Holidays mean... amnesty in more ways than one

For those of you who are CA residents, you may have been privy to the non-amnesty paid by the governator to Tookie Williams (founder of the Crips and ex-gang banger). For my opinion of that, see Dr. Rosenberg's site. This season is not for blaming however. It is for several ever elusive abstracts that society says are the noblest of pursuits - peace and forgiveness.

By all means, peace on earth!

Peace in every aspect of life! You won't find an opponent here. I've been reading one of Dr. Rosenberg's books which has caused me to rethink how I should act in my relationships. Of course, changing one's language structure doesn't happen over night. It requires practice.

This season I did practice. Much to my surprise it went over. Since then, me and my plumeria have been spending quite some quality time together, I say quality because it has been filled with good feelings.

Time off from real life gives us respite from the daily grind. Everyone knows this. It is why 'TGIF' is a restaurant name (I wonder if mormons go there - I mean, is it okay for them to go there? See the movie "Mobsters and Mormons" for a fun play on the difference between them, and... us?). And everyone also knows that respites end.

Not only is 2005 ending in the next few days, but so is my respite, so is my sweet winter break, so is my season of plumeria. Distance in time and space will separate me from all of these things (as it may for many other people who are so fortunate). I will go back to serve at the elementary school for a week, only to be confronted with the prospect of oral surgery 1.5 weeks later.

OUCH!!!

Well, the positive way to look at everything is this: Peace may not be all over the planet, but it starts with a few people. When I choose to change my words, I show the change of my heart. It is then passed on to other people. That's part one. Part two is that while distance in time and space separates me from people whom I love, as well as exciting prospects, during that space and time I will lose a lot of weight (WOOHOO!!! Liquid particle free 10-day diet!!!) and will no longer have arthritis in my jaw.

Note: Over this break I made chocolate croissants and bagels with my best friend's mother. While chocolate croissants are definitely a lot of effort, they are a real treat. Bagels, are much more doable on a regular basis. I recommend them. ;-)

Leases

Once upon a time I had a significant other who loved the musical Rent. Needless to say, the association caused me to have an aversion to Rent, so much so, that at one point I vowed never to see it.

I thought, it'll be one of those really depressing things. Who wants to see a musical about nearly homeless HIV positive people? That's upsetting. Well, I should have reminded myself that most musicals, with the possible exception of Westside Story, have happy endings (or at least satisfying endings in my estimation).

Well, I finally did see Rent - but not on Broadway. No, I saw Rent in the $3 cheap theater where the fabric and paint on the walls are peeling like Inuits in Fiji, and the temperature is like Alaska in late October because the place is barely maintained. In the case of this flick, it was an appropriate atmosphere and only added to the ambience.

I couldn't help appreciating the bittersweet quality of several songs which could be described as 'inspired' (though for all of them to be deemed such would be an overstatement). I particularlly like the lyrics for I Should Tell You, Seasons of Love, and Another Day. While they reflect the particular context of the play/film, they speak to everyday life. I could see the things I'm going through right now in those songs. Rather, I could feel them.

Maybe you should go see Rent, even though you associate it with the roadkill of your best friend's dog's favorite squeaky toy, it might resonate with you too.

Snap, Scratch, POP!

I watched a movie today called "Bollywood/Hollywood". It wasn't what the average American viewer would expect. It's also not exactly typical Bollywood. As some might observe, there is a recent trend of hybrid films - somewhere between the two. This particular movie was actually very funny (by American standards). If you are at all familiar with Bollywood film, and have been somewhat acculturated by America, you may appreciate the hybrid attempt. After all, in this movie, the leads KISS!!! (see a scene where head turns are discussed from: American Chai).

This film caused me to feel the crassness of American pop culture (coupled with a comment made by my mother about the current radio favorite 'My Humps' and how it was a bad song). I like the Black Eyed Peas, but I don't appreciate the crudeness of their sexual references.

In the B/H movie, the daughter says 'Jesus!' The mother then admonishes her with 'Don't take the name of God in vain!' the daughter replies, 'He's not our god!' The grandmother then says 'All gods are equal.' While this is very telling about the Hindu religion, it is also very telling about the sense of Indian respect, and/or reverance.

There is something to be said about our popular disrespect for the name of our deities. There's no getting around how many times in an average day a person can hear someone saying 'Oh my God!' or 'Jesus Christ!' Perhaps it is so necessary to say it because it is so very taboo. Perhaps this is why all of our culture is disintigrating. There is no set of standards. There is no set of rules for moral behavior. I look at the characters in the movie I watched today and I can't help but wish that I too had a similar set of standards to follow. Perhaps this is the allure of Islam, because it is so easy to follow the set of rules. They are laid out for you. There is no question what you should or should not do. Morality is not subjective in such a case. While it may be safe to say that there are certain extremes that would be universally agreed upon as 'immoral,' there is still a broad range of things that may be deemed 'moral.'

What is the problem with such a society? The problem is that soon anything goes. When anything goes, the fabric that holds society together begins to buckle and tear. This is what the beloved neo-conservatives would say, and religious fundamentalists all over would agree with them. The solution is where these groups differ.

Now, I would not say I am a religious fundamentalist. I would not say I am a neo-conservative. In fact, I am far from both (as my earlier posts illustrate). Yet I can say that I do agree that a standard of morality helps to facilitate a more stable society.

Simultaneously I do not feel that we should have a set of morals imposed upon us. We do have laws, and these are supposedly determined by consensus (though with elections that are deemed fraudulent by international impartial observers, I cannot but help to question this assumption). Yet these do not govern culture. There is no clear set of cultural expectations as to morality. We do not culturally say that explicit (and often violent) sexual references, abusive language (sexual, mental, and emotional as well as physical references to abusive acts), and foul language are immoral and should not be acceptable in polite conversation. There are some words that remain offensive to certain groups if said by other groups (the 'n' word, the'b' word, the 'c' word). 'F--- you' is offensive but only within certain contexts - for example how well acquainted those involved are with one another. 'Shut up' can also be offensive under the same types of conditions - often it is more offensive if said by someone who is closer than by an unknown person.

