"To commemorate a past event you kill an animal and eat it. It's a ritual sacrifice. With pie." Anya, in "Pangs" Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Except we never really had much pie at our Thanksgivings. I think I was 24 the first time I had pumpkin pie. But I digress.
I have a lot to be thankful for. I have a roof over my head, heat, running water, suffrage, the Internet. I have wonderful friends and great parents.
And on Thanksgiving, I like to reflect not only on what I have that I'm thankful for, but on the story of Thanksgiving and on the courage of the people who made this country. The Pilgrims are not my favorite people in history, because Calvinism isn't my favorite thing, but to get on a boat and sail off to an unknown land to build the country you want takes guts. And the countless millions who followed, who came to this land both in search of opportunity and against their will. When I went to Berlin to study, I traveled in the relative luxury of an airplane, I had modern telecommunications to reach my loved ones at home, I'd studied the language for three years and I knew that I was going home again. My immigrant ancestors had none of that. They might never see the faces or hear the voices of their loved ones again. And yet they took that risk in the hopes of a better life for themselves and their descendants. And together they helped to build this country, a country that isn't perfect, but tries to be.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
A day four centuries in the making
In 1608, the Mayflower had yet to set sail, and Pochontas saved John Smith's life, only for her people to be repaid with theft and smallpox and generations of reservations and cultural repression.
In 1708, the Americas were dotted with colonies controlled by European powers. The chances that anyone who wasn't a landowning white man could vote were slim to none, even in places where voting existed.
In 1808, the importation of slaves to the United States was banned, but slavery continued. Women were virtually property, and Native Americans were being "resettled" to make way for Western expansion.
In 1908, women still couldn't vote and segregation was the norm. There were immigration quotas and exclusion acts.
In 2008, the United States of America elected its first non-white president.
What will 2108 bring?
What victories will we have won for our grandchildren?
I have hope today. Because I stood in a line that Susan B. Anthony wasn't allowed to, because Barack Obama will take an oath that Frederick Douglass was only allowed to witness, I have hope that even if it doesn't happen for me, we will win the fights we fight today. The seeds that we plant will bear fruit, and though the plow may callous our hands, our children and grandchildren will reap fields of justice. Someday, we will tell children that it used to be illegal to marry the person you loved, and they will look at us with incredulity. Someday, learning that people used to go bankrupt because of their medical bills will make our grandchildren shake their heads and wonder what on earth was wrong with us. Some day, we will judge people not on their race, on their gender, on their religion, but on their character.
Some day, we will have formed the perfect union that our founders dreamed of on a hot Philadelphia afternoon, because "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."1 I may not live to see it, but because I have lived to see the dreams of my ancestors come true, I have faith that my dreams will come true. Some day.
In 1708, the Americas were dotted with colonies controlled by European powers. The chances that anyone who wasn't a landowning white man could vote were slim to none, even in places where voting existed.
In 1808, the importation of slaves to the United States was banned, but slavery continued. Women were virtually property, and Native Americans were being "resettled" to make way for Western expansion.
In 1908, women still couldn't vote and segregation was the norm. There were immigration quotas and exclusion acts.
In 2008, the United States of America elected its first non-white president.
What will 2108 bring?
What victories will we have won for our grandchildren?
I have hope today. Because I stood in a line that Susan B. Anthony wasn't allowed to, because Barack Obama will take an oath that Frederick Douglass was only allowed to witness, I have hope that even if it doesn't happen for me, we will win the fights we fight today. The seeds that we plant will bear fruit, and though the plow may callous our hands, our children and grandchildren will reap fields of justice. Someday, we will tell children that it used to be illegal to marry the person you loved, and they will look at us with incredulity. Someday, learning that people used to go bankrupt because of their medical bills will make our grandchildren shake their heads and wonder what on earth was wrong with us. Some day, we will judge people not on their race, on their gender, on their religion, but on their character.
Some day, we will have formed the perfect union that our founders dreamed of on a hot Philadelphia afternoon, because "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.
I don't have the words
Let every child and every citizen and every new immigrant know that from this day forward everything really is possible in America. (Tom Friedman, today's NY Times)
"Hope" seems inadequate to describe what I feel. "Pride" equally so. I have never in my life felt the world to be so full of promise and potential as I do today. I have never felt so connected to the struggles of generations before me as I do right now.
Yesterday, I stood in line for 40 minutes to cast my ballot, for the first time in person. I took pictures with my cell phone and sent texts to twitter because I wanted to document it. In that line were men and women, young and old, all colors and ethnicities and we were all in that line in the hopes that we might help to make a more perfect union. And I thought about the fact that 100 years ago, I wouldn't have been allowed to be in that line. And that 50 years ago, I wasn't allowed to hold the job I have now. And that 40 years ago, men were shot for daring to hope that today might happen.
When it became clear that Senator Obama was about to become President-Elect Obama, I was so proud of America. As he says, in no other country in the world is his story even possible. And I was so afraid that I would be let down, that my hopes would be dashed, that there was enough lingering racism in this country that I would never get to write this blog post. But my fellow Americans rose above it and today I can stand in front of the world and I say I am an American and be proud of who we are.
I cried during his victory speech, during his story of Ann Nixon Cooper, the 106-year-old woman. To think how much the world has changed, what we've done, both as a nation and as a species. Do you think that our ancestors dreamed this world even in their most outlandish imaginings? I walked up the hill at work today, and I said "Do you know what happened, Mr. Douglass?"
I am so inspired, and so grateful, and so proud, and so full of hope.
America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves -- if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?
This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment.
This is our time, to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth, that, out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope. And where we are met with cynicism and doubts and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can.
Amen, Mr. President.
"Hope" seems inadequate to describe what I feel. "Pride" equally so. I have never in my life felt the world to be so full of promise and potential as I do today. I have never felt so connected to the struggles of generations before me as I do right now.
Yesterday, I stood in line for 40 minutes to cast my ballot, for the first time in person. I took pictures with my cell phone and sent texts to twitter because I wanted to document it. In that line were men and women, young and old, all colors and ethnicities and we were all in that line in the hopes that we might help to make a more perfect union. And I thought about the fact that 100 years ago, I wouldn't have been allowed to be in that line. And that 50 years ago, I wasn't allowed to hold the job I have now. And that 40 years ago, men were shot for daring to hope that today might happen.
When it became clear that Senator Obama was about to become President-Elect Obama, I was so proud of America. As he says, in no other country in the world is his story even possible. And I was so afraid that I would be let down, that my hopes would be dashed, that there was enough lingering racism in this country that I would never get to write this blog post. But my fellow Americans rose above it and today I can stand in front of the world and I say I am an American and be proud of who we are.
I cried during his victory speech, during his story of Ann Nixon Cooper, the 106-year-old woman. To think how much the world has changed, what we've done, both as a nation and as a species. Do you think that our ancestors dreamed this world even in their most outlandish imaginings? I walked up the hill at work today, and I said "Do you know what happened, Mr. Douglass?"
I am so inspired, and so grateful, and so proud, and so full of hope.
America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves -- if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?
This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment.
This is our time, to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth, that, out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope. And where we are met with cynicism and doubts and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can.
Amen, Mr. President.
Monday, November 3, 2008
the final hours
I get to vote in person in a national election for the first time, which is exciting. I've voted in school board elections and the like, but never in a national election, because I've been away at school. I know myself well enough to know that I'm not likely to be up in time to be at the polls when they open at 7 AM. Though with the return of Eastern Standard Time, I suppose it's possible.
It's amazing, but 100 years ago, women couldn't vote. And now I'm going to go stand in line- in pants, sans chaperone- and cast my ballot for president. (Of course, as a DC resident, I'm still disenfranchised, but that's a whole different entry.) I want to bring the women of Seneca Falls forward in time so they can see me, to boost their spirits.
I just wish Election Day wasn't on a Tuesday, so I didn't have to spend 8 hours at work and worry about the lines at the polling place. And I know we'll all be glad when it's over, because this election has dragged on forever.
It's amazing, but 100 years ago, women couldn't vote. And now I'm going to go stand in line- in pants, sans chaperone- and cast my ballot for president. (Of course, as a DC resident, I'm still disenfranchised, but that's a whole different entry.) I want to bring the women of Seneca Falls forward in time so they can see me, to boost their spirits.
I just wish Election Day wasn't on a Tuesday, so I didn't have to spend 8 hours at work and worry about the lines at the polling place. And I know we'll all be glad when it's over, because this election has dragged on forever.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Final Debate
Sen. McCain-
You know what happens when you make a spending freeze? You get Park Rangers and other uniformed Government employees who don't have uniforms to wear. You get government workers and facilities going without necessary supplies and repairs.
Also, shut up about abortion, because you have no idea what it's like to be a woman or be faced with that issue. And if you assume someone who's pro-Roe v. Wade can't actually be qualified to be a SCOTUS justice, that kinda indicates a "litmus test".
And "eloquence" isn't a dirty word, you jerk.
Bob Scheiffer-
You are awesome. I <3 you.
Sen. Obama-
I kinda want to see you get angry. You know I'm gonna vote for you, but I kinda want to see you tell McCain what a racist, ignorant moron he is. Because it makes me angry that the Republicans let all kind of racist bullshit fly and pretend they have nothing to do with it. And you haven't said a single thing about McCain that was anywhere near as terrible as the things that have been said about you.
And also, amen on the reducing unwanted pregnancies.
You know what happens when you make a spending freeze? You get Park Rangers and other uniformed Government employees who don't have uniforms to wear. You get government workers and facilities going without necessary supplies and repairs.
Also, shut up about abortion, because you have no idea what it's like to be a woman or be faced with that issue. And if you assume someone who's pro-Roe v. Wade can't actually be qualified to be a SCOTUS justice, that kinda indicates a "litmus test".
And "eloquence" isn't a dirty word, you jerk.
Bob Scheiffer-
You are awesome. I <3 you.
