Thanks For "Listening"

Earlier this week I attended two local events billed as opportunities for civic engagement. I am still trying to decide if they were a waste of time. One was a “listening tour” of a state non-profit organization that serves as a liaison between Colorado government and a handful of other non-profits concerning disbursement of lottery funds to outdoor recreation and protection projects. Attendees did most of the listening, to presentations outlining updates to the goals of the organization. The other, larger event was a mostly one-sided panel-and-moderator discussion of the future of urban growth in Colorado Springs. The two forums did open my eyes to something I had been blind to, though. We collectively fail time and again to accommodate, let alone welcome, marginalized parties, at least in meaningful numbers.

© nbcpalmsprings.com

The attendance, and leadership, at both events overwhelmingly reflected white privilege, and mostly on the elder end of the age spectrum, too. That this has become what I expect is a tragedy in itself. I am modestly proud of myself for starting to notice, finally, and not being happy about the lack of involvement by people of color.

The urban growth event was so heavily weighted towards seniors that one of the speakers was the Colorado head of the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). It became a running joke that each of the panel members, five of them, all white men, were either members already, or had recently received an invitation to join AARP.

What do I mean by white privilege in the context of the attendees in civic engagement events? Simple. We have the luxury of free time. We are not working a second or third job, or a second shift, in the late afternoon or evening when such events take place. We have the luxury of at least a modicum of disposable income for communication technology, and to fuel our vehicles to drive to meeting locations. We enjoy the advantage of not being hassled by law enforcement when we show up in locations where non-whites would be met with suspicion, if not hostility. We are able to understand everything being said at meetings because English is our first language. We know our opinions will be met with respect from our white peers, and that no one will question the authenticity of our experiences because they are shared by others. You can probably add additional points to this bullet list.

Oh, I already have another one. The “listening tour” did provide an opportunity to take a survey….by texting. I have a flip phone with less than instantaneous speed. Luckily, a paper-and-pencil option was available, but increasingly there are assumptions made as to the minimal level of technology utilized by citizens. This further marginalizes people who cannot afford those devices, wireless networks, and other supposedly universal products.

The responsible growth forum addressed Colorado Springs and El Paso County, an area that is expected to exceed Denver in population and geographical urban footprint in the not-too-distant future. The only thing worse than unbridled urban growth is growth for whites only….but that is the direction we are headed if we continue to prohibit equal participation in public conversations like this event. I will give civic leaders the benefit of the doubt and suggest that overwhelmingly white participation in public policy-making processes is not by design, but it still reflects a willful ignorance of the factors limiting participation by non-whites, and those who do not speak English.

The treadmill process that yields white privilege authority figures occurs when you have white privilege participation in all civic matters from voting to public hearings and meetings, resulting in the election of white privileged public officials, who then assume their constituents all enjoy the same circumstances as their white privileged benefactors and supporters….In instances where a person of color is elected or appointed, white privilege still colors their agenda, still enforces the boundaries of any meaningful reforms that could result in broader participation and increased leadership by people of color. Shameful.

Does it make me a “white savior” to be pointing out these systemic problems, these unquestioned attributes of institutional racism? I hope not, as that is not my intent. I am sharing my personal observations and interpretations, not putting words into the mouths of others, even fellow Caucasians. We have to start stepping back, take supporting roles, and even then, only when invited to do so. The irony is that all people will benefit and advance from diversity in leadership. I am supremely confident of that.

The Innocents and the Bigots

Recent experiences in social media have led me to the conclusion that we tend toward a very narrow window in assessing each other’s intentions, treating all communication as black and white, good guys and bad guys. We all have our blind spots, and/or are emotionally damaged. In fact, emotional damage has a profound effect on how we perceive the world, other people, other belief systems, and how we see ourselves. Inflicting more damage, even if unintentionally, does nothing to improve matters.

My interactions with diverse individuals and social categories of our population reveals that unless I am a clone of that particular person or an individual within that category, I probably have no place commenting on their circumstance or struggles. Attempting to embrace and validate their experience becomes an exercise in futility or worse if I take the conversation public. I then have no control over the input of others.

One of the unfortunate consequences of having a social network that spans the socio-economic-political-religious spectrum is that you are going to be called out as a bigot if you “protect” anyone else perceived as a bigot by those with differing experiences and views. The assumption is that everyone is already cemented in their views and not open to any additional information. We assume they know full well they are misogynistic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, God-denying haters, and not that they are simply uninformed or uneducated. They must be professional trolls.

