tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-84025945295865156052024-02-20T00:11:00.978-08:00Random Thoughtsda wizhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687879214413934840noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8402594529586515605.post-84181132640122169612013-08-20T15:12:00.000-07:002013-08-20T15:13:37.506-07:00<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">How Democracy works...NOT</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> Democracy, from Greek <i>demokratia</i> "popular government," from <i>demos</i> "common people." is a great idea and a wonderful ideal. Abraham Lincoln best described it as “government of the people, by the people, for the people.”<br /><br /> Unfortunately, for actual democracy to work there must be a “the people,” a homogenous group of common people with common interests. And they must be homogenous in social, political, financial and religious ideals. Democracy worked in ancient Athens because this was true - all voters were white males with common social, political and religious values. The principal problem, as the recent conditions in Egypt clearly illustrate, arises when ”the people” are not a homogenous lot. Under these circumstances a well-organized and cohesive minority can “steal” democracy away from the actual majority. A clear example of this is the AFL-CIO of the 50s in the U.S. By garnering a large majority of labor votes, candidates could be elected despite the fact that the other “common” people voted otherwise with their various ideals. The best example I know of was the U.S. presidential election of 1964. Lyndon Johnson and Barry Goldwater split the white vote roughly 50-50. However, Johnson’s appeal to black and Hispanic voters turned the election into one of the biggest routs in recent history with Johnson receiving approximately 60% of the “popular” vote.<br /><br /> Political strategists have known this fact for generations and every political campaign, at least since the 50s, has been aimed at getting certain reasobly large minorities to bloc vote - labor, women, African-Americans, Hispanics. Therefore, the ruling “majority” is not an actual majority at all, but rather a collection of special interests of organized minorities.<br /><br /> Nowhere has this fact been so blatantly clear as in Egypt, where an organized minority of around 24% of the population stole the Revolution and the supposed democratic election. Is it any wonder that the majority were mad at Morsi? There is no way that any country can achieve true democracy when so severely split on religious grounds. Only in countries where there is a fundamentalist Islamist majority can majority rule be achieved. Even so this “majority” must be of one particular sect for the majority to be effective. Failing this religious homogeneity I see very little hope for democracy in any country where radical Islam is a significant force. And it is not Islam that is the problem. It is a minority attempting to impose its will on an unorganized and diverse majority. <br /><br /> And please remember, this principle applies equally to any culture where there is substantial social, economic, political or religious apartheid.</span></div>
da wizhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687879214413934840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8402594529586515605.post-14134692715303014452012-01-28T18:50:00.000-08:002012-01-28T19:00:35.050-08:00Avoiding the VoidI have been watching a lot of David Attenborough specials on telly lately. The photography is stunning; the production values are superb. Attenborough seems to have a tendency to emphasize the brutality of nature (which is true) in such a way as to hammer home the point. It made me think...Is there really anything else to life besides eating, defecating, breeding, dying and the incessant whirling, spinning and flailing about we do to in order to avoid the ultimate emptiness of existence?<br /><br />I got an image the other day of life being a funnel filled with sugar. When we are born it is full and we begin to spoon more and more into the funnel as steadily it flows out the other end. Therefore, it continues to appear full, but should we pause, even for a moment, the hole at the bottom is exposed and no amount of shovelling can ever fill it again.da wizhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687879214413934840noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8402594529586515605.post-27140862319953658162011-03-14T15:50:00.000-07:002011-03-14T15:51:20.740-07:00Times they are a'changingListening to some Roy Orbison this morning and wondering how he would have done on <em>American Idol.</em>da wizhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687879214413934840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8402594529586515605.post-87566666965725085282011-02-26T15:29:00.001-08:002011-02-27T15:39:36.316-08:00<em><span style="font-size:130%;">Peace on Earth would be devastating to the world economy, particularly the US, UK, Germany, France and Russia. War is good for business...ask Lockheed-Martin, General Dynamics, EADS, and Uralvagonzavod, just to name a few.