Thursday, December 30, 2010

Lovable Dexter.


'Dexter'*) is among the TV series that I enjoy watching. I really think it's a well written, well performed and well directed story, and so, when 'Dexter - season 4' was delivered to me by messenger earlier today, I watched the first 2 episodes.



The series seems to have kept it's 'old, peculiar and laid-back charming style, good person descriptions, building on already established characters and story-lines - re-introducing characters from earlier seasons and thereby building suspense - and Dexter as the main character (TV Series name-giver,) has kept his disarming 'innocent' and boyish style as the 'cosy' narrator, confidentially describing the scenery and activity for the viewer completely as he (secretly) experiences it.

He does well as narrator, actor Michael C. Hall has a good voice for narration, and his interpretation of his character provides a good basis for describing and commenting on the daily goings on as he adds an amusing twist to the side-stories by the ingenious 'fresh' view of the sometimes childlike, but always logically valid, punchlines of his character. He manages to mix in with commonplace concerns that most people experience on a regular basis (or that is my guess) with matter-of-fact-like statements and details about his killings, with such ease and in such a direct but also relaxed approach, that it's hard for the viewer to not begin seeing his criminal activities as what they really are, before the moment when they actually take place ... and I imagine this is partly responsible for the serie's success ... at which point you realize with a small shock that this was actually REAL blood and REAL killing and REAL hunting victims down that Dexter spoke about 5 m in. earlier, and 15 min. earlier, and 30 min. earlier.

Of course the viewer knows all this from the very beginning - at least if he's watched any episodes prior to this - and it's the reason I find the series worthy of praise: It still takes the viewer through the circle, and does it effectively, because Dexter really is likable. In short: He's nice, without being cliche. His niceness and the freshness of his character keeps the show interesting ... along with all the other characters whom the viewer already are or will become familiar with, and learn to love or hate with Dexter as the story unfolds, and it happens painlessly because - our individually personal likes and dislikes aside - they're all lovable or hate"-able" in the same basic way that would make us love or hate them in real life.

That is my second claim: Dexter depicts not a deviant character, as much as it depicts all the feelings that are common for all of us - or at least for most of us - feelings we can identify with, at some level or other, and relate to.


*) ... I did make a search on 'Dexter' in an attempt to find a link to it's website, but none seems to exist.

Monday, December 13, 2010

Empathy, what is it?

On the topic of Empathy...



What is Empathy?...


In an earlier article I say that I'm not really sure what empathy is and therefore I can't answer the question about whether or not I have the capacity to feel it.

On my research for the meaning of the word Empathy I came across an article that describes the difference between sympathy and empathy.

I meant to leave the following comment at the site, but decided I might as well follow up upon my own article instead and post it here. This is what I wrote:


I looked up this article because I recently found that what I thought of as empathy is what others think of as sympathy.

We often hear people say that empathy means to feel someone else's feelings. This seems absurd to me, we can never feel somebody else's emotions, it wouldn't be their emotions if we could, it would be ours.

The author of this article has made a good job on trying to clarify the distinction between the two. As I read it I think: Okay, now I understand. And yet, in the end I still feel a little confused. Where does sympathy end and empathy begin?

The question I am researching is the claim that some people cannot feel empathy. I am sometimes told I am one of them. But when I read this article I can think of many occasions where I've felt what you describe as empathy, only (perhaps) not in quite as many and quite the same kinds of situations as others would.

I am also still left with the question about how others would judge my capacity to empathize. And this kind of judgment seems to take place very much in a gray area of emotional differences people in between, for when do we feel enough empathy or empathize with the right kind of feelings to be considered capable of empathy?

Saturday, December 11, 2010

Am I a Psychopath? - (Part II)

Defining psychopaths as being people who have no morals is pretty much straight forward, nothing hard to understand here.

But when we define people, who DO have morals, as psychopaths, when at the same time one of the defining traits of psychopathy is the absence of morals, we have a problem.

So where does this occur? Well Dr. Robert Hare, f.ex., states that some secondary psychopaths can have morals pretty much as committed and deep as everybody else, the difference lies in what morals they adhere to, or rather: Who's morals they adhere to!

It seems this would mean that if your feelings of commitment and loyalty, your sense of identity in terms of what group (or society) you belong to, are every bit as strong as everybody else's but aren't applied to the majority of society, to mainstream society, then you may be a psychopath (if the other traits are present in you)!


