A Real Phony

2011-07-20T23:14:00.002-04:00

I am making a point of posting here because I always go to LJ, read my friend's page, and think about posting but I can't think of anything to say. I concluded today that it's not that I don't have anything to say, it's just I don't think any of it is particularly interesting. Then I thought, "Kara, you're projecting on people" and so here I am posting. As far as material worth writing about, I think I'm doing a stellar job so far. -__-

First off, me and my sister, mom, and three cousins are going on a whirlwind trip to Europe. Three days in Amsterdam, three in Paris, and four in London. I'm very excited, to say the least. We drove up to Duluth on Monday to meet with my cousins and go over what all we're going to do. I'm in charge of finding bars because that's pretty much all I want to do there; meet people from other countries, drink, and eat. Although, once we started planning, I must say I'm very excited for the Three Palace tour in London, seeing Versailles, and the Red Light District in Amsterdam (reminds me of my RP days... :X ). I'm gonna need me some new shoes!

The job search is still very pitiful. Most of what happens is I apply to jobs daily, wherever I can find them, and then nearly as often, I get rejection emails from schools. It is rather disconcerting and I'm trying to not let it bother me, but I'm very frustrated by the fact that I'm subbing this fall and not sure if I can afford to move out of my mom's house. But every time I fill out an application and read through all my short answer responses (yes, there's an essay section of the application - it's like applying to college but more exclusive!) I remember that yes, I really want to be a teacher. I want to mentor kids and help them be the best they can be. I'm sure I sound like a naive fool on those applications but even after subbing for a while and dealing with nightmare-ish 6th graders on a power trip, I still believe in my management style, even though my coop teacher told me I should stop "making friends with my students." I don't pander to them - I hold them to my expectations. Building relationships with kids fixes so many of the management problems that crop up - I can't imagine not caring to get to know your students. So everyone needs to cross their fingers three times for me and hope that I get a job randomly right before the school year starts.

Recently, I asked my friend Jesse for some recommendations of adult fantasy books. I was a HUGE fan of Young Adult fantasy when I was a teenager, but when I got done with college and went back to leisure reading, I found I wanted all the fantasy and adventure, but also a little bit sex. I wanted more complexity, conflicted characters, and more, I dunno, adult problems. So I read Mistborn. Then I read every Brandon Sanderson book I could find. And then I ran out of Brandon Sanderson.

In desperation, I started reading a book my friend Lydia borrowed me two years ago called "Wizard's First Rule" by Terry Goodkind. Heard of it? You might also know it from the TV series "Legend of the Seeker" (which I have been enjoying on Netflix). Apparently this book has a controversial fan base. You either love this book or you hate it. I must admit that I am in the "hate it" camp. I slogged along through that Mary Stu fic of a book for three hundred pages and yet, when I watched the first 43 minute long episode of "Legend of the Seeker" they explained more about what was going on than had been revealed to me in THREE HUNDRED PAGES. Suffice to say, it's slow. Furthermore, the characters are all very contrived. The author's voice - rather than the character's voices - is garishly present through everything that his characters do. I can almost hear him saying, "Ah yeah, you know what would be flippin' sweet? If Richard killed this character by slicing through his skull! And I'll write it in SLOW MOTION!!"

After reading as much as this book as I could muster (I just really wanted to know why he couldn't have sex with a Confessor), I decided that if Terry Goodkind could write a fantasy novel, so could I. So I picked up a project I started two years ago about a shepherd girl, a banished prince, a world of night, and a fight with a bear (that's all I've planned of the road trip segment as of yet - what's a good fantasy without a road trip?). This is the first time I've talked about this story with anyone, despite the fact that I've been working on it for two years. I told Kyle about it last night and he was very excited and supportive about it. I didn't really imagine anyone would want to read it, but he does, so that's pretty exciting.

I used to write a lot (kind of like what I'm doing now) in high school, and even a few smutty stories in college, but everything I read back sounds like crap to me know. I think it could be attributed to that "you're your own worst critic" business, but I started my current project two years ago and I still like that so I dunno. As always, I am hopeful that I will see my project through to the end, even if I'm like 60 when that happens. Unlike when I was younger, I have been able to stick to projects a lot better than I did then. Still not able to finish them though.

The Corrupt Bargain

2011-01-11T20:21:00.000-05:00

Today I told the story of the Corrupt Bargain of 1824 thusly:

Me: "Okay, so you remember Henry Clay, right? He ran for president 5 times and never won? Well, here he is, running, again, for president in 1824. Unfortunately, poor ol' Clay didn't win. Again. In fact, he actually came in LAST. The leaders of this election, Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams, got most of the attention. Andrew Jackson actually took the lead in both the popular vote and the electoral votes. BUT - because he didn't get a majority of electoral votes - the decision had to go to Congress. Our friend Henry Clay, meanwhile, decided "Hey man, I'm not gonna win this thing. I'm droppin' out. Hey, John Quincy Adams. You're a good guy, I agree with what you stand for. I'm gonna give you my support." And so he did. Many of Henry Clay's supporters in Congress changed their loyalties and because of that, John Quincy Adams won the presidency, EVEN though Andrew Jackson actually won the entire election! I KNOW! And it gets WORSE! AFTER JQA got into office, he goes up to Clay and says, "Hey man, thanks for pulling me that solid. Here - BE MY SECRETARY OF STATE." Thus, the CORRUPT BARGAIN!"

Student: Oh no he ditn't!

Heartwarming Middle School Children

2011-01-06T21:19:00.000-05:00

The past few days students have been working on alternate lyrics to Oh Susannah! that outline the important characteristics of John Marshall, Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and John C. Calhoun. (My favorite was Henry Clay, because he ran for president five times and lost every time.) The highlight of the performances today was a student in sixth hour who took it upon himself to sing his group’s song alone when none of the others would sing. He was a nerdy looking student and on an IEP, so I was a little worried about him despite myself. I apparently needn’t worry, because he walked up to the front of the classroom with total confidence, sang really well, and departed with a fist-pump, shouting “ROCK!” Needless to say, the entire class voted almost unanimously for him to win the best performance prize. I was so impressed with his confidence and general eagerness, and even more impressed with the rest of the class’ eagerness to acknowledge and reward those qualities in him. I remember middle school being hierarchical and cruel, so it is reassuring to know that it doesn't have to be that way for everybody.

Hello Blogger. We Meet Again.

2011-01-05T00:11:00.001-05:00

Hey folks! I know, it's been a million years. So, allow me to catch you up, briefly.

I'm living in Minnesota, with my mom, step-dad, and sister. I have a new puppy named Rosie and she is adorable.

I'm dating Mssr. KFK, who is a rock star and flippin' sweet. I'm in graduate school at the University of Minnesota to get my teaching license in Social Studies. I just started student teaching in Minnetonka, teaching U.S. History to the eighth graders.

I'm on day two at the school and considering the typical length of time required to wet one's feet, I felt surprisingly comfortable today. The students were writing alternate lyrics to Oh Susannah - an activity which I personally connect with considering my many made up songs, which include such hits as "The Pseudo Intellectual Edition of Let's Call the Whole Thing Off" and "I've Got Snowpants" - so I was bouncing around the room talking with kids, learning names, and making jokes about forming boy bands and choreographing Glee-esque dance routines. As I encountered each group for the first time, they gave me the typical look of any middle school student meeting a new teacher: The "What Do You Want From Me Loser?" Face. However, I plowed on, sacrificing dignity for humor and soon, they were laughing and smiling. At the same time, as I was doing high kicks trying to convince someone - anyone - to come up with a dance routine, I was also of course helping kids come up with ideas. "Come on, Henry Clay is hilarious! He ran for president 5 times and never won! Wah wah WAHHHHH!" I was basically playing Gweneth Paltrow in Glee.

