In My Not-So-Humble Opinion

Why Bunnies Are Evil

2010-05-25T21:54:00.000-07:00

I used to like bunnies. They used to hop around the campus where I got my undergrad in abundance and I thought that they were cute and harmless. Only, I didn't have a dog back then. And I do now. A 65 pound German Shepherd who is STRONG and neurotic named Amelia.

Now for those of you with no experience with German Shepherds, here's a crash course. They were bred to herd sheep. They are very smart, and have a good sense of smell, hearing, and vision. They also have a lot of energy because they were bred to run around outside chasing sheep all day. So daily walks are a must, and even with a good hour to two hours of walking her every day, she still seems to have plenty of energy left to burn.

When I got Amelia, she had been at the animal rescue shelter for awhile and it showed. The vet gave me an estimate of her age being two years when I got her, but she had no idea how to walk on a leash. Considering I have experience doing behavioral therapy with children with autism, which terrible as it may sound uses the same techniques used to train dogs, leash training her fell to me. Dear husband quite simply does not feel comfortable walking her.

Which I understand. When we first got her she constantly pulled on the leash and would suddenly attempt to run after cars, coming perilously close to dragging herself and whoever happened to be holding to leash into traffic when she did. But after about two years of training, I have finally gotten her to walk beside me reasonable well without pulling and to curb her habit of running after cars. Walks have changed to being something dreaded to something enjoyed.

And then the bunnies came...

I don't know where they came from or why. One day they weren't there, the next they were. They will sit on some neighbors' lawn quietly, twitching their noises in a manner I used to find so cute, with me oblivious to their presence until BOOM! Amelia suddenly takes off after one, nearly knocking me off my feet when she does!

And just when I thought I could call her leash trained...

What really sucks is that cars are big enough and noisy enough for me to notice them as they approach. I would tell her to sit and we would wait till the car passed with me holding the leash tightly. When the car passed and she didn't chase it I would praise her. Unfortunately, bunnies are small. And I have to walk her at night so my vision is greatly reduced (I have a chronic condition where I have to limit my exposure to the sun). All told, it's really hard for me to see them before she does, especially since I think she smells them first.

So I have come to this realization that bunnies are evil. Beware. You have been warned.

Oh, Those Pregnancy Ads!

2010-05-06T23:29:00.000-07:00

I've recently made a startling discovery. My obstetrician was kind enough to give me a bag full of goodies at my latest visit. Included was enough samples of prenatal vitamins to keep me stocked for a month (and I needed them because I could not keep down the ones that I bought, and some of these samples are actually tolerable!), information from the Texas State Health Department about caring for babies, and two issues of "Pregnancy" magazine. I'm not really the type to read magazines that aren't about science or psychology, but I'm also not one to spurn free reading material, so I read the issues. I found that the magazine was mostly comprised of ads with very little useful information. And since I really don't keep up with the lives of the rich and famous, the interviews with celebrity moms aren't that interesting to me. But my gosh, you should see these ads! Because frankly, they're ridiculous!

If I bought into the ads, the first thing I guess I would believe is that babies want/need/will not quickly grow out of expensive designers clothing. Why buy a five pack of onesies from Target for under $10 when I can give my baby a beautifully designed onesies based on beautiful Japanese textiles from Tea? One onesie is only $29 after all. And while they are very cute and I'm sure any baby would look adorable in them, babies have a tendency to spit up, drool, and in general make a mess. Why spend so much on something baby will outgrow quickly anyway?

And of course, there's the must have organic baby furniture. By not buying organic baby furniture, you're putting baby at risk of contamination from evil chemicals apparently. Nevermind the fact that baby furniture is tightly regulated for quality and safety and even the cheapest, non organic cribs are most likely safe (just be sure to put your email address on a list for government recalls), if you don't buy an organic crib, you are jeopardizing baby's health. Now there was a very cute organic crib on display. It only cost $1,500. To compare, you can find cribs on Amazon from $150, with probably an average price of $250. And they're actually kinda cute, too. I think my husband put it best when he said, "The baby in the crib will be organic. That's enough."

Then there are the keepsakes. Such as the Binth Baby Book. It only costs $110. A bargain! Or the necklace from Christine Mighion that lets you announce your baby's gender. If you're having a boy, you wear the blue aquamarine necklace. If you're having a girl, the pink sapphire one. Whether or not people would come to the conclusion that I'm having a boy because I'm wearing a blue necklace remains to be seen. Heck, if my sis were pregnant and I saw her wearing a blue necklace I would just assume it's because her favorite color is blue. Oh, the price? $320 if you're having a boy, $420 for a girl.

