Independent Low Budget Films

Independent Low Budget Films

I almost went through life without seeing very many movies. When younger it seemed there were always other more exciting or demanding things to do. I don’t don’t mean real young— then I could hardly wait to see the latest Abbot and Costello movie. I tried to watch one of their movies about 10 years ago; 5 minutes was about as long as I could take it. We change over the years. During my productive years I had even less time to see movies. When I owned a heavily landscaped tract of land in a rural community, I was too busy keeping the place up to watch movies. Then, 10 years ago, I moved to a high rise in a wealthy suburban county—so each day, upon arising, I could do pretty much whatever I felt like doing, finally no longer a slave to property, to a career, to the acquisition of money, to competition, to making things go my way, to fighting battles for those in a weak position to fight their own legitimate battles, or to social obligations of any kind. Heaven on Earth based on my personality. Perhaps Hell on Earth for birds of a different feather.

When I moved to the high rise I began to watch netflix movies of all sorts, usually late at night when, too tired for anything requiring vigorous mental activity, a movie was good amusement.  At 3 movies a week for 10 years that comes to 1560 movies. Add to that the 69 courses I completed on tapes from the Great Courses Company (1854 lectures on various topics from some of the best University Professors) and I have spent a good ten years digesting my own life experiences, exposing myself vicariously to other unique individuals, and learning a lot about a wide array of topics.  Self induced semi-hermithood is a good life IF health holds up; IF we can find activities to keep us mentally active; and IF we stay in shape by wandering around—in my case, nature settings/select urban neighborhoods. 

After 1560 movies, there are few main line movies of any quality left to view. So I have begun to watch Independent low budget movies. They seem to fall into two categories—the absolutely horrible, and the excellent, with few in between. Most main line movies are designed to keep a fast paced multifaceted adventure which has endless quality scenery and unexpected events in the movie to keep us riveted to the screen. It is very entertaining, but just as often, not very realistic as a real life adventure. There are exceptions. The whole goal of most main line movies is to keep you on an emotional rollercoaster with rapid paced action, great scenery, and unexpected turn of events. 

Of course real life, for most people, is not that spectacular. Add all the electronic gadgets we spend so many hours of the day on, and our world is fast paced, high input (but low quality), and emotionally draining. Time for any real quality thinking has been reduced substantially for most people. What this all means for human civilization is beyond my comprehension. Considering the amount of support a Donald Trump or Ted Cruz can garnish, we really need to think about the amount of quality thoughts existing among our citizens. I guess all these reality shows and gadget obsessions generate a whole new generational culture and attitudes. 

Many independent movies take one particular character and dwell on that character for an in depth look at their mind set, their perhaps peculiar situation in life, and the hurdles their persona generates. 

Diversity is one of the main forces driving the evolutionary process, and my many years of teaching  college age young people certainly attests to that. Like many young people I came out of my formative years with fairly rigid beliefs in right and wrong. Remnants of ‘some people are going to hell and some are going to Heaven’ (the Billy Graham pitch) had been ingrained somewhat in my mindset. Daily interaction with young people of varied backgrounds, personalities, culture, and race,—slowly, but steadily, kind of eased away the rigid ethical standards created by various religious sects. 

The evolutionary process is a practical process based on what works best, a process certainly not based on any self importance of any member of any species. The notion that God is on the side of any groups in this journey called life becomes more and more absurd the longer the evolutionary process exists. In fact, the only species with any extensively developed ethical nature is the human species. Ethics exists in humans solely as an opportunity to maximize contentment for the greatest number of people. Just because the evolutionary process did not deal us the best hand in life, does not mean we necessarily have no chance for some contentment along the way. When the Golden Rule prevails, then the chances for the less fortunate to have some contentment goes up exponentially. The Golden Rule is a wonderful ethical tool. 

In some sense, independent movies often enable us to comprehend better what some people are up against in life, and the forces around them which impact on them. The whole movie is often focused on a particular character and a supporting cast. When we focus on life as an endless contest between evil and good, or between God and the Devil, all we really do is ensure we will never be much of a happy camper in life. We see this all the time in the biggest enthusiasts of select religious sects. How can one not be emotionally angry most of the time when surrounded by so many evil people? These people are so sure that particular human created scriptures are, for sure, the Word of God, that they spend their whole lives trying to make life miserable for the heathens all around. There is no such thing as appreciation for diversity amongst this population, it is all about nailing heathens in any way available. In some broad sense, much of history is about ’true believers’ trying to eradicate, by whatever means necessary, heathens of one sort or another. It is really just one massacre after another. It is a rough world into which we are born. 

I don’t know why, but I have always disliked seeing other humans or animals in pain. It is, I guess, just   my nature. Not something I earned or learned, just something that is there about me. Dislike of certain people over others by me comes mostly because some people cause misery for others as a peculiar need on their part.  For the most part I have been protected by genetics, environment, and help from other people (often non family) in my life when I needed help at different points in time. All of this was unearned stuff—good luck I guess, and thus it became my wish that more people could have such good fortune. Well, they can if only the Golden Rule prevailed in all societies. Of course, evolution isn’t about to die as we ourselves are destined shortly to do—so I sense, in the long run, the Golden Rule will win out. Many things are interesting food for thought, but the future is not one of them. Sometimes it is tempting to wish one could just visit the future, for a spell, out of curiosity. Then again, we all come into this world by chance, a random meeting of a particular egg and sperm, so to visit the future legitimately, we would run the same risk all over again. 

When I watch Independent films I often feel like I did in those many times of conversation between myself and some individual student. Everyone has a tale to tell about their lives, and these personal tales, to the extent one listens, are very moving and intriguing. So little is often as it seems, at least to the extent we begin to understand people on an individual basis. Some of what others really are, I wish I could be; some situations with which others really are facing in life I am so glad I am not burdened.  And so it goes, round and round the wheel of fortune goes, and where it stops nobody knows, except it always stops and we exit.  

Well into my terminational phase of life, so far in relatively good health, economically independent, and no longer directly involved with young people or any other age people over any problematic situations, it is currently reading and independent movies which help keep me abreast of the real world out there. The Golden Rule still remains as my ethical base, but I use my FANAFI  (Find a Need and Fill It) Fund to help the less fortunate rather than any personal interaction. Life, once past our productive years, is all theatre. The rat race is over, twas a good and challenging experience, and for those of us who survive our productive years in good health, the terminational years are whatever we make of them on a personal basis.

