obfuscate or re-educate? October 6, 2008

A recent (and rather lengthy) discussion of the use of the words “gravy” and “sauce” got me thinking… Here is the problem with America in a nutshell.  Lemme ’splain … no there is too much, lemme sum up…

Someone called a picture of your traditional meatball and red “sauce” GRAVY.  he was harking back to the ole italians in early new york who would call the red meat-based liquid you pour over pasta, “gravy.”  some people immediately go “EWWW” and think of the gravy that you put on mashed potatoes and turkey on thanksgiving (which is also a meat-based liquid incidentally). 

The point is we have prejudices, and prior assumptions and connotations associated with a word – a mere word – that instantly sparks debate and conflict.  It’s minor and frivolous, yes, but on a very small scale, it shows in essence how we fail to communicate and refuse on a very intrinsic level to put our differences aside.

Now far be it from me to belabor the issue (hahaha) I had to go back and consult the end-all be-all of modern knowledge, aka wikipedia.  I re-discovered what I thought I knew and after some fact-checking, I felt vindicated.  Sauce is a French word and gravy is an Anglican word, and therefore the early New Yorkers of Italian heritage probably DID call it gravy because they weren’t learning french back then.  Probably some snobby Frenchmen who thought that only the French know how to cook started calling it sauce in fancy restaurants and all the hoity-toity richies felt more educated and high class to say sauce.

But let’s not forget the obvious… they are WORDS with simple, unbiased meanings.  They actually MEAN the SAME EXACT THING… a liquid created to pour over something else to add flavor and juice.  The added associations you have are just exactly that – personal associations.  You say tomato, I say tomato, and I’ll get to Scotland before ye.

Oh oh! macaroni au jus!

Recommended reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauce

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravy

Bon appetit!

No i mean Mangia!

speechless September 23, 2008

there are a few situations going on in my life lately that have baffled me. and i didn’t speak my mind. i just let things happen and i walked away saddened and frustrated and broken.  and this poem emerged.  i have always felt it incredibly hard to say what i am really thinking, mostly only when it means that i know someone is going to be uncomfortable or put into an awkward position. i had that happen to me twice in the past week, and i quickly assessed the pros and cons of speaking my heart. and of course i decided to err on the side of caution and say absolutely nothing.  was it the right decision? i sure don’t know. only time will tell i guess. or maybe i’ll never know at all. and that was part of my decision – a consequence i was willing to bear.  because once you say something, you can never take it back. i dont believe in backpaddling. you could argue i must have missed opportunities with that, and maybe i have.  i just can’t stand hearing my voice saying things out loud even i don’t want to hear.  and silence is always beautiful to me.

maybe one of these days… although, i think thats why i’m a writer.  it’s always easier for me to type it out and get it just the way i want it.  and then delete it before anyone knows the better of it. you should see my drafts folders! wait, no, no you shouldnt

ps. to mike, you are more than welcome to poke fun at my poetry – i am an equal opportunity kinda girl

what i didn’t say

the things i dont say hurt the most;
not you, but me, they slowly kill.
i dare not hear my voice aloud.

my voice – it wanders across in waves
and makes no real connection
to anything smacking of true.

i am full of lies,
the omission kind; the co-mission kind
is far behind me.

i close my mouth.
i write this poem.
i shut down the laptop.
i shut down.

tomorrow, i think, i will speak again.
tomorrow, i think, will be another day
to not say what i really need to say…
but write another crappy poem.
that doesnt even rhyme.

Perception versus communication August 27, 2008

I find it alternately alarming and entertaining how different people’s perceptions are of the same situation.  That story of the blind men with the elephant is a great one… you know the one where each of the men are blind and come to totally different conclusions about what they are touching based on the part of the elephant they are near…

If you’ve ever taken a journalism class or done any kind of writing exercises (or a logic/reasoning class for that matter), you’ve probably heard about perspective and view.  Perspective is when you establish the speaker - who they are, what they’re experiencing, where they’ve come from, and what biases they may have.  To know this information is to better understand their opinions as well as their perceptions of an event. If you were to interview 4 different people at a scene, you’ll get 4 different stories.  it’s the argument scholars use for the differences in the accounts of the Gospels in the Bible. 

it’s also why we have most interpersonal conflicts.  people have perceptions of what happened, what was said and why, the motives of others, and even the outcomes. how many of us have sat in a meeting with a group, walked out, and then got the minutes of the meeting only to read something that didnt seem at all what had happened.  or maybe the things that were important to you in the meeting were obviously not as important to the person(s) who drafted the minutes.

When it comes to interpersonal conflict, getting to the root means uncovering biases caused by experience, lack of communication and MIScommunication (usually through lack of common definitions).  I have found that most people fail to do two things: (1) honestly and truthfully communicate, and (2) care! you know, actually give a crap.  Some people seem to thrive on being “misunderstood” and feel like in some way it validates their problems or excuses their behaviors.  To that I say, whatever, dude.

Communication can only be truly achieved when you start out with common definitions, meaning removing barriers by defining ideologies and underlying principles of what is being said.  Without a definition of words you use, you may create misunderstandings that will start you off as defensive, combative, stubborn, misguided, and etc etc. And throughout the conversation you have to make sure you are verifying understanding by all parties involved, asking questions (NOT yes or no questions) and having other people reiterate what you said.

Thisi s why I rarely get into any kind of politics with people.  Unless I feel like the person is actually interested in what I believe and why, and we have the time to lay out the definitions and ideologies behind decisions, I just walk away from it.  Personally, I like hearing other opinions and I ask questions about why people think certain things, and where they get their facts. I honestly like to hear opinions that are completely different from mine and challenge my own way of thinking. But I find that most people just like to argue and dont even care what you’re saying because they made up their minds and wont even entertain the idea that they are “wrong.” As if!

So where is this coming from you may be asking?  Well, in case you haven’t noticed or just recently came back from MARS, it is an election year.  I’ve been watching parts of the Democratic convention and it amazes me how some people really dont give a crap about what others are saying.

But don’t get me started on Ted Kennedy…

Anyway, the point is to please listen already.  Just listen.  You can even fold your arms and frown if you want to.  but listen any way.  Thanks in advance