Following the rules Part 2

Capitalists are no more capable of self-sacrifice than a man is capable of lifting himself up by his own bootstraps. (Quote by - Vladimir Lenin)


At some point here I'm going to have to admit that I don't really believe there is much value in performing something you see as sacrifice if you do it just for the sake of sacrifice. The spiritual benefits from sacrifice come from doing a selfless act and there's a paradoxical situation that when you see something as a sacrifice and do it for that purpose (to gain spiritual rewards) that it becomes a little less self-less.

Indeed, most of the things that I do in observance of my religion's laws I would never say feel like a sacrifice. Is it really that hard to not drink?... no, not really, I can't say as I've ever felt I was suffering from lack of alcohol. Is it really something I would have to "endure" to not use drugs, or to not gamble?... Not so much. Like many changes in life you adjust and move on and after a while there is little question or desire for these things. There were small teaspoonful doses of sacrifice along the way but very rarely is this sort of thing done "cold-turkey" with the accompanying strongly-felt pangs of withdrawal. It is usually a process with the slightly less felt cravings of withdrawal.

And I can't even say that the process always takes that linear path, there are sometimes swings and shifts and backsliding. We are created of a physical and spiritual self and our physical self will always have cravings and will always struggle with desires and actions that our even our logical mind might tell us are not in our best interest (Another piece of cheesecake?...Well, I wouldn't want it to go to waste.)

While I could easily be distracted and veer entirely off my subject at the mention of cheesecake it brings me quite neatly to my next point, and that is the idea of consumption. We, as Americans, have been consumed by consumption. We are trained from our earliest days to be consumers. Infants wear Nike sneakers and have brand-name strollers (often more than one). Even before elementary school kids are already demanding that their parents buy them the latest toy that their friends all have and that they've seen on television. Telephones are out-dated in 6 months and clothing styles change with the seasons. Products are designed to fail and styles designed to be temporary so that consumers can feel a constant need for "new." While there is nothing inherently bad in ownership there are often negative effects. Buddhism speaks beautifully about detachment as "freedom from lust, craving and desires" and relates that desire is the cause of suffering and elimination of desire eases suffering. I think it's also important to look at the side-effects of our attachment and consumption. One of those effects is this sense of "need" that skews our normal sense of values. Like I related in part 1 of this posting I had a re-alignment of what I saw as "need" after living in one of the poorest countries in the world. Americans as a whole are rarely exposed to those far outside of their economic level and often have very little concept of what life is like in other tax brackets*. The growing emphasis on consumerism only serves to further our sense of "need". We feel we are falling behind our peers--items that wouldn't make it to even the upper echelons of Maslow's Hierarchy are instead given the status of "needed". This focus on self and belief that we are still "in need" can leave little room for charity, generosity and compassion for others; it negates the concept of moderation and eliminates perspective for temperance, self-control, and restraint.

As a Baha'i I observe the Baha'i Fast. For a period of 19 days, leading up to the celebration of the Baha'i New Year, I abstain from food or drink between sunrise and sunset. I find I have a heightened awareness of many things when fasting. Some of the things I'm aware of are simply due to changes in my routine, while others are due to the physical nature of fasting. I am more aware of the changes in the day, the sound of birds that grow louder as the first light enters the sky and reach their peak at sunrise. The quickness with which the world grows dark once the sun sets. The things I miss when I'm not eating: the warmth of a cup of tea in the afternoon, the pleasure of an afternoon piece of candy, the joy of socializing over lunch with friends. I am aware of the sensation of hunger and lethargy that sometimes come over me in the afternoon. The joy of finally eating at sunset, the tastes of food heightened by my hunger. I feel more human, more frail, more aware of myself, my body, and my needs. While I enjoy my dinner I also recognize its need to nourish me and I put extra effort into eating healthy food that will nourish and sustain me and will not tax my system or fill me without providing nutrition. Throughout all of this I also am aware of bounty. I am aware that I am starting and ending each day with foods that are easily available to me, not a burden on my budget, and that are as nutritious as I make them. It helps me to remember how much of a blessing that is and that there are many people throughout the world for which all three of those things are a struggle. It awakens my sense of compassion.

In addition to awareness of the plight of others, the fast also makes me aware of my own ability to suffer. Although it is mild, hunger is not pleasant,and working while hungry and tired, going about your daily life for 19 days while fasting can be difficult. But this too brings insight. In a way I thank all of those who shake their heads and tell me "I could never do that" because I know I can. I know it because I've done it for some 19 years. And in the end that is empowering. Doing something that is difficult and that requires discipline, will-power, and determination once a year before the Baha'i New Year celebration gives me strength to believe in my abilities and perspective to see what is really important.

So as an exercise in will-power daily fasting might make sense but what about daily prayer, what about abstaining from alcohol and all the other "rules" that come with religion? Well this may be part of where I go back to "faith" a little and instead of writing objectively I have to write more personally. First allow me to give a quick example of prayer for Baha'is:

I bear witness, O my God, that Thou hast created me to know Thee and to worship Thee. I testify, at this moment, to my powerlessness and to Thy might, to my poverty and to Thy wealth.

There is none other God but Thee, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting.

~Bahá’u’lláh

As you can see the prayer is written in the first person and in it the reader/speaker is recognizing qualities of God and the reader's position, purpose, and qualities as God's creation.

If you have ever read Malcolm Gladwell's Blink you are probably familiar with the concept of "priming", if not you have likely heard of "positive affirmations" and the effect of words and statements we say to ourselves upon our subconscious. By this standpoint alone I think one could believe that there was value in daily prayer. If only to remind ourselves of beliefs we hold and hear ourselves say them or to read lists of virtues that we might be better able to recall and display during our daily lives. Those words will echo in our subconscious and affect our actions throughout the day.

But for a believer there is the added belief that you are reading the word of God and the advice and beliefs that he has set down for you. If you believe these words to be from God and believe also that he wants the best for you, you will not see the laws and admonitions set forth as restrictions and punishment, you will see them as guidance, as a prescription for well-being. Looked at as such "laws" become "medicine" and following them becomes a means for bettering yourself. So when I look at a prescription that tells me not to drink alcohol, or speak ill of others, or gamble I know it is best for my spiritual health (and in some cases possibly physical health as well.) I can break these laws but it will be my own spiritual health that will suffer.

Additionally, for a believer there is a sense of loving commitment. If you are to say "Yes, this is the Word of God," and you believe that God has given you this advice out of love for his creation, and you desire a closer relationship with God you are then entering into a "committed relationship." And just like any other "committed relationship" there are obligations. So while your spouse might have certain things they ask you to do out of love and commitment to them (faithfulness, fidelity, financial security, leaving the toilet seat down, etc.) there are things that a believer will do out of love and commitment to God (prayer, fasting, observing laws, trying to better themselves spiritually, being kind and generous to others, etc.) And just as in marriage, respecting and honoring this commitment can strengthen the relationship.

I also see this "prescription for well-being" also is a fundamental part of our development as people. Just as we teach children that they need to share their toys, to be polite, to be kind, to be clean, to eat their vegetables, and we do so to help them grow into well-adjusted, healthy and respectable adults, we, as adults need to continually develop ourselves. Learning to be honest and trustworthy and kind and generous and all the other moral teaching we confer upon children don't cease to be important as we become adults and without effort and training those qualities will not continue on, let alone grow, as we go through life. How many of us share our toys as adults? How many of us eat our vegetables even if we don't like them? How many of us are polite and respectful to our elders?

Athletes, scientists, and memory specialist can all tell you about mental plateaus or walls. These mental blockades exist when someone thinks that they have either pushed themselves to the limit or have pushed themselves as far as they need to go. Whether it is the speed of a typist or of a sprinter they know that breaking the next barrier is often just a matter of exercising mental skills. Once you have learned to type you are no longer focused on learning and your brain will stop focusing on the task of learning and your speed will likely remain the same the rest of your life. If you want to speed up your typing you will have to change something in your way of thinking. It is not that your hands CAN'T type 80wpm it is that you got comfortable at 40. With proper focus and pushing yourself beyond comfortable limits, forcing yourself to type faster than you are comfortable with regardless of the number of mistakes, you can increase your speed and continue your growth. But this is challenging and you will likely make many typos along the way. But failing is a part of growth. The typos and stumbling along the way are things that must be sacrificed for growth, but first the realization that additional growth is possible and a proper method for reaching it have to be established. For me, Religion provides that realization and prayer and prayerful-action (following of laws, making necessary sacrifices) provide the method for this growth. While many of us may believe we are kind enough or generous enough or that we are not overly effected by materialism or gluttony or pride we may find that following the laws set forth by religion help us break past walls we didn't even know were holding us in and reach new levels of awareness and growth. At the very least you can expect to learn something new about yourself with every challenge that you meet, be it external or self-imposed, so why not set a few that will draw out your best attributes?

