A ethereal wind

While the world works it's way through the death of Michael Jackson, with all it's sideshows, lurid or otherwise, there are those of us who have been mourning the loss of the man; the musician, for some time. The loss of opportunity, the wasting of resources, all the possibilities now surely gone, but that had long been buried beneath the celebrity and notoriety.

The question now is where does Michael Jackson belong in the pantheon of music, be it African-American, pop, soul; where is his place among the greats in music? Where does he belong? Compared to others, his discography is limited, but given that, does it compare in quality to his contemporaries, his predecessors, or to the icons some suggest he now joins? I think as far as his contemporaries are concerned, be it Prince, Lionel Richie, Madonna ( never thought I'd give the 80's that much....................thought ), or U2, he certainly eclipsed them by sheer volume and number. That he was dubbed the King of Pop, a crown worn in previous eras by Elvis and Sinatra, certainly speaks to his status in those days. But, musically, was he better, or more influential, than his contemporaries? Prince and U2 were more restless and creative; pushing themselves to be more than one dimensional, but then they weren't " pop " stars in the traditional sense, or more properly, moved through the popular firmament for a time, before returning to their own particular venues. Richie, suffered from the dominance of Jackson; Madonna appropriated the iconography and ran with it, producing albums in the idiomatic style of that particular moment in Pop.

What of his place with his predecessors? Diana Ross, Stevie Wonder, James Brown, Smokey Robinson, and the many other greats of Motown and Stax. He and his brothers came up through that time and obviously were influenced and mentored by that group. Does his work measure up to theirs? Is Thriller the equal of Marvin Gay's What's Going On? Thriller sold more, but what album by any individual or group is going to measure up to that? Is that the parameter that defines his place in history?

Is he among the great? Can he stand along side Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, or Ray Charles? Can he match their contributions to music; the songs, the styles, the impact on successive musicians; the weight of their legacies? I believe most discerning critics and historians of music would say no. Some of that is due to the category in which his music falls. Pop is, by and large, disposable; remembered mostly by those who age group is defined by it's time, and largely forgotten or unknown to others. It's like talking about the Beatles to a seventeen year old; he might like or appreciate the music; he might not, but he'll never understand the context of the time or the sensation, anymore than I would the Swing era, even though I truly enjoy Swing.

I do think that, for some of us; and I do include myself, there is a sense of what Michael Jackson might have created musically, had Thriller been a big hit rather than the monster he could never replicate. There's no doubt that he had a real feel for what he wanted to do musically, and success certainly can reinforce the belief that you can do no wrong, but the question that will never be answered was if that's all he really had; that Thriller was the culmination; that there wouldn't be anything better; that everything that followed would be a failed attempt at recreating the Thriller magic. Historically, you could say that his subsequent recording bear that out. They were good, but not great. Had Thriller not been the monster that it was, would Michael Jackson have moved on musically; creatively? Would he have had the opportunity to expand his musical palette; to try new thing and sound without being restrained by expectations, or was he, simply what he was; the best for a time, but only for that time, and then eclipsed by the next big thing.

The paradox of Dr. Manhattan

I have, of late, been wading in the pools of the Watchmen. First, the film, then the book, and lately, I've been reading a book on the philosophy of the story and it's characters. I find it remarkable that a comic can contain such a variety of subtexts. Every character is seriously flawed, and either suffers from doubt, or is certain of their convictions; oblivious to moral hazard. To say the book flays the comic book super hero is an understatement; the book obliterates the genre. Altruism has no hold on these vigilantes, from the sociopath Comedian to the surety of Ozymandias. All act beyond the bounds of society, bent to their own profundities, all the while hiding behind the facade of protecting the common good.



The oddball of the group is Dr. Manhattan. He being the only one of them who actually possesses powers beyond any ordinary human. He is by definition the only one who can profoundly alter the world around him. Yet, he is captive to his human limitations. He seems trapped by these limitations that having once been human place upon him. Maybe these are inherent flaws in the story, but they bring up interesting aspects to the idea of a human coming into possession of power to which he must then acclimate. How do these human limitations conflict with his apparently infinite physical power?



