OESTERHOUDT ON RELATIONSHIPS
People often approach me for relationship advice. I don't like to flatter myself, but I'm good at it. I know a thing or two about human beings and their capacity to live with each other. I have credentials. I have been in a committed relationship for eleven years and I have endured every emotional, physical and sanity-damaging challenge you can possibly imagine. Along the way, I have coped with jealousy, envy, longing, lust, passion, disappointment, infidelity, vanity, heartache, reconciliation, misunderstanding, rage, sleeplessness, abuse, frustration, ecstasy, contentment, simple joy, tension and anxiety. I have even weathered trying health troubles at my partner's side, like unforeseeable life-changing accidents and mental illness.
When it comes to living with another person, I've been around the block. I'm not a boy anymore. I'm a man. That's not a boast. That's a fact.
In many cases, people ask me whether they should transform pleasant acquaintances into lasting relationships. Others ask me how to overcome consumptive attachments they develop to people, then the terrible disappointment that flows when their love interests do not reciprocate their devotion.
These are related situations. They arise frequently. When a person tries to force a relationship onto another level, a power struggle ensues. One person wants something the other might not. This leads to a disparity in desire, as well as wishful thinking and blind faith that the other person is acting in accordance with your fantasies. In short, it is emotionally dangerous. When you start expecting another person to act the way you imagine they will, you are setting yourself up for heartbreak or worse.
I did this in my first love. I became very close friends with someone when I was just a teenager. I loved our time together. We had a very special friendship and I felt respected whenever we met. Eventually, my feelings grew stronger. I wanted a romantic relationship. I started believing that he did, too. He really didn't. I wanted him to love me the same way I loved him. I turned it over in my mind all the time; it kept me up at night. I wanted to talk to him all the time, but I didn't want it to seem that I was the only one making the phone calls. So I would wait around for days at a time wishing that he would call me; and of course he didn't. When he finally did call, my heart would race and I would stumble on my words. I felt that I was speaking to my savior; he had all the power over me. It was just pathetic. I was slavishly dedicated to him even though he never gave me the reciprocation I craved.
It took me several years to break my attachment to this person. I wasted so much psychic energy on an illusion. I will never do it again.
Now I see clearly what I did wrong. I created a whole mental patchwork of fantasies about my friend. Those fantasies overwhelmed my mind. I expected my friend to act in accordance with them. It was unrealistic, of course, but when you're craving a person's love, you do not think reasonably. My mistake was this: I fell in love with a subjective fantasy image, not a real person. And when the real person did not act according to the fantasy script in my mind, I felt crushed. I expected too much; and I learned that people are basically inscrutable: They rarely act the way you really want them to.
My youthful attachment to my friend was unhealthy for another reason: It led me into slavishness. I hung on his every word. I followed his every action with total devotion. I delivered my fate into his hands. Whatever he did, I followed. I gave him all the power because I wanted him to give me what I wanted. I wanted him to love me so much that I sacrificed my own dignity and spirit to win his affections. I stumbled on my words when I was around him because he was my mental master. I wanted too much. That made me slavish.
I did not break my attachment to this person until I stopped wanting what he had to offer. And that is the lesson: If you have an unhealthy attachment to a person and they are not showing you the love you want, you must convince yourself that they have nothing you want. Once you do that, you will stop obsessing about them. You will regain your peace of mind and dignity. You will reorder your desires and think clearly again. True, it is hard to do. But you will thank yourself if you can pull it off.
Let us try to understand how this works. We develop unhealthy attachments to people when we WANT something they have. "Want" is the most important word in our mental lives. It expresses our truest desires. It honestly discloses who we are. No one controls what we want; our personality dictates it. We are never so happy as when we get what we want because it satisfies our deepest, most personal yearnings.
Problems arise when we want something that only another person can give. In this case, we cannot easily address our wants because we cannot directly slake them. And because the other person has what we want, we make concessions in order to entice him to give us what we crave. We indulge him far more than we should. We bow, scrape, flatter and stumble on our words. We make our love interest our master; he has power over us because he has the discretion whether to grant us what we want. That is unhealthy. It leads us into despair because we willingly enslave ourselves to his will. Disappointment and frustration become our dominant emotions. We never get what we want. And we are crestfallen every time our love interest does not act the way we expect--which is much more often than we'd like.
But there is a way to overcome this cycle. To break the attachment, you must engage your reason. You must take control over your own desire again. You must convince yourself that the other person has nothing you want. If you can do that, the other person loses his authority over you. He becomes indifferent to you. You get to say what you want, not him. You can pursue your own desire again without a fickle middleman. That is freedom in the purest sense.
I know it is difficult to do this when you are caught in an unhealthy attachment. It is hard to engage your reason when you are contorted with unrequited desire. But it is worth the effort. It helps to have a distraction that breaks your incessant attention to your love interest. In my case, I met someone else who took my mind off my obsession. It helped me turn my mind away from its destructive focus on unattainable affection. Within a few weeks, I felt free again. It was wonderful.
If you ever find yourself with an unhealthy attachment to another person, think about why you feel the way you do: You want what the other person has. You put your happiness in his hands. You heap unrealistic expectations on the other person and you disappoint yourself every time he acts some other way. You give him total power over the way you feel. Conceptually, it is easy to understand. To break the attachment, you must simply stop wanting what he has to offer. Once you control your own wants again, no one will ever tyrannize you with frustration and disappointment. And life feels much better when you're not frustrated.
Showing posts with label Love. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Love. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Saturday, March 27, 2010
DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL : A BAD ARGUMENT, AND AN EMBARRASSING DOUBLE STANDARD
OESTERHOUDT STRIKES
Last week, former Supreme Allied Commander (Atlantic) General John Sheehan testified before a Senate subcommittee investigating whether it was prudent to repeal the American military's ban on openly gay soldiers. General Sheehan argued that the military should not alter its policy. He said that openly gay soldiers reduce morale, combat effectiveness and unit cohesion.
To support his assertion, General Sheehan referenced an incident in which the Dutch army failed to defend a Bosnian town against Serbian aggression during Yugoslavia's Civil War in 1995. Although he could not directly attribute the Dutch army's failure to individual gay soldiers, General Sheehan explicitly said that Holland's "socialized" and "permissive" attitude toward homosexuality in the military made its armed forces "ill-equipped" to fight battles.
Dutch officials reacted with surprise to General Sheehan's remarks. They found it bizarre that anyone could link military ineffectiveness to a policy permitting openly gay men and women to serve in the military.
I find General Sheehan's argument bizarre, too. Moreover, I also find it foolish, hypocritical and ignorant. I have long criticized the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy as reflecting a fundamental double standard. It not only assumes that abstract homosexuality makes a person a bad soldier. It also assumes that there are no gay people in the U.S. military. Anecdotal evidence suggests that homosexuality is rife in the armed forces. It's just that no one talks about it. And yet General Sheehan does not suggest that the U.S. military is "ineffective," even though it certainly has gay people in it. Policies do not change the way people are.
But these are not the only flaws in "don't ask, don't tell." Put simply, the entire policy functions on logically untenable premises. First, the policy purports to "strengthen morale, combat effectiveness and unit cohesion" by eliminating openly gay people from service in the ranks. The argument is that openly gay men might form emotional relationships with one another that could jeopardize a particular "mission." Morale and combat effectiveness, in turn, depend on the chain of command. Morale and combat effectiveness require unswerving loyalty to the chain of command. And if men develop romantic connections to one another, then perhaps they will be loyal to one another, not the chain of command. Thus, it is proper to exclude openly gay men from military service: Gay relationships threaten the chain of command because romantic connections switch loyalties from the mission to individual men.
But what about women? The "don't ask, don't tell" policy assumes that romantic connections are only dangerous to the "mission" when they exist between two men. Yet the military allows straight women to serve alongside straight men. Human beings will develop romantic connections with anyone to whom they feel attracted, no matter the gender. Straight men fall in love with straight women just as deeply as gay men fall in love with each other. In that light, the fact that the U.S. military permits straight women to serve with straight men poses the same theoretical danger to morale as allowing openly gay men to serve. Straight people develop romantic connections just like gay people. And according to the army's rationale for "don't ask, don't tell," romantic connections are "bad" because they divide loyalties. Apparently, however, love affairs between men and women in the army do not divide loyalties as strongly as love affairs between men.
This is just ignorant: If the problem is potential romantic connections between soldiers, then neither straight women nor gay men should be allowed to serve in the military. There is no qualitative difference between romantic connections among gay people versus straight people. According to the army's logic, such connections are equally "dangerous to morale" and "unit cohesion." The fact that the U.S. military presumes that gay relationships are somehow "more dangerous to morale" is logically untenable.
I can see no good reason to keep gays from the U.S. military beyond naked prejudice. The only thing that seems to support "don't ask, don't tell" is a historical animus directed from straight men against gay men. Straight men feel "weird" when they know they are sitting next to a gay man, so the policy aims to eliminate that awkwardness. Yet there is no principled reason for this. It functions on the bare assumption that "gay people are different" and therefore must be excluded. To quote Justice Stephen Breyer's observation from the oral argument in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 538 (2003)(the case striking down State gay sodomy laws), "don't ask, don't tell" invokes this reasoning: "I do not like thee, Doctor Fell; the reason why I cannot tell." Straight people in the army just plain don't like being around gay people. That's the only reason for the policy.
I also question the military's assumption that gay relationships could somehow damage unit effectiveness. Leaving to one side the consideration that thousands of gay people already serve in the military without saying so, divided loyalties dominate military service. Men (and women, too) form extraordinary bonds with one another under the stress of combat. Their camaraderie deepens from the moment they enter training to the toughest moments in battle. I have written that the military is inherently socialistic because it cares about its own people; and soldiers are also socialistic because they are all willing to die for their brothers. In fact, they are all willing to die helping to save their brothers, even if their actions "endanger the mission." Put simply, soldiers will always divide their loyalties because they care for each other, romance or not. Allowing openly gay people to serve in the army will not change all soldiers' natural commitments to each other.
Finally, General Sheehan implied that the mere presence of gay people in the Dutch army made it a poor fighting force. This is ridiculous. There is simply no historical correlation between homosexuality and military ineffectiveness. Alexander the Great, Peter the Great and Frederick the Great were all allegedly gay, yet they went down in history as model soldiers. To suggest that an aesthetic sexual taste for members of one's own sex somehow renders a person "effeminate, weak, womanly and unsoldierlike" is simply rank stereotyping. Although history has placed restrictions on the manner in which gay people express their sexuality, it is indisputable that they have served with distinction as soldiers, officers and even conquerors. In that light, General Sheehan's argument that "the presence of gay people" in the Dutch army made it "weak" ignores history.
In conclusion, there is no logical or historical reason to continue the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. It makes pernicious assumptions about the relationship between sexuality and military competence. And it also functions on a double standard because another policy permits straight women to serve alongside straight men. The policy identifies "romantic connections between soldiers" as a reason to exclude openly gay men. Yet it allows straight women to potentially compromise straight men with "romantic connections:" "Romantic connections" are only dangerous among gay men, not straight men. The U.S. military offers no justification for the differential treatment. In that light, it is logically untenable. It simply reflects gross and outdated adolescent stereotypes. Romance is romance; it poses the same "dangers" whether it exists between boys and boys or boys and girls.
Last week, former Supreme Allied Commander (Atlantic) General John Sheehan testified before a Senate subcommittee investigating whether it was prudent to repeal the American military's ban on openly gay soldiers. General Sheehan argued that the military should not alter its policy. He said that openly gay soldiers reduce morale, combat effectiveness and unit cohesion.
To support his assertion, General Sheehan referenced an incident in which the Dutch army failed to defend a Bosnian town against Serbian aggression during Yugoslavia's Civil War in 1995. Although he could not directly attribute the Dutch army's failure to individual gay soldiers, General Sheehan explicitly said that Holland's "socialized" and "permissive" attitude toward homosexuality in the military made its armed forces "ill-equipped" to fight battles.
Dutch officials reacted with surprise to General Sheehan's remarks. They found it bizarre that anyone could link military ineffectiveness to a policy permitting openly gay men and women to serve in the military.
I find General Sheehan's argument bizarre, too. Moreover, I also find it foolish, hypocritical and ignorant. I have long criticized the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy as reflecting a fundamental double standard. It not only assumes that abstract homosexuality makes a person a bad soldier. It also assumes that there are no gay people in the U.S. military. Anecdotal evidence suggests that homosexuality is rife in the armed forces. It's just that no one talks about it. And yet General Sheehan does not suggest that the U.S. military is "ineffective," even though it certainly has gay people in it. Policies do not change the way people are.
But these are not the only flaws in "don't ask, don't tell." Put simply, the entire policy functions on logically untenable premises. First, the policy purports to "strengthen morale, combat effectiveness and unit cohesion" by eliminating openly gay people from service in the ranks. The argument is that openly gay men might form emotional relationships with one another that could jeopardize a particular "mission." Morale and combat effectiveness, in turn, depend on the chain of command. Morale and combat effectiveness require unswerving loyalty to the chain of command. And if men develop romantic connections to one another, then perhaps they will be loyal to one another, not the chain of command. Thus, it is proper to exclude openly gay men from military service: Gay relationships threaten the chain of command because romantic connections switch loyalties from the mission to individual men.
