I moved this weekend. I'm sitting here in my new place, feeling like the symbolism is pretty darn powerful. I was getting to be unhappy in my last place, for a number of reasons, none of which are really worth discussing in this forum. But the process of shedding that with the old year is really great. Not great enough to make me want to move every Jan 1, because I hate moving, but still good. New surroundings are always a great opportunity to try to establish new habits and behaviors, which coincides nicely with the idea of New Year's Resolutions.
But the thing I find myself really ruminating on right now is the gift of friendship. We're starting a new decade, and while there were many ups and downs in the last decade, I made some friendships that I hope will continue through this decade and beyond. And I rekindled some that predate even that. I have friends I've known for more than half my life. That's amazing.
And I'm feeling so grateful for those friends right now. Earlier this week, I sent out an email to a bunch of friends who have cars and might be willing to help me move. It was late notice, and a holiday, so some couldn't. But the number of people who were willing to made me happy. Even the number of people I felt I could ask was great. And it made me realize, again, how blessed I am to have the friends I do. I feel surrounded by love and community, there for me as long as I remember to reach out. I hope that the amazing quality of my friends is a reflection on my qualities as a friend. I hope that I have it in me to display the love, support, kindness and generosity they show me. And I hope they know that all they ever have to do is ask.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Monday, October 11, 2010
National Coming Out Day
I've written about my feelings on Colombus Day before.
So today I'm going to write about National Coming Out Day, which is also today.
This is a great day for people to come out as being Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered or Queer, but it's also a great day for those of us who are allies to the GLBTQ community to announce our support.
Given the recent spate of suicides as a result of anti-gay bullying, it's more important than ever for those of us who support civil rights and equal treatment for GLBTQ individuals to stand up and speak out. We have to make the world a more open and accepting place, where we celebrate the amazing diversity of humanity. People come in different shapes, colors, sizes and sexual expressions. Instead of trying to supress that, we should rejoice in it. Variation, evolutionarily speaking, is what makes a species strong. It also makes us more interesting. We all have different talents and perspectives to bring to the table. That's how we accomplish the work of civilization.
I want to raise my children in a world where everyone comes out, because heterosexuality isn't assumed to be the default. Or a world where no one does, because it's not a big deal. A world where the fact that someone's gay is part of their identity, and history, yes, but where it doesn't have to be the defining part of their identity. A world where openly queer people can live anywhere they like without fearing violence simply for being who they are and loving who they love. A world where we can all say "I am what I am, and what I am needs no excuses", regardless of our creeds, our colors, our genders, or our sexualities.
So today I'm going to write about National Coming Out Day, which is also today.
This is a great day for people to come out as being Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered or Queer, but it's also a great day for those of us who are allies to the GLBTQ community to announce our support.
Given the recent spate of suicides as a result of anti-gay bullying, it's more important than ever for those of us who support civil rights and equal treatment for GLBTQ individuals to stand up and speak out. We have to make the world a more open and accepting place, where we celebrate the amazing diversity of humanity. People come in different shapes, colors, sizes and sexual expressions. Instead of trying to supress that, we should rejoice in it. Variation, evolutionarily speaking, is what makes a species strong. It also makes us more interesting. We all have different talents and perspectives to bring to the table. That's how we accomplish the work of civilization.
I want to raise my children in a world where everyone comes out, because heterosexuality isn't assumed to be the default. Or a world where no one does, because it's not a big deal. A world where the fact that someone's gay is part of their identity, and history, yes, but where it doesn't have to be the defining part of their identity. A world where openly queer people can live anywhere they like without fearing violence simply for being who they are and loving who they love. A world where we can all say "I am what I am, and what I am needs no excuses", regardless of our creeds, our colors, our genders, or our sexualities.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
"Health Care Crisis" vs. "Culture Crisis"
At least three seperate people on my Facebook feed have shared this link. I've copied the text below, followed by my response, because after seeing it so many times, I decided that my common practice of holding my tongue when I see something I disagree with on Facebook won't work this time around.
Dear Mr. President:
During my shift in the Emergency Room last night, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient whose smile revealed an expensive shiny gold tooth, whose body was adorned with a wide assortment of elaborate and costly tattoos, who wore a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and who chatted on a new cellular telephone equipped with a popular R&B ringtone.