These problems manifest themselves as he is being manipulated by Viegt ( Ozymandias ); driving him into self exile on Mars. Finding himself having to defend the ( mistaken ) belief that he was causing those close to him to contract cancer, he becomes defensive and literally takes off. Evidently cosmic power does not necessarily imply cosmic understanding. He also seems smitten with what he can do without actually facing up to what these actions mean to the people around him; or to the human race as a whole. If, in fact, he can manipulate matter on a subatomic level, then realistically there's no reason he couldn't then dictate to the world how it would behave. The point of nuclear weapons, on the face of it, would be of little use, other than to guarantee annihilation for the usurper. That Dr. Manhattan is an American seems to count only for a little while. The US houses him and his girlfriend, the Silk Spectre, and provide him with a place to carry out whatever it is he's into; other than his own disassociation, there's not much in the book about what he's up to. The film purports that he working with Viegt on the, unbeknownst to him, weapon with which Viegt carries out his plan to save humanity. Both in the book and the film, the main thrust of Dr. Manhattan's evolution is his disassociation from humanity. That this would happen seems self evident. Once released from the constraints of physical being; having to never worry about eating, sleeping, aging, dying; when you begin to see time as spatial and inter-dimensional; this is explained by his seeing the events of his life concurrently rather than sequentially, and seeing events to come, the idea that he would begin to move to a different kind of consciousness would be expected.



With this, naturally, would be movement away from the perceived present of those around him. They're still trapped in their time slot; he is not. They're doomed to die; he is not. He can move throughout the universe, free to discover it's mysteries; they are not. That he would begin to see them as merely points in a line rather than beings to relate to, is a forgone expectation. Freed from their immediacy, he can look at humanity as a history, as a fluid movement,and not be constricted by time and place.

Philosophically, Dr. Manhattan is seeking peace, or perhaps more prosaically, happiness. Having been freed of his human bonds, he finds respite in the universe; in it's timelessness; it's function, and it's order. The exact opposite of the meandering chaos of human endeavor. That he acquiesces to the twisted logic and aftermath of Viegt's murder seems more a point of departure for him; a means to an end, allowing him to free himself of any earthly responsibility and finally move on to his cosmic bliss.

The final irony is his contemplation of creating life.

The great cosmic joke, pt 1

Alright, now that I've reeled you in with my incisive wit, and deep penetrating intellect; it's time to run the gauntlet ( sorry, couldn't resist ) and throw out some thick gooey darkness at the end of town.



Life is a great cosmic joke.



The fun, of course, is we play it on ourselves. We can, or some can; as I don't believe this view is universally held, blame this on God. It is, after all, his house of cards. That we're seated at the back of the room; I don't feel, should be held against him ( you may insert whatever relevant pronoun you feel is applicable if you don't care for " him " ). We set ourselves down this particular lane; admonitions to the contrary, and we're doomed to see it to the end. I doubt we, as a collective, will one day hearken to a blinding vision, turn on a dime, and change course. And why should we; we've convinced ourselves of our inestimable value to the universe, and to deny that now would be somewhat hypocritical. We are Humanity, dammit! We carry the favor of God's eye. Our many sacred texts bear this out. That we have a hubristic finger in all these pies apparently is beside the point. God is on our side and he wouldn't abandon us, or play a cruel joke on us either. Would he? If we are created in his image, and we have a sense of humor, the depth and quality of which is remarkable ( assuming you are not a person of ill humor ); the obvious conclusion is that God does as well. As such, his may be cosmologically transcendent!



In an intellectual exercise; such as this, let us break our argument into three components; the cosmological, the biological, and the psychological.



Cosmologically, we are dust in the wind. By simply noting the size and scale of the universe, and our small, and by that I mean our incredibly small, little part of it; we are nearly infinitesimal. In cosmological time, our lives are nanoseconds; as was once proverbially noted, a blink in the eyes of God. The immense scale of the universe works against our notions of being special; one offs, if you will. As the universe is governed by the same laws regardless of location, and is made up of the same elements; as well as the same dynamics, the idea that there aren't many more carbon based life forms out there is self serving. There are many more of us out there, brother. That we struggle to bridge the time and distance inherent in a universe of this magnitude, as well as our biological limitations; the great impediment to our Star Trek fantasies, does not diminish the existence of others. The lack of evidence or contact is not, in and of itself, proof that no other sentient beings are out there. The cosmology of the great joke is probably the least diabolical, if not the greatest to overcome. We are what we are, where we are, and are bound by the immutable forces that govern the universe. Try as we may, we can only hope to understand the consistency of the soup we're in.



