Requiem for a Greyhound

Ginger, a.k.a. D.C.'s Doodle, b. July 27, 2002  d. June 14, 2016

Boaty McBoatface and Brexit

A level of silliness has taken over much of the Western world, with possible dire consequences.

The recent "Brexit" vote turns out to be, in retrospect, not unexpected.   It is not that most people in the UK were clamoring to leave the EU or even thought about the consequences, but rather that they thought it might be "fun" to disrupt things.

Now that the vote has passed and the pound is worth about a buck, the reality of the situation has set in and many are complaining that they thought their "protest vote" wouldn't be taken seriously.   This is, of course, one reason our forefathers came up with the electoral college and why the Democratic party has "superdelegates" - you can't trust the voters to take things seriously all the time.

In a recent contest to name a new boat, people got together and "brigaded" the voting site to put "Boaty McBoatface" as the number one entry.  They thought it would be funny to screw up a simple boat naming contest, just for the hell of it.  Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed and decided to scrap the contest when it was clear that immature people were voting.

Maybe the Queen can do the same thing with the "Brexit" vote.  Just a thought.  What's the point of being "sovereign" if you can't throw your weight around a bit?

For Americans, the "Brexit" vote is a non-starter.  Sure my net worth was dinged about 2% yesterday, but that's about it.  Maybe the value of my euro bonds will drop somewhat.   But the value of the pound is down, so maybe it is a good time to visit the UK.  Meanwhile, the US dollar is stronger (bad for exports, good for imports) and the world once again flocks to America as a haven of stability and sanity.

Oh, right, Trump.

You see, the Trump phenomenon is the same thing as "Brexit" and "Boaty McBoatface" - voters who just want to be disruptors and see the system torn down, without thinking much about what will take its place. 

And history is rife with such folks.   People vote for a dictator without thinking of the consequences, hoping that the authoritarian rule will "get things done" for a change,when in fact, stasis and inaction are often the best things a government can do.

The Brexit vote will be bad for the UK.   Exports from that country will be expensive, as the EU no doubt will be in no mood to cut special deals for the Brits.   Nissan just built a car plant there, the first new car plant in, well, decades.   Exporting to the mainland will be more expensive.   The Chinese and Indians might want to move production of Land Rovers and Jaguars to Europe or even their home countries, if tariffs make their products unaffordable.   It remains to be seen. 

But one positive aspect of this vote is that it illustrates to voters why voting is important and should be taken seriously.   While a "protest vote" might sound like fun and all, there is a real risk that your candidate might actually win or more likely allow an opposing candidate to win.  Boaty McBoatface people voted for Nader and allowed Bush to win.   Today, they are still saying Bernie might win (no, really) and the thought of a Bernie 3rd party candidacy is frightening - it might allow Trump into the White House.

The movement behind Trump is one of disruption - and even Trump's supporters admit this.   They want to completely spoof the system and tear our world down, without a concrete idea as to what will replace it.

Will we throw away our civilization out of sheer boredom?  It has happened before.

This raises the question - will we simply destroy our existing civilization out of sheer boredom?  Will we bring on Armageddon just to see what happens?   There is precedent for this.   Civilizations don't fail from external forces, but from within.  When people are convinced that their civilization isn't worth saving, they let it fail.

And today, a lot of people are saying this and thinking this - that our mighty civilization, the apex of thousands of years of development, is corrupt and vile and should be destroyed.  Because 1%'ers make more money, it should be torn down.  Because so many people are on welfare, it should be torn down.  Because their neighbor doesn't believe in the same God, it should be torn down.

And perhaps this is how all civilizations die.   The Anasazi people of the American Southwest built amazing irrigation systems and cliff dwellings and then mysteriously disappeared.  Maybe their kids didn't think maintaining irrigation ditches was a worthwhile endeavor.   Maybe the Incas and Aztecs were fallen by a similar fate - a generation born into wealth that took for granted all they had, and wanted only more, without work or labor.

The promise of "Brexit" is the same promise that Trump is making, that "if only" we could keep out foreigners or impose levies or taxes on imported goods, we would all be Billionaires just like he is.   Except that he isn't a Billionaire, by most accounts, but actually a failed businessman who would have done better putting his inheritance into Treasury bills than into casinos.

