Friday, June 11, 2010

Happyrrhic Father's Day

As part of my regularly-scheduled Thursday talk with Kait0r, she asked me when I was next going to come visit her.  "Father's Day weekend," I replied.  She got excited and told me she had something to show me:

"I have a scrapbook!  But it's not for you!"
"Oh, whom is it for, then?" I asked, anxiously.
"Byron!"
"What's in it?" I asked, nervously.

Before she was so hyper and vocal about her thoughts with others, I feared that since she never grew up with me around--only with Byron--that she wouldn't understand the actual concept of who a father is; further, I worried that it would impact the role she saw of a father later in her life.  A couple years ago, I felt a bit of relief when I noticed that she only referred to Byron, my ex-wife's new partner, by his name, but did address me as "dad."

"Lots of pictures of me and Byron!"

Tuesday, June 08, 2010

The strength to keep my integrity, and the time my daughter and I deserve together

I was walking through Eglinton Square mall today; it's a small mall, close to where I live, that I walk through occasionally. I say "hi" to Jack, the computer kiosk vendor. I pick up my library reserves and drop off last week's audiobooks I listened to whilst walking. This time, Alan Greenspan's (2007) "The Age of Turbulence." I walked into the Coles Bookstore (yes, they still exist!). I had on my mind to find my daughter a Spongebob Squarepants item of paraphernalia--of any sort--just because. Just because we watched it together, over the phone, last Thursday.

I found this bookmark, with the inscription "Shh! I'm trying to read!" I recognized it immediately as the exact same bookmark my mother had bought for me when I was kait0r's age, about 25 years ago. Except the one my mother got me had a red tassle; this one had a black one, with some beads. I immediately snapped it up and explained to the cashier that I had owned the exact same bookmark some 25 years before, and that although I had been looking for something Spongebob since the Hallmark Store, I just had to get her this, lest I feel pressured into getting yet another piece of Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus memorabilia.

As I walked around the mall with my purchase, I realized that this wasn't fair. The visitation and telephone call arrangement that her mother has been fasitidious about (and even within that agreement, she has, on several occasions, forgotten to answer the phone during a scheduled call, or showed up late to pick up my daughter, without calling ahead--and since I'm now driving about two hours each way to visit her, in a foreign town without her cellular phone number, it's quite an inconvenience to try to find my ex and my young daughter when we meet at large venues, such as malls; sometimes I have to have them paged a few times before they remember to come meet).

The night before a scheduled flight in November, 2009, I had to Seattle, to attend a Walden University PhD residency, I was talking with my daughter on the phone. She intimated to me that she did wish we talked more, but that whenever she brought it up, she got "wiggles" in her tummy because it made her mother mad to bring it up. Nevermind that the current vistitation and access agreements were made years ago, before I moved to Toronto specifically to be closer to my daughter, and increase the frequency that I would get to spend days with her. Of course, at the time the court order was agreed upon, I lived about nine hours each direction to visit her; the court system the way it is, if I requested more visitation--and due to Canadian winters--for example in Winter 2007-2008, the GTA received over 50cm of snow one day--and then 50+cm again the next day! But if I had requested more access and was unable to make it to all of them, in the court's eyes, I had asked for too much and I could lose some of those visitation rights. I specifically moved to Toronto to be close enough to visit much more frequently--certainly once a week wouldn't have been an absurd ask. Yet my ex wife insists on fastidiously sticking to the one-a-month arrangement we arranged during our divorce years earlier. In fact, I was the one that had to initiate that because she had begun to play those games where none of the times I suggested, for months at a time, were acceptable times to pick up my daughter, or even spend time with her at home.

I have the strength and respect that I will not undermine my ex wife's authority when kait0r is with me; for example, she was not allowed to see Alice (2010), and she is not allowed to have pop at home. When we go out, the same rules apply. She cannot come to me to circumvent a normal rule. But I know that I do not have the psychological strength to keep that kind of integrity when she becomes a rebellious teen and comes to me when she can't get what she wants from her mother.

When Kaitlain was just born, I used to spend more time, in fact, with her than her mother. Whilst her mother would nap or watch television in the months after Kait0r was born, I would often take her with me to run errands or buy groceries. It was literally like having a part of me ripped away that night that her mother took her away without so much as a note indicating where she was going. My lawyer at the time advised that removing our child without an agreement constituted kidnapping, and I had to go through a length emergency court motion that my ex-wife never forgave me for; I had repeatedly emphasized that I did not want to appear hostile, but that my lawyer advised me that if I did not respond legally to that kidnapping, I would appear to have acquiesced and given up all my rights.

