Category Archives: responsibility

imposter syndrome

19 Friday Jan 2018

Posted by in democracy, getting old, motherhood, ranting, responsibility, writing

≈ 1 Comment

There are a number of people that would say that the month of November in the year 2016 rocked them to their core. It rocked our country from our perch of democratic superiority. It rocked the notion that ours is a progressive society, on the brink of achieving racial and gender parity. I, too, was rocked but because of more than just the presidential election (and I cannot overemphasize how rock-worthy that was). I became pregnant with my son in November of 2016. The confluence of these two events rocked and socked me. This is the world into which I am bringing a new human? With this guy as the leader of the free world? And I have to stop drinking? Now?? I had no idea how to be pregnant or be a mother in the most ideal of circumstances. I had no idea what to do about any of this. For some reason, I felt like a fraud.

I think it’s fair to say that most people get hit with imposter syndrome at some point in their lives. Questions like “How did I get here? What am I doing? How long before everyone else figures out that I don’t belong here?” swirl around in your brain and inevitably churn down to your stomach. It feels as fun as it sounds, doesn’t it? I have long struggled with my writing and whether or not it’s good enough for anyone to read. Ok, that’s a lie. I know it’s “good enough.” But there are lots of “good enough” writers. That’s never been what I wanted. I have never wanted to be “good enough” at anything. I want to be the best. I want you to think I have the best words (wink). If it’s not “the best,” I don’t share it. I don’t write for public consumption nearly as much as I want to because coming up with “the best” takes time and energy I don’t think I have. My imposter syndrome tells me “I can’t be the best so I’m not going to this at all.” I struggled to come up with the best words after the presidential election. I so desperately wanted to say SOMETHING. I wanted to say SOMETHING about being hopeful. As the months passed, I wanted to say SOMETHING about being a woman, SOMETHING about refugees, SOMETHING about believing in science, SOMETHING about the importance of public education. Everyone around me was saying lots of somethings: prominent writers, politicians, celebrities, friends on social media. Over time it became painfully obvious that none of it was making a difference. So many things which I hold dear in this country got a turn at the top of the President’s agenda and then got beat down, like a progressive Ferris wheel of doom. It wouldn’t stop. All of the somethings being written by others just became echoes of angry voices agreeing with each other. I felt like my voice wouldn’t add “the best” of anything. So I contributed nothing.

In the midst of a country gone mad, I was growing new life. There were times I was overwhelmed with that beauty and its power. Most of the time my feet hurt. Thanks to my pathological need to be “the best,” I dove into the books, the classes, and the mommy blogs. I had to know what the others were doing so I could do it as well if not better. The imposter syndrome started to manifest here, too. With each new development in my pregnancy, I became mildly terrified. I had to know if this was normal. I had to know if others got nasal congestion, racing heartbeat, acne, migraine headaches, hip pain, knee pain, swollen ankles, swollen fingers or nausea from prenatal vitamins. I Googled absolutely every question that popped into my head when it popped into my head. What kind of food should I eat to keep my blood pressure low? Should I sleep on my right side or my left side? How much could the baby really hear (read: should I make my husband stop cursing so much)?  I accidentally ate feta cheese – WAS IT GOING TO GIVE MY BABY LOW SELF-ESTEEM? Oddly enough, none of my questions were unique. While this was a great relief to my worried mind, it was strange to realize how ordinary this extraordinary experience really was. As badly as I wanted to talk about it, I felt silly vocalizing any questions except for a few very close friends and family members. How am I being “the best” if I’m complaining or asking the most basic things? Of course, writing about any of this was absolutely out of the question.

