A REAL Wellness Take on Weinergate

A surprising consensus has developed among the nation's media about the most important question of our time. It is not what I would have guessed. It is not how to control the spread of nuclear weapons, create jobs, grow the economy, lower the deficit or boost prospects for better life, improve health or facilitate greater happiness. Rather, it is whether Anthony Weiner should resign from Congress for sleazy acts, lies and dorkiness.

Which raises another question: Is there a REAL wellness take on this matter?

Yes, there is and what's more, I'm willing to express it. Here. Now.

First, about a wellness take. A wellness take or interpretation consistent with such a mindset is a point of view that is informed and based on common decencies, and consistent with the public interest. It is never based on religious dogma or any form of superstition. "God would approve" is not a sensible basis for supporting or opposing a person, a policy, an action or anything else. We cannot know if there is a god (though we can recognize that there is no evidence for one) or what such an incomprehensible entity would favors or oppose if it did exist.

Stephen Hawking was recently asked, "How should we live to fulfill our potential on Earth and make good use of our lives?" He replied, "We should seek the greatest value of our action." (Source: The Guardian, Stephen Hawking: "There Is No Heaven - It's A Fairy Tale," May 15, 2011.)

That works for me - while generously broad, it is consistent with the criteria for a wellness that I just sketched.

So then, what about Weiner. What action in the matter of Weinergate will give the American people the greatest value? Specifically, his resignation - or not?

Well, it depends, really. It depends on whether one interprets value from a moderate to progressive point of view, or a Right Wing Republican Christian (RWRC) point of view. These are the two Americas that we have today - there is little question but that what is seen as greatest value is totally different, one side from the other. By comparison, the divide in 1860 between the northern and southern states was less wide and deep. Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln were more cordial to each other than are such leading RWRC characters as Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachman or Mike Huckabee toward Barack Obama.

Sex scandal of all kinds has prurient appeal for sexually repressed Americans. The RWRC wants Weiner's head, that is, his resignation from Congress, for multiple reasons. Among them are because he sent suggestive racy messages and photos of his manhood to multiple women online, because he lied repeatedly about his actions, because he brought dishonor on the House of Representatives and because it would be cool if they could elect a Republican in his place. 

Sending the photos was lame and dorky and unbelievably stupid. It seems 100 percent impossible that a famous person, a politician with countless enemies, could not understand that he would get caught and be disgraced. Since he's clearly not stupid, he must be crazy in some sense of the term. Not dangerously crazy but frustrated sexually.

It was lame to do what he did and simply awful, no - dreadful, to lie about it consistently and inartfully as he did. But, consider that an adult probably has a right to send photos and racy messages to other consenting adults - at least in America, so far. You can't do it in Iran, Saudi Arabia or most other countries. But, we still have freedoms, including many most of us do not care to exercise. What Weiner did might still be among them, even if he is a public figure.

At least he is not a family values hypocrite. He did not get elected as a moral scold and he has not advised others how they should or should refrain from expressing their own sexuality. He has not broken any laws, the public trust was not compromised and no evidence has been offered that his weird behavior kept him from doing his job.

Weiner is guilty of awful judgement, not following conventional social mores and lying. Not so good, but not fatal. He should keep his job.

That's my wellness take on the matter. What do you think about the idea of a wellness take on anything and/or my wellness take Weinergate in particular?

Donald B. Ardell is the Well Infidel...

Ruminations about Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. and Rules For Old Men Waiting to Die

Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. died at age 84 on April 11, 2007. His many books employed satire, gallows humor and science fiction to blend amazing tales populated by fascinating characters. His themes were politics, sex and religion. He was a well infidel of distinction, an outspoken freethinker recognized by the American Humanist Association as its honorary president for life.

