Showing posts with label Owl. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Owl. Show all posts

Monday, August 17, 2015

First World 21st Century Problems

No citizenship post today, but I will get back to the question I left you with - one you probably already knew the answer to - or at least held opinions about. 

The Puritans, who settled all over what is now Massachusetts, were interested in religious freedom... for themselves. They were very strict Protestants who, in Europe, wanted to rid the church of any vestiges of Catholicism. They were very pious, strict Protestants who did not have a voice in the English, and later Dutch, Church as they wanted. They wanted to live in a place where they were free to practice their religion and live where laws reflect their religion. You can probably see where this is heading, right?
When the Puritans started their new colonies they made laws that Puritans would support. They did not allow the practice of other religions within Puritan colonies and they had a specific hatred for the Quakers. In 1660 they executed one, a woman by the name of Mary Dyer for the severe crime of living in the colony while practicing Quakerism. This peeved King Charles II of England somewhat (in the way water displeases cats somewhat). In 1661, as a response to Mary Dyer's hanging, King Charles forbade the further execution of Quakers in the Massachusetts colonies. When that didn't work he revoked the charter for the colony and sent his own governor to enforce some actual religious tolerance in the New World. 
For those who wonder where we, especially in New England, got our history of religious tolerance and diversity you need look no further than England. In fact, it would be best if you stopped there. The Puritans had very little (basically) nothing to do with bringing religious tolerance to the American ethos.
Fun Fact: The Massachusetts Bay Colony executed 4 Quakers between 1659 and 1661, they are referred to as the Boston Martyrs in the Quaker tradition. The first execution was on October 27th of 1659. Today, October 27th is International Religious Freedom Day. The irony, at least to me, is palpable.


On to the thrust of today's post. I wanted to share a book with you all: The Ghost Map by Steven Johnson (I highly recommend the book!!) It is a book I read with voracious appetite over the course of a long weekend as I traveled home for an old friend's wedding this month. The book is a work of historical non-fiction, but told as one part mystery novel and one part hero's journey. The action, as it were, centers around the 1854 London cholera outbreak that killed more than 600 people. The outbreak struck the Soho neighborhood around Broad Street and within a three day period more than 100 people in the small neighborhood were dead. It didn't take long for the rest to flee or fall ill themselves. 

The book focuses on two different men who followed the course of the cholera outbreak: Jon Snow, a  Soho resident, doctor and scientist; and Henry Whitehead, a clergyman who was stationed at a church in the Soho neighborhood. The initial investigation is carried out primarily by Jon Snow, who traces the deaths and comes the radical (at the time) conclusion that the disease is waterborne, not airborne. Overcoming a great deal of push-back from community members in Soho and in science Dr. Snow is able to get the water pump at Broad Street shut down, and so stop the outbreak in its tracks. Despite his brilliant research Dr. Snow did not receive credit in his lifetime for correctly marking the way in which cholera spreads (it is indeed waterborne, and the infection did indeed start at the Broad Street pump the doctor had shut down). 

Reading the book while on a plane traveling the length of half a country I marveled at the advances we have made in science, city planning, and social issues since 1854 (only 200 years ago). The scientific community now openly believes that just because something stinks doesn't mean it's going to kill you (that was the only acceptable belief in 1854). We know that disease spreads in many ways, but water is a big one and just because something tastes clean doesn't mean it isn't teeming with invisible bacteria. As a community we've moved past believing that a person's character determines their likelihood of illness (another widely held 1854 belief.) We don't use cesspools anymore to dispose of human waste. We also don't dump in into rivers, lakes, or harbors (at least not intentionally). We realize that out of sight doesn't really mean out of trouble and modern cities must be designed to reflect that knowledge. Human waste is corralled away from residential areas, clean water is piped in. This is true in every centrally designed and planned city in the industrialized world. Even poor areas of those cities. Modern day New York dwellers aren't likely to get cholera just because they don't live in the fashionable area of town, nor are they going to have trouble accessing clean water, or even electricity if they are able to pay for it.

The book made me appreciate how the little things in my life that I take for granted are really big things that I should be grateful for. I have access to clean running water, electricity, sanitary living conditions, personal space, and a relatively high degree of personal security. I don't live in fear the way every historical figure Johnson peoples his very street-level retelling of the outbreak do. They are realized they lived in close quarters with Death and that He could claim them, their family, and their neighborhood with relative ease and brevity. For all the things we have to be afraid of today in the United States, we don't have fear the way the inhabitants of 1854 had fear. There's no comparison. And for that I'm truly grateful and appreciative.

But, some people still live that way. After Haiti's 2010 earthquake there was a huge outbreak of cholera that claimed over 9,000 lives on the island. Africa also continues to suffer from cholera outbreaks, especially in central Sub-Saharan Africa in countries like; Kenya, the DRC, Cameroon, Nigeria, Sierra-Leone, and Guinea-Bissau. And the thing is, it's a treatable condition and a preventable problem. Both things can be fixed with clean, accessible water, and education.

Why isn't is being addressed? Because there is another facet of 1854 life that we still haven't managed to change. When the problem doesn't affect us directly it's easy to not care and look the other way. Cholera outbreaks are very isolated. It made it easy for the wealthy of London, who lived in droves just one street away from the 1854 outbreak, to ignore the problem or write it off as dirty living and the problem of the poor (brought on by themselves no doubt). In fact, it was the government itself that made the problem possible by encouraging the use of cesspools and dumping polluted water and waste into the Thames and then allowing Thames water to be distributed to the general public. Today, we can look the other way because it's not our country. Not our neighborhood. It's the problem of another government, one that's probably corrupt or lacking proper channels to address the issue. It's easy to make excuses and excuse ourselves from global responsibility, but the fact remains - we are all people with basic human dignity. We are invested in this world and though we may not suffer the poverty and fear directly, it affects us all. We have to watch. We have to pay attention. We have to engage. Because there is a solution and it is within our reach to bring it about.

Read about the issues that pertain to cholera and so many other things that come along with unsafe drinking water at Water.org. They're a great organization and even if you can't donate your money or your time (I know I can't at the moment), the best you can do is not look away. Stay informed and stay engaged.

Thursday, August 13, 2015

Citizenship 101: The Beginning (Not Really Though)

Welcome to Citizenship 101. Today we begin nowhere near the beginning. History doesn't have a clear beginning, middle, or end. And the history of countries is particularly difficult to pin down. In the United States the beginning comes well before European settlers set up the colonies. It started between 23,000 BCE and 9000 BCE when Asian nomads crossed a frozen land bridge to the continent we now call North America. From then until 1492, when the continent was "discovered" by Christopher Columbus, there was a ton of history and thousands of distinct civilizations, nations, and cultures. I could spend an entire blog just discussing that history, but I am not the archaeologist of the pair so I will leave that period to Raven's expertise.

So I am going to begin in the middle, instead of the beginning, with the "discovery", colonization, and settling of The New World.

Here are some basic facts you should know about the United States before it was the United States.

"Discovery"

- Columbus wasn't the only one who thought the world was round - everyone thought that! 1492 was the year they invented the globe - Columbus believed the circumference of the globe was smaller than it actually was, leading him to believe that he could circumnavigate his way to East Asian riches by sailing into the empty water we now know isn't empty at all.
- Columbus landed in the Bahamas on October 12th 1492, but that wasn't the first time Europeans hit New World soil. Leif Ericson landed in Newfoundland in 1002 or 1003, almost a half century earlier.
- Columbus was a stubborn ass who abused the natives, thought they were too stupid to know where they lived and went to his grave believing he'd found a new route to East Asia. Seriously, why do we celebrate this man?

Colonization

- Between 1565 and 1634 lots of European settlers from England, the Netherlands, France, and Spain began to colonize the Eastern coastline of the new continent.
- In 1590 Roanoke colony, founded by Queen Elizabeth I, mysteriously vanishes along with all its colonists. Modern archaeologist detectives believe the colonists split with some settling in Merry Hill in North Carolina and others assimilated with the Native Americans in the area.
- In 1607 the Virginia Company founded Jamestown in Virginia, which would struggle in its quest for gold, but later succeed hugely in planting something even more valuable (tobacco). 
- In 1620 the fun-loving Puritans joined the colonizing party, hoping to practice their stricter version of Christianity away from the loose and immoral Protestants of Europe.
- Most settlement happened for one of two reasons, religiously persecuted groups gained a monarch's permission to settle or a company gained the monarch's permission to settle and make money in the New World. In both cases the monarch gave permission because it would make the home country wealthier.
- There were 4 distinct areas of colonization: the tobacco colonies in Virginia, The New England Colonies, the Middle Colonies formed in Pennsylvania, and the Southern Colonies between Virginia and Florida.
- The tobacco colonies were settled by the Virginia Company and would eventually become fertile and wealthy farming land for tobacco. It was made up primarily of Virginia and Maryland, with Maryland becoming a haven for Catholics and Virginia for more traditional Protestants.
- The New England Colonies began with the Pilgrims in Plymouth and eventually split into several colonies: Massachusetts, the more religiously liberal Rhode Island, the more restrictive Connecticut, and the wild and untamed colony of New Hampshire.
- The Middle Colonies including New York, Pennsylvania, and Delaware were a mish-mash of all sorts of settlers fleeing religious persecution and became a very prosperous and comparatively egalitarian place for its time.
- The Southern Colonies, which began as only the Carolina Colony, were poorer, mainly agrarian colonies that eked by in pre-Revolutionary times.

