Individouous Consumption

My cousin emailed me today and told me that instead of working she was checking out the dress sales at bluefly.com and Anthropologie, and how sad it was. I wrote her back:

Don't get me started, I just placed an order with Forever 21, and bought a pair of beautiful light brown knee high riding boots from Urban Outfitters that are backordered until the end of August. I'm kind of hoping, in my buyer's remorse, that they don't fit. They're pull on, which means I will agonize getting them on and off.

Why did I buy them? Because I think I NEED to have a pair of light brown boots to complement my black ones...and b/c this fall I've decided I am all about mixing brown with black. It's just an arbitrary decision that cost me $158, plus tax and shipping. I have a fantasy cart at the final sale in J.crew, and a few things in Banana too, which I'm justifing on the basis that I need a nice, black cardigan, and a light brown belt to go with my brown/black thing for the fall. So, add 38 and 48 to 158 and so far, that is how much my new style choice has cost. When fall does arrive I'll probably be over it.

Such is the gerbil wheel of life presented in all of its existential purposelessness -- yeah that's how you spell that word, I checked.

Fatty Splurge -- in favor of moderation

I just indulged in McDonald's, and I know that you don't eat it, but try to remember you're 11 and you still think it's awesome.

It was delicious, delectable, exquisite. I'll tell you why. There are days when I'm in a big rush, I'll run in and eat something, always making sure to eat the sandwich, and just a few fries; I don't enjoy it on the run, it sits like a cannoball in my stomach. And I've been very good about sticking to my groceries for economic and health reasons...but today, oh today my hormones were calling out for food, and not just any food.

McDonald's popped into my head, "I'll just go in and get a burger, just to taste", I told myself. But at the counter I ordered an entire meal. From the first sensation of savory salt beads attached to the fried potato...to the last swallow of the greasy bread housing a thin patty topped with pickles, ketchup, mustard, and onions I was in heaven. I can still lick the salty taste from off of my lips. The carbonation from the diet soda cleanses my palette as its bubbles slide down my throat. And I am satisfied.

My American appetite was allowed to run free this afternoon, for tomorrow it's back to hummus and pita, fruit and single servings of soup.

Pop

This is an email from my father in response to reading a paper I wrote for a psych class; it's clear where I get my intellectual bent from. I also love that he used the Greek spelling for, "chaos".

"Hi Marisa,

good luck with your exams. Your paper is excellent. I started out being a philosophy/psychology person, but found the study of theology encompassed both. It has the true history of humans hidden in verse written by humans. History being the whole picture, not just what man has done but who we are.

It is human nature to repeat history, which is why it is important to study history, so we can repeat the good and improve on the bad. Unfortunately, most just keep repeating the bad.

Your theory on questioning hits the nail on the head. It is only through questioning, I believe that one can grow personally and spiritually. Not so much outwardly, but inwardly, which is the true measure of one's self. Through this inward growth we take action.

Faith in something is action and questioning is the essence of the truest form of faith. The biggest risk we take in life is to question because there will be a result. We as humans find it very uncomfortable to not know what the result will be, so in many cases no action is taken.

If there is a God, which I believe there is, he/she loves it when we question our faith. It is the beginning of serenity and growth. In the business world one can question, but one needs to be very politically correct when doing so. With a higher power there are no politics just answers to questions. No questions are too ridiculous and the answers are risky, which I love. I find much peace in that. Some would call it Kaos. I call it letting go.

You mentioned science vs. self. We are a product of science, which starts with self and questions. All said and done Einstein thought the Bible was just a collection of silly children's stories. He is correct, because that is all we can really handle. He also said just before he died, "I want to know Gods thoughts everything else means nothing."

He believed in a higher power, because he could not figure everything out, so he felt there must be something else out there. The Bible he felt was just the best we could do as humans to record the answers, as feeble an attempt as it was. The only thing that separates us from science is passion for other human beings. My question to you is this. Where does that come from? Science does not have an answer.

I choose to believe there is something out there that is bigger than us. If one does not believe that, just stick a metal fork in a lite socket sometime. If one survives that, they will for sure have a new found humility. For lack of a better term (heaven), I will believe there is a better world until I am not there. Thanx for the insight.

Love,
Dad"

question

Two summers ago I was at my older brother's undergrad graduation party. I was explaining to a table of cousins, aunts, and my grandmother my plans to move to New York and what I wanted to do here. As I was talking, I saw the faintest shadow of doubt flicker in their eyes. If they had been less subtle I would have gotten the patronizing nod of affirmation. They didn't even have the wherewithal to smile at me as I was going on. I could see, perhaps, or feel the grating of memory on their minds of their faded intentions for their own lives. There was something about the energy at the table that was charged, and uncomfortable. When I was finished speaking I added an addendum to my diatribe: "Look, I know this all sounds naively optimistic", I said, "but I'm still young and I reserve that right!"

They smiled then as if what I said relieved them of whatever burden they felt for the possibility of my impending failure.

I'm wondering now, as I get older, what excuse I will have for retaining my idealism.

