We often hear the phrase, "History repeats itself," and we hear it or say it, nod our heads in rote agreement, and move on without giving it much more thought than that. But there is more to it than that, I think, that while we can say that History repeats and we learn from the lessons of history, we don't pay as much attention to how prophetic and instructive those lessons really are. Sure, we talk about it and we look at current events with some trepidation but we all sit back and watch it play out. Should we do something about it? Almost certainly, we should. Can we do anything about it? Perhaps not so much. As a result, we look on in horror as the world goes south on us.
Many years ago, my old man bought a set of history books by Will and Ariel Durant call\ed, The Story of Civilization. Since his passing in 2001, this set disappeared somewhere, probably sold by my mom to help pay for his funeral. My dad and I didn't have a stellar relationship and my relationship with my mom is, sadly, not any better so I have no idea.
But my dad liked to read and he instilled a love of reading into me and most of my siblings. For that, I am genuinely grateful to him, particularly his love of history which I've inherited, somehow. I'm no great historian by any stretch of the imagination but I enjoy my incidental contact with historical content including documentaries, Google images and now, The Story of Civilization.
Anyhoo, I found a full set of The Story of Civilization and I'm about 600 pages into the first of the eleven volumes.
The most significant recurring theme in this first book, Our Oriental Heritage, is how civilizations rise and fall and more importantly, WHY they fall. Obviously, Durant's is not the only theory about why a civilization will fail. Within the last few years, I read a striking book called, Why Nations Fail by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson. Great book where they assert that ultimately, it is the ownership of private property that preserves nations. They make a lot of valid points, however, it seems they are only covering a part of the puzzle.
Durant, however, gets closer to the mark. He says, "It is almost a law of history that the same wealth that generates a civilization announces it's decay." He makes other statements on this theme throughout the book stating that when a civilization sits in the lap of luxury long enough, it will decay.
The above quote was in the context of the fall of Babylon which at one point ruled a massive empire. They were hungry, they conquered, they ruled then became wealthy and soft and were destroyed by a more hungry group of Kassite tribes.
Later, speaking of the fall of the Persian empire, Durant says, "The decline of Persia anticipated almost in detail the decline of Rome: immorality and degeneration among the people accompanied violence and negligence on the throne." When Alexander threatened, the Persians amassed an army over ten times the size of Alexander's but as soft as they were, they were annihilated. Not only did they have no taste for war, they had even lost their skill. Other factors played a part, but in the end analysis, they had neglected their military and had lost their strength as a result.
When he discusses how India was conquered in the North by invading Muslims, Durant says, "The bitter lesson...is that eternal vigilance is the price of civilization. A nation must love peace, but keep its powder dry." He goes on to say, "It is in the nature of governments to degenerate; for power...poisons every hand that touches it."
My interpretation of it is that men simply don't change. Even as enlightened as we think we have become, we don't change. We're simply too arrogant.
As a result, history as a repetitive force predicts what is going to happen in the future. It is the truly difficult struggle for us to see that we, the United States of America, are in that very position right now. We are rich. More rich than any other nation in the world by far and away. In 2019, the GDP of the U.S was 40% higher than that of China, the next highest independent country (I exclude the EU because they are a conglomeration of countries, however, as a whole, they still fall well below the U.S.). The gap between China and the U.S. narrowed in 2021 and will likely continue to close.
We look at the softness of our military, seeing that every level of the command structure is losing its ability to create strategy and conduct campaigns. We have scaled back on our economic commitment to military hardware, personnel and training. We cannot recruit personnel who have "sand" but rather, we recruit those who have no sense of their own identity and then we fail to train them with an identity that is focused on a desire to win in conflict. All too many new recruits are in it for the cushy way of life that doesn't force them to make decisions for themselves but when the going gets tough and the U.S. sends a group out to fight in a conflict, the weeping and wailing is deafening.
Even our very population is soft, indulgent and whiny. Children are not raised by their parents with strong foundations, strong morals or strong commitments and motivations to do well and accomplish good things. No, parents raise their kids to expect handouts, raise them as coddled monsters and allow them to lose their very identities and purpose. It's tragic and it's having an adverse affect on the country as a whole.
Frank Herbert wrote the Dune series where he describes a people grown soft who were overtaken and defeated by a hardened tribe accustomed to living in a harsh environment. They were strong and conditioned by the discipline of their environment to take over the indulgent government. In another of his books, The Dosadi Experiment, he describes a race of people who were forced into a harsh environment. That harshness toughened them up and again, they escaped and exterminated their captors who were soft and were incapable of mounting any kind of protection of themselves. Granted, Herbert was writing science fiction but the underlying principle is that a people gone soft will be destroyed or will be ruled by a hungry, hardened people.
The list of these kinds of stories, real and fictional, is endless and the focus of real events in the histories of the peoples and civilizations of our own world are chilling. As a society, we are blind. As individuals, what can we do? Perhaps that is and has been discussed at length in many instances.
Others have said it and I repeat it: Our time is near. An old Mormon axiom says, "If ye are prepared, ye shall not fear." I think that's probably an appropriate way to look at as individuals. As a society, I doubt we will return to the preparedness that Reagan and many others have espoused over the decades of the life of this country. But as individuals, again, we must take steps to do what it takes to preserve ourselves and our loved ones and to be ready when the time is upon us.
I don't wish to create fear. I don't want to be afraid. I still have a small degree of hope that our system of recycling representatives may still have a positive effect. And yet, I doubt. More every day, I doubt and I lose confidence in all but a few of my fellow human beings.
I sincerely hope I'm wrong but History has prophesied that it will be.
--Wag--
Thursday, February 17, 2022
History
Saturday, May 18, 2019
There are no words.
About ten years ago, I wrote this post: http://wanderingwag.blogspot.com/2009/01/coping-with-loss.html
Life has a way of slapping us around from time to time. Just when you think you understand a thing, life happens to you and you realize that you were naive at best. A fool, perhaps. Likely, a little of both.
When I was a kid, my father told me that the word "humble" means "teachable." I kinda like that. Somehow, just when I think I'm pretty smart or that I'm pretty good at something, I get a quick kick in the teeth that reminds me to calm down and focus on what I can learn from a given situation.
So, I write this post, far later than I should. You'll see why in a bit.
On August 8, 2016, my beautiful wife of 27 years passed away. She had suffered with illness for 31 years. Far too long. She died too young. But during her abbreviated life, she lived a lifetime that dreams are made of.
She and I were always well aware that she was very likely to pass away from her illnesses too early. When we married, we had the idea that we would be fortunate to have five years together. The fact that we got 27 years was nothing short of miraculous but I credit it to her outlook on life and her positive attitude about everything that happened to her.
We had what I like to call a fairy tale marriage. It was probably because of her more than me. Make no mistake, we had our ups and downs. I've written here on this blog about relationships and the bottom line is, sometimes, you have to learn from your mistakes and move forward. We definitely did that. The longer we were married, the more we realized that some of the crap we were allowing to compromise our relationship simply wasn't worth all the worry and concern. Or anger and fear. The longer we were married, the better we got at, well, at being married. Practice makes perfect, eh? Frankly, I think we finally figured it out about eight years into it and from there, we were good to go, more or less. As I said, it was a fairy tale marriage.
We were soul mates. We were better together than we were apart. Our lives worked better because we were together and we both knew it. First, we were friends. Not only that, we were best friends. She was my favorite friend and I loved being with her. I know from reading her diary that she loved to be with me. It was natural for us to want to be together and we got married, knowing that we couldn't really be apart. About two years in, we nearly allowed ourselves to be torn apart but we were able to move past it, learn from it and have a wonderful life together.
But what does that mean, "soul mates?" Words can't describe it, really. You don't always realize it right away. Or one of you does and the other takes a bit longer to figure it out. I think she always knew but it took me longer to realize it. That is to say that I finally had the epiphany that let me know that there was no way I could live without her close to me, within touching distance. Kissing distance, really! For the most part, there were very few times when we were physically apart for one kind of trip or another and our reunions were, shall we say, dramatic?!
With all of that preface, which is, in and of itself, somewhat less than sufficient, I have to say that when she passed away, it was indescribably tragic to me. If you read the link to my other writing from ten years ago, you'll see that back then, I thought I knew what it was like to lose a loved one. In truth, I did know. But in the months leading up to my beloved's passing, we talked at great length about her coming death. It's not a happy subject. Not a pleasant conversation. It includes a lot of tears and a lot of time spent resolving a few left over issues. Fortunately, we had some laughs, too! As a result of those conversations, though, she and I both really and truly believed I was ready to handle the coming tragedy.
We were truly naive.
There is something far more disastrous when losing your soul mate than when losing even the closest of your loved ones, a true friend or family member. Because of our prior experiences and the tragedies we had experienced, we really thought we had covered all the bases but we had really failed. I wasn't nearly as ready as we had both thought I was.
There's a reason for that. Assuming that I'm truly tuned in to the truth and the reality of it, I'll humbly submit what I believe to be right and recognize that more may be learned going forward.
The reason you can never be ready for it is that there are no words to describe the depth and breadth of the tragedy to another person. Even having experienced it myself, having had it tear me apart and make me feel that I was about to be crushed with more emotional blackness than life had ever pushed upon me before, I still can't put any of it into words.
Because there aren't any. No words. I can write and have written about this at length but I can't put this experience into words that will convey it clearly to you, dear reader. I've never said anything about it that adequately conveys it all to anyone in a conversation. Words simply don't exist. Add to that the fact that everyone experiences it differently and it's even easier to understand why nobody can prepare and be ready for such a death.
That's why we were naive to think I was ready. All of our conversations were moot. All of our experiences with the passing of other loved ones in our lives was irrelevant. All of the times we spoke to others who had suffered such losses were not nearly as meaningful before her passing as they were afterward. Nobody else had ever had any more success describing this to us than I have had describing it to anyone else. Just because there are no words available to do so.
The pain of her passing was physical. At one point, I could feel that my heart was physically being crushed. I nearly drove to the emergency room because I could feel symptoms of a coming heart attack. At that point, though, I didn't truly want to live so I ignored it. It took a day or so but it passed, more or less.
I felt like my soul had been ripped in two. I still feel that way. I'm not what I was when I was with her. With her by my side, I was able to get a lot of things done, to accomplish so much that I haven't been able to do since she passed.
So, what has helped since she died? Friends who listen to me talk about her. I love talking about her, more than anything. The friends who don't offer me any advice, who just let me ramble on about her are the ones who did the most good for me. I still love talking about her. The more casual aquaintences I have had get very uncomfortable and start to squirm and try to change the subject. Those people have since moved themselves out of my life, more or less. And I don't get to talk about her much any more.
As an aside, the only really offensive things that happened were when people tried to impose their beliefs on me. I don't believe in an afterlife but you'd be amazed at how many people insisted on trying to say that she was "on the other side" keeping an eye on me. Rest assured, if I believed that she was out there, I would also believe that she is hurting just as much as I am and I would put the gun to my head in an instant in order to be with her. So no, telling me about some imaginary afterlife is not useful. Just shut up and listen.
That's the real lesson here. Just listen. It's something I need to put into practice. Best to just listen. Maybe even encourage the conversation and ask to hear about their loved one. Ask for as story and then sit back and hear it.
------------------------------
She was my world. She was my life. My angel, my inspiration to be everything. She made me want to be a better human being and because of her, I was better than I would have been without her. She told me over and over again that it was the same for her, that I made her better and want to be better. We held each other to a higher standard and together we reached greater heights and did better. So much better.
And without her, I feel lost, incomplete and without any real reason for anything. Before she passed away, she told me to find someone else to be with and to do so "right away." I'm not sure if she had a time frame in mind for "right away" but it's been nearly three years now and I don't think I'm ready to get into another relationship. Sometimes, I feel like I could but more often than not, I'd just rather continue with my memories of her and what we had.
On a couple of occasions, friends have tried to set me up with their single friends but I can't see anything of my beloved in them and my interest fades, very quickly. Was she perfect? No. Was she everything I wanted? Absolutely. And no, I'm not trying to say that nobody else is good enough or that I'm trying to find someone who is an exact replica of who she was. I believe I'm just saying that I don't know if I can deal with trying to rebuild another relationship.
After nearly three years my heart is still broken. My soul is not healed and I sill hurt. A lot. Mostly, I've just gotten used to it. I'm more able to move around at this point but I feel like I'll never again be what I was with her.
--Wag--
Life has a way of slapping us around from time to time. Just when you think you understand a thing, life happens to you and you realize that you were naive at best. A fool, perhaps. Likely, a little of both.
When I was a kid, my father told me that the word "humble" means "teachable." I kinda like that. Somehow, just when I think I'm pretty smart or that I'm pretty good at something, I get a quick kick in the teeth that reminds me to calm down and focus on what I can learn from a given situation.
So, I write this post, far later than I should. You'll see why in a bit.
On August 8, 2016, my beautiful wife of 27 years passed away. She had suffered with illness for 31 years. Far too long. She died too young. But during her abbreviated life, she lived a lifetime that dreams are made of.
She and I were always well aware that she was very likely to pass away from her illnesses too early. When we married, we had the idea that we would be fortunate to have five years together. The fact that we got 27 years was nothing short of miraculous but I credit it to her outlook on life and her positive attitude about everything that happened to her.
We had what I like to call a fairy tale marriage. It was probably because of her more than me. Make no mistake, we had our ups and downs. I've written here on this blog about relationships and the bottom line is, sometimes, you have to learn from your mistakes and move forward. We definitely did that. The longer we were married, the more we realized that some of the crap we were allowing to compromise our relationship simply wasn't worth all the worry and concern. Or anger and fear. The longer we were married, the better we got at, well, at being married. Practice makes perfect, eh? Frankly, I think we finally figured it out about eight years into it and from there, we were good to go, more or less. As I said, it was a fairy tale marriage.
We were soul mates. We were better together than we were apart. Our lives worked better because we were together and we both knew it. First, we were friends. Not only that, we were best friends. She was my favorite friend and I loved being with her. I know from reading her diary that she loved to be with me. It was natural for us to want to be together and we got married, knowing that we couldn't really be apart. About two years in, we nearly allowed ourselves to be torn apart but we were able to move past it, learn from it and have a wonderful life together.
But what does that mean, "soul mates?" Words can't describe it, really. You don't always realize it right away. Or one of you does and the other takes a bit longer to figure it out. I think she always knew but it took me longer to realize it. That is to say that I finally had the epiphany that let me know that there was no way I could live without her close to me, within touching distance. Kissing distance, really! For the most part, there were very few times when we were physically apart for one kind of trip or another and our reunions were, shall we say, dramatic?!
With all of that preface, which is, in and of itself, somewhat less than sufficient, I have to say that when she passed away, it was indescribably tragic to me. If you read the link to my other writing from ten years ago, you'll see that back then, I thought I knew what it was like to lose a loved one. In truth, I did know. But in the months leading up to my beloved's passing, we talked at great length about her coming death. It's not a happy subject. Not a pleasant conversation. It includes a lot of tears and a lot of time spent resolving a few left over issues. Fortunately, we had some laughs, too! As a result of those conversations, though, she and I both really and truly believed I was ready to handle the coming tragedy.
We were truly naive.
There is something far more disastrous when losing your soul mate than when losing even the closest of your loved ones, a true friend or family member. Because of our prior experiences and the tragedies we had experienced, we really thought we had covered all the bases but we had really failed. I wasn't nearly as ready as we had both thought I was.
There's a reason for that. Assuming that I'm truly tuned in to the truth and the reality of it, I'll humbly submit what I believe to be right and recognize that more may be learned going forward.
The reason you can never be ready for it is that there are no words to describe the depth and breadth of the tragedy to another person. Even having experienced it myself, having had it tear me apart and make me feel that I was about to be crushed with more emotional blackness than life had ever pushed upon me before, I still can't put any of it into words.
Because there aren't any. No words. I can write and have written about this at length but I can't put this experience into words that will convey it clearly to you, dear reader. I've never said anything about it that adequately conveys it all to anyone in a conversation. Words simply don't exist. Add to that the fact that everyone experiences it differently and it's even easier to understand why nobody can prepare and be ready for such a death.
That's why we were naive to think I was ready. All of our conversations were moot. All of our experiences with the passing of other loved ones in our lives was irrelevant. All of the times we spoke to others who had suffered such losses were not nearly as meaningful before her passing as they were afterward. Nobody else had ever had any more success describing this to us than I have had describing it to anyone else. Just because there are no words available to do so.
The pain of her passing was physical. At one point, I could feel that my heart was physically being crushed. I nearly drove to the emergency room because I could feel symptoms of a coming heart attack. At that point, though, I didn't truly want to live so I ignored it. It took a day or so but it passed, more or less.
I felt like my soul had been ripped in two. I still feel that way. I'm not what I was when I was with her. With her by my side, I was able to get a lot of things done, to accomplish so much that I haven't been able to do since she passed.
So, what has helped since she died? Friends who listen to me talk about her. I love talking about her, more than anything. The friends who don't offer me any advice, who just let me ramble on about her are the ones who did the most good for me. I still love talking about her. The more casual aquaintences I have had get very uncomfortable and start to squirm and try to change the subject. Those people have since moved themselves out of my life, more or less. And I don't get to talk about her much any more.
As an aside, the only really offensive things that happened were when people tried to impose their beliefs on me. I don't believe in an afterlife but you'd be amazed at how many people insisted on trying to say that she was "on the other side" keeping an eye on me. Rest assured, if I believed that she was out there, I would also believe that she is hurting just as much as I am and I would put the gun to my head in an instant in order to be with her. So no, telling me about some imaginary afterlife is not useful. Just shut up and listen.
That's the real lesson here. Just listen. It's something I need to put into practice. Best to just listen. Maybe even encourage the conversation and ask to hear about their loved one. Ask for as story and then sit back and hear it.
------------------------------
She was my world. She was my life. My angel, my inspiration to be everything. She made me want to be a better human being and because of her, I was better than I would have been without her. She told me over and over again that it was the same for her, that I made her better and want to be better. We held each other to a higher standard and together we reached greater heights and did better. So much better.