I suppose, in some sense, whenever we analyze someone different from ourselves in any kind of meaningful open minded way, we have essentially created a low budget film in our own mind. The saddest pictures in life, at least to me, are those really decent young persons in life with substantial potential to achieve productive lives, who end up settling for less, simply because there are so many hurdles for them to overcome that they exhaust their willpower in the battle, and just give up—settle for less than their potential. Many of these hurdles would never exist in a fair and just society. The eyes often communicate just how much emotional stress a person is under, especially young people. Even when they get some help by others—ourselves or otherwise—they still face numerous and difficult subsequent hurdles. Eventually I realized that no matter much effort helps them over an immediate hurdle, there will be endless more hurdles for them down the road. But we feel good to have helped them at a certain point in their lives. Then, later, we find out they never reached their potential, gave up for varied reasons and settled for a lot less then their potential. It made my own life seem a bed of roses, albeit my own life, compared to some, is/was, I suppose, no bed of roses. Most things in life are always relative, or so it seems. 

The longer I taught and lived, the sadder the process for these young people seemed. “Fair is fair” has a long way to go  in this endless evolutionary process. The upside of all this is that our own country has come a long way in eliminating some of the injustices dealt to so many of our citizens. We started out with essentially landed white Protestants having the most rights and over the years more and more groups fought for, and won the same rights for themselves. It is always remarkable when intelligent, good people, actually argue that the Constitution should not be an evolving document to achieve the same rights for all it’s citizens. To these people, the Courts should not be the instrument to grant life, liberty, and justice to all citizens, but instead no others should get such rights unless a vast majority of the majority having certain rights, vote to let others get the same rights. Catholics, Jews, immigrants, blacks, women, children, handicapped, the poor, gays, etc. have all, over time, achieved  some of the rights others have had in the days of the original Constitution. The problem is that this process, mostly achieved via the courts, creates an easy excuse for people who have always had the same rights, to see their own current difficulties in life as a direct product of these others, now with the same rights they have always had, as actually the reason for their own problems.  It is some sort of variation of “things were much better before these other groups started getting their rights. They are the reason life for me is now difficult.”  

Tonight I will watch another independent movie. All day long I had been looking forward to heading into Chicago this evening to attend a play, a ticket for which I purchased several weeks ago. I like the off the beaten path small theaters scattered around Chicago. There must be a hundred of them. The actors are often very good. Still, as to be expected, some are terrible and others are very good. 

I decided to take an hour nap before getting ready to leave, but—as all too often—I laid in bed thinking about the trip to the suburban train station (about a mile away) the train ride in on an express train (a Half hour) a half mile walk to the El Station, a half hour ride on the El, then a half to one mile walk to the theatre. The weather isn’t all that bad, easily manageable. But then, when the play is over and I leave the theatre to return home it is the same time schedule in reverse except the suburban trains take an  hour to get back (only locals run in the evening) and if unlucky, there will considerable waiting for Els and suburban trains. In Spring, summer, and fall this trekking around late at night is kind of nostalgic, reminds me of younger days when I was a better fit with the young crowd which dominates the streets at these hours. But staying home more and more often wins out at the last minute—cooking a sumptuous meal, finish reading a book I am in the middle of, continue to clean up my desk a bit, clean the kitchen floor, watch a movie and listen to a DVD lecture, and more likely than  end up in a very mellow mood with all kinds of thoughts about all kinds of topics. Often, after the movie finishes, I get amazed all over again that I am still alive and kicking, still mobile, with no stresses of import with which to deal, and at some point me and Sheebiejiebie the cat, retire to bed and I listen to the same songs I listened to when young, up until about the mid 70’s. At 75 this will certainly be the final lap. Anything after that will be life minus a full deck, limited physical capabilities, poor memory, etc. Frankly, after watching the Republican debates, if this is the level of thinking potential Presidents express—well, maybe ten years more will be lived in full blown nationwide/global chaos. In the past there was always somewhere to run to escape. Not today, the major problems are all global, despite what these angry knuckle-heads pretend on the debate stage. This is not good theatre at all. Well, I suppose if horror shows are one’s theatre, it is. 

It is hard to defend how all this pondering, musing, analyzing, postulating, logicating (invented) at my age has a any purpose. In the end, we are all dead (Heaven notwithstanding). On the other hand, the goal of life, for higher species, is contentment. Perhaps those who comprehend little about life, but follow a simple life based on the Golden Rule can get just as much contentment as those who comprehend much more about life and also follow the Golden Rule. In my life I have seen a lot of good people reduced to tears about their life situation. I have also personally let a lot of people down for varied ‘good reasons’ at the time. Often later on, it was clearer to me that there were no ‘good reasons’ for me to walk away.  It takes a lot of personal strength to endure or win certain situations on behalf of someone else, and it is hard to forgive our own weaknesses in this area. Everything we do or don’t do is not forgivable. This reduces our potential level of contentment. While I am more contented now than at any point in my life, this is a relative comparison. There is no such thing as total contentment. We can only speak realistically in terms of more or less contentment at different stages in our lives. More difficult to accept is that the center of attention of God’s evolutionary process is the process itself, never us as individuals. We get reminded often enough, in varied ways, that nothing is really centered around us as individuals. That’s a tough pill to swallow, probably the biggest let-down in life. Actually, none of us even got to audition for the role we ended up playing in life. And when the curtain comes down, there is no chance for an encore, no reviews to look over, no thunderous applause. In most cases—finally—most everyone will say something good about us, albeit it will all fall on our dead ears. It is just as well, funerals are not the best time for honesty—if there ever is a good time. I mean really, honesty about what?  The evolutionary process goes forward, on evolutionary time, without us. Still, all things considered, I am glad a particular sperm managed to hook up with a particular egg, the most important sexual event in my life, and I have no memories of it whatsoever. Soon, I will have no memory of anything. That’s a good thing, we cannot miss anything without memory. Death levels all. Fair enough. 

The 4 Most Rewarding Attributes of Human Social Traits

The 4 Most Rewarding Attributes of Human Social Traits

It has been 19 years since I retired. OK, that makes me an old man of some sort. These last 19 years have given me the opportunity to do the hobby I like best: to ponder over all aspects of life. I trace all this back to one warm sunny afternoon up on a hillside with my best friend—a dog named Buff. For some reason I still remember asking him “What the hell are we on this earth for?”  Animals have it easier. They live for the moment, no thoughts of death, consequences of injuries or fear of getting sick, or complicated plans for the future. Buff was kind of the ‘Dennis the Menace’ of the dog world, albeit my mother always placed that blame on me: “You made Buff that way”. Another ‘which came first, the chicken or the egg?’ dilemma. 

