It is not difficult to examine your life. You simply sit down and begin an inventory or accomplishments, wants, needs, and methods for obtaining those things. If you are in the middle class, like myself, you do this sporadically. Meaning, not often enough.
The weight of the world got you down? Of course it does. And we can all list our grievances. I'll do some of mine right now (keep in mind I don't subscribe to any political party):
1. The government mined my paycheck for unemployment insurance. I can put my own money in a savings account.
2. The government pilfers paychecks for involuntary participation in a savings program it titled Social Security. I can save for my own retirement.
3. Most of us get fined for having jobs. They call it Income Tax.
4. If you are a veteran (like me) they attempt to kill us off.
5. The oligarchs that rule us really are not any more intelligent than us. In fact they are negligible when compared to a Rhesus Monkey.
6. We are a series of disconnected communities, amid disconnected families, and individuals are feeling disconnected. Oh woe is me.
I could go on. And on. And on. You get the point? I hate politics, but it seems they, whoever "they" are, want me to be a part of it. So I examined it and found it wanting. It lacked any benefit or beauty. It is not a necessity. Eons upon centuries have given birth to examples of groups of people who had no government, no politic. They not only survived, but thrived. Which brings me to this question:
Is it possible to shun participation, at least slightly, and still function? To create? To be happy?
How would this look?
Well you could quit your job. But how would you and your family survive? Okay, only one of you quit. Oh no! Now you can't go to Disney World! What will you do?
How about anything else? Anything other than going to Disney World. How about removing those ideas and things that suck your marrow and blood? They leave us all dried up, withered and frustrated. How about not worrying about retirement? The Amish don't. They work as long as they are able, and then their families step in.
The principles can be applied, to an extent, without access to a number of acres. A backyard garden, walks instead of drives, and talking, reading, and writing. Instead of watching something for entertainment, constantly.
I like technology as much as the next person (Amish aside). I don't think I would ever shun it for a frugal existence which avoided anything that involved electricity. What I have decided upon is a minor experiment. Limited technology use. I will not watch television. Remember that crap from middle school? Or maybe high school? The teachers asked the students to give it up for one week. What should I allow?
1. Books and other reading material. I will not limit this to those printed on paper. Ebooks and electronic magazines are fine. But no videos.
2. Walking and observing the natural order.
3. Discussions
4. Music. I think I can get away with allowing digital with this as well. I also think "radio dramas" would be allowed. My grandparents listened to them.
So I guess this would not be so much an exercise in technology shunning as much as it is a limiting. think 1930s entertainment, without movies.
What might happen with this removal? Well, I probably would be in the dark regarding current events. Most of the news and information fed to the masses is in the form of easy to consume visuals. While that might be more informative to some, is it? Does it inform? What does it do? What would happen if it were limited to only text, or possibly some audio?
I will report my findings, and possibly some methods, Sunday-SUNDAY- Sunday.(Say it in your best SuperMotoCross Championships voice).
Since we started planning our thru-hike gear selection has become paramount. The boy and I are constantly analyzing what we have, what we need, and what is available. We consider many different factors.
Does it have more than one use?
How many ounces does it weigh?
How much does it cost?
Is it durable?
Will we even use it?
One thing we have not considered is a firearm.
I could leave it at that, but I can't. I live in the South. I was raised here. I actually like it here. But there is a problem with many people in this part of the country and it has everything to do with "hardware".
I hunt. I started hunting in my teens. I had a BB gun when I was six. I have hunted, and successfully harvested many different animals. Deer, quail, pheasant, squirrel, rabbit, wild hogs. and turkey. I also hunted humans. It is not difficult to teach somebody to shoot. The fact is it is quite simple. It is a practical skill, and Bailey knows how to do it. We have been hunting together for several years now, and we have brought home something to eat often enough.
In my previous life (almost ten years now) I would leave the house and he would help carry my gear to the truck. A little boy toting a kevlar vest telling me to be safe. Funny. Maybe not. It was the nature of the beast. I came home every morning though (for fifteen years). I carried a gun then as a necessary piece of equipment. Two of them, my issue sidearm and the shotgun (sometimes a carbine). It was part of the job.
