Not Thinking - It Does You Good

I once knew a guy who had stopped thinking -- or so he said.  Or rather, I should say, it was that he had stopped thinking so much.  He had used to be -- so he claimed -- too much in his head, and so he had made a decision to stop thinking so much.  In consequence of which he became more extroverted, friendlier, and happier.  At the time, he was asking us, my friend and I, what we thought about this.  And at the time I told him I could not imagine giving up this inner life that he used to own for this seemingly shallow happiness; would not he be losing something profoundly wonderful in relinquishing the ability to live in his own world, if he gave it up to live only in the real world?  Those were my thoughts then, but time and experiences have made me a bit wiser and a bit more open to the possibility that thinking has its own evils.

As in everything, too much of a good thing is indeed a bad thing.  Like sugar, cake, chips, and even water -- taken to excess, bad consequences await.  That is the nature of life.  And so, it is not surprising that thoughts follow this same rule. 

Of course, reading all the self-help literature I do I had already realized that thinking the "wrong" thoughts, i.e. negative thoughts, can cause terrible consequences.  But thoughts don't always come into play when you are avoiding doing some wearisome task.  Sometimes there is just a feeling of weariness, a sense of a tedious future, and you wish to avoid that task without the slightest verbal thought.  I suppose what I mean is that sometimes the thoughts we have are not expressed through our usual conscious voice --that is, we don't hear it-- but through other more emotional senses.  We just feel a certain way without putting it into words.  We just know that this project is loathsome and this project just begs to be put off as long as possible. 

The danger lies then in our being carried away by these feelings, in being led by them to believe that we should act on our negative feelings, without analyzing, without verbalizing, we follow dumbly these sensations we have.  And of course it usually turns out that a task or chore that we had been dreading, had been putting off doing is not that terrible at all.  And once we have done it, we wonder why we hadn't done it earlier because it has in fact made our lives so much easier or more beautiful. 

This is all in my effort to say that not thinking, not feeling, can be good for you at times.  I put this into practice this week when going over my daily goals, and finding myself dreading each task, I told myself to "Stop thinking" and "Just do it."  And I did just that.  I acted without feeling and I got things accomplished.  That was a victory within itself, but an uphill challenge that I face each day.  That is why they say that those with good habits are the ones who will be successful.  It is because the person who can just do something, day in and day out, without feeling if they want to or if it makes them happy or dreading it, can get a lot accomplished -- just as I did when I made it a habit to go to the gym three days a week no matter what. 

It is a delicate balance to hold however, since in certain things, you must feel in order to be successful.  And you don't want to become so much like an automaton that you do everything and anything without feeling at all.  And there is that fear that if you suppress your feelings once, will it be that much easier to suppress them all the time to the point where you can no longer feel and be sincere in anything?

It would appear then that the best solution is for you to pick and choose the times when you can allow your feelings to steer your decisions, and for other times, to go through your tasks as a server at McDonald's goes through a line of customers.  No matter who comes next, no matter how big their order, or how dreaded they are as a customer, it is the next customer that is taken cared of and dealt with before the next; and it is in this way that McDonald's serves all its customers each day.  So in that respect, sometimes not thinking can be good for you.  When you want to get stuff done especially, it is best not to attach any unproductive thoughts.

The End of the Year Blues

Last night I checked my mail and received a bill that left me very distraught right before going to bed.  It wasn't anything big; it was my health care bill, which they send me every month.  The thing was they had raised my bill by $23 a month and I was annoyed.  I didn't want to be giving them any extra money for nothing.  This annoyance began to snowball into other concerns and fears, and pretty soon I was feeling pretty dreadful.  I had to calm myself with the teachings of Jack Canfield, and remind myself that this sort of thinking was catastrophic negative thinking.  I had to even look at the solution to this sort of thinking and tell myself that this was really nothing and that I was blowing things out of proportion.  I would find a way to pay this and other bills that came my way, and maybe as Canfield suggests, this may come out for my benefit. 

Still, despite all my efforts to calm myself, I still felt dreadful, and not just about this one tiny little bill, but because of my whole life.  And thinking over this year, I started to get really sad about all the things that I hoped would happen that didn't pan out in my life.  And I got so sad that I couldn't even sleep, but kept thinking about more and more things to make me sad.  And I did that until I could not stand it anymore, and I got up, turned on the light, and read a few more chapters of the book I've been reading to bed (Jane Austen's Persuasion). 

It helped settle my mind some so I could sleep.  But when I woke up, I was left wondering about this sadness that I've been feeling lately.  Sometimes I can be so happy, and generally I am appreciative of and grateful for all the precious things I have in my life, but lately, there have been times where I get really sad and I cry.  I was telling my friend that I wondered if it was the weather, because it had been raining one time.  You know, there's even a term for it, for how the weather affects your mood:  Seasonal Affective Disorder, or S.A.D. for short.  It's very appropriate.  Today, however, I was thinking that it wasn't the weather, but something that is hardly discussed -- that is, the end of the year blues.

People often discuss how the holidays, and Christmas especially, are so sad because people who don't have family or friends to share it with get lonely and depressed when they see how happy and content everyone else is.  But it occurred to me that that's not the reason I'm sad.  I have family who loves me (I am very lucky for that) but in other aspects of my life, I feel as though things will never work out.  At least, I've always started the new year being so hopeful that things will work out; "there is a whole year for things to work out and who knows what could happen."  And I had especially high hopes for this year, that didn't pan out.   And so it occurred to me that perhaps the reason people are especially sad around Christmas does not have to do entirely with missing out on Christmas cheer and familial love, but with the disappointed hopes of the current year, which is now ending.  It kind of makes me wonder if Christmas and Yuletide and even New Year's Eve celebrations work to blunt the sadness and disappointment we would feel about a year ending where perhaps a lot of our dreams did not come to pass.  Without these celebrations, distractions, we would have time to really consider the year we've lived and how another year has passed in our lives and what good we have done this year.  And without the gaiety of friends and family to share it with, perhaps some people are more deeply afflicted with this profound disappointment when they look back on the past year.

The new year is always so, full of promise, full of hope, but the end of the year, is much the opposite.  It is an ending after all, and endings are sad.  And especially if none of that promise, none of that hope has been fulfilled, one can be left to feel rather disenchanted with one's life and what has become of one's hopes and dreams. 

It just makes me realize, thank God there is Christmas and celebrations and the expectation to share this time with family and friends.  Otherwise, this time of year might be a lot sadder than it is.

People as Loud Blaring Sirens

Why is it that some people are always feeling the need to foist their insecurities onto you?  Especially when you have said nothing to them, done nothing to them but be yourself.  The only thing they hate you for is making them feel badly (albeit unintentionally) because of your appearance, your job, your wealth, or what have you.

These people feel that instead of improving and working on themselves, the only remedy for their low self-esteem is to try to knock you down a peg -- or two or three -- in an effort to make themselves come across as better.  The thing is, they don't come across as better -- they come across as insecure and catty.  And yet other people who aren't the target of their poisonous venom love and admire these people -- who are often chatty as well as catty -- because of their ability to mingle and "get along" with everyone.  I often tell people that the people who are the most outgoing and friendliest to you to your face, are often the ones who ridicule you behind your back.  I've witnessed this phenomenon many times.  And yet people love them.  And they love that people love them.  And they love that people love them while they hate and ridicule them behind their backs.

I used to complain about these people all the time to my friend, and I termed them to her to be like loud blaring car sirens that scream, "Look at me!" because for some reason or other, they feel you wouldn't look at them otherwise.  Additionally, the louder they are, the less you do really look at them.  It's like a mask.  They don't want you ever really looking at them, really seeing them, otherwise, you would notice all the flaws and scars that they feel really insecure about.  So they hide behind a haze of noise so that people will be so distracted, they will never look past it.  They're afraid if people actually saw them, actually saw what they were like, they wouldn't like what they saw, and that is a truth they can't handle.

The most annoying thing about these people -- I should really say women, because in my life, it has been mostly women -- is that they care so deeply that you like them.  They can go on and hate you to everybody and say snide remarks with a friendly smile to you, but they must always try to win your favor.  They need everyone to love them.

Me, I'm the opposite.  If I don't like someone, if they don't make me feel good to be around, then I snub them.  I know, that's not nice, that's not polite.  But neither are they to me.  And it's not as if I only give them one chance.  I give them many chances, and if they continue to act towards me disrespectfully, i.e. ridiculing me or in the case of guys, sexually harassing me, I say (in my head), "Good day to you.  I don't need you in my life.  There are plenty of other people in the world who are not like you.  And I don't need to put up with your crap."  And I stay as far away from these people, and avoid them as much as I can as if they were a toxic waste drum, which they are to me.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not rude.  If they talk to me, I'm coolly polite.  But I don't pretend to like them.  I don't pretend to have warm feelings for them, because I don't.  You had your chances, and now it's over.  I know longer care about you.  I wash my hands of all concerns about you.  That's me.  I'm ok with hating people and I'm ok with having them hate me back.  Hate me, I don't care.  I hate you too.  It's mutual.  What I can't stand is people who must be loved while hating you behind your back.  My thing is, you have every right to hate me, but you have no right to hurt me.  Don't try to get love while spewing hate.  That's ridiculous.

