A friend is going to grad school at UC Berkeley, very close to where he grew up and where one of his brothers teaches. He's well-acquainted with some of the faculty, and recently informed us that one of the political science professors there had served as John Ashcroft's advisor on the military prisons in Afghanistan. Seems that he wrote some memos that informed the administration how to get around the Geneva Code, in case the public (meaning any non-military or non-government personell) found out about the "goings on" at the military prisons. These Geneva Code cheats were used as an outline for later prisons in Iraq, including Abu Ghraive (sp?). Students have started to circulate a petition calling for the professor's resignation.
My question is, is it the fact that the torture occurred at all, or that we now know that it was consciously planned that we all find so abhorrent? I'd like to think that we're bothered by anyone being tortured, but since the American prison system is, as of yet, unreformed, and the death penalty still exists, I'm inclined to believe that it's more that we as Americans are bothered that we got caught. Because if we justify the invasion of Iraq on the idea that Sadaam Hussain & his government tortured thousands of Iraqui citizens, the fact that we're also torturing Iraquis should bother us. Yet many people still aren't bothered by it, because they've so "othered" the Iraqui soldiers and civilians.
As the comic strip character Pogo said, "I have met the enemy, and it is us."
*************
"I confess that I have no philosophy, nor piety, nor patience, no art of reflection, no theory of compensation to meet things so hideous, so cruel, and so mad, they are jud unspeakably horrible and irremediable to me and I stare at them with angry and almost blighted eyes." (Henry James)
Monday, June 28, 2004
Monday, May 17, 2004
Sistah Jenny's Advice for New College Girls
Sistah Jenny's Advice for New College Girls
1. Relax. It's never as big of a deal as you think it is. And when it actually is that big a deal, you'll know.
2. Set up clear guidelines with your roommate on the first day. Sure, you're friends now, but will you be friends when she's borrowing your clothes and returning them without washing them?
3. Cheap macaroni and cheese is not worth it.
4. Go to class. It greatly increases your chances of actually learning something.
5. Class is not, and should not be, your life. Get involved in something other than your school work, and for heaven's sake, get out of the dorm room.
6. When a guy tells you that he's not a nice person, believe him. When a guy tells you that he's a nice person, don't believe him.
7. Do your homework. It greatly increases your chances of passing.
8. Try something new every week.
9. While pot and ecstacy may seem harmless, they're not. If you're caught with pot, you'll lose any federal funding you're getting. And ecstacy will really, really screw you up, and might even kill you. In the words of Nancy Regan, "Just say no."
10. Almost any decision you make is reversible. It's the ones that aren't that matter.
11. You will change during your first year of college, in more ways than you know. When people tell you that you've changed, you won't believe them.
12. People are more different from each other than you can possibly imagine.
13. When you go to parties, go in a group, and leave in a group. When you go on dates, make sure that at least one other person knows where you're going.
14. The Freshman Fifteen is real. To avoid it, remember that Ben & Jerry's is not a food group, and going to the gym is nothing like high school gym class. Try it at least once--you might even like it.
15. Everyone bonds tightly that first week of classes. Some of these people will be your friends for life, some will just be your friends through college, and you'll just exchange awkward 'hellos' with others for the next few months. Take care of the ones you're close to, though. You're all each other has got.
16. A pound of Skittles will give you your daily dose of Vitamin C.
17. Don't ever try to do laundry on Saturday or Sunday. Tuesday afternoon is usually the best time. And while we're at it, make sure you separate your clothes, or you'll look like a Marshmallow Peep.
18. Keep in contact with your family. You may be busy doing new things, but they still want to know that you're alive and happy. Call them at least once a week--it greatly increases your chances of getting care packages and money.
19. Get to know your professors, but don't be a nuisance. Have something interesting to say.
20. People will tell you that college is much harder than high school. These people usually have no idea what they're talking about.
21. If you want things to change, you must be part of that change.
22. Exclusively using the Internet for sources when writing papers isn't going to cut it any more.
23. Remember that your college or university is part of a larger community. Take part in that community before you graduate without realizing that it's there.
24. Excise cops are usually the friendliest, best-dressed guys at the party. While underage drinking is against the law, everyone does it. Just be smart about it.
25. You will be faced with hundreds of different viewpoints and millions of opportunities to change your life and mind. Stay true to who you are and what you believe and you'll come out fine.
1. Relax. It's never as big of a deal as you think it is. And when it actually is that big a deal, you'll know.
2. Set up clear guidelines with your roommate on the first day. Sure, you're friends now, but will you be friends when she's borrowing your clothes and returning them without washing them?
3. Cheap macaroni and cheese is not worth it.
4. Go to class. It greatly increases your chances of actually learning something.
5. Class is not, and should not be, your life. Get involved in something other than your school work, and for heaven's sake, get out of the dorm room.
6. When a guy tells you that he's not a nice person, believe him. When a guy tells you that he's a nice person, don't believe him.
