2020
???? 2020
I will always be appreciative of my friends and family for the minimal and fleeting instances of support and interest they’ve provided for the things that really mattered to me. On the whole, it has been underwhelming and, in time, this theme has proven to be reliable and consistent and kept me going (nowhere) throughout this whole experience. Self-adulation, it would seem, is a powerful tool, although it always looked grotesque and tasted nauseating to me. The afflictions of self-analysis and cowardly modesty will ultimately cheat one out of any sense of accomplishment.
IF YOU’VE GOT THE TIME
From what I read and hear, it appears that the agreed upon wisdom of the physicists and philosophers is that Time is one of the dimensions of existence. There is the spatial long, tall and deep (x,y and z) and add Time as a 4th dimension. Go quantum physics and feel free to add 7 or so more. “Time heals all wounds.” “Time waits for no one.” Make time. Take time. Kill time. Save time. On time. In time. Out of time. There are more if we have the time. But, me, I’ve spent a lot of time trying to be convinced that time is really even a thing, independent of everything else.
People ponder and philosophize and argue on the beginning and age of the universe and how much more time it has. Or even if it has a “beginning” or “end”. Is it a continuing cycle of explosion and expansion until implosion and contraction? And how long, or how much time, does that process take? Does this story unfold within the framework of spatial dimensions and time? Do those, space and time, make up the matrix of everything? Let’s consider the “timeline” of things…
“Timeline” is a spatially-oriented model to which we ascribe temporal nature. Ie. Timeline is left to right as we read and thus we lay it out this visual manifestation or construction (spatial) so, but likewise understand the concepts “earlier” to “later” or “before” to “after” (temporal) by applying this spatial model. The expression and very conceptualizing of it seems to be dependent on the spatial concepts. Or, more specifically, the motion taking place within that spatial matrix (ie. moving left to right).
A tree lies motionless in the forest until time reduces it to dirt. A boulder is set motionless in its space until time reduces it to sand. But what exactly is this “time” thing we identify as the doer of these deeds? Doesn’t the constant pounding of wind and rain, the reaction to sunlight, the day-to-day business of insects and bacteria, the shifting of portions of earth due to other minute movements hold responsibility for these changes? What is the role of “time”. Oh right, these things all act within time, or are allowed to carry on because of the existence of time. Huh.
Being so important, time must be measured by us so that we may act accordingly within its rules and confines. The hand of a clock (I know, it’s a digital world) makes a 360 degree rotation around its access in what we decided is one hour of “time”. The force of gravity pulls a finely measured amount of sand through a finely measured opening in its entirety in this same one hour of “time”. But what happened here? Are these constructs what we use to measure time, or is time a tool we have conceptualized and agreed on to measure motion and all these actions?
Knowledge of physics and mechanics are applied to ensure that the cogs and motors of the clock are set such that that hand makes its way around in exact agreement with all others we use. Each just its own series of physical movements in agreement with the others. It takes a train 45 minutes to move from this station to that (barring any unforeseen physical conditions involving motion in some way). That is, the physical characteristics which dictate its ability for motion are such that it makes that movement in agreement with the designed movement of that clock hand which will travel 270 degrees around in unison. This is in conjunction with that pre-arranged corporate meeting and the chemical activity going on in that roast at 375 degrees which changes it from raw to humanly edible. Every significant series of motions is always measured against another. Motion against motion. Time? What is it without motion? Why would I need it to be anything without motion?
If there was no matter or energy or motion, what would “time” be? “In the time before the Bing Bang, before the universe came to be…. What time? What was that or what does that even mean? How can we be sure there is such a thing as time without motion? Is time what allows matter to move? Isn’t motion just the ongoing result of this explosion? Is motion its own thing? Is motion a natural characteristic of matter, provided it has the space within which to move?
I’m having trouble with considering “time” as an independent idea. Matter and energy are the things. Even we are the action of nutrient breakdown and utilization, experience through synaptic activities, various other processes, until the motion and change make us eventually not us at all – but the matter and energy keep on moving. Motion is the story and time seems to be just the tool of measurement humans have created to align everything in reference to our story.
So if there’s no time without motion, I guess the next logical question is: Is there space without matter? If the universe expands then doesn’t the expanding matter have to do so into existing space? But if there was no matter in that space prior, was it just filled with nothing? Can nothing fill space? Can space be nothing?
