Food Fight!

     It was seventh grade. I was 12 years old. Lunch time at school. I don't know how it started, but a few minutes into lunch in the school cafeteria and a food fight erupted. It was total chaos. It was pasta day, so there was a lot of noodles and sauce flying around.

     I don't remember all of the details, but I do remember the feeling that my friends and I experienced immediately after. It was fun, yes, but the feeling that stuck with me, a feeling I have rarely felt since, was a kind of raw anarchy that was completely exhilarating. There were so many of us, and very few teachers and school staff. We outnumbered them by at least ten to one. They could not control the food fight! They screamed as loud as they could, blew their whistles and shook their fists, but in the end, it had to die out on its own. I suppose we ran out of food to throw, because the fight lasted through the rest of the 30 minute lunch period.

     My peers could not stop talking about it. Who started it? Who got spaghetti sauce in their hair? But the biggest question was- what would our punishment be?

     To all of our surprise and relief, there was no punishment. No one snitched on the instigator. No one blamed anyone else for anything. The students were all united on this one.

     And so we heard a few harsh words about how disappointed the principal was, maybe a note sent home to the parents, and that was it. We pulled it off! But what exactly had we done? Why did it make us all feel so empowered?

     We realized, although maybe only on a subconscious level, that we outnumbered our masters. We realized that we could do anything if we were all united towards one goal. There were many of us, and few of "them". And although we were smaller, younger, and had no authority given to us at school, we pulled off the most exciting event of the school year without any real punishment.

     It's still true today. We are the "us", and they are the "them". If we realize what our goal is, we can win. They cannot control us. We outnumber them by much larger numbers than my peers and I in school. So who should be scared?


They should be scared of us, and they are.

Letting Go

One of the most important lessons I have learned in my life so far is Letting Go. Letting go of the illusion of control.

I don't remember how old I was exactly, maybe my early twenties, but I remember the feeling of my eyes suddenly opening to the fact that I have no control over any other person. It was startling, and although you might assume that it was a depressing realization, in fact, it was a huge relief! I suddenly had a very large weight lifted off my shoulders. Realizing that I cannot control other people also meant that I have no reponsibility for their actions! It also meant that I can free myself of the methods of manipulation I had previously been consumed with. It was the most refreshing and freeing concept I had ever come to terms with.

There were so many obstacles in my life that I could overcome by simply letting go. Harboring hate for someone because I did not agree with their actions. Hating that person and letting their actions eat at me day and night. All I had to do was to let go! Set it down and walk away. I cannot control them, so why bother? They are going to do what they're going to do, so why try to change it? Just let go, and be free of it!

This does not mean that I am not still affected by other's actions, it just means that I don't have to dwell on it anymore. I take it at face value. It is what it is. Now I can make a decision on whether or not to respond or react, and how.

Since that time, I have struggled with the problems of this country. The politics that drive our nation disgust me. What is the correct approach to solve our nation's woes? What can I do? How do I get involved? What kind of system do we need?

I started with the idea of freedom. The very basic concept that each and every man and woman has the freedom to do whatever they want, so long as they do not harm others. Zechariah Chafee, a civil libertarian, said "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins." It's a very simple yet powerful principle.

The princple of civil liberty can be linked to the idea that we cannot control others. If we have no control over another person, we must respect every person's right to do as he pleases, so long as he does not hurt anyone else. The part that gets messy is trying to enforce punishments when someone does hurt another. Who has the power to punish? What are the punishments? Who decides guilt or innocence? An imbalance in power among people suddenly messes up the whole structure. It seems that people are corrupted by power.

So how do we let go? How do we walk away from the suffering of others? If we see one man hurt another, what are we supposed to do? If we try to punish the other man, for revenge or so that the man does not hurt any other men, we have to give the power to punish to someone, we have to relinquish power to another human, or to several humans, so that they can assign blame, and then punish according to a set of laws that another human decided upon. And then we have another problem: some men may lie in order to punish their enemies. They will use the system to their advantage. There are so many problems with any power structure, because there will always be flaws in the system that allow those without morals to get ahead, and take advantage of those with morals.

So by setting up systems of governing bad men, we inadvertently set up systems to take advantage of good men. And so, I believe, the only way to let men live free, is to let go. Stop trying to control them. They cannot be controlled. The more you try to control them, the more you will realize that you cannot. You cannot make anyone do anything. And most of the time, by trying to control something, you make it worse. Just let go.

