Thoughts

by

Looking For True Happiness? Take Care of Your Shortcomings


I have found that one of the best and most keep-able New Year’s resolutions, or any other sort of resolution, is to promise myself that I will identify and deal with all my shortcomings. It was a little less than 20 years ago that someone suggested I do just that so that I could be happier and feel freer. But he suggested I use the “seven deadly sins” (wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony, I had to look these up) as the basis for this discovery. I have to admit that once I saw what those sins are, I was skeptical, to say the least.  I thought some were actually desirable or that I was just not willing to relieve myself of them; they were comfortable and seemed necessary. But then it came to me, those “sins” are meant to be a starting point and to consider them only in their excess. That is, if I were lazy, sloth, was I being so lazy that it was detrimental to me in one way or another. Or if I over ate, gluttony, am I doing so in a way that endangers my health. When looked upon that way, it made more sense.

But then I had to do a self-inventory. In this it was suggested that I start at two points, fear and resentment. As I blogged about earlier, resentment is when I drink the poison I wish someone to fall ill from. Most resentments are between two people but a resentment can exist between a person and an organization. The latter is much easier to deal with so I will take it first.

A guy gets fired from his job. He complains that he was unfairly dealt with, that he was treated poorly by his boss, and that he was not appreciated. A good friend asks him a series of questions: How often were you late for work? How often were you out sick when in fact you were just looking for a day off? Did you always complete your assigned work on time, completely, and to your boss’s satisfaction? The guy honestly reflects upon those questions and finds that he was guilty on all counts. And then the friend asks if he had been the boss would he have fired himself. The guy realizes the answer is “yes” and suddenly the resentment vanishes.

Now I will deal with the tougher of the two, the resentment of one person towards another. This is particularly important when it concerns two family members. The worst are resentments children hold towards their parents. There are some exceptions to this, e.g. the father deserts the family and the children are resentful. This is one place where a parent richly deserves the resentment. Resentment in such cases are entirely understandable, however, the resentment still only hurts the person holding the resentment. Resentments are always poisonous for the person holding it. The person holding onto the resentment is not allowing for his other feelings to surface, a healthy reaction. Having experienced the feelings he can move on to resolutions that will allow him to go on with life without the resentment. He can also feel free to consider the reasons the parent deserted the family. I suggest cowardice as a good one. You label the person a coward, you feel sorry for them, and then you move on. You are not excusing the person from their misdeeds but are simply defining them as best you can. Comfort can be found in reason.

Sibling rivalries are so common that for such a thing to not exist is probably an exception to the extreme. One of the most common complaints and basis for resentment is the old “mom always liked you best.” But even in cases where that is true, to what end does it help to hold a resentment towards your sibling? It is common for the eldest to feel displaced by the youngest. I know that for fact being the oldest of three. But there came a time when I had to look at my parents as human beings and detach their parental status. I needed to consider their shortcomings as best I could fathom them. In doing so I quickly gained a better understanding for both my parents and realized that so much of parenting is trial and error. My father died at a young age so I don’t have a lot to draw on from him but my mother lived 89 years. As time passed I think I understood her well, understood those actions of hers I felt resentful towards, and in the end found I was basically an idiot for not having done this at a much younger age. My parents were exceedingly good people doing an exceedingly tough job, trying to raise me. I was a handful to say the least. My parents always did their level best but being human failure on occasion was inevitable. They are not to be faulted for those failing, just understood and where needed, forgiven. The central question to their relationships with me was, did they love me? The answer is a resounding yes and that being true, I need to be satisfied.

All this introspection brought me to a conclusion about all of humanity: fear is the most pervasive feeling all humans have and the most difficult with which to deal. And a large portion of the human race does a poor job in dealing with fear. But fear is the one shortcoming that also owns a necessary place in our existence. But fear holds a special place because of its dual status. Fear is that extremely basic thing within all of humanity that was responsible for our survival from the earliest of days. It kept the human race alive back in its infancy and it keeps us alive today. No soldier who has ever been on the battlefield was devoid of fear. Even those who receive medals and are revered for their bravery will admit that they had a healthy amount of fear going in. Fear puts the body on alert that it is in danger and that a defense may be necessary. Fear heightens all our senses. That is the good fear. That is the type of fear that we not only cannot overcome but which we do not want to overcome.

But even that type of fear, that primal instinct of self-preservation and all others, come from a person’s lack of knowledge when faced with situations that require an action of them. We fear judgement. We fear being wrong. We fear rejection. We fear heights. And when we look at ourselves long and hard, we find that we all have a rather long shopping list of fears. Those fears range from the easy to deal with to the impossible to deal with.

One of the more common fears is that of being judged, particularly when that judgement comes from a person with whom we have a personal relationship. This is a tough one because it is human nature to desire to always been seen in a favorable light. This fear, however, can lead us to another character defect, honesty. People will say they were less than honest to save a person’s feelings. You are not responsible for another person’s feelings! If being honest means hurting a person’s feelings it may be better that way. But if it is one of those rare occasions where hurting the person’s feelings achieves nothing, then be judicious with your words but keep each word fully honest. You might find it wise to respond by saying “I need to think about that” or words to that effect. All of us are confronted with questions everyday but not every questions needs to be answered an instant later. Many question needed to be considered at some length before being answered. Most of the time saying “allow me to think about that for a minute” should suffice. Sometimes you will need to think longer. Regardless, engage your mind before engaging your mouth.

But there is one thing which is absolutely necessary. You must talk about your fears with someone you trust, if not a therapist. Many times a fear that is bouncing around in our heads loses all its power when shared with another person. Just our saying the very words “this scares me” frequently reduces the level of fear if not eliminating it entirely. I can say with absolute certainty that regardless of what scares you that exact same fear is shared by others and may actually be very common. One of the best things which can happen with sharing a fear with another person, is that person validates our fear by admitting they share the very same fear. Another frequent result of admitting a fear is finding a resolution to that fear in the process.

I have already touched upon honesty but it deserves further discussion. I have adopted a principle of absolute honesty even to my own detriment. That simply means that when someone asks a question of me, particularly a question which will require me to reveal a part of me of which I am not proud, I will give a fully honest answer. The only qualification to that is that the person asking the question has a right to the knowledge I hold. My wife has a right to ask absolutely any question she wants and I in return have an obligation to answer her honestly. But my sister, parents, other relatives, and friends do not have a right to access that information. What I cannot do is lie instead of telling them it is none of their business.

I have some young friends who have decided to not drink anymore and they struggle with how to deal with friends who use peer pressure to get them to drink. I tell them when asked why they are not drinking to reply that they simply do not want to. And if that person persists even after having asked twice, I suggest that they ask the person questioning them, “why it is so important to you that I drink?” This is shifting the burden in place of lying or of revealing a part of themselves they consider private. You are questioning their motives.

