Campfyre Stories

…said the man behind me on the bus.

But it’s not.  Not really.  I mean, sure, technology is prevalent in our lives nowadays and certainly, it’s a higher technology than, say, the technology in a VCR or an answering machine, but that doesn’t make it actually high technology.  In fact, high technology is now and has always been inaccessible to the everyman.  You have to work with military contracts or medical research or something similar to even be aware of a lot of the HIGH technology that’s out there.

MP3 players, digital cameras, DVD players, flash drives, personal computers, etc., etc.  This is not high tech, not by a long shot.  This is medium tech, it’s not cutting edge, but it’s not quite "primitive" either, and everyone has access to it.  You might be able to make the case that something like Blu-Ray is the highest tech of storage media or that gaming technologies can be considered hi-tech, but I can’t imagine that you’d successfully be able to argue that something that available isn’t already being surpassed by another technology that few are even aware of.  This is the stuff of science fiction, kids, and it’s coming soon to a box store near you.

The context of the guy’s statement (which wasn’t made to me, I just happened to overhear) was that computers are everywhere.  That you can’t do much of anything without having to work with technology on some level, and I understand the point that he was making, but I can’t reconcile this idea that technology that has become commonplace and that, really, hasn’t changed all that drastically in this decade is still considered "hi-tech".  I mean, is this the type of guy whose VCR clock is STILL flashing at 12:00 because he can’t figure out how to program it?  On some level, it wouldn’t surprise me.

I don’t know…  the more I think about it, the more convinced I become that hi-tech can’t actually exist in our real lives, or not for long.  I’ve been brooding on this and trying to come up with a workable definition, but it’s all just so subjective.  Surely components to things that are no longer hi-tech may be invented or revamped in hi-tech ways, but does that make the overall product as hi-tech as the component?  I suppose that may be true for some people, but without major changes, I don’t think it works.  The whole auto-park feature on cars is pretty hi-tech, but that doesn’t make the actually car all that hi-tech unless it’s decked out, even then, you’d be hard-pressed to convince me that not having to parallel park makes your car, as a whole, hi-tech.

The further we progress, technologically, the more difficult (for me, anyway) the standards for a definition of "hi-tech" actually become.  I mean, cutting-edge needs to be a factor for sure, but what about older inventions that have only just found their niche in the mainstream?  What to think about technologies that are unarguably something "new and different" but just don’t work right?  What is an innovative leap great enough to render the previous version of whatever all but obsolete?

It seems to me that new terminology is needed to sum up technology.  I mean, sure, a pen and paper are unarguable LOW technology, but does that mean that a standard $3 calculator is, by default, hi-tech, simply because it is higher than some wood pulped/carved/molded into a workable shape?  I think not.

But the bottom line, for me, is that I don’t think that it matters how old you are or what you’ve done for a living.  Unless you’re spending your days gaping stupidly at things like automatic doors, digital watches and the ridiculous number of channels available on cable, you’ve got at least some perspective on the issue.

Surrounded by technology?  Absolutely, we are.  Does that necessarily make the technology HIGH?  Not really.  Once it becomes a part of the daily lives of most people, once it becomes easily attainable, it loses it’s cutting-edge value.

I knew it was going to be a good time when, immediately upon walking into the fund raiser, I was invited to a party.  Running into one of my oldest friends, who I hadn’t seen in around 3 years was a wonderful surprise; I’m just disappointed that we didn’t have more time to catch up.

There are people who know me, generally through work, but sometimes through other situations, who are astounded at how much I manage to fit into my (so-called) free time.  I mean, I talk about being busy, but, on some level, I just can’t really grasp how little time I actually have available.  Every time I try to make time to spend with a friend, I discover that the constraints on my time are extremely limiting, and yet, I can still take that last-minute invitation and say "I’ll be there in 20 minutes."

And the constraints on my time ARE limiting.  I mean, I have Spawn with me 2 days a week (Monday and Thursday) and every other weekend.  I *can* schedule things when he’s technically with me, but having limited time, I don’t like to give up what little we have to spend.  Every Tuesday is movie night, and the movie generally lets out before 9, but most people assume that if I have a movie, that’s all I can possibly do.  Every other Wednesday for another handful of weeks I babysit my niece, and alternating Wednesdays I do my grocery shopping.

Every weekday is almost surely out, unless whoever wants some of my time is willing to stay up Far Too Late on a school night.

Weekends, though, seem to fill up quick.  While I try not to make plans without Spawn for his weekends with me, the older he gets, the freer I feel to do that.  Hence, going to this fund raiser this weekend while he stayed home.  That said, people will often start with "Do you have the kid this weekend?" and an answer of yes means that I don’t even get the invitation.  Not that this is a bad thing…  I often feel like I’m running myself ragged and as much as I’d like to, say, take a class or add another recurring appointment, there’s just no way that’s going to happen.