A running trait of mine all my life has been an inquisitiveness as to what makes other people tick. Perhaps that is why I fell into teaching. It certainly wasn’t because I was a spellbound young lecturer. I wasn’t. It certainly wasn’t because I was an intellectual genius. I wasn’t. It certainly wasn’t because I was the most organized person. I wasn’t. Most people know the smartest amongst us don’t usually go into teaching. And that trend, unfortunately, has gotten worse for 60 years now. No one goes into teaching anymore for the prestige. When I was in high school there were essentially the teachers, the Principal, Dean of students, a school nurse, a school guidance counselor, and the Superintendent of the School system The teachers were Kings in the classroom and respected by parents and students. Now they are at the bottom of the pecking order, mere puppets for a huge layer of coordinators, curriculum specialists, assistant this or that, political regulations, etc. Add computers, and teachers have become minor accessories to the process. 

Strong confrontations with students over anything is now risky. There is no ‘or else’ available to teachers for the most part. I only taught two years in high school. I can’t even imagine what that must be like today. Neither can I imagine teaching in Universities today where I spent almost my entire career. Verbal discipline or confrontations may not be too wise when one is standing in front of a classroom where students are permitted to be armed. A new version I guess of Russian Roulette. Many of my confrontations were deliberate, as a last straw, hoping that when the dust settled, some real progress could be made with the student. That often was the only workable method in some cases: make them mad as hell, listen to their anger and where their mind is coming from, enable them to feel you really want them to be successful and that is why you are confronting them.  “After all,” I would often tell them, “My salary doesn’t change whether you do well or not in this class. In fact it is a lot easier for me to simply let you fail without me disturbing you.” Many times a student doesn’t understand you really do care until a confrontation is forced upon them. 

At any rate, a good teacher quickly learns just how diverse people are with their personalities, their talents, their life situations, their goals, their feelings about a lot of things. Human civilizations have suffered greatly over evolutionary years due to group alliances. To survive in a dangerous world humans formed ‘family values’ alliances, ‘inherited religious values alliances’, inherited cultural values alliances, inherited racial values alliances, and then developed all sorts of group values, team values, occupational values, political values, and so on—always based on ‘strength in numbers’. To have strength in numbers means your side gets to move the ball forward and score a goal set by the group. Toward other competing groups there is more a feeling of ‘’push ‘em back, push ‘em back, way back……’  Group allegiance has made human history an endless succession of conflict, competition, and wars.

I don’t know why, but I was never much of a group person. A people person, yes. A group person, no. As a teacher I spent a lot of time analyzing the ‘different’. Diversity is really one of the greatest aspects of human existence. That’s how God’s laws of evolution work. Nothing moves forward in the evolutionary process without diversity. Men/women are not created equal at all. The best humans can do—collectively—is to make the playing fields level for all, and have the most fortunate help the least fortunate (the Golden Rule). It does seem, once a person really appreciates diversity, that it becomes more difficult to be wrapped up in group warfare. It seems when diversity is appreciated, respect for group warfare wanes, and respect for individuality rises——but with a catch. I can respect difference unless the difference involves putting down others, or denying others rights that all should have, or an action infers that others should be given favored status, or diminished status. Difference does not equal bad, and that concept is key to human fairness and human cooperation. Criminal behavior is a whole other matter. Harming others is a criminal act and is intolerable. When one person’s choice of a recreational drug is alcohol, and then that person wants another person, whose choice of recreational drug is marijuana, to be put in jail or fined, that is simply irrational, warrantless prejudice. Drug addiction, in fact any kind of addiction, is a medical problem, period. Robbing somebody to acquire money to buy alcohol or marijuana is a criminal problem. Robbery for any reason is wrong. Creating a society in which so many citizens live in poverty is wrong too. It is even more wrong for a society, collectively, to create ghettoes, then gate them off from the more affluent and blame the victims for the ghettoes. 

What kind of society operates in such a manner that ghettoes develop, become walled off from other more affluent communities, and then ghetto existence and resulting behaviors are blamed on the victims? Diversity, not just of humans, but the whole biological diversity of living things, is surely the most amazing aspect of this planet and our own society. It is precisely this failure of so many humans to appreciate diversity which is tearing human communities apart and driving so many other species to extinction, not to mention our activities are starting to cause climate changes. Then add human overpopulation. In this aforementioned state of affairs, modern political debates become totally inane. It’s surreal. The comments are priceless: something akin to : “Who would vote for a President with a face like yours?” That’s a thoughtful point to ponder. “If I am President I will make other countries do my bidding and make them pay for it.” That’s a realistic and novel approach. About as sensible as the notion that we can improve education by letting localities fund their own schools. That sure is going to ensure children who live in poor areas get a good education. The inaneness permeating modern day politics, coupled with the complexity of modern day global issues, is driving all forms of government to virtual paralysis, as each group makes an intractable last stand, while individual citizens are being encouraged to ‘stand your ground’ as the solution to personal conflict.

Imagine an election process in which 18 people run around collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars over a 2-3 year election campaign and can make a living doing so—in many cases making a lot more money than they could otherwise make. Winning becomes a crap shoot, making money is the priority. What person with any real understanding of the issues, and a decent reputation/ethics would ever want to be on a stage with such clowns. Wrong word. They are not really funny as much as Abbot and Costello slap stick ineptitudes.  The result of such ineptitude is not very funny to their fellow citizens.

It was not infrequent that a student would complain about all the rules in my course. Of course 16 pages of rules is a stretch. But it gets their attention. My response was simple: “You do well on the exams and then we can talk about my rules”. The fact was, however, that those who tended to do well never complained about the rules. Rules are there to help students succeed. If any rule doesn’t do that, there needs to be made exceptions to it. Here’s an example. Three unexcused absences and a Professor can drop the student from the course. My position: “I don’t care if you ever come to class if you pass the exams. If you don’t, then you get a hand shake and a friendly good-bye. The first day of class I would tells students “I have no prejudice. I hate everybody.” That makes good humor, but the most important image a Professor can create is that diversity is admired and welcomed. The problem is, however: once students believe you admire diversity they create never ending office hours. Every student has a story to tell, and will if they feel a Professor will listen. Let me offer here a clear cut example. As a Professor I naturally wondered why any student would come to class with a wild hairdo, body rings here and there and maybe everywhere, tattoos covering skin which would otherwise be a pleasant hue, and pants halfway down to the knees. It certainly doesn’t give most people the impression they would like to know that person better. It turns out the reason is often well, reasonable. They may live in a very rough neighborhood, and in such a neighborhood the object is often to dress so no one is likely to mess with them. My question to them was always: If you are trying to get out of that kind of neighborhood by getting a good education, then why dress like your main goal is to succeed as a ghetto thug?