I read all the Vonnegut books over the years, as did a lot of other college students and millions of others. His stories and particularly the interviews he gave to Playboy and other magazines fueled my skepticism while raising existential issues in entertaining ways. My favorite Vonnegut books were "God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater" (1965), "Slaughterhouse-Five" (1969) and "Cat's Cradle" (1963). Vonnegut was our Mark Twain. I'm surprised he lived as long as he did. He had a high-risk lifestyle (including a life-long chain smoking habit) and a poor family history (suicide). He also faced some horrific hazards as a WW II soldier at the Battle of the Bulge, including time as a prisoner of war in Dresden during the infamous firebombing allied war crime. But, I'm glad he lived so long and produced so much. Now he's gone. So it goes. Vonnegut is missed but fondly remembered.

All my Vonnegut paperback novels are liberally marked in magic marker colors. I found countless passages meaningful, insightful, humorous, profound, delightful or otherwise worth memorizing or revisiting time and again. One such favorite, spoken by the character Rosewater in "God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater," offers babies welcoming advice: "Hello, babies. Welcome to Earth. It's hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It's round and wet and crowded. At the outside, babies, you've got about a hundred years here. There's only one rule that I know of, babies - 'God damn it, you've got to be kind.'"

I thought of Vonnegut when I read Peter Pouncey's novel "Rules for Old Men Waiting." The protagonist, Robert MacIver, is an 80-year-old retired Colombia University history professor/ He is on his last legs, living in an isolated cabin itself on its last legs. (Note: Pouncey himself an aging retired professor, of English.)

In the story, Winter has set in. Old MacIver is failing. An illness lingers and worsens. He knows he is doomed. He is not taking good care of himself (i.e., misses meals, the place is a mess, he does not bathe enough, sleep is fitful and so on). Yet, he is determined to complete a story he created about an incident set in World War I. This novel within a novel about MacIver is very Vonnegut-like. To promote his chances of living long enough to finish his tale, MacIver decides he's better write down and follow a few rules. MacIver believes, "if you are going to go under, it should not be from the weight of self-pity alone." 

He resolves, among other things, to:

1. Keep himself clean.
2. Make the bed every day and clean up the house.
3. Dress properly.
4. Eat regularly and wisely.
5. Play music and read.
6. Limit television viewing.
7. Value order and resolve.
8. Work in the morning, nap in the afternoon. 
9. Retain the beautiful and useful.
10. Finish the story he was writing to the end.

Not everyone nearing the end will, like Peter Pouncey's protagonist, Robert MacIver, be living alone in a crumbling home in Winter woods, working on a novel. Yet, most who read Pouncey's compelling tale will, I think, gain from MacIver something else, something Vonnegut would enjoy: An appreciation for a few good rules that enable one to remain alert and be happy as long as possible. This is a theme Vonnegut sounded did in his books, lectures, interviews, plays and columns on politics, sex and religion. 

Just as Pouncey's MacIver will remind you of Vonnegut, Vonnegut always reminded me to be kind, to be skeptical, to not take things including myself too seriously and to look on the bright side of life. Oh, and one more thing: Make up a few cool rules.  

Donald B. Ardell is the Well Infidel...

Should You Be A Patriot? It Depends.

Patriot is a word much abused in today's America. The simplest definition of patriot is one who vigorously supports his country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors. Yet, many who wave the flag, associate the nation with a superstition (one nation, under God), support every war, approve laws dubious at best if not unconstitutional (e.g., The Patriot Act) render patriotism unattractive. Today, many would say, If that's patriotism, count me out.

What is patriotic often changes with conditions - and the nature of the population. Today, we consider George Washington, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, James Madison, Thomas Payne, John Hancock and all the founders patriots. However, in 1775, loyalists in the colonies thought them conspirators, traitors and/or seditionists. As far as the government was concerned (i.e., the one in England of which they were citizens), they most definitely were not considered patriots. How times and perceptions can change.

So, are you a patriot? Do you want to be a patriot?

Personally, I think the appropriate answer to the question (s) depends. We might choose to be patriots about some things, not so much about others. Some facts about America and its policies, traditions, actions and representations we support vigorously and would defend against enemies or detractors. However, sometimes those enemies and detractors (i.e., critics) are the very same folks who in time might be judged the true patriots. As noted, it depends.