There is a difference between an annihilist who desires to obliterate everything and everyone “different,” and someone who is simply comfortable with their own identity but uncomfortable with the new normal or having difficulty comprehending the territory. There is no way we can possibly put ourselves into the minds and bodies of others if we are not ourselves Black, homosexual, transgendered, or otherwise a “minority.”

It is my belief that there are many innocent people being labelled as bigots simply because they lack full understanding of the issues at hand. If you do not know where the mines are, you are eventually going to step on one. If you do not recognize the triggers, you will pull one at some point. When someone talks about “dog whistles” to the bigot camp, it may be that you do not hear yourself blowing one. The wrong intent is assumed. Groups that are trying to assert their long-suppressed rights, who are understandably angry at being marginalized and abused, if not murdered, begin to interpret every attempt at understanding, or every question pertaining to the historical “norm” as somehow a threat to be met with hostility, assigned to the domain of true bigots.

Me? I am the product of an overprotective mother, and an angry father on alternate weekends. It has taken me decades to undo the damage and I am still not a finished product. The truth is that we have no idea what anyone’s personal history is, what horrific experiences or sheltered lifestyles have shaped their views. It is impossible to know this unless they fully disclose personal information that they may feel leaves them vulnerable to ridicule and persecution themselves.

This blog is where I often articulate publicly the struggles I am having privately, in my own head, striving to be a more understanding, humble, and loving human being. Others choose to do that through social media where they make posts, or comment on the posts of others. Increasingly this is asking for abuse rather than clarification, understanding and patience. Boom! You are an instant a$$hole if you use the wrong words or admit your current frustrations or misunderstandings. Zero leeway, no empathy, nothing positive.

God forbid that you defend the wrong person, too. You are then a bigot for defending a bigot, guilt by association. Whatever happened to assuming the best about people, or at least having an open mind? Your experience with a person may be drastically different than mine. I am likely to keep both of you as friends until it is demonstrated by repeated behavior that you are not worthy of my emotional and intellectual investment. I can decide for myself who to keep in my circle, and I reserve the right to recall people I have kicked out, if they agree I am worth having back in theirs.

Perhaps that is our common ground, then, that we are all flawed; and all too eager to turn others into villains to advance our cause, make ourselves feel better, morally superior, and justified in our values and beliefs. That is a terrible way to receive validation, at someone else’s expense. We can do better. We can start by admitting we are incomplete, utter amateurs in the interpretation of the experiences of others. We can listen more, not reserve judgment but abandon it completely for tolerance, if not acceptance.

Can we hate bigotry without categorizing any one individual based on one conversation or comment thread? The scientific method demands reproducible results. We might apply that to our relationships. One bad event? Maybe the benefit of the doubt is in order. Repeated instances that reflect bad character? Now you have cause to re-evaluate the relationship. Each of us has a different threshold, and a single violent action should immediately end further interaction, but there is a fine line between cautious optimism and giving up on someone as a lost cause.

What You Say Versus What I Hear

© RospaWorkplaceSafety.com

What we have here, in our personal, social, political, and other relationships, is a failure to communicate. We cannot possibly know the life experiences of others, or how they interpret our words, and sometimes they do not know why they react the way they do, either. Should we not say anything then, for fear of hurting or insulting each other? No, but we may want to search our own heads for why certain things set us off.

Case in point. When I was younger, people would tell me that "you need to go back to school and finish your degree!" I found myself angered by this advice for the longest time. Then it dawned on me that what I heard was "you have no right to succeed unless you do so the way everyone else does [has to]!" From that point on I was no longer angry when someone made the suggestion of returning to college, I just ignored it.

Let us consider another example. I am not religious, but my in-laws are. When they say "we pray for you," I know that what they are saying is that believe that my soul will go to Hell because I do not accept Jesus as my savior and I therefore cannot possibly have a relationship with God. This comes across to me as a superiority complex, and the remark as terribly condescending. They are entitled to their beliefs, and I accept that, but I do not believe they respect my beliefs, and that is disheartening. I could also be wrong in my assertion of their intent. The fact I recognize internally how I am interpreting their words makes it vastly easier to tolerate and I shrug it off.