Hey, wait a minute! I got it! If I find out I'm having a boy I will start wearing blue shirts, and if I'm having a girl, pink ones! Shirts are far more noticeable than necklaces and I'm sure people would comment on my sudden switch from dark green and brown garments to blue or pink pastels. And it'd be less expensive!

Shannon Miller's ad take the gold, though. She's using the Babyplus prenatal education system to help her baby learn in the womb! It does it by simulating the sounds of the maternal heartbeat. The rhythm of the sounds increases incrementally with the pregnancy, which somehow introduces baby to sequential learning. The almighty parents report anecdotally that, after using Babyplus, their babies nursed well, displayed an increased ability to self-soothe, are more interactive and responsive, and enjoy strong early learning and school readiness. Now, I'm wondering how these babies performed compared to what. How do they know that it was Babyplus that caused these astounding achievements? Could their baby be non-fussy by temperament? I was a non-fussy baby and my parents didn't use Babyplus. My sis had strong early learning skills and did well in school even though she was always about a year younger than the rest of her class (August baby), and my folks didn't use this with her either.

There is also the fact that party pooper OB-GYNs point out that there are no double blind studies to prove these miraculous claims. Or that there were plenty of parents on Amazon who used this product and had fussy babies, some of whom reported that their baby was irritated by the Babyplus system. Though I guess if you have a spare $140 lying around...

I'll be one of those old fashioned parents who reads children's books, sings, and plays Mozart to my belly. Yeah, the Mozart effect has been completely disproven, but I still want my baby to have a love of music and books. A love of hearing heartbeats, on the other hand, isn't high on my list.

Let me say that after going through pages and pages of ridiculous ads, I'm glad that my parents raised me to be a skeptic and a cynic. But hey, it gave me a good laugh.

The Right Not to be Offended Does Not Exist

2010-04-23T23:26:00.000-07:00

You don't have it. I don't have it. No one has the right not to be offended. And there's a good reason for that. Namely that someone can find pretty much anything offensive. I, for instance, found "Barney and Friends" to be offensive. I thought it was sexist, depicting girls doing stereotypical girl things and boys doing stereotypical boy things. On the other end of the spectrum, Jerry Falwell found "Teletubbies" to be offensive. Which is why, in the U.S., we have a right to freedom of speech but no right not to be offended.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall once said when summarizing Voltaire's attitude on free speech, "I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Which admirably sums up my thoughts on the subject. Lately there have been two events that have caused me to shake my head in disbelief and shudder at the extremism going on in this country at the moment.

The first happened close to home, at Tarleton State University. Long story short, as a theater project for a class, a student decided to perform a play depicting the life of Joshua, whose life parallels Jesus's, and who is gay, who has twelve gay apostles, two of whom he marries. The student, John Jordan Otte describes himself as a gay Christian who feels ostracized from the church, and says that the project is a way to bring understanding. The outrage was such that the university canceled the play, allegedly fearing safety concerns. The Rose Marine Theater in Fort Worth then offered to host the play, but withdrew the offer after receiving a threat.

I have not seen the play in question. I have not read the script. I cannot give an opinion on whether or not it was offensive, but that is all beside the point. Mr. Otte's freedom of speech was trampled upon because some people got offended. As we have established earlier, freedom of speech is protected. Not being offended is not.

The second case in question was recently covered much more eloquently by Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show" but I can't help but ad my two cents. For those who haven't heard, for "South Park's" 200th episode, they made fun of the fact that Mohamed is not allowed to be drawn. For the first part of the first episode, he was hidden behind a censor bar. At the end, he was supposedly put into a bear suit, though in the second episode it was reveled to be Santa. For the first time in "South Park's" run, though, the show was censored by comedy central after receiving threats from an Islamic extremist site.

Now I'm not really a "South Park" fan. I think it's stupid. I only watched the 200th episode because my husband wanted to see it and I was too sick to move from the couch. I will admit that I found the idea of portraying Mohamed behind a censor bar amusing, but other than that I found the episode as stupid as the rest of them. And my husband and I knew that the shit was going to hit the fan after the first episode aired.

