Things I Used to Wear: HOMECOMING EDITION

Holy hair trends! Cleaning out old bathroom drawers can be dangerous. Especially when they are filled with MILLIONS OF OLD HAIR CLIPS.

Gross.

This picture represents the bulk of the bounty I recovered from a small drawer and a cabinet. What's not pictured are the many bottles of nasty smelling lotions, the used shower puffs, the sparkly shower gels or three bottles of solution to clean piercings. All from Claire's. Anyway.

Notice the bag in the back on the right. It is a bag of plastic curlers. My mom used some of those curlers to curl my hair for Easter festivities when I was 2 (see photo below). They were also used to curl my hair for Easter festivities for the next TEN YEARS. Or thereabouts.

Perms aren't for me.

On the far left are some giant clip thingys. What were those called? Claws? Anyway, I have no idea why there would be so many in my bathroom. Everyone in my family has very fine hair, so those claws would have been outrageously huge on the backs of our teenage heads holding our little bit of hair, half slipping out. Now that's just impractical.

At the bottom of the picture, you can find some teeny tiny sparkly claws. I have to say that I don't remember wearing these, but I could have blacked it out. Were they a Spice Girls fashion trend? A high school dance hair accessory? It's unclear. I suspect that my sister used these items more than me, but I'd hate to falsely accuse her of something so horrific as wearing tiny clips when she was 12. That was sarcasm.

One thing I'm sure of is this: neither my sister nor I wore 1/4 of this crap. For real. I would not lie to you about this. Our hair decorating days were in elementary school, and most of this accumulated after. Those giant clips were just impractical and we were WAY more into scrunchies anyway. The most popular (and therefore, hideous) of those scrunchies were disposed of long ago, because elastic bands can only withstand so many scalding water washings. I think it's for the best.

BIG THINGS

I left Boston. I'm in Chicago. Back in Portland on Tuesday... where I will hopefully pull together the various pieces of myself and reassemble my life.

Until then, I leave you with this little gem of inspiration.

The really important kind of freedom involves attention, and awareness, and discipline, and effort, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them, over and over, in myriad petty little unsexy ways, every day. That is real freedom. That is being taught how to think.

-David Foster Wallace
Kenyon Commencement Speech, 2005

Staus Quo: Football vs. Women, Howard Zinn

Ah yes, the status quo. It's nearly impossible to escape. The Super Bowl defines it, while Howard Zinn defied it.

Football vs. Women

Jaclyn Friedman wrote an interesting piece at The Nation referencing the Focus on the Family's upcoming ad to be aired during the Super Bowl, that I talked about a week ago.

Friedman discusses the objectification and general poor portrayal of women during the big game in "The Second Sex at the Super Bowl," which in and of itself, is nothing new. The Focus on the Family's ad, however, brings the debate to a new level:

Enter the Focus on the Family ad, thirty seconds of squeaky-clean "family values" that make the astonishing claim that women shouldn't have abortions because they might be gestating a future male sports star. There's a lot wrong with this argument, not the least of which is the statistical reality that it's significantly more likely that women who choose to carry their fetuses to term will give birth to rapists or murderers than to Heisman Trophy winners. But what makes it such a perfect fit for the Super Bowl is its blatant cynicism about the role of women when it comes to the big game. It's not enough that we be always available, conventionally beautiful sex-objects. Now we have a CBS-sanctioned ad telling us that if we get knocked up as a result of all that (relentlessly heterosexual) sex, we have only two choices: have the baby, or become an enemy of Football Nation.

This is the point I tried to make in my post, although Friedman puts it much more eloquently. (which is probably why they pay her the big bucks at The Nation. Ha.) "Enemy of Football Nation," eh? Doesn't sounds like the Tebows' and Focus on the Family are going to give women much of a choice.

Furthermore, Friedman argues that CBS and the media should be more responsible about their portrayals of women, considering the huge viewership:

There are few events in the American calendar that bring together more people than the Super Bowl--nearly as many people will watch next Sunday as voted in the 2008 presidential election. If it really is the love of football, friends and family that brings us all together, then it's time to stop helplessly accepting an event that treats half the population like expendable fodder for the other half's entertainment.

Not a bad idea.

(via Feministing)

Howard Zinn

I don't typically find myself feeling sentimental about the passing of celebrities, but for Howard Zinn I need to make an exception. Zinn died last week, at the age of 87. He was an outspoken activist who made his living as a historian. His tenacity and courage of conviction have always been an inspiration to me.

I first read A People's History of the United States for a high school class, which seemed ridiculous at the time, but now I recognize it as the fantastic opportunity it was. About a year ago I read Failure to Quit on a whim when I came across it at the library. I loved hearing from the Zinn the Activist and would highly recommend it. (You can read my review at Goodreads here.)

