That is not my Mother

My mother laughs easily and doesn’t look out at the world through suspicious, haunted eyes. My mother tells stories about all the relatives that I will never know, but come alive in her words. My mother played games with me, and didn’t let me win just because I was too young to lose.

That is not my mother.

My mother knows what day of the week it is and remembers the last time I came to see her. My mother remembers the stories of all the stupid art projects that my brother and sister and I brought home from school through the years. My mother saved 3^rd grade report cards and handmade mother’s day presents slopped together by 5 year-olds-pudgy fingers. My mother never forgets birthdays.

That is not my mother.

My mother read books, so many books. She could tell you every one of the Plantagenets and then explain how they interwove themselves through English History. My mother could explain the relationship between Mary Queen of Scots and Elizabeth and all the intrigue that surrounded them. My mother could have written books.

That is not my mother.

My mother loved musicals because in college she loved working behind the scenes. My mother would iron and do housecleaning with the stereo blasting Camelot, The Music Man, South Pacific and My Fair Lady. “Each evening from December to December…” my mother knew all the words.

That is not my mother.

But, it is the woman she has become. She fades away a little more each day, my mother that I knew is disappearing. I love that woman with all my soul, but…

That is not my mother.

Strawberry Fields

Maybe it's not forever but it does feel sort of eternal somehow. The memorial to John Lennon in Central Park is simple, elegant and understated, perhaps like John Lennon himself, though I don't really know that for sure, the Beatles were sort of out of my sphere of focus musically. I, of course, know a majority of their major songs by heart, as I know iconic nursery rhymes by heart...Beatles songs having woven themselves into the fabric of our existence.

But as for John himself, I know of him, his aesthetic appearance, Yoko and the supposed reason that he left the Beatles to watch the shadows on the wall. And I know about Mark David Chapman and the day that he shot John in the back outside of The Dakota apartments in New York.

As for Strawberry Fields, Yoko endowed New York with over a million dollars to create the small triangular section of Central Park as a memorial for John, named of course for the song John wrote as a tribute to the Strawberry Field Children's home that the Salvation Army ran in Liverpool near where John grew up. It was there, in the fields behind the home that John would listen to the Salvation Army band and become inspired to become a musician.

the center piece of the memorial is the mosaic circle with the word "Imagin" in the center. It is simple and moving in it's own way. I spent awhile just sitting in one of the benches surrounding the mosaic and watching how people interacted with it. Most avoided walking on the mosaic at all, unless it was to kneel on it to pose for a picture.

Occasionally someone would just walk directly across the mosaic, seemingly oblivious to any significance that it might have. This struck me as being somehow disrespectful and part of me wanted to get up and tell these people to walk around the circle, to pay attention to where they stepped, which got me to thinking about respect in general and why and how it is given.

After all this mosaic was really just a collection of nicely shaped stones, arranged in a discernible pattern on the ground. Were the spot not marked as a special location, would any of us even know that some sort of deference should be given to this spot above any other spot? It is not as though John Lennon is actually buried there, he wasn't even shot and killed there, nor was he born there. Essentially he lived across the street...so why does it matter where we step?

It seems to come down to the fact that I knew that the spot had significance, and that I was aware of what that significance was and because of that awareness, I chose to offer that spot some respect. I have no control over whether others choose to embrue that spot with significance or whether they choose to pay the spot respect or not, which, in a way, is exactly what Lennon was probably trying to say when he wrote "Imagin" in the first place.

"Imagin there no heaven...above us only sky. "

I don't think John would care if someone walked on his memorial, but he would like that we were all there enjoying the spot together, in whatever way we chose.

Starting My New York Minute

It really doesn't matter what time you arrive, New York is always alive and happening. Our plane didn't land at JFK until nearly 11, so, after fetching bags and lining up a town car who then flew us along the Van Wyke through Queens until we approached the Queensborogh Bridge where we started getting our first views of the city...and I started getting that lump in my throat...that New York lump.

Ok, I admit it, I am a rube when it comes to New York. This is only my second visit (the first being two years ago for the marathon) and it was in that first visit that I became intoxicated by the place, and intoxication that has carried me over to today. This is THE place.

