Santa Claus

I spilled this deep, heart-felt disclosure about my childhood back a few months ago while participating in a writing seminar.  Now that 'Tis the Season..., why not share it with my readers here?

            Growing up in a big family on a tiny farm in the early nineteen fifties, I was aware at a very early age that we were poor; more aware after starting school at the age of six and mingling with children of the not-so-poor.  My parents struggled to manage the bare necessities of life.  My mother could seemingly extract from thin air the ingredients for meals that kept us from starvation.  Because of her hard work, minding the huge garden we had each summer and then putting up hundreds of jars of produce in the fall, our table was never quite bare.  But it was never abundantly filled either.  This amazing woman also made clothes for her many children by cutting up flour sacks and creating garments, by hand-stitching as well as using a finicky treadle-type sewing machine.  Extremely few items ever came into our house through monetary purchases.  Money was almost non-existent.

          My reason for believing in Santa Claus until I was almost eight years old probably was a direct result of my acute awareness of our poverty.  Anything Santa brought was free!  No scarce dollars had to be pulled from the meager family budget to spend for these yearly gifts.  When an older brother picked on me for still believing in Santa upon the delivery of a beautiful new sled for my seventh Christmas, I fought with him and cried angrily and pitifully.  In truth, I wanted to fight the world that had deceived me, and my own parents who aided and abetted the cruel world, promoting the fat man in the red suit who did not exist.  I recall with absolute clarity the feeling of utter disbelief in the new truth, followed by utter despair.  The unfairness of life became a sudden crushing weight on my developing psyche as my family sacrificed to buy gifts for me. 

          That unfairness and my deeply ingrained hatred of deception have contributed to every step in the formation of who I am.  To this day, no single experience surpasses “The Santa Lie” for its impact on my view of the world. 

Today, my adult(!) psyche is developed (or at least aged) to the point that I can see the many fat men in red suits at this season and not fly into a rage.  A few times, back around 1990, I even donned the prescribed attire and became the jolly fat man myself.  Why not?  It was just another acting gig.  I had pimped myself out to corporate America for hundreds of spokesman jobs; how could Christmas and its idiocy be any worse?  It really wasn't a hard job and the smiles brought to most faces when the red suit and fluffy white beard entered the room, well, in some ways it made everything okay.  But I still hate the bastard called Santa!

Nowadays, being an actual senior (jolly old elf) citizen, currently with a scruffy white beard which will probably never be fluffy, I can be more myself without catering to so many others and their craziness.  Oh sure, I have to endure some fools who might become real estate clients, but I can draw some limits around the amount I am willing to prostitute myself for their business.  I am also a little more adept now at deflecting rank prejudice and nasty comments without having to completely offend the offenders.  Strange how society requires us to be magicians and dancers (or prancers and vixens) in order to survive.

But being able to keep some personal perspective on the Santa BS doesn't mean it is easy to overcome the hateful image.  What it may be doing to others, especially young, impressionable minds, bothers me a great deal.  I have to keep reminding myself that I have known many well-balanced, well-adjusted folks who simply blew off the whole big lie with aplomb, and apparently did so at a very early age.  Their psyches were obviously not as whacked out as was mine.  So probably not everyone gets the brunt of the bad joke as a huge slap in the face as it was for me.  Good!  But I still can't see why humans continue to force total foolishness onto their beautiful children who are sponges for learning and deserve actual information to be available instead of the BS.

Would it not be truly magnificent for all parents to drop the whole sham and readily explain to their small children that "Here is a special gift from Mommy and Daddy?"  Why would anyone choose to take no credit for giving a child something of value or something that is known to be what the child wants?  In my estimation, the concept is a sinister head-start program to prepare a fresh new mind for the bigger lie ahead: that a loving holy father, a god, a supreme being is surely there also to give abundantly throughout life.

In a world that is heavily besieged by corruption, deception, stealing, hating, abusing and generally destroying much of the good that life has to offer, why start our own beautiful children on their road with a giant (but pretty and insidious) lie?  Maybe I am wrong on this whole thing.  Perhaps it has always been used as a vaccination against all the crap life can throw at us.  We find out our own parents lied to us for as long as we were gullible enough to believe them, so it would be smart to distrust the world and prepare to protect ourselves from it.  What doesn't kill you makes you stronger?  Is that the mentality we are seeing in play here with Santa?


DEC. 31  HAPPY NEW YEAR!  New post coming tomorrow. 

Clear as Black and White

** Note added at bottom - March 6, 2012

This will begin as an extension of the previous post but will reach to the ugliest evils of ignorance.

THINK about this!

Years ago I heard someone say, "You don't know what you don't know."

Now there's a genius line.  That's what I snarkily thought at the moment, but the expression has stuck with me for probably forty years or more.  And it is actually rather profound.  The easily tossed out comment sounds silly and pointless to repeat.  But the meaning is enormous.  And overlooked.

Extreme case: a man said he was going to become an inventor.  When asked what kind of things he might invent, he said he planned to write to the U.S. Patent Office and obtain a list of all the things that had not yet been invented; then he could choose.  A brilliant example of ignorance!

There are millions of matters in life about which I know nothing.  If asked about any one of them, typically I am honest and simply admit I don't know.  After a previously unheard-of matter is discussed with me and I find it interesting enough to study further, I can then say "Yes, I know about that."  I can also then form an opinion about the matter, can decide whether I agree with what others are saying about it or whether it should consume any more of my time.

This life-long desire to know has driven me to read a lot and to ask questions when I felt someone might help to educate me.  Far from perfect in this pursuit of knowledge, I have some experiences seared into my memory of the times I piped up without knowing whereof I spoke.  We've all heard others do this and we disrespect them for it.  Most of us can recall making noises that revealed our ignorance.  Trouble is, we sometimes pick up ideas or misinformation by hearing what others think, and their opinions may be completely faulty.  Opinions are quickly set in minds and repeated with abandon, even if the individual speaking out is still in ignorance.  

Someone who is a close enough acquaintance I almost consider him a friend, actually spoke out recently at a dinner party, with several other acquaintances present, and said, "Obama has sure made a mess of things."  And several of the other more-or-less friends around the table jovially agreed with him and expressed hope that our sitting president would be beaten in the next election.

As much as I try to remain neutral, as much as I repudiate confrontation, there are times a person of integrity is required to step into the fray.  The void in intelliget conversation must at times be bridged by anyone who can speak clearly about simple facts.  That doesn't mean I assume it's up to me; I don't actually look for chances to be the voice of reason.  Truth be told, I prefer to extricate myself from such situations without comment, maintaining my neutrality.  This time, while sitting at a dinner table, still early in the meal, a gracious exit was not reasonably easy to pull off.  Therefore, I spoke up.  My response to these people was kept as calm as possible, even though I typically flare a little in the face of ignorance being flaunted as fact or logic.

My approach was as brief as practical, essentially kept to three (compound) questions:  1.) Did the destruction of the U.S. economy happen overnight or did it take the eight years of the previous administration?  2.) Were the policies that led to economic destruction put upon us by President Obama or were they well ensconced during the failed administration that catered to Wall Street?  And 3.) How many years would it take any one of us to dig us all out of the pit into which our country was forced by those failed policies? 

Later I inserted the quick last question to the group who all seemed to be spouting the typical ignorant thought that we needed somebody - just anybody - to beat Obama in the next election.  My question, which could not be answered, was, "Who do you see on the political horizon who can solve our economic woes at all, even if given two terms to do it?"

The dinner conversation topic got changed.

As I often point out, I am a political Independent.  My lack of confidence in any political party and usually, any politician, is profound.  To look today at a Romney, a Gingrich, a Blah-Blah-Blah or any of the several inept pretenders to the presidency, is profoundly frightening.  Frightening because who knows what can happen?  It was a confused and obviously disturbed electorate (plus a Supreme Court ruling) that placed an ignorant and destructive man into the high office in 2000, and it was a completely unconscious or masochistic electorate that allowed him to return in 2004 after we all could see the clear evidence that he was destroying our nation's integrity.  These same (well-meaning, perhaps) fellow citizens are the people who will go to the polls in 2012, and the dangers that lurk there are the cause of my discomfort.