Yet as stupid and offensive as I find "South Park" I'm not going to go on a crusade to get it off the air. Other people appreciate that sort of humor, and it would not be fair for me to impose my moral sense on them. If I'm offended, I do the revolutionary thing of turning off the t.v.

This serves me well in many areas. I still get the paper (I'm probably the only one my age who does). I enjoy the comics section. However, I don't enjoy "Mallard Fillmore", "Prickly City", and "Curtis." The former two because I find them politically offensive, the latter because I find it sexist. I solve the problem easily by skipping over them when I read the paper. Yet about once a year letters to the editor come streaming in, usually complaining about "Doonesbury", a strip I like. And when it was still in the papers, "The Boondocks", another strip I liked, got a lot of complaints. Occasionally complaints come in for "Mallard Fillmore" and "Prickly City." Yet I don't wish to see those comics removed any more than those that I like, because just as I have a right to enjoy the strips I like, those who find some redeeming value in those I don't have a right to read them as well. Once you get the hang of it, it's rather easy to do.

The world is a diverse place. The people on it have different tastes, likes, and dislikes. Yet there always seems to be groups of people who feel that their version of morality is absolute and that it is their imperative to force it on others. What is scaring me now is how often threats of violence are used and how we seem to be caving to them. Even when I go through periods when I'm not feeling particularly patriotic, I appreciate that I live in the U.S. and can freely voice that anti-patriotism. It's a right that I cherish, and one that I am alarmed to see constantly under threat due to extremism.

RIP Mies Gies

2010-01-11T20:34:00.000-08:00

Miep Gies died today at age 100. She was one of my personal heroes, even if she never thought of herself as one. In some ways, I can see why she would be reluctant to take the title. Though she was among a group of co-workers who risked their lives to hide Anne Frank and her family, as well as the van Pels family and Fritz Pfeffer from the Nazis during World War II, the three families were found. Of the eight people they tried to save, only one, Anne's father Otto, survived.

Nothing can replace a human life, and I can't even begin to imagine what it would feel like to try so hard to save the lives of eight people and fail. Yet it is because of Miep Gies that we even know about their existence.

After the Franks, van Pels, and Mr. Pfeffer were taken into custody, Miep Gies and Bep Voskuijl went up to the attic and found Anne's diary lying on the floor. Ms. Gies had the quick thinking to gather the diary before the Germans returned the the attic and locked it in her desk where she kept it until the war had ended. It's worth noting that if the Nazis had found the diary, Miep Gies and the five other people who helped hide Anne Frank and the others would have been killed because they had been specifically named in hiding them. Just keeping the diary was dangerous.

When Otto Frank was liberated from Auschwitz and had returned to Amsterdam, he stayed with Miep Gies and her husband while he tried to find what happened to his family. When he learned that Anne and Margot would not be coming home, Miep Gies gave him the diary.

One thing people don't realize is that during World War II, people were not aware that the Holocaust had happened. My grandmother was a teenager at the time the war was on, and says she was shocked to learn about the Holocaust when she went to college after the war had ended. She had no idea that such an atrocity was being committed while she was worrying about the fact that her socks didn't match. The publication of Anne's diary helped open peoples' eyes to the horrors the had been perpetuated under Hitler's regime.

Anne Frank became the symbol for the loss suffered under the Holocaust, and is the most recognizable victim. Though it is but a shallow substitute for the life she was robbed of, her voice lives on.

Thanks to Miep Gies.

She wasn't able to save them. But she ensured no one would forget them. And that is heroic.

It's a Diverse World, Learn to Share

2009-12-20T22:36:00.000-08:00

I sort of celebrate Christmas. I was raised by Secular Humanists who decided to take the "peace of Earth, goodwill to all" message of it and celebrate the sentiment. We had a tree, did the Santa thing, baked a lot of cookies, and being a musical family, sang a lot of carols. The religious aspects were never really brought to light, though my mom did read Luke (I think) to us one year.

I used to love Christmas as a child, but the magic broke sometime when I was thirteen. I'm not sure what happened then to cause it, but I started to become sick of Christmas. The most obvious thing that stands out in my mind was that my mom would play nothing but Christmas music for the entire month of December. Now I have pretty eclectic tastes in music. One minute I want to listen to nothing but Celtic music, the next Broadway tunes, then I'll bounce to Lilith Fair artists before jamming with some Goth bands. Listening to Christmas music all of the time just drove me batty.

