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!)
Thursday, February 24, 2011
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.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
The Best Professor
Finals wrapped up, and for some reason this year I had very little energy to complete everything I had to do. Instead of powering through, I seemed to drag myself through the week limply. Maybe it was the plethora of boring classes this semester, the numerous horrible teachers or the fact that I had just been accepted to graduate school and therefore felt the pressure to exert all my energy and wellbeing for the slim chance of a slight grade increase to be unnecessary.
Either way, it’s done. I’m home. And I couldn’t be happier.
The highlight of my week though was dinner at my thesis advisor, Jesse’s, house. The three other students in my research group and I all headed over there Wednesday night; thank you card and gift certificate in hand. We drank some wine, met his wife, and enjoyed a delicious vegetarian curry dinner that he made himself (I had no idea he was such a cook!). He showed us his pets; two Chilean mice-squirrel-like creatures (who knew this guy was into small fluffy rodents?); as well as his home brewed beer collection (he apparently is an avid mead fan). He talked about his days playing ultimate Frisbee, our research, the current budget cuts and the education system in general. He then introduced us to a new board game, Ticket to Ride, which was incredibly fun. I’m disappointed to say that I came in second. My competitive nature is still bothered- I only lost by one point!
We left late, and as a result I had very little study time left before my test the next morning. However the evening was very enjoyable. Call me a nerd, but it probably ranks up there as one of my top favorite nights that I’ve had over at WSU. I got to really enjoy time with my research group and with Jesse. I got to see him outside of a school environment, and I really enjoyed his company, discussions and insight (ok, and his delicious cooking- I forgot to mention he made the most amazing carrot cake for dessert!)
For those of you whom I’ve talked to regarding my thesis I’m working on, you know how passionate I have become about my topic. I love Reformation era history- learning about Calvin, Luther and other religious leaders and why they championed for theological reform in the church. And I love the issue of religious toleration- how it is achieved and maintained in spite of persisting discrimination. However what many may not realize is the immense appreciation I have gained for Jesse himself, the professor that introduced me to this topic. And after having dinner with him last week, I want to reflect on him and how he truly has changed me; as a student, prospective teacher and person.
I met Jesse three years ago, and was in his class my first semester in college. It was an Honors history class; Religious Tolerance and Persecution in Western Europe: 1400-1750. Immediately, I felt overmatched. The class conversations were way above my head and when he stated that our entire grade would be solely based on a semester long research paper and class discussions on required readings, I panicked. Never before had I felt so unprepared for a class; never before had I felt “not smart enough”.
Within the first few classes, I decided it was too much to handle. I wasn’t even a huge history fan to begin with, nor was I ready for such an intense class in which I knew nothing about. I went to his office to explain to him that I had to drop the class; not that I didn’t find the topic interesting nor him interesting, but I explained that the reason rest in my feeling inadequate.
Looking back, I’m disappointed that in that moment I gave up in myself. For someone who has always been confident and so sure of herself and her capabilities, I’m embarrassed that I succumbed to the fear of failure. Luckily, Jesse, a professor I had known for but a week, at that moment, had more faith in me than I had in myself. He told me he respected my decision, but to take the time to really think about it before I officially withdrew from the class. He assured me that I would have no trouble succeeding in the class, as long as I was willing to put forth the effort. He told me that by no means was I academically deficient compared to the 14 other students in the class; while they may have had prior knowledge on the subject, it did not put them at an advantage in the class. He then told me that he would always be there to help; and that at times if I felt I was struggling, I could always come talk to him about it.
I remember leaving his office with a complete new sense of confidence. If this professor, who didn’t even know me, trusted I could handle this course, why was I doubting myself? And furthermore, I immediately got a sense of genuineness in this professor. He seemed not only impassioned in this subject, but committed to his students. Wasn’t this the type of professor one dreams of? I sensed something special about him. I stayed in the class. It challenged me; I knew little to nothing about religious history, nor how to write a college-level research paper. I was in his office nearly every week, and, as promised, he was always willing to help me, whether it was grappling with my understanding of the weeks reading, helping me analyze my primary sources or tinkering with my wording when it actually came to writing my paper.
By the end of the semester, I left with a solid A in the class, a new confidence in myself and a passion for history that I had not previously had. Last spring, when I begun my thesis, I knew exactly what I wanted to do, but, even more so, I knew exactly who I wanted to work with.