I want only the strength to do what is right, and to spend the time with my daughter that I feel we both deserve.

Labels:

Thursday, May 26, 2005

Are our affinities for our acquired tastes stronger than our tastes for things we like right away?

Why are there no new episodes of the Daily Show Lately?


I puked the first time I tried blue cheese. Now, it's probably my favourite food in the world. I have weaker (shallower?) attachments to things I took likings to immediately than to things I've acquired affinities for over time. Maybe relationships share some of these qualities, too. Maybe some of the strongest relationships need time to see past the shallower aspects too.

Thursday, April 07, 2005

How the Handicapper became a Jockey




The other night, I had a rather intense dream. Intense emotions. Intense realism.

Intense fiction.

When one of my roommates first moved in to my current house and home last spring, he introduced me to the discipline of handicapping thoroughbred horse-races using the structured and tried and true methodology of the Controlling Factors: Speed, Class, Record, Weight, Interval between races, time, and odds. While he has returned to work two days per week, he spends every of the intervening days, for most of each day, betting the horses. Personally, I think it is a bit excessive, but it's not my business, as long as he makes rent each month.

Since then, I've expanded my handicapping knowledge base, including formal studies of various methodologies--but still, I don't have the money to play the races regularly--nor the desire to--but rather continued more formal studies because of my extensive background in forecasting, modeling, and statistical analyses.

But this is just background information for this odd, intense dream I had the other day.

The beginning of the dream started with my estranged wife spending pleasurable quality time together with me, just like we used to do. It was a refreshing change from the cold rudeness she affords me whenever I travel to her parents' house, where she lives with my daughter.

They say time heals all. But surely this is a sign that the intervening year and a half since our separation has had barely any effect at all--that I still wish that a snap of the finger could bring us back to our happy days--that we could once again be a happy family. In my dream we spent happy times, as we did for so much of the almost five years we were together, exploring the natural world together--thinking about the science behind what we take for granted--thinking about such things as why ice floats, for example. We take for granted that ice floats. But because we take it for granted, we don't think about it. And because we don't think about it, we really don't understand what is going on that makes ice float. In fact, ice won't always float. We take it for granted that ice floats in liquid water, but never stop to think that the very physics that makes ice float in water could make ice sink in some other liquids, or that in the microgravity of freefall, such as a spaceship in orbit--that's right, there is a strong gravitational pull on spaceships; the only reason astronauts seem to be weightless (not massless, which would mean they didn't exist) is because, they--and their spacecraft--are in fact very strongly being affected by the earth's gravity. They are weightless because they are in a very controlled freefall in a special condition where they fall towards the earth (quite fast, too--the speed at which they orbit) and they fall at just the right angle that their freefall is just at a rate that matches the curvature of the earth. That's right--spaceships and astronauts are actually in freefall, because of the earth's gravity (and their very fast orbital speed is evidence of how strong this gravity is), but in a special freefall where they fall towards the earth, and just match the curvature of the earth, so the freefall can continue ad nauseam. If the spaceship moved faster than the pull of gravity made them fall, the spaceship would leave orbit--and not be weightless. If the spaceship moved slower than the pull of gravity, it would not keep up with the curvature of the earth and would fall towards the earth until it crashed--and experience negative gee's. The whole reason I expounded on the explanation of spaceships and the illusion that there is no gravity in space is to explain further that ice does not float in space, but not because there is no gravity--rather because the spaceship is in freefall matching the pull of gravity, thus making it seem like there is no gravity, when in fact, there is a lot of gravity in space. Because it the pull of gravity is matched by the spaceship's freefall, ice in water would not float--the pull of gravity on the water and the ice is matched and made to seem absent because the ship that the glass of icewater is in is in freefall.

So why does ice float on earth, when we obviously know that gravity is present?

It is because water behaves strangely around its freezing point. Due to hydrogen bonding and the fact that a water molecule is polar (that is, because of an unpaired set of electrons on the oxygen-rich side of the molecule, and the relative lack of any charge on the hydrogen side, the water molecule is overall neutral electrically, but exerts a slight negative charge effect on the oxygen side and a slight positive charge effect on the hydrogen side). Because water is polar, it experiences hydrogen bonding--that is, an attraction between the unbalanced concentration of negative charge on the oxygen side and the unbalanced lack of negative charge (relative positivity) on the hydrogen side. This attraction occurs between water molecules and is, in fact, what causes water to be liquid at room temperature and pressure instead of a gas; without the cohesion caused by this polarity keeping molecules attracted to each other, at room temperature, water would not have any attraction between molecules, and a substance as light as water would cease to have any cohesive forces within it, freeing the molecules to act as a gas.