Sen. Obama-
I kinda want to see you get angry. You know I'm gonna vote for you, but I kinda want to see you tell McCain what a racist, ignorant moron he is. Because it makes me angry that the Republicans let all kind of racist bullshit fly and pretend they have nothing to do with it. And you haven't said a single thing about McCain that was anywhere near as terrible as the things that have been said about you.
And also, amen on the reducing unwanted pregnancies.
Monday, October 13, 2008
"Destruction of Indigenous Cultures Day"
Columbus sailed for India found Salvador instead
he shook hands with some Indians and soon they all were dead
they got TB and typhoid and athletes foot, diphtheria and the flu
'Scuse me, great nations comin' through
-"Great Nations of Europe" by Randy Newman
One of my Anthropologist friends and I got into a conversation today about how Columbus Day shouldn't actually be a holiday. And certainly not in the "yay for the Nina the Pinta and the Santa Maria" kind of way. I respect the courage it took to look for an all-water route to India from Europe, to sail into those unknown waters. But when we teach our children about it, I think it's also important to teach them about the consequences. I can't honestly completely begrudge European settlement of the Americas, because if it hadn't happened, I wouldn't be here, but that doesn't mean it didn't cause a lot of pain and suffering.
Also, the notion of granting Columbus credit for "discovering" anything is kind of ridiculous. And, no, not because the Vikings got to Canada before he made it to the Caribbean. But because the native people of the Americas knew that their land existed. Things aren't hidden just because a European has never seen them, Columbus didn't discover American anymore than Dr. Livingstone discovered Victoria Falls.
Of course, most people are just happy to have a three-day weekend...
he shook hands with some Indians and soon they all were dead
they got TB and typhoid and athletes foot, diphtheria and the flu
'Scuse me, great nations comin' through
-"Great Nations of Europe" by Randy Newman
One of my Anthropologist friends and I got into a conversation today about how Columbus Day shouldn't actually be a holiday. And certainly not in the "yay for the Nina the Pinta and the Santa Maria" kind of way. I respect the courage it took to look for an all-water route to India from Europe, to sail into those unknown waters. But when we teach our children about it, I think it's also important to teach them about the consequences. I can't honestly completely begrudge European settlement of the Americas, because if it hadn't happened, I wouldn't be here, but that doesn't mean it didn't cause a lot of pain and suffering.
Also, the notion of granting Columbus credit for "discovering" anything is kind of ridiculous. And, no, not because the Vikings got to Canada before he made it to the Caribbean. But because the native people of the Americas knew that their land existed. Things aren't hidden just because a European has never seen them, Columbus didn't discover American anymore than Dr. Livingstone discovered Victoria Falls.
Of course, most people are just happy to have a three-day weekend...
Thursday, October 2, 2008
VP Debates
I started watching, then stopped, then started again.
Dear Senator Biden:
I was so happy when you said that you supported rights for same-sex couples. And then you had to go and say you didn't support gay marriage, and my smile turned upside down.
Also, "madrassa" is the Arabic word for "school". So when you say that we should help build schools instead of madrassas, my head kinda hurts. I get that "madrassa" has a specific connotation in English, but still.
xoxo
Evelyn, who's gonna vote for you anyway
Dear Governor Palin:
Try not to look so scared. And "Change" is the Obama slogan. Also, if I'd made a drinking game featuring "maverick" "hockey mom" and anything about families, I'd be drunk by now.
Peace and Love,
Evelyn, who would only vote for you if your politics resembled Tina Fey's as much as your face did
Dear Senator Biden:
I was so happy when you said that you supported rights for same-sex couples. And then you had to go and say you didn't support gay marriage, and my smile turned upside down.
Also, "madrassa" is the Arabic word for "school". So when you say that we should help build schools instead of madrassas, my head kinda hurts. I get that "madrassa" has a specific connotation in English, but still.
xoxo
Evelyn, who's gonna vote for you anyway
Dear Governor Palin:
Try not to look so scared. And "Change" is the Obama slogan. Also, if I'd made a drinking game featuring "maverick" "hockey mom" and anything about families, I'd be drunk by now.
Peace and Love,
Evelyn, who would only vote for you if your politics resembled Tina Fey's as much as your face did
Friday, August 29, 2008
Dear Senator McCain
Not all women are the same. The possession of a XX chromosome and a uterus does not mean that we all possess a hive mind. Disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters will not leap over to the Republican party because a woman is on the ticket. Especially when that women is anti-choice and has minimal experience.
Just a piece of advice,
Me
Also.
Today I saw some kids who looked to be college freshmen wearing McCain '08 shirts. Someone please explain to me how anyone under the age of 45 thinks McCain is a good candidate (or any Republican, for that matter). Explain why anyone who isn't a rich old white guy, or a white guy who hopes to be rich and old someday, votes for that party. Because I don't get it. I seriously wanted to stop and talk to these kids, and ask them why on earth they thought that McCain had their best interest at heart, especially the girls.
Just a piece of advice,
Me
Also.
Today I saw some kids who looked to be college freshmen wearing McCain '08 shirts. Someone please explain to me how anyone under the age of 45 thinks McCain is a good candidate (or any Republican, for that matter). Explain why anyone who isn't a rich old white guy, or a white guy who hopes to be rich and old someday, votes for that party. Because I don't get it. I seriously wanted to stop and talk to these kids, and ask them why on earth they thought that McCain had their best interest at heart, especially the girls.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
The commentators on PBS just said that Eleanor Roosevelt would be proud of Hillary Clinton's speech.
I agree. I also think that Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucy Stone and Lucretia Mott and Carrie Chapman Catt and all the women who fought long and hard to get women the right to vote and equal status as full citizens in this country would be proud.
I want to go back in time and show this to them, to keep them inspired through all their struggles. And thank them for making this moment possible.
And I love Sen. Clinton's speech about whether or not people were in it for her or in it for what she stood for. You don't vote for a person, you vote for a platform. To vote for a Republican because your candidate didn't get the Democratic nomination is foolish, and voting against everything your candidate stood for.
I agree. I also think that Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucy Stone and Lucretia Mott and Carrie Chapman Catt and all the women who fought long and hard to get women the right to vote and equal status as full citizens in this country would be proud.
I want to go back in time and show this to them, to keep them inspired through all their struggles. And thank them for making this moment possible.
And I love Sen. Clinton's speech about whether or not people were in it for her or in it for what she stood for. You don't vote for a person, you vote for a platform. To vote for a Republican because your candidate didn't get the Democratic nomination is foolish, and voting against everything your candidate stood for.
When I grow up...
I want to be Michelle Obama.
Watching the introduction to her speech last night, I got a little annoyed. After all, she's not the Obama running for President, but they were hyping her up like she was. And I hate our political culture for making it so that Mrs. Obama has to give that speech to humanize herself and her husband, to connect to voters. Since she isn't the one running for office, her story really ought not to be that relevant. The home life of a candidate should only be relevant insofar as it reveals hypocrisy (e.g. the employment of undocumented workers by an anti-immigration candidate) or possible conflicts of interest. The rest of what matters should be the candidate's position on issues and his/her experience. Of course, in our 24/7 news cycle and with an electorate that makes decisions based on who they'd rather have a beer with, all kinds of things that would be irrelevant in an ideal world become supremely important.
Having said all that, I think Michelle Obama is fabulous. She held herself up as a picture of the American dream come true last night, but I'm not sure she really got how true that seems to lots of young women. Reading Jezebel last night, a lot of commenters expressed a great deal of admiration for Mrs. Obama. She really seems like a woman who has it all. She's beautiful, intelligent, poised, well-spoken. She went to great colleges and got a fantastic job at a law firm which she then left to do work that mattered to her. She's married to an amazing man who seems to really adore her, and she has two adorable daughters. She had a successful career of her own before stepping down to devote herself to her husband's campaign.
Now, I obviously don't know the Obamas, and no marriage is perfect, but they really seem like they respect, admire, like and love each other. You can see it in the way they look at each other, and it's in the cute story of their courtship.
A marriage of two equal partners, a meaningful job, a happy family life. That's what so many women struggle to find, to balance, and Mrs. Obama seems to have it. I remember when I was younger, feeling disappointed by the number of my heroes who seemed to not be able to find that balance. Granted, it was harder in a different time, but to read inspiring stories of women who changed the world but seemingly had to sacrifice being wives and mothers to do it was depressing. And I certainly acknowledge that not all women want to be wives of mothers, but it's nice to see these examples of women who manage to do it all.
Watching the introduction to her speech last night, I got a little annoyed. After all, she's not the Obama running for President, but they were hyping her up like she was. And I hate our political culture for making it so that Mrs. Obama has to give that speech to humanize herself and her husband, to connect to voters. Since she isn't the one running for office, her story really ought not to be that relevant. The home life of a candidate should only be relevant insofar as it reveals hypocrisy (e.g. the employment of undocumented workers by an anti-immigration candidate) or possible conflicts of interest. The rest of what matters should be the candidate's position on issues and his/her experience. Of course, in our 24/7 news cycle and with an electorate that makes decisions based on who they'd rather have a beer with, all kinds of things that would be irrelevant in an ideal world become supremely important.
Having said all that, I think Michelle Obama is fabulous. She held herself up as a picture of the American dream come true last night, but I'm not sure she really got how true that seems to lots of young women. Reading Jezebel last night, a lot of commenters expressed a great deal of admiration for Mrs. Obama. She really seems like a woman who has it all. She's beautiful, intelligent, poised, well-spoken. She went to great colleges and got a fantastic job at a law firm which she then left to do work that mattered to her. She's married to an amazing man who seems to really adore her, and she has two adorable daughters. She had a successful career of her own before stepping down to devote herself to her husband's campaign.
Now, I obviously don't know the Obamas, and no marriage is perfect, but they really seem like they respect, admire, like and love each other. You can see it in the way they look at each other, and it's in the cute story of their courtship.