Guns are not part of my job any longer. I still hunt, and I own a small assortment of firearms. I do not open up the gun cabinet and marvel at them. I don't bring them to a Chipotle so others can see them. They are tools. Could you imagine a plumber bringing a welding torch into a Chipotle? Or any public place, while they are eating?
My father-in-law was a police officer as well. He is obsessed with firearms now. He asked me what gun I will be taking on our thru-hike.
"I'm not."
"Why not?"
"It's not necessary."
"What if..."
And then the scenarios began. Twisted psychopaths with murder on their minds. Ravenous bears and rabid coyotes. All of them problems that could be solved with one piece of equipment. A firearm.
If I were hiking in Alaska I would probably take a Marlin lever gun, in a caliber sufficient to stop a large bear. It would be heavy, but a necessary piece of gear.
The Appalachian Trail is not Alaska. Bears are not huge, and they are, for the most part, very frightened of humans. As for rabid animals, they seem to populate the suburbs more than the wild. But what about people? What if somebody attempts to harm us?
If you look around the internet you can find forums regarding carrying a firearm while hiking the AT. Some are all about it, and they even go into great detail regarding the benefits of a certain make/model. Others are staunchly opposed to it, and they are firebrand liberals. Most of the forums/interwebs take a practical approach.
Me? No gun. Here is why:
1. I am just not willing to carry it. Too heavy.
2. Not practical. The only times I have run across some loon who wanted me dead is when I was in uniform. Homicidal maniacs and criminals don't thru-hike the AT, or any trail for that matter. They are in your cities and suburbs. Not the woods.
3. It makes people uncomfortable. I pride myself on being a gentleman, and guns make some people uneasy. Instead of them trying to guess what my intentions are it is easy enough for me to present myself in a manner that displays that.
4. I am not paranoid. I might have a touch of PTSD, but carrying a gun (even a small pistol) is admitting you are paranoid. It's true. If you believe people who have bad intentions are using the AT to fuel those evil intents you might want to stay off the trail. However, your fears are not warranted. I know people have been assaulted on the trail, and some have been murdered. From a practical standpoint those instances are so few and far between that carrying a gun for defensive purposes is negligible. Many of those murdered/assaulted were not killed with a firearm.
5. Logistics. How am I supposed to keep up with the gun laws of different jurisdictions? It's not worth the trouble.
6. What do I do with it? I can't leave it unattended or unsecured. Am I supposed to take it into a shower? Better get waterproof ammo and all stainless.
7. We are getting away from the trials and tribulations. So why bring something that is a memento of the chaos I see on the news every single day here in Atlanta? Every. Single. Day.
8. I'll say it again: Those people are not on the trail. They are in the cities and suburbs. It is too much trouble to hike 15 or 20 miles in order to murder/rape/rob. Why do that when you can pull up to a store/school/parking lot and find a victim? Your getaway is easier too.
Life is not predictable. Bad things happen, everyday. Sometimes to us. I was stabbed by a guy who was breaking into a car. I was going to a call and some nut jumped out into the street and started shooting at my patrol car. I walked into an armed robbery in progress. I was in a helicopter crash in the desert. All of those things have one thing in common. I was "at work". All of the times I went hunting, nobody shot at me. All of the times I have been in the woods I have never been assaulted. Well, maybe, if you consider ticks and snakes.
Most of the people who advocate carrying on a thru-hike are defeating the purpose of the endeavor, right from the start. They wish to leave behind the filth of modern society, but they need a little reminder of it, just in case.
To illustrate my point I will use some controversy: George Zimmerman.
Remember him? He had a gun. Did he need it? Absolutely not. He was in a car, driving. He decided to incite the incident which made him infamous by leaving the confines of that car. He put himself in a situation where the gun became his way out. All of his problems were nails.
My problems are much more complicated. I'm trying to finish a book. I worry about my son. I worry about my wife. I worry about my spiritual direction, and my son's. Will Bo Duke eat the bacon (he loves bacon)? All of my problems concern me, and what revolves around me (Zimmerman should have done the same, instead of cooking up a "what-if" that never existed).
