And the Beat Goes on. . .

This is an extension of a more compact response I posted to the article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal that reported the social media response of a certain “celebrity” regarding the recent backlash to this individual’s previous comments and actions.  (Is that generic enough to get the point across without being judgmental or incendiary?)  Here goes . . . .

I am somewhat moderated in my response having given it an extra day to write this.  Since the initial shock of what greeted me Wednesday morning in the press, I am glad to know that in fact some politicians can adopt the higher road (notice, I did not say “The High Road” for such I believe is truly unknown to politicos) in their pronouncements and there have actually been some thoughtful op-eds, posts, and speeches in the past 24 hours addressing the need for us to wake up and quit harboring harmful thoughts for one another based purely on the other’s inability to see our point and come over to our way of thinking.

But I simply have to say "thanks" to John McCain for foisting the individual to whom I referred to earlier on us.  It saddens me deeply to say it , but his poorly vetted, knee-jerk decision to name them as his running-mate has now saddled us, the fine and fair citizens of this land, with this character.  The only question is "for how long", and "how much more damage will it do"?  Mind you, this comment is coming from a Reagan/Buckley conservative.  If this is where conservatism has gone in this country, then God help us. 

“What's wrong with the world, mama
People livin' like they ain't got no mamas
I think the whole world’s addicted to the drama
Only attracted to things that'll bring you trauma”

One of my lingering concerns touches on the subject of "acts of a lone individual", and "blame the lawbreaker, not all of society" . . . I would submit that indeed this has been the prevailing mental model for how such acts and events are treated, and have been for some time.  But as the saying goes, "if you keep doing what you do, you'll keep getting what you get".  I think it is time to challenge the basic mental model.  When are we all going to understand that indeed we are all connected and this notion of being independent, isolated actors is flawed?  For example, freedom of speech is a right but it carries with it a responsibility.  A wise jurist counseled on the dangers of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater.  Aren't depictions of crosshairs targeting individuals, and rhetoric of "taking so-and-so 'out'" basically the same?  And yes, there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the street where that's concerned.  It's time for all to take responsibility - yes, individually - but now more than ever in a much broader sense, acknowledging that every action produces consequences, intended and otherwise.  There is simply no pebble so small that it will not produce a ripple on the pond.  It would be nice to see more people, especially in leadership positions start to realize that and act on it.

“But if you only have love for your own race
Then you only leave space to discriminate
And to discriminate only generates hate
And when you hate then you're bound to get irate, yeah
Madness is what you demonstrate
And that's exactly how anger works and operates
Man, you gotta have love just to set it straight
Take control of your mind and meditate
Let your soul gravitate to the love, y'all”

And clearly in this case, we should substitute “race” for ideology.  I find that certain individuals are simply divisive by nature.  We are currently experiencing one such high profile individual – I referred to them as a “celebrity” earlier – at this time.  Where is Andy Warhol’s “15 minutes of fame” when it's needed?  If only for “15 minutes” it would have all been over November 2008, but instead, we continue to get subjected to the on-going soap-opera that this person rains down on us.  If at the end of the day, any party’s idea of “success” is to own every seat in both Houses of Congress, control the Oval Office, and hold every seat on the Supreme Court, then that’s a problem for all of us.  If to their way of thinking falling short of a dictatorial monopoly which hands them unimpeded license to impose their will for "the good" of all gives justification for scorched-earth politics, then we all, regardless of ideology, have a major problem.  Just as it is important for those of us who work in businesses on a daily basis where a diversity of opinion, not a singleness of mind, is what is important to achieve the best result in what we do, so to is it the case in government.  Our entire democratic process is based on a process of “constructive conflict” that brings together a diversity of ideas, and solutions, not so that one can prevail over the other, but so that a “third way”, a superior option born of the rest, can emerge and offer something that all of us can get behind and support.  Where is this in today’s discourse?  And are we going to take a stand to turn away those whose only apparent purpose is to divide us as a nation, and seek out those who instead would find intelligent, creative ways to join disparate views, solving problems in a manner that would unite us?

