More "Help" For the Wrong People

On my quest to read a book each month, I've created my intended stack and just finished up my book for March.  A trend I've realized, reading through this book in particular and pairing it up with other books and materials I've read or leafed through, is that many of the self-motivational, "unlock the inner you", happiness-builders seem to be directed at only a portion of the population, and it's predominately (and predictably) those not revolving around some catastrophic or traumatic event.  The books I'm referring to aren't the memoirs or autobiographies of those facing incredible obstacles, but those written, seemingly, by those coming from an affluent, upper-middle class upbringing, writing for others "struggling" to survive their same conditions.


The Happiness Project, my book for March, certainly has made several insightful observations and doled out its fair share of advice to incorporate into my day.  But by and large, the author really doesn't have any issues from which to base her book.  Living in Manhattan, married (both spouses are employed and financially sound), with two healthy children.  Even the author admits that she's not actually UNhappy, she just thinks she could stand to be MORE happy, going on to talk about her shopping trips and birthday parties and wanton spending on gym memberships and trainers and stopping at a news stand to buy five different magazines each afternoon.  Instead of appealing to a wide range of audiences, she almost seems to alienate herself into a class-divided world, where the haves can afford the luxury of her escapades while the have-not's sit on the sidelines.

To make it clear, I don't mean to call one particular author out, this book is simply serving as the inspiration: Joel Osteen, Martin Seligman, Tony Robbins...really anyone with a book title containing any combination of "real you", "inner self", "reinventing", the "life you want", etc. are all antagonists here.  The issue isn't that I believe some people shouldn't be writing on the subject or have nothing to contribute.  I'm simply pointing out that many of these "self-help" books focused on "living the life you deserve", "unlocking your true potential", and "making the most of each day" seem to have a secondary commonality: none of these people have really any idea some of the obstacles facing many many people.  I'm also not saying that I'm in any position to write to this invisible majority, only that if you're climbing the ladder to the upper economic echelon of society, please stop talking about how much sleep you lose at night worrying about money or the future.  There are real people out there wondering how to pay for the next doctor's visit or scraping enough together to pay for an orthodontist for their child because insurance won't cover the braces.  Please stop talking about how much work it is to plan a birthday party because you're stumped on the type of invitations to send.  There are people with real problems.

My Favorite Reality Show

It's that time again!  Every four years, my favorite reality show makes it's way around once again.  I'll admit, it is more of a guilty pleasure as there far-and-away characters, resembling in no way a normal life, argue and bicker back and forth.  I do believe that those are the best shows: those with "regular people"...just the best. I mean, you listen to the talk and just can't help but wonder who they think they're resonating with.  And isn't that perhaps one of the best things about reality TV?  We get to watch these people, these regular joes, televise their exploits, and the irony is that they somehow maintain the idea that they are just like everyone else, while those of us back here on earth watch and shake our heads.  With the exception of those that actually believe some of the things these characters are saying (there's always a few), the rest of us rush home from work, hastily drop our bags and coats, and hunker down in front of the TV to tune in, trying to not miss a single beat.

In the last episode, they characters traveled to Florida to hash out some differences, and what an episode that made for!  Such things as "facts" or "real numbers" somehow don't actually apply.  The back-and-forth "It's true" "No it's not" "It absolutely is", paired with subtle as well as not-so-tongue-in-cheek digs and insults hurled back and forth...  It's like children, going back and forth as the host of the show sits impotently by, like a downtrodden parent who's lost control of their kids.

I mean really.  Where do these people come from?  Where do they get their "facts"? With whom do they believe they're resonating?  And the best part is, I was watching reruns of episodes from 30 some-odd years ago, and their arguments were about the same things!  It's like 'Survivor': every week, every season, we tune in to see who's the backstabber, who's allying with whom, and who's getting voted off.  Every season is like a mild repeat of the very same issues that previously surfaced last season.  All that seems to change (and the same holds true for American Idol, Jersey Shore, and, admittedly, those are the only ones I can name...) is the faces of the competitors.  The only difference is that none of us can possibly imagine watching Jersey Shore intermittently for 30 years.  At some point, people should grow out of it.

