I hate to admit it, but this describes me to a tee. I'm pretty sure I've said/done, every one of these things. It's hilarious. Enjoy!
Monday, December 19, 2011
Thursday, December 1, 2011
"More than just our Marilyn Monroe"
I have had a somewhat recent, yet strong, interest in Marilyn Monroe. The obsession came on somewhat randomly; never once had I given her much thought. Merely she was a woman famous less for her actual contribution to Hollywood, but more so to her contribution to American society as the first true “sex symbol”.
Nevertheless, one summer day I wandered into my local used bookstore and found a book, Blonde, written by one of my favorite authors, Joyce Carol Oates. I purchased this fictionalized account of Norma Jean Baker/Mortenson and immediately became engrossed in this character. This woman, whose life was cut tragically short, fascinated the world, and continues to do so to this day. However this fascination did not, and does not, always come in a positive form. On the contrary, many exhibited their fascination towards her through detest; they declare her unintelligent, promiscuous, and instable.
What many did not recognize was all the strength she had, regardless of the irreversible moment of weakness that came at the end of her life. Today, in a society slowly climbing it’s way out of the “heroin-chic” era that had girls puking in toilets to stay under 100 pounds, we applaud her curvaceous body. But Norma Jeane, with all the trials and tribulations she endured, deserves much more. She deserves our admiration.
Norma Jeane’s upbringing was no short of traumatic, as her mentally ill mother forced her to bounce from foster home to foster home. While in foster care, she suffered sexual abuse as a child and teenager. As she grew up and gained fame, she eventually spoke out about it, but the reception was unsupportive to say the least. In a time in which abuse was hushed and not discussed, her openness was unwelcome. She was ostracized and it was portrayed as her fault. Her ability to be one of, if not THE first, celebrity to speak out against such an atrocity showed a strength that today we would celebrate.
Due to her upbringing, it is not surprising that Norma Jeane sought attention through her sexuality. This was unfortunate in a sense, as this highlighted her insecurity. However this should not be totally viewed in a negative light. Like the flappers of the 20’s, she enjoyed her sexuality in a way that was typically reserved for men. Men, with all their masculinity, were allowed to smoke, drink and enjoy the human pleasure of sex, and what’s more, they were praised for doing so. Women, on the other hand, were seen as vulgar for exhibiting their sex appeal to anyone other than their male companion. Norma Jeane enjoyed her sexiness, as any woman should, and wasn’t afraid to state it (“I’m very definitely a woman and I enjoy it”). She owned her sexuality.
As a result, men resented her. Women feared her.
Norma Jeane’s womanhood was powerful to the extent that it was able to be independent from men – a concept almost unthinkable in domesticated America. She was a woman, and a sexual woman at that, on her own accord, without a male to discover or define it. Other woman of that time were idolized, and continue to be so, but for what? Their passivity? Doris Day was praised for being the virginal, all-American, girl next door. Even the beloved Jackie Kennedy, with all her poise and glamour, was simply a political accessory of her famous husband. Don’t believe it? In recent tapes released from Jacki O, she stated, “Someone said, ‘Where do you get your opinions?’ And I said, ‘I get all my opinions from my husband.’ Which is true. How could I have any political opinions, you know? His were going to be the best.” She remained a secondary cog of her husband’s political manifesto.
Norma Jeane, unknown to many, was an intelligent woman, masked by the media as the “dumb, sexy blonde”. An avid reader, poet, politically aware citizen and accepting activist, she was never given the credit due. She had a mind of her own, an unpublicized recognition she never received in a world of women who often just smiled and nodded. Ella Fitzgerald credits Norma Jeane for jumpstarting her career, and being ahead of her time due to her accepting racial beliefs. A recently released interview with her had this statement: “What I really want to say: That what the world really needs is a real feeling of kinship. Everybody: stars, laborers, Negroes, Jews, Arabs. We are all brothers. Please don't make me a joke. End the interview with what I believe”. This part never made it to print.
And possibly most to be admired, Norma Jeane had vulnerabilities, like all humans have. However more importantly, she was self-reflective, and recognized her flaws. She once said, “I'm selfish, impatient and a little insecure. I make mistakes, I am out of control and at times hard to handle. But if you can't handle me at my worst, then you sure as hell don't deserve me at my best.” Weakness happens. Sadness happens. Mistakes happen. And as humans, too often those that exhibit these traits are seen as pathetic; fragile. Instead, we should honor those with the ability to objectively view themselves, for reflection is the most successful path for improvement. Unfortunately, at times her vulnerabilities got the best of her – she was tortured, belittled and troubled, by those closest to her but also by the millions who never even knew her. But her ability to express these vulnerabilities showed us that she was human. Too often female celebrities of the 50’s (Audrey Hepburn, Doris Day), were beacons of poise, stability. But was that a façade? Did it give women an unrealistic expectation to live up to? To be strong, elegant, and “ok” 100% of the time? Today, we value weakness. It is less taboo, and more excepted for people to receive therapy, anti-depressants, etc., and confronting our demons is considered the right thing to do. Vulnerability is ok, and Norma Jeane was not afraid to show that and be honest about it.
In short, Marilyn Monroe was ahead of her time – in her sexuality, feminine role, activism (racial, political and sexual), and honesty regarding her vulnerabilities. Too often people pity her innocent and her helplessness, they scorn her sex appeal, and they mock her intellect. She was not perfect – no one is. Certainly she made mistakes, however she also embodied characteristics to be admired, and revered – characteristics we should emulate. And I hope, in the years to come, she becomes bigger than the sex symbol she represented.
Now, in the Marilyn spirit, I'm off to see the new Michelle Williams movie, "My Week with Marilyn". I'll let you know how it goes, but for now, I'll leave you with quite possibly my favorite quote from her...“I believe that everything happens for a reason. People change so that you can learn to let go, things go wrong so that you appreciate them when they're right, you believe lies so you eventually learn to trust no one but yourself, and sometimes good things fall apart so better things can fall together.”
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Herman Cain
Seeing as how the Republican party seems to be getting more ridiculous by the minute, I share with you my top three Herman Cain quotes. Sarah Palin? Rick Perry? Herman Cain? Can Republicans actually find someone with a BIT of intelligence?
Really? No Herman, that doesn't clear ANYTHING up for ANY of us...
Ummm...isn't the fact that the whole country thinks you're an adulterous liar a good enough reason to take a lie detector test?
Of COURSE your wife would say that. If she said "Oh, sexual harrassment? That sounds exactly like you!" we should be seriously concerned about the state of your marriage...even more so than we already are.
Really? No Herman, that doesn't clear ANYTHING up for ANY of us...
Ummm...isn't the fact that the whole country thinks you're an adulterous liar a good enough reason to take a lie detector test?
Of COURSE your wife would say that. If she said "Oh, sexual harrassment? That sounds exactly like you!" we should be seriously concerned about the state of your marriage...even more so than we already are.
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Monday, October 31, 2011
I'm baaaaaaaaack
Alright, it's been a while. But here I am, equipped with a new blog format (background courtesy of MOI, taken in Sainte Chapelle). Since I last posted a lot has happened; I graduated college, went to Paris, started graduate school and began my student teaching. It's been a whirlwind of a past few months, but as busy as I've been, I've been enjoying every second of it :)
Monday, May 2, 2011
Osama bin Laden
So Osama bin Laden is dead.
Way to go America?
I guess I really don’t know what to say in a situation like this. As happy as the United States seems to be, to me there is something unsettling about celebrating a death, regardless of how horrific the being may have been (click on the title for a link to an interesting article).
I’m conflicted. There’s a quote from Mark Twain that states, “'I’ve never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure." And I guess that holds true…I mean, I’m sure everyone breathed a sigh of relief when the real-life villains of our time died – Hitler, Hussein, Osama, etc. But what does this solve? What does this do?
Here is another quote, that I tend to lean towards:
We didn’t stop terrorism yesterday. We didn’t ensure that acts of violence against America would no longer happen. Instead, we made ourselves feel better by killing one – albeit, one very POWERFUL – individual.
Revenge is a vicious, scary cycle. We “got them back”, I guess, but now does that make it THEIR turn? When does it end? Like my staunchly anti-death penalty stance, I view murder for murder as one of the most hypocritical and unproductive punishments there are. It yields more anger, more hurt, and more hate.
This may seem a little off on a tangent, but stay with me here: throughout my life, I’ve at times wanted to be a vegetarian (hating the thought of an innocent animal dying). To me, eating those fat, juicy steaks I came to love were that much better if I internally convinced myself that the cow had died of natural causes. As yesterday’s news rolled around, the same idea came to mind – if he had died rather haphazardly I may have seen more joy in it. I would have thanked luck, not the SWAT team with machine guns.
Again, I’m conflicted. I know the world is a better place without him in it, but, taking away the individual, the idea of celebrating the murder of a person seems wrong. The elation of Americans proves that we are an insensitive, egocentric country.
And, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that one of the main reasons terrorists targeted us in the first place?
Way to go America?
I guess I really don’t know what to say in a situation like this. As happy as the United States seems to be, to me there is something unsettling about celebrating a death, regardless of how horrific the being may have been (click on the title for a link to an interesting article).