Revere at Effect Measure, a public health blog, published two Zinn-themed posts last week that are worth a read: Howard Zinn, 1922-2010 and Advice from Howard Zinn.

Lastly, here is one of my favorite quotes from Failure to Quit. When times are tough, it always makes me feel optimistic about the future.

History has always belonged to the people who controlled whatever present there was. They control history. So it’s not a matter of taking it back. Very often people will say, Let us restore America to what it once was. To what? Slavery? Let us restore the good old days? The good old days lie ahead.

Things I Used to Wear: S.T.A.R.S.

Look you guys, I need to get something off my chest: I used to volunteer as a abstinence-only "teen mentor" for middle-schoolers.

Seriously: in the Students Today Aren't Ready for Sex program, or S.T.A.R.S. for short. This is the shirt I wore every week to brainwash the young and impressionable minds of 12- and 13-year-old boys and girls.

I'm so embarrassed. I was going to confess this yesterday in my Blog for Choice post because it seemed relevant. But then, on the other hand, it didn't seem relevant.

In my defense, I was young and foolish. I needed to pad my college applications with something more versatile and substantial than athletics. S.T.A.R.S. was perfect in this capacity. To the casual viewer, this activity demonstrated that I was compassionate and interested in current affairs; a leader among men. However, to anyone else I probably seemed like a spineless d-bag, easily persuaded into selling her soul by empty rhetoric and the possibility of interacting with conservative Christian boys.

You know, the funny thing is that sometimes being a spineless d-bag has it's advantages. In the 3rd week of my second year doing S.T.A.R.S. (no, I didn't get enough the first time around), both of my co-mentors were going to be out of town for some super-fab spring break trip I wasn't invited to. There were a number of fellow mentors who could fill in for the one session, but I decided to impose on a guy I'd been interested in for the past few months. Why not? The fact was I needed someone to help me run the session, and this was innocent enough. Plus, he had a car.

So, what happened? Did we hook up wearing our S.T.A.R.S. shirts? Um, no. This is not that story. The boy in question, let's call him Val Kilmer, agreed to assist me for the one session. We were alone in his car. We got lunch. We talked about music and mutual friends. It was one of those very strange situations that when you're in them, you have no idea what's going on. Afterwards, you think that maybe it could have been almost a date, but it was definitely not a date because either you or the other person was being weird. And you only realize that it could have been sort of a date a few days later, and by then it is much, much to late to do anything about the fact that you blew it. (Those last couple sentences sound like they could have been part of a monologue in the movie "He's Just Not That Into You." Which, bt-dubs, is the worst movie in existence. Or at least top 10.)

Obviously, I was the one who blew it, for reasons that would be foreign to me except for I don't think they even exist. Being a teenager and trying to get a little action is hard enough, and it is nearly impossible when the irony of your self-righteous, abstinent douchebaggery is staring you in the face. Ay, ay, ay. (Looking back, the writing was on the wall. A popular strip club in my hometown shared the name of the program, so I was often teased about working for Stars Cabaret when I wore this t-shirt to school. In my dreams, people.)

When I found the picture of this shirt tonight, that was the first memory that popped into my head. Ridiculous, huh? For the record, the second memory was of a fellow teen mentor roleplaying the part of a 12-year-old during training. For some reason she was also playing the part as if she were a Chinese-Italian exchange student. "Wat iz dees prega-nancy?" she wondered obnoxiously.

I think this video pretty much sums up the situation.

*********************
Things I Used to Wear is an irregular series featuring strange items from my former wardrobe. Past entries have included a tank top, shoes, a shirt, glittery makeup and another tank top.

Happy New Year!

2010! Whoa! Can you believe it? Time flies when you're living your life.

Speaking of which... I've taken an unintentional hiatus from Healthy, Wealthy & Wise, and I'm sad about this. Life has been overwhelming the last couple months, but I plan on getting back into the blog soon. Promise.

While I have your attention, I wanted to relate a short anecdote, which has given me great cause for concern recently. A couple days ago, a coworker found out that he has some major health problems, and is undergoing a serious medical procedure next week. He's in his 6o's and strives to be active and healthy, leading a weekly "health and wellness" group for our clients. So how did Mr. Healthy get sick? He stopped drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes a number of years ago, doesn't touch red meat and sprinkles seaweed on nearly everything (which has arguable benefits). He's been unable to get much exercise in the last year due to a prolonged rehab from illness, but in a previous lifetime, he was very active.

It blows my mind that my coworker is going through this right now (and only partially because I'm selfish and his absence virtually doubles my work load). He works so hard to advocate healthy choices, and seems to practice what he preaches. I think that heredity plays a significant role in these situations, but to some extent, is this also a cautionary tale? (See picture.) Will the decisions we make now affect us more significantly down the road? Food for thought.

Take care of yourself, please. And Happy New Year!

