The Logic of Everything Happens for A Reason

When people say they believe "everything happens for a reason", what they are NOT sayings is that there are things that happen for no reason. What they really mean when they say it, is that they believe that everything happens for a "divine" or "pre-ordained" reason. And typically, they mean it happens for a reason that, while perhaps not understood, is for a "good" reason. [For the non-divine, everything DOES happen for a reason because everything has a cause and effect.]

Now, if we follow that logic, then anything that happens is, ultimately, for the best, for "me" the believer.

I believe that life is a journey not a destination and, like many journeys, companion travelers come and go along the way. If I believed that "everything happens for a reason" then I would except the coming and going as "pre-ordained" and hence, best or for the betterment of me.

Sometime after my first marriage ended, I realized that we had both ended up in better places than when we started. The question, however, is, had we not come together, would we have ended up, in the same time frame, better or worse than where we started? There is, of course, no way to answer this. But if I believe that "everything happens for a reason" then I should assume that it was better for both of us to have come together and thus, in the end, better for us to have come apart as that also was for the best of both of us. This would mean, then, that my journey and her journey needed to intersect for a time in order to bring us to a better point. Once that point was reached, our paths then led in different directions and we parted to carry on with our own journeys.

So, should I have looked upon my divorce as a bad thing or a good thing? At the time, we saw it as a bad thing and only in hindsight is it perceived differently. But, perhaps I should view all future "negative" events as really positive in that they are there to move me further along my journey. And while the "going away" of people we care about seems to be sad, perhaps we should not look at it that way but should instead rejoice that we have had the time we did together. Certainly, nothing that we know of precludes the possibility of our meeting again sometime in the future--with the assumption that we either 1) are better than when we parted or 2) perhaps are in need of each other again.

Chicago

I've been listening to Chicago's Greatest Hits Vol I--you know "Saturday in the Park" and such and I just wonder why there's nothing like this going on in today's music. Hell, I don't even know if anyone is using horns in their rock let alone filling the void of this kind of great music.

Admittedly, I don't listen to the radio...the iPod has made that unnecessary so I can't say for sure there isn't anything out there, but I do peruse iTunes and can't seem to find anything.

Anyone know something I don't? (besides all that....)

It's been a while...

Yeah, I know...but I been Tweeting...

Blogger

Well, well....guess who's bringing the 21st century to my conservative old school company? That's right, for the project I'm working on, I've convinced them to let me keep everyone updated via a corporate blog. Now that the idea's out of the bag, I've heard others wanting to do the same.

On the down side, our Legal won't let us keep it anonymous...but it's a start....

A Little More On Healthcare

While the interview with one of my favorite persons contains much, here's a little more on healthcare:

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, healthcare is a dramatic case. I mean, for decades, the healthcare issue has been right at the top of domestic concerns, for very good reasons. The US has the most dysfunctional healthcare system in the industrial world, has about twice the per capita costs and some of the worst outcomes. It's also the only privatized system. And if you look closely, those two things are related. And the privatized system is highly inefficient: a huge amount of administration, bureaucracy, supervision, you know, all kinds of things. It's been studied pretty carefully.

Now, the public has had an opinion about this for decades. A considerable majority want a national healthcare system, like other industrial countries have. They usually say a Canadian-style system, not because Canada is the best, but at least you know that Canada exists. Nobody says an Australian-style system, which is much better, because who knows anything about that? But something like what's sometimes called Medicare Plus, like extend Medicare to the population.

Well, up until—it's interesting. Up until the year 2004, that idea was described, for example, by the New York Times as politically impossible and lacking political support. So, maybe the public wants it, but that's not what counts as political support. The financial institutions are opposed, the pharmaceutical institutions are opposed, so it's not—no political support. Well, in 2008, for the first time, the Democratic candidates—first Edwards, then the others—began to move in the direction of what the public has wanted, not there, but in that direction.

So what happened between 2004 and 2008? Well, public opinion didn't change. It's been this way for decades. What changed is that manufacturing industry, a big sector of the economy, has recognized that it's being severely harmed by the highly inefficient privatized health system. So, General Motors said that it costs them over a thousand dollars more to produce a car in Detroit than across the border in Windsor, Canada. And, you know, when manufacturing industry becomes concerned, then things become politically possible, and they begin to have political support. So, yes, in 2008, there's some discussion of it.

Now, you know, this is very revealing insight into how American democracy functions and what is meant by the term "political support" and "politically possible." Again, this should be headlines. Will a proposal come that approaches what the public wants? Well, we're already getting the backlash, strong backlash. And what private healthcare systems are claiming is that this is unfair. The government is so much more efficient that they'll be driven—there's no level playing field if the government gets into it, which is true.

The whole interview is:
here

Or watch the video version.

Cool

Here, the site is cool. I especially like the Steve McQueen quote on August 11th.

Healthcare

Of course I have to chime in on the subject. So here it is: There are a LOT of stupid jackasses out there and what I really want to know is how someone like Glen Beck gets his own TV show, 'cause that's what I want to do: get on TV and spout off ranting stupid bullshit and get paid for it (as it is, I do the same here, just don't get paid...and no one listens).