And without her, I feel lost, incomplete and without any real reason for anything. Before she passed away, she told me to find someone else to be with and to do so "right away." I'm not sure if she had a time frame in mind for "right away" but it's been nearly three years now and I don't think I'm ready to get into another relationship. Sometimes, I feel like I could but more often than not, I'd just rather continue with my memories of her and what we had.
On a couple of occasions, friends have tried to set me up with their single friends but I can't see anything of my beloved in them and my interest fades, very quickly. Was she perfect? No. Was she everything I wanted? Absolutely. And no, I'm not trying to say that nobody else is good enough or that I'm trying to find someone who is an exact replica of who she was. I believe I'm just saying that I don't know if I can deal with trying to rebuild another relationship.
After nearly three years my heart is still broken. My soul is not healed and I sill hurt. A lot. Mostly, I've just gotten used to it. I'm more able to move around at this point but I feel like I'll never again be what I was with her.
--Wag--
Grandma and Grandpa
Wrote this on another forum today:
-------------
My first year of college my grandparents graciously allowed me to live with them rent free. I was their oldest grandchild and they were still fairly young. Also, they were probably a little over optimistic about what it takes to have a stranger in their house but I digress.
They had been married about 40 years at the time. Just guessing. They seemed to have a pretty tenuous relationship but they also seemed to love each other. I can't tell you how many times Grandma would trot out some offense that Grandpa had committed 30 years ago and start flogging him yet again. He didn't remember it but he just assumed that her memory of it was accurate. Probably very wise of him. More than once, he told me, "I sure don't recall any of that." And shake his head.
Grandpa used to grow stuff. By that I mean he had a garden that was worthy of the most spectacular write up in any gardening magazine. It never happened but I was endlessly amazed by a year of the best produce the good earth could provide. And given the somewhat small space he had available (3/4 acre, I believe), the quantities of that produce were nothing short of amazing. Far too much for the three of us to consume. Grandma made the best meals with it, too.
Every morning, for most of the year, even during the mild winters of Southern Arizona, Grandpa would bring in an armload of produce and leave it in the sink for Grandma to deal with. She complained about it every time. Grandma wasn't given to profanity but you could see it on her face. Seemingly grudgingly, she would put up the bulk of it and she would use it as much as possible. Much of it she put up for the freezer. She canned a LOT of it. (THAT is a ton of work!) Anything she couldn't use right away went to the neighbors who were always endlessly appreciative.
Over the year I spent with them, it was clear that they loved each other in their own way. I only saw them kiss a very few times and they weren't given to PDA's, even in front of me.
They stuck together through thick and thin. They were both depression era kids and married very soon after the worst of the depression. They were committed to each other, to their kids and to their religion. Well, Grandma was committed to their religion. Grandpa was an highly educated man and had an extensive background in philosophy and literature. I recall that he said quite a few things that make me question the depth of his belief. You could never really tell from the outside, though, except that he did all the right things that the church required of him. Somehow, I think he just didn't want to give Grandma any more ammo.
When Grandma died, Grandpa took it really hard. He lived about 10 more months and then his heart just finally decided it couldn't take life without his beloved any more. About a week before he passed, my wife and I were visiting him and he wasn't his usual conversational self. He had always had things to say which were always well thought out and very well-spoken, being the wordsmith that he was. But that day, he was just quiet and reflective. Then I said something about Grandma and his eyes lit up and for about two hours, he talked about her in the way he always spoke about anything he loved. He was genuinely happy to be thinking of her.
After a while, he ran out of steam as his illnesses began to sap his strength and he got quiet and reflective again. I told him, "You want to be with her, don't you?"
He replied, almost in a whisper, "Yes. Always."
I said, "Then you have everyone's permission to go to her."
He didn't say much more than that. The three of us made our farewells and we went home.
About a week later, he gathered his kids together, my father and my three aunts and uncles and he said goodbye to them. I don't remember now if he passed away in their presence but it was only a day later that he finally gave up the ghost, as they say.
---------------
So, I went on much longer than I intended as I began to reminisce about them. There's so much more that could be said, of course. Somehow, it made me cry and I'm 53 years old. But I miss them both. I have nothing but fond memories of them.
--Wag--
-------------
My first year of college my grandparents graciously allowed me to live with them rent free. I was their oldest grandchild and they were still fairly young. Also, they were probably a little over optimistic about what it takes to have a stranger in their house but I digress.
They had been married about 40 years at the time. Just guessing. They seemed to have a pretty tenuous relationship but they also seemed to love each other. I can't tell you how many times Grandma would trot out some offense that Grandpa had committed 30 years ago and start flogging him yet again. He didn't remember it but he just assumed that her memory of it was accurate. Probably very wise of him. More than once, he told me, "I sure don't recall any of that." And shake his head.
Grandpa used to grow stuff. By that I mean he had a garden that was worthy of the most spectacular write up in any gardening magazine. It never happened but I was endlessly amazed by a year of the best produce the good earth could provide. And given the somewhat small space he had available (3/4 acre, I believe), the quantities of that produce were nothing short of amazing. Far too much for the three of us to consume. Grandma made the best meals with it, too.
Every morning, for most of the year, even during the mild winters of Southern Arizona, Grandpa would bring in an armload of produce and leave it in the sink for Grandma to deal with. She complained about it every time. Grandma wasn't given to profanity but you could see it on her face. Seemingly grudgingly, she would put up the bulk of it and she would use it as much as possible. Much of it she put up for the freezer. She canned a LOT of it. (THAT is a ton of work!) Anything she couldn't use right away went to the neighbors who were always endlessly appreciative.
Over the year I spent with them, it was clear that they loved each other in their own way. I only saw them kiss a very few times and they weren't given to PDA's, even in front of me.
They stuck together through thick and thin. They were both depression era kids and married very soon after the worst of the depression. They were committed to each other, to their kids and to their religion. Well, Grandma was committed to their religion. Grandpa was an highly educated man and had an extensive background in philosophy and literature. I recall that he said quite a few things that make me question the depth of his belief. You could never really tell from the outside, though, except that he did all the right things that the church required of him. Somehow, I think he just didn't want to give Grandma any more ammo.
When Grandma died, Grandpa took it really hard. He lived about 10 more months and then his heart just finally decided it couldn't take life without his beloved any more. About a week before he passed, my wife and I were visiting him and he wasn't his usual conversational self. He had always had things to say which were always well thought out and very well-spoken, being the wordsmith that he was. But that day, he was just quiet and reflective. Then I said something about Grandma and his eyes lit up and for about two hours, he talked about her in the way he always spoke about anything he loved. He was genuinely happy to be thinking of her.
After a while, he ran out of steam as his illnesses began to sap his strength and he got quiet and reflective again. I told him, "You want to be with her, don't you?"
He replied, almost in a whisper, "Yes. Always."
I said, "Then you have everyone's permission to go to her."
He didn't say much more than that. The three of us made our farewells and we went home.
About a week later, he gathered his kids together, my father and my three aunts and uncles and he said goodbye to them. I don't remember now if he passed away in their presence but it was only a day later that he finally gave up the ghost, as they say.
---------------
So, I went on much longer than I intended as I began to reminisce about them. There's so much more that could be said, of course. Somehow, it made me cry and I'm 53 years old. But I miss them both. I have nothing but fond memories of them.
--Wag--
Saturday, November 03, 2018
Draft of essay
What causes a man to want to end his own life?
There are many causes of suicidal thought and behavior, far more than can be explored in a simple brief such as this. Entire library sections are devoted to the subject. The overwhelming research available all have one thing in common, however: They are largely inconclusive. I suspect that, in large part, much of this uncertainty is due to one simple fact: Every person is different from every other person. It may be easily said that suicide is the product of biological causes. We have to wonder that if we attempt to determine the cause of the cause, as it were, what are the possibilities?
Quite simply, the possibilities are endless and testing for the possibilities must also be endless. We may not ever have the ability to determine the answers to the question of whether or not suicide can be caused by any particular effect, especially religion.
Psychololgy
The human mind is varied and complex. We still cannot fully explore the processes of thought within the human mind or the effects of the biochemical processes which create thought and respond to thought. We have even less ability to determine the effect of outside influence on these biological processes. To discover these things requires the ability to analyze countless variables and to rearrange them into infinite combinations.
This leaves us in the position of trying to come up with an answer spoken in general terms and deferring the specifics to a time when we may have the ability to confidently say, “We know what is causing people to consider taking their own lives.” This essay hypothesizes that religion is one possible cause of the psychoses which result in suicidal desires. (Hassan 39). In other words, the cause of the cause. More study is called for in order to move closer to the answers we seek, however, this essay suggests insights into the possibility that religion could be a cause of suicidal tendencies and rationalizes these insights.
In the course of this essay, suicidal tendency is our focus, not successfully accomplished suicide. Note that:
- Successfully completed suicide rates are not as high in religious environments as in non-religious environments but the desire to commit suicide may very well be as high or higher than in the rest of the population.
- Suicides are reported but suicidal tendencies are not. Estimates on the unreported rate of suicidal tendencies vary greatly. Determining the causes of suicidal tendencies is ultimately necessary in order to determine what curative measures may be implemented.
- Lacking specific data on suicidal tendency rates we can merely theorize about the causes. This article proposes that a hands-on study is in order.
James
“Tasteless. I’m sitting here in my car in front of the school building. I’m attempting to eat. My dinner is usually very good, very enjoyable and something I look forward to every evening. Tonight, chicken/squash that my wife makes sometimes. It’s the same as it always is but I literally can’t taste it. I’m feeling similar [sic] about how the other aspects of my life are right now.” (James)
And so begins a description of a pained life. We’ll call this soul “James.” He’s got everything in the world going for him: Straight “A” student. Married two dozen years. Fairly well paid in a well-established career. A great many people around him who enjoy his presence and in whose company he enjoys an ostentatious social life. He has hobbies and interests and his intellect is extraordinary. Yet, he feels a powerless emptiness which he feels he has not adequately expressed. Not even to his loving wife or his closest friends. He continues:
“Tasteless. A couple of bites more and still, no taste. You know what the stupidest thing is? The only reason I didn’t go home 30 minutes ago to get a gun and blow my head off is because I’m about to go to my math class where my last test grade is going to be handed out. I’m curious (not interested) to see how it was graded. ‘A’ or ‘F’ though, I don’t really care.” (James)
James’ letter goes on for several handwritten pages. He’s preparing himself. He explains his beginnings as a suicide contemplator. He doesn’t know for certain but he speculates as to how he arrived at this despair he now feels. He understands much of biology and in his recent past he has taken at least one anti-depressant drug which was prescribed to him by a doctor. But that isn’t all. Throughout his life, he explains, he has felt various declines. He describes his efforts on four prior occasions to take his own life and attributes his failure to naiveté about how to go about it. That was over twenty-five years ago. He describes how he went to a psychiatrist back then and was prescribed an anti-depressant which worked, seemingly miraculously. The doctor had told him, quite correctly, “sometimes, the brain gets in the habit of producing ‘down,’ chemistry and we have to help it get back to a normal state.” (James)
Now, many years later, James has what he believes to be a fairly good understanding of his current crisis. His suicide note goes on to describe emptiness and a failure to feel that his life has value or that he is needed by anyone. He describes an awareness of a need to get another boost to his brain chemistry because of the damage caused by the prior years’ prescription. He mentions how it’s odd that a prescription for an anti-depressant could cause him to become depressed and even more suicidal than ever before. He writes an unfeeling farewell to his wife, devoid of loving words and he tells of a friend who is partially aware.
What makes a man decide to end his life? James believes that last year, when a doctor prescribed an anti-depressant to him as a solution to an entirely unrelated nerve problem that it messed up his brain chemistry probably by aggravating his prior imbalances. Now James has come to believe that the solution to his dilemma is a different, more suitable prescription. Yet, he doesn’t make an appointment to go see a psychiatrist. He’s too depressed. A self-perpetuating destructive spiral is well under way.
Religion as a Cause of Suicidal Tendencies
Although James does not mention it in his suicide note, he tells of being raised in a repressive religious cult where his value as a human being was continuously assaulted by his family and leaders who reminded him continuously that he was nothing, “in the sight of god.” A key tenet of his cult religion says, “. . . the natural man is an enemy to god . . . “ and that it is his responsibility to put off this natural man. (Smith 153). Additionally, he was taught that, “. . . the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God . . . .” (Holy Bible) Life, of course is not so simple and in James’ early life as a human being, his increasing awareness of the fact that he is a natural man collided with the beliefs of his religious peers and the teachings of his religion. The results were then and now remain psychologically catastrophic.
James lived among fellow cult members who had all the appearances of living wonderful lives. They spoke to him regularly of their many spiritual experiences and of their personal relationships with a loving god. They professed to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they were telling the truth in all that they said to him.
James never experienced any of these things and as he realized, more and more, that he was unable to put off the natural man of his cult training, he began to spiral into greater and greater despair of ever accomplishing this ever-important goal of becoming, as it were, holy. Within the ranks of the same religious cult in which James was born and raised, polygamy is a fundamental belief. Countless women who lived and still live in this cult and its offshoots frequently speak of being suicidal as a result of cult polygamous practices. (Moore-Emmet 71, 80, 94, 147, 174-175, 196).
Ironically, it is shown that within religions, rates of completed suicides are much lower than those of the general population. In Islamic countries, the rate is nearly zero (Bertolote 7). As such, it is easy to trumpet the idea that religions have a beneficial effect on humanity. That such religions have a reducing effect on suicide rates, however, may be a result of fear-mongering and other deleterious fear tactics that religions tend to use on their followers. Christianity often tells its followers that suicide victims are condemned to an eternity in the fires of hell. A search for “Christianity suicide sin” on Google lists many references on this subject covering many permutations of the issue, often quite contradictory. It’s almost as if Christianity is unsure of the effects of its own teachings on its membership and make untrained, ill-founded efforts to prevent suicidal thought while, ironically, having exactly the opposite effect.
Religions may justify their use of scare tactics by suggesting that extending life provides opportunity for saving souls. While the use of fear may indeed be partly justifiable as a life saving technique it doesn’t mitigate the possibility that suicidal tendencies may be caused by religion. It also does not excuse an organization for creating circumstances, even unwittingly, wherein suicidal tendencies are created and fostered within the minds and hearts of religious followers. James’ experiences suggest that a religion would prefer to turn a blind eye to the possibility that suicidal tendencies are actually caused by their teachings and pressures rather than being the professed cure to such tragedy. In his eyes, prevention would be better than cure. Quite the reverse of religious tendency.
Does religion, then, cause suicidal thoughts? James firmly believes it does. In his personal contemplations of his own suicidal tendencies, he reflects back to a childhood rife with guilt and fear based on teachings from his religious parents and their cult. He refers to them as “nutballs,” a harsh commentary on a parental relationship destroyed by the cult of his early life and missing ever after. That lack of genuine parental nurturing only contributed to his mental decline. As a child, various aspects of that religious cult weighed heavily upon him and promoted a psychosis based on scriptural references as listed previously. Not being able to rise above his own accursed humanity, he learned to hate himself for his religious failures and was never taught to feel a sense of accomplishment for anything meaningful in his life. (James). Ultimately, he realized that all he had ever wanted, and lacked, was to be valued by others.
As his long-ago psychiatrist had once described to him, his brain chemistry seems to have developed the habit of creating negative chemistry as he progressively focused more than ever upon the failures of his life and was continuously told about his own “unworthiness.” Endorphins were no longer being regularly created in a normal fashion and the pleasure/reward centers of his brain began to decline without the supportive influence of this chemistry. The results were tragically predictable.
The Cause of the Cause
Psychiatric disorders are the leading cause of suicide, depression being the most significant of them all. (Hegerl 12) The problem becomes one of determining whether the causes of these psychiatric disorders are biological or if they are environmental. Can we say that biology, including genetics, is a cause? That the influence of James’ “nutball” parents over a lifetime caused him to want to kill himself? Is it a combination of the two? Does one exacerbate the other? Perhaps we will discover a gene that causes people to believe in religion and simultaneously causes them to have a predisposition toward suicidal tendencies. Cause and effect are difficult to determine for any behavior so we must be careful not to assume a connection greater than that which truly exists. However, they can and should be hypothesized and explored.
James observes that his mother was manic-depressive but he doesn’t say much more about it. What may be significant is the idea that as a religious zealot, his mother may have originally been attracted to the cult as a way to avail herself a promised hope of getting past the depression in her life. Perhaps her depression drove her to seek out a solution and when religion came along, she gravitated toward it. It is conceivable that the relationship between her depression and her association with religion was merely coincidental but we wonder: Did she have a “depression gene,” that she passed to her son? Unfortunately, in our interview, we did not explore whether or not James’ siblings have had any issues with depression or suicide.
What about those like James who were born into their respective churches and still have this tendency toward suicide? Perhaps a genetic tendency is there to begin with and religion has nothing to do with creating it or exacerbating it. We simply don’t know. We do see a preponderance of evidence which shows that religious followers have displayed or verbalized suicidal tendencies and attributed them directly to their respective religions. As previously cited, the women of polygamous cults frequently say as much. (Moore-Emmet). That these individuals restrain themselves from committing suicide may be a testament to the ability of the churches to inspire fear in their followers rather than inspire them to live fulfilling lives.
Group Suicides in Cults
November, 1978 is notorious as the month in which the religious cult founded by Jim Jones committed suicide as a group. There were about 900 members of which nearly 300 were children. (Schnepper) Thirty-three members of this cult escaped. But what was it that caused this group to commit such an extreme act? Parents even assisted their children in this horrific event, mixing kool-aid into cyanide in order to make it easier for them to drink and therefore, to die.
Marshall Applewhite led his Heaven’s Gate cult of 39 to commit group suicide over a period of three days in March of 1997. They believed that by doing so they were preparing themselves to be picked up by a group of aliens who were supposedly arriving in the shadow of the Hale-Bopp comet. (Robinson) Again, we have to ask ourselves, what caused people to commit this horrendous act?
