Context
I was reading Annie's Mailbox again today. The middle letter was from a woman who described some very disrespectful behavior on her boyfriend's part, who then compounded the offense by telling the writer that all men were like him and she should seek professional help for her insecurities. My husband and I agreed that she should in fact seek professional help, right after dumping his sorry butt.
Commentary
What makes us stay with people who treat us badly? I suppose there's more than one answer, but I always seem to encounter this one when I ask people about it: "This is the best I can do, so I'd better not blow it."
I'm not against humility per se, but when it allows people to continue behaving badly I think it's counter-productive. So I'm going to suggest we channel our low self-esteem in a different direction. Wouldn't the world be a better place if we said, "I don't deserve much, but I'm going to go for the best and then work hard to deserve what I get?"
What did you see today?
7/09/2009
I saw a bumper sticker
Context
As I was driving to my volunteer job today I saw a bumper sticker on a pickup truck that said, "An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject." A quick Google search reveals that "armed=citizen, unarmed=subject" is a common internet trope. I had never heard it before today.
Commentary
I am a religious pacifist. I am not, however, totally anti-gun. Biathlon is my favorite Winter Olympic sport and I actually gave a pro-Second Amendment speech at the American Legion's National Oratorical Contest (of course, I was younger then). However, I am completely flabbergasted by the idea that weapons are our most important, or if I'm to take the bumper sticker literally, only tool of citizenship.
Perhaps I'm overthinking this, but I'd rather be accused of overthinking something than underthinking it. I mean, if your gun is what makes you a citizen, why don't we have an armed coup d'etat every time a pro-gun control candidate is elected? Obviously the ballot box, the peaceful protest, the letter-writing campaign from hell and even the liberally-biased mainstream media (as an actual liberal, that last one gives me a giggle, but I digress) are insignificant props, so why use them?
If I were to be really mean (and I'm in that kind of mood, because this is the dumbest political slogan I've seen all week), I'd say the "must be armed to be a citizen" folks are rank cowards. Think about it. What they're saying is that if they don't have a gun available, they can be made to do anything. Or perhaps, since we know the government is unlikely to be unarmed, they're saying that if someone else holds a gun to their head, they'll do whatever they're told. I know the first one's not true of me and I'm hoping the second isn't either.
In the end, I guess that's the foundation of my pacifism: the belief that there are all kinds of things that are mightier than the sword, and the mightiest of all is the will of God. To which we're all subject.
What did you see today?
As I was driving to my volunteer job today I saw a bumper sticker on a pickup truck that said, "An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject." A quick Google search reveals that "armed=citizen, unarmed=subject" is a common internet trope. I had never heard it before today.
Commentary
I am a religious pacifist. I am not, however, totally anti-gun. Biathlon is my favorite Winter Olympic sport and I actually gave a pro-Second Amendment speech at the American Legion's National Oratorical Contest (of course, I was younger then). However, I am completely flabbergasted by the idea that weapons are our most important, or if I'm to take the bumper sticker literally, only tool of citizenship.
Perhaps I'm overthinking this, but I'd rather be accused of overthinking something than underthinking it. I mean, if your gun is what makes you a citizen, why don't we have an armed coup d'etat every time a pro-gun control candidate is elected? Obviously the ballot box, the peaceful protest, the letter-writing campaign from hell and even the liberally-biased mainstream media (as an actual liberal, that last one gives me a giggle, but I digress) are insignificant props, so why use them?
If I were to be really mean (and I'm in that kind of mood, because this is the dumbest political slogan I've seen all week), I'd say the "must be armed to be a citizen" folks are rank cowards. Think about it. What they're saying is that if they don't have a gun available, they can be made to do anything. Or perhaps, since we know the government is unlikely to be unarmed, they're saying that if someone else holds a gun to their head, they'll do whatever they're told. I know the first one's not true of me and I'm hoping the second isn't either.
In the end, I guess that's the foundation of my pacifism: the belief that there are all kinds of things that are mightier than the sword, and the mightiest of all is the will of God. To which we're all subject.
What did you see today?
7/06/2009
I heard a co-worker describe a work situation
Context
As part of a meeting at the library today, one of my co-workers was talking about the flow of items from Acquisitions to Cataloging. Shreve Memorial's website doesn't have pages for these two departments, but if they did, they'd probably look something like this and this. My co-worker's description of the situation was so self-effacing ("It's perfectly all right if we do it this way,") that we had trouble figuring out her preference. Once we did, we immediately put what she wanted into effect.
Commentary
I have resolved that if anyone ever asks me to lead a meeting, I'm going to put two signs up in plain sight, one saying, "We're seeking the best solution, not a perfect solution," and one saying, "Make sure you're answering the question that was asked." I've now decided to add a third: "Don't start your negotiation with what you'll settle for." I think this one, unlike the other two, might be controversial so I've already worked out some responses to potential objections:
Potential objection #1 - "It's nice to be flexible when you're negotiating, so I should show I am from the very beginning." I certainly agree with the first part of this statement and maybe the second as well, but I also think that negotiation is intended as a reconciliation of of different viewpoints. If you start off embracing all viewpoints, it's not a negotiation, it's a summation. On the other hand, if you state clearly what you want from the get-go you may find, as we did in my co-worker's case, that no negotiation is needed at all. Even if it is, the process can go forward with the concrete goal of truly satisfying as many needs as possible, which is kind of difficult when someone says, "I'll be happy with anything."
Potential objection #2 - "I'm saving effort by stating what's good enough at the start." This is certainly true, but you may end up looking either lazy ("It's too hard to go through the process of working things out.") or possessed of a martyr complex ("Nobody's going to do what I want so I'll just sacrifice. Again.). There's a fine line between the laudable goal of making a negotiation more efficient and contemptible one of circumventing it. I think it's easier to stay on the right side of the line if all parties make decisions about acceptable process instead of one person taking the burden on all by herself.
What did you see today?
As part of a meeting at the library today, one of my co-workers was talking about the flow of items from Acquisitions to Cataloging. Shreve Memorial's website doesn't have pages for these two departments, but if they did, they'd probably look something like this and this. My co-worker's description of the situation was so self-effacing ("It's perfectly all right if we do it this way,") that we had trouble figuring out her preference. Once we did, we immediately put what she wanted into effect.
Commentary
I have resolved that if anyone ever asks me to lead a meeting, I'm going to put two signs up in plain sight, one saying, "We're seeking the best solution, not a perfect solution," and one saying, "Make sure you're answering the question that was asked." I've now decided to add a third: "Don't start your negotiation with what you'll settle for." I think this one, unlike the other two, might be controversial so I've already worked out some responses to potential objections:
Potential objection #1 - "It's nice to be flexible when you're negotiating, so I should show I am from the very beginning." I certainly agree with the first part of this statement and maybe the second as well, but I also think that negotiation is intended as a reconciliation of of different viewpoints. If you start off embracing all viewpoints, it's not a negotiation, it's a summation. On the other hand, if you state clearly what you want from the get-go you may find, as we did in my co-worker's case, that no negotiation is needed at all. Even if it is, the process can go forward with the concrete goal of truly satisfying as many needs as possible, which is kind of difficult when someone says, "I'll be happy with anything."
Potential objection #2 - "I'm saving effort by stating what's good enough at the start." This is certainly true, but you may end up looking either lazy ("It's too hard to go through the process of working things out.") or possessed of a martyr complex ("Nobody's going to do what I want so I'll just sacrifice. Again.). There's a fine line between the laudable goal of making a negotiation more efficient and contemptible one of circumventing it. I think it's easier to stay on the right side of the line if all parties make decisions about acceptable process instead of one person taking the burden on all by herself.
What did you see today?
6/23/2009
I saw a plea for advocacy.
Context
I was reading PUBLIB today. I've commented on it at least twice before, here and here. In this post the writer is trying to use the nationwide network of PUBLIB subscribers to find as many people in Ohio as she can to advocate for continued funding for libraries in that state.
Commentary
Even though I'm a librarian, I don't usually advocate for increased spending for libraries. Increased use of libraries, sure, but seeking more funding seems a little too self-serving to me, like I'm saying, "Please support my livelihood!"
Upon further consideration, I don't usually advocate for higher government spending anywhere. I know that if I were official receiving these calls I'd be awfully tempted to ask, "OK, where would you like me to cut funding in order to increase it for your pet cause?" I'm not an absolutist when it comes to governments having balanced budgets, but I do know there's no such thing as free money and I hate to advocate for something without considering the adverse effects it may have on other people's lives.
Of course, if a politician really did ask me this question I'd give the President Clinton answer (as quoted in this article, down towards the bottom): "Don't cut anything. Tax me more." It really is ridiculous how little I pay in taxes, given how much I make. When I was looking up this quote on the internet, I was flabbergasted to discover that several states (but not Louisiana) really do have Tax Me More provisions and the Treasury Department takes donations as well. I guess it's time for me to put my money where my mouth is. That's right anti-tax folk, I said "my" money.
What did you see today?
I was reading PUBLIB today. I've commented on it at least twice before, here and here. In this post the writer is trying to use the nationwide network of PUBLIB subscribers to find as many people in Ohio as she can to advocate for continued funding for libraries in that state.
Commentary
Even though I'm a librarian, I don't usually advocate for increased spending for libraries. Increased use of libraries, sure, but seeking more funding seems a little too self-serving to me, like I'm saying, "Please support my livelihood!"
Upon further consideration, I don't usually advocate for higher government spending anywhere. I know that if I were official receiving these calls I'd be awfully tempted to ask, "OK, where would you like me to cut funding in order to increase it for your pet cause?" I'm not an absolutist when it comes to governments having balanced budgets, but I do know there's no such thing as free money and I hate to advocate for something without considering the adverse effects it may have on other people's lives.
