Twitterpated forever?

A friend of mine posts a daily "question of the day" spurring his friends to think about random things that aren't political for at least a small moment. It's a great tradition, but today's really got me riled up. It was a simple one: Do you believe in love at first sight?

It should not have surprised me to see the responses. Most people who said "yes" were wide-eyed optimist types who dream of hopeless romance. Everyone else fell somewhere in the "no" or "lust at first sight" category. Some went so far as to explain their reasoning, many with very accurate facts, like "relationships being work" and "true love means knowing the worst of someone and loving them anyway." I can't really disagree with any of those things, but where I do find fault is that one negates the other.

Love at first sight is very real. Nearly every single person on this planet can point to times when they have met someone who stirs their soul for no quantifiable reason. It is easy to assume that this feeling is just when someone inspires in us lust, but if you look, there is a distinct difference between randomly finding someone attractive to the eyes, and someone who seems to tug on your heart and soul.

I have learned to recognize this to mean that this person will be important to my life. Some have become my best friends. Some have led to relationships. Most haven't stood the test of time, and many turned out to be painful, but in each instance there was an undeniable love present.

Where the romantic poets have gotten us lost is in assuming that "love at first sight" means "I recognize my soulmate at first sight." This is where the paths diverge. It is true that only through time and effort that we are able to strengthen a relationship to the point where it can become "permanent." When we experience the feeling of love at first sight, (a feeling that as a child of the 80's one might say makes us feel twitterpated) we quickly lose it, but not for the reasons that seem obvious. We lose it because we often add expectation on top of it. By assuming that it has to be forever, and when it's not (as most things aren't) we lose our optimism and assume that there's no such thing, closing ourselves off more and more as time goes on.

In that first moment, what we recognize is potential. When you allow yourself to become aware of what you're seeing and feeling you an embrace the fact that someone can be meaningful and can be someone you love without putting on the mandate that they will be your one and only forever. Don't assume that your heart is "wrong" because the last time you felt that magic turned out to be less than you had expected. All you do is make it that much harder for that person to be who they were meant to be in your life.

Cherish those moments and those people. Enjoy the fact that you've found someone who will be important to your life and celebrate in whatever that becomes. You may or may not walk down the aisle with them, but rest assured your life needs them in it, and they need you in theirs.

2016-17: From Conflict to ...?

As we move on to the second millennium's late teen years I am struck by many things. As always as one beginning ends and another starts anew, we reflect. Through the power of social media, it is easy for people to share these reflections. Technology also makes it a simple thing to see your own reflections from years gone by. These reflections tell us as much about ourselves as they do the year itself.

Take myself for example. If you look simply at my posts on New Year's Eve throughout the last several years, one thing is fairly common: regardless of the year I've had, I'm always optimistic about the future. On good years, I feel the next will be even better. During rough times, it is a hopeful outlook towards things to come. I see this replicated by many of the people in my life. It comes as no real surprise given my love of optimism, but is still interesting to see so simply.

I see many others who want to have a hopeful view, but can't quite bring themselves to do so. Statements of: "Well here's to 2017. Can't be any worse than this year..." and the like give into the idea that things are bad, but also cling to the hope that the renewal will have a positive effect on their life or the world.

Still others focus completely on the year itself. This can be a dim view or a bright sunny one, but focuses exclusively on the past. Some of these pour forth a positive message in a time when the world seems anything but. An brilliant example of these came from the love of my life, in fact. Though it's not the way I normally express the change of the year, it is in fact my favorite type to read.

So what about 2016? Well this year is definitely an interesting one to examine. The 2000s "sweet 16" turned out to be as full of turmoil, and dare I say it, growing pains. It's almost benal, but for many people including myself, it was a year of incredible highs and devastating lows. In retrospect, I'm going to call it the Year of Conflict. As a political activist, many of my conflicts are probably obvious. For one of the first times, I found myself in actual conflict with people who in the past have held similar viewpoints. Later, I found myself embroiled in the conflict of facts vs opinions. In my
personal life, I fought against our family's economic situation. My community faced the most blatant conflict with the real threat of violence. This barely scratches the surface, but gives an insight into what I feel was a similar struggle for people throughout the country, no matter what side of any of these conflicts you were on.