Facebook, Schmacebook: Privacy & Positivity

After I wrote the Frenemies and Facebook post about a month ago, my FB usage dropped off dramatically. My new job duties leave exactly no time to mess around on the computer, which isn't the worst thing in the world. Now, instead of obsessively checking the "Live Feed" on my FB homepage, I fill my working hours interacting with loads of strange people and time-consuming tasks of the cooking and cleaning variety. I've gone from working with one person and exchanging a handful of spoken sentences every day to engaging in near-constant conversation with upwards of 40 people (not all at once, but throughout the day). Have you ever attempted to make meatloaf and salad for 20 people while pretending to be interested in a monologue on Japanese school girls and supervising unnaturally perky nursing interns?

It's a little like herding cats. In heat. Who are on a cocktail of anti-psychotics.

Anyway, two Facebook related things caught my eye recently. One was extremely useful, while the other was extremely annoying. Here they are.

Extremely Useful: 5 Easy Steps to Stay Safe (and Private!) On Facebook (Via the New York Times Technology section)

I expected to know everything in this article because I consider myself to be a Facebook expert. It turns out that I have an inflated sense of self, I am not an expert, and this article offered up a few important housecleaning tips for the FB.

#1 Make Friend Lists: I have done this a little bit, and I can see how it could be very useful to put people in categories, so you can block certain groups. But am I really going to spend an hour or two sorting through all my "friends"? No. (Maybe you can though?)

#2 Who Can See What On Your Profile: Check out the privacy settings! There are lots of options now for who can see the various bits of info you've put up on your page.

#3 Who Can See Your Address and Phone Number: Um... why are you putting this on your page in the first place? I suppose if you must include your digits, you can use the privacy settings to restrict random people from calling you.

#4 Change Who Can Find You on Facebook Via Search: You can become invisible with the click of a button. I imagine this option as a sort of FB Witness Protection Program.

#5 Stop Sharing Personal Information With Unknown Applications: Seriously! I had no idea about this. If you are a compulsive quiz taker, please go to Edit Applications and purge some of those long-forgotten apps that still have the right to view your profile information. You can either delete apps or restrict their ability to email you and post things about you under "Edit Settings" for each one. Take back control on Facebook!

Extremely Annoying: My profile, myself (Via Boston Globe Sunday Magazine)

I understand the concept of a "puff piece" and I accept that it has a place in print media. Not every article needs to be a hard hitting exposé on Mexican drug lords, because that would just be silly. But some puff pieces try too hard to be witty or playful or poignant... and they just annoy the bejesus out of me.

Example: "My profile, myself". Kara Baskin waxes poetic about Facebook and the compulsive urge to be optimistic, as evidenced through status updates, photos and other public correspondence.

One early-morning browse through Facebook a couple weeks ago, I encountered a woman who had it all: She got massages, partied in New York City, and was perpetually off to fabulous restaurants. When she wasn’t dining out, her loving husband was preparing gourmet meals. She was popular, too -- 630 friends! I took a swig of coffee. That person was me. The same me who was nursing an unrelenting zit while listening to that gourmet husband hiss about a $2,000 car part.

I took another gulp of coffee and updated my status: “Loves caffeine!”

Baskin admits that even she is annoyed by her own inane positivity. Well, maybe not annoyed, but ashamed to some extent. She goes on to relate her attempt to publish more even-handed status updates, which included references to her husband's brief unemployment. But then at a party, an acquaintance references a status update in regular life, and it freaks her out. "Wait, I'm not trying to be popular... I just am popular?! Awesome! I mean... weird??"

And that fake quote sums up the article.

In all seriousness, I agree with Baskin that the daily "sugar-spun epiphanies" that appear in many profiles are generally unnecessary. Sharing the occasional good news is one thing, but adding ten exclamation points to an update about watching movies and eating dinner is excessive. Also, daily Zen-ish adages like "Life is truth" or "Friendship is life" are just silly. Don't do that.

So, what is my point? At the end of the day, Facebook is not that interesting. And talking about Facebook is even less interesting. Plus, a few other things... like, "Practice forgiving yourself for being human. Then pass that forgiveness on to others." (Courtesy of a recent status update)

Frenemies and Facebook

I know, I know, it's been awhile. But in my defense--I warned you this was coming! There are only so many hours in the day and I can only be expected to be alert and productive during a small percentage of those hours... specifically the ones during which I am paid a salary to perform job related tasks. The remaining hours have recently been a flurry of used cars, human resource forms, insurance policies, and The Office: Season 2. You understand.

Fortunately, I've been moderately productive in the last couple weeks. Car? Check. Financing? Check. Trip to Portland, Maine to visit long lost college friends and new baby? Check. And how lovely it all was! Have you been to Portland? It's really very nice and small and filled with lobster. I bought a tiny stuffed lobster that makes strange lobstery noises to put on my Christmas tree. Check!