Of course, if a politician really did ask me this question I'd give the President Clinton answer (as quoted in this article, down towards the bottom): "Don't cut anything. Tax me more." It really is ridiculous how little I pay in taxes, given how much I make. When I was looking up this quote on the internet, I was flabbergasted to discover that several states (but not Louisiana) really do have Tax Me More provisions and the Treasury Department takes donations as well. I guess it's time for me to put my money where my mouth is. That's right anti-tax folk, I said "my" money.
What did you see today?
6/11/2009
I saw poorly written blogs
Context
One of the e-mail lists I’m on pointed me in the direction of the Learngasm blog, which includes this entry. The 100 links on it looked interesting so I thought it would take me forever to go through all of them, but that turned out to not be the case. Most of them were poorly written, so I rejected them as wasting my time.
Commentary
There is almost no content in the world that I will wade through poor writing to get at. Living in the 21st century, I find there’s usually enough good writing available on any subject that I can afford to filter this way, so I feel blessed.
So what counts as poor writing? Well, it's similar to poor teaching, which I define this way: any educational experience that is more strongly focused on the teaching than on the learning is of poor quality. My hope is that you’ve never had this happen, but I’ll bet you have: you’re in a class and you quickly discover that the instructor’s goal is just to get through a certain amount of material. Whether you actually understand it is not part of the equation. I think the same dynamic is often at work when people write. They’re seeking to communicate something, but mostly they appear more concerned with getting it off their chest than in ensuring that the message is received.
What are the hallmarks of this kind of writing? Undefined acronyms and references ("My school.” Which is where? What kind of school? What do you do there?), stream of consciousness sentence and paragraph structure, and my personal bugaboo, misspellings and grammatical errors.
“Oh, Lynn,” you might say, “that’s not fair. Grammar and spelling rules in English are really hard to learn. You can’t expect someone to observe all that minutiae.” Whether the rules are hard or not is debatable, but the fact of the matter is they are the conventions we use in order to understand each other. When I teach my Introduction to the World Wide Web, I tell the students that transfer protocols (http, ftp, SMTP) are agreements between computers to share information the same way so they'll understand each other. Rules governing grammar and spelling are the same sort of thing, and disregarding them amounts to breaking a covenant with your reader.
"Aha," you might rejoin (Wow, you're really being feisty about this issue!), "but you break grammar rules all the time. Why, I can see you're just itching to start a sentence with a conjunction like you always do." OK, but I learned in school that breaking grammar rules on purpose isn't poor writing, it's stylized writing. The author who does this is actually creating a new covenant with his/her readers, like when a poem is written in dialect so readers will experience the lyrical qualities of unfamiliar sounds. If I come across something like this I still may choose not to read it, but I will have some respect for the writer's cleverness, creativity and courage.
On the other hand, even if I concede to the clueless blogger that the conventions are hard to learn and apply, that makes the abdication of responsibility even worse. It's like she/he is saying, "It's too difficult for me to figure out whether to use 'there,' 'they're,' or 'their' in this sentence. Instead I'll just type whatever comes to mind. The reader can expend the effort to figure out what I mean." Thank you, but I must respectfully decline.
What did you see today?
One of the e-mail lists I’m on pointed me in the direction of the Learngasm blog, which includes this entry. The 100 links on it looked interesting so I thought it would take me forever to go through all of them, but that turned out to not be the case. Most of them were poorly written, so I rejected them as wasting my time.
Commentary
There is almost no content in the world that I will wade through poor writing to get at. Living in the 21st century, I find there’s usually enough good writing available on any subject that I can afford to filter this way, so I feel blessed.
So what counts as poor writing? Well, it's similar to poor teaching, which I define this way: any educational experience that is more strongly focused on the teaching than on the learning is of poor quality. My hope is that you’ve never had this happen, but I’ll bet you have: you’re in a class and you quickly discover that the instructor’s goal is just to get through a certain amount of material. Whether you actually understand it is not part of the equation. I think the same dynamic is often at work when people write. They’re seeking to communicate something, but mostly they appear more concerned with getting it off their chest than in ensuring that the message is received.
What are the hallmarks of this kind of writing? Undefined acronyms and references ("My school.” Which is where? What kind of school? What do you do there?), stream of consciousness sentence and paragraph structure, and my personal bugaboo, misspellings and grammatical errors.
“Oh, Lynn,” you might say, “that’s not fair. Grammar and spelling rules in English are really hard to learn. You can’t expect someone to observe all that minutiae.” Whether the rules are hard or not is debatable, but the fact of the matter is they are the conventions we use in order to understand each other. When I teach my Introduction to the World Wide Web, I tell the students that transfer protocols (http, ftp, SMTP) are agreements between computers to share information the same way so they'll understand each other. Rules governing grammar and spelling are the same sort of thing, and disregarding them amounts to breaking a covenant with your reader.
"Aha," you might rejoin (Wow, you're really being feisty about this issue!), "but you break grammar rules all the time. Why, I can see you're just itching to start a sentence with a conjunction like you always do." OK, but I learned in school that breaking grammar rules on purpose isn't poor writing, it's stylized writing. The author who does this is actually creating a new covenant with his/her readers, like when a poem is written in dialect so readers will experience the lyrical qualities of unfamiliar sounds. If I come across something like this I still may choose not to read it, but I will have some respect for the writer's cleverness, creativity and courage.
On the other hand, even if I concede to the clueless blogger that the conventions are hard to learn and apply, that makes the abdication of responsibility even worse. It's like she/he is saying, "It's too difficult for me to figure out whether to use 'there,' 'they're,' or 'their' in this sentence. Instead I'll just type whatever comes to mind. The reader can expend the effort to figure out what I mean." Thank you, but I must respectfully decline.
What did you see today?
6/10/2009
I saw routing flags
Context
Because Shreve Memorial Library has 20 branches and uses a hub-and-spoke model to move materials around(similar to this one, but we try not to lose your luggage ;-)), we have pre-printed, color-coded routing flags that we stick in and sometimes on materials that say where they're going. The problem is, once the item arrives at its destination, the flag becomes temporarily useless. Nobody is trying to send things from the Main Library to the Main Library, after all. So each branch, when they've received a sizable number of these things with their name on them, bundles the flags up and sends them back to the Main Library hub. Our Interlibrary Loans Department is normally responsible for routing both the traveling material and the flags themselves.
I occasionally receive items (correspondence or pieces of hardware I need to look at) with Main Library flags attached to them. Since I receive so few I don't bother to give them to Interlibrary Loans; I just drop them off at the next branch I happen to visit. So I was looking at the three or four flags sitting on my desk awaiting redistribution today.
Commentary
I am not much of an environmentalist. I like to think this is not a character flaw on my part, but just a question of some other aspects of life taking higher priority. However, I do like the "reduce, reuse, recycle" mantra and try to apply it when I can. That's why I like the routing flags; they are single scraps of paper that can be reused over and over again.
So there's something that some of my coworkers do that drives me straight up a wall: they write my name and/or my floor on the flag, which renders it un-reusable. Oh sure, I'm going to be sent more mail at some point in the future, but no one's going to hold on to the routing flag with my name on it waiting for that eventuality. The floor designation's unnecessary anyway; it's Interlibrary Loans' job to know where everyone is in the Main Library. And if you want to attach my name, use a separate piece of paper; don't invalidate the routing flag! See, I told you I get up in arms about this.
So as I was looking at the unsullied, still-reusable flags on my desk, I was wondering why people don't just "do right" in this respect. It's something I frequently wonder about and I've come to the following conclusion: it's because they don't see the world the way I do. There is some quantity of people that don't look at an item that can easily be reused and say to themselves, "I should do everything I can to make that happen."
My first instinct in situations like this is to ponder what I can do to make people change. 45 years of life experience have actually taught me the answer: nothing. The good news is, recent religious exploration has convinced me that it's not only impossible to make everyone conform to my view of the world, it's not even desirable.
God is vast and vastly creative. No one person can perceive, appreciate and participate in all that He is doing. So our different ways of seeing the world are a gift we can offer to the Lord and to each other. For example, when I interact with a friend who thinks airline travel is immoral because of the ecological impact, I get to learn that just owning a Prius isn't enough to call myself an environmentalist, and she gets to see that people can hold other priorities in good faith, like wanting to build community through travel. Everybody gets to grow!
Share with me what you saw today!
Because Shreve Memorial Library has 20 branches and uses a hub-and-spoke model to move materials around(similar to this one, but we try not to lose your luggage ;-)), we have pre-printed, color-coded routing flags that we stick in and sometimes on materials that say where they're going. The problem is, once the item arrives at its destination, the flag becomes temporarily useless. Nobody is trying to send things from the Main Library to the Main Library, after all. So each branch, when they've received a sizable number of these things with their name on them, bundles the flags up and sends them back to the Main Library hub. Our Interlibrary Loans Department is normally responsible for routing both the traveling material and the flags themselves.
I occasionally receive items (correspondence or pieces of hardware I need to look at) with Main Library flags attached to them. Since I receive so few I don't bother to give them to Interlibrary Loans; I just drop them off at the next branch I happen to visit. So I was looking at the three or four flags sitting on my desk awaiting redistribution today.
Commentary
I am not much of an environmentalist. I like to think this is not a character flaw on my part, but just a question of some other aspects of life taking higher priority. However, I do like the "reduce, reuse, recycle" mantra and try to apply it when I can. That's why I like the routing flags; they are single scraps of paper that can be reused over and over again.
So there's something that some of my coworkers do that drives me straight up a wall: they write my name and/or my floor on the flag, which renders it un-reusable. Oh sure, I'm going to be sent more mail at some point in the future, but no one's going to hold on to the routing flag with my name on it waiting for that eventuality. The floor designation's unnecessary anyway; it's Interlibrary Loans' job to know where everyone is in the Main Library. And if you want to attach my name, use a separate piece of paper; don't invalidate the routing flag! See, I told you I get up in arms about this.
