Ramblings: Public grief

When the Madrid bombing occured, it shook me as much as the incidences in New York and Pennsylvania. Madrid is a city I've been to, a city where I first figured out how to stand on my own two feet and feel good about doing it. What shook me more, though, was how the bombing in Madrid was completely ignored by US press. There's a million excuses for why it didn't hit the front pages as hard as Sept. 11th--fewer casualties, attribution to a local problematic source, etc. I'm more inclined to believe that it was because few (if, possibly, any) US citizens were involved, and because it was in a part of the world that no one really knows how to classify. Many people don't think of Spain as being in Europe (for a myriad of social and political reasons, centering on the 50 year Franco reign). Its citizens are not Latin American, but many white people view them as such because of the color of their skin and (ironically and incorrectly) because of their language.

So many people view international tragedies as a chance to show an outpouring of grief that just isn't rational. Here I specifically think of the Trade Towers reaction, and Princess Diana. How many of the people who were "just so torn up about it" had any real perspective into what had happened? Maybe someday, the American Psychological Association will have an explanation as to why some people feel the need to publicly grieve during events that only slightly impact them on a personal level, if it occurs at all.

My viewpoint on it is that grieving for something that you have no perspective on belittles the grief that people really are experiencing. There's a potential functionalist arguement in here--that people grieve with others to obtain a sense of community and solidarity. And I guess it can be seen that way.

Yesterday, when the "Office of Homeland Security" announced that there was a new threat to US cities, I didn't react the same way that I did last time. Last time this was announced, I was living in the middle of America, in a place that was highly unlikely to be a terrorist attack location. Now, however, I live in the third largest city in the US, and the possibility of something harming the city that I've very quickly come to love made me immensely angry. In extension, I thought about how people who don't live in a city that's been under attack, or who don't love a city the way that I do, can't really understand the immense grief that New Yorkers went through in September of 2001. I think we all know that New Yorkers are fanatical about their city, but it seems that most people who have devoted any of their time living, working, and loving in a major metropolitan city have a strong allegiance toward that city.

This is not to say that you have to actually live in the city that you love. I know many people who are from New York who will always have a little piece of their hearts, souls, or minds there. As for me, my mind is in Chicago, my soul is in Portland, and my heart is in Floyds Knobs, Indiana. These are the "cities" I love.

Rant: Christianity, Christians, and "Christians"

Written for a dear friend...

It's highly unfortunate when people who identify themselves as "Christians" use the opinions of others as an opportunity to evaluate their "Christianity." First, the idea that anyone can evaluate another's religious "worthiness" isn't just facetious; it's sacrilegious and harmful to relations between people and the community of faith at large. (Not to mention the fact that it gives yet more evidence to those who choose not to be Christians because of the people who claim they are representing Christ.)

Furthermore, it must be so nice to have all the answers to the complex moral dilemmas that individuals are faced with. The fact that people feel free to judge others about their opinions on social issues indicates a lack of maturity on their part. Both religious, moral, and social. God *does* have absolutes...as mentioned above, there are the Big 10. I believe the point that was being made in this case was that in situations such as abortion or similar problems, God does not see them as absolutely wrong or absolutely right. Think of it this way...everyone thinks that it is wrong to murder another person, but there are also times when everyone would consider it justified: war, self-defense. If you're basing the merits of absolute truth on the existence of God, you're missing a whole lot in the entire concept of God. Like it or not, but because of all the people, religions, and belief systems in the world, there ARE differences in what "absolute truth" is. It's called cultural relativism. Everything is nice when it's cut and dry, but the "real world" just isn't like that. Life is more complicated; more intense, with a greater variety of experiences than most people who seem to hold this hard-core belief in their "duty" to "help" others by pointing out their moral and social shortcomings. And I, for one, am glad that life is more complicated than that. God's creatures are wonderful and amazing, and I'm so pleased to be counted among them as one of those who does God's will by loving others simply as God made them.

It's funny that people get all wrapped up in the arguments about homosexuality, abortion, etc., and yet when there's something that can actually be done where you can apply your faith, very few people are willing to step up and do it. God has made it very clear as to what we are meant to do as human beings: Love one another, and love God with all our hearts.

By judging those who have been faced with difficult life circumstances and have chosen a path that you don't necessarily agree with, are you loving one another? And when you judge another human being based on his or her viewpoints, and subsequently judging one of God's perfect creations who has been blessed with the understanding of the complexities of life, are you loving God with all your heart?