To end here would place me squarely in the "dim view of the past" category I mentioned earlier. Luckily for me, there is the other side of conflict. Though conflict is hard and oftentimes painful, it does have benefits. It builds strength. The old adage of "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" really is the truth. Through the challenges this year, I found myself growing professionally, expanding my creativity, finding love in unexpected strangers, and strengthening my relationship. I would never wish for conflict, but when presented with it, I'm glad of what I came away with.

This year, I end with a new fiancé, a new job, the framework for a fledgling company, and a solid foundation for my own novel. I will end this year, and start the new with some of my closest friends. I will laugh, and I will likely cry. I will mourn the loss of those we lost. I will feel a small tremor of fear for what can happen to the world of tomorrow, but I will look across the city with the same thing I always do, hope.

I cannot tell you what next year will be. I can tell you that we will be renewed, but we will also take with us the good and bad from this year. It is easy to say it's a clean slate, but the reality is that there is never a true fresh start. Rather than starting over this year, I resolve to bring forth the greatest that this year had to offer, and leave behind the rest. Lay down the conflict, but keep the strength, the love and do my best to make them grow. Yea, I'll toast to that.

The Surprising Problem with Trump's Speech

Like many people, I steeled myself and sat down to what was expected to be another night of complete insanity at the Republican National Convention. I mean for the past several days, we've had near violence break out over a sign that said "No Racism. No Hate." We've heard people called Satan, criminal, and seen discrimination come to epic heights. Putting Trump on the stand was guaranteed to take us to a whole new level.

Except it didn't.

Now don't get me wrong, I hated the speech. I was insulted when he claimed he would protect the LGBTQ community from external threats, especially while the Republican platform had its most anti-LGBT platform in history. I felt that there was, in fact a new level of pandering from Trump. But beyond that, the biggest problem with Trump's speech, is that it sounded good.

I don't mean good like Martin Luther King. I mean good as in it appealed to some sort of emotional self-preserving side that exists in all of us. He didn't fall back on lies. In fact, it may have been one of his most honest speeches yet. Most of his facts were actually real. For once, he didn't draw violently divisive lines. He didn't get angry. He didn't go off the rails.

And that is terrifying.

As I re-read the speech this morning, Britain flashed before my eyes. Here were all the exact same arguments that got people voting for the Brexit. Putting ourselves first. Stop trying to support the world until we fix home. Save the lower class. Make our country great again. Some baser part of my instinct wanted to nod along with the idea of roads and bridges that were actually modern. Jobs given to people who needed them. Crime being lowered.

And therein lies the problem. Much like we saw in the UK, Americans can easily want all of the things that he's talking about. We want everything to be better. And it is really easy to say that the only reason we're not reaching our potential is because of those "other" people. Yes, focus here first. That makes sense. It doesn't even matter that 90% of what he talked about doesn't fall to the President to make changes on. It sounds good.

Humans have an intrinsic need to feel good about themselves. It's easy to think: "My problem isn't me, its that circumstance, or that person working against me." "Leave me my gun so I can be in control of my safety." "Let me spend my own money instead of giving it to some bureaucrat to make decisions over." "Let me make my street safe before I worry about another country."

The problem is that while all of this sounds wonderful, it's false. The world doesn't exist in a series of separated city-states. That age has passed. Our world is too large and too connected to live in a bubble. Attempting to build walls to separate us, and choose who is "good" and who is "bad" only makes it so that we're isolated from a world that we need as much as it needs us. America has some of the most diverse resources in the world, and yet we're still not a self-sustaining country. We need trade. We need allies. When something is unstable in the world, ignoring it will only allow it to spread. And yes, that means eventually spread to us in our magic bubble. Ask Europe about how staying isolated works when an actual threat is looming.

"Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo..." This statement got a lot of cheers. Close the borders to "bad" people. Only trade with people who do what we want. These themes resonated again and again. America First. The United Kingdom said the same thing. They're regretting it already, and little has actually gone into effect yet. History shows us it doesn't work. Fact tell us this is a false sense of security.