At this point I need to bring up the principle of “owning your own crap.” Everyone screws up, some of us more frequently than we care to admit, and yet it is still true. One of the biggest lies we tell ourselves is “I wasn’t caught.” Yes you were! It does not matter that no one else saw your indiscretion, you saw it, you know about it and you need to own it. The principle here is you cannot get rid of any crap you do not own. That is just logical. Let’s say you put an old refrigerator out behind your house, then an old car next to it, then a box spring, and before long you have what appears to be a junk yard. The city comes by and tells you that you need to get rid of your crap because you are in violation of an ordinance. You tell them it’s not yours. As ridiculous as this scenario seems, this is something people do every day with regards to non-material crap. They deny they have done wrong, they deny they lied or were less than fully truthful, they deny that taking a bunch of paper from work is wrong, etc. But as long as they use denial of the truth as the barrier from taking rightful responsibility, they will suffer its consequences. The consequences is that these things are additive and they weigh upon you. That weight gets heavier and heavier and frequently leads to a loss of friends, relationships, of trustworthiness and even jobs. There are few things more freeing than to admit that you screwed up. Having taken ownership of the screw-up you can then commence a course of relieving yourself of that crap. This should bring into sharp focus the concept of denial as being a major shortcoming. People use denial regularly do not realize they are lying to at least one person, themselves, and probably others. It creates unnecessary barriers. It keeps them from enjoying a lot of happiness and freedom.

Some of my other shortcomings are laziness, procrastination, over eating, and many other things I just cannot think of at the moment. The thing is, I accept that I have each and every one of these shortcoming and that to overcome any one of them, I need to take some sort of affirmative action. I think it unlikely I will ever overcoming my overeating tendencies but I task myself with a certain level of exercise to overcome the shortcoming, or at least lessen its effect. It does not always work but it is a solution among the several available. My shortcomings keep me from being as happy as possible. But by acknowledging them and having a method of counteracting the shortcomings, I am assuring myself of much more happiness than by not doing these things.

by

Windows 10: A History of Windows and Review of Windows 10


Microsoft’s Windows 10 is happily a vast improvement over its Windows 8/8.1 versions.  I, foolishly, installed Windows 8.0 only my old desktop computer.  Suddenly gone were every single recognizable feather of Windows 7 and earlier versions.  Microsoft, for all its innovation and brainpower, seems to lack the ability to move smoothly between major designs in its Windows operating system.

Windows, however, was not always an operating system.  Windows was first released in 1985, version 1.0.  Few people ever saw it fortunately.  It was Microsoft’s clumsy attempt to mimic the Apple operating system of the day.  It was simply a software program that was engaged from the old MS DOS prompt, C:\.   You typed in “win” and it came up in all its glory.  Windows version 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0 were more of the same but with added functionality.  Windows 3.1.1 was Microsoft’s first venture into the idea of networked computers and it worked rather well.  That version was released in 1992.  But it still was not an operating system.

Then Windows 4.0, better known as Windows NT was released in July 1996.  The Windows operating system had finally arrived!  But there was one problem.  Windows NT did not play well with non-Microsoft software which was still in abundance in those days.  Microsoft Word, for example, had a formidable competitor in WordPerfect.  WordPerfect had been developed my Brigham Young University for use on the Data General mini-computer.  When the DOS world arrived it was quickly migrated.  In the early days of the PC most people preferred the more robust and well developed WordPerfect to the buggy MS Word.  But the writing was on the wall as the Microsoft operating system, MS-DOS dominated the PC market for all computers but Apple.  IBM tried to gain a foothold with its disastrous, though very forward thinking, OS/2 operating system.  There was also LINUX, a PC based version of the popular engineering operating system UNIX.  That was fine if you did not mind running through some 25 floppy disks just to load the system and dedicate hours of a single day to complete the task.  But by the mid-1990s all PCs were manufactured using Microsoft Windows.   Other software companies followed this by making their products Microsoft compatible, first to the MS-DOS operating system and then to Windows.

In 1995 Microsoft released Windows 95 and then in 1998 released Windows 98 each of which was a more user friendly version of Windows NT.  Windows NT did not go anywhere, that is, it was still being produced, but it had a number of characteristics which were baffling to the average user.  Windows 95 and 98 proved to be a huge winner.  They were stable, easy to use, and well-integrated with the Microsoft Internet Explorer which was also very user friendly.  In 1998 the concept of the Internet as a tool for all people was still new, even though it had existed since 1983.  The Internet was almost entirely the bastion of the government, large educational institutions and the business world.  But with Internet Explorer, and other Internet search engines, the general public quickly became aware of its existence.

Then came the Microsoft disasters, Windows ME and Windows 2000.  Widows ME, which stood for Millennium Edition, was an unmitigated disaster.  I had excitedly loaded it onto my computer only to find in short order that the ME operating system had huge problems with memory allocation.  Old software from other companies either worked poorly or not at all on ME.  Realizing it had released a complete lemon, Microsoft quickly brought order back to the universe with its 2001 release of Windows XP.  Smart consumers had stayed with Windows 98 and were reluctant to move to XP but as time passed most did.  Even though it is 14 years old, the XP operating system is still being used by millions of people.  Its stability and ease of use kept confidence very high in the product.

Next Microsoft came out with Windows Vista.  It announced its new and wonderful system on network television commercials.  We could expect a whole new world.  What happened, however, was something entirely different.  I loaded up Vista and suddenly felt like I had been thrown back to the hostile Windows ME.  There was nothing good about this product.  To be fair, it was faster than XP but it challenged you to use it.  The user interface was a lot of things but it was definitely not user friendly.  As complaints about that quickly piled up Microsoft, not as quickly as with ME, developed Windows 7 and order was brought back to the universe.

By 2012 the touch screen universe, driven by smart phone technology, was all the rage.  Microsoft introduced Windows 8 as its venture into that universe.  Trouble was, people with PCs and laptops, for the most part, were not in the least bit interested in touch screen technology adorning their non-touch screen computers.  The Windows 8 user interface challenged you to use it.  Of course, I loaded it onto my desktop and disappointment was almost immediate.  Even though I knew the answer, I looked to see if I could revert to the user friendly world of Windows 7.  Microsoft does not allow for that possibility and so I had two choices, tough it out with Windows 8 or buy a new computer.  Fortunately my desktop was old enough that opting for a new computer which came loaded with Windows 7 was a great option and I took it.  That computer has Windows 7 still on it.  That is an important distinction for this article because I am writing this on my laptop which has Windows 10 installed upon it.

My old laptop had the bad manners to decide to go into its death throes this past week.  Fortunately for me, this weekend, August 15-16, Massachusetts has a no sales tax weekend in force.  I took advantage of that and got myself a new laptop with Windows 10 loaded.

Windows 10 has the look, at least in part, of Windows 7.  It certainly does not present the challenges of usage that Windows 8 did.  Back when I had people working for me who were developing software I always made one pronouncement to them about its development.  I told them that software should always be “painfully obvious” in its usage.  That means that even a person who is challenged by computer technology can with minimal trouble navigate his way around the software.  The front page of the software should always have all its uses in plain view with tons of help a keystroke away.

This brings me to my assessment of Windows 10.  I give it a grade of B-.  That’s pretty high considering I would give the likes of Windows ME and Windows 8 an F.  I am sure Microsoft developed this version with its Version 7 in mind.  Windows comes, after you log in, to the desktop design of Windows 7.  In the lower left corner there is the friendly “command center,” I like to think of it.  You click there and up comes a menu of items to choose from including the most popular programs.  But missing from the list is one item I use a lot, the “control panel.”  For reasons I cannot grasp, Microsoft decided to replace, in part, the control panel with a “settings” menu.  This in itself is fine but it is only a subset of a complete control panel.  The control panel is where you add printers, remove software, set up home networks, etc.  But, the control panel does still exist!  You cannot place the “settings” on your desktop, where I like such things, but you can put the control panel there, which I have done.  Microsoft should have made provision for having that settings item on the desktop.

