'Feel Good' Movies

Feel Good Movies

Of course it is irrational and fantasy, but I am activated emotionally watching a feel good movie about teachers and coaches who succeed with inner city kids. I taught for decades at a University where the majority of students came from inner city high schools. Naturally I didn't come in contact with the worst and most hopeless of inner city young people. The worst of these kids dropped out of school long ago. So I got the best of the worst, so to speak, and had a front row seat as to their abilities, their attitudes, their priorities, their personalities, and especially the obstacles they faced to better themselves.

Most all of these students were decent, personable, cooperative, energetic, honest, hard working, and deserving of success. The percentage of these students WHO EVER REACH their potential is small----quite small. On the other hand most will at least escape the urban ghetto and have a better life. It rarely ends up the degree of success story of those young people from affluent families who have had the good fortune to have so much more going for them in life. The feel good movies in this area are unrealistic. In these movies good intentions win out and the kids succeed. The character of these kids in the movies is accurate enough and I feel the same empathy for these kids as the ones I taught. But the ones I taught rarely go as far in life as they deserved and of which they were capable. Each case is different, but in essence there are just too many cards against them, too many senseless, unfair, prejudicial forces for them to wade through. Affirmative action was in theory going to put these kids on a more level playing field, but it never did to any great extent. There are two reasons affirmative action failed them. First, for most of them the quality of the schools they attended as youths didn't change. The amount of money spent to educate them compared to more affluent youths stayed the same. Second, affirmative action mostly helped those minorities who didn't need help----the middle class minorities. They are the ones who got shoved ahead, promoted early, etc. For urban ghetto youths nothing much changed.

The job of a Professor in a University is to teach subject matter but the challenge with these students from urban ghettoes goes way beyond that. I have taught in a rural high school (briefly), in a large suburban prestigious University, and in an Urban State University. In a prestigious university a Professor can mumble his/her way through lectures and the students will just learn from the text. With their educational background, and the time available for study---they will do well regardless. In an urban university these students come from academically pathetic high schools, often have unstable home lives, often are working full time jobs, have all sorts of responsibilities to siblings, a parent, a grandparent, etc, and have little idea how to study effectively. Compared to more affluent students these students are computer illiterate. It is risky to generalize here but, for the most part, these students have impressive honesty, cooperativeness, trustworthiness, and are very appreciative of any help with their problems. These students can detect right away which Professors are really on their side and which ones consider them hopelessly deficient in the social and academic skills needed to succeed. Most of these students are genuinely trying to better themselves and have more SELF DRIVE than most affluent students. Most affluent students have little idea of what it really means to have your back up against the wall in so many ways so much of the time.

The reality is that one can help many of these urban students with some situational problems in their lives BUT, and this is a big BUT, the problems are so many, and so relentless with no pause over time that at some point they settle for little. It becomes a case of something is better than nothing and certainly better than the life situation of their youth. It is unfair to say they give up. It is more fair to say they just get burned out from the struggles. Of course if they have natural born athletic talent an army of mentors will descend from all directions and help them with every life problem conceivable. They become, in essence, a natural resource for which others have a use. These athletically blessed ones are not success stories in which these athletes pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps.

In a few cases one encounters a student from the worst of urban situations who is a self made achiever. They are not particularly likable, they do things their way, and they use you to get ahead, and if you get in the way, they will run right through you. They are extremely confident, independent, oblivious to others, mostly invisible unless you are the hurdle which needs to be run over or through. These 'balls of fire' are not close to anyone except maybe a parent or grandparent, are self centered, have tunnel vision, and pretty much assume others are enemies and not to be trusted. They manage to succeed but most 'others' are not proud of them or admirers of their success because none of us who are the 'others' play much of a part in their success. Let's face it, most of us like to feel part of someone's success, at least enjoy their personality traits, and observe them show humility and gratitude for those affluent who "saved them". Success at most anything doesn't really stand by itself. Others want that person's success to come via a certain pathway, and with a sympathetic personality with which we can relate.

Payton Manning is good at what he does and radiates lovability, likability, humility, modesty---the whole nine yards. It doesn't do much good to wonder 'who is the real Payton Manning' because Payton Manning is a highly cultivated product, molded into what he now is by a small army of advisors and protectors his entire life. We all like Payton Manning. What is there to dislike? Maybe a bit boring and contrived.

At the other extreme is a Terrell Owens. He didn't even start out with natural athletic talent. No one paid much attention to Terrell Owens until very late in college and mostly not until he got into the Pros, the 89th pick in the third round of the draft. I like him because he is the perfect example of the kind of urban kid I mentioned in the paragraph before the last paragraph. Once you are in a position to observe how difficult it is to meet the needs of most urban young people, and how those who depend on others to have their potential fulfilled go only so far, you finally appreciate the few who do it on their own, 'the little engines who could'. Like who, with maybe the exception of Jerry Rice, can say they made Terrell Owens successful? Most of the traits so many dislike about Terrell are the very traits which made him successful. When you have watched so many urban young people, really likable people, fall short of their potential, you then, and maybe only then, admire Terrell Owens. It is not like he is not a good citizen, or dishonest, or bad mouths others (not even those who make a career of bad mouthing him), or interferes with anyone else's success. For the most part others don't exist in his world, let alone be bothered by him. He is pleasant enough, soft spoken most of the time, self promoting, and generous to the less fortunate. Of course he is self focused which most people understandably convert to selfishness. He trains alone with his own program, he thinks alone off by himself, he focuses solely on his own performance, he celebrates by himself, and he loves attention on his terms. Ironically, those who are tired of welfare handouts, affirmative action, pampered athletes in high school and college who are given an army of guidance, gifts, favors, bail outs for all kinds of bad (even criminal) behavior, and a steady access to willing sex partners---these people should be huge fans of a Terrell Owens. People in high school or college with Terrell Owens hardly remember who he was. But he had a firm set of ethical values and goals and enough creativity to plot out his own successful training program. He just listened and trained on his own with his grandmother's admonition ever present that "no one is ever going to give you anything Terrell, you must be better than others and take what you earn and never let anyone use you, or underpay you, or stand in your way. You are special, Terrell" (Paraphrased). For Terrell to exceed it had to be him vs the world.

I wouldn't want to be in a world surrounded by Terrell Owens clones. Few of us, with equal limited natural ability, would ever be able to come near his kind of personal focus. Terrell Owens achieved his objectives as a professional football player but it came at a huge social image cost. He is definitely socially challenged. His world to date is a truly unique solitary bubble outside his Grandmother and mother and brother. In his profession retirement comes at an early age. He doesn't lack for admirers, mostly former teammates and coaches, those close enough to see up front just how focused and self made he really is. The question now is whether, with sports over, he can finally enlarge his world enough to include others in more than a superficial way. Perhaps he is wealthy enough he doesn't have to leave his bubble. How much does the attention really matter? The soap opera isn't over.

