Free range parenting fail?

The best part of childhood is exploring, getting dirty - experiencing the outdoors in all its splendor.  Not everyone agrees with me.

I live on a small lake.  I love going down to the water with my kids.  We skip stones.  We throw rocks in the water.  It's part of the reason I chose to live here.

There is a dead tree that fell into the lake. My two have been systematically taking it apart.  Tearing off the bark, breaking off the branches.

dead tree 2015

I would have done the same thing when I was ten.  And while growing up in my family was not always easy, my best memories are of exploring the outdoors.  Creating potions with leaves.  Building clubhouses underneath bushes.

Last Tuesday after dinner, we were out breaking branches.  All of a sudden, I hear "Are you going to clean that up?"  I didn't know where the voice was shouting from.  A neighbor was standing on his second floor porch and proceeded to curse us out (literally).  I started gathering the wood chips together.

He shouted things like "we all have to live here.  Now that tree looks like sh*t without its branches." "I've seen you here with your kids.  How can you let your kids do this? You're a (insert expletive here) mother".

We went inside.  I was shaken and upset.  My kids were shaken and upset.

I checked with the leasing office to find out the rules and to report this guy.  Sometimes people are jerks, which is what I told my kids.  If he has an issue with me, then he could have come down to the lake and discussed it with me as an adult.

Part of the injustice of it is that I know I'm a good mom.  Allowing my kids to explore the outdoors (while I'm right there) is part of what makes me a good parent.  Some jerk saying that I'm not a good mom, because he doesn't like what I'm doing is just his opinion, and doesn't make it true.

But part of the reason it upset me is that I work really, really hard to be the best mom, the best person I can be.  One guy's opinion doesn't change that.  And isn't it odd that we can hear twenty positive opinions but the negative one is the one we remember?

What kind of world will we live in when kids are indoors all the time in front of screens?  We already spend too much time in front of screens, consuming.  I haven't read the Nurtureshock or free range parenting books, but I'm familiar with the concept.  We spend so much time protecting our kids, so much time in sanitized situations, children are unprepared to deal with the world as adults.

I will continue to go down to the lake with my kids. We will continue to explore the outdoors.  Maybe we won't take apart the dead tree, but I'm not changing the way that I parent.

It's just business

Everybody knows that it's now or never

Everybody knows that it's me or you...

Everybody knows the deal is rotten

"Everybody Knows" - Leonard Cohen

At one of my first jobs, a co-worker mentioned that he hadn't planned on working for his prior employer for ten years.  He just woke up one day and found that he had been there ten years.  At the time, I was skeptical. 

Yet I have found myself in a similar position.

In the fifth season of Mad Men, Don takes Peggy's work for granted.  He tells her that everything she's earned is from him.  As the last straw (not surprising for a fictional drama), he throws money in her face.

When she discusses a move with the person who really discovered her, her friend reminds her that Don wouldn't think twice about taking a business opportunity.  He bluntly remarks that it's just business.  Don wouldn't think about it emotionally, in terms of loyalty.  Peggy ends up taking the promotion (and raise) and leaves the advertising agency.

It's a scene I've thought about often in the past few months.  Truth isn't always stranger than fiction.

I have decided to take a new job opportunity.  I've also woken up after being at my employer for over ten years.  It's amazing to think about what's changed in ten years on the internet. 

I've learned a lot.  I've worked hard (in fact, that's what my boss specifically said about me when I mentioned I was leaving.  That I was a hard worker.  Go me!  That's exactly what I want people to know about me). 

But I've hit a glass ceiling of sorts.  And, much like Peggy's character, I know I'm not really getting what I'm worth. 

I think the modern workplace is structured this way.  It's human to take people and situations for granted.

Multiple people have told me that the only person looking out for my career is me.  It's true.  My company isn't looking out for my career.  And some of my co-workers - if they had a good opportunity, they would also take it without looking back, without thinking twice.

For me, the change is odd.  I tend to stay in situations simply because I've been there a long time, not because they are what's best for me.  Sometimes I stay longer than I need to.  And I admittedly have some anxiety about the whole thing.  Part of me would rather stay where it's safe, to stay with what's known. 

But life is too short. And this is just how business works. 