So as I was looking at the unsullied, still-reusable flags on my desk, I was wondering why people don't just "do right" in this respect. It's something I frequently wonder about and I've come to the following conclusion: it's because they don't see the world the way I do. There is some quantity of people that don't look at an item that can easily be reused and say to themselves, "I should do everything I can to make that happen."
My first instinct in situations like this is to ponder what I can do to make people change. 45 years of life experience have actually taught me the answer: nothing. The good news is, recent religious exploration has convinced me that it's not only impossible to make everyone conform to my view of the world, it's not even desirable.
God is vast and vastly creative. No one person can perceive, appreciate and participate in all that He is doing. So our different ways of seeing the world are a gift we can offer to the Lord and to each other. For example, when I interact with a friend who thinks airline travel is immoral because of the ecological impact, I get to learn that just owning a Prius isn't enough to call myself an environmentalist, and she gets to see that people can hold other priorities in good faith, like wanting to build community through travel. Everybody gets to grow!
Share with me what you saw today!
6/03/2009
I saw my iGoogle page
Context
I have an iGoogle page. Mainly I use it as a quick link to this blog and for sharing a calendar with my husband. I also have links to some other websites with hard-to-remember addresses that I use regularly and a couple of RSS feeds. There are a lot of other things I could add to the page, but in the three years I've had it I've made very few changes.
Commentary
As mentioned previously, I am not a quick adopter of technological innovation. In fact, if I'm completely honest with myself I have to say I'm not a person who changes easily, period.
I'm not change-averse; I'm change-cautious. Or maybe change-skeptical. Change-intentional? I like to have a good reason to change, OK? And just, "it's new!" doesn't qualify as a good reason in my book. So looking over my iGoogle page caused me to wonder, "Do I need to add anything new here?" And the answer was no, I didn't feel like it lacked for anything important. Which got me to thinking about what does cause me to change. What is a good enough reason? The answer that immediately popped into my head was: "Other people."
I was flabbergasted. If you asked anyone who knew me to make a list of my personality traits, "people-pleaser" wouldn't make the top 200. And since "argumentative," "stubborn," and um, "forthright" would probably be in the top ten, I have a certain amount of sympathy for anyone who tries to make me to change something.
Nonetheless, other people are usually involved when I decide to change something. The scenario usually goes like this: I see someone in need. In examining the situation, I see a change that I could make that would likely improve matters. The change gets made.
For example, the reason I share a calendar with my husband on iGoogle is because I used to hand him a paper calendar every month and that became really difficult for him to keep track of. Plus my schedule is often kind of up in the air, so I had to hand him frequent updates and even though his schedule is usually fairly regular, I had a hard time remembering it, and blah! It all just became much easier with a shared web solution.
Realistically, of course, I'm often solving my own problems at the same time, but I find it harder to see my problems. Forest for the trees, I suppose. Paradoxically, I seem to need to see another person's problem with my own eyes in order to respond, rather than just believing them when they tell me about it. So I guess it's a good thing to keep my eyes open.
What did you see today?
I have an iGoogle page. Mainly I use it as a quick link to this blog and for sharing a calendar with my husband. I also have links to some other websites with hard-to-remember addresses that I use regularly and a couple of RSS feeds. There are a lot of other things I could add to the page, but in the three years I've had it I've made very few changes.
Commentary
As mentioned previously, I am not a quick adopter of technological innovation. In fact, if I'm completely honest with myself I have to say I'm not a person who changes easily, period.
I'm not change-averse; I'm change-cautious. Or maybe change-skeptical. Change-intentional? I like to have a good reason to change, OK? And just, "it's new!" doesn't qualify as a good reason in my book. So looking over my iGoogle page caused me to wonder, "Do I need to add anything new here?" And the answer was no, I didn't feel like it lacked for anything important. Which got me to thinking about what does cause me to change. What is a good enough reason? The answer that immediately popped into my head was: "Other people."
I was flabbergasted. If you asked anyone who knew me to make a list of my personality traits, "people-pleaser" wouldn't make the top 200. And since "argumentative," "stubborn," and um, "forthright" would probably be in the top ten, I have a certain amount of sympathy for anyone who tries to make me to change something.
Nonetheless, other people are usually involved when I decide to change something. The scenario usually goes like this: I see someone in need. In examining the situation, I see a change that I could make that would likely improve matters. The change gets made.
For example, the reason I share a calendar with my husband on iGoogle is because I used to hand him a paper calendar every month and that became really difficult for him to keep track of. Plus my schedule is often kind of up in the air, so I had to hand him frequent updates and even though his schedule is usually fairly regular, I had a hard time remembering it, and blah! It all just became much easier with a shared web solution.
Realistically, of course, I'm often solving my own problems at the same time, but I find it harder to see my problems. Forest for the trees, I suppose. Paradoxically, I seem to need to see another person's problem with my own eyes in order to respond, rather than just believing them when they tell me about it. So I guess it's a good thing to keep my eyes open.
What did you see today?
6/01/2009
I saw a discussion of repatriation attempts during the Holocaust
Context
I am reading the proceedings of Second Yad Vashem International Historical Conference in a volume entitled Rescue Attempts during the Holocaust. You can purchase this book through the Yad Vashem website, but I'm not sure how many mainstream booksellers have it. I got my copy at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. Currently I'm reading a report on attempts by President Roosevelt and others to repatriate European Jews during the Holocaust period. The only successful massive migration took place after the war, when Britain loosened restrictions on entering Palestine. Shortly thereafter, the state of Israel was born.
Commentary
I bought this book after touring the Holocaust Museum because frankly, I was depressed. For as long as I've been aware of the Shoah (the TV miniseries The Holocaust was my first exposure) the question has tortured me: why didn't anybody do anything? So I needed to cling to the idea that someone tried.
I didn't actually start reading the book until ten years later, which is probably a good thing. Notice that the title isn't "Successful Rescue Attempts during the Holocaust." It's interesting reading, but not exactly inspirational.
I find myself particularly puzzled by this chapter on repatriation, because it keeps being couched as a solution to the Jewish "problem". What I keep asking myself is, "How did this happen?" Germany (and Poland and Hungary, etc.) was the Jews' home; how did they become a "problem" that needed solving? The answer is as simple as it is chilling: they became a problem because the dominant culture decided they were. From that point on, no amount of "See here now, old fellow, you're being irrational," could save a single person from the concentration camps, so the rest of the world was forced to adopt the "solving the Jewish problem" approach.
Which brings me to the Palestinians. It is considered something of an internet truism that once you bring comparisons to Nazism into any argument you've lost it (quick capsule of this idea here), but I'm going to claim my right as an historian (B.A. 1987, Rice University) to say that no situation is ever completely unprecedented, and valid historical comparisons are educational regardless of the emotional content behind them. So, onward!
For various reasons, the state of Israel has decided that Palestinians are a problem and that they don't want them anywhere near Israeli citizens. This is remarkably similar to the early rhetoric the Nazi regime used about the Jews.
Just to be clear, here's what I'm not saying: I don't believe the Israelis have any intention of sending the Palestinians to concentration camps and exterminating them. I'm also not saying that Israel doesn't have legitimate security concerns about at least some of the Palestinians living in their midst.
But here's what I am saying: if you time-warped a person from the Warsaw ghetto to some of areas Palestinians live in today, he/she would see some points of commonality. I'm also saying this: very few people start off intending to be an oppressor. They start off defending themselves from a perceived threat. From there it takes very few steps to decide that it's appropriate to do whatever you have to in order to "solve your problem."
What did you see today?
I am reading the proceedings of Second Yad Vashem International Historical Conference in a volume entitled Rescue Attempts during the Holocaust. You can purchase this book through the Yad Vashem website, but I'm not sure how many mainstream booksellers have it. I got my copy at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. Currently I'm reading a report on attempts by President Roosevelt and others to repatriate European Jews during the Holocaust period. The only successful massive migration took place after the war, when Britain loosened restrictions on entering Palestine. Shortly thereafter, the state of Israel was born.
Commentary
I bought this book after touring the Holocaust Museum because frankly, I was depressed. For as long as I've been aware of the Shoah (the TV miniseries The Holocaust was my first exposure) the question has tortured me: why didn't anybody do anything? So I needed to cling to the idea that someone tried.
I didn't actually start reading the book until ten years later, which is probably a good thing. Notice that the title isn't "Successful Rescue Attempts during the Holocaust." It's interesting reading, but not exactly inspirational.
I find myself particularly puzzled by this chapter on repatriation, because it keeps being couched as a solution to the Jewish "problem". What I keep asking myself is, "How did this happen?" Germany (and Poland and Hungary, etc.) was the Jews' home; how did they become a "problem" that needed solving? The answer is as simple as it is chilling: they became a problem because the dominant culture decided they were. From that point on, no amount of "See here now, old fellow, you're being irrational," could save a single person from the concentration camps, so the rest of the world was forced to adopt the "solving the Jewish problem" approach.
Which brings me to the Palestinians. It is considered something of an internet truism that once you bring comparisons to Nazism into any argument you've lost it (quick capsule of this idea here), but I'm going to claim my right as an historian (B.A. 1987, Rice University) to say that no situation is ever completely unprecedented, and valid historical comparisons are educational regardless of the emotional content behind them. So, onward!
For various reasons, the state of Israel has decided that Palestinians are a problem and that they don't want them anywhere near Israeli citizens. This is remarkably similar to the early rhetoric the Nazi regime used about the Jews.
Just to be clear, here's what I'm not saying: I don't believe the Israelis have any intention of sending the Palestinians to concentration camps and exterminating them. I'm also not saying that Israel doesn't have legitimate security concerns about at least some of the Palestinians living in their midst.