The idea for this blog post came about after the conclusion of the National Football League championship games, and a friend on social media tried to joke by implying that she did not know one sports team from another and could care less. Her intent at poking fun at her "own ignorance" as she explained later, did not translate well and I called her out (perhaps improperly) for her arrogance because the implication I heard was that "better" people choose to ignore team spectator sports all together. "We just can't be troubled with something so insignificant" is the sentiment that was ringing in my ears. We remain friends and just agree to disagree on this one admittedly trivial aspect of life.

My parents divorced when I was eleven years old, after a two-year separation. Back in the 1970s there was no blueprint for how to have a civil divorce, not that legal nuances change the behavior of the parties involved, but I recall how bitterly disappointed I was that the decree did not end the conflict. The phrase "best interest of the child" became a joke to me. It is not sufficient for one spouse to be the best thing for the child, the other parent must be portrayed as the worst thing for the child.

Here is a less personal example. I read recently an article on "Five Ways to Make the Outdoors More Inclusive". One of the people involved, Carolyn Finney, said this: "The term ‘outreach’ should be obsolete because it’s a one-sided term. It says, ‘I get to show my power, and feel good about it, because I reached out to you, and I brought you to my table. I didn’t have to change anything, I just had to put a chair at the table.’ People don’t want to give up their power. The question is what power are they willing to give up? If you say none, then that’s where we’re different. Then nothing changes.”

A friend's Facebook post relating to gender identification sparked many heated responses, but one of the minor points that I thought was a profound commentary on gender was my friend's use of "ovaries" and "testes" instead of "vagina" and "penis." That simple change removes all overtones of sex and power from the conversation. Brilliant.

The point is that we can all be guilty of manipulating others with our words. Sometimes we are well aware we are doing so, and sometimes we are not. The challenge is to be more self-aware, and to call others out when they are abusing us or others verbally. Yes, we may be wrong in our accusations, but then we at least have an understanding and can apologize. It is worth the investment of our time to do this, and it increases our sphere of interpretation from that point forward.

Please consider sharing your own examples of misunderstanding or misinterpretation in the comments. I am certain we can all relate and learn from each other.

I'm on the Edge....of Irrelevance

I happened upon a recent Wired article chronicling the writer's self-imposed demotion from a smart phone to a flip phone, and it got me revisiting my own philosophy of technology, which is a product of both intent and financial hardship, with a dose of reluctance for good measure.

I wrote about some aspects of technology in this post, but let me speak more personally as to why I draw the lines where I do. My first reaction to the Wired piece was that it was a flawed experiment in that the writer was regressing from a smart phone to a "dumb phone" as opposed to never having had a smart phone in the first place, which is my situation.

I had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the cell phone era. The breaking point came the nth time my flight was delayed or cancelled and I had no way to reach my party on the receiving end to tell them I would not be arriving in a timely manner. I was still reluctant to make the expenditure for a phone, battery, and calling plan, but it was getting embarrassing and impolite to beg the use of a stranger's device. Consequently, I purchased the cheapest phone, and a pay-as-you-go service.

To this day, I run out of "service days" far more regularly than I run out of minutes. Our household still has a land line, with unlimited long distance (no "roaming" fees), that I rely on for the overwhelming majority of telecommunication aside from e-mails. I briefly flirted with an upgraded phone that had an uncovered keyboard, but after I accidentally pocket-dialed a friend in Massachusetts, I went back to a flip phone and here I am.

One Christmas my wife got me a tablet as a gift. After the futility and frustration of trying to scroll and accidentally connecting to unwanted website after unwanted advertisement, and the aggravation of automatic word suggestions while texting or posting, I gave up. That was about three days in. I am all thumbs when it comes to anything smaller than a full-sized keyboard.

There are many benefits to having sub-forefront technology. The greatest of these might be the deterrent to theft. If a burglar had ever entered my prior residences, he or she would have taken a look around and screamed something to the effect of "Are you KIDDING me?!" and maybe an expletive, before storming out. Had they managed to haul off the television, recovering the unit would be a simple matter of calling around to hospitals to see if anyone had come in with a severe back injury. My laptop is so outdated that even I no longer use it. My desktop is over seven years old, and the various cords too tangled for a hurried criminal to untangle. I am still running Windows 7. This is all exactly how I like it: Technology that gets me through, is still supported and serviced, and not new enough to be attractive to thieves.

Another benefit to not carrying a smart phone or tablet or notebook or whatever they are calling the latest thing is that I am forced to unplug when I am out of my home. I am compelled to interact with other people in the flesh, pay attention to my surroundings, and experience the unadulterated reality of the here-and-now. Yes, sometimes it is boring. So what? If you have to be entertained all the time or, increasingly, feel obligated to entertain others via social media, then you might want to re-examine your life. Take a breath. Smell the flowers. People-watch. Wildlife watch.

