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.