Bill of Rights

After a small but organized gang of extremely wealthy, well-connected, highly educated, and influential subversives, whose organization was called the Continental Congress and sometimes The Confederation, instigated a revolt against the British government and promptly claimed command of its colonies on the New World, they faced several dilemmas. The greatest of these was that the leaders of the rebellion hardly agreed on anything, and yet had to find some compromised system of government by which they could all have influence. Perhaps the next greatest problem was the obvious realization that they had made themselves vulnerable to having the excuses they used in rebelling against Britain used against them.

The official document listing grievances against King George III, called the Declaration of Independence, was written a year after the war with Britain had already begun, and one of its objectives was to convince the colonists that the rebellion was justified. In this regard, it wasn’t nearly as effective or influential as the pathos of Patrick Henry or the writings of Thomas Paine. But perhaps its main objective was to claim sole responsibility for the coup de etat so that when the dust settled they would be considered the winners and not the many other less organized militias and terrorists also fighting the Brits. In retrospect, the Continental Congress would have been given credit anyway, as the arbitrarily chosen leader of their ad hoc army, George Washington, turned out to be one hell of a military general, and their connections with France via Benjamin Franklin proved invaluable.

A committee outlined the themes to be included in the document, then the Declaration was hastily written by Thomas Jefferson. It underwent surprisingly little editing, despite its incredible vagueness, redundancies and the absurdity of some of the reasons (among those being the king’s allowance of Native Americans to inhabit the Americas and defending himself against those challenging his authority), before being agreed upon by the Continental Congress (often known as the founding fathers although I prefer The Man). The document opens by stressing the importance of individual rights and of citizens to be able to overthrow its own government. The Man was desperate enough at the time that they probably didn’t worry too much about how they would deal with the obvious implications of their own words once they took over.

The foremost advertised and most popular reason for the war was to free the citizens of the colonies from tariffs. Of course, the members of The Man put themselves into a lot of debt funding the war, and they wanted to get their money back. When Washington became president, he put Hamilton in charge of this task by appointing him Secretary of the Treasury. While some proposed a lottery for raising money, they settled on Hamilton’s plan of implementing virtually the same tariffs that the British had imposed (in fact that was literally the first thing the newly formed government did after writing the wording for swearing themselves in), hypocritically making it illegal for the states to do the same thing. They hoped nobody would notice. They might have considered an income tax, but their own Constitution had explicitly made that illegal, probably because they didn’t want anyone realizing how much money they were making….

It is ironic but not surprising that when these traitors set up the government by which they’d rule, the one crime they went out of their way to denigrate was treason. It is also not unexpected that, sensing the sham of the takeover, the public demanded a guarantee of their promised liberties, freedoms and inalienable rights. Moreover, they wanted it explained to them what the hell these things were. (The common man did not understand that the inalienable rights Thomas Jefferson alluded to was a very obvious reference to the works of John Locke and Adam Smith. Jefferson was a vocal advocate that individual rights should be included in the Constitution, which is probably why The Man had shipped him to France while they wrote it.) Not until they were backed into a corner with the threat of the Constitution not being signed did The Man agree to placate the masses by giving them their rights- after they got their signatures. That The Man was able to convince all of the states to agree to submit to their previously non-existent authority without using military force is an extremely impressive and perhaps unparalleled feat.

Now The Man had to figure out a way to present an official list of individual rights to those suspicious of their motives without actually relinquishing any of their hard-won authority. In the early days, the biggest opponent of individual rights was Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton, who wanted to bring back the monarchy (and presumably anoint himself king), founded the Federalist Party, which favored a strong centralized power. The Anti-Federalists, a less organized group of citizens in favor of state and individual rights who’s most prominent voice was Patrick Henry, had been vocal in demanding a bill listing individual rights. James Madison, who along with George Washington was the most influential early supporter of Alexander Hamilton, was an outspoken opponent of any bill of rights, and publicly argued with Patrick Henry and privately with Thomas Jefferson regarding them. So when Madison himself introduced the Bill of Rights in 1789, apparently not enough eyebrows were raised (although the same thing happens in politics today all of the time). In fact, The Federalist Papers, the articles most influential in promoting the Constitution while explicating resistance to any bill of rights, were written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison! Even later in life, Madison chastised the amendments as being “useless.” In the Bill of Rights, The Man managed to enumerate individual rights without relinquishing government power or giving individuals means to overthrow it.