But it sure sounds good.

Let's hope as this election cycle continues, we can break through the sound bytes and realize what all these great sounding things would actually do to us in the long run, before it's too late.

New Year, New Beginnings?

It's that time of year again. The time when people celebrate the successes and lament over the failures they've had over the last year. Most of us take a moment to think about the year ahead, and all the brightness we hope it will bring.

One general theme that is present as the year ends is summed up by a catch-phrase that Nate has started to use: "New Year, New Beginnings." This is a great one for us, given that the year is ending with much of our lives in upheaval, and the prospect of starting fresh is incredibly appealing. Having many friends in the same position, I feel this gloom-to-optimism sentimentality all around. One has to wonder though, is this actually true? Is the New Year actually a New Beginning?

I am a big fan of retrospective technology these days. Using Timehop, Facebook, and Google, I am regularly reminded of what has come before. For the first time, as I looked back upon this year, I also looked back on this day- December 31st- for the last several years. Given my passion for startups it may be not entirely surprising that out of the last 10 New Year's Eves, I have been unemployed 5 of them. I was single for 7 of them. Each year, no matter what, I made a blog, status, or the like indicating how excited I was for the upcoming year. Each year- like so many others- I started out the year with a bang. New health, more passion, more action. Each year I moved leaps and bounds over where I was just a few days before. Despite this, so many of those years I ended up back in the same position. Looking back, the same thing has happened to so many others.

So back to the question. Are new years, actually new beginnings? If the patterns keep repeating, are we actually starting fresh? Moreover, is it helpful that we fall into the same cycle? Perhaps strangely, I think the answer is "yes."

I strongly believe the slightly annoying truth of the universe is that it proves what you need, not what you want. Humans are inherently creatures of habit, and often it takes times of darkness to move us from the grey our lives have become to the light that they truly can be. I think that we are inherently led towards change and upheaval towards the end of the year. Whether it is our sub-conscious, or a greater power taking a hand, the simple fact of the matter is that we need renewal, and so we get it- the kicking and screaming that may follow be damned.

Like nature- which must go through the winter and cycle of seeming lifelessness- so too must some aspects of our life wither or die in order for us to renew them or another aspect of ourselves. Ended relationships often create a renewed focus on ourselves. We're normally driven to be more healthier and look after ourselves. Many times we also renew the relationships with our friends that we may have neglected. Lost jobs force us to focus on our life and many times we see moments where we may have given up our passions in favor of our paychecks. These traumatic events can't- and shouldn't- happen all the time, but the renewal should.

New Year's Eve falls at a perfect time to create these feelings in us, even when things seem to be going well. We have just come off the holidays, which seem to almost always be an insane mix of happiness/nostalgia, and pain/angst. We get closer to our families and friends, while also realizing everything about them that drives us insane. It's a time of high stress, putting our relationships on a thin line, and our jobs more easily prove how much or little they seem to care about the people running their day-to-day. Is it any wonder that we always end the year looking for something better?

In short, New Year's Eve is a needed reset. It's incredibly valuable to take the time to reset ourselves. Even knowing that we'll likely do the exact same thing next year, and that we'll probably not do all the great things we set out to do starting tomorrow, its value is still absolute. Take the time to look back and see what you want to add to your life. See what you want to throw away. Become excited about the things that will change, but also work to ensure that what was amazing about the year isn't lost. Enjoy the roller coaster you rode in 2015, then be excited for 2016 and the roller coaster you know it will certainly be, new beginnings and all.

Working Relationships

When Fab did it's first round of lay-offs I started coming to a strong realization. Someone off-handedly mentioned that "A job is just like a relationship. It takes two people to start  it, but only one to end it." This is definitely a true statement, but as the months progressed, more lay-offs happened and my own job was impacted, the correlation between jobs and friendships or romantic relationships became even more apparent. It also became very clear that often we can often create problems for ourselves by not realizing how incredibly similar these are and acting accordingly.