This is bizarre.

Perhaps if I had gone to a small private Christian school for junior high and high school I would adhere more strongly to my own ideals. Such is not the case. I too, like most of my generation and younger, have a potty mouth. I admit it. Anyone who is in my age range and doesn't have a potty mouth is one of three things - a liar, sheltered, or hasn't fully assimilated into American culture. It's a sad truth. Perhaps I am just standing with one foot in the past and another in the future, holding the remaining guilt for behaving in a way that used to be considered improper.

I could philosophize as to why we chose a more cynical cultural linguistic path. I could say it aligns with the relatively new hyper-modernist trends of disenchantment black coffee drinking gritty underbelly bearing and the list could go miles.

So then does it make it right? Less offensive? Only to the desensitized. As movies like B/H remind us, the rest of the world... is sensitive.

The Sovereign Autonomous Self - Plants II

Last night I got into an argument which I think was based purely on semantics, though it was never articulated thus. At the center of the argument was the issue of independence. Now, as a person deeply steeped in sociology, I would say it is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve a state of complete independence. The great philosophical giant, Hegel, would argue that indeed, every person NEEDS the other - it is through the recognition of the self by the other that the self is made real (I'm paraphrasing here when I should be exact so don't rip on me too harshly).

It was today after a less than hectic day at the school that I began stewing over the wordings used the previous evening. After all, what does it mean to be truly independent? What does it mean to be self-reliant? Autonomous? I like this definition:
au·ton·o·mous ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ô-tn-ms)
adj.

1. Not controlled by others or by outside forces; independent: an autonomous judiciary; an autonomous division of a corporate conglomerate.
2. Independent in mind or judgment; self-directed.
3. 1. Independent of the laws of another state or government; self-governing.
   2. Of or relating to a self-governing entity: an autonomous legislature.
   3. Self-governing with respect to local or internal affairs: an autonomous region of a country.

(taken from an online dictionary )

So if this is to be our working definition, let's take a look how this might be achieved. No wait, it can't! To say that a person is never influenced even acutely by external forces is preposterous in this world. It is as if we were applying the standards of Mr. Walter Kronkite and saying that the current news media is fair and unbalanced. Independent. Yes, of course. Just like those movies we see on CABLE, sponsored by major motion picture companies like Warner Brothers or Universal.

It is a rare thing, independence. A silly thing to strive for, if in fact we are looking for the aforementioned absolutely autonomous kind of independence. There are always biases. I served on a jury this October in Santa Barbara. The AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION of acknowledges that EACH juror WILL HAVE BIASES particularly on GRAND juries - that is to say, they WILL be affected by external forces.

All of this said and done, our conversation was not chiefly surrounding issues of independence, and certainly not of independence on some grand political scale. No. The little debate in a small red car on the shore of the central coast was one based on those issues of individuals, which only affect society in so much as they are representative of some predominant trend or provide the inertia to begin a chain of events.

Though I cannot imagine these things occurring, they will affect the lives of those in the conversation. To what extent does one depend on another? When is it too much? When does that person combine with the other inextricably? Is such a relationship desirable? Is it not? Is it uncomfortable? Why?

Is there ever an appropriate time, a safe time, to say that you 'need' a particular person? I suppose after dehabilitating surgery, or a child fresh from the womb could safely say such things 9if they were cogent enough to articulate such thoughts, or HAVE such thoughts). But for you or I to say that we need someone... is that ok? Circumstances must dictate the course taken. I don't think it is safe to assume automatically that a person (who does not qualify under the above categories of baby or invalid) cannot or should not be dependent.

It is quite the fashion to say that we are individuals and we are independent of our families and our friends and that we don't NEED anyone. It is often expected that people should be able to fend for themselves relatively easily. While those 'strong' introverts in the audience may feel quite comfortable in this cultural standard, unfortunately more extroverted persons might feel a little differently. And if you agree with theories of birth order, then only children, who rely on friends and parents heavily might safely be damned.

Or perhaps self-reliance need not be a total thing. Perhaps it need only be present in one or two aspects of a person enough so that there is no apparent 'clinging.' Maybe that's all that is at the heart of the debate. Clinginess. I can recall several times in my life where I have been on the receiving end of 'chronic cling.' It isn't a pleasant situation if you are used to variety. Of course, there are many levels to everything, and my tolerance for cling is different from others.' For example, I may not have a problem hanging out with person A everyday for a couple of hours as long as I can hang out with person B - H at another point in time during the same day. If you feel close to someone, you naturally want to spend a good bit of time with them. Especially if they are not in the same geographical location as yourself for the majority of the year.

So what are my conclusions (at least those I deem MOST relevant)?
1) Total independence is impossible.
2) Autonomy is impossible.
3) The collective conclusions arrived at by the parties involved will have a lasting impact on said parties' directions.
4) Clinginess is the real issue.
5) Clinginess is an evaluative term and therefore will mean different things to different people and is not necessarily a helpful way to describe the discomfort of parties involved.

AND the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT CONCLUSION (drum roll):

6) I have so much more to learn about this person it is unbelieveable. They have so much more to learn about me. I don't really think we're on different sides, though it often seems we come out that way.

I still love my plumeria more than anything, and if it needs something, I will give it. I don't NEED the plant, I want it. I prefer it. I feel warm and fuzzy towards it. I won't die without it.

Negligence or Overwatering?