Even if you are a fan of Fox News, you surely can't be missing the unbelievable display of incompetence on the part the many candidates.  Not one of them shows any capacity to govern, and not one of them will stand up against big money and corporate greed.  Their own personal greed is no doubt involved.  In fact, all photos of the Republican candidates should be shown with $ symbols for eyes; that appears to be the guiding force for all.  (Perhaps not for Ron Paul; his guiding force is a bit unclear.)  Yet some people whom I know personally would rather see another ignoramus in the highest office of our land, even if it means he will be another puppet of Wall Street.  If you are in the upper reaches of the 99% and are not yet feeling as beaten down as most of us, just keep flattering the rich and electing their puppets.  Eventually, when our democracy is completely gone, you may awake to the fact that you were as meaningless to the super rich as are the rest of us.  Would it not be better for yourself and all of us to wake up sooner?

And when we are finally a Plutocracy in fact, there will be no voting.  99% of us won't count.

Hopefully you will take time to THINK before voting for just anybody in order to unseat Obama.  At the very least, we have today an intelligent man at our helm.  And by all appearances, he cares about helping the people at least as much as helping himself.  Whether he can steer us as a country, while having to struggle with a recalcitrant congress at every step, to finally attain a new state of national integrity and economic prosperity is anybody's guess.  Only time will tell, and the time may not be given him because of the ever-present ignorance.

And something else: racism.  That's right, I strongly suspect racism is at the deep-seated core of many of the criticisms of our president.  I personally hear the small (sometimes blatant) tones of residual racial prejudice right here in my own neighborhood.  People can vehemently deny that anti-black sentiments play any part in their criticisms of our president, but I am not convinced.  I wonder whether many people know themselves deeply.  A man who slips while talking with me about the changes in our community, spilling a revelation of his fear that blacks are going to take over, is not a man who can look at our mixed-race chief executive and squelch a desire for an all-white replacement.  Perhaps it's unconscious on their part, but it's clear that racism is being practiced among my neighbors.  (I'm confident this small community is a tiny microcosm of our national society.)  Even a few of those who might have voted three years ago for Obama (maybe only because they were more anti-Palin or more prejudiced against females than against someone of mixed race), are now hopeful that some white guy can step in and solve our problems.  Fat chance!  It was despicable white guys who ran us into the ditch, and it will take more than a simple new white face in the White House to help us recover.  I maintain my support for intelligence as the key to any possible recovery.

Please don't point to Herman Cain as some kind of proof I am wrong about the racism.  His was never a candidacy to be taken seriously by anyone other than the powerful tycoons behind his bid, apparently seeing him as the ultimate in simple puppetry.  Even with this ugly prospect, I half hoped the zany, fractured GOP would nominate him.  At least I could have been less concerned about a potential defeat of Obama.  A man who couldn't speak to anything outside of his narrow business experience would never(!) have a chance to push aside an incumbant who is ten times more intelligent and only half as black!  The (!) is evidence that even as I write this, I cannot shake my fear of the ignorance!

The biggest concern about the racism factor is that it can be completely subliminal.  Many folks who believe themselves to be utterly unaffected by race in any matter can suddenly find no reason for a tug in one direction as opposed to another, unless the ugly old twinge of racial discrimination might be at the root of the question.  I often check myself to see whether any of my own motives are colored by color.  An interesting article by Dafna Linzer published in The Washington Post and in the online news commentary, ProPublica, shows that racial overtones had crept into the process of presidential pardons.  Officials claimed total surprise at the findings and could not see how the numbers could have shown such a disparity.  No one mentioned subliminal racism as a cause, but it almost certainly was.  Short of being in our DNA, racism is about as deeply entrenched in our subconscious as any human tendency outside of survival and sex drives.

Please, when it comes to elections, check your own racism quotient just to be sure of your own motives; and please don't cast an ignorant vote for another incompetent candidate who will take us closer to our demise.

And following this post, we will avoid the subject of politics for a while.  After all, Christmas is coming!

** Update NOTE:  Mar. 6, 2012  -  A study just completed announced today that black students are three times more likely than their white peers to be suspended or expelled.  Probably just a meaningless coincidence!  The news of this came at the very same time as the news that a Colorado court has ruled that students may carry guns on campus.  Our nation is so advanced and our citizens all socially aware; we are so totally healthy in our practices.  And racism no longer exists!  Aren't we grand?!

Ignore Ants

Today the tiny group of the very wealthy, those now generally called "the 1%," are in a position particularly estranged from the common man on the street (or at home with no job, or standing in the park with others protesting our current mess), and quite possibly cannot see the rest of us at all.  To those extremely wealthy folks in their ivory towers, we of the 99% are too far below to even be in view; we are simply the ants of society - going about our mundane business, crawling over obstacles as best we can, struggling to bring home some tiny morsel to help us survive.  The super-rich are quite removed from the common man.  They hardly know about our survival plight, and except for Warren Buffett and possibly one or two others of great character, they prefer to ignore us.  Ignore ants can be their simple mantra; we are nothing to them.

But now some few of the vaunted rich are having to deal with the ants that have begun to spoil their picnic.  Oh, it isn't actually possible to affect them substantially, but it is not as easy at the moment for them to completely ignore the ants.

What amazes me today, where I reside among quasi intelligent folks, is that many of the less destitute ants in our society are superficially separating themselves from the rest of the 99% and appear to be cultivating a kinship to the 1% in some kind of wishful thinking, I suppose.  Or just bone-headed NON-thinking is more likely.  Some who are comfortable, in that they no longer need to struggle mightily to survive, want to see themselves as part of the upper crust of society and can no longer identify with the low-life types who are not so fortunate.  Many (perhaps most) of today's low-lifes have merely the bad luck of bad timing to thank for their condition of near poverty.  Only a few of the more fortunate among us can admit (or even realize) that they were the beneficiaries of some dumb luck along the way, the timing that fell just right for them to become comfortable while others continued to struggle.  Some of these folks have become the self-righteous ants who can look down upon the poor ants and try to ignore them.  But the vantage point these people hold, being only a notch or two above the dirt-poor, does not allow them to completely ignore the ants, it allows them only to feel superior.  Having to deal each day with all those others, the destitute and maybe ragged and ugly ants, keeps the slightly successful ants from being actually capable of completely ignoring them in the manner the 1% can.  So they end up just sounding smug and hateful.

A person of generally good demeanor, possessing a passion for life and pleased to be part of his society, can become involved in matters he might not have foreseen.  For example, thousands of society's ants are gathering in cities all around our struggling nation to participate in the Occupy movement.  Who are these folks who can take the time and effort to do this and feel it is the right thing to do?  Most are those who are out of work, looking into the face of poverty, seeing their chance of ever attaining part of The American Dream completely crumbling before them.

Who are the people criticizing these ne'r-do-wells, these thugs, these law-breakers (I hear these ugly slurs daily) who are causing disruption to our way of life?  Well, in most cases, the cruel critics are people who might themselves be in the Occupy groups but for the timing.  A neighbor in my community who is a senior citizen, living well in his paid-for home, enjoying his Social Security every month along with his larger monthly income from a solid pension he paid into during his good years of employment, somehow can look upon those protesters with disdain.  And but for the timing, but for his good luck, he could easily be one of them himself.  He'd prefer to think he is better than that, that he would never be such a rebel or lawless punk.  He simply refuses to mentally put himself into someone else's shoes for a moment.  Yet had he not met with the good fortune, the dumb luck, many years ago, he could easily have been marching with his fellow trouble-makers and living outside in the elements under the watchful eye of armed police, looking like a lawless mob on the newscasts, getting no respect from the comfortable ants of his society.  Odds are fairly strong that his own father would have been one of the dirty and miserable law-breakers among the great throngs of desperate marchers in the nineteen-thirties.

Any one of us who is less destitute than those marching in America's cities to call attention to the vast inequality of our financial system, should at least have a little empathy.  The protesters are there for the rest of us who are too comfortable, too afraid, too blind regarding the inequality or just too lazy to be there ourselves.

As to looking down on these ants of society, trying to assume the lofty position of that tiny 1% in our views of the Occupy crowd, it doesn't work for us comfortable ants.  When we try to ignore ants, it reveals a condition with a slightly different pronunciation.  Try putting the emphasis on the "ig" and see how it expresses that condition.  Trying to ignore ants makes us guilty of simple ignor-ants.  Ignorance is the proper spelling. 

We who are the luckier of the 99% are still in this mess with the unlucky; we still owe them our respect when they try to improve the world for us all.  Those who refuse to accept this simple fact and who look down upon and belittle the Occupy movement are not somehow raising themselves above the throngs of the abused; they are still being abused themselves.  They just aren't yet feeling the worst of the punishment being doled out by the Wall Street system.  Folks who have been successful enough that they are not yet desperate are still far from approaching membership in that small group of the filthy rich.  They are willfully choosing to live in filthy ignorance!  And the horrifying prospect of all this lies in the willful ignorance that will guide these folks when they step into a voting booth.