It really gets down to the same old "something for nothing" argument that I have railed against in this blog for years.   People get into personal financial trouble when they think they can get something-for-nothing, whether it is credit card debt, student loans, a leased car, or a refinanced mini-mansion.

And countries and governments get into the same trouble when they think the same way, that "if only" we could nationalize industry, or throw out the (fill in the blank) or whatever one-size-fits-all solution to difficult problems that is being tossed around, then the world would be a paradise-on-earth.

And if we can't have paradise-on-earth, then fuck it, lets burn the motherfucker down - right?

I can only hope that the "Brexit" vote is a forewarning to American voters that they should consider carefully how they vote and who they vote for.

And for the life of me, I am not sure why anyone would put their national sovereignty up to a vote on a whim.   America had its own "exit" vote, so to speak, in 1860, and it resulted in the bloodiest war in American history - over a half-million dead.

People may criticize the electoral college system or our "superdelegate" system, but these "check valves" in Democracy might be essential to prevent voters from truly having their way.   As the "Brexit" vote illustrates, voters can be irrational and stampeded into making bad choices.  Sometimes, it is best if "one man, one vote" exists only in theory.

UPDATE 2022:  Well, Brexit has come and gone and the net result has been chaos for the UK.  The standard of living there has dropped and everything the "Leave" people said would get better has, in fact, gotten worse.  Travel to Europe (which you are no longer part of?) - wait in line for "Non-EU residents."  Fishing rights? A disaster.  Customs lines for imports/exports?  Waiting for days.   The "hard border" with Ireland?  Might be a reality.  The whole thing is a cock-up.  A temper tantrum over nothing.

And Putin is laughing his ass off.  We realize now that the whole thing was a trolling job by the Russian Internet Research Agency - and Brits fell for it!

Low Self-Esteem, brought to you by... Religion!

If you raise someone to be self-loathing, you can manipulate them to your ends.

When I heard on Sunday morning that some guy shot up a gay nightclub in Orlando, two thoughts went through my head.  First, why did it take three hours to storm the club?  I don't mean to second-guess the Police, but a lot of people "bled out" during that time, and I thought after Paris, the Police realized that rapid intervention was the key, not calling the SWAT team and trying to "negotiate".   But I wasn't there, so maybe there were circumstances.

But the second and more important thought was, the guy was likely a closeted homosexual.   And as events are unfolding, this turns out to be the case.   Conservatives want to blame this on ISIS or "Radical Islam" because it fits their political narrative.   Donald Trump wants to protect Gays and Lesbians from Muslim extremists - but who protects us from Donald Trump and his followers?   Until Sunday morning, anyone on Reddit's the_Donald who disagreed with Trump was called a "Faggot" or worse.   Trump is no friend to Gays - or any other minority for that matter.

But why did I assume the shooter was a closet homosexual even before this was reported?   Well, I have some experience in this area.   If you want to spot a closeted homosexual, just look for the guy shouting "Faggot!" the loudest.   Yes, this includes the late founder of the Westboro Baptist Church.   People who are obsessed with homosexuality are themselves conflicted about their own feelings.

It is like the well-established theory that many policemen join the force because they really want to be criminals, but their upbringing prevents them from being law-breakers.  Being the guy who busts law-breakers is the next best thing.   It is a theory, anyway.  And maybe it explains why some cops end up going rogue.

The problem is religion.   Religion is a very neatly planned little psychological experiment that preys upon the minds of the faithful.   By making you feel guilty for your own natural urges, they can get you to do whatever they want you to do, simply by calling you a "sinner" or "unholy" and getting you to suppress your urges - which warps your mind in a number of ways.

Our brains are programmed from the get-go to do a number of things.  We breathe.  We drink.  We eat.   And if we want the species to survive we have sex, which is probably a more powerful drive than anything except perhaps breathing.   Sex is pleasurable, so we seek it out as humans.   And often as humans, who we are attracted to has less to do with having babies than with having fun.

But religion tells us that sex is bad.  Unless you are making babies in a marriage, just forget about it!   Even heterosexual sex is a sin, outside of marriage and if not for making babies.

So the religious faithful are conflicted.  They have these urges and are told they are bad.  And to even have such urges makes them horrible people who deserve little more than death.   

