Texas 45 Oklahoma 35

When I called today to see if Randall had offed himself, he told me the Texas-Oklahoma game was on.  This coincided nicely with my desire for a meal, so I walked over to the Palm Lounge.

First, the restaurant critique.  Two cheeseburgers, french fried and the jalapeno peppers are pound for pound or dollar for dollar the best meal I have found (about $10).  Ceviche at the Mariscos de las Almas Perdidas in Matamoros runs a close second, but for this review, I am not including international cuisine.  Two cheeseburgers is about half a cheeseburger too many, but one cheeseburger is too few, so I recommend getting two and then stopping at the Walgreens for the Value Size Calcium Rich Antacid Tablets Ultra Strength, Assorted Fruit for dessert.  The Coca-Cola in the can rated on color, nose and palate was undistinguished.  The abdang somewhat harsh.  However, I do not judge the cheeseburger by the Coke and next time I'll drink water or smuggle in a glass of milk.

Now to the game.  When Randall told me he was not going to commit suicide, but rather finish the game, I decided to watch the end of the game.  This was my second since 1969, but then Texas was No. 1 (after Slippery Rock, as I recall) and now was No. 5.  Oklahoma was No. 1.  I do not know the names of any of the players, but no credentials were required for admission into the Palm Lounge.

I called my Primo Jerry to see if he wanted to go, but he was not home, so I guessed I could catch him there anyway.  As you age and your friends all die, you impose on relatives more and more, even distant relatives.  Jerry was not home or so said whoever answered his phone.

Palm Lounge was full of fans, many wearing orange T-shirts and Longhorn caps, so I decided to root for my alma mater.  I recognized an old acquaintance across the bar, but did not approach him, because so few people from years past recognized me in this aged, grey, bald, fat incarnation.

I arrived in time to whoop and holler as Texas pulled ahead and then scored again.    

Hillary for VP

I was at my son's wedding reception in St. Louis this weekend when a rumor swept the hall that Hillary had been chosen as Vice President nominee by Obama. I think Randall (the one whose life, I argue, has not been a failure) got a call from his wife and started the rumor. I told several people myself. Later we all ran to the TV and the internet to confirm the story, but no one else seems to have heard of it.

Dr. K thought Obama would pick Caroline Kennedy or a Republican Chuck Hagel so he was surprised. I thought ultimately Obama would pick Hillary so I felt vindicated. But now it appears my gloating was premature. However, I still think she should be chosen.

I am not a big fan of Hillary's and did not vote for her in the primary, but I think she would be a good choice for several reasons. First, it would be the democratic thing to do. She did after all get the second most votes. The Constitution originally gave the Vice Presidency to the second place winner, regardless of party, so this is not exactly a new concept. Second, she appears to have a base of support different from Obama's. I don't know why this is, really, but if it is so, it would be ticket balancing. I assume Obama will carry New York without Hillary, but I do know my wife, mother and sister all supported Obama and they would be happier with her on the ticket. Third, my wife, sister and mother all supported Hillary and I don't want to have to hear about it if Obama picks someone else and loses.

In the primaries, just 1.3 million Texans voted Republican compared to almost 2.9 million who voted Democrat. The Nation magazine has an article this week that makes the argument that Texas could turn blue. The enthusiasm shown by Hillary supporters, especially on issues like health insurance and mortgage relief, at the county convention make me think a Texas upset might be possible.

If At First You Don't Succeed, Failure May Be Your Style. Quentin Crisp

My friend Randall (who hereinafter will be referred to as R. to protect his anonymity) called with a topic. When are we failures in life? His wife tells him he is a failure and he is past 60 with the kid grown and gone, so there is not much time to turn things around at this point.

R. disputes her conclusion. He sees his life as largely a success and his wife sees it as largely (or completely and totally) a failure. A loss. Not really worth having been lived.