But what about women? The "don't ask, don't tell" policy assumes that romantic connections are only dangerous to the "mission" when they exist between two men. Yet the military allows straight women to serve alongside straight men. Human beings will develop romantic connections with anyone to whom they feel attracted, no matter the gender. Straight men fall in love with straight women just as deeply as gay men fall in love with each other. In that light, the fact that the U.S. military permits straight women to serve with straight men poses the same theoretical danger to morale as allowing openly gay men to serve. Straight people develop romantic connections just like gay people. And according to the army's rationale for "don't ask, don't tell," romantic connections are "bad" because they divide loyalties. Apparently, however, love affairs between men and women in the army do not divide loyalties as strongly as love affairs between men.
This is just ignorant: If the problem is potential romantic connections between soldiers, then neither straight women nor gay men should be allowed to serve in the military. There is no qualitative difference between romantic connections among gay people versus straight people. According to the army's logic, such connections are equally "dangerous to morale" and "unit cohesion." The fact that the U.S. military presumes that gay relationships are somehow "more dangerous to morale" is logically untenable.
I can see no good reason to keep gays from the U.S. military beyond naked prejudice. The only thing that seems to support "don't ask, don't tell" is a historical animus directed from straight men against gay men. Straight men feel "weird" when they know they are sitting next to a gay man, so the policy aims to eliminate that awkwardness. Yet there is no principled reason for this. It functions on the bare assumption that "gay people are different" and therefore must be excluded. To quote Justice Stephen Breyer's observation from the oral argument in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 538 (2003)(the case striking down State gay sodomy laws), "don't ask, don't tell" invokes this reasoning: "I do not like thee, Doctor Fell; the reason why I cannot tell." Straight people in the army just plain don't like being around gay people. That's the only reason for the policy.
I also question the military's assumption that gay relationships could somehow damage unit effectiveness. Leaving to one side the consideration that thousands of gay people already serve in the military without saying so, divided loyalties dominate military service. Men (and women, too) form extraordinary bonds with one another under the stress of combat. Their camaraderie deepens from the moment they enter training to the toughest moments in battle. I have written that the military is inherently socialistic because it cares about its own people; and soldiers are also socialistic because they are all willing to die for their brothers. In fact, they are all willing to die helping to save their brothers, even if their actions "endanger the mission." Put simply, soldiers will always divide their loyalties because they care for each other, romance or not. Allowing openly gay people to serve in the army will not change all soldiers' natural commitments to each other.
Finally, General Sheehan implied that the mere presence of gay people in the Dutch army made it a poor fighting force. This is ridiculous. There is simply no historical correlation between homosexuality and military ineffectiveness. Alexander the Great, Peter the Great and Frederick the Great were all allegedly gay, yet they went down in history as model soldiers. To suggest that an aesthetic sexual taste for members of one's own sex somehow renders a person "effeminate, weak, womanly and unsoldierlike" is simply rank stereotyping. Although history has placed restrictions on the manner in which gay people express their sexuality, it is indisputable that they have served with distinction as soldiers, officers and even conquerors. In that light, General Sheehan's argument that "the presence of gay people" in the Dutch army made it "weak" ignores history.
In conclusion, there is no logical or historical reason to continue the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. It makes pernicious assumptions about the relationship between sexuality and military competence. And it also functions on a double standard because another policy permits straight women to serve alongside straight men. The policy identifies "romantic connections between soldiers" as a reason to exclude openly gay men. Yet it allows straight women to potentially compromise straight men with "romantic connections:" "Romantic connections" are only dangerous among gay men, not straight men. The U.S. military offers no justification for the differential treatment. In that light, it is logically untenable. It simply reflects gross and outdated adolescent stereotypes. Romance is romance; it poses the same "dangers" whether it exists between boys and boys or boys and girls.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
GAMBLING ON HAPPINESS : LOVE, KNOWLEDGE AND RISK
AN ESSAY
For three years, my close friend Joe Simeone composed an operatic adaptation to the 1952 play "Dial M For Murder." Last week, I attended an opening in which he presented several passages from his work. In brief, the opera follows the same intricate plot as the play: A man named Tony blackmails both his wealthy wife, Margot, and another man named Lesgate; Tony exploits the blackmail to entice Lesgate to murder his wife; the plan goes wrong and Margot kills Lesgate in self-defense; Tony manipulates the evidence to pin the murder on Margot; the police arrest Margot and she is sentenced to death; an enterprising police detective worries about the verdict and discovers that Tony orchestrated the result; Margot goes free and discovers her husband's betrayal.
Through the operatic form, Joe Simeone tells the story with a keener eye for emotion than plot. He did not compose an "operatic thriller;" he composed an opera. As such, he explores the emotional relationship between Tony and Margot with greater detail than the play. At the outset, Simeone tells us that Tony's and Margot's marriage was "loveless," but that Tony had recently begun to shower affections on his wife. To make that point, the opera begins with a sweeping aria in which Margot reveals that she has "rediscovered" her love for her husband. This is ironic, of course, because Tony has already betrayed her; he is even planning to kill her. During the aria, Margot sings a remarkable line: "It's a risk to believe love is real."
Margot may seem naïve for daring to believe that her devious husband actually loves her. But she is not alone. We all want love in our lives because love is a tantalizing pathway to happiness. Yet love is a troublesome thing because it cuts in two directions. We can love and we can be loved. Real happiness exists only when both elements find expression in a relationship. When only one person loves, the result is unrequited disappointment because the other does not return the feeling. And when only one person receives love, the result is awkward discomfort. Put another way, love only really "works" when there is no disparity between the emotions on both sides.
Sigmund Freud said as much. In Civilization and its Discontents, Freud explained that human beings generally "strive after happiness; they want to become happy and remain so." Civilization and its Discontents (Strachey, trans. p. 25). He went on to explain that happiness has both a "positive and negative aim," namely: "[the] absence of pain and unpleasure and the experiencing of strong feelings of pleasure." Id. Additionally, Freud noted that happiness cannot arise as long as unhappiness exists in a person's life. And unhappiness is "much less difficult to experience" than happiness. Id. at 26.
Freud identified three main sources for unhappiness: (1) our own bodies, which are doomed to aging, pain, discomfort and decay; (2) the external world, which can "rage against us with unimaginable forces of destruction;" and (3) our relations to other men. Civilization and its Discontents at p.26. He went on to say that unhappiness flowing from our "relations to other men" represents the worst possible unhappiness: It is the unhappiness of betrayal, deception, unfaithfulness, personal disappointment, spurned love, heartbreak, frustrated yearning and all the other bitter emotions that arise when our relations with others do not follow the path we wanted.
If so much unhappiness can flow from relationships with others, why do people bother with them? Freud posed the same question. He offered one surefire way to avoid "relationship unhappiness:" "Against the suffering which may come upon one from human relationships the readiest safeguard is voluntary isolation." Civilization and its Discontents at p. 27. He called this the "happiness of quietness." By eliminating a source for unhappiness, a person makes it easier to experience happiness.
But Freud acknowledged that "voluntary isolation" is not very satisfying. After all, mere freedom from unhappiness is nowhere near as fulfilling as experiencing positive happiness. For that reason, Freud explained that human beings constantly gamble on love to satisfy their "passionate striving for a positive fulfillment of happiness." Civilization and its Discontents at p. 32.
Put another way, freedom from unhappiness and pain is not enough. People want the ecstasy and joy that flows from real, positive happiness. And positive happiness flows most strongly from that most dangerous category: Relations with other men. Still, the potential emotional payout from love is so great that people all too willingly take their chances with it. Nonetheless, Freud warned: "The weak side of this technique is easy to see; otherwise no human being would have thought of abandoning this path to happiness for any other. It is that we are never so defenseless against suffering as when we love, never so helplessly unhappy as when we have lost our loved object or its love." Id. at 33.
Against this background, Margot sang more than she knew when she observed: "It's a risk to believe love is real." Love is an extremely dangerous risk. When a person dares to abandon himself to love, he makes himself "defenseless against suffering;" he even risks "helpless unhappiness" if he does not get the emotional payout he expects from the relationship. Worse, these unhappy results depend exclusively on "relations to other men." Specifically, the "love pathway to happiness" depends on how another person acts and feels. We humans are subjective creatures. We know only what we sense. Facts exist only to the extent that we manifest a subjective belief in their reliability. In that light, it is very difficult to gauge whether another person feels any emotion as we do, let alone love.
Beyond risk, love is about knowledge. Freud said that love has two components: Loving and being loved. We only feel love's joy when we know another person feels strongly about us, too. It is not enough to feel strongly about another person. Rather, love's intoxicating pleasure only really arises when we are satisfied that another person feels as strongly about us as we do about them.
But how do we know that? It is hard enough to know what exists in anyone else's mind. Yet when we risk our happiness on love, we force ourselves to decipher what another person feels and thinks. This is extremely difficult; in fact, it is nearly impossible. There is no way to know for certain whether another person loves us, because we cannot literally step into that person's mind. Rather, we must examine secondary facts to make inferences about the other person's beliefs. This is an imperfect method at best, but it is the only one we have. Even direct statements from our love interest are not definitive proof of what he feels. Humans are, after all, infamously dishonest.
In this light, it is easy to see that love is no easy thing. It does not just a risk; it demands some faith, too, because the facts necessary to establish love are unknowable.
Again, the question arises: With these thematic difficulties in mind, why bother with love? Consider just how much is at stake. By daring to love, a person opens himself to boundless unhappiness and pain flowing from "relations to other men." True, if his love pans out, he feels overwhelmingly positive emotions: That is the potential payout from the "risk." But in order to experience love, a person must satisfy himself that another person feels a certain way. It is impossible to certainly know what another person feels, so love actually involves a double risk: (1) Risking the relationship in the first place; and (2) Risking that a person will feel the way you expect. Disappointment can arise from either risk. There is nothing you can really do to stop it; you can't control how another person thinks or feels. In this sense, love is also a risk because a person must entrust his happiness to the subjective whim of another person over whom he has no control. And because human beings are notoriously untrustworthy and inconstant, it almost seems an unreasonable risk.
If love is so unreasonable, then why do so many people pursue it? The fact that human beings--like Margot--blindly risk love is testament to the assertion that reason does not rule us. If human beings were entirely rational, they would probably never love. After all, rational thinking involves balancing risks against benefits. A rational mind analyzes the potential pain that could result from a transaction and queries whether the potential pleasure is worth the chance. As Freud explained, love can yield immeasurable pain. And because that pain flows from forces largely beyond our control (i.e., the whims of others), it really makes no rational sense to take the risk. Although love offers a huge benefit in pleasure, a reasonable man would immediately see that it always presents an intolerable risk in pain. That risk would invariably outweigh the benefit in pleasure.
But we know that human beings live to love. They cast reason aside. They take the risk, even though it is unreasonable. Put simply, love's emotional payout in happiness is so intoxicating that it overwhelms human reason. Love's pleasure is so hypnotic that it submerges all potential pitfalls. Among those pitfalls is the dangerous need to place individual emotional well-being in the hands of another person--and that person is probably not trustworthy. Men ignore those risks when they love because it just feels so, so good. If reason held men in check, they would never allow themselves to remain blind to the dangers. But blind they remain; they dive headlong into the risks because it just feels so damn good.
"It's a risk to believe love is real." In one line, Margot expressed the timeless--yet perilously uncertain-- human quest for love. She hinted at the risks. She knew there was a danger. But love made her feel so good that she willingly blinded herself to it. She suspended her reason. Objectively, that might appear foolish. But we all have done it. And we probably always will. Love is never objective.
In short, we all desperately want positive happiness. We are not content with the "happiness of quietness." No, we crave "relations with other men." We gamble on positive happiness by playing familiar games. Those games are rarely reasonable. In fact, most are extremely dangerous.
Love is probably the most dangerous game of all: Enticing, risky, unknowable, unverifiable, tempestuous, fickle, maddening; yet offering pleasure beyond imagination. It is a recipe for unreasonable risk every time.
For three years, my close friend Joe Simeone composed an operatic adaptation to the 1952 play "Dial M For Murder." Last week, I attended an opening in which he presented several passages from his work. In brief, the opera follows the same intricate plot as the play: A man named Tony blackmails both his wealthy wife, Margot, and another man named Lesgate; Tony exploits the blackmail to entice Lesgate to murder his wife; the plan goes wrong and Margot kills Lesgate in self-defense; Tony manipulates the evidence to pin the murder on Margot; the police arrest Margot and she is sentenced to death; an enterprising police detective worries about the verdict and discovers that Tony orchestrated the result; Margot goes free and discovers her husband's betrayal.
Through the operatic form, Joe Simeone tells the story with a keener eye for emotion than plot. He did not compose an "operatic thriller;" he composed an opera. As such, he explores the emotional relationship between Tony and Margot with greater detail than the play. At the outset, Simeone tells us that Tony's and Margot's marriage was "loveless," but that Tony had recently begun to shower affections on his wife. To make that point, the opera begins with a sweeping aria in which Margot reveals that she has "rediscovered" her love for her husband. This is ironic, of course, because Tony has already betrayed her; he is even planning to kill her. During the aria, Margot sings a remarkable line: "It's a risk to believe love is real."
Margot may seem naïve for daring to believe that her devious husband actually loves her. But she is not alone. We all want love in our lives because love is a tantalizing pathway to happiness. Yet love is a troublesome thing because it cuts in two directions. We can love and we can be loved. Real happiness exists only when both elements find expression in a relationship. When only one person loves, the result is unrequited disappointment because the other does not return the feeling. And when only one person receives love, the result is awkward discomfort. Put another way, love only really "works" when there is no disparity between the emotions on both sides.