The biological conundrum is that, for some of us, the accumulation of knowledge and experience is juxtaposed by the inevitable disintegration of the body; including the brain, which is part of the body. That seems to be forgotten from time to time. In a society that fawns and obsesses over the physical, rather than revering the wisdom that presumably comes with age, there is great comedy in watching people desperately trying to defy the ossification of their cherished vessels. Surgery, creams, potions, appliques; all designed to forestall decay for a nominal service charge. This is high comedy. Our advertisements are filled with the lithe, the fit, and the young hawking products for the old, sedentary, and fat promising them a way to eternal life, or at least some bargain basement approximation of it. A good diet, exercise, moderation, and restraint are too much work. And while they will have an effect on the quality of your life; they may not have as big a desired effect on the superficiality of our visual selves. At one point in the mists of time, it was a compliment to say someone has aged gracefully. Given the bloating of the American public in this age of plenty, you don't hear that much anymore. Add to the fact that no one wants to get old anymore, and it's probably just as well. Of course, in the long run no of this matters. We'll get to that later.



Last, but not least, is the psychological. The iron clad belief that this all means something; that we're no just here out of cosmological and biological forces that we can't control. We're here to do God's work in whatever catechism we happen to believe in. We're born into circumstances we can't control, which has a predominant say in how our life will mature. Our life is shaped further by the actions of individuals we both know and don't know; for better or worse. That we are masters of our domain is mostly ephemeral. None the less, we continue to pray at the alter of the exception; that for everyone who toils in anonymity, a few will rise up to take their place in our histories and lore. It's very seductive. It plays to our vanity and greed.

The joke, of course, is that, cosmically, it matters not. As was famously stated, we fret and strut upon the stage til our part is over, to be played no more. Whether remembered or not. And remembrance is illusory as well. Some events and characters retain their place, but only a few. There can be but one Alexander. We have our histories, but they are incomplete and by human nature biased. The greatness of individuals is harnessed within memory of their time, after which it is in the hands of people to whom they are nothing more than pictures, words, and someone else's memories. It takes quite a character to truly impact human history. All the rest? Dust in the wind. I can only see my own family's face back to my great grandmothers. Anyone further back and I have no physical connection. Only what is passed down by those who knew or heard of them. What of all the human beings that have populated the earth from the beginning? Come and gone. Consumed by their needs and the vagaries of the age. We all simply pass through. The day will come that the dying sun's expansion will make the earth uninhabitable; later it will consume the earth as it dies. All our history; all the artifacts we leave behind go with it. Maybe we'll shoot it all into space, assuming the atmosphere isn't too filled with debris. Maybe we'll build an ark to ferry humanity to another world full of bucolic splendor. Maybe we'll kill ourselves off never having reconciled our ability to create with our darker impulses of destruction. Maybe.

Next we have a conversation with God. What does he think?

Tea anyone?

I don't know if I should celebrate our collective ignorance, or shrug, and accept that this is what we've become; for better or for worse. It's evident that a great many Americans do not know how their government works; do not have much of an understanding of economics ( and I don't profess to being Paul Krugman ), or how taxes are doled out. That's too bad, because there might be some real heat in these less than stellar times.

I live in Washington state; a great place to be rich. We have a regressive tax base, so everyone pays the same. Maybe that sounds fair, but with no state income tax, we rely on spending rather than income. For a state that considers itself progressive in most things, it's a real poke in the eye. The more money you have in this state the less you have to pay, as a percentage of your worth. Obviously you can spend more, but you don't have to. You can choose to pay what the poorest pay. The basics cost what they cost regardless of who's paying; food, housing, medical care; the things we need to survive. Sales taxes; property taxes; business taxes; that's our tax base, so no surprise when times get tough, when people lose their jobs, when the rest of us over-extend; the state's tax revenues drop like real estate valuations. One year we're in the black, the next we're down by billions; 9 over the next two years.

