Featured Post

A Dog Named Buff (This is not a musing about a general topic like the others)

A Dog Named Buff (This is not a musing about a general topic like the others) The article about the dog who waited by the highway mont...

Thursday, May 22, 2014

Offensive Mascot Names: (revised)

Offensive Mascot Names:

On paper all this fussing over whether certain mascot names are inappropriate or slurs against some group is sort of frivolous. When I was in high school the mascot name was Indians. I honestly can’t indicate that I ever paid any attention to the name—it could have been Tigers or Goldfish or whatever. I certainly didn’t perform any better because of the nickname. I certainly didn’t picture myself as some sort of Indian running around the track. 

Given the above, which probably fits most of us, the solution to these hooplas about mascot names is quite simple. If a mascot name offends some group or most of the group or a lot of the group, then just pick another mascot name. Intent is not the point. The intent behind the name could have been complimentary or anything else. If I call someone a colorful or cute nickname and they find it insulting or whatever, I just stop using the nickname. I might call someone the “energizer bunny” as a compliment for their endless energy, but if they see it as making fun of them, I simply accept that feeling, and don’t use the nickname. What is the point of giving them a long lecture on how you do not mean it as an insult, blah, blah, blah. 

This continued tug of war over the name Redskins is silly and inane. There probably is no malice—after all, most of the native Indians are long dead, they lost—the whites won—and not a single, even tiny, bit of land in North America is a sovereign country run by, and inhabited by, any North American Indians. That is probably a real bone of contention and injustice. What the owner of the Redskins needs to understand is the ethics of the matter.  When he (or his predecessors) decided to name a mascot it is not their call as to whether it is  non offensive---it is the call of the group whose name or description being used. If they don't like it, just choose another name. If the original intent was to honor the Indians why were no Indians involved in selecting the name?  Most any other group to be honored are included in the process. Finally the Indians claim the term is offensive because red skins were the proof needed to collect certain bounties on Indians. Frankly if someone decided to honor whites by referring to them as Paleskins, it does sound a bit sarcastic and offensive.  


I suppose the name of the Washington Redskins could be changed to the Washington White Skins, BUT probably some blacks—these days proud of their skin color—might be offended.  I doubt there are any real Indians on the team to object about the term redskins. Then again, people with my football abilities are not on the team either, so I wouldn’t really feel represented by the name Washington Whiteskins, even though I have white skin. Maybe it would have to be changed to Washington Talented Whiteskins. No, no—Maybe Washington Talented Whiteskins and Blackskin Brothers. No, wait—we are supposedly in an age where color does not matter so much, this would not fit these days at all. Look, if the Washington Redskins really want to come up with a meaningful name, one that properly portrays the team, they might want to pick a factual, non debatable name——LIKE——The Washington LastPlacers. Now there is a name current and non debatable except to the owner of the team who would scream—“I am not in last place in this country, the Indians are.”

The poor American Indians----disease killed off most, guns most of the rest. The remainder were assigned to reservations, a few awarded casinos somewhere down the hereditary line, and their reality today is that of a historical footnote. I reckon out in a few raggedy bars, in forlorn economically worthless barren wastelands, scattered here and there, the remnants of the once proud inhabitants of a fertile land of nature---- there in these bars many Indians would puzzle why they should give a shit about this controversy over a mascot name. Freedom for them is just another word for nothing left to lose.  They have their own national anthem: it's called the Ballad of Ira Hayes by Johnny Cash.

/www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKDLQWEvubc

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

The Michael Sam TV Kiss: What Are We To Think?

The Michael Sam TV Kiss: What Are We To Think?

Most all of us , in varying degrees, try to be objective about our response to change and tolerance. The problem is, we all viewed the TV kiss wrapped in our own cocoons of ethnicity, religion, culture, custom, experiences, genetic nature, environment, and personalities. That is considerable baggage to carry in any attempt to be objective. 

One of my favorite quotations is this one: “I can’t define pornography, but I certainly know it when I see it.” I don’t remember the author, it may well have been a Supreme Court Justice. In the case of the TV kiss, I suppose we all struggle to define how we should feel, but we all do know how we felt at the time. Of course feelings are not facts, are not ethical principles, and are not uniform from person to person. So where does this lead us?  Are all these varied feelings equally valid? Is there a ‘proper’ response? 

When it comes to ethics there is only one universal principle, a principle that is established everywhere, in every human culture. It is thus part of our human genetic make-up.  And that principle is the Golden Rule.  When is the last time we have ever heard any minister, priest, rabbi, Cleric, Ayatollah, or other such titled religious leader, preach against the Golden Rule? They may not follow the Golden Rule, but they don’t attempt to preach against it either. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” simply reeks with fairness and ethical qualities

It is difficult to seriously insist that our own inherited religious ‘Bible’ or sectarian doctrines trump someone else’s inherited religious ‘Bible’ or sectarian doctrines.
This kind of mentality about one’s inherited or marriage adopted religion often leads to the most horrific kinds of inhumanity to humanity possible. Everywhere we look these ‘chosen’ (by inheritance) groups are trying to exterminate each other: Catholics and Protestants in Ireland; Tutsi and Hutu in Rwanda, Arabs and Jews in the Middle East, Muslims and Buddhists in the Far East, the Sunni and Shiites in Iraq, the Russians and non Russians in Ukraine, the Muslims and Christians in Africa, and so it goes, on and on in perpetuity. 