Sigmund Freud said as much. In Civilization and its Discontents, Freud explained that human beings generally "strive after happiness; they want to become happy and remain so." Civilization and its Discontents (Strachey, trans. p. 25). He went on to explain that happiness has both a "positive and negative aim," namely: "[the] absence of pain and unpleasure and the experiencing of strong feelings of pleasure." Id. Additionally, Freud noted that happiness cannot arise as long as unhappiness exists in a person's life. And unhappiness is "much less difficult to experience" than happiness. Id. at 26.
Freud identified three main sources for unhappiness: (1) our own bodies, which are doomed to aging, pain, discomfort and decay; (2) the external world, which can "rage against us with unimaginable forces of destruction;" and (3) our relations to other men. Civilization and its Discontents at p.26. He went on to say that unhappiness flowing from our "relations to other men" represents the worst possible unhappiness: It is the unhappiness of betrayal, deception, unfaithfulness, personal disappointment, spurned love, heartbreak, frustrated yearning and all the other bitter emotions that arise when our relations with others do not follow the path we wanted.
If so much unhappiness can flow from relationships with others, why do people bother with them? Freud posed the same question. He offered one surefire way to avoid "relationship unhappiness:" "Against the suffering which may come upon one from human relationships the readiest safeguard is voluntary isolation." Civilization and its Discontents at p. 27. He called this the "happiness of quietness." By eliminating a source for unhappiness, a person makes it easier to experience happiness.
But Freud acknowledged that "voluntary isolation" is not very satisfying. After all, mere freedom from unhappiness is nowhere near as fulfilling as experiencing positive happiness. For that reason, Freud explained that human beings constantly gamble on love to satisfy their "passionate striving for a positive fulfillment of happiness." Civilization and its Discontents at p. 32.
Put another way, freedom from unhappiness and pain is not enough. People want the ecstasy and joy that flows from real, positive happiness. And positive happiness flows most strongly from that most dangerous category: Relations with other men. Still, the potential emotional payout from love is so great that people all too willingly take their chances with it. Nonetheless, Freud warned: "The weak side of this technique is easy to see; otherwise no human being would have thought of abandoning this path to happiness for any other. It is that we are never so defenseless against suffering as when we love, never so helplessly unhappy as when we have lost our loved object or its love." Id. at 33.
Against this background, Margot sang more than she knew when she observed: "It's a risk to believe love is real." Love is an extremely dangerous risk. When a person dares to abandon himself to love, he makes himself "defenseless against suffering;" he even risks "helpless unhappiness" if he does not get the emotional payout he expects from the relationship. Worse, these unhappy results depend exclusively on "relations to other men." Specifically, the "love pathway to happiness" depends on how another person acts and feels. We humans are subjective creatures. We know only what we sense. Facts exist only to the extent that we manifest a subjective belief in their reliability. In that light, it is very difficult to gauge whether another person feels any emotion as we do, let alone love.
Beyond risk, love is about knowledge. Freud said that love has two components: Loving and being loved. We only feel love's joy when we know another person feels strongly about us, too. It is not enough to feel strongly about another person. Rather, love's intoxicating pleasure only really arises when we are satisfied that another person feels as strongly about us as we do about them.
But how do we know that? It is hard enough to know what exists in anyone else's mind. Yet when we risk our happiness on love, we force ourselves to decipher what another person feels and thinks. This is extremely difficult; in fact, it is nearly impossible. There is no way to know for certain whether another person loves us, because we cannot literally step into that person's mind. Rather, we must examine secondary facts to make inferences about the other person's beliefs. This is an imperfect method at best, but it is the only one we have. Even direct statements from our love interest are not definitive proof of what he feels. Humans are, after all, infamously dishonest.
In this light, it is easy to see that love is no easy thing. It does not just a risk; it demands some faith, too, because the facts necessary to establish love are unknowable.
Again, the question arises: With these thematic difficulties in mind, why bother with love? Consider just how much is at stake. By daring to love, a person opens himself to boundless unhappiness and pain flowing from "relations to other men." True, if his love pans out, he feels overwhelmingly positive emotions: That is the potential payout from the "risk." But in order to experience love, a person must satisfy himself that another person feels a certain way. It is impossible to certainly know what another person feels, so love actually involves a double risk: (1) Risking the relationship in the first place; and (2) Risking that a person will feel the way you expect. Disappointment can arise from either risk. There is nothing you can really do to stop it; you can't control how another person thinks or feels. In this sense, love is also a risk because a person must entrust his happiness to the subjective whim of another person over whom he has no control. And because human beings are notoriously untrustworthy and inconstant, it almost seems an unreasonable risk.
If love is so unreasonable, then why do so many people pursue it? The fact that human beings--like Margot--blindly risk love is testament to the assertion that reason does not rule us. If human beings were entirely rational, they would probably never love. After all, rational thinking involves balancing risks against benefits. A rational mind analyzes the potential pain that could result from a transaction and queries whether the potential pleasure is worth the chance. As Freud explained, love can yield immeasurable pain. And because that pain flows from forces largely beyond our control (i.e., the whims of others), it really makes no rational sense to take the risk. Although love offers a huge benefit in pleasure, a reasonable man would immediately see that it always presents an intolerable risk in pain. That risk would invariably outweigh the benefit in pleasure.
But we know that human beings live to love. They cast reason aside. They take the risk, even though it is unreasonable. Put simply, love's emotional payout in happiness is so intoxicating that it overwhelms human reason. Love's pleasure is so hypnotic that it submerges all potential pitfalls. Among those pitfalls is the dangerous need to place individual emotional well-being in the hands of another person--and that person is probably not trustworthy. Men ignore those risks when they love because it just feels so, so good. If reason held men in check, they would never allow themselves to remain blind to the dangers. But blind they remain; they dive headlong into the risks because it just feels so damn good.
"It's a risk to believe love is real." In one line, Margot expressed the timeless--yet perilously uncertain-- human quest for love. She hinted at the risks. She knew there was a danger. But love made her feel so good that she willingly blinded herself to it. She suspended her reason. Objectively, that might appear foolish. But we all have done it. And we probably always will. Love is never objective.
In short, we all desperately want positive happiness. We are not content with the "happiness of quietness." No, we crave "relations with other men." We gamble on positive happiness by playing familiar games. Those games are rarely reasonable. In fact, most are extremely dangerous.
Love is probably the most dangerous game of all: Enticing, risky, unknowable, unverifiable, tempestuous, fickle, maddening; yet offering pleasure beyond imagination. It is a recipe for unreasonable risk every time.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
MOMENTS I'M NOT PROUD OF
A REFLECTION
We remember moments in life. It is hard to remember particular days, or even particular eras in our lives. But certain moments inscribe themselves in us with uncanny detail. I think that's interesting, because moments are much shorter than days or eras.
On the other hand, it makes sense that we remember moments because they are sensory. Memory is little more than "stored sense" that fades over time. In a particular moment, we see, hear, feel or taste particular things. Sometimes our senses leave an impression. Most times, they do not. After all, we need to sense to survive; we can't possibly remember every little thing we sense. No, we only remember moments that are, well, worth remembering.
I have a lot of really good memories. My good memories generally fall into two categories: Moments when I felt inwardly good about a situation without external recognition; and moments when I overcame some external obstacle or achieved some popular reward.
I can give examples. First, I remember a night in November 1994 when my best friend and I frolicked shirtless through a school field in rural Connecticut. No one was there but us. The moon was shining. We laughed and screamed all night. We fell in the grass and just looked up at the stars. I talked about whatever came in my head and everything I said just seemed to be right. It was unusually warm for that time of year. Then we got into my car and just went home.
That was a "good memory" that did not involve any external recognition. I remember the things I saw, heard and felt. No one else witnessed what my friend and I did that night; yet it remains a cherished memory. I did not win any accolades for it. I just remember feeling so, so good. And I can relate that feeling to the things I saw, heard and felt that night in 1994.
Second, I remember several days in January 2004, during my first year in law school. I had just taken my first law exams and I was extremely nervous. I felt as if my entire future depended on how I did on those tests. For the previous four months, I had worked harder than at any other time in my life to that point.
New York Law School published exam results through a computer system. Every day, I nervously logged in to my account to see whether they had posted my results. I had to type in an ID code to access my information. There was always a brief delay between the time I entered my code and the time the webpage came up. I always held my breath during that moment. I remember that my heart even raced. I remember that I perspired a lot then, too. I remember feeling droplets of sweat fall from the top of my armpit onto my side.
After about a week of nervous checking, I finally saw results. I had gotten mostly A's on my exams and wound up with a Grade Point Average of 3.79, which placed me in the Top 10 of my class of 400. I felt a bizarre mix of relief, exultation and new confidence. Professors and friends congratulated me after the yearly rankings went public. I relished my success. It felt really good. I had overcome a huge barrier and received external praise for it.
Unlike the nocturnal moment in the field with my boyhood friend, this was a "good memory" that depended exclusively on official judgments. It was still "good," but for entirely different reasons. And I remember it differently, too.
But I am not ashamed to admit that I remember bad experiences as much as I remember good ones. In fact, I think I have learned more about myself by reliving my less-than-heroic moments and understanding why they were so bad. Our failures defines us as much--if not more--than our successes. After all, just as we can succeed in many ways, so too can we fail in many ways. We can fail externally, as through school grades or critical condemnation for "poor work." Others can tell us we have failed to reach an "acceptable" standard, and that feels bad. Or we can fail internally, as when we lose our composure or sacrifice our beliefs. We don't need other people to tell us we've failed when we fail internally.
I have suffered both kinds of failure. But I find external failure much easier to bear than internal failure. After all, you can always blame your judge or your critic if you fail externally. Maybe they just didn't like you. Maybe the test was unfair. It's easier to justify external failure.
But you can't run from yourself: When you fail internally, you've failed to meet your own standards. And you can't point your finger at some test-grader or theater critic for that.
I'm far, far, far from perfect. I have failed so much in life. In most cases, I can move beyond my failures. But I never forget them. I try to learn from them. Still, they sting me when I recall them, especially when I failed myself.
Here's a moment I'm not proud of. Last October, my partner, Steve, went to the hospital after suffering an acute manic episode. For several weeks before that, his condition had steadily worsened. He did not sleep for 60 hours straight at one point. He constantly busied himself with "tasks;" he woke me from bed every 15 minutes every night to help him re-clean the apartment or find some random webpage. He drew up long, detailed lists every day and tried to accomplish every little thing on the list, like buying a gurtel at some far-away store he found on the internet. He became angry when he did not complete everything on the list each day. Then he became hostile and profligate. He picked fights with random people on the street. He spent thousands on useless things, like Christmas ornaments and big rolls of fancy platinum ribbons for Thank You cards.
By the time Steve went to the hospital, I was ready to strangle him. Yet this was the man I had loved for ten years. I could not believe I was feeling the way I was. But I was so exhausted and so emotionally battered that I just wanted relief; and it seemed the only way to find relief was to cast him off. I felt better when I recognized that he had a serious disease. I tried not to take his abuse personally. The words still hurt, though. I was happy that he got the medical attention he needed. I was even happier to get a three-week break alone to rebuild my mental constitution.
I remember feeling somewhat disappointed when the doctor called to tell me that Steve was ready to come home. I felt a swirling mix of fear, resentment, childish selfishness and fatigue. I did not want to endure the same problems that arose when Steve fell ill. I didn't want to be woken up again every 15 minutes. Plus, I felt as if I had just caught my breath after a grueling bout, and now I would have to grit my teeth and start fighting all over again. Still, I tried to put on my most positive face when I went to pick Steve up at the hospital. I could not deny that I still loved him. I thought: "Maybe he'll be better now." I allowed myself to hope, even though my overall mood was dark and frustrated.
Steve was in surprisingly good shape when I brought him home. His doctors had found the medication he needed to achieve emotional stability, and he was on the path to a "new normalcy." I was glad to see that. We even went out to lunch late that afternoon. Steve moved very slowly. His eyes looked exhausted and glazed over. He was heavily medicated. One medication made him drool and he had to wear a bib. I had to help him walk from place to place. He used a cane because he was unsteady on his feet. Naturally, all these things aroused my pity. Steve cut a pathetic picture now. It hurt me deeply.
And I still felt past resentments. My temper was short. I was in no mood for any additional challenges. But sure enough, while we walked home from the restaurant, a challenge arose. As we crossed 4th Avenue at 12th Street, we tried to hail a cab. When the cabbie saw Steve's cane, he made a dismissive gesture and said: "No, no, no," then drove off. That made me angry. It also cost us time; the light was about to change. Steve was too slow to make it across 4th Avenue before the oncoming traffic got a green signal. It was around 5 o'clock. As we passed in front of a guy on a motorcycle, the horns started blowing. The guy on the motorcycle rolled his eyes at me and Steve as if to say: "Get going, will you?"
It touched a nerve. I completely lost my temper. I stopped right in the middle of the street and said: "What the fuck are you looking at? Can't you see I'm trying to help this man?" In the meantime, Steve made his way to the other side of the street. But I stayed. My voice rose and my heart pounded hard. I continued yelling. I remember saying: "So you think you're special because you're wearing that fucking hat, huh?" As I stood there cursing, the traffic started moving at full speed all around me. I was so enraged that I did not even recognize how much danger I faced. The guy on the motorcycle didn't say a word. He just smiled at me and shook his head as if to say: "What a fucking nut." He drove right past me. Another guy in a car almost rolled over my right foot. I remember feeling the tire graze the front of my sneaker. I was too livid to comprehend what was going on.
Ultimately we got a cab and headed home. Steve told me that my voice changed and that my eyes had bulged while I was out yelling in the street. After a few minutes, the adrenaline passed from my body and I started to feel extremely bad about what had just happened. I felt that I had made a fool of myself. Steve just shook his head. I tried to explain that I lost my temper because I was upset that people were so insensitive about his condition. That was partially true; I was also just really angry about having him back in the house again. Thankfully, the subsequent weeks proved that anger moot; Steve never went manic again.
