Details »

By Michael

Andrew Sullivan wrote regarding Noam Chomsky’s comments on Bin Laden:

Oh, and “uncontroversially, Bushs’ crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s.”Uncontroversially. It’s that word that proves you are listening to a fanatic.

And I think Sully’s right, but just because Chomsky says its uncontroversial, doesn’t mean it is. So why doesn’t Andrew make that easy argument? Who knows, maybe Andrew looked at the number of dead people between “them” and “us.” But I know what the real point is that no one else will say: it’s easier to kill the asshole that kills innocent people, turtles, anything really to promote their bake sale; rather than a nice guy who accidentally kills innocent people.

• • •

That Just Happened »

By Michael

In my college days, I remember a girl whom with I was so enamored.  As things never came to pass (literally, nothing ever happened; not even a walk in the park, let alone getting on base), and I let go of the situation, after a few months I was told by her, “I was so surprised it took you as little time as it did to start seeing someone after me.”

When she told me this, I felt bad.  Maybe if I had persisted longer, things would have been different and we would have actually gone out on a proper date.  Then I remembered why I let go of the situation and stopped trying to go on a date with her.  She slept with one of my friends.

And you wonder why Fox News is so successful.

• • •

A Secret Logic »

By Michael

While I know left-wing politics does this just as well, my most prevalent memory of hypocritical/double standard logic comes from the old right-wing bit of scaring everyone into brown-pants-syndrome when there’s a leak regarding as to how the U.S. investigates terrorist activity.  Specifically, SWIFT.  If you recall, the program puts under review transactions in foreign bank accounts.

The controversy regarding the program was that it was done without oversight or anything resembling a warrant.  The controversy over the leak was that the U.S. should not let terrorists know how we are spying and investigating them.

Well, by that logic, I could then surmise that this algorithmic program being developed by Ian Horsley and Steve Levitt will have absolutely no effect on terrorists because by merely describing some of the variables that are used to indentify terrorists, they will now adapt, and avoid capture.  So, according to the logic aforementioned, we shouldn’t even try to engage in this program since the public knows about it.  You’re welcome.

• • •

Waxing Poetic »

By Michael

In regards to the reason why humans (particularly men) past, present, and future wax poetic regarding love (i.e. sex), I have surmised that characterizing these outlets as “forms of art” is putting it all rather nicely.  They are merely the letters of ordinary people that have come back return to sender.  And those musings when disseminated to the public abroad simply become the idea onto which someone else projects their own daydream.

They might be art now, but don’t be mistaken because they were never written for the sake of art.

Even more relevant today, a lover could never read any greater piece of literature than by an author whose professional title is, “Sugardaddy.”

• • •

By Any Other Name »

By Michael

One of the ideas that I toss around in my – still as of yet and probably never will be written – book, Freedom to Conform, is the idea that we help along our cognitive dissonance on a societal level by creating a system that subsidizes one activity so we don’t do another.

Since health care is the big topic these days, we can use it as example.  The thought experiment revolves around the idea as to how we look at socialism.  The idea is that socialism coerces others to pay taxes for something like, health insurance.  It could be – and mostly is in this country – seen as taking away a freedom.  The freedom to not pay, or have health insurance.

But that is inherently the rub.  We already pay taxes for many other things that we can’t opt out of.  And more topically, we make rules that are based on our health, as well.  Laws on drugs is a good example of the system having rules, supposedly for your own good.

All that aside, the thought experiment of a “societal subsidy” revolves around this question.  If we have so many other restrictions regarding health, why isn’t health insurance mandated?  The possible answers don’t leave me feeling super great.

Maybe our idea of freedom is selective and malleable.  And right now, health care, or not having health care, is one of those freedoms.  Or, maybe congressmen feel that everyone does need health care, but they would rather people spend their money on anything else so that it will prop up our consumer driven economy.  Maybe if we were to enact it, it would cause the country to go so much further into deficit that it would practically destroy the country; so, they would rather people just in debt the next generation with unpaid Emergency Room bills.

Come up with a reason; it doesn’t leave you feeling great.  But the idea of freedom seems to move around so much that it leaves the user of the word having to explain it every time its uttered.

The point is this, if you’re going to argue against universal health care, or a law mandating health insurance, then you need to address all the other mandates and taxes the government enforces.

• • •

The Things We Keep »

By Michael
For varying reasons people take breaks; sometimes relationships end, but most of the time people need different things at different times, or have to be in different geographical areas. Hopefully these breaks aren’t forever, but they happen. I think most could agree with that line of thought.

That said there are still many things we keep from those times spent together. These are items that could make us and smile, or even keep us safe. I have one such item from a friend whom had some insider information about a local restaurant close to where I work, and where many times my colleagues purchase lunch. Now, the chances of anything bad happening to the food ordered are slim to none, but I can’t help but produce a wry smile whenever they ask me, “Would you like something from so-and-so’s?” To which I kindly reply at all times, “No, but thank you.”

One of the greatest things about friendship has to be the memories you can hold on to bring you joy.  Sure, we can remember the rough times, but we also can remember the times that made things so worth while.
• • •

I Always Did Think it Was Better »

By Michael

While struggling in recuperation of my collapsed lung, and wondering about many decisions in my life, Tim Harford hits upon some rough evidence that supports an intuition I think we’ve all had saved in the poetic parts of our minds.

