Life in Moo Town
Happiness/Risk Correlation
I suspect that there is a correlation between how risk averse an individual is and how happy they are. Happiness seems to derive from a certain satisfaction with the status quo. If one is satisfied with their lot, and therefore happy, they are unlikely to take substantial risks even if they may lead to significant gain because satisfaction negates motivation. The unhappy, on the other hand, are probably more risk prone because they have less to lose emotionally. They are unsatisfied with their current position so they will be more likely to risk whatever they have in a bid for what they perceive would make them happy. Just a theory. I have no proof, evidence, statistics, or even anecdotes to support my claim. Scary...it's almost like sociology ;-)
I've been extremely stressed lately and I think I'm starting to put my finger on why. It may seem odd that I'd be stressed at a time like this. I've basically finished both the jobs I took on this summer. I'm done with undergrad. I'm accepted at an excelent law school and my future looks fairly secure. What have I got to worry about? I think I'm worried about where my life is going. I've always been a guy with high ideals, lofty ambitions, and a solid committment to a moral code. I've been pretty happy with this state of affairs for as long as I can remember (with the occasional interlude of temporary insanity). I've been doing a lot of reading this summer about what life is like in law school and as a lawyer. People have told me for years that law school changes you. That you never look at the world the same way again after going through it. I don't think I ever really took this to heart. I just assumed that a legal education would teach me to be analytical and logical, but as a philosophy student, that's already how I view the world. What bothers me is that the reading I'm doing describes people I don't really want to become. They are highly successful but they work like slaves and enjoy highly material lives while completely neglecting the aspects of existence that might be capable of a sustaining real satisfaction. It's all about money, prestige, ego and power. The characters I read about all come across as completely neurotic joyless tools. Most of the real lawyers I've met seem to reinforce image. I haven't been sleeping for a few nights now (in fact it's 2:30AM right now) and I think the reason why is that I know I have the potential to wind up as one of these characters. Material prizes are a tempting lure and they can easily obscure the deeper meaning in life. The cutthroat pursuit of class standing could easily push me over the edge and make me into the standard angry, neurotic new yorker. Heaven forbid I should actually stay in Manhattan after law school. I need to figure out a way to succeed in law without losing myself. If I become rich and powerful but I lose my idealism and all the dreams of my youth what was the point? How can I enjoy any of it? I wish I could find some positive role models to emulate. I guess the old line is true. The 10% of lawyers that are decent people are tarnished by the other 90%. No easy solutions. I'll have to think about where I'm heading. Guess I won't get any sleep tonight either.
Today was a nice vacation from my usual paper chase. I went to Oakland with a couple friends and ate pizza at Zachary's and then ice cream at Fenton's. Zachary's was good but Fenton's was incredible. I've never seen such big and extravagent ice cream sundaes! The three of us split two and there was still plenty to go around. I'd highly recommend you go check the ice creamery out if you get a chance. I spent the rest of the day in Maraga playing Mexican Dominos with a friend's family and watching sex in the city until late at night when I finally drove back to Davis. Good times :-)
I saw a movie and went to the cheesecake factory tonight with an old friend from high school. It was really nice to be able to argue the pressing issues of our day with a sane, intelligent human being. Even though we didn't agree on a whole lot it was so refreshing just to be able to discuss great questions and approach them from a new viewpoint. Jut letting free speech run its course. The cheesecake didn't hurt either. Hmm, there's nothing sarcastic or depressing in this post. Must be a fluke. Well, as they say, good conversation is as stimulating as coffee and as hard to sleep after. I'd better get some shut eye though. Tomorrow I need to drive to Berkeley in the morning to eat pizza at Zachary's and ice cream at Fenton's with a couple Davis friends. Such a burden of responsibility to bear...oops, there's that sarcasm ;-)
Political Rant: Gay Marriage
The current furor surrounding the issue of same sex marriage is really just a distraction that the administration is using to direct attention away from the numerous domestic and international failures of the last 4 years. Sadly the best way for democrats to counter the tactic is to come out against gay marriage as well to make it a non-issue in the presidential race. If both sides agree, voters won't make their decision based on the issue. Although that would be a pragmatic strategy, it is totally unjustifiable both legally and morally. It's sad that the vast majority of Americans oppose same sex marriage since they don't really understand what is at stake. The real fight is over equal rights to tax benefits, health care benefits, social security, etc...Most people perceive it as a religious issue instead. Even if the US government made same sex marriage legal and gave gays the same rights as heterosexual couples there would be no religious implication. Catholics priests could still refuse to perform homosexual marriages, as could rabbis, ministers, and representatives of every other religion. Legalizing secular same sex marriage would not necessarily lead to religious same sex marriages. While religious marriage ceremonies typically employ rituals and recognition of God's approval of the union, civil marriage is just a legal contract essentially. God has no place in the secular state and his/her/its opinion on homosexual union is irrelevant to whether or not said unions should be legally recognized. In addition, the arguments against same sex marriage are extremely weak. The main argument put forth is that homosexual marriage threatens the sanctity of straight marriages. Well "sanctity" is a religious expression and as stated above there is no religious implication in allowing civil marriages to same sex couples. Religious marriages would still be protected from heretical or sinful unions as each religion has the right to admit or bar whomever and whatever they choose (of course it is worth noting that several of the more progressive religious movements already allow same sex unions within their religious laws so apparently God expressed a different opinion to those religious leaders than to those on the right, assuming that God has been talking to anybody, which is a subject for another rant). The argument that same sex marriage somehow threatens heterosexual marriage is the most ridiculous notion of all. It isn't as if heterosexuals will start marrying into gay couples if it becomes legal. Straight men will still prefer women and straight women will still prefer men. The 10% of the population that is gay will just be able to enjoy the same benefits as straight couples, there will be absolutely no change in the straight lifestyle. Down with discrimination!