A search on Google’s web site for the words “suicides of religious cults,” returns over a million web links of articles on this subject of group cult suicide. It might be safe to assume that there have been thousands of documented events wherein a group of religious believers committed suicide based on some facet of the religious teachings of their cult. Is it because of the charisma of their leaders? Is it a mental psychosis? Do people have that much belief in the teachings of their respective cults to compel themselves to take their own lives and the lives of their children?
The Church of Euthanasia founded by Chris Korda proposes that suicide is one of the best things a human being can do for the benefit of our planet. Their premise is that humans have overpopulated the Earth and consume an excessive amount of resources. According to this group we are better off doing the planet and everyone else a favor by killing ourselves. I must point out that the group’s web site gives the impression of being more of a tongue-in-cheek comedic site rather than a truly legitimate church. However, their site claims tax exempt 501(c)(3) status as a non-profit educational organization and they solicit tax deductible contributions as such. Their motto: “Save the planet. Kill yourself.” A link is provided where one may find ways in which to kill himself. (Korda) It may be abhorrent to the mind to suggest that suicide could actually be good thing but there are other groups and individuals who believe suicide is good for many varied reasons.
Acts of Religious Terrorism
It is worth noting that the majority of acts of “religious terrorism,” are not motivated by religious causes; they are motivated by political ideals, revenge, etc. (Hassan)
Kip Eliason
On March 2, 1982, 16-year old Kip Eliason committed suicide. His suicide note to his father reads,
"Dear Dad,
I love you more than what words can say. If it were possible, I would stay alive for only you, for I really only have you. But it isn't possible. I must first love myself, and I do not. The strange feeling of darkness and self-hate overpowers all my defenses. I must unfortunately yield to it. This turbulent feeling is only for a few to truly understand. I feel that you do not comprehend the immense feeling of self-hatred I have. This is the only way I feel that I can relieve myself of these feelings now. Carry on with your life and be happy. I love you more than words can say.
Your son, Kip" (Taylor)
The battle Kip had been fighting was a battle against masturbation as forbidden by the cult religion of which he was a confirmed member. He was a consummate “natural man,” and was unable to stop the natural human urges that come to all men and women but the difference for Kip is, he was labeled a sinner by the teachings of his church and family. A devout journalizer, he wrote often of his personal battle against himself. One journal entry reads, “I know immorality is a very serious sin. I really want to repent and be free of this terrible and degrading burden of masturbation. I am willing to do anything I have to do, even excommunication, to be able to repent and be free of this sin. I would rather go to hell and suffer there than be unworthy." (Taylor)
Kip’s story is one of serious tragedy regardless of any of the other implications of his life’s tragic end. A significant impact of his story is with regard to the pressure of religion having been brought to bear to devalue his worth as a human being rather than to build him up. The preservation of life is a goal of paramount importance to most religions and yet, there is a distinct and contrary devaluation of the person as he suffers under the burdens of no greater sin than that of being a mere human being.
Even greater tragedy is heaped upon Kip’s by the discovery that his is not the only such story.
Homosexuality + Christianity = Suicide?
A significant group of people who firmly believe that religion, especially Christianity, causes suicide is the gay and lesbian community. Biblical quotations are used within Christianity to support the idea that homosexuality is satanic and that homosexuals are doomed to hell. Christianity to this day preaches an extreme hatred of homosexuality and lip service is given to the effect that it is the act that is hated, not the actor. Unfortunately, actions belie the words and it is very difficult to consistently take words at face value. Hateful words and actions are frequently foisted against homosexuals by Christians. To be fair, not all Christians feel as such, however, there are a significant number who do. (Robinson) Christianity is not the only source of such hatred. Radio talk show host, Dr. Laura Schlessinger once said on the air, “gays are a biological error.” It caused an understandable uproar. (Herscher)
It is suggested that Christianity is indirectly responsible for at least 496 youth gay/lesbian suicides per year. (Robinson) A Google search for the term, “Christian gay suicide,” returns over 500,000 links to references of gay suicides. Many of these links are for blogs, articles and forums of organizations in support of gays and lesbians who have been rejected and despised by Christianity.
Can’t we all just get along?
Since this essay attempts to show that religion causes suicide, it may be said to have failed. There simply is not enough definitive evidence to support a conclusive statement of cause and effect. On the other hand, the evidence to support the idea that religion causes suicide is very suggestive. There are many heartbreaking stories of people who assert that, because of the teachings of their religion seriously contemplated, attempted or succeeded at taking their own lives. Indeed, a commissioned study is encouraged in order to determine the rate of correlation between religion and suicidal ideations of its followers.
It is important to note that this essay does not necessarily attempt to connect actual suicides with religion. It was shown earlier that statistically, incidence of suicide is actually less within religious populations. The supposition of this article is that if a religiously beleaguered person could accomplish their own end, they would. Granted, successful suicide may be inhibited by religious imposition. Realistically, however, we must ask, Is the quality of life compromised by religion? How many people simply wish they were dead but don’t attempt it and choose to continue to suffer? Personally, I am brought to wonder: How many people are hiding their suicidal ideations from the outside world while they suffer agony within?
Bibliography
Bertolote, Jose Maoel and Alexandra Fleishmann. “A global perspective in the epidemiology of suicide.” Suicidologi. 2002, volume 7, no 2: 6-8
Hassan, Riaz. “Religion is Not the Primary Motivation of Suicide Bombers.” 2009. The Daily Star. (www.thefreelibrary.com)
Hassan, Steven. Releasing the Bonds. Danbury, CT. Aitan. 2000
Hegerle, Ulrich. “The European Alliance against Depression: A four-level intervention programme against depression and suicidality.” Suicidologi. 2008, volume 13, no 1: 12-14
Herscher, Elaine. “Dr. Laura Show Provokes Backlash.” Sfgate web site. 04 March 2000. (www.sfgate.com)
Holy Bible, The. King James Translation.
“James.” A suicide note from a tortured soul. Personal permission granted for use so long as use is anonymous. Interview notes included.
Korda, Chris. www.churchofeuthanasia.org)
Moore-Emmet, Andrea. God’s Brothel. San Francisco, CA. Pince-Nez Press. 2004
Robinson, B. A. “Heaven’s Gate: Christian / UFO Believers.” 25 Mar 1997 (www.religioustolerance.org)
Robinson, B. A. “Suicides Among Gay and Lesbian Youth.” 01 Aug 2008 (www.religioustolerance.org)
Schnepper, Jeff A. “Jonestown Massacre: The Unrevealed Story.” USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education). January, 1999
Smith, Joseph. Salt Lake City, UT. The Book of Mormon. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, The. 1981
Taylor, Mark A. “Sin and Death in Mormon Country: A Latter-day Tragedy.” 1986. Affirmation web site. (www.affirmation.org) (Note: this article is HIGHLY recommended.)
There are many causes of suicidal thought and behavior, far more than can be explored in a simple brief such as this. Entire library sections are devoted to the subject. The overwhelming research available all have one thing in common, however: They are largely inconclusive. I suspect that, in large part, much of this uncertainty is due to one simple fact: Every person is different from every other person. It may be easily said that suicide is the product of biological causes. We have to wonder that if we attempt to determine the cause of the cause, as it were, what are the possibilities?
Quite simply, the possibilities are endless and testing for the possibilities must also be endless. We may not ever have the ability to determine the answers to the question of whether or not suicide can be caused by any particular effect, especially religion.
Psychololgy
The human mind is varied and complex. We still cannot fully explore the processes of thought within the human mind or the effects of the biochemical processes which create thought and respond to thought. We have even less ability to determine the effect of outside influence on these biological processes. To discover these things requires the ability to analyze countless variables and to rearrange them into infinite combinations.
This leaves us in the position of trying to come up with an answer spoken in general terms and deferring the specifics to a time when we may have the ability to confidently say, “We know what is causing people to consider taking their own lives.” This essay hypothesizes that religion is one possible cause of the psychoses which result in suicidal desires. (Hassan 39). In other words, the cause of the cause. More study is called for in order to move closer to the answers we seek, however, this essay suggests insights into the possibility that religion could be a cause of suicidal tendencies and rationalizes these insights.
In the course of this essay, suicidal tendency is our focus, not successfully accomplished suicide. Note that:
- Successfully completed suicide rates are not as high in religious environments as in non-religious environments but the desire to commit suicide may very well be as high or higher than in the rest of the population.
- Suicides are reported but suicidal tendencies are not. Estimates on the unreported rate of suicidal tendencies vary greatly. Determining the causes of suicidal tendencies is ultimately necessary in order to determine what curative measures may be implemented.
- Lacking specific data on suicidal tendency rates we can merely theorize about the causes. This article proposes that a hands-on study is in order.
James
“Tasteless. I’m sitting here in my car in front of the school building. I’m attempting to eat. My dinner is usually very good, very enjoyable and something I look forward to every evening. Tonight, chicken/squash that my wife makes sometimes. It’s the same as it always is but I literally can’t taste it. I’m feeling similar [sic] about how the other aspects of my life are right now.” (James)
And so begins a description of a pained life. We’ll call this soul “James.” He’s got everything in the world going for him: Straight “A” student. Married two dozen years. Fairly well paid in a well-established career. A great many people around him who enjoy his presence and in whose company he enjoys an ostentatious social life. He has hobbies and interests and his intellect is extraordinary. Yet, he feels a powerless emptiness which he feels he has not adequately expressed. Not even to his loving wife or his closest friends. He continues:
“Tasteless. A couple of bites more and still, no taste. You know what the stupidest thing is? The only reason I didn’t go home 30 minutes ago to get a gun and blow my head off is because I’m about to go to my math class where my last test grade is going to be handed out. I’m curious (not interested) to see how it was graded. ‘A’ or ‘F’ though, I don’t really care.” (James)
James’ letter goes on for several handwritten pages. He’s preparing himself. He explains his beginnings as a suicide contemplator. He doesn’t know for certain but he speculates as to how he arrived at this despair he now feels. He understands much of biology and in his recent past he has taken at least one anti-depressant drug which was prescribed to him by a doctor. But that isn’t all. Throughout his life, he explains, he has felt various declines. He describes his efforts on four prior occasions to take his own life and attributes his failure to naiveté about how to go about it. That was over twenty-five years ago. He describes how he went to a psychiatrist back then and was prescribed an anti-depressant which worked, seemingly miraculously. The doctor had told him, quite correctly, “sometimes, the brain gets in the habit of producing ‘down,’ chemistry and we have to help it get back to a normal state.” (James)
Now, many years later, James has what he believes to be a fairly good understanding of his current crisis. His suicide note goes on to describe emptiness and a failure to feel that his life has value or that he is needed by anyone. He describes an awareness of a need to get another boost to his brain chemistry because of the damage caused by the prior years’ prescription. He mentions how it’s odd that a prescription for an anti-depressant could cause him to become depressed and even more suicidal than ever before. He writes an unfeeling farewell to his wife, devoid of loving words and he tells of a friend who is partially aware.
What makes a man decide to end his life? James believes that last year, when a doctor prescribed an anti-depressant to him as a solution to an entirely unrelated nerve problem that it messed up his brain chemistry probably by aggravating his prior imbalances. Now James has come to believe that the solution to his dilemma is a different, more suitable prescription. Yet, he doesn’t make an appointment to go see a psychiatrist. He’s too depressed. A self-perpetuating destructive spiral is well under way.
Religion as a Cause of Suicidal Tendencies
Although James does not mention it in his suicide note, he tells of being raised in a repressive religious cult where his value as a human being was continuously assaulted by his family and leaders who reminded him continuously that he was nothing, “in the sight of god.” A key tenet of his cult religion says, “. . . the natural man is an enemy to god . . . “ and that it is his responsibility to put off this natural man. (Smith 153). Additionally, he was taught that, “. . . the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God . . . .” (Holy Bible) Life, of course is not so simple and in James’ early life as a human being, his increasing awareness of the fact that he is a natural man collided with the beliefs of his religious peers and the teachings of his religion. The results were then and now remain psychologically catastrophic.
James lived among fellow cult members who had all the appearances of living wonderful lives. They spoke to him regularly of their many spiritual experiences and of their personal relationships with a loving god. They professed to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they were telling the truth in all that they said to him.
James never experienced any of these things and as he realized, more and more, that he was unable to put off the natural man of his cult training, he began to spiral into greater and greater despair of ever accomplishing this ever-important goal of becoming, as it were, holy. Within the ranks of the same religious cult in which James was born and raised, polygamy is a fundamental belief. Countless women who lived and still live in this cult and its offshoots frequently speak of being suicidal as a result of cult polygamous practices. (Moore-Emmet 71, 80, 94, 147, 174-175, 196).
Ironically, it is shown that within religions, rates of completed suicides are much lower than those of the general population. In Islamic countries, the rate is nearly zero (Bertolote 7). As such, it is easy to trumpet the idea that religions have a beneficial effect on humanity. That such religions have a reducing effect on suicide rates, however, may be a result of fear-mongering and other deleterious fear tactics that religions tend to use on their followers. Christianity often tells its followers that suicide victims are condemned to an eternity in the fires of hell. A search for “Christianity suicide sin” on Google lists many references on this subject covering many permutations of the issue, often quite contradictory. It’s almost as if Christianity is unsure of the effects of its own teachings on its membership and make untrained, ill-founded efforts to prevent suicidal thought while, ironically, having exactly the opposite effect.
Religions may justify their use of scare tactics by suggesting that extending life provides opportunity for saving souls. While the use of fear may indeed be partly justifiable as a life saving technique it doesn’t mitigate the possibility that suicidal tendencies may be caused by religion. It also does not excuse an organization for creating circumstances, even unwittingly, wherein suicidal tendencies are created and fostered within the minds and hearts of religious followers. James’ experiences suggest that a religion would prefer to turn a blind eye to the possibility that suicidal tendencies are actually caused by their teachings and pressures rather than being the professed cure to such tragedy. In his eyes, prevention would be better than cure. Quite the reverse of religious tendency.
Does religion, then, cause suicidal thoughts? James firmly believes it does. In his personal contemplations of his own suicidal tendencies, he reflects back to a childhood rife with guilt and fear based on teachings from his religious parents and their cult. He refers to them as “nutballs,” a harsh commentary on a parental relationship destroyed by the cult of his early life and missing ever after. That lack of genuine parental nurturing only contributed to his mental decline. As a child, various aspects of that religious cult weighed heavily upon him and promoted a psychosis based on scriptural references as listed previously. Not being able to rise above his own accursed humanity, he learned to hate himself for his religious failures and was never taught to feel a sense of accomplishment for anything meaningful in his life. (James). Ultimately, he realized that all he had ever wanted, and lacked, was to be valued by others.
As his long-ago psychiatrist had once described to him, his brain chemistry seems to have developed the habit of creating negative chemistry as he progressively focused more than ever upon the failures of his life and was continuously told about his own “unworthiness.” Endorphins were no longer being regularly created in a normal fashion and the pleasure/reward centers of his brain began to decline without the supportive influence of this chemistry. The results were tragically predictable.
The Cause of the Cause
Psychiatric disorders are the leading cause of suicide, depression being the most significant of them all. (Hegerl 12) The problem becomes one of determining whether the causes of these psychiatric disorders are biological or if they are environmental. Can we say that biology, including genetics, is a cause? That the influence of James’ “nutball” parents over a lifetime caused him to want to kill himself? Is it a combination of the two? Does one exacerbate the other? Perhaps we will discover a gene that causes people to believe in religion and simultaneously causes them to have a predisposition toward suicidal tendencies. Cause and effect are difficult to determine for any behavior so we must be careful not to assume a connection greater than that which truly exists. However, they can and should be hypothesized and explored.
James observes that his mother was manic-depressive but he doesn’t say much more about it. What may be significant is the idea that as a religious zealot, his mother may have originally been attracted to the cult as a way to avail herself a promised hope of getting past the depression in her life. Perhaps her depression drove her to seek out a solution and when religion came along, she gravitated toward it. It is conceivable that the relationship between her depression and her association with religion was merely coincidental but we wonder: Did she have a “depression gene,” that she passed to her son? Unfortunately, in our interview, we did not explore whether or not James’ siblings have had any issues with depression or suicide.
What about those like James who were born into their respective churches and still have this tendency toward suicide? Perhaps a genetic tendency is there to begin with and religion has nothing to do with creating it or exacerbating it. We simply don’t know. We do see a preponderance of evidence which shows that religious followers have displayed or verbalized suicidal tendencies and attributed them directly to their respective religions. As previously cited, the women of polygamous cults frequently say as much. (Moore-Emmet). That these individuals restrain themselves from committing suicide may be a testament to the ability of the churches to inspire fear in their followers rather than inspire them to live fulfilling lives.
Group Suicides in Cults
November, 1978 is notorious as the month in which the religious cult founded by Jim Jones committed suicide as a group. There were about 900 members of which nearly 300 were children. (Schnepper) Thirty-three members of this cult escaped. But what was it that caused this group to commit such an extreme act? Parents even assisted their children in this horrific event, mixing kool-aid into cyanide in order to make it easier for them to drink and therefore, to die.
Marshall Applewhite led his Heaven’s Gate cult of 39 to commit group suicide over a period of three days in March of 1997. They believed that by doing so they were preparing themselves to be picked up by a group of aliens who were supposedly arriving in the shadow of the Hale-Bopp comet. (Robinson) Again, we have to ask ourselves, what caused people to commit this horrendous act?
A search on Google’s web site for the words “suicides of religious cults,” returns over a million web links of articles on this subject of group cult suicide. It might be safe to assume that there have been thousands of documented events wherein a group of religious believers committed suicide based on some facet of the religious teachings of their cult. Is it because of the charisma of their leaders? Is it a mental psychosis? Do people have that much belief in the teachings of their respective cults to compel themselves to take their own lives and the lives of their children?