As I mentioned before, Microsoft bundles its Windows with Internet Explorer.  Windows 10, however, does not have Internet Explorer, at least as it used to exist.  In its place Microsoft has, in its inimitable wisdom, placed “Edge.”  This is “an” Internet search engine but a very unfriendly one.  As I said, software necessarily needs to be “painfully obvious” and Edge is anything but.  Even though I have only had it a short time, I have already quickly changed over to Google’s Chrome, something I had spurned doing prior to this.  What is wrong with Edge?  Where to start?  Well, when it comes up gone are all the menus which always existed on Internet Explorer.  These menus, which could be expanded or contracted as you wished, are not only not present but cannot be created on Edge.  I can best describe Edge as the Windows 8 of search engines.  Worse, the search engine portion of it is not particularly obvious.  The default search engine is Microsoft’s Bing, of course, which can be changed to google or other search engine, but it is not at all obvious how to do.

It is my recommendation that if you use Internet Explorer a lot and are now using Windows 7, do not switch to Windows 10.  Even if you are buying a new computer, many, if not most, can still be purchased with Windows 7 on them.  Windows 10 is a decent enough platform but it has user interface bugs which need to be ironed out.  I would suggest you stay clear of Windows 10 at least until the middle of 2016.

by

Can the Roman Catholic Church Be Dragged Out of the 12th Century?


I was brought up in the Roman Catholic Church.  It was a curious upbringing because my mother was the Catholic but my father was a Unitarian.  It was the odd confluence of an extremely conservative church, Catholic, with an extremely liberal church, Unitarian.  And in those days, the 1950s and 1960s, marriage of Catholics to non-Catholics was discouraged, to say the least.  My parents were married in 1946 in the Rectory of St. Michael’s Church in North Andover Massachusetts.  Church weddings of that sort were prohibited in those days.  My mother saw to it that I was in church every Sunday and in Sunday school immediately following.  As I got older I was required to attend religious classes once a week after school.  First communion and confirmation were a given and something we all actually looked forward to.

In the early 1960s Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI oversaw certain transformations in the Catholic Church.  Prior to then the Catholic mass was said entirely in Latin.  Latin was removed in favor of the language spoken locally.  The American Catholic Church embraced the idea of bringing folk music into its services.  It seemed the Catholic Church was embracing the idea of change and was becoming a friendlier and less feared church than it had been.  In the years since the church also embraced the idea of having deacons, lay people who passed out communion, and lay people who assisted in performing the mass.  Also, most nuns’ habits gave way to ordinary clothing.

Unfortunately, since the death of Pope Paul VI, the Roman Catholic Church seems to have reverted to its extremely conservative ways.  In doing so it has once again turned its back on the needs of Catholics word-wide.  The church seems to be in total denial of its responsibility to its membership.

The Archdiocese of Boston, one of the largest diocese by membership in the country, has such difficulty in attracting young men to its seminary that it usually graduates and ordains new priests in numbers less than 10.  I suspect the reason for this is simple, the church still requires a lifetime promise of celibacy by its priests.  This is contrary to every human predilection known.  And of courses, priests cannot marry.  Some years ago I had a good friend who was a priest who had just entered his 40s.  He could no longer deny his attraction to women and observe his vow of celibacy.  He was an excellent priest but found it necessary to leave the priesthood as he found the requirements imposed upon him to be untenable.  I think this is a very common occurance.

Along this same line, I had to travel to Oklahoma City for business about 15 years ago.  My stays out there became extended and encompassed weekends.  I visited one of the 3 Catholic Churches there where I found an aging priest.  He told me he could not retire because there was no one to replace him even though he was in his late 70s.  I also found out that there are many small cities in the plains states that have Catholic Churches but no priest assigned.  They are served by traveling priests.

The obvious solution to this problem seems simple enough, allow priests to marry.  But for reasons which defy logic, the very conservative College of Cardinals steadfastly refuses to even consider such a change. Here is their logic as presented on catholic.com: “Theologically, it may be pointed out that priests serve in the place of Christ and therefore, their ministry specially configures them to Christ. As is clear from Scripture, Christ was not married (except in a mystical sense, to the Church). By remaining celibate and devoting themselves to the service of the Church, priests more closely model, configure themselves to, and consecrate themselves to Christ.”  But this was a change the Roman Church made in 1139.  The Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and others, never adopted this belief.

Pope Francis recently reminded, and reaffirmed, that divorced Catholics who had remarried and not gotten an annulment of their first marriage, are “living in sin” and therefore cannot receive communion!  I believe the Catholic Church is the only major church in the world which prohibits its member from remarrying without getting an annulment.  I once asked a priest about an annulment and he explained that in essence it is a declaration that an actual marriage never existed.  For me to have pursued, and received, such a declaration would have been essentially perpetrating a huge fraud.  I was married to that woman for 14 years and had 3 children by her.  Of course it was a marriage!  But the Catholic Church states it wants me to still attend mass but I just cannot take part in the most important part of the service.  This is like inviting me to a birthday party but telling me I cannot have any cake and ice cream.  The concept is absolutely absurd!

Next we have birth control and abortion.  I absolutely understand the church’s stand on abortion, it is entirely contrary to its most basic beliefs.  And while I absolute agree with the prohibition regardless of circumstance, I also believe it to be an entirely personal moral dilemma and that each woman needs to make a decision based on her on conscience and without the intrusion of outside influence.  It is a discussion between her and the God of her understanding.

But other forms of birth control are an entirely different matter.  The use of condoms and contraception are a modern day necessity.  For a married Catholic to follow the church’s teachings exactly, they would need to go contrary to the basic and loving desires, forgoing all sexual contact out of fear of pregnancy.  This is an absolutely absurd idea and prohibition.

Finally is the church’s stance towards gay people.  Their stance is easy to understand in the light of what the Bible says. I have two problems with that however.  First, all the various versions of the New Testament today are translations from ancient Greek.  But the problem is that Jesus Christ spoke in the Aramaic language, not Greek.  This means at the very least there was a translation made.  But was that translation from an oral tradition or the written word?  No one knows.  But we do know that Aramaic had about 5000 words total.  Now compare that with the over 1 million words in the English language today to get a feel for the problem.  Noted writer, Dr. Isaac Asimov, related how the word for young girl and virgin in Aramaic are the exact same word.  It is my belief that the first person relating the story of the birth of Jesus was referring to Mary as a young girl because we believe she was likely as young as 12 when she married the much older Joseph.  That she was a virgin was a more important concept to 10th century Rome than 1st Century Palestine, Turkey, and Greece.  The mysticism surrounding a virgin birth was more valuable to Dark Age church leaders than explaining a sexual congress between Mary and Joseph.  By the 12th century the Catholic Church was all about putting even the mention of sexuality into the closet.  What does all this have to do with being gay?  Simple, it is my belief that large portions of the New Testament are both incomplete and incorrect translations.  The Gnostic Gospels sheds some light on this with its Gospel of Mary, something the Roman Church has chosen to distance itself from.  But more to the point, it could mean the admonition of one man laying with another may have originally been a prohibition of adult men bedding boys, something which happened frequently in those days, particularly in traveling merchants.  That gay men existed at the time of Jesus is undeniable.  But so did pedophilia and I believe Jesus saw that as a much more serious problem than man’s inability to understand gay love.  One is an abuse of power, position, and children, while the other is a different sort of love.  I do not understand love between same sex individuals but I do accept it.  It just as real as any other sort of love and that is all I need to know.

To be fair, the Roman Catholic Church is not alone in favoring certain absolutes of human behavior.  Evangelical and other conservative Christian churches in the world espouse many of the same tenants.  But it is a requirement of any church to tend to the needs of its followers.  The Roman Catholic Church is absolutely failing in this respect and that is likely the primary reason it has seen church attendance plummet and parishes closes even though the number of people who identify themselves as Catholic rises.