In fairness, it should be noted that James Madison would later split from Hamilton and join with Thomas Jefferson to form what is now referred to as the Democratic-Republican Party, which opposed Hamilton’s economic and foreign policies and favored state rights over federal power. In response, Patrick Henry, being such a staunch opponent of Madison, would jump ship and become a Federalist! (After Thomas Jefferson became President, his Vice President, another Federalist turned Democratic-Republican named Aaron Burr shot and killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel instigated by Burr, well aware that Hamilton had a long history of accepting duels but of never actually shooting anybody. Burr’s political career in the United States was ruined, excusing him to live on the land he had already leased in Mexico, on which he began assembling an army with which he intended to conquer Mexico and become its emperor. Jefferson spent the years just prior and forever after the assassination of Hamilton going to such astonishingly extreme measures to distance himself from Burr (while simultaneously acting completely unsurprised and initially doing nothing when he was told of Burr’s plans of conquest), that nobody ever questioned whether Jefferson had any role in his main rival’s death. The cunning of politicians cannot be underestimated, especially when circumstances like these reveal themselves.)

There were originally twelve articles presented by The Man to the states that were intended to become constitutional amendments. The first one has never been ratified. It proposed a system for increasing the number of members in the House of Representatives in an attempt to strengthen that branch, of which Madison was a member. The second proposed amendment was ratified in 1992, and became the twenty-seventh constitutional amendment. It disallows members of congress from giving themselves raises which take effect before the next election. Congress ignores this amendment entirely; they now give themselves “cost of living adjustments” instead of raises.

Looking back, it’s surprising that what we now know as the first amendment wasn’t always leading the pack, because it’s really a crowd pleaser, imposing broad limits on federal power. Even more surprising, Madison had originally made around twenty proposals (that he felt should be added into the body of the Constitution itself) that The Man edited down, and the first one of those, which I’m sure he intended to have immediately shot down and included only as a motivator to encourage The Man to help him weed out anything similar he may have accidentally written, declared that the role of government was to benefit the people, and that the people had the right to change that government. (Nothing else he proposed came even close to this acknowledgment.)

The first amendment keeps the Congress from prohibiting any religious beliefs or creating any laws regarding any religion. Contextually, the reference is in regard to the English Reformation, which had caused an upheaval in Britain two and a half centuries prior and was a major catalyst for American immigration, and the French Revolution, which was a current event. (I’d love to go into more detail here, but I’m writing a blog post, not a novel.) In practice, this amendment has been of most use in allowing for churches not to pay taxes. It has traditionally not been applied to religions other than mainstream Christianity; for instance Native American religions were made illegal, as was the Mormon’s practice of polygamy and many modern-day “cults” (remember Waco?).

The first amendment also prevents government from being able to censor the spoken and written word. Alright, that’s worth the price of admission. Finally, it allows for citizens to peacefully gather and to formally ask the government to correct any wrongs they feel they have been done. For me, here is where things start to get suspicious. Who defines “peaceably?” KKK rallies are generally allowed because they’re peaceful yet Black Panther rallies have consistently been considered violent. I have a problem with that. According to the next phrase, my recourse is to fill out the appropriate paperwork and navigate the red tape in order to mention to the government that I feel there’s something wrong about that. No promises are given that the government will listen or do anything whatsoever, and the individual is NOT given the right to take these matters into his own hands! By its clever wording, the amendment is giving the government MORE power, not less. The bill of rights NEVER grants the citizens of the United States the right to act on their own behalf in any way.

The second amendment is a confusingly constructed sentence fragment. There is no way this amendment should have been ratified without demanding that the wording be fixed. It allows for states to keep “a well regulated” militia. This wording is significant because state militias were notoriously unruly. The Man could have easily disbanded any militia it deemed a threat. The other and more famous part of the amendment is fascinating to me because most people don’t seem to realize what the word “bear” means to carry and hold up, in the same way that we say a truck bears a load. According to this amendment, one should be able to walk down the street holding a gun without any recourse. However, the poorly written fragment allows lawmakers to claim only people in militias can keep and bear arms. In practice, an odd compromise has been reached which generally allows everybody to own weapons but allows each state to dictate who can carry them. It turns out even the highly-influential the NRA has actually relinquished half of its constitutional right in regard to weapons. This amendment does not allow for anybody to have or carry bullets or use their weapons, nor does it specify whether all types of guns can be carried. Although the ninth amendment should (but doesn’t) prevent lawmakers from using this as an argument, the tenth amendment lets the states make laws regarding these things.

