"Stop everything - I think I hear the President..."*

I am not very politically-minded. I normally vote Democratic. I'm not conservative - because I don't have anything to conserve. I'm not very liberal either really. I'm like a Bill Clinton fiscal conservative/social liberal Democrat crossed with a pre-Palin John McCain Republican. (I don't even know enough about politics to be sure that last statement is even ACCURATE. And all this is far more background information that is necessary for this post.)

Anyway, after Fort Hood yesterday and the Orlando engineer "going postal" today, I think the President needs to get on the tube and try to talk this country off the ledge. I know my idea is a little over the top - but clearly some of us, maybe a lot of us, need a time-out; and the President may just be smart and articulate enough to pull it off.

After eight years of a guy who could barely read the teleprompter telling us the enemies were all "out there" or "over there", we've been reminded again what bullsh*t that all is/was. It was so easy to forget about Oklahoma City or Columbine after the World Trade Center. But we have once again met our worst enemy - "and he is us" as Walt Kelly so aptly put it.

I know it's risky business asking the Commander-in-Chief to become the Psychiatrist-in-Chief or the Preacher-in-Chief. But, after all - who's your Daddy? And clearly some us need Daddy to chill us out, big time. I personally would also suggest prayer, and lots of it. But maybe you're not into that. Then go give somebody a hug or something.

If you can't be happy yourself (and God knows it is plenty difficult sometimes) then at least have the decency not to spread your unhappiness around with bullets. Why can't these gun-toting idiots be seized with the desire to commit suicide instead of teenagers who got dumped by a girl/boyfriend or just had a bad day and can't see beyond it?

C'mon, Mr. President - talk to me.

Take care.


*Apolgies to Joe Jackson

Sunday Dinner Every Night

My good friend, Paul, enlisted my assistance a few weeks ago in putting together a video for entry in the Food Network's The Next Food Network Star competition.



[Since the code from YouTube doesn't seem to be working (never had a problem before), try clicking here for the video...]

I helped him with the script and worked behind the camera. His lovely wife edited the video (great job trimming it to exactly 3 minutes!). And we all enjoyed the lamb ragu.

I'll let you all know when it's time to vote for Paul as The Next Food Network Star!

Take care.

The Removal of Wisdom

So this is what I look like today:

The good doctor removed my bottom wisdom teeth today. I really couldn't spare any more wisdom - in fact, it's not clear I could spare any. However, although they were not causing me pain, the wisdom teeth were candidates for causing trouble for the rest of my (very healthy and clean, thank you very much) choppers. I would go into a lot of detail - but not everyone may be interested in covering dental hygiene in such depth so early in the week.

Just remember:


I'm keeping my eye on you!

Take care.

PS: I couldn't have afforded even this simple procedure without my insurance - so contact the people who represent you in the Congress and Senate. Tell them it's time to act on national healthcare!

I didn't think the day could s*ck any worse...

But I was wrong.

I got about 4 hours of sleep Tuesday night (I'd like to blame a late Tigers game on the west coast) which is really n-n-n-no-no-no..........body's fault but mine*. And Wednesday morning at work was fairly uneventful. But, at lunch time, one of our offices lost power - and all the systems in that office went down for a couple hours. And just at the point where they were going to shut that office down for the day, the power came back on (that's good, right?). But it only stayed up long enough for us to get most of the computers up and working again. And then the power went out again. So they sent everyone there home anyway.

When power was restored again, the utility company wouldn't commit to having uninterrupted power for our building until 6 pm. So we fretted over whether or not to bring systems back up - and once the computers in that office were functioning normally, we started to get calls from another office that they couldn't open, edit or save documents properly on their computers. So we tried to figure out what was causing that problem - but over two hours later - when the problem magically disappeared - we still hadn't figured it out.

Eventually, I went home. And had some dinner.
And made someone angry.
And made someone cry.

So now I'm really tired - but pretty upset (you know that state where you feel that you are somehow vibrating?) - and there are several extra people in the house who will probably be here until about 1 am.

I'm just hoping that tomorrow won't s*ck any worse. But I could be-

I can't bring myself to say it.

