Finding difficult thanks.

It's that time of year again.

A time when we get together with family, or our family of friends.

A time when we eat far more than we ever should.

A time when we look at our lives and see what we're thankful for.

To be honest, this was a rough year, and my initial inclination was to skip this year's obligatory post. I certainly am not going to pretend to be one of those guys who can list my basic needs in what I'm thankful for. Yes, it's great that I am not starving, sick, dead, devoid of friends, etc. but in all honesty when are we every THANKFUL of that? Should we be? I say no, but many disagree, and that is a debate for another time.

Given that I was not going to spout some drivel about the minute things that subsist in every one's lives, I wasn't really sure that there was much for me to say. Then I did what any self respecting introspective philosopher would do: I looked harder. So it is, that I enlightened myself with the following things that I am thankful for in 2010:

1. I am thankful for the kids that I coach, and the guy I coach with. The last few months have been dramatically better in comparison to the rest of the year almost exclusively because of the coaching I started doing. My kids are amazing- constantly challenging me and surprising me as they rise beyond my expectations. At the pinnacle of that success if of course the guy who found me and roped me into all this. He is an amazing coach in his own right, and his care for our team and the future of our program makes every moment I spend on this endeavor worth it.

2. I am thankful for New York. I have spoken to a few friends from "home," and one thing rang completely true. No matter the difficult trials that this year has presented to me, I still am happier an many ways simply because of where I live. This city never ceases to amaze me, and allows me to find a constant stream of small delights to keep me afloat in difficult times.

3. I am thankful for Starbucks. As small of a moment as it may be, it is great that I have something that brings a small amount of comfort and pleasure no matter how difficult my day might otherwise be.

4. Lastly, I realized that I am thankful for the difference I am able to make in people's lives. Sometimes I forget how truly impactful people can be. Looking around at the lived I have touched makes me realize that while bad things are happening, we can still be a source of great things.

As for the day itself yesterday was really nice. I spent time with lots of different friends, and did a wide variety of things. Sitting down to a nice dinner, holding great conversation, watching parade madness, adventuring out to a show, reveling in some video games, and finally partying up with the diziens of the city, all encompassed a fun day.

100 Little Cuts

It is interesting how human makeup varies so much externally vs. internally.

When our bodies are injured, it is almost always one significant injury that our body can't cope with. When we are faced with little wounds all over, our body has an amazing ability to repair itself. Only when one thing is so damaging will our body normally give out.

When it comes to our hearts and minds though- our emotional well being, the opposite is completely true. Though some significant events such as the loss of a child, etc can be crippling, we are more likely to collapse under the weight of 100 minor stresses. When we face a seriously traumatic experience, our mind has many defense mechanisms that kick into place to keep us afloat. Though sometimes these are only stopgap measures that must eventually be dealt with, we have an amazing resilience to bounce back and not stay mired in internal pain.

Unfortunately what often creeps up on us and we are far less capable of handling is the small things that sneak in under our radar. Nearly everyone I have ever met with clinical depression comes as a result not of a significant trama, but from a life filled with tiny debilitating stresses.

Beyond our own inability to recognize and defend ourselves from these small but multiplicative strains, we often can't reach out to our greatest source of healing: each other. When a major catastrophic event happens in one's life, they are able to turn to their friends and family in a way that sometimes they never have before. Sometimes, this even creates light out of the darkness. This closeness and this aid helps us heal in ways that we never could have on our own.

The problem with the smaller stressors is two-fold. One, we often don't recognize their effect on us, so we don't reach out. Secondly, when we do reach out, it is often met with very little sympathy or support. "Yes, yes, you have problems with you're kids. Don't we all?" or even worse "Oh, I totally agree about your money problems, listen to how bad mine are." When we are confronted with our friends' and families' smaller problems, we find it easy to dismiss them or to compare them to our own problems. This not only doesn't allow someone the comfort and support that we need, but also helps them undermine their own process. If we don't think that their problems are important, it shows them that they aren't important either, forcing them to be swept aside, until that pile of discard is so large it collapses on top of us.

This is the crux of the problem. We don't focus on the small details, our friends encourage this behavior, and yet as such we aren't prepared for the deluge when it hits us. Even worse is if we already have a pile of unaddressed issues and then we are faced with something larger. Perhaps the reason that our body is so much more effective at dealing with the small problems is that it always deals with them. Imagine if every time you got a cut, your body just ignored it. After all it's only a small problem. How long would it be before you had so many "tiny" injuries that you bled to death? How much worse would a major injury be if you're already bleeding from 100 smaller cuts?

When someone goes through a divorce, or is faced with a major problem or huge disappointment, our ability to deal with it is severely handicapped if we are struggling under the weight of all the things that we have forgotten are problems in our life.

So what's the brilliant solution waiting to be revealed? Strangely even psychologists don't have a brilliant answer to this one. Dealing with our problems is always a healthy solution, but when that isn't a viable option (money issues, etc.) it can be hard to let a wound heal. One thing for sure is to make sure that we give strong consideration to what our friends are going through. And whenever possible, we need to try and see if there is a solution to any of our problems. Putting a band-aid on may cover it up, but if the splinter is still in, it will just go deeper and deeper until it gets infected. Try and see if it is within your power to remove the splinter, and of course, ask for help. Letting people help is us one of the surest ways to make our own loads lighter, and hey! That's what friends are for. Don't let yourself be convinced that just because your problem is small, it shouldn't be dealt with. Life may not be perfect, but we sure can try to make it as close as possible!

The Keys to Power

A friend of mine wrote in his blog recently about the keys to Power. His writing made me think a great deal, and as he asked for comments, I tried to put some down for him. I tried several times before realizing that I had far too much to think about- and subsequently to say- than I could put into a simple "comment." As such, I now write for you.

Now first it is important to determine what we're talking about when we mention the word "power." This can be especially tough with such an over-arching word, as there are 32 different definitions in the English dictionary. Clearly many can be ruled out based upon the subject matter, but there are still many to choose from. I bring up this point not to split hairs, but rather to point out that what we view as a powerful person can mean many things. What do we mean when we say a person is powerful or that they have power?

Philosophically, "Power is a measure of an entity's ability to control the environment around itself, including the behavior of other entities." I think that sums things up quite nicely, as it covers all ranges of power from that of a parent to a child, or a world leader, or even a man adjusting nature to himself.

