about dating

I subscribe to all sorts of things including an astrological guide from Bethea Jenner ( myhealthwealthandhappiness.com). Usually, I simply skim the forecasts as I find:

a) they are too general to do me any specific good, and
b) most of the advice directs me to live my life according to principles I already use as much as possible

Basically, the forecasts good reminders for me to continue to use these tools, and that I am on the right path in life.

However, her letters often contain interesting stories and lessons. This one particularly resonated, as I am preparing to embark on the "dating path" once again.

Dear Julia,

This week I decided to share a story involving today's changing dating etiquette, as I think it brings up some information that many of us could benefit from. A few months back, one of my clients came to me for advice regarding a man she had met through an Internet dating service. They had been communicating for a while and had decided to meet in person. My client was a little concerned about the best and safest way to do that.

It can be a daunting step to meet a potential suitor in person when your sole communication has been via the telephone or computer. This type of scenario seems more and more common in the dating world and, as a result, Julia, I think it is wise to take some basic practical and protective measures in such situations. I shared them with my client and now I would like to share with you.

First, do not get into a car with someone you've only had interaction with over the Internet and/or telephone, and do not tell that person where you live. It is a much better idea to schedule an initial face-to-face meeting in a very public place. I also recommend informing a friend or family member about the details of this first meeting, such as where you are going and what time you expect to return. Try to keep a clear head by not indulging in alcohol, and pay your half of any bill incurred for meals or the cinema, etc. Last but not least, follow your instinct and gut feelings in such situations, regardless of how nice a person may seem outwardly.

My client later told me how grateful she was for my advice. She felt better just having practical information to follow. Apparently, her planned date didn't work out. However, she followed these same guidelines with other potential dating suitors and did meet a gentleman who turned out to be someone she connected with and felt good about. The last time I spoke with her, she reported that they had been "real-life" dating for two months and that it was going well.

Julia, this dating advice is good for both males and females. The Internet is a great place to meet a variety of people, but common sense and a few protective measures can make for a better meeting and help avoid a negative or dangerous situation. I hope that you will find this information useful and will share it with others who do use the Internet as a social network.

Now, please take some time out to look over your Health, Wealth and Happiness Report to see what the week holds for you.

Until next week,
Bethea

I like the practical nature of her story and advice. It goes along with my growing awareness that my dating will be more successful the more I trust myself. By success, I mean that I will be able to quickly sniff out the losers (my weakness) and move on, and that I will be able to identify someone with whom I could develop a lasting, loving relationship.

Recently, I became aware that I hide my vulnerability from many people. I'll talk about issues when I feel sufficiently strong to withstand criticism or an unexpectedly negative or harsh response to my expressing a feeling. Especially I protect with great passion my anger and sadness.

It's extremely rare for me to lose my temper in front of anyone. I can count the times on one hand that I've felt anger in the moment and expressed it right then and there. My sister is the only one who's seen it - in actuality, she is the only one who generates that kind of response in me. With other folks, I withdraw and process it, then present it nicely packaged and controlled as a "feeling I am still working through."

The same goes for sadness and grief. I cry alone, only rarely calling someone in the middle of my tears. It takes me a while to realize that I can call someone, that I don't have to be alone with my pain. And then I spend a good amount of time mentally reviewing the list of people I could possibly call, rejecting most as not giving me the kind of sympathetic response I want and need. Eventually, I might happen on someone who I think will "be nice to me" and also available. Then I call and may be relieved if I get their answering machine. I can count on two hands the number of times in my adult life I have persisted in order to talk to someone. That's 27 years we're talking!

A successful love relationship will involve my willingness to express these feelings in the moment and trust that the other person will be there with kindness, love, support, patience, acceptance - eventually at least. My sadness needs immediate kindness. My anger needs someone to really listen and hear me. Because my anger generally is about someone willfully and persistently misinterpreting me or being unkind/cruel to someone I love.