Next time you start to judge someone, think about this: I believe that Jesus would have understood what people go through when they make difficult decisions, and while maybe he wouldn't have necessarily agreed with the decision, he would have supported them in the true fellowship of faith. (Like we ALL should be doing...)

Step up to the plate and be a real man or woman of God, instead of hiding behind your judgmental attitudes and assumptions about others.

Travel

I've got that travel bug again, for many different reasons. I think it was delayed this year because we had no snow. Snow's what does it to me most of the time.

So I have my itineraries for the next sixty-five years. (I'm not kidding in the least, BTW.) It's my goal to spend every big birthday someplace cool. So here are the plans, with websites attached to them.

2005: Japan. Land of the Rising Sun

2010: Czech Republic. No information on this one, yet. If you have any ideas, e-mail them to me.

2015: Egypt and Morocco. I'll be thirty-five; my sister will be 30. Big trip. Cairo's Heritage

Morocco Highlights

2020: China. My fortieth birthday. Cake on the Great Wall, anyone? You know I'll do it...



2025: Poland.

Global Volunteers, Poland

2030: Argentina. My fiftieth birthday. I'll start stocking up on the Aleve so I can go tango-ing all night long.

2035: Vietnam. I'm really looking forward to this one.
Vietnam Gourmet Traveller

Global Volunteers, Vietnam

2040: Russia. St. Petersburg at 60.

St. Petersburg By Train

2045: Thailand. I'll learn (finally) how to make my own Thai food. I may never leave.

Thailand Culinary and Spa Retreat

2050: Israel. I'm pretty serious about this one. Can you see me at seventy in the middle of the Gaza strip?

2055: Greece.

Western Crete Photography Workshop

Global Volunteers, Greece

2060: Italy at 80. I'll wear all black, with a scarf around my head. I'll fit right in. (At least in Northern Italy I will...)

Tuscany Gourmet Ride

Global Volunteers, Italy

2065: My last planned trip. Ireland. Think of it as a pilgrimage.

Glencree Reonciliation Program

Side note: For the most part, I hated "Titanic." I thought it was stupid and overly-lauded because of its box office scores. But, I did love one part. At the very beginning of the movie, when they're in the Old Rose's apartment, they pan across all sorts of pictures. Rose flying an airplane, Rose on a camel's back... I want those pictures. I want to be that kind of old lady.

And I will be.

You Were Waiting for the Deep Thoughts and Musings, Weren't You?

This summer, I had several really great (read: educating and long) conversations about the nature of art, the process of love, what we thought we'd never have to do as counselors, and things we've said entirely too much.

I realise that talking about camp is potentially boring for those who weren't there, and for those who were there, I could never do it justice. Thusly, I shan't (or at least will try not to) talk about camp too much. Tonight's topic should be the nature of love.

Being "of a certain age," we do a lot of thinking about love. Sometimes, we think about love in its specific forms. I know I've devoted a large portion of my web journal to the great "why doesn't he/why does he love me?" debate. (This seems really shallow when you look at it this way.) And there are as many opinions about love as there are people in the world, so one might say that talking about love is like dancing about architecture--it's pointless to analyse it to death. (That's from "Playing By Heart," by the way.)

The thing I figured out recently, though, is that there are as many ways of loving people as there are people as well. And as long as you do it honestly, with your whole being, throwing your soul into your actions, it's a beautiful thing. "Everyone needs to be loved/Everyone needs their own teen-age fan club." (SuperChicks)

Although it's odd, I can now say with some certainty that I will probably get married someday, or at least find my soul mate. Veronica (one of my Swedish friends) believes that a person doesn't just have one soul mate-- a person has three people who would be a perfect fit at different times in their lives. Thusly, the person you were in love with at sixteen isn't necessarily the person you were meant to be with at thirty-five, just as that person isn't necessarily the person you are meand to be with at seventy-five. If you're lucky, you find the person who can evolve alongside you. Sometimes, it's just a reassurance regarding "the one that got away"--he wasn't necessarily the right person for you in the future. And, if he is, I firmly believe he will be back in your life just when you need him.

We can go on forever being bitter about things we can't change--circumstances of our lives, our relationships or whathaveyou. Or, we can choose to see those difficulties for what they are--a change in life circumstance that has shaped the person we have become. This all works out rather well if you like the person you've become (or you think other people like the person you've become--although that's something you might want to reconsider [take it from someone who knows...]), but if you don't like the person you've become, you might have your work cut out for you.