My manager asks me on Friday, "Any interesting plans?"  and the answer isn’t always yes, but when he asks me on Monday "So, what did you do this weekend?"  I ALWAYS have a story to tell, censored though it may be.  Heh.

So we updated the white board calendar (possibly the smartest purchase I have ever made) and filled in all the details and appointments and scheduling that we had.  Spawn commented on  how empty the month was (as was March), but the reality is that, while the plans may not have been made as yet, they will come, and whether or not the calendar actually fills up is irrelevant to the amount of activity that will take place over the course of the month.

And, really, when you take it all into consideration, is it any wonder that I blog?

I love gossip.  I love to listen and I love to tell, but only when it’s about real people.  Celebrity gossip isn’t interesting to me because, as far as I’m concerned, those people aren’t real.

I think it ties in with the storyteller in me.  I love to read, to listen and to tell stories, but I have very clear guidelines about what stories are and aren’t appropriate for me to share.  I know I’ve said it on my blog, probably more often than out loud to someone, "That isn’t my story to tell."  More often, it’s a matter of that story being one that shouldn’t be public, but can be told by me in certain circumstances.

I think that gossip has a really bad name.  It’s too closely tied in with rumors and malice, but I don’t use it that way.  I like to know what’s going on, specifically with people I know or who are not too far removed from me.  That said, I am also extremely protective of the people I care about, so if I have harmful information, I won’t share it, or will share it without revealing the players.  Generally more the former than the latter.

But I do love a good story and so do most of the people I know, so we share, even when we’re not personally invested in the person we’re listening about.

I both love and loathe the stories that start with "don’t tell anyone…" because it generally means that a good story is starting.  Eventually the "don’t tell anyone" will go away in most cases, and once we get to that point I have a full story and the freedom to tell it.  Sometimes that can last for years.  I think there’s an unspoken rule that "Don’t tell anyone" pretty much applies to "anyone who knows these people", but even more often it only applies for as long as there is a friendship.

Don’t get me wrong, I know the difference between a good story, gossip and a secret and when tasked with the keeping of a secret, I am a worthy safe.  I have never disclosed a real secret from a friend, even when the friendship had dissolved.  Well, at least, not with names and specifics.  Sometimes there’s a book-to-movie or "based on real events" kind of adaptation going on, but that happens with even our own personal experiences.

A week ago I found myself gossiping with the 14 y/o daughter of a friend of mine.  Another friend asked "How can you gossip with a 14 y/o?"  My answer at the time was that we know a lot of the same people, but thinking about it further, while that’s still true, it’s more of a situation where we like to hear real stories about real people.  It doesn’t matter if I know the same people she knows…  I remember being in high school, and I can relate her stories to my own experience.  That which is out of my realm of experience is good information to put forward when trying to understand the world that Spawn lives in.  The names and faces may change, but the stories occur over and over again.  For her, it’s a glimpse into what she can expect.  Again, the specifics may change, but the generalizations remain true.

This is why people watch soap operas. 

Think about it, what is a soap opera other than slices of gossip?  When people find other fans of a show, they discuss what they think will or should happen and they become invested in these gossip-riddled lives.  Certainly OUR lives aren’t quite as rapidly-paced or as drama-filled, not on a daily basis, but it feeds our desire to know about the things going on around us.  With the exception of people all-too-often coming back from the dead, chances are we’ve (tangentally) experienced most of what goes on in a soap opera.

I can’t help but wonder if the people who watch soap operas are the people who are disconnected from the stories of the people around them, or if they simply don’t see the parallels.  The medical crisis, the extra-marital affair, the dysfunctional family, the troubled child, the love triangle, the court cases…  how many of us haven’t lived through most of these, if only vicariously through others?  Sure, when you’re personally involved or invested, it’s not nearly as entertaining (for the most part), but when it’s your cousin’s best friend’s sister?  Entertainment without the investment and, often, without the overacted melodrama.

Isn’t that why we read personal blogs?  I mean, really, what do you get from my writing other than gossip…  from me, about me more often than not?  The filter here is to give the best, most interesting, most unusual, most important (to me) stories, is it not?  And to take it further, why else would I read the blogs of other people?  Of course I’m looking to be entertained…  not by fiction, but by the honestly stranger-than-fiction gossip that people are not only willing, but eager to share with perfect strangers.

