FOOTBALL PERSPECTIVES

Football Perspectives

The only sport I still follow enough to be considered a real fan is football. The pace is right, it is complicated enough to hold my interest and there are a lot of different skills occurring during every play. But the truth, sadly, is that football game outcomes are largely unpredictable. It is worse than predicting horse races and anyone who ever tried their luck there knows what I mean. For three years a good friend and I have been predicting the winners of professional football games along with 3 media experts, and a composite prediction by Yahoo Users. The winner over the season this year predicted the winner of a game 63% of the time. The last place finisher predicted the winner 59% of the time. That means the most important factor in predicting a winner is the unpredictability. Also, the predictable components were adhered to, for the most part, by all those in the contest. Other years produced similar results. And yet, there are pregame shows, postgame shows, and numerous call in talk shows in which the participants act vigorously like they understand exactly who is going to win, and then later, exactly why every team lost and who is to blame. Nevertheless, it is fun and we humor ourselves into thinking we all know which are the better teams and why.

I rooted for 5 teams this year and only one made the playoffs. Three of them missed the playoffs on the last day of the season. How uplifting! Except for the home town team I tend to root for a team based on individuals. Individual performances have less variability than team performances, but not by a whole lot since the unpredictable factors affect them too. So what then, are the major factors which determine which football team will win any particular game? In my mind they are as follows, ranked in rough order:

Talent
Injuries
Coaching
Weather
Penalties
Turnovers
Circumstances

Injuries, for the most part, are uncontrollable and increasingly more frequent because the players are stronger, faster, and bigger than ever before. It is really amazing more players aren't more seriously injured. I think one hit and I might be laid up for the season. The team that starts the season will not be the team that finishes the season.

Talent is not as easy to measure as it seems. Stats are of limited use. If you are a receiver, for example, your stats depend on who the quarterback is, if the team has a good running back, the quality of the game plan, the quality of the division you play in, whether you are double teamed or not, and the quality of the other receivers on the team. None of this shows up in the stats. And the same sort of thing can be done with most of the other positions. I guess talent starts with a good quarterback, a good running back, and a good receiver. If a team is notably weak in any of these areas the offense starts off at a disadvantage. Defense has to be more solid across the board or the opposing team will exploit any weaknesses. It is hard to be good without a good quarterback and good quarterbacks are not plentiful.

Coaching---Maybe those players with sufficient smarts could evaluate a Coach but I think others are mostly talking out of their ass. And to make matters even more confusing, there are like 17 different assistant coaches, mostly position coaches. People like to envision a football team which is out there practicing with everybody interacting with each other, all one big close knit 'family'. Of course that is nonsense. Mostly the position coaches are working with their players and any interaction at practice is mostly with others being coached by the same position coach. Unless there is off the field friendships there is little personal interaction. With 50-60 players it is more like an IBM complex where you deal mostly with those in your little room of cubicles. IBM is not family and neither is a professional football team. Like with teaching in schools, football coaches of varied personalities and methods succeed and fail. The best football coaches, like the best teachers, are not carbon copies of each other at all. There are varied ways to be a good teacher or a good football coach and if anyone makes a list of the best teachers they ever had, this point will become clear.

The weather can affect games considerably, and ironically, the weather factor becomes more important in the playoffs when outdoor games can become entertainment, but hardly any way to determine who is the better team. If it is windy and difficult to pass, the best running team has the advantage. If the ground is slippery the best passing team has the advantage (the receivers know where they are going, the defenders do not). You can then add snow, and rain, fog, freezing temperatures, boiling temperatures, etc. and this factor can become a major factor.

Penalties are inevitable, though good coaching may be able to keep the penalties to a minimum. But still, when the penalties occur are mostly unpredictable. Depending on the situation on the field, when the penalty occurs can be more or less disastrous. And a certain number of penalties are not called because the refs don' t see it. That too, is a factor beyond control. Then of course there are the penalties called which are unfair. Good luck with controlling that. Who moved first, was there really pass interference, was there really a hold, etc.

Turnovers can sometimes be harmless and sometimes disastrous. Good coaching may be able to limit the number of turnovers, but again, it is difficult to control when they occur. And when the ball is loose, who will recover this odd shaped ball is pretty much a wash. You might be lucky, you might not be.

Circumstances refers to the particular situation in which any of the above uncontrollable things happen, like injury, penalties, turnovers, weather, missed tackles, missed catches, missed blocking, poor kicking, bad throws, etc. All these things will happen and exactly when they happen has a large impact on the game.

Anyone who follows football knows all of the above and yet all of us insist we know who will win this or that game. Granted, if the talent is bad enough, that factor will pretty much doom the team. You can't mix bad talent with the other factors and win too often. But many teams have relatively good talent and who wins any PARTICULAR game between talented teams is hardly predictable at all. The other factors---uncontrollable---will decide the game for the most part. And that is just the way it is. One game playoffs, by any realistic measure, hardly prove who is the better team. Not only will each team be affected by which players are healthy enough to even play, but they are close enough in talent that these other factors will dominate the outcome. Everyone has seen good teams get blown out in particular games. Everyone has seen poor teams perform splendidly in particular games. The truth probably is that any team in the playoffs could do well if the uncontrollable variable factors listed above go their way.

The silliest nonsense occurs after a game when the blame game begins. Of course it is possible to identify culprits, like a quarterback who threw the ball poorly, a receiver who drops an unusual number of passes, failed coverages, etc. That is fair enough. But most of the stuff is just silly. One team tried harder than another, one team wanted it more than the other. Now how the hell is that measurable? Because a player screams a lot during the game does that mean he cares more? Because a player hops up and down a lot, does that mean he cares more? Maybe the guy ought to save his energy for his play on the field. As soon as one team starts to get blown out for any of the reasons listed above, they are labeled as not trying as hard as the other team. If it has any truth, it is unmeasurable.

Then comes the next absurdity. The other team showed more team effort, more teamwork, and the losing team is not really a team, just individuals and players on the team should work at being better teammates. This is just poppycock nonsense which sounds good. The guy fumbled the ball because he is not a good teammate? Or has bad teammates? The guy who threw poorly needs to work on being a better teammate? The guy who misses a tackle did so because he doesn't really like some other guy on the team? And so it goes, all the missed or poorly executed plays are because of bad chemistry between the players. These are not kids. Every one of the players knows that at the end of the season they will be evaluated on their individual performances. Did you catch the ball, did you tackle well, did you run the ball well, did you block well, and so it goes. No player is ever told, "Sport, you missed too many tackles, created too many penalties, had too many missed play assignments, but you always got to practice on time, the guys like you in the locker room, and all the players love hanging out with you after practice and games---you are a 'good teammate' and therefore we are bringing you back next year". Sure, that'll be the day, and when that day comes we can pay more attention to good teammates. If there is any sport where every player has specific tasks to perform---all by himself---it is football. Maybe in basketball and hockey there may well be a lot of teamwork, but not in football. If each player performs his task well, and all these other uncontrollable factors don't destroy your chances, then the team will do well. Labeling failure in football games as lack of effort or no teamwork is just used as an opportunity to character assassinate players in a manner with which they cannot defend themselves. Terrell Owens, absent a microphone in his face, rarely talks to anyone on the team or during practice. That, to outsiders proves he is a bad teammate. Funny but almost all former teammates say he is a good teammate because he does his job in practice and on the field and while no one gets close to him, he "has never done anything to me". Fair enough.

I don't like senseless character assassination. For fans and media commentators to pretend they can measure, by watching the game who, is trying hard and who is not, who is a good teammate and who is not, is shameful. Can anyone imagine the preposterousness of some football player in a post game press conference emitting the following: "I fumbled three times because I don't have good teammates.....I missed tackles because I don't think Honschinivel is a good teammate, we are not good friends........I threw the ball badly because I don't particularly like that receiver and didn't want him to catch it.........I can't play well out there because Sludge never speaks to me in the locker room or goes places with me after the game....." and so it could go on. A good teammate on a football team stays in shape, and carries out his individual assignments during a game with quality execution. That is a good teammate. Period. In fact, the player who concentrates on just that is probably the best teammate possible. Obviously you don't want a player to personally bother another player on the team and the coaches are there to put a stop to that. If that sort of thing is going on much at all I am just unaware of it.

Games are lost because of poor game plans and poor execution, both of which get mixed with all of these uncontrollable factors listed earlier and that is why the best of us can still only manage to predict the outcome of individual games about 63% of the time. Maybe the smartest fans just enjoy the game and when asked to predict in advance who will win----they flip a coin. I wonder, if you simply only bet on games of those teams playing each other who are in the top half of the standings, or the bottom half of the standings, I wonder then what the winning percentage of picking a winner might be. Tossing the coin might be right up there, because talent and coaching becomes less of a factor.

Feeling as I do about the above, one can see why I root for teams because of individual players or coaches that I like. It just gives me something more tangible to grab on to. The composition of teams change so much now, from year to year, that following and rooting for individuals gives me some continuity from year to year. This converts my rooting into something more like in Tennis or Golf or Track or other such individual sports.

In the last analysis each to his own when it comes to sports. I really shouldn't even be a fan of football---there are too many severe injuries for it to be considered legitimate entertainment any more. If this continues perhaps we can call the stadiums coliseums, the players gladiators, and Philly-type fans given season tickets to all the games----you know, just get real about the whole business.

VOLUNTEER KILLING FIELDS

Volunteer Killing Fields

I reckon most of us can pinpoint the major mistakes in our life--- conclusions and convictions that turned out to be ignominious. Some of these ill thought through notions have affected our own personal lives, and we have paid the cost. I guess what goes around comes around. But other such ill thought through notions have affected the lives of others, and these perhaps are the greater of our sins. These are the individuals we let down, not purposely, but the end result was the same---we failed them in moments of their need. And then there are political or religious nuances which have served as enablers for others, less known to us, to have suffered or died for our support of these nuances. I guess as a child one might be able to be forgiven for needless and insensitive treatment of those less blessed with looks or friends or personality or smarts. We were then part of a immature social majority mob who made these less fortunate kid's lives miserable.

As adults, this sort of mindless insensitivity to diversity, to birds of a different feather, hardly ceases, just becomes more sophisticated and deadly. We held up the holocaust as something which would 'never again' be permitted to happen. Yet it did, and continues to happen, over and over again, only to what degree is there any variation. Two million Jews died, but then so did 2 million Vietnamese, and huge numbers of Rwandans, and Iraqis, and those in Darfar, and in the Congo, and in Ireland, and in the urban wastelands of America, in the drug wars of South America, etc. Those of us who can---like myself---ward ourselves off from the reality of the killing fields, the starving fields, the homeless fields, the massive deaths from curable diseases, the widespread abuses of human rights and respect. It is really us who can run and hide for now, but at some point we will not be able to hide---the chickens will come home to roost.