I’m conflicted. There’s a quote from Mark Twain that states, “'I’ve never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure." And I guess that holds true…I mean, I’m sure everyone breathed a sigh of relief when the real-life villains of our time died – Hitler, Hussein, Osama, etc. But what does this solve? What does this do?
Here is another quote, that I tend to lean towards:
"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that" - Martin Luther King, Jr.
We didn’t stop terrorism yesterday. We didn’t ensure that acts of violence against America would no longer happen. Instead, we made ourselves feel better by killing one – albeit, one very POWERFUL – individual.
Revenge is a vicious, scary cycle. We “got them back”, I guess, but now does that make it THEIR turn? When does it end? Like my staunchly anti-death penalty stance, I view murder for murder as one of the most hypocritical and unproductive punishments there are. It yields more anger, more hurt, and more hate.
This may seem a little off on a tangent, but stay with me here: throughout my life, I’ve at times wanted to be a vegetarian (hating the thought of an innocent animal dying). To me, eating those fat, juicy steaks I came to love were that much better if I internally convinced myself that the cow had died of natural causes. As yesterday’s news rolled around, the same idea came to mind – if he had died rather haphazardly I may have seen more joy in it. I would have thanked luck, not the SWAT team with machine guns.
Again, I’m conflicted. I know the world is a better place without him in it, but, taking away the individual, the idea of celebrating the murder of a person seems wrong. The elation of Americans proves that we are an insensitive, egocentric country.
And, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that one of the main reasons terrorists targeted us in the first place?
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Exciting news, coming my way!
Brag time.
I finished my thesis a couple weeks ago, and as I’ve already shared with most of you, I nominated to pass with distinction (which is the highest honor you can get for your honors thesis). It goes into review April 25th, and I should know after that if I won such honor. I had lunch with my thesis advisor yesterday, and he told me I shouldn’t worry – he’d be surprised if I didn’t pass with distinction. He said usually on committees the four evaluators duke it out, for they have to be unanimous in their favorable vote. In my case, all four evaluators, without hesitation or discussion, nominated me.
I also got recommended and submitted my research for two undergraduate research awards. I presented at a symposium on Monday to a board of six research professors, and I should hear back from them soon. They had quite a few positive things to say about my project – one professor praised my thorough research, another my writing and writing style. In fact, one of the evaluators is friends with my advisor, Jesse, and told him (in confidence, so shhhh) that I had a really good shot at winning. So we’ll see!
But the biggest news, is that I found out the day I presented at the symposium that I won the other research award; the Emeritus Society Award. I was ecstatic, to say the least, and unbelievably proud. I haven’t won something of that magnitude ever, so it was so fulfilling and something I will always remember. I attend an awards ceremony Tuesday to accept the award. Check out the announcement on WSU’s website by clicking the title of this blog.
Yesterday, Jesse took me out to lunch to celebrate. It was a great time, and in the end, he told me that I was no longer my advisor or professor, and I was no longer his student or mentee. From now on, he said, we should refer to each other as friends. We promised to keep in touch, and meet up whenever I come to Pullman or if he’s in Seattle. I will definitely miss him, and am so thankful for having the opportunity to work with him.
At lunch though, Jesse shared with me one more piece of exciting news. An Emeritus professor at WSU read my work and was enamored by it. He asked Jesse to give me his email so that I could potentially send him another copy. He also asked if he could share it with a professor at a different university who is in the process of writing a book on Jewish history. I considered this request such an honor. What’s even more exciting is that this Emeritus professor is in the education field and is a leading researcher and advocate in school reform in Washington State, specifically in regards to the WASL. Jesse stated this might be a good opportunity to get into contact with him, as I myself am going into education and he is certainly well established and respected in the field. So I am beyond excited to talk to him and feel so proud that someone with such high credentials felt so strongly about my work.
Alright, enough bragging. I apologize, but it’s been a whirlwind of a last week or so, and I had to share all this exciting news! Thanks for listening to my ramble on, yet again, about my thesis!
I finished my thesis a couple weeks ago, and as I’ve already shared with most of you, I nominated to pass with distinction (which is the highest honor you can get for your honors thesis). It goes into review April 25th, and I should know after that if I won such honor. I had lunch with my thesis advisor yesterday, and he told me I shouldn’t worry – he’d be surprised if I didn’t pass with distinction. He said usually on committees the four evaluators duke it out, for they have to be unanimous in their favorable vote. In my case, all four evaluators, without hesitation or discussion, nominated me.
I also got recommended and submitted my research for two undergraduate research awards. I presented at a symposium on Monday to a board of six research professors, and I should hear back from them soon. They had quite a few positive things to say about my project – one professor praised my thorough research, another my writing and writing style. In fact, one of the evaluators is friends with my advisor, Jesse, and told him (in confidence, so shhhh) that I had a really good shot at winning. So we’ll see!
But the biggest news, is that I found out the day I presented at the symposium that I won the other research award; the Emeritus Society Award. I was ecstatic, to say the least, and unbelievably proud. I haven’t won something of that magnitude ever, so it was so fulfilling and something I will always remember. I attend an awards ceremony Tuesday to accept the award. Check out the announcement on WSU’s website by clicking the title of this blog.
Yesterday, Jesse took me out to lunch to celebrate. It was a great time, and in the end, he told me that I was no longer my advisor or professor, and I was no longer his student or mentee. From now on, he said, we should refer to each other as friends. We promised to keep in touch, and meet up whenever I come to Pullman or if he’s in Seattle. I will definitely miss him, and am so thankful for having the opportunity to work with him.
At lunch though, Jesse shared with me one more piece of exciting news. An Emeritus professor at WSU read my work and was enamored by it. He asked Jesse to give me his email so that I could potentially send him another copy. He also asked if he could share it with a professor at a different university who is in the process of writing a book on Jewish history. I considered this request such an honor. What’s even more exciting is that this Emeritus professor is in the education field and is a leading researcher and advocate in school reform in Washington State, specifically in regards to the WASL. Jesse stated this might be a good opportunity to get into contact with him, as I myself am going into education and he is certainly well established and respected in the field. So I am beyond excited to talk to him and feel so proud that someone with such high credentials felt so strongly about my work.
Alright, enough bragging. I apologize, but it’s been a whirlwind of a last week or so, and I had to share all this exciting news! Thanks for listening to my ramble on, yet again, about my thesis!
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Boys vs. Girls
Harry Burns was right.
I wanted to deny it, for years. But when Harry turned to Sally Albright and told her guys and girls couldn't be friends (because the sex always got in the way) he unfortunately spoke the truth.
(Buy the way, if anyone is lost about who I'm referring to, I'm disappointed in you. Get off my blog.)
When I came to college, I formed many friendships...primarily with guys. I naively thought "How great! I love hanging out with such low-maintenance, low-drama people who want to talk about baseball and eat giant burgers with me!" Many even moved past the trivial baseball-watching, burger-eating friendship and became people I thought i could be real, true friends with. People I could talk to, cry to, and count on. I'm approaching the end of college in 5 short weeks, and honestly? I don't know if I can truly see myself staying contact with any of these "friends" once I leave here.
It does kind of make me sad...some of these guys I honestly though I was close to- thought we'd be lifelong friends. So what happened? Well, several things. In some instances, I'd start dating someone and the "friend" would suddenly not want anything to do with me. Or' they'll decide they have feelings for me, tell me, and it'd get awkward and they'd retract. Or. they'd start dating someone and would no longer have time for a platonic female friend (although I can't always blame the guy completely for this one -- some of the blame must be placed on their controlling, insecure girlfriends who aren't comfortable with their boyfriends fostering a friendship with me).
Now, there are a few exceptions to the rule, and, though rare, they do exist. But true friendships are very difficult to form with members of the opposite sex. Friendships with males can only (for the majority of the time) only really exist if they stay in the superficial sports-food-and-beer-drinking stage. And, even then, I wouldn't count on it lasting. I want to say that maybe this will change as I get older, and men will no longer act like the horny, selfish guys that I've encountered. Unfortunately, I'm under the belief that boys will be boys, regardless of age (sorry to my male readers out there!)
So what does this all mean? Well, I'll still enjoy the fun, superficial friendships I foster with males, I'll cherish and appreciate the rare REAL friendships I am able to have with males(shout out to my only guy friends and pseudo-brothers Seth and Matt!), and I'll be FOREVER thankful for the girls in my life.
I'll now leave you with the full quote...god, I love this movie:
Harry Burns: You realize of course that we could never be friends.
Sally Albright: Why not?
Harry Burns: What I'm saying is - and this is not a come-on in any way, shape or form - is that men and women can't be friends because the sex part always gets in the way.
Sally Albright: That's not true. I have a number of men friends and there is no sex involved.
Harry Burns: No you don't.
Sally Albright: Yes I do.
Harry Burns: No you don't.
Sally Albright: Yes I do.
Harry Burns: You only think you do.
Sally Albright: You say I'm having sex with these men without my knowledge?
Harry Burns: No, what I'm saying is they all WANT to have sex with you.
Sally Albright: They do not.
Harry Burns: Do too.
Sally Albright: They do not.
Harry Burns: Do too.
Sally Albright: How do you know?
Harry Burns: Because no man can be friends with a woman that he finds attractive. He always wants to have sex with her.
Sally Albright: So, you're saying that a man can be friends with a woman he finds unattractive?
Harry Burns: No. You pretty much want to nail 'em too.