History as we want it to be

***Downton Abbey season 3 spoilers ahead!  Don't read if you are sensitive to spoilers***




Like many Americans, I've been watching Downton Abbey.  It's a good program, although at times it can be rather soapy.  And a part of me is surprised by its popularity, since I've enjoyed most Masterpiece/BBC programs for quite some time.  I'm not sure what's so unique about this.

However, in one of the episodes of Season 3, there was more than a small anachronism.  Thomas (the valet) is a closeted gay servant.  He's also caused quite a bit of trouble and drama from day one in the household.  (Remember all the trouble Mary got into during the first season with Mr. Pamuk?  That was Thomas' doing).  In this season (after the war) he's back in a life of service. 

He mistakes another servant's friendliness for a love interest (with the help of another scheming servant, O'Brien).  Barrow hits on him (the character Jimmy) and is discovered by another footman. 

The point of all of this is, while some of the servants are shocked and dismayed, in the end, everyone accepts that Barrow is gay.  Even Lord Grantham doesn't have an issue with a gay servant.  This is the same Lord Grantham who, for the record, was shocked that his daughter married a chauffeur and that his granddaughter was going to be baptized Catholic (the horrors).  Also shocking for the Earl, his daughter wearing pants and another daughter writing for a magazine.

It would have been wonderful if in the 1920s, it was not a big deal for someone to be gay.  If gay men and women weren't repeatedly arrested and socially ostracized.  But the truth is, being openly gay was still listed as a disease in the DSM until 1986.  The American Experience program about Stonewall was amazing to me. Clubs were raided and upstanding citizens were arrested, simply for being gay.  Looking at Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited, set around the same time, had an upper class gay character - who ends up full of despair (because at the time, gay characters couldn't be successful and happy - they were doomed to ruin).

The mormon church is far from 1920s Edwardian England, but I can quote many mormon church leaders who agreed with this disease model.  In church leader Spencer W. Kimball's book The Miracle of Forgiveness, it says that it is better for someone to come home dead than dishonored.  This book and its message has been repeatedly discussed in the bloggernacle, but has never been formally repudiated by the LDS church.  Even in 2010, an LDS church leader (Boyd K. Packer) implied that god would never make anyone gay.

But in fiction, we don't have to be fully honest or historically accurate.  Even if it is unlikely that an openly gay servant could remain in a conservative household, the creator could stretch reality.  And there are many uncomfortable parts of human history, some of which we would rather ignore.  I would like to pretend that the United States wasn't founded with slavery.  I would like to pretend that women weren't treated as property for most of human history. 

But that's not the truth. 

This slate article explains that each character defended Thomas for their own reasons.  So perhaps it does work.  I am simply wary of revisionist history that ignores the very real sometimes violent struggle that many people had to face, for human rights.  If we don't accurately depict the way things were - it diminishes how much we have had to overcome.

Game of Thrones vs. The Wars of the Roses

I watched the Game of Thrones series last year, on dvd  - season 2 is coming out later this month.  I really enjoyed it.  It's incredibly violent, and sexual - so your mileage may vary.  I had a sinus infection earlier this month - and I spent about a week and a half reading books 2, 3 and 4. 

It's not a secret that the series is loosely based on the wars of the roses in 15th century England.  Even the family names, Stark and Lannister sound more than a little like York and Lancaster.  I know only a bit about the history, but the war of the roses involved incompetent kings who were deposed, teenage kings who mysteriously disappeared, even people drowned in casks of wine. 

I've also been reading Alison Weir's The Princes in the Tower.  The similarities are striking. The king (Edward IV) secretly marries a so-called commoner, Elizabeth Woodville. (Her mother is a noblewoman, her father was a knight).  Her large family is then promoted in positions of power.  Not surprisingly, many people are unhappy about this. There are all sorts of houses with associated lands that the kings redistribute.

And there is this tension between north and south -at one point the author points out that British people in the north and south really thought of themselves as separate races or people.  It was also common to believe that physical deformity (if Richard III really did have a hunchback) was a sign of moral depravity or sin.  Families are opposed to one another (and intensely suspicious) for no other reason than politics - if the other person isn't a part of your family, they are inherently untrustworthy.

The Stark children - won't be this way for long!