I recount that story because it's a moment I'm not proud of. I take pride in my reason. I like to feel that I can coolly handle any situation with dignity. But on that day in October 2009, I completely abandoned my reason and fell headlong into dangerous emotion. Make no mistake: I do not flee from emotion; in most situations, I even relish it. But extreme emotion is dangerous. It undermines everything. I felt uncontrollable rage that day. It was as if I stepped from my own skin and became a wild beast. In addition, I reproached myself for the petty selfishness I felt that whole day. I knew that selfishness fanned my underlying anger, and that anger exploded into fury. That was out of character for me. I failed myself.
Still, I learned a lot from that moment. I learned that human reason hangs by a thread. Despite all our claims to rational intelligence and equanimity, pressures can drive the human mind straight back to animal depths in an instant. It is just a question of circumstance, mood and stimulus. After all, we are but sensory creatures. Sense might lead to science and discovery. But it can also lead to wrath and destruction.
Having said all this, I can still find some justification for my outburst. I truly feel anger toward people who are callous about Steve. I won't deny that. I love Steve. He is handicapped; it is obvious. When people look at him funny or rush him on the street, it really bothers me. For the most part, he stays indoors now because he knows that he can't handle the barbarians outside.
Most people just don't understand. I can't expect them to, either. But that doesn't stop me from feeling anger about it. I wish I didn't. I'm not proud of it. Yet I can learn a lot about others--and myself--when I reflect on it.
We remember moments in life. It is hard to remember particular days, or even particular eras in our lives. But certain moments inscribe themselves in us with uncanny detail. I think that's interesting, because moments are much shorter than days or eras.
On the other hand, it makes sense that we remember moments because they are sensory. Memory is little more than "stored sense" that fades over time. In a particular moment, we see, hear, feel or taste particular things. Sometimes our senses leave an impression. Most times, they do not. After all, we need to sense to survive; we can't possibly remember every little thing we sense. No, we only remember moments that are, well, worth remembering.
I have a lot of really good memories. My good memories generally fall into two categories: Moments when I felt inwardly good about a situation without external recognition; and moments when I overcame some external obstacle or achieved some popular reward.
I can give examples. First, I remember a night in November 1994 when my best friend and I frolicked shirtless through a school field in rural Connecticut. No one was there but us. The moon was shining. We laughed and screamed all night. We fell in the grass and just looked up at the stars. I talked about whatever came in my head and everything I said just seemed to be right. It was unusually warm for that time of year. Then we got into my car and just went home.
That was a "good memory" that did not involve any external recognition. I remember the things I saw, heard and felt. No one else witnessed what my friend and I did that night; yet it remains a cherished memory. I did not win any accolades for it. I just remember feeling so, so good. And I can relate that feeling to the things I saw, heard and felt that night in 1994.
Second, I remember several days in January 2004, during my first year in law school. I had just taken my first law exams and I was extremely nervous. I felt as if my entire future depended on how I did on those tests. For the previous four months, I had worked harder than at any other time in my life to that point.
New York Law School published exam results through a computer system. Every day, I nervously logged in to my account to see whether they had posted my results. I had to type in an ID code to access my information. There was always a brief delay between the time I entered my code and the time the webpage came up. I always held my breath during that moment. I remember that my heart even raced. I remember that I perspired a lot then, too. I remember feeling droplets of sweat fall from the top of my armpit onto my side.
After about a week of nervous checking, I finally saw results. I had gotten mostly A's on my exams and wound up with a Grade Point Average of 3.79, which placed me in the Top 10 of my class of 400. I felt a bizarre mix of relief, exultation and new confidence. Professors and friends congratulated me after the yearly rankings went public. I relished my success. It felt really good. I had overcome a huge barrier and received external praise for it.
Unlike the nocturnal moment in the field with my boyhood friend, this was a "good memory" that depended exclusively on official judgments. It was still "good," but for entirely different reasons. And I remember it differently, too.
But I am not ashamed to admit that I remember bad experiences as much as I remember good ones. In fact, I think I have learned more about myself by reliving my less-than-heroic moments and understanding why they were so bad. Our failures defines us as much--if not more--than our successes. After all, just as we can succeed in many ways, so too can we fail in many ways. We can fail externally, as through school grades or critical condemnation for "poor work." Others can tell us we have failed to reach an "acceptable" standard, and that feels bad. Or we can fail internally, as when we lose our composure or sacrifice our beliefs. We don't need other people to tell us we've failed when we fail internally.
I have suffered both kinds of failure. But I find external failure much easier to bear than internal failure. After all, you can always blame your judge or your critic if you fail externally. Maybe they just didn't like you. Maybe the test was unfair. It's easier to justify external failure.
But you can't run from yourself: When you fail internally, you've failed to meet your own standards. And you can't point your finger at some test-grader or theater critic for that.
I'm far, far, far from perfect. I have failed so much in life. In most cases, I can move beyond my failures. But I never forget them. I try to learn from them. Still, they sting me when I recall them, especially when I failed myself.
Here's a moment I'm not proud of. Last October, my partner, Steve, went to the hospital after suffering an acute manic episode. For several weeks before that, his condition had steadily worsened. He did not sleep for 60 hours straight at one point. He constantly busied himself with "tasks;" he woke me from bed every 15 minutes every night to help him re-clean the apartment or find some random webpage. He drew up long, detailed lists every day and tried to accomplish every little thing on the list, like buying a gurtel at some far-away store he found on the internet. He became angry when he did not complete everything on the list each day. Then he became hostile and profligate. He picked fights with random people on the street. He spent thousands on useless things, like Christmas ornaments and big rolls of fancy platinum ribbons for Thank You cards.
By the time Steve went to the hospital, I was ready to strangle him. Yet this was the man I had loved for ten years. I could not believe I was feeling the way I was. But I was so exhausted and so emotionally battered that I just wanted relief; and it seemed the only way to find relief was to cast him off. I felt better when I recognized that he had a serious disease. I tried not to take his abuse personally. The words still hurt, though. I was happy that he got the medical attention he needed. I was even happier to get a three-week break alone to rebuild my mental constitution.
I remember feeling somewhat disappointed when the doctor called to tell me that Steve was ready to come home. I felt a swirling mix of fear, resentment, childish selfishness and fatigue. I did not want to endure the same problems that arose when Steve fell ill. I didn't want to be woken up again every 15 minutes. Plus, I felt as if I had just caught my breath after a grueling bout, and now I would have to grit my teeth and start fighting all over again. Still, I tried to put on my most positive face when I went to pick Steve up at the hospital. I could not deny that I still loved him. I thought: "Maybe he'll be better now." I allowed myself to hope, even though my overall mood was dark and frustrated.
Steve was in surprisingly good shape when I brought him home. His doctors had found the medication he needed to achieve emotional stability, and he was on the path to a "new normalcy." I was glad to see that. We even went out to lunch late that afternoon. Steve moved very slowly. His eyes looked exhausted and glazed over. He was heavily medicated. One medication made him drool and he had to wear a bib. I had to help him walk from place to place. He used a cane because he was unsteady on his feet. Naturally, all these things aroused my pity. Steve cut a pathetic picture now. It hurt me deeply.
And I still felt past resentments. My temper was short. I was in no mood for any additional challenges. But sure enough, while we walked home from the restaurant, a challenge arose. As we crossed 4th Avenue at 12th Street, we tried to hail a cab. When the cabbie saw Steve's cane, he made a dismissive gesture and said: "No, no, no," then drove off. That made me angry. It also cost us time; the light was about to change. Steve was too slow to make it across 4th Avenue before the oncoming traffic got a green signal. It was around 5 o'clock. As we passed in front of a guy on a motorcycle, the horns started blowing. The guy on the motorcycle rolled his eyes at me and Steve as if to say: "Get going, will you?"
It touched a nerve. I completely lost my temper. I stopped right in the middle of the street and said: "What the fuck are you looking at? Can't you see I'm trying to help this man?" In the meantime, Steve made his way to the other side of the street. But I stayed. My voice rose and my heart pounded hard. I continued yelling. I remember saying: "So you think you're special because you're wearing that fucking hat, huh?" As I stood there cursing, the traffic started moving at full speed all around me. I was so enraged that I did not even recognize how much danger I faced. The guy on the motorcycle didn't say a word. He just smiled at me and shook his head as if to say: "What a fucking nut." He drove right past me. Another guy in a car almost rolled over my right foot. I remember feeling the tire graze the front of my sneaker. I was too livid to comprehend what was going on.
Ultimately we got a cab and headed home. Steve told me that my voice changed and that my eyes had bulged while I was out yelling in the street. After a few minutes, the adrenaline passed from my body and I started to feel extremely bad about what had just happened. I felt that I had made a fool of myself. Steve just shook his head. I tried to explain that I lost my temper because I was upset that people were so insensitive about his condition. That was partially true; I was also just really angry about having him back in the house again. Thankfully, the subsequent weeks proved that anger moot; Steve never went manic again.
I recount that story because it's a moment I'm not proud of. I take pride in my reason. I like to feel that I can coolly handle any situation with dignity. But on that day in October 2009, I completely abandoned my reason and fell headlong into dangerous emotion. Make no mistake: I do not flee from emotion; in most situations, I even relish it. But extreme emotion is dangerous. It undermines everything. I felt uncontrollable rage that day. It was as if I stepped from my own skin and became a wild beast. In addition, I reproached myself for the petty selfishness I felt that whole day. I knew that selfishness fanned my underlying anger, and that anger exploded into fury. That was out of character for me. I failed myself.
Still, I learned a lot from that moment. I learned that human reason hangs by a thread. Despite all our claims to rational intelligence and equanimity, pressures can drive the human mind straight back to animal depths in an instant. It is just a question of circumstance, mood and stimulus. After all, we are but sensory creatures. Sense might lead to science and discovery. But it can also lead to wrath and destruction.
Having said all this, I can still find some justification for my outburst. I truly feel anger toward people who are callous about Steve. I won't deny that. I love Steve. He is handicapped; it is obvious. When people look at him funny or rush him on the street, it really bothers me. For the most part, he stays indoors now because he knows that he can't handle the barbarians outside.
Most people just don't understand. I can't expect them to, either. But that doesn't stop me from feeling anger about it. I wish I didn't. I'm not proud of it. Yet I can learn a lot about others--and myself--when I reflect on it.
Monday, February 15, 2010
A LAWYER'S VALENTINE (SUBJECT TO APPLICABLE LIMITATIONS CONTAINED THEREIN)
PLAINMAN, SCHNORRING & DRYE, LLPAttorneys at Law Specializing in Mergers & Acquisitions
"We Help You Combine. Every Time."™
DATE : February 15, 2010
TO: Ms. Gabriella D. Purdy, B.A. (no relevant accolades) ("VALENTINEE")
FROM : Mr. Herbert J. Plainman, Esq., Senior Partner (Top 100, American Lawyer P.P.D. (Profit-Per-Deal List)); Silver Medal Winner, Monopoly Advocates of America, LLC (2008)("VALENTINOR").
RE : Valentine's Day
Ms. Purdy,
Pursuant to applicable law, rules and any provision of the Civil Procedure Law and Rules of the State of New York (NYCPL), please accept this Expression of Valentinary Intent (hereinafter "Valentine") done on or before February 15, 2010, in the City of New York, County of New York, State of New York, Country of the United States of America, from aforementioned attorney Mr. Herbert J. Plainman, Esq. (hereinafter the "Valentinor")(State Bar No. 987125).
ARGUMENT
Now, therefore, comes VALENTINOR, and in recognition of certain amorous feelings, having arisen in aforementioned Valentinor, and subject to all limitations applicable under any relevant law, ethical guideline, handbook, employee manual, offer, contract, pamphlet or written item having direct pertinence hereon, and giving due deference thereto (and disclaiming any intent to violate any such limitations, liability wherefor is hereby expressly disclaimed), Valentinor hereby presents this certain "Valentine" to and for aforementioned Valentinee.
It is expressly and unequivocally understood that Valentinor finds certain bodily and psychical characteristics in aforementioned Valentinee "appealing," both as a matter of taste and as a matter of law. Those characteristics include--but are in no wise limited to--her lips, hips, chest, legs, eyes, face, stomach, voice, charm and fashion choices. According to the Court of Appeals, "appealing" means "objectively pleasant to the satisfaction of any office or officer duly appointed under law to judge pleasantness, be that pleasantness aesthetic, erotic, artistic, intellectual or otherwise bearing upon the human senses." See, e.g., Quaker v. Booty-Licious Bumshakers Dance Hall Ltd., 4 N.Y.3d 165,190 (2005)(Kaye, C.J.).
In view thereof, and in view of Valentinor's express finding (under all relevant State evidence rules) that Valentinee is "appealing," Valentinor hereby concludes that it is both reasonable and prudent to present this Valentine, unless Valentinor in any way concludes that Valentinee is not appealing, either in body or spirit, in his sole and unreviewable discretion. Valentinee's expression of affection for any persons--or animals--other than aforementioned Valentinor shall result in the immediate rescission of this Valentine in toto, with treble damages not to exceed $400,000, U.S. currency, to be assessed against Valentinee as liquidated compensation therefor.
