In the midst of another obnoxously boring paper, I've become increasingly annoyed with the United States. We're a big deal because we have so much potential, but we don't take advantage of that potential...so being a big deal really isn't a big deal. We whine and complain and try to threaten other large world powers to do things our way rather than fix what we are doing. Don't get me wrong, I think it is our duty to intervene when social injustices are occurring and innocent people are being physically threatened or mistreated. But now we have this pressing issue in which the Obama Administration wants to "urge" China to re-evaluate their undervalued currency. The Chinese are infamous savers, they lack the gluttonous nature that we as Americans have come to believe is our right. I have way more than I need so I include myself willingly in this gluttonous culture. The Chinese government has a lot to do with their undervalued currency, but who can blame them for playing the game? Where do we get off saying we will penalize Chinese goods if the Yuan isn't appreciated on our time schedule? We made our bed and now it's time to lay in it.
We expect to be able to take out credit cards and loans for non-essentials and not feel any repercussions. We have created a culture of entitlement, and a generation that demands someone else pay for their carelessness. Meanwhile, an average Chinese family scrapes by on what we spend in a day for a whole month or more. Yes, their currency is valued low so they can purchase more with less, but they still are frugal.
Maybe what our government should be doing is not threatening a country we are greatly indebted to, but to learn from them. We are a nation of egotistical consumers, we think our value lies in what we own...even if Bank of America is really the owner. The truth is we are pampered beyond comparison with any other country, yet we want more; it's a sickness that will lead to our eventual downfall. I have heard so many people proudly talk about the things they "own" not caring about the debt they are accruing. Their rationale; eventually they will die and the debt won't be their problem. They're right it won't be their problem for obvious reasons, but that debt doesn't just disappear. It becomes someone else's problem and gets shuffled around until we reach a point where bailouts become a reality.
If we weren't in a place where each paycheck gets divied up between creditors, then undervalued Yuan would not put us at such a competitive disadvantage.
I say, congratulations China and thanks for supplying us with so many cheap goods. Taking care of America is a full time job, so let's focus on what we are doing wrong, not what everyone else is doing.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Cider, Foliage...and Ghouls
I absolutely love the Fall season. If you happen to live in the Northeast, you most likely have experienced the gush of color that comes upon the mountains and makes afternoon walks all the more delightful. It reminds me that while we may not be able to see a physical, human form of God, that he truly is beautiful and this creation of his can in no way be by chance. Fall is a time to pick apples, bake pies and roll in the leaves. There is hardly a negative thing that I could think of when contemplating this season; except for this lone eyesore that sticks out like a wolf among sheep, Halloween. Stores are already stocking costumes and candy, and people are already planning their evening wear.
Halloween, All Hallows Eve is in most cultures a day to remember the dead, hence, Dia de los Muertos, Day of the Dead. Halloween began as the pagan holiday, Samhein, where ancient Celts marked the first day of their winter and the only day of the year that the dead could revisit the living. These spirits were given offerings of bonfires and goodies, in order to revel in their night on earth and leave the living unharmed. By the Middle Ages, the Church tried to root out the pagan holiday by naming November 1st, All Saints Day. Since then, there has been a constant battle between the Church, pagans and others who see it is a harmless holiday.
Christians have been mocked for their fear of the pagan holiday, and others have entered in the merriment. I for one, have indulged in a party or two in the past, though I had never been trick or treating. I have experienced many astonished remarks such as, "your parents never let you go trick or treating?!" Oh dear, I really must see a psychiatrist asap, lest the neglect my parents put me through destroy my character! (Another scandal, courtesy of my parents; they never lead me to believe that a merry fat man came down our chimney...I'll save that for another day.) The truth is, I don't feel deprived and never have. In fact, I intend to carry on the tradition with my own children. My reasoning begins with my faith and ends in my logic of the uselessness of such a holiday.
Anderson Rearick, an assistant english professor for Mount Vernon Nazarene College, admits in his article "Hallowing Halloween" that the holiday has satanic, demonic origins. Rearick explains that modern Halloween is intended to mock Satan and his spirits. "Should the forces of evil be mocked? Should Satan be laughed at? He most certainly should be." He then quotes Martin Luther, who had said that if Satan will not yield to scripture, that one should jeer and flout him. Christians, according to Rearick should celebrate Halloween with "gusto" and that our having a good time at the Devil's expense will cause him to flee. His thinking is as flawed as the shooter of George Tiller; you cannot honor God by participating in an act that will dishonor him simply by claiming it in good-will or intentions. (For those of you who don't know, Tiller was an abortionist shot in church, his killer ended his murder of babies, but did so by committing murder himself.)
Halloween's purpose is to glorify un-Godly things. Even if you do believe that Halloween is an innocent holiday with no satanic roots, let's look at what it entails... People dress up as their favorite or most scary character, those who are old enough end up drunk, children are taught to demand goodies from their elders and to cause fear in someone else is viewed in a positive light. All the while, I believe, the Devil is rubbing his hands in delight not scampering away in humiliation. After all, we are honoring false idols by dressing as a character we are not, demonic figures are made to seem fun and inconsequential, and children learn once more to think of "me, me, me." What bothers me most is that causing fear is a good thing...God does not delight in his people being fearful, "perfect love casts out all fear" is what my God is about, not creating it. Could laughing at Satan really cause him to crumble? Well, if you are ever held at gun point, see what laughing at your assailant does for you. Evil is not a laughing matter, it is real and it is unforgiving and relentless. You cannot control evil by participating in it. It should rather be respected as you would a bear in the wild; don't touch it!