The question for me is can I be there for myself when I don't get the response I crave? At Train the Trainer, I abandoned myself in some way when I surrendered my power to that woman who was interrupting and criticizing my presentation. My tears were about being hurt and misunderstood and betrayed. And they were also about my caring so much about what the other people thought. I was unable to say "she's messed up, and I know I'm doing a good job, and I don't need her approval, just move on." That is being there for myself.

Thinking further on this, let me be kinder to myself. I did recover relatively quickly, and I did show my vulnerability in public, so there are points for me. I suppose I can take from that experience the realization that the point is not to NOT feel the feelings, NOT express the feelings. The point is what do I do with them, how do I care for myself when I get hurt - because I will continue to be hurt as long as I'm alive, like it or not. I don't like it and I guess I'm starting to tell myself the truth that it doesn't matter if I like it, I can accept it, and give myself a pat on the back for using all the tools I know to process the feeling in the moment.

As I learn to trust myself to take care of myself, I become more able to be in an intimate love relationship.

That's the goal anyway. More shall be revealed!

About the 10 Most Important Questions

These are the questions deemed most important for the world today by fifteen hundred people in 39 countries. Conversation Week 2008, sponsored by Conversation Cafe , involved people all over the globe discussing these questions. It's the beginning of a way to change thinking around the world and get ordinary people involved in setting the agenda for our future.

1) How can we best prepare our children for the future?

2) What does sustainability look like to you? How do we get there?

3) How do humans need to adapt to survive the changes predicted for this century?

4) How do we shift from "Me" to "We" on both the local and global levels?

5) How can you, as Gandhi said, be the change that you want to see in the world?

6) What kind of economic structures can best support a shift to sustainable living?

7) How should we re-invent the political process so that people feel that they have a voice?

8) What kind of leadership does the world need now?

9) How can we balance our personal needs with the most pressing needs of our community and the larger world?

10) What can we do to reduce or eliminate violence in the world?

I participated in a conversation on Global MindShift about these and related topics.

To me, the critical step is to go from talking to action. I'm a practical visionary, a pragmatic dreamer. How we get from where we are now to where we want to be: that's what fascinates me.

It's not enough to envision a new world. We need a plan, a bunch of strategies for change that take as a given the world as it is today, now. Accepting the world on its own terms is not giving up, either. It's simply acknowledging that there is a starting point. While I do get depressed sometimes when I think about all that is not right with the world (in my humble opinion!), I remember that we have to start with what IS - including what's going right. Let's build on our successes.

The Alinsky school of community organizing focused on organizers developing local leadership by first identifying small, winnable fights based on immediate problems in people's lives. Is there a street light that is always broken? OK, let's organize around that. It's possible to identify who is responsible for street lights in the town or city. We can make the case for making sure the light is always working - what are the consequences of a broken light? And we can put pressure on the person responsible, via writing letters, asking for meetings, possibly going to the press if we don't get a response. Then if the fight is won, the group can determine if they want to go further to fight for something else they identify as a need for their commuity. It's building on their success and the energy they get from that win.

We can use a similar approach to changing the world.

about conflict

I remember approaching my advisor in graduate school to say that I wanted to come up with a theory of political and social change that was conflict-free. She laughed so derisively, saying that it was impossible because conflict was and always had been with us. It really dashed my confidence. Yet I continue to believe that there is a way for humans to interact that is less painful.

Maybe conflict is inevitable, simply because people have different experiences, needs, opinions, interests. And those come into conflict at times. I think you mean something when you mean something else. We both want that piece of land. Like three year olds who both want that special toy at the same time and don't know how to share or take turns. I don't mean to minimize it by saying that but I do think that like children, humanity is still growing up and learning how to share and take turns. We're not there yet. The question for me is, will we ever be? I hope so!

One truism I challenge is that people battle over scarce resources. To the contrary, those with the least are often the most generous. I've seen parents go hungry so that their children can eat, and groups of people share a meager meal. Sure there are some hoarders, but they are exceptions at the soup kitchen or food pantry. What troubles me more is the people who already have so much who just want more, more, more. The pursuit of material goods and of quantity can blind these people to the fact that they live in a world with others who also have needs. How much is enough? It's a soul-sickness that puts them in conflict with others. Healing that sickness could heal the conflict.

