Facebook and Blogging....

Well, I have to speak my truth.

Facebook just doesn't do it for me. It's been a few months now and while it is nice to see snippet updates from people, it doesn't have the "hook" that draws me in. In general, it appears to be just another shallow social networking site with people competing in a marketplace environment to up their number of friends, parlor games and quippy comments.

Meh. Maybe I'm just too old. I miss substantial conversation over tea, metaphorically speaking, and what occurs on sites like that seems to be a passing wave at best. I want to ask "how are you doing" and get a real answer.

I'm not interested in popularity contests, tagging or quipping. I'm not good at any of that. Perhaps this is a consequence of my own introverted nature ~ or perhaps it's because it fits a trend I don't like seeing develope further; instant food, instant intimacy and disposable people.

I posed the question on Facebook ~ whether it is replacing blogging. If that is the case, I would find that most unfortunate. Blogging is a meal, not a gourmet meal.. not a perfectly healthy meal.. but a meal. Facebook is fast food. It's social McDonald's. Drive up, get it fast and gobble it down while on the way to doing something else.

I'd be curious to know your thoughts on this.


~*

Tuesday afternoon....

Last Tuesday, I got an unexpected call from someone I know from the wat. She told me she wanted to get together to discuss something we are working on and that we would do it over at someone else's house.

Because I'm very literal, I figured that's exactly what would occur. We would talk about the issues and then everyone would go their own way.

I should have known differently! We ended up spending the whole evening together. We cooked, ate, looked at fabrics, talked about different things, listened to mor lum music together and generally relaxed.

It was a wonderful way to spend the evening.

Here's the funny part though. At one point, the woman who brought me (I'll call her Mary) and the host's husband (I'll call him John) began a rather animated discussion in Lao. It doesn't bother me when they do that. I just sit there and wait until they're done.

Mary turned to me and said, "How old are you again?" I told her.

They returned to their animated conversation.

She translated it for me later. It went something like this:

John: She doesn't have a husband?

Mary: No. She's single.

John: Oh, that's not right! We have to find a good man for her! A woman shouldn't be alone!

Mary: Chani doesn't date. She hasn't had very good experiences with men in this country. They all just want to go to bed with her.

John: Oh, I do not know men like that! I know good men! We'll find someone for her! A good man! I don't want her to be lonely!

Now ordinarily, I would be irritated by a conversation like that. It feels kind of... intrusive. Yet John said all of this with absolutely no guile, no ill-intent, with complete innocence, and it was obvious he only had my best interests at heart. He was looking out for me, like an older brother.

Somehow it seems rather touching and sweet that he would want to find someone for me in his community, someone to keep me from being lonely.

It also felt very inclusive.

I felt embraced.

~*

Sacred Life Sunday: Loyalty

Yesterday, I watched an interesting movie. It is called "Breach" and is about the Robert Hanssen spy case. As far as I'm concerned, it is the best spy movie since "The Falcon and The Snowman".
But this isn't a movie review.

Both movies were interesting character studies and it got me to thinking about loyalty, how we form loyalties, how we maintain them and how betrayal leads to larger betrayals. It also made me think about how important loyalty is to our identities.

Robert Hanssen seemed to be a person without roots. He attached himself to his interests with extreme intensity but the intensity was only on the surface. His conservative Catholicism rated right alongside his interest in guns and there seemed to be no differentiation or compartmentalization. He also struck me a person who was surrounded by community but never felt "a part of".

I am not advocating spying, of course. I dislike all forms of betrayal from the minute to the global. It's all the same. I don't quantify it.

What matters in this is not national security or state secrets. What matters is how we form community and where loyalty fits into that. What caused Robert Hanssen, Ed Howard, Rick Ames, John Walker or any of the other more famous spies to betray the national security establishment to which they belonged?

For me, there can be no community without loyalty. They are inextricably linked. I am also a person who forms strong loyalties which makes it hard for me to understand more casual connections or strictly utilitarian connections.

I can't imagine a life without loyalties. It is my foundation, my root. It is what keeps me connected to the planet. Without loyalty, it would feel like being lost in outer space.

Loyalty is linked to security. We get loyalty by giving it and it is an integral part of feeling safe in the world.

So what about Robert Hanssen?

The only thing I can think is that he felt so betrayed that he was unable to develop the loyalty necessary to want to protect his community. He is a complex man apparently, but lacks the insight to see it or express it. One line in the movie really grabbed me. Hanssen talks about how "the US can be likened to a powerfully built but retarded child." The motivation may have started as a desire to prove a point, then a slow burn into addiction ~ making fools of those that would not listen. I think it also fed an emotional need to feel connected to something strong and powerful that pretended to value him by giving him money and praise.

So what are your thoughts on loyalty?
~*