It expands our social networks.  It gives us frames of reference for people we may some day meet.  It tells us that we’re not alone in the problems we face or the drama we try to navigate through.  We become invested, not in the lives of other people as much as in the validation that the things we’re going through aren’t anywhere near as bizarre or unheard of as we thought they were.  We take comfort and solace in the misery of others because it helps us to realize that we’re not alone.

And we gossip.  Because it’s really nothing more than sharing information that’s not going to make the news (or, in some cases, sharing information BEFORE it makes the news).  But it’s news to me, because at it’s core, this is the stuff that really matters.  The real stories of what’s happening to real people.

One of the blogs I read is fairly controversial within the blogosphere.  Violent Acres is a brazen, venomous writer with strong opinions on pretty much everything.  Lately she’s been writing a series about training children to adapt to social cues and how to "properly" punish/reward children for their behavior.

The thing about V is that she is not only opinionated and not only about things with which she has no direct experience (how many parents out there are angered by non-parents telling them how to raise THEIR kids?), but that she is often tactless and comes off as malicious in her wordings.  All that said (as a caveat, since I’m linking people over there), she makes valid points if you can get past the vitriol.

(Please don’t think that I’m being insulting here.  I like to think that someone like V would actually appreciate my honest assessment as I go on to partially validate the things she says, if not the way she says them.  Anyway, if I didn’t like what she had to say, I wouldn’t keep her in my blogroll.)

The biggest problem is that the world is not black and white and people (of any ilk) are not so easily generalized.  I never had a problem with Spawn when I would take him out, whether to restaurants or to someone’s house, at least not when he was little.  When he was older, the times I would have difficulty would be when he decided (for example, halfway through a baseball game) that he didn’t actually want to be there after all.  In this particular example, V’s suggestion fails.  "Remove him from the place where he is misbehaving" simply doesn’t work because that’s what he wants, and his methods are inappropriate.  Further, that particular situation was not a special treat for him, but a birthday gift to someone else.  Getting up and leaving would have been punishing the two adults and rewarding a petulant child (not that staying and putting up with his bullshit wasn’t also punishment for us…).  Other methods were required.

Don’t get me wrong, I like the idea of removing the problem object, when appropriate.  When I couldn’t get Spawn to clean up his Legos, I told him that every time I stepped on a Lego, I was throwing it away.  Not all of them, just the one I stepped on, regardless of whether or not it was cool or special or important.  I think that it was less than 20 individual Legos that got thrown away before he got the message and the Legos were not only put away, but hunted down, every time he was finished.  In that instance, her advice worked (except that, you know, this was YEARS before I had ever heard of Violent Acres and no one suggested this to me, it was just the only answer I could come up with.  "Her advice"…  semantics.  Heh).

But in most situations, it didn’t.  Not for me and Spawn.  You see, he’s an extremely contrary person and most punishments simply don’t work on him.  After the baseball game, he was grounded quite extremely for a month (but call it 2 weeks, since he’s only with me 50% of the time and I don’t impose punishments on him outside of my home…  my house, my rules; dad’s house, dad’s rules).  That worked, but grounding is not always an appropriate punishment and I do believe in letting the punishment fit the crime.  (If you’re going to misbehave when we go out and do cool things, then you don’t get to go out and do cool things for XX period of time).

For two years, it was chores.  He wouldn’t do them.  He simply wouldn’t do them.  It resulted in a whole lot of yelling and sniping between the two of us.  Again, he doesn’t live with me full time, so I don’t expect him to do an equal share of work, but at 12, 13, 14 years old, he should be doing SOME share of the work.  At all.

So what do you do in this situation?  I assume that V’s suggestion would be to take away his video games, television privileges, computer, Legos, books, etc until he’s finally at the point of having nothing BUT chores to do.  Thing is, this kid isn’t going to give in to that.  He will draw.  If I remove all paper and writing instruments from the house, he will daydream.  ANYTHING but to "work", even for one job or 15 minutes or anything. 

I’m not sure where the turning point came in, but eventually he got tired of the fighting and gave in to participating in the household, but it was always me having to tell him, not only what needed to be done, but HOW.  This is a slick kid here, he KNEW that it was more work for me to walk him through each damned job than it would be to just do it myself, but I stood my ground, but it turned the situation to fighting about his complete dependence on having to be told.  The eventual (and current) solution became "One Productive Thing Every Day", and if he hasn’t at least chosen it by the time I get home from work (though preferably completed it), then I pick and he can’t say no.

But I digress.  A child like Spawn who, not only has a problem with authority in general, but also is canny enough to (attempt to) manipulate people into not punishing him because it is HARD work (making him be punished), requires creative solutions and reasonable compromise.  He always has.  His sense of justice is sharp and if you’re being unfair then he will not only tell you, but will give you a valid argument that supports his point.  I can appreciate that and am quite fair in my discipline.