So there's a large part of me that is incredibly grateful to not live in that time period - dependent on nobility and family wealth.  Most people were wholly dependent on the whims of potentially insane people, no rule of law, fair trials, etc.  While many women have some power in the Game of Thrones series, it's always very clear that women are completely dependent on men, and cannot have power in their own right. It was a brutish time (the Middle Ages). 

I'm not sure why this time period (or the series) are so engrossing for me.  I've always enjoyed medieval British history (who knows why).  I enjoy the history in spite the fact that I know how many problems the British monarchy (and others) caused throughout the world.  The Game of Thrones series also has just enough fantasy as well, with dragons and zombies - some magic that actually appears to be real. There are many strong female characters in the series, as well as fully developed male and female characters.  I recommend it.

The Hills are Alive....with Big Mormon Families

Over the holiday I caught a portion of "The Sound of Music", a musical that pops up every year around the holidays. Frankly, I'm not sure how the holidays and fighting the Nazis became intertwined - but there you are.

I watched this film a lot as a child, and I know the words to most of the songs.  The biggest surprise came when I was 6, visiting my cousins and found out that there was more to the movie after the wedding.  (In order to get us to go to bed, my Dad would let us watch the movie until the wedding, and then say "they're married now, the movie's over"). 

original poster from wikipedia

Watching it now, in my thirties, I'm amazed by how coordinated and coherent the family of seven children is.  Granted, this is the 1930s and it's a musical - meaning a completely idealized life.  No one thinks "Oklahoma" or "West Side Story" are real (one would hope). 

But still - it seems so perfect, this large family of children (led by the sixteen year old Leisl) who works together to play tricks on the governesses and jokes about champagne. 

I was thinking about it - I don't remember one time (perhaps my brother will chime in here) that all the kids went anywhere together without our parents.  Not once.  We would go out together, but not as a full group (that I recall).  So the scene in the film where they visit the abbey rang very hollow. 

Trying to get everyone in my family to do anything (by the time I was sixteen) was like herding cats. 

So I thought - this movie must be what people think growing up in a big family is like.  It's everyone working together, singing, watching out for one another.  They get through their troubles together. 

But that's not what big families are like (at least, it wasn't for my family).  Is anyone really that naive?

.It's true that the Captain had a lot of money, and that definitely helps in large families. 

Being in a large family is being raised to be competitive.  You have to compete and out-shine to survive. My Dad also used to say "the squeakiest wheel gets the most grease" (For the record, this is a saying that has never made any sense to me.  It sounds like you're encouraging someone to squeak if they want something - it's a backwards way to do anything).

There are only so many resources, and they have to be divided amongst everyone.  It's not a matter of everyone pitches in - it's not always that simple or easy.  My Mom would talk about a large family of girls she remembered from Utah, they all learned to sew and made their own clothes.  In the 1980s, in the suburbs - all handmade clothes were unrealistic.  Sure, it could happen.  It's just the place where reality hits - life is not all re-made curtains. 

You had to pool your resources, and you had to be very careful what you shared.  I read someone who talked about hoarding Christmas gifts in a large family - and that was almost what it was like sometimes.  You wanted to have your own stash of whatever because it could be gone tomorrow. 

My parents have finally re-arranged the kitchen to not have food "hidden" in various cabinets - but for the longest time, the chips were in one cabinet SOLELY because they might not get eaten as quickly.  At the end, it stretched believability as everyone knew exactly where the chips were. 

I have a lot of advantages for being raised in the family I was.  I love my siblings, and the big family reunions.  We did work together, and I learned a lot. 

All I'm saying is, at times I am not sure that people see the downsides to large families or challenges after watching the media portrayals.  There are important pieces that are left out. 

Election thoughts

Que sera, sera - whatever will be, will be

I went to sleep Tuesday night, long before the election returns were in.  I spent the first hour Wednesday deliberately not checking news sources.  Preparing myself for whatever results happened. It was a surprisingly quiet, calm hour. I know I'm typically not very political on this blog but I have some thoughts for the Republicans.  

I really enjoyed this podcast about political differences.

 

this podcast

There are major disagreements on how to proceed.

 This is simply my take.
1 - Don't choose a candidate with a silver spoon
Clinton and Obama both came from single parent homes. This makes a difference. The vast majority of Americans live in single parent homes or other non-traditional families. They're not raised in privilege.