When is your decision right? How do you know you can stand by it and live with the consequences? How much effort should you put toward an investment so it will achieve it's highest possible yield? I am thinking about gardening. Our plumeria only blossomed after three years of us doing nothing.

I still have no idea why it blossomed.

Of course, I am not just talking about gardening. I could be talking about any number of things. Gardening, is the same as love, relationships, money, education, healthcare, dancing, acting, and the list can go miles.

The problem is, it's a lot easier to make decisions about your plants than it is to make decisions about your relationships, or money, or healthcare. There is definitely a hierarchy of investments and thus of decision making processes. No doubt about it.

But, let's take for example, my plumeria. How the hell did it flower?!?! We didn't do anything differently. Yet, it did bring forth those fragrant blooms which so frequent Bath and Bodyworks Stores everywhere. On the other hand, something like my current relationship, and as much time and energy as I put into that, I still feel like it will never blossom. In fact, it might be winter and never Christmas, as far as that is concerned.

So, then, when do you pull the plug? When is it okay to give up? And when is it not okay? Well, logic would have us weigh in the pros and cons that come with a given decision. So, let's take this 'plant' for a spin along those lines.

Pros for keeping the plant - I know it. It knows me. It's forgiven me for previous wrongs. We have history. It's a good plant. It has a similar background, intelligence, humor, and artistic ability. I can see the results of my efforts come full circle. I love the plant. The plant is my best friend. I may finally begin to see some give back. After all, I've gone through all this shit, I may as well hold on, because any progress will feel amazing after this titanic effort.

Pros for ditching the plant - I am worn from a lack of communication. I get little encouragement. I have potential for new plants. I can irradicate any emotional rot. I can find another plant that is closer to me as far as place in life. I can find another plant that can tell me how they really feel.

A shortened version of December will tip the balance one way or another.

I only hope I can have a clear head and heart when I decide.

Where are the girls?!

I was iming a friend about a movie I had seen recently, 13 going on 30.
He said he preferred Big - said it was the same movie but with better writing. I thought about it and realized, I didn't like Big as much simply because it was about a male. He said that would eliminate a lot of movies if I judged them based on how evenly distributed the important parts were across genders. So I decided to do a little research on 'guy' movies and 'chick' movies.

I checked a few different cast lists of various movies off the top of my head on the Internet Movie Database. It makes sense that I wouldn't like movies about guys. Movies about guys tend to have fewer female characters - and when I say fewer, I mean it is possible to have a guy movie without a plot-essential female role. From what I can find, this is not possible in a chick movie. There is always a guy essential to the plot in a chick movie. And, even if a movie is about a chick, sometimes the guy who is essential to the plot is listed before the chick. How weird is that?

What does that all say about women's place in American culture? We're second class. We don't matter that much. This of course is a fundamentally flawed stance, because, without ridiculous advances in science, we are STILL essential in order to make babies. Yet, male dominated movies still take the stage. Chicks will watch The Saint, but they won't watch Boondock Saints because of relationships in the film. One has chicks, the other doesn't. One has relationships and has a greater breadth of emotional content, the other deals primarily from the machismo palette of feeling. Even though Boondock has some cute actors, the attractiveness simply doesn't compensate for the lack of feminine.

No one wants a completely male society. No one wants a completely female society. Half and half is definitely preferred. I don't want completely male myths and stories either. I want half and half. It's more realistic. I think realism in this situation fosters a higher level of cultural psyche health. But we still have difficulty bringing about physical health in our society, so why talk about spiritual, emotional, or mental health? That's not even on the radar of the discussion.

Be Happy To Get What You Do - Questions

In the past two weeks there's been so many things to write about, and yet nothing at all. It's the day after Thanksgiving - Black Friday. I don't usually go shopping, but I hadn't yet gotten anything for anyone so I decided I would wander around the malls and brave the 10 person lines for lower prices. I ended up having quite the successful spree. It's just the everyday intensified. I've been noticing that recently. Everyday is more or less the same. You have a routine, the excitement is the break in the routine.

So what is a break in the routine? What is mundane, but more so? It could be an extra bill to pay this month. It could be a birth, a wedding, a death. It could be a sober day in the middle of ten drunk ones. It could be thinking about someone else instead of thinking about yourself. Sometimes it's as small as brushing your teeth with the opposite hand... or just one hand (for those unusual ambidextrous persons).

Well, maybe those are mundane. Maybe they aren't. Maybe it's having a slight cold for weeks upon weeks while getting up and doing the same thing over and over again. That's depressing. I can't stand doing the same thing over and over again. As I watched the people shopping, flitting past me in the department stores and the warehouse discount stores, I kept thinking about them. I wondered - when will I be like these families with 2 or 3 children wandering around the store looking for the absolute lowest prices? standing in line at the toy store? driving a van or a station wagon? carting kids off to classes, clubs, and sports? working at a job where I am completely disassociated from the product of my labor?

I wonder. Can a person be content in that? Hollywood is kind enough to make movies about people rediscovering the mundane. I mean, is it ok to settle down and make a life that is less than extraordinary? Is it ok to blend into suburbia? Is there anything wrong with that? Why isn't blending in glorified? Why is it so important to be independent? Why is it so essential to stand out? Why can't connection and harmony be glorified for once? Why can't community be emphasized? Why can't getting along with your neighbors be the goal, instead of running into your house and ignoring the people who live on either side of you? or even the people who live down the block?

I can't imagine blending in. I never seem to look like all the other people I see walking down the street. It's not a conscious effort. At the same time, I'm not outrageous in my appearance. I don't wear striped stockings and dye my hair crazy colors. Does that mean I don't blend in? Or does it mean I do within a certain range?

Is it better to go out drinking with friends every weekend to forget all these things I've thought, or is it better to hide inside at night and obsess over these things? I've done it both ways. It doesn't make a difference. You end up feeling the same way in the morning.

