Because I don't have enough to do...

If you checked into Serendipity this past weekend hoping to see a post, I heartily apologize. And I'm almost (but not quite) embarrassed to explain to you the reason for that neglect. I joined a rather infamous "social networking" site early Friday morning (and by morning I mean Thursday night). I was gifted with a block of free time that I had not expected, and going out on "The-Day-That-Wasn't-a-Day-Until-It-Was"- Eve just wasn't compelling. So I found myself in front of the computer wondering what to kill some time with. Several of my friends had recently told me about their involvement with the aforementioned time-suck, and although I was warned against it, I gave into my lesser Gods and registered my own page.

I don't know if I opened Pandora's Box or plugged into a nodal web of useful and fun association, and I'm sure I won't be able to make that call for some unspecified period- but I can report having been drawn in by its novelty. Like most other people who have found themselves on this particular site, I never realized I had so many "friends". Don't get me wrong... I'm pleased. After all, I am a bit of an egoist. Let me bathe in a wave of validation at high tide. I recognize the forces that exist that make it recede in due course. I also realize that this process leaves all sorts of detritus washed up along the shoreline. It makes me think of folks bringing that shit home with them and trying to hear the sounds of the surf.

Anyway, enough of the flowery pseudo-poetics... the truth is that I have gotten the chance to touch base with people I haven't seen or talked to in years. That's worth something. Now if it actually results in a face-to-face with one of my old friends, then the effort will have been worth it. I've never bought into this kind of thing before. My eminently wise friend refers to this platform as "trite-book", and I can understand why. One part of me doesn't give a fuck what you are having for dinner. On the other hand maybe I can get you to send me some leftovers. I also believe this could be an effective way to get the word out about local events. We'll see. I'm not sure that people have realized the full capabilities of this crazy machine.

What I haven't given much thought to is what kind of information is being sold to sponsors of this operation. I don't understand the income streams with these online applications. No doubt the individual who invented this specific network is now very wealthy. But by what means? Alternatively, I get a kick out of imagining government agents trying to get useful data out of analyzing who is connected with who. There's no obvious ranking system to identify those relationships that are deeper or more meaningful than others. The guy you used to see at the corner bar fifteen years ago is interchangeable with your bestest friend. What does it actually mean that someone is on your list?

Ultimately this is one more tool with which to negotiate our increasingly complex existences. The purpose we attribute to it is internally generated. All the technology and access in the world will not be wholly sufficient in providing the depth and creativity necessary to make the difference in our lives. It can be the writing on the wall, or the piss in the pot, depending on our orientation. And finally, maybe it's nothing so novel at all. Perhaps this is just one more effort at tribalism... not that it's necessarily a "bad" thing. Sometimes it's nice to know who is on our "side", even if it such a superficial gesture.

Fun-and-games at the Grocery Store.

M. has decided that it's a big help for me to accompany her and Baby E. when they go to the grocery store. It just so happened that this past Saturday's weather forecast seemed to suggest treacherous road conditions, and cabin fever looked to be a distinct possibility. Ordinarily I would have no interest in going to the local strip mall during a weekend afternoon, but I knew that it made sense in our circumscribed world. We bundled up the tyke and set off, me driving at about half the speed I would normally attain due to passengers and ice. Naturally there was a hint of slip on the road and people were already driving like idiots. I don't get drivers who think panic makes them more adept behind the wheel.

When we got to the store I realized that everyone had anticipated the types of difficulties that we had. Perhaps the weather forecast is sponsored by Giant Eagle (I really don't know). There were a lot of folks in the aisles that seemed as oblivious as they probably had been on the streets outside. I'll be forthcoming and admit that whatever attitude I had when I walked through the sliding automatic doors was accentuated by the fact that I had only slept about four hours. I quickly made an executive decision to follow M. around blindly and not try to make any tough decisions. Through hindsight I have determined that this was wise. I would have been completely dazed and over-stimulated otherwise.

My main objective was to find a way to make the trip fun for E. and I. The first thing I focused on was his vocalizations. For some reason, he was especially happy I was along. He kept beaming up at me from his metal bench at the front of the cart. I guess he wanted to let me know about his good mood, as he was shouting out some funny stuff of his own devise. So I thought it was only right to return the favor at an enhanced volume. Perhaps it annoyed some particularly stressed patrons. If so i wasn't aware of it, and I wouldn't have cared regardless. In my condition I felt like E. was speaking my language, and I wanted to make sure there was a dialogue. I know that he appreciated it because we both got progressively louder.

Then I realized that certain customers were actually paying attention to us. Of course I had to start clowning around. In an exaggeratedly solicitous voice I kept asking E. what kind of dog food he wanted. I explained to him that the nuances of flavored mixes, and that he might prefer something with fish in it. Again I knew that he was entertained because he was laughing maniacally by that point. Meanwhile we started getting some strange stares from people. I pointedly asked him if we were all out of Robitussin, and if he had finished the last of it, as I had been too blitzed the night before to remember. The exchange was especially amusing because he had a prominent bruise on his head from daycare that was easy to notice.

Having scandalized the joint already, I decided to mimic stealing stuff off the shelves, hoping E. would take my cue. I even took off his mittens to facilitate the learning process. He was all kicked back with a gangster lean, hand dangling innocuously over the side. We went through the cookie aisle several times. E.'s got the kind of face that makes others love him almost immediately, so our developing scam is especially effective. I just have to figure out how to identify my favorite products for him, and he needs to learn how to hide the more valuable items where no one will look. I figure that we have plenty of time to work on the act. He'll get more wily as he continues to grow into his cuteness. He does indeed make the supermarket fun.

These are the People in My Neighborhood...

It's been about five years since I first moved into my neighborhood, and I am still having difficulties fully engaging it. My (mostly) daily walks have helped a bit, but sometimes they make me feel more alienated than when I first started taking them. I guess I had certain preconceptions about how the place would (or might) develop, and these ideas look more and more naïve with my growing familiarity. Occasionally I'll catch a glimpse of what appears to be a young urbane couple, but for the most part it's mostly peopled with the type that I don't want to spend any of my free time around. This is a real shame because otherwise it has an awful lot to offer as a community.

We chose to move to our area because of the school system... or more precisely because we wanted to avoid sending any of our future kids to the public facilities that reigned in our favorite neighborhood. There's no way we would have moved out of the city proper otherwise. The most desirable sections of the 'burgh are expensive (obviously), and even in those parts the charter and magnet schools seem more desirable than the standard options. So we found the most gritty section of one of the best public school districts in Western PA. M. knew a lot more about it than I did, because her family had once lived there. She knew what we were getting ourselves into, and felt comfortable with it.

I'm moved to reconsider all of this due to an experience I had on my rounds the other night. A friend who lives in the next neighborhood over is looking to rent a space for a studio/collective project. She asked if I could look around and find a suitable place. I really had no idea how to start that search. I figured I could stroll about and look for signs in windows, etc. There are a host of properties that seem enticing, and they also seem to be empty. However there aren't many indications of who owns them, or how I can get in touch with whoever is responsible for managing them. I decided that I would have to ask around to see if anyone had any useful leads.