(I've been sitting on this post for a while looking for the right ending but have determined that I want it "out there" despite a possible need for re-organization and a few more points I'd like to cover. Let me know if there is anything you think I should have included but didn't.)

------------------
*Today I read that 42% of American millionaires do not feel rich and would need to have at least $7.5M before they felt they were.




The world will never have lasting peace so long as men reserve for war the finest human qualities. Peace, no less than war, requires idealism and self-sacrifice and a righteous and dynamic faith. (Quote by - John Foster Dulles)

Following the Rules Pt. 1

[Note: this is the first part of what I intend to be a two part post. Edits to this post may be made as the second half is finished and edited.]


I've once again been trolling through some of my old blog posts (both published and unpublished) and marveling at the range of topics I've covered (is it still vanity if I can't even remember doing it?) In 2007 I wrote a blog post that dealt with a topic I've been discussing and thinking about frequently of late.

If I remember correctly, the impetus for the conversation I was having in that post had to do with religion and the multitude of laws or "rules" that its followers were told to obey. The person I was communicating with was not religious and believed that, while there might be a spiritual value to an individual participating in religion, that religion itself was perhaps too strict and that its precepts and rules should be regarded individually for their value. I assume it would follow that these rules should therefore be abandoned if their results could not be seen/quantified, and/or proven (or possibly if they prove too inconvenient to follow?) It is a discussion that I have heard echoed several times throughout my life.

In that post I seem to be defending these rules using an argument that rules create a structure in which creativity and communication often flourish and that we cannot actually judge a rule until we have embraced it and worked within its boundaries to see all of its effects. I compared it to the training musicians have that allow them to play in harmony together as a band or the frame and tension a partner dancer uses to communicate with their partner. Without these rules the chaos of the individual can never experience the joy of the whole.

While I still think there is some value to that argument, today I'd like to approach the subject from a different angle. It is perhaps a bit more personal for me to talk about my own religion and beliefs not in some abstract way, but as an individual believer so I apologize in advance if some of my viewpoints stray from an objective voice or if my thoughts on some matters do not seem fully formed. Like the rest of the world, I'm a work in progress.

I am a Baha'i. I am one of millions of Baha'is around the world. I am not an authority on my religion, I am not a perfect Baha'i and many times I wouldn't even say I'm a very good one. The Baha'i Faith, whether you've heard of it or not, is considered one of the world's major religions. It has a central figure (Baha'u'llah), volumes upon volumes of Holy Writings, a calendar with 9 Holy Days, a Holy Land, and a book of laws. It is sometimes difficult for people new to the knowledge of the Baha'i Faith to grasp the size and complexity of teachings and laws, but I am fairly certain it would be just as baffling to try to understand the whole of Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, or Islam if you had no prior knowledge of them.

Baha'is believe in God, and believe the teachings of Baha'u'llah are the teachings of God on Earth. As such it would be easy enough to simply say that as a Baha'i I must blindly follow the laws because God told me to, but I think this simple acceptance leaves no room for any sort of explanation for the non-believer. It is the age old excuse of "I don't need proof I have faith" which seems to do nothing towards acceptance and only makes the speaker sound to the non-believer as if their rules and beliefs are unfounded and unexplainable. So in these two posts I will attempt to explain my reason(s) for believing that following the laws of my religion are important.

Let me make it clear that as much as I love a thorough, logical argument there are likely to be many instances in which I must still resort to saying "because I believe" and I ask that you look at these as simply a case-study for the thoughts of a believer. This post is not about my religion per se and its intention is not to try to convert a reader to my thoughts or beliefs, but simply to explain, for those who have asked and for those that might be curious, why it is I try to follow these laws. Additionally I do not make claim that my reasoning is true for all people of religious beliefs or even other Baha'is, and although in some cases these beliefs might be similar, each individual is unique and must therefore have their own unique relationship with God and religion.

...so

First off some background: I live in Chicago, the third largest city in the United States. I have friends of diverse backgrounds but the majority of them are college-educated and reside somewhere in the range of the middle class. True to that demographic a large number of my friends are Atheists, agnostic, or are not involved in any sort of organized religion. The most common instance for someone to find out about the laws or restrictions of my religion is when they ask me why I don't drink. The second most common instance occurs during the 19 days of the Baha'i Fast when I have to explain why I'm not eating. Responses for both range from curiosity to disgust. I don't know how many times I've had someone just look at me and say rather sadly, “Why would you do that to yourself?” as if I were involved in some sort of hideous self-mutilation rather than the minimally invasive restricting of food and drink for 12 hrs or as simple as abstaining from alcohol.

More and more I've come to realize that a large part of this gap between me and the people I'm talking to is due to American culture as it is today. It seems the average American has little to no real grasp of, or experience with sacrifice. Sacrifice and self-restraint are key ideas in religious teachings of many religions but are often looked at by American society as if some sort of barbaric Medieval torture. I know that sacrifice was a component in our American culture just a few generations ago. During the second World War the nation began rationing supplies and recycling metal. People bought war bonds and men signed up to voluntarily serve in the military. The war efforts were pushed as needing the collaboration and support of each individual and people believed in their “patriotic duty” to help these efforts. These were all examples of people sacrificing for the greater cause. But then those same people had just survived the Great Depression. They had experienced suffering and many had learned to work as a community to help each other out. My own grandmother had a “brother” who was taken in by the family when a neighbor could no longer afford to take care of him. I struggle to imagine any circumstance that would draw out these qualities and universal commitment towards a common goal in our society today. Despite our economic down-turn I look around and see the level of “sacrifice” this recession has led to for many amounts to waiting an extra month before upgrading to the newest, sleekest smart phone on the market or forgoing their annual or semi-annual vacation in favor of a stay-cation. Is it any wonder that sacrifice is a foreign concept?

In fact I can greatly attribute a good amount my perspective on sacrifice to having been a foreigner. For a year before going to college I lived and did service work in southern Africa. I lived in several countries and stayed in everything from mud brick homes with grass thatch roofs in Malawian villages to a lovely apartment in a chic neighborhood in Cape Town. But regardless of where I was during that year, poverty was never far away. When I returned to the States I found it difficult to fathom that the frivolous purchase of a candy bar in the check-out lane was enough money to feed someone for a week in Malawi, or that I could buy a shirt with the money necessary to send a girl to school for a year. All of these years later these thoughts still linger. To sacrifice something is to “endure the loss” of that thing. How can I possibly say I'm sacrificing when I have a house full of objects, closets full of clothes and so much food that invariably some of it will go bad before I have a chance to eat it? I am so shrouded and pillowed in my consumer goods that it would take a significant blow for me to be able to feel or endure any sort of loss. Natural disasters in recent years have brought record donations from Americans, and while I applaud the sense of connection and humanity of those actions I still feel that they have come, for the most part, as one-time donations of those watching and reading emotionally and making an empathetic gesture within their comfort range. Most will feel fulfilled with that one action and will no longer feel the need for additional donations. How many have made gestures that made a real difference in their own personal comforts to improve the lives of others?

More on consumerism, will-power/determination, and commitment/relationships in Part 2...

More thoughts...

I've spoken before about how the concepts of sacrifice and change towards healthier practices seem quite parallel through religion and numerous dietary protocols. I just read the following and was struck again by the similarity in how one thinks about sacrifice and change.

"I think as vegans, often we think that we have already given up SO much just by going vegan. And it is true, we have given up a lot. But at the same time, I don’t think we should see being vegan as a sacrifice, but more as something that set us free from a horrible industry. Giving up junk food should be seen in the same light. It is not a sacrifice, it is not a punishment, rather, something that sets us free from some pretty awful industries." from-http://veganhope.com/2011/02/08/say-goodbye-to-vegan-junk-food/

Election Love!