The Church of Euthanasia founded by Chris Korda proposes that suicide is one of the best things a human being can do for the benefit of our planet. Their premise is that humans have overpopulated the Earth and consume an excessive amount of resources. According to this group we are better off doing the planet and everyone else a favor by killing ourselves. I must point out that the group’s web site gives the impression of being more of a tongue-in-cheek comedic site rather than a truly legitimate church. However, their site claims tax exempt 501(c)(3) status as a non-profit educational organization and they solicit tax deductible contributions as such. Their motto: “Save the planet. Kill yourself.” A link is provided where one may find ways in which to kill himself. (Korda) It may be abhorrent to the mind to suggest that suicide could actually be good thing but there are other groups and individuals who believe suicide is good for many varied reasons.
Acts of Religious Terrorism
It is worth noting that the majority of acts of “religious terrorism,” are not motivated by religious causes; they are motivated by political ideals, revenge, etc. (Hassan)
Kip Eliason
On March 2, 1982, 16-year old Kip Eliason committed suicide. His suicide note to his father reads,
"Dear Dad,
I love you more than what words can say. If it were possible, I would stay alive for only you, for I really only have you. But it isn't possible. I must first love myself, and I do not. The strange feeling of darkness and self-hate overpowers all my defenses. I must unfortunately yield to it. This turbulent feeling is only for a few to truly understand. I feel that you do not comprehend the immense feeling of self-hatred I have. This is the only way I feel that I can relieve myself of these feelings now. Carry on with your life and be happy. I love you more than words can say.
Your son, Kip" (Taylor)
The battle Kip had been fighting was a battle against masturbation as forbidden by the cult religion of which he was a confirmed member. He was a consummate “natural man,” and was unable to stop the natural human urges that come to all men and women but the difference for Kip is, he was labeled a sinner by the teachings of his church and family. A devout journalizer, he wrote often of his personal battle against himself. One journal entry reads, “I know immorality is a very serious sin. I really want to repent and be free of this terrible and degrading burden of masturbation. I am willing to do anything I have to do, even excommunication, to be able to repent and be free of this sin. I would rather go to hell and suffer there than be unworthy." (Taylor)
Kip’s story is one of serious tragedy regardless of any of the other implications of his life’s tragic end. A significant impact of his story is with regard to the pressure of religion having been brought to bear to devalue his worth as a human being rather than to build him up. The preservation of life is a goal of paramount importance to most religions and yet, there is a distinct and contrary devaluation of the person as he suffers under the burdens of no greater sin than that of being a mere human being.
Even greater tragedy is heaped upon Kip’s by the discovery that his is not the only such story.
Homosexuality + Christianity = Suicide?
A significant group of people who firmly believe that religion, especially Christianity, causes suicide is the gay and lesbian community. Biblical quotations are used within Christianity to support the idea that homosexuality is satanic and that homosexuals are doomed to hell. Christianity to this day preaches an extreme hatred of homosexuality and lip service is given to the effect that it is the act that is hated, not the actor. Unfortunately, actions belie the words and it is very difficult to consistently take words at face value. Hateful words and actions are frequently foisted against homosexuals by Christians. To be fair, not all Christians feel as such, however, there are a significant number who do. (Robinson) Christianity is not the only source of such hatred. Radio talk show host, Dr. Laura Schlessinger once said on the air, “gays are a biological error.” It caused an understandable uproar. (Herscher)
It is suggested that Christianity is indirectly responsible for at least 496 youth gay/lesbian suicides per year. (Robinson) A Google search for the term, “Christian gay suicide,” returns over 500,000 links to references of gay suicides. Many of these links are for blogs, articles and forums of organizations in support of gays and lesbians who have been rejected and despised by Christianity.
Can’t we all just get along?
Since this essay attempts to show that religion causes suicide, it may be said to have failed. There simply is not enough definitive evidence to support a conclusive statement of cause and effect. On the other hand, the evidence to support the idea that religion causes suicide is very suggestive. There are many heartbreaking stories of people who assert that, because of the teachings of their religion seriously contemplated, attempted or succeeded at taking their own lives. Indeed, a commissioned study is encouraged in order to determine the rate of correlation between religion and suicidal ideations of its followers.
It is important to note that this essay does not necessarily attempt to connect actual suicides with religion. It was shown earlier that statistically, incidence of suicide is actually less within religious populations. The supposition of this article is that if a religiously beleaguered person could accomplish their own end, they would. Granted, successful suicide may be inhibited by religious imposition. Realistically, however, we must ask, Is the quality of life compromised by religion? How many people simply wish they were dead but don’t attempt it and choose to continue to suffer? Personally, I am brought to wonder: How many people are hiding their suicidal ideations from the outside world while they suffer agony within?
Bibliography
Bertolote, Jose Maoel and Alexandra Fleishmann. “A global perspective in the epidemiology of suicide.” Suicidologi. 2002, volume 7, no 2: 6-8
Hassan, Riaz. “Religion is Not the Primary Motivation of Suicide Bombers.” 2009. The Daily Star. (www.thefreelibrary.com)
Hassan, Steven. Releasing the Bonds. Danbury, CT. Aitan. 2000
Hegerle, Ulrich. “The European Alliance against Depression: A four-level intervention programme against depression and suicidality.” Suicidologi. 2008, volume 13, no 1: 12-14
Herscher, Elaine. “Dr. Laura Show Provokes Backlash.” Sfgate web site. 04 March 2000. (www.sfgate.com)
Holy Bible, The. King James Translation.
“James.” A suicide note from a tortured soul. Personal permission granted for use so long as use is anonymous. Interview notes included.
Korda, Chris. www.churchofeuthanasia.org)
Moore-Emmet, Andrea. God’s Brothel. San Francisco, CA. Pince-Nez Press. 2004
Robinson, B. A. “Heaven’s Gate: Christian / UFO Believers.” 25 Mar 1997 (www.religioustolerance.org)
Robinson, B. A. “Suicides Among Gay and Lesbian Youth.” 01 Aug 2008 (www.religioustolerance.org)
Schnepper, Jeff A. “Jonestown Massacre: The Unrevealed Story.” USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education). January, 1999
Smith, Joseph. Salt Lake City, UT. The Book of Mormon. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, The. 1981
Taylor, Mark A. “Sin and Death in Mormon Country: A Latter-day Tragedy.” 1986. Affirmation web site. (www.affirmation.org) (Note: this article is HIGHLY recommended.)
Chick Bikerz
Hot. Chick Bikers are hot. I don't mean just hot, I mean HOT HOT HOT. Oh yeah.
Just what is it, though? Maybe it's the idea that if a woman can handle that much power between her legs, she can handle me in there, too.
Maybe.
You're surprised that there's a sexual attraction there? Of course it's sexual. Could it be anything else? There's a woman on a bike, her legs wrapped around the sides and the seat pressing up against the center of her and EVERY man who sees this has a quick surge, an impulse, thinking, "I wish I were underneath her."
No maybe about it.
Look at what happens when a girl on a bike goes by a group of boys on their bikes. Mating ritual. Yup. Mating ritual. They strut their stuff, drive fast, do wheelies, ride right past her. All for . . .
They obviously are doing a mating ritual. Every one of those boys is saying that if she rides a bike, she'd just love to ride him, too. More than she'd like to ride that other guy doing his wheelie over there.
Yeah, a boy who sees a girl on a motorcycle is seeing porn in public. As close as he's going to get out on the road and believe you me, it piques his interest immediately. It's a very short half-step away from seeing her in a the female superior position, riding him instead of that motorcycle. Her hips are formed around that motorcycle in the same position, giving that same shape to her hips and any time a guy sees that, he's instantly interested.
At least, that animal breeding instinct is interested. For a man to deny that this is true is tantamount to denying that he masturbates from time to time. Or every day.
A lot of chick bikerz don't know this. Even better. Gives a certain innocence to her riding.
Maybe.
Can it be suggested that at some subtle, animal instinctive level all girl bikers know what they're doing to the boy bikers?
It used to be that the boys could cruise a motorcycle down to Main Street in the evening and be surrounded by girls who wanted to be on the bike behind him. Almost as if they want to have that much power between their legs. Almost? Nah. Definitely. Now, a boy on a bike on Main Street barely gets a glance 'cause the girls are on their own motorcycles and having much more fun.
Except that she gets to control the bike, form it to her wants and needs. There are better reasons for her to be on a bike than on a boy.
And she won't give it up for him, for sure.
Okay, sometimes.
--Wag--
Just what is it, though? Maybe it's the idea that if a woman can handle that much power between her legs, she can handle me in there, too.
Maybe.
You're surprised that there's a sexual attraction there? Of course it's sexual. Could it be anything else? There's a woman on a bike, her legs wrapped around the sides and the seat pressing up against the center of her and EVERY man who sees this has a quick surge, an impulse, thinking, "I wish I were underneath her."
No maybe about it.
Look at what happens when a girl on a bike goes by a group of boys on their bikes. Mating ritual. Yup. Mating ritual. They strut their stuff, drive fast, do wheelies, ride right past her. All for . . .
They obviously are doing a mating ritual. Every one of those boys is saying that if she rides a bike, she'd just love to ride him, too. More than she'd like to ride that other guy doing his wheelie over there.
Yeah, a boy who sees a girl on a motorcycle is seeing porn in public. As close as he's going to get out on the road and believe you me, it piques his interest immediately. It's a very short half-step away from seeing her in a the female superior position, riding him instead of that motorcycle. Her hips are formed around that motorcycle in the same position, giving that same shape to her hips and any time a guy sees that, he's instantly interested.
At least, that animal breeding instinct is interested. For a man to deny that this is true is tantamount to denying that he masturbates from time to time. Or every day.
A lot of chick bikerz don't know this. Even better. Gives a certain innocence to her riding.
Maybe.
Can it be suggested that at some subtle, animal instinctive level all girl bikers know what they're doing to the boy bikers?
It used to be that the boys could cruise a motorcycle down to Main Street in the evening and be surrounded by girls who wanted to be on the bike behind him. Almost as if they want to have that much power between their legs. Almost? Nah. Definitely. Now, a boy on a bike on Main Street barely gets a glance 'cause the girls are on their own motorcycles and having much more fun.
Except that she gets to control the bike, form it to her wants and needs. There are better reasons for her to be on a bike than on a boy.
And she won't give it up for him, for sure.
Okay, sometimes.
--Wag--
Saturday, June 23, 2012
More Human
This was inspired by a Facebook post from another user. While the background is not here to give a basis in origin, the post should stand on it's own.
--Wag--
------------------------
I like your post, Nathan. I detect an undercurrent of anger herein which is not a bad thing in and of itself, obviously. Years ago, a mentor once told me, "Being angry is no sin but the inappropriate expression of anger is."
If I'm wrong in that assessment of you, bear in mind, my intent is not to judge, per se, but to lead into this: A real man knows his emotions and is in control of them. Here, to clarify again, controlling one's emotions is not bound up in suppressing them but in expressing them appropriately. It applies to all emotions including Love, Hate, various passions, Happiness, Fear, etc. And anger, of course.
We are ruled, for better or worse, by our biology and by our evolutionary past. Biology has assigned to men the role of fathering children and has demanded that we exercise that role as often as possible and with as many mates as possible. It presses that role upon us when we are young so that we may give the best we have. As we grow older, biology tapers off the requirement to breed and abandons the man to wither and die. In times past, men were used up by the time they were in their early thirties. That may still be true, actually!
In the examples you gave of the propensity of men toward violence it makes me wonder if our intellect and reasoning abilities have outstripped our evolutionary path. I wonder if we haven't moved ourselves into a path that evolution didn't intend for another 100,000 years or so. Ergo, we live too long, we think too much, we have emotions and needs which conflict with our too-rapidly developed reason and intellect. But we've lost the connection between our reasoning abilities and our biological needs for the thrills of violence and for other extremes.
Reason should tell us various things but the problem is, our individual reasoning tells us different things in a way which is inconsistent with the reasoning and conclusions of others. We tend to disagree with each other fiercely and with violence at times but there is one thing we should agree upon more than anything else: We should at least conclude that we are all human first.
Human first. Not man first, not woman first, not Catholic first, not Democrat first. Human first. There are those who argue that we are animal first or even Earth (nature) first but I disagree. To be one of those two things reverses our human course to a point that equates us to a part of our world that does not allow any space for our ability to reason and to feel and to think. A denial of sorts. Therefore, I put our commonality at a point in evolution that allows for these traits which make us unique among the creatures of which we know. Make no mistake. I realize that we do have those biological and evolutionary chains which make us misuse and abuse our thinking and reasoning abilities. Even these, however, further define us as essentially human.
That we are human first is only a realization that we are able to consider the various similarities and differences we all have with each other. The most obvious distinctions are biological, of course. Most obvious, naturally, are the many difference between men and women. Those differences have to be acknowledged, of course. To not acknowledge them is dishonest and defeats the purpose of thought and betrays the very humanity we attempt to understand! Biology has forced roles upon us as men and women. Only women can carry a child from conception to birth but only a man can get that process started. In theory, women must choose the man because biology has rendered men incapable of distinguishing which woman with which to mate. Biologically, a man is unconcerned with the future of any child conceived. It is only as time has progressed and evolved that men have adopted the idea of being a long-term caregiver alongside a mate. I offer this as a mere example of how a role can be defined by biology but morphed by reasoning.
And therein lies the root of a meaningful discussion: At what point do we begin to understand what roles are defined by biology and which have been defined by reason and intellect and carried forward through millennia by tradition. Tradition, therefore, can be thought of to be useless at best but counterproductive and even destructive at worst. Do children need to be defined by their blue hats and pink bonnets? At what point do we strip our children of training in the roles they may someday assume? At what point, if ever, do we cease to use the terms, "male" and "female?" If we don't use these terms in the early years at what time do we introduce those terms to our young charges?
Again, it's only an example and can spawn discussion for years to come. Other examples of the biological differences in our humanity are the colors of our skins. The shape of our eyes. The specifics encoded in our DNA. Less certain at this time, but assuredly valid on appearance is the differences between sexual preference. Not proven yet, but definitely a valid proposition that it's also buried in our DNA. And why not? If biology makes some women seek men with whom to have sexual unity, why not some men to seek men? Is biology so concerned with perpetuating the human being that it makes absolutely no room for such a thing? It seems unreasonable to think so.
Are other things biologically denoted for humanity? Belief in god? Criminal propensity? Sociopathy? compassion of the heart? The very time in our life when we will die? I wonder if we will ever see a time when we treat others with discrimination because we know that they will die of heart attacks before the age of 45. After all, we will have learned how to read the DNA code and know that yes, you, sir, will die of a heart attack before the age of 45 so we're not willing to hire you for this position and we're not going to sell you life insurance and please, just go away so we can hang out with that other guy who isn't defective like you are.
Is humanity so crass? Of course, yes. We are. We all want to be better than the next guy in some way. Our penis and breast size are of paramount importance and some humans make a great deal of money convincing other humans just how important this aspect of our biology can be. Oh, you sad creature with the small boobies. Here, let me fix them up for you so yours are bigger than that other lady's. For a fee, of course.
With regard to violence, it is, indeed, an aspect of our fear of our inability to be better than the next guy. As such, let's just beat the crap out of him and if necessary, just kill him. And assert the fact that we're better. And bring on the next one, please. Of course, society has required us to make killing legal and arenas are developed for the purpose. The Romans had The Coliseum for killing people. We have boxing rings and football fields where killing can be done quite nicely, thank you very much.
Nevertheless, there is more to a man than the requirements of biology. More to women as well, of course. Some roles and definitions cannot be denied but others can be questioned. Whether we draw conclusions based on intellect or not will be the only remaining question. For the moment, however, what makes a man a man?
First, of course, is the clear definition of humanity. It makes us part of a whole and if we are not sociopathic animals, we can agree that our only differences at an individual level are based upon a biological and evolutionary need to compete for resources. Strip that away and we are able to clearly understand that we are able to unite together with a purpose that precludes violence toward each other. Save the violence for defence against aliens from space!
Graduating to a definition of what makes a man? I think we can understand that everyone else in the world will exist at differing stages of evolution. As a result, we have to intellectually act accordingly toward each human being on an individual basis. If attacked by a mountain lion, a real man could be expected to violently defend himself from a physical attact rather than cower and allow himself to be killed. He could be expected to make a comparably violent defense against another human being as well. Indeed, if we follow this to it's logical conclusion and look at the opposite side of the equation, we may rationally assume that a human who is willing to attack another human is only human by virtue of his outward appearance. Inside, he is no more than any other animal who is a threat to one's safety.
Can we intellectually understand the vast variances between human beings? Can we see that a person who is of a different skin color is likely no different on the inside than we are? That a woman is no different? A gay man or woman? And yet, they really are different under the skin as well and to refuse to acknowledge that simple fact is to deny one of the most critical things that defines us as human beings. Yes, it cannot be denied: people are NOT all the same and yet, we attempt to revise our behavior and our legal system to treat everyone the same and necessarily so, for efficiency's sake. But in doing so, we deny the very thing that makes us human and we do ourselves a disservice of epic proportions, even if we really don't want to do such a thing.
Part of our problem is that our differences are hidden from us. We can't see the differences that matter and we wouldn't understand those differences, even if we could see them. It's awkward during new meetings. Fearsome in battle. But those differences become critical when attempting to understand how our behavior should vary in any meeting with others.
And there, my friends, is the crux of the matter: Behavior. Yes, it's capitalized because individual behavior is the very thing that defines us as human beings. Are we heterosexual? We'll know that because we desire sex with members of the opposite sex. Are we Christian? We'll know that if we are behaving with love toward all human beings. Are we violent creatures? We know that if we are beating on other people by habit. Our behavior as human beings, however, not only defines us but it reveals us for who we are. As human beings, we are unable to hide who we are because our behavior (and our speech) reveals us. A critical point here is that we cannot hide who we are. It simply isn't possible. There are those who attempt to hide who they are but in doing so, many people understand it right away and realize that they are liars and thus, another reveal is made.