While glancing over her patient chart, I happened to notice that her payer status was listed as "Medicaid"! During my examination of her, the patient informed me that she smokes more than one pack of cigarettes every day, eats only at fast-food take-outs, and somehow still has money to buy pretzels and beer. And, you and our Congress expect me to pay for this woman's health care? I contend that our nation's "health care crisis" is not the result of a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. Rather, it is the result of a "crisis of culture" a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on luxuries and vices while refusing to take care of one's self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance. It is a culture based in the irresponsible credo that "I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me". Once you fix this "culture crisis" that rewards irresponsibility and dependency, you'll be amazed at how quickly our nation's health care difficulties will disappear.
Respectfully,
ROGER STARNER JONES, MD
If you agree...pass it on.
Why assume that the tattoos and gold tooth are recent acquisitions? Perhaps they were acquired during a period of employment, or at least better financial circumstances.
We don't know how the cell phone was acquired or paid for. Maybe it's prepaid, or paid for by a family member. And in this day and age, a cell phone is frequently considered one of life's necessities. Maybe the sneakers were a gift, or purchased on clearance.
Cigarette smoking is frequently an addiction. An expensive one, yes, but the tools to quit smoking aren't exactly cheap either. Not everyone can go cold-turkey without significant physical and emotional symptoms.
Fast food, while it might seem expensive to us, is frequently cheaper than purchasing healthy food to cook at home. This is one of the reasons that people in poverty are hardest hit by the obesity epidemic- fattening, unhealthy food is cheaper than fresh fruits and vegetables, if any fresh produce is to be found at the grocery stores in poorer neighborhoods at all.
I'm not saying that the woman in this story is a shining example of personal responsibility, but there are plenty of people (myself included) who have been productive members of society and still lacked health insurance. I'm generally considered intelligent and well-educated by most of the standards our culture uses, and I get confused when trying to understand insurance. It is easy to buy a six-pack of beer. Let us not forget that any number of private insurance companies will turn down a person for a pre-existing condition, of which this woman may have several.
Lastly, while I certainly advocate responsibility and taking austerity measures when necessary, why do so many letters like this assume that the poor don't deserve anything nice? Why do we expect people to know how to take financial responsibility when we live in a culture of conspicuous consumption and don't teach young people how to manage money?
Where's the letter of outrage about the man who makes $100,000/year, drinks to excess, smokes, and eats red meat, and who drives up insurance premiums for everyone when he needs quadruple bypass surgery? Do only the wealthy deserve health care? Are only the rich entitled to pleasure?
I believe that government exists to provide essential services to its citizens, and to provide a safety net. I am grateful these programs exist, so that if I ever need them, they'll be there. I don't mind seeing my tax dollars go to social programs. That's what they're for, and it saves me the trouble of having to write a seperate check to charity to cover these services.
There are many things wrong with our culture, yes. One is the failure of many people to take personal responsibility. But another is a pervasive "me first, screw the other guy" attitude. No man is an island, and a fall from grace might be just around the corner for any of us. Treating others with the compassion you would want if the situation were reversed is the first step in creating a better world.
Dear Mr. President:
During my shift in the Emergency Room last night, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient whose smile revealed an expensive shiny gold tooth, whose body was adorned with a wide assortment of elaborate and costly tattoos, who wore a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and who chatted on a new cellular telephone equipped with a popular R&B ringtone.
While glancing over her patient chart, I happened to notice that her payer status was listed as "Medicaid"! During my examination of her, the patient informed me that she smokes more than one pack of cigarettes every day, eats only at fast-food take-outs, and somehow still has money to buy pretzels and beer. And, you and our Congress expect me to pay for this woman's health care? I contend that our nation's "health care crisis" is not the result of a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. Rather, it is the result of a "crisis of culture" a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on luxuries and vices while refusing to take care of one's self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance. It is a culture based in the irresponsible credo that "I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me". Once you fix this "culture crisis" that rewards irresponsibility and dependency, you'll be amazed at how quickly our nation's health care difficulties will disappear.
Respectfully,
ROGER STARNER JONES, MD
If you agree...pass it on.
Why assume that the tattoos and gold tooth are recent acquisitions? Perhaps they were acquired during a period of employment, or at least better financial circumstances.
We don't know how the cell phone was acquired or paid for. Maybe it's prepaid, or paid for by a family member. And in this day and age, a cell phone is frequently considered one of life's necessities. Maybe the sneakers were a gift, or purchased on clearance.
Cigarette smoking is frequently an addiction. An expensive one, yes, but the tools to quit smoking aren't exactly cheap either. Not everyone can go cold-turkey without significant physical and emotional symptoms.