The third amendment addresses a specific grievance mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. It disallows soldiers from making themselves at home in a citizen’s house in times of peace. In times of war, a law must be written before a soldier can do so. War is something declared by Congress, so that definition depends entirely on them. All the government needs to do to allow soldiers to take over your house is declare war and then write a law saying they can. History has shown that getting Congress to declare war is enough of a pain that our government usually just wages wars without declaring them, but still the trend of the bill of rights giving the government more power instead of less continues….

The fourth amendment, like the third, protects private property. John Locke had made private property a huge concern with his late seventeenth century writings, which were highly influential on the Congressional Congress gang, especially Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison. My point is not that there’s anything wrong with the amendment, but that it was written because it was a concern of the government and not necessarily the citizens as was advertised at the time and generally believed to this day. The government has always interpreted its laws in ways that protect itself much more than they protect its citizens. Who decides when searches and seizures become reasonable? The government, of course! Getting any government official to reveal any of their papers is much more difficult than it is for them to get us to reveal ours.

The fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth amendments all deal with due process in the judicial branch. These amendments have proven themselves worthwhile, and I truly believe that without them we as citizens would be seriously screwed. Nonetheless, they contain several ambiguities and self-contradictions. The wording always has an “out;” the government cannot buy your land without “just” compensation, for example. And what exactly would an impartial trial held in the district where the crime took place look like? Others will claim it is exactly the ambiguities in the Constitution which make it strong. I find this ridiculous; comparable to claiming the plot holes are what make a movie good. It does, however, give the government the flexibility to interpret the document in whatever way is most convenient for them at the time.

The ninth and tenth amendments admit the limitations of the federal government; arrogantly conceding that individuals and states can do things other than what the government says they can do as long as it hasn’t explicitly stated we can’t. Gee, thanks.

Sticky Note

I apologize for my recent gloominess. I promise my next blog will be less egocentric and loathsome regarding existence. Thank you for your indulgence.

The Bridge

I found The Bridge (2006) to be an inspiring documentary. It explores the lives of those who contemplate, attempt or commit suicide by leaping from the Golden Gate Bridge through interviews with family, friends and those who have survived as well as tons of footage of the bridge itself.

Unlike most, I have little fear of death, although being injured, tortured, maimed, suffocated, burned or sick all make me very nervous. When it gets right down to it, I think life is bullshit and I’d rather not deal with it. Fortunately, I don’t suffer from depression, schizophrenia, drug addiction or any other diagnosable illness that would exacerbate my disillusionment with life. I think about death a lot, but not suicide. I’m the type who gets in a plane and wants it to crash. I get concerned with things like what’ll be in my pockets or what music I’ll be found with when I’m dead. I’m impressed if not jealous of those who actually go through with suicide. Good for them! They have more balls than I ever will.

The movie touches on most of the topics that come to mind regarding suicide. I especially appreciated the empathy shown by friends and relatives who get that being loved doesn’t necessarily make life bearable, although at the same time nobody who killed themselves was in a relationship. There were very few who were outright surprised by the suicide or attempt. These were people pained by existence itself. One guy who had been job hunting in San Francisco for awhile killed himself, and left behind a job interview offer on his answering machine. His roommate at the time emphasized that if he had just waited one more day he could have had a job. Fuck that; he never has to work again, which seems way better to me.

One interesting side-effect of killing yourself by jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge is that those you leave behind will never view that bridge the same way again. This made me think of my friend Chris who died of a heroin overdose and whom I always think of whenever the topic of drugs comes up (even before I think of Charlie Parker). I guess you could say he ruined the idea of heroin for me; not that I ever romanticized it, but I’ve encountered those who honestly do, so in a way I am thankful to have that perspective.

The movie emphasized the frequency of which people jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge, and I was starting to picture it like lemmings jumping off a cliff. I was disappointed at the end when they admitted in 2004 (the year on which the film is focused) only 24 people died by that method. C’mon people, jump; there is an over-population problem and life really sucks! Since I’m not going to do it, I want to be able to vicariously die through you. Watching someone fall off that bridge is sublimely beautiful.