As a student, he has pushed me to challenge myself. He has constantly placed me out of my comfort zone, making me think deeply, read actively and write purposefully. Sometimes, in discussions with him, I’d say something, and he’d look at me and say “I don’t understand. Try again”. Looking at him, I knew he sometimes knew exactly what I meant. However I myself didn’t know what I meant. I needed clarity, and he recognized and demanded it. When I turn in drafts of my papers to him, he rips them apart, not because they are necessarily bad, but because he expects excellence. Mediocrity is unacceptable. Good is even unacceptable. I no longer read, research or write the same way I did four years ago, and, despite the dozens of other professors I have had, I entirely credit that to him, and him alone.
As a future teacher, I can only dream to be as inspiring as he is. Sometimes I think the only thing he loves more than the topic of religious toleration is sharing this love with others. His passion when he talks about it is contagious and his enthusiasm shines through in his teaching. When he talks, his arms flail, his face lights up and his voice fills with joy. He must teach similar lessons, year after year, yet you wouldn’t know it by watching him; by how excited he gets, one would think he was discovering these fascinating tidbits of history for the first time, when in fact the man has studied religious history for years. I want to teach with his level of excitement and zeal. I also want to teach with his intrinsically supportive nature. I want to instill confidence in my students, like he has done with me, and help them reach their full potential. I want to make them be the best they can be, and I want them to know that I genuinely believe in them. Because belief, as I have learned in regards to religious history, is a powerful thing, though not always productively powerful. Belief in your students can prove equally influential; equally strong. Because belief in a student, can translate to belief in that student’s self, as it did with me.
Academics aside, I have learned one immensely important thing from Jesse, that has nothing to do with research, reading, writing or even history itself. When discussing the Reformation leaders Martin Luther and John Calvin, and other religious radicals, he stated that he supposed he studied them because he didn’t understand or necessarily agree with them.
This I will never forget.
Because isn’t that, as people, what we should always do? When something’s unclear to us, before blindly disagreeing shouldn’t we be knowledgeable about what exactly we are disagreeing with? We all know those in politics who seem to detest the opposing viewpoint on an issue, but do so only because of the political title they claim. Or those who still to this day despise other religions simply because the person they worship may have a different name.
I may not agree with creationism, but I want to learn about it. I may not agree with privatization of social security, but again, I want to learn about it. Because instead of calling myself a Democrat or an Agnostic/Athiest, I want to know what those words mean. And to do that, I need to know the opposing view point, to fully formulate and support my stance. If you don’t have knowledge about the opposing side, how can you reputably disagree with it? Knowledge is necessary for debate. To fully grasp who we are and what we believe in, we need to turn to our resources and try to gain an understanding of the entire world around us. As Jesse has taught me, we need to learn to place ourselves in context.
(Apologies for the ramble; I will bid you farewell as I now must submerge myself in more thesis-ing)
Either way, it’s done. I’m home. And I couldn’t be happier.
The highlight of my week though was dinner at my thesis advisor, Jesse’s, house. The three other students in my research group and I all headed over there Wednesday night; thank you card and gift certificate in hand. We drank some wine, met his wife, and enjoyed a delicious vegetarian curry dinner that he made himself (I had no idea he was such a cook!). He showed us his pets; two Chilean mice-squirrel-like creatures (who knew this guy was into small fluffy rodents?); as well as his home brewed beer collection (he apparently is an avid mead fan). He talked about his days playing ultimate Frisbee, our research, the current budget cuts and the education system in general. He then introduced us to a new board game, Ticket to Ride, which was incredibly fun. I’m disappointed to say that I came in second. My competitive nature is still bothered- I only lost by one point!
We left late, and as a result I had very little study time left before my test the next morning. However the evening was very enjoyable. Call me a nerd, but it probably ranks up there as one of my top favorite nights that I’ve had over at WSU. I got to really enjoy time with my research group and with Jesse. I got to see him outside of a school environment, and I really enjoyed his company, discussions and insight (ok, and his delicious cooking- I forgot to mention he made the most amazing carrot cake for dessert!)
For those of you whom I’ve talked to regarding my thesis I’m working on, you know how passionate I have become about my topic. I love Reformation era history- learning about Calvin, Luther and other religious leaders and why they championed for theological reform in the church. And I love the issue of religious toleration- how it is achieved and maintained in spite of persisting discrimination. However what many may not realize is the immense appreciation I have gained for Jesse himself, the professor that introduced me to this topic. And after having dinner with him last week, I want to reflect on him and how he truly has changed me; as a student, prospective teacher and person.
I met Jesse three years ago, and was in his class my first semester in college. It was an Honors history class; Religious Tolerance and Persecution in Western Europe: 1400-1750. Immediately, I felt overmatched. The class conversations were way above my head and when he stated that our entire grade would be solely based on a semester long research paper and class discussions on required readings, I panicked. Never before had I felt so unprepared for a class; never before had I felt “not smart enough”.