So, what does this have to do with ice floating? (Or, more circumlocutionally, what does this have to do with my intense dream?) It is this polarity that causes something strange to happen to the intermolecular interactions of water around its freezing point (perhaps another day, I'll explain that the Celsius temperature scale does not mean that the freezing point of water is "cold" or "hot"--or that 0°C lacks any temperature and, say, -40°C (which coincides with -40°F, incidentally). The Celsius scale was simply defined as 0°C being the temperature at which water turned from liquid to sold (or vice versa) at standard pressure, and 100°C was the point at which water turned from liquid to gas (or vice versa). But as I said, I'll write more at length on this in a future post....

As I just mentioned, the polarity causes something "strange" to happen around freezing temperature. First, I must make something else we take for granted--and therefore don't really understand--perfectly clear; I must define what, precisely, a "liquid" and a "solid" are. A liquid, as I alluded earlier, is a state of matter characterised by intermolecular attraction strong enough to cause the molecules of a substance to maintain contact with each other (without molecules having a strong enough attraction to maintain contact with each other, the substance ceases to "stay together" and becomes a gas). But this intermolecular attraction is not strong enough to form a structure (i.e. the intermolecular forces are not strong enough to maintain each molecule of the substance a fixed position relative to each other--a solid). What is the force opposing intermolecular forces, determining what state a substance will be? It is temperature, something else we take for granted. Temperature, technically defined by the Kinetic Molecular Theory, is simply defined as the amount of kinetic energy (energy of motion) the substance's molecules have. The faster the molecules move, the hotter a substance is. The slower a substance's molecules move, the colder the temperature. Therefore, although it is "temperature" that determines what state a substance will be--solid, liquid, or gas--a more meaningful explanation is that whether a substance will be a solid, liquid, or gas, is determined by the balance between the intermolecular attraction and the motion of the molecules (temperature) which acts opposing the intermolecular attraction. A solid is thus the point at which intermolecular attractive forces are stronger than the motion of the molecules. And since we do not change the intermolecular forces of a substance, the only variable is the temperature--or the motion of the molecules. A liquid is a substance within the range of temperature/molecular motion where intermolecular attraction is able to maintain a cohesion between the substance's molecules (i.e. intermolecular attraction is strong enough to prevent the substance from being a gas, but not strong enough to maintain fixed relative positions of the molecules--a solid), but not strong enough to make it a solid. When the molecular motion is high enough to overcome the intermolecular attraction, the substance ceases to maintain cohesion between molecules and the molecules have enough energy to roam freely--be a gas.

So what happens that is "strange" with water around it's freezing temperature? What is "strange" is that liquid water--water with enough intermolecular attraction to maintain cohesiveness of the substance to itself but enough molecular motion/temperature to prevent its molecules from settling into fixed relative positions/structure--has a certain average distance between its molecules. I don't know what it is numerically, but it naturally has a certain average distance between the molecules. Because of its polarity, when the temperature is low enough/molecular motion is slow enough/defined in the Celsius scale as 0°C, the water molecules are moving slowly enough that they do not have enough energy to move out of a fixed orientation/structure. But just before water "freezes" or "settles into a fixed position of molecules relative to each other," the polarity of the water molecules cause them to orient themselves in a hexagonal 3-dimensional structure. At temperatures/motions around freezing temperature, there is enough molecular motion energy to keep the hexagonal structure having an average distance between molecules that is farther apart than the average distance between liquid water molecules.

Why does this make solid water (ice) float in liquid water? It is because of this differential in distance between water molecules as a solid and as a liquid. (It should be noted that at slower molecular motions than around the freezing point, the molecules do not have enough molecular motion energy to keep the perfect hexagonal structure and the intermolecular forces win over the motion of temperature, causing the intermolecular attractive forces to draw water molecules closer together. This causes solid water to become more dense. At some theoretical point, the intermolecular attraction is strong enough to pull the water molecules closer together than liquid water's molecules, making ice sink.

