Hal - Deliberately Basic

“There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.”
Hamlet (Act II, Scene 2)

When she walks into a room she creates enough energy to light a small city. She has that certain je ne sais quoi that attracts male and female alike. Charisma, charm, class, this force of personality is magnetic, and knows no boundaries. It is such a rare thing, one would have to be remarkably insensitive not to feel it.

At a recent function I met a woman like this. Its not that she is sexy that makes her so attractive, though considering that she was far from young, she was still physically appealing. It is a combination of things, the way she carries herself, her self-confidence, and her uncanny ability to talk at various levels with those around her. Saints or sinners, intellects or dullards, could not daunt her. She was the quintessential classy lady.

By chance we happened to be seated next to each other, and we began the chit-chat of everyday conversation. She is German, having come to the US after WWII, a teenage girl. It was interesting to hear about the culture shock, and we compared notes, I having come from the south as a child, and endured many of the same things. As we went on the conversation turned to immigration in general, the influx of illegal Mexican immigration, and why the hell we have to have two languages. We agreed on everything, and I learned much about what she and her family had to do to legally come to the US. The stipulations were strict, involved, with stringent regulations and requirements.

The stimulating conversation with this classy lady had me caught up in the moment, and I relaxed my usual reservations with people I don’t know. She began to talk about her son who lived in Boston, her recent visit, and the plight of the white male in the US. It was then our thinking parted, me with thoughts of the forgotten white male in politics. I noted that a recent poll showed that when candidates go vote hunting, white males are not considered valuable, compared to other ethic groups.

She began to talk about all the young white men she had seen in Boston with nonwhite women, particularly Asian women. It was a short step to “keeping the races pure” and “I am not a racist, but… .” Suddenly, we had made a leap back to Hitler’s Germany, and Aryan supremacy. She never said those words, but talked around the subject of “cleansing” and “…the sadness of racial mixing… .” More and more she gave me piercing looks, trying to see if I thought as she did. “Do you understand?” she said more than once.

“I am not a racist,” she said. “I see couples in our church, some of them beautiful, Indian women with their cultural garb. They look so nice together, but why dilute the races?”

She went on to tell me how nice it was that “these people” were there, how hard they worked, especially the Chinese, all the while scrutinizing me to see if I was with her or against her. I simply shook my head that I understood. Never once did I say that I agreed with her.

Our definition of what constitutes a racist was not in sync. There is only one species of man on the Earth—Homo sapiens. This species can intermarry and produce offspring. The word racist implies that one race is inferior to another, and intermarriage weakens the superior race. I believe there are superior people, not superior races.

All the time she talked about polluting the races, I had but one, unoriginal, thought. Suppose all races were mixed. What if we were all mutts, and race could no longer be an issue, because without race, no race could be dominant? Problem solved.

It was on the tip of my tongue to ask her why she believes in racial segregation. I could debate that the caucasian race is impure anyway. We are the ever-evolving product of European mixed breeding. But the most significant thing about all races, the one thing that will always integrate, never distinguish, dominate or reign supreme one race over another is ignorance.

When the dog died he and his wife shut themselves off from the world, refused to take phone calls, email, or have any human contact for two weeks. Earlier that year, when his mother died, he was somewhat upset, but remarked that, “well, we all die… .” The year prior to that, when his sister died, he didn’t say much of anything I can remember.

This is all true, and from a man I’ve known since childhood. I am not insensitive to pet owners; in fact, I have owned a dog or two in my life, and loved them. Note I used the word owned. The dogs were mine, in the sense that they are property much like livestock on a farm. Having grown up on a farm, I will never understand the mind-set of those who place more value on animal than human life.

In my experience, people who do this have a problem with people, and the company of people, and have other issues in their lives that make them somewhat of a social misfit. Picture the lonely single woman with six cats and a house that stinks of cat urine. I have known several women like this. They let the world know how they hate men because they have had hateful experiences with men. Virtually all the women I’ve know like this would love to find a man who treated them as they want to be treated. I admit, there are some lousy bastards in the world who don’t deserve to lick the shoes of some very good women. There are some women who don’t deserve a good man as well. But this is not about men vs women - that is only one example.

It is difficult for some sensitive souls to bear the burden of their less than perfect fellow human beings. I make no pretense of providing advise on psychology, but some things are apparent. If you interact with people, they will disagree with you. They will contradict, argue, and not allow you to control them. They will not always conform to your way. Other people are always the source of greatest stress in your life. Animals only require moderate attention, never disagree, argue or fuss with you. You control them, and you mold them to your way.

There is a joke going around the web now that sums this up:

Who’s your best friend, your dog or your wife? Try this experiment.
Put your dog and your wife in the trunk of the car for an hour.
When you open the trunk, see which one is really happy to see you.

I don’t claim to be a “people person” any more than an animal rights activist. In fact, I like being alone, but not as a way of life. Human misery in the world bothers me, and I try not to add to anyone’s misery. I would never elevate an animal’s life above human life. On the other hand, I’ve known some low down sons-a-bitches who who don’t care for any living thing, and I can say with certainty the world is better without them. History is filed with more assholes than saints, and human history is bloody, sad and dreary.