INCLUSION, TRANSFERENCE, PEP RALLIES AND THE TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME
Without a doubt, the singular worst thing about Trump and his presidency is the widespread and consuming obsession with him. This, in its most powerful and destructive form, is a saturating and oozing hatred which cannot be contained. This is most evident in social media, where people tend to feel safe to ignore any consideration of the edit switch so to vent unabashedly. Say what you want about the drivel posted, it is a probe into the psyche and soul of the writer (poster).
These verbal explosions are, undoubtedly, encouraged by the piling on of the like-minded with additional commentary or “likes” (smooch) and validated by the musings offered to one’s taste by the various publications of choice. This is the inclusion and the cyber pep rallying sought to satisfy purpose, definition and participation in the rightful movement – all from the comfort and solitude of one’s phone or computer.
So, there’s Trump. Could you have imagined prior to his candidacy that this guy would become a phenomenon of multi-faceted fascination? I probably couldn’t, nor did I give it much thought at the time. But earthquakes and other natural phenomena happen rather unpredictably and without human design but with an instant power to move the masses to reaction.
“Trump… fascinating?” you say? Well, his flouting norms and conventions in just about every way is, in the least, attention-grabbing. But, more accurately, it’s the ripples of human interpretation, reaction, interaction, philosophy-shaping, self-defining, other-defining, etc. which is fascinating and demanding of inexhaustive analysis, and that I find myself enamored with.
I’m focused right now on one jaw-dropping observation which has repeated over and over in people’s posts on my facebook feed. I refer you to the rhetorical chants regarding “hate” and “divisiveness”. These have assumed such prominent positions in the monologue (yes, dialogue is rare and unwelcomed, but that’s much too large a side-rant for now). Suffice it to say (and I have ranted on this mechanism elsewhere) these labels have become legitimized such that they are no longer attempts to support them with example or put to the test of argument. Once the opposing politicians mention them as accepted fact regularly, not as proposition or accusation, they are legitimized and carried along in the monologue as if with a universal stamp of validation.
But here’s the thing about the “hate” and divisiveness” mantras and my social media observations… it is the rants of those who place Trump as the ground zero of hate and division, and his minions as the rapid spread of it, which, themselves ooze with the hatred and divisiveness which, allegedly, has harmed them and the rest of us. It has all just become slightly-varied iterations of “I hate you because you’re a hater!” This attitude is, first, accusational without allowing for a defense. (Isn’t that an entitlement?). It is, second, well… um, hateful. But, I suppose, the justification for that is that “they started it” and “haters deserve to be hated”. The head-scratching really ensues when the pretty patchwork is employed. For instance, “I don’t hate anyone”; “I really just wish you would consider who you are supporting”; “I have to unfriend you because you keep spreading this hatred”; etc.. And, of course, the classic, seemingly innocuous, cancellation ones like “can we just agree to disagree?” and “don’t bother responding if you’re gonna spread your Trump-loving bullshit or I will delete you!” (yeah, that’s conducive to understanding each other). Such utterances exonerate the utterer for sure. So, OK, we just keep hitting a brick wall here.
I must acknowledge that those Neanderthal posts referring to “libtards” and other derogatory designations abound on social media as well. I can only say that I have come across far fewer of these. What’s more important though is that these posts echo with that dopey “team colors” simpleness akin to “Dallas sucks” or something. In other words, these people wish to advertise their unequivocal idiocy and so are easily, and duly, discounted. Sound unfair? The difference is that far more of the angry Trump-obsessed monologues I come across clearly purport to offer self-righteous value and purpose. In fact, I find them all equally non-substantive and useless for other then comedy (and few offer anything good in that regard too).
But what about Trump? There are well-structured comprehensive lists out there put together by others of Trump positives and accomplishments and I am more interested in the anti-Trump mindset right now. If you want to look over this list for consideration (and that’s really the point, would you or has an aversion to any such considerations been firmly instilled now by “Trump Derangement Syndrome”?) please do. I have also spoken to and read posts from many who express that they have no problem pointing out Trump negatives. Yes, he’s largely ego-driven; speaks without thinking and from a position of obvious lack of briefing; is insulting and combative (is combative necessarily negative?); seems as affected by the “team colors” mindset as most others (if you’re not with me then you are the enemy); may be “unpresidential” and unconventional (might some of that not be a welcomed change also?); etc. But after all that, most of those 70 million or so, whom the “hateful” posters seem to want to disregard as simply “hateful” and “racist” and “misogynist” and other rather distasteful profiles, prefer to judge a president based on the soundness of his/her policy and their effectiveness with which he/she enacts it. These are things truly available for argument, as opposed to how one decided someone else “feels”. More importantly, this is the rational basis for choosing a president. After all, you’re not picking someone to be on your softball team, go vacationing with, or date your daughter. Maybe it is wiser to put sentiment and rationality in their proper places.