Even if I did not hold myself accountable to a perfect God, I doubt Halloween would be a day I would have much excitement for. As I mentioned before, the idea of intentionally causing fear in someone is not appealing to me. I watched one scary movie (Stephen King's "It") when I was little and for years could not shower without watching the shower drain the whole time I was cleaning. I like to live in a world that is real and tangible, fairytales are something for those who cannot deal with reality (in my humble opinion). So spending your time pretending to be some fantastical character seems a little childish to me, granted it is only for an evening. Halloween employs so many ugly creatures from goblins and vampires to ghosts and little pointy eared satans with a pitch fork...why in the middle of a perfectly beautiful season do we have to tarnish it with such monstrosities?
I know there are Christians who celebrate the holiday, and I certainly cannot judge them. For their sake, many probably do not even consider that it could be anything but innocent, that is what society rams into our brains constantly. After all, if Halloween were portrayed as a negative day, then Brachs would go out of business. (And there would be no Peeps if the market realized Easter wasn't really about furry bunnies and cute ducklings.) Whether someone celebrates Halloween or not, is a personal decision. So when I choose not to don my children in cute little ladybug or princess outfits, that is something my husband and I have weighed heavily before deciding upon. Whether you believe Halloween is evil or not, an honest person would acknowledge that either way it is probably not pleasing to God. If it is not pleasing to God, then what is its purpose? Maybe October 31st will be a family game night for us, I'm not quite sure yet. I am by no means judging those who plan to celebrate...for me, I prefer Fall for it's natural decor, aroma...and good food.
Halloween, All Hallows Eve is in most cultures a day to remember the dead, hence, Dia de los Muertos, Day of the Dead. Halloween began as the pagan holiday, Samhein, where ancient Celts marked the first day of their winter and the only day of the year that the dead could revisit the living. These spirits were given offerings of bonfires and goodies, in order to revel in their night on earth and leave the living unharmed. By the Middle Ages, the Church tried to root out the pagan holiday by naming November 1st, All Saints Day. Since then, there has been a constant battle between the Church, pagans and others who see it is a harmless holiday.
Christians have been mocked for their fear of the pagan holiday, and others have entered in the merriment. I for one, have indulged in a party or two in the past, though I had never been trick or treating. I have experienced many astonished remarks such as, "your parents never let you go trick or treating?!" Oh dear, I really must see a psychiatrist asap, lest the neglect my parents put me through destroy my character! (Another scandal, courtesy of my parents; they never lead me to believe that a merry fat man came down our chimney...I'll save that for another day.) The truth is, I don't feel deprived and never have. In fact, I intend to carry on the tradition with my own children. My reasoning begins with my faith and ends in my logic of the uselessness of such a holiday.
Anderson Rearick, an assistant english professor for Mount Vernon Nazarene College, admits in his article "Hallowing Halloween" that the holiday has satanic, demonic origins. Rearick explains that modern Halloween is intended to mock Satan and his spirits. "Should the forces of evil be mocked? Should Satan be laughed at? He most certainly should be." He then quotes Martin Luther, who had said that if Satan will not yield to scripture, that one should jeer and flout him. Christians, according to Rearick should celebrate Halloween with "gusto" and that our having a good time at the Devil's expense will cause him to flee. His thinking is as flawed as the shooter of George Tiller; you cannot honor God by participating in an act that will dishonor him simply by claiming it in good-will or intentions. (For those of you who don't know, Tiller was an abortionist shot in church, his killer ended his murder of babies, but did so by committing murder himself.)
Halloween's purpose is to glorify un-Godly things. Even if you do believe that Halloween is an innocent holiday with no satanic roots, let's look at what it entails... People dress up as their favorite or most scary character, those who are old enough end up drunk, children are taught to demand goodies from their elders and to cause fear in someone else is viewed in a positive light. All the while, I believe, the Devil is rubbing his hands in delight not scampering away in humiliation. After all, we are honoring false idols by dressing as a character we are not, demonic figures are made to seem fun and inconsequential, and children learn once more to think of "me, me, me." What bothers me most is that causing fear is a good thing...God does not delight in his people being fearful, "perfect love casts out all fear" is what my God is about, not creating it. Could laughing at Satan really cause him to crumble? Well, if you are ever held at gun point, see what laughing at your assailant does for you. Evil is not a laughing matter, it is real and it is unforgiving and relentless. You cannot control evil by participating in it. It should rather be respected as you would a bear in the wild; don't touch it!
Even if I did not hold myself accountable to a perfect God, I doubt Halloween would be a day I would have much excitement for. As I mentioned before, the idea of intentionally causing fear in someone is not appealing to me. I watched one scary movie (Stephen King's "It") when I was little and for years could not shower without watching the shower drain the whole time I was cleaning. I like to live in a world that is real and tangible, fairytales are something for those who cannot deal with reality (in my humble opinion). So spending your time pretending to be some fantastical character seems a little childish to me, granted it is only for an evening. Halloween employs so many ugly creatures from goblins and vampires to ghosts and little pointy eared satans with a pitch fork...why in the middle of a perfectly beautiful season do we have to tarnish it with such monstrosities?
