Call me!

One of my best friends in high school went to college across the country.  She promised to keep in touch with the rest of us back home -- and she actually has.  When people hear the term "long distance" describing any kind of relationship, they think of it as both a side affect of a moblie culture, and a wholesale failure in progress.  Every school year, classes are different, every couple of years, schools change.  People graduate and disperse to colleges and universities across the country.  Job opportunities pull people from rural settings to cities, or from one city to another.  School choice for children, neighborhood selection, housing prices.  The idea of a close relationship separated by distance, though unfortunate, is treated with inevitability.  People that try to maintain these friendships are often pitied, "it's hard, and it's only going to get worse."  But why?  People need face-to-face interaction to fully communicate.  It is difficult to have pertinent conversations when both know different people and places and events.  Yet "pen pals" were a popular concept, even if the two never met.  It comes down to willingness and the strength of a friendship.

Modern technology significantly eases this difficulty, however.  Facebook links people that have little to do with each other, and they find commonality in mutual internet interests.  They can watch the same videos, see the same pictures, and follow the same forums.  Video chatting significantly improves communication on a personal level by allowing people to see each other and use body language.  Can instant communication on almost every level and a readily available pool of mutual Internet experience be enough to keep a long-distance friendship going for years?  Society is cynical because it focuses on personal negative experiences.  But after a year and counting, I can be confident that it's possible.

Do I Know You?

College recommendations received; essays written; applications sent; interviews conducted.  Is this the eye of the storm before final judgment?  Not if you applied for a scholarship.  In addition to the plethora of information that university institutions have already cajoled, pestered, and blackmailed out of my increasingly invaded life, many of them are pulling me part-way across the country to talk to them in person – again.  Even with alumni interviews on file and just about every detail of my recorded life splayed out on the page for their perusal, scholarship programs require a battery of interviews with faculty and students, individually and in groups. 

But I do not need to enjoy the process to give it a measure of respect.  Despite dire warnings that SAT scores will determine students’ lives, colleges appear to strive for a more holistic understanding of their applicants.  Even combined, course selections, grades, scores, awards, extra-curricular activities, service hours, summer programs, teacher recommendations, and student essays cannot truly convey what a person is like, and in America’s face-to-face culture, the solution is personal interviews.  There is, of course, a certain naivety in thinking that a thirty-minute barrage of questions to a nerve-wracked student from a panel of personality judges will yield accurate results.  But the only real alternative is to know each candidate for an extended period of time.  Smaller communities might have that luxury, but if Americans want their myriad of college choices, they cannot possibly expect to form personal relationships with representatives of them all.  As much as university selection committees may try to mitigate it, greater choice for students has outweighed accurate choice for admission staff, and how people can express themselves on paper and in short bursts is more important for institutional opportunity than the truth behind the art.

Guilt by Association

"It's very likely that he is a terrorist."  Now you're pretty scared of him.  "It isn't very likely that he's a terrorist."  You're still suspicious.  No matter what the statement, if it is not a firm and absolute denial, in America, just associating a person with fear-arousing negativity is almost as good as an accusation.  American's don't go about their daily lives suspecting the lady behind the deli counter and the man driving the school bus and the kid protecting his back pack and the couple jogging in the park and the old lady feeding the pidgeons of being terrorists.  But if something were to connect one of these otherwise innocuous figures with terrorism, then the suspicion would be difficult to erase.  That is the problem facing many Muslims in America.  The major terror plots directed towards Americans come from Islamic extremists.  Obviously, not every Muslim is a terrorist.  That Muslim over there, it isn't very likely that he's a terrorist.  But just that connection, just that incidentally shared unifying factor is enough to link any Muslim to terrorism, leading to fear, mistrust, and hatred.  Americans like to simplify things, and they don't like this wishy-washy war of US soldiers against particular insurgents among an innocent populace with cousins welcomed on our shores.  No, the world must be black and white, us and them, brave Americans fighting the sneaky, subversive radicals.  How do you find one, nice and simple?  Look, there's a Muslim.  Western cultures in general favor dichotomy and heroic struggle between good and evil where the righteous prevail.  While Eastern cultures emphasize balance, Western civilizations fight evil dragons to save innocent ladies.  And though the daring knight has evolved, Americans still find threats, generalize and demonize their attackers, and lionize themselves for standing against such widespread and potent an enemy.  Americans connect Muslims with terrorists because it simplifies their world view, adds righteousness to their cause, and makes them more "powerful" for standing against such an enemy.  Once indicated, it is difficult for the innocent to break free.

ProcrastiNation

If I had any talent I would make this into a web comic:
Reads: KEY TO ULTIMATE FULFILLMENT -- PUSH BUTTON
"Nah, I've got time tomorrow"

Common American stereotypes create the image of an industrious society, obsessed with maximizing time and remaining punctual.  Much of American behavior supports this view.  "You're wasting time!"  From the old adage "time is money," to the common rebuke "you're late!" Americans seem to value time and respect deadlines.  Even the word "deadline," favored heavily over "due date" and similar alternatives, paints a grave picture of punctuality's dire and non-negotiable importance. 

So why is procrastination rampant?  I think it's human nature.  People want to avoid unpleasantness, so they naturally put off tasks they will not enjoy.  Only when it becomes clear that there is no extra time left does the unpleasantness of punishment for not completing the work outweight the desire not to address the issue.  What Americans procrastinate, therefore, reveals what they do not enjoy.  Work, homework, writing tasks, tedious, brainless work, work they do not feel confident in their ability to complete well.  That paints an interesting picture.  Americans do not like intellectually laborious work; if it feels like it is going to be very difficult, they naturally procrastinate it.  But on the other hand, if the work will take a lot of time but not result in a learning experience or accomplish anything useful, it is detested just as much.  Quick tasks that require little effort can be pushed off easily, so Americans often decide to relax instead.  But assignments that require more time, particularly those that may need further explanation or research, are also put off, even though doing so is far more detrimental.  That might be due to subsconcious cost-benefit analysis.  Harder tasks that one does not feel equal too will require more effort to complete and ultimately produce a poorer result: more
cost, less benefit. 

So maybe it is the nature of the work, but with so many contradictions, it seems to be just the work itself.  The comic I wrote above is ridiculous, because nobody would procrastinate something positive.  Americans do not like exertion.  They do not like following others' orders either, or completing tasks because others deem them necessary.  In the case of homework particularly, completion only makes a difference to the student, but the teacher is the one enforcing it, creating a subconscious feeling of being dominated and controlled.  And American's hate to feel powerless.