The Roman Catholic desperately needs to make itself more attractive to all its members, not just those who adhere to its rigid tenants.  I suspect that if all those Catholics who regularly attend church today were to suddenly stop attending church because they violate one or more of these basic tenants, Catholic Churches worldwide would become empty.  The Catholic Church does not lack for theologians, both lay and ministerial, who desperately want the changes I have mentioned.  But as long as a very small and very conservative group of Cardinals are allowed to continue as they have, church attendance and membership will continue to fall.  But worse, the church will continue to ignore many of the most basic teachings of Jesus Christ.

by

Finding That Special Someone


You have to kiss a lot of frogs to find your prince. That sounds extremely trite and hackneyed but it is also true. It is always better to find Mr. Right, or Mrs. Right as the case may be, than Mr. Right Now. But there comes a time when we all want to stop dating and start a long term relationship. The problem seems to be with the first date and how your figure out if he, or she, is someone you want to be with. In doing so, you have taken on an almost impossible task. It is rare that you find a person who you have just met as being someone you are certain about, someone with whom you feel perfectly comfortable. In that light, give yourself three or four dates before you come to any conclusions about someone. That is assuming you do not find something in the person you have just met that you consider to be a deal breaker. A deal breaker for me, when I was dating, was smoking. I made it known up front that I could not be with some who smokes. Once or twice my date denied she smoked but then she never should have kissed me because non-smokers are very sensitive to the existence of nicotine.

That leads me to rule number one of dating, honesty. Many people today attempt to find partners via dating websites. That is all well and fine, I found my wife that way, but total honesty is a necessity. That means you do not put up a five year old picture because you favor how it makes you look. If, however, that is the only picture you have, be certain to mention that in your profile. Dishonesty of any sort should be, and usually is, a deal breaker. You have a right, and should insist upon that from the person you are interested in.

Once you decide you want to meet someone make that meeting at a location which does not serve alcohol. I like coffee shops. The reason is simple, you do not want your judgment and perception, or his, clouded by alcohol. You also do not want that person using alcohol as a crutch to better present himself. If you know you are shy and withdrawn, you need the other person to be accepting of that. This too is honesty. And you need to know how the other person acts fully sober. A shy person can still be an extremely attractive person.

Eye contact is not the sign of honesty, it only shows the person is capable of maintaining eye contact. Inveterate liars have no problem maintaining eye contact. But you can get to the truth of the other person by asking questions that are really important to you. Ask the other person questions like where they work and what their plans are for the future regarding their profession. Ask what they like to do in their free time, about their siblings and parents to see how they handle what should be important relationships. A bad relationship with a parent or sibling should not be a deal breaker. I like to say all families are crazy, it is just a matter of degree. But it will speak to how they handle difficult and important relationships.

If you love cats or dogs, you probably want to find out how your date feels about them. If you are a college grad and want the same in your date find that out. If you cherish your independence, make sure your date enjoys the same feeling. If your dating history suggests you have dated people who have eventually cheated on you, ask yourself what sort of person he generally was in the beginning and if you are seeing that in your new date.

Let date one be an interview only. You meet at the coffee shop, or where ever, and when you leave that location each of your goes your own way. Sex needs to be off the table.

For women, do not be afraid to tell the person you have met, after an hour or so, that you need to check in with a friend that you are safe and well. If he is offended by this, leave, he is obviously insecure and unconcerned with what is right for you. A keeper will intuitively understand and encourage your action.

If you got to the location of your date via public transportation, do not allow your date to take you home, regardless of how good you feel about him. If he becomes insistent, it is not wrong for you to take that as the sign of a controlling person, someone you probably do not want to be with. A good mate respects your wishes. Respect is absolutely necessary in a successful relationship. Demand respect.

Most importantly, be yourself. Do not try to be the party girl when you dream is to be a soccer mom. Talk about things you find fascinating and things you love to do. Accept that you are going to find things he likes or does that you do not like. Just consider it as a piece of the whole and how much it would matter in a long term relationship. For example, I love NFL football and make my wife an NFL widow. She neither likes nor understands football but we have more than enough things we do together, and things she does by herself, that more than compensate. For example, she enjoys her “girls’ night out.” I actually encourage it.

The first date ends when you want it to. If you do not want to see him again, say so. If he asks why mention the deal breaker and that as a deal breaker, it is not open to compromise. However, if you did not come across any deal breaker, I recommend you move on to date two. Keep date two limited to being taken out to dinner or something similar which requires conversation. This means going to see a movie or concert is inadvisable as such things do not promote an exchange of ideas. But unlike date one, date two can cover more important and intimate things. Thoughts about marriage should only come up as a natural extension of other discussions but not as a question in itself. The early dates should encompass only your mutual compatibility and nothing more.

Those first dates must be about your mutual compatibility. You need to see if he would make a good friend and if you say no to that, then say no to continuing on. With each succeeding date, you should feel increasingly comfortable in his presence. You should feel less and less guarded about your feelings and the things you share because you are increasingly confident that he will accept you as you are. You should be able to say something as simple as you are afraid of thunderstorms and have him offering you comfort and not laughing at such things. We all have fears and shortcomings. That special person will want to be at your side no matter what.

When you start this sort of dating, remember the goal, to find a life partner. To a reasonable extent, control the conversation. Know your boundaries and do not let him inside any boundary before you are ready. Have a firm grasp on your deal breakers and what is important to you, and make sure he meets such expectations. Compromise well within your comfort zone and if you are not comfortable with any comprise then don’t! Your future happiness depends upon your up-front willingness to stay within your principles.

by

The Sins of the NFL


The NFL, and Roger Goodell in particular, created a monster that has been wreaking havoc on the villagers ever since. And after millions of dollars spent and over 210 days since the crime of the century, in NFL terms, what do we really know now? There are only three reasonable conclusions a rational person can come to from everything that has been reported: one, 11 of 12 Patriots footballs were measured and found to be below the minimum league standard and, two, existing NFL procedures were either circumvented or broken by the New England Patriots organization and, three, the NFL was lacking in protocol to insure the integrity of game day balls.

A reasonable person and good leader would have, by January 31, 2015, fined the Patriots $275,000 or more for the ball violations and moved on. Unfortunately there were other players in this game who desired something more. We now know that those individuals were Ryan Grigson of the Indianapolis Colts and the Baltimore Ravens’ special teams coach. To be fair, it is likely other teams have complained about how the Patriots go about business over the years. But with the Colts playing the Patriots for the AFC championship the NFL felt the need to look into the Colts’ complaint. The league has both the right and responsibility to take such actions. But for reasons we will never know the league decided to play the game of “Gotcha!” That by itself was bad enough except a league official roamed the Patriots’ sideline at half-time and proclaimed, in particularly foul language, that the Patriots had been caught and were going down. His actions were reprehensible.

Roger Goodell had two choices that Monday morning, fine the Patriots for what had been found or launch an investigation. He decided it would be a lot more fun to open Pandora’s Box and see what flew out. But what Goodell failed to realize was that making visible the failures of the Patriots his own would necessarily come to light. But an extremely weak league leadership decided to make a murder mystery out of an illegal left turn violation.

For months now the focus has been on how the Patriots went about deflating footballs and how Tom Brady was involved. After he spent about $4 million, Ted Wells only conclusion, with regard to the Patriots, should have been that the Patriots organization acted contrary to NFL rules concerning the security and transportation of footballs. The actions of their ball boys show that to be true beyond any doubt, reasonable or otherwise.