Another aspect must have been the isolation I felt over not being a Christian, especially in an area so saturated with the born again conservative Christian environment. When you're a teen everything is about fitting in, but I was different and not able to, and I refused to change myself just to get people to accept me.

When I moved out and went to college, I refused to do the Christmas thing beyond what I had to to satisfy my family. I did not get a tree or decorate at all and did not listen to Christmas music. Aside from what I had to.

Those were the days that I worked retail. At a grocery store. And let me say, they constantly piped the worst of the Christmas music. I put up with it as best I could.

All this aside, I really didn't give a damn if someone wished me a Merry Christmas. I understood that they were being nice, and considering I was working at a grocery store, I'd take all of the nice customers I could get. If they wished me one, I would respond back in kind. If I was wished a Happy Holidays, I would respond in kind. I wouldn't offer a greeting first. For one thing, I know better to assume that just because someone is white they are a Christian. For another thing, they might be a Christian, but may be they're a Jehovah's Witness or some other type of Christian that does not believe in celebrating holidays. As I knew how isolating the holidays could be, I decided to let the customer make the first move in selecting the greeting, if any, s/he was comfortable with. I responded in kind.

That all being said, I am maddened by how the Religious Right has decided that there is a war on Christmas because some retailers are attempting to be inclusive by saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. I can just see the progression. First liberal is an offensive, dirty word, now saying "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" is offensive. Or if a store decides to create fliers to target certain religious groups with a Happy Hanukkah or Ramadan or Winter Solstice or Kwanzaa or Humanist Light, it's an offense on them.

Word to Christians, you're not the only religious group here and retailers are out to sell their stuff to as many people as they possibly can. No offense was meant.

Or they're mad that because they can put their manger scene on government land, they now have to share it with menorahs or symbols of other religions. Personally I don't think any religious symbols should be allowed on government land, but if you get to have your religious symbol there, then all of the other religions are entitled to the same right. Anything else shows favoritism on behalf of the government.

Christmas isn't going anywhere. The government is not banning its worship, denying your right to display religious symbols on your own property, shutting downs churches or preventing you from wishing others a Merry Christmas. But now, unlike in the past, other religions are able to get their two cents in too and it seems to drive some Christians mad.

Which makes me wonder how competitive they feel their religion is on the market of religious ideas if some get so uppity over the thought of allowing other religions a simple acknowledgment from retailers or equal time from the government (something thy say they want with regards to teaching their mythology in science classrooms). May be if they had more faith in their religion to triumph over the others they wouldn't protest such silly details, such as the simple spreading of good cheer that is meant when a clerk wishes someone "Happy Holidays."

And now imagine the predicament that those who work retail at this time are in. It's shitty to work retail during the holidays. The stores are ridiculously busy, the hours are long, and on Christmas Eve when you'd rather be home with your family, you're stuck at the store an hour after closing after having put in a good 10 hours already because some people just can't wrap up their shopping. You're already having to contend with a multitude of customers who are not going to be happy no matter what you do, and now you have to worry about what holiday sentiment you express. Sure your customer is white, but may be she's an atheist and if you wish her a "Merry Christmas" she'll get offended and rip you a new one. Or she could be a Christian and get offended if you decide to go with the more inclusive "Happy Holidays." Or she just doesn't celebrate holidays at all, forgot the it was Christmas Eve and was upset that her quick trip to the grocery store turned into a hour long wait at the line and gets uppity about having any seasonal greeting at all.

Trust me, I've had customers rip me a new one for less. Why put someone in such an impossible position?

I had been coming around a bit after a few Christmas-light years. When my husband (who is Catholic) and I got married two years ago we decided to forgo Christmas Eve stuff with our families and create some of our own traditions together. We bought a tree, watched a movie, and I made a nice dinner. Last year when we got our first house we got some decorations and I actually allowed for Christmas music to be played, but within moderation. Yet this bickering over trifles is starting to ruin any goodwill I was starting to nurse back.

Yesterday I decided to turn the radio to the Christmas station only to abruptly turn it off when their advertisement proclaimed something to the effect of "Here on KVIL we won't wish you a Happy Holidays because we're the Christmas station." Way to fan the flames, KVIL.