If we incautiously interpret these numbers as causal – in fact they are merely correlations – then we could conclude that 20 years of marriage is compensation for up to 40 years of widowhood. Ten years of marriage more than justifies 40 years as a divorcee.

Indeed, most of the time, the love outweighs the pain.  For me, in the condition I’m in right now, this is something to be happy about.

• • •

Paradigms and Our Minds Around Us »

By Michael

Our minds operate by paradigm whether we like it, or not.  We create maps as to how we and the world around us work.  Usually, we assimilate information from varying sources, then plan and act accordingly.

Will and I have discussed events abstractly to this in a recent correspondences. These paradigms are important to be aware of because when the world, or other events, don’t go the way we thought they would, we deal with feelings of rejection.  But, I think if we are aware of the paradigm, and aware of why we feel the way we do, that leads us one step closer to closure, and more importantly evaluating and adjusting (if need be) our paradigm.

When dealing with relationships, the mind starts to get used to these thoughts. A paradigm forms. Now, through practice and osmosis of colegial friends and good memories, one could think to themselves that a relationship is definitely possible with someone.

The problem occurs when you make that venture because the paradigm shows that you can. Everyone has told you that you are awesome. Then, bam, it doesn’t go that way. The paradigm is shown to be lacking. If I were awesome, then why didn’t it work out? Your mind starts to wonder how it all happened. Is the paradigm wrong? Was there something else I missed?

Now, all of a sudden, despite the length of time before hand when you were fine, your thoughts wander. For lack of better answers, you start to chip away at yourself. Now, no matter what circumstances abound, it’s you who’s on trial. This is how the mind works when it looks again for grounding. This is why when in the dumps you’ll see people contact their exes looking for meaning, yet again. What happened back then? What did I do wrong?

When one’s paradigm is hit hard, it takes an exceptional amount of time to either find the circumstances surrounding why everything happened the way it did, or convince your own self that it didn’t matter in the first place.

Or, what happens if you’re seeking acceptance from a religious group.  You go through all the steps to be “saved,” only to find out later that they express you still aren’t quite accepted.  You still, apparently, have a ways to go.  The entire paradigm they feed is that of acceptance and growth within a community.  So, if and when they all of a sudden decide to state that they don’t think you’re into it, imagine what a mind job that is.

Once again, you go through an entire process of trying to reconcile the messages you were being fed, with the actions that happened later.  Again, you are now thinking to yourself, where did I go wrong.  Was it my wrong interpretations of their statements?  Did they go back on what they said?  Have I erred in my actions?  When we start asking questions like these, it’s easy to feel hopeless and ungrounded.

And those questions work in both scenarios, and tons of others.  That’s how you feel rejected.  It’s being lost in between two paradigms and trying to find out if either one of them was right.  Alas, it’s no wonder how statements like, “It is what it is,” come to be said so often.  I have no doubt people are willing to say anything to move on from such a thought process.

But maybe in figuring out that this is the thought process, we can actually start to understand how normal these emotions are and that this is the exercise our mind and psyche is currently going through.

Sure, it will get better, but we have to relearn how to think about ourselves again.

• • •

Improve on Nothing »

By Michael

IOZ is right when he states,

…adaptation is better accomplished by someone who appreciates a work than someone who loves it so much that he wants to improve it

It struck me to the point where I would even say that a relationship, which involves someone trying to improve the other, also is most likely to be just as tenuous.

• • •

Comment on Abbey’s Life Effect »

By Michael

I thought about giving this to Will.  Allowing him a first crack at tackling what my friend, Abbey, wrote regarding aging.  Alas, I’m going to be a bit selfish, and place a comment on this first.

A few things need to be said here regarding what Abbey wrote. First, it is utterly and absolutely personal.  One could feel guilty about commenting on it, if they so chose, for fear of coming off as adversarial, or patronizing.  Her story at the end shows that this is something she’s given a considerable amount of thought personally.

However, she projects.  Abbey makes this about everyone, including me.

So in effort to avoid the dramatic effects associated with the reality of getting older/being old, I suggest that we face aging head on.

Alright, what do you got?

With each year, we should acknowledge and embrace the grief that comes with maturing so that it does not come back to bite us in the ass when we’ve suddenly hit 50 and for the very first time, realize that we’re all washed up and serving a life sentence in the middle of suburbia.

It’s funny, when the topic of aging comes about, it really does become a topic within itself so that you begin to lose sight of the big picture.

While one might think about aging, I’d rather be thinking, what do I want to do with all my time?  Can I still do that when I get older?  What decisions do I need to make to continue living the way I hope for as I age?

Why is Scott Adams the only one asking those questions?

Abbey wrote about scenarios of mid life crises and the lot.  I couldn’t help but think of the Talking Heads’ “Once in a Lifetime.”  I wonder how anyone else would take what she wrote.

I guess while I don’t particularly disagree with anything that Abbey wrote; maybe I would just think it better to focus on the questions that Scott and I ask.  The only item that really bothers me is that I don’t know why she wrote it.  For me, Abbey is one of the nicest, intelligent, and beautiful people I have ever met.  And no amount of aging will ever change my opinion of her.

• • •