But Ted Wells in all his wisdom declared, “But when you combine the break in protocol, the text messages, and the science, we felt comfortable reaching a judgment.” He is absolutely correct regarding the protocol, of dubious judgment regarding the texts, and entirely wrong regarding the science.

I accept the lapse in protocol as proven, it was. The text messages are a different thing however. Most damning was McNally calling himself “the deflator.” The Patriots foolishly tried to pass such a reference as the guy desiring to lose weight. Ridiculous! But the one question that needed to be asked of McNally, but never was, at least by Wells, was, “How long have you called yourself ‘the deflator?’” I suspect, and believe, that this moniker may well go back as far as 2007 when Brady and Manning got the league’s blessing to do things to the game balls so that the balls felt good to them. I suspect balls were tossed to Brady by the equipment manager and Brady would either accept or reject them because of how they felt in his grip. He likely complained about their inflation level and demanded they be deflated a little. But it is unlikely he either knew or considered league standards for inflation. This likely went on for years with McNally taking air out of balls on so many occasions over the years that he jokingly called himself “the deflator.” This in itself is damning to the Patriots because it shows a lack of control over their personnel. It is the job of equipment managers and those who work under them to thoroughly understand NFL regulations regarding any and all types of game day equipment for which they are responsible. The Patriots were obviously lax in this regard and absolutely deserved to be punished. The degree of punishment leveled in this particular situation is beyond any reasonable explanation to include, but not limited to, the integrity of the game.

As for the science, the only conclusion any reputable scientist can come to, given what was known, is that the 11 footballs were outside acceptable limits. How they got there is not provable. You cannot apply the gas law, or any other scientific measure, for one simple reason: there exists no verifiable starting point. A good and thorough scientific experiment requires repeatable and verifiable conditions. To do this the scientist would want all 24 game day balls. The first thing they do upon gaining possession of those balls is test their integrity, that is, they inspect the balls for flaws, leakage at the valve and all other points on the ball. That done they test to balls using very exacting conditions that mimic the game day. Of greatest interest to the scientist would have been the particular ball that lost the most pressure. That ball would be tested multiple times in an attempt to either show or disprove that the amount of pressure lost was natural or as the result of human intervention.

Any business that prides itself in its research abilities prides itself in being able to inform the customer of results which go contrary to their expectations. But we have no evidence that Exponent, the company Wells hired to do the scientific investigation, advised Wells of problems with the investigation either prior to or during the process. As someone who has done such investigations, I would have advised Wells that I would need the exact state of all 24 footballs prior the beginning of the game and that lacking such information any conclusion would be speculative at best. We do not know if Exponent ever said this to Wells but it is a reasonable question to ask.

The NFL, and Roger Goodell in particular, had one last chance to get in front of this whole debacle when the Wells Report was released. The report actually did a good job of showing the shortcomings of many individuals and organizations. It showed the Patriots organization did not follow NFL rules regarding the security of footballs. It showed that exact same thing for the referees present at the championship game. They too are fully responsible for ball security but not a single one of those officials took the Patriots to task for allowing McNally to even touch a single ball. It was not McNally’s job to carry footballs to the field of play and the officials should have known that. Furthermore, considering the gravity of the game, the head official should have assigned one of his team to accompany the footballs to the field. And lastly, the NFL was shown lacking in rules regarding care and security of the footballs. It acknowledged as much when it released its revised standards at the end of July 2015. All Goodell needed to do once the Wells Report was released was acknowledge that errors in judgment had been made at all levels. He still could have fined the Patriots, and should have, and ended this whole mess in a single act. It would not have been popular with a majority of the owners, his employer, but it would have been the right thing to do. But such a pronouncement would have shown he was truly concerned with the integrity of the NFL. A good leader recognizes that there are times he will have to stand against popular opinion in doing what is right.

Given all this, Tom Brady’s involvement in all this, even at the most egregious level, is rendered moot. Had those individuals and organizations involved in game day activities done their job, Brady could not possibly have been able to affect ball inflation. To the contrary, game officials would have quickly become aware of Brady’s involvement and been able to quickly and unequivocally correct and report his actions. That, of course, did not happen. The integrity of the game had been compromised for years because of the NFL’s own lacking. The NFL never cared enough to exhaustively define what game integrity involved and then put rules in effect which would guarantee it. Had such rules existed, this whole affair would have been reconciled prior to the AFC Championship game, Wells would never have been hired, and few people would even remember anything ever happened.

by

It is God’s Will! Really?


I really and truly hate the expression, “it was God’s will.” Really? How do you know? To be fair, the overwhelming majority of people living in the United States were brought up on one of three basic belief systems: Jewish, Christian, and Islam. Each of those general religions loves to use the expression in question. But my question to any of them is, “how do you know?” If you nail any of them down they will probably refer to some ancient religious text which supposedly gives weight to their contention.

But don’t each of these religions refer to God as a “father” meaning, of course, a family member.   And each contends that God is also the epitome of love, kindness and understanding. Great! Then how can you call it God’s will when an earthquake strikes a region and kills thousands of people? Are you telling me that either God wanted those people dead? As a father I believe it a part of my job to protect my children from any sort of harm. This actually makes God sound like some sort of sadistic being rather than the all loving purported.

Another of my favorites is when a person comes down with a deadly form of cancer and that somehow is God’s will. Again, really? God favors kind and loving people with deadly diseases as some sort of test of their love for Him? It makes it sound like He lacks love for the person involved. Which, as a side note, brings up another of my annoyances: unfairness. People love to say how unfair it is when someone is visited by some life altering, or worse, life ending disease while they are young. No! It is entirely fair! Diseases and disasters do not go around picking out individuals if affect. Fairness exists entirely in human interaction, that is, how one human treats another human. Diseases and disasters simply do not have the capacity to care.

If the basic claims about God of these three religions are to be believed then God could only want for our happiness, good health, and long lives. God does not punish nor reward any living being but saves such things for the afterlife. God does not take the side of one nation over another in a time of war, or for that matter, in any sort of human contest, conquest or endeavor. If God so favored any group of people does it not make sense that He would have protected people against the likes of Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, Adolph Hitler or any of a long list of evil persons? But He did not which means His is an entirely hands off position. What happens to us here on earth is always the result of our own actions, or lack of action, or of natural phenomena. And that is my universe. If tomorrow I am told I have some sort of stage 4 incurable cancer I will not look upon it as God’s will or even bad luck. It will simple be the end result of a long string of natural events, and sometimes, many times, we humans are incapable of putting together all of those events or even explaining them. I accept my situation as it is. I promise myself to be as kind, courteous and thoughtful as possible. In the end, after all, is that not what each of us is evaluated on, by those who know us and God?

by

UFOs: Where Would They Come From and How Did They Get here; What Do They Want?


Since the late 1940s there has been almost an obsession with the existence of UFOs. For the purpose of this paper, I am going to assume they do exist. That done they must be explained as to where they came from and how they got here. Neither is at all easy.

I must establish certain basics for this conversation to continue. First, distance in the universe is measured in light years. A light year is not a measurement of time but of distance, 5,878,499,810,000 mile to be exact.  That is 5,878 billion miles.  To put that in some sort of context, Pluto is 3.67 billion miles from the Sun or 3.65 billion miles from Earth.  Regardless, it took the New Horizons space craft almost 10 years to travel that short distance, relative to the whole universe or even our own galaxy.  At the speed of light, that trip would have taken about 5 hours.  The closest star to us is Proxima Centauri at 4.24 light years.  The closest galaxy, Andromeda, is 2.537 million light years away.  The edge of the known universe is some 13.5 billion light years away.