I spent a lot of last year alternating between fear of writing and guilt over not writing. My outlet became reading Twitter. Lots of Twitter. I heard someone on a podcast say that tweeting can feel like writing. It turns out that reading tweets also scratches the same itch. I fell into a cycle of feeling guilty about not writing, reading Twitter, and then feeling better. Guilt, Twitter, better: repeat as needed. I thought this was working…until I impulsively signed up for a writing workshop. My wonderful English teacher from my senior year of high school recently published a book. I was so thrilled for her and I wanted to support her so I registered up for her workshop at Changing Hands Bookstore. I truly was not signing up as a writer – I was signing up as a former student. I’ve always been a good student. The writing thing had been dormant for months. Remember, I had Twitter. Still, I brought a pen and my favorite Moleskine notebook. I waddled my nearly nine months pregnant self into community room at the bookstore. I took a seat very close to the front because, as I said, I’m a good student. The Marvelous Sandi Marinella (I graduated school thirteen years ago and it’s still weird to use her first name), spoke so beautifully about her journey to and through writing her book. She encouraged us to recognize that we all have a story to tell. I loved having the opportunity to be able to sit before her and learn from her yet again. I love being a good student, you guys. Then, she presented the evening’s first writing exercise: brainstorm some excellent metaphors. I hesitated briefly and looked around the room. Everyone else had already pulled out notebooks and tablets. I was sitting up front. And I’m a good student. So I took a breath, took out my Moleskine, and just WROTE. And it was…glorious. I’ve never been the type of writer to have words just pour out of me. It’s more like they spit out in rapid fits and starts. I’ve always liked it that way. I’ve always liked the moment of “OOH, that’s good!” jumping through my steady thought processes. In this kind of setting, there wasn’t time to sit and think and let those moments jump out. I just had to let my fingers go. The “that’s good” moments were smaller – more “ooh” than “OOH” – but there were lots of them, which surprised me considering how rusty I was. It was exciting. Hell, it was fun. Too quickly, Sandi (yup, still weird) was telling us to wrap up the last prompt. I wanted to end on a high note. I had only managed a few lines this time but I liked what I wrote. It was about the night before I found out I was pregnant. It was meaningful. It sounded like me. It was even a little funny. So I squashed the imposter syndrome under the considerable weight of my very swollen foot, and volunteered to read aloud what I had written. These weren’t my best words. These were just the first words I could jot down in a few minutes. I opened my mouth, and before I even really realized what was happening, I was done reading. I sat back, beaming. I could have done a tap dance if I had tap shoes that would have fit my giant feet. Of all the things I went without last year – beer, margaritas, soft cheese, caffeine – I had no idea that writing was the thing that was truly missing.

So, I’m writing again. I’m writing because as frustrating as it is to come up with the best words, not writing anything is actually worse. I’m writing because it feels better than retweeting. I’m writing because it’s an election year and there is work to do. I’m writing so my son will have something special to read. I’m writing because I’m tired of reading stories that I felt like I could have made better. I’m writing because I have settled for being “good enough” and I can’t ignore that anymore. You can call that pride if you want to – I call it being self-aware. At the risk of sounding like a character in a Lifetime movie, I’m not being my best self if I’m not writing.

I do have SOMETHING to say after all. I’ve got something in stacks. Stacks on stacks. You might not like it. It will not always be the best. I will hate that.

But I’m still going to write it.

#OscarsSoWhite

28 Sunday Feb 2016

Posted by in fantasy lit, movies, pensive, ranting, responsibility, TV

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

I don’t think I can add anything substantial to the conversation about #OscarsSoWhite. I agree with much of what has been written already. I suppose I should be more outraged, but that would require some kind of element of surprise. When I heard about the nominations, my reaction was more along the lines of an eye roll and a heavy sigh of “oh, typical.”

In my own specific part of the world, in which I am a minority, I am, in fact, surrounded by white males. It isn’t necessarily surprising to me to see so many of them in my neighborhood, in businesses, on television, or in the movies. The Academy of Motion Pictures has just over 6,000 members, 93% of whom are white and 76% are male. I have to imagine that for them it’s also unsurprising to be surrounded by other white males. It’s unfortunate. It’s also largely systemic within the northwestern hemisphere.

This problem runs so much deeper than this one awards show. So many people, consciously or unconsciously, see white as the default race and the default human experience. Neil Gaiman touched on it recently on his Tumblr page regarding one viewer’s experience of his book Anansi Boys. A fan had asked why Neil Gaiman didn’t explicitly describe the main characters as being black, because the fan didn’t realize they weren’t white until after reading the book multiple times. Here is Neil’s response:

“I’m sorry you read Fat Charlie and Spider and Mr Nancy and their families as white on first read, but that might have something to do with the way that people’s heads reading a book can default all characters to white, if other information is not immediately supplied, which is a very bad habit, and one I hope Anansi Boys might help people to shed.”