National Security (not to mention peace and prosperity) has a lot to do with the view the rest of the world has of us...and right now, I have a feeling a lot of the world is pretty proud of us. Not only for our historic participation in this election, or the newly found national enthusiasm for the political process (and our freedom and right to participate in it) that has so energized our people...But for the dignity and poise our leaders showed in the end. I was genuinely moved by the heartfelt respect and attitude of humility and service both candidates demonstrated. It is rare that such attributes are present and glorified in our political process and it was a beautiful thing to behold.

“O friends, consort with all the people of the world with joy and fragrance. If there be to you a word or essence whereof others than you are devoid, communicate it and show it forth in the language of affection and kindness: if it be received and be effective the object is attained, and if not leave it to him, and with regard to him deal not harshly but pray. The language of kindness is the lodestone of hearts and the food of the soul; it stands in the relation of ideas to words, and is as an horizon for the shining of the Sun of Wisdom and Knowledge.”

-Abdu’l-Baha


Oh, and if you haven't seen this outpouring of love go visit: http://www.zefrank.com/from52to48withlove/

I voted!

Still sad I didn't get a sticker, but then we do get a huge rally in Grant park, so I'll call it a draw.

Every year when I go to vote I find issues on the ballot and positions up for grabs that I had no idea about. I always wish I could get the take home test in advance.

I mean really: Water Reclamation District Commissioner? Who knew?

But I DID do my research on judges again this year.

If you don't know most areas have groups who evaluate judges up for election (whether it is for a spot to be filled or just to be re-uped. In Chicago there are something like 6 different peer review boards representing the Law Boards, the GLBT Alliance, fellow judges, etc. that put out information on whether a judge is qualified, recommended, not qualified or not recommended.

Since most people don't review this information it is common for people to simply vote "yes" to reinstate every single judge on the ballot. This makes it difficult to remove judges that are not doing their jobs well.

In reviewing the evaluations I typically look at how many of the organizations felt a judge was not qualified. There were some judges that up to 70% of review boards felt were not qualified for their job. This is pretty significant. Imagine having a judge like that in charge of YOUR trial!

Right...so do your research people the information is out there for you!

---

Visit my other blog here

Why I don't watch much Television

Yesterday I was supposed to have lunch with one friend visiting from Sweden and one friend visiting from LA...both were essentially canceled. So instead I stayed home and prepared for the 9 house guests I'll be hosting this weekend. I left the TV on while I did laundry, mopped the kitchen floor, swept, vacuumed, etc. This is far more television than I normally watch.

Then, as it began getting late the prime-time shows came on. These are mostly the shows I often hear about in advertisements but never see until they're re-runs. I'm just rarely home when they're on and not interested enough to watch them online or download them.

Last night I watched an episode of the new "Beverly Hills 90210" (same as the old premise but more glam and possibly better acting)and an episode of "Privileged" (Twenty-something Yale graduate turned tutor/nanny for young, naive, and sexually adventurous high school aged trust fund babies). Both shows I found rather disturbing.

The 90210 I remember had a bunch of awkward rather clean cut teens, with Dillon as the one "bad boy" although honestly the "bad-ness" of him seemed to be his broken home and cool sideburns. It was centered on the sweet and idealized Midwestern family of the Walshes who were a loving nuclear family. Poor acting made it a little cheesy and less dramatic (which made it also more fantasy than reality). The new 90210 was full of young adult-acting teens with polished looks, expensive designer clothes, and all-access passes to the world of fashion, sex, and drugs. The one episode I watched dealt with drug addiction, sexual predation, racism, and jealousy. Perhaps it's my imagination, but I don't remember THAT much of the nastiness of the real world exerting it's influence on my generation's 90210.

"Privileged" has an uber-cute character, Megan the tutor, who is the perfect Mary Jane at its core, so how could it go wrong, right? We're going to be teaching good values and bringing these over-privileged children back onto the right track, right? I assumed that was the premise anyhow. This episode dealt with the younger girl (14?) trying to become more sexually capable by buying porn (defiantly saying that she's not a virgin anyhow). The well-meaning Megan feels it's necessary to say something to discourage this girl or say something was wrong with her beliefs but doesn't know what to say, so she does a bunch of research on porn, watches a bit of the girl's DVD and frets about her own sexual history. Meanwhile she contemplates whether or not she should sleep with the guy she's been seeing on their next date (their 4th). She decides she really likes this guy and is going to go through with it and then gets nervous at the last second and freezes up. Meanwhile she says nothing to the 14 year old but instead berates the young boyfriend when he comes over and demands to know if he really cares. (Eventually the girl realizes on her own that the guy doesn't really care and dumps him.)

The young girl solves things on her own while the Tutor waits to see if the guy she didn't sleep with will call back (we are led to assume that the reason he isn't calling is probably because she didn't sleep with him and she struggles to believe this was the right decision). He finally does and she rushes to his house to have sex with him.

I'm confused. Maybe it's just that I was expecting the "adult" to make the wiser choices and be the example for the younger characters?

I'm guessing the moral of this show was that if you're prudent it's okay to sleep with a guy on a FIFTH date? Or that if you don't sleep with a guy by the fourth date and he doesn't dump you, he's a keeper and NOW you should sleep with him (to keep from losing him)? Or that it's okay NOT to teach young girls about self-esteem and the repercussions of comparing your sexual experience with the unrealistic sexual portrayal in porn, because kids are smart these days and they'll figure it out themselves?

The show ended with a Public Service Announcement-type statement that One in Three girls becomes pregnant before the age of twenty.

Wait a minute...

ONE IN THREE??????

HOLY CRAP! Where have I been living? Is this true?...so I did a little research:

When teens give birth, their future prospects and those of their children decline. Teen mothers are less likely to complete high school and more likely to live in poverty than other teens. Pregnant teens aged 15–19 years are less likely to receive prenatal care and gain appropriate weight and more likely to smoke than pregnant women aged 20 years or older. These factors are also associated with poor birth outcomes.

About one-third of girls in the United States get pregnant before age 20. In 2006, a total of 435,427 infants were born to mothers aged 15–19 years, a birth rate of 41.9 live births per 1,000 women in this age group. More than 80% of these births were unintended, meaning they occurred sooner than desired or were not wanted at any time. Although pregnancy and birth rates among girls aged 15–19 years have declined 34% since 1991, birth rates increased for the first time in 2006 (from 40.5 per 1,000 women in this age group in 2005 to 41.9 in 2006). It is too early to tell whether this increase is a trend or a one-time fluctuation in teen birth rates.

from the US Center for Disease Control

Wow...

Um...

Wow...

Yeah, I'm apparently naively living in another time.

No more television for me, it's going to give me nightmares.

---

Visit my other blog here

My money= My ballot, continued...

So where was I? Right...I was feeling guilt over my consumerism, my consumption, my needless purchasing of things that I thought little to nothing of and of which I had never even stopped to consider all the "real" costs.

In my last post I mentioned all the time I've spent NOT shopping. Although I was surprised at how much time that actually was I have since found out that I am far FAR below average. The average American apparently spends 6 hours a week shopping. I assume this is mostly browsing time, as I think we'd be even more insanely in debt on average if we actually purchased for each occurrence of shopping that totaled that 6 hours. I'm not sure that includes time spent doing online shopping. (I'll double check Big Green Purse where I read this statistic). Anyhow... I found myself with more time on my hands.

For anyone who doesn't know I work in a furniture store and have been there almost 5 years. Over the course of this time I have brought home box upon box of discontinued fabric swatches (about 13"x16" pieces of upholstery fabric used for custom ordering.) I could never bear to throw out this fabric and always figured I'd either use it myself, donate it to an artist or art group or I'd sell it on Ebay after leaving the job. With some extra time on my hands I started organizing these fabrics a bit and made a couple of simple bags. My simple bags were lovely. Beautiful fabrics made the bags gorgeous with little effort on my part, but I have a degree in art so that wasn't enough for me. I started making more complicated bags, using different combinations of solids and prints with contrasting lining. I started making them reversible bags...way cool. But I didn't get far before I realized that handles and closures would be a problem. I didn't have any supplies on hand for handles and most of the fabrics I used were far too bulky to make a nice handle out of. I went to the craft store and looked at handles. $7-$10 for a mass produced handle? for a unique bag made for free, and out of repurposed fabric? It seemed to me like a lot of money and waste, especially since I had no real intention to go into business selling them. And so I looked for alternatives for making handles. I went thrift store shopping, I thought perhaps I could scavenge some handles from other bags or perhaps find some other alternatives.

