Dog Days and Happiness

Following the path from my previous piece on Happiness and Dog Days, I still find myself following two different paths.  The one I left off with was whether you ar as happy as your dog, and I've found my book on the subject.  It was written by Alan Cohen and s actually entitled Are You As Happy As Your Dog?  (Grammar break--should I add another punctuation mark after the question mark in the title?  You could make a case, I think, for both a comma and a period.  First, the sentence is not actually a question.  The question mark it contains just happens to be part of the object--namely the book title.  this is the case for the period--it is used to end a declarative sentence.  A similar logic can be applied for the use of the comma.  If you are choosing to link two complete thoughts in a compound sentence, the two parts should be separated by a comma--not a question mark.    Hmmm...  I'm going with the period.).  Back to Alan Cohen's little book.  After hearing a comment from a friend about his dream to wake up one day as happy as a dog, Mr. Cohen started thinking.  His dog (Munchie), seems to live in a state of continuous delight and discovery.  He goes on to share a few of his observations after watching Munchie for a few days (e.g., Munchie loves unconditionally.  Whenever Alan comes home, Munchie drops whatever he is doing and zooms to meet him.  He barks and cries at the same time, he wags his tail so hard he wipes the floor with his fuzzy butt...  Munchie gives him the same wholehearted greeting whether Alan has been gone for an hour or a week.  When Alan has been gone a long time, Munchie does not cross his arms (legs, actually) and soberly announce, "I think it's time we discuss your commitment to our relationship." Munchie is just happy to see Alan and he lets Alan know it.  Mr. Cohen goes online this for page after page, noting that Munchie always asks for what he wants, seizes the day, keeps his eye on the ball--literally and figuratively--laughs at himself and much more.  I highly recommend it if you can get your hands on it.  

(I've just returned from the Amazon--no, not in South America, at the web site--and it is available there) .  It's not that I'm  promoting the book, but it is a thirty minute read for just a few bucks and it's lots of fun.  Act now, and you will have it for these dog days of summer, which some say are the forty days that follow July 3rd and coincide with the rising of the star Sirius, whose presence augments the sun in the Northern Hemisphere.  Is this a great country or what?  I didn't need to drag out an encyclopedia and look and look for the reference, I just googled it and had 70,200, 000 results in 0.72 seconds--thank you Google.

Leaving aside the book on happiness from a dog's point of view, there are other ways to seek out happiness.  It has been said that smiling causes th release of neuropeptides in the brain like serotonin, dopamine and endorphins.   So, that takes you down another road--learning to smile (or smile again, you have just lost the habit).  If you are familiar with Wikipedia, you might also have seen a related site called WikiHow, which seeks to share how to guides on EVERYTHING, including, I have learned, how to smile.  I may just have to try some of these on to see what fits.   

Wait, Wait, I feel one coming on--annnnd I'm smiling.  Have a good one.

 

Happiness and the Dog Days of Summer

Happiness...everybody wants it, right? Isn't it somewhere in the founding documents of my own country somewhere?  Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is in there somewhere (I just looked it up, it is in the Declaration of Independence).  Several related thoughts have been rolling around in my head lately, and, as usual, I've found the easiest way to get them out of my mind is to write about them here.  

I guess this began with a comment from a certain someone encouraging me to smile.  While it seems like a natural thing to do, forcing a smile somehow doesn't feel like the right idea.  Rather, I have thought, I should find something that makes me smile.  I spend a lot of time reading--mostly mysteries--and from time to time get to wondering whether all that murder and mayhem doesn't make a person naturally gloomy.  I mean, even if the good guys win in the end, there is usually lots of evil in between.  Thinking along those lines, a few months ago I looked for some books that would make me laugh out loud.  It took a while (and a few unsuccessful attempts), but I finally got my hand on one and read it.  Thinking more work by that author might have just the same impact, I bought several more--it didn't work.  The others were just not that funny.  At that point I probably frowned very naturally and resumed the path of slogging through murder and mayhem.  

Consequently, the smiles don't seem to show up as regularly as they should (at least in the eyes of that certain person).  It turns out behavioral science tells us, through experiments conducted on innocent persons like you and me, that smiling produces higher levels of endorphins and a few other positive things like stress relief.  The neuroscientists also tell us that forcing a smile has the same effect, and can even improve your mood.  It certainly is more likely to attract friends than drive people away, as frowns tend to do.  So I'm back to forcing a smile.  But it just never feels quite right to me.  The forced smile appears to me to resemble the expression you will often see in your dog when he or she opens the mouth, shows its teeth and sticks out its tongue.  They look almost as if they are smiling.  Add the factor of a wagging tail and almost everyone would conclude the dog is smiling and happy.  Not having access to the inside of a dog's brain (except in certain movies, etc., which are imagined versions of the dog's thoughts). 