I like feel good movies about people who succeed under difficult environments. But I also know a lot of it is fantasy, not all that realistic. It is the Terrell Owens type who get to the top with untapped abilities and crushing environmental obstacles. Most of these self made stories are not star athletes (few of these stars come up on their own like Terrell Owens) and so we don't really know much about them. They are where they are because they are good at what they do, they are not company or peer favorites, they live in their own world, and they don't trust others outside that world. But I have come to feel: "Good for them". I admire them, not adore them. These kind of successful people are not adorable: just unique and amazing. You respect them, not adore them. They did it their way----but legitimately----on their own, and for those youths in urban or rural ghettoes a Terrell Owens is frankly the best kind of role model, and the T.O. way the only way most of them will ever excel at anything. If nice guys finish last has any real meaning, it certainly does for these ghetto youths. When others are amazed at how much Terrell Owens paraphernalia is sold, they only need take a trip to the ghettoes across our land to find the answer. When these youths sit frustrated and dejected at all the obstacles in their environment, a Terrell Owens gives them hope---he got ahead the old fashioned way, he earned it. When most of us say that, we are mostly full of shit, but Terrell really did earn it all by himself, except for his grandmother.

THOUGHTS ON RELIGION

THOUGHTS ON RELIGION

All that follows is based on my personal belief God exists and that the evolutionary process was created by God. In general I think it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything on insufficient evidence. I do not exempt religion from this kind of scrutiny. The evidence for the existence of God is the gift of life and natural resources. If one receives a gift there must be a gift giver. But human logic fails me on a crucial question----how can something come from nothing? Ok, God created the evolutionary process, but who then created God? This simply is beyond the pale of human reasoning. I think religion by inheritance is logically absurd. Certainly the Creator of our Universe would choose a more appropriate and efficient means to communicate any commandments for our behavior than via inherited dogma. This is where I start. From here it gets complicated.

Religion has not always been a part of the evolutionary process. Only in the last few hundred thousand years has religion surfaced in this process. There is no evidence that religion is not a part of the evolutionary process, rather instead constitutes a separate creation. I know humans have always made an effort to claim a special personal relationship with God, but all of this seems self serving. The notions that man was created in God's image, that man has dominion over all other species and the natural resources of the planet, that God interferes with His own evolutionary laws via prayer, that God rewards individual humans, on a behavior basis, with a Heavenly thereafter, etc. ------all of these are human notions. There is no evidence whatsoever that any of this is true. Over time many species have come and gone and there has never been any indication God protected any species from the laws of evolution, so any notion that we are suddenly a favored species in the process is hardly based on the past or on logic. If God has any favorites it must be some of the single celled organisms----they are still around after billions of years. You like longevity-----be an amoeba.

Evolution operates via diversity, change, and luck. It is a very rough process on individual members of any species. It is hard to believe God arranged for my arrival by a divine pairing of a particular sperm with a particular egg, thus injecting my being into the living world. Of course I guess anyone can believe anything by definition of belief. YET, beliefs are only as true as the reality and supporting evidence of the beliefs. The questions begged here are these: Does God micromanage the evolutionary process or is it really a self propelled process operating under God created evolutionary laws? Clearly I would like to be able to communicate with God, to have him protect me from all the chance and luck involved in the evolutionary process and to reward me with a Heavenly paradise. Again, there is no evidence God has this kind of relationship with particular humans. We all know the worst of tragedies can befall the best of us. And some of the worst of us seem blessed with good fortune. Accepting that we, each and everyone of us, are bound by the same rules of evolution as all other species is no reason for depression. Our existing is the first of many unearned fortunes. There will be ample number of unearned bad fortunes too. There is way too much babble about "I earned". Forget all that, each of us has some cards to play, and it is up to us to make the best of life we can with our decisions. BUT, the best of decisions can't often enable one to win with a bad hand.

Humans appear to be the first species with the ability to somewhat control our destiny while on this earth. But the key word is somewhat. There is no level playing field, no equal distribution of talent, no genetic fairness, no birth place fairness, no choice of parents, schools, neighborhoods, physical or health fairness, etc. So much for the bullshit about "I earned". There simply can't be equality in the process of evolution for progress to proceed. Each of us, as individuals, are expendable for the sake of future progress of the whole process.

The developed intellectual and emotional sensations in humans is the basis for ethics. Humans have feelings based on a high degree of understanding consequences and how to achieve things for ourselves personally. Without the evolutionary development of ethics barbaric interactions would dominate. They often do anyway. Humans are the first species to possess a clear understanding of fairness. That is our ethics---the Golden Rule---and this is an inherent wiring of our very being. All humans everywhere understand the concept of fairness and this is our human basis for ethics. But we also understand that 'fair is fair' does not often lend itself to acquisition of something we personally want. There is a promotional job opening and we know of ways to grease the path to our getting the job. And so it goes in situation after situation. We understand the Golden Rule but we fudge all the time. We may not kill to get something, but to varying degrees we will manipulate for our own advantage. Not me, of course, but the rest of you should be ashamed.

The next question we need answer is what is a good life? Each of us desires for ourselves a good life. Yet how many of us, at least soon enough in our lives, examine this question carefully? We are busy, very busy, deciding which kind of car to buy, who to marry or date, how to get ahead on the job, how to make more money, etc. We all know some lives which we envy. And we also know many lives which we admire. But these two are not the same. If we envy someone we are really saying they have a good life with the kind of lifestyle which we wish we could have in our lives. Some of those we most admire do not live lives which we envy. More people probably admire Lincoln than any other person in history, BUT no one would wish upon themselves the kind of life Lincoln endured. Many great people live lives of 'hell' so that something really good can be achieved for others. Maybe to live a really good life one needs to have a mixture of the enviable and the admirable.