Where do I stand in this regard? ... In a way I stand with the classical psychopath because I don't adhere to morals, at least not in the way that I think morals is right and good just for being morals.

What I do adhere to is ethics.

Ethics is in many ways the opposite of morals. But they also have a much stronger behavioral potential. With ethics you can never be convinced killing Jews is good and right just because it's morally right in that society in that historical era. Depending on the kind of ethics you adhere to they can make you stand on your view of what is right even in the face of being condemned to life in prison or being given a death penalty. I don't believe psychopaths would find such a a way of thinking meaningful - as I've said before, psychopaths don't operate with 'Meaning' in the same way that the rest of us do.



I must say that I do agree with Robert Hare when he says that psychopathy is in part neurological, but there MUST be the presence of a certain type of behavior in order for someone to be diagnosed a psychopath.

So ... The fact is that I do encompass both of these parts, even excessively so. ...So how is it that I still do not see myself as a psychopath, even with so much 'evidence' to the contrary? - This brings me to the heart of the matter, I believe: No matter how complete a system is, there are exceptions. And I think that not only am I one of those, I think there may be a lot of exceptions out there, exceptions that are much easier to point out then myself because most of them haven't even committed crimes.

My claim is related to the claim of those who say: "Not all psychopaths are psychopaths, you know!" ... While that is not exactly what I say, it does have a connection, for I say: Not all who fits the description outwardly are in fact what they may seem! ... Like I've said earlier I believe it has to do with how the individual think.

Here is how I think:

I am not selfish in that I don't care what happens to the world around me. I care a lot!! And I want to do what is in my power to help thing go in the direction that is better rather than worse.
My definition of 'good' is what helps our species survive along with the rest of the planet ... along with the rest of planet, because I believe we're best off if we can ensure some kind of harmony.
However, harmony for me is not 'no death' and 'no illness', etc.. I think everything has it's place and every action it's time. Whether it is good or bad depends on how it impacts life as such, the life of our species first, but most definitely life of the rest of all that exists next. Since the two are almost interchangeable, that statement is actually rhetorical.

I try to see things from the larger perspective, and from the larger perspective thinking only about your own immediate gratification without consideration for anything else, big or small, is either a sign of stupidity and lacking in intellectual capacity, or it is: Psychopathy.

The one most defining factor is 'to care' or "caring'. I think the repeated notion of 'self gratification' stems from a lack of care, basically a lack of care even for the individuals themselves. Is it possible to only care about yourself, when one's own survival and wellbeing obviously in various ways depends upon the same for one's surroundings?
Maybe it's true what some researchers think: That the psychopath is in a permanent state of infantile unawareness of others than themselves. But there's the question about instincts, because there are in every living being inherited instincts that determine our further evolution. In that sense it may very well be that the psychopath is neurotically impaired. But if so, it only helps to further my claim that I'm not myself a psychopath.

I don't think we can afford to only view the psychopathy issue from our current cultural viewpoint - and that's what I think Robert Hare is doing, sadly.



I believe I am, with the above text, very clearly showing that I am not ... cannot be ... a psychopath!

Am I a Psychopath? - (Part I)

When the talk falls on whether somebody has mostly primary or secondary traits, my answer in regard to myself is this: I have a variety of both factor 1 and factor 2 traits - yes, I mean traits on Hare's PCL-R (Psychopathy Check List - Revised). I'm speaking in the context of Psychopathy.


Now how can that be?...

- I don't consider myself a psychopath!


The reason is that I think categorizing everybody who have a certain neurological structure as psychopaths is beyond measure a display of lack in understanding of human nature.

...There, I said it: As much as I agree with you in many ways, Dr. Robert Hare(1*), I also think you lack some fundamental understanding and are very much a product of the present philosophy of the society you grew up in, and as such you are narrow-minded in some ways that are damaging, because as much as your research and the conclusion you have come to are helpful in giving information that can be used to limiting a certain category of damage to society, it extends another kind of damage that we've already been suffering from for a very long time.

I have hesitated with saying this directly until now, in part because I've been weary about getting your attention, but since I know I already have it anyway. and since I think what I have to say does carry some weight, it may be time to express where my view differ from yours. I am not saying I don't respect you, because I do. I think you have done some outstanding research and helped us understand and learn about some of the fundamental things about how the human mind works, how it is structured. In that sense we all owe you more than perhaps anybody else in your field of work (at least within the same period in history).


