DEFINE THE WORD

Throughout his excellent book FANTASYLAND: HOW AMERICA WENT HAYWIRE, Kurt Andersen refers to Puritans, Pilgrims, Mesmerists, Fundamentalists, Rationalists, Supernaturalists, Empiricists, Relativists, Creationists, Christians, Protestants, Pentecostalists and Charismatics. How many people in this world would have a single clue as to what any of those terms actually reference. Even if we included the difference between Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists and Presbyterians. Would we really know? But they all do have one thing in common: they are all some variation on the continuing evolution of Christianity. Why do I mention them? Because in reading Andersens book I was forced to go to my IPAD word reference, more than once, for the definition of these terms and then think of how that term fit into the theme of his book. Had I not taken the time to look them up, more than once per term, I would not have been able to understand his book. I did look them up, felt I understood his point and therefore could agree with him on almost everything he posited. Had I not taken the time, I would still be in the dark.

Today, as I watched Maureen Sullivan interview John Hickenlooper, former governor of the State of Colorado and a recently announced presidential candidate, I was reminded of these terms in Andersen's book. About religion? No. She asked Hickenlooper if he was a capitalist or a socialist. She asked it in such a way that presumed everyone watching her show, including Hickenlooper, had the same definition of the two words.

When he responded he told her that he had started upwards of 20 businesses, was primarily interested in inspiring  others to raise money and start their own businesses, creating new jobs in the process. It sounded pretty Capitalistic to me. But no, she pressed on,  but would you "say" you are a capitalist? I have no idea how he could answer such a stupid question beyond the fact that he has demonstrated a career as a capitalist, which most of the other candidates can't claim.  She then proceeded to push him on his credentials vis a vis socialism. His response was in the state of Colorado, the vast major of citizens are on some form of universal health care. Now I am not certain but I believe the people who have extended care coverage in his state are quite happy with it and do not need to refer to it as socialism. So why push him on that? He clearly has an interest in the well being of his citizens, without reducing it to a single word.

My point? in the 60's and 70's I developed a theory I have used the theory thought my life. I call it my "accelerator word theory". It means that when a person hears a commonly used word they do not feel the need to have it defined, they simply accelerate to their understanding of what that word means to them. They literally "jump" to their own understanding of the word, forgoing all the possible nuances inherent in the word. When the same words, being used, have different meanings to two or more people then any chance of communication between them no longer exists. From the first mention of such a  word, they are on different planes, therefore have no change of ever agreeing. Take words like, socialism, capitalism, immigrants, muslims, gays and even today expand the concept to terms like patriot, freedom or even religion itself. The variety of meanings that have attached themselves, over the last many decades, to these terms, are so wide and dispirit they have lost their intended purpose in enhancing any form of communication. They have all become pejoratives to some and aspirations to others. But, definitely not the same thing.

If you are on different sides of an argument and want reconciliation, the definitions of the words being used must be agreed on, BEFORE the substance of the discussion can even begin. The biggest offender of this is the media. Maureen Sullivan, in her attempt to appear forceful should have asked the governor if,  "with this as its definition, would you agree you are a Capitalist"? If he agreed with her definition he could clearly claim to be one, or not.  If he did not agree with her definition he could have provided his own and then answered her question.

If media took that tack in their interview process, the interview, which  might take longer, would better inform the viewer and move people closer to a common understanding of the issues and maybe inspire us to be a less divided nation..

PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC FATALITIES

In 2017 19% of all auto fatalities included a pedestrian. Imagine 5,977 pedestrians were killed in auto accidents, a 45% increase, says a recent news report. The auto industry answer? A new pre collision braking system technology, currently being tested. That is one good suggestion but not the only one.

Although the average weight of a car has dropped from over 4,000 pounds to slightly more than 3200 pounds due to more advanced materials, I think the average still exceeds the weight of the average human, who reports in at 137 pounds, (certainly not here in the USA), but still far less than the average automobile on the road.


Why are so many more of these type of accidents and deaths happening now? The quick answer is distractions. The driver is talking or texting on his phone. The average car today has more on-board electronics at the finger tips of the driver than most television sets and the attraction to using them can be overwhelming.  The walker is doing the same thing. More and more "both" are equally distracted. The result? More accidents and more pedestrian deaths.

