the only thing to fear

... is not fear itself.

I'm afraid - no pun intended! - that President Roosevelt had it wrong. There's plenty to fear. Sure, much of it is irrational, but it's still out there.

For me, it's getting into a car accident. There is, of course, the very real possibility that this would happen, but I realize the probability is low. However, it still gets to me.

This fear manifests itself in 2ways:

1. The brakes of a car I am driving will fail. Mostly, I'm afraid that I won't be able to stop quickly enough when I have to. I think this came from a combination of getting into a fender-bender a few years ago (my fault, whoops) and having old, crappy brakes on my old car (unrelated to the accident). Or maybe it has developed more recently and has to do with poor driving conditions (e.g., SNOW in MAINE) and the need to be more cautious, which has somehow transferred to all driving. Whatever the cause, I now begin to slow down much earlier than necessary. Just to be safe.

2. I'll get into an accident when someone else is driving a car I'm in. I don't trust other drivers. For whatever reason (really, I can't even begin to figure this one out), I get slightly anxious and think that they are reckless and that we're going crash. I even felt this way with my parents driving. The same parents who I trust almost implicitly and have been driving me around my whole life without a single accident. Ugh, so irrational. I hated it and the way I would feel. Luckily, it didn't seem to last too long. A year, maybe? I was completely over it. I'd been successfully driven multiple places, by multiple drivers and didn't feel anxious at all. Or so I thought. This past Sunday night I was in a car with friends and felt a bit anxious again so I started to deconstruct what was different about this situation from previous trips (with this very same driver, even!). I could only come up with that it was the combination of a) sitting in the back while b) traveling on a highway. Okay, so we can be going at top speeds if I'm sitting in the front OR if I'm sitting in the back we'll have to stick to local roads. Got it? Damn, I'm ridiculous.

So there it is. The 2manifestations of my irrational fear. Neither are intense nor crippling. I still drive (if not just a bit more carefully) and I still get in others' cars (I don't get that anxious), but the fears still cross my mind. So ridiculous.

What about you?

the final countdown

I've been avoiding grocery shopping since the weekend. As such, my meals have become more and more "creative" as I scavenge for food in my fridge and pantry. I figured my lack of food-buying motivation was a result of 1) not wanting too much food in the house before leaving for Europe, 2) wanting to eat what I have before I have to move, or 3) just being lazy. Realistically, it's probably number 3.

But just today the true reason occurred to me: The Rapture. Or Judgment Day. Or the apocalypse. Or whatever you want to call it.

The Rapture is to occur May 21, 2011. This Saturday. No need to buy food if I and all of the "elect people" are to be taken to heaven.

... if I am one of "them." 

Crap. 

Though, to be fair, if I am not one of the chosen 3%, then what's the point of buying food now if I'm just going to have to endure hell-on-Earth until the world ends?

(October 21, 2011 in case you were wondering.)

Update May 22, 2011: I'm still here. You? I should probably go buy food now...

the announcement

I stayed up last night to watch Obama announce that Osama bin Laden was killed by a US military operation. I'm glad I did. 

My thoughts during:

• Finally.
• I wonder how they did it.
• Well done, Obama. Now, be sure to take credit while still granting credit where credit is due. Make sure the country knows that you were involved in this, but still sound humble. This is great politically.
• This better be real. How embarrassing/horrible would it be if it turned out to not be bin Laden? I'm sure they confirmed it 100% before announcing this...
• "[the team] took care to avoid civilian casualties." Is that political-speak for there were civilian casualties?
• Retaliation. I wonder what al Qaeda is going to do in response. I hope we're - here and abroad - ready for this.
• So we have his body. Please tell me that we are not going to keep it like some deranged war-trophy, but are going to treat it with respect according to Muslim law. No need to antagonize his followers, plus it's just the right thing to do.
• And we're again one country. The spontaneous gatherings. The clear joy across the nation. It won't last; we'll return to our arguments and divisions soon enough... but not tonight. 