This Valentine serves as a symbol of Valentinary Intent and no more. This Valentine is not a contract. It creates no legal duty or obligation in Valentinor. Valentinor's failure to perform according to this Valentine creates no claim whatsoever in Valentinee. Valentinor is under no obligation whatsoever to show good faith in the performance of this Valentine, nor must Valentinor continue to show affection in any appreciable way beyond a time reasonable for showing affection consistent with office protocols or any other applicable decency standards, including the criminal law. (Valentinee is hereby advised that Failure to Appreciate Your Employer is a crime under New York Law.) But upon acceptance of this Valentine, Valentinee assumes an absolute and nondelegable duty to show Unlimited Affection (hereinafter "UA")--in both mind and body--to Valentinor, in excess of the customary employer-employee affection expected in the course of office service. UA includes, but is not limited to: Making remarks as to Valentinor's good looks; praising Valentinor's masculinity; rubbing Valentinor's body in all places directed by Valentinor; dressing in an appropriately alluring way as directed by Valentinor (subject to Valentinor's rejection and imposing a duty to cure such rejection upon Valentiee); removing aforesaid clothing at any time (and at any place) directed by Valentinor; shaking any body parts in any manner directed by Valentinor (in this context, "shaking" includes erotically oscillating movement both in contact with Valentinor's body and outside Valentinor's body), and delivering various gifts to Valentinor subject to decency and Valetinor's request. Valentinee's failure to perform any of above-mentioned duties under this Valentine shall result in immediate termination, negative reporting to all major credit bureaus and referral to police authorities for disorderly conduct.
Valentinor herewith acknowledges that this Valentine comes one day late. In view of the fact that the Holiday commonly known as "Valentine's Day" fell upon February 14 in this calendar year, and in view of the fact that February 14 fell upon a Sunday in this calendar year, Valentinor hereby submits that it was legally impossible to deliver this certain Valentine on a Legal Workday (see, i.a., 5 U.S.C. § 6103). Legal Impossibility is a defense to any action based in contract. See., e.g., Combs v. Work-It Records, Co., Inc., 84 N.Y.2d 143, 150 (1994). Pursuant to law, Valentinor had no duty to deliver this Valentine to Valentinee on Valentine's Day; and Valentinee hereby waives any cause of action for Valentinor's failure to deliver this Valentine on February 14, 2010, any exception in the common law of the State of New York, the law of the United States or the Constitutions of the United States and the State of New York absolutely notwithstanding.
In the alternative, Valentinor asserts that this Valentine is purely gratuitous and may not be enforced against Valentinor in any way whatsoever. But because Valentinor is Valentinee's employer, Valentinor reserves the right to enforce this Valentine against Valentinee to the full extent of law, morality, decency, justice, right and any other authority deemed controlling hereon, including Valentinor's subjective jealousy and envy.
Valentinee is under no obligation to accept this Valentine. According to law, acceptance is only valid if it is free and voluntary. See, e.g., Morris Carburetor Repair of Queens Boulevard v. Fuggett Supply House, Inc., 1 N.Y.3d 363, 370 (2004). But if Valentinee does not accept this Valentine, Valentinor cannot warrant Valentinee's future employment at this firm, nor can Valentinor warrant Valentinee's future employability or income. Valentinor further promises that he will make best efforts to torpedo Valentinee's career if Valentiee does not freely and voluntarily accept this Valentine without qualification. Valentinor therefore must advise Valentinee to accept this Valentine and all duties appurtenant thereto, it being a relatively small price to pay for incumbent benefits.
Valetinee has no right to bargain for or alter the terms of this Valentine. This Valentine represents the full and final agreement of the parties hereto, any prior or contemporaneous oral declarations thereagainst notwithstanding. It is offered solely on a "take-it-or-leave-it" basis.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, would you please by my Valentine, subject in all events to controlling legal authorities, limitations and exclusions, unless those authorities be held invalid prior to acceptance?
I have hereby set my hand hereunto, this 15th Day of February, 2010,
__________________________
Mr. Herbert J. Plainman, Esq.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
AMERICANS UNITED TO RESOLVE EVERY SINGLE LIFE PROBLEM BY CUTTING A CHECK IN THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT
By : Mr. Sidney J. Bookings, C.P.A., Chairman and Senior Spokesperson; Graduate, University of Pennsylvania (Accounting Program 1982); Consultant in Wealth Management, Morgan Stanley & Co. (1983-2002); Founder, Bookings, Holderman & Petty, P.C., an Accounting Firm servicing Fortune 250 Companies; Statistics Enthusiast; Married.
According to an old adage, "money can't buy happiness." Throughout our society, we learn that emotional satisfaction only derives from human contact and genuine spiritual fulfillment. But we, Americans United to Resolve Every Single Life Problem by Cutting a Check in the Appropriate Amount, disagree. We do not believe that happiness is about emotion. Nor do we believe that happiness is difficult to obtain. Rather, we believe anyone can find happiness as long as he or she receives a sufficiently large check in the circumstances.
Unhappiness stems from problems. In many cases, money causes problems. In those same cases, problems go away when the person obtains a sufficiently large monetary amount. Checks represent a written instruction to a bank to pay a person ("the payee") a fixed amount of money at a definite time. See, e.g., Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) Article 3, § 3-104(e). In that light, it is not necessary to supply "emotion" or "comfort" to a person suffering from a problem. Rather, the person merely needs to receive a check in an amount necessary to alleviate the problem. Once the problem dissipates, so does the unhappiness. And when unhappiness disappears, happiness replaces it. That is why we believe that checks in the appropriate amount lead to happiness.
Evidence supports our position. Consider the unhappy man who struggles at two jobs to pay rent, child support, medical expenses, credit card debt and a car note. "If I only had $15,000 next month, I would be able to pay these back charges. I would feel so much better if I wasn't so worried about these bills, etc." This man is unhappy because he has not paid identifiable financial obligations. In these circumstances, emotional tenderness or even love will not make him feel better. He needs money. Thus, a check for $16,987.23 offers him an almost magical gateway to happiness. Not only will a check in that amount redress his problem in full, but it will also give him an additional $1,987.23 to spend on himself. In this way, we see that checks in the appropriate amount not only dispel problems, but also bring genuine happiness.
But checks can only bring happiness if they authorize payment for the appropriate amount. This inquiry depends on the circumstances. For example, if a woman gives birth at a hospital without insurance and racks up a $2,987,712.65 bill, a check for $45.00 will not redress her problem. In this sense, a check alone does not resolve her problem; only a check in the appropriate amount will resolve her problem. As much as we like checks, we acknowledge that a check's happiness-inducing qualities only arise to the extent it authorizes payment in the appropriate amount. Problems exist when people owe a particular amount. Unless a check authorizes payment for that amount--or a greater amount--it does not yield its maximum happiness-inducing effect. As Americans United to Resolve Every Single Life Problem by Cutting a Check in the Appropriate Amount, we insist that our checks pay us the right amount, every time.
Despite checks' proven ability to solve problems, there are those who claim that a check--no matter its amount--cannot solve certain problems. These critics say that no check can make a crippled man feel better about his body, nor can a check repair the emotional pain that flows from heartbreak, loss or depression.
We disagree with all these assertions. For one, a check might not restore a legless man to health. But a check can symbolically make him whole. If you can't get your legs back, it's better to be legless with a $50,000 check in your hand than legless with no check in your hand. Second, while a check might not completely repair the emotional damage that flows from human relationships, it certainly can mitigate any emotional problem. For example, the most heartbroken man would feel a lot better if he unexpectedly received a $10,000 check in the mail. It is always nice to receive an unexpected check. It can brighten anyone's day, no matter how many problems they face. And if the check pays the appropriate amount, it can dispel any problem.
Although checks in the appropriate amount can solve any problem, checks paying an inappropriate amount occasionally cause unhappiness. For example, let us assume that a man suffers an automobile accident and pays $5,797.23 for repairs. He then receives a check from his insurance company paying only $500.00; the check will not induce happiness. To the contrary, it will induce anger, frustration or even unhappiness. But this is not the check's fault. Checks only cause negative reactions when they pay an inappropriate amount. By contrast, if the check in this man's case had paid $5,900.00, he would not have been angry, frustrated or unhappy. Rather, he would have felt relieved, excited and joyful. In essence, this illustrates a key fact about checks: They induce happiness and solve problems when they pay an appropriate amount, but induce negative reactions--and even unhappiness--when they pay an inappropriate amount.
We support checks' happiness-inducing qualities. We believe that checks should be a force for good in our society, not worry. To that extent, we stand for checks in the appropriate amount. As all the examples above show, Americans have problems. In all those examples, we saw that a check in the appropriate amount solves those problems, even when the problems apparently have nothing to do with money. Sufficient money sums always generate happiness, no matter the circumstances. A check for $9,000,000 will make even the saddest man happy, even if his mother, son and wife died on the same day. Greater amounts transcend any life adversity. We reject any claim that "money can't buy happiness." True, money might not literally buy happiness: There is no "Wholesale Happiness Warehouse" or "Happiness in a Box" for sale at a local outlet. But checks in the appropriate amount always remove obstacles blocking Americans' path to happiness. In our view, that is tantamount to happiness.
Tell the world that you can prevail over adversity as long as you receive a check in the appropriate amount. Stand up for your own well-being and comfort. Refuse to feel depressed any longer. Get your hands on a check in the appropriate amount. Every problem has a price; do not fool yourself into thinking that a check can't solve it. Checks can solve problems. They simply must pay the appropriate amount.
Stop making life so complicated. You just need enough checks to make your problems vanish for good. And when your problems are gone, you will be happy.
Stop the madness. Stop the delusion. Get back to basics. Join Americans United to Resolve Every Single Life Problem by Cutting a Check in the Appropriate Amount.
Don't worry. The check is in the mail.
Monday, September 21, 2009
UNCONDITIONAL LOVE IS A PRECIOUS COMMODITY--AND PSYCHIATRISTS SELL IT
A REFLECTION
I know a lot of people in therapy. Pretty soon I might join them. In one way or another, everyone deals with emotional disturbance and unhappiness in our society. Life can be incredibly painful. After all, we live in a competitive world. We basically contend with two types of people: (1) Indifferent people who want to outdo us; and (2) people we love who are biologically bound to die one day. It is stressful to cope with high stakes and loss all the time. We suffer defeats, losses and setbacks every day. Freud said that it is "much easier to experience unhappiness than happiness." Civilization and its Discontents, 26 (Strachey trans. 1961). Sometimes unhappiness grinds us into submission, no matter how optimistic we try to be. In brief, life takes a toll, even if you had a relatively stable childhood. And that's a rarity.
Yet for all our vulnerability to unhappiness and emotional pain, we strive for love. See generally Civilization and its Discontents, 33-34. We think that love will counteract our unhappiness, or at least make it more bearable. But we seek a very specific kind of love: Love without conditions or qualifications. We want love without first fulfilling others' demands or acceding to others' conceptions about "what we should be." As simple as it sounds, we want people to love us "for who we are," without manipulation or expectation. Generally speaking, expectations result at least in stress and at most in unhappiness. Expectations create a disparity between our conceptions about the future and reality. When reality does not match the expectation, we feel failure or worse. "Love with expectations" results in serious emotional pain. But love without expectations--simple, unconditional love--results in emotional satisfaction, even euphoria. That is what we want from life--strongly positive emotions--because when we feel that good, nothing else can bring us down.
But this is exactly the problem. After all, it is almost impossible to find unconditional love in society. First, our entire social structure does not really value individual happiness. Rather, it merely expects objective economic productivity and "service." Those two basic goals do not require happiness. Quite the contrary, they typically induce unhappiness. Very few people are ever happy about being "objectively economically productive" for someone else, nor are they ever happy about serving some domineering economic master. Yet "success" in our society flows from "productivity" and "service." It does not matter whether a "successful man" feels happy while he productively serves. It does not affect the bottom line. Subjective, individual feelings, in other words, simply do not matter in this objective social scheme.
But what are human beings if not feeling creatures? In the final analysis, every man and woman is a unique entity with emotions and thoughts. Emotions and thoughts are entirely subjective. While they might mean nothing to society or the economy, they mean everything to the individual who thinks and feels. Unconditional love is one of the best feelings a person can experience. Society, however, could care less about it. It is not essential either to productivity or service. This is why unhappiness is so rampant, even among people who appear "successful" and "content." They may reach "objective" standards for social success, but miserably fail to satisfy their own "subjective" emotional needs. In a word, there is much more to life than success.
We should not be surprised that it is hard to find unconditional love in our society. After all, everything has conditions attached in the merciless commercial crucible of life. A condition means something that must be fulfilled before something else is given. It is "bargain-like:" "If you cut my grass, I will give you $100." It channels behavior: You don't get the $100 if you don’t cut the grass. No one does anything for anyone else in our society without imposing some condition on performance. Conditions allow people to induce behavior in others. They allow people to tyrannize and manipulate others for their own gain. This might be perfectly appropriate in cutthroat commerce. But conditions attach not just to contracts and business deals. Rather, they attach just as often to human affections.
We want unconditional love because we are accustomed to conditional love. I read an article in the New York Times last week arguing that modern psychiatry can be explained by reference to "selling unconditional love" in a society that rarely loves, and only conditionally when it does. According to the article, living with conditional love cripples us emotionally. It said that even our parents do not often love us unconditionally. Much to the contrary, they typically want to "control our behavior" by baiting us with love. The article claimed that parents could warp their children not just by scolding and criticizing them, but also by excessively praising them. Each case implicates "conditional love." Praise creates an internal urge for conformity in a child, leading him or her to modify behavior in order to win the praise. Parents only give praise when the child acts "as they wish;" that is conditional love. Without fulfilling the condition, the parent does not praise--and does not love. Praise, then, can be just as damaging as critique.