Even despite my very apparent passionate feelings on people like this, I still do feel badly whenever I cut people off.  I wonder if I should; I wonder if I am right; I wonder if there is a better way where I could be more vocal about my feelings, express myself better if I don't want people to say certain things to me, and therefore make more friends instead of enemies.  I suppose I could if I really wanted these people in my life at all, but I don't.  Especially since I see that this is not how they treat other people; I know that they can help themselves, it's not like they're total ignoramuses.  But for some reason, they want to make me feel badly, they want to hurt me, and those are not the type of people I want to be around -- for all their fake smiles.  I don't need to be around toxic waste when there is plenty of nature around to enjoy and appreciate, and make me feel happy and loving.

Fame - Asking For It

My friends and I had a rather passionate discussion about fame and celebrities who complain about it, and so it is my post today.

Both of my friends were in agreement that celebrities have no right to complain about the trappings of fame because they asked for it.  They sought out fame, and they should have known what would happen once they attained it.  I believe we got on this track because we were discussing Tiger Woods, and my friend said that he kept blaming the media and the press for blowing up his story.  In any case, my other friend piped in, "I totally agree.  I work with actors (in a theatre) and whenever they complain, I just think, 'You asked for it.  You sought fame.  You should have known." 

Whenever I hear this argument, I wonder if there isn't a bit of jealousy involved in it.  After all, how can you not feel sorry for people who are hounded by hoards of paparazzi with flashing light bulbs and less than stellar personalities, chasing you down and hurling insults just to get a scandalous money-grubbing picture?  How can you not feel for them unless you in some way wish you were them, and despise their complaining of a life you wish you had?  Of course, I did not mention this idea to my friends, who probably would have disregarded such an idea. 

My friend who talked of Tiger then said that she also could not sympathize with celebrities who whine about the press.  She said that there are much worse things in the world.  This is true.  But this would mean that one would have to experience the worst of the worst of human experience to be able to ever complain about anything, wouldn't it? 

I thought about this response later, which was, "What if you wanted children, and then you had children, and then you complained because they did this or that?  Does that mean I would be justified in saying, 'You asked for it.  You wanted children, so you can't complain.'"  Imagine how repressed and frustrated the parents of the world would be if that were the rule to go by.

However, instead of all these rather controversial sentiments and statements, I instead said, "Look, in everything there's good and bad.  All they're saying is that there is a side of fame that's not good, that's bad.  I mean, fame isn't always people adoring you.  There are those people who do, but there are also people who go, 'You suck!' and hate you."  To which my friend replied that whenever you put yourself out there, you put yourself in a position to have such extreme views foisted upon you.  But that's the thing, fame is not all good.  "And there is a bad side to fame," I said, "which is what they are complaining about.  And they have a right to complain, because it's not good."  To which my third friend added, "It makes them more human."  Exactly.  And then I added, "Would you rather they say, "Oh gosh, I love my life.  Everyone adores me."?  To which, my friend said, "No, of course not, you don't want them rubbing it in.  I just don't like celebrities who go, 'Oh, poor me.'"  But what she did want was an acknowledgment of appreciation for the fans that brought them to where they were, because without the fans, they wouldn't have anything.  That argument I could agree with, and said so, and said that perhaps what they needed to do was to do both, appreciate and complain.

I also added, sometimes, you don't seek fame, it just comes to you.  I mentioned Susan Boyle, and what happened to her.  And the cast of Twilight.  They thought that it would be a cult, kitschy movie, not some blockbuster hit.  My friend argued that they had to have known it would be a hit; the book is a bestseller!  That would be like saying they didn't know Harry Potter would be a big hit.  But I argued, would an actor who's never read the book know?  And my friend, who didn't like actors she knew complaining, stepped in and said that she did have to give exception to those people, like Tiger Woods, who don't actually seek fame, but who become famous for doing something really well.  (Thank you!)  Athletes and other people of that caliber don't always seek the fame, it comes to them, and so she could see that they have more right to complain.  

All in all, it was a very interesting discussion.  I suppose the lesson to be learned here is that we can all complain, but we also at the same time, need to appreciate the good things that we have as well as those people who make it possible, so that we're not seen as ungrateful, but just as human.

Tiger's Absence Will Be Good for Him

I told myself I wasn't going to write anything more about Tiger Woods or this whole saga anymore, because I didn't want to feed the flames; but then I went to the Yahoo! homepage and saw a headline which got me all riled up.  It read:  "Wood's Time-Out Will Hurt Tiger, Inc." and beside it a link to a video, "Sponsors fleeing?" 

That really raised my ire, and I didn't even bother clicking on either link.  The headline was enough.  It's so irksome to me when people try to predict doom and gloom.  I always think, "Get a life!"  But I guess they are, because they're making money predicting doom and gloom, getting more readers and sponsors in the process.  And anyway, I suppose the reason I'm really annoyed is because when Tiger announced he was going to take an indefinite leave from golf, I thought that that was a very smart move on his part. 

For one thing, Tiger loves golf.  He is driven by golf.  He's played it his whole life, since he was a child.  He loved golf way before he met Elin and had two children.  The idea that he would give up golf, his first and greatest love, in order to salvage his family, means a lot.  Whether it is a PR ploy or what have you, he is still willing to sacrifice golf, the one thing he loves most in this world, for his family; which the whole world can only take as meaning, he loves his family more than he loves golf.  Unbelievable!  But that says something.  And it says something good.

The other reason his absence is good is because he's not coming back while the story is still big news, and while the sight of him still brings back the gossip mill once again.  If he did do that, even if it was in January or March or what have you, he would be too distracted to play as well as he is capable.  There are still people who support him, of course, but there are now people who have turned against him.  And they would probably heckle him on the course, and they would probably cheer whoever is playing against him, just to get under his skin.  That is the nature of people.  And that is not to mention the hoards of paparazzi and tabloid journalists that there would be there to capture his every movement, his every word.  It would take the strength of a saint to be able to concentrate under those conditions.  I mean, if he could win under those circumstances, people would probably be even in more awe of him than before; but that's a big "if" there.

The last reason that his absence is good (and an indefinite one even better) is that it will make people miss him and wonder when he is coming back.  Who cares if the sponsors flee now?  They will flee now but they will come back more than ever when he returns.  For sure, the sport of golf needs him.  He is their biggest draw.  Heck, even I admitted I only watch golf when he's playing.  It's true.  He stands out.  And if he had come back when he was supposed to, he probably would have drawn the biggest ratings ever in the history of golf.  But it wouldn't be true golf fans watching.  It would be people looking for a car crash, looky-loos eying for something terrible to happen or curious as just to how this person is or even plays golf.  But besides big ratings, he would have also drawn a lot of bitterness and resentment -- people out to get him, angry at him for disappointing them, taking out their own perceived flaws and insecurities on him for not being as perfect as they think he should be.  It wouldn't be a pretty picture.  There would be a lot of contempt going around for him, and I would imagine unless he were completely devoid of any sense, he would feel it all.  And that would not be good for him or his golf game. 

In addition, as Colin Montgomerie said, he showed a crack in his aura.  If he came back now, that crack would have widened to dramatic proportions.  One aspect of Tiger, if you ever watch him play, is that he doesn't always play the best golf.  But he is able to intimidate his opponents even when he's not playing well, and that is half the battle won right there.  Now with his aura of invincibility cracked he won't be able to intimidate.  He would have to play his greatest greatest game each time he played in order to win like he used to, and that would be an impossible feat to ask of anyone, let alone someone going through such a hard time personally. 

But since he is waiting to come back -- and indefinitely, so as not telling anyone when he is coming back -- it will allow the people that once rooted for him to miss him, and the people who are only after gossip to forget him.  Absence makes the heart grow fonder, after all.  We will be dying to know when he is coming back, just like what happened when he had knee surgery and was gone from golf for almost a year.  His absence made us miss him.  Absence can make even the stubbornest person's heart melt.  After all, as Mark Twain said, "Familiarity breeds contempt -- and children."  If you go away, and come back, it's like you're reborn again.  Look at Britney Spears.  She did some crazy, and I mean CRAZY stuff.  And yet, she disappeared from the headlines, became sober and serious, and now we actually think that she's doing all right.  She's made new again.  Perhaps not as great as she once was, but still, better than she was at her worst moment. 

Tiger Wood's absence will do the same for him.  We will miss him, and he will come back and do what he does best - play great golf.  And we will forgive him.  The sponsors will come back.  And we will move on with our lives. 

On New Year's Resolutions

I haven't blogged in a few days but that doesn't mean I haven't been productive.  I have been working on my goals for the next year, which some people call their New Year's Resolutions.  I myself don't call them my New Year's Resolutions because they never pan out when I do.

In fact, at a meeting of my friends I asked them if they would like to talk about our New Year's Resolutions the next time we met, but no one seemed especially thrilled.  They would rather have put it off until the new year, which I thought would be counterproductive as they are in fact for the new year.  But in any case, it made me think of the topic of New Year's Resolutions and why they are so daunting.

