The day after the Richard Sherman evisceration began, I looked up the definition of “thug”, though I had considered this word many times before. It originates from the Hindi word “thag”, and referred to a robber who often engaged in murder, generally by strangulation. In India. Strangulation is certainly one of the most vicious and violent ways of committing a murder. Generally, one would be facing their victim, perhaps even staring directly into their eyes bulging with the life being squeezed out, bulging with the victim’s effort to keep it in. Strangulation, bulging; all part of an event where the fullness of life is forced out of the very lenses through which it was to be consumed and enjoyed – life going the wrong way down a one way street. Whether or not these “thags” faced their victims to actually see it, they would always feel life violently erupt in an attempt to escape. Yet, life would succumb to the attacker’s malice until it finally did escape, but only in defeat; only once it was fully gone from the crumpled package that once and recently contained it. After such an event, to celebrate the spoils of a conquest… this is what it meant to be a “thug”.

I have grown weary, but darkly amused at the loaded and often thinly veiled racist language that has emerged in the decades since burning crosses became passé. Too smoky, too messy, too much to carry; if only there was app for that. Nevertheless, we do love our four letter words. How neatly and well they carry. The “comments” section of the internet is constantly smoldering though, when it is not being set ablaze anew, full of smoke signals. Lynchings occur on smartphones instead of in the backwoods. Ear-buds are the 21st century hoods and it is even harder to know who is underneath, because everybody is wearing one. It is easy for twits to tweet and enemies to facebook.

Our scales are off, under surreptitious thumbs. There is much ado when non-sexual events and objects are referred to as “gay” for example, but little outcry when tacky and shabby things are “ghetto”. Black and Hispanic men who are anything but demur are “thugs”. The NHL has fights that are a part their “tradition”, even premeditated ones that commence seconds after teams take the ice. They are not called “thugs” there, but not because cooler heads prevail. Many of those players also come from ghettos, just not any in the United States. They are called “enforcers” – how positive a connotation! In another league though, it’s “Malice in the Palace”, and how the sky falls and calamities befall us when big black men get out of control! Nevermind that most of those men come from middle class, two-parent homes. I conclude that those who would use the word are more “thug” than anyone. They would strangle honest efforts at tolerance, even blatant bigotry; which I would much (much) rather over the sneaky plausible deniability of “if you know what I mean”. And I think you do.

I just ate the deadest orange you can imagine. In fact, you probably can’t imagine, so let me tell you about it. It was not sour, refreshingly; but it was not sweet, disappointingly. One would hardly even knew that they were alive except for all the chewing. It wasn’t even all that juicy. In taste, it was like a slightly citrusy version of a lame cantaloupe. Even the knife was unenthusiastic in cutting this thing open, I had to stab it first. I should have known. I also should have burned those seeds to help bring that lineage to an end. That orange was so lame though, that it hardly even had any seeds…

Thought of the night: A kind word spoken leaves an indelible mark, but a kind word written grows in potency every time it is read.

“Bees do not enrich only themselves when visiting flowers, they also enrich the flowers.”

This is my first idea worth sharing today, and it was prompted by a travel article lamenting the “worst places” for certain types of people to travel. The article presupposes and implicitly promotes the idea that travel is about consuming the experience and the culture, while leaving no mark and contributing nothing. The entire point of travel though, is to engage in an exchange – to be an open-minded supplicant and a benevolent ambassador.

This can, and probably should, also be cross-applied to most of our endeavors and involvements. We should take what we can from each experience in the interest of learning and constructing a more robust self, while contributing as significantly as possible to said experiences (and others).

Last night I went to sleep around 11, though I was in bed by 9:30. I wanted to get an early night because I’d had an early morning, but it didn’t happen. I got an unexpectedly early morning this morning instead when I woke up a few minutes before 4. I laid there trying to go back to sleep. I relaxed my muscles, dropped my shoulders, breathed slowly and deeply; all very relaxing, but not sleep inducing.

I’ve read online for a couple of hours already, made breakfast, took my time showering, getting ready and walking to the train (I’m now on the second one). I’ll probably get sleepy later, but it’s a great feeling not starting the day off with jarring and alarming noises in a state of panic.