There are some things about this country that many of today's flag-waving, USA USA, We're # 1 patriots don't want to learn, think about or acknowledge. Many Americans, perhaps a majority, know little about some extraordinary realities of the nation's history. I'll give you one example. The example I have in mind reflects a fact about one entire section of the country, the Southern states. I believe the situation, what it reflects and how it is viewed today shows that there is profound ignorance about the evil nature of a good proportion of the American people who lived at that time.

In 1848, the United States had just won a war with Mexico War that gave it lots of new territory, soon to be states. The president, Zachary Taylor, was from Louisiana and owned slaves. The great question was whether the new states would be slave or free. Imagine that - what a choice. What kind of people would enslave others? Well, the answer obviously, is the people of the south at the time. Its leaders in the Congress and the Southern States wanted a new tier of slave states. Oddly, Taylor himself was against more slave states. Sentiment in the North, while not enthusiastic against slavery in the south where it had a firm hold, also opposed more of it elsewhere. Compromises were made by 1850, brokered in good part with the aide of a southern Senator Henry Clay and Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois - with the support of the new president, Millard Fillmore. In this bargain with the devil if there ever were such a creature (not), the South got a fugitive slave law. A more villainous, heinous, despicable betrayal of the Founder's hopes for the nation surely never came to light before this time. The Fugitive Slave Law required the federal government to arrest and return any slaves who made it to the north seeking freedom from oppression in the south. Returning slaves was the patriotic thing to do.

The good news is that this law would eventually create the very conditions that convinced previously neutral whites to oppose slavery. It also contributed to secession and the Civil War, a war that, at least theoretically and legally, would liberate the slaves. (Of course, things did not turn out so well for at least a century after the Emancipation Proclamation but that's another story.)

Today, patriots in the south honor those who fought for slavery. There are parades in their honor. Statues line a main avenue in Richmond. Robert E. Lee, who turned against his country to lead a rebellion, is judged a hero by most people throughout the present souther states. It's mind-boggling and infamous.

Who better to put the nature of the southern (white) people then and their apologists today in perspective than Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899), who fought valiantly as a Colonel in the Army of the Republic. In his Decoration Day Oration in 1882, he said:

... in the South, the negro toiled unpaid, and mothers wept while babes were sold, and at the auction-block husbands and wives speechlessly looked the last good-bye. Fugitives, lighted by the Northern Star, sought liberty on English soil, and were, by Northern men, thrust back to whip and chain. The great statesmen, the successful politicians, announced that law had compromised with crime, that justice had been bribed, and that time had barred appeal. A race was left without a right, without a hope. The future had no dawn, no star -- nothing but ignorance and fear, nothing but work and want. This was the conclusion of the statesmen, the philosophy of the politicians -- of constitutional expounders: -- this was decided by courts and ratified by the Nation...Ours appeared to be the most prosperous of Nations. But it was only appearance. The statesmen and the politicians were deceived. Real victories can be won only for the Right; The triumph of justice is the only Peace. Such is the nature of things. He who enslaves another cannot be free. He who attacks the right, assaults himself. The mistake our fathers made had not been corrected. The foundations of the Republic were insecure. The great dome of the temple was clad in the light of prosperity, but the corner-stones were crumbling. Four millions of human beings were enslaved. Party cries had been mistaken for principles -- partisanship for patriotism -- success for justice.

But Pity pointed to the scarred and bleeding backs of slaves; Mercy heard the sobs of mothers raft of babes, and justice held aloft the scales, in which one drop of blood shed by a master's lash, outweighed a Nation's gold. There were a few men, a few women, who had the courage to attack this monstrous crime. They found it entrenched in constitutions, statutes, and decisions -- barricaded and bastioned by every department and by every party. Politicians were its servants, statesmen its attorneys, judges its menials, presidents its puppets, and upon its cruel altar had been sacrificed our country's honor. It was the crime of the Nation -- of the whole country -- North and South responsible alike.