What makes this whole thing worthwhile? What's the point of going on in this "mundane but more so" existence? I could answer that religion, or faith makes a difference. I would answer this way because it's the only thing that keeps me from falling off the edge most of the time. It's the thing that I use to answer all the difficult questions. I don't know how truthful it is, and I don't know if truth matters at this point. I'm not sure if I can always use it to answer my questions any more. Sometimes I think the only way anyone can really use it as an excuse is if they have some kind of out-of-body experience. I can see how that might change even the most mundane existence into the extraordinary. Cancer could do the same thing for other people. I'm not offering cancer as the answer to "perpetual rut," but it would put a new spin on things just because you would learn to appreciate mundane things VERY quickly.

My vote is for the out-of-body experience. Or an encounter that is inexplicable. I think that would be a lot more fun. And just think, you could never tell anyone except other people who believe in those kinds of things - because most people would think you were nuts.

Very encouraging.

I still go with the 'hallucination' over terminal illness.

.....

sorry for the time off... it's just... not happening right now. i don't know when it will. give me an ounce of inspiration and maybe we'll get somewhere.

End of the World... but, I FEEL fine...

My senior year in college I had a fabulous roomie from the north of France. She lives in a small village near Lille. She's cosmopolitan - she's been to Africa several times on worktrips, speaks German, English, Woloff (a Senegalese dialect) and of course French. She opened my eyes to a France I had no idea existed, which has displayed itself to the world in the past few weeks. I've read a lot about colonialization, and I've studied social movements and political unrest, but the racial and socio-economic inflamation today in France is something I cannot imagine.

Extended post hereThe stench of colonialization, racism, and religious prejudice colors the entire thing. Like the Irish conflict, or the American civil war, or the Arab-Israeli conflict, there are economic issues couched in all kinds of veneers. The only cause greater inflamation. I keep expecting another Bastille storming the way things are going, or a Rousseau to rise up as a voice for the masses. Every hundred years or so Europe gets restless - is this just another restless and thoughtless rebellion? Or is this something more? Will it turn into something more? Is there class consciousness? Is that too much to hope for? Will it spread to the Americas?

The depiction of the riots in our news is enough to make Latin America look stable, and as a student of international issues, I can't help feeling like Latin America is the only safe place to study as the bird flu is spread across the Asian continent, and political unrest is aflame across Europe (I have no real attachment to Africa, though I have heard wonderful things about the place).

As I glance around the world, with all the natural and human disasters - disease, riots, famine, hurricaines, tornadoes, earthquakes - I feel as though the world is falling apart. Every professor, indeed, every adult I have spoken with in the past 2 or 3 years has said something to the effect of 'Glad I won't be around to deal with this shit. I'll be dead!' Thanks guys, it's very encouraging.

The situation seems hopeless.

I knew a Palestinian guy and would talk to him about the situation in Israel/Palestine (I was also studying the situation in an International Politics class). It truly seemed hopeless. We hold on to the same stones so hard that we cannot see the faces across the barbed wire.

Desmond Tutu came to speak at UCSB last week. At the end of his speech he answered a few questions. The last question was something to the effect of 'What can we do to help further your work?' Contrary to his other answers, this one was quite succinct. He said 'End poverty,' and sat down.

If we could address the most extreme suffering in the world, we might be able to have something close to peace. It is not WAR that makes peace. War begets more war. 'Whoever lives by the sword dies by the sword.' I would rather beat my sword into a plowshare and feed my brothers and sisters. That is more constructive than decimating the land with bombs. Rather, if we address our brothers' and sisters' most basic needs we can decrease their level of desparation. Everyone knows it is a lot easier to talk when you have a full belly, a safe place to sleep, and clothes on your back.

If we could apply this prior knowledge... we might never see another Bastille storming again.

Top of a Portis - "It Could Be Sweet"

I've rediscovered some music on my computer. Actually, I had no idea it was on my computer. Thus, like so many others, I decided to go through and take a listen. I found myself surfing on the cool croons of Portishead's Dummy album. There are a few songs on that album that resonate deep in my chest. Today, nothing is more perfect than 'It Could Be Sweet'

My father recently attended a lecture about Gen Xers in churches. The information, though applied to churches in that setting, could be applied to any and all. Gen Xers are low on the commitment scale. They are cautious when considering marriage, and are much more comfortable in a co-habitation arrangement. Gen Yers are even more so. Why is this the case? Well, as time has gone on, the family unit has become exponentially less stable. About 50% of all marriages end in divorce. And of course, when you're on your second or third marriage, you are increasing your chances of ANOTHER divorce.

Then people wonder why commitment levels are so low?! It's not just the institution of marriage that comes into question, but all institutions. Skepticism is high, and blind acceptance of established structure - extremely low. But for the purposes of my thoughts, let us stay on the marriage concept, because I am fascinated by it.

Marriage is one of the only universal institutions. Ergo, there is a major reason for the thing. As anthropologists would tell us, most institutions are created to exist in a particular cultural context - they don't move across cultures. So what is the purpose of marriage?

Well, there are a few reasons.

1) Children: Children need a stable environment. Take one look at my and my younger brother's generations and you'll see why. We're a couple of psychological messes as generations. Stability makes the difference. With two adult role models (ideally one male, one female should be present so children can learn how to interact with both sexes - though I would argue that these can be substituted by other family members and/or family friends) children learn how to act in the world.

2) Economics: It was only recently that love came into the picture. Love as a purpose for marriage, is over-rated and frankly, quite mythical. Traditionally, marriage has been seen as a merging of families. It was a way to pass on inheritances as well as an conduit for 'national' or 'communal' stability within kingdoms, fiefdoms, and the like. Economics remains a purpose for marriage. Just replay some of your mother's favorite marriage lecture - 'Oh! That family is wealthy. They own property in X country and in Y county. Their son/daughter is around your age, cute, AND single....'

