Wind Direction

Some days the wind is at your back.  But if you turn around, it will be in your face.

It is the same wind.

How it affects you, the way that you perceive it, depends on the direction you are heading.

That doesn't necessarily mean you should change direction based on how the wind is blowing.  But don't assume that you are heading in the right direction, just because the wind is at your back.

Likewise, if you are confident in your direction, don't be turned around when the wind is in your face.  Because the wind will change direction.  That is the nature of the wind.

But if you feel that the wind is always in your face, perhaps it is time to examine your own nature.  You may be changing direction at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons.

Anyway, it's something to think about.

Take care.

Ghosts of Christmas Past

I've never really understood the whole holiday decorating thing.  I have dutifully assisted my brother-in-law in putting up his Christmas lights on more than one occasion - but I have been out of the holiday decorating mix in my own home for so long that I've lost touch.  There are a few factors involved, in my estimation.  My disposition is not suited to decorating, for one.  Since there seems no practical basis for the activity, a part of me just doesn't get it.  There are aspects of decorating that also don't work for me philosophically.  I know this sounds stupid - but part of me feels like it's just a way to fake yourself into the holiday spirit.  The especially "Protestant" part of me (those of you who have known me long and hard know what I'm talking about - the rest of you will just have to try and catch my drift) feels that - hey, if you can't get excited about the birth of the Savior for its own sake - you've missed the point.

But as this 50th Christmas approaches, and I drove home from dinner alone tonight, down a street I haven't traveled on in a long time (even though it's within walking distance from my home), I encountered part of the heart of true suburban Christmas excess.  Homes with so many Christmas lights and silhouette reindeer and plastic Santas, plastic choristers, plastic elves - lights, lights and more lights - that you know more than a small element of neighborly competition is involved.  "I love Christmas more than you!"  Displays of such conspicuous electrical consumption that the owners must have some twinge of regret when the December electric bill comes due.  Then I realized that the last time I had traveled down this street, I would have been going to visit my mother and father-in-law, both ghosts of Christmas Past now - and they reminded me that, administered in a proper dose, those Christmas lights can be beautiful in a place and a season where nights come early and stay late.  If you're lucky, you reach that point in your life where the ghosts that haunt you aren't frightening anymore; in fact, they can feel like old friends reminding you of things you hadn't quite forgotten - but almost.

I went to get a donut right after that.  Luckily for me, they didn't have any raised sugar so I came home and wrote this down.  It's fifty-fifty whether I go looking for donuts later.  Lord knows I don't need a donut - but the idea has its appeal.

That's the news from where I am.  "It's not a sad song, though you may feel it that way..."  Hope you have a safe and blessed Christmas and a Happy New Year wherever you are.

Take care.

Transformers 3: The Love Bug. (Part Two)

[Apologies to any Internet traveller who ended up here thinking that I would have a rant regarding Michael Bay, robots, or any topic semi-related to the recent blockbuster films created based on plastic toys.]

"Wherever you are, whenever it's right
You'll come out of nowhere and into my life
And I know that we can be so amazing
And, baby, your love is going to change me
And now I can see every possibility..."

 -- Michael Buble, Haven't Met You Yet

So here we are, gathered around our little campfire, with the logs of Love, Transformation, Expectation, and Compatibility all ablaze.  And I'm trying to balance this equation:  in a loving relationship, what is the proper mix of accepting of your partner as they are, desire to transform, acceptance of oneself, and desire to be transformed.

The short answer is, of course:  Whatever works!  But I'm audacious enough to suppose that there is a particular view of the equation that is more inclined to work for most people.  To figure that out, you need to decide how much you support the following assumptions:

- Love, by its very nature, should transform people and situations
- People in loving relationships should care as much (or more) about their partners as themselves
- Everyone has things about themselves they would like to change
- No one likes to feel that they are being forced or coerced into changing
- People are always changing - whether they realize it or not

I know this will come as a shock - but I think there is a great deal of truth in these assumptions.  So how does that end up balancing the equation?  I would summarize it this way:

- People should enter into loving relationships accepting their partners as they are
- People should enter into loving relationships trying to be the best they can be

I find the attitude that "My partner should accept me as who I am, no matter what" to be an excuse for bad behavior*.  It seems to me that, if we want our partners to accept us for who we are, we should at least be attempting to put our best foot forward.  I don't feel that it is being dishonest to "be on your best behavior". 

The danger, I think, is in trying to distort our "true" selves in the hope of making ourselves attractive to a partner.  I don't believe that such a performance can be sustained over the long haul.  I think this type of deception (of both oneself and your partner) is distinctly different from recognizing things about yourself that you would like to change - and looking for a partner that can help you make that change.

So where does that leave our equation?

Here's my opinion:  The most stable relationships will exist where partners are most accepting of each other as they are.  The impetus for change should not come from one partner desiring to change the other - but a partner who desires to be changed through the love and influence of their partner over time.

After all, isn't the amazing thing that people can sustain long-term, loving relationships at all?  If, as I suspect, people are changing constantly (whether they notice it or not), how is it that all couples don't eventually become estranged?

Maybe it's because their love for one another is continually transforming them.

Or something.

Take care.

PS:  I won ANOTHER iPad today.  No sh*t.  I probably should have played the Lottery too.
PPS:  I did NOT compose this post on my iPad.  But it is still really cool.

*It has long been my view that bad behavior can be understood or tolerated - but not excused.

You have all the time there is

I used to think that, as time went on, the pieces of my life would fit together more closely.

Here's what I mean:  I've always felt my life was highly "compartmentalized".  I have a work piece, and a church piece, and a family piece (divided into my mother's side of family, my father's side of the family and my wife's family).  I have friends from school, friends from my old job, friends from the martial arts school.  But there isn't much overlap between the compartments.

From time to time, maybe everyone feels that their life is like that.  But when you're trying to devote a meaningful part of yourself and your time to each facet - and the only common thing in the facets seems to be you - scheduling alone is a b*tch.