Buying into ANYONE’s concept that there are a set number of methods for effective discipline/punishment/parenting is foolish.  There is always going to be a child, or a situation, that doesn’t fit the mold and requires stepping outside of whatever familiar territory you’ve staked out.  Creativity in child rearing is vastly underrated and under reported.  The more able you are to come up with unusual solutions to difficult problems, the more likely you are to (eventually) find one that works.

Most children have a sharp sense of justice, especially the younger they are.  For as often as children cry "That’s not fair!", if you ask them to explain WHY it’s not fair, then they’ll often either give you a valid reason or accept the justice in the situation.  You just better have a damn good counter-argument and be sure in your assessment of fair.

After the baseball game, when I just completely lost it (seething in a car during a three-hour drive with a friend will give you plenty of time to not only get more angry, but to word your argument fully), I ranted at Spawn for about an hour and let him know *exactly* why I was angry.  When I was done, I gave him the opportunity to say ~*WHATEVER*~ he wanted to me.  He could curse at me, call me names, say the nastiest thing that he could think of.  I even explained that I was so angry at him, there was absolutely nothing that he could say to me to make me more angry or to cause me to worsen his punishment.

He declined. 

I asked him if he felt I was being unfair and if he had an alternate punishment to propose.

He didn’t.

The reality of what he had done struck him.  He saw the fairness in his punishment, the fairness of having to bear some type of responsibility for his actions and felt awful, not about losing privileges, but about having lost some of the respect that two adults he cared for had ALWAYS afforded him.

Later that night he came and told me "Mama, I know you don’t want to hear me say I’m sorry, but I just wanted you to know, I really appreciate you as a mom.  I don’t know another parent who would let their kid say whatever they wanted because they couldn’t get in any more trouble.  That’s cool, even if I didn’t have anything to say.  I’m not trying to talk you out of my punishment because I do deserve it, and I do think it’s really fair.  I won’t do it again." (This was at 9 years old!)  And the punishment stuck, and he hasn’t done it again, although he has much more carefully weighed his choices and is much better about saying no to things he doesn’t think he’ll enjoy.

Regarding threats:

V makes the point that threats are useless when they are not followed through.  This is mostly accurate, but I have found that the most effective threats are the ones that are, if not impossible, highly unlikely.  "If you don’t stop running and screaming in the house, I will duct tape your mouth shut and string you up by your toes!"  "Hurry up and get dressed for school before I flag down a wandering band of gypsies to take you off with them."

This is not the same as using scare tactics about the Scissor Man who cuts off the thumbs of children who suck them or monsters under the bed to keep kids from climbing out of bed in the middle of the night.  These are silly threats and often make kids giggle, but it also spurs them into action.  The time that it takes to come up with something silly gives you, as the authority figure, a chance to calm down and to lighten up, but it also lets the kids know that 1) you’re not angry - yet, but you’re starting to get there and 2) you’re thinking creatively, probably about a real punishment and nobody wants that.

Similar to the way that tickling causes us to laugh because we are instinctually threatened by a non-threatening figure, making ludicrous threats make us laugh, but we’re still instinctually aware that a real threat could follow closely if the "warning" isn’t heeded.

Also on the threats note, the NEXT most-effective threat is no threat at all.  It’s that moment of resigned "…I just don’t know what will happen" when you honestly have no concept of an appropriate punishment/deterrent.  That is, sometimes, even more frightening than a silly threat because you’re clearly serious about there being some kind of repercussion and you’re actively thinking of something that is not only going to be appropriate to the behavior, but also one that will actually WORK.

These two "threat levels" are almost polar opposites.  The first comes when you don’t want things to escalate and works to prevent that escalation.  The second comes when things have already gone Too Damn Far and the situation needs to Just End, Already.  Most people spend their time in the in-between place where things are starting to get out of control and *that place* is where the threats simply do not work without the follow-through.

All in all:

The bottom line is that no form or format of punishment is going to work for everyone, or for every child.  Chances are, if you have more than one kid, what works with one isn’t going to work with another.  Despite some similarities, children are not dogs and cannot be "trained" to obey commands and to follow your will.  Anyone looking for that formulaic solution and attempting to gain complete obedience from their children is going to wind up with kids that other people probably don’t like very much.  Encouraging your child’s personality and learning to adapt, yourself, is a key that many parents (and especially non-parents) fail to consider.

Far be it for me to offer parenting advice unsolicited, though.  I’m no great shakes as a mom and I’ve learned, like so many others, by trial and error.  At this point, Spawn and I have found reasonable ways to co-exist as parent and child, but in such a way that we both really enjoy and appreciate each other’s company.  That’s all I could possibly ask for, honestly, and all that I would reasonably wish on other parents. 