We always like to debate exactly who is living in the real world. “Get real”, “Get a life”, “face reality” “bite the bullet”, and so on are really just put downs to suggest that our world is more real than someone else’s world. Truthfully, we can’t even explain our own reality without resorting to a lot of gibberish. We create or inherit Gods to serve our own individual needs. Any ethical lapses, in all established religious sects, always come with a path to forgiveness.  There is always, in all these established religions, a God who is personally interested in us, and available to help us have a better life, a more contented life—and if all this fails there is always, of course, a Heaven. Whether there is a Heaven or not cannot be proven one way or another, but that there is no God protecting certain religious groups has been well established by history. No matter the religious persuasion, the same percentage of all sects in the same communities die from accidents, particular diseases, get killed in warfare, end up with divorces, etc. No, God does not put marriages together. If He did it would make Him an idiot. No God, of any sect, help’s anyone pass a test. How evident would that become and then anyone going to college would be sure to join that sect. No, God does not think more of your kids than anyone else’s. And no, there is no evidence at all that God is protecting those members of any particular sect. That is to say there is no evidence that God (however envisioned) ever interferes with His own laws which govern the evolutionary process. Thus, when it comes to reality, those with religious beliefs of a particular religious sect, are first in line when it comes to any reality check. 

All of the above illustrates the importance for any of us to have appreciation for diversity. If we can’t do this and get all wrapped up in attacking heathens, or become immersed in ‘family values’, or chasing political goals which give ‘our’ group rights or benefits denied to others, then contentment for us becomes very problematical. The ultimate example of this is Donald Trump. No matter how much power, wealth, or notoriety he gets, he is clearly a very unhappy person. He has zero tolerance for diversity. Appreciation of diversity is one of the four most important social traits we can develop.

Another human trait that is important to possess is will power. Not much has been known about this trait until recently. We now know that we all have a certain, but variable degree of will power. And this will power can be spread around on several goals or used up toward a single goal or a few goals. The more will power we exert on a particular goal, the more likely we will achieve that goal. If Donald Trump is an example of no tolerance for diversity, then Terrell Owens is a crowning example of tremendous willpower—all focused on one goal. It catapulted him from a mediocre wide receiver in high school and college to putting him statistically in 2nd or third place on the all-time list of NFL receivers.  But there is a catch with this human trait: if all our willpower is used up on one goal, other aspects of our life suffer. Thus, the trick with willpower is to distribute it wisely among various goals in life. It gets a bit complicated. Terrell Owens could have spread his will power and focus around but then his main goal of being somebody important would have never succeeded. So he ends up being important, well known, and near the top of the heap among wide receivers, but those with little or limited appreciation of diversity resent his uniqueness. His will power and focus become labeled selfishness. Thus he ends up between a pillar and post on any popularity scale.  He can become popular and unimportant, or important and hated by those who see his will power and focus as selfishness. 

One area where will power becomes important to all of us is in knowing when enough is enough. When we do not have enough willpower directed at this, then compulsive behaviors (addictions) gain a foothold, and contentment will become elusive. Compulsive behaviors never lead to contentment, whether it be money, power, titles, eating, sex, recreational drug use, sports, shopping, and so on. In a very general way, too much of anything can kill us, and if not—at any rate—deprive us of achieving maximum contentment. Thus will power combined with focus, are important attributes to have in life. 

The third beneficial attribute of human social nature is empathy with others. Any of us can have empathy with ourselves. And, we need to have that for sure, but empathy with others enables us to achieve a greater degree of contentment in our lives. I suppose this gets all tangled up with tolerance for diversity, but it seems they are still separate entities. First of all, if the suffering of others is something which saddens us, it also increases our gratitude for our own good fortune. A lot of contentment depends on gratitude for any good fortunes we attain. After all, we really don’t earn much of our successes in life by ourselves. “I earned it” is one of the most over used expressions. All of us are heavily dependent on genetics, our environment, luck, and help from others to achieve our goals. Of course good decisions are involved but all the good decisions in life can’t make us competent in certain areas of our lives. In my own case, I tend to gravitate toward aloofness from others, but throughout life, others would often, for reasons never understood, push me into situations where interaction with others became unavoidable, even though in many cases these others knew my own peculiarities would create commotion. Of course commotion can sometimes generate progress and other times destructive chaos. Commotion as a tool for progress is a tricky plan. 

While empathy with others can increase the degree of contentedness in life, it comes with a downside. I reckon most good things in life come with downsides. The downside is this: it is difficult to have a totally zippy-do-da day when so many others are suffering. For all the gratitude we may have for our life situation, it is always tempered by the awareness of how so many others suffer from personal tragedies or situations. The only saving grace from all this empathy with the less fortunate is using the Golden Rule as our ethical basis. This links up with appreciation for diversity and will-power to adhere to ‘enough is enough’ so that there is wealth of our own, or time of our own, to help the less fortunate. We need to feel that we have done our share to help out the less fortunate. 

The 4th and last of the most rewarding attributes of human social traits is a good sense of humor. Without a good sense of humor, about most all aspects of life, it is difficult, probably impossible, to ever reach a decent level of contentment. We don’t live in a perfect world, the laws which govern the evolutionary process do not permit it. It is the imperfections which lead to positive changes over evolutionary time. It is hard to imagine a world without humor. Other animals don’t laugh probably because with their limited ability to conceive of the future, they don’t need to laugh. It is our level of intelligence which necessitates the need for humor. Humor is often a reflection of the absurdities associated with much of life. People with little sense of humor can’t really handle these absurdities and get angry about them. There are more jokes about sex than any other aspect of life simply because there are few aspects of life more absurd than sexual activities. Whatever turns us on, turns us on, and no amount of analytical examination is going to explain why we are turned on. It is really inane to insist that whatever sexual activity does not turn us on, is therefore some sort of moral depravity. It becomes, of course, moral depravity when someone is being forced to participate in some kind of sexual activity against their wishes. Participating in some sort of sexual activity just to please a spouse or partner is not, I suppose, moral depravity, but some sort of empathy issue or  some sort of marriage survival plan. 

