CommenTerry

Time for a Change?

I've often heard people say that they like to make major changes in their lives just because it's "time for a change." In other words, they are willing to make major life changes just for the sake of change. While I respect their opinions and am not being critical of them, I find major changes in my life to be far too worrisome and/or expensive to be carried out just for the sake of change. In fact, I won't even rearrange my furniture unless I have a compelling reason like being able to gain more floor space. For me to make a significant change in my life, such as buying a new home or car or changing jobs, I would need to be backed into the corner and/or see the change as financially, medically, psychologically, or emotionally expedient.

I bought and moved into a new home in 2005 after owning my previous home for over 18 years. I wouldn't have done it then if it hadn't been for two factors that drove my decision. First, the neighborhood had significantly started to degrade and I no longer felt comfortable there. Second, the house was starting to need a lot of maintenance and, since I'm not a handyman, it was going to cost me a lot of money. In addition, my new house is 25% larger, has a garage, and therefore provides quite a bit more space for storage.  So, as much as I hate all the hassle of moving, I felt that the move was justified and finally made the decision to get on with it.

In addition, I'm 46 years old and have only owned five automobiles in my entire life. I would surmise that most people (especially men) my age have owned nearly twice that many. I want to hold on to them as long as I can because I dread the task of buying a car. I will only exchange cars when the one I have has gotten to the point where it's costing more to maintain it than what it's worth.

My Own Version of "Man Rules"

We are all familiar with the jokes on TV about "man rules" -- those lists of unwritten rules than men supposedly live by. However, I have personally never bought into most of the items on those lists. But I did have a list of my own that I actually started building when I was a preschooler and lived by for many years. As I got older, I started to recognize them for what they were -- silly -- and left them behind. Anyway, here's my now-defunct list:

1) Never let anyone think they convinced you of something or helped change your mind in any way.

2) Never let anyone see you struggle with anything. It's better not to try than to be seen struggling with anything.

3) Never accept any kind of help from a woman or girl.

4) Never act disappointed, no matter how disappointed you might actually be.

5) Never act as if you've been surprised or caught off guard -- no matter what happens, always act as if you knew all along that it was a definite possibility.

6) Avoid discussing any subject with someone who might happen to know more about it than you.

7) Never tell anyone about something you're planning to do unless you are 100% certain you will succeed. Generally, it's better to wait until after you've already succeeded before telling anyone you even attempted it.

8) Never compete against anyone for anything unless you know you're going to come out on top. If you're not sure, just cede it to them and act as if you didn't want it.

9) Never play any kind of game against anyone who might be able to show you up.

10) Never risk being wrong in public -- only answer questions in a public forum or gathering (e.g., a classroom) when you know you have the right answer.

11) Never risk any kind of rejection -- never ask for anything unless you already know the answer is going to be yes.

12) Avoid anyone who has ever witnessed an incident in which you were embarrassed or humiliated.

The Hassle of It All

I’m a creature of convenience. If you don’t want me to do a certain thing, just make it a little inconvenient and I won’t bother. I haven’t always been that way. It’s just how I’ve come to be over the years. The older I’ve gotten, the more trifling I’ve become. I think it has something to do with becoming more successful and making more money, and therefore losing some of my hunger to excel.

There are a lot of things I could do and should do, but won’t because they are just too much hassle. Many of them are things that I would gladly have done 20 years ago. For example, I really need to update my wardrobe. All the suits I wear to church on Sundays are at least ten years old, and none of them fit quite right anymore.

It’s not that I can’t afford to buy new ones; it’s just that I dread doing it. It takes time to do the search and be measured. Besides, when it comes to clothes, I’m always afraid I’m going to buy something that I don’t like and end up not wearing it more than once or twice. At least I know I will actually wear the old stuff.

At this point in my life, I don’t think it’s right that that I should have to be bothered with all the hassles that I had to deal with in my youth. I believe convenience is one of the rewards of having worked hard and reached my late 40’s. I know I enjoy it, perhaps a little too much so.