Another kind of conflict is when we come from such different places that it's hard to understand each other. To do so requires patience and communication and a willingness to listen to another's point of view and to accept that their views and interests and needs are equally valid, and the stamina to keep explaining my own perspective in ways that the other might understand. I've spent lots of time talking to men about my perspective as a woman, with varying degrees of success. One thing I need is the comfort of other women, respite from the struggle. That's something that most people need, I think - a place where there is no conflict or struggle - a place to rest and get ready to go back into the fray. Without that rest, violence may be more likely.

So I admit that conflict is a necessary fact of the human condition. It's useful, however, only if it can be resolved amicably. And that resolution can be into a new phase of being or consciousness, to a compromise, to some win/win agreement, or agreeing to disagree or to live and let live. I have found that the best "teachers" in my life are the difficulties I've faced, the things that challenge my self-perception and capabilities, the pain that's forced me to change something internal and/or external. Because I really want contentment and serenity, I am willing to push through the process toward amicable internal resolution.

The books Getting to Yes and Getting Past No do offer methods for getting a win-win resolution to business and personal conflicts. Active listening is my favorite tool - really listening to what the other person wants and needs. I'm reminded that negotiations are between people, not between companies or nations per se. And what I read about the best negotiators - the ones who actually make progress in resolving conflicts like in Northern Ireland (what a beacon of hope that is!) - is that they listen, help each side to listen to each other, and have no preset agenda other than to help the two sides come to some amicable and mutually acceptable and beneficial agreement. So it's not about eliminating conflict, it's about accepting it and then working with it from there.

I recently read a story about a woman making the best out of a nasty conflict with her ex-husband around their child. I was impressed by how well she dealt with the situation, bringing love, compassion and willingness to "see" her ex's perspective. I put "see" in quotes because what she did is deeper than visual. She actually allowed herself to experience his possible feelings.

In conflict situations, that may be the most important element to defusing a situation. When one is able to extend beyond one's own feelings to imagine how the other person may be feeling, something is unlocked and generosity can happen. I don't know if I'm expressing this well, so let me try explaining.

I'm reminded of the lesson that if I put my hand in the candy jar and take a huge handful of candy, I can't get my hand out and am left with a fistful of candy that I'm unable to eat (let's ignore the question of whether I should be eating candy at all!). If I open my fist and let go of the huge amount of candy, instead using my fingers to pick out one or two pieces, then I have some candy to eat. My appetite for something sweet is satisfied. Perhaps my greed isn't satisfied nor is my deepest appetite to have as much candy as possible so I never feel hunger again. That's OK, because my experience is that once I have the one or two pieces of candy, I'm satisfied and the deep hunger is abated. Also, there is plenty of candy left for someone else to have some. When I "need" the candy, I can't bear the thought of anyone else getting any, and I will hang on to that candy jar for dear life and refuse to share - until I have some candy. Then I realize that I can get what I want and "need" and so can other people. I have to relinquish my hold on the jar in order to eat the candy I have taken, which leaves it open to someone else.

In so much of my experience and reading, I am struck by the real need we humans have to be heard - truly heard. Lots of the conflict resolution training I've gone through for work has emphasized "active listening" as a tool for defusing conflict. I have often used it with great success, after having my first live experience with it go extremely well. I had a conflict with the staff lawyer about how to process contracts (I worked for a government agency in NYC). We made an appointment to talk, and I began by laying out what I thought our conflict was about. Then I checked with her - "is that your perception? If not, would you tell me what you think the problem is?" And when she clarified her perspective, I then repeated it back to her and asked if that was what she said. Throughout the entire conversation, I used that active listening tool of mirroring back her words to her and checking to see if I had heard her correctly. I literally could see her relaxing moment by moment. She came to trust that I would not make any assumptions, that I respected her viewpoint, that I wanted to partner with her to come up with a reasonable solution. And we did negotiate a terrific agreement. Plus, our future relationship improved dramatically.