Working class roots won't seal the deal, of course. A person needs to have a pragmatic point of view and be willing to be moderate on social issues. Which leads me to point 2...
 2 - Whatever happened to fiscally conservative, socially moderate Republicans?
My liberal friends have been making hay from this election, but I predict that once the fiscally conservative/socially moderate Republicans reappear - the Democrats will have a real fight on their hands. If there's a mandate from this election - it might be that maybe more Republicans would win if they promoted small government. Small government that stays out of your personal life. That gives you the freedom to make your own personal choices - without the state's interference. It shocks me that this is not more popular in the GOP.
3 - No legacies
Another thing most of my Republican and Democrat friends can agree on - we don't like political seats being "gifted" to a child or grandchild. One Democratic friend of mine voted for one Republican - against the Democrat who gained their seat from a parent (same last name). I see this trend as well. This country was founded against inherited aristocracy, like we saw in England. We don't want to recreate that.
4 - Moderation
The message is clear - we need more moderates. We need people who will question their party line. And the moderates will win over swing voters. It's a lesson for both sides. There is a reason that congress had a very low approval rating. No one wants our representatives to simply refuse to work with one another. Find common ground (there is common ground). Work together to get things done. Figure out what's non-negotiable and figure out what's negotiable and work from there. We really do start to look like Rome when we refuse to work together.

Cave of Forgotten Dreams

I was going to e-mail my friend NN about this film but I thought - why not recommend it to everyone?  She has a great post about cave art here.

I watched this documentary film recently.  Some parts were choppy and it may have been longer than it needed to be.  Maybe it would have seemed less choppy if I had seen it in 3D.

But the cave art was amazing.  The notion that people 30,000 years ago had the time and wherewithal to paint animals on this cave - on any cave is inspiring.  I suspect there is something about being human that inspires us to create art - to leave a legacy for our descendants.  There is an urge towards communication - to find common understanding.

___________________________________________

I was having a conversation with my kids about whether or not cavemen were stupid.  They claimed that cavemen were stupid.  I suspect it's related to some tv commercial that makes that implication.

Anyway, I explained that cave people were probably not stupid.  No one had made a spear before, but they had to figure it out.  And use that spear to find food.  They had to figure out what could be eaten - how to stay warm through the winter.  That would have taken a great deal of intelligence.  In the film, an anthropologist throws a spear replica.  I'm grateful that I am not dependent on bone tools for food!

Upon further reflection, I remarked that their brains were probably smaller than our more modern brains.  So they may have been a bit less intelligent. 

But my awe still stands. It's amazing that our species survived and has reached the point we have where we aren't forced to hunt and gather for food.  It's amazing that we are almost completely separated from seasonal impact - from the winter and summer. 

Rises

I saw The Dark Knight Rises this past weekend.  I'm a fan of Nolan's work, I enjoyed the first two Batman movies in the series.  I also enjoyed Inception. 

But I found that it was difficult for me to enjoy the movie.  For most of the movie, I was acutely aware that I was watching a film marred by tragedy.  It was difficult to ignore the violence as fantasy. 

I admit, it was all me - all in my head.  There was no reason to feel any more unsafe than when I saw Kill Bill Vol. 2 (a great movie, btw). 

So aside from not being able to fully enjoy the film, it was good. I liked it.  I thought it was a good finale to the series.  Some of the twists in the plot I didn't see coming.  I agree Anne Hathaway did a good job as Catwoman, even if she was a MPDG (Manic Pixie Dream Girl) of sorts. 

I don't see why I should change my behavior because of a lone insane act.  I'm glad that other people haven't changed their behavior, the theater was full.  Most of my friends who were going to see the film have seen it.  Still, I can't help thinking about the culture of violence, and our culture of mental illness.

The Argument

I heard part of this program last night.  It was about the storage of nuclear waste in Germany.  A reporter was touring a nuclear waste storage site with two advocates.  

What was fascinating (to me), was that despite the fact the two advocates had never met before, they were discussing this contentious issue.  (And the discussion became heated - again, complete strangers before this conversation).  Each advocate (for the opposing side) understood and anticipated the other person's argument.

It reminded me of the sword fight scene in "The Princess Bride" - where Inigo Montoya and "the Dread Pirate Roberts" talk about the fighting moves they're using.