7. Do your homework. It greatly increases your chances of passing.
8. Try something new every week.
9. While pot and ecstacy may seem harmless, they're not. If you're caught with pot, you'll lose any federal funding you're getting. And ecstacy will really, really screw you up, and might even kill you. In the words of Nancy Regan, "Just say no."
10. Almost any decision you make is reversible. It's the ones that aren't that matter.
11. You will change during your first year of college, in more ways than you know. When people tell you that you've changed, you won't believe them.
12. People are more different from each other than you can possibly imagine.
13. When you go to parties, go in a group, and leave in a group. When you go on dates, make sure that at least one other person knows where you're going.
14. The Freshman Fifteen is real. To avoid it, remember that Ben & Jerry's is not a food group, and going to the gym is nothing like high school gym class. Try it at least once--you might even like it.
15. Everyone bonds tightly that first week of classes. Some of these people will be your friends for life, some will just be your friends through college, and you'll just exchange awkward 'hellos' with others for the next few months. Take care of the ones you're close to, though. You're all each other has got.
16. A pound of Skittles will give you your daily dose of Vitamin C.
17. Don't ever try to do laundry on Saturday or Sunday. Tuesday afternoon is usually the best time. And while we're at it, make sure you separate your clothes, or you'll look like a Marshmallow Peep.
18. Keep in contact with your family. You may be busy doing new things, but they still want to know that you're alive and happy. Call them at least once a week--it greatly increases your chances of getting care packages and money.
19. Get to know your professors, but don't be a nuisance. Have something interesting to say.
20. People will tell you that college is much harder than high school. These people usually have no idea what they're talking about.
21. If you want things to change, you must be part of that change.
22. Exclusively using the Internet for sources when writing papers isn't going to cut it any more.
23. Remember that your college or university is part of a larger community. Take part in that community before you graduate without realizing that it's there.
24. Excise cops are usually the friendliest, best-dressed guys at the party. While underage drinking is against the law, everyone does it. Just be smart about it.
25. You will be faced with hundreds of different viewpoints and millions of opportunities to change your life and mind. Stay true to who you are and what you believe and you'll come out fine.
Saturday, May 15, 2004
Rant: After reading Tim Dean's "Beyond Sexuality"
I've been having a less than brilly last few weeks... A lot of it hinges on my thesis, and the outlined problems that have been occurring (and reoccurring...) therein. Some of it has to do with my job, which makes me alternately angry, frustrated, and bored to the point of exhaustion. A bit has to do with the readings that I've been doing for class, all of which leave me with thoughts that won't be implemented, ideas that can't be pinned down, and a general feeling of "aaagggh...it's right there, somewhere, the solution to all the intellectual bugaboos that have been plaguing me for the last however-many years."
The readings, in fact, may be most of it. I finished reading Tim Dean's Beyond Sexuality yesterday morning. Let's see if I can outline the arguement. For a long time, I've been trying to wrap my mind around the idea that we, as a culture (and I'm speaking of any culture here, not specifically American or even generic "white culture") define sexuality as what the biological sex of your object choice is, with complete bearing on what your own biological sex is. Think about that for a second. We're more concerned with who does to whom that we're not even concerned with the what that they're doing, where they're doing it, and, I think the most important part, the why. This is how we define sexuality.
But when it comes to regulating sexuality (thesis material reference coming up), we don't just focus on the actors. By regulating procreation in limiting the number of children people can have and still obtain welfare, etc, we're regulating the what, when it gets right down to it.
And it's interesting that we choose to focus on biological sex, instead of gender, when I would argue that most people have a stronger gender preference than they do a sex preference. Hear me out...I very rarely look at dating opportunities and think, "That is a male" (referencing biological sex). I think, "That is a man" (referencing gender identity). A lot of this probably has to do with the fact that I'm by and large attracted to the "gym rat" type--former football, soccer, or baseball players who are generally big guys in height, weight and muscle mass. None of these characteristics have anything to do with the biological factor of being male, perhaps save muscle mass, since more testosterone means one can build muscle more quickly. I would argue that choosing a partner based on gender characteristics is especially prevalent in the gay community. (And if you don't believe me, watch The Broken Heart's Club.)
The "why" that's left out in considering how to define sexuality is the most important part, I think. What if people were defined solely by why they choose the partners they do, or why they choose to (or if) to sleep with someone? Maybe, when it comes down to it, we use biological sex to define because it's the most visible characteristic we have to go by. Of course, with gender reassignment surgery, we all know that's not exactly a fail-proof screening device... Another why definition might be left out because it disproportionately applies to women, ie, sleeping with someone because of economic reasons (needing someone to provide for you), as a prevention of violence (so he won't beat or kill you), or as an exchange of power (making someone else even momentarily helpless can make you feel more powerful). Maybe if we defined sexuality in those terms (which all those considerations do happen to women all the time, all over the world and right here in the US), women's situation would improve.
Defining your sexuality by whether or not you consent and/or want a sexual encounter is another way to go about it. If sex is, like it is for many women, something that "just happens" to you, I think that's very different than if you are an active, choosing participant. And while fully 1/3 of all women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes, we still insist on defining sexuality on the biological sex of the actors involved. This would be what CMacK calls a "hello question." Hello? Does this make sense to anyone else? Is this just another way of ignoring victimization? Do we not focus on women as consenting, wanting actors (and there is a distinction between consenting to an encounter and actually wanting said encounter) because if we did, we would have to reexamine what happens to women every day?