But Pity pointed to the scarred and bleeding backs of slaves; Mercy heard the sobs of mothers raft of babes, and justice held aloft the scales, in which one drop of blood shed by a master's lash, outweighed a Nation's gold. There were a few men, a few women, who had the courage to attack this monstrous crime. They found it entrenched in constitutions, statutes, and decisions -- barricaded and bastioned by every department and by every party. Politicians were its servants, statesmen its attorneys, judges its menials, presidents its puppets, and upon its cruel altar had been sacrificed our country's honor. It was the crime of the Nation -- of the whole country -- North and South responsible alike.

What kind of a patriot today honors the infamy of that Southern cause? The parades, the statues, the defense of those people and their leaders is grotesque.

Patriotism depends - it depends on human decency, on values of kindness, respect, help for others in need, love and the verities of equality, equal opportunity and a fair regard for everyone's right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. There were a few patriots in the south of that time, no doubt, as there are in the south today. But the history of the Confederacy is a history of shame and treachery, cruelty and dishonor that deserves nothing but our disgust and rejection.

Let's be very, very careful about the things we associate with patriotism. If our better natures prevail in the future, our heirs may not be so impressed. And let us also be quite clear about the worthiness of causes we associate with patriotism.

These considerations are some of the things that patriotism depends on.

Days Before the World Ends on May 21st, It’s a Good Time to Consider Reason, Rationality and Science

Never try to discourage thinking, for you are sure to succeed. Bertrand Russell, What I Believe, 1925  

In addition to knowing how to make money for Berkshire-Hathaway (BH) and a lot of BH investors over decades of consistent above-average returns, Warren Buffett is a bit of an expert on rationality. He often extols critical thinking as a prerequisite for sound investment and sensible decision-making in all areas - no exceptions. One of his themes in annual BH reports is that rational people do not get in their own way. He often says, Not getting in your own way - that's the key to success.

There are no mysteries about how we get in our own way, nor about how we can learn to stay out of it. Most do things that hurt their prospects for regularly occurring experiences of exuberance in many forms, along with sustaining good health. Think of people you know who do what they know are harmful and self-destructive - smoking, drinking too much, exercising too little and engaging in other high-risk behaviors. However, a lot of self-inflicted, getting in one's own way is done by default.  

What does that look like? How do you hurt your prospects for success, health and a good life by default? This happens when you go along with norms or customs that reinforce mediocrity or worse. It happens when you associate, longer than you must, with backward, negative or dull people. And I think it happens when you continue to respect vacuous rules, ludicrous rituals and nonsensical beliefs that you grew up. Of course, not everything you grew up with was nonsensical, and some fortunate individuals grew up with sound cultures of science and learning.

We are all responsible for doing an inventory at several points along the way after reaching the ages of reason. Eliminate those things which no longer make sense and subject all of it to critical inquiry.  

Do you think I might be on to something here?   

An important skill area that is a foundation of a REAL wellness mindset is a strong regard for and willingness to utilize reason, rationality or critical thinking. Another way of putting it - having a high regard for science. Insist  on evidence concerning customs, dogmas and the like that seem a bit odd or ridiculous. Be alert to anything in your life that no longer make sense now that you are a fully functioning, capable and well-educated adult.  

Another way people get in their own way on the path to wellness is by default. This happens if we neglect to pursue passions, cultivate gifts, express loves and celebrate talents and opportunities. 

At a seminar with Bill Gates a decade ago, Buffett said:

They've asked us to start out talking, the two of us, about what got us here...How I got here is pretty simple...It's not IQ...The big thing is rationality. I always look at IQ and talent as representing the horsepower of the motor, but that the output - the efficiency with which that motor works - depends on rationality. A lot of people start out with 400-horsepower motors but only get a hundred horsepower of output. It's better to have a 200-horsepower motor and get it all into output.

Think of ways you might be blocking your REAL wellness success potentials. Don't overlook default factors. Let rationality, via critical thinking, be your guide to needed changes. It's the best path toward satisfaction and well-being, the true measures of success.

Donald B. Ardell is the Well Infidel. He favors evidence over faith, reason over revelation and meaning and purpose over spirituality. His enthusiasm for reason, exuberance and liberty are reflected in his books (14), newsletter (576 editions of a weekly report) and lectures across North America and a dozen other countries. Write Don at awr.realwellness@gmail.com

Are All Religions Equally Crazy and If So Or Even If Not, What Can You Personally Do About It? I Have a Suggestion!

