My Michele is dead

Another Michele has taken her place. Not like an evil twin. Not even by a bad person necessarily, but it's not MY Michele. Not in any way that I can see. Maybe it's my memory that's faulty, but this one really doesn't even have the same feel, and she doesn't seem to like me very much, which is tragic since I am madly in love with someone who looks just like her, but she's dead.

Now I see or feel her everywhere. There are too many happy memories, and too many triggers that remind me of her and those times. I know those memories are real, so I know my memory of her is real. The saddest thing is that, having devoted myself completely to this one woman, any other woman I look at makes me think of her, because if I look too long, it feels unfaithful. I so wanted to be this way when she was alive, when we were married. I wasn't and I know it hurt her. Maybe that's what killed her.

I think I finally get it.

I'm back. So to speak. I was told by someone that they still look here to see if I have posted, so it seems worth writing, if only for the one reader. I guess I have the option of writing things here that if I want someone to get a look at my nature, I can direct them here. Could be a good time-saver in terms of repetitive subject matter, i.e. the stuff you talk about when you are getting to know someone.

I have a new definition for love. It is the feeling you have for someone that you don't ever want them to get hurt, especially if it is you causing it. That still amounts to being a Christ-like love, but it's directed more specifically. We are supposed to have charity for everyone, but we can only have a few people in our lives that we put ahead of everyone else enough to try and ensure that they never get hurt.

To do that for too many ends up being mutually exclusive. Sooner or later there is a conflict and one of those people will have to be hurt in order for you to keep from hurting the other, and you likle. To break it down all the way, you really can only have one person in your life that you can devote yourself entirely to protecting and promoting their happiness. It's mathematically certain. For those who claim they can love more than one person, I'd like to know how they get around that.

Of course, I am only talking about love in the absolute sense; in other words, true love. You can probably love any number of people nearly completely, but there be only one that truly has your complete love and commitment. The ideal would be for that person to be your spouse, but marriage isn't a universal institution, so there has to be a way of looking at it for lesser degrees of commitment than a marriage contract.

Wait a second... what lesser degrees of commitment can there be? We're talking about true love. Either you're committed or you aren't. If you aren't it isn't true love. If you aren't willing to display that commitment with marriage, you aren't committed. Ergo, marriage means true love. If you don't believe that, and you are married, that makes you a liar. If you believe in true love and you aren't married (under circumstances that would generally require marriage) you are lying to yourself as well. True love is absolute commitment to the happiness of the person who is the recipient of your love. Withholding anything based on your own preferences is not true love. Go ahead, argue with me.

I look at a couple like Gordon B. Hinckley and his wife Marjorie and see prime examples of true love. When Pres. Hinckley talked about his wife, there was no question of his absolute devotion to her. I remember thinking, "I wish I had a wife like that." Is there a bigger dope on the planet than me?

I had a wife like that. I just wasn't a man like that. I used to think I was at least approaching that ideal, but I recently realized I wasn't even going that direction. I should have made her first in everything, but I didn't make her first in anything. I am no longer mystified at being divorced, and to further compound my stupidity, I have since that event had the idea that I would look for a "wife like that." I should have been trying harder to be a man like that, but I didn't know that I wasn't, and I didn't know what kind of man I had been.

It all hit me in a flash in December. I suddenly comprehended the whole ridiculous ugly truth about myself. It was very liberating, because I also realized that knowing that meant I didn't have to be that anymore. Now I really could find a woman and make her the object of that kind of devotion, but it was also as clear to me in that realization that it can't be just anyone, even anyone of good qualities. There is still that element of romantic love that must be there. You can't just say that you are going to make that person the most important in your life. They have to be that person to you because you can't imagine any other possibility.

There is, in fact, only one person that fits that description for me, and in my eternal covenants, I am still married to her. I have not had any decree or pronouncement made that removes the obligation to honor those covenants, even though I never truly did before anyway. I am still bound by them, but more than that, I am still bound by the fact that I do love her that much. All my resentments are gone. In my heart, there is only infinite charity toward her. I want to do everything I can to make her happy, and living my covenants will be an important part of it.

