Life In The Slow Lane:
The terminational years (retirement years) can be relaxing and contented IF your health holds up, you are financially secure, and you understand correctly your own peculiar needs. Lot of IFs. IF you had a safe and supportive childhood (the formative years) and successful productive years, then right therein you lose the right to complain. IF one can add to this relaxed and contented terminational years, then you have hit a grand slam---you have run the table.
The rest of this musing you might want to skip because it is all about me, me, me. Unless you have known me, and even then, all this self analyzation may be a bit over the top.
When I retired I kind of determined to avoid anymore pushing and shoving for anything, to generate my own lifestyle as independent of others as possible, and to measure the worth of any personal activity based on the degree or relaxation or contentment derived from that activity. I think too many my age let others control their agenda. Then again, maybe many, if not most people, like to have others control much of their agenda. Without that they are lonely. What the hell, it's all good if it turns out good. Sometimes I list a lot of people I know and ask myself, "would I rather be in their shoes?". In the end the answer is always no because there are certain aspects of their lives with which I would not like to be saddled. Are there aspects of my own life I would like to dump? I suppose, but considering the total picture this would be nitpicking. In general, my lifestyle now is about where I would like it to be at this stage of my life.
I don't feel very competitive about anything these days. I have always been a 'live and let live' sort of person and these days even more so. It really doesn't matter much anymore what kind of plays are being run on the field, what the score is, who is winning, etc. I am in the grandstands watching, not playing. I can root for select people on the playing field (like Barack or Terrell) but I don't feel personally effected by their success or failure. It is the younger generation who need control the game, call the right plays, and live with the outcome. Life sure makes a difference when you understand your days are numbered, maybe 10 or at most 20 years of an increasingly reduced self 'being'. We change, some more than others all our life---I like to view it as becoming more educated, more erudite----although there are people who haven't changed their religious beliefs or politics their entire life, some sort of fortuitous inheritance I guess. But the changes in our terminational years are different. For the first time we are not becoming stronger, more important, or any of the other attributes that came with the productive years. For real, at my age, you are heading downstream mentally and physically. The GOAL is to go gently down the stream.
So far, for me, an aloof philosophical milieu fits like a glove. I try to keep things simple, and relish the time available to write, to poke around, to read, to enjoy the wonders of nature, to chat with certain people, and to proceed along at whatever pace I feel like. I don't even have a regular pattern of sleep. I usually go to bed somewhere between midnight and 3 AM. I am up anywhere from 7-9 AM. If I tire during the day I take a nap. In the morning I like to write or do paperwork. By noon I am ready to eat and I do so like a pig. Each day I try to fit in a 3 mile walk, usually at Danada (a horse stable/forest preserve---I feed carrots to the horses) or Cantigny (the estate of former Robert McCormick, the founder of the Chicago Tribue) or Morton Arboretum or a forest preserve down the street. I also like to listen to a taped lecture (around 30 min) on some sort of philosophy. I get these lecture series (by respected Professors) and listen to one tape in the lecture series each day). When the weather permits I like to go into Chicago once a week and just poke around. I do a lot of people watching and sometimes chat with assorted people of interest, and sometimes take in a museum. I eat out 2 or at most 3 times a week. Most of the time I go out to eat by myself since I don't make up my mind what kind of food I want until afternoon. In a condo like where I live, there are more than enough people to do things with to whatever extent you want to do them. Once a year I like to hike trails in the Redwood forests of California. Between 6-8 PM I like to watch on TV the News Hour with Lehrer followed by Chicago Tonight, both on Public Television. I never watch network news, On the News Hour the main issues of the day are discussed by those with differing viewpoints. I like that, get to make up my own mind on matters. Sometimes I watch the Leno monologue and Headlines. Sometimes I watch the opening monologue of Craig Ferguson (base nonsense). I try to read about a dozen books a month, often take them with me when I am in the forests, or eating out. or on the train to Chicago. I try to keep a book with me so that there will not be times of boredom at any point. Most of the topics for my musings come to me in the morning when I wake up. At night, when I go to bed, I put on music and set a timer for it to go off in 30 min. I rarely hear it go off.
The hardest thing is to find time to clean my condo. It is easy enough, but the will to do it as often as I should is lacking. I also chat on the phone too much. I like to cook, but don't do enough innovative cooking. There are certain things I especially like to eat and tend often to go with what I know I like rather than risk experimenting. I try not to eat meat more than every other day. If I go up 3 lbs in weight then, with great effort, I cut back a bit on the amount I eat. Left to my own I would be the fattest little piggy, and not a cute little piggy either. I also subscribe to Netflix for $16.99/mo and at that deal watch about 3-4 movies a week. Their deal with the post office is amazing, it is rare for a movie to take more than one day to get back or to get to me when they send it out. If it goes out on Tues, I always get it on Wed. I usually watch the movies in the evening. If it doesn't hold my interest in 10 minutes I either eject it or fall asleep.
Maybe once or twice a year I will attend a play, but these are held in this little off beat stage in Chicago. You can almost touch the performers. Perhaps once a month I have Brandon and Jennifer over for dinner---a yng couple who kind of keep an eye on me. I never invite anyone else for dinner because I am through entertaining, and in fact---my living room seats 4, no couch etc.---so that removes any possibility of my even attempting any large gathering. Any socialization now pretty much involves going some where with others or eating out with others and maybe a little chatting afterwards at someone's home. The others is never a large number. Gatherings of larger groups I avoid with a passion. Everyone is on stage, nothing gets discussed in any depth---most all conversation is endless cleverisms---and when the dust settles you have spent the evening mostly learning unimportant trivia about a lot people you seldom interact with in any meaningful way. Frankly, I can't even get motivated to tell them anything meaningful about me either, thus I am in the same mindset with everyone else.
I get involved a little bit with condo matters behind the scene, but I repeat often to those who forget that "I am retired". Let the younger people in their productive years handle contentious stuff. No matter the activities which occupy anyone's terminational years, what matters is how you feel about yourself and circumstances. It seems many people have trouble in their terminational years letting go of responsibility. Not me. If I sense responsibility around the corner, I change directions. Same with personal interactions----to the extent anyone is kind to me, I am kind to them; to the extent anything about me is annoying to them, I yield to them the validity of their annoyance and leave them in peace. It is not smart to spend your terminational years being an annoyance to anyone else. If someone has a personality or habits unappealing to me I leave them be. Fair is fair. I mean really, why waste time on matters involving feelings, not objective matters. I think a lot of older people twist themselves into a pretzel attempting to please others, mostly out of fear they don't become lonely in their old age. The truth is, the longer you live the more 'lonely' you will become, and if you live long enough, the real you---the 'being' that was really you most of your life---will slowly evaporate before everyone's eyes. "I'll warn you, when you meet Honschnivel you will find is he not the person he used to be, you'll think he a different person." We've all experienced that and it is sad. But sad to who? If the terminational 'sub-being' is cheerful and pleasant, then he/she is coping well and all is well. Leaving the responsibility to your spouse or kids or friends, etc to be your lifeline to contentedness in old age is a poor gamble. One spouse will outlive the other, kids will be busy with their productive years, and friends die or become irrelevant to your daily life. If ever there is any truth to 'living a life of your own', it is the terminational years. And life during your terminational years is in your mind. Many of the activities which bought you pleasure in earlier years are physically impossible while satisfactions that came earlier from power or money or control are gone with the wind. Modern science has stretched out the dying process for some people a proverbial eternity. We all know people who have exhausted themselves caring for an elderly parent 2, 3, 4 decades. A sincere sense of duty drives them on, and poof, before they know it, half their productive years were spent performing such duty. Some thrive on it, others are drained and to varying degrees bitter about it.