Religion exists to show us how to live a 'good life' and, in some cases, to give us hope for a 'good life' after death. None of us want to die and so anything which gives us hope for life after death appeals to us. Of course we figure any life after death must be earned, so we create religious commandments to guide us. Many of the religious commandments are based on the Golden Rule, and this is true for all religions. Then comes what I tend to call the silliness----the ornate cathedrals, the endless rituals, prayer, the ceremonies, the clergy, prejudicial dogmas, and on and on it goes. But we worry that maybe we will not pass mustard and will fall short in earning a trip to Heaven. Not to worry, most religions find some way for God to forgive sinners. From an objective overall viewpoint, from a decent distance, one really would question why God would ever get involved in such a petty and revengeful mode of operation. You know, I love my pets, but were I given the chance to devise a system to grant them a really good life I don't think I would have my Son die as a solution, or create some kind of Hell for punishment for their transgressions. This all strikes me as pretty far fetched. I don't know, like probably no one knows whether there is any life after death, but if there is, it just seems the process to get there would be as brilliant as the rest of evolution. I think most people hang on desperately silly beliefs because they just can't bring themselves to follow the Golden Rule. No one ever says the Golden Rule is unethical. No one. But it is sure as hell difficult to follow in all cases. So we do the best we can and depend on forgiveness as an insurance. Thus, much of religion tends to be extremely self serving.

Terminology seems important in any discussion of religion. There are those who believe there is no ethics outside of religion. But practically speaking we all know bad people who are religious and good people who belong to no church or seldom attend if they belong to a church. The vast majority of people, today and all of yesterdays, believe or did believe in God. In this sense humans, by a large majority, are religious. It is not the religious nature of humans which differs, but the kind of organized religious sects which predominate at any time in history or any given area at a given time in history. Today, in America, people still believe in God, but active membership in an organized religious sect is declining. Why? Perhaps religion is having a difficult time changing with the times. Scientific advancements, communication avenues, civil rights, and globalization of societies makes it harder for a lot of sectarian religious dogma to remain creditable. Sectarian religion is trapped by it's own rigidity. To admit any part of dogma is wrong is to bring into question all of the rest of the dogma. Faith based beliefs always carry this sort of difficult baggage. For example, for the Catholic Church to admit there is no ethical reason why women can't be priests, would be to remove the invincibility aura of Church dogma. For any Church to admit some of what is Church law may not be true is to seed thoughts about how much else might be wrong---the old domino theory. So this then forces two camps in most any religious sect---the conservative camp which insists everything is true for evermore, and those who wish to alter dogma to fit the times.

To be religious is to be ethical. Some actions are right, other actions are wrong. After this it gets tricky. Is something right because God approves it or does God approve it because it is right? In other words is there a right and wrong apart from God deciding what is right and wrong? When we seek to do the right thing do we do it because God commands us to do it or does God command us to do it because it is right? But it may be best not to get too tied up with semantics.

If a child doesn't hit another child over the head with a toy because he will be punished is the child being ethical? In other words are actions for reward or punishment really ethical behavior? Perhaps if one was going to award someone for ethical behavior he/she could only be rewarded if he/she behaved in an ethical manner on their own free will. Ethical behavior, in the purest sense, is not something which you only do because of perceived consequences. The Golden Rule stands on it's own with no implied consequences. 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' because there is no other way to act in a fair manner towards others. There is no implied reward or punishment. It stands on it's own as the basis of ethics. Some attach some sort of majority rule to their ethics----a good action is one in which produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people. BUT WAIT! If Charlie has a million dollars and I kill Charlie and give all his money to a hundred people did I do a good deed? By this mantra I have done a good deed. Charlie may be dead but a hundred people are better off. Ethics is not really majority dependent. Let's take an example of a school prom. Is it really ethical to decide which kind of students can attend and what they must wear or with whom they can attend? If 51% want to wear tuxedoes and 49% want to dress in togas where does the ethics lie? If 99% want to wear tuxedoes and 1% want to wear togas, where does the ethics lie? The Golden Rule rarely fails: if I wish to wear what I want to this special occasion (within the limits of obvious decency) then I must grant the same privilege to others. Rules are made to protect others, not to harass others. If I want the right to marry whomever I want (of adult age) then ethics demands that I give that same right to others. And so it goes, case after case. While we worry about who dresses how when or who marries who, we ok people packing guns in public. Clearly guns can be used, deliberately or in a moment of passion, to harm someone else. It is unethical to insist on the right to carry a gun because I feel safer when clearly it decreases the safety of others depending on who the "I" is. We also know that violence breeds violence. We know that. Thus public approval of situations which promote violence are unethical. You don't knowingly set others up for potential harm.

Is religion and ethics the same thing? I think most of those active in a sectarian religious organization would probably say yes. The answer to this depends on whether one considers there to actually be a right and wrong or whether right and wrong is solely by divine command. I happen to believe there is such a thing as right and wrong and that God's evolutionary process has generated such a right and wrong within certain species. In humans I see this inherent understanding of right and wrong via the Golden Rule. Ethics is about right vs wrong. So is much of sectarian religion. BUT, and this is no minor BUT, much of sectarian religion has nothing to do with ethics. The rituals, the ornate cathedrals, prayers, hymns, social gatherings, religious titles, choirs, etc. have nothing to do with ethics. A person could do the right things ethically and never be engaged in any of the latter. Sectarian religion often involves sacrifices of some sort. Lent, animal sacrifices, and even human sacrifices have been employed as part of sectarian religious practices. Even Christianity in which Jesus died to save us from our sins is a form of sacrifice. To me, this gets a bit too weird. If your child misbehaves you would never decide to kill his mother or anyone else in order for the child to be forgiven. It makes sense that if someone follows the teachings of Christ they then earn admittance to Heaven. Heaven then is a reward for doing the right thing. HOWEVER, hardly any Christian follows the teachings of Jesus to the letter, even less the teachings of the Old Testament. No one is going to stone their kids for misbehavior or believe if someone has sex with an animal the animal needs to be killed, etc. There are an awful lot of plain outdated practices in the Bible. When Jesus says it would be easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of needle than get to Heaven, how many take this serious? When Jesus said go and give what you have to the poor, how many are going to actually do this? So what serves as the escape clause? I guess first, Jesus died on the Cross so your sins will be forgiven, and all the rituals and prayers and hymns and group gatherings will serve again as an alternate ticket to Heaven. I personally don't buy into this kind of playing with 'mirrors' as a trip to Heaven. If there is a Heaven then how often one does the right vs the wrong (ethics) will be the determinate factor.