If parents do not love unconditionally, who will? That is a serious question. If our closest relatives do not love us "for who we are," can we expect commercial actors, bosses and clients to do so? Certainly not. In fact, in commerce we never expect unconditional relationships. We always know that someone wants something from us in return for what they give. As fundamental as that "bargain imperative" may be in commerce, it is anathema to our emotional needs. We might steel ourselves to conditional relationships as we move through life. But in the process we deny ourselves the one thing that might bring us happiness. We will never find unconditional love in commerce; we will never find it in our careers. We never even find it within our own families. People always want us to act in some way that benefits them, or at least matches their sentiments. It is never enough to "be who we are." To fulfill conditions, we must always "be someone else." That leads to emotional ruin in the end.
This is the psychiatrist's niche. The psychiatrist, unlike the boss, the parent, the admirer or even the sometime friend, staunchly empathizes with his patient no matter what. He listens attentively. He does not impose his own moral or family-based judgments on the patient's choices or lifestyle. He offers the love that the patient's own parents refused to give without conditions. This is modern therapy. It is a dose of unconditional love in a world without unconditional love. Perplexingly, however, it is also a commercial relationship. Therapists do not support their patients because they genuinely want to give unconditional love; they do it because they are on the clock. In this sense, they offer "unconditional love conditional upon payment," but even that is better than purely conditional love.
Unconditional love is a precious commodity. The fact that so many people turn to therapy testifies to its pricelessness in our emotional lives. No matter how much we cynically harden ourselves to commercial realities and its myriad conditions, we always must attend to our own emotional health. Unconditional love makes us feel really good. It makes us feel better than any hard-won, competitive victory. Nothing can match it because it affirms our own personality without any effort on our part. It feels good to be loved "simply for who we are" without having first performed a song and dance to placate some demanding taskmaster.
Taskmasters surround us in life. They come in many guises. Even our own spouses and parents might force us to act in unappealing ways to win their love. When it comes to love, no one wants to compete. If we compete for love, it is not really love. We want others to love us because we are who we are, not because we do things for them. But this is a hard thing to do in a world that consistently heaps us with conditions and expectations. This society does not make individual happiness a primary goal. So it leaves us to struggle--often vainly--to obtain it.
I know a lot of people in therapy. Pretty soon I might join them. In one way or another, everyone deals with emotional disturbance and unhappiness in our society. Life can be incredibly painful. After all, we live in a competitive world. We basically contend with two types of people: (1) Indifferent people who want to outdo us; and (2) people we love who are biologically bound to die one day. It is stressful to cope with high stakes and loss all the time. We suffer defeats, losses and setbacks every day. Freud said that it is "much easier to experience unhappiness than happiness." Civilization and its Discontents, 26 (Strachey trans. 1961). Sometimes unhappiness grinds us into submission, no matter how optimistic we try to be. In brief, life takes a toll, even if you had a relatively stable childhood. And that's a rarity.
Yet for all our vulnerability to unhappiness and emotional pain, we strive for love. See generally Civilization and its Discontents, 33-34. We think that love will counteract our unhappiness, or at least make it more bearable. But we seek a very specific kind of love: Love without conditions or qualifications. We want love without first fulfilling others' demands or acceding to others' conceptions about "what we should be." As simple as it sounds, we want people to love us "for who we are," without manipulation or expectation. Generally speaking, expectations result at least in stress and at most in unhappiness. Expectations create a disparity between our conceptions about the future and reality. When reality does not match the expectation, we feel failure or worse. "Love with expectations" results in serious emotional pain. But love without expectations--simple, unconditional love--results in emotional satisfaction, even euphoria. That is what we want from life--strongly positive emotions--because when we feel that good, nothing else can bring us down.
But this is exactly the problem. After all, it is almost impossible to find unconditional love in society. First, our entire social structure does not really value individual happiness. Rather, it merely expects objective economic productivity and "service." Those two basic goals do not require happiness. Quite the contrary, they typically induce unhappiness. Very few people are ever happy about being "objectively economically productive" for someone else, nor are they ever happy about serving some domineering economic master. Yet "success" in our society flows from "productivity" and "service." It does not matter whether a "successful man" feels happy while he productively serves. It does not affect the bottom line. Subjective, individual feelings, in other words, simply do not matter in this objective social scheme.
But what are human beings if not feeling creatures? In the final analysis, every man and woman is a unique entity with emotions and thoughts. Emotions and thoughts are entirely subjective. While they might mean nothing to society or the economy, they mean everything to the individual who thinks and feels. Unconditional love is one of the best feelings a person can experience. Society, however, could care less about it. It is not essential either to productivity or service. This is why unhappiness is so rampant, even among people who appear "successful" and "content." They may reach "objective" standards for social success, but miserably fail to satisfy their own "subjective" emotional needs. In a word, there is much more to life than success.
We should not be surprised that it is hard to find unconditional love in our society. After all, everything has conditions attached in the merciless commercial crucible of life. A condition means something that must be fulfilled before something else is given. It is "bargain-like:" "If you cut my grass, I will give you $100." It channels behavior: You don't get the $100 if you don’t cut the grass. No one does anything for anyone else in our society without imposing some condition on performance. Conditions allow people to induce behavior in others. They allow people to tyrannize and manipulate others for their own gain. This might be perfectly appropriate in cutthroat commerce. But conditions attach not just to contracts and business deals. Rather, they attach just as often to human affections.
We want unconditional love because we are accustomed to conditional love. I read an article in the New York Times last week arguing that modern psychiatry can be explained by reference to "selling unconditional love" in a society that rarely loves, and only conditionally when it does. According to the article, living with conditional love cripples us emotionally. It said that even our parents do not often love us unconditionally. Much to the contrary, they typically want to "control our behavior" by baiting us with love. The article claimed that parents could warp their children not just by scolding and criticizing them, but also by excessively praising them. Each case implicates "conditional love." Praise creates an internal urge for conformity in a child, leading him or her to modify behavior in order to win the praise. Parents only give praise when the child acts "as they wish;" that is conditional love. Without fulfilling the condition, the parent does not praise--and does not love. Praise, then, can be just as damaging as critique.
If parents do not love unconditionally, who will? That is a serious question. If our closest relatives do not love us "for who we are," can we expect commercial actors, bosses and clients to do so? Certainly not. In fact, in commerce we never expect unconditional relationships. We always know that someone wants something from us in return for what they give. As fundamental as that "bargain imperative" may be in commerce, it is anathema to our emotional needs. We might steel ourselves to conditional relationships as we move through life. But in the process we deny ourselves the one thing that might bring us happiness. We will never find unconditional love in commerce; we will never find it in our careers. We never even find it within our own families. People always want us to act in some way that benefits them, or at least matches their sentiments. It is never enough to "be who we are." To fulfill conditions, we must always "be someone else." That leads to emotional ruin in the end.
This is the psychiatrist's niche. The psychiatrist, unlike the boss, the parent, the admirer or even the sometime friend, staunchly empathizes with his patient no matter what. He listens attentively. He does not impose his own moral or family-based judgments on the patient's choices or lifestyle. He offers the love that the patient's own parents refused to give without conditions. This is modern therapy. It is a dose of unconditional love in a world without unconditional love. Perplexingly, however, it is also a commercial relationship. Therapists do not support their patients because they genuinely want to give unconditional love; they do it because they are on the clock. In this sense, they offer "unconditional love conditional upon payment," but even that is better than purely conditional love.
Unconditional love is a precious commodity. The fact that so many people turn to therapy testifies to its pricelessness in our emotional lives. No matter how much we cynically harden ourselves to commercial realities and its myriad conditions, we always must attend to our own emotional health. Unconditional love makes us feel really good. It makes us feel better than any hard-won, competitive victory. Nothing can match it because it affirms our own personality without any effort on our part. It feels good to be loved "simply for who we are" without having first performed a song and dance to placate some demanding taskmaster.
Taskmasters surround us in life. They come in many guises. Even our own spouses and parents might force us to act in unappealing ways to win their love. When it comes to love, no one wants to compete. If we compete for love, it is not really love. We want others to love us because we are who we are, not because we do things for them. But this is a hard thing to do in a world that consistently heaps us with conditions and expectations. This society does not make individual happiness a primary goal. So it leaves us to struggle--often vainly--to obtain it.
Monday, August 24, 2009
THE HAPPY PAWNBROKER : "WHY I LOVE SECURITY INTERESTS"
By : Mr. George F. Schwender, B.S. (1984), Kankakee Community College (Financial Administration magna cum laude); High School Diploma (1980), Sheboygan Crossing High School (Prize for Excellence in Arithmetic); Owner, The Milwaukee, La Crosse & Rockford Loan Company, Inc.; Member, The American Pawnbrokers’ Union (1988-2004); Editor, I Like Loans Magazine (1990-present); Unmarried; Millionaire.
I have a good life. I am a pawnbroker and I am happy. People say that pawnbrokers are nasty parasites who prey on others’ misfortunes. They say that pawnbrokers profit from others’ misery and hard times. They say that pawnbrokers cannot love or experience happiness because they mercilessly track down debtors and sell off prized family heirlooms without a shred of concern. They say that pawnbrokers have no compassion and would sooner die than lose money.
Yet I defy the stereotypes. I am happy. I can love. I have compassion. Specifically, I love security interests.
Security interests made my fortune. Do you know what a security interest is? According to the Uniform Commercial Code, it’s an “interest in personal property or fixtures which secures payment or performance of an obligation.” U.C.C. Article I § 1-201(37). That might sound like legal mumbo jumbo, but it’s actually quite simple. Basically, it means I give you a loan. In exchange, you give me an interest in your personal property. “Personal property” means anything you can move, so I can’t give you a loan on your house. Banks do that. You don’t need to own a house to get a loan from me. Rather, you can come on down to the Milwaukee, Rockford & La Crosse Loan Company and get a loan on stereo equipment, candlesticks, family portraits, video game consoles, hickory chests, jungle gym sets, record players, old chairs, used televisions, table cloths, bottles, watches, clocks and anything else in your house, except maybe the kitchen sink or the furnace. I give you the money and you promise to pay me back. You also promise to pay me interest every month. And if you don’t pay up, I take your pledge because I own it by law. That’s what a security interest means. You can look it up in the Uniform Commercial Code, Article 9.
I run a brisk business. People always need money in a pinch. And people always have something somewhat valuable lying around the house, so they bring it down to my shop. I look it over. I do some calculations. I ask him how much he wants on it. If he only wants $100 after pledging me a $14,000 silverware set, I know he probably stole it. But if he wants $4,000 for the same silverware set, I know he probably owns it; and I make it out whether he pays me back or not. After all, I get a security interest in the $14,000 set. If he doesn’t pay me back the $4,000 I loaned him—plus 15% interest per month over 12 months—I get to take the set and sell it for $14,000. So it’s a great deal for me. True, sometimes people get emotional when they pawn family heirlooms like silverware sets. But who cares about them? I’m just trying to run a loan company. And I’ll tell you, in tough economic times like these, I couldn’t be in a better business. I’m not just recession-proof; I’m recession-powered.
I hear the craziest stories these days. People come in saying they lost their jobs and they can’t pay a medical bill. They tell me they just got divorced and can’t make a child support payment. Other people say the car company is going to repossess their car unless they pay the note. So naturally all this puts me in an excellent bargaining position. I don’t have to risk much money if the borrower is desperate. What do I care if the borrower doesn’t pay his child support with the money I loan him? That’s between him and the woman, not me and him. If he doesn’t pay me back the $175 I lent him on time, I get to keep his $1,500 golf club. Yes, people scream at me and call me an avaricious old leech. But it doesn’t faze me. I know success when I see it. If I make a $1,325 profit on a golf club for a measly $175 loan, that’s a success, no matter who calls me a heartless miser.
One woman said I would burn in hell because I took away her dead mother’s diamond ring. I hear this kind of thing all the time. But a security interest is a security interest; shrieking women and hell have nothing to do with it. I loaned her $1,000 for a very nice antique ring worth about $9,400. She told me she lost her job at an insurance company two months before and she needed the cash to pay her rent. I gave her six months to get her ring back, at 12% interest per month—that was a discount rate, too. After six months, she had only paid me $456.21; she told me she still hadn’t found a job and had gotten on welfare. So I foreclosed on the ring. She started hollering and yelling about her dead mother right in the middle of the shop. She scared some customers away. I tried to console her. I said: “Well, you got $1,000 from me. You only paid me back $456.21. By law, I can’t report your default to a credit bureau, so actually I’m helping you out. Your credit is still good. Would you like to pawn something else?”
She didn’t listen. She started saying the devil would get me one day and that I was a predator. She stormed out of the shop sobbing and even threw a pamphlet up in the air.
That’s the last I saw of her. Two weeks later, I sold her mother’s ring for $9,000. That was a good day. By then I had completely forgotten about the outburst.
I don’t allow my emotions to interfere with my loan business. But that does not mean I am not happy. Just because I keep my emotions under control in the pawnshop does not mean I do not feel happy. To the contrary, I am very happy with my life. I made $976,812 last year after taxes. My inventory is worth $1,200,000 and I have a $2,000,000 credit line through First Wisconsin Bank, N.A. I never have to worry about loaning money because I have a strong customer base. That’s the great thing about security interests; if someone defaults, you just take their stuff and sell it. It’s a beautiful thing. You win even when you lose. I feel happy because I am in a good business position and I have plenty of money for myself.
Yet people keep telling me that I am not really happy. They say that I can’t be happy because I take advantage of people every day and “peddle negativity.” They say that pawnbrokers cannot be happy because they profit from misery, and happiness cannot coexist with misery.