Most of my thrift store shopping in the past few years has been for one type of item--nice wool sweaters that have some problem or are just ugly, but can be unraveled, wound into a ball, and used again as a cheap, eco-friendly knitting yarn. So when I went shopping for handles I already had a good idea where my favorite thrift stores would be and where I might find good supplies. But when I went I was disappointed. Most of the handles on purses were either already worn, or attached to purses that were far too nice to be scavenged. I came home with nothing (except more sweaters).

So while I was still trying to figure out my handle dilemma a friend told me about her favorite thrift store. I went and was amazed. I found a lovely selection of beautiful, stylish clothing sorted neatly and priced cheaply. I came home with a new winter coat and about 7 shirts, blouses and sweaters, most of which were work appropriate and half of which were brand name items (Banana Republic, Kenneth Cole, Anne Taylor, etc.)I spent around $16.

I've been stingy my whole life. I admit it. I kept quarters my parents gave my brother and I for arcade games and said I was going to put mine in the bank rather than waste it on two minutes of forgettable fun. I ration things; once a box of pop is half empty I start slowing my consumption so it will last longer. I like getting a good bargain; if you compliment some jewelry or piece of clothing I'm likely to smile and tell you how little I paid for it. So it shouldn't really be a shocker that I like thrift stores and that I've shopped at them my whole life and continue to do so even though I can afford not to now. But then again, how does one define what they "can afford"? I may not have to count every penny and worry if my limit has been exceeded if I splurge on some clothes here and there, but student loans and credit card debt still eerily lurk in the background reminding me that whatever I spend is keeping me from being able to pay off debt and start my savings. I occasionally remind my ever-broke coworker that with her complete lack-of-debt she is far richer than I am.

So I find myself in thrift store bliss... Lovely, right? Buying pre-used clothes and other items guilt free? Ah, but there's a catch...my closet is already full and I already have way too much stuff...and did I mention my roommate is moving out and I'm faced with the possibility of either having to move all of stuff (a very hefty task) or finding a new roommate willing to live with all of my belongings?

So I stare into my closet and try to see space, try to see how perhaps I might find more room in the crowded and already overstuffed area...And I fail. I imagine giving away all of the clothes I hardly wear and all of the items around my room and around my house that I don't really NEED and I feel elated, freedom sweeping over me. I imagine how I could pick-up and move to another city, just one suitcase full of belongings to my name...ah, sweet bliss it would be to be relieved of the burden of my belongings.

Then I crash. The reality of my belonging to my belongings pull me down. I OWN this stuff. I am responsible for it--like a puppy: I have accepted ownership and agreed to take care of it for the rest of its days. If I give up on the old worn jeans and the slightly outdated dresses and the acrylic paints and the bottles of household cleaners and the old computer towers and the folding chairs and the hair products and all the other countless things crowding my house I will have to choose their fate--do they end up in a landfill or is there someone I can trust to put them to use? I've seen the dumpsters at the Salvation Army, I know that a large number of items are unsold and dumped, I can find no redemption there.

....big long pause...

...So now what?...Well, I'm not sure. I'm buying a bike and am trying to cut down on my driving. I'm trying to think of ways to re-purpose all my old clothes (rugs? quilts? sculptures?). I've found the recycling drop-off point where I can recycle all plastics #1-7 except 6. I've kept up with the composting. I'm sure I'll find new stumbling points as I go though, new obstacles to trying to live my green and footprint free life.


...I'm sure there will be more to come but most of this bit has been sitting waiting to be published for far too long, keeping me from posting anything more frivolous or not on-topic (and I like frivolous and love off-topic)

---

Visit my other blog here

Money, the root of evil or the biggest ballot you can cast?

So all my piracy has left me with a large gap in my life...no, it's not the lack of human contact, that was there already. The large gap was/is the time I'm spending NOT shopping.

Now you are probably thinking horrid thoughts about how much I must have BEEN shopping in order to now have so much time filled with non-shopping. All perfectly deserved, but even so, I was never as high an offender as most. I may have to rewind a bit to explain.

I don't know where I should start, with my overcrowded closet and the moment that I felt my heart soar as I contemplated what it would be like to just get rid of it ALL, or with the visit to the thrift store that made me realize I could NEVER buy a "new" outfit again and be completely and sufficiently clothed for the rest of my life by way of other people's cast-offs, or with the website The Story of Stuff that made me re-evaluate my contribution to environmental harm not just in terms of what I brought home, but by the effects and environmental expenditures production and transportation put into those items, or should I start with my first knitted shopping bag?

I knit my first shopping bag about a year ago. It was cotton and pretty and stretched really big to fit groceries in it. But I needed more bags for the amount of groceries I was buying. So I started bringing my knit bag inside of a tote bag...and then another bag, and then I got a thermal bag...and now I probably have about 7 or 8 "grocery bags". Baby steps. I loved not taking bags while I was at the store, and even more I loved not having huge bags of bags growing each week in my recycling pile.

Then I started doing "Eat to Live" during the summer. The diet is largely vegetarian/vegan and the staple foods are lots and lots of veggies and fruits. So as I began doing this diet I began visiting the grocery store once or twice a week instead of once or twice a month. But instead of increasing my garbage I was actually reducing it. I started a compost bin and would go out every week or two to bury the compost in the garden. I put all the plastic containers, tin cans, and cardboard boxes in with my recycling and reused the thin produce bags whenever I could. Very little excess packaging remained. My trash bin filled up once a month rather than once a week. It was inspiring. I started looking at what I was still throwing away and despising it. I began looking at styrofoam trays and plastic bags that had to be thrown out from the corner of my eye--they were personally offensive, they were making me look bad by creating an environmental footprint where I wanted there to be none.

I began noticing that when I went out to eat and was given plastic utensils, Styrofoam cups, plastic containers for salad dressing, cheese, sauce, etc. it was usually without my permission and forcing me into creating a footprint from one meal that might equal a normal week from my at home eating, or a month from people in other countries.

Then I watched The Story of Stuff. And honestly it made me snap out of a delusion I was in. I felt I was doing well. I thought "well look here, I'm conscientious, I reduce, I reuse, I recycle, I don't buy animal products as much, I'm shopping at places that are supporting local and organic farming. I'm way ahead of everyone I know, so surely that's enough, right?"

Oh.My.Gosh.

Let me tell you a side story: When I was in Africa I stayed a number of places with a number of people and usually when first arriving offered some money or food to help facilitate my stay. I was never asked for this, but offered anyways. It was only after I had been in Malawi for 5 months or so that someone asked me how much I had given and I had said "as much as they would take". I was then told that I was supposed to have INSISTED on giving them more, and that most likely the people I stayed with in villages suffered hardship in trying to feed me for the amount of time I had stayed. My heart hurt. I was crushed. People already poor and already burdened suffered without telling me. How could I possibly make up for this? It was truly impossible.

It was a similar feeling, of being crushed by the notion that I was a burden, that I AM a burden, when I watched The Story of Stuff. It was all there. I was buying things...lots of things, here and there, random things, little things, cheap things, unimportant things...and those things were having social and environmental tolls that I could not see or possibly calculate. Every little piece of junk I had ever bought had some price that I had NOT paid. A price not necessarily in dollars, but in fuels burned, natural materials squandered, labor exploited, toxins released into the air and the water, and that those items still had within them more toxins and more material for the landfill unless I could keep them in use. And I have a house FULL of this stuff

Ouch.

...continued later

---

Visit my other blog here

sodium

THINK ABOUT IT...

---

Visit my other blog here

Review

I occassionally save a blog post either so that it cannot be linked to a particular event or person, or because I'm not sure the thought is really complete. I also occassionally review previous posts. This post is both a review and something that I've held off posting for quite a while to see if the perspective is valid. I'm not sure it is completely my thoughts for TODAY, but I'm finally putting it out there anyways.