I know there are Christians who celebrate the holiday, and I certainly cannot judge them. For their sake, many probably do not even consider that it could be anything but innocent, that is what society rams into our brains constantly. After all, if Halloween were portrayed as a negative day, then Brachs would go out of business. (And there would be no Peeps if the market realized Easter wasn't really about furry bunnies and cute ducklings.) Whether someone celebrates Halloween or not, is a personal decision. So when I choose not to don my children in cute little ladybug or princess outfits, that is something my husband and I have weighed heavily before deciding upon. Whether you believe Halloween is evil or not, an honest person would acknowledge that either way it is probably not pleasing to God. If it is not pleasing to God, then what is its purpose? Maybe October 31st will be a family game night for us, I'm not quite sure yet. I am by no means judging those who plan to celebrate...for me, I prefer Fall for it's natural decor, aroma...and good food.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Potty Politics
My husband and I had dinner with my grandparents the other night, and as our conversations often do, they turned to politics. They had brought up a piece of legislation that had not been passed in New York recently, one vote holding it back. This legislation would have dealt with implementing unisex bathrooms across the state. While I could not find anything readily on this newest form, I was able to look up what other states had implemented (Massachusetts being one of them, go figure) and who is fighting for this law to be passed.
The goal of state legislation appears to be, to make all state facilities have unisex bathrooms so that transgendered individuals can have a safe and comfortable place to relieve themselves. While state legislation would not require this of private facilities, commentators believe they would follow suit and that is the ultimate goal of transgendered and "civil rights" groups. Back in 2005, New York was fighting for "equal" bathrooms on the grounds that it takes women twice as long to use the bathroom and while there could be no line to the men's room, the women's line could be a mile long. As a woman and now a pregnant woman who has to use the bathroom every five minutes, I can certainly sympathize with that. This 2005 amendment was asking simply for there to be a higher ratio of women to men’s bathrooms in public facilities, not unisex.
According to womensrights.com, "Segregated bathrooms are an idea whose time has come and gone. Unisex bathrooms are the solution to the urgent issues of personal safety and transgendered inclusion." They go on to claim that unisex bathrooms would not only be safer for transgendered individuals but for little children as well... Fathers would then be able to take their three year old daughter into the bathroom with them and mothers would be able to take their little boy with them because there would be no gender barriers. Well, I don't know about anyone else but I have certainly used a public ladies' room when a mom or grandma has had a boy even up to ten years old with them for safety's sake. I think most people expect that a parent would bring their young child of the opposite gender into the bathroom with them, so who are these groups really looking out for? They are looking out for the sensitive feelings of less than 1% of our population who choose (yes, I said it, choose) to change their sex.
Last semester my school created a unisex bathroom on campus in order to appease, one transgendered individual who had difficulty picking whether they should use the men's or the women's bathrooms. One person! I'm thinking I should ask for parking right next to my classes since I chose to get pregnant and clearly deserve special treatment because of my choice. This is what is so wrong with our society, we take a group of minorities and raise them up above the rest assuring them that whatever they want, they shall have. No thank you, on principle I'd rather walk to the farthest parking spot than be catered to for the choices I made.
While 1% of the population struggles with gender identity, I wonder what the percentage of moms and dads are that would not feel comfortable having their young daughter use the same bathroom as a grown man. I guarantee by a long shot it trumps 1%. One activist claims that if a man really want to do something horrible to a woman or girl in a bathroom, he could simply don a dress and wig and walk into a segregated bathroom; therefore, her claim is that segregated bathrooms are just as unsafe for your little girl as unisex would be. I beg to differ. Blame it on the extensive episodes of Criminal Minds that I have under my belt...I would gather that men who want to assault a female typically feel they have something to prove, that they are as masculine as they come. So a man with a masculinity complex probably is not going to want to feminize himself in anyway. These activists are pulling at strings to prove their case. They say, what would be the difference between a woman seeing a man in the bathroom as opposed to a butch lesbian? Well, a lot. I for one would rather take a tinkle with a lesbian in the next stall than a strange man.
This whole trend of gender neutrality is growing by leaps and bounds. As my summer professor vehemently pointed out that gender is not female or male, gender in essence is your level of which sex you are...meaning you can be genetically (your sex) male but your gender can be on the feminine side. This goes along with the liberal movement of be who you want to be as long as it makes you happy. Women are de-feminized and man are de-masculinized. I think God must be looking down in pain. God made man and woman and was pleased with His creation, yet we scoff at it and think we can enhance the experience; who do we think we are to question God's authority on gender? I grew up much like a tomboy, enjoying rough activities and playing with the opposite gender. But as I've grown and continue to mature (as it will be a lifelong process) I see more and more the value in femininity in women. The same with masculinity in men. I enjoy seeing my husband lift heavy things, seeing war-time photos of him and as independent as I tend to be, I love when he makes decisions for our household. He likes when I wear dresses and bake for him and do little things to make his day easier..it does not make me less of a woman in wanting to please him, but it does uplift him. We both win by following God's original plan for us. Granted some gender roles are simply man-made, the ones that God made for us end up being more fulfilling than not.
The true issue behind unisex bathrooms is not to make this 1% feel more safe and comfortable. As one activist pointed out, transgendered people have been using bathrooms by which sex they identify with or simply by using handicapped or family style bathrooms for years. Then what's the problem now? The problem is that they are not satisfied with gender roles, because they do not wish to abide by them, they want to have company in the breakdown of gender roles; of course they would never admit that. As a parent to be, my biggest concern is safety of my future children. While these activists are thinking about their own comfort level, parents should consider their comfort level in connection with their child's safety. The transgendered individuals fighting for this so called right are grown adults, our responsibility to protect them is not so great as our responsibility to protect our children. Somebody else's choice of lifestyle should not mandate how everybody else lives their lives.