I realized - I've seen this before.  I see it all the time when people discuss mormonism on the internet (or elsewhere). I've read it in discussions between former and current mormons.  Two people who may or may not have access to the same sources - who may or may not be aware of all the sources.  Who (probably) disagree on the meanings of basic terms (like feminism).

At one point in the nuclear waste story, someone said "Your side has never admitted that they're wrong.  Name one thing that your side has admitted was wrong".

Are all controversial subjects like this?  When two side of people feel passionately about an issue?  Does it always devolve into always and never - rife with assumptions on both sides?

In the mormon/former mormon world, particularly on the internets - the answer is yes.

Interrupting Violence

I watched this program the other night after the kids went to bed. It was one of those programs that I thought I would watch an hour - I couldn't turn it off. The stories are riveting. I can't seem to embed it here at the moment, but you can view it on the pbs website.

I will say - this is one story about people living in Chicago, on the South Side of Chicago. There are many stories of people living in Chicago, dealing with community and sometimes with violence. There are many stories of people living in urban areas, in areas with high poverty, and urban areas with great wealth.

This story is an important story to tell. It's just not the only story out there.

One part I appreciated was where they mentioned that most of the issues are not gang issues, but interpersonal issues. By addressing the violence, the interpersonal conflict, the cycle of revenge - they are able to stop the killing. Or at least attempt to halt some of the violence. Recognizing that everyone has a grievance, but they're not able to see the consequences of a response.

That and the people they have working on the project have walked the walk (as it were). They've been there. It's not people outside the community imposing their own solutions (as many of us sometimes want to do).

I like that they have a goal and they work towards that goal. Things like religion are mentioned in the documentary (and their work) but they are not the focus. The focus of stopping the violence is pretty simple.

Not so far from reality

I've been watching Mad Men - I just finished Season 2 on a streaming movie/tv service.  One feminist website I read (the hathor legacy) claims that although the show attempts to paint the misogyny as in the past, it's still smacks of misogyny and priveldge. 

I agree that the writers/producers are having fun with the smoke filled pregnancies and Scotch filled offices.

What strikes me, however, is that while a lot has changed in fifty years, some things haven't changed.

Years ago, I heard an interview with the creators of Arrested Development *.  That show is extreme, the relationships are bizarre, dysfunctional on steroids.  Yet the creators said they made it that way on purpose, as many families are really sort of similar.  They're just not that bad.  There's a part of humor that hits close to home - that's why it's funny.

So while many people see obvious parts of Mad Men that are no longer true, the office smoking, the admonishment by everyone (men and women) to wear shorter skirts - some of it is still around, here in 2011.  I was harassed at one of my first jobs - a fast food place.  Was my boss hitting on me (he was only five years older).  Was it inappropriate?  Yes.  Did he feel entitled?  Why?

And I have been in workplace situations (like Peggy) while I was the only woman at the table - and expected to take notes.  When everyone looks to Peggy to turn on the projector - it rang surprisingly true.  Obviously, this doesn't happen in every situation.  Could I have refused?  Yes.  Could I have even spoken up and pointed out that there was an assumption there - that I would take notes because I'm female?  Yes.  Or maybe the assumption had nothing to do with the fact that I'm a woman.  Yet, I think some things are subconscious.

The culture has changed outwardly.  I don't have to wear heels and a skirt to the office.  Co-workers won't tell me "they like the view".  I've had multiple female bosses.  My husband was a stay at home Dad.

But there is an undercurrent that still rings true and is still around.  Some cultural and political assumptions still impact us.  They're just not as obvious any longer.

* I thought that was the link to the interview, but apparently not.  My google abilities are not working for me today - but I'm pretty sure that's the interview I remember. Unless I was dreaming it.

Great Men Theory

There is a theory of history that great men shaped our current society.  Regular, normal people could not do it, could not build empires or win wars, but these men did.  And their mothers, of course, who shaped them (tongue in cheek here).  Think Julius Caesar, George Washington, Christopher Columbus.

While these men are important, I think it's worth noting that only very rarely does some act completely alone.  There are always people who make it happen.  Either they were the grandparents who worked overtime to send a child to college, ancestors who moved to a land of more opportunity or even the silent long-suffering spouse who does everything so the artist can create.