“Wrong information always shown by the media
Negative images is the main criteria
Infecting the young minds faster than bacteria
Kids wanna act like what they see in the cinema
Yo', whatever happened to the values of humanity
Whatever happened to the fairness in equality
Instead of spreading love we're spreading animosity
Lack of understanding, leading lives away from unity
That's the reason why sometimes I'm feelin' under
That's the reason why sometimes I'm feelin' down
There's no wonder why sometimes I'm feelin' under
Gotta keep my faith alive till love is found”

So, instead of debating in a civilized way the real issues – the economy, the way out of the quagmire to unleash the innovative power of this country, the so-so much needed reformation of our overly complex tax system, sensible solutions to the health care system, better ways of merging free markets with reasonable controls and regulations based on our most recent understanding of behavioral economics, and on and on, we are lost in an argument, pointless as it is, to lay blame for who is responsible for the meaningless loss of life from recent events.  Instead of saying, "no one is", how about this time we honestly look in the mirror and say, "we all are"?  Otherwise, we will be left to simply file this one away as another unfortunate sequence of events.  A distraction – perhaps;  a wake-up call – let’s hope so.

“People killin', people dyin'
Children hurt and you hear them cryin'
Can you practice what you preach
Would you turn the other cheek

Father, Father, Father help us
Send some guidance from above
'Cause people got me, got me questionin'
Where is the love (Love)

Sing with me y'all:
One world, one world (We only got)
One world, one world (That's all we got)
One world, one world
And something's wrong with it (Yeah)
Something's wrong with it (Yeah)
Something's wrong with the wo-wo-world, yeah
We only got
(One world, one world)
That's all we got
(One world, one world)” 

And, thanks to the Black Eyed Peas for the lyrical interludes . . .

I heard the news today . . . oh, boy.

It is truly sad, deplorable in fact, that we must admit that there is a certain “kook” faction in our populace. No society is immune from the disease of bearing an unstable element within it. What must happen therefore is for the leaders, true leaders, not just wannabe leaders, to set the tenor of the discourse and debate that goes on in this country. Real leaders think through the potential consequences of their actions, even in the most remote circumstances, and act in a manner that elevates, not diminishes the civility of the democratic process. Shame on those who choose to do otherwise. Post-mortem apologies and distancing just doesn’t cut it.

What we have witnessed today is a snapshot of where we are as a country. No longer pulling together, but instead, ripping apart. It's gotta stop. It can't go on. And it will take a strong leader of vision and purpose to alter a course that so far seems to be heading in a very wrong, very bad direction.

On the boarding process - a study . . .

On the boarding process - a study . . . and a call to action

On my last trip home from Portland to Dallas, I posted the following status on my Facebook page just as the cabin door was closing and the announcement to turn off all electronic devices was issued over the loudspeaker . . . "Watching people board a flight is one of the most incredible studies I engage in and the one that gives me the greatest doubt in the long term sustainability of the human species."

Needless to say, that status post produced a fair amount of response traffic ranging from the simple "thumbs up -- Like this" to some more detailed comments on points of interest.  I was about to write what was turning into a rather long re-post to hit on several of the comments, and thought I would simply opt to "blog" about it.  Here goes.