The goal of state legislation appears to be, to make all state facilities have unisex bathrooms so that transgendered individuals can have a safe and comfortable place to relieve themselves. While state legislation would not require this of private facilities, commentators believe they would follow suit and that is the ultimate goal of transgendered and "civil rights" groups. Back in 2005, New York was fighting for "equal" bathrooms on the grounds that it takes women twice as long to use the bathroom and while there could be no line to the men's room, the women's line could be a mile long. As a woman and now a pregnant woman who has to use the bathroom every five minutes, I can certainly sympathize with that. This 2005 amendment was asking simply for there to be a higher ratio of women to men’s bathrooms in public facilities, not unisex.
According to womensrights.com, "Segregated bathrooms are an idea whose time has come and gone. Unisex bathrooms are the solution to the urgent issues of personal safety and transgendered inclusion." They go on to claim that unisex bathrooms would not only be safer for transgendered individuals but for little children as well... Fathers would then be able to take their three year old daughter into the bathroom with them and mothers would be able to take their little boy with them because there would be no gender barriers. Well, I don't know about anyone else but I have certainly used a public ladies' room when a mom or grandma has had a boy even up to ten years old with them for safety's sake. I think most people expect that a parent would bring their young child of the opposite gender into the bathroom with them, so who are these groups really looking out for? They are looking out for the sensitive feelings of less than 1% of our population who choose (yes, I said it, choose) to change their sex.
Last semester my school created a unisex bathroom on campus in order to appease, one transgendered individual who had difficulty picking whether they should use the men's or the women's bathrooms. One person! I'm thinking I should ask for parking right next to my classes since I chose to get pregnant and clearly deserve special treatment because of my choice. This is what is so wrong with our society, we take a group of minorities and raise them up above the rest assuring them that whatever they want, they shall have. No thank you, on principle I'd rather walk to the farthest parking spot than be catered to for the choices I made.
While 1% of the population struggles with gender identity, I wonder what the percentage of moms and dads are that would not feel comfortable having their young daughter use the same bathroom as a grown man. I guarantee by a long shot it trumps 1%. One activist claims that if a man really want to do something horrible to a woman or girl in a bathroom, he could simply don a dress and wig and walk into a segregated bathroom; therefore, her claim is that segregated bathrooms are just as unsafe for your little girl as unisex would be. I beg to differ. Blame it on the extensive episodes of Criminal Minds that I have under my belt...I would gather that men who want to assault a female typically feel they have something to prove, that they are as masculine as they come. So a man with a masculinity complex probably is not going to want to feminize himself in anyway. These activists are pulling at strings to prove their case. They say, what would be the difference between a woman seeing a man in the bathroom as opposed to a butch lesbian? Well, a lot. I for one would rather take a tinkle with a lesbian in the next stall than a strange man.
This whole trend of gender neutrality is growing by leaps and bounds. As my summer professor vehemently pointed out that gender is not female or male, gender in essence is your level of which sex you are...meaning you can be genetically (your sex) male but your gender can be on the feminine side. This goes along with the liberal movement of be who you want to be as long as it makes you happy. Women are de-feminized and man are de-masculinized. I think God must be looking down in pain. God made man and woman and was pleased with His creation, yet we scoff at it and think we can enhance the experience; who do we think we are to question God's authority on gender? I grew up much like a tomboy, enjoying rough activities and playing with the opposite gender. But as I've grown and continue to mature (as it will be a lifelong process) I see more and more the value in femininity in women. The same with masculinity in men. I enjoy seeing my husband lift heavy things, seeing war-time photos of him and as independent as I tend to be, I love when he makes decisions for our household. He likes when I wear dresses and bake for him and do little things to make his day easier..it does not make me less of a woman in wanting to please him, but it does uplift him. We both win by following God's original plan for us. Granted some gender roles are simply man-made, the ones that God made for us end up being more fulfilling than not.
The true issue behind unisex bathrooms is not to make this 1% feel more safe and comfortable. As one activist pointed out, transgendered people have been using bathrooms by which sex they identify with or simply by using handicapped or family style bathrooms for years. Then what's the problem now? The problem is that they are not satisfied with gender roles, because they do not wish to abide by them, they want to have company in the breakdown of gender roles; of course they would never admit that. As a parent to be, my biggest concern is safety of my future children. While these activists are thinking about their own comfort level, parents should consider their comfort level in connection with their child's safety. The transgendered individuals fighting for this so called right are grown adults, our responsibility to protect them is not so great as our responsibility to protect our children. Somebody else's choice of lifestyle should not mandate how everybody else lives their lives.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Mosque near Ground Zero Shows Poor Taste
I've been under a rock for the past few months, caring little for what is going on in the world at large. So I was astonished when I found out that there were plans to build a mosque less than a mile from Ground Zero. I thought that I had read a faulty article, that it was a joke, or at least if there was truth to it that it would be squashed immediately. I was wrong on all accounts. Easing back into the world of reality, where justice, consideration and even compassion are stuff fairytales are made up of, I have learned more about this architectural atrocity. Americans, apparently, are Islamophobic...in the most current hip slang that I know, we are "haters"...better get your hater blockers on, because apparently it is also a viciously contagious epidemic sweeping the nation. Whoever is writing these articles clearly never visited a college campus, where it is "cool" to have a diversified group of friends. Having a gay friend is so last year, now the cool thing is to have some Muslim homies. (Maybe I'm old school, but I still like to pick my friends based on conditions like sincerity, trustworthiness and integrity...as opposed to this new trend of picking friends based on the who is the new cool cultural phenomenon.) Lest someone be offended, I say Muslim homies not as a derogatory slam at Muslims, but to make light of the current youths changing and ever shallow preferences.
