So a guy walks into a bar........
Okay that guy was me last early winter. One night I missed my first bus home from work. I was on time. The bus driver left early. I'm against the death penalty---with the sole exception of bus drivers who leave early so they can finish their route early and light up a Marlboro red while I wait at a cold and dark bus stop for the next bus after missing theirs. We need to get medieval on their asses.
But I digress. To ease the stress of having had to wait outside my building for another half hour in the cold drizzle, I rewarded myself by grabbing a Guiness before taking my second bus home. I live five miles from my job but it takes me an hour to get to and from work. Yes, I want you to feel bad for me. Super bad.
But I digress again. Let me try to stay focused. As I walked into Vaughn's Public House on Pratt Street in beautiful, historic Hartford, CT I heard a gentleman loudly asserting, "Defense wins championships". I knew right away he was uttering a tried and true adage from football. A first cousin of this statement is, "Pitching and defense wins in baseball". You always sound wise and insightful when you say this. There's only one problem.
It's wrong.
Or, at best, vastly overrated. For example, as I eavesdropped further, I discovered this pigskin pontificator was specifically referring to the Baltimore Ravens--a team with perennially great defenses and his pick to win the 2012 Super Bowl. Hindsight is 20/20 but.......the Ravens lost in the AFC Championship Game to the Patriots--a team with a great offense and shaky defense. Patriots backup cornerback Sterling Moore tipped away a would-be winning touchdown pass in the final minute. So one could argue that offense wins championships--as long as you get JUST enough defense at the right time.
But that's only one game. But consider a fact I just unearthed thanks to my off the hook Googling skillz: over the past 45 years there's been 427 NFL playoff games. The better defensive team has won 58 percent of the time. The better offensive team has won 62 percent of the time. Ronnie Lott was a great safety for those great 49ers teams in the '80's, but would he have won all those rings without Joe Montana? A few years ago Peyton Manning's Indianapolis Colts won the Super Bowl with the 19th ranked defense in the NFL. Granted, they were aided by facing Rex Grossman and the Bears in the Super Bowl. In the rain of Miami. Rex always provides both his own offense and his own defense.
But I say the verdict is in: offense wins championships.
I know what you might be thinking, "This blog sucks! I hate sports!". Hey, thanks for stopping by. Try the veal. But the "defense wins championships" mentality seems to transcend sports--and I believe it's a harmful philosophy in many real and at times even tragic ways.
Dieting. I say ban all diets! They are defensive to the core. That's probably why so many dieters can't stick with them: playing defense requires more energy than playing offense and it just gets too exhausting. The fault lies not so much with the dieter as the with the concept of dieting in the first place. No one should worry about subtracting calories---which actually aren't all evil---but adding nutrients. "How many points is this?". Who cares? A lot of low calorie processed food has the calories sucked out of it--right along with the nutrients. Not a trade-off that's really worth it. You can be unhealthy by consuming too many calories but you can just as easily be unhealthy by consuming too few nutrients. A lot of full calories are better than a little empty calories. You don't tend to a plant by lopping off leaves, you tend to it by watering it. Dieters are always trying to remove leaves at the expense of water!
Or let's take health care in general. It's an issue so many economists say is a looming crisis in this country. Medicare and medicaid costs are astronomical and growing all the time. People say if we don't do something, we're going to bankrupt the country worse than Paris Hilton chairing the Federal Reserve. But what is our solution? Insuring everyone and forcing them to go to the doctor even when they feel fine. "Preventative care". I am personally all for universal health care, but I have this one problem: I do disability claims for social security, so I've read pages and pages and pages and pages of medical records on patients who are chronically sick even though they go to the doctor daily. Hourly even. And I don't just mean those salt of the earth folks who go to the ER each time they get stabbed in the neck by their baby mama or are found wandering the streets "naked and disoriented"; I'm also including people with good insurance, a primary care doctor, and at least 22 different specialists. Yet they too often remain sick despite their helicopter care. It may be due to the severity of their illness which could be due to genetics or infections or a million other things, but for many it might have more to do with their insistence on maintaining poor diet and exercise habits while hoping the doctor will take care of it for them! They believe defense wins championships--in the form of an army of defensive medicine practicing doctors. A defensive white coated human shield providing safety and security from sickness and death better than the Great Wall Of China provided security from the Mongols. And the doctors often seem to believe roughly the same thing too.
But I have the answer! I hope you're sitting down for this. Let's stop practicing Ronnie Lott style care and launch Joe Montana-to-Jerry Rice West Coast Offense care! We could never eliminate sickness, but we could greatly reduce it if people ate better--especially poorer people. We already have food stamps. Some say food stamps are evil, let's get rid of them, my tax dollars getting thrown down the drain on these bums, why don't they get a jobby job?, blah, blah, blah. This writer is all for them--but let's change the rules. Apparently you can't buy alcohol, tobacco, or hot food at the deli with food stamps, but that's it. Want a huge bag of Skittles? Go nuts! Five packages of Steak Umms? This one is on Uncle Sam! And we're shocked we have a health care problem. We're basically subsidizing sickness. How about this radical thought: if you want Skittles, Triple Chocolate Chip Fudge Caramel Swirl Ice Cream, or Beef Jerky, you're on your own. If you want to snap into a Slim Jim, show the cashier the money. "Healthy Choice"? Don't even think about it. But if you want items like blueberries, broccoli, or salmon, they will be fully covered by food stamps. In fact, with these restrictions in place, I would be all for making even more people eligible for food stamps. It doesn't force anyone to eat healthy, but it steers them that way. And it would probably save money in the long run because healthier eaters will require less care--which will reduce the amount of times doctors bill Medicare or Medicaid--i.e., bill taxpayers. This idea is genius! I would also strongly favor any government program which funds gym memberships. Don't look at me like that. I've never been more serious. To me, that is preventative, offensive thinking care which might accomplish infinitely more than just forcing people to get physical exams and 38 different screenings for potential diseases before they stop by for a Triple Whopper With Cheese, fries, and a large Coke on their way home after enduring 48 minutes of teeth gnashing misery in the waiting room.
But........it might makes too much sense to happen. Our government thinks defense wins championships!
So does private business. Defensive minded businessmen always think cheap labor is the path to wealth. It seems that history contradicts them. Workers are also customers. Henry Ford once said he wanted to pay his workers at the Ford plant good salaries so they could buy Fords. Modern businessmen seem to have lost this farsighted view. If all businesses are racing to the bottom of the pay scale, who will have the money to buy their products or services? American business blossomed in the 20th Century with an offensive strategy: pay the middle class good salaries and benefits so sales of products and services will skyrocket. We fed the economy nutrients and good economic health was the result, today we just want to strip it of calories and a leaner but more emaciated economy is upon us.
My fellow Americans, I'm afraid our foreign policy provides yet another sad example of the futility of defensive minded strategery. What was the lesson of the first Gulf War? Apparently it was to keep troops permanently stationed in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to box in Saddam in case that jerk got the bright idea of trying to get at those oil mines in Kuwait ever again. Mission accomplished. But it was defensive thinking which caused Bin Laden to feel like we were on his turf. He himself had been banished from his homeland, the land of Mohammed himself, but GI Joe could walk through the streets of Medina any time he pleased! (Does anyone want to open a bar with me there called Funky Cold Medina's? Come on. It's even a beach town!). But what should have been the lesson of the Gulf War? I say to move forward yesterday on development of clean energy so we wouldn't have to care about an Iraqi leader invading a neighboring country any more than we cared about it before they discovered oil there or any more than we care about an African leader invading a neighboring African country. Embassies and troops? That's a Baltimore Ravens mindset and last January in Foxboro the men in black and purple were lew-zers. But clean energy is all Tom Brady---who, again, helped the Patriots defeat the Ravens last January before going home for a post-game massage from his Brazilian supermodel wife. But.....to go full steam ahead with clean energy means upsetting oil companies currently making a king's ransom off dirty energy. And it means those Daniel Plainviews, those milkshake drinkers possibly deciding to take away their political donations, which means risking losing the next election. Defense, defense, defense. But defense only loses milkshakes.
But of course this deluded defensive doctrine exists well beyond sports and politics. I'm in absolutely NO position to comment on dating. Instead of spending quality time with my adoring wife and children right now, I'm sitting home at my PC rambling incoherently on Blogger. CLEARY I am not a romantic guru. But whenever I dare browse girls' online profiles (at my age should I be saying "women's profiles"?) I'm often amazed by how many write things like, "If you're just here to play games, do NOT CONTACT ME!!!!! I am tired of two-faced men who lie!! I deserve nothing but the best and I will not settle for anything less!". And sometimes---without a shred of irony, they add: "Please do me a favor and leave your baggage at home!".
(backs away from the computer).
Okay, I know dating is tough---especially online dating. And especially for girls (or women) because there's always the slight chance you could run into a date raping, serial killing American psycho, so you have to be on your guard. But how is hyper-defensiveness not going to scare guys? Even honest guys with impeccable integrity like your humble narrator? Defense loses championships!
Which is why I'm single.
Do as I blog, not as I do.
Who wants to get a milkshake?
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Monday, June 4, 2012
Bread And Circuses
Have you ever wondered whom or what is running your life? Is it the government? You conscience? Your significant other? Your children? Your parents? Apple Inc.?
Close.
It's bread.
Or, if we want to get technical: grain.
I live within a mile of about a billion restaurants. For convenience sake, let's skip the five-star sit-down places with guys in golf shirts discussing NASDAQ prices. (D-Baggers and Sand Baggers--a reality show before its time?) Let's just look at the fast food places. Dunkin Donuts: doughnuts and bagels---made from bread. Bruegger's Bagels: made from bread. Ah but I have a ma and pop diner and a breakfast serving deli where you can get an omelet with home fries or bacon and eggs----with a side of toast. But what about lunch and dinner? There's a Cosi--sandwiches (with bread) but you can get Big Salads! With......rustic or whole grain bread no one can refuse. There's about 5 pizza places---made with dough from bread. There's two taco and burrito joints---made from corn. There are three high end burger places: using buns made from bread. Or what about Chinese? No bread! But.......there's rice.....another cereal grain like wheat and corn.
All the headlines say meat eating is the devil's handiwork and fruits and vegetables are God's ambrosia. But which food group is the most deeply ingrained? (Pun intended). Think of it this way: could a person swear off fruits and vegetables? Half of America already seems to have perfected that feat. Could a person swear off meat? Relatively easily. Get anchovies on your pizza instead. Have a turkey burger! Sell veggie burritos out of you tie-dyed van to stoned hippies outside Phish shows! But who eats pizza without the crust? Who eats a burrito without the, you know, burrito wrapping. Who eats a burger without the bun?
That's right: no one.
"But that's because everyone eat unhealthy", some would say. "Eat better and it's easy! Try some oatmeal, maybe a little brown rice, or how about some barley soup on a cold rainy day like this?
Grains, grains, grains.
Oh well. Who needs food anyway when you have beer? Cheers!
What? Really? Oh.......yeah. Beer is made from barley. (Or if it's a watery American beer: corn or rice). If you swore off all bread you would have to give up beer and become a yuppie equity insurance managing wine tasting guy named Gary!
See what I mean when I say grains run our lives?