There is no doubt that religious faith gives a lot a people hope and relief from daily stresses. I suppose the broader question is whether or not religious beliefs have produced more good than harm over history. Considered solely in terms of war, persecution, discrimination, and oppression the track record is not good. But, if one believes the only ticket to Heaven is via a particular religious sect, then every soul 'saved' is obviously a good thing, a plus. But if missionary work itself is a good, then where in history has this good manifested itself? Did the missionaries to the American Indians open the doors for Indians to have a good life? In some sense they just managed to get Indians to trust the intentions of white people. Did the missionaries to Africa accomplish anything in Africa? Hard to see much good from their work. Wherever they managed to get certain tribes to adopt Christianity we find more often instead, even today, brutal wars of genocide occurring over the religious differences. To me this confirms that it is ethics, not sectarian beliefs, which create a better world for human societies. To some extent both sectarian religiousness and national patriotism have both contributed to unethical behaviors. The Jews in Germany and the Vietnamese in Vietnam are both populations which lost 2 million people because of religious or national patriotism. This kind of list, if accurately made, would be a long one. Stronger military nations, without exception, have always used religion, and/or ethnicity, and/or patriotism to exploit other weaker nations.

Ethics based on the Golden Rule does away with bias based on religion, ethnicity, and national patriotism. If we are saddled with a global economy and community, like it or not, then clearly the age of national patriotism has to end. Patriotism, by definition, generates conflict. The major problems now are pretty much all global, just another reason why effective ethics has to go global irrespective of ethnicity, sectarian religions, or nations. How does ethics deal with the core global problem of overpopulation? Human population density affects every species on the planet, animal or plant. It affects the supply of many natural resources. Overpopulation may well be the most important ethical problem of our time. What humans all seek is a quality of life. Life itself, in the evolutionary process, has never been at stake. For millions of years DNA has been rearranging itself to generate species which can survive in the current environment. Species come and go but life itself has always remained. If humans seek a high quality of life for all humans---the only ethical goal---THEN there absolutely has to be responsible reproduction, protection of other species, and protection of our natural resources. The current obsession with abortion is so nearsighted as to be absurd. Children purposely born into an environment in which they cannot be properly cared for is ethically indefensible. The same people who scream about the ghetto mother who opts to abort, show zero such concern about the child after birth. And even less concern about the future quality of human life. We cull the herds of animal populations, we neuter pets etc. We do the ethical thing with overpopulation with every species except our own. Then we get moronic and silly and drag out ancient scripture which instructs us to go and populate the earth. We did that centuries ago.

Can there be such a thing as right and wrong if there is no reward or punishment? Probably not. Does that mean for ethics to exist there must be a Heaven? Not necessarily. The possibility of Heaven is beyond evidential proof. It therefore exists only as a faith based concept. Perhaps the answer is irrelevant. There may or may not be life after death. It is possible that the reward for right behavior is an earthly reward in the form of personal contentment. Those who have reflected much at all on the pursuit of money, titles, power, sex, or popularity realize none of these bring any real contentment. When these become goals enough is never enough---and in the terminational years none of these parameters of life generate contentment. The Golden Rule, the basis of ethics, is seeped in empathy for others. Nothing breeds contentment like empathy and sharing good fortune with those having less good fortune. Find those with good doses of empathy, and sharing with the less fortunate, and you will have found considerable contentment. If Heaven follows for these people so be it. If there is no Heaven they have reaped in this life what we all seek----contentment.

EMPATHY VS INTOLERANCE

Empathy vs Intolerance

It is of course oversimplification to assert the world seems filled with two kinds of people: those with empathy towards others and those distinguished by their general intolerance to others of a different ilk. Still, this is one of the major differences I have noted about people. Just about everyone has empathy, but often their empathy has a limited leaning----like for themselves or their family, or those most like themselves, or their team, or their own religious flock, or their own country etc. I dismiss this egotistic empathy as unremarkable empathy. It is little more than some sort of "I like me because I know and understand me, I like my family because we are genetically bound, I like my religion because I inherited it, I like my country because I am patriotic, etc. Blah, blah, blah.

Where does enlightened empathy, the ability to appreciate diversity, come from? Is it primarily an inherited trait? An acquired trait? Do some cultures have more empathy than others? I know some of it is acquired, but then where does the credit belong? To environmental circumstances? to the teaching of others? to the examples others set? to parental preaching? to career choices? to political philosophies? to religious dogmas? To the extent some of the factors which foster empathy are weak or missing in someone's life, where does that leave the blame game? For example, if your lack of empathy is because you were raised in the wrong environment just how much of the blame can be dropped at your doorstep for lack of empathy?

Each of us starts with certain cards in our hand, both genetic and environmental. With each of us on our own unique road of life, we interact socially in ways which foster empathy or foster intolerance. For me personjally, it seems empathy began with Mother Nature and pets. Dogs are excellent pets for kids and adolescents. Dogs are a companion certainly different from ourselves, an early chance to appreciate diversity. A pet is often the first exposure to unconditional love. Others judge you, a pet accepts you. A pet can be trusted, their affections are not here today and gone tomorrow and you are the 'king'. Dogs like to walk in the woods, be out in nature. So if you have a dog and there are woods nearby, then as a child you spend a lot of time walking the dog in nature settings. Nature itself has had a profound effect on me. It may sound a bit silly, but a nature setting gives me a clarity of thought, a connection with evolutionary history, a calmness unattainable anywhere else, and a quietness which penetrates to your innermost soul. In some way, being immersed in a nature setting enables one to see the big picture, to open doors for thoughts in new directions, and to be awed by the vastness and age of our planet.

It is probably hard to develop empathy if you yourself get little empathy from others. The more admirable sort of empathy is not genuine concern and unconditional love from parents. If pretty much the only place love and concern for you comes from is your parents, you are not likely to develop empathy for others different from yourself or your parents. Some of this modern day 'circle the wagons' family value stuff is pretty much an empathy-for-others assassin. It teaches kids not to trust, appreciate, tolerate, or respect diverse others. Ghetto kids often have little or no empathy with others. They adopt a tit for tat emotional state: "No one gives a shit about me, never has, and I don't give a shit for them either". These are not the kind of kids as teenagers you want to come up against. Nothing in, nothing out, everybody pays. More a case of pay back, and any way they can make you unhappy by their own acts brings them pleasure. Kids raised in sheltered highly controlled environments are least likely to develop tolerance for diversity in others. Rigidity is definitely a learned mentality. We all know people who go through life with braces on their brains, cocooned in a shell of rigid beliefs and inflexible cultural/religious/political/ sexual values. Sometimes it feels like an original thought would fracture their brain, or smiling fracture their face.