[Here's an interesting further word-play irony:  the comfortable ants are sneering at the down-trodden ants who are willing to march in protest on behalf of ALL ants.  Disrespecting the protest ants.  That's right - many who feel superior to the protest ants are themselves protestants!  And it's not all just the emphasis on syllables - it's the emphasis on character.  Odd little twist, is it not?]

Rattle of the Sexes

Since I abhor battles of any kind and much the more when opposite sexes are the combatants, I naturally dislike the old term, Battle of the Sexes, which has been around longer than anyone can remember.  But I also see most of these so-called battles as mere rattles, due to the desire we all have to get attention.  Fortunately, most of the fighting done between the sexes is limited to verbal skirmishes, but these can be pretty damaging, and in the awful extremities of the battle concept, can result in physical pain or worse.  Still, there will always be the rattling of words, hopefully in lieu of sabers.

I have long had this title in mind, thinking one day to try to write a book or at least an article so named.  Surprised it hasn't already been used as a book title by an authority on the subject - perhaps the writer of the Venus/Mars treatment.  Somewhere on the web there is a site called Citizen Poet in which the expression Rattle of the Sexes was picked up in my search, but I failed to locate the full piece entered there.  So I feel comfortable using it here in this little corner of the blogosphere.  Now I will make my foray into the world of sociological comment on one of the most confusing and misunderstood areas of human life: the male/female divide. 

Naturally, anything I might offer is as a layman only (no pun intended) because I am totally untrained in sociology.  Well, not totally.  I am, after all, a social animal, a senior citizen, and one who has lived a perhaps unusually active and varied life to this point.  So I do have some little insight, most of it learned in the school of hard knocks and personal experience.  The experiences have been of the beautiful type and of the cruelly painful type, with a few other types along the way.  But all have been instructive and therefore, over the course of six decades, positive. And the marvel of the Internet allows me to be quite frank, even blunt, and not constrained by anyone's disdain for my lack of letters.

So my approach here will be to introduce my take on the rattle of the sexes topic by expostulating on some point, then allowing my views to be informed and perhaps altered by any comments that might be engendered. Then I plan to continue filling out the topic, in hit-and-miss fashion, by addressing related issues in future posts.  So feel free and welcome to be one of those who informs my view!

Jumping right in with alacrity, let's consider a sensitive area of conflict that may exist between mates after years of marriage: sexuality.  My experience, as well as what I hear in talks with many others, tells me that libidos and sexual interests do fluctuate for all of us as we age and seldom do they change in concert.  The common term we hear when a couple is separating is that the two people have "grown apart."  This surely involves a wide variety of ways in which the apartness manifests itself, but I am confident in my assertion that a high percentage of that grown apart state involves the sex drive and the sexuality field in general.

And it isn't merely the drive (or lack of drive) to participate in sex that changes as we grow older; it is the fact that many other variables come into play, and these also rarely match up between mates.  For example, fantasies.  I still chuckle when I recall a little joke I heard decades ago, involving an elderly couple who made the commitment one night to try sex again following a few weeks without.  After unconvincing fondling of one another for a while with no apparent excitement developing for either, the man finally sighed and asked, "You couldn't think of anybody either, huh?" 

At least these two understood each other.  For many sex partners, the concept of fantasizing is a closely kept secret.  How many people utilize a fantasy now and then during sex in order to achieve orgasm which may not arrive or may take far longer to achieve with just the action of the moment?  Do ALL humans fantasize?  My baseless guess is that more than 95% do, and probably absolutely everyone has once or twice.  [Here I will admit to lots of guessing.  Were I as capable as a Dr. Kinsey, I would document a basis for my percentages.  On the other hand, though Kinsey went about it using a scientific methodology, I don't believe he used a polygraph when he questioned his survey participants.  Knowing the human capacity for deception - including self-deception - I will guess his numbers were off by a wide margin.]  How many people would you suppose will admit to using fantasy during sex?  Another wild guess of mine would be less than half of those who do so will admit it.  How many would admit to it if actually asked by a mate during the sex act?  I'd say maybe 5% (being generous) would be honest at that moment.  No harsh criticism intended here; it may not be only self-protection or embarrassment that would cause a person to lie about this point.  Truly caring for a mate might cause any of us to make a judgment call at the moment to protect him/her from the pain of inadequacy one might feel if it were known that the partner is fantasizing.

Do men and women engage in fantasy in essentially equal numbers?  I'm guessing, yes.  Will men admit it as often as do women?  Very doubtful.  Do males and females have similar fantasies?  Probably never - or very seldom.  Do partners openly discuss the whole fantasy matter with each other?  Rarely.

The giant arena of fantasizing during sex is basically an unmentionable in human intimacy.  Yet it plays an enormous role in the sexual relationship of mates, and it can be quite literally the single largest factor when two people grow apart.  Their secretly held fantasies change in different ways; the fantasizers change also.

Good or bad - keeping fantasies as secretive as they have always been?  Tough call.  It seems to me that when mates, even those who proclaim that their bond is so complete that they have no secrets from each other - soulmates - come to the subject of sexual fantasies, they will shut down.  Something about fantasizing strikes fear into the hearts of sex partners.  One painful experience I will share dealt directly with this vague no-man's-land of fantasy.  My excitement over reading something my partner had written involving an intense fantasy of desire between two women, caused me to believe our personal sexual activity would advance into sharing another female in our sex play.  How wrong was that notion!  How quickly were we over!

Personally, I think this whole thing of sexual fantasy and its impact on our intimate encounters has been completely bungled.  Many have heard me voice this view along with my strong advocacy of the need to share our fantasies openly.  If one partner in a loving relationship is unwilling to share his or her fantasies with that one special mate, then how can the two go forward in a syncronous harmony for very long?  It seems they set themselves up for a fall.

Earlier, I alluded to my doubts that males and females ever fantasize in the same way.  Perhaps this discovery between mates, at an early attempt at minimal sharing of their personal fantasies, causes them to cease trying to do so further.  And maybe this is the beginning of their separate directions in sexual comfort zones.  When a woman hears that her guy, who loves her so much, harbors fantasies of threesomes (as I admitted to a partner and to you here), how does she take this news?  Can she ever feel that she is "enough" for him after that admission?  And a man who finds that his little woman is prone to visualize a prince or a knight on a white steed coming to rescue her, and this aids in her orgasm, how does he feel?  Does he not begin to wonder about why she needs a rescue?  Why she wants something he could never be?

Of course, the above is generalizing and gross over-simplification.  But admit it; a man's fantasy is most likely going to include nudity, "base" lustful and lurid scenarios, and often with more than one lusty female.  It's why men are typically branded as simple.  [And if there are any straight males who have not fantasized about sex with two women at once, I do not know these men.]  Females who discuss their fantasies typically don't cite those bare-chested models from paperback romance novel covers as their fantasy subjects, but rather they think of impressive, wealthy, royal, strikingly handsome or super-strong males.  Males who are seldom naked!

The rattle of the sexes begins not in words but in thoughts, most of which are subliminal for many years.  We apparently have some basic big differences in these subliminal thoughts beginning when the developing fetus takes on the role of either gender.  Then from the moment we breathe the outside air and begin the long developmental slog through learning about life, we are aided(!) by societal stereotyping in assuring we as males and females will never be alike  in any way, especially in our fantasies.

I submit that when two young people are first married (probably slightly before the wedding would be much better), they should calmly and openly discuss fantasies and share a large laugh over the major differences in the fundamental thinking of the sexes.  Then from that point, plan to keep each other updated by allowing new fantasies to be discussed without judgment as their lives progress.  This could become a whole new area of sharing that would further bind two people in love, and often each would benefit from the other's nuances on the subject of fantasizing.  If the opposite were to occur and they eventually were to grow apart anyway, at least their sharing of individual fantasies might provide a heads-up for them both and give a hint as to what simmering thought might be about to rear its newly assertive head and bite them.

Much, much more can be said about the subject; I will probably say more myself.  But now it's time to see whether others may have something to say.  Perhaps I will learn a great deal; perhaps some sharing here can be healthy and helpful to a few of us.  Perhaps I will hear nothing from anyone and will have to wonder whether I have stepped into a no-no zone instead of my neutral zone.  Oh, well, I hope someone gets something out of my ramblings.  And you might enjoy visiting this no-no zone if you're not too timid.

Please remember that many great contributions have been made over centuries from that wise and prolific writer, Anonymous.  If you are one of his descendants, I'm always glad to hear from you.  Or consider creating a private user name. This keeps you completely unidentifiable but allows you to comment often and develop a thread.  Any approach is a good one.  How often can that be said?!

