Something shifted...

                Years ago, I was in a relationship with a beautiful young lady.  She was the second woman that I had ever fallen in love with, and even to this day, we remain close.  We talk or text or communicate in some way almost every day, but the fact is this – That chapter is now closed. 

                When I was with the first girl that I was in love with, the relationship ended quickly.  I was blindsided with that one.  I was with her, then I got on a plane, and when I called to tell her that I had landed safely, she broke it off. I never saw it coming.  I proceeded to drink for weeks, and was furious at the world.  After my self-loathing induced drunken state was over, I moved on, because I was still then quite the optimistic chap. 

                When the second break up came, a few years ago, I knew it was coming.  We both did, even if we didn’t talk about it much.  We still spent lots of time together, but when she left the state, the relationship died.  Then we continued to talk, flirt, spend time with each other, and take time off from contact several other times.  I think that is why this one was so different.  There was more pain and regret and drinking spread out over years, as compared to the intense post break up hate fest of the first.

                Part of the reason we kept talking and meeting up (when she would visit, or I’d visit her) was that I was willing to take the pain.  It’s hard to describe, but I’m sure most people reading this understand.  You know it’s done.  You know it can’t last forever.  You know that weeks of pain will follow the few days of happiness when you get to hold them in your arms… but you do it anyway.  The short happiness is worth the pain afterwards.  It’s not rational, but it works.

                At some point, we decided to call it quits for good.  We talk, but none of that flirting that leads to more flirting, which leads to a trip and kissing/cuddling/loving that keeps the cycle going.  Neither of us could really take it anymore.  It wasn’t that we couldn’t handle the cycle; it’s that the cycle prevented us from moving on to be happy in our lives, and we both want the other to be happy. 

                Since, I’ve dated.  I’ve been on good dates, decent dates, and downright terrible dates.  I’ve had sex, but it was just that – sex (even if some girls meant more than others, and were fucking awesome people).  In the time that I started dating, there was one girl in particular that I actually liked.  We kissed, made out a little, but nothing more.  She lost interest, and I have no idea why.  I have no idea if she and I would have dated longer than a few hours, but the opportunity (however small) was there.  Life went on, but I tell you that, because it was the only time that I got close to moving out of a cycle that I’m still locked in.  Since, I’ve known women that I could move on with, but part of me keeps throttling back.  It’s not something that bends to my will.  For an extrovert like myself, it’s the most uncomfortable feeling to not feel comfortable with someone you want to feel comfortable with. 

                The thing is this.  I want to move on, and date someone, and have cuddle time and even fall in love, but I’m not quite sure if that will happen again.  I know what you will think – “Oh, just wait for the right girl to come along”.  Thank you for your words, but we both know that isn’t how it always works out.  Not for everyone.  In some people, something breaks… something shifts.  Some people lose the ability to open up.  Sometimes, they lose the ability, even if they try so damned hard to open up. For them, and me, it’s very likely that no one will ever get so close to them that they will have to risk being hurt again.  It is not that the person can will themselves to open up; it’s that their mind has locked itself off to protect itself.  It knows that a part of the mind isn’t responsible enough to protect its own feelings, and takes measures to remove the chance of a repeat.  That doesn’t mean that I’m going to stop trying.

                If anything does come, it will be at the cost of a snail’s pace.  That is a high cost, when like so many nights before, I’ll crawl in my bed alone tonight.  That has become the most hated part of my day. 

               

                P.S. This isn’t an emo cry for help or me whining.  I’m not feeling sorry for myself, and I hate when people feel sorry for me.  It’s simply me accepting how it is.  It is reality, and I don’t shy away from reality.  I do wish it were different, though.  

Super Majority?

I just hammered this out.   Screw off, Grammer-Nazi's.  