This is nonsense. I know how I feel. I feel happy. What does it matter how I make my money? I have been very successful in my life. I provide a valuable economic service to people in the community. I help people survive tough times with fast cash. If it weren’t for me, people might not make their car payment, even if I wind up taking their bracelets or silver chains. I feel good about helping others, even if they can’t see it. I feel happy to live in a country that allows people to make informed economic decisions without government intrusion. Yes, I’ve done well. But isn’t that everyone’s end goal? Why should I not feel happy that I have made a lot of money pawnbroking?
Frankly, I don’t buy the argument that you can’t be happy if you deal in misery. Lots of other business profit from misery, or at least involve misery. Bankers deal in misery every day. So do lawyers, doctors, accountants and even psychotherapists. Yet no one says they can’t be happy. Why do people single out pawnbrokers for dealing out misery? Making money requires misery somewhere along the line; pawnbrokers are no different from anyone else. Someone needs to lose money in order for another person to make money. That’s going to make someone miserable. That’s called “economics.”
I don’t let others get me down. Ironically, most people who say I can’t be happy are unhappy themselves because they owe me money. How can they criticize me about something they don’t even know? They are just angry because they defaulted and I sold off their jewelry to some wholesaler.
To hell with my critics; I can speak for myself. Here’s what I know: I love security interests and I am happy about it. You don’t need to love other people in order to know happiness. Quite the contrary, I am living proof that you can love security interests and still be happy. Security interests are not people. They are property interests that guarantee that debtors will pay me back for a loan. Property interests don’t talk back, they don’t cheat and they don’t suffer depression or anxiety. They don’t cost money to feed and they don’t complain. They just sit there until you sell them. They increase in value sometimes, too. And they never lose their looks or get ornery. I simply can’t understand why people say that happiness can only flow from human relationships. In my experience, happiness flows much better from property relationships. Just look at my house; I did not buy it because I cultivated nurturing “human relationships.” Rather, I bought my house because I cultivated nurturing property relationships.
Property pays. People don’t. In that light, why bother with people?
Philosophers waste so much time debating about happiness. If they only knew how simple it could be. By loving security interests, I found happiness. Security interests opened the door to happiness for me. That is my precious secret. There is no need to love people. You simply must learn to love interests in property that secure payment or performance of obligations that run in your favor. When you love security interests, you don’t care what people say about you because they owe you money and you hold their lacquered dining room table as security. When you love security interests, the law lets you take stuff away from people without consequence. Security interests immunize you against anything people will ever say about you. Security interests save you from depending on people. In my book, that is a good recipe for happiness.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
LOVE, HAPPINESS AND MARRIAGE--BY CONTRACT
MARRIAGE CONTRACT
PREAMBLE
This Marriage Contract represents a Binding Agreement, Meeting of the Minds and Mutual Promise by and between Mr. Kyle G. Hurt (“Groom”) and Ms. Annabella H. Keefe (“Bride”). Hereinafter, Groom and Bride shall be known as the “Parties” for purposes of this Marriage Contract. Following execution of this Marriage Contract, Parties shall respectively be known as “The Husband” and “The Wife” unless and until this Marriage Contract be rescinded, annulled, cancelled or otherwise terminated by applicable Divorce Proceedings and Property Division Procedures pursuant to the law of the State wherein The Husband and The Wife reside at the time such proceedings are initiated. By this solemn Marriage Contract, Parties intend to be bound by the terms, provisions, obligations and promises contained herein, it being the Wish and Desire of the Parties to establish herethrough a legally-cognizable, enforceable economic relationship for the purposes of: (1) mutual enrichment; (2) tax advantage; and (3) child production and rearing (subject to exceptions, qualifications and limitations as provided herein). Although Parties profess love and understanding for one another as of the date of this Marriage Contract, Parties expressly disavow any intent to make love or understanding the basis—either in law or fact—for this Marriage Contract.
SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS
1. Mr. Kyle G. Hurt (“Groom”) is an unmarried male, aged 34, resident in and for the State of New York, County of New York, City of New York, Country of the United States of America, established 1776.
2. Ms. Annabella H. Keefe (“Bride”) is an unmarried female, aged 24, resident in and for the State of New York, County of New York, City of New York, Country of the United States, established 1776.
3. Groom certifies under oath and penalty of perjury that he suffers neither from debilitating mental illness, erectile dysfunction, sexually-transmitted disease, low sperm count, schizophrenia, mania, nor any other physical or mental ailment relevant to the performance of the marital promises made herein, including homosexuality or a tendency—whether real or imagined—to find males attractive. Groom further certifies that he is competent under law to make the promises set forth in this Marriage Contract.
4. Bride certifies under oath and penalty of perjury that she suffers neither from debilitating mental illness, sexually-transmitted disease, schizophrenia, Tourette’s Syndrome, mania nor any other physical or mental ailment relevant to the performance of the marital promises made herein, including lesbianism or a tendency—whether real or imagined—to find females attractive. Bride further certifies that she is competent under law to make the promises set forth in this Marriage Contract.
5. Bride certifies further that she does not watch, and has never watched, the Sex in the City television show, nor does she hold any secret aspiration to lead a life similar in substantial part to any female character in aforenamed Sex in the City television show, it being mutually understood that the values expressed in aforenamed Sex in the City television show be hostile to and inconsistent with the mutual promises made in this Marriage Contract.
6. Pursuant to full and fair bargain, Groom promises to take, have, hold and keep as his lawfully-wedded wife aforementioned Bride (see supra at ¶2).
7. In exchange for and consideration of Groom’s promise contained supra at ¶6, Bride promises to take, have, hold and keep as her lawfully-wedded husband aforementioned Groom (see supra at ¶1).
8. Parties certify under oath and penalty of perjury that the promises contained in ¶¶6-7 supra resulted from a full and fair bargaining process following full disclosure and independent legal and financial counsel, any profession of love, tenderness, understanding, joy, forgiveness or hope notwithstanding.
9. Parties mutually agree and consent that all property respectively owned by each shall remain the property of each while this Marriage Contract is valid. Parties mutually agree and consent that all property obtained while this Marriage Contract is valid shall be considered “Martial Property” owned in ½ shares by the Parties, and subject to the Marital Property Division laws in the State wherein Parties reside.
10. Parties mutually agree and consent that the Property Covenants made supra at ¶9 may be altered at any time following negotiation. In such negotiation, both Groom and Bride shall vote “Yea” or “Nay.” Groom shall have a 65% vote. Bride shall have a 35% vote. Votes are final. A simple majority shall prevail. Vote results shall not be reviewable in any court, any law, constitutional provision or principle of natural justice notwithstanding, it being understood that this paragraph is the product of full and fair bargaining between the Parties.
11. Groom promises and covenants to maintain income and employment at all times while this Marriage Contract is valid.
12. Bride promises and covenants to carry out all household duties while Groom pursues income, including, but in no wise limited to: washing floors, doing dishes, cleaning bedrooms, washing laundry, ironing shirts, obtaining groceries, cooking meals, cleaning toilets, scrubbing tiles, gardening, sending mail, receiving mail, coordinating mealtime arrangements, planning weekend activities, maintaining good physical appearance, adhering to a reasonable fitness regimen, maintaining suitable breast size, maintaining a suitable body mass (no more than 110 pounds) and any other activity deemed reasonable and advisable by Groom.
13. Bride promises to provide conjugal services on demand, pursuant to notice and opportunity to be heard; but in no event shall wife be granted an opportunity to be heard if Groom, in his sole discretion and without possibility of appeal, finds that Bride has defaulted in her obligations under ¶12, supra. Bride further promises to perform conjugal services without notice at least four (4) times per month, at times directed and approved by Groom in his sole and unreviewable discretion. Groom shall have the right to define the parameters and circumstances under which such conjugal services shall take place, including the language in which such services shall be conducted, and any other individuals who shall participate in such activities, be they male or female.
14. Groom promises to provide ample conjugal services to Wife, it being understood that the term “ample conjugal services” does not include the provision of female orgasms to Bride, such “ample conjugal services” being strictly limited to coitus no longer than 60 seconds per scheduled session, pursuant to law and notice. The Parties expressly consent and agree that Bride shall in no wise be entitled to female orgasms under this Marriage Contract. The Parties further expressly consent and agree that Bride’s failure to obtain sexual satisfaction from Groom shall not constitute grounds to rescind, modify, cancel or annul this Marriage Contract.
15. Bride promises to remain faithful to Groom, it being understood that Groom possesses a common law tenancy-by-the-entirety interest in Bride’s body, the claims of others notwithstanding. In exchange therefor, Groom promises to make best efforts to remain faithful to Bride, provided in all events that Groom shall not be obligated to maintain faithfulness to Bride following arguments, disagreements and domestic strife, as those terms may be defined in applicable State law or at Groom’s sole discretion.
16. Parties mutually agree and understand that this Marriage Contract establishes a property relationship intended to secure tax advantages and the appearance of a stable, decent lifestyle. As such, this Marriage Contract makes no provision for—and is not intended to result in— emotional satisfaction, happiness, bliss or even mild contentment. Neither unhappiness, frigidity, hatred, bitterness, frustration, dissatisfaction, gloom, depression, ennui, desperation nor any other common marital emotion shall constitute grounds to rescind, modify, cancel or annul this Marriage Contract, unless Groom deems it advisable.
17. Bride promises to conceive and bear Groom’s children pursuant to notice and regularly-scheduled marital conjugal services (see ¶13, supra). Groom shall have the sole and unimpeachable right to name any children resulting therefrom; provided in all events that Groom gives due consideration to any name suggestion made by Bride, it being understood and agreed that Bride’s suggestions carry no authority whatsoever.
18. Groom promises and covenants to treat Bride fairly subject to all reasonable rules, regulations, customs and usages as may be appropriate in the circumstances. In the event that Groom subjects Bride to physical discipline pursuant to such reasonable rules, regulations, customs and usages, Bride promises and covenants never to contact police authorities in reference thereto. Parties mutually agree and understand that Groom has the sole right to mete out family discipline, except in those cases in which Groom requests discipline incident to regularly-scheduled conjugal services (see ¶13, supra).
19. In the case of domestic disagreement between the Parties, the Parties agree that Groom shall convene a Domestic Resolution Court (DRC). Such Court shall consist of Groom presiding as Chief Justice. Such Court shall decide all cases and controversies pursuant to law without right to appeal or argument, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution notwithstanding. Bride shall not have the right to seek counsel in cases before the Domestic Resolution Court, the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution notwithstanding. Bride further must bear all attorneys’ fees and costs associated with any case or controversy pending before the Domestic Resolution Court. Groom promises to publish all decisions made by the Domestic Resolution Court, except those passages that may reasonably impinge upon national security. See, e.g., Cheney v. United States, 198 D.R.C. 139, 157 (2007).
20. Parties mutually declare that they love and respect one another. But Parties further mutually declare that this Marriage Contract establishes a legal relationship governing property and allocating rights and obligations. Parties hereby mutually declare that they intend to adhere to their obligations in good faith, pursuant to law, and without waiving any right contractually guaranteed hereunder. Parties mutually declare that neither love nor respect shall influence the interpretation of any substantive or procedural provision enumerated in this Marriage Contract. Rather, Parties mutually agree that only the common law shall provide a basis to construe any ambiguities contained herein, with a presumption that all provisions contained in this Marriage Contract be reasonable and fair, unless such provisions favor Bride.
21. This Marriage Contract represents a full and final integration between the Parties. Neither prior nor contemporaneous oral statements, nor prior written statements, shall be admitted to modify, vary or negate any provision enumerated herein. But Groom may vary any provision—either orally or in writing—as he deems necessary and proper.
22. The Law of the State of Nebraska shall govern this Marriage Contract. In case of dispute involving this Marriage Contract, Bride hereby waives her right to a jury trial thereon, the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution or any comparable State constitutional guarantee notwithstanding. In all such disputes, Groom shall convene a Mandatory Arbitration Panel (MAP) consisting of himself and his mother to fully and fairly adjudicate any grievances pursuant to law and notice. But in no event shall Bride be entitled to any evidentiary presumption or procedural advantage granted by any State evidence code, the Federal Rules of Evidence or the United States Constitution. All decisions of aforesaid Mandatory Arbitration Panel (MAP) shall be final, with all costs to be borne unconditionally, and without discount, by Bride.
23. This Marriage Contract shall be read aloud in full prior to the exchange of marriage vows and rings, publicly, on June 14, 2009, in the presence of a notary public and a judge of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County.
24. The Parties may kiss only after execution of this Marriage Contract pursuant to all formalities and evidentiary procedures under State law.
DONE and EXECUTED this ____ day of ____, 2009
Witness our hands in Holy Matrimony set unto,
________________________
KYLE G. HURT
Hereafter, “MR. HURT”
Groom-Husband-Party
________________________
ANNABELLA H. KEEFE
Hereafter, “MRS. HURT”
Bride-Wife-Party
________________________
BERNABE H. RODRIGUEZ
Notary Public
Nuestro Cambio en la Grand Concourse
Bronx, NY
License No. : NY-1097F-G
At New York, New York.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
GET OUT OF THE RACE : START LIVING A LITTLE
By : Michael A. Schlafmeister, M.S., Chairman and Marketing Director, Relaxforever.com
At some point during your busy life, I’ll bet you’ve felt disappointed. Maybe you’re pressing 40 and you still have not gotten that big promotion. Maybe your dream girl slipped through your fingers and now you’re stuck in a loveless marriage. Maybe you have chronic kidney disease and you are in constant pain. Or maybe you just missed winning the lottery—for the sixth time. At Relaxforever.com, we understand that life isn’t fair. We know that joy never seems to materialize. And we know it hurts.
