Is Everything In Moderation?

In ancient Greece, the temple of Apollo at Delphi bore the inscription Meden Agan - "Nothing in excess." Doing something "in moderation" means not doing it excessively. For instance, someone who moderates their food consumption tries to eat all food groups, but limits their intake of those that may cause deleterious effects to harmless levels. But, one can just as easily see that the problem with relating the term moderation with the eating of animals and animal products as well as other things like alcohol, cigarettes and drugs is that these substances are harmful regardless of the amount a person consumes. So, just how advisable is the advice "Do everything in moderation"? With some "things," moderation itself leads to self destruction. Another serious problem with the term moderation is that the definition of what moderation really means varies from person to person. People carry a vague concept of moderation in application. All know it is not a so-called extreme, but somewhere between 0 and infinity. Articles and advice claiming the need for "moderate" consumption of an item usually give no amount that meets the moderation level. Thus, the phrase "in moderation," is useless. Has anyone seen a spoon or cup marked "moderate amount" for any use? The phrase simply isn't specific and universally definable. For example, not too very long ago, to the dismay of other European countries, England raised its definition of moderation in alcohol consumption to 4 drinks a day for men and 3 for women. This represented an increase by 30-50%. ("Britain Increases 'Moderate Drinking' Definition by up to 50 Percent," December 14 1995, Wine Trader Business Insider, Vol. 5) In the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, moderate drinking means up to one drink a day for women and up to two drinks a day for men. What is true moderation in drinking? The question must be asked, "Does moderation need to include moderation?" It actually becomes rather silly to contemplate the value of advice based on varying concepts of acceptable moderation. Consider the person practicing moderation in a bar, then driving. First of all, does that person really know his/her blood alcohol level at the time? Secondly, has his/her consumption produced enough impairment to cause an accident or warrant a ticket? Most people simply don't know or don't care at the time of turning the ignition. They simply believe they have practiced safe moderation in their consumption of alcohol. Just for laughs, look at the term extreme moderation. Isn't this, in fact, a contradiction in terms. In other words, a person can exaggerate everything by just applying the concept of excess to the idea of moderation. Instead of moderate (whatever it means), a person could practice the moderate to its extremes (whatever those would be) and still be living a life of moderation. Is an extreme moderationist merely taking advantage of complete abstinence or total acceptance in an effort to justify his own behaviors?

Granted, living a life of moderation has the evident advantages of practicing moderation vs. excess, yet too often moderation leads to excess as the individual gives into forces of environment and human frailty. It seems that most negative excess is found through repeated trial and error. That person must be trying to fine-tune his moderate level with good old human experience.

Also, doesn't practicing "everything in moderation" lead to certain uniformity vs. variety? When does society overstep personal freedom as it demands people must contend with small doses of everything? Some reject a life of moderation as a means of self expression. As long as their practices and beliefs are within the law and within acceptable moral limits, they must be free to extend beyond moderation to extremes. The fact that some moderates judge their actions "extreme" does not give the moderates the right to force vague concepts of behavior upon so-called "extremists."

And, does similarity actually weaken a country based on vast diversity? New inventions and unique models of thinking require fertile ground for diversity. Many refuse to run in the middle of the pack. When pushed into a specific place of moderation, these people find strength to outperform others within their very diverse natures. I'm reminded of the Kinks and Ray Davies song, "I'm Not Like Everybody Else." The lyrics of the song include the following: "But darling, you know that I love you true/ Do anything that you want me to,/Confess all my sins like you want me to,/There's one thing that I will say to you,/I'm not like everybody else."