PETA -- it isn't just for making sandwiches

All right, so this is the deal: I got a soliciation email from The People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) the other day. I've never been a fan of PETA, although I strongly support the idea of ending animal cruelty. I don't, however, support their tactics to acheive this goal. I believe that every animal should be provided with as comfortable a life as possible while they're being raised to end up on my dinner plate -- all facetiousness aside, I really believe that. If we're going to invade the life of animals and take them out of their natural habitat and raise them only to be pets or food, then they deserve a decent existence before they meet thier end, regardless of their life's purpose or use to us.

Anyway, because I'm not a fan of PETA I shot back an email criticising them thinking no one was going to ever see it, but in the case that someone did, at least my opinion was heard. I certainly didn't expect a response, but I got one. And I responded again. If you want to see this email from them trying to justify why they do what they do, feel free to contact me and I'll send it to you. Below is my last reply, which includes and exerpt of their response. I'm orange, Peta's red.

To Quote your message: "...However, when we attach a gimmick, that very same animal abuse ends up in newspapers and on televisions nationwide. After PETA publicized our provocative [sic]“State of the Union Undress,” for example, we were rated the number one [sic]“mover” on Yahoo’s search engine, meaning that PETA received the greatest percentage increase of terms searched that day. Experience has taught us that controversial, attention-grabbing campaigns make the difference between keeping important yet depressing subjects invisible and having them widely seen. The alternative is to be ignored in the torrent of tabloid-style stories that dominate the popular press...

However, PETA does make a point of having something for all tastes, from the most conservative to the most radical and from the most tasteless to the most refined, and this approach has proved amazingly successful—in the more than two decades since PETA was first founded, it has grown into the largest animal rights group in the world, with more than two million members and supporters worldwide."

This is where my response starts,

Animal Abuse is not what ends up in papers, which is the point I was trying to make. Your tactics supersede your message and take the forefront in media coverage. What the public sees are people who seem to have lost sense and common decency toward other human beings, a mentality which they absolutely cannot identify with; not to mention your criticism pops up only intermittently, which makes your presence in the media nothing but a distraction to be amused by and quickly forgotten. If you're going to go with the "gimmick" excuse then create a gimmick every day, if you're so impassioned by your cause then why don't you, as an organization, tirelessly work to publicize yourselves more often? Word of mouth, in any business or organization, is the key to success. Try doing things without the direct intent of media recognition to "spread your message", but rather to engender people to make a difference and change. E-mail, by the way, isn't going to do it.

You need to get out and meet people and discuss with them face-to-face what your message really is and why animal cruelty needs to be stopped and explain how pervasive it is. There are so many ways to do this in a mature and dignified fashion that don't reflect poorly on your organization. Once word-of-mouth buzz gets started and inspired people talk to others, and inspire them, it can't be stopped. The media will be ASKING you for interviews, instead of mentioning your childish behavior as an afterthought before the commercial break.

You may have been rated the "number one 'mover'" on Yahoo, but for how long, was it at least a day? And how many people did you recruit, and how many of them are actually going to be active participants instead of supportive bystanders?

I don't know what else to say to you in order to convey how wrong and illogical your theories for the change of this problem are; It doesn't make any sense to think only of flash-in-the-pan attention and coverage when what you want is a deeply dedicated group of people who will change the mindset of a nation and other parts of the world.
-- Marisa Swanson

So, what do you think? Feel free to comment, not that anything you say is likely to change my mind :)

to buttons

Here's a question: Is it better to be truly independent and ONLY be responsible for yourself (as an unwed, non-parent), or should we take other people's feelings and wants and needs into consideration to the point where we're deterred from what's best for ourselves, or deterred from our own impulses to satisfy ourselves?

Coming from the midwest, I was raised (I think) to be considerate of others, to keep my mouth shut if I didn't have anything nice to say, and to always say please and thank you. These lessons are common in most of the US and they seem nice and simple and harmless enough. They encompass "values", and are anti-confrontational (that might not be a word). They highlight good Christian beliefs (although we could have just as easily adopted the "eye-for-an-eye" doctrine, if we're talking about molding our lives around the good book), and wholesomeness. These lessons make for good boys and girls, right? And isn't the world a better place when people are good and nice and kind; wouldn't there be less wars, less fighting? If only we could get everyone to be considerate, say please and thank you, and for Christ's sake not ever say anything to offend anyone.

I wonder though, what behavior really comes from such good intentions? Is it kindness, or underhanded manipulation in order to trick someone into giving them what you want, because to say so would be inappropriate or uncomfortable? Is it consideration, or is it an extreme selfishness tucked deep down b/c it isn't right to want things for yourself? Is it reponsibility or an impulse to rebel and be reckless because the weight of feigned ownership is mind numbingly crushing?