There's a lot more  to this than meets the eye.  Seeing all this I'm reminded of a book I have entitled "Are You As Happy As Your Dog?"  It listed a series of actions dogs take (or seem to) that enables them to avoid many of the things that diminish our happiness (e.g., Dogs seem to  "Get Over It," holding no grudges.  If you happen to accidentally step on the  dogs foot, it will yelp in pain and run away.  A few minutes later the dog is back, smiling and wagging its tail.  It gets over it.  

There were a lot of others, but I don't recall them.  I'll catch up with you later.  I'm going to look for that book.

Do Egrets Have Regrets?

On out door decks there are diners,

Where those diners snatch dinners

And with what they sometimes behold

They do not have to be told

How special life is midst these sights and sounds.

Sure servers can often swoop in like egrets

Who waiting quietly’ve clucked, sighed and shuddered

Knowing it’s time they plucked remnants of dinners from diners

And, yes at times this must include toast yet unbuttered.

For lined up outside are more who will feast without regrets.

While delectable toast covered in jam just to sweeten

Might be snatched away before it can be eaten.

Imagine outdoor dining, when a real egret swoops in—

Snatching away your last morsels—and helps keep you thin.

Whilst you marvel at sights and unstopped-for things,

Like this creature, the egret, with wondered-at wings,

Yes, with all this included in the price of a dinner,

You can once again see on this trip you’re the winner.

As you leave with wonder about egrets and surely not regrets. 

Emma Stays Over

"The dog needs a bed,"
That's what she said.
"PetsMart's too expensive."
She stood there pensive

"I'm thinking like Wal-Mart," said she.
"Or maybe Sam's Club,"said I, "we'll see."

"We'll stop at Zoe's for shrimp kabobs, knock on wood....
 I have a 2-for-1 coupon that I think is still good."

So off we went, left the beach behind,
A new dog bed for Emma we were off to find.

Mothers and Fathers

Hard to tune in to a TV news show, or pick up a newspaper without hearing about "The Mother of All Bombs," isn't it? I thought it was just another use of an old expression, "the mother of all ______.," usually meaning the greatest or most unforgettable version of one thing or another.  I felt altogether nonplussed when I learned it was also a play on the acronym "MOAB."  This "Mother" is also known as a Massive Ordnance Air Blast. I learned it also has another name, GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast.  I suppose the "GBU" also stands for something besides "Great Big Ugly" (I made that one up, but what the hey....).  

Given as I am to letting my mind wander all over the place, I had two thoughts about this "Mother."  First, I thought of another figurative parent of a weapon--The Father of the Atomic Bomb, J. Robert Oppenheimer.  He was a theoretical physicist who either headed up or had a most central role in the development of the first atomic bomb, which ultimately brought about the end of World War II, after the deaths of many thousands in Japan after the U.S. dropped a pair of those bombs there in an effort to bring about Japan's surrender.  I have read accounts of Oppenheimer's work and his role, including collaboration with Albert Einstein.   

I read also of then-President Harry Truman, who had to make the ultimate decision to use those bombs as they did.  Indeed, that decision often occurs to me when people make reference to the sign he had on his (the President's) desk declaring-- "The Buck Stops Here," and how he accepted the responsibility to make that ultimate decision.  I remember in the late 1970's attending a stage play at the Goodman Theatre in Chicago, entitled "In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer."  The play dramatized a confidential hearing where Mr. Oppenheimer lost his security clearance (and thus his career working for the U. S. Government), during the second "Great Red Scare of the 1950's."  He had a lot to say about the relationship between theoretical research and governmental authority.  Anyway, there are other "fathers" we will talk about shortly.  

Back to those two thoughts about this "Mother," my second thought was to wonder how many other "Mothers" there were that I just hadn't heard of.  My friends at Google found dozens of examples--a few stuck with me long enough to jot them down--The Mother of All Baseball Bats, The Mother of All Lies, The Mother of All Ab Workouts, The Mother of All Mothers, The Mother of All Buddhas, and The Mother of All Conspiracies.  There are indeed a multitude of those last "Mothers Of All Conspiracies."  Look it up.

What about those "Fathers?"  I've used what I found there to create the following little quiz:  

1. Who was "The Father of History?"

2. Who was "The Father of Economics?"

3. Who was "The Father of Medicine?"

4. Who was "The Father of Geometry?"

5. Who was "The Father of Our Nation?"
  
I should insert some blank space or something to allow time for you to make your guesses.  Let  me see....  Oh, I know--Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-

Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-

Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-

Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-

Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-

Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-

Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-

Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-

Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-

Huh?  Where was I?  Oh, yeah, the answers--Did you guess Herodotus, Adam Smith, Hippocrates, Euclid and ... George Washington?  All were correct, except, of course, the last one.  Not George Washington, you say?  No, not George.  That was a trick question.  Did I say whose Nation?  No-o-o-o-o.  I did not.  There are lots of correct answers.  In Wikipedia I found no fewer than 66 countries with one or more "Fathers."  I found six nominees for "Father" of my own nation, the United States of America, and one "Father" of six countries--Simon Bolivar (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Panama, Peru and Venezuela).  What a "Father!"

Well, that's all for now (what a "Mother" this was, eh?).     