~*May you raise your child to become someone who’s company you enjoy.*~

I was talking with a friend when this phrase came out, and I like it, I think it’s appropriate.

The people I relate to tend to be weird.  The people I am related to tend to be weird.  Probably the second statement creates the first, but the reality of it is that my friends are weird and in very different ways.  When I look at the friends of mine who are considered by the society gauge of normalcy to be the "most normal", they are sometimes insulted by the claim and then they realize that I am one of their "more normal" friends and we all get a little freaked out.

But in the course of a conversation, it occurred to me that it’s not that my friends are weird or abnormal, but that many of them are a threat to what many perceive as normalcy.  The women, for example, are not really stereotypical at all.  Sure, we all have our one or two stereotypical things, but we have hobbies that are dominated by boys, we are strong-willed and independent, we don’t buy into the media-manipulated ideals of what women are supposed to be. 

Men and women, we’re mostly outside of the mainstream.  On the whole, my friends READ more than the average American, they tend to be cutting-edge about technologies, they tend to say what they think and not even realize that it’s an unpopular statement to make until much later.

We fill niche roles and tend to not affiliate.  We are loyal to those we consider friends, but we don’t (generally) take shit from them because, really, what is a friend if they can’t tell you when you’re being a complete idiot?  Rarely does anyone I consider a friend assume that their ideals (no matter how strong) are the only correct ones.  I can’t think of a situation where a real friend of mine and I couldn’t continue our friendship because we didn’t see eye-to-eye on an issue.  Most of my friends don’t have the same socio-political outlook as I have, but none of them belittle me (truly belittle, not counting teasing) for what *I* believe.

For all of this, my friends are "weird".  (Okay, okay, for more than just what I wrote, but still…) 

But when I look at my parents’ friends, all of whom are weird in their own ways, they embody a lot of those qualities, too.  There’s no common thread among them on the surface, but underneath is this tolerance that is true tolerance and not just tolerance via liberal guilt.  It’s almost a lack of judgment (although aren’t we all, as humans judgmental?), except that we DO judge those people, but we judge them for their actions and not their being, not what they show externally, not even what they believe,  but the actions that we see from them.

These people tend to be hard to find, and when I do, I hold onto them tight.  Once I love someone, I love them forever, even if we go our separate ways.  But I never lose the things they give me, a new perspective, a different direction from which to come at a problem, a much-needed boost of ego or confidence, whatever it is. 

Whatever it is, that common thread, that thing that makes us "weird", it is a threat to normalcy for many people.  I think that, probably, the world would be a better place if we were judged on our actions instead of our exterior, if opinions were more commonly known to not be facts, if tolerance actually meant the word as defined instead of a lack of dissent.  If this is the threat to normalcy, then I firmly believe that normal is overrated.  I’m happy enough being weird.

(Apologies to Kermit the Frog.)

Not only easier, but cheaper and healthier, too.

People are amazed when I tell them that not only do I not own a car, it’s by choice, I’ve been without one for nearly 8 years now and I don’t particularly want one.  There’s a certain measure of sympathy that people give me when they first learn of it and I have to actively convince them that it’s not a burden to me.

The first question they ask, almost without fail, is "How do you do your grocery shopping?" and the answer is simple, I take a cab home and the driver helps me carry my groceries to the door.  The next question they ask is about laundry, but I live less than a block from the laundromat.

Most people assume that, because I don’t have a car, everything is less convenient for me, but that couldn’t be further from the truth.  I’ve made life decisions that make it easier for me to live without a car.  Things like proximity to bus lines, laundromat, shopping, etc. are key to making this type of lifestyle work.

My transportation costs are less than anyone else I know.  Except for the rare occasions that I rent a car, my monthly transportation costs are less than $100.  Annually, including car rental and whatever bus or train trips I take, probably I spend between $1500 - $1800.  I don’t have to pay for gas, maintenance, insurance, etc.  As a result I never have to rely on credit to "get through".

It’s interesting to me.  The whole Climate Change/Global Warming argument consists of a question of whether or not humans are the cause of the climate shift that is occurring the world over.  There is evidence that the current climate change started around the time of the Industrial Revolution, but no proof that it was the cause.  It’s possible that it may have been a coincidence.

Ok, I’ll accept that.  But why does the lack of proof of human-driven climate change preclude the benefit to everyone of being more green in their daily lives?  There is this assumptive arrogance that we somehow deserve to have everything we want the moment we desire it and it is causing our society to become something less than it really ought to be.