What will we do if somebody on the trail does not have the same sensibilities as us? We have hammocks, so we won't stay in the shelter with them. No need to fight about it. What will we do if somebody attempts to assault us? It probably won't happen, but if it does I do know how to fight. Not high school boy fighting, but actually rip a throat out and eat a liver fight. But wouldn't it be best to just remove ourselves from the situation? Stand your ground only counts if it is the only ground available, and the trail is some 2,000 miles long. A gun is not on our list.
On Thursdays I will throw out a topic for debate. "I will"? Well, let me say I will try. This should be a regular thing, God willing. I think debate is healthy. It does several things, and all at the same time.
1. It fires synapses: A person will have to engage all of their mind, including memory, logic, creative, and learning.
2. It exposes: If somebody has difficulty learning new things, being exposed to new concepts will broaden their knowledge base.
3. Engages: "Opinions are like..." The problem with opinions is just that, they are baseless, for the most part. If a person is forced to find out why they believe something they may come to the conclusion they don't believe it at all. Or they find the reasons why they believe it. Take the philosophy professor who assigns new meaning to the color blue. Idiot. It is blue because society has assigned the value, if you want to change the value build a time machine and go back to the formation of languages.
Now on to the topic.
This afternoon Fox News (which I seldom watch) had a panel discussing youth athletics. The usual things came up. It is beneficial because it teaches certain traits like leadership, perseverance, and prioritization. It is not beneficial because it teaches success at all costs, glorification of one type or another, and excludes people. I won't go into it further, but it was Fox News so it wasn't too deep.
My question is this: Are organized athletics necessary?
I'm going with a no. Here is why:
1. Society has functioned just fine without any form of organized athletics. In fact they prospered. The early empires that built all of those marvels did not have a professional athletic class. The Cherokee, Sioux, and all the rest of the people that populated this continent did not have a professional athletic class. In fact, just off the top of my head, I don't think we had a professional athletic class until some years had passed in the 20th century. Even then they were not wealthy. They had other jobs (Rocky worked in a meat packing plant, thanks 80s reference).
2. They are not necessary for our survival. If an alien race showed up outside the perimeter of our atmosphere and somehow abducted the entire NFL we would not be any worse. BTW I am going to write about that, so no stealing. However if that same alien race managed to get our trash men and plumbers we would be screwed. Cholera and Typhus outbreaks, rodent infestations, you name it would be an apocalyptic nightmare (BTW I am going to write that one as well).
So here is my point: If the manner in which you make money offers less to society than the people who deal with our filth, you are probably not necessary. You are not worth glorification. And you are certainly not worth multi-million dollar contracts. I understand the free market thing with NFL/NBA/MLB salaries, so don't go there. But do go to the necessary/unnecessary argument. We could apply the same to any celebrity or faux celebrity (Kardashian is thy name). If anybody can do it, and trust me anybody can run, punt, sprint, hit, it is not necessary as a social class. Maybe they cannot do it as well as the one who was abducted by those aliens, but they can still accomplish the task without any special training.
The reason I wanted to work through this is football. The boy plays it. He has decided not to play it this coming season due to the time it will take away from his academics. Remember, if he does not finish we don't thru-hike the AT. Some of our relatives (grandparents, go figure) are a little perturbed by this. They bring up the usual benefits of organized athletics, but I am dubious.
Can a twelve-year-old learn leadership without being on a football team?
Not everybody on the team is a leader. From what I have seen very few players are leaders, it is normally the coach. If one were to look at the crop of players in college football that are becoming household names I am certain they would not want their son to emulate that kind of leadership. Sexual assault, theft, DUI, drug possession, and just plain stupid (North Carolina anybody?) seem to be some of the problems. Did those men learn leadership and morals through organized athletics? I am going to say they did not. Now I will admit athletics does instill the values I like in some people, however it does not have any influence over others. It actually has a negative influence. They are groomed to believe they are exceptional without producing any evidence other than athletic prowess. This is a free country and you can believe whatever you wish, but is it wise to reward athletic prowess despite poor character? No. Jameis Winston is a perfect example. The institutions associated with his poor character covered for him. The school? Probably. The criminal justice system? It seems that way. NCAA? They bestowed an honor on him. What happened next? He steals food, which he can pay for. Not all people involved in organized athletics act like fools. There are plenty who do good things for society. But is that a product of their involvement or the character traits already instilled in them? Would they not be the same way if they were suffering from an affliction that kept them from being athletes?