But the joke is, of course, everybody has these urges in one form or another.   Oh, sure there are a few people who claim to be asexual but even then, I'm not buying it.   I think a lot of those folks are just trying to get attention.

And the really sick joke is, the people who run these religions often indulge themselves in whatever form of sexual deviance they desire while at the same time decrying even the most innocent sex acts in their parishioners.   The Catholic Church is not some outlier or anomaly.

Muslims claim that homosexuality is sin.  Yet in Afghanistan, a favorite sport among wealthy Muslims is "Boy Play" or "Bachi Bazi".  Imams who run madrassas where young men are indoctrinated into Islam are routinely accused of molesting their followers.   Homosexuality is suppressed in the Middle-East, and yet it also flourishes.   They just live in more denial than even Catholics.

Sadly, this creates a cognitive dissonance in the mind of young men.  Left unchecked, it leads to full-blown schizophrenia.  They live in two worlds - their own mind, with its "unclean" urges and impulses, and then in their religious world, where they are one of God's own chosen few.

And as it turns out, this shooter in Orlando grew up in the house of crazy, with a Dad who claimed to be President of Afghanistan, making hour-long YouTube videos, claiming to fight for the rights of the Pashtun, even if he didn't speak their language.

And of course, crazy if often hereditary.   So Dad tells his son that being gay is bad.  Son meanwhile wants to date men.   Schizophrenia sets it.   He sees his urges as evil.   What's more, it angers him that other people are apparently happy and carefree about their own urges.   Why should they be allowed to have fun, when he has to obey his religion and his Dad?

Now, a more rational person might say, "you  know, fuck religion.  And Dad's crazy.  Fuck him, too.  I'm moving out of this town, getting place of my own, preferably in a State far away, and living my own life, happily ever after!"

A rational person might do that.   A lot of other people feel "obligated" to do what their parents say, even well into their 30's or 40's.  They believe that their birth family is everything in the world and that forming their own family and their own relationships is secondary to worshiping their Father and Mother.

Funny thing, too, religion reinforces this crazy notion, probably because it keeps people closer to religion and closer to the indoctrination.

But we do have choices in this world.   And parents and religions can be crazy and pointless.   It is sad that this young man could not stand up for himself and say, "This is who I am, not who my crazy Father thinks I should be!" and then go live his own life.   

And since he couldn't do this, he was angry, at himself, his wives, and the world.   But this anger was totally unnecessary.   Living in America, you can re-invent yourself to be whoever you want to be.   You don't have to live the life your parents or your religion says you have to.

Now, some Conservatives will say that the fellow "pledged his life to ISIS" during the shooting.   But this was just a cover story, so as to explain the gay away.   He had no real connection to ISIS or radical Islam.   He was a closet homosexual.

And closeted homosexuals are thus prized in many Muslim countries where terrorism is breeding.   If you are a young gay or lesbian in, say, the West Bank, you have two choices in life.   If you come out as Gay, you will be beaten or stoned to death and your family will be shamed.   However, if you strap on a suicide vest and blow up a bunch of Jews, your family will be honored, given money and a new home, and you will be remembered as a "martyr".

It is a compelling recruitment technique.   And it is one reason religion wants you to feel bad about yourself and your natural sexual urges.   By telling you that you are inherently "bad" - and getting you to believe it - they get you to believe that your life is worthless, and that you should surrender yourself to their machinations, even sacrificing your own life in the process.

This fellow who shot up the nightclub wasn't an Islamic terrorist bent on avenging Islam.   He was something far, far worse.

He was one of our own.

Laws of Nature versus Laws of Man

Is a bicycle accident preventable or inevitable?

In an earlier posting, I mentioned that riding a bicycle in the street is a very dangerous activity.  Just as with motorcycles, the possibility of a collision with a car is pretty high, and the consequences are almost always devastating.

Sadly, there are people in this country who seriously believe that these activities can be "made safe" if we pass laws, enforce laws, or "raise awareness" of these safety issues.   This is, of course, living in a fool's paradise.

You see, there is a difference between the laws of man and the laws of nature.   Mankind makes laws for its own behavior, and they are routinely flouted.  Hence we have a police force and a criminal justice system to try to enforce the laws - and punish those who break them.   But this does not mean the laws are always enforced.   Our laws are imperfect and weak, and they are more often breeched than obeyed.