I know if I am going to step out into a street, even when there is a well lit, painted cross walk I am going to look out for something that is traveling far faster than me and weighs more than 29 times as much as I do. I don't stand a chance in such a scenario.

But there is a different way at looking at this statistic and one that goes beyond the pedestrian involved accidents. That is, we have lost, or never fully understood, the social contract we accept every time we step out of our house.

Our house is our castle. Inside, alone, there are  no rules.  We can do pretty much whatever we want.
Once we walk outside of the house we join countless others in the public arena where the rules of engagement are vastly different from what they were when we were inside. The goal for all of us is to get back inside, safely and alive. I'll bet the 5,977 above pedestrian statistics  had the exact same goal in mind, when they left their house.

When we leave our house,  we join countless others;  walkers, drivers, shoppers, joggers, bikers and virtually every other known mode of transportation.  We also are subject to every other conceivable distraction that has begun to command more and more of our attention. Phones, friend notifications, retail text messages,  news alerts, all demanding immediacy are the new constant.

We have to come to grips with the fact that we are no longer in total control of the environment or of anyone or anything else we encounter, when we enter the public. Every person out there has their own reasons for being there. Add to the escalating chaos and distractions, the weather, the traffic, the time of day, our location, the rules of the road and numerous other unforeseen variables, it is clear no one has the attention span to take it all in. One could not possibly imagine the number of unpredictable encounters we are subject to every time we leave our house.

How does this relate to the pedestrian fatalities in cross walks? Simple. At every intersection there are two people, a driver  and a walker. The above mentioned pre collision braking system is one answer for the driver. What about the walker? As a walker we must accept responsibility, that when crossing a well lit, lined, cross walk we can be entering a potential danger zone. As walkers we cannot change how drivers act. But we can take responsibility for how we act. True, the law says we are entitled to cross a street, where properly marked, without being hit by a motor vehicle. That is a privilege.  But if we believe that is our right and we are entitled to that right the very moment we step off the curb, we may end making that argument in the morgue.

Have we checked the cars on the road, estimated their speed, looked into the drivers eyes to see if they are even there, taken an inventory of how many cars are yet to come, can we wait another 10-15 seconds. Once we begin the crossing are we actually crossing or are we still on the phone, is this a cross walk or a stroll down a country path, am I alone out here, are others crossing? The questions we should be asking are numerous and they are all intended to keep us safe. Our safety, is our responsiblity.

The world has gotten faster, our attention span has gotten shorter.  That combination alone should be ample evidence that when in public we have to take a much greater share of responsibility, for our own safety.

That is one way we can lower the rate of pedestrian deaths. Take responsibility.

SOCIAL MEDIA HAS A BAD REPUTATION

For the last few years the social media world has exploded with negative, hate filled, venomous attacks on all types of people. It is generally acceptable for people to disagree and even to argue their point vehemently but the rhetoric recently has been downright hostile, if not violent.

I use social media every day. I use Facebook primarily to keep in contact with many people I worked with years ago. From the time I retired to now I have seen many of them get new jobs, find a spouse, have a child, and have a child go to high school, college and beyond. Sadly I have also seen some of the nicest people pass away.

My experience with FB has been incredible and I believe had it not been for such a platform I would have completely lost touch with all  these folks years ago and that would have been my loss.

Occasionally I wanted to say something philosophical or even to a lesser degree political and I have posted my thoughts on FB. I am generally met with some agreement and some disagreement. But these postings for me are minimal and not at all important compared to what I experience with my old buddies from work.


I also use Twitter but I use it for a completely different reason. I hardly, if ever, post anything on Twitter. What I have done is to curate people I respect. People who are opinionated, connected to worlds I am not connected to and for the most part, are not at all rabid political mouth pieces.  Journalists are my favorite connections because they are involved in many worlds I am interested in, read many other periodicals I don't read and their postings often include links to material I would not normally be aware of. I have read many books that have come out of postings by many of the people I follow. Because of Twitter I am exposed to some of the most interesting writing, postings, theories and philosophies that would otherwise be unavailable to me.


Finally I have subscribed to, or have been offered, for free, why I don't know, many sites that are, for the most part devoted to humor. Not humor at someones expense but just plain funny things; cartoons, jokes, anecdotes and comedians. I laugh out loud every single day of my life and I do so multiple times every day. Can anyone think of any reason why that is not an incredible gift?