Now, Einstein postulated, and physicists have since proven, at least to some degree, that the faster you need to go the more energy you need.  That part seems obvious however when you talk about going the speed of light they speculate you would need an infinite amount of energy, an impossibility.  All right, so let us say our visitors figured out how to travel half the speed of light, highly unlikely, but even so, if they were from Proxima Centauri, their journey here, one way, would take almost 9 years.  And if they could only manage one tenth the speed of light, the journey takes 42 years.  Light travels at 670.6 million miles an hour.  The New Horizons spacecraft traveled at 36,300 miles per hour.  And somehow we need to get to 67 million miles an hour to have any sort of reasonable chance of visiting our nearest neighbor.  We have not a clue how to do that but that does not mean distant civilizations have not resolved that problem.

In his general theory of relativity, Einstein defined space and time.  We hold fast to that principle today.  But physicists have noted that the space/time continuum can be bent as evidenced in the existence of black holes.  Our own Sun causes and bending of that as well, just not to the degree a black hole does.  From this, scientists speculate that through this bending process large distances in space can be conquered through this bending process.  For example, imagine a sheet of 8 ½ by 11 paper and that is space/time.  Take one edge and fold it towards the other.  Now if you are sitting on the one edge the trick becomes jumping to the other because of the bend.  If a very advanced civilization has resolved that problem then the crossing of great distances become a much easier thing.  Gene Roddenbury’s imaginative Star Trek may have inadvertently supplied us the answer is his use of “warp speed.”  That warping is of the space in front of the space craft and this is how physicists imagine it might be accomplished.

The how to get here resolved, more or less, we are left with the questions of who and where?  It is good to note that 100 years ago humans believed they were the only intelligent life forms in the universe.  This, of course, is a very arrogant belief.  Today’s astronomers are discovering planets outside our own solar system all the time.  They have discovered nearly 2000 planets, exoplanets they call them for their existence outside our solar system.  These planets have been attached to 1225 stars with a number of stars having multiple planets orbiting them.  As we continue to gaze skyward that number will and is climbing.  But even more importantly, these same brilliant scientists have calculated the possibility of the existence of intelligent life form existing anywhere in the universe.  They have decided that it is a certainty.  We are just now discovering life on other planets and moons in our own solar system which, by extension, leaves us with the almost absolute certainty of life existing in every galaxy in the universe.  And how many galaxies are there?  At latest count, over 100 billion!

I suspect that we have been visited by extraterrestrial life forms who find our planet a curiosity and nothing more.  The most likely scenario is that they, like us, are on scientific fact finding missions.  At some point they may want to contact us but thus far have not found any good reason.  We just are not that interesting.  Such scientists have likely encountered a thousand other civilizations at various points in their existence, and having studied them categorized us as being just like one or more of those thousands of other civilizations.  We simply do not warrant greater consideration.  But if they do decide to contact us, I suspect we will have to prove ourselves as being a lot more worthy than we are now.  We as a race love war and violence far too much for an extraterrestrial scientific expedition to take a chance on us as we now exist.

by

Where Has America Gone?


I went to graduate school to study U.S. History. I have always wondered how we, as a country, have gotten to where we are. I still wonder that but at least now I have a good working knowledge of the forces which brought us to this day. I have a deep appreciation of George Santayana’s words: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

I, like so many Americans today, look upon our Congress as the most dysfunctional body imaginable. The present Congress in its dysfunctionality is not, in my opinion the worst ever. That honor, if you will, belongs to the various Congresses which presided during our Civil War of 1861 to 1865. Both major parties where so horribly splintered it is amazing they ever agreed upon anything. It was only a few years earlier, 1856, when Rep. Preston Brooks of South Carolina attacked Sen. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts on the senate floor, literally with his cane, beating him so badly he required medical attention. Brooks was ostensibly defending the honor of Sen. Andrew Butler whom Sumner had earlier called an “imbecile.” For his actions Brooks was fined $300.

It is of note that members of Congress in the 19th century were seldom millionaires although most were from well-to-do families. They were elected because they espoused the desires of their constituency and, as in the case of Brooks, were willing to literally fight for those desires. Brooks was incensed over the personal verbal attack abolitionist Sumner made on Butler by saying, “Senator Butler has chosen a mistress. I mean the harlot, slavery.”  These men were obviously and heatedly devoted to those causes important to their state.  Sadly, I do not believe such can be said for any member of Congress today.

Every American has 3 representatives in Congress, two senators and a representative.  But if someone were to ask me what any of those three people has done for my state, Massachusetts, lately, I quite honestly could not say a thing.  I simply do not know even though I do my best to remain informed.

At its inception the United States could easily have broken apart into 13 separate countries.  After all, each state had long before adopted its own constitution, set up its own form of democratic elections, and put together a fully and independently functional state government.  But by 1783 the colonies had come to realize the value of coalescing into a single and strong central government.  Still, they were bitterly divided upon what that government would look like and how each state could maintain a reasonable level of autonomy within the structure of a federal government.  To that end they decided on an election process which provided for the possibility of a complete turnover of the federal government at 6 year intervals.

That process was designed prior to political action committees, huge and rich corporations, and even, yes, political parties.  Thomas Jefferson believed that their need only be a single party made up of the “wise and well-born.”  But Jefferson actually oversaw that exact change when he departed from the Federalist party line, with which he greatly disagreed, and stated the Democratic Republicans.  He realized that Virginia’s needs were frequently at odds with those of Massachusetts or New York.  The original fight over state autonomy versus federal regulation continued until 1868 and the adoption of the 14th Amendment which, in part, bars states from enacting laws contrary to federal law.  At that time states fought jealously to preserve the general good and well-being of the residents of their state.  They did this through those elected to Congress.

At the beginning of the 20th Century politicians who were called “Populists” saw well-moneyed interests exerting control of the US Government to the detriment of the individual citizen.  Industrialists like Vanderbilt had lobbied and secured eminent domain so they could gain control of otherwise privately owned property.  Rockefeller who was able to gain monopolistic control of the fledgling oil industry, Carnegie the same in the steel industry and other “tycoons” of the day.  Congress enacted anti-trust laws, monopoly laws and in 1934 the Securities and Exchange Commission.  It took well over 30 years but Congress properly recognized that corporate America had systematically diluted the power of the individual American for its own use.

From 1900 until 1980 Congress and the President did an excellent job of insuring that the rights of the individual American were not trampled on by a few powerful interests.  But when Ronald Reagan became President the executive and legislative elements of our government began undoing all the work of the previous 80 years.  Reagan used sleight of hand by breaking up the communications monopoly AT&T had created while his real agenda was something entirely different.  Reagan started the charge against the average working man when he successfully oversaw busting the air traffic controllers union.  It was an entirely unnecessary action as the power of the president has always allowed for his ending a strike when he believed the national interest and the national defense were at issue.  Previous presidents had used this power to end lengthy coal miners’ strikes for example.  But none ever considered breaking up a union as this would have been viewed as un-American.  He effectively declared open season on America’s unions even though the power of all unions was lessening and the frequency of strikes decreasing.