The thing white folks need to realize is that while they default to a white mindset, non-white folks don’t. There was a fantastic article in the New York Times last week which shared a number of anecdotes about what it’s actually like for non-male, non-white people to work in Hollywood. I identified with a lot of the comments made by Eva Longoria and America Ferrera. Truthfully, nothing was earth-shattering. No one in the article had been physically harmed by the industry, but a series of small indignities really add up over a lifetime. Microaggression is real, folks. If it seems inconsequential, it’s because you haven’t experienced it. Don’t dismiss another person’s experience – this world is in desperate need of empathy these days. It’s part of the whole putting-yourself-in-someone-else’s-shoes thing (rest in peace, Harper Lee).

I will watch the Oscars tonight, along with thousands of other people. I’ll get a kick out of it like I always do. I can only hope that all of this talk about inclusion doesn’t die after the last statue is passed out.

gun control

19 Wednesday Dec 2012

Posted by in democracy, responsibility

≈ 1 Comment

I mentioned before that sweeping, outright bans are generally not a good idea. Particularly on something that was originally considered legal.

I stand by that.

The minute you ban something, you’re opening the floodgates for a black market. People will profit under the table with no way to control or regulate the product. We tried that with alcohol. It was called Prohibition. It only lasted for fourteen years.

So what do you do with a potentially dangerous product?

You regulate it. You tax it. You do what you can to make sure people use it safely.

This is what I think most people mean when the term “gun control” gets bandied about. Of course, there are some that would like to see guns go away completely. I would be one of them. Then again, I’d also like to see global disarmament of nuclear weapons, universal healthcare, and severe repercussions for people who leave their Christmas lights up past January 15. I know we have to be realistic about things. I think it is realistic and reasonable to talk about gun control. Why shouldn’t we? We control other unwieldly, potentially dangerous objects. Take cars, for instance. We regulate the auto industry. Vehicles have to pass certain tests in order for them to be considered safe enough to drive. In order to operate said vehicle, drivers have to be of a certain age and have to pass a test to prove they would not be a danger to others while driving. By the way, most states will not issue a driver’s license or will require restrictions on people with certain medical conditions, i.e. visual impairments, epilepsy, etc. If you drive recklessly, we have laws in place to reprimand you and your license can be suspended or revoked. In most states, you are required to purchase insurance should you get in an accident. If you want to buy a vehicle, you have a license to mark the car and registration to prove that you did in fact lawfully purchase it and are authorized to operate it. Cars are useful but they are inherently dangerous, by both accident and design. We still see the occasional crazy person who purposefully tries to hurt someone with a car.

What would be so outrageous about applying similar types of regulations to guns? Guns, after all, are made to kill living things. Why shouldn’t someone have to pass a few tests (background check, mental health check, shooting/operations test) in order to receive a license to operate a firearm? If you want to purchase a firearm, the seller should be required to check that license, regardless of whether the gun is being sold at a store, online, or at a gun show. Why shouldn’t we restrict gun manufacturers and the type of weapons they can produce? Automobile makers are subject to rules and regulations. You can’t even have dark tinting on car windows. Why don’t we halt production of high-capacity gun maganizes? Why don’t we require liability insurance for gun owners?

Our government has been historically hesitant to place restrictions or regulations on gun usage and ownership. The problem lies with our U.S. Constitution. As great as it is, my friends, it is not a perfect document. If it were, it wouldn’t have 27 amendments. The most recent was passed in 1994. It’s a living document. Within that living document is a certain provision in the first set of ten amendments, also known as the Bill of Rights. It can be found in the Second Amendment and reads as follows:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

This has been interpreted in two ways: 1.) that the U.S. has a right to a standing army/militia and 2.) that the citizens of the United States have the right to own and use weapons. Some have (perhaps rightly) intepreted this as a provision to keep citizens safe from a potentially tyrannical government. This argument actually carries quite a bit of weight when placed in its proper context. The Bill of Rights was written when United States as a fledgling country which had just won its independence from England.