So if this is true, then anything that helps a person control the environment or behavior of others makes him more powerful.

My friend says that there are eight keys to making a person powerful. In brief, they are:

1. Money
2. Fame
3. Charm
4. Aesthetic Faculties (Looks)
5. Influence
6. Fear
7. Authority
8. Knowledge

He notes also that some people are capable of being powerful, and others not, and that the most important of the keys he listed are charm, knowledge and influence.

But what does power mean to me? What makes someone powerful? I agree with my friend in many aspects.

• Money- Totally agree. I have often said that some people become influential because they are talented and lucky. Money is the only sure way to control influence in our society. The entire Earth has seen the effects of Bill Gates, and not just for computers. He has changed art, science, and the welfare of millions of people by choosing where and how his money will be spent.
• Fame- Notoriety is certainly an important aspect. We put trust and faith in people that are well known, regardless of whether or not they deserve such accolades. When a celebrity asks us to do something, we are more likely to do it than if we were asked by someone else. When a disaster happens, who is it that makes us break out our checkbooks with their telethons? Celebrities. 
• Charm- I would say that this is better described as Charisma than charm, but definitely important. Some people just have a knack of getting people to follow them. This natural ability is definitely a driving force in being innately powerful. Think JFK and MLK. Charisma incarnate.
• Looks- Our society has definitely shown that looks matter. We can remember how this was historically illustrated, possibly for the first time in the Nixon v Kennedy debates that were televised for the first time. Kennedy looked smooth and confident, and had good looks. Nixon... was none of these. Most experts agree that this was critical for the results of the election. We as a society let our initial impression of looks determine who we think a person is, and thus what kind of power and influence they have over us.
• Influence- I actually think that power is influence, and vice versa, so would remove this from the list and use this word interchangeably.
• Fear- Sadly an incredible tool to becoming powerful. A person's innate weaknesses are multiplied when they are faced with fear. It is easy to let fear rule us. That said, fear can never create lasting power, because there is no loyalty behind it. The moment that fear isn't present, or the person in power shows any weakness, their power is instantly eroded. Though it may be the easiest road to power, it is the weakest method of staying there. Every dictator that has risen to and fallen from power is a testament to both the power and weakness in fear.
• Authority- We do respect authority as a default. If someone has been given (or earned) a position of power, we innately view them as powerful. Think of cops, or judges, etc. that you respect the "uniform" if not the person behind it. I would definitely say that again, this is a weaker form of power, but is visible in our society every day.
• Knowledge- The most potent form of power may also sadly be the least effective today. We seem to almost turn against those whom are experts in their field, or who actually house knowledge. There is nothing... I repeat... nothing so powerful as knowledge, but in the eyes of others, said knowledge can unfortunately shine far less than a more flashy, if less useful method of gaining power.

I would say that there are 2 additional keys to power that we have thus far overlooked. The first of these is insight. Though tied in some ways to knowledge, insight is more an innate ability to see the heart of a matter and to see it's truth. Knowledge can be gained through insight, but the reverse is not often true. A person with incredible insight will be able to out-position someone with incredible knowledge almost every time. 

A tragic example of this would be Karl Rove. This man carries a limited amount of the aforementioned claims to power, but he instinctively knew how the tides of society were shifting and how to make the most of it. He lacked the knowledge of most of his peers, didn't have the authority of the highest ranking offices, certainly doesn't have much in the way of looks or charisma, though clearly was one of the most powerful people in our country for the last decade. Power indeed.

Finally, I will present intention. Intention may be the most commonly overlooked, but the most vital key to power that there is. A person with true and clear intentions can often clear paths where no other method could. People with intention always seem to be able to accomplish more than you could ever expect with less money, a "lower" position, etc. I contend that this holds completely with the premise that the universe is malleable. Humans have far more control than most of us would like to admit, and it is our intention that makes things happen. It is no coincidence that people who set solid goals achieve them, even if they shouldn't logistically seem to do so. Being clear about what we want, far more than the how or the why will bring us greater results, and when it comes to power, what could be a more clear indicator than the results?

So what's the conclusion? Power is available to all of us. Some of us have it innately. Some of us have more keys to power than others. The most powerful people in our society are the ones that are able to combine their keys seamlessly to create an overwhelming sense of influence and authority. That said, each and every one of us contains our own keys, and it is just a matter of whether or not we choose to use them to make our own little universe a better place to live.

How do you like your eggs?

The thoughts of this dreary Sunday were given a new direction when my roommate decided that a good use of our time would be watching "Runaway Bride." Despite my love of Julia Roberts and romantic comedies in general, I had never actually seen this film. It was indeed enjoyable and a good counter-agent to the gloominess that was permeating my day. Once the movie was over, I felt a theme resonate with me, and the more I thought about it, the more aspects of relationships seemed to tie into this.

The theme is simply ones self. In the movie, it comes out that Robert's character has never settled into who she is and what she wants. Her engagements alwats come with her acting in a way that she can be who they want. This is artfully demonstrated by the fact that each former suitor claims that she likes her eggs the same way that they do. By the end, Roberts realizes that she in fact likes her eggs completely differently from all the guys she had been with. (Her finally landing on loving Eggs Benedict certainly gets a thumbs up from me).

I have talked before about the statement that people often need to get themselves together before they can be in a real relationship. I have often debunked this notion. This movie in some ways challenged my thoughts, but in the end, actually only strengthen my argument. People don't need their lives to be in order. If anything a relationship can often be a catalyst to taking our lives to new heights and bringing in line some of the loose edges that we allow to creep up in your singledom. What we do have to have is our sense of self.

I have seen many people run from relationships because "they weren't in the right place." While sometimes this is indeed true, often it is simply an excuse to continue to live in fear and run away from something serious or potentially painful or difficult. What if often overlooked is when people aren't actually ready, because they don't know themselves. They can't decide what type of eggs to order, what makes them truly happy. No other person is going to provide the pieces to our cosmic puzzle if we don't know what kind of pictures we want our pieced together puzzle to look like. When we seek out people to give us meaning or definition to our lives, we simply assume their meaning and definitions, or assume those that they are looking for. This can never make us happy, because we aren't fitting with what we need.