            I’m tired of talking heads that can’t do “maths” talking about this imaginary 2 year filibuster proof majority that the Democrats held in the U.S. Senate.  For those that can A) do math, or B) remember anything in the past, further than a few years, we know this to be a lie.  If you cannot remember that far back, let me do the “maths”.  Also, in this I'll be looking at physical days that certain people held office, not based on that person being able to vote.  I'll explain as I go.

            After the swearing in of Senators post 2008 elections, the Democrat/Republican vote was 58/41.  (That 58 number includes the two independents that caucused along with the Democrats.)  The reason those two numbers don’t add up to 100 will come in just a moment..

            On April 28, 2009, Arlen Spector (R) pissed off the Republicans by switching sides to the Democratic party.  He would remain a Democrat until his death.   So now, active voting Senators went to Democrats 59/Republicans 40.  

            The 60^th seat for the Democrats would not come until July 7^th, 2009, when after a long and bitter recount, Al Franken (D) was seated in the Senate.  He had been tied up in a recount fight with Norm Coleman (R).  (The fight did have Al Franken loosing until the end of the re-count, so I’ll take that fight that Mr. Coleman thought he legitimately won, and not a stalling tactics to restrain the Democrats, as others have said.) This is why I said before, that the numbers wouldn't add up to 100.  Now they do.  All is right with the universe. 

            So now the seats in the Senate are 60/40, with the Democrats having a super majority.  This was July 7^th, 2009.

            On August 8^th, 2009, Ted Kennedy (D) died.  He had been bedridden and not able to vote for about 4 months before this due to brain cancer, but if we are looking at seats held, and not ability to physically cast a vote, then that’s where it stood.  In fact his health issues really began to escalate during Barack Obama’s inaugural luncheon, when Kennedy collapsed with a seizure, but again, we’re only looking at seats held, not the ability of the Senator to cast a ballot. 

            From Al Franken being sworn in til the death of Ted Kennedy – 32 days.

            Paul Kirk (D) was put into place as an intern Senator for the state of Mass., until a special election could be held.  He was sworn in on September 24^th, 2009.   He held that position until the special election ended, and Scott Brown (R) was sworn in on Jan 19^th, 2010. Democrats 59 / Republicans 41.  (Am I the only one that remembers him being called “The 41^st Senator??)

            From Paul Kirk being sworn in til Scott Brown’s seating – 117 days.  

            117 days + 32 days = 149 days.  Of course nothing moves quickly in Washington, so you could easily shave a few days off those to give new Senators time to find paperclips, and move to D.C., but again as I’ve said before, we’re talking about days where a majority was held, not the Senator’s ability to vote in those positions.  149days converts to 5 months (-1 day).   

            Democrats held a “Super Majority” in the 111^th Congress for a period of 5 months (149 days).  There are 24 months in a congressional term, so when people say President Obama held a Super Majority, they are officially off by 19 out of 24 months, or 79%.  

            Oddly enough, the idea that “Obama held a Super Majority for 2 years and could have done anything, but didn’t” is touted as some kind of flaw.  If either the Democrats or Republicans held super majorities in the White House, Senate and Congress, and just rammed everything they wanted up the butt of the opposing party, then shame on them!  As if President Obama’s restraint in not sending dozens of bills to his leaders in the House and Senate daily and signing them faster than rounds are fired in a Kalashnikov, is some weakness.   Are they telling us that if they took that kind of power, that the minority of the country had better put on flak jackets?

            Food for thought.  

Something in the way....

                On a random dirt road, a young boy gets hit by a car.  He was living in Africa, in some tiny village you’ve never heard of.  In fact, the only way you know about it, is that it was inserted as fluff in some newspaper article you read, in some newspaper you can’t name (even if it’s right on the tip of your brain), which was about some social issue that you can’t recall, or stopped caring about long ago.  Polluted water in the wells in Nigeria or something like that. 

