hello, all.

it's been quite a while indeed.

i've just created a new blog, and i hope you will start following me over there:
http://healthhypehappiness.blogspot.com/

cheerio.

for your heart!

four.
my 65 year old grandfather, louis maichel, died of cardiac arrest at his place of work in october, 2009.

three.
my amazing great uncle del died of a heart attack last winter, caused by a long standing heart condition.

two.
a clot in jacob neuhardt's heart traveled to his main chamber one night, causing acute coronary thrombosis. my 24 year old childhood friend died in his sleep.

one.
my dear friend erica nystrom's father had a heart attack upon his arrival to alaska on june 7, 2010.

add to the list:
-my boyfriend had open heart surgery as a baby. he'll live with the effects of this surgery, and his condition, for the rest of his life.
-my good friend's husband, aunt and mother all have unpredictable heart conditions
-another friend's husband recently found out he may as well.

get your attention?
i'm not listing these traumatic events in my life this way in order to preach, gain pity or create some sort of drama. statistics like this are never quite as (negatively) captivating as when they are a consistent focus in your own life, or at least in someone's life that is close to you. we need to WAKE UP and start taking care of ourselves before it's too late.

it's easy to sit on the couch let these facts fly out the other ear:
-every 20 seconds, a person in the United States has a heart attack.
-at least 250,000 people die from these attacks before they reach the hospital
-men suffer heart attacks 10 years earlier in life than women do
-9/10 heart attack sufferers have at least one of these risk factors:

• High cholesterol
• High blood pressure
• Diabetes
• Cigarette smoking
• Overweight and obesity
• Poor diet
• Physical inactivity
• Alcohol use

this fact is key:
People who are sedentary are almost TWICE as likely to suffer heart attacks as are people who exercise regularly.

avoid tobacco, be more active, choose good nutrition.

taking simple steps in your everyday life can save your family so much unnecessary pain. why do we want to even risk ending our precious life too early? so many of my friends are dying young in their twenties, missing out on so much love and opportunity. i will not waste another day, and i encourage everyone i love to consider these things as well.

chubby or thin, stout or athletic, we all need at LEAST 3o minutes of activity on 5 or more days a week to keep us heart-healthy. this also is a known stabilizer for blood-pressure, cholesterol and keeping us at a healthy weight, too.

forget being skinny, i just want to LIVE!!

most importantly: remember that every single day has been graciously given to you, and it can just as easily be taken away. i want to challenge myself to never going another day without telling my family and my friends how much i love them. i encourage everyone to do the same. life is too short to let things go unsaid or leave issues unresolved. we're here to love another, so let's do it loudly.

**
in memorium: Louis Maichel, Michael Whitworth, Amanda Lee Terrink, Jacob Christopher-Kellow Neuhardt, Del Bevers, Dan Nystrom.

seasonal hire

for as long as i can remember, i've felt pressure from my family about choosing an appropriate life path for myself. this feeling has infiltrated many areas of my day to day including personal relationships, institutions for education, and finally (most importantly and most difficult), the problem of the career.

it's true that most all people will inevitably face the problem of discerning and working toward a legitimate career. complications begin to rear their head as we discover that one person's legitimate career is another person's minimum wage seasonal position, and that you cannot realistically support a family on $10 an hour. every position is a stepping stone and sometimes you have to pick your battles and weigh the pros and cons of whatever season you happen to be in. that's all well and good, but the truth remains that at some point, we're forced to place ourselves into a genre. some aim higher than others from an early age, some are comfortable sticking to their God-given talents, and others are left in the dark while jugging expectations and reality.

both of my parents came from nothing and decided that they would actively pursue a change in their circumstances. both of them were given scholarships to reputable state universities, excelled within, and went on to obtain their MBA (Masters of Business Administration) from Pepperdine University. my mom graduated with her degree a month before i was born, and immediately they both made it personal goals of theirs to strive for excellence in the corporate field. rising to management and excelling in the aerospace industry for the past 20+ years, they've done extremely well for themselves in becoming some of the most successful and driven people i've ever encountered, and subsequently were able to create a happy and comfortable life for my brother and i.

now that my own season is approaching, i'm becoming concerned about the time i spend advancing in positions that i know will not ultimately contribute to my own goals. the problem seems to be a lack of personal discipline in buckling down and forcing myself to come up with a reasonable answer for a 5 or 10 year plan. it's one thing to have an image of yourself or know what it is that you want to be doing with your life, but having no direction is an even harder battle to fight.