Here are some popular quotes on moderation that may be food for thought:

1. "Moderation in people who are contented comes from that calm that good fortune lends to their spirit." Francois De La Rochefoucauld , French Classical writer

2. "I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counsellor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate." Martin Luther King Jr. 3. "Everything in moderation -- including moderation." Harvey Steiman

I'm a Silly Old Person

When you get older, you get silly. Your ideas get silly and your persona gets silly. And, even your good ideas get silly. I guess getting silly is inevitable: age and its perspective demand it. No longer do you have the pulse of "what is going on" with the rest of the world. When you speak with others, you speak from a distance-- we used to call it the "generation gap." Socially, the world comes to a standstill. Short of going to church or bingo or an occasional meal out, you survive with the help of Krogers and Walmart. I am one of the older people. I'm pretty lousy at playing "silly." Most know me to be honest but stern and easily bored. I guess if I tried harder, I could enjoy silly things, but I am accustomed to avoiding situation comedies, goofy conversations, and playing those damn games and quizzes on Facebook. I enjoy someone telling me something interesting and novel about themselves or the world around them. I also enjoy helping someone in need. People my age are pretty much resigned to staying out of trouble and staying in their place. We rest a lot and don't do much (the "much" that makes the world spin). But, we do think quite a bit. Time is my most valuable commodity and, lately, the past seems to be my worst enemy. I try to be patient, but rashness is a quality I developed very early in life-- I am a "go with the flow type." When the flow is passing by me so quickly, I can hardly keep my head above water. I notice myself doing way too much wishing instead of facing reality. Wishing is all right for mind exercise, yet it doesn't accomplish a thing in the conscious world. Reality has caught up with me and taught me some new lessons of acceptance. My wishes never involve big material possessions or an extended future. They, instead, deal with simple pleasantries and a little glimmer of success. And, they usually are people driven. Since I exist in a "double" world of mixed emotions, I am starting to see that any measurement of worth is fairly fruitless fantasy. I tread water and push the flotsam and jetsam aside as it gathers around me. It gets old playing emotional Russian roulette without the united support of my immediate family, so, at times, I've tried to envision myself as Jesse James to be true to an outlaw image. You know the saying, "You can't outrun your past." I can't run now, but even walking away is senseless. Yes, some very close to me see me as criminal, and, without a doubt, I'm a sinner. I think, as I age, old scars heal more slowly. "Time heals all wounds" is the platitude that absurdly states a known lie. Many wounds simply do not heal, and most doctors usually demand payment before treatment. People around me demand something from me for their civil attitude. In youth, we rebound much quicker than in old age. Not that I wouldn't like to see a more sensitive attitude toward forgiveness and starting over, I just sense gamesmanship as lost time these days. I've played before and lost. Old people are silly and will probably get sillier until the end. Stuck in time with aged emotions, passions, and pride, old people get tunnel vision. When you hear someone older say, "I'm too old for this," they aren't always referring to physical feats. Their wants and needs, though diminished in number with time, become, perhaps, more acute as they rely on fewer others to share their feelings. The jabs that once would wound me, now threaten to kill me if not physically, then spiritually and emotionally. And, yes, I angrily speak back. Maybe this is silly, selfish talk. Some would not care. I guess many would say an older person should "know better" because of experience. Angelic I have never been and never claim to become. Anyone who truly knows me knows that I am constantly a work in progress. I believe I can accept you as such, too. But then, old people are silly, often confused, and forgetful as hell. Nevertheless, expectations never die.

What Is Your Legacy?