Sally Albright: What if THEY don't want to have sex with YOU?
Harry Burns: Doesn't matter because the sex thing is already out there so the friendship is ultimately doomed and that is the end of the story.
Sally Albright: Well, I guess we're not going to be friends then.
Harry Burns: I guess not.
I wanted to deny it, for years. But when Harry turned to Sally Albright and told her guys and girls couldn't be friends (because the sex always got in the way) he unfortunately spoke the truth.
(Buy the way, if anyone is lost about who I'm referring to, I'm disappointed in you. Get off my blog.)
When I came to college, I formed many friendships...primarily with guys. I naively thought "How great! I love hanging out with such low-maintenance, low-drama people who want to talk about baseball and eat giant burgers with me!" Many even moved past the trivial baseball-watching, burger-eating friendship and became people I thought i could be real, true friends with. People I could talk to, cry to, and count on. I'm approaching the end of college in 5 short weeks, and honestly? I don't know if I can truly see myself staying contact with any of these "friends" once I leave here.
It does kind of make me sad...some of these guys I honestly though I was close to- thought we'd be lifelong friends. So what happened? Well, several things. In some instances, I'd start dating someone and the "friend" would suddenly not want anything to do with me. Or' they'll decide they have feelings for me, tell me, and it'd get awkward and they'd retract. Or. they'd start dating someone and would no longer have time for a platonic female friend (although I can't always blame the guy completely for this one -- some of the blame must be placed on their controlling, insecure girlfriends who aren't comfortable with their boyfriends fostering a friendship with me).
Now, there are a few exceptions to the rule, and, though rare, they do exist. But true friendships are very difficult to form with members of the opposite sex. Friendships with males can only (for the majority of the time) only really exist if they stay in the superficial sports-food-and-beer-drinking stage. And, even then, I wouldn't count on it lasting. I want to say that maybe this will change as I get older, and men will no longer act like the horny, selfish guys that I've encountered. Unfortunately, I'm under the belief that boys will be boys, regardless of age (sorry to my male readers out there!)
So what does this all mean? Well, I'll still enjoy the fun, superficial friendships I foster with males, I'll cherish and appreciate the rare REAL friendships I am able to have with males(shout out to my only guy friends and pseudo-brothers Seth and Matt!), and I'll be FOREVER thankful for the girls in my life.
I'll now leave you with the full quote...god, I love this movie:
Harry Burns: You realize of course that we could never be friends.
Sally Albright: Why not?
Harry Burns: What I'm saying is - and this is not a come-on in any way, shape or form - is that men and women can't be friends because the sex part always gets in the way.
Sally Albright: That's not true. I have a number of men friends and there is no sex involved.
Harry Burns: No you don't.
Sally Albright: Yes I do.
Harry Burns: No you don't.
Sally Albright: Yes I do.
Harry Burns: You only think you do.
Sally Albright: You say I'm having sex with these men without my knowledge?
Harry Burns: No, what I'm saying is they all WANT to have sex with you.
Sally Albright: They do not.
Harry Burns: Do too.
Sally Albright: They do not.
Harry Burns: Do too.
Sally Albright: How do you know?
Harry Burns: Because no man can be friends with a woman that he finds attractive. He always wants to have sex with her.
Sally Albright: So, you're saying that a man can be friends with a woman he finds unattractive?
Harry Burns: No. You pretty much want to nail 'em too.
Sally Albright: What if THEY don't want to have sex with YOU?
Harry Burns: Doesn't matter because the sex thing is already out there so the friendship is ultimately doomed and that is the end of the story.
Sally Albright: Well, I guess we're not going to be friends then.
Harry Burns: I guess not.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Winners and Losers
(This is a commemorative speech I just wrote for my public speaking class...)
I’ll never forget the first time I met Devin. He was 20, I was 16. At 6’5”, he towered over me. He approached me rather abruptly and with intensity. He started to ask me multiple, completely random questions: did I like swimming? Was I right handed or left handed? Or, my personal favorite, how did I feel about mayonnaise? I was honestly uncomfortable. I didn’t know exactly how to respond. Luckily, a woman came and diverted his attention back to his school work he was supposed to be doing. I learned that Devin was autistic, and was in a special program for teens with autism. Devin challenged me that day, and I felt it was my turn to challenge myself. So, right then and there, I rather impulsively filled out an application to become a tutor within the program.
Over the next two years, I became Devin’s personal tutor. I spent every weekday with him, and as much as I taught him, he taught me more. What I immediately admired about Devin was his confidence – he approached me that first day with such assurance in himself, an assurance that most high school students often didn’t possess. Devin was himself, 100% of the time. And although he was often obsessive, socially-awkward and incoherent, he was shameless about it. No one should be afraid to be themselves, and Devin certainly reinforced that belief into me. Not only that, but Devin also proved to be one of the most compassionate people I’ve come to know. He fostered a genuine concern about everyone around him. His habit of asking obsessive, random questions proved just that – he wanted to get to know everyone and really become their friend.
Devin quickly became more than just “the boy I tutored”. He became my friend.
Regardless, I don’t think I really fully appreciated Devin until one specific day. You see, everyday, Devin and I went to a PE class, where they played individual sports (in teams). We played badminton, ping pong, bowling, etc. Unfortunately, every single game, we lost. Devin was a good sport though, and insisted on shaking the hands of his opponents congratulating their win. One day, after losing, he went to shake a boy’s hand. The boy, in turn, looked at Devin with disgust, and responded with a rather rude rendition of “no”. I was angered beyond belief, and after telling the other boy I found his actions unacceptable, me and Devin began to walk back to his class. On the way back, I apologized to Devin, on behalf of the boy. Devin responded that it was ok, he said the boy was simply a bad winner. I agreed, then Devin stated that he was the best loser ever. He kept repeating, over and over again, that he was a better loser than all the kids in his class. He was starting to annoy me and I snapped at him to stop it – there were a lot of good losers in the world besides him as well. Finally, he screamed at me, and this, I will never forget: he said he was the best loser because he lost the most in life.
This stung. Maybe because, until this day, I never gave Devin, or the Devin’s of the world, enough credit. Devin lost every sports game he played, yet he still played and put forth all his effort, even though it went for naught. And he did so with enthusiasm, a positive attitude, and sportsmanship that I had never before witnessed. But it wasn’t limited to this trivial PE class; this was how Devin lived his life. He would never drive a car. He would never go to college. He would never live alone. But Devin is one of the most persistent people I have come to know. Whereas many people would quit, Devin kept going. As I came to work with other autistic teens, I saw many of them even stare in the eye adversity and back down, out of embarrassment or fear. But my friend Devin was bigger than this. Like the boy that refused to shake his hand, many kids had made fun of Devin during his life. But Devin’s attitude was always positive, and I can’t say enough about how much I admired him. People like Devin often do lose in life, more than me, and more than many of you. But their ability to move past that with persistence and positivity make them the biggest winners of all.
I’ll never forget the first time I met Devin. He was 20, I was 16. At 6’5”, he towered over me. He approached me rather abruptly and with intensity. He started to ask me multiple, completely random questions: did I like swimming? Was I right handed or left handed? Or, my personal favorite, how did I feel about mayonnaise? I was honestly uncomfortable. I didn’t know exactly how to respond. Luckily, a woman came and diverted his attention back to his school work he was supposed to be doing. I learned that Devin was autistic, and was in a special program for teens with autism. Devin challenged me that day, and I felt it was my turn to challenge myself. So, right then and there, I rather impulsively filled out an application to become a tutor within the program.
Over the next two years, I became Devin’s personal tutor. I spent every weekday with him, and as much as I taught him, he taught me more. What I immediately admired about Devin was his confidence – he approached me that first day with such assurance in himself, an assurance that most high school students often didn’t possess. Devin was himself, 100% of the time. And although he was often obsessive, socially-awkward and incoherent, he was shameless about it. No one should be afraid to be themselves, and Devin certainly reinforced that belief into me. Not only that, but Devin also proved to be one of the most compassionate people I’ve come to know. He fostered a genuine concern about everyone around him. His habit of asking obsessive, random questions proved just that – he wanted to get to know everyone and really become their friend.
Devin quickly became more than just “the boy I tutored”. He became my friend.
Regardless, I don’t think I really fully appreciated Devin until one specific day. You see, everyday, Devin and I went to a PE class, where they played individual sports (in teams). We played badminton, ping pong, bowling, etc. Unfortunately, every single game, we lost. Devin was a good sport though, and insisted on shaking the hands of his opponents congratulating their win. One day, after losing, he went to shake a boy’s hand. The boy, in turn, looked at Devin with disgust, and responded with a rather rude rendition of “no”. I was angered beyond belief, and after telling the other boy I found his actions unacceptable, me and Devin began to walk back to his class. On the way back, I apologized to Devin, on behalf of the boy. Devin responded that it was ok, he said the boy was simply a bad winner. I agreed, then Devin stated that he was the best loser ever. He kept repeating, over and over again, that he was a better loser than all the kids in his class. He was starting to annoy me and I snapped at him to stop it – there were a lot of good losers in the world besides him as well. Finally, he screamed at me, and this, I will never forget: he said he was the best loser because he lost the most in life.