But folks, it runs even deeper than that. Why aren't we all out hunting wild boars to bring back to the campfire for our clan's nightly dinner instead of gathering around our mobile devices to read this incredible blog? Why do we have this thing called civilization? Hint: Miss Manners and bow ties have nothing to do with it. Our prehistoric ancestors figured out how to grow edible grain. Whether it was corn in the Americas, wheat in the Middle East, or rice in Asia, the story was the same: grain agriculture created civilizations. It became a more stable means of obtaining a reliable source of food which allowed people to settle down in farming villages to lead a quieter life so they could invent alphabets, religion, and the slinky. Then they got bored and banned dancing. I mean all roads lead back to grain fields!
Now here is the debate among nutritionists--of which I am obviously not: was the dawn of agriculture a slam dunk success or a mixed blessing? In many ways, agriculture was humankind's first great stroke of genius. (Okay, fans of 2001: A Space Odyssey would say it was our 2nd great stroke of genius). Life had always been the struggle for food, but now it wasn't just a struggle to find food but an opportunity to create food even when none could otherwise be found. Wild cereals are not edible. People had to figure out a complicated process through trial and error before they could convert wild grains into edible wheat, barley, corn, rice, etc. But when the experiments paid off, humans took control of their own destiny for the first time. From the raw materials of nature, they created a food not found in nature that was cheaper and easier than finding edible fruits and vegetables or scary animals to shoot who just might eat you before you could roast them over a fire. Processed foods didn't start with TV Dinners and Skittles, they started about 10,000 years before the birth of Jesus with edible grains.
BUT, like fast food and TV dinners years later, did we sacrifice nutrition for convenience? Grain stabilized human life, but was the human body happier? Does the body really crave man-made edible grains or does it only tolerate them? Are our bodies naturally best tuned to naturally pre-made, ready to eat foods like apples, broccoli, and chicken breasts?
If you listen to many food experts, absolutely not. If anything, meat is the problem. There's this cranky preventative medicine doctor on my local public access station. In between discussions about the latest new wonder drug from your friends in the pharmaceutical industry and the importance of going to the doctor 87 times per year for 88 different tests (with preventative medicine like that, who needs Dr. Frankenstein?) he likes to say meat is going to kill you dead. Tomorrow. So knock it off! Human biology is built for plant eating. I've never heard him say a bad thing about Wonder Bread!
But here's where a funny thought occurs to me: maybe grain farmers just have a better union than swine?
Okay, but what about the butchers? Don't they have a union? Sure, but aren't those boys pretty expendable? I mean couldn't you get any ex-con with a cobra tattoo to wack them over the head with a mallet? But farming takes some skill and patience. They depend on rain at the right time and sunshine at the right time--which makes them pray to God, which makes them civilized. Farming created civilization and the psychology of farming stabilized it. (And may have also created religion. And religious leaders may have done a little PR work right back at grain farmers: "Give us this day our daily bread". Who are they fooling!?). But bow and arrow toting hunters or hammer wielding pig slaughterers are instruments of fate, not servants of it. They depend on no one. They are dangerous! A threat to tranquil village life everywhere. So let's favor the farmers.
Is it possible this is (indirectly) why grains are rarely vilified? It's always the burger's fault, never the bun! Me? I don't know. I'm not a doctor. And no two doctors seem in agreement on this. But conspiracy theory lover that I am, it's at least an interesting question to ask whether job protection has influenced our perceptions of foods throughout history. Again, grain farmers, not Gods or kings, are the creators of civilization, so is painting them as the enemy biting the hand that feeds us---no pun intended this time. As farmers have always represented a vital segment of every society's workforce, has there always been an attempt to protect them by protecting the idea of bread as a healthy staple food? And isn't harvesting grain in the cool autumn breeze so much more tender and bucolic than some jerk beating animals to death in a dark, dirty slaughterhouse? Who cares about those psychos??
And does job protection skew our modern perceptions of food and health in other ways? These days the mad scientists aren't the converters of wild grains into bread, but those who convert chemical debris into Coca-Cola and Fruit Roll Ups. Doesn't our government protect them too? The words "organic" is regulated by the government but the word "natural" is not. You can say a Twix bar is made from pure, all natural coca leaves and no one can stop you. Basically, if it says "natural" on the box. it's unnatural. But if no one notices or cares and buys it anyway.....
So while farmers and food chemists are skilled workmen who need protection, why protect comparatively unskilled hunters or planters?
All of this is probably BS. But you have to admit: it would make a pretty good Dan Brown novel. Unhealthy food takes skill to make, healthy food requires less skill. So unhealthy food is promoted or protected even at the cost of your life!
Or maybe not. Ah forget it! Are pancakes and beer a good choice for dinner?
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Health Is On The Way!
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness.
Okay, not really. But I have seen them wrestle with the issue of healthcare in America. Does that count?
Our nine august, honorable Supreme Court justices (yes I'm including Clarence "Long Dong Silver" Thomas) are currently debating whether ObmaCare is unconstitutional. This makes perfect sense--unless you've read The Constitution. It has absolutely nothing to say about healthcare. If we really wanted to know what Washington, Adams, and Jefferson would have thought about a health care mandate, we would be better off hiring Danny from The Shining to read their minds from beyond the grave. Tony can come along too--but I hear his service fee is pretty steep. If they're unavailable we might as well break out the Oija board: "When the Fathers said the government is allowed "to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas", was this actually an esoteric reference to the Public Option?". Just let the wood thimble or whatever it is move to "yes" or "no" and call it a day.
But don't worry because you have me. Why don't I put on my Superman cape and solve healthcare all by myself? Don't read any further if you're not prepared to have your mind blown.
First things first: we need to stop lying to ourselves. Horatio Alger must die. The American Dream tells us everyone can obtain success: a high paying and rewarding job, an adoring spouse, 2.3 kids, a dog, and a pool for everyone. Some might get an Olympic sized in-ground pool while others might need to look into a 4 foot deep, circular above ground pool that will humiliate their kids so much they would never invite their friends over for a pool party if their life depended on it, but that's the beginning and end of inequality in America. You can do it!
No you cant.
Well......let me backtrack. You, dear reader, can do it--assuming "you" are a person of at least moderate intelligence with a strong work ethic and you live in a house with more books than fully loaded semi-automatic rifles. Since so many of your competition for a slice of the American pie are lazy slobs, you should get a real leg up on the competition and do well.
That's looking at it from the ground floor, but if we take a bird's eye view of things, it seems The American Dreams is exactly what it says it is: a dream. Even when our economy was better, our job market didn't supply much more than about 120 million domestic jobs. 120 million opportunities! Except we have 300 million people in America. The unemployment rate is a more misleading statistic than George W. Bush's undergrad GPA (he was even dumber). The Department Of Labor uses a much less publicized Participation Rate--the percentage of working age adults currently working. Even including part time workers, that number in February was 63.9%. A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T WORK. This isn't always a bad thing. Non workers may be Powerball winners or stay at home moms. Or......prison inmates. But the simple, stark fact remains that our country has far fewer jobs than people. What if every single person in the US put down the crack pipe and graduated from Harvard? Would that end unemployment? Probably not. Where would we place them all? Sure, with all that brainpower you could conceivably add a few rocket science jobs, but with a society full of brainiacs those job additions would be offset by a plummeting of jobs selling Gatorade and Limp Bizquit memorabilia, so it would all come out in the wash and not cause a skyrocketing of job creation.
So social entitlements are a necessary evil in any economy in which the population has outgrown the job supply. Many won't be able to work, so what else are we going to do with them? Put them ALL in jail? Let them starve in the streets? Impossible. But we cling to the illusion that if everyone just worked a little harder, unemployment would end forever. Hence the push to cut back or end entitlements. Ron Paul is right about The Constitution. It's a perfect and complete document---for the 13 states of farmers and weavers it was written for. But it doesn't serve or guide us on every issue today--which George Washington himself predicted.
Nevertheless, we "reformed" welfare. People don't receive long-term-to-permanent checks from the government every month based simply on their position along the poverty line. Instead we make poor people grovel on their hands and knees to try to prove they (or their child) is disabled. Again, we cling to the dream that every non-disabled person will have a plush job waiting for him or her if they would only watch Dead Poets Society again and carpe diem.
The problem with this model is it creates a brave new world in which everyone thinks they are disabled! If ADHD didn't exist (and I'm not entirely sure that it does) we would need to invent it. To a poor mom, a baby Einstein is a potential liability, but a learning disabled child offers a chance for her to pay her rent next month. For adults, running 5K's and eating garden salads is a financial non-starter. But becoming morbidly obese and developing diabetes, back problems, heart problems, knee problems, liver problems, kidney prob.......Ah!!! Sorry. I feel like I'm at work all of a sudden. What a nightmare!
Critics of social entitlements often talk about the ways it drains people's initiative. Fair enough, but what can we do? Again, the basic numbers seem to say we're going to have large unemployment no matter what we do because of the limitations of the job market itself. But might it be possible that a social entitlement model skewed toward demanding proof of a disability is endangering the health of America? I don't actually think poor or working class people consciously make a choice to eat Fritos for breakfast and freebase crack for brunch as part of a long term, three pronged strategy to get on disability, but I do think it may have a strong and powerful subconscious influence on behavior. If you have limited education, job experience, and skills and you're surrounded by an unforgiving, risk averse job market and you see friends and families becoming a bit more financially secure after receiving disability, might this weaken your will to eat brocoli, lace on a pair of running shoes, and download the Nike Plus running app?
Are social entitlements and healthcare linked? Is our attempt to truly reform healthcare doomed as long as we're trying to do it in the face of a disability-centric "reformed" social entitlement system? I wish we would say, "We're going to give you benefits because we are a compassionate country, we know you and your family are at risk of starvation, and (don't tell anyone this) but the job market is a room with a seating capacity and the ushers will never escort everyone to a seat. But you will not be financially rewarded by the government for being sick". What would happen to those with mental retardation or paraplegia if we stopped using disability as our criteria for benefits? Nothing. They would still qualify if they were unable to hold down a full time job, but it would be determined by a means test, not an IQ test or an Internist exam.
I know--rich people get cancer too. But poor people are sicker. Rich people do palates--whatever that is. Rich people eat organic squash. Poor people are more likely to eat a Baconator and order an item from Taco Bell's Volcano Menu. So removing ANY financial incentive to be unhealthy is, like, super important and stuff.
People complain, "We have health care, not sick care!". I used to agree with this. But now I think, "Duh. Sicker people are always going to move to the front of the line". Is sick care the problem or is the problem the term "health care" itself and its implied false promise? "A new miracle happens every day!", hospital commercials devoutly proclaim. Most doctors I've talked to seem to feel less like miracle workers and more like damage control experts. They know how limited their powers really are. Other than maybe vaccines, most preventative health care seems to be about eating right and exercising. No doctor can make a patient do that. Healthcare folks don't work in the miracle department, it's the managed sickness department.
So I say sick care isn't a problem when it comes to doctors and nurses, but it's a problem when practiced by elected officials and government bureaucrats. No financial compensation for disability! Only compensation for the disability of the job market!
I just remembered something really weird. I work for Social Security's disability program.
Okay, not really. But I have seen them wrestle with the issue of healthcare in America. Does that count?