People buy on credit to the point of being drastically in debt.  Even our government is guilty of this, and it’s not for the good of society or for the good of greater than ourselves, it’s a selfish instant gratification that we’re after.  This is fleeting, so we crave it over and over and over again until we are addicted to STUFF.  To buying.  To "free money" that winds up being way more expensive in the long run than we ever really realize.

I look at the current economy, where the value of our dollar is falling, where credit card debt is eating people alive, where people are losing their homes because they took the lenders up on a deal that really was too good to be true and I can’t help but wonder how much of this could have been avoided by being more green in our daily lives.

I shop biweekly for groceries and I spend around $125 each time.  This is to feed 2 people and 3 cats and it seems exorbitant to me.  One thing I’ve noticed is that most of that cost is from fresh fruits and vegetables, fresh fish and soy meat-substitutes.  Eating healthy is more expensive than eating crap foods.  This is actually something that’s been getting a lot of media attention lately as they’re starting to make the connection between cheap junk foods, poverty and obesity.  I rarely "cook" prepackaged foods, preferring to cook real food and have a real meal.  I think that pancakes taste better when I make them from scratch than when I use pancake mix.  I think that macaroni and cheese is sublime when it’s made with a mix of cheeses and simmered on the stove, but I find that colors that do not occur in nature turn my stomach when they turn up on my plate.

And, you know, even if I buy less food and spend more money, I find that it lasts me as long as I need it to.  My meals are planned out, not to the day, but for the two weeks and if, for some reason we don’t want whatever is left, I can create something from the ingredients I have in the house.  I can get ideas for new food creations from the packaged, processed foods, but I don’t have to deal with the sodium content or the excess packaging and, you know what?  Mine tastes BETTER, even if it takes a little longer to make.

Every workday I walk 2.5 miles.  Every single workday.  Why?  Because I have to.  Because in the morning my bus drops me almost a half mile from my building and in the afternoon I have to walk just over 2 miles to catch the bus home.  I don’t belong to a gym (that I never go to), I don’t have exercise machines (collecting dust), I just walk because I have to, and I do it without complaint.  In the rain, in the snow, in the wind, in the cold, it doesn’t matter.  I made a choice to not own a car and with that comes a requirement to walk.

People sometimes gasp when I tell them, with my rosy red cheeks and slight pant to my breath, that I walked 2 miles in the snow.  it’s inconceivable to so many people to walk that far, especially every day, but after sitting at a desk for 8, 9, 10 hours and about to sit on a bus for another hour, it’s actually quite a nice break.  Even Spawn who is, self-admittedly, one of the laziest people on the planet suggested that we walk a good distance toward our destination when we went out this weekend and it becomes simply part of going out.

People with children, I think, often underestimate their children’s capabilities.  Susie can’t or shouldn’t walk to or from school and Johnny couldn’t possibly take a bus across town to see his friend.  But they really can, and SHOULD, because it gives them independence and sets them up for a healthy life as they get older.  This idea that we must drive our children everywhere and rearrange our schedules to suit their whims and desires simply reinforces the entitlements that our entire society is about to see come crashing down around them in the form of a recession.

You see, you can’t disconnect the economic issues from the environment.  They are intrinsically entwined.  The availability of money leads us to consume in wasteful manners and to assume that we have every right to do these things because we can afford it.  But we can’t really afford it.

I’m hoping that the impending recession and the falling dollar and rising gas prices and bursting housing bubble will cause people to wake up a little to their actions instead of continuing the automaton borrowing cycle.  I hope that people will start carpooling in greater numbers or start using public transportation.  I hope that people will realize that 3 blocks isn’t too far to walk and that the kids don’t actually need a ride to the mall, when the bus runs right past their house.

Because, really, the biggest problem is that so often we can’t see past our personal bubbles, and so often we can’t get past our own entitlement.  I don’t want to see people hurt.  I don’t want to see people fail.  At the same time, I can’t help but think that all these people in severe credit card debt, all these people looking for something for nothing, all these people who think that it’s their RIGHT to do whatever they want with no repercussions, all those people set themselves up for a fall.  And right now they’re all teetering on the brink of personal economic collapse, while the rest of us hold our breaths to see what the bigger picture will bring.

But in the meantime, the greener I am, the greener I see people around me acting, the more money we save and the healthier we are and the less of an impact that we make on the whole world around us.  I just can’t seem to see any way in which that is a bad thing.  I think that a lot of people would wind up being personally benefiting from taking a broader view and doing things to benefit more than just themselves.  I just don’t know how to make that sort of thing happen.

Until then, I am trying to set a good example.