I imagined that, as I grew older and...wiser (Oh God, make them stop laughing - someone's going to burst a blood vessel), I would find ways to better integrate these aspects of my life.  I don't imagine that anymore.  I realized yesterday, as I was working a couple extra hours in the office again, that my life is just as segregated as it ever was.

I work harder when I'm working, so that I can relax more (and/or longer) when I'm relaxing.  I constantly make decisions about what activity or aspect of my life will get a little less attention today, so that another part can get the attention it needs.  And, although I still am rather hopelessly overcommitted, I truly have gotten better at say "No" to things and stopping activities that were not enriching.  So why does it still seem such a struggle?

Here's my latest insight on that question:  Because as time goes on, the things we must do always get more difficult - not less.  The older you get, the more experience you have, the greater expectation there is - from others and from YOURSELF - of how much you can do and how quickly you can do it.  And I believe that expectation outpaces your actual ability to deliver.  Not that you can't do more things and do them better, faster, whatever - but that your abilities can't necessarily keep pace with expectations.

Let's face it - as time goes on, people don't ask you to do easier things, do they?  We start with the easy stuff and (theoretically) move on to things that are more difficult and complex.

So what can we do?  Well, I'm going to cut myself a little slack.  'Cause being distracted and tired never helped anybody be a better husband, or Dad, or boss, or friend.

I think that all made sense.  Time to go to work.

Take care.

The Death of Curiosity: Jim Styro's Meaning of Life, Part Fourteen

The thought occurred to me recently - that I am no longer as curious as I used to be.

I could probably come up with a lot of reasons why that has come to pass. I'm older, I know more, so there's less to be curious about. I'm older, so there's more things I don't want to know (like what are my daughter and her fiance doing during their sleepovers? Hell, I know damn well what they're doing! The same thing I was doing with my fiance 30 years ago.) I'm confronted with so much information from modern media that my mind is occupied with absorbing the information already bombarding me - not seeking out more stuff to try to absorb.

These reasons all have varying degrees of validity - but I don't think they tell the real story. (The "I know more" one is particularly weak, since the amount of "What I know" as a percentage of "What there is to be known" hasn't even caused the Knowledge-O-Meter to jiggle during my entire stay on this planet...) The biggest reason why I'm not very curious anymore is:
I'm just too damn busy to be curious.

You've heard of "idle curiosity"? People use the phrase like it's a bad thing - but I'm not so sure. In any case, I'm pretty sure a prerequisite for idle curiosity is...being idle. If your time and your mind are constantly occupied with "what is going on right now", there's little or no room for curiosity to creep in.

Which, in and of itself, wouldn't be a cause of concern - I mean, who cares whether or not Jim Styro is curious. But I think we're ALL getting too busy to be curious. And I think that general phenomenon could be more of a problem.

Consider for a moment the sort of situations in which your mind seems to work best, is the most open and creative. Is it when there is a flood of information, sensation or ideas being thrown at you? Is it when you are bearing down, highly focused, intent on an objective? Is it when you let go, relax your mind and let it wander for a minute or two in a happy place? Ask yourself: When you can't remember something, when something is on the tip of your tongue but you can't quite come up with it - and it's bugging you - what do you do?)

Like most things, I think the mind benefits from some variety - but I fear that our culture and lifestyles don't permit as much as we need. It's not that we don't like to think at all (although that is a problem that deserves a separate examination) - but even when we do, it tends to be reactive, frantic and...directed. This last point, I think, is particularly harmful to the curious nature. Because I think we tend to confuse the "pursuit of knowledge" with curiosity.

"The pursuit of knowledge" is noble and useful - but it is most often done with a particular objective (or worse, a conclusion) in mind. When I worked for the federal government, my friends and I there had a humorous motto that we intended to have printed on T-shirts.

It said:

If you know the answer, you don't have to think

A saying both funny and true - but dangerous to thinkers everywhere. In our haste - to make money, to be first, to not "waste time" - we have dismissed the importance of idle curiosity. And if we do that, if we stop letting our minds wander where they will go, we risk not only missing the inspiration that we may find from the wandering - but our minds may forget how to wander.

I say we need to start exercising our curiosity muscles - before they atrophy.

Take care.


PS: Lest you think that I hadn't noticed, my lovely wife, the Middle-Aged Woman, has partnered up with Captain Dumbass (my hero - or is he now my rival?) to bring you
the Zombie News Network!

Don't miss it - or heads will roll.

The Glory of "I Don't Know"

Maybe it's just me - but somewhere, sometime, at some point during my life here in these United States, we seem to have become convinced that everybody ought to know everything. No one ever seems to want to admit that they don't know the answer to a question anymore. When people don't know the answer these days, they either:

- Change the subject by pretending you asked a question they DO know the answer to - and answering that question, or

- Tell you that the question you asked isn't relevant - and that what you really want to know is something they would love to tell you instead, or

- They pretend to know the answer but never really answer your question, or

- They lie and make up an answer

While each of these responses indicates a unique talent for subterfuge, none are very helpful or efficient or honest. But it seems that use of the words "I don't know" is now an unforgivable sin - and we are all doom to the Hell of Half-Truths.

When was the last time you heard or participated in a conversation where one party ended a statement with the phrase "...you know what I mean?" and anyone else involved had the guts to admit "No - I don't have any idea what you're talking about."

And then, just when I was convinced that only the few & the brave would admit to "not knowing", I had a conference call with a software vendor who willing to acknowledge on more than one occasion that she couldn't answer one of our question regarding her product (but would find out). At one point, she even said that she didn't want to try and sell us the software by "over-promising".

Wait a minute! Was that a breath of fresh air I felt coming into my office?

Take care.

"The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars..." *

In response to yesterday's post, my friend Pamela from The Dayton Time said...

"And here I was, thinking the problem with the golden rule was not with the golden rule, but that people don't practice what they preach."

I must certainly agree that what is wrong with followers of The Golden Rule is far more severe than any flaws that exist in the rule itself. Or - as the late Fred Rodgers might say -

"Can you say 'hypocrite'? I thought you could!"

That Pamela is one sharp woman. Yes, she is.

Take care.


