The Artful Dodger - TAG: You're It!

Sometimes people set the tone in a conversation or an interaction and then accuse a person of behaving in a way that is inaccurate. I came to this conclusion while trying to have what ultimately became a very strained and hostile conversation with a "friend" about her purchase of a home. I asked her, since she was purchasing the home with her mother and her sister, had she sat down with them and worked out the numbers, you know, established exactly what each person would be responsible for paying and about how much it would be?

Well, what ensued was about twenty minutes of ducking and dodging as she actively avoided answering the question. She said she didn't need to do so. She said she already knew what the expenses would be, even though she hadn't sat down and worked out the numbers; she said she didn't have enough information to do so; she said it was too soon. When I asked her was there a reason why she didn't want to sit down with her mother and sister, I was accused of "setting her up" or "trying to manipulate her"; get her to do what I wanted her to do, i.e. talk to her mother about the finances involved in purchasing this home she'd already confessed she couldn't really afford and would have to get a second job to make ends meet.

I liken this behavior to something my son does which drives my daughter crazy. He loves to play, often without the cooperation of the other person. One of his most favorite games is to run up behind you and do something really annoying and then run away excitedly, screaming in glee. You see, he wants you to chase him. This is his idea of fun!!! Except, half the time my daughter doesn't want to chase him; she wants him to leave her alone. So to the passerby it might seem as if they are indeed playing tag. However, it's only the fact that my son is hitting her and running away that gives that illusion.



My friend accused me of badgering her; of attempting to manipulate her into doing what I wanted her to do. Clearly, she certainly interpreted it that way, but that's only because she was actively resisting answering the question. Had she answered the question in whatever way she deemed appropriate, we would have proceeded with the conversation quite naturally. However, like my daughter with my son, she wanted to be left alone BUT the only problem is she didn't say so. Instead, she pretended to answer. She pretended that I was playing the "game" with her. The game that went like this: She avoided my question (ran) and I pursued her (asked her the question again or for clarification). She gave just enough false information to cause confusion (lied about her intentions, feelings, misrepresented what she'd done and was going to do). When I asked for clarification, she became increasingly hostile, complaining that I was badgering her and had sinister motives.

All of this was designed and created by her resistance , her reluctanct to participate in the conversation, while pretending that she had NO problem discussing what I had asked!!! in the first place. I briefly asked her if it made any sense that I would want to manipulate her or try to get her to do what I wanted to do; I asked her had I ever done that before and what in the world would I get out of it?

She confessed that no, I hadn't; that it didn't even make sense and that I wouldn't get anything out of it. But still she held onto her baseless belief. She said this is what she felt. It seemed she was operating under a faulty rational that dictated if she felt attacked, it must be true. Surely, that's often the case. I am one to always council trusting your instincts. But I must confess, the person I'm describing is delusional. Her own disordered thinking causes her to project blame whenever she wants to deny something or avoid responsibility. I've watched her in action enough times to identify that behavior. I ended the conversation after stating that what she was engaged in was crazy-making behavior. I wanted no part of it.

A few days later she called and said that she realized that the conversation we had took a turn for the worst because she was behaving passive/aggressively and not stating that I had upset her. What had upset her? She couldn't really say, but she was proud that she was now able to state how she felt because she'd never done that before. She wanted me to be proud of her, too. She went a step further and said she believed I also contributed to the miscommunication by being dishonest about my feelings. I was worried about her, she said and not communicating that but trying to force her to do things my way. To support this ill-founded contention, she said that she actually remembered me saying something to that effect. When pressed, she couldn't remember the exact words or when it was said; she eluded to a past conversation vaguely, but somehow she was sure.

Well, I hadn't said any such thing! As a matter of fact, I specifically told her, when she accused me of trying to manipulate her, that such an accusation was utter nonsense because she was a grown adult andwhat she chose to do would not have one effect on my life. And that past conversation she eluded to, never happened. But she was dogmatic, she wanted to believe it was true.

I confessed to her that she was triggering me badly. My family had always opted to blame me for their own flaws. If there was an issue they didn't want to address, the problem then became my desire to "argue" or "ruin a good time" or "live in the past" and not their wish to ignore the elephant in the room. My family, most especially my mother, would say you had said things you've never said, that you had done things you'd never done -- whatever she had to say or do to make what she was saying true she'd not hesitate. None of it had to be remotely true. I would be a liar, a troublemaker, a miserable person; any and everything she could think of. This is exactly what this person was doing. I

I was beyond offended. I felt attacked and sabotaged all at the same time. I was not a person who could not express my feelings. In fact, I am very vocal about expressing my feelings. Her contention that I couldn't express the fact that I was worried about her was just ridiculous. She went even so far as to suggest that perhaps I was in denial about the whole thing and unwilling to face my feelings. Now I've gone back to my therapist on many occasions and rehashed an issue because of conflicting feelings; this was NOT one of those occasions. I remembered exactly what I said and when I said it but more importantly WHY I'd said it. She, one the other hand, could not express one coherent thought. She jumbled conversations together and misquoted me. If she did quote me correctly, when she could even remember what was said, she did so out of context. She'd say I said something day earlier than I had in fact said it. She'd sayI said something in response, not to what was actually said, but something else. Sometimes she'd say "it was something like; I can't remember". Half the time she could not remember what happened or when, however, amazingly, she was adamant. She was certain. Can you imagine this person being a witness in a court case?

What happened next just goes to further display her disordered thinking. She then called me as if nothing was wrong a few days later. She rambled on and on about random subjects yet curiously never once mentioned the purchase of the house which had been the source of our original disagreement. She even went so far as to bring up my birthday, asking me what I wanted to do, and offering to purchase tickets to a Broadway play. Now this was just dangling carrot sticks, as this friend is known for making promises that she doesn't keep. I might get Broadway tickets, but she was just as likely as to deliver them four months after my birthday as she was to not mention them at all.


I was cold and unresponsive and she talked incessantly until finally it became clear that I wasn't going to participate. The conversation ended. She called again days later and we were on the phone for less than two minutes. Then I got THE email. She was in anguish, she said. She said she knew she'd offended me during the disagreement we had but she felt something else must be wrong because I seemed cold during the past conversations and the phone calls had seemed rushed. Was there something wrong, she asked? She had been making herself ill thinking of all the possibilities. She wanted me to please put her out of her misery and tell her if I'd written her off since she's hurt and disappointed me so many times.


I viewed this as just another game. She wanted to reconnect with me and for me to put her mind at ease but she was not going to address her behavior or take any responsibility for it. She said clearly she knew she'd offended me. What more did she need to know? I asked her why she hadn't said anything during the phone call and she said it was because she didn't know anything was wrong.

I then told her that she said I was offended so she already knew something was wrong. I asked her, What in the world was she talking about? She said she knew she'd offended me but was certain it had to be something more.

I was aghast. Why did it need to be something more? I realized that she wanted me to alleviate her anguish and make her feel better about falsely accusing me and attacking my character, but what was it in for me? I said as much in a brief and curt response. She responded once again, pressing her question. She wanted me to respond to her "query"; was I cutting her off? She said in a very cold and professionally worded email that she had not intended to attack my character and thought everything was honky dory between us when we last spoke.

So what was the problem?

A verbal conversation made this very clear. The problem was she was feeling guilty,and she needed me to make her feel better. This is something she has done so many times I'm embarrassed to articulate them all. She'd behave in a selfish, mean and ostracizing manner and then she'd feel bad about it. However, she'd then come to me, the person she'd done this too, for comfort. This was just another example of the way she projected her need for unconditional love from a mother onto me. She didn't want to have the conversation with her mother and her sister about the house because she COULDN'T have the conversation with them. They were not interested in helping her or being responsible and she knew it. She knew it but she did not want to know it.

However, because I was not her mother, although she'd projected her issues with her mother onto me, she could have conversations with me. She could even blame me for her reluctance to be honest and open, avoid talking about subjects that she wanted to ignore and expect me to still be her friend. In having these conversations, she'd try to manipulate me to love her, forgive her, tolerate her, care for her and provided her with unconditional acceptance and understanding. This is all while she offered absolutely nothing in return. I'd had enough. I told her in no uncertain terms that the idea that I would tell her that I was triggered and offended and she would think for one minute that we were fine, and that nothing was wrong was abnormal. Why wouldn't she put two and two together and know for a fact that I was being cold and distant in the next conversation because I was still mad about what happened in our prior conversation? I told her it was the height of selfishness; that she only felt bad when I didn't give her the strokes of approval she needed; that had I responded positively in our next phone call, she would have felt fine.