It's amazing how I start talking about love and soul mates and then suddenly make it such a personal issue. I think love is always a personal issue, though. For a while, I was bitter that I didn't have the relationship experiences that other people my age have, because of life circumstances. Then I figured something out. While everyone else my age was trying to hold on to relationships and mold themselves into the person they thought their significant other wanted them to be, during those formative years, I was actually figuring out who I was. This may sound crazy, and a little new age-y, but figuring out who you are before you foist yourself onto another person with his or her own problems is not such a bad idea. Now, granted, I did have to figure some of the other things out as an adult, (about 4 years behind schedule) but I had adult coping mechanisms and social support behind me to help me--something I can honestly say I didn't really have at 16 and doubt that many people do.

Don't get me wrong--I'm not saying that people should wait until their late teens to begin dating, or that I have all the answers. I'm just relating some of my personal experience in the "fix yourself before you try to fix anything (or anyone) else" department. And, if nothing else, these ramblings have just been my opinion. Of course, I could be wrong.

Corporeal punishment

For some reason, I think I've had this rant before in my weblog. But here goes again: I don't believe in corporal punishment. The use of corporal punishment or physical punishment on children (or anyone, for that matter) is something that makes me absolutely furious. All I have to say is this: There is no reason, EVER, for an adult to hit a child in any way, shape or form. Adults are bigger than children and can do more potential damage. Adults have more life experience and should be able to deal with problems in another way. Finally, hitting a child teaches him or her nothing, other than that if you're bigger than someone, you can hit them. This is in regards to any form of physical punishment--spankings, slapping, hitting, beating, whatever you want to call it. It is unacceptable.

Personally speaking, I don't think that child abuse is enough of a social problem. If children are still getting physically or emotionally abused or neglected, we haven't made it enough of a priority to stop it. By permitting "certain types" of physical abuse in child rearing practices, we are condoning child abuse. And it's not just nurses, teachers, social workers and doctors who are obligated to report suspected child abuse--it's everyone with (I can't remember what the legal term is) "appropriate knowledge." As a parent, you know what's normal for children. Children fall down, that's certain. (I still fall down frequently. It's something I'm working on...) But children don't have fingerprint-shaped bruises around their necks or hand-shaped bruises on their backs. And those kinds of bruises are enough to indicate abuse or another serious problem. You're required to report it--legally, in most states, but definitely morally in all. Period. Also, parental rights should never take priority over the physical and emotional safety of a child. My mum's friend Janie had a foster child placed with them a few years ago. The child was placed with them three times. Each time, he was returned to his family. Each time, about four months later, he was returned to Janie's family. And each time, he was further developmentally delayed because of the abuse and neglect he was receiving at the hands of the people who were supposed to love him and take care of him.

If (as a society) we really think children are as important as we say we do, you'd think that we'd put more of an emphasis on children's well-being and safety.

Parenting is hard. It's probably the hardest thing anyone can ever do. (Notice I said 'parenting.' Anyone can be a mother or father (by being genetic material donors), parenting is something different.) And because the job is difficult, you will often have to take routes in discipline that are time-consuming and maddening. The fact is this: It *is* easier to physically punish a child than to deprive the child of television rights, phone calls, et cetera. (By physical punishment, I'm not talking about things that people usually *define* as abuse. I'm talking about smacks on the bottom or smacking a child's hands.) Those other things take time and effort and, arguably, punish the parent just as much as the child, because they require vigilence. When you hit a child, all you teach him or her is that when you love someone, it's okay to hit them. And that big people can hit smaller people. You're depriving the child of his or her dignity, which can be the worse thing a parent can do to a child. (I'm not even going to get into verbally abusing a child, either outright or by witholding affection or anything like that. I'm against that, too, and have more than a little personal experience with it.)

And to all the people who say "I was spanked as a child and it hasn't affected me! I think spanking is a perfectly acceptable way of disciplining.", I have this response: Isn't the fact that you find ADULTS, who may outweigh children by more than 200 pounds, hitting CHILDREN, acceptable, a sign of lasting damage? Remember, adults have a *social obligation* to care for children because children cannot care for themselves. And hitting children teaches them that hitting is a good way to solve your problems.