X-Post: Want happiness? Think like a toddler

A Goodness and Goodwill x-post
---

Words stolen from this One Flew Over the Playpen post of the same name. I didn't take all of it, and I didn't even want to take as much as I did, but I also didn't want to lose the essence of AnnieDubs' post. Still, anyone interested should read the whole thing at her post. (In fact, I'd recommend reading her blog, in general: One Flew Over the Playpen | One-time political insider turned stay-at-home momma.)

Toddlers make every single choice based on a single criterion: Does this have the potential to make me happy at this exact moment. I say at this exact moment, because the moments following something like lying down in a rain puddle, diving off the sofa, seeing if your finger will fit down the bathtub drain, and smacking the dog across the nose are accompanied by a decidedly unfun aftermath. But that’s not the point. The point is to not think, to just do. To give every possible opportunity for happiness, even if it’s fleeting, the chance it deserves.

Most of the time, I am the buzz kill to O’s high on life. BE CAREFUL. DON’T TOUCH THAT. SLOW DOWN. But sometimes, I follow him around and do what he does. We run wildly through the park with no direction. We put all the pillows in the house in one pile on the floor and throw ourselves onto them. We tear up magazines because the sound is so cool.

I also let O fall. A lot. I worry that if I ever had to take him to the hospital, they’d call Social Services because he is a mosaic of scrapes and bruises on any given day. But generally, if I am confident he can’t break his neck and probably won’t break a bone, I believe the aftermath is worth the adventure.

If you are having a bad day, you should stop for a moment and act like a toddler. And don’t give me that I have responsibilities BS. Go outside and just run without thinking. Stick your hand in some mud just to feel it ooze under your fingernails. Take something – just anything you see – and dump it on the floor to hear the noise. Make the craziest sound you can think of until you feel better.

I know my job is literally to follow around a toddler. I know, I know. My life is sweet ass. But like I said, I’m still a buzz kill to O 99% of the time. It doesn’t matter what my job is now, I still think like an adult. How much time do I have? What needs to get done? What’s the next step?

You gotta force yourself to think differently sometimes. O is right. Sometimes happiness is watching a plane float by. Sometimes it’s rubbing yogurt through your hair. Sometimes it’s spinning in circles until you can’t spin any more.

It doesn’t matter how much planning I do or how thoroughly I weigh the consequences, happiness really doesn’t ever change, whether you’re a toddler or adult…it is always fleeting. But I forget that. I keep forgetting it’s not a long-term accomplishment. I’ve been thinking lately about how I’m not doing enough with myself. I’m not “furthering my career” or “making the most of my time.” But when I look back at the people and things that have made me most happy in my life, they are a series of tiny, fleeting moments that can’t be quantified. Somehow they all just add up into one big general state of just feeling happy.

So when I’ve been feeling like that, I take a tip from O. I grab a little bit of happiness where ever I can find it, even if it’s fleeting. Even if there’s a mess to clean up afterward. It’s worth it every time.

I have nothing to add...

In Reply: "...newsworthiness is not a sufficient argument for publishing photographs/videos of people against their (or their family's) will..."

Revised and extended, in reply to the American Power post Realities of War? An Update:
---

One or two more bits about Cassandra.

1) I'm not seeing the hard-left, radical feminism in either of her arguments that Donald says he does. While I'm sure Donald's actions & reactions would likely've been different, does anyone doubt that Cassandra would've reacted any differently were it hottie sports reporter "Eric" Andrews who was videotaped in a hotel room naked, and fellow conservatives like Donald (though more likely "Donna" Douglas) were providing links to the illegally shot video in hopes of increasing their blog traffic?

Does anyone think that Cassandra's arguments about rape & incest victims would be any more or less forcefully argued by her if the majority of victims were men & boys, rather than women & girls? After reading a good deal of what she's written before and since, I sure don't.

While gender absolutely does play a part in sexual exploitation--be it voyeurism or rape--I submit that Cassandra's arguments against re-victimizing Erin Anderews and against photographing rape or incest victims are not based on the gender of the victim, but on the fact that the victim is a victim.

2) Cassandra's argument in the Erin Andrews matter is not inconsistent with her position here. In both (and seemingly all) cases, she believes that newsworthiness is not a sufficient argument for publishing photographs/videos of people against their (or their family's) will. That is true whether the person is a famous sports reporter, a member of the military who was injured or killed in the line of duty, or a rape/incest victim, or whether the person in the photograph is male or female.

While I don't agree with her argument equating soldiers with crime victims, her argument is consistent, and at least as rational as it is emotional.

Of course YMMV...
---

Sunday, September 6, 2009, 3:01 AM (AmPow blog time)

In Reply: Striking a Balance Between Privacy and the Public's Right to Know

In reply to the American Power post "Realities of War? An Update," discussing military families and privacy rights vs the public's right to know:
---

It's a shame that Dr. Douglas included the bit about Cassandra at Villainous Company. Given his history with her (and the fact that he relates it here in this post), it seemed a little more vindictive that informative.

Aside that, this is among Donald's best posts, as he shows himself willing to look at all sides of the issue and admit that he's not sure there is one right answer.

While I believe the media should have the legal right to use legitimately newsworthy photographs, they have a moral obligation to balance newsworthiness against the privacy wishes of the person being photographed or, when they cannot express their wishes, the wishes of their families.

While there will always be some who prefer to keep their grief private, there will also always be those who, for one reason or another, choose to share their grief and the loved one they lost with the rest of us, and I agree that those latter families, no matter the reason for their choice, are allowing their loved one to serve their country one final time.

While it's sad that some families will find themselves in the position of having photographs published against their wishes, and that there will be times when the public will lose out on a better understanding of an issue because the media outlet chose to honor a families wishes, I believe that the system we have now is about right -- though I remain suspicious of the whole embed system.

Aside legitimate national security concerns, the military should not be dictating what stories and images they must or cannot use to a free media. (However, I agree that if the contract the photographer signed said she was restricted in what she could offer for publication, she should've lived up to her word, and not used those photographs. It's a bad rule that I believe reporters & photographers ought to refuse to sign, but those who do sign ought to live up to it.)

As for Cassandra (since Dr. Douglas did bring it up), I believe she is playing the reductio ad absurdum game (or something like it at least).

First of all, we do in fact see some of the physical effects of rape, on those victims who despite privacy concerns, are willing to show some of their injuries in the media or in public. Even very graphic images are "published" in court, where some members of the general public do see them.

Images of genitals etc. are for the most part kept out of the media whether the person is a soldier or a rape/incest victim, so I'm not sure her analogy holds.

And the fact that soldiers volunteer to serve their country and perhaps be maimed or killed whereas crime victims do not makes a difference, as well. Whatever injuries a soldier sustains s/he receives on behalf of all of us. That means we have an obligation to know what we're asking our military men & women to risk for us. There are very few situations where anyone (let alone the country) asks a woman to become a rape victim on another person's behalf.

On the other hand, Cassandra is right about one thing; Thankfully, relatively few of us really know what it means to be a victim of the kind of crimes she describes. While I'm not sure we need to or that it would help anyone if more of us did, she is right about the fact that few of us do. But while the tolerance for some crimes (like the video voyeurism of Erin Andrews, where the video was essentially a product of the crime) is too high, VERY few are similarly tolerating, celebrating or otherwise defending the acts of rape or incest or any of the products thereof. And again, no one volunteers to put themselves as substantial risk of becoming victim of such a crime on behalf of their country.

While I admire her passion, Cassandra's arguments are way off base.
--

Posted Sunday, September 6, 2009, 2:11 AM (AmPow Blog Time)