To the extent you get some empathy from others, for at least some of your own peculiar and 'different' acts of behavior and thinking, you will begin to develop empathy for differing groups of people. Empathy breeds empathy, just as violence breeds violence. It need be remembered that diversity is the key to God's created evolutionary process. No diversity, no evolutionary progress. In this respect alone, diversity is 'sacred'. It is all well and good for myself or anyone else to credit God with the evolutionary process but, to me, the ultimate most unanswerable question is always "How can something come from nothing"? If God created, where did God come from? In the last analysis we reason out matters the best we can, but accept the best we can do is to admit our conceptual limitations. At any rate, diversity is good because it is the basis of evolution. If one cannot tolerate diversity, one cannot tolerate evolution. And, of course, many do not really tolerate evolution. They are selfishly stuck, with themselves assigned an elevated sense of importance, protected by God HImself from the pitfalls of life, waiting on deck for their Heavenly flight. Okay, maybe so, beliefs are just that, beliefs.

Of course beliefs are only true to the extent reality supports the evidence leading to the beliefs.
Empathy is basically an emotion, a feeling towards others---including others diverse from yourself. Empathy is an emotion which pays high dividends. One cannot be at peace with themselves or Nature without a whole lot of empathy. The less anyone's ability to tolerate diversity, whether it be religious, cultural, ethnic, national, political, sexual, personality, skills, or economic diversity---whatever----the less toleration and appreciation for such diversity, the less contented a person can be. To be filled with all kinds of prejudice and intolerance for all sorts of human diversities is to become a disgruntled, angry, 'holier than thou' ball of apoplectic self destruction. Not only can't everyone be like me, but I am hard pressed to answer why the hell they even should be. Not only does change drive God's evolutionary process, but change drives self development. For the first 25 years of my life I didn't change much. Like many others I had a certain little rut in life carved out, a rut within which I felt relatively comfortable. But being in any kind of rut does not generate contentment. Most everything I believed in during my formative years was handed down to me by my inherited religion, culture, place of birth, parenting, and abilities. I was, more or less, what I was raised to be. All of this is fine and to be expected. The formative years are exactly that, guided development by your environment. BUT, if your development ends there, with essentially little change of any significance, then your own productive years are a waste to the evolutionary process. What pray tell, have you contributed to change if you yourself never change? Of course I suppose one could insist no change is needed, that all your essentially inherited beliefs and good fortunes are sufficient and their truths etched in stone. Maybe even most go this route. Time changes, they do not.

Empathy may well be the most evolutionary significant human emotion. Empathy breeds tolerance, tolerance breeds justice, and justice breeds peace. The natural enemies of empathy are often religion, ethnicity, patriotism, culture, capitalism, autocracy, distribution of wealth extremes, scarcity of natural resources, overpopulation, sexual preferences, unequal educational support, lifestyles, and I suppose if I gave it more thought more could be listed. The rewards for empathy are both immediate and long term, both personal and social. How to generate empathy on any wide scale basis is elusive. It certainly can't be done simply by decree. You can legally make injustice against the law, like with slavery, women the right to vote, children the right to an education, women the right to all jobs available to men, gays the same rights as non gays, the ugly the same job opportunities as the attractive, health care available to all, etc. BUT without the empathy to enforce such laws the injustices, to a larger or smaller degree, will remain.

I have thought about the category in which empathy is most difficult for most people. I think it might be for the ugly, those with different sexual preferences, and those with different religious beliefs. In these cases the problem is simply an emotional revulsion to the person at hand. Like the case with almost every youngster, when I was young there were ugly kids in school who everybody avoided. I mean really everybody. If you spoke to them for any reason others would tease you, claim he/she is your boyfriend or girlfriend or even your friend if it was the same sex. While oblivious to it at the time, as I suspect most young people are, as I got older my awareness of the the tragedy became fine tuned. I really don't know how these kids ever survived. Imagine each day going to school and no one speaks to you. Even teachers would be leery of calling on the real ugly for fear everyone would snicker or laugh. It has been 50 years, I never had any communication with these kids at the time, and yet in some cases I can still remember their names. I wonder what happens to these people? They certainly would never show up at any reunion. I wonder what percentage of them ever married? Or were able to gain meaningful well paid jobs? I wonder what percentage of such people commit suicide? Or maybe they somehow learn to live off in their own world. When I wander around a large city I get the feeling these physically unattractive souls live there where they can find some sort of anonymity among the crowd. And of course I never speak to them. Like what is there to say for starts? I guess there is such a thing as private empathy without any public empathy. When organized religion singles out a group for either revulsion or restrictions, like with gays or women, any correction is difficult. If the 'CHURCH' can be wrong in it's dogma on any issue, the question obviously becomes one of where else is the CHURCH wrong? It's the old domino theory. For example, if the POPE were to say something is right which was wrong last week, then does the POPE really speak, on God's behalf, to his flock? It is one thing for mere humans to make mistakes but quite another to claim GOD is giving wrong information to His human Pope. Some religions change with time easier than others. Religions may be the last, but even religions have to change with evolutionary Time. At some point defending the earth as being flat just is too much of an embarrassment.

OK, we know what empathy is and even the need for empathy, but how does one gain empathy? You really can't teach empathy, at least not in the sense you teach most things. Perhaps by example you can. Hardly any minority can achieve empathy from the majority until a good number of the majority reach out to them with a genuine desire for them to attain justice where justice is being denied them. With time, logic and reason can prevail over emotion and indifference, but it takes a lot of brave individuals on both sides. We tend to think of evolution as a change in physical differences, but evolution advances with emotions too. And that includes the emotion of empathy.

All this may be well and good, but still, what moves anyone, on a personal level, to have more empathy with others? Most of us are a minority in certain situations for reasons which just are (an inherited trait or religion or culture etc). Every time someone befriends us and makes us feel at home in such an uncomfortable situation, we are learning empathy. If no one ever does this we are not learning empathy. There is an element of tit for tat here. The likelihood of the roles being reversed here increase if one receives empathy for one's own particular nuances. Developed empathy is probably most difficult when one gets walled off from those in need of empathy. When I grew up my mother wanted to isolate and protect me from 'undesirable' kids. My father never did. My father would just tell me "You know right from wrong. If you want to be a friend to other kids just do the right thing and if they don't know better, they will learn from you". My father would ride me over to play with kids in Crotonville (the wrong side of the tracks) and my mother would have a fit. Summer times, in late high school and college, my dad would arrange for me to work on a grounds crew with some of the rougher elements of society. My mother didn't think much of that idea either. In retrospect my father was right---I learned empathy instead of fear (followed by disdain) for the less fortunate. Some people believe military service is a good experience for the same reason. Maybe that was true in older times when people were drafted and wars were waged for more legitimate reasons, but this is all changed now and the military is just more instilled rigidity, blind obedience, and blind patriotism. It would be better to require certain kinds of community service in the worst of neighborhoods. If more people could understand better the obstacles faced by the poor, the different, those with limited physical or mental talents, etc. then empathy would not be in such short demand.