Let me start off by saying this is not an accurate title.  My life, at the moment, is not a mess, nor is my house at the point where it *needs* to be cleaned, but this is a mindset that I often find myself in.  It’s a Virgo thing. 

I was talking to Girl last night (or was it the night before?) and we were discussing that we, once again, find ourselves in a very similar point in our lives.  Most things are going well except for one minor(ish) point and one big gaping hole in the "What I need to be truly happy" list.  And, no, I’m not going to tell you what either of those, specifically are.  And for both of us, it’s the same thing in both instances.

But I came up with a plan some weeks ago.  I’m not going to actually obsess on this lack of whatever.  That just leads to Very Bad Things happening in my head.  Instead, I’m actively working to take care of ALL the little things that I keep putting off for whatever reason, and I intend to do it before the end of 2007 (which makes the countdown all the more important).

In my mind, this takes care of a couple of issues.  The first is that all those things will (finally) get done.  The second is that I will not be able to obsess over those two pieces because I’m too focused (theoretically) on those smaller goals.  The third is that, once everything is all put together and taken care of, if the missing pieces haven’t presented a solution without my interference or filled themselves in, I will be able to come at them from a fresh direction and without any niggling distractions or lingering "to dos".

Does this make sense?  In my mind it does.

So I wrote two lists, neither of which, I believe, is fully complete.  I discovered that most of the things I’ve been putting off can be resolved by something as simple as borrowing a stepladder.

And in the past two days I have cleaned and scrubbed and pulled all the furniture from the walls.  I have hung posters and things that have been waiting around to become decor.  I have pulled everything off of surfaces and cleaned the woodwork and washed the glass that’s readily visible.  And it’s stupid things like dusting the top of the refrigerator (which is above my head…  I can’t even SEE up there) and emptying out the medicine cabinet, throwing away the things that need to go and reorganizing everything.  It’s all the things that you don’t think about, or you don’t see or…  you know, the things that just don’t get DONE.

There are no more excuses.  I have been living in this apartment for over a year and I still have boxes of books that haven’t even been sorted.  Some of the books that are on the available shelves are ones I don’t use, it’s time to cycle them.  My storage room has EXPLODED and I’m done with the dismissive phrase of "When I have time" because, you know, if we’re being honest here, I HAVE the time, it’s the motivation that’s been missing.  I don’t have better things to do, I have more desirable things to do, less productive things to do, things that only allow me to procrastinate further and not to see the things I don’t want to think about.  No more excuses.

So far, I am thinking about it LESS.  The things that I have dwelt upon for much of the year, I’ll be honest, I’m still dwelling on a bit, but not as much because I have all these other things I need to do and I keep thinking of new things that I should have put on my list.  All of this provides a good distraction.  I find that if you focus too hard on the things you wish you had, the things that are missing, you wind up getting too wrapped up.

So when Girl was venting about all the same problems I’ve been feeling I told her, "I’m going to give you the advice that I have given myself and that I am trying to follow."  And she thought about it and started listing out all the things that she had been putting off and fell right into the "my life is a mess, I need to clean my house" mentality, which we both understand.  I don’t know if she’s planning to follow it, but for my part, it seems to be working.

The world we live in is incredibly diverse, but I think that there are a lot of people who live in their own world that is much more limited.  If they don’t know someone who thinks a certain way or fits a certain demographic, then those people do not exist in any real numbers where they live.

I’ve seen this over and over and over again.  It’s the anecdotal life. 

The problem that I have with the anecdotal life is that anything outside of their life experience is either invalid or their "opinion", even if it’s directly opposed to facts and/or statistics.  Under this line of thinking, scientific polling has no legitimacy if it contradicts "what people have told me" and an informal poll of those within your circle of friends is representative of what the "average American" really thinks.

And absolutely nothing will change this mindset.  "Agree to disagree" is an impossible task to someone who has irrefutable proof of a concept that goes against the limited world view of someone with an anecdotal life.

The biggest problem, I think, is that these are the people who are experts on every topic under the sun, at least in their own mind.  It doesn’t matter whether they’ve studied, researched or worked in that field, if they, for example, have ever met a person with a different skin color, they are an expert on race relations.  If they have voted, they are a political pundit.  Have a bank account?  You’re an expert on personal finance.

Regardless of YOUR knowledge, unless you’re saying the things that the anecdotal person actually wants to hear, you don’t know what you’re talking about.  You can cite sources, provide published papers or testimony from experts, but you’ll either be faced with the "agree to disagree" statement or told that you’re buying into an erroneous idea.

I’d bet that almost every single person reading this now knows exactly what I’m talking about and can probably even name at least one person who does this.  It may be a friend, a family member or a co-worker.  It may be someone you encounter at a party.  Regardless of who they are, or to what extent they do it, the problem remains that they are often inescapable.