Take care.


* Thank you, Mr. Plant
(you can skip to 5:15 in the clip - if you prefer cutting to the chase)

"Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood..."

"I'm just a soul whose intentions are good..."
-- B. Benjamin/ G. Caldwell/ S. Marcus

So almost two weeks ago, I wrote a post about The Golden Rule which my friend, Pamela, from The Dayton Time commented upon. Her comment was so much in sync with what I was trying to express, that the next day I posted a follow-up quoting from her comments. The two of us were "of a like mind". We were simpatico. And so everything was cool, right?

It ain't necessarily so. Unbeknownst to me, Pamela was going through some rough times - and so, I think, some of the comments that I made here trying to be humorous might have seemed to be just rude (For example: "Hopefully, you've seen that you inspired today's post. If not, may I respectfully request that you - read the damn post!"). Others that were intended to be statements that might apply to anyone reading the post might have seemed to be directed at Pamela in particular ("Can you say 'hypocrite'? I thought you could!"). And the R.E.M. quote that I used to open one post could certainly have been interpreted as a slam on Christ and Christianity (which was certainly not my intention - although, to be honest, I think Christians are just as likely to violate The Golden Rule as anyone*).

So why write a whole post about this stuff anyway? Isn't it perpetuating a mountain that got created out of a molehill?

Here's why I think it's worth writing about: 'Cause stuff like this happens all the time. Sometimes we get so busy patting ourselves on the back for being clever or snarky or whatever - and we don't bother taking the time to be clear, to help people understand, to sacrifice being a smart-ass long enough to clarify, to reassure, to be a good neighbor in the Blogosphere.

Look, I have no illusions - being misunderstood is something that happens to everyone sooner or later. And relationships formed in the E-niverse (Blogosphere, insert your favorite term for this electronic world in which we trod) are particularly susceptible; I think in large part because our interaction is missing so much of the unspoken content (body language, tone of voice, inflection, facial expressions) that is such a huge part of communication in The Real World.

Even the Middle-Aged Woman just went through an episode where she was misunderstood and publicly flogged (mentioned just in passing on her blog). And she's so sweet, that this incident alone is incontrovertible proof that no one is immune from misunderstanding.

But I think if we make an effort to be honest and clear, if we give each other the benefit of the doubt, and not look for ways to take offense...

It'll make it a lot easier to win friends and influence people. And who couldn't use a few more friends these days? Or any day?

Take care.


* I count myself in that "Christian" group - so I'm talking about me, too.

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.

...how would you like to be The Boss for awhile?*

"It is not often that someone comes along who is a true friend and a good writer. Charlotte was both."
Charlotte's Web, E.B. White

I consider myself lucky that the best boss I ever had also became one of my best friends.

Apart from the fact that we have very similar personalities, there are three reasons why I think of Chico as my best boss:

1. He's an extremely intelligent person - who didn't lose his common sense along the way.

2. He understands the importance of making decisions at the right time - even when you can't be sure the decision itself is right.

3. He knows that the most important part of any organization - is the people.

For someone in a position of authority, this last point is critical. It has become a cliche in job interviews to make a statement like "I really enjoy working with people" - but how many who make that statement really mean it? Or, to look at the point from a different perspective: Who wants to work for someone who really doesn't value other people? (Not me.)

I've learned several valuable lessons from Chico over the years - both as boss and friend. Here's a few of my favorite bits of Chico philosophy (some are pretty much direct quotes):

- I would never screw you for the company; I would only screw you for my own personal gain.

[The importance of people over organizations reduced to a nutshell - and leavened with a believable measure of self-interest and/or humor.]

- The people who run the world are the people who show up.

[As they say with some give-aways: Must be present to win.]

- In a dispute with a woman, sometimes it's best just to ask her - "Honey, what's the right answer?"

[A close companion to that strategy is this idea:
Some things are more important than being right.]

It's not often that someone comes along who is a good boss and a true...
Oh hell - you get the idea!

Thanks, Chico. And to all you loyal readers and listeners out there -

Take care.


*Title courtesy of Randy Newman

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.