It's gotten so bad, apparently, the Rep Henry Brown has decided to introduce a resolution into Congress to protect the symbols and traditions of Christmas. If this is not government favoritism of one religion, I know not what is.

And once again, I find myself souring on Christmas. The season for peace on earth, goodwill to all is being taking over by petty bickering because goodwill to all extends to those who aren't Christians now. And I am tiring of it.

And baffled. In my neck of the woods, Christmas is everywhere. Children seem to know its meaning. Parents who have faiths that don't celebrate Christmas have to contend with their children wanting Christmas trees and for Santa to visit or to have a nativity scene (I like playing with the one at my grandparents house, I saw it as some sort of weird dollhouse, and yes I asked my mom why we didn't have one. Or read "The Pajama Diaries", a favorite comic strip of both my husband and I written by a woman who is Jewish). I've yet to hear reports of Christian parents besieged by their children to celebrate Hanukkah, the Winter Solstice, Ramadan, etc.

When you're a minority religion, you can't avoid learning about the dominant culture's religious beliefs. It's everywhere, and at this time of the year, suffocating. Considering this, I can't help but think of this "War on Christmas" is really the Religious Right's way of playing the persecuted so they can ensure that it is their religion that reigns supreme in the US. Sorry folks, but you're going to have to learn how to share. Oh, and Happy Humanist Light!

A Tale of Three Siblings: A Cautionary Tale

2009-12-14T13:01:00.000-08:00

Once upon a time there lived three siblings. Their names were Mary, Elizabeth and Edward. They were all the children of a great monarch named Henry, but each of them had a different mother. Henry, even though he had cut his ties with the Catholic Church, still considered himself a Catholic, with himself as the head of the church instead of the Pope. Mary was also Catholic, except she never recognized her father as the head of the church. Elizabeth and Edward were members of the new, reformed Protestant faith, albeit secretly for as long as their father lived. Why is this at all important? Because even though they were all Christian, the very fact that they chose to express their faith differently tore their family apart and nearly tore their country apart.

You see, when Henry died, Edward assumed the throne. The Latin mass was outlawed, Protestantism recognized as the state religion, and Mary was put under fire. Edward insisted that she convert, Mary refused. Elizabeth was stuck in the middle or their argument. Mary continued to practice her faith in defiance of Edward's orders, something that could have gotten her killed. By the time he died, it is an understatement to say that relations were strained between them.

When Edward died, Mary did not immediately claim the throne, as was her right. Long story short, the Protestants, scared of a Catholic coming back into power, decided to skip over Mary and Elizabeth in the succession and look to the descendants of Henry's sister, Mary. Her granddaughter, Jane, was a well known Protestant. She was a rather intelligent young woman (she was probably 15 at the time Edward died), and already despite her young age was a renowned Protestant scholar. She was also the pawn of her rather ambitious and abusive parents. She was unwillingly crowned as Queen.

It was a short reign. Mary emerged triumphant, and Jane was happy to relinquish the crown to her. Unfortunately, Jane was later deemed to be too big of a threat because she would not convert to Catholicism and was executed at the age of 17. Jane was not the only one executed. Around 300 heretics were killed during Mary's unpopular reign. Elizabeth was nearly among them. It was due to her popularity that she was spared. The sisters, who had once been close, were now estranged, even though Elizabeth renounced her Protestant faith and outwardly practiced Catholicism to appease Mary. During this time, Elizabeth was jailed in the infamous Tower of London where her mother had been executed (imagine the psychological torture that involved, she was even kept in the same apartments her mother was kept in), then later kept under house arrest.

By the time that Mary died, the kingdom was in shambles. It was bankrupt and divided by religious tensions. Elizabeth, having lived through being in the middle of the dispute between Edward and Mary, and later having lived through the terror of being Mary's target, wisely chose to have her people swear allegiance to her first, their faith was not important so long as she was their first loyalty. There is a reason that Elizabeth is known as England's greatest monarch, her religious tolerance was one of them.

I live in Texas, a conservative bastion of the Religious Right where people try to force their brand of Christianity into the schools, state, and everywhere else that they can. A lot make the claim that the Founding Fathers considered this nation to be Christian one and that the Separation of Church and State is a myth thought up by us liberal Secular Humanists. What they seem to have forgotten was that America was founded by colonies of Christians escaping persecution from OTHER CHRISTIANS. They weren't escaping persecution from Secular Humanists, Muslims, Jews, or Wiccans, but from Christians who practiced differently than they did.