People weren't meant to create their personalities to fit someone else, or to become someone's mirror, though we all know people who often fall into this trap. I hold that a real relationship is "perfect" when two people come together with their individual wants and needs, and somehow with all that held within them, somehow mesh. Sometimes this means similar wants and needs, sometimes it's just when they work out. I would never need a guy who would love to wolf down my Eggs Benedict, but he better be as happy with my love of them as I am with his Country Scramble. Who knows if we will find a person who will make the same order we do. What matters is if we're both happy with the choices that each makes for themselves, and more importantly, the fact that they know what it is that they want to order.

The value of forgetting

NY Times: The Web Means the End of Forgetting

Not long ago, I spent some time talking about privacy and how people react to having their information spread around. It was brought on by an article that focused a lot on companies. Since then the NY Times did a huge piece that delved into this even more, and it raised even more issues on thus topic.

The above article starts out with the story of a woman who was not allowed to take a teaching job because the interviewer had seen a picture of her drinking on Facebook... from years before. The author delves deeply into the issue of the fact that not only is our information online, but also that the internet doesn't "forget." You can have a drunken wild night in college, and years later those pictures will still be around when you apply for jobs.

Many methods of dealing with this were discussed. In short, I think most of them are worthless. For one, this issue really isn't new. How many politicians and celebrities have been "nailed" with a decades old photo that someone dredged up? The fact that the internet holds this information does indeed make it more available, but it doesn't create a new problem.  The idea that we can "control" information is such a faulty one as I talked about before.

The one person I agreed with heavily that was quoted was Samuel Gosling, the University of Texas, Austin, psychology professor who conducted a study on Facebook and online profiles in comparison to real-life personalities. He says- like I mentioned before- that we need to stop trying to split ourselves. It is unrealistic to have "a home or family self, a friend self, a leisure self, a work self.” As he told Facebook, “I have to find a way to reconcile my professor self with my having-a-few-drinks self.”

As a society we need to remember that we are each one person, and trying to be several is never really going to work. If somehow in the last century we have mastered the technique of pretending to be so very many different personalities, then I praise the internet's capabilities for tearing down that ridiculous practice.

When we realize that our separate "lives" are merged, these issues suddenly becomes much less of a big deal.  “You see your accountant going out on weekends and attending clown conventions, that no longer makes you think that he’s not a good accountant. We’re coming to terms and reconciling with that merging of identities.”

More control is far from what we need. What we need is for people like the interviewer mentioned in the story to come to grips with the realities of life. Most teachers drink alcohol or have at one point in their lives. Trying to hold this past to them is insane. The cliche, yet ever true saying of "Those in glass houses..." At what point did we decide that we should hold people to a higher standard than we do ourselves?

This article talked a lot about how damning the information is since it can't be forgotten. I say that forgetting is overrated. If we forget something we can't learn from it. We all have our embarrassing moments. Maybe what we need is more ability to remember the facets of our own lives when we are trying to condem others. When we forget something we can't learn from it. When we let others forget we disable them from helping us or being our teachers.

I have always held that knowledge is power. Sometimes truth and the past can be painful, or embarrassing, but in the end it is always worth it to have the information. Going through these experiences and remembering them is what helps us grow as individuals and as a society. I for one choose not to forget, but to ensure that I remember.

Do we choose our friends?

It is interesting what circumstances will do to your life that you don't expect. For example, who would imagine that going through a hard break up would make me take stock of my friends? Perhaps the universe decided that it was simply a great opportunity to address this issue, or it could be- as my friend informed me- a bi-product of turning 30 this year. Regardless, I have looked at the people in my life, and those that are noticeably missing, and more than anything I have to wonder how much we really choose our friends.

We have all had experiences where someone we are close to has friends that no one around them can understand. What do they see in that person? What is the basis for their friendship? The scary answer might be that for many "friends" that we have, the answer to the latter is "nothing."A long time ago, a friend told me that often times those we call friends are more often than not "friends of convenience." He said that only those rarest of friends are actually what one might consider a "true" friend. Do we really just end up with people we call our friends because they are around all the time? Doing so takes away the depth of our friendships as well as the choice that we have, leading us to look around at the people in our life and asking "How did I end up with these friends?"

I am a friendly guy. I make friends quickly. I also am social enough that many of my friends meet one another. Lately I have looked at some of the friendships that have spawned from that and wondered "Why?" The sad fact may simply be that many of them become friends simply because they are at the same bar with the same people. How can you not be friends with someone you see all the time? I am just as guilty of the "friend by association" phenomenon. When you make friends with in a circle, it's hard not to take on all the others too. Sometimes this can be a great thing. Adding to your circle of friends can make everyone happy, and enhance all of your lives. The problem comes when it just happens because it happens, not because we're making a conscious decision to hold these people in our lives.

There is of course nothing wrong with making a lot of friends and being friendly. The problem comes when we fail to separate those whom we can enjoy and be friendly with and those who are the true friends in our lives. The most important distinction that should appear is time. One thing I realized is that often I would end up spending times with a bunch of random acquaintances and not near as much with those who are truly good friends. This has led me to miss out on some great friendships, and from deepening the ones that I have. If we look at someone we call a friend and we can't figure out a reason for us to be friends, chances are we should be looking at them as an acquaintance and give each other the attention that title deserves. Forgetting this can become a serious problem, and also lead to sort of a revolving door of friends constantly passing in and out of our lives.

The other negative side to this coin is in people that we should be friends with. There are a few people in particular that I knew the moment I met them and talked to them that we would make great friends. The fact of the matter is that often I never deepened our relationship, completely due to circumstances. If I were to compare that to a romantic interest, it is the exact opposite of what I would do. Seems silly to have such a dichotomy about things that are truly very similar. We wouldn't simply be in a relationship with someone because they were there. Why would we do the same with friendships?

When we meet people, there is always some sort of chemistry. We talk about this a lot when we look at romantic relationships, but friendships are really no different. One friend of mine called me his intellectual soul mate. He and I will never share a bed, but in the meeting of minds we connect on an incredibly deep level. By ignoring these connections and allowing ourselves to hang out with whomever is around, we in effect are doing no more for ourselves than we would if all we did was go on casual dates with everyone we met.