Once I get more accustomed to the classroom and the children decide I'm acceptable, I will probably get more serious. Probably. While I'm having a hilarious time, I need to make sure that I don't let them start to think they can walk all over me. But if I can use my observation time to build relationships with kids and earn their respect, they will likely come to respect me... Right?

To Whom It May Concern:

2010-03-01T23:21:00.001-05:00

Dear President Obama, Governors, Senators, and Representatives of America;

I am writing to you as an aspiring teacher who is currently struggling to complete a Master's in education. In Minnesota, as a state with a fairly high rating in education quality, there are many rigorous standards to meet in order to become a teacher. After getting a Bachelor's in History, I have to complete a Masters program in order to get my teaching license (a Masters is obviously not a requirement but the amount of Education classes I have to take make it so I may as well get a Masters while I'm at it).

I mention this to you because I want to make clear the struggles teachers in this state must go through in order to become qualified and competitive. The proportionate debt of the average teacher far outweighs their salary.

My purpose in writing is to ask you to stop pushing state legislation that will make teacher's salaries concurrent with their students' test scores. From my experience as a Para, I know that this kind of policy will prove to make the disparity between the education of lower and higher income neighborhoods even greater. It is common knowledge that lower-income schools have lower test scores. One of the best solutions to this is to encourage the best teachers to teach in the highest need schools. If teacher salaries are proportionate to the level of their students' test scores, that will only further discourage highly qualified teachers from going to underprivileged schools to teach. I know that if my salary was dependent on the success of my students, I would seek a job at a school where my students would be most likely to succeed. It's not an idealistic path by any means - it's just a real one.

I feel that popular politics is placing more and more accountability on teachers and less on students and parents. In my experience as a Para for the Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) program, the piece that is most often missing is student determination. The person who drops the ball is time and again the student. I see teachers who put their heart and soul into trying to encourage every student and I see students who refuse to read To Kill A Mockingbird on mere principle. In my experience, the problem is not with lazy or unmotivated teachers. Self-determination among students is the problem.

I feel a more positive solution is to encourage teachers to teach in underprivileged school by offering them extra benefits, like the loan forgiveness program. The key will be to come up with a way to retain those teachers, because the pattern in lower-income schools continues to be retention of teachers. Rewards for success are necessary, but I also think rewards for improvement are indispensable, and perhaps even more important.

As for the trouble of student motivation, I suggest a reexamination of the curriculum. Focus on standardized testing has moved the curriculum from content concentration to a focus on learning how to test. Students are feeling less and less connected with their education in terms of how it can help them in real life and in their immediate future. The focus on meeting national standards is sacrificing relevancy and a connection of education with the reality of American adult life. The complaint I hear most often from students is "I'm never even going to have to use this once I graduate."

By tightening the reins on teachers and administrators, you are stifling the opportunity for innovation and creativity that has made our post-industrial society successful. By trying to keep up with foreign countries that focus on memorization and retention for tests, we are losing sight of the deeper cognitive reasoning and depth of understanding that I have always seen as the advantage of a U.S. education.

I feel very strongly that many of the popular education policies that are being passed around place the blame on educators who already face huge challenges with relatively little compensation. It's always so easy to blame the teacher - students do it everyday to take the accountability off themselves. I implore you to take a closer look at education from a teacher's point of view. Speak to teachers, conduct observation of their classrooms - they're the experts, after all. I imagine they all would have many alternative ideas of what should be done, as I do.

I have great faith in your vision. I hope that these words might actually pass by your eyes and - dare I hope - bring you a perspective that may motivate you to reconsider some of your policy plans.

Sincerely,
K. Redding

A Few Words On Healthcare

2010-02-23T23:13:00.004-05:00

I just got a bill from Health Partners today. I'm on their Three For Free Individual Plan, for which I pay $1,000 or so in premiums. Not so bad by American standards - appalling by international developed country standards. At any rate, after an hour or so pouring over my health policy with my mom, we've concluded I owe $65 because the doctor I saw ordered me a blood test for anemia. I am, predictably, not anemic. Thank goodness I dropped $65 unknowingly to find out I didn't have a disease I didn't show any symptoms for!

Here's the thing, guys. Here's the reason I don't support our current health care system. There's a lot of criticism over universal health care, arguing that it violates the free market and that it will give too much power to the government. But here's the trouble: health care inherently cannot run on a free market system.

Okay, so basic economic theory can figure out the price of a given product by drawing a supply and demand curve. The demand curve usually starts high - with very few willing to pay a high price - and moves down as more people are willing to pay as the price decreases. The price will be decided depending on if there is a limited or abundant supply of the product. For more info, see Wikipedia.

The demand for health care, health insurance, and pharmaceuticals has an inelastic demand curve. In a nutshell, this means that no matter what the price, people who need the product will always buy the product.

For example, no matter how much insulin costs, diabetics will still have to buy it because if they don't, they die. So pharmaceutical companies can charge astronomical prices for a given drug because people who need it have no choice. Same goes for health care procedures and insurance. People with cancer in remission have to buy health insurance - they know that their risk of becoming seriously ill again overrides any objections they have to the price of insurance. Those who literally cannot afford insurance - and those that cannot get approved because of pre-existing conditions - those are the 45 million people in America with no insurance. These people are not uninsured because of choice. Despite having a huge demand for insurance, they are simply budged out of the equation because they cannot pay what the industry requests. First lesson of free market economics - it is inherently unfair.

I read an article recently by J. Goodman, a political essayist, who argues against universal health care and advocates instead for more "patient choice". How can patients have any choice when health care is a free market enterprise? The demand is inelastic - people have to pay whatever price the industry sets because for many, it's literally either pay or die. That is not choice.

Sure, there may be some problems with universal health care. However, those problems are nothing in comparison with the problems we have with private health care. With 45 million people uninsured and millions more under-insured, you have to wonder how many have literally died because of this broken system.

Go write letters to your congressmen and women. The time is upon us - we can change it now if only we can convince them.

Write your Rep
How to Contact Senators

An Article and a Brief Reflection

2010-01-29T20:34:00.003-05:00

The following article is from the New York Times, written by Gina Kolata and published on August 12, 2007. It can be retrieved in its original form here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/weekinreview/12kolata.html?_r=1

"The Myth, the Math, the Sex"
by Gina Kolata

EVERYONE knows men are promiscuous by nature. It’s part of the genetic strategy that evolved to help men spread their genes far and wide. The strategy is different for a woman, who has to go through so much just to have a baby and then nurture it. She is genetically programmed to want just one man who will stick with her and help raise their children.

Surveys bear this out. In study after study and in country after country, men report more, often many more, sexual partners than women.

One survey, recently reported by the federal government, concluded that men had a median of seven female sex partners. Women had a median of four male sex partners. Another study, by British researchers, stated that men had 12.7 heterosexual partners in their lifetimes and women had 6.5.

But there is just one problem, mathematicians say. It is logically impossible for heterosexual men to have more partners on average than heterosexual women. Those survey results cannot be correct.

It is about time for mathematicians to set the record straight, said David Gale, an emeritus professor of mathematics at the University of California, Berkeley.

“Surveys and studies to the contrary notwithstanding, the conclusion that men have substantially more sex partners than women is not and cannot be true for purely logical reasons,” Dr. Gale said.