Organized athletics have value, but not enough to warrant them as being popular as they are. The Boy Scouts have turned out leaders, and it is (or was) a requirement for participation. The military demands it (JROTC and its associated groups are another post altogether). Teamwork can be taught in a myriad of ways (most of which do not involve a ball). Many proponents of organized athletics get carried away by the assumption it is the only way, or even the best way. It is neither. Plenty of people get through life without engaging in organized athletics. Plenty of people go on to be valued members of society without participating in organized athletics.
I am a little shocked by my opinion. I loved watching my son play. I like watching college and professional football. I have tempered my enjoyment of it over the years. Especially after watching, and listening to some parents. Am I sad my son does not want to play this year. No. What about the following season? I don't care. I have come to the realization it is not necessary. It is not important, it is not the best method, or even a favored method, for rearing your children.
As stated, the boy and I are going to thru hike the AT. The biggest logistical issue is school. Now I know what you're thinking.
"Isn't he home schooled? One of those wall lickers that turns out socially indifferent? Why would that be a problem?"
Yes, he is, but... We use the state's approved alternative to stepping inside a brick and mortar structure. Georgia Cyber Academy. If you live in Georgia, and you are looking for an alternative to traditional schooling, I can recommend it without reservation (as long as you know what you are doing). The boy still has to take state mandated tests. In our case the CRCT.
This is the test by which a student's intellect and academic abilities are measured. Never mind that over 60% of our legislators could not make a decent score on it if they were given it, or that they never took state mandated tests while in school and they decry the state of education and moan for it to return to the way it was when they were in school. I digress.
This test is given in April or May, depending on when your school is scheduled. GCA seems to be late April. So we will have to be in town for the test.
"But what about his actual school work?"
That's a good question. With a very good answer. GCA allows for self paced progress. Which means he does have assignments that must be completed as part of the online learning system. Fortunately these assignments are put out there at the beginning of the school year.
It is important to schedule your thru hike according to probable weather patterns. Now, it is still cold in Georgia during February, and on into March, however it is tolerable. Starting out at this time we should hit Damascus, Virginia at just the right time. The right time being when my wife will pick us up and bring us back so he can take the CRCT. She will then drive us back to where she found us (unwashed, unfed, and with a few hundred miles on us), put us out, and we will continue on until we summit Mt. Katahdin in Maine. Hopefully she will pick us up there as well.
I considered other things regarding schooling, and how we will be disconnected from "society" for months at a time, at least March, April, and May as far as school goes. This is where technology steps in. The iPhone and a Surface RT. Connect to the internet when we set up camp, and if he needs to do anything it gets done. I know it is taboo. We should be moving away from technology during this time, connecting to nature and "finding ourselves". But let's face it. We aren't hippies. I'm not saying it is written in stone either, it is just an option. I like having some sort of backup plan, just in case. It probably will not be necessary.
For those dads out there that are contemplating something like this I offer you Sunshine and Balls. Mr. Reed took his daughter out for a walk. All three of the longest walks (the Triple Crown, AT, PCT, and CDT). She became the youngest person to bag all three.
Now for gear talk with the Dad:
The big three are your pack, sleep, and shelter system. When undertaking a thru hike weight and efficiency are paramount. You will find all kinds of websites devoted to thru hiking and the gear it involves. You will also find people on those websites that recommend something, either a pack or sleeping bag, which you find to be just too expensive. I'm with ya'.
The one thing we learned, after weeks of research and countless youtube videos, is it all comes down to personal preference.
The item I will address in this post is the pack. I know how to rig an ALICE pack, but man is that going to be heavy. You could probably get away with carrying one on a thru hike of the AT, and people have done it. But why would you? The first consideration is the volume and weight of your gear.