I can assure you I do not relate any of this to paint myself as superior, or inferior, or out of touch with the realities of the digital universe. Indeed, I find this Age to be a wonder, but I also wonder whether we are losing sight of things that truly matter, whether we are still engaging one another in meaningful relationships, and whether we are losing touch with the natural world. I am fortunate enough to know people who balance flesh-and-blood and digital worlds perfectly, so I have hope. Meanwhile, if you need to reach me on my travels, good luck. I use Tracfone, and isn't that everyone's punchline for any joke about irrelevance?

"Chasing" Owls, and Saying What You Mean

Social media is nothing if not a lightning rod for raging arguments and polarizing opinions. Take for example a frenzy of commentary that erupted last week when the administrator of a wildlife photography group on Facebook announced that no one would be permitted to disclose the geographic location of any image taken of any animal species posted to the group. I had intended to include quotes from some of the replies to that post, but I have always been much more interested in what remains unspoken, and the motivations behind a person's stance on any topic.

Snowy Owl, El Paso County, Colorado© Heidi Eaton 2010

The directive from the wildlife photographer's Facebook group stemmed from the throngs of people pursuing Snowy Owls that have strayed far south of their normal range and are showing up even in Kansas this winter. Each spotting ignites the bird equivalent of what one might call Princess Diana Syndrome. Hordes of camera- and phone-wielding citizens descend upon the place the bird was reported from. Many people are protesting that crowds are endangering the owls, causing them to expend energy in fleeing instead of hunting rodents. That may be true, but what constitutes harassment of wildlife is debatable. Maybe the people complaining just don't like crowds themselves. The point is that the public conversation is always the tip of the iceberg.

I have my theories. Given what is happening in the natural range of the Snowy Owl, I can understand wildlife professionals and enthusiasts wanting to limit impacts on individual birds. Between climate change, and the U.S. actively seeking to drill for oil in what are now protected Arctic refuges, it may be a matter of decades before the Snowy Owl goes extinct and no one has the privilege of seeing one, anywhere. The interesting thing is that few, if any, advocates for the "rogue" owls in the lower forty-eight are making this point.

You may have legitimate concerns, but claiming to speak on behalf of another species is usually done to avoid speaking selfishly, though selfishness is not a crime. Dishonesty is a crime, and that is the kind of dialogue we have with each other daily, on almost every issue whether personal or public. We fail to speak frankly. That dishonesty leaves the recipient on the other end free to make wild assumptions about your motives.

Assigning the proper location to a specimen, be it the actual organism or an image of it, is standard for the scientific community. Each data point is crucial to our understanding of distribution, behavior, and other aspects of a species. Not including that information could be construed as you having no interest in science, or furthering our collective knowledge in a era when one could argue there is a war on science.

Posting an image and then not disclosing the location can be interpreted as "I got my photo, but I'm not helping you get yours." It is an attitude of smugness and snobbery that you probably never intended, but because you did not honestly explain your motivations, we are free to make assumptions about your character.

Then there is flat-out irony. By driving any distance to see a Snowy Owl, or any other organism, you burned fossil fuels directly or indirectly, and may even have killed some other animal on the road along the way (insects at the very least). One could argue that the process used to get your image is part of the problem. You have added to the demand for fuel that is driving the encroachment into Arctic habitat. Your vehicle's exhaust is adding pollutants that are hastening global warming. The people that don't chase might claim the higher moral ground in this scenario.

We may have to come to peace with not getting "our" shot, our own personal trophy. Instead, maybe we should explore closer to home. In my Bug Eric blog I talk all the time about the potential for discovery in one's own backyard, or neighborhood. You can make a big splash with little if any negative impact. You can find something never seen before in your city, county, or state. You can observe behaviors previously unknown.

Most of all, in your speech and actions, strive to be honest no matter how selfish, strange, or surprising it sounds. It will be refreshing, and maybe it will catch on. Who knows, maybe even members of Congress will have the courage to speak truthfully. No, I'm not holding my breath.

Things to be Thankful For....While They Last

Note: This post was ready to publish last week, but I wanted to give a friend an opportunity to convince me that the net neutrality situation was a non-issue. That was a mistake. I remain unconvinced that what the FCC intends to do would not wreck things beyond repair.