Being a writer and an ardent observer of language, I realize how important words are in classifying things.  It's the difference between saying something is cute or pretty, which both might mean attractive, but yet don't conjure up the same feelings.  I know, because I had "discussions" with people in college about which label was better, cute or pretty.  Boys said cute, girls said pretty.  It meant a lot to them to be right in their argument.  In any case, perhaps it is the wording of New Year's Resolutions that makes them so daunting and wearisome to think on.

The active term is "Resolution" after all.  And that is a big term, just in itself.  It has 10 letters and that's a lot.  I'm not being facetious either (another big word).  When faced with long words, we tend to tune out.  I say "we", because I tend to tune out, but I'll generalize my feelings to the whole of humankind for this post.

Especially problematic is when we aren't sure what the word means.  Resolution.  What does that mean?  It sounds so much like revolution.  But that's a different word, though not so different meaning.  They both suggest some sort of change.  Resolution, however, is the word and it has a few meanings.  It can mean that you resolve to do something, meaning you are determined upon doing it.  That sounds good.  Strong.  It can also mean that you have solved something, thus the root word "solution" in the term.  But both these ideas of being determined and solving something for the new year for some reason makes us cringe.  By all accounts, after all, the reputation of New Year's Resolutions is to make them and then break them.

Perhaps one reason is because, do we ever really think that we can ever completely solve whatever it is that is wrong with us in the new year?  Perhaps we could if we didn't use the word "new."  After all, the new year is only new so long and then it is just the year, or the current year.  Pretty much after January, the new year ceases to be new taking with it our resolutions with it.  

And perhaps, besides the daunting word choice, at the root of all this anxiety is that at the very essence, New Year's Resolutions have the idea of "should" behind them.  And as Jack Canfield reminded me, no one wants to do something they "should" do.  They want to do something they "want" to do, but if it is something they consider as a "should," they will inherently push against it.  That's how people are.  We hate direct orders.  Even if it comes from ourselves.  We won't listen, especially to ourselves because we know we lack the resolve (there you go) to punish ourselves if we break our promise to ourselves.

So here is my proposal:  we should (I know, the irony) stop saying "should," (like that song, "Never say never") and start saying we "should not" when it comes to New Year's Resolutions.  At least, when it comes to things we "should" do.  For those we shouldn't, a "should" would still work.  For example:

I should play video games all day long.
I should not go to sleep earlier.
I should not eat healthier.
I should not exercise once a day.
I should watch more TV.

There you go.  An opposite list, if you will, of non-solutions.  My New Year's Non-solutions.  Let's tell ourselves to do the opposite of what is good for us and see what we do.  It's an idea.  I can only think that whenever I see the words "should not," I think "Why not?"  Why not?  And it makes me at least think more favorably of whatever comes after those words, "should not".  Human nature is so very complex. 

In any case, for all my rambling, there will be no New Year's Resolutions for me, only goals for 2010.  For some reason, that sounds better.

The "Thank God I'm Alive" Effect

Today I had the weirdest (or should I say craziest) thought when I woke up.  It wasn't a dream because it made me completely forget whatever dream I was having.  It was an idea and an intense realization of it. 

The thought I had was of skydiving, and how immensely terrifying it must be to jump off a plane 30,000 feet in the air.  I see people doing it all the time on TV, know people who have done it, and have toyed with the possibility that once I have racked up enough courage I may one day do it; but no, once I had this vivid visualization, I realized this is not something I want to do. 

The image that suddenly came to me was that if I were in a plane (in a plane!  I'm scared just being in a plane miles up in the air, with the doors closed!)  I would be way too frightened to jump off it thousands of feet down.  I could imagine how I would feel if the doors were open, the air rushing through violently, the noise of it beating at my eardrums.  And the height.  Oh, the height!  Of seeing all those things on the ground as teeny tiny dots.  And the thought that I would be jumping into it, falling, falling, falling.  And someone on the plane telling me to jump.  Jump?!  NOOO Way!  Are you crazy?  Why would I jump?  Why??? 

Why would I jump off a plane miles off the ground?  Other people do it, and they survive.  But I can't.  I don't think I ever could, now that I really think about it.  It's not because I don't think I would survive.  I think most likely I would.  Most people do.  It's not even the fear (although it's a big factor), because I like overcoming fears -- it makes me feel masterful.  And that would be a great fear to overcome.  It is just that, why would I scare myself like that?  For the thrill?  But what good would it actually do me?

That is where I came up with the idea for this post today.  The "Thank God I'm Alive" Effect, the reason why we do such crazy outlandish things, risk life and limb is for the feeling at the end of "I overcame, I conquered, Thank God I'm Alive!"  But how long does that effect really last?  And does it change you profoundly as a person?  Does it make your life better to have done it?

When I was a kid, I used to walk to the library myself.  It was only two blocks from my home.  One time, as I crossed the street, I hadn't looked both ways (I know, shame on me).  There was a crosswalk, but no stop sign for the cars to know to stop.  Having driven now I realize that that's a dangerous situation for a pedestrian.  Anyway, as I skipped across the street unaware, I suddenly heard the screeching of car tires and turned to see three vehicles stopping before me.  The van that was right before me was inches (and I mean, inches) from me.  I was face to face with its grill and it was higher than me.  And the lady in the van yelled to me in a concerned but admonishing tone, "You're lucky I didn't hit you!  You need to watch out!"  To which I then went right on walking along thinking how lucky I had been.  And that was it. 

I mean, I was a child, and I still recall the incident and think about it from time to time.  But did it really have any lasting effect on who I became?  I don't know.  But I know this, I have known people who have gone skydiving, and you would never know it to look at them.  It doesn't seem to have changed them or their lives to great effect.  It hasn't made them happier, more appreciative, more full of life like you might imagine.  My coworker, in particular, who herself admitted she was on the shy side, had told me she thought that the experience would change her, and that's why she did it.  But after she did it, it was done, and there was no lasting effect from it. 

And so it makes me wonder:  all these risks that we take -- the drugs, the life-threatening adventures -- to get a thrill.  Is it really worth it?  Once the thrill is gone, then what?  Or do different people react differently to life-threatening experiences?  Do some people just take it in stride?  Or does the very nature of taking such risks lead only to contentment?  Once the risk is gone and overcome, it is almost forgotten.  We only feel the fear when it is before us.  But when it is after us, it goes away, and so does the appreciation we felt at that moment we survived death.

There was a really great Simpsons episode in the beginning about this very topic.  In it, Homer thinks he's going to die.  His family had gone to a sushi restaurant and Homer, being Homer, had ordered a rare delicacy, a blowfish that had to be cut in the right areas or would turn out poisonous.  The chef of the hour being indisposed with Mrs. Krabapple, one of the underling cooks deigned to serve the dish for Homer.  When the chef found out (after Homer ate it, of course), he deemed that Homer must have been poisoned by the inexperienced cook.  Homer then went to Dr. Hibbert, who told him if he did in fact, eat the poisoned fish, he would die within a day.  And so, Homer, really believing he would die, wrote up a list of what he wanted to do on his last day.  He wrote things like see the sunrise, listen to Lisa play the sax, teach Bart to shave, be intimate with Marge.  The day didn't always go as planned -- with him oversleeping and missing the sunrise and ending up in jail at one point -- but for the most part, he had a really wonderful day spending his last remaining moments with the people he loved.  It was a touching episode.  And in the end, he didn't die.  He didn't eat the poison after all.  And when he finds out, he's so excited and grateful, he vows to make the most of his life.  But then the next scene they show him sitting there eating and watching TV, wasting his life away again.  He didn't learn anything. 

It was a great episode.  A great episode.  It was touching, and it really summed up the truth of life.  You appreciate it most at the moment you feel that it might be taken away from you.  But when you are living and going through the motions of life, you forget how lucky you are just to be alive.  You take it for granted.

I suppose the point of this post was me trying to figure out if I really needed to go skydiving to have that appreciation for my life.  But it seems to me, from the people I've met and from other people's experiences, that's not the case.  You forget.  And so, it is not the life-threatening experience you need to change you profoundly (although it does at times), even though that's what the movies tell you.  Years ago, I thought that's what I needed.  But in reality, what I really needed is just what Socrates said, to "Know Thyself."  Meditate.  I know I keep going back to it, but it's true.  Nothing has changed me so profoundly as that simple act.  It's all right there in you, and yet we keep seeking the answer everywhere else but inside ourselves. 

Will I ever go skydiving?  Who knows?  Maybe one day when I'm brave enough (or crazy enough).  (Yes, I've changed my absolute no since the beginning of this post.)  But I know I will not do it seeking a life-altering experience.  Seeking a thrill, yes, but not something that will change me profoundly and make me appreciate my life.  I know that that can't be found in one moment of risk-taking.  That takes some deep and serious soul-searching to accomplish, along with a little reminder every day to appreciate everything life has to offer.

Why are Video Games So Addicting?