Our nine august, honorable Supreme Court justices (yes I'm including Clarence "Long Dong Silver" Thomas) are currently debating whether ObmaCare is unconstitutional. This makes perfect sense--unless you've read The Constitution. It has absolutely nothing to say about healthcare. If we really wanted to know what Washington, Adams, and Jefferson would have thought about a health care mandate, we would be better off hiring Danny from The Shining to read their minds from beyond the grave. Tony can come along too--but I hear his service fee is pretty steep. If they're unavailable we might as well break out the Oija board: "When the Fathers said the government is allowed "to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas", was this actually an esoteric reference to the Public Option?". Just let the wood thimble or whatever it is move to "yes" or "no" and call it a day.
But don't worry because you have me. Why don't I put on my Superman cape and solve healthcare all by myself? Don't read any further if you're not prepared to have your mind blown.
First things first: we need to stop lying to ourselves. Horatio Alger must die. The American Dream tells us everyone can obtain success: a high paying and rewarding job, an adoring spouse, 2.3 kids, a dog, and a pool for everyone. Some might get an Olympic sized in-ground pool while others might need to look into a 4 foot deep, circular above ground pool that will humiliate their kids so much they would never invite their friends over for a pool party if their life depended on it, but that's the beginning and end of inequality in America. You can do it!
No you cant.
Well......let me backtrack. You, dear reader, can do it--assuming "you" are a person of at least moderate intelligence with a strong work ethic and you live in a house with more books than fully loaded semi-automatic rifles. Since so many of your competition for a slice of the American pie are lazy slobs, you should get a real leg up on the competition and do well.
That's looking at it from the ground floor, but if we take a bird's eye view of things, it seems The American Dreams is exactly what it says it is: a dream. Even when our economy was better, our job market didn't supply much more than about 120 million domestic jobs. 120 million opportunities! Except we have 300 million people in America. The unemployment rate is a more misleading statistic than George W. Bush's undergrad GPA (he was even dumber). The Department Of Labor uses a much less publicized Participation Rate--the percentage of working age adults currently working. Even including part time workers, that number in February was 63.9%. A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T WORK. This isn't always a bad thing. Non workers may be Powerball winners or stay at home moms. Or......prison inmates. But the simple, stark fact remains that our country has far fewer jobs than people. What if every single person in the US put down the crack pipe and graduated from Harvard? Would that end unemployment? Probably not. Where would we place them all? Sure, with all that brainpower you could conceivably add a few rocket science jobs, but with a society full of brainiacs those job additions would be offset by a plummeting of jobs selling Gatorade and Limp Bizquit memorabilia, so it would all come out in the wash and not cause a skyrocketing of job creation.
So social entitlements are a necessary evil in any economy in which the population has outgrown the job supply. Many won't be able to work, so what else are we going to do with them? Put them ALL in jail? Let them starve in the streets? Impossible. But we cling to the illusion that if everyone just worked a little harder, unemployment would end forever. Hence the push to cut back or end entitlements. Ron Paul is right about The Constitution. It's a perfect and complete document---for the 13 states of farmers and weavers it was written for. But it doesn't serve or guide us on every issue today--which George Washington himself predicted.
Nevertheless, we "reformed" welfare. People don't receive long-term-to-permanent checks from the government every month based simply on their position along the poverty line. Instead we make poor people grovel on their hands and knees to try to prove they (or their child) is disabled. Again, we cling to the dream that every non-disabled person will have a plush job waiting for him or her if they would only watch Dead Poets Society again and carpe diem.
The problem with this model is it creates a brave new world in which everyone thinks they are disabled! If ADHD didn't exist (and I'm not entirely sure that it does) we would need to invent it. To a poor mom, a baby Einstein is a potential liability, but a learning disabled child offers a chance for her to pay her rent next month. For adults, running 5K's and eating garden salads is a financial non-starter. But becoming morbidly obese and developing diabetes, back problems, heart problems, knee problems, liver problems, kidney prob.......Ah!!! Sorry. I feel like I'm at work all of a sudden. What a nightmare!
Critics of social entitlements often talk about the ways it drains people's initiative. Fair enough, but what can we do? Again, the basic numbers seem to say we're going to have large unemployment no matter what we do because of the limitations of the job market itself. But might it be possible that a social entitlement model skewed toward demanding proof of a disability is endangering the health of America? I don't actually think poor or working class people consciously make a choice to eat Fritos for breakfast and freebase crack for brunch as part of a long term, three pronged strategy to get on disability, but I do think it may have a strong and powerful subconscious influence on behavior. If you have limited education, job experience, and skills and you're surrounded by an unforgiving, risk averse job market and you see friends and families becoming a bit more financially secure after receiving disability, might this weaken your will to eat brocoli, lace on a pair of running shoes, and download the Nike Plus running app?
Are social entitlements and healthcare linked? Is our attempt to truly reform healthcare doomed as long as we're trying to do it in the face of a disability-centric "reformed" social entitlement system? I wish we would say, "We're going to give you benefits because we are a compassionate country, we know you and your family are at risk of starvation, and (don't tell anyone this) but the job market is a room with a seating capacity and the ushers will never escort everyone to a seat. But you will not be financially rewarded by the government for being sick". What would happen to those with mental retardation or paraplegia if we stopped using disability as our criteria for benefits? Nothing. They would still qualify if they were unable to hold down a full time job, but it would be determined by a means test, not an IQ test or an Internist exam.
I know--rich people get cancer too. But poor people are sicker. Rich people do palates--whatever that is. Rich people eat organic squash. Poor people are more likely to eat a Baconator and order an item from Taco Bell's Volcano Menu. So removing ANY financial incentive to be unhealthy is, like, super important and stuff.
People complain, "We have health care, not sick care!". I used to agree with this. But now I think, "Duh. Sicker people are always going to move to the front of the line". Is sick care the problem or is the problem the term "health care" itself and its implied false promise? "A new miracle happens every day!", hospital commercials devoutly proclaim. Most doctors I've talked to seem to feel less like miracle workers and more like damage control experts. They know how limited their powers really are. Other than maybe vaccines, most preventative health care seems to be about eating right and exercising. No doctor can make a patient do that. Healthcare folks don't work in the miracle department, it's the managed sickness department.
So I say sick care isn't a problem when it comes to doctors and nurses, but it's a problem when practiced by elected officials and government bureaucrats. No financial compensation for disability! Only compensation for the disability of the job market!
I just remembered something really weird. I work for Social Security's disability program.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Nothing Is Different (Except This Blog)
How many times have you heard exchanges like this?
SERVER: Anything to drink with that?
CUSTOMER: I'll have a Coke, please.
SERVER: Is Pepsi okay?
CUSTOMER: You cannot be serious! This can't be happening to me right now! (flips over a table and storms out).
Me neither.
The more likely response is, "Sure, Pepsi is fine". No one cares very much. I mean Pepsi is a little sweeter but it's basically the same stuff. The Pepsi Challenge is pure silliness. Even if we're to believe more people choose Pepsi in a blind taste test, the margin is so narrow that the results would probably flip-flop if you put each soda in its can and the taste testers' favorite color was red instead of blue.
This is why they have to work so hard and spend so much money on advertizing. The subtext of any Coke or Pepsi ad is, "Sure it's the same black chemical sludge in a can, but our product is COOLER. All the cool kids drink Pepsi. Don't you want to be cool? Coke drinkers are Rush listening virgins who live in their mom's basement eating Cheese Its".
Of course before Pepsi even existed, Coke's advertizing machine was already shifting into high gear. According to Wikipedia (the world's first encyclopedia written by and for Rush listening Cheese It devouring virgins) when Atlanta merchant John Pemberton launched Coca-Cola in 1886--a cocaine containing consolation prize for residents totally bummed after Fulton County became a dry county--he claimed Coke cured diseases including but not limited to morphine addiction, dyspepsia, neurasthenia, headache, and impotence. Last night I pounded a 2 liter bottle of Coke but my morphine addiction, dyspepsia, neurasthenia, headaches, and impotence have gone nowhere fast.
Not to be outdone, new kid on the block Pepsi touted itself as, "A bully drink...refreshing, invigorating, a fine bracer before a race" (Lance Armstrong just released a statement vehemently denying he has ever used Pepsi as a performance enhancing drug before a race and anyone who says different is just a hater because he lives stronger) and Pepsi is "Delicious and Healthful". What? Did they say that with a straight face? "Say, after you and your dame have finished smoking a pack of menthols and shotgunning a bottle of absinthe, why not put the cap on this healthy concoction with an ice cold Pepsi?". Not only are Coke and Pepsi basically the same, but their BS slinging advertizing strategies have always been the same too. I mean how many times have you heard someone say, "Wow, Bob died really young. Poor guy should have drank more soda"?.
But we don't just exaggerate differences between sodas. Let's take race. Pretty much every sociology textbook in history contains the phrase, "Race is a social fiction". This head scratcher causes many to assume sociologists are blind hippies who have smoked a little too much hash while listening to The End by The Doors on repeat. While this is clearly the case, race may in fact be a social fiction. Scientists--who almost universally agree that crack is wack--believe that not only did humans evolve from apes, but they only did it only one time in one corner of Earth: North Africa. If so, we're all from the same place. What we call "race" is just genetic mutation. The genes of people who settled in hot places were nice enough to give them dark skin as a natural sun screen, but people who moved to Finland and stayed there for 1,000 years had genes that said, "Screw it. No sun index worries here. Baseball players will someday need wives. Hair dye hasn't been invented yet. It's a no-brainer: why don't we mutate to create blonde hair? .
But we still obsess over race anyway. And ethnicity-an even thinner razor's edge of difference. Take me. I'm Irish. Or so I say. I'm actually 1/4 English, 1/4 Portuguese, 3/8 Irish (I think) and 1/8 French (I think). But I have an Irish last name, I have slightly more Irish blood than anything else (I think), and Thin Lizzy rocks so I say I'm Irish. Or am I? I once looked up the origin of "Doyle" and the first Doyles were actually Vikings who invaded Ireland in 805 A.D. In Gaelic, Doyle means "dark foreigner"--obviously not a reference to their skin complexion but the Vikings' black ships. So maybe I'm 3/8 Scandanavian? A Viking marauder destined to blog you like a hurricane since The Dark Ages?
But this ethnic ambiguity is only the case for Americans, right? What about 119th generation Spaniards from Madrid? Now THEY are obviously 100% Spanish. Not exactly. In its history, Spain has been conquered or settled by Greeks, Romans, Germans, Moroccans, Lebanese, Jews and a bunch of others. So what does "Spanish" even mean? Ditto for every other country. Europeans are racial and ethnic mongrels too, it's just the inter-breeding between separate tribes (forbidden fruit being the ultimate aphrodisiac and all that) happened far enough into the past that we don't always realize it happened at all. Racial and ethnic identities are largely an illusion! Robert De Niro: quintessential Italian American. He's 1/4 Italian.
But at least we can take comfort in knowing we are vastly different from animals. Except......you and me baby we ain't nothin' but mammals. And we share 96 percent of our DNA with chimps.