Oh yeah, a thought on “divisiveness” – which has sweepingly been affixed to the Trump platform without a thorough consideration and argument, or even a superficial one. We are, as a write, in the middle of what will likely be a rather long challenge to the unofficial election of Joe Biden. Multiple counts of fraud are being culled and assembled in multiple key states. Allowed full investigation and quantification, this may or may not have an effect on the election results. Already the “team colors” are flying around this one in brilliant display. So many have declared these allegations as manufactured and unfounded (before they’ve even been presented) and others seem dead set on declaring this a “stolen” election which must be righted. An important question for those who would rather see all this ignored and the seeming results stand is: Are you OK with having roughly half the population of this country go forward with little or no trust in our election system by not allowing these allegations to be shown for what they are, such to allay any fears and distrust or allow us an opportunity to fix a flawed system? If you answer “yes”, maybe you need to consider the divisiveness of that choice to not act. Divisiveness bad, right? Time to “heal” and “come together”, isn’t it? That’s what Biden’s been saying. Or, in the end, is the success of your team’s color what trumps (pun sort of intended) all?
WHO’S TO BLAME? VICTIMHOOD, RESPONSIBILITY, CENSORSHIP AND THE WISDOM OF MICHAEL JACKSON
The dissemination of bad information tearing us apart and ensuring the ill will of those powerful and nefarious forces. Love this. Hate that. But this. Don’t trust that. Trust this. This happened. No, that happened. He said this. But, she didn’t say that. What to do? Where to go? What to say? How to act? I say listen to MJ. He’s “starting with the man in the mirror.”
Hillary lost that election? No, the Russians did it! Sound the alarms! A foreign country meddled in our election process? Unsettling to say the least. Did they hack a database, manipulate vote counts?! This is an invasion, an attack on American cyber-soil for sure! Well, not exactly. But wait. There was collusion! Treason and conspiracy among our own – players within the camp of the incoming president, no less. Probably even him himself! Well, no, that was just a long political slap fight in the recess yard advertised as a Don King promoted heavyweight bout for the ages.
So what exactly did the Russian interference in our election amount to? Fake entities created by agents of apparently Russian origin manufacturing false or grossly exaggerated information for mass consumption on social media. In other words, stuff posted on facebook, twitter and youtube, thus making its way into circulation on the google monster’s ready offerings. Who was affected? Well, those whose viewpoints were altered by their exposure to this disinformation. But who exactly, how many and to what extent? Well, nobody will ever know. Is it many as those whose votes may have gone uncounted or changed in all of the alleged voter fraud practices of 2020? Well, no one will ever know that either. But, considering, most of us had our asses pretty well situated on the bench of team blue or team red already, it is likely the ideas advertised were only attractive to those who were just looking for more validation for a choice they had already made. Their counterparts would only be rattling the comfort of opposing choice making ignorance of what was being suggested or “reported” or disbelief in it the more attractive course.
Regardless of the former or latter bench occupied as in above, these hypothetical consumers each shared one thing, they exercised choice in the face of “information” being presented to them. So, no harm and no foul there. But for this Russian interference to effectively interfere it would have had to make a difference to the consumer on its own. In other words, the manipulated consumer counting as a unit in the measurement of such interference would have to choose to allow something to move them from a position previously occupied. A consumer choice nonetheless and one made alone. While this process of “interference” may not have started with the “man in the mirror”, it certainly ended with him. This hypothetical consumer is a reality in great number as evidenced by their warranting the enactment of policies.
In an effort to protect against these foreign attacks (as if they’re any less likely to come from or be effective from within), our caretakers are called to action and looking for someone to scold and blame to assure us that they are on the job. Social media platforms are the scene of the crime and they have their controllers. Let’s look at them as monitors and gatekeepers instead. Yeah, now there are scapegoats with names and even a faces. So, Mark Zuckerberg and guy from Twitter, you created or hold the leashes of these creatures. You, therefore, have a responsibility regarding what the users for whom you’ve created it do with it.