With all the above in mind, along comes a black football player on TV, overcome with emotion about being selected in the NFL draft. Well, we have seen these reactions many times, not just on TV with the football draft, but in real life when we are present when something really good happens to someone in life. Maybe they just got a good job, or got married, or won the lottery, or their team won a championship, etc. Well, maybe so, but a black football player sobbing and then kissing a white homosexual lover and then stuffing cake in the other’s mouth on TV in front of children and all sorts of others who find several aspects of all this disgusting. No doubt Mr. Incognito would go bonkers over the sobbing.  What kind of man does that on TV? He needs Incognito to toughen him up a bit. Then there is the interracial bit, what is going on here, can’t either one of them find someone with the same skin color with whom to fall in love? Can’t they stand their own skin?  And kissing each other on TV? What they do in private should be left in private (unless it mimics are own inclinations).  And the mouth cake stuffing, what is that suppose to signify? 

It is difficult to criticize feelings. The feelings exist, that is fact. So what do we do, just have everyone with differing feelings duke it out? I suppose Incognito would say, of course, and may the toughest win.  Well, our own country has been duking it out in Vietnam, Iraq, Somali, Lebanon, Korea, varied South American countries for like 50 years and while we killed more than others have killed us, what has anyone won?In all the groups fighting each other mentioned in a previous paragraph what has any side ever won? Certainly not peace or prosperity. All they have is one common feeling—revenge. Revenge is actually their one common religion

The neat thing about the Golden Rule is that it solves most human conflict. 
Does it affect any of us who Sam falls in love with? What parent has much luck deciding who their son or daughter falls in love with? Look, if we wish to have the right to fall in love with whomever we want to fall in love with, then by the Golden Rule others have the same right. To understand why we ourselves fall in love with who is impossible to understand, let alone why any other two fall in love. So live and let live is the only solution, and certainly better for all sides than genocidal battles. Suppose Sam were heterosexual, and he and his girlfriend had a foot fetish? Then they might kiss each other’s feet. Some couples hold hands going down a street, others don’t. Where is right and wrong here?  The only time feelings can be banned is when the feelings hurt others in a significant way. That goes against the Golden Rule. If Sam loves a guy that doesn’t mean any other particular person should. Like James Baldwin once said:  ‘Everybody’s journey is individual.  You don’t know with whom you’re going to fall in love—if you fall in love with the wrong color, wrong religion, wrong sex—you fall in love.” 

And so it goes with varied sexual acts. Pornography has so many variations in sexual proclivities that it is simply astounding. Some prefer not to have sex hardly at all, if at all. Is there something wrong with them? And why would someone want to be tied up during sex?  Or oral sex? Or anal sex? Are there any sex acts, outside of those necessary to reproduce which can logically be explained?  Of course not. If there were much logic to it we would all discuss our sex lives in detail in social situations. Let’s forget sex for a moment. Why would anyone choose stuffing cake in another’s mouth as an affectionate gesture? If this is a non sexual affectionate gesture why don’t we greet guests at the door by stuffing some cake in their mouth?


In the end, live and let live—coupled with the Golden Rule—is the healthiest way to live our lives. When we can’t do this, then our lives will be filled with anger, irritation, and intolerance. Life is great theatre and we need approach it more, and enjoy it more, for the theatre it is. The question is not why is Sam doing what he did on TV but why we even give a rat’s ass who Sam loves, or kisses, or finds stuffing cake in a mouth affectionate? Did I too have feelings about it all?  Of course, but no more so than many things I see which are different. We need to reserve our anger for when someone or some group is doing or advocating something which will hurt others. If there is no victim, there is no crime.  There are precious few exceptions. Strangely, love itself can generate a victim or victims. The tragedy is not who loves who, but that love between two people often does not last.

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Some Things Make you Think—the Sterling Farce.

Some Things Make you Think—the Sterling Farce.

Bill Maher has a way of coming at you from behind, out of your mindset. His take on the Sterling episode is something that requires thought and some digestion, neither of which have I completed. Below is one such video:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/10/bill-maher-donald-sterling_n_5301576.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular 

I recall thinking that Sterling is what we often get when we let the richest men in America own our professional sport teams and have Congress give them anti-monopoly protections, let them police their own operation, give themselves the power to select any new owners, let them be judge and juries regarding all matters relative to their sport—including salaries that have no limits, to grant no place at any bargaining table for anyone who might represent the fans or the cities in which they play. It is a setup guaranteed to crash. Unlimited greed and power always crashes. When enough is never enough a bad ending is inevitable.