I see things, think and muse about them, but mostly I just sits. Walled off in a wealthy suburban county, living in an 11th floor security guarded high rise, I view the world from a protective haven of distance from any of these cruel realities. When younger, one is in too much of a pressured hustle to see much of this clearly, and now older, with the time to focus more perceptively on these cruel realties, the ball game is, so I rationalize, out of my hands and in the hands of those still in their productive years. Yeah sure, and that is scary---- the more I Iook around the more young people I see not so much productive as hanging on for dear life. Just the usual typical cyclical recession. Really? Or are the chickens coming home to roost from multiple miscalculations on myriad issues?

Years ago I was one of those who thought using a volunteer army and contracting out military services to private contractors was a great idea. Let those who want a military life do the fighting and reduce the cost of military expenses by contracting out for many of the related support services. The result has been a massive military industrial complex which not only ends up driving foreign policy, but ensures we are always engaged in war of some sort, somewhere, at all times, and lines the pockets of politicians who steer contracts to favored companies. It was just coincidence, I suppose, that Dick Cheney was the architect of all this as former Secretary of Defense and then got appointed Chief Executive Officer of Haliburton (he had never run any company in his life) and built a personal fortune by steering government business to Haliburton. How cozy.

Now we have ended up with a massive---really massive---industry (including volunteer soldiers) whose business is to win wars. They exist to win wars. Their existence and financial security depends on wars to win. If there is no war, it is in their financial self interest to see to it that there is one somewhere. They are the ones who decide, in the absence of a strong civilian President, where war can and should be waged, how it is to be waged, and for how long. It is just another business, and by now the biggest business in our country. Most of the world now views America as one vast war machine. Air shows entertain us but terrorize much of the rest of the world. Imagine living in these countries where the sound of an American superduper plane sends chills down everyone's spine. And this kind of thing could go on for years for them. Of course there doesn't have to be a plane just some silent smart heat seeking missile looking for some warm flesh to pulverize.

A volunteer army seemed like such a great idea. Let those who are willing to fight do the fighting and those like myself, less eager or willing, do our non military thing. And like so many honestly feel, having chosen to let them do this kind of 'dirty' work, we should honor them in every way we can. It certainly sounds fair enough. But it turns out it is riddled with flaws. Not the least of which is that it enables war to occur way too easily. I mean, why not kick the shit out of somebody when you have others willing to do the deed? There are certainly enough people, here and there, who need to be taught a lesson or two for whatever 'gut' feelings some some shallow minded faith based President focuses on at any particular time. Not only, so it goes, does God support these ventures, but the wars stimulate jobs and the economy and foster mindless patriotism---the political tool of last resort.

Fraudulent wars are harder to stop now. With no draft, people don't riot in the streets. And the wars go on and on. Absent sudden attack I think no war should be started without the people voting to commence one, and I think by law, the cost of the war in question should be obligated to be paid for via current taxes, not pushed off on another generation. If WE vote for war WE should pay for it. And as the war progresses, every two years, during an election the people should have to vote to continue it, and of course pay for it. Instead, we now have ill advised wars which go on forever with the next generation paying for it. Exactly what sacrifice do the rest of us make for these wars? There was a time when everyone in the country had to sacrifice if we went to war---the Civil War, World War 1, World War 2---the real justifiable wars where countries were being defended who were under attack. Now we have pre-emptive wars launched for political, religious, or cultural reasons. If we din't attack Vietnam the whole world would be taken over by communism, and the security of the U.S. itself would be at stake. We lost that war, as well we should have, and after centuries of foreign interference, Vietnam became a legitimate sovereign nation. God, who of course, by our own certainty, supported us during that war, must be furious. I don't really know what kind of political system the Vietnamese now have, and really don't care. They don't bother others and that is good enough for me. If they like communism or royal families, or socialism, or democracy, or religious governments---whatever----I am old fashioned enough to think that is their business. Our founding fathers, every one of them, advised against foreign entanglements. How times have changed. We are going to catch all these rascals across the globe "alive or dead" and 'they can run but they can't hide". They sure are running--- by the millions--- and the rubble left behind a tribute to our arsenal of smart bombs and missiles. With hundreds of thousands of troops squirreled away in protective safe zones except for brief forays out into neighborhoods for indiscriminate terrorist hunts, the number of deaths per month has gone down. Really? Are we slowly running out of targets or are the conquered residents just bidding their time till we leave? Of course not, the residents, for the most part, like us, especially Bush, and appreciate what we have done for them---we brought democracy and freedom. Of course it is not the kind of democracy and freedom we enjoy back here, but there are elections and freedom---the kind of freedom with nothing left to lose. Bush, a picture of modesty, doesn't enter Iraq to accept the accolades of the Iraqi people, but sneaks in for a quick photo op at some military base. I would rather see him wander among the people, feel their warmth and gratitude. Ah, he is just too modest, he doesn't even do that among the American people. When is the last time Bush ever exposed himself to his own population except the wealthy or religious right?

Many nights PBS, on it's News Hour, silently displays pictures of soldiers who have died in Iraq and where they are from. Lot of white, almost all rural towns or suburban towns, with a good dose of Hispanic. Not that many blacks. I suppose, in one sense, this is then a fair thing, in that the volunteer army is almost exclusively from Red States or the Red area of the Blue states. The question which naturally arises, is "Why are these young people volunteering to join the military which practically guarantees they end up in places like Afghanistan or Iraq?" It seems a strange career choice.

I am in no position to answer this question with any solid facts to support my answers here. But it does seem logical to assume most of these volunteers did so for the following reasons: they needed some sort of financial security (a Job), they see the military as an outlet for their own interest in guns or violence, they have a need to belong to some group, they genuinely believe in right wing politics, or they simply are bored to death and need some adventure. I think a lot of young people have a strong need to feel important. I know maybe 3-4 local young people, well enough to have frequent conversations with them, who can't wait to join the military. Frankly, they are very scary. Obsessed with guns and immersed in macho-ism, they are fearless enthusiasts of war. And therein lies my real opposition to a volunteer army.

I don't really believe these kind of young people belong in the service at all---under any circumstances. I wouldn't want them to be a cop in my neighborhood let alone be part of any invading force occupying my neighborhood. Knowing them, it is not hard to realize why all kinds of American soldier atrocities happen to civilians in the invaded lands. These are nice enough kids, at least on the surface, and I admire their fearlessness, but turned loose in the military I pity any citizens of the invaded lands who attract their attention. These kind of kids are addicted to every kind of violent video game available. It is like a sport to them. What percent of volunteers are of this nature I have no idea. What we do know is that when soldiers come back from the killing fields, a far greater percentage of soldiers will return desensitized to violence than ever went over there with such de-sensitivity. And, a good number of other soldiers will be so traumatized by all the senseless violence perpetuated by humans against humans, that they will have trouble with any kind of normal social interaction. I guess this is called the post-traumatic syndrome. These are the kids that signed up because they needed a job, an income, or thought they would be righteous soldiers bringing peace and security to people in need. These are the kids who are found among the 6000 soldiers who have tried or succeeded in committing suicide---a higher number than have been killed in combat, if I can use the word combat loosely. When there were organized uniformed armies fighting each other with weapons that required some sort of battle field and strategy, soldiers could suck it up and do their duty. Those soldiers were genuine heroes, having won the Battle of this or that. It is all different today.

Today, we are always the invaders. We are never the one fighting to save any other country from invading armies, WE ARE the invading army. And there are no opposing uniformed armies to face on a battlefield. The 'enemy' could be almost anyone not wearing an American military uniform. If terrorism is defined as the killing of innocent civilians for the sheer purpose of making a point and frightening leaders of your opposition into desisting, then war today comes down to terrorism on both sides. Each side terrorizes the other in whatever way they can. We use missiles and smart bombs and super automatic weapons and sophisticated weapons of every sort. The opposition use suicide bombers, land mines, sniper attacks, kidnappings, etc. And it becomes a stale-mate. We can by far kill the most (in the current war 4500 to hundreds of thousands), but they can kill us at a rate which requires the expenditure of vast amounts of money to keep the death rate to our own troops down. Success is measured in body counts. Any kind of body is counted. One American soldier, stationed at the main prisoner detention facility in Iraq said that probably 85% of the prisoners there are not terrorists at all but were fingered by someone mad at them. When someone calls in to one of the safe zones that so and so in the neighborhood is a terrorist, often American troops then form a convoy, race into the neighborhood in the middle of the night and grab the suspected 'terrorist'. There is seldom any need to prove anyone a terrorist. Accusations suffice.

When atrocities against civilians by American soldiers is reported I can never get mad at the American soldiers. It is only human to react harshly to seeing your buddies get blown up in front of you by land mines, sniper fire, etc. Add to this these soldiers who joined the armed forces precisely to engage in this sort of violence, and you have a real mess on your hand. It is not too great an exaggeration to state that if an American soldier is going to kill anyone over there it is most likely to be a possible terrorist than any known terrorist. With some exceptions, the best Americans to conduct a war are not likely to sign up to be in the armed services. If one took the top 20% of students selected by other students or teachers as 'most likely to succeed' what percent of them are volunteering to go into the armed services? They ought to keep track of this figure and then trash the notion of a volunteer army. In wars like Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. you need bodies not the smartest or even the bravest of our young. The most sophisticated of weapons are often simple enough to use. The 4,500 soldiers killed in Iraq were killed mostly by being at the wrong place at the wrong time, not in any kind of open battle between opposing armies. Being at the wrong place at the wrong time in wars like this does not make anyone a hero. It makes them a victim. Period. You really don't cheer victims.

While many American citizens genuinely cheer these soldiers on, I feel nothing but sympathy and disgust for the waste of human life on both sides. When George Gut-Feeling Bush declares we are winning I never can figure out what we are winning. Apparently if the body count is down, for the time being, we are winning. Just like when crime in a certain neighborhood goes up steeply and you saturate the neighborhood with cops, the crime usually goes gown---for the time being. I doesn't mean the neighborhood is now a good neighborhood, it doesn't mean anything at all has been solved but to temporarily decrease the violence for the time being. Common sense tells us that when the Americans leave, whether it be tomorrow, next month, next year, 2 years from now---the Shiites will then take control----possess the power and most of the wealth----just like the Sunnis used to, and law and order will be the same kind imposed by Suddam. There are so many people in so many places throughout Iraq waiting to extract revenge for the death of loved ones, or the loss of homes and property, or the loss of jobs, that any kind of nandy pandy notion that we have brought peace and security to Iraq is a cruel hoax. Now add to that the rebuilding mess, the millions of Iraqis who have fled the country, the accepted use of violence to solve conflict, and all we have created is hell hole seeped in human tragedy.