Friendships are a form of relationships. Unlike those we have with our families, and those we fall in love with, we truly have complete choice in who we are friends with. We need to remember this and allow ourselves to have truly powerful relationships in this area of our life as well. Convenient friends are... well... convenient. The fact of the matter is that when it comes down to it, they will rarely bring anything to your life, nor you to theirs. They are filler space, and that makes us filler space to them as well. Much like empty calories, they are fine in moderation, but if that's all we're partaking in, we are never going to be very healthy.

Are we our future selves?

Last night I went to the reading of a play called "Billy Redden." While the reading itself went really well and was very entertaining, the thoughts that the play invokes run far deeper than the average performance, and its themes were vastly different than what one can normally see. I also saw "Falling for Eve" this weekend which was a new twist on the Adam and Eve story. Interestingly enough, both these plays touch upon the choices we make in our lives and in free-will.

While I will try not to ruin everything, I am not sure I can write out all my thoughts without spoilers. If you hate that, you may want to move along.

So the basic premise of the first play is this 13-year-old boy who is visited one night by his future selves from every 13 year interval going forward all the way up to a 78-year-old version. Each of these "selves" of course has also experienced this same night every 13 years, and based upon their current place in their lives have varied opinions on the night itself and what it means to "them."

The most moving character throughout most of the play is the 26-year-old (nicknamed "Red"). He is furious most of the night. He feels as though he is forced into areas of his life not by choice, but by the machinations of his older selves. He sees this night for him 13 years ago as a catalyst that took away his choice and he is determined to take it back. He encourages his younger self that he always has a choice, and pushes him to see that he can "break the cycle" and not become what he sees before him.

His anger really sets up the main issue within the play, and the foremost question I think about having left it. What choice do we have in our lives when looking at ourselves in the future. If you were able to meet yourself and see that you become a drunk, would you change it? Could you change it? Many of us believe absolutely in free-will, but when you're faced with yourself it is presumed that these are your choices. Does seeing what you will be allow you to change your future choices? Can you be something other than your current path will allow you to be?

This question often comes up when you wax philosophical about time travel or prophesy. While this may not seem as a pertinent line of thought in today's modern world, it allows us to look at things that have far more to do with who we are and the way we act than it does of the disbelief we may have over why this would ever come about. Religiously the questions are even more pertinent. If God is all-knowing, what choices do you have? Is it possible that you have the ability to make whatever choices you want, but God simply knows what they are? If that's the case, are there times where Divine intervention might not be implemented to encourage a different choice? Is there a such thing as fate? If so, how can you possibly actually have the free-will we seem to cling to so much?

Like many, I believe in free-will completely. I think that every choice I make is my own. That said, I also believe in fate (you could also say Divine plans if you're so inclined). How I reconcile this is that fate provides us with opportunities, and at times in our life may become more active in putting things in our way, or helping us out when we need it. The fact of the matter is that fate will only take us so far, and what we do when we get where we're going is our own choice. I think that history is full of those fated for great things that we will never hear about because they chose to ignore what was presented before them and denied who they could be. Such is the price of choice.

In "Falling for Eve" God realized the moment that He gives Adam and Eve the power of choice, that He can no longer control what they do. Despite this, he intervenes time and time again, testing their choices and putting obstacles in their way or helping them along to try and get what he wants. Time and time again, they surprise him. In one amazingly poignant moment, God sings something to the effect that she (Eve) is too much like God. The ability to make pure choice was something that once given, not even God could control, and only interference in the natural world could He effect His children and their choices.

So given our ability to make these choices, it draws us back again to how this might change if we saw the result of our choices. If you saw your 39-year-old self as a belligerent drunk, would you avoid becoming that? What if, you saw that by the time you were 65, your life would be completely turned around, and that you would have overcome incredible obstacles but end up wealthy and successful? One might assume that you would try to avoid being a drunk and still end up with success, but really, if you go against the first, you couldn't really ensure the latter. What if your experiences as a drunk allowed your future success? It is nearly impossible to tell what cause has what effect, even with hindsight. Would you take the risk of losing it all?

Another interesting thought that develops as one watches "Billy Redden" is how much of his life is the result of this knowledge. It is clear that each "version" of Billy has experienced this same night every 13 years. Given the conversations they have, is it those moments that truly shape his life? Would your life be different if you could talk to your future selves?

Speaking of talking to your future selves, one other interesting thing to ponder is what would you ask? At one point young Billy asks about his parents' deaths. His older selves refuse to answer. The reason? "Waiting is hell." This simple statement says an awful lot. On one hand, if you knew your parents would die at X time, you could live life with them to make it as meaningful as possible, in a way that you might not otherwise. On the other hand could you imagine how you would feel as that date got closer and closer? In some ways we can relate both positively and negatively. How do you feel as you approach an upcoming vacation? With excitement and happiness, mostly. The very thought of what is coming up allows us as humans to create those emotions without the event having happened yet. If we can see something awful coming on the horizon, we equally have the ability to create the sadness and despair long before the event has actually transpired. How much quality could their be in your life and your relationship with those people if you were already seeing their loss in your mind?

The final thing that both these plays bring to mind powerfully is: What would you change if you could?

In "Falling for Eve," Eve is given the option to return permanently to the Garden, and live forever as though she had never stolen the apple. A reset if you will. Would you make it never happen if you could? In "Billy Redden" all the versions of himself are faced with what would they do differently to help themselves, their closest friend, or the one they love. What if you knew that changing your life living for 40 years of sadness and loneliness would allow to to save the one you love? Would you go through with it? What if you knew that saving the life of your friend would lead you to pain, misery and possibly death? Would you still chose to save her?

We often look back at our lives as we look towards our future. Sometimes we say that we would change this that or the other. Knowing where we are in our lives now, sometimes we have to wonder if the bad decisions we made in our past are what led to a great future. Living with regret for the past can belittle the value of human error. We are incredibly powerful creatures, who often take the worst moments and make something incredible out of them. The greatest mistakes we have made my give us the knowledge that makes our lives truly amazing, or even open our eyes to a world we never would have seen without that mistake. I think that a life full of mistakes is a life that is fully lived. To remove our mistakes, no matter how great it seems, would probably destroy our future. It would rob us of our greatest selves, and the person that we can be. Make the mistakes, except the consequences, and your life may just end up exactly how you want it. Just ask Eve.