More Random Tuesday Thoughts

Pretty Random, Dr. Smith

• It is sometimes disturbing to me to dwell on the large portions of my brain's capacity that appear to be devoted to dialogue from old TV shows or song lyrics. I can only hope that, since science has established that we do not use most of our brain's awesome power, I am not actually depriving room to anything important.
  
  

• My only regret is that nowhere in the clip does the hot, green chick actually say the immortal words, "Pretty, handsome, Dr. Smith."


• As an aging male who has been married for a long time, I think I've come to grips pretty well with the decrease of sexual activity in my life.* It's easier to be happy (or, at least, not unhappy) when you can accept reality. I used to keep track of how often I had sex in my Franklin Planner - as I recall the Middle-Aged Woman (not yet MA at the time) was appalled. Anyway, I pulled out some old Franklin storage binder to look up some information completely unrelated to sex - and was confronted by the hard statistics of the past.** It was really depressing.
• I have gotten to a point where I can't force myself to stay up until 2 AM composing and recording my posts. I suspect that the previous consistency in timing of my posts will suffer over the next several days a result.


• Maybe I should have retitled this whole thing "Don't Get It Up Anymore"?


• Will they prescribe Viagra or Cialis to guys who don't have problems with erectile dysfunction? What if I just want a 4-hour erection?
  

Take care.

* I wish I could say the "come to grips" thing was intentional. Sometimes I'm convinced my best stuff is normally unintentional.
** See what I mean?

"There's no crying in baseball"

My life? That's a completely different story.

There's been a notable uptick in crying lately. Men, women. At work, at home. Lately, I am like a magnet for weeping.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. I have no problem with crying - it is a natural thing. A normal part of living. And I am not a conventional, emotionally-repressed American male* - I will shed tears without embarrassment at the drop of a hat (OK, maybe a tiny bit of embarrassment if there are a lot of people around).

All I'm saying is: it would be cool if the crying could be spread out a little better.

Of course, life isn't like that. People die when it is time for them to die - not when it would be convenient. People don't make plans to get confused and upset - it happens when it happens.

And I'm on top of things. I've got the situation covered. But the crying doesn't make things easy.

In fact, it's times like these when I'm most grateful for being such a contrary person. I'd like to think that it's just to "bring balance to the Force" - but it's probably just being a contrary jerk. When everyone else is nervous, I choose to remain calm. When those around me are confident, I try to point out where there confidence may be unfounded. When lots of tears are flowing - I don't cry.

I assume that's one of the reasons I'm such a weeping magnet - people expect me to hold firm in such circumstances. And I'm - if not happy - at least willing to oblige.

On the grander Good News - Bad News front, it's a roller coaster ride as well:

Good news - The Wings are up 2 games - 0 in the Stanley Cup Finals.
Bad news - GM declared bankruptcy this morning

So there's likely to be a lot more crying around here soon enough.
But let's hope this won't go on for much longer. It's a drag.

Take care.




RED WINGS PLAYOFF UPDATE:
The Stanley Cup Finals - Detroit vs. Pittsburgh
The Wings defeated the Penguins Sunday night by a score of 3-1.
Detroit leads best of seven series, 2 games to 0

* If you apply any of those terms to me individually, I would probably have to plead guilty - but not in that combination

Last night I had a dream*

Yesterday was my son's last day of high school. Last night, I backed into his best friend's car. I mean, I dreamed I backed into Joey's car. Actually, I don't think he has his own car.

I don't remember my dreams much. Another fragment from a recent dream:

I was singing with the Gospel Choir at church. We were doing a song with lyrics from a poem I wrote in high school called "Since God is kind". (If my recollection is accurate, the first line is "I wish I was a duck.")

Unfortunately, nobody seemed to know the song (even me, I only knew the words). One of the altos was asked to sing the solo - and she was struggling. We were all trying to fake our way through the song.

I haven't had one of those falling dreams in a while. I've fallen out of planes, from high buildings - normally in crowded, urban areas. I don't ever seem to hit the ground.

I'm not one to dwell on or assume some special significance of dreams. And I don't spend much time trying to remember them.