Maher has convinced me, on first read, that he is probably right, that we need a right to privacy regarding speech made in our own home. Of course, if that right were enforced, how would we ever get rid of any bad owner? Well, any cursory examination of Sterling’s past would give plenty of cues that he is not exactly an upstanding citizen and never should have been allowed to own a professional sport team——and never should have any of the others. On top of all that, Sterling attempts to paint this controversy as an isolated incident rather than the latest event in a long history of marks against the owner. Sterling has paid out a record settlement in a housing discrimination lawsuit, been accused of fostering a "plantation mentality" by longtime general manager Elgin Baylor, and generally been seen as a problematic part of the NBA for years. As Adrian Wojnarowski reported at the beginning of this most recent ordeal, the NBA believed that Sterling would die before they had to deal with him directly. This incident is only his first mistake if we define the term as "doing something that compels the NBA to try to kick him out." (Of course, Sterling is a lawyer by training, and in a legal sense he may be right.)

However, the League has known for years what kind of person Sterling was, but unless it were to publicly and unavoidably hurt the image of the League, it was ok. That shouldn’t be ok at all. 
  
Imagine if we started from scratch on who should own our professional sport teams. Would we really jump at the opportunity to let the richest people vie to own these teams, and after that let these same people choose the next owners and then have Congress give this cabal carte blanch to do pretty much whatever they wish, and call their wishes “in the best interest of football”. Does anyone really believe these owners put anyone else’s interest before their own financial interests? 

Of course early on these leagues were new, bush, and risky. That’s why no one objected. But times have changed and these professional sport teams are some of the largest financial enterprises in the country, have no competition, and have no regulation, and no limits.  The early owners, as a group, may well have been innovative, self accomplished talented individuals who used their talents to make the leagues succeed. But that situation has long gone, and they are all dead.  

Today we have owners, a precious few of whom may still fit the mold of the early owners, but a majority of them either inherited the team, earned their wealth in nefarious ways (like Sterling who is a slum lord), or simply see ownership as the safest and fastest way to pile their wealth higher and higher. It is the most expensive and most outrageous example remaining of any so called ‘good ole boys club’. Any other group, even if protected by Congress, is still subject to media criticism. Not this cabal, every major media group depends on professional sports, especially the major ones, to enrich their own media outlet. That is why during every football game we have the obligate video pan of the owner in his luxury box with the affectionate and revered comments by the broadcasters about the owner. To do otherwise would jeopardize any future contracts by that network. This completes their protection. The fans have no control over anything, the cities who host them have no control, the courts have relinquished control absent some owner murdering or raping someone, and the players are subjected to an arbitrator who is the commissioner who is in turn hired by the owners. Of course, we need not weep too excessively for the athletes since they do have a union and at the bargaining table the only question is always just how much of the unlimited financial pie does each side get.

While professional athletes should be richly rewarded, and most probably are, there need to be limits.  Right now there are no limits and the salaries naturally increase exponentially every year. Salary caps do not control how high salaries can go. Salary caps are in place year by year. If they wanted, for the sake of illustration, to double all salaries they could just double the salary cap and pass the cost on to the public. All this vast amount of money being gathered up, roughly half going to the owners and half to the players comes, in one way or another, from the public. Thus presently, only the affluent can afford to attend games, the cities are bilked millions by threats to leave if the city can’t come up with their demands, and the players are stuck with contracts which are only binding to the players, not the owners.

Were we to start from scratch the whole situation could be vastly improved.
For a start the teams should be publicly owned, and not in any phony sense like the Green Bay Packers. Considering how much time most the of public spends listening to, talking about, or attending games, this seems an area in which the public, in some form or fashion, can have real input. Of course professional sports are going to generate huge profits, even if there are limits, and these profits ought to be plowed back into the society from which they were extracted. Practically every city which hosts a team could use some additional revenue. Or maybe it should be the state in which the team plays, or maybe it should be a general fund dispersed to all the states. There is no logical reason why such huge profits gained from a monopoly should be pocketed by those already embarrassingly rich and often ethically bankrupt

Then legitimate salary caps would be in place for all professional sports. And contracts would be binding to both the player and the management—and, salaries pegged more realistically to recent performance. There is nothing wrong with all players earning a salary commensurate with their recent performance. While this kind of relationship cannot be exact, it would avoid, minus a one year lapse, a top player in one position making a high salary and a top player in the same position making a barely minimum salary. Fair is fair and there is no ethical reason to operate a salary system so patently unfair to so many. When roper salary limits are in place, then increase them as the cost of living increases and do away with all the bickering. 

Fines, suspensions, etc. would be adjudicated by an independent arbitration board not connected to management or the player’s union. 