I learned those tools in a workshop run by a psychologist and an engineer - a great team, and exemplary of the kind of people who can often come into conflict - a "feeling" person and a "techie" person. Watching them was inspirational. Then they said that the tools they taught were powerful enough that all it took was one person in a dyad to use them in order to have a great and productive conversation. And that has been true for me.

It takes a deep kind of willingness and generosity to have that kind of conversation and have an outcome that results in both people getting most of what they want. I find that the goodwill that's generated more than makes up for what I may perceive I've "lost" by not getting all I initially wanted (perhaps my initial greediness for getting everything!).

In college I took a class in Middle-Eastern Politics taught by a professor who had quite Zionist leanings. At the beginning of the class, most of us students were pro-Israel. By the end, we were 50/50, meaning more sympathetic to the Palestinian perspective. While the professor was visibly upset by this outcome, I see now that there could have been no other outcome simply because we now had more information about BOTH sides. We could now see both sides.

My final paper was on Palestinian poetry and its expression of nationalism. I still remember the passion for the land itself embodied in the poetry. It convinced me that no solution to the conflict was possible without Palestinians getting land back, the actual land of Palestine. I also know that Israel must continue to exist on the historical land of Israel. While it seems like an irresolvable problem because both sides lay claim to the same land, I wonder if both sides have their fist balled up tight inside the candy jar. What if each accepted the reality that both need some of the land presently occupied by both? Palestinians give up the right of return while Israelis give up settlements in the West Bank? That's basically what is coming about. Maybe it's possible because people on each side have recognized within the other a similar emotional and spiritual need, putting themselves in the other's shoes (and heart and mind and soul).

It takes a lot of strength to do that, as it has for Israelis and Palestinians to propose compromise based on emotional reality and compassion. And unfortunately people have quite violent reactions to such loving responses. Is that insecurity? Fear of somehow losing something they have or not getting what they want? Or that the conflict remains preferable to resolution? I venture that when we get sick and tired of the conflict, we are more willing to explore resolution, more willing to open our hearts and consider alternatives.

It's perhaps a little selfish, this seeking of an end to conflict and anger and punishment. Because when I am angry at someone, the anger hurts me far more than it hurts the other person - my stomach hurts, I can't go places because the other person will be there, I have headaches, whatever. Resolving the anger, letting it go, engaging in forgiveness - all of those benefit me. And I do believe they benefit the universe by putting more resolution, love, compassion etc into the ether.

about Goethe and the paradox of self-awareness

"Many a man's reputation would not know his character if they met on the street." Goethe, Iphigenia auf Tauris (II, 1, 140)

"As soon as you trust yourself, you will know how to live." Goethe, Faust

It's very hard for people to see themselves as others see them. And very hard to be willing to hear other people's opinions of us. 360 assessments are probably the hardest and most courageous processes anyone can go through.

There's a paradox in that so many of us spend our lives trying to accept ourselves as we are and trust our instincts, yet also strive to improve ourselves and grow in self-awareness in part by observing our impact on other people. While it's important to be concerned about what others think of us, I also believe that there are so many people with so many opinions that we could go crazy if we tried to adapt ourselves to meet other people's expectations for us.

I've been in situations where my efforts to be self-aware and shift my behavior were seen as signs of weakness, as signs that I wasn't a good leader or visionary. I disagreed then and now, because to me, they were using an outmoded definition of leadership. At other times, those same people criticized me for NOT bending, not changing my stance, not adapting myself to their wishes. So I realized that I can only be who I am, and keep striving to improve according to my own timetable and abilities.

