If you're doing something dangerous, but you don't know it's risky, does that make you brave? Say you walk across a lake of thin ice, but you think the ice is solid and safe. Are you courageous for talking that stroll? Are you brave once you realize how dangerous the act was? Are you foolish or just ignorant?

If we humans stand any chance of evolving, we need to clarify our notions of bravery. Courage has been defined by Hollywood culture as something that occurs in split-second intervals, a flashy physical activity that looks a lot like an action-film sequence.

Define bravery, and it too often goes like this: Diving into gunfire to save a wounded comrade! Leaping from a speeding car as it goes over the cliff! Crashing through a burning building to save a crying baby / adorable dog / nubile lass! CLANG! KERASSSH! BABOOOM! YEEEEHAAAA!

I'm tired of our stories and myths defining courage in such a limited way, rooted in rare situations of war, disaster or violence. People who act heroically in those situations will often humbly say things like, I don't feel brave, I just did what I had to do, it was all a blur, it was over in seconds, I didn't even think about it, anyone would have done the same thing.

This isn't to take away from their exceptional behavior, but exceptional behavior only occurs in exceptional moments. How many times during our lives will any of us be exposed to live gunfire, a cliff-bound car or a lightly charred nubile lass? Does that mean we'll never have a chance to learn how brave (or fearful) we are?

I've never believed that the only way to be brave is to pursue a law-enforcement, military or rescue career. I think there's so much to human experience that courage can manifest in many other, more subtle ways. Further along this thought-path, it's rarely made sense to me when awards are given for split-second actions. I'm much more impressed with sustained action. Instead of the reflex that comes from the result of training or primal sub-conscious automatic survival instinct, I'm more impressed with sustained and repeated courage across the span of a lifetime. When you have to time think about what's happening and time to back down or run, but you stand your ground? That's bravery.

At the end of all these thoughts, I realized that loving someone is a brave act. I think it might even be the bravest act we can do.

Yet as soon as I think that, I feel the mental gravitational pull of the action-film definition. How can love be brave? Almost everyone loves something. Shouldn't bravery be a rare thing?

I don't think so. Just because we have gotten used to the presence of a miracle doesn't make it any less miraculous.

Now of course I don't know you, but I can almost guarantee you don't think of yourself as especially brave. To do so seems a bit arrogant. Let me save you some potential angst and tell you: you are brave. I'll bet you love someone and I'm going to remind you how courageous that is. It's like you're walking on ice you think is thick and solid, but I'm about to point out how thin it is.

You know, deep in your heart, that those you love are temporary. They are all mortal and one day they will die or be killed, by disease, by age, by a madman, by one (or more) of a thousand things in a million ways. That loss will cause you immense pain. Yet you keep on loving them.

Are you nuts? Why bother to love anyone? They are going to be gone someday. There is no doubt. None. So why do you keep doing it? You know the ice is thin, but you keep walking. Are you crazy?

No. You're brave. You face not the possibility of pain, but its inevitability. Yet you keep going. You keep loving.

As I was writing this, I stopped and thought about these things and scared myself. Everyone you and I love is going to leave one day, either by natural or unnatural causes. There is no doubt. It's so unpleasant to think about we often avoid it just to stay sane, and yet, I think we should face it just for an instant to appreciate it all.

We know how fragile life is and we continue to love. What kind of madness does it take to allow our hearts to be captivated by something so delicate? You know you're going to get hurt. It's going to happen. It's a question of when. It would be much more logical to love something eternal, like a stone, death or taxes. Or better yet, a plastic bottle.

But no. We keep loving.

All this time, your whole life, you've been so brave. It sounds amazing, ridiculous, exaggerated. You look at yourself in the mirror and you wonder "Am I brave?" If you love someone, you are. If you put your heart out (sensibly) you are. Courage is all around us and within you.

This isn't to say in a blithering emotional gush that everyone is brave and dilute the meaning of bravery, because it is possible to be cowardly regarding love, but oddly enough, such creatures seem to be in the minority. The fearful run from love, or chase others away. They choose to love no one because they fear the hurt, they hide behind a thousand schemes. The foolish love too easily, and their love becomes an artificial thing, robotic even.

Instead of heroism being defined as split-second action, I vote that we admire our courage and realize how brave we are to love. The miracle of love is around us all every day, and you are part of it making it happen. Imagine where we could go, where our world would be if we all deeply and openly appreciated that.

===

Larry Nocella writes the blog ROFL: Random Outbursts From Lar! at LarryNocella.com. He's the author of the novel Where Did This Come From? The world's first CarbonFree(R) novel according to Carbonfund.org. The book is available as an Amazon Kindle eBook. It is also available for reading online. P.S. You don't need a Kindle to read Kindle eBooks. Download the FREE Kindle app for PC, Mac and smartphones. You can then purchase Kindle books or download free ones. Enjoy!

I've always distrusted pretty-sounding quotations. Too many people think that just because a statement is said concisely, or a famous person said it, or it has a poetic ring, that it's true. Context doesn't matter. It's "set it and forget it" for the mind. More like "just repeat and your thinking's complete."

This happens all the time when people quote America's "Founding Fathers," but just because the founding fathers said something doesn't mean the thought was codified into U.S. law.

Tangent: Notice there are no "Founding Mothers." Gay marriage may not be fully legal in America yet, but the USA had multiple daddies. Scandalous!

Anyway, one quotation I've found to be true as often as not is, "The path to Hell is paved with good intentions."

Tangent: So Jesus himself is in Hell?

What especially interested me about that quotation was flipping it around. Since it's often true, that would imply the precise opposite is also often true. But how can the path to heaven be paved with evil intentions? Hold that question, we'll come back to it.