The night before what we affectionately called "The Reaping" at Fab, I knew my job was affected. Caleb in an effort to make me feel better made a "Fab Breakup" Spotify playlist, and I was again floored by how perfectly these songs of love an angst perfectly fit with how I was feeling. I even felt the wide range of upheaval. I was disbelieving with All or Nothing moved straight on to sadness with Believe and the next day was sure nothing fit my anger so well as Not Ready to Make Nice. It was clear that I was emotionally affected, and I was responding as though I had my heart broken, because really, I had.

Looking back, I realize that not all jobs ending were heartbreaking, but then again neither were all relationships. Sometimes the passion just fizzles. You drift apart. It might take a couple months for one or the other of you to make the break, but really you don't feel hurt, because your feelings had long since evaporated. Much like some relationships we can all think of, some of us cling to our jobs far too long the same way we do bad relationships.

The similarities don't end at breaking up. Dating is also eerily similar. One thing I know about myself with my romantic relationships is that when I'm not seeing someone, I am always on the hunt. When I get with someone, that desire to hunt actually leaves me. It's a sign of every successful relationship I've had when this happens. If I start looking, I know I'm not invested, and it's time to go. I realize I do the same thing with my jobs. While I was at Fab, I never looked for another job. I knew I wasn't paid near what I was worth, but I was committed, and overall happy with where I was. Sure, there might be a cuter boy aka job around the corner, but my heart was already taken.

When we meet someone knew, we sometimes refer to their relationship "resume" or "how they look on paper." We have taken this idea from our professional relationship, and applied it to dating, likely without realizing how much the reverse was true. We run into the same problems. "I mean sure, you have a cute office, but your office manager is insane!" is so similar to "You're adorable, but your best friend is off her rocker!" We also have to see how we fit in. "Wow. Suits? I haven't worn a suit to work in years..." and "So you only go to sports bars..." might be ways in which we might not fit with something even if it's great. We need to match, and we need the complete package, but like who we date, not just on paper.

After Fab and I broke up, I went hunting, but realized that I could only be somewhere that I was intensely passionate about. Job postings came from friends that I barely even read. I appreciated the sentiment, but much like my complete disinterest in dating without the prospect of a future husband, but knew I couldn't just settle for something that paid the bills for now. I needed something that would steal my heart. I knew I could probably go and hook up with a company and a nice paycheck pretty quickly, but what's the point if I'm not invested?

When you look at it, our lives are all wrapped up in relationships. We have a relationship with our partners, our jobs, our friends. Humans like familiarity, and so we attach the same emotions, and the same habits to them. Already scoping the guy across the room by your second date? Bet you keep yourself subscribed to your LinkedIn job alerts as well. Dive head first into your work? Bet when you find a relationship you do the same there. We sometimes feel that one or the other might help us "escape" from the other. "I need a break from my love life. I will throw myself into work to distract myself." This of course can only work temporarily, because you bring your same issues to the escape that you had in your problem area. Ever notice that you get mad at your boss for some of the same things as your spouse? Because in your head, it's a very similar thing.

Trying to separate how we react to one relationship vs. the other can create a lot of problems. You may not feel your "heart flutter" when you walk into your office, but if you live a passionless existence at work, you'll be as unhappy as you would be if you led one at home. Learning to embrace the fact that we engage in relationships with everything that we do and treating our jobs as carefully as we treat our love lives will always pan out for us better in the long run.

To See or Not to See.

It has been said that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but lately it has become clear that nearly everything is in the eye of the beholder. What I mean is this: people see what they want to see, and in more ways than we normally think. We sometimes notice this when someone we care about is being blind to a situation that is obvious to everyone else around the. In truth though, this extends far deeper into the way we notice things in the world, and therefore who and what they interact with, and the perceptions they have of reality. Let me illustrate this point for you with a few examples I have seen recently (names witheld).