i find myself identifying things that i'd like to do, but do not have the audacity or experience to actively pursue. honestly, i feel as if the only way they could be attainable for is in some alternate universe. maybe somewhere where there was no recession and people with 15 years experience and a Masters in that field weren't out of work and being considered for all, even those shining nuggets of entry-level opportunity for someone like me, positions.

i find myself getting frustrated with the (unwanted) advice people constantly award to me. usually it sounds gravely similar to a broken record and all those pieces of inspirational garbage that i've ignored so many times before. the repetition of these things doesn't encourage me to try harder, but instead upsets and destroys any motivation that i find myself developing.

realistically, i suppose it's all a matter of both perspective and of paying your dues. i'm still young, there's still time, and it will all work out. for now i'll just have to go back to counting my blessings for what i've been so graciously given. i will be thankful for the opportunities i do have, and for the people i have the pleasure of working near and learning from each day.

Seven Things

For a change of pace, how about a prompt. Here's my list of 7 things that you should probably avoid saying to someone who was recently dumped:

1. A (perhaps)Well-Intentioned but Backwards-Worded Compliment: "Oh, don't worry... he was way too good for you anyway."

2. And, Another: "Eh, you guys would have had really ugly children anyway."

3. From the Loyal Friend: "He was acting distant? Oh, I totally know what you mean. The last couple times we went out he seemed like he had a lot on his mind. I'll ask him about it later tonight for you."

4. The Reject-Rebound: "He dumped you? Perfect! I was just dumped, too. Come over tonight and I'll let you shave my back and you can sample some home-made alligator jerky. Hope you don't mind scales."

5. The Sympathetic Shoulder: "Wow that sucks. So, since you're free... would you mind cat-sitting this weekend while the hubby and I renew our vows in Jamacia? We're so in love. Oh, there's Ben & Jerry's in the freezer for you."

6. Ulterior Motives?: "You seem to be having pretty bad luck. How about batting for the other team for awhile? I know a guy."

7. Unnecessary Bluntness: "Yeah, I could see that. You can be pretty needy and self-absorbed."


ouch.

Blame the Feminist Lens.

I’ve recently forced myself to re-watch a film that, regrettably, I paid 10 dollars to see in a Salem, OR movie theatre last winter. I had willfully hidden the experience underneath the countless other shameful and rotten things found in the depths of my mind, hoping that there within lay the film’s final resting place. Much like Pandora, I swore to never re-open this box of cinematic travesty for fear of murdering the respect I have for (arguably) innocent members of the opposite sex. My one-sided, individually justified mindset worked quite well as a disdain neutralizer until just recently, when my own mother began to praise the film’s message. I couldn’t believe my ears. A member of my own family has fallen victim to such blatant and disgusting socially generalized propaganda, and now I refuse to sit around in silence.

At the risk of sounding completely biased, I must admit that my initial analysis of this film resulted in a perhaps overly vocal diagnosis to my peers. Focused almost exclusively on the blatant objectification and naivety of the female characters, I was convinced that the creator of the film and author of the book must be nothing short of wholly and unapologetically misogynistic. After all, the female character set includes actresses like Scarlett Johansson (big boobs, no talent) and Jennifer Connolly (notably beautiful, but terribly frigid) at the forefront. Personally, I would have liked to have seen at least some mildly unfortunate looking actresses headlining this piece. If the point of the thing was to appeal to the enormous masses of women who are facing similar relationship crises every day of their life, the least Hollywood could have done for us poor, unfortunate souls is to have, say, Tilda Swinton playing Connolly’s role.

As I’ve said, I initially diagnosed the film (and the thesis entirely, for that matter) as a piece of trash that emotionally preys on the vulnerable, idealistic spirits of today’s (also arguably) modern, progressive woman. No doubt that the media itself is the source responsible for such an outrageous mindset; where Sleeping Beauty must wait for a hundred years for True Love’s Kiss before she is free from the Witch’s spell and able to live Happily Ever After. Yes, HJNTIY completely reinforces the idea that women are helpless, unhappy, desperate, and naïve until they meet the man of their dreams. Not only do we, as damsels, search desperately for our own personal Prince Charming to slay the dragons of life, we are programmed to expect more than just the gifts of security and affection. We are searching for completion, and in all the wrong places.

The thing that irritated me most about the film is the five archetypes that exist embodied within the main female characters. The way that we seem to be so conveniently forced into such helpless, two dimensional marionettes is almost sickening to me.

1. The obnoxious, forward, naïve woman who reads way too far into any encounter she has with the opposite sex, subsequently either driving them away or putting all of her eggs into one unreliable basket. If you are desperate enough, they will come.