* but in ourselves" --Julius Caesar, Act I Scene II

The problem with The Golden Rule: Jim Styro's Meaning of Life, Part 13

I can't say that I love Jesus
That would be a hollow claim
He did make some observations
And I'm quoting them today

"Judge not, lest ye be judged"
What a beautiful refrain
The studio audience disagrees
Have his lambs all gone astray?

-- New Test Leper by R.E.M.

Everybody knows that the world would be a better place if we all followed The Golden Rule, right? And everybody knows that The Rule is commonly stated as:
"Do to others as you would have them do to you."

Right?

But - and here's where the whole question of judgment comes in - doesn't The Golden Rule only work if the way I prefer to be treated and the way you prefer to be treated are (at least close to) the same thing?

Of course, as the world becomes a smaller place and we begin to learn things we never knew about distant countries, unfamiliar cultures, different preferences in human interaction - it becomes clear that presuming other people want to be treated the way that we want to be treated has a high probability of inaccuracy.

Maybe the New Golden Rule will need to be:

Try to treat other people the way they want to be treated.

It's a tougher rule to follow - because it means you actually need to understand another person, rather than simply assume that person is like you. But isn't that the underlying idea - having as much consideration for those around you as you have for yourself - of the original Golden Rule anyway?

Anyway, that's what I was thinking. Now I'll be quiet and listen to what those around me have to say.

Take care.

It seemed like a good idea at the time

Here's a couple recent thoughts I jotted down in my Franklin Planner (with a bit of commentary at no extra charge):

- I prefer to do interesting things - rather than let interesting things happen to me.

The first involves making my own choices - which may or may not be good ones, which may or may not meet my original expectations. The latter seems based on judgement of events in hindsight - perhaps filtered through the view of others.

[You: "That really sounds interesting!"
Me: "Interesting? It was a tremendous pain in the @$$!"]

I don't believe that this preference means I can't "go with the flow" - or need to control everything (I go both ways in different circumstances). But I would rather be active than passive, I guess.

- It is poor use of another human being to keep them in a nearby room (figuratively or literally) primarily for one's own comfort or solace. Although you may derive benefit from the knowledge that someone will "always be there for me" - it is a diet on which few relationships can grow or thrive.

I think the above is true regardless of whether the parties involved are introverts or extroverts - although those preferences would certainly be a factor in how the parties deal with issues of solitude vs. interaction.

Perhaps these ideas will become pieces of the puzzle that get woven into the broad tapestry of my Meaning of Life posts (which remain untouched these recent weeks). Or not.

Sorry I didn't have any more lingerie shots for you thrill seekers. You never know when I'll go all Alistair Cooke on you.

Take care.

Taking Stock

On Friday, I finished Mid-Year evaluations for the men and women that work for me. How can I refer to it as a mid-year evaluation, you ask, when it's the end of July? Because my company requires that I conduct two formal reviews of my staff each year: a mid-year evaluation and a year-end review.

And this was NOT the year-end one. So by process of elimination, it must be the mid-year.

Anyway, they are done. Everyone knows how I feel about the work they have done so far this year (in this case, ranging from good to exceptional) and they know the things I expect them to focus on for the remainder of 2009 (at least three major items for each person on my team). I take providing feedback for the people who work for me very seriously. When I began as a manager, the idea of evaluating other people made me feel uncomfortable; and, although I have gotten used to the process over time, it is not an activity where I desire to get too comfortable. I think that the process of evaluating another person should not be taken lightly. And so I do my best to be thoughtful, to be even-handed, and (above all) to be honest.

A few months ago, I wrote a post that concluded with my expectations concerning the busy spring and summer on the horizon at my job. Last week, the project which was the focus of that effort was completed. My team and I are all still intact - so it seems things transpired much as I had envisioned.

I'm glad that's over. We all are. Hopefully, the rest of the year will provide room to take care of things that did not receive our full attention during the heat of battle.

I never expect things to be slow at the office. I'd settle for manageable. And I hope that your work life is going well.

Take care.

Good / God: Jim Styro's Meaning of Life, Part Twelve

Ten years ago today...

I've been using a Franklin Planner since 1991, so certain parts of my life are extremely well-documented. On the page for June 17, 1999, under the heading "Jim Styro's Philosophy, Part I"* is found this entry (modified only slightly for this world premiere):

One person is not inherently better than another.
A person can only better him/herself by desiring to -
and doing - good.
A person cannot credibly declare their own goodness.
It must be demonstrated - and/or established through the testimony of others.

The big lie is not that God exists.
It is that we can become perfect without God through technology - through our own power, ingenuity or insight.
We reject the idea of perfection through goodness because it is
so simple to understand and so hard to achieve.

Hey - that's not bad...for a youngster

PS: Saw the following on a poster at Garden City Hospital near my house -

Perfection is our goal
Excellence will be tolerated

It has stuck with me ever since. That's the sort of attitude I want when life and death may be on the line.

Take care.


* My delusions of grandeur are not a recent development...

Don't Ask / Don't Know: Jim Styro's Meaning of Life, Part Eleven*

On Monday, we began considering how well we know the people around us.

Idea #1: You may not know (or understand) as much as you think you do.

Yesterday, I presented a second post which covered...

Idea #2: The only things we can truly know about others are the things they reveal

Today, we complete this leg on our journey toward the Meaning of Life by asking the question...

Idea #3: How can I learn more about the people I love?

There are some little proverbs or bits of "wisdom" that I've heard repeated that just don't speak to me. For example:

"Never complain, never explain"

"Everything is negotiable"

"There is no such thing as a stupid question"

and, one of particular interest given our present topic...

"Never ask a question you don't already know the answer to"

Although I believe I understand how each of these statements might be of use in a particular circumstance, I don't find any of them to be true in the broader sense - and particularly within the framework of discussing how we can understand more about the people closest to us.

If you've agreed with me so far (at least for the purpose of discussion) that we shouldn't assume we know too much about others - and that the only things we can claim to know with certainty are the things that have been shared directly with us...