These 4 designated most rewarding attributes of human social traits, when coupled together, enable us to achieve a greater degree of contentment in life. It also seems, for most people, that the degree of contentment reached in their lives depends on steady progress with their lives, not everything coming at once. This is a major problem with inherited wealth. The intentions are admirable enough to hand money to offspring, but the consequences are often a disaster. Just observing the lives of professional sport athletes is more tragedy than any permanent success story. 

Finally, as with most anything I muse about, there is nothing here fixed in stone, just endless fodder for thought. Perhaps those who engage often in thoughtful logical thought about major aspects of life get more out of life. Then again, maybe they don’t.  

       

Where U.S. Stands in Best of Various Categories

Where U.S. Stands in Best of Various Categories

When politicians in power make statements like America has never been more prosperous or strong before, and politicians not in power make statements that they will make America great again—well, this kind of gets confusing. What exactly is our place in the world today?

Google is an amazing tool. For people like myself who like to write musings, any stats needed are a few buttons pressed away. So I began to pull some specific areas of ‘greatness’ out of the air and went to Google to find out where America is ranked in that category. Of course the results may be more or less accurate but we will assume here they are ‘roughly’ accurate. 

Best railroad systems——not in the top ten except NYC got 9th place on urban rail system,

Best Botanical Gardens——U.S. manages usually to get one garden listed in top ten

Best Architectural Wonders in the World:  U.S. manages to get one listed on most lists

Best health care system in the World:  U.S. ranked 11th

Most expensive health care system:  U.S. ranked 1st

Best schools in the World:  The United States places 17th in the developed world for education, according to a global report by education firm Pearson. Finland and South Korea, not surprisingly, top the list of 40 developed countries with the best education systems. Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore follow. The rankings are calculated based on various measures, including international test scores, graduation rates between 2006 and 2010, and the prevalence of higher education seekers. Pearson's chief education adviser Sir Michael Barber tells BBC that the high ranking countries tend to offer teachers higher status in society and have a "culture" of education.

Best wages for average workers in the World:

Unemployment rate:  U. S. ranks 14.  only data from the 34 relatively rich and developed countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development are included here

Vacation days:  Finland and France both offer 30 days paid vacation every year. That means if you were inclined to spread out your vacation days evenly you could take every 12th day off. At the other end of the scale, the US guarantees no holiday.

Minimum wage compared to average salaries in a country:  U.S. ranked 33

Best energy efficient economy: From a maximum possible 100 points, Germany comes in at the top with 65, followed by Italy (64 points) and the European Union as a whole (63 points). China comes top for the efficiency of its buildings, Germany for industry, Italy for its transportation. And the U.S.? It is 13th place overall (out of 16 countries, remember), with 42 points, behind China, Canada, and India, but ahead of Russia, Brazil, and Mexico, which fill the last three places. In other words, for a leading industrial nation, the U.S. isn't doing particularly well.

Country with best roads: 

The statistic shows the countries with the highest road quality in 2014/15.  U.S. is 14th

Countries with the highest concentration of wealth at the top:  The most authoritative source comparing wealth-concentration in the various countries is the successor to the reports that used to be done for the United Nations, now performed as the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook. The latest (2013) edition of it finds (p. 146) that in the U.S., 75.4% of all wealth is owned by the richest 10% of the people. The comparable figures for the other developed countries are: Australia 50.3%, Canada 57.4%, Denmark 72.2%, Finland 44.9%, France 51.8%, Germany 61.7%, Ireland 58.4%, Israel 68.9%, Italy 49.8%, Japan 49.1%, Netherlands 54.6%, New Zealand 57.6%, Norway 65.9%, Singapore 61.1%, Spain 54.0%, Sweden 71.1%, Switzerland 71.5%, and U.K. 53.3%. Those are the top 20 developed nations, and the U.S. has the most extreme wealth-concentration of them all. However, there are some other countries that have wealth-concentrations that are about as extreme as the U.S. For examples: Chile 72.5%, India 73.8%, Indonesia 75.0%, and South Africa 74.8%. The U.S. is in their league; not in the league of developed economies. In the U.S., the bottom 90% of the population own only 24.6% of all the privately held wealth, whereas in most of the developed world, the bottom 90% own around 40%; so, the degree of wealth-concentration in the U.S. is extraordinary (except for underdeveloped countries).

Developed countries with the lowest crime rates:  

The US has more guns per capita than anywhere else in the world. We have massive organized crime, drug and human trafficking, and ever-looming terrorist threats. We have one of the most organized and efficient police forces on Earth. We also have a never-ending news cycle to remind us of these things. With sensationalism in the news, and stories of shooting sprees on a monthly basis, is violent crime really getting worse in America? Where does our perception that crime is growing meet the actual numbers? How does violent crime in America stack up against the rest of the world?

The US has a very specific brand of violence.

Perhaps the most difficult part of comparing violent crime in the US and abroad is determining who we’re comparing with the US. Middle Eastern, Central American, and African metropolises are by and large much more dangerous than US cities, but are they representative of the rest of the world?

Most of Europe is safer than Detroit, but are Detroit and Europe representative?

78.6% of Americans have confidence in local police; a measure only topped by Scandinavian nations and Canada.

More than 3 out of 4 Americans feel safe walking around where they live at night. While this is a measurement of perceived crime, and not crime itself, the perception is that the US as a whole is as safe as most modern industrialized nations. This is probably bolstered by the fact that 78.6% of Americans have confidence in local police; a measure only topped by Scandinavian nations and Canada. Plus the fact that a large percentage of violent crime in America is concentrated in relatively small geographic areas, and, as we know, the US is a massive place.

The US as a whole is as safe as most modern industrialized nations.

Violent crime has declined sharply in the US since the mid 1990’s. While this is due to a variety of changes in enforcement, rehabilitation of criminals, and overall higher standards of living, a large portion of the similarities between the crime levels of US and western European countries hinges on differences in what crimes are reported. The FBI counts four categories of crime as violent crime: murder and non-negligible manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. While aggravated assault is the only assault category included under violent crime reports in the US, other nations include the much more numerous level 1 assault in violent crime reporting. This makes the US appear relatively less violent from a statistical perspective.

.