So much in life is relative. Having no kids, and no spouse eliminates any tendency for me to rely on others for my contentedness in old age. Plus, I had two parents who lived to 89 and 97---and never became a burden on anyone---not financially, not in terms of daily care, not emotionally, and were a pleasure to visit at a very old age. I can still remember my dad endlessly cautioning my mom never to let either of them become a burden to their kids. In essence, at a relatively young age he turned the duty around. No one ever asked him to, he just did. When I was young he told me after 18 I was on my own. And he meant it. If there was an apron string dangling out somewhere, I never found it. While he never provided financial support for my brother or me during our productive years, what he did was to financially ensure neither my brother or I would be financially or socially burdened by he or my mother during our productive years. And they never were. Looking back, it was a kind of gift that was immeasurably valuable. Admittedly, there was an unforeseen ace-in-the hole lying in wait. I had a niece whose companionship with my mom gave my mom the strength to be independent and stay cheerful to the end. Every aging situation is different.
Seemingly, too much of old age for many oldsters is spent in fear of death. It is irrational to fear death since there are no options. You'll never get out of this world alive. In fact, being born is an ominous sign for future death. Birth has sealed your fate. Thus, part of the terminational years involves accepting the inevitable. To me, while death is inevitable, there are good deaths and bad deaths----and usually a person can have substantial control over their dying process---if they choose to. Unfortunately, somehow a good number of religious leaders in the past got the notion only God decides when a person dies, and to tamper with His decision is a sin. Now I would be the last one to challenge God on any issues. But when the Pat Robertson mentalities (God talks to them) get these personal messages and then declare for themselves the right then to tell the rest of us what is revealed TRUTH, I balk. History has clearly shown so many of these self appointed messengers from God to be not only full of shit on occasion but capable of just about every major universally accepted ethical lapse imaginable. And really, to suggest that God, with all His power and intellect, would attempt to deliver a universal mandate to all humanity by whispering this mandate to a select member of a certain religion is patently absurd. It reduces God to some kind of bumbling incompetent idiot.---and one who cares only for a certain flock of believers. I see God as the author of an evolutionary process which is not only amazing, but a self propelled process that enables life over eons of time to progress ever so slowly to higher and higher levels of life. As part of this process humans acquired the ability to reason. This ability to reason enables individual humans to affect their own destiny to some degree. It seems we start with an innate understanding of basic right and wrong. From there we apply this basic understanding to modern situations by using common sense and current state of scientific understanding. By what logic or motivation would anyone conclude God directs us to suffer an agonizing death---to live past the point life has become a burden to any individual? What kind of God do such people worship? If anything is personal, the dying process certainly is.
Ever so slowly, more and more people are beginning to reject this sadistic view of God and allow individuals to control their own dying process---at the time or via prior written instructions. To have control over your own dying process removes much of the fear of death. I think most people fear the kind of dying process more than death itself. The ethics involved in sustaining the archaic view of God insisting on humans having no control over their own dying process is simply absurd. God alone determines when you die UNLESS you want to prolong your life with modern medicine and that then is OK. That's odd logic. Such logic declares it is ok to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars to force someone to live a few months longer and neglect the needs of vast numbers of kids who have an entire life ahead of them. I reject that unethical mentality unequivocally. If I have a desire to die painlessly at some point and leave my inheritance to those in need, with a life still ahead of them, or not spend tax money to keep me alive a few more months, then I insist this is the kind of moral decision I should be able to make. Why should the government or someone else's religious beliefs interfere? It is hard to really respect people who think their own religious beliefs should be the law of the land. If they want to spend that kind of money to keep themselves alive a few more months so be it, I would not stop them. What kind of ethics says you can remove a feeding tube or breathing machine, but not put a person quietly to sleep like you would your pet, but instead dope them up and watch them either starve to death or suffocate to death? This seems more like something right out of the Stone Age. There is nothing wrong with the old Hemlock slogan, "Good life, good death". I think the goal of all societies should be to maximize good lives and good deaths.
I suspect, for most terminational people, life in the slow lane is the best route to go. Stop and smell the flowers, reflect on life in all its aspects, perhaps for the first time in life you have the time to really observe and listen and feel the pains and viewpoints of diverse populations, to put together into a completed puzzle all the pieces you have picked up along the way in your own life. In this process you not only become more tolerant, more appreciative of simpler things in life, and more sympathetic with human struggles everywhere, but you find a kind of inner peace which enables you to go gently down the stream to oblivion, grateful for your existence in a 'little gleam of Time between two eternities'.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Monday, March 17, 2008
Clarification: Psychosexual Politics
I need to clarify the gist of my comments on Psychosexual Politics.
1. Anyone who breaks the vows of fidelity with a spouse has committed an ethical transgression. It is grounds for divorce.
2. The transgression is personal, a matter to be dealt with by the two parties involved.
3. No spouse should be entitled to ask the government to investigate whether their spouse is being unfaithful. It is a personal matter, not a public matter. Conversely, the government should not take it upon itself any such investigation. If, in the course of investigating another matter, should the government come across such a transgression, the government should leave the matter lie. The transgression is personal
4. Sex between consenting adults is legal---period. The nature of the sex or whether money is involved is irrelevant. People often pay to entertain themselves. Whether it is appropriate for anyone to have sex with another person, with or without money being involved, depends on ethical principles such as fidelity to a spouse, abstaining from sex with someone else's spouse, etc. All of this is personal.
5. Tax money should not be spent to support any kind of sex police, with the exception of minors, nonconsensual sex, and public sex.
6. A betrayed spouse should be entitled to deal with a transgression of this sort in their own way on their own terms, not have the government create a public spectacle which just magnifies the grief and punishment for the victims (the spouse, children, and others ).
1. Anyone who breaks the vows of fidelity with a spouse has committed an ethical transgression. It is grounds for divorce.
2. The transgression is personal, a matter to be dealt with by the two parties involved.
3. No spouse should be entitled to ask the government to investigate whether their spouse is being unfaithful. It is a personal matter, not a public matter. Conversely, the government should not take it upon itself any such investigation. If, in the course of investigating another matter, should the government come across such a transgression, the government should leave the matter lie. The transgression is personal
4. Sex between consenting adults is legal---period. The nature of the sex or whether money is involved is irrelevant. People often pay to entertain themselves. Whether it is appropriate for anyone to have sex with another person, with or without money being involved, depends on ethical principles such as fidelity to a spouse, abstaining from sex with someone else's spouse, etc. All of this is personal.
5. Tax money should not be spent to support any kind of sex police, with the exception of minors, nonconsensual sex, and public sex.
6. A betrayed spouse should be entitled to deal with a transgression of this sort in their own way on their own terms, not have the government create a public spectacle which just magnifies the grief and punishment for the victims (the spouse, children, and others ).
Saturday, March 15, 2008
PSYCHOSEXUAL NEUROTIC POLITICS
Psychosexual neurotic Politics:
I really don't know anything about Gov. Spitzer. He might be a good Governor, he might be a bad Governor; he might be a good person, he might be a bad person; he may have done a lot of good things in his life, he might have done a lot of bad things in his life. I haven't the slightest idea on any of that.
Suddenly a government investigation reveals he has been hiring prostitutes for sex. This immediately is front page news, not just front page but tops everything else going on in the world for attention and anger. There are so many bonafide things to be angry about: death, disease, genocide, violence at every level of society, the national debt, spending 12 billion dollars a month in Iraq, the economy, etc.----but Spitzer's personal sex life becomes the real source of rage.