Then, keeping all that in mind, the answer to the question "How can I learn more about the people I love" is really quite simple, I think. Ask them questions.

Of course, anyone who has ever been in the midst of a long-running misunderstanding with a spouse, child, parent or other loved one is now screaming at their computer - "It's not that easy!!!" Hey, I never said it was easy - I said it was simple to know what to do; knowing how to go about it is another matter entirely.

But you know me - I'm full of...opinions. For what it's worth, I'll offer a few suggestions on how to go about it which may be of some use for those who are truly looking for a way to make a deeper connection with someone in their life.

• Consider what you want to know - and why you want to know it

Although this may not be very important in the early stages of a relationship (when people expect to ask and answer questions as they get to know one another), asking someone you have known for years a lot of unexpected questions will almost certainly make that person, if not suspicious - at least curious. (Think about it: in the same way that we often assume we know more about our loved ones that we probably do, the people we love will often assume that we understand them better than we really do. They assume we have figured them out. Can't you just hear your mother saying: "After all these years, don't you know?") So the person asking the questions should be prepared to explain him/herself.

• Ask a thoughtful question to get a thoughtful answer

If you are trying to resolve a misunderstanding that has been going on for years, you should be prepared to spend more than a few minutes thinking about the best way to ask for the information you seek. Don't just shotgun a list of questions that require nothing more than "yes" or "no" answers. Leave the questions open-ended so that the person responding must elaborate. Try not to be too leading with your questions; if you supply the answer in the question, the person may simply be inclined to go along with your preconceived ideas. Be direct with your questions - but don't use words and phrases that are accusatory or judgemental. Don't try to tell the other person what (you think) they are/were thinking or feeling - ASK.

Consider asking questions that begin with statements like:

"I've wondered for a long time why you... "
"What were you thinking/feeling when that happened?"
"What influenced your decision to..."

In the process of preparing questions for the other party to answer, consider how you would answer the questions yourself (if both you and the other person were directly involved in the situations or incidents you are asking about).

• Be prepared to reveal yourself in the process

Don't expect that the other person will be willing to reveal her/himself to you, if you are clearly not willing to do the same. In fact, you may need to set the example by sharing first in order to break the ice. Keep in mind that you are not planning an interrogation; you want your loved one to share their thoughts and feelings with you - so you need to be prepared to follow suit (or maybe even lead trump**).

Well, I hope that this discussion and these ideas are helpful to someone out there. I know it has been good for me to think it through - so that I will have a better chance to honestly share myself with the people I love - and perhaps help those around me to connect with me and the ones they love.

The stated policy of the U.S. military with regards to homosexuals in their ranks used to be: Don't Ask / Don't Tell.

In answer to the question, how can I learn more about the people I love?
Jim Styro says: If you Don't Ask, you Don't Know.

Take care.


* "These go to eleven"
** That one's for all you euchre players out there.

Revelations: Jim Styro's Meaning of Life, Part Ten

Yesterday, we began considering how well we know the people around us. And I covered our first idea in some detail.

Idea #1: You may not know (or understand) as much as you think you do.

Today, we move on to a second idea in the same vein.

Idea #2: The only things we can truly know about others are the things they reveal

Sherlock Holmes may have been a great detective - but I'm here to tell you, I don't think he'd have lasted five years (maybe not even five months) as a husband. Why? Because I submit that deduction is the enemy of emotional understanding. People (you may have noticed) aren't always rational, emotional responses aren't necessarily repeatable with mathematical precision. The only way to know and understand another person in a meaningful way - to understand the way someone thinks and feels - is for the person to reveal themselves to you.

Of course, the process of revealing yourself to another person is, dare I say it, complex. It requires willingness. It requires honesty. It assumes a certain level of self-examination and understanding (If you don't understand yourself, how in the world can you reveal yourself honestly to anyone else?). And it requires the right circumstances - a level of privacy that can be difficult to achieve. (I believe few people are brave enough to reveal themselves honestly to more than one or two people at a time; and oftentimes getting the opportunity to be alone with another person is hard to arrange.)

Another factor that affects this revelation process is a person's own security with him/herself; to use an old phrase - how comfortable are you in your own skin? I believe the more secure you feel about yourself, the less risk you feel in revealing yourself to others. Having this comfort level increases both the likelihood of revelation and the chances that the information shared will represent an honest glimpse of person being revealed.

I could never understand why a fiction writer would, for example, be afraid to talk about her/his life for fear of having people misinterpret their work (by attempting to infer what is autobiographical in their stories). It seems to me that, the absence of any authoritative information on an author's personal life is likely to spur deductive reasoning concerning parallels between a writer's work and private life, rather than minimize it. Of course, maybe authors just use this as a smokescreen; people are certainly entitled to keep their lives private, if they wish. But the trade-off of fame, it seems to me, is that people can express a legitimate interest and curiosity in the lives of the famous (it can and does get out of hand in many cases - but it is not in and of itself, wrong).


In any case, receiving information from the source (so long as the original source is trust-worthy and true) is certainly superior to any amount of deductive conclusions that might be obtained through Holmesian detective work. Intention or motivation are difficult or impossible to deduce from observed behaviors. Think of the situation where a man purchases an expensive gift for his beloved; is he doing this as a true expression of his strong feeling - or did he feel obligated because of a previous gift received? Is he giving the gift to compensate for the fact he can't express himself emotionally - or is the gift intended to distract his beloved from discovering that he is involved with another lover? Because deduction is not a tool best suited to the information sought, we must be prepared to engage our loved ones in a dialogue that will offer them an opportunity to reveal themselves to us.

And that leads us to tomorrow's concluding post on
"Knowing the people in your life", wherein we look at
Idea #3: How can I learn more about the people I love?

Don't miss it.

Take care.

You think you know a person: Jim Styro's Meaning of Life, Part Nine

You think you know a person...but you don't.

"After all, is there anyone who knows the qualities of anyone except his own spirit, within him?"

--1 Corinthians 2:11

Since I'm a glass half-full kinda guy*, I don't believe that most of the unhappiness issues arising from marriage and other central relationships are caused by deliberate acts of meanness or sabotage. But neither do I underestimate the extent to which people misunderstand, not only themselves, but those around them - even those closest to them.