Aliens - of the Close Kind

Another forwarded article has drifted my way, as forwards often do because of well-intentioned efforts of thoughtful folks in my circle of contacts.  This one dealt rather harshly with the ever-present Illegal Aliens among us.  Unfortunately, not space aliens.  (Surprisingly, none of my friends can claim to have direct contact with these as yet!)  If I understood the message properly, the particular aliens in question in this case were the Hispanic border-crossing hordes(!).

Often do I ponder the wonders of dumb luck.  Of pure chance.  WE [humans] have nothing whatsoever to say about where WE are born.  And WE who happened to be born in the USA are so pleased to fly OUR flag and snuggle up to the concept of WE - the People.  The people of a particular country.  WE who are fortunate to be born on a piece of our planet that might lie just across a river, or across an invisible line called a border, from folks born in another, perhaps poorer, division of the planet, somehow can become attached to OUR little plot and feel a ferocious possessiveness about it.  Hardly ever is there a big thing made of being part of the WE of North America.  Or the WE of the whole Western Hemisphere.  More likely the fiercest of OUR personal loyalties are broken down to individual states due to "friendly" competitions such as in college and professional sports.  Texans who have never played a sport can be heard to say that WE have a better team than THEY do - the THEY being maybe Oklahoma or Arkansas.  And those in Kansas might say "WE are better than Nebraska."  The same kind of exclusivism is big in politics, commerce and other institutions within our society.

Of course WE (as individuals) are at times entirely put out by other members of the WE who don't see things the way WE do.  I am taken aback often by the way in which I am expected to be a loyal part of a WE group in which I am a total misfit. 

As an agent for real estate sales, I am actually expected at times by a few members of MY small community to be true to OUR type and do my best to avoid selling property to THEM.  And it's not always clear which part of the THEM is most undesirable to US, but I am supposed to understand and help keep some kind of purity in OUR neighborhood.  Keeping US protected from those of another race, I believe is what's being hinted at by MY fellow lily-white Anglos.  Some have the gall to assume that I would surely want only folks just like themselves to become MY new neighbors.  Truth be told, many of the people I find myself having to deal with simply because of our proximity, I would gladly replace with nicer people.  Maybe that's the kind of red-lining I could unethically practice - refusing to sell property to anyone who isn't nice!

Typically I detest being thought of as one of US.  Especially to join against THEM.

Remember the scene in The Sound of Music film when the infatuated eldest daughter confronted the good guy she had seen at least once (and shared a spirited duet of Sixteen Going on Seventeen), in the courtyard of the church?  He was hunting down her escaping family because he was now part of the Hitler Youth, working his way into the Nazi military.  She thought she was appealing to his good guy inner core by saying "You'll never be one of THEM."  And he blew the whistle.  He so wanted to be one of THEM.  And we know from history, Hitler so wanted the likes of him and other blond, blue-eyed Aryans who could help him establish the master race and rid the world of all the OTHERS - those who simply weren't pure enough to live among the master race.

Are WE, the accidental citizens of the USA, part of a master race?  Oh, wait, WE are already made up of many races, thanks to all the aliens who arrived here over generations, so what kind of master-GROUP are we now considering ourselves?  And are WE too good to have to endure aliens?

The forwarded message I mentioned at the beginning was pointing out all the waste of OUR dollars in caring for the hordes of illegals crossing OUR borders.  The question being asked was, why should WE have to feel responsible to spend OUR hard-earned money helping THEM?  It was an exemplary effort made to study the amounts of money spent on health care for THEM and in losses of jobs that WE could have had if THEY weren't allowed to stay in OUR country.  Then the article brought up the concern that a bunch of stinking Liberals will try to take the heat off those budget-draining aliens by saying that it's the stupid wars in which we are embroiled that should be ended so money could be saved in that way.  The point being made by the writer, it seems, is that the wars are fine; if WE could just quit spending so much on THEM, the illegal aliens who dare to sneak into OUR country, then WE could go on spending money where it needs to be spent - killing enemies.

The writer's fairly transparent attitude was that instead of spending OUR money on aliens, it might be better to stand them up in rows and mow them down with bullets. 

First of all, even if his huge figures (spent on aid) were factual, they are still a pittance when compared to what has been spent in the wars we have [mis]managed over the last decade.  But here's the rub to a devout Humanist and progressive idealist such as I:  ANY amount spent on war is TOO MUCH.  Any amount spent to assist human beings, inside or outside any border, is money well spent.  When considering the two choices of helping people on the one hand and killing people on the other, I choose to be on the side of helping humans live.

Mayan Mystery

Setting aside a few other topics I have been wanting to address, I will attempt to do justice to a matter that is perhaps more urgent: the END of the WORLD - - again.

Not wanting to make this a simple tirade, for which I seem to be known, I will treat this with some dignity.  After all, from the perspective of some, it is of the utmost importance.  The calendar produced by the Mayans is showing full stop in about thirteen months.  And people are concerned over this.  Even people I care about intensely are concerned about this end-of-the-world scenario.  Therefore it behooves me to give it the time as well as a sincere effort to understand so that I am not just offensive but perhaps persuasive.

Why am I not shivering in dread over the coming event to end all events?  Why did I toss off glib comments and make a golf date for the day pin-pointed as EW-Day?  (EW for End of the World in this case)  Why would I dismiss the whole concept as laughable in front of someone dear to me who first brought it to my attention?

The last question is the easiest to answer, actually.  I wanted very much for him to recognize instantly that I was probably right to be dismissive and to go about living as always with no continuing thought for the whole Mayan mystery.  But again, there's that thing called perspective that trips me up.  My perspective on a good many things, because I'm now an old fart, is going to often be vastly different from that of someone more youthful, more vibrant, more concerned with long-term planning.  But in this Mayan matter, apparently anything more than a year out is considered too long a term to plan.  So for some, this is a very big hurdle to clear.  Personally, I expect to be here plugging along in my off-beat way and getting in as much golf as my aging knees, feet, back and the rest of the old rack of aching bones will bear, for maybe another thirty years.  A friend of mine who was ninety-eight still played a pretty good game of golf until last fall when one fine day he finished a game and went home to sit down and fall into his final nap.  I aspire to this great accomplishment myself. 

Naturally, I will be really ticked if this whole thing ends in only thirteen months instead of allowing time for my personal plan to play out!  So I need to look at how others might feel, people who may have thoughts of fifty, seventy-five or more years perhaps to enjoy this life.

The key here, in my humble opinion, is to enjoy!  One thing my view from an older stance has given me is the ability to be more philosophical about it all.  I figure there's no way to control any of our ultimate futures, length of life, avoidance of accidents or destructive diseases, so each day we live is really to be cherished and appreciated for all it's worth.  My own son, wise in his youth, re-stated a beautiful axiom to me just recently.  Paraphrasing it here from memory: Yesterday is history, tomorrow is mystery; all we have is today which is a gift - the reason it's called the present.  I think this sums up a great deal of all the various reasons we need to focus on enjoying each day for itself alone. 

Now to the Mayan calendar matter.

My wife, upon hearing of the gravity some folks are giving to this subject, asked me if maybe they think the Maya were the oldest society on Earth.  I told her I didn't think anyone believed that, but even that possibility still wouldn't do it for me.  So what if they were the very first civilized people?  Would that mean they had special knowledge of how everything would end?  Everyone basically believes that the ancient Egyptians were the first advanced society, but does that drive me to want to learn how to read their hieroglyphics in order to reach some conclusions as to the end of the world?  Not at all.  They had not nearly as much knowledge in any way as do today's scientists and other dedicated students of life, and I would not give any credence to one of today's learned individuals who turns interesting conjecture into absolutism about the future and falls prey to total confidence in his/her own prognostications.  All of these people have the same gift of living today as we all possess.  And I submit that even the most capable and respectable student of life has no more insight than anyone else has into some end-of-it-all coming event.  The Maya included.

In all this discussion we should also understand that even though we respect the studies into antiquity, there is no certifiable proof that the facts we think we know about the Maya and their famous calendar are very trustworthy.  What if we read into their final chiseled symbols the idea that "Here life ends" when what they wrote was "Here we end our work."  Might even have been a typo, carved in stone!  There could be no possible proof that their ending of the calendar was their dire prediction that all the world would end.  Actually, being brutally frank, the world as Mayans knew it ended many centuries ago.  What might today be read back into the old clever symbology carved on stones in Peru is quite meaningless as a plan for my life.