He even provided a proof, writing in an e-mail message:

“By way of dramatization, we change the context slightly and will prove what will be called the High School Prom Theorem. We suppose that on the day after the prom, each girl is asked to give the number of boys she danced with. These numbers are then added up giving a number G. The same information is then obtained from the boys, giving a number B.

Theorem: G=B

Proof: Both G and B are equal to C, the number of couples who danced together at the prom. Q.E.D.”

Sex survey researchers say they know that Dr. Gale is correct. Men and women in a population must have roughly equal numbers of partners. So, when men report many more than women, what is going on and what is to be believed?

“I have heard this question before,” said Cheryl D. Fryar, a health statistician at the National Center for Health Statistics and a lead author of the new federal report, “Drug Use and Sexual Behaviors Reported by Adults: United States, 1999-2002,” which found that men had a median of seven partners and women four.

But when it comes to an explanation, she added, “I have no idea.”

“This is what is reported,” Ms. Fryar said. “The reason why they report it I do not know.”

Sevgi O. Aral, who is associate director for science in the division of sexually transmitted disease prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said there are several possible explanations and all are probably operating.

One is that men are going outside the population to find partners, to prostitutes, for example, who are not part of the survey, or are having sex when they travel to other countries.

Another, of course, is that men exaggerate the number of partners they have and women underestimate.

Dr. Aral said she cannot determine what the true number of sex partners is for men and women, but, she added, “I would say that men have more partners on average but the difference is not as big as it seems in the numbers we are looking at.”

Dr. Gale is still troubled. He said invoking women who are outside the survey population cannot begin to explain a difference of 75 percent in the number of partners, as occurred in the study saying men had seven partners and women four. Something like a prostitute effect, he said, “would be negligible.” The most likely explanation, by far, is that the numbers cannot be trusted.

Ronald Graham, a professor of mathematics and computer science at the University of California, San Diego, agreed with Dr. Gale. After all, on average, men would have to have three more partners than women, raising the question of where all those extra partners might be.

“Some might be imaginary,” Dr. Graham said. “Maybe two are in the man’s mind and one really exists.”

Dr. Gale added that he is not just being querulous when he raises the question of logical impossibility. The problem, he said, is that when such data are published, with no asterisk next to them saying they can’t be true, they just “reinforce the stereotypes of promiscuous males and chaste females.”

In fact, he added, the survey data themselves may be part of the problem. If asked, a man, believing that he should have a lot of partners, may feel compelled to exaggerate, and a woman, believing that she should have few partners, may minimize her past.

“In this way,” Dr. Gale said, “the false conclusions people draw from these surveys may have a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.”

My first inclination was to think "So, these men had gay partners?" but ah, it says they were surveyed specifically on heterosexual partners. I'm perplexed - did the men lie, saying they had more partners? Did the women, saying they had fewer? I suspect both, honestly. Besides - what constitutes a sexual partner? How far do you have to go to be considered a sexual partner? Are men counting women who gave them blow jobs, while women are only counting penetrative sex? There is a lot of gray area here. But in the end, hilariously enough, both men and women must be to some degree lying in order to fulfill what they think is expected of them. It's the only way, right? Is there some detail I, and this mathematician, are overlooking?

New Moon

2009-11-30T21:58:00.007-05:00

You knew I wouldn't be able to resist a second chance to bash Twilight. I must say, I was much more okay with watching most of the New Moon movie than I was reading Twilight. I will disclaim now:

{No I have not read New Moon. I only saw the movie. The harsh judgments I'm going to make in the following paragraphs are a reflection of what I saw in the film. I am assuming that it was faithful to the book, because it was three flipping hours long.}

The middle of the movie was probably the closest I have ever felt to actually enjoying myself while watching/reading the Twilight series. Taylor Lautner with his shirt off is a delight for women of every age! He is also less of a Mary Sue than any of the other characters. He seems to have more depth, or at least is a better actor. But I might be predisposed to werewolves. I've always had a soft spot for them.

Anyway, I found it very surprising and telling at one part in particular, when Bella brings those old dirt-bikes to Jacob's to fix. She fully expects him to not allow her to repair and ride the bikes. I'm not sure if this is because apparently, motorcycles and dirt-bikes equal instant death in the Twi-verse, or because she has never met a man who would let her decide for herself what activities she can and cannot do. It seems to me Bella is surprised when Jacob allows her to have some control over her own activities. Unlike Edward (who I feel is borderline abusively controlling in his passion to protect Bella from danger, like she is a child).

Suffice to say, after all the Jacob juiciness, I was sorely disappointed when Alice showed up to take Bella back to boring Edward, who by the way looks like David Bowie's cracked out back-up dancer when next we see him.

The ending of this movie is what made the entire experience acutely Not Fun for me. By the end of the film, the argument about whether or not Bella will become a vampire comes to the forefront again. Even when the vampire council and the majority of his family members agree that Bella should be turned, Edward is still not convinced. The scene that takes place in the forest with Bella, Edward, and Jacob I found to be particularly infuriating.

In this scene, Edward and Jacob argue about Bella's future. They pay NO REGARD to her wishes whatsoever. All they care about is what they think is the best prescription for her safety. They talk about her as if she is a child with no self-efficacy to make her own decisions. Yes, I know, it's a fantasy world and the stakes for danger are higher, but if they truly care about protecting her from a vampire who is trying to kill her, they should probably give her WHAT SHE WANTS and make her a vampire, so she could be strong enough to defend herself. But then she wouldn't need the men to protect her and that would be the END of the WORLD! Bella even realizes this is happening - she says "But it's not your decision to make..." - but her tone is so defeated and it's clear she barely believes what she is saying herself. What's more, NO ONE listens to her. And then -! AND THEN-!! Edward tells her that he WILL ONLY CHANGE HER IF SHE MARRIES HIM. WHAT!? There is NO WAY that could be considered a romantic proposal. "I'll only give you what you want if you promise to marry me." Marriage is only put on the table as a bartering chip!

I wanted to walk out at this part, I was so mad.

I understand that having a man who wants to protect you is exciting and romantic. I get that. But there is a fine line between being romantic and dutiful and being controlling and condescending. I think this book justifies controlling male behavior to young girls. In fact, it categorizes that kind of behavior as romantic. Meanwhile, that same behavior is included in the Wheel of Power and Control, which is a diagram depicting the elements of domestic abuse.

Stephanie Meyer argues that Bella is not an anti-feminist character. She justifies Bella's decisions to pursue love above all else and give up her entire life to be a part of Edward's as educated, self-fulfilling, feminist decisions. She argues that women who choose to be homemakers are just as eligible to be feminists. Very well, say all that is true. Is this the primary role-model we want to show our adolescent girls? A girl who forms her identity entirely around the man she loves, who marries and has her first child at 19? I'm aware that it's a fictional story, but when it became famous - BEFORE the publication of the final book, mind you - her characters became role-models whether she meant them to or not. The responsibility of constructing role-model characters is the price you pay for fame and success. You can say it's a fictional story and that Bella is just a character and not an ideal as much as you want, it doesn't matter. There are still COUNTLESS adolescent girls reading these books and thinking "I want to be married at 19. That is what is normal," "I want to have a boyfriend like Edward, who cares enough for me to protect me and make my decisions for me (and loves me enough to stalk me in my bedroom while I sleep)," "I'm ready to have a child - I'm almost Bella's age anyway."

I work in a middle school. I have seen these thought processes in action.