(Of course, as information has been reported, I now have the answers to some of those questions/concerns)

Many thoughts. Many emotions. Overall positive, but there's still some ambivalence as I process through the implications of all of this.

neighborhood watch?

I came home this afternoon to find a flier in my mailbox about a local sex offender. Apparently he lives about 2houses away.

I don't know how I feel about it. Not the sex offender part - that's not going to alter anything for me - but that someone took it upon themselves to distribute the information. There's a "revised" date down at the bottom, so I'm guessing this is akin to an annual update.

On one hand, I agree that sex offenders should be publicly registered. I am also somewhat aware of recidivism rates and, as such, that his presence may be a concern to some. I also believe - strongly - that if someone wishes to find this publicly available information and distribute it that it is well within their rights to do so. 

However, something isn't sitting right with me here. I'm having a hard time placing it. 

What are your thoughts?

a.i.

I am dorking out over the Jeopardy! IBM Challenge. I've had it on my calendar for at least a month now and was far too excited to sit down and watch it last night - and tonight. [Though sadly, not tomorrow night.]

I've been thinking about who I want to win: man or machine? The 2human contestants are Jeopardy!'s winningest [it's a word - shut up] players, Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter. The machine is Watson. Not understanding much about computer technology, here's what impresses me: Watson is 7years in the making, takes up a whole room, is the equivalent of 2800 powerful computers, and needs 2giant refrigerators to keep from melting down. 

I've decided that I want a human to win. Not in a "Oh no, if the machine's become too smart they will take over the world!" alarmist, science fiction kind of way. Nor out of any desire to see man better something it created, but out of desire to see Watson get questions incorrect. You see, my gut reaction is that the machine should win. Intellectually, I recognize that Watson is sophisticated enough to "understand" the complexities of language that Jeopardy! relies on only because of the years upon years of research that went into him (whoa, personification)... and as such I shouldn't expect that, by default, he should think like a person. However, our lives are so reliant upon machines at this point, and they are a mechanism for providing knowledge (e.g., the internet), that I've just come to associate computers with information. It may not be perfectly logical, but I automatically think that Watson will take the competition.

However, what fun is that? Towards the beginning of yesterday's Jeopardy!, Watson was kicking some butt. Good for him, I guess. But it was only when Watson started to answer incorrectly that I got into it. The dork in me wants to know why. What about that question - be it the content, wording, or anything else - that stumped this super computer? That's the interesting question. Obviously, just by watching, I can't determine that, but I still want to see it. I want to see what "confuses" him. That I find fascinating.

So I guess it's not really about man or machine winning - machine can still win along as it continues to falter along the way.

If you didn't watch last night, I urge you watch tonight. Dork out with me.

End of night 1: Ken - $2000, Brad - $5000, Watson - $5000

UPDATE 
End of tournament totals: Ken - $24000, Brad - $21600, Watson - $77147

lifetime achievement award

Last night I watched – on and off – the Grammys for about 2hours. If you watched, the broadcast of the award show is much more about performances than the actual presentation of awards, but hell… that’s why I watched.

Anyway, while watching it got me thinking about the music I like. Nay, the music I’m drawn to. Upon reflection I discovered 2things that will make a song timeless (for me).

1. harmony: This can really be broken down even further to a) songs with existing, tight vocal harmonies and b) songs to which I can harmonize. I love love love me some good harmony. If given the option – whether vocally or instrumentally – I will always choose to sing/play the harmony. Preferably a lower harmony. Nonetheless, if it’s good, it’s good. If there is (potential for) a killer harmony on a song, it will be in high rotation on my iPod. Done.

and

2. melody: This may seem fairly obvious – in order to like a song, you must first like the melody, right? And yeah, sure. However, in order for me to truly respect a song as a piece of art, the melody must be challenging enough that I couldn’t sing it well a cappella. Now, I don’t fancy myself a “singer,” but I can carry a tune. And if your melody is complicated and challenging enough that I can’t sing it without accompaniment, you have me sold. I would like to add the caveat here, though, that the song must still sound good. It doesn't mean anything to just string together a series of notes that can’t be replicated if it sounds like musical vomit.