So then the original question morphs into, "What behaviors are typical of men? Of women? Of criminals? Of dogs and cats?
Oh, brother. After all that dialogue and theorizing and speculation and assertion, I think I can finally answer: Nobody really knows.
That's right. What makes you a man is not necessarily what makes me a man. I'm honest, forthright, willing to defend myself and loved ones from attacks and threats. Capable of getting things done and taking care of business. But wait. Those are all things which any human being would do. Note: any human. Male or female. Black or white. Muslim or Christian. Ghetto or upscale.
For the moment, I have to settle for one thing that makes us men: the accessory of a penis. The ability to inseminate women for making babies. That's what makes a man. Because I can see men who bake cakes, are registered nurses and know how to decorate my house and make my hair look nice. But so can various women I know.
Sometimes, the best man for the job or the best woman for the job is, simply, a human being.
When are we as humanity going to realize this?
The barrier, then, is knowing that it's no longer necessary to prove oneself as a labeled creature but as an individual. If you're a man and you can do the job better than a woman, go for it. Same with women. Your success is not a success for women everywhere but a success for you as a person, every other woman or man or human being be damned. By the same token, if a person is in your office interviewing for a job and happens to have a penis, it has no significance if he can do the job better than everyone else. If that individual has a vagina, she shouldn't be considered less capable because of it. What matters is that the requirements of the job are satisfied. If the job requires strength, get the strongest person available. If the job requires a mathematician, get the person with the proven track record as a smart calcuating genius. Of course, if the job requires a vagina (having babies, specifically), get a woman. If it requires a penis and testicles (sperm donation), get a man. Other than that, gender has no meaning and no merit.
Maybe that's the right word: Merit. I may have to leave that for another discussion but still, it takes us to the reconsitituted question: What behaviors make a man a man?
one more thought presses, though. Acceptance. First, acceptance of self. With honesty. You get to define yourself, first and foremost. Most of us didn't get to do that as children. We were handed a definition and told, "Go be that. This is your recipe. Don't deviate from it." For some, being gay was not an option. Being a doctor or a lawyer was not an option. Being a nurse or a CEO was not explained as a possibility for us. Some of us were told that we had to be Mormon or Islamic or biologists. Choice in the matter was not up to us and hell awaited us if we chose to deviate from that plan. In fact, we were told that going astray meant that we were, well, deviants.
Damn.
Those of us who tore up that road map we were given are light years ahead of those who haved toed the line and stuck to the plan they were given as children. That doesn't make us better than they are but it does give us a more important asset: Perspective. We are able to see things a bit more clearly because not only have we suffered, we have seen the suffering we had and we have seen the world on the other side of that suffering. Basically, essentially, we understand. We've become, more importantly than anything. . .
More human.
--Wag--
------------------------
I like your post, Nathan. I detect an undercurrent of anger herein which is not a bad thing in and of itself, obviously. Years ago, a mentor once told me, "Being angry is no sin but the inappropriate expression of anger is."
If I'm wrong in that assessment of you, bear in mind, my intent is not to judge, per se, but to lead into this: A real man knows his emotions and is in control of them. Here, to clarify again, controlling one's emotions is not bound up in suppressing them but in expressing them appropriately. It applies to all emotions including Love, Hate, various passions, Happiness, Fear, etc. And anger, of course.
We are ruled, for better or worse, by our biology and by our evolutionary past. Biology has assigned to men the role of fathering children and has demanded that we exercise that role as often as possible and with as many mates as possible. It presses that role upon us when we are young so that we may give the best we have. As we grow older, biology tapers off the requirement to breed and abandons the man to wither and die. In times past, men were used up by the time they were in their early thirties. That may still be true, actually!
In the examples you gave of the propensity of men toward violence it makes me wonder if our intellect and reasoning abilities have outstripped our evolutionary path. I wonder if we haven't moved ourselves into a path that evolution didn't intend for another 100,000 years or so. Ergo, we live too long, we think too much, we have emotions and needs which conflict with our too-rapidly developed reason and intellect. But we've lost the connection between our reasoning abilities and our biological needs for the thrills of violence and for other extremes.
Reason should tell us various things but the problem is, our individual reasoning tells us different things in a way which is inconsistent with the reasoning and conclusions of others. We tend to disagree with each other fiercely and with violence at times but there is one thing we should agree upon more than anything else: We should at least conclude that we are all human first.
Human first. Not man first, not woman first, not Catholic first, not Democrat first. Human first. There are those who argue that we are animal first or even Earth (nature) first but I disagree. To be one of those two things reverses our human course to a point that equates us to a part of our world that does not allow any space for our ability to reason and to feel and to think. A denial of sorts. Therefore, I put our commonality at a point in evolution that allows for these traits which make us unique among the creatures of which we know. Make no mistake. I realize that we do have those biological and evolutionary chains which make us misuse and abuse our thinking and reasoning abilities. Even these, however, further define us as essentially human.
That we are human first is only a realization that we are able to consider the various similarities and differences we all have with each other. The most obvious distinctions are biological, of course. Most obvious, naturally, are the many difference between men and women. Those differences have to be acknowledged, of course. To not acknowledge them is dishonest and defeats the purpose of thought and betrays the very humanity we attempt to understand! Biology has forced roles upon us as men and women. Only women can carry a child from conception to birth but only a man can get that process started. In theory, women must choose the man because biology has rendered men incapable of distinguishing which woman with which to mate. Biologically, a man is unconcerned with the future of any child conceived. It is only as time has progressed and evolved that men have adopted the idea of being a long-term caregiver alongside a mate. I offer this as a mere example of how a role can be defined by biology but morphed by reasoning.
And therein lies the root of a meaningful discussion: At what point do we begin to understand what roles are defined by biology and which have been defined by reason and intellect and carried forward through millennia by tradition. Tradition, therefore, can be thought of to be useless at best but counterproductive and even destructive at worst. Do children need to be defined by their blue hats and pink bonnets? At what point do we strip our children of training in the roles they may someday assume? At what point, if ever, do we cease to use the terms, "male" and "female?" If we don't use these terms in the early years at what time do we introduce those terms to our young charges?
Again, it's only an example and can spawn discussion for years to come. Other examples of the biological differences in our humanity are the colors of our skins. The shape of our eyes. The specifics encoded in our DNA. Less certain at this time, but assuredly valid on appearance is the differences between sexual preference. Not proven yet, but definitely a valid proposition that it's also buried in our DNA. And why not? If biology makes some women seek men with whom to have sexual unity, why not some men to seek men? Is biology so concerned with perpetuating the human being that it makes absolutely no room for such a thing? It seems unreasonable to think so.
Are other things biologically denoted for humanity? Belief in god? Criminal propensity? Sociopathy? compassion of the heart? The very time in our life when we will die? I wonder if we will ever see a time when we treat others with discrimination because we know that they will die of heart attacks before the age of 45. After all, we will have learned how to read the DNA code and know that yes, you, sir, will die of a heart attack before the age of 45 so we're not willing to hire you for this position and we're not going to sell you life insurance and please, just go away so we can hang out with that other guy who isn't defective like you are.
Is humanity so crass? Of course, yes. We are. We all want to be better than the next guy in some way. Our penis and breast size are of paramount importance and some humans make a great deal of money convincing other humans just how important this aspect of our biology can be. Oh, you sad creature with the small boobies. Here, let me fix them up for you so yours are bigger than that other lady's. For a fee, of course.
With regard to violence, it is, indeed, an aspect of our fear of our inability to be better than the next guy. As such, let's just beat the crap out of him and if necessary, just kill him. And assert the fact that we're better. And bring on the next one, please. Of course, society has required us to make killing legal and arenas are developed for the purpose. The Romans had The Coliseum for killing people. We have boxing rings and football fields where killing can be done quite nicely, thank you very much.
Nevertheless, there is more to a man than the requirements of biology. More to women as well, of course. Some roles and definitions cannot be denied but others can be questioned. Whether we draw conclusions based on intellect or not will be the only remaining question. For the moment, however, what makes a man a man?
First, of course, is the clear definition of humanity. It makes us part of a whole and if we are not sociopathic animals, we can agree that our only differences at an individual level are based upon a biological and evolutionary need to compete for resources. Strip that away and we are able to clearly understand that we are able to unite together with a purpose that precludes violence toward each other. Save the violence for defence against aliens from space!
Graduating to a definition of what makes a man? I think we can understand that everyone else in the world will exist at differing stages of evolution. As a result, we have to intellectually act accordingly toward each human being on an individual basis. If attacked by a mountain lion, a real man could be expected to violently defend himself from a physical attact rather than cower and allow himself to be killed. He could be expected to make a comparably violent defense against another human being as well. Indeed, if we follow this to it's logical conclusion and look at the opposite side of the equation, we may rationally assume that a human who is willing to attack another human is only human by virtue of his outward appearance. Inside, he is no more than any other animal who is a threat to one's safety.
Can we intellectually understand the vast variances between human beings? Can we see that a person who is of a different skin color is likely no different on the inside than we are? That a woman is no different? A gay man or woman? And yet, they really are different under the skin as well and to refuse to acknowledge that simple fact is to deny one of the most critical things that defines us as human beings. Yes, it cannot be denied: people are NOT all the same and yet, we attempt to revise our behavior and our legal system to treat everyone the same and necessarily so, for efficiency's sake. But in doing so, we deny the very thing that makes us human and we do ourselves a disservice of epic proportions, even if we really don't want to do such a thing.
Part of our problem is that our differences are hidden from us. We can't see the differences that matter and we wouldn't understand those differences, even if we could see them. It's awkward during new meetings. Fearsome in battle. But those differences become critical when attempting to understand how our behavior should vary in any meeting with others.
And there, my friends, is the crux of the matter: Behavior. Yes, it's capitalized because individual behavior is the very thing that defines us as human beings. Are we heterosexual? We'll know that because we desire sex with members of the opposite sex. Are we Christian? We'll know that if we are behaving with love toward all human beings. Are we violent creatures? We know that if we are beating on other people by habit. Our behavior as human beings, however, not only defines us but it reveals us for who we are. As human beings, we are unable to hide who we are because our behavior (and our speech) reveals us. A critical point here is that we cannot hide who we are. It simply isn't possible. There are those who attempt to hide who they are but in doing so, many people understand it right away and realize that they are liars and thus, another reveal is made.
So then the original question morphs into, "What behaviors are typical of men? Of women? Of criminals? Of dogs and cats?
Oh, brother. After all that dialogue and theorizing and speculation and assertion, I think I can finally answer: Nobody really knows.
That's right. What makes you a man is not necessarily what makes me a man. I'm honest, forthright, willing to defend myself and loved ones from attacks and threats. Capable of getting things done and taking care of business. But wait. Those are all things which any human being would do. Note: any human. Male or female. Black or white. Muslim or Christian. Ghetto or upscale.
For the moment, I have to settle for one thing that makes us men: the accessory of a penis. The ability to inseminate women for making babies. That's what makes a man. Because I can see men who bake cakes, are registered nurses and know how to decorate my house and make my hair look nice. But so can various women I know.
Sometimes, the best man for the job or the best woman for the job is, simply, a human being.
When are we as humanity going to realize this?
The barrier, then, is knowing that it's no longer necessary to prove oneself as a labeled creature but as an individual. If you're a man and you can do the job better than a woman, go for it. Same with women. Your success is not a success for women everywhere but a success for you as a person, every other woman or man or human being be damned. By the same token, if a person is in your office interviewing for a job and happens to have a penis, it has no significance if he can do the job better than everyone else. If that individual has a vagina, she shouldn't be considered less capable because of it. What matters is that the requirements of the job are satisfied. If the job requires strength, get the strongest person available. If the job requires a mathematician, get the person with the proven track record as a smart calcuating genius. Of course, if the job requires a vagina (having babies, specifically), get a woman. If it requires a penis and testicles (sperm donation), get a man. Other than that, gender has no meaning and no merit.
Maybe that's the right word: Merit. I may have to leave that for another discussion but still, it takes us to the reconsitituted question: What behaviors make a man a man?
one more thought presses, though. Acceptance. First, acceptance of self. With honesty. You get to define yourself, first and foremost. Most of us didn't get to do that as children. We were handed a definition and told, "Go be that. This is your recipe. Don't deviate from it." For some, being gay was not an option. Being a doctor or a lawyer was not an option. Being a nurse or a CEO was not explained as a possibility for us. Some of us were told that we had to be Mormon or Islamic or biologists. Choice in the matter was not up to us and hell awaited us if we chose to deviate from that plan. In fact, we were told that going astray meant that we were, well, deviants.
Damn.
Those of us who tore up that road map we were given are light years ahead of those who haved toed the line and stuck to the plan they were given as children. That doesn't make us better than they are but it does give us a more important asset: Perspective. We are able to see things a bit more clearly because not only have we suffered, we have seen the suffering we had and we have seen the world on the other side of that suffering. Basically, essentially, we understand. We've become, more importantly than anything. . .
More human.
Saturday, July 03, 2010
What marriage is.
As I grow older, my thoughts on this subject get deeper. At times, I wish someone had told me more about this as was starting out on my marriage but I also realize that much of it cannot be learned unless it is lived.
We just celebrated our 21st anniversary last month. As you read this, bear in mind, it's a distillation of these 21 years we've had and of some of the thoughts which I've written previously within this blog.
You have to understand what marriage is: It's a contract between two people AND the government. That's it. It doesn't mean the two people love each other. It only means that the state owns both your asses. It also allows the government to force the two of you into an ownership relationship, ergo, MY wife or MY husband, MY spouse. In other words, you get to dictate many of the actions of the other. According to the government.
Having said that, there ARE certain legal benefits to a marriage relationship, especially where children are concerned and with regard to inheritance issues, etc. Nevertheless, if you choose to get "married" in the eyes of the government, remember that it is ONLY a contract between the two of you and them and nothing more.
A committed relationship requires no such contract or binding agreement. It isn't even about giving oneself to another which is equally abhorrent. It's about two hearts merging together and becoming one. A complete mating of the hearts and minds and souls
Your mate is a part of you and you are a part of your mate. At that point, why would you do something to hurt your mate? Hurting the partner is hurting yourself. Of far greater importance is that when you support your mate and your mate supports you and you build each other up at every opportunity, you are doing the same for yourself. As you help your mate to grow, you also grow and as you accept your mate's efforts to help you to grow, your mate also grows with those efforts.
There are those who marry and many years later, their hearts merge and become one. Sad that it wasn't there beforehand but no harm, hopefully, that it took so long. Better, though, to be mated before making that step toward marriage and marriage to be done only if there are compelling reasons to do so, especially if children are desired.
Ultimately, though, marriage is not required in order for a pair to mate. Indeed, marriage could even prevent a mating as I've described. If commitment and trust and reliance exist between the two and they have mated in every way possible, then there is no need for a marriage. A far greater union, a much better joining has happened than can ever be accomplished in front of any priest or minister or justice of the peace. There is no need for a vow of the lips. The promise is in the heart and mind and body and soul.
Such a promise will never be betrayed or questioned.
--Wag--
We just celebrated our 21st anniversary last month. As you read this, bear in mind, it's a distillation of these 21 years we've had and of some of the thoughts which I've written previously within this blog.
You have to understand what marriage is: It's a contract between two people AND the government. That's it. It doesn't mean the two people love each other. It only means that the state owns both your asses. It also allows the government to force the two of you into an ownership relationship, ergo, MY wife or MY husband, MY spouse. In other words, you get to dictate many of the actions of the other. According to the government.
Having said that, there ARE certain legal benefits to a marriage relationship, especially where children are concerned and with regard to inheritance issues, etc. Nevertheless, if you choose to get "married" in the eyes of the government, remember that it is ONLY a contract between the two of you and them and nothing more.
A committed relationship requires no such contract or binding agreement. It isn't even about giving oneself to another which is equally abhorrent. It's about two hearts merging together and becoming one. A complete mating of the hearts and minds and souls
Your mate is a part of you and you are a part of your mate. At that point, why would you do something to hurt your mate? Hurting the partner is hurting yourself. Of far greater importance is that when you support your mate and your mate supports you and you build each other up at every opportunity, you are doing the same for yourself. As you help your mate to grow, you also grow and as you accept your mate's efforts to help you to grow, your mate also grows with those efforts.
There are those who marry and many years later, their hearts merge and become one. Sad that it wasn't there beforehand but no harm, hopefully, that it took so long. Better, though, to be mated before making that step toward marriage and marriage to be done only if there are compelling reasons to do so, especially if children are desired.
Ultimately, though, marriage is not required in order for a pair to mate. Indeed, marriage could even prevent a mating as I've described. If commitment and trust and reliance exist between the two and they have mated in every way possible, then there is no need for a marriage. A far greater union, a much better joining has happened than can ever be accomplished in front of any priest or minister or justice of the peace. There is no need for a vow of the lips. The promise is in the heart and mind and body and soul.
Such a promise will never be betrayed or questioned.
--Wag--
Friday, March 12, 2010
Ignorance is winning: Revisited
An essay I wrote in my English class last week. Got a 90 on it.
--Wag--
----------------------------
In 1999, David Howard, a white man and aide to Anthony Williams, black mayor of Washington D.C., used the term, “niggardly,” to refer to the city’s budget. Marshall Brown, a black man and a colleague of Howard, errantly interpreted the term as racist and filed a formal complaint. In the heated uproar which followed, David Howard was compelled to resign his position, never mind that the word, “niggardly,” merely means, “stingy,” or, “cheap.” It has absolutely no etymological relationship to the racial slur despite the phonetic similarity of the two terms. (See www.wikipedia.com) Of course, an uneducated, ignorant individual might mistakenly hear the term and respond with a vehement, “What did you say?” As a matter of fact, an ignorant man created enough of an uproar to cause another individual to lose his job unjustly.
Ignorance won.