Religion is another hotbed of imaginary differences. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all have one major aspect in common--pretty much unique in the history of the world: monotheism. At one time, that jealous God of the Old Testament Yahweh was just another face in the divine Semitic crowd. The Semites--like everyone else--had a pantheon of Gods to worship. But Yahweh--or his PR man--stood up and said, "Lose the zero and get with the hero. I'm the ONE and ONLY God". Jesus likewise said he was the only messiah and Son of God, the alpha and the omega, all that and a bag of chips. Mohammed too was living in a polytheistic world in Saudi Arabia until the archangel Gabriel started having mountainside chats with him and told him Allah was THE ONE, the ONLY God worth anyone's time. So were these guys so indispensably in-expendable and awesomely special? What was wrong with Baal? Did Yahweh just have a better marketing plan? Did Clint Eastwood tell them it was halftime in The Fertile Crescent? Was Allah inherently better than his goddess daughter Allat?
But never mind the Gods, the religions themselves are clearly WAY different from each other. After all people have been killing each other to prove this point for millennia. Jews and Christians are different. Except.....Jesus was a Jew. And the Christian Bible includes The Old Testament---a Jewish text. But Islam is WAY different from both. Except.....St. Gabriel (Mohammed's psychic friend) came from The Bible. And The Koran considers Biblical mainstays Daniel, Uzair, Isiah, Jeremaiah, Zecharaia, Seth, Shem, and Abel prophets who preceded Mohammed. I'm pretty sure The Koran contains more Jewish prophets than Arabian prophets! But of course Sunni and Shiite Muslims are WAY different. Except.....they both worship the same prophet and their only real bone of contention is whether this guy Ali or this other guy Abu Bakr should have been Mohammed's rightful successor 15 centuries ago. Well at least they have a good reason to hate each other.
Then there's politics. Once the Republicans settle on a candidate (Donald Trump STILL might get in the race. Hold him back! Hold him back!) both candidates will start saying the following until November, "This election is DIFFERENT from any other election before it. It will determine the fate of the human race from now until Doomsday. And the differences between my opponent and myself could not be more stark and dramatic". Now that's exciting. It's a Good vs. Evil steel cage smackdown! It's Luke Skywalker vs. Darth Vader in a light saber duel all over again! He can cut off my hand but I'm STILL coming at him because I'll use The Force!
Except....is it true? While there may be differences between candidates and parties, are they so dramatic? Or do politicians--not unlike soda company salesmen and religions missionaries---sell us on the idea that one law school graduate is radically different from another law school graduate? Unless I'm wrong, neither party is going to touch Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. Neither party is going to end legalized abortion. Neither party is going to ban the death penalty. Neither party is going to legalize drugs. Neither party is going to refuse to offer corporate bailouts. Neither party is going to actually challenge Shell, Exxon/Mobil, Lockeed Martin--or any other "job creating" corporation for that matter (even if they all start creating jobs 4,000 miles away). Candidates' differences suddenly don't sound so stark to me. Hence "wedge issues" like abortion. It's been the law of the land for 38 years and I think it's here to stay and I think everyone knows it. Has pro choice vs. pro like simply morphed into a way for liberals and conservatives to convince us and themselves they are more different from each other than they really are?
Sports teams are yet another example. As a Red Sox fan, I can tell you that the Yankees are pure evil. A Yankees player ranks no higher in my estimation than a fat guy who doesn't wear deodorant in a summer heatwave on a crowded city bus with a broken air conditioner. Except.....Babe Ruth, Johnny Damon, David Cone, David Wells, Roger Clemens, Wade Boggs, Ramiro Mendoza, Mike Torrez, Don Baylor and countless others have played for both teams. The main difference between the Yankees and Red Sox? The difference between red and navy blue, pinstripes and no pinstripes, John Sterling and Jerry Remy. The uniforms and announcers help give us the illusion that the players and teams are vastly different. It's basically believing that one former Little League All Star is starkly different from another former Little League All Star.
And then, of course, we have the supposed radical differences between men and women. Actually......men and women are different. Women buy dozens of pairs of shoes and enjoy Lifetime programming. I mean that's WEIRD.
But seriously folks, if we didn't live in such a politicized, merchant driven world, maybe we would all be Buddhists. Contrary to the Judeo-Christian-Muslim triumvirate's endless territory marking and cordoning off of everyone and everything under the sun, Buddhism tells us that nothing and no one is actually different from anything or anyone else. It's all an illusion. The differences are merely superficial. Wisdom means shattering this illusion. Purging ourselves of the entire marketing minded notions of the world we've come to take for granted. I'm proud to say this writer has freed himself from this spiritual bondage and achieved nirvana!
I don't normally practice religion, but when I do, I prefer Buddhism. Stay spiritual, my friends.
Oh crap.....
SERVER: Anything to drink with that?
CUSTOMER: I'll have a Coke, please.
SERVER: Is Pepsi okay?
CUSTOMER: You cannot be serious! This can't be happening to me right now! (flips over a table and storms out).
Me neither.
The more likely response is, "Sure, Pepsi is fine". No one cares very much. I mean Pepsi is a little sweeter but it's basically the same stuff. The Pepsi Challenge is pure silliness. Even if we're to believe more people choose Pepsi in a blind taste test, the margin is so narrow that the results would probably flip-flop if you put each soda in its can and the taste testers' favorite color was red instead of blue.
This is why they have to work so hard and spend so much money on advertizing. The subtext of any Coke or Pepsi ad is, "Sure it's the same black chemical sludge in a can, but our product is COOLER. All the cool kids drink Pepsi. Don't you want to be cool? Coke drinkers are Rush listening virgins who live in their mom's basement eating Cheese Its".
Of course before Pepsi even existed, Coke's advertizing machine was already shifting into high gear. According to Wikipedia (the world's first encyclopedia written by and for Rush listening Cheese It devouring virgins) when Atlanta merchant John Pemberton launched Coca-Cola in 1886--a cocaine containing consolation prize for residents totally bummed after Fulton County became a dry county--he claimed Coke cured diseases including but not limited to morphine addiction, dyspepsia, neurasthenia, headache, and impotence. Last night I pounded a 2 liter bottle of Coke but my morphine addiction, dyspepsia, neurasthenia, headaches, and impotence have gone nowhere fast.
Not to be outdone, new kid on the block Pepsi touted itself as, "A bully drink...refreshing, invigorating, a fine bracer before a race" (Lance Armstrong just released a statement vehemently denying he has ever used Pepsi as a performance enhancing drug before a race and anyone who says different is just a hater because he lives stronger) and Pepsi is "Delicious and Healthful". What? Did they say that with a straight face? "Say, after you and your dame have finished smoking a pack of menthols and shotgunning a bottle of absinthe, why not put the cap on this healthy concoction with an ice cold Pepsi?". Not only are Coke and Pepsi basically the same, but their BS slinging advertizing strategies have always been the same too. I mean how many times have you heard someone say, "Wow, Bob died really young. Poor guy should have drank more soda"?.
But we don't just exaggerate differences between sodas. Let's take race. Pretty much every sociology textbook in history contains the phrase, "Race is a social fiction". This head scratcher causes many to assume sociologists are blind hippies who have smoked a little too much hash while listening to The End by The Doors on repeat. While this is clearly the case, race may in fact be a social fiction. Scientists--who almost universally agree that crack is wack--believe that not only did humans evolve from apes, but they only did it only one time in one corner of Earth: North Africa. If so, we're all from the same place. What we call "race" is just genetic mutation. The genes of people who settled in hot places were nice enough to give them dark skin as a natural sun screen, but people who moved to Finland and stayed there for 1,000 years had genes that said, "Screw it. No sun index worries here. Baseball players will someday need wives. Hair dye hasn't been invented yet. It's a no-brainer: why don't we mutate to create blonde hair? .
But we still obsess over race anyway. And ethnicity-an even thinner razor's edge of difference. Take me. I'm Irish. Or so I say. I'm actually 1/4 English, 1/4 Portuguese, 3/8 Irish (I think) and 1/8 French (I think). But I have an Irish last name, I have slightly more Irish blood than anything else (I think), and Thin Lizzy rocks so I say I'm Irish. Or am I? I once looked up the origin of "Doyle" and the first Doyles were actually Vikings who invaded Ireland in 805 A.D. In Gaelic, Doyle means "dark foreigner"--obviously not a reference to their skin complexion but the Vikings' black ships. So maybe I'm 3/8 Scandanavian? A Viking marauder destined to blog you like a hurricane since The Dark Ages?
But this ethnic ambiguity is only the case for Americans, right? What about 119th generation Spaniards from Madrid? Now THEY are obviously 100% Spanish. Not exactly. In its history, Spain has been conquered or settled by Greeks, Romans, Germans, Moroccans, Lebanese, Jews and a bunch of others. So what does "Spanish" even mean? Ditto for every other country. Europeans are racial and ethnic mongrels too, it's just the inter-breeding between separate tribes (forbidden fruit being the ultimate aphrodisiac and all that) happened far enough into the past that we don't always realize it happened at all. Racial and ethnic identities are largely an illusion! Robert De Niro: quintessential Italian American. He's 1/4 Italian.
But at least we can take comfort in knowing we are vastly different from animals. Except......you and me baby we ain't nothin' but mammals. And we share 96 percent of our DNA with chimps.
Religion is another hotbed of imaginary differences. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all have one major aspect in common--pretty much unique in the history of the world: monotheism. At one time, that jealous God of the Old Testament Yahweh was just another face in the divine Semitic crowd. The Semites--like everyone else--had a pantheon of Gods to worship. But Yahweh--or his PR man--stood up and said, "Lose the zero and get with the hero. I'm the ONE and ONLY God". Jesus likewise said he was the only messiah and Son of God, the alpha and the omega, all that and a bag of chips. Mohammed too was living in a polytheistic world in Saudi Arabia until the archangel Gabriel started having mountainside chats with him and told him Allah was THE ONE, the ONLY God worth anyone's time. So were these guys so indispensably in-expendable and awesomely special? What was wrong with Baal? Did Yahweh just have a better marketing plan? Did Clint Eastwood tell them it was halftime in The Fertile Crescent? Was Allah inherently better than his goddess daughter Allat?
But never mind the Gods, the religions themselves are clearly WAY different from each other. After all people have been killing each other to prove this point for millennia. Jews and Christians are different. Except.....Jesus was a Jew. And the Christian Bible includes The Old Testament---a Jewish text. But Islam is WAY different from both. Except.....St. Gabriel (Mohammed's psychic friend) came from The Bible. And The Koran considers Biblical mainstays Daniel, Uzair, Isiah, Jeremaiah, Zecharaia, Seth, Shem, and Abel prophets who preceded Mohammed. I'm pretty sure The Koran contains more Jewish prophets than Arabian prophets! But of course Sunni and Shiite Muslims are WAY different. Except.....they both worship the same prophet and their only real bone of contention is whether this guy Ali or this other guy Abu Bakr should have been Mohammed's rightful successor 15 centuries ago. Well at least they have a good reason to hate each other.
Then there's politics. Once the Republicans settle on a candidate (Donald Trump STILL might get in the race. Hold him back! Hold him back!) both candidates will start saying the following until November, "This election is DIFFERENT from any other election before it. It will determine the fate of the human race from now until Doomsday. And the differences between my opponent and myself could not be more stark and dramatic". Now that's exciting. It's a Good vs. Evil steel cage smackdown! It's Luke Skywalker vs. Darth Vader in a light saber duel all over again! He can cut off my hand but I'm STILL coming at him because I'll use The Force!
