Just because something is doesn't mean it should be. 

But holding onto that doesn't seem to make anything change.

Yeah, acceptance is the best way to stay sane

unless your conscience is louder than your sanity.

My soul cries out for justice...

and the world laughs. 

Have you seen this woman? When Ms. Nice isn't so nice

I have a MIL whose career is Nice-ness. She lives her life to look nice and "be nice" but of course, she gets to define what Nice is, which is always whatever she wants. Unfortunately for me, she is so good at her career that she has convinced her entire family to crown her Queen and live to obey her slightest wish. I am very jealous, I must admit, because I have not mastered the art of forcing others to my will without leaving a mark and never accumulating blame, no matter what I've done. This woman is also a black belt in masking her motives, so that she cannot be called out on that basis, either. She is Untouchable and worshiped as a saint by her family. Not a negative word may be spoken about her, no wish she makes known may be left unmet, her every desire must be instantly fulfilled no matter who else might get trampled in the rush. Yet her family believes that she is selfless, loving and The Perfect One. Our Lady of Guadalupe is an abused woman compared to the blind worship this MIL receives.

It is frustrating to watch, to be on the neglected end of a relationship with one of her children. It seems to me that this affliction is rather common in certain ways, though. For instance, the elevated level of Family Love seems to be in direct proportion with the reduced size of the family that it encompasses. For example, this woman's one stated aim is love, her one driving purpose is Family (well, it's more like making sure her family is Nice by her definition), but the Family in question consists only of blood relations on her side. Her sisters, her brothers, her children. I didn't have such strong family feelings in my family of origin, so I am much more able to feel concern for and take action to help a larger family: co-workers, humanity, life on earth.

I wish I knew how she did it, to tell the truth. She makes you think she is all-giving, all-loving, all about caring for her family. But when you step back, she's really all about getting, being loved, and being taken care of. Without having the label "selfish" attached to her, ever! How's she do it?!

And boy, do I hate her. Not only for getting everyone to dance to her tune while thinking she's so generous and thoughtful of others, but because in the 37 years I've known her, I've never seen a shred of evidence that she's ever felt even a moment's guilt or doubt about her behavior, motives or treatment of others. And of course, with this reputation for saintliness, anyone pointing out the Empress really isn't wearing new clothes (i.e., isn't so saintly, loving, unselfish, etc) is labeled as petty and nasty and deserving of their neglect in the Queen's favor. Again, she wins, you lose.

The only way to survive is to play it her way, either by just going along with whatever she wants or by coming up with 'thoughtful', 'selfless' reasons to ignore her wishes and do what you want. Like, "Oh, no, we're having Christmas at our house--I wouldn't dream of asking you to have it. You're so busy, I'm sure you don't have time to get your house ready for guests." Ha, masterful! It not only sounds sweet, but implies she doesn't keep a clean house--which is one of her Prime Values--and can't manage to get it that way. Bwahahahahaha.

Hmm, maybe some of the Master's techniques have rubbed off after all... She's got a big (and OLD) birthday coming up. I'll see what I can do. 

F.E.A.R.

How do you get on with living a sane life when you are busy worrying about things that concern you, but are out of your control? I don't know.

I mean, I know all the 12-step suggestions and a lot of the psychology industry's approaches, and I guess they work as well as possible, but when you're a caretaker/fixer like me, none of it works well enough on such situations.

What situations, you ask?

Well, how about some puzzling behavior on the part of your husband that has as its only likely explanation young-onset Alzheimer's? Or how about a beloved 5 year old granddaughter who is hitting and jabbing other kids with her pencil--at a Montessori school chosen over day care because she got so bored at daycare? She is a complicated, emotionally needy (or maybe greedy is the more appropriate word) who is usually verbally advanced, but whose only explanation for being sent home from school today for stabbing kids with her pencil was "I'm tired."

How can my heart not ache for her and him and me and the potentially difficult futures we may all face?

I know, but I've just never been very good at denial. It was too dangerous in my growing-up household, which I learned by being oblivious and then being blindsided.

Okay, okay, you're right. Detachment isn't denial. Accepting what you can't change, that's good, too. One Day at a Time, Let Go and Let God, the Serenity Prayer, etc., etc. If only they were permanent fixes, but they're not.

Not when I'm in FEAR--Future Events Appearing Real.

The solution to fear is faith. It's just kind of slippery right now, hard to hold onto!

Here's another Lack of Logic tidbit: advice columnist is running a letter from bigwig at American Cancer Society about importance of colon cancer screening. Bigwig writes 'we're here to help so we have a free information kit to help people talk to their doctor about colon cancer screening.'