All major media outlets should be overseen by an independent Board of Media Ethics. There needs to be an elimination of ‘unknown’ informants providing information used to character assassinate a particular player. This is a difficult area, but professional players are under a lot of pressure without giving sport commentators a green light to character assassinate them without clear evidence for the assassination. The players may be financially rich humans, but they are still human and need some sort of protection from media assassination.

Stadium expenses could be more even for the different sites. There is no reason why one team gets a state of the art stadium and another team gets a more modest stadium. 

There may be other areas in need of more fairness but those above suffice to point out areas in need of improvement.  Professional sports is a public service, and should be run in such ways as to maximally benefit the public, the players, and the cities in which they play. Then, none of us need care what Sterling and others of his calibre are saying about other people. Limiting the greed of the wealthy is a government function and not limited to just the wealthy owners of football teams. To exempt wealthy owners of professional sport teams from the government's obligation to limit excessive hoarding of our national wealth is ludicrous. 

History has shown clearly enough that when the wealth of any society becomes too concentrated amongst a few, at the expense of the many, that society will collapse. Enough is enough is not only an ethical principle, but it ensures all segments of society benefit and prosper. This, of course, is a broader question than who owns professional football teams.  

Tuesday, May 6, 2014

The Most Enigmatic Enigmas

The Most Enigmatic Enigmas

New York, N.Y. - December 16, 2013 - A new Harris Poll finds that while a strong majority (74%) of U.S. adults do believe in God, this belief is in decline when compared to previous years as just over four in five (82%) expressed a belief in God in 2005, 2007 and 2009. Also, while majorities also believe in miracles (72%, down from 79% in 2005), heaven (68%, down from 75%), that Jesus is God or the Son of God (68%, down from 72%), the resurrection of Jesus Christ (65%, down from 70%), the survival of the soul after death (64%, down from 69%), the devil, hell (both at 58%, down from 62%) and the Virgin birth (57%, down from 60%), these are all down from previous Harris Polls.
Belief in Darwin's theory of evolution, however, while well below levels recorded for belief in God, miracles and heaven, is up in comparison to 2005 findings (47%, up from 42%).
These are some of the results of The Harris Poll® of 2,250 adults surveyed online between November 13 and 18, 2013 by Harris Interactive.
The survey also finds that 42% of Americans believe in ghosts, 36% each believe in creationism and UFOs, 29% believe in astrology, 26% believe in witches and 24% believe in reincarnation - that they were once another person.”

Ok, so 68% of Americans believe in Heaven.  Interestingly, belief in Heaven is strongest in the poorest countries, with few exceptions. I reckon if we have little, and expect little, in life, then it helps to believe life here is not only temporary, but will be better after death. 

Most people entering marriage at the alter probably believe their love is everlasting. Actual stats indicate otherwise. Of course we can hardly expect the preacher to orate: “Although we know half the time this to be otherwise, do you two willingly enter into holy matrimony and promise to love each other until death do you part?” And why don’t divorce proceedings end with: “The parting is granted and by what method do you choose death?”
While I can’t prove this with stats, it seems, in general, that the more religious people are, the harder they fight dying. After all, the main reason individuals do not have control over their own dying process is that religious organizations treat death as only something God determines as to when, and that life is divinely precious under any circumstances, no matter how much suffering is involved. In recent years many times the dying person or process is allowed to fudge a little bit. We don’t put them to sleep with an anesthetic, but we finally, at some point, may allow the breathing machine to be turned off and the patient suffocates to death. That way, or so it goes, we didn’t kill the person, God did. 
At funerals, the most wailing it seems takes place in those situations where religious beliefs are the strongest. Why would there be wailing that someone, having inherited by birth or marriage, the right religion, is going to heaven?  In my inherited religion baptism was by immersion. Maybe I should have prayed aloud upon rising from the water: “God take me right now before I can screw up.” 
We can be sarcastic here, as I just was, but none of us can prove there isn’t any Heaven either. Most of those who claim God speaks to them seem a bit pretentious to me. I wish God did speak to me, but then why would God speak only to me and some other chosen few? And why would God use inheritance as the means to spread the right scripture?  And why have none of the major prophets in major religions not have authored their Bible?  In fact, why doesn’t God Himself author the official bible and why is scripture in major religions so dated to the time period in which it was written, and written by others years after the major prophet is dead?  Something seems a tad strange here. Surely God would find a way to speak to all of us in an unmistakable way with directions and rules which are forever true, not historical age-dependent.  
Beliefs are a necessary ingredient in life. “Just the facts ma’am, just the facts” is not enough to get us through life. We all believe in a lot of things, some small in significance and others rather important in significance. And yet the more reasonable basis for a belief the easier it is to strongly believe it.  At one time humans believed the earth was flat.  We could see that with our own eyes. Of course today we don’t think it is flat because strong evidence otherwise surfaced.  I understand that a small flat earth contingent still exists and I sometimes feel I have personally met every one of them. Or so it seems. 
Praying is another enigmatic aspect of life. I could pray, at age 73, that God not let me die from this or that condition. But then, why would God save me from dying and not some helpless child starving to death in a refugee camp somewhere?  I suspect, if God made a speech to all of us, he would ask? “Why have all of you, blessed with so much material wealth via genetic talent, environmental circumstance, or through the help of others, not have used your excess wealth past a reasonable standard of living to help those others most in need?”  Wow, what would we say?  “Cut the liberal bullshit God, I have earned all of the wealth I have (with Your help) and I have inherited the right religion, and I have dutifully performed the right rituals, and I have taken excellent care of my own family members, and I am so family value oriented that my own kids will inherit most all the wealth I have accumulated, as my family duty dictates.  It is your job, God, to take care of the least fortunate. Now hop to it, save me from this condition which is about to kill me.”  I doubt most of us talk that way to God, but we do sort of act that way to varying degrees. 