Americans are a strange mixture of pathos and resplendency.  Most of us eat meat, but are repulsed by the idea of killing animals. Many of us are cruel to our fellow beings, but all heart to the cat or dog living with us. While homeless people lay in our streets, Americans spent $40 billion on pet luxuries in 2007.

A few weeks ago I happened to meet an old friend, someone I hadn’t seen for more than 10 years. The last time I saw her, around 1996, she was 34 years old, her clock was ticking, and she wanted a baby. She told me she was married in 1998, we exchanged other life events, and I asked if she had children. With a hint of sadness she told me no, that had not happened, and of course I didn’t pursue this personal issue. But suddenly her face brightened, and she said, “But we have our cats, and that keeps me busy.”

How sad it is that she will never understand the difference between having a baby (and all that goes with this incredible responsibility) and having pets. Of course I understand the substitution factor, a way for her to have some living thing in her life. But she has no point of reference, no way to contrast the vast anomaly that is her life as a human and her life as a cat.

Saving the earth from the evils of human consumption and waste is not a new concept. In the seventies we were told that the earth was running out of natural resources, particularly oil. It would be just a matter of a few years and all would be gone. I didn’t believe it then and I don’t believe it now.

The concept is much the same – have we forgotten Earth Day? Earth Day was started before many of the current crop of human wasters were born. The idea of environmental issues was put forth as early as 1962 by Senator Gaylord Nelson. During the sixties there was much talk, and even a massive demonstration took place in 1969. And then, April 22, 1970 the first Earth Day was held.

Earth Day is only one of the many programs and concepts to save the earth. Going Green is the latest approach, and like many of the others, the jury is still out on whether it will go the way of so many other programs. More important, will it actually have an effect on the environment?

Now we are inundated with “Green.” I don’t believe I am alone here, when everywhere I look, is “green” and cynic that I am, I see this as just another “jump on the bandwagon” attempt to be politically correct. For most corporations going green means hauling in as much money as possible.

I am tired of being blamed for the mishaps of the world. I would love to have a car that didn’t require a second mortgage to fuel, and a cheaper way to heat my house. If you do not live in a major city, there is no public transportation, so you drive to work. Carpooling is fine, if you have a car large enough to accommodate it, and you don’t mind the hassle.

I did not make the big SUVs and cars that are inefficient, nor have I bought one. Why, in the last 30 plus years has little progress been made with fuel efficiency? What happened to all those high-milage carburetors, electric cars, and the too-many-to-remember gadgets to make driving reasonable? I don’t know, but it is easy to suspect that big oil may have something to do with the demise of fuel efficiency.

Now we come to recycling. My grandparents knew how to recycle much better than any system I see today. They lived through the Great Depression, and had to reuse things. They used every scrap of paper, every tiny can or container until it was worn out, beyond any doubt of reuse. Even my parents practiced recycling – they didn’t call it that – by using containers for purposes other than the original. For example, jelly and jams used to come in glass containers that could be then used as drinking glasses.

Now, and for the last 30 or so years, we live in a throw-away world. We have more gadgets than we need, and hardly anything is repairable. I am old enough to remember small appliance repairmen. If your toaster went on the blink, you took it in for repair. Now, you pitch it and buy a new one. Gadgets are now made so that the consumer cannot even replace a battery. The latest example I see is the Apple laptop computer, MacBook Air. Is Apple going green? Maybe the MacBook Air is more fuel efficient.

Until the corporate world stops creating markets for gadgets we don’t need, I will remain unsure of the efficacy of any program about the environment. Until big oil allows cars to become effectively fuel efficient, I have doubts about green. And if we are serious about the environment, we need to stop buying non-repairable gadgets. Personally, I’d like to see the return of the jelly glass.

NOTE: To my delight, I discovered a repair shop after this post. I hope to see the day when most consumer products can be repaired instead of tossed. Have a look at Rapid Repair for small electronic devices.

“A man receiving charity always hates his benefactor- it is a fixed characteristic of human nature” — George Orwell

I believe in charity, but over the last couple of years I’ve taken a harder stance on mainstream giving. To say it is essential to examine who is getting your money cannot be overstated. If you give money to charitable organizations, at least check who is actually getting the better part of it. What is the cost of overhead, and how do they spend your money?

Seldom do I give anything to the national organizations, the big ones that I know pay out fortunes for administrative costs. I have, over the years, made a couple of exceptions. But now, these too are usually filed in the shit-can. And even the more narrow, lesser know charities are fast becoming trashed as they come in the mail.

Scenario: I give to a fund and they send me address labels, note pads, calendars, and a certificate suitable for framing. That’s nice, but now, only a month or so later, they spent the money I gave them to send me even more babbles. Could they not at least wait six months or a year to spend this money to try and make me send more?

I have enough address labels to last three lifetimes, and enough note pads to scribble out a book. Every year I get at least five glossy calendars with nice stock photos of mountain scenes. Personally, I like The Far Side or Non Sequitur.

I find it much more gratifying to give money or attention to small parties or individuals anymore. They use the money as it was intended, not to send me things I don’t need. I do wish the bigger charities would get my name right. The pads and labels would be much more useful.