Another difference between the US and other relatively safe developed nations is that the US has a much higher homicide rate than similarly “safe” countries. 14,827 people were murdered in the US last year. This is way down from the 24,526 US murders in 1993, yet still leaves the US at 4.8 murders per 100,000 citizens. In comparison, Japan has .4 murders per 100,000 residents. Germany has .8, Australia 1, France 1.1, and Britain–who has recently garnered media attention for being the most dangerous wealthy European nation– has 1.2.

The most dangerous US cities rank among the most deadly cities in the world. New Orleans, which topped the list in 2012, saw one homicide for every 2000 residents. To put this number in perspective, the average homicide per 100,000 citizen rate for the US is 4.8. Meaning you’re more than 10 times more likely to be the victim of a homicide in New Orleans than America as a whole.

Bear in mind, however, that the cities with the top 5 homicide rates in the world boast substantially higher rates than any other cities on the list. To put the numbers in context, you’re more than 3 times likelier to be the victim of a homicide in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, than in New Orleans, and more than 30 times more likely when comparing San Pedro Sula to the US as a whole.

Another notable trend is that no European or Asian cities are in the top 50 deadliest cities. This complicates the picture of the US standing toe-to-toe with the industrialized world as a low violent crime nation. At the very least, the deadliest cities in the US have many more homicides than the deadliest cities in Europe and Asia. At most, the US is a in a pandemic of homicides, even while other types of violent crime are stifled.

Best Military Forces in the World:

Here the United States ranks #1.  The irony is that the U. S. has not won any victories in decades despite successful invasions of various countries like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Haiti,  etc. 

Instead it is more a pattern of invade, occupy for several years, declare victory, and leave behind a country in worse shape than before we invaded. Occupation and victory are not the same. Victory implies the objectives of the invasion were met. Russia is #2 and China #3.  

Biggest Military Budgets:

The U.S. outpaces all other nations in military expenditures. World military spending totaled more than $1.7 trillion in 2013. The U.S. accounted for 37 percent of the total.

U.S. military expenditures are roughly the size of the next nine largest military budgets around the world, combined.

Conclusions:

I tired of looking categories up. 

Clearly no other country is in any position to militarily conquer the U.S. As for a nuclear war, what the outcome of that would exactly be is not clear. The consequences of even a few successful atomic bombs on any current civilization is simply speculative. There would obviously be unimaginable consequences from that kind of warfare. No one would win it would simply be a case of how bad would each country lose. The radiation after affects would simply be speculative. 

Just as clearly, having all this military might so far has been relatively useless in modern day conflicts. Uniformed armies fighting on battlefields is mostly a thing of the past. A major form of modern war is via terrorism and this kind of war is available to most any committed group, small or large. While the U.S. can invade most countries at will and reduce it’s infrastructure to rubble, this mostly just frees up all the opposing groups in the invaded country to terrorize each other with thugs taking turns controlling different areas of the invaded country. And the United States becomes a world wide target for terroristic acts. This, in turn, infuriates the U.S. and so far any path to break the cycle has not been achieved. 

And just as clearly, our falling behind the rest of the world in so many of the categories above, is related to two major factors:  The amount of money spent on military matters, and the amount of our wealth now owned by 2-5% of our population. There is simply not enough money left for the U.S. to compete with other countries in most of the categories listed in this musing. Look, Bill Gates as an individual has more money than the 20 least richest countries in the world. If prosperity is measured by the wealth of  a few, the U.S. is in good shape. If it is measured by the wealth of the many, or the quality of education, health care for everyone, etc., as listed above, we are drifting further and further down the list. It has become the best of all possible worlds for a few and the worst of all possible worlds for more and more, and the latter growing at a faster and faster rate. 

The complexity of it all has us neutralized into a mode of inaction. Politics has become little more than certain groups seeking to control the government so they can make other groups pay the piper. Few are willing to see the playing field leveled as that would mean all of us would have to pay the piper. It is all about whose taxes are to go up, who is going to get tax breaks, who is going to have the best salaries, who is going to get good health care, who is going to have good schools, who gets the greatest share of the wealth produced by labor—those who did the labor—or those who thrive on the bargains achieved on the backs of slave labor, etc. 

In the end, none of us individually, impact on the evolutionary process. What works better, survives a changing environment. What can’t handle a changing environment, fades out of the evolutionary process. Which individual species member is the first to have a trait to make the move forward in an evolutionary process, is not important. As I like to point out, if the Wright Brothers hadn’t invented the airplane, someone else would have. Evolutionary time is on a scale of millions of years. We have a lifespan of like 100 years at best. So we think we, collectively and individually, are driving the evolutionary process. It would be nice to visualize what the world will look like a 1000 years from now. But we simply can’t.  When Donald Trump claims he is going to  ‘make America great again’ we can be sure we have a self serving lunatic at the microphone. Look, evolution isn’t even about America. America has existed as a product of the evolutionary process. There is no permanence to America anymore than there is to anything else involved in the process. The only constant is change and time. Evolutionary Time, not human time. All any of us can do is play the cards in our hand the best we can, be thankful for any help others have given us along our short journey, and live as much of  our lives as we can with the Golden Rule as our ethical mantra, and we will at least achieve some contentment along the way. It’s not all that complicated.  

Lincoln’s Unique Attribute Which Elevates his Global Stature——Part 1

Lincoln’s Unique Attribute Which Elevates his Global Stature——Part 1

Choosing the greatest Presidents or World Leaders is a daunting task. It is like choosing the best wide receivers in football. Football fans can argue this point, and they do, endlessly—yet there are so many variables involved that objectivity is simply unattainable. One may argue that the stats don’t lie. I guess they don’t lie as a pure stat, but what kind of stats any wide receiver achieves depends on the quality of their quarterbacks, the quality of the other receivers on the same team, the quality of their defenders, how much their teams relied on the running game vs the passing game, length of time out due to injuries, the quality of the coaching staff, how good they were at blocking when needed, or tackling when needed, what division they were in at a given period in time, and on and on it goes. As arguments go, football arguments and political arguments are the most vigorous and the least likely to achieve consensus with few exceptions. 