I've struggled with what I first perceived as "rudeness" and now see as honesty; it was difficult seeing people act in ways only to satisfy themselves, which I thought was bad, but now I see is liberating. I've also struggled with feelings of complete disconnectedness, not being responsible for other people's feelings is lonesome, too. And maybe that is where the impulse derives from. Maybe "politeness" isn't about doing better to others, or making the world a better place. Maybe it's just about feeling less alone.

If that's the case, then maybe we should teach ourselves to be honest about the way that we feel instead of hiding everything inside. Maybe, we should give people the freedom to look out for who they choose, instead of burdening them with the task of looking out for everybody. Maybe the path to creating good boys and girls is to educate them as thoroughly and honestly as we can. And maybe we should give up the ghost of treating everyone and everything the same. Maybe we should treat people on an individual basis, based on the reality that we all have different abilities and know that to ostracize one group for only one reason could be just as bad as overcompensating another group for only one reason.

Maybe there is a way to celebrate individuality without corraling people into a sense of sameness, by not dictating how they should behave, letting them choose for themselves...and maybe (gasp!) the eye-for-an-eye doctrine isn't such a bad idea for people who actively choose to hurt others.


In english-translated ancient Greek manuscripts, the word "virture" comes up quite a lot. They thought "virtue" was the highest and best quality to shoot for. We see virtue as a religious term that means piety, service and without selfishness. We were mistaken in what the word originally meant. It wasn't a synonym for spotless perfection and avoiding all mistakes. It simply meant potential. The most wise philosophers thought the only thing that mattered was reaching your potential.

blowing smoke up your what?

So last night I got into a disagreement with Masha. My need to play devil's advocate came mostly from an annoyance about the way she made her case and less about the actual issue itself.

She is hardly ever at home, maybe three nights a week, never during the day. She's also a hypochondriac and has an unbelievably low threshold for discomfort of any kind b/c she's an only child. She is bothered by anything that causes her the slightest discomfort and thinks that she should be granted the right to have everything HER way.

A while ago Dan asked her to not open her window without a screen b/c it lets bugs in. Her argument was that it's her room and she can do with it what she wants and it was wrong of Dan to ask that of her. All she would have had to do was buy a screen, which she hasn't done.

Last night Dan asked if I wanted to go smoke on the roof, and then kind of out of nowhere Masha said to me, "Do you mind not smoking in your room anymore?" I was surprised and the nicotene addict in me was adamantly opposed to the idea. I said, "I kind of do mind, actually."

Her arguments were so weak, obviously bullshit, and the worst part is that she actually changed the tone of her voice to one that was more whiny and childish than it usually is, while she seemed to be on the point of tears. Clearly, this a tactic she uses to get her way. What's sad is that it's worked so much she's adopted it into adulthood.

She said that her room "fills with smoke", which I had to correct her and say wasn't physically possible. Then she said that she asked Dan if this was a smoking apt when she moved in and he said no, so she expected there not to be smoking and therefore I shouldn't smoke. I told her that when I moved in (months before her) smoking in my room was okay, so I have a different expectation, and asked her why her expectation was more important than mine. She answered b/c smoke is bad for you. But it isn't an issue of second hand smoke, since my door is kept closed and she isn't in my vicinity.

What she's really talking about is not liking the smell, but even she knows that is a little ridiculous, so she keeps up the smoke issue saying that it gives her headaches (and this is when the verge of tears tactic comes in), she literally whines about the "headaches" three times. This is, however, the first time she's ever said that she has gotten headaches from the smoking, she's lived in the apt for six months, which leads me to believe it's a bullshit lie.

She says that she's sick, which she is right now. So I tell her that I respect the fact that she's ill and won't smoke during that time, but I can't concede to stopping on a permanent basis. I remind her that she's hardly ever home, so she tells me that fine, I can smoke when she isn't there, but not when she is. This totally negates her first request that I quit smoking in my own room altogether.

Then she says that she doesn't understand why I smoke in my room when it's so "easy" to go outside. I live at the top of a three floor walk up where occasionally in the summer time fights break out across the street and it's a good idea to be indoors and not to seem like a busybody. The hatch on the roof is a hassle, not to mention the ladder you have to climb up to access the roof. I don't tell her these things but instead stick to the real issue which is that I pay rent to live in the apartment and use my bedroom area as I choose.

Her argument is falling to pieces now. She mentions the window/screen incident and says that "fine", if I'm going to smoke in my room then she's going to open her window without a screen whenever she pleases. She then says in reference to the discomfort my smoking causes her , "well it's mostly when more than one person is in your room smoking." She has completely defeated her purpose and revealed the truth. All she had to ask for was there not to be a group of people smoking in my room when she's at home because the smell of smoke is really bothersome. I would have bitterly conceeded, but conceeded nonetheless. I should mention that it's rare for there to be more than myself smoking in my room.

One of the best parts was when she said that's she's "mentioned it before." I was tempted to explain to her that I am not her mother and it isn't my job to parse her whining into hints in order to make her life as easy and carefree as possible; but we have to choose our battles.

Satisfied with my victory, I have decided to try and not smoke in my room on the nights when Masha is home. Smoking is bad for me and I could stand to cut back.