It has never been clear to me why consensual sex acts between adults is everybody else's business. I can certainly see why Mrs. Spitzer might be awfully upset. Or his kids, etc. It seems silly, to me, to get too worked up about anyone's sexual life as long as it is consensual sex between adults. I don't see a lot of rationality to sexual behaviors, let alone involve the legal system to label any of it right or wrong. The best, and only thing, I can personally do is sense what is appealing and unappealing to my own sexual feelings. In this case, my own sense is that I am amazed anyone would pay over $5000/hr to have sex with anyone. Perhaps maybe even I could have a pretty good sex life at $5000/hr. Then there are the gals involved. Let me see, at $5000/hr that means sex 20 times a year nets them a $100,000 salary. Okay, I guess some of the money goes to management so let's say 25 times per year. I don't think I would take a CEO job at a corporation for several hundreds of thousands of dollars, but having sex once or twice a week for the same salary---that seems a bit easier to handle. Tis really true: everything about sex is irrational outside the intent to procreate. One gal goes to court and claims a date rape has left her emotionally scarred for life. It may well be true. Another gal makes a living sexing strangers. She may be as content with her profession as a bug in a rug.
I don't know how many prostitutes or their patrons are arrested every day in this country but I assume it must be a large number. Even so, that large number must represent like a miniscule number of actual sexual adventures involving prostitutes. It seems hard, from any logical aspect, to get any real handle on the morality of sex. Religions have historically weaved a tangled web of morality into sex based on---well it is never clear what it is based on except some believed dictate from God. The trouble is, on what religious beliefs do you build laws around? Majority rule is hardly a logical basis for laws on such genuinely personal behavior. Maybe we should defer to the grandaddy of all religious tenets: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". I guess most of us want to be free to pursue any kind of sexual activity in bed which is voluntary and pleases both partners. Of course what pleases you may be really distasteful or repugnant to me. Thus there is no logical reason to ban any kind of consensual sex between adults. Okay, you may say, but there can be no money behind the sexual activity. Since in about every other type of pleasurable activity there is often money involved, it seems illogical to insert that prohibition. And what about those who marry for money and wealth? Should people like Jacqueline Kennedy have been arrested and prosecuted? By some sort of legitimate definition she was a high class prostitute. Purportedly she is said not to have been all that much interested in sex and told Jack, "Go do your thing, but do it discreetly". Should all of the Kennedy's have been arrested? Or is it their right to structure their sex lives their own way?
I suppose one might argue that without laws against it, everyone would be running around either seeking or being a prostitute. That seems a stretch. I doubt I refrain from engaging prostitutes because it is against the law. Maybe I am too cheap; maybe I find it more convenient to use inflatable dolls; maybe I am afraid of venereal diseases; maybe I find sex with a stranger unappealing or unfullfilling; maybe I just don't care that much about sex; maybe, if I were married, I would consider the affect on other members of my family. Whatever the reasons one doesn't use prostitutes has little to do with the laws against it. This seems clear enough based on those countries in which prostitution is not illegal. Such countries are hardly one big orgy.
Aside from all this, why would anyone in a prominent position in society or in a good marriage risk it all with sexual activities that endanger both? It is more sad than something to go into a rage about. With all the progress on so many fronts in human lives, controlling sexual behaviors remains elusive. Sex remains a loose cannon for all of us. Who knows what lurks in the sexual thoughts of anyone else? Who can explain what turns on who? If sex is a wonderful experience then why arrest some ugly hapless guy who finds a pretty gal who will sex him for money? Or arrest her?-----in one sense she has made someone happy with no victim, not exactly the worst crime in the world. For most of us I suspect climbing into bed with an unattractive partner is not not something we would do in the absence of a gun to our head. Maybe more power to those that will. I always liked the historical quote, "I don't really care what they do as long as they don't do it in the streets and scare the horses". Really now, why should we care so much about the sex lives of others? Using again the basic religious tenet "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" kind of dictates that to the extent you would not like your sexual life and preferences in bed to be public fodder, then no one should be making the sexual lives and preferences of others public fodder as long as it is consensual and between adults. In a very practical sense, the ability of a high class prostitute to make a $100,000 dollar salary is about as much earned financial security as someone who inherits financial security. When younger I have been in porno shops and frankly, it just struck me that most everyone in there didn't look physically like they would have much luck attracting anyone sexy looking on their own. I see sadness and unfairness there, no real movitation on my part to see if we could arrest them if they bought pornography or paid someone for sex. The ethical crime of Gov Spitzer is that I assume his wife did not endorse his adventures. If she didn't, then he broke the golden rule: "do unto to others as you would have them do unto you." I doubt he wanted his wife sleeping around. That is the sin, and it is personal---not the function of government to uncover personal breaches of trust between spouses.
Just how much public tax money was spent to expose the sexual habits of Spitzer? I mean the paper said they even paid for surveillance of him for a month. There are people without health care or dental care etc. and we ignore them and track the sexual proclivities of Spitzer? Maybe a good portion of our population needs to reshuffle what is important in life. For most of us, any public discussion of sex is almost always in the form of raucous laughter, and rightly so---sex is absurd enough in it's variety to be truly funny. Every age has it's witches and harmless sexual deviates have always been in the forefront. Like what are those in a rage about Spitzer saying: that his political decisions were a product of his sex life? that the government should have a mandate to investigate and publicize the sex lives of citizens so that people can lose their jobs, their marriage, humiliate kids, etc? Just exactly whose life has been made better by this expensive investigation and subsequent revelation? Exactly why am I to think more or less of someone based on their personal sex life if it is consensual and only adults involved? But when all is said and done, most people do care---they care a lot---and always have throughout history. It is what it is I guess. Who says God has no sense of humor---human sexual activities are proof that He does. Is there anything a little odd, you know a little off center, about your own sex life? Maybe like you don't particularly care for sex, that too is worth a chuckle or two in Jay Leno's monologue if you care to write him about it. I say let's get serious and expose all the sexual deviates amongst us. Make it the law that everyone has to take a lie detector test and detail their own sex life, including the kind of sex engaged in, and put it on file, available under the freedom of information act, so that neighbors, employers, friends, co-workers, and people who dislike you can 'know' the 'real' you. And you the 'real' others. I wonder, if this were done----would being abnormal become the normal?
I really don't know anything about Gov. Spitzer. He might be a good Governor, he might be a bad Governor; he might be a good person, he might be a bad person; he may have done a lot of good things in his life, he might have done a lot of bad things in his life. I haven't the slightest idea on any of that.
Suddenly a government investigation reveals he has been hiring prostitutes for sex. This immediately is front page news, not just front page but tops everything else going on in the world for attention and anger. There are so many bonafide things to be angry about: death, disease, genocide, violence at every level of society, the national debt, spending 12 billion dollars a month in Iraq, the economy, etc.----but Spitzer's personal sex life becomes the real source of rage.
It has never been clear to me why consensual sex acts between adults is everybody else's business. I can certainly see why Mrs. Spitzer might be awfully upset. Or his kids, etc. It seems silly, to me, to get too worked up about anyone's sexual life as long as it is consensual sex between adults. I don't see a lot of rationality to sexual behaviors, let alone involve the legal system to label any of it right or wrong. The best, and only thing, I can personally do is sense what is appealing and unappealing to my own sexual feelings. In this case, my own sense is that I am amazed anyone would pay over $5000/hr to have sex with anyone. Perhaps maybe even I could have a pretty good sex life at $5000/hr. Then there are the gals involved. Let me see, at $5000/hr that means sex 20 times a year nets them a $100,000 salary. Okay, I guess some of the money goes to management so let's say 25 times per year. I don't think I would take a CEO job at a corporation for several hundreds of thousands of dollars, but having sex once or twice a week for the same salary---that seems a bit easier to handle. Tis really true: everything about sex is irrational outside the intent to procreate. One gal goes to court and claims a date rape has left her emotionally scarred for life. It may well be true. Another gal makes a living sexing strangers. She may be as content with her profession as a bug in a rug.