There goes money for education; there goes money for the less fortunate, for those in poor health. Even as more join their ranks; there's no money. History means nothing, even as it speaks to the direct benefit of education for the growth of business, the growth of innovation, the betterment of society as a whole. Yet the notion of more taxation equity is a non starter. The rich don't even need to lobby themselves; they have the Tea Party movement, such as it is, to lobby for them, Never mind that the great majority of these worked up folks aren't rich and would probably benefit from a more progressive tax base. It's already been pointed out that the country has been given a substantial tax break by the new administration, and that as a percentage of their income Americans are paying less than they have in decades.

It is, of course, the great American tradition to hate taxes and hew to our own individual wants. We inherently know what's best; when the chips are down we have confidence in ourselves. In and of themselves, those aren't bad things; in fact, it's what has made American great, and what has distinguished us from the rest of the world. But we seem resistent to the nature of the government we have today. It is not a small nimble organization. It's huge. We ask much more from it than we care to acknowledge. We expect it to be well organized and managed, yet we expect it to be there for us in time of need as well as want, even if those wants are counter-intuitive to our beliefs. Yet we allow it to be a pravaricator of small minded needs rather thanwhat best for the whole. If we believe in self reliance, then there's little need for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; jobless benefits beyond what we put in to support them; which poses the question of whether there're needed or not if we are truly self reliant. No need for pensions and the like; we're smart enough to handle our own affairs far from the intrusion of big government.

That government fails us, or fails to live up to the perceptions that are our own, fall squarely on our own shoulders. We elect the people who represent us. It is their job to set the laws; derive the structure of the government, appoint those who will administer it, and judiciously tax to support its function. If government fails; it is our failure. You can't, one the one hand, claim self reliance and then expect the government to bail you out when you find yourself in the dumps; but we do. Or I should say some do. The sheer size of our economy, and it's inter-connectedness to our daily lives, as well as our government, is the reason behind our now massive indebtedness. If we were as self reliant as we'd like to believe, then we'd have let the chips fall where they may. The banking and lending industries would probably end up massively smaller. With job losses and consumer debt so high, spending would fall off the table, which in turn would create more business and job loss in those sectors that cater to our consumer lifestyle. Values plummet. The economy shrinks. A lot. Let me say that again; a Lot. That means a lot of people out of work with nothing to do. Historically that tends to be not so good for a stable society.

That's the problem. The lot. That the government has decided to spend far beyond it's means is nothing new. We as a society seem reluctant to pay for what we demand. We're attacked; we respond, yet when comes up to paying for it, we don't; we cut taxes instead. And for those who can most afford it. It makes no sense. It makes sense to pay for what you need. It makes sense to save for the inevitable crashes, in the good times, so the hard time are at least cushioned. Unfortunately good sense isn't politically expedient. There are any number of things that the government can do to cut the debt; restructure Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; reduce military spending to what we really need for 21st century security. Those are the big spenders; entitlements and the military. If you don't want to pay to cover those cost; you have to cut and restructure. Most of the bailout money will be repaid, and once the banks find their footing; the financial crisis will work itself out. The government will have to deal with it, as it has many times before. An ordered society isn't free, and doing your own thing has it's costs as well. Nothing is without cost. Bitching about it, while a temporary balm; solves nothing.

Either way; limited, overarching, or something in between; whatever government you want still has to be paid for.

Please Sir, may I have another, pt.1

The following thoughts occurred to me over the last few day, of which I claim no exclusivity.

Guns. We need our guns, in all their infinite variety. Why? To protect our lives, properties, and, as it is continually threatened, our liberty. That they give voice to our odious violent tendencies is immaterial. Without them we are as vulnerable as the naked in the forest. If the Jews of pre-war Europe had had the access we do to AK-47s and the like, would there have been any holocaust? The Tutsi of Rwanda? The Muslims of Yugoslavia? I'm not trying to be glib, but small arms, in the hands of an untrained, marginally led ( if at all ) group, is no match against blunt military force.