Except....is it true? While there may be differences between candidates and parties, are they so dramatic? Or do politicians--not unlike soda company salesmen and religions missionaries---sell us on the idea that one law school graduate is radically different from another law school graduate? Unless I'm wrong, neither party is going to touch Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. Neither party is going to end legalized abortion. Neither party is going to ban the death penalty. Neither party is going to legalize drugs. Neither party is going to refuse to offer corporate bailouts. Neither party is going to actually challenge Shell, Exxon/Mobil, Lockeed Martin--or any other "job creating" corporation for that matter (even if they all start creating jobs 4,000 miles away). Candidates' differences suddenly don't sound so stark to me. Hence "wedge issues" like abortion. It's been the law of the land for 38 years and I think it's here to stay and I think everyone knows it. Has pro choice vs. pro like simply morphed into a way for liberals and conservatives to convince us and themselves they are more different from each other than they really are?
Sports teams are yet another example. As a Red Sox fan, I can tell you that the Yankees are pure evil. A Yankees player ranks no higher in my estimation than a fat guy who doesn't wear deodorant in a summer heatwave on a crowded city bus with a broken air conditioner. Except.....Babe Ruth, Johnny Damon, David Cone, David Wells, Roger Clemens, Wade Boggs, Ramiro Mendoza, Mike Torrez, Don Baylor and countless others have played for both teams. The main difference between the Yankees and Red Sox? The difference between red and navy blue, pinstripes and no pinstripes, John Sterling and Jerry Remy. The uniforms and announcers help give us the illusion that the players and teams are vastly different. It's basically believing that one former Little League All Star is starkly different from another former Little League All Star.
And then, of course, we have the supposed radical differences between men and women. Actually......men and women are different. Women buy dozens of pairs of shoes and enjoy Lifetime programming. I mean that's WEIRD.
But seriously folks, if we didn't live in such a politicized, merchant driven world, maybe we would all be Buddhists. Contrary to the Judeo-Christian-Muslim triumvirate's endless territory marking and cordoning off of everyone and everything under the sun, Buddhism tells us that nothing and no one is actually different from anything or anyone else. It's all an illusion. The differences are merely superficial. Wisdom means shattering this illusion. Purging ourselves of the entire marketing minded notions of the world we've come to take for granted. I'm proud to say this writer has freed himself from this spiritual bondage and achieved nirvana!
I don't normally practice religion, but when I do, I prefer Buddhism. Stay spiritual, my friends.
Oh crap.....
Thursday, January 5, 2012
A Blind Man's Driver's Ed Lesson
Today I realized that years of observation and experience has given me two basic assumptions about male/female relationships:
1. A non-romantically involved guy and girl who are best friends = recipe for disaster.
2. A married guy and girl who are not best friends = recipe for divorce.
I'm 99% sure I'm right about both of those. (With a 98% margin for error). A division of labor might have been a great concept on Henry Ford's assembly line, but it's a terrible idea in matters of the heart.
And yet....I have a slight bit of doubt. Maybe it's because I've never been married so I am definitely NOT speaking from experience here. Also, so many seem to think the direct opposite--women in particular it seems. This leads us to an exciting offshoot theory from my main theses. I hope you're sitting down for the following sweeping generalizations:
1. Men hedge their bets in relationships by cheating. They want a lady on the street and a freak in the bed. But not necessarily the same lady. Or the same street. Or freak. Or bed.
2. Women hedge their bets in relationships by seeking a close emotional male friend. (And occasionally cheating).
But folks, I'm not here to judge. Here's the truth: it sucks to put all your eggs in one basket. It's terrifying. And that's what it comes down to: fear. Doing the right thing and staying faithful physically and emotionally to one person is a great idea--in theory. But walking a tightrope from 200 feet up without a safety net is also a good way to instill self-confidence and hone one's concentration skills. How about if you go first?
Of course the common cliche is that women are all about commitment, men are about whoring around. Women are genetically programmed to want to build a nest, men are genetically programmed to spread their seed, etc., etc.. Now that's another sweeping generalization if you ask me. Factoring out the DBQ (Douchebag Quotient) I would submit that guys cheat out of simple horniness and thoughtlessness far less than is assumed. Don't forget many guys live in fear of their girl cheating on them. Shakespeare is supposedly the world's greatest writer and nearly every play has some reference to a guy fearing being cheated on or actually being cheated on! Even Mick Jagger was apparently not immune to this fear. Lines from Tumbling Dice:
"All you women are low down gamblers;
Cheatin' like I don't know!"
And of course there are those unforgettable poignant lines from Dr. Dre and Snoop Dogg:
"B$3%ches ain't nuttin' but ho's and tricks!"
You say misogynistic, I say insecure. Many guys deal with their insecurity by cheating. A pre-emptive strike against an attack that might never come but you're afraid it might come so you strike just in case! Picture the US attacking Baghdad in 2003--hopefully minus Wolf Blitzer's ecstatic narration---and you will start to get the idea. And why wouldn't guys be afraid? Men are dogs who sleep around--so we hear. But apparently the statistics show that women almost always average more sexual partners than men. Are women sluts? I wish! No, it's just that women don't have to ask, they just have to say yes. That changes everything, doesn't it? Forget sex, if I didn't have to ask for a beer, but just say "Okay, I guess I wasn't really doing anything for the next 20 minutes" after someone offered me one every half hour, I would probably be so hammered right now that my last sentence would have read like this:
dlcoepkieDEF LEPPARD ROCKS!!c.3ppei3pp.
So I understand.
Plus guys are idiots. I mean I really feel sorry for women. You're talking about a subspecies of mammals that actually takes the activities of millionaire strangers with numbers on their backs and jockstraps on their junk SERIOUSLY, people that devote all their spare time to lifting weights so they can go to work and lift a stack of 10 pages to carry to their next staff meeting, people that can tell you what the barometric pressure and relative humidity was last 4th Of July but can't remember your middle name, people with hairy backs, people that listen to AM TALK RADIO. I mean WTF? Ladies, I'm really sorry you have to be attracted to us. It has to be a living hell.
And one of THESE specimens of humanity is the person a woman should devote herself to completely and exclusively? Physically, emotionally, and spiritually? And pre-emptive or not, guys cheat too, so how to resist pre-emptive cheating in the event that the guy pre-emptively cheats because he thinks you might non pre-emptively cheat?
I think that made sense. Either way let's move on.
So yes while it makes sense that emotional and physical monogamy is the answer, it's a little like jumping off a diving board blindfolded and hoping to find water in the pool. Or downloading an LMAO album off I-Tunes without knowing if it sucks.
(No, I haven't downloaded LMAO because I know they suck).
But..............I still stand by my original thesis. If a person's best friend isn't their significant other but someone else, it will become a problem sooner or later. Platonic male / female heterosexual best friends? Is that arrangement absolutely guaranteed to cause trouble? No. But if Mel Gibson bought a house situated immediately between a brewery and a synagogue, it wouldn't NECESSARILY become an issue for police, lawyers, and publicists, but I don't think that would be a bet I would want to take, would you?
Mind you, men and women can be friends. In fact this blogger at this point in his life actually has more female friends than male friends. (I'm blessed to work for a wonderful social service agencies filled with countless breathtaking and charming ladies). But if chick flicks have taught us anything other than Hugh Grant is a pansy it's that platonic close friendships always lead to someone wanting it to be more, someone else wanting it to stay what it is, someone's BF/GF getting jealous, and someone playing The Fray in the background. ALL of these are very bad!
Unless the guy is gay. Then never mind.
Best friends only work when it's a relationship and relationships probably won't work unless you're best friends. I'm fairly certain most happily married couples would confirm this. Maybe that's why married people are supposedly happier than single people. Well, that and being able to have sex without needing to bother pretending you're actively involved in PETA or Fantasy Football.
But don't trust me. I'm a grumpy single guy. But I have a friend who is an interesting character who loves to play the frat boy--he's "jacked", he has a loose interpretation of the term "inside voice", and his favorite conversation starter when he's not in mixed company is speculating about the, uh, personal grooming habits of women . (I want to take the moral high ground on this one and say this is crass, rude, and immature. But mostly I found it hilarious). He had once dreamed of breeding a large family of 6'5", 260 pound middle linebackers, so he only dated women who were at least 5'10 or above. No, seriously. But I said, "Your wife is like 5'3. I think you really messed up on that one". He said, "Well, I sort of realized I was marrying my best friend".
See? Now he gets what I'm saying! He wasn't a Henry Ford wannabe who said, "Her department on the assembly line of my life is to be my best friend, but I need a future WNBA power forward to play the role of breeding my burly offspring". Sometimes the ones who make the carburetors can also make the steering wheels. And I wonder if the eternal compartmentalizes are doomed to less happy lives while those who have such epiphanies as my friend are destined to be happier. If you marry someone who isn't your best friend, you've built a beautiful house without a foundation.
Oh no. I can't decide if that sounds like a fortune cookie or a Hallmark card. Either way I better get the hell out of here.
1. A non-romantically involved guy and girl who are best friends = recipe for disaster.
2. A married guy and girl who are not best friends = recipe for divorce.
I'm 99% sure I'm right about both of those. (With a 98% margin for error). A division of labor might have been a great concept on Henry Ford's assembly line, but it's a terrible idea in matters of the heart.
And yet....I have a slight bit of doubt. Maybe it's because I've never been married so I am definitely NOT speaking from experience here. Also, so many seem to think the direct opposite--women in particular it seems. This leads us to an exciting offshoot theory from my main theses. I hope you're sitting down for the following sweeping generalizations:
1. Men hedge their bets in relationships by cheating. They want a lady on the street and a freak in the bed. But not necessarily the same lady. Or the same street. Or freak. Or bed.
2. Women hedge their bets in relationships by seeking a close emotional male friend. (And occasionally cheating).
But folks, I'm not here to judge. Here's the truth: it sucks to put all your eggs in one basket. It's terrifying. And that's what it comes down to: fear. Doing the right thing and staying faithful physically and emotionally to one person is a great idea--in theory. But walking a tightrope from 200 feet up without a safety net is also a good way to instill self-confidence and hone one's concentration skills. How about if you go first?
Of course the common cliche is that women are all about commitment, men are about whoring around. Women are genetically programmed to want to build a nest, men are genetically programmed to spread their seed, etc., etc.. Now that's another sweeping generalization if you ask me. Factoring out the DBQ (Douchebag Quotient) I would submit that guys cheat out of simple horniness and thoughtlessness far less than is assumed. Don't forget many guys live in fear of their girl cheating on them. Shakespeare is supposedly the world's greatest writer and nearly every play has some reference to a guy fearing being cheated on or actually being cheated on! Even Mick Jagger was apparently not immune to this fear. Lines from Tumbling Dice:
"All you women are low down gamblers;
Cheatin' like I don't know!"
And of course there are those unforgettable poignant lines from Dr. Dre and Snoop Dogg:
"B$3%ches ain't nuttin' but ho's and tricks!"