So today, let's begin the process of kicking around a few ideas concerning what we can know about the people around us, the difference between what we think we know and what we really know, and how to obtain additional information.

Idea #1: You may not know (or understand) as much as you think you do.

If familiarity doesn't necessarily breed contempt, I would say that it at least fosters a unique over-confidence combined with interpersonal laziness. To some extent, I think people just assume that they know and understand certain people because they have been around them a long time. But that's a big assumption. The end result is - we take for granted those who have been around us for a long time. We assume we know and understand things about them that either we never knew - or were true a long time ago - but not anymore.

Let me tell ya a little story that may not illustrate this idea perfectly - but hopefully it's at least somewhat amusing. The Middle-Aged Woman and I were going to visit some friends last weekend and were packing up a few things to take with us in our travel cooler. Because I knew Snoplum's back had been particularly bothersome to her that day, I said:

"Hey, honey - why don't you put a couple of your ice packs in the cooler we're taking to Chico and Chickadee's?"

Although the MAW acknowledged the remark, there was no real response to my suggestion (no surprise since: a) none was needed, and b) after being married a long time you just get used to that). I packed up the cooler, added a bunch of ice to keep everything cold (the MAW observed all this) and went about my other preparations for departure.

We left home a few minutes later and had barely made it around the corner from our home when Snoplum said:

"Oh!...can we go back to the house? I forgot to bring an ice pack."

"Uhm....OK. I thought you were going to put them in the cooler." I headed back to the house.

She ran in to get the ice packs. I wasn't going to make a big deal out of it; I figured she'd just forgotten - despite my mentioning the idea just prior to our departure. But when she got back to the car, I thought maybe she had assumed I was going to put them in the cooler. So I said:

"Did you think I was going to put the ice packs in the cooler? If so, I'm sorry."

"No, I knew they weren't in there."

"So you didn't forget to pack them?"

"No."

Snoplum then proceeded to admit to me that she had assumed my suggestion regarding the ice packs pertained to the idea of using them as the sole source of coldness within the cooler. And since she felt that was such a ludicrous idea, she dismissed it. She did not realize that my suggestion was simply a reminder that she ought to take ice packs on our trip because she would need them to soothe her back. Until the moment she asked me to go back to the house so she could get them.

Now who can blame Snoplum for this? I blame myself - for the constant bombardment of stupid ideas which I have (apparently) forced upon her in the past. If she hadn't been required to wade through so much of my previous bullsh*t, perhaps the ice pack idea might have gained more traction before being tossed on the ash heap of Jim Styro's Cacamaimey Suggestions.

Anyway - hopefully you get the idea. Even people who have known each other a long time can misunderstand simple things. They may even be more prone to misunderstanding - either because they're not listening carefully - or they make assumptions about what has been said that aren't correct.

One last thought concerning Idea #1 - The more confident you are that you know and understand another person, the more care you should take in validating your understanding. One thing that many thoughtful people over time have come to acknowledge is that - the more you learn and understand about a thing (or a person), the greater appreciation you have for how much more there is to know.

Tomorrow we'll move on to Idea #2:
The only things we can truly know about others are the things they reveal

Take care.


* Maybe even three-quarters full

My masterpieces

Yesterday was The Boy's graduation party. I took the day off on Friday to relax and work on party preparation; so my son and I were home together for most of the day. In the early part of the afternoon, we had a conversation (OK, it's true - I did most of the talking) and I told The Boy this:

When I was growing up - a teenager like The Boy is now, and even earlier - I wanted to be rich and famous. I figured that I would be an actor, an author, a singer/songwriter - or at least a disc jockey (I assumed ascending to that low rung of the celebrity ladder would be the worst I could do!). I would make my way in the world with my creativity - and people would know my name.

But I also wanted marriage and a family. I didn't think of these desires for fame and starting a family as being at cross purposes - but, of course, they are. And as I matured, it became an easy decision to set aside my dreams of glory in order to give my best to the reality of my wife and children. I didn't view it as a sacrifice. Just a decision - that what was most important in my life was the people I loved, the people around me - not the opportunity to be loved anonymously by the thousands (or the millions) I would never know.

Out of that decision, of course, many more arose. Some out of practical necessity, others of opportunity, others of convenience or habit. How could I best provide for my family? What sort of work could I do that would suit my personal preferences while being lucrative enough, stable enough to plan for the future. Who would hire me? How could I best ensure a steady stream of income for myself and my family?

And in this process, I began to learn my lines as husband and father, I composed emails rather than songs, wrote project plans instead of story outlines, did my DJ-ing by creating mix tapes* rather than spinning records during the afternoon drive-time shift. These were not sacrifices - I made decisions based on what was most important to me.

The reward for my decisions is greater, I believe, than any film I might have made, or book that I might have written, or album that I might have released.
My children are my masterpieces.
They are bright and beautiful and loving. They're not perfect - they're still works in progress - but they are good. And even God herself, when She created the world, didn't claim much more than that.**

When I compare myself at seventeen to my son, he seems quite young. Much younger than I was at that age. I think my children have been blessed to be able BE KIDS for longer than seems the norm these days. And I'm grateful for that. I told The Boy that he might not appreciate that fact now - but later in life, he may better understand and appreciate it.

I wanted my son (and my daughter) to know all that. The Boy's graduation from high school is like a sign post on The Highway; my children's lives have moved into a new construction zone. Most (if not all) of the basic work is complete. The road has been paved, the cement is nearly dry. There may be occasional lane closures from time to time for repair - but my work on the project is all but over.

Oh, I may be able to offer a suggestion on where to place the street lights - or establishing the speed limit...if I'm asked. But I'll try not to feel badly if I'm not consulted. I know there will be times when my input will not be desired - or needed. If I've done my work well, they won't need me much anyway - and they'll know when they do - and they won't be afraid to ask.