What we cannot comprehend is best not to pretend otherwise, which therefore will make us wise beyond our years. We need maybe just stick to basic more evident truths—like the Golden Rule, along with enough is enough with just about anything in life—and by doing this, the maximum number of humans on this planet can achieve contentment with their lives.  

Friday, May 2, 2014

Oddities of Human Nature (Mostly My own Nature) Part 1

Oddities of Human Nature (Mostly My own Nature) #1

Diversity may be one of the most important engines which drives God’s evolutionary process, but diversity is not always a short range blessing to other species, or to some members of the same species. Changes, which abound in earth’s evolutionary process can be good or bad. Some like to call the bad evil and the good  divine. This seems a bit arbitrary. If diversity is needed for progress to occur in the evolutionary process, then evil vs divine (or good) is kind of a dumb characterization. Some changes are adaptive and progressive, and therefore good, some changes are self destructive and regressive and therefore disadvantageous to survival immediately or down the road for some individuals or some species. 

So on a grand scale, the process is controlled by laws which have ensured progress for billions of years. That is a decent amount of time, and in fact, kind of beyond most human appreciation. Of course none of us are living any life that impacts on the grand scale of evolution. In fact any positive changes we as individuals might make to the process—-if we don’t, someone else will down the road. In other words if Lincoln had not freed the slaves, someone else in history eventually would. If we ourselves are not bigger, stronger, or faster than humans before us, someone else will be, and the general progression proceeds.  Same with human societies—if our society is not more ethical with time, some other society will be, and thus the ethical nature of human societies changes too, over time. Evolution is not just a process of physical changes, but behavioral also. 

Frankly though, as individuals, we are not so much concerned with life after us, as we are with our own lives, while we are alive. And since diversity prevails amongst us at every stage of our lives, we have to deal with this diversity on a daily personal level. All of us are oddities, of one sort or another, and that makes us unique. Our peculiar uniqueness makes us a good or bad fit in differing interactions with others. Marriage is kind of a search for someone with whom our uniqueness and their uniqueness is a good match. What it is in the eyes of someone else, is of course, hardly relevant. We don’t pick our friends or spouses like we might pick out a nice hat to wear. If one person is kind of plain or ugly, someone physically beautiful is not likely to accept the ugly picking them for a spouse. Therein lies the significant crux of the dilemma—we are not going to a catalog and picking out what we want, simply because there can be no marriage unless what we want, wants us. In some sense, how far down the totem pole are we willing to go and still be willing to accept someone as a spouse, is more the question for most of us. Mistakes can be made and we call these divorces. Mistakes of judgement are rarely worth all the bitter commotion characteristic of divorces. Most of the commotion is about money and things anyway. 

The other day I started to reminisce about my own oddities, a rather humbling experience, and perhaps a rather idiotic revelation to put in print. Even here it is not going to be one of full disclosure other than to assure there are no hidden bodies buried anywhere by me.  Everyone might do well to use their terminational years to kind of finalize their thoughts about life, and themselves, in particular. It is sort of a closure on all that we have been through, a final chapter to a unique life. Let’s be honest—we all do have a final chapter.

One of my oddities is that I kind of am intrigued by diversity and therefore even if I don’t want to be around someone a lot it means little else—he/she still interests me, but from a safe distance.  It certainly doesn’t mean that I am good and they are evil, albeit ethics may be involved sometimes. It is better to say I am not compatible with some others. In fact I am am more standoffish than interactive socially. That started early enough when my parents would have company and I would go out my bedroom window and run to the neighbors. As a child, except for neighborhood pick-up activities, I never joined any organized groups for anything, and if forced to, I worked hard to weasel out.  At one point my parents decided I should learn to play the clarinet, but when the parents all came in for a little concert I would go out on the stage, bite down on the reed as hard as I could, break it, and of course the result was hardly melodious. It was embarrassing to my parents and my mother knew I was doing it purposely, so to avoid any future embarrassments I was permitted to stop taking lessons. Their little runt had learned a useful trick, one of many for my enlarging trick bag. 