But here's what I am saying: if you time-warped a person from the Warsaw ghetto to some of areas Palestinians live in today, he/she would see some points of commonality. I'm also saying this: very few people start off intending to be an oppressor. They start off defending themselves from a perceived threat. From there it takes very few steps to decide that it's appropriate to do whatever you have to in order to "solve your problem."
What did you see today?
4/20/2009
I saw an older European-American man driving poorly
Context
In Shreveport, I-20 West has an off ramp that merges into northbound Common Street. As I was traveling north on Common this morning, one of the cars on this ramp failed to yield to oncoming traffic like it was supposed to. When I looked at the driver of the vehicle, I saw that he was an older European-American, and that he was looking down at the seat next to him rather than watching where he was going. I said "Sir!" in an exasperated tone as I swerved around him. At least one of the cars behind me, which had to swerve even more, honked at him.
Commentary
My theories as to what happened with the guy this morning all center around him not realizing he was sliding into traffic. In other words, he thought he had a moment or two to glance at his papers or his phone or whatever before he would have to pay attention to other cars, but he didn't. But that's not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about white privilege.
I am not a road-ragey type. This is one of the few areas in my life where I actually hew pretty closely to the Quaker peace testimony. I do not honk my horn in anger, only in warning or greeting. When my fellow drivers do something irritating, I usually just say or yell something in the privacy of my own vehicle and it usually isn't even profane or insulting. Something along the lines of "C'mon!" or "Seriously?" If I'm particularly irked I'll emulate my dad, who used to say "Well, friend . . . " in a very sarcastic tone. This is pretty funny in light of the fact that my dad was not a Quaker but a Baptist, but I digress.
However, I don't recall ever saying "Sir" before. Now maybe it's just because I live in Louisiana, where "yes, sir" and "no ma'am" have been codified into law. But I don't think so. I think it's because the driver was older than me, which definitely does deserve some respect, and because he was white and male, which doesn't necessarily.
So I guess my new mandate in the fight for equality is to refer to every bad driver, without prejudice, as sir or ma'am. Wish me luck!
What did you see today?
In Shreveport, I-20 West has an off ramp that merges into northbound Common Street. As I was traveling north on Common this morning, one of the cars on this ramp failed to yield to oncoming traffic like it was supposed to. When I looked at the driver of the vehicle, I saw that he was an older European-American, and that he was looking down at the seat next to him rather than watching where he was going. I said "Sir!" in an exasperated tone as I swerved around him. At least one of the cars behind me, which had to swerve even more, honked at him.
Commentary
My theories as to what happened with the guy this morning all center around him not realizing he was sliding into traffic. In other words, he thought he had a moment or two to glance at his papers or his phone or whatever before he would have to pay attention to other cars, but he didn't. But that's not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about white privilege.
I am not a road-ragey type. This is one of the few areas in my life where I actually hew pretty closely to the Quaker peace testimony. I do not honk my horn in anger, only in warning or greeting. When my fellow drivers do something irritating, I usually just say or yell something in the privacy of my own vehicle and it usually isn't even profane or insulting. Something along the lines of "C'mon!" or "Seriously?" If I'm particularly irked I'll emulate my dad, who used to say "Well, friend . . . " in a very sarcastic tone. This is pretty funny in light of the fact that my dad was not a Quaker but a Baptist, but I digress.
However, I don't recall ever saying "Sir" before. Now maybe it's just because I live in Louisiana, where "yes, sir" and "no ma'am" have been codified into law. But I don't think so. I think it's because the driver was older than me, which definitely does deserve some respect, and because he was white and male, which doesn't necessarily.
So I guess my new mandate in the fight for equality is to refer to every bad driver, without prejudice, as sir or ma'am. Wish me luck!
What did you see today?
4/11/2009
I heard a guiding principle
Context
In my Friends meeting today we were discussing guiding principles for life, things that help us decide what path to take in a given situation. One woman said she goes by "always take the easiest path," but upon further consideration she decided it was more like, "always take the path with the most fun."
Commentary
"Always take the path with the most fun" reminds me of football. The old season is two months gone and the new season is four months away and still things remind me of football. Whatcha gonna do?
Anyway, for about the past ten years, the NFL has had an "instant replay rule" (details here) which allows referees to take a look at video of a just completed play to see if they made the correct call or not. I often tell my husband they should change this rule to favor not the "correct" call but the "most fun" call.
I'm not serious. I know this wouldn't work because the main goal of professional football and most other organized sports is to create a set of objective standards (move the ball a certain distance, prevent the other team from moving the ball, catch the ball within the confines of the field of play, etc.) and award a "win" to whichever team does the best job of conforming to them. Since football has a lot of these standards, you need a person whose job is to very precisely evaluate each team's performance for compliance with all of them. That's your referee, or in the case of big-time football, your whole officiating team.
However, I think my proposal does fit in well with some of the NFL's ancillary goals. It's supposed to be sports entertainment, after all, so fun should come in somewhere. I also think most professional sports organizations like to promote a certain amount of parity, because a good close game makes it more likely that people will watch the whole thing. If referees started awarding questionable calls to whichever team was losing, it might very well make the game more fun.
It might make for interesting coaching strategies as well: "let's not take the lead yet. Let's try for a couple of 'most fun' calls." Hmm. How do you think that would work as a guiding principle for life?
What did you hear today?
In my Friends meeting today we were discussing guiding principles for life, things that help us decide what path to take in a given situation. One woman said she goes by "always take the easiest path," but upon further consideration she decided it was more like, "always take the path with the most fun."
Commentary
"Always take the path with the most fun" reminds me of football. The old season is two months gone and the new season is four months away and still things remind me of football. Whatcha gonna do?
Anyway, for about the past ten years, the NFL has had an "instant replay rule" (details here) which allows referees to take a look at video of a just completed play to see if they made the correct call or not. I often tell my husband they should change this rule to favor not the "correct" call but the "most fun" call.
I'm not serious. I know this wouldn't work because the main goal of professional football and most other organized sports is to create a set of objective standards (move the ball a certain distance, prevent the other team from moving the ball, catch the ball within the confines of the field of play, etc.) and award a "win" to whichever team does the best job of conforming to them. Since football has a lot of these standards, you need a person whose job is to very precisely evaluate each team's performance for compliance with all of them. That's your referee, or in the case of big-time football, your whole officiating team.
However, I think my proposal does fit in well with some of the NFL's ancillary goals. It's supposed to be sports entertainment, after all, so fun should come in somewhere. I also think most professional sports organizations like to promote a certain amount of parity, because a good close game makes it more likely that people will watch the whole thing. If referees started awarding questionable calls to whichever team was losing, it might very well make the game more fun.
It might make for interesting coaching strategies as well: "let's not take the lead yet. Let's try for a couple of 'most fun' calls." Hmm. How do you think that would work as a guiding principle for life?
What did you hear today?
4/03/2009
I saw a DVD on harassment and discrimination
Context
The Technical Services division of my library had its annual training on discrimination and harassment in the workplace today. Interspersed with watching a DVD called Without Regard we had some commentary and discussion time. At one point while we were discussing discrimination one of my co-workers made, I think without realizing it, a blatantly discriminatory remark about the suitability of men and women for a particular job. A little later on, when the HR director was talking about the potential harm caused by jokes, I thought to myself, "people are just being silly if they get offended when we do stuff like that."
Commentary
I don't have much to say about the situation today. Instead I want to say something else about Matthew 7:1-5: it is a quality of sinners that if it's wrong we don't think we do it (my coworker), and if we do it, we don't think it's wrong (me).
What did you see today?
The Technical Services division of my library had its annual training on discrimination and harassment in the workplace today. Interspersed with watching a DVD called Without Regard we had some commentary and discussion time. At one point while we were discussing discrimination one of my co-workers made, I think without realizing it, a blatantly discriminatory remark about the suitability of men and women for a particular job. A little later on, when the HR director was talking about the potential harm caused by jokes, I thought to myself, "people are just being silly if they get offended when we do stuff like that."
Commentary
I don't have much to say about the situation today. Instead I want to say something else about Matthew 7:1-5: it is a quality of sinners that if it's wrong we don't think we do it (my coworker), and if we do it, we don't think it's wrong (me).
What did you see today?
4/01/2009
I saw compliments on something I did
Context
I've spent some time this week contributing to a wiki composed of information on using a piece of software called Symphony by SirsiDynix. Today, a couple of people on an e-mail list devoted to the same subject complimented my work. I cannot link to either my contributions or their comments because that information is proprietary to SirsiDynix.
Commentary
The compliments I received got me to thinking about what motivates us to take extra effort. I mean, I wasn't expecting compliments when I sent my files to the wiki; I thought my contribution was way too mired in minute detail to be of much use.
The subject of motivation has interested me since high school. I think it came to my attention for two reasons. One was a book my dad was reading called Analyzing Performance Problems, or You Really Oughta Wanna, which broke down motivation to a very neat set of flow charts. If only real-world management was so easy!
The other was a class I took my freshman year of high school on comparative economic systems. This was not a "capitalism good, communism bad!" class, it was a legitimate comparison of the merits and drawbacks of these two major systems and other economic theories. In fact, I think the evenhandedness of it was what caused some of my fellow students to think our teacher was herself a communist, but I never got that impression.
I came away from that class thinking that communism was a lovely theory that could never work. Ideally it would be nice if we could all work for the common good, but it was not realistic to expect human beings to be motivated by altruism. As a strong believer in sin, I still think that's true.
Over time, though, I've come to realize that communist theory is more subtle than that. It doesn't expect altruism, it expects faith. If you believe that Karl Marx's view of human interactions is correct and/or morally superior, than you will be motivated to implement his theories. The same thing actually applies to capitalism and Adam Smith.