But around the freezing point of water, when the hexagonal solid structure maintains a distance between molecules farther apart than liquid molecules, the concentration of mass is less in the solid structure than the concentration of mass of the liquid.

This is where I must point out that you should realize that it is not really ice that floats. It's really the more concentrated mass of the liquid water that is trying to fall as close to the earth as possible. Because it has more concentrated mass than the solid water (ice), it pushes the solid water out of the way. It could be sideways, upwards, diagonal--it doesn't care; the liquid water only cares about being as low as possible. So if it pushed the ice sideways, it would not gain any advantage in being lower. The only way to make as much liquid water sink as far down as possible is to push everything less dense than it upwards. This means, of course, that if you had a balloon filled with carbon dioxide and a balloon filled with helium as well as ice chunks in a swimming pool, the water would push the helium balloon and the ice upwards. But the carbon dioxide-filled balloon has more concentrated mass than liquid water (i.e. is more dense), so it pushes everything out of the way to get to the lowest position. This means pushing water, helium balloon, and ice out of the way to be lowest.

Now, I think you will never look at a glass of icewater the same way again.

And now, I can get back to my dream.

It was the enjoyment of exploring such simple physical properties for the sake of understanding that my wife and I shared. And in my dream, we blissfully discussed such properties.

After my dream took a sharp change in story, it went from the blissful to the exotic.

Enter my father, my sister, one of my friends, Brad, his dream-generated brother, my father, my father's girlfriend, and my other roommate, Alex. Somehow now there was an understanding that we would all participate in a thoroughbred race--not bet on it--we would be jockeys. What began to drive me crazy was that each person, in turn, caused a delay for some reason or other, to the point that Brad decided that he no longer had time to race his horse. Then his brother dropped out. Then my father's girlfriend, and then him. My sister stuck with me the longest (but strangely caused the first delay for taking a bath). Then I blew up at my father. Probably repressed emotions from waking hours, I lashed out at him for not understanding my situation. I lashed out at him for never even trying to understand my difficult emotional, financial, and life situation. He was lying down on a couch at the time, and completely out of character when he drew the blanket up to cover his crying face. Of course, in real life, I know his obstinance would result in the confrontation ending with his storming away, even more righteous than before, even less understanding than before.

At this point, the craziness of the idea that we would jockey horses yielded to the insanity of my intensely resentful, painful emotions. The fact that because the numbers worked out such that I and my friend would be jockeying two horses--just as insane as the idea that we would race a horse in the first place--was even overpowered by my anger of being delayed by everyone close to me, one by one; was even overpowered by my resentful feelings of being betrayed by everyone close to me when they decided not to race, after causing all the delay; was even overpowered by my disappointment that my parents had become increasingly less supportive and understanding as time has gone on--was even overpowered by my losing my wife and daughter a second time.

When I first set out to write this exposition, I thought it would help to verbalize all this pain.

But now, over an hour after I wrote the first words, the emotional pain has become so intense--the tears accurately prophesied in my dream now a reality--I realize that time has done nothing to heal anything.

Rather, time has caused my emotional wounds to fester and ripen--and rot.

If not time, what--if anything--will save me?

Saturday, March 26, 2005

What would she think of me now?

My daughter, born July 6, 2003, is less than two years old. Of course I can't expect her to recognize me every time I visit, since I can only afford to visit her once every two months or so. But what would that turn into in her adolescent years?

"Where were you when I was growing up?? Living it up without a care in the world?!?

Of course not. Going from MBA graduate and performance measurement consultant to living on social assistance is hardly living it up. And still being completely in love with my estranged wife doesn't quite portray the picture she'll develop growing up. Her mother with her new boyfriends. Her life not knowing her father.

But why do I keep trying to find a job in my field in Toronto? It's not because I'm in love with Toronto; it's to be close to you, my beloved daughter.

But how can a father explain that to a daughter--as much of a genius as she is--as less than two years old? I can't.

I'll have a small amount of money after the 30th. Maybe I'll plan a trip then. But will I have a birth certificate in hand?

Sometimes I'm too much of a nice guy.

Monday, March 21, 2005

My daughter is a genius!




Last week I was in Toronto for that Interview I mentioned in a previous blog. The interview was on a Monday, and my sister was gracious enough to let me stay at her place as long as I needed to. So, I made plans for Tuesday and Tuesday morning left early to visit my daughter, a couple hours away. She lives with her mother and maternal grandparents in the countryside between Hamilton and St. Catharines.