However, as we all know, the United States is no longer a fledging country of the late 18th century. Times have changed and we have changed, as our founding fathers knew we would. In the original document of the Constitution, they outlined the means of editing said Constitution (see Article V). This is how we were able to change that whole messy business of having to return slaves to their original owners (see Article IV, Section 3 for original text; see Amendments XIII and XIV for changes) back when slavery was legal and slaves were considered 3/5 of a person (see Article I, section 2; Amendment XIV). We even had to go back and tweak Amendment XIV. Twice. The first time we had to get rid of the gender restriction on voting (Amendment XIV, section 2; Amendment XIX). The second time we lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 (Amendment XXVI).

Our country has evolved and must keep evolving if we are going to endure. If the founding fathers did not believe there would be unpredictable changes in our future, they would not have included the means to alter the Constitution to address those changes. When it comes to the right to bear arms, the founding fathers had absolutely no concept of the type of weaponry that would come about in the 200 years following the birth of the United States. Did they really intend for individual citizens to possess the same arms as the military? Perhaps they did, as many claim. Perhaps they did want the people to be able to stand up against the government if it turned tyrannical. But that’s the real question, isn’t it? Did our forefathers really intend for an armed citizenry or did they intend for an armed standing militia? And even if they did intend for an armed citizenry, where does it stop? Did they intend for citizens to have access to military-grade weapons? Do you think our forefathers would allow individual citizens to possess fully armed warships in their day? Thank about what that would mean for us now. Does the right to bear arms mean to the right to match the military’s arms? Does that mean citizens have the right to tanks and bombs? That’s insanely irrational especially when we look at how weaponry has advanced since the 1700’s. How could our forefathers even dream of the kind of military we would have and the weapons at their disposal? How could they conceive of drones, atomic bombs, mustard gas, land mines, and all of the other ways we have invented to kill each other? We don’t allow citizens access to those modern tools of war but we allow them modern military-grade guns. And you’re going to sit there and tell me that this is what the forefathers wanted? They had muskets which required 13 steps (and about 30 seconds) to fire a single shot. How could they imagine a Glock 19 or a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle with an extended magazine which allows 30 shots in the same amount of time? We are allowing 17th century fears to dictate 21st century realities. It just doesn’t make logical sense. If you are going to sit there and say that you need guns to protect you from the government and it’s your right, then you might as well argue your right to personal ballistic missiles as well. It’s not going to get you anywhere. It shouldn’t get you anywhere. And if it’s a revolution you’re looking for, let me tell you that modern-day revolutions have not been achieved with guns. Find me one revolution that has been won with rebels armed with assault rifles.

Many argue that guns are needed to protect citizens from each other. The more good guys with guns, the more people to stop the bad guys with guns. Let’s take a look at the international scene to try and dismantle that logic. The world has generally agreed that more nuclear weapons is bad for everyone. This is why we try to block new countries from developing them every chance we get. This is why the U.S. and other countries have committed to non-proliferation, meaning they won’t build any new nuclear weapons. You see, more weapons does not automatically make international tensions or conflicts better. Why shouldn’t this apply to guns? Why would more guns or more armed citizens automatically reduce crime or reduce mass shootings? In fact, other countries have proved that the OPPOSITE is true.

In 1996, Australia banned semi-automatic weapons, pump-action rifles, and shotguns, and bought back more than 650,000 of these weapons from existing owners. They also tightened licensing and ownership requirements. They estimated that they almost halved the number of gun-owning households in the country. According to a 2011 Harvard study, Australia has not had a mass shooting since that law was passed. The United States, on the other hand, has about 20 mass shootings per year.