Oh, yeah...and after this nothing else need be said.

Sarah Palin...the Last Word

Ok. Here's my last word on Sarah Palin...which of course, I deem a quitter due

to leaving her post as governor.

First,

here's why men liked her so much:

In a nutshell, they just want to fuck her...as I've mentioned before, she's the perfect MILF.

But, the real Sarah Palin: Reminds me of Dolores Umbridge from Harry Potter V because that is exactly the kind of person she is.

Been a long, long, long time...

I know, for the two people who may actually read this thing, it's been a loooooong time since I posted anything. Even though I was supposed to post something about not seeing Pete in the Searcher's Vault when I was in NJ...and make some funny post about him being old or some such thing....

But I've been extremely busy at work on a new project...a rather large project...and for those who don't work in the real world of corporate America, well, let's just say, a successful project will mean a few feathers in this boy's cap....

Like I give a shit but, hey, whatever makes me more money down the line...am just glad to be working on something I enjoy.

Also, read Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers...his latest...I love all his books and I HIGHLY suggest to anyone--read his books, you will change your view on the world.

I haven't Facebooked much and although I've signed up on Twitter, I still don't see any point to that stuff....udder than that...I know I've got at least one more post in me....

Aspiration...or how I Failed

Conor, my 10 yr old son has declared his future employment...he says he's going to be...the next Billy Mays....

Flower

Swearing

The first thing I'm going to do when I get off the plane in NJ is scream, "Fuck!". Why? Because the thing I miss the most is swearing. It's bad enough you can't swear around the damn kids but people down here in the South are so goddamn polite, if you say "shit" or something they look at you like you're going to fuckin' hell. I mean jesus christ, give me a fuckin' break. It's bad enough I have to deal with the no good son of a bitchin' smug bastard neighbor and his stupid shit, but god forbid I swear at him or something. Then I'm the asshole or something. Hell, I'm just using language, while he's being a complete dick. Fuck'm.

Ah, but back home, every fuckin' other fuckin' word is fuck this and fuck that and I'll feel at home again.......

Beer

As I've mentioned before, I'm more or less a "live and let live" kind of person and only have a tendency towards snobbishness when it comes to: books and beer--don't know enough about wine to consider myself a snob there.

Anyway, I spent the weekend working one of the beer stands at downtown Fort Worth's Art Festival. The event is typically sponsored by Coors beer distribution. The main stage area beer stand sells the normal choices that every other stand has: Coors, Coors Lite, Killian's Red, Mike's Hard Lemonade. But it also sells specialty beers such as Blue Moon, Tecate and others. Then there is one stand that carries Miller Lite--the only stand in the event that does so.

This year I worked the "Miller" stand on the second day. We don't advertise at this booth that there is Miller--we just tell people or they come, sent from other stands looking for Miller specifically.

Now, I don't care for any Coors product, nor Miller products, nor Budweiser products--we did get many queries for Bud as well--I've never understood how anyone can actually stomach Bud--it is THE worst tasting beer I've ever had. At least with Coors, if it's cold enough, you can tolerate it.

Anyway, (here's my snobbishness), I just don't understand America's love affair with crappy beer? Especially when you look at beer history in America before Prohibition. There where many beers and breweries.

But, it was deeply disturbing to hear people be offended at being offered Miller over Coors and vice versa--I mean, a shit sandwich is a shit sandwich--arguing one tastes better because it's on rye bread instead of wheat makes no damn sense. Thank god for the late 80s and 90s when micro-brews where introduced and now the rest of us don't have to suffer having to choose from imports or crap. Now, we can patriotically hold our heads high and drink great American beer.

Ah, if only our international affairs was as good as our micro brews....

Never....ever....judge a book by its you know what....

You've all probably seen this by now, but it is worth posting anyway...as my old friend Lou pointed out....never judge a book....

The Rich Are Scared...

...or something. I've been meaning to post about this, but, as usual, Jon Stewart sums it up much better than I. And while he takes the "loser" angle, I personally think it a propaganda campaign because the rich don't want to be taxed.

It reminds me of Jack London's Iron Heel. But I must say, I can't recall so much fear coming from this sector in a very, very long time. And the right wing is hitting hard using terms like "tyranny".

It is laughable, as Stewart shows it to be. But don't underestimate an oligarchy.

Dysfunctional Families

You know what (I MUST be in a bitchy mood today)--I'm tired of that phrase. What the fuck IS a "functional" family?

Outside of complete disasters of families, those who abuse each other and their kids, aren't the rest of us in the same damn boat--trying to figure it all out, adhering to the "norms" of our current society, trying to raise the kids the way we think they should be (or I should say, as our current society thinks we should)?

Note: I say current because if you do a little research, the way we raise kids today is NOT the way kids have been raised in earlier years--even 40 yrs ago....

Yes, there are certainly better "adjusted" families or perhaps we should say "happier" families? I'm not sure. But I can guarantee this...we don't take into account our genetic makeup enough so we all go around wondering why we are screwed up or why "so and so" screwed us up (usually our parents--well, your kids are going to say the same damn thing as you are about yours).