Truth

Where do you find truth? Are you looking for the truth? I am. And I have a hard time knowing where to begin looking for truthful answers to my questions. But as I make my way through this world full of lies and cover-ups, conspiracies and oppression, I have found some bits of truth that are leading me to a surprising conclusion.
First, you have to ask the right questions. I cannot stress how important it is to begin with the right question. If you ask the right question, you will then get closer to the truth. Many times the right question is at the root. It is the question that precedes all the other related questions.
For instance, many people are now asking if it is safe to consume the fluoride in our tap water (see my previous post Poison in our tap water). There are many studies that say that fluoride is not safe to ingest, and you can also find studies that say that fluoride is beneficial to your health. So it is hard to get to the truth. How do you know if it's safe, when both sides seem to have valid support for their "yes" or their "no"? But the problem is, not many people are asking the right question... The real question is: Does anyone have the right to put anything in our tap water? Then the answer is clear- no they do not!
Next, you must be able to sort out what is fact, what is opinion, and what is fiction. I remember learning in grade school how to discern fact from opinion. It was pretty easy for me. But now that I see news headlines with fact, fiction and opinion intermingled in such an expert way that I can hardly tell the difference, it makes me wonder if this lesson in fact/opinion should have been revisited in high school.
Knowing something to be 100% true can only come from first-hand experience. But you still have to be careful, just because you saw it, doesn't make it true. If a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, when the hat appeared to be empty, it's obviously not a reliable fact that he somehow produced a rabbit out of thin air. You must know all aspects of the situation, (don't just look in the hat, hold it and reach your hand inside) and then you know it to be true.
Another important thing to remember is never turn assumptions into truth, and never adopt someone else's assumptions. We have all done this at one time or another. We see a story on the news about a person on trial for a crime, and many of us have condemned them to be criminals before the trial has even started. What happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? It's like it no longer applies at all. You may think I'm crazy, but I actually sympathized with Casey Anthony. God help that poor girl if her worst crime was the neglect of that child. Her life is over, and it does not matter if she killed her baby or not. We all condemned her. And God help me if I am ever accused of something I did not do, because I know I will be condemned, no matter how I've lived my life up to this point.
The hardest part, for me at least, is trying to have the right perspective. It is impossible for anyone to have a clear and perfect perspective on anything. The reason is because we have all been through situations and experiences that lead us to think differently. It's impossible to remove influence completely from your perspective, and therefore, our perspective is heavily clouded with bias. So our own perspective is cloudy, and on top of that, everyone else's perspective is cloudy, and so together it makes for one hell of a foggy mess! How could you ever find truth in such a fog?
Another difficult aspect is knowing where to look for truth. There are so many perspectives on any given subject, who do you believe? Do you spend countless hours cross-referencing their facts and information, weeding out embellishments and exaggerations, their flaws in research and their bias? It would take forever, and still then you would never be able to reach a solid truth.
So where is it? I guess I should apply my own first rule in seeking the truth. Ask the right question. Instead of asking questions like "Where do I find truth?", "What is fact, and what is fiction?", maybe I should be asking the preceding question: "Do I need to find the truth?"
And there it is, the question we should all be asking. And then the answer is clear. Yes. We should all be seeking the truth. It does not matter if the absolute truth can or cannot be found. All that matters is that we keep looking. Never give up, and you will learn amazing things.
It doesn't matter what your question is.What's the purpose of life? Why did God put us here? What is my purpose? What's going on in this country, really? What can I do about it? What matters is that we all keep striving to find the best answers to our questions, and then we will be striving to do the best we can with what we have been given.
So, start asking, start looking, and start living. You are not living if you're not asking questions and seeking the answers.

note: Regarding Casey Anthony, the question to ask is not "Did she do it?". The question for all of us who do not know the absolute truth is "Is it any of our business?". We will never know if she did it, so why are we speculating, condemning and attempting to spend any amount of time on her or her case?

Self-Esteem, and the indoctrination of an entire population

This is my research paper that I recently did for English. It is lengthy, but I spent a lot of time on it, and I am very proud of it. I feel it is worthy of my blog, and I want to share it with everyone. Enjoy!