He then took aim at the federal regulatory process, in particular financial interests.  He declared that such institutions were too heavily regulated and unnecessarily regulated, that they were self-regulating by their very nature and in their own interest.  This gives rise to the question of why the stock market crash on 1987 happened.  Is it possible that the sudden deregulation had gone contrary to the public good?  Congress ostensibly righted that ship by putting in place laws which would limit or stop stock trading should the market give signs of being in a free-fall.  But the deregulation continued.

Since 1980 control of the Congress has switched between the Republicans and Democrats many times.  But they have increasingly shown an inability to come to a consensus of compelling domestic and foreign issues, not the least of which is the regulation of the giant conglomerates existing in the United States today.  While America’s infrastructure deteriorates at an alarming speed, Congress is having a food fight over taxes, entitlements, and defense.

No state and nor individual, conservative or liberal, is benefiting from the actions of today’s Congress.  If individual members of Congress were truly interested in the welfare of their constituents, they would be figuring out how many multiple trillions of dollars it will take to bring our infrastructure back to where it should be rather than allowing it to continue where it where it is.  Such an investment would of course greatly benefit corporate America but unfortunately they are totally devoted to their own selfish interests.  Every year corporate America spends literally billions of dollars lobbing Congress to do their bidding while trampling on the rights of private Americans.  For example, the energy industry has long touted how “clean” burning natural gas is while failing to reveal that in reality from its mining to its burning natural gas actually hurts the environment more than coal!  But who has more money to spend on lobbying, environmentalists or the energy industry?  The energy industry has done such a great job of championing their cause that they have been able to get local environmentalists to do their bidding, vis-à-vis closing coal burning electric generating plants.  It would be fine if they actually maintained the 3% pollution rate they claim rather than the 16% reality.

Starting around 2006 and continuing for the next 5 years the foreclosure rate in American sky-rocked mostly because of a mostly unregulated banking industry which allowed sub-prime loans to people who had little idea of the agreement they had entered into.  Worse, these very same large financial institutions were making bets on the success or failure of marginal investments.  It came to light that these institutions were cooking the books, so to speak, to justify what they did.  First came Enron, then Morgan Stanley, then Shearson, and so on.  A few failed but most were propped up thanks to the federal government, “too big to fail” was the war cry.  Why did it happen?  Deficient regulation and oversight.

Sadly, while all this was happening, Congress was kowtowing to the moneyed interests which got them elected while to some extent, if not completely, ignoring the welfare of the individual American.  Democrats and Republicans had obfuscated their duty to the individual American rather than anger the PACs which got them elected.

At this point I should come up with a solution.  Sadly, I do not have one short of saying America needs to toss out everyone who now populate Congress and put in new people.  That is not going to happen but something akin to it needs to happen.  Today’s members seem to feed on being antagonism and lack either the will or ability to come to any sort of an understanding with their adversary, they seem to believe that maintaining an adversarial relationship is the recipe for political success.  They use that very negative adversarial and contentious mood to invigorate those who voted them into office.  They sell it as acting in their constituents’ best interest when nothing could be further from the truth.  Members of Congress keep their attention focused on the next election and how they will get re-elected while subordinating the needs of those they represent.  Congress has become adept at selling Americans a ticket to hell and having those same Americans out beating the bushes for directions.

I fear for the future of my children and grandchildren, it seems very bleak right now.  I fear the America my ancestors fought and died for has been purchased by corporate America and that future governance is being decided in America’s boardrooms rather than America’s living rooms.  America is in desperate need of a revolution, a revolution that will empower them and put them back in control of their future.

by

The Sucessful Relationship


A young friend of mine told me this morning that his fiancé moved in with him last week and that they are getting married in two weeks. They have been together for some time now so there in nothing rushed in what is happening. But he could not wonder what the future holds for him. His most basic question, one that many people struggle with, is “why me?” He wonders why she wants to spend a life with him. I told him it is because she really likes what she sees and that he gives her everything she wants. Now I have to admit that I speculated a bit on that point because I have never met his fiancé. But Adam is a really good guy and I believe my assumption to be a safe one.

He then asked me how long I have been with my wife. I embarrassingly had to stop and think about that for a second and decided that telling him how long we had been together was even more important.

My back story is one of too many failed relationships prior to the one I am in now. There are many reasons for those failed relationships and good deal, probably 90% or greater, are the result of my decision making. That decision making is more than just who I chose, but how I acted, what I said, what I did and a plethora of other things during those relationships. My failed relationships spanned from a few days to many years but finally I got my head out of my ass and took note of what I had done wrong. The things I had done wrong can be boiled down to a few basic truths: dishonesty, disloyalty, fear, doubt, and insecurity. And I can wrap all those things up by saying, I just did not know how to talk or to relate to people, not just women, but everyone.

I told Adam that probably the most important thing in a relationship has to be honesty. And that honesty has to start well before the marriage. This is where fear always crept into my psyche. I feared that if I was totally honest about what was going around in my head then certainly the woman I was with would go running for the hills. What I failed to do was consider that that might have been the relationship saver rather than killer.  The other relationship killer, absolutely, is resentment.  Resentment is the poison you drink while you wait for the other person to become ill.  But in truth resentment is simply the surfacing of our own shortcomings that we either deny or are unwilling to overcome.

I think we human beings have a natural amount of insecurity which shows up in our lives in a variety of ways. I feel badly for women because they are bombarded with the commercial world’s definition of beauty. They compare themselves to the reigning queens of beauty in music, on the silver screen and in the advertisements of the magazines they read. I can tell you from personal experience that I have known any number of women who were truly gorgeous on the outside and either hollow or some other negative characteristic to the core. Then I know a lot of people who are absolutely gorgeous. Most will never turn a head but what springs forth from them is a beautiful heart. True beauty is an inside job. Now this is not to say that physical attraction should not play a role in a good relationship, it does of course! But that can only be the start of things. There is a natural progression from that point that must happen.

I stated in an earlier post that you should marry your best friend. That is, this is the person you talk to freely and easily. The only time you edit your speech is to be politic about what you are saying without sacrificing honesty. Honesty is the bedrock of all good relationships. Partners who have been together a long time not only know their mate’s good qualities but also their shortcomings. All human beings develop a host of shortcomings. Those who desire to better themselves reduce or remove those shortcomings as much as possible. I like to use the common shortcoming of jealousy. I call it one of the two most useless feelings any person can have, the other be resentment. But I chose jealousy here because I firmly believe it can be entirely defeated. That is because I believe jealousy is a measurement of an individual’s insecurity. The secure man takes pride in other men admiring the woman he is with. In fact, if he could, he would invite it. He also does not worry that his wife is out with friends some of whom may be male. This is also the trust aspect of good relationships, you trust your mate no matter what.

I suggested to Adam that, if he had not already done so, he talk to his fiancé about his fears and his insecurities. I explained that everyone has them and anyone who claims they do not is a liar. Not only does your mate need to know such things so (s)he knows what is going on with you, but has the right to know such things. I think it an obligatory part of successful relationships.

To this Adam said he had always seen himself a “the rock” in the relationship. I asked him why since, as I explained, a rock never moves forward. I suggested he look at the relationship as mutually supportive as you move through life so that when one or the other has a weak moment you have all the support you need in your mate. They instinctively understand and are ready. They have you by your arm ready to hold you up when you stumble, which you will!