A marriage of two equal partners, a meaningful job, a happy family life. That's what so many women struggle to find, to balance, and Mrs. Obama seems to have it. I remember when I was younger, feeling disappointed by the number of my heroes who seemed to not be able to find that balance. Granted, it was harder in a different time, but to read inspiring stories of women who changed the world but seemingly had to sacrifice being wives and mothers to do it was depressing. And I certainly acknowledge that not all women want to be wives of mothers, but it's nice to see these examples of women who manage to do it all.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Quotations
So, over on LiveJournal, where I keep my more social and personal blog, there's a meme (for want of a better term) going around. The idea is that you go to this website and keep looking until you find five quotations that speak to you. Then you post them.
These are my five (with commentary, 'cause that's how I roll):
Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.
-Martin Luther King Jr.
Ah, good old Dr. King. Generally, my philosophy is that the world would be better with more kissing and less killing. Of course, that's not the kind of love Dr. King is talking about. He's talking about the kind of love that Paul is talking about in Corinthians (which people always read at weddings, even though it's completely out of context and not at all what Paul was talking about.)1 This is the love that saves the world. It's what makes Buffy jump off a tower and Lily Potter jump in front of her son. It's Bill and Ted telling us to "be excellent to each other" and Jesus telling us to love our neighbors as ourselves. And what is the basis for that love? The knowledge that each and every one of us is a mortal human being, and we're all in it together.
The people's good is the highest law.
-Cicero
Me being me, I don't cotton to self-centered philosophies. Looking out for number one, to me, is looking out for homo sapiens sapiens as a whole. To quote Spock- the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.2 If the government exists by the people, of the people, and for the people, than the role of government is to benefit the people. Of course, where we run into trouble is when we can't agree on what offers the most benefit.
All wars are civil wars, because all men are brothers.
-Francois de Fenelon
Amen.
It is not fair to ask of others what you are unwilling to do yourself.
-Eleanor Roosevelt
This is one of the most important lessons my parents ever taught me. It always seems to me to be one of the true marks of character and leadership- to be willing to do yourself that which you proclaim to be the right thing for others to do. If it's right, shouldn't you do it too?
Love is the difficult realization that something other than oneself is real.
-Iris Murdoch
Love, ultimately (and again, I'm talking about more than just romantic love), is the realization that you are not the most important thing God ever created. Your feelings, wants, desires are not the only feelings, wants or desires that exist, and learning to love successfully is learning how to balance yours with those of the people you love.
1. Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant 5or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. (1 Corinthians 13:4-7, NRSV) In the King James and other versions, the word translated here as "love" is translated "charity".i>
2. Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan
These are my five (with commentary, 'cause that's how I roll):
Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.
-Martin Luther King Jr.
Ah, good old Dr. King. Generally, my philosophy is that the world would be better with more kissing and less killing. Of course, that's not the kind of love Dr. King is talking about. He's talking about the kind of love that Paul is talking about in Corinthians (which people always read at weddings, even though it's completely out of context and not at all what Paul was talking about.)1 This is the love that saves the world. It's what makes Buffy jump off a tower and Lily Potter jump in front of her son. It's Bill and Ted telling us to "be excellent to each other" and Jesus telling us to love our neighbors as ourselves. And what is the basis for that love? The knowledge that each and every one of us is a mortal human being, and we're all in it together.
The people's good is the highest law.
-Cicero
Me being me, I don't cotton to self-centered philosophies. Looking out for number one, to me, is looking out for homo sapiens sapiens as a whole. To quote Spock- the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.2 If the government exists by the people, of the people, and for the people, than the role of government is to benefit the people. Of course, where we run into trouble is when we can't agree on what offers the most benefit.
All wars are civil wars, because all men are brothers.
-Francois de Fenelon
Amen.
It is not fair to ask of others what you are unwilling to do yourself.
-Eleanor Roosevelt
This is one of the most important lessons my parents ever taught me. It always seems to me to be one of the true marks of character and leadership- to be willing to do yourself that which you proclaim to be the right thing for others to do. If it's right, shouldn't you do it too?
Love is the difficult realization that something other than oneself is real.
-Iris Murdoch
Love, ultimately (and again, I'm talking about more than just romantic love), is the realization that you are not the most important thing God ever created. Your feelings, wants, desires are not the only feelings, wants or desires that exist, and learning to love successfully is learning how to balance yours with those of the people you love.
1. Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant 5or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. (1 Corinthians 13:4-7, NRSV) In the King James and other versions, the word translated here as "love" is translated "charity".i>
2. Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
I'm King of the World!
As always, if you want to follow along, the full text of the US Constitution is available here, from the National Archives
A huge part of Article II is hyperlinked in the NARA transcript, which means it was amended later. Which is good, because having the runner-up be Vice President was not the wisest plan the founders ever had. Imagine a Bush/Gore administration. (Also, can I just say that I love that "choose" used to be spelled "chuse"? Because I do, it cracks me up).
So, to be president, you have to be a) at least 35, and b) born in the US (or be a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, but if people think McCain's old...) The youngest man ever to serve as president was Teddy Roosevelt, who became president at the age of 42, after the death of President McKinely. The youngest man ever elected president was JFK, who was 43 when he took his oath of office. (Fewer than 10 presidents total have been under 50: the aforementioned Roosevelt and Kennedy; Bill Clinton and US Grant were both 46; Grover Cleveland 47; Franklin Pierce 48; James K. Polk and James Garfield both 49. No one under 40 has ever served as president of the USA. I'll stop now before I make a spreadsheet and do graphs and statistical distributions)
There's no other requirement, other than that you have to live here (and have lived here for 14 years). As long as you get enough votes, you can be a Rhodes Scholar or a high-school dropout and serve. Oh, and you have to say this:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." (So, President Bush, how're you at upholding your vows?)
And if you die, your Vice President takes over. If there is no VP, the 25th Amendment kicks in (as fans of The West Wing may recall). Originally, Congress got to decide who took over if the VP wasn't an option, but they decided to formalize it. Good call.
So, now, what is it that the President does, other than kiss babies, host the World Series champs and start stupid wars (or serve hot dogs to the King and Queen of England)? Well, Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces, for one. And he has the power to make treaties, with the consent of the Senate. He also appoints ambassadors, judges and suchlike government officials, again with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. And, "from time to time", he gives the State of the Union address. Sounds like a pretty cushy job, actually. Article II's a lot shorter than Article I, but there are a lot fewer people in the White House than the Capitol, and it's a pretty broad job. And since, the President is both Head of Government and Head of State, there's a lot of ceremonial duties too. (And I'm suddenly seeing a mental replay of the episode where President Bartlett has to practice throwing a ball in his bullet-proof vest.) But I gotta hand it to the founders, it's pretty concise description for such a big job.
A huge part of Article II is hyperlinked in the NARA transcript, which means it was amended later. Which is good, because having the runner-up be Vice President was not the wisest plan the founders ever had. Imagine a Bush/Gore administration. (Also, can I just say that I love that "choose" used to be spelled "chuse"? Because I do, it cracks me up).
So, to be president, you have to be a) at least 35, and b) born in the US (or be a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, but if people think McCain's old...) The youngest man ever to serve as president was Teddy Roosevelt, who became president at the age of 42, after the death of President McKinely. The youngest man ever elected president was JFK, who was 43 when he took his oath of office. (Fewer than 10 presidents total have been under 50: the aforementioned Roosevelt and Kennedy; Bill Clinton and US Grant were both 46; Grover Cleveland 47; Franklin Pierce 48; James K. Polk and James Garfield both 49. No one under 40 has ever served as president of the USA. I'll stop now before I make a spreadsheet and do graphs and statistical distributions)
There's no other requirement, other than that you have to live here (and have lived here for 14 years). As long as you get enough votes, you can be a Rhodes Scholar or a high-school dropout and serve. Oh, and you have to say this:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." (So, President Bush, how're you at upholding your vows?)
And if you die, your Vice President takes over. If there is no VP, the 25th Amendment kicks in (as fans of The West Wing may recall). Originally, Congress got to decide who took over if the VP wasn't an option, but they decided to formalize it. Good call.
So, now, what is it that the President does, other than kiss babies, host the World Series champs and start stupid wars (or serve hot dogs to the King and Queen of England)? Well, Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces, for one. And he has the power to make treaties, with the consent of the Senate. He also appoints ambassadors, judges and suchlike government officials, again with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. And, "from time to time", he gives the State of the Union address. Sounds like a pretty cushy job, actually. Article II's a lot shorter than Article I, but there are a lot fewer people in the White House than the Capitol, and it's a pretty broad job. And since, the President is both Head of Government and Head of State, there's a lot of ceremonial duties too. (And I'm suddenly seeing a mental replay of the episode where President Bartlett has to practice throwing a ball in his bullet-proof vest.) But I gotta hand it to the founders, it's pretty concise description for such a big job.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
I'm just a Bill
(As always, if you want to follow along, the full text of the US Constitution is available here, from the National Archives)
Today, we take a crack at Article I, which is the article of the Constitution that sets up the legislative branch of the government.
Let's start with the whole "separation of powers" concept. Very clever. Checks and balances and other staples of civics class. The founders were really worried that someone was going to get too powerful, and having just fought a revolution I'm sure they weren't too eager to fight another. Anyway, onto the text.
The basics of Article I are as follows:
There's a Congress, which consists of a House of Representatives and a Senate (lower and upper houses, hooray bicameral legislature!). In order to serve in the House, you've got to be 25 (hmm, wonder if I could get elected...); 30 to be a Senator. And you have to be a US citizen and live in the state that elects you. Representatives serve for two-year terms, Senators six, with one-third of the Senate standing for election every two years.