The laws of nature, on the other hand, are immutable.

What laws am I talking about?   Well, two come to mind.   First, the laws of physics.  Second, the laws of probability.

The laws of physics dictate that when a 4,000lb SUV hits a bicyclist, the bicyclist will be injured severely or killed, and that the motorist will nary have a scratch.   This is not open for debate.  You can do the math, calculate the momentum and forces of impact and come to the same conclusion time and time again.   You don't want to tangle with cars, period.

The laws of probability dictate that if you ride your bike in busy traffic, you will eventually get hit by a car.   The more you ride, and the more recklessly you ride, the more probable it is this will happen.  And because the laws of physics dictate the outcome, it is almost an assured thing that if you ride in busy traffic long enough, you will eventually be seriously injured or killed. 

Some people, particularly "serious bicyclists" disagree with the laws of nature, and believe that the laws of man will protect them.

"I have a right to a full lane!" they cry - even if it isn't quite the law in their State.   "A bicycle is just like a motor vehicle, under the law!"

Perhaps under the laws of man but not under the laws of physics or the laws of probability.

And it is not a matter of people intentionally trying to run over bicyclists as apparently happened over the weekend.   Rather, people are inattentive, distracted, have poor reaction times, or just are losing their faculties as they get older (eyesight, reaction time, hearing).  They may be texting.  They may be drunk.  They may be high.  Yes, some of these things are illegal.  They are breaking mankind's laws.   But mankind's laws are routinely broken and rarely punished.

The laws of nature, on the other hand, are always enforced with deadly precision.

Yesterday we were driving on our island.   We have 20-30 miles of bicycle trails that are separate from our roadways.   If you ride on them, the odds of tangling with a car are very low.    But our roadways are very narrow with no shoulders.   If you ride on them, well, the probability is, you will tangle with some oldster with poor reaction times, poor eyesight, and poor hearing.   Or a vacationer who is distracted, texting, or drunk.   And the outcome will not be pretty.

And yes, I have seen one bicycle accident already here, where a minivan hit a bicyclist, who was lying in the road in a pool of his own blood.  He wasn't dead, but he didn't look all that happy, either.  The van tried to pass, apparently, at the same time the bicyclist tried to turn left, without signaling or even aware the van was behind him (he did not have a rear-view mirror).

The odds are even worse if you do stupid things.   We came across one bicyclist who had the whole "Lance Armstrong Starter Kit" replete with "sponsor" team jersey (although no one was actually sponsoring him), expensive bike, and the whole kit - sans the steroids, as far as I know.  We were trying to pass him in a particularly narrow part of the roadway when he suddenly veered out into the center of the roadway to prevent us from passing.

You see, he was one of these "bicycle rights" nuts who thought that no one should be allowed to pass him, ever, as he has a "right" to a full lane of the road.

And under mankind's laws, maybe he is right.   Of course, by nature's laws, he will end up dead wrong.   Swerving out into the path of a 4,000 lb car is just plain stupid.   You may be making your "point" but you will end up dead.

So what's the point?

This does raise the question, is it safe to pass a bicyclist?  And this is where it gets tricky, and where "serious" bicyclists are utter hypocrites (as are many motorcyclists).

A friend of mine, who is very old, refuses to pass bicyclists, even in a passing zone.   So she tailgates them in her 6,000 lb quad-cab pickup truck.   Is this safer than passing?   I think not.   If the bicyclist falls or stops suddenly, he is instantly run over.   It is better to execute a safe and quick pass than to linger behind a bicyclist for miles and miles.

And I have had people do this to me, too.   I was riding in the road on one of the few occasions I do so, and someone just followed me.   So I pulled off onto the grassy shoulder, eight feet from the road edge and stopped.

The car stopped too.   For some reason, they thought they were obligated to follow the bicyclist forever.   But I had no desire to be at the head of a "parade" of 5 cars going down the road at 15 mph.   No thanks!

No, it is better to execute a safe pass.   And when a car passes you, as a bicyclist, you should stay to the RIGHT and get onto the shoulder if possible.    Not that that is the "law" it is just common sense as the laws of physics and laws of probability are stacked against you.   Swerving out into the lane to "prove a point" is beyond idiotic.   It is suicidal.