Meyer needs to take responsibility for the ideas she's feeding to her young and notoriously impressionable fans. It's the 21st century - it shouldn't be that hard to create a strong, independent female character. She can still fall in love, she can still be relatable, she can still drive forward an interesting story. She can even still choose to be married at a young age and be a mother, if you insist on a character who does that! But Bella is teaching us that a girl's identity should be constructed around the man she ends up with. Can anyone name any of Bella's personal interests that don't have to do with Edward? Hobbies? Hopes and dreams? Career goals? Once she's a vegetarian vampire, what contribution will she make to the world?

(Consider a moment Carlisle and his wife. He is a doctor - he helps people, he saves lives. What does Esme do? She enjoys restoring old houses. Sounds like homemaking to me. This is not to say that restoring old houses is a bad occupation, but REALLY, are there ANY women in this book that are independent? If Stephanie Meyer is showing us a feminist who chooses to stay in the home, where is her feminist who chooses the workforce? And DON'T say Bella's mom - she followed her man to Florida. Even that red-haired villainess' entire motivation for evil is based on seeking revenge for her boyfriend!)

One last thing. There is a lot of attention paid in New Moon to Bella's paranoia about growing older and appearing older than Edward. Not once does anyone wonder that maybe Edward, being at least 100 years older than Bella, might be a little mentally mature for her. It's okay for a man to be older than a woman, but it is unacceptable for a woman to be older than a man. Bella makes a big deal about Jacob being younger than her too! What is this madness!?

Anti-feminist. It is painfully anti-feminist.

Did I Just Meet A Racist?

2009-09-17T20:31:00.003-04:00

Two weeks ago, I was working at the dessert cafe I am currently employed at, ringing up people and being generally excited about the new Abe Lincoln pennies (they've got three different scenes from Abe's life and myth - the log cabin, Honest Abe sitting on a log reading, and Abe in front of Congress). One woman, white, very sweet and soft-spoken, paid me with a dollar coin. It was from the President series, so obviously it had one of the presidents on it.

I accepted the coin, running my mouth as per usual about coins in general, lamenting the absence of Sacajawea from the coin. The woman agreed it had been nice to see a woman on a coin. I went on, spouting jargon about how refreshing it'd been to have a coin with someone other than a dead white guy on it and the woman chided, "Now, we're white too, you don't want to engage in reverse discrimination."

I was taken aback by this comment, so heavy with racial tension when my comment had seemed to my own ears so flippant, but covered quickly. Maintaining my friendly customer service demeanor, I said, "Well, we live in one of the most culturally and racially diverse countries in the world and I would just really like to see that represented in my currency."

The woman vaguely agreed, accepted her change, and headed out. I thanked her for her business then plunged into deep contemplation about what her "reverse-discrimination" comment had meant. It was clear that by making such a politically charged statement that she thought reverse-discrimination to be an important issue and had an opinion about it, maybe even a strong one. I doubted someone without much political awareness about race would have thought to make such a comment. It was clear to me that this woman had a specific viewpoint about race relations in America. My next question was what would that viewpoint be...

A few days later, I was in the car with my mom and I relayed this story to her. My mother's immediate reaction was to say scathingly, "That woman was a racist." I found this to be an equally jarring reaction, but my mother has spent years as a nurse working with people in terrible poverty, who experience socio-economic and racial discrimination all the time (not to mention the discrimination regarding their mental illnesses, as my mother specialized in mental health). My mother is generally no-nonsense about race - she will talk about it, she is very aware of the circumstances surrounding race discrimination, and she is sensitive to it. My grandfather (her dad) is a notorious racist and family events tend to have a terrible comment thrown in somewhere, to which those of us in the younger generation react to with horror/outrage, but for the most part, my grandfather keeps his opinions to himself. (During Obama's campaign, he got a little more ... awful, but my grandmother is convinced that despite all his bitching he voted for Obama anyway, because his blue-collar liberalism overwhelms his racism - but we obviously have no idea if that's true. My grandmother also denied her dog was fat until finally the vet told her that the dog was too fat to stand for too long so...)

Anyway, my mother thought this woman was an outright racist. I was quite puzzled at this idea - I'd never really encountered a stranger who was a racist before. What's more, I was not terribly convinced that making a comment about reverse-discrimination necessarily constituted racism. This woman did not seem to me to be a huge bigot of any kind. She struck me very strongly as the type of Minnesota woman who is extremely involved in her church and gets nervous that a black person has moved into the predominantly white suburb. That is still of course racism, but I place it in a different category than the RACISM my mother so emphatically accused her of.

The town I live in has been predominately white - almost sickeningly so - throughout my childhood. It's a quiet town with cops who are completely bored and pull people over who are going 1 over the speed limit (or who harass people who are trying to have a completely legal political rally on the pedestrian bridge). A few years ago, I heard from my mom that African Americans from the neighboring town of Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center were moving into Champlin and that neighbors had expressed concern about this. I find this very racist in principle, but I see where this anxiety might stem from. Living a sheltered and ignorant life in a white community where you do not encounter black people unless you drive by them in downtown Minneapolis. These people see people of color on television as criminals, the desperately poor, gang members, rappers, and other characters that they see as a threat. If these are the only people of color WASP people in my community are familiar with, I can see why they'd be nervous that their new neighbor was black. I am by NO MEANS saying this justifies their fear, I'm just saying that I can understand where they are coming from objectively.

While I have no idea how this woman grew up or what ideas she has about race, I think I can confidently say that she is more aware than most white people of race, and that she feels threatened as a white person by the concept of racism, indicated to me by her use of the term "reverse-discrimination". I think this experience reminded me of the race situation in my community - reminded me of how segregated it is in comparison with towns closer to the Cities, in comparison with the places I lived in New York. It has spurred me to be more aware of it and be more defensive of diversity and the importance of diversity in the future. I think my response to this woman was quite adequate in my defense and pride of our nation's diversity, but I just want to put out the call, I suppose, to you (if anyone actually reads this) to be aware of it too. Ignorance runs rampant with our neighbors, our families, our friends, and when it comes out, all of a sudden it's like a shock to the system. I think it's important to be armed with the strength to protest, even when people aren't even aware they are discriminating. Go to it, my friends. Get on the city bus and smile at everyone.

Book Reactionary Word Vomit: Lost in the Meritocracy

2009-08-09T21:11:00.003-04:00

Two months ago, I was lounging around finishing up watching the Daily Show/Colbert Report line-up with my mom when I saw the following interview with Walter Kirn by Colbert on the subject of his latest book, a memoir chronicling his Ivy League education and his complete non-absorption of it.

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Walter Kirn

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

Meryl Streep

I found the interview interesting and, curious about what this man had to say on the subject of the strata of higher education, I put the book on reserve at the library.

Two months later (...?!) the library finally emails me to inform me my book has at last arrived from the far reaches of Golden Valley public library (a whole 15 miles away!!). Despite being in the throes of three other books at the moment, I decided to pick it up simply because I waited so long for the damn thing to show up. Walking out of the library with Walter Kirn's surprisingly modest opus, I envisioned the piles of late fees I am notorious for wracking up while I go on my merry way, having forgotten I dropped the book under my bed before falling asleep.

This weekend, my family went on a road trip up north and as reading material, I decided to bring only library books, despite the fact that the book I've been reading most regularly is mine forever and always. My logic was thus: bring the library books and you will be forced to read them and return them on time. Since I had to wait so long to receive Lost in the Meritocracy, I figured the odds of getting it again right away once letting it go overdue would be slim to none, so I cracked that one open first.