The crazy thing is that people are trying to argue that mass shooting is not on the rise. As horrible as this year has been, this is actually the norm. I agree, the statistics show that it’s not on the rise. But you expect me to shrug this off as the norm? Are we really supposed to be comfortable with an average of 20 mass shootings a year? How is that comforting to anyone? These same people are also suggesting (as what happens with almost any gun tragedy), that deaths could have been averted or the shooting cut short had someone else been armed. Congressional Rep. Louis Gohmert told Fox News that he wished the principal at Sandy Hook had a gun in her office in order to stop the shooter. Former Arizona state senator Russell Pearce said something similar after the Aurora shootings (also earlier this year). Setting aside from the financial and logistical nightmare of providing guns and training school teachers and administrators, there is little evidence to show that mass gun violence has been stopped by another armed person. It happens, but it’s rare (as opposed to the 20 mass shootings that happen every year and are considered normal). The Tucson shooter was not stopped by another gunman back in January 2011 and Arizona has some of the loosest gun laws in the country. He was tackled when he stopped to reload, after emptying his 31-round magazine. Both the Sandy Hook shooter and the Aurora shooter were wearing body armor. Another gunman would have been pointless. The Sandy Hook shooter got his guns from his own mother: a registered gun owner. She was the first victim in last Friday’s tragedy. She owned guns. She was trained to use them. She could not stop what happened that day.

More gun regulations will not stop all gun violence. I know that. I already said that dealing with absolutes is unrealistic. But as Australia has shown, we can significantly decrease the number of deaths, especially from mass shootings. They tried regulations and it has worked well for almost 20 years. Where is the evidence to support the idea that more gun owners will stop these mass shootings? Let me tell you, I looked. I can’t find it. I could only find opinions and theories.

We can’t ban all guns. We also can’t stop all gun violence. But we can regulate and control the means through which dangerous people acquire weapons and wreak destruction. We can reduce the number of tragedies that occur. We can save lives.

who’s afraid of the big bad wolf?

06 Tuesday Mar 2012

Posted by in democracy, ranting, responsibility

≈ Leave a comment

Do you remember Harold Camping? He was that guy from Family Radio who predicted that the world was going to end on May 21, 2011. Remember? The billboards were everywhere.

Now as we all know, evidenced from our continued existence on Earth, the world did not, in fact, end last year. We knew it was never going to. We just needed Mr. Camping to see that. Yet on the morning of May 22, instead of admitting he was wrong, Mr. Camping decided to double-down on his prediction and said that the world did indeed end on May 21, only we couldn’t see it. It was the Secret Invisible Apocalypse. We would have to wait five more months until we got to see the raining fire and the Four Horsemen and all that noise. Then October 21 came and went, and lo and behold, we’re still here. A week later, Harold Camping issued an apology…sort of. He said he was embarrassed. He said it was a lesson from God. But he did not say he was wrong. He said he would check his notes more carefully than ever, assuring his followers that the truth is out there. Thanks for the tip, Mulder.

It’s safe to say that a very, very, VERY tiny segment of the population actually believed Harold Camping in the first place. I mean, come on, the guy was claiming that he came up with some kind of mathematical equation, hidden in the Bible in code, that calculated to the date of the end of the world (Dan Brown, eat your heart out). I would refer you to go somewhere for more specifics, but Family Radio pulled all references to the end of days off of their website. There were reports of some people who bought into the whole thing, literally, and gave waves and waves of money to Mr. Camping to promote his message. Of course, the atheists, the Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, Scientologists, et. al. all scoffed at such reports. Even most mainstream Christians thought he had been snorting incense or something. Harold Camping was nothing more than the big bad wolf, trying to blow our brick houses down. Wait, I take that back. He was a small annoying coyote throwing spitwads at our steel-reinforced fortresses.

Why didn’t we believe him? Common sense. It was just common sense. We used our hearts, we used our minds, and some of us used the tenets of our own faiths. We knew that the world was not going to end and this guy was huffing and puffing about nothing.  Even with all the publicity that he managed to rack up, the vast majority of the population did not believe him. He was a sideshow gimmick.

So why is Harold Camping a gimmick but others are not? Have you heard the kind of rhetoric coming from some politicians and their fans these days? Harold Camping wasn’t supposed to be an example of PR success – he was supposed to be a cautionary tale of “look what happens when you run your mouth with crazy talk.” Still, more and more politicans in this rabid election year seem hell bent on proclaiming the imminent demise of the United States if the other guy wins. From how they talk, you would think we are on the brink of World War III or in the middle of the Cold War Redux. This isn’t limited to one party – both ends of the political spectrum are guilty of this kind of talk. Worse still, it seems to actually excite their supporters (followers?) to transform a flippant remark into a platform against their opponent.