Commitment/Monogamy

Most people would rather be around someone they can tolerate or even dislike than be alone. Everybody would rather be around someone they like than be alone. Many people can find someone they like when given a very small sample of the population. When you find someone to spend your time with, it’s nice to have some assurance that they’re not going to suddenly abandon you.

There’s a commonly accepted notion that the most convincing way to demonstrate your commitment to another is by having sex with them exclusively. I do agree monogamy is an ultimate sacrifice, and I do notice that sacrifice is an often use tactic to demonstrate commitment, but why must another submit to punishment before you can trust them? I am fully convinced our society’s obsession with monogamy has destroyed far more relationships than it ever has helped. Why should we have to go to such extremes to convince another we are committed to a continued relationship with them?

One obvious answer is that sex is the most intimate thing people can do. What is intimacy except knowing another really well? There is no logical connection why intimacy should be tied to commitment except as it relates to the previously stated idea that knowing another is often enough reason to be with them. But must humans really be that immature? Perhaps; I’m not suggesting I have any answers here. But we should be able to know someone intimately without being compelled to spend the rest of our lives committed to hanging out with them, shouldn’t we? I understand that it’s flawed to try to apply logic to human compulsion.

Another likely explanation for distrusting a committed partner with having sex with another is that sex can be addictive. The assumption is that they’ll want to go and have sex all the time instead of hanging out with you. I honestly can’t say I have a good argument against this line of thought except that there’s something worthwhile in a committed relationship that goes beyond sex. After all, most people stay in committed relationships despite the sex, not because of it. There’s a tired adage that goes something like, “When you have sex with the person you love you won’t want to have sex with anyone else.” Puulleease! How would you know? That’s what I thought.

A consideration that must always be made is the very real threat of STD’s. The worst case scenario is for your partner to be out cavorting around and then bringing home some venereal disease. Modern technology could greatly reduce the fear of STD’s, but the powers in charge seem to want us to be afraid to have sex. Things are far from my way, but if they were every major grocery store would include a free or cheap STD clinic. Among other things, this would bring a whole new dimension to the offer, “Hey baby, want to come over to my place? I’ll cook! I don’t have any food though….” I don’t even mind waiting a few days for the results; it’s not unlike the waiting period when purchasing a hand gun.

I realize these questions are instantly annihilated by the Christian assertion that sex outside of commitment is a sin. Sin is the religious equivalent of “illegal” in social justice. A felony is illegal regardless of whether you question the validity or justness of the law, and if you get caught breaking the law you will be punished regardless of whether you agree with that law unless you can successfully argue that the law is unfair and have it removed. Similarly, sin is the assumption that the universe itself has a system of laws in place that we must either follow or be punished for breaking. And there’s no arguing with the universe! This of course necessitates that the universe has awareness, intention, and the ability to execute its plan. (If the universe does have a plan for us, it’s certainly an ill-conceived one.)

The Abrahamic traditions assert that there is a universal law that sex is a sin until you sign a contract with another whom you intend to “have relations” with saying that you’ll be committed to caring for that person for the remainder of your life. Is this weird to anyone else? What other contracts can we make to void other so-called sins? In the Judaic Old Testament, males could have as many wives as they wanted, but females could only have one husband. The New Testament, influenced by the Roman culture surrounding it, declared you can only sign this bizarre sin-exempting contract with one other person. In the Old Testament, punishment for sin is poverty and enslavement on earth; in the New Testament punishment for sin is eternal torture in hell. According to the Bible, the universe not only knows what it is doing, but it is also fair, just and consistent. You can’t disprove universal consciousness, but you can pretty quickly dismiss the biblical version of it.

Most people are pretty quick to jump down my throat when I start questioning concepts like monogamy that are so ingrained in our culture. But I think we should question assumptions such as these if only because it never even occurs to most to question them. It’s a hell of a lot better than resorting to deception, guilt and surreptitiousness.

Ann

My friend Ann drove to Vancouver this weekend to run a marathon today. That’s pretty much the last thing in the world I would ever want to do; it’s right up there with drinking battery acid as far as I’m concerned. But there’s a lot about Ann that’s dissimilar to me.

Ann likes to stay positive. Being positive bores the ba-jesus out of me. I enjoy finding shit to bitch about. I think cynicism is funny.