So . . . yes, I consider "Idiocracy" an essential primer or even a "field guide" to these impromptu anthropological studies in which I engage.  To answer my friend, Randy, thankfully it's not the pilots I am observing -- that would be cause for even more concern and of a more immediate nature.  I tend to not even consider the possibilities there.  In fact, it is even more than just the people milling about the airport, as one responder suggested . . . it is the combination of the people and the act of boarding -- the finding of the seat (row number and seat letter is a tough concept to grasp for a large portion of our population), not to mention the notion of the "boarding group", and then there's the carry-on luggage.  "One, larger item in the overhead bin, and the smaller personal item under the seat in front of you".  If they say that once over the loudspeaker, they say it a dozen times, but simple observation of the behavior of passengers convinces me that the message may as well have been delivered by Charlie Brown's school teacher.  You know, "Wah-wah, wah, wah-wah-wah".  Totally incomprehensible to the masses.  As a regular traveller on American, it is a well known fact that the overhead bin on the "D-E-F" side is wider to accomodate rollerboard bags either wheels or handle first (see, I could even make these announcements), but how often is it that people end up stuffing their rollerboard into the short-side bin, sideways, along with their smaller personal item?  And on and on it goes.  But somehow, when all is said and done, the bins are closed up, maybe one or two poor passengers end up having to gate check their bags through to their final destinations (unfortunate, since it is usually unnecessary), and off we go, albeit five or so minutes late.  Life has resumed at its usual pace, with barely the hiccup noticed.

But what does this tell us in a larger sense?  As they say, the boarding process is not "rocket science".  No, really it is fairly straight-forward, and a simple act of following a few simple instructions.  As long as people can stay focused for, oh, maybe about 1 or 2 minutes, it really isn't that tough to do.  

Let me step back though for a moment.  I am referring to the boarding practices of the major airlines -- the Americans, Uniteds, Delta/Northwests -- of the world, who have assigned seats and all.  Thinking about this relative to the process which is simplicity itself -- the open seating model of Southwest -- one can quickly see how things get complicated.  On Southwest, there is no concept of "my seat".  The notion of possessive is eliminated altogether.  You get on and grab the first available seat that works for you.  Now even then, it still amazes me how many early boarders preferentially chose the aisle seats in the row, thereby requiring that everyone boarding after them must wait for that person to get up and out of their way to take the now-coveted window seat, or the god-forbid, middle seat.  And even out in the boarding lounge, the concept of groups A, B, and C and the whole number range thing with the standing between the sign-posts they have bolted to the floor, is a difficult concept.  So even with the simplest of models, some level of confusion reigns supreme.  

Now before anyone starts to write off what I am saying here as merely the rants of a hopeless elitist, let me make a few things clear.  I am a compassionate traveller.  I give gratitude to all who seve in a capacity to make my travel possible, and indeed, hopefully, safer -- the gate agent, and TSA crew, the service providers at the airport retail portals, and so on.   In fact, I subscribe to the same notion expressed by another individual I keep up with on the web who declares that when she travels, she takes on the role of airport employee.  In short, she is there to be mindful and to help her fellow travelers.  I tend to be the same way as much as possible.  For some reason, I have a face that makes people think I know the directions to just about any spot on the planet - even in Asia.  No kidding!!  Someone asked me for directions in Kyoto once, and I had no idea what made them think I would have a clue what they were asking for.  In short, I get asked for directions all the time!  So I am more than willing to help out whenever asked.  Furthermore, when the poor soul, barely 5-foot-2 who is schlepping the rollerboard that they cannot possibly hoist into the overhead bin lets loose with that sigh of exasperation, I am the first to jump up and render aid.  Part of my motivation though for engaging in my people-watching studies is to size up those travelers who I could possibly count on in an emergency.  You see, my status on the airlines often affords me the opportunity to pick my seat preferentially, and given my 6-foot-3 frame, I prefer exit rows.  While I know the flight attendants are all very professional individuals who will command us civilians on what to do if things should turn dicey, I like to have some advanced knowledge of who I think will keep their cool and who will "lose it", should things go terribly, terribly wrong.  So there is a method to my madness and luckily up to this point, I have not had to put my fact-finding into action.  