Thus I no longer support a volunteer army. I no longer support going to war unless the people vote to go to war and pay for it as we go (unless suddenly attacked). The draft is the only fair way to spread the burden of war around, and the taxation for war should be progressive by age. Make the senior citizens pay a price in their pocketbook for voting to send our young off to war. War is sometimes necessary, and when necessary, all segments of the population ought to shoulder the burden. Companies whose major business is supplying equipment or services to the armed forces should be prohibited from hiring former congressmen, high level administrators in previous governments, or high level active or retired officers from the armed services. If you are making missiles go make the damn missiles---these people mentioned don't know a damn thing about making a missile. And I no longer support blind patriotism. The real patriotic young heroes in the Vietnam War were those who refused to go. Might doesn't make right. When people say support the troops there are only two legitimate ways to do that: if the war is wrong then the troops should be brought home and that is the proper focus of support. If the war is legitimate then give support with endorsement of their efforts. If a war is a senseless killing field then it is wrong to cheer the troops on. It reduces the contest to something akin to the gladiators in the Roman Coliseum. There is a difference between sympathy and cheering on some kind of mindless slaughter. This is like the Germans who rationalized their support of World War II by saying they didn't support Hitler and his madness, they just supported the German troops. Anyone who cheers on the troops during a senseless war shares guilt for the senseless deaths. I have been guilty of that and am shamed by it. I wish every one of the 35,000 young men killed in Vietnam had fled to Canada and ignored those like myself who cheered them on, safely hidden behind a student deferment. Now we can cheer and hide behind the safety of not having to volunteer to go. And when a war is wrong we ought to be fair and have equal disgust for the death of our own soldiers, the death of the opposing enemy, the death of innocent civilians, the millions of refugees who lost homes, and the massive infrastructure damage. A war that never should have been waged can have no meaningful victory except to stop waging it. The damage done may be short-lived or long lived and you cannot undo the damage by creating further damage. If there is going to be further damage, then let the blood of that damage be on the hands of others. In this case we have enough blood on our hands. Enough is enough. Of course, if we surge enough we could achieve the victory of eerie silence across desolate ruins and a population reduced to the stone-age. Some victory.

THE PERQUISTORS

The Perquisitors

Like everyone else I like to understand the reasons why things happen, for example----why a team wins or the stock market goes down or why a certain horse wins a race. More than that I like to know which players are the best, which stocks are the best, which horses at the track will win.

For the most part the media perquisitors, also known as analysts, handicappers, sport commentators, etc. are polished (sometimes) hot air bags whose windy emotional surges often lead me to feel like if I want any shit out of them I will squeeze their heads. In the case of football, horse racing, and the stock market the perquisitors take the results and create plausible reasons for the result. Their explanations may be plausible but a good percentage of the time wrong.

If these perquisitors really understood the genesis of the results they would do well predicting the outcomes in advance. They don't do well predicting at all. Anyone who has ever listened to a pregame show, a stock market forecast, or a handicapper pick who will win a horse race knows how often their energetic assertions fail. In matters where their assertions can be measured, the best perquisitors hover around 60-65% mark. This clearly indicates the real factors producing the results are substantially unpredictable even for the best of perquisitors. If they can't predict, their post game analyses are equally suspect.

If the stock market goes down, whatever bad news there is in the world that day is used to explain why the market went down. If the market goes up they search for good news and claim that as the cause of the market rising. All kinds of people go to stock advisors on what kind of portfolio to put together. I don't. It just seems that if they really knew much, they wouldn't work for modest wages as an economic advisor for a major investment firm as trained 'Avon salespersons'. They would simply take their own advice and get rich. I am old enough now to remember when the worth of a stock depended on the performance of the company in question, or the Fund in question. Now, pretty much all the stocks swing together in large swings all in one day. They soar way up and then they immediately or soon fall way down. And a lot of people make big money betting on the timing of these huge swings. The individual companies are almost incidental. This is not to say that certain companies will not collapse for this or that reason causing the stock to plunge drastically all on its own. If these economic advisors really understood why the market goes up or down certain days they would often be calling the shots the day before so one could act accordingly. When is the last time your portfolio advisor ever called you telling you what a certain stock was going to do tomorrow? They aren't going to do that because most of the time they have no real idea why the market went up or down a certain amount on a given day. But that doesn't stop the blathering gibble-gabble.

Sport commentators elevate the blathering gibble-gabble to emotional agitated rapid fire character assassination and/or erroneous personal predictions. No matter how often they are proven wrong, there they are back next week telling us all over again what will happen or why things happened, and most of it is nothing more than garbage in, garbage out. At some point it often becomes comical. I root for the Cowboys because I find Terrell Owens an interesting character study. First I was told the Cowboys hadn't won a playoff game in many years because the former Coach Parcells was a mean spirited task master and made the whole training thing unpleasant for the players. The new Coach Phillips was going to make the Cowboys invincible because he made practice fun, listened to the players, and made them all function happily together. The team won a few games and suddenly he was the perfect coach, the team the perfect accumulation of stars, and thus the team to beat. Then they lost some games and suddenly Phillips had no control over the team, the team was dysfunctional, the players all selfish or prima donas. And of course at first they would be great because their offense would be unstopable, then later it was the defense which was the best, and finally today no one really knows what to say anymore. The truth seems to be regarding most of this rancous debate with all the clever put-downs and fawning adulations, that there are so many variables in football, including the injuries, that just about anything can happen in a given game and true to form, anything does happen.

Football commentators have the most fun. They love to hate and love to adulate. One can pretty much pick any particular commentator and you know for that season which players or coaches are going to be blamed for any team's success or failure. If they don't like a player then the team either is losing because of him or winning in spite of him. The lucky players escape anyone's microscope. If they drop an occasional pass it is forgotten by the next play. If the target of a sport commentator's ire drops a pass it will be focal point of their attention and the highlight of their day. Sometimes I suspect I like Terrell Owens because he has them all in a dither---his supporters and his haters all at once. You see as much of Terrell Owens on camera during a game as you do the game itself. Whether he does well or little of anything during a game it will be Terrell called to the podium post game for network coverage. Yet outside the interview setting Terrell hardly says much of anything to anyone, and is essentially a stoic during practices. Terrell vowed he was going to be somebody in life and these commentators, especially the haters, make his dreams come true. He seems to have tired of it a bit of late and not as fun to observe anymore. Maybe he is just going to coast to retirement from football.

When it comes to football, horse racing, and the stock market all of us get suckered into thinking we can make a science out of something that is quite unpredictable. We use stats to rank football players. What a farce in many respects. Take wide receiver stats, it would take a sophisticated computer program to sort it all out. Who was their quarterbacks, how often were they double teamed, how many times was the ball thrown their way, how much time were they injured and couldn't even be in the game, what was the strength of the teams in their division, what was the quality of the other receivers on the team, who were their coaches, how good were their running backs, and the list goes on and on. Terrell figured all this out and plays the OR ELSE game better than any other receiver with the exception of Jerry Rice----who he learned it from and took it to another level. No matter how useful as a decoy on the field, everyone on the team knows there is a threshold level for getting Terrell the ball, especially near the goal line. While the unenlightened preach on and on about being a team player Terrell knows it is only the personal stats which count come salary time, retention on a team, and fan support.

The point of all this is that these perquisitors are more like Jerry Springer than reasoned analysts. Especially in football. It is some sort of crazy football dating game. Adjectives abound and silly nonsense prevails over any reasoned analysis, which probably is beyond reach anyway. Terry Bradshaw is the perfect caricature of a football perquisitor---endless packaged silliness. Then you have the polar opposite in someone like Peter King of Sports Illustrated---the dour professorial idiot who considers himself some sort of high priest of football. He deludes himself into thinking he knows something about football when all he really knows is what kind of players he likes, much like he knows which wines he likes at a wine tasting event.

So pray tell, if any of the above is true, why would anyone, including myself, ever get involved with football, the stock market, or horse racing? I guess the stock market, over time, can be a fairly safe gamble to increase your financial portfolio (at least until recently when it has become more of a bet on the onset and endings of these swings). Horse racing and football are simply entertainment. Football is entertaining because it has a good pace and is mostly unpredictable. Football is the "I can't believe this" sport. Some like the violence involved. If a player can knock someone senseless or into a minor orbit that replay will be highlighted for days. And it is complicated enough to challenge those who want a lot of things to analyze. Hell, there are like 17 position coaches. I wonder if any player could actually name all 17 of the position coaches. Fans think there is all this team interaction. Hardly the case at all. When a reporter asked someone on the Giant team how much of a 'distraction' (favorite word of some sport fans) Plexico Buress was, the guy said simply "I rarely have any contact with him, how could he be a distraction?" Terrell once forbid anyone to talk to him except his Position Coach and his Head Coach, and when the Head Coach told him to shut up Terrell told him to "shut up". And during this period of time Terrell had some of his best games. So much for all this interaction. And yup, all those on the team during those turbulent times, with the exception of Donovan, including all the coaches, today speak favorably about Terrell. Why? I thought he was a distraction? The answer is simple. Terrell knows football. Terrell knows his position. Terrell stays in shape year round. Terrell works hard in practice. Terrell, rather than being distraction, hardly ever talks to anyone during practice and never goes anywhere with anyone outside of practice. And come game day Terrell is ready and gives it his all in all aspects of the game. Terrell listens as long as it is about making his game better. Of course the coaches and teammates appreciate Terrell. He focuses on this job and his job alone and gets it done. Funny, but that is really all that counts and the coaches know it. I guess Terrell is for sure a distraction: TO THE REST OF US. That says as much about us as about him.

Holiday Sequestration

Holiday Sequestration

Holidays are eclectic personal experiences governed largely by traditions and obligations. There is a lot to be expected regarding holidays. And these expectations, traditions, and obligations---once mixed with one's personal nature, situation, and sensibilities, then brewed together over the period of preparation for the holidays, can produce almost any kind of end result. Holidays can be the happiest of personal experiences or the season in which most suicides occur. And of course everything in between. Even given the power, I would not have the foggiest notion as to any universal format for how holidays should be celebrated. The usual purpose of a holiday is to resurrect deep appreciation for the person or the event for which the holiday is named. In that limited sense holidays mostly fail. There is so much else involved in pulling off a holiday that the original purpose gets pretty much shunted aside for the vast majority of people.

Given my age, single status and absence of any immediate family I can pretty much dictate the terms of my holiday festivities. There are not a lot of 'have to do's' piled on my back. Frankly, that is the key for me to a happy holiday. I really don't 'have to do' anything. And I don't. I suppose someone who likes to do so many things by his/her self might even be expected to add holidays to the list of solitary events. Over the years I have experienced many kinds of holidays in all sorts of manner, including spending the day with other people's relatives. That is the worst of all. It is kind of crazy that the kindest of invitations can produce such awful results. Of course a different person would be pleased to be included---you know, a more normal person. To be forthright, I can't stand shallow banter for hour after hour with people I will never see again. Time seems to stand still and I get restless, sleepy, annoyed, and spend time calculating the earliest possible time I can gracefully leave. Of course it is not quite as insufferable as I make it here, but it sure is no pleasant experience for me. Nor is it to the relatives who are forced to make small banter with me and each of us relate 'hilarious' or 'exciting' adventures from our past---or God forbid explain what we do on our job. I always have the urge to say I am a salesman for custom made condoms or any other assorted outrageous occupations.