She coldly and with no detectable remorse in her voice said she was sorry but that there was nothing to be done, that she couldn't change what had happened. Well, this was just another lie. She could definitely change how she behaved in relation to me. The sad fact is she does not want to. Unfortunately, obtaining a Masters Degree in Social Work and attending therapy weekly had given her a vocabulary that she used while pretending to understand their meaning. She didn't seem to understand what words like: Accountability, reciprocating; misleading and intent meant. She knew how to use them in a sentence but they held no meaning for her and never translated into a change of her behavior. The truth is she told herself whatever she wanted to be true and if a thought popped up that seemed irrational or without basis, she did not miss a beat in accepting it. It was true if she wanted it to be true.


In our last conversation I asked her had she even given any thought to the many ways I described that she'd mistreated me over the years, the fact that her children had no relationship to my own, that she had never babysat for me, for not one day, in 15 years, since my children were born; not even for my son, who was diagnosed with Autism, not even though they were only 15 months apart and I surely needed the help; that she had to be begged to acknowledge my birthday and what has ensued has been years of birthday gifts being delivered days, weeks, months after the date; that she only came to my house when she wanted to talk about something and if I didn't come to her house, I didn't see her; that I didn't know her son, what he liked to or anything about him and she had absolutely no relationship with my children.

She told me that she hadn't really thought about it, other than to wonder if it was normal for me to know what her son liked. When I pointed out that if we had a relationship, if he came over to my house or hung out with my kids I would know these things, she conceded that this made sense and in the same breath told me that I should know her by now; I should know that she gets overwhelmed when she thinks too much about things and should not be surprised that she hadn't given it any thought.


The level of narcissism present in this person has somehow evaded my awareness up until this point. Here is a person who's sole interest in a relationship with me is to always feel good, at my expense. She is not willing to give of herself, spiritually or physically, by way of her presence. She expects forgiveness and immediate return to the status quo after she's done something insensitive or mean. She expects and likes to be treated as if she matters but expects others to accept her mediocre treatment of them. She makes no effort to right wrongs and when her bad behavior is met with coldness she panics and reaches for the very person she's hurt for comfort.

It has taken many weeks to write about this. It seems so much to have dealt with, that I am amazed at myself. I can't imagine WHY I've put up with this behavior for so long.

One thing is for sure, there is no way that I can -- forget what I want -- I could not, even if I wanted to, deal with such behavior again. It's a sad truth but writing this makes it even more of a reality. This friendship is over.

I Feel for You

In the original Star Trek series, when the Enterprise stops by to pick up scientific staff Linke and Ozaba from the planet Menarian 2 (which is in orbit around a star which is about to supernova), Kirk, Bones and Spock discover the station has been abandoned for three months. Here, they discover a timid, mute woman and McCoy dubs her Gem.

While Kirk is trying to question Gem, two Vions appear. When Kirk tries to secure freedom for the landing party, the Vions trap McCoy, Spock, and Kirk in a force field which draws energy from their bodies. The Vions then vanish, releasing the landing party. Gem then touches Kirk’s forehead, transfers the wound there to her own head and heals it, revealing herself to be an empath.*Continued at the end.

In the last essay I wrote, I explored my own negative self belief of being "Bad" how it had up until the present dictated the way I related to people when I met them initially and the way I behaved in relationships.

I wrote, in part, "As I learned more and more about my own unhealthy coping mechanisms and replaced them with healthier, functional behavior to my dismay I still found myself attracting unhealthy people. And each time I did, I felt BAD!!! I felt that there must be a radar sign on my head that said to these people, "She is available to be disrespected and abused."

I felt that there HAD to be something about me that made me the perfect friend, girlfriend, landlord, employee, associate, student to an emotionally disordered, abusive person. I met them in DROVES -- wherever I went, until I was so despondent I didn't even want to leave my house."

The idea that it was BECAUSE I was bad that I continued to encounter dysfunctional people is a message that my parents conveyed to me throughout my childhood. If this message had been given in honest, clear words, it would have been: YOU are bad and THAT is why I abuse you. If you were good, I would not abuse you. In fact, I think on some occasions words to that effect were actually used.

But I came to the conclusion in my last essay that this is, of course, a lie. I realized, ". . . in dealing with an abusive, emotionally distant, disordered person I was dealing with a person who had a very fragile ego and was attempting to use me to make themselves feel whole."

Okay, but HOW -- how were they using me? This, it turns out, is a very important question.

I wrote, "I thought of how many people through out the day, whom I consider unhealthy, emotionally distant or down right abusive engage me and I came to a startling conclusion.

In being charming, gracious, understanding and attentive, I made the perfect candidate for providing a disordered person with what they craved the most -- an audience!!!!" But now I wonder, is this entirely accurate. Is the disordered person simply looking for an audience or is there something more that they are looking for?

Having relinquished the negative internal message that I am "bad",and embraced a more healthy, accurate message, which is that I am good but I make "bad" choices, I have been released to see myself more accurately.

I am not "bad"; I am "good" but I make "bad" choices. How am I "good"? What are my "good" characteristics?

I am loving. I care for others, very deeply. I want to listen and understand them. I want to comfort them. I feel deeply. I feel distressed when others are distressed. I feel their feelings. I can feel their feelings. I can feel their feelings FOR THEM.

Think of an alien race of beings who have emotions but are unable to feel or express them. Their inability to express emotions leaves them in an emotional state of turmoil. They are completely unable to function. They need a way to release their emotions. And I enter the picture. I listen to their stories, intently, with my complete attention. I sympathize and offer them compassion. I offer them love and hope. I cry, when they cannot cry. I feel, what they cannot feel, what they will not feel.

What would they do? Would they let me go or try to bind me to them forever?

Would they tell me that I need to stay with them because they are unable to express emotions that they fear and consider weak or would they, because they cannot express weakness and fear, lie?

Wouldn't they instead tell me something that would, as is their intention, cause me to feel their negative feelings for them?

YOU ARE BAD instead of I NEED YOU, I AM SCARED, VULNERABLE and UNABLE TO EXPRESS EMOTION SO I NEED YOU TO EXPRESS IT FOR ME.

Whether emotionally disconnected or distant, emotionally, verbally or physically abusive, narcissistic, borderline -- the label does not matter. The behavior is THE SAME.

The brain console reads: Avoid disowned emotions at all cost. Deflect to decoy. Project on target.

I eluded to this in an earlier essay written many years ago entitled, How People Who Disown Their Feelings Affect Others . I initially referred to a list that I had created, Clusters of Disorders. The list defined an Abnormal Personality and separated the characteristics of a person who had one into three clusters.

CLUSTER A - Odd, eccentric, mistrust, constricted emotion

• a. Paranoid - tense, guarded, suspicious
• b. Schizoid - socially isolated with restricted emotional expression
• c. Schizotypal - peculiarities of thought, appearance, behavior, emotionally detached

CLUSTER B - Dramatic, emotional, erratic

• a. Antisocial - manipulative, exploitative, dishonest, disloyal, lacks guilt, breaks social rules, childhood history of troubled behavior
• b. Borderline - cannot tolerate being alone, intense, unstable moods and personal relationships, chronic anger, drug/alcohol abuse
• c. Histrionic - Seductive, needs immediate gratification and constant reassurance, rapidly changing moods, shallow emotions
• d. Narcissistic - self-absorbed, expects special treatment and adulation, envious of attention to others

CLUSTER C - Anxious, fearful, avoidance tendencies

• a. Avoidant - easily hurt and embarrassed, few close friends, sticks to routines to avoid new and possibly stressful experiences.
• b. Dependent - wants others to make decisions, needs constant advice and reassurance, fears being abandoned
• c. Obsessive-Compulsive - perfectionistic, overerconscientious, indecisive, preoccupied with details, stiff and unable to return affection
• d. Passive-Aggressive - resents demands and suggestions, procrastinates, sulks, "forgets" obligations or is deliberately inefficient.

Then in the second essay I referred to those characteristics and asked the question:

"If a person presents with a number of, most or a portion of these negative coping mechanisms to a dilapidated degree and if that person is determined to NOT deal with these negative attributes, to not see them, to not admit to having them and to not change them, then how in God's name would such a person be able to function?"

I then posed another question: "Is it a stretch to realize that those negative coping mechanisms would cause a person who has resorted to using them to continuously feel confused, worthless, unappreciated, ignored, devalued, ignorant, inept, unprepared and ill-equipped, angry beyond reason, frustrated beyond reason, harassed and maligned, put down and put upon, unheard and unloved"?