So what was my motivation to contribute to the wiki? Well, I had some faith that the material I contributed would be welcomed. OK, someone actually asked me to send it in, which was enough to inspire some confidence.
I guess I also believe in collaborative efforts in general. Not all of them, and I sometimes think wikis bring out the worst aspects of "writing by committee," but I'm often convinced that three hundred heads are better than one.
Finally, I believe that if you can help someone out, that's worth some extra effort. Wait, does that mean I'm a communist?
What did you see today?
I've spent some time this week contributing to a wiki composed of information on using a piece of software called Symphony by SirsiDynix. Today, a couple of people on an e-mail list devoted to the same subject complimented my work. I cannot link to either my contributions or their comments because that information is proprietary to SirsiDynix.
Commentary
The compliments I received got me to thinking about what motivates us to take extra effort. I mean, I wasn't expecting compliments when I sent my files to the wiki; I thought my contribution was way too mired in minute detail to be of much use.
The subject of motivation has interested me since high school. I think it came to my attention for two reasons. One was a book my dad was reading called Analyzing Performance Problems, or You Really Oughta Wanna, which broke down motivation to a very neat set of flow charts. If only real-world management was so easy!
The other was a class I took my freshman year of high school on comparative economic systems. This was not a "capitalism good, communism bad!" class, it was a legitimate comparison of the merits and drawbacks of these two major systems and other economic theories. In fact, I think the evenhandedness of it was what caused some of my fellow students to think our teacher was herself a communist, but I never got that impression.
I came away from that class thinking that communism was a lovely theory that could never work. Ideally it would be nice if we could all work for the common good, but it was not realistic to expect human beings to be motivated by altruism. As a strong believer in sin, I still think that's true.
Over time, though, I've come to realize that communist theory is more subtle than that. It doesn't expect altruism, it expects faith. If you believe that Karl Marx's view of human interactions is correct and/or morally superior, than you will be motivated to implement his theories. The same thing actually applies to capitalism and Adam Smith.
So what was my motivation to contribute to the wiki? Well, I had some faith that the material I contributed would be welcomed. OK, someone actually asked me to send it in, which was enough to inspire some confidence.
I guess I also believe in collaborative efforts in general. Not all of them, and I sometimes think wikis bring out the worst aspects of "writing by committee," but I'm often convinced that three hundred heads are better than one.
Finally, I believe that if you can help someone out, that's worth some extra effort. Wait, does that mean I'm a communist?
What did you see today?
3/06/2009
I heard about no-win situations
Context
My boss and I were talking about situations where you "catch more flies with honey than vinegar," and he mentioned one where there's nothing you can say that won't get you in trouble: "should I eat this?", when spoken by a girlfriend. I said, "yup, and the ever-popular 'does this make me look fat?'"
Commentary
I'm not going to talk about body-image issues. It is, frankly, too easy a target and I don't think I have anything new to contribute to it. Instead I'm going to make a heartfelt plea that we stop asking questions of our significant others that we should be answering ourselves. And it's not just straight women. People of every conceivable type of romantic interest set these little traps (hopefully unintentionally!) for the people they supposedly like.
Take "does this make me look fat?" First of all, this question implies that what you look like is somehow the fault of an inanimate object. Also, you're asking someone outside yourself to create an objective reality for you. No matter how she or he answers, that answer is supposed to stand in for everyone else in the world, including you.
At the very least, make this a question that encompasses only one person's opinion: "do you think I look fat when I wear this?" Before you ask a question like this, though, you should probably prepare yourself for one of three answers:
1) I have no opinion. The sad fact of life is if you're asking a straight male the question, this is likely the answer. Men may be partial to or repulsed by how some small subset of our garments look on us, but face it, when we own the same pair of shoes in navy and black, we can't even tell the difference ourselves most mornings.
2) Yes. This means your significant other thinks this is an unflattering garment. Or that he/she likes you fat. Nothing more. It is not a reflection on the entire history of your relationship.
3) No. This may potentially mean your partner disagrees with you on how flattering this item is.
So how do you deal with this disagreement? Go with your own opinion (oh well, I don't like it anyway, off to Goodwill)? Then why did you ask? Go with their opinion (OK, I'll keep it then, just as a present to you)? Actually, this is not a bad way to train your significant other to be honest, because if she/he is not, you're going to end up with a lot of clothes neither of you can stand! Honestly reassess your opinion in light of partner's, but still make up your own mind? Heavens! How insanely well-adjusted of you!
As for the "should I eat this?" question, I think it is far more easily dispensed with. There are only three circumstances under which you should be asking ANYONE this question:
1) You have been presented with something that for cultural reasons you don't know the purpose of. If someone gives you a definitive answer either way, do what they say.
2) You are under 14. In this case you should give some credence to the answer, especially if you have documented food sensitivities.
3) You are asking a registered dietician, in which case you can ask for the advice but still make up your own mind.
In every other situation grownups are expected to know how to feed themselves. Even female grownups with body-image issues.
What did you hear today?
My boss and I were talking about situations where you "catch more flies with honey than vinegar," and he mentioned one where there's nothing you can say that won't get you in trouble: "should I eat this?", when spoken by a girlfriend. I said, "yup, and the ever-popular 'does this make me look fat?'"
Commentary
I'm not going to talk about body-image issues. It is, frankly, too easy a target and I don't think I have anything new to contribute to it. Instead I'm going to make a heartfelt plea that we stop asking questions of our significant others that we should be answering ourselves. And it's not just straight women. People of every conceivable type of romantic interest set these little traps (hopefully unintentionally!) for the people they supposedly like.
Take "does this make me look fat?" First of all, this question implies that what you look like is somehow the fault of an inanimate object. Also, you're asking someone outside yourself to create an objective reality for you. No matter how she or he answers, that answer is supposed to stand in for everyone else in the world, including you.
At the very least, make this a question that encompasses only one person's opinion: "do you think I look fat when I wear this?" Before you ask a question like this, though, you should probably prepare yourself for one of three answers:
1) I have no opinion. The sad fact of life is if you're asking a straight male the question, this is likely the answer. Men may be partial to or repulsed by how some small subset of our garments look on us, but face it, when we own the same pair of shoes in navy and black, we can't even tell the difference ourselves most mornings.
2) Yes. This means your significant other thinks this is an unflattering garment. Or that he/she likes you fat. Nothing more. It is not a reflection on the entire history of your relationship.
3) No. This may potentially mean your partner disagrees with you on how flattering this item is.
So how do you deal with this disagreement? Go with your own opinion (oh well, I don't like it anyway, off to Goodwill)? Then why did you ask? Go with their opinion (OK, I'll keep it then, just as a present to you)? Actually, this is not a bad way to train your significant other to be honest, because if she/he is not, you're going to end up with a lot of clothes neither of you can stand! Honestly reassess your opinion in light of partner's, but still make up your own mind? Heavens! How insanely well-adjusted of you!
As for the "should I eat this?" question, I think it is far more easily dispensed with. There are only three circumstances under which you should be asking ANYONE this question:
1) You have been presented with something that for cultural reasons you don't know the purpose of. If someone gives you a definitive answer either way, do what they say.
2) You are under 14. In this case you should give some credence to the answer, especially if you have documented food sensitivities.
3) You are asking a registered dietician, in which case you can ask for the advice but still make up your own mind.
In every other situation grownups are expected to know how to feed themselves. Even female grownups with body-image issues.
What did you hear today?
2/18/2009
I saw an article about a crime
Context
I read an article from yesterday's Shreveport Times today. It may be at this link, or it may not, depending on how long they archive the material. The article concerned the murder of a local woman, Ashley Scott, by her husband in Tennessee. Here is a direct quote from this article:
"Stephens said there were signs of domestic violence -- Ashley would wear heavy makeup or high collars to hide bruises -- and concerns by faculty. But when he talked to Ashley, offering Employee Assistance Program help, she said, 'Everything will be OK.'
Said Stephens: 'I don't think anybody realized how bad it was, how bad it was getting.'
It was, Stephens now realizes in hindsight, 'this perfect facade of a relationship.'"
"Stephens" is the principal at the school where Mrs. Scott taught.
Commentary
I understand that Mr. Stephens is under an extraordinary amount of pressure, but I feel compelled to point out that although his first statement is likely factual, the second one is mistaken at best and the third one is an outright lie. If you see a woman dressing to cover the signs of spousal abuse, you know exactly how bad it is, and she and her husband are not maintaining anything resembling a perfect facade of a relationship.
So why say it? I think it's likely that Stephens has heard, possibly more than once, or maybe just in the privacy of his own head, this accusation: "if you knew what was going on, why didn't you stop it?" So he backs off, pretends he didn't know what was going on. It's a more palatable answer than what seems to be the truth, "she wouldn't let me."
I blame the afterschool specials. The media has done such a good job of convincing us that domestic violence is a simple situation involving one monster and one victim that we think curing the problem should be equally simple. Just walk away. Accept the help an outsider offers you.
But real life isn't like that. Abuse is only part of a relationship. It may be a constant part or an intermittent one, but it's still only one element. And the person who's being abused may not see it as important enough to outweigh all the other elements.
My father used to hit my mother. Not regularly, but certainly more than once. I know I just wrote that in a universally accessible blog, but up until this moment I have kept that information relatively close to the chest. My close friends know; I've told church groups I was close to, but I've never made a big announcement or been all crusady about it.
I think one of the reasons I'm reluctant to talk about it is because I'm wary of the oversimplifications. The stereotypes I'm accustomed to don't fit the situation. My mother was neither too stupid to know what was going on nor too helpless to walk away. She was a woman who weighed her alternatives and made her decisions. And forgive me for straying off the P.C. ranch, but she wasn't always particularly nice to my dad either.