Ann is a nice, cute, charming, friendly girl that everybody likes. She mentioned once she didn’t think she had any enemies. I seem to spend most of my time annoying people or pissing them off. I don’t make too many friends but I could have a rolodex full of enemies.

Ann seems to genuinely care. I generally don’t.

Ann once told the story of the one time she got in trouble in grade school, remembering every detail. She hadn’t actually done anything except misunderstand the teacher but twenty years later she was still distraught about it. I can’t even remember all the stupid stuff I got in trouble for growing up. I don’t know why anybody would want to, but I’ll bet if you yelled at Ann you’d make her cry. You could yell at me and make me yawn.

I haven’t seen Ann and Carl very much lately. I’ll admit I thought maybe Ann was mad at me for some reason. It turns out she just got promoted and has been working a new job that’s been keeping her busy, not to mention she’s been training for a marathon in the early mornings and hiking up mountains every weekend. When I did get to see her last week, she asked if I was mad at her for not reading my blog.

Precious Moments

“Why would you put that shit on the internet for the whole world to see? If you want to write shit like that, why don’t you get a journal and write in that and then hide it away like I do? You better take that blog down. You better take that blog down now!”

It’s not a bad question, even though it wasn’t really a question. I had never written anything about her at all, but if I had I would have erased it at her request. I know I’m referencing her now, but I’m going to refrain from discussing her or my thoughts on her further.

I write this shit to try to connect; same reason why I drummed. I keep hoping I’ll find somebody who knows what the hell I’m talking about. So far no luck, but I’ll keep you posted. In trying to connect, I write for an unknown audience imagined as liking what I like. (For example, I really like decapitated Precious Moments figurines.) This is vastly different than writing in a journal, where you literally write only for your own future self. I actually did write in journals relatively prolifically during college, but it was all so predictably naïve I burned it soon after graduating.

I’m interested in writing in the moment; for the moment. Who cares how it turns out tomorrow? I experience my existence one second at a time so that’s how I express it. I try not to over-think life; I’m more interested in living it, even if that means causing some waves that capsize a boat or two. If you can't deal with me, get out of the water or get a bigger boat.

One reason for this blog was to write odes to my friends, and strangely enough most the friends who I’ve written about and gotten feedback from have in fact been to some extend offended or at least confused by what I wrote. What the fuck; I love you, get it? I write about those I think about and miss; I don't dwell on my enemies (One of them tried to bait me here early on but gave up when ignored). As a drummer, I always appreciated getting honest feedback from various perspectives about what I was doing (aka what they were hearing). Frankly, my friends should know me better than to think I’m gonna pump sunshine up their ass, and that’s the projected audience I’m writing for.

The criticism I get about my blog, besides that it’s uninteresting, is that it’s all true but they don’t want to hear it. This is a MAJOR gripe I have with most humans, and exactly why complete and utter deceit like religion, Disney and Oprah Winfrey are so popular. “Tell us lies that we want to hear. YAY!” Also, I agree with the Bukowski sentiment that if you're writing anything your parents will like then it's bullshit.

I’m also writing this blog to learn how to write. I try out different styles, voices and such. If I knew how to write I wouldn’t be working on a blog; I’d be working on getting a publisher. This happens to be the 100th blog that I’ve posted, and I do think my writing has improved.

Reciprocal Compliments

She kind of caught me off-guard when she immediately exclaimed, “You look really nice today,” when we met up for lunch. In the past I’ve been notoriously weirded-out by compliments, but I’m getting over that. Sometimes compliments are sincere even if I find them incorrect or contrived. But because I was aware of what she was going through, my thoughts turned immediately to her.

It should be noted that this girl is as cute as a baby panda. I could have done the obvious and reciprocated her compliment. This is the culturally encouraged thing to do. But I’m not the type who’s motivated by social norms.

Reciprocating compliments can be a convenient way to relegate both statements meaningless. Not only do you distract the focus from the original compliment, you allow the train of thought, “Is he saying that because I said it? Did he think I was just saying it to be polite?” Et cetera. These questions come to mind because we play these games all the time. Perhaps none is worse than someone saying, “I love you,” just to see if you’ll reply in kind. What kind of fucked up manipulation is that? Do you love me or are you just insecure? I learned a few years back the best response to, “I love you,” is, “Thanks!” Then you can say you love them so they’ll know that you mean it and without them having any obligation to absent-mindedly echo you. (Besides, to admit you love them is letting them know how easy it is for them to fuck with your life, although it’s useless to leave them in the dark about it for long because they’ll just start testing to find out it they can.)