Unfortunately I don't have current phone numbers for the few folks who might be able to help. So I'm left to strike out blindly and figure out what bystanders might be able to provide assistance. On a whim, I stepped into a bar I had never been in before to get some local expertise. As soon as I entered, I knew I wouldn't get what I was looking for. There were about five guys and a torn-up looking woman at the bar, and everybody swiveled around on their stools to look at me directly. The closest dude started interrogating me before I could even let anyone know why I had interrupted their Monday night "revelries". I can't accurately reconstruct our short conversation, but I will say that he turned out to be the type with no love for the arts.

By the end of our exchange he started making primate gestures in an attempt to assert his alpha male status. To me he was just a fat slab of hick with an unrealistic image of his own potency and a loud mouth, yet that didn't keep him from shaking a bit as he pretended to prepare for a fight. His buddies were much more amiable and tried to calm him. That probably wasn't even necessary, as he was coming off like a melodramatic tweenie preparing for his role in West Side Story. If he truly wanted to fight he would have simply attacked without the show pony antics. Still I had no desire to escalate the situation, so I thanked everybody and walked out. It was absolutely the right move, but I was pissed off enough to imagine coming back with my aluminum bat to remove one virulent stain from my neighborhood.

Driving is Exciting!

Isn't driving exciting? Really... isn't the entire idea of owning and operating a machine that weighs thousands of pounds, and is capable of hurtling forward at over 100 miles per hour, compelling? Sometimes I wonder what the hell we are thinking. Obviously we need to "get there now". This need requires devices that present one of the biggest threats to our well-being. Yet at the same time, it would be difficult to give automobiles up now that we understand their benefits. Don't get me wrong- I love the convenience that cars afford me. There are plenty of places I would have never seen without them. I don't plan on giving mine up, so don't even ask me for it.

Most of the time I tend to take the reliability and capabilities of my vehicle for granted. Anyone that has owned a car for any significant length of time knows that this is a bad idea. We may bitch about living in a state that requires an annual inspection, but the truth is that it's a good idea for those of us that don't give proper consideration to the maintenance of our conveyances. Hell, I don't even get my oil changed as often as I should. I'm sure that there are a number of issues developing with my five-year old Hyundai that require looking into. No doubt I will become aware of those things when they reach the point that I can't possibly ignore them anymore. That's the nature of the beast, as far as I'm concerned.

I do a lot of highway driving in my long daily commute. This practice presents a specific set of problems that I am slowly coming to terms with. The first hurdle I experienced was learning how to properly regulate my speed. I accumulated something along the order of 20+ points during my first couple of years on the job. Once I got the hang of that, I had to confront the particular hazards that accompany chugging along at a moderately high speed. I try to pay specific attention to the condition of my tire treads. That's an obvious concern. I've also had to give some thought to the risks involved with having a cracked windshield. Following the big rigs results in kicked-up stones that can be devastating to reinforced glass.

This December I finally had my windshield replaced (at a cost of over $250). I did that because the pockmark that marred its surface over ten months ago expanded to a crack that spanned the entire width of the screen. Actually (to be quite honest with you) there were two fissures running in opposite directions. I still had full visibility, but there was no way it would have been certified legal. Yet for some reason, I experienced no imminent sense that it needed to be repaired expeditiously. Finally a friend convinced me that it would be a bad thing if the entire windshield shattered in my face at a high speed. I saw some logic in his note of caution. It was rational from a purely speculative viewpoint.

Today I experienced a different sort of issue that came on so quickly that it was impossible to ignore in the moment. The salt on the road surface was kicked up into my face by a tractor trailer. This wouldn't have been a serious issue had my fluid lines not been frozen. Instead I had a milky coating obscuring my vision, and I was moving at about 70 mph. My wipers were useless, and (if anything) simply compounded my difficulties. I concentrated on the lines demarcating my lane and followed the car lights ahead of me until I reached the next exit. Now this is a lesson I should have already absorbed- they make windshield wiper fluid that resists freezing. You'd think I would have already bought some, right? Driving IS exciting.

A Comment About "Going Dark".

One thing I have tried to avoid on Serendipity is self-referential navel-gazing. After all, that path leads to a morass of post-modern ennui and irony. Yet after a long absence that has been the longest in the entire history of this blog, I feel a bit of an obligation to comment on the break. For an extended time I have been jarred from my everyday routine. Please don't imagine that this was a result of some tragedy or anxious upheaval. Actually it's been a lot of fun. But about a week ago I decided that it was more important to limit my obligations and impositions, and simply concentrate on direct experience for a bit. It took a lot for me to break my everyday pattern of writing and posting.

I still believe in the "examined life". As each night and day passed, there were plenty of topics and subjects I could have written about. I felt like I was letting people down by not stopping to put my reflections into words, but the truth is that such a feeling would never have compelled me to break my silence. Ultimately I do all of this for myself. So I had to decide to make the conscious effort to let things go. I even stopped taking my daily walks Whenever I felt pulled by caprice to redirect my attentions, I did so. It was a bit surprising to discover how much I resisted doing it. My habits have become so interwoven into my life that I often had the sensation of becoming completely unmoored.

Somehow the structure of this project has been simultaneously empowering and constricting. On one hand, I believe the organization of my thoughts has made me much more effective in accomplishing my goals. Yet I know that I have chosen to limit my opportunities for "serendipity" by making myself sit in front of the computer and type these signifying symbols in a five-paragraph framework. When I'm scratching this shit out on my keyboard, I'm closing myself off to outside experience- however temporary my self-imposed removal from the present may be. There must be a limit to the benefits I get from the process. And unless I step away for a bit, I'll never see them clearly.

So in every way I can imagine, I was on vacation for awhile. I went more places and talked to more people than I would have thought possible had I made a point of adhering to my regular schedule. Meanwhile, I know for a fact that some regular readers of this blog wondered if I was alright. My answer is unequivocal- I was doing great. I grabbed at the chance to see my carefully constructed perspective unravel just a bit, and I'm happy with having made that decision. But at the same time I realized the great benefit of participating in this activity. No doubt there were worthwhile topics and questions I could have focused on that will be lost to the erosion of memory.

However, if I hadn't prioritized direct experience, I wouldn't have been exposed to a lot of these thoughts at all. The reality is that we spend a lot of time balancing our external lives with our internal perspectives. We often don't realize we're engaged in that eternal conundrum, so we do things that make no real sense at all... to anybody. I suppose that's the great meaning we can all find in the holidays. They break up our regular rhythms, and give us a different mirror to stare into. It's exceptionally easy to think that we are the sum of our parts, but I suspect that they don't really convey the totality of ourselves. I hope you had a similar chance to step outside yourself, and if you didn't... that you will soon.

The Vagaries of Gift Exchange.

Getting presents as an adult is often a strange and complex affair. In fact, whenever I think about it with any sort of focused energy, the entire idea of gift exchange is a bit confounding. In the United States, we tend to commodify* everything, translating it into a value expressed in terms of the dollar. When considering what types of presents we will be handing out during the holiday, many of us figure out a budget that accounts for how much we can afford to spend. M. and I work out basic parameters ahead of time so that neither of us feel guilty about any exchange inequity. Perhaps its odd that we take such a pragmatic approach to the tradition. It certainly makes rational sense, but what else does it suggest?