The OTHER sin of Pride

Given that it's Pride month, many writers have turned their pens towards LGBT issues, and Rev. Patrick Cheng is no exception. In his article, The Spiritual Significance of Pride, he addresses many different issues relating to Gay Pride and it's Spirituality. Being a Christian minister, he of course delves into things that I could care less about, most noticeably the hellish notion of Original Sin. Despite these differences, he makes an incredible point that I had to work with.


One thing that many faiths, but most notably Christians, regard as a high sin is PRIDE. Now if you have read nearly anything I have written or spoken to me for more than 20 minutes, you know that my views on this "sin" are not the same as many. That said, I do think that too much pride- like many things- can be a terrible thing in life. What Cheng mentions is that the LGBT population more often than not suffers from Pride's inverse sin: Self Loathing.

Given the long-standing historical condemnation of pride as the root of all sin in the Christian tradition, how can we understand LGBT pride to be a blessing and not a sin? As an openly-gay theologian, teacher of theology, and ordained minister, I believe that sin is not just limited to pride or inordinate self-love. Rather, sin -- defined as the way in which, despite our best intentions, we inevitably turn our backs on who God has created us to be -- can also take the opposite form of inordinate self-hate or shame, something that many LGBT people experience from a very early age.

Nice point there. Regardless of the religious implications, I believe that anything that makes us hide or turn our backs on who we are is a detriment to ourselves and to society. To think of it as the inverse evil of Pride I believe is perfect. I think that people often feel so good about being humble and self depreciating that they don't realize when they take it to far and make it something terrible in the form of shame or self-hate.


In fact, I would say that shame far more than pride is a serious problem today. Most of the people we see as prideful are exhibiting it in the moment. They may treat people poorly, be over arrogant, etc. While this is bad, I believe that the damage is rarely lasting. Self hate on the other hand has a constant negative effect on yourself and everyone around you. You tear yourself down. You limit your potential, which also means you are bringing less value into the world. You hurt the people around you by closing off, and inflicting unintentional pain both directly, and indirectly when you hurt yourself.


This kind of shame is not exclusively held by the LGBT community, but I would say that in our society, we have a larger portion of our population exhibiting it. No matter the source of your self-hate, I think that a healthy dose of pride and confidence that you truly embrace is mandatory for a successful life. During this month of Pride, we should all take time to be happy for what we have accomplished, and for who we are. Spend some of the great energy we have created to remove some of the shame that we can still carry around with us. The great thing about self-hate, is that like guilt, it is never so heavy that you can't just set it down. Take some of the Pride we are all sharing and do some good for yourself, and maybe even live with less "sin."


If anything I would say that "sin"is anything taken to the point where it excludes all else and/or inflicts pain. For all the publicity that pride gets in that department, I am pleased to see some in the religious community like Rev. Cheng who realize that the original ideas of sin as set down by Christianity are not necessarily the most damaging, nor are the only thing that can take us away from who we are, and if you are a person of faith, take you away from your Creator.

Secrets in the light of day

Suzanne Spaulding- No More Secrets: Then What?

The linked article was written based upon the statement that in the next several years, companies and governments are going to effectively lose the ability to hide information from their competitors. I am not going to pretend to be able to tell you if the CIA Speaker's statement is accurate or not. What he says and the subsequent article do however bring up some interesting thoughts with regards to how we deal with privacy- politically, professionally, and even personally.

Businesses, governments, and people have overal reacted just as Spaulding mentioned when it comes to the internet and privacy. Most pile on more and more security measures and pray that the walls are high enough to keep out prying eyes. The problem with this mentality is that the walls are never truly tall enough. The secrets never safe enough. Partially this is because those who are looking for information have better and better methods of finding information. Partially this is because we open our gates every so often to take advantage of some of the info that is waiting for us outside our fortresses.

With these major disadvantages, in order to keep hidden, we must wage a constant war, never relenting without risk of failure. The idea that Spaulding brings up about adapting to a more transparent world, seems to be far more beneficial, a lot less time consuming, and a lot more freeing.

Knowledge is power. Sharing knowledge is the surest way to gain it. The truth is better than a lie. Three simple statements that basically explain the foundation of my beliefs in this area. I choose not to live in a world cut off from information. I think that the more we have access to the better things are; the more problems we can solve, and the more connected world we can live in. The universities that share information amongst themselves as they work on advancing human knowledge almost always come far ahead of those who only fly solo. The countries that have often hidden their darkest problems have faced the worst horrors when those skeletons break free and overwhelm them.

Much of this was mentioned by Spaulding, and I don't want to rehash her arguments. What she barely touched on however, was how this applies to us as individuals. More and more people are using the internet in "personalized" ways. We can now click "like" on nearly any website, and let our friends know that we think something is worthwhile. The same action also allows the same sites to guess at what else we might be interested in. This "guessing" technology is becoming smarter and smarter every day. Most of us like the advantages of this technology. That's why we use it. Some are concerned about what this means for our privacy. I think the reasons for their fears are obvious, but to all of them I say, "So what?"

Information exists. In today's age more than ever, that information can be duplicated a million times within a second. The idea that we can use some technology and hide from others is simply ludicrous. To take the extreme and hide from all said tools, only keeps us in a stagnant state that I simply abhor. Using these great tools opens us up and lays us bare as never before.

So what can we do? How do we protect ourselves? Should we micromanage our internet settings? Get bigger firewalls? Boycott sites with weak privacy policies? No. In a phrase, Get over it. Rather than try and run from the information that we have begun to have out there, we should embrace it. Doing so would indeed require a shift in the way we think. It would require us to be less scared on one end and more accepting on others.

Don't think that I am ignoring risks when I say this. We do need to make sure that we protect ourselves where we can. We need to make sure that our identities can't be stolen, and that people can't take what is rightfully ours. The way to do this, like everything else, is not to hide deeper and deeper, but rather to pay attention to what is ours and to make sure that we are cognizant enough to see a problem before it gets too big to handle.

If you become more aware so you can protect yourself, you can step out into a more open and informative world. See more of the people around you, and share more of yourselves with them.