Regrettable as that is, it is even more appalling how people will go to great lengths to defend such ignorance. A few days after Howard’s resignation I had occasion to discuss the event with a classmate who insisted that the two words were based on the same origins. Her insistence raised a legitimate question to which I didn’t know the answer so I deferred discussion in order to research the etymology of the two words. Upon doing so, I returned to inform my classmate of what I had learned and she adamantly insisted that they just had to be related somehow. I handed the research to her and she simply stuffed it into a notebook and changed the subject, completely unwilling to explore it. Although she originally appeared to want to demonstrate that she was right she didn’t appear to be interested in learning new things.
Ignorance won.
Here’s a brief, “What if?” scenario. Imagine that you have worked tirelessly on your resume, proofread it, spell-checked it and asked several qualified people to proofread it. Finally, after hours of painstaking work it’s perfect. You then send it to a carefully chosen company for whom you wish to work. As misfortune would have it, the person in the human resources department of the company is an uneducated fool. Mistakenly believing you have misspelled a word he drops your resume into the waste can as, “unfit,” when in fact, it is he who is, “unfit.” Unfit to read resumes, that is. You fall victim to the ignorance of an individual you never met. The unfortunate employer will inevitably hire a less qualified individual.
Ignorance wins.
In the resume example above, would it be prudent to tone down your resume and be sure to use elementary-school terminology and grammar? It might ensure that you don’t fall victim to this potential form of ignorance. On the other hand, perhaps you really don’t want to work for a company with employees who are unable to read at a higher level. That the possibility even exists suggests that we are risking further descent into general ignorance.
Regrettably, our society appears to be lowering its standards rather than working hard to raise them with values of ever-increasing excellence. I have a neighbor who is a high school history teacher. We frequently discuss his students’ appalling lack of desire to excel at their school work. Worse, the parents of many students seem to encourage this lack of desire to achieve excellence. They seem to be unwilling to encourage their children to learn the subject matter presented. They are more concerned that their children are not, “offended,” by being failed on an exam or by being given a bad grade for bad work, even if they deserve it.
We also appear to be reducing our testing standards. Look at curved grading scales for example. An entire class can do work at a 70% level which indicates that they are a, “C,” class. However, because of curved grading, the standard is lowered such that 70% is now the top score and each of those students will get an, “A.” The grading scale is further revised downward. To add insult to injury, if a single student performs at a 100% level, that student’s grade is often removed from the grading pool in order to reduce the number of students who get a, “C.” That seems bad enough but many classes will even take each student’s lowest assignment grade and eliminate it from calculation in order to increase the student’s average score for the class. This policy is often implemented for all students in a class. If a student gets 100% on all work, no problem for him. But if another student fails to complete an assignment which reduced his grade from an, “A,” to a, “B,” he may get an, “A,” anyway. It points toward a self-destructive decline.
Ever-increasing ignorance wins.
Education is being further compromised by programs such as affirmative action. On the web site, www.balancedpolitics.org, we find a list of the pros and cons of affirmative action programs. Notably, the arguments in favor are weak at best (minorities should be compensated for centuries of oppression, etc.) which only serve to bolster the position that affirmative action is not necessarily a desirable thing.
So, consider the following semi-hypothetical scenario (I say, “semi-hypothetical,” because I’ve heard this scenario described as a course of action by a radio talk jock as a decision he made.):
An affirmative action program is in place at a medical school. Because they have filled their quota of students of one race they are required to admit students of other races. In reviewing applicants, they find plenty of highly qualified students but since they are of the, “wrong,” race, those applications are rejected in favor of other applications for students of the, “right,” race. Regrettably, these other applications are less stellar but the school’s hand is forced by affirmative action policy to accept inferior students. But they are of the, “right,” race and the school has preserved its required racial mix of students.
All is well, isn’t it?
Fast forward 10 years and the student completes med school, but he’s not the best student. Still, he gets his degree, passes his exams at a minimal level, and becomes a licensed physician. Here’s the rub, though. There is no way to tell if a student was admitted because of affirmative action or not. But what if there are people out there who refuse to see a doctor of a minority race simply because there is the possibility that he attained his position simply because of his race and not necessarily because of his academic abilities?
Ignorance won?
Are some people unwilling to take the chance with their healthcare? Does the affirmative action policy actually promote the very racism it claims to combat? There is a very good possibility that it does.
As a society, we seem to have become content to see our standards of excellence compromised over and over again. Standards are reduced in order to graduate incompetent students in spite of themselves. Public schools therefore retain their funding. Private institutions are able to tout their graduation numbers in their advertising fliers. Education is a money-making institution in the end, regardless of whether it is public education or private education. Our country continues to descend in a competitive world wherein scientists, mathematicians and specialists from other countries may very well outclass and outperform those within our own society.
I’m not particularly old but in the 27 years since I graduated from high school, I see this decline. Writing skills are not taught exceptionally well, even at a university level. Math skills are being taught at a level which is far below the levels they were in my backwoods high school. Physics and Biology are taught in colleges and universities at a level far below the level of my high school education.
No problem is worth stating without also proposing a solution. The question, of course, is, “How?” People resist change, are lazy, and hold to their traditional beliefs and brainwashing even to the point of irrational combativeness. We must follow the examples of the great reformers whenever necessary but also, whenever possible, we must follow the examples of the quiet few teachers and writers who, little by little, seek to improve the world with their refined, lofty thoughts and ideals, seeking ever to bridge the gap between knowledge & ignorance.
Will ignorance continue to win? Or will it go down in defeat as we work to reform our estimation of what it is like to work toward excellence?
--Wag--
----------------------------
In 1999, David Howard, a white man and aide to Anthony Williams, black mayor of Washington D.C., used the term, “niggardly,” to refer to the city’s budget. Marshall Brown, a black man and a colleague of Howard, errantly interpreted the term as racist and filed a formal complaint. In the heated uproar which followed, David Howard was compelled to resign his position, never mind that the word, “niggardly,” merely means, “stingy,” or, “cheap.” It has absolutely no etymological relationship to the racial slur despite the phonetic similarity of the two terms. (See www.wikipedia.com) Of course, an uneducated, ignorant individual might mistakenly hear the term and respond with a vehement, “What did you say?” As a matter of fact, an ignorant man created enough of an uproar to cause another individual to lose his job unjustly.
Ignorance won.
Regrettable as that is, it is even more appalling how people will go to great lengths to defend such ignorance. A few days after Howard’s resignation I had occasion to discuss the event with a classmate who insisted that the two words were based on the same origins. Her insistence raised a legitimate question to which I didn’t know the answer so I deferred discussion in order to research the etymology of the two words. Upon doing so, I returned to inform my classmate of what I had learned and she adamantly insisted that they just had to be related somehow. I handed the research to her and she simply stuffed it into a notebook and changed the subject, completely unwilling to explore it. Although she originally appeared to want to demonstrate that she was right she didn’t appear to be interested in learning new things.
Ignorance won.
Here’s a brief, “What if?” scenario. Imagine that you have worked tirelessly on your resume, proofread it, spell-checked it and asked several qualified people to proofread it. Finally, after hours of painstaking work it’s perfect. You then send it to a carefully chosen company for whom you wish to work. As misfortune would have it, the person in the human resources department of the company is an uneducated fool. Mistakenly believing you have misspelled a word he drops your resume into the waste can as, “unfit,” when in fact, it is he who is, “unfit.” Unfit to read resumes, that is. You fall victim to the ignorance of an individual you never met. The unfortunate employer will inevitably hire a less qualified individual.
Ignorance wins.
In the resume example above, would it be prudent to tone down your resume and be sure to use elementary-school terminology and grammar? It might ensure that you don’t fall victim to this potential form of ignorance. On the other hand, perhaps you really don’t want to work for a company with employees who are unable to read at a higher level. That the possibility even exists suggests that we are risking further descent into general ignorance.
Regrettably, our society appears to be lowering its standards rather than working hard to raise them with values of ever-increasing excellence. I have a neighbor who is a high school history teacher. We frequently discuss his students’ appalling lack of desire to excel at their school work. Worse, the parents of many students seem to encourage this lack of desire to achieve excellence. They seem to be unwilling to encourage their children to learn the subject matter presented. They are more concerned that their children are not, “offended,” by being failed on an exam or by being given a bad grade for bad work, even if they deserve it.
We also appear to be reducing our testing standards. Look at curved grading scales for example. An entire class can do work at a 70% level which indicates that they are a, “C,” class. However, because of curved grading, the standard is lowered such that 70% is now the top score and each of those students will get an, “A.” The grading scale is further revised downward. To add insult to injury, if a single student performs at a 100% level, that student’s grade is often removed from the grading pool in order to reduce the number of students who get a, “C.” That seems bad enough but many classes will even take each student’s lowest assignment grade and eliminate it from calculation in order to increase the student’s average score for the class. This policy is often implemented for all students in a class. If a student gets 100% on all work, no problem for him. But if another student fails to complete an assignment which reduced his grade from an, “A,” to a, “B,” he may get an, “A,” anyway. It points toward a self-destructive decline.
Ever-increasing ignorance wins.
Education is being further compromised by programs such as affirmative action. On the web site, www.balancedpolitics.org, we find a list of the pros and cons of affirmative action programs. Notably, the arguments in favor are weak at best (minorities should be compensated for centuries of oppression, etc.) which only serve to bolster the position that affirmative action is not necessarily a desirable thing.
So, consider the following semi-hypothetical scenario (I say, “semi-hypothetical,” because I’ve heard this scenario described as a course of action by a radio talk jock as a decision he made.):
An affirmative action program is in place at a medical school. Because they have filled their quota of students of one race they are required to admit students of other races. In reviewing applicants, they find plenty of highly qualified students but since they are of the, “wrong,” race, those applications are rejected in favor of other applications for students of the, “right,” race. Regrettably, these other applications are less stellar but the school’s hand is forced by affirmative action policy to accept inferior students. But they are of the, “right,” race and the school has preserved its required racial mix of students.
All is well, isn’t it?
Fast forward 10 years and the student completes med school, but he’s not the best student. Still, he gets his degree, passes his exams at a minimal level, and becomes a licensed physician. Here’s the rub, though. There is no way to tell if a student was admitted because of affirmative action or not. But what if there are people out there who refuse to see a doctor of a minority race simply because there is the possibility that he attained his position simply because of his race and not necessarily because of his academic abilities?
Ignorance won?
Are some people unwilling to take the chance with their healthcare? Does the affirmative action policy actually promote the very racism it claims to combat? There is a very good possibility that it does.
As a society, we seem to have become content to see our standards of excellence compromised over and over again. Standards are reduced in order to graduate incompetent students in spite of themselves. Public schools therefore retain their funding. Private institutions are able to tout their graduation numbers in their advertising fliers. Education is a money-making institution in the end, regardless of whether it is public education or private education. Our country continues to descend in a competitive world wherein scientists, mathematicians and specialists from other countries may very well outclass and outperform those within our own society.
I’m not particularly old but in the 27 years since I graduated from high school, I see this decline. Writing skills are not taught exceptionally well, even at a university level. Math skills are being taught at a level which is far below the levels they were in my backwoods high school. Physics and Biology are taught in colleges and universities at a level far below the level of my high school education.
No problem is worth stating without also proposing a solution. The question, of course, is, “How?” People resist change, are lazy, and hold to their traditional beliefs and brainwashing even to the point of irrational combativeness. We must follow the examples of the great reformers whenever necessary but also, whenever possible, we must follow the examples of the quiet few teachers and writers who, little by little, seek to improve the world with their refined, lofty thoughts and ideals, seeking ever to bridge the gap between knowledge & ignorance.
Will ignorance continue to win? Or will it go down in defeat as we work to reform our estimation of what it is like to work toward excellence?
Saturday, June 27, 2009
What are you willing to do?
I just read a fascinating discourse by Ariel Durant, presented as a lecture at Ripon College in 1970. The entire lecture can be read at this link: http://www.willdurant.com/candr.htm
What struck me most was near the end of the lecture where she says, "I prefer reform to revolution. If there anything clear in history it is that violent revolution multiplies chaos, disseminates destitution, and passes through the excesses of freedom to a dictatorship by an oppressive minority. Revolution is a master that devours both its parents and its children. Less alluring, but less costly, are those processes of reform, by persistent education and gradual public acceptance, which have achieved so many beneficent changes in our century."
The reason this statement strikes me so close to the heart is because so very frequently, I hear people express their willingness to take up arms in an effort to fix the problems of our society, to give up their lives in order to prevent the losses of our freedoms and rights. I learn through forums such as this and from other venues of those who will give up their well-being, their families' lives and all that they possess in order to pick up arms and pursue those freedoms which we have and perceive to be losing, bit by inexorable bit.
What I hear of much less frequently, indeed, quite rarely, are those who are willing to consider the prerequisites to revolution. Rarely do I hear of those who are willing to go to their local city council meetings, get up a couple of times a month and write effective letters and correspondence to their local and national representatives, to speak out when opportunity presents itself. To step away from their televisions and entertainments to speak up and voice their concerns about excessive taxation and overbearing government waste and excess.
There is a huge dichotomy of thought and action between the two. It never ceases to amaze me that there there is an appearance of a great many who prefer the idea of some supposed (mistakenly) glamor of bloodshed to the quiet, peaceful motion of written and verbal dialogue.
Be assured, if it were necessary to shed blood to preserve freedoms, there can be no doubt that rising up to face the enemies of freedom is the right thing to do. Until then, can we prevent it from becoming a need?
I suggest that yes, we can. Freedom-loving Americans such as ourselves can reverse the trend. We must look and see that the erosion we face at this time has been brought about by such means. There has been no military suppression to threaten our peace as a whole. The threat has been the oratory, the verbiage and the pen. Little by little, over the course of almost 100 years, have our freedoms been assaulted by and compromised because of the steady and devoted progress of opponents of rights and freedoms.
Can we do something to stop it? To reverse this trend? Can we end the divisions between us and unite together to bring about a restoration of our need to live free and not die? Is there a leader around whom we can gather in order to press our desires?
I speculate. I'm no expert. I do not see the desired progress. Am I blind? There are battles won, to be sure, but it seems that for each step forward, we have lost a couple of other steps. Nonetheless, I don't despair. I believe in all of us and in our sense of desire and urgency that will move us in the direction which pleases us. I would never attempt to foist a blood revolution upon us. It's too heady a responsibility. Rather, I would foster a revolution of the pen and the words of our mouths.
If you haven't been writing to your representatives, discoursing with your acquaintances, bringing up these issues at appropriate times and using the opportunities at your disposal to discuss such things, it's time. Time to arm ourselves with the written word and use the magnificent technologies we have at our disposal to begin to reverse the negative trends.
Are you willing? Will you?
--Wag--
What struck me most was near the end of the lecture where she says, "I prefer reform to revolution. If there anything clear in history it is that violent revolution multiplies chaos, disseminates destitution, and passes through the excesses of freedom to a dictatorship by an oppressive minority. Revolution is a master that devours both its parents and its children. Less alluring, but less costly, are those processes of reform, by persistent education and gradual public acceptance, which have achieved so many beneficent changes in our century."
The reason this statement strikes me so close to the heart is because so very frequently, I hear people express their willingness to take up arms in an effort to fix the problems of our society, to give up their lives in order to prevent the losses of our freedoms and rights. I learn through forums such as this and from other venues of those who will give up their well-being, their families' lives and all that they possess in order to pick up arms and pursue those freedoms which we have and perceive to be losing, bit by inexorable bit.
What I hear of much less frequently, indeed, quite rarely, are those who are willing to consider the prerequisites to revolution. Rarely do I hear of those who are willing to go to their local city council meetings, get up a couple of times a month and write effective letters and correspondence to their local and national representatives, to speak out when opportunity presents itself. To step away from their televisions and entertainments to speak up and voice their concerns about excessive taxation and overbearing government waste and excess.
There is a huge dichotomy of thought and action between the two. It never ceases to amaze me that there there is an appearance of a great many who prefer the idea of some supposed (mistakenly) glamor of bloodshed to the quiet, peaceful motion of written and verbal dialogue.
Be assured, if it were necessary to shed blood to preserve freedoms, there can be no doubt that rising up to face the enemies of freedom is the right thing to do. Until then, can we prevent it from becoming a need?
I suggest that yes, we can. Freedom-loving Americans such as ourselves can reverse the trend. We must look and see that the erosion we face at this time has been brought about by such means. There has been no military suppression to threaten our peace as a whole. The threat has been the oratory, the verbiage and the pen. Little by little, over the course of almost 100 years, have our freedoms been assaulted by and compromised because of the steady and devoted progress of opponents of rights and freedoms.
Can we do something to stop it? To reverse this trend? Can we end the divisions between us and unite together to bring about a restoration of our need to live free and not die? Is there a leader around whom we can gather in order to press our desires?
I speculate. I'm no expert. I do not see the desired progress. Am I blind? There are battles won, to be sure, but it seems that for each step forward, we have lost a couple of other steps. Nonetheless, I don't despair. I believe in all of us and in our sense of desire and urgency that will move us in the direction which pleases us. I would never attempt to foist a blood revolution upon us. It's too heady a responsibility. Rather, I would foster a revolution of the pen and the words of our mouths.
If you haven't been writing to your representatives, discoursing with your acquaintances, bringing up these issues at appropriate times and using the opportunities at your disposal to discuss such things, it's time. Time to arm ourselves with the written word and use the magnificent technologies we have at our disposal to begin to reverse the negative trends.
Are you willing? Will you?
--Wag--
Sunday, June 14, 2009
You selfish bastard.
Yeah, occasionally, people think I'm a selfish bastard. Some of my friends are also called selfish bastards and so we started talking about this topic one day a few weeks ago.
It seems that the issue is not whether or not someone is actually selfish. In truth, it's nearly impossible to know if someone is generous and compassionate because we can't read minds. Unless you see them do something nice for someone, you simply don't know. Even then, it's questionable as I'll discuss below. If they tell you they did something nice, then you can probably tell if they are being generous. More likely, someone else may tell you that a third person has done something generous.