One great thing about getting an education (via reading, courses, talking with others) is that I have gained tools to use as I pursue my goals, tools that help me recognize for myself whether I am being visionary or managing well, etc. Also, for me, it's important that I keep listening to others while also relying on my inner self to gauge whether the feedback is accurate and/or whether I can/should/will do something with it.

about struggling to understand each other

Once I participated in a group of white women who discussed our own internalized racism. Our intention was to continue indefinitely. We barely made it through the first meeting. The conversation was so charged, we simply could not sustain it. The level of conflict was so high, we could not work our way through it.
Being at once a political theorist and pragmatist, I wondered what happened and why. All I've been able to come up with was that the topic made each of us feel too vulnerable. And being vulnerable and afraid of being judged - while judging ourselves quite harshly already - we were more apt to feel criticized and judged. At least, that's what I experienced as did a good friend. Now, she and I were able to work our way through some of the feelings and conflict and misunderstanding in our dyad based on friendship and trust. And I came to some realizations about how hard it is to be free of perceptions and attitudes I gained through osmosis, through skin color privilege, through socio-economic privilege. Hard AND possible. And necessary in order to forge connections and grow.

In the larger group of six women, there was no foundation of trust. And we didn't spend enough time developing that foundation. We leapt right into the topic, and it was too sudden, too extreme, too frightening. We didn't even know what we wanted as an outcome - expiation of guilt? Expanded consciousness? Changed attitudes? And so there was no direction in which we were headed, leaving me at least feeling unsure of the terrain and terrified of making a mistake. It was as though I had two alternatives: beat on myself and allow others to do so, too; or feel self-righteously superior to those women who were REALLY racist. From the way the discussion went, it seemed that others felt only those two options, as well.

Small wonder we could barely talk to each other afterwards. It was a pretty brutal experience. I remember telling a story about my own internalized racism, and having another woman lace into me about how insensitive and horrible I was. I didn't know her very well and I was in my mid-20's so still pretty unversed in how to defuse conflict and deflect unwarranted attack. So I attacked back, and things went from bad to worse, both of us in tears and the group split into factions. It was kind of a metaphor for the larger society. I wish I had had the emotional and intellectual wherewithal and tools to ask her why she was attacking me, when all I was trying to do was expose an illness to the air in order to exorcise it. That was my intention anyway. But it was unspoken. I wish I had spoken my intention, and had asked others to state theirs. Let us establish a common ground first and then think through how to talk about this very sensitive topic.

Well, I learned a lot from that experience. One thing I learned is have the conversation with people I trust. And then I learned how important it is to just stay with the conversation, just continue trying to make myself clear, continue being as open and generous as I can, and acknowledge other people's viewpoints even as I am trying to get them to acknowledge mine. If the topic is important enough, it's worth the struggle. And I do sometimes need to go off from the fray to rest, think, recuperate, take my mind off it ("don't think and go to movies" is one of my favorite twisted 12-step slogans). Then when I return, I may have a new perspective, or maybe the other person will have shifted his/her perspective.

I tell this story because I think that the emergence of a new global consciousness will take place first in small groups, in localities, between intimates and among groups of people who are willing to trust in the process and share a vision of the outcome. And that will take hard work on our part. It's not easy to change our ways, much as we may like and crave change. Are we willing to be different? To do something different to get a different result?

about fundamentalism

Fundamentalists scare me, to be honest. I grew up in a fairly religious Christian home, not overtly fundamentalist by any stretch of the imagination (whew!). Yet one conversation with my mother opened my eyes to the reality of the true believer in his or her own faith. Her understanding of the world is built on her fundamental belief that Jesus Christ is her saviour, and that she will be saved on Judgement Day because she believes that - and because she has tried to help others gain that same belief and salvation. Her world view is that there will be a Judgement Day and it will not be pretty, and it is her duty to help as many other people as possible to come to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that He died for our sins, and that He will come again - and we better be ready. She believes the whole ball of wax. (I think you can tell that I don't exactly buy it. I argued against anthropomorphizing God at age 11...not a popular view in confirmation class.) My father is a Lutheran minister and together they decided to be missionaries in Japan back around 1960 - to help save people. And it is their faith that prompted them to do that - to get other people to buy into their world view. It is sort of beyond their ken that other people would be OK if they didn't believe in Jesus. How could they be OK, when the only right way to believe and think and act is to be a Christian?