This is THE CITY. This is New York.

Right now K is pulling up various NY songs, especially Alicia Keyes brilliant and haunting Empire State of Mind and I am getting chills.

Defending Bill O'Reilly

Already the title of this blog has me cringing, but in this instance, I feel that Mr. O'Reilly, the Fox News scion of conservative bombast needs someone to agree with him that is not in his camp.

Recently Mr. O'Reilly posted a video commentary positing that the motion of the tides was proof of God's existance. Apparently some people took issue with this statement and called him on it, to which Mr. O'Reilly posted this response:

Bill O'Reilly on the Tides

Essentially, Mr. O'Reilly states that while we know that the moon causes the tides, we don't know where the moon came from, or where the solar system came from or anything.

Well, scientists were quick to jump all over these statements and label them as typical ignorant conservative creationist-theory rhetoric, thus perpetuating the kind of polarizing debate that Fox News and Mr. O'Reilly thrive upon.

But what is missed in this type of black and white, either/or debate is the subtlety that I think Mr. O'Reilly actually was pointing out, which is that while science can indeed explain how the tides are affected by the moon, and provide theories as to how the moon came to exist as a satellite around the earth, the thing that science has yet to explain if the overriding question of "why the universe (and everything within it) exists in the first place."

The universe is a incredibly complex and wondrous place, filled with intricate systems and processes that scientists have been exploring for centuries, and will continue to explore. As humans, we have been endowed with minds that are curious and driven to continually ask "Why?" and "How come?". As we learn more, we also discover that there is ever more to learn.  In addition to our curiosity, humans have also been endowed with a remarkable capacity for faith, in essence faith is the ability to believe in things that cannot be scientifically proven, things like a greater intelligence or supreme being that is the ultimate creator of all things. This idea of a creator of the universe crosses almost all religions and cultures.

So why is it so hard to reconcile these two human capacities? Scientific exploration and faith in a supreme creator? The two are by no means mutually exclusive as some would argue, rather if we look at our scientific curiosity as a way to continually discover the incredibly sublime mechanisms and complexity of a universe that was created by an intelligence far far superior to our own, then these two human capacities of curiosity and faith can be reconciled.

I'll take the analogy down a few levels to where it is more clear for me to understand, maybe it will help. Say I have a natural aptitude for mechanics and come across a vehicle that I have never seen before. Being curious I start to examine the vehicle, even start to disassemble and reassemble it. Along the way I discover that it runs on a certain type of fuel, that it has a navigation mechanism, that it has safety features and other systems that regulate and optimize its operation. In short, I find out all sorts of things about this vehicle except for who made it.

Obviously it was made. Obviously the vehicle exists for me to examine, disassemble and reassemble, and obviously it was manufactured somehow,,,therefore implying a manufacturer. So, even though we are unable to identify the creator of the vehicle through examining its parts, we can imply that the creator exists.

The disconnect seems to come when that same analogy is applied to natural systems and objects. A tree, for instance, has many component parts, utilizes intricate systems that facilitates its growth and development, and the tree interacts with the environment around it, which in turn presents even more intricate systems and interactions. Scientists are still exploring these inter-dependencies and systems...but none of their discoveries identifies who the creator of those systems and inter-dependencies is.

Why then, is it so unacceptable to imply that there is indeed a creator, and then continue our explorations. Nothing is lost by accepting this idea, except that in accepting the idea that there is a supreme intelligence that ultimately created everything, we become humbled and awestruck by the possibility.

This is where the real divergence takes place. Some who are awestruck by this supreme intelligence, then decide that there is no reason or merit in further exploration, and thus shut down the curious part of their minds to just accept that all things were created by God. While others, who see this kind of behavior are appalled that someone would willingly close such a valuable human capacity without question...and thus, in a kind of retaliation, shut down the idea that such a creator can exist at all.

But the divergence does not have to take place. As humans, we are capable of reconciling these two capacities, faith and curiosity, and use both to fuel and drive the other. The more we discover about the workings of the universe, the more in awe we can feel of the omnipotent power of a supreme maker.

And perhaps one of the greatest realities of this reconciliation is that the discovery process is infinite.