Example 1: Several high school girls are crushing on their coach. For months they have held onto this infatuation without fail. The interesting thing is that time and time again, it comes up in random ways that the coach is actually gay. Though not insanely "on fire," he's not very shy about it. He sports clothes and accessories that support gay rights. His fellow coaches have mentioned it in passing on several occasions. Despite this fact, when the girls were approached about the crush, another teacher asked, "What if he's gay?" The response? "Clearly he's not gay. That's silly." All evidence exists to the contrary, and yet each instance, the girls create a story for themselves about why such things exist, not even allowing the thought of what is actually the truth.

Example 2: Three friends are in an area with a lot of people around them. After a while, they start talking about who was there. One of the friends says that there were a ridiculous amount of wardrobe malfunctions that were painful to see. Another friend said that there were about 5-6 really cute gay guys. To this, the final friend responded, "Really? There were cute gay guys? I didn't see any." Note that later when these gentlemen were pointed out, the final friend indeed agreed with their attractiveness. The fact is that he just simply never looks for guys. Not what he is focused on in his life, and therefore simply doesn't see them. Both the latter friends agreed to the atrocious clothes when they were pointed out, but again, fashion isn't their forte, so these "egregious errors" were nearly invisible to them

If one thought about it, almost anyone could list plenty of examples like this. Parents see in their kids the image of themselves or the hope of correcting the regrets of their own past. Lovers see in their partners the traits they want or the failings of their past relationships. The car lover will notice a shiny new BMW when his friend might instead notice the driver's silly expression. It's almost so natural that we don't even notice it, and yet it has major impacts on how we relate to the world. Lots of research has been done that says that optimists succeed more than pessimists. Several theories have come forth as to why that is. Books have been written about how "visualizing your success" can actually create it, etc. But what if the answer is more simple than all of that? What if it's simply the fact that optimists, who constantly see the glass as half-full just notice more avenues to success? If we only see what we want to see, a pessimist will see the road to failure even if a path to success were to be right beside them.

At the end of the day, the big questions are is this tendency we have as people good or bad, and what, if anything should we do about it? In some ways it is probably highly beneficial to us that we automatically filter so much out. There's a lot going on in the world, and even the most observant of people really can't take it all in. Our subconscious is smart enough to take care of all this excess information for us, letting us see things that mean something to us.

This of course still leaves us with the responsibility of opening our eyes to the things we really want, instead of falling prey to what we might call bad observational habits. Lots of people waste their time on looking for things that they want to hate. Looking to things that we like or love instead would save a whole lot of unhappiness. Though we can't all be optimists, taking a little time to look for the good in situations would ease a lot of burdens on people. Stopping ourselves every once in a while and looking for something different would definitely be worthwhile, rather than searching only for the familiar. Robert Frost told us all to take "the road less traveled." I whole heartedly agree, but my first bit of advice would be to make sure that we look hard enough to find this road.

Optimistic faith without gullibility

"You're very gullible." --Todd
"No Todd, I'm OPEN." --Cathy

As I was watching TV today, this quote struck me. The former was said because Cathy had mentioned occasionally consulting psychics, and wanting to have her cards read. Perhaps the writers were going for sarcasm, but I choose to take it as a very real debate on one of those fine lines that we tread in life. Cathy is a self proclaimed optimist, while Todd is a hard science MD who chooses "realism" over either the sunny side up or dark clouds abound ways of thinking. Some might say that realism is a nice happy medium between optimism and pessimism. In truth, I think that everyone is realistic in their own sense of reality, and that those who go with "realism" as a philosophy simply do it to either justify or temper their inclination to either extreme.

But where are the lines between reality and blind faith? Openness to being closed off? Optimism vs. Pessimism? Are any right? Is moderation always the key?

Optimists are by nature hopeful people who tend to be open to more possibilities than the average person. Many optimists are people of faith, because many religions preach hope... or pretend to. Interestingly enough, this is not a reverseable truth. You cannot say that most people of faith are optimists, nor that most people of science are pessimists. The reason? Neither science nor faith lends itself to optimism or pessimism. Pessmistic people of faith will always find the dark gloom of the religious doctrine. Optimistic scientists see excitement in the power of knowledge and it's progression.

