Economics -- is it all in our Heads??

Recently there has been some talk in the media-- that US economic turmoil is actually a psychological phenomena. Needless to say, I sometimes agree with them.
First of all, everyone seems to have forgotten that 50-60 years ago we were spending a bigger percentage of our paycheck on food than now, nobody owned more than one car and everyone was happy as a clam to live in their tiny one bathroom Levittown-type house. Fast forward to 2008 where many "middle-class" Americans live in homes with 3 times the square footage, teenagers drive themselves to school in their own cars, and everyone is busy buying "storage solutions" for all the crap they have accumulated at Wal-Mart.
Bottom line, is the economy declining--or are we expecting it to grow at unrealistic rates?

I do know that in a place like Alaska, high fuel costs are enough to have people worried--simply because of the lack of public transportation and need to heat their homes. However, I'm not sure if that is an "economic problem" in so much as an "energy problem". Many will argue that fuel costs trickle down and affect all costs--but according to the experts we're still spending less of a percentage of our income on food than 50 years ago, but more on items like big screen TVs.

Or, same as in Alaska, throughout the midwest--especially near Chicago, I saw recently built development after development. Not tiny little dwellings, but giant beige architecturally inept monster homes. Add to that the box-store corrals located down the street from all the beige enthusiasts, and you have to wonder--who are all these people? And are they really worried? And if they are, is it only that they can't buy their kiddies 16 new pairs of back-to- school jeans?

What is probably happening is that the bigger problem of income disparity between the rich and poor is becoming more exaggerated. But is that really an economic problem or a long-standing problem of our lightly regulated capitalistic system?? And lack of decent public transportation??
So if the economic debate is to continue in this country, then Americans need to ask themselves--what is a good economy? How much is enough? Should every American really be able to afford a Hummer and live in a McMansion? What are we really entitled to? And at what point do we realize that our grandchildren can not sustainably all be millionaires??

Political Misconceptions

I just recently read some guys personal mantra regarding his seriously strong bias against "liberal democrats". It was a truly bizarre rambling, but something like this:" All liberal kooks are welfare sucking, unemployment loving, hemp wearing, granola eating hippies that support the Humane Society and tree hugging". He also mentioned that these kooks are the idiots that want the polar bear listed as "threatened'--(this is just an Alaska issue). Very weird over-generalization from my point of view. Where in the world did he meet someone on welfare or unemployment who could afford expensive hemp clothes??? Or even granola for that matter?? Obviously he's never met such a person, as he would see it is an impossibility. Why do I know this?? Well from 4 years working in social services, explaining government programs. Trust me, folks collecting their $12 a month worth of food stamps aren't wearing hemp! Most don't even give a flying rats ass about politics--or either party. Very rarely have I even met a so-called "tree hugger" in the group. This poor soul also doesn't seem to realize that people with good jobs and educations listed the polar bear as endangered (not through some sort of weird vote at the public assistance building)--did I mention it was listed under a conservative administration??Yes, weird stuff indeed. Where do these misconceptions even come from??

Send the Jersey Deer to Alaska

With some amusement I recently read an article about folks in New Jersey protesting the hunting of excessive suburban deer populations. Having been a former Jersey girl myself, I have witnessed first hand how the deer populations just seemed to explode in the past 15 years and with them the disturbing increase in deer ticks and Lyme disease. Where once any hoofed creature would have been a rare sight, roving gangs of suburban deer wander the streets in Northern New Jersey.
I can sympathize with the protesters point of view--after all, the deer can be considered a success, considering that there is no such thing as wild habitat left in Northern New Jersey. And lets face it-- hunting is just not something that happens out there, nor is anyone comfortable with the concept. Of course these quasi-wild deer could best be managed with their own natural "wild managers"--coyotes and wolves. But even the Jersey bunny huggers probably draw the line at wolf hugging. It seems everyone back East is convinced that a coyote will simply eat their baby, right off their suburban porch.
Meanwhile, here in Alaska, all the hunters bitch and moan that there are never enough ungulates (moose, caribou) to hunt and chase. Thus the wolves and bears are always blamed as unfavorable competition, and "predator managed" to boost the hoofed critter populations.
I don't want those nasty deer ticks , but maybe the Alaska hunters would appreciate a giant jumbo jet filled with Jersey deer dropped and parachuted over interior Alaska. Should be plenty to go around--for the hunters plate as well as the neighborhood wolves. In exchange we could send some wolves back East- to help those guys out naturally as well.
Somehow, I don't think my wildlife management ideas will roll with anyone, but it's a shame that humans are so short-sighted that animal populations always seem to be at the mercy of local politics, and not the natural ecology....