In the end, we all try to do the best we can. Will we fail? Hell, yes...but on a personal level don't we fail ourselves most of the time? Isn't that what it means to learn and grow? Besides, the affects of our family home life on us are greatly over exaggerated. The affects of our peers on us growing, well, that is a whole different ball game.

For those who already don't have a positive outlook or attitude (or those for whom it comes easy (probably due to genetics))--it maybe a constant battle but every morning when you wake up, you have a choice; to be happy or not.

And that's all that there is in this life.

Crusty Old Religion Guy

Let's just get this part out of the way: regardless of beliefs, there is a difference between being religious, believing in a God and being spiritual and they can all be mutually exclusive (as far as I'm concerned, you don't have to agree, but then, this is my post).

Myself Defined: ex-Catholic, non-religious, spiritual, agnostic at best.

Raising children: I was raised Catholic, my wife, Baptist. Neither of us wanted to raise the kids as either of those. So, we converted to Presbyterian (figuring that was safer).

Long story short: We've moved around different churches, partly because I just can't stand ANY church--don't like them, hate going. But also, to find something the kids would at least like.

Caveat: Just so everyone knows, there is evidence that supports a genetic propensity to be adverse to organized religion...my father was, I am, and I think my son is (my daughter is my step-daughter so there's no biological factor involved for her--from me at least).

My "other' problem: Aside from my distaste from attending, I also can't seem to escape my "catholic-ism"--Any other church just doesn't feel like church if is isn't done the same was as I'm used to--so much for being liberal and why I'm ultimately a crusty old religious guy in this area.

Current situation: We are in the freakin' heart of the bible belt--TX--baptist churches as large as compounds and one on every corner just like donut shops. Then there are the "other" types of churches that claim to be non-baptist, they call them fellowships or non-denomination churches but they all seem to take their cues from the baptist way of doing things (like full body dunking of baptism)...

Baptists and my crustiness: If you have never attended a real baptist sermon, well, and please forgive me, those who do attend, but remember I was raised catholic so, what can I say, but a baptist sermon is like a Vegas show to me, run by P T Barnum type ministers and boy do they know how to "close" the deal, just like a real sales person--they try to get you to commit to what you just heard and pledge to the church.

Current, current situation: So, now we attend this "fellowship" type church that has it's central location in one town where the minister is, but then has satellite churches in other towns and states. So, when you enter the "church" you sit in front of a screen and watch the pumped in sermon. Also, before it goes live, you get a live full band playing christian rock and all the attendees are dressed, for the most part in jeans.

This to me is NOT church (and isn't it odd that most, not all, but most attendees are of the younger set?) I suppose if I were 18 I'd have preferred this one, with their young hip ministers singing rock songs and wearing jeans and nose rings etc...but having been brought up catholic, I just can't escape the fact that it doesn't "feel" like church. (I do the same thing for any other church as well, when it comes to communion--you don't take it unless you've been to confession and to church the week before, so I can say I haven't taken communion since I stopped attending catholic churches.)

So, here I am, still attending, hating every moment of it, out of (catholic) guilt because I'm supposed to "for" the kids. But guess what, my father never attended and we were only holiday catholics. And despite my beliefs, I'm not an evil person.

And frankly, the fact is, it doesn't matter to the kids if the parents attend or not, whether you believe this or not, the facts don't support it...it really comes down to what their peers do....that has more affect on them than we parents.

Rebuttal

A recent comment to an old post reads:

The problem I see in leading a life based on impacting the life of another is this: our impact on another can never fully be gauged as positive or negative. In my experience (which I fear is the only lens I can see fully through) the positive impact I thought I was having on others was guided largely by false beliefs I held at the time, and I may, in hindsight, have done more harm than good. I shudder to think of the way my life has weaved through the lives of others. Makes me never want to leave my house.

Unfortunately, life is never so clear cut. In my fantasy world, the pieces of the puzzle come together in the last moments before death and we see what our true impact on our life and the lives of others has been. In the meantime, we are all stumbling in the dark, paving the road to Hell with our good intentions.

But hey, that's just me. Can't say this view makes me happy but I can afford no further delusions.

Here's my rebuttal:

First, this person would need to immediately stop blogging as this person (and from here we'll say "he") cannot possibly know what kind of effect his words have had or are having on those that read them. If he shudders to think how his life has weaved through the lives of others, then stop blogging now as you can see, your words have already had an affect on me.

Second, let's discern from "intentional" impact on other's lives and "unintentional".

Here's an earlier comment on the same blog entry:

<why life? because we have the ability to make an impact on another- that's what I believe...>

And my response:

<I agree, it's all about impact on the world around you, however far out the ripples roll. I thought originally about linking to this book; The Denial of Death by Ernest Becker. In the end, he writes:

"Who knows what form the forward momentum of life will take in the time ahead or what use it will make of our anguished searching. The most that any one of us can seem to do is fashion something--an object or ourselves--and drop it into the confusion, make an offering of it, so to speak, to the life force.">

We have the ability to impact the lives around us both intentionally and unintentionally. None of us is an island unto himself no matter how hard we try...we are biologically a social species; even alone, we are with a group as we cannot think of ourselves without thinking in terms of others. Thus, we cannot possibly know or control nor be responsible for our unintended impacts.