And this is where "serious" bicyclists get hypocritical.    When you are trying to pass one in a car, these bozos will swerve out into the lane to "assert their lane rights!"    They believe you should not pass unless there is a passing zone and you can move into the oncoming lane to pass.   Theoretically, this may be the law in some States.  Realistically, it ain't gonna happen.   Just move over, let the cars go by, and get back to enjoying riding without some Buick breathing down your neck!

At the next intersection, however, the same bicyclist who "asserted his lane rights" will then try to "lane share" with you, by riding between cars or between cars and the shoulder to pass everyone waiting at a light or stop sign.   And once they get to the light or stop sign they run the light or stop sign and continue on their way, once again swerving out into traffic to prevent cars from passing them.

(Motorcyclists do this all the time to zip through traffic, and apparently "lane sharing" in some States is indeed legal.  However it is very, very dangerous.  Someone stuck in traffic opens their car door to spit, and you are toast!).

This is asinine.   If you believe that bicycles are "just like cars" and should follow "the rules of the road" then you should follow all the rules of the road.    You can't do this cafeteria style by following only those laws which work in your favor and ignoring the rest.

And speaking of ignoring the rest, when you run a red light or a stop sign on your bicycle, you are really ignoring the laws of physics and the laws of probability.  As I noted in The A-Pillar Accident, rolling stop signs or running red lights predictably leads to an accident, not because of luck or skill, but because of science.   If someone's A-pillar is blocking their view of you, they have no idea you exist.

And yes, I was almost run over on my bicycle just standing at a stop sign when a car driver cut the corner and couldn't see me because his A-pillar blocked the view.   It was only when I was on the hood of his car that he saw me.   And of course, he blamed me for "not stopping" (when I had both feet on the ground!).   Lesson learned (not by him, of course!) - square your corners.   Being lazy and rounding corners and passing into the oncoming lane is just a really bad idea.  Yea, I know, it takes that whole extra turn of the wheel, but it is worth it.

Because of incidents like this, as well as a friend of mine being severely injured in a bike accident, I have pretty much given up on riding on the roads.   If there is a bike path, I take it.   And when I ride on the road, I stay the fuck away from cars.   I keep to the right as far as possible.  If there is a shoulder, I ride on it and let the cars pass.   I am not out to make some political "point" about what the laws of mankind are, because I took a course in physics and a course in probability.    As a lawyer, I understand how weak mankind's laws are, and as an engineer how immutable are the laws of nature.

I frankly don't understand the "serious" bicyclists of the world.  They spend literally thousands of dollars on racing bicycles and say they are doing it "for the exercise".    But when you ask them why they don't get a mountain bike and ride on a bike path, they say, "Too much resistance!  Too heavy!" - but wasn't exercise the entire point of biking?

Of course, not all of these "serious" bikers are this way.   Most get out of the way of cars.   Some ride two abreast, but will revert to single file when they see traffic behind them.   They wear helmets, have rear-view mirrors, wear colorful jerseys, have LED lights, and so forth.  They want to be safe and they don't want to get run over, as they understand the horrific consequences.

But others go out of their way to be dicks - intentionally swerving out when a car comes up behind them, or suddenly deciding to ride 2, 3, or even 4 abreast, when a car comes up behind them.   Legally, they may be in the "right" but morally, I am not so sure. 

It is like the thing with the Lesbian wedding cakes.   It is one thing to be offended when some Christian baker refuses to make your wedding cake.   It is another thing, in my opinion, to seek out Christian bakers and intentionally try to start some confrontation.   And this goes for both sides of that, or other debates.   You can't blame someone for being discourteous when you intentionally set out to make them so.

Bicycle safety means you have to understand the laws of physics and the horrific consequences that occur, with regularity, when cars and bicycles collide.   Bicycle safety means doing everything in your powers to reduce the probability of such horrific events from occurring, simply because they are horrific.  Bicycle safety does not mean seeking out confrontation with motorists, as you have no idea who the motorist is, and what they may or may not do.   You could end up dead, and it just isn't worth it.

I should mention that this is another one of those causation versus probability things, that usually demarcates the young from the old (but not always - the "bicycle rights" doo-doo head we nearly ran into was well into his 70's).   Kids believe that mankind's laws will protect them.  They believe that putting up signs and bumper stickers that say, "watch for motorcycles" or "share the lane" will help reduce the incidence of horrific motorcycle and bicycle crashes.