Two Girls Lost in Denali Alaska

Recently two young ladies in their 20's unintentionally extended their hiking trip, i.e. "disappeared" in Denali National Park. Of course, by now everyone knows the happy outcome-- a lucky phone call was made and they were found alive and well.
The more unfortunate part was reading the Anchorage Daily News "comments" section, where some opinionated & grumpy Alaskans had quite a lot of negative things to say. Mostly the writers were upset that the search operation cost a lot of money and volunteer time. Then, after the ladies were found they seemed much too giddy about their situation. I guess everyone wanted to see them injured and weeping--especially since so much "money" was spent.
I personally didn't really like the aloof attitude of the girls on the TV news either, however, it did highlight an overlooked point--the girls didn't ask for a giant rescue operation and obviously didn't feel it was necessary.
So how can you blame the girls if they felt they were safe (it was summer after all). It's as if the critics want them to pay back the money and apologize for the rescue they never requested. But is that really fair? That people should fear hiking or mountain trips in case somebody else decides to "rescue" them and send a bill??
Overall the wilderness isn't always the "dangerous" place so many fear. Winter can be tricky in Alaska, but summertime hikers and campers should be given the benefit of a doubt. They can come out unscathed after all, and maybe shouldn't be blamed for being able to do so.

Why is PTSD Stigmatized as a Disorder?

In times of war, discussions regarding PTSD make the news headlines. Civilians experiencing tragedy and disaster most definitely experience the same affliction, making it a fairly common human experience. My quandary however, is the last part of the acronym- the word "disorder".
I am assuming that it is considered a disorder, because feelings of depression, rage, fear or guilt that interfere with everyday functioning are a no-no in normal society. But what then is the acceptable response to tragedy & death?
Do we want a society where it is healthy to watch others be blown to pieces and the citizens witnessing such an event can brush it off and just move on? Why is there shame when a human being experiences an obvious biological response to unspeakable violence and destruction?? Isn't it actually better for a society's survival to over-react to death and gore instead of ignore it? I say, label it Post Traumatic Stress Response, drop the 'disorder' stigma and accept that humans just might not be able to experience brutality and then live happily ever after...

No Money, No Time

I am learning that a dent in finances significantly reduces leisure time. Probably one of the reasons so many folks are vegetating in front of the TV may be simply because they outsource their problems. If one decides that "I will fix, build, grow" everything I need without outside assistance, then one is a busy beaver indeed.
I have found that the luxury of becoming fat in front of the TV is impossible, once we try to do everything ourselves. The time commitment is incredible--yet no one seems to understand.
The short list of our time suckers just this spring:
--Repairing the old garden tractor engine (can never be brought anywhere for repair as we don't even own a trailer)
--Chopping fire wood without renting a pesky log-splitter
--Maintaining veggie and herb garden
--Building a rustic door from scratch
--Varnishing moldings and shelves
--Eliminating carpenter ants with bizarre and non-toxic methods
--cleaning up after way too many dogs and cats
--installing and finishing tongue and groove flooring
The only "problem" we outsourced to another professional was the porcupine quill removal from the dogs nose. And that was simply way beyond our expertise, but I am sure others would scoff at that expense as well...
There you have it! No leisure time, but we are quite content after all! Good night.

Complacency vs. Contentment

Recently I heard someone complain that complacency was one of the worst human characteristics one can have. Being complacent suggests smugness, laziness, aloofness and other negative connotations. But whenever I hear the word "complacent" I always think--but isn't that also contentment?? And contentment brings out warm and fuzzy feelings of happiness, love and general well being.
So what's the deal??? I looked both words up in my mini Websters dictionary, and alas, no clarity was achieved. Complacency means smug, which by definition is: self-satisfied. Content is simply defined as "satisfied". Huh? In other words being self-satisfied is bad, but being satisfied is good, yet they technically mean the same thing. (ok, so maybe a smug person brags about it--but when is bragging a bad thing in our society?)

So that's what I was afraid of. These words are so similar that nobody wants to admit that -hey contentment isn't really a good thing either. These two words fascinate me so, because our whole western civilization is driven by the fear of complacency. By being complacent , (i.e. content) one would be satisfied with their small house, older car, outdated jeans and ragged lawn....and that would be bad for the economy and even worse, your neighbors would laugh at you behind your back.
Of course, I can't say I recommend contentment with bad hygiene, deviant behavior and such, but economic contentment would be a relief! Not only to our environment but help curb some stress to boot. But with economic contentment, comes a stagnant economy--which is a shame, that we can't develop a whole new system--based on people actually being satisfied and that being a good thing.