Settlement

- By 1775 there were 12 settled colonies: Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Delaware, while often listed as one of the 13 colonies was never actually a colony. It became a state in 1776, after the Declaration.
- Settlers came to the New World in one of three ways: freely, indentured, or enslaved.
- Slavery was practiced all over the New World, but was especially prevalent in the South, especially in tobacco rich areas like Virginia and Maryland.
- The difference in the working conditions of indentured servants and slaves was largely hope - many indentured servants never worked their way out of debt, but they had the opportunity to do so. Slaves had no opportunity. Indentured servitude also petered out much faster than slavery.
- Indentured servants and slaves were both more common in the South than in the North, but both areas had them and without their free labor the 12 colonies would never have been as successful.
- Georgia was largely a buffer area between the more prosperous Carolina colonies and the more hostile Native American nations, poor farmers were granted land in the territory in order to basically serve as a human wall against a less than friendly neighbor.



Truth or Myth?
Starting all the way back with the Puritans, this country has been built on the deep belief in personal freedom and religious tolerance.

I'll give you my two cents next time.
Let me know if you have questions, comments, or more information you'd like to know in the comments!

Friday, July 31, 2015

Thoughts From Places #1

Today Raven and I went to the beach. We frolicked in the waves and soaked up the sun (in my case a bit too literally). Originally we were going to kayak on the beautiful, serene lake that we are fortunate enough to live near… but the beautiful, serene lake was less serene and more possessed by angry wind demons today. Less boating, but awesome waves at the beach. Raven and I braved cold water and colder wind to throw ourselves at the cresting water with the abandon of the silliest of children. Fitting because we were the only ones in the water over the age of 16.
As we threw ourselves at the waves we watched kite-surfers throw themselves into the sky with equal abandon. I felt alive and aware and completely in the moment, something I yearn towards feeling at all times. It strikes me that feeling alive is usually correlated fairly strongly with meeting and facing things that could kill you. Skydiving, climbing Mt. Everest, braving Death Valley, running with the bulls, singing karaoke. Okay, that last one probably won’t kill you, but I remain unconvinced. We derive joy and excitement from facing our deaths. Facing something that is larger or more powerful than ourselves.
I grew up on the Atlantic Ocean and spent most summers diving into the freezing northern Atlantic waters – lips blue, arms numb, ice running through my veins. It remains one of my fondest memories of childhood and stands out clearly in my memory. It also remains one of my earliest memories of terror (aside from the standard monster under the bed variety). The ocean to me as a child (and even today) is a vast unknowable thing. It may not be infinite, but neither can I see nor imagine its whole and so is the closest thing on this earth to infinite that I have experienced.  And it is one of my most indelible memories. Etched into my memory by fear and awe.
As I threw myself at a far smaller body of water this afternoon I felt a similar feeling of awe (though admittedly less fear), but my sense of awe came not from living close to death and instead came more from a feeling of oneness. I couldn’t see the bottom where my feet were buried in sand, but I could close my eyes and feel the movement of the water, the pull of the sand, the chill of the wind and I was a part of it. I felt connected and infinite. Both incredibly large and infinitesimally small.

Perhaps we don’t pull the marrow of our lives from living on the brink of death, but from throwing us into the infinite and (for a time) allowing it to absorb a part of our being. 

Thursday, July 9, 2015

Next Time on Owl and Raven...

Hey guys,

Quick post tonight because I'm wiped. No sleep plus eight hours on my feet makes a tired Owl. Certainly one without much in the way of coherent thought.

Tonight I wanted to share my next project for the blog. I'm planning to do a series on US history, specifically focusing on stuff a lot of us learned in high school and haven't revisited since then. Or things I think we should have learned in high school, but (at least I) didn't.

It's going to be called Citizenship 101, mostly because I think anyone who is, or wants to be, a citizen of the US should make sure to know at least the basics of how our government works and what some of the really important landmark moments in our history are. I know I will do installments on things like the country's founding, the three branches of government, a range of social issues, geography, and things of that ilk. What I would like to know is if anyone has any other suggestions or things they want to know more about. Like: why exactly did we fight the War of 1812? What made the Gilded Age gilded? Or just general areas of US history you think are important.

Let me know in comments and I will do it!



Also due to a 16 hour work day ending at 11pm tomorrow, the blog will not update. Forgive me, I have no desire to wake up at 5am to do a blog post. I'm just not that dedicated.

Until next time,
Owl

Wednesday, July 8, 2015

And the Number One Is....

Number One Most Insulting Country Music Song (in my opinion) is....

1. "Still A Guy" by Brad Paisley

This one makes me extra sad because I usually really like Paisley's music, but this song is insulting on so many levels that it actually made me like all his other good songs much less. This song combines some of my biggest turn-offs from mainsplaining to gender stereotyping and even a borderline sexual assault-ish line.

The song is sung by a man explaining to his girlfriend that although she may change him in some small ways he will always be who he is. That message is fine (and in fact I like songs that take the position that being in a relationship isn't about changing the other person), but the song takes it a step further and claims that he will always be "a guy". Here's where I take issue with that message: there isn't just one way to be a guy. Paisley seems to define a man as someone who fishes, hunts, doesn't understand art, and doesn't understand when his partner wants closeness but not sex.

Paisley equates getting manicures, hair highlighting, even putting lotion on your hands with getting neutered (seriously - those are the exact words he uses). That is a narrow-minded, and frankly unacceptable, viewpoint to hold in the 21st century. Being a man shouldn't have to be about being the toughest person in the room and taking pride in a rugged, un-groomed appearance. That is only one way to be a man (and frankly one way to be a woman, too). There is no blueprint or checklist for the genders. A woman doesn't have to be "feminine" to be a woman. A man doesn't have to be "masculine". In fact, I would love to get rid of those two words all together because they mean nothing to me anymore. I have a lot of female identifying friends who are tough, strong, hunting, fishing, outdoors-y folk. That doesn't make them "a guy" any more than not being those things makes you not a guy. It makes you, you.

It makes me so angry so see this message being sent out, even in country music to people who might take it to heart and get away from who they are so they can be who they think they should be.

The best excerpts from "Still A Guy"

  • "when you say a backrub mean only a backrub/Then you swat my hand when I try/Well, what can I say athe end of the day/Honey, I'm still a guy"
  • "I might walk your sissy dog, hold your purse at the mall/But remember I'm still a guy"
  • "I don't highlight my hair/Yeah, I've still got a pair"
How are any of these things okay to say these days? They shouldn't be.

When I discover songs like this sometimes I have to take a break from country music because it reminds me that this genre is, in many ways, stuck too deeply in the past. When country music draws this strongly from its traditional southern roots I am reminded that I don't belong in that culture. That it makes me feel uncomfortable and unsafe. And most of all, it alienates me. If country musicians were smart they would realize their audience is a wide one and although their music is rooted in the past, it doesn't have to stay there.

To end this post on a happier note I'll share some of my favorite recent songs in country music - with better messages!

Country Songs With Messages I Can Get Behind (in no particular order)
  1. "Follow Your Arrow" by Kacey Musgraves* (an upbeat "be yourself" anthem that is incredibly inclusive and even LGBT friendly!)
  2. "Girl in a Country Song" by Maddie and Tay (about the sexism in bro-y country music)
  3. "Diamond Rings and Old Bar Stools" by Tim McGraw (about a break-up)
  4. "Little Toy Guns" by Carrie Underwood (about the damage angry words can have - especially in terms of the effects of parental arguing on their children)
  5. "If I Die Young" by The Band Perry (a meditation on dying young...? It's hard to describe)
  6. "Whiskey Lullaby" by Brad Paisley and Allison Krauss** (a story about a man and woman destroyed by alcoholism)
  7. "Loving You Easy" by Zac Brown Band (pretty generic love song, but I'm really digging it at the moment)
  8. "I Got the Boy" by Jana Kramer (a nostalgia-laden remembrance of young love)
  9. "All Kinds of Kinds" by Miranda Lambert (about how the world needs diversity)
  10. "One of the Guys" by Terri Clark (a better way to do gender - on an individual basis)

So there's my country music rant. I am off to listen to everything Kacey Musgraves ever released...

Best wishes,
Owl


*All her music is phenomenal. She is a talented lyricist and super progressive. 
** Allison Krauss (a bluegrass singer) has the most angelic voice I have ever heard.

Tuesday, July 7, 2015

A Confession with a Side of Rage

Here's the confession: I'm a country music fan. Surprised? I always am. I'm certainly not the demographic country music is marketed for. I am a mid-twenties Northerner from a big city who is queer, culturally Jewish, and incredibly liberal. I lived in the south for a grand total of 2 months with no intention to stay there any longer than necessary. I have serious reservations regarding southern culture in everything from politics to social issues.

But... I still enjoy country music. I like that the songs can (and often are) about little, everyday moments. I like how a lot of country music focuses on telling a story. The music has a lot of personality. So much so that Raven and I have both based scenes and characters at least in part off country songs.