I prefer not to be around perpetually insecure people, mostly because I like shooting my mouth, and when I’m around someone who’s going to be easily offended I get really self-conscious and clam up quick. I do understand, however, that we all have vulnerable moments and know that there are times when all we need is support. (In my old age I’m learning the last thing a person being insecure wants is advice.) I want to give solace and encouragement when it’s needed, and sometimes will oblige when others fish for compliments that they need to hear without having to ask.

Back to the catalyst for this train of thought: this girl was about to embark on a journey into a whole new life in a whole other country where she was definitely justified in feeling stressed. Did she need for me to tell her she was looking good? No, it didn’t seem to be an area where her insecurity would manifest. On the contrary, she is surely the type who’s sick of guys telling her how pretty she is all the time.

Hell, maybe I was just looking nice that day. I had shaved the night before, after all. I said, “Thank you,” paused awkwardly for a moment, made a joke about work being good for my complexion and then we ate lunch.

Shoes

Everybody’s heard the phrase, “You can’t really know a man until you walk a mile in his shoes.” When asked what this means, most will say something along the lines of, “You have to consider other people’s perspectives or life experiences.” This is NOT a correct interpretation. If that were the case, the phrase would be, “You can’t really know a man until you look at his shoes and see where he’s been.”

Wearing another’s shoes is proactive, not speculative. What the quote is getting at is that you can’t know another unless you have shared or parallel experiences. It’s impossible to know what it’s like to have been somewhere without having been there. Further, it’s impossible to relate to another’s experience of having been somewhere unless you were there with them or did similar things there at around the same time. You can’t look at someone else’s tattoo and ask, “Did it hurt?” and then think you know what it’s like to get tattooed. Nobody can abstract experience from theory.

Acceptance

People keep asking whether I’m over her. No, I’m not over her. I don’t feel I need to treat her like an obstacle in my path. For me, the chore is in learning to accept her decision. Isn’t that the whole point of loving someone, anyway? You accept their decisions no matter what. You don’t have to agree with them. You don’t have to understand them. You accept them because you love them and people you love can do no wrong.

My dad’s favorite place to eat is probably Taco Bell. Taco Bell is disgusting. It is synthetically processed, nutritionally void and flavorless crap, made up in the morning then left under a heat lamp until served to you by underpaid morons wearing demeaning purple uniforms in a depressingly uncomfortable fluorescent-lit cafeteria bursting with over-sized advertisements. On top of all that, my dad lives in Fresno, California, where he wouldn’t have to travel very far to pay less for authentic Mexican food. I live down the street from a Taco Bell, and deride anybody there nearly every time I pass by. I’m not going to get over my disdain for that place, but I love my dad, so I simply accept that he eats at Taco Bell; which isn’t hard because seriously, who cares?

There are people reading this suddenly ashamed that they like Taco Bell. This demonstrates that it is actually easier to accept the opinions and actions of others than it is to accept oneself. Everybody grows up being told how they’re supposed to be, and are afraid that they won’t be loved unless they are how they’re supposed to be. In the end, they grow up hating themselves for not being who somebody else told them they’re supposed to be. Most try to live in denial; others rebel by trying to become who they’re not supposed to be. Very few ever simply learn to exist.

Unfortunately, the most common reason for not accepting someone is because they don’t believe the same as you, which is profoundly arrogant and excruciatingly shallow. Anyone who unequivocally insists that they’re right is actually highlighting their own insecurities. Most people are bothered by the fact that they are essentially alone in this world and spend their lives hoping others will validate their existence by loving, admiring or agreeing with them. People crave external validation when they can’t accept themselves. Perhaps the most frustrating time to accept others is when they make choices fueled largely by guilt, which is lack of self-acceptance.

Instead of accepting themselves, people instead try to define themselves, and then they desperately or futilely try to live up to that limiting definition. There is little left of life once you decide how it’s supposed to be. Inflexibility inevitably leads to failure, unless you have very narrow expectations. Most want things to be a certain way or insist that they know how things are. Strange then that I’ve yet to find anybody who knows what the hell they are talking about, myself included.