We decided to keep it light. Not super-ultra-light, just light. The base weight for "Light" is considered between 10 and 20 pounds. That is a lot of wiggle room if you know how to do it. Base weight is all your gear, not food and water. On a thru hike of the AT you will only need one change of clothes, if that. In fact if you are carrying more than one of anything it should be socks. The start of the trail on a thru hike is normally cold and wet (it starts in Georgia, we get rain here like just about everywhere else). Your shelter doesn't need to be a tent, and it probably shouldn't be. You need a tarp, it's lighter and you have more options about setting it up. Your sleeping bag? It should be the best you can afford and keep you warm down to 20F. Down or synthetic? Doesn't matter. If it gets wet it will not keep you warm, even if it is synthetic. Wet is wet. So don't let it get wet. Down is lighter, but also more expensive.
The boy and I decided on using Hennessy Hammocks for our shelter set up. I don't want to sleep on the ground like an animal, and rodents scurrying over me in one of the shelters gives me the heebie-jeebies. Those run about a pound and a half (give or take). A decent backpacking quilt will run about a pound or so, and the insulation for the bottom of the hammock will be less than that (I get hot easily). The problem will be storing the gear because it takes up space and is fairly light.
We went with GoLite. I have a Pinnacle (the large) which is no longer in their product line. It was replaced with the Jam, which the boy went with. The Pinnacle has the volume to handle large loads, but it still demands I keep things light. I do not plan on going over fifteen pounds. That leaves more than enough room for ten pounds of food and water, while still being a comfortable carry. The GoLite Jam seems a little smaller, but not by much, and it can still hold around thirty pounds comfortably.
Other makes and models that have been popular on AT thru hikes are Z-pack, Osprey, and even some REI store brand packs. The big picture is to consider what your skills are and how comfortable you want to be. If you have some miles under your feet, know how to use an alcohol stove, don't mind eating the same thing over and over, and are organized, you can get to Maine with thirty pounds, and probably a lot less, on your back. If you absolutely must have an internal frame pack, loaded up with a stove (which you will not find fuel for) and two backups, five changes of clothes, a coffee press, a tent, a bear canister, bear spray, a pair of camp shoes, and the heaviest most wind resistant rain gear you can find, be prepared to only make about five miles a day and for your thru hike to be about a year long. Also you will be so tired you won't even use the gear because you will be staying in motels each time you make it to a town. So bring some money, and lots of it.
Thru hikes are labor intensive, not financial undertakings. Choose multi-function gear, light weight, and reasonable. And then figure out how much space you will need to carry it. Simple.
I think the biggest problem our family has regarding the adventure is they are too connected to convenience. If you cut out what you do not need, and look at what is necessary, and only that which is necessary, you find you can use a lightweight pack. A good idea is to check out some of the VLogs on youtube (I like Will Wood, aka Redbeard). You will get an idea as to what you will need, what they discarded, and what they wished they had thought of.
After some funding cuts and disagreements (along with a healthy dose of "stoppedgivin'-a-syndrome) I decided to leave the traditional field of work.
What?
In this economy?
Have you lost all sense of reason?
Well it was sort of forced upon me (funding), but I could have argued about it a little. It was in the weeks that followed where I had one of those epiphanies. You see, I had always been something of a minor writer. I had some screed published back in the early 90s while in college. It wasn't anything spectacular, just a short story. It wasn't even in anything noticeable, a defunct literary magazine out of New Orleans or Mobile. But it did buy some beer, and who can argue with that kind of success? I now had an opportunity dropped into my lap by the Almighty to do what I had originally intended to do all along. Write.