Holidays for a lot of people, probably the majority, are stressful. When I observed family gatherings on holidays I got the sense not every participant was glad to be there, just felt obligated to be. And if it is just the immediate family there will be identifiable tensions somewhere between family members. Someone, it seems, is always irritated with someone about something and if it surfaces I am embarrassed to be present. And if an argument breaks out and I am asked who is right, what am I supposed to say? I usually say "I am not here to think, more like a potted plant for decorative purposes". The worst part of holidays, at least certain holidays, is the giving of presents. Having recently moved into a high rise condo from a rural home this gift giving has been a problem. After 2 years people have finally learned to understand my policy of not accepting gifts of any kind, period---and I don't give any gifts to anyone not financially destitute. First, I am basically a cheap SOB. Second I don't intend to spend any time trying to figure out what a self supporting affluent person needs, or how much I should spend on them. I just tell people: "I don't accept gifts, if I need something I buy it. And I don't give gifts either, so if you get a gift from me it is an impostor." And that includes food, I don't accept that either. Before I lived in a high rise I couldn't go out in the yard on a holiday to do anything because the neighbors would then send over mountains of food---like maybe I can't cook. Last week took the cake. Some really kind gal who lives down the hall sent me an email stating there was a package outside my door. She had been baking and made all kinds of delicious goodies, everyone of them unhealthy. I took them back to her door and told her I couldn't accept them, that she and her husband are the proper ones to eat them. "Oh no" she replied, "he won't eat any of it, the doctor won't let him because it is bad for his heart". Thanks lady, would you and he like to come down and watch me eat then, and wait to observe my heart attack?

Of course I genuinely appreciate the kindness of others---in these cases it really is the thought that counts. I kind of laugh because others wear themselves out for holidays and survive all sorts of squabbles, disappointments, pleasures, and complicated planning---then try to incorporate me into the middle of it. Nah. I pass. Some even get silly and ask if I do anything special for my cats? Huh? My cats are on holiday every day. Maybe I should kick them in the ass to see if they are even still capable of getting angry. This holiday I accepted only one present---sort of. The security guard informed me the cleaning gal was looking for me. She is a 30ish Hispanic gal who, combined with my hearing and her poor English, is not easy for me to converse with. So I tend not to a lot. The guard calls her on the phone and asks me to wait in the lobby for her to come down. I do, and while waiting begin chatting with others I know who are coming through the lobby. She arrives with this wrapped Christmas package. "This is for you" she says. I was especially aghast since some weeks ago she confided that it was a bad year (surprise!) for her and her husband, that the kids were not going to get a lot of presents and she couldn't send money back to Mexico as she used to. I just smiled and told her I don't accept presents, there is nothing I need, blah, blah, blah, and she should give it to someone else. "But I want you to have it. You will like it." More blah, blah, blah from me. She shuts up but looks sad or insulted or something and I fear she is going to cry. And everybody is watching me suffer through this and deciding what a jerk I am. One lady grabs the package and tells me in no uncertain terms: "You open the package, she wants you to have it". The best of policies don't always work. Part of me wants to strangle this cleaning gal. What the hell is the matter with her? Why single me out for a present? Feeling like I have a noose around my neck and the trap door will open if I don't open the present, I choose life and open the present. It was a large framed photograph of Barack Obama smiling. The frame alone must have cost at least $16.00---a large wood frame. "You like?" she says, and I feel like Jackie Gleason: "aba aba aba aba" and squirm. I did like it and even though surrounded by mostly die hard Republicans, or maybe because I was surrounded by die hard Republicans, I told her I really did like it. And I did---in fact went up and hung it prominently in my living room. Later I kept thinking about the whole thing. My guess is she heard me in political discussions with others in the lobby and my spiel about how American workers deserved living wages. This gal makes about $7 an hour, that's $42 dollars a day since she only can work 6 hours. The damn picture costs more than that. I will always treasure the picture because of the kind of Obama fan it came from. Of course I then gave her far more money for Christmas than I did the security guards (I am smart enough to yield on this practice) to be sure she didn't really have to pay for the picture. Maybe that is exactly why she gave me the picture so I would handsomely return the favor. Ah, so what. If so, smart gal---shows some initiative. But I would rather think she did it for the former reasons.

So, if one spends holidays alone, what does one do all day? Being alone on a holiday puts me into a pleasant pensive mood. I tend to think about days past, friends past, and people long gone who I really miss. The only one I really loved, and I hate using that word, has long since been gone but always remembered on a holiday. A love aborted at it's height carries none of the baggage time brings most love affairs and thus carries with it the hollywood caricature of undying intense 'love'. It gets romanticized in your mind much as a perfect sunset or sunrise.

I think my mind wanders in different directions on a holiday, and every holiday becomes a revisit to my past, mostly the many blessings. Even the music is past oriented. And the quiet becomes even quieter on a holiday. There is no way to comprehend life, but holidays make me feel more connected to the evolutionary process. One thing is for sure: there will be no fussing, no squabbles with anyone, no pressure to do this and that, no obligatory chit chat, no dealing with irritations or the feelings of others, no let downs, no wild euphoric moments either, and overall, solitary holidays are the best fit for me. Some people confuse being alone with being lonely. I am never less alone than when in nature all by myself or celebrating a holiday by myself---and never feel more alone than when in certain kinds of crowds on certain occasions. Today (Christmas) I am thinking about the usual past important people in my life, about Lincoln and Obama similarities, about the less fortunate living lives of quiet desperation, about some past pets, about Reva the Horse, about where to go for my walk on this cold day, when to watch my documentary Netflix movie on Thomas Jefferson, and at this moment, have decided, after having had a big meal, I could go for a nap before the walk. My favorite places to walk are out of the question today as walking with boots through deep snow on the trails is out---3 miles trudging through deep snow is too much for me and it is hard to judge how far from the car I dare go. So Bambi and his mom, who I like to track down, will just have to wonder where the little SOB is. They are not supposed to be in the Arboretum anyway, and they keep edging closer to some of the more treasured and expensive trees and shrubbery collections. No big deal, with time one gets used to the inevitable departure of both 2 legged and 4 legged friends.

Life is sure a lot of good-byes.

HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS

Human Relationships

It would be facetious for me to pretend any personal expertise on this, except as an observer. There appears to be lot innate about our personalities which portend to what extent we mesh with how many in the like-ability arena. There appear no reasons, ethical or otherwise, why differing people have to like each other, to be friends or soul mates. This does not in any way erase the ethical fair is fair mantra or the golden rule of human interactions---to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. In my case, I like people---from a distance for the most part---and march too much to my own drum to fit in neatly to the social basket of others. But just like one can know something about football without ever having played it, one can know something about human relationships without being an exemplary social example.

Human relationships are best left to settle into the least fractious state. This is true for nations as well as friendship and marriage. The idea that friendship, marriage, and close relationships between nations can be, or should be, permanent is to deny that time changes all parties involved. Relationships often, probably more often than not, come and go. Here today and gone tomorrow. We all know that. Nevertheless, we sometimes try to pretend otherwise. When relationships sour, the blame game commences. But for what purpose? No matter whether it is friendship, music, politics, or other such ilk, each person likes what they like. And what they like can change for reasons peculiar to their own needs and feelings. Married couples should never take 'till death do us part" too seriously or they may find they die a thousand deaths en route to any distant actual death. Some relationships do last till death do part, a good thing but not the kind of good thing one can force. Hell, if people could force others to like them most would have married someone else. The devil made me say that.

Amicable partings should always be the goal. What is the point of "It's all your fault, now change and everything will be ok." Ah, not likely, more likely things will just get worse and more frequent. I know, there seem to be some people who love being, for lack of a better word----henpecked---which means enslaved by another's admonitions. That's ok too, another way for a successful relationship to flourish. One pecks away and the other thrives on the subjugation. Sometimes the fussing is mutual and becomes a way of life. There must be a thousand potential ways for two people or two nations to get along. I don't even remotely pretend to predict anymore which marriages will last---and if they last, what the real reasons are. Certainly the early lovey dovey cupidish aspect of the relationship has long gone---the entertaining real life theatromania remains.

Interrelationship involve emotions and the emotions of any relationship dull with time, some more, some less. Just about everything you once got so excited about and were enamored with lessen with time. And when they don't lessen it is truly remarkable, and those so blessed should be thankful. It is best when relationships sour both at once; it is more likely to be initiated by one with no real surprise to the other; and it is worst when the relationship is torched by external forces---death, career pressures, social pressures.

Watching people interact with one another is deep stuff---a window into the human mind and the diversity of human thought processes. We like to think that thinking is thinking, but it is not. Some parrots can repeat entire human conversations word for word but what kind of thinking is that? Beats me. Birds can migrate thousands of miles and return at the right time to the same place. What kind of thinking is that? Beats me. I guess we call it programmed thinking. But isn't all thinking some kind of neuronal programmed thinking? If a person is deprived of all incoming sensations they will quickly be disorientated and be unable to mentally function at all. So input is necessary for any kind of organized thinking, at least in humans. Thus by definition human relationships impinge on the thinking of both parties. Duh. So what else is new?

What is propaganda but the means to use particular input, especially that which carries with it emotional baggage, to direct the thought process of the recipient. Thinking and emotions are all interconnected and if they are not, you are mentally ill. Thus, most personality clashes and friendship terminations are emotionally provoked and driven. Without an emotional component friendships would not be likely to end. The changes in the two sides would then be duly noted, but not responded to in any emotional way. A lot of the glue which holds human relationships together is loyalty whether it be patriotism, family responsibility or respect for past good times. The trouble arises when such loyalty is the only glue left to hold the interrelationship. Everybody has been involved in and been an observer of such tenuous tense tip-toeing relationships. Good theatre and conversation but a poor basis for such relationships to continue.

In many respects, what works, works----what doesn't should be left to die a natural death and the parties involved should move on, be gracious about it, and form new friendships. Often times the best gift one can give another person or even to a group is to let go before individual feelings end up pulling everyone under the bus. Damage control should be a solid basis for terminating personal relationships. Whole nations, let alone smaller groups, have had their social amicabilities torpedoed by those who cannot, or will not, back off and let others be.

I guess for every personal relationship there will be the best of times and the worst of times. When the relationships end, for whatever reasons, the worst of times tend to be forgotten and the best of times remembered; that is the real blessing of human interactions. The object is to go off elsewhere and initiate more good times, not senselessly burden any relationship with endless charades of tip-toeing around the lessons 'needed to be taught'. Tippidy tipidy toe, tippidy tipidy toe---ah hah, GOTCHA! Very clever except guess whose turn is next?

