exit strategy

do you think the way we exit matters? for real, is the exit more important than the entrance. this weekend sitting at dinner, eating some sushi, having some conversations japanese, i thought about exit strategies. strangely connected with a conversation i imposed on stevey last weekend at the cemetary. sometimes i think the exit is more important than the entrance. samurai believed this. that is why hari-kiri (seppuku) was practiced. since they honored the idea of reincarnation, they believed the way you exit life was an important step to continue the way you fought in life and basically lived your life. so if you had somehow dishonored your clan, it was redeemable by an honorable death. interesting practice.

relationships can be the same way. i almost think that it's more important to have an appropriate conclusion to courting than a romantic beginning. you can even salvage a horrible relationship with the right exit strategy. however, the antagonistic approach is just as potent because much of the rush of fun in the beginning will eventually regress, the words/phrases you use during that all-too-painful break-up conversation will linger in the mind of the opposite party for times to come. those critical moments may be etched permanently with potential to taint all other elements of an otherwise good relationship. exits can be telling.


i think there's something to be said about exit strategies. ok so let's consider the spasmodic utterances i forced on stevey as we sauntered through the jfk memorial site last weekend in the district. similar to the way our generation will recall 911, the prior generations can all relate when/where/how they heard about the assassination of jfk. jonny kennedy had roughly 3 years in office and dealt with some historic events like the bay of pigs and the cuban missile crisis. but how much could a president really accomplish in three years that would memoralize him for generations to follow. now, i wasn't alive during that period in history, but did the american people love jfk that much prior to his assassination? or was it the subsequent love affair with jackie and a feeling of societal vulnerability?

take another martyr, the reverend doctor martin luther king jr. i do not want to take away from his legacy at all, but consider this point, what if goerge bush sr. instead of mlk? yeah, he conducted the gulf war and raised a son that would follow his lead, but still went down a rare one-term defeated incumbent. and will his grave sit on a bluff in the nation's most prestigious cemetary and overlook the hill with its glowing momuments of other national heroes? if the first george dubya was brutually murdered would there be middle schools in every neighborhood bearing his name? maybe, maybe not. my point is this. yes, great men. and great men in prominent, conspicuous positions were killed for the cause. but they didn't give their lives, their lives were taken. don't you think its more noble to put your life on the line, like the numerable causalties from all of our nations wars? and yet how many of these men get more than a flag delivered by uniformed men to their doorsteps? i guess my question is this, why does involuntary assassination merit more history honor points than voluntary sacrifice to a cause? but maybe it's true that an ignoble act can and will be redeemed by an approriate exit strategy.