I also think, contrary to what a lot of people believe, that country music can be very beautiful and even well-written. I have heard some very clever, very funny country songs that are a blast to sing along with. Which brings me to prime reason I like country music - most of the songs are largely inoffensive and fun to jam with in my car, where I consume most of my music. But there are times the songs are very offensive. Times when country music shows its roots; the ones planted firmly in the controversial past of this country.

Tonight I thought I would give you another list.... *drum roll*

Owl's Top 3 Most Offensive Country Songs 
(in descending order of offense)

3. "Girl Crush" by Little Big Town
I cannot get away from this song right now and that may be why a fairly inoffensive song is getting my number 3 spot when there are way worse songs that I know I have heard from this genre before. But right now this is a song that is getting under my skin more than any other on the radio. And guys, since most of you don't listen to country radio, let me tell you right now - this song is ALL OVER country radio. In fact, I heard it 4 times today, alone. Or the first few bars before I quickly switched stations. Once, when I tried to switch, I found two stations playing it at the same time. Ugh.

So, why do I hate this song? Well, it's a song about Girl A wanting to be like Girl B because Girl B is dating a dude who Girl A really wants to date. Maybe some of you can already see my problem... That is not the definition of a girl crush. At all. That is jealousy. With some good old-fashioned envy thrown in. It would be a girl crush if Girl A wanted to date Girl B. Or even had a little platonic infatuation going on. Who, straight or gay, hasn't been a little bit in awe of a good friend of the same gender before?

It's wouldn't really be a big deal, except the song sets it up to be like an actual queer song for the first minute or so. The opening lines are, "I got a girl crush, hate to admit it but/I got a heart rush, ain't slowin' down/ I got it real bad, want everything she has/ That smile and the midnight laugh she's givin' you now". Later lines include gems like "I don't get no sleep... thinking about her under your bed sheets... I can't get her off my mind." Then the chorus.... The terrible chorus where the singer (a woman, by the way) says she wants to "taste her lips" because they "taste like [the random dude]". Yeah, that's why I want to kiss girls...

So - what's the big deal you may ask? Seems like just a clever way to say she's jealous, right? Yeah, probably. But being queer myself these are thoughts I have had without the desire for the attached dude. This song uses lines that could describe a lesbian woman lusting after a straight woman and turns it into a straight unrequited love song. And justified or not, that makes me furious. I feel that this song steals a bit of my culture and warps it to fit the dominant culture. It feels icky and wrong to listen to words I have heard gay women say about doomed crushes they've had on straight women being used to create this sort of narrative.

I'm sure most people don't react to this song this way and I'm not even mad at Little Big Town for making the song. I'm sure they didn't even think about how this might affect actual queer folks (also I'm willing to bet not all queer folks would have my reaction). But mostly, this song makes me feel cheated. What could have been a song about an innocent infatuation with a friend or even a riskier song about a not innocent attraction to another woman was really just another way to write a straight romance. And it's clear the song wants you to think it's going to be a queer song for the first little bit (it's gotten a lot of criticism for being too gay, by the way) and that's the worst part for me. I was so excited that maybe country music would have a song for me, but it wasn't. And that hurt. More than it maybe should have, but I still can't stand to hear it. Even if I am being irrational.

2. "Way Out Here" by Josh Thompson
It was hard to determine a winner (or maybe loser) between my two top picks. This one I rated slightly lower because... I get the sentiment, though I am far from agreeing with it. I hate this song on a political basis, but there are lot of other country songs I disagree with politically but can listen to and respect on some level. This one... I can't. I won't listen to it if it's on the radio and I could only listen to about half of it before writing this post. I got so mad I had to just look up the lyrics instead. Not that those aren't rage-inducing all on their own.

This song is a man singing about how things are done "way out here", which I can only imagine means in the deep south, where much of the culture of country music originates. The songs starts out on a strong note for making me hate it. Opening lines? "Our houses are protected by the Good Lord and a gun". I'm not a big gun person, so I'm already not loving this, but country songs are full of guns and Jesus (who as a lapsed Jew I'm also not big on). So I keep listening. There's a funny line about southerners fry everything and then the chorus hits and I'm done. Here is the chorus in its entirety:

We won't take a dime if we ain't earned it
When it comes to weight, brother we pull our own
If it's our backwoods way of living you're concerned with
You can leave us alone
We're about John Wayne, Johnny Cash and John Deere
Way out here

My biggest problem is the first line of this chorus because it shows a gross ignorance of politics that is frankly incredibly damaging in this country. Just because you don't get a check from the government every month, that does not mean you aren't getting monetary support from them. Country glorifies farmers. Farmers as a group receive over 20 billion dollars in federal subsidies every year. That's a lot of dimes you haven't really earned. The US cotton industry is one of the most heavily subsidized in the world, to the detriment of emerging markets like Brazil. Just because you can't see the check, doesn't mean the money isn't there, Mr. Thompson.

The second line is equally infuriating. What he's saying is "his people" aren't a drain on the country. They pull their own weight. But I don't know who "his people" are. Many states in the deep south are very dependent on federal aid (in that they take in more than they pay out). 5 out of 10 of the most federal dependent states in the union are in the south. So, I'm not sure who you are talking about pulling their own weight, but it terms of numbers - much of the south doesn't. 

And here's where Mr. Thompson and I differ - I don't see anything wrong with that. The states on that list are some of the poorest in our country (Mississippi and Louisiana to name two) and the people who live in poverty in those states deserve to live healthy and safe lives. That is where the federal dollars go - towards keeping people safe who can't always ensure their own safety. That's not shameful - for the federal government or the people getting the help they need.

So it's not your "backwood way of living" I'm concerned with, Mr. Thompson. It's your backwards way of thinking. It's great to rely on yourself and embrace individualism, but when you suggest running the whole country "like it used to be, ought to be, just like it's done out here" I have the feeling you don't really know what you're talking about. But people are listening. And telling the government to stay out of it. To the detriment of the people who greatly need and rely on federal money.  

The last two lines just bug me because none of those folks are politicians and this is a very political song. John Wayne was asked numerous times to run for office and always declined and that's probably a good thing. Wayne isn't the political role model I'd pick. He was an unapologetic white supremacist and blamed the Native Americans for being selfish when they tried to keep their land when Europeans landed in the New World. Though Johnny Cash had a very individualistic image he also championed the cause of prisoners, addicts, and Native Americans. I can get behind that, but I'm not sure that's what Mr. Thompson is getting at. I won't even get into John Deere. They're a company interested in continuing to make money. They give money to candidates who will get that done. Nothing more. 

What offends me here is mostly the ignorance that goes along with the song. And that people will listen to this and take it as a rallying cry. People take too much at face value with the federal, and local, governments. To really understand and engage with politics it is essential to be well-informed. I don't think this song is a good example of that and I think it's an irresponsible use of celebrity that irks me a great deal - though I admit it might irk me less if I didn't vehemently disagree with the song's premise.



This is getting to be a loooong post and I have a lot to say about the last song so I will save it until tomorrow. Once my blood pressure has returned to normal. Good night all!

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

For Every Girl

Happy Wednesday everyone!

I have some awesome news to share with you all today. Earlier this year the Girl Scouts of Western Washington received a $100,000 donation. For a non-profit organization that kind of money is a huge deal. Especially because the Girl Scouts use that money to help families in tough economic circumstances participate in the Girl Scouts. So how big a deal is $100,000? It's almost 1/3 of the Girl Scouts of Western Washington's financial assistance program budget. News of the donation had the whole office celebrating...

But then they heard the stipulation: the money could in no way be used to support transgender girls in the scouts. Then the organization had a choice - take the money and do some bureaucratic gymnastics to make sure it only supported cisgender girls or put their money where their mouth was and return the money. They took the second road and returned every cent of the money to the donor with an explanation that the Girl Scouts is for every girl.

It's not easy to stick to your principles when there's so much money at stake, but the Scouts did and we should all applaud them for that. Or go fund them...

Since the incident has gone viral the Girl Scouts of Western Washington set up an Indiegogo page to recoup their losses. And boy have they!! Their page is up to $265,000 after just two days! All that money goes towards helping girls who might not have the opportunity otherwise to participate in the Girl Scouts, who are teaching some pretty crucial skills to girls growing up in a challenging world. In their own words the Girl Scouts helps girls "use their voice to stand up for what they believe in, be proud of who they are, and support each other to take action to make the world a better place". Sounds like the people running the Western Washington branch were scouts themselves, doesn't it?

The reason this decision is so important is, I think, because transgender girls need those lessons as much, if not more than cis girls. A recent GLSEN survey found that a whopping 75% of youth feel unsafe at school. This isn't a statistic saying 75% of transgender youth are bullied at school (I'm willing to bet that figure is nearer 100%) this statistic tells us that 3/4 of transgender youth are feeling unsafe. That means lower GPAs, more missed school days, and a lower probability of continuing their education past high school.