3) Class maintenance: I think this deserves a separate segment, though it is definitely related to the above (However, we now have the strange class of academics who are poor yet know their silverware, and classless New Money who care not whether they expose themselves to tabloid ridicule. It is for this reason I have a separate category.).
This one is a sore subject for Americans, but it is, absolutely true. It is a BIG no-no to marry across class lines. We have some beautiful Hollywood movies telling us it is possible, but I must confess, it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY. Summa cum laudes do not marry cum laudes. It is more acceptable for like to marry like. The son of a mechanic does not often marry the daughter of a lawyer. It's just not done. Of course, beauty can help you go across class lines, and will certainly sway some parents a little, but charisma and knowledge of the use of the shrimp fork will carry you MUCH further.

3b)Cultural maintenence could be tagged in here as well - religion, ethnic custom, language...
These are all aspects that could come under these maintenence categories.

4) Love/companionship: I don't think that love is an adequate reason for marriage, especially when using the word in the 'lust' or 'attraction' sense. Long term attachment, or companionship, is a reasonable purpose in marriage if it is combined with one of the above. I say this because, although modern mythical love is 'all you need,' mythical love is just that- a myth. It is not enough to maintain a house, a family, or other practical considerations. Long-term attachment combined with the desire to raise children, class maintenence, or economic interdependence is much more practical, and much more of a stable institution.

So, what's all this talk about marriage? What does it have to do with that Portishead song? Honestly, I am a romantic at heart. I am easily swept up in the idea of that mythical love - I've been raised on it. Disney was my visual milk-bottle as a little girl. I've had my share of boyfriends. And I've gone through and thought 'yeah... I could spend my life with this one' based on the idea of mythical love. If attraction was enough to sustain a relationship, I could have been married several times over. Yet, this is not the case. I remain attached to one particular man, despite attempts to thwart this attachment (I hesitate to say, on both sides). And as life would have it, distance prevents a greater exploration of this relationship at this time. In fact, I would speculate that on his side, the commitment is light and extremely wary, because as I stated before - it was thwarted for many reasons in several instances.

I am, though a Gen Xer/Yer (1982), a product of a happy 30+ year marriage, and he is likewise. These kinds of long term commitments are becoming more rare - especially when considering our dads have been present our entire lives. I'm not saying that I'll be marrying this guy, because that would be fool-hardy. But as a product of a healthy marriage, I look longingly into the relationship landscape for a shade of real commitment in a person who I can genuinely like, with whom I can spend oodles of time and not be absolutely annoyed by the sight of them. It would help if they also knew how to fix small appliances, moderate plumbing, and basic car issues.

which waterhouse are you?

Just for fun....


You are the Sorceress. You exude a sort of
mysterious sensuality and are very powerful in
your own rite. Any who love you may expect to
experience pain when you decide to fly away, or
perhaps due to your wicked streak. You may be a
loner, and care mostly to spend your time
getting what you want through conniving,
sometimes questionable means. Through it all
you still maintain beauty and nobility and can
be wonderful when you so desire.


Which Waterhouse Painting Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

Daily Ground - Stress of Labor - Go read 'Christy'

I've been having difficulty getting started. I've often been a late starter, for example, I was born 3 weeks after my due date, and only then because of castor oil. Fortunately for me, once I start, I get going at a decent pace. Yet, this said, I find it very difficult to do the things I need to do once I get home from "serving" at the school (where I am an Americorps volunteer reading tutor). I have discovered, I am far from being the only one- in fact, I think that EVERYONE has this problem.

My mother, my dad, and my brother (though he has less work to do often finds himself affected more strongly by that lesser amount) all have difficulty with this. I began to wonder, maybe this reflects how EVERYONE feels at the end of the day after emotionally or physically exhausting labor. Is this the stress of which experts discuss, and are subsequently quoted in pop magazine articles? Is this the kind of thing which is cited as being the fault of so many 30 and 40 somethings' heartattacks? strokes? coronaries? depression?

It feels as though society has quietly forgotten to call these things what they must be - symptoms of a failed system. I find myself increasingly wishing for a small plot of land where I can plant seeds, tend, and reap rather than facing the increasingly fast paced life of the urban. I find my 21 year old friends being indoctrinated into the path of buying things that are much too expensive which they do not need. They think this will make them happy. They work at these emotionally or physically exahusting jobs so they can make money to buy more things that they don't need, that will not make them happy. Why don't they take a slice out of the peace pilgrim's book? These jobs do not make them happy. Buying does not make them happy. Not being possessed by your possessions - that is satisfying. Having friends you love who love you back - that is satisfying. Doing something that contributes some good to your community - THAT is satisfying.

Even though Americorps is a grueling time commitment, I do it because I want to contribute to my community (It might also be because I read Christy one too many times.). I do it because I know that working with the kids, maybe, JUST maybe, I can make a difference in their lives. And that difference means the world. It also means I am poor, but at least I am doing something for the world. At least I am being the change I wish to see in the world.

I would recommend you do the same. It's a lot better than being daily ground.

"Alexis Needs"...

Found this on a few different blogs...it's too great. So here is my name a la Google:

Alexis needs...
...to stop drawing on herself.
...a stable home with lots of patience and understanding.
...to be clued in on the new perspective.
...care.
...lots of bed rest.
...to pull the burr out of her rear and deal with reality before
someone knocks her off, which couldnt be soon enough!
...to kick him to the curb once and for all and come roaring back.
...right now.
...a little bit of madness.
...video viewing pleasure.
...help getting the helium to the union from
collins at around 3pm
...just 195 yards to become only
the 10th Husky to reach 2,000 for his career.
...prayers.