Fast food, while it might seem expensive to us, is frequently cheaper than purchasing healthy food to cook at home. This is one of the reasons that people in poverty are hardest hit by the obesity epidemic- fattening, unhealthy food is cheaper than fresh fruits and vegetables, if any fresh produce is to be found at the grocery stores in poorer neighborhoods at all.
I'm not saying that the woman in this story is a shining example of personal responsibility, but there are plenty of people (myself included) who have been productive members of society and still lacked health insurance. I'm generally considered intelligent and well-educated by most of the standards our culture uses, and I get confused when trying to understand insurance. It is easy to buy a six-pack of beer. Let us not forget that any number of private insurance companies will turn down a person for a pre-existing condition, of which this woman may have several.
Lastly, while I certainly advocate responsibility and taking austerity measures when necessary, why do so many letters like this assume that the poor don't deserve anything nice? Why do we expect people to know how to take financial responsibility when we live in a culture of conspicuous consumption and don't teach young people how to manage money?
Where's the letter of outrage about the man who makes $100,000/year, drinks to excess, smokes, and eats red meat, and who drives up insurance premiums for everyone when he needs quadruple bypass surgery? Do only the wealthy deserve health care? Are only the rich entitled to pleasure?
I believe that government exists to provide essential services to its citizens, and to provide a safety net. I am grateful these programs exist, so that if I ever need them, they'll be there. I don't mind seeing my tax dollars go to social programs. That's what they're for, and it saves me the trouble of having to write a seperate check to charity to cover these services.
There are many things wrong with our culture, yes. One is the failure of many people to take personal responsibility. But another is a pervasive "me first, screw the other guy" attitude. No man is an island, and a fall from grace might be just around the corner for any of us. Treating others with the compassion you would want if the situation were reversed is the first step in creating a better world.
Monday, July 19, 2010
100 movies, 101 books, 104 weeks
The Goal
My 28th birthday was July 6. I set myself (the possibly crazy) goal of reading all the books on this list and watching all the movies on the AFI's 100 years, 100 movies list before I turn 30. That's a rate of 1 book and 1 movie per week for the next two years.
The Reason
Lots of movies on the list I've already seen. Some of the books I've read. Some I was assigned but never finished, many others I've simply never read.
I believe that exposure to good writing makes you a better writer. One of the most common pieces of advice is to read more. Beyond that, I think that reading great literature helps you think. And, whether you like a book or not, when it's a seminal work, having read it improves your understanding of other literature. All art exists in a dialog with the art that has gone before, with the audience, and with the time and place that created it (I would love to be able to teach a course that combined art history, literature, and history). Being conversant with many of the major works of the Western canon simply creates a richer understanding of the world and of the other books you read. Plus, books get to be classics for a reason, either because the story is so well-told or because of the impact they had. Either one of those reasons is a good one for reading a book.
The same thing holds true for film. Even if you don't like Gone With the Wind (for example), it's a major cultural influence. I like being familiar with the source material for references, quips, and quotes. And also understanding how those films influenced films that came later.
And, as my facebook profile says, I've always been a sucker for a well-told tale.
The Methodology
Unless I've watched the film or seen the book in the past 12 months, it goes on the list. You can argue all you want about whether the book list I picked is the best, but I think it's relatively inclusive, and you can't argue that any of those books aren't great, and they're not ranked. The film list was easier to pick a source, since I knew the AFI had done a list, and I tend to agree with their assessment.
Some of the movies on the list I own, but they're all in my Netflix queue (some of them are available on Netflix Instant Play).
The books are all available through my public library. The local branch is a short walk away and is open into the evening three nights a week. They don't have all of the books at my local branch, but they do have a fantastic hold system which allows me to order the books from the other branches and pick them up. They also have a great online account management system, which makes it easy to place holds or renewals from home. Many of them are also available free for the Kindle, which was my birthday present from my parents. This is great, because it allows me to carry multiple books with me, and because of the built-in dictionary. I'm pretty good at figuring out meaning from context (I've always had high reading comprehension skills), but the Kindle makes it super-easy to look up a word in the dictionary, which really helps me understand the shades of nuance better (and lets me confirm that I'm deducing the meaning correctly). And when reading older works, understanding the archaic meaning of a word that has a different usage today is important. I'm trying to avoid paying for books, unless I already own them or can get them for less than $5. Many of these books I have a copy of somewhere (I have Faust in the original German from when I read it in college), and I don't want duplicates, and I already have so many books and so little space that adding to it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Ideally, I'll post here on my thoughts about each book or movie. Currently, I'm partway through three different books (I was caught out without the paperback Grapes of Wrath, so I started Moby Dick, and when Mellville's prose got to be a little too intense, I started The Awakening), and I've watched Fargo.