Again, as I said, this isn’t the work of a single party. Take a look at some examples:

Arizona GOP Debate on February 22, 2012. I could cite a number of examples but let’s look at Newt Gingrich’s response to the question of arming Syrian rebels. Question starts at 00:27, his response starts at 2:30. Listen for him to say “With this administration, as long as you are America’s enemy, you are safe.”

Former Representative Alan Grayson (D-Florida) on Rick Santorum and the Tea Party. Check him out around 2:19 when he says “These are the people who are going to generate the opponent to Barack Obama in the next election. God help us all.” He might not be shouting and he is supposedly denouncing extremism but he doesn’t seem to be doing much to help his case.

I don’t know if people are just trying to stir up drama or if they really and truly believe that the country is on the verge of annihilation. I’m not talking about so-called media bias. I’m not talking about published editorials or op-eds. I am talking about individuals making outrageous and untrue statements. We have seen the big names do it but us “regular Joe” types are guilty of it, as well. Have you ever seen the comment section of a given online newspaper article? The security of anonymity really brings out the absolute worst in us. Trust me when I tell you these are the kinder things that I’ve seen:

From the comment section of the New York Times:

“The only freedoms the Republican Party truly believes in are: The freedom to pile up more money than you could ever spend in a hundred lifetimes and the freedom to pile up more guns than you could ever shoot.”

From the comment section of AZCentral.com:

“And how could anyone with more than vapors for brains think that a bunch whose economic guru was a social dilettante who sponged off her friends to live and later the government has any kind of economic sense. Their economic guru kinda encapsulates the whole right and Republican experience right there – talk about not relying on government while pigging out at the trough. The right and Republicans, the cancer that is killing America.”

Then there are those who are willing to forsake anonymity and scream that “The End is Nigh” offline:

From Slate.com, quoting a Rick Santorum supporter:

“I’m inspired by this man,” said Harig, a retired nurse and English teacher. “This is a critical election, too. A third of the hospitals in this country are Catholic hospitals. If we don’t reverse what Obama’s done, in four years people will walk into hospitals and be unable to get care.”

Also from Slate.com, quoting a Newt Gingrich supporter:

 “But if you’re a Democrat, you are my enemy. Democrats piss me off. They’ve gotten extremely socialistic.” … “Every time they get in, they raise taxes. They screw things up. I’ve got a jeep I’ve had for ten years; I pay $100 a year on the license plate. We just got a new Dodge; $600 to license it. You pay your money, they pass it on to the Mexicans, the colored people. Free education, handouts, all of that.”

This kind of talk is everywhere. Why are we all so afraid of “the other guy?” I get having an opinion. I get expressing that opinion. It’s our First Amendment right, after all. But why go so far? It’s as though we want to believe that the other side is so villainous, so vile, that they will literally destroy the United States of America. It’s another gimmick. It draws attention quickly and with little work. Playing off of fear is quick and easy but it has a cost. Just take a look at Congress with its less than 13% approval rating. Remember when it took them six months to pass a budget last year? Can you name a significant piece of legislation that was passed since then? We’re creating a divide so huge that compromise isn’t even in the realm of possibility. Because why would we want to work with them? They want to destroy America. So we dig in our heels and we don’t budge from our corners because we have to save America from them. And thus by our fear of the doom that does not exist, we accomplish nothing.

Believe it or not, we have common ground. Simply by virtue of living in the same country, we have commonality. We have the same vested interest in keeping this country smart, safe, and strong – though we may not agree on the best way to do it. We can disagree without being mortal enemies. We can disagree on valid points without resorting to name calling or lies. We can disagree without being afraid of each other. Look at Harold Camping. Was anyone really afraid of him or what he had to say? We dismissed him because we knew better. So let’s do that again. Dismiss the gimmick. Dismiss the end of days rhetoric. Demand better from politicians. Because the world isn’t going to end after the next election. No matter who wins, you’re still going to have to live with them for awhile. So you better find a way to make it work. Enough with the huffing and the puffing. Tra la la la la.

making the case for civil discourse

01 Wednesday Feb 2012

Posted by in democracy, quotes, responsibility

≈ 2 Comments

This is what I’m talking about:

“And I think both liberals and conservatives really need to acknowledge that there are going to be folks that you disagree with, but you don’t have any thing to lose by giving them a forum and by listening to them from time to time. You might even learn something.”