Considering the attention drawn to the legacy of Michael Jackson, I find the controversy both interesting and, quite frankly, absurd. Notably, Jackson is a pop icon famous for his music-- writing, singing, dancing, and performance. Quite deservedly, he will take his place for innovation in the field of pop. On the other hand, Jackson is a figure of documented infamy and abnormal behavior. The "changes" in his actions, character, and appearance over his lifetime will remain as shadows defaming his status as a positive role model. Some claim he is a criminal and a child molester, more monster than king. In the wake of the publicity and grief over Michael Jackson's death, even the Congress is considering a rare honor. According to recent news sources, Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, is calling on Congress to recognize Jackson with a resolution as a "global humanitarian and a noted leader in the fight against worldwide hunger and medical crises" and celebrate the King of Pop as "an accomplished contributor to the worlds of arts and entertainment, scientific advances in the treatment of HIV/AIDS, and global food security." So, what will be the final legacy of Michael Jackson-- entertainer, humanitarian, world leader? I tend to think Jackson is, sadly, just another musical artist alongside the lost highway. Regardless of his incredible fame, he has joined the ranks of those before him ravaged by personal demons: Hank Williams, Elvis Presley, Jimi Hendrix, James Brown. Anything other than his music will be remembered with a certain sadness and reservation. Will the entertainer status overcome obstacles to his personal image? The word legacy seems to evoke positive images of greatness, yet a legacy is simply "something transmitted by or received from a predecessor." Other than money or personal property, most people leave, at best, a simple legacy quite undefined. Few consider building a legacy during their lifetime unless fame or fortune gives them access to incredible power and popularity. Even determined legacy builders must patch holes in their public image to maintain consistency of transmission. With the power created by the bold image and loud sound bite, few meek individuals will share their legacies with the masses. A question to consider is then, "What worth does society place on a person's legacy?" I guess biography and history books may help answer the question for those few who gain fame or notoriety. Yet, almost all people will not be read or remembered with detail two generations after their death. Their legacy decays with time until all traces of their goodness or wickedness disappears. Broad legacies are reduced to phrases, then to words, then to mere speculation, and finally to names on a piece of rock. Most people hope to leave their most admirable and valuable legacies to others that love them best: maybe some pleasant, loving memories for all people whose lives they have touched. Also desirable, people hope to be remembered by other casual acquaintances as basically good friends. And, finally, caring people desire to be thought of as Samaritans who help their fellow man. Unfortunately, like Michael Jackson, many struggle with image control in their personal lives. Clouded perspectives often create problems and turmoil for our relationships in the real world. Others see and hear what they prefer, not necessarily what is intended to be displayed. Interpretation and misinterpretation cause conflict and unrest while outright mistakes take their unavoidable toll. Soon, people learn to narrow their views and live with their own judgments of others out of personal pride and principle. In turn, any hopes of a decent legacy is diminished, so the subject sees little value in consistent behavior. In reality, I expect my legacy to my immediate family to be reduced to almost nothing. Certainly in terms of money or property, I leave virtually zero. Having reached no great accomplishments in life, I hand over no umbrellas of fame or popularity. My relationships have been shallow at best, and my mood swings have dictated rigid control or complete lack of it. As I lose friendships and trust, I find hatred has become entrenched deeply in the memory of others. I accept the blame; however, I cannot continue to accept all the consequences time has delivered, and will forever deliver to others. A bad husband, a bad father-- I may be. No, I don't think a great legacy is the worth of an individual. The judgments involved in the value of what is transmitted and the stature it brings to the deceased person calls for almost total clarity in evaluation of character. I, for one, cannot read the hearts and souls of others. To the living, legacy is hope and trust that others are going to respond in true kindness. Legacy is a dead man's game played by live people for their own self gratification.

Valley High School Class of 1969

I really enjoyed attending the Valley Alumni Banquet and our 40th class reunion. All my classmates who attended looked great, and we took time to get reacquainted with genuine interest. I tried to talk with everyone from the class, but I really didn't have enough time to make all the rounds.

Having been a teacher at Valley High for twenty-seven years, I also found many of my ex-students in attendance, so I also enjoyed chatting with them. The evening passed too quickly as we relived stories and caught up on our time spent apart.

I found myself kicking right back into the secure feeling I had always felt with my classmates. Here were old friends who had a lot in common forty years before and still the bonds seemed tight. A little nervous at first, I quickly found confidence in the fact that despite the miles between us now, we still maintain a special closeness of heart. Laughter and memories of the behavior of the past echoed again in our old high school gymnasium. Some friendly ghosts of the past were surely in attendance -- how we miss those departed souls. I had a great time. I believe all my classmates did too.

I noticed a few things about our class that I think contribute to our cohesion. First of all, we have so many unique people in our group. Personalities of these individuals are vastly different, yet these differences all play a role in the unit. This pooling of personality makes the class depend upon every one's talents and resources to complete the team. It seems we, as a class, learned this very early-- the class was only as good as all of us wanted it to be, and we worked together for the betterment of the class. In other words, all the people took pride in caring for each other to elevate the common good. The sincere love and care still exist.