Now, our commenter, feels that he was making impacts based on false beliefs. Ok, to err is human. I certainly do not hold the same beliefs now as I did at age 20, that's called growing older and maturing. It's also called being human. Nor are impacts a one way street. Whatever impact I may have had on someone, I'm sure they had some impact on me as well. What if they held false beliefs? Does that put us both into a cesspool of hellish impacts? No, otherwise every human would be in our cesspool with us and so...if the road to hell is paved with good intentions, then the road to null void is paved with those who opt out and do nothing, afraid they may cause damage. I'll take hell, at least I'd know I'd lived--right or wrong. Malice is the only form of intentional negative impact and I think we can agree our commenter does not appear malicious. Our commenter thinks, in hindsight (and we all know the value of hindsight), he may have done more harm than good.

Thinks he may have done more harm than good. Well, without any empirical data to support that, our commenter is living a delusion. What if he has done more good than harm and has now stopped?

Of course, our commenter wrote, "Makes me want to never leave the house." But I bet he does leave the house....not just for needs either. He wants to be "in" the world, be a part of it. Our commenter says he cannot afford further delusions, but he's living in one...thinking he can avoid having any kind of impact on others. To interact is to have impact. Otherwise the only solution is to live as a hermit, a true hermit, cut off all physical and non-physical communication with the human race, the only problem with that is there will be an impact, probably both positive and negative.

If we feel like a bull in a china shop and that everyone would be better of without my actions, well, that seems self-nihilistic and the only forgone conclusion to that would be suicide, but of course, this would also have an impact, positive and negative.

Damn, it seems there's no way out of impacting others--that's because there's no way out of being human. Your only decision is to act or sit on the sidelines, both having impacts.

Now, what about those impacts? Well, most people I know more than casually interact with me of their own free will and don't mind being impacted by me (as for those who don't want to but "have" to--co-workers mostly and ultimately, they have a choice--there are other jobs out there). They can take my actions/words, etc... and decide to be impacted or not, at least to some degree because, just as we cannot control our subconscious from seeing everything, we cannot control our "selves" from being completely impacted. And vice versa, I have some control over the impact of others and I can make a conscious decision to be impacted or not. Of course, I could be under false beliefs, but in this life, I can keep looking for the truth or, in my personal case, I now believe that I make it what I want it to be.

Yes, life is never so clear cut, nor will it ever be, nor will any religion or philosophy make it so. Even my making it what I choose to make it will make it clear cut. It's not supposed to be clear cut. Of course love hurts, it wouldn't be what it is if it didn't.

In the end, this all smacks of cop-out. I haven't liked the results or I haven't found the "right" way to act so I'm not going to. I'm going to sit around and contemplate what it all means.

We are human, we have no choice but to make an offering, of some sort, to the life force. Attitude is everything, we must choose the positive and let the world take care of itself from there.

But Wait, there's a Catch...

Like many philosophies, Existentialism came before we knew what we know about genes and the way the brain works.

Let me see if I can tie in a few things around the web site into Existentialism. I already mentioned how it ties into Ernest Becker's The Denial of Death. Let's tie this into Julian Jaynes' theory of consciousness (did not possess an introspective mind-space) very simply--existentialism would not exist unless man became conscious.

Another area of research not available or widely available until the 50s (but seemingly forgotten) is social psychology. Now, here's where we tie in Judith Rich Harris' The Nurture Assumption and Group Socialization Theory.

So, what does all this mean? Well, we are subject more to our biological makeup than the early philosophers every could have understood. The decisions we make are much more subject to genes and our social behavior because we are more social than unto ourselves then we ever thought...even when we are alone, we relate to the group. So, without taking into consideration the effects genes have and group socialization, we cannot properly assess how a philosophical theory applies to us.

Flavors of Existentialism

According to Wikipedia:

Atheistic

Atheistic existentialism is the form of existentialism most commonly encountered in today's society. What sets it apart from theistic existentialism is that it rejects the notion of a god and his transcendent will that should in some way dictate how we should live. It rejects the notion that there is any "created" meaning of life and the world, and that a leap of faith is required of man in order for him to live an authentic life. In this kind of existentialism, belief in a god is often considered a form of Bad Faith.

In this kind of existentialism, the way to face the absurdity of the world is to create a meaning for yourself. This creation of meaning ex nihilo doesn't degrade your meaning as such, as all meaning would be created meaning. In other words, creating a meaning of your own life is completely legitimate, as long as you do not base it in "objective" existence, or let it be the main "pillar" of your life. According to Kierkegaard, one would be in a perpetual state of despair (although it would be an unrealised despair that one would flee from whenever it showed itself) if one had some meaning (It doesn't necessarily have to be one single meaning; even a multitude of meanings is fragile) as the main pillar of one's life.

Two leading 20th century figures among atheist existentialists were Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus.