This stung. Maybe because, until this day, I never gave Devin, or the Devin’s of the world, enough credit. Devin lost every sports game he played, yet he still played and put forth all his effort, even though it went for naught. And he did so with enthusiasm, a positive attitude, and sportsmanship that I had never before witnessed. But it wasn’t limited to this trivial PE class; this was how Devin lived his life. He would never drive a car. He would never go to college. He would never live alone. But Devin is one of the most persistent people I have come to know. Whereas many people would quit, Devin kept going. As I came to work with other autistic teens, I saw many of them even stare in the eye adversity and back down, out of embarrassment or fear. But my friend Devin was bigger than this. Like the boy that refused to shake his hand, many kids had made fun of Devin during his life. But Devin’s attitude was always positive, and I can’t say enough about how much I admired him. People like Devin often do lose in life, more than me, and more than many of you. But their ability to move past that with persistence and positivity make them the biggest winners of all.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Cookies on the Line
Quick tidbit I wanted to share that totally brightened my day:
At work, I bought cookies for the kids. I let them have two, which most kids were completely fine with. Except for Joe. Oh, Joe. He's such a cute and fun kid...he's a second grader, red hair, with a crazy love for food and a whole lot of sass.
He asked for another cookie (a third) after having devoured the previous cookies in a bite and a half. When I told him no, he rolled his eyes, and immediately started complaining, pointing out that there was enough left for him to have another. He continued to keep pestering me on the issue, with his determined, unrelenting nature I see so often (especially if there's any sweets involved). Finally, after what seemed like the 32nd time he had said "but why not?" I retorted with "NO JOE. Life's tough, isn't it?"
He slammed back in his chair, crossed his chubby little arms, sighed, and said "Yeah, especially when there's delicious cookies on the line".
I had to laugh. Truer words were never spoken.
At work, I bought cookies for the kids. I let them have two, which most kids were completely fine with. Except for Joe. Oh, Joe. He's such a cute and fun kid...he's a second grader, red hair, with a crazy love for food and a whole lot of sass.
He asked for another cookie (a third) after having devoured the previous cookies in a bite and a half. When I told him no, he rolled his eyes, and immediately started complaining, pointing out that there was enough left for him to have another. He continued to keep pestering me on the issue, with his determined, unrelenting nature I see so often (especially if there's any sweets involved). Finally, after what seemed like the 32nd time he had said "but why not?" I retorted with "NO JOE. Life's tough, isn't it?"
He slammed back in his chair, crossed his chubby little arms, sighed, and said "Yeah, especially when there's delicious cookies on the line".
I had to laugh. Truer words were never spoken.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
22 days away
My date to defend my thesis is officially set: March 28th. My mom is coming out to see me present, which I am incredibly happy about. It will mean a lot to have her there. She'll get to meet my professor, help calm me down the night before as I freak out and see all my work come to fruition. I couldn't be happier.
I'm frantically scrambling to finish it...and hope that it will be totally completed by this Friday. Ok, or maybe Saturday.
While it is exciting that the end is so near, it is also kind of terrifying. After working on the project for over a year, I feel like it's become such a part of me. What am I going to do without constantly worrying about it? What will my bookshelf look like without the 30 library book I've used for the project? What will I read now that I am not constantly engrossed in books with titles such as "European Jewry in the Age of Mercantilism" or "The Anti-Christ in Seventeenth-Century England"?
Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself; after all I still have to relinquish control and call my paper "COMPLETE". And then of course I have the daunting task of squeezing a 50 page paper into a 30 minute speech.
I now understand why it takes people years and years to finish writing a book- the perfectionist in me doesn't want to call it "complete" when I always feel like there's a way I could make it better.
I talk to other people working on their thesis and they are ecstatic of the prospect of being finished. I feel like a nerd, but for me, it's bittersweet. It's like parting with a child (ok, maybe I'm getting a little over-dramatic...) Yes, I'll be so proud to be done, but the process was honestly so fun and rewarding and it's sad that it's coming to an end. I got to work with a professor who I admire and respect so much. I got to work with three other students working on similar projects and get help, support and advice from them. I got to dedicate myself completely to a single project, which is the first time in my academic career that I have been able to do that. I got to research something so fascinating and watch it transform into something I didn't even foresee when I started. My ideas regarding my rabbi, Menasseh ben Israel, and the issue of toleration constantly changed as I researched more and more. Actually my professor told me that one of the things he admires most about me is my ability to always question my thoughts in this project. I'm open minded, and not afraid to changing routes. When I started the project, I planned on arguing a completely different point. About five book in, I changed my mind and was convinced otherwise. From there on I constantly tweaked my stance as I researched more and more. Which is good; learning should do that. Learning should allow you to question yourself and your preconceived notions. And this process simply reinforced that belief.
I'm sure I'll post when it's completed and submitted. If anyone is interested, I would love for you to read it. Again, it's not light reading so to speak (it weighs in at approximately 50 pages) but I'm proud of it, and would love the opportunity for others to see it, and see what a years worth of work has resulted in. Anyways, I obviously won't be posting it here (it's over 12,000 words, and I'm pretty sure blogger wouldn't allow it in a single post) but let me know and I'd be ecstatic to email it to anyone and everyone.
I'm frantically scrambling to finish it...and hope that it will be totally completed by this Friday. Ok, or maybe Saturday.
While it is exciting that the end is so near, it is also kind of terrifying. After working on the project for over a year, I feel like it's become such a part of me. What am I going to do without constantly worrying about it? What will my bookshelf look like without the 30 library book I've used for the project? What will I read now that I am not constantly engrossed in books with titles such as "European Jewry in the Age of Mercantilism" or "The Anti-Christ in Seventeenth-Century England"?
Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself; after all I still have to relinquish control and call my paper "COMPLETE". And then of course I have the daunting task of squeezing a 50 page paper into a 30 minute speech.
I now understand why it takes people years and years to finish writing a book- the perfectionist in me doesn't want to call it "complete" when I always feel like there's a way I could make it better.
I talk to other people working on their thesis and they are ecstatic of the prospect of being finished. I feel like a nerd, but for me, it's bittersweet. It's like parting with a child (ok, maybe I'm getting a little over-dramatic...) Yes, I'll be so proud to be done, but the process was honestly so fun and rewarding and it's sad that it's coming to an end. I got to work with a professor who I admire and respect so much. I got to work with three other students working on similar projects and get help, support and advice from them. I got to dedicate myself completely to a single project, which is the first time in my academic career that I have been able to do that. I got to research something so fascinating and watch it transform into something I didn't even foresee when I started. My ideas regarding my rabbi, Menasseh ben Israel, and the issue of toleration constantly changed as I researched more and more. Actually my professor told me that one of the things he admires most about me is my ability to always question my thoughts in this project. I'm open minded, and not afraid to changing routes. When I started the project, I planned on arguing a completely different point. About five book in, I changed my mind and was convinced otherwise. From there on I constantly tweaked my stance as I researched more and more. Which is good; learning should do that. Learning should allow you to question yourself and your preconceived notions. And this process simply reinforced that belief.
I'm sure I'll post when it's completed and submitted. If anyone is interested, I would love for you to read it. Again, it's not light reading so to speak (it weighs in at approximately 50 pages) but I'm proud of it, and would love the opportunity for others to see it, and see what a years worth of work has resulted in. Anyways, I obviously won't be posting it here (it's over 12,000 words, and I'm pretty sure blogger wouldn't allow it in a single post) but let me know and I'd be ecstatic to email it to anyone and everyone.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Pit Bulls
Annals of Public Policy: Troublemakers: newyorker.com
I love pit bulls. Many of my friends and family try to fight me on this, but I am positive that I will have one once I move into my own place. For those of you who have engaged in conversation with me about them, I often equate pit bull "breed-ism" to racism.
Here is an article I stumbled upon from the New Yorker that describes, how I feel about the issue, almost to a tee. I encourage you all to read it as well (with an open mind!)
I love pit bulls. Many of my friends and family try to fight me on this, but I am positive that I will have one once I move into my own place. For those of you who have engaged in conversation with me about them, I often equate pit bull "breed-ism" to racism.
Here is an article I stumbled upon from the New Yorker that describes, how I feel about the issue, almost to a tee. I encourage you all to read it as well (with an open mind!)
Monday, February 21, 2011
The Shrinking Bucket List
I have a bucket list; a relatively informal one at that. It's not in writing or anything, but instead remains a list of jumbled ideas in the back of my head that I hope to accomplish someday. To share a couple, I hope to publish something, be it a novel or short story, I want to go to Cooperstown, and I want to read every publicly available piece of writing by JD Salinger. Up until last night, learning to play guitar was on that list as well.
Let me explain.
I went on a date (date #2 with a guy whom I've had classes with the past four years). As we were sitting waiting for the movie to start, we were chatting and I stupidly mentioned how I wish I knew how to play the guitar. Well, just my luck, the guy excitedly informed me that he played the guitar, in fact had three at home, and would love to teach me.
GREAT, I thought. Now I get to look like an idiot. Anyone who knows me knows that I am not the most musically adept person. While piano was mediocre at best, flute was an utter disaster. And my singing? It's nothing short of atrocious.
As the movie started, I kept my fingers crossed that he'd forget about his offer. Unfortunately, he didn't, and right after the movie ended he suggested we go learn to play. Unable to renege on my initial excitement regarding learning to play the guitar, I agreed to go attempt it.