I for one would be willing to declare R. a success on the basis of being a successful father alone. This was Jackie O's definition and she was rich and famous. So R. can accept this definition if he wants. His wife won't, but I'll give it to him. For that matter, it would be easy to make an argument for R. He was elected a member of his city counsel and had many successful law suits that mattered at least to his clients. Somehow, though, I don't think these would weigh much in the wifely judgment day.

I have further assured R. that in my experience, all husbands are sooner or later failures, completely and utterly. I further assured him that Kathy is always asking me, "If you're so smart, why aren't we rich." She throws out the decade that has passed without a vacation. She notes my car always looks like a wreck. My clothes are terrible. My dog is fat and has gas. She grumbles about the 32 inch waist I had when we were married that keeps swinging between 40 and 50 inches. Despite my soaring success in life (as I see it), she is sure I have failed and failed her as well. "I'm worried about my future," she cries.

And it is the same with all of our friends. I mentioned our mutual friends, all of whom are now about sixty and failures in the eyes of their wives. Some have actually saved money, have a nice house, annuities and 401 K plans, but their wives are still wrecks about the declining income and the likelihood of destitution. None of this seemed to comfort R.

Anyway, it is now incumbent upon me to redefine success and failure in such a way that R. and I and all of our friends (who have lived so long and have so little to show for it) are not failures.

Oddly, I don't remember much comment about the subject of failure from philosophers or novelists or poets in my decades of aimless and unproductive reading.

However, I do think when we read a translation of Aristotle and his definition of "happiness," this is something we would now call "success." My hope is that Aristotle can bail out R. and me and all others similarly situated. If we can claim to be a success by Aristotelian standards, this would largely negate being a failure when we are weighed in the wifely balance.

The word we translate as happiness is eudaimonia which breaks down, eu, "good" and daimonia, "spirit." By extension, it refers to good fortune or what we might usually call "success."

Happiness for moderns is subjective. You can take a pill or have whiskey and become happy. For Aristotle, a child could never be happy, because not enough life had been lived. Aristotle grappled with the concept of not calling anyone happy until his death and believed that the life of happiness could be negated even after death. If someone based his life on a project that was merely and illusion and false, this may not be learned until later. The happy life would be erased retroactively even if the dead was oblivious to the failure. If the dead man's son turns out to be a murderer, he will not have been happy.

Even for moderns, these things could be said about success. The apparently successful man might be safely in the grave when his children or his life's work goes on to prove he was a terrible failure.

First what I "remember" Aristotle said, but cannot find. Happiness (hereinafter called success) is achieved with good birth, good health, good land, good children and some other things like good horses.

These things are achieved by practicing the virtues. Political virtue is highly ranked. R. served as a counsel member for the poor area of town and worked to help them get the city services of the richer parts of town. Aristotle would give him high marks for this. I'd say a B or maybe an A-.

Aristotle would also judge success on how money is handled. He ranked liberality and magnificence high. Magnificence is something like giving a park to the city. I doubt R. was able to do much of this, but he always ranked high in liberality. He gave political contributions and attended the arts and bought lunches. Aristotle would probably at least give him a C+. Now this is the sticking point and where his wife probably fails him. In fact, a failure here for most wives seems to outweigh all the other grades. It is heavily weighted in the wifely report card.

Aristotle put a lot of stock in honor as well. I think he was talking about war or other sacrifice. R. probably wouldn't get much there.

Aristotle wanted a balance between ambitions and lack of ambition. R. may have fallen a little heavy in the lack of ambition category. OK, only a D, but it isn't failure.

On the anger/good temper grade, after overcoming a childhood inability to lose at ping pong, he would score very high on the good temper grade. Pushing an A, I would say.

Aristotle also graded success on friendliness, truthfulness and good-wit. R. really should get better than average on all of these. Especially on friendliness and good-wit. I don't know if Aristotle graded on a curve or not, but surely R. should get B's or better.

So, on Aristotle's success report card, I think R. would probably be a success.

How then, should he (and I and all others similarly situated) comfort ourselves on having failed on the wife report card? I say we look to true successes in life like Socrates, Tolstoy, Gandhi. If the biographers are correct, their wives would have given them failing grades as well.