[edit]Theistic

Theistic existentialism is, for the most part, Christian in its outlook, because the way traced by Kierkegaard, Gabriel Marcel, Karl Barth, Paul Tillich and others is even nowadays quite strong. But there have been existentialists of other theological persuasions, like Islam (see Transcendent theosophy) and Judaism. Unlike atheistic existentialists, they posit the existence of God, and that God is the source of our being. It is generally held that God has designed the world in such a way that we must define our own lives, and each individual is held accountable for his own self-definition.

I think it fair to add Agnostic Existentialism here...for those who, well, are agnostic and not sure one way or the other

Got a Hunch

New interesting web site that hasn't completely launched yet but will let you give it a whirl..http://www.hunch.com/

Who Am I and Why Am I Here?

http://www.kareyperkins.com/percy/percy.html

"Who am I, and why am I here?"

(Will Barrett asks this question in Walker Percy's second novel, The Last Gentleman.) In other words, what is the meaning of life, the purpose for living? Some things that his characters discover the purpose for living is NOT:

Social conformity or approbation in any form:

Social approval or group acceptance

Social status or class

Material success: making money

Career success

Fame, fortune or stardom

Scientific progress, advancement of knowledge

Appreciation or creation of art, music, literature

Entertainment

Athletic prowess, such as, a good golf game, football-hero-status, running a marathon

Physical health

Physical comfort, pleasure or escape, such as:

Sex

Food

Alcohol or drugs

Religious belief

Traditional religion, ritual

Feel-good religion: born-again Christianity, Pentacostals

Religious unbelief: atheism

Charitable good works: helping others

Creating or living in the Perfect Society

Country or society

Home and family

Friends

Psychological health

Self actualization

Enjoying nature, the "wonders of the universe"

For Percy, the above are meaningless reasons to continue our existence. A hard and fast existentialist would point us to the most prominent explanation for this stance: We're all going to die anyway. The one inevitable, inescapable truth of life is that we will die eventually. What we do on this earth until our only certain and inevitable fate (death) catches up with us is only, and merely, a temporary distraction, an arbitrary social construction we've adopted as our purpose, that we're temporarily deluded has lasting import and meaning, but does not... since everything we do will end with our death.

You may be thinking: "What's left?" What's left after you take away the above reasons for living? Good question, and you're onto something, because the answer is: Not much. In fact, the above illusions as reasons for living give us a framework for acting, enable us to act. Take them away, as happens often to Percy's protagonists, and you are left with TIME: empty time to fill up until your death, and no idea what to do with it.

Percy's characters often wander aimlessly as a result, or exhibit apathy or strange detachment to the events that do occur -- whether daily rituals or chance occurrences. All of Percy's progagonists are once-removed from their experiences, often gazing with curious detachment at the events that occur to them, as though they are standing outside themselves. They are, to a greater or lesser degree, "out of touch" with the "real" world, which Percy sometimes literally draws as amnesia or "fugue states" bedeviling his protagonists.

Sometimes these wanderers have a quest, often a quirky or odd quest, sometimes they do not, and instead, wander about directionless. Of those that have a quest, Lancelot was on the quest for the "unholy grail," and Will Barrett in The Second Coming quests for a sign of God's existence.

While they may seem lost to the rest of the world, and to themselves, for Percy, they are closer to the truth, meaning, and purpose of life than those who march determinedly through the world, quite certain of their next step, their goals, and their desires. Because in the midst of this void of meaning, on the other side of this chasm of emptiness, is real and lasting purpose and meaning. Percy's protagonists exist in the midst of Kierkegaard's "Leap of Faith," suspended over the chasm, having abandoned one side of the cliff, the physical world and all that is in it, and having not yet reached the other side. Percy's characters exhibit various stages of spiritual development so that while they may seem lost, in reality they are really "onto something" and closer to truth, or a ultimate and lasting answer (as Percy sees it), than the rest of their world.

One of Percy's themes was "knowing what you want to do" and what you want others to do, and the effect that has on others. (Usually, they'll just do what you say, so impressed are they that someone knows what he wants.) Closely aligned with this is a feeling of immobilization some of his characters experience, and the reverse side of the same coin, the realization of the "freedom to act" once the character has shirked off all socially given expectations for behavior and being.

------------

The above fits hand in glove with Ernest Becker's The Denial Of Death quoted at the top of this blog...and I'm pretty sure, now, that falls in line with my own personal view of life and is reflected in my own writing.

Face Booked

Facebook has been around a while now and I have to say I've never seen any point to it nor any reason why I would actually even visit the site.

I got on because my wife had found many contacts from high school and elsewhere after being on for just a little while. So, I thought, let me see who's there...and it appears that Facebook is what Classmates.com should have become but didn't.

Now, I've reconnected with all kinds of people I probably wouldn't have in any other way...high school mates, co-workers, ex-co-workers, (possibly future co-workers), friends of friends, friends of siblings, childhood friends, et al...

And I find myself spending more time than normal on the site...partly grooming myself to look the best I can to everyone else and partly "spying" into the lives of everyone else.

But there are some things about Facebook behavior I'm not sure I understand and I apologize to anyone I may offend with these comments...It's not you, it's me...I have the problem...

First, some people spend A LOT of time on Facebook doing all kinds of things (quizzes, sending things to other people, etc...).

