Don't date a singer

I recently caught myself listening to a few Adele songs and let's face it - she has talent: a powerful dusky voice that easily evokes emotion and songwriting passion to boot.  Her material, as has often been noted, is all about breakups and heartache.  She is not alone in mining her personal life for gold.  Taylor Swift (I take this on faith.  I don't listen to country music) also uses her romantic misfires as fodder for songwriting.  I should point out that this is nothing new.  Alanis Morisette did the same thing in the '90s with "You Oughta Know".  Heck, if breakup songs were suddenly outlawed, radio stations would go out of business.  But the laser focus that these two women put into their music got me thinking - I would hate to date one of them.

And that is the problem - we only get their side of the story.  If their exes could write and sing as well, we might get more songs about freedom and succubi.  The fact is, we don't know why their beaus left them.  We at least know that they're vindictive and have no problem sharing their private lives with others.  Fortunately for me I'm in a wonderful relationship with my sweetheart and wife (same person), but I share my struggles with a very small group of people.  If I was a guy contemplating dating any woman who had written a breakup song, I would tread very carefully knowing that the woman was brimming with bitter emotion (and you know how men love emotional women) and that no matter what the circumstances, I would probably end up playing the bad guy if things go south.  I hope both Adele and Taylor find an enduring love of their lives, but their tendency to sing about it is seriously limiting the field.

The '80s are gone man...

The problem with the '80s is that they are over and will produce no more music.  Of course you can say that about any decade, but the '80s changed so much.  There were so many currents swirling around and so many one hit wonders it's hard to keep track.  I loved listening to the radio, which is how we consumed music without paying for it before the internet.  It was fun listening to Casey Kasem (I lost interest when Rick Dees took over) count down America's Top 40 and see if my favorite songs were rising or falling.  It was like a personal weekly horse race.

Alas, the '80s will produce no more bubble gum pop, synth pop, glam rock, new age, etc.  A lot of it wasn't very good from a musical perspective, but it sure was catchy.  I love to wax nostalgic and play some of it back from time to time.  Can't listen to it too long, but it only takes a little to throw me all the way back to elementary school.

So what songs from the '80s do you love?  Tell me in the comments.

Herein Lies the Proof of Universal Ignorance

“I know nothing.”

That was the famous catch phrase of Sergeant Schultz when pressed by Colonel Klink on Hogan’s Heroes.  Of course, he said it with a thick fake accent and perfect comic timing.  His proclamation of ignorance must have paid a lot of bills.  It has similar comic effect today when used by politicians although it doesn’t pay any bills but rather allows them to continue life unfettered by the criminal justice system.  But I digress.

You know, Socrates was right on the subject of professing ignorance.  He went to the Oracle, which told him he was the wisest man.  And the father of western thought wrestled with this for a while and finally produced the greatest pearl of wisdom ever to grace the mind of a man.  Briefly stated, he said that if he was indeed wise, it was only because he knew he did not know - a sentiment that would plague freshmen college students for ages.  It’s not knowing something that is important, but knowing your limits.  Brilliant!  Any tactician will tell you that it isn’t where you’re strong that is the problem, but where you are weak.  And if you don’t know where you are weak, that can be deadly.

So…how do I determine what I don’t know?  I suppose if I add up all that I do know and subtract that from the sum total of all knowledge, I’ll be left with a remainder of what I don’t know.  There’s only one problem with this theory, and that is simply that I don’t know the sum total of all knowledge.  By definition it’s mostly things I don’t know.  Even if it was just one thing that I didn’t know, who knows how big that one thing is?  I think it would be safe to say that the sum total of the universe of knowledge, right down to “What color was Socrates’ underwear?” approaches an infinite amount.

Got your brain in twist yet?  Let’s perform a simple mathematical operation.  Let’s get a percentage of the universe’s knowledge that I have.  That’s simple.  I simply divide the amount that I have, however small, by the sum total which is approaching an infinite amount.  Reaching way back into my bag of finite knowledge I pull out some screwy calculus from Mr. Hively’s 12^th Grade AP Class.  When dividing an amount by another that is approaching infinity, the answer is (drum roll please): zero.  Not close to zero…but actually zero.  (And you thought you’d never use that calculus.)

So there you have it folks.  My percentage of knowledge is 0%, making it fact.  I know nothing.  Perhaps you’d like to substitute your amount of knowledge into the equation and see if you come up with a different answer…

The Blog Experiment

Since I started this blog, I've had only a handful of readers and zero comments.  I never expected to have many, but certainly I would have hoped for some.  In any case, the blog will go on....at least occasionally when I have something I want to post.  For my incidental things, however, I've discovered that Google+ works fine.  For my philosophical musings, I'll continue to use this forum.

That may not be often.  Despite my frequent showers (you'll have to read previous posts to understand), my thoughts are not always complete enough to post.  Sometimes it takes years and thousands of gallons to complete them.

But eventually they do wash out.

Darwin and God vs. the Humans

Darwin and his Theory of Evolution have often been pitted against God and Creationism. Each camp coming up with some pretty absurd arguments. (Yes, BOTH of them.) And to me, both have drifted from the moorings of their original intent. Darwin never meant to say life spontaneously occurred in the primordial soup, he simply wanted to explain some of his observations about the variety of life on this planet. And I'm sure God didn't have some of the nutty ideas about the creation that I've seen proposed. The fact is, evolution is not incompatible with the creation and vice versa. The real enemy to both of them is the human race.

Let's break it down.  Darwin's theory rests on "Natural Selection" or what we colloquially refer to as survival of the fittest.  Those possessing traits that help a species survive are passed on to their offspring, thereby shaping the species.  Those that do not posses those traits die, and thereby cease to pass on those traits.  It's a fairly simple concept and one that has permeated every level of modern thought.  Humans, however, not only defy this theory but seem to actively work against it. 