The conditions did not match Ashley Scott's. My father never cut my mother off from her friend and relatives and her life was never in danger. But if I'm really, really honest, I have to admit that the two people I'm ashamed to have never discussed this with are my mother and my father. Would it have helped? Can a daughter actually say to her parents, "your relationship is really screwed up and I think you both could make better decisions"? They're both gone now so I'll never know.
And now Ashley Scott is gone as well and we're all left feeling like there's something more we could have done . . .
What did you see today?
I read an article from yesterday's Shreveport Times today. It may be at this link, or it may not, depending on how long they archive the material. The article concerned the murder of a local woman, Ashley Scott, by her husband in Tennessee. Here is a direct quote from this article:
"Stephens said there were signs of domestic violence -- Ashley would wear heavy makeup or high collars to hide bruises -- and concerns by faculty. But when he talked to Ashley, offering Employee Assistance Program help, she said, 'Everything will be OK.'
Said Stephens: 'I don't think anybody realized how bad it was, how bad it was getting.'
It was, Stephens now realizes in hindsight, 'this perfect facade of a relationship.'"
"Stephens" is the principal at the school where Mrs. Scott taught.
Commentary
I understand that Mr. Stephens is under an extraordinary amount of pressure, but I feel compelled to point out that although his first statement is likely factual, the second one is mistaken at best and the third one is an outright lie. If you see a woman dressing to cover the signs of spousal abuse, you know exactly how bad it is, and she and her husband are not maintaining anything resembling a perfect facade of a relationship.
So why say it? I think it's likely that Stephens has heard, possibly more than once, or maybe just in the privacy of his own head, this accusation: "if you knew what was going on, why didn't you stop it?" So he backs off, pretends he didn't know what was going on. It's a more palatable answer than what seems to be the truth, "she wouldn't let me."
I blame the afterschool specials. The media has done such a good job of convincing us that domestic violence is a simple situation involving one monster and one victim that we think curing the problem should be equally simple. Just walk away. Accept the help an outsider offers you.
But real life isn't like that. Abuse is only part of a relationship. It may be a constant part or an intermittent one, but it's still only one element. And the person who's being abused may not see it as important enough to outweigh all the other elements.
My father used to hit my mother. Not regularly, but certainly more than once. I know I just wrote that in a universally accessible blog, but up until this moment I have kept that information relatively close to the chest. My close friends know; I've told church groups I was close to, but I've never made a big announcement or been all crusady about it.
I think one of the reasons I'm reluctant to talk about it is because I'm wary of the oversimplifications. The stereotypes I'm accustomed to don't fit the situation. My mother was neither too stupid to know what was going on nor too helpless to walk away. She was a woman who weighed her alternatives and made her decisions. And forgive me for straying off the P.C. ranch, but she wasn't always particularly nice to my dad either.
The conditions did not match Ashley Scott's. My father never cut my mother off from her friend and relatives and her life was never in danger. But if I'm really, really honest, I have to admit that the two people I'm ashamed to have never discussed this with are my mother and my father. Would it have helped? Can a daughter actually say to her parents, "your relationship is really screwed up and I think you both could make better decisions"? They're both gone now so I'll never know.
And now Ashley Scott is gone as well and we're all left feeling like there's something more we could have done . . .
What did you see today?
2/08/2009
I saw a group of unfaithful people
Context
I had a dream this morning. It started in a church. I was there with my husband and I had decided I wasn’t interested in the proceedings, so I went by myself to an area in the rear where the pews were turned backwards and I could hang out without really paying attention to what was going on.
After a time a woman rose up to speak to the church. She said that she and a group of others were going to leave the church, which was called Nassaret, because of its teachings. I was interested in this development, so I looked over the back of my pew to see the power point presentation she was doing.
She mentioned several offensive things that had been said at Nassaret, including that it was OK to look at nudity. None of the things she said were preachings that would bother me in a church, but even though I didn’t agree with her I remember admiring the zeal behind her words.
After a time I saw the separatist group again. They were readying a boat, so I guess they were planning a major geographic exodus, rather than just starting another church nearby. I met some of the other people involved in the movement, including a drummer who was playing some music for people to work by. Now that I’m awake and remembering this dream, I realize that the drummer was the administrator of a nursing home where I do some volunteer work.
Another period of time passed and as I was going down a street near my house I saw the drummer again, drumming between orange cones that had been set in the street to reserve the lane for her. I was dismayed because I realized this meant the group hadn’t separated themselves at all. Sure enough, following the cones I found that they were part of a fundraising effort and they led back to the boat the group had been preparing. There were tons of people on board, including all the separatists and all the people from Nassaret.
I found the woman who had started the movement and asked her what had happened. She said they had found out they didn’t really need to create a schism and everything was going to be all right. Suspicious, I asked who had told her so. She said, “He’s right here!” and took me into another room to meet him. “This is Senator [Something] Neutral.” As soon as I saw him my suspicions were concerned. He was a servant of the devil.
“Nice to see you again,” I said, putting out my hand to shake. He shook it and said, “likewise.” Then I said, “begone!” and he said a phrase I didn’t know, presumably “bite me” in some ancient language.
“Begone!” I said again, and he gave no response. “Do you really want me to say it a third time, with the puff of smoke and everything?” He shrugged.
“Begone!” I said and he did in fact disappear in a puff of smoke.
The former leader of the separatist group was appalled. “I’m going to have you put in jail!”
“Do it! For God’s sake!” I said this in anger, and then stopped because it seemed an inappropriate time to be using the Lord’s name in vain. Then I realized I really was speaking for God’s sake so it wasn’t in vain. I said it again, “For God’s sake!” A third time, and deadly serious. “For God’s sake, follow through on one thing you promise Him you’ll do!” Then I woke up.
Commentary
I believe this dream came from God so it doesn't require a lot of commentary, but I do have a couple of things to say.
It was a dream, so my conscious mind may have changed some aspects in order to make it work as a narrative. I do clearly remember the exchange with the Senator and the final thing I said to the woman is a verbatim transcription.
I don't know if this dream is for me or for someone else. I can't think of anything I've backslid on recently, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. If it is for you then I'm glad to have supplied it.
In Revelation 3:16 God says, "because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth."
What did you see today?
I had a dream this morning. It started in a church. I was there with my husband and I had decided I wasn’t interested in the proceedings, so I went by myself to an area in the rear where the pews were turned backwards and I could hang out without really paying attention to what was going on.
After a time a woman rose up to speak to the church. She said that she and a group of others were going to leave the church, which was called Nassaret, because of its teachings. I was interested in this development, so I looked over the back of my pew to see the power point presentation she was doing.
She mentioned several offensive things that had been said at Nassaret, including that it was OK to look at nudity. None of the things she said were preachings that would bother me in a church, but even though I didn’t agree with her I remember admiring the zeal behind her words.
After a time I saw the separatist group again. They were readying a boat, so I guess they were planning a major geographic exodus, rather than just starting another church nearby. I met some of the other people involved in the movement, including a drummer who was playing some music for people to work by. Now that I’m awake and remembering this dream, I realize that the drummer was the administrator of a nursing home where I do some volunteer work.
Another period of time passed and as I was going down a street near my house I saw the drummer again, drumming between orange cones that had been set in the street to reserve the lane for her. I was dismayed because I realized this meant the group hadn’t separated themselves at all. Sure enough, following the cones I found that they were part of a fundraising effort and they led back to the boat the group had been preparing. There were tons of people on board, including all the separatists and all the people from Nassaret.
I found the woman who had started the movement and asked her what had happened. She said they had found out they didn’t really need to create a schism and everything was going to be all right. Suspicious, I asked who had told her so. She said, “He’s right here!” and took me into another room to meet him. “This is Senator [Something] Neutral.” As soon as I saw him my suspicions were concerned. He was a servant of the devil.
“Nice to see you again,” I said, putting out my hand to shake. He shook it and said, “likewise.” Then I said, “begone!” and he said a phrase I didn’t know, presumably “bite me” in some ancient language.
“Begone!” I said again, and he gave no response. “Do you really want me to say it a third time, with the puff of smoke and everything?” He shrugged.
“Begone!” I said and he did in fact disappear in a puff of smoke.
The former leader of the separatist group was appalled. “I’m going to have you put in jail!”
“Do it! For God’s sake!” I said this in anger, and then stopped because it seemed an inappropriate time to be using the Lord’s name in vain. Then I realized I really was speaking for God’s sake so it wasn’t in vain. I said it again, “For God’s sake!” A third time, and deadly serious. “For God’s sake, follow through on one thing you promise Him you’ll do!” Then I woke up.
Commentary
I believe this dream came from God so it doesn't require a lot of commentary, but I do have a couple of things to say.
It was a dream, so my conscious mind may have changed some aspects in order to make it work as a narrative. I do clearly remember the exchange with the Senator and the final thing I said to the woman is a verbatim transcription.
I don't know if this dream is for me or for someone else. I can't think of anything I've backslid on recently, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. If it is for you then I'm glad to have supplied it.
In Revelation 3:16 God says, "because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth."
What did you see today?
2/02/2009
I saw a cartoon
Context
Carolyn Hax writes a daily advice column for the Washington Post called "Tell Me About It." It's a daily column, but the Shreveport Times only carries it on Sundays. Yesterday, they printed the Friday column, which you can find at this link (may require registration). The column usually has a cartoon, not done by Carolyn herself, that summarizes the problem being described.
Commentary
Yes, despite my stated objections to registering for the Washington Post, I actually broke down and did so for the purpose of bringing you the link posted above. I hope you're happy.
Actually, I'm happy because now that I've found out that Carolyn writes every day, I'll probably be reading her every day. I like advice columns in general and I'm particularly fond of Carolyn's because I think she takes a very straightforward approach to problem-solving.