From the very basic background in anthropology that I acquired at university, I'm aware that cultures have been participating in gift-giving for thousands of years. The quality and spirit of such transactions differ widely. Among members of indigenous American tribes, it was expected that high-ranking members of each neighboring group would preside over ceremonies during which gifts were offered. This interaction was highly-structured, and the choices that were made often affected the future relations between the tribes. There was such subtlety of interpretation that a wide spectrum of messages, ranging from honor to insult with everything in between, could be conveyed in a ritualized fashion.

Although it's often not as conscious for us as it was for the Native Americans, we still follow implicit rules when we engage in gift exchange. Sometimes the rules are spelled out explicitly. For example, my in-laws decided years ago that it made sense to have a pool of gifts, rather than for everyone to buy separately for each member of the extended family. On its surface, this appears to be an almost entirely economic choice. At the same time, it relieves a bit of pressure from harried individuals trying to prepare for the holiday experience. One need not put quite as much thought into finding appropriate material gestures for people you don't see all that often. And that can be a relief.

On the other hand, the nature of a general exchange presents its own difficulties. How do you determine who gets what? Everything goes in a big pile, and divvied up according to one method or another. In M.'s family, an additional wrinkle has been added. Along with a "real" gift (purchased for an amount agreed upon beforehand), each participant is expected to find a "gag" gift as well. Everyone brings one of each, without in any way tipping his/her hand, and identifying which is which. Then lots are drawn and distribution begins randomly. That would be fairly straightforward, but another twist is yet added. Another round of numbers are drawn, and people can choose to take desired objects away from others, leaving them with unwanted items in exchange.

At that point, the "gift exchange" becomes something altogether different. It is now a contest to see who can go home with the "best" items. Obviously tastes vary among the players, and therefore the more idiosyncratic folks have the best chance of going home with whatever thing they covet. Mercifully, there is a stipulation that everybody gets to take possession of one "real" gift. However, subjectivity naturally plays a big role in determining what that means. In the processes of exchange and appropriation, personalities reveal themselves. It's at that point that the essence of the season tends to get either distorted, or emphasized, depending upon your personal frame-of-reference.

* It's a bit ironic that the Blogger spell-check doesn't recognize this word.

Sharing Movies.

One of the major pleasures I have experienced over the last several months has been sharing specific selections from my movie collection with friends. It's something that I have always enjoyed doing, and it makes accumulating a large numbers of DVDs particularly gratifying. While I don't have quite the same freedom to watch films at home anymore as I used to (given the noise considerations of a particularly light sleeper), I now have the opportunity to re-watch some of my favorite titles. It's a great litmus test to judge the true worth of any piece of art- how well does it wear on the eyes and the mind? I've been a bit surprised by some movies, and less so by others (given I've seen them multiple times already).

But perhaps a greater reason to appreciate seeing stuff repeatedly is to share them with others who might enjoy them. I try to dedicate a fair amount of consideration into the personal likes and dislikes of my viewing companions. This becomes more challenging when I'm accompanied by a mix of personalities, especially when I have only known them for a short period of time. If you think about it for a bit, you'll realize all that has gone into the formation of your own tastes. Perhaps you honestly believe that you "simply know when you like something", and there's no need to delve to deeply into your preferences. Maybe you feel that you are processing everything on some intuitive level that requires little analysis.

I'll concede that our likes and dislikes are often communicated more so by some "unconscious mind" then by a systematic deconstruction of the merits of a phenomenon. If it were any other way, we'd likely be insane or otherwise so dysfunctional as to make ordinary, everyday living nearly unbearable. Still, we have the capacity for introspection, and we usually apply this resource to something we care about. In my case, cinema is one of those things. When I'm playing something for someone that has never seen it before, I am attuned to their reactions. I find it absolutely fascinating to discover how others react to stimuli that I have absorbed. More than anything else, it helps me learn about myself.

Tastes are so personal that there is no way to make an exact science out of an exploration of them. This is where the nature of art comes in. Its subjective qualities keep it from being reduced to its components. There's a certain (dare I say) "magic" involved in the process of engaging art. Think of the precursors to the modern Western scientists- men of vision and learning that relied on their imaginations to devise fanciful instruments, and through alchemy tried to transmute various substances into gold. That's how I think of the creator... "man the creator", in fact. And somehow I'm thinking vaguely about these things when I sit down in front of a movie with other folks.

People have occasionally questioned my methods in sharing this stuff. I've had some buddies that couldn't understand why I wouldn't put in a movie that I had not yet seen, as evidenced by the undisturbed shrink-wrapped plastic around the jewel case. When I tried to explain why I resisted doing it, they took exception. For some, movies are a social activity. While I love that this is so, I only share that perception when I am watching others watch the movie. If I truly intend on absorbing a film, and giving over to it (whatever it contains), I have to do so in complete silence, and with no distraction. And I don't relish shushing people, especially when I'm trying to learn how they process the piece. It's as simple as that.

Know Thy Enemy (and Know Thyself).

You know, I never thought I'd be the kind of guy that pines after the old ways of doing things. I guess I've always fancied myself a bit of a renegade when it came to social conventions. Certainly there have been others more extreme in that position than me. I was fortunate enough to have the good sense to skip the "anarchy" phase of youth, at least in any organized sense. I'm not going to insist that I never broke the rules just for the sheer fun of it, but I didn't form a general philosophy to justify doing so. I've been the kind of person that needs to learn for himself. If you had, in the spirit of generosity, tried to advise me about the best way of doing something, I was likely to deliberately try something different first. Maybe you'd say I was "obstinate".

Nowadays I don't have the energy to seek firsthand knowledge of everything I consider doing. I've gotten a lot better at sussing out qualified sources, and trusting their own experience with the matter at hand. I'm by no means a micromanager. I realize that others are in a better position to achieve certain objectives that I have a stake in. If someone is willing to assume the responsibility, than I am more than happy to relinquish it. I try to look for quid pro quo whenever possible. Our society has grown so complex that we shouldn't expect ourselves to be able to do everything that needs to be done. That's why we have specialization. We're past the hunter-and-gatherer stage.

Anyway, I now have a healthy respect for earned authority. I may not necessarily regard the office itself as sufficient validation, but I've gotten fairly adept at recognizing expertise. Apparently though, there are plenty among us that find themselves incapable of trusting anyone to do anything with competence and skill. Specifically I'm finding a lot of people that simply think that they are experts on any topic, regardless of life experience, education, or other qualifications. And they are not too shy to let you know exactly what you are doing wrong, and/or how you might do it differently (in order to meet their particularly self-interested expectations). And they feel completely entitled to be taken seriously.