On the drive back home, we listened to a recent episode of "This American Life" called Frenemies. That is, people who are your friends-slash-enemies. (Note: The word "frenemy" is incredibly annoying to me, as I'm sure it is to you. I would never, ever utter "frenemy" to genuinely describe one of my relationships. However, for the sake of this discussion, I'm going to use "frenemy" as un-sarcastically as I can, and I'm even going to take the quotes off. Frenemy. See? That's better.)

This episode shocked me. I was expecting a segment on adolescent girls and an analysis of "The Hills" with maybe a little "Bromance" tied in somehow. But in true TAL fashion, none of those things occurred. I don't want to ruin the episode if you haven't heard it, but there is some serious heavy lifting. Heavy brain lifting.

One particularly interesting bit was a brief interview with researcher Julianne Holt-Lunstad who is something of a frenemy expert (and has been featured on Oprah). Holt-Lunstad found that interactions with people we have both positive and negative feelings for can cause substantial increases in our blood pressure. The weird thing is that this jump in blood pressure only occurred when people interacted with the frenemy types; interactions with people they openly felt negative about had little to no effect on blood pressure.

Moreover, Holt-Lunstad estimates that half of our relationships could be characterized as the frenemy variety. Fifty percent?! As Ira explains, these are people that "we care a lot about, we feel positive towards. But we also have real conflicts and negative feelings about as well." This includes friends who are very competitive, unreliable, inconsiderate, etc.

Right now, maybe you are thinking one of two things:

1. Shut up, that is not the Urban Dictionary definition of frenemy.
2. OMG! Are all my friends really my frenemies? Do I have any friends AT ALL?!

If you had Thought #1, shut up yourself. For the sake of this discussion, I'm not using "The Hills" definition of frenemy, but rather a broader, more inclusive way of describing difficult relationships... be it the relationship with your mom, your boyfriend or your BFFAEAEAE. (Best Friend Forever And Ever And Ever, etc.)

I had Thought #2. For many minutes after hearing Ira drop the Half Of The People You Know Raise Your Blood Pressure Bomb, I wondered if only 50% of the people I knew could be considered frenemies. I have conflicts and negative feelings about events and people fairly often. Is my percentage of frenemies more like 75%? 90%? 100%?! Aaahhhhhhhh

At this point, a very wise friend chimed in from the back seat. "Duh, Chloe," she said, rolling her eyes dramatically in the rear view mirror. "Obviously you can have small spats and disagreements with your friends and family, but that doesn't mean your relationships are inherently flawed. Gaw-d." She then mumbled something about Wellesley College and smacked her gum whorishly. (JK!)

My Wellesley friend is right, albeit dramatic. It is impossible to feel completely positive about a fellow human being ALL the time. Let's be real here. Yes, you love your family, your siblings, your BFF's and the like, but let's face it--you question their decisions sometimes. Their choice of clothing, their opinion on diet soda, their inability to resist sleeping with their ex-boyfriends. Sometimes the things they do are extremely annoying and cause us to have anxiety, but only occasionally. Its the people in our lives (maybe even the same family, siblings and BFF's) whose actions annoy us on a consistent and regular basis that we can categorize as part of "The 50 Percent."

I considered sitting down and taking inventory of my social and familial circles to find out who is in my personal "50 Percent." But then I thought, why? It will inevitably end in a big emo mess, and I'm sure my blood pressure will skyrocket just thinking about all the reasons people could potentially be in "The 50 Percent." Bad idea.

But oddly enough, after watching this video from the author of Friend or Frenemy?: A Guide to the Friends You Need and the Ones You Don't, I feel like a freak for having a "50 Percent" at all.

Note: Sorry that the picture is a decoy. The video is un-embeddable for some reason. Stupid Amazon! Click here to watch it.

"I wouldn't allow it," says one woman when asked if she's ever experienced a frenemy. Granted, I think this Andrea Lavinthal person has a stricter definition of frenemy than I've been using in this post, which is why most of the women are appalled at the idea of having a frenemy. Also, these are women on the streets of New York City being interviewed by an editor at Cosmopolitan magazine, so obviously this is a far cry from any sort of honest discussion about difficult relationships.

Still, the reason I included this weird video in this post is Lavinthal's question about Facebook (and presumably other social networking sites), which got me thinking. How does Facebook factor into the frenemy/"50 Percent" discussion?

Here's my theory: Pre-Facebook (before 2004) there wasn't really a good way to stay in touch with the hundreds of acquaintances you accumulated through life. People typically lost track of their high school sophomore Spanish classmates or their middle school basketball teammates, unless they were the center of a juicy piece of gossip or you ran into their mom at the grocery store. On the one hand, it was tragic to lose touch with people you liked and cared about, albeit inactively. On the other hand, that's life! Yes, people lost track of peripheral friends, but they also lost track of the marginal friends, the frenemies and the regular enemies. Yay!