Some of the more well learned readers may now expect me to put forth one of the somewhat well known claims in the last one or two decades saying: "Not all psychopaths are bad!".

I am not going to do that. Quite frankly I don't agree with it, I think it's probably one of the most ridiculous statements out there.
How on earth do anybody come to a conclusion that all psychopaths are not bad!?? They might as well say: "Not all psychopaths are psychopathic!".

I know this psychopath, it's really unfair how people call him a psychopath and all. And yeah, he may be a psychopath, but it's not like he's a psychopath or anything just because he's psychopath! He's not a psychopath just because he's a psychopath, now, is he!?"

Yeah ... not all psychopaths are psychopaths! ... Can we pronounce the word: 'Ri-di-cu-lous'?.


What I am saying is that not everybody who neurological fits the description of a psychopathic person, are psychopaths. And that may seem just as much of a contradiction as the above, but there is a difference.

Another way of saying it: The definition of a psychopath is too narrow, or too wide as it were.


Are Autistic people psychopaths? According to part of the psychopathy definition they are!

An Autistic person who commits violent crimes and who lacks empathy (one of the things they say about Aspies), would fit the description of a psychopath, even if they're not charming. In fact Hare lists a number of known serial killers whom he (apparently) consider to be the very definition of psychopaths. Among these are Jeffrey Dahmer, Richard Ramirez, and Edward Kemper. Hare admits Ed Gein is not classical psychopath, but he mentions him nonetheless. - The point is that psychopaths can (apparently) also have other conditions. In Ed Gein's case he was schizophrenic, and Jeffrey Dahmer seems more austistic.
But at the same time we learn that psychopaths differ from all the other conditions in that they're not insane and they 'know right from wrong'.

Maybe it's just me, but I think there's a lot of internal contradictions, there are something not quite right about it all. Whereas we all probably have a very good understanding of what psychopathy is, it isn't so easy to define psychopathy as any specific kind of human being abstracted from the cultural setting and the mores it adhere to.


I know Aspies who are charming, at least under certain circumstances, and who lie (a LOT!), who most definitely doesn't display a lot of sympathy (I use the word sympathy because I don't really understand what empathy is, but - though I may be wrong - I bet that if they don't have sympathy they don't have empathy either). The only two things where they don't fit with the typical notion of psychopathy is in that they aren't criminal (to my knowledge, that is) and that they have morals.

But then, we also hear that some people with ASPD, and perhaps some secondary psychopaths and at least some sociopaths, can have morals though not the morals of society in general.


Let me say quite plainly how I see it: Psychopaths are bad, 'bad' is the very fundamental defining part of what it is to be a psychopath. A Psychopath is a person with a certain neurological make-up, but it's more than that: They also fit a description of someone who is bad for other people and for society in general.

A psychopath lack empathy. But he's not a psychopath because he lacks empathy, he's a psychopath because of what he does with his lack of empathy.
A psychopath lacks remorse. But he's a psychopath because of what that leads him to do, of what he uses his lack of remorse as an enabling trait for.
A psychopath lacks anxiety and fear. But that in itself isn't why he's a psychopath, he's a psychopath because of the actions he decides to take which he can take only because he has no fear to stop him from taking them.
A psychopath often has a strong persistent need for emotional stimuli. But he's a psychopath because of the way he seeks stimuli in connection with the type of stimuli he seeks.


Being sadistic does not in itself make you a psychopath. It is what you do with that trait that makes the whole difference. And the same goes for all the other traits.


Being a psychopath is not solely a question of what kinds of personality traits and what neurological make up you have. The definition of psychopathy incorporates to a great extent your actions, what you do with the traits in your personality!



But in my understanding that isn't the whole picture either. I somehow can't help but think a very fundamental part of psychopathy lies in how the psychopath thinks... Or that's how it should be! Because what you do and how you act and behave in life is very much related to how you think.


We often hear that psychopaths believe their victims 'had it coming', or 'it was their own fault', because 'they shouldn't have let me abuse them'. Stuff like that. ... I guess it's got to do with their lack of empathy (though I'm not sure as I don't quite understand what empathy really is). And this is one of the main points where I really differ from any psychopath I have met or heard of: I understand that most people are not like me, and I also understand that people's 'letting emotions run their lives' is not a choice, they really cannot do any different!