I was utterly surprised to have sped through the book in two days. At a modest 211 pages, it wasn't a terrible challenge, but I am notoriously flaky towards the books that I read and if I am not engaged by a writer, regardless of the book's length, I would rather stare out at the passing northern forest whizzing by for four hours than continue to read it. Walter Kirn was surprisingly engaging, and I found myself very much relating to his story. (Rather jealously, I might add, because I like to regard myself as a veritable genius but alas, I only graduated summa cum laude from a state school. Luckily, Walter Kirn would like to postulate that his Ivy League education was no more valuable than that of a state school, so perhaps I'm the genius I envision myself to be after all! However, despite what Kirn says, potential employers will not be nearly as impressed with my undergraduate credentials as they would be had I gone to a ridiculously overpriced Ivy League school so I suppose therein lies the rub.)

So in summary, Lost in the Meritocracy is about Walter Kirn's adolescent journey through compulsory education and his ascent into the Ivy League elite. Throughout the book, he paints his younger self as a total jackass, a fraudulent, conniving, witty bastard who uses his large vocabulary and remarkable charm to bullshit his way to the top of his class, into the good graces of his peers, and into the panties of many a young woman. He perfects the art of perceiving his professors' educational priorities and preferences and then plays off them to ensure success in each course. (I find this concept terrifying, yet unavoidable from the teacher's end of things. While the ideal educator would in theory want to be unbiased and open to any and all interpretations of their subjects, in practice I imagine it next to impossible. I am a firm believer it is impossible for human beings to be completely unbiased, although I do naively hope that I will at least become an educator who is aware of her bias and thus is able to keep it in check. At any rate...)

In the end, it is precisely this rakish nature that earns him an exclusive fellowship to go to graduate school in Oxford, which I found a most frustrating ending (albeit, more satisfying than if he were to land an amazing job doing nothing and earning a pile of money for it at the end of the day, which is what I am beginning to suspect many of our world leaders do).

Despite the book's lack of punishment for the younger Kirn character, I found this book both heartening and a little terrifying at the same time. I am beginning to suspect, in comparing myself to Kirn in the book, that I truly am a real phony. In Truman Capote's Breakfast at Tiffany's, the term is explained as thus, specifically referring to Holly Golightly: "She is a phony. But on the other hand you're right because she's a real phony. She believes all this crap she believes."

Walter Kirn goes through the book without taking seriously the education system and sort of bullshitting his way through and succeeding at it. And once he realizes what precisely he is doing, he almost perfects his method to an art form. I feel that I conducted my education much the same. Memorizing information for a test, acing said test, then completely forgetting the entirety of the subject. I think a lot of people go through school this way. It is easiest and most rewarding. I watch Cash Cab and repeatedly feel like a moron because I can't answer barely any of the questions - some of them that I really should know. (What is the only American state that only borders one other state? Maine. Not Rhode Island. Come on, Miss Geography.) I wax philisophical on an entire variety of subjects, from Freud to video games, that I have never read/played. I pluck a few key general points and take off running. Walter Kirn got through Princeton this way. I mostly just flirt with boys this way, but the fact remains that I do it. The difference between myself and Walter Kirn is that he understands what he is doing and attempts to hide it, aware of his phoniness. I, being a real phony, actually believe I know what I'm talking about.

Despite reading through his book and despite identifying myself as a real phony, bringing my internet handle to a whole new level , I remain convinced that my optomistic, education-obsessed outlook is a true and noble cause. I refuse to be so cinical as to believe the joy I get from going to school is not based in a love for learning, but a love for winning. For succeeding, for wracking up ever more points, for comparing points to fellows and gleaning self-worth from possessing higher points. Even if it is true, if that is why I love school, I refuse to give up my education until I can look around and say "You know, I think I may understand this world enough. I am no longer a moron." I am still a moron. The more I learn, the more I realize how little I know.

I think that the meritocracy as illustrated by Walter Kirn in his book is incredibly astute. I know countless people from college who are struggling now that they've graduated to adjust to the new set of standards in the real world. Experience. As fresh graduates, we've come to the rude realization that we've experienced nothing. We were too busy learning about experiences in school to go out and have them. The scales on which we were graded, rated, and praised by are completely useless in the real world. Good grades? Who cares. You worked as an RA? What's that? All of the praise and priviledges I worked hard for in school ended up being totally useless to me. Hoorah, I won a prestigious prize for my thesis! What is an extensive knowledge of the cultural modernization of Japanese prostitution going to do for me except hinder me in my quest to teach high school?

I admire Walter Kirn for being so honest in his book. His college self really is a total asshole and while I'm not sure if this is a truthful description or if its written through a lense of intense self-loathing, I am completely in awe of how ridiculous he is. The character is the epitome of the pseudo-intellectual, only ten-fold because (1) he attended Princeton and (2) it was during the cocaine craze in the eighties.

The aspect of the book that I find most appalling is young Kirn's various love affairs and his treatment of them. He loses his virginity to two foreign exchange girls at once. I am not sure I can even believe this outrageous anecdote, but I end up feeling most disgusted with the women, not Kirn for his casual treatment of the encounter, and any number of subsequent encounters. This I find violating not so much within the context of the book, but within the context of my own judgement (I have endless issues with the double-edged sword that is women's sexuality).

I suppose what bothers me the most is the rather disrespectful way Kirn seems to use these women sexually then throw them aside, not terribly interested in the women intellectually. Because they are presented first as sexual objects, and only second as characters in his overlying story and never as people even in the moment that he considered in a loving or romantic way, I am forced to wonder if this is only an example of his personal sexuality, that of young people in the early eighties, or modern men and women as a whole. If the latter is the truth, I am personally put off, to say the least. Love, romance, and sex have deteriorated in this modern world so completely that all three have become cliche commodities and hold little meaning anymore. I have a frequent sinking feeling that men who actually want to love and marry women no longer exist, and the bulk of men are content to have a series of sexual encounters in place of romantic partnership. With this suspicion, it is difficult to say the least to trust your date. Suffice to say, an inspiration to write my own memoir on my journey to overcome my perception of female sexuality struck me in the midst of reading this book, but I feel I must complete the journey first before writing about it.

At any rate, moving on, I would highly recommend Walter Kirn's book to anyone who ever went to school.

Old

2009-02-11T12:42:00.002-05:00

I just got a tetanus shot. The nurse asked me "When was the last time you got a tetanus shot?" and I said "Oh, seventh grade or so" and the nurse said, "So that was about ten years ago... you need to get one."

Seventh grade was ten years ago? Jeebus chidwack. Way to make me feel old. Back then, ten years was an eternity. I'd barely even lived more than ten years. Life was before me and I was feeling fantastic. I could be anything!

Now, in a combo of economic downturn and my lack of training in any practical skills other than spouting anthropological nonsense and sounding smart, I can't even get a job in a cafe. I have a degree and I can't get a job in a cafe. What. The. Fuck.

This brings me back to my recent trip to Sweden with my anarchist friend, Evan. We spent a lot of time in cafes (aha, no wonder I want to work in one!) talking about the end of the world. Surprisingly, Evan is quite a bit more optimistic than a lot of other people I've talked to about it. You know, I really think that anarchists get a bad rep, with all that hard-core punk business and the skinheads. It seems really dedicated anarchists (at least the ones described to me by Evan, an active participant in many of the local North Carolina anarchist get-togethers) have more of a granola vibe about them. Back to the earth, back to simple living and so on.

So Evan and I did a lot of talking about the end of the world, which is apparently nigh. I found that upon my return, the absence of this assumed agreement that things are about to go to hell in a hand-basket was quite alarming. All of a sudden I am talking to my friends about 401-K plans and the Future and What Are You Going To Do With Your Life and I am desperately missing the times when I was sipping Earl Grey and telling Evan and Daniel (our Swedish friend we were visiting) that while I have goals for a humble future as a teacher, the end is clearly nigh, so why worry? Soon we will all be too concerned with how our vegetable gardens are coming along to care about whether or not we have a retirement fund. Hell, the entire concept of retirement will be but a nostalgic memory.

