I have noticed many people can have a long series of perfectly mundane experiences--or even a series of relatively positive experiences--and not come away from those experiences feeling they have gained any particular insights into the human condition. But let those same people have even a single negative experience, and they suddenly believe they have discovered some profound, terrible truth about human existence. In the wake of a negative experience, people will often rant on and on about how life is shit, about how society is evil, about how their fellow human beings are nothing but a bunch of bloody savages.
I have seen it again and again; I have even been guilty of it myself.
It makes me wonder if we human beings are not in some way hard-wired for negativity. I can imagine that in our evolutionary past, being a cranky, suspicious bastard may have conferred certain survival advantages, while being an upbeat, positive person might have lead to an early demise.
Suppose it is 50,000 years ago, and I am hiking across the African savanna. Suddenly, I hear a rustling sound somewhere up ahead of me. If I happen to be a happy, positive person, I might think, "It's nothing to worry about. It's probably just the wind blowing through the tall grass. I'll just continue on my way."
But, if I am a cranky, suspicious bastard, I am more likely to say, "Oh, fuck me. I bet that's a lion, crouched low in the high grass, waiting to pounce on me and rip my johnson off with her bare teeth. I think I'll turn right around and go back the way I came before it is too late."
The trouble is, lions really do like to crouch in the tall grass and pounce on passing prey. If I were a cranky, suspicious bastard, and that lion I thought I heard turned out to nothing but the wind, I'd lose nothing by turning back. I 'd survive to pass on my genes regardless of what actually lay ahead. But if I were a happy, positive person, inclined to hear soft breezes rather than hungry lions, I might well end my days in Simba's belly before I got a chance to knock anyone up and pass on my genetic heritage.
It could well be that the high incidence of negative thinking among modern human beings is a holdover from an early era, when being a cranky, suspicious bastard was an asset, and being an upbeat, positive person was a liability.
This is what occurred to me this morning as I sat at my kitchen table, petting my cat and stirring just the right measure of cream into my coffee...
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Sunday, August 21, 2011
10 Insights Into Life, Love and Helping With the Laundry (from The Gospel According to Fritz)
I am the last person on earth who should be giving relationship advice. I am 42, single and live alone. My best friend is a cat named Frida. Think of me as a hybrid between Homer Simpson and Barney Gumble, except that I work a lot harder than Homer and drink somewhat less than Barney. All that said, I still cannot seem to help myself. So I offer the following insights from The Gospel According to Fritz. Sorry if it is a bit male-heterocentric, but I am drawing on my own experience:
Women should never enter into friends-with-benefits arrangements with men in hopes those relationships will grow into "something more." They won't. Men who seek out friends-with-benefits arrangements do so because they prefer them to committed relationships. They don't want "something more."
People who are warm, kind, thoughtful, generous, intelligent and considerate enjoy numerous social advantages. Unfortunately, being irresistible to members of the opposite sex is not one of them.
As you go through life, you'll be amazed to find how many people's lives peaked at age 17 and went straight downhill from there.
Men, if you want to show your wife or significant other that you really love her, forget about buying her bouquets of roses or Belgian chocolates or Cartier watches. Forget about taking her to the hippest restaurants or the hottest clubs or hiking through the foothills of the Himalayas. All those things are well and good; you can do them if you like. But if you really want to show her your affection, help her scrub the kitchen floor. Help her scrape the grout in the shower. Help her iron and fold the laundry. Fix that leaky pipe as soon as she asks. Pick up the kids from school every day, on time and without fail. Most of all, do all these things consistently, without complaint, and without expectation of special praise. You'll never have to prove your loyalty to her in any other way.
If you suspect your partner of being unfaithful, not only are you probably correct, but you're most likely underestimating the real breadth and depth of their betrayal.
In most cases, the partner who initiates a break up is soley concerned with making the breaking up process as easy as possible on themselves. The will do almost anything--deceive, deny, disappear--to avoid having to deal directly with the spurned partner's feelings of sadness and loss.
Men who claim they are no good at monogamy are usually even worse at non-monogamy.
All men look at porn. This includes the ones you know, for a fact, don't.
In most cases, the partner who initiates a break up is soley concerned with making the breaking up process as easy as possible on themselves. The will do almost anything--deceive, deny, disappear--to avoid having to deal directly with the spurned partner's feelings of sadness and loss.
Men who claim they are no good at monogamy are usually even worse at non-monogamy.
All men look at porn. This includes the ones you know, for a fact, don't.
When a man who refuses to marry a woman tells her, "It's just a piece of paper" or "We don't need the state to sanction our relationship," what he's really thinking is, "I want to keep my options open" or "I want an easy way out of this."