I realize I might give the rest of my mortal life to the proposition of being a real husband to her, whether she wants it or not, and in the end have her still reject me. That is her right. It doesn't remove any of my obligation. This isn't just between her and me. These covenants were made between us and our Heavenly Father. He expects me to keep my promises. Sure, he expects her to as well. I've already had that thrown at me, but it's irrelevant. I can't think of any bad choice she has, or might have, made that I couldn't have prevented her even having the choice to make if I had been what I should have been.

It's not a matter of if I will from this point on, be the devoted husband she never had. It's only a question of whether she will accept the gift. I won't retract it either way. It's not my life to give her. There's no question that I owe her all of it. It's my life for her to give back, if anything, but I really, really, really want her to choose to hold me in thrall, and I hope, in love. I simply no longer have any interest in any other woman in the universe. I want my wife. I want Michele.

Why do I write? I alternate feeling confident and talented with being a directionless lost soul. Oddly, the opposite of "what's the point?" doesn't seem to be a point. It's rather being in a state of not caring if there is a point, or in being so arrogant as to believe that I have something to say that has the prospect of having value to some unknown future reader.

This has always been my biggest obstacle in maintaining a journal. I can seldom, even in my most egocentric state, wholly believe that what I write is going to be of any significance in the whole scheme of human life on this planet.

And it isn't. This whole realm of existence is no more significant than fingerpaintings on a fogged up window. One swipe, and it's all gone, along with everthing that we thought was so important. There's only one thing that lasts; that is eternal; that really matters. I bet you think you know what it is. Maybe you're right. I'll let you think so.

Just me

I posted the following as my profile on a singles website. I realize that it pretty much kills my chances of ever having a relationship with any woman on that website, but it was still liberating to publish a true and honest manifesto of who I am and what I want, or don't want. Being that it is so informative in that regard, I decided to post it here as well, if only for the benefit of one or two people that I know read this once in a while. As usual, sorry about the length, and in this case perhaps TMI:

It would be nice to meet women that just want to go do things. I am willing to try new things, or old things, within reason. I have standards, so there are some things that are not going to happen, such as sex outside of marriage. I've approached this topic casually in the past, because I was under the impression that if I didn't bring it up it would never be an issue. Apparently not, so pardon my bluntness. I'm not saying I only want someone to marry. It seems to me that there should be plenty of things a man and a woman can do together even if sex is off limits.

We could hike to see some breathtakingly beautiful vista (it's just pointless, and even painful, alone). We could play frisbee in the park, go to a play, visit a gallery, window shop, cook a meal together (or just let me cook for you, then clean up the dishes together). We could talk. I like talking. I like being talked to. I even try to listen sometimes. You learn things that way. I like to learn things. I like to talk in short sentences. For effect.

All of that said, I have recently had experiences that indicate I might be asking too much. It seems that the only non-Mormons that can stand Mormons are the ones that don't care about religion. Or my standards, for that matter. Not that I judge them or reject them because they are "not good enough." It's just too difficult to find common ground (at least on that topic) with someone that simply doesn't comprehend my motivation. I just want to hang out, and they think that is clothing optional.

So, it may be that I am wasting my time on singles sites. I'm LDS. We prefer that to the word Mormon, since the term has virtually no meaning in describing who we are and what we believe. It was just a convenient slang used by opponents of our religion that stuck, and we chose not to be bothered by it for many years. Recently, it has become more bothersome because many people hear it and don't realize (or accept) that we are Christian. Let me put it on record: I accept Jesus Christ as my personal Savior. There. That should be enough for most of you.

I can't be perfect, and I can't make myself perfect, or save myself a place in Heaven (another myth, hopefully dispelled), but religion aside, I feel some obligation to be a decent human as much as I am able. Maybe there's some unnecessary burden of guilt attached to that, but I'll take that over spending my life trying to pretend that my actions never have any consequences.

What it comes down to is that the non-LDS Christian women seem to think I am following a false religion down to Hell; the secular women think my religion (and all of its rules) is stupid; and since I am not the best Mormon lad, the LDS women don't care much for me either. And yet, I am not a bad guy. I say with complete confidence that any woman of quality who is looking for a man of quality would find that I can make her life blissful. I have all the right standards and values to satisfy all but the most discriminating Temple-bound daughter of Zion, and I am ridiculously talented as well. I've even been told (mostly by my patients who are 70+) that I'm not bad to look at, but maybe they are just seeing my compassion and caring and getting it confused with handsomeness. Women do that, I hear. I can fix things, too. Almost anything I set my mind to.