And so the drama of “we must fix what we have declared is broken” plays out. The social media gatekeepers scramble with painstaking efforts to find all that ugly disinformation, scrub it and discard it before the kids take it and spread it all over the house. But don’t these gatekeepers, with a brand new authority to play with, have bias which taints their job performance? So allege so many of “conservative” leanings, disenfranchised and victimized by these sudden self-elected new agents of censorship. “But they are!” I’m told. “This censorship is completely lop-sided and unfair!” Maybe. The arguments are compelling and evoking a creepy Orwellian feeling. But these arguments seem to imply that this censorship should be more fair and balanced. What?
Hows about no censorship of ideas AT ALL?! Hows about the concept that rational argument and non-existence of supporting and provable facts weeds out and dissolves all bad or false ideas? Or is that now also being debunked and censored by those empowered to think for us?
Facebook and Twitter are platforms created for others to interact on. That’s it. Being a service offered non-charitably, those who offer it seek financial gain. That’s a whole other issue, but the working point here is that it is offered for consumer use.
So let’s say I have a house party. I offer my swinging pad and invite, even encourage, my neighbors to come over and interact with each other (my bedroom is off-limits!). At this party at my house, Fred tells Lisa that Monica engages in some questionable behaviors with farm animals. Lisa tells Jeff and Audrey who tell others, including some people who weren’t even at my party (losers). Monica suddenly finds that, not only are some people looking at her strange or not even engaging with her, but she is losing business at her hair salon and comes to suspect it must be because of these wild allegations. Monica’s thug brothers and the local politician whose mayoral campaign she donated to are suddenly demanding that I make this right by fixing this information mishap and pushing out the truth about Monica’s relationships with farm animals. All just because I threw the party where this hurtful gossip apparently originated. No one can pinpoint Fred as the culprit as he is lost in this confusing mix but, damnit, they want someone’s head. Yeah, that’s me and Zuck like “WTF, man!” I don’t know about Zuck, but I am thinking, how could Lisa or anyone else even believe that about Monica without having first-hand knowledge or proof? Their choice to believe and without that proof they just look like idiots who Monica is too good for anyway. No matter. The controversy is there. They see us (me and Zuck), they know us and these facts need to be sorted out.
What the hell is a “fact-checker” anyway? Who the hell is Snopes? Are you the end-all, be-all of truth because you have declared yourself a “fact-checker”? Is there a certification for this and who does the certifying? Are these “fact-checkers” privy to more information than we, the consumers? Of course not. So why can’t I check my own facts if I find an idea presented worthwhile enough to even be checked on? Or be lazy enough to accept that maybe that’s true or maybe false or maybe some true and some false and maybe I’ll investigate later and maybe I won’t but I won’t base any decision or action on it until I do? Either way, I’d prefer to have the choice than to blindly accept the word of some fact-checker I have no reason to place faith in than the original purveyor of the information.
Reluctance or aversion to blaming the consumer extends beyond social interaction and information exchange. Consider those commercials where some slick lawyer vows to protect you from that evil IRS who threatens you with liens and wage garnishments. The taxpayer (consumer), being completely powerless against this formidable foe needs slick lawyer to rush in with swords blazing (for a fee not far less obscene that the debt amount) to financially save the day. But, did the taxpayer ever actually try calling the IRS themselves in an attempt to resolve the issue? Better yet, why the hell didn’t he pay or file his taxes in the first place when he knows he has to? Unlike credit debt (a whole other realm of irresponsibility and self-inflicted damage in need of someone else to fix), tax is based on money that the “victim” actually had at one time. Why the hell did he/she choose to not pay it?
Most of the legal profession thrives on the consumer seeking to get something as a result of their own stupidity or irresponsibility. Restraining myself from the obvious desire to talk about lack of pride or shame, suffice it to say that their handy recompense becomes selling the shifting of blame, or at least the sharing of it, to another party. This is further encouraged by its history of success, thanks in part to those other parties realizing that catering to the complaints of the shameless consumers who chose poorly via quick settlements is the most viable financial option.
Let me just glance over the whole Welfare thing and the dependence of so many on the giving (be it forced or not) of others. Yes, charity good. Yes, welfare established as safety net for those stricken with unforeseeable misfortune. Fraud and lazy implementation of policies in some instances, also yes. None of this is the road I wish to turn down here. Can we suffice it to say that, all too often, those who find themselves subjugated in a place of need (be it from friends, family, state, or all of the forementioned) have arrived there due to unwise choices? Sometimes compounding prior ones? The victim is never to blame. But if we identify them as the choice-maker (or self-victimized) are they still not to blame?