I then answered my own question with this statement but missed a very important element, the WHY. I said, "THEY attempt to make us feel like THEY feel so THEY don't HAVE TO feel that way and they do it and do it and do it and do it by engaging us over and over and over and over and over again. That is why THEY won't leave us alone. That is why THEY won't stop calling. That is why THEY will try the same tactics over and over and over again. That is why THEY simmer down and pretend to be different (while the anxiety and self-defeating FEELINGS build up inside of them) and then when THEY can't stand it anymore and need an outlet -"

Carl Jung describes The Shadow as the unconscious side of our unique personalities; the personification of that part of the human, psychic personality that we deny in ourselves and project onto others. While the goal of personality integration is to integrate the rejected, inferior side of our life into our total experience and to take responsibility for it, what of the people who are determined NOT to do this ; how do they relate to others?

The WHY that I missed is this: The disordered person is attracted to a person who can feel the feelings that they cannot or will not. They are too afraid to feel and attempt to avoid doing so but still need to release the emotion; their Shadow.

I am the perfect receptacle for their disowned emotions. I am the perfect conduit for their emotional release. I am the perfect vessel for their fear, anger, sadness, despair, vulnerability . . . it is in the way that I speak; the way that I walk, the way that I write, the look in my eyes. It is clear, to their subconscious, what I can do for them and THAT is why they are attracted to me.

I am an Empath. But what is an Empath?

"You are like a human sponge, absorbing things from your environment. You can instantly read people without trying, but only at times, although you do not always fully understand the things you sense, perceive, and feel. You just "know" some things. However, you do not understand others motives or intentions towards you until it is too late to do anything about it. When people lie to you, it confuses you and frustrates you.

"You do not understand why humans need to have hidden agendas when dealing with others. You delight in being honest and upfront with people and have no need for hidden agendas. You always expect people to be like that with you, but they usually are not. You are a wonderful friend, but it is hard for you to keep friendships or relationships. Most people do not like the thought of being around someone who can read them or see into their soul. Most people have hidden things that they would be embarrassed for anyone else to know. Strangely enough, you might never even know those very things. It is not like you can read minds at all. It is just certain things are instantly known, while other things might never be known.

And then there are some people who are emotional vampires. When you are around these people they drain you of all your personal energy, usually done on a subconscious level. You leave them feeling totally drained and fatigued.

You delight in details, and try hard to make yourself be understood by others. You have the ability to write long, detailed letters. These details help you to be understood as well as understand others. It is very important for you to be understood. Most Empaths are misunderstood which only frustrates and disappoints them even more so. It can finally get to where an Empath just does not feel anyone understands them at all, and they choose to turn into near-hermits and withdraw from society almost completely at an older age. The hassle is just not worth it."

The Empath Report 101 (shortened version) written/copyright (c) 2002 Christel Broederlow Christel Broederlow

"Empaths are highly sensitive. This is the term commonly used in describing one's abilities (sensitivity) to another's emotions and feelings. Empaths have a deep sense of knowing that accompanies empathy and are often compassionate, considerate, and understanding of others. An empath can sense the truth behind the cover and will act compassionately to help that person express him/herself, thus making them feel at ease and not so desperately alone. Others tune into the Empaths energy and tend to gravitate towards them knowing they are "safe" with this empathetic person.

There are also varying levels of strength in empaths which may be related to the individualís awareness of self, understanding of the powers of empathy, and/or the acceptance or non-acceptance of empathy by those associated with them, including family and peers. Generally, those who are empathic grow up with these tendencies and do not learn about them until later in life.

Empaths often possess the ability to sense others on many different levels. From their position in observing what another is saying, feeling and thinking, they come to understand another. They can become very proficient at reading another person's body language and/or study intently the eye movements.

Empaths make great friends or lovers for life but are literally crushed if the friendship or relationship is abused. They will through many experiences and heartaches become more selective. Though Empaths may have a large circle of friends, they generally only have a few trusted ones. Oftentimes Empaths attract jealousy in others because of their many talents, loving nature and natural ability to
get along with and network with so many people. The jealousy will hurt an Empath as they really cannot comprehend this behavior or lack of compassionate understanding.

How Empathy Works

While there is much we don't yet understand about how empathy works, we do have some information. Everything has an energetic vibration or frequency and an empath is able to sense these vibrations and recognize even the subtlest changes undetectable to the naked eye or the five senses.

Words of expression hold an energetic pattern that originates from the speaker. They have a specific meaning particular to the speaker. Behind that expression is a power or force-field, better known as energy. For example, hate often brings about an intense feeling that immediately accompanies the word. The word hate becomes strengthened with the speaker's feeling. It is that person's feelings (energy) that are picked up by empaths, whether the words are spoken, thought or just felt without verbal or bodily expression.

Empaths Are Good Listeners

Empaths are often very affectionate in personality and expression, great listeners and counselors (and not just in the professional area). They will find themselves helping others and often putting their own needs aside to do so. In the same breath, they can be much the opposite. They may be quiet, withdrawn from the outside world, loners, depressed and neurotic.

Traits of an Empath

If an Empaths is in person with someone and they’ve just been lied to, they will know. And they will know why. They will know if the other person is trying to spare feelings, they will know if malice was involved – in other words, they will know the intent. You cannot lie in the face of an Empath and not be caught out. While they will not usually be able to tell the specifics of what you’re hiding, they will know if you mean them well or not.

Empaths are often quiet and can take a while to handle a compliment for they're more inclined to point out another's positive attributes. They usually achieve in quiet and are not one to brag about their talents and interests. They are highly expressive in all areas of emotional connection and talk openly, and, at times, quite frankly in respect to themselves. They may have few problems talking about their feelings. But empaths have a tendency to openly feel what is outside of them more so than what is inside of them. This can cause empaths to ignore their own needs.

Even complete strangers find it easy to talk to empaths about the most personal things, and before they know it, they have poured out their hearts and souls without intending to do so consciously. It is as though on a sub-conscious level that person knows instinctively that empaths would listen with compassionate understanding.

Here are the listeners of life. Empaths are often problem solvers, thinkers, and studiers of many things. As far as empaths are concerned, where a problem is, so too is the answer. They often will search until they find one--if only for peace of mind."


*Although Kirk does not yet realize it, it turns out that the Vions are testing the empath, Gem, to see if she will sacrifice herself by saving members of the Enterprise's crew.

I WILL REMAKE YOU IN MY OWN IMAGE

When I was a child I received and incorporated two very distinct messages:

YOU ARE BAD.



YOU MUST BE NICE

.

Now the obvious dilemma between those two messages presented a problem for me long after I had reached adulthood. If I was bad, how then could I be nice?

This dilemma, however, did not keep me from trying. When I met anyone I tried to be very, very nice. I was gracious, understanding, kind, accepting, non-confrontational and accommodating. Understandably, more often than not, I entered into relationships with people who were emotionally distorted and/or abusive. I thankfully now understand that they were drawn to me as much as I was drawn to them.

With such people, no matter how well I behaved I was bad.; nothing was ever good enough. Now when they called me bad, I FELT BAD and so I tried even harder to be good. But if push came to shove, and I was triggered beyond my threshold, I acted out and then I became bad, in word and indeed, as I was labeled. My overwhelming guilt would paralyze me for a while until I could commit myself to once again trying harder to be nice.


I didn't even need to be told I was bad to FEEL BAD. I felt bad each and every time I ENCOUNTERED an emotionally disordered or abusive person. As I learned more and more about my own unhealthy coping mechanisms and replaced them with healthier, functional behavior to my dismay, I still found myself attracting unhealthy people. And each time I did, I felt BAD!!! I felt that there must be a radar sign on my head that said to these people, "She is available to be disrespected and abused."

I felt that there HAD to be something about me that made me the perfect friend, girlfriend, landlord, employee, associate, student to an emotionally disordered, abusive person. I met them in DROVES -- wherever I went until I was so despondent I didn't even want to leave my house.

But then something happened. I began to see things; things that I had never noticed before. I first noticed that in relating to new people, I tended to gather information about them in my head without reacting to it. I could meet a person who was telling me the most outrageous story and register no response whatsoever. I did not engage emotionally with new people. I kept a certain part of myself removed. As I engaged with them, I noted certain things that they said and certain behaviors. I even recognized them as abusive or intolerant or paranoid but I did not associate any feelings with those observations. I never felt, "Boy this person is abusive and not safe." These feelings would not surface until the person DID something so outrageous or attempted to violate a boundary that I could not tolerate.

Unfortunately, history had proven that I could tolerate a lot. Not feeling my emotions, not reacting to the information I had gathered about a person allowed me to interact with them much longer than was safe and healthy.

This was the first piece of the puzzle.

I next noticed that once the person pushed past my boundary, I would "let them have it" with all the information I had gathered about them. I would "read them" or "tell them about themselves" and yes, there would be a certain sadistic satisfaction at knowing that intellectually, once I had the information at my disposal, I could literally destroy a person's self esteem.