-----------------------------------------------------

It is not difficult to find things to be grateful for during this American Thanksgiving holiday. The question is whether you will still have that sentiment at this time next year. Much of what we take for granted is now in serious jeopardy thanks to this edition of the Presidency and Congress. Life as we know it may not survive through the next three years. One could argue that optimism about the future has been the first casualty.

Amur TigerWildlife

Elephants, and lions, and tigers, and Polar Bears, oh my. They may be trophy-hunted or poached into extinction, or killed off by the policies exercised by climate change deniers. Science has no place in federal government right now, unless it can be used to accelerate the extraction of fossil fuels in the interest of "secure" energy of U.S. origin. The only bright spot has been the President's apparent reversal of his bid to overturn the ban on the importation of African Elephant parts by trophy hunters who kill their victims in Zimbabwe and Zambia. He has faced more public pressure on this one issue than any other so far, and he is apparently bowing to it. Good to know.

Great Sand Dunes National ParkPublic Lands

The onslaught against nature continues with a proposal to raise one-day admission fees to popular national parks a whopping $50.00 to $70.00. Yes, our parks are starved for funds for maintenance and other services, but that is thanks to a bloated Department of Defense budget that amounts to corporate welfare for private contractors, and wasteful spending in other areas as well. The conspiracy theorist in me believes the astronomical entry fee proposals are designed to drive down park visitations. Even people who can afford those prices may boycott the parks on principal. The less the attendance at parks, the more our President and Congress can argue that those public lands should be opened up to something truly beneficial: leases for oil, gas, and mineral extraction. The government will not see the profit, but the multinational corporations doing the work certainly will, which is the whole point. Meanwhile, leases are already being drawn up for properties managed by the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, and other agencies.

© ACLU.orgA Neutral Internet

Do you think the World Wide Web is just fine as it is? Me, too, which is why I am aghast that the Federal Communications Commission, again led by a Presidential appointee, plans on allowing ISPs (Internet Service Providers) to pretty much write their own rules for access to the internet, both for users like you and me, and for those who provide services and content online. The oversimplified scenario is that if you want access to some of the websites and apps you are enjoying currently, you will have to pay more. Likewise, if you want your business to continue enjoying a (high) profile online, you will have to put up more money to get the same amount of customer traffic. Gee, I wonder who gets rich in all this (rhetorical question, sorry).

Meanwhile, alternative media, the non-fake news we turn to for the real scoop, will get overwhelmed by traditional media that can afford to get its message out there. Organizing protests, boycotts, petitions, and other means of dissent will become infinitely more difficult if people have to choose between different social media outlets, or are now unable to afford access at all. It might be the final nail in the coffin for dissent.

What Next?

That question could be taken two ways: What other atrocities of policy are we in for? Or, what do we do to stop this runaway train? I cannot recall a time when I have written more about public issues, signed more online petitions, or (ever) written to my Congressperson than I am doing now; and it has nothing to do with political affiliation. I honestly feel I am being personally assaulted because of my passion for liberty, wildlife, creative enterprises, small business, the sharing economy, local agriculture, and rights to freedom of (non-hate) speech, healthcare, and safety. This administration is not good for anybody, except the ultra-rich who are also greedy.

What we have to do is avoid despair, and keep up the pressure. Keep informing each other. Raise awareness of issues as you yourself become aware of them. Raise funds for organizations battling against this administration on the streets, in the courts, and elsewhere. Mostly, don't lose friends over disagreements.

"Jobs" and Other Trigger Words

© Alternet.org

Remember when "sound bites" were all the rage, both in the popularity of their use and in the anger they incited in journalists? Those were the good old days. Today, politicians can use just a single word to evoke an emotional response that sways voters to support them, or to dismiss issues and concerns of their opponents. Is our collective attention span as citizens so short, and our reluctance to do a little homework so great, that we will allow ourselves to be so easily manipulated?

We are all familiar with certain trigger words. "Jobs" for example. We hear someone utter just that word and our gut reaction is "Good. Jobs are good. He/she is going to do something about creating jobs. We need more jobs." It is a word that reduces every other concern to something meaningless and expendable in the interest of creating....jobs. We never ask "how many jobs?" or "how long will those jobs last?" or "will our locally unemployed be qualified to do those jobs?"