Do I use this difference between myself and others? Yes, but only when I have a very good reason to do so. What I'm saying is this: I don't inflict pain without reason or merely for fun. I really have to be very, very under-nourished emotionally before I do something of that sort, and even then I keep it to a minimum.

How many psychopaths can relate to what I just wrote? My bet: None!


This is where I believe my opinion differ from Robert Hare's.


(1*) - ...No, I'm not making myself sound important by talking directly to Dr. Robert D. Hare. I know he'll see this! Hare is a human being like everybody else, not a god. So there's nothing overly self-important in addressing someone, when you know they'll see what you've written! And I know he will. - No, I don't know him and haven't met him. But I know he's researching the same thing I am and with a lot more experience and help than I'll ever have, but texts of the type I write in this blog aren't that common which is why he'll look into them when they get publicly available. - Voila: Nothing psychopathic grandiose about my words to Dr. Hare in this article.

Friday, December 10, 2010

The Mach IV Test.

The Mach IV Test - My answers:

1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=neutral; 4=agree; 5=strongly agree.


1) Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so.

5


2) The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear.

5


3) One should take action only when sure it is morally right.

1


4) Most people are basically good and kind.

1


5) It is safest to assume that all people have a vicious streak and it will come out when they are given a chance.

5


6) Honesty is the best policy in all cases.

1


7) There is no excuse for lying to someone else.

1


8) Generally speaking, people won't work hard unless they're forced to do so.

5  (the keywords here are 'generally speaking' and 'work'. If you love what you do, you're not likely to consider it work.


9) All in all, it is better to be humble and honest than to be important and dishonest.

1


10) When you ask someone to do something for you, it is best to give the real reasons for wanting it rather than giving reasons which carry more weight.

1


11) Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean, moral lives.

1


12) Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is asking for trouble.

5


13) The biggest difference between most criminals and other people is that the criminals are stupid enough to get caught.

5  (keyword here is 'most' criminals).


14) Most people are brave.

1


15) It is wise to flatter important people.

4  (I choose 4 because it is mostly wise, but not always).


16) It is possible to be good in all respects.

1


17) P.T. Barnum was wrong when he said that there's a sucker born every minute.

1 (he was clearly right).


18) It is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there.

5


19) People suffering from incurable diseases should have the choice of being put painlessly to death.

5  (how does this relate to Machiavellianism? Well, I guess I'm anti-macchiavellian then)


20) Most people forget more easily the death of their parents than the loss of their property.

3  (I have no idea what others forget easier. It's most likely 50/50. What do I know. Personally I don't forget either, I have good memory. Also, what kind of property are we talking about? Parents only come in one variety, and they differ from everything else you'll ever own. Well, as I said, I don't know, so it's a 3)


I couldn't get it to process the answers (even after logging in), so I don't know my score. Maybe somebody else can tell me if I'm Machiavellian or not?

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

"Just for Me!" is Just for Psychopaths! - Part II.

In relation to the 'late' trend and shift in commonplace attitude towards Sociopathy, the Danish music video hit "Kun for Mig" (Eng.: "Just for Me" or "Only for Me") by MEDINA.This is a very popular song that focus on self-indulgence.

Apparently it's about a woman who was cheated upon or left, or who left someone because (they cheated on her?) ...! The text is not, like we might expect, about her feelings of sadness or loss or of feeling shame, loneliness or longing, i.e.. Instead it focus on her decision to now indulging only self gratification. The chorus is: "Just/only for Me!, just/only for me!". If it had fit in with the tune the chorus might have been "Just/only about me!", but the rest of the text makes it clear what the message is, and it's portrayed in way that leaves no doubt about it being cool and understandable and the thing to do to indulge in selfishness and cynicism. Most of the visual takes place in discotheques, and some of it pictures the singer riding a cab on her way to the discotheque, to town, to have 'fun', and away from individual commitment and love.

It's a situation many people can relate to, for many have felt that occasional rebellion against being the victim of love that went wrong, feelings that left the person hurt and sad. It's the wish to escape the vulnerable state you open yourself up to when you love and have committed to someone or something.