Returning home and realizing that all those things I was putting off until after the trip (getting a job, applying to grad school, somehow getting the money together to go to grad school) do in fact still need to be done... well, what a violating experience. I have been tossed right back into the pit of the rabid unemployed, scavenging like jackals for any and all positions, no matter how little the pay and no matter how overqualified we are. I am seeking nanny employment currently. If I manage to land a job nannying, I will jump for joy!

However, I must say that regardless of all these immediate obligations integral to living the modern lives we lead here in America, I can't shake that feeling of impending Change. Not like Obama Change. I mean like topsy-turvy, everything falls apart kind of change. Oil runs out kind of Change. It seems most people I've talked to after coming back view that kind of change as inherently bad, the end of all things even. The end of happiness and joy and, well, mankind. But I have to disagree. Human are tough, like cockroaches. We can survive anywhere, and I'll wager, just about anything (barring nuclear winter or meteor crash). I believe that were society to collapse, some of the values we long left behind when we became individualists will be rediscovered. Love and community and human relationships will no longer be taken for granted. The barter system can make an exciting comeback! We can learn to trust each other again. That's what I hope and believe.

In the meantime, even though I'm going to keep looking for jobs, I'm still going to learn how to grow vegetables and make candles. Just in case.

Twilight

2008-11-21T11:51:00.004-05:00

Warning: Spoilers for Twilight lie below. However, if you actually haven't read it, I wouldn't be too worried. In fact, I'd be grateful.

So, I hear a lot of people - a majority of them women - are absolutely gagga for this Twilight business. I was told to read it by a great many people, one of them a preteen girl. I was very dubious, though, because my then-fifteen year old sister had informed me that the main character was very annoying and the whole thing was totally lovey-dovey. And coming from a teenage girl, that was saying a lot. Seeing as I am very critical towards female characters to begin with, I was trying my best to avoid this new phenomenon.

But then I found myself bored and in desperate need of a distraction at the airport, so I bought the pulp paperback with the stars of the movie on the cover.

I can safely say I read that book cover to cover and hated every moment of it. I imagine many people on the train were wondering what on earth I was doing attempting to bang my head against the seat in front of me so frequently.

There are a few issues I'd like to address, so I'll create a numbered list.

1. Mary Sue

That should be Bella's name. Because that's exactly what she is. If you are unfamiliar with the term "Mary Sue", please consult your local fanfiction lingo site. In summary, a Mary Sue is an original character plopped into fanfiction and typically represents the young woman/teenage girl who is writing said fic. The character is often the possessor of a plethora of interesting and enticing qualities. She is smart, bookish, popular, gorgeous, chased after by many boys, and in some universes, has unique magical abilities, a pet unicorn, and multi-hued eyes. She usually is blissfully unaware of how wonderful she is - so of course we can't hate her. The Mary Sue's purpose in the story is to be the love interest of one or many of the attractive male characters from whatever fandom the fic is servicing. We can see excellent examples of Mary Sues in mainstream entertainment. Take for example Vanessa Hudgens in High School Musical, High School Musical 2, and the much-anticipated High School Musical 3 (now in theatres).

Bella is such a character. She is the object of affection for FIVE - count 'em - FIVE boys. Have any of you ladies ever had to stave off FIVE admirers at once? I know I haven't. Further more, her little problem with balance - a quality some have tried to convince me is her weakness, or the quality that makes her human or genuine - is simply a catalyst to allow Edward to constantly come to her rescue. She is not only a Mary Sue, but a helpless damsel-in-distress as well.

Now, I do admit that I am very critical when it comes to female characters, but I found Bella to be absolutely puke-worthy.

2. Mary Stu

A Mary Stu is a male character with the same ridiculous qualities as a Mary Sue. A one-dimensional character with too many amazing attributes, with little to no weaknesses. Edward, and while we're at it, all of the vampire characters, is just such a character. He is super humanly strong, fast, and agile with super human senses. He is a vampire, but he's a good vampire, and does not have any ill will towards any human. He has all the positive attributes of your typical vampire, in his superhuman powers, but possesses none of the negative attributes (like stake-through-the-heart or inability to go out in the sun). He does not need to eat, breathe, or sleep. He can drive a car a million miles an hour without ever crashing. He can read minds. He looks like an Adonis. He's built like one too. He is hopelessly devoted to our heroine and eager to come in and save her a million times per hour (and he can too, he's that fast). Oh, and in the sunlight, he SPARKLES.

Okay, so he's a gorgeous sexy guy. I can see what is appealing about that, being a hot-blooded female and all. But his hopeless devotion? It's downright CREEPY. He sneaks into her house, watches her sleep, has all the strength and hypnotic charm in the world to do anything he wants to her - no matter how kinky - and Stephanie Meyer likes to remind us of that in nuanced, barely perceptible hints. But no sex! Not even any tongue! Because teenagers don't have sex, nor kiss with tongue! Oh and hundred year old vampires have never found instance to find sexual interest in such a thing either!

He makes me want to puke just as much as Bella does.

So that's two of our main characters, totally overly powerful and uninteresting because they have absolutely no human qualities whatsoever. Being a person who greatly enjoys stories for their characters more than their plots or universes, I feel we are off to a bad start.

3. The Addiction

Many people I know who have read these books have explained to me, despite realizing that our heroine (and possibly hero as well) are completely fantastical characters, were completely unable to put the books down. I did not suffer from such addiction, though it seems the rest of the world has. I tried to figure out what literary mechanisms Stephanie Meyer used to make the books so enticing. I motivated myself through the beginning of the book by focusing on the soul curiosity regarding why Bella was moving to Forks if she hated it so much. 70 pages later, the mystery was solved in a conversation with Edward. After that, I found myself curious to know the rules of these vampires - how did they work, what powers did they possess, what were their weaknesses? How do you become one? Etc. Towards the very end, I found myself craving back-stories on all the vampiric side characters. What was their world like? How did they become what they were? And how did they become good vampires, who don't eat people? By withholding this information and saving it for later books, Stephanie Meyer kept me idly wondering.

Stephanie Meyer also has a style of writing that is very very easy to read. Perhaps because it reminds me of JK Rowling, or the prose of a high school girl. At any rate, books written in such a simple style make themselves available to a wide range of audiences, so anyone - literally anyone - can pick up a copy and blaze through it in a night. Dan Brown, author of the Da Vinci Code, also has a similar style. So my theory is Meyer used her power as the author to withhold information in combination with her very accessible writing style to enable the reader to consume 400 pages of prose in under 24 hours. Her genius stroke was when she made it a quartet.

4. The Romance

I don't anticipate spending a lot of time on the romantic plot of this story because it is not as easy to whole-heartedly label as HORRENDOUS, because my taste in romance is much different than the taste of many others. However, I can say this: it is very common amongst many women, myself included, to enjoy a good forbidden romance. It seems to be the reason there are so many romance novels about noble women and stable boys. We love unresolved sexual tension, the sense that something naughty is happening, etc. Stephanie Meyer started out with a fantastic forbidden romance premise: human girl, vampire boyfriend who wants to eat her. Great!

But the romance is resolved in the first half of the first book. Edward cannot resist ~~Mary Sue's~~ I mean, Bella's incredible charm and non-poise, and they sit in a meadow, Edward sparkling in the sunlight, and have their first kiss. Which was WHOLLY unsatisfying (see previous comments on no tongue). And as I said, I find Edward rather creepy. He likes to fondle Bella's neck to no end - presumably, Meyer's half-baked attempt to remind us that their love is forbidden! To make things worse, shortly after Bella introduces Edward to her father as her boyfriend. No big deal, Daddy's fine with it. BORING.