If you follow me on Twitter (@evelynpchester), you'll see which movies I'm watching, which book I'm reading, and I may also tweet quotes from books via my Kindle.
Wish me luck!
My 28th birthday was July 6. I set myself (the possibly crazy) goal of reading all the books on this list and watching all the movies on the AFI's 100 years, 100 movies list before I turn 30. That's a rate of 1 book and 1 movie per week for the next two years.
The Reason
Lots of movies on the list I've already seen. Some of the books I've read. Some I was assigned but never finished, many others I've simply never read.
I believe that exposure to good writing makes you a better writer. One of the most common pieces of advice is to read more. Beyond that, I think that reading great literature helps you think. And, whether you like a book or not, when it's a seminal work, having read it improves your understanding of other literature. All art exists in a dialog with the art that has gone before, with the audience, and with the time and place that created it (I would love to be able to teach a course that combined art history, literature, and history). Being conversant with many of the major works of the Western canon simply creates a richer understanding of the world and of the other books you read. Plus, books get to be classics for a reason, either because the story is so well-told or because of the impact they had. Either one of those reasons is a good one for reading a book.
The same thing holds true for film. Even if you don't like Gone With the Wind (for example), it's a major cultural influence. I like being familiar with the source material for references, quips, and quotes. And also understanding how those films influenced films that came later.
And, as my facebook profile says, I've always been a sucker for a well-told tale.
The Methodology
Unless I've watched the film or seen the book in the past 12 months, it goes on the list. You can argue all you want about whether the book list I picked is the best, but I think it's relatively inclusive, and you can't argue that any of those books aren't great, and they're not ranked. The film list was easier to pick a source, since I knew the AFI had done a list, and I tend to agree with their assessment.
Some of the movies on the list I own, but they're all in my Netflix queue (some of them are available on Netflix Instant Play).
The books are all available through my public library. The local branch is a short walk away and is open into the evening three nights a week. They don't have all of the books at my local branch, but they do have a fantastic hold system which allows me to order the books from the other branches and pick them up. They also have a great online account management system, which makes it easy to place holds or renewals from home. Many of them are also available free for the Kindle, which was my birthday present from my parents. This is great, because it allows me to carry multiple books with me, and because of the built-in dictionary. I'm pretty good at figuring out meaning from context (I've always had high reading comprehension skills), but the Kindle makes it super-easy to look up a word in the dictionary, which really helps me understand the shades of nuance better (and lets me confirm that I'm deducing the meaning correctly). And when reading older works, understanding the archaic meaning of a word that has a different usage today is important. I'm trying to avoid paying for books, unless I already own them or can get them for less than $5. Many of these books I have a copy of somewhere (I have Faust in the original German from when I read it in college), and I don't want duplicates, and I already have so many books and so little space that adding to it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Ideally, I'll post here on my thoughts about each book or movie. Currently, I'm partway through three different books (I was caught out without the paperback Grapes of Wrath, so I started Moby Dick, and when Mellville's prose got to be a little too intense, I started The Awakening), and I've watched Fargo.
If you follow me on Twitter (@evelynpchester), you'll see which movies I'm watching, which book I'm reading, and I may also tweet quotes from books via my Kindle.
Wish me luck!
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
SCOTUS Job Opening
Dear Mr. President:
Attached please find my CV for consideration for the Supreme Court Justice vacancy.
I believe that I possess the qualities you stated you are looking for in a Supreme Court Justice: a love of the Constitution, respect for the judicial process, and empathy. And while I do not possess a law degree, the Constitution does not make that a requirement. Nor does the Constitution stipulate an age requirement the way it does for elected office, and I believe that my youth would be an asset on the bench.
I look forward to discussing my qualifications with you at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Evelyn Chester
PS- I know the confirmation would be tricky, but with a solid Democratic majority in the Senate and the right strategy, we could manage it.
Attached please find my CV for consideration for the Supreme Court Justice vacancy.
I believe that I possess the qualities you stated you are looking for in a Supreme Court Justice: a love of the Constitution, respect for the judicial process, and empathy. And while I do not possess a law degree, the Constitution does not make that a requirement. Nor does the Constitution stipulate an age requirement the way it does for elected office, and I believe that my youth would be an asset on the bench.
I look forward to discussing my qualifications with you at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Evelyn Chester
PS- I know the confirmation would be tricky, but with a solid Democratic majority in the Senate and the right strategy, we could manage it.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Seriously?