After playing a video game for nearly three hours just now, I had to ask myself the question, Why are Video Games so addicting?

This, of course, was not the first time I've played a video game, and not the first time I have played for three hours.  Indeed, my longest streak must run close to 12 or so hours non-stop.  It's scary and sad how addicting these games can be for me.  And I do not have an addictive personality.  I rarely get addicted to anything, but for some reason, video games get me.  I can sit there for hours playing the most inane of video games and the time will just fly me by.  And it's not like I have all the time in the world either.  There are plenty of other things that I could be, should be doing.  But perhaps that's the reason I'm not doing them, because I should be doing them; whereas no one ever says you should be playing video games. 

In any case, I thought I would come up with a list of reasons why video games are so addictive.  Here they are:

1.  They're challenging.  They give you a thrill and an obstacle to overcome.  I like that challenge.  And then, each level you overcome, the next one becomes harder and harder and harder.  There is no time to grow complacent.  Just when you think you are getting good, the levels get more and more difficult, forcing you to try harder and harder, and to concentrate all your mental skills and energy into defeating that level.  But once you overcome that level?  Especially one that is particularly trying and difficult and took you countless attempts?  Ah, what joy!  You hardly get such a high in life.  In life, the challenges don't come so steadily, but in spurts.  And in the spaces between, there are lulls that can bore you.  Not so in games.  Games are constantly entertaining, constantly keeping you on your toes, keeping you alert. 

2. They reward you with points.  What is it about imaginary numbers that grow that make you want to keep playing, keep growing the numbers bigger and bigger?  We all know those numbers don't exist and don't represent anything, but when we're playing, the numbers matter for some reason.  We want them to go higher and higher, even though as soon as we reach the highest point possible, we let it go, and forget.  At least I do.  It's positive reinforcement at it's strongest, I suppose.  In life, you don't get rewarded for everything you do, at least not so substantially and immediately.  If you eat fruit and vegetables every day for a week, you don't get any points that tell you you're doing something good for your body.  You get a healthier body for sure, but you don't get to see the effects of it until some time down the road, and even then, it's not always such a direct correlation as a points system allows a game to be. 

3.  They concentrate on one area.  Ok, so the game I was playing for three hours today was Cake Mania 2.  It allows you to have your own bakery, where you serve cakes that you bake and decorate to customers.  And each time you make enough money, you can shop for items to update your shop.  The shopping aspect is what does it for me.  There is such a direct correlation with making money and being able to buy better and better appliances.  For some reason, this makes me really happy.  In real life, the correlation is much looser.  There are bills and taxes to pay too.  You don't get to keep all your money to spend on baking supplies.  That's because, in life, there are so many other things to consider.  In a game however, you get to escape to a world that is just focused on one thing: your bakery.  You make money for it and you buy stuff for it.  That's it.  It is simple and focused, and that is a very nice place to escape to.

4.  They let you live vicariously through their characters.  They're sort of like reading a story, I suppose.  You get to be someone else -- a baker, a soldier, a princess.  They give you experiences you wouldn't get to have in your normal day-to-day life, especially if you just want to test out these experiences, and not really live them out.  And you get to do things, like run a bakery, be in a gun battle, race a car, without the real-life consequences of doing them.  In real life, you can go bankrupt, get injured, or die.  In a game, you get to live the experience without getting hurt by it.  And you get to do what you crave to do, and channel that desire of yours, which can only make you so very happy.

5.  They make you feel good about yourself.  For some reason, a silly little game -- any silly little game -- can make you feel good about yourself, once you've beaten it.  It feels like some sort of accomplishment, that you overcame something that you weren't sure you could, and proved yourself.  It's a nice feeling of satisfaction whenever you win and overcome.  In life, we don't always get such outright chances to win and feel that thrill and satisfaction of success.  But in a game, we can get that thrill, we can get that high.  And it's really nice to have. 

So now that I've written this list, I understand why I and so many other people will play a game for hours and hours on end.  It's an instant sense of reward, an instant sense of gratification that comes through overcoming challenging obstacles.  To put it simply, it just makes you feel really happy with yourself.

The Ugly Side of Beauty (Part 2)

People always think that being beautiful means that you are more popular, but I would like to make the argument that beautiful people have fewer friends precisely because they are so beautiful.

That is not to say that beautiful people don't have a lot of people around them or that they don't receive a lot of positive attention -- because they certainly do.  But those people for the most part are hangers-on who want to be around them because they are so attractive.  When it comes to true friends, I would say that beautiful people have less. 

It makes sense if you think about it.  As I said in Part 1 of this series, people get really jealous of someone who's very beautiful, developing an obsessive need to one-up them, even when that person has done nothing to them personally; nothing except look better than them.  So can you imagine being friends with someone who is so far superior to you in looks, that whenever you hang out with this person, you become invisible?  That would be difficult for even the most confident person.  And it would create so much pent-up jealousy and resentment, that a friendship would be strained under it.  Friends are already more jealous of each other than of strangers, but to add marvelous good looks to the mix too?  That would seem to be inviting disaster.  And no one wants to be near disaster.  We want to run clear of it.  Especially so that no one can compare us to it. 

Sure there may be people wanting to hang out with a beautiful person in order to seek their approval, and as anyone with some sort of "power," to latch on to them therefore receiving the benefits of their good looks by proxy.  But those people can hardly be considered friends, since they are really using their beautiful acquaintance to get themselves more power and since they admire their acquaintance more for a trait than for being an actual person.

The more I thought about it, the more I convinced myself that this was true.  It would be hard to be friends with someone really good-looking.  After all, if I met a really hot guy (I mean, really hot!), would I want to be his friend?  Pardon me, but the first thing I think about when I see him is not that I would like to be friends with him.  I could not even imagine being friends with someone I would be continuously salivating over.  That would be wrong.  There would be only one type of relationship I would want with someone incredibly hot, and it wouldn't be friendship, sorry to say.  There would just be too much sexual tension.  And if he were to suggest that he only wanted to be friends with me?  Well then, I would be devastated.  Devastated.  Just friends?  With someone as hot as you?  I don't think so.  What a hit to the ego!  Don't you find me as sexually attractive as I find you?  Damn you!

That's why a beautiful person may grow increasingly wary and suspicious of the intentions of those around her.  She can't be sure, after all, if the person who comes up to her or offers to help her, wants anything more than to be of service.  Because chances are, as she's learned from past experiences, that person wants a relationship with her that's more than acquaintance, more than friendship.  Of course, there are some women who like this sort of attention because it flatters their ego.  But for those seeking true connections with people, not slaves, this can be a point of strife in their life. 

And then there is the matter that even beautiful people get jealous of other beautiful people -- especially if everyone else is remarking on that person's beauty.  Being used to being the most beautiful person in the room, one has to put one's ego aside when a more beautiful person walks in the room, and most people don't have the stomach to do it.  We would rather make snide remarks about that person, give them the evil eye, or tear them down a notch than to surrender our throne.  And after all, if one is beautiful, would one want to be in the company of someone who could take any attention from us?  It depends on the person, of course.  But in the end, even beautiful people, I would imagine, like to hang out with people of equal or less pleasing appearance.  After all, it is easy to like someone we can think ourselves better than, than to like someone who far surpasses us.  The former makes us feel good about ourselves, the latter makes us feel really badly.  It is an easy decision.

So as it goes, because of the amount of attention a beautiful person garners, and the negative feelings that that attention then garners, a beautiful person, if you think about it, becomes less pleasing than one would suppose.  We might like looking at the person -- because for some reason, looking at a beautiful person inspires some sort of happiness -- but when it comes to being friends with that person, we would decline, unless, of course, that person is a person we would hope to someday be more than friends with.  But being just friends?  One would be inclined to pass unless driven to it by some circumstance or need. 

That is why I say, beautiful people have less friends.  That is another cost of beauty.

The Ugly Side of Beauty (Part 1)

The Tiger Woods saga has given me some pause for thought about a number of issues, one of them being the ugly side of beauty.  I decided to make this the first on a series of posts, because in my mind, there are a number of downsides to being beautiful that never get played out in the media or in popular culture.  Tiger's wife, Elin Nordegren, the former model, inspired me.

In popular culture, beauty is so praised and held up as the goal everyone should want to attain, that you never see the dark side of it.  Like in this Family Guy rerun I just saw recently.  I usually don't watch Family Guy, but since it's on late night when I'm up, I'll catch it sometimes.  This one episode I had seen before.  It was about Peter Griffin getting liposuction and suddenly becoming gorgeous, and thus also becoming a conceited jackass to his entire family.  It all came down to the usual moral of such stories, which is that when you're beautiful, you have it all, people are nicer to you, and want you, but it makes you a bad person.  So for that reason, you're better off not being beautiful. 

And while I won't dispute that beauty makes certain people arrogant and mean, I will dispute the idea that beautiful people have it all. 

And that is where the case of Elin Nordegren comes in.  She is beautiful.  She used to be a model, after all.  She lives a wonderful life, taken cared of by Tiger and his vast riches.  All this she got in large part because she is beautiful.  That's true.  However, she also got this drama she is now dealing with because she is beautiful, as well.  Her husband cheated on her because she is beautiful.  And he found women willing to cheat with her husband because she is beautiful. 