You say misogynistic, I say insecure. Many guys deal with their insecurity by cheating. A pre-emptive strike against an attack that might never come but you're afraid it might come so you strike just in case! Picture the US attacking Baghdad in 2003--hopefully minus Wolf Blitzer's ecstatic narration---and you will start to get the idea. And why wouldn't guys be afraid? Men are dogs who sleep around--so we hear. But apparently the statistics show that women almost always average more sexual partners than men. Are women sluts? I wish! No, it's just that women don't have to ask, they just have to say yes. That changes everything, doesn't it? Forget sex, if I didn't have to ask for a beer, but just say "Okay, I guess I wasn't really doing anything for the next 20 minutes" after someone offered me one every half hour, I would probably be so hammered right now that my last sentence would have read like this:
dlcoepkieDEF LEPPARD ROCKS!!c.3ppei3pp.
So I understand.
Plus guys are idiots. I mean I really feel sorry for women. You're talking about a subspecies of mammals that actually takes the activities of millionaire strangers with numbers on their backs and jockstraps on their junk SERIOUSLY, people that devote all their spare time to lifting weights so they can go to work and lift a stack of 10 pages to carry to their next staff meeting, people that can tell you what the barometric pressure and relative humidity was last 4th Of July but can't remember your middle name, people with hairy backs, people that listen to AM TALK RADIO. I mean WTF? Ladies, I'm really sorry you have to be attracted to us. It has to be a living hell.
And one of THESE specimens of humanity is the person a woman should devote herself to completely and exclusively? Physically, emotionally, and spiritually? And pre-emptive or not, guys cheat too, so how to resist pre-emptive cheating in the event that the guy pre-emptively cheats because he thinks you might non pre-emptively cheat?
I think that made sense. Either way let's move on.
So yes while it makes sense that emotional and physical monogamy is the answer, it's a little like jumping off a diving board blindfolded and hoping to find water in the pool. Or downloading an LMAO album off I-Tunes without knowing if it sucks.
(No, I haven't downloaded LMAO because I know they suck).
But..............I still stand by my original thesis. If a person's best friend isn't their significant other but someone else, it will become a problem sooner or later. Platonic male / female heterosexual best friends? Is that arrangement absolutely guaranteed to cause trouble? No. But if Mel Gibson bought a house situated immediately between a brewery and a synagogue, it wouldn't NECESSARILY become an issue for police, lawyers, and publicists, but I don't think that would be a bet I would want to take, would you?
Mind you, men and women can be friends. In fact this blogger at this point in his life actually has more female friends than male friends. (I'm blessed to work for a wonderful social service agencies filled with countless breathtaking and charming ladies). But if chick flicks have taught us anything other than Hugh Grant is a pansy it's that platonic close friendships always lead to someone wanting it to be more, someone else wanting it to stay what it is, someone's BF/GF getting jealous, and someone playing The Fray in the background. ALL of these are very bad!
Unless the guy is gay. Then never mind.
Best friends only work when it's a relationship and relationships probably won't work unless you're best friends. I'm fairly certain most happily married couples would confirm this. Maybe that's why married people are supposedly happier than single people. Well, that and being able to have sex without needing to bother pretending you're actively involved in PETA or Fantasy Football.
But don't trust me. I'm a grumpy single guy. But I have a friend who is an interesting character who loves to play the frat boy--he's "jacked", he has a loose interpretation of the term "inside voice", and his favorite conversation starter when he's not in mixed company is speculating about the, uh, personal grooming habits of women . (I want to take the moral high ground on this one and say this is crass, rude, and immature. But mostly I found it hilarious). He had once dreamed of breeding a large family of 6'5", 260 pound middle linebackers, so he only dated women who were at least 5'10 or above. No, seriously. But I said, "Your wife is like 5'3. I think you really messed up on that one". He said, "Well, I sort of realized I was marrying my best friend".
See? Now he gets what I'm saying! He wasn't a Henry Ford wannabe who said, "Her department on the assembly line of my life is to be my best friend, but I need a future WNBA power forward to play the role of breeding my burly offspring". Sometimes the ones who make the carburetors can also make the steering wheels. And I wonder if the eternal compartmentalizes are doomed to less happy lives while those who have such epiphanies as my friend are destined to be happier. If you marry someone who isn't your best friend, you've built a beautiful house without a foundation.
Oh no. I can't decide if that sounds like a fortune cookie or a Hallmark card. Either way I better get the hell out of here.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Everybody Must Get Stoned
Okay I can't resist.......I will be the 100 millionth person in America to blog about Casey Anthony. Hopefully there's at least a Dunkin Donuts gift card in my near future or something. I admit that I wasn't paying much attention to this whole circus trial until about a week ago and mostly it's people's overwhelming, visceral hatred of her which has gained my attention. But I now realize why people were so fascinated by this story. It has every soap opera element imaginable: a lost child, a mom who may have murdered her child in the woods, sex, drugs, tattoos, and Myspace postings! Lifetime Network executives have died and gone to Heaven.
Of course I have no clue what actually happened. I will admit from the outset that I WANT to believe that she didn't do it. Call it the natural contrarion in me. I can't help it. I've seen the movie 12 Angry Men and I've read To Kill A Mockingbird and The Brothers Karamazov: stories where an OBVIOUSLY guilty person turns out to be innocent and it took a thoughtful, open minded person to settle down the lynch mob and the jackals and get them to see the facts more clearly. Do I fantasize about being such a voice of reason? Has it caused me to believe what I want to believe in this case? Maybe, but I've learned to be naturally at least skeptical over what everyone else assumes is obvious when it comes to guilt or innocence. Or with anything else for that matter. Conventional wisdom is often wrong--or at the very least a half-truth.
Also---full disclosure here--Casey Anthony is a surprisingly attractive girl. Is that influencing me here JUST a bit? Is there a part of me that wants to believe this pretty girl who has been living in solitary confinement for 3 years and will be freed into a world foaming at the mouth to stone her to death is actually innocent and misunderstood? Notions like that do bring out the protective side in me. But is my"protectiveness" just a case of Don Quixote syndrome in reverse: seeing a gentle windmill softly swaying in the breeze which is actually an evil and deadly monster?
Many have compared this to the OJ Simpson trial and the outrage people felt over his acquittal, but I think it's an apples and oranges comparison for two reasons:
1. An alternative explanation of events. To me OJ's guilt was beyond a reasonable doubt in part because no attempt was even made to explain who else might have murdered Nicole and Ron What's-His-Name. (Ah! Goldmann. I just thought of it). If OJ didn't do it, who did?? SOME piece of evidence should have surfaced that at least pointed to the possibility of it being someone else, shouldn't it? None did. And random strangers simply don't knife people to death. At least in this case you had the possible--unlikely perhaps?, but possible--explanation that Caylee drowned and Casey decided to cover it up instead of fessing up to the police like any reasonable person would have.
2. Motive. OJ had a very plausible motive to kill Nicole and Ron. Unfortunately, crimes of passion are not uncommon. I'm sure we've all read plenty of stories about jealous ex-husbands or boyfriends who murder their estranged wives and girlfriends and their new boyfriends. It's that whole "if I can't be with you, no one can" psychotic, women-as-property male thinking. But a mother murdering her 2 year old daughter so she could party more?? Offing her toddler so she could do more keg stands? I'm having a really hard time swallowing that one. In my job, I've read tons and tons of psych evaluations of young moms very similar to Casey Anthony: drug and alcohol abusing, promiscuous, compulsive lying gals. Not wholesome church going girls. Not exactly June Cleaver. But I must say I've never formed even the faintest impression that these girls have ever even thought about killing their child to go to all-night raves and do tons of E. Never. Even when they lose custody of their kids to the state they seem depressed rather than thrilled to be rid of the burden of their children. My general impression is that even bad moms want to be moms. ESPECIALLY if the child is two years old and maternal instincts have been allowed to grow. Maternal instincts are chemicals in the brain which are real and seem to impact--albeit some more than others--every single mother. It doesn't always result in them morphing into Mom Of The Year or PTA members, but it seems to at least remove the possibility of murder from the equation. To many people the thinking seems to be, "Well! If she was a lying, partying slut, I can EASILY see how she could have taken her daughter to the woods and suffocated her!". As if that's somehow a small leap to take. Irresponsibility and immaturity are vastly different from stone cold evil. It's a huge, monumental leap to take which I'm just not sure she could have taken--at least not for that reason.
But I realize that doesn't prove her innocence. Even if my hunch is correct and the prosecutions' "girls just want to have fun even if it means a dead toddler in the trunk"" argument is utterly ridiculous--an argument that plays into people's worst nightmarish paranoid "Satanic Mommy meets Wicked Witch Of The West" fantasies and may work brilliantly as a Lifetime movie teleplay but flies directly in the face of the realities of human nature, even if that's the case............she could have still done it for reasons the prosecution never uncovered. Maybe Casey's psychological problems ran deeper than a personality disorder. Maybe she was a full blown schizophrenic too scared to let anyone know? Maybe she heard command auditory hallucinations telling her to kill her daughter? If so, now we might have a plausible motive.
Or maybe the family issues run even deeper than we realize. There's been unproven accusations that Casey was molested. I guess you never know the truth about these things, but that's something else I've learned from my job: incest is more common than some might want to think. Could Caylee have been the product of that? Probably not, but the desire to erase a family history of sexual abuse by killing the daughter she saw as symbolic of the abuse could be a plausible motive.
But not partying.
And if either incest or full blown schizophrenia was the motive to kill, why didn't either the defense or prosecution prove it? I didn't watch the whole trial, but it looks to me like the lawyers from both sides pretty much sucked. And that is why I suppose the jury felt compelled to acquit her.
So why all the rage? I realize there is a chance she got away with murder, but unless I've completely drunk the Casey Kool Aid, it seems like there's a also a somewhat reasonable chance she didn't do it. If I'm right, we should be happy to live in a country where the government can't put someone to death unless they have overwhelmingly proved to a jury that the accused did what they're being accused of doing. OJ? That acquittal was a joke. This one? I'm less sure .
But then again...........if Caylee drowned why spin such an elaborate web of lies to cover it up? Apparently Casey had been a compulsive liar her whole life. (I guess her lawyers linked that to her supposed history of sexual abuse). People who get into that habit seem to revert to lies as a knee jerk reaction to almost anything even mildly embarrassing or shameful. For some people, lying becomes as natural and effortless as breathing. Let's say you're such a person and you weren't watching your daughter--maybe you were passed out on the couch after too many bong hits and PBR's--and your little girl drowned in the swimming pool. Does it seem totally implausible that such a person would revert to lies instead of facing the shame and humiliation like a well adjusted person would?
Again, I'm not saying she's innocent. I am saying I don't know how so many people are SO positive she's guilty. It does seem like it can reasonably be argued either way.
Oh.....and as to her partying. Getting drunk and high can be labelled "partying", but for many people it's more like self-medication. Does anyone believe that everyone who shows up at a bar or a keg party is a happy-go-lucky guy or gal just celebrating the thrill of living? For some people, yes. But many, many people use substances and the fog of temporary papier mache happiness they bring as a desperate attempt to escape guilt, shame, and depression . So isn't it conceivable that Casey's "partying" followingg Caylee's death was not a celebration of her emancipation from the burdens of motherhood but rather symptomatic of a scared, guilt ridden, miserable young woman desperately trying to convince herself she was having fun?