The Lunatic Project

More and more I feel like I express opinions which are held by few people, if any other people hold them at all. In America, we glorify the individual and stress the importance of that person's uniqueness thereby cutting the person off from the herd. It is a stripping experience. One that destroys solidarity, and makes more it ever so difficult to fulfill an individual's need of belonging.

I was sitting in a cafe owned by a large church in Santa Barbara drinking a dark chocolate mocha when I made the connection. Sitting there at a table for two people, my canvas bag the occupant of the opposing chair, I read the much acclaimed book by George Orwell 1984. I was just getting to the part where the protagonist, Winston, has entered the antique shop for the second time- this time having purchased an old paper weight (some coral centered in clear glass). He makes a comment about renting the upstairs room from the owner of the shop because it has so many beautiful old things from a bygone era - things from when there were capitalists. He says it would be a lunatic project because he is likely to be caught.

In a world where there are police and small children watching your every eyebrow movement, the smallest out of line thought can be an act of rebellion. You must be crazy if you don't believe the same things everyone else does, either that, or you are the only sane one. One recalls the movie 12 Monkeys. It's like seeing rainbows around lights.

Or what about Joan of Arc? Was she crazy? Or did she see something that no one else was able to see? Now a days we categorize people who express radically different views as either crazy, or heretical thereby destroying any shred of credibility. Yet, if we take a moment to consider this 'heretical' viewpoint, we are often able to see a kernel of truth. We are able to see enough that our own views are called into question. Is this the real reason why we must label these people as crazy or heretical? Are we so weak we cannot allow there to be any opposition on an issue that might uproot our present circumstance?

There are so many opinions, so many thoughts that are generated, in this time they seem to jumble and melt together. Is there harm in a perspective becoming a counterpoint? How can we know our majority opinions are right unless we have something drastically different to challenge us? If we are not challenged, won't we atrophy? Won't that lead to a kind of destruction?

It is through the edges that we find our center. I am not calling for the kind of violent extremism that has come under such scrutiny as of late, but a dialogue. There must be room along the edges for the counterpoint. We must encounter people with such views, and we must understand them. It is not just for the sanctity of the individual, and their need to belong, but also for the health of the whole community.

It has been said that the true sign of intelligence is the ability to hold two diametrically opposed ideas in one's head, and not go crazy. It is also a sign of true wisdom, when a community can hold two diametrically opposed persons, and everything in between, and not rip itself apart.

I am an independent thinker, but I never want to be in the shoes of Winston.

"I hate my sister...she's such a b*?%$"

First, I don't have a sister. Still, I have to answer to all the other women in the world, just as each of us has to answer back to the rest. It's funny how an individual can stand for all possible representations of a given group - whether that group is determined by race, culture, sexuality, gender or some other random characteristic. To make matters worse, the number of people who determine a particular archetype of a group is often absurdly small.

Who in their right mind believes that one group can be represented by a given shape or 'package'? That's silliness. As if every Asian was the same, or every European...or every amputee or every great aunt with red hair could be represented equally and without issue by another person who might exhibit the given characteristic?! You might ask why I should be making such a complaint.

I, like so many before me, was once a victim of catalogue shopping. I am not talking about online shopping - that would involve a different set of issues. No, this is pure unadulterated catalogue shopping being discussed here. As a testament to my now cured addiction (cured through the drying up of funds and wizening of mind) I continue to receive catalogues from this bygone era. Considering that I am a rather young person (still in my early 20s) these catalogues reflect an even younger demographic. As I was purusing one such offending tree killing catalogue, I began to notice the striking similarity of the blonde models to many of the young women - or I should say, GIRLS - who live in my locale, the at once both lovely and terrifying city of Santa Barbara CA.

I am a brunette. I have always been a brunette (despite any hair dying episodes in my younger days), and I will probably always think of myself as a brunette. I do not have blue eyes. They are more hazel or honey than straight brown or green. I have always taken offense to the bombardment of blonde blue-eyed Scandanavian wonders that plaster these catalogues and accost my psyche every time I turn the page.

Yet, much has been written on the issue of self-image, and I imagine more will continue to until there is some great depression/technology is ripped out from under us (thereby destroying the lovely business of 'advertising' also known as 'the emptiness business'). It is for this reason that I will try and stay away from the traditional self-image format and go a slightly different angle.

I realized something. It was a beautiful thing when I realized it. These alien people in these catalogues and magazines (though magazines increasingly are becoming catalogues) are not women. They are in fact, girls. They do not have the figure of a woman. Unfortunately for many of them, they will NEVER have a woman's figure. Half of them might never be able to bear children. If there was a famine, they would be the first to die because their percentage of body fat is so ridiculously small that they would not be able to support living very long under severe conditions (which trust me people, is not very far off the way the 1st world consumes resources).

The women who are famous, or just over-eager soccer moms, who are trying to look like 14 yr olds have serious issues. Let's not get into eating disorders (which are prevalent enough). Rather, let's talk about the bizarre idea that 40 yr olds are being held to the same body standards of 14 yr olds, and are BUYING IT!!! This is not to say that the old white men (because they are, all, O-L-D W-H-I-T-E M-E-N) who came up with this RIDICULOUS vision aren't perverts - WHO OVER THE AGE OF 16 THINKS A 14 YR OLD IS HOT?????? There is obviously something wrong with the old white men who think this is hot. Why aren't they seeing a psychiatrist for this problem? And WHY did they decide their fetishes need to be forced onto us?!?!?

Oh wait... they've been doing that to us for the length of the historical record.

Talk about civilization.