5. The Climax

The climax of this book begins with a super human baseball game. Why? Because they can. Bella becomes the target of a hunter vampire from another clan, and the whole Cullen family must band together to save her. We begin to get to know Emmett, Alice, Jasper, and - well, not so much Rosalie. They are all such kind and hard working little vampires (except Rosalie - honestly, she barely had a line in this book and she was my favorite character simply because she actually might have hated Bella as much as I did), using their super powers to predict what's going to happen and keep Bella from panicking. Wow. Real interesting, huh? We don't even get the conflict satisfaction of her panicking! Oh and Alice has the artistic ability to render sketches realistic enough for Bella to recognize her childhood dance studio. Just another super power. We have to assume that these vampires can do anything - and I mean ANYTHING.

Somehow, despite having a plethora of powers at their disposal, Bella manages to escape. She runs straight to the hunter vampire, like a total twit in efforts to save her mother. I had to wonder, if you were in league with a clan of vampires facing one vampire, why on earth would you ditch them without their consultation to face certain death on your own? My only answer is Plot Device. Totally obvious, unfettered Plot Device.

The vampires proceed to save her. The rest of the book is spent with Bella whining because she wants Edward to change her into a vampire and he won't. From what I hear, this is a theme throughout the rest of the books.

6. Suggested Improvements

Now, I think it's obvious by the vast popularity of this series, that something in there somewhere is interesting about these books. I can see it. The vampire characters are interesting, each with their own little super power, and their origins were what interested me the most when reading.

What I suggest Stephanie Meyer should have done is to have scrapped the entire idea of Bella completely. Focus on an origin story. How did Edward come to be changed? What kind of science or magic surrounds this change? What struggles did he have to face as a human turned vampire, forced to deny his hunger? How did Esme, Alice, Jasper, Rosalie, and Emmett come to join their clan? What struggles did they have to face? You must admit, that would be much more interesting than the fairy tale farce I just forced myself to consume. Also, a few more weaknesses would be appreciated. For instance, you could still allow the vampires to be immune to daylight. But instead of making them SPARKLE (I still can't get over that), what if being in the sunlight revealed them to be seen as what they really are - undead. What if standing in the sunlight showed clearly that they were not just pale, as previously supposed, but in fact looked like fresh walking corpses. I was totally prepared for that to be the big secret. But no. He sparkled.

The sparkle was a deal-breaker for me.

In summary, this was a horrid book. I thoroughly did not enjoy it. If Stephanie Meyer can make millions writing vampire romances, so can any half-wit with a pen and a dream. Perhaps I'll make a go of it...

A Drinking Game To Pass The Time Until The Election Is Called

2008-11-04T14:00:00.001-05:00

Although I personally don't plan to watch the returns tonight in order to keep my sanity, for all of you out there who will be glued to CNN as the polls close, may I suggest a delightful little drinking game for your amusement.

While I'm sure there are many other drinking games on the internet ready and guaranteed to get you wasted this Election Night, I'm curious about this simple yet effective word as a prompt to drink:

"If"

Every time a pundit, newscaster, or other television personality says "If" you are to drink. Some example sentences for you to practice with, extracted from the New York Times:

"If Mr. McCain wins Pennsylvania, it would keep him alive and scramble the picture for Mr. Obama."

"If Mr. Obama wins it, Indiana could be the canary in the coal mine predicting disaster ahead for Mr. McCain."

I suspect in these waning hours of air time focusing on one of the most popular and lucrative elections as far as media coverage goes, these commentators dedicated to bringing you news on what might happen next are going to describe a thousand different "if" scenarios to keep you viewers guessing. Oh, Obama seems to have won every state on the east coast (wouldn't that be ace!?)? Well, says Mr. Pundit, if McCain wins the rest of the states, he may still have a chance. In order to keep you watching, they have to keep you guessing. So I'd say it's a pretty safe option to drink to the word "if".

If you're not the drinking type, perhaps a verbal game of Bingo is in order. Don't make it too easy though - a board with the names of every east coast state will be sure to win first. And that is not patriotic game play, my friend.

"Might", "Probably", "Likely", "Blue", "Red", and "Maverick" may also be fun supplementary words for your game. Use of more than three of these words at any given time may result in alcohol poisoning. In the event of a verbal onslaught, please consult your physician.

Some Real Junk...

2008-10-29T11:00:00.002-04:00

So I live in New York. It's pretty neat, every so often I take the train into Manhattan and romp around like I'm Holly Golightly. However, I hail from Minneapolis. When I was in high school, the day President Bush deployed troops into Iraq, nearly my entire school walked out at noon time (small art schools tend to have more wide-spread support for action such as that) to join a teach-in and march at the University of Minnesota to protest the war. I came home that night feeling like I'd really done something to make my voice heard.

After that, I attended several more protests in Minneapolis when I was in town projecting anti-war sentiments, along with a demand for health care and economic aid. They were very rewarding, peaceful experiences.

I was very disappointed when I was not in Minneapolis to protest the Republican National Convention. I very dearly wanted to project my voice against the things John McCain and the supremely offensive Sarah Palin want to instate if elected. In my eyes, America is on a downward spiral and McCain has no interest in recognizing or really changing that. Plus, he looks like a reanimated corpse and really scares the bejeebus out of me.

Anyway, as I said, I really wanted to go. I was aware that there were large-scale protests during the national convention and I was also aware that there was some violent action by a few deranged protesters, actions which were met with appropriate reactions from police. However, the other day one of my friends that I grew up with posted footage she had filmed of her experience at the protest. She and two other close friends I grew up with were in St. Paul attending the protest on September 4th, and while John McCain was making his acceptance speech, preaching about the war against terrorism and a shifting focus to Iran, "the chief state sponsor of terrorism", police outside in the streets of St. Paul were using tear gas, flash bang grenades, rubber bullets, and mass arrests to terrify protesters into dispersing. Why? It was five o'clock. Their protest permit had expired.

I was absolutely appalled that this had happened, and after internet-researching it more deeply, it happened through the entire convention. Not just one day. I noticed a lot of commentary by various random people expressing their thoughts that tear gas was no big deal, happened all the time, and should certainly be employed to prevent riots etc. And I can say I agree that people at protests do get very attached to that exhilirating feeling that their voices are being heard and they are amongst friends who agree with them, and consequently may get carried away, protesting long into the night and holding up very important late evening traffic. I just have to wonder why circumstances went from a peaceful protest under shrewd police supervision to tear gassing and mass arrests the moment the second hand ticked to five pm. Were there any attempts to work with the leaders of the protest to break the assembly up peacefully, as I have observed being done in protests I have previously attended? I don't imagine there was time for that when there was an artillery of rubber bullets to be deployed.