In the months sans-traditional work my wife and I decided I should have some company, and it came in the form of our twelve year old son, Bailey. So I joined the masses of homeschooling parents. I found it to be strange that I was the one doing it, because, well because I'm the dad. Aren't moms the one who do all the homeschooling/government is destroying my child/paranoid exercises? As it turns out, that is the correct assumption. So we went with a curriculum and hit the ground running. Now this "Why" (and what has turned into a brief "How") did not find me unprepared. This begs for a timeline of skills and experiences, so here it is:
1. Military: In my younger days I was somewhat on edge and so I joined up. Went away, and then came back. That simple.
2. Police: Yes, I am not just a man, I was "The Man". I worked the street as a patrol officer, shaking doors and answering calls. On occasion I pulled over a car and wrote tickets. For several years I worked on a narcotics task force, and was on a tactical team. I learned to shoot and fight in a controlled setting, and then did it for real at 3:00 a.m. I also became an investigator focusing on sex crimes and crimes against children. In total, about 15 years of my life spent dealing with all the bad stuff that happens. Between the military and policing it made about 20 years.
3. University educated (and a teacher!): True, very true. I did obtain a liberal arts degree, and a teaching certification for English (lil' childrens and high school). I taught for a little while, and cut backs ended it. So I do know a thing or two (possibly three) about teaching a "tween" and smart ass teen agers.
So now we sit. He does a few lessons, and assessments, writes, and then when he finishes with his "cipherin' and figurin'" we go for walks. He, being Bailey. I have an office downstairs and he does venture into it while I am writing. Sometimes he offers pointed observations about what I'm working on (he insists the "Damn Truckers" needs to be made into a comic book and then a movie). He isn't so interested in the literary or southern fiction. Not his cup of tea? Pepsi.
A few weeks ago Bailey came up with what I consider a brilliant plan. We can hike the Appalachian Trail.
"We start here in Georgia, and then make it all the way to Maine. Some mountain up there."
Are you kidding me??? I've been wanting to do that since...since...Hell yes! Let's do it!
This brings me to the "Why".
I hate to break it to everybody, but you will die. One day your heart muscles will fail to contract, and the nerve endings will stop firing to make those involuntary contractions. Your lungs will also give up on the whole inhale exhale thing (it does get boring after a while). After that you will cease to be part of this mortal realm. I will not go into the philosophical and theological, but you, me, Bailey, my wife, my dogs, everybody, will die. When you die I am not sure if that cliche about your life flashing before your eyes is true, but just in case wouldn't you rather have something decent to watch? Instead of paying bills, worrying about money, looking for the damned remote in the sofa cushions, eating a box of Little Debbie snack cakes, and all the meaningless crap that makes up humanity, wouldn't you prefer to see flashes of memories that matter?
The YOLO thing has run its course and become anathema. But its sentiment is almost correct. If you have kids, and you are a dad, figure out a way. It may not be for every dad out there, but you could probably come up with a plan to implement something meaningful. Why?
1. It's effin' dangerous to be a boy today: A review of some statistical data (I know, I took it in college too, but sometimes they get it right. Just watch the news) shows how fathers not involved in their kid's life end up creating way more problems than those who are. The CDC conducted a study and found boys to be more at risk than girls. They become violent, susceptible to multiple health risks, suicide, and psychological issues. The bottom line is fathers are not being dads. Some are, but think about it for a minute. If you are a father what kind of interaction do you have with your kids? When I was a police I worked nights. I loathed the day shift. I woke up when my wife and son came home, ate, and then S-3 (shit, shower, shave). After that it was off to see all the strangers that called 911. I didn't help with homework, and I was off two weekends a month. Plenty of time for family days? Sure. But did I do it? Nope. I was wiped out after dealing with drug addicts, drunken domestics, and whatever else was thrown at me. I changed careers, but found myself getting wrapped up in that as well. Other people's children were a priority as well. I'm a type-A personality, so I tried to juggle it. It did not work out well. If you find it is not working out well for you, don't feel guilty (maybe just a little), start coming up with a plan. If you like what you are doing to make money, and that is all it is, get a calendar and start penciling in those hours and days you will spend connecting with your offspring and family. If you like what you are doing to make money, and it is how you identify yourself as a man, get a journal and do some soul searching, because you probably suck as a father. I did.