A few things have to be noted in this regard. Number one, you have to understand that up until my being triggered, I was being the most gracious, kind and understanding person. This fostered a sense of trust between myself and the person that encouraged them to tell me their deepest, darkest secrets, things that they would never tell another soul. Now I don't want it to be thought that I was intentionally gathering this information with the understanding that I would use it against them later. The ability to observe behavior and assess it is just something that I developed living in the household that I did growing up. I find human behavior fascinating. I always want to understand why I and others behave as they do, so I observe behavior and note it. The problem has been my inability to use that information at the time that I obtain it.

What I've come to understand about myself is that the first message I received growing up has been in operation and has kept me from acting on what I learn about a person. I was taught: You are bad. So to combat this inner conviction, I purposed to be ULTRA GOOD. To give no one even a hint of a reason to accuse me. Doing so took all of my effort and attention. There was no room to connect to my thoughts and have emotional feelings about how a person was speaking to me and treating me.

Long ago, as a coping mechanism, I learned to split my feelings from my thoughts. If a man said something disrespectful or outrageous, I felt NOTHING -- not outraged, not disrespect, not revulsion. This continued until I was triggered.

So to recap, I discovered that I don't emotionally connect to the thoughts that I have until triggered. I also discovered once triggered, I gave myself permission to then react to the way I had been treated because now I had just cause. I was now in the right and the person deserved to be dressed down. I couldn't allow myself to feel angry or violated unless I had a real reason!

It is curious to note that in dealing with an abusive, emotionally distant, disordered person I was dealing with a person who had a very fragile ego and was attempting to use me to make themselves feel whole. I, also having a fragile ego, attempted to use them as well, to validate me as the "good girl". Once I was pushed past my tolerance for abuse, I fought back, lashing out. This in turn supported my fragile ego, and helped me to feel empowered at the expense of the other person - the same thing that the person was attempting to do to me!!!!

In this way, I have been able to see how the abusive, emotionally distant and disordered people I've attracted are actually mirror images of myself.

So now we move on to my second revelation. Aware now that I was battling an inner conviction that I was bad and attempting to be nice enough and good enough to those who were unhealthy and unsafe so that they could validate me, I now began to look at how I did so.

I thought of how many people through out the day, whom I consider unhealthy, emotionally distant or down right abusive, engage with me and I came to a startling conclusion.

In being charming, gracious, understanding and attentive, I made the perfect candidate for providing a disordered person with what they craved the most -- an audience!!!! I suddenly realized that disordered people were ALWAYS trying to recruit a person to co-sign their reality, it's just that not everyone responded.

Those who had healthy boundaries either did not interact with disordered people at all or they maintained a healthy distance that sent a clear message: I will not tolerate any abuse.

I, on the other hand, focused only on coming across as a "good girl" and did not have that healthy buffer between unsafe people and myself.


Once I made that startling discovery I became able to see myself in a new light. The old lie, the internal message that said I was bad began to change into a new internal message. YOU ARE GOOD, BUT YOUR CHOICES ARE BAD.

So now I am determined to change my choices. In contemplating how I might do so, I came to the most startling revelation of all.

As a child my mother could not relate to me. Her own self-loathing and corrupted self-image caused her to reject my love and goodness and project her own badness onto me. She could not relate to me as myself, she needed to make me as she was so that she could "see me". Thus I became BAD.


As an adult I see the same reoccurring pattern. People of all walks of life are attracted to me. I am smart, attractive, articulate, kind and generous. But when these people are unhealthy, no matter how "good" these qualities are they cannot abide by them in me! They are envious. They see in me qualities that they would like to possess but do not. Because they do not have those qualities, they find it hard to relate to me, the genuine person that I am. They begrudge me for having those good qualities because it so clearly shows what qualities they lack, and so they seek to destroy the "goodness" in me.

THAT IS THE TRIGGER.

When I start to feel that the person is trying to change who I am, to make me into a bad person because the same light in me which attracted them in the first place has now revealed their own lack, their own self-loathing, I fight back, with a vengeance.

The strength of my attack is commensurate with my perception of the threat that I am under -- the threat of the annihilation of myself.

So often in my past the continuing struggle has been the other person attempting to destroy that which I am and replace it with an ugly, distorted label of who I was, for the sole reason of then being able to connect to me.

I have fought against that my whole, entire life.

Very interestingly, this very same scenario played out tonight on an online chat forum. A person who suffers from Borderline Personality Disorder took offense at my utilization of the term "personality disorder" when discussing dysfunctional behavior. I was primarily talking about Narcissistic Personality Disorder but she, obviously being BPD, took personal offense and felt that the wording was too broad and could mistakenly be interpreted as meaning Borderline Personality Disorder. The accusation came out of the blue that I was purposely using the term "personality disorder" to address her because I knew she had asked that the term not be used. I was told, not by her, but by another person she recruited to speak for her, that she found it hurtful and felt I wanted to purposely hurt her.

On the heals of that accusation, came an assessment that I, myself, must be NPD, as she has dealt with people like that in the past who had no conscience about their behavior. Another one of her confidants had set the conversation up, speaking up BEFORE HER and hinting that there was a person who was upset by something I'd written and suggesting that conversations about mental disorders should no longer be discussed. I balked at the request for censorship and asked specifically for anyone who felt that I had written something offensive to address me directly. She piped up then, claiming that she had told me several times how hurtful my use of "personality disorder" was and I was purposely ignoring her. She also said I wanted to hurt her and took pleasure in it.

I told her that she NEVER addressed me at all,but this information was of course ignored. I pointed out that I always followed the words, "personality disorder" with, "such as Narcissistic Pervasive Development Disorder", but she continued to maintain that I was purposely being obtuse and mysterious, hinting that I was talking about all disorders but most especially BPD.

You can image that nothing I said could dissuade her from her belief that she was being persecuted. The other two people who had appointed themselves her spokesperson did not help. They instigated and launched their own personal attacks against me.

I am proud to say not once did I act out or feel triggered. I apologized for the confusion and said I did not realize that those words offended her and would not use them again. My apology was ignored. I was called a bully and rude. I once again apologized and asked the two self-appointed spokespersons to allow the woman and myself to resolve this issue without their interference. I was ignored.

I was called narcissistic and self-centered. I reiterated that I was sorry and appealed to the woman to let us remember that we both grew up in abusive homes. I told her that I know trusting is difficult but I wanted her to know that I wanted only good for her and was truly sorry. My apology was ignored. Two messages came from the appointed spokesperson calling question to my intentions, motives and the truth of what I was saying. I made a statement that I had apologized and could do nothing more than that. I asked if there was anything that I could say or do that would help them see the sincerity of my words?

I want to point out here that my continual apology was my being true to myself. I was sincerely sorry for her obvious self-induced anguish, and I truly had not known that there was an issue with what I wrote. I could have pointed out that the woman was acting in typical BPD fashion, overreacting to a simple issue, taking words spoken in general personally, engaging in black and white, first you are good now you are bad behavior, and behaving in a way that was hostile and mean, but I kept that knowledge to myself. I kept that knowledge to myself because I had already mentally categorized this person as someone who is unsafe to deal with and made a note to no longer engage her. I will not be interacting with her again.

I am beginning to learn how to prevent a person from remaking me in their own image, by maintain my own self, despite their anger and attacks and disparaging remarks.

I am who I am, and I am beginning to know it from the core of my being!


Footnote: I want to also add that what I've noticed is that people who are unsafe in this way, who are looking for others to validate their identity and reality never seem to go away. In borderline fashion, they blow up at you and attack you and then once a little time has gone by (a minute, an hour, a day, years) they try to engage you as if nothing has happened. They seem to have abandonment/rejection as their primary triggers and try over and over again to get a reaction/response. Their actions say: If you do not respond to me the way I want you to, I ( as I imagine myself) do not exist. An honest response to their dysfunctional behavior highlights the dysfunction in themselves, something that they cannot tolerate. No response to their dysfunctional behavior leaves them in a frenzy of need, a need to have the false, unhealthy dysfunctional self validated. This is why when attempting to deal with a person like this, you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Holiday Mixed-Message Salad

Holidays for those of us with dysfunctional, unhealthy people in our lives can be a harrowing experience. We have to some how take strained, tenuous and difficult relationships with people who can be dishonest, underhanded and secretive and somehow create a loving, accepting atmosphere of good tidings and great cheer, as the holidays call for. It's next to impossible! But for the sake of our children, the ones we've given birth to and the little one we have inside of ourselves - our love-starved inner child - we try.