My childhood playmates were as about as close as I ever have gotten to most other people. But even then my best ‘soul mates’ were pets—dogs, cats, a goat, a pigeon, a horse, rabbits.  I early on raised chickens and sold the eggs to the neighbors but if a chicken got sick and had to be killed it upset me a lot. I just can’t stand watching animals die, especially if I have to do the killing.  And so early on my oddities began to grow in number.  My father and brother would hunt, but not me. They dragged me out hunting one time and chased a deer my way but then were angered when I just watched it run right by me. My brother was furious, but my dad, as usual, honored my inclinations, and declared if I didn’t want to hunt I didn’t have to. My dad seemed to draw a simple line in the sand: if I was not hurting someone else in any lasting or serious way, I could carry on being me. And me was destined not to be everyone’s cup of tea, a tad too odd too often. 

The truth is, I had more than my share of oddities, some of which made life more difficult for me, but then again, oddities sometimes attract key people in situations to be protective, and thereby it often ended up being a good thing. For various reasons, a musing onto itself, I have survived oddities which others have not. One oddity stood out early on. I saw humor in most everything, even though my mother seldom saw the humor in many things that I saw as humorous.  Almost all my humor, from the git-go, was short term and never destructive to property or the welfare of others. Perhaps it was a defensive measure on my part because I hated to see others mistreated, humiliated, physically hurt, or become outcasts. Yet reality painted just such a common picture.  Humor is a great defense mechanism from the more sordid realities of life. If you can’t see the humor in life, the realities of life can wear you down.  

Practical jokes became my specialty and probably my most notable social activity. A good practical joke is one in which the subject or subjects are being attacked on their strengths, not their weaknesses, and the result can be startling, but not something that lasts for any length of time.  If someone is lame, creating a situation where they fall down is not funny. Laughing at the personal limitations of others is not funny. After all, that could be us. Bad attitudes though, are great targets for genuine humor and a good way to confront an individual with their bad or unusual attitudes via a practical joke. Unfortunately when young, we err a lot. Making fun of the ugliest girl in class, for example, is something I wish I could retract. I now support any efforts to limit bullying. Bullying doesn’t toughen any one up, it makes their life miserable and stunts their social life. It is always the bullies themselves who claim they are toughening up someone or some group.  

I reckon everyone has some oddities, some a lot more than others. In one sense I think I had more oddities than typicalities. Oddities can be harmful to others like in the case of Hitler or the Boston Strangler, or to a lesser extent people like Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin who clearly detest so many others diverse from themselves. It seems people like the latter can’t be fully happy unless whatever they gain is at the expense of others who must lose and feel the pain of that loss.  In others words when others are happy too, it means the self-serving lose their sense of superiority over these others.  And of course everything good that the self serving have, they earned, and the others without it, failed to earn. Whatever privilege, good circumstance, or thing, the self-serving possess, they claim to have earned; while those without the same whatever simply failed to earn it. That broad generalization is often just a crock of bullshit. What is more pitiful than to listen to someone, who has inherited a lot of money, fume because some of their tax money is going to help fund something or other in a poor area of the state. One nice solution of course is to take all the money they inherited (unearned money) and spread it around to those with the greatest needs.  Maybe that ugly girl could use a little cosmetic surgery. Or that kid with no father and the crack-head mother could use a nice ham sandwich. 

Now that I look back, my oddities seem to exceed any normalities past the norm.
Early on I began to despise endless nonsensical gift giving. It started with an aunt and uncle who I never met but every Christmas and birthday they would send me a gift, and my mother always made me write a thank you note. I begged my mother to make them stop sending me gifts. My mother would claim they want to send you a gift and you must let them. Oh sure, I bet they just couldn’t wait to buy a gift for a kid they never met or knew anything about who didn’t even need a gift. My grandmother, though she had 7 kids, was kind of lonely after grandpa died, and to feel less lonely she had the habit of taking a family of her kids out to dinner every Sunday, each Sunday a different family.  AND, she always paid the bill. One time I asked at such a dinner why grandma always paid the bill? The innocent enough question seemed to startle everyone at the table. “Well Grandma enjoys taking the families of her kids out to dinner” someone lamely replied. But innocent kids sometimes just don’t shut up. “But she paid for your dinners all the time you were growing up, shouldn’t you be paying her back?” “Eat your dinner and stop asking silly questions.”  But by the time I was a teenager and had some ability to rebel, I announced one day that heretofore I was not buying family members or relatives any more gifts for any occasions and I was no longer accepting gifts on any occasion.  My mother went through the roof claiming all this was necessary to show appreciation. Well, in my mind, my best friends and I never exchanged gifts at all. Just the opposite, if we bought a  pizza in a restaurant and there was an odd slice it was World War III over who got the extra slice. That might take 20 minutes to battle that one out, and by the time everyone was through pulling on that extra slice it didn’t look so edible anyway. Exchanging gifts between those who don’t really need a gift, is not really a gift at all. It is more aptly labeled a pain in the ass.  A gift to someone IN NEED is a gift and has a noble purpose to it. It took many years until I finally evolved, in my mind, that all my money spent past basic necessities in life should be spent this way: for every dollar for myself it should be another dollar for someone else MOST IN NEED.  That way it got ethically simplified for me—others count as much as myself and the others would be those most in need.  The first time anyone is at my door with a cupcake, part of a pot roast, or whatever, I firmly explain I don’t accept gifts and I don’t give gifts unless the person is in need. I suppose their feelings are hurt briefly, but I don’t believe I ever lost any friendships over this oddity of mine. There are enough other ways to lose friendships anyway—which is a whole other topic. 