-Danny Heitman from the Baton Rouge Advocate on NPR’S “Talk of the Nation”

Listen to the interview or read the transcript here.

now with extra rant-y flavor

22 Tuesday Nov 2011

Posted by in democracy, ranting, responsibility

≈ Leave a comment

I know I’ve been even more rant-y than usual these days. What makes it worse (better?) is that I’ve been rant-y about Very Serious Things, like the Occupy movement and civic engagement. I still whine about things like sub-par cupcakes but as fate would have it, I’ve had an abundance of fabulous desserts lately which makes me turn my attention to these Very Serious Things.

Now I like sugar but I don’t like to sugarcoat things. I will not back away from talking or writing about volatile and divisive issues. I will do my best to get my point across without being politically partisan or accusatory. If I say something that irks you, good. I want to hear what you have to say in response. I will ask that you make your best effort to keep your tone civil. As a society, we should be able to talk about these kinds of things without offending each other. We should be able to express our point of view, and what’s more, we should be able to LISTEN to those who disagree. It’s possible. It needs to be done. How else will we make any sort of progress? If we can’t at least talk, then how can we expect to take any course of action? Didn’t we learn about this kind of stuff back in our Sesame Street days? Oh, Sesame Street. I feel like we should have paid more attention to you.

a few thoughts on democracy

17 Thursday Nov 2011

Posted by in democracy, ranting, responsibility

≈ 4 Comments

First of all, I should say it’s rather telling that while I was typing the title of this blog, I Freudian-slipped with “democrazy” instead of democracy. I tried to type it again and it came out “demoncracy.” No joke.

Moving on.

I cannot tell you how unbelievably sick I am of people complaining about The Government. Yes. The Government. As a proper noun. Many refer to The Government as if it were a malevolent, sentient being as opposed to what it actually is: a composite of elected representatives elected at the local, state and federal levels meant to carry out the will of the people. No, that’s not right at all. The Government is evil. The Government wastes money. The Government isn’t doing enough to stimulate the economy. The Government is raising taxes. The Government is cutting spending. The Government lied about the moon landing, 9/11 and Santa Claus. The Government is an all-powerful demon sent here to slay virgins, steal the souls of the innocents, and serve as a harbinger of the Antichrist.

There are so many people who talk about the government as if it’s this destructive force beyond all our control and for the life of me I can’t understand why. Do they know it’s not true? Are they that uninformed? Or are they just lazy and prefer to lay blame than take responsibility? I can’t decide which option is worse. I feel like they are two tainted ideologies that are rooted in the same problem: apathy. Some are too apathetic to learn, others are too apathetic to care.

I don’t know if we live in the freest, greatest, best, most special, prettiest, winningest, most God-favored nation on the planet, but we have a hell of a lot more options than a lot of other countries. It’s due to this thing called “the democratic process.” Everyone over the age of 18 has the right to vote. That means you have a definitive say over who is elected to represent your interests on a local, state and federal level. Do you have any idea how much power that gives you? You, yes, you as an individual. You have power. Government authority only HAS authority because you and I say so. It is your job to remind them of that. Vote. Organize. Protest. Petition. Write. Make them listen. Utilize your power. And don’t demonize those who choose to do so.

Government officials need to be reminded that they are subject to the will of the people—all of the people, not just the ones in their party. If you think The Government has total control, then you probably also believe that parties pull the strings. Which they sort of do but it doesn’t have to be that way. In a sense, parties are meaningless. When it comes down to general elections, it isn’t the party votes that candidates are trying to win: it’s the independent vote. Can you imagine if people demanded that party lines continue to remain irrelevant, even during primary elections? Why do we have to nominate a candidate from one of the two major parties? What if the candidates running against each other in the general election are the ones who got the most votes during the primary, regardless of party? Arizona just proved that can happen – we ousted the Senate president because the vote wasn’t about political party lines, it was about common principles. If this is something you want to see outside of a recall election, we have the power to make that happen. (Arizona voters, see here).

Furthermore, government entities are not out to destroy America. Governments are composed of people and people tend to act in their own self-interest. I don’t think it’s in anyone’s self-interest to destroy the country one lives in.