                Let’s say you live in normal-town, USA.  You are surrounded by normal folks with normal streets and a normal McDonalds on a corner of an irregular five way stop.  It’s just some town that ends in “ville” or “burg” in one of the square flyover states.  You get a call from a neighbor telling you that a kid was hit by a car four streets over.  He was from a family that moved in weeks ago, but you never met them.  You’ve never even seen this kid, but you feel very sad for the family.  You even drive over, and put flowers on the corner with all the other flowers that people left when they also felt bad. 

                Why does a person not care about one kid, but is so moved by the death of the other that they make a physical act of remorse?  Why is the life of the stranger near you, more important than the life of a stranger that is a world away?  It shouldn’t be, but it is.  It’s just the way it is. 

                You are walking down the street near your favorite bar, and see a fist fight.  One large guy is trouncing some smaller guy.  You don’t know them, and if others jump in to stop it, you might help, but it doesn’t matter to you.  Then you notice the smaller kid is a guy you know.  You are the first to jump in to break up the beating.  Why would you stand by and watch, unless it’s personal?  Why would most people not move to intervene, unless that act was personal to them?  If it really was some random kid, he has friends and family too.  He feels pain.

                “Well, it’s someone I know” is what most say, but why that matters isn’t something they can articulate.  Why is one more important than the other?  I don’t know.  It’s just the way it is. 

                I can go on like this for pages.  A pretty girl vs. an ugly one.  A person from your hometown vs. a stranger from Nebraska….  Some people matter more than others.

                I try not to make that distinction.  I fail often, but I try.  However one group is the exception.  One group is more important to me than others, and I don’t try to stop that discrimination.. inclination… judgment, whatever you choose to call it. 

                Everyone has a number of parts that make up their own opinion of their personal worth.  Take a person, have them examine the traits they find most important and virtuous (A), cross those with their own self image of how they measure up using those traits (B), +/- personal issues with A or B, and you will get C: their opinion of their own self worth.  This means that any random person has a list of traits that they hold to be of the highest order, and when they meet someone that holds these traits in spades, they will see that person as residing on a pedestal.  The observed becomes a “better person” than the observer. I’m not saying that’s right or healthy or wrong or harmful, I’m just saying that that’s the way it is.   

                If a person’s traits are frivolous, and are of little worth to myself or humanity, then I don’t hold that person on a pedestal at all.  I don’t give a shit about Michael Jordan.  Being great at a sport is of little use to me.  However there are qualities that I hold as important.  A sense of right, a glow, a purity of character, generous sacrifice, appreciation of learning and understanding, and even gentleness are some of those characteristics.  There are some qualities that neither you nor I can articulate.  “Something in the way she moves”, according to George Harrison.  It’s a room full of puppies, but you are drawn to one, for no reason which you can explain.

                I have a large number of people that I know, and a much smaller cluster of those that I am close to.  In that cluster, they may all be on some pedestal, but some pedestals are higher than others.  One is a woman I dated for years.  She is kind and perfect, and if someone hurt her, I’d burn that person to the ground.  I know another that holds a place in my being, that can’t be replaced.  I have a best friend in Colorado, and if he ever needed me, I’d jump to his side.  Now, this is surely the case with anyone reading this.  We all have people like these in our lives.  But I’m not just talking about friends and first lovers.  I’m talking about individuals, which you know are better people than you are.  The world is better off with them in the world.  The interesting part is when you barely know those betters.  In fact, you have them on a pedestal, and you know that you aren’t even in their purview.  It gets even more interesting, when the reasons you do so, are made up of more qualities you can’t articulate than the ones you can. 

                I’m not talking about thinking they are better people because of some bullshit “love at first sight” or “one great act”.  It’s not about infatuation or admiration. 

                I’ve lost you, I’m sure.  My point is that I make no apologies for discriminating against almost everyone, when I put someone on a pedestal for being a better person than I am. 