Really though, what we see most frequently are people who are all bent out of shape because they believe that someone ELSE should be less selfish and give of themselves or their means. That's pretty judgmental, frankly, but what's even more amazing is how often those same people who are calling for the generosity of others are the same ones who are not wiling to be generous of themselves!
Hypocrisy at its best.
It's said on every airplane prior to the flight: "Secure your own oxygen mask FIRST before securing your own." This rule holds true in real life, too. If you have nothing to give, you may very well be as unselfish as anyone, but you just don't have it to give. Add to that the idea that if you harm yourself in your effort to help another, you have had a net effect of zero or less. Actions which are harmful to yourself are quite often less than helpful to the other person as well.
Yes, we hear stories of people who are killed while helping another person and it is said that they truly gave everything. I have no problem with that. It's honorable to help another person, even at the risk of your own life. What's not honorable is for someone ELSE to ask you to do it and castigate you if you don't. I suspect that if someone does help another person, they are often hoping that they are able to give aid AND preserve their own life and means. There is nothing wrong with wanting to preserve yourself in the process of helping another and foregoing the opportunity if circumstances demand it.
Money is a big one. How often do family and friends ask you for financial assistance in one form or another? I strongly suggest that if you have no money of your own to give, if you are in debt yourself, if you don't have the means to provide, you are jeopardizing your own well-being to help the other person. I'm not talking about a guy borrowing $20 for lunch money. I'm talking about the family member who asks you to help them make a couple of car payments or take a wayward child into your home to live, etc. If you bear that expense for them and put yourself in a lurch and can't cover your own living costs, where is the value in that? That is a critical question. What value is there in jeopardizing your well-being to help another person?
If you decide, however, that you're going to refrain from damaging your own security and you withhold the aid that is requested of you, how often does that individual, along with his or her friends and family, consider you a selfish prick? It happens all the time, often to the point of the loss of relatiionships. I suspect that most often when you're accused in such a way, it's when you have the appearance of means on the surface when in reality, you may not be doing as well as others might believe. Indeed, if someone is going to ask you for help, frequently, they have an overblown sense in their minds about what YOU have and what you should do with your resources.
We're not even going to talk about the idea that sometimes, the help you give is much more detrimental than helpful. That's a whole 'nother blog post!
Money is not the only thing, either. Time or Possessions. How often do you get asked to loan your car to someone who's just had their car repossessed? If it's YOUR only or primary means of transportation, or a substantial part of your personal resources, are you jeopardizing your well-being by loaning it out? It's not only possible, it's even quite likely. If you can afford to bear the potential loss, Great! Do as you will. But if you don't have the ability or the means to bear that loss, then you are not necessarily selfish by withholding, regardless of the accusations which could be levied upon you by others who claim a higher morality.
In other words, there are those who cannot see beyond the mark and who would be just fine with everyone being completely unselfish and all of us being completely useless to each other because we have all expended all of our resources in order to give aid and assistance to each other in a personally irresponsible way.
Be assured, I'm all in favor of helping people. I'm an advocate of assisting those in need. Of giving of yourself and your means. Giving a guy $5 worth of gas at the pump even though his story is likely B.S. is a good thing. Helping a family member with $100 to get him through the week is a good thing too. Allowing someone to move in with you while they get back on their feet post-tragic-job-loss.
BUT!!!
Only when you're able to do so without compromising your own security in life. Withholding such things is no crime if you have valid reasons and no other person can tell you what any of those reasons should be. Nor can they look into your heart and mind and arrive at any sort of understanding about why you may have said, "No."
There are many unselfish people out there who would give if they had the means to do so. Unfortunately, they are often guilt-tripped into doing more than they are truly able to do. They put themselves into debt in order to resolve the debts of others. They give up their pensions, retirements, short-term savings, marital security and other security in order to bail out the other person.
No, it's not easy to say no. But often, it's better to say no than to give unthinkingly. Again, bordering on a discussion for another post but definitely something to think about. Sometimes, it's better to say no.
Returning to the original premise, it's important to realize that the ONLY person who can judge your generosity is you. Nobody else can look into your heart and see what it is that makes you decide to help another person or not. Nobody but you is able to know what your circumstances are and why you decide to help or why you decide that now is not the time.
A tangential part of this discussion lies with those who I would consider, "selfishly generous." These are the people who only give when they have some way to benefit from it. They expect a return for their generosity. I'm not saying that giving to another and expecting something is return is entirely bad. It happens all the time and it's a normal part of bartering in real life. So long as it's agreed upon up front, there is no issue. Generosity can benefit both people.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about when I say, "selfishly generous." A mother or father gives up a wad of cash only because they feel guilty that their child is suffering financially. They give unthinkingly, without considering the potential harm to themselves, then walk away feeling like a million bucks! They solved the problem! What's wrong with this is that they didn't solve the problem they professed to solve. They only solved the problem of their OWN feelings of guilt, inadequacy, etc. Their desire was not motivated by wanting to help their kid, they only looked at it as an opportunity to bandage their own hurting soul.
You could call it, "lazy generosity." An unthinking gift may do no good. Indeed, it may do more harm than good. The point though, is that it is not especially generous. It is, in fact, selfish of a person to give to another with no thought of helping but only of covering up some hurting feeling within. Equally disingenuous is helping without considering the long-term effects of what such, "help," will be.
How do you know the difference? If you're giving only to appease the critical masses (family, friends, church people, etc.) and because of the pressure they are putting upon you, then you're not being generous. Do a reality check and make absolutely sure you're not helping just because you feel guilty for NOT doing so. Make sure that when you give, you're not expecting some personal benefit or compensation or repayment in return. (I know people who say that if you help someone now, chances are very good that you'll be able to rely on that person for help in the future if you need it. Kind of like making a deposit into a charity bank account or something!)
If you are genuinely interested in giving help to another, be absolutely sure you give a great deal of thought into what the long-term benefits will be. In a short-term emergency, there may be more room for erring in the side of caution but if you've played out the scenario in your mind ahead of time, you should be able to think clearly without emotion clouding your judgment. Make sure the help you give is not motivated by the fear of the haranguing by others you are sure will come your way. Consider the possibility that the kind of help you're giving is the best help possible. It could be that even though someone is asking for money, it may not be the most helpful thing for that individual or for those circumstances.
There is much more to be said on this subject, no doubt. I may return and re-edit.
--Wag--
It seems that the issue is not whether or not someone is actually selfish. In truth, it's nearly impossible to know if someone is generous and compassionate because we can't read minds. Unless you see them do something nice for someone, you simply don't know. Even then, it's questionable as I'll discuss below. If they tell you they did something nice, then you can probably tell if they are being generous. More likely, someone else may tell you that a third person has done something generous.
Really though, what we see most frequently are people who are all bent out of shape because they believe that someone ELSE should be less selfish and give of themselves or their means. That's pretty judgmental, frankly, but what's even more amazing is how often those same people who are calling for the generosity of others are the same ones who are not wiling to be generous of themselves!
Hypocrisy at its best.
It's said on every airplane prior to the flight: "Secure your own oxygen mask FIRST before securing your own." This rule holds true in real life, too. If you have nothing to give, you may very well be as unselfish as anyone, but you just don't have it to give. Add to that the idea that if you harm yourself in your effort to help another, you have had a net effect of zero or less. Actions which are harmful to yourself are quite often less than helpful to the other person as well.
Yes, we hear stories of people who are killed while helping another person and it is said that they truly gave everything. I have no problem with that. It's honorable to help another person, even at the risk of your own life. What's not honorable is for someone ELSE to ask you to do it and castigate you if you don't. I suspect that if someone does help another person, they are often hoping that they are able to give aid AND preserve their own life and means. There is nothing wrong with wanting to preserve yourself in the process of helping another and foregoing the opportunity if circumstances demand it.
Money is a big one. How often do family and friends ask you for financial assistance in one form or another? I strongly suggest that if you have no money of your own to give, if you are in debt yourself, if you don't have the means to provide, you are jeopardizing your own well-being to help the other person. I'm not talking about a guy borrowing $20 for lunch money. I'm talking about the family member who asks you to help them make a couple of car payments or take a wayward child into your home to live, etc. If you bear that expense for them and put yourself in a lurch and can't cover your own living costs, where is the value in that? That is a critical question. What value is there in jeopardizing your well-being to help another person?
If you decide, however, that you're going to refrain from damaging your own security and you withhold the aid that is requested of you, how often does that individual, along with his or her friends and family, consider you a selfish prick? It happens all the time, often to the point of the loss of relatiionships. I suspect that most often when you're accused in such a way, it's when you have the appearance of means on the surface when in reality, you may not be doing as well as others might believe. Indeed, if someone is going to ask you for help, frequently, they have an overblown sense in their minds about what YOU have and what you should do with your resources.
We're not even going to talk about the idea that sometimes, the help you give is much more detrimental than helpful. That's a whole 'nother blog post!
Money is not the only thing, either. Time or Possessions. How often do you get asked to loan your car to someone who's just had their car repossessed? If it's YOUR only or primary means of transportation, or a substantial part of your personal resources, are you jeopardizing your well-being by loaning it out? It's not only possible, it's even quite likely. If you can afford to bear the potential loss, Great! Do as you will. But if you don't have the ability or the means to bear that loss, then you are not necessarily selfish by withholding, regardless of the accusations which could be levied upon you by others who claim a higher morality.
In other words, there are those who cannot see beyond the mark and who would be just fine with everyone being completely unselfish and all of us being completely useless to each other because we have all expended all of our resources in order to give aid and assistance to each other in a personally irresponsible way.
Be assured, I'm all in favor of helping people. I'm an advocate of assisting those in need. Of giving of yourself and your means. Giving a guy $5 worth of gas at the pump even though his story is likely B.S. is a good thing. Helping a family member with $100 to get him through the week is a good thing too. Allowing someone to move in with you while they get back on their feet post-tragic-job-loss.
BUT!!!
Only when you're able to do so without compromising your own security in life. Withholding such things is no crime if you have valid reasons and no other person can tell you what any of those reasons should be. Nor can they look into your heart and mind and arrive at any sort of understanding about why you may have said, "No."
There are many unselfish people out there who would give if they had the means to do so. Unfortunately, they are often guilt-tripped into doing more than they are truly able to do. They put themselves into debt in order to resolve the debts of others. They give up their pensions, retirements, short-term savings, marital security and other security in order to bail out the other person.
No, it's not easy to say no. But often, it's better to say no than to give unthinkingly. Again, bordering on a discussion for another post but definitely something to think about. Sometimes, it's better to say no.
Returning to the original premise, it's important to realize that the ONLY person who can judge your generosity is you. Nobody else can look into your heart and see what it is that makes you decide to help another person or not. Nobody but you is able to know what your circumstances are and why you decide to help or why you decide that now is not the time.
A tangential part of this discussion lies with those who I would consider, "selfishly generous." These are the people who only give when they have some way to benefit from it. They expect a return for their generosity. I'm not saying that giving to another and expecting something is return is entirely bad. It happens all the time and it's a normal part of bartering in real life. So long as it's agreed upon up front, there is no issue. Generosity can benefit both people.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about when I say, "selfishly generous." A mother or father gives up a wad of cash only because they feel guilty that their child is suffering financially. They give unthinkingly, without considering the potential harm to themselves, then walk away feeling like a million bucks! They solved the problem! What's wrong with this is that they didn't solve the problem they professed to solve. They only solved the problem of their OWN feelings of guilt, inadequacy, etc. Their desire was not motivated by wanting to help their kid, they only looked at it as an opportunity to bandage their own hurting soul.
You could call it, "lazy generosity." An unthinking gift may do no good. Indeed, it may do more harm than good. The point though, is that it is not especially generous. It is, in fact, selfish of a person to give to another with no thought of helping but only of covering up some hurting feeling within. Equally disingenuous is helping without considering the long-term effects of what such, "help," will be.
How do you know the difference? If you're giving only to appease the critical masses (family, friends, church people, etc.) and because of the pressure they are putting upon you, then you're not being generous. Do a reality check and make absolutely sure you're not helping just because you feel guilty for NOT doing so. Make sure that when you give, you're not expecting some personal benefit or compensation or repayment in return. (I know people who say that if you help someone now, chances are very good that you'll be able to rely on that person for help in the future if you need it. Kind of like making a deposit into a charity bank account or something!)
If you are genuinely interested in giving help to another, be absolutely sure you give a great deal of thought into what the long-term benefits will be. In a short-term emergency, there may be more room for erring in the side of caution but if you've played out the scenario in your mind ahead of time, you should be able to think clearly without emotion clouding your judgment. Make sure the help you give is not motivated by the fear of the haranguing by others you are sure will come your way. Consider the possibility that the kind of help you're giving is the best help possible. It could be that even though someone is asking for money, it may not be the most helpful thing for that individual or for those circumstances.
There is much more to be said on this subject, no doubt. I may return and re-edit.
--Wag--
Saturday, June 06, 2009
Just do it.
I wrote this on the Diabetes board the other day. Thought it would fit in here!
---------------------------------
This post falls into the category of, "What are we willing to do?"
"We," have developed a mentality, and by, "we," I mean people everywhere, of doing just about anything.....
We have a mentality of seeking the easy fix for any and all of our ills. We feel we don't have time to wait around for a solution to our problems, we want them solved right this instant.
Granted, we've succeeded at providing instant solutions for ourselves in many ways. We can go to a fast food restaurant just about 24/7 if we're hungry. A pill makes our headaches go away. Etc.
There are, however, some things for which we have yet to find our magic bullet. Yet, given our propensity to seek fast, easy solutions to so many ills in our lives, we tend to seek, or at least wait around for, the same types of fast, easy solutions to other problems instead of facing the reality.....
There ain't one.
Exercise is one extreme example. Years ago before my Dx as I struggled to lose extra weight, I read a lot of different diet plans and everyone one of them had one thing in common: At least one chapter on exercise. No joke. If you read any diet book, you'll see it has a chapter on exercise. Conversely, if you pick up any workout magazine or book, you'll see diet referenced in all of them.
The glaringly obvious is so simple to see: You cannot lose weight/get healthy/control BG/improve blood work etc. with either just exercise or just diet. You must have both going at the same time.
In times past, I've attempted to do either or but never, until my Dx, had I ever done both simultaneously. I was more than willing to deceive myself into believing that diet was enough or that exercise was enough. From personal (and admittedly anecdotal) experience, it has recently become clear that both are required.
I look at my father as an example of what not to do. When he died, he was 6' 2" and weighed over 300 pounds. I had to help carry the casket at his funeral and believe you me, that was no easy task. What was notable about my father toward the end of his life was that he had let himself get so overweight and out of shape that he could no longer exercise, even if he wanted to do so. He no longer had the option of working out, walking, bicycling or any other of the things which might have extended his life or at least improved the quality of his day to day life.
He was past the point of no return.
It's easy for me to preach. I know that there are many who are unable to exercise through no fault of their own. There are those who cannot eat certain beneficial things through no fault of their own. It's unfortunate and I understand that. If you can only exercise or only diet, do it. Do what you can do.
If you can do both, though, do both. What I'm talking about here with this mini-essay is, if you still have a choice, make that choice and take control. Do it now and reduce or eliminate the risk of not being able to do it at all. Once, I was asked the question: "If you CAN do better, SHOULD you?" It was a business-related question to be sure, but it applies here. Can you realistically do better than you're doing? Then why not? Are your excuses legitimate or are they just excuses? Are your priorites really aligned properly?
Last year, before my Dx, I reflected on the poor quality of my father's life for his last 10 years and I pondered on how he could barely move as he got older and on the fact that he suffered two major strokes in three years, the second of which killed him. He never did get control of his eating habits and never did exercise during his life. His body and his physiology deteriorated to the point of no return, to the point where he was no longer able to rescue himself.
Last year, I determined that I didn't want to live any more of my life in such a way that I was going to pass the point of no return. I started working out religiously. I didn't change my eating except to watch my portion sizes more closely and it helped. I lost some significant weight. But it wasn't until my Dx several months later that I combined exercise with a proper eating plan and lost MUCH more weight much faster.
The point of all this is very simple. It's tough to exercise but you know what? It's worth the momentary pain. Without exercise, we are unlikely to live the healthiest possible lifestyle we prefer. We may or may not extend our lives but what we WILL do is improve the quality of our lives. I believe longevity is pretty much built into our genes in any case and there isn't much we can do about that. But if you find yourself huffing and puffing after a short walk up a flight of stairs, think about it. If you find that you've eaten too much AGAIN, think about it. If you find yourself vegging in front of another mindless T.V. show, think about that, too.
Think about it. Seriously think and come to the conclusions you need to reach in order to motivate yourself to start working on it. I hear anecdotal stories all the time about how someone had a crappy life, often for many many years and turned things around completely just be getting on this bandwagon. That includes Diabetes control, too.
We resist exercise in many cases because of the pain of it. That's true for me, especially. It's boring. It's time-consuming. I'd rather be in front of my computer doing things which I consider more rewarding. Reading a book, etc. It's a trade-off. We can do the things we enjoy now or gradually give up the ability to do so.
If I don't exercise, I'm giving up several things in my future. All of a sudden, I'm more willing to get my butt off the couch or out of the chair and start doing. Moving more.
And the rewards? Numerous. To put it simply, everything is now easier to do. Even just getting up out of my chair is easier! No grunting any more! LOL
Mostly, I'm just rambling, but it seems that in our never-ending search for a "cure" we miss the closest thing we have to a cure and that is our diet and exercise regimen.
--Wag--
---------------------------------
This post falls into the category of, "What are we willing to do?"
"We," have developed a mentality, and by, "we," I mean people everywhere, of doing just about anything.....
We have a mentality of seeking the easy fix for any and all of our ills. We feel we don't have time to wait around for a solution to our problems, we want them solved right this instant.
Granted, we've succeeded at providing instant solutions for ourselves in many ways. We can go to a fast food restaurant just about 24/7 if we're hungry. A pill makes our headaches go away. Etc.