But I wanted to talk about the cartoon. If you're not able to look at the link, you'll have to take my word for the fact that it seems to depict two African-American characters. Carolyn herself is European-American and I have no idea of the racial identity of the advice-seeker in question. In fact, the characters in the cartoons on Tell Me About It seem to regularly cycle through the physical characteristics of various races and that got me to wondering if that actually helps people of different ethnicities identify with the advice Carolyn gives.
To be fair, it seems to be a general assumption that we make. When deciding issues as varied as who to cast in a TV show and whether to celebrate Black History Month, some consideration is given to the idea that people need to see someone who looks like them in order to identify with them.
But is this really true? I don't think it is for me. I'm more likely to identify with someone who has the same personality characteristics I do than someone who looks like me. Here's an example: Stephen King's book The Stand has twelve main characters (and dozens of minor ones, but I digress), three of whom are female and to my very picky standards quite well-written. I don't identify with any of them. Instead I identify with three of the male characters, one because he's a constant screw-up (Peter is my patron saint), one because of the challenges he has to surmount to achieve his destiny, and one because he's an intellectual.
My Quaker meeting, which has no African-American attenders, invited several black women to come talk to us a couple of years ago about ending racism. What I remember most clearly from the discussion was one lady saying she was dismayed that teachers at her son's school thought he wouldn't be interested in certain activities because he'd be the only black kid in attendance. Since then I've resolved to never make assumptions about a person's preferences based on their physical appearance. There may be some cultural characteristics that many black people share, but I think we go seriously astray if we assert that all people with dark skin identify with all of them. Our choices aren't based on how we look; they're based on who we are.
What did you see today?
Carolyn Hax writes a daily advice column for the Washington Post called "Tell Me About It." It's a daily column, but the Shreveport Times only carries it on Sundays. Yesterday, they printed the Friday column, which you can find at this link (may require registration). The column usually has a cartoon, not done by Carolyn herself, that summarizes the problem being described.
Commentary
Yes, despite my stated objections to registering for the Washington Post, I actually broke down and did so for the purpose of bringing you the link posted above. I hope you're happy.
Actually, I'm happy because now that I've found out that Carolyn writes every day, I'll probably be reading her every day. I like advice columns in general and I'm particularly fond of Carolyn's because I think she takes a very straightforward approach to problem-solving.
But I wanted to talk about the cartoon. If you're not able to look at the link, you'll have to take my word for the fact that it seems to depict two African-American characters. Carolyn herself is European-American and I have no idea of the racial identity of the advice-seeker in question. In fact, the characters in the cartoons on Tell Me About It seem to regularly cycle through the physical characteristics of various races and that got me to wondering if that actually helps people of different ethnicities identify with the advice Carolyn gives.
To be fair, it seems to be a general assumption that we make. When deciding issues as varied as who to cast in a TV show and whether to celebrate Black History Month, some consideration is given to the idea that people need to see someone who looks like them in order to identify with them.
But is this really true? I don't think it is for me. I'm more likely to identify with someone who has the same personality characteristics I do than someone who looks like me. Here's an example: Stephen King's book The Stand has twelve main characters (and dozens of minor ones, but I digress), three of whom are female and to my very picky standards quite well-written. I don't identify with any of them. Instead I identify with three of the male characters, one because he's a constant screw-up (Peter is my patron saint), one because of the challenges he has to surmount to achieve his destiny, and one because he's an intellectual.
My Quaker meeting, which has no African-American attenders, invited several black women to come talk to us a couple of years ago about ending racism. What I remember most clearly from the discussion was one lady saying she was dismayed that teachers at her son's school thought he wouldn't be interested in certain activities because he'd be the only black kid in attendance. Since then I've resolved to never make assumptions about a person's preferences based on their physical appearance. There may be some cultural characteristics that many black people share, but I think we go seriously astray if we assert that all people with dark skin identify with all of them. Our choices aren't based on how we look; they're based on who we are.
What did you see today?
1/16/2009
I saw an item that was cataloged correctly
Context
I was looking at new children's books in my library's catalog and noticed that two picture books had parts of their titles on the spine labels instead of parts of their author's last name. Using the title on a spine label is a standard practice for items where no single author is immediately obvious, but since I could see the author's name in the same catalog record, I didn't understand why it wasn't being used.
When I asked the head cataloger about the discrepancy, she said they were marked that way because the "author" was an illustrator, not a writer, and "the rules" said that was how she was supposed to do it. After some discussion we decided to throw out the rules in favor of letting these very similar books be next to each other on the shelf.
Commentary
Have your eyes glazed over yet? I told you it takes special skills to be a librarian, one of which is actually caring about this stuff! And if you want to see some people who really care, you should take a look at the recent PUBLIB discussion on "Dewey or don't we?" (starts here, ongoing as of this writing).
I believe my discussion with the head cataloger today was generally more rational and fruitful than the Dewey discussion, which got me thinking about how people argue (Yay, she's not going to talk about cataloging anymore!). A lot of the Dewey discussion seems to follow this template: "X is what happens to me when I go to a bookstore; this experience should cause all public libraries to respond by doing Y."
I'm not saying that talking about one's own experience is bad; I'm confused by the assumption that personal experience is so generalizable. Why do we believe, despite mounds of contrary evidence, that other people experience things the exact same way we do? I didn't go to the head cataloger today and say, "I couldn't find both of these books when I wanted them; we must recatalog them right away!" Conversely, she didn't say, "when I go to libraries that don't catalog by the rules I can't find anything!" Instead we discussed what the rule was and whether we thought it would generally be helpful to bend it under this particular circumstance.
This kind of tunnel vision not only makes it hard to find solutions, it can make it difficult to see that you're even having a disagreement. I've had this exchange with more than one person:
Me - My opinion on this matter is different from yours.
Not Me - No, no, I'm just not explaining myself properly. What I mean to say is . . .
Me - I understand what you're saying. I just disagree with you.
Now, I see that this may just be good manners at work, a belief that it's not polite to argue with someone. But I also see an undercurrent of "any rational person possessed of the same facts I have would come to the same conclusion." I think it's related to the instinct people have to say, when confronted with the fact that I'm anti-death penalty, "but what if someone murdered your loved one? Wouldn't you want revenge?" When I'm in a certain mood I'm tempted to reply, "Oh my God! I've never thought of that! You've completely opened my eyes! Thank you, thank you, thank you!"
What did you see today?
I was looking at new children's books in my library's catalog and noticed that two picture books had parts of their titles on the spine labels instead of parts of their author's last name. Using the title on a spine label is a standard practice for items where no single author is immediately obvious, but since I could see the author's name in the same catalog record, I didn't understand why it wasn't being used.
When I asked the head cataloger about the discrepancy, she said they were marked that way because the "author" was an illustrator, not a writer, and "the rules" said that was how she was supposed to do it. After some discussion we decided to throw out the rules in favor of letting these very similar books be next to each other on the shelf.
Commentary
Have your eyes glazed over yet? I told you it takes special skills to be a librarian, one of which is actually caring about this stuff! And if you want to see some people who really care, you should take a look at the recent PUBLIB discussion on "Dewey or don't we?" (starts here, ongoing as of this writing).
I believe my discussion with the head cataloger today was generally more rational and fruitful than the Dewey discussion, which got me thinking about how people argue (Yay, she's not going to talk about cataloging anymore!). A lot of the Dewey discussion seems to follow this template: "X is what happens to me when I go to a bookstore; this experience should cause all public libraries to respond by doing Y."
I'm not saying that talking about one's own experience is bad; I'm confused by the assumption that personal experience is so generalizable. Why do we believe, despite mounds of contrary evidence, that other people experience things the exact same way we do? I didn't go to the head cataloger today and say, "I couldn't find both of these books when I wanted them; we must recatalog them right away!" Conversely, she didn't say, "when I go to libraries that don't catalog by the rules I can't find anything!" Instead we discussed what the rule was and whether we thought it would generally be helpful to bend it under this particular circumstance.
This kind of tunnel vision not only makes it hard to find solutions, it can make it difficult to see that you're even having a disagreement. I've had this exchange with more than one person:
Me - My opinion on this matter is different from yours.
Not Me - No, no, I'm just not explaining myself properly. What I mean to say is . . .
Me - I understand what you're saying. I just disagree with you.
Now, I see that this may just be good manners at work, a belief that it's not polite to argue with someone. But I also see an undercurrent of "any rational person possessed of the same facts I have would come to the same conclusion." I think it's related to the instinct people have to say, when confronted with the fact that I'm anti-death penalty, "but what if someone murdered your loved one? Wouldn't you want revenge?" When I'm in a certain mood I'm tempted to reply, "Oh my God! I've never thought of that! You've completely opened my eyes! Thank you, thank you, thank you!"
What did you see today?
1/15/2009
I saw announcements about the Inauguration
Context
I was reading PUBLIB again today, and people were talking about setting up TV sets at their libraries for patrons to watch the President-elect Obama's inauguration ceremony. You can see an example of what I'm talking about at this link.
Commentary
I like this idea of providing a communal space to watch the Inauguration. My bachelor's degree was in history, so I know the importance of sharing these events with each other.
That being said, I have no plans to watch the Inauguration and I certainly don't intend to head out for Washington to attend. I like Obama and voted for him, but the whole inauguration party thing just makes me go "meh."
Some of this can be attributed to the fact that I'm not a very social person, so being in a crowd with a couple million of my closest friends is not very attractive to me. Plus I don't care much for parades except the Tournament of Roses (everything's made of flowers! What's not to like?). I figure the highlight of the day will be Obama's speech and I'm sure that will be both recorded and described. Shoot, I'm sure they'll hit all the high points on The Daily Show, so what else do I need?
I guess another thing that's going on is I wish we weren't treating this as so much of a big deal. I won't claim to "not see color" like Stephen Colbert (Wow! How many references to Comedy Central can I put in one blog post?), but I do try to not see people in Jim Crow terms, where one drop of black blood makes you black. Aren't we inaugurating both our first black president and our 44th white one?