Nevertheless, I feel for the general populace.  As overwhelmed as they are with something as easy as boarding an airplane, I have to wonder how they function day to day. Beyond that, I have to wonder how they manage to do the tough stuff - like file their tax returns, or invest for their future, or teach their children the ways of this world.  I can only conclude it has to be rough.  I ask myself, from the perspective of someone who is blessed with gifts and talents and, yes indeed, some measure of privilege -- "who is looking out for them?"  And as this part of this thick middle of the bell-curve continues to expand, as it is bound to do, what does it say about the future, and about those who populate the +3sigma tail of that curve?  Will they have the necessary compassion for this group to not leave them behind, much less completely alienate them from a world that seems to become more and more divided as opposed to more and more connected as it should be - in fact, in reality, as it truly is?  That is the crux for what gives me pause to be concerned.  

Do our leaders have any real sense of what these folks are all about?  Do they understand their struggles and strifes?  Do they have even the slightest clue??  If they don't, then the responsibility must rightfully fall to those of us who do.  We literally are all connected.  In the aggregate, we are all Forrest Gump, and unless we aspire to a future that is much less than what we should all hope it to be -- for us, for our children, and our children's children -- then we have to step up right now to make a difference in the world.  I beg of you all, please, do something, anything to help, now.  The future, our future, is going to depend on it.  

The Oregon Coast

Took a drive the other night. Monday in fact. Was able to get away from work, eat an early dinner at P F Chang's in Hillsboro, then afterwards just decided I wanted to get away. So, I have always wanted to get out to the Oregon coast. I figured, heck, Avis gave me an upgrade on the car -- a Cadillac CTS -- so why not head for the ocean?

Glad the state trooper was otherwise occupied coming over the Coastal Range. The cathedral of evergreens shrouding highway 26 is breath-taking as one traverses the range and descends to the coast.

Found my way to the ocean and walked out to the shore. Had a slight Dick Nixon moment when I realized I was actually walking onto a beach in my work clothes - slacks and button-down. But I quickly dispelled any concern over such trvialities. I was on the Oregon Coast.

Definitely a different experience. With mountains and trees to your back, and rocks -- I'm not talking pebbles here, but real chunkin' rocks -- at your feet, I soon appreciated that this is not like the beaches I've seen before. Certainly not those along the Gulf coast - Texas or Florida.

Looking west and seeing the setting sun, my thoughts moved to the colleagues I know were well into their workday in Japan, just as I was ending my own. Truly we are all connected.

Still, even under a blue sky there was a mist, a fog, as one looked north up the coast. They say in the winter one of the most stunning things to do is to time your arrival for a weekend stay at the Oregon Coast just as a major storm system is moving ashore. Probably not a difficult thing to do, actually! I'll have to do this one of these trips out. There are apparently some great hotels up in Astoria, where the Columbia River dumps into the Pacific where the storm viewing is incredible. Sign me up!

To view my photo album, click here. Enjoy.

Does a Cat Have Buddha Nature? Meow!

The title of this piece is a slight parody of one of the most famous koans in all of Zen. First of all, a koan (actually a Chinese legal term for case) is a puzzling, often paradoxical statement or story, used as a means of gaining awakening. In this particular case, the koan in question begins with a story in which a student asked his Zen master, Joshu, if a dog had Buddha nature (true nature, by some definitions). Joshu responded with the now famous reply, “Mu!” Now mu is another one of those paradoxical Zen things (I dare not call it a concept, as anything that is conceptualized is not Zen). Mu is a word that invokes “nothing”; it is a verbal placeholder, if you will, for the empty set. It doesn’t mean “no” in the sense of “not yes”; it is more like . . . (yeah, that). Students who are seeking to achieve satori awakening (enlightenment) are instructed by their masters to constantly focus on mu in order to achieve an understanding of what it is. Clearly this is not something one does through reasoning or logic, for to do that is to not understand. Acquiring an understanding of mu can only occur on a different mental plane, outside of our standard dualistic, subject and object, mind-worlds.