SPORTS; PERSPECTIVES ON WINNING

Sports: Perspectives On Winning

I don't listen much to sport talk shows, pre game analyses, or post game analyses. It is then I begin to feel "whoa---these are games, not political struggles which affect the lives of others in any meaningful ways". Of course I am hypocritical and have strong opinions myself about teams and individual players. But somehow, when people make a living publicly character assassinating athletes, in this or that way, I feel, in my heart, this is going too far. I know, the athletes make way too much money so we should be able to verbally pummel them to our heart's content. But then, what does that say about ourselves that we are so eager to personally assault the character of others whom we really know so little about. We do know about their athletic performances and that really should be the focus. It is not like there is any fairness about any of it. The same commentators, with the same axes to grind, attack the same individuals week and after week. What is this, in the last analysis, but media propaganda to discredit individuals who are not present to defend themselves. John Madden is so popular in part because he refrains from that sort of thing. He talks football (and other aside trivia) not carry on as if football is some sort of dating game where you try to figure out which candidate appeals to you the most---or some kind of verbal Jerry Springer show.

Sports are entertainment and about athletic performance, not---in my mind---some sort of Roman Coliseum game in which sport gladiators are fed to the lions (sport commentators). Clearly many others feed on sports exactly because it gives them a chance to torch the character of certain athletes. Last week some reporter saw fit to use 'unnamed' sources to pit teammates on one team against each other. It is, no doubt, a good way to get your own babble a lot of coverage. But when the deed is done and accomplished, and your own hot air gets nationwide attention, how should one feel about your nasty little deed? What has it all to do with the game anyway? I live in a high rise condo and I suppose with little effort and time, I could spread comments made by certain residents about other residents throughout the building by posting these comments by 'unnamed' sources and what they said about who. Then others could say the people who live in this building are dysfunctional, they dislike each other and are consumed with petty jealousies. If I did that I would feel like a pretty sleazy and slimy character. Probably better for me to be sleazy and slimy a different way.

The team in question was Dallas, whom I support, and the target in question was Terrell Owens, who I find to be an interesting person with a unique background, and as a consequence, an intriguing personality. By the end of the week the media had pegged Dallas as a dysfunctional team. And when the game was held the dysfunctional team won. They won, as any football team wins, when the individual performers, on that day, performed their individual tasks better than individual performers on the other team performed their tasks that day. It is just silly to think some athlete on the field can't tackle good in the game because he dislikes some other player on his team. Fans can talk 'team' all they want, but in the last analysis each player on each team knows that his future---his salary---depends on his performance alone. He either makes tackles, or throws the ball well, or catches the ball, or runs the ball well, or blocks well, etc.

A friend emailed me a message the next day which in part read: "Dysfuntional teams (groups) do just fine when things are going well, but
the dysfunction will cause problems when things are not going well. 
As someone once said, "losing doesn't build character, it reveals
character".  Everyone wants to win, but the way they react to losing
says a great deal."

This seems perceptive enough at first glance, but really has some drawbacks. First, if a dysfunctional team wins an important game against a tough opponent, that team, by definition of the word, is not dysfunctional---in fact it functioned quite well. In football, whether teammates all like each other (and good luck trying to impose that on any large group of people) has little to do with their individual game performances. It does seem however, that winning means more if the individuals do like each other, and losing goes down better without a lot of finger pointing. To the extent any of this is true, then the only thing any reporter accomplishes who uses 'unnamed sources' to spread dislike amongst team members, is to make victory less pleasurable or defeat more fractious. What the hell kind of goal is that? These athletes work hard, and to deliberately spoil the level of joy in victory or level of pain in defeat is ethically despicable.

It is probably true that losing may reveal character, but since character is often a trait ever in the making, losing can also build character. I taught young adults all my life, students roughly the same age as most of these athletes. You learn with time, not to judge a book by it's cover, to appreciate diversity, to understand that the history of young people often dictates their character and attitudes and outward behavior. I often would deliberately pair up polar opposites as lab partners and when either would protest to me in private, I would just smile and say that is exactly why I did it. I think most people feel real good when they are able to find some good in someone they assumed was simply no good, not their type, etc. That is precisely why Obama won---he brought out the better angels of human nature, gave people reason to get along rather than dislike each other. Can anyone imagine Obama going into a locker room and prying out little tidbits from some unsuspecting gullible irresponsible teammate to gather gossipy tales and then use those tales in an attempt to pit teammate against teammate? Of course not because whatever else Obama is or is not, he is not a sleazeball. In the last analysis the teammates already know how they feel about other teammates and don't change because of anyone else's opinion. It is only the fans which get manipulated, and rise up against this player or that player. Terrell is a cheap target because he is a very different sort of person. It is worth noting that all these media 'color' commentators who rant against Terrell have never been on a team with Terrell. And conversely, most who are the strongest defenders of Terrell have been on a team with him. I prefer to trust the latter.

There is never any good reason to dislike someone because they are just different. Terrell is hired to perform well on the field, to stay in shape and not interfere with the ability of anyone else to perform well. He does that and true to his nature, stays off to himself, never gets close to others on the team. So what? He is too focused on his own performance to hardly notice the presence of others. So what? He is full of himself. So what? These are all adults, if they need a nursemaid and alter ego let the team hire one for them. Fans themselves can be a little too full of themselves and expect every athlete to dance to their tunes of personality preferences. The sports writer in question got a lot of fans to boo Terrell at the game. That is a cheap shot itself. Terrell is in the top ten selling sport jerseys of all sports (okay, he is ten), but most of his fans can hardly afford to attend a football game. Most of his fans are 'nothingburgers' living in the kind of environment in which he grew up. They understand the miracle nature of his personality and achievements and he is a perfect role model for them---"the little Engine that Could". He gives them hope and his adherence to simple ethical principles are the kind of principles they should be pondering. Terrell is impervious to media assaults and has been his whole life. But his supporters, the young ones, are not. They cannot understand why he is being put down and they feel like it is an attack on nobodies like themselves, and it creates racial and class hostilities for what purpose---so some lowlife reporter can get press for himself?

All of this sports personality banter, on a scale of one to ten gets about a 2. The only thing clear is that my teams are better, the individuals I root for are the best, and everyone else should shut up. Case closed.

GOD'S WILL, SIN, LIFE PURPOSE

God's Will, Sin, Life Purpose:

We all have heard the question: "If God is good, why does He allow terrible things to happen to good people?" I mean really terrible horrendous ghastly things which are unbearable to think about. And everyone wonders, at some point, to varying degrees, what the hell is life really all about? I remember years ago, while in the hospital recovering from an operation, a minister lying paralyzed from a stroke unable to do anything but move his eyes, and congregation members telling him "God is not through with you yet, it is not your time to go". This was astounding to me---"God is not through with you yet!". What kind of God are these people worshipping? The implication of course was that whatever was happening to this guy, God was behind it, and calling the shots. I personally don't believe God was directly behind it at all, any more than God oks a little girl being raped, or is directly involved at all with Darfur, the Holocaust, the Vietnam massacre or any other horrible events in history.

Still, there is a God, as for every gift (life and the planet for the life) there must be a gift giver. The illogical mistake humans have made about God throughout history is to insist or assume God thinks like us, looks like us, and favors us as a species or as individual persons. The human conceived God is God the interventionist, or so it always goes. He is always some sort of KIND God only IF we, individually or collectively, pray to Him often enough from extravagant cathedrals of some sort, and believe in certain religious dogmas, all written by humans in ages long since passed. These kind of inherited faith based beliefs carry a double edged sword. While they may bring personal comfort (God is with me every step of the way) these beliefs inevitably bring persecution and even death to those who worship a God via dogma of a different Bible, or even different interpretations of the same Bible.

Faith based beliefs are inherent in human life simply because our intellectual capacities are limited. When anyone purports to 'speak' with God they are clearly illusionary in the most self pompous way. No existing exam indicates they have any special intellectual capacity. And of course nothing about their lives by any measure indicates they have any special protection from God's evolutionary laws. Whatever the evolutionary laws which have governed the billions of years old saga of life on this planet, these laws seem to apply to all living creatures. If God personally intercedes on anyone's behalf in this self driven process, it appears to be rare, if at all. Naturally, if one believes God controls every happening any contrary belief is poppycock.

Common sense dictates that if God wished to convey certain behavioral 'laws' specifically to humans he would do so in a way which was universal and clear as from whom the message was sent. There would not be different 'Bibles' written by different humans, and oddly enough all pretty much from the same era in human history, and all containing obvious modern absurdities. This method of distributing such 'laws' makes no sense and portrays God as some sort of inefficient, partisan mean spirited troublemaker. This in no way indicates there is no such thing as ethical behavior. Ethics appears to be universally inherent in the human species. I am not aware of any human society where basic understanding of right and wrong is not understood apart from mental derangement like psychopathy.

Ethical conflict always arises from competing drives. These conflicts are always self vs others. Much of it is materialistic in nature. I want a Corvette but clearly if I buy a less expensive car some of the starving people could be fed, some of the homeless sheltered, etc. We know we should share, but mostly we don't. We know we should be thinking of those with desperate needs but we don't---and thus 100 million people will starve to death in the next few years, the rich will continue to get richer, there will be more Darfur like situations, and people of 'difference' will be persecuted for their differences. The more normal it becomes to circle the wagons around some sort of 'family values' mentality, the less it becomes ethically necessary to be concerned about others. Taking care of yourself and your immediate genetic and social clan sets the parameters of your charitable and political nature. "God bless me, my family, my friends, my country and give me the strength to wage war on those heathens who are a threat to us---us who so faithfully are your servants." Therein lies the basis for the worst kind of conflicts. And conveniently, it is all wrapped in God's will. All the killing fields become justified, and clergy of every ilk will always be found among the troops spreading blessings to all those God supported soldiers on both sides. Whenever we behave like the worst of assholes we invariably drag God into it in order to give our actions some sort of respectability and divine purpose. It is a 'nasty' business but in God's name we do it. Maybe, some day, in the far distant future, evolution will have proceeded to the point where the killing fields will become just a part of evolutionary history. We have the knowledge now to look back on how life has evolved over billions of years, and we see the progression is ever upward in direction despite all kinds of plateaus, reversals, setbacks, dead ends, etc. God's evolutionary process is a good process.

It is in this process that we can see the brilliance of God's work. It is in this process we can see that all the 'disasters'---whether to a species or to particular individuals of any species---all these disasters are part of a process which evolves to ever more complex forms of life with new and advanced abilities. It is in this process which we can more clearly see the brilliance and goodness of God. It is this process which is God's will. It is this process which enables us to understand that God is not deciding who has sex with who and which egg unites with which sperm and all this other similar ilk which we spend so much time praying about. We don't drive the process, nor is God altering his own process because of our demands (prayers), and in the case of humans, God is not demanding much at all, He is just responsible for a process which has given us our innate abilities including ethics. We have been given an opportunity to live life as best we can, including our relationship and responsibilities to others. One could, I guess, conclude that therefore a life of selfish hedonism is ok, an ethical thing---survival of the fittest. One could, but it comes with a risk. Certain things humans cannot understand. First, is the future, and second is the consequence of unethical behavior. If understanding right from wrong is an inherent part of human nature, then this implies there is a consequence for wrong behavior. Otherwise right and wrong have little meaning. The consequences are not really knowable. It could be an afterlife, a return to life in a different form, or anything else not comprehendible to us. Doing wrong instead of right comes with an unknowable risk. In the field of ethics, not being able to know the consequences of unethical behavior, we all proceed at our own risk.