2. The cold, distant wife who is “not giving her husband any,” causing him to move onto a younger, more attractive woman who will. This one is more focused on planning her friend’s Destination Wedding after a single date than paying attention to the downward spiral that her marriage is beginning to take.

3. The “other woman,” (did you guess Scarlett?) who may actually be emotionally invested in the married man she is involved with. However, she completely disregards the sanctity of another couple’s marriage for the sake of her own selfish intention.

4. The “nag”, who is in a long term committed relationship and living with a man who continually says that he loves her, but does not believe in marriage. The lesson here is, “if you nag him enough, he WILL propose.”

5. The “internet-dater” who uses her Myspace profile to meet the next prospect. She spends each day with almost exclusively homosexual men who constantly call her “Girlfriend.”

I suppose that the point of these limited profiles could be to say that no one is perfect. We all have our own individual issues, and even those of us who feel as though there isn’t a chance in a Blue Moon that we’ll find what we’re looking for have a shot at it. I know that’s probably the point. But quite honestly, all I can do is look at these profiles and say “Alright, these woman are the “every man”, so which of their profiles best defines me?"

And, to be fair, I do also realize that the film didn’t present completely reasonable depictions of men, either. I’m quite sure that not all men cheat on their wives, keep a count of how many encounters he can have with a woman before she becomes expendable, etc.

While the film itself may portray messages to the audience that might be true, such as, “If he’s not calling you, it’s because he doesn’t want to call you,” I believe that the method of example was ineffective and, from a distance, unfairly gender biased. Sure, it’s probably true that if someone wanted to call you, they’d figure out a way to pick up the phone. But quite frankly, staring mindlessly at an hour and a half soap opera of exaggerated trial and sexual error didn’t do much in the way of opening my eyes to the ‘correct’ way of roping in a man.

I guess I should take better notes next time.

cinderella, cancer, and hypothetical biographies

"A change came in disguise of revelation
Set his soul on fire
She said she always knew he'd come around
And the decades disappear
Like sinking ships but we persevere
God gives us hope
But we still fear what we don't know
Your mind is poison"
- the Killers, 'A Dustland Fairytale'

I cannot get enough of this song. It really is, in my humble opinion, extremely close to being worthy of the classification of "mini-epic." As I listen to it now, for nothing short of the three-hundredth time this month, I find it to be resonating within me as beautifully and heavily as the first time I heard it.

For some reason, even though the song is full of superficial references to Cinderella and castles in the clouds, among other whimsicalities, I somehow remain focused on the underlying negatives. Upon further analysis, I’m finding myself convinced that we’re talking about death.

"Now Cinderella don’t you go to sleep
It’s such a bitter form of refuge
Don’t you know the kingdom’s under siege
And everybody needs you?"

I’ve just come across something on the internet that interprets the lyrics to the song, specifically in these two sections, as something that Brandon Flowers (the frontman) wrote in response to his mother’s death from cancer. I can see that, if the mother is Cinderella, and the "kingdom under seige" is their family dynamic being torn apart by the disease. This is surely heartbreaking, but causes quite a few problems for me in my analytical journey toward Killer enlightenment.

I have always been secretly disappointed in literature when, as the reader, we are made forcibly aware of an author’s motives for writing a story. Perhaps they spent a short amount of time at a mental institution, or maybe were a victim of a terrible accident or underprivileged childhood, or perhaps they were born a man and raised female, causing some subconscious damage I won’t even begin to describe.

For example, I was very deeply wounded when I discovered the real-life context for my favorite short story, “The Yellow Wallpaper,” by Charlotte Perkins Gilman. To me, the story was obviously about suppressing feminism during the 19^th century, as the narrator is essentially held prisoner by her physician husband due to an “illness” which required her to be bed-ridden. She begins to hallucinate and see things in the wallpaper of her room, such as figures of other women, and constantly has the feeling of being “watched” by the eyes in the paper. I was perfectly content with my own interpretation, and then my inconsiderate professor had to go and tell me that Gilman spent some time in a mental institution, was treated by a physician who basically knew nothing at all, and that the eyes in the wallpaper were obviously metaphorical for her own experience being monitored by a sort of panopticon in the asylum. Interesting background? Sure. Unwarranted, homicidal Bubble burst? Absolutely.

Uncovering these things always make for a clean, neatly packaged textual interpretation, which is something I absolutely cannot stand. Can there really be symbolism in something if you already know what the author meant?