Catholics persecuted the Protestants. When the Protestants came into power, they in turn persecuted the Catholics. Which means that your faith is safe only so long as it is the faith in power. So, wise leaders decided it would be better to do without a faith in power. Hence, a radical idea that formed the basis of American government.

To those who say that as long as we use nondenominational Christian prayers and other observances it will all be fine, I ask what constitutes as Christian? I am often amused by Christians who, when discussing someone who doesn't believe, practice, or act in a manner that they approve of but professes to be a Christian, they say "Well, s/he's not a REAL Christian." Well, the person in dispute believes s/he is a real Christian. Who are you to say they aren't?

Are Mormons Christian? How about Unitarians? Heck, I know people who believe that Catholics aren't Christians. How about Christians who accept evolution? Or those who are gay or support gay rights? Can females be ministers/priests and still be Christian? Do we really want a government dictating what is and isn't Christian? How about what is and isn't acceptable ways of worship?

I am fascinated by the lives of Henry VIII, his wives, his three children and Jane. It was a time that blood relation or marriage (Katherine Parr nearly became Henry's third wife to loose her head when her enemies revealed her as a Protestant) could not protect you if you practiced the wrong faith. For those who still need convincing, then I challenge you to read about their lives and think about how things might have been if it was agreed that religion was a personal choice, not to be forced on others.

Reflections

2009-12-03T09:44:00.000-08:00

They say that as a teacher you'll be taught. I've also learned that as you start on a journey to become a counselor, you start with analyzing yourself. You read about couples therapy, you analyze your own relationship. You actually counsel a couple, and you thank your lucky stars that you're not as screwed up as them. You do family therapy and you start reflecting on the family you grew up in. And then you learn something about yourself that was holding you back, something you thought you had conquered a long time ago. At least that's how it was for me.

I finished my last course in professional counseling yesterday. On the 12th I will graduate. I feel like I am rapid cycle Bipolaring right now, swinging to extremely giddy and happy one moment to sad and bittersweet the next because getting my degree has a wonderful experience, even if there's no way in Hell that I will go and take more classes. In class yesterday where I had to evaluate myself as a counselor and then have my classmates either tell me how great I was or how much I sucked (gulp!) I talked at lengths about my self discovery.

Pretty much in our counseling program we have two classes called practicum. You have an internship where you practice counseling, and then you also see client at the counseling center provided by the university. At the university, the sessions are taped, and you have to how them to the class and get feedback (no pressure). I cannot begin to describe how nerve wracking the experience is, and if you want to make a lot of best friends really quickly, I suggest taking a practicum course. There's nothing like being critiqued in front of a room full of people, while they're getting critiqued that somehow forces friendship bonds to form really quickly.

My first practicum was Hell. My classmates often marveled at how I seemed to get the bizarre cases no one wanted when they're just a beginner. My professor constantly hounded me for not intervening with clients, and just letting them talk. At first I thought it was because I had clients that would talk constantly and I have always had a problem interrupting people. I was raised being told that it wasn't polite to interrupt people. Now I was learning that it was something I had to do.

Then I got a new client, and I could interrupt and intervene and do the counseling thing. I thought I had conquered it! Then I got a couple. Once again I was told I needed to stop listening and intervene more. I thought I was having difficulty because there were two people in the room. That is until I had a family of five and was able to intervene with them. Yet I was still unable to intervene with the couple.

I ended my first practicum feeling rather confused and frustrated, wondering why I could intervene with some people but not others. My second practicum came up, and I had my couple again that I was having a hard time intervening with. I showed the tape to the class, desperate for help and suggestions.

The tape started. The my male client started to speak. Someone asked what he was saying. I couldn't answer and gave a generalized thing of what I thought he was saying. Someone in the class who had amazing hearing started translating. I was amazed at what she was telling me! I had thought he was going off on tangents when in reality he was giving a bunch of relevant information. The problem was I couldn't understand him (and most everyone in the class couldn't either).

It sounds so stupid. Most people know when they can't understand what people are saying. I'm kind of weird. I have an auditory processing disorder. Basically my hearing is good, but as the sound travels from my ear to my brain the message gets garbled, like dyslexia. When I was younger I remember people talking to me, but not being able to understand what they were saying. I remember teachers getting mad at me because they thought I wasn't paying attention in class. I would say I couldn't hear them, but my hearing was tested. It was fine. Stop making excuses. I was a goody two shoes, to put it mildly. Getting in trouble was the worst thing that could happen to me in my book. So I got really good at pretending I was listening. It was a coping mechanism.