This is really starting to get a little unwieldy but, as a thought extension, doesn’t it seem like the bigger the screw-ups the more ready resources there are to help deal with the consequences. Oh the suffering of those who have a list of small and moderate screw-ups for whom there seems to be no concerted, societal or government-mandated effort to save us from the consequences of our choices.
Consumer advice: Better fact-check me on that last one before you buy it.
DISCOURAGING THOUGHTS TAKE SHAPE AT THE BLEATING AND POSTURING OF THE SHEEP TO END 2020
An election is being contested on one side with concerns regarding faulty ballot mechanisms and software and flat-out cheating by manipulating and manufacturing results. While these complaints are bellowed out and evidence is gathered, to whatever end, it is all largely dismissed without any consideration at all. If bullshit is being offered as coal, or something necessary to consider in our desire for the proper functioning of our country, then let’s actually pick it all up and examine it before we declare it bullshit to all unequivocally. But these brushed aside allegations are just another sign of the state of things.
Talk to people. Many (most) have lost faith in politicians a long time ago. Those who are aware enough or open-minded enough to consider have lost faith in “news” sources not so long ago. And now roughly half the country realizes that they don’t have faith in the voting system – the one instrument through which they can participate in it all. Yes, maybe (probably) it’s been going on all along. But to this degree? And, regardless, wouldn’t you like to know and see transparent steps taken to try our best to shore up any leaks in your only instrument of say?
Before fixing on voting fraud and flaws, let’s go back to the politicians and news outlets. Don’t we realize that we ultimately get all our information from politicians - people who, by nature of who they are and what they do, are completely biased. It is provided by, presented by, edited by, polished and painted by them, each to his/her own choice of packaging. They are selling a product and, like any good salesperson, will shape your mindset via any means to make it fertile for the appeal of the product. But we don’t trust them. Right? Or is it that they are not trustworthy, are a complete sham in every utterance even, if they are not wearing the team color that I have chosen to wrap myself in? My salespeople are different because I’ve already purchased the product they’re selling. And it is mine because I need to own one.
And the “news” outlets… I’ve implored others to provide me a list of unbiased information sources that they, in their unique kind of fairness and open-mindedness, resort to. None have been offered as yet. I suspect most, unconsciously or not, glue themselves to CNN while spewing hateful insults at FOX as “right-winger” nonsense or the reverse, with equally hateful slurs at the “libtard”, “fake news” channel. The reality, as I’ve come to realize, is that these are merely voices for the ultimate sources – the politicians. These institutions are nothing more than sales agents themselves. They don’t sell information but ideologies of choice. (Incidentally, my solution to this quandary is to find the most left-leaning and most right-leaning channels to watch. My thinking is that each will bend over backwards to offer and exhaustive heap of food for thought in support of their respective ideology. I will have every bit of propaganda on the spectrum, then set out to attempt to extract the truth somewhere in between from it all. A truly unbiased information source, if there was one, might not be as complete in their summary offerings.)
Again I find myself blaming that sheeperson in the herd who aligns in sound, tone and posture with the sheeple he/she has chosen to flock to. Now I hear an angry baaaaing at me. It’s a reaction and not a response. Is that the only sound he/she has developed to utter?
Election fraud and flaws? Not good. But there are things that concern me more now as I consider the bleating of the sheeple which has echoed for so long now…
A caring and righteous bunch who are concerned with a “division” that has, they seem to think, been single-handedly spear-headed by one guy and only within the last four years, proclaim that now all can be healed. In saintly tones they choose to “take the high road” and “be better than this” by forgiving those who have been led astray, encouraged and embraced this division. Do these same people understand that half a country questions the validity of much of the voting system, and that by not addressing this and bringing all to light in a satisfactory manner, they are only ensuring that some “division” will be fortified, not healed?
The sheeple are passionate and can bleat loudly and proudly. But they are uncomplicated. Complication is involving and stressful and might require one to engage with “others”. Simple sells. Simple and passionate is the Team Colors mentality. Right and wrong. Lose and win. Us and them. “Ra ra! Dallas sucks!” They bleat. No, I have seen no behavioral differences between the herd in a sporting arena and that in the political one.
Personality over policy and job performance. That is the priority of the sheeple now. Rule: you cannot vote for someone you don’t like. Don’t hand the sheep a list of claimed achievements for his/her criticism or compliment. Not important. A dick is a dick. Case closed. Now let’s go vote. Baaaa.