The other habit that a lot of these same folks have adopted is to immediately seek out the "person-in-charge". Once they have a problem, they decide that their plight takes precedence over anything else that is happening in the entire world. Then they commit to grabbing the ear of "the boss". The difficulty is that "the boss" rarely has direct experience of the situation that the demanding individual is inquiring about. Therefore "the boss" has to figure out who has immediate responsibility for the outcomes of the situation in question, and engage in a from of indirect communication. This can be frustrating for all involved. Obviously "the boss" has a lot on his plate, and is liable to express impatience- yet that won't always be directed at its source.

Meanwhile, the presumptuous tool who has skipped several levels in the chain of command has compounded whatever problems originally existed. He/she has failed to acknowledge that there is a proper protocol to observe when issuing a complaint. In fact, he/she has unintentionally subverted the entire system, which has been made to function efficiently only whenever people act appropriately within its structure. Because of such actions, others who have invested themselves within this system will be distracted from their roles. Things have developed as they are for a reason, and I wish people would make every effort to take this reality into account. Unfortunately too many will always feel that they know better.

Sunday Dinner.

Yesterday I took part in a venerable American tradition that I've been aware of for decades. I don't recall the first time I heard of the "Sunday Dinner", but I imagine I must have been told about it from one of my schoolmates. We didn't do it at my house. It's not like we didn't eat on the Sabbath, but it wasn't any big deal. There was nothing special about that meal. I guess because I've never really experienced it, I find the idea rather charming. To get together once every week with extended family and friends seems like a valuable habit. It can be the linchpin for a close-knit community of support and camaraderie. I think it could be something that I would look forward to throughout the rest of the week.

As it is, my side of the family has been scattered by our individual temperaments. I don't remember there being any kind of pressures or expectations regarding staying in the place where I grew up. That's a bit strange because my patriarchal line has lived in Eastern Pennsylvania for about 280 years. It occurs to me to wonder why and how we lost our ties to the land. Maybe things like "Sunday Dinners" are the brick-and-mortar of stable and sustained association. I can only speculate how these things work. I wasn't born in a small town... I don't live in a small town. I don't particularly relate to the songs of John Mellencamp. I've conditioned myself to avoid the type of sentiment that trades in "quaint virtues".

One major impediment to building a template for a regular event like a "Sunday Dinner" is my own (and my wife's) relative indifference to preparing food. I hate to think of the type of fare that would be provided if I was in charge of the table. The gracious host that welcomed my friends and I yesterday put out homemade vegetable lasagna, mushroom-barley cream soup, and fresh bread. Her son made a pumpkin pie with a brandy sauce from scratch. There was even unpasteurized whole milk fresh from a local farm. Now that's good eating, and something I rarely get. But it was really the company that ultimately made the evening. We sat around a big wooden table across from each other.

My typical supper consists of a cold-cut sandwich or something I pop into the microwave directly from the freezer. Occasionally I cook up some spaghetti, but use all processed ingredients. I wouldn't feel right about serving up that kind of stuff for the rest of my little family, let alone other guests. Yet it would be extremely satisfying to gather in the domestic bosom and "break bread". I wouldn't be downing my food while surfing the computer, or watching television. There would be real conversation, like last night. It happened to be the case that I knew everyone our host had invited to her place, yet my interactions with each of them had been in separate circumstances. That added another dimension to the discussion.

After we were done eating, no one rush off right away to meet other obligations. We lingered and continued talking. We relaxed and enjoyed a smoke or two. I think that's a necessary component for doing the "Sunday Dinner" properly (not the combustibles, but the pause from the everyday hustle-and-bustle). I'm not a particularly religious man, but there is something to be said for a "day of rest". That doesn't mean nursing a Saturday-night hangover, half-dazed on the sofa in front of some bad programming. Instead it's akin to a considered reappraisal of priorities and attitudes. There's something inherently beneficial in this sort of interaction. Folks tend to come into better focus.

A Failure of Compassion.

This is the time of year to think about the better qualities of humanity, such as charity and compassion. The problem is that some of us tend to get pretty depressed when we make an objective assessment of ourselves regarding these traits. I have extended family that I would rate very high on these factors. They are conscientious people who make significant efforts to consider the plights of those less fortunate than them. They organize benefits to address social ills, and invite people to their houses to participate in doing something good. These affairs not only bring local folks together, but they also contribute to meeting the vast needs of the poor and downtrodden. Mostly I admire them for doing something to help.

With Christmas coming, my in-laws are now trying to rethink traditions. Every year we have a gift exchange, and each person goes home with something that someone else brought. We set a money limit and even run a concurrent gag trade. This is not an uncommon practice, and saves us from having to buy presents for each individual separately. It also gives us something to do on the 24th of December. But this time around, my sister-in-law came up with an alternative suggestion. She sent out an e-mail documenting some of the terrible conditions that others face in third world countries. Her idea was that we skip the exchange this year, and donate the money we would have spent to the charity of our choice.

Obviously the birth of Christ should be celebrated with actions that run deeper than a consumerist orgy of spending. If we were truly honest in our faith and respect for the Son-of-God, we might strive to follow his philosophy and give to the less unfortunate. However this threatens to take the fun out of Xmas. Let's face it- we get a charge from taking home luxury items that we didn't buy ourselves, especially when we didn't even ask for them. Why would we give up these time-honored activities? Sure, there are people starving somewhere, but is that our problem? Don't we have enough to concern ourselves with during this period of economic downturn? Don't we have a responsibility to go out and shop in order to "save our nation"?

I'll freely admit that I'm not particularly charitable. I don't spend a lot of time thinking about the destitute and disease-afflicted in far flung lands. I won't even give pocket change to homeless Americans nowadays. At some level my perspective can be distilled to "better them than me". I'm not proud of that, yet I can't defend self-deception. I've said it before and I'll repeat it... humans aren't that special. They have no innate right to survival at the expense of other living creatures. And we perpetuate our survival by exploiting the Earth and all of its inhabitants. That's just the way it is. If I participate in sending food to a region that can't support its current population, who exactly am I serving?

And yet... my lack of so-called "humanity" occasionally gnaws at me. That's why, against my better instincts, I never bitch about paying taxes. I realize that a lot of that money goes into the pockets of corrupt and greedy politicians, and more of it feeds monolithic corporate interests, but at least there's a minimal amount being diverted to assist fellow citizens. I'm glad that there are people willing to sacrifice their time, resources, and energy to improve the lives of others. That type of self-abnegation is truly noble. I'm not going to fool myself- if I wasn't forced into this secular tithing (or is it more appropriately trithing?), I'd be more than happy to sock that money away. But when it comes to the holidays, I'm more likely to defend the status quo.

Sunday Football?! On Serendipity?!

It would definitely come as a surprise to anyone who knows me that I did indeed make a point of watching the Pittsburgh Steeler game on Sunday. Did I suddenly discover a hidden joy in football? Have I decided that I don't have enough light entertainment in my life? Do I need yet another distraction? The answer to all of those questions is "no". I haven't had any revelations that compel me to direct my attention to sports on television. Sure, I remain open to playing games that might entail me to run around a bit, but I don't intend to shift my energies in any voyeuristic way. You won't catch me dropping the names of the "local" professional athletes anytime soon.