I don't have any snappy conclusion to this. If I had gotten more sleep last night, I think this would be a better post.

Take care.


* Thanks to Randy Newman for the title. "Everybody scared me - but you scared me the most..."

Defensemen working overtime*

Revel in your revenge, Capt. Dumbass!

Weep bitterly, LiteralDan.

Tremble at our approach, ye Pitts-burgers!

RED WINGS PLAYOFF UPDATE: Detroit vs. Chicago

The Wings defeated the Blackhawks in OVERTIME
Wednesday night by a score of 2-1.
Detroit wins the best of seven series, 4 games to 1
and advances to the Stanley Cup Finals
for a second straight year to face the Pittsburgh Penguins.

Sure, we had to play the hot-shot kids from Chicago with two of our best players in their street clothes the last two games. Sure, we had most of our defensemen on the ice for nearly two-thirds of the game tonight. Sure, we had the "old team" playing in their third overtime game out of five. But we won.

It was a good game - especially if you live in Detroit.

Take care.


* Apologies to Andy Patridge for the title

Back home again

Back in Detroit tonight after my whirlwind overnighter in NYC. The first day of the trip is always long - 'cause we take the 6 am flight into LaGuardia (which means getting up by 4 AM) and we don't normally leave the office until 7 pm (or later). Yesterday was no exception.

By the time we walked to dinner and back, it was 10:30 pm. The Middle-Aged Woman was a life-saver, keeping me posted on developments in the Wings - Blackhawks game - since apparently there is no location in Manhattan where you can watch a playoff hockey game that doesn't involve a New York team!! Leonard Cohen was right. First, we take Manhattan - then we broadcast the damn hockey game.

Anyway, I got the Wings pounding the Hawks pretty good for my ole buddy, Captain Dumbass (who I am hoping will confirm or deny whether my blog is set to allow emails back on comments - I think mine is 'cause he has emailed me before). My current prediction is that the Wings will take the series in five games (Chicago is bound to win one of the next two games at home). My next "prediction" won't really be a prediction anymore - it would have to be a postdiction, I guess. Hopefully, I won't need to make any revisionist postdictions in this series. GO WINGS!

Snoplum suggested I consult with the Cap'n regarding my current plans for He Read / She Read, to determine whether:

a) I'm violating his copyright
b) I'm pissing off a fellow blogger by blatantly ripping off the whole male/female blog idea, or
c) You're looking for any guest material for your He Blogs / She Blogs enterprise and interested in whatever Sprite's Keeper and I churn out.

This is all very embryonic in it's newness - but I'm kinda excited about rereading Garp and blathering on about it for all the world (or, at least, we happy few*).

Last but not least: Amazon has shipped the prize from last weekend's contest to Sprite's Keeper - so we will soon be hatching an evil plot (OK, maybe only slightly diabolical; would you believe devastatingly clever?) to take over the Blogging World with the whole He Read / She Read concept. Once we've both read the book. And stuff.

I think I just need a couple of days back at home - and I'll be able to think and write clearly again. Maybe.


Take care.


* Henry V - Act 4, Scene 3

"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)

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.

I Love My Mom*

I know that half the bloggers on the planet may do the same thing - but I'm going to write about my Mom for Mother's Day. And if you think that's hackneyed, get a load of this: I'm going to do a post about my Dad on Father's Day and my wife on her birthday/our anniversary (which are -conveniently - the same day). I may even write about my kids on their birthdays! And there's nothing you can do to stop me!!

OK - I'm...feeling better since I got that off my chest.


My mom was the baby of her family and the only girl. To hear her surviving older brother, my Uncle Rodger, tell it - she got away with plenty as a kid. I can imagine that my grandparents might have spoiled their baby girl a bit. But I don't think she's been spoiled much since leaving her parent's home over 46 years ago. She doesn't act like a spoiled little girl - so whatever she got away with earlier in life hasn't seemed to trinkle down** to the present day.


[My mom was about 5 years old when this picture was taken with her father's mother, Grandma Knight.]