This is also why I tend to avoid reading the “about the author” flaps on the inside of hardbound covers, or usually the entire Preface to the book altogether. Other than it being extra pages to read where nothing exciting goes on, it almost inevitably will give me context that I do not appreciate. I think it’s a calculated move, too. They position those Prefaces and that inside-flap spoiler nonsense in a manner that attempts to force my reading through a specific, chronologically based lens, one most definitely lost in an abyss of factual understanding. This is no fun at all, and makes for cloned, predictable, robotic textual discussions.

To me, in this same way, music is literature. I don't want interpretation boundaries on lyrics. I really didn’t appreciate hearing that Flowers’ mother had passed from cancer, sparking the motive for these lyrics. Not to sound insensitive, but that wasn't what I (the "reader") was after. I do also understand that this theory may not necessarily be true, but now I feel like I can’t decide for myself what the song was about! Having to re-live the pain and agony caused by yet another Bubble Burst is almost too much to bear.

So, in short, while it can sometimes be mildly interesting to absorb some sort of Wikipedia-assembled explanation to some of art’s greatest mysteries, I find that I’d much rather openly interpret, correctly or incorrectly, and gather evidence as I see fit.

Similarly, I’d much rather make up ridiculous, hypothetical stories about people I know than hear something true about their life experience. A sort of hypothetical biography, or, if you’d rather, a “Hypography”.

I've written most of your Hypographies already.

check out today's muse on letterman's late show. i am especially fond of the orchestral jam that starts at about the 3:15 mark.

namaste.

Tonight I went to my usual Tuesday night yoga class, as I’ve been doing consistently for about 6 months or so. The class starts at 7pm and goes until 8:30, but I like to go to the gym early. It’s important for my mind to be in the right state before I begin the practice, because otherwise I won’t be focusing on anything productive and just milling distracting thoughts in my head the whole time. If I go running for a bit to warm up beforehand, this sort of clarity is much easier to obtain and, if nothing else, I will have at least gotten some decent mileage in.

I know that a lot of people are anti-Yoga because of the, shall we say, spiritual “connotations” that come along side it. I’ve heard it trashed and demonized almost endlessly because it’s “weird” and “too new age-y.” That last one is sort of ironic because Yoga has actually been around for hundreds and hundreds of years. But, in all fairness, these are relatively valid arguments. I do know that Yoga was initially established in India to compliment the Hindu/Buddhist religious practices. So, for someone who is neither of those things, a lot of it may seem strange and bizarre.

One thing that always startles me is the amount of discussion about “leaving the body” and “mind/body separation” and “reaching enlightenment” and “focusing on the third-eye” (which is supposedly located between your two eyebrows) and… well, you get the picture.

The strangest thing for me is when my instructor says things like “close your eyes and focus your inner energy on the areas most tense in your body." What does that mean? Should you close your eyes and push really hard, or breathe only out of the right side of your mouth in the general direction of your right shoulder that's aching? My personal favorite is, “surround your internal organs individually, (she’ll go off for awhile and list practically all of them) with your divine, loving breath.” Sometimes it’s a little bit difficult for me to focus on the flexibility portion of the “practice” and keep from laughing out loud. This is a silent environment, and so I really do have to bite my tongue.

Today there was, as usual, a great deal of discussion of having “out of body experiences.” I found this to be especially curious timing because just earlier, my brother had sent me a text message and told me about an unusual dream he had last night. He said that in the dream, he had an “out of body experiences” and could literally see himself as his spirit (or… essence… or… soul?) flew high above the body.

Now, I don’t know what I think about that sort of thing. Sounds a little bit off to me, and I can’t say that it’s too good of an idea to be thinking of yourself as a divine and powerful being, "one with the earth" or being equal to any sort of god. It’s one thing to be physically aware of the differences between your body and your mind, and to focus on your awareness or coming to understand things that your body can or can’t handle. I think mental health and physical health are especially important, so I try to detoxify myself through hydration and regular exercise. I try to nourish my body through extensive flexibility exercises and clearing my mind of all-consuming or negative thoughts, and I try to maintain wellness by taking vitamins and eating healthy.

I suppose, though, a better alternative to superficial detoxification would be through a more spiritually based one. Removing those substances from life that aren’t pure, that clog the system, causing negative buildup and the corrosion of positive traits. A better way to nourish the body is instead through nourishing the soul with community, prayer and daily devotionals. And, finally, a better way to maintain wellness is to approach everything and everyone we encounter with an attitude of love and optimism. Focusing on these things will truly lead a person to real, true, biblical enlightenment. And surely, with the addition of one or two "downward facing dogs" from time to time (just for good measure), greater things are soon to be.*