Needless to say, I did look pretty stupid for a good hour and a half. Almost immediately, I realized guitar playing was not in my future, and I mentally scratched it from the bucket list. Not only are my hands way too small to comfortably play all the chords, but I was unaware how incredibly painful the strings were (the indents on my poor fingers took hours to go away).
So, I unfortunately (yet very decidedly) abandoned my dream of ever playing the guitar. Turns out, it is totally not for me.
The good news though? I now have plenty of time for the other bucket list items!
Let me explain.
I went on a date (date #2 with a guy whom I've had classes with the past four years). As we were sitting waiting for the movie to start, we were chatting and I stupidly mentioned how I wish I knew how to play the guitar. Well, just my luck, the guy excitedly informed me that he played the guitar, in fact had three at home, and would love to teach me.
GREAT, I thought. Now I get to look like an idiot. Anyone who knows me knows that I am not the most musically adept person. While piano was mediocre at best, flute was an utter disaster. And my singing? It's nothing short of atrocious.
As the movie started, I kept my fingers crossed that he'd forget about his offer. Unfortunately, he didn't, and right after the movie ended he suggested we go learn to play. Unable to renege on my initial excitement regarding learning to play the guitar, I agreed to go attempt it.
Needless to say, I did look pretty stupid for a good hour and a half. Almost immediately, I realized guitar playing was not in my future, and I mentally scratched it from the bucket list. Not only are my hands way too small to comfortably play all the chords, but I was unaware how incredibly painful the strings were (the indents on my poor fingers took hours to go away).
So, I unfortunately (yet very decidedly) abandoned my dream of ever playing the guitar. Turns out, it is totally not for me.
The good news though? I now have plenty of time for the other bucket list items!
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Valentine's Day for the Single Ladies of the World
I've never been the hugest Valentine's Day fan. For me, the glamor kind of wore off when the school parties ceased and the 14th became more associated with romance and less to do with unseemly amounts of candy and cartoon cards with funny sayings on them.
Last Valentine's Day I was in a relationship and we did the dinner/flowers/chocolate thing but I honestly can't tell you what the flowers looked like or where we even went to dinner. Pathetically, I'll admit that the highlight of the day last year was watching a documentary on the Discovery Channel; comically titled "Tyrannosaurus Sex". Like the title implies, it pretty much just discussed how dinosaurs mated. The nerd in me found it fascinating.
It was a hard V-day to beat, but this year, I think I beat it.
It started earlier in the week, when my mom started sending me daily Valentine's and an unnecessary, but greatly appreciated, amount of chocolate (which I may or may not have already devoured!) I then got to go to work at my after-school program where we celebrated with cookies, candy and Valentine's themed games.
A couple of hours with some adorable kids put me into fantastic spirits...maybe even TOO good of spirits! While I had planned on studying the night away for my impending individual tax accounting test, a more enticing option surfaced: a date night with my roomie. How could I resist?
So, us two recently single gals headed to the bar...fingers crossed that there was some sort of "scorned, single woman" drink special. Lucky for us, we were greeted with $2.50 margaritas (our favorite drink no less!) After enjoying some fruity, tequila-y goodness, we decided to head to the student union building. As many of you know, we are too cheap to pay for cable and thus have to usually watch our TV shows online a day later. But today we were determined to watch our Monday night guilty pleasure on time. Sure, it meant watching this embarrassingly addictive and trashy reality TV show in the middle of campus amidst hundreds of our peers on the supposed "most romantic" day of the year, but it was a sacrifice we were willing to make.
Luckily, we were able to wrestle the big screen TV away from a group of studying boys just in time. We changed the channel from a college basketball game to- you guessed it- THE BACHELOR.
Sure, we endured some stares. And some laughs. And I'm pretty sure I saw some people point and whisper, "Look at those pathetic girls", but all in all, when the night ended (and Brad FINALLY got rid of Michelle) I couldn't have imagined a more perfect way to spend the day.
Last Valentine's Day I was in a relationship and we did the dinner/flowers/chocolate thing but I honestly can't tell you what the flowers looked like or where we even went to dinner. Pathetically, I'll admit that the highlight of the day last year was watching a documentary on the Discovery Channel; comically titled "Tyrannosaurus Sex". Like the title implies, it pretty much just discussed how dinosaurs mated. The nerd in me found it fascinating.
It was a hard V-day to beat, but this year, I think I beat it.
It started earlier in the week, when my mom started sending me daily Valentine's and an unnecessary, but greatly appreciated, amount of chocolate (which I may or may not have already devoured!) I then got to go to work at my after-school program where we celebrated with cookies, candy and Valentine's themed games.
A couple of hours with some adorable kids put me into fantastic spirits...maybe even TOO good of spirits! While I had planned on studying the night away for my impending individual tax accounting test, a more enticing option surfaced: a date night with my roomie. How could I resist?
So, us two recently single gals headed to the bar...fingers crossed that there was some sort of "scorned, single woman" drink special. Lucky for us, we were greeted with $2.50 margaritas (our favorite drink no less!) After enjoying some fruity, tequila-y goodness, we decided to head to the student union building. As many of you know, we are too cheap to pay for cable and thus have to usually watch our TV shows online a day later. But today we were determined to watch our Monday night guilty pleasure on time. Sure, it meant watching this embarrassingly addictive and trashy reality TV show in the middle of campus amidst hundreds of our peers on the supposed "most romantic" day of the year, but it was a sacrifice we were willing to make.
Luckily, we were able to wrestle the big screen TV away from a group of studying boys just in time. We changed the channel from a college basketball game to- you guessed it- THE BACHELOR.
Sure, we endured some stares. And some laughs. And I'm pretty sure I saw some people point and whisper, "Look at those pathetic girls", but all in all, when the night ended (and Brad FINALLY got rid of Michelle) I couldn't have imagined a more perfect way to spend the day.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Small Town Spooks
This semester at work, we've started a new after-school program about 15 miles outside of town. It's in the tiny town of Albion, and we run the program in their old schoolhouse. Albion itself is an interesting place. Originally, Albion was going to be "the big city" out here, and it is where they were going to build the university. Obviously, plans changed, and though Albion was never as big as other cities in the area, it did enjoy success and had a thriving community. Today, the story is much different. The houses still left standing are run down, and many are replaced with trailers. No businesses operate there, except for a post office. Most of the residents live below the poverty line, and there is a high drug rate (which is the main reason we started a program out there in the first place). The brother of a student we tutor actually just died of an overdose a few months back.
The town is eerie, to say the least. The schoolhouse is terrifying. I've never believed in ghosts, but I have to admit, if I've ever thought a place was potentially haunted, THIS IS IT. There are hallways that lead to nowhere, old safes (that totally remind me of the Lovely Bones) and doors that only open on occasion (and sometimes, no matter how hard we try, we can't get into certain rooms. I guess it's the luck of the draw).
But anyways, its creepiness is beautiful, and captivating in an odd kind of way. I love thinking of the history this town has seen, including all the ups and downs. I love thinking of change and adaptation. Anyways, since the city gave me a key to the building, I went out there the other day early, before anyone got there, to take some pictures. As you may have guessed, my heart was beating like crazy the whole time I was there alone. I think I got some pretty good shots though. Take a look!
The town is eerie, to say the least. The schoolhouse is terrifying. I've never believed in ghosts, but I have to admit, if I've ever thought a place was potentially haunted, THIS IS IT. There are hallways that lead to nowhere, old safes (that totally remind me of the Lovely Bones) and doors that only open on occasion (and sometimes, no matter how hard we try, we can't get into certain rooms. I guess it's the luck of the draw).
But anyways, its creepiness is beautiful, and captivating in an odd kind of way. I love thinking of the history this town has seen, including all the ups and downs. I love thinking of change and adaptation. Anyways, since the city gave me a key to the building, I went out there the other day early, before anyone got there, to take some pictures. As you may have guessed, my heart was beating like crazy the whole time I was there alone. I think I got some pretty good shots though. Take a look!
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Dating: Google Searches and Checklists
Valentines Day is approaching, and for the first time in three years, I will be completely single for it.
And honestly, that's a-ok with me. I've actually really been enjoying being single. This may sound lame, but it's actually kind of empowering; not only have I become totally independent, but it has given me an excuse to be totally selfish.
Now, I've "dated", or at least allowed myself to entertain interests post-breakup five-ish months ago. The first three interests all turned out to have been in relationships (the last one actually turned out to be married). Needless to say, I was slightly discouraged. However, the situation was almost comical; I mean, what were the chances that this would happen to me three times in a row! Some of you may wonder how I found this information out (which, by the way, I luckily found it out relatively soon after meeting the guys). Well, lets just say my skepticism apparently pays off in the dating world; everyone is now subject to a thorough Google search.
Thankfully, guy #4 passed my informal (and I admit, potentially creepy) background check that I conducted. So far, we've only had a few dates, but I'm really interested in him. Since he lives back home though, things are kind of on hold, but he seems like a viable option that I may pursue come my return in May. Although don't worry folks, my pessimist side is still prepping myself for the worst, you know, like to find out he's a felon, an active polygamist or something equally horrifying yet humorous.