So Bill O'Reilly is right, we don't know...but that doesn't mean that we won't keep trying to find out more.

My Cynicism

I have become quite cynical and I really don’t like it. It is easy to be cynical these days because everywhere I look, I see evidence to support my cynicism. The most recent examples were the revelations that only 10% of the money donated to the American Cancer Society actually gets used to support cancer research,  the other 90% is used to support and perpetuate the ACS itself (including providing the CEO with a $1.7 MILLION dollar a year salary…or the Susan B. Komen foundation using 20% of its income to sue other charities who use the words “for the cure” in their title.

These are just a couple of the most recent examples that have come to light. Look anywhere, politics, education, business, the media itself and you’ll find ample evidence of humans subverting ideals with base objectives and self-serving intent.

So why not be cynical? Cynicism is a defense against the absurdity and blatant hypocrisy that seems to infect any endeavor that includes more than a handful of people.

So is the common element people?

Of course, humans are flawed beings that while capable of nobility, heroism and altruism, are also subject to the baser qualities of greed, covetousness, fear and ego.  In our evolution and progression through the ages we have developed so many advances, many positive and beneficial, yet we still can’t seem to get beyond our lusts of power, and acquisition, or our need to piously tell others how they should live their lives while at the same time righteously opposing any of those others who dare to tell us how we should live our lives.

My religious friends would recommend that I find God and give my heart to Jesus, but to do so would seem to require that I also allow myself to believe in the organized churches that promote these beliefs…and time and again the hypocrisy of organized churches just further fuels my disappointment and anger. How can organizations that have as one of its foundational tenets: “Love Thy Neighbor”, also advocate the alienation or outright destruction of another faith whose believers interpret the supreme being differently?

The problem is that cynicism erodes the spirit and ultimately destroys the soul. It makes believing in anything feel like a childishly foolish pursuit that denies the intellect and subsumes common sense.

And yet, we humans have been endowed with the incredible capacities for faith and caring and trust. We have the ability to feel empathy and compassion for others, to feel love and the joy of altruism…all capacities that are also subsumed and eroded by the repeated onslaught of the evidence of human greed, avarice and evil.

So how do we balance our better capacities against our baser elements, and still maintain some kind of sanity?

The only answer that seems to offer some hope is on a purely personal level. I can control myself and how I treat others. I have a mind that allows me to make my own decisions, and a soul that guides my actions using a moral compass of my own creation. I cannot make anyone else act in any way, nor do I feel that I have the right to judge someone else, even though I may feel those judgments are justified according to my own moral beliefs.

Conversely, I can’t stop others from having their own judgments about me, though I don’t believe that they have any right to impose those same judgments on me. But if they try to impose those judgments, then I reserve the right to accept or deny them as I feel is right.

Is this enough? Does it free me from the weight of my cynicism?

Yeah right.

Smumb...Smug+Dumb

So I was shopping today, and as I walked through the busy Marin parking lot, I happened to look over and see a bumper sticker that caught my eye. It read:
 
"Spill Baby Spill! How's that whole offshore drilling thing working out for ya?"

Now, I have never been a fan of Sarah Palin's whole Tea Party cadre of angry conservatives, and this bumper sticker is obviously a direct jab at her "Drill Baby Drill" catch phrase refracted through the lens of the tragedy of the Gulf oil spill disaster...but there is one other salient fact about this bumper sticker that has driven me from the grumbling depths to tap words to blog...that being that this particular bumper sticker was slapped on the rear of one of the many SUVs crowding the busy Marin parking lot that I was carrying my groceries through.

Marin County, along with being one of the wealthiest counties in the country, is also a heavily liberal place. Election results regularly run 60-80% Democrat, with the Progressive arm of the party being strongly represented.

So it is not surprising that a Marinite would feel compelled to take a bumperstickered shot at Sarah Palin. The problem is that this self-same Marinite seems to be oblivious to the irony of placing that bumperskicker on the back of a vehicle that desperately relies upon the whole "Drill Baby Drill" ethos, regardless of how many carbon offsets the owner may smugly wave about in their own defense.