Every year I approach the holiday season with trepidation, wondering what will happen; preparing myself mentally to make it through Christmas and New Years without being baited into some kind of dysfunctional drama. It's expected, at least by myself, that when you put together a bunch of people with unresolved issues that have never been honestly discussed, the shit will hit the fan in some manner or fashion.

I've made a lot of progress in therapy. I've looked a lot at my own dysfunctional behavior, accepted parts of me that I never knew existed, embraced them and tried to understand their purpose - my angry side, my nasty, accusatory side; my withholding side; my punishing side. Armed with all I've learned I felt confident that I could safely walk away from any attempt to label me, pull me into family drama or scapegoat me. What is the saying again, "Pride goes before the fall" -- no truer words have ever been written!

There were the usual recipes for disaster: My younger sister's abusive boyfriend in the backroom, making his unhappiness known. He did not participate in any of the festivities. He never got dressed and moped around in an old robe, grumbling to himself. When anyone attempted to invite him into conversation, he hinted at how unhappy he was. Towards the end of the night, he showered and got dressed and left. Even though he was mostly ignored, my little sister was then very interested in when he'd be back. She warned that if he didn't come back to take her to work she'd call the police, describe his car to the "T" and tell them he was driving around with drugs in it.

I was amazing! I let the bait swing in front of my face like some unappetizing worm. I never said a word; I just listened. Well, he did make it back, barely. But then my sister looked at me and asked pointedly if I would be dropping her off at work! I was very confused. I told her, "Didn't you want him to take you? After all, this is when you can spend quality time together." I smiled and so did she. It wasn't until afterward that I realized she didn't really want him to take her to work; she just wanted to make sure he'd come back so she wouldn't feel abandoned.

There was a dinner celebration for my cousin canceled at the last minute by a very formal text message. I responded by text message about my feelings about that, having canceled prior plans to make room for the dinner, and took my kids out to dinner regardless. I was mentally patting myself on the back.

On my way to the dinner on the rescheduled date, I called to get the exact address and learned that they were already there. Why hadn't anyone called me, I asked. It was told that I was called and they had waited for me. I was home and hadn't received any call but I was told to check my cellphone. I did check my cellphone and saw two missed calls. Why hadn't anyone called me at home, I asked? The answer was given by my older sister with a nasty, snarl, Why would she do that?

Having learned after the fact of many family outings where I was mysteriously not invited or forgotten, yes, I pushed the issue. Did she think it was unreasonable to ask why I hadn't been called at home? She responded, "Oh, God, please don't start." I live 15 minutes away from the restaurant! A call to my home, and I would have been there in no time. There would have been no need to "wait" for me. But the call was placed twice to my cellphone, when after the first time, it was clear that I was not picking up. And of course, no message had been left. I had been told we were meeting at 6:30 and I said as much. Looking at me like I was crazy, she said, "No one told you 6:30. It was always 6:00 o'clock." Turning her face away she shook her head, "See, I told you," she said to the others.

I told her that she seemed to have an attitude, "Was there something wrong?" I asked, "If so, I have no problem with leaving". I told her I was not interested in dealing with her attitude. "Just sit down" she responded, in annoyance. I told her as long as I would not have to put up with her attitude, I was okay. "Gosh. Yeah, yeah, I love you, too." She responded flippantly. Taking a seat away from her I then pretty much ignored her for the rest of the meal. Not bad, I thought to myself. But not good either. In retrospect, I shouldn't have said anything to her. But live and learn, right?

There was the long time friend who has such trouble during holidays with her own internal demons that it becomes so difficult for her to express love and appreciation. Gifts, if they are even purchased, are not given on time or sometimes not at all. I won't pretend to understand it all and certainly won't attempt to explain it. All I understand is that her fear of rejection and abandonment causes her to reject people and abandon them. She seems to justify her behavior by projecting her feelings of fear onto others - ascribing them with ill-intentions that they don't have; desiring them to come to her and reassure her of their love while she remains in a safe cocoon of detachment.

So I received a text message saying Merry Christmas on Christmas Day. Later on in the day, I received a call. There was no mention of gifts during the call so I didn't press the issue. Long ago, I'd lowered my expectations, knowing that usually I'd be met with disappointment. Unfortunately, to minimize feelings of resentment, I couldn't be myself and give as generously and with the love and affection that I'd usually show. Between her and I existed a sad state of affairs.

On New Years Day, I sent a text message to her saying "Happy New Year", and not being able to resist I mentioned that our relationship seemed to be on its way to becoming as distant as some of her other friendships. So the day after, I receive an email with an expected explanation. She felt embarrassed about her prior behavior; she convinced herself I was too much trouble; she'd been afraid; she kept putting it off, but she did have gifts and she'd bring it by this weekend.

On the day she brought over the gifts an atmosphere of tension lingered for the duration of her visit. There were many pregnant silences as what was left unsaid hung in the air. But even so, I believed I handled this as best as I could. I now know I cannot solve the problems of other people, even my closest friends. I cannot "fix" her and make it better. No amount of love, understanding and generosity would ever make her feel good enough. Trying to give it only left me feeling empty and unfulfilled. I could and would no longer do that to myself.

So then we reach where I lost my battle. I brought in the New Year at my younger sister's home and planned to leave my kids there so they could spend some time with their cousins. My son could spend the day with my nephew since there are only two boys in the family; they are very close. It wasn't until the early morning when everyone was leaving to go to my older sister's house that I learned my nephew was going ice skating and to the mall with some of the older cousins. I pointed out that Christian was looking forward to hanging out with him, and if he remained home with my daughter and my niece he'd be stuck spending New Years Day with two girls and that wouldn't be too much fun for him. The protest I received was about money, since they said he needed to have about $30 to go. I reassured them that he had some Christmas money with him. Would $20 be enough, I asked? Sure, it was said, and so he got himself ready to go with them.

I have to add here, my son, having been diagnosed with autism at an early age has in the past been "left out" of family plans. Maybe it's the autism or maybe it's my legacy, as I am also too, because of my vocal identification of family dysfunction, left out of family plans as well.

What I learned later that evening is while the boys slept together in the basement (my neice's boyfriend and my nephew), and no doubt played X-Box until the wee hours of the morning, my son was sent upstairs to my older sister's room. She insisted that it was too cold for him down there. To top it off, he did not end up going with his cousin to the mall. Instead, my older sister agreed that they'd have to "watch him" and as a generous act of concession, ended up taking him with her and her daughter (who'd she also kept from going as well) shopping at Macy's. AS if all of this was not bad enough, she insisted that he "treat" her daughter to lunch with his Christmas money!!!

My son told me all of this in an exasperation, as he was very upset. Well ,so was I! My nephew said it hadn't been his idea that my son not go with them, but my niece's. The finger pointing had begun. It didn't matter whose idea it had been to me, just that this had been allowed to happen. Why hadn't my sister insisted that he go along?

But knowing my older sister and how she likes to manage and control others for her own benefit, I know his welfare and his feelings were the last thing on her mind. I toyed with the idea of sending her an email or perhaps leaving a message. Instinctively I knew speaking to her would be unpleasant. I ended up calling her house, thinking she would be at work, only unfortunately to find out that she wasn't. Over-confident, I asked in a non-confrontational, curious voice, what happened with my son on New Years Day.

Well, she launched into a flowery explanation of how the teenagers (my son is 12 and the "teenagers are 13, 15 and 17) didn't want to bring my son with them because they felt he'd have to be watched and so she'd volunteered to take him with her. She said he was excited to go! She said they had a wonderful time shopping and she also "took" him out to eat and everything went well.

I told her that he had confessed to me that he was upset -- well, no sooner than the words were out of my mouth did she start flustering and stuttering about how I was making a big deal out of nothing, that what I was saying wasn't true, that I had made it up. I kept trying to ask her just to listen to what my son said he felt but she was having none of it.

Wasn't she interested in his feelings, I asked? She asked bitterly, her voice heavy with sarcasm, "Okay, what did he feel"? But I wasn't able to utter a word before she was again accusing me of making things up and then like that, click, the phone hung up.

Well, I'm afraid I saw red. One of my triggers is having the phone hung up on me. I called back and she refused to answer so I left a nasty message of what I thought of her controlling, bullying, manipulative, nasty behavior. Then I called my younger sister to ask her to calm me down before I did something I'd regret.

My younger sister called my older sister and then called me and said she'd spoken to her. While we were on the phone, the other line rang and I saw it was her. My older sister started off again, with another equally flowery explanation of how my younger sister had made her understand that when my son said something he didn't always say what he really meant, and perhaps not having spent time with him, she didn't understand that. Talk about condescending! My son is very high functioning. He is pretty much a typical 12 year old boy. She claimed she asked him three times if he was okay with spending the day with her and each time he'd said yes.