Similarly, the label you wear is more important that the ideology. Let’s fawn over races and genders (the more the better). These are the basis of the sheeple vote, not the policies practiced, plans proposed and their possible/likely ramifications.
A popularity contest. The prom queen and king. Like shallow children. These are aware, thinking and discriminating adults? (Uh oh, I said “discriminating”.) Yeah, this is what we’ve become. Kind of scary.
A “NEW” YEAR
It is 3:39 a.m. on New Year’s Eve. I woke up around 2. This likely means that I won’t be conscious when the ball drops to hail in 2021. I wonder if anyone else will either, since any traditional celebration involving community gatherings are virtually outlawed. Well, maybe not “virtually”. You all can still have some banging Zoom parties if you want. Have fun with that. I’ve had just about enough of being encouraged to socialize via computer screens and typing. And that started long before covid-19.
What I find myself fixated on is this constant sentiment echoing everywhere along the lines of bidding good riddance to 2020 and welcoming 2021 with a hopeful embrace. This bleak and problematic condition people find themselves in is so readily ascribed to a calendar book with a number. Think the Covid-19 outbreak and a tsunami seemingly started by the George Floyd incident and throw in a few other things, many personal, if you want. Somehow if you wrap them all up in the spent calendar and discard your world will suddenly be disinfected. Huh.
Who knew there was so much power in the numeric delineations of Pope Gregory’s attempt to quantify the cyclical pattern of Earth’s revolution around the sun. This all takes the psychological self-delusion of the “New Year’s resolution” phenomenon to a steroidal extreme. Not to mention its similarity to the “generation” illusion which I’ve probably already babbled about exhaustively. Think timeline as a constant, unsegmented cause-and-effect flow. The numerically-designated years are not the re-shuffling and re-dealing of a new hand in a long poker game.
Yes, whatever you may have recognized as a negative in the world in 2020 doesn’t come to a screeching halt and evaporate at midnight tonight…
There will still be that little bug that kills people. There are many of them and there will be many more. In fact, there will be new strains of this same one.
There will still be an untrustworthy media, the players in which will align with their respective ideologies of choice and shape their biases accordingly.
There will still be confusion, disagreement and deception surrounding the negative or positive relationship of human activity to the environment, its level of severity, any potential ramifications, and the necessity for and speed of action.
There will be conflicts and ugly incidents and people with cameras attached to their hands eager to record and publicize them, with or without context.
There will be those no less sold on anarchy or socialism or the power of “cancelling” or self-righteous exclusivity who are reconciled to any means necessary for their greater good, including the setting aside of an ill-conceived legal structure.
There will still be roughly half the country who believes the election system is flawed and untrustworthy at best and the other half who will choose to discount any related allegations and any future consequences of such flaws because this time they got a desired result.
There will be people no less absorbed by their fancier and fancier and vital hand-computers which will sprint harder and faster toward offering an app for everything, sacrificing an awareness and understanding of the “real” environment and community for “virtual” ones which they will be more agreeable to declaring “real”.
There will still be people OK with hurting or putting down other people for their own gain or comfort. Maybe even a growing, not shrinking, number of these.
Pro sports will still be no more important than a therapeutic escape from personal trials and tribulations through the vicarious endeavors of our chosen protagonist(s) against adversity – whether the stadiums or full or empty. This goes for all other television and movies too.
You will still find people with whom you enjoy the time, interaction and exposure and others who…. well, not so much.
Your music will still be awesome and your alarm clock and neighbor’s constantly barking dog will still suck.
Many people will still not recognize true dialogue and argument nor the value of it while others will still struggle to present it and get them to listen.
There will be personal unexpected misfortunes, deaths, pains, losses and ailments we will each be forced to deal with. There always have been and there always will be regardless of what numbers are printed on the top of that booklet hung on your fridge or in your cubby which we call a calendar. If you must pretend that assigning some new number to the solar cycle is an effective medication for your perceived state, well, whatever makes you feel better.
So, Happy New Year! And every new day and new minute and new experience. Happy new attitude and new goal and new set of interests, whether these take shape at midnight tonight, 2 and a half months from now in the mid-afternoon, end of the summer some early morning, or whenever. May you take all the wonderful, valuable and horrible things in stride and when the end comes may you look back at the summation of it all and be glad that you were able to take this ride. Oh, and don’t forget to change your calendar.