Women should never enter into friends-with-benefits arrangements with men in hopes those relationships will grow into "something more." They won't. Men who seek out friends-with-benefits arrangements do so because they prefer them to committed relationships. They don't want "something more."
People who are warm, kind, thoughtful, generous, intelligent and considerate enjoy numerous social advantages. Unfortunately, being irresistible to members of the opposite sex is not one of them.
As you go through life, you'll be amazed to find how many people's lives peaked at age 17 and went straight downhill from there.
Men, if you want to show your wife or significant other that you really love her, forget about buying her bouquets of roses or Belgian chocolates or Cartier watches. Forget about taking her to the hippest restaurants or the hottest clubs or hiking through the foothills of the Himalayas. All those things are well and good; you can do them if you like. But if you really want to show her your affection, help her scrub the kitchen floor. Help her scrape the grout in the shower. Help her iron and fold the laundry. Fix that leaky pipe as soon as she asks. Pick up the kids from school every day, on time and without fail. Most of all, do all these things consistently, without complaint, and without expectation of special praise. You'll never have to prove your loyalty to her in any other way.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Does the Red Eye's Chicago Really Exist? I Kind of Doubt It.
The sheriff slapped an eviction notice on my neighbor's front door this morning. Some of my co-workers qualify for food stamps because their wages are so low. A friend of mine, a man in his early 60s, lost his home last year. He now lives in the attic of his late brother's widow's house.
Yet each morning, I pick up a copy of the Red Eye, and read about a city I an scarcely believe exists. The Red Eye's Chicagoans are all young and pretty and gainfully employed. They dress in vintage clothes and sport kick-ass, full-sleeve tattoos. They spend summers sipping craft beers at rooftop bars and rocking out at Pitchfork and Lalapalooza. They try never to miss a Cubs game, and spend every evening exploring the hippest new restaurants with their hippest new friends. They are people who may worry about fulfillment, but never about survival.
My question is, do these people really fucking exist?
In a sense, I suppose they do. But I don't believe their lives are as carefree and happy as the Red Eye makes out. I bet a lot of them also worry about losing their jobs. I bet a lot of them also sweat about being able to pay their bills. I bet a lot of them know, in their heart of hearts, they will never, ever get those student loans paid off in full.
I wonder if, in a hundred years, historians will look at the Red Eye and laugh. With the benefit of hindsight, they'll have to know nobody ever really had it that good.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Just The Right Words
You want to find just the right words, not because you have anything to say to her, really, but because you want her to respond in just the right way.
With a raised eyebrow,
Or a breath of laughter.
You'd like to see her tuck her lower lip gently beneath her upper teeth.
You'd like her to reach out with her fingers and clasp your forearm, or caress your ear.
If you find the just the right words, maybe she'll even rest her head against your shoulder and close her eyes.
Her breath will warm your neck, her hair brush your cheek, as you sit side by side on an empty L car late at night, lumbering forward along the tracks into darkness cold and shrouded in fog.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Fuck Rahm Emanuel
A more precise title for this essay might have been, "Fuck Rahm Emanuel's Snake-Oil Arguments for Being Able to Stay on the Ballot for Mayor of Chicago, and Fuck the Board of Election's Willingness to Swallow Those Snake-Oil Arguments Down Without Gagging." More precise, but too wordy. Effective titles benefit from economy of language.
I am not going to belabor the reasons Rahm Emanuel will make a lousy mayor. But I could. I could detail how, as a Congressional representative, Emanuel helped push through NAFTA and other trade policies that sucked thousands of jobs out of cities like Chicago. I could outline how, as an investment banker, he worked to inflate the housing bubble that subsequently burst and wrecked the US economy. I could highlight his aggressive support for privatization, a form of legalized thievery where public assets are sold off to private interests at fire-sale prices. I could note his contempt for public education, for organized labor, or point to his recent dismissal of the Democratic party's entire liberal base as "fucking retards."
And by the way, when I say Emanuel will make a lousy mayor, I am not playing prophet. Anyone with common sense can already see the fix is in. Rahm Emanuel will be the next mayor of Chicago. Not because he is the brightest or most qualified. Not because he has the grandest vision or the best ideas. Rahm Emanuel will become the next mayor of Chicago because he because he possesses, in abundance, the only political currency that really matters: clout. Rahm Emanuel is the Democratic party's Most Effective Fundraiser, a title he's earned over the years by consistently giving corporate America what it wants. In this country, elections may be won, but candidacies are bought. All it takes is a glance at the size of Emanuel's war chest to know his opponents don't stand a chance.