As far as judging ethical behavior, given all the variables inherent in the evolutionary process and amongst individual humans, we are crippled as judges. We are far better at knowing right from wrong than we are in judging the ethical behavior of others, at least in most situations. Out right cheating, murder, etc are simple enough some of the time, but the vast majority of human behavior occurs outside the ability of humans to accurately judge. The best we can do is create laws to prevent obvious unethical behaviors. Almost all of the raging religious furors are over issues far from logically clear. That is why faith based notions should never become the law of any land. Whether we like it or not, God's evolutionary laws reign in the end, never human faith based notions.

I personally dislike the word sin. It has been corrupted beyond repair. There is right and wrong and some sort of unknowable consequence for doing wrong rather than right. Then there is all this commotion about forgiving someone for their sins. It gets kind of silly starting with the notion that Christ had to be nailed to a cross in order for God to forgive our sins. What kind of God do people conceptualize? It is not only senseless, but soaked in violence and blood. "Okey Fido, you have sinned and disobeyed by jumping the fence and running all over the neighborhood. In order for me to forgive you my only son needs to be nailed to a cross and die. Don't you ever forget the sacrifice I have made to forgive you for your sins". This is stupid at that level and at any other level. The evolutionary process is not about forgiving anyone about anything. I can forgive myself and others who supported killing 2 million Vietnamese and 35,000 young Americans but it means nothing. Wrong cannot be made right. We can only cease doing wrong or choose more often to do right. Evolution is not an emotional soap opera. It is unfeeling methodical progress.

So then, if all the above were true, which may or may not be, how then do we view the purpose of our life? First, it is not "there but for the grace of God goes I". When we view the plight of people in refugee camps or the homeless on a street, God is not responsible for such particulars, only the laws which drive the system. God didn't cause you to get cancer, things like this are a part of the process. Only when we consider ourselves some sort of treasured part or end of the process can we start thinking God is watching over us as individuals. The evolutionary process is mostly good luck or bad luck. Each of us exist because one sperm and one egg happened to unite. That doesn't make us special, it makes us lucky. And from then on luck combined with our human ability to make intelligent individual choices seals our fate. Do we choose to work or be lazy; do we choose to do right or wrong; do we choose to marry Lily of the Valley or Honschnivel of the mountains, etc. But let us never overdo the choosing part. I may choose to marry the most beautiful, smartest, most charming girl in the land, but it ain't likely to happen. Our choices are always limited. Most animal species have little choices at all, their behavior is driven by chemicals, not conscious decisions. But we would do well to remember, that in evolutionary terms, we are not better than other species, and with time our own species will likely seem primitive. We know it makes little sense to compare apples and oranges but we do it all the time and even go so far as to arrogantly claim God instructed us to go forth, populate the earth and have dominion over all other plants and animals. Considering the nature of the evolutionary process, God is not rooting for anyone or any species. This is hard to accept because naturally we would like God to be our personal guide and friend.

So what then is our purpose in life? This would be like asking what was the purpose of the third reptile who wandered the earth? The evolutionary process has a purpose, a direction, but the components are more like random molecules proceeding according to the survival of the fittest. There is an awful lot of randomness to the evolutionary process and this randomness not only generates endless progress but individual tragedies. Humans can construct our own purposes in life; we do it endlessly as we strive for this or that, to be this or that and sustain ourselves with smart planning, perseverance, good luck, and hope. For the most part our purpose is self directed, self focused, and usually irrelevant to the evolutionary process itself. I may want to be one of the best chef's in the country and may even achieve that, but this personal achievement is just that---personal. Few people will ever be part of the big picture, not even a small footnote in the evolutionary process. But that doesn't have to matter---our individual purposes in life are what give our personal lives meaning. Just because I am having no major impact on the evolutionary process does not mean my life cannot have meaning. And what is meaningful to me may not be meaningful to another. The question is improperly worded. It is not what gives meaning to human life, but what gives meaning to each of our own lives? And that is the path we seek from birth onward, constricted only by the extent to which we do the right instead of the wrong ethically.

We care about our own lives, the process of evolution does not. What is, is. We have a hand dealt to us by the process----God didn't personally deal the cards, His created process did. With no such created process there is no life, as we know it, at all. So where is our right to bitch? We like to play games, not because we are guaranteed to win, but because we enjoy the opportunity and challenge of the game. If you no longer like playing the game, for whatever reason, you stop playing the game. In the game of life we may not have elected to play, but we do have the right to quit playing, for whatever reason. All this silly ass nonsense about how God decides when and how we die is self delusion at its most ridiculousness. How we live, how we eat, how we exercise, what kind of risks we take, where we live, and our genetic make-up are all factors that determine how and how soon we die. What is done to some people, in the name of God, during their dying process is abhorrent. If you did the same thing to a prisoner of war you would be convicted of administering torture. And we have the nerve to convince people that if they don't take the torture they will go to hell. Again, what kind of God do some people believe in?

For my own part, once I accept the evolutionary process as God's gift to all life on our planet, I can live contented with the opportunity given by the process, use the cards dealt me as effectively as I can, governed by the innate sense of right and wrong. Like everyone else selfish interests compete with right and wrong. Like everyone else I really don't know the consequences of doing wrong rather than right. But logic seems to dictate that if there is right and wrong, there must be consequences or I can't really then define the terms. There is a lot of random luck in the evolutionary process. How much of this luck any of us get varies. And I sense (which hardly makes it fact) that the noblest level of human existence is one in which those less lucky or fortunate are shared the material benefits of those whose cup runneth over. One can debate when one's cup runneth over, but most of us lucky ones realize we were just as happy when we had less as we are now with so much more. Happiness and contentedness, are, in the end, the goal of each of us. My cat Ms.Irridessa has little, but she purrs a lot. Go figure it, what the hell does she have to purr so much about? I think she needs a knuckle rub. Wouldn't it be neat if humans purred when contented? It would take all the guess work out of who is truly happy. I don't know though, if someone purred too much I think I would want to smash them. Then maybe I would purr. Life is a trip.

LIVES OF QUIET DESPERATION or OKAY!

Lives Of Quiet Desperation or OKAY:

These are the best of times. These are the worst of times. Like many others I live in the best of times. But I know, in my heart, that this is not the case for a large percentage of others on this planet. A common delusion is to view one's own status or circumstance as the basis for reality or justice. When I see or hear the phrase "America, Love It or Leave It" or any such variant of this phrase, I understand what it really means: "Things are good for me the way they are. I am very grateful for this. Now if things are not so good for you---tough! Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out".

It always seems to boil down to 'us' vs 'them' in so many aspects of life. I don't think anyone really in tune with evolutionary forces or our human innate ethical nature, can effectively disregard the plight of other humans, or other species, or any of the natural resources across our globe. I say effectively disregard because many, if not most, do disregard---but they are never the contented campers on this planet. I think back on the many sustained contacts I have had with so many of the 'successful' in our society---from the family of a woman for whom I was a live-in chauffeur early in my life, to various high intensity administrators, to successful business men/women, etc. These are very busy, busy, busy people. To sustain their power and position---financially, politically----requires a lot of disingenuous maneuvering, self promoting, prejudicial treatment of those whose support they depend on, a lot of indifference to injustices, and all kinds of protective walls lest some sort of unruly rag-tagians create unwelcome turmoil. Most of these 'managers' of our society are not unlikable--just rigid, harried, fearful, cautious, wound up energizer bunnies. Harried people are rarely thoughtful in any deep sense, or good for one's own nerves to be around too much.

I go for a lot of 3 mile walks, hither and thither, but one of the places I do this involves walking around these horse pastures. Part of the walk brings me past the back yards of very expensive and eloquent homes. You know, the kind of places with good acreage and the house occupies most of the acreage. There will be the requisite swimming pool and professionally designed and cared for landscaping---the kind as a kid you always dreamed of owning. What lucky people! There must be a dozen such houses whose back yards I pass. Only twice all summer did I ever see anyone out in the back yard. One lady was raking some leaves one afternoon and we chatted. Another lady came out once to try and get her two dogs to stop barking at me. I never saw anybody in the swimming pools, never saw any company. Even on Thanksgiving no one was entertaining--based on the absence of more than one car in the driveway---and so they must have gone elsewhere or had no more than one car of guests. For myself, during my productive years, being invited to those kind of places was painful. It was never the case of good or close friendship, but always the case of, for reasons of the moment, I was an appropriate guest to invite. The conversations were the most meaningless, apocryphal, charlatanish banter imaginable. The purpose usually is to grease the way to close a deal, or to elevate one's social position, or dutifully play to the ego of the guests or host. After fifteen minutes I would begin thinking of how soon I could leave and what kind of excuse would justify my departure. The point is, after you have gotten the wealth to have such a place, it becomes sort of a desolate outpost of eerie inactivity. Material wealth is not really the nirvana expected. Of course real poverty is a lot worse.

But as usual I stray from the topic at hand----lives of quiet desperation. There are parts of every city in America few people care to put their foot in. I don't know how dangerous walking through might really be, but I do know few of us care to be depressed at what we might see. Bars on the windows and doors, misfits of every ilk----people from life's other side. It is hard to know what one should think, let alone what, if anything, one should do about these people. And whose fault is it that they have to live like that? Well, it must be theirs, if they would just get their lives together like I did, and others did. Terrell Owens came from a ghetto, why can't these people be like him? And most people like me always like to relate how we had little as a child and got our act together to be a success of some sort. Of course it is a lie, people like me have always had a lot----good parents, good schools, good safe neighborhoods, and a zillion role models. Frankly, if I could not have made something out of myself with all the advantages I had going for me---which is not to say others may not have had more---it would have been shameful on my part.

Lately I am haunted by the predicted 100 million people who are going to die in the next few years from starvation. I mean, I thought losing 2000 innocent people in the World Trade Center bombings was horrific. And it was. But what about these 100 million people who are going to starve to death----something seems badly out of balance here. That will be 50,000 more innocent deaths than the World Trade Center deaths. Certain things get in my psyche and disturb my otherwise tranquil existence. The tragedy of this stuff overwhelms me. I have little patience for those who prate on about the evils of birth control or abortion, or oppose family planning clinics, and never---never ever---talk about the inhumanity of our attention to those already living lives of quiet desperation. When they start preaching about the sanctity of life, and to them it is just some sort of abstract moral dogma, I would like them first to be in the shoes of one of these 100 million who will starve to death in the next few years. There is no sanctity about these lives. Get real. Sanctity of life is entwined with quality of life. To separate the two is cruel and inhumane. Sanctity of life to these 'sanctifiers' obviously means human life and some human life more than others. Who is more supportive of all the killing fields across the globe than these sanctity of lifers? They have never met an American invasion they didn't support.