Second, that function of slapping out there what a person is doing right at that moment...first, what anyone is really doing is spending time on Facebook, duh...second, does anyone really care what I'm doing at that moment (or any other moment)?

Lastly, and admittedly, this is my own personal problem....having reconnected with some people...my life seems to be somewhat less than others....now, I'm no fool, per say, and I certainly don't need an "It's A Wonderful Life" moment to understand my life isn't useless...but there's that little nagging voice in the back of my head that, rightfully, echoes the fact that I haven't lived up to expectations (whose I don't know) or perhaps more accurately to full potential.

I'm sure there's more to explain but...I...need...to...get...on.........Facebook. Bye!

This is what it's all about...

...and it's sad to say, as many have, that it takes Comedy Central to call out Cramer and the entire system when mainstream journalism can't seem or won't do it themselves because we all know who owns mainstream media: corporate America.

Borrowed from Matt Ruff

This link to a cool short SF film....very enjoyable....

Re-assessment

Ok, so I go get my CPAP machine next week. Apparently, my sleep apnea was bad enough where my blood oxygen was at 83% when it should be 95 or above.

As I read all the things that sleep apnea can cause, including damage to the brain, I figured it this way....I've suffered from apnea for probably over 20 yrs, never really knowing anything about it.

Well, now, with my CPAP, my brain will get all the oxygen it is supposed to get...so, maybe, just maybe...I might be smart. And it's just been oxygen deprivation causing my stupidity.

But we shall see...

Malcolm Gladwell

If you've read Blink or The Turning Point (you should if you haven't), then you should really hit the New Yorker Archives of Malcolm Gladwell's web site. It is choc full of articles along the same lines as his book and never cease to capture interest; from his earliest article on risk homeostatis back in 1996 up through his latest book Outliers.

Hell Is...

...being stuck in Victoria's Secret with only fat and ugly women.

Shopping in Texas

The Snuggy

Help. My son actually wants...a Snuggy.

Confirmed

Yes. I suffer from sleep apnea...didn't even make it half way through the sleep study before the attendent came in and put me on the cpap machine....at least I know where I'm going from here....

Snoring

If you snore, I highly suggest you get yourself tested for sleep apnea. Finally, after all these years I'll be hitting my sleep test next week which is more a formality for the insurance company as I feel 100% I suffer from sleep apnea.

So, what was the tipping point for going to see the ENT? Memory loss. Over the last 6 months or so I've found an increasing inability to focus and would find myself entering a room forgetting what I was going in there to do or get.

At 42, I went on both cholesterol and high blood pressure medicine. The cholesterol I had at least noticed could be controlled by exercise. However, I also found that no matter how hard I tried, I just seemed to lack the energy to get started which is both another consequence of sleep apnea and a wonderful conundrum: need to exercise in order to get my energy up but couldn't get the energy to start exercising.

I had a huge problem accepting the blood pressure issue. I felt my father's stroke 12 yrs ago was self inflicted with eating unhealthy, smoking and drinking since he was a teenager. My PC physician, after monitoring determined it's probably hereditary. However, now that I know more about sleep apnea perhaps it's not hereditary after all.

Now, I've recently read about the memory loss issue. Not cool. So, if you snore...get checked out....

Jim Cramer's A Jackass

Jim Cramer on Today Show with Matt Lauer. About 1:33 minutes in he gets all huffy about "nationalization". First, no one even wants nationalization. Second, he needs to look up exactly what it means. It isn't just the Soviet Union that has "nationalized" at times. Even the USA has "nationalized" at times.

So, here he is with his indignant rant in one breath but yet with the other side of his face, he wants the socialization of the government paying off the banks, Wall Street, the auto makers, and mortgagors.

So, his no call for nationalization is, "give us your money but leave us alone"....bullshit, Jim Cramer.

Hell, I can't even understand why the Today show uses him, as he admits to manipulating the stock market. So, yeah, he's a trust worthy fellow I guess because he told the truth about being a liar.

Credit Crisis

If it all seems confusing, check out this website which does a great job explaining in simple visuals how it all happened.

Deepest Desires

Deep down, I think we all have this secret deep desire of what we wish we could do or be. Maybe we daydream about it and many times these are desires that just aren't going to happen due to any number of real limitations, not limitations such as laziness, fear etc...

Here's mine:
I wish I could be a rock singer and guitar player/multi-instrumentalist and had a band made up of great friends, men and women, and we played all the songs I like to a crowd full of other people I know. And one of the members of the band is a beautiful woman who is my wife.

Ah, well, I can't sing a lick, don't have a very good ear but do have a sense of rhythm and played drums for a number of years...until the kids came. I'll probably get another set after they leave the roost. But, I do have a beautiful wife.

What's your deepest desire?

