alexis in the city

Open Hand

Today, I gave ten bucks to a kid by the train station who was (allegedly) trying to get home to Seattle. Which is so unlike me. I only did it because yesterday there was a guy outside the grocery store asking for $8 to get a hotel room for the night, and I told him no. And then felt really bad about it for quite a while. Which is also really unlike me.

I’ve long said that my goal is to live with an open hand, but I realize I don’t do this very well. And when I DO do it, and the repercussions bum me out, I treat my giving like something with strings attached and not like a gift. So I’ve been trying to really tune into people’s needs and check in with my conscious before I move on - as far as I can tell that’s the best I can do.

Sure, I look for ways to give - both of my time and money - through organizations I trust and people I know. But I haven’t quite figured out how to deal gracefully and open-handedly with the one-off situations that bombard you on a practical level when you live downtown in a (semi) big city. On the one hand, I figure that it’s up to the person to do with my resources what they say they will.

On the other hand - I have to pay rent.

There will always be someone that needs something - and there will always be more worthy causes than I can support, let alone random people on the street that I may or may not be able to help. I have to be wise with my resources as well - you can go broke doing good deeds and then what good would that really do? Sure, that’s an extreme scenario but it’s a logical conclusion.

I tend to believe in a more pragmatic approach to helping people - teaching them a skill, or giving something specific I know they truly need. So does this mean I should curtail my open handedness at this point? I’ve personally seen unbridled giving do more harm than good and I don’t want to contribute to that either.

I suppose for now the easy answer is to just not carry much cash …

Yes, I have more than enough … but don’t tax me

There seems to be a sentiment pervading American thought that top earners deserve to be taxed more. The thought spreads from the rich and influential like Warren Buffet, to random people on the street with cardboard signs. Apparently, the theory is that the rich have enough to shoulder the burden of those who do not, and so should have to give more to the government.

My first problem with that statement is its complete subjectivity. Who decides what “enough” is? By a global standard, probably 99.99% of people in America have “enough.” Do we cut people off after they’ve had a single meal for the day? After they’ve invested in a single pair of shoes? After they’ve bought their first house? After they have a closet full of furs? After they start driving a Hummer? I’m not saying there should be no taxes, and for the purpose of this post I don’t want to quibble over exactly what that amount should be - but rather point out a flaw in the logic of “enough.”

My second problem with the above statement - and the crux of my argument - hinges on the second half of the sentence: the idea that we should have to give more to the government. Yes, I have more than enough but I believe *I* am the best allocator of my resources - not my family, not my church and certainly not my government. I believe that as I allocate my resources according to my decisions, not only do I provide a bigger benefit to the people and organizations to whom I give charitably, but I also provide a bigger benefit to the economy as a whole.

So yes, I suppose I stand with the 99% … but I do so through a desire for personal benevolence, not forced “charity.”

Circumstantial Housewife

Are you there, no one? It’s me, Alexis

I’ve noticed something lately: I’ve been talking a lot. And not in the way my teachers would complain to my parents about at every single parent-teacher conference, and on every single report card. Working from home by yourself makes talking much more disturbing. My mom says she used to narrate her daily life to me as a baby, so I suspect I get it from her. When I’m at home, I can pass it off as talking to the dog, but when I’m out in public it gets a lot weirder.

My mom had baby-me as the recipient of her grocery store soliloquies and coffee shop musings and she says she still got strange looks. I’ve got me, myself, and I - and whoever happens to be milling around while I’m wondering aloud if the apples are local, or audibly noting that my smoothie is much spicier than normal.

As any of my K-12 teachers will attest, I’ve always been chatty but I’m not sure when I started talking to myself. Does anyone else do this? It doesn’t seem to bode well for impending senility … which I’ve heard gets WORSE with age.

Portland is the South of the Northwest

(my run this morning)

People here are slow. And really friendly. It’s weird. Ryan says the fact that I think this is weird just shows my level of ignorance; since most of the rest of the country operates at a much slower pace than I’m used to, I’m actually the strange one. That may be true, but it’s such a drastic, marked difference I can’t help but notice it.

I’m not a patient person and that’s not necessarily a good thing. Even things in so-called “big cities” tend not to move fast enough for me. I get stuck walking behind gawking tourists. Or the person in line in front of me can’t decide what to order. Or cabs take more than 30 seconds to arrive. People show up late to meetings, take forever getting on or off the train, forget my order, blahblahblah. It’s something I’m working on, ok?!

continue reading »