But enough about mu. My question is about the cat. I have lived with cats for now most of my life. Since about the age of ten (so we are quickly approaching 40 years), when we were adopted by our first cat, I have known cats. I read a sign some time ago that said “Every cat has nine lives, and in every life there should be nine cats.” Well, I’ve met my quota so I hope this doesn’t mean I’m just biding my time until “check-out” time. But one thing I have come to realize, and that is that if one wants to understand the true essence of Zen, they need only to observe a cat. Cats, at least the domestic ones I’ve known, pretty much are totally aware of what they are doing in the present. Sure, they are not aware of the intricacies of cause and effect (karma), but they know what they are about at any given time. and they know how to affect outcomes They sleep when tired, and eat when hungry. If you’ve ever watched a cat play with a ball, it is as if the cat just discovered the ball and had never played with one before – the experience is so fresh and fun. The cat is in a perpetual state of “beginner’s mind”. I know they meditate. I have been the zafu to my cat’s zazen many a time, or if I'm not around, they take over my zafu for themselves (see the photos as proof on my web site). And even when they sleep, they are always aware. So, while the answer to the question about a dog’s Buddha nature might be “Mu”, the answer to a cat’s Buddha nature is clearly, “Meow."

On the Fine Art of "Slappies"

On the Fine Art of "Slappies"

So, I had to accept the challenge when my good friend of many years, Randy Fiedler, threw down the fact that my blog was far too "melancholy" and that I must embrace my inner "goofy".  In so doing, he suggested I deliver 200 words on "slappies" by Monday.  Being something of a procrastinator -- how else does one get the motivation one needs to perform under pressure if not by an impending deadline -- I put it off until now.  So, literally what you are reading simply spewed off my fingers "in this moment".  Very zen-like, so go easy on me.

Actually it's not totally true, since I started to do my, ahem, "research" by perusing the numerous archival offerings that YouTube had when one searches on the original perpetrator of said "slappies".  Oh, wait, dear reader is not necessarily familiar with the concept of the "slappy".  Well by all means, explanation is in order . . .

The "slappy" to which we refer is that most hilarious, but in fact, most diminishing of acts wherein said "slapper" delivers a few quickly issued, flat-palmed whacks to the head of the unsuspecting "slappee".  The most famous purveyor of the "slappy", and the one to which most of my teenage, male friends in my hometown of Friendswood paid homage to back "in the day" was none other than the famed British comedian, Benny Hill. In so many of Benny's clipped-action slap-stick pieces he would deliver a series of slappies to his faithful side-kick, the short, bald-headed, and apparently somewhat older (dare I say, "elderly") member of his comedy troupe, Jackie Wright. 

I did spend quite a considerable amount of time on the aforementioned renowned web emporium of all things video looking at countless clips of Benny's archives.  And let me just say, Mr. Hill's comedy truly stands the test of time.  His incredulous looks, his eye for "the bird" (look that up in your British slang dictionary), and his well timed sight gags (not to mention the musical score accompanying the clip), have not diminished in their ability to provoke a hearty guffaw from yours truly.  Anyway, one of his most famous works of the comedic arts and farces is Benny Hill as Digger Blue, conveniently linked here for your viewing pleasure.  You'll note a few instances where Benny issues his famous "slappy" on little Jackie, and, I'm sorry, as insensitive as it might have been, such an antic never failed to get my friends and I who watched Benny practically every night at 10:30pm after the news back in the late 70's to double over in complete and uncontrolled laughter.  It's one of those unexplained phenomena of the comedic arts, especially where it intersects with the mind of the post-pubescent male psyche.  Chalk it up to the same reason why guys "get" the Three Stooges and the Marx Brothers.  What else can I say???

Well, the thought did cross my mind that certainly there were other instances in history when a good round of "slappies" would have been appropriate, if not only to break the tension that swelled forth in the particular moment, but to also put the thing in perspective and allow us to not take ourselves so "seriously".  As I pondered this, I couldn't seem to get my mind off the genre of the modern day Presidential (or in some cases, Vice Presidential) debates.  Don't ask.  It's probably some deprogramming I still have yet to go through after those many years as a high-school debater (careful, I know what your thinking, but don't go there), but I am sure a few more years "on the cushion" and I'll be fine. 