  My personal opinion as to why their calendar comes to an end is that they simply stopped work on it.  They had to stop it at some point!  How could they continue to project future years following their own demise?  After all, their society became an interesting study in history because of their sudden demise.  Who would have been left to continue carving on their famous project, which apparently already reached more than a millennium beyond themselves?  That very idea, that these intelligent people would bother to project their calendar out so far beyond their own day, probably is what captures the imaginations of so many and gives the Maya something of a godship status. 

The only possibility I might see here would be to accept Von Daniken's concept of early human societies, especially Egyptian and Mayan, having been visited, influenced and guided by highly advanced extraterrestrial beings.  This could explain many things, including why all societies on Earth have wildly divergent yet eerily similar ideas about a supreme being.  To believe the hype about the Mayan calendar's meaning to us, I would need to accept carte-blanche the whole extraterrestrial thing, which by the way, is somewhat less of a stretch than are the multitude of "god" concepts.

To address all the thousands (quite literally) of other dates that have been set by other believers in doomsday events would be totally impossible for me and not any more clarifying really.  If some idea grabs a person and makes him/her delve into it with the zeal of a new convert, there is no reasoning that will make someone wake up to the zaniness anyway.  Back in May of this year, there were no doubt a few fringe Christians who waited expectantly when some loony pastor gave his pick for a last-day-on-Earth.  When that day came and went, a few of the folks bought into his new pick of a day in October, now about two weeks past.  I am absolutely sure that a few still hold on to the old pastor's newer prophesies (he simply has to have some), but his particular silliness has at last been dropped from national newsworthiness.

What is actually worthy of our consideration is the more studiously considered and scientific approach to the big questions of life.  The scientific method of seeking proof of any thing's substance is still not widely followed by the common man because the mysterious has always held humans in thrall.  Explaining something by believing in it is somehow acceptable to most people.  Not for me.  Believing in something completely un-provable is what makes most people tick.  That doesn't do it for me.  Give me the eyes to see and I can choose to do what I will with the scene before me.  If the scene is beautiful, I can adore it and gaze upon it; if it's ugly, I can try cleaning it up or walk away from it.  I can place my reverence in the cosmos which is awesome, knowable, still mysterious in its vastness but not hidden from view.  Anyone truly interested in substantial reading that can inspire without the use of fear should try grasping Worldview Eyelemica.  The title sounds erudite and some of the words in the text are not heard every day, but the content has so much more meaning than all the studies into all the myths to which man has given his time and devotion.

I believe in the human capacity.  Not to predict a day to end life but to live a better life each day.

Epiphany Expanded

NEWS FLASH
As I paused in writing this early morning to check out the television news, the guide showed a half-hour program with Garner Ted Armstrong.  What a whiplash of consciousness for me!  I hit that channel button out of curiosity; just how old would be the video?  Might they be replaying his tapes from the sixties when I was in college and hung on every word he spoke?  When I played basketball with him and marvelled at the many tattoos emblazoned on his body?  Or would they replay video from the seventies leading up to his excommunication by his dad?  Or would it be from the last decade of his life, long after I had seen him and had lost all interest in his product?  But what I found instead was a replacement infomercial about better abs!  Fitting, I would say.  Take care of your body; you'll be better off in the long run!

But to continue my earlier writing - -

Subservient!  Such a demoralizing idea, handed to us by tradition and ages of servitude to something greater!  Such a difficult way to live, always assuming the worst about ourselves and our very tentative existence, all the while struggling to please something beyond our grasp.  Beyond our sight.  Humanity could be great!  But we waste so much energy on traditional nonsense.

My friend, Dr. John Bennett, writes of the magnificence of the cosmos and a healthy reverence humans might pay to the greatness of all that exists - to be better caretakers and stop destructive wars and pollution.  His science is all about energy and a proposed new law of energy.  His philosophy, rather than making worms of humans, shows us that we are indeed small in stature when compared to the amazing, ever-expanding universe, but that we may well be the keepers of the record of life and are probably the greatest product of the awesome forces of evolution.  Each human could be glorious while still human, rather than struggling against ourselves for all our lives to somehow, with great humility and hope-beyond-hope, perhaps qualify to become some other form in another life - finally, maybe, by the skin of our teeth and through ascetic self-denial, becoming glorious.

Personally, I try to be glorious pretty much daily.  Failure to manage this every day is inevitable, but trying is as simple as starting each day with a positive attitude instead of begging on my knees for help because I am so weak and worthless!  Many days, because I am happy to serve other humans without being subservient, I accomplish a decent amount of glory.  Sometimes I even allow myself a bit of crowing about it!  Typically though, I am quietly pleased with a day's outcome and go to sleep contented.  Never again will I see myself as a worm, and never again will I waste morning and evening time on my painful old knees to satisfy some foolish, age-worn concept of humility called subservience.  Not to an invisible supreme being nor to visible, greedy people who see themselves as worthy to be served.  To the Trumps of our society who expect to be served!

In reading the words purportedly spoken by a Son of God, that one should serve others, Christians have turned that into meaning one should be a slave to a belief, to be subservient to the ultimate guide, the supreme being.  The tendency then is to be subservient to the various vicars of that supreme being.  

Why are most of today's religious Americans part of the political right wing?  Why do they readily follow along with Republican policies?  Easier for me to understand now than it was ever before.  In fact, I could never grasp it in any way prior to my epiphany.  [ I'm interjecting here that none of this means I hate Republicans or Christians.  Rarely do I even experience hate; seeing my wife suffer pain - that I truly hate.  Humans, no.  I happen to love some folks who are of both persuasions, Christian and Republican, and I respect vast numbers of people who are both or either of the two.  All I ask is that people look inside their own traditions and habits with a healthy skepticism about the rightness of all their handed-down beliefs. ] 

The religious are taught from the cradle to be followers of strong lords.  If these believers ever stoop to being entangled in governments of this world, who represents the most powerful vicars to be followed within a government of man?  Naturally the wealthiest and most powerful.  Why would so many within the 99% of our nation, in financial terms, be so willing to support and cater to those wealthiest who keep gaining ever more wealth by their greed and their purchased control of our elected representatives?  I believe now it is a simple thing: they are living vicariously through these lords and have some vague hope of becoming the lords themselves - much the way I was an aspiring "God" back in my Christian days.  Our sect taught us to believe we would eventually be part of the God family!  That we would rule our own worlds, that of the increase of His government there would be no end!  Is it not understandable, within the framework of this heavy concept of belief in a hoped-for next life, that once a person tries to flee the madness of one small sect, his sight would turn to new lords and not to self-assertion and independence?  Just ponder the question.

Please understand me here, dear Reader; I am not talking politics.  I am talking, I suppose, sociology in some way, though as an untrained sociologist.  I hope those young students of the discipline such as Joy who writes in that other blog mentioned, will take up where I am incapable of expounding and will do some serious research.  I am philosophizing free-style here.  That's what free-thinkers do.  And don't get the idea I am some kind of bleeding-heart liberal, as a friend named George recently branded me.  I am in fact, extremely liberal.  I am a free thinker!  Far too liberal and free to be labeled a Democrat!  I am truly democratic in my way of seeing the world; egalitarian to the max.  The far-right agenda sickens and angers me!  I see us as a nation, trudging surely to that theocracy concept that so infects the masses of our planet.  That stifling world of subservience exhibited by our sadly unenlightened Middle-East brothers belonging to faiths that gladly throw human life to the wind, killing insanely.  Where is the difference, really?  Any theocracy is as dangerous as the next.  And who wants to live under a theocratic form of government?  Christians do!  And what group of people could supply enough votes to sway our nation toward theocracy?  Christians.  It explains finally to me how our electorate could put back into office, in 2004, a complete incompetent who was far worse than just a buffoon.  He was a menace to the world and had already proven destructive to the American and democratic way of life.  The first president in our nation's history to attack a sovereign nation in an unprovoked war must have come across as powerful to religionists - and don't overlook the subliminal tendency Christians would surely have had then to vote for the guy most fiercely attacking that other huge religious group over there!

And apparently Christians loved our international embarrassment who masqueraded as a leader!  They appear to think a lot of his new clone who struts in the same Texas manner while running for office and scares the crap out of those of us who love democracy. 

So the two problems I have with today's Republicans (remember, I liked Ike!) are: 1.) They have sold themselves to the rich and powerful, and 2.) They have dragged Christians along with them by using the above described proclivity for the religious to follow the highest power available.  Now that these factions have formed their unholy(!) union, they appear determined to take us further down that road to a theocracy, to a restricted life, even as they try to use the word freedom in their appeal to the populace.  Throw in those social issues of when does life begin and is it okay to be gay, and you're all set to grind unbelievers into the dust of history.  And the 1% will gladly pay for the continued demise of democracy in the name of capitalism.  They destroy both.  And by the way, they don't really give a damn about your beliefs, Christians!