And then we start to get technical. First we start with how things are divided. Part of why we have a bicameral legislature is because all states were not created equal. Some are big, some are small, some rural, some urban, some heavily populated, some kinda lonely. So, the states with the smaller populations wanted everyone to have the same number of legislators. The states with big populations thought we should have proportional representation, so that smaller populations wouldn't have a disproportionate voice. Thus, a compromise. The Senate has two senators per state. The House has one representative for every 30,000 people, but at least one per state (so if you only have 15,000, you still get a vote in the House). But! Despite the Declaration of Independence saying that all men are created equal, great inequality existed during the early days of our Republic (and, to be honest, still does). So, the Southern states were torn. On the one hand, they want as many representatives as they're entitled to. But if they insist on counting slaves as people for purposes of government representation, then shouldn't said slaves be treated like people? Thus, another compromise: slaves counted as 3/5 of a person for purposes of Congressional representation. Good times (NB, the constitution doesn't actually say "slaves". It says "free persons" and "all other persons". Classy)
And, next time you cast your ballot for Senate, you should know that you couldn't always do that (even if you were a white, land-owning man who could vote at all). Originally, Senators weren't chosen by the people. They were chosen by the State legislatures of each state (which were elected by the "people"). Can't have the riff-raff having too much say in who makes the laws!
Then we start to get into what powers, specifically, Congress as a whole and its different branches have. This is the reason most Social Studies teachers don't make you read the whole thing. It's a long list. One of the things I love are all the bits about what happens immediately- how many Representatives each State gets, the staggering of elections for Senate, a bunch of other things. Including: "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person." (I:9) In other words, they left the thorny question of the slave trade to Future!Congress, rather than dealing with it themselves. 1808 was 21 years away when that paragraph was written, plenty of time for the slave trade to die a natural death, if that's what it was going to do. Which of course, is what they hoped, and what didn't happen. No one could figure out how to deal with this problem, because slavery was a driving force of the US economy but a horribly immoral practice. And the inability of these privileged white men to deal with it carries forward to our contemporary issues of racism and people not wanting to talk about it or deal with it (especially privileged white men).
One of the parts that affects me personally is this: "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings". (I:8) Also this: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" (I:8) So right there we have my Taxation without Representation. Course, the Founders never thought that anyone would actually live in the District. And if that thought that Philadelphia summer that they spent drafting the Constitution was bad, they should see DC in August (or maybe that's why they didn't think anyone would live here).
Ironically, in the same section where the slave trade is allowed to continue until 1808, the Writ of Habeas Corpus is enshrined. This is one of the rights that got into the first draft, rather than waiting until the Bill of Rights. Additionally, we are told that no "Title of Nobility" (I:9) shall be granted, nor shall there be kings or anything of the sort. Nor is Congress allowed to just take money out of the Treasury willy-nilly, they have to do it via an appropriations bill. Which doesn't really seem to stop them.
So that's Article I. A perfect encapsulation of the various compromises and conflicts that the founders were wrestling with. Were we a rural nation or an urban one? How much power should go directly into the hands of the people? How do we make sure everyone gets a voice? How do we make many into one? (by forbidding the states to make their own money and treaties, see section 10) And what do we do about slavery?
These questions and more to be answered in the next three centuries of: The United States of America.
Today, we take a crack at Article I, which is the article of the Constitution that sets up the legislative branch of the government.
Let's start with the whole "separation of powers" concept. Very clever. Checks and balances and other staples of civics class. The founders were really worried that someone was going to get too powerful, and having just fought a revolution I'm sure they weren't too eager to fight another. Anyway, onto the text.
The basics of Article I are as follows:
There's a Congress, which consists of a House of Representatives and a Senate (lower and upper houses, hooray bicameral legislature!). In order to serve in the House, you've got to be 25 (hmm, wonder if I could get elected...); 30 to be a Senator. And you have to be a US citizen and live in the state that elects you. Representatives serve for two-year terms, Senators six, with one-third of the Senate standing for election every two years.
And then we start to get technical. First we start with how things are divided. Part of why we have a bicameral legislature is because all states were not created equal. Some are big, some are small, some rural, some urban, some heavily populated, some kinda lonely. So, the states with the smaller populations wanted everyone to have the same number of legislators. The states with big populations thought we should have proportional representation, so that smaller populations wouldn't have a disproportionate voice. Thus, a compromise. The Senate has two senators per state. The House has one representative for every 30,000 people, but at least one per state (so if you only have 15,000, you still get a vote in the House). But! Despite the Declaration of Independence saying that all men are created equal, great inequality existed during the early days of our Republic (and, to be honest, still does). So, the Southern states were torn. On the one hand, they want as many representatives as they're entitled to. But if they insist on counting slaves as people for purposes of government representation, then shouldn't said slaves be treated like people? Thus, another compromise: slaves counted as 3/5 of a person for purposes of Congressional representation. Good times (NB, the constitution doesn't actually say "slaves". It says "free persons" and "all other persons". Classy)
And, next time you cast your ballot for Senate, you should know that you couldn't always do that (even if you were a white, land-owning man who could vote at all). Originally, Senators weren't chosen by the people. They were chosen by the State legislatures of each state (which were elected by the "people"). Can't have the riff-raff having too much say in who makes the laws!
Then we start to get into what powers, specifically, Congress as a whole and its different branches have. This is the reason most Social Studies teachers don't make you read the whole thing. It's a long list. One of the things I love are all the bits about what happens immediately- how many Representatives each State gets, the staggering of elections for Senate, a bunch of other things. Including: "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person." (I:9) In other words, they left the thorny question of the slave trade to Future!Congress, rather than dealing with it themselves. 1808 was 21 years away when that paragraph was written, plenty of time for the slave trade to die a natural death, if that's what it was going to do. Which of course, is what they hoped, and what didn't happen. No one could figure out how to deal with this problem, because slavery was a driving force of the US economy but a horribly immoral practice. And the inability of these privileged white men to deal with it carries forward to our contemporary issues of racism and people not wanting to talk about it or deal with it (especially privileged white men).
One of the parts that affects me personally is this: "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings". (I:8) Also this: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" (I:8) So right there we have my Taxation without Representation. Course, the Founders never thought that anyone would actually live in the District. And if that thought that Philadelphia summer that they spent drafting the Constitution was bad, they should see DC in August (or maybe that's why they didn't think anyone would live here).
Ironically, in the same section where the slave trade is allowed to continue until 1808, the Writ of Habeas Corpus is enshrined. This is one of the rights that got into the first draft, rather than waiting until the Bill of Rights. Additionally, we are told that no "Title of Nobility" (I:9) shall be granted, nor shall there be kings or anything of the sort. Nor is Congress allowed to just take money out of the Treasury willy-nilly, they have to do it via an appropriations bill. Which doesn't really seem to stop them.
So that's Article I. A perfect encapsulation of the various compromises and conflicts that the founders were wrestling with. Were we a rural nation or an urban one? How much power should go directly into the hands of the people? How do we make sure everyone gets a voice? How do we make many into one? (by forbidding the states to make their own money and treaties, see section 10) And what do we do about slavery?
These questions and more to be answered in the next three centuries of: The United States of America.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
We the People...
Inspired by David Plotz’s Blogging the Bible series on Slate, I thought it would be interesting to see what happens when a person goes back and re-reads (or reads for the first time) other foundational documents of the civilization in which we live. I could have tackled the New Testament, but I’d already read pretty much all of it for a great class called “Birth of the Christian Tradition” and Paul tends to make me a little-heavy handed with the snarkiness (and I have the margin notes to prove it). Not to mention that I figured it was a task better left to an actual Christian, since I wasn’t actually raised on the Bible.
But I was raised with the Constitution. The first time I actually read the Constitution and could understand it I was 16 and in AP US History. Which is also the last time I took a class in American History. Yes, it had been in the back of every American History textbook I’d ever had, but no one had ever made us read more than the preamble. But, after the AP exam was over, as we prepped for the US History and Government Regents Exam (thanks New York!), our teacher thought it would be good for us to be familiar with the contents of this revered document. So she assigned us the task of mind-mapping each of the articles. And it worked, at least enough to give me an appreciation of the elegance of the document and some idea of how it was structured.
But then, for Constitution Day in 2007, I thought, “hey, it’s been a while since I read it, so I’ll retype the Constitution in my blog in honor of the day.” Which I did. It took hours. The Constitution is a lot longer than I remember it being, a lot longer than it looks in those fancy cases at the National Archives. When I told my best friend that I’d typed the whole thing, he asked “couldn’t you just have copied and pasted it?” Which, of course, I could have, and ctrl-C, ctrl-V certainly would have been a lot fewer keystrokes. But I wouldn’t have read the whole thing, and since I am sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, I figured it would be good for me to know what it actually says, especially in a time where it would seem that certain members of the administration prefer that I not.
Reading the Constitution gives one an appreciation of the hard work done by those fabulous gentlemen back in the day (I have a bit of a collective crush on the Founding Fathers). The attention to detail is remarkable, as is their willingness to accept that the country and thus, the document, wouldn’t stay the same forever. There’s stuff in there you never learned in civics class.
So, for the next few months, I'll be reading part of the Constitution every week and responding to it here. It starts with the Preamble today, May 14, the day the Framers met in the Pennsylvania State House in Philadelphia, and ends September 17, now celebrated as Constitution Day. To read the Constitution yourself, the full text is available via the National Archives (where you can also see it live and person).
The Preamble
This is the part we all learn in school. "We the People" and all that jazz. In fact, it's actually a beautiful statement:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
That's a great way to start a document. Who's writing it, and why. What is it. And what hope those men in that hot Philadelphia summer had for the future! Justice, peace, liberty, for everyone, down the generations. The foundational rules of a government, written down by the people from whom that government derives its power. The Constitution wasn't handed down on a mountain, it wasn't revealed in visions, it wasn't handed down by the ruling classes. Well, ok, on that last one, it kinda was. The men who wrote our Constitution weren't average Joes, but they were creating a document that would rule even the most ambitious of them, rather than declaring themselves to be a new noble class. Which, considering that it was 1787 and no one had ever done this before, was pretty darn impressive.