All this being said, I still remain an eternal optimist when it comes to love. My roommate and her boyfriend broke up about the same time as I did, so we became ice-cream eating, wine-drinking, men-bashing friends from the get go. They had been together for five years, so needless to say she was devastated. Recently, she read a self-help book about getting over a breakup, and she's been constantly telling me what the book says. A couple things really stuck out to me. For one, it emphasized that when you begin dating again, don't focus on trying to sell yourself to the other person. Instead, make the date all about you. You need to see if they meet your standards, so don't worry if you don't meet theirs. Dating is all about YOU in the beginning, so be selfish! (By the way, I've practiced implementing this tactic, and I must say, it's a BLAST, and totally takes the pressure off dating. I love it!)
The second thing the book said to do was to make a list of the top five qualities you NEED in a significant other. When entering a new relationship, make sure the person meets these standards you've set. Realize that you deserve to get what you want out of a relationship, and thus you need to really reflect on and understand what things are necessary to make you happy. Most importantly, stick to these standards, and don't compromise because even if it doesn't bother you initially, it may catch up with you months, or maybe even years later.
I'm sure you see where I'm going with this. Here I come to the heart of my thesis (and in typical Katherine fashion, I rambled on for several paragraphs before arriving at what I actually set out to say). Without further adieu, my list:
Do-er = Alright, so it's not the sexiest or most intelligent sounding word, but it is the most all-encompassing word that I could think of. By this I mean exactly what it sounds like: I need someone who does stuff. This doesn't mean we need to go jump out of planes every weekend, but it does mean that I don't want to sit at home watching TV every day of my life. While that may work for some people. I've learned that doesn't work for me. I want to be active, whether it's going to a comedy show, going hiking, going to baseball games or seasonal festivals. Even going on a walk or playing frisbee in the park. I want someone who wants to do things too. I don't want monotony. Similarly, I want them to be motivated, passionate and a do-er in their individual lives. They need not only have aspirations, but must work to achieve them. On a relationship level, "doing" is especially important. If something comes up that causes a problem or if things aren't going well, I need someone who's going to work with me to do something to fix it, not just sit back and watch things unravel.
Loyalty = While yes, I do mean loyalty in the you-better-not-cheat-on-me kind of way, I use this to imply more. Faithfulness is an expectation of mine (reasonably so) however I demand that someone is not just physically or monogamously loyal, but that they are emotionally loyal. When things get rough, I want to know that person will stand by me. Life is bound to test you individually and as a couple, but isn't that one of the biggest benefits of having a partner; knowing you have someone else there to go through those hardships with you? I need to know I have someone who cares deeply about me and is committed not only to our relationship, but to my personal well-being.
Passion= I've seen couples, not holding hands, not kissing, not even physically affectionate, yet I can immediately tell that they are "together". Maybe it's the way they look at or interact with each other, but you can tell that they are madly in love. Conversely, we all know the couples that act as if they were siblings, and while they may like and even love each other, their relationship seems platonic and lacking that special something. The difference? Passion. Yes, I agree that a couple should be best friends, but being solely "friends" isn't good enough for me (if it was, then why don't we all just marry our best friends, regardless of their sex?). Passion is hard to sustain, but not impossible. I want that got-to-have-you passion. And passion, for clarification is not limited to sexual passion; it's the passion and adoration shown in a look, an interaction and a conversation. It's all encompassing and it is ultimately what differentiates a friend from a partner.
Independence= This requirement I must tackle delicately, as it is the one that requires most balance. I've got to have someone who I have things in common with and whom I enjoy spending time with. I don't want someone who is constantly absent emotionally or physically. However, a level of independence is something I need and something I consider very healthy. Yes, I hope his friends will become my friends and that my friends become his, however I expect to still spend alone time with my friends and I expect the same out of him. Similarly, I don't expect him to come shoe shopping with me all the time, nor do I really want to be expected to always go browse the aisles of NAPA Auto Parts with him. We need to maintain our individual friendships, hobbies and passions. His life and my life need to be compatible, but I never want us to abandon our individual identities for the sake of being a couple.
Humor= This is simple; laughter is a non-substitutable necessity. I need to have fun with someone; laugh, joke and be able to be silly. Life is stressful. Therefore I need someone I can come home to to take a break from the seriousness of life. I don't want someone who's going to be so tightly wound; I want someone who's able to let loose with me, and appreciate the value of laughter and having fun.
Open-minded= I want someone who doesn't live confined inside of a box. I want someone who wants to be more open to the world around them, and on a superficial level this includes trying new activities, new foods and entertain new ideas. I consider myself a realist. Obviously, there are going to be things that my future husband and I disagree on. That's inevitable. And while I don't expect to "change" him or have him "change" me, I want a relationship in which we're open to each others views and thoughts. I want someone open to compromise and someone who realizes that people are different and we need to find a way to embrace that in each other, not resent it. This is especially important in regards to communication. The truth is, people communicate differently, and it is important to understand that and open our mind to trying to see an argument or disagreement from their point of view. I need someone who will be open to working on a relationship for the sake of both people, and doesn't always view our relationship or subsequent problems egocentrically.
Alright, alright, so I realize that I said one should make a list of five qualities yet I listed six. OH WELL, big deal. It's my list, right? And after all, I deserve to get exactly what I want, right? And, I'll admit, I'm a tad high-maintenance, so it's fitting that my list would be longer than normal :)
Enjoy this song from Train; it's a perfect lovey-dovey Valentines Day song. And, it makes me happy, because it is ultimately what I want someday (and what I'm confident that I WILL HAVE someday).
And honestly, that's a-ok with me. I've actually really been enjoying being single. This may sound lame, but it's actually kind of empowering; not only have I become totally independent, but it has given me an excuse to be totally selfish.
Now, I've "dated", or at least allowed myself to entertain interests post-breakup five-ish months ago. The first three interests all turned out to have been in relationships (the last one actually turned out to be married). Needless to say, I was slightly discouraged. However, the situation was almost comical; I mean, what were the chances that this would happen to me three times in a row! Some of you may wonder how I found this information out (which, by the way, I luckily found it out relatively soon after meeting the guys). Well, lets just say my skepticism apparently pays off in the dating world; everyone is now subject to a thorough Google search.
Thankfully, guy #4 passed my informal (and I admit, potentially creepy) background check that I conducted. So far, we've only had a few dates, but I'm really interested in him. Since he lives back home though, things are kind of on hold, but he seems like a viable option that I may pursue come my return in May. Although don't worry folks, my pessimist side is still prepping myself for the worst, you know, like to find out he's a felon, an active polygamist or something equally horrifying yet humorous.
All this being said, I still remain an eternal optimist when it comes to love. My roommate and her boyfriend broke up about the same time as I did, so we became ice-cream eating, wine-drinking, men-bashing friends from the get go. They had been together for five years, so needless to say she was devastated. Recently, she read a self-help book about getting over a breakup, and she's been constantly telling me what the book says. A couple things really stuck out to me. For one, it emphasized that when you begin dating again, don't focus on trying to sell yourself to the other person. Instead, make the date all about you. You need to see if they meet your standards, so don't worry if you don't meet theirs. Dating is all about YOU in the beginning, so be selfish! (By the way, I've practiced implementing this tactic, and I must say, it's a BLAST, and totally takes the pressure off dating. I love it!)
The second thing the book said to do was to make a list of the top five qualities you NEED in a significant other. When entering a new relationship, make sure the person meets these standards you've set. Realize that you deserve to get what you want out of a relationship, and thus you need to really reflect on and understand what things are necessary to make you happy. Most importantly, stick to these standards, and don't compromise because even if it doesn't bother you initially, it may catch up with you months, or maybe even years later.
I'm sure you see where I'm going with this. Here I come to the heart of my thesis (and in typical Katherine fashion, I rambled on for several paragraphs before arriving at what I actually set out to say). Without further adieu, my list:
Do-er = Alright, so it's not the sexiest or most intelligent sounding word, but it is the most all-encompassing word that I could think of. By this I mean exactly what it sounds like: I need someone who does stuff. This doesn't mean we need to go jump out of planes every weekend, but it does mean that I don't want to sit at home watching TV every day of my life. While that may work for some people. I've learned that doesn't work for me. I want to be active, whether it's going to a comedy show, going hiking, going to baseball games or seasonal festivals. Even going on a walk or playing frisbee in the park. I want someone who wants to do things too. I don't want monotony. Similarly, I want them to be motivated, passionate and a do-er in their individual lives. They need not only have aspirations, but must work to achieve them. On a relationship level, "doing" is especially important. If something comes up that causes a problem or if things aren't going well, I need someone who's going to work with me to do something to fix it, not just sit back and watch things unravel.
Loyalty = While yes, I do mean loyalty in the you-better-not-cheat-on-me kind of way, I use this to imply more. Faithfulness is an expectation of mine (reasonably so) however I demand that someone is not just physically or monogamously loyal, but that they are emotionally loyal. When things get rough, I want to know that person will stand by me. Life is bound to test you individually and as a couple, but isn't that one of the biggest benefits of having a partner; knowing you have someone else there to go through those hardships with you? I need to know I have someone who cares deeply about me and is committed not only to our relationship, but to my personal well-being.