Life, at least to me, has been a long slow process of shedding delusions. No one could have been a better 'patriot', in the dumbest sense of the term, than I in my youth. My country was always right. Period. If we overthrew a government somewhere, good for us, and they surely deserved it---the bastards. If we attacked a country, it was self evident they deserved to be attacked. It took the death of 2.1 million Vietnamese for me to finally come to grips with what I had supported. For exactly what did 35,000 young Americans die and 2.1 million Vietnamese die? No one has to tell me what it is like to be a supporter of mass murder because I was. Humans---all of us---not just the Germans or Taliban, or any other group, are capable of supporting the cruelest of actions, including torture, the killing of women and children, slavery, suppression of rights to this or that group, etc. A real patriot, to me, supports his country when his country is doing right, and opposes his country when it is doing wrong. Even this notion of always supporting our troops is nothing more than a means to support aggression even if the aggression is unjustified. There is only one way to legitimately support our troops in Iraq, or before that in Vietnam, and that is to bring them home or never send them in the first place. Get their ass out of somebody else's Civil War and their intolerance of each other. What parent could claim any sense of ethics by saying, "I know my son shouldn't be in a gang, but he is and so we supply him with the best of automatic weapons so he can properly defend himself." Yeah, okay Mr. and Mrs. Good Parent.

Delusions abound in all of us. Any success is always because we 'earned' it. Our genetics, our parents, our place of birth, our schools, or physical abilities or appearance, our intellect, inheritances, etc. are irrelevant---it is always "I earned it". Okay. Our inherited religion we delude ourselves into thinking is the true religion. Okay. God is on our country's side. Okay. If we amass wealth legally from the society in which we live---our children deserve that wealth when we die----I guess they 'earned' it. Okay, they earned it. We don't have any prejudices towards others. Okay, if we say so. Unrestricted capitalism is the fairest way to allocate wealth. Okay, another convenient delusion.

Daydreaming is mostly delusions. But we sure need to daydream or lose our sanity. We are not a bad person. Of course not albeit most of our bad behavior is mostly one of inaction rather than any direct attack on anyone. We often believe what we want to believe. We all do, of course you more than I. A good friend remarked not long ago that Obama drew 80,000 people to an Oregon rally because there was a rock band warming up the crowd. Okay. I once had a student who brought to my attention several instances where she had the right answer and I marked it wrong. I apologized and told her I often grade exams while watching a foot ball game (not true). The next exam she pointed out I again was careless and I again thanked her. She then got a letter expelling her from the course for cheating. She went to the Administration and raised hell. The administrators warned me she was heading to my office irate as hell. She verbally let me have it and reminded me that she went to church every Sunday and no way was she a cheater and I could not prove otherwise. When I pulled out of a drawer a copy of her exam which I had xeroxed before handing back her exam she became speechless. Never said another word, just left. She genuinely deluded herself into thinking she was not a cheater. Okay. I recently lauded myself because for the first time in like 50 years I sent a holiday card to a bunch of people. Of course it was an internet card which took like 30 seconds to send to dozens of people. And I was lauding myself for being so thoughtful. Okay. How thoughtful was it really? 30 seconds of thought. Wow.

We have so many delusions of lesser or greater importance that maybe on our tombstones we should inscribe: My delusions are gone---AT LAST. How many times are we wrong about others? How many opinions do we form about others of this or that which have little basis in fact and often prove wrong with the passage of time? The sad thing is that most all of us can be deluded about most anything. Born in a different time and I would believe slavery is right; that women shouldn't have the right to vote, that different races should not be in the same schools together, etc. Delusions seem to originate as a means to feel comfortable about being wrong about something. While we have an innate ability to distinguish between right and wrong, delusions are the tool whereby we can excuse our doing the wrong instead of the right. Every age has it's own peculiar delusions. Most still are deluded to think it is ok to spend more money to educate some children than others (money is not the answer), that it was ok to kill 2.1 million Vietnamese (we were defending democracy), that it is ok to continue to kill Iraqis even if it was wrong to invade the country (because we are there now), that gays don't have the right to marry (it is not natural), that nuclear weapons should be banned except for those who already have them (what is, is), that a diverse country should have a Christian government--governed by any laws a simple majority of Christians can muster,that the right to have as many children as wanted is sacred (faith based feelings), that natural resources are unlimited (God gave us enough to last forever), that vast fortunes of amassed wealth belongs---after death---to the relatives of the deceased (there is nothing wrong with allowing the wealth of a nation to accumulate in the hands of a few), graduated taxation is unfair (the wealthy already pay a good percent of the total taxes). Is that so? Yes it is. Well, if 1% of the people own 90% of the wealth maybe they should be paying 90% of the taxes. And of course how can any nation prosper if all the wealth steadily accumulates in the hands of a few? Even now, with the stock market tumbling and depleting the savings value of most people, the wild fluctuations on a daily basis provide large speculators with the opportunity to amass large fortunes on these swings. But of course we all have been deluded into believing an unrestricted market is a good thing---the right thing. We were deluded into believing the price of gas was near $4 because of supply and demand? Really? Then in like one or two months the price of gas dropped in half. Because demand dropped in half? Okay. God has blessed the companies who own the natural resources of the world. How else can they be making record profits every quarter? Deregulation is good. No delusion there. Okay. And besides, most people believe the economy always goes in cycles, up, then down, then up again----not to worry. Times will get better. All we need is a bail out and everything will be okay again. OKAY. After all free enterprise is just doing it's thing. Everything will be all right, slavery is dead. Really, is slavery dead or coming back stronger than ever? Isn't making products at a cheap price via slave labor slavery? Isn't anyone forced to work at less than living wages a slave? (of course no one is making them work, and they are not forced to live on plantations in chains and owned by others). Maybe this is just more sophisticated slavery. But I think foolishly here, we all know slavery ended a century ago. I personally know some people to manage to get by on less than living wages and can pay their bills and even own a car and house. Of course they work three jobs, but who the fuck cares, that is their life, their decisions, and not of my concern. I guess not but one wonders, in moments of non deluded thinking, how long this can go on before those of us with a good life will need to circle the wagons? Does anyone ever realize that if class riots start, the modern methods of terrorism will make circling the wagons a waste of time? Some delusions would be devastating to let go. Everything is going to be all right. Bad times always pass. I agree. And evolution proves it. Of course some bad periods last hundreds or thousands of years. The Dark Ages lasted 500 years. If we won't take care of human overpopulation Mother Nature will and maybe already is. Let's all take a moment right now and say a fond sympathetic farewell to those 100 million people predicted to starve to death in the next few years. Me, I am going to take a nap now and then gobble up a sumptuous meal, then take my three mile walk in nature, then write a musing, then read some books, then watch a Netflix movie, and then, when becoming pleasantly tired, I will put on some music till I fall asleep. Everything is just fine in this best of all possible worlds. The proof is in the living. If others don't like life, why don't they go elsewhere or just desist living---fuckin' misfits and free loading retarded parasites. Thank God for gated communities and security guarded high rises. Okay. We all safe. Okay. Our economy, priorities, and ethics are basically sound. Okay. Zipeddy Do Dah Day.....Okay.

Sign of the times: Cluster bomblets are packed by the hundreds into artillery shells, bombs or missiles, which scatter them over vast areas. Some fail to explode immediately. The unexploded bomblets can then lie dormant for years until they are disturbed, often by children attracted by their small size and bright colors.
The group Handicap International says 98 percent of cluster-bomb victims are civilians, and 27 percent are children. Nations across the world have signed an agreement to make them illegal as weapons. The U.S., Russia, and China refuse to sign claiming these are useful military weapons. OKAY.

CULTURAL SELF DELUSIONS

Cultural Self Delusions

So much of the bafflement regarding human indifference to important matters can be traced to self delusions. Each group believes, and many in the most emphatic way, that the God of their inherited religion is the true God, just like every other group believes their inherited God is the true God. And nothing, absolutely nothing, except sometimes marriage, is going to change their mind. Same as people will seriously argue over music or art, or food or which sport is best, etc.---another delusion that one's own preference in any of these areas has some sort of validity. All I really know is that old people seldom like the music of the young. And older people who find it harder to always understand what others are saying become deluded into insisting that they can hear fine if people will just stop mumbling. Back in the old days people didn't mumble. Yeah, sure. I can now attest to that. Huh?

Some delusions are more serious than others. Currently, few people are willing to acknowledge most of our planet is seriously overpopulated. Most of us are smart enough to understand this, but most of us would rather not seriously believe it. Many people still insist birth control is wrong, or that God still wishes us to go forward and populate the earth and have dominion over other animals, and plants, and the environment in general. We pass laws making it illegal to give financial aid to any country utilizing any population control measures. Just amazing. We are about to pay a severe price for this delusion. Many already are paying the price in some parts of the world. While there is plenty of evidence God exists---if you receive a gift (in this case life and a planet for life) then there must exist a giver of the gift. But there is zero evidence God made man in His own image, or that God is directly involved much, if ever, in His created evolutionary process, or that God favors man over other forms of life. These are just our common cultural delusions. Self serving, self grandisizing, self deceptive delusions.

We also have deluded ourselves into believing the natural resources of our planet are inexhaustible. These resources have already have been depleted in many parts of the world. We are surrounded by bright souls who delude themselves into thinking that we can drill our way out of the energy crisis---the environment be damned, that some how all the people in this overpopulated world can find enough of the needed natural resources to thrive in a lifestyle so many of us currently live. In the absence of our delusions we would take this stuff more seriously. Family planning would not be a choice, but required by law. Resources would not be squandered away as part of unregulated capitalism. Natural resources would be owned by the people and protected by an educated public. Overpopulation, protection of natural resources, and pollution control are the real factors determining the future of humanity. But we delude ourselves into thinking we are some sort of protected species, that evolution is all about us as a species, and even delude ourselves into thinking that God, given the appropriate posturing via rituals, prayers, and energetic persecution of 'heathens', will walk by our side and provide a loving earned protection of our individual lives---if not now, in some afterlife. Humanity is enveloped by delusions. Except you and I. And sometimes I wonder about you.