But you see, I know my older sister; I know how she asked him which is, she didn't. She TOLD him where he was going and reassured him that he was okay with it. He had already told me that she never asked him; that she just told him, but I know her well so this came as no surprise.

I asked her why was she able to talk to my younger sister but not to me. She told me that I had accused her and she didn't like to be accused. Of course this wasn't true. Like in the restaurant, no sooner had I opened my mouth to ask a question did she react in anger. I pointed this out and she told me in no uncertain terms did she want to talk to me about us. She said she had no problem with me, that I was the one with the problem and she only wanted to talk about my son. She told me she'd made a mistake in asking him to pay for her daughter's food. She said when she goes out with the kids she always gives them her all so she thought it was his turn to treat my niece.

More lies. My older sister is cheap beyond understanding. She'll buy one happy meal for three children and expect them to share. She doesn't give her all to anyone. She was taking advantage of him and lying about it. I'm afraid I ended the conversation telling her that it was clear that she had a problem with me but I was no longer going to tolerate her abuse and if she hung up the phone on me again or spoke to me like she had earlier one more time, she would get it (okay, in nastier words than that) -- then I hung up the phone.

So yes, I failed. I let myself get baited, hooked and trapped into family drama and edged on to act like the "bad guy". I didn't spend a lot of time feeling bad about it. I know how unproductive that is. What happened is I had a dream!

In the dream, my mother and my sisters, my oldest sister who lives in Maryland that I haven't spoken to in years and my older sister who I described above were all telling me how much they hated me. It was very painful and frustrating. I couldn't talk to them; they wouldn't let me. Every time I tried to speak they'd cut me off. They kept explaining to me why they were perfectly justified in hating me! But here is the eerie thing. They were all smiling and laughing and speaking with soft voices. They were saying the most hateful, horrible things, but all the while they were also "acting" like they didn't have a problem with me at all!



I woke with a very deep and clear understanding. There is no more heinous an act than when someone says that they hold no ill feelings towards another but behaves in a way that clearly shows that they do. Isn't this a common element in all my relationships? My friend says she loves me; past boyfriends have said they love me; my family says they have no problem with me but how have they treated me in the past? BADLY.

So here is the message that has been reinforced since childhood.

LOVE = PAIN; IGNORING; WITHHOLDING, INSULTS; ACCUSATIONS; ABUSE

This message is proffered, justified, exemplified through behavior, over and over and over. The rudest thing may have been said but on the heals of the statement follows the disclaimer: I don't have a problem with you. I love you. YOU'RE the one with the problem.

Is it a wonder that we don't know what love is; that we mistake bad treatment for love?

As broken people deny their faults and project them onto their victims, they also cover the reality of their bad behavior with an innocent mantel of goodness. Right becomes wrong and hate becomes love.

I always thought I knew that you don't listen to what someone says, you watch what they do and that you don't listen to their excuses. But this is a deeper understanding.

What happens to a child who is told: You are loved and appreciated but is ALWAYS treated with scorn and anger. What becomes true to this child?

What becomes true is that scorn IS affection and anger IS love. Real love no longer feels like love. You've never experienced it. Hate feels like love. It's all you know.

This alone is a beautiful gift of understanding, but I opened up my daily affirmation today. It was entitled:

PARENTAL LOVE


I see my parents as tiny children who need love.
I have compassion for my parents' childhoods.
I now know that I chose them because they were perfect for what I had to learn.
I forgive them and set them free
and I set myself free.

Wow, isn't that amazing!!!!

TWILIGHT: Teenagers Swoon Over Dysfunctional Love

My daughter came home with the first book in the four part Twilight series by Stephenie Meyer. It was a week before the movie came out and she wanted us to read it -- together. Well, what Mom of a teen wouldn't jump at that chance and invitation? Not having ever been an avid reader, I have to thank Stephenie for encouraging my daughter to tackle a 400 paged book. With her leaving it for me during the day while she read till the wee hours of the morning at night, I rediscovered my love for romance and we both finished it by the time the movie came out. I was able to be transported back to a time when I could lose myself in a love story and I did find myself sighing at the cute little first love moments between the lead characters. We celebrated by hitting the theaters at midnight, the day before the official release, to catch the movie.

Die hard Twilight fans joined us, giggling and sighing in turns over Bella and Edward, Romeo and Juliet with a horrible twist.


You see, Bella (Isabella) Swan and Edward Cullen are endearing, it's true, but there are some serious problems with their characteristics. Bella is 17 and a more co-dependent person I have never read about. Edward is a vampire, dead as a door nail but has been walking the Earth for 108 years. He lives with his vampire family who have sworn off feeding off of humans. They pretend to be human, though and he, being perpetually stuck at the age of 17, attends Forks High where he meets shy, awkward, plain Bella. And yes, this for all intents and purposes 108 year old man, falls in love with 17 year old, very naive and very immature Bella. It gets worst.

The story is written in first person and very quickly we learn that Bella's mother is the kind of flighty, absentee parent that creates a reversal of the parent/child relationship. In short, Bella takes care of her mother. When Mom marries a minor league baseball player who, you guessed it, is younger than she is, Bella feels like an outsider and decides to stay with her Dad to give her mother time to travel and enjoy her new husband. Maybe she was feeling a little lost with no one to take care of. But Dad is just as absentee as Mom, in that he is emotionally withdrawn, which is perfect, as Bella gets to take care of him, too, just as she's been doing all her life. Bella's father is few with words and even less with emotion and Bella acts like a pseudo-mate, cooking his meals and doing his laundry while he spends most of his time at work.

So we have the back drop of a co-dependent adolescent girl looking desperately for love and approval, for someone to finally take care of her.

And here comes Edward. Because the story is written in the first person, we don't really get to understand the attraction between Bella and Edward. She sees him as perfection itself, beautiful, a person who she cannot fathom would ever be interested in her. We see that she has no outside interests and considers herself plain and boring. We don't understand why he wants her either!!! She spends the whole entire first book marveling at the fact that perfect Edward could be interested in her and she never quite believes it -- for a large part of the story, neither do we.

But in reality Edward is far from perfect. Initially, he treats her with barely concealed hatred and then swings over to interest. Bella is confused and so are we. Reading about his border-line behavior, I know I wondered what in the world Bella found attractive about him -- other than the fact that he's gorgeous. Why wasn't she turned off by his on again off again treatment of her? But my confusion was short-lived. We learn in the book that although Edward's been living as a vegetarian vampire (drinking only animal blood for the last 100 years) Bella's blood is just his type. He describes the scent of her blood as causing a burning, yearning in his throat, a thirst that must be satisfied. Bella, he says, is his special brand of heroine and he lusts after her blood like an addict after a hit.

This, it turns out is not that far from the truth. Bella is completely dependent on Edward's love of her, a love that she can never quite convince herself that she deserves. She worries about it, she wonder's if it's real; she tells herself it can't be but she wants it. I think it's pretty clear that part of her desire for him is because he is unattainable, at least in her mind. Edward presents the opportunity to get the love that Bella has always wanted but never received. Finally, someone is paying her attention. Finally, someone wants her. She confesses to being unable to be without him and when he's gone, she wonders what to do with herself until he gets back. Edward is Bella's drug.

Meanwhile, Edward is trying to keep himself from murdering Bella, even as his attraction to her builds. Unable to fight his fascination, he begins watching Bella sleep at night, unbeknownst to her; climbing in through her window into her room at night. He follows her around, as far as to another city and watches her house from the woods. He takes her engine out of her car so she CAN'T leave the house!!! He describes himself in Midnight Sun, (Stephanie's Meyer's unfinished manuscript of Edward's perspective of Twilight) as no better than a peeping tom but he confesses, he can't help it. Bella is Edward's drug.

They are addicted to each other. They have a dysfunctional, obsessive relationship.

Not surprisingly, we learn in reading "Midnight Sun" that Edward hates himself. He thinks of himself as a monster and can't believe that Bella would ever want him. He tells himself that he follows Bella to make sure she's safe, but the truth is, like Bella, Edward cannot bare the thought of losing her; of losing his drug. Edward is truly tormented because even as he longs for her love, he tortures himself mentally with chastising guilt, perceiving himself to be the biggest danger to her well being. He wants her but he hates himself for wanting her.

Bella sees Edward as perfect and unattainable, Edward sees Bella the same. Edward doesn't want to let Bella out of his sight and Bella doesn't ever want to be without Edward.

Is it no wonder in the beginning of New Moon, after a mishap involving blood and Edward's brother (take a good guess), when Edward and his family disappear for "Bella's" own good, Bella becomes virtually catatonic and suicidal?

