App-ocalypse Now

So I've decided to give an update on my "The Death of Boredom" rant and I felt wonderfully clever until I google searched "app-ocalypse" to find the many many others who were more clever and more timely in their cleverness.

And as I type this I realize I've again done just what I had rallied against, fleetingly searched for the unimportant.  Again, why wonder if I'm original when I can quickly and with measurable certainty know that I am not?

Bleh.  In any case, I've taken my internal war against my iPhone to a new destination.  Some people may call what I'm about to describe "healthy boundaries" but I am embarrassed to admit they feel more akin to "painful concessions that my wife may have possibly been right."  Simply put, I made up self imposed rules for my smart phone use and general screen time about a week ago.  I slowly rolled out these new personal expectations silently and with great strain.  I freely admit now that as a result I find myself to be more present and mindful but the battle of boredom rages on and temptations are great.

My rules really broke down to a common sense approach and I in many ways simply took a step back and looked at myself as my child and thought, "What would I think of young Otha's cell phone use?"





- Samantha seen here painting what she described as "The fantasy land you must be living in if you think I would torture my child with a name so odious as Otha."

Here's what father-me came up with:

1.     Only one screen at a time.  This one was way harder than I thought and definitely the most important.  I am notorious for browsing reddit or cracked or IMDB while watching TV with Samantha.  Sometimes with a laptop in front of me as well.  It's silly and devestating all at the same time.  Now when I'm bored with a show I have to question why I'm even watching it to begin with.  Turns out, I don't have to watch it at all.  I could stop.  I could stand up and do something.  What that something is has been an entirely different struggle but really that's why I started this; to revive the motivational power of boredom.

2.     No phone while passively waiting.  Another difficult rule but useful.  Standing in line at the grocery or GAP outlet?  This would seem to be what smart phones were made for but honestly I can't think of anything I could actively engage in with so little time.  Sure I could browse headlines or check emails or look at pictures of cats but really this is all meaningless.  And as it turns out, the world is full of other people.  Maybe you disagree, but my recent experience has been that everyone else in line is bored to and a polite exchange really brightens everyone's day.  Talking with the family behind me, if only to compliment their choice of slightly irregular sweater vests, also builds a sense of comradery.  This line sucks and we're in it together, damnit!

3.     Active use only.  This is similar to the previous rules but expansive.  If I want to read the news it should be what I'm doing, not what I'm doing to pass the time while I'm supposed to be otherwise engaged.  If I'm not getting out my phone for a specific purpose I'm engaged in digital grazing and I could probably better use my time letting my mind rest or enjoying the amazing California weather or talking to strangers.  I'm astounded at how many strangers there are all around me all of the times.  Who knew the world was kinda big?

4.     The App-ocalypse.  No so much a rule as an activity but powerful.  Just came up with it today really.  In trying to help my quest for active use only I took an inventory of my nearly 100 apps.  Turns out most of them are designed for passive use and they are addictive as hell.  Several of my most used but least useful apps were lost in the wave of deletion, their tiny square bodies trembling before my fingers in fear of who would die next.  Top apps to go were silly games I didn't really like and apps that simply pull forth information from a website I could see through Chrome if I so chose (reddit, Cracked, NPR, and the like).  The information is still available, it's just not convenienent and that's okay.  Hell, it was kind of the point.


So these are my efforts to date.  If you have other suggestions or experiences you'd like to share, please do.  If it seems relevent I'll update in the future but so far I can say I find myself thinking more and following my thoughts to deeper places.  No grand illucidations yet but it's early in the game.

What We Say with What We Don't

While discussing federal homeless assistance programming and funding with a friend I recently came to a startling realization: our good intentions are drowning us.  As a nation, as a people, our morale, our pocketbooks, all of it!

You see, currently our federal homeless dollars are put together through a series of grants appealing to particular legislation.  A good example of this is the Projects for Assistance Transitioning from Homelessness (PATH) Program which is funding through the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) which is part of Health and Human Services (HHS) funding.  (I realize a mouthful, but I want to be thorough).  “PATH programs provide services to people who are experiencing mental illness and are experiencing homelessness or risk of homelessness” (from their website).  

This is a beautiful thing.  Our representatives have recognized mental illness as a problem in our homeless population and created programming, funding, and legislation to help pull the mentally ill from the streets.  We have recognized that their illness exacerbates their situation and that it is unreasonable to expect a person with these symptoms (e.g., psychosis, chronic depression, developmental disorder, schizophrenia, or delusions) to “pull themselves up from their bootstraps,” find a job, an apartment, a support network and their place in our community without assistance.  We as a society have made the statement that it is unacceptable for the chronically mentally ill to be subjected to poverty and homelessness as a result of an illness over which they have little control.

Therein lies the trouble for me.  By identifying the unacceptable conditions of homelessness and poverty we are making an insidiously subtle statement as what are acceptable conditions.  We have legislation, funding, federal and local programs all devoted to helping the homeless but in a fractured and segregated way.  Some programs, like PATH, help the mentally ill.  Others help substance abusers.  Others still are devoted to youth, or families, or single men, or the disabled, or veterans.  Some are faith based and help those in their congregation.  Some are for the elderly.  On and on the divisions go and through the web of people for whom homelessness is unacceptable there is the pervasive knowledge that somewhere there is someone who deserves it.

Is that what we mean to say as a nation?  That there are those who deserve poverty and homelessness?  We are doing wonderful things but we are working towards our goals, not our values.  I know that seems like splitting hairs but the difference is profound.  A goal is that no veteran is homeless.  A value is that all are deserving of a home.  Where a goal can be exclusive a value is inherently inclusive.

No one should be homeless.  No one.