But now in the post-2004 Facebook world, all those peripheral/marginal/quasi/frenemy type friends are now a part of your daily life. One would presume that graduating from both high school and college and moving across the continent would eliminate a sizable chunk out of "The 50 Percent". But thanks to Facebook, "The 50 Percent" can follow you wherever you go.

From personal experience, an annoying status update by a frenemy sort of person is enough to make my blood boil a bit. A cynical, anti-Facebook person would probably sneer at me right now and say, "Then quit already if you hate it so much." I suppose thats an option, but it misses my point.

Basically, there are 3 questions I'd like to ask:

1. Does Facebook make it easier or harder to maintain "The 50 Percent"?
   
2. Are passive online interactions (like reading a status update or browsing a photo album) enough to elicit the same physiological responses that Holt-Lunstad found in face-to-face interactions? (i.e. a hike in blood pressure)
   
3. Does it even matter?! Is having a "50 Percent" an inevitable and unavoidable part of life?

Tell me what you think, and I'll be following up with some research one day.

Guess who's back? Back again... On Exercise, Water and My Vacation

Hello! I went on vacation, hence the lack of posting. Many exciting things have been happening, including I got new shoes, one of my friends got married, and, oh yeah... I got a new job! Which means I will probably have zero time to blog during the day, i.e. the time when I do the majority of my work (shhh don't tell the boss!). I'm not sure exactly how things are going to turn out, but I will persevere. You can count on that.

And now, 3 random tidbits on exercise, your water, and my vacation.

...Exercise is Worthless...

I know this is so three weeks ago, but I didn't want to completely ignore that Time article published on August 9. You know, Why Exercise Won't Make You Thin.

If you didn't read it, the thesis of writer John Cloud's lengthy piece is essentially this: Exercising to loose weight is worthless. Diet is more important in weight loss because exercising just makes you hungrier. Sure, ok.

The basic problem is that while it's true that exercise burns calories and that you must burn calories to lose weight, exercise has another effect: it can stimulate hunger. That causes us to eat more, which in turn can negate the weight-loss benefits we just accrued. Exercise, in other words, isn't necessarily helping us lose weight. It may even be making it harder.

There are many things about this article that are very ridiculous. Fortunately, the response has been big, so I will defer commentary to two people who are more qualified to criticize than I.

First is Amby Burfoot, blogger at Runner's World. In her August 10 post on the blog Peak Performance, she makes a couple interesting points.

My problem with the story is that it's more an extended blog--a personal essay--than a true research roundup. Even worse, it never examines the reasons why one might want to lose weight. If you want to get healthier, for example, which I hope is most people's prime motivator, there's a ton of research indicating that exercise will make you healthier even if you can't do much to budge the pounds. Many studies have shown that it's possible to be "fat but fit."

I do think its possible to summarize current research in an informal way while including personal anecdote, but only if you do it responsibly. Cloud seems to have good intentions, but he often misrepresents the available information.

Burfoot's second point is interesting as well. What is the motivation to lose weight? Are you less likely to adhere to an exercise program if you're just doing it to look better? There seems to be something to the idea that if you perceive more benefits from exercise, you'll enjoy more benefits.

Burfoot goes on to discuss a 2009 publication by the American College of Sports Medicine that talks about this VERY ISSUE: adults and exercise and weight loss. This document gets into the technical aspects of exercise that the ACSM recommends, like the duration, intensity and frequency of exercise, and how it can be a useful part of a healthy weight loss program. Basically, all the key points that Cloud leaves out of his article... probably because they sort of blow his thesis out of the water.

The second expert I'd like to quote is a friend's father, who is a professor of kinesiology and has two sons who played college football (which I mention to illustrate his personal, as well as professional, interest in these issues). He explained that overall, he agreed with the article's "calories in-calories out" argument. The problem, he said, was that,

They fail to mention that if you examine weight loss programs and look at the rate of recidivism that this is where the differences lie. The rate of recidivism from diet alone is very high, almost 95% of those who lose weight on a diet alone will gain it back. The diet industry thrives on it. If you look at the rate of recidivism for diet and exercise programs of weight loss, the rates are lower.

(Recidivism is the tendency to relapse, FYI.) Exercise is an important part of any healthy weight loss program just like fruit and milk are part of the "balanced breakfast" you hear about from cereal commercials. Lots of people like to talk about exercise and diet as if they are two mutually exclusive ideas: it's either one or the other. It seems though, that both exercise and diet work best when they are working together as a team! Like toothbrushes and floss. Or cheese and macaroni. Or cheese and round, flat dough with tomato sauce on it. (Well, really cheese and any other food...) Anyway. Teamwork. You get the idea.

One last point I'd like to address is Cloud's assertion that exercise makes you hungry. Yes, it certainly does. But is there a reason you can't eat a banana or half a bagel after you exercise if you're ravenous? Does it have to be a Frappucino or a muffin? It's fine to eat if you're hungry, but not every hunger needs to be satisfied with a bacon cheeseburger. Just wanted to throw that out there.