I got there and rang the doorbell.
No Answer.

I had already made arrangements, so I knew someone was home. I rang the doorbell again.
No Answer. Ashley must be on the phone...as she usually is when I visit...

I banged on the door a bit to try get someone's attention and I heard some noises within. I heard the door unlatch and saw the slightly bedraggled face of my once-beloved wife, seemingly perturbed for interrupting her phone call. As I made my way in and down to the family room, she returned to her all-important phone call. Must be the boyfriend.

I had a gift for Kaitlain, but she seemed not to recognize me. Not as her father. Not as a friend. Not as anyone in particular.

This really hurts. My own daughter.... who showed more recognition in the first three months of her life when we lived together... can't even recognize me as someone she should know.

*sigh*

A few minutes later, as she always does, she warmed up to me, and became my friend.
She ran and fetched something from the corner, out of sight.

Oh, a book? For us to read?

She quickly pointed out a few objects in the book and ran back to put the book back, returning shortly with another book.

Oh, another book! What can you point out in this one? Oh! The Moon! That's right!

I took out the camera I had borrowed from my sister to take some pictures and fumbled around with it to figure out how to turn it on. Eventually, I figured it out and snapped a couple pictures. Ashley was nice enough to take some time out of her busy television-watching schedule to demand her passport and birth certificate. I replied that I didn't know where they were.

The nerve! She asked for the snowboard I gave her back, and I gave it to her. She asked for this and that back. And I've always brought them for her. Here I am, unemployed, waiting for my first disability cheque (going on over three months since I was approved and not a penny in sight), I ask for the ring back to help me survive, and she refuses to let me pawn it for survival money. And now makes more demands on me?

In my brief lapse of attention, Kaitlain had taken the camera from me and was turning it on and off! She had figured out in less time than it had taken me, how to turn on and off the camera! And from the few times I snapped her picture, she already knew how to jam it in my face, right way forward and up, and all!

I took it back and shoved it quickly without thought into its leather case. Without having to be shown, she took the camera, removed it from its case, and turned it on. No sooner had I realized this than it was shoved in my face again, ready to snap a closeup of my nose! And then she put it back in the case.

Now I don't know any standards for development at different ages, but I'm pretty sure she figured out the proper orientation and the fact that the camera fits into its leather case at all in record time.

My daughter is a genius.

Friday, March 18, 2005

// IMPORTANT // Telephone Scam to hijack your phone line! -- Please Read!





I was recently informed of this scam by a friend, but after receiving it for the second time from another friend and reading more about it, I decided to post a copy of the Blog found at http://www.benedictionblogson.com/archives/001197.php A large number of replies have been posted there as well with others' experiences, so you might want to check out that link after reading about it...

The information is from the RCMP

Telephone scam: "$99 vacation"

La version française suit la version anglaise.

The Telephony Unit has been advised that many employees have received along-distance call (from 1-305-675-6263 or 567-3100) advising that theyhave won a 5-day vacation for only $99.

The recorded message asks the winner to dial "9" to speak to an operator.

This is a scam. If you receive such a call, please hang up and do not press 9. If you do, others will be able to make long-distance callsfrom your telephone line and charges will be forwarded to your bill.

We thank you for your cooperation.

Arnaque téléphonique : voyage pour 99 $
Le Groupe de la téléphonie a appris que plusieurs personnes ont reçudes appels interurbains (des numéro 305 675-6263 et 567-3100) lesinformant qu'ils viennent de gagner un voyage de cinq (5) jours pourseulement 99 $.

Le message enregistré demande au gagnant d'appuyer sur le « 9 pour parler à un téléphoniste. Veuillez noter qu'il s'agit d'une arnaque. Si vous recevez un tel appel, raccrochez immédiatement sans appuyer sur le 9.

Autrement ces gens pourront faire des appels interurbains à partir de votre lignetéléphonique et les frais seront facturés à votre numéro.

Nous vous remercions de votre collaboration.

These numbers are working their way through trunk systems. People receiving the calls in Canada and the US are asked to contact PhoneBusters. See the updated info.
Posted by Bene Diction at January 20, 2005 11:52 PM

Comments
Not only is it a scam, but the automatic dialing system they are using spent the better part of Friday calling every 911 trunk we had in our system. Because the calls came from out of country, Bell couldn't shut them down.Telemarketers!!!!!!Steam from my ears Bene....
Posted by: hamster on January 24, 2005 10:28 AM