Could you be a great CFO without the work experiences? Maybe. Could you be a great spouse without the experiences that help you develop skills for being a successful partner? Maybe. But do you really think the person who has been at many short-term, low-responsibility jobs will adjust easily to the pressures, hours, and responsibilities of a C-Level position? Do you really think what we (of the West) seem to consider "ideal" for a young person today is really best preparing them for a married life?

from my blog (here)

I had a discussion with a friend last week about marriage, early marriage, divorce, and remarriage and I was trying to remember why it was I had written this. What values I had determined society was esteeming that were so detrimental.

The things I had listed in that blog as our societies underlying "ideals":
-having a sexually adventurous life (at least while young),
-becoming emotionally and financially independant, and
-getting great toys (material possessions such ascars, clothes, computers, and aesthetic or cosmetic "improvements" to oneself-- might be considered a part of this category)

All are still, in my brain at least, considerably influential in our society. Every bit of advertising and music video and even, to a degree, what we teach in schools seems to lean towards teaching us that at least one or two of these things are to be considered essential. Even the people our society sees as ethical and moral leaders (Oprah?) seem to buy into the superficiality that a "make-over" and a bit of self esteem through independence are all a person really needs to turn their life around. But what is interesting to me is that when I tried to recollect this blog posting I couldn't remember these ideals off the top of my head. Even when I read it it took a moment to recognize it, so now I'm not sure I fully agree with the way I said it just one year ago.

I think the difference is in me. In great part I've removed myself quite a bit from society and the media's "circle of influence" (great term I've been using since I read "7Habits of Highly Effective People" at age 16) over the past year. We no longer have cable television and I watch less television and listen to the radio less than in the past. I've become more involved with people and activities that are based on substance rather than just entertainment. And I've been making changes in my lifestyle and habits that are really positive, energizing and lead to more awareness and reflection. My change in diet has been a huge paradigm shift for me making things I once considered marginally healthy to be absolutely unhealthy and not worthy of being considered food.

All of this, ultimately effects not only the way I REACT to the world, but I think to the way I see it. And although I feel a little less involved in the "normal" trappings of the world, the way I see it is not critically, or remotely, but with more of a sense of love and compassion for society, even with its stumblings and shortcomings. I almost feel pity for it in much the same way as one might look upon a child, struggling to get their own way even when their choice of path or occupation the observer knows would bring them no joy, no love, no growth. I watch society crying out in its "I want, I want, I want!" tantrum, stomping its feet and insisting that THESE things will make it happy, when I know that what it really needs is a bit of loving guidance, a good long nap and a bit less sugar in its diet.

---

Visit my other blog here

Female Chauvinist Pigs and Thoroughly Rotten Morals

I'm reading "Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture" by Ariel Levy right now, and it's really hitting on a lot of the things that have been bothering me lately.

I know I posted recently about the "Identifying" t-shirts women are wearing that bother me, as girls identify themselves as sexual or as some type of gender stereotype. I've also posted about how it feels as if the choice for women today is to be sexual, or to be labeled as repressed. The "freedom" of sexual choice has become the freedom ONLY to be sexual.

The book I'm reading is in line with a lot of the things I've been reading, but it also touches on a few other aspects of this subject as well.


Business world still generally= the MAN's world, and in order to succeed women have had to act like men, and have taken it so far as to be attending strip clubs and buying into the T&A power play culture. “If you can’t beat them, join them,” and "If a guy is an idiot and I can use sexuality to my own advantage over him, why not?" seems to be the attitude.

The problem with these attitudes is that they continue a culture that places women as sexual objects, and heightened sexuality with worth, while simultaneously saying that a woman’s place is to be submissive and willing. The "Female Chauvinist Pigs (FPGs)" Levy talks about as accepting and buying into that culture and acting "like a man" generally don't identify themselves as part of that group (women) who use their bodies to get ahead, and will make fun of those women and try to portray a strong front "like a man" while seemingly completely oblivious that they are keeping the station of women below that of men and that no matter how well they “fit in” to a man’s culture, they will continue to be women.

--

Even young girls recognize that with promiscuity and sexual openness now comes advancement in popularity and even celebrity (note how Paris Hilton's "sex tape" came out just before her reality series aired, and how young girls are posting sexy pictures and even videos online for their classmates and the world to see and comment on). Women are being rewarded for these actions, and if they speak out against them are generally told they just “don’t get it,” or are “repressing” their sexual nature.

Why was it that the convergence of the Women's Liberation movement, and the Sexual Revolution led to women being not freed from their role as a sexual object, but instead embracing and enhancing their role as a sexual object and objectifying other women as well in a kind of sleazy one-upmanship?

Why do women NOT see themselves as a group working together, but would rather be "one of the guys" (who are, of course, as a group very united and very willing to assist each other advance) to get ahead?

"Women who've wanted to be perceived as powerful have long found it more efficient to identify with men than to try to elevate the entire female sex to their level." (Ariel Levy) Women wanting to get ahead in the business world have found loopholes and behaved in ways that they found effective and those ways have generally been by imitating and fitting in with the men. And at some point those highly successful women will be "complimented" by others who will applaud her with phrases like “Masculine-like independence” or with some version of the phase "like a man."


Why do we buy into the idea of the attribute of a woman being "quiet, weak, and submissive" and the attributes of a man being "outspoken, strong, and dominant"?

--


Why has our culture SO strongly embraced the idea that to feel sexy and to be sexually desired is an important part of a woman's self-worth and self-confidence? If this were inherently necessary for a woman, would it not also be inherently necessary for a man? And do we see the media forcing young men to outdo each other with vulgar displays of sexuality? How many men are out there exposing themselves the way girls are, just to try to be considered "hot" and become the object of desire?


In one part of the book Levy discusses a school where all the middle school girls were coming to school in mini-skirts and tiny tank tops and a motion was put forth for a school dress code--so that the boys wouldn't be so distracted.
Levy comments:

It's interesting that the teachers were concerned about boys getting distracted. Teenage boys tend to find teenage girls distracting no matter what they are wearing. As David [one of the students interviewed] put it, "What girls don't understand is guys always want girls. If every girl dressed casually, you'd still like girls. It's like, you don't have to exhaust yourselves." The people who are really distracted by the competition to look and seem sexy are the girls themselves.

How can we continue to ignore the way our culture is screwing up the generation of women behind us, who is so bombarded with messages telling them it is important to be hot, and to have the “right” wardrobe and nails, and bikini wax that they no longer have a foundation of self-worth OUTSIDE of their physical attributes and desirousness?

Okay, on a lighter note, please listen to Ernie Cline's "Nerd Porn Auteur" for a refreshingly humorous "guy's perspective" on how current plastic hotness falls short.

---

Visit my other blog here

Provocative T-shirts

Interesting article on the T-shirts many of the young folk are wearing these days.
Here are a couple excerpts:

Call it rude, call it crude, call it the latest sign of civilization’s decline — there is no escaping message Ts.
Some are harmless. JCPenney sells T-shirts that say “Be happy” and “Looking for my prince.” Some are ironic: “You couldn’t afford my expensive taste” is the message on a $12.99 shirt at Charlotte Russe.

Then there are the baddies of the T-shirt world — the sexy girls smokin’ in the bathroom. “Stop staring, they don’t talk.” “Yes, but not with you.” “Are you a good boy?’’

In a society soaked with sexual imagery, such messages are being worn by girls barely old enough to drive, or in some cases, stay home without a sitter.

But when does playful cross the line to trashy? And how should educators deal with sexual messages in the classroom?

At International Plaza’s Abercrombie store, 16-year-old Rebekah Stellick of Clearwater purchased a shirt that read:

“I may not be perfect, but parts of me are pretty awesome.”

Ariel Levy , author of the book Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture, says provocative shirts are a symptom of a culture obsessed with sexual showmanship.

“Even if you have a dress code that says you can’t wear that to school, it doesn’t change the fact that the entire culture is set up in a way where that is appropriate,” Levy said. She said it trickles down to youngsters from women who confuse sexual explicitness with feminist liberation.

Personally I rarely wear anything that says something at all, if I do it is usually either humorous or advertising for something I believe in. I object to even the "Princess" and "Boy crazy" t-shirts I've seen young girls wearing today because I really feel that the labeling makes girls WANT to fit the words and become some stereotype more than they might already have become. ICK! Why are women creating an ever-heightening sexual atmosphere and hierarchy for OURSELVES? Why do we take over where men leave off and push it even further?