In attempts to be non-biased, and to see the other side of the coin (even though my friends were there and I am extremely pissed cops victimized them and their peers when they clearly did not commit any crimes and were simply attempting to make their voices heard) I began thinking about my time as an RA on a college campus, a job which involved breaking up a lot of unregistered gatherings. In my senior year, I was a member of a staff of twenty people or so who were charged with the task of serving duty at night and breaking up parties. We did have many experiences with large crowds (comparatively, these crowds were much smaller that those in St. Paul, but in a scale ratio, they seem to be a plausible comparison) in which myself, two co-RAs and two or three cops in an emergency would be charged with dispersing crowds of a hundred to two hundred people. This was a quiet hours issue - we needed to maintain quiet for the fairness of all those who wanted to sleep at two in the morning. Additionally, the policies and disciplinary action of the school extends beyond the basic state and national laws into its own system, and thus some of the average public laws do not extend on campus. The extent of our breaking up these groups was a whole lot of shouting and waiting. "Please disperse, go home, it is past quiet hours, you need to move on!" Sometimes, the cops would put on their intimidation masks so as to lend us a little aid. We never documented people with disciplinary action for standing around outside at night. The biggest difference, though, is that the students we were dealing with were largely drunk and rowdy and the biggest violation: loud. Additionally, there were many times when I felt personally threatened by them, especially when I didn't have a cop handy to back me up, because they resented the fact that I was charged with the task of asking them to go home and stop partying in the street. I understand the potential of crowds to be violent or intimidating. This situation in St. Paul, though, its intimidation factor was definitely engaged on the police side only.

My problem with the use of tear gas and these rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades lies in several areas. First, the use of these methods was hasty at best, unprovoked for certain. Second, the use of these methods to disperse a non-violent crowd is not justified. I understand the methods are not directly violent insofar as they are not seriously hurting anyone physically, but the show of force and intimidation by the authorities whose job it is to protect the people they are victimizing is terrorism. The people who were there were terrified. Many of them did not know what the bangs and explosions were, the gas that was chasing them. Use of those methods unprovoked was a blatant abuse of authority to instill terror and submission into the people with undue force. The Founding Fathers of this country would be ashamed.

And that leads me to my third problem. This country was founded on principles of freedom. The right to free speech, free press, the right to bear arms, the right to public gatherings - all of these rights were established in reaction to an oppression of these freedoms by the British forces. Our democratic elections were established to operate as a catalyst for the people of a nation to choose who they want to lead them, instead of being forced to succumb to leadership that directly oppresses and hinders their lives and their pursuit of their dreams. Certainly we have limits on what people can do, because if their actions are directly hurting others, they are violating other people's freedoms, but by and large, in the case of the protests surrounding the Republican National Convention, these gatherings were peaceful. The most harm they were doing to others was hindering their path and obstructing traffic. Attempts by the police to stop trouble before it even began created a terrorizing, oppressive, unprovoked silencing of the protesters by force, and that is not only illegal but unconstitutional. And in my eyes, violating a constitutional right to gather and speak your mind is a bit more illegal than not disbanding a protest the moment the permit expires.

And now, without further ado, Leslie, Allin, and Katy star in the very raw documentation of their experience at the protest. You will see Katy hoisting an American flag throughout the beginning. The camera-woman is the ever-vigilant Leslie. In the moments in which the camera falls in favor of running, you can assume that rubber bullets are being shot at my friends.

You can read Leslie's account here: http://lei-lennon.livejournal.com/108568.html . Hers is brief however, because the video really does speak for itself.

I found a few other accounts of the incident, but because it was two months ago, I had a bit of a hard time finding news articles that had not since been taken down. If you have other accounts, please send them my way.

LA Times
Minnesota Independant
Gnooze on Youtube: More raw footage of another tear gas incident on Sept. 2 in St. Paul.

A New Addiction

2008-10-17T14:32:00.002-04:00

I have decided to become addicted to coffee. I have found in my life as of late that it is severely lacking in an addiction. Now, I'm certainly not interested in smoking cigarettes and while I do enjoy a nice glass of wine or even better, a good bottle of beer, every now and then, I can't say I'm ready for the commitment of alcoholism. And if I'm commitment-phobic of alcoholism, that definitely rules out any of the harder drugs. Besides, I don't cope well with alternative states of mind.

SO I made the decision to endeavor an addiction to coffee. I like coffee, it tastes good, and it keeps me focused. I figure an addiction that helps me be productive can't be negative.

The other day I attempted to brew my first morning coffee all by myself. The office doesn't have a coffee maker, so I grabbed a coffee filter and the grounds and made a make-shift tea bag. Microwaving a cup of hot water, I poured it on the coffee bag. Three minutes later, it looked dark enough to drink. Pouring sugar in and stirring serenely, I took the first sip.

Awful. Weak and tepid. And weak. No dice.

I dumped the first cup out. I figured something was wrong with my technique. Clearly, if coffee behaved the same as tea, I would be potentially able to buy tea bags with coffee in it and as far as I know (amateur coffee drinker that I am) those don't exist. I decided to try and replicate the coffee maker system. Using a rubber band, I afixed the coffee filter to the top of my coffee cup, creating a crevasse for the grounds. I pour in a cup of hot microwaved water and let it steep through. Three minutes later, I poured sugar in and stirring quickly, I took the first sip.

It tasted exactly like the first cup. Irritated, I snatched up the coffee can and looked at the directions. One heaping tablespoon of grounds: check. What had I done wrong?

I wrote a letter to my dad. If anyone knows how to make a good brew, more than my barista friends, more than any of the coffee fiends I know, it's my dad. While coffee fiends are looking primarily for a fix and baristas are brewing in the manner of their cafe, my father is simply trying to perfect the perfect cup of coffee.

His response was as follows:

"Weak coffee sucks! And so does Maxwell House!!!"

I suppose there was my first mistake.

"Try Eight O'Clock Bean, (comes in a red bag), best if you can buy whole bean and grind it fresh each time, (if you have a grinder), else try the pre-ground stuff, (still pretty good, and relatively cheap compared to the gourmet brands). Lion coffee is the best, but you can only get it in Hawaii. Maybe Uncle Vic would send you some."

Childhood memories of coffee are dominated by this rare but coveted Lion brand which would sit in our freezer, drawn out for several months.

"Also if you go gourmet, various types have different levels of flavor. French Roast is dark and 'robust', (ampy and strong), Kona is light and has a nutty flavor, (very expensive, usually you can only get a blend with only 10% Kona mixed with ...God knows what...). I like Jamaica Blue Mountain, Kenyan, or Sumatra for light yet good flavor and a good caffiene kick, (gotta have the kick!!!). I also like to use half & half for creamer, (also helps to dilute strong brew), a few dollops, just enough to make the coffee blond. Sugar helps if you like it sweet and adds it's own mood altering properties."

Oh please, father, sugar has lost its effect on me years ago. Why do you think I'm looking to take on a new addiction?

"When you're brewing, try using 1 tablespoon per 2 cups of water, (there's usually a cup measurement indicator on the coffee maker). If it's too weak or strong, vary the amount of grounds a bit, you'll find the happy medium that's right for you sooner or later... I like to use 1 heaping tbsp per 2 cups of water, for a more robust cup. When it's right for me, I can only see a little light through the coffee in the pot, (glass coffee pot). If it comes out too strong you can always run more water through the coffee maker to thin it out a bit, or add hot water directly to the cup to thin it out a lot! If it's really black, impossible to filter any light through and has the consistency of syrup, you can try using it to remove paint or acid wash stainless steel! LOL"

LOL! Dad said LOL!

"Also, if you begin to feel wired up and jittery, it's time to quit drinking coffee and start drinking beer... LOL!!!"

Dad thinks it's funny if I drink at work.

"Hope this helps, good luck!
Dad"

It is a priceless asset to have a father who knows everything.

After receiving this reply, days after I had made my decision to begin drinking coffee yet having not had a cup since the Maxwell House incident, I still have not had a good brew. I have not even gone to the grocery store. My commitment to my addiction has been supremely lacking.

To make up for it, I plan to consume a Starbucks caffeine-infused brewed coffee. That extra hundred milligrams of caffeine will be like the crack binge from which I will never recover. Or something.