What does 'trick-or-treat' really mean?

I've always thought it means you're supposed to give candy to the children at your doorstep — or risk having them play a 'trick' on you or your house. In that case, though, it really should be 'treat-or-trick,' since the latter is presumably done in retaliation for failure to provide the former. Have countless generations been saying it wrong this whole time?

Or maybe the phrase was originally intended to mean that you're either supposed to give the children treats or perform a magical trick for them. In that case, the word order would make more sense, but I've never heard this explanation before and probably just made it up.

Or maybe it's an ultimatum to you, the homeowner, to either 'trick' the kids into getting the hell off your property — perhaps by indicating the presence of the boogyman hiding in those bushes over there — or, failing that, simply give them treats and hope it appeases them.

Wow, I could get really creative with these explanations.

Drastic times call for drastic measures

In the preceding post, I mentioned Chicago's unseasonably warm temperatures this month. But the Windy City is hardly the only place in the United States where man-made global warming is rearing its ugly head. In Southern California, catastrophic wildfires have scorched hundreds of thousands of acres and prompted a record mass evacuation. In Atlanta, the worst drought in recorded history has left that city with fewer than 90 days of water supply. In the Northeast, fall foliage is duller than normal because temperatures there have been too warm to generate the sharp autumn colors for which the region is famous. Frankly, the planet is in bad shape, and we're talking about it, but not doing much of anything but making it worse.

I was reminded last weekend of a culprit behind climate change that's almost never noted, but should be: the American lawn. Grass in my parents' neighborhood that should be nearly dormant by this time of year was instead being watered by automated sprinkler systems — the type that activate at predetermined times, whether there's sun, rain, sleet, or snow, and whether the temperature is 80 degrees or 30 degrees. These systems contribute to water shortages and enable the grass to grow even during the driest times of the year, so that property owners can use their lawnmowers to keep it trim — and release tons of carbon into the atmosphere. Couple that with the use of toxic fertilizers, which seep into and contaminate water sources, and the typical lawn is just a self-perpetuating cycle of environmental degradation whose benefits are limited to artificial aesthetic value. Ironically, many American homeowners probably spend more money watering their grass than they donate to families in drought-stricken developing nations who would kill for just a swig of the clean water that comes out of sprinklers in Suburbia, USA.

I'll cut to the chase. We need to take decisive action to stop this trend. Therefore, I propose federal legislation that:

• Bans the wasteful use of sprinklers, automated or manual, and compels residential properties to replace their domestic grasses within the next five years with a slow-growing, drought-resistant type that does not require constant mowing;
• Bans the use of gas-powered lawnmowers; and
• Bans the use of non-organic fertilizers, which pollute groundwater, streams, lakes, and rivers.

Draconian, you say? Perhaps slightly. Essential, though? Absolutely.

A weekend to remember

After less than 72 hours in Illinois, I'm back to Seattle. It was one of the best weekends I've had in a long time. Flying over the Chicago skyline last Friday night, I had a definite sense of being back at home. I suppose it was simply the knowledge that I was back in the Midwest. Back to my roots.

The weather, for starters, was unbelievable. Highs on both Saturday and Sunday reached nearly 80 degrees in Chicago — an occurrence that, way back in the days before accelerated global warming, would have been quite unusual for late October there. Still, we made the most of it, taking several trips to the local dog park, where my parents' hound was able to run around, terrorize the other dogs, and jump in the river. He's only about a year old and likes to play rough now. I learned that the hard way. (Seriously, though, he's a great dog who loves people.)

Sunday, of course, culminated with a concert at the United Center featuring none other than The Boss. Damn, what a show. Bruce Springsteen is pushing 60 and still seems to have the energy of someone half his age. His music has mellowed out a great deal, though, since his high-powered ballads of the 1980s like "Dancing in the Dark" and "Born in the USA." This concert was a mix of the two — high-testosterone Bruce and mature Bruce — with a decided emphasis on the latter. Still, he was courteous enough to include several classics in his line-up. After all, what would a Bruce Springsteen concert be without "Born to Run?"

Because of its proximity to the airport, I stayed at my uncle's house on Sunday night, which is coincidentally the same house I lived in as a toddler. I didn't sleep too well that night. There's something distinctly nostalgic about spending the night in the same room I occupied from the time I was born until the age of 3 — especially considering the places that life has taken me in the quarter-century since. More than anything else, I suppose, it was a reminder of how far I've come and how far I have yet to go.