GRRRRRR!

---

Visit my other blog here

Feminism/Morals/Values

Hey look, some people agree with me:

I was well-prepared for a career as a journalist, but I was sadly ill-prepared for a career as a strong, solid woman, with all the gifts and capacities that that word once implied. The character traits I should have been cultivating were neglected in favor of ever-stronger intellectual skills, and as a result I've spent the past few years playing catch-up.

While there is value in higher education, it doesn't teach the most important life tools—how to be a nurturing, kind, patient individual. It doesn't teach you how to be a mensch when you're sleep deprived or running a fever. It doesn't teach you how to be loving or lovable. These days, my ambitions are to acquire and internalize these qualities, and to strengthen myself as a woman, internally—not vis-a-vis what I look like through the eyes of a man, or how "successful" I am by society's standards. And the more I cultivate these inner qualities, the deeper and richer my life and my relationships become.

In addition to my ambitions as journalist, I had spent years striving for the perfect body, the perfect clothes, the perfect apartment—in short, all the external trappings of what I thought would make me look and feel good about myself. Needless to say, none of it ever worked for long.
~Andrea Kahn

Kind of hits on what I was discussing a few posts ago about how society today is ill-prepared for creating meaningful marriages and families. Our core attributes are sadly malnourished and the values that are most prized in society--ambition, independence, and a keen fashion sense ;) do little to prepare you for life as a spouse and parent.

I also on the same website I read an article by someone who agrees with my long-held interpretation of "Grease":

As readers here probably know, the story of Grease is about a girl and boy who meet one romantic summer and believe that they have fallen in love. The girl arrives unexpectedly as a student in the boy's school in September, and they are both shocked. She is taken aback by his cold and crass behavior, and he by the realization that he would lose his friends and his macho identity if he dates her as he had that summer, showing her love and respect without approaching her sexually. The tension in the film grows out of the inevitable choices that must be made: either the boy will have to give up his entire social community or she must--to put it bluntly--have sex with him. We all know what happens.

Now I never read it so literally as "she had to have sex with him", but I did read it as--she had to abandon herself, and all of her ideals and moral ways (Sandy went from being "lousy with virginity" to a smoking, drinking, high heeled, leather clad dominatrix of sorts) in order to fit in with HIS society, and THEN she could choose her keeper and "tell" him what to do ("you'd better shape up...because I need a man").

I still cringe every time I flip past that movie on TV and wonder how so many women could love it so much.

Outside of the catchy tunes it's a blatant smack in the face of feminism. It disguises the objectification of women as sexual liberation. Sure, Sandy is free to do what she wants and be with who she wants, but she'll only really be happy if she abandons her moral ways to "become" exactly what a man wants.

It's the sexual freedom of choice women have waited so long for--so long as that choice isn't virginity.

---

Visit my other blog here

Marriage/Commitment/American Dream/Chastity

Why has the status of marriage sunk so low that we believe we can get by with on-the-job training rather than years of disciplined study and growth?

A friend of mine was talking to me recently when she said this:

"So anyways monogamous bliss isn't so blissful all the time"....."in fact it lacks a little spice".

So today I was on a Myspace group page with a bunch of Baha'is talking about chastity and I came across some interesting views and a cool analogy that reminded me of her words

Here are some excerpts from the discussion:

[sex has] become totally MATERIAL. People are viewing the material in a significant other before anything else, thus they idolize it....sex becomes another activity, a material activity like any other - one to explore and take lighter than these standards [the standards of chastity and upright behavior set by religion].

It's like food. If you visit cultures where they eat the same thing everyday, they are not discontent with that at all. They never say, "oh I wish I had a different food". Of course not, because they don't know of different food, they are comfortable with what they have. Likewise if you try to get them to eat something totally foreign, they would be compelled to eat what their diet is used to. However, if you or I were asked to eat the same thing every day, we couldn't take it. Why? Because we are so used to having something new all the time.

I don't know if it's just having something NEW, we're used to having sweet, and savory, and spicy. We try it all, and we can't imagine life without dessert. If and when there aren't limits (such as weight gain, cost, and societal norms) governing us we tend to overindulge and gorge ourselves on these things. (I know I would live on chocolate, cheesecake, dr.pepper, and fatty cheeses and sugary desserts forever if I could). But take a poor child in Africa and ask them the last time they "ordered" dessert, or gorged themselves on cheeses or chocolates. Perhaps it is not their CHOICE whether or not to eat these indulgent foods, but in their world they do not yearn for them either, or miss them the way I would if they were taken from me.

How different are the pleasures of "the flesh" from the pleasures, desires, and cravings of palette? Do our actions create our cravings?

It is the same is with our "romantic relationships" in the West. We are surrounded with it in this society. Not just in practice, but in how there is just an exaggerated emphasis put on it in society. It is very very very VERY difficult then, to go from having all of that [liberty, variety and sexual freedoms], to going to a stable monogamous relationship. People get discontent so fast with another, and no longer wish to stay in [the relationship], then go off and find something else.

There were days in this country where the focus from the beginning of a young person's life was to find a good partner and then marry them. That was the dream. What was the classic tale of the 50's? Marry your high school sweetheart.

Today it seems that dream has been contorted into something where most people believe it is normal, expected, and ideal to:
-have a sexually adventurous life while young and "free",
-become emotionally and financially independant, and
-get some great toys,
and then you will settle down and have kids when you find someone who complements you (sexually, financially, and socially).

If this truly is to end up in marriage and child rearing, this is not only an improbable dream, it is set up for failure, as the things one would need for the end result are not taught through the practices at the beginning and indeed, the opposite values and needs and desires would be nurtured and grown.

Would you expect to become a CFO by
-taking many short term jobs,
-dating a lot of people and
-shopping yourself into debt?

No... why not? Because in order to become a CFO you must not only prove yourself to the people that will hire you, but you must spend years to develop your skills. Those skills being nurtured by
-long-term employment and responsibility,
-relationship building and management skills, and
-financial planning skills.

THIS is why CFOs are more likely to have had longer term employment, be married or in a stable relationship, and be personally financially sound. Not because they became a CFO and then found these things, but because they became the sort of person that would have the qualities necessary for being a successful CFO and eventually became one.

So why would one think that

-having a sexually adventurous life,
-becoming emotionally and financially independant, and
-getting great toys

would prepare them to be a suitable spouse... Where

-monogamy,
-shared finances and an emotionally co-depentant relationship, and
-a bit of sacrafice and restraint in your buying in order to save for children and future expenses

is going to be important.

Could you be a great CFO without the work experiences? Maybe. Could you be a great spouse without the experiences that help you develop skills for being a successful partner? Maybe. But do you really think the person who has been at many short-term, low-responsibility jobs will adjust easily to the pressures, hours, and responsibilities of a C-Level position? Do you really think what we (of the West) seem to consider "ideal" for a young person today is really best preparing them for a married life?

Why has marriage been alloted to the type of low-status ideal that has on-the-job training? Might lack of training, be why it also has 50% turnover rate?

Why do Americans spend millions of dollars reading self-help books to find out how to "make things work" and develop better timesaving, business, organizing, and managing skills and so little time or energy becoming more loving, more nurturing, more kind, more giving...becoming the kind of person who is READY for a loving relationship and that can raise intelligent, thoughtful, creative, and loving children?

---

Visit my other blog here

We decided/ I decided/ You decided

The "Morning After Pill" was passed by the FDA as an over-the-counter drug this week.

Abortion opponents threatened political retribution, however, and were displeased when President Bush backed the agency’s decision.

“Let there be no mistake about it,” said the Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, president of Human Life International, an anti-abortion group based in Virginia. “Today’s decision lies at the feet of President Bush and has created a lasting rift with the Catholic faithful who comprise a large part of his support base.”

I am always a bit torn between feeling that some people are extremists and trying to decide where the line is that determines if my own beliefs are extreme.

While I generally look at the hardcore “right to lifers” and wonder how it is that they can feel capable of making decisions in the lives of thousands of strangers they’ve never met. Although I believe in life beginning at conception, I have never been in the situation and hope to never be in the situation of having an unplanned pregnancy. I do not even guess at the immensity of that position and the consequences it entails. I would not ever choose to make a decision for someone else regarding the propriety of their decision one way or another. I consequently think of myself as someone who can hold a set of beliefs and values and standards for myself without feeling that I am judging others by those standards, much less forcing them to adhere to them. Just like in the matter of gay marriage and abortion, I feel there is a HUGE difference between disagreeing with a belief or a choice and creating a LAW to prohibit others from exercising that choice.