And don't forget that this wasn't our first constitution. The Articles of Confederation hadn't succeeded in making one nation out of many states, since the weak central government had had little power. So now we were trying again, and this time, all that hard work brought forth something that lasted well into a future that those great men could never have imagined, both for good and for ill.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Most of you are probably aware that I am something of a Google fangirl. I have a Google homepage with links to everything, use gmail for my email (and have all my email sent to one central address, and it's a beautiful thing), I read RSS feeds on Google Reader (and you can see my shared feed right in the sidebar of this blog!), organize my life with Google Calendar (which is a pretty, shiny thing), I have a website created with Google page creator, and right now I'm writing this entry in Google Docs which will then post to Blogger, which is owned by Google. I also love Google's various search features, particularly the Book Search (which you can get to by clicking the "more" option at the top of the page)- it lets you search books, and depending on the publication details, you can even see the book online (this has come in handy when I needed to refind a quote from a book I already returned to the library).
And so, while I'm not normally a fan of pranks- at least not mean-spirited ones- I giggled with girlish glee when I saw the many little April Fools jokes Google rolled out yesterday. The one that particularly amused me was the fact that YouTube (owned by Google) was rickrolling people. And I think partly the reason this entertained me so much was that it was such a nod to Internet culture. But it's also the hardest to explain, I think. Even if you don't know how to turn on a computer, the "custom time" feature announced yesterday on Gmail (which allowed you to send emails back in time) was obviously a joke, and it does seem unlikely that the "Google Wake Up Kit" would work, because it involved making your bed shake. I was quite pleased with the "I'm Feeling Lucky" addition to Calendar, where you would end up with random events- my first was a date with George W. Bush, which was distressing (unless we're meeting for a party at the White House to which all July 6 birthdays are invited, because that would include the Dali Lama and be awesome); but then I got two dates with Johnny Depp in a row, and who wouldn't be stoked about that? But the YouTube rickrolling was the one I loved the most and I didn't even see it first hand. I rarely use YouTube, because- well, I just don't. Sometimes people send me videos and sometimes I watch them but sometimes I don't feel like muting the TV or hitting pause or whatever (generally, it depends on who sent me the video and how much faith I have in their taste). And even if it weren't blocked at work, I wouldn't use it there because our connection is slow (not to imply that I sit around at work all day surfing the Internet, but sometimes we have downtime, esp. in the Visitor Center).
Anyway, I'm pretty sure that the primary audience for my blog is my mother, and I'm pretty sure she has no clue what rickrolling is, because while my mother is relatively tech-savvy compared to other women her age and even compared to some of my coworkers, she is not as fully immersed in the insanity of Internet culture as I am. So, rickrolling. Basically, during the course of a conversation/argument one party posts a link that on the surface appears to be to a study that proves their argument or a helpful wikipedia article or whatever, but is actually a link to the video for Rick Astley's hit "Never Gonna Give You Up" (which Mom, you'll probably recognize if you hear it). How and why it came to be this particular video I have no idea, aside from it probably happened once, people thought it was hilarious, and so it spread. I think it probably relates to how silly and cheesy the video is, how Rick Astley looks nothing like you expect based on his voice, and the fact that there is nothing offensive in the song/video, but it's not what you expected. It's a silly "haha, fooled you" and often used when the argument has degenerated to ad hominem attacks from one side or when the person being rickrolled seems incredibly gullible or willfully ignorant. And the fact that Google did it yesterday proves that they're all just a big bunch of geeks and makes me adore them.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Abstinence fails, use a condom
According to a recent study, 25% of teenage girls in the United States have a Sexually Transmitted Infection. (requires login) Such a high rate of infection is public health crisis, and one that is very preventable. It's also a sign that our government is failing our youth, especially young women, by insisting on abstinence-only sexual health curricula. Teenagers have sex. They have hormones, and they experiment, because, well, they're teenagers and they're horny and why not? Ignorance, combined with the adolescent feeling of invulnerability and the need to fit in, results in extremely risky behaviors. Even if girls know that they need to practice contraception, they don't necessarily practice safer-sex, and even those who insist on condoms for penetrative intercourse can catch diseases through other types of sex play. In fact, only half the girls in the study admitted to having had "sex", which, thanks to Bill Clinton et al, is often defined only as penetrative vaginal intercourse. There are lots of ways two naked people can have fun together, and many of those ways carry the risk of disease. Obviously, these girls didn't get HPV or chlamydia simply from holding hands, which indicates that they're engaging in other types of sex acts.
When teens know the risks of "sex" but define "sex" so narrowly, they decide to mitigate those risks by engaging in other kinds of sex play. And girls, especially, get the raw end of the deal when it comes to abstinence-only sex ed, because many girls feel intense pressure to give into their boyfriends' sexual demands in order to maintain a certain social standing.1 Even in the 21st century in the USA, girls and women still do not have the same amount of sexual autonomy that males do. By giving girls accurate information about the risks associated with all kinds of sex, we empower them to make decisions based on facts, not what they learned at summer camp and on cable. They have better reasons to say no and to wait until the decision is theirs, rather than their partner's. And boys too, need to know just what risks they are taking by engaging in these activities.
But no one wants to imagine their precious little girl performing fellatio, so instead we bury our heads in the sand and tell teens to keep it in their pants. Which is good advice, certainly. I'm not advocating that we encourage free love in the corridors of our nation's schools. But we know for a fact that it isn't being followed by everyone. We tell kids not to smoke or drink or do drugs or speed, and yet they continue to do so, owing partly to adolescent rebellion and partly to that aforementioned feeling of invincibility. The difference between these activities and sex is that sex is a biological drive, necessary to the survival of our species, and there are ways to mitigate the risk when you give into that drive. We need to teach our young people what those ways are, because the chances that they're not going to engage in sex someday are very small. Teaching teenagers about sex and how to be safe doesn't turn them into fornicators. Being teenagers does (even the dullest teen can generally figure out that Tab A goes into Slot B, esp. in our sex-saturated media culture). Even if they make it out of high school without having any kind of sex, they grow into adults, and with each passing year, the likelihood that they remain virgins goes down (92% of women have had sex by age 24 ). If we don't make reality-based sexual education available to our teenagers, when is it that we expect that anyone will learn about the risks of sex? College? Loveline? Isn't part of the point of public education to prepare our youth for their place in society? And some of these girls are destined to join the unacceptably large numbers of people without health insurance (15.7% as of the last census). Who will continue to spread disease, because they won't have primary-care physicians to suggest testing or provide treatment and education. When left untreated, many curable STIs can result in infertility (and other long-term side effects, including heart disease and brain damage) or be passed on to infants during pregnancy and labor, greatly increasing the public health crisis.
Bottom line is this: the vast majority of people will have sex at some point in their lives. By hiding the realities of sex from our teenagers, we do everyone a disservice. Ignorance may be bliss, but it's a lousy bedmate. Why are we so afraid of teaching people how their bodies work?
1. I remember a very interesting discussion in my Sociology of Sex and Gender class about why such a narrow definition of sex is embraced by our society. Teenagers are under pressure from the media and their peers (and their hormones) to have sex. Teenage girls are under pressure from society to remain chaste until marriage (or at least college). By engaging in sex that isn't intercourse, they get to remain "virgins" while still satisfying their boyfriends' and society's demands that they be sexual. But our public schools can't discuss these activities or the risks they carry, and so your average teenager doesn't know what her risks are or how to prevent them.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Margaret Sanger
I (finally) saw Juno last night. And any movie or story that deals with unplanned pregnancy is going to eventually lead to discussion of reproductive choice and freedom.
So today I wanted to write a bit about Margaret Sanger, who is one of my heroes. Margaret Sanger came from a very large family. Eventually she became a nurse and was faced with many cases of women whose bodies were worn out from so many pregnancies and births, not to mention the labor required to take care of so many children. She also saw the horrific consequences of abortions (which were illegal and thus unregulated and frequently unsafe). When these women begged doctors to tell them how to avoid future pregnancies, the doctors' only solution was frequently to suggest abstinence, a remarkably unhelpful and impracticle solution. Margaret Sanger knew there had to be a better way.
She set out to inform women about their birth control options, starting clinics that were often shut down. She was arrested for disseminating birth control advice through the US Postal Service, because the information was deemed "obscene." Not only were there extremely limited contraceptive options available, telling women what those options were was against the law. Kind of difficult to imagine in a world where ads for various contraceptive pills air on network television. But it is Margaret Sanger that we have to thank for the existence of the Pill. She realized that it was important for women to be in charge of their own fertility, and helped fund research that led to the development of hormonal contraception. She also started Planned Parenthood, which was connected to the Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut that made birth control legal in the US. Imagine living in a world where it was illegal for married couples (because of course single people would never have sex!) to regulate the number and spacing of their children as they saw fit. Then be grateful to Margaret Sanger and her coworkers that you live in a world where you can decide if and when to have children based on what's best for you and your family.
So today I wanted to write a bit about Margaret Sanger, who is one of my heroes. Margaret Sanger came from a very large family. Eventually she became a nurse and was faced with many cases of women whose bodies were worn out from so many pregnancies and births, not to mention the labor required to take care of so many children. She also saw the horrific consequences of abortions (which were illegal and thus unregulated and frequently unsafe). When these women begged doctors to tell them how to avoid future pregnancies, the doctors' only solution was frequently to suggest abstinence, a remarkably unhelpful and impracticle solution. Margaret Sanger knew there had to be a better way.
She set out to inform women about their birth control options, starting clinics that were often shut down. She was arrested for disseminating birth control advice through the US Postal Service, because the information was deemed "obscene." Not only were there extremely limited contraceptive options available, telling women what those options were was against the law. Kind of difficult to imagine in a world where ads for various contraceptive pills air on network television. But it is Margaret Sanger that we have to thank for the existence of the Pill. She realized that it was important for women to be in charge of their own fertility, and helped fund research that led to the development of hormonal contraception. She also started Planned Parenthood, which was connected to the Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut that made birth control legal in the US. Imagine living in a world where it was illegal for married couples (because of course single people would never have sex!) to regulate the number and spacing of their children as they saw fit. Then be grateful to Margaret Sanger and her coworkers that you live in a world where you can decide if and when to have children based on what's best for you and your family.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Blue Skies, Silent Springs
Since today is such a beautiful day, I decided that today's historical female would be Rachel Carson.