Within the first few classes, I decided it was too much to handle. I wasn’t even a huge history fan to begin with, nor was I ready for such an intense class in which I knew nothing about. I went to his office to explain to him that I had to drop the class; not that I didn’t find the topic interesting nor him interesting, but I explained that the reason rest in my feeling inadequate.
Looking back, I’m disappointed that in that moment I gave up in myself. For someone who has always been confident and so sure of herself and her capabilities, I’m embarrassed that I succumbed to the fear of failure. Luckily, Jesse, a professor I had known for but a week, at that moment, had more faith in me than I had in myself. He told me he respected my decision, but to take the time to really think about it before I officially withdrew from the class. He assured me that I would have no trouble succeeding in the class, as long as I was willing to put forth the effort. He told me that by no means was I academically deficient compared to the 14 other students in the class; while they may have had prior knowledge on the subject, it did not put them at an advantage in the class. He then told me that he would always be there to help; and that at times if I felt I was struggling, I could always come talk to him about it.
I remember leaving his office with a complete new sense of confidence. If this professor, who didn’t even know me, trusted I could handle this course, why was I doubting myself? And furthermore, I immediately got a sense of genuineness in this professor. He seemed not only impassioned in this subject, but committed to his students. Wasn’t this the type of professor one dreams of? I sensed something special about him. I stayed in the class. It challenged me; I knew little to nothing about religious history, nor how to write a college-level research paper. I was in his office nearly every week, and, as promised, he was always willing to help me, whether it was grappling with my understanding of the weeks reading, helping me analyze my primary sources or tinkering with my wording when it actually came to writing my paper.
By the end of the semester, I left with a solid A in the class, a new confidence in myself and a passion for history that I had not previously had. Last spring, when I begun my thesis, I knew exactly what I wanted to do, but, even more so, I knew exactly who I wanted to work with.
As a student, he has pushed me to challenge myself. He has constantly placed me out of my comfort zone, making me think deeply, read actively and write purposefully. Sometimes, in discussions with him, I’d say something, and he’d look at me and say “I don’t understand. Try again”. Looking at him, I knew he sometimes knew exactly what I meant. However I myself didn’t know what I meant. I needed clarity, and he recognized and demanded it. When I turn in drafts of my papers to him, he rips them apart, not because they are necessarily bad, but because he expects excellence. Mediocrity is unacceptable. Good is even unacceptable. I no longer read, research or write the same way I did four years ago, and, despite the dozens of other professors I have had, I entirely credit that to him, and him alone.
As a future teacher, I can only dream to be as inspiring as he is. Sometimes I think the only thing he loves more than the topic of religious toleration is sharing this love with others. His passion when he talks about it is contagious and his enthusiasm shines through in his teaching. When he talks, his arms flail, his face lights up and his voice fills with joy. He must teach similar lessons, year after year, yet you wouldn’t know it by watching him; by how excited he gets, one would think he was discovering these fascinating tidbits of history for the first time, when in fact the man has studied religious history for years. I want to teach with his level of excitement and zeal. I also want to teach with his intrinsically supportive nature. I want to instill confidence in my students, like he has done with me, and help them reach their full potential. I want to make them be the best they can be, and I want them to know that I genuinely believe in them. Because belief, as I have learned in regards to religious history, is a powerful thing, though not always productively powerful. Belief in your students can prove equally influential; equally strong. Because belief in a student, can translate to belief in that student’s self, as it did with me.
Academics aside, I have learned one immensely important thing from Jesse, that has nothing to do with research, reading, writing or even history itself. When discussing the Reformation leaders Martin Luther and John Calvin, and other religious radicals, he stated that he supposed he studied them because he didn’t understand or necessarily agree with them.
This I will never forget.
Because isn’t that, as people, what we should always do? When something’s unclear to us, before blindly disagreeing shouldn’t we be knowledgeable about what exactly we are disagreeing with? We all know those in politics who seem to detest the opposing viewpoint on an issue, but do so only because of the political title they claim. Or those who still to this day despise other religions simply because the person they worship may have a different name.
I may not agree with creationism, but I want to learn about it. I may not agree with privatization of social security, but again, I want to learn about it. Because instead of calling myself a Democrat or an Agnostic/Athiest, I want to know what those words mean. And to do that, I need to know the opposing view point, to fully formulate and support my stance. If you don’t have knowledge about the opposing side, how can you reputably disagree with it? Knowledge is necessary for debate. To fully grasp who we are and what we believe in, we need to turn to our resources and try to gain an understanding of the entire world around us. As Jesse has taught me, we need to learn to place ourselves in context.
(Apologies for the ramble; I will bid you farewell as I now must submerge myself in more thesis-ing)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)