Am I saying that you shouldn't care if your boss sees a picture of you drinking like a madman last Friday night? Yep. Frankly, you weren't concerned about your privacy when you dumped pitchers of beer over your head out in a public bar. Why the worry later?

I think that Americans more than most societies love to hide things, and then pretend that we don't. We don't want to seem Puritanical, and yet we are scared to talk to our kids about sex. What happens with that brilliant plan? Kids end up having sex anyway, normally in a less safe way than if they had just been accustomed to it as an idea. The same is seen in countries that are open about drinking, sexuality, etc. We hide and hide and hide, and then wonder why it suddenly blows up in our face. Humans are meant to be open creatures. We are meant to relate to one another and to share with one another. The people with the biggest problems in life are often those that have those issues because they hid something far smaller.

If we can learn as a society to be more open, we force ourselves to be more accepting as well. If you can see my skeletons, how can I judge yours? Yes, the internet can show us at our worst. Often it does. The thing to realize is that it can also show us at our best. The more we hide, the easier it is for the scary things to make a big splash when they leak out. By being open, we can see that the scary parts of our life are really a small part of the whole, and when related to the world, far more manageable than they seem while hiding in a dark corner.

Precursor to Marriage

I may just be the best thing to happen to gay marriage since Ellen. While this would normally be an exciting accolade for an activist such as myself, I am bestowed this honor, not for my work politically, but my effect on those I date.

I recently bumped into someone I was dating, and who I always saw great potential in. The big news? He's getting married... to the guy after me. While this I am sure has happened to a great many of us, I have a nearly flawless track record in this arena. The only person whom I have dated that didn't end up in either a marriage or some really close proximity thereof, was the one who hates marriage with all the fiery passion of his soul.

A few prime examples:

• First boyfriend ever: Been with his current guy for almost 9 years. Live together. Basically married.
• Longest relationship ever: Been with the guy after me for 5 years. Live together. Do major events together. 
• Only guy I ever asked to live with me: Was married for several years, though now getting a divorce.
• Guy I fell stupidly head over heels for and was the only one besides Jason I could see with forever: Married and owns a joint business.

There are more. It seems even a brief inclination of dating can often lead to some sort of long term commitment or matrimony for the guy that follows after. Why is that? Strangely enough, some of these guys were insistent that they never wanted something that permanent, only to go on and have it fall right into their next relationship.

One of my friends actually used to joke with me about this, though he was semi serious, and has a point. It is so clear what I want in my life and the life I envision for me and who will ultimately be my partner in life. Seeing that I live this so fully and openly in my life, it is near impossible for people to even be friends with me without glimpsing it. It is possible that having seen such a possibility, that they then go and seek it when they move on. This idea is kinda of warm feeling, though if they get such a great image of it, it would be nice for them to... I don't know... imagine ME in it.

Someone else I asked about this said that I am sort of a trial by fire for people. When someone is done with me, they are rarely the same. Sort of in a "Wicked"esque "Changed for good" thing, they aren't changing for me or for the relationship, but no matter what happens, they are changed for good, and the next person to come along sees that and embraces it wholly. Another fairly nice thought.

Of course it is entirely possible that after me, ANYONE less intense has got to feel like Heaven. Oyi. Lastly I suppose that it could be coincidence, but given how little I see that happening, I am sure that there is some cosmic or psychological links that I can continue to ponder. Either way, there's my vent and pondering. Hopefully this time I am with someone who's already ready for their guy, and that guy can be ME!

Catastrophic teachable moments

Robert Kuttner: BP and the Bankers

I haven't been a reader of Kuttner in the past, but I have to say that this article is brilliant in its honestly and accuracy. He clearly has his solid liberal bent, and his disappointment is less of railing against the establishment (as is all too common these days regardless of party) but more of a sigh for seeing such a great opportunity pass us by.

I think that his best point may actually be one of the most underscored. There is a teachable moment here. I agree that the President isn't taking all the opportunity from it, but then again, I think few actually are. If I were to sum up the single largest problem with politics today, it wouldn't be who's in power, mistakes that people make, or even the money that is being slung around. It's the swarm of information without education. If anyone in our world today has done more to correct this mistake than Al Gore, I can't name them, and yet few are willing to follow his footsteps.

We live in an age of information. You can watch the news on more devices than ever before, and in a matter of minutes be inundated with more than you could ever have wanted to know. Depending on what you're watching or reading, you probably can instantly link yourself to more and more information. If you go long enough, you are bound to read two things that are categorically in conflict with one another. Sometimes it is a matter of a lie vs truth. More often it is a matter of coloring. Yes, Global Warming is happening. To say it's not is a lie. Of course, if the dissenter is smart, they won't feed you lies. They will feed you more information. "The Earth goes through climate shifts and warming happens. Always has. Always will," or "We aren't the only factors at play with Global Warming." Both true statements. Those statements could lead people to think that we really have no major crisis. This of course is the problem. 

Everything is so polarized now that even information can't teach us. If he says this and she says that, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. The problem with this view of the world is that it's rarely accurate. Sometimes the Dems have the right information. Sometimes the Repubs do. Often neither has a good plan to deal with it, but we can never get to that point because we can never agree on the truth of an actual problem.

BP is clearly at fault in many ways for what happened in the Gulf. Unfortunately, the true fault can be laid at everyone who drives a ridiculous vehicle for their needs, the lobbyists who work for big oil, and even the politicians that refuse to take action even when they should. The problem is that no one will hold any of these people accountable because we can't agree that there is a problem that needs to be dealt with. We can see black oil spilling across our oceans, and if we're not careful, this will become another "fact" that a year from now we forget about. Those who have the influence to do so need to use this to TEACH us what the problem is and how to avoid it happening again. Politicians need to use this to make sure that they can vote for renewable energy expansion without worrying about how their constituents will react. Our society needs to be taught how our personal actions can make a major difference in whether or not this ever comes about again.

The financial markets are the same. I have written before about financial inequality, and won't repeat myself. What I will say is that when we talk about financial reform, the average person hears words and phrases like derivatives, and market instability, and stops paying attention. The average American doesn't grasp what the problem is. Even educated members of our society don't understand the details of what's going on, unless they happen to be in finance. With all this complicated madness being thrown about, is it any wonder that people have a hard time getting behind anything that makes major change?