There is nothing wrong with an Anglo woman having the body of a 1940's pin-up. Frankly, I think that is optimal. After all, who can honestly say that 1940's pin-ups aren't absolutely beautiful? AND TOTALLY NATURALLY WOMEN?! The pictures above are a few of these more reasonable body types (though certainly not accessible to ALL women).

Hope this was as helpful a release of tension for someone else as it was for me.

Rainbow-ed Vision

I went to the eye doctor today to see about new glasses and contacts. I have more recently (i.e. within the last year or so) discovered that I see rainbows around lights - street lampst, the moon etc. I thought, maybe I just had super acute vision or noticed something that other people didn't see.

When I asked a few people about it, they noted that either they could see it a little bit (maybe it was because of contacts or glasses?) or they couldn't see one at all. This was somewhat upsetting. So, I decided I would ask the lovely blonde eye doctor what the deal was (since one of the questions on the paperwork at the office involved seeing rainbows or halos). At first, she said it wasn't a big deal. When I pressed her on it, she admitted it was indicative of an uncorrected astigmatism.

Bummer.

It was an instant moment of disenchantment.

Then I thought it over. Isn't it funny, when something is 'wrong' with your vision, you GET to consistently see something beautiful like a rainbow? It reminded me of one of my drawing professors mentioning her dislike of glasses. Though, in general I did not remember her fondly, I do remember this comment because I didn't really understand it, and still don't completely - though because of my rainbows, I can identify. She said, 'I had my eyes checked and the doc said I had an astigmatism. When I got the glasses to correct it, it made everything slanted. Everything was weird looking. I didn't like it...so I never wear them. It just made me feel funny.'

After all, if there was something 'wrong' with you that let you see rainbows, would you correct it?

The Lightening Bolt and The Heart

Bottom's up! It's a brand new week and therefore a brand new plague of problems and enriching moments. There were so many things that happened in the weekend- things which sparked so many different directions of thought I can't begin to express them all. For sanctity of mind, let me address only a few.

It is tiresome, the on-going lies. How does anyone get through the day any more? Then it strikes me. A bolt of lightening, just as the singer of 'Crazy Faith' says, and it hits me twice.

Everyone has their own message to share with the world. It is a thing that the soul knows, deep in the bowels of forgotten memories it resides. It is so primitive it associates more with the lizard brain than with the frontal lobe. It reverberates through the chest and pushes out each breath. It is that kind of message. As my father was so kind to bring up my message this morning to a small community in Goleta, I am stimulated to share it in a more public way.

I might be considered an 'emotional person.' This is not to imply that I am weak, or more estro-centric (though I would contend I have ridiculously high levels of that beloved hormone), but merely that I feel deeply. As a society, as a culture, Americans do not give importance to feelings. Our words center on actions and states of being rather than feeling and experience. These things placed aside, I could not hide from my feelings, they would have eaten me from the inside out.

When I began to truly embrace my empathy it lead me directly to a place of sadness. I saw the way the world was and I wept. It made me so depressed, I could not read the newspaper except for the horoscopes and comics. I could not listen to talk or news radio. Anything serious, anything bloody, gruesome, cruel or evil...it was too much for me to bare. It made me hurt so much that I physically ached with the emotional pain. I would have remained this way had I not been sent on a mission trip the summer of 2002.

I had not considered myself a radical before that mission trip. At best, I found myself slightly annoyed, and at worst - downright apathetic. Yet something that summer worked in me. It was as if a catalyst had been thrown into the elixer of me and had stirred some passion into a previously depressed goo. I was able to see, in Central America (Nicaragua and Panama in particular) the effects of my government on other people. I was able to see the scars of war in the land, and in the psyche of the people. I was able to see the danger of nationalism, and of worshipping the idols of political parties. I was able to see how little freedom Americans really had, and how much liberty and joy comes with a lack of things. I was able to see the ties that bring us together across language, culture, socioeconomic, educational, and geographical barriers. It was after this trip that my feeling changed. Instead of being permanently marked by sadness, I became marked by anger.

NOTE: The difference between people who are politically active and people who are not is this: sadness versus anger, respectively. It is no more and no less than this simple difference. Depression forces a person inward and away from action. It slows a person down. Anger is directed outward and motivates a person towards action. It 'revs' up your internal engine, if you will. Though both these emotions are related, and stimulated by the same external variable (the tsunami in Indonesia, or the genocide in Darfur for example) they yield differing results.

My anger radicalized me. It is not a permanent anger. It is an anger that is brought out by actions that reverse our direction as people. My anger stems from war, from children not getting enough attention and tenderness from their parents, from not enough food, from poor distribution of resources, and from the increasing consolidation of power in the hands of a few.

So if anger's not permanent, what else fills that emotional depth? Remember the bolt? Well if you've never listened to 'Crazy Faith' then you don't know that the bolt is love. That is it. It's not some weird psycho-babble or strange freedom fighting slogan (though it may be the most powerful one in existence). Love is the base. Love is my message, the thing that resounds in my head, in my step and my hands. Though I sometimes get caught up in the petty things that bog down the spirit, I always come back to my root. It allows me to forgive people who I may otherwise not have been able to forgive (more on that later). It also allows me to be forgiven. It allows me to serve and be served by my loved ones. It gives me the ability to access overwhelming joy and unfathomable peace. It brings me back to center.

This is not some far out thing, but it might be the most awesome (and I mean this in the classical sense of the word, not the slang) the MOST AWESOME power anywhere. It is love - empathy - compassion (whatever word you want to use) that democratized INdia through Ghandi and his movement. It is love that motivated Martin Luther King, Steven Biko, Nelson Mandela, Oscar Romero, Mother Theresa, and so many others. It is love that brings peace to each individual, and it is shared love that brings peace to fruition in this world. This is the new covenant, and indeed the only covenant that ever existed - that ever really mattered.