I remember reading Silent Spring as a freshman in college. I had heard of Rachel Carson and this book, but it wasn't until I took an intro-level biology class aimed at non-biology majors that I was assigned it (probably the single most useful thing I did in that class, other than meet someone who didn't believe in natural selection for the first time in my life. The rest of the curriculum had been well-covered by my ninth-grade biology teacher, Mrs. Acattato, and by Mr. Goodfriend, with whom I took Anatomy and Phisiology in twelfth grade).
I grew up in a relatively eco-conscious household. We recycled more than we threw away, even taking into account that garbage was collected twice as often as recylcables. I had books on how kids could save the planet. I also had lots, and I mean lots of books and magazines about animals and nature. This isn't to say that I was a particularly outdoorsy kid, but I loved nature, and I still do (note to potential suitors- the zoo is on my list of top 5 best first dates). I spend so much time indoors that sometimes I forget how restorative fresh air and sunshine can be. But even though I knew that CFCs were bad for the ozone and you shouldn't throw out soda rings, I didn't necessarily know all about the complexities of the environment.
Rachel Carson's book was the kind of book that shakes up the world, much like Uncle Tom's Cabin or The Jungle. It made people aware of how their actions were (and are) dramatically impacting their environment for the worse, and ways that they could try to restore the balance they had upset. Long before Al Gore started telling us An Inconvient Truth Rachel Carson was spreading the word about environmental destruction. Her book challenged the conventional wisdom that man-made chemicals were always the correct solution and were a sign of progress. I'm sure I'm not the only person whose choices to use natural or organic products whenever possible were influenced by Rachel Carson's work.
As spring begins to bloom around you, I encourage you to pick up a copy of Silent Spring from your local library and try to think of ways you can live Ms. Carson's environmental legacy in your life.
I remember reading Silent Spring as a freshman in college. I had heard of Rachel Carson and this book, but it wasn't until I took an intro-level biology class aimed at non-biology majors that I was assigned it (probably the single most useful thing I did in that class, other than meet someone who didn't believe in natural selection for the first time in my life. The rest of the curriculum had been well-covered by my ninth-grade biology teacher, Mrs. Acattato, and by Mr. Goodfriend, with whom I took Anatomy and Phisiology in twelfth grade).
I grew up in a relatively eco-conscious household. We recycled more than we threw away, even taking into account that garbage was collected twice as often as recylcables. I had books on how kids could save the planet. I also had lots, and I mean lots of books and magazines about animals and nature. This isn't to say that I was a particularly outdoorsy kid, but I loved nature, and I still do (note to potential suitors- the zoo is on my list of top 5 best first dates). I spend so much time indoors that sometimes I forget how restorative fresh air and sunshine can be. But even though I knew that CFCs were bad for the ozone and you shouldn't throw out soda rings, I didn't necessarily know all about the complexities of the environment.
Rachel Carson's book was the kind of book that shakes up the world, much like Uncle Tom's Cabin or The Jungle. It made people aware of how their actions were (and are) dramatically impacting their environment for the worse, and ways that they could try to restore the balance they had upset. Long before Al Gore started telling us An Inconvient Truth Rachel Carson was spreading the word about environmental destruction. Her book challenged the conventional wisdom that man-made chemicals were always the correct solution and were a sign of progress. I'm sure I'm not the only person whose choices to use natural or organic products whenever possible were influenced by Rachel Carson's work.
As spring begins to bloom around you, I encourage you to pick up a copy of Silent Spring from your local library and try to think of ways you can live Ms. Carson's environmental legacy in your life.
Spring!
I know that spring doesn't officially start in astronomical terms until later this month. And I know that it isn't officially here in DC until the Cherry Blossoms start to bloom. But today is ripe with the promise of spring. Yesterday was so clear and beautiful that my coworkers and I did yoga on the lawn after lunch. I slept with the window open and wore only a sweatshirt over my uniform this morning. It is supposed to rain hard tonight, and I can smell it coming in the air. But for now, the skies are blue and clear, the air is warm and fragrant. Little blue flowers are appearing in the grass, the trees are blooming, and the birds are singing. And I am singing with them. I have books to read, courtesy of my neighborhood library, and the sun is out by the time I am awake and still out when I get home. I can smell the dirt and the rain and the flowers in the air. It is a beautiful day, filled with all the promise of spring, and I think it is going to be a wonderful one.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Reading, Writing and 'Rthmetic
Today is the anniversary of the day that Annie Sullivan arrived in Alabama to begin teaching Helen Keller. Annie Sullivan is probably one of the most famous teachers in American history, and Helen Keller the most famous student. Contrary to popular belief, Helen Keller was not the first deaf/blind person to learn language; rather, Laura Bridgman was (which is an interesting story that relates to how all those antebellum reform movements I mentioned yesterday were connected).1 But Annie Sullivan did manage to help Helen Keller achieve heights no one would have thought possible. Previous education for the blind was aimed mostly at making them self-sufficient, teaching them skills so that they wouldn't be a burden on their families or society. Annie Sullivan focused on helping Helen learn to communicate with and understand the world, tutoring her for her entire educational career, as far as Radcliffe College. This speaks of Ms. Sullivan's incredible devotion to her student. Obviously, Helen could not have made it to Radcliffe without a good deal of native intelligence, but without her teacher to help her unlock it, she would probably have been stuck at her parents' home for the rest of her life. But Ms. Sullivan was determined and understood the importance of discipline, the importance of using other senses to help Helen connect, and a good deal about language acquisition. She essentially used language immersion to teach Helen, rather than a rote curriculum, which probably accounts for a large part of her success. She said "The child happily interested in his work learns quickly and without conscious effort"2, which I think those of us who have survived school can all relate too.
She also had some other very wise things to say about education: Education in the light of present-day knowledge and need calls for some spirited and creative innovations both in the substance and the purpose of current pedagogy. A strenuous effort must be made to train young people to think for themselves and take independent charge of their lives. Only when we have worked purposefully and long on a problem that interests us, and in hope and in despair wrestled with it in silence and alone relying on our own unshaken will—only then have we achieved education.
I know that I was lucky enough to have several truly excellent teachers, both male and female in my life. I had some bad ones too, but the good far outnumbered the bad. Take a minute today and think about the teachers you had and how they've influenced your life. And consider especially that so many great women's stories start with the fact that they had an education that taught them to think for themselves and opened up their minds, making them want more for themselves than society said they could have.
Annie Sullivan's great gift to Helen Keller was the gift of words and literacy. If you'd like to share that gift with a child, there are many ways you can. Volunteer at your local literacy program or library. Below, I've included two ways you can help without even leaving your seat.
1. I highly recommend The Education of Laura Bridgman by Ernest Freeberg if you're interested in learning more about the story of Laura and her teacher, Samuel Gridley Howe.
2. source
She also had some other very wise things to say about education: Education in the light of present-day knowledge and need calls for some spirited and creative innovations both in the substance and the purpose of current pedagogy. A strenuous effort must be made to train young people to think for themselves and take independent charge of their lives. Only when we have worked purposefully and long on a problem that interests us, and in hope and in despair wrestled with it in silence and alone relying on our own unshaken will—only then have we achieved education.
I know that I was lucky enough to have several truly excellent teachers, both male and female in my life. I had some bad ones too, but the good far outnumbered the bad. Take a minute today and think about the teachers you had and how they've influenced your life. And consider especially that so many great women's stories start with the fact that they had an education that taught them to think for themselves and opened up their minds, making them want more for themselves than society said they could have.
Annie Sullivan's great gift to Helen Keller was the gift of words and literacy. If you'd like to share that gift with a child, there are many ways you can. Volunteer at your local literacy program or library. Below, I've included two ways you can help without even leaving your seat.
1. I highly recommend The Education of Laura Bridgman by Ernest Freeberg if you're interested in learning more about the story of Laura and her teacher, Samuel Gridley Howe.
2. source
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Never mix your liquors
I'm still recovering from a night of celebrating a friend's birthday perhaps a little too vigorously, especially considering the infrequency with which I imbibe. And so I'm led to thinking about the temperance movement, and its connection to women's rights.
One of the things I find really interesting is the way that basically all the reform movements of the early 1800s in the US were interconnected- temperance, abolition, dress reform, education reform, diet reform, prison reform, etc. And many of these movements were connected to women's rights. Why? Because the educated women of the upper classes who were drawn to this work, partly out of a sense of moral obligation and probably also partly because they were bored (since they weren't supposed to work outside them home) were not allowed to be equal participants. And after being told they couldn't speak publicly in mixed meetings, or at all, and being asked to confine their reform work only to that labor that was appropriate for ladies, they got a bit cranky. The birth of women's rights in the US can be traced back to an international abolition conference in London, where the female delegates (who'd been sent as voting delegates by their American chapters) weren't allowed to speak or vote. They were allowed to sit in their own little section and observe. The dedicated female abolitionists at this meeting were, to say the least, slightly perturbed. And that feeling fermented and eventually became a movement.
Strolling through wikipedia you'll find that many women who were associated with the temperance movement (esp. the Women's Christian Temperance Union) were also suffragists. And since they each deserve an entry of their own, I'll link you to a few of them.
Frances Willard
Susan B Anthony (who will get her own post later on this month)
Amelia Bloomer (a perfect example of the intersection of different reforms)
Susan B Anthony (who will get her own post later on this month)
Amelia Bloomer (a perfect example of the intersection of different reforms)
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Elizabeth I
March is Women's History Month, and in honor of that, I'm going to try to write about a different woman I admire every day.
Today's woman owes partly to the fact that I went to see The Other Boleyn Girl last night.