I just read an article that outlined ways for men to be better “allies” of women. There were many useful ideas. Among them though, was the suggestion that men not be “paternalistic” for fear of communicating to women that they are being perceived as incapable of handling static. For purposes of this discussion, I will ignore that we cherish women who are maternalistic, which is rooted squarely in their gender and is clearly a bias. I will ignore the fundamental assumptions associated with alimony which disproportionately impacts men, even when they are financially worse off than their female partners; or that the amount is not calculated on need, but is based on what he can “afford”. I will ignore many points inconvenient to the opposition; or as in the instance of chivalry, points that at a minimum complicate their stance, given that chivalry is predicated exclusively on gender bias. Instead, let’s focus on paternalism and the associated “why”.

I have had numerous disagreements with independent female friends and associates over time because they felt as if I was encroaching. For example, I may have suggested that she take out her keys well before getting to the front door, or that she be aware of her surroundings and people in the vicinity, or that she take a firmer stance on a matter. I was never impolite in the communication of these thoughts, though I may have hinted at impatience when the reminders continued to go unheeded. I always acted with conviction and I even do this with my own mother. My conviction is that women need to be more aware of their safety than men do, because they are at greater risk, all things being equal. It is fair to conclude that men are less likely to try to bully another man or pull the wool over his eyes than they would a woman. If women think that’s sexist, I wonder how many of them truly think that they can bench more than the guys they know, or run faster, or throw further and harder. Yes, it is that simple, as I will explain in what I refer to as the “civility assumption”.

It would be a lot harder to physically take advantage of me and many of the guys I know than it would be to accost and physically control many of the women I know. How about the men and women you know? Most women are not stronger than their rapist attackers, for example. Given that most attacks are more than just an overzealous attempt at engaging in a spirited debate between the sexes, the major flaw that plagues these articles and the comprehensiveness of “gender equality” is the presumption of civil mindedness in handling uncivil behavior. Women, well-intentioned, strong, smart, and competent as they may be, are feeding into and fueling this when they skew beyond the point of gender balance, or even presume gender equality in ALL things. To presume or promote the unwarranted assumption that spiritual and intellectual equality translates into, or should be lumped together with physical equality, is an egregious error. We have this problem because we are fortunate enough to live in a civilized environment. For all of its flaws and exceptions, civility is in fact the mainstay of our society. Therefore, it is easy to presume that we are all on an equal footing, because we forget that men used to have to kill and build things. It is easy to conflate what ought to be and what is. This is the crux of the issue. We reside in a world of civility, but are subject to indiscriminate and unpredictable acts of incivility. They are the exception, which is why reality is easy to forget, but they are devastating when experienced. Adding to the trauma of the event is the reminder that victims tends to be more physically weak, and that does not comport with a woman’s ideas of mental and emotional equality. However, crime does not generally roost within refined spaces governed by words and an exchange of ideas, it is overwhelmingly physical.

Women who frequently experience or witness violence are not deluded in this way, they can see the differences quite clearly. Their complaint is often in the pursuit of intellectual and spiritual equality, for example, in the defense of the right to go to school. They should be able to go to school, and make the same money for the same work; but they understand why the men who care about them hover and remind and prod them to be safe and do things in a certain way. The smart ones don’t need to be reminded. Nor do the ones who’ve been made victims. The “sexist assumption” does not reside with me and others like me, it resides with the rapists and burglars who are more likely to prey on women. It resides with men who are more likely to mislead, trick, and defraud women. It resides in people who ignore realities, and inconveniences like case studies and statistics., and that includes other women. The entire debate may be crystalized into two questions, which is really the inverse of one: As a woman under attack, would you rather be defended by a strong man or a strong woman? Would you rather be attacked by a strong man or a women? Through many elements of paternalism, women have found allies.

Generally the litmus test of a good decision is to determine whether or not you would do anything about it differently, were you to have the opportunity. If you would change nothing, you probably made a good decision (pride and ego notwithstanding).

In thinking through the last year, there are one or two things of note that I’d do differently. That I would do it differently, however, doesn’t mean that I would have done it correctly or been correct in doing it.

That I would do things differently only indicates that there are questions to which I will probably never have the answer, but about which I remain curious. So curious in fact, that had I had the chance to redo them, I would.

There is no regret as there would be had a bad decision been made, because there is little proof that the decisions made were bad. In fact, they may have been best of the options.

My struggle is with settling on the decision, and “settling for” the options. Perhaps this year, I will give myself, and be fortunate enough to receive, more options. There must be a balance between assessing to learn, assessing for sport, and forgetting about things all together. Naturally, that’s easier said than done.