Anyway, that's what I shared with The Boy on Friday. Where the road goes from here is mostly up to him. I told my son that I didn't think he ought to do (or not do) things in his life to make his parents proud of him. Making a parent proud seems to me to be an undue burden to place on a child. I told him he should find out what makes him happy, what will allow him to be self-sufficient, how he can be a responsible member of the community in which he lives - and do those things.

That would be more than enough, I think, to make any parent proud. Don't you?

Take care.






















* I think this is a term commonly used by people who create collections of songs by various artists for their own listening pleasure (Think Jack Nicholson in As Good As It Gets or John Cusack in High Fidelity). But it's not a term I normally use. I just call them "collections".
** Genesis 1:31

"I guess I'm talking about Love"*: Jim Styro's Meaning of Life, Part Six

So - the last time we talked, I played a little trick on you. I put forth a Love Quiz that was really my attempt to define love by describing its component qualities and behaviors. Let's review!

Love requires: Patience, kindness, trust, and hopefulness
A loving person: isn't jealous or conceited or rude or easily offended, doesn't try to take advantage of others or hold grudges, feels bad when wrong is being done, feels good when the truth is told, is willing to overlook shortcomings, and can endure difficult circumstances.

I don't know about you - but that doesn't sound too easy to me.

It sounds much more difficult than what is shown of "love" on TV and in the movies usually. That tends to be more a parade of beautiful people in beautiful places exchanging witty banter and falling in and out of relationships so casually it's hard to tell the players without a program. If you're used to thinking of love in these romantic and (dare I say it) shallow terms, my whole Love Quiz thing must seem like a bunch of b*llsh*t.

But think of it this way: It's one thing to enjoy watching a Woody Allen movie (if you don't like Woody, insert your preferred director here) - but would you want to live a Woody Allen movie?

Have any of your past relationships caused you to think or say something like:

• Oh, he drives me crazy half the time - but when he looks at me with those big, blue eyes, I just melt. Or,
• She's only like that when she has too much to drink; the rest of the time, I have more fun with her than I've ever had in my life. Or,
• Whenever he holds me, I'm completely filled with desire. The sex is incredible. I just wish my parents could forget about the time he hit me. Everybody loses their temper sometimes - and it was really my fault. Or,
• I've never been with a girl so beautiful before - it's like a dream. I think we were meant to find each other. She really needed a loan to keep her car from getting repossessed - and I've been so lonely. I don't care what my friends say - we need each other.

So if you began reading this thinking that the 14 "elements of love" I outlined earlier are hopelessly complex, consider this:

• How may hugs it would take to compensate for having your arm broken by an abusive partner?
• How many kisses would it take before you can forget that your partner has a "swelled head" and never seems to forget the smallest mistake that you make?
• How much "make-up" sex is required for you to overlook that your partner hides the truth from you and takes advantage of you, financially and emotionally?

Sure - these may be some pretty dramatic examples of how our romantic views of love can interfere with a serious evaluation of how loving our partner really is. But are these scenarios that uncommon?

I guess what I'm saying is:
I'd rather be kind than be a great kisser.**
I'd rather be hopeful than a hunk.
For as the Bard said,
"Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come."***

I'll set my sights on the things that will last longer. True love may not be easy - but it beats the alternative.

Take care.

* Or, for you multi-lingual types: Creo que estoy hablando de amor. Thanks to Mssrs. Page and Plant for the title (from Trampled Under Foot) and Jim Charlie for the Spanish.
** Of course, I'm fortunate enough to be both.
*** From Shakespeare's Sonnet 116 - my other favorite meditation on love (after 1 Corinthians 13)

"What is this thing called Love"*: Jim Styro's Meaning Of Life, Part Five

Twenty-five years ago (I don't feel really old until I say or write stuff like that)...
Twenty-five years ago, Don Henley sang:

Love's a little word that's been kicked around
Used too much, beaten down
What in the world are you thinking of?

I couldn't have said it better myself - so I didn't bother to try.

I been using that word - Love - quite a bit in recent posts; but I haven't been very specific about what I think the word means - other than to say that I think one of the important qualities of a person who loves is that they are more concerned with the happiness and well-being of others than themselves. But there's more to it than that.

Want to find out if you're a loving person? Then take...(drum roll please)

Jim Styro's Love Quiz

1. Are you patient? [Score no points for "No", 1 point for "Sometimes", 2 points for "Usually"]

2. Are you kind? [No=0, Sometimes=1, Usually=2]

3. Are you jealous? [Yes=0, Sometimes=1, Never=2]

4. Are you conceited? [Yes=0, Sometimes=1, Never=2]

5. Are you rude? [Yes=0, Sometimes=1, Never=2]

6. Do you seek your own advantage? [Yes=0, Sometimes=1, Never=2]

7. Do you take offense easily/frequently? [Yes=0, Sometimes=1, No=2]

8. Do you store up grievances / have a long memory of wrongs done to you?
[Yes=0, Sometimes=1, No=2]

9. Do you do things you know are wrong easily/frequently? [Yes=0, Sometimes=1, No=2]

10. Do you hide the truth from people? [Yes=0, Sometimes=1, No=2]

11. Will you overlook the shortcomings of others (Do you "cut them some slack")?
[No=0, Sometimes=1, Usually=2]

12. Are you trusting? [No=0, Sometimes=1, Usually=2]

13. Are you hopeful? [No=0, Sometimes=1, Usually=2]

14. Are you a "fair weather friend" - unable to endure difficulties when they arise?
[Yes=0, Sometimes=1, No=2]

Total up your points for all fourteen questions - and locate yourself on the rating scale below.

22 - 28 points = You're a Lover - not a fighter

15 - 21 points = You are well on the way to the Love Shack

8 - 14 points = You need to get on the Love Train and turn things around

0 - 7 points = I'm going to steer clear until you start behaving

OK - Cosmopolitan magazine probably won't hire me on the strength of this effort (especially since I completely ripped off Paul's Letter to the Corinthians** to make the quiz). But you get the idea.

Let's review:
If happiness is important, and
Most of us like having other people around, but
Having other people around can make being happy really complicated, then
Love may be what holds the whole thing together.