Elizabeth I has long been one of my heroes. After her father, Henry VIII, executed her mother, Anne Boleyn, Elizabeth went from being first in line for the throne (in front of her older sister, Mary) to not being in line at all. The people running things for her brother, Edward, during his brief reign did what they could to make England a Protestant nation. When Edward died and Mary became queen, she became known as Bloody Mary for the number of executions she ordered in her quest to bring the English church and people back to Rome.
Elizabeth came to the throne after her siblings had caused significant religious and political turmoil. She was a woman doing a man's job in a man's world. And she did it better than any man had done it before. She had an official policy of not caring precisely what a person's religious views were, as long as they were loyal to her throne. Her father had been a true Renaissance man who encouraged the growth of art, science and law in his court, and she did the same, reigning over the golden age of England. She refused to marry and let a husband take away her power, and styled herself as the Virgin Queen, but she almost certainly wasn't actually a virgin.
I think in many ways, the female leaders of today would do well to examine Queen Elizabeth's style, because she was respected as a queen without having to sacrifice her feminity, and women in power still struggle with that challenge.
Today's woman owes partly to the fact that I went to see The Other Boleyn Girl last night.
Elizabeth I has long been one of my heroes. After her father, Henry VIII, executed her mother, Anne Boleyn, Elizabeth went from being first in line for the throne (in front of her older sister, Mary) to not being in line at all. The people running things for her brother, Edward, during his brief reign did what they could to make England a Protestant nation. When Edward died and Mary became queen, she became known as Bloody Mary for the number of executions she ordered in her quest to bring the English church and people back to Rome.
Elizabeth came to the throne after her siblings had caused significant religious and political turmoil. She was a woman doing a man's job in a man's world. And she did it better than any man had done it before. She had an official policy of not caring precisely what a person's religious views were, as long as they were loyal to her throne. Her father had been a true Renaissance man who encouraged the growth of art, science and law in his court, and she did the same, reigning over the golden age of England. She refused to marry and let a husband take away her power, and styled herself as the Virgin Queen, but she almost certainly wasn't actually a virgin.
I think in many ways, the female leaders of today would do well to examine Queen Elizabeth's style, because she was respected as a queen without having to sacrifice her feminity, and women in power still struggle with that challenge.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
the mouths of babes
I am, at the moment, a Park Ranger at the Frederick Douglass National Historic Site.
One of the things about being a Park Ranger that is equal parts frustrating and rewarding is giving tours to children. Frustrating, because as much as I love children, holding their attention for 30 minutes can be difficult, especially if they are undisciplined (or hungry, or tired, or over-sugared, or whatever).
Rewarding because for those 30 minutes, I am their teacher, and I can share history with them, and because, true to the King and I lyric, they sometimes teach me.
I sometimes despair that all my young visitors will take away is new knowledge of chamber pots and other charming artifacts of Victorian hygiene, even though I try to keep the focus away from such things. (The Victorians themselves, I feel sure, would be greatly disgruntled to hear me discussing Victorian sex lives and toilet habits, but I suppose it's what they deserve for being such prudes that we are still paying for it 100 years later).
But sometimes, they clearly are getting more. The look on a girl's face when I tell her that women used to have to give all the money they earned to their fathers or husbands, that they couldn't own property or vote tends to be a look of sheer incredulity. It is somewhat satsifying to see these young children, boys and girls both, seem both doubtful and scornful that anyone ever thought women shouldn't be allowed rights equal to men. I can't help but wonder if Lizzie Stanton and her fellow fighters would be happy that these rights are taken for granted, or worried that taking them for granted is the first step towards taking them away. But I feel, as do their teachers, that it is important for these children to know that the rights and freedoms they have today were hard-won by men and women of vision and courage, and that the world has not always been perfect.
One of those men of vision and courage, who I rarely talk about on my tour, is Sen. Charles Sumner. Sen. Sumner's picture hangs on the wall near the front window of the house, and so sometimes I get asked questions. Today, one of my guests, who know that Frederick Douglass' father was white, asked if that was him. I informed him that he was Sen. Sumner, a famous abolitionist, who got into a fist-fight on the floor of the Senate. The students were confused. I told them that the Senator had made a speech against slavery and had made another member of Congress angry, and so had been hit. "Why would you hit someone just because you didn't like what they said?" asked a child. My heart leapt for joy at this question. I tried to explain that slavery gets people emotional, and that 150 years ago people were more likely to settle things with violence. The children were not satisfied with this answer, because it apparently still seemed profoundly stupid. One of them raised her hand and said "I know a better way they could have dealt with it, they could have talked about it instead of using violence." I said "yes, that's true and very smart." These are the children I want leading us someday.
No, not every child who walks through our doors has such pacifist sentiments. They push to get a peek in the room, they roll their eyes and snap at each other. But the mere fact that this whole class seemed to agree that violence was no solution at all made me very, very happy.
One of the things about being a Park Ranger that is equal parts frustrating and rewarding is giving tours to children. Frustrating, because as much as I love children, holding their attention for 30 minutes can be difficult, especially if they are undisciplined (or hungry, or tired, or over-sugared, or whatever).
Rewarding because for those 30 minutes, I am their teacher, and I can share history with them, and because, true to the King and I lyric, they sometimes teach me.
I sometimes despair that all my young visitors will take away is new knowledge of chamber pots and other charming artifacts of Victorian hygiene, even though I try to keep the focus away from such things. (The Victorians themselves, I feel sure, would be greatly disgruntled to hear me discussing Victorian sex lives and toilet habits, but I suppose it's what they deserve for being such prudes that we are still paying for it 100 years later).
But sometimes, they clearly are getting more. The look on a girl's face when I tell her that women used to have to give all the money they earned to their fathers or husbands, that they couldn't own property or vote tends to be a look of sheer incredulity. It is somewhat satsifying to see these young children, boys and girls both, seem both doubtful and scornful that anyone ever thought women shouldn't be allowed rights equal to men. I can't help but wonder if Lizzie Stanton and her fellow fighters would be happy that these rights are taken for granted, or worried that taking them for granted is the first step towards taking them away. But I feel, as do their teachers, that it is important for these children to know that the rights and freedoms they have today were hard-won by men and women of vision and courage, and that the world has not always been perfect.
One of those men of vision and courage, who I rarely talk about on my tour, is Sen. Charles Sumner. Sen. Sumner's picture hangs on the wall near the front window of the house, and so sometimes I get asked questions. Today, one of my guests, who know that Frederick Douglass' father was white, asked if that was him. I informed him that he was Sen. Sumner, a famous abolitionist, who got into a fist-fight on the floor of the Senate. The students were confused. I told them that the Senator had made a speech against slavery and had made another member of Congress angry, and so had been hit. "Why would you hit someone just because you didn't like what they said?" asked a child. My heart leapt for joy at this question. I tried to explain that slavery gets people emotional, and that 150 years ago people were more likely to settle things with violence. The children were not satisfied with this answer, because it apparently still seemed profoundly stupid. One of them raised her hand and said "I know a better way they could have dealt with it, they could have talked about it instead of using violence." I said "yes, that's true and very smart." These are the children I want leading us someday.
No, not every child who walks through our doors has such pacifist sentiments. They push to get a peek in the room, they roll their eyes and snap at each other. But the mere fact that this whole class seemed to agree that violence was no solution at all made me very, very happy.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
It snowed today
I got to walk home in it. Big, heavy wet flakes. The kind that are perfect for snowballs and snowmen but lousy for skiing. The kind that are ideal for catching on your tongue, that are straight out of the magical ending of a Hollywood Christmas movie.
It's the kind of snow that brings you back to your childhood, if you let it, assuming you had snow in your childhood. And even if you didn't. Yes, I know, snow sticks to the roads and your car and you have to clean off the windshield and shovel the walk and the grocery store is full of people stocking up on toilet paper and milk and you'd skip it but you are actually legitimately out of milk or bread or toilet paper or tampons or microwave popcorn or whatever it is you stopped in to buy, and now you have to drive home in the snow and you are the only person in the world who can drive competently in this particular kind of precipitation. But if you forget all that for a second, and really take a moment to look and listen to the snow, you can remember what it felt like to think the world was full of magic, when you believed in Santa and the tooth fairy and knights in shining armor rescuing princesses from high towers. The pure, silent sound of the snow falling, muting everything around. The snow remaking the world into something new and different, full of wonder.
I thought of sledding trips and snuggling in the bed with Mom and Dad listening to the radio hoping we'd all get a snow day. And coming in after playing in the snow to eat chicken noodle soup and drink hot cocoa and get all defrosted.
It's the kind of snow that brings you back to your childhood, if you let it, assuming you had snow in your childhood. And even if you didn't. Yes, I know, snow sticks to the roads and your car and you have to clean off the windshield and shovel the walk and the grocery store is full of people stocking up on toilet paper and milk and you'd skip it but you are actually legitimately out of milk or bread or toilet paper or tampons or microwave popcorn or whatever it is you stopped in to buy, and now you have to drive home in the snow and you are the only person in the world who can drive competently in this particular kind of precipitation. But if you forget all that for a second, and really take a moment to look and listen to the snow, you can remember what it felt like to think the world was full of magic, when you believed in Santa and the tooth fairy and knights in shining armor rescuing princesses from high towers. The pure, silent sound of the snow falling, muting everything around. The snow remaking the world into something new and different, full of wonder.
I thought of sledding trips and snuggling in the bed with Mom and Dad listening to the radio hoping we'd all get a snow day. And coming in after playing in the snow to eat chicken noodle soup and drink hot cocoa and get all defrosted.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Happy D-Day
Freddy D-Day that is.
Did you know that Frederick Douglass celebrated his birthday on February 14th? Of course, slaveowners didn't generally keep records of the birthdates of their slaves, but we think he was born in or around February, and he chose the 14th as the day on which he celebrated.
Since Lincoln's Birthday is on the 12th, and Douglass' on the 14th, February became Black History Month in honor of these two men.
Did you know that Frederick Douglass celebrated his birthday on February 14th? Of course, slaveowners didn't generally keep records of the birthdates of their slaves, but we think he was born in or around February, and he chose the 14th as the day on which he celebrated.