But back to the original question, where is the sweet spot between the two? Many will say that it can be found, and those people who find it become the average and "realistic" middle. Of course, this is completely inaccurate. Though it is true that the average person is neither an optimist or a pessimist, this is neither realistic nor some great sweet spot. We are so often inclined to want everything in moderation, and to find the balance and the middle that we sometimes forget that we're not supposed to. Look at being smart. Is there a medium point we should hit? Of course not. Dumb is bad. Smart is good. The smarter the better. Of course we often overlook the fact that there are traits like that even when they would help us a great deal.

So first to tackle the "realism" issue, which is nicely illustrated in the original quote. Todd believes in only what can be proven. Cathy, it seems believes in a great deal, or at least the "possibility" of a great deal. Interestingly enough, in the end, according to history, Cathy will prove right... by science. That's right. The great tool of "realism" is historically that which proves people of faith correct. Let me note here that I am not using faith in a purely religious term. Lots of "religious" people have no faith, and lots of people of faith choose no religion. The people of faith that I refer to are those that somehow inherently know and believe that there is more out there. Of course we time and time again prove that this is true. Thousands of years ago those who had faith in great laws of the universe that governed all living things were men of faith. They may said these laws were governed by gods or by "magic" but it was the men of faith who believed that they existed.

I also would say that true people of faith, do not fight against science and facts. They simply believe that there are MORE facts that we don't know. Those who say that knowledge removes faith are those who are seriously lacking in... well... faith. It is totally plausible, and EFFECTIVE to believe the facts as fact, and to believe that there is more to it than we know. Some of the things that "realists" reject have strangely been around for a very very long time. Why is it that even in an age of mass information and science can we still sometimes be shocked at accuracy of "alternative" ideas and methods? Perhaps there is a reason these things seem to work a great deal. Perhaps we just aren't yet ready to figure out the science behind it all. Maybe our "reasons" for why something works isn't dead on, but maybe it works just the same. People of hope and of faith inherently understand this. People who destroy these ideas with no more proof than those who believe in them are only hindering their own possible knowledge.

On to the second issue of optimism vs. pessimism, this one should be as clear as the smart vs dumb argument, yet somehow it's not. When we're young we are born optimistic. We are called naive, and this is a derogatory statement. Innocent is slightly nicer, but in effect the idea is the more you know about the world, the more pessimistic you should be. Now most people would argue that we don't actually want people to be "pessimistic," just more realistic (there's that word again). People who are optimistic in love are "hopelessly romantic." Hopeless again such a derogatory term, and yet we use it in this context all the time. People who trust are suckers, people who don't run in fear are ignorant. You are allowed to be optimistic only until you fall flat on your face, have your heart broken, your trust betrayed, etc. and suddenly "know better."

So why is this bad? Shouldn't we temper the hope and light with some solid "protection" that a dash of pessimism can provide? NO. Why? What makes this seemingly reasonable idea bad? Because pessimism kills us and optimism gives us life. We are born optimistic for a reason. Science has proven time and time again that a good outlook on life increases your ability to fight disease, lengthens your life, and makes you a healthier person. Optimism provides for this in a way that pessimism never can. This is why there has never been a scientific study proving pessimists live longer. Ever. Yet time and time again the reverse is true. Despite all the "protection" and "safety" that pessimism and through it "realism" provides, those who choose this don't live as long as the optimists. Do optimists make mistakes? Do they trust when they shouldn't? Do they put themselves in harms way without always realizing it? Yep! Of course what is often forgotten is that so does EVERYONE. Who in this world, no matter how much "realism" they spout hasn't made errors in judgement, or taken the unsafe path? No one. This is the truth. We're all gullible at some point. We all assume we know more than we do. Pessimism doesn't protect you. No one has the ability to be infallible, and therefore any amount of protection will be imperfect. By choosing optimism, you create a happier situation to live in when trouble isn't on the horizon rather than living in darkness. Further, optimism gives you the strength, hope, and IDEAS to get back up again when you've been knocked down. An optimist is like a rubber ball. It'll hit the ground, but it will always bounce back. Realism is like a lead ball. When it falls, it finds it hard to ever move again, because it traps itself in the "reality" it finds itself in. Pessimism is more like an egg. It has this amazing shell that protects it. Unfortunately, that shell can't hold forever, and when it finally breaks, the soft insides just spill all over.