</span></em>da wizhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687879214413934840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8402594529586515605.post-75548067891153535552011-02-22T14:42:00.000-08:002011-02-22T20:28:52.915-08:00Confessions of a Spiritual RetardI seem to have been born missing the <em>belief</em> gene. I do not seem to have the capacity to <em>believe</em> in anything that does not present at least some evidence to my experience. And even if I do<em> believe, </em>I am conscious of the fact that it is merely a theory, an hypothesis, a possibility, but not a fact. Even the religion of science presents theories or <em>beliefs,</em> but these beliefs then seem to be accepted as <strong>fact</strong>. Take the Big Bang Theory for example. It is only a theory, but most scientists believe it and have closed their minds to any other possibility. Therefore, it is a fact...not!<br /><br />When I was a teenager my youngest sister (age 2-3) believed in two imaginary friends, Goon and Charlie, who lived in the storm sewer. For the life of me I could never make contact with these friends, which I considered a personal failing. Eventually though she forgot about them as she grew up. I suppose Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny were the next imaginary characters to occupy her imagination. They too fell away in time.<br /><br />It seems, however, that around the world supposed grown-ups believe in a variety of imaginary friends of the most preposterous kind. Many have an imaginary friend who tells them what to eat and what not to eat as well as what to wear, particularly on their heads. And this imaginary friend apparently gets very angry if his rules are violated. To hear them talk about it this imaginary friend is a very vindictive and arbitrary despot. Why would one want such a friend? This friend seems to pick which children to kill and where to inflict all sorts of disasters like floods and earthquakes. And it is quite clear that this friend doesn't like women so well in most cases. This friend's one redeeming grace seems to be its interest in sports. The competitor who has the greatest influence with this friend seems to win the sports contests.<br /><br />And, once more, for the life of me, I can find no evidence whatsoever in my own experience that would even vaguely point to the existence of such an imaginary friend, just as I could find no evidence of Goon and Charlie. However, at least Goon and Charlie were much friendlier and more fun than this other imaginary friend.da wizhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687879214413934840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8402594529586515605.post-37998907693032447132011-02-11T23:26:00.000-08:002011-02-11T23:28:35.361-08:00FundamentalismI am watching a History Channel program on the medieval mind and it strikes me how much 21st century Islamist fundamentalism shares the idiotic, thoughtless ideas about women, sex and God, that were prevalent in 12th century medieval Christianity.da wizhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687879214413934840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8402594529586515605.post-67403220159984022412011-02-10T14:53:00.000-08:002011-02-10T14:54:48.983-08:00Egypt<strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">The arrogance of youth meets the arrogance of power.</span></em></strong>da wizhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687879214413934840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8402594529586515605.post-66670178774704477422011-02-10T12:04:00.000-08:002012-12-21T17:05:48.997-08:00Requisites for Worldly SuccessI have spent much of my adult life studying the qualities required for worldly success, whether it be political, financial, or otherwise. Here are the qualities that I find extremely common among so-called highly successful people:<br />
<br />
1. MOTIVATION<br />
<br />
It seems all too obvious that one must be motivated to be successful. However, do we ever ask what it is that provides fundamental motivation or the desire to move? The answer is clearly unhappiness and insecurity. Simple! A happy, secure person is not motivated; has no need to move. So, a deep unhappiness and insecurity bordering on, if not full blown, neurosis is the fundamental requirement for worldly success.<br />
<br />
2. DETERMINATION - SINGLE-MINDEDNESS<br />
<br />
I don't think that many would argue against the observation that the vast majority of the world's population meets the first criterion. What else then is required? Is it not a certain energy, drive, determination, focus, single-mindedness? Do not we speak of "the drive for success?" Do we not find that many high achievers seem profoundly <i>driven?</i> And what else is this other than obsession and compulsion? Serious and deep obsession-compulsion at least bordering on psychosis.<br />
<br />
3. RUTHLESSNESS<br />
<br />
Here we separate the wannabees and pretenders from the high achievers. For top level success there must be a certain disregard even disdain for anything which would impede the success drive, such as rules, regulations, morals, ethics, other people.<br />
<br />
4. COMPETITIVENESS<br />
<br />