Mom and Dad never told us how tough life would be. When you were a child, I’ll bet you had some really fun times. You probably even thought that life would continue to be fun. After all, kids always want to be like grown-ups because it looks like grown-ups can do all the fun things that kids want to do. But no one told us about creditors, loans, debt, dishonesty, competition, anxiety, depression, humiliation, bum jobs and disenchantment. When we were kids, it was a joy to wake up every morning because there was always something fun to do. No one told us that one day we would dread getting out of bed to face the world. Grown-ups never mentioned these things. We only found out about them once we got older.
At Relaxforever.com, we stand for people like you. We stand for people who have suffered disappointment in life. When it comes to disappointment, we have a simple motto: “Haven’t we all been there?” We understand that your life is definitely not a box of chocolates, even if you have money. Even rich people get jealous and hate the way their children turned out. Money will not save you from cancer or backstabbing, estranged relatives who eagerly await their inheritance. When it comes to disappointment in life, we are all equal. And we understand your pain.
In our culture, no one tells us that anxiety lurks around every corner. We simply learned to study hard, work hard and do our jobs. We found out later that life is a cruel race in which luck is as important as skill. Only a few win; the rest simply flounder in a losing contest. Throughout our lives, we receive rejection letters from employers and schools. We hear the word “No” far more than “Yes,” and we never truly get what we want. We simply compromise for what we can “realistically” achieve. And even then, we stand at the mercy of our friends, families and acquaintances. They lie to us more often than they tell us the truth; we come to expect more betrayals than loyalty. We manage to find some happiness in relationships with people who do not hurt us, but they are the exceptions. By and large, we expect rejection and disappointment. Meanwhile, we work away at jobs that seem to offer no meaning; but we must work away, because creditors demand money from us at every turn.
It is a cruel, unforgiving race. There is never time to relax. We know it is hard. We are there for you.
At Relaxforever.com, we offer quick and easy solutions to life’s problems. Our personalized euthanasia services proceed on a simple assumption: That problems only cause stress to the living. By draining life from our bodies, we deny problems the hosts they require to survive. After all, money problems inflict emotional pain because a living person worries that he will not pay a bill. His brain releases chemicals that cause him to feel “bad.” But if this person were dead, his brain would no longer release chemicals at all. No matter how many past due bills this person receives, he will feel nothing, even if he has no money to pay them. In the same way, relationship problems hurt when a living person confronts difficulty with another living person. When his mate acts in an unfavorable way, he suffers emotional turmoil. But death eliminates the brain’s chemical capacity to feel heartbreak; indeed, it eliminates the capacity to feel much anything at all.
Naysayers claim that death is not an effective solution to life’s problems. Rather, they say that it makes no sense to throw the baby out with the bathwater. According to this logic, death may avert physical pain and the stings of disappointment, but it also forecloses good feelings in the future. In other words, “life is worth living” because there is always a potential for good feelings. This argument misses the point. For some people, there is no realistic possibility to ever experience good feelings again. Consider a client who lost all four limbs in an accident, became blind and his wife left him because he could no longer engage in sexual intercourse. This client also lost his job because he could not render effective customer service without vision or limbs. He had no health insurance, and his medical treatment bankrupted him forty times over. For these reasons, this client realistically believed that life held nothing more than pain and disillusionment. If he went on living, he would simply torture his body and mind with endless pain. Relaxforever.com provided an effective alternative; he decided to get out of the race. We believe he made a rational choice.
We recognize that every person is different. Everyone has different tolerances for disappointment and pain. Yet everyone experiences disappointment and pain. They are unavoidable. We do not question anyone’s claim that life proves too difficult to bear. True, not everyone faces challenges as severe as the blind and limbless client’s, but we all have problems. Our problems dominate our lives like no others. We may recognize that others have more objectively “bad” problems, but that does not make us feel any better about our own. For example, we see that there are homeless people on the street without food, money, shelter or hope for survival. Yet we still feel bad about our low pay, our treacherous boyfriends, our overbearing parents, our arthritis, our health insurance and our debts, even though we have homes and food. The homeless man may face terrible adversity, but so do we—in our own way. Problems are personal. They torture the strong along with the weak. At Relaxforever.com, we do not judge your problems. We simply recognize that everyone’s problems are unique; and they cause unique stress, no matter how objectively “severe” or “minor” they are.
Have you had enough? Are you tired of getting up in the morning to be scolded by a brutal employer? Are you sick of running behind on your credit card bills and begging banks for loans, only to be rejected? Have you been passed over for a job one too many times? Did the love of your life cheat on you then dump you? Do your own children lie to you and steal from you? Do you spend more time in the hospital than at your home? Does your spouse abuse you? Is your wife having an affair with a tennis player? Do you suffer from debilitating injuries? Are you addicted to medications? Do you cry from morning to night? Did the sheriff just evict you from your house? Never fear. You are not alone. We know that life seems bleak. That is why you should log onto Relaxforever.com.
Talking and therapy can only take you so far. Mental gymnastics can only partially palliate your pain. No matter how many times you sing kumbaya, creditors will still garnish your wages and your girlfriend will still cheat on you. When it appears that only pain and disappointment await you in life, do the reasonable thing. Spite your problems. They are like parasites. They roost in living bodies. Do not give them a body to infect. It is easy, quick and affordable. Can it really be that bad? Think about it. Our euthanasia methods are safe, painless, user-friendly and FDA-approved. We offer payment plans. There is no credit check. No animals were harmed in testing our euthanasia methods, and we use only organic materials. We proudly sponsored the 2008 U.S. Olympic Team. If you can go to sleep, you can use our services. Wouldn’t you rather just go to sleep than face a lifetime of agony, torture, humiliation and rejection? At Relaxforever.com, you truly can take a vacation: You will never have to return to your vindictive spouse, your moronic boss, your abusive parents or your emasculating, petty job. You will no longer feel pain or worry. You will never need medical treatment again. You will never receive another bill. No one will ever ask you for money again. You will not grow older and you will not face derision, insult or scorn. If you have not already gone gray, you never will.
Isn’t it about time to decide your own destiny? Haven’t you exhausted yourself enough serving others’ whims? Haven’t you expended enough worry and fear attempting to mold yourself to others’ expectations? Aren’t you fed up with pain, rejection, grief and disillusion? Treat yourself for once. Take a break. Check out of town. Start living a little. What do you have to lose? Euthanize yourself today at Relaxforever.com for just one easy payment of $29.99. Can it really be worse than what you’re going through now? What have you got to lose? Your unhappiness and pain? Try our product. We guarantee you won’t complain if you do. It’s our promise™.
At some point during your busy life, I’ll bet you’ve felt disappointed. Maybe you’re pressing 40 and you still have not gotten that big promotion. Maybe your dream girl slipped through your fingers and now you’re stuck in a loveless marriage. Maybe you have chronic kidney disease and you are in constant pain. Or maybe you just missed winning the lottery—for the sixth time. At Relaxforever.com, we understand that life isn’t fair. We know that joy never seems to materialize. And we know it hurts.
Mom and Dad never told us how tough life would be. When you were a child, I’ll bet you had some really fun times. You probably even thought that life would continue to be fun. After all, kids always want to be like grown-ups because it looks like grown-ups can do all the fun things that kids want to do. But no one told us about creditors, loans, debt, dishonesty, competition, anxiety, depression, humiliation, bum jobs and disenchantment. When we were kids, it was a joy to wake up every morning because there was always something fun to do. No one told us that one day we would dread getting out of bed to face the world. Grown-ups never mentioned these things. We only found out about them once we got older.
At Relaxforever.com, we stand for people like you. We stand for people who have suffered disappointment in life. When it comes to disappointment, we have a simple motto: “Haven’t we all been there?” We understand that your life is definitely not a box of chocolates, even if you have money. Even rich people get jealous and hate the way their children turned out. Money will not save you from cancer or backstabbing, estranged relatives who eagerly await their inheritance. When it comes to disappointment in life, we are all equal. And we understand your pain.
In our culture, no one tells us that anxiety lurks around every corner. We simply learned to study hard, work hard and do our jobs. We found out later that life is a cruel race in which luck is as important as skill. Only a few win; the rest simply flounder in a losing contest. Throughout our lives, we receive rejection letters from employers and schools. We hear the word “No” far more than “Yes,” and we never truly get what we want. We simply compromise for what we can “realistically” achieve. And even then, we stand at the mercy of our friends, families and acquaintances. They lie to us more often than they tell us the truth; we come to expect more betrayals than loyalty. We manage to find some happiness in relationships with people who do not hurt us, but they are the exceptions. By and large, we expect rejection and disappointment. Meanwhile, we work away at jobs that seem to offer no meaning; but we must work away, because creditors demand money from us at every turn.
It is a cruel, unforgiving race. There is never time to relax. We know it is hard. We are there for you.
At Relaxforever.com, we offer quick and easy solutions to life’s problems. Our personalized euthanasia services proceed on a simple assumption: That problems only cause stress to the living. By draining life from our bodies, we deny problems the hosts they require to survive. After all, money problems inflict emotional pain because a living person worries that he will not pay a bill. His brain releases chemicals that cause him to feel “bad.” But if this person were dead, his brain would no longer release chemicals at all. No matter how many past due bills this person receives, he will feel nothing, even if he has no money to pay them. In the same way, relationship problems hurt when a living person confronts difficulty with another living person. When his mate acts in an unfavorable way, he suffers emotional turmoil. But death eliminates the brain’s chemical capacity to feel heartbreak; indeed, it eliminates the capacity to feel much anything at all.
Naysayers claim that death is not an effective solution to life’s problems. Rather, they say that it makes no sense to throw the baby out with the bathwater. According to this logic, death may avert physical pain and the stings of disappointment, but it also forecloses good feelings in the future. In other words, “life is worth living” because there is always a potential for good feelings. This argument misses the point. For some people, there is no realistic possibility to ever experience good feelings again. Consider a client who lost all four limbs in an accident, became blind and his wife left him because he could no longer engage in sexual intercourse. This client also lost his job because he could not render effective customer service without vision or limbs. He had no health insurance, and his medical treatment bankrupted him forty times over. For these reasons, this client realistically believed that life held nothing more than pain and disillusionment. If he went on living, he would simply torture his body and mind with endless pain. Relaxforever.com provided an effective alternative; he decided to get out of the race. We believe he made a rational choice.
We recognize that every person is different. Everyone has different tolerances for disappointment and pain. Yet everyone experiences disappointment and pain. They are unavoidable. We do not question anyone’s claim that life proves too difficult to bear. True, not everyone faces challenges as severe as the blind and limbless client’s, but we all have problems. Our problems dominate our lives like no others. We may recognize that others have more objectively “bad” problems, but that does not make us feel any better about our own. For example, we see that there are homeless people on the street without food, money, shelter or hope for survival. Yet we still feel bad about our low pay, our treacherous boyfriends, our overbearing parents, our arthritis, our health insurance and our debts, even though we have homes and food. The homeless man may face terrible adversity, but so do we—in our own way. Problems are personal. They torture the strong along with the weak. At Relaxforever.com, we do not judge your problems. We simply recognize that everyone’s problems are unique; and they cause unique stress, no matter how objectively “severe” or “minor” they are.
Have you had enough? Are you tired of getting up in the morning to be scolded by a brutal employer? Are you sick of running behind on your credit card bills and begging banks for loans, only to be rejected? Have you been passed over for a job one too many times? Did the love of your life cheat on you then dump you? Do your own children lie to you and steal from you? Do you spend more time in the hospital than at your home? Does your spouse abuse you? Is your wife having an affair with a tennis player? Do you suffer from debilitating injuries? Are you addicted to medications? Do you cry from morning to night? Did the sheriff just evict you from your house? Never fear. You are not alone. We know that life seems bleak. That is why you should log onto Relaxforever.com.
Talking and therapy can only take you so far. Mental gymnastics can only partially palliate your pain. No matter how many times you sing kumbaya, creditors will still garnish your wages and your girlfriend will still cheat on you. When it appears that only pain and disappointment await you in life, do the reasonable thing. Spite your problems. They are like parasites. They roost in living bodies. Do not give them a body to infect. It is easy, quick and affordable. Can it really be that bad? Think about it. Our euthanasia methods are safe, painless, user-friendly and FDA-approved. We offer payment plans. There is no credit check. No animals were harmed in testing our euthanasia methods, and we use only organic materials. We proudly sponsored the 2008 U.S. Olympic Team. If you can go to sleep, you can use our services. Wouldn’t you rather just go to sleep than face a lifetime of agony, torture, humiliation and rejection? At Relaxforever.com, you truly can take a vacation: You will never have to return to your vindictive spouse, your moronic boss, your abusive parents or your emasculating, petty job. You will no longer feel pain or worry. You will never need medical treatment again. You will never receive another bill. No one will ever ask you for money again. You will not grow older and you will not face derision, insult or scorn. If you have not already gone gray, you never will.
Isn’t it about time to decide your own destiny? Haven’t you exhausted yourself enough serving others’ whims? Haven’t you expended enough worry and fear attempting to mold yourself to others’ expectations? Aren’t you fed up with pain, rejection, grief and disillusion? Treat yourself for once. Take a break. Check out of town. Start living a little. What do you have to lose? Euthanize yourself today at Relaxforever.com for just one easy payment of $29.99. Can it really be worse than what you’re going through now? What have you got to lose? Your unhappiness and pain? Try our product. We guarantee you won’t complain if you do. It’s our promise™.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)