Or......not. Maybe she is the heartless monster everyone thinks. But why did this evil witch break down in tears so often in the courtroom? We don't know. Like so much else, it's a Rorschach test and we can project our feelings however we want. We could say they were crocodile tears, we could say they were tears simply because she was sorry she got caught, or we could say they were genuine tears of remorse because she failed to protect her daughter from dying and this cruel reality was being exposed for the world to see---and exposure of any kind is the ultimate fear of any person who's lived their life behind a wall of self-protecting lies. Can anyone say they truly know?
Plus this case hang heavily on chloroform. Per Wikipedia, "Chloroform is the organic compound with the forumula ChCl3. The colorless, sweet-smelling, dense liquid is a trihalomethane and is considered somewhat hazardous". It can be used to subdue your child before suffocating her to death. The problem is it IS used as a sleep aid and it IS used in swimming pools. Is chloroform really the smoking gun proof of guilt or do its many uses simply add one more layer of reasonable doubt and ambiguity? Chemical compounds are more versatile than smoking guns. Should we blame the jury for that?
Does every mother in America want to believe she's guilty because they can always say, "I may not be the perfect mom, but at least I'm not THAT evil biatch". That's the psychological comfort scapegoats bring. This psychology was on full display at the Salem witch trials. People filled with unconscious guilt are often the first to pronounce others guilty. But I can't really be judgment about this. I had a conversation with a girl on an online date over the winter. She wanted desperately to give Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlesberger the benefit of the doubt despite rape accusations. Me? Not as much. Do I somehow want to believe Big Ben is a rapist because despite my flaws, I can at least point to guys like him and say, "At least I'm better than THAT loser"? Was Big Ben my psychological sacrificial lamb the way Casey Anthony seems to be for so many moms?
But then again............not to sound like a broken record---but if she's a child killer and she got away with it, this is one of the worst travesties of justice in American history and people are right to be sickened and outraged. But we do have a legal system rooted in medieval legal scholar Maimonides' maxim: "It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death". Do all Americans truly believe that? It seems like many today believe the reverse: "It is better and more satisfactory to convict a thousand innocent persons than to let a single guilty one escape death". Do many people--ironically enough--want to get more medieval on the ass of apparently guilty persons than a medieval person himself?
Of course I have no clue what actually happened. I will admit from the outset that I WANT to believe that she didn't do it. Call it the natural contrarion in me. I can't help it. I've seen the movie 12 Angry Men and I've read To Kill A Mockingbird and The Brothers Karamazov: stories where an OBVIOUSLY guilty person turns out to be innocent and it took a thoughtful, open minded person to settle down the lynch mob and the jackals and get them to see the facts more clearly. Do I fantasize about being such a voice of reason? Has it caused me to believe what I want to believe in this case? Maybe, but I've learned to be naturally at least skeptical over what everyone else assumes is obvious when it comes to guilt or innocence. Or with anything else for that matter. Conventional wisdom is often wrong--or at the very least a half-truth.
Also---full disclosure here--Casey Anthony is a surprisingly attractive girl. Is that influencing me here JUST a bit? Is there a part of me that wants to believe this pretty girl who has been living in solitary confinement for 3 years and will be freed into a world foaming at the mouth to stone her to death is actually innocent and misunderstood? Notions like that do bring out the protective side in me. But is my"protectiveness" just a case of Don Quixote syndrome in reverse: seeing a gentle windmill softly swaying in the breeze which is actually an evil and deadly monster?
Many have compared this to the OJ Simpson trial and the outrage people felt over his acquittal, but I think it's an apples and oranges comparison for two reasons:
1. An alternative explanation of events. To me OJ's guilt was beyond a reasonable doubt in part because no attempt was even made to explain who else might have murdered Nicole and Ron What's-His-Name. (Ah! Goldmann. I just thought of it). If OJ didn't do it, who did?? SOME piece of evidence should have surfaced that at least pointed to the possibility of it being someone else, shouldn't it? None did. And random strangers simply don't knife people to death. At least in this case you had the possible--unlikely perhaps?, but possible--explanation that Caylee drowned and Casey decided to cover it up instead of fessing up to the police like any reasonable person would have.
2. Motive. OJ had a very plausible motive to kill Nicole and Ron. Unfortunately, crimes of passion are not uncommon. I'm sure we've all read plenty of stories about jealous ex-husbands or boyfriends who murder their estranged wives and girlfriends and their new boyfriends. It's that whole "if I can't be with you, no one can" psychotic, women-as-property male thinking. But a mother murdering her 2 year old daughter so she could party more?? Offing her toddler so she could do more keg stands? I'm having a really hard time swallowing that one. In my job, I've read tons and tons of psych evaluations of young moms very similar to Casey Anthony: drug and alcohol abusing, promiscuous, compulsive lying gals. Not wholesome church going girls. Not exactly June Cleaver. But I must say I've never formed even the faintest impression that these girls have ever even thought about killing their child to go to all-night raves and do tons of E. Never. Even when they lose custody of their kids to the state they seem depressed rather than thrilled to be rid of the burden of their children. My general impression is that even bad moms want to be moms. ESPECIALLY if the child is two years old and maternal instincts have been allowed to grow. Maternal instincts are chemicals in the brain which are real and seem to impact--albeit some more than others--every single mother. It doesn't always result in them morphing into Mom Of The Year or PTA members, but it seems to at least remove the possibility of murder from the equation. To many people the thinking seems to be, "Well! If she was a lying, partying slut, I can EASILY see how she could have taken her daughter to the woods and suffocated her!". As if that's somehow a small leap to take. Irresponsibility and immaturity are vastly different from stone cold evil. It's a huge, monumental leap to take which I'm just not sure she could have taken--at least not for that reason.
But I realize that doesn't prove her innocence. Even if my hunch is correct and the prosecutions' "girls just want to have fun even if it means a dead toddler in the trunk"" argument is utterly ridiculous--an argument that plays into people's worst nightmarish paranoid "Satanic Mommy meets Wicked Witch Of The West" fantasies and may work brilliantly as a Lifetime movie teleplay but flies directly in the face of the realities of human nature, even if that's the case............she could have still done it for reasons the prosecution never uncovered. Maybe Casey's psychological problems ran deeper than a personality disorder. Maybe she was a full blown schizophrenic too scared to let anyone know? Maybe she heard command auditory hallucinations telling her to kill her daughter? If so, now we might have a plausible motive.
Or maybe the family issues run even deeper than we realize. There's been unproven accusations that Casey was molested. I guess you never know the truth about these things, but that's something else I've learned from my job: incest is more common than some might want to think. Could Caylee have been the product of that? Probably not, but the desire to erase a family history of sexual abuse by killing the daughter she saw as symbolic of the abuse could be a plausible motive.
But not partying.
And if either incest or full blown schizophrenia was the motive to kill, why didn't either the defense or prosecution prove it? I didn't watch the whole trial, but it looks to me like the lawyers from both sides pretty much sucked. And that is why I suppose the jury felt compelled to acquit her.
So why all the rage? I realize there is a chance she got away with murder, but unless I've completely drunk the Casey Kool Aid, it seems like there's a also a somewhat reasonable chance she didn't do it. If I'm right, we should be happy to live in a country where the government can't put someone to death unless they have overwhelmingly proved to a jury that the accused did what they're being accused of doing. OJ? That acquittal was a joke. This one? I'm less sure .
But then again...........if Caylee drowned why spin such an elaborate web of lies to cover it up? Apparently Casey had been a compulsive liar her whole life. (I guess her lawyers linked that to her supposed history of sexual abuse). People who get into that habit seem to revert to lies as a knee jerk reaction to almost anything even mildly embarrassing or shameful. For some people, lying becomes as natural and effortless as breathing. Let's say you're such a person and you weren't watching your daughter--maybe you were passed out on the couch after too many bong hits and PBR's--and your little girl drowned in the swimming pool. Does it seem totally implausible that such a person would revert to lies instead of facing the shame and humiliation like a well adjusted person would?
Again, I'm not saying she's innocent. I am saying I don't know how so many people are SO positive she's guilty. It does seem like it can reasonably be argued either way.
Oh.....and as to her partying. Getting drunk and high can be labelled "partying", but for many people it's more like self-medication. Does anyone believe that everyone who shows up at a bar or a keg party is a happy-go-lucky guy or gal just celebrating the thrill of living? For some people, yes. But many, many people use substances and the fog of temporary papier mache happiness they bring as a desperate attempt to escape guilt, shame, and depression . So isn't it conceivable that Casey's "partying" followingg Caylee's death was not a celebration of her emancipation from the burdens of motherhood but rather symptomatic of a scared, guilt ridden, miserable young woman desperately trying to convince herself she was having fun?
Or......not. Maybe she is the heartless monster everyone thinks. But why did this evil witch break down in tears so often in the courtroom? We don't know. Like so much else, it's a Rorschach test and we can project our feelings however we want. We could say they were crocodile tears, we could say they were tears simply because she was sorry she got caught, or we could say they were genuine tears of remorse because she failed to protect her daughter from dying and this cruel reality was being exposed for the world to see---and exposure of any kind is the ultimate fear of any person who's lived their life behind a wall of self-protecting lies. Can anyone say they truly know?
Plus this case hang heavily on chloroform. Per Wikipedia, "Chloroform is the organic compound with the forumula ChCl3. The colorless, sweet-smelling, dense liquid is a trihalomethane and is considered somewhat hazardous". It can be used to subdue your child before suffocating her to death. The problem is it IS used as a sleep aid and it IS used in swimming pools. Is chloroform really the smoking gun proof of guilt or do its many uses simply add one more layer of reasonable doubt and ambiguity? Chemical compounds are more versatile than smoking guns. Should we blame the jury for that?
Does every mother in America want to believe she's guilty because they can always say, "I may not be the perfect mom, but at least I'm not THAT evil biatch". That's the psychological comfort scapegoats bring. This psychology was on full display at the Salem witch trials. People filled with unconscious guilt are often the first to pronounce others guilty. But I can't really be judgment about this. I had a conversation with a girl on an online date over the winter. She wanted desperately to give Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlesberger the benefit of the doubt despite rape accusations. Me? Not as much. Do I somehow want to believe Big Ben is a rapist because despite my flaws, I can at least point to guys like him and say, "At least I'm better than THAT loser"? Was Big Ben my psychological sacrificial lamb the way Casey Anthony seems to be for so many moms?
But then again............not to sound like a broken record---but if she's a child killer and she got away with it, this is one of the worst travesties of justice in American history and people are right to be sickened and outraged. But we do have a legal system rooted in medieval legal scholar Maimonides' maxim: "It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death". Do all Americans truly believe that? It seems like many today believe the reverse: "It is better and more satisfactory to convict a thousand innocent persons than to let a single guilty one escape death". Do many people--ironically enough--want to get more medieval on the ass of apparently guilty persons than a medieval person himself?
Sunday, November 7, 2010
A Day In The Life.....
Hi. So I had promised to write a blog so here goes. You know, I used to write more and it really is easier if you do it often. My mental sharpness has gone the way of Skeet Ulrich's post-Scream acting career. If I get any more dull-witted I will have to join the Tea Party and help Sarah Palin keep an eye on Russia. I'm legally blind but why do I get the feeling i could still keep a better eye on Russia than Sarah, Todd, Bristol, and Levi combined? Oh man. There I go again. I don't want to turn my blogs into liberal rants. So please disregard that comment. The Tea Party is an outstanding organization. Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are fine Americans. These are not the droids I'm looking for.