It is obvious that for someone to be successful he/she must be extremely competitive. In the most successful, they see everything in terms of winning and losing.<br />
<br />
5. AGGRESSION<br />
<br />
The desire to take the initiative and to dominate is also required for competitive success.<br />
<br />
6. MANIPULATION<br />
<br />
Strategic thinking aimed at maximizing personal advantage is another necessity.<br />
<br />
<br />
So, the ideal candidate for worldly success is a seriously neurotic, obsessive-compulsive, mild-to-moderately psychotic sociopath. While there are certainly a few exceptions, this is without doubt in my mind, the most common path to "success." Is it any wonder, then, that the world is in strife? With this profile for our leaders and cultural icons how could there be any possibility of peace and tranquility in the world?da wizhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687879214413934840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8402594529586515605.post-36025198518614048132010-11-29T19:58:00.000-08:002010-11-29T20:03:20.511-08:00The Music Business is in Really Sad ShapeI must admit that I am not the first to follow trends (gee...what would have been your first clue?), but I can now see what sorry shape the music industry is in. I just had my first experience of Taylor Swift...HOW BLOODY PATHETIC! A skinny, ordinary looking teenager with a thin, nasal voice who can't carry a tune. Unbelievable!<br /><br />It certainly points to the power of marketing. Perhaps the marketeers could make me the new sex symbol. Yeah, right!da wizhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687879214413934840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8402594529586515605.post-3392041828639360962010-11-18T19:13:00.000-08:002010-11-18T19:34:58.546-08:00Economic NormalityThis morning Dr. Alan Bollard, the Governor of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand was addressing a conference of business executives on the state of the economy. About the recent past he commented, "...we learnt that recovery to economic normality can be a slow, fragile and uncertain process, with temporary set-backs and aftershocks."<br /><br />Throughout the world economic forecasters and politicians are anticipating and jaw-boning a return to "business as usual." <em>THERE WILL BE NO RETURN TO THE ECONOMIC NORMALITY OF THE PAST!</em> <em><strong>NEVER!</strong></em> There will intead be the development of a rather radically different new normality, with reduced growth rates, no real estate boom and significant shifting of economic power. John Maynard Keynes is long since dead, god rest his soul. The growth-at-any-cost policies engendered by his theories have brought us to where we are today. The ride up was good for quite a few, but the law of economic gravity...<br /><br /><em>What goes up can (and probably will) come down."</em><br /><em></em><br />has come into effect. I commented in 2000 that we would have a major economic crash before George W. Bush left office. I described the US economy as a bit like the coyote in the Roadrunner cartoons. In an attempt to catch the roadrunner, coyote runs out off a cliff. He keeps going until he looks down and then.... Yep, you got it. In 2007 someone looked down and we haven't seen the bottom yet.<br /><em></em><br />Almost 50 years ago I tried to introduce the concept of two kinds of wealth - real wealth and paper or fiat wealth. Real wealth is where the activity adds real value to the economy - mining, manufacturing, and agriculture. Fiat wealth is derived from services like accounting and legal as well as the speculative profits of money marketeers. The entire financial system has become a gigantic slot machine with a major exception - the biggest players can alter the odds, just like at the horse races with, however, the opposite effect - they can alter them in their favour. In the long run fiat wealth can only exist on top of a foundation of real wealth. In the last 50 years the USA and western Europe have allowed their real wealth to atrophy and decline so that fiat wealth is all that remains. The result of that has been observed over the past 3 years. Amazing how fast fiat wealth disappears. The ongoing effects are yet to be seen and it won't be pretty!da wizhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687879214413934840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8402594529586515605.post-13229232052626234902010-10-08T13:12:00.000-07:002010-10-08T13:14:01.749-07:00<em><span style="font-size:130%;">"Motivation is a combination of neurosis and obsession."</span></em>da wizhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687879214413934840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8402594529586515605.post-18924439482627704652010-09-16T14:40:00.000-07:002010-09-16T14:45:36.198-07:00The Fundamental Cause of Global WarmingIF (and I say this with consideration) in fact there is global warming and IF it is caused by human activities, then it is absolutely clear that the fundamental cause is...<br /><br />TOO MANY GLOBAL WARMERS!