The impression may have been left here that I never brought my parents any gifts. Not true, if I spotted something they needed, but didn’t seem to realize it, like maybe a microwave oven when they were new, I would just buy it but it never had any relationship to holidays or occasions. And yes, when I was an adult and they were retired I always picked up the tab when we ate out. Well, not exactly, they drew the limit that sometimes they would pay the tab. At some point even I have to oblige irrationality. The one trap I could never get out of was when someone at work would collect money to buy someone at work a present, for like having an anniversary or whatever, maybe the fourth child. Even I am not going be oblivious enough to embarrassment for someone to say: “Here is a present from all of us except Reid.”  You can’t win ‘em all.  If all this seems crass I remind all that every dollar I spend on those who don’t need a gift is a dollar less available to those in need.  Here is the ultimate: One time when my aged mother was buying dinner for everyone at a restaurant one person ordered two meals and took one home in a doggie bag. Amazing. Perhaps I will let certain people pay for dinner. And I will have 4 entrees and 3 doggie bags. 

Not all personal oddities are bad. I grew up in an age when everyone bought a lot of big ticket items on credit. Not me. I only bought one item on credit in my life and that was my first new car. When I looked at how much the interest was costing me I decided then and there that big stuff would have to wait until I had the cash. People who have to have the best of everything instantly pay a price for that. And parents who think they should financially help out their grown kids to have the best and biggest of everything right away are doing a big disservice to their own kids. Hell, when we are young we can practically live out of a suitcase or a rented room in some older couple’s house, or a rented apartment etc. When I was in graduate school I lived out of a rented room in an older couple’s house and it was just fine. Today, many undergraduate colleges have dorm rooms that include kitchens, washers, dryers, and on and on. Then everyone bitches because some colleges cost tens of thousands of dollars per year. It is always a mistake to teach kids that more and more, and more better things and stuff, is a mandatory necessary and instantaneous goal in life. It is never the things we pile up which is important in life but what we do with our lives that is important. Individuals like Gandhi, Christ, Buddha, Mother Teresa, and many more had little more than some raggedy attire, and look how meaningful and rewarding a life they spent.  If we don’t buy things on credit then even a modest salary will enable us to have amassed a considerable financial portfolio by retirement, given admittedly some good luck with our investments. All that glitters is not gold and what we think matters so much really doesn’t. 

I don’t think we realize how many oddities we may have until we begin to list them. Maybe I take the cake. So be it. At some point in life I decided to put an end to keeping track whose time it was to pay for a meal eaten out in a restaurant. How inane and disingenuous is this practice? If both can afford to eat out then just eat  out, each pay for their own meal and quit the nonsense. “Thank you for the meal”. Why are we thanking them for the meal when the next time out we will be paying for theirs? What are we thanking each other for?  And why do I want to go into a restaurant, and if I decide I really want the most expensive entree, should I have to scale down my order so as not to look like a smart aleck—buying the most expensive entree on someone else’s money. Or maybe I am not that hungry or on a diet and just want a bowl of soup. If it is my turn to pay that is going to be an expensive bowl of soup. Or Why pay for the meal if we have just a glass of water and our companion downed an expensive bottle of France’s finest wine—and then we complain about it to our friends later. Also, can’t we just eliminate the 10 minutes of uncertainty trying to remember whose turn it is to pay?  Look, if the person you want to go out to dinner with probably can’t afford this, then simply suggest you want them to sample the food at such and such a place with the understanding up front that you are paying and will accept no return such favor in the future. Just be honest, explain that you are lucky enough to have some extra money to trivialize on on meal out but you need company to trivialize on. Odds are this is the absolute truth, you have been lucky. Fairness alone dictates that sharing this luck with someone not so lucky is merit-able on it’s face.

I grew up in a home where anyone could stop by most anytime and were welcome. Most people I guess are happy when surprised by someone stopping by. Not me. I tend to plan out my day and interruptions are mostly not appreciated. My oddities can become intensely focused to enforcement. I learned at some point to answer the door to unexpected visitors with my hat and coat on. “How nice it is for you to stop by but I am just leaving. I wish you would have called first. I feel bad you wasted time driving over here.” Ok, I lied, I didn’t feel bad at all. If they can’t come by at a time convenient for both of us, then drive around all day for all I care. 