So, if you have done your research and now fully understand the concept of the slappy, follow me if you will in what I might deem the top 5 moments when a round of "slappies" would have done wonders for the American public and our political well-being.

Starting with . . .

5.  The 1992 VP debates -- Sure, Ross Perot was extolling his mystery running mate as someone who, once announced, would be so compelling, we would want to "flip the ticket".  Well, somehow the whole notion of "flipping" be it ticket or otherwise went out the window when we were treated to the announcement of Admiral James Stockdale as Ross's running mate.  (It does bring up the question -- how many presidential candidates have literally "jumped the shark" upon announcement of their running mates??  Seriously -- as a point of reference for how these people are going to be judged on their ability to make a decision, you'd think they might have worked a little harder at it, huh???  John -- what were you thinking??)  Anyway, Adm. Stockdale's performance at the debate (yes, I think that's on YouTube also) would have met with blessed relief had Ross entered stage left, abruptly at some early point only to issue a good round of "slappies" to Jim and ushered him off the stage. 

4.  The 1988 VP debates -- This was the one made famous for pitting of the old-guard Democratic candidate Lloyd Benson, distinguished Senator from The Great State of Texas, against the up-start Republican from Ohio, Dan Quayle.  But more to the point, at that historical moment, instead of issuing the line, "Sir, I knew Jack Kennedy, and you are NO Jack Kennedy", what would it have been to have seen old Lloyd stroll across the stage and issue a smart round of "slappies" to little Danny at that very moment?  Every bit as historical, I would say, if not far more comedic.

3.  The 2000 Presidential debates -- in the first showdown between George and Al, Gore established his off-camera M.O. as one wherein an audible "sigh" would attract away enough attention to the verbal pronouncements of "dubya" (strained though they might have been) to distract the voting public enough to forget his points.  A case of "much ado about nothing" was clearly over-played, but such was the crux of Al's strategic missteps throughout the campaign.  Between triangulating away from Clinton, and over-thinking what to do about everything Bush did, it's no wonder how things turned out.  Instead, what his strategist should have suggested was a short stroll across the stage to issue a good set of "slappies" to W whenever he gave up one of his famous "scowls" that also marked this set of debates as one of the "most painful" to endure in all of presidential debate history. 

2.  What time is it, anyway? -- This was another one of those defining moments that begged for a little "break from the routine".  It's 1992 and Bill Clinton is locked in a Town Hall style debate with rival incumbent George H. W. Bush (oh, and of course Ross Perot is there as well).  Well, things are dragging on, as they tend to do in these things, and gee, George probably has tickets to the opera or some such there in the local town in which said "hall" is happening, and lest he miss "first curtain", he'd kinda like to get things wrapped up and him on his way.  It wouldn't have been so bad, but he did stare at his watch as he stood up from his chair and at his full 6+ foot frame, you just couldn't miss it.  What would we have given to have seen Ross, who was sitting next to him, walk over and hop up on George's recently vacated chair and put forth a serious set of "slappies" on the elder Bush's head??  Sort of like a reverse-Jackie!!  It would have gotten George's "dog in the fight" for a change, which was another one of his famous lines during an earlier encounter wherein Clinton and Perot really got after each other, and when the commentator asked Bush's opinion said, "Well, I don't have a dog in this fight". 

and finally . . .

1.  Reagan v Carter -- Oh, how many times during these debates, the defining moments in the 1980 election, would you have given to see a really spanking set of "slappies"  un-corked on old Peanuts?  Sure, Reagan had his signature line, "well, (hhhhh), there he goes again" -- but a "slappy" would have said it all.  Disgust of the highest order.  But then, the moment of all moments -- Jimmy, when asked what concerned him the most, re-counted a story about how he asked his daughter Amy what concerned her the most, "and she told me 'nook-u-lar proliferation'" . . . oh my, Slappies please . . . would have delivered us from one of the most painful moment in US Presidential debate history and given us all something to laugh about even to this day.