And this isn't just a kids will be kids thing (a phrase I loathe entirely by the way because it's a way to sweep real problems under the rug and it presupposes the idea that this is a normal way to treat people). It's not only peers that are making trans folk feel unsafe - it's the institution itself. All too often trans students aren't acknowledged by the school itself. They are forced to use a bathroom that isn't consistent with their gender identity. Forced to wear clothing that isn't consistent with their gender identity. Called a name that doesn't reflect who they are. Only nineteen states* protect their students from discrimination based on gender identity! That is less than 40% of the United States.

States where public schools protect students from gender identity discrimination

It's not a pretty picture. But what the Girl Scouts, and other welcoming groups, are doing is helping. It gives trans youth role models and allies to look to. And it gives cis girls who participate alongside trans girls a face to put with an idea. It won't be an abstract and with their Girl Scout training they'll be able to speak out, stand up, and make a difference. Because that's where change on this issue is coming from - not above, but below. Students are changing their schools. Sons and daughters are educating their parents.

But in some places organizations - and adults - are starting to take part. Like the Girl Scouts. And if we want the Girl Scouts to continue their support (and to encourage other organizations to do the same) we need to show ours. Think of donating if you can - or writing a letter of support if you can't.

Here is their address: 601 Valley St, Seattle, WA 98109
Their e-mail: info@girlscoutsww.org
Their phone number: (800) 767-6845

Show them your support and they'll continue to show us theirs!

Signing off,
Owl

Monday, June 29, 2015

Then Again...

In my last post I discussed some of the things I am happy with SCOTUS for doing. This post is decidedly the opposite.

Two cases today had less than pleasing outcomes for me. The first was a case brought by the state of Michigan against the Environmental Protection Agency claiming that the EPA's demand that power companies cut mercury emissions was imposed without any thought to what it would cost power companies to comply. The court ruled against the EPA, agreeing that the EPA essentially could only protect the environment and thus the safety of the US public if it first made sure it wasn't going to cost big business too much. (It should also be noted that the EPA did eventually do a cost study for the mercury provisions in the Clean Air Act and found that the cost to public health and safety was 9 times higher than the cost of industry compliance. Big surprise there.) 

The ruling is fairly narrow and only affects the Clean Air Act, but it creates a greater possibility for future trouble between industry and the EPA. The ruling opens the door for companies to drag their heels over regulation implementation. In this case most companies have already implemented the mercury reduction standards required by the EPA, but in the future they may be able to use this case to argue that they shouldn't have to comply with EPA regulation until their case has been heard and decided (which we all know can take years). On a separate and more common sense than legal sense tangent I find this ruling deeply troubling. The idea that big business profits are more important to us as a society than the safety of our environment and our population is deeply disturbing and frankly disheartening in the extreme. I have feelings about this ruling that boil down to this: time is money and ruin. The extra time the EPA will have to spend confirming what should be common sense and the extra time companies will spend dragging their heels on implementing common sense wastes a hell of a lot more money than immediate implementation of environmental and safety standards. It seems a small price to pay for me, but then I am not an oil, gas, or electric company executive...

The other ruling handed down by the court today was Glissop v. Gross and at stake was the use of midazolam, the sedative currently used in the lethal injection cocktail to execute death row prisoners. The court upheld the legality of the drug and rejected the idea that the use of a non-barbiturate that does not induce coma constitutes cruel and unusual punishment as set out by the Constitution. Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the minority dissent, likened the experience as "being burned at the stake" in terms of the pain the inmates endure. The majority opinion, written by Samuel Alito, hinged on the point that the prisoners who brought the case had not provided an adequate substitute for the midazolam and blamed them and other groups opposed to capital punishment for making pentobarbitol harder (almost impossible) to obtain. (The reason it's harder to maintain is that drug companies don't want the stigma of providing a drug to prisons to cause death. Though undoubtedly public pressure has played a huge role in creating that stigma.) 

Overall 3 percent of lethal injections in this country are botched and 2014 was one of the worst years on record with at least 4 very prominent cases. Most botched attempts stem from the inability of poorly trained prison attendants to find a vein. But all the cases from 2014 (and what the case was arguing against) happened after the drugs started flowing. The problem boils down to the midazolam, which began wide usage in 2014. The drug is a sedative and extreme amount are needed to adequately sedate. The midazolam is combined with a paralytic drug and then two other drugs are administered to kill the inmate. Between the paralytic and the midazolam it is hard to tell how much pain prisoners are in (they are effectively paralyzed for their death). Except that during botched executions when prisoners haven't been given enough paralytic or sedative observers are privy to the gasps and screams of the dying. Often for some time. After seeing or hearing about those executions there can be little doubt that death by lethal injection can be an excruciatingly painful experience - beyond cruel and unusual punishment. Moreover, the frequency with which executions are botched in this manner is creeping up since the new cocktail's introduction. 

In the wake of increased botched executions there has been a shadow of doubt cast over the whole process. How effective is midazolam at actually stopping someone from feeling pain? How much of an execution looks peaceful as opposed to actually being peaceful? How well are we training those who are executing inmates? If we can't find any alternatives to an imperfect and sometimes agonizing method of execution does that mean we can continue on in good faith with the imperfect method? Is cruel and unusual punishment a relative term or have we ruled incorrectly in the past in favor of cruel punishments because it was the best we could do at the time?

I will admit to an immense bias on this issue. I am a staunch opponent of the death penalty. For a number of reasons. The first is that I believe it to be largely ineffective as a deterrent to criminal behavior. Overwhelmingly criminologists and law enforcement do not see the death penalty as an effective deterrent of violent crime. Though I'm sure there are many who believe it to be effective, I am more inclined to agree with those who study and see the effects of it on a daily basis. Second, cases involving the death penalty in all stages from prosecution to incarceration and execution are more expensive than cases that do not involve the death penalty. Third, the methods we use at present in my mind are clearly flawed and I think we will look back at this method of execution with the same measure of repulsion that we now view hanging, electrocution, or asphyxiation. Another big reason I don't support the death penalty is that I believe there is some clear bias surrounding who is sentenced to death. There is a tendency to give harsher sentences in this country to people of color and almost 45% of executed inmates have been non-white (a disproportionately high percentage based on population). There is also a strong correlation between the quality of representation and the possibility of receiving a death sentence. Or plainly stated - if you're poor and can't afford a good layer, you're more likely to be sentenced to death. The last reason is this - we make mistakes. We have killed innocent men, women, and even children. Death is irreversible and once a mistake is made the best we can do after execution is apologize and try to make amends with the living family, which is woefully inadequate in the face of what we have done. Our country has an imperfect past, which we see more clearly in the present. It is obvious to us now that some black men were executed because of the color of their skin during horribly racist period of our history. I wonder if we will look back on some of our current executions with similar shame in the future (like perhaps the execution of the mentally ill - though I already feel a great deal of shame about that particular issue). 

Wanting vengeance and retribution is as human as it gets. But so is prejudice, so are mistakes. I hope this ruling brings about a larger discussion of exactly what the majority pointed to in its decision: what are the alternatives? Is it time to join the more than 50% of countries that have banned the practice. There are now only 36 countries left in the world that retain and practice the death penalty. We are on that list. In fact, we are on an even more select list. We are 1 of 22 countries that carried out at least one execution in 2014. And an even smaller list. We are one of 9 countries that has executed someone who was under the age of 18 at the time of their crime in that last 10 years. There are very few other developed countries that still allow the death penalty as broadly as we do and almost none that actually practice it. Certainly just because everyone else is banning something doesn't mean we have to, but the fact certainly warrants a broader debate on the issue.

Rejoice in the Constitution!

Wow! Last week and today sure have been an exciting time to follow the Supreme Court. Right, guys? Did you know they upheld Obamacare, or at least the part of it that demands subsidies in both state and federal healthcare exchanges? Boy, that was big. Especially since the decision was far from a close one. A 6-3 ruling is pretty decisive, guys. I am hopeful the ruling will cement the law in the bedrock of our country and maybe open the way for more expansive and more effective policing and subsidizing of the health insurance industry.

And how about the decision today that upheld the right of independent, bipartisan commissions to draw districts, rather than the state legislature in a case brought by Arizona State Legislature Republicans? I hope that case ends up being a landmark shift in thinking on the issue. After all as Ginsberg wrote in her majority brief, "voters should choose their representation, not the other way around." This is a huge blow against gerrymandering in a state that badly needs an independent commission drawing the district lines.

So those are some amazing decisions right there. Pretty historical. But did you know the Supreme Court made another badass decision last week? You did? Oh, well. That makes sense since the news was all over the place that... GAY MARRIAGE IS LEGAL IN ALL 50 STATES!!!!!!!!!!!! 
I cannot contain my joy over this, you guys. I just can't. I think everyone reading this is well aware that I am bisexual and in a long-term committed relationship with another woman. Committed like, this is the person I want to spend my life with kind of committed. It gives me joy beyond words to know that my country will support the two of us in our devotion to each other. I really didn't think the decision was going to hit me so hard because I live in a state that already allowed gay marriage before the ruling and I am from Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage back in 2004. I have been fortunate to live with a minimum of discrimination and homophobia my whole life (though I still get looks, remarks, and conversations that I think are well beyond polite or appropriate.) I am also not looking to get married anytime soon - I'm happy living in a committed, but not legally binding, state of partnerhood for the foreseeable future. So, this decision didn't have a lot of practical use for me right this second. But it had a symbolic resonance that was unexpectedly deep and poignant for me.