Of course I realize that explaining my lack of interest in the pigskin opens me to charges of hypocrisy. Yes, I have admitted to watching hockey in the past. I've even described my allegiance to a specific team, and have kept abreast of player transactions and salary cap management. Still the truth is that I haven't watched more than a few periods of the game over the last couple of years. I simply can't justify the expenditure of time any more. However, I do have an interest in keeping my "blue team-American male" card, so I make it a point to remain minimally knowledgeable about hockey. At least that way I can fall into conversation with strangers in bars if need be.

When I got a text message from a friend who owns an area restaurant inviting me to watch the Steelers/Patriots showdown on his new big-screen, I decided that it was worth the trip. After all, he promised that there would be food and libation provided gratis. I invited some guys that I knew were Steeler fans, and that had never been to my buddy's business before. I knew I'd get the opportunity to see a lot of people that I'm close with, but haven't seen in awhile. The stars were aligned... what can I say? I wasn't at all disappointed, as I did indeed see folks that I've been missing recently. Between the rounds the waitress brought by, and the spread of food laid out for the occasion, I was pretty happy.

I can't tell you what the final score was. I know that the home team won. I probably watched about three plays during the entire thing. At one point, some lumbering guy was breaking for the end zone in what looked like a slow motion replay. I guess there was a turnover of some kind. Everyone was happy, as if we had just won the war on terror. There was definitely a sense of camaraderie as one might expect whenever a room full of people are in accord about rooting for a particular side. I can understand folks getting swept away by that kind of energy, but if one steps back to take a clear look at the phenomenon, it becomes surreal very quickly. Why does anyone care what happens on that field?

One of my friends was taken aback by my professed reason for rooting for the Steelers after a virtual lifetime of disinterest. I told him that I was making an exception because the club's owner Dan Rooney had officially endorsed Barack Obama in the presidential election. He replied that

this was the single worst justification he had ever heard for caring about the team. I didn't press him to explain his opinion, but in retrospect I wish I had followed that up. After all, American sports are all about business. Why shouldn't I take whatever political positions they advocate into account? I'm pretty sure that if I were boycotting a company based upon practices I disagreed with, my friend would understand. So anyway... Go Steelers.

Paddles and Laughs.

It's remarkable how completely off-track I can get over a period of a week. I've built a lot of structure into my life, and make efforts to follow my routine with discipline and focus. Still one or two external factors can throw me, and the next thing I know I'm struggling with the basics. Such is the story of the last seven (or more) days. It started with the digestive malaise suffered by both Baby E. and I. I took off two days, alternating with M. Obviously his patterns differ from mine, and they aren't especially well known to me either. It was difficult for me to adapt to them. I was ready for a vacation, and when the holidays hit, I tried to take full advantage. Predictably this late-year cycle of observances carry with them their own traditions as well.

I spent a lot of time with a group of friends that are relatively new to me. There are challenges that come with getting to know new people, and I especially enjoy the novelty of engaging with them. It's fascinating to glimpse windows into personal histories and events that you have never been part of. Along with those discoveries comes an entire set of proclivities and interests that make up an individual. And then an entirely new dimension of association slowly develops, and you begin to form an understanding of the qualities of a developing relationship. What was once a stranger, a mere anonymous human being, slowly comes into focus. Those are invaluable experiences that sometimes reinforce existing neural pathways, and at other times burn new ones.

So the celebrations pass and new connections are formed under circumstances that encourage the conviviality of loosened inhibitions and a vague sense of a broadened community. Along the way you may very well find yourself doing things you had not anticipated. I went to a comedy show at Garfield Artworks, and supported the art of a new friend. I watched other folks performing for the sake of doing the thing they love. The conditions of the event did not suggest the pursuit of glory or adulation, but instead an intense commitment to participating in something altogether chosen, rather than required. They gave out free cupcakes. The audience voluntarily offered itself to the whims of the comedians on-stage. Fascinating.

And then a couple of nights ago I played a sport I hadn't even known existed- paddle tennis. The game has its roots in lower Manhattan, where an Episcopalian minister named Frank Peer Beal wanted to come up with new recreational activities for neighborhood children. He convinced the Parks and Recreations Department to erect courts in Washington Square Park in Greenwich Village (1915). Paddle Tennis was played with a de-pressurized tennis ball and a solid wooden racquet. Unlike regular tennis, serves are traditionally delivered underhand, the net is lower, and the court smaller. The fence surrounding the play is like chicken wire, and you can play the ball legally off its walls. It is most often played in doubles.

Technically the version that I tried was "platform tennis", which was invented in 1928 in Scarsdale, NY by James Cogswell and Fessenden Blanchard. Instead of being constructed on typical materials, its base is a raised platform made from corrugated aluminum. Underneath its surface is a heating mechanism that allows all-weather play. The heat melts any ice on the court and dries condensation. Because of this unique feature, the traditional season lasts from Fall through Winter. It's a game that emphasizes ball placement over sheer strength and speed. Still it gives you a pretty good workout, especially if you start at 10:45 on a Saturday night. It was at once frustrating and fun, and an altogether unexpected holiday diversion.

The Stuff of Dreams.

We are now several weeks into the President-Elect's administration. Doesn't that sound exceptionally weird? This is the first time in my experience that a newly-elected executive seems like the head of state a full two months before officially assuming office. When Clinton was in his last months, I remember people dreading his departure. No doubt that had much to do with the fact that the 2000 election was contested, and it wasn't clear who Clinton's replacement would be. A lot of folks certainly had a bad feeling about the idea of another Bush in office. Still I think few had any idea just how disastrous his first term would be. Anyway, there is a wide consensus that it's a good thing he's leaving.

I feel entitled to a couple of months of self-delusion. Can't I simply bask in the dream that we will be put back on a brighter path? Actually, the answer seems to be a resounding "No"! Despite the impression I have of Barack Obama as a resourceful and thoughtful man, if I'm really honest with myself, I have to realize that the problems are almost incomprehensibly vast. The economy is tanking, and the fed is "injecting" so much additional currency into the system that it will almost certainly overdose. This is a paradigm shift. After 9-11 we were promised that "the nation will never be the same again". I think that might have been overstated at the time, but it became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Every time I consider the trillions of dollars that our government is spending to forestall the greatest crash in US history, I get that much more sick to my stomach. How could anyone have a plan to help us escape the mess? It appears that the best we can hope for is to reassure foreign investors that the entire edifice isn't built on a pile of shit and wishes. How long can we fool the rest of the world? If we are successful at this task for another few years, what are the chances that we will correct our course in the interim? Perhaps the essential human flaw comes down to a limited perspective at the core of our beings. It doesn't seem like foresight is an essentially well-developed quality of mankind. Nobody really wants to suffer for a better future.

The only thing I can do for a break is to let my cultural obsessions overcome my political ones. I need to distract myself (if only for a bit) for the sake of my own sanity and health. I promise that I won't let it go on too long, as that would mean I'm only contributing to another fundamental problem within our populace. But I feel like I deserve it. So I'm spending more time reading a book about the history of millenarian thought, with a special focus on Judeo-Christian traditions. If you're not aware of this theme, I would describe it in very simplistic terms as a belief that the world is coming to an end, and the accompanying concern with the details surrounding preparation for, and the significance of, Armageddon. If you are still unclear about the subject, have a look at the Biblical Book of Revelations as a reference point.