With that in mind, last night I was practically drooling over a few performances due mostly to point #1: Muse, Lady Antebellum, Mumford & Sons, and the musical tribute to Dolly Parton by Norah Jones, Keith Urban and Johnny Depp John Mayer.

However, none of this is to say that I won’t still love and appreciate any other song and/or performance (see: Cee Lo, Gywneth Paltrow & the Muppets singing “Forget You”). It just may not be on my playlist 5years from now.   

But until then, let’s rock out.

the wedding!

Over a month ago I went back to OH for Liz & Pat's wedding. Obviously, I've waited a long time to post about that trip/event. That in no way reflects on my feelings for the weekend/event/people. I'm just a procrastinator. Lazy, perhaps?

--

Quick aside. It's relevant, I swear. Back in VA, the day after our 10year reunion a few of us were sitting around and recapping the whole thing to Laura. We told our stories, Rosa shared her own pictures, and we looked at the pictures already posted online.

This is when Rosa made a brief, somewhat profound comment. Essentially something along the lines of: "In the age of instant social media, if you don't post right away, it's no longer relevant." And in this case, I agree. Even if Rosa had not been there with her camera, we could still look over the night and share it with Laura via others' online pictures. And all we needed were those couple people that posted their pictures immediately. During the next week, as people began to upload more pictures it became a bit redundant. Yup, saw those peoples. Yup, there's that same group from a different angle. Yup, it was fun.

But that got me thinking about my blog, about the wedding in particular. Was it too late to post? Had I somehow missed my theoretical opportunity to write about it, to share it with others? Would it just not matter anymore?

I came to the following conclusion: no. 

It definitely would have been a more accurate, detailed portrayal of the events were they fresher in memory. People may have been more interested because I wouldn't have had the opportunity to otherwise (i.e., verbally) tell them about it. But ultimately, I think there's something unique about writing. Pictures allow you to see what happened, and while I love having a visual record of such things, there are only so many angles from which you can capture the moment (at least without breaking some social norms, which restricts most people to taking similar "types" of pictures). Words, however, and the impressions that they allow you to describe will be ultimately unique in their presentation. I can be part of the exact same set of external stimuli as the person next me, but we're going to walk away with different experiences based on what we brought into the situation (e.g., thoughts, feelings, previous experiences) . That instance, though it shares a common structure, is unique to each of us.

It is this unique experience that I think is worth sharing... even if we're woefully late in doing so.

--

And now I've written a whole post and again haven't written about the wedding.

*headdesk*

life

I recently (well, this summer) watched This American Life. The show is usually broken up into segments in which they focus on they comedy and/or tragedy that are people's lives. For example, there have been segments about cloning a bull, a kid denying the existence of love, inmates escaping prison, and the search for a believed-to-be-extinct bird. After watching the entire series, there were two segments that I'm still thinking about.

Talk to an Iragi

This one was about a guy, an Iraqi, who ends up in NY for a fellowship, I believe. Like many of us, he doesn't quite understand why we, the US, invaded his country and continue to occupy. So he goes on a mission to find out. To talk to the average American. He travels around with this little stand (think: lemonade) that literally says "TALK TO AN IRAQI" and "IRAQI" with an arrow pointing down to him. Now I can go on and on about how frustrated I got with some of the people that chose to talk him and their, in my opinion, ignorant responses. But what has really stayed with me was him. His reactions. Some people apologized to him. Most did not. Some thought he was ungrateful. And even others tried to explain to him how the Iraqis really needed this; that they weren't free otherwise. Throughout all of this he remained receptive. He challenged back when appropriate, but was completely respectful and composed, while still being strong in his convictions. It was refreshing to see someone passionate about something but not flying off the handle in response to those that don't agree. So much of what is put on television are the extremes. Those people that will make for a sensational program. Those people, despite whether you agree with them or not, that make you cringe. They seem to be so pervasive that you can forget that they are, hopefully, the exception and not the rule. It's just nice to be reminded of that. 