<br /><br />and nothing, absolutely nothing, that is done will make even the slightest dent without a significant reduction in both world population AND the amount of consumption per capita. All the machininations and hoop-jumping currently in process or being proposed have NO possibility of being effective in the face of an absolute tsunami of growing world consumption.da wizhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687879214413934840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8402594529586515605.post-33464281123230219102010-07-06T20:58:00.000-07:002010-07-06T20:59:41.270-07:00<span style="font-size:130%;"><em>"Entitlement is arrogance, the opposite of gratitude."</em></span>da wizhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687879214413934840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8402594529586515605.post-88567829717354841652010-06-07T16:07:00.000-07:002010-07-06T21:20:49.068-07:00ADD is normalAttention Deficit Disorder is absolutely endemic in the human population. Virtually no one seems to have the capacity to attend (that is what attention means) to any single thought for longer than about 3/5 of a second. And if one observes carefully it is apparent that the cause of the vast majority of "accidents" is split attention.<br /><br />There is no such thing as multi-tasking, but rather rapid, sequential, partial single tasking. The attempt to multi-task results in attention first here then there then elsewhere and back to here, etc. While attention is elsewhere habit can function effectively in the interim provided the habit is strong enough. When the habit is not firmly established for the situation there is always the possibility of a lapse. In that lapse is where "accidents" happen - in the thoughtless void provided by lack of attention.<br /><br />This is particularly true because the typical human tendency is to act <em>before</em> thinking based on habit and reaction. And if the habit is underdeveloped, the reaction will be at best ineffective, at worst dangerous. As children we were taught to STOP - LOOK - LISTEN before crossing the street. It seems that this is a habit that would be valuable to develop in every action - to live deliberately and thoughtfully as opposed to reactively and habitually.<br /><br />Mind training, not drugs, is the only solution to ADD.da wizhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687879214413934840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8402594529586515605.post-86223924539660195662010-06-03T21:38:00.000-07:002011-02-21T13:32:25.664-08:00We must get rid of God!The single biggest source of conflict in the world today is God. Throughout history more people have been killed in the name of God than in all other wars put together. Perhaps if we get rid of God we would have less to fight about...NOT!<br /><br /><br />Before you jump to conclusions, I am NOT an atheist. I don't believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and I don't believe in the same God they don't believe in, but there is a major difference: the true atheist is certain there is no God. I am not so sure and I do not know how they arrive at such certainty. Voltaire once said, <em>"If God created us in his own image, we have more than reciprocated."</em> Rousseau also is quoted as saying, <em>“God created man in his own image. And man, being a gentleman, returned the favor.” </em>It is this man-created, geopolitical god that is the troublesome one. As far back as written history goes, and likely before, the ancients believed in a god that would give them an advantage over their enemies and look after their crops. Each city-state of the ancient Middle East had its own god and the most powerful city-state must then have the most powerful god. When the ancient Israelites brought the concept of one god, the people from Egypt in trying to envisage and conceptualize this god, only had the image of <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">Pharaoh to go by. Therefore the Judeo-Christian concept of God is Pharaoh elevated to a cloud. This is the god worshipped by the vast majority of so-called Christians today. The deeply ingrained habit of thinking of God as someone to slay one's enemies and protect one's crops continues to this day.</span><br /><br /><br /><span class="blsp-spelling-corrected">Perhaps most atheists are not truly atheists at all but anti-religionists. This I could share. Karl Marx observed that <em>"religion is the opiate of the masses."</em> Religion offers a mythical certainty in a life filled with uncertainty...BUT is it real? Or is it merely a mind-numbing analgesic for the pain and uncertainty of this life?</span>da wizhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687879214413934840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8402594529586515605.post-32771879815613939702010-04-26T14:37:00.000-07:002010-04-26T16:46:30.721-07:00Democracy is not for Stone Age peopleI would venture a guess that around 80-90% of the world's population is less than 200 years out of the Stone Age, culturally speaking. Whether we are talking about the native peoples of Asia, Africa, South America, Australia or New Zealand, the culture has been operating on a strictly tribal basis until very, very recently with no interface whatsoever with any other form of government or social organization. There has existed no concept of nation, race or anything larger than the village/tribe. To attempt to externally impose the structure of Western European democracy on these people is folly at best and a serious crime at worst.