Then I progress on to the thought of government interference in our lives and think with some distaste of the thoughts of a certain friend of mine who believes government has no right to pull the “in the public’s best interest” card in ANY circumstance-- be it road construction, smoking bans, environmental regulations, or public health crisis and believes that supply and demand, public support/action, and individual choice will make these things work themselves out without government interference. I feel strongly that government SHOULD be involved in things that promote the health and safety of the public, the environment, and the individuals within the population it looks after. I am FOR seatbelt and helmet laws, gun control, environmental accountability, and drug control. No matter how much they may hinder an individual, I put the public well-being above that and believe that many times people will make bad decisions when it comes to money, power, and pleasure and that by making those decisions harder or impossible to make we are protecting people from themselves and paths that will make them a burden on others.

So what’s the difference between these two? How can I say that I am NOT expecting to live by my beliefs and standards and then say (in essence) “EXCEPT for”…wearing your seatbelt/helmet, using drugs, buying guns, when you intend to pollute, or otherwise put yourself or others in what I consider to be a bad position? aren't I just "creating a LAW to prohibit others from exercising that choice."

hmm...

---

Visit my other blog here

Blink III (The final post)

Although Malcolm Gladwell left off at this point and did not really go into more ways in which we can use the power of "thin-slicing" as he calls the quick, unconscious analysis that often proves more accurate than conscious analytic thought, I continued thinking about it. If reading about Martin Luther King before taking a Race IAT has an effect, how many other things we do have an effect (positive or negative)? I thought about how the idea of "Experience Building" activities form our unconscious and how in this regard every piece of information we see and read and absorb is just like the old adage of "you are what you eat" except it would be what you see, or do, or experience...And thinking that perhaps we should be that much more careful about what we're feeding ourselves.

Obviously I'm not out reading vicious hateful things, but what AM I reading? And I'm not out purposefully looking to experience the type of things that would make me think poorly of other races, religions, or groups of people or doing things to promote prejudice & bias. But what experiences, and what books, and what things am I doing that counteract all of the things I inadvertently experience, and see, and hear, and learn that might be counter to what my conscious mind would believe?

Other "Blink" studies showed how thinking of being a professor for 10 minutes before an academic test actually improved scores, and for African American students answering questions about race reduced them. Many studies have shown that "thinking smart" and being in the right mood or mindset can effect behavior and abilities: just like how priming a student to be patient had them waiting 10 minutes for test results How could I put myself in the right "mindset" everyday while counteracting negative or false biases set in my subconscious?

------

So in thinking about these things I came to an idea...not a conclusion, or necessarily a course of action...just an idea. I came to think about the many discussions I have had with many people over the course of many years about religion: organized religion, disorganized religion, belief in God, belief in Spirituality, and Atheism. Although most the atheists I've known have simply said they don't believe in religion because they don't believe in God, every other conversation has had to do with why people believe what they believe and why they DON'T believe in something else.

But this is my idea: based on all the evidence shown in "Blink" about Priming, thin-slicing, and rapid cognition, there is value to religion or at least religious activities whether you believe in the Prophet's social teachings or not. Most religions are based on simple, basic, and often universal spiritual laws which encompass living an "ethical" or "moral" life. The core value of "do unto others..." is present in almost all religions, as are beliefs about living a virtuous, humble, loving, kind, and generous life. Most religions believe in daily prayer, meditation, and reading of the holy book of that religion as well as outside activities to promote a better society. IF you then apply the concept of priming and of "experience building", you would figure that a person who daily reads (priming) about virtue and morals and treating others kindly and spends time acting on those beliefs (experience building) while involved in their religion's community, they would be led to act and behave in a way that is more in tune with their conscious ethics & beliefs. They would have had more experiences of the behaviors associated with the positive beliefs, and would have more primed bias towards thinking in a loving, kind, humble and generous manner after reading their religious writings each day than someone with the same basic ethical beliefs but without the daily ritual practice of these beliefs.

Just a thought....a very long thought, but it was quite interesting to me.

---

Visit my other blog here

Blink II

This brings me to the second set of studies I found interesting: Priming....

Priming refers to when subtle triggers influence our behavior without our awareness of such changes. An example of this occurs in Spain where authorities introduced classical music on the subway and after doing so, watched vandalism and littering drastically decrease

Gladwell introduces this section by having you form 4 word sentences out of sets of 5 words at a time.

Something like this:

1-him was worried she was always

2-from our florida oranges temperature

3-ball the throw toss silently

4-shoes give replace old the

5-he observes occasionally people watches

6-be will slept lonely they

7-sky the seamless grey is

8-should now withdrawl forgetful we

9-us bingo sing play let

10-sunlight makes temperature wrinkle laziness

And he says that after completing this test that you would, leaving the testing area, walk down the hall slower than if you had not taken the test. This is because although your conscious mind is taking a language test, your unconscious mind picks up on the words "grey", "old", "bingo", "wrinkle" and "Florida" and relates it to old age. If there were too many of these words and you were aware you were being primed, it would not work.

In the book, Gladwell sites a study in which two groups of students are given a series of tests. One interspersed with words like "polite" and "patiently" "yield" "courteous" and the other with words like "aggressively" "rude" "infringe" "bold" "bother" "intrude". After taking the five minute scrambled sentence test the students were asked to walk down the hall to get the results of the test and their next assignment. However when they got to the office, someone would be blocking the doorway, engaged in conversation with the experimenter. They wanted to find out how long it would take for the primed subjects to interrupt and get their results. The experimenters expected a difference in milliseconds between the groups. The University approving the experiment had made them promise to stop the experiment after 10 minutes and they laughed at the restriction, as they could not believe that any student would actually wait that long. But when they ran the experiment they found the assertively primed students interrupted on average around the 5 minute mark, but the polite primed students...or at least 82% of them NEVER interrupted in the length of the 10 minute conversation.

Another series of tests, called the IAT or Implicit Association Test tests the power of unconscious association. It measures the amount of time used to categorize words & pictures into two different columns. It may start with pictures of people who are thin and those who are fat and ask you to hit either the left button for "thin" or the right button for "fat" while showing you photos of the faces. It may then give you a series of words like "glory" "nasty" "awful" "happy" and ask you to categorize them between "good" and "bad" and then it combines the two tests and asks you to put the displayed items in categories of either "Good or Thin" or "Bad or Fat". These tests show that it takes longer for people to associate some things than others. The results show that almost all American participants had a harder time pairing pictures of African Americans with "good" and Caucasians with "bad" than when paired the other way around. The results could be measured with tests pairing Gender & Career or Family and other unconscious biases. (see some of the test options here)

After the test is complete the data will tell if the subject has a "slight", "moderate" or "strong" preference, or "little to no preference"

Malcolm Gladwell said that he himself took the IAT and despite knowing how it worked and the outcome he wanted he found he still came out as moderately preferential towards whites over blacks. Being half black the outcome disturbed him. In fact, 50,000 African Americans have taken the test and a startling 50% of them have stronger preference towards whites than blacks.This is despite their conscious belief systems. Gladwell took the test four more times and still had the same results. Even if you take the test everyday, you probably will be unable to consciously overcome your results.

BUT...if you were to look over some pictures or read an article about Martin Luther King, or Colin Powell, or Nelson Mandela, and then took the Race IAT, you would find yourself more capable of associating Positive things with Black people... and your results would change. There was a student who took the test every single day just to collect the data, but one day he got a positive association with Blacks for the first time. Thinking it over, he realized that he had spent the morning watching the Olympic Track & Field competitions where black athletes could be said to have represented the honor and pride of the American competitors.

Although our unconscious biases and "gut feelings" are influenced by what we have experienced, and seen and read, and absorbed from our surroundings, we can effect those unconscious thoughts by WHAT we experience. It is not enough to simply believe in equality, or elimination of prejudice. If we want to overcome the unconscious bias that we have built up through experience and our surroundings, we need to change our experience and our surroundings. If we want to be able to treat a minority as our equal and eliminate the unconscious bias, we must surround ourselves with all the best of their culture and become accustomed to seeing them associated with good things.