My mom was an ath-a-lete in high school. That stuff must skip a generation - since I grew up with the eye-t0-hand coordination of a drunken giraffe.*** [There's really no need to point out that my younger brother had plenty of athletic talent, thank-you-very-much!] Mom lettered in four different sports (basketball, floor hockey, swimming and tennis) as the photo at right attests. One of my Mom's uncles was a news photographer and got a number of great shots - some of which made it into the paper. And to think - my entry into the world was only a few short years away.



[The photo at left shows my Mom, Uncle Rodger, my Grandma, and my Aunt Diane (the wife of Mom's oldest brother, Bill, who died in a car accident before I was born).]


Other than my late-blooming athleticism (I'm still waiting for it), I share several different traits with my Mom.


Including:
- We're both quite loud (although I'm louder than she is)
- We both have a strong faith in God and are active members in our churches
- We like to golf
- Neither of us likes to talk on the phone that much
(I have a higher tolerance than Mom)

Because Mom is working tomorrow (I thought she had retired!), I took her out to dinner tonight for Mother's Day. We had a fine time chatting - and didn't get on each other's nerves even once! She wants all of her children to get together sometime this fall - and I said I would do whatever she wanted. We talked about her work for the Census Bureau and a Pickleball tournament**** she will compete in soon. She's still an aggressive competitor.

(Here's part of a conversation from tonight between me and my Mom.)

Styro: "So if you're playing in two-man teams, do you play one person up and one person back, like in tennis?"

Mom: "No. We mostly play up close to the net."

Styro: "And do you lob shots much to get behind the other team."

Mom: "No, I'm not very good at lobbing."
I know my Mom pretty well. I only had to think for a couple seconds.

Styro: "So, you mostly try to hit shots hard right at people so they can't return them."
It wasn't a question.

Mom: "Yep. In your face, baby!"

That's my Mom alright - and I love her.


Take care.



* Thanks to Suzzy Roche for the title.
** That's the way I both wrote and recorded it - so that's the way it stays. "Trickling" is for those without imagination.
*** The fact that this link exists is nearly conclusive proof that you can find anything on the Internet.
**** I'll bet you didn't even realize that there was a USA Pickleball Association!

"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

A serious mistake*

"If you only come face to face with your own mistakes once or twice in your life it’s bound to be extra painful. I face mine every day – that way they ain’t usually much worse than a dry shave."
-- Capt. Augustus McCrae (in Larry McMurtry's Lonesome Dove)

I love that book. That's not the mistake part - I talk about that later in the post. But it seems appropriate to quote the character of Gus McCrae on the topic of mistakes because we share a common trait that seems to get us in trouble: sometimes we just refuse to take serious stuff seriously.Listen to how McMurtry phrases it:

"It was the kind of lapse [Gus] had been subject to all his life: things that were clearly dangerous didn't worry him enough."

My particular brand of this character flaw is highlighted by inappropriate attempts** at humor.

Mistake #1: I still remember vividly sitting in a meeting with the Assistant Division Chief during the later stages of my thirteen-and-a-half year stint with the Internal Revenue Service (that wasn't a mistake either - don't rush me). I didn't know the guy very well - but well enough to realize that he wasn't exactly a fun-loving sort in the office. I don't even remember the specifics of the incident that well - but I do remember one thing: I tried to make a joke in the meeting that was neither appropriate or funny. And I remember another thing even more clearly: As I returned to my office, kicking my own @$$ as a propulsion system, I promised myself I would - from that time forward - refrain from making jokes during meetings with superiors at work.

I've kept that promise pretty faithfully in the fifteen or so years that have passed. It's a pity I didn't expand the promise to cover situations outside the workplace -- until later.

Mistake #2: Once again, my memories of the incident I am now about to describe are not very distinct. (I'm sure that's my convenient defense mechanism against guilt. It's one of those experiences where I remember it now more based on the story being retold multiple times - rather than remembering the incident itself.) I think this occurred in the early Nineties (when the kids were quite small) - but I could be off by five years in either direction. Anyway - this story shares a lot in common with mistake #1 above - except this one's considerably more egregious.