I don't know how many prostitutes or their patrons are arrested every day in this country but I assume it must be a large number. Even so, that large number must represent like a miniscule number of actual sexual adventures involving prostitutes. It seems hard, from any logical aspect, to get any real handle on the morality of sex. Religions have historically weaved a tangled web of morality into sex based on---well it is never clear what it is based on except some believed dictate from God. The trouble is, on what religious beliefs do you build laws around? Majority rule is hardly a logical basis for laws on such genuinely personal behavior. Maybe we should defer to the grandaddy of all religious tenets: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". I guess most of us want to be free to pursue any kind of sexual activity in bed which is voluntary and pleases both partners. Of course what pleases you may be really distasteful or repugnant to me. Thus there is no logical reason to ban any kind of consensual sex between adults. Okay, you may say, but there can be no money behind the sexual activity. Since in about every other type of pleasurable activity there is often money involved, it seems illogical to insert that prohibition. And what about those who marry for money and wealth? Should people like Jacqueline Kennedy have been arrested and prosecuted? By some sort of legitimate definition she was a high class prostitute. Purportedly she is said not to have been all that much interested in sex and told Jack, "Go do your thing, but do it discreetly". Should all of the Kennedy's have been arrested? Or is it their right to structure their sex lives their own way?
I suppose one might argue that without laws against it, everyone would be running around either seeking or being a prostitute. That seems a stretch. I doubt I refrain from engaging prostitutes because it is against the law. Maybe I am too cheap; maybe I find it more convenient to use inflatable dolls; maybe I am afraid of venereal diseases; maybe I find sex with a stranger unappealing or unfullfilling; maybe I just don't care that much about sex; maybe, if I were married, I would consider the affect on other members of my family. Whatever the reasons one doesn't use prostitutes has little to do with the laws against it. This seems clear enough based on those countries in which prostitution is not illegal. Such countries are hardly one big orgy.
Aside from all this, why would anyone in a prominent position in society or in a good marriage risk it all with sexual activities that endanger both? It is more sad than something to go into a rage about. With all the progress on so many fronts in human lives, controlling sexual behaviors remains elusive. Sex remains a loose cannon for all of us. Who knows what lurks in the sexual thoughts of anyone else? Who can explain what turns on who? If sex is a wonderful experience then why arrest some ugly hapless guy who finds a pretty gal who will sex him for money? Or arrest her?-----in one sense she has made someone happy with no victim, not exactly the worst crime in the world. For most of us I suspect climbing into bed with an unattractive partner is not not something we would do in the absence of a gun to our head. Maybe more power to those that will. I always liked the historical quote, "I don't really care what they do as long as they don't do it in the streets and scare the horses". Really now, why should we care so much about the sex lives of others? Using again the basic religious tenet "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" kind of dictates that to the extent you would not like your sexual life and preferences in bed to be public fodder, then no one should be making the sexual lives and preferences of others public fodder as long as it is consensual and between adults. In a very practical sense, the ability of a high class prostitute to make a $100,000 dollar salary is about as much earned financial security as someone who inherits financial security. When younger I have been in porno shops and frankly, it just struck me that most everyone in there didn't look physically like they would have much luck attracting anyone sexy looking on their own. I see sadness and unfairness there, no real movitation on my part to see if we could arrest them if they bought pornography or paid someone for sex. The ethical crime of Gov Spitzer is that I assume his wife did not endorse his adventures. If she didn't, then he broke the golden rule: "do unto to others as you would have them do unto you." I doubt he wanted his wife sleeping around. That is the sin, and it is personal---not the function of government to uncover personal breaches of trust between spouses.
Just how much public tax money was spent to expose the sexual habits of Spitzer? I mean the paper said they even paid for surveillance of him for a month. There are people without health care or dental care etc. and we ignore them and track the sexual proclivities of Spitzer? Maybe a good portion of our population needs to reshuffle what is important in life. For most of us, any public discussion of sex is almost always in the form of raucous laughter, and rightly so---sex is absurd enough in it's variety to be truly funny. Every age has it's witches and harmless sexual deviates have always been in the forefront. Like what are those in a rage about Spitzer saying: that his political decisions were a product of his sex life? that the government should have a mandate to investigate and publicize the sex lives of citizens so that people can lose their jobs, their marriage, humiliate kids, etc? Just exactly whose life has been made better by this expensive investigation and subsequent revelation? Exactly why am I to think more or less of someone based on their personal sex life if it is consensual and only adults involved? But when all is said and done, most people do care---they care a lot---and always have throughout history. It is what it is I guess. Who says God has no sense of humor---human sexual activities are proof that He does. Is there anything a little odd, you know a little off center, about your own sex life? Maybe like you don't particularly care for sex, that too is worth a chuckle or two in Jay Leno's monologue if you care to write him about it. I say let's get serious and expose all the sexual deviates amongst us. Make it the law that everyone has to take a lie detector test and detail their own sex life, including the kind of sex engaged in, and put it on file, available under the freedom of information act, so that neighbors, employers, friends, co-workers, and people who dislike you can 'know' the 'real' you. And you the 'real' others. I wonder, if this were done----would being abnormal become the normal?
Thursday, March 13, 2008
CLIENT CONFIDENTIALITY
Client Confidentiality:
I watched a recent 60 minute segment with an unsettling feeling. This man had been behind bars for 29 years for murdering a security guard. The trouble is, two other lawyers knew from the start he was innocence as a client of their own, who they were defending on different unrelated charges, confessed to the murder. According to some sort of legal cannon of ethics they were not to divulge this confidential information. So they didn't and an innocent man was convicted, and missed the death penalty by the vote of two jurors. Meanwhile, the real killer agreed in writing that his lawyers could release the confidential information after he died. He recently died, so now the identity of the real killer has been revealed.
Client confidentiality can be understood----up to a point. I can see if a defendant admits to his lawyer that he really did commit the crime, that this should be kept confidential. True, he might be found not guilty and get away with a crime. But the line should be drawn right there. I don't think anyone should be granted confidentiality on major crimes such as murder, rape, sexual assault, and maybe a few other crimes, period. If I am being defended by a lawyer on one charge, let's say aggravated battery, and I start bragging to my lawyer that I also killed some other person, then---by law---the lawyer should be required to notify the authorities. Same with a priest in a confessional. If someone admits they murdered someone the priest should be required by law to notify the authorities. Anyone who murders someone, or blew up a building etc., should not be entitled to legal confidentiality protection from anyone they admit the crime to except the lawyer defending them against the charge if they are in the court system for trial. And perhaps that should apply to spouses too, at least for these certain kinds of crime.
No one should have to spend 29 years in jail for a murder they didn't commit because of some client confidentiality which permits a criminal to admit the crime to certain individuals and have that admission be legally protected. Only a lawyer, once the case is in the court system, should be given that legal confidentiality. We need to put an end to such low-lifes running to some priest, or their spouse, or their lawyer and admitting---sometimes bragging---about their crime, and having client confidentiality. Maybe that is why so many kids have been abused by priests---the abusing priest goes to a confessional with a supervisory priest, admits their actions, and then the supervisory priest, respecting client confidentiality, doesn't report the abuse to anyone. To me this is outrageous.
While this is in large part bias, to me---if you commit any of these kinds of crimes mentioned---their ought to be absolutely no person you can turn to and expect confidentiality. The law should be just the opposite. If someone tells you they murdered someone, and you don't go to the police, you should be charged as an accessory to the crime.
I know----I forget----we no longer change established traditions. Why, this is the way it has been for years, it is the way things are, relax. Hell, I'd vote for Obama just for the hell of it---to see what he might do. We already know what all the others will do---nothing----and they have been around for decades.