John Smith

This segment was an adapted longitudinal study. A cross-sectional study, if you will, in which they reported on 7 different John Smiths. If I remember correctly, they were: 11 weeks, 8, 23, 36, 46, 70 and 79. It was interesting to think that these people were leading completely separate lives, at different stages, in different places, with different experiences, but with one common thread: their name. Made me wonder how many Meghan Housleys are out there. There is one I know of; we're facebook friends. She's a journalist. Twice a year, on the other's birthday, we share the same joke. Something along the lines of: "I was confused when facebook told me it was my birthday!" It's not much, but she's out there. With my name. Living a different life. It's a little surreal. Just wondering what the others, if they exist, are doing.

ouch

Have you ever been watching tv and a scene comes on that is just too socially awkward to watch and you changed the channel? I do it all the time. If it's a never-before-seen scene, I obviously catch some of it, but if it's something old, I do a preemptive channel change. It actually hurts to see these people/characters as they navigate their social minefield. And as an observer, someone removed from the situation, someone who has personal control over my part in that situation, I often choose, when possible, to briefly remove myself. There's apparently good reason for this.

This research isn't brand new, but there's been a bunch of support to the idea that social pain is very much related to physical pain. At the most basic level, there's research to support that mammalian brains have similar, overlapping neural circuitry for social and physical pain (Eisenberger & Lieberman, 2004). Acetaminophen (e.g., Tylenol), when taken daily, can even mute social pain, just as it does physical pain  (Dewall et al., 2010).

Obviously not an exhaustive review, this work illuminates why we often describe social pain with physical characteristics (e.g., broken heart). And though most of the research, to my knowledge, involves the pain-experiencer, it doesn't take much effort to extrapolate this to pain-observers. Just as I may wince when I see a football player's compound fracture (especially when they insist on 23049.3replays), I'm going to have a similar visceral (neural, physical) reaction to extreme social pain.

Any personal experiences with this? TV or otherwise?

[This all came to mind while watching the first half of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? That movie is the poster child for social awkwardness. It was also reinforced while just watching the trial scene in Legally Blonde. Shut up. Don't judge.]

answers

Do you believe in heaven? Do you have an idea of what it would be? Is it a celestial plane where we walk about, as we do here, but it's somehow just better? Something else?

Does heaven exist? No clue. If it does exist, do I know what I want it to be? You betcha. 

This isn't the first time I've thought, or even expressed, this idea, but it came to me again last night. I was watching History Detectives on PBS and they did a segment on Amelia Earhart. Though not the focus of the show, they did briefly address they mystery behind her disappearance. If I were to design some kind of afterlife, it would involve knowing the answers to such things.

There are just things out there that we don't or can't know. I want to know these answers. Perhaps that's why I went to graduate school... to find the answer to something. But despite anyone's motivation, perseverance or the resources available, we may never know the truth about some things. What happened to the Lost Colony? Amelia Earhart? Is there a Sasquatch? How did everything come to be? Why? How did the dinosaurs become extinct? What is jello?

So if there is some kind of consciousness past this life I want to have access to these answers. I don't want to be inundated with it all at the same time like some kind of floodgates opening, though. If your soul is really out there for all of eternity, why blow it all in the first few moments? Plus, that would be way too much to sort through. But if, like last night, I had a question, I want to the answers to be readily available. To just be there.

Another caveat (this is all quite complex): I only want answers to facts, not hypotheticals. I don't want it to become a big game of  Choose Your Own Adventure. What would have happened if I went to a different school? If I didn't break up with him? If I dyed my hair blue? If I liked tomatoes? That could drive a person crazy. No need to know what may have happened and potentially regret things.

But back to the point: I want answers. I want to know.