And here is why it is important: In the last three or four decades a tendency in the normal, empathic, and thus major part of the population in western and industrialized societies, there has been a shift in attitude and mentality. The qualities of character that we consider valuable, which we strive to enhance in the personalities of ourselves and of our children, and in our everyday lives and behavior, are in fact psychopathic qualities.

I will describe in detail...


People who study psychopathy and Sociopathy commonly uses a terminology among themselves which distinguishes between the psychopaths/sociopaths and neuro-typical ('normal') people. These are the two basic groups that is being operated with...One is represented by the Psychopaths, Sociopaths, Antisocial Personality Disordered, etc.(1*), sometimes in casual exchanges for short called 'Socio' (ref. the older 'Psycho'). The other represents the Neuro-typical, or 'normal, Person, and is generally referred to as 'Empaths' - from the perhaps most central of the assumed abilities in 'normal' people to somehow feel what somebody else feels, or literally Feel somebody else's feelings, usually simultaneously - the term for this is 'empathy' (my personal opinion about this thesis or whether such is even practically possible is another matter), and from here stems the term 'Empath' used in the group I'm speaking of here.


I wanted to describe the meaning of the word 'empath' as it is being used among those who study psychopathy because it is important in relation to the trend I exemplified with the pop song and video mentioned above. The term I stick to is 'Psychopath'. It's the oldest and most prevalent, and it has the favor over the other terms of not being affected by an attempt to get rid of the stigma it has acquired by the associations it carries from common experience and knowledge. It doesn't have the tint of being less serious and being more acceptable like the term 'Sociopath'. And it has none of the total loss of well known associations of the term Antisocial Personality Disorder, which very commonly is thought to be en par with f.ex. Borderline Personality Disorder (at worst), or even ADHD, and - like ADHD - being associated mostly with children and youths.

Whereas ASPD in fact may be treatable, at least to a lesser extent, it is also the only disorder that resembles psychopathy which has even the slightest amount of possible treatability, and that's a problem when the term is used interchangeably with Psychopathy and Sociopathy, which are both at present considered non-treatable. - When we hear or see the word 'Psychopath', we know we're not hearing about a person who may have problematic behavior, who may tend use too unacceptable swear words when he gets angry once a month and starts slamming doors. We know this is not someone who's 'crimes' consists of talking back to his boss or that they can't keep jobs. That's what we expect when we hear about someone that they have ASPD. Then there're the one who cheats on his wife and who may be prone to gambling more than he can afford, or who doesn't pay his bills on time and who schemes against his colleagues in order to get a raise instead of them. This is what we may expect from someone we hear is a sociopath. But when we hear someone is a Psychopath we know it's more than that, we know it's (possibly) seriously much more than that. And that is one main reason why I stick with this term.

Another main reason is that I don't like the tendency to include more or less every human trait that just slightly carries resemblance to something which, when really extreme, is psychopathic. Psychopathy is an extreme condition, it is not your average neighbor. I know there're so called experts who are proposing that psychopathy is far more common that we've previously thought, and they propose that a vast number of people who have the 'coldness' it takes to make it in politics and business, are psychopaths. They paint a picture that makes it seem that large corporations are swarming with psychopaths, and the obvious next thought is that The White House is in the same position.

In my opinion there's no doubt that there are psychopaths in such places and which powerful positions. But the vast majority are not psychopaths, nowhere near so!

So why are we seeing this rise in obviously psychopathic qualities being displayed more and more openly and even publicly? ... As I've pointed to earlier, the pop industry may be the one place that pictures most clearly of all where the tendency is going. But my main message is this: The problem is not anymore the psychopaths themselves than it ever was. There has always been psychpaths in the western industrialized societies, and they've always represented a problem. But they've never been a major problem for the prosperity and health of a society as such, and I put forth that they still do not hold any such position.
Here's what I think is the problem:

Empaths, normal neuro-typical people have begun adopting psychopathic values and behaviors. And THAT is a real problem!! - There's a grain of truth to what the witch-hunters are saying: The psychopaths are thriving. It's true, the psychopaths will not be harmed by this change in societal values. In fact the psychopaths don't get harmed by any kind of societal values. They can adapt, because they don't have the central emotional components that are depending upon a certain kind of life conditions in order to thrive. But the empaths themselves will - and do - get harmed.