It has taken me so long to wrap my brain around this reality, because I see religion as rigid authoritarianism, structured to demand and get compliance, and to answer any questions within its own framework and worldview. Spirituality is quite another thing - something that is personal, individual, internal, always evolving - more like the Gnostic or Buddhist or 12-Step "traditions." And I see most, if not all, the major religions as containing similar kernels of spiritual belief. Who said "one truth, many paths" or something like that? It's the antithesis of fundamentalism, almost pantheistic or even agnostic, for it admits to questions and doubts and constant evolution and change in belief. And my spirituality is quite opposite to religion as it is so individual and inner-directed and focused.

Sometimes I think it would be great if everyone felt like I do. There's room for everyone, every belief, every spirit in this pool. Then I bump into cold hard reality, which is that there are fundamentalist groups all over the planet convinced that their path and beliefs are the only true and right beliefs and path. To my parents, their beliefs obligate them to proselytize and convert people, thereby swelling the ranks of the saved. To other fundamentalists, their beliefs obligate them to rid the planet of the disbelievers, or to punish and isolate the non-believers. And that is their world view. It is as fundamental to their sense of themselves as my spiritual beliefs are to me (well, probably more so for them, since I know my beliefs can and probably will continue shifting since I have no real dogma that I accept and obey). That's what scares me: the absolute certainty the fundamentalist has that a) his/her beliefs are the correct beliefs; and, b) s/he is doing me a favor by putting me out of my "misery" by either converting or eliminating me.

If this is the reality of fundamentalism, is it then possible for fundamentalists to see beyond their own beliefs? My parents have had to expand their views to a certain extent because their children have challenged that belief system in various ways. They've become more accepting of homosexuality, of women's rights, of choice. I think they see that some of this is - if not OK, then not bad and not to be condemned. They don't get it, they wouldn't do it, but it's not anti-Christ. So socially and politically, they've mellowed. But they have absolutely not mellowed on the fact that for them, the only way anyone is saved on Judgement Day is by sharing their belief in Christ, and they pity the poor non-believers. Pity actually is OK - at least it's not condemning non-believers to misery on earth, just in the after-life. They can't step outside their world-view because it is part of who they are. And so much of what we've talked about asks that we step outside of our own perspective to inquire about and explore the views of someone else, in order to "see" their side of it. Can fundamentalists do that? Or maybe the question is, will fundamentalists do that? Or even, under what circumstances might they?

Perhaps the answer lies in exposure to other realities, just as it has for my parents. There's a reason authoritarian, fundamentalist regimes prohibit free press and internet access.

about poverty and obesity

This is my response to the New York Times piece "Census: New York Region Has Widest Income Gap" by Sam Roberts, August 28, 2007, 4:36 pm


Obesity can and does coexist with poverty, simply because in the developed and developing world the most filling, affordable and available foods are carbohydrates, fat-laden, and sugary. In fact, obesity might even be seen as a symptom of poverty in the developing and developed world.

Poor people make logical choices with their limited resources. Unfortunately, they don’t have as many choices as those who are better off. Low-income neighborhoods in NYC and elsewhere in the country have far fewer supermarkets and farmers’ markets, and far less green and recreational space than more affluent zip codes.

So it’s good news that there are new farmers’ markets opening in some of NYC’s poorest neighborhoods, and that NYS Dept. of Agriculture and Markets is working hard to expand acceptance of food stamps (aka The Food Card) at all farmers’ markets.

But wait! What about the 700,000+ people in NYC who are eligible for but not receiving food stamps? If everyone eligible for this agriculture/nutrition support entitlement program were to receive these non-welfare benefits, almost $1 billion would flow into NYC. That’s $1 billion of federal dollars. Talk about starting to get back in federal spending what NYC pays in taxes!
Now imagine those dollars flowing into NYC to be spent on food only. Imagine the supermarkets that could be located in low-income neighborhoods. Imagine the people who would be employed at those supermarkets. Imagine the taxes generated. Imagine the benefit to NYC of simply making sure that every eligible person gets what they are entitled to because of their income level.