I can't think of any decent topic. So why don't I tell you about my day? I know, I know. Another blogger trying to elevate the mundane details his life into epic drama? What could be more self-absorbed? I'm totally with you on this. Let's get started.
I woke up around 10. VERY hard to get out of bed these days in the colder weather. I showered and got dressed and discovered I got up at 9. My I-Phone clock knew what my alarm clock and my brain didn't: we fell back last night.
I went to breakfast at Reuben's Deli--a weekend breakfast hotspot in West Hartford Center. It's only a few bucks more than going to Friendly's for breakfast but the demographic is very different. Very "west of the river". (Or do I mean "east of the river"?). At Reuben's you're likely to overhear conversations about recent vacations to Spain and what exquisite architecture they have along with discussions of international trade policy. At Friendly's you're likely to hear conversations in Spanish about whether the Mets should trade Francisco Rodriguez. But I actually feel I can learn much more by listening to people at Friendly's since I've been trying to learn Spanish and I'm not convinced the Reuben's crowd knows much more about architecture than me. Anyway, I had an omelet with home fries and toast. Some OJ and water to wash that down, thanks. I had my IPad to read while I waited so I didn't have to feel like TOO much of a loser dining alone.
Got home. Played guitar. God. Am I the only one getting bored already?
Then I went to the UConn game. An exhibition game against Bridgeport. That's right: I am a loyal, die-hard UConn fan. I go to all of the games, not just Syracuse and Georgetown. Or.....maybe I just have no life. Too close to call.
While I was waiting for the bus heading downtown a guy asked me if I knew whether the buses were going to be late due to the parade. He clearly didn't realize he was talking to a guy who needed an hour to realize what time he got up that morning. I said, "There's a parade today?" He said, "Yes. A Columbus Day Parade". He obviously meant Veterans Day but no one likes a no-it-all so I didn't say anything. Then he started discussing the weather forecast with me. We might be getting snow. Another piece of info I was completely unaware of. What does it say about our society when the instant a stranger initiates small talk with us we immediately assume they must be a little weird? Like, "Pal, didn't you get the memo? This is New England. We pretend strangers don't exist here. Take that act to Mississippi or the Institute of Living where it belongs!". But it's entirely possible I'm the weird, standoffish one.
The game was great. A "sparsely attended" game. Perfect. No lines. Pick your own seat. I hope everyone stays home for the Big East games too. The Huskies dominated Bridgeport--a Division ll school. First the voter ballot debacle, now this. Not a good week for B'Port. I did notice they have the nickname the Purple Knights--just like my high school! Ellington High School. But their uniforms aren't as cool: purple and black as opposed to Ellington's purple and gold--the colors of ancient emperors and NCCC champions.
UConn is loaded with freshman and they looked really good..........against a Division ll school from Fairfield County, but my point stands. They looked enthusiastic and unselfish! If they play that way all year I'll be happy. And they have a guard with the first name Shabazz! I'm bracing myself for the awkward cheers, though. They have have two white boys: one is a German kid and the other a local kid from EO Smith in Storrs--as local as you can get. The nearly all-white crowd will no doubt immediately turn both of them into fan favorites. Awkward. UConn fans once cheered on Ed Nelson like he was Wilt Chamberlain so I'm speaking from experience here.
3 beers at the game. A Smithwicks, a Hooker IPA, and a Sam Adams. Each $9. What a steal! And some nachos too. And I wonder why I put on weight in the winter? College basketball is the best thing about winter. And unlike the NBA, it's a winter sport that doesn't outstay its welcome. It finishes the first week of April. The NBA finals take place in June. June if for baseball, frisbee, and sunburns, not the sport invented to keep Springfield College kids occupied through the winter so they wouldn't impregnate nice Catholic girls.
When the game ended I noticed the Veterans Day Parade was in full swing. I stopped for a few minutes to watch it. My Parade Attention Span is usually 4 minutes and I think I timed this one beautifully. A lady kept stepping out as each vet marched by and passionately said, "Thank you! Thank you!" and waved her American flag. I wasn't sure what to make of it. It seemed maybe a little strained, like she imagined these guys all went went to war specifically to protect her alone. (Or, giving her the benefit of the doubt, maybe she had lost a family member herself?). I would just feel weird about doing that myself. I'm just not sure veterans went to war for me, and I'm not sure if they should have. They probably did it because they believe in some abstract way that they had a duty to serve and protect the country as a whole. Or they were drafted. Or they heard chicks dig men in uniform. You just never know.
I got home and went to the gym to go swimming. 1/2 hour of laps. After 3 beers and nachos. I wonder if that's Michael Phelps' pre-swim diet too. If it isn't it should be.
Then I went to Moe's Southwestern Grill. They always say, "Welcome to Moe's!" when you walk in. I like it. I'm going to start doing that at my job. When I answer the phone I will say, "Welcome to Disability Determination Services, a branch of the Department of Social Services, a department of the State of Connecticut, but we're actually more Social Security. But either way, welcome!". I had the Art Vandalay. A veggie burrito. Yeah, yeah. Just because it's veggie doesn't make it healthy. I know. "Say Vandalay Industries!". I had to do it.
Got home. Showered again. I had to use my special anti-chlorine shampoo. I heard if you swim a lot and have blond hair it might turn green. That would be just great.
Then I discovered 3 beers, nachos, swimming, and a burrito have a strange way of making you feel EXHAUSTED. So I went into a half-sleep watching Peyton "Smirkmaster Flex" Manning lose to Michael "Dog Killah" Vick. Instinctively I rooted against Manning and the Colts but now that I think about it.............
Anyway, that's all. An inside look at a mover and a shaker. A day in the life of a pimp, a playboy, a rock star, a legend in his own time.
Or something like that.
I can't think of any decent topic. So why don't I tell you about my day? I know, I know. Another blogger trying to elevate the mundane details his life into epic drama? What could be more self-absorbed? I'm totally with you on this. Let's get started.
I woke up around 10. VERY hard to get out of bed these days in the colder weather. I showered and got dressed and discovered I got up at 9. My I-Phone clock knew what my alarm clock and my brain didn't: we fell back last night.
I went to breakfast at Reuben's Deli--a weekend breakfast hotspot in West Hartford Center. It's only a few bucks more than going to Friendly's for breakfast but the demographic is very different. Very "west of the river". (Or do I mean "east of the river"?). At Reuben's you're likely to overhear conversations about recent vacations to Spain and what exquisite architecture they have along with discussions of international trade policy. At Friendly's you're likely to hear conversations in Spanish about whether the Mets should trade Francisco Rodriguez. But I actually feel I can learn much more by listening to people at Friendly's since I've been trying to learn Spanish and I'm not convinced the Reuben's crowd knows much more about architecture than me. Anyway, I had an omelet with home fries and toast. Some OJ and water to wash that down, thanks. I had my IPad to read while I waited so I didn't have to feel like TOO much of a loser dining alone.
Got home. Played guitar. God. Am I the only one getting bored already?
Then I went to the UConn game. An exhibition game against Bridgeport. That's right: I am a loyal, die-hard UConn fan. I go to all of the games, not just Syracuse and Georgetown. Or.....maybe I just have no life. Too close to call.
While I was waiting for the bus heading downtown a guy asked me if I knew whether the buses were going to be late due to the parade. He clearly didn't realize he was talking to a guy who needed an hour to realize what time he got up that morning. I said, "There's a parade today?" He said, "Yes. A Columbus Day Parade". He obviously meant Veterans Day but no one likes a no-it-all so I didn't say anything. Then he started discussing the weather forecast with me. We might be getting snow. Another piece of info I was completely unaware of. What does it say about our society when the instant a stranger initiates small talk with us we immediately assume they must be a little weird? Like, "Pal, didn't you get the memo? This is New England. We pretend strangers don't exist here. Take that act to Mississippi or the Institute of Living where it belongs!". But it's entirely possible I'm the weird, standoffish one.
The game was great. A "sparsely attended" game. Perfect. No lines. Pick your own seat. I hope everyone stays home for the Big East games too. The Huskies dominated Bridgeport--a Division ll school. First the voter ballot debacle, now this. Not a good week for B'Port. I did notice they have the nickname the Purple Knights--just like my high school! Ellington High School. But their uniforms aren't as cool: purple and black as opposed to Ellington's purple and gold--the colors of ancient emperors and NCCC champions.
UConn is loaded with freshman and they looked really good..........against a Division ll school from Fairfield County, but my point stands. They looked enthusiastic and unselfish! If they play that way all year I'll be happy. And they have a guard with the first name Shabazz! I'm bracing myself for the awkward cheers, though. They have have two white boys: one is a German kid and the other a local kid from EO Smith in Storrs--as local as you can get. The nearly all-white crowd will no doubt immediately turn both of them into fan favorites. Awkward. UConn fans once cheered on Ed Nelson like he was Wilt Chamberlain so I'm speaking from experience here.
3 beers at the game. A Smithwicks, a Hooker IPA, and a Sam Adams. Each $9. What a steal! And some nachos too. And I wonder why I put on weight in the winter? College basketball is the best thing about winter. And unlike the NBA, it's a winter sport that doesn't outstay its welcome. It finishes the first week of April. The NBA finals take place in June. June if for baseball, frisbee, and sunburns, not the sport invented to keep Springfield College kids occupied through the winter so they wouldn't impregnate nice Catholic girls.
When the game ended I noticed the Veterans Day Parade was in full swing. I stopped for a few minutes to watch it. My Parade Attention Span is usually 4 minutes and I think I timed this one beautifully. A lady kept stepping out as each vet marched by and passionately said, "Thank you! Thank you!" and waved her American flag. I wasn't sure what to make of it. It seemed maybe a little strained, like she imagined these guys all went went to war specifically to protect her alone. (Or, giving her the benefit of the doubt, maybe she had lost a family member herself?). I would just feel weird about doing that myself. I'm just not sure veterans went to war for me, and I'm not sure if they should have. They probably did it because they believe in some abstract way that they had a duty to serve and protect the country as a whole. Or they were drafted. Or they heard chicks dig men in uniform. You just never know.
I got home and went to the gym to go swimming. 1/2 hour of laps. After 3 beers and nachos. I wonder if that's Michael Phelps' pre-swim diet too. If it isn't it should be.
Then I went to Moe's Southwestern Grill. They always say, "Welcome to Moe's!" when you walk in. I like it. I'm going to start doing that at my job. When I answer the phone I will say, "Welcome to Disability Determination Services, a branch of the Department of Social Services, a department of the State of Connecticut, but we're actually more Social Security. But either way, welcome!". I had the Art Vandalay. A veggie burrito. Yeah, yeah. Just because it's veggie doesn't make it healthy. I know. "Say Vandalay Industries!". I had to do it.
Got home. Showered again. I had to use my special anti-chlorine shampoo. I heard if you swim a lot and have blond hair it might turn green. That would be just great.
Then I discovered 3 beers, nachos, swimming, and a burrito have a strange way of making you feel EXHAUSTED. So I went into a half-sleep watching Peyton "Smirkmaster Flex" Manning lose to Michael "Dog Killah" Vick. Instinctively I rooted against Manning and the Colts but now that I think about it.............
Anyway, that's all. An inside look at a mover and a shaker. A day in the life of a pimp, a playboy, a rock star, a legend in his own time.
Or something like that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)