The only place I won't go to attract a woman is to be an insensitive jerk, i.e. a bad boy. I don't know what sick obsession makes so many women fall for, and STAY with these sorry excuses for manhood. The story I hear is that you see the good man inside and hope you can bring it out. Very admirable. I applaud you, but if that's what you want, get to work and stop complaining about it. I'm talking to most of my coworkers, BTW. Sorry for the distraction.

Here's me in a nutshell: (Help let me out of this thing! It's too small!) I kid! I kidddd! Because I love, I kid!

Anyway, being as honest as I can be here:

-I work night shift, so I am necessarily a night/morning owl.

-I spend a lot of time on the computer/internet out of sheer boredom and lack of alternatives in the middle of the night. I don't always go to websites that I should. I have played MMORPG's, but not currently.

-I quit smoking, drinking, drugs and extramarital sex, etc. in 1986 on the day I was married. I have no desire to resume any of those habits.

-I was married a little over 15 years, divorced a little over 8. No marriages or even vaguely serious relationships since, except with my 4 (1 of each) amazing children.

-I was voted most talented in my high school graduating class because I do it all: drawing, painting, making cool things out of mundane objects; guitar, piano, tuba, trombone and various other instruments, singer with a high B range (barely, for now); write songs, poems, commentary, memos; anything else creative at any moment, in any activity.

-I am a father first and foremost. Even trolling around on singles sites is as much for my children as myself. No, they don't need a mother, but they need a father who isn't going mad from loneliness.

-I am a registered nurse. Yes, I get asked a lot why I'm not "an artist," or "a writer," or "a musician," usually when I am doing one of those things for patients, coworkers, family or my congregation. My talents are worthless if they are not being used for others. That's why I am a nurse.

-I like cooking, shopping, having a clean house, folding laundry (usually while listening to right-wing talk radio), romantic comedies (nothing beats Pride and Prejudice [A&E version]) and doing whatever a righteous and considerate woman needs me to do (but it's been a while, so maybe I just miss that out of nostalgia).

-I love women. I like looking at them, talking to them, laughing, watching movies, and especially...aw, you know... There is no activity I can think of that isn't made better by having a woman (willingly) involved.

There's more, but those are the things that come to mind and are, therefore, relevant. I have saved anyone who is curious a lot of small talk, and hopefully presented myself in as honest a manner as I can. It's a lot to read, but if you got here, either it was interesting, or you are a bit of a masochist. I'm not really interested in masochists. Sorry, if that hurts your feelings...or, um...you're welcome? Now I have to proofread it, so what does that make me?

Okay, I feel I should make this clear: I like sex with a woman. I want to find the right woman, marry her, preferably for Eternity, and have lots and lots of sex with her. That will happen when and if it does, but it's not my obsession. I have plenty of other things to do for now.

(I just thought it would be a good idea to point out that I am not gay, after all of that.)

Where Now?

I have indulged in political and religious commentary and even came out and expressed a bit of hyperbole toward people opposite of my political views. I sort of regret that a little. On the other hand, I am very angry about the direction this nation is going, both politically and regarding morality and religion. I can't really help lashing out at those who either are pushing that change or who are just letting it happen.

So, what do I want to do with my little blog here? I can't help but take some consideration of the possibility of being read. Though my readership thus far has been pretty scant, the few of you that have read and are, of course, reading this now deserve better from me than to whine and rant petulantly.

There is something to be said for writing whether I feel like it or not, but not necessarily for public consumption. This is the only sort of journaling I have done with any degree of regularity, and I would like to become more disciplined with it, but as long as there is some possibility that others with read it, I feel that I should keep myself reined in and not take unfair pokes at people who might disagree with me, but are otherwise decent folks. I probably should try and be interesting as well, but doing it at the expense of others seems a bit cheap.

Okay, so I have resolved I guess to tone down the rhetoric, but I still feel the need to try and intelligently express my opinion, and if that offends anyone, they are welcome to debate. I will accord them what respect is due the quality of their argument. Hey, that's as fair as I can be. If you disagree, but can't back it up, you have no right to be offended.

Point in case, while I read a number of political blogs and articles, I have refrained from commenting on them lately because of the general lack of civility and the nearly absolute lack of actual discourse. It's pretty much all name-calling and accusation without substantive support for the opposing views.