The Middle-Aged Woman got robbed at gunpoint one night in a store parking lot several miles from our home. She was in a state of shock as a result of the incident and stopped in at her brother's home to get her head together before coming home. She contacted the local constabulary from her brother's place - and they treated her like the criminal. Apparently, for suggesting that armed bandits were operating unimpeded by their donut-chomping @$$es!

Suffice it to say: MAW had a rough night.

There's a lot of stuff about that night I don't remember. It may be that I was waiting for her to come home with some supplies I needed to complete work around the house; I can't remember whether I knew about what had happened before she arrived home or not. It doesn't make any difference. It also doesn't make any difference that I had my car broken into some months prior and had my Franklin Planner (and other stuff) stolen - but you'll understand why I mentioned it in a minute.

So, when Snoplum finally walked through the door and told me what had happened, I replied:

"Well - now we've both had our planners stolen."

Not: "Oh my God, Honey! Thank God you're safe."
Or: "Come and let me just hold you"
Or even: "Let's have sex - that will make you feel better"***

So, I have revealed to the world (again) that I am a sh*theel.
And I have (rightfully) never been forgiven for that night. Nor do I expect to be. But I have gotten better at avoiding inappropriate remarks.
I do this by keeping my mouth shut.
Except for that night when someone called the house claiming I'd been kidnapped...

Look - I'm done talking about my mistakes. For now.


Take care.




*Today is the one-month anniversary of "speaking in CAPS". I've been able to post every day for a month! Readers and listeners will have to decide for themeselves if that has been a mistake.
**"Attempts" is the key word here. The slightest hint of success would have been a welcome mitigating factor.
***You can see I still haven't lost the ability to make this sort of mistake, can't you?

Prong Buddies

[Pictured in 1981, from l. to r., Paul Joey, Paul Johnny (seated), Jim Charlie, Jim Styro (seated)]

I believe in keeping commitments. And I did promise in my very first post that, over time, I would explain the different monikers I have acquired over the years. Since the only one I have explained so far is Captain Dick, I thought it was about time to do some more divulging.

So today, I will tell you about the origins of that name by which I am most widely known - Styro (or, Jim Styro "if you're not into the whole brevity thing"*). Of course, it's impossible to tell that story without talking about my Prong Buddies - and it's appropriate that I speak of them today, since it's my BFF Jim Charlie's birthday today.**

Before high school, I did not have many friends.*** (I'm not looking for sympathy.) I wasn't a complete outcast - but I was...unpopular amongst my peers. I was tall and uncoordinated and smart and a loner - and I don't think I found other kids my age that interesting anyway. This situation persisted well into my sophomore year of high school****, when I tried out and got a part in the chorus for Bishop Borgess High School's spring musical.

Involvement with the theater crowd at my high school quickly transitioned into involvement with the competitive speech team - and soon I had friends. The core of these friendships was built around the aforementioned Prong Buddies, four guys named Jim and Jim and Paul and Paul. In retrospect, the things that we had in common were few. We were smart, we weren't afraid of public speaking, and we weren't on any sports teams. But if you had tried to find four young guys at BBHS (which, at that time, was the largest Catholic high school in the state of Michigan - with about 3,000 students) with more definite and distinctive personalities, it would have been difficult.

I haven't told you much about the Prong Buddies - but you know enough for me to finish the story. (Don't worry - if I keep this gig, you'll hear more about them. If you're interested...) The practical difficulty presented by four guys hanging out all the time with only two names to share between them is: what to call one another. Just "Jim" and "Paul" aren't enough. But we were smart boys. We decided right away to use first and middle names to provide the desired level of specificity. So...

James Charles... became Jim Charlie, and
Paul John.......... became Paul Johnny, and
Paul Joseph....... became Paul Joey, and
James Stewart... became Jim...Stueyy?

Whether you've never heard this story before - or you've known it for years - isn't it just obvious that something is wrong there? Oh, we tried to make the whole Jim Stueyy thing work. Jim Charlie concocted the whole screwy "EYY" spelling thing (Hey, "Stewie" is just as bad - if not worse) to try to make the whole thing palatable. But I think we all knew that my name was not quite right.