They believe that "but for" some action by a motorist, or a slick of oil on the road, or a blowout of a tire, or some other causational factor that they will be safe from accident.    It is only when someone fails to do their duty that accidents happen!

And there may be some truth to that.   But as you get older, you realize that the law of probability is inflexible and must often be fed with blood.   If you ride a motorcycle, there is a high probability you will be in a wreck.   If you ride in busy city traffic, the probability goes up.   If you ride like a jerk, it skyrockets.   Yet so many young people get into motorcycle wrecks and say, "Well, if that little old lady hadn't turned left in front of me while I was doing a mile-long wheelie at twice the speed limit through a residential neighborhood, I wouldn't have been hurt!"   In their minds it is "but for" the little old lady turning left, everything would be OK.

In my mind, being older and having been in a couple of wrecks, I see the little old lady as inevitable.   And one of my "little old ladies" was actually an off-duty cop, and a Harley rider of 30 years to boot.   When Police Officers can negligently run into you, all bets are off.  And they do, too, as Police Officers are human like the rest of us.

For bicyclists, it is the same story.   You may argue that if everyone obeyed the rules, you would be as safe as in your Mother's arms.   And that might be true.  But it ain't likely to happen.   What is far more likely to happen is you do get injured or killed.  Every day, two people lose their lives in bicycle/motor vehicle accidents.   Statistically, this is a small number of people in a nation of 330 million.   However, statistically, it is a far larger percentage of the number of bicyclists out there, as bicycling is just not very popular in the USA, while driving is.   In terms of the number of man-hours spent bicycling in the USA, it is probably an appalling number.

Pedestrians fare far worse - clocking in at 12 per day.   But there are far more pedestrians in the world than bicyclists.  A pedestrian is someone who parked their car.  And crossing a street is sort of unavoidable.

And of course, the injuries are reported at about 50,000 per year for car/bicycle accidents.   And by injury, we could mean anything from a skinned knee to months of reconstructive surgery and rehabilitation, as my friend went though.  Maybe it isn't as bad as dying, but it isn't any Swiss picnic, either.

So what's the point of this?   Well, what you learn from this can be applied to all different areas of life.   If you engage in high-risk behaviors, you can expect bad consequences to occur, as the law of probability will eventually catch up with you.   If you drive recklessly, speeding and tailgating all the time (which some folks think is "normal driving" - I know I did at age 25!) you can expect to get into accidents or at least get tickets and your insurance to soar.   Whining that it is "unfair" and that those "mean insurance companies" are "just out to make money!" isn't helping your personal situation, even if you could pin the causation on them (which you can't).   The laws of probability kick in, and insurance is all about the laws of probability.

Similarly, if you engage in risky financial behavior, odds are you will end up in trouble.   Rewards cards with high interest rates sound like fun, but if you can't off the balance even for one month all those "rewards" are flushed down the toilet in short order.  And no, blogging about how your bank is mean and rotten isn't going to change this.   Nor is voting for Bernie Sanders.

Believing in causation as the source of your difficulties is a form of externalizing.  It is a way of relieving yourself of personal responsibility.   When you take risks - and we all do on a daily basis - we have to take responsibility for the outcomes, both good and bad.

Increasingly, it seems as a society we want to do the reverse.   We want to take risks and when they turn out in our favor we want to reap the rewards.  When they turn out to our disadvantage, we want to avoid the consequences, blame other people or institutions, and somehow "pin" the cause on to a single person, company, or government agent.

It is a popular sport, to be sure.  But one that leaves you with little satisfaction if you are bleeding out on the pavement.

What Death Teaches Us About Life

What does death teach us about life?

Recently a relative died, and then our doctor died.   Living on retirement island, we see a lot of neighbors and friends leave the island feet first.   Death has a way of putting life in perspective.  What we think are things of critical importance end up being junk thrown in a dumpster only days after we pass on.

Some folks have trouble with this.  I noted before about a friend who has spend five years now, weeping over their parent's possessions, spending close to $100,000 in property taxes, insurance, utilities, and whatnot, to keep an unused house because sorting through (and throwing away) the parents' possessions is too traumatic.