One of my favorite bloggers, Greta Christina, recently (May 13, 2011) asked (and answered) the question, "Are All Religions Equally Crazy?"

"No," I thought upon reading this headline, "some are much more equally crazy than others."  Of course, any sensible debate on the relative Orwellian equality of pious lunacies requires agreed-upon criteria to objectively assess levels of craziness. It might be hard to gain such a consensus, especially if believers were to participate in the process. Their contempt for miracle claims and the historical record is deeper than that distain common among us infidels - except, of course, for their own myths. The latter seem totally sensible and beyond question, which is possible when you have faith, faith being the capacity to fervently believe what you know ain't so. 

Ms. Christina notes that we non-believing skeptic rationalists extend the courtesy of polite restraint about those religious beliefs that seem moderate and progressive. We only "trash the low-hanging fruit of hard-line fundamentalism." But, she argues and I agree, they are all wacko (or "nutty" or "batshit" or "lunatic" or what have you). Consider:

Mormons - magic underwear, retroactive baptism of the dead, becoming a god on your own planet after death, secret magical golden plates through a magic hat and so. 

The rest of Christianity - talking snakes, living inside giant fish, a single boat that saved two of every living creature on the planet from a flood, magic crackers that transform into the body of your god when eaten, a fruit that seriously diminished the quality of life of everyone who was born on the entire planet after one person ate it, a virgin birth, water made "holy" that inoculates babies so they won't have to burn forever in Hell, a 6,000 year old earth and a god who commits suicide to save the world from the punishment he himself would otherwise have to administer - and so on. 

Other religions (including but not limited to Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientology, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam) - ritual washing in a polluted river, shifting sins to chickens, covering women head to toe, compulsory hats, no drawing pictures of real things allowed, cutting of the clitoris, trimming the tip of the penis, etc. ad nauseam. 

All this and a great deal of other beliefs are not "out of step with cultural norms" but are "out of touch with reality," as Christina sees it and I certainly agree. Nevertheless, where religions have a large following, their sacred truths, dogmas and rituals are safe from ridicule, most of the time in nearly all places, for many reasons, including these: 

* The religions are popular and powerful - and do not take dissent gracefully, let along irreverence ("blasphemy").

* Most people are polite and nice, and try to get along by going along and, if amused or horrified by religious beliefs, keep it to themselves. 

* When so many believe something, you have to wonder - there must be something to it. 

* The really weird stuff gets reinterpreted to make it seem a bit more plausible, and most believers don't fully understand or even want to know about the lunatic stuff that was part of the program in earlier times. 

But, let's face it - Christina's right - they are all equally crazy. Superstition is nonsense, period. The supernatural is implausible. Believing that which is supported by no evidence is irrational. Most beliefs conflict with science. Most distort verifiable history. Reality deserves our respect, improbably claims do not. 

Ok, enough already. If all this is just common sense, totally consistent with what you have concluded long ago (or even recently), wouldn't it be nice to say something, to make a point about religion that would actually be seen by lots of people? Want to come out of the closet and go public with a statement about the bare-ass emperor that is all religion? If so, I have a suggestion.

Make a billboard. Put up a comment next to your name and photo picture. Of course, it must be brief! It's a billboard, not a book. Go to the website of the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) and set one up - it's free. Here's a summary from the FFRF billboard campaign:

"Declare and share your non-belief! Although the nonreligious — including one in six U.S. citizens — are a significant segment of the world population, many Americans have never knowingly met a nonbeliever. You can help dispel myths, educate and promote reason by adding your voice, face and message to FFRF's friendly neighborhood freethinker campaign. FFRF's 'Out of the Closet' billboards and bus signs are going up around the country. Although we can't put everyone on a real billboard, every nonbeliever can participate in this unique 'cyberboard' campaign. (Yours might even be chosen, with your permission, for an actual billboard.) This is your chance to proclaim you're a freethinker and why. It's working for the gay rights movement. Now it's time for atheists and agnostics to come out of our closet. Many faces make Enlightenment work."