Everyone can choose what they will. I have always chosen to believe in more than what I know, and to know in my heart that things in truth are bright and good. The sun is always shining, even if we can't see it. Looking only at the darkness will only blind us to the light when it comes back out again.

Pink and Gleeful, yet still freaks

Let's face it, though she may not be the first name that pops into your mind, the gays needed little help when it comes to loving Pink. Her fiery music that could nearly always spin out on the dance floor with lyrics that speaks to the best and worst of our times, live performances that put her peers to shame, and an unshakable affinity for those that sometimes don't just seem to fit in, she is definitely and artist easy for us to adore. Of course this week, that love was given an newer outlet when her song was sung by the gay heartthrob in Glee. Anyone who has a Twitter pulse could see a myriad of posts over the next day shouting out to our "nitty gritty dirty little freaks" or telling us to "Raise your Glass." I shouldn't have been surprised when the next day I typed as far as "Ra" into google that the first thing that popped up was "Raise Your Glass Pink Lyrics." Clearly this song was on fire across the nation, and especially with the gay boys.

I had the chance to briefly meet Pink at the HRC National Dinner this year, and more importantly, I heard her speak. I have always been a fan of her music, but listening to her talk about her views of the world and people whom others label as "different" really struck a chord. This wasn't a diva trying to drum up some gay love. This was a woman who felt exactly what it was that so many gay teens across the nation feel as they struggle with being what much of our society still considers "wrong."

Pink's songs are a perfect fit with Glee. The capital "L" for loser that Glee so openly embraces runs through the heart of the show in the same way that it runs through Pink's words. Being me, I had to of course re-listen to the song in my head over and over, alternating between Pink's and Darrin's voice. Then, to satisfy my love of words, I read the lyrics too. The combination of the Glee themes, also exhibited in the original songs combined with Pink's powerful lyrics got me to think about how strange it seems that we still have the idea of "losers" and "freaks." All Pink's "little underdogs" really seem like they shouldn't still exist outside the realms of "normal" and yet somehow they do, especially towards the gay world.


Why is it that we as a society can still marginalize people? We have the knowledge to make this seem ridiculous. First, looking at history, it is the freaks, underdogs, and losers that have shaken this world up when it needed it the most. The US wouldn't even exist in its current form if not for these kinds of people. Secondly, how is it that with all of the information that we have pouring out about ourselves and each other with the web and social networking can we not realize that most everyone is a freak in one way or the other. Ok, so you're a jock. You also "like" old school Mario video games, and used to play house with your sister. You may be prom queen, but your family photos show exactly how much of a tomboy you were for most of your life. Everyone's got at least a little "freak" in them, and yet we still have to pick on it. Even when something seems "accepted" by society, we still manage to push these "accepted people" to the margins.

Being gay is at a seemingly weird point in our history. In some ways we are so accepted that many people feel that being gay is a "non-issue." I mean we have high schoolers kissing on prime time television! While this can be a great thing, it has also lead to an almost ignorant view of the world that still has teens killing themselves because society still says that who they are is wrong. Many of us can't seem to decide whether or not we should allow being gay to matter at all. I hear so often that "being gay isn't who I am." True statement, but does that also mean that we must then give up our camaraderie and shared companionship over being gay? I have always been opposed to this removal in any form. Being gay may not be ALL you are, but it is indeed a part of who you are. There is nothing wrong with embracing this as part of you and celebrating it, not just "accepting" it by ignoring it's there.

I think that the answer to the tough questions we have about what to do, and how to live in a society that still seems to need to label so many of us as "outside" are right at our fingertips. Where can we find these answers? Just ask Pink. "Raise your glass if you're wrong in all the right ways." Embrace who you are, gather together and "Never be... Anything but loud." Don't lose your voice, and eventually, just like in Glee, the best part will follow and everyone will want to be a "Loser Like Me."

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.

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.

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.