It's a very sad irony that it's the empaths themselves who are exercising the new psychopathic trend and enforcing it upon their fellow empathic majority of the population.

The realistic estimate of psychopaths existing in a population at any time, is 1% ... and it's probably even a high estimate. I know most experts think it to be slightly higher than I do, but I don't think they have the practical experience that I do. After all, most of them grew up in well functioning middle or high class environments and come into contact with psychopaths via their work. I have lived almost all of my life among that very minority in society where psychopaths are most likely to be - at some point, and at the larger amount of their lives - due to their characters and what their behavior results in, etc..

- I should say though, that when I estimate a low 1%, this is from my focus on what we call primary, or true, psychopaths. Admittedly, there is a larger number of people who's characters are of an overall psychopathic quality, but where the limit is can't be absolutely determined. I think I will agree with Robert Hare: Primary and secondary psychopaths make up somewhere between 2 and 3%.

Another thing I can say with certainty is that under the present conditions it is a small minority of psychopaths who can fit into society. Thus there the majority are likely to be in the part society I have lived in: The criminal and disintegrated part. The second largest part is likely in the opposite end of society: The very powerful. I believe this because I don't think these people would be able to get avoid being put in the same spot as the majority is without exceptional power enabling them to do so.
Whether or not this arrangement should be seen as acceptable is another matter (and in my personal opinion it depends upon how it's being handled by the empaths in power. I know of examples that to me seem to be nearly perfect and perhaps the one model I would wish exercised for psychopaths everywhere. But it's not likely to happen in our time where people can't get to terms with the idea that people being different in between also means their needs in terms of life standards and rules are different. For as long as we believe so firmly in equality - while agreeing that our differences should be allowed voice (free speech) - oppression of minorities will continue to exist).



(1*) = ...are terms that are still subject to some debate and are interpreted differently scholars and experts in between, wherefore the group I'm referring to here generally use these terms interchangeably (a practice I don't approve of, but I can't change it and so I have to accept it).

"Just for Me!" is Just for Psychopaths! - Part I.

Since my relationship with a wonderful woman several years ago who was from Scandinavia and lived in Denmark, I developed a special interest in Scandinavian - and specifically Danish - culture and mythology. So intrigued was I by what I learned and the potential possibilities that I saw, that I decided to stay and live there for a while. I've always had an interest in languages as well as some talent in that regard (though my dyslexia is a strong factor in keeping my potential from being realized), and I have managed to learn some Scandinavian. I also watched a number of Scandinavian movies, and though I really don't care much for the vast majority there are a small number of contemporary films that I consider small strokes of genius. In the music scene I have widely the same view, and it is in a Danish music video that I've decided to draw a line in association to the topic on which I'm about to write a first tentative article.

I would like to take a moment here to also make a note on the fact that my texts as far as to this point in this blog are not the final versions. They all need a lot of editing, and most aren't finished. My dyslexia also is very apparent in many if not most of them (a fact some of my readers have already pointed out), and since it's not the more traditional kind of dyslexia where you switch words and letters (though I have this dyslexia type too, but in a much lesser degree). I will not go into details about my dyslexia here. I'll write a blog about it at a later point as it actually relates to psychopathy (Yes, dyslexia in a certain form relates to psychopathy!).

But I wanted to explain that whereas I'm pleased to be able to make my writings available at this point, I do still consider the texts on these pages to be 'in the making', and much of them time I am presenting temporary outlines to what is planned on becoming actual articles later on, and maybe ... as many have suggested over the years ... finally parts of a larger work.

As far as an auto biography goes....Yes, I have no doubt that my life's story would be a very entertaining read, but there're already so many books like that out there. As long as I am not a celebrity I don't see much point in spending a lot of time and work on producing just another few hours entertainment that people can get just as well or better elsewhere and from other books.
If I do decide to write an auto-biography after all, it will be with the intention of telling a very different story. My own story will just provide the background by which I can create a perspective that I haven't seen done before, and as such it might be able to carry some messages that are important enough to be told. But I will have to remain with the conclusion I have stood with and expressed for the previous 7 years: I am not planning an auto-biography. And to finish it up: I am Simply not good enough yet!... For now I'll have to be happy with having a platform where I can get my viewpoints out. For though I know I am far from an eloquent writer ... or even a good one ... I do have important things to say.

...Thank you for your attention.