Self-Esteem Indoctrination    

            Self-esteem programs have inundated schools around the nation for decades. Self-esteem has long been thought to vaccinate children against depression, substance abuse and bad grades along with other negative behaviors (Gecas and Longmore 1423). Implementing self-esteem programs into schools has resulted in the indoctrination of an entire population over the last few decades. Whether it was intentional or not, the effect has been seriously detrimental to society.

            The roots of the self-esteem movement date all the way back to the late 1800s. Psychologist William James can be credited with coining the term “self-esteem” in 1892 (Stearns 736). The positive psychological aspects of self-esteem were cultivated throughout the 1920s and 30s, and the conclusion was made that a development of the self was necessary for children to succeed and thrive in the world (Stearns 736).

            Self-esteem programs were brought into schools in the 1960s in order to attempt to provide children with a sense of self-worth by giving them opportunities that included a variety of learning platforms so that the student's could learn according to their particular learning styles (Stearns 737). Over the next several decades, self-esteem programs became a part of almost every school's curriculum. These programs varied in structure and name, but they all shared one common goal: to imbue children with high self-esteem that would supposedly vaccinate them against every negative aspect of life, including bad grades, drugs, sexual dangers, depression, anxiety, violence and suicide.

            In 1986, California created The California Task Force on Self-Esteem and Personal and Social Responsibility, and their goal was to invest time and money through self-esteem programs into the children in California public schools to raise the self-esteem in children, and therefore endow the future of the state with the perfect population: low crime rates, reduced poverty, etc. (Stephenson). Although the task force employed a team of researchers to find supportive research for their claims, surprisingly little such research was found, and despite the nearly non-existent amount of research to back up their claims, the state pushed ahead with their efforts to vaccinate the children in America against low self-esteem (Stephenson).

            There are several problems with the research on self-esteem. One major issue is that previous to recent research done in the past few years, only two types of self-esteem were discussed: high self-esteem and low self-esteem (Kernis 3). Researchers are now addressing the fact that there are multiple aspects of self-esteem. A few of them include implicit self-esteem, contingent self-esteem and stability of self-esteem (Kernis 3). These other aspects are completely relevant when one is trying to measure self-esteem and apply it to real life situations and outcomes.

            Another issue regarding research is addressed in an article in Harvard Health Publications. It explains the two general types of self-esteem: implicit and explicit. Implicit self-esteem “is measured by automatic responses, such as how we associate words that have favorable or unfavorable connotations with ourselves”, and explicit self-esteem “is judged by what we say about ourselves” (Importance of High Self-Esteem). Seeing the differences between these two types of self-esteem brings an important question into play: How would this affect measurements of self-esteem by a field of researchers?  Explicit self-esteem can only be measured by what the subject says. Measuring explicit self-esteem would rely heavily on subjects telling the truth, and the researcher's ability to weed out lies or embellishments. Measuring implicit self-esteem is another issue altogether. Automatic reactions and connotations produced by one subject would have a different meaning from one subject to another. Therefore, there is no reliable way to measure self-esteem.

            In fact, many researchers never specifically stated that high self-esteem would keep America's children from the dangers that are automatically associated with low self-esteem (Kernis, Lakey, and Heppner 478). Despite this, the US government endorsed several programs that were to be implemented into schools and also as extra-curricular activities.

            The Girl Scouts of the USA was recognized by the US government in 1950 and chartered (Girl Scouts of the USA). Their program is primarily motivated by the mission of fostering high self-esteem in girls, who society largely assumes to be susceptible to low self-esteem, due to the body image issues and gender inequalities women have struggled with for decades. The program has a specific approach to self-esteem in girls, and the “uniquely ME” program states the following about self-esteem:

The problem of low self-esteem is pervasive among pre-adolescent and adolescent girls in the United States. Research conducted by the Girl Scout Research Institute and other organizations demonstrates that risky behavior such as smoking, drinking, unsafe sexual behavior, eating disorders, suicidal tendencies, and self-mutilative behavior are often associated with low self-esteem (Girl Scouts of the USA).

            This description that links low self-esteem to negative behaviors is vague. More importantly, it does not actually say that high self-esteem keeps girls from the behaviors noted. The assumption is made that if low self-esteem is linked to negative behaviors, then high self-esteem must surely be the miraculous vaccination that inoculates girls against these horrible behaviors. These are the types of assumptions being made across the board regarding self-esteem in children.