The results of this quiz should be pretty interesting. I'll show you mine, if you'll show me yours.


Take care.

* Title courtesy of the late, great Cole Porter
** I wonder if I can be consigned to eternal damnation for that? C'mon, you knew there was something familiar about the quiz, didn't you. Heck, most of the married persons reading this probably had the thirteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians read at their wedding. Didn't think that would come back to haunt you, eh?

Why marriage is so hard: Jim Styro's Meaning of Life, Part Four

Was there ever an endeavor so burdened by outrageous expectation as marriage?

And I'm not even talking about sex...* (OK, I'm going to keep my focus here.)

I think people have a hard time avoiding the fantasy that they can marry someone and change them into their "dream spouse" - and assume (whether they would admit it or not) that their beloved won't develop any new undesirable qualities under their watchful eye. Often, in this scenario, one party has a plan how they can "improve" their flawed partner and transform her/him more fully into the spouse of their dreams. If you aren't married yet - and this is your plan: Please sober up before you tie the knot. The harsh reality is: the cares of life are as likely to push a relationship apart as keep it together.

I'm sure all of this sounds pretty pessismistic - certainly not very romantic. And maybe that's the point. While I think romance is wonderful**, it's not very helpful in dealing with the day-to-day reality of marriage. Marriage is hard work - and if you enter into the arrangement thinking otherwise, you are at a definite disadvantage.

Let me put it this way: Marriage vows are a declaration of love without criteria. Love for better or worse, richer or poorer, sickness or health.*** (Or as I like to put it: I don't love you because you're not an @$$hole - I love you in spite of the fact that you are an @$$hole.****)

That's why marriage is so hard. Even if you can control your initial expectations for this person - that you've chosen to be closest to in the whole world - how do you deal with the changes that time and experience will inevitably bring about? Particularly when those changes are for worse rather than better, or poorer rather than richer, or sicker rather than healthier?

Here's where the fact that love is not rational, that it can't be measured or proven comes into play. These qualties - that could be a detriment in other areas of life - become a distinct advantage in marriage. Because, if one of the unique aspects of love is its willingness to put the interests of the beloved first, then it helps us to understand how to bear the times in a relationship when our expectations are not being met. We can know, at least, that our spouse is not set out to undermine our happiness - because they desire the best for us, as we do for them.

Outside all but our closest relationships, there aren't many situations where we can count on other parties being more concerned with our well-being than ourselves. Imagine having this conversation with your boss:

"Hey, Boss"

"Good morning, Valued Employee"

"Boss, I know my timing isn't very good - but the birth of another child and my wife losing her job is really putting a strain on my finances. My wife is worried sick and life at home is really making it difficult for me to do my best here in the office. You know that I've been busting my hump just to make sure I don't get laid off. Any chance that you might be able to see your way clear to get me a small raise or a bonus?"

"Well, Valued Employee, I feel your pain. Perhaps I should take a temporary pay cut and free up a little money in the budget to get you that raise. I'll have to put a little less in my 401(K) or skip eating out so often - but you need that cash more than I do."

Once you pick yourself up off the floor and your sides stop hurting, remember this: The whole scenario of seeking the best for others rather than ourselves can only be sustained if that love is reciprocated. If our love is unrequited - if one side is always giving and the other taking - the dysfunction of that situation can only be sustained until the giver has nothing left.

If you find yourself in a situation like that, whatever fantasies you may have entertained at the outset of your relationship will need to be abandoned. Even our closest relationships should be able to bear the scrutiny of dispassionate reflection.

Love can't be taken - it must be given. But love that is not returned - or love that is rejected - will turn rotten, like manna from heaven (edible for one day only). If you find yourself in that situation, my advice is: find someone who can love you back.

And if you've found someone who loves you truly: return their love in kind - and keep them close for as long as you can.


Take care.


* Although I will be following this case closely. I don't think this guy stands a chance. Maybe if the ban had latest for a quarter or something. But a week? What a p*ssy! I hardly even notice anymore until after the first week has passed.
** I don't like to make many judgements about myself that I feel are better left to others. But I am very affectionate - quite the touchy, feely guy. I don't think that necessarily comes through much in my writing - 'cause I'm also a hard@$$. But my inclination is more in the direction of Chubby Hugs.
*** You made up your own wedding vows that left open larger loopholes, it may be that none of this post applies to you.
**** A statement which I have often applied to friendship - not marriage. My wife is like Mary Poppins.

"Uva Uvam Videndo Varia Fit" - Jim Styro's Meaning Of Life, Part Three

(Or - The Grapes of Change*)


If John Donne was right and "no man is an island, entire of itself"**, then we can't - or, at least, shouldn't - deal with the meaning of life in a vacuum. Although our previous discussion on happiness and the Meaning of Life was simplified by narrowing in on the expectations of the individual - on what makes me happy - we know that real life is a little more complicated.

Most of us choose to live in the company of others - understanding that to maintain a relationship will involve compromise. Only the most unreasonable people expect to maintain good relations with those around them and still be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want to. It is generally accepted, as part of the unspoken contract of a friendship, that each party cares about the happiness of the other - and is willing (if not always eager) to facilitate that happiness. In our closest relationships, we may even put the needs and desires of the other person(s) ahead of our own - as some do with their children, or their spouse, their immediate family or very close friends.

Where I come from, it's called love - when you put the good of someone else before your own desires.

But love or not - having other people around does complicate the equation. And it's amazing to me how it can impact even the simplest things. For example: Where to eat dinner? How difficult can that be, right? Oh, sure - if it was a larger group, ten people, maybe even two couples having dinner together, you might understand a little haggling, it might take some discussion. But if you have two people. And both of them are hungry. And one of them is willing to eat anywhere (except Arbys***). Then it should be pretty easy to settle on a location.

Unless My Son is involved. In which case, he will not be able to make a decision on where to eat until the top of my head pops off. The conversation begins with my son sprawled on his bed at 7:30 pm. I had to stay late at the office and I'm starving.

"Jim, do you want to get something to eat? If you do, get up right now."