That was my response to Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, and it's my response when I hear the claim that one man or woman changed a generation.  In Outliers, Gladwell outlines just how so many successful men became life-changing and revolutionized the way we view things.  There were a whole host of factors that created an environment where change was possible.  A host of parents, teachers, community members, economic realities nurtured success. 

While leadership is important, it's shortsighted to believe that only a leader is responsible for success, of a country, of a company, of a school.  It's the people who go to work every day, the parent(s) who are there each night, the people who make change possible. Great figures are a strange coincidence of fate and possibility - being in the right place at the right time. Would they be great if they had to spend hours doing their own laundry? I wonder.

That's not to say we shouldn't mourn someone's passing, or recognize a person's good deeds.  And it is true that sometimes a person is not appreciated now, but is appreciated with the passing of time.

I believe we sell ourselves short when we don't recognize that our everyday efforts might lead to bigger and better things - and may lead to change. 

Whether or not it's true, many public figures will recognize this.  They will mention all the people who helped them along the way.  That's not necessarily false humility, I believe they mention it because it's true.       

My September 11th rememberance

All this week, npr has been running a series remembering Sept. 11th, how Americans have changed, honoring those who died.  

I was thinking about what I would like to remember, and what I want to convey about that day and the response. 

In the days and years that followed, the 11th of September has taken on mythical proportions.  I can respect and honor ceremony and ritual. 

Yet I believe there are key points for future generations to remember, things I don't hear very often.  For the record, I honor all those who lost their lives that day, in the days that followed because they were first responders, in the two ensuing wars; both military and civilian casualities.

There is a great episode of "Family Guy" where Lois is running for office.  You can find the video on youtube under "Lois runs for office".  She keeps trying to explain her position, which everyone ignores.  Yet then she starts saying "9 - 11" and everyone keeps applauding madly.   Americans might not have paid attention to these other parts of the world before, but it suddenly became unpatriotic to not display a flag*.  Or to be skeptical of what was being sold when politicians invoked "9-11".  It seemed like a disservice to everyone to use Sept. 11th to advance one's political agenda. 

So what's it all about? What does it mean?

I was shocked when I heard about the second plane.  I turned on the radio, and there was a discussion of coal mining until they broke into "morning edition" with the news. 

I listened to the coverage, but I kept working.  I checked websites, e-mail lists.  At my work, some people went home, some people dismissed employees early, but some of us shouldered on.

I don't think I was the only person.  I didn't work as hard as usual, but I didn't spend most of the day in the break room watching tv.  Some of my co-workers did, many people did, and that's okay.  I wasn't in New York or D.C.  I didn't directly know anyone who worked in the Pentagon or World Trade Center. 

And most importantly, I knew there was absolutely nothing I could do here in the mid-west.  It was a very scary time, most people would have been listening to the news when we heard about the plane at the Pentagon, and the flight in Pennsylvania. We weren't sure when (or if) another attack would come.  Yet fear is not a great motivator for decision making, succumbing to fear helps no one.

Many people gave blood, money - I remember a theory that we should buy airline stock, since it would go down the first day the market re-opened. 

Simply put, I have a lot of respect who did what needed to be done, regardless of the consequences.  The people who did their jobs that day, those who went into burning buildings, who continue to fight in the wars, and those who support the troops. Also those who may support the troops but want to bring them home. 

Some of us refused to be swayed from our primary purpose; whatever that is, whatever that means.  We refused to spend more energy on what was happening in NY and our capital, that day, and in the weeks that followed. 

It's not that we don't "mourn with those who mourn"; but I know there is a lot of evil in the world.  There was evil before Hitler, before 2001, and evil still exists.  The United States is certainly not the only country attacked by terrorists.  We weren't the first, and we won't be the last either. If only that could be the case; if only saying it would make it so.  And some of us know that two wrongs don't make a right.

I believe it is just as important, to everyone's memory, to spend as much energy as necessary in a crisis. And that will be different for each person.  To continue to do what makes America great, what honors humanity.  We can mourn, participate in ceremony, but in the end, I believe not being dissuaded honors everyone.

I don't think there has to be one reaction, and I still don't believe there was a right or wrong reaction that day, or in the weeks that followed.  My point is, there was more than one reaction that day; there is more than one reaction to fear. 