So I think all these thoughts are interesting and started thinking about what implications this has in MY life, and how usable this information is to me...that's up next...

---

Visit my other blog here

Thoughts on "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell

I listened to the audiotape of "Blink" this week at work, as read by the author. It was a fascinating book and brought up a lot of novel ideas. It did have the feeling of an academic piece and, as such, I got to about half-way through the book and began wondering why Gladwell was still defending his main point and negating counter-arguments when I was already convinced. Additionally the presentation of information did little to offer any sort of practical application. But then maybe I've just read too many self help books and watched too many American "happy ending" movies and believe things should have a point AND a purpose.

But I did come away from "Blink" with some theories of my own and ideas of how the concepts presented can be combined with others to become "useful"

First let me review some of the things I found most interesting in "Blink"--the basic idea of the book is that rapid cognition, or the quick, unconscious thinking that goes on in the first second we see, hear, or think about something is far more important than we realize and is often more important than the long, drawn out thought process. He points to many examples of how this process works and how it can have positive or negative effects.

I found a couple of the psychological studies he referenced as particularly interesting. The first was one in which people were asked to categorize things by looking at words. For instance words like: Jane, Tom, Jerry, Amy, JoAnne were to be put into the two categories for Man and Woman. Then categories were combined, having Woman or Family as one category and Man or Career as another and participants were asked to put a series of words into the proper categories. The pairings were then switched and the test repeated. Their answers were timed down to a fraction of a second, and it was found (unsurprisingly to me at least) that people had an easier and quicker time putting Man & Career and Woman & Family together than when Man&Family and Woman&Career were paired. This study showed a bias towards males and careers and towards women & families.

This test could be repeated with many pairings and it was; in the tests that paired African American, White, Good, and Bad it was found that almost all the people tested of many racial backgrounds had a bias towards white/good, black/bad. These tests could be repeated over and over again and even when trying to purposefully bias the test towards the opposite, one would get the same results over and over again. The author said he knew several people who would take it everyday and only ONCE had he heard of someone changing their results; the student said the only thing he could think of that could have made his results change was that he had spent the morning watching Olympic track & field events (where generally the bias is towards blacks doing better).

This brings me to the second set of studies I found interesting: Priming.... more later

---

Visit my other blog here

A tipping point?

I took a college course on Italian Art History from the 1400s-1600s several years ago, and as many interesting things as I learned about artists, and frescos, and technique, nothing stuck with me as much as the idea of the values of an Italian city. The city was formed and held three important positions: it provided protection, it provided city services (roads, water, etc.) and it provided for the beauty of the city. A city's pride was based on it's beauty and you could not get permission to construct something new without first having a panel of people evaluate the plans and agree that it would add to the beauty of the city. It was believed that the beauty of a city would lead it to greater peace and prosperity. I have felt since then that this is an overlooked aspect of urban planning and city government. I have always hated people who disrespect the environment around them by littering or defacing property. I have believed that the more rundown a place looks, the more people will treat it disrespectfully and believed in the value of art to elevate a place and the people that use that place. I've often thought government implemented mixed income housing must be so much more successful than low-income housing in single structures, or that is all grouped together; and it seems they are moving in this direction. Although it was often the city that got the blame for poor maintenance of public housing, I think it had more to do with the "tipping point" at which a certain amount of decline in the facilities (which could occur for any number of reasons) became a dramatic factor in the lack of pride or respect that people had in/for that property and led to an exponential decline in the safety, cleanliness, and livability of those areas.

I just listened to (an abridged version) of Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point and found it very interesting. In the book Gladwell talks about how epidemics are started--epidemics of style, thought, crime, and disease. He talks about how a single, or a small number of factors can become the "tipping point" that allows an epidemic to break out and spread more rapidly than anyone looking at one of those individual factors would ever imagine.

He discussed how New York City's crime rate in the transit system took a dramatic turn for the better when they began diligently removing grafitti and cracking down on farejumpers. Although those small factors seemed incredibly unimportant and a waste of time to many of the transit police at the time, changing the way they handled it and the seriousness with which they took it led to a change in the way people saw transit stations, trains and transit police, and the way they subsequently treated and acted in the system. These changes led to changes in the overall policing of the city, and eventually to dramatic drop in the murder rate in NYC.

Although it seems amazing that removing grafitti could contribute to a drop in murder rates, it is a definite contributor to the end result. We tend to put certain "logical" and "big picture" things much higher on the list when thinking about creating change, but more often than we realize it is the small changes that make the difference between something spreading one-by-one and something spreading exponentially.

These ideas are so interesting to me, and I've been cycling through different ideas that fit within this model, and thinking about change and how it works/can work. Expect a few more posts on this subject when I get those thoughts collected. :)

---

Visit my other blog here

More discussion on beauty

I've been on a discussion board that's been discussing some of the same issues with women and beauty and society and have been having some interesting discussion.

As someone there said:

My points thus far have been made to point out what I believe to be a comparison of the amount of direct influence males have over a woman's inadequacy (and thus her need to feel beautiful, etc) vs the amount of influence females have over the same sense of inadequacy.

I think that through a woman's lifetime, her female associations have more of an effect on her self image than her male associations.

Consider:
- A woman will usually interact first with female peers regarding gender issues, even before 'first contact' with a member of the opposite sex.
- In the early stages, issues such as who's ugly, who's cute, who's hot, who's a whore, etc etc are discussed with her female friends. At this point, she learns how to act, how to feel, how not to dress prior to any interaction with males.
- In the early stages, males are goofy. Period. If you're claiming that they are consciously attempting to shape the female psyche in order to maintain a stranglehold of control of the unliberated female psyche, you're on crack. Males at this age snort milk through their nose, and momentarily lose motor control when they *think* they can see a girl's undies.
- Women go to the bathroom together. This happens ALL the time. This. Does. Not. Happen. With. Guys. Ever. And if it does, it is not discussed. Ever.

Humour aside (it's 2 in the morning. I'm weak.) women spend a whole lot of time convincing each other about why other women are beautiful and why they're ugly before they ever get any kind of commentary from a guy. This happens in their early years all the way through to first contact. The issues are discussed at length in slumber parties, between classes, in teen magazines and women's magazines. I mean, you've got publications that are allegedly written BY women FOR women about 'health' and 'Beauty', and you've had that for generations prior to the very first GQ.

You talked about the "early stages" but I think you're skipping ahead of the real "early stages". I'm sorry I don't have the actual study, but I know I've read about it too:

I keep thinking about that study a few years ago where the researchers took a bunch of babies and dressed them all like girls. Then they asked strangers to interact with them. The adults assumed (because of the clothes) that the babies were all girls. When the handled them they did so gently, and used words like "pretty" and "fragile". Then the researchers took the same babies, dressed them as boys and repeated the experiment. This time, the adults played rougher games with the babies and called them things like "strong" and "smart". Overall, the adults assessed the "boy" babies (who were really boys and girls) as healthy and competent, and the "girl" babies as "tiny" (even though they were the same babies) and "beautiful". It made me wonder how many assessments I make about babies based on their gender, and how I treat them without even thinking about it.

We are told what we are and how we should behave and look from our infancy by both Men and Women. Children pick up on the traits that are most desired and accepted. Boys are guided towards being "tough" and a "big boy" and girls are encouraged to be "sweet" and "pretty" by encouragement of every adult they meet who either lavishes attention on these positives or scolds them for their opposites.

Studies also show that uglier children get less attention from their parents and others than their more attractive counterparts, so just as a two year old has already figured out exactly how to manipulate their parents into giving them popsicles for dinner, how much do little girls also figure out that the prettier they make themselves the more love and attention they will receive as a reward?

By the time we reach slumber parties it's more like we're comparing "trade secrets" and "marketing strategies" than just encouraging our friends to buy into the concepts.

Can't you all just exist without putting yourselves in the context of a man?

I don't have a fully formed thought on it, but it does seem interesting to me that when there is a large enough community of homosexuals a certain culture develops and that the gay male culture seems quite based on looks and physique, and the lesbian cultures seem far less focused on physical attributes. Could it be that we all market ourselves in the way we find most effective for our prospective mates, and when women no longer need to market themselves to men the physical aspects are of less importance?

---

Visit my other blog here