...Water!...

Yesterday I came upon the newly designed Environmental Protection Agency website. (Actually, I have no idea if it's a new design... it seems like the first thing the Obama IT team did was redesign all the websites using Flash and soothing colors, so I'm assuming.) It's very pretty and there are many widgets to entertain you.

My favorite is the MyEnvironment widget. Just enter your zip code and it will show your air quality and UV indexes, some stats about your health (which mean nothing to me... anyone care to define "cancer risk estimates"?) and the most interesting section, information about your local water source. Tap water! Yay!

People seem to always been complaining about tap water and how gross it is. My last roommate used to scold me if she caught me filling up a glass from the faucet... when there was a perfectly good Brita pitcher in the refrigerator! Did I have a death wish?!

I don't mind drinking tap water at all--in fact, I enjoy not experiencing the faint anxiety I get from drinking bottled water. It still seems completely ridiculous to me to buy water, when all you have to do is turn a little knob in your house and it comes pouring out. Gushing, if you wish. Do you remember when they first started selling bottled water? I was in middle school and one of my friends bought a bottle from the vending machine in the cafeteria. I threw a fit. "Seriously?!" I ridiculed. "If you're thirsty, just get a drink from the fountain! Give me the 75 cents!" And then we listened to the Spice Girls. The end.

I do find it interesting, though, that in such a short time we've gone from loving our water supply to tolerating it to loathing it. Why? Has it become more contaminated in recent years? Or are we just that susceptible to marketing?

In truth, I don't know very much about safe levels of contaminants and bacteria in water, but I want to have faith in my municipal water provider. I checked out the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority on the intraweb and was surprised to see that they publish monthly Water Quality Reports here. I have only a basic knowledge of biology, so the report for July was a little over my head.

Still, I am impressed that the MWRA publishes monthly reports. On the EPA website, it says that public water suppliers are only required to publish an annual report, so the fact that the MWRA provides additional reports is a good sign, I think. Transparency is never bad in my book. Also, WBZ reported in March that Boston "may have the tastiest water in the country", although the lack of supporting data leads me to believe that they made that up.

...Vacation...

Lastly, I vacationed for 10 days in my homeland of Oregon, and came to several conclusions:

1. If it is 90 degrees in Portland, it will certainly be 65 and foggy at the coast. Regardless, I will still get burned.
   
2. Lunch tastes better when you eat it outside under the grape vines.
3. I wish my life took place a private karaoke room.
   
4. My certainty of the start time of an event is inversely related to the likelihood that I'm right, i.e. if I'm VERY SURE something starts at 7pm, it probably starts at 6pm.
5. There needs to be about 250% more Happy Hours in Boston (preferably including drink AND food specials).
6. People from high school will always surprise me (for better and for worse).

Fin.

Rethinking: Cohabitation, an Old Shirt, and Digging that Big Hole in the Sand

Today I give you a three part meditation. The theme? Things to re-think, or think about for the first time.

Re-Thought #1: Meditation on Cohabitation
I am currently cohabiting with my significant other, which is a recent development. This is not a meditation on regret, but rather a time to revisit the idea of this particular living arrangement, as it is not a situation to be entered into lightly.

The non-profit organization Child Trends recently published a study about young adults ideas about relationships and cohabitation. They surveyed 12,000 young adults ages 20-24. As you can see in Figure 1, about the same percentage of those young adults are married as are living together, 35% are currently in a relationship and a quarter are not currently in a relationship.

Interestingly, 57% of young adults think it's "all right" for unmarried couples to cohabit, whereas 24% disagree and 19% could care less about this issue (Figure 3).

So, ok. These numbers are higher than they were ten years ago, which were higher than they were ten years before that (source? common sense). Is this the decline of the American family in action?

The press release from Child Trends also pointed to a USA Today article which cites the study, among others.

The article vaguely cites a study conducted by researchers at the University of Denver, which found a couple pretty surprising things:

• Most couples didn't consciously decide to live together; two-thirds of cohabitors said they either "slid into it" or "talked about it, but then it just sort of happened." Just one-third talked about it and made a decision to live together.
• Almost half of cohabitors of both sexes in the study cite spending more time together as a reason they moved in together; just 9% of men and 5% of women cited "to test the relationship before marriage."

Well jeez you guys. Only 1/3 of couples talked about living together and made a conscious decision to do it?! Less than 10% of both men and women are actually living together to "test the relationship"?!

You know, I'm generally not super concerned about the rise of divorce and the "downfall" of the American family, but these statistics are a little shocking. Maybe if people weren't so blase about MAJOR LIFE DECISIONS, they would choose more wisely. Personally, I decided to make the jump into cohabitation for many practical reasons (it's cheaper to live, we practically lived together anyway, we both needed to get out of crazy living situations, etc.), but ultimately the Big Plan was TO FIND OUT IF THIS WORKS. If it does, fantastic. Full speed ahead. If it doesn't, then thank God we did this now and got it over with. Moving on.