It's why the idea of Obama taking away the guns of all good Americans is deeply flawed. It not worth trying to do, certainly not during this age. One, it would require an act of Congress; no president would dare act unilaterally on something like that, and the idea that Congress would ban all firearms is a pipe dream. There's no political will to ban or severely restrict gun ownership. Two, it would require the military to do it if force is required, rather than if required by law that had been approved by Congress with the support of a majority of the American public, then it would be up to law enforcement, and I doubt they'd be thrilled with the prospect. Again, no political will or enough public support. Third, if it came to violent confrontation, assuming that American military personnel would be willing to fire on their own people; it would be a bloodbath. I don't care how many assault rifles you have or how much ammo; you be taken out by any means necessary. That's the way it is. Our armed forces are too powerful for the " people " to defeat. You're as likely to defeat them as the Palestinians of Gaza are of defeating the Israeli army. No politician is going to endanger the American democratic system or guns. And yet, people are hoarding guns and ammo because they're certain the " gubmint " is coming for their guns.

Then there's the chimera of possessing a concealed weapons permit and carrying on your person a concealed weapon. The wisdom is that you have the means to protect yourself in the event that you need to protect yourself; someone tries to rob you, you see a crime in progress, although I don't believe law enforcement cares much for the citizenry utilizing deadly force in stopping crimes they come across in the course of their daily lives; the possible exception being armed intruders, and, as stated above, protecting your personal liberty from the clutches of a " socialist " president and his administration. As I noted in an earlier blog, the ability to make this work is contingent on your being ever vigilant; ever watchful, and being able to calmly execute ( lovely term ) all actions necessary, which to my mind requires a reasonable amount of practice. That's what our celluloid heroes do. Fortunately, for them, it's all smoke and mirrors; unfortunately for those of us in the real world, it is not. While bad guys may come at you in an orderly fashion in film; they don't in real life. Just ask Julius Caesar. They did not come at him one at a time. It only takes a few to concentrate your focus and that's time enough for a shiv to find your back. Nor are most rabble going to confront you in such a way as to give you time to assuage the situation and present your firearm to shock and awe. If the bad guy has a weapon and he thinks your up to something, he probably shoot you the minute you put your hand in your jacket or pocket or wherever you have your weapon. If he doesn't have a weapon and see you brandish one, he'll flee. The law, other than in Texas, generally doesn't abide shooting someone in the back; even while fleeing an attempted crime.

The other compelling nostrum is that it gives you a sense of control in a world in which there is only so much you can have any control over. The horrors brought to our attention on the nightly news, or Internet, magnify this lack of control. One day he's just another guy; and men perpetrate these crimes by a wide margin, the next he's wandering through WalMart killing everyone he sees. Maybe you'll have time to pull out your weapon and take charge, but it doesn't happen very often if at all. If we have so many people armed to the teeth, why aren't these massacres stopped sooner? Maybe it's because all they want to do, like everyone else, is get out and find a place of safety. Vigilance is exhausting if you have to be on alert all the time, if everyone you come across, assuming you trust friends and family, is a potential enemy. Soldiers exposed to this over long periods of time get PTSD, or battle fatigue, or shell shock. My fear is that leads to the kinds of mistakes you can never take back; killing an innocent bystander. No amount of rationalizing will heal the wounded or bring back the dead. It also hardens the police, who must assume we're all packing. If I start flashing a gun, even with the best of intentions, how are the police supposed to distinguish me from the others flashing weapons. It's worth noting that in the violence of the Depression that in a lot of cases law enforcement shot first and asked questions later. Bonnie and Clyde didn't get a "stop or we'll shoot " shout out before being gunned down.

We live in a violent society. We seem to accept the fact that many choose to resolve conflicts with violence. Guns won't stop a determined killer unless people are ready for it; and as we've seen, many are not. I don't believe we should be. I don't want to believe that everyone around me is a potential killer, even though that's possible. It sucks the life out of you. Other than my children, there's nothing I have that's so important, or so necessary, or irreplaceable that I'd need to kill someone because of it. Most victims of gun violence, or violence in general, know the perpetrator. Random act of senseless violence I can't control. If one day someone comes up behind me and shoots me, it's unlikely I'll know anything before it happens. I do what I can to minimize those possibilities, but I can only control what I do.