Since Lincoln's Birthday is on the 12th, and Douglass' on the 14th, February became Black History Month in honor of these two men.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Valentine's Day
Point the first- Did you know that Valentine's Day is also the day on which Frederick Douglass celebrated his birthday?
Point the second- I am not generally a huge fan of Valentine's Day, whether I am in a relationship or not. I don't like the way it puts pressure on people to make the perfect romantic gesture, I don't like the way it sets people up to be let down, and I don't like the way it makes people who are single feel bad. But I do like when my friends and family decide to make it about more than just romantic love, to make it instead about all kinds of love.
Point the third- Despite my general lack of enthusiasm for the day, I do have a Valentine's Day playlist on my mp3 player. I happen to think it's a good one, mixing songs about the different things romantic love can make you feel. So here it is, perhaps it will inspire you.
Ain't No Mountain High Enough- Diana Ross
Ain't No Mountain High Enough- Marvin Gaye and Tammy Terrell
Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing- Marvin Gaye
All I Want is You- U2
As Long as You're Mine- Idina Menzel and Norbert Leo Butz (from Wicked)
Beyond the Sea- Bobby Darin
A Bushel and a Peck- (Tina Marie DeLeone- from Guys and Dolls, Revival Cast)
Can't Help Falling in Love With You- Elvis Presley
Come What May- Nicole Kidman and Ewan McGregor (from Moulin Rouge)
Cupid- Sam Cooke
El Tango de Roxanne- Ewan McGregor, Jose Feliciano and Jacek Koman (from Moulin Rouge)
Fell in Love- Moxy Fruvous
Fever- Peggy Lee
Fly- Moxy Fruvous
For Once in My Life- Stevie Wonder
Ghost- Indigo Girls
God Only Knows - Manhattan Transfer (because I don't have the Beach Boys original)
Guess Things Happen that Way- Johnny Cash
Hallelujah I Love Her So- Ray Charles
I Believe in You- Frank Sinatra
I Get a Kick Out of You- Frank Sinatra
I Wanna Be Around- Frank Sinatra
I Will Survive- Donna Summer
I Wish You Love- Frank Sinatra
I'd Give It All For You- Andrea Burns and Brooks Ashmanskas (from Songs for a New World)
If I Had $1,000,000- Barenaked Ladies
If I Were a Bell- Josie DeGuzman (Guys and Dolls Revival Cast)
I'm Gonna Make You Love Me- The Temptations and Diana Ross and the Supremes
I'm Not That Girl- Idina Menzel (from Wicked)
Irresistible You- Bobby Darin
It Doesn't Matter- Alison Krauss and Union Station
It's De-Lovely- Robbie Williams
I Quit- Hepburn
I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For- U2
Jackson- Johnny Cash and June Carter Cash
Just My Imagination (Running Away With Me)- The Temptations
Let It Be Me- Everly Brothers
Let's Get It On- Marvin Gaye
Love Rescue Me- U2
More (Theme from Mondo Cane)- Frank Sinatra
My Cherie Amour- Stevie Wonder
No No Raja- Moxy Fruvous
Nobody Makes a Pass at Me- from Pins and Needles
Overjoyed- Stevie Wonder
Peel Me a Grape- Diana Krall
Power of Two- Indigo Girls
Rest in Peace- James Marsters (from Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Once More With Feeling)
She Cries- Brooks Ashmanskas (from Songs for a New World)
Someday my Prince Will Come- from Walt Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarves
Stay- Sweet Honey in the Rock
There's a Fine, Fine Line- Stephanie D'Abruzzo (from Avenue Q)
To Make You Feel My Love- Billy Joel
Under Your Spell- Amber Benson (from Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Once More With Feeling)
Wild Horses- The Sundays
You Don't Know Me- Ray Charles
You're the Top- Patty LuPone and Howard McGillin (from Anything Goes, Revival Cast)
Point the second- I am not generally a huge fan of Valentine's Day, whether I am in a relationship or not. I don't like the way it puts pressure on people to make the perfect romantic gesture, I don't like the way it sets people up to be let down, and I don't like the way it makes people who are single feel bad. But I do like when my friends and family decide to make it about more than just romantic love, to make it instead about all kinds of love.
Point the third- Despite my general lack of enthusiasm for the day, I do have a Valentine's Day playlist on my mp3 player. I happen to think it's a good one, mixing songs about the different things romantic love can make you feel. So here it is, perhaps it will inspire you.
Ain't No Mountain High Enough- Diana Ross
Ain't No Mountain High Enough- Marvin Gaye and Tammy Terrell
Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing- Marvin Gaye
All I Want is You- U2
As Long as You're Mine- Idina Menzel and Norbert Leo Butz (from Wicked)
Beyond the Sea- Bobby Darin
A Bushel and a Peck- (Tina Marie DeLeone- from Guys and Dolls, Revival Cast)
Can't Help Falling in Love With You- Elvis Presley
Come What May- Nicole Kidman and Ewan McGregor (from Moulin Rouge)
Cupid- Sam Cooke
El Tango de Roxanne- Ewan McGregor, Jose Feliciano and Jacek Koman (from Moulin Rouge)
Fell in Love- Moxy Fruvous
Fever- Peggy Lee
Fly- Moxy Fruvous
For Once in My Life- Stevie Wonder
Ghost- Indigo Girls
God Only Knows - Manhattan Transfer (because I don't have the Beach Boys original)
Guess Things Happen that Way- Johnny Cash
Hallelujah I Love Her So- Ray Charles
I Believe in You- Frank Sinatra
I Get a Kick Out of You- Frank Sinatra
I Wanna Be Around- Frank Sinatra
I Will Survive- Donna Summer
I Wish You Love- Frank Sinatra
I'd Give It All For You- Andrea Burns and Brooks Ashmanskas (from Songs for a New World)
If I Had $1,000,000- Barenaked Ladies
If I Were a Bell- Josie DeGuzman (Guys and Dolls Revival Cast)
I'm Gonna Make You Love Me- The Temptations and Diana Ross and the Supremes
I'm Not That Girl- Idina Menzel (from Wicked)
Irresistible You- Bobby Darin
It Doesn't Matter- Alison Krauss and Union Station
It's De-Lovely- Robbie Williams
I Quit- Hepburn
I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For- U2
Jackson- Johnny Cash and June Carter Cash
Just My Imagination (Running Away With Me)- The Temptations
Let It Be Me- Everly Brothers
Let's Get It On- Marvin Gaye
Love Rescue Me- U2
More (Theme from Mondo Cane)- Frank Sinatra
My Cherie Amour- Stevie Wonder
No No Raja- Moxy Fruvous
Nobody Makes a Pass at Me- from Pins and Needles
Overjoyed- Stevie Wonder
Peel Me a Grape- Diana Krall
Power of Two- Indigo Girls
Rest in Peace- James Marsters (from Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Once More With Feeling)
She Cries- Brooks Ashmanskas (from Songs for a New World)
Someday my Prince Will Come- from Walt Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarves
Stay- Sweet Honey in the Rock
There's a Fine, Fine Line- Stephanie D'Abruzzo (from Avenue Q)
To Make You Feel My Love- Billy Joel
Under Your Spell- Amber Benson (from Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Once More With Feeling)
Wild Horses- The Sundays
You Don't Know Me- Ray Charles
You're the Top- Patty LuPone and Howard McGillin (from Anything Goes, Revival Cast)
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Ultra: Seven Days
I have my own personal comic book lending library in my best friend Jose. Last night, after watching the Super Tuesday returns come in on his giant screen, I got loaded up with books and headed home. On the train I took out one and started to read. It happened to be Ultra, which I found to be delightful.
The art is very clever and quite beautiful. Ultra and her fellow super-women are, of course, tall, statuesque beauties, but not in an unrealistic way. They don't have the anatomically impossible figures so often found in comics. They have flat stomachs and great legs, sure, but when they're off duty they wear real clothes and none of them have those impossibly tiny waists that are found so often in Barbie dolls and comic-book women. And the writing helps paint them as real women with weaknesses that have nothing to do with extraterrestrial elements. The dialogue is natural, realistic and at times laugh-out-loud funny.
I would have liked for the writing to give a bit more backstory on the characters, but the way the characters move through their universe it's quite easy to understand how their world works.
Throughout the collection are little biography articles that shed light onto the history and personality of the main characters, which is a delightful way to inform the reader without the use of clunky expositionary dialogue where the characters tell each other things they already know for the audience's benefit (a personal story-telling pet peeve of mine).
At the end, I felt like I had just watched a singular episode of a really good TV show, one which was self-contained and a complete story to itself but which also was connected to a larger story, and one I'd like to read more of.
Volumes 1-8 of Ultra by the Luna Brothers (Image Comics, 2005, ISBN 1852404836)
Four stars
The art is very clever and quite beautiful. Ultra and her fellow super-women are, of course, tall, statuesque beauties, but not in an unrealistic way. They don't have the anatomically impossible figures so often found in comics. They have flat stomachs and great legs, sure, but when they're off duty they wear real clothes and none of them have those impossibly tiny waists that are found so often in Barbie dolls and comic-book women. And the writing helps paint them as real women with weaknesses that have nothing to do with extraterrestrial elements. The dialogue is natural, realistic and at times laugh-out-loud funny.
I would have liked for the writing to give a bit more backstory on the characters, but the way the characters move through their universe it's quite easy to understand how their world works.
Throughout the collection are little biography articles that shed light onto the history and personality of the main characters, which is a delightful way to inform the reader without the use of clunky expositionary dialogue where the characters tell each other things they already know for the audience's benefit (a personal story-telling pet peeve of mine).
At the end, I felt like I had just watched a singular episode of a really good TV show, one which was self-contained and a complete story to itself but which also was connected to a larger story, and one I'd like to read more of.
Volumes 1-8 of Ultra by the Luna Brothers (Image Comics, 2005, ISBN 1852404836)
Four stars
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