Passion= I've seen couples, not holding hands, not kissing, not even physically affectionate, yet I can immediately tell that they are "together". Maybe it's the way they look at or interact with each other, but you can tell that they are madly in love. Conversely, we all know the couples that act as if they were siblings, and while they may like and even love each other, their relationship seems platonic and lacking that special something. The difference? Passion. Yes, I agree that a couple should be best friends, but being solely "friends" isn't good enough for me (if it was, then why don't we all just marry our best friends, regardless of their sex?). Passion is hard to sustain, but not impossible. I want that got-to-have-you passion. And passion, for clarification is not limited to sexual passion; it's the passion and adoration shown in a look, an interaction and a conversation. It's all encompassing and it is ultimately what differentiates a friend from a partner.
Independence= This requirement I must tackle delicately, as it is the one that requires most balance. I've got to have someone who I have things in common with and whom I enjoy spending time with. I don't want someone who is constantly absent emotionally or physically. However, a level of independence is something I need and something I consider very healthy. Yes, I hope his friends will become my friends and that my friends become his, however I expect to still spend alone time with my friends and I expect the same out of him. Similarly, I don't expect him to come shoe shopping with me all the time, nor do I really want to be expected to always go browse the aisles of NAPA Auto Parts with him. We need to maintain our individual friendships, hobbies and passions. His life and my life need to be compatible, but I never want us to abandon our individual identities for the sake of being a couple.
Humor= This is simple; laughter is a non-substitutable necessity. I need to have fun with someone; laugh, joke and be able to be silly. Life is stressful. Therefore I need someone I can come home to to take a break from the seriousness of life. I don't want someone who's going to be so tightly wound; I want someone who's able to let loose with me, and appreciate the value of laughter and having fun.
Open-minded= I want someone who doesn't live confined inside of a box. I want someone who wants to be more open to the world around them, and on a superficial level this includes trying new activities, new foods and entertain new ideas. I consider myself a realist. Obviously, there are going to be things that my future husband and I disagree on. That's inevitable. And while I don't expect to "change" him or have him "change" me, I want a relationship in which we're open to each others views and thoughts. I want someone open to compromise and someone who realizes that people are different and we need to find a way to embrace that in each other, not resent it. This is especially important in regards to communication. The truth is, people communicate differently, and it is important to understand that and open our mind to trying to see an argument or disagreement from their point of view. I need someone who will be open to working on a relationship for the sake of both people, and doesn't always view our relationship or subsequent problems egocentrically.
Alright, alright, so I realize that I said one should make a list of five qualities yet I listed six. OH WELL, big deal. It's my list, right? And after all, I deserve to get exactly what I want, right? And, I'll admit, I'm a tad high-maintenance, so it's fitting that my list would be longer than normal :)
Enjoy this song from Train; it's a perfect lovey-dovey Valentines Day song. And, it makes me happy, because it is ultimately what I want someday (and what I'm confident that I WILL HAVE someday).
Monday, January 24, 2011
Tuscon; Two Weeks Later
A fair amount of time has passed since the "Tuscon Tragedy", and the New York Times is no longer completely saturated with stories and editorials regarding the incident. So while I may seem to be a bit late in posting on the issue, bear in mind that I have been giving myself ample time to reflect and become sufficiently informed.
My interest in this topic isn't aimed at discussing our country's increasingly violent political climate, nor is it to discuss Sarah Palin's crosshair debate that garnered such an outcry from the media. The former isn't convincing to a cynic like me that believe that we always have had and always will have dangerous political extremists. That being said, the increase of scale and scope in such extremists' actions is concerning (check out Paul Krugman's column "Climate of Hate". On a side note, he's one of my favorite columnists for the NYTimes) The latter point isn't even worth discussion in my opinion; Sarah Palin was in NO WAY directly responsible for the shooting. Were her actions tasteless? Yes, but it's something I'd expect from this dreadfully ignorant woman.
Instead, the issue that I think merits the most attention is gun control and our current gun-related policies.
Let me start with a few simple disclaimers: I, like most democrats, am not trying to rip away our right to bear arms. Not being "pro-gun" does not mean that one is immediately "anti-gun". This assumption is so commonly made and done so ignorantly (just like if a democrat doesn't support the war, it apparently means they don't support our soldiers). If you would've asked me even four years ago, I would've adamantly shared a very anti-gun, anti-hunting, anti-NRA stance (although I admit, I still DESPISE the NRA). However, I've changed. First off, upon reading Omnivores Dilemma by Michael Pollan, my attitude towards hunting drastically changed, as did my view on the food industry in general. Also, as many of you know, I dated a hunting fanatic for two years who was quite the gun-loving guy. During this relationship I came to embarrassingly admit two things; one, I actually found target shooting kind of fun, and two, I liked the taste of venison. (Although lets be clear, at no point during my two year infatuation with this man did I EVER envision a deer head on my wall, not did I ever plan on actually shooting an animal. I made him well aware that there was no chance in hell either of those two things would happen.
But I digress. Back to Tuscan.
As we all know, the gunman was tackled when reloading. Unfortunately, the damage had already been dome. Why is this noteworthy? Because the gunman's weapon of choice, a Glock 19, semiautomatic handgun, held an oversized 33 round clip, making him capable of firing more than one shot per second, killing six, without pause or hesitation. His eventual pause to reload after his clip emptied allowed two rather heroic citizens to restrain him. If he hadn't had such a weapon, he surely would have still kill or wounded at least one person, but would the results have been as devastating as they were? The media has pointed out that this particular weapon is not made for hunting, or even for protection purposes. Instead, it's used to do the most amount of damage in the shortest amount of time. If that is so, why is there a place in our society for a weapon capable of mass murder? And why does the average citizen have a right to have such a weapon? Only a couple states have banned large-capacity ammunition magazines. Most states do not regulate or limit magazine capacities. Maybe it's just me, but I think that's terrifying.
The second thing that upsets me is that Jared Loughner even was able to legally obtain a weapon at all. As the media has shown, Loughner had many previous problems that should have been seen as red-flags. Luckily, most states require a special permit to carry a concealed weapon (although Arizona, Alaska and Vermont do not). However this is not sufficient. Clearly reform needs to happen with our screening process. Obtaining a gun should be a lengthy process. It should be thorough, and we shouldn't be placing guns in the hands of people that are clearly mentally instable (which, many who knew Loughner have attested to). This will surely increase costs of purchasing firearms, but isn't that a fair price to pay for at least a little more security and peace of mind?
I went to the grocery store last night. I walked in and imagined how scary it would be if someone opened fire right then and there. We live in a great country, but we all deserve to feel safe. We need to know that our government is working to try to limit such tragedies from happening, and that means we need to stop blaming this incident on our current issues of political polarization, and instead objectively look at and adjust our gun policies.
My interest in this topic isn't aimed at discussing our country's increasingly violent political climate, nor is it to discuss Sarah Palin's crosshair debate that garnered such an outcry from the media. The former isn't convincing to a cynic like me that believe that we always have had and always will have dangerous political extremists. That being said, the increase of scale and scope in such extremists' actions is concerning (check out Paul Krugman's column "Climate of Hate". On a side note, he's one of my favorite columnists for the NYTimes) The latter point isn't even worth discussion in my opinion; Sarah Palin was in NO WAY directly responsible for the shooting. Were her actions tasteless? Yes, but it's something I'd expect from this dreadfully ignorant woman.
Instead, the issue that I think merits the most attention is gun control and our current gun-related policies.
Let me start with a few simple disclaimers: I, like most democrats, am not trying to rip away our right to bear arms. Not being "pro-gun" does not mean that one is immediately "anti-gun". This assumption is so commonly made and done so ignorantly (just like if a democrat doesn't support the war, it apparently means they don't support our soldiers). If you would've asked me even four years ago, I would've adamantly shared a very anti-gun, anti-hunting, anti-NRA stance (although I admit, I still DESPISE the NRA). However, I've changed. First off, upon reading Omnivores Dilemma by Michael Pollan, my attitude towards hunting drastically changed, as did my view on the food industry in general. Also, as many of you know, I dated a hunting fanatic for two years who was quite the gun-loving guy. During this relationship I came to embarrassingly admit two things; one, I actually found target shooting kind of fun, and two, I liked the taste of venison. (Although lets be clear, at no point during my two year infatuation with this man did I EVER envision a deer head on my wall, not did I ever plan on actually shooting an animal. I made him well aware that there was no chance in hell either of those two things would happen.
But I digress. Back to Tuscan.
As we all know, the gunman was tackled when reloading. Unfortunately, the damage had already been dome. Why is this noteworthy? Because the gunman's weapon of choice, a Glock 19, semiautomatic handgun, held an oversized 33 round clip, making him capable of firing more than one shot per second, killing six, without pause or hesitation. His eventual pause to reload after his clip emptied allowed two rather heroic citizens to restrain him. If he hadn't had such a weapon, he surely would have still kill or wounded at least one person, but would the results have been as devastating as they were? The media has pointed out that this particular weapon is not made for hunting, or even for protection purposes. Instead, it's used to do the most amount of damage in the shortest amount of time. If that is so, why is there a place in our society for a weapon capable of mass murder? And why does the average citizen have a right to have such a weapon? Only a couple states have banned large-capacity ammunition magazines. Most states do not regulate or limit magazine capacities. Maybe it's just me, but I think that's terrifying.