            Another program that is a part of schools worldwide is the Workshop Way. Schools and teachers that implement this program into their curriculum have positive reviews for it, and it's not surprising. The program seems to miraculously change even the worst student's behavior into a cooperative and well-mannered child. The student's positive responses to the program are to be expected, considering the classroom environment contains “no humiliation, no sarcasm, no teasing, no one ignored, not one negative judgment in a whole class day” (Harmin 45). This may create the perfect environment for keeping student's behavior under control, but what can we expect from these students once they graduate from school, and are suddenly confronted with the very criticisms they have been protected from? Negative judgment and humiliation are a part of life, and there is no escaping it.

            Although there are many different self-esteem programs, they all have the same general goal: to give children high self-esteem so that they will not do poorly in school or in life. The programs have different ways of fostering self-esteem. Most of the programs forbid teachers from scolding or correcting students. The programs even discourage teachers from handing out bad grades, as this would damage the student's self-esteem (Stearns 737). What happens when these students are not students anymore? Will their bosses refrain from scolding them when they do poorly on the job?

            Programs in school that are intended to raise levels of self-esteem “rely on exercises that lavish empty praise on kids, whether they've earned it or not” (School Self-Esteem Programs Get Mixed Grades). This meaningless praise may help children temporarily, but when they are thrown into real life, they are confronted with bosses who do not praise them for their hard work, and co-workers who take credit for their work. Suddenly, the praise they received as youths is completely irrelevant to their current circumstances, and they are left to fend for themselves.

            One of the most predictable short term effects of these self-esteem programs is underachievement. When children are made to believe that they are great regardless of their achievements, they inevitably come to the conclusion that they do not need to achieve anything at all, and this leads to acceptance of mediocrity among all children, even those who are capable of much more (Tobin 130-131).

            It seems that schools in general are overly concerned with the happiness of children, instead of focusing solely on education. When did schools become so obsessed with a child's happiness? The role of school is to educate children, and to provide a comfortable learning environment for each child to succeed. The happiness of a child is the parent's responsibility, but the role of the schools has extended into that of the parent's, and teachers simply do not have the time or the resources necessary to individualize the programs to each child.

            The claims made that high self-esteem has positive outcomes have some truth to them. It is the way that high self-esteem is acquired that is so important. Self-esteem acquired through the programs introduced into schools is fragile, and is shattered easily and in turn evokes defensive mechanisms; self-esteem that is developed naturally through pride in your work and real accomplishments develops a secure high self-esteem that does not falter easily due to the fact that it is backed up by real accomplishments and life experience (Kernis, Lakey, and Heppner 479).

            One of the most dangerous aspects of fragile high self-esteem is narcissism. When self-love rises to an extreme level, the result is a feeling of superiority and separation from the rest of your peers. It also creates the type of self-esteem that when threatened, evokes extremely defensive mechanisms that produce violence and anger. Narcissism is based on the very concepts that are taught in self-esteem programs, the concept that children “are unique and special” (Shepherd 20). Author Jean Twenge studied the rise of narcissism over the past few decades, and found the rates of narcissism rising at an alarming and steady rate. Her research found that two thirds of college students scored high in narcissism according to the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, the most reliable test available (Twenge 69).

            An article that looks at the causes and effects of narcissism goes as far as to say that maybe children need to hear a far different message than the one they hear in school growing up: “from Brad Pitt's character in Fight Club: “Listen up, maggots. You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else” (Shepherd 20). This may be a little extreme, but the message is clear; children have been taught to be narcissistic by their very own teachers and parents, and it is time to stop teaching self-love and replace the message with one of humbleness.

            Author Jean Twenge asserts that “Like self-esteem, self-focus and individuality have been actively promoted in schools” (72). We are reconstructing segregation in schools and carrying it into adulthood because of the focus on the self and the alienation that focus creates (Stout 176). People grow up feeling separate from each other, believing and trusting only in themselves. The exploration of our self-identity has become our top priority.

            The problem with teaching children at such a young age how important it is to have high self-esteem is that they will learn through trial and error the easiest way to maintain and promote a sense of high self-esteem, whatever the cost may be of themselves or others. They have been taught that feeling bad about themselves is a horrible thing, and they should avoid it at all cost. There are some tactics commonly used in order to avoid feeling bad about oneself and to maintain a high regard for actions that should be considered negative:

Avoiding low self evaluations may occur through increased efforts at self-improvement or, more typically, through such self-serving activities as selective perception and memory, various strategies of impression management, and restructuring the environment and/or redefining the situation to make it reflect a more favorable view of self (Gecas and Longmore 1419).