One could argue that Lincoln is as revered as he is because he was assassinated at the end of our most brutal war ever. Had he lived to face all the consequences created by the war, Lincoln may well have been less revered. There is no way to resolve speculations of this sort. Regardless of where Lincoln stands regarding his performance while President compared to other Presidents, he outshines all the great Presidents in one respect. No other President comes close to leaving behind such a voluminous trail of personal remembrances by those who ever came in contact with him. Whether it is George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, FDR, Reagan, or any other President, none can match Lincoln regarding the personal accolades given by those who knew them in various stages of their lives.  People from all walks of life, from those at the top of society to those at the bottom, were ever so eager to provide anecdotes about Lincoln’s wisdom, honesty, and kindnesses. He was uniquely ‘revered’ by almost all who ever crossed his path, and yet at the same time, Lincoln had few, hardly any, close friends. He had a warm heart toward people of all kinds except those who were unkind themselves by their actions. But all were kept at a certain distance with no exceptions, except interestingly, maybe his children with the exception of Robert Lincoln. 

Endless people had little personal  stories about Lincoln and were eager to share them. Often the personal incidents happened, and were history before the person realized just how special Lincoln would become, and he was already out of their lives. And it was reciprocated too. When Lincoln arrived to live in New Salem after leaving his family at 18 years of age he had nothing but the clothes on his back—literally. Lincoln never gave much importance to material things, food, dress, stature of anyone, or power. His forte was his thinking—his logic, his memory, his empathy with others, his understanding of human nature, his sense of fairness, his charitableness, his perceptive abilities, his meticulous gathering of data before making decisions, his adherence to his decisions once made, his self confidence about matters he had given thought to. The only area of human behavior he failed to make logical sense out of was romantic love. How many people Lincoln ever had sex with will never be known, not even in a most cursory way. He never felt comfortable within the area of sex and love. Anything not subject to reason and logic left Lincoln inept.  As a consequence he had no rigid notions in such areas. Once married he simply accepted the responsibilities that came with it, a form of duty for reasons not mastered.  

While in his twenties and living in Salem, exactly where Lincoln slept or ate at any  moment, varied at lot. Because he was kind and helpful to just about everyone in town, they sort of took turns feeding him or providing him a place to sleep when he didn’t sleep in the back room of his store. Lincoln is the perfect example of ‘what goes around, comes around’.  When he first became a surveyor and needed a horse to get around he had to borrow the money to buy a horse and when he couldn’t make the payments, an affluent member of the community bought the horse and all the surveying equipment, then gave it all back to Lincoln. Endless people felt indebted to Lincoln for one reason or another and most of them were never in any position to pay him back. Lincoln rarely failed to act out of kindness when payback was not in the cards. It gave him contentment to help those less fortunate. 

I will describe some examples of things individuals remembered about him but it will be just that, a few examples. No other President ever came close to having such a trail of personal stories about him by so many people. Had Lincoln never received any elevated title in his whole life, he still would have been a legend in his time to a small army of fellow citizens. That statement would be hard to make regarding any other U.S. President, or—for that matter, most important figures in history. Thus, this musing has little to do with Lincoln’s competency as President, and everything to do with his ‘persona’ as it related to other people. 

I suppose it starts with his appearance. This is another area which separates Lincoln from all other Presidents. More has been written by far about his personal appearance than any other President. He stood out in any gathering, partly because of his height, but from then descriptions vary all over the place. It is not uncommon for those first meeting him to find him ugly, grotesque, unkempt, disheveled, awkward in movement, too high pitched a voice, a sometimes vacant disengaged look regarding the moment at hand, an ignorant aura, and all sorts of variations of the foregoing. When he was surprisingly elected to be the Republican candidate for President many important politicians across the country trekked to Springfield to meet him. They were often shocked when he appeared before them. This is the man who might be our next President? When Edwin Stanton, his future Secretary of Defense, first met Lincoln, on a huge legal case involving the railroads, well before the war, he simply refused to have Lincoln address the court based on his physical appearance alone. While Lincoln was personally offended by the insult, he never held personal insults by anyone against them. If they were the best to get the job done he would give them a go at it. It was hard to insult Lincoln because he had immeasurable confidence in his own perceptions of life. The limitations of others was little threat to his own cerebral confidence. 

We need remember that pictures where not common back then and the population often had no real idea what most politicians looked like until they reached the very top. But just as people were to be startled and aghast at his appearance when they first met him, they were even more likely to go on and on about how impressed they became as the conversation proceeded. Instead of grotesque, his face became one of the kindest/saddest/most expressive and intriguing aspects of his physical nature. When he traveled to New York to give an important speech months before the nomination convention for President, most of the audience were taken back and felt sorry for this awkward gangly creature who sort of emerged from his chair with legs and arms which seemed ill designed to get up and get to the podium. Then out came this high pitched voice and most were wondering why would this backwoods retard be invited to give an important speech? They simply felt embarrassed for him. An eyewitness (to the Cooper's Union speech in New York) that evening said, "When Lincoln rose to speak, I was greatly disappointed. He was tall, tall, - oh, how tall! and so angular and awkward that I had, for an instant, a feeling of pity for so ungainly a man." However, once Lincoln warmed up, "his face lighted up as with an inward fire; the whole man was transfigured. I forgot his clothes, his personal appearance, and his individual peculiarities. Presently, forgetting myself, I was on my feet like the rest, yelling like a wild Indian, cheering this wonderful man."

While descriptions of his physical appearance are in the many hundreds a few here will suffice to get the picture across. Just in physical appearance alone no other figure in history has had so much written about him. Below are ample enough examples. The hardest thing to do regarding any aspect of Lincoln is to condense, condense, condense”. He was, almost without exception, a lovable enigma to everyone who ever knew him.

"Soon afterwards there entered, with a shambling, loose, irregular, almost unsteady gait, a tall, lank, lean man, considerably over six feet in height, with stooping shoulders, long pendulous arms, terminating in hands of extraordinary dimensions, which, however, were far exceeded in proportion by his feet. He was dressed in an ill fitting, wrinkled suit of black, which put one in mind of an undertaker's uniform at a funeral; round his neck a rope of black silk was knotted in a large bulb, with flying ends projecting beyond the collar of his coat; his turned-down shirt-collar disclosed a sinewy, muscular yellow neck, and above that, nestling in a great black mass of hair, bristling and compact like a ruff of marching pins, rose the strange quaint face and head, covered with its thatch of wild republican hair, of President Lincoln." (William Howard Russell, special correspondent of the Times of London)

Henry Villared (Journalist): "We venture to say that Fifth Avenue snobs, if unaware who he was, would be horrified at walking across the street with him. And yet, there is something about the man that makes one at once forget these exterior shortcomings and feel attracted toward him."