Let me explain.  When it was pretty much confirmed that Tiger had cheated on his wife, I got to thinking, "If it were me, and Tiger Woods (Tiger Woods!), my idol, my inspiration suddenly started paying me attention, showing me affection, would I have an affair with Tiger?"  And to my surprise, I thought "yes!  Yes, it's Tiger Woods!"  I was surprised at this insight from myself because I usually look down on women who cheapen themselves by having affairs with men, and I've never thought of anyone who I found so appealing that I would cheat with them.  But when I thought of Tiger wooing me, it made me happy to think of all the women he could have, he would choose me.  Not only that, but it made me even happier - walking on air, in fact - to think that with his gorgeous wife, he would choose me, he would think me more appealing than his wife.  Wow!  What a boost for a girl's ego. 

That's why I would do it.  Because I must say, I have felt jealous feelings when I thought of his wife Elin - so beautiful, so fortunate, and to be married to Tiger.  And she probably didn't appreciate any of it.  Of course.  (So I assume).  But when this recent scandal broke out, it made me realize that she didn't have it all like I assumed.  And now I feel bad for her.  And so being able to feel bad for her, I like her better for that. 

It's the truth.  When you feel that someone is so above you, so much better than you, even when they themselves have done nothing to you but live their own lives and be themselves, even when they're nice to you, for some reason - darn that human nature - if you get the chance you will even the score (imaginary, though it is) by hurting them in some way.  You don't care about her because her being her makes you feel bad about yourself, and why should she have it all?  It's just not fair.  Why should she have it all?  Why can't you have some happiness too, and at her expense?  She already has so much.  And you have so little. 

I can imagine that this is how the women that Tiger cheated with felt.  This is because we are all vain, and when someone (especially someone with clout) makes us feel better than we think we are, we will do almost anything for them.  For women, this means sleeping with men, of course.  Because when I thought of it, if Elin were not so beautiful, if she were plain say, or even downright nerdy, would I still cheat with Tiger?  And my answer is no.  I wouldn't do it because then (then!) I would feel bad for his wife.  How sad for her!  She's so unfortunate-looking and her husband cheats on her?  That truly sucks!  I couldn't do it.  There would be too much guilt. 

But Elin, Elin seems to have it all, and so that guilt is replaced with jealousy and vanity with her.  Or was.  Yes, human nature can be very catty sometimes.  Her predicament reminds me of Halle Berry's, when it was revealed that her then-musician-husband, Eric Benet, had cheated on her since the start of their marriage.  "What?"  I thought, when I found out.  "Cheat on Halle Berry?  The woman that all men wanted?  Why?!!!!!"  But then it occurred to me that the pressure of being married to Halle was too much for him to take.  I'll explain why in a moment.  It also occurred to me, because I also thought, "Why would anyone dare to cheat with Halle Berry's husband?  How could they?  How dare they?" that they would do it because of the very reason I thought they wouldn't, because Halle is so very beautiful.  I thought, "How could they think they could compare?"  When in actuality, they didn't think they could compare, and that's why they jumped at the chance to one-up her.  After all, the woman they showed he cheated with didn't hold a candle to Halle in any way.  Same thing goes for the women Tiger has allegedly cheated with. 

So why do I call this one of the Ugly Sides of Beauty?  Because from what it seems (and there is no formal study for this, so this is just by observation), that if you are beautiful, it is more likely that your husband will cheat (and if you are a blonde, cheat with a brunette - but that's for my next post).  Or at least, that he will have more opportunity to cheat and more desire to do it. 

How can that be? you ask.  I asked the same question because it always rocked my world when a husband would cheat on his beautiful wife.  Christy Brinkley, is another example.  Why if you have someone that every man in the world would die to have, would you cheat on her?  And usually with someone below her in every way?  And the answer is, ego.  Ego explains everything.

First off, as I explained earlier, the husband will be more likely to find cheating partners because of your beauty and the jealousy it will inspire in other women, and the ego boost they would get by having the husband of such a beautiful woman.  I guess you could see it as flattering (but probably not).  So these women will try to get at your husband just to prove how much better than you they really are even though it is only to themselves that they are making this judgment.  That is all it is really. 

I remember watching an Oprah Winfrey episode on why men cheat.  The surprising thing I learned was that men don't cheat to be with someone more attractive.  Actually, the other women are usually less attractive than the wives (clearly I've provided good examples).  And usually when the wives see these other women, they go, "Her?  Really?"  Yes.  The other thing that was mentioned was that men cheat because their wives are always nagging them and their mistresses never do.  Their mistresses praise them and are impressed by them and make them feel good about themselves. 

And that's what it comes down to; the reason people cheat - To feel good about themselves. 

The mistress feels good because she one-upped the wife, who is not only married, but prettier.  Plus, they're more likely to think if a pretty girl likes him, there must be something about the guy.  Even if he's butt ugly.  The other woman can still think she stole the pretty girl's guy.  That's an ego boost right there. 

The cheating husband feels good because the woman makes him feel good about himself.  But also (and this was not mentioned on Oprah), because he can feel that he's better than the other woman. 

A while ago I read an article (yes, another one), about a man dating a much more beautiful woman (out of his league), and I learned that men often question why a woman is with them.  And the more beautiful she is, the more they question and have doubts and insecurities.  So if the beautiful woman does not allay these doubts, she can get herself in lots of trouble.  Because the man will turn to other women to soothe these insecurities, and make himself feel better about himself and his desirability.  Because who do these men ultimately turn to?  Usually women who they can feel better than.  Women who are less unattractive than their wives, maybe even less attractive than them.  Women whose class is below them.  They want to be superior to these women in every way to make them feel better about themselves. 

That is not to say that these men don't love their wives.  I'm sure they do.  It is just to say that they need to feel that they are superior to a woman.  And these other women provide that for them. 

A guy I knew once told me that he and his friends would hit on ugly girls in bars.  That's right.  Ugly girls.  Ones who were alone, and who no other guy would hit on.  He said they would try to make them laugh and feel better about themselves.  And I thought to myself, "Yeah right!  That's not the reason you do it.  The reason you do it is because it makes you feel superior to this poor girl who is so much less attractive than you.  It's an ego boost, totally." 

Of course, beauty isn't the only factor in why a woman will cheat with another woman's husband.  Some women are so insecure that the mere fact that you are married will cause them to cheat, or even less.  That's how people work.  We are always trying to make ourselves feel better, and if we step on others doing it.  So be it.  They don't bleed like we do, is what we think.

In the end, it's all about insecurities with people.  That's what I think is at the root of most negative actions.  And the more beautiful you are, the more insecurities, the more jealousy you inspire.  And that leads to people wanting to hurt you.  It doesn't matter if you have your own insecurities, your own problems.  People will latch on to what you have above them and hate you for it. 

So, beauty.  It's nice to have.  But as anything, it's not without its price.

Tiger Woods and the Rumor Mill

If there's one thing people like more than idolizing a celebrity, it's tearing them down once they've put them on their pedestal.  The latest (and most unlikely) hero to be put to the grinder is the great golf phenomenon that is Tiger Woods.

Tiger Woods is such a private celebrity that you rarely hear anything about his personal life.  The only time he usually makes news is when he wins a golf tournament, or is in a golf tournament, or has a kid.  But other times, he remains out of the news.  I like that about him.  He stays out of the limelight except on the course. 

I like Tiger Woods, in general.  I think he's inspirational, hard-working, and a master of his craft.  I have always admired him, and if I watched golf at all, it was only for him.  He made the sport actually exciting for me.  He's the only reason I will watch it. 

Years ago, I remember waking up in the early morning hours to some TV program where Tiger was saying that he always makes goals, even ones he doesn't think he'll reach right then.  His theory was that if you have lofty goals, you'll try harder just to reach them, and succeed at least in some of them.  When I heard that, I thought, "Wow, Tiger Woods has goals."  It never occurred to me that Tiger set goals to win all those tournaments.  I suppose I never really thought how he did it, just that he entered the tournament and hoped to win.  But that he made it his goal to win, that impressed me, and it inspired me to have my own goals to reach.  It was a turning point for me, and  I adored Tiger even more for that bit of wisdom. 

That's why for me, it's so shocking to see the headlines on both Yahoo! and MSN about Tiger Woods' accident this past holiday weekend.  They're calling it a PR Nightmare, with people demanding Tiger tell the public the truth about what happened.  It's the biggest news on Twitter and Facebook.  This type of rumor-mongering just solidifies my disdain for social media.  For one thing, how many people commenting on Tiger Woods ever really watched him play?  All they know is that he's a celebrity, and he had an accident, and somehow they turn it into a domestic abuse case.  I'm not going to lie, I myself visited TMZ for stories about the incident.  And when they reported their version of a domestic squabble escalating to violence, I found it plausible.  That certainly happens more often than say, a wife breaking the back windshield of her husband's SUV to pull him out to safety.  And sadly, I believed the more plausible story. 

