Rules Rules Rules

Writen by Robert Crane

I have always been a rules-based person. Over the years I have concocted quite a sophisticated set of rules, if I must say so myself. In fact, a mantra that I repeated three times each night was: "Before I lay me down to sleep, I must make more rules to keep." If you don't believe me, just ask any one of the unfortunate few who have been in a relationship with me.

Sometimes I didn't even know I had a rule until one was broken. For instance, I found out I apparently had a rule that Presidents of United States are not allowed to have any kind of sex in the Oval Office, especially with an intern. I did not know I had that rule until Clinton of course broke it. I don't have a clue as to where that rule came from but it was there all the same, and when he broke it and then lied about it—I wanted him to resign.

Actually, having rules hasn't always been a bad thing. Rules eliminated confusion. Rules eliminated ambiguity. Rules provided a framework for judgment (and boy, do I like to judge). I know that isn't a particularly popular pastime anymore, but, hey, if you have rules, you're gonna judge—it's part of the package.

Rules, rules, rules. Gee, I loved rules. I've been around a few years beyond the wrong side of fifty, so I have had plenty of time to weave an intricately fragile network of rules, finely tuned to serve me well for a host of human trials.

Unfortunately, the more complicated the system of rules, the more brittle they became when faced with something unexpected—something from another universe.

I should really have known better about the frailty of rules; look at physics for instance. Can you develop a more complex set of rules than the laws of physics? I don't think so. First we had Newtonian physics to explain apples falling from trees. Those laws were doing just fine until Einstein noticed some odd behavior with stars, galaxies and big objects. So he pretty much rewrote Newton's rules with his theory of relativity. Then quantum mechanics was formulated to explain the contrary behavior of really tiny things; things even smaller than protons and neutrons—like there are such things in the first place. What's that: one set of laws for big things and one set of laws for tiny things? We can't have any of that now can we. No! We must have a single set of rules to explain both big things and little things. String theory is being developed to take care of that and if that doesn't work, how about chaos theory. What in the world is chaos theory anyway? It sounds like something you come up with when you give up on thinking about stuff. I suppose to be fair, chaos theory seems like the atheists' equivalent of Intelligent Design.

The point is that eventually rules will break or be broken. It is inevitable. It is their nature. This is well documented by someone named Murphy. It is also true, being the frivolous humans we are, we just keep rewriting the rules until they work again. It is our lot in life. Well that may be true but I, for one, have pretty much had it with rules.

I came to this lowly place after multiple random stints in psychotherapy. Although I yapped like a deranged radio squawk jock about everything and nothing for hours on end, the army of therapists, equally diverse in their theories and opinions, did provide one consistent insight: this ruled-based notion of mine gets me into nothing but deep doo-doo. By the way, just an aside, if you haven't tried therapy, give it a whirl. It's kind of cathartic to complain to some complete stranger for an hour or two a week. It's the same business model as prostitution but without the sex and messy clean-up. Well, that's not exactly true, tissues are required for both I'm pretty sure.

Anyway, the fact is I was growing weary of patching up one failed rule, only to have a bulb of rules burst like an aneurism of incongruence. Such a challenge unfurled itself about three years ago when I was confronted by something that pretty much turned a huge secret cabinet of rules I had upside down. I mean I had rules breaking left and right. I spent the next two years frantically trying to reconstruct my shattered framework, while resisting a strong visceral temptation to execute ill advised penalties to the rule breakers that most certainly would have been disastrous—something I'm really, really glad I did not do.

After much soul searching—and yes, a little more therapy—I finally concluded I really did not need to be so rule based. It's not the end of the world. They really are no stinkin' good anyway. I mean, don't get me wrong, there are a few that I plan to hold onto: for instance, not killing people, not eating with my mouth open, and not having sex in the oval office with an intern. However, when it comes to human relationships, I am much better off being a tad more flexible; a little less rule based; a bit more lenient in the penalty phase; and, most notably, less udgemental-jay. It hasn't been easy giving them up mind you, especially the udgemental-jay but I'm getting there.

The article above was written by humorist Robert Crane. You can find more of the same insane, inane, arcane stuff at his popular site: http://www.cranelegs.com Take the ride (sickness bags provided).