at all but Jackson had 4 watchers (including me) for his website. Since the information suggested he would be good for a “retired couple”, I was expecting I’d be ignored again.

On Wednesday, my husband came home for lunch to wait for a contractor to come by to give us a job estimate. Soon after he arrived home, the phone rings and it is Jackson’s foster Mom. She liked our application and would like to bring Jackson over that night! There were formalities left like a home safety check and references but it seemed certain. I dared not get too excited just in case. (By the way, the contractor never showed up.)

Jackson arrived 15 minutes late that evening – I was plenty nervous by then. The dog was so BEAUTIFUL and friendly. He was a stray picked up in West Virginia. How could someone leave him behind? He definitely has Papillon in him but could be a mix with Pomeranian. He has the Pap temperament (“Look at me! Love me! Play with me!”) and is of very portable size.

The foster Mom had already decided he was ours. It didn’t seem to matter that my youngest was dramatically afraid of him. She assured us that Jackson would settle down. On Wednesday night, we were dog owners and off to PetSmart to buy supplies.

Three days later, Jackson is adjusting well. My youngest daughter has fallen in love with him after her initial fear and his excitation wore off. He is awesome and will be a terrific dog to excel in obedience class and possibly agility training.

So, what do I think of the odd way things worked out? It certainly was spooky. But, “Jackson” is not an uncommon name. And, I live near a city that has a whole slew of rescue organizations.

Did I connect with a psychic energy that hinted to me of the future? You could see how some would say it’s fate or heavenly reward but I doubt it. (Of course, cause that’s what I do.) No one dropped him at my door unannounced, I worked for him. It simply pays to be persistent, prepared, and patient. Dogs are abandoned every day, the perfect one might be just around the corner. And, strange as it sounds, some people will give up absolutely fabulous dogs for poor or unknown reasons. Perhaps you’ll be lucky enough, like us, to have things just work out in your favor. I think you make your own luck. Sometimes, a big ole coincidence helps too.

Advice for parents – when the kids are afraid of monsters

I’ve been afraid of and fascinated by monsters since I can remember. Even today, I wonder if there are real monsters in the world.

My previous post spoke about the concept that using the excuse “it’s not real” may not be good enough to quell a fear. The small chance that it might be real can just shatter your idea about life and truth.

Of the few things in life that I am certain of, I’m secure in my certainty that there are no monsters under the bed. No vampires, demons, werewolves, nasty witches or zombies. (I’ve been watching classic Scooby Doo reruns with my kids. Can you tell?) But when I tell my little ones that monsters “aren’t real”, it does little good.

I haven’t researched literature to find out why this excuse doesn’t work. It’s not that they don’t trust me. Perhaps it’s just that they must make the leap of faith in their own minds to assure themselves that something so dreadful and harmful to them can’t possibly be real. I can’t do it for them.

So, I use a different technique.

It’s obvious that during the day no monster are around. Mommy doesn’t threaten to tell the bogeyman about bad behavior and I don’t go about suggesting that the Wicked Witch of the West was a real person. Mommy’s pretty tough but I’m not a monster either. I don’t spank, I try not to scream. But, I do get angry and I don’t put up with nonsense, from children or monsters, at all.

When the fear of monsters surfaces from the young ‘uns, around 9 PM, sure, you can check under their beds and in the closets if it helps but make sure to tell them this. Mommy (or Daddy) will not tolerate big, ugly, smelly monsters in the house at night or at any other time. And, (this part is important) assure them that Mommy will personally kick their sorry hides clear down the street if they even approach the door. Mommy’s not afraid of those monsters.

Mind you that this technique is predicated on the assumption that you do not tolerate monstrous behavior from the child either. If you can’t control the child, he/she knows you are no match for the monster. But, if they truly believe in you and that you are the boss, they feel pretty secure in the thought that you will stand your ground (and might have a slight tinge of sympathy for the monster’s hide). Plus, laughing eases the fear a bit. The vision of me squishing up the hairy green critter and rolling it down the block like a bowling ball is enough to make us all feel a bit better.