Society today in general seems to have a lot of trouble listening. When someone is explaining something to you not only is it polite to quietly listen until they are done, it is crucial to understanding one another. Some people just cannot seem to help themselves and interrupt the other person by talking over them before they are done. This has the effect of turning a nice discussion into a confrontational one. It is always best to hear the person out, take breath, literally, and then in considered terms, respond to what they have said. At the very least this shows respect for what has been said. That is particularly good when you find yourself in the position of having to disagree with what has been said. What is at work here is respectful consideration. People like to think what they say is of value but when they are interrupted it says just the opposite and who wants to be disrespected? In a marriage as soon as one party starts thinking the other does not respect them, it does not bode well for the future. It is then that questions of commitment and love also come into question.

I think it wise to take, at the very least, a mental snapshot of the person you are marrying or otherwise entering into a long term committed relationship. Remember the reasons that got you there, why you found that person so attractive. Those things you find attractive will not change much except in a positive direction. A good heart is always a good heart, it does not change. A kind, caring, considerate, deeply committed and honest person also does not change and those are the qualities that take you through the years. Outer beauty fades, sex drive fades, and energy level fades among other things. But that is to be expected and that happens the successful relationship realizes that just being with that other person makes their day. Their love is shown in a thousand other ways and even though they feel extremely comfortable in the relationship, they have also committed themselves to always working on it. But when everything and everyone else seems to fail us, we can count on our loved one because we know for certain they are always there for us.

by

Navigating Relationships in Your 20s


As human beings we are social creatures by design.  We are not meant to be alone and certainly not meant to live alone.  Somewhere around the age of 12 we all experience the desire to be with a special someone.  Unfortunately, schools do not teach us about friendships and relationships.  We learn by watching what other people do, what our parents do, and, unfortunately, what we see on television and the internet.  The last two, of course, are absolutely the worst places.  Still, we all seem to get into relationships that are doomed from the start.  Women, unfortunately, settle for “Mr. Right Now” instead of waiting for “Mr. Right.”  Men look for someone to take care of them, someone to replace mom.  We men will never admit to that but it is true.

Life is all about priorities and choices.  Young people, myself included when I was young, I am 66 now, seldom prioritize anything and are prone to bad choices.  Also, life is messy, just accept that truth and do not worry about it.  As much as you might think you do, you definitely do not know what someone else is thinking about you, never assume.

I recommend that all young people stay in school as long as possible.  Getting well-educated for young people must be priority number 2.  That assumes that priority number 1 is taking care of yourself and whatever that means.

It is not just young people who find the concept to self-care illusive, it is older adults as well.   I believe the most basic element to solving absolutely any problem we have or will have is that we keep a very sharp focus on taking care of ourselves.  Those basic things include eating healthy, annual visits to our primary care physician and dentist, regular exercise, and even something as basic as dressing ourselves.  The old cliché’ of dress for success is true.

That done we need to have a plan for our future.  This is also a self-care issue.  Until we finish the highest level of education possible or necessary, our education has to be priority number 2.  Few people at age 18 know what career they want to pursue.  Even some of those who think they do really do not.  What I recommend is that high school seniors who are undecided do one of three things: 1) take a year or two off from school and enter the work force while you discover yourself, 2) join the military, 3) when you enroll in the college of yourself do not decide upon a major, go as “undeclared.”  During the first one or two years in college there are more than enough courses all college students must take to qualify for a degree.  Those courses almost always are enough to fill a freshmen year and at least in part a sophomore year.  And during that first and second year discover what truly thrills you.  Discover what your dream career is and then ask questions of college advisors what it takes to achieve the highest level in that career.  With a few exceptions, physicians, lawyers, nurses, and some others, your course of action will probably not be obvious.  But regardless of what college you attend, there is someone there who can give you the advice you need going forward.

I have a B.S. in computer science and a masters in U.S. History.  The latter degree came from an extremely good university and I pursued that degree because I really like U.S. history.  But had I had my senses about me after I finished my time in the army, I was 21 at the time, I would have pursued a career in astro-physics.  At the time I would have complained that I sucked at math.  But the truth was simple, I did not know how to study and overcome obstacles.  Math would have been tough but manageable had I had a plan.  When I retired at age 58 I was sprinting away from a 30 year career because I simply could not stand going to work anymore.  I made a lot of bad choices and did not have the courage to pursue my dreams.

Between the ages of 18 and 25 young people are usually absolutely obsessed with being with that special person.  And unfortunately this obsessions becomes priority number 1 in their life.  In my priority list here it does not belong even in 3rd place, still too high.  But relationships in general do belong in place number 3.  One of the craziest ideas people have is that they should never date a friend for fear of ruining a friendship.  I believe people who think that way have only a tenuous hold on what makes a good relationship.

Our most important relationships necessarily are with our family of birth.  Our parents and siblings are our first relationships and given all the years such relationships exist, should be our best.  Too many times, however, that is not true.  Sometimes it is for good reason but I think that is the exception rather than the rule.  Young people, myself included at the time, think our parents do not understand us.  It is a ridiculous thought but prevalent.  What we all need to do is put forth whatever effort is required to understand our parents, where they came from and from that why they are who they are now.  There is no substitute for understanding.  Within the family unit one of the most common negative emotions felt is resentment.  Resentment, along with jealousy, is one of the most useless feelings we all have.  Resentments are founded in fear, doubt and insecurity and serve no good purpose.  When you feel a resentment ask yourself why and what happened to make you feel that way.  Then take good honest look at yourself to find the role you played in developing that resentment.  That done, let it go, get over it.  Resentment is the poison you drink while you wait for the other person to fall ill.

I have three daughters.  When she was in high school my eldest daughter came to me and complained that she did not have any friends, that no one liked her.  I knew that could not be true and asked her if she had one good friend.  She responded that she did.  I told her that she already had all the friends she needed and to not worry about anyone else.  She later told me how good that advice was when she suggested to her younger sister that she come to me about friendship advice.  It is my belief that people should practice being a friend and how to have friends prior to moving on to something more serious.  That is not to say you should not date, you should.  Just refuse to commit to anyone before you are ready and certainly not before you have the friendship concept down cold.

It is at this point people oft times find themselves interested in a good friend for a more serious and intimate relationship.  If you still feel you cannot be intimate with that person for fear of ruining a good friendship then I suggest you still do not have the friendship concept down.  Why would you want to be in an intimate relationship with anyone who would not also qualify as a best friend?

Try to avoid getting married before you are 25.  Considering 50% of all marriages fail, why not wait it out as long as possible?  I am not saying you cannot find that right person prior to 25 you can.  But when you think you have that right person in your life make sure you ask and answer the tough questions.  You want someone who is secure, devoted, monogamous, honest and who, when you are not engaged in sex or having a conversation with, you can sit quietly with and enjoy their company fully.  This is also the person who, when you are about to do something dumb, will lovingly suggest you consider your options.  This is the person who is not jealous, always courteous, thoughtful, and loves you when you are at your worst.  This is the non-judgmental person with whom you share your greatest fears and who knows all your shortcomings and loves you all the same.  But even my short list here suggests that you must be willing to invest a serious amount of time in the relationship prior to agreeing to marriage.

The long and short of all this is simple, make sure you can exist happily on your own before you make a commitment to be with anyone else.  Sometimes even with our best efforts relationships fail.  And when they do, do not be that person who has to scramble to find a place to live, to feed yourself and otherwise take care of yourself.  Do not be the person who will have difficulty in making ends meet.  Do not be the person who thinks because the relationship failed you are a failure too or that you are unlovable.  And definitely do not be the person who, on the heels of that failed relationship, quickly jumps into another because you feel desperate, lonely or anything else that puts you in a negative light.  Without being annoying or narcisstic about it, always consider yourself a catch and that whoever might want to be with you should be lucky to have you.