Edward Dicey (British Journalist); "Personally, his aspect is one which, once seen, cannot easily be forgotten.  If you take the stock of English caricature of the typical Yankee, you have the likeness of the President. To say that he is ugly, is nothing. To say that his figure is grotesque is to convey no adequate impression. Fancy a man six-foot, and thin out of proportion, with long bony arms and legs, which, somehow, seem to be always in the way, with large rugged hands, which grasp you like a vise when shaking yours, with a long scraggy neck, and a chest too narrow for the great arms hanging by its side; add to this figure a head, coconut shaped and somewhat too small for such a stature, covered with a rough uncombed and uncombable lank dark hair, that stands out in every direction at once; a face furrowed, wrinkled, and indented, as though it had been scarred by vitriol; a high narrow forehead; and, sunk deep beneath bushy eyebrows, two bright, somewhat dreamy eyes, that seemed to gaze through you without looking at you."

E. W. Andrews (Minister, Lawyer, Soldier): President Lincoln was so put together physically that, to him, gracefulness of movement was an impossibility."

Lincoln's private Secretary: "Lincoln's features were the despair of every artist who undertook his portrait."

Francis Bicknell Carpenter (Artist): "It has been the business of my life to study the human face, and I have said repeatedly to friends that Mr. Lincoln had the saddest face I ever attempted to Paint. During some of the dark days of the spring and summer of 1864, I saw him at times when his care-worn, troubled appearance was enough to bring tears of sympathy into the eyes of his most bitter opponents."

Frederick Douglass (Abolitionist, former slave): "On my approach he slowly drew his feet in from the different parts of the room into which they had strayed, and he began to rise, and continued to rise until he looked down upon me, and extended his hand and gave me a welcome. I began, with some hesitation, to tell him who I was and what I had been doing, but he soon stopped me, saying in a sharp, cordial voice, "You need not tell me who you are, Mr. Douglass, I know who you are. "

Nathaniel Hawthorne (Writer): "By and by, there was a little stir on the staircase and in the passageway; and in lounged a tall, loose-jointed figure, of an exaggerated Yankee port and demeanor, whom, (as being about the homeliest man I ever saw, yet by no means repulsive or disagreeable,) it was impossible not to recognize as Uncle Abe.....There is no describing his lengthy awkwardness, nor the uncouthness of his movement.....He was dressed in a rusty black frock-coat and pantaloons, unbrushed, and worn so faithfully that the suit had adapted itself to the curves and angularities of his figure, and had grown to be an outer skin of the man. He had shabby slippers on his feet. His hair was black, still unmixed with gray, stiff, somewhat bushy, and had apparently been acquainted with neither brush nor comb, that morning, after the disarrangement of the pillow; and as to a night cap, Uncle Abe probably knows nothing of such effeminacies. His complexion is dark and sallow, betokening, I fear, an insalubrious atmosphere around the White House; he has thick black eyebrows and an impending brow; his nose is large, and the lines about his mouth are very strongly defined.

The whole physiognomy is as coarse a one as you would meet anywhere in the length and breadth of the States, but, withal, it is redeemed, illuminated, softened, and brightened, by a kindly though serious look out of his eyes, and an expression of homely sagacity, that seems weighted with rich results of village experience.  A great deal of native sense; no bookish cultivation, no refinement; honest at heart, and thoroughly so, and yet, in some sort, sly---at least, endowed with a sort of tact and wisdom that are akin to craft, and would impel him, I think, to take an antagonist in flank, rather than to make a bull-run at him right in front. But, on the whole, I liked this sallow, queer, sagacious visage, with the homely human sympathies that warmed it; and, for my small share in the matter, would as like have Uncle Abe for a ruler as any man whom it would have been practicable to put in his place. "

Walt Whitman (Poet), On Lincoln's face: In technical beauty it had nothing---but to the eye of a great artist it furnished a rare study, a feast and fascination. The current portraits are all failures----most of them caricatures......I have never seen one yet that in my opinion deserved to be called a perfectly good likeness; nor do I believe there is really such a one in existence."

Carl Shurz (German American political supporter): "His greatest power consisted in the charm of his individuality. That charm did not, in the ordinary way, appeal to the ear or to the eye.  His voice was not melodious; rather shrill and piercing, especially when it rose to its high treble in moments of great animation. His figure was unhandsome, and the action of his unwieldy limbs awkward. He commanded none of the outward graces of oratory as they are commonly understood. His charm was of a different kind. It flowed from the rare depth and genuineness of his convictions and his sympathetic feelings. Sympathy was the strongest element in his nature."

Bram Stoker (writer): "He (Lincoln) was the ugliest man I ever saw, but when he began to speak his face became transformed and what a face it was then, it seemed somehow lit from within, as if his very soul was shining through. In such moments he seemed inspired and looked almost beautiful in his strength."

Douglas Wilson on Lincoln's appearance when he first appeared in New Salem: "He was ungainly, he was penniless, he was uneducated, he was poorly and eccentrically dressed, and he was notably unhandsome".

A.K. McClure (Senator who went to visit President elect Lincoln in Springfield): "I went directly from the depot to Lincoln's House and rang the bell, which was answered by Lincoln himself opening the door. I doubt whether I wholly concealed my disappointment at meeting him. Tall, gaunt, ungainly, ill clad, with a homeliness of manner that was unique in itself, I confess that my heart sank within me as I remembered that this was the man chosen by a great nation to be its ruler in the gravest period of history. I remember his dress as if it were yesterday---snuff-colored and slouchy pantaloons; open black vest, held by a few brass buttons; straight or evening dress-coat, with tightly fitting sleeves to exaggerate his long, bony arms, and all supplemented by an awkwardness that was uncommon among men of intelligence.  Such was the picture I met in the person of Abraham Lincoln. We sat down in his plainly furnished parlor, and were uninterrupted during the nearly four hours that I remained with him, and little by little, as his earnestness, sincerity, and candor were developed in conversation I forgot all the grotesque qualities which so confounded me when I first greeted him. Before half an hour had passed I learned not only to respect, but, indeed, to reverence the man."

One time, during a political discussion, someone accused Lincoln of being ’two faced’ on an issue. Replied Lincoln, “Do you think, if I had two faces, that I would be wearing this one?” 

What will follow, in part two of this musing, are little tidbits which help to portray the personality of Lincoln. Just knowing Lincoln’s political positions do little justice to the essence of Lincoln as a person.