Another one was having to settle for the gist of the conversation. People would get irritated with me if I couldn't understand them and asked them to repeat themselves over and over again. I would become embarrassed if someone would huffily ask if I was deaf. It was awkward and made it hard to make friends, so I learned that if I could pretend I was listening and understand enough to get the gist of what the person was saying, then I could get by.

Of course I never consciously realized I was doing this. It served me well at the time and got me through elementary school. By the time I was in junior high things were easier for me. I was out of special ed classes and moving into honors ones. I was making friends. By the time I had gotten my undergrad degree I thought I had conquered the auditory processing disorder.

But here's the thing about coping mechanisms. We learn them as we grow up to help us survive our current predicament. They can be very adaptive for that environment, possibly even lifesaving. But put it in another environment, and they can be down right maladaptive. And the dangerous thing is that they are so ingrained you're barely aware of them, making it difficult to change. This was what happened when I decided to pursue counseling.

I was worried about having a hearing problem considering the field required someone to be a good listener. In my pre-practicum class (where we practice counseling on our classmates before having real clients) I was heartened by the fact that I was doing well and my APD was not a problem. What I didn't know was that all of my classmates were good speakers who could be easily understood.

One of my professors said you don't get the clients you want, you get the clients you need. My first two clients were mumblers. My classmates commented that they could not easily understand them. Someone even wondered why it was that I always seemed to get people who mumbled. Sure enough, the man in the couples tape I showed was a mumbler, too. Mumblers are the hardest people for me to understand. I was relying on two of my coping mechanisms, acting like I was listening and getting the gist. In this setting it was detrimental.

It was a stunning revelation, and a bit humbling. I went home and told my husband what I had learned and he exclaimed that he doesn't care how much money went to putting me through school, it was worth it if I had that revelation. I guess it was impacting my personal life more than I thought.

Insight is never enough. It is important for awareness purposes, but change needs to follow. I started to challenge myself to ask people to repeat themselves if I was not absolutely sure of what they were saying. I will be better.

One of my classmates, who graduated a few semesters before me, said that by learning to become a counselor you go through the counseling process yourself. She was so right. I found out not more of what I already new about my family and couple dynamics, I found out about something that I was unaware of that was holding me back, keeping me from reaching my full potential and, most importantly, being as helpful to my clients as I could be.

It's not always been a pleasant experience, because change is hard and scary. Somehow, though, it has been a wonderful one.

No Easy Solutions in the Suleman Mess

2009-02-20T13:43:00.000-08:00

I must say, Nadya Suleman's timing could not have been worse.

In the face of the worse economic depression in my lifetime that was born from financial irresponsibility on the part of the government and the banks, Nadya Suleman went and had octuplets. Nevermind the fact that she has no income and six other children at home, she went and forked out thousands of dollars for in vitro so she could have one more child. The rest is history.

Yes, her decision was irresponsible and selfish. Her family was facing bankruptcy and was on food stamps and disability for three of her children. There is no justification whatsoever for her to go out and have more children than she could afford. But it's too late to change the fact that she did.

I understand peoples' anger with her. I've read comments from people who wanted larger families but kept theirs' small do to economic necessity. I've read comments from people who are struggling in California's devastated economy and are upset over the possibility of her getting a free lunch ticket do to her selfishness. She has in many ways come to personify the fiscal irresponsibility that has plagued the US as of late.

Therefor I understand why people don't want their tax dollars going to support Nadya Suleman and her oversized family. I also understand why they don't want her to cash in on her notoriety through books, movie, and t.v. deals. Why should she profit from her mistakes when many in the nation are already paying for the mistakes of the government and the banks?

What people tend to forget is that none of Suleman's 14 children asked to be brought into this world. And then there are her parents, who obviously do not want to abandon their grandchildren, but seem tired from helping her raise her children and are broke and going into bankruptcy to help her support them. Yes, they are enabling their daughter by helping her, but who can blame them when the welfare of their grandchildren are at stake? Unfortunately by punishing Suleman it is her children who will suffer the most.

There is no easy solution for this mess that Suleman has made. A lot