But, as I said, that's not what I want to talk about. What I want to talk about is how the hell Rahm Emanuel managed to convince the board of elections he is even eligible to run. Let me start by referencing the statute that has kicked up all the fuss:
(65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-5)
Sec. 3.1-10-5. Qualifications; elective office
(a) A person is not eligible for an elective municipal office unless that person is a qualified elector and has resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election or appointment, except as provided in subsection (c) of Section 3.1 -25-75, Section 5-2-2, or Section 5-2-11.
The emphasis, of course, is mine. The double emphasis--the bold atop the italics--is to draw attention to the word "resided." This is important, because the arguments Emanuel's legal team advanced in his defense turned on the meaning of that single word.
The linchpin of Emanuel's case is that while he may have physically relocated to Washington D.C. when he became Obama's chief of staff, he never ceased being a legal resident of Illinois. While living in D.C., Emanuel continued to pay Illinois taxes. He remained a registered Illinois voter. He never sold his Ravenswood home, but instead rented it out in anticipation of his eventual return. All of which is perfectly true.
And all of which is perfectly irrelevant.
The emphasis, of course, is mine. The double emphasis--the bold atop the italics--is to draw attention to the word "resided." This is important, because the arguments Emanuel's legal team advanced in his defense turned on the meaning of that single word.
The linchpin of Emanuel's case is that while he may have physically relocated to Washington D.C. when he became Obama's chief of staff, he never ceased being a legal resident of Illinois. While living in D.C., Emanuel continued to pay Illinois taxes. He remained a registered Illinois voter. He never sold his Ravenswood home, but instead rented it out in anticipation of his eventual return. All of which is perfectly true.
And all of which is perfectly irrelevant.
The statute does not say a prospective candidate must maintain legal residency in the state for at least one year prior to running for office. The statute says a prospective candidate must have resided in the state for at least one year prior to running for office. Residency is a legal status. It may be satisfied in the ways Emanuel's legal team outlined. But resided is a verb. It denotes an action taken, or omitted. It is perfectly possible--and in fact, common--for legal residents of a state not to reside there. The requirement set forth by the statute couldn't be clearer, couldn't be any less ambiguous.
As if to underline the distinction between having legal residency and having actually resided, the statute lays out one specific circumstance--just one!-- in which one's physical absence from the state in the year prior to running for office may be excused: military service. That is the only exception the statute permits. Serving as the president's chief of staff doesn't cut it. Maybe it should, but it doesn't. If someone wants to change the rule, let them try and change it. That is perfectly reasonable. What is not reasonable is to allow Rahm Emanuel to simply break the rule because--well, because he's Rahm Emanuel.
Make no mistake. Were Rahm Emanuel a Republican or a third-party candidate, or even a Democrat without so much clout, he would have been knocked off the ballot immediately. No question about it. By trying to obscure the difference between legal residency and actually residing, Emanuel has revealed himself to be a snake oil salesman. By having swallowed that crap instead of puking it back in his face, the board of election has revealed itself to be utterly corrupt.
As if to underline the distinction between having legal residency and having actually resided, the statute lays out one specific circumstance--just one!-- in which one's physical absence from the state in the year prior to running for office may be excused: military service. That is the only exception the statute permits. Serving as the president's chief of staff doesn't cut it. Maybe it should, but it doesn't. If someone wants to change the rule, let them try and change it. That is perfectly reasonable. What is not reasonable is to allow Rahm Emanuel to simply break the rule because--well, because he's Rahm Emanuel.
Make no mistake. Were Rahm Emanuel a Republican or a third-party candidate, or even a Democrat without so much clout, he would have been knocked off the ballot immediately. No question about it. By trying to obscure the difference between legal residency and actually residing, Emanuel has revealed himself to be a snake oil salesman. By having swallowed that crap instead of puking it back in his face, the board of election has revealed itself to be utterly corrupt.
:
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Thoughts on Divorce
I was riding the L Thursday morning and overheard two women lamenting what one called the "curse" of divorce. These were older ladies, West Indian. They sat huddled side by side, both bundled into dark, heavy coats that looked too big for them. Each clutched a copy of The Watchtower tightly to her chest.
"Don' no one care no more 'bout God's holy union no more."
"Yes, sista, dat's da truth now-in-day. Don' no one care 'bout dat no more, no way."
It wasn't much of a discussion, really. They already shared precisely the same view on the subject, so the dialogue just kind of went around in circles, like a dog chasing it's own tale.