At any rate, the moral of the story is this: If there’s something you’d really like to accomplish in life, do it while you’re young and the fire is still in your belly. By the time you’ve reached middle age, it might be too much hassle.

Why I Would Never Join a Health Club

Even if I knew my life depended on it, I would never join a health club. I would just go ahead and die, rather than suffer such humiliation. There’s no way I would exercise in front of other people, as most of them are probably better at it and might be judgmental of me. And, somehow, I don’t think that my own private exercise room would be included in a health club membership. If there is indeed a health club that would offer such a luxury, I doubt that I could afford the rates anyway.

Some TV commercials that a popular chain of health clubs is currently running give me the creeps. They all begin with a person explaining why he or she joined that particular health club. No real problem there, but it’s the ending that bothers me. The person in question is then shown jumping onto some kind of exercise apparatus and then using it during the last few seconds of those ads. How can they let themselves be seen doing that on national TV? I wouldn’t be willing to do that any more than I would allow TV cameras into my bathroom while I’m taking a shower.

I addition, I suspect that many of those who frequent health clubs are semi-professional exercisers – people who have avidly and enthusiastically been exercising for most of their lives. I would look too much like a Johnny-come-lately to the practice or perhaps someone who is just following after the latest trend. I do not follow the crowd, even when I know they are doing something that would be good for me. And I can’t have anyone thinking I take my cue from others or ever allow them to convince me of anything.

Aggressors Should Assume All Risk

When someone engages in aggressive behavior, he or she should assume all the risk. There ought to be a concept in the law to this effect. It is my opinion that, before someone commits an act of aggression, it should be incumbent upon him or her to predict all the possible negative fallout that might result from that action. This should be weighed in his or her mind before deciding to proceed with the aggressive act. 

Therefore, even if the victim reacts in manner inconsistent with that of a reasonable person – including the use of unnecessary force, it shouldn’t matter. The entire blame should still fall on the person who starts any physical confrontation.

For instance, if a person who is assaulted reacts by shooting the aggressor, too bad. Before attacking someone, one should realize that this is a chance that he or she is taking.

But what if, instead of grabbing a gun, knife, or other weapon, the victim has a temper tantrum which results in a fatal heart attack? In that case, the attacker should be charged with second degree murder, or at least voluntary manslaughter. He or she should have known this was a possibility. 

Holding aggressors’ feet to the fire by requiring them to assume all the risk for their behavior seems to me a reasonable first step toward a much needed zero tolerance policy for belligerence in our society.

Abstinence-Only Is Consistent with the Law

I’ve read a lot criticism lately about abstinence-only sex education for teens. Much of it is justified. It does indeed seem futile to focus only on abstinence when there’s no doubt that a certain number of teens are going to have sex anyway.

However, despite all of this, the abstinence only mentality is consistent with the laws in most states that set the age of consent at 18. The way I see it, if we are to say that is unlawful for anyone under 18 to have sex, then the abstinence-only approach should the exclusive way that sex education is taught to minors.

It seems funny to me that most of those who disparage abstinence-only sex education seem to be okay with laws that are consistent it. If they are going to argue against abstinence-only, then they should be consistent themselves and also be in favor of lowering the age of consent to the age where they believe kids should first start learning about safe sex. Otherwise, they should just shut up.

For example, if you are going to assert that it is inevitable that a sizeable number of 15-year-olds are going to experiment with sex, then why turn around and agree with laws that make it illegal for them to do so. How much sense does that make? And if you still think it should be illegal, then why teach someone how to break the law safely?

Bottom line, if you are going to oppose to abstinence-only education, then, while you’re at it, work to have the age of consent in your state lowered. If you agree with the age of consent being at 18, then either learn to like abstinence-only education or hold your peace. 

Gun Haters Should Be More Honest

If all the gun haters in the U.S. really thought guns were as bad as they seem to believe they are, then why don’t these people try to repeal the Second Amendment? Well, for one thing, they know that any proposed constitutional amendment that would seek to invalidate the Second Amendment would be dead on arrival.