I still remember the day the Massachusetts Supreme Court made same-sex marriage legal in my state. I was a freshman in high school, an active member of my school's GSA, though I was not yet aware that the ruling would have personal significance to me (read: I didn't think I was bi then). I remember the two co-presidents of the GSA coming to school in drag (she was in a tux, he was in a wedding dress). I remember my high school English teacher announcing his engagement to his partner and telling us with a twinkle in his eye that he was going to miss our final exam because he wasn't going to miss out on the chance to get married and hoped they could get in before the ruling could be reversed (it never was). I remember the pervasive feeling of elation - I remember celebrating the victory as part of a larger community and being swept up in the communal ecstasy and triumph of it all.

11 years later the joy is no less great and the triumph no less exhilarating than it was then, but it was different. I didn't hear the news at school, with a mass of friends. I heard it from my Raven after she threw her phone at the ground in excitement (and I imagine a fair bit of shock, too). We didn't celebrate in a mass of people, though there were plenty of impromptu celebrations all over our city. We celebrated together - just us. Then I went to work for the evening like nothing was different, except everything was. It took longer to sink in this time and the true meaning is still coming in flashes and pieces. My relationship is equal to a heterosexual relationship in the eyes of this country's highest court. I am a legal equal to my straight friends. I can enjoy the same rights and assurances other couples enjoy. I can make a conscious choice to not marry if I want (which for now I do). I have options. I have freedoms. I have a choice. I can exercise the benefit of a truth I have known for years - my love (and the love of other queer individuals) is not lesser in caliber or depth, nor is it less worthy of protection than that of heterosexual couples. 

I'm not going to dwell too much on the negative here, though it exists in abundance. The dissents were largely foolish and bordering on homophobic in a few cases. Though I will admit I felt no surprise in any them. I also feel little surprise in the response of some states that are now forces to comply with the high court's ruling. Alabama, Texas, Louisiana, and Kansas have all made official moves at some level to go against the Supreme Court's order. Louisiana, Kansas, and Alabama are flat out refusing to issue gay marriage licenses. Louisiana and Alabama say it is just a waiting period, basically to see if the law sticks. Kansas' governor and Attorney General said they needed to study the SCOTUS decision further before "making any moves" towards a lawsuit. They will presumably sue since they are one of the few states that has outlawed gay marriage by popular vote. Texas' Attorney General said in a statement to state clerks that they did not have to issue licenses that went against their religious beliefs and though they might face legal ramifications there would be lawyers lining up to defend them.

I'm not going to dwell on these now because I am hopeful that actions will be taken to enforce the ruling and these states will eventually fall in line. Change, when thrust upon the unwilling, is slow. And 11 years is a relatively short time for those unwilling to change (though it is an interminable wait for those on the other side as I can attest). For now I am choosing to remain positive and hopeful for the future. I think everyone working for equal rights and protections for the GLBT community realizes this is still only the beginning. We have so much more to work and strive for, but a victory still deserves celebration - if only to remind us that momentum matters and that victory will breed victory. Eventually enough victories will bring acceptance, tolerance, and understanding. The road is long, and much of it is uphill, but we do not walk it alone and last Friday the United States government joined the long march towards equality in a big way. I couldn't be prouder.


Best wishes,
Owl


P.S. Though not a case ruling the Supreme Court also placed a stay on an abortion law passed in Texas until the court can decide if it is going to hear the case. The law mandates that abortion providers operate like hospital surgical centers and for abortion providers to have stronger ties to local hospitals. The law has already forced the closing of almost half of Texas' 40 providers. In a big state that means a long drive to get an abortion (and probably even to get good, reliable information about getting an abortion). If SCOTUS takes the case it will be deciding if the law places a "undue burden" on abortion providers or on women's access to the service. Let's hope they take the case, but if they don't they've at least granted a brief reprieve for Texas' remaining clinics.

Monday, June 22, 2015

Earth

Tonight Raven and I started watching Earth, the documentary nature series about life on our planet in various climates and regions. It is a second watching for me (at least in full, I have seen a few of the pieces many times on their own) and I have to tell you I love it just as much this time through the last. It should be clear from the start that I love documentaries of basically all types. About basically anything.

My first watch through of Earth came during college when my one of my best friends, Crane, got the full DVD series. And then showed it in our common area every night for a few weeks. It was glorious to watch en masse, with many of us poking fun at animals we saw on screen or more often staring entranced by the beauty of the scenery before us and the incomparable calm of David Attenborough's melodious voice.

Nature documentaries have become a staple of my life since taking up as a nanny. Both children love animals and the natural world and with non-educational screen time restricted by parents, both the kids enjoy watching nature documentaries. I'll admit I enjoy them a lot more than many of the alternatives they could choose (both educational and non-educational) so I tend to encourage this habit. But I have learned something interesting from watching all these shows about nature with so many different audiences (Crane is a biologist, Raven an anthropologist, and my kids are just kids). There are some things we all hold in common in the face of the natural world and they aren't the things I expected. I expected cute animals would make basically everyone coo and that the 7-year-old with a soft spot for her cats wouldn't like animals like sharks or wolves that preyed on seals or bears, respectively. Turns out I underestimated her. She understood and accepted the cycle of life far better than I did in some cases (it's hard to watch an adorable bear cub get attacked!) I also figured that younger kids would get more entertainment out of the animal portions and less out of the sweeping vistas and glorious panoramic shots of the scenery, Wrong again. A common thread I have seen with anyone watching a video like Earth is the appreciation of the world's beauty. A great snow-swept landscape is beautiful at 6 or 106.

I hope the kids I watch don't lose their wonder at the world they live in. I hope I can hold onto mine. I am so glad Raven shares that wonder with me. And that she will help me nurture and hold that wonder by reminding me that sometimes I need to immerse myself in reality when I tune out the world.


Good night all.

~Owl

Thursday, June 18, 2015

Domestic Terrorism

Hey all,

Seems like I've been posting about a lot of depressing things on here. And I apologize for that, but I can't not do it today. Today 9 people were killed in Charleston South Carolina at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church. It was a hate crime motivated by what can only be described as intense racial hatred and deep racism. I know most people out there will agree with that statement, but I have to say it because there are still some who aren't talking about it (read: commentators and guests on Fox News).

I'm not going to go into much more on the subject except to say that it's too early to jump to most any conclusions. But I think we can safely make a few tiny steps. The shooting took place at Emanuel AME Church, which has been a part of Charleston since the early 1800s. It was founded as a black church, has been persecuted as a black church, and remains a black congregation today. The church pastor was Rev. Clementa Pinckney, a member of the South Carolina State Senate since the age of 27. He was also among the victims last night. Along with 8 members of his congregation. All black. I can't stress enough how unlikely it would be for Dylann Roof, the alleged terrorist*, who sported a jacket with the flag of apartheid era South Africa and Rhodesia (modern Zimbabwe) and drove a car with confederate plates, chose the place on a whim. Or because it was the first church he stumbled upon. It is a tiny step to declaring this a hate crime, motivated by race.

Raven and I have been talking about this a lot today and one of the points I wanted to share is this: race has become a topic of national conversation again in part because of the shooting of unarmed black men by police officers or community members. This attack will, I'm sure, fuel the conversation further. But events like these are not new. Our country has a history of racial violence and oppression. Our country has a history of illegally repressing or flat out silencing the voices and even lives of its black citizens. That repression has come through legitimate channels, like government and law enforcement as recently as the 1960s. We, as a country, have made poor decisions, taken morally indefensible actions, and acted as oppressors more often than liberators during our 200+ year history as a sovereign nation. It is not a legacy I am proud to live with. It is not a legacy I am proud to call myself a part of. Yet I benefit from it because I am white. We will never get anywhere in this nationwide discussion without more people understanding that very basic, but very difficult piece of our collective history. That is the narrative in which this shooting took place. That is the narrative in which the media needs to place it. Anything less is half truth.

I hope world events will give me something pleasant to post on tomorrow. I urge anyone interested to read the Washington Post article I linked to earlier (linked again here) to get a great overview of the place of AME in the broader civil rights movement.


As an apology for this very depressing post - and a reward for making it through (if you made it this far) here is a link to an hour of cat videos. Watch it until you feel joy again.



*I use alleged because he hasn't yet been convicted, not because I doubt that he is guilty - seems pretty clear he is at this point, but still... technically not guilty until convicted

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Well hello there

Long time no see. Long time no write, too. Sorry everyone. It's been a busy month. We will get back into the swing of posting this week. But I'm going to start off small because I've spent 14 of the last 48 hours sleeping and almost 20 hours of the last 48 with two children under the age of 10. Not an optimal amount of spare time for blogging. Or having any energy. Because it's summertime, which means lots of activities and an exhausted owl at day's end.