Mayor Bloomberg rightly touts the Earned Income Tax Credit as a way to help families keep their heads above water and to contribute to NYC’s economy. So too are food stamps/the Food Card. Let’s stop thinking of them wrongly as welfare, and instead see them for what they are: a way to help those who don’t have big incomes at least get the nutrition they need to learn and work to their best ability.

— Posted August 30th, 2007 10:20 pm

about education and individual action for social change

Educating people at all ages can help us make better choices. There's one interesting example I know about of how behavior changed and continues to change globally by building awareness through public education, working with kids, creating curriculum, and creating a new public conversation.

In Australia, a man named Ian Kiernan started raising awareness about the disgusting quality of our world's oceans after making an around-the-world sail. He was appalled by the garbage floating everywhere, propelled hundreds and thousands of miles from its sources via currents, as well as garbage dumped by municipalities, states, countries and sailors. So he got together with a bunch of folks in Sydney to do something in their own backyard - operating on the principle that we first need to take care of what's right in front of us. The "Clean Up the Harbour" day in 1989 unexpectedly became this huge effort involving hundreds of people, who it seemed had been hungry for someone to tell them what to do and give them permission to do what they really wanted to do anyway - which was to take care of their environment.

From the first Clean Up day was born Clean Up Australia in 1992 and eventually Clean Up the World in 1993. While CUTW is an international organization operating in many countries, the clean up efforts are local and involve partnerships with smaller local organizations. The international scope allows CUTW to create classroom tools for teachers to use to educate kids about the environment and the consequences of what they and their parents and communities do. www.cleanuptheworld.org and www.cleanup.org.au have more information.

One of the major efforts for Clean Up Australia was to reduce the amount of waste produced - instead of simply cleaning it up. So a huge campaign began to eliminate the use of plastic bags. I believe Australia was the first country to legislate against plastic bags. And that campaign was so successful that its organizers spread its lessons throughout the world. Now we see in the US that, for example, Whole Foods is charging customers for plastic bags in an effort to get us to regularly use sturdy, reusable bags. And I know that similar changes are happening in England and other parts of Europe - probably in Latin America and Asia and Africa, for all I know. Information is at www.cleanup.org.au/au/campaigns and www.noplasticbags.org as well as at www.reusablebags.com, www.planetark.org , www.squidoo.com, and the New York Times , an article on Ireland's tax on plastic bags.

Do I think that Ian Kiernan and his band of "Clean Up Australia" activists were the only people to think that plastic bags were no good? Of course not! After all, the French have used string bags for many years and the Japanese furoshiki (a large decorative cloth folded and tied as a carryall) has historically been used to tote produce and other things, and the Irish imposed their "plas-tax" in 2002. Perhaps it's just that I learned about the plastic bag campaign from my connection with Clean Up Australia and Clean Up the World when I worked for New York Restoration Project, an organization that Bette Midler started to clean up North Manhattan (www.nyrp.org ).

At any rate, I think the great feat for Clean Up Australia was to demonstrate that citizen activism could produce tons of change: political, economic and especially behavioral choices on the part of consumers - each one of us who goes into a store and leaves with goods in our own reusable tote is making a choice, that also is a statement about our values.

People's behavior can be incentivized by making it more expensive or impossible to exercise a specific choice. And some incentives are more effective than others. What if it costs me 5 cents to buy a plastic bag because I forgot to bring my own? That's not such a high price so why bother remembering. What if there are no plastic bags and I have to carry my groceries in my arms because I forgot my bag? I will probably remember my bag the very next time. Or what if a bag costs a dollar? I will probably remember my bag.