Each Christmas Eve the Pope prays for world peace. Every damn Christmas Eve that is the headline: 'Pope Prays For Peace'. Of course there is zero evidence this senseless ritual has ever produced any result. Other religious leaders are guilty of the same thing, just don't make the headlines. I fail to understand the logic behind prayer. It really amounts to suggesting God waits on our begging---via prayers to do good for us or others. I have known students to pray for getting a good grade on an exam, for applicants to pray they get a particular job, for people to pray that they or someone else get cured from cancer or whatever, for athletes to pray they perform well, and the list goes on forever. Many think if they pray for the poor, the sick, the homeless, soldiers fighting in a war (a war of course blessed by God), that God at least sometimes hears our prayers (which are really orders) and thus any duty has been done, entitling them pious status. Prayer said (preferably in a gilded cathedral by a large number of people), duty done, matter settled---it's in God's hands. Amen. Prayer reduces God to some kind of cruel idiot. Those 100 million people predicted to starve to death in the next few years across the globe---God will let them starve to death unless we pray for them, and even if we do, He will let them starve anyway but reward us for the kind prayer. Okay. I guess it is the effortless praying that counts. But the real energy in action are things like who marries who, whose religious beliefs can become the law of the land, and just whose families get what kind of tax breaks, what kind of education facilities, etc. I guess it never dawns on most people that the Creator of this Universe hardly needs our prayers to do the right thing. I don't know too many parents who tell their children, "if you want or need anything---come before us, kneel and pray for it. We will then think it over and maybe you will get it, mostly you won't, and you may die wondering why I would not help". Whenever someone tells you their success or health or whatever is a reward from God (His intervention in the evolutionary process on their behalf), therein is a picture of a pompous self deluded fool. God created the process of evolution, a process which we know more and more about as time goes on. This process is run by the laws of evolution. Whether God ever tampers with this evolutionary process cannot be known, but it would be extremely self serving for any individual in any species to think that God tampers with His amazing evolutionary process just to meet any individual's needs or demands (prayers). The evolutionary process works, has worked for billions of years, and the direction, albeit with periodic upheavals, eliminations, reverses, and turns, has always evolved upward in complexity, specie abilities, including mental capacities. Each of us exist as part of this created process, and we don't control it---not through prayer or any other means---and we play the game with the cards dealt us with real, but limited ability to control our own welfare during the miniscule time we, as a person, exist. That, to me, is the reality. It doesn't detract from the greatness of God or the beauty of the created process. It does remove us from the delusion of how self important we are as individuals.

I think delusions are a way of life, an obligatory way of life---as has been in all of human history. Delusions are clearly rampant. Our religion, our country, our ethnicity, and whatever, are all delusional prejudices which drive our emotions, loyalties, and politics. I think this is part of why I enjoy most being out in nature---ALONE---to sense the reality of my existence. Existence is an accidental privilege---an opportunity to be a part of the evolutionary process---God didn't pick my parents or guide a particular sperm to a particular egg---it was chance as driven by the laws of evolution. Being out in nature, with the proper mindset, enables one to sense the awe and vastness and complexity of life---life in the broadest sense, not in any individual or even species sense, but life as a most amazing process. Evolution seems directional---it seems to have purpose---but my own purpose in life is so miniscule in the whole scheme of things as to be insignificant. Did you know that for a short period of time I owned the Ryder Park crosscountry trail record? C'mon now, that is important. It's recorded somewhere in the archives of some newspaper. I am probably the only one in the whole world who gives a rat's ass about that record.

It is harder and harder to find the stillness of nature. Often, somewhere in the distance, is the droning of cars on an expressway, or planes, or some idiot on a cell phone walking through a forest talking about dumb ass bullshit. But when everything is really still, and my mind relaxes and wanders, I can sense, in some indescribable way, the wonderment of the evolutionary process and the still, sad quiet desperation of the less fortunate. Evolution does not seem overly efficient---it takes a lot of dead ends, a lot of misfortune, a lot of wasted lives and species to move the process ever forward. Overall, it is a good process, an endlessly good process and I feel a part of the process as surely as all the other living things in nature are too a part. The trees and plants and different animals are all amazing creations of a wonderful process, not one superior to another, just different---the components---TOGETHER---comprise God's masterpiece. ,

I have lived long enough now to have experienced a miniscule snippet of the past, spend the present trying to decipher all these past and present experiences, and yet, like everyone else, I know absolutely nothing about the future. Some claim they do, and tend to be real arrogant, even obnoxious about their beliefs. Beliefs about the future, posed as facts, have created havoc throughout history. I suspect many of us, having lost parents, friends, spouses,lovers, offspring, treasured pets, colleagues, neighbors, etc--- wonder if we will ever see them again in some sort of afterlife. I don't waste much time contemplating the particulars of any afterlife or whether there is one. Like which spouse or pet or friends will be your companions in any afterlife and at what age will you be in this afterlife? An after life seems a bit of a stretch, a bit illogical, but then I hardly have the intelligence to comprehend life as I have known it, let alone have the intelligence to understand an afterlife. I know a lot of people worship and treasure the body in addition to the 'person' but I am not one of them. When 'grandma' is in a vegetative coma, she is gone---Period. Her body is irrelevant to her 'person'. We aren't even the same person throughout or own lives. If we were, more marriages would last, more friendships would last, and we could precisely describe ourselves or others as a specific persona. Hell, I am not even the same persona in different situations. I guess we all have multiple personas. Humans have an innate sense of ethics. Most everyone knows right from wrong on major issues. We just have a hard time doing the right. But if ethics exists, then it does seem there may be consequences for doing wrong instead of right. What these consequences are I just don't know. Maybe it is self rewarding (mentally) or maybe there is an afterlife.

Much of life is some sort of out of sight, out of mind exercise. Well, not always. There are some people, some known and some not known personally to me, whose influence permeates much of my thoughts and actions. People build people. People can also tear down people, even kill them. In my 'terminational years' stage of life my end 'product' is kind of finished, for better or worse, and all that is left is the time to sort things out, reach some sort of summary, be thankful for the good experiences and blessings of the past, enjoy whatever good health left, get out of other people's way---especially those in their productive years---- but in any case just get out of the way, and figure out how best to help those most in need with whatever meager or substantial wealth I have accumulated. The terminational years should be organized to be peaceful, pleasant, independent, grateful---while noninvolvement trumps involvement. I think we should always act our age. We have all observed, when younger, some older jerk in a nightclub trying to act like he is young again or still is young. It is the same sort of thing when someone in their terminational years tries to run the show, whatever the show is at the moment. Of course the young are dumb, and of course change is often incompatible with our own comfort level, and that is just the nature of the beast. The neat thing in the terminational years is that if you don't bother others, they don't bother you. And really, how much do you really want to be bothered? Haven't you been bothered enough? You can handle being bothered when young better than when old. My dad, more often than not, when older, would address suggestions to get involved with, "To hell with it". There is wisdom there. If you can't climb a mountain, for any number of valid reasons, then 'to hell with it' is the only rationale response. The truth is, if I died today it would be no tragedy. If I had died young it would have been a tragedy. The young shouldn't have to die. The old are supposed to die. We have made so many advances in keeping our bodies alive, even when the ''person' is gone or mostly gone, that we can actually continue to be kept alive when our persona is but a shell of our former persona. I used to have lunch with my mother in this assisted living home and sit at her table with her assigned table mates. The silence and non communication was eerie, and if I tried to communicate they would try their best to engage in some conversation but it was worse than childlike babble, and they really didn't appreciate the struggle I presented for them to communicate. Wow, and these people were once vibrant, together, competent personas. Is that my future? I hope not. Really, at some point, enough is enough. I am more convinced than ever that God created a process, the evolutionary process, a good process, and that God rarely, if ever, interferes with His created process. Let's face it, we can live so long beyond our healthy facultative years because WE devised the means to do it. WE have made this bed and so we end up sleeping in it. Unfortunately we have not yet accepted that each of us ought to have the choice when, if ever, we no longer want to sleep in that kind of bed. Dying now can be long and prolonged to the point of a useless life for decades, and an endless burden to others. There is no magic answer as to when enough is enough. To say that God is directing any slow agonizing death, and only God decides when it is time to end life, is an ABSURDITY. To claim God is so involved in our daily lives and the lives of others is to make God into an idiot and a cruel idiot at that. In all of history we have tried to reduce God to our level, claiming God looks like us, God thinks like us, God needs us to pray to Him or beg for favors from Him---for God to make things right in this or that situation, and that humans are some sort of favored species in His evolutionary process---to say all this is just dribble to me. It is like saying we love our children but much less so our pets. We may love our children in different ways, but more? Anyone ever been in a veterinarian's office when someone's pet dies? That often matches any hysterics at funerals. If it was proposed that all pets be exterminated for this or that reason, pet owners would be furious enough to lynch the perpetrator of such a proposal. Yet we think we can keep on driving into extinction other species and God is cheering us on: "Oh, for Christ's sake God, these are just animals and dumb ass trees". I am not so sure about that. Other species, like us, are probably God's pets of some sort. In fact, they came first. He may not appreciate our killing off these species anymore than we would appreciate our children hanging the family pet because they were tired of taking care of it. In the last analysis we really know so little and we ought to be a little more honest about that.

We have delusions about material wealth and its relationship to happiness. I have spent quality time around the wealthy, the powerful, the beautiful, etc.----just as many others have---and whatever the worth of any of it, happiness or contentedness is not the end result. Their worlds seem, to me, to be filled with neuroses, vain ego trips, spoiled personalities, dogmatism, back stabbing, shifting allegiances and priorities, ass kissing, plotting all sorts of unfair strategies to acquire more power or wealth or look even more beautiful. There seems to be strong correlations between beauty and divorce, power and anger, wealth and desperation for more wealth. A lot of professional meetings get boring---the same old trite witticisms, half truths, deceptions, carrot and stick games, and shell games ad nausea. My only real sense from all this was that there must be more to life than all this human 'noisy disingenuous clatter'. Frankly, I always preferred one on one interactions where one can concentrate on some real problems and real solutions and actually accomplish something, albeit on a much smaller scale. People build people. Programs, at best, can only make it possible or easier for people to build people. Today we drift further and further from personal interactions, from any people build people, and raise the flag of 'family values' to justify our concentration on immediate family. It is just another subtle way to claim others don't count. It is you and your ilk who count. Many have deluded themselves into thinking responsibility stops at family. Of course there is no major religious scripture in the world that pushes family over others---none. There are few concepts which promote selfishness more than this family values hype. Do these proponents really believe God is more interested in their family than other families? If God is not, on what basis are they so inclined? Being a responsible parent, or any kind of family member, does not mean 'us first' necessarily. Anyone who really believes it is ok for the government, any government, to spend more money to educate their children than any other children, is simply unethical and illogical. All children deserve a level playing field. All, period. In fact, the goal should always be to give all people a level playing field, not that all people are equal. The evolutionary process hardly makes the members of any species equal. It is fairness which drives human ethics. It is sharing which raises humans to a higher level of existence. And ethics may well be an endless effort to shed delusions, to appreciate diversity, to promote 'fair is fair', to share excess, to make others better for having any interaction with us, to worship God---not as some sort of Benefactor who grants wishes via prayer, but the Creator of an evolutionary process which you, as by a chance created 'being', according to the laws of evolution, have this unique opportunity to be part of this God created process. All the self and group delusions don't bring contentment---they bring strife, frustration, and an emptiness tinged with bitterness. To shed our delusions and develop our innate sense of ethics is what leads to contentment---a feeling that all is just as it should be at this point in the God created evolutionary process. We are not, after-all, on a runaway train. We do our best, we enjoy the ride. Time flies. Not really, Time stays, WE go.