            Looking around at the world today, there is no shortage of evidence of the long-term results of self-esteem programs. The first generation of self-esteem indoctrinated adults are running the world, and they are a completely new breed. Self-interests are placed above all else, and happiness and individualism are the top contenders on a short list of priorities.

            The world of marketing has taken full advantage of a generation full of easy targets. People that put themselves first are the world's perfect consumer, and makes advertising for the corporate world a simple task; you need only appeal to the consumer's selfish wants. Since the typical victim of the self-esteem movement has a fragile high self-esteem that needs to be filled with immediate gratification to be maintained, advertisements that make them feel like they need something to feel better about themselves make sense. They first set the consumer up by telling them they are not good enough, they must be skinnier and prettier. Then they tell them that the product they are selling will make them skinnier or prettier (or both).When the advertised product gives only a temporary sense of high self-esteem, the consumer will again need another product to make them feel better.

            There is evidence that the general feelings about self-esteem programs are slowly changing, especially over the past decade. Most organizations are reevaluating the way in which self-esteem is obtained and maintained. The National Association for Self-Esteem has a very specific definition of self-esteem on their website, and gives a fairly realistic overview. They state that there is a defined difference between “healthy self-esteem” and “pseudo self-esteem”, and that these differences are important and should be noted (What is Self-Esteem?). The problem with this approach is that this healthy self-esteem that they refer to cannot be taught in schools, it only comes from life experience and esteeming others around us.

            High self-esteem is not a cure-all for the children in America. The programs have done a severe amount of damage over the past 50 years, and most of that damage cannot be undone. Even if you wanted to ignore the evidence that the programs are harmful, have they improved anything? Fifty years after the self-esteem programs were implemented into schools, are our test scores any better as a nation? Are our crime rates any lower? Have the rates of suicides, pregnancies, or violence gone down? No, they have not. Statistics from the Bureau of Justice shows that violent crime rates dramatically increased from 1960 until 1992, when they finally peaked at the highest levels in fifty years (Violent Crime Rates in the United States).

            Public and private schools lack the structure and resources needed to actually foster proper self-esteem. The self-esteem created by the programs that have been implemented into schools over the past several decades has created a population of adults and children who are more self-centered and narcissistic than any previous generation. Assumptions were made regarding the fragile development of children, and assumptions lead to unknown outcomes. The adults who have recently entered the working world are attempting to deal with criticism and humiliation, and they are grossly unprepared for it. Their responses to the negative judgment resemble the very behaviors they were supposedly vaccinated against as youngsters. These individuals are victims, yet most of them are beyond repair, and they will pass their notions of individualism and self-love onto the next generations unless we intercept these ideas, and direct the future generations in a new direction. We need to return to the ideas of humbleness, selflessness, and dignity.

Works Cited

Gecas, Viktor and Monica Longmore. “Self-Esteem.” International Encyclopedia of Marriage and Family. Ed. James J. Ponzetti. Vol. 3. 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2003. p1419-1424. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 19 Oct. 2011.

Girl Scouts of the USA. 21 November 2011 <http://www.girlscouts.org/program/gs_central/leadership/uniquelyme.asp>

Harmin, Merrill. “The Workshop Way to Student Success.” 1990 Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 28 November 2011. <http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_199009_harmin.pdf>

“Importance of High Self-Esteem : Implicit vs. Explicit Self-Esteem.” Harvard Health Publications. June 2007. 21 November 2011. <http://www.health.harvard.edu/press_releases/importance-of-self-esteem>

Kernis, Michael H., Chad E Lakey and Whitney L. Heppner. "Secure Versus Fragile High Self-Esteem As A Predictor Of Verbal Defensiveness: Converging Findings Across Three Different Markers." Journal Of Personality 76.3 (2008): 477-512. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection. Web. 20 Nov. 2011.

Kernis, Michael H. "Measuring Self-Esteem In Context: The Importance Of Stability Of Self-Esteem In Psychological Functioning." Journal Of Personality 73.6 (2005): 1569-1605. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection. Web. 21 Nov. 2011.