(Disclaimer: I do not profess to be some sort of expert at relationships. Lord knows that I'm not even close. However, I do strive to act with intention and make big decisions with my eyes open. I'm only surprised that more people don't appear to act similarly.)

Re-Thought #2: Things I Used to Wear
This is a series that has played out infrequently between my other blogs over the last 6 months (which you can find here, here, here and here). It has been abandoned due to my lack of follow-thru, but I think it is relevant in this discussion in a sort of This-American-Life kind of way.

So. Here it is. My first ever Forever 21 shirt. Purchased 10 years ago on a shopping trip with a gal pal specifically intended to find "killer" outfits for a friends' upcoming 15th birthday party. But this was no ordinary 15th birthday party.

Oh. No.

First of all, this was a joint party. Question: What's more fun than one birthday girl? Answer: TWO birthday girls!!! Especially when those two birthday girls are arguably the most popular (and wealthy) in the freshman class and can therefore throw a party a'la my Super Sweet Sixteen.

With a DJ.
At a country club.
On a golf course reserved for the PGA tour.

Ok sure. So I got invited. Looking back, it was an invitation I accepted with delight and spent little to no time wondering why I had been put on the guest list. Now I suspect that it probably would have been awkward NOT to invite me, since one of the birthday girls in question was my co-captain on the freshman girls basketball team and we had 4 classes together.

In any case, I bought this shirt, threw on a knee length black skirt and these shoes (probably) and headed to the party.

Now, before we discuss the party, let's take a moment to ruminate on this shirt. I bet you didn't know that Forever 21 sold shirts that were this modest. Well, let me tell you -- this was the MOST modest shirt I could find. It was at the beginning of Forever 21's heyday, when the majority of their stock could only fit 90 lb sixth graders, everything was adorned with tiny, non-functional straps and rhinestones, and they sold specialty pieces like purple jumpsuits (see photo). Actually, I don't think anything has changed... now they just have MORE.

The good thing about Forever 21, which is still true for the most part, is that since everything is made by Chinese school children, it is SUPER CHEAP. I think I paid $9 for the shirt, hopefully less.

Anyway, back to the shirt. The fabric was a stretch poly-knit with a geometric + flowers pattern, accented by glittery threads. I thought it was delightful, albeit busy. The V-neck was fairly deep (although I had nothing in the way of cleavage) and it completely hid my bra straps, which was a middle school taboo that I had yet to relinquish.

The one reason I never, ever wore this shirt again (only one?) is because while the glitter thread allowed me to subtly sparkle in a shadowy corner while I gawked at boys, it was SO ITCHY. Like a wool sweater. I tried to wear a second tank top underneath, but it created unsightly bunches in odd places.

In truth, my shopping friend was not too supportive of my outfit decision, and tried to gently suggest a few strappy, rhinestony pieces. I did appreciate the attempt to make me less of a grandmother, but straps and rhinestones were in direct conflict with my entire moral code, as they still are today. I doubt there is anyone that would look like more of a jackass than me adorned in faux jewels.

Unfortunately, none of the other 15-year-old girls at the party had any moral qualms about straps or rhinestones in large quantities. They were all bustier, bolder, sluttier and drunker than I (the last one because I was not drunk at all... I probably just had a little indigestion from sucking down gallons of Sprite). No game indeed.

The one shining light of the evening was Erica: the girl in a pencil skirt and matching sweater set. Bless her Ralph Lauren heart, she managed to arrive in something more modest than me. I don't really remember much else about the evening, but I'm sure we spent it doing the shopping cart dance and making fun of the sluttiest girls and sweatiest boys of the bunch.

I'm just glad I survived to tell the tale.

Re-Thought #3: Meditation on Sand Castles

Children and adults who build castles and dig in the sand at the beach are at greater risk of developing gastrointestinal diseases and diarrhea than people who only walk on the shore or swim in the surf, according to researchers from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

People who played in the sand at the beach -- buried themselves, erected sand fortresses, dug big holes (the best!), etc. -- seem to have an increased risk of stomach problems in the days following their beach adventures.

The culprit? FECAL MATTER. In the sand. Awesome.

"Beach sand can contain indicators of fecal contamination, but we haven't understood what that means for people playing in the sand," said Dr. Heaney. "This is one of the first studies to show an association between specific sand contact activities and illnesses."

Oh man! That is pretty disgusting. I mean, it makes sense. If you sit down and really think about what is in the sand, especially at really crowded, sweaty beaches in the summer... wait. Don't do that. You might never go to the beach again.