On the other hand, if we're going to talk about Obama being black I don't want this to be a rare occasion. The bigger the fuss we make the more it seems that way, like we're not accustomed to the idea that African-Americans can actually flourish in our nation. Barry Sanders is famous in the football world for NOT celebrating his touchdowns. He always just handed the ball to the ref and went back to the bench. Why? Because he always knew there was another one coming up soon! What if we behaved that way in regard to having an African-American president? Just the first of many . . .
Here's what I think is the biggest deal about the Inauguration: how embarrassing is it that the United States elected its first black president 15 years after after South Africa did?
What did you see today?
I was reading PUBLIB again today, and people were talking about setting up TV sets at their libraries for patrons to watch the President-elect Obama's inauguration ceremony. You can see an example of what I'm talking about at this link.
Commentary
I like this idea of providing a communal space to watch the Inauguration. My bachelor's degree was in history, so I know the importance of sharing these events with each other.
That being said, I have no plans to watch the Inauguration and I certainly don't intend to head out for Washington to attend. I like Obama and voted for him, but the whole inauguration party thing just makes me go "meh."
Some of this can be attributed to the fact that I'm not a very social person, so being in a crowd with a couple million of my closest friends is not very attractive to me. Plus I don't care much for parades except the Tournament of Roses (everything's made of flowers! What's not to like?). I figure the highlight of the day will be Obama's speech and I'm sure that will be both recorded and described. Shoot, I'm sure they'll hit all the high points on The Daily Show, so what else do I need?
I guess another thing that's going on is I wish we weren't treating this as so much of a big deal. I won't claim to "not see color" like Stephen Colbert (Wow! How many references to Comedy Central can I put in one blog post?), but I do try to not see people in Jim Crow terms, where one drop of black blood makes you black. Aren't we inaugurating both our first black president and our 44th white one?
On the other hand, if we're going to talk about Obama being black I don't want this to be a rare occasion. The bigger the fuss we make the more it seems that way, like we're not accustomed to the idea that African-Americans can actually flourish in our nation. Barry Sanders is famous in the football world for NOT celebrating his touchdowns. He always just handed the ball to the ref and went back to the bench. Why? Because he always knew there was another one coming up soon! What if we behaved that way in regard to having an African-American president? Just the first of many . . .
Here's what I think is the biggest deal about the Inauguration: how embarrassing is it that the United States elected its first black president 15 years after after South Africa did?
What did you see today?
12/24/2008
I saw a story I'd written
Context
I had a dream about James Bond last night, which caused me to write a very brief piece of fanfic about it. Out of respect for both copyright and the bounds of taste (it's pretty graphic) it will remain on my computer, out of the public eye. In my dream Daniel Craig appeared as James Bond and Dame Judy Dench, was M.
Commentary
Chalk one up to marketing that I see Daniel Craig as Bond, since I didn't care for Casino Royale and didn't bother with Quantum of Solace. I guess I like him in theory, not practice.
Writing fanfic is interesting. One of the reasons my piece is so short is that I didn't have to do any of the heavy lifting. Character, scene, and even plot are already set out by Ian Fleming and the screenwriters who've adapted his work. So I was left to devote 159 words to a brief glimpse into the character's psyche.
Which leads me to the importance of books, or at least written stories. Over the past couple of years I have encountered a couple of people who never read books, which always calls to mind a quote that is apparently misattributed to Mark Twain: "Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't."
Anyway, it is my impression that these people get all their stories (and everybody needs stories, make no mistake about it) from movies and television. Video is a fine medium for storytelling, but as I learned from my brief foray into fiction writing, it's not good for talking about interior working of someone's brain. Charlie Kaufman does as good a job as he can, but sometimes metaphor is no substitute for just being able to say, in plain English, "this is what the character's thinking."
Apparently the written word isn't always effective, either. When my husband read the story I wrote he said, "that's not Bond. Fleming never wrote him that way." Even when I told him I wasn't trying to write in Fleming's style, just using his character, he wasn't convinced. From my husband's perspective James Bond's mind works however Fleming says it does. Maybe that's the consequence of not doing any of your own heavy lifting.
What did you see today?
I had a dream about James Bond last night, which caused me to write a very brief piece of fanfic about it. Out of respect for both copyright and the bounds of taste (it's pretty graphic) it will remain on my computer, out of the public eye. In my dream Daniel Craig appeared as James Bond and Dame Judy Dench, was M.
Commentary
Chalk one up to marketing that I see Daniel Craig as Bond, since I didn't care for Casino Royale and didn't bother with Quantum of Solace. I guess I like him in theory, not practice.
Writing fanfic is interesting. One of the reasons my piece is so short is that I didn't have to do any of the heavy lifting. Character, scene, and even plot are already set out by Ian Fleming and the screenwriters who've adapted his work. So I was left to devote 159 words to a brief glimpse into the character's psyche.
Which leads me to the importance of books, or at least written stories. Over the past couple of years I have encountered a couple of people who never read books, which always calls to mind a quote that is apparently misattributed to Mark Twain: "Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't."
Anyway, it is my impression that these people get all their stories (and everybody needs stories, make no mistake about it) from movies and television. Video is a fine medium for storytelling, but as I learned from my brief foray into fiction writing, it's not good for talking about interior working of someone's brain. Charlie Kaufman does as good a job as he can, but sometimes metaphor is no substitute for just being able to say, in plain English, "this is what the character's thinking."
Apparently the written word isn't always effective, either. When my husband read the story I wrote he said, "that's not Bond. Fleming never wrote him that way." Even when I told him I wasn't trying to write in Fleming's style, just using his character, he wasn't convinced. From my husband's perspective James Bond's mind works however Fleming says it does. Maybe that's the consequence of not doing any of your own heavy lifting.
What did you see today?
11/22/2008
I saw the price of gas
Context
Thus far the poor economy has not affected me much, as both my husband and I are employed and don't plan on retiring soon. However, I keep an eye on the price of gas as an economic indicator. It's falling like a rock around here, down below $1.70 a gallon in some places.
Commentary
In some ways I know falling gas prices are like the silver lining to the current economic situation, but even when it benefits us personally deflation is a problem in a free market economy. It indicates a lack of demand, which indicates a lack of growth, which leads to more job loss and credit problems.
So this got me thinking about who else in the United States' economy is dealing with falling demand. The Big 3 auto companies who are requesting a bailout from Congress, that's who. And this is not just an economic indicator to me. I have an emotional connection to the fate of General Motors because my dad worked there from the time he left the Air Force until his retirement over 30 years later.
Ever since I became an adult I've looked at GM differently than my dad, because he was a Republican and I'm so liberal that even the Democratic party doesn't satisfy. He died several years ago so I can't ask, but I imagine he would feel some ambivalence about the proposed buyout. He'd probably be generally in favor of it but have some choice words on the side for corporate folks who had mismanaged the company into this position in the first place. He might have even loaned a slightly sympathetic ear to the people who say General Motors should declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy just for the opportunity to stick it to the United Auto Workers. By the way, as the daughter of an executive, it's weird for me to see management and labor so united on something. Well, sort of. This is the UAW's take on the situation.
Anyway, that was my speculation about what a specific conservative would think, here's what this specific liberal thinks: government should not be helping business; it should be helping people. A lot of the pro-bailout rhetoric emphasizes that helping the Big 3 would help people, but I'm not completely convinced. At the very least, I would not hand automakers a blank check, either in terms of amount or conditions. When I'm in a really ticked off mood I think, "if this industry is so important to our nation's wellbeing we should nationalize it." So there!
In the end I'm hoping for one relatively minor silver lining to this whole mess. As a government employee, I'm sick to death of people saying my agency should be run more like a business. So at least I can say to the next person who proposes it, "like what business? GM?"
What did you see today?
Thus far the poor economy has not affected me much, as both my husband and I are employed and don't plan on retiring soon. However, I keep an eye on the price of gas as an economic indicator. It's falling like a rock around here, down below $1.70 a gallon in some places.
Commentary
In some ways I know falling gas prices are like the silver lining to the current economic situation, but even when it benefits us personally deflation is a problem in a free market economy. It indicates a lack of demand, which indicates a lack of growth, which leads to more job loss and credit problems.
So this got me thinking about who else in the United States' economy is dealing with falling demand. The Big 3 auto companies who are requesting a bailout from Congress, that's who. And this is not just an economic indicator to me. I have an emotional connection to the fate of General Motors because my dad worked there from the time he left the Air Force until his retirement over 30 years later.
Ever since I became an adult I've looked at GM differently than my dad, because he was a Republican and I'm so liberal that even the Democratic party doesn't satisfy. He died several years ago so I can't ask, but I imagine he would feel some ambivalence about the proposed buyout. He'd probably be generally in favor of it but have some choice words on the side for corporate folks who had mismanaged the company into this position in the first place. He might have even loaned a slightly sympathetic ear to the people who say General Motors should declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy just for the opportunity to stick it to the United Auto Workers. By the way, as the daughter of an executive, it's weird for me to see management and labor so united on something. Well, sort of. This is the UAW's take on the situation.
Anyway, that was my speculation about what a specific conservative would think, here's what this specific liberal thinks: government should not be helping business; it should be helping people. A lot of the pro-bailout rhetoric emphasizes that helping the Big 3 would help people, but I'm not completely convinced. At the very least, I would not hand automakers a blank check, either in terms of amount or conditions. When I'm in a really ticked off mood I think, "if this industry is so important to our nation's wellbeing we should nationalize it." So there!
In the end I'm hoping for one relatively minor silver lining to this whole mess. As a government employee, I'm sick to death of people saying my agency should be run more like a business. So at least I can say to the next person who proposes it, "like what business? GM?"
What did you see today?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)