"Uuuuuhh, yeah. I'm coming." I wait while he drags himself out of bed. I'd like him to pick up the pace - but I'm holding my tongue because I know that riding him will only slow down the process.

"Where do you want to eat, Jim?"

"Uuuuuhh, I'm not sure." He only likes to eat at about 3.5 different places (since he knows I won't go with him to Arbys - and he knows I don't want to bother bringing fast food back to the house) - so this really shouldn't take long.

"Well, you need to get sure pretty quickly - or I'll pick." He's pretty sure I will pick a place he'd rather not go (since I like more than 3.5 restaurants) - and he's right. This is called "motivation".

Soon we're in the car. He's had plenty of time to eliminate 2.5 places from consideration and give me the name of the one where he wants to eat but...

"Jim, where do you want to eat? Tell me or I will start driving to a place I'd like to eat."

"Well, I thought of a place...but...I'm not sure...you'd think it's OK"

"Jim - just tell me."

"How about Arbys?"

"No." I keep my voice flat - but I'm starting to get frustrated. I'm starting to sense where this headed.

"Well...couldn't we just get a pizza and take it home?"

"No - but I'll give you some money and you can take your car and go buy a pizza if you want."

"No..." That would require effort on his part. Now I'm getting pretty p*ssed off.

"Jim, I'm heading for KFC." I have picked a place I know he would rather not go. This is called "Forcing the issue".

"Can we go to Taco Bell?"

"That's fine." But why the hell do we have to do this dance EVERY SINGLE TIME!!!!!

Clearly, every decision doesn't have to be this agonizing (since The Boy will not be involved) - but, in the overall scheme of things, where to have dinner should be an easy question. When you get to more important stuff like:

• Should I move in with you?
• Do you want to get married?
• When will we start a family?
• I just got a great job offer in another city - should I take it?
• Boxers or briefs?

things can get really dicey.

Most of us choose to live in the company of others. And while this doesn't necessarily make life easier - and can sometimes complicate the quest for happiness (for all parties concerned) - it also has the potential to make life immeasurably richer.

To paraphrase those Mastercard commercials:

A late dinner at KFC by yourself - $9

A late dinner at Taco Bell with your 17-year-old Son, who's still not embarassed to be seen with you in public, even if he can't make up his mind to save his life - Priceless


Take care.





* Sorry Mr. Steinbeck. The latin motto in the title is taken from Larry McMurtry's Lonesome Dove. There's an explanation here.
** In fact, there is probably no wisdom from previous centuries that the march of time has proven more true than this one. As technology shrinks the world, I believe we become ever more interconnected and dependent on one another. And though there is clearly a dichotomy in the impact of technology on relationships (as we develop new ways for our electronic personas to interact, do our physical selves become more isolated?) - it would seem that the general inclination of humankind is still to reach out to one another. Crap! I could probably milk a whole 'nother post out of this...
*** Their food is OK - but it is too d*mn expensive for a fast food joint

Spin Cycle: The Proliferation of Profanity - Mountain or molehill

(or - Styro goes postal)

[WARNING: This is going to be the longest disclaimer ever. Python-esque in length. That's not what I'm warning you about. But you need to know that this is indeed a serious warning and you should pay attention.

This is still the warning.
PLEASE DO NOT PLAY THE AUDIO FOR THIS POST IF THERE ARE CHILDREN IN THE ROOM. Because there is a lot of profanity in it. So if that bothers you, you should not read or listen to the rest of this post. Seriously - I am not kidding one bit. I would not particularly want my Grandmother reading or listening to this post because of all the bad language - that you will soon be hearing or reading. In fact, I would like to apologize to my grandmother, in case she is reading or listening.

Grandma: I'm sorry. I know I shouldn't use language like this - but I thought it might make the post really funny. And I know that they are cheap laughs. But my posts have been pretty serious lately. And I have been staying up too late writing them, so I thought this idea would make things a little easier on me and be pretty entertaining all at the same time. But I know I shouldn't have done it - and I'm sorry.

Anyway, this is the last part of the warning -so if you are still reading or listening, profanity must not bother you. And you must enjoy movies like "The Big Lebowski" (me, too!) and so hopefully you will like this post too and that is the end of the warning.

Except to say that the swearing will be starting really soon...]

I know I shouldn't let it bother me, but the casual use of profanity these days - not only in speech, but on t-shirts and bumper stickers - is very troubling to me. It bothers me in part because I think it represents a coarsening of our culture, an abandonment of politeness as a standard of public conduct. But it also shows a decided lack of verbal creativity - not because we don't have a sufficient vocabulary to express ourselves accurately without using profanity - just that we're too lazy to be bothered.

And that is f*cking pathetic. I mean, it really p*sses me off - when I hear my own g*dd*man children, the fruit of my loins spewing that sh*t. I mean, don't they realize how that f*cking sh*t reflects on my @$$!! That is not how they were f*cking raised, let me tell you. Those little f*cks could count on one f*cking hand the number of f*cking times I've cursed in front of them. Seriously.

And then there's the g*dd*mn blasphemy. I mean, whatever happened to not taking the f*cking Lord's name in vain, fer Chrissake? And my kids will do it so casually sometimes. Jesus H Christ - it really f*cking p*sses me off!!! I could understand some of it if there was an extreme situation, if they were really upset - or angry - but the little d*ckheads are f*cking swearing when they're calm as f*cking cucumbers.

The bottom line is: @$$holes who can't express themselves in any other way than f*cking swearing every other f*cking word are the sort of sh*theads that deserve equal measures of our derision and our f*cking pity. Stupid c*cksuckers!

If we are to have any hope of preserving the last vestiges of polite society, it seems to me we must begin with controlling our tongues. Only by demonstrating self-control in our language can we demonstrate our capability to control the other aspects of our behavior.

And all the f*cking profanity? That sh*t has got to stop.


Take care.


Jim Styro's Meaning Of Life will continue tomorrow.

RED WINGS PLAYOFF UPDATE:
Detroit vs. Anaheim - Wings and Ducks tied 2 - 2 in the best of seven series.