But don't despair! Here is the good news: Less than 10% of people who played in the sand got sick later, so it's not necessarily a sure thing. Plus, Dr. Tim Wade, an EPA epidemiologist and the study's senior author, says

"People should not be discouraged from enjoying sand at the beach but should take care to use a hand sanitizer or wash their hands after playing in the sand."

And also, try not to eat the sand. Or get it in any major orifice. That is just my advice, though. The blurb for this new study was published in last week's Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH) Friday Letter.

Time for a little pick-me-up...

I really hate that the "Our Deepest Fear" speech has become such a cliched Facebook quote. Every Tom, Dick and Harry has it posted on their "About Me" section, and it seems to have become some kind of justification for acting like a ho-faced drama queen.

Despite all that--I can't help but love these two lines. Sometimes they just pop into my head (like today, when I'm feeling SUPER emo) and it makes me want to be a better person. And give you a hug.

"...Ultimately goals can't protect us from ourselves."

I'm from the school of thought that finds goals essential to life. From everyday to-do lists to Five Year Plans, I've always considered goal setting to be a crucial piece of success. If you're not working towards something, then what's the point?

I came across Ready aim... fail: Why setting goals can backfire while perusing the Boston Globe website, or Boston.com. The Ideas section of the Sunday Globe always has some really interesting pieces, but I thought it best to cancel my subscription a few months ago because the mere existence of newspaper in my apartment was a major point of contention for my roommate. Oh well.

Anyway--goals. This article explores the idea that goals are not always the profound agents of motivation and productivity that they are always purported to be. In fact, some goals are very destructive and bad.

For example, take the "notoriously combustible" Ford Pinto. Stop laughing, this is serious!

In the late 1960s, Ford CEO Lee Iacocca, determined to take back the market share the company was losing to smaller imports, announced a crash program to create a new car that would be under 2,000 pounds, under $2,000, and would go on sale in 1970. Desperate to meet the conditions and the deadline, company executives ignored and then played down questions about the safety of the car's design. As a result, the Pinto, with a fuel tank just behind the rear axle, was uniquely prone to igniting upon impact, and 53 people died in such fires.

Clearly, putting a fuel tank in the rear of a car is hardly a good idea considering the high number of rear end collisions that occur EVERYDAY. Cars are not supposed to immediately ignite upon impact, unless you live in the movie Speed, or some equally explosive action film.

But who in the Ford corp voice their concern? Who halted production? Apparently, nobody. Executives at Ford were so goal-crazed that they opted to forgo reinforcing the rear end (at a cost of $121 million) because the projected payout to victims was less ($50 million). See The Ford Pinto Case: A Study in Applied Ethics, Business and Technology if you want to get the full story.

The Pinto catastrophe is a super extreme example of goals gone awry and exemplifies the evil-ish nature that lurks beneath the corporate surface of such things as "cost analyses" and other business tools I only vaguely understand. Now, how does this model of corporate greed relate to individual goal setting?

A professor at the University of Toronto is quoted as saying, "You know how Shakespeare wrote that the fault is not in our stars but in ourselves? Well, the fault is not in our goals but in our values."

Hmm... looking at goals as a reflection of our values, eh? That is an interesting way of thinking about it. This is probably an exercise that few people consciously engage in, but seems like a good way to check in with yourself and make sure you don't value Greed, Gluttony or any of the other Deadly Sins. Here is a possible dialogue to get started:

"Hey self! How u been?"
"Oh not too bad. And you?"
"Well thanks for asking! I've been alright, although that blueberry muffin I ate yesterday was sort of nasty. I might be off muffins for awhile."
"Really? I didn't think it was too bad. Maybe below-average for a muffin, but still edible."
"Yeah, well maybe you should raise your muffin standards. Hey, by the way, what are my goals?"
"Oh you know...." *Thoughtful consideration of various goals*
"Great! Now what things do I value that made me select these goals?"
"Wow, that's a toughie! I'd say..." *Thoughtful consideration of values*

End.

The Globe article doesn't go into the details of personal goal setting too much, but I think the lesson learned from Ford, Enron and possibly our entire banking system is this: Set goals, but be sure to re-evaluate them from time to time to make sure your efforts are going towards a reasonable, worthy cause. It seems like the re-evaluation part becomes increasingly important as you work to attain "life goals".

But really, what do I know? I wouldn't consider myself the poster child for goal setting in any capacity. My latest goal (which was conceived this morning) is to write a screenplay for the Juno-ish version of this movie, which frankly, looks awful but is a good concept. I expect Fox Searchlight will buy it for $5 million, at which point I will quit my temp job and move to Mexico (post-Swine Flu). At quarterly intervals, I will fly my friends and family down to visit me so they can learn Spanish, eat the most delicious food in existence, and get sunburned.

Huh. It sounds like it has Pinto potential. Maybe I'll only ask for $1.5 million, so I have to stay domestic. We'll see.