2. Your daughter got a tattoo and is going to be a stripper: Positive family experiences have long term effects. If you show your kids how a man is supposed to act they will expect all men to behave that way. If you are raising a son, he will emulate you. If you are raising a daughter (sorry, don't have one, and I would be worried if I did) she will more than likely demand the males she comes in contact with to behave like you. Let's hope you are behaving appropriately. If you are, she won't bring home some d-bag who has to meet with a probation officer every Wednesday to pee in a cup. She will probably go to college, have a great deal of success, and live at a higher standard. Your son will learn to follow in your footsteps, have academic success, and have a higher standard of living. You get grand-children to buy presents for, and people that actually care when those nerves stop firing and your heart ceases to work.
3. Socks with sandals? It's o.k. But maybe we should yearn for something more: It's easy to get caught up in the event. The event being life. You made it out of school, then got a job. Your under the assumption that you should stick with it, no matter what (401K, benefit packages, vacations, and retirement, just like your parents did). But let's be honest. Does it matter? Does it make any sense? Is it even feasible? That all demands on your situation, but let me throw some things out there. This is specifically for the Generation-X people (My people, oh how I love our 80s movies, and Molly Ringwald). Gone are the days of stagnant lifestyles. Technology, work innovations, and the world in general have created a connected society. Most of it without borders or gate keepers. When I went into the military they gave me a top secret clearance. I have no idea what that entailed, but it was a package deal. I took some tests and went to some briefings, and BAM! Top Secret! When I became a police I took a test, a physical, went to the academy, and BAM! Gun? Check. Badge? Check. Cuffs? Got 'em. Get a pen, you're going to have to write. Got it. Now go out there and lock some asses up. Will do. What about all the other cool jobs, or as I look at them now Finance Options? Here is a little perspective:
Hugh Howey: He wrote a couple of books. Wool being the most popular. He didn't go the traditional route. He published his stuff himself, as an e-book. It became popular. So popular a traditional publishing company offered him a sweet deal, which he turned down and gave a counter offer for less money but fewer publishing rights (print only, I think). He turned around and sold the idea of Wool to a movie studio, which bought it. He's rich, and he got that way because of his ideas. His earlier incarnation found him repairing computers and working as a yacht captain. Wait a minute? This guy doesn't have any formal literary training! No MFA from Iowa or a prestigious university. How did that happen? J.A. Konrath pulled it off too. If you are like me, and fancy yourself a writer of sorts, these two guys are not the only ones (in fact my research found it is mostly the ladies that pull it off with greater success). Many, many, many people (some are dads) are doing it. Not everybody is raking in million dollar deals and have Ridley Scott putting together a production of their work, but more than enough are making decent money.
I have a friend, former police, that left the department after I did. He makes a living as an artist. He owns a gallery (that's not his gallery in the link), and he hocks his wares. He is living his dream. He's a dad, and spends a great deal of time with his kid (who is approaching full grown now). I don't think he regrets dropping out of the traditional money input method.
If you are the creative sort, and are looking for inspiration in order to drop out and begin doing what you were born to do Brain Pickings has numerous ideas. Rather than list each and every idea a guy could have about what to do so they could live their lives in relative comfort and still have a sense a purpose let me say this: You do have value. As a man you matter. Now figure out how to make it happen.
You will probably fail, at first. Later on you will garner some success. You might not become a household name, but the only household that matters is not outside your own. So learn to deal with a degree of anonymity. There are numerous benefits to being relatively obscure (you can get away when you want being the chief of them).
The bottom line (isn't that what all men look for?): You are not made by money. You are made by certain types of successes. A good example? Kevin Federline. Look it up. Need another? Woody Allen. When was the last time you heard Federline rap? Did you see the last Woody Allen movie? Exactly. Think Bill Cosby vs. Jay Z. Or Jim Caviezel/ Liam Neeson/ anybody other than a drunk vs. whoever is going to play Batman again. Being a good guy pays off in the end. Jay Z won't be able to live up to the hype in 2025, and Woody Allen will die a pedophile without any offspring crying over him. Pick your measure of success carefully, and don't look at anything on TLC as being remotely real. Real men pick their kids up from school and go places with them. Consider Jason Patric and his plight. (Another 80s icon? I know.)
And you and I have our kids in the same building. Put things in perspective. Now. Before it is too late. And it will be too late, one of these days.