Good intentions can be fostered by education about the consequences of the choices I make, and then there needs to be some structure put in place to assist me in changing my behavior in accord with my values and desired impact. Good public policy does that. In a way, the Clean Up Australia example shows that when ordinary folks do something that surprises the politicos, the politicos want to get on board fast and good public policy can follow despite the resistance by narrow economic/industrial interests. And it all started with one (very well-connected) person saying "hey, this is unacceptable and let's get together to do something about it right in our own backyard/harbour."

about intimacy

This weekend, I was brought up short by the reality of my priorities regarding friendship. Specifically, I don't consistently make friends a priority. I say "consistently" because there are times when they absolutely are my priority - I call, I make and keep plans, I think about them and send little e-mails or texts, I show up regularly, I share my stuff and listen to theirs.

Yet a time comes when I disappear from my friends' lives. They call, I don't return calls for days. Oh, eventually I do, but usually when I know they won't be around. I don't call them on my own. They e-mail, I don't respond for a day or two - even though I am constantly on my computer and e-mailing all the time.

I have made many plausible excuses over the years for my behavior. My friends even believe those excuses and offer me sympathy - because the reasons range from my nephew dying to my parents moving to my being in a lot of pain from my hip and back problems. These are real problems, real issues, real life conditions to which I have to adjust. And thus I train my friends not to expect very much of me consistently.

When I do show up, I am a wonderful friend - caring, honest, fun and funny, insightful, supportive, positive, etc. Everything I wish a friend to be, I am. Until I'm not.

The trigger for these realizations was sharing about ending isolation and deflating ego by talking to someone else about one'sweaknesses. It hit me that I protect my self/my ego by refusing to maintain consistent friendships, by so clearly putting friendship low in my priorities. After all, if I don't show up consistently, how are friends to really know me? And how are they to know the whole me if I disappear during my most vulnerable times?

Two people helped me bring this realization to consciousness - one a dear friend and the other a new person.

The friend has been herself adjusting to a new job and hasn't been in touch as much as usual. When I called, she was with other people or couldn't talk. My parents had moved to Nebraska after 43 years in the same town, and I am missing them terribly. So why wasn't P. calling me? Well, I won't call her! So I spent a bunch of time feeling
abandoned and hurt.

In all that mind stuff is a clue to what was really going on. God willing, I will pay attention to and act on that clue in the future. The clue is that when I feel someone is doing something to me, I need to look to my own behavior to see what I have done or am doing to create or contribute to the situation. "Keep the focus on myself" is a core life principle for me.

Apparently, when I'm feeling vulnerable, I have a lot of trouble keeping my focus where it belongs - on my behavior, not other people's. If I'm hurt, instead of withdrawing, I can tell my friend I really need to spend some time with her and can she see me. Because for me, I'm usually hurt because I'm feeling vulnerable in the first place. So let me be vulnerable, let me allow my friend to see me that way, let me tell her that I need her. To be sure, I risk being disappointed. And sitting here writing, I feel such a resistance to being disappointed. I'd much rather protect myself and say "I don't care, I don't need you anyway!"

I have never been very good at dealing with disappointment. Someone I respect calls depression "deep disappointment" which makes sense to me. I was depressed for so many years because life didn't go according to my plans and desires. And when I take the risk of being vulnerable, I want it to work out my way so I will be able to continue being vulnerable. Yet is it really up to another person to make it possible for me to be vulnerable? Or is that my work, my responsibility? Am I not the one ultimately to make life safe for myself? Do I not have a Higher Power into whose care I have placed my will and my life? Will not my Higher Power support me in this very frightening scenario? How will I know if I do not try?

The new person is someone I reached out to, then pulled back, again reached out and then pulled back. All of a sudden, I saw how hurtful that was, how rude and inconsiderate.

I was behaving as I always do, yet I see now that I've been careful not to be approachable by new people so they won't get caught in my stuff. Guess I must be ready to deal with this defect of character, for now I am hurting someone even more vulnerable than I am. I apologized to her, and am determined to amend my behavior with God's help.

I need friends and I want to be a friend people can count on. I also want to be in a loving relationship, which I've lacked for many years. The cause of that has puzzled me, even as I accepted that I must not want one very much because I'm not in one. Clearly, it's not been a priority. It's moving up the priority list, though. And now I have more insight into what I've resisted. More shall be revealed, now that I have started down this path toward what I think is intimacy.