Well, the big problem is HAVING A DOCTOR TO TALK TO.

All these people they want to get screened...they don't because they can't afford it. They can't afford to have a doctor. 

They can't afford the tests or the insurance to pay for the tests. NOT because they don't know how to talk to their doctor!

Presumably, the American Cancer Society is involved with medical issues, so why don't they realize the state of medical care for most people in this country?

Seems to me that if they're sincere about helping, they'll help find a way to enable people to have the "luxury" (a purely American concept, I think) of having a doctor to see regularly.

Rules to lessen stress

Simple rules that can make life less stressful:

1. Things don't always turn out the way you want them to. Be prepared with a Plan B.

2. The guiding principle behind your budget should be the same as the sanity rule in Las Vegas---don't gamble more than you can afford to lose.

3. Wait until you can afford it. You'll live till then. Really.

4. Unless they are going to pay for it, don't buy anything based on what someone else will think if you do. Or don't.

5. There is NO free lunch. Period. No exceptions.

6. If you cannot meet your basic needs (shelter, food, personal covering) today, quit figuring angles on tomorrow. Get another job.

7. Appearing to be rich does NOT make you rich.

8. Saying something doesn't make it true.

9. If you don't understand it, don't sign it.

10. If you sign it, you owe it. Pay up and learn. It's repeating mistakes that's shameful.

Why is thinking ahead so out of fashion?

Watched a dvd last night wherein all the conflict resulted from the characters just not thinking ahead. And of course, it was very realistic. What I'm wondering is when and why thinking ahead--considering results and consequences--have become extinct?

I can see it everywhere. What is the "mortgage crisis" except an example of large numbers of people not thinking ahead? Doesn't anyone stop before taking action and ask themselves, "What are the possible results? What can I live with? Is it worth it? If I don't get the raise I hope I get and need to pay this mortgage balloon, what will I do?"

It's hard to know where it started. (Why, I think, is easy: it's easier. We've all gotten so lazy with living so easy these days, we've forgotten life is still hard.)

Giving credit cards to unemployed students...chicken or egg? Either way, having the "ability" (or illusion might be a better word) to have what you want before you can afford it certainly encourages people to not think ahead to the day of reckoning. I personally am fiscally responsible, but when I get a credit card statement saying I owe $10K but the minimum payment due is $0--even my head will spin for awhile before remembering that if I owe it, I'll have to pay it someday. And someday always comes. How do other people get themselves convinced it might not?

Could this lack of interest in thinking ahead be related to how few things last these days? Why think about how buying a girl a drink in a bar will affect your marriage when there's so little chance your marriage will last anyway?

Is that it? Is that the leap in logic that makes so many people do such ill-conceived things and then wonder why what resulted happened??

Another chicken or egg: protecting people from themselves. If McDonald's is responsible for some knucklehead pouring hot coffee on herself, then nobody is responsible for anything that happens to them. So what is there to think about? Lack of impulse control is a national epidemic.

When I was a young mother, teaching kids about "logical consequences" was one child-rearing theory. As in, if you tell the kid not to hit his friend and he does it anyway--and the kid hits him back--you explain that's the logical consequence of his behavior. In other words, each of us is responsible for much of what "happens to us." Results are a consequence of choices we make.

Maybe there are just too many entitlements and victim-ologies around these days for people to see that they still have lots of control over their fate, if they so choose.

There are certainly so many that people have forgotten that not choosing is, in fact, making a choice.

First post

Okay, I'm blogging for the first time. Should I imagine anyone will read this blog or should I consider it a private journal...online? I guess I'll find out as I go.

The blog name comes from the fact--or irritating habit, maybe--that I continually wonder about things. My temperament is always searching for meaning, and so many things about life are absurd. I'm always running into what I call "Leaps in Logic" that amaze me.

For example, the local newspaper had an article about Whole Foods Market deciding to go no-plastic-bags soon. The primary reason given was that these pesky plastic bags escape the landfills and migrate to waterways where they cause trouble for wildlife.

Now I absolutely think protecting waterways and wildlife is vital. But what I don't get is the leap in logic that makes the plastic bag the perpetrator. Sorry, but they don't willfully "escape" the landfill. And if they do transit from landfill to waterway, it's because PEOPLE threw them away instead of recycling them. PEOPLE ARE AT FAULT, not the bags.

So, to me, changing the human behavior is a better solution  than changing the bagging material. But then, doing that's impossible, maybe, and it doesn't make the company look good in one easy news release--or sell their reusable bags.

Hm. Am I too cynical?