*I really appreciated David Foster Wallace's take on what happened on September 11th.

Future Realities or Rights I'm Grateful for

Recently I've encountered two wonderful dystopian realities, both science fiction.  They both challenged me to think about the U.S., our rights and the things I have to be grateful for.  Certain political parties or movements are not the only people who can express their appreciation for the rights and privileges that Americans enjoy. 

I read "The Year of the Flood" by Margaret Atwood and watched the movie "Idiocracy". 

1 - I'm grateful for the right to a fair trial, adequate counsel and the ethical treatment of prisoners.  While there are notable exceptions to this in the United States, these rights are critical to a moral, free society. For example, there is a scene in "Idiocracy" where the main character is rolled into the courtroom in a cage and someone throws food at him. Then, his court-appointed lawyer testifies against him for "being a dick".

This is an exaggeration, sure.  But it isn't difficult to imagine a world without these rights.  In some parts of the world, these things happen today, or no trial at all.  (As an aside, this is a great essay from "This I believe" about the right for everyone to have counsel - no matter who they are and what they are accused of doing.)


2 - I am not legally responsible for my parents' debts; against unsecured assets (like medical bills or credit card bills).

Hundreds of years ago, whole families would be thrown into debtor's prison.  Children would be responsible for paying their parents' debts, no matter what choices the parents' made, and even if children had no means of repaying those debts.

In The Year of the Flood, the main character, Toby, is responsible for her parents' debts.  Her father goes broke attempting to care for her mother, who (whom?) we find out later was a human test subject for a corporation.  A corporation was poisoning the mother, not paying for her care, and the family went broke trying to pay the medical bills.  Her father takes his life after her mother dies - Toby is forced to go "off the grid" to not be thrown into jail.

Given our current state of affairs, it's not difficult to imagine a world where this was likely.  Where corporations control the police force.  If a person can't pay the corporation, or is wronged by that organization, there is no recourse.

I am not always happy with my country.  I am not happy with the outcomes of certain court decisions or legal battles.  I am not proud of the actions of my country in the past.

But that doesn't mean that I don't cherish our current checks and balances, our current legal system.  I appreciate the sacrifices that so many have made to support those rights and that system.

I also have admiration for some forms of science fiction, which can shine a spotlight on our current culture and ask "What If?"  While some premises are absurd or heavy-handed; others are not far from reality. 

I cannot imagine a world where everyone appears to be a member of the program "Jackass" or the cast of "Beavis and Butthead" (the creator of "Idiocracy", Mike Judge is interviewed on "Fresh Air" here; he talks about why he wrote and created the dystopian reality of "Idiocracy.").  These programs have their place, and may be an entertaining distraction.  But they cannot be allowed to dominate our lives, our society or our conversations.

When did I become an activist?

Some months ago I was on the local news.  I went to a parent informational meeting the local school corporation.  It must have been a slow news week. 

At the meeting, there was a powerpoint presentation and two roving television cameras.  I assumed the tv cameras would film the other community members. 

I said my piece, about keeping the arts (and sports) in schools.  Also that I hoped all cuts would be on the table, that there were no sacred cows that couldn't be cut (administration, teachers, etc.)

The next morning, the first thing the lady who sits next to me said was "Aerin, saw you on tv last night".  And my response was "What did I say?"  I know things are taken out of context and spliced for sound bites.  Fortunately, my co-workers (more than one) said I sounded articulate, which I was grateful for.

Everything they aired did not embarrass me, and I am proud to stand behind.  My name was listed on one station, and a snippet of me talking (without my name) was on the other. Only one or two other community members (despite the tens who spoke) were filmed.

It reminded me, however, how public expressing one's opinion can be.  And how someone may always be paying attention - whether or not that's expected.  Your friends, co-workers, random acquaintances, employers or former employers are all the audience. 

The other night I attended another school meeting, this time with the state board of education.  I listened as community member after community member (including the state representatives) eloquently expressed their point of view.  Professionals, students, former students, teachers spoke of the challenges facing urban parents and families.  They pointed out the success of school/business partnerships. 

I prepared as well.  I didn't have a formal three minute speech prepared and rehearsed, as others did.  And I had come prepared, dressed in an interview suit, wearing heels and make up- to potentially be on tv.