It's easy to forget to live it, but it's not easy to forget it when you see it. Love's mark is more permanent than hatred or apathy. It's grace can save millions. It changed my life.

When I opened my heart...really opened it... I started living differently. I chose different occupations based on love for people. A person's priorities can be judged by where his or her resources(time, money, materials) are spent. I changed my priorities, and so I changed how I lived my life. Right now I am an Americorps volunteer at an elementary school. This takes the majority of my week, with sometimes more than 50 hours spent volunteering. I am also a youth pastor at the church where my father is the senior pastor. This takes up approximately 10-20 hours of my weekend time. They are not high paying positions, as you might imagine. This is the path I have chosen and will continue to choose because of love. This is easy for me to say, perhaps because I am young and have no dependents, no spouse. Some might say it is fine for someone in my position to do these things, but a fool's errand to ask this of someone in a different stage of life.

Love can work in any stage of life, any situation, if you let it. A path is cleared once you have opened your heart. You will know where you need to go, what you need to do - and most importantly, you will feel the whole way.

A baby new from the lips

Just because Socialist isn't defined here doesn't mean that 'Emergent/Postmodern' can't be:

You are Emergent/Postmodern in your theology. You feel alienated from older forms of church, you don't think they connect to modern culture very well. No one knows the whole truth about God, and we have much to learn from each other, and so learning takes place in dialogue. Evangelism should take place in relationships rather than through crusades and altar-calls. People are interested in spirituality and want to ask questions, so the church should help them to do this.

water color washes

And here is the second set of test results:

You scored as Emergent/Postmodern. Emergent/Postmodern 86% Classical Liberal 61% Charismatic/Pentecostal 57% Modern Liberal 54% Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 54% Neo orthodox 46% Reformed Evangelical 25% Roman Catholic 18% Fundamentalist 11% What's your theological worldview? created with QuizFarm.com

line drawings

I decided I would let everyone in on a "well-kept secret." After seeing a few fun quizes on my dad's blog, I decided I would take the same tests and see where I came out on them. Below is the first:

You are a Social Liberal (70% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (1% permissive) You are best described as a: Socialist Link: The Politics Test on OkCupid Free Online Dating Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

Neo-Protestant Work Ethic

Once upon a time, a long time ago, there were some intensely devout protestants who were intensely persecuted. They came to American and brought their harsh belief systems that to this day, affect the psyche of America, let alone the religious landscape.

I was reminded today of one such 'legacy' that our lovely spiritual ancestors left us - the protestant work-ethic. I am the kind of person who prefers what might be considered a less strenous day. I like variation in given tasks. I like to control over how much time I spend on a given item and when in the day I spend that time. I do not do well in a constant stream of work.

Perhaps it is just that the words triggered a series of thought processes in me that I found the marks of PWE in SoJo's email newsletter. Perhaps I am being positively heretical.

SoJo highlighted a Bible study called 'Joy At Work' by Mr. Dennis Bakke. I gave a cursory glance to the descriptor and quickly felt PWE encroaching. After all, how could anyone find joy in a 70 or 80 hour work week, especially, as the descriptor mentions, a CEO at a large corporation? Corporations, let's not kid ourselves, are as a species of organization, tyrannical monsters which prey on the misfortunes of others. It is difficult to see any Christian pleasure in the act of being part of a system which creates and maintains the bondage of so many.

That said, let us hope those Christian brothers and sisters who are so damned to work in such soul-sucking places take action to change the cultures of such organizations. I understand that there is a recent movement of consumers as well as corporations to conscientious investing, resource use, etc. This is definitely a step up, and would certainly increase my joy at work, should I be a cubicle monkey.

We also have to consider several factors about a person whether they might in fact take pride in their work, or dervie some sort of satisfaction from their present occupation. How demanding is the job? If it is too much, it will burn out the person. If it is too little it will lead to politicking and other undesirable work-place behaviors. I could delineate other position aspects, but they would still address the same sorts of issues - i.e. are the employee's workplace needs being met by organization? But let's be serious now, Americans have other issues when it comes to work.

I have heard it said many times, by various professors of mine as well as TV and talk radio hosts (read: Air America, especially Al Franken) that Americans generally do not take all of their vacation time. They fear they will be fired if they do. This is quite the contrast when considering the expectations of workplaces in Germany or Denmark for example. I would not say 'nay' to 6 weeks of paid vacation. Would you?

Americans don't get maternity leave. They don't get sufficient benefits packages. In a country where 'National Healthcare' is a dirty phrase, benefits are essential. Daycare is not provided by employers. It now takes two incomes to support a family in the US (according to a study conducted at Harvard as quoted by the researcher on the Al Franken show...to my memory several weeks ago). I am an Americorps Member at an elementary school. All the teachers (who are, I might add, government employees) with small children navigate drop off schedules at various daycare centers because there is no daycare for the pre-school children located at the school site.

I don't know about you, but when I can have one income, healthcare, affordable housing, and a daycare on my job site, I can be joyful at work. Until then, you better hope I can get there less than 10 minutes late because my boyfriend couldn't drop off the kids at the sitter because he had a morning meeting in the next city. You better hope I don't come to work sick and get burned out earlier than I would normally. AND... you better not expect me to be joyful at work when my work doesn't give me the things I need.

Cruthachadh: To Create

The long and seemingly difficult word above is that beloved and much lost language, Gaelic, for the infinitive form of the verb 'create.'

What we 'crut' or 'form' depends on the resources at our disposal. Here I am at the powerhouse of easy blogging, the superstore of web logs, though I might prefer a mom and pop shop to this. Such is war - without technical knowledge nor time to learn, my resignation to this well kept site is complete.

I find my time is better spent using the words, rather than formating them. There you go. Means to an end won today, a small argument in the age old conflict.