There are, however, some things for which we have yet to find our magic bullet. Yet, given our propensity to seek fast, easy solutions to so many ills in our lives, we tend to seek, or at least wait around for, the same types of fast, easy solutions to other problems instead of facing the reality.....
There ain't one.
Exercise is one extreme example. Years ago before my Dx as I struggled to lose extra weight, I read a lot of different diet plans and everyone one of them had one thing in common: At least one chapter on exercise. No joke. If you read any diet book, you'll see it has a chapter on exercise. Conversely, if you pick up any workout magazine or book, you'll see diet referenced in all of them.
The glaringly obvious is so simple to see: You cannot lose weight/get healthy/control BG/improve blood work etc. with either just exercise or just diet. You must have both going at the same time.
In times past, I've attempted to do either or but never, until my Dx, had I ever done both simultaneously. I was more than willing to deceive myself into believing that diet was enough or that exercise was enough. From personal (and admittedly anecdotal) experience, it has recently become clear that both are required.
I look at my father as an example of what not to do. When he died, he was 6' 2" and weighed over 300 pounds. I had to help carry the casket at his funeral and believe you me, that was no easy task. What was notable about my father toward the end of his life was that he had let himself get so overweight and out of shape that he could no longer exercise, even if he wanted to do so. He no longer had the option of working out, walking, bicycling or any other of the things which might have extended his life or at least improved the quality of his day to day life.
He was past the point of no return.
It's easy for me to preach. I know that there are many who are unable to exercise through no fault of their own. There are those who cannot eat certain beneficial things through no fault of their own. It's unfortunate and I understand that. If you can only exercise or only diet, do it. Do what you can do.
If you can do both, though, do both. What I'm talking about here with this mini-essay is, if you still have a choice, make that choice and take control. Do it now and reduce or eliminate the risk of not being able to do it at all. Once, I was asked the question: "If you CAN do better, SHOULD you?" It was a business-related question to be sure, but it applies here. Can you realistically do better than you're doing? Then why not? Are your excuses legitimate or are they just excuses? Are your priorites really aligned properly?
Last year, before my Dx, I reflected on the poor quality of my father's life for his last 10 years and I pondered on how he could barely move as he got older and on the fact that he suffered two major strokes in three years, the second of which killed him. He never did get control of his eating habits and never did exercise during his life. His body and his physiology deteriorated to the point of no return, to the point where he was no longer able to rescue himself.
Last year, I determined that I didn't want to live any more of my life in such a way that I was going to pass the point of no return. I started working out religiously. I didn't change my eating except to watch my portion sizes more closely and it helped. I lost some significant weight. But it wasn't until my Dx several months later that I combined exercise with a proper eating plan and lost MUCH more weight much faster.
The point of all this is very simple. It's tough to exercise but you know what? It's worth the momentary pain. Without exercise, we are unlikely to live the healthiest possible lifestyle we prefer. We may or may not extend our lives but what we WILL do is improve the quality of our lives. I believe longevity is pretty much built into our genes in any case and there isn't much we can do about that. But if you find yourself huffing and puffing after a short walk up a flight of stairs, think about it. If you find that you've eaten too much AGAIN, think about it. If you find yourself vegging in front of another mindless T.V. show, think about that, too.
Think about it. Seriously think and come to the conclusions you need to reach in order to motivate yourself to start working on it. I hear anecdotal stories all the time about how someone had a crappy life, often for many many years and turned things around completely just be getting on this bandwagon. That includes Diabetes control, too.
We resist exercise in many cases because of the pain of it. That's true for me, especially. It's boring. It's time-consuming. I'd rather be in front of my computer doing things which I consider more rewarding. Reading a book, etc. It's a trade-off. We can do the things we enjoy now or gradually give up the ability to do so.
If I don't exercise, I'm giving up several things in my future. All of a sudden, I'm more willing to get my butt off the couch or out of the chair and start doing. Moving more.
And the rewards? Numerous. To put it simply, everything is now easier to do. Even just getting up out of my chair is easier! No grunting any more! LOL
Mostly, I'm just rambling, but it seems that in our never-ending search for a "cure" we miss the closest thing we have to a cure and that is our diet and exercise regimen.
--Wag--
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
An update on diabetes
Okay, so in January, I was diagnosed with Type II Diabetes. It's been a battle to get my blood sugar under control. Doing it mostly through diet and exercise but also using a pill called Metformin. Great stuff with the least side effects of all and the least dangerous of all the Diabetes drugs out there. Indeed, for the moment, it can be considered pretty harmless but it does good things for you without some of the dangerous side effects of some of the other drugs. It's an oral med too which makes it easy to live with.
The workouts are going well. I've lost 36 pounds since July of last year. 15 or so of that since the Diabetes was diagnosed in January.
Of course, the reality is, we as Americans consume about 5 bajillion times more sugar and carbohydrates than we need to live on. Carbs are less evil if you have a super duper active lifestyle but even that won't prevent Type II from settling in with you if you already have the genes for it. I only eat about 45 carbs a day on average and sometimes much much less than that. No ill effects so far but who knows? I could get blindsided with a problem later on down the road! The doc just did a urinalysis last week but we haven't talked about it. If there is a problem it would show up there. From what I can see, though, it isn't a problem.
One of the tests they do for diabetes is an HbA1C test. It seems that your red blood cells take an imprint of the maximum amount of blood sugar you have at a given time and they can test for it. I'm not explaining it very well but the bottom line is, every three months, your red blood cells are completely replaced. That means that every three months, they can test for the average imprint of blood sugar in the past three months and see how you've been dong for that period of time on average. Still necessary to test frequently on a daily basis too, though.
Anyhoo, back in January, I was tested with an A1C of 8.6. Last week, I was tested at 4.8. That's considered in a normal range, folks! What I'm doing appears to be working!
Let's celebrate with a tub of ice cream, a stack of waffles and a loaf of dark wheat bread with tons of butter and honey!
Just kidding about that last part. My feet would just about fall off on their own if I did that!
--Wag--
The workouts are going well. I've lost 36 pounds since July of last year. 15 or so of that since the Diabetes was diagnosed in January.
Of course, the reality is, we as Americans consume about 5 bajillion times more sugar and carbohydrates than we need to live on. Carbs are less evil if you have a super duper active lifestyle but even that won't prevent Type II from settling in with you if you already have the genes for it. I only eat about 45 carbs a day on average and sometimes much much less than that. No ill effects so far but who knows? I could get blindsided with a problem later on down the road! The doc just did a urinalysis last week but we haven't talked about it. If there is a problem it would show up there. From what I can see, though, it isn't a problem.
One of the tests they do for diabetes is an HbA1C test. It seems that your red blood cells take an imprint of the maximum amount of blood sugar you have at a given time and they can test for it. I'm not explaining it very well but the bottom line is, every three months, your red blood cells are completely replaced. That means that every three months, they can test for the average imprint of blood sugar in the past three months and see how you've been dong for that period of time on average. Still necessary to test frequently on a daily basis too, though.
Anyhoo, back in January, I was tested with an A1C of 8.6. Last week, I was tested at 4.8. That's considered in a normal range, folks! What I'm doing appears to be working!
Let's celebrate with a tub of ice cream, a stack of waffles and a loaf of dark wheat bread with tons of butter and honey!
Just kidding about that last part. My feet would just about fall off on their own if I did that!
--Wag--
Friday, April 17, 2009
The Cymbalta nightmare
Okay, some background. My Primary Care Physicia, or PCP, sent me to a podiatrist because of my foot pain. After some significant time in his office, he prescribed Cymbalta for it and had some free samples to give me which I cheerfully accepted.
Here is the post I made on diabetes.org this morning:
I took Cymbalta for nearly thee months and it nearly wrecked my life.
I'll never support the use of Cymbalta for DPN or anything else, for that matter. It works, yes, but there is a host of detrimental side effects that go along with it. Do your homework before agreeing to use it. Personally, the risks are not worth it to me.
The podiatrist I was going to suggested it and informed me of NONE of the side effects to watch out for. He only said that it's supposed to help with the foot pain and he prescribed it because the pain it was waking me up in the middle of the night.
Again, what he didn't tell me, were the side effects:
1. Insomnia. Yup. That's exactly what happened to me. So, instead of waking up for 30 minutes on many (but not all) nights with foot pain, I was waking up every night for 2 hours with no real clear reason as to why. BTW, this is the most significant side effect listed on the Eli Lilly web site. You'd think the doctor would have mentioned it and told me to watch out for it.
2. Elevated blood sugar. Unbelievable, eh? It's supposed to be a SLIGHT elevation but really, now, are we supposed to battle our own body's lack of blood sugar control AND battle a prescription drug too? Jeez. BTW, I stopped it cold turkey about three weeks ago and my BG levels have been getting lower since. Could be a combination of things but . . . . Regardless, I'm interested in controlling BG at every possible level and I do NOT need something working against me, even if it's at a low level.
3. Elevated Triglycerides, elevated LDL, lowered HDL. Again, I was battling these things, working hard to get them under control and Cymbalta was working against me. Unbelievable. I still don't have a final verdict on my lipids but at this point, I hate to think that there is a possibility that I could have had another drug added to my list of pharmaceuticals to control lipids and worse, one which I might not need. At the very least, I'm thinking I might need less of it if it comes down to it.
4. Lethargy was the one that nearly wrecked my life. I'm still catching up from the productivity losses I suffered at work. I'm amazed I wasn't fired during that time. The only way I can describe it looking back to when I was taking Cymbalta, is that it put me into a zombie like state. Since I stopped taking it, I've feel like I've reawakened. My productivity is literaly multiples on top of multiples greater than it was while on Cymbalta. I'm awake again and getting things done.
5. Urinary dysfunction. I was having symptoms which appears, for all intents and purposes, to be the same as the symptoms for prostate enlargement. Difficulty starting, reducde flow, feeling like the bladder is not completely empty, taking a long time to urinate, etc. I was just about to ask the PCP to start dealing with it, which would most likely have resulted in the need for YET ANOTHER prescription
drug. Once I stopped taking Cymbalta, those symptoms dissapated gradually over the past three weeks. There is still some residual effect but I think I'll wait to attempt to determine if the Cymbalta is still working its way out of my system or if I really do have a slight prostate enlargement or if the Cymbalta did some permanent damage. I don't know yet so I'm still reserving judgement. It is clear, however, that stopping the prescription use has improved that part of my life.
6. Sexual dysfunction. Again, I was just about to address this with the PCP and would most likely have ended up with another prescription drug such as Cialis or Viagra. Not really what I want but I don't want to be deprived, either. Just as importantly, I don't want my life mate deprived. Problems included not having a full erection, not being able to sustain an erection to orgasm, less satisfying orgasm or long LONG delays in reaching orgasm and not reaching orgasm at all. Notably, ALL of these problems went away within 36 hours after stopping Cymbalta.
7. Suicidal ideations. I didn't have anything seriously along these lines, but I was starting to get discouraged about the failings I was having. See #4 above. The problem is, you know you're failing but you can't do anything about it. Scary stuff, really. Some anecdotal incidents on the web sites out there include putting people on suicide watch. This could have resulted in yet another prescription for
depression, although Cymbalta is used for that, as well so who knows? Was I headed in this direction?
8. Cardiovascular issues. This one didn't seem too significant, however, with diabetics, would you want to add risk to an already risky situation in this area? Not me. I don't know and will never be able
to tell if Cymbalta caused any permanent damage. I'll be watching for class action lawsuits, I can assure you.
9. Nose bleeds and dry skin. Putting these together here because they may be related. Fact is, my nose bleeds have tapered off significantly and the dry skin patches have shrunk in size dramatically and are less dry. Still battling some nose bleeds (never had nose bleeds before Cymbalta) but they are tapering off, finally.
Net savings on not taking Cymbalta is at least FIVE fewer prescriptions at a co-pay of $30 each on my current insurance plan for a total savings of probably $150.00 per month. To say nothing of putting that many fewer unnecessary chems through my system. To say nothing of improving my quality of life dramatically. Already.
Google it. There are four benefits/uses listed for Cymbalta compared to a laundry list of potentially detrimental side-effects which will stretch from floor to ceiling and that's no exaggeration. Well, maybe a little. But the fact is, even mathematically, you will hit several of those side-effects. Which ones are you willing to live with?
I will say this: It did stop my DPN for the most part. Not completely, though, and mine isn't all that bad, either. I question the value of it for a guy like me who can take some Advil or Tylenol for the few times when it's bad enough to warrant that usage.
All I'm saying is, do your homework first. The podiatrist, I suspect, got a boat load of samples from a drug vendor/salesman and just dumped it on me without reading the insert. Who knows? I can't accuse him with 100% certainty, but at the very least, he didn't do his job with me.
I suppose the same applies to all care you receive from your physicians: Do your homework, folks. On EVERYTHING.
--Wag--
Here is the post I made on diabetes.org this morning:
I took Cymbalta for nearly thee months and it nearly wrecked my life.
I'll never support the use of Cymbalta for DPN or anything else, for that matter. It works, yes, but there is a host of detrimental side effects that go along with it. Do your homework before agreeing to use it. Personally, the risks are not worth it to me.
The podiatrist I was going to suggested it and informed me of NONE of the side effects to watch out for. He only said that it's supposed to help with the foot pain and he prescribed it because the pain it was waking me up in the middle of the night.
Again, what he didn't tell me, were the side effects:
1. Insomnia. Yup. That's exactly what happened to me. So, instead of waking up for 30 minutes on many (but not all) nights with foot pain, I was waking up every night for 2 hours with no real clear reason as to why. BTW, this is the most significant side effect listed on the Eli Lilly web site. You'd think the doctor would have mentioned it and told me to watch out for it.
2. Elevated blood sugar. Unbelievable, eh? It's supposed to be a SLIGHT elevation but really, now, are we supposed to battle our own body's lack of blood sugar control AND battle a prescription drug too? Jeez. BTW, I stopped it cold turkey about three weeks ago and my BG levels have been getting lower since. Could be a combination of things but . . . . Regardless, I'm interested in controlling BG at every possible level and I do NOT need something working against me, even if it's at a low level.
3. Elevated Triglycerides, elevated LDL, lowered HDL. Again, I was battling these things, working hard to get them under control and Cymbalta was working against me. Unbelievable. I still don't have a final verdict on my lipids but at this point, I hate to think that there is a possibility that I could have had another drug added to my list of pharmaceuticals to control lipids and worse, one which I might not need. At the very least, I'm thinking I might need less of it if it comes down to it.
4. Lethargy was the one that nearly wrecked my life. I'm still catching up from the productivity losses I suffered at work. I'm amazed I wasn't fired during that time. The only way I can describe it looking back to when I was taking Cymbalta, is that it put me into a zombie like state. Since I stopped taking it, I've feel like I've reawakened. My productivity is literaly multiples on top of multiples greater than it was while on Cymbalta. I'm awake again and getting things done.
5. Urinary dysfunction. I was having symptoms which appears, for all intents and purposes, to be the same as the symptoms for prostate enlargement. Difficulty starting, reducde flow, feeling like the bladder is not completely empty, taking a long time to urinate, etc. I was just about to ask the PCP to start dealing with it, which would most likely have resulted in the need for YET ANOTHER prescription
drug. Once I stopped taking Cymbalta, those symptoms dissapated gradually over the past three weeks. There is still some residual effect but I think I'll wait to attempt to determine if the Cymbalta is still working its way out of my system or if I really do have a slight prostate enlargement or if the Cymbalta did some permanent damage. I don't know yet so I'm still reserving judgement. It is clear, however, that stopping the prescription use has improved that part of my life.
6. Sexual dysfunction. Again, I was just about to address this with the PCP and would most likely have ended up with another prescription drug such as Cialis or Viagra. Not really what I want but I don't want to be deprived, either. Just as importantly, I don't want my life mate deprived. Problems included not having a full erection, not being able to sustain an erection to orgasm, less satisfying orgasm or long LONG delays in reaching orgasm and not reaching orgasm at all. Notably, ALL of these problems went away within 36 hours after stopping Cymbalta.
7. Suicidal ideations. I didn't have anything seriously along these lines, but I was starting to get discouraged about the failings I was having. See #4 above. The problem is, you know you're failing but you can't do anything about it. Scary stuff, really. Some anecdotal incidents on the web sites out there include putting people on suicide watch. This could have resulted in yet another prescription for
depression, although Cymbalta is used for that, as well so who knows? Was I headed in this direction?
8. Cardiovascular issues. This one didn't seem too significant, however, with diabetics, would you want to add risk to an already risky situation in this area? Not me. I don't know and will never be able
to tell if Cymbalta caused any permanent damage. I'll be watching for class action lawsuits, I can assure you.
9. Nose bleeds and dry skin. Putting these together here because they may be related. Fact is, my nose bleeds have tapered off significantly and the dry skin patches have shrunk in size dramatically and are less dry. Still battling some nose bleeds (never had nose bleeds before Cymbalta) but they are tapering off, finally.
Net savings on not taking Cymbalta is at least FIVE fewer prescriptions at a co-pay of $30 each on my current insurance plan for a total savings of probably $150.00 per month. To say nothing of putting that many fewer unnecessary chems through my system. To say nothing of improving my quality of life dramatically. Already.
Google it. There are four benefits/uses listed for Cymbalta compared to a laundry list of potentially detrimental side-effects which will stretch from floor to ceiling and that's no exaggeration. Well, maybe a little. But the fact is, even mathematically, you will hit several of those side-effects. Which ones are you willing to live with?
I will say this: It did stop my DPN for the most part. Not completely, though, and mine isn't all that bad, either. I question the value of it for a guy like me who can take some Advil or Tylenol for the few times when it's bad enough to warrant that usage.
All I'm saying is, do your homework first. The podiatrist, I suspect, got a boat load of samples from a drug vendor/salesman and just dumped it on me without reading the insert. Who knows? I can't accuse him with 100% certainty, but at the very least, he didn't do his job with me.
I suppose the same applies to all care you receive from your physicians: Do your homework, folks. On EVERYTHING.
--Wag--
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