It really is frustrating to see so many basically good people display such lack of empathy for the less fortunate. It is sad to realize how politically popular it is to spend so little per student to educate kids in poor areas, to leave millions of fellow citizens without health insurance, to oppose minimum wage levels rising at the inflation rate, to raise a 'voluntary' army which ends up pretty much comprised of those in need of a job, with no specialized skill, with no degrees, with emotional problems, etc. Military service, for the most part, is a choice of last resort. Then you send them over to wander around in some jungle-ized world until they step on a mine or get hit by sniper fire. One thing is notably certain---soldiers in such environments do not come back with increased empathy for others. What they learn is that violence is the solution to any problem---might makes right. The rest of their emotional state is often a hodgepodge of conflicting irrational impulses. If you want to amass lack of empathy in one place, just assemble former soldiers from just about any existing army, and you have it. In many cases their experiences are not much different from the gang members in our urban Drug War ravaged ghettoes. Different leaders, different places, same mentality: "Do what you are told and kill to win".

Empathy seems an emotion that matures with time. It is hard to pass judgment on people's empathy. Every path traveled is different, every genetic makeup is different, and the experiences thrust in every person's face are a combination luck, type of career, and personality. It is not much different from trying to judge one's sexual behavior. Absence of temptation hardly makes anyone superior in their sexual behavior. The difference is that sex, as an end point, fails to bring contentment. The attainment of empathy for diversity does bring contentment to one's life.

Empathy diverts your help to those most in need. Empathy makes following the Golden Rule easier. Empathy enables one to see a bigger and more honest picture of life. Empathy helps enable one to find the strength to do right when other factors urge you to do wrong. Empathy breeds empathy. All other things being equal, friendship via empathy is stronger and lasts longer than otherwise. It is also true that phony empathy breeds phony empathy. Insincerity is basically phony empathy. With insincerity a person pretends empathy as a means to gain favors with someone else. The wealthy and powerful know all about insincerity.

It is safe to say that lack of empathy on a mass scale enables the shameless massacres across history including Hitler's massacre of Jews, slavery and lynching in America, millions of Vietnamese killed in the Vietnam War, Soviet massacres at home and in occupied territories, Jewish massacres of Palestinians, Rwandan Hutus massacring Rwandan _____, etc. There are few nations whose history is not filled with acts of mass lack of empathy. Few sects of organized religion have escaped atrocities on others for lack of empathy. Of course with religious lack of empathy it is always assumed God doesn't like the targets either. I have always wondered why clergy of this or that sort get paid to be empathetic. Empathy doesn't seem like something for which one should be paid. Religion, for too many people, is some sort of putting money in a collection plate so someone can be paid to be kind and good and full of empathy for others. That's just weird to me. Maybe not much different from paying off the mob for protection of your business welfare. I guess we pay the clergy to protect our path to Heaven. To me, most paid religious figures are quite useless, fiddling away time on rituals, social events, rote prayers, collecting money for the poor, of which only a trifling amount ever gets to the poor. Some of those most filled with empathy are the front line religious workers like nuns and reformers in all religions. Strangely, to be effective, they often have to ignore dogma from their own church leaders. It did not escape my notice, that when teaching in college, if I suggested to a student that they take a difficult personal circumstance or problem to their clergy, their response was invariably one of incredulousness. Like I said, most clergy are relatively useless.

Empathy generates gratitude for one's own unearned blessings, which are many. Fair is fair; that is to say your own unearned good fortune dictates empathy with those less fortunate. If someone else's religion, sexual behavior, ethnicity, recreational drug of choice, personality, standard of living, or whatever is emotionally repulsive (not to your liking) it does not justify anger and the subsequent need to punish them. After all, there but for CHANCE or "the grace of God' goes you. I think most people have instances when, for whatever reason over whatever matter, they break through a circumstance via empathy instead of judgment and disdain. At that moment they really understand the connection between empathy and right. They are proud of themselves and feel good about it. Clearly, the more often one does this sort of thing, the more contented their life will be. Anyone can be 'nice' to their own kind. There are no gold stars for that sort of thing. As a former Professor I tended to have large classes. The only place you could get to really know a student was in the office or in lab. I always made it a point to descend on the different, the least attractive, those with the biggest chip on their shoulder and offer empathy. That attention, of short duration and simplistic, was rarely not appreciated, and it also set an example for others---it is ok to be friendly to these people. The drawback is that it generates office visits by an inordinate share of such individuals, and the problems on their mind are often non academic and overwhelming, often beyond my ability to solve. YET, it boosted their spirits, it gave them hope, and it made me feel like I was doing the right thing. A lot of the most important things you ever do in life are not of the materialistic kind, not the kind of things which bring you power or titles or increased salary. BUT, it does bring to your life a certain degree of contentment unachievable outside empathy. Lincoln, for as long as I can remember, has always been my mentor. Three Lincoln quotes come to mind: "I may not have made as great a President (teacher in my case) as some other man, but I believe I have kept these discordant elements (students in my case) together as well as anyone could." "Die when I may I want it said of me by those who know me best, that I have always plucked a thistle and planted a flower where I thought a flower would grow". "I have endured a great deal of ridicule without much malice; and have received a great deal of kindness, not quite free from ridicule. I am used to it."

Over the years I evolved to the point where I can identify in a positive and supportive way with human diversity. Others do count, especially the less fortunate or the uniquely different. When one feels this way about diversity it is easy to make friends with all kinds of 'characters', to be comfortable around all sorts of people, to politically align myself with those policies which help level the playing field and bring the most contentment to the greatest number of people, to adopt the Golden Rule as my religion, to feel at one with God's evolutionary process. I don't feel I have any special connection with God, just feel especially grateful that by chance I have been able to be a part of such a process. Empathy is like the icing on the cake for human existence. It may not come easy, but the rewards are substantial.

Emotions and the Terminational Years

Emotions and the Terminational Years

It seems obvious to any person willing to be realistic about life that there is more misery (defined broadly) in life than "zippidy do dah day" days. Evolution may be a deistic brilliant process, but it is also a tough relentless process and that is the price for evolutionary progress. Each of us plays such a miniscule role in the process, over such a miniscule time period, that given current human comprehension abilities, we can hardly see the forest for the sake of the trees. Of course, to lesser or greater degree, we deploy all sorts of psychological ploys to pretend we are individually more important than we really are. We are made, so we at least pretend, in the image of God, that we have dominion over all other species and resources on the planet, that our particular inherited religion is the Word of God, and that each of us, our family, our friends, our community, our country---in that order---are favorites with God, however we perceive God to be. There seems to be a lot of believed 'manifest destiny' at all levels.