Yet this was the fourth in a series of meetings. Not the beginning or the end, and therefore not as newsworthy.  Evidently there was a nearby reality show star in trouble.  There are other stories that are more current, which gain traction.  Not a school district's woes, the problems of poverty and the parents who show up to defend and explain why things are the way they are.  Explanations that cannot be reduced to sound bites or even three minute presentations.

I find I'm relieved.  I'm relieved not to be on the news again, or to have to explain my political views to my co-workers.  I was not as prepared as I would have liked to be, in order to make my three minutes as effective as possible.

How can I explain my prespective in three minutes - and convince someone whose mind is already made up?  Who sees the community as entrenched and corrupt - no matter what we say.  They see us as the Irish were seen in nineteenth century New York politics, or how Chicago politicians are still viewed.

I'm not trying to decry traditional media.  They are simply doing their job.  In this culture of slogans,140 characters quips and cut throat politics - how can we make our voices heard? How can we tell a different story - particularly about issues that have no simple or easy answers. 

And for that matter, how did I become an educational activist?  I think I've always been one, but perhaps now even more so.

Young at Heart

I saw this program the other day - about a chorus of seniors who tour the country. I just wanted to go on record - when I'm 90, I hope to be doing something like this.  Attached is a trailer. 

Portlandia

I have really enjoyed this show so far. 

I thought all my readers who lived through the 90s might recognize themselves in this song - "The Dream of the 90s is alive in Portland". 

For the record, I had an ex boyfriend in the 90s who wore the same style of coat that Fred Armisten is wearing in the video.  I didn't go to clown school, but there was quite a bit from the video I recognized.  And, the song is catchy, just to warn you.

Vintage Sesame Street

This is what we are watching at our house.  I watched quite a bit of Sesame Street as a child...I was surprised (although I shouldn't be) that so much is now online.

Human Development part 1

A few months back, I started a "links I would send to chanson" series.  This would be another link I would have sent to chanson (but I'm posting it here for discussion/reflection).    There was another program in the npr series that I will write more about in part 2.

Did a belief in the supernatural (or supernatural consequences) help humans evolve into who we are today? 

I thought this was a really interesting program.  The question this program (and others in the series) have asked is, what makes us human?  What gave us an advantage over other species?

One of the theories is, humans cooperate, human strangers cooperate and no one knows why.  As the article says, there's often tension between the interests of the group and the individual. 

The article also points out that if in ancient communities, someone stepped out of line (or outside of the boundaries), it made much more sense to say that a person was enforcing "God's law", rather than open the punisher up for vengeance or grudges.  An example of this would be that the executioner would wear a mask.  Even though many people might know who the executioner was, the person would wear a mask to prevent reprisals. 

And the article points out the different criticism of these theories - other theories about why humans cooperate. 

This program, The Human Spark on pbs some months ago also talks about the nature of evolution - why humans and chimps are similar but different. 

I find the experiments with the very young children compelling.  It is amazing to me how early humans learn socialization and about social rules.  That even an 18 month old will try to help the experimenter figure things out.  Humans like to work together, they like to cooperate; and they also like to make and enforce social rules and norms.

Crisis living - culture edition

Many years ago, shortly after the attacks of September 11th, I heard a report on npr.  It mentioned the loss of life and property in 2001.  There was an incredible loss of life and property in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.  But it mentioned that if a category 5 hurricane were to hit New Orleans, that there would be increased loss of life and property.  The reporting specifically mentioned the levees and the poor state they were in.

What the report was attempting to do was to put tragedy into perspective. 

And then some years later, in 2005, hurricane Katrina hit close to New Orleans. 

I will simply never understand why it takes a crisis for our country to act.  And it's not just the government, businesses are the same way.  Certain oil companies skimp on quality and safety measures, and skip the reviews of their vendors and contractors (to make sure they are following safety and quality).  And then a well blow out happens.

I think it's just a part of our current culture.  Most of the time, people will try and cut back - to not spend money if they don't have to. Things don't have to be ideal - but it seems to me that maintenance and infrastructure are an investment.

It is a difficult line to draw - and there is a big difference between necessary improvements and waste.  But it makes me angry that we knew the devastation of a hurricane like Katrina was possible and we chose to let it happen.  We can't figure out the probability of every disaster.  But there has got to be a way to invest and prioritize.