I watched a recent 60 minute segment with an unsettling feeling. This man had been behind bars for 29 years for murdering a security guard. The trouble is, two other lawyers knew from the start he was innocence as a client of their own, who they were defending on different unrelated charges, confessed to the murder. According to some sort of legal cannon of ethics they were not to divulge this confidential information. So they didn't and an innocent man was convicted, and missed the death penalty by the vote of two jurors. Meanwhile, the real killer agreed in writing that his lawyers could release the confidential information after he died. He recently died, so now the identity of the real killer has been revealed.
Client confidentiality can be understood----up to a point. I can see if a defendant admits to his lawyer that he really did commit the crime, that this should be kept confidential. True, he might be found not guilty and get away with a crime. But the line should be drawn right there. I don't think anyone should be granted confidentiality on major crimes such as murder, rape, sexual assault, and maybe a few other crimes, period. If I am being defended by a lawyer on one charge, let's say aggravated battery, and I start bragging to my lawyer that I also killed some other person, then---by law---the lawyer should be required to notify the authorities. Same with a priest in a confessional. If someone admits they murdered someone the priest should be required by law to notify the authorities. Anyone who murders someone, or blew up a building etc., should not be entitled to legal confidentiality protection from anyone they admit the crime to except the lawyer defending them against the charge if they are in the court system for trial. And perhaps that should apply to spouses too, at least for these certain kinds of crime.
No one should have to spend 29 years in jail for a murder they didn't commit because of some client confidentiality which permits a criminal to admit the crime to certain individuals and have that admission be legally protected. Only a lawyer, once the case is in the court system, should be given that legal confidentiality. We need to put an end to such low-lifes running to some priest, or their spouse, or their lawyer and admitting---sometimes bragging---about their crime, and having client confidentiality. Maybe that is why so many kids have been abused by priests---the abusing priest goes to a confessional with a supervisory priest, admits their actions, and then the supervisory priest, respecting client confidentiality, doesn't report the abuse to anyone. To me this is outrageous.
While this is in large part bias, to me---if you commit any of these kinds of crimes mentioned---their ought to be absolutely no person you can turn to and expect confidentiality. The law should be just the opposite. If someone tells you they murdered someone, and you don't go to the police, you should be charged as an accessory to the crime.
I know----I forget----we no longer change established traditions. Why, this is the way it has been for years, it is the way things are, relax. Hell, I'd vote for Obama just for the hell of it---to see what he might do. We already know what all the others will do---nothing----and they have been around for decades.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
THE LAST BEST HOPE
The Last Best Hope
The drama and particulars of the current Democratic contest for the Presidential nomination are those of high theatre and speculative orgasms. It is entertaining but I think most miss the forest for the sake of the trees. To the extent any window of opportunity exists for avoiding global disaster, this is it.
These are the strangest of times---the best of times for the few and the worst of times for the many. The entire planet is being stressed from all directions: overpopulation, depletion of natural resources, land /water/air pollution, species extermination, global warming/greenhouse gases, record homelessness, sordid refugee camps in record numbers, rampant genocide, rapidly increasing disparities in the distribution of wealth, and pervasive use of violence to solve conflict at all levels of human society---from school shootings to domestic violence to endless war across the globe, whether it be by sophisticated weapons, roadside bombs or suicide bombers. Everyone is determined to win. Everyone of course has a noble cause. Everyone has God on their side. For the most part the only uniformed soldiers are the Americans, mostly darting from one secured green zone base to another, mostly to clean up carnage from some missilized area.
And amidst it all, especially in the United States, is a sort of head-in-the sand oblivion. The prevailing attitude is perhaps best expressed by a gentleman at dinner the other night who commented that the current economic recession is no big deal---"we have had recessions before, we always survive." The dire poverty either at home or abroad is dismissed as "There has always been poverty". The now endless American wars carried out by volunteer armies have become an accepted, almost normal part of foreign policy, any concerns dismissed as "well there have always been wars, they come and go, are part of the way the world works". Even in those rare instances when Americans admit there was no legitimate reason to invade another sovereign country, the solution is, "well we are there now, so we have a legitimate reason to finnish it, win the war for the security of our country." While most would probably agree, in some sort of vague meaningless way, that violence begets violence, the slaughter of people and leveling of countries goes on and those who dare fight back are labeled terrorists---deranged evil people who are willing to die for whatever their cause is. Yet a President who starts wars as a first resort, never the last resort, slaughtering 10 fold the 'enemy' for every American killed, himself having always avoided placing his body in harm's way all his life---well this American President, by some sort of patriotic definition, can't be a deranged evil person; instead he is merely one who enthusiastically offers up for meaningless death, thousands of his own citizens, calling them peace warriors. And the people mostly yawn. With the absence of a military draft, few are threatened personally by these wars financed by borrowing. So they go on as a now normal part of resolving conflict.
A small portion of Americans, including myself, see the big picture of our current status in the world as this: a giant successful civilization, in many respects the greatest of the great civilizations to date, heading full steam ahead to the same fate of most great civilizations in history--- self destruction. Most great civilizations never collapsed because any other country captured them. No, they collapsed essentially because they tried to control an extended empire, and in so doing the distribution of wealth at home become quite lopsided. What is different today, for us, is the additional population, environmental, and pollution problems. Stopping the impending collapse seems, in any historical perspective, hopeless. The citizens never see impending chaos and collapse it until it is too late. Somewhere in the distance I swear I hear Nero fiddling. Maybe it is just George Bush whistling how great everything really is, and how, with strong determination, we are going to bomb into oblivion all the evil discontents across the globe with pre-emptive war, military surges, and peace---the peace of eerie desolation and dead bodies (mostly innocent civilians) everywhere. This we are told, is how we put an end to terrorism. Just like we have been told for 50 yrs that the way to put an end to recreational drug abuse is attack our urban cities in the same fashion. 50 yrs later, with that eerie peace of desolation in our urban drug war induced ghettoes, there is no end to recreational drug abuse, and we now have imprisoned so many people, especially young people, in this drug war that we lead the world in number of people in jail per 100,000 population. Like 23% of all people in jail on the earth are in American jails. And the band plays on. 1 out of every 100 American citizens are now in jail. The solution, of course, is longer jail sentences. Maybe let's just take every kid born in a urban or rural ghetto and put them in jail at birth. At least that way they will get some medical and dental care. Besides, why not, instead of spending the same amount of money per student to educate poor kids, save the tax money for war, throw the bastards in jail when they attempt to make some money selling drugs on the corner, and then spend $30,000/yr to keep them in jail for mandatory long sentences. It certainly fits in perfectly with the political mentalities of the last several decades---some sort of good Christian tough love, the domestic version of our global Christian tough love. Some sort of John Wayne wrapped in a clerical robe. Onward Christian Cowboys.
Oddly, out of the blue comes this guy Barack. Barack Obama. As likely to succeed being nominated for President as any other caricature of our worst prejudices. But some how Barack gets elected Senator from Illinois by carrying white downstate Illinois. Interesting. Then out of a field of 8 or 9 Barack ends up one of two remaining, and in the delegate lead. What the hell is going on here? What does it all mean? Anything? Is it possible he might succeed?
The real horse race is not really between Obama and Clinton at this point as between change and no change. Just about everyone fusses that government is paralyzed, that everything is a mess and has been so for some time. Hardly anyone says things are getting better or the future looks bright. But human nature is human nature. Change always looks good on paper or from a distance but when push comes to shove, fear sets in. What would change really mean? What happened in Ohio is truly an irrational fear of change. Here we have a state hardest hit economically by current government policies, people out of work or downsized right and left with lost pensions and health insurance and while clamoring loudly for change. But when the ballot is in front of them they still stick with the tried and known. This is part of the reason Barack may find garnering votes more and more difficult down the stretch. Suddenly this is not a meaningless protest vote or a message vote----a vote for Obama at this stage could actually ensure change. Whoa, wait a minute, this is too much of a gamble and the messenger is not exactly the image people had of any 'savior'.