Even with that being the case, they should still have the guts and the integrity to try. Those of us who oppose abortion and gay marriage have been trying for years to get them banned with amendments to the U.S. Constitution, even though we realize the chances of such amendments passing are slim at best.

Conversely, those who oppose gun rights have chosen to deny their true goal, while slowly but surely eroding the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and use guns. Someone should call their bluff and force them to make an up or down vote on the question of individual guns rights in America. Only then would everyone begin to see their true colors.

Avoiding the Downtown Distressway

One of the major traffic arteries leading in and out of the city of Richmond, Virginia is called the Downtown Expressway. However, I’ve always dubbed it the Downtown Distressway. That moniker is representative of the way I feel about downtown traffic in metropolitan areas of 200,000 or more. Even when I worked in downtown Richmond, I avoided major highways and interstates in favor of back roads to and from the city. But where I worked, obviously, the city traffic itself was unavoidable.

Of course, I preferred not working in the city at all. I only did it for a little more than two years and moved to a job in a more suburban setting as soon I was able to land one that I wanted. Yes, I could be making more money working in an urban office, but it’s not worth the trouble to me. All that traffic and congestion is just too much for my nerves. Everything just seems to move much faster than I can think! The higher salary would be offset by increased medical bills and a decreased ability to enjoy life.

Infrequent trips to the city are no problem for me, even in heavy traffic. However, I just don’t see how some people do it on a daily basis. 

So You Think I'm a Right-Winger?

I take exception to some people’s assumption that I’m a right-winger. I’ve certainly never stated such a thing. And I’m not, as some have accused me, trying to disguise my true sentiments, using the façade of libertarianism. Obviously, because I’m not a left-winger, some automatically assume that I’m a right-winger.

As I’ve discussed before, extremists are all the same. If one is not a left-winger, then he or she must be a right-winger (so say left-wingers). If one is not a right-winger, then he or she must be a left-winger (so say right-wingers).

Let me say this again, hopefully in a way that some people can perhaps understand it this time. I am conservative on most of the social issues (yes, I oppose abortion and gay marriage and I favor some limited government sponsorship of Christianity), but I’m libertarian on just about everything else. That makes me a right-winger? By whose logic?

Would a right winger:

• Oppose the Patriot Act?
• Oppose FISA?
• Oppose the war in Iraq?
• Oppose water-boarding?
• Oppose laws against any act that does not have a direct, specific, and clearly identifiable victim?
• Think the war on illegal drugs is a waste of time and money?
• Often side with the accused and oppose law enforcement officials?
• Believe censorship should be reserved only for cases in which not censoring would put someone at risk of death or serious injury?
• Believe in absolute privacy rights?
• Believe free speech should be completely unlimited?
• Oppose laws that ban sodomy, bestiality, consensual incest, and other aberrant sexual behavior?
• Believe the police should never have the right to search anyone’s home, car, or other private belongs except when that person is suspected of murder, rape, assault, armed robbery, grand theft, or fraud?
• Believe it should be illegal for police to lie to or deceive anyone?

Well, I’m here to tell you that all of the above are true of me (and they are just the less controversial aspects of my libertarian beliefs). And some people still want to insist that I’m a right-winger? Wow!

Why Don't You Just Spit on Me Instead?

I’d rather take a beating than have someone talk down to me. I’d even go as far as saying that having someone spit would be more desirable.  I just can’t stand it when someone tells me something I already know as if I don’t already know it. The kind of thing makes me look like an idiot and knocks my ego for a loop. And I don’t have much more tolerance for a similar slight – patronization.

When someone begins to treat me in a condescending manner, I will stop cooperating with them until they discontinue such behavior. Very often, I will resort to sarcasm as a means of turning the tables. I don’t do it to be mean or spiteful, but there’s just something about that kind of response that stops haughty behavior in its tracks. It seems to work on the same principle that asking lots of questions of an inquisitive person will short-circuit a session of nosy interrogation.