The fact is that we: me, you, the smug Marinite in the stickered SUV, and the wingnuts from the Westboro Baptist Church, all share an addiction to refined crude that is only increasing. Sure, that shiney new Lexus Hybrid SUV sucks less of the stuff...but it still sucks...and sucks and sucks and lord knows you need the thing to run Aiden to his soccer practice after your Yoga class and before you pick up little Courtney from her jr. Pilates program.

So I say to you Mr or Mrs Smugginess, learn the meaning of "irony" and recognize that leveraging a horrific ecological disaster to make a weak political point (to an audience that mostly gets it already) is not clever or enlightened or any of the other qualities that I am sure that you embrace over tapas and Merlot with your friends.

Be smarter than that and realize that complex problems, especially those that you are contributing to, require far more thought that a snappy bumper sticker.

Heart Attack Grill

So, if you haven't heard of this place, it is real. Click here for one of it's ads:
Heart Attack Grill

Now, the fact that some entrepreneur has turned the current obesity epidemic in the US into a clever marketing campaign for a restaurant is not what I am writing about. I mean, people want to eat crap until their arteries explode in a gummy-bloody mess, that's fine with me...and if some guy is smart enough to give these same people exactly what they want, along with soft-core porn nurse-waitresses...well that's just fine with me also (though I can almost guarantee that the waitresses are forbidden to date any of the customers, as much as I am certain that they would like to).

No, what is causing me to write today is that when I first came across an article on this place, I happened to drift down and read through some of the comments that were attached to the article. In case you have never done this kind of exercise, you really should. It is an enlightening view into the current state of online discourse and intellectual acumen that burbles under the surface of our great nation...much like the enlightening world of slugs and pillbugs that is exposed when you turn over a rock in the garden.

The argument that was fomenting back and forth was between a commenter who opined that it was disgusting that the restaurant would hire a person who was grossly obese (6'8" and 600lbs to be exact) to be the pitchman for the place; and another, more sensitive individual who accused the first commenter of a range of prejudices including "body-image issues" and "buying into the mainstream fantasy of the anorexic super-model mentality".

It was a spirited debate that involved references to the supposed unattractiveness of commenter one's sleeping partner along with casting doubt upon commenter one's references to various medical facts regarding obesity, type II diabetes and the cost of treating those afflicted with the disease; these arguments were countered with equally sanguine arguments about the fact that someone so obese would actually cost less (in terms of medical care) because they are more likely to die sooner.

Now, I am a firm believer in one's right to choose the way that one wishes to live one's life. So, if one chooses to eat healthy, exercise regularly and adhere to the majority of medical literature regarding how to live a "healthy" lifestyle, then I fully support that choice...as do I support the choice of someone who chooses to eat buckets of lard-infused beef and potato products while sitting immobile for 23 hours a day watching "Jersey Shore" and secretly pining for Snooki.

I just hope that Snooki understands that should she happen to actually fall for the devil-may-eat-what-he-damn-well-pleases swain, her love will likely include the following:
Maneuvering her beloved onto his personal scooter so that he can accompany her to their weekly night out at the Heart Attack Grill, and then later, utilizing their personal lifting device to return that same beloved to his bed where he can lay in comfort and reduce the pain on his knees and back.

Snooki will also enjoy the nightly heaving and shoving of mountainous thighs required to attend to her beloved's personal evacuation needs (as self-same beloved will likely be unable to lift himself sufficiently off of the bed pan) and of course there is the attendant cleaning up afterward. Of course, this nightly ritual may be exacerbated by her beloved's paralysis, caused by his massive stroke (unfortunately, the heart attack comes later), and there is the joy that his family will experience getting to watch their father deteriorate into a huge, immobile mass that can neither communicate nor tend to his own basic functions.

I am sure that the family will continue to fully support his exercise of personal freedom to eat whatever and whenever he wanted to, because he was an American, and no one tells an American what they can and cannot do...certainly not some namby pamby doctor with obvious body-image issues.

So by all means, dig in and support the Heart Attack Grill and it's brilliant nod to total gastronomic abandon. After all, its your life...just remember that when your life ends up depending on someone else to support it, well, its that person's right to choose to do what they want as well.