So here's a brief update on my life and the summer to come: 
In the next two and a half months I will have at least two weekends spoken for by wedding. I watched two good friends tie the knot a few weeks ago and am incredibly proud and happy for them. I am at the age (26) when my friends are all starting to get married and engaged in droves. 
I have many days claimed by my two charges who will doubtless spend the time devouring every bit of summer they can, hopefully while leaving my patience and love for them both intact. So far so good, though it's only been a week. I finished tutoring a 4th grade boy I have been working with since 2nd grade. Next year will be my last year with him and I'm looking forward to finishing off elementary school with him, though I'll miss him after next year. It is pretty cool watching a little kid becoming a teenager. Though I may prefer it from a distance. 
Raven and I are basically done reorganizing and arranging the apartment after Crow's departure. We miss him a ton basically all the time, but having the house look new and different than when he lived here helps. (That doesn't mean we wouldn't have you back here in a second if you wanted it, Crow!) That said, it is really neat to have a space that feels like it was created by the two of us. It is a very adult thing we have done and it does feel a bit more like co-habitation this way. 
I have finally obtained a hard copy of a Dorothy Parker book of poems. From a secondhand shop. Who gives this away you guys? Next entry I will share some of my favorite excerpts, but you will just have to wait for that because I can't really read this entry well...


The letters are blurring so it's time to admit defeat. And go to bed. Write more soon. No really. I will. Don't you trust me? .... Maybe that's fair. 

Until next time,
Owl

Monday, May 25, 2015

22 Deaths Every Day

I seem to be jumping from serious subject to serious subject of late. I will be doing another post on Boko Haram and Nigeria a bit later this week, but today is Memorial Day in the United States. Memorial Day is a US tradition stretching back to 1868 when it was Decoration Day - a day to visit the graves of fallen soldiers and honor them by placing flowers at the site. When it began, shortly after the end of the Civil War, the day focused primarily on fallen Union soldiers, but today the day serves as a collection national commemorative moment to honor all those who have given their lives in service while serving in the armed forces.

More than just a three day weekend Memorial Day is a time to reflect on the sacrifices of war and the price we pay for global military engagement. As someone who opposes war far more frequently than supporting it, today is a keen reminder of one of the reasons for that opposition as much as it is a reminder than sometimes there is no other way, though the cost is very real and very high. 

Since the Revolutionary War more than 1.3 million members of the US armed services have died in combat. Since the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 close to 7000 soldiers have died in combat. Iraq and Afghanistan have been the most costly military actions the US has taken since the Vietnam War. And although this Memorial Day marks the first Memorial Day since September 11th and the subsequent war in Afghanistan that ground troops have not been in active combat, the United States has still been in a state of war for most of my lifetime. 15 years out of my just barely 26. That's about 60% of my lifetime. 

Today I think about the 7000 people who have died fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq in the last 14 years who wanted to serve their country. I also think about the more than 1 million people who have given their lives in the last 240 years. Their service and deaths have shaped this country and the world. There will be other days to talk about my issues with war. Other days to question where the military recruits from and whether minorities and those who live with poverty are unfairly burdened with military service. These issues, while important, can be put aside for today in order to honor the people we have lost.

However, there is one linked issue I do want to address briefly as I think about the human cost of war today. That issue is veteran suicide. There is a number that has been floating around on the news and online for some time where this issue is concerned. 22. 22 veteran suicides a day. Or, in other words, over 8000 veteran deaths every year. That number 8000 you may notice is larger than the number of combined deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq over the last 14 years. There are some who actually estimate that 22 is an under-reporting of the real numbers, but very few argue the number is an overestimate. What that means is that veterans are 50, in some cases (especially in the case of female veterans) more than 60 percent more likely to commit suicide than their counterparts in the civilian population.

We have a problem in this country. More soldiers are dying at peace, than at war. They deserve honor and recognition just as much as those who die on a battlefield. They deserve to feel supported for their service, not shamed. On this Memorial Day, and in the year that follows, I hope our government and the population at large will honor our fallen, our uniformed, and our veteran men and women by making veteran suicide a priority when we talk about military spending. Because service doesn't end when a war does. It's a lifelong commitment. Soldiers are holding up their end, we are failing to hold up ours.

To celebrate Memorial Day today I'm donating $22 (to represent the 22 veteran lives lost every day) to the non profit group: Stop Soldier Suicide, an organization focused on soldiers talking to other soldiers to get them to right places for help and support. You should check out the organization's website if you're interested in getting involved, or learning more about the issue of veteran suicide in the US.

I'm going to leave you with this poem from spoken word artist Andrea Gibson who sums up my feelings on this a whole lot better than I just did.


Thursday, May 21, 2015

The Truth Resists Simplicity*

Tonight's post is going to be a more serious one, but I hope you'll read anyways.

I have been watching a lot of West Wing and listening to an astounding amount of NPR both in my car and at home. That combination is bound to put me in a more reflective and somber mind frame. And there has been a lot to reflect about this week. There always seems to be. This week stories on everything from the White House restricting militarized gear for local police to concern over the Rohingya refugees driven to the sea to escape Myanmar/Burma grabbed the headlines. Not to mention the fall of Ramadi in Iraq to the Islamic State. All of these stories are worthy of a great deal of consideration and attention, but the story that has captured my attention for the week is the ongoing saga of Boko Haram in Nigeria.

One of the reasons I am so keen on this story is that my knowledge of the African continent is woefully lacking. I can tell you a few things about Kenya. I could tell you Mt. Kilimanjaro is in Tanzania. I even kept pace with stories out of Darfur in the Sudan and about Al-Shabaab in Somalia, but always in a rather distant - not quite disinterested, but quite disengaged way. I have come to realize that it is hard for me to engage with African political affairs. It is a sentiment I imagine many citizens of the US suffer as well. We don't engage well because we weren't taught to. Africa isn't high on the list of priorities in public school curriculum. We talk about apartheid in South Africa. We talk about the pharaohs and Cleopatra in Egypt. We may even talk about Rwanda or Darfur in high school (though I certainly don't remember spending any significant amount of time on it). I remember one very zealous high school teacher of mine had us memorize the map of Africa (a few years later I had a college professor who assigned the same thing), but I'll admit to not remembering much of it now. And that's it. We have no context for our engagement.

I think it is easier for us to engage with something we know at least the basics of or something that has an immediate impact on our own lives. It seems likely that people will educate themselves on the Middle East, because it's on the news all the time. Our country has more strategic interest in that region - therefore more coverage of the situation and history of the area. People are more likely to put their energies there (and let's be honest, most people in this country aren't even doing that much). Back in 2006 CNN released findings from a report that showed almost 2/3 (more than 65%) couldn't point to Iraq on a world map. We had been actively involved in a war in that country for 3 years at that point! Though that was perhaps an unsurprisingly revelation when viewed alongside the fact that a whopping 33% of respondents couldn't locate Louisiana on a map (this was 6 months after Katrina) and Louisiana has a pretty distinctive shape! Not to mention it's in the country the respondents actually live in. I wonder how many of them could place Ramadi on a map (not sure I could).

So maybe we even have difficulty engaging with anything that isn't directly outside of ourselves. Our family, our friends, our neighborhood, our town, maybe our state. I don't want to wag a finger and say "for shame" to people that feel that way, because it's a tempting feeling. To disengage and look out for ourselves. It's easier and (after listening to hours of NPR I can tell you) a hell of a lot less depressing. BUT (and here's where I do a bit of finger wagging) the United States is a superpower. The biggest in the world at the moment. We talk a lot in this country (or at least our politicians and commentators certainly do) about having a moral imperative to intercede abroad to uphold democracy and freedom. If we are going to do that we have to have an informed electorate capable of evaluating candidates effectively to speak for us. So that means the difficult process of engagement. For me, that also means confronting the great Vlogbrother's maxim that "the truth resists simplicity". Nowhere is that more apparent than in history, politics, and religion - three things that intersect splendidly in the case of Boko Haram.

So I'm going to take a swing at engagement myself today and see if I can take some of you along for the ride. Let's delve into Boko Haram a bit. Today I'm just going to explain what Boko Haram claims to be and what it grew out of. But I urge you to do your own searching because there are layers upon layers of nuance and minutiae involved in this (as in every) news story.

Let's start off simple -
What is Boko Haram?
Founded in 2002 Boko Haram is a Muslim terrorist organization based out of Nigeria (Maiduguri to be precise in the northeast of Nigeria). According to this BBC article "[t]he group's official name is Jama'atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda'awati wal-Jihad, which in Arabic means 'People Committed to the Propagation of the Prophet's Teachings and Jihad.'" For my sake I'm going to refer to them by their Hausa name Boko Haram, which translated means "Western education forbidden" - Boko meaning western education and haram meaning forbidden.

What Do They Want?
What they wanted in the beginning was to oppose western education in northern Nigeria. What they want now is to overthrow the Nigerian government and create a Muslim caliphate in Nigeria. If that sounds familiar then you are clearly also listening to a lot of other extremist Muslim terrorist groups like the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda. It's hardly a new agenda.

Which brings us to... Are They Affiliated with Other Terrorist Organizations?
Yes. They have been affiliated with Al-Qaeda in the past, but since the rise of ISIS they have thrown in their cap with the ultra-violent extremist group and received recognition from that group.