I can have an arsenal of weapons, but I'm not going to go around armed to the teeth; someone will just call the cops. Or some other person with a concealed weapons permit might shoot me; certain they're protecting themselves from sure destruction.

As I said; I don't know how they save me, other than by happenstance or luck.

The American consumer in repose

It has been said; you are what you eat. It therefore may be said also, you are what you consume, and as such are defined by the advertisements that pull your little heartstrings of desire; the window into our very souls. That may be pure conjecture on my part; probably, but given the state of advertisements in this country, and the fact that we have evolved into a consumerist society, they; advertisements, indeed cater to our definitive selves. Or, more darkly, we define ourselves by the perceived qualities that those products that appeal to us, consciously or subconsciously; allow us to project, both outwardly and inwardly, who we want or wish to be. A bit of a mouthful to be sure. The other side of the coin is what these advertisements say about us as a society. I bring this up because I have deep concerns, alright maybe just facile concerns, about what commercials and ads say about the prototypical American here at the dawn of the Twenty-First Century.

The most prevalent common denominator, certainly as far as men are concerned, is that we are a nation of idiots; that we are immature, if you are a young adult; or racked with maladies if you are older. The only time you're on the ball is when you are a child; and, not surprisingly, you are also manipulative and devious. Plus, you're wise beyond your years.

Then you lose it!

Look at the characters in beer commercials. Coors Lite lauds itself as the coldest beer; note that quality of taste is not mentioned. Naturally if a beer is very cold the first thing you'll notice is not the taste, but that your tongue has gone numb. What does that say about someone who consumes this beer; I don't care about taste so long as it's really cold. Then there's the new Heineken commercial where the women are squealing over the big new walk in closet, while the men are squealing over a walk in fridge filled with beer. Doesn't exactly exuded confidence in the future of humankind. Now that Miller has thrown down the gauntlet on the " high life "; that it's for the common man in all his glory, so long as that doesn't include $10 burgers served in ritzy restaurants, sky boxes where no one knows the score, clueless barbecuers, and VIPs ensconced behind velvet ropes, I'm waiting for another beer company to declare itself the beer for the extra special man, or woman. Beer specifically brewed for when you're behind velvet ropes with other extra special people. One can dream.

Then there's the time worn idiocy that all a man needs to be a hit with the ladies; to " slay the babes ", is to use the right cologne, after shave, body spray, razor. Once a complete loser; now never at a loss for female companionship, and not just any female companionship, but hot, sexy babes just ready to give you anything you want. Who falls for this stuff? Never mind that the men in these commercials are good looking; imagine the outcry if fat, hairy, middle aged guys were used. No one would buy it because we know it's bull. It's like the beauty aids foisted onto women to keep them looking young and beautiful, and the models are at a age, early 20's, where they don't need the stuff and have very little body fat. Where are the middle aged women for whom the product is geared? Evidently, no one wants to see that either. More to the point, what does it say about the people who buy into this stuff? Is there anybody who actually believes any of this? Yet it's normal business practice to do customer surveys, etc, to gage the marketplace, one would think, before putting these products into stores. Someone confessed to believing they needed these. Cynically, I guess it's possible they lies for the money, but not everyone gets paid to do surveys.

Old guys, or mature men, if you prefer, seem to suffer from any number of life threatening maladies; grey hair in their beards ( never mind their balding heads; little or no hair seems to be the rage these days regardless of age ), weak urinary stream; there's nothing better than sitting through commercials of bromances ( surely the truest sign that the Apocalypse is upon us ) interrupted by multiple potty breaks, and, of course, erectile dysfunction or ED ( which I always thought stood for Emergency Department ). Despite the fact that most men who suffer from these problems are sedentary, overweight, diabetic, and have heart and or circulatory issues; or some combination thereof, the men in these ads are active, trim, and attractive. The only thing that surprises me is that they don't use young guys in their ads, as mentioned above for women's anti-aging cosmetics; maybe that's a little TOO cynical.

I did note a number of blogs ago that I'm certain we're sliding into our own Wall-E world, and the idea that people are deluding themselves into believing they will not only cure the ailment, but turn the user into a stud muffin or hot babe if they use the products, does little to dissuade of that notion. Unfortunately I don't think that'll include a spaceship to cater to our every need until the Earth is remade ( they didn't even get that in the film ).