These two issues and this article are just examples of how we fail at explaining and educating when it comes to issues. When everyone has information at their fingertips, it is easy to think that we know more. The problem is that we normally know more facts or ideas than we do actually truth and situational understanding. When no one understand what's going on, those who have influence in the media, or who spend billions on ad blitzes are going to come out on top simply because their information will be seen the most. Leaders in our society from the President on down need to work to turn these events and all this information into teachable moments. If people can understand where you're coming from, they can stand for or against you, but at least they will do so with conviction and solid grounding. Right now all we do is stand on what has been spouted out in the moment, and where's the strength in those arguments?

Up in the Air with the thoughts on Up in the Air

Last night I watched the movie Up in the Air and it definitely makes you think. Life, love, freedom, expectations, and delusions all come into play fairly intricately and gives a great basis for conversation. I am not sure it is really possibile to wax philosophically about this movie without spoilers, so if you don't want to know what happens, don't keep reading. You've been warned.

At first glance, you might think that the movie is a standard romantic comedy, where the main character, Ryan, played by George Clooney, is the classic loner who realizes the error of his ways when he meets a girl and lives happily ever after. The writers have something else entirely in store for us, and the movie leaves us forced to draw our own conclusions about what happens, and what is truly the way people are. Portrayed in the movie are characters with three very different viewpoints. Each one offers a flawed insight into humanity. They each have their strong beliefs, and in the end the movie proves that in a sense, they are all wrong- or at least that their particular road isn't perfect.

First lets look at the most naive: Natalie, played by Anna Kendrick. Natalie is the sweet innocent girl who has followed her love to Omaha Nebraska rather than taking her high quality job offer in San Francisco. Her confrontations with Ryan are constantly arising intense emotions in her. She believes in love and family above all else. Ryan's loner lifestyle she simply cannot fathom. Rather than take the traditional route and make her the heroine in the story, she is shattered, as her boyfriend breaks up with her via text message, and she constantly struggles to define the reason she wants the things that she wants. During one exasperating tirade, she shows that she has fallen into the trap of seeing exactly what she wants in her future. She knows what the guy will look and act like. Her struggles show that even though she claims to believe in love and companionship, her clinging to this image has led her to pick a guy she truly cannot love, and of course probably keeps her from finding someone who can truly be the man of her dreams. The intrinsic lesson she brings is that your expectations can be your entire downfall, and keep you from actually getting what you want.

The second woman in the story, Alex (Vera Farmiga), is a strong experienced woman who seems to know exactly what she wants out of life, and the experience to know how to get it. It is she who best sums up Natalie's shortcomings, and offers the most wisdom throughout the entire movie. When you see her, she is fun loving and care free, but also seems to have her eye on a deeper connection and a greater prize. You are given the impression that she is the balance that the other characters are supposed to find by the end of the movie. Unfortunately for this ideal, the movie throws in a monkey wrench. When Ryan finally breaks down and decides that he should put forth the effort and actually make a human attachment with Alex, he stumbles upon the fact that she has a family already. As she explains in the aftermath, Ryan is a distraction from her life to give her a break from reality. She DID want the real connection and the family. In fact, she already had it. You can draw your own conclusions, but it seems that if she is indeed the model, the writers may even be advocating that family is key, but you need to find your other outlets. For everyone this won't be as extreme of having traveling affairs, but perhaps a subtler message of seeking strength from both your family and outside can be seen here.

Finally of course is the center stage Ryan. Ryan has no connection to his family, his home, or any one person in his life. He lives more on a plane than anywhere else in the world, and though he is surrounded by people, he is of course alone on a deeper level. You find out in fact that he is so far into this life that he has created a philosophy on it that he is actually called to speak about on several occasions. His "What's in your backpack" speeches ask people to look at what is in your life and what weighs you down. He starts with "stuff:" clothes, dishes, photos, belongings, etc. These he emphatically states that were they all to burn up our lives would be better, not worse. "How much lighter our life would be," he implies. He then moves on to people. Friends, family, and of course your love. He sums his thoughts up so well, I can do no better than he:

"Make no mistake your relationships are the heaviest components in your life. All those negotiations and arguments and secrets, the compromises. The slower we move the faster we die. Make no mistake, moving is living. Some animals were meant to carry each other to live symbiotically over a lifetime. Star crossed lovers, monogamous swans. We are not swans. We are sharks."

Not the traditional self help, eh? Of course predictably, he sees hope in Alex and realizes that he doesn't want to be alone. At his biggest speaking engagement ever, he seems to realize that he is feeding people something he no longer believes in. Of course, as mentioned earlier, this change in course doesn't give the happy ending we all expect. Rather than a happily ever after, he sees Alex's true life, and is crushed.

You also see a sub story with Ryan and his family, and several points where he seems to realize how little of a part he plays in their life. There are even a few moments where he gets a chance to rectify some of his inaction in the past, but on the whole, you are left feeling he is still outside.

So what is the take-away from all this? The hopeless romantic is left alone, the sage of the film has an affair, and the reformed character sees no happy ending. And this is how the movie ends. Is the end result that there is no hope? That maybe Ryan is right? This certainly could be taken as truth. I, however, see several small things that give me the impression that were we to do a "10 years later" things might be far more clear. These moments are three-fold.

First, is the steps Ryan takes with the people in his life. Both the note that Ryan writes when Natalie leaves the company, and the miles he gives his sister. He gives the impression of having never written a letter of recommendation before, and his is completely heartfelt. For most people, this would not be a big step, but in the confines of the film I think we can see that this is Ryan's first real connection to someone, even as a friend. It is his attempt to be there for her in the only way he knows how. The same is true for his sister. He sees in her something she truly wants, and does something to try and make it happen, rather than standing back and watching from afar. A major step for this man.

Secondly is the moment where Ryan starts flying to a random destination. The lesson here is actually one that I think applies to both Natalie and Ryan, insofar as they need to start living. Often times people get so wrapped up in what they are doing, that they fail to actually live. Doing things that enrich our hearts, minds and souls is more important than nearly everything else. It is those experiences that make us stronger people, and also what we share with others. If we exclude ourselves from these, we have no way to actually connect with others. We are left with "stuff" that we do. Stuff we do is great to get us from point A to point B, but if you're not living at and between those points, there is really no point. Traveling for pleasure, reading, seeing a film or theatre, enjoying nature, or countless other things can fill this void, but I think it is one many people have, and don't even realize that they are failing at actually living even though they may be successful in so many other areas of their lives.