Secondly, our class is very social. We seem to dispense of the formality some groups feel required to show. People in our class want to identify with activities and interactions in informal ways. I really believe no one in the class feels threatened by such close interactions. If anything, we seek the "togetherness" of a close-knit family. Some would say the times and history of the '60s contributed to that comradeship, and perhaps it did. We know we maturated at a very important yet turbulent time, and we know someone had and still has "our back" in times of trouble. A spirit of kindness and generosity was laid years ago and continues to be genuinely felt as classmates "reach out."

Lastly, I guess the best word to describe an attitude that lingers is confidence. Granted, sometimes we can be a little cocky, but we don't always brag about our class: we simply feel it was one of the best classes, not just as individuals but as a group, to graduate from Valley Schools. That confidence generates pride to the point that we consider many of our under-classmates honorary members of the class of '69. In our own way, we still try to be big brothers and big sisters of these people. We knew we were an ornery class in school, yet we knew the limitations of fun. We cut through cliques and prejudices to make us stronger. I feel our positive confidence helps mold present attitudes toward the value of change through outstanding cooperation.

May the spirit and love of the class live on. No one is trying to bring back the past; however, reflections allow us to celebrate what were certainly wonderful times of forty plus years ago. For one night, my belief in togetherness returned. Again, we walked the halls that meant so much to us, and once more we became the seniors of 1969 at the ripe old age of 58.

Allure of Actresses

Marilyn Monroe Many actresses of today depend upon their raw sex appeal to propel them into the spotlight and ignite the adoration of millions of fans. No doubt, these beauties attract attention and acclaim with their fabulous physical attributes often featured in nude, steamy sex scenes. Sex goddess status demands meeting the public view of stunning fleshly perfection. And, many of these beautiful women are brilliant actresses who merely use their bodies as assets to the art. Ava Gardner As attractive as the desirable body may be, one quality of beauty and enticement that seems almost indefinable is allure. This term entails a charming and glamorous seductive quality enhanced through physical elegance. Vivian Leigh Film actresses of long ago, often because of strictly censored sexual content regulations, had to develop their goddess appeal without explicit nudity and steamy bedroom scenes. Yet, the alluring qualities of these actresses made them no less desirable than the starlets of today. In fact, many would claim these women through revealing less, actually enticed more. Syd Charisse Allure has to involve sensual (not merely sexual) mystery and behavioral beauty. Also, many note allure has a something to do with imperfections. In other words, a physical imperfection in an otherwise beautiful woman adds to her allure. For example: one very alluring actress, Ava Gardner, had shoulders much too wide and legs much too short, but she had allure with a capital A. Rita Hayworth Self assured women have seemingly ideal feminine qualities, traits and attributes. These alluring women have self images that are are not affected by their competition, and they will not even discuss these things in groups. Their self confidence exudes calm sexiness. She has nothing to do with "bitch" or "hater" qualities so boldly used to challenge others with an "in-your-face" attitude of domination. Women with allure are subtle and secure within themselves. Liz Taylor Most would agree that alluring women know how to flirt in a chaste manner while batting eye lashes, flipping hair, and making a man feel that "he's a man among men." The word coy may describe alluring flirtation. These women are more kittenish than catty, more evasive and unassertive than viperous. Grace Kelly Most importantly, the quality of allure isn't just from makeup, hair, or curvy bodies. The sexy allure stems from the brain. "It generates fantasy, devises seduction routines, and is aroused by sight, scent, and smell," says Vivienne Parry, science editor of the British edition of Good Housekeeping. Greta Garbo Bridget Bardot Nina Rae McKenny Rita Moreno Hedy Lamarr

Who Can You Trust?