There will one day be no freedom left in the home of those not willing to be brave and not willing or able to think for themselves.  Again, I am not speaking politics here except as it applies to the trends that have been set in motion.  As a fierce independent, I detest any form of tyranny over the mind of man, including theocracy!

markman
   

Mini Epiphany

Some events of the past week have conspired to awaken me to a simple truth about humanity.  At least it's something that appears to me to be true - your slant on it may be quite different.

First, there was a planned march last Saturday (Oct. 15) in Palm Springs that linked up on
Occupy Together and other websites to the Occupy Wall Street movement.  Since my financial status places me in the lower, fat middle of the probably pear-shaped middle-class diagram, I felt it was time for me to register my complete dissatisfaction with the way our financial system's overlords have mismanaged our economy.  It's time to tell our controllers that greed is not the basis of democracy.  I marched in protest - for the first time ever.

Several days later, on Thursday, I attended the funeral of a friend.  No connection, right?  Absolutely right.  But during the throes of another half-sleep early morning mental montage session, I came upon something that hit me as though someone suddenly turned on a light.  Not entirely different from that moment back in 1963 when I was suddenly overwhelmed by some need to become a devotee of Christian fundamentalism while watching some emotional evangelist pace the stage at a tent meeting, his arms flailing and pages of his open bible flapping in the quick movements and night air.  That was what I have referred to elsewhere as the night I "saw the light."  It was a blinding light I had to extinguish with much effort thirteen years later - I chose not to be blind any longer.

No sudden light came to me during the funeral this week, and to be very strictly honest here, the person being honored at the ceremony was a woman I had not actually met.  She was a lady in her fifties, and I knew her by name only.  But some members of her family I have known for all of my adult life, and it was chiefly due to this younger sibling's crippling disease and her living arrangements away from the family that I had not met her nearly fifty years ago.  My desire to show respect for the deceased, but more to express friendship to her sisters and one brother whom I know pretty well, placed me in that funeral chapel.  And put me there at the grave site in a vast, sprawling memorial garden at the family plot.  This was a rare event for me, indeed.

Bear with me as I say only a few brief things about the service.  It is important to lay the groundwork for my epiphany, but I dare not ramble on as I am wont to do over religion and its mysteries.

The more years that pass between my rare visits to that arcane world of religious mutterings that are the requisite syntax of ceremonies such as funerals, the more I am mystified when I hear the mouthings again.  It was part of my responsibility for eight years of my [misspent] youth to conduct these ceremonies and try to somewhat sooth the hurt being felt by loved ones of the deceased.  But in the particular denomination to which I gave my obedience, it was also my instructed responsibility to preach the gospel to unbelievers.  Yes, it was told to us as the young tentacles of that little sect, that it was at funerals where we had an opening and a moral duty to speak truth with forceful directness to perhaps reach into the hearts and souls of some of those attending a service who may never otherwise be within earshot of the gospel.  A captive audience, in other words.  Hit 'em hard!

Following the graveside service on Thursday, the minister came around, being friendly to all and shaking hands.  Since he had been of the amiable sort when we arrived prior to the service at the chapel, had made the effort to approach me and offer his simple, first-name introduction to me, I felt I could cut him some slack.  I told him he did "a nice job."  He didn't need to know (but perhaps could read me a little and had some questions about what I really thought), that my compliment was extremely qualified.  "Nice job" meant in my mind that within the accepted, traditional framework of his responsibility to make soft sounds and utter empty promises based solely on biblical blatherings, he was okay as an officiant.  He did as his beliefs instructed him.  At least he was somewhat personable and had a decent talent for walking that line between being somber and light in his delivery.

The guy was practiced too in his stagecraft.  He was theatrically capable.  But something that irritated me in his graveside speech actually helped me toward my moment of clarity early this morning.  He quoted the last lines of the beautiful song, The Rose.  Just remember in the winter, far beneath the bitter snows - lies the seed that with the sun's [love], in the spring becomes the rose.  "Love" is placed here in brackets because, even though it is the word chosen by the lyricist, it was replaced in the ceremony by the word "warmth."

Why?  No way did he forget the actual lyric; he made the change purposely.  (Reminds me of those days long ago when I had to re-learn some old hymnal staples to be sung with changed words approved by the lyric arbiter of that little sect which had its divergent beliefs.)  My assumption here is that by saying "sun's love," the man might have felt he would be in some way practicing sun worship.  He had to have been subliminally asserting that it's only God's love that grows those flowers, not some ethereal "love" passed along by the inanimate sun.  (Surely the beautiful song's gifted composer will forgive this tiny correction!)  The man spoke as he had to speak, was afraid not to speak!  I far more respected my friend, the older brother of the deceased, who plainly spoke of questioning why things happen as they do.  He was honest and thoughtful.

So - my epiphany. 

To help me reach it, something I myself had written earlier in the week was a spark.  My facebook account on Friday flagged me to a comment on my wall post.  So I went to read the comment and perforce, read again my own post, seeing it differently somehow.  here it is:
You can still be my friend if you'd never stoop to marching in protest, however, I am proud to have made my first march ever - last Saturday. I'm quite sure I don't personally know anyone in the 1% but I'm equally sure I know a few who court that group. I cannot imagine why, as our democracy grows ever less concerned with the masses and more completely controlled by the extremely wealthy minority. I prefer democracy.

And I suddenly saw the answer.  The reason I know people who court the 1% of the world's wealthy, is that I know many Christians!  When I openly proclaim I believe in democracy, it now occurs to me, I am slapping in the face Christians - many of my former associates and some who are still friends.  (Please don't take offense; I mean none and had not known this was the case, until now.)  Why are Christians less likely to be democratic (small as well as large D) in their thinking?  Simply because the very devoted (as was I and are still many friends) have no fundamental feeling for the individual!  Besides, the very concept of thinking has never been encouraged by devotion to religious beliefs!  Our sect was openly, even vociferously, ruled from the top down.  No individual in our denomination had the right to question the apostle who ruled in Christ's stead.  (No surprise here, folks - a dude named Saul who was one of the better educated of his day was able to start a similar sect and he ruled in the same fashion.  These guys were simply opportunists.)  Our sect (some say derisively, cult) was a Theocracy.   And we had no part in governing - we were tightly (iron-fistedly) governed!  We were also instructed to have no part in the government of men.  We did not vote in national or state elections, did not even buy homes or become civic-minded citizens.  We were in this world but not of this world - a biblical principle I've seen quoted again recently in consternation by former sectarians who write in the Non-Believer website. 

Think about it!  The whole mystery of why dirt-poor and moderately well-off middle-class folks alike, who are devoted to a Christian ethic, would support the wealthiest 1% to the detriment of the masses - is simple!  All Christians, to greater or lesser degree, were strapped and bound to this top - down concept!  Voting?  Seriously?  Having a say in anything while being a worm (the scriptural degradation handed believers) and small dust in the balance?    

Seriously!  When I was a devoted Christian, a fundamentalist minister, completely given to that way of life, I had no leanings toward any government type at all outside the theocratic idea that God rules; I follow.  Once a devoted follower of any strong Christian belief system manages to leave a specific sect behind, does he automatically begin to think rationally and have individual strengths at hand to begin to use in building a personal life free of authoritarian guidance?  Not often, I perceive.  People struggle to shake off the old regime and most seem to gravitate toward some other, perhaps bigger, more mainstream denomination.  The bigger the more likely to be - what, right maybe?  At least safer, surely!  But few of us turn to reason and individual self-determination concepts because we simply were never prepared for such bold self-assertion.  We were trained, indeed commanded, to be humble.  Subservient! 

Cutting in here is ragged, but  I am ending this part of my insight, my epiphany at this point, having gotten long-winded and gone into more extensive philosophy as I tried to wrap this up.  My next post will pick up where this one leaves off.  For today, I will go about my routines feeling far from any routine I've followed in a long time!  I saw the light!

markman

Reality - Really?

No, it must be spelled realety.  Who knows?  When people don't care enough to actually think about the words they are attempting to say, what difference does spelling make?