Why wasn't I surprised when we learn at the end of the book that Edward, believing that Bella did end her life, seeks to end his own?

It's oh so melodramatic and passionate and oh so very sick.

Bella through out the series has no outside interests or friends -- she has made Edward her life. In fact, towards the end of Twilight she even begs him to end her life and make her a vampire too, something Edward refuses to do - for a while.

I suppose it isn't fair to say Bella didn't have any friends. In Twilight, she befriends Jacob Black, for the sole purpose of finding out Edward's secret, that he is a vampire. Her usury of him doesn't end there, though. Bella uses Jake in New Moon to help her cope with her loss of Edward, shamelessly admitting that she cannot function on her own. Tragically, predictably he falls in love with her and though she knows she should free him to find happiness elsewhere, she says she cannot; that is until Edward returns, then she dumps him unceremoniously, without a second thought.

The third book, Eclipse, explores a toxic relationship between the three, as Jake holds on for dear life and Bella attempts to have her cake and eat it, too; her friend, whom she says she loves, and the love of her life, who is her friend's sworn enemy. Towards the end of the book she confesses she is in love with both of them but that's not the truth. Bella has no idea what love is. The three of them create a triangular relationship that has no boundaries and where not one person takes good care of themselves. Now all of this would have been wonderful if we could have seen the characters grow -- but they don't.

The series ends, with no surprise: Edward and Bella end up together, vowing undying love for each other but sadly, this is not reality. I've toyed with the idea of writing a blog borrowing the characters and projecting them into the future, in let's say five years - when Bella gets tired of being treated like a child and finally wants the freedom to grow up and Edward's self-loathing and jealousy starts to corrode the relationship -- because that's how dysfunctional relationships end.

I thought it was very sad that Stephenie Meyers had written this story, geared towards teenage and adolescent girls, with such a weak heroine and such a toxic hero. But then I realized that the popularity of the books pointed to a sickness within society itself. All over we glorify and aggrandize dysfunctional love in our books, in our songs, in our lives. The type of love that we celebrate creates longing, wanting, despair, betrayal, hurt and often abandonment. We'd all like to believe that we can hate ourselves, have no life but find love and completion in another person. We tell ourselves that love hurts. It isn't true. Not real love.

Edward and Bella are mirror images of each other. They both suffer from perpetual low self-esteem and insecurity. So strangely enough, what the book does illustrate clearly is that what we always find when we are dysfunctional is ourselves. I would have been happy with this turn of events if I thought for one minute that Stephenie Meyers did that on purpose, to teach her readers something but that is so apparently untrue.

What Stephenie would have us believe is that you can dislike yourself and never put an ounce of effort into creating a life for yourself but still find true love with a wonderful person; she'd like us to believe that you can use people to make you feel better when you've been hurt and that everything will turn out great in the end; she'd like young girls to think a man who follows them around or creeps into their bedroom at night does so because he loves them and wants them to be safe; she'd wants us to accept that a woman having no goals and no desires outside of wanting to be with a man is okay.

I was happy to have a chance to discuss this book with my daughter. To point out all the obvious dysfunction. I was even happier to see how much she got it, what a good head she had on her shoulders.

The best books I think presents us with characters that remind us of ourselves and then rise above our faults. The Twilight series fails in that task. Completely.

PRESIDENT ELECT OBAMA Ushering in the New Age!

As the possibility of change becomes a reality with the historical win of BARACK H. OBAMA as our 44th President and the first African-American president in the history of America, I want to take this moment to honor his accomplishment, all the ideals that I believe emphatically that he stands for and the HOPE he has inspired in all of us that America CAN be different. I watched the crowds in Grant Park, Chicago, nationalities of all colors, ages celebrate his victory and it was BEAUTIFUL!!!!

"The only time I ever saw my mother really angry was when she saw cruelty, when she was somebody being bullied or somebody being treated badly because of who they were and if she saw me doing that she would be furious; and she would say to me, Imagine standing in that person's shoes, how would that make you feel. That simple idea, I'm not sure I understood it when I was a kid but it stayed with me."

What I want is a family that is transmitting the values I inherited, the values that Michelle inherited to the next generation, hard-work, honesty, self-reliance, respect for other people, a sense of empathy, kindness, faith . . .

Every Generation we have to work on behalf of the next generation, to make sure the world is better for them . . . . You know one person's struggle is all of our struggle. We recognize ourselves in each other

Are We Facing the End of Democracy??

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.” Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin (1802) 3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

The news is a buzz with the mass hysteria that has resulted from our failing markets, which is linked to the subprime-mortgage crisis, which has everyone pointing fingers of blame either at Wall Street, greedy investors, unethical banking conglomerates and finally irresponsible government. My view is that there is plenty of blame to go around. Of course the groups mentioned in the previous sentence point their fingers at the people, complaining that Americans are irresponsible, spend-crazy consumers who want more house, more stuff and to live high on the hog even though they are light in the pockets. Well, the credit/debt industry certainly made it very easy for irresponsible Americans to behave this way and one might make a compelling argument that the credit/debt industry actually created these Americans!

For a further understanding of this train of thought please take one and one half hour of your day and watch this excellent, informing documentary In Debt We Trust:

IN DEBT WE TRUST:AMERICA BEFORE THE BUBBLE BURSTS is an an eerie, prophetic cinematic warning to America of the impending collapse of the American Economy which was released by director Danny Schechter an amazing TWO YEARS AGO.

The following statement appears along side this link in google:

"While many Americans may be "maxing out" on credit cards, there is a deeper story: power is shifting into fewer hands.....with frightening consequences. IN DEBT WE TRUST shows how the mall replaced the factory as America's dominant economic engine and how big banks and credit card companies buy our Congress and drive us into what a former major bank economist calls modern serfdom. Americans and our government owe trillions in consumer debt and the national debt, a large amount of it to big banks and billions to Communist China."

Schechter interviews government officials, industry leaders, legal consultants and financial experts who warn that America is headed for a certain demise yet why, one would wonder, did no one listen?

IN DEBT WE TRUST is certainly not the only documentary which explores the reality of the Credit/Debt Industrial Complex of America. Maxed Out: Hard Times, Easy Credit and the Era of Predatory Lenders is an independent feature-length documentary film which was also released in 2006. Written and directed by James Scurlock, the main premise of the film and companion book is that unscrupulous banks have developed creditor policy which utilizing predatory lending practices deliberately market to people who are more likely to have problems paying in order to reap the ongoing, never-ending monetary benefits. Scurlock explores the banks and creditors questionable connections to government and the debt collection industry which results in lawmaker apathy. The film won the acclaimed Special Jury Prize and also aired on the Showtime Network.

Ms. Ilana Mercer wrote in her article for WorldNetDaily entitled, "The End of Democracy on September 24, 2004:

"Coercive majoritarianism, nominal ownership of property, a highly centralized and authoritarian state with ever-expanding distributive and other powers, over whose decisions "The People" exert little control – these have inevitable consequences".

Are we seeing her prophetic words come to pass? The only intelligent response to this question is: YES!




SECURITY CRISIS (The "War" on Terror) :

After the tragedy of September 11th we were coerced into a war on baseless claims which we learned too late to be entirely untrue. Again, Danny Schechter explores the role the media played in justifying the war in Iraq in his excellent documentary: WMD: Weapons of Mass Destruction, which he released in 2004.

Signed into emergency law on October 26, 2001, just six weeks on the heels of the September 11th tragedy, fear served as the catalyst for the passing of the U.S. Patriotic Act. Metaphorically waiving a flag emblazoned with the now familiar slogan War on Terrorism, Congress gave the U.S. executive branch and its police agencies unchecked, unprecedented powers in 362 pages of law that undermine the very basis of the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights. When the final vote was taken, no printed copies were available to our elected officials in Congress yet most voted in favor with little debate. Did they read the Act beforehand? I don't think so!

In creative doublespeak the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001" (Public Law Pub.L. 107-56) in actuality threatens to violate the civil liberties of every single American. The Act expands the authority of U.S. law enforcement agencies for the stated purpose of fighting the broad, undefined category of terrorism in the United States and abroad, which means basically without restriction. What does the Act do? The Patriot Acts authorizes:

* indefinite detentions of immigrants
* FBI and police searches of homes or offices without prior notice
* government wiretaps on phone, computer and/or Internet activity without Court Order
* investigations of bank records, credit cards and other financial records without Court Order
* investigations of library and book activities
* examination of medical, travel and business records without Court Order
* freezing of funds and assets without prior notice or appeal
* creation of secret 'watch lists' that ban those named from air and other travel

Federal Courts have actually ruled several provisions of the Act as unconstitutional! In July 2005, the U.S. Senate pushed forward a reauthorization bill substantially changing several sections of the Act but the House reauthorization bill kept most of the act's original language. The final bill, which removed most of the changes from the Senate version, passed Congress on March 2, 2006 and on March 9, 2006 was signed into permanent law by President George W. Bush. On March 9, 2006 Americans lost in alienable rights expressly affirmed by the U.S. Constitution.