According to recent research, three different forms of trust exist: (1). Trust is being vulnerable to someone even though they are trustworthy. (2). Trustworthiness is the ability to trust. (3). Trust propensity is being able to rely on others. (Colquitt, Scott, LePine. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol 92 (4). Jul 2007.) In form #1, the operative word is vulnerable. Anyone who enters a relationship of trust is certainly vulnerable to the other participants in the alliance. Complete trust should deny any attacks against vulnerability; however, human nature being the fallible force it is, causes people to manipulate relationships because their moral accountability is not strong. Too often, people choose to deny trust in their relationships because of the need for power. Trusting another party when one is compelled to do so is sometimes called reliance, and reliance refers to behavioral, not moral obligations. Since trust is an action that involves a voluntary transfer of resources (physical, financial, intellectual, or temporal) from the truster to the trustee with no real commitment from the trustee, it is a risk. Depending on the trustworthiness of the person in whom trust is placed, the truster may be better off or worse off than before granting an alliance. This is the classic prisoner's dilemma in game theory (betrayal for reduced sentence). In form #2, the variable is ability. Since most intelligent people have the ability to trust, people could accept pure reliance simply enough. Trust is built by believing other people will do what is socially learned and rightly expected, and it starts at the family and grows to others. It is increasingly adopted to predict acceptance of behaviors by others. Yet, those who wish to betray trust know it is easier to influence or persuade someone who is trusting. In essence, these people learn to prey on a vulnerable virtue. Some are not consistent as they exercise their own abilities of persuasion, instead preferring to use others who possess confidential integrity. The trusting person is manipulated by the devious. For example, trust allows actions to be conducted based on incomplete information on the case in hand. Ironically, false information is often trusted as truth and the result is further lying misbehavior. The ability to trust has often been destroyed in such a manner. In form #3, the key term is rely. French author Rochefoucauld said, "The passions possess a certain injustice and self interest which makes it dangerous to follow them, and in reality we should distrust them even when they appear most trustworthy." Many times trust is forged in times of romance and intimate emotion. Mutual reliance that allows people to share such soul-divulging information is meant to be permanent and sacred, but, unfortunately, many people cannot be relied upon to be trustworthy and true. When people cannot rely on trust in vital situations, they experience betrayal. Sometimes betrayal is broken reliance on personal and/or cultural expectations ("The Truth"). And, sometimes betrayal is based on unreliable expectations of whole-hearted loyalty given to another. For example, a friend knowingly breaks a confidence that causes hurt and loss of reputation, or a boss pretends to be honest and fair while manipulating employees to exploit their talents. The propensity to trust in the future is directly affected by such false reliance. The Soul Selects Her Own Society The soul selects her own society, Then shuts the door; On her divine majority Obtrude no more.

Unmoved, she notes the chariot's pausing At her low gate; Unmoved, an emperor is kneeling Upon her mat.

I've known her from an ample nation Choose one; Then close the valves of her attention Like stone. -Emily Dickinson

To Lose Control

Nothing is more humiliating than being controlled. To lose control to others is something I thought I would never experience, but I see those around me pulling strings and I detest the manipulation. People assume a person who has struggled with mental illness is progressively handicapped until he reaches a time when total incapacitation requires special treatment. That special treatment is cloaked and focused toward isolation and eventual abandonment of human civility. In truth, the mental patient is not a horse with a broken leg to be graciously put down. He is a functioning human being. A controlled individual becomes someone to talk around, not talk with, and to live around, not live with. He is not a member of any social circle, but an isolated thing. Smaller than life, the thing recedes to the corner and begins to doubt his self-worth. Dehumanization of the thing is very important to those in control. Treating the thing as subhuman preserves the dignity of the master as any association might be mistaken as shared tendencies. Remember the racist who actually thought black might rub off? Or consider the snob who would never be seen among "low lifes." Sub-life assures no validity of opinions. The most reasonable expression of opinion is automatically discounted because good opinions by a thing do not register in the real world. The thing is usually ignored or reminded of his appropriate station when he offers a dissenting view. His condition invalidates his flights of fanciful thinking. His options soon become maintaining silence or playing the babbling idiot. Sub-life also cancels past life. Once the manipulation is complete, the master confidently points out its ugly past maturation as something that was "bound to happen." The thing can expect no recollections of normality from those around him. It's "look at him now." Ruins make interesting territory for those who wish to tramp through them for their own amusement and possible benefit. An artifact or two could not be missed in a state of devastation. I do hate to be controlled, especially when those in control do so without consent. It robs me of something I think I have earned. Freedom for anyone who has been disabled in any way is a struggle. Like a caged criminal, a person labeled "broken" is starved for freedom-- freedom of movement and freedom of expression.