This is a brief gripe session about my profession and the lack of respect my own kind pay to our industry.  Day after day, I must hear people destroy the word realty.  As well as Realtor.  My own company's founder and owner for four decades uses these foolish terms continually as do all the other Realtors in my office except for the daughter of the boss.  She's now the managing broker as her dad moves into semi-retirement (an expression that always makes me picture a truck driver retiring his old semi!).  Anyway, the daughter who grew up hearing the awful pronunciation of her dad's profession, somehow trained herself to say it correctly, so now she and I are the two of our group who know how to say "realty." 

Above, I said that this strange, non-word must be spelled realety.  The fact that most people (even many who know how to pronounce nuclear) say real-i-ty must be a bi-product of their ease of saying realestate, run together in this way as though dealing with one word.  So it follows that a company that practices realestate would place the word realety in its title.  And those agents working there are Realetors.  If people would stop and write down what they are saying - which Realtors do every day but use the actual spelling of realty - they should notice that the way they pronounce it does not match up with the way they write it.  They write two syllables and pronounce a third one that isn't there.  Now if they were to carefully sound out the manner in which they are speaking the word realty, they would probably have to write reality.  Why would they then not notice that in reality, they are speaking an entirely different word?  And why would anyone who uses these terms daily not only know how to pronounce them but also be instructing others (at least by example) in how to say them? 

So if you call my realestate office and anyone other than the managing broker should answer the phone (yours truly does not answer phones at the office), you'll hear, "CherryValleyRealety; how may I help you?"  Hopefully you will answer, "Oh, well, in reality I was hoping to reach a realty office!"  Of course you wouldn't do this, and as a courteous person, neither do I.  But it always requires discipline on my part to not hold an impromptu class in simple pronunciation logic.

It occurs to me that a professional Realtor would have reason to say either Realtor or realty somewhere between 20 and 40 times per day - over the course of a year, perhaps 10,000 times.  So in consistently saying Realetor and realety instead, the four-decade professional fellow mentioned above has waisted around half a million syllables and made people like me want to stop and correct him half a million times.  Hard to find any logic to this common foolishness.

But it does give critics like me a chance to feel superior!

"We'll Be PRAYING For Her"

Tomorrow, at long last, we are heading for the Desert Regional Hospital in Palm Springs, early, for my wife to have a hysterectomy.  This has been an obvious need for several months, even strongly recommended by a gynecologist in the first week of August.  Now after weeks of arranging and re-arranging plans through her HMO and affiliated resources, the surgery is finally set for tomorrow morning. 

Perhaps - just perhaps - some great years of better health and a new lease-on-life will be experienced by this lovely lady in her early sixties who has not known good health since her mid-teens.  That's when the migraine headaches began, which have increased in number and severity over the years.  Because her mother who suffered similarly, was freed from migraines upon menopause, the hope was always there that at least relief was on the way.  But through many years of a debilitating menopausal marathon, my wife not only did not lose the headaches, but has found them ever more difficult and life-altering in recent years.  Today, it's a rare morning when she awakes and can fully open her eyes to the light.  There is that slight but overwhelming hope in my own mind that tomorrow's necessary procedure may also finally bring the relief her mother's experience promised.

But this writing began this morning because of something the surgery has unleashed: a mega prayer fest.

Amazing to me how many people, both close associates and mere acquaintances, have vowed to pray for her.  Not amazing they think that much of her, because she is a wonderful person, but amazing that this concept of saying words or forcing thoughts of some reverential type toward the open sky is offered in an effort to be of some kind of help to my wife.

Okay, before you simply stop reading, at least try to find a way to stay with it for a while.  I'm not trying to change anyone's thinking here, I'm simply revealing my own.  You might consider these words of mine as perhaps a bit of fluff meant to entertain, maybe similar to little grist-for-the-mill thoughts offered by the likes of the retiring Andy Rooney, or light-hearted humorous jabs more in the vein of a Garrison Keillor.  Any way you want to read this to make it palatable is fine; at least I hope you'll try.  And keep in mind all along that I very much appreciate the thoughtfulness and concern these folks are revealing by offers to pray.  I thank them sincerely each time.  They need not know I am thanking them for the humanity they are expressing, not for the praying.  It is thoughtful and considerate of them to pray.

But why, first of all, would so many thoughtful people suddenly want to pray for this lady who has been worthy of everyone's compassion for half a century of poor health?  Is it that surgery is a big scary unknown so it's obviously time to get serious about calling out to a higher power?  To be fair though, maybe some of them have been doing this over the last many months as they have seen her in pain while her organs rebelled inside her, preventing her beloved outings on the golf course, making even walking a terribly difficult activity.  She has been so excited to finally get to this stage of hopeful relief from pain, yet now is the time others choose to soften the voice and with ostensibly deep feeling, offer to pray for her.

Possibly there is a carry-over here from the Dark Ages, a time when the practice of medicine was also a practice in the Black Arts.  This was very much a part of the ethos in my former religious milieu.  Doctors were suspect in most every way, and certainly not to be trusted in life-or-death circumstances.  It was apparently feared that any trust placed in the medical profession was a displacement of trust that should have been rightfully held in reverence to a supreme being.  It was feared that this misguided trust would show disrespect for said supreme being and probably bring wrath down upon the head of such a reprobate believer. 

When I suffered an attack of acute appendicitis in my early twenties, it was put to me by ministers that if I felt that going to a surgeon was more to be desired than staying in my bed and trusting in God through prayer to heal me, then I should go to the medicine men because I had already allowed my faith to slip.  Obviously, in the eyes of those nearest and (in a few cases) dearest to me at the time, I could not allow myself to show a lack of faith.  I stayed in bed and waited out the storm of fear amid physical pain, and the poisons within my system were eventually overcome by a strong constitution.  This was trumpeted as a score for the faith camp, and the fact I am still alive is, naturally, a constant proof to many folks of the power of prayer.  The fact that I ceased believing any of that arcane mythology has not, I'm sure, deterred the faithful from their confident belief that I was healed through prayer.  The fact that over the past four decades, practically all of those faithful have turned to the Black Arts for medical help and now do so without any concern for showing a lack of faith, doesn't seem to lessen the hoopla over the importance of praying for someone's healing.  Call the doctor but call for back-up.

Again I say, the appreciation I feel for anyone's stated humanism and thoughtfulness during this time of looking for relief for my wife's pain, is a deep and real appreciation.  The idea that someone cares enough to offer to pray for her is sincerely well-received, by both of us.  The fact that I would be just as receptive and thankful to a person who, with apparent sincerity, were to tell me he would send over a pet Unicorn to visit my wife in the hospital, should not cast doubt on my appreciation.  Any and all positive thoughts of others will be well received.  If a friend calls to say his or her deceased grandmother was a devout woman who is no doubt still practicing her healing touch from the other side and will visit my wife (waiting outside the virtual door while the Unicorn is near the bed), I will thank the friend sincerely.  Should a Native American acquaintance tell me his father is a hatathali who will gladly sing the Healing Way ceremony on behalf of my wife, I will sincerely thank the man for the thoughtful kindness.

And while I am hopeful that these words are light and perhaps a little humorous, I ask you to consider something that will help you understand my utter sincerity in the whole matter.

If you are of any religious persuasion other than Catholic, and upon the imminent death of a loved one some Catholic friend offers to send over his priest to administer last rites, how would you handle the offer?  Aside from the fact the priest probably wouldn't do it for a non-Catholic, how would you feel about the offer itself?  Might you accept as a way of hedging your bets on behalf of the loved one?  Might you accept out of a dull surprise by the offer and not wanting to seem ungrateful?  Would you fear it might be offensive to the God you worship (or sort of believe in), to have this sudden relationship with a particularly strange concept?   Would you be so unkind as to laugh at your Catholic friend for even suggesting such an outlandish idea? 

And if you are a Catholic, consider how unimportant anyone else's opinion would be at that moment.  You're calling the priest.

In other words, whatever anyone believes is personal and important.  Personally, I'm a humanist.  I believe it's important to respect others for their depth of motivation, not their method of expressing it.

Please bear in mind through all of this that I am not an Atheist.  I have no horse in the race toward an afterlife and no personal concern one way or another as to whether there might be a supreme being anywhere.  I observe pain and misfortune befalling good people and I see health and prosperity heaped upon evil people.  Human life convinces me of only one thing: we're all in it together.  Being good to one another seems to me the best way to get through it.  Trying to convince or force others to believe as we do is futile.  Tiring, too.  And it would be quite easy for me to be irritated by all the offers of prayer for my wife because I see praying as a completely meaningless waste of time.  However, the positive thought it requires for someone to actually make this meaningless effort is itself, meaningful!

So, thanks for your prayers.  And your Unicorn or Shaman or deceased grandmother visits.  My deep respect is always paid to anyone with the humanity to be considerate of others.