               

                Almost a year ago, I went out with a gal.  I had met her years before this, but we were just friendly with each other.  We met in a class, and when I saw her, I felt aglow.  I was in a better mood.  Maybe it was the way her cheeks looked when she smiled…I have no idea.  Much later, she and I went out, but she lost interest.  I don’t know why, and I never asked.  I think in part, I didn’t want to find out what was so bad that it disappointed or bored her.  Who knows, maybe she just didn’t get a kick out of my smile.  Eh. <shrug> It’s not really important, because I don’t need her approval to feel happy about knowing her. (This, as you will rightly note, is SO out of character for me.  I always want to know why...how...when... I love details, but not this time.)

                Once in a while, we’ll chat, or shoot a random text.  (I’ll admit, she has her own designated ringtone.  “Strum” on my iPhone.  Hell, my momma doesn’t even have her own ringtone.)  The other night we messaged each other back and forth during the second Presidential debate. She told me after (the yelling about Mitt) that she had been through some rough times with a guy she dated.  I won’t share those details with you, but I’ll say they were rough.  Still are, in fact. 

                It’s to a point where she may need to be protected from someone I'll only describe as less-than-a-man, and I want to be there to help protect her. <grunt> "Knuckle dragger Greg protect little lady." <grunt grunt>  Neanderthal-like, I know, but protecting the ones around me is but one principal I embraced in my decades.  I could tell her all this, (pedestals, better angels) but I’m sure she would take it that I was some love sick puppydawg, that’s infatuated with her.  It’s true that I think she is beautiful (which she knows.  Seriously folks, radiant...), but there is no way to go from that, to explaining that it’s not about that, without her assuming it’s only about that.  I mean hell, I can’t even articulate that “something” to you guys very well, and I have all the time in the world to write, re-write and edit this post.  I told her that I want her to reach out if she needs anything, but let’s be real, how serious do any of you take that when someone you barely know says it?   If I tell those in my cluster to call me if they need me, they understand.  But coming from someone that you randomly text… how far do you expect them to go? 

 

                I’m not looking for suggestions, and I’m not bitching.  In fact I’m turning comments off for this post.  These are just my thoughts, for me, and I guess at this point I don’t care if you guys understand what I’m trying to say anymore.  I mean I do, but I can’t articulate them, so it’s kind of lost.  It’s a dream you were just having, but can’t explain.  You only remember that it felt grand and lonely.   

P.S. I'm not pitiful or useless.Just having a "hmph" moment.

First Debate

Note: This is identical to the post on Facebook.  If you missed that, you are not my facebook friend.  Stop crying, it'll be OK. 

 

My take on the debate last night:

Jim Lehrer-

Lots of people are taking shots at Jim Lehrer.  Some is warranted, others are not.  Yes the job of a moderator is to use control, and in that aspect, Lehrer didn’t achieve his goal.  It would have been one of the few times where a giant gong would have been nice.  A moderator that is doing that job, with the public as the judge (and not a three judge panel, where points could be deducted) has no real mechanism to stop someone from talking over everyone else.  What was he going to do?  Stand up, and hit someone?  No.  Especially since this was an open discussion forum, and especially since there is only so much he can do to physically stop someone from talking, I can’t be too hard on him.  I would have stood up, and pulled out an air-horn, but I’m not a well respected journalist that has moderated more presidential debates than anyone living today. 

It was also sad that the entire last section of the night was scrapped.  That was a failure of the debate.  You don’t win kudos with me, for talking talking talking…  You win kudos and have a chance to change my mind when you pose an argument and/or answer the question that was asked of you.  If you can do that in a too the point way, and don’t have to ramble on forever to kind of come up with an answer that skirts or skims the question asked….then that’s what I want.  Not having the ability to answer clearly and in under 2-3 minutes means you can’t really control your explanation. (NOTE: That last rule doesn’t apply if you are asked ANYTHING about quantum mechanics.)