Then one day, we were lunching in the cafeteria when some food service supplies were being delivered - plates, cups, plastic utensils and the like. On the side of a big box of styrofoam cups, Jim Charlie saw the word STYRO emblazoned in huge red letters.

"Hey, you're Jim Styro", he said. And he was right.

I feel very lucky that Jim and Paul and Paul are still among the best friends I have. Or ever expect to have. And that I still get to see them and talk to them frequently (although I really have to stay on Groucho's ass sometimes. Sorry, that's another nickname, another story, and another post.) Not everyone gets to hang on to their friends for so long.

That makes me a lucky Styro. Hope you had a great birthday, Jim Charlie.


Take care.


*in the words of Jeffrey Lebowski.


**First off, I can hardly believe I used the abbreviation BFF (nothing says "I talk like a 15-year-old girl" quite like BFF); second, by the time you read this his birthday will be over - but you can hardly blame me for that.
***Doesn't everyone seem to say that? Aren't there any writers or artists who were extremely popular in their youth?
****By junior year, Mom was concerned enough with my seeming lack of social success to ask me if I was gay. Of course, she was unaware that I had already lost my virginity at the hands of...Damn - no wonder I haven't tried to tell this story yet. It gets complicated. I've got enough material for about 57 posts. (This is my last footnote - the rest I'm just leaving out.)

Guilt is good

Remember Gordon Gekko?

He's just a fictional character from the film, Wall Street, so I don't have to feel guilty for very nearly plagiarizing his dialogue for the title of this post. I probably should feel guilty for using a title which directly contradicts a statement I made in yesterday's rant. But it just seemed so attention-getting and punchy; I couldn't resist.

Anyway, when we last saw Our Hero, he was getting ready to talk about how some emotions seem to fall out of favor amongst the general populace - and to mount his case in defense of guilt. Despite today's title, I stick by my statement yesterday that viewing "emotions as good or bad is almost meaningless." I think many people view emotions as bad if they seem out of control, unjustified or unreasonable. Anger, pride and hatred are sometimes described with those words - but so could grief, love or joy. Is a person consumed with anger that is out of control worse off than the person consumed by grief? If my pride in someone has caused me to lose sight of the real person, would I be better off if I was blinded by love?

Our feelings should, I think, be a reflection of our reality - not a filter through which we see ourselves and our circumstances. If the things that we have desired and hoped for happen, shouldn't we be happy or content? And if we get sick or hurt, are we wrong to feel sad or frustrated? Clearly, the makeup of our lives and our emotions are far more complex; but the principle remains that our feelings make sense as a reaction to the main action - of what is going on in our lives.

So - what about guilt?

Here's an emotion that has been getting a bad rep ever since the rebellion of the Sixties swept away the repression of the Fifties*. Once people, on a large scale, began embracing that idea that they weren't going to go to Hell for wearing a skirt their parent's though was too short, or smoking a joint, or having sex before getting married, or getting divorced - the conclusion was not far behind that previous generations had been using guilt as a tool to manipulate them. And, in so far as that was true, people were right to reject the guilt being imposed upon them externally. But some folks have, I think, taken this idea too far - and taken a stance that all guilt is useless, a waste of time, a trick to hold people back from realizing their full potential.

But I say: To reject guilt outright, is to reject the conscience. And that would be a monumental mistake. For what is real guilt - not guilt imposed externally, not someone trying to make you feel bad - what is real guilt except your conscience sending an alert that you have violated your own sense of right and wrong?

Like any other emotion, guilt that is simply dwelt upon or wallowed in serves no particular purpose, brings no benefit, and may be harmful to the overexposed. But when guilt reminds us of the right thing to do, moves us to change our behaviors where they are not in line with our own moral code, and helps us to live in a way that let's us sleep well at night...

Well, I'm all for that.

Take care.

*I know repression goes back before the Fifties - but I'm not that old.

RED WINGS PLAYOFF UPDATE:
Detroit vs. Columbus - Wings lead the best of seven series, 3 - 0