Opinion is fine and does not require any references or verification. It's how someone feels about something and whether their perceptions are accurate or based in fact, they're entitled to it. I read some comments today appended to an article with a conservative slant. Several of the commenters were supportive and simply echoed the gist of the article.

The dissenting commenters, on the other hand, didn't even refer to the content of the article and instead attacked the people in support. They were called stupid and liars without any explanation of what lies they were supposedly telling. I believe this is what so many Liberals I have debated like to call ad hominem: an attack on the person that is irrelevant to the argument. What's more, they use that label incorrectly themselves because they fling it at you when you simply express disagreement, even if your argument is valid.

For example: stating that Bill Clinton could not be trusted after displaying beyond question that he had broken his marriage vows was considered by many Liberals I knew at the time to be a personal attack on Bill Clinton. It is not even necessarily a comment on Clinton's character to say that if he broke one presumably sacred oath, it could be expected that he held other oaths as breakable. To call him a scumbag or some other such invective is a bit more editorial, however. It is valid to debate a character flaw, but to attach derogatory opinions is not.

To typify the Liberal version of argument, comments on articles in such sites as Pres. Obama's beloved Huffington Post often follow the pattern of "What would Rush Limbaugh know about oil spills? He's just a fat drug addict." Besides the fact that Rush rehabilitated his drug habit and has his weight very much under control, what do those things have to do with his ability to comment on current events?

Yes, these are character flaws that are well known about Mr. Limbaugh, but they are only relevant if the topic involves criticism of people who are overweight or who have drug habits. Bill Clinton's trustworthiness is just as irrelevant if the topic is his knowledge of foreign affairs, or even of military strategy. Just because he is a proven liar that doesn't say anything about his incompetence as a Commander in Chief.

That is the essence of ad hominem. Whatever the person has said, factual or not, the opponent attempts to denigrate them, as if to say "I don't have to address their argument, because they're stupid." That would be tantamount to a Conservative saying that Obama's Health Care proposal (not that he ever actually made one) was bound to be flawed since he is black. I haven't ever heard anyone say anything like that, but the charge of racism is being thrown about more than the shurikens in a stadium full of ninjas. The Health Care Bill is easy enough to attack on its own lack of merits, but it would certainly be ad hominem, and wrong, to condemn it because it may or may not have had an author of any particular sex or ethnic group.

What is especially infuriating about this abuse of logic is that this very accusation is the Liberals' currently favorite bit of ad hominem. Without ever making any mention of race in my criticisms of the Obama Administration's policies, I get called a racist for disagreeing. Again, this is meant to demonize me and imply that nothing I say is of any merit regardless of intellectual or factual content because I must be deriving it from a position of racial bias.

It comes down to this: I am not sure that I can stand to keep fighting for the truth in an environment where people are content to let reasoned debate be shredded by the simple device of attacking the speaker's personal, and irrelevant, characteristics. If history matters to you at all, go back and read what passed for debate just prior to the Civil War and see if we aren't in the same atmosphere.

Despite a clear victory of thought by Lincoln in the Lincoln/Douglas debates, his position (and campaign) was defeated merely by insulting Lincoln's appearance and unsophisticated demeanor. Does anyone today have any question about Lincoln's greatness? In his time Abraham Lincoln was widely hated and despised as stupid and incompetent, even in the Union states. Over 600,000 Americans, including Lincoln, died as a result of that sort of blind hatred when the U.S. population (including slaves) was approximately 31 million. We have ten times that population today. Will it take 6 million dead Americans to resolve our differences this time around?

You think it's not the same thing? They were fighting over slaves and we are just having a political disagreement, right? You didn't actually go back and read the debates, did you? The difference that caused the Civil War was the two very disparate views of the nature of American government. It wasn't slavery, it was the right to enslave and discriminate based on the circumstances of a person's birth that the Confederacy fought for. It was written into their constitution. Theirs would have been a government of some people, by some people and for a lot of other people whether they liked it or not.

We have had several pieces of legislation pass our legislature this past year and a half despite the lack of a majority of popular support. This is no government of the people, by the people or even for the people. This is a small group of elitists who think they are better at deciding our fate than we are. It is their opinion that we aren't capable of doing the right thing if left to ourselves- precisely the argument made by the Confederacy in their constitution about the black race, and it's an even bigger indictment that their constitution wasn't likely even the opinion of the majority of southerners, as is often pointed out regarding the percentage of slave owners in the South and serving in their armies.