Mitt Romney:

Romney has been said by many to have won the debate.  I agree in the sense that more people that have not made up their minds already would be more persuaded by his arguments than Obama’s.  Mitt was much more on the ball with numbers, and took a more aggressive approach in the debate.  I figured he would.  Any candidate that is fighting for numbers will be more bold, because if they aren’t, then they have no chance to pull in voters.  The underdog always has to act stronger.* 

*For those that will cite the constant statistical tie as evidence that he isn’t an underdog, then you don’t understand statistical ties or the electoral college.  I didn’t take first place in Fantasy Election ’08 by accident.  Learn how stuff works.

I was not happy that Romney got away with a lot of the same lines that fact checkers have called him on (i.e. those 6 studies that support his tax plans being revenue neutral didn’t do that at all, as outlined study by study here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/27/wonkblogs-comprehensive-guide-to-the-debate-over-romneys-tax-plan/?print=1 ), and with his comments that have been in the news (i.e. 47%, emergency room care as healthcare).  I was not happy in the least that we’ve gotten to this point, and still he offers no real details on his plans (“I’ll close loopholes” isn’t a plan.  Which?  For whom? How much will that save?  Who will it effect?  The 6 studies were trying to debunk this one : http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf )  With all that being said, if you consider the goal of the debate as convincing the undecided voters, Romney won hands down.  It’ll take about 2 days, and more accurate numbers on Monday/Tuesday to see what the margins look like in the swings.** 

** When I say swings, I’m referring to NV, CO, FL, IA, WI, OH, PA, NH, VA & N.C.   If you don’t know about the GOP’s new issues with the swings NV, CO, FL, N.C., and VA, hit this link.  For the GOP, it may blunt any gains in those areas, not on a voter by voter basis, but in new registers. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#49250158  

Barack Obama:

I can’t say much about him, because he didn’t really show up.  Lol   What the hell?  Looking into the camera to talk to the people at home can be a good plan.  Engaging Romney would be a good plan.  He seemed to spend time looking down and engaging his podium.  There was no “bite”, which is a term I use when talking about debtors taking a piece out of their opponent.   The opportunities were there, certainly, but he seemed to not be engaged.  Even if you think (as I do) that his points were more factually true, that did no good because he stumbled all too often while offering those.  Speaking of those points, it still irks me that he uses the money saved coming out of 2 wars in his numbers, and that he hasn’t taken Simpson-Boyles more to heart.  I think re-election plays a big part of that, and I hope to see him doing more damage to the Debt in a 2^nd term. 

Back to the debate.  In those 90 minutes, I think he lost his footing, and it seemed to be because he had a lapse of confidence.  We see that in debates, even this year (Perry’s 3 departments..wait..2.. What’s the third?), but the time to NOT have that happen is the opening debate (of 3 total) which was focused on Domestic issues.  The economy is always the most important issue, and so of the three that he could have had a “crisis in confidence” in, this was the worst. (To see a crisis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HgE5q2Umkw     To see a crisis with a punch line: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HgE5q2Umkw )

I have lots of people that I’m friends with here, that are waiting to see if I’ll just cover up his mistakes, and see if I’ll admit that I think Romney had a win.  I’m not covering anything, because that’s not how I do business.  Romney won last night, and Obama was flustered and seemed like he was stepping on stage for the first time.  Whereas Romney loses points for a lack of facts, Obama lost more for his debate skills, which as I said at the beginning matters more to those undecided voters (but not to independents).   Romney :1 / Obama :0. 

Next Debates:

For those that will follow more, the next debate is with Rep. Ryan and V.P. Biden on October 11^th.  (Moderated by Martha Raddatz, 9 segments, 10 minutes each)

Then on Oct. 16^th, it’s to a presidential town hall debate in N.Y., on Domestic and Foreign Policy. (Moderated by Candy Crowley, town hall style, with audience members asking questions)

The final debate is in Florida in the 22^nd, just on Foreign Policy. (Bob Schieffer moderates, same debate format as the first, 6 segments, 15 minutes each.)