So, earlier this evening, a friend of mine sent me a link to this video:
Which piqued my curiousity, so I watched the original:
Which, unsurprisingly, made me angry. I wanted to do an eloquent, point-by-point rebuttal of their points, but I couldn't find the script online and I didn't think that watching the video enough times to transcribe it properly would be good for my blood pressure.
Fortunately, Keith Olbermann said basically what I want to say:
How does my right to marry whomever I choose hurt anyone? How does the expansion of rights take away anyone's rights? My faith teaches that all love should be honored and celebrated, so why does your faith get to be the one that defines marriage for everyone? How does saying that civil marriage has to be defined by civil law mean that a religious institution has to change the religious definition of marriage? There's already a difference! Gay couples get married in churches all the time. Plenty of clergy won't perform marriages that are otherwise legal under civil law, because the religious law they follow doesn't allow said marriage. The National Organization for Marriage says that it takes away their right to define marriage a certain way, and means that people are allowed to call them bigots. Guess what? I'm already allowed to call you a bigot, because a)the First Amendment says I am, and b) you are. Also, you can define marriage any darn way you want. You can define any word any darn way you want, though I wouldn't advise it, as it tends to make communication difficult. My marriage doesn't need your recognition to be valid, it only needs the government to recognize it. There are plenty of marriages I've seen and not approved of, but it's not my business.
You can teach your children whatever you want. Teach them that your god only wants people to have sex with their spouse (of the opposite sex!) in the dark in the missionary position with their eyes closed for the purposes of reproduction and will smite them down if they do it any other way. You're allowed. You're an idiot, but you're allowed. Teach them that homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of the god you believe in. Because that's not led to any suicides or anything. You don't have to teach your children to be tolerant and accepting if you don't want to. That's what I plan on teaching my kids, but hey, you know, whatever. I'll teach my kids that all men and women are brother and sisters and that "a wrong done to one man is a wrong done to all men", you teach your kids that it's OK to tell people they're going to hell because of who they love. It's a free country, after all. But as Sondheim says, "be careful what you say, children will listen." Polls already show that as the next generation comes of age, support for same-sex marriage is growing, as is support for equality in general, so I'm actually not too worried.
Funny how once I start writing, I get on a roll. But oh, for a pen of fire, to match my muse.
Which piqued my curiousity, so I watched the original:
Which, unsurprisingly, made me angry. I wanted to do an eloquent, point-by-point rebuttal of their points, but I couldn't find the script online and I didn't think that watching the video enough times to transcribe it properly would be good for my blood pressure.
Fortunately, Keith Olbermann said basically what I want to say:
How does my right to marry whomever I choose hurt anyone? How does the expansion of rights take away anyone's rights? My faith teaches that all love should be honored and celebrated, so why does your faith get to be the one that defines marriage for everyone? How does saying that civil marriage has to be defined by civil law mean that a religious institution has to change the religious definition of marriage? There's already a difference! Gay couples get married in churches all the time. Plenty of clergy won't perform marriages that are otherwise legal under civil law, because the religious law they follow doesn't allow said marriage. The National Organization for Marriage says that it takes away their right to define marriage a certain way, and means that people are allowed to call them bigots. Guess what? I'm already allowed to call you a bigot, because a)the First Amendment says I am, and b) you are. Also, you can define marriage any darn way you want. You can define any word any darn way you want, though I wouldn't advise it, as it tends to make communication difficult. My marriage doesn't need your recognition to be valid, it only needs the government to recognize it. There are plenty of marriages I've seen and not approved of, but it's not my business.
You can teach your children whatever you want. Teach them that your god only wants people to have sex with their spouse (of the opposite sex!) in the dark in the missionary position with their eyes closed for the purposes of reproduction and will smite them down if they do it any other way. You're allowed. You're an idiot, but you're allowed. Teach them that homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of the god you believe in. Because that's not led to any suicides or anything. You don't have to teach your children to be tolerant and accepting if you don't want to. That's what I plan on teaching my kids, but hey, you know, whatever. I'll teach my kids that all men and women are brother and sisters and that "a wrong done to one man is a wrong done to all men", you teach your kids that it's OK to tell people they're going to hell because of who they love. It's a free country, after all. But as Sondheim says, "be careful what you say, children will listen." Polls already show that as the next generation comes of age, support for same-sex marriage is growing, as is support for equality in general, so I'm actually not too worried.
Funny how once I start writing, I get on a roll. But oh, for a pen of fire, to match my muse.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