My point. Social media is vastly more about information that can be enlightening, educational, humorous and inspiring than it is about hate filled retribution, name calling and self righteous polemics.

Social media has gotten a bad name and reputation for many well deserved reasons but the negativity surrounding it as a platform is not the complete story. If we look for what interests us, what motivates us and what inspires us, it is all out there for our use, whenever we want it. That is the good side of social media. It needs to be said from time to time

MY MEETING AS THE PRESIDENT

Were I to be president for a day here is what I would do.

I would invite every television network with an audience of more than 1 million citizens to attend a meeting at the white house. The subject of the meeting would be terrorism.

When assembled I would ask them for a commitment that whenever there is a terrorist event anywhere in the world they agree to report the incident in exactly the same way.

Just the details. The location, the presumed casualties, the method, the source and any other pertinent information that might give citizens information related to travel restrictions, warnings or suggestions.

Beyond that I would ask them to promise the news would never be reported in more detail. No faces of the perpetrators, no scenes of the bloodshed, no connections to every other terrorist incident that has occurred in the last decade, no on air talking heads, no experts telling us about more intended targets and once the vital stats are in then it goes off the air completely, one-day coverage only, NO VIDEO.

There are two things going on with terrorist activities. One, is what they do and how they do it, is terrifying everyone in this, and other peace seeking countries, and two, it gives the terrorists exactly what they want, publicity, coverage and home grown bragging rights.

If they see the news and it includes a spoken only announcement, with no video, of two bombings in Saudi Arabia, for example, at two different mosques, with an estimated number of people killed and wounded, period, they might not be so interested in continuing these horrible activities. There would be no one to know anything more about what they are up to. They would become faceless, nameless and above all else voiceless.

Terrorists need a vehicle to continue the fear their reign of terror infects in us all. Since they cannot kill everyone in the world, although that is probably their intensions, the idea of killing, death, terrorism and fear are their weapons of choice but they need media coverage in order to intensify the horror and immediacy of their activities.

Our national media only assists them in their messaging and gives them the coverage they could never afford to buy.  Profiles of the attackers, photographs and video of their lives before they detonate, where they come from, information about their families, their travel history, age, background and any other pertinent data media can uncover. It is a full profile of someone who is so invisible before they committed the crime they are probably not even known by the people living next door to them. Now they are international superstars, but only to the very worst people in the world. And, it is only because we gave them the voice.

We are told to go on with our lives, given all the stats about how it is just as likely we can step on a turtle and die as it is to die from a terrorist attack but those messages are a total waste of time. We go to airports, movie theaters, ball games etc and never go there without constant reminders of the terror lurking in the dark. We are afraid and that is exactly the place these people want us to be.

Do we really need our media to further our fear with the images of death, bloodshed, destruction and chaos just before we go to sleep or to Disney Land?

ON THE LOSS OF A DOG

Christmas was going well. Lots of text messages with videos of the grandkids opening presents and lots of laughs on both sides of the family phone calls.

I took a moment to check on my Face Book friends and discovered a dear friend lost her dog.  The reason was a rare form of canine cancer, not treatable and not expected. I was devastated. I called her at the first moment I could and cried along with her because I know the depth of the feelings one goes to when they lose a dog.

I started to think about losing the several dogs throughout my life and how hard it was to absorb each one. I know losing a dog is the downside of having a dog. Everyone who has ever had a dog knows it is a price we will pay, but never plans for it and is devastated when it occurs.

Why is it? Why is it so hard? We always hear how having a dog in our life is the closest thing to having unconditional love. Maybe that is it. We will lose that love.  While I do agree, I also think it might be the reverse that makes a dog so special. It is the ability we have to give them “our” unconditional love, to love them with no restraints.

The idea of giving of ourselves to anyone is a very hard. Giving unconditionally is next to impossible. If we love someone and they disappoint us, it is hard to live with. If we buy something and it does not live up to expectations we are disappointed. Whatever we do and whoever we are with, to give ourselves unconditionally can be emotionally difficult. Unconditional means accepting an abnormal sense of vulnerability and none of us wants to be that out of control. We need, or we feel we need, at all times, to be protective of ourselves, especially our emotional selves.