Music: Vocalists

In no particular order, here are my favorite rock vocalists because I just love the sound of their voice:

Paul Rodgers (Bad Co.)
Chris Thompson (Manfred Mann's Earth Band)
Eddie Vedder (Pearl Jam)
Amy Lee (Evanescence)
Lenny Zakatek (Alan Parsons Project)
Brad Delp (Boston)
Donnie Iris
James Taylor
Steve Walsh (Kansas)
Ritchie Havens
Sarah McLachlan
Glenn Shorrock (Little River Band)
Chris Cornell (Soundgarden)
David Clayton-Thomas (Blood, Sweat & Tears)
Michael McDonald (Doobie Bros.)
Enya
Burton Cummings (Guess Who)
Roger Daltry (The Who)
Steve Perry and Gregg Rolie (Journey--only when they share vocals on the same songs)
Leo Sayer

Rick Santelli's a Jackass

Let's take a complicated issue and reduce it to soundbites....and a great number of Americans as well. It's OK to bail out Wall Street, auto companies, insurance companies and let them still give themselves bonuses....yet when you're neighbor is in trouble, regardless of the reasons, fuck 'em.

Hey, give everyone money....that's his call to arms...but where was he when we were giving money to Wall Street?

Santelli must be running for office as he tries to appeal to the mass' fear and once again it all comes down to "where's my share?"

I guess just fuck everyone....every man, woman and child for himself....

Bi-Partisanship

Our politicians:
Republicans want the Democrats to fail in order for them to gain power and the Democrats want the Republicans to fail in order for them to gain power. This is the problem with a two party system. It's all about winning the control of power.

This is what our elected public servants care about. Not interested in you or me, but in themselves and how to gain the upper hand on each other in order to be in the "ruling" class. And whom do they serve, really? Read Kevin Phillips.

What can be expected in a society based on a culture of spending? The current situation tends to blame the consumer for living beyond their means. But isn't this the definition of being American, to live beyond ones means. We are a culture of wanting bigger, more, better. Well, when 85% of all the wealth is in the hands of 15% of the population, how can you have anyone live in any other way and continue to spend? Even tax refunds are all about spending; the government doesn't expect you to save that money or pay off debt. They expect you to spread it around to help the economy. Well, when you get a government that represents only the rich, you end up in the situation we all find ourselves in--with us bailing everyone else out. So, your and my money go to help Merrill Lynch, but what will you or I get back from them?

So, the solution: raise the income tax by a very large % on the 15% wealthiest and close the loop holes.

V-Day

To fear love is to fear life, and those who fear life are already three parts dead.

Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970), Marriage and Morals (1929) ch. 19

The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed.

Carl Jung (1875 - 1961)

To love and be loved is to feel the sun from both sides.

David Viscott, How to Live with Another Person, 1974

Love is everything it's cracked up to be…It really is worth fighting for, being brave for, risking everything for.

Erica Jong,

There is always some madness in love. But there is also always some reason in madness.

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900), "On Reading and Writing"

There is no remedy for love but to love more.

Henry David Thoreau (1817 - 1862), Journal, July 25, 1839

Love is, above all else, the gift of oneself.

Jean Anouilh (1910 - 1987)

Age does not protect you from love. But love, to some extent, protects you from age.

Jeanne Moreau

Real love is a permanently self-enlarging experience.

M. Scott Peck,

Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come.

Matt Groening (1954 - ), "Life in Hell"

For one human being to love another; that is perhaps the most difficult of all our tasks, the ultimate, the last test and proof, the work for which all other work is but preparation.

Rainer Maria Rilke (1875 - 1926)

He who is in love is wise and is becoming wiser, sees newly every time he looks at the object beloved, drawing from it with his eyes and his mind those virtues which it possesses.

Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 - 1882), Address on The Method of Nature, 1841

Learning to love yourself is the greatest love of all.

Michael Masser and Linda Creed

Think about a woman. Doesn't know you're thinking about her. Doesn't care you're thinking about her. Makes you think about her even more.

Martin Sage and Sybil Adelman, Northern Exposure, The Bumpy Road to Love, 1991

One word frees us of all the weight and pain of life: That word is love.

Sophocles (496 BC - 406 BC)

The important thing was to love rather than to be loved.

W. Somerset Maugham (1874 - 1965), 'Of Human Bondage', 1915

But love is blind and lovers cannot see
The pretty follies that themselves commit;
For if they could, Cupid himself would blush
To see me thus transformed to a boy.

William Shakespeare (1564 - 1616), The Merchant of Venice, Act II Scene 6

Role Models (The A-Rod Tragedy)

My old friend Pete has an entry on heroes and role models at his blog and I posted asking him and his readers:

What I'd like to know is everyone's view on what they think someone should get FROM a role model. Why should we have, why should there be role models?

And Pete took up the question in his follow up entry. And I agree with him that, to some degree, it's natural for kids to look up to "stars". But kids like to look up to people who can do things they themselves would like to do; to be like people they are not. Now, this is understandable growing up as we look for many examples of what people are like.

But once we are grown...what happens? Why do we still feel the need to have heroes or role models?

I admit to having only one true hero in my adult life but ultimately felt ashamed that I wasn't doing what this person was doing (meaning his political activities) and so my hero was a sign of my personal failure.

Now, all this came about on the heels of the A-Rod admission. In Pete's article for the Poughkeepsie Journal he writes:

Come on, A-Rod! I speak for legions of Yankee fans when I say this: We want to trust you. We want to like you. We've got you for nine more years. You can do better than that; you have to do better than that.