But Who Exactly Are Boko Haram?
The founder of the group is Mohammed Yusuf, a Muslim cleric from Yobe State in northeastern Nigeria. He was killed in 2009 by Nigerian security forces after increased violence instigated by Boko Haram in Maiduguri. Though most thought Boko Haram finished after Yusuf's death, the group rallied under a new leader, Abubakar Shekau. Boko Haram recruits mainly from the Kanuri, an African ethnic group living in modern day Niger, Nigeria, and Cameroon. They are mainly Muslim. Many engage in the tradition of facial scarring. Their accent is also quite distinctive and they are an easily recognizable ethnic group within the country.

Where Did Boko Haram Come From?
So much for easy questions. This one is complicated and I'm not going to go into a lot of details, but for me this group can trace its beginnings to 1903 when the Sokoto caliphate fell to the British. Colonization leaves a long shadow and carving up the caliphate and imposing western education did not endear the British conquerors to their conquered. Like other extremist groups poverty also plays a large role in discontent in the region and therefore the formation of the group. It's no coincidence that some of the poorest areas of Nigeria are in the north, where Boko Haram makes its home. Young, unemployed, desperate men make for dangerous enemies. Between poverty and a historical dislike of the west you have some pretty good ingredients for anti-western extremism.

So Where Does the Complexity Come In?
The complexity is in the history in this case. There are hundreds, even thousands of years of history behind this area and the discontent is not new. And the west (and western-backed governments) clearly haven't been able to fix the problems for the region. At least at the group's core the dissatisfaction and mistrust with and of the west may very well be justified. As I said, colonization casts a long shadow. It is easy to dismiss this (and indeed all extremist groups) as "bad people" intent of causing death and chaos to upset the "good people" and the "good government", but nothing is ever that simple.
I won't argue that the people of Boko Haram aren't bad people. They're kidnapping school girls and raping them. They're forcing women to become child brides and adhere to laws they don't want (and shouldn't be forced) to follow. But they aren't mustache twirling villains out of Bond. Perhaps most importantly, they probably don't see themselves as the evil villains of the piece. They are just as convinced that we are the bad guys as we are convinced of the opposite. Their concerns aren't being honestly assessed and addressed (this is at least partly the fault of Boko Haram for pushing their agenda the way they do). But the group will never truly go away until the root of the problem is addressed. If we can't at least try to see it their way we are doomed to repeat this pattern again and again. There is a whole other side to this parallel - "the good guys". The Nigerian government is like any government, some people we would call good, some we would call corrupt and a whole lot in between.
The danger is to believe it is a simple conflict with a simple solution and a simple cause. History runs deep and memories last as long as we can hold our anger. And when you're hungry, poor, and see no promise of change for you or your children's future anger isn't hard to hold onto.



I know this a lot of information. And I know it's not easy to engage with it. There are a million "important" news stories out there. No one can really know them all. I can't tell you much about what's going with drug trafficking in Venezuela right now. Or with whatever our Congress is messing about with on the Hill. I focused on Boko Haram this week. There is a trade-off to be made. We can't do it all. But we can do something. We can make a commitment to knowing the world we live in. We can vow to look at that world with sympathy and compassion. We can try to see other countries as they see themselves, instead of imposing our culture and our norms on them.

The truth resists simplicity. But our minds love it. We have to look at the world critically, while keeping our minds open to the truth. That elusive ideal that can never quite be obtained.

Well Raven, I think that's all I've got in me for the night. I look forward to your update tomorrow (or I guess later today).



*Thanks to John Green for this gem of wisdom. You always keep me thinking.

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Everything's Made Up and The Points Don't Matter

For those who don't know, I have quite a penchant for quiz shows. I adore them. I could watch Jeopardy all day long and have no shame at all about it. For some time I thought that I loved quiz shows because they made me feel smarter. I loved being able to answer a question along with the contestants. Or sometimes even before them. I figured it was ego that kept me loving Jeopardy or Wheel of Fortune (they ran back to back when I was a kid, don't know if they still do). Well, Raven has introduced a new quiz show to me that proves my previous theory entirely wrong. The show is called Only Connect. It is a British quiz show where 2 teams of 3 compete for no prizes and no rewards. Just a very average trophy declaring them the winners of Only Connect. There are 4 rounds on the show - connections, sequences, connecting wall, and missing vowels.

The connections sequences consists of a series of 4 clues revealed one at a time. The team gets a brief amount of time to work out the connection between the clues. The next phase is the sequences round. The idea is basically the same except that you get only 3 clues and have to provide the 4th that would come next in that sequences. The connecting wall is the 3rd (and my favorite) section. There are 16 clues and teams have to sort the clues into 4 groups of 4. There is only one correct solution to every wall. The missing vowels round (which may be Raven's favorite - it's certainly her best as she often trumps the contestants) is fairly obvious. The host gives a category and then the name of something from that category with no vowels and the consonants re-spaced so for example the phrase Only Connect might look like this during the missing vowels round: nlycn nct. 

The questions are hard. Really, really hard. I can't say that I get more than 10% right in a single episode. Though I have been improving as I watch. I'll give an example. Here is what you might see in the sequences round. Soviet Union, United States, Czechoslovakia, ? Your job is to fill in the question mark. No googling. And don't give yourself an abundance of time (say 2 minutes tops). I'll include the answer in my next post.

Good luck!


Also: the host of Only Connect is Victoria Coren Mitchell. She is a goddess and at least 50% of the reason I am completely hooked on the show. 

Monday, May 11, 2015

A Return to Joy

Hey all,

It's been a rough week or so, but today I wanted to get back to the happy. You know why? Because a few minutes ago it became the best day of the whole year for me. My anniversary. Oh, and also my birthday. As of today, May 12th, Raven and I have been together for 4 years. And I am 26 years old.

I love that two such special days coincide. It makes is basically impossible to forget either event (something I'm prone to in both past relationships and past birthdays). It also means more reason to celebrate and less focus on only me. I have always enjoyed my birthday, but the more of them I have the less I want to focus solely on myself that day. My birthday is always an excuse to spend time with my friends and people I love. There is nothing better than spending it with my partner. No better gift than a reminder that we have enjoyed another year together.

But enough drivel! I'm sure you don't come here to read that. Instead I'm going to share our birthday/anniversary plans. Tomorrow (after we sleep, tomorrow) there will be delicious breakfast to be made and consumed. Then we will probably hang about the house and play some games (I'm itching for Dominion). We have also made plans to see Avengers at last -  we're hoping for less people on a Tuesday afternoon while most folks are at work and school. Raven is a darling and picked out some delicious food to make for dinner - though we'll share the cooking itself. It's less fun to observe. I'm going to make raspberry chocolate cupcakes - an endeavor I am fully looking forward to. Also looking forward to making some creative iced tea - mint honey green tea with some very special ice cubes that we prepped tonight.

These are basil and lemon, but we also have mint, lavender, blackberry, lime and a few combinations of  those permutations chilling in the freezer. PRETTY EXCITED!

We will also do gifts tomorrow and I'm excited about the way we're doing that too. Raven already picked up some neat stuff for me at thrift shops - mostly apartment decorations. She also bought me some amazing stuff at our local comic book shop (which we frequent enough to be recognized as "regulars" - something that pleases us both to no end). Our anniversary gifts will be a joint endeavor though and I think that's a wonderful idea. We're going to get some silly, but useful gadgets or decor for our apartment. And I'm pretty giddy about picking out something new and neat to help keep our house neat, our kitchen well stocked, or our apartment in order. I guess I really am getting older. The only gifts that could make me more excited would be books. Or maybe socks...

Best wishes,
Owl

Friday, May 8, 2015

....Can't...Even...

I can't find more words tonight. Didn't find this until today - not sure how I missed it earlier. Another shooting of an unarmed civilian by police. This one in Venice, CA

Clearly some changes need to be made nationwide.

Thursday, May 7, 2015

Can't Even

I'm sure you've noticed I haven't posted in a while. Raven, you know why. Now to share with all of you, readers. I have been pretty wrapped up in what's been going on in Baltimore the last week or so. For those who don't know let me sum up: Baltimore, MD broke into protests/riots after Freddie Gray, a young black man, died after a spinal injury sustained while in police custody. This is one incident in a string of incidents involving the police and the black community and a hefty dose of misuse of power.

I have been thinking a lot about the situation in Baltimore and across the country and I have a lot of feelings about the issue (really, issues). But I have so many it's difficult to decide where to start. And more paralyzing than that is the feeling that it isn't really my story to discuss or weigh in on. A lot of my white friends and coworkers have been saying in the last few weeks that they have a lot of feelings about the situation, but don't feel it is their place to comment or offer opinions as it's not "their issue/story". I wondered if maybe they were right. I don't have the faintest glimmer of an idea of what it means to be black in this country. Especially not a black male (surprise I'm neither of those things). Should I keep my thoughts and opinions to myself?

I've gone back and forth on the question for a while. I can see an argument to be made on both sides. It's certainly not right of me to weigh in as if I have all the information. Nor is it right to bring a solution to the table assuming a million others haven't been offered already (some exactly the same as what I would suggest). It would also be wrong to assume that my voice holds a ton of weight in the discussion. I haven't experienced a lot of the issues personally. I haven't even had many friends who've experienced them personally. 

But I also don't think it's right for me to stay silent. To believe that the issues surrounding Baltimore don't affect me would be incredibly short sighted and ultimately, naive. Every part of a society interacts with every other part of the same society. Just because I will not be harassed by the police because of my skin color doesn't mean police brutality doesn't affect me. Just because I will not suffer from racism directly, doesn't mean that living in a racist society* won't impact my life in profound and far-reaching ways.