So who is Barack and what would be different if he became President? For a start, Obama is an ethnic mutt. A little bit of about everything. Who can claim he is one of them? Then too, he is some sort of social gypsy. Someone, in terms of living in various cultures and experiencing life from all sorts of educational and economic environments, a person who cannot be really claimed by any economic class or culture. The ultimate "been there, done that". Precisely because he is so 'different' one can almost be ensured that he would bring about change. All those who have thrived so well on 'divide and conquer', shell games, and through special interest groups have been able to cut for themselves bigger and bigger pieces of the pie, will now suddenly see Obama as public enemy #1.
Barack appears sincere enough, honest enough, and smart enough to handle the Presidency. But the choice for many people is still stressful. There is this innate suspicion that Obama might really mean 'fair is fair' as a domestic and foreign policy. Right now, and increasingly so, those with the clout get the perks, the preferred treatment. Suppose all of us really had to pay our fair share of taxes? Suppose all of us had to contribute to provide universal health care to all citizens or to spend the same amount of money to educate each child? Suppose all of us had to sacrifice or live a bit more efficiently to protect the environment? Suppose all of us had to sacrifice if we attack another sovereign country? Suppose all of us had to pay more for the goods we purchase in order to enforce global minimum wage levels so that our own workers could compete in producing things? Suppose we really did enforce our border and ensure employers could not hire illegal immigrants? This latter alone would drive up the cost of many things. Would we really commit to the principle that slave labor anywhere is wrong? Everyone knows that right now in Texas new houses are cheap because much of any house is built by the slave labor wages of illegal Hispanic immigrants. Are Texans going to be for getting rid of that slave labor force? Suppose Obama should go so far as to hit head on the overpopulation issue---the issue which, until solved, negates progress on most of the issues listed above. Most of the stresses on the planet today are fathered by overpopulation. Our we really going to give up the freedom to produce like rabbits if that is our choice, or are we going to remain steadfast that this will only happen over our dead bodies? Are we ever going to grant governments the right to determine how many kids we can have? Are religious leaders ever going to alter their sacred religious tenets to accept population control? Obama's greatest strength is that most everyone trusts him. He alone, of all the candidates, has the ability to get diverse leaders across the globe to sit down, negotiate in good faith, and maybe, just maybe, resolve differences peaceably with fairness ruling the day.
In the end, it is likely to be some mix of the assorted fears above which will deny Obama the nomination. When push comes to shove, people fear real change. What we really want is someone who can push a button and make everything ok without any sacrifice from us. A high percentage of American citizens no longer vote, perhaps because they are smart enough to realize most all of the political verbiage is bullshit, that little will change no matter who gets elected. Only Obama gives out vibes that maybe he will be different---that give him a supportive Congress and things will really change. Obama has caught everyone off guard. Enough of the indifferent masses have been aroused to get Obama this far. But the political establishment is wide awake now, the political machines have the time to gear up and stop the 'nonsense'. And many people caught up in the novelty of this 'curiously odd' candidate will start to hedge, fear what change might really mean, and rationalize their way out of supporting him with some sort of "not yet, too soon, he is not ready yet, maybe another time". All those forces operative in our present political mentality will plant fears about Obama that will stick. On paper, this is how it will play out, and Obama will not get the nomination.
For Obama to last takes mostly hope and in my case down to a hope that maybe just once in a while, God intervenes in His evolutionary process. Clearly there is no evidence this happens very often, and maybe it just never happens. I have always sensed that the Lincoln saga had a sort of unreal scenario to it, that too many things seemed past the capabilities of human control for Lincoln to have ever succeeded. This, of course, might well be silly speculation. BUT, the saga of Obama seems, to me, to be some sort of eerie replication of a script we have seen before. With or without divine intervention, it does sort of seem Obama might be our last best hope.
The drama and particulars of the current Democratic contest for the Presidential nomination are those of high theatre and speculative orgasms. It is entertaining but I think most miss the forest for the sake of the trees. To the extent any window of opportunity exists for avoiding global disaster, this is it.
These are the strangest of times---the best of times for the few and the worst of times for the many. The entire planet is being stressed from all directions: overpopulation, depletion of natural resources, land /water/air pollution, species extermination, global warming/greenhouse gases, record homelessness, sordid refugee camps in record numbers, rampant genocide, rapidly increasing disparities in the distribution of wealth, and pervasive use of violence to solve conflict at all levels of human society---from school shootings to domestic violence to endless war across the globe, whether it be by sophisticated weapons, roadside bombs or suicide bombers. Everyone is determined to win. Everyone of course has a noble cause. Everyone has God on their side. For the most part the only uniformed soldiers are the Americans, mostly darting from one secured green zone base to another, mostly to clean up carnage from some missilized area.
And amidst it all, especially in the United States, is a sort of head-in-the sand oblivion. The prevailing attitude is perhaps best expressed by a gentleman at dinner the other night who commented that the current economic recession is no big deal---"we have had recessions before, we always survive." The dire poverty either at home or abroad is dismissed as "There has always been poverty". The now endless American wars carried out by volunteer armies have become an accepted, almost normal part of foreign policy, any concerns dismissed as "well there have always been wars, they come and go, are part of the way the world works". Even in those rare instances when Americans admit there was no legitimate reason to invade another sovereign country, the solution is, "well we are there now, so we have a legitimate reason to finnish it, win the war for the security of our country." While most would probably agree, in some sort of vague meaningless way, that violence begets violence, the slaughter of people and leveling of countries goes on and those who dare fight back are labeled terrorists---deranged evil people who are willing to die for whatever their cause is. Yet a President who starts wars as a first resort, never the last resort, slaughtering 10 fold the 'enemy' for every American killed, himself having always avoided placing his body in harm's way all his life---well this American President, by some sort of patriotic definition, can't be a deranged evil person; instead he is merely one who enthusiastically offers up for meaningless death, thousands of his own citizens, calling them peace warriors. And the people mostly yawn. With the absence of a military draft, few are threatened personally by these wars financed by borrowing. So they go on as a now normal part of resolving conflict.
A small portion of Americans, including myself, see the big picture of our current status in the world as this: a giant successful civilization, in many respects the greatest of the great civilizations to date, heading full steam ahead to the same fate of most great civilizations in history--- self destruction. Most great civilizations never collapsed because any other country captured them. No, they collapsed essentially because they tried to control an extended empire, and in so doing the distribution of wealth at home become quite lopsided. What is different today, for us, is the additional population, environmental, and pollution problems. Stopping the impending collapse seems, in any historical perspective, hopeless. The citizens never see impending chaos and collapse it until it is too late. Somewhere in the distance I swear I hear Nero fiddling. Maybe it is just George Bush whistling how great everything really is, and how, with strong determination, we are going to bomb into oblivion all the evil discontents across the globe with pre-emptive war, military surges, and peace---the peace of eerie desolation and dead bodies (mostly innocent civilians) everywhere. This we are told, is how we put an end to terrorism. Just like we have been told for 50 yrs that the way to put an end to recreational drug abuse is attack our urban cities in the same fashion. 50 yrs later, with that eerie peace of desolation in our urban drug war induced ghettoes, there is no end to recreational drug abuse, and we now have imprisoned so many people, especially young people, in this drug war that we lead the world in number of people in jail per 100,000 population. Like 23% of all people in jail on the earth are in American jails. And the band plays on. 1 out of every 100 American citizens are now in jail. The solution, of course, is longer jail sentences. Maybe let's just take every kid born in a urban or rural ghetto and put them in jail at birth. At least that way they will get some medical and dental care. Besides, why not, instead of spending the same amount of money per student to educate poor kids, save the tax money for war, throw the bastards in jail when they attempt to make some money selling drugs on the corner, and then spend $30,000/yr to keep them in jail for mandatory long sentences. It certainly fits in perfectly with the political mentalities of the last several decades---some sort of good Christian tough love, the domestic version of our global Christian tough love. Some sort of John Wayne wrapped in a clerical robe. Onward Christian Cowboys.