FINANCIAL CRISIS:

On Sunday, September 7, 2008 the U.S. government seized control of the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, placing the liabilities of more than $5 trillion of mortgages onto the backs of the U.S. taxpayer. Because the government now controls the liabilities of Fannie and Freddie, this action could cost U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars. Secretary Treasury, Henry Paulson had this to say at a press conference in Washington D.C. :

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are so large and so interwoven in our financial system that a failure of either of them would cause great turmoil in our financial markets here at home and around the globe. A failure would affect the ability of Americans to get home loans, auto loans and other consumer credit and business finance."

After a week of turmoil in the financial markets of Wall Street, the Bush administration then formally proposed a vast bailout of financial institutions, requesting unfettered authority for the Treasury Department to buy up to $700 billion in distressed mortgage-related assets from private firms. Of this bill, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, stated: “It’s clear that the administration has requested that Congress authorize, in very short order, sweeping and unprecedented powers for the Treasury Secretary”. New York Time's columnist David M. Herszenhorn reported in an article dated September 20, 2008 entitled Administration Is Seeking $700 Billion for Wall Street :

"The ambitious effort to transfer the bad debts of Wall Street, at least temporarily, into the obligations of American taxpayers was first put forward by the administration late last week after a series of bold interventions on behalf of ailing private firms seemed unlikely to prevent a crash of world financial markets. A $700 billion expenditure on distressed mortgage-related assets would roughly be what the country has spent so far in direct costs on the Iraq war and more than the Pentagon’s total yearly budget appropriation. Divided across the population, it would amount to more than $2,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States. Whatever is spent will add to a budget deficit already projected at more than $500 billion next year. And it comes on top of the $85 billion government rescue of the insurance giant American International Group and a plan to spend up to $200 billion to shore up the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

The Bill failed in the Senate on Monday, September 29th with a final vote of 228 for and 205 against; two-thirds of Democrats and one-third of Republicans voted for the measure. The market reacted violently, plummeting the Dow Jones industrial average down well over 700 points.

The U.S. House of Representatives then approved an even broader rescue plan for $840 million by a vote of 263-171; it quickly went to President George W. Bush, who just as quickly signed it into law. But stocks that were higher before the vote still dropped! Standard & Poors 500 index closed at its lowest level in almost four years. Even though Wall Street had received a gift of $840 million to make their toxic investments go away the confidence in the markets had been shaken. Mass chaos had ensued.

History has shown us with mass chaos comes an opportunity to enact laws which the general public would never accept! First we were assaulted with the Patriotic Act and now Wall Street was being told they did not have to pay for their mistakes. The message of the Bail Out to rich fat cats is this: Financial decisions have no consequences; the government will pick up the tab.

When government starts bailing out the rich I call that fascism! The Library of Economics and Liberty in defining fascism state, "As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer". They go on to state, "Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. Minimum-wage and antitrust laws, though they regulate the free market, are a far cry from multi year plans from the Ministry of Economics.

Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.”

Curiously enough they also have this to say, "To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation. While many of these projects were domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums—the largest project of all was militarism, with huge armies and arms production."

Sound familiar?

Today it is being widely reported that the government has decided to invest heavily into our "free-market" banking system by buying up shares in banks. President Bush utilizes doublespeak to define the intention behind this bold move by declaring the new plan is "not intended to take over the free market but to preserve it."

Fifteen banks failed this year, and three failed in 2007. The $125 million would initially go to nine major banks in the hopes that the money will be used to increase lending and build reserves with another $125 billion becoming available at the end of the year to banks who need it. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson stated when introducing this outrageous proposal, "Government owning a stake in any private U.S. company is objectionable to most Americans — me included," but then goes on to justify the need by explaining, "Yet the alternative of leaving businesses and consumers without access to financing is totally unacceptable."

How generous! But will it work? Let's take a look at our neighbors overseas. Yesterday, on October 13th, 2008 TelegraphUK.com reported in an article entitled: Bank Nationalisation: How a bail-out Became a Buy-Out:

"October 13, 2008 will go down in history as the day the capitalist system in the UK finally admitted defeat.

A little over a year after the Government took the unprecedented step of nationalising Northern Rock, every one of Britain's High Street banks will almost certainly become partially or totally state-owned.

Having failed to raise the money they need to balance their books, the banks have been left with no choice but to accept £50 billion of Government investment after last week's £500 billion rescue package failed to stop the collapse in share prices or make any positive impression on the credit crunch.

In return for taxpayers' cash, HBOS and RBS will issue new shares which, it is expected, will make the Government the majority shareholder. They will also have to hand over control of their boardrooms to Whitehall, making them state-run institutions".

So, okay, let's get back to the States. Where is this money coming from? When the bail out bill passed, New York's Time Square debt clock which historically has reported the national debt of America for the past 19 years plunged past the $10 trillion mark and could no longer display the full figure. The sign also tallied the debt of each American family, currently $86,000 and rising.

After banking came to almost a full stop in mid-September, the Federal Reserve "generously" offered to inject $200 billion into world banks. The was after Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy protection, Merrill Lynch lost its independence and Washington announced an $85 billion bailout of insurance giant, AIG who it was discovered, I might add, celebrated the bailout by spending a half a million dollars on a trip to a Spa/Resort the very next week! In addition, because of the continual decline of the market, the Federal Reserve has said it will start buying commercial paper on Oct. 27th to unfreeze that market.

History has shown us that the privately owned Federally Reserve Bank has continuously used their control of the interest rate on the money they create out of thin air to trigger repeated depressions and recessions. Preceding every depression/recession is an interest rate hike. This pattern of practice has been used through history by the Rothschild's who own most of the Federal Reserve Bank. There is a wealth of information available on the internet as to the curious way the Federal Reserve Bank came in existence - on the heels of chaos, of course. To understand the corrupt history and premise of this central bank, please view this short video illustration:

In June of 2004, MSN reported that the Federal Reserve had decided to raise "key short-term interest rates for the first time in more than four years, launching a risky campaign to suppress inflation without stamping out economic growth", explained Chief Economic Correspondent, Martin Wolk. Quoting directly from the article:

"Concluding a two-day meeting, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and fellow central bank policy-makers boosted the benchmark federal funds rate a quarter-point to 1.25 percent, citing recent evidence the economy “is continuing to expand at a solid pace.” The move, which is expected to be the first of a many over the next year or more, affects a wide range of consumer and and business loans. The federal funds rate is what banks charge each other for overnight loans and last changed in June 2003, when the Fed lowered it to 1 percent, a level not seen since 1958".

In the same month, on the 30th in a Press Release for the Institute of Public Accurary, Co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, Dean Baker stated:

"Just as he allowed a stock bubble to inflate to dangerous proportions in the late nineties, Alan Greenspan has allowed, and arguably promoted, the development of a housing bubble in the last four years. For the first time in the post-war period, home prices have substantially outpaced the overall rate of inflation, creating nearly $4 trillion in bubble wealth. While the collapse of this bubble will almost certainly lead to a recession, the problem is only made worse by delaying the inevitable. Mr. Greenspan should have the courage to follow the example of Mervyn King, the head of the Central Bank of England, and make a clear and unambiguous warning about the dangers of a housing bubble."

CNNMoney.com raised the concern in their May 14th 2008 article entitled: The Fed: Betting on a Rate Hike, "There have been calls for the Fed to, at the very least, leave rates alone for the foreseeable future. Critics of the Fed have maintained that a relatively low federal funds rate, an overnight bank lending rate that affects how much interest many consumers and businesses pay on loans, has weakened the dollar and helped fuel the boom in commodity prices."

As we watch the future unfold before our very eyes, let us be mindful of what intelligent and perceptive men have said in the past:

“The Federal Reserve banks are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen. There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this nation is run by the international bankers.” ~ Congressman Louis T. McFadden (speaking in the Senate)

"The real menace of our Republic is the invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation. At the head is a small group of banking houses . . . This little coterie . . . run our government for their own selfish ends. It operates under cover of a self-created screen . . . seizes . . . our executive officers . . . legislative bodies . . . schools . . . courts . . . newspapers and every agency created for the public protection.” ~N.Y. Mayor, John Hylan