Until you do, how can we trust you? How can we unequivocally support your relentless pursuit of history? The sad truth is, until you tell us more, we cannot. Please, A-Rod. Come through in the clutch for us. Just one time.

Integrity is what we want most from our heroes/role models. We want to know that they are better than us, why else admire them so? But the reality is that, really, they aren't and we have to ask ourselves why we value them more then ourselves? Why do we feel they are some how better than us?

This is why we, as a culture, like to see our heroes fall as well...it brings them down to our perceived level.

Now, in the case of A-Rod, I can't agree with my old friend...as far as I'm concerned, A-Rod, and those like him, should be written off, cut loose. It isn't that he deserves a second chance or that we all make mistakes. If he had come clean the first time he was asked, we'd be more forgiving because, yes, at that point we all agree we make mistakes and deserve a second chance. But he didn't take this avenue. He lied. Lied when he thought he could get away with it.

So, knowing this, how can anyone support him, what more can he say that would change anything now?

Idolatry: Part 2

Two things made me think to add this addition to the subject matter. First, at work, an avid AZ fan had gone to the Super Bowl. His explanation of how he felt when his team lost mirrors this line from Jack Lemmon in one of his movies, "I want to be in love with something."

The AZ fan lived a serious part of his life through his football team. The character Jack Lemmon played wanted the exact same thing--something; a pet, a team, a person, a thing to live a serious part of his life through. It's the same thing you see on American Idol for those who do not make it--they feel their lives are over.

I wonder to what degree this is a natural part of our life. After all, we've all experienced the ups or downs (the pulling of our heart strings, as it were) when something we like fails or succeeds. Or is this filling a gap in our modern world?

Ernest Becker, in his book, Denial of Death, reviews this exact subject matter. He covers art, passion for another person, religion all as ways of handling the fact that we know we are going to die and that we don't want to think about it. We want to deny our mortality. An interesting question here is, how does this tie into Julian Jaynes' theory of the origin of consciousness? Did we "know" we were going to die before consciousness "came about"?

I'm not going too deep here, the books are out there for further exploration if one chooses. So, let's tie this all back to the original point. I believe that a fully mature, mentally healthy adult realizes and lives his life knowing life comes from within, not from without (I am not, unfortunately, one of these individuals, nor do I know very many--perhaps one or two in my lifetime). While I may enjoy watching my team win, the win shouldn't feed something missing in my life, after all, I, me didn't DO anything. I achieved nothing. It was an outside entity that achieved that win. Conversely, I shouldn't feel bad inside that my team lost because I didnt' lose anything.

The same is true of "wanting to love something"--we should love ourselves (not narcissism here). We shouldn't need something or someone to fill us up.

As for love, Erich Fromm's book is a good source for those interested in exploring further. Here's a great quote from from that is appropriate:

There is no meaning to life except the meaning man gives to his life by the unfolding of his powers.

Super Bowl 2 Cents

The Arizona Cardinals played the first half like 14 yr old boys on a first date. The second half, they played like they received their first kiss...but at the end, they just failed to score.

Someone Once Told Me...

The world is full of assholes, it's unequivocal. About one in three people is an asshole. Now that being said, you really have to stop and think. When we're born we're not given a manual on how to “be”. We don't know how to go through this thing called life. The thing about humans is we know we're gonna die; don't know when or how but we know that life will come to an end, so we're all just trying to figure out how to get through life. So, the next time your talking with three people, one of whom is an asshole, and you've probably already decide which one, ask yourself this: Is he an asshole due to genetic reasons, which is completely possible, or is it just that this is the only way he knows how to get through life? And do you really know how to get through it any better than anyone else? No, you say, but at least I'm not an asshole. But consider this, each of those three people you're talking to is also talking to three people and each has decided which is the asshole, so chances are good at least one of those three people you're talking to thinks you're an asshole.

Why We're Here or...Idolatry

Was reading an interview with prog-rock musician Neal Morse and he said something that made me stop a moment because I think he's come to the wrong conclusion for the wrong reasons.

He said,
"One is that God made us to worship. He created us to worship him but since we in large in part don’t worship him then we have to worship something, because we’re made to worship [laughing]. So we find people and stuff that we can see, and in a way it makes sense. You find somebody that you can see whether its a musician or a movie star. It can be good things that we idolize, or a pretty girl that sings well like Britney Spears...The problem is we were made for that and idolatry kills you know? It’s bad for the people that do it and it’s bad for the people that are idolized too. It’s just not how God made us so we suffer."

I don't think we were made to worship. I, for one, would not wish to have anything to do with a "god" who made me to worship him/her. That need is an inherent weakness and thus, "god" cannot be perfect as we are always told, at least in the Christian faith.

What I think is that people get caught up in all the mess Neal mentions because as a species Man is basically class oriented. We, like other simians, live in a hierarchy. From early on, Man's societies have always had a ruling class, be it religious, political or militaristic in nature. In our society, people want prestige and prominence, they want to feel special, above others...in one way or another...this explains why American Idol is such a huge hit.

We idolize what we want to be...thus, if we idolize a movie star it's because we want to be like that movie star and thus if we idolize a "god" it also is because we want to be like that "god".