But I blame the media for that because they gave out just enough information to pique my interest.  If they had just said Tiger Woods had been in a minor car accident, but was now doing ok, I would have been happy with that.  But they also had to report that his wife, Elin, smashed the back windshield of his SUV to save him.  That's when I had to go to TMZ to learn more details of this heroic deed.  But that's not what I heard from TMZ. 

When Tiger released his statement, I realized that I was going off the deep end believing these wild accusations.  I had no proof of what TMZ claimed, just anonymous sources citing stuff for money.  It was just pure speculation.  And that's when I realized, perhaps things aren't what they seem, but it's not for me to worry.  It's Tiger's life, his personal life.  As Jason Whitlock said, he didn't run over a puppy.  He didn't kill anyone, or hurt anyone, but himself.  He was the only one wounded in this whole affair and people are turning on him.  It's so crazy the amount of rampant speculation going on about this incident.  If I were Tiger, it would make me hate people, and their insatiable desire to know everything about his life.

It's rather disheartening for me because whenever anyone disparages the media, I take the media's side, in that they are just reporting what is interesting.  It's true of course, but interesting.  In this case, I can see why people have such a disdain for the media.  As Whitlock says, the media are sensationalizing this incident to make money.  And it's true.  That's how they make their money.  Because people will only pay attention to the sensational, not the commonplace.  It's like what they do with Barack Obama.  They build him up, then they tear him down.  And when he's down, they'll figure out where to go from there. 

Some bloggers are saying that Tiger owes us the truth, and an apology if necessary.  We, after all, should know everything about his life - that is entertaining, of course, because it somehow affects our lives in some way.  I find that ridiculous.  In the end, he didn't hurt anyone, just himself, and some property, which he can certainly pay to get fixed.  The only thing Tiger owes us is great golf - and I'm not even sure he owes us that.

On Getting Better with Age

It seems that we spend most of our childhoods wanting to reach that golden age of 21. 

We think that older people can do everything we can't do.  They can drive (at 16), and vote (at 18), and drink alcohol (at 21).  Because of all these milestones, we long to be older; that is, until we reach that milestone of 21 and there are no more "fun" restrictions to overcome.  After 21, or 25 (when you can go on a cruise on your own), there are no more restrictions to what we can do with our lives.  We can do what everyone else can.  And for some reason, when we reach that point of being able to do everything we've always wanted, we feel sad.  Then, we wish were younger, 21 again, or even younger.  We envy the younger generation, and their youthfulness, and their vitality. 

As someone who has passed those milestones in life, it has occurred to me that, for some reason, they are particularly upsetting when passed.  How dare people think I'm an adult.  Like the times when someone calls me ma'am, or when they don't ask for my i.d.  I often wonder, why is it that when it comes to age, I am fine with my age but when it comes to other people, I don't want to be perceived as old?  I wish it were possible just to be happy with who I am, age and all.

When I was younger, I never cared how old I was.  In fact, children often want to be perceived as older, more mature.  That's why they will tell you proudly they're five and a half.  You never hear an adult tell you they're 40 and a half.  They wouldn't say that, let alone want to admit they're 40. 

And yet, as I was telling my friend, who keeps harping on the fact that she's so very old (she's not), that in the context of the world, we are very young, and will always be very young.  After all, the world is millions of years old.  Buildings, institutions, governments are much older.  And in all the years of the world's existence, how much of it will we get to appreciate in our lives, which is just a blot in the grand scheme of things?  Yes, if you think you are the center of the universe, you may consider yourself old.  But if you really consider the universe, you will never be old.  The universe scoffs at anyone who says they're old. 

You are lucky, is what you are.  You are lucky to have lived so long that you can even deem yourself old.  I wonder when people say they are old, if they were facing death's door if they would still think they were old?  I doubt it.  Because we all seem to think we are too old to do anything, but too young to die. 

And as I told my other friend, it's not like younger people think they're young.  Not at all.  They think they're old.  They just might think that you're older.  And really, how you feel about your age is in context of who you hang out with.  If you're with older people, you'll feel younger, and vice versa. 

I was watching an episode of "Friends" the other day and it made me realize the extent to which we skew our views towards youth.  In that episode, Joey was going to try out for an audition in which he played a 19 year-old character.  And when his friends seemed incredulous that he could play a 19 year-old, Joey got somewhat defensive and tried to prove that he could, with hip clothes and such.  It didn't work, of course, but the point of the show hit home for me.  And that was that, we are always trying to get people to think we're younger, when in fact, being perceived younger, isn't necessarily a compliment.  And also, our obsession with youth is largely of our own creation.  The young don't know that they should be obsessed with being young.  They're too busy learning all the ins and outs of life to realize they've got it so good (so older people think).  But since we keep telling them, and everyone, that being younger is better, it becomes a stronger and stronger conviction until we actually get everyone to believe it's true, even though it's not wholly true. 

Being perceived younger isn't actually a compliment, really, if you think about it.  It might be nice that people think your face still retains some sort of youthful exuberance, but in reality, your face isn't the only factor in how people judge your age.  They judge it by your attitude.  If you act younger, ie. more immature, people will think you're younger.  I remember when I was getting on a public bus in college, and the bus driver yelled at me that I should have gotten a high school bus pass.  After my initial shock that he had yelled or even cared enough to yell, I blurted out, "I'm not in high school.  I'm in college."  For which mistake he felt embarrassed, and started being nice to me.  But the funny thing was that even though I felt somewhat flattered that he thought me younger than I was, I also felt somewhat insulted that he thought I was younger than I was.  And actually the first thought that popped into my mind when he said that was, "Do I look that stupid?"  Seriously, I was rather insulted.

A few days ago I was thinking that perhaps I should look at youth and aging differently, change my own perspective so to speak, since I myself have been buying into this youth-obsessed culture that hasn't turned out many positive images and some rather tragic disfigurements.  What I realized was that there's a reason that younger people look the way they do and why we are so attracted to younger people's faces.  It's because evolutionary-wise, they need more help.  Younger, inexperienced people need more help for just that reason - they're inexperienced.  So their faces look more attractive to us.  That way we'll be more likely to help them.  Like babies.  Imagine if younger people were uglier to us, would we be as compelled to help them?  I think not.  So evolutionary-wise, this youthful look gets us more help from the older people around us. 

The thing is, however, that as people get older, they still crave this feature off themselves that aroused others to help them.  It's like a drug.  And once the magic wears out, they feel bitter and sad, craving the attentiveness they used to inspire.

The real question they should ask themselves, however, is, "Do I really need that attention?"  The beauty of getting older is that you don't just get older, you get wiser.  And with your newfound wisdom, you will indeed need less help from the people around you because your experiences have already taught you what you need to learn.  Therefore, you could look at age not as that you're just getting older, but that you're getting more independent and smarter. 

In my mind, the real root of the youth-obsessed culture comes not from the young but from the old who want to be young again.  If they could just take their age and be proud of it, and throw it back in the face of the young, they could be happy.  Young people can be arrogant and ignorant as young people will, but one day, they will be old too (and probably if they were so arrogant as youths, very bitter).  No one stays young forever.  One day they will be just as old as you, and they will understand.

The solution I propose, is a question of semantics.  But words often mean a great deal.  And so I propose that instead of saying I am so-and-so years old, we say instead, I am "so-and-so years smart and independent."  Or if you want to be really proud of your age, "I'm so-and-so years better."  After all, having the experience of so many years is not a curse, it's a blessing that we all wish for.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

More than any other holiday, I have the fondest feeling for Thanksgiving.  My family didn't even celebrate this holiday with the "traditional" dinner until recently, but even so, there has always been a feeling on Thanksgiving that is positive.  After all, when you create a holiday (thank you, Abraham Lincoln!) based solely on the idea of giving thanks for all the things you have in life, it can't help but put you in an appreciative and happy mood. 

So on this Thanksgiving, as I celebrate with my family, I'd just like to say thanks for all the wonderful things I have in my life.  For my wonderful family and friends, my sweet and darling cuties, my life experiences that have led me to this moment where I feel that things are coming together - thank you.  Thank you for the ability to make use of what I have.  Thank you for every gift I have been given.  Thank you.  I appreciate them all.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

When Productive Members of Society are Criminals

Roman Polanski - he's the reason I thought of this topic.  They had an article about him getting out on bail in Switzerland even though experts thought that he would not be granted it, being such a huge flight risk.  But apparently he put half his money on the line and put his family's apartment as collateral in case he runs. 

I am an artist but as much as I love art and Polanksi's film, "The Piano," even I believe that he needs to serve time for the crime he committed.  I can't believe it when people say that he should be let go because the case was so many years ago.  Would they say that if he were a regular old Joe Schmo on the street that had drugged and raped a 13 year-old-girl?  I don't think so.  Would people forgive Phillip Garrido for kidnapping Jaycee Lee Dugard since he did it 18 years ago?  I don't think so.  Would they forgive him if he happened to be a world-renowned director?  The likelihood becomes much higher.