Lastly, and most blatantly is the follow-up interviews with the fired employees. (Ryan fires people for a living). When they are looking ahead, each and every one says that is their connection to others; their family, and those they love that make them want to do more. It is those connections that give them the strength they need to take a defeat and turn it into something powerful and amazing for themselves. Over and over the message is given: You can be alone, but you can't live alone. To truly enjoy the good, and to handle the worst life has to throw at us, our loves are mandatory.

Clearly I don't agree with everything put forth in this film, and I was frustrated by such an ambiguous ending, but at the same time I think that the film provokes a great deal of thought. Their use of traditional plots with a strong twist to avoid being cliche certainly added to the depth and interest of making you pause and think about what you were watching.

Vanishing Capitalism in the name of Capitalism

Today, Arianna Huffington posted one an article that made me especially thoughtful. For the last several years, Americans have felt the pain of the shockwaves created by some sizable problems in the financial sector. What Arianna brings to light goes far beyond Wall Street however.

Amid all the arguments made, this particular quote stuck out to me: "Thirty years ago, top executives at S&P 500 companies made an average of 30 times what their workers did -- now they make 300 times what their workers make." Now, I am all for the American Dream, and the belief that people should be able to rise to whatever heights that they can bring themselves up to, but 300% more than the people that do the work to make you successful? That means if the average worker is bringing in $40,000, their execs are making TWELVE MILLION dollars! The imbalance there is stagering.

Before I go to far, let me say that I totally value the worth of being in charge, and having the responsibilities that executives and business owners have. Being in charge means that you carry the biggest responsibility. You are responsible for the company, its image, and the people who work for you. That's a lot to carry around, and certainly one should be well compensated for all that work. What I can't say- and I say this as someone who was and will again be the boss- is that this stress and responsibility is worth 300 times that of those who work for me.

Another concern that I have with big businesses is that unlike true Capitalists- who I view the vast majority of SMALL business owners to be- most of these execs are not the ones that suffer if their business is. When my business did well, so did my finances. When my business struggled, so did my budget. That's part of the trade off. The company's success rests on your shoulders, so you should reap the rewards. So to should you shoulder a large portion of the burden when things aren't going well. When companies are laying off hundreds of thousands of employees because their budgets got out of control, but then turn around and give their executives multi-million dollar bonuses, there is a significant problem. The workers aren't the ones that make decisions which lead to a company's success or failure, the execs are. While the workers are the foundation upon which a company is built, the overall effect that an individual at the "bottom" has on a major company's bottom line is miniscule, and yet they are the ones that are feeling the pain. They are the ones who are having their benefits cut, losing their jobs, and not getting raises.

More infuriating is the fact that for the average American, a 10% cut in benefits or pay is earth shattering. To an individual making several hundred thousand or worse several million dollars, such a cut isn't felt in nearly the same way. The cost of insurance, health care, food, and living for the execs doesn't scale with their income. Basic needs and a decent quality of life can be met with some semblance of a baseline. The closer your income is to that baseline the more traumatic it can be to lose any of that income.

I don't believe that everyone should make the same amount of money. I do believe that those who take risks and work hard should receive financial benefit for what they do. What I don't believe is that anyone needs to be so far out above the people they work with that there isn't even a comparison. I believe in Capitalism, but many in this country who now call themselves Capitalists aren't actually upholding the values they claim to. When a man or woman has been able to put themselves in a nearly unassailable position, where the above average man with grit and determination can't ever even dream of competing with them, you have simply created a new type of royalty. The system we have today more closely resembles feudalism than the dreamed Capitalism, with only the fringe of small and medium sized business owners struggling to maintain their rightful foothold or true Capitalism in the country and system that this country was originally built on.

Some nature inspired views on love

This entry was inspired when I was sent this quote:

"Love is a temporary madness. It erupts like an earthquake and then subsides. And when it subsides you have to make a decision. You have to work out whether your roots have become so entwined together that it is inconceivable that you should ever part. Because this is what love is. Love is not breathlessness, it is not excitement, it is not the promulgation of promises of eternal passion. That is just being "in love" which any of us can convince ourselves we are. Love itself is what is left over when being in love has burned away, and this is both an art and a fortunate accident." --St. Augustine

Sort of brilliant, no?

The interesting distinction that he makes when distinguishing between the feelings of being "in love" and actual love are quite interesting. Particularly when so often you will hear people say "I love you, but I am not in love with you." Apparently, said people would be neither. They have neither felt the incredible fireworks of the volatile eruption, nor do they feel that such an event has left them irrevocably linked to another person.

One main thing that I REALLY like about this statement, is that it portrays love as a violent and powerful force of nature. It is something that we have tried for milllenia to control, and have been truly unable to do so. When it comes into your life it is explosive, causing as much damage as possible before you can actually see the great things beneath it. If we go with St. Augustine's analogy, we are almost "in love" so that we can survive together long enough to actually love someone. Without the "breathless excitement and promises of eternal passion" we might very well be unwilling to get to the point with another person where our lives are truly entangled.

The entanglement he mentions is also particularly vivid. I think that image is something that anyone who has ever been in love can visualize for themselves and those they have truly felt for.

Despite all the powerful images he conjures, I think that in the end, the analogy fails to actually capture the entire truth. I would like to think of something without ignoring the man (or woman) involved in the moment, and all the various things that can happen with love. Looking towards nature, I would like to offer the following observation in its place:

Love is the act of two storms crashing together. The mere proximity to one another changes the makeup of each storm and all that surrounds it. Their meeting can be violent or calm. The collision can cause the storms to dissipate completely, rebound off one another in completely different directions, circle around one another for an indefinite period of time, or in the rarest of occasions, the two can merge, becoming a Perfect Storm, one that is greater than either of the two individual parts ever could have been alone.

I like the image of a storm because it can be long or short, and its strength and duration can be completely unrelated to one another. It can be beneficial to the land or destructive, but will always make an impact. Of course, it is constantly changing. Even those loves that last a lifetime, I believe do so not because they are stagnant, but rather that they change together.