Oddly, out of the blue comes this guy Barack. Barack Obama. As likely to succeed being nominated for President as any other caricature of our worst prejudices. But some how Barack gets elected Senator from Illinois by carrying white downstate Illinois. Interesting. Then out of a field of 8 or 9 Barack ends up one of two remaining, and in the delegate lead. What the hell is going on here? What does it all mean? Anything? Is it possible he might succeed?
The real horse race is not really between Obama and Clinton at this point as between change and no change. Just about everyone fusses that government is paralyzed, that everything is a mess and has been so for some time. Hardly anyone says things are getting better or the future looks bright. But human nature is human nature. Change always looks good on paper or from a distance but when push comes to shove, fear sets in. What would change really mean? What happened in Ohio is truly an irrational fear of change. Here we have a state hardest hit economically by current government policies, people out of work or downsized right and left with lost pensions and health insurance and while clamoring loudly for change. But when the ballot is in front of them they still stick with the tried and known. This is part of the reason Barack may find garnering votes more and more difficult down the stretch. Suddenly this is not a meaningless protest vote or a message vote----a vote for Obama at this stage could actually ensure change. Whoa, wait a minute, this is too much of a gamble and the messenger is not exactly the image people had of any 'savior'.
So who is Barack and what would be different if he became President? For a start, Obama is an ethnic mutt. A little bit of about everything. Who can claim he is one of them? Then too, he is some sort of social gypsy. Someone, in terms of living in various cultures and experiencing life from all sorts of educational and economic environments, a person who cannot be really claimed by any economic class or culture. The ultimate "been there, done that". Precisely because he is so 'different' one can almost be ensured that he would bring about change. All those who have thrived so well on 'divide and conquer', shell games, and through special interest groups have been able to cut for themselves bigger and bigger pieces of the pie, will now suddenly see Obama as public enemy #1.
Barack appears sincere enough, honest enough, and smart enough to handle the Presidency. But the choice for many people is still stressful. There is this innate suspicion that Obama might really mean 'fair is fair' as a domestic and foreign policy. Right now, and increasingly so, those with the clout get the perks, the preferred treatment. Suppose all of us really had to pay our fair share of taxes? Suppose all of us had to contribute to provide universal health care to all citizens or to spend the same amount of money to educate each child? Suppose all of us had to sacrifice or live a bit more efficiently to protect the environment? Suppose all of us had to sacrifice if we attack another sovereign country? Suppose all of us had to pay more for the goods we purchase in order to enforce global minimum wage levels so that our own workers could compete in producing things? Suppose we really did enforce our border and ensure employers could not hire illegal immigrants? This latter alone would drive up the cost of many things. Would we really commit to the principle that slave labor anywhere is wrong? Everyone knows that right now in Texas new houses are cheap because much of any house is built by the slave labor wages of illegal Hispanic immigrants. Are Texans going to be for getting rid of that slave labor force? Suppose Obama should go so far as to hit head on the overpopulation issue---the issue which, until solved, negates progress on most of the issues listed above. Most of the stresses on the planet today are fathered by overpopulation. Our we really going to give up the freedom to produce like rabbits if that is our choice, or are we going to remain steadfast that this will only happen over our dead bodies? Are we ever going to grant governments the right to determine how many kids we can have? Are religious leaders ever going to alter their sacred religious tenets to accept population control? Obama's greatest strength is that most everyone trusts him. He alone, of all the candidates, has the ability to get diverse leaders across the globe to sit down, negotiate in good faith, and maybe, just maybe, resolve differences peaceably with fairness ruling the day.
In the end, it is likely to be some mix of the assorted fears above which will deny Obama the nomination. When push comes to shove, people fear real change. What we really want is someone who can push a button and make everything ok without any sacrifice from us. A high percentage of American citizens no longer vote, perhaps because they are smart enough to realize most all of the political verbiage is bullshit, that little will change no matter who gets elected. Only Obama gives out vibes that maybe he will be different---that give him a supportive Congress and things will really change. Obama has caught everyone off guard. Enough of the indifferent masses have been aroused to get Obama this far. But the political establishment is wide awake now, the political machines have the time to gear up and stop the 'nonsense'. And many people caught up in the novelty of this 'curiously odd' candidate will start to hedge, fear what change might really mean, and rationalize their way out of supporting him with some sort of "not yet, too soon, he is not ready yet, maybe another time". All those forces operative in our present political mentality will plant fears about Obama that will stick. On paper, this is how it will play out, and Obama will not get the nomination.
For Obama to last takes mostly hope and in my case down to a hope that maybe just once in a while, God intervenes in His evolutionary process. Clearly there is no evidence this happens very often, and maybe it just never happens. I have always sensed that the Lincoln saga had a sort of unreal scenario to it, that too many things seemed past the capabilities of human control for Lincoln to have ever succeeded. This, of course, might well be silly speculation. BUT, the saga of Obama seems, to me, to be some sort of eerie replication of a script we have seen before. With or without divine intervention, it does sort of seem Obama might be our last best hope.
Monday, March 3, 2008
THE WORD IS LONELY
The Word Is Lonely:
The word is lonely. What the word means is another matter. Kind of a complicated multifaceted, double-entendre. There is always the philosophical question if you can ever be happy if you have never been sad, if you can ever be displeased if you have never been pleased, and I guess if you can ever be lonely if you have never been crowded. I assume here that everyone gets lonely in some form or another. A person could be lonely for a lot of reasons---a lost loved one, a lost friend, a lost pet, a lost job, a lost home, a lost spouse, or just a lack of friends. And then there are people who seem to have no reason to be lonely, but they are---and those who should seem to be lonely but are not. Probably those who are most capable of creating their own amusement and activities are least likely to be lonely. After all they are least dependent on others for mental stimulation. Could it be that those who go through the entire day with a cell phone, IPOD, video games, or internet/TV screens plastered on their face might be the loneliest of all?
The word lonely is one of those words with which you can do about anything---twist it this way or that, view it from one angle or another, but ultimately fail if you substitute one person for another. I never know whether to envy those who depend upon, and surround themselves with, others around the clock. Is it better to be gregarious or aloof? Maybe this relates to some sort of innate social ability. There is no question but that I tend to fall on the shallow end of the sociability pool. Nothing too unique there, but I do come with a twist---I like to study people, and can tolerate a wide range of personalities. But, for the most part, it has to be from a distance. Perhaps most people are more likable from a distance. Ask the divorced.
People who chase after companionship and those who defend against it, by definition must do so by preference. I suppose there are plenty who chase after companionship but can't find much of it, and those who seek solitude who rarely succeed in getting much of it. I don't think one can really state to be sociable is good and to be aloof is bad. It must relate to some sort of comfort level. My mother couldn't go enough places and my father couldn't not go to enough places. I seem to be some kind of cross. I tend to go to the same places too much but to some other places not enough.
It would not be my place to explain the needs of those who cherish constant company. This seems the kind of area where everything is relative amid the absence of any best way or good way or bad way etc. But the eternal 'wonderer' here ponders how the word lonely applies to these two groups---even though the two groups are quite diverse within their own groups. I know for my own part, I am never less alone than when in nature by myself, and never more alone than in the midst of an obligatory group gathering which I reluctantly agreed to attend. It is not that I sit in a corner by myself (although I have done that too)---I can be quite gregarious with an effort. But for the most part, despite the claims otherwise, I find most group gatherings superficial ego tripping image projecting circuses. Everyone is projecting whatever image they are choosing to project, rarely is anything discussed in depth (that is impossible, someone will always change the subject), and witticisms flow like water over the Hoover Dam. With me it is even more complex. I would guess like at least 80% of things I agree to attend I never do. When the time comes, I rarely want to go. But if I go, in most cases, I have a good time. Yet that pattern has stayed with me all my life.