While I can understand people's argument that he did it so many years ago, it was a youthful indiscretion, he's sorry about it, and even the girl that he raped has said that she thinks that he should go free - my feeling is why can't he suck it up and just go to jail?  Martha Stewart did it.  She had the resources to run.  Paris Hilton did it.  Why can these female celebrities do it and this guy, who is supposed to be such a wonderful artist, not do it?  Take a plea, a few years in jail is probably what he'd get and he wouldn't have to run anymore.  Obviously, he is a greater artist than he is a person.  As a person, he is a coward, and one who refuses to serve time for what he did.  My friends and I were talking about him once and what a terrible and tragic life he's led.  Unbelievably, his wife was Sharon Tate, and she and his unborn child were killed by Manson's followers.  But a tragic past doesn't give him a pass.  If it did, a lot of people in jail would be acquitted.  The Menendez brothers might be free now. 

I'm not saying that Polanski isn't a great artist and his work couldn't revolutionize the world.  If I knew him personally, I might find it in my heart to forgive him and say that he's a changed man and not the man he was 30 or so years ago.  I could see that.  But I think I would also feel that if he kept trying to run away from jail, he's a coward.  If it's going to happen, accept it.  Make what you can of it.  Write a movie based on your experience in jail like you did about your experience in the holocaust, like "The Piano."  I would respect him a lot more if he just stopped trying to get out of punishment for something he knew he did was wrong.  Just take your lumps and move on with your life.

Why is it that some people are defending him when the crime he committed would be pretty heinous if done today?  Just because it happened decades ago does not mean it was not heinous then.  And just because he is a famous director that makes good movies does not mean he should be let off scott-free. 

Of course, Hollywood directors and musicians are not the only ones who get the royal treatment.  Other productive members of society are also given the "Get out of jail" free card when it comes to their misdeeds as well.

Case in point:  a girl I knew was a nurse at a hospital and was sexually assaulted by one of the doctors, a heart surgeon.  Sadly, I learned, this sort of thing is not a rare occurrence.  But the even sadder part was that although she complained about him, nothing was done about it because this doctor was one of the preeminent heart surgeons in the hospital.  They gave him a pass on this and with other nurses he assaulted because he had the ability to save people's lives. 

Now while I can understand why people look away in the case of the doctor - because after all, people might die if he was in jail and not in the hospital to save them - I don't see that the same argument applies to making a movie.  Movies touch people and they enlighten them, but it's not the same direct correlation as the doctor-patient beneficial touch.

Here's the thing I was debating in my head though:  Does being a productive member of society in some way give you freer reign to act badly?  Not all the people we admire are so-called "good people."  Back in the old days, in Greek mythology, their heroes were really bad - killers, adulterers, you name it, they did it.  The Bible also has stories of heroes who also do bad things.  But we still think well of them because of their good deeds.  Is it then that if someone does something good, it should outweigh the bad, instead of the other way around?  Should we give them a pass because they are part good, not all bad? 

Maybe our society is too puritanical.  Everyone has to be so good and it's impossible to be so good, at least all of the time.  But it does seem, to me, at least, that even being a puritanical society we seem to be most lenient to those who have a rare gift to give back to society.

The Fatalness of "I Don't Know"

I've come to really hate it when people say, "I don't' know."  That's because I subscribe to the theory that if you say, "I don't know," you will never know.

You see, your brain works by doing what you command it.  So if you say, "I don't know," your brain takes that as a command that you don't know, and it never thinks about it, never tries to solve your problem.  So in a day, week, month, year, or decade when you again ask your brain the same question, your brain will say, "I don't know."  That's what you told it, and that's what it will give you.

That's why whenever my friends say, "I don't know," when I ask them what their goals are, I admonish them and tell them to replace it with, "I know," or "I'll figure it out."  But it's so ingrained in them, this fallback, "I don't know" that no matter how many times I've told them, they still revert back to that three-word-phrase that accomplishes nothing. 

It's human nature, I suppose, to look into your head, see a blank, and respond, "I don't know."  Heck, I used to do it.  That was until I learned that when you do that, you'll never get the answer you seek, because your brain won't know you're seeking it.  It'll think you quit on it, and so it'll quit on you.  The brain is like a muscle.  You have to work on it, practice it, and use it and it'll perform miracles.  Seriously, miracles.  It's amazing what it can do if you keep asking more of it.  But if you just let it slide and go to mush watching TV or whatever because it's not fun to think too hard about anything, you'll find that one day, your brain won't be there for you - because you were never there for it. 

I had a great example while discussing this topic with my friend.  I come up with some great ideas talking to my friends.  They say, the feeling you get when you discuss things with friends is almost akin to the feeling you get with meditation.  You're relaxed and ideas come to you easier. 

In any case, I had asked my friend what she wanted to do with her life.  And again, she had answered with the ever-dreaded, "I don't know."  And I told her, "Don't say, 'I don't know,' say, 'I'll figure it out."  To which she repeated, "I'll figure it out."  And then a second later, "But I really don't know."  And for some reason then, I launched into a tirade about Albert Einstein.  Albert Einstein and his Theory of Relativity.  And I said the reason that Einstein discovered the Theory of Relativity was because he kept thinking and thinking and thinking about it.  He kept working on the possibilities of what it could be and thinking about it.  And finally because of all his hard work and thinking, he figured it out.  Einstein was a genius, of course, but things still didn't come to him just like that.  He didn't say, "I don't know.  I don't know what the Theory of Relativity is."
And then it just came to him out of the blue without him trying.  Things like that don't come to you unless you make them, unless you think about it, and seek out the truth.  They don't come to you if you're lazy.  If you're lazy, you don't get it and you don't deserve to get it.  You don't deserve that little miracle of inspiration that is the greatest high you'll ever feel.  Those who work at it, they're the ones who get and who deserve to get it. 

By saying, "I don't know," you kill the thought right there.  It never has the chance to seed, to root, and grow inside you.  You already killed it.  There's no sunlight, no water.  It's dead.  The only way to bring it back again is to say, "I'll figure it out," and create that seed, and water it, and give it sunshine.  Then and only then will it be able to grow until it becomes something like a beautiful blossom, a miracle that blesses you with amazing insight.

How to be Stupid: Don't Read

I was talking to my friend the other night about how stupid people are.  No, not in general, because I'm not one of those people who think people are genuinely just stupid.  I meant in terms of that they don't do what's good for them, even when it's right there in front of them, even when it's really simple.  And one of those simple things that people could do to improve their lives but don't is read a book.

Yes, read a book.  But people don't.  They go, "Oh, it's so boring!"  And they don't read, when books have all this wisdom - hundreds, thousands of years of wisdom, numerous people lives and experiences for you to learn from and benefit from.

I, myself, have always been a book lover.  I read so much as a kid.  I would go to the library on my own and choose as many books as they would let me borrow, and I would eat them up.  I loved how they would open up so many different worlds, and how they made anything seem possible, and how they ended happily.  If anything, the reason why I am an optimist today is not because it's inborn, it's because I read books.  In fact, I told my friend, the idea of being a realist scares me.  Why would you want to live just in this world?

Books are the best form of escape.  I was thinking about this when I was talking to my friends about drug use and I really wanted to ask, "Why do people do drugs?"  If you really want to escape, read a book.  It has no terrible side effects and you'll feel good when you're reading, and after.  If you want peace, meditate (re: my post, "The Need for Meditation & Self-Reflection").  That will have a lasting effect and no nasty "down" period.  If you want to be less inhibited, practice it.  Yes, practice it.  Take an acting class, and learn to come outside yourself.  Those effects will last.  You'll be more peaceful, happy, and uninhibited than you ever thought possible.  And you won't have to take a drug to keep feeling that way.  It'll be long-lasting.  It's not as easy as imbibing alcohol or lighting up a bong, but it'll last more than a few hours, and you won't be destroying your body in the process.  Indeed, you'll actually be helping your body and yourself get even better.

All those things are free.  (Well, class may not be, but it's worth it).  That's why they say the best things in life are free.  They really are.

Books are free, from the library.  All you need is a library card.  And yet, how many people take advantage of that?  It's because it's free that people discount its value.  If books and libraries cost thousands of dollars, we'd look at them differently.  But because they can be free, we go, "They're worthless."  When in fact, the opposite is true.  They're one of the most valuable things in the world.

If you want a conspiracy theory - the smart people of the world made books free so that people would discount their value, and not read, and not become as smart as them.

If you want a sociological theory - the smart people of the world made books free so that people would become smarter, but people discounted their work because it was free.

I, myself, though I loved books, didn't realize how extremely valuable they actually were until I read it in a book (Yes, "The Success Principles" by Jack Canfield).  In it, he said what I basically said above, which is that books have thousands of years of wisdom right there at your fingertips for you to read and apply to your life.  If there's something you want to do, someone has already done it, and you can read a book and it'll tell you how they did it.  That's why people are stupid not to read.  If you just go through life on your own, without making use of the advice of thousands of years and experiences, you're going to make mistakes - mistakes that other people have already made, and learned from, and can teach you from repeating, so that you can be even more successful than them.  If you just go through your life trying to do it all on your own, you're going to spend most of your life learning what you could have read in a book.  That's why Canfield suggests reading every day, whenever you can.  It's the people who read who have the advantage.  Why do you think that such a majority of people in prisons are illiterate?  It's because they didn't have the power to read a book and improve their lives.  Books give you access to other people's knowledge, experiences, and ideas and that can only give you more options in your life than you thought you had - the option to make better choices, and find better solutions.