<br /><br />The entire concept of democracy grew from a relatively educated and urban culture which had outgrown the complex form of tribalism called monarchy. Monarchy is the first step beyond the attempt to organize a geographically contiguous society in order to extend the rule of the "chief" over several closely located villages/tribes. Ultimately monarchy grew even further in terms of geographical rule and that extension led ultimately to its undoing as a viable form of government. Monarchy requires a certain social cohesion and shared values absent when extended beyond a local sphere. When that geographic and social cohesion is present monarchy is a very acceptable form of government. Take Bhutan for example. Although now a constitutional monarchy, the people prefer the king to elected officials and really don't want or care much about democracy.<br /><br />Democracy, externally imposed on this type of society, is doomed to failure and will only result in the chief finding a way (corrupt or not) to be elected and to continue his reign. The entire concept of democracy is foreign to these people. Their culture will need a very long time to evolve to a point where real democracy is meaningful. At that point it will be born from within not without. Just as communism was a total failure in backward agrarian societies, so is so-called democracy.<br /><br />It is the nastiest of arrogance for Westerners to think that they have any right or calling to impose Western values and institutions on these people. Or that they can make acceptable imitations of white Westerners from people so recently removed (often abruptly and violently) from Stone Age culture.da wizhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687879214413934840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8402594529586515605.post-15632318980423048882010-04-26T14:36:00.000-07:002010-04-26T14:37:10.609-07:00TrivialityThe further one progresses away from the activity of pure survival, the more trivial his life and concerns become.da wizhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687879214413934840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8402594529586515605.post-14336833147863138452010-04-25T14:45:00.000-07:002010-04-25T17:57:33.679-07:00Global Warming and SustainabilityWithout getting into the argument about the correlation between human-caused CO<sub>2</sub> emissions and global warming (a theory that is at best questionable), I would like to take a look at the elephant in the room. The fundamental causes of human pollution which threaten life on this planet are two deeply interrelated factors - population and consumption (a.k.a. "standard of living"). As long as we persist in promoting population and economic growth, all other measures attempting to engender ecological sustainability are band aids on a virulent, malignant cancer. The only way to prolong sustainabilty for human life is to reduce both population and consumption ("standard of living") significantly - say 30% or more within the next 20 years. Short of this I fear that the trend toward self-destruction may be irreversible. There is no way to continue to encourage economic growth (growth in consumption) while reducing pollution. This is particularly true in so-called developing nations wherein economic growth ("prosperity") will concurrently result in further increases in population. Who or what is going to interrupt this self-destructive cycle?<br /><br />As it currently stands there is no solution for this problem of growth versus sustainability. Sooner or later we must see that they are diametrically opposed goals. One denies the other. Only one is possible. Somehow we must break the seeming cast iron bond between GDP and quality of life. Haven't we learned that these two are nowhere near correlated? Perhaps we need to adopt the Bhutanese standard of Gross National Happiness, which requires little of Twenty First Century madness.da wizhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687879214413934840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8402594529586515605.post-22324851570518931202010-03-17T13:24:00.000-07:002010-03-19T14:18:13.045-07:00Science is just another religionIt seems these days that everywhere I turn there is another "scientist" denigrating religion. For the most part I agree with them. I also agree with Karl Marx who said, "Religion is the opium of the masses.” and also noted, "Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand.” What the "scientist" refuses to see is that so-called science fits both of Marx's criteria. Modern science differs from what is specifically called religion in only two ways: (1) Science does demonstrate a certain practical accuracy. It is capable of measuring and predicting a wide range of physical phenomena and applying that knowledge to practical, demonstrable functions within the mundane world. (2) On the face of it, that science which is known to most seems to be rational and logical. Most of so-called scientific principles seem plausible. However, plausible is not the same as true. Religion, on the other hand, relies on faith, belief and mythology which in virtually every case cannot be substantiated. It merely attributes anything it cannot understand to "the work of God."