Feelings are the true media to our life experiences. Feelings, good and bad, are what make us conscious of being alive. But we rarely allow ourselves to go too deeply into any of our emotions. We feel the need to protect ourselves from the disappointments, the failures, the risks and the potential emptiness. We hesitate trusting too many people. The more we isolate ourselves from real disappointment the better will be the outcome.

But what exactly is the full range of emotions? How high can they go, how deep? I think the range is incalculable. We do feel the highs of an emotion and love the sense of joy it gives us.  But if the height of the emotions we willingly go to means we will have to go to a corresponding depth then maybe we need to recalibrate our willingness to go to any excess at all.   Maybe the best course of action is to stay close to the line of emotional normalcy. Feel good about things, but not too good. Maybe then the feelings we have to endure on the downside might not be all that bad. At least we can hope so. 

I think this is where illegal drugs come in. Drugs keep us away from the depths of despair, give us a false sense of emotional high and simply keep us on an emotionally flat line so we can avoid really feeling anything, up or down. Drugs are artificial emotional leveling devices.  They breed a false sense of emotional normalcy without having to live with the consequences of honest, drug free feelings.

Which brings me back to dogs. Here is the true description of unconditional. We can and do love our dogs “unconditionally”. We accept the dog for what he or she is. Correspondingly she accepts us unconditionally for who we are. We don’t judge our dogs. They never judge us. They are not jealous, envious, or competitive and expect very little from us. They are unaware of our faults and accept us for whatever we give them.

If we are up, so is the dog. If we are down the dog comforts us. If we want to play, so will the dog. The dog will make us laugh, and allow us to feel joy just by watching what they do from one minute to the next. The dog does not get mad at us, does not hurt us, holds no grudges and does not have a mean bone in its body. With our dog we can simply let ourselves go and give everything we have to the dog.

As humans we love music, films, theater, books and most creative diversions because they are pathways into our emotions, safe pathways. They thrill us, scare us, and make us laugh and cry. We can feel retribution, success, jealousy, fear and anger. But all of the feelings we have are responsibility free. Nothing we felt was a result of anything we did. We experience emotions that are without consequence. We leave the theater, the playhouse, turn off the turntable with a sated emotional experience.  It is so much more preferable than actually being in a position where we experience those emotions as a result of our own actions.  That would be almost unbearable.

Not so with a dog. We love them.  We know we are all in. We hold nothing back. We protect nothing of ourselves with our dogs. We give them everything we are and expect nothing back. We don’t judge them from one day to another on how they speak to us. There is no tone of voice, no bad moods, no depression, only happiness. 

What a glorious feeling it is to be a human with a capacity to love, to give, to share and to feel the beauty of our emotions when in full bloom. Unfortunately as humans we constructed a world where we have to protect ourselves from giving those gifts too freely and unconditionally because of how we treat each other. We must protect ourselves or we might suffer. There is a huge risk in going all in on something or someone with no way back. Not with a dog.

Who is the loser when the gift of giving is such a rewarding human feeling but has to be monitored lest we go too far and have to pay an emotional price? US.

The gift of giving is the greatest gift we possess. The thought of giving ourselves unconditionally is so seductive yet seemingly so alien that it is one of our real life dichotomies.

Not so with our dogs. We give to them without ever thinking about it. It is the gift of giving that is so seductive.  . We are sharing ourselves with our dogs. They see us, accept us and love us in return.  

I think that is why it is so hard to lose a dog. When they go a part of ourselves goes with them, the part we love most about ourselves.  Will we ever be able to let ourselves go again? Will we ever feel the shared love again? I don’t know for sure but what I do know is we will never go deeper into the depths of despair as we do when we lose our dog.

     

MY NEW RESOLUTION

I have been quite dark for the past year. By dark I mean I have not posted much and simply watched as the world passed by. This has been a volatile world and one that begs for commentary and, of course, commentary is everywhere, but it has not been from me.  I intend to change that.

The focus of what I write will be on words: I like words. I like what they say and mean and how they are misinterpreted. I will focus on many words that I feel are no longer part of our everyday life and need to be if we are to continue to be a first class country. Here are a few examples: Sacrifice, responsibility, accountability, arrogance, hypocrisy, evolution, love, respect, empathy, greed, corruption. This is a good start. Some of the words will be presented in ways that one could count me as angry, with an axe to grind, a failure of using the words on my own behalf. But, they would be wrong. Yes I am angry. I am disappointed and I feel like so many others do, who are unaccounted for in the vote, the opinion polls and the direction we are taking as a country and as a society.