One-time contestants, back in 1980, had a great episode wherein contestants went back and forth over jobs, unemployment, military spending, taxes...nice to see how far we've come, eh?  And in this day and age, the audience seems to be more polarized by the mantle their contestants has donned over what they're saying.  There is a "right" and a "wrong", a difference that appears to based more on truth than "fact". Alliances are a sure-fire way to lose ground.  "Compromise" is the latest four-letter word.  Everyone is against outsourcing and off-shoring, and no one (yet everyone) has contributed to both.  Both sides are cutting our access to healthcare, Medicaid, and Medicare, yet both sides are actively protecting them.  Neither side (yet both sides) are raising taxes.  Everyone is somehow both for and against women.  Everyone is both for and against job creation.  See where I'm going with this?

Welcome to the future.  Welcome to numbers and figures that only exist if we want them to.  Where data and facts are hotly debated and even open to interpretation.  There is no such thing as a number anymore.  Here's a list...choose your favorite and laud it as FACT.  Everyone else is WRONG.

Oh, and don't forget to vote today.  I hear it's the most important election of our lives.  But don't worry.  In four years, it will be the most important election once again.

Struggling to Get By

"I have guys who qualify for food stamps now," he said. "I have guys who don't know how they are going to pay their mortgage. There are kids working at ice cream stands earning more than their fathers, which is ridiculous."

This is pulled from an article in the Bradenton Herald regarding the latest government action to scrimp and save.  The story goes something like this: with no money in the bank, the mayor of Scranton, PA, cut public employee wages to minimum wage for the foreseeable future.  Politics aside (although the article, which can be found at the bottom of this post, makes a great point of the necessity for bipartisan cooperation), I think this issue brings to light an extreme issue plaguing millions of people: minimum wage is not enough to live on.  In the wealthiest nation in the world, a topic brought up in every election is what to do with welfare and social programs - do we fund them or cut them?  Well, long story short, as long as minimum wage is not enough to stay off of welfare programs.  At $7.25 an hour (as it is in PA and WI, at least), one can expect to make only $13,000 a year, which comes about $100 under the maximum monthly income to qualify someone for food stamps (http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/applicant_recipients/eligibility.htm).

Now, if we were to look as this systemically, one may agrue that welfare and social services will always be an issue as long as people aren't making enough to stay off of them.  Seems pretty straightforward, right?  Apparently not.  All we talk about is the Band-Aid we put on the issue - welfare, food stamps, reduced-price lunch - without delving into the actual issue: people don't make enough NOT to use them.  I should think that this situation in Scranton, PA may be a wakeup call to policy makers.  But, alas, I won't get my hopes up.

Find the entire article here: http://www.bradenton.com/2012/07/10/4109205/pa-mayor-cuts-city-workers-pay.html

Hiding Online

What is it about social networking sites that provides people an illusion of anonymity?  I can see how that may come into effect on message boards, where an individuals name and personal information is secured behind a screen name and avatar, but places like Facebook, Twitter, and others are created specifically to display a portrait of a person - who they are, who they know, even where they're from and currently live.  In this aspect, it's not so much a "message board" that shows up on your feed, but an extended conversation consisting of people spouting whatever comes to mind - the inane, the insightful, and everything in between - wherever and whenever they feel so inclined.  However, shouldn't this raise a red flag disclaimer before posting?  Not an official or actual, but a personal aside to think before we speak?  Isn't that something we're told when we're young, to think about what we say and who we say it to?

Now, I'm not a heavy advocate for any kind of censorship, personal or otherwise, for fear of offending someone.  An opinion is a great thing, and I encourage people to find their own truth and things to believe in.  However, in what way does it become alright to spout these opinions to the wide world?  Scrolling through my feed this morning, I wondered how adamant some of these people would be if they were expected to make such wide, sweeping, declarative statements in a tavern somewhere.  Is this something they would exult in mixed company?  With friends?  With family?  With strangers?  Sure, there will undoubtedly be those who agree, but surely several that don't.  Would someone be impertinent enough to sit and argue?  To what end?  I have never encountered a situation in which a person has been swayed by a clashing lecture with someone of a differing opinion.  Namely on politics and religion.  And yet we use our social media for exactly this forum.