“School Self-Esteem Programs Get Mixed Grades.” FoxNews.com. 15 March 2002. 21 November 2011 <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,47409,00.html>

Shepherd, Tory. “Levels of Narcissism Are Rising With Experts Blaming the Internet for Rewarding Shameless Self-Promotion.” The Advertiser (Australia). 14 June 2011, state ed.: 20. Lexis Nexis Academic. Web. 21 November 2011.

Stearns, Peter N. “Self-Esteem.” Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood: In History and   Society. Ed. Paula S. Fass. Vol. 3. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2004. p736-738. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 19 Oct. 2011.

Stephenson, Frank. "For the Love of 'Me'." Florida State University Research in Review.    Summer 2004: 16-31. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 19 Oct 2011.

Stout, Maureen. The Feel-Good Curriculum: the Dumbing-Down of America's Kids in the Name of Self-Esteem. Cambridge: Perseus Books, 2000. Ohlone College Library. Web. 18 Oct. 2011.

Tobin, Rebecca and Hwang, Yong G. "The Dangers of the Self-Esteem Rhetoric in Educating Children With Disabilities." Education Vol. 118. (1997): p130-134. Academic Search Premier. Web. 18 Oct 2011.

Twenge, Jean M. Generation Me: Why Today's Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled- and More Miserable Than Ever Before. New York: Free Press, 2006.

“What is Self Esteem?” National Association for Self-Esteem. 2010. 20 November 2011 <http://www.self-esteem-nase.org/what.php>.

“Violent Crime Rates in the United States.” Wikipedia.org. 8 July 2011, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 28 November 2011 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Violent_Crime_Rates_in_the_United_States.svg>

Stupid social rules

I think social rules are stupid, yet almost unavoidable for anyone who communicates with another human being. Why do we have a set of rules to follow in order to interact with other people?
First, let me clarify what I mean exactly by social rules. Social rules dictate the way I behave in social situations, the actions and reactions I have in those situations. For example, if I were invited to a wedding, I would be expected to wear formal attire, and my +1 would be expected to wear a suit. What if I showed up in jean shorts and sandals? By not following the social rule of attire at a wedding, I have opened myself up to the ridicule and disdain of everyone at the wedding, and most likely offended the bride and groom. Do you see anything wrong with this? It is because of the social rules themselves that I am ridiculed and that the bride is offended!
Here's another situation where social rules (should not) apply: my friend introduces me to her Italian dad for the first time, and he innocently kisses me on both cheeks, with no ill intention. I am American, so of course it makes me very uncomfortable. Depending on how culturally unaware I am, I may even be highly offended by it and think him to be a huge pervert. Social rules have just made the situation weird, when it should have been simple.
Social rules are just a way to control society's acceptance of certain behaviors. If you base your actions on what is acceptable to society, your life will reflect everything you see on TV.
So what set of rules should we be following? Well, you know what is right and wrong, don't you? Do you need a set of social rules to tell you what to do all the time? Should you be on time to work? Should you treat others with respect, the way that you want to be treated? Should you do your homework? Should you steal? Murder?
Did you really need social rules to answer any of those questions? No, you did not. See now? Social rules are stupid. I think they should be called "anti-social rules".

Reaching out

I'd like to talk about our relationships to the people we see everyday, but do not know. People that you see walking down the street, passing by you on your way to work or home. You don't know their names, but you might have seen them more than once, or maybe not. If you saw one of these people crying, would you hug them? No, most of us would certainly not. Why? We are afraid of the awkwardness that might ensue after a hug. Would you ask them if they need something, like money or a place to stay? No, probably not, because we are scared of who they are and what they might do. If you let them in your home they might steal our things or simply take advantage of our hospitality! Or worse yet, they might kill us!
Why are we so distrustful of our fellow human beings? Where did this fear come from? Is it well founded? No, it is not. It is ridiculous that we have such a fear. I know you see horrible stories on the news of people that are murdered and kidnapped, raped and burglarized, but these incidents don't happen nearly as often as you think. And most of the time the criminals that commit these crimes know the victims personally.
I think it's important that we start letting down our guards, letting people in, even if just briefly. If you see someone crying in public, they most definitely are in a bad place. How many times have you cried in public? I can count the instances for myself on one hand. And in each of those instances, I would have appreciated it if someone who didn't know me simply asked me if I was OK. It's not that I would have told them what was wrong, but it feels good knowing that people care. If someone would have just said, "Hey, do you need anything? Can I be of help to you in anyway?"
We assume everyone is out to get us, but wouldn't you agree that most people are just like you? They are! We are all so alike, yet we are all so scared of each other. We make assumptions about everyone's personality the minute we see them, and we judge them so harshly.
I am just as guilty of all this as everyone else, but I have a strong desire to change it. There's a girl who lives in her car near where I live. I walk by her at least twice a day, and she's always there. I want so badly to knock on her car door and ask her if she needs anything. I have not been able to bring myself to do it yet, because I am nervous that she might be defensive, or upset. I am afraid of the awkwardness. I am also afraid that by the time I get the nerve to do it, she will be gone, and I will never know if she's OK.
What can we do to overcome this fear of other people? To be open and trusting of the people who surround us all the time would be so comforting! To know that if you were hurt physically or emotionally, you would only have to open the door and look around until you saw someone and then you could depend on that person for support.
This is where I would usually wrap it up with some sort of conclusion, some sort of semi-solution to the problem, but I feel like the world I am wishing for is so far from the one we are living in, that I don't know where to begin.