So, there you have it . . . probably more that 200 words, but then even as an engineer I was never all that great at math, especially the arithmetic based, post-schematic constructs.  If it was painful . . . keep it to yourself, but if it even made you snicker a little . . . well, let me hear from ya!! 

I'll get back to deep thinking and melancholy next post. 

A Trifecta to Really Think About

A Trifecta to Really Think About

In the town where I live, Dallas, Texas, we have a radio station (KTCK, AM-1310, "The Ticket"), the afternoon drive show of which likes to pay homage to the concept of the "Trifecta" and devotes ample air time to discussions pertaining to the formation and acknowledgment of such notable events.  For those of you who don't know about this phenomenon, the "Trifecta" is the somewhat curious, but often times disturbing, coincidence that celebrities and other notable persons seem to die in clusters of three.  With that background set, let me just say that the past several days of this week have created what I might consider the most noteworthy Trifecta my generation has experienced yet.

If you, like yours truly, happened to be born in that late baby boomer phase, say 1958 - 1964 you would have some way of having a real, remembered image of the three individuals to whom I refer in this Trifecta:  Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett, and Michael Jackson.  In some ways, as far as pop icons go, one might think of these celebs as their favorite uncle, an older sister, and that brother that no one wants to talk about but had to admit had some skills.  Their passing at this time also sets a milestone in our own journey that I think cannot be overlooked.  By this time, torches are no longer simply passed, they just go out, and you have to deal with it. 

Ed McMahon was the ultimate second banana.  A side-kick to one of the true greats in his field.  He had the job that everyone with high-visibility aspiriations, but under-achiever baggage would have died for (sorry, probably not the best analogy given the circumstances).  The most important thing though for us of this near-50 demographic is that we knew him when he was at his best.  We watched the Tonight Show.  We knew his signature phrase, not from re-runs or documentaries, but from watching the show live.  He was a person of some of our parents' generation and as such was like an uncle.  Dependable, good for a laugh, and always there when you needed him. 

Farrah.  The name alone is enough to bring back a sigh, a memory, and a certain longing.  She could have easily been one of those single-named celebs, before Prince and Madonna redefined what it was to be that.  The poster.  The TV show.  The smile.  The hair.  She was the whole package.  Born on Groundhog day 1947 made her like an older sister to those of us to whom I address this specifically.  And what a sister.  For us guys, it almost made you want to break the rules, if only given the chance.  I am sure for the girls, it was a case of wanting to be like big sis'.  I even forgave her for going to UT.

Michael Jackson -- how long did we know him?  Or did we?  Really, there was no one Michael Jackson.  Instead we were treated to a parade of characters that eminated from a single manifestation of creative energy.  From the earliest days, and the 5's bubble gum hits, to the "King of Pop" and beyond.  Way beyond.  He was our contemporary with whom we grew up.  Or at least maybe we grew up, and he never quite took the same journey.  Sad, even tragic, but nevertheless he defined a fair amount of the pop landscape through which we made our own way.  You have to wonder about why he turned out the way he did, but you can never diminish what he did musically -- the albums, the songs, the moves, the fact that Halloween will never go by without at least a gazillion playings of "Thriller".  He left a mark without a doubt.

Of all the times I have remarked to myself about the various passings of notable persons of celebrity status, this one has been the one to make me pause and think the most.  This one hurt the most, I think, if only to make me stop and consider for a moment how far we have come in this journey.  At this point in the trip, some of the travelers we have had along with us are starting to depart, and it is sad to see them go.  We won't forget because it's just a part of who we are.  And it will remind us to appreciate those still left to travel with us, for ever how long that might be. 

And to Ed, Farrah, and Michael -- thanks for the memories.