So I guess the question is, when do you give up?  DO you give up?  At what point do you start speaking only in irrefutable points and how many of those are there, anyway?  Can you grant someone an opinion that flies in the fact of evidence?

How many words do you think it would take to write EXACTLY what you mean and have it not misunderstood?  Obviously, if you’re talking face to face, then you’ll be able to convey your message in fewer words, but I read the other day that 93% (!!!) of all communication is non-verbal.  Does that mean that one would need to use 13+% more words to fully convey their meaning?

Now, someone like me, rather verbose, it’s not hard to create that additional amount of words, but doing it correctly, in the sense of using words to replace tone, inflection and body language, well…  I get kind of hung up on that.

Words have always fascinated me.  Etymology, structure, definition.  I often find myself looking up words that I know and use on a regular basis to find out what the unbiased definition is and whether or not it’s actually being used correctly.  Politically speaking, as an example, the words conservative and liberal are often given connotations that have nothing to do with their actual definition and instead indicate political leanings and support of specific ideas or actions.  It all comes down to context.  I think that there are too many people who attempt to use context (or tone or inflection) to make words mean something other than their definition.  The problem this creates is that it further clouds communication, especially when it’s written.

I often find that I repeat myself, trying different phrasings in an attempt to convey the real meaning I’m aiming at.  It depends on the situation, how many times I’m willing to do this, but I’m always surprised at the reluctance of people with whom I can easily speak to answer the phone instead of going back and forth in email or IM.  I have limited patience when I know that there’s an easy alternative.  A couple of emails or about 2-3 minutes of IM conversation rife with misunderstanding is all it takes for me to say "I’m just going to call you."

This week alone I have had several near-misunderstandings with a couple of friends.  TheGamerGirl and I both worried that our friend Miz was angry or upset or not talking to us because of short responses (she was busy) or lack of any response (again, busy).  Just yesterday, I couldn’t figure out in an email thread whether Princess was thinking out loud and trying to plan or if she was actively trying to spare my feelings.  All of these were remedied by a quick phone call and a friendly chat…  but before that happened, there was this waste of time, unnecessary stress and a creation of a situation that didn’t exist.  We ALL do this probably more often than we realize.

But what about the situations where a phone call isn’t possible?  I participate on Digg, for example, and find that I am often misunderstood.  Granted, sometimes I think that it’s an intentional misreading of the words I have written (several times), but the issue also occurs when I am, for whatever reason, not choosing the words that most accurately convey my meaning.  Is it a lack of vocabulary, either on my part or theirs?  Is it simply that there are concepts that exist that defy conventional writing?

How many words does it take to say "I love you"?  In my experience, none at all.  It’s a look in your eyes, or the way you behave.  You don’t have to say it to know that it’s true.  But how many phrases to we find ourselves trying to create because there simply is no textual equivalent?  Probably more than any of us realize.

Think about all your non-verbal communication in a day.  Not even posture, but every time you smile or clap or check your watch in a deliberate fashion.  How much are we sacrificing in an attempt to save time or to span distance?  And, really, is it worth it?

They say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and, I think, that is never more true than when it comes to the people we care about the most. We’re so afraid of hurting the ones we love that we often wind up hurting them more by trying to protect or shield them from bad things.

I’ve never really been a believer in keeping the truth from people - often to my own detriment. I often find that I have severely pissed someone off, simply because I told them things they didn’t want to hear. The good thing is that I have been blessed with friends and family who can accept that about me and, even if they become angry that I told them the truth, they come to realize that I had their best interests at heart. One friend, in particular, calls me regularly to “tell me what I already know. I need to hear it out loud.” She calls me her Voice of Reason, and she does the same thing for me.

Sometimes, we even go so far as to convince ourselves of the opposite of reality, because we are focused on not hurting another person. This is never so evident as when we find ourselves having to end a relationship that is just not working. I can tell you, in all honesty, that everyone I have ever truly loved, I love still, even if the “in love” part has fallen by the wayside. That is, often, the most difficult hurt of all, because it hurts both parties.

Can anyone say, in all honesty, that thwy have NEVER stayed in a failing relationship, once they knew it was truly over? Perhaps those who have had only a handful of relationships total, but even then I bet it’s few and far between. We become so preoccupied with making it not hurt, or hurt less, that both parties wind up battered and bruised by the time it’s really over. I suppose you could call it optimism, but it’s probably self-delusion above all else

No one wants to be the cause of suffering, not really. So the question, in my mind, comes down to this: Why do we convince ourselves so fully that prolonging the agony is somehow going to make the ending happy?