Religion aside, I don't know how anyone from any varied walk of life could think building a mosque where so many people lost their lives could be a good idea. Having lost a huge part of my life and future plans recently and living through the aftershock of this loss, anyone, and I mean absolutely anyone who has lost someone close to them knows that the way in which that life was lost is a deeply sacred and painful thing that should be respected. With my own personal loss, there really was nobody to blame, it was one of those things that are unplanned and happen and somehow you work through and accept it. Those who lost their lives on September 11th were taken intentionally from those that love them. This was a premeditated act that was intended to inflict pain and suffering for years, generations even. I just do not know, I cannot comprehend how someone can live with the loss of a sibling, husband, wife or parent knowing that somebody wanted them dead. Knowing that this person you spent so many years with, making memories and future plans with will no longer be around to fulfill those future plans because of somebody else's intentional act... Being honest with myself, I do believe that I would probably hate the perpetrators and anyone related even remotely to them. I would wish pain and suffering on them, to feel what I feel. I also believe this is normal, especially as an initial gut reaction to an immense loss. So perhaps there is some hatred toward Muslims, I would be willing to bet that much of that initial hatred has dwindled. At some point in the grieving process it becomes more and more of a burden to hold onto that anger. Of course some people make it their life's purpose to hold a grudge; in a situation such as 9/11, I couldn't blame them, but they are hurting themselves more than anyone else.
The belief that those in opposition to building a mosque so close to Ground Zero are hate filled, Islamaphobes is preposterous. I'll be reasonable in admitting that like in every other group, there are probably some radicals who truly hate Muslims, but I'd stake my life on them being a miniscule minority. The issue is this: thousands of people were intentionally killed by a group that claims to be followers of Allah. Some Muslims argue that the perpetrators are/were not truly Muslim and are radicals...this argument while valid, is moot. This is about being sensitive and compassionate to the lives that were senselessly lost. This is is not about legalism and who's right or who's wrong. People died a gruesome death, leaving thousands and thousands of loved ones grieving their loss. Building a mosque on this ground is saying to those still alive and suffering that their pain is inconsequential to true Muslims being able to have an opportunity to prove that they are peaceful. It says, you're pain is nothing compared to us being able to get our way. Those in favor of the mosque do not stop and consider how they might feel if the shoe was on the other foot. What if it had been thousands of Muslims that were slain that day by a group of radical Christians in the name of God. Years after the fact a moderate Christian group wanted to build a church there in an attempt to show they are peaceful. That would not fly. Muslim families who lost a loved one would still be grieving and rightfully so. The empty place in their home that their loved one once filled would be a cold reminder of what happened to them. That ground would be a reminder of those who in the name of God took their loved one...and now a group claiming allegiance to the same god wants to desecrate that site with their place of worship?
It's about principle and it's about compassion and it's about common respect. You don't spit on a dead person's grave. While it may not sound logical to those in favor of the mosque, to anyone who has suffered a tragic loss it makes perfect sense. You respect the dead in the manner that the dead person or their family would want them to be respected, not in the manner that you personally feel is correct. You do it because someday if you or a loved one is in the ground, you hope that the same will be done for you. The most classy thing that Muslims could do is to demand that the site of the mosque be moved further away from Ground Zero. That would be an immense display of integrity.
Religion aside, I don't know how anyone from any varied walk of life could think building a mosque where so many people lost their lives could be a good idea. Having lost a huge part of my life and future plans recently and living through the aftershock of this loss, anyone, and I mean absolutely anyone who has lost someone close to them knows that the way in which that life was lost is a deeply sacred and painful thing that should be respected. With my own personal loss, there really was nobody to blame, it was one of those things that are unplanned and happen and somehow you work through and accept it. Those who lost their lives on September 11th were taken intentionally from those that love them. This was a premeditated act that was intended to inflict pain and suffering for years, generations even. I just do not know, I cannot comprehend how someone can live with the loss of a sibling, husband, wife or parent knowing that somebody wanted them dead. Knowing that this person you spent so many years with, making memories and future plans with will no longer be around to fulfill those future plans because of somebody else's intentional act... Being honest with myself, I do believe that I would probably hate the perpetrators and anyone related even remotely to them. I would wish pain and suffering on them, to feel what I feel. I also believe this is normal, especially as an initial gut reaction to an immense loss. So perhaps there is some hatred toward Muslims, I would be willing to bet that much of that initial hatred has dwindled. At some point in the grieving process it becomes more and more of a burden to hold onto that anger. Of course some people make it their life's purpose to hold a grudge; in a situation such as 9/11, I couldn't blame them, but they are hurting themselves more than anyone else.