I'm aware of the irony of my choice. Why would I feel like turning to this type of stuff for the purpose of escapism? The answer may sound contradictory. I think that "escapism" is the appropriate descriptor for the application of imagination to "apocalypse". For as long as history has been recorded, there have been thinkers dreaming up "The End". Interestingly, they tend to twist it around into an ultimately positive scenario. Sure, you've got to go through hellish tribulations, but if you are able to come out the other side, you are in for a treat of 1000 years of peace and happiness. You see, the truth of the matter is that there is no escape. Society is (and always will be) as flawed as the individuals that make it up. Embrace that reality, and rely on dreams only whenever you find them absolutely necessary to get by.

Safe Haven.

Once again I find myself here at home taking care of Baby E. It has been nearly a full week of diarrhea for the boy, and it's putting a fair amount of stress on our little family. Yesterday he visited the hospital again, and they suggested that his situation may be bacterial as well (or instead of) viral. They set up a diagnostic test of his stool to find out, so M. spent the bulk of the day back and forth between medical facilities. When she finally got to the front of the line of the testing center, she was told they would need a bigger sample. It would take about five grams (how much is that?) to get a proper reading. Babies don't poo in big chunks. Anyway, I tried to run it by after work, but they were already closed. Sometimes nothing comes easy.

So E. is taking a nap, and I'm thinking about a story I heard on the news the other day. Nebraska has approved a change to their "Safe Haven Law". I didn't know it, but it turns out that every state in our union has a similar provision on their books. Apparently if you have a kid, yet for one reason or another you can't (or won't) take care of him/her, you can drop your child off at a hospital without prosecution. I guess too many babies were ending up in dumpsters. What made the land of the Cornhusker different was the age limitation, or lack of it. Many states restrict a "parent" from passing off his/her responsibility once the tyke reaches a certain cutoff point. In 13 states, that threshold is thirty days.

For some reason there were no parameters in the Nebraska law. Last Friday the last unwanted offspring (14-years old) was left at a hospital, making him the 36th minor to be abandoned since the problematic law went into effect in July. Reportedly many of these individuals were preteens, and one was actually 17-years old. A majority was said to have serious psychiatric or behavioral problems. Occasionally, people were driving in from out-of-state to ditch their responsibilities. I find that particularly sad. Are people really so desperate in our modern age to free themselves of their burdens? Is our social support system so inadequate that this is the last resort?

Obviously this isn't an option anymore. It's likely that Nebraska will end up imposing a limit of thirty days after birth for its "Safe Haven Law". But it's also clear that the problem is not going away. Todd Landry (Nebraskan state bureaucrat) expressed the official position: "The role of the state’s child-welfare system is to protect children who are fundamentally unsafe." He made it quite clear where the authorities stand on the issue- for "safe" children,"it is not the role of government to intervene". Of course that statement evokes certain questions about how we organize our society. If people are reaching out for help by simply ditching their kids under circumstances where they won't be prosecuted, is the government acting in an invasive manner by lending a hand?

From my point of view, this unfortunate phenomenon should be a wake-up call. A large segment of the populace is adamant that human life begins at conception. "Pro-life" warriors insist that every "act of creation" must be allowed its opportunity to be born. Yet evidently society's responsibility ends once the new being exits the birth canal (or after some arbitrary period like 30 days). Under this perspective, mothers who get pregnant are left entirely to their own devices in providing for the children they bear... regardless of whether or not they truly wanted them in the first place. Perhaps the anti-abortion crowd needs to realize that not every soul is equipped for parenthood. If they are unable to face this simple reality, they should be prepared to step in and provide support for every child that is abandoned, no matter at what age.

Be Good For Goodness' Sake.

You know we've officially entered the Holiday Season when "conservative" talk radio starts its annual ranting about the supposed "War on Christmas". The tip-off for me came yesterday when local host Fred Honsberger started bitching about a new ad that's been appearing on public buses. Apparently it reads "Why believe in God? Be good for goodness' sake". It's a fairly innocuous message as far as I'm concerned, but it's reportedly quite offensive to a segment of fragile Christians. Honsberger is rolling out the lamentations about what he perceives as "attacks" on Christianity. He wants to know why folks would want to pick on these God-faring citizens. He's challenged the audience to come up with examples where Christians have harassed non-believers*.

Only a complete wingnut would try to make the case that Christians are persecuted in this country. Despite the protections of the 1st Amendment, people of "faith" are continually trying to get government to adopt their beliefs and language. It's obvious to me that religion has a much better chance of encroaching upon our public life than it has of being repressed by our leaders (or marketers). I'm fine with giving the flock a wide berth. They should be able to do anything they want (within the bounds of the law) in their places of worship. I don't even mind the occasional reference to "God" in political speeches. But I don't want anybody forcing their doctrine on me. I was raised as a Christian, and I've had plenty of time to either embrace or reject it on my own.

I don't understand how a secular humanist reminder to value good for it's own sake is particularly threatening to anyone in society. Not everyone is going to accept your own personal savior. And if you study the holy books, you find out pretty quick that the God they speak of wanted humans to make their own choices. It's not that impressive to commit to fate. If your salvation or damnation was decided for you at birth, then it really wouldn't matter how you behaved in life. I would think that this is an essential argument used quite often in the push for conversion. I know for a fact that it's an important underlying premise for those practicing within evangelical sects.

So what happens to "the lost"? There will always be a certain proportion of people that refuse to be "saved". What is to be done with those that recognize no divine parameters? If they aren't concerned with avoiding sin, or with the consequence of eternal suffering as a punishment for ignoring "The Word", what could we possibly do to influence their moral decisions? Surely we need to socialize them somehow. On what foundation can we build our ethical edifice? Fortunately we have the preserved writings of plenty of artists, writers, and philosophers that have grappled with these issues without relying on God for their authority. There is a wide range of approaches that can lead to the desired outcomes. There is no single path, as far as I'm concerned.

Honsberger claims that the aforementioned advertisement (which is illustrated with a Santa Clause character) somehow denigrates his beliefs. We can only assume from his reaction that he is convinced that his is the only way. He considers December 25th the birth date of the the only son of God, and therefore one of the two most sacred days of the year. I can respect that, but I disagree that the appropriation of the Santa Claus iconography for this ad cheapens anyone's faith. There is a long tradition of consumer manipulation based around this fat jolly guy dressed in red. What he has to do with the historical figure that died on a cross completely eludes my grasp.

When Walmart offers you a Merry Christmas next month, they won't be concerned with sharing the love of Christ with you. They are more interested in sustaining a marketing mythology that they have determined is helpful in reaching their sales objectives. Fred Honsberger would be better served confronting that whole mess, rather than a small secular group that is trying to promote cooperation and civility.


* I'll leave this task to the readers of Serendipity. I feel no need to insult your intelligence or historical awareness.

The Political Litmus Test.