Again, I'm not saying that people shouldn't make their beliefs known, or that somehow aren't entitled to them, but what are we tyring to prove by pushing these opinions on other people?  What is the hoped for end result of throwing our beliefs in the faces of others?  Wouldn't we be much better served to begin a dialogue, an opportunity to listen and learn?  Sure, we may disagree with what someone is saying, but isn't it entirely possible to still (in this very partisan day and age) have a clear, level-headed conversation?

The way I see it, anger, resentment, and  sheer bullheadedness - taking the place of level-headed and logical, albeit impassioned defenses for our beliefs - are a facade, behind which we hide our own insecurities and doubts of our personal truths.

Quote of the Week #1

"I am not what has happened to me.  I am what I choose to become."
-Carl Jung

It's Not the "Power of Positive Thinking"...

I have a thought: perhaps it's not the power of positive thinking, but rather the power of thinking positively.  The way we see the world has an enormous effect on our affect.  However, all too often, I think we continually set our sights on how much better off, how much happier we would be if we could just land that job, get that bigger salary (caveat if you truly do need that salary to cover basic needs...sorry folks, that new patio or plasma TV doesn't count), or that brand-spanking-new car.  If we could only get, we would receive.  But why do we stress getting?  Why do we need more stuff?  I instead advocate for treating daily circumstances as opportunities for using what we already have, and being thankful for it.

Struggles are an opportunity for growth, annoyances are windows for patience.  The Dalai Lama advocates thanking those people with whom you must interact but absolutely drive you nuts, as they're providing you the opportunity to practice compassion and patience.  In the same vein, the way we decide - yes, decide: we cannot control what others do, but we do have total control over how we choose to react - to view certain circumstances can change our perspective and become less frazzled.  For my job, I often find myself driving through Madison during what we'll call "inopportune times of day".  If you've ever found yourself in a metropolitan area during such a time of day, you'll understand how frustrating it can be.  I've been trying to take this time to #1: recognize that I'm well aware the traffic pattern during the times of day I'll be travelling, and as such am more than able to modify my departure time to avoid it - i.e. leave earlier.  #2: Understand that often there are extenuating circumstances for the traffic, and that it's not actually anyone's fault, certainly not the person trying to merge that I'm continually foiling.  And if traffic's especially bad, usually due to an accident, rather than being upset that I'll be late, I've been trying to change my reaction to one of thanks that it wasn't me or my friends or family involved.  It's useful to keep in mind that things aren't good or bad.  Things just are.

So I see real value in looking on the bright side.  I don't believe that things magically appear if you will them to, but happiness and success, I think, are precluded heavily by focusing on being thankful for and using what you have, not on what you wish you had.

Live to Work or Work to Live?

I was wondering today which was better.

On the one hand, to work to live, I've understood to be the credo of Millennials such as myself.  In a departure from previous generations, the argument for working to live places life first, that a job is something tolerated as a necessity to fund social activities and leisure time.  And this makes sense because after all, isn't there more to life than simply waking up in the morning and heading to a job which you, in all likelihood, can stand but don't particularly  like?  Shouldn't life be more focused on living, on our experiences, our adventures?  By working to live, we no longer define ourselves by what we do.  Although it's still often used as the answer to "So, what do you do?".  A job, we argue, is something we do, not what we are.  And by placing life as the priority, gives us a greater chance to explore who we are and how we matter.  A job is just something that pays the bills.

On the flip side, however, living to work, we could make the argument that our career is exactly who we are. More time is spent working than anything else (sleep may edge it out here...) and who we are is defined by what we do everyday.  To that end, to have the goal of living to work provides an intrinsic motivation to pursue your passions professionally.  To engage in the very experiences others may only find on the weekends.  To contribute to society in a meaningful way.  To do the best job we can in the job we're in.  To make a difference.  Here the priority is on the work: the goal is live everyday doing something in a positive, meaningful way, recognizing the value in a days work, and making a difference at the end of the day.

I work as a challenge course facilitator, which means I have the opportunity to interact with hundreds of people every year, and I hope that by the end of our time together I have been able to help them learn something about themselves and those around them, even if they themselves don't recognize it.  And that gives me great joy and pride in my work, to the point where I may just argue that I live to work.  But it's still only a part of who I am...

So is one better than another?  Alas, I don't have the answer.

Of course, knowing my penchant for revisiting previous posts, I'm sure I'll have a follow up before too long.