One of the consequences of being odd in so many ways is that we tend to develop empathy with and identify with others who find themselves in situations where they don’t really fit in for one reason or another. In any gathering in which someone seems to appear out of place or being ignored, I almost always befriend them. Why not, at least when I leave I feel I had been useful in a real way to someone other than endless inane chit chat with people I chat with often. Never miss a chance to make someone else feel comfortable in a tough situation for them. There is good reason I feel that way. When one has oddities one is subject to oppression of one sort of another for the oddity or oddities. Often, the person with the oddity is defenseless and gets disciplined, fired, ridiculed, whatever for their oddity. On my first jobs, after college was over, I got fired on one job and an attempted firing on the second job. Not a good start. After that I learned to pick my bosses with more care and I never got fired again. If I had been the person who fired me on my first job I would have fired me too. Square pegs don’t fit in round holes and thus be careful under whose domain you attempt to fit into.

Most people don’t like to go a lot of places alone. Not me, if we can’t have a good time with our own company, what a tenuous situation we have created—depending on others for a good time. I often go to a restaurant alone, almost always to museums alone, to plays, to movies (I rarely go to movies, one can see them on our own TV these days), trips I almost always go alone, and so on. I once asked this gal why she won’t go to a restaurant alone and she replied that she feels everyone is staring at her. Now really, when is the last time we were in a restaurant and kept staring at someone eating alone?  Who gives a rat’s ass about who I am and why I am eating alone? Sometimes I have seen people eating alone and feel sorry for them. They really aren’t alone but their eating partner spends the entire meal on their cell phone. Now that would irritate me. If I go out to eat alone it is because at the time I have a taste for a particular kind of food.  If I call someone else they may have taste for a different kind of food.  So who knows where it will end up or what kind of food I will end up eating? I suspect behind a lot of doing things alone is that if I invite someone and they come along, when they want to go somewhere I am then obligated to go since they went with me before. When I head out on my almost daily wanderings people sometimes volunteer to accompany me, but I always say “No you won’t. I always wander alone.” Maybe there are psychological reasons why I prefer to be alone so much, but let them lie. To get enjoyment out of doing so many things by myself is a blessing and that’s the way I see it.  Actually, many things I do alone do get shared, via my musings. Some enjoy them, others pay no attention to them. Fair enough.  

I have one cell phone, for emergencies only. And no one else has the number. I see idiots out in nature sometimes walking the trail talking on their cell phone. Now why would you drive someplace to walk and then talk on your cell phone? Just walk around your block or up and down the hallway while you talk on your cell phone. Actually, I really don’t like my train of thought being interrupted by someone sitting idly in an airport boarding area or someone in a store debating what brand of peas to buy, etc. When I go to museums, or on a trip I prefer to go alone. The perfect trip is when I can do things at my own pace, at the time I choose, the way I choose, for as long as I choose, and also have the space to concentrate on what I am viewing or feeling. Most experiences have more meaning to me if I am alone. Of course there are exceptions, I did use the word most. 

Another personal oddity is that I seem the most contented out in nature by myself. Most nature enthusiasts are a bit more adventurous than I, they climb rock cliffs, water ski, dive around, sleep in sleeping bags, cook over camp fires, etc. They usually look like outdoors people, all muscled up, physically fit, tanned, and just outdoorsy in a lot of ways. My outdoor adventures are exclusively walking, and just day walks followed by a scrumptious meal and a sleep-number bed for the night. I don’t do power walks, just meander along deep in thought about all I see or think up some topic to work out in my mind. Not all my wanderings are in a nature setting. Many are in varied neighborhoods of a major city. Cities have a lot of interesting things, including a wide variety of people of every ilk. There are considerably more down and out, deformed, or ‘odd’ people in big cities. A lot of people tell me these kind of wanderings are not safe, but any incidents are rare. I sometimes lose my bearings in a big city and if I need directions the most thorough help is most likely to come from the most unlikely people. I once asked some some young gangster-dressed guy for directions and he was so surprised that I approached him, that he ran 3 blocks to catch up with me after he realized he sent me in the wrong direction. At night young people are the best to ask for directions. Often they tell me they are going that way and to stay with them and no one will bother me. Two young gals, one white and one blk, gave me directions to the El station, but after they got in their car they double parked by the street they told me to turn on so they could make sure I made the right turn. Many of the people so despised by right wing conservatives are just decent people dealt a lot of poor cards in life. I spend a considerable amount of time in life well aware that I have been dealt a pretty good hand from birth. Being able to be thankful sure boosts our spirits. 


Clearly my oddities are so numerous that they exceed any acceptable length for a musing so I will label this Personal Oddities #1.