One of the things that was so refreshing about being an Obama supporter was the vast array of thinkers, statesmen, artists, actors and writers that came out publicly for his candidacy. The list of people that I respected who decided to back Obama during this election cycle is long and impressive. It seemed that every week some other figure was coming out to back the Illinois senator. While a lot of these people were predictable, there were quite a few that came as a surprise. Yet what was most remarkable was that I was experiencing much the same phenomena in my own life. The vast majority (and there were really very few exceptions) of the folks that I'm close with felt the same as me when it came to picking our next president.

It's hard for me not to use this variable as a litmus test. The two candidates were so starkly differentiated that they seemed to effectively divide the American populace into camps, and identification with one or the other suggests a fairly distinct profile in terms of philosophy and world view. Perhaps it's silly to consider political affiliation as a factor one uses in determining who he/she would like to spend time with. Maybe it's unfair to become biased toward an individual with such a radically different life perspective that they would pick the ticket that one abhors. But I'd be lying if I didn't admit that these associations didn't matter to me. In fact, I could give specific examples from my own experience that demonstrate otherwise.

I realize that this is a crucial time in American history, and that it's important to the future of the nation that some common ground be discovered to mark the path forward. I noted as much in a post after last Tuesday. Still there's something grating about suggestions that Obama must "govern from the center". Commentators from sources like the Weekly Standard and The National Review are trying to make the case that the country remains moderately conservative, despite what the polls showed last week. It's not difficult to figure out why they would insist upon that highly dubious assumption. Their side lost, and lost big. They know that it's the end of an era in America, and they are very unhappy about that fact.

Before the President-Elect and his new team accepts the assertion that bipartisanship requires paying homage to a discredited approach to American governance, I hope they take a few minutes to consider the quality of the voices who still stubbornly cling to their failed and outmoded belief systems. I think it's vital to remember that those who moan the most loudly for "compromise" are the same people that treated their opposition with so much contempt when they held consolidated power. Now they are forced to cry for a "fair and balanced" playing field. It's amusing how the "mandates" of 2000 and 2004 were so much narrower than the "tight race" just concluded, regardless of the actual numbers.

The reality is that the other side has been mortally weakened, is in a state of palpable disarray, and overcome with a breathless sense of desperation. This is a group that once saw itself as invulnerable. Now they are asking for temperance, and hoping for mercy. Their strategists and leaders have always preached that capitulation is self-destructive. They weren't extending any breaks to their critics during the last eight years. They did everything they could to marginalize their opponents. The temptation to repay them in kind is virtually insurmountable. It's not as if I have the urge to destroy the opposition utterly, but rather (playing off the immortal words of Far Right extremist Grover Norquist) "to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

A Note on the Perils of Blogging About Politics.

We are now more than a full week past Sarah Palin's convention speech, and the rhetoric is continuing to fly. One would think that the choice of a VP running mate would fade into the background, but it certainly hasn't in this case. Palin's supporters seem just as fanatical as they were last week, and her critics are as stridently determined to bring her down as they have been. Much has been made of the poll numbers being released from every source engaging in the practice of annoying people in their homes. I quit believing in these political surveys years ago. I have absolutely no faith that they reflect what people are truly thinking, nor do I believe that they are accurate predictors of future behavior. I learned of their essentially flawed nature in 2000.

So although conventional wisdom tends to suggest that "Palin-mania" will die off, it shows no signs of abating. Meanwhile people I've known for several years are starting to act in very odd ways. One person who I've known for awhile has resorted to personal attacks in the process of arguing with me. Apparently the outcome of this race means so much to him that he has decided to bring unrelated aspects of my life into the discussion. He knows I value the separation between my online presence and my actual life, and at first I thought that he didn't realize what he was doing. But even after I tried to address the issue privately, the attacks continued.

Why someone would jeopardize an otherwise amiable association with someone just to make a political point on a blog is beyond me. Especially considering that the poster-in-question valued his own privacy enough to insist on commenting anonymously. I have never considered revealing his true identity to other readers of the blog. I know that he'd rather not have his political ramblings interfere with his personal and professional life. In fact he has said as much in the past. That's why it's so surprising that he refuses to extend that same courtesy and respect toward me. I fully expect strangers to unload on this blog without concern for feelings or consequences. That's fair game. But to use insight gathered through "non-virtual" interactions in an online argument should be considered out-of-bounds.

Because of this occurrence, I have been compelled to switch to the "comment moderation" mode. I will now be reviewing all responses left on this blog. It's a real shame that it's come to this. I am adamantly against censorship, and would ordinarily never engage in deleting or refusing comments. As anyone who has read Serendipity for any length of time realizes, I tolerate and even seek out divergent opinions. I make every effort not to personalize my responses. And it's a very rare occasion when I ignore a comment. I enjoy getting in the muck now and again, and hashing things out. But I make consistent efforts to make sure my focus is on the issues, rather than the person.

I fear that the "politics of personal destruction" are creeping into our lives. I'm seeing less and less acceptance of disagreement when it comes to values and philosophy. Respect for others as participants in a "democracy" seems to be eroded continuously. It is still possible to share a goal without establishing agreement regarding process or justification; not everyone needs to be an idealogue. Perhaps we'll reach a point in our society when we can no longer debate the issues without personalizing them. I hope not, but during periods like this it's easy to imagine that time is nigh. There's a certain chilling effect when people insist on "exposing you" for the sins that they project, based on preconceptions of who "you are".

The Competitive Spirit.

Sometime within the last several years I gradually came to an informal resolution to minimize competition in my life. Obviously I understand that I live in a society driven by a tradition of competitiveness, and that it's impossible to entirely avoid- but I just wanted to tamp down my natural competitive drive. I don't know whether it's some sort of genetically inherited trait, or whether I picked it up somehow during my upbringing. But the fact is that I always want to win at everything I participate in, and I have a history of getting distraught when I lose. It's a trait that I find fairly unattractive whenever I am objective enough to catch a glimpse of it. On top of that, I realize that I no longer enjoy the stress that comes with wanting so badly to win.

So I quit participating in the activity that carried the most personal baggage for me. When I was a kid, my father and brother played a lot of chess together. They are both highly analytical people, and that trait along with the benefit of age made them virtually unbeatable for me. It bothered me that I couldn't win, so I gave up trying to learn the game. In my thirties I started playing again, and continued to do so for several years. But there came a crucial point when I realized that I couldn't hang with a certain level of player. I had reached a plateau that I couldn't transcend without a significant commitment to studying the game. And I wondered why that bothered me. I couldn't just relax and continue losing.

When I decided to stop playing chess, I extended my resolve to anything with a clearly defined winner and loser. I started thinking about the philosophical ramifications of those terms. I wanted to broaden myself and become more balanced. There were a lot of things that I was decent at that I only really liked participating in if won- Scrabble, darts, pool, team sports, etc. I just refused to engage in any of those contests. I threw my energy into creation and self-expression instead. I even tried to excise any voyeuristic forms of competition. This wasn't much of a sacrifice since I only watched one sport. But I even stopped following hockey for a year (which was easy because the season was canceled due to a player's strike).