But back to the word lonely. I think there are two kinds of lonely: the kind of lonely where you want company and the kind of lonely where you miss someone or something. In the latter case it doesn't do any good to have someone else around since it is someone else or something else you miss. If you lose a lover it doesn't much help to be at a party surrounded by other large clumps of other people. The list of people whose memory makes us lonely gets longer and longer with age. If you live long enough you have a lot to miss. This kind of lonely is not always unpleasant. If the memories are good, then the loneliness is good---or at least meaningful. There are those who, for one reason or another, have few good memories. These people most likely are the loneliest in the sadist sense of the word lonely. If you don't have a lot of good memories as you age, then what really do you have?
Much of life is a choice between doing and thinking. Of course it is always some kind of mixture but I think most can be put in one category or the other---for the most part. The doers are happiest when doing. I know, Duh!. If they are stopped from doing, they immediately become lonely. Thinkers need space to think. They need time to think. If you take away their space and time to think they are lonely, or more precisely frustrated. Yes, one can certainly be lonely in a crowd. And for different reasons. I don't think one can really be objective about loneliness. In the last analysis what counts is to what extent a person is content. I know people who are gregarious who are content and people who are aloof who are content. Which is better seems a rather witless waste of time.
I wonder which group handle aging the best? The gregarious or the aloof? I selfishly hope it is the aloof---after all, the older you get the more time you have to think, even if it is increasingly muddled thinking. I suppose at some point, if you live long enough, you just sit minus the thinking. When your thinking deteriorates to the point your former being is hardly existent, what is the proper word for it? Your body is not dead, but your former 'being' is gone. If there is an afterlife, maybe your being goes there long before your body dies. Wouldn't that be a funny Deistical trick----to leave a cell functioning body around for right wing religious fanatics to fawn over. Well, funny to me anyway. Science knows a lot about the body, but how much do any of us know about our 'being'. People think science has all the answers but that is a simplistic illusion. Science tells us cause and effect according to natural laws. But only our own 'being', with our own minds, can understand reasons for anything. Try using science to explain beauty or music, or honesty, or just about anything else that gives real meaning to our lives. We can push molecules and atoms around every which way, but this will never explain any of the aforementioned. In the end materialism isn't the end all of anything. Which is not to say I intend to sell my large screen TV. In a sense big screen TVs have always been around. It is called LIFE---if some couch potatoes can remember when they had one.
The word is lonely. What the word means is another matter. Kind of a complicated multifaceted, double-entendre. There is always the philosophical question if you can ever be happy if you have never been sad, if you can ever be displeased if you have never been pleased, and I guess if you can ever be lonely if you have never been crowded. I assume here that everyone gets lonely in some form or another. A person could be lonely for a lot of reasons---a lost loved one, a lost friend, a lost pet, a lost job, a lost home, a lost spouse, or just a lack of friends. And then there are people who seem to have no reason to be lonely, but they are---and those who should seem to be lonely but are not. Probably those who are most capable of creating their own amusement and activities are least likely to be lonely. After all they are least dependent on others for mental stimulation. Could it be that those who go through the entire day with a cell phone, IPOD, video games, or internet/TV screens plastered on their face might be the loneliest of all?
The word lonely is one of those words with which you can do about anything---twist it this way or that, view it from one angle or another, but ultimately fail if you substitute one person for another. I never know whether to envy those who depend upon, and surround themselves with, others around the clock. Is it better to be gregarious or aloof? Maybe this relates to some sort of innate social ability. There is no question but that I tend to fall on the shallow end of the sociability pool. Nothing too unique there, but I do come with a twist---I like to study people, and can tolerate a wide range of personalities. But, for the most part, it has to be from a distance. Perhaps most people are more likable from a distance. Ask the divorced.
People who chase after companionship and those who defend against it, by definition must do so by preference. I suppose there are plenty who chase after companionship but can't find much of it, and those who seek solitude who rarely succeed in getting much of it. I don't think one can really state to be sociable is good and to be aloof is bad. It must relate to some sort of comfort level. My mother couldn't go enough places and my father couldn't not go to enough places. I seem to be some kind of cross. I tend to go to the same places too much but to some other places not enough.
It would not be my place to explain the needs of those who cherish constant company. This seems the kind of area where everything is relative amid the absence of any best way or good way or bad way etc. But the eternal 'wonderer' here ponders how the word lonely applies to these two groups---even though the two groups are quite diverse within their own groups. I know for my own part, I am never less alone than when in nature by myself, and never more alone than in the midst of an obligatory group gathering which I reluctantly agreed to attend. It is not that I sit in a corner by myself (although I have done that too)---I can be quite gregarious with an effort. But for the most part, despite the claims otherwise, I find most group gatherings superficial ego tripping image projecting circuses. Everyone is projecting whatever image they are choosing to project, rarely is anything discussed in depth (that is impossible, someone will always change the subject), and witticisms flow like water over the Hoover Dam. With me it is even more complex. I would guess like at least 80% of things I agree to attend I never do. When the time comes, I rarely want to go. But if I go, in most cases, I have a good time. Yet that pattern has stayed with me all my life.
But back to the word lonely. I think there are two kinds of lonely: the kind of lonely where you want company and the kind of lonely where you miss someone or something. In the latter case it doesn't do any good to have someone else around since it is someone else or something else you miss. If you lose a lover it doesn't much help to be at a party surrounded by other large clumps of other people. The list of people whose memory makes us lonely gets longer and longer with age. If you live long enough you have a lot to miss. This kind of lonely is not always unpleasant. If the memories are good, then the loneliness is good---or at least meaningful. There are those who, for one reason or another, have few good memories. These people most likely are the loneliest in the sadist sense of the word lonely. If you don't have a lot of good memories as you age, then what really do you have?
Much of life is a choice between doing and thinking. Of course it is always some kind of mixture but I think most can be put in one category or the other---for the most part. The doers are happiest when doing. I know, Duh!. If they are stopped from doing, they immediately become lonely. Thinkers need space to think. They need time to think. If you take away their space and time to think they are lonely, or more precisely frustrated. Yes, one can certainly be lonely in a crowd. And for different reasons. I don't think one can really be objective about loneliness. In the last analysis what counts is to what extent a person is content. I know people who are gregarious who are content and people who are aloof who are content. Which is better seems a rather witless waste of time.
I wonder which group handle aging the best? The gregarious or the aloof? I selfishly hope it is the aloof---after all, the older you get the more time you have to think, even if it is increasingly muddled thinking. I suppose at some point, if you live long enough, you just sit minus the thinking. When your thinking deteriorates to the point your former being is hardly existent, what is the proper word for it? Your body is not dead, but your former 'being' is gone. If there is an afterlife, maybe your being goes there long before your body dies. Wouldn't that be a funny Deistical trick----to leave a cell functioning body around for right wing religious fanatics to fawn over. Well, funny to me anyway. Science knows a lot about the body, but how much do any of us know about our 'being'. People think science has all the answers but that is a simplistic illusion. Science tells us cause and effect according to natural laws. But only our own 'being', with our own minds, can understand reasons for anything. Try using science to explain beauty or music, or honesty, or just about anything else that gives real meaning to our lives. We can push molecules and atoms around every which way, but this will never explain any of the aforementioned. In the end materialism isn't the end all of anything. Which is not to say I intend to sell my large screen TV. In a sense big screen TVs have always been around. It is called LIFE---if some couch potatoes can remember when they had one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)