The Confederate constitution did not just call for a perpetuation of black slavery; it set up a system in which people of all races would be subject to rule by a portion of Anglo-Saxon white aristocracy. Not only was it a rejection of the American Experiment, it was a step back beyond the Revolution entirely to a notion that an "enlightened" and "genetically superior" minority should control the lives of an inferior majority. It is a premise that seems justified to those who establish it by the very fact of being able to. If this minority were not superior, how could they impose their will on the others?

This being the precise attitude of the current Administration and the party in control of the national legislature, it represents a very real and imminent threat to the governmental system and way of life that was established by the U.S. Constitution and preserved by the bloodshed of the Civil War. They may have a majority of party members in Congress, but they are still collectively a very small group of decision makers who have chosen, despite the understanding that they were elected based on the principles they espoused in their election campaigns to represent that constituency in regard to those principles, to abandon the will of the electorate and do whatever they want to.

That they are not truly representing those who elected them is undeniably demonstrated in the primary election results across the country that have seen overwhelming rejections of incumbents who voted contrary to the desires of the people that sent them to Congress. This is not an across-the-board rejection of incumbents in general, but has been specific to those who supported the socialist agenda of this administration.

The actual elections in the fall will tell whether the people of this nation prefer direct representation, or if they are going to accept the abandonment of the basic constitutional principles of the past 222 years in favor of an oligarchical socialist regime that they will have to trust is benevolent, competent and incorruptible. The Founders did not trust that any such government could exist and they set up the type of government they did because they wanted to protect the United States from being tricked into that kind of farce.

It might be reasonable to gamble that mankind has evolved enough since 1789 that such a government is possible now if there was any shred of evidence to that effect. One needn't look any further than the very people who claim to be such evolved beings to demonstrate the lack of character, ability and yes, compassion, that would be minimally required for it to succeed. Benevolent? Competent? Incorruptible? Are you kidding me?

Have A Day

You can have this one, for all I care. I'm just posting so that I have something posted for June. I blew most of my steam for today in a comment for the last post. I may have more steam later, but right now I have kids who always seem to be bored when I am doing something that I don't want interrupted.

At My Most Cynical

I'm pretty fed up with a lot of things, mostly my family. They don't call, they don't write. They can't even be bothered to read my blog. I email, and they don't email back. The word family has become irrelevant.

I'm fed up with being told I should be a writer. I write. I don't do it for money, which I suppose is what they mean. That's about the same as people telling me I should "be an artist." Once in a while I have been told I should be a musician, which is the one thing I seem to be able to do regularly, only maybe not so well as the other two. In any case, to do any of those things for a living, someone has to be willing to pay you. Next topic...

Liars. Everywhere you turn. Most notably, of course, are the politicians, but they hardly have a monopoly. They want you to think that every group of two or more people (corporations, apparently) that produce something are evil because they want you to pay for it. Liberals, you are morons, or you are liars. Mostly morons, I think. You're stupid enough to believe that proven incompetents and thieves, i.e. government, can be trusted with everything in your life , when they have shown that you can't trust them with anything, Seriously, rebut that one.

I know, you're thinking, "What about conservatives? They're more stupid, and brainwashed, too." Whatever. You guys spend enough time expounding that notion, so why should I address it? It's patently against all logic and since you are probably upset that I am stereotyping liberals, look at the beam in your own eye (that's a Biblical reference, so I will explain it to you, and I will use big words, so that you can pretend you understand: don't complain about my ad hominem attacks by making an ad hominem attack, you imbecilic hypocrites).

Women. I think you ladies are great and all, but why do you talk so big about what you want in a man and act as if you won't settle for less, then fall for the next jerk that flashes some jewelry at you and then put up with all the crap, and worse, that you claimed you never would? Yes, yes, there are a lot of exceptions, and you are all married or live too far away from here. Distance matters because of the primary woman I have to endure: my ex. She has control of my kids and therefore controls me. My children are all that make this excrement existence worth it for me.

That's all I can stomach for now. There's plenty more that I am pissed about, but I'm just wasting my time posting here anyway. At least I can vent here on a public site that can be accessed by anyone in the world (except maybe the Chinese that aren't hackers, so about 3 people) and not have to worry that anyone will ever be offended by it.