Despite all this, by the time we reach our terminational years, we have been there, done that, chased enough rainbows, been in and out of enough serious relationships in our lives, to finally address more seriously our emotional state. I suspect almost everyone, in their terminational years, short or long as these years may prove to be, desires to go gently down the stream with the maximum contentment in their life as possible. A race has been run, you are a survivor of your productive years, and your days of competition in life are over. Anyone who pretends otherwise is in for a rough time and emotional turmoil to the end.

Some of the nicest emotions become less available in the terminational years----like the thrill of new adventures, the thrill of besting competition at this or that, sexual adventures and pleasures, boisterous wild social celebrations of varied natures, participation in sports or other youthful hobbies, social importance to others, material accumulations, power trips, out maneuvering others, etc. And the days of anyone becoming dependent on you in any kind of meaningful way as before, are mostly gone. In fact those upon whom you depended most on for much of your life are dead, gone their own way, are shadows of their former selves or themselves as much in need of self independency for contentment as yourself. Even in the best of scenarios, one of any couple will die and the other remain. Most begin life alone and most end life alone if they get to the terminational stage.

When we envision contentment in our terminational years we are really referring to our varied emotions. Emotions like fear, anger, loneliness, compassion, empathy, pride, shame, envy, jealousy, resentment, vengeance, and grief are still active parts of our soul. To reach a state of contentment in our terminational years requires us to rearrange our priorities, to genuinely accept successes in our productive years as the basis for gratitude in our terminational years. I can't imagine how anyone with little to be proud of in their productive years can reach contentment in their terminational years. Maybe they can, it just seems a difficult task. I guess one needs a hefty does of gratitude and realism to cope successfully with one's terminational years. Look, in winter time the roads are sometimes going to be slippery and difficult to travel on, so why would one allow themselves to be angry about something like this?The same with many aspects of aging. YOU KNOW health issues are going to become slippery and difficult so why allow yourself to become angry about it? There was a time in my life when I loved to run from here to there. Now I walk. At some point I will not even be walking that far too often. There was a time when challenges were exciting and important. In the terminational years you have earned the right to relax and avoid challenges. What on earth does someone in their terminational years need challenges for? In one's productive years there was this driving need to make things go one's way as often as possible, in the terminational years one changes their priorities and begins to realize in most cases, what real difference does it make which way most things go? The decisions in later life are more about exactly what kind of things, which you can control and do yourself, will make your days relaxed and enjoyable? If you cannot amuse yourself in your terminational years your emotional state will be a mess.

First of all, after so many years of living, each person has a lot of reflection needed about so many aspects of life. You have been there, done this, done that, and survived. What does it all mean? The age of doing is over, the age of appreciating is upon you. That one is still standing, in one fashion or another, is genuinely surreal. By now you know yourself---your strengths and weaknesses----as best you ever will, and the rest of life is now one of observation from the audience, much as an attendee at a play. Certainly if one can enjoy a play one can enjoy observing life in one's terminational years. Frankly, life is not about any "I", never has been---we all are bit players in a God created process of evolution that has been going on for billions of years. My own feeling about all of it is one big WOW!. And part of that WOW! is that no one is really all that relevant to the big picture. The smallest creatures are as important to the process of evolution as the the biggest or most advanced. It takes a healthy ego to accept this. It is not even easy to answer the question as to why one really wants to be 'important'. The best thing one can ever achieve is contentment. Power, titles, material possessions, sex, social standing, etc. are exciting aspects of life but never the road to contentment. People who chase these kind of rainbows as the road to contentment, in the end are the ones most disillusioned, most frustrated, least contented. And they are always angry. They feel like they have failed or been betrayed. They really hate the ending. Same with people who blindly use faith that God will protect and lead them through all the land mines in life---at some point they feel "God, why has thou forsaken me"? Of course God has not forsaken anyone----the process of evolution is not about ourselves, not any one of us, nor any group of us. Really, why be angry about that? Is there anything illogical about being grateful for the opportunity to have been part of the process?

Finally I get to the particular emotions in the terminational years: Anger . Once one understands the nature of God's created evolutionary process what is there to be angry about? The process never promises anyone a 'bed of roses'. Fear? What is there to fear? When one is dead all the emotions are gone. If there is another life of some sort none of the parameters of this life are relevant. The only thing one need fear is loss of control over one's own dying process. No one else's religious beliefs ought to have any bearing on your own dying process. When you have had enough, when you feel it time to go, every person ought to be entitled to die with dignity and in a manner of their choosing. Period. Live and let live; die according to the dictates of your own conscience.

Compassion: If by the time you reach your terminational years you still have emotional troubles with diversity, an axe to grind against this or that group, you will be carrying a lot of anger, resentment, and hostility towards others different from yourselves----some sort of Sarah Palin minus the shrill voice. There is no way one can achieve contentment without an acquired genuine appreciation of diversity. Absolutely impossible. The only ones worthy of disrespect are those with little tolerance of diversity who go after others. These are the characters who go around proclaiming they earned all their good fortunes in life and exempt themselves and their families from the Golden Rule. They conclude others less fortunate can, for the most part, fend for themselves.

Empathy: If by the time your reach your terminational years you still can't accept the Golden Rule and the obligation of those with good fortune to help those with less good fortune, contentment again will be out of reach. Ethics is not about self interest, one's own family, one's own religion, or one's own country. God or his evolutionary process is not about you or your family or your country at all. Ethics is a concept highly developed only in the human species. Clearly it is still evolving. Some have accepted the Golden Rule more than others. The Golden Rule is universal, an innate conceptual ethical entity. To the extent one cannot be ethical, one cannot be contented.

Pride: Everyone has some things about themselves or their lives, of which to be proud, not the least of these is having survived to their terminational years. You made it to the finish of the race. The race is over and you are still alive, winded and in need of some rest. Congratulations!. Now make the best of the remaining years and live the rest of your life on your own terms.

Envy: This is a very tricky emotion. It certainly drives capitalism and motivates all of us to better ourselves in life. On the other hand the richest people are those who are satisfied with what they have in life. If, after your productive years, you still don't know when enough is as good as a feast, you cannot achieve contentment. No one bores me more than someone who is still trying, late in life, to pile it higher and higher, wallowing in materialism as a way of life. I find them pitiful and incapable of interesting dialogue. How do you tell someone their 3000 sq. ft. bore you? I think it mostly bores them.