The Senate-Full-of-Grown-ups and the House of Re-elect-Me-Kids

(Note-sorry this is a long one, but I had a lot to get off my chest)

The legislative branch of our government, as established in the U.S. Constitution, is bicameral; meaning it is composed of two bodies—the House of Representatives and the Senate.   The duties and responsibilities are much alike, excepting that all Court and Cabinet appointees must be approved by the Senate, and all tax revenue bills must originate in the House.  Of lesser importance, the Senate must conduct the impeachment trials of anyone first impeached by the House.  Otherwise, all aspects of their respective authorities seem to just overlap (making the overlapping authority serve as one giant playground to push each other around on—more about this later).  It is, in the words of many, "deliberately inefficient by design.”  This was done to prevent the majority from ruling with an iron fist (See the Eastern European fiascos of the 1990’s where majorities persecuted, exiled and even attacked and slaughtered members of minority religious groups). 

By forcing the various branches to be accountable to the others, no one branch can usurp enough power to become dominant.  Simple enough, right?  Things like executive vetoes, legislative overriding of vetoes, agreement between the bicameral parts of the legislative branch, judicial review and interpretation of laws passed by the legislative branch and signed by the Executive branch, Judicial presiding over any legislative impeachment trials; are all examples of checks and balances. 

When you count them up, the legislative branch has ten checks on the executive branch, seven on the judiciary, and four self-checks within itself due to its bicameral nature (e.g., both houses must agree on any legislation before it can be sent to the president).   That was twenty-one of anyone is counting along.

The executive branch has seven checks on the legislature, two checks on the judiciary, and one check on the executive branch itself—the Vice-President and members of the cabinet may vote that the President is unable to perform his duties.  That’s another ten, making thirty-one so far.

Finally, the judicial branch has three checks on the legislature and two on the executive.  Don’t get me started on the separation of powers between the state and federal governments.  Within the federal government alone that makes thirty-six checks (No wonder their checkbooks never balance!).  To make a long story a little shorter, it ain’t easy getting things done (on purpose). 

A glance at the antics in Washington will surely tell you that.  Within itself, there is often disagreement between the big kids (the Senate—they are, after all required to be at least thirty years of age and have been a citizen for nine years.  Further, they are elected to serve for six-year terms.  To serve in the House you need only be twenty-five years of age and have been a citizen for just seven years, and they are only elected for a two-year term.  In middle school/high school terms, the House members are seventh graders and the Senators are like seniors in high school.  The middle-schoolers  even have to reapply at the end of eighth grade to be readmitted as 7^th graders.  (I guess they could apply for admission to high school after a few years by running for the Senate.  Usually, they have to be re-elected a time or two to gather the experience and support necessary to apply for high school (with the “minor exception” of one-time Senator Obama, and    Then there is the “take-it-off-the-wall-and-stomp-on-the-rule exception that is Donald Trump, who became college president without ever entering middle school, high school or college (Maybe he attended the electoral college, he seems to have been well thought of there).  But let’s get back to the seventh-graders and high school seniors—don’tthey both act like it!   

Those grown-ups in the Senate are playing tit for tat over judicial nominee Gorsuch and the previous administration’s last of term nominee I-forgot-his-name.  Because one clique (they call themselves “republicans”) refused to admit what’s-his-name, the other clique (they call themselves “democrats”) wants to take the ball and go over to Phil and Buster’s with it. 

With that the republican clique responds by changing the rules of the game, just because they have the majority (and, therefore, the legal right to do so) to let Gorsuch into the court without persuading eight or nine members of the democrat clique to join the republican clique for a few days.    Think back to middle school and high school—did kids ever change cliques, or did they outgrow them?  I can’t think of anyone who changed cliques, although I remember a few getting kicked out.  So, the big kids play on, and on, and on….

Now back to middle school—in the House, they are  elected for a two-year term, then they must run again.  Getting re-elected is critical for the House.  Put another way, if they don’t get re-admitted into junior high, they may never even get to high school.  Somewhere along the way, these days, one cannot be re-elected without campaign financing.  These are like brownie points in school, only way more important.  If they can win the hearts of contributors, readmission to junior high is assured.  The problem lies in calling them “Representatives.”  If every thing they do is aimed at collecting money, then something else is going on.  I’ve expressed it in verse this way:

                        Their behavior’s not meant to represent you and me,

                        But campaign contributors who provide the money

                        Kowtowing to contributors doesn’t really serve me

                        But absent reforms the norm this will be.

Now campaign contributors each have their own agenda (and each of the big ones probably owns a representative).  At the middle school level, we have so many representatives for sale that there are cliques within cliques.  The Republicans have their own conservative, moderate and tea party cliques.  The Democrats have a few conservatives from blue states, they have a Far Left clique and then a variety of other cliques, each with a single issue driving them—keep that money flowing and they can get re-admitted—I mean re-elected.  It’s all about getting re-elected.  I propose we rename them the House of Re-Elect-Me-Kids.  It fits a bit better from where I sit.