UPDATE - - Sunday, 10/02  She's home and gaining strength quickly.  Already I've been told once that it was "due to all those prayers."  My respect goes to a top-notch surgeon, to medical science, and to a strong lady who maintains a positive attitude about the desire to live and thrive. 

Dumping IKE!

Progress is an uphill battle.

There's no logical reason for progress to be so difficult, except for the fact that some people seem to thrive on being difficult themselves.

In an earlier post, I mentioned that I am a political independent.  I think of myself, correctly or not, as an individual with the ability to reason and in possession of a general sense of logic.  This whole current flap over the need to get millions of people back to work while the also-obvious need exists to repair our nation's infrastructure, appears to be rather simple.  Let the 21st Century WPA begin!

Our current president is in a constant struggle against illogical folks masquerading as legislators.  I have to question the motives of those who drag their feet - in fact, drag our entire country to a halt - when their own future interests would be better served by opening their eyes.  It must be that many in government have instead opened personal bank accounts and have set up virtual lines of direct deposit from big monied corporations and powerful lobbyists.  In other words, their current monetary self-interests outweigh their concern for the possibility that their luxury cars might one day fall through unrepaired bridges.  Does it not appear that these legislators are being well paid to fight progress?

Then there's the label: Progressive to deal with.  It's often thrust from the lips of ultra-conservatives as though it contains poison or a vile oath.  In actual fact, President Obama has never shown himself to be terribly progressive, merely logical in trying to help the masses in our society.  I was one Independent who helped elect the man because at least he seemed to hold out the hope of being somewhat progressive, and following the utter destructive previous administration, he offered a huge breath of fresh air.  Intelligence alone makes him far more acceptable as a national leader than was the embarrassment and the appearance of ignorance we had to endure for eight years previous.

But really progressive?  Would that he were more so and could find a way to bring others along in to a progressive mentality.  Our country is in dire need of some dramatic brand of progress.  Having the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer" spells regression for a society.  That frustration has gone on far too long.

If only our leadership could become as wildly liberal and progressive as former President Eisenhower, we might begin the climb out of the dumps.  We need not go all the way back to FDR for an example of rescuing the country from ruin; the respected Republican, Eisenhower, will do just fine.  Try to consider what it took for him to push through the outragious spending bill to get the Interstate Highway System established.  Just imagine that kind of forceful action in dealing with legislators today!  Today, we can't even manage to repair what Ike built! 

Today's conservatives would be trying to dump Ike, their own party's flag-bearer, and make him a "one-term-president."  He was far more progressive than President Obama has shown himself to be thus far.  But to hear the ludicrous rhetoric of the far right in their sound bites on the news, you'd think they are facing some kind of liberal monster.  No, I'm afraid what they're fighting against is common sense and decency.  What today's House of Representatives actually represents is apparently greed - supporting and enabling the immense greed of huge corporations and wealthy individuals.  And almost certainly their own greed.  Surely enough loose change falls from those deep pockets into the waiting hands of many legislators to influence their votes.  (Why a dedicated investigative reporter hasn't made it a mission to dig into the personal, and hidden, income details of members of Congress, I cannot fathom.)  I'd wager that the salaries of many of todays members of congress, salaries that have risen to be quite substantial, are less than the amount they take in under the table.  Let the needs of the masses go un-noticed as long as the Golden-egg-producing Geese of Corporate America, Wall Street and Big Oil keep handing out bribes!

Real progress will come only when our nation's willingly duplicit (or sadly ignorant) electorate wakes up and fires those who do not represent the people at large.  We can UN-elect those whose self interests are placed before public needs.  Easy to spot these people; they've sworn an oath to never raise taxes.  They pass this off as a good idea and get away with it because it's easy to hoodwink a populace who quite often can't see the big picture.  Never raise taxes is an aluring mantra, but it's really a sworn protection for the rich, and there can be little reason to protect those outrageous incomes unless it trickles down to lawmakers' bank accounts.  It doesn't trickle into yours or mine.  The concept of never increasing taxes is ignorant and destructive.  Progress is the victim.

I miss Ike.

Are White People Death Mongers?

Extremely interesting information has come out relating to the Georgia death-row case in the news.

First of all, the fact that Georgia authorities were willing to wait to hear what the US Supreme Court had to say in the matter was a nice surprise.  They didn't have to wait by law, but they waited.  Another surprise was the letter offered by multiple former - and current - correctional officers and wardens pleading for caution.  Their own consciences have been damaged and a great deal of loss of sleep has been suffered by this collective group who have executed people who might possibly have been innocent.

What struck me more though, were the surprising cultural issues and glaring differences between attitudes of Blacks and Whites concerning our execution practices themselves.

The man being executed in Texas at the very time of the Georgia case's national attention this week, was a white man who confessed his guilt and was known by others to have been guilty without question.  And the crime of dragging a black man unmercifully behind a vehicle for miles, actually beyond causing death, going on until the body was decapitated - this heinous crime would seem to shout for the ultimate penalty.  Yet it has been reported that the [black] family of the murdered man had begged the court not to execute this despicable [white] human who murdered their loved one in such an unimaginably horrifying way.  They said killing someone could not lessen their loss.

In Mississippi currently another [white] man is unquestionably guilty of murdering a [black] man, and again the family of the deceased has made the case for not taking another life in an attempt to lessen their loss; their statement was rational and powerful.  So much so that Mississippi authorities are considering taking the death penalty off the table.  The family's prepared statement was an amazing document that expressed so much pain and suffering caused by the crime but at the same time conveyed that there would actually be new pain still to come for these sufferers if they were to see the murderer executed.

In both of these cases, there was no question of guilt; there was only the question of penalty.  And in both cases, the black sufferers of loss asked the courts to not take a life for a life, but to allow the clearly guilty white criminal to live.

In the case in Georgia, a black man has spent over twenty years in prison, on death row, his execution set now for the fourth time, and all along he has been pleading innocence of the crime.  [This is, of course, itself an extremely rare event; the truly guilty practically always unburden themselves at some point and admit to the crime, especially over a long period of imprisonment.  This man refuses even to eat a "last meal" each time the execution is imminent; he is that strong still in proclaiming his innocence.]

Seven of the "witnesses" against this man have recanted in recent years, some admitted to lying, under pressure from police, about what they saw.  Of only two remaining "witnesses" from the trial, one was also a suspect in the crime and his testimony against the accused helped remove himself from suspicion.  Three members of the jury from that trial say they could now not find the accused guilty due to the lack of sufficient circumstantial evidence.  It had been the weight of nine "witnesses" at the time that made the case; at least seven of them really should not have counted at all.

Amid all the above extenuating circumstances, the white family of the deceased have vehemently called for the execution of the black man convicted.  One reporter stated that these people are "not blood-thirsty, only justice-thirsty."  If this were true, why would they not want, more than anything, to know beyond any shadow of a doubt that the actual murderer is the one being executed?  Is it enough for these folks to know that somebody, in this instance, maybe even important that some black somebody, is paying the ultimate penalty for the death of their loved one?

If ever there were a case in which a family suffering loss would want to show the utmost patience in order to be assured of the guilt or innocence of an accused murderer, it seems this would be that case.  It would appear that if the racial variables were reversed here, at the very least the deceased's family would be asking the court to please not execute until absolutely sure of guilt; if the examples of the attitudes of black families mentioned in other cases are any indication of cultural differences involved, the plea would likely be to not execute at all - to not take a life for a life.

As a member of the segment of the human race called white, I am culturally embarrassed by the proceedings in Georgia.  I was similarly culturally embarrassed recently by the debate crowd's eruption in applause and hoots of approval for the many executions carried out under the administration of the governor of Texas.  My guess is that the audience was heavily predominant in white attendees. 

Here's another cultural slant that bothers me, though there is no space to cover it properly in this post, so it will need further rumination later.  In the raucous response to the record of a far-right governor, especially this particular governor who also boasts of a great following by ultra-religious conservatives, there is a strange dichotomy of attitudes.  Those same folks who gladly witness executions and apparently want more, will do practically anything to see that no abortion is ever allowed in our country!  In other words, the medically approved and directed method of preventing an embryo from even becoming a human being is never to be sanctioned by religious people.  But directing the execution of a fully functioning human being - because he is thought to be guilty of some terrible crime, whether or not it's provable beyond any shadow of doubt - that kind of killing is justified.  And apparently applauded!

As I said in an earlier post, I am eternally confused! 

An infuriating P.S. - this morning's news tells us the execution was carried out late last night.