Just asking.
I think I'll get down off the soapbox now. It's a little dizzying up here.
The readings, in fact, may be most of it. I finished reading Tim Dean's Beyond Sexuality yesterday morning. Let's see if I can outline the arguement. For a long time, I've been trying to wrap my mind around the idea that we, as a culture (and I'm speaking of any culture here, not specifically American or even generic "white culture") define sexuality as what the biological sex of your object choice is, with complete bearing on what your own biological sex is. Think about that for a second. We're more concerned with who does to whom that we're not even concerned with the what that they're doing, where they're doing it, and, I think the most important part, the why. This is how we define sexuality.
But when it comes to regulating sexuality (thesis material reference coming up), we don't just focus on the actors. By regulating procreation in limiting the number of children people can have and still obtain welfare, etc, we're regulating the what, when it gets right down to it.
And it's interesting that we choose to focus on biological sex, instead of gender, when I would argue that most people have a stronger gender preference than they do a sex preference. Hear me out...I very rarely look at dating opportunities and think, "That is a male" (referencing biological sex). I think, "That is a man" (referencing gender identity). A lot of this probably has to do with the fact that I'm by and large attracted to the "gym rat" type--former football, soccer, or baseball players who are generally big guys in height, weight and muscle mass. None of these characteristics have anything to do with the biological factor of being male, perhaps save muscle mass, since more testosterone means one can build muscle more quickly. I would argue that choosing a partner based on gender characteristics is especially prevalent in the gay community. (And if you don't believe me, watch The Broken Heart's Club.)
The "why" that's left out in considering how to define sexuality is the most important part, I think. What if people were defined solely by why they choose the partners they do, or why they choose to (or if) to sleep with someone? Maybe, when it comes down to it, we use biological sex to define because it's the most visible characteristic we have to go by. Of course, with gender reassignment surgery, we all know that's not exactly a fail-proof screening device... Another why definition might be left out because it disproportionately applies to women, ie, sleeping with someone because of economic reasons (needing someone to provide for you), as a prevention of violence (so he won't beat or kill you), or as an exchange of power (making someone else even momentarily helpless can make you feel more powerful). Maybe if we defined sexuality in those terms (which all those considerations do happen to women all the time, all over the world and right here in the US), women's situation would improve.
Defining your sexuality by whether or not you consent and/or want a sexual encounter is another way to go about it. If sex is, like it is for many women, something that "just happens" to you, I think that's very different than if you are an active, choosing participant. And while fully 1/3 of all women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes, we still insist on defining sexuality on the biological sex of the actors involved. This would be what CMacK calls a "hello question." Hello? Does this make sense to anyone else? Is this just another way of ignoring victimization? Do we not focus on women as consenting, wanting actors (and there is a distinction between consenting to an encounter and actually wanting said encounter) because if we did, we would have to reexamine what happens to women every day?
Just asking.
I think I'll get down off the soapbox now. It's a little dizzying up here.
Tuesday, May 11, 2004
Men get eating disorders, too
I guess you could say that I consider myself a "men's rights" feminist. I'd prefer the term "liberal feminist," but so many people don't understand what that means... I'm tired of thinking of things in terms of how society is unfair to women, when in many cases it's as equally unfair (if not more so) than men, simply by virtue of the male population not having the general level of consciousness about what's happening as many women do. There seem to be some extremes going on in the feminist movement, and I'm not for that. Things have been immensely unfair to women for many, many years, but we still have to realize that things still are unfair to men. Women can legitimately choose to either stay at home and "keep house" or enter the paid workforce, but men don't really have that option. That's unfair. Women live their lives in fear of violence and/or sexual assault by men, but men are the ones who have to prove themselves, every day, that they're not "bad guys," which (personally speaking) would really bother me. That's unfair. Women can express feelings and are encouraged to talk about what's bothering them, but it's considered weird or unmanly for men to express their feelings. That's unfair. Now, because of social norms about who "gets" eating disorders, men aren't getting the psychological and physical help they need. That's not only unfair, that's dangerous. I guess the question I'm asking is, why do we think of society in terms of "why can't women be more like men?", when it doesn't seem that great to be a man in a male-dominated society, either? Wouldn't it be great if, instead of looking at sex equality in terms of women equaling men, we looked at sex equality in terms of everyone being equal in opportunity and outcome to one another? Call me crazy...
*********
"Equal rights are not special rights." (Anonymous)
"Feminism is the radical notion that women are people." (Audre Lord)
*********
"Equal rights are not special rights." (Anonymous)
"Feminism is the radical notion that women are people." (Audre Lord)
Saturday, April 03, 2004
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.
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.
Friday, January 09, 2004
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.
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.
Saturday, March 22, 2003
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.
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.
Monday, August 19, 2002
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.
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.
Monday, April 01, 2002
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)