Jealousy: Jealousy differs from envy in the sense that jealousy implies one has a right to what one wants. Women, for example, were jealous that men could vote and they could not. Jealousy leads to resentment and conflict and the conflict to justice. Thus, when the process is over, women got the right to vote, slaves got the right to be free, and today gays are getting the right to marry. Jealousy is not a bad emotion in that it is linked to justice, to the desire that all people everywhere be free and enjoy the same privileges. Jealousy is a social emotion, tied to justice.

Resentment and Vengeance: These are not good emotions. There is a Chinese saying that goes thusly: "If you seek revenge, dig two graves." Some emotions take you down with the target of your attack, or even worse take you down and leave the target of your attack standing. Bitter divorces, strained friendships, employment personnel clashes, competition in general---all of these things can lead to resentment and maybe vengeance. Perhaps in one's productive years there is a place for some of this, perhaps a time to teach a few people some lessons--- whatever. Sometimes, what is, is, and needs to be dealt with. But, by the time one gets to their terminational years these emotions are pure poison. For one thing, you are not in any position, usually, to teach anyone a lesson, and more important, for what real reason do you want to? If necessary, distance leads enchantment to the view. One of the nicest things about the terminational years is that you are not trapped, by circumstances, into any kind of social duty. Even in your terminational years you still have wants---and sometimes you don't have what you want. These wants could be material possessions, power, friendship from certain people, etc. BUT, as already suggested, these peculiar and particular wants, if they involve other people, need be discarded. Your daily routine and activities need to be, so far as feasible, such that you can do these things on your own. If your only means of contentment is to have constant attention and companionship from your grown kids or social action with relatives or long term friends, then the odds of unhappiness rise considerably. Probably the most common adverse mental state of the elderly is some variation of "I would be content IF ONLY my kids or certain friends or relatives would pay more attention to me." This kind of mentality is almost guaranteed to generate discontentment---for everyone. The elderly person feels betrayed and the targets of their discontent feel guilty or harassed. People live so long today that they can manage to be a major burden on those in their productive years for decades. Clearly, those in their productive years need give those years their full attention and those in their terminational years should find ways to entertain themselves without being a pest to those in their productive years.

I think it starts, for those in their terminational years, with the acceptance that no one owes you a damn thing. They really don't. If you managed to raise your kids in such a manner that they want to be around you a lot---fine, that is a good thing. If they live far away or, are very busy, or they don't enjoy being around you, then so be it and you accept that. Same thing goes for long term friends. People change with age, circumstances change, and no friendship lasts when it becomes a forced reflexive sense of duty. If I want the right to associate as little or as much as I want with others in my terminational years, then others have the same right. When friendships drift apart, seeking to place blame is not only a waste of time, but illogical. Hell, marriages often don't last let alone friendships. Besides, we all know we can't MAKE anyone like us. AND, no one can MAKE us like them. Like is not even the proper word. I know a lot of people I still like, but for one reason or another any active friendship is gone. Friendships tend to be based on common shared experiences at any given point in time. When shared experiences are gone, often too is gone meaningful friendship. I am not big on reunions. Once there is nothing in common left, the conversation becomes irrelevant and inane. Blah, blah, blah, and when you think about the encounter later you realize any real meaning of friendship had gone with the wind. They really are part of your past, not your present. Life is that way. We all know people who spend their days and time filled with resentment about others and even plot vengeance upon the objects of their ire. I avoid these people. First of all, I don't give a damn. The most important guideline for the terminational years is DON'T BE A PEST. Have your own daily interests; to the extent others are pleasant enough to you and include you in any activities, that is just icing on the cake. If others show an interest in you, you can then be happy and accept the genuineness of it. Why in the hell would anyone want attention that is merely duty driven? God save us all from that. I remember, as a kid being driven hours to see some Aunt and Uncle with whom that was the only rare contact. What a down day that was. Then at Christmas I was required to send them a thank you note for the present they felt duty bound to send. Writing that thank you note was even worse. I actually felt bad they felt obligated to send me a present. I have never really liked unearned presents from others. You know, if the terminational years mean anything, they should mean freedom from all sorts of obligatory social interactions whether it be family, friends, or strangers. My parents, to the very end, were never a social burden to anyone. My dad was a natural 'hermit' in his old age and my mother never was a burden to any of her family. Even when she needed attention, she chose to go into a Nursing home, become friendly with the staff and other patients and simply enjoyed visits from family when they wanted to visit, which we all did. My mother fooled me. I really thought she was going to be a real whiner in her old age, filled with endless demands on her kids. She never was. She went through old age until age 98 like a trooper, a happy camper for the most part, and it was not lost on me. In fact, the less you lay on others any sort of obligation to visit or be involved with you in any way, the more likely they are to provide some involvement. A lot of people shy away from the elderly for fear of what some involvement might lead to. Let's face it, that is a real risk.

In summary, the terminational years are not well served by resentment and vengeance. Whatever value they may have served sometimes in one's productive years, they have no value in one's terminational years. I know I, like others, sometimes find I cannot meet the needs of others, and then can feel their resentment that I can't meet their emotional needs. In other words an older person is depending on me to make them happier or more contented. They have yet to understand that they need to find a daily routine and activities which make them happy independent of others. Depending on others to amuse oneself is a hopeless task and an injustice to others. This dependency on others leads to endless fussing, frustration, resentment, disappointment, and then comes the silly revenge game, albeit usually of a more subtle and non violent nature. Vengeance is always about getting joy from watching others suffer by your own actions toward them. If someone can't meet your emotional needs---well, you can at least never miss an opportunity to subtly cut the legs out from under them in minor matters. You know, teach them a lesson that you can hurt them too. It really is a silly game and we all play to some extent. By the time one is in their terminational years one should understand that game and be relatively immune from it. If one understands why people do it, then you no longer see it as so mean-spirited. In fact revenge for the slights makes one a player in the silliness.

Even if a terminationist has their emotions under control, and is going gently down the stream, more or less contented----when all is said and done, more will have been said than done, and each of us will then take that great leap into the dark. I mean, Wow!; that was one bumpy ride filled with more highs and lows than a roll-a-coaster, and a ride seemingly as fast as a roll-a-coaster.

I have condensed my last dying thoughts as follows: "First of all.........Furthermore..........And besides........Like as if I............IF it were not for bad luck..........Any dumb ass can............These are just silly games..........And any way, who wants to be ................I am just toying around..........Every opportunity to be humble..........Losing builds character.........Get a life........If I want any shit out of you.......Shut up..........One more thing........... Amen