Take eyesight for example.  In the animal world, poor eyesight is a problem.  Animals with poor eyesight can't see predators as well and get eaten.  Humans, however, have used their only natural weapon - intelligence - and created glasses, contact lenses, LASIC surgery, microscopes, telescopes, night vision goggles, and all manner of visual aids to help those with poor sight compensate and ensure that those weak eye genes get passed on. 

But we're even more perverse than that.  Those that are successful in this world and possess in abundance the traits that put man on top are producing fewer offspring while those on the bottom rungs are producing more.  Of course, success can be described many ways, but if you describe it socioeconomically there are several studies that support this assertion.  Rich people have fewer children than poor people.  (And the children aren't the reason they are poor/rich).  For a brilliant dissection of this phenomenon, watch "Idiocracy" - a wonderful satirical commentary on where we are headed as a species.  Be warned - it may contain hard to watch scenes of completely stupid truth.

And what about God?  Well, mankind has been working against Him since time began.  As our morality and values sink ever lower, I'm sure he's contemplating a plague or calamity to wipe us out and start over.

Personally, I think Darwin is sitting next to God watching history unfold.  And every time we think we can solve our problems, they both roll their eyes and shake their heads.

The Forgiveness of the Mel

Mel Gibson the subject of many a personal rant.  His high profile fall from grace has been the stone on which haters and hero killers have been grinding the edge of their headsman's axes.  People are upset that he slurred the Jewish people.  Fact - he was drunk and if we start holding everyone to what they say when they're drunk, we are going to have a lot of people eating non-food items.  What nobody seems to be upset with is that he was driving!  A public menace!  But what are we worried about - a drunken insult?

But I digress.  Several celebrities have stepped up to bat for Mel.  The latest being Robert Downey, Jr. - a man whose descent into drugs cost him time in prison.  But we forgave him.  Maybe because he didn't have an ethnic high. In any case, he recently made a plea to a gathering of power players in Hollywood for forgiveness.  A rabbi from the Simon Wiesenthal Center responded that if Mel wants forgiveness he needs to ask for it himself.  Sounds common sensical, doesn't it?

But wait!  Lets talk about forgiveness.  This isn't something that the dear rabbi can give and it certainly isn't something one can demand.  Forgiveness comes from God.  Perhaps that is a crucial difference between the belief systems of the Jewish faith and Christianity.  "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors."  Of course we've seen many Christians mess this one up as well.  I'm looking at you, Reverend Jackson.  I'm not sure where these people think they get their power to speak for God and their respective races/creeds/religions/sexual orientation/whatever.  They take offense at any perceived slight and hold the offender's public reputation hostage until they are placated.  For you and me that probably doesn't mean too much, but for Mel and other public figures, that could mean the end of their careers.  They are essentially blackballed from their professions.  Anybody remember Fatty Arbuckle?

But the purpose of forgiveness is for the forgiver as much as it is for the forgivee.  Not only does it qualify one for their own forgiveness, but it softens their hearts and cleanses them of hate.  And isn't getting rid of hate what this is all about?

My advice to the rabbi: publicly forgive Mel.  If he truly is an anti-semite (which I doubt), it will show the world who is the better man and Mel will deserve his shame.  If not, then he deserves the forgiveness that you think you can withhold.  Ultimately, however, it is God who will forgive.  I realize these are Christian tenets, but Gandhi, a Hindu, realized that an eye for eye makes the whole world blind.  (It was Gandhi, wasn't it?)  Let's heal the wounds that have plagued us for centuries, real or imaginary, and cross the divide.  Live and let live.  And let Mel be.  If we can forgive a wanted child rapist and give him an Oscar (I realize some, including the US government, have not forgiven Roman Polanski, but his victim has), why can't we forgive Mel?

Harry Skywalker

This is another previous work that was published briefly, but I like it so much that I just had to share it.  If you know your geek trivia, you will realize that the following is true.

 

For some time now the world has been enthralled with the delightful tales of J.K. Rowling and her adventures of Harry Potter.  And to be forthright, I have found myself wrapped up in their ingenuity, until I began thinking about it in the shower (where all good ideas come from), and suddenly realized that I’ve heard this story before…in a time long ago in a galaxy far, far away.  What follows is a comparison of Luke Skywalker and Harry Potter:

Harry Potter	Luke Skywalker
Syllables in name = 4	Syllables in name = 4
Name ends in “er”	Name ends in “er”
Hidden for safety with extended family	Hidden for safety with extended family
Extended family doesn’t want him to discover hidden powers.	Extended family doesn’t want him to discover hidden powers
Evil nemesis kills family.	Evil nemesis kills family (in one version of the story)
Mother gives life for child	Mother gives life for child (well, children)
Evil nemesis is once left near death.	Evil nemesis is once left near death.
Evil nemesis name begins with V = Voldemort (can I say that?)	Evil nemesis begins with V = Vader
Evil nemesis changed name	Evil nemesis changed name
Evil nemesis is master of “Dark Arts”	Evil nemesis is master of “Dark Side”
Fights with special implement that has connection to evil nemesis. (wand)	Fights with special implement that has connection to evil nemesis. (lightsaber)
Seeks training from old master (Dumbledore)	Seeks training from old master (Yoda)
Best friend = Ron	Best friend = Han
Is a flying ace with a broom.	Is a flying ace with an X-wing.
Is the subject of a prophecy.	Is the subject of a prophecy.

I’m sure I could go on, but do you really need more proof than this.  Lets face it…Harry Potter is Luke Skywalker.  "…and there is no new thing under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 1:9)

Had a shocking realization that left a scar on your forehead?  Or took your hand off?  Tell me about it in the comments.