The implications of "jobs" means that environmental health, and consumer and labor regulations may need to be sacrificed if you want more jobs. We all understand this by now. That is how powerful a trigger word can be. All of these emotions, issues, and actions can be triggered by just a single word. "Crime" is another. We understand that when a government official or political candidate says they will be tough on crime, it means that we will lose at least a bit of our privacy through surveillance, security checkpoints in public buildings, and data retrieval from our communication devices.

"Taxes" are perceived almost universally as a bad thing, and the word is now almost synonymous with "stealing" from our wages (income tax), purchases (sales tax), home ownership (property taxes), and every other aspect of our lives. Taxpayers have not been properly educated in the collective benefits we receive in exchange for taxes. Public education, parks, roads, public transportation, libraries, museums, zoos, and a host of other public services and facilities could not exist without support from taxes.

Still, politicians promise "no new taxes" or "tax cuts," meant to spell "relief" and appease those at the lower end of the wage scale. The reality is that most of those cuts are inevitably granted to those individuals and corporations, that are already highly prosperous. Tax law is another tool to redistribute wealth to the wealthy elite, the way it is currently being written and executed. We are so conditioned to think of "tax relief" and "tax cuts" as beneficial to us, that we don't think any more about it, we just react positively even though most of us will not see meaningful changes to our bank account.

I could go on and on just listing more trigger words and phrases like "immigrants" and "Islam" and "pro-choice," "pro-life" and "clean energy" and so forth, but I give my readers credit for being able to recognize the intent with which those words are chosen and used, like so many verbal bullets and bandages to provoke fear and loathing, or calm and soothe in order to create false empathy. Each side of a given issue knows exactly what the other side means when it uses a trigger word. The same word can be interpreted completely differently depending on your party or ideological persuasion; and used as a hostile epithet or a badge of honor.

How do we get over this language barrier? Can we? Honesty. That is the only answer. When my parents were divorcing, back in the 1970s, I remember the phrase "the best interest of the child" being a mantra. In contested divorces, when a parent says that, it really means not only that they believe they are the best parent to have custody, but that the other parent having custody is the worst thing that could happen to the child. Cloaking selfish interests in language that suggests altruism is repugnant and intolerable. We have to start speaking honestly and fearlessly.

Be honest in why you object to a public policy, political viewpoint, or other issue that ignites your emotions. Only when we see each other's real motives are we going to make progress, and take action acceptable to the majority.

Hanging up the Phone

It dawned on me the other day that I do not like talking on the telephone anymore. The reasons for this are many, from technological "advances" to deteriorating hearing (mine and others), and the exploitation of the telephone for marketing purposes.

Our household land line (yes, we still have one!) receives very few phone calls directed specifically to us from friends, business associates and clients, and family. The overwhelming majority of calls are from charities telling us "We will have a truck in your area on (insert date here) if you have items to donate," political surveys, and, worst of all, pre-recorded messages also of a political or financial nature. Our favorite recurring recording begins "Fellow seniors...." Since I have been on the other end of phone surveys, I often comply with those requests if they are polite and I can understand the person asking the questions.

I do have a cell phone, and, as my wife will tell you, I loathe it. Were it not for the situation of being stranded at airports on a routine basis, I would dispense with a mobile phone altogether. I certainly don't feel the need to be "connected" at all times with the internet, or even friends or family.

I have a flip phone now because I kept accidentally dialing people with a newer phone; and I dropped the newer phone once and after that it would randomly display a useless, pure white screen preventing me from dialing out, reading text messages, etc. Oh, and even my flip phone has buttons on the side that do God-knows-what, that I inadvertently press simply by putting the phone in my pocket. My wife claims to call me, but I don't hear or feel the blame thing ring half the time.

I do call my mother every Sunday night, but I must admit that I don't always look forward to it, if only because I have to repeat everything I say at least once. Hearing loss is a part of aging, obviously, but it really becomes tiresome and frustrating trying to correct my mother's interpretation of the name of the place we spent the weekend, or whatever. But, mom does not have the internet, so I can't e-mail. She doesn't have a cell, so I can't text (and I am about the world's slowest texter anyway).

I am truly surprised, and perhaps a little disappointed, to admit that I would rather communicate by e-mail, or even Facebook messaging, instead of by phone or written correspondence. Don't get me wrong, though, I would still choose a face-to-face conversation over any of the above. I suppose that when fewer and fewer e-mails come from friends and colleagues, and politically-motivated e-mails start dominating my in-box, I may go back to the telephone and letter carrier, or cease to communicate altogether. I'm sure some people would be overjoyed by my silence.