It got me thinking, though. Everyone seems to agree that the high divorce rate in the US is a catastrophe. Everyone seems to agree divorce traumatizes children, bankrupts parents, corrodes familial bonds, and undermines social stability. Some of that may be true. But look at existing societies where the divorce rate is low, and you immediate see they share several common features. Among them:
1) Women have few, if any, legal rights. The U.S. divorce rate hovers around 50%. In about 75% of cases, divorce proceedings in the U.S. are initiated by women. Are we to believe that women in, say, rural India are much less likely to file for divorce than US women because they are so much more content in their marriages? I doubt it. More likely, women in rural India simply lack access to the legal system.
2) Most women lack economic power. Divorce rates are low in societies where women have few, if any, opportunities to earn a living wage.
3) Most women are poorly educated. Not only is a low divorce rate associated with low educational levels among women, but so is early marriage, a high birth rate and a high maternal mortality rate.
2) Marriages are often arranged. In societies where arranged marriages are common, the marriage relationship itself is often conceived as a purely functional one. Each partner has a clearly defined role to play. Each partner is expected to play that role. End of story. Questions about whether the partners love each other or genuinely want to be together are largely irrelevant.
3) Divorce imposes a severe social stigma on the partners, especially on the woman and, often, on children born to the marriage. This was once true in the U.S., and not that long ago, either. Back in college, I had a professor, a man in his late 60s, who grew up in a small town in eastern Texas. As a child, one of his classmate's parents were divorced. Most of the other parents in town forbid their children from going to this child's house or from associating with him outside of school. The community saw the boy's mother as a fallen woman and suspected her of being "loose." The boy, having been raised by such a mother, was not deemed a suitable playmate or friend for children who came from "decent" families.
The fact people stay married doesn't necessarily mean they value marriage more. It doesn't mean they are more responsible, more mature, or that they love their children more than people who divorce. Often, it just means the consequences of divorce are so dire--again, especially for women--many choose to stay married despite being miserable, neglected, exploited or abused.
Most of us want to live in a society where we are free to choose our own partners, where we feel entitled to have them treat us well, where we expect the freedom to exit relationships that we find unbearable or unsatisfying. So long as that remains the case, we will have to accept our high divorce as a fact of life. A high divorce rate is the price we pay for free society. It is really that simple.
"Don' no one care no more 'bout God's holy union no more."
"Yes, sista, dat's da truth now-in-day. Don' no one care 'bout dat no more, no way."
It wasn't much of a discussion, really. They already shared precisely the same view on the subject, so the dialogue just kind of went around in circles, like a dog chasing it's own tale.
It got me thinking, though. Everyone seems to agree that the high divorce rate in the US is a catastrophe. Everyone seems to agree divorce traumatizes children, bankrupts parents, corrodes familial bonds, and undermines social stability. Some of that may be true. But look at existing societies where the divorce rate is low, and you immediate see they share several common features. Among them:
1) Women have few, if any, legal rights. The U.S. divorce rate hovers around 50%. In about 75% of cases, divorce proceedings in the U.S. are initiated by women. Are we to believe that women in, say, rural India are much less likely to file for divorce than US women because they are so much more content in their marriages? I doubt it. More likely, women in rural India simply lack access to the legal system.
2) Most women lack economic power. Divorce rates are low in societies where women have few, if any, opportunities to earn a living wage.
3) Most women are poorly educated. Not only is a low divorce rate associated with low educational levels among women, but so is early marriage, a high birth rate and a high maternal mortality rate.
2) Marriages are often arranged. In societies where arranged marriages are common, the marriage relationship itself is often conceived as a purely functional one. Each partner has a clearly defined role to play. Each partner is expected to play that role. End of story. Questions about whether the partners love each other or genuinely want to be together are largely irrelevant.
3) Divorce imposes a severe social stigma on the partners, especially on the woman and, often, on children born to the marriage. This was once true in the U.S., and not that long ago, either. Back in college, I had a professor, a man in his late 60s, who grew up in a small town in eastern Texas. As a child, one of his classmate's parents were divorced. Most of the other parents in town forbid their children from going to this child's house or from associating with him outside of school. The community saw the boy's mother as a fallen woman and suspected her of being "loose." The boy, having been raised by such a mother, was not deemed a suitable playmate or friend for children who came from "decent" families.
The fact people stay married doesn't necessarily mean they value marriage more. It doesn't mean they are more responsible, more mature, or that they love their children more than people who divorce. Often, it just means the consequences of divorce are so dire--again, especially for women--many choose to stay married despite being miserable, neglected, exploited or abused.
Most of us want to live in a society where we are free to choose our own partners, where we feel entitled to have them treat us well, where we expect the freedom to exit relationships that we find unbearable or unsatisfying. So long as that remains the case, we will have to accept our high divorce as a fact of life. A high divorce rate is the price we pay for free society. It is really that simple.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)