You may have heard of this horrible news story (link.) Here's a summary: a man's son was killed in Iraq. At the funeral, the Westboro Baptist Church (link) showed up with their obnoxious signs, claiming that God was turning away from the USA because our nation tolerates homosexuals, and soldiers can expect to die due to God's wrath.

This is something the WBC does often. Sick, right? No matter what you think of America's endless war(s) anyone with a shred of decency can empathize with a grieving parent burying a child and searching for some measure of peace.

So as the story goes, the father sues the Westboro people, and wins. Awesome! But the Westboro jerks appeal the verdict, and then they win. So now, this poor man is required to pay their court costs, but he refuses, which I believe means he could go to jail.

Now here's a twist that supports the "truth is stranger than fiction" pretty-sounding quotation. Professional blowhard Bill O'Reilly offers to pay the court costs. That right there should be a warning to the Westboro cult: when Bill O'Reilly makes you look like a douche bag, your douche baggery is off the charts.

Yet even as I bust on Billo, I have to say I'm not entirely surprised at his kindness. No matter how much I disagree with him or anyone else, I am sure of one thing: most would never sink low enough to turn someone's funeral into a circus for an agenda unrelated to the deceased or their family. Most would never dream of turning someone's funeral into a circus, period.

To do so is disrespectful, foul and the lowest of the low. Just as free speech has some common sense limits (the "no shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" clause) funerals should be off limits to demonstration. I say that as a lover and frequent user of the First Amendment. I promise you that small restriction on free speech will not cause the U.S. Constitution to spontaneously combust.

While I wouldn't know what goes on in the Westboro cult's theoretically existent minds, and they clearly have no hearts or souls to speculate about, it's obvious they want to divide. They want people to turn against gays, kick off an orientation-ocide, if you will.

However, Westboro's attempts at division have the reverse effect because they serve as a common ground. Conservatives, Liberals, Republicans, Democrats, Straight, Gay, Black, White, I'm confident we ALL realize that the Westboro Baptist Church's habit of disrupting funerals make them the most vile creatures on earth.

Even Jesus Christ himself, the Original Hippie, would take a huge steaming dump on the Westboro Baptist Church people and kick their leader in the shriveled slug carcass that surely passes for his balls.

So in the most oblique way, the Westboro Baptist Church, by being so hateful, gives me hope. They bring Americans together under one big tent of disgust. Their hate brings us together, shows us that despite our differences we share a common bond, and maybe even paves the way to heaven with evil intentions.

===
Larry Nocella writes The Semi-True Adventures of Lar blog at LarryNocella.com. He's the author of the novel Where Did This Come From? The world's first CarbonFree(R) novel according to Carbonfund.org. The book is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and Kindle eBook. It is also available for other eBook readers.

I've never understood the common usage of the word macho.

To be clear, I'm referring to the dictionary definition (ultimate masculinity) and not the informal one popularized by The Village People (ultimate gayness.) The word macho is intended to define the pinnacle of tough, but it ends up representing supreme insecurity.

Understanding that contradiction, it's clear that extreme religion is precisely macho. Because I live west of the Prime Meridian, extremist Muslim behavior is more easily noticed, since Islamic tradition isn't intertwined with our culture and considered a part of just how things are. Examples of Islamic macho/insecurity may be more obvious to us Westerners, but anyone who opens their mind even slightly will notice there is little if any difference among Christianity, Islam and Judaism in the extreme.

At their distant ends, all three focus their restrictions on women. When it comes to the religious fringe, it's all dudes all the time. Yet these are the same people who are also violently homophobic.

Another paradox, yes, and it gets worse. Even the gods of extremism reflect the bi-polar nature of macho. A classic example is when the Taliban claimed they had to destroy Buddhist statues in Afghanistan because the statues were just too much for the mighty Allah to gaze upon. (Link.)

Now I'm just a mortal, but I'm proud of the fact that I'm secure enough not to demand my friends blow up anyone who doesn't worship me. Hey, that's their loss!

So here's my question for religious extremists: If your god is such a badass, why does he need mortals like you to fight his battles? Why is your god scared of statues? Or cartoons? Or same-sex love and marriage? Or women thinking, saying and doing what they want?

Silly extremists! Either your faith in your god's power is lacking or your god is a total wimp.

Actually, we all know the real reason for macho's split-personality, why men (and male-like gods) talk tough but act fragile. I'll break the rules and say it out loud: Because females have all the power. They can do anything a male can except make sperm.

That's not to say I would complain if the world was taken over by women and we men were used simply for sperm harvesting. To the more sultry and flexible of our female conquerors, I say harvest away! Sadly, with advances in reproductive technology, even sperm isn't necessary.

A lot of reports and studies appear to support the idea that extremism is on the rise. How much is being fueled by insecure men, aware of their accelerating (or already present) obsolescence? I swear it's only a matter of time before lesbians take over. Name me a single lesbian that isn't damn good at what she does. You can't do it! That's right, men. We are biologically useless! Accept it! Or make a fool of yourself by acting macho.

One who works against the efforts of power-hungry people of their same "race" are often referred to as race traitors. So, being a male who admits to male pointlessness, does that make me a sex traitor?

I hope so, because frankly, I'm down with that. Oh wait, I thought you said trader. Dang it.

===
Larry Nocella writes The Semi-True Adventures of Lar blog at LarryNocella.com. He's the author of the novel Where Did This Come From? The world's first CarbonFree(R) novel according to Carbonfund.org. The book is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and Kindle eBook. It is also available for other eBook readers.