It's been noted that the earlier you subject an individual to the idea that there is a perfect way to look or behave, the earlier they begin to obsess on their flaws and limitations, and the lower their opinion of themselves. We fear aging. We long for a kind of idealized image that's manufactured for us by entities that have ulterior motives.

Is this the point of our lives? Is this the extent of our existence? Solipsistic consumers chasing something just beyond our reach?

I need a beer. Only which one is me?

Is this a pointless life?

I'm at an age where I question, a great deal, the world I find myself in, and the choices I've made because of it. I've heard that 50 is the new 40 is the new 30, etc, so evidently I still have plenty of time to work this over in my mind, distill it, ruminate, pontificate; bellow. At some point it'll all become clear.

I'm not buying it.

It's all the other stuff I've bought, and bought into that concerns me, and if I'm honest; has for some time.

Capitalism. Individualism. Consumerism. Rubric of our present existence. You make money doing what you want, without unwanted government or state interference, collecting a surfeit of goods that define your time on our blessed mortal coil. If you're lucky, fortunate, driven to succeed; in the right place at the right time, you may well become a captain of industry, leaving your mark on history, employing many, and advancing the quality of life for those who follow you. All well and good. For the rest of us, for whatever reason, who do not obtain that lofty status, we still benefit from the innovations, inventions, and advancements.

I've done my part. I'm reasonably educated, have a decent job, which pays well by most standards, and have done my share of consuming, be it homes, or cars; furniture, vacations, electronics, music, the arts, and all the other miscellaneous dross I might come across and covet. I've periodically culled the pile, donating the usable, and tossing the junk. Occasionally I've been roped into the Sturm und Drang of the proverbial yard sale. At times I marvel at all the stuff I've accumulated over the years and wonder at the idea of this multiplied by the millions. All the stuff we build, buy, replace, and throw away. That's our existence. A not so inconsequential byproduct of the fact that a good many of us in this country do not have to concern ourselves with basic subsistence, being surrounded by more than we could ever need or use ( this obviously is much less so by those caught in the maelstrom of our current economic woes or the truly sorry fact that there are still those in this country who want for enough to eat ). We are inundated with commercials and ads, sirens calling to our desires and greed; with products and services on which to spend our hard earned pay or readily available credit ( again mostly, depending on your all important credit rating, assuming you have any credit left at all).

So we devote our life to consuming, cradle to grave, with the endpoint being what? How much stuff we have? The quality or worth of it? So you have something to leave to those you leave behind, survive you, or those to whom you may bequeath? Do you consume for others? For those who need or want? Is it any better or worse than devoting yourself to others rather than yourself? To deny yourself the trappings of any particular lifestyle in the American tradition, be it rogue, salary man, suburbanite, artist, bum, politician, salt of the earth, farmer, cowboy, entrepreneur, feckless automaton, malcontent, laborer, or anger white guy ( there may some classifications I've missed ). Maybe I'm missing something.

I know, this is the world it which we live. In many other parts of the world, life is a struggle to survive. A struggle most of our ancestors spend their lives dealing with. I can love it or leave it. I can not worry about it; over think it. It is what it is. I guess if you're happy with what you do, and don't see the point in over analyzing the every detail of your existence, then go f**k yourself!

Sorry; cheap laugh.

None of this is to say that I wouldn't like the house of my dreams; well appointed to my tastes. A nice car, and the wherewithal to live whatever fantasy life I might dream up that day. I have no real desire to be an ascetic. Nor am I fool enough to think that times were better in yon days; maybe if you were wealthy, but disease still killed off plenty of them as well. Mostly it's the total bombardment of the consumer lifestyle; the inculcating blast furnace telling , cajoling, amusing, demanding, inferring, inciting us to buy, buy buy! And we did buy, buy, buy; whether we could afford it or not. People played to their avaricious, greediest impulses to squeeze every possible dollar out of us; legally, ethically, or otherwise.

Does it ever stop?

Makes you hope for reincarnation just so you can go back and buy what you didn't get to the last time.