For me, wasting $100,000 is far more traumatic.

It is not hard to see where this comes from though.  Cleaning out a loved one's home isn't easy.   All the "stuff" in their lives which seemed so important only days before is now just crap to be hauled away, given away, or sold off as quickly as possible.  And nowhere is this more true that with material possessions.

You may, as a young person, obsess about your car.  After all, it cost so much and it is so cool to have a sporty hatchback, right?   But the minute you are dead, the car is just some routine possession to be sold off to settle your estate.  In the greater scheme of things, it really isn't important at all.   Neither is your computer, your stereo system, your wall-screen television, or your X-box.   All just junk that is gotten rid of very cheaply, as it really isn't worth much.

Now, you may say this sounds depressing, but depression is literally a state of mind.   I am just reporting the facts in a neutral manner.   If you choose to perceive reality as "depressing" that is a personal choice.   And many do just that - preferring to live in a fantasy world where nothing downbeat ever occurs.  Sadly, such fantasy worlds end up causing more depression, as they inevitably collide with mean old reality, which seems twice as "depressing" because you've avoided it for so long.

A better plan is to appreciate reality for what it is, and learn to like it.   99% of the world's problems - maybe all of them - are caused by people choosing to live in fantasy worlds, be they religious, economic, political, or emotional.

My perspective on all of this is positive, not depressing.  The realization that most of what we consider "important" in life is in reality utter bullshit is not a depressing thing, but a liberating one.  The "stuff" we accumulate life that we think of as "important" ends up being piles of junk our next-of-kin shovels into a dumpster.   The lesson here is a good one - stop obsessing about "stuff" and obsess more about life.

Stop trying to document your life through mementos or tchotchkes or facebook pages and start actually living it.   Stop looking at life as a series of possessions to accumulate or achieve, and instead look at it as a set of experiences to savor.

When I was younger, I though of life more in terms of things to buy.  If only I had a house, I would be set for life.  If only I had a cool car, I would be set for life.   Once I achieved these "things" I would be happy.   What I realized was, later on in life, that the things we did were more important than the things we did them with.   Getting attached to a boat, or a car, or a motorcycle is kind of dumb, in my opinion.

And one factor that caused this paradigm shift was aging.  As a kid, you think a car is going to last forever, because 10 years seems like half your life, and in fact, probably is half your conscious life.    But after you've driven a car from the showroom to the junkyard - more than once - you realize that these things are transitory possessions.   They are things that serve a purpose in your life, and when they stop serving a purpose, you should dispose of them and move on.

Hoarders can't grasp this concept.   To them, things are the holy grail.   You'd better not throw that out!  You might need it some day!   But of course, whatever it is you need "some day" you can probably find on a store shelf or someone's garage sale for cheap.

My friend with the house full of possessions is also a hoarder - an organized one.   They have multiple storage lockers with racks of shelves and lots of "things" carefully organized for the later day when they will be called upon to be used for some purpose.   In the last 1/4 of their lives, I am not sure what purpose these things will be called upon for, but that's the logic of it.   And I am not sure that one can enjoy "things" when they are locked up in a storage locker.

But maybe I am missing the picture.  Maybe the whole experience for them is to visit the storage locker and fuss over the possessions.  Maybe that is the fun they get out of it.   The things are never to be actually used other than their fondling, organizing, and storage.   I suppose in a way, it is the "joy" a numismatist or a philatelist gets from pawing over their collections as well.  If so, then I guess there is an experience there of some merit.

However, having been to one-too-many estate sales, I am not so sure I really need to own too much anymore.   Possessions at this stage in life seem more a burden than a joy.  Just another "thing" that needs to be taken care of, put somewhere, and worried over.  And with mechanical and electrical things, yet another opportunity for disappointment as inevitably they break or fail to meet up to their over-hyped expectations.

What is left behind when you are gone isn't the stuff you bought but rather things you made whether they are friends and family, a piece of artwork, or a poem you wrote.   These are the things that are intangible for the most part - that are expressions of your life, and thus closer to life itself.

Your wallet and credit cards, your money, your house, your drawers full of junk - they are gone in a matter of weeks and mean little or nothing to anyone, even yourself, if you think about it.

And this is a good thing, trust me.