The second thing that upsets me is that Jared Loughner even was able to legally obtain a weapon at all. As the media has shown, Loughner had many previous problems that should have been seen as red-flags. Luckily, most states require a special permit to carry a concealed weapon (although Arizona, Alaska and Vermont do not). However this is not sufficient. Clearly reform needs to happen with our screening process. Obtaining a gun should be a lengthy process. It should be thorough, and we shouldn't be placing guns in the hands of people that are clearly mentally instable (which, many who knew Loughner have attested to). This will surely increase costs of purchasing firearms, but isn't that a fair price to pay for at least a little more security and peace of mind?
I went to the grocery store last night. I walked in and imagined how scary it would be if someone opened fire right then and there. We live in a great country, but we all deserve to feel safe. We need to know that our government is working to try to limit such tragedies from happening, and that means we need to stop blaming this incident on our current issues of political polarization, and instead objectively look at and adjust our gun policies.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Sydney, I'll Come Runnin'- Brett Dennen
For those of you who don't know, I am absolutely in love with Brett Dennen. His new album, Loverboy, comes out in April, and I am so stoked. Here's a preview of one of his songs; take a listen and enjoy! :)
Saturday, January 15, 2011
The Platinum Rule
I just returned from training for work. Luckily, I love my job and the people I work with, so the five hours I spent there wasn't a total waste of time. We played games and did some bonding activities that were really quite cool.
One was particularly touching; it involved us filling out an anonymous survey in which we answered yes or no to about 50 questions. The questions were very personal, and it created a very serious, somewhat somber setting. We then collected everyone's survey, then redistributed random ones back to random people. The 40 of us all stood in a big circle as someone read the survey questions aloud. If our sheet had a yes on it, we took a step forward (keep in mind, we weren't stepping forward for our own responses, but were representing someone else's sheet of paper). We then stepped back. The point was to anonymously see what all of our coworkers had been through, to realize everyone endures hardships, and to realize that we aren't alone. Seeing the results was incredibly powerful. About 8 of the 40 stepped forward to say that they had been on welfare at some point in their life. About 16 stepped forward to say they had had an eating disorder in the past. Half stepped forward to admit they were on a daily medication. Five people admitted to attempting suicide.
It was sad to realize that this fun, enthusiastic group of people I work with dealt with such hard issues. At the same time though, it was inspiring to be in such an uplifting environment in which we were able to share this with each other and realize that we had a "work" family that supported us.
While I learned a lot during that activity, there was something else worth noting that was discussed in an activity; that being "The Platinum Rule". This replaces the "Golden Rule", which we all know means to treat others as we would like to be treated. The Platinum Rule demands that we treat others how THEY would like to be treated. I thought this was an incredibly innovative, and totally awesome concept. After reflecting on it, I realize it makes perfect sense; how we want to be treated may not be how someone else wants to be treated. For example, while someone may not mind jokes being made at their expense, someone else may be more sensitive to such jokes and may find them offensive and hurtful. Or, someone may not mind being interrupted when talking, but for someone else it may be considered disrespectful.
The egocentric Golden Rule is now obsolete, and the Platinum Rule is now my new way of looking at things. It can do a world of good to look at how OTHERS feel and how OTHERS would like to be treated instead of simply assuming that they have the same wants and desires as YOU. It's all in all a great concept; one that I encourage everyone to implement in their daily lives.
One was particularly touching; it involved us filling out an anonymous survey in which we answered yes or no to about 50 questions. The questions were very personal, and it created a very serious, somewhat somber setting. We then collected everyone's survey, then redistributed random ones back to random people. The 40 of us all stood in a big circle as someone read the survey questions aloud. If our sheet had a yes on it, we took a step forward (keep in mind, we weren't stepping forward for our own responses, but were representing someone else's sheet of paper). We then stepped back. The point was to anonymously see what all of our coworkers had been through, to realize everyone endures hardships, and to realize that we aren't alone. Seeing the results was incredibly powerful. About 8 of the 40 stepped forward to say that they had been on welfare at some point in their life. About 16 stepped forward to say they had had an eating disorder in the past. Half stepped forward to admit they were on a daily medication. Five people admitted to attempting suicide.
It was sad to realize that this fun, enthusiastic group of people I work with dealt with such hard issues. At the same time though, it was inspiring to be in such an uplifting environment in which we were able to share this with each other and realize that we had a "work" family that supported us.
While I learned a lot during that activity, there was something else worth noting that was discussed in an activity; that being "The Platinum Rule". This replaces the "Golden Rule", which we all know means to treat others as we would like to be treated. The Platinum Rule demands that we treat others how THEY would like to be treated. I thought this was an incredibly innovative, and totally awesome concept. After reflecting on it, I realize it makes perfect sense; how we want to be treated may not be how someone else wants to be treated. For example, while someone may not mind jokes being made at their expense, someone else may be more sensitive to such jokes and may find them offensive and hurtful. Or, someone may not mind being interrupted when talking, but for someone else it may be considered disrespectful.
The egocentric Golden Rule is now obsolete, and the Platinum Rule is now my new way of looking at things. It can do a world of good to look at how OTHERS feel and how OTHERS would like to be treated instead of simply assuming that they have the same wants and desires as YOU. It's all in all a great concept; one that I encourage everyone to implement in their daily lives.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Grocery Woes
I learned yesterday that you can't use federal assistance money for swiss cheese.
This came off another observation I made a few weeks ago; you also can't buy skim milk with such money.
I don't want to get into a debate about our countries welfare programs. While for the most part I'm an avid supporter of such programs, my point here is not to advocate for its purpose. My point is instead to debate its current implementations, and the clear deficiencies I perceive regarding such federally funded support programs.
I witness these two aforementioned unfortunate events from the uncomfortable, and very awkward, position of the next person in line. Both times, the patrons buying the products had to run back to get an alternate product; cheddar and 2% respectively. Both times they returned and embarrassingly apologized to me for the wait and inconvenience "they caused".
But the truth is, they did not cause it. Instead I view both events as a tragic reflection of our country, and point the finger singlehandedly at the government. As if using food stamps wasn't humiliating enough, (which, I'll admit for some it isn't, but I stand behind my belief that for most it is) the government is going to further restrict the type of foods one is allowed to purchase. They claim to be helping, but this help is not accommodating or supportive, but instead is restrictive, and even oppressive. Centuries ago, Christian-run cities would allow Jews to reside in their limits, yet would tell them where to live, confining them to a certain neighborhood. These horrific restrictions caused the formation of ghettos. In the 1960's, we allowed blacks to eat at restaurants or attend school; but these privileges were limited to only certain restaurants, and only certain schools. These acts are now viewed as discriminatory based on their limitations. However isn't this food stamp issue a similar incident? We'll allow our nations poor to eat, but we will control exactly what they eat? How have we progressed? How can we feel good about ourselves and claim we are "helping"?
The customers in these scenarios were not flagrantly wasting government money. They weren't putting it to destructive uses, buying drugs or even alcohol. They weren't even spending their money on upscale products; not even organic milk or expensive brie.
Out of curiosity, I were to check the price differential between the cheddar and swiss.
The difference?
The swiss was a mere $0.21 more.
I've concluded that it's not about economics. It's not about budgets or curtailing spending. I'ts simply a power trip. A way to embarrass. A way to exert control over. A way for the government to demonstrate superiority, and remind the nations poor that in the eyes of the United States, they are inferior.
This came off another observation I made a few weeks ago; you also can't buy skim milk with such money.
I don't want to get into a debate about our countries welfare programs. While for the most part I'm an avid supporter of such programs, my point here is not to advocate for its purpose. My point is instead to debate its current implementations, and the clear deficiencies I perceive regarding such federally funded support programs.
I witness these two aforementioned unfortunate events from the uncomfortable, and very awkward, position of the next person in line. Both times, the patrons buying the products had to run back to get an alternate product; cheddar and 2% respectively. Both times they returned and embarrassingly apologized to me for the wait and inconvenience "they caused".
But the truth is, they did not cause it. Instead I view both events as a tragic reflection of our country, and point the finger singlehandedly at the government. As if using food stamps wasn't humiliating enough, (which, I'll admit for some it isn't, but I stand behind my belief that for most it is) the government is going to further restrict the type of foods one is allowed to purchase. They claim to be helping, but this help is not accommodating or supportive, but instead is restrictive, and even oppressive. Centuries ago, Christian-run cities would allow Jews to reside in their limits, yet would tell them where to live, confining them to a certain neighborhood. These horrific restrictions caused the formation of ghettos. In the 1960's, we allowed blacks to eat at restaurants or attend school; but these privileges were limited to only certain restaurants, and only certain schools. These acts are now viewed as discriminatory based on their limitations. However isn't this food stamp issue a similar incident? We'll allow our nations poor to eat, but we will control exactly what they eat? How have we progressed? How can we feel good about ourselves and claim we are "helping"?
The customers in these scenarios were not flagrantly wasting government money. They weren't putting it to destructive uses, buying drugs or even alcohol. They weren't even spending their money on upscale products; not even organic milk or expensive brie.
Out of curiosity, I were to check the price differential between the cheddar and swiss.
The difference?
The swiss was a mere $0.21 more.
I've concluded that it's not about economics. It's not about budgets or curtailing spending. I'ts simply a power trip. A way to embarrass. A way to exert control over. A way for the government to demonstrate superiority, and remind the nations poor that in the eyes of the United States, they are inferior.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)