That last paragraph was way too deep. It's a sign that I need to stop writing now.

Back for the Boss

For the first time since I moved last April, I'm heading back to the Midwest. It will be a remarkably short visit, easily the quickest trip I've ever taken that involves air travel. My flight arrives at Chicago O'Hare at about 7:45 on Friday evening; I'll be taking off on the return flight to Seattle by 7:45 on Monday morning. The interim time will be spent visiting family and — yes, that's right — enjoying a Springsteen concert at the United Center.

As such, this blog will be on hiatus for the next several days. To keep material fresh during that period — and in light of Congress's recent failure to override George W. Bush's veto on child health care — I'll sign off for now with a quote from the man whose plush perception of reality has rarely been more evident: "The immediate goal is to make sure there are more people on private insurance plans. I mean, people have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room."

Searching

October marks six months since my move to Washington state. In one sense, I can hardly believe it's been that long; in another, it seems like it's been much longer. Either way, it's been a period of life lessons I won't forget. I'll share one with anybody who's considering leaving your roots to go to new places around the country and world: Don't expect your life to change drastically just because you might be moving somewhere that boasts majestic natural beauty and vibrant culture. The Seattle area has both, and guess what? I still wake up and go to work every morning, I still pay bills (more expensive ones), and I still sometimes eat frozen pizza for dinner — all things I did back home. A common misconception among 20-somethings who can't wait to leave the Midwest is that their lives will be more exciting or glamorous if they move to either coast or overseas. Trust me — more than likely, it won't be. I say this not as discouragement, but as advice.

It's been a privilege to live in such a gorgeous part of the world. But I still don't expect to stay here on the long term; I'm simply too far away from family and my closest friends. I've grown downright annoyed with people at work who say "how hard it was when we first moved here." The operative word in that phrase is "we." Moving to a new place with a spouse and possibly kids is entirely different from moving all by yourself. Add to that the solitude of living alone and working with married people, some of whom are old enough to be my parents, and it can be downright excruciating. For a relatively shy person like myself, joining new clubs and groups would be about a million times easier if I had someone in my same position to do it with; in the absence of such a person, it's damn near impossible to find the motivation or energy, especially after a long day at work.

I realize this could all change; six months is hardly long enough to make a categorical statement about the success or failure of this experiment. For now, my goal is to be thankful for what I have and take it one day at a time. Life is all about exploration — trying different things in search of what brings fulfillment. I'm a long way from having it figured out.

Transitioning to autumn

During this past summer, I grew highly skeptical of Seattle's reputation as a rainy and overcast place. Between the months of June and August, there were probably fewer days of clouds — and even fewer of actual rain — here than there were back in the Midwest. People at work kept assuring me that the clouds would roll in and the raindrops would start to fall sometime in October. I couldn't believe it.

Well, as though on cue, it's happened. I think we started seeing more partially overcast days toward the end of September. Now that we're into October, the clouds are consistent, and so is the rain. It's been chilly, too. High temperatures have only reached the mid-50s during the past several days. At night, I've had opportunity to use my wood-burning fireplace on more than one occasion. The surrounding mountain passes recently had their first snow advisory of the season.

Being from the Midwest, however, I keep having to remind myself that it won't get much colder than this. Seattle rarely sees snow. While nearby higher elevations get buried under several feet, the Puget Sound area usually just gets rain. And clouds. And low temperatures that rarely drop below freezing, even in January. I'll find that very odd at first, I'm sure.

In any case, I'm back to Chicago in less than two weeks. It'll be a much-needed break from this place. I'm looking forward to it immensely.

Can you hear me now?

I was at a good Italian restaurant in Seattle this past weekend. A prominent sign posted at its entrance read: "$5 cell phone surcharge. Really!!"

The hostess who sat us confirmed it. This particular establishment adds an extra $5 fee to the tab of anyone who uses his or her wireless device while on the premises. At first, I was mildly stunned, wondering whether such a policy is even legal. Then, I realized it must be. The owner of the restaurant obviously has the right to regulate the behavior of guests — especially that which is rude or disruptive. Cell phone usage in a sit-down restaurant is arguably both.

It got me wondering why more places don't enforce this rule. Frankly, if I owned a restaurant, I'd probably charge at least quadruple that amount for the use of a cell phone in my establishment. There are certain places where it's just not appropriate. Public restrooms are one such place. Restaurants are another. If you've got an emergency that necessitates use of the phone, step outside. No one wants to hear about your son's colonoscopy while trying to enjoy a tiramisu.