For the most part I have been happy with my new focus. I have an improved self-regard, and feel like I've become a more nuanced and patient person. I came to the realization that any satisfaction I ever got from winning only lasted to the next time I lost at something. That's an extremely frustrating way to live. Now I'm more concerned with self-actualization. Yet I still have moments when I realize that my competitive spirit has not entirely disappeared. I throw myself at challenges as if beating them is more important than engaging in the process of confronting them. However, it's becoming more clear to me that life is more about the journey than the attainment of any specific objective.

Once in awhile I give in, and try to have a sense of humor about my attitude. Last night I played soccer, which is a sport for which I lack the necessary experience and ability to excel. Because my expectations are so low, I don't suffer much due to my lackluster performance. It was actually a lot of fun because no one cared who won. I could honestly appreciate the play of my teammates and my "opponents". Still there was a part of me that wanted to keep score, and to root for my side to prevail. Old habits evidently die hard. This point was further advanced when I beat all of my friends at ping-pong at the bar after soccer. I was crowing and strutting like a bantam rooster. It was self-parody, which always seems to contain a seed of inconvenient truth.

Social Capital.

This past weekend I found myself in a conversation about social capital. Coming from a family that excels at economics, it wasn't a big surprise to find myself ruminating on the concept. I'm certainly more of a social sciences guy, but quantitative analysis is difficult to avoid if it's in your blood. When I was a kid I made a list of all the people I knew, and I gave them numerical scores on several key personality characteristics. I was never put off by the subjectivity that applying numbers to social phenomena entailed. Even if I realized that the values were assigned somewhat arbitrarily, they were still useful for me in attributing relative worth. It helped me think about what mattered most to me, and refined my perception of my ideal self.

I can understand how someone could view such behavior as cold and calculating. There is something troublesome about trying to assess human interaction using standards akin to units of currency. But I can't help thinking of human transactions in those terms. Some people form associations based upon intuitive attractions, and believe that they are somehow being truer to themselves than others who involve themselves in (what they see) as social "games". Yet I think its foolish to deny that we often act in ways that will best fit our interests. Perhaps many folks make these calculations subconsciously, or have a different language altogether for their strategies- but I truly believe its useful to try to step back and take account.

Who hasn't (at one point or another) considered whether entertaining a certain person would lead to social liability? I know one individual in particular that is exceedingly interesting and somewhat charming when sober, but goes completely off the rails under the influence of hard liquor. He has provoked situations that have been so extreme that people have entirely shut him out of their social circles. When he is wary of his own excesses, he makes an effort to build bonds with others with a surplus of social capital, in order to rehabilitate his own personal profile. Of course it takes an extremely generous and trusting type to fulfill this role.

It's rarely difficult to spot those who are actively seeking to build social capital. They have been commonly referred to as "social climbers". They seek to curry favor with the glamorous and famous, or those who have achieved success in a particular domain. Nipping at the heels of the popular can help one accumulate a certain cache, but if their approach too obviously exposes an agenda, then it can backfire wildly. Making the appropriate evaluations of the social standing of others can make or break one's progress toward a treasured goal. As superficially manipulative as it sounds, you may want to hold your tongue in certain company. The person you offend may hold the key to a doorway you want to pass through. I've known characters that consciously and consistently try to reject their awareness of such situations, but they often end up frustrated for having done so.

The reality of our collective existence is that we are social animals. We can't avoid the shifting sands of alliance and association because a great proportion of human enterprise depends ultimately on some level of cooperation. Human beings are much more likely to want to involve themselves with others who are generally held in high esteem by their peers. This isn't necessarily determined by financial standing or physical attractiveness, although these factors tend to be considered disproportionately in American society. Less obvious influences depend upon the nature of the activity and/or goals being pursued. Intelligence, charisma, wisdom, strength, integrity, flexibility, generosity, creativity, patience, tolerance, open mindedness, talent, and skill can all play roles in determining social capital. You ignore them at your own peril.

Who is "The Problem"?

It seems everyone has someone in their life on to whom they can project their own difficulties and/or insecurities. Everyone has a tragic tale of a friend or relative that is consistently making bad decisions or exhibiting "bad" behavior. There's the uncle who can't stop drinking... the spouse with a lousy temper... the friend who falls in love with sociopaths... or the sibling who is always out of cash. Rarer perhaps is the individual that sees themselves as the source of someone else's problem. But of course that can't be the reality. Because in every difficult relationship there is both a long-suffering subject and an irresponsible object. Most likely you have occupied both positions throughout your life, often without even being aware of it.

Part of the reason this dynamic exists is perception. When does someone else become your "problem"? What is your role in assuming responsibility for any given situation? Ultimately we all have some manner of choice when it comes to the people we choose to spend our time with. The main exception to this rule is the child/parent relationship. Once you declare a dependent, you are obviously accountable to him/her. But otherwise, you pick those whom you allow into your life. I've heard arguments that other immediate family members are also beyond one's discretion. That's not a particularly convincing argument, as far as I'm concerned. I've known many incidences of siblings who have no contact with each other. I'm also aware of grown children who have cut off their relationship with one or both parents.

There's always a balance sheet when two people form a relationship. The accounting may be done consciously or subconsciously. For better or worse, there is always an assessment of utility between people. Some are givers by personality, and others are takers. I agree with the conventional wisdom that we always seek our match. Do the people you surround yourself with exhibit common traits of personality? There is probably a reason for that, and it likely resides in yourself. Are you prone to drawing broad generalizations about people? Perhaps these are the results of projections of parts of your own personality/philosophy. I've seen that this has often been the case with myself. I have found it useful to strive for awareness and insight regarding what I see in other people. Often I find my own reflection in my opinions of others.

We all have our own unique set of characteristics and beliefs about the world. When we find ourselves carrying the weight of "other people's problems", we owe it to ourselves to figure out why we are doing it. There are justifiable reasons for doing so. But if we develop relationships blindly, then we are merely acting out pre-programmed scripts that have to do more with our own selves than any reality about others. I've been accused of "thinking too much". People have assumed that I am cold, arrogant and/or depressed. Friends and family have occasionally formed and expressed all manner of assessments about me. Instead of becoming reactionary or defensive, I strive (often unsuccessfully) to understand what it is about the individual that makes him/her form whatever particular judgment is being directed toward me. Often these opinions are made up largely of projection, and can be used as tools for learning how to better interact with others. I believe that you can learn a lot about people by listening closely for cues that can help expose their emotional and analytical worldviews.

So much of these processes occur on the level of intuition. Human beings are social creatures, and have been evolving for tens of thousands of years. The ways we interact with others when we are not consciously forming these interactions are not random. They can be effected by memory, survival instincts, sensory input, or subconscious personal preferences. It's too convenient to let ourselves off the hook, and ignore our role in the shaping of both intense and casual relationships with other people. Ultimately we are responsible for the way we think and behave, and we are accountable for the consequences of the choices we make- even if we aren't paying close attention. It's tempting to attribute the blame elsewhere, but doing so is to commit a disservice to ourselves and others. We grow when we realize the quality of contributions we are making in any social situation.