<br /><br />Both of these seeming opposites nevertheless fail to answer the most basic of eternal human questions - "Who am I?" and "What am I doing here?" or even more basic "Why?"<br /><br />While science seems to adequately explain and even predict some of the details of mundane phenomena, it begins to collapse at the fundamental questions. For example, the Big Bang <em>THEORY</em>, wherein science can tell us what happened just a micro instant after the theoretical Big Bang, cannot with certainty say what happened EXACTLY at the moment or before it or what caused it. And, within the believers in the Religion of Science, there have been those who have discovered all sorts of unexplained phenomena which do not fit commonly accepted scientific principles. One of these which is quite stunning to me is the question of whether light is a particle or a wave. The double slit experiment has demonstrated that light appears as either a particle or a wave depending on <em>how the experiment is set up. </em>In fact most of quantum physics challenges the "certainties" to which the believers in Science so strongly cling.<br /><br />And we all know that, for most of human history, scientists asserted that the earth was flat. Has 21st century science suddenly arrived at the final, ultimate truth when all those that went before are now discredited? Is it not possible that we have merely come to a more plausible explanation with a greater degree of justification? But who is to say that there is nothing more to learn?<br /><br />During my lifetime so-called science has changed its assertion on the age of the earth from a few million to several billion years. Science it seems is ever changing. So, how can we ever be sure that we have found the Truth?<br /><br /><p>Medical "science" provides the strongest example of historical self-contradiction. Blood sucking leeches were once thought to be a medical cure. How can we be sure that the currently fashionable "cure" is any more effective? And how does science explain the placebo effect which occurs in most drug trials? Most of modern scientific research is aimed at finding viable commercial products and services. There is precious little research for the sake of knowledge alone.</p><p>Science addresses the <em>HOW, </em>but does not address the <em>WHY.</em> Who is going to answer the<em> WHY?</em></p>So, what is the necessity to believe in any of these religions, plausible or not? Is it not our unwillingness to admit that we DO NOT KNOW, that we live in an ocean of cosmic uncertainty? Do we not prefer a false certainty to actual uncertainty?da wizhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687879214413934840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8402594529586515605.post-6066001151426325422010-02-05T12:28:00.000-08:002010-02-05T12:39:29.124-08:00Economic InstabilityOne wonders if anyone else is aware that major international financial speculators have a vested interest in keeping the world economy unstable. The investment banks and hedge funds make money equally in a falling or rising market. The only condition under which they do not make money is when there is NO CHANGE. It may even be possible that the recent major recession was in fact consciously engineered and precipitated by some of them. They knew that markets could not go up forever and decided that it was time to bring them down a bit. Those on the inside (e.g., Goldman Sachs) have done well. Some who were not passed away, making the share of the pie larger for those who survived. If you noticed, some of these financial institutions have made unbelievable profits almost immediately as a result.da wizhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687879214413934840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8402594529586515605.post-79499628949999343272009-08-06T14:51:00.000-07:002009-08-06T15:00:31.837-07:00ExpectationsJust wondering if much of the current social malaise is due to expectations being set way too high. Few of us are destined to be rich and/or famous and ... this may be a good thing. Is being rich and famous all that it seems to be on the E! channel? Most of us wind up in mediocre, boring jobs with mediocre, boring partners and 2 or 3 mediocre, boring kids. We struggle just to break even and in the end feel like failures. And isn't that why we seem to be so pissed off? But, in reality, isn't this the destiny for most of us? Don't a far greater number wind up with little or nothing to show for our lives than those who make headlines and/or a fortune? Not very many win Life's Lottery.<br /><br />Perhaps it is the expectations that are wrong. Perhaps our entire system of values needs a serious re-examination. What is really important after all?<br /><br /><em>"The happy man wants what he has."</em>da wizhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687879214413934840noreply@blogger.com2