I don't have a lot to say about the issue when you really boil it down. That's what I've been realizing this week. The most pressing thing I have to say is this: we all harbor prejudice from the everyday person on the street, to a sitting politician, to an on-duty cop. Not all of us are aware of those prejudices and that is the problem, not that we have. We are always going to make snap judgments about other people. We sort people and things and situations into groups to make our lives simpler and keep ourselves safe. It's natural to do and we shouldn't have to be ashamed that we do it because it's not a conscious choice. But we should try to understand those subconscious choices we make and not let them guide our conscious actions. Every cop should understand that they are quicker to shoot at a black target than a white one (seriously, there have been a million studies done). This isn't necessarily a bad thing unless it's a bias that goes unchecked. With training and awareness of the bias hopefully how quickly we react to an unarmed target will change. 

The other thing I have been thinking a lot since stories like these starting gaining a wider audience through the media is that getting defensive about the issue is the least productive thing you can do. A lot of reactions, especially from white folks, has been to turn the attention to black on black crime (usually gang related). Notably, shortly after the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson there was a high homicide weekend in Chicago and an outcry about ignoring black on black crime in favor of advancing a race argument about Ferguson's shooting. Stewart's "Daily Show" tackled the issue and uses almost the exact words that I have been turning over in my head for weeks: We should expect our police officers to hold themselves to higher standards than criminals. We should should expect police officers to behave better and with more, shall we say, legality, than a gang member.

Beyond those two, very prevalent thoughts, I have been wrestling with an almost happiness that events like these are forcing a conversation in this country about the way we view race and racism. I will never and can never be happy the events occurred and I think it is beyond upsetting that they had to occur to force this clearly necessary conversation, but I am also glad that people have reacted as they have. In most cases. I wish there was better, more fair, coverage of Baltimore that showed how people are pulling together and rallying around the issue in peace and as a community, rather than focusing on the outliers taking advantage of a chaotic situation. I think it is imperative that this country take a deep, hard look at its race problems and remind ourselves that the civil rights movement did not end in the 60s. We should still be fighting today. We should still be vigilant about racism and racist attitudes in ourselves and in our government because they haven't gone away. And they're never going to if we don't work through our own guilt and defensiveness to confront them. That is ultimately the reason I decided to post about it. It isn't my story. It's our story. We are all a part of it, whether we acknowledge it or not. And like we've all been hearing since elementary school, if you're not a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem.

So there you have it. My few coherent thoughts on the issues of Baltimore before I descend into blind rage and madness. I can feel it coming on now so I will bid you goodnight. And happy conversing.



*We can save the debate for whether or not we live in a racist society for another post. Suffice it to say that I feel like we do because everyone harbors racial prejudices and by and large the people in power are still white (and male - though that is a whole other can of worms.)

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Hola, ola, 你好, здравствуйте, hallo, hallå, and dia duit!

Welcome to the language jungle, friends. Raven and I, as some of you may already know are foreign language junkies. Between the two of us we are dabbling in all the languages I greeted you in above. See if you can guess them all before you get to the bottom of this post where I'll list the answers.

During college I majored in languages and learned to near fluency both Russian and Spanish. I have been out of college for more time than I care to admit now and most of my Russian is gone. Thankfully a 6 month immersion in a Spanish speaking country has paid off for me and my Spanish is still near fluency. But it can be hard to maintain vocabulary and comfort in a language when you don't speak it much. The practice I get these days is minimal so I was looking for a way to keep in practice and maintain my vocabulary.

Turns out there are a million apps for that and thanks to Crow I have access to a tablet so I can download all the apps. I get to spend a few minutes every day going through a lesson and reviewing vocabulary for Spanish. I also, of course, found a whole bunch of new languages to experiment with. Though I know studying multiple languages at once isn't the way to get fluent in any of them I am hopeful that I can at least get to a conversational point in a few of them (especially the ones that are closely linked with Spanish).

Even if all I do is learn a few new words and get to see the way other languages are constructed that will be enough for me. It is enough to stay engaged with learning for the moment. If any of you know any good apps for language learning please share them with me! I would love to have more ways to learn.

Raven and I have also been brushing up on our geography skills through apps. Turns out we're both pretty okay at world geography, but we have some definite problem areas... like most of Africa. And a good chunk of central Asia. It's pretty sad how little I know about both areas, but I have to start somewhere and knowing where I need work is the first step.

What are some areas of world history or geography that are a blank for you all?  How many countries do you think you could fill in on the map? Half? Two thirds?












Here's that list: Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, Russian, German, Swedish, and Irish.

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

The Challenges of Childhood

Sorry for the break in posts! Monday was a very long day for me at work (12+ hours) and was a difficult day on top of that. Those of you who saw me this weekend can attest to the issues I was looking forward to. Fortunately, the day went much better than predicted.

I am a nanny. Not a babysitter. The two are very similar, but I draw a pretty big distinction between them. A babysitter, to me, is not someone who is heavily invested in their charges day to day life. They don't have a lot of input in house rules and they don't spend regular, long chunks of time with the kids. Babysitters come for a night. Nannies are regular household fixtures. They get recognized by classroom teachers, playdates and playdate parents, even the mailman. And that is me.

I usually spend between 15 and 30 hours every week with the kids (I watch 2). I feel invested in both of them as individuals and I feel like a part of their family. It's a unique and sometimes slightly uncomfortable place to be, but I love it. And I love the kids I spend my days with. But they are kids and it's not an easy job by any stretch. The younger of my two charges is a particular challenge. She is in 1st grade and is already very willful, very clever, and very independent. It's an extremely formidable combination and it is going to take her places in life, but it is more often than not, the cause of huge headaches for both me and her parents.

Friday night I found myself at the house late, after the kids had both gone to bed (the parents have unpredictable work schedules - hence the need for me). When their dad got home from work we had a talk about how his youngest had been acted out (picking on her older sibling, categorically refusing to do as she was asked, pulling attention by being mean or a bully) and how both parents were at their wits end. I understand now (though I never would have before seeing children raised up close and personal) that most parents feel this way a lot of the time. I will always believe kids are a huge blessing to us, but that doesn't mean raising them is always fun or even enjoyable. And this week had been one of those utter unenjoyable weeks for my nanny family. By the end of it the mild mannered dad was pulling his hair out and their slightly more human mother was barely speaking to her youngest child. Having been with the family for close to 2 years now, I can understand how the situation came about. Their youngest is a force to be reckoned with but this was different and worse than usual. Neither parent could account for the change and their daughter was not forthcoming with information on what had put her in such a delightful mood.

I came to work Monday ready for battle. Or at least confrontation (something I am not good at). But there was surprisingly little to be had. I found her somewhat subdued after her weekend (turns out she'd been pretty sick on Sunday and that can mellow anyone out in a hurry). The morning was peaceful (or as peaceful as any morning with two young kids can be) and chores were done with a minimum of fuss. The fighting, such as it was, came after school. I had to review some basics - like why we don't pick gum up off the ground and put it back in our mouths. There was some rules review - unless you are actively sick school days are not movie days. And a bit more rules review - when you make a commitment to an activity you have to see it through, even when it's hard to tear yourself away from something fun to do it. But after all that (and I will mention that all that took the better part of 2 hours to sort out) we managed to have a good afternoon with no nasty words, temper tantrums, or sibling squabbles. Mission accomplished.

Days like that get me to thinking about being a kid again and the things that made it so hard. As a nanny I am finally seeing childhood from the other side and realizing all the things kids will do to get their way. As an adult I see these things are underhanded, mean-spirited, or sometimes just plain cruel, but I'm sure I did them when I was young. And I'm equally sure I felt justified in those actions. When you're a child you see the world in a different way, and perhaps just as importantly, the world sees you in a different way. You aren't able to set your own rules, because no matter how grown up you feel you still don't always know all the far off consequences of your actions (or inactions). You don't really get a lot of say in what activities you do or when you do them. Parents get a lot of input there in how much you commit to and when those commitments will be. Something I often forget is that kids just haven't learned a lot about the world yet and even if they have it can be hard to contextualize. Your brain just isn't developed enough at 7 years old to realize that doing something you don't want to do isn't the end of the world. It can't understand that grown ups have struggles too and often do things they don't want to. From the outside adulthood looks pretty awesome. And so does childhood.

Both children and adults are equally guilty of idealizing the other's lives. Children don't have things easy. They are doing their best to make sense of the world around them and find their place in it. We, as adults, may still be doing that ourselves (while putting up with taxes, jobs, and other pesky adult responsibilities) but we have the power to determine it for ourselves, in our time, and in our own way. More often than not, kids are not afforded that luxury. They have to go to school, do what their parents and other adults tell them to, and follow rules they may not completely understand or agree with (and there's very little recourse if you don't want to do or want to fight any of these childhood responsibilities).

As my mother often tells me when I regale her with the newest story of my difficulties at work, "It's hard work being 7 (or any other young age)." And I think she's right. I always try to remember that on days like Monday when it feels so hard to be an adult. Sometimes it even helps.