We are losing our self-determination because we are giving it away. We are anything but helpless but as long as we think we are, we shall remain so. Just because someone has shiny hair and a starched suit doesn’t mean they don’t have to answer to the rest of us.

Democracy is exhausting. Someone get me a friggin’ cupcake.

never forget

16 Friday Sep 2011

Posted by in democracy, pensive, responsibility

≈ 2 Comments

We will never forget.

I have no idea what that statement is supposed to mean.

It was everywhere last Sunday. People said it on TV, on the radio, in church, and on Facebook. I’m pretty sure Perez Hilton put it in a post. It was said slowly and solemnly, with great dignity and heavy emotion. It was as if we had convinced ourselves that by remembering, we were achieving some great act. By saying “we will never forget,” we were somehow healing wounds and rebuilding our future.

Remembering a tragedy is frighteningly simple. Any person can instantly remember the hard times in their own lives. This tragedy in particular, that day on September 11, 2001—it has been absolutely seared into our brains. The towers, the Pentagon, the smoke, the screaming…truly, it requires effort to forget those things. Those tragic images have been ubiquitous for the past ten years. They have been cried and prayed over. They have been memorialized by monuments. They have been recorded in books, in paintings, in movies, in songs. Less reverently, they have branded onto t-shirts, two-dollar bumper stickers, and commemorative coins.

Yes, we have actually become quite good at recalling the tragedy of that day.

We have forgotten everything else.

Ten years ago, we kept saying how strong we were, how we were more united than ever. Why can’t we come together that way now? Why is it only in the face of a demonstrative tragedy that we feel bound together by a common purpose?

We will never forget. It seems like such a simple resolution. And yet we have failed spectacularly.

When the representatives of our federal legislative body have less than 20% approval ratings, we have failed. When the president feels compelled to prove his country of birth, we have failed. When people feel they can validly accuse a fellow citizen of not loving this country enough, we have failed. When Americans are detained by the FBI because of their skin color, we have failed. When we act carelessly with our freedom and our democracy—those very things which we were targeted for ten years ago–when we throw them around as weapons against our own people or toss them aside in the name of “security,” we have failed.

Do you remember that feeling of unity ten years ago? It was palpable. You could almost see it, almost feel it in the very air we breathe.

Why now do we only recall the loss? Why don’t we think to honor those who died? Why don’t we remember that unity? Why don’t we remember it every day? Why don’t we know and believe that we are unified, have been unified, will continue to be unified by our very participation in this thing we call America?

We must remember.

We must remember.

but most of all, beware this boy

08 Tuesday Dec 2009

Posted by in christmas, quotes, responsibility

≈ 1 Comment

An excerpt from Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol:

“Forgive me if I am not justified in what I ask,” said Scrooge, looking intently at the Spirit’s robe, “but I see something strange, and not belonging to yourself, protruding from your skirts. Is it a foot or a claw?”

“It might be a claw, for the flesh there is upon it,” was the Spirit’s sorrowful reply. “Look here.”

From the foldings of its robe, it brought two children; wretched, abject, frightful, hideous, miserable. They knelt down at its feet, and clung upon the outside of its garment.

“Oh, Man! look here. Look, look, down here!” exclaimed the Ghost.

They were a boy and girl. Yellow, meagre, ragged, scowling, wolfish; but prostrate, too, in their humility. Where graceful youth should have filled their features out, and touched them with its freshest tints, a stale and shrivelled hand, like that of age, had pinched, and twisted them, and pulled them into shreds. Where angels might have sat enthroned, devils lurked, and glared out menacing. No change, no degradation, no perversion of humanity, in any grade, through all the mysteries of wonderful creation, has monsters half so horrible and dread. Scrooge started back, appalled. Having them shown to him in this way, he tried to say they were fine children, but the words choked themselves, rather than be parties to a lie of such enormous magnitude.

“Spirit! are they yours?” Scrooge could say no more.

“They are Man’s,” said the Spirit, looking down upon them. “And they cling to me, appealing from their fathers. This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased. Deny it!” cried the Spirit, stretching out its hand towards the city. “Slander those who tell it ye! Admit it for your factious purposes, and make it worse. And bide the end!”