We are, or have become, crass. We bloviate, we lie, we use rhetoric as the truth, we are uncaring and we are selfish. A new word that has gotten a lot of traction this year is entitled. Where does anyone get the sense that they are entitled to something others are not. If what they have they earned, good for them. But does that success need to be at the expense of others who did not achieve such success? I say no. But that sentiment is out there and is becoming more pervasive as more people, even those without their own earned success feel entitled based on their gender, location, color, education etc. These are attributes and characteristics that are earned and in many cases are biologically given. They are not excuses nor reasons for feelings of superiority or rights of oppression over others.

I will also endeavor to cover the institutions that we all live with. They include all forms of government from DC to the local level, regulators, business organizations, Wall Street, religions and the IRS.

There is much to write about and I will get to it as soon and as often as I can. Please join me in sharing your commentary as I hope it will be you who I hope to represent on these pages.

Have a nice holiday and I will see you after Christmas.

FOLLOWING THE RULES

Like most people I have been following the news surrounding the controversy over Tom Brady and the New England Patriots football team regarding the use of deflated footballs used in the AFC league championship game.

The discussion all week has gone back and forth about whether it is really cheating, followed by should there be a penalty, and if there is to be one, how big.

What shocks me most is the casual attitude many people have today concerning a clear case of cheating. One argument is there is cheating going on in other sports and, in this case, how bad was it?  We are confronted with steroids, pain medications and other artificial substances that theoretically give one athlete an edge over another. If cheating is to be tolerated at any level why have rules in the first place. If we accept one form of cheating why not accept them all?

The strength and appeal of all sport is its unpredictable outcome coupled with the competitive skills and psychological preparedness of one team versus another.  We all know we feel emotionally better one day versus another and while everything seems to work on those days, there are those other days where the reverse occurs. If one team uses drugs to alter mood it easily gives them an unequal advantage. Is that not cheating? If one team changes the tools of the game, such as the ball pressure, or spit on a baseball without the other team knowing it, is that also not cheating?

Cheating is cheating but it appears far too many people rationalize cheating when it is in their best interest.

There is however one sport that continues to rely on rules, where it’s participants follows them to the letter and hold everyone else accountable. That sport is golf.  

Why are rules in golf important, because everyone plays by them and expects everyone else to do the same?  More so every player is responsible to the entire field of players for any rule violation that takes place. It is the responsibility of every player to notify their competitors of any rules violation and ask them to accept the penalty. As a player we all know that anywhere on the course whether we can see it or not everyone is following the same rules because everyone on the course is essentially a rules official.  

If you play golf with people who cheat, you see it and don’t report it to the officials, you are harming the rest of the field of players. If you play with people who know the rules and still cheat then you can be assured they do so in other areas of their life. Don’t play them in a match and, for sure, don’t play them for money.     

Golf is an emotional game. Feel good and you may play above your ability, feel not so good and you may drop down a stroke or two.  You have to accept which player in you shows up each time you play. You still have to abide by the rules and cannot alter your mood through any artificial device.

Most golfers call violations of the rules on them selves when they make a mistake and for those who don’t there are other playing partners prepared to do so.

Take one of the easiest and seemingly least offensive rules to break: moving the ball. True moving a ball gives the player a better opportunity but measure the actual distance and it is marginal so why make such a deal out of it? Simple: When you control where the ball lies, your confidence goes up. Hitting it becomes far easier than when you have no control over where it lies. Moving a ball before hitting it is one of the most sacrosanct rules in the game. Every player knows it and every player abides by it.

I doubt it is any different when a quarterback alters the weight of a football, especially when their competitors don’t know about it.  The QB does.

This is what rules are about. The game of golf is a game played by millions of people around the world and the same rules exist for all of them. It is a beautiful thing to play a sport that has such integrity. To meet total strangers anywhere in the world, tee it up and know we will play an honest game, follow the same rules and compete on an equal footing. 

The rules of the game make it competitive, honest and true.

Other sports are demeaning themselves by accepting the corrosive elements of cheating. Eventually every sport that does not stand up for integrity in their game will eventually lose their base and their game will decline in value.