The thing I found most dumb is that we pay for all these quick fixes, these immediate sources of happiness to make us happy for one moment.  One moment, until we do it again, and need to pay for it again.  When in fact, if we would work hard, and struggle, and learn how to accomplish the peace, the freedom, the escape from reality we need, eventually we would succeed and earn a happiness that could last us a lifetime.

Why Do People Go to the Gym?

I know it sounds like an odd question to ask since obviously we all know why people go to the gym; to work out and lose weight.  So I suppose I should rephrase my question to, "Why do people go to the gym to work out and lose weight?" 

I always saw commercials for gyms like Ballys, 24 Hour Fitness, and so on, but I never really realized how popular they were until I went off to college and discovered that everyone in L.A. pretty much works out.  I guess coming from the suburbs I didn't realize how health conscious every one in the city was -- constant dieting (re: my post, "What Non-Fat Really Means") with even skinny people saying how fat they are, and working out.  The guys in our dorm especially would always be working out.  Then they would ask us for tape measures to measure the size of their biceps.  They competed with each other for biggest muscles on our floor and so forth.  And the girls that knew them, thought they were the biggest, silliest dorks ever.  Endearing dorks, but dorks nonetheless. 

When I discovered this other side of life, try as I might I could not understand what the obsession with gyms was.  I always found it the oddest thing that people would drive to the gym (just a few miles away) just so that they could run or bike in place.  Wouldn't it be more cost-effective (and more environmentally friendly) if they just walked or biked to the gym?  Yet people would pay a membership fee and for gas, and use their cars,  and drive to the gym when they could have had a free workout on their way to the gym. 

And yet, for all my criticism, I did go to the gym for almost a year.  I won't deny it.  It was a good experience.  The gym was located in my office building, and for three days a week during lunch, my coworker and I would take the elevator down (not the stairs, I know) 15 floors and go work out together.  It was a great time to bond and gossip about our fellow coworkers.  Most days we used the elliptical, sometimes the stairmaster, treadmill, or some other equipment.  I have to say that when it comes to working out, as with a lot of things in life, it is a lot more fun when you have someone to come along with you.  The days where I went to the gym alone and read or wrote were not as entertaining as when my coworker came with me.

But I must say also say this, and that was that my membership that year was free.  I didn't have to pay and yet I went habitually to make the most of it.  While everyone in our office had a free membership, rarely did anyone go except for my coworker and me.  And when our office closed before our membership expired and I still had time to go to the gym, except that I would have to drive, I didn't go.  Maybe it wasn't convenient any longer, or maybe I just didn't want to violate my principle of not doing something I viewed as so impractical; but whatever the reason, my gym experience ended there. 

I'll note, the gym has some equipment that the average person doesn't, and indeed, if you really want to bulk up, or use their pool or sauna, the gym is the best place to go.  But for other things like yoga, or aerobics, or sit-ups - which you can do at home - why would you waste your money each month on a membership fee?  Most people I know pay that fee and rarely exercise anyway.  They just hoped when they bought the membership that it would spur them to work out.  But the inconvenience of having to drive to the gym is just too much for them.  This makes no sense to me.  It's like pouring money down the drain.  I always want to tell people, "If you want something to force you to work out, give me your money and I'll do it." 

But I suppose it's just the mentality in America that someone or something can help you do something better than you can do it yourself.  We're a consumer society after all.  Why make your coffee when Starbucks will make it for you?  Why cut your own hair when only a hair dresser can cut it right?  Why cook your own burger when McDonalds can do it faster?  For that reason perhaps, Americans seem to have the mindset that if they want something done right, someone else has to do it for them.


In the end, my experience with the gym taught me that as much as I can see the worth of going there to work out, I wouldn't pay for it.  I suppose it's because I'm a do-it-yourself sort of gal.  I'd rather buy a workout DVD and work out at home, whenever I want.  I think I got this trait from my father, who always learns how to do things, and then proceeds to do it himself.  I like that.  And I like that in this economy, the do-it-yourself mentality has become more popular; since, after all, not doing it yourself can waste money most people can't afford to waste nowadays.

As Plato said, "Necessity is the mother of invention."

Living For Others - On Social Networking

In my previous post ("No Way Out - On Suicide & Mass Killings"), I said that we must not forget that we live for others, but also that, we can't only live for others.  We need to live for ourselves too.  It seems, however, with the advent of popular social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter, that living for others is exactly what we are doing.

I actually thought about this topic when Miley Cyrus (yes, Miley Cyrus!) caused a big uproar when she suddenly and abruptly canceled her popular Twitter account.  I read an article about the rap she did to explain why she canceled it, and what she said was actually very insightful.  She said that she wanted to start living in the moment and stop living for other people.  And when she said that, I thought, "Wow, this girl is on to something."  She realizes that whenever she tweets about her pimples or about her problems, she's not living in the moment, but rather trying to get the approval of millions of people she doesn't know.  She's trying to get their approval that her pimple is ok.  And finally when she really dug deep and thought about it, she realized that she was living for other people's approval instead of for her own.

And that when online social networking becomes a problem because you start to think that every little thing that happens to you is important in some way to other people, and that they need to know it in order to connect with you more, in order to like you more.  You aren't full as a person without other people to tell you you're ok.  What Miley said made me realize that a lot of people are living like this now, people I know too.  And I liked Miley more for her statement because I realized that she had put into words my disdain for these social sites.

My experience with online social networking began a few years ago with MySpace.  I used to have an account until I canceled it, and that was after two years of inactivity.  I couldn't stand MySpace because you had to put out so much of your personal information out there, like your relationship status, and then whenever you last logged on, it time-stamped it so that everyone would know.  It was like Big Brother watching you.  At least for me, I'm a really private person.

When I had already stopped signing in, MySpace made a push to become more like Facebook with instant updates, and they would email me these updates of what my "friends" were doing.  And the thing was, my friends were doing everyday things like going to Starbucks or getting their car fixed, and yet they felt they needed to share this information with the world.  I guess I just don't get it.  Why do some people feel the need to tell others the personal minutiae of their daily lives?  I could just as soon write, "Cleaning cat poop.  Not fun! :P"  But why?  I don't care to share that, but a lot of people do.

I guess the question is:  What is wrong with me?  Why don't I want people to know I'm cleaning cat poop at the moment I'm cleaning it and that it's not fun?  Wouldn't it be nice for someone to feel sorry for me and write something supportive?  I guess.  But it feels to me like that would be trying to get someone's approval.  Like there is some deep-seated void in me that I think needs to be filled by connecting with other people via an impersonal medium, without having to connect face-to-face.

My other problem with Facebook and all those other social networking sites, is that it can be so fake.  It leads people to be fake too.  I once read an article (yes, I read a lot of articles) about this guy who wanted to test the strength of his Facebook "friends" by inviting all 1,000 plus of them to a party.  Well, about 200 or so people said yes or maybe.  So the guy decorated and bought food and alcohol for 200 people, and he waited and he waited.  And in the end, one girl showed up.  One girl.  Out of 200, out of 1,000 so-called friends, leaving him to conclude that Facebook "friends" are not really friends after all.  At least not dedicated ones.

That's the thing.  Even with MySpace I noticed it.  People would just "friend" you just to "friend" you.  They didn't want to really be your friend or know what was going on in your life.  They just wanted you to be their friend so that their friend count would rise.  And while I must admit it was really nice when people I used to know back in the day found me and wanted to be my "friend," I found it rather off-putting when they didn't even send me a message of "Hello, how are you?" or anything.  They just wanted the extra point on their list.  Some people collect thousands of friends and they're called "collectors" because that's what they do.  They collect friends like baseball cards because they find some sort of validation in having other people see that they have lots of "friends." 

And while I understand the need for movie stars and celebrities to want to have a massive following - since that's the way they make their living, through their fan base - I remain befuddled as to why the average person needs this amount of attention.  Are they trying to vicariously be celebrities in their own rights? 

The other reason social networking lends itself to phoniness is because whenever you write a friend a comment that everyone you know can read, there is a filter that it passes through that it wouldn't normally pass through if you were just say, chatting with your friend.  When you know the whole world can read whatever it is you are writing to each other, you tend to write in a way so that you appear a certain way - more enthusiastic, more supportive, more racy.  And in a way, you have to because you know that other people are reading and they'll form opinions of you based on what you write.  So you feel the need to craft an image of yourself that you want people to see and believe.  But is it the real you?  Is it truly you or is it you trying to please others?


If you really think about it, social networking is not about connecting socially.  It's about becoming more self-involved, thinking that every little thing you do matters to other people.  After all, when you seek others' approval, it's not because you care about them.  It's because you care about what they think about you.