Poison in our tap water

First, let me introduce you to my idea of what my blog will be about. You may have noticed the name of my blog- "didjuno?"... don't laugh! It's supposed to mean "Did you know", but I thought it would be cute if I wrote it differently. So it's kinda gonna be about whatever my current interests are, and if you know me well, my interests are worldly, varied, and they are always about something new, informative and exciting. (Well, I hope you think it's exciting.) I feel this desire to inform people about things they may not have the time to research, and I hope that if you are reading this, you find the information I present to be useful. My main goal is just to have my close friends investigate a little further the issues I discuss, so that maybe I can make a small change for the better in the lives of the people I love. :)


OK, so I've never done this blogging thing before, but a friend of mine has been telling me for a long time that I should be posting my thoughts online for the world to see... I'm not sure if she's right. :) So here I go...


My first topic is fluoride in our tap water. Fluoride is a well-known treatment for cavities. Used as an oral rinsing agent, studies have shown that fluoride helps reduce the number of cavities. As far as I know, no one has ever presented evidence that ingesting fluoride helps with cavities. (Why do you think you're supposed to spit your toothpaste out, and call the poison control center if you ingest more than a pea size amount?!?!?)


Didjuno that they put fluoride in our tap water? It's true. What's wrong with this? Well, what if someone told you that there was a vaccine you could get that would keep you from getting sick- not something terminal, just something minor... like a cold, would you want them to give you a choice of whether or not you get the vaccine? Of course you would want to choose! What if there are side effects? What if the risks outweigh the benefits? You want to make an informed decision, right? Well, with fluoride, you don't get to. They just pour it right into our water, and then they want us to thank them! In principle, it does not matter if fluoride is good for us. We should be able to choose.


So, what's actually wrong with ingesting fluoride? Well, it's poison. Yeah... It causes all kinds of serious health problems.


From zerowasteamerica.org, authors Lynn Landes & Maria Bechis state;

The more serious health  concern is that dental fluorosis is not the only harmful health effect that results from overexposure to fluoride. Fluoride has been linked in government and scientific reports to a wide range of harmful health effects, including: bone and tooth decay (including dental and skeletal fluorosis, bone pathology, arthritis, and osteoporosis) Alzheimer's, memory loss and other neurological impairment, kidney damage, cancer, genetic damage, and gastrointestinal problems. In addition, fluoride has been found to leach lead from old water pipes and soldering material, which has resulted in increased lead levels in people.

Many of America's organizations have made statements concerning the dangers of ingesting fluoride, including the CDC and the EPA, just to name a couple. So why, when there is so much controversy over fluoride, do they continue to dump it into our water supply? Maybe because it is a waste product of the manufacturing industries. They don't know where else to put it, so they force it down our throats. Disgusting. Shameful. Outrageous.

What can you do? Well, on a small scale, you can purchase a Reverse Osmosis water filter system to take the fluoride out of your water. You can find them for under 200 bucks. (Regular water filters, such as Brita, do not filter fluoride.) On a large scale, I'm not sure... write an email to your local municipal water district, write an email to your local political officials, and tell your friends about fluoride.

You can also do more research to inform yourself about fluoride: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=dangers+of+ingesting+fluoride


OK, so although fluoride is a boring subject, I think it is important. My next blog will hopefully be funnier, or less boring at least. :)