I did, Here's my billboard. Now show me yours!  

Don's Prediction: The Monarchy will End Soon - and Will and Kate will Abdicate

I like Will and Kate - and Betsy's a good egg, too. For instance, in a recent (December 10, 2010) address to the General Synod of the Church of England, the good Queen Elizabeth II said something that endeared her to freethinkers everywhere forevermore: "In our more diverse and secular society, the place of religion has come to be a matter of lively discussion. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue and that the well-being and prosperity of the nation depend on the contribution of individuals and groups of all faiths and of none."

Unfortunately, this modest British nod to separation of religion from government was not present during the wedding vows exchanged by Prince William and Catherine 'Kate' Middleton. The gigantic wedding, held on April 29, 2011 at The Collegiate Church of St. Peter (Westminster Abbey) in London, was witnessed by tens of millions of commoners via television throughout the world. They heard the following religious references, courtesy of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams: That the couple would "... live together according to God's law in the holy estate of matrimony." The exact nature of that law was not explained, nor did secularists learn what "holy estate" means. That was mild compared with the weird idea that came next - the blessing of a ring. Really. The high priest actually did a ring blessing, as follows: "Bless the Lord this ring. And grant that he who gives it and she who shall wear it may remain faithful to each other and abide in thy peace and favor and live together in love until their lives end through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen."

So, now the Princess has a magic ring. Aren't supernatural powers wonderful? 

However, despite the magic ring and all the other folderol, the royals are like the rest of us homo sapiens - oxygen breathing, carbon-based, mildly alkaline life-forms who sleep/defecate/drink/pee/bathe and otherwise maintain the pH in their lungs and kidneys within the 7.35 to 7.45 range, the better to maintain homeostasis and avoid hospitals and graveyards. They all do the things we do, for better or worse, in the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. But, we should not forget that even a "good monarchy" (excuse the oxymoron) is undemocratic, irrational and demeaning. Despite their likability, Britain's Will/Kate/Queen and the entire brood of privileged dukes and duchesses, princes and so on must end - and sooner would be preferred over later. 

Everyone - pay attention! This royalty business is ridiculous. The emperors are butt naked. The wedding is much taa taa about nothing! It's pure entertainment - and should be totally unrelated to government. The media saturation coverage is a great madness. To call it "frivolous nonsense," as did one writer in the St. Petersburg Times, is too kind. Jeff Brinckman nailed the entire business of royalty - saying it should have ended long ago: "No one has a divine right to anything. No one should by birth become a king, queen or prince. Monarchy has nothing to do with merit. A person with no particular talent has no right to be elevated to a royal position. The British throne is also institutionally sexist. The monarchy is not accountable, yet taxpayers in the United Kingdom must finance the royals' lavish lifestyles. The current royal family needs to be the last. The easiest way for that to happen is for Charles and others in line to simply abdicate."

Hear hear. Just so. 

In my official capacity as ... well, if I had an official capacity, I would declaim and even without one do hereby proclaim or rather politely ask the kind and thoughtful Harry and Kate to go ahead and have a royal time at public expense for a while, but soon thereafter to do a great service for Brits and democrats everywhere. Inform the British nation and the world that the time of monarchy has passed. Give us all a royal reverse post-wedding present - announce the abdication and graceful termination of thrones and all that is regarding concepts of royal blood.

As to Buckingham and all those palaces and coaches and cool crowns and robes, etc., well, all that can be turned into museums or sold off to lower the deficit.

They might bid adieu to royalty with the immortal words from the the memorable and revered film Casablanca: "Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life."

Donald B. Ardell is the Well Infidel.  He favors evidence over faith, reason over revelation and meaning and purpose over spirituality.  His enthusiasm for reason, exuberance and liberty are reflected in his books (14), newsletter (573 editions of a weekly report) and lectures across North America and a dozen other countries. Write Don at mailto:awr.realwellness@gmail.com