The belief that those in opposition to building a mosque so close to Ground Zero are hate filled, Islamaphobes is preposterous. I'll be reasonable in admitting that like in every other group, there are probably some radicals who truly hate Muslims, but I'd stake my life on them being a miniscule minority. The issue is this: thousands of people were intentionally killed by a group that claims to be followers of Allah. Some Muslims argue that the perpetrators are/were not truly Muslim and are radicals...this argument while valid, is moot. This is about being sensitive and compassionate to the lives that were senselessly lost. This is is not about legalism and who's right or who's wrong. People died a gruesome death, leaving thousands and thousands of loved ones grieving their loss. Building a mosque on this ground is saying to those still alive and suffering that their pain is inconsequential to true Muslims being able to have an opportunity to prove that they are peaceful. It says, you're pain is nothing compared to us being able to get our way. Those in favor of the mosque do not stop and consider how they might feel if the shoe was on the other foot. What if it had been thousands of Muslims that were slain that day by a group of radical Christians in the name of God. Years after the fact a moderate Christian group wanted to build a church there in an attempt to show they are peaceful. That would not fly. Muslim families who lost a loved one would still be grieving and rightfully so. The empty place in their home that their loved one once filled would be a cold reminder of what happened to them. That ground would be a reminder of those who in the name of God took their loved one...and now a group claiming allegiance to the same god wants to desecrate that site with their place of worship?
It's about principle and it's about compassion and it's about common respect. You don't spit on a dead person's grave. While it may not sound logical to those in favor of the mosque, to anyone who has suffered a tragic loss it makes perfect sense. You respect the dead in the manner that the dead person or their family would want them to be respected, not in the manner that you personally feel is correct. You do it because someday if you or a loved one is in the ground, you hope that the same will be done for you. The most classy thing that Muslims could do is to demand that the site of the mosque be moved further away from Ground Zero. That would be an immense display of integrity.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Internet Discretion on the Decline
I recently saw a Facebook status that reported the death of this person's former classmate. The person writing the status publicly announced the way in which the person died, then continued to repeat the cause of death at least twice more in the same thread. When I saw this, a deep anger and pain arose in me that I have come to know all too well in the past few months.
In the age of rampant information sharing, we as a people have become desensitized to what is appropriate to share publicly and what is better left between only those that it directly affects. My husband and I have decided to be rather private, only sharing certain things about our lives. Beyond that we have also decided that in the case of our future children we will also be discrete in what we share; they will deserve their right to privacy as much as we do. Some people choose to post every detail about their's and their childrens' lives...there is certainly no crime in that, but I would say it ends up being a slippery slope. Once information is out there, it's out there for good; this means that little Tommy's potty training mishaps will be around for his great great grandchildrent to see.
To the rational adult, it is obvious that discretion is a must when sharing life's little details with the general public. But what about sharing death's little details... Like the person who posted about someone else's cause of death, they probably had no plans to harm the dead person, obviously they are already dead so this would be hard to do. But what about the people who loved this person and are still around to see their loved one's death blasted across the Facebook pages of strangers? This particular person did not die in the most valiant of fashions, but they did die; plain and simple, the people who loved this person probably don't care so much how their loved one died but that they are no longer with them. What's more, is if someone dies in a manner that might bring shame to someone, why not show respect for the dead and those still living and acknowledge the loss without adding insult to injury?
Having lost my sister recently, it disgusted me to see so many people posting on the internet for all to see their discussions and debates about her death. People were hypothesizing how she died...was she drunk, was she wearing her seatbelt, or the big one "I bet she was texting". I know what happened according to the Sheriff's Department, and those who need to know what happened do know. How on earth is it appropriate to debate something like this, especially something so fresh in the hearts of those who are grieving? She is dead and so is this person who became Facebook news, and to those who loved those who are now gone, that is painful enough without knowing that your loved one is a stranger's gossip. In the case of my sister, she left behind a beautiful little girl. This little girl will someday be a young adult capable of researching on the internet. I cannot imagine what it would be like for her to scroll through pages and pages of hearsay and heartless gossip surrounding her mom's death.
These people who pass away are not people who asked to be in the limelight. My sister was not an actress, politician or any other public figure whose personal business becomes by default the world's business. She was an ordinary girl with her right to privacy and just because she no longer lives does not mean her right to privacy should be trounced upon by those who hardly knew her, if at all. The same goes for this other person whose cause of death was more of a curiousity than a tragedy to this callous Facebooker. The gut wrenching pain that comes with burying a loved one should be shown the utmost respect. Unfortunately with all of the media sharing resources available today, so many people have begun to think it is their right to delve into matters that do not concern them. It is absolutely nobody's right or privilege to destroy the memory of someone else's loved one.
My Uncle Hart used to say "it's a full time job taking care of Caroline (or insert anyone else's name)." There is a lot of wisdom in that. As humans it is a natural and good thing to feel for someone else's pain, acknowledging it and giving it the respect that it should be given. It is when we begin to think it is our job to announce, intervene or disrupt someone else's situation in life (or death) that we cross the line. If this original Facebooker had genuince concern over the death of someone, he or she could have expressed their heart felt sympathy directly to the family rather than taking it upon his or herself to make even more public a sensitive issue.
While nobody can stop people from sharing every embarassing detail of their own life, it should be an unspoken rule that other people's lives are off limits. If you have the urge to share some juicy tidbit that is not your's to share, you should stop a moment and consider using some tact; unless of course you don't mind being labeled a gossip queen that nobody trusts.
In the age of rampant information sharing, we as a people have become desensitized to what is appropriate to share publicly and what is better left between only those that it directly affects. My husband and I have decided to be rather private, only sharing certain things about our lives. Beyond that we have also decided that in the case of our future children we will also be discrete in what we share; they will deserve their right to privacy as much as we do. Some people choose to post every detail about their's and their childrens' lives...there is certainly no crime in that, but I would say it ends up being a slippery slope. Once information is out there, it's out there for good; this means that little Tommy's potty training mishaps will be around for his great great grandchildrent to see.
To the rational adult, it is obvious that discretion is a must when sharing life's little details with the general public. But what about sharing death's little details... Like the person who posted about someone else's cause of death, they probably had no plans to harm the dead person, obviously they are already dead so this would be hard to do. But what about the people who loved this person and are still around to see their loved one's death blasted across the Facebook pages of strangers? This particular person did not die in the most valiant of fashions, but they did die; plain and simple, the people who loved this person probably don't care so much how their loved one died but that they are no longer with them. What's more, is if someone dies in a manner that might bring shame to someone, why not show respect for the dead and those still living and acknowledge the loss without adding insult to injury?
Having lost my sister recently, it disgusted me to see so many people posting on the internet for all to see their discussions and debates about her death. People were hypothesizing how she died...was she drunk, was she wearing her seatbelt, or the big one "I bet she was texting". I know what happened according to the Sheriff's Department, and those who need to know what happened do know. How on earth is it appropriate to debate something like this, especially something so fresh in the hearts of those who are grieving? She is dead and so is this person who became Facebook news, and to those who loved those who are now gone, that is painful enough without knowing that your loved one is a stranger's gossip. In the case of my sister, she left behind a beautiful little girl. This little girl will someday be a young adult capable of researching on the internet. I cannot imagine what it would be like for her to scroll through pages and pages of hearsay and heartless gossip surrounding her mom's death.
These people who pass away are not people who asked to be in the limelight. My sister was not an actress, politician or any other public figure whose personal business becomes by default the world's business. She was an ordinary girl with her right to privacy and just because she no longer lives does not mean her right to privacy should be trounced upon by those who hardly knew her, if at all. The same goes for this other person whose cause of death was more of a curiousity than a tragedy to this callous Facebooker. The gut wrenching pain that comes with burying a loved one should be shown the utmost respect. Unfortunately with all of the media sharing resources available today, so many people have begun to think it is their right to delve into matters that do not concern them. It is absolutely nobody's right or privilege to destroy the memory of someone else's loved one.
My Uncle Hart used to say "it's a full time job taking care of Caroline (or insert anyone else's name)." There is a lot of wisdom in that. As humans it is a natural and good thing to feel for someone else's pain, acknowledging it and giving it the respect that it should be given. It is when we begin to think it is our job to announce, intervene or disrupt someone else's situation in life (or death) that we cross the line. If this original Facebooker had genuince concern over the death of someone, he or she could have expressed their heart felt sympathy directly to the family rather than taking it upon his or herself to make even more public a sensitive issue.
While nobody can stop people from sharing every embarassing detail of their own life, it should be an unspoken rule that other people's lives are off limits. If you have the urge to share some juicy tidbit that is not your's to share, you should stop a moment and consider using some tact; unless of course you don't mind being labeled a gossip queen that nobody trusts.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Don't Ask Means Don't Tell
So my Grunt came back from his hump (Marine Corps lingo for a hike that is not meant for the faint of heart), motivated and hoarse from his time playing drill instructor with new recruits (aka poolies). But now he and my overworked puppy are passed out on the couch, so what better time to make my debut to the world of blogging!
Yesterday, around 70 Binghamton University students gathered outside their local Armed Forces recruiting station to stage a protest. This protest was due to the unequal treatment they believe homosexuals are given under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. A female BU student had attempted to enlist in the Army earlier this week, and immediately informed the Army recruiter of her sexual preference. He told her that the Army could not allow her to openly serve as a lesbian, and she went off in a huff. Later she sent in a male friend who threatened the recruiter, "you'll be sorry!"
This girl, we'll call her Sandy, is a freshman at BU. How many freshmen have you heard of ending their college career before it really begins to join the military...let alone a female? So, I am going to take some liberties here and assume that her desire to enlist was not a genuine one. How many people go into apply for a job, and say "oh, just so you know, before you even consider me, I want you to know I like my own gender." Not many I would gather, in fact I'd say the average person never brings up their sexual orientation to their boss even after the hiring process. I am sensing a little unfair treatment that the military is receiving here....hmmm, where are you ACLU?! I am going to take it a step further and assume (yes, I know the dangers in assuming) that she intentionally informed the recruiter of her being a lesbian in order to cause a scene. We all know liberals love playing the victim! But let's analyze the situation, give her the benefit of the doubt that she doesn't have the victim mentality. It is no secret of the military's don't ask, don't tell policy, so she certainly knew about that before confessing her homosexuality. Well, if I were a lesbian and I really really wanted to join the military, and knowing of the DADT policy...I think I'd use my finely tuned college brain to come to the conclusion that, maybe I shouldn't tell! They don't ask you, so all you have to do is not tell, and you're good to go! A heterosexual man does not walk into enlist and say, "just so you know I like women, I'm totally straight"...nobody asks him, and he doesn't tell. SO why do homosexuals get special treatment in being able to openly talk about their sex life when nobody else gets that? Sandy was told she can not serve openly as a lesbian...so she could serve, she just has to keep her mouth shut about inappropriate for the work place things like everybody else. If you ask me, that sounds pretty equal. But because she can't have things exactly her way, she complains; yeah I bet she would have made a great soldier! When she was whining in her interview like a two year old, it really made me confident that she should be in the battlefields.
Fast forward to the protest, every bleeding heart liberal was crying the same thing, "we need more recruits to send to Iraq and Afghanistan, and the military is turning away people just because they are gay!" Trust me kids, the military is doing just fine in enlistment numbers, you can thank the current administration's lackluster economic policies for that. People cannot find jobs, so they join the military. The Marine Corps has surpassed their enlistment goal by thousands and thousands, and the other branches are not far behind. Gone are the days of enlisting and shipping off the next day, you better plan on waiting almost a year before boot camp anymore because there simply is not room. So those of you cute little knuckleheads that fain caring for your country's military, you can rest easy. People are being turned away for sillier things than their sexual preference right now, because the military has no choice but to be picky about who joins.
Not only did students, but the newscaster also made snide remarks about the recruiting station being locked during the protest. They insinuated that the military was turning their back on the people and some kids (I'll call them kids because they have the maturity of children) even hinted that these military men and women were scared! My gosh, behind that locked door are trained killers, people who have been to combat (or some of them not but still received the training), people who are no more scared of staring down the barrel of a rifle than they are of pathetic excuses for college kids. I would have loved to have been there for the protest so I could have held a sign saying, "you kids are jokes, get a hobby!" But the real reason the door was locked is because the Vestal Police Department, knowing of the protest beforehand, had asked the recruiters to lock the door. This was to prevent unnecessary stupid behavior by the college students, who when traveling in packs tend to become brazen and exponentially more stupid.
The moral of the story is this; they won't ask, so you shouldn't tell. That is the same for whatever your sexual orientation is, it is equal. If you're gay and you really genuinely want to serve your country, you can, just keep your bedroom talk where it belongs; the rest of us do.
Yesterday, around 70 Binghamton University students gathered outside their local Armed Forces recruiting station to stage a protest. This protest was due to the unequal treatment they believe homosexuals are given under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. A female BU student had attempted to enlist in the Army earlier this week, and immediately informed the Army recruiter of her sexual preference. He told her that the Army could not allow her to openly serve as a lesbian, and she went off in a huff. Later she sent in a male friend who threatened the recruiter, "you'll be sorry!"
This girl, we'll call her Sandy, is a freshman at BU. How many freshmen have you heard of ending their college career before it really begins to join the military...let alone a female? So, I am going to take some liberties here and assume that her desire to enlist was not a genuine one. How many people go into apply for a job, and say "oh, just so you know, before you even consider me, I want you to know I like my own gender." Not many I would gather, in fact I'd say the average person never brings up their sexual orientation to their boss even after the hiring process. I am sensing a little unfair treatment that the military is receiving here....hmmm, where are you ACLU?! I am going to take it a step further and assume (yes, I know the dangers in assuming) that she intentionally informed the recruiter of her being a lesbian in order to cause a scene. We all know liberals love playing the victim! But let's analyze the situation, give her the benefit of the doubt that she doesn't have the victim mentality. It is no secret of the military's don't ask, don't tell policy, so she certainly knew about that before confessing her homosexuality. Well, if I were a lesbian and I really really wanted to join the military, and knowing of the DADT policy...I think I'd use my finely tuned college brain to come to the conclusion that, maybe I shouldn't tell! They don't ask you, so all you have to do is not tell, and you're good to go! A heterosexual man does not walk into enlist and say, "just so you know I like women, I'm totally straight"...nobody asks him, and he doesn't tell. SO why do homosexuals get special treatment in being able to openly talk about their sex life when nobody else gets that? Sandy was told she can not serve openly as a lesbian...so she could serve, she just has to keep her mouth shut about inappropriate for the work place things like everybody else. If you ask me, that sounds pretty equal. But because she can't have things exactly her way, she complains; yeah I bet she would have made a great soldier! When she was whining in her interview like a two year old, it really made me confident that she should be in the battlefields.
Fast forward to the protest, every bleeding heart liberal was crying the same thing, "we need more recruits to send to Iraq and Afghanistan, and the military is turning away people just because they are gay!" Trust me kids, the military is doing just fine in enlistment numbers, you can thank the current administration's lackluster economic policies for that. People cannot find jobs, so they join the military. The Marine Corps has surpassed their enlistment goal by thousands and thousands, and the other branches are not far behind. Gone are the days of enlisting and shipping off the next day, you better plan on waiting almost a year before boot camp anymore because there simply is not room. So those of you cute little knuckleheads that fain caring for your country's military, you can rest easy. People are being turned away for sillier things than their sexual preference right now, because the military has no choice but to be picky about who joins.
Not only did students, but the newscaster also made snide remarks about the recruiting station being locked during the protest. They insinuated that the military was turning their back on the people and some kids (I'll call them kids because they have the maturity of children) even hinted that these military men and women were scared! My gosh, behind that locked door are trained killers, people who have been to combat (or some of them not but still received the training), people who are no more scared of staring down the barrel of a rifle than they are of pathetic excuses for college kids. I would have loved to have been there for the protest so I could have held a sign saying, "you kids are jokes, get a hobby!" But the real reason the door was locked is because the Vestal Police Department, knowing of the protest beforehand, had asked the recruiters to lock the door. This was to prevent unnecessary stupid behavior by the college students, who when traveling in packs tend to become brazen and exponentially more stupid.
The moral of the story is this; they won't ask, so you shouldn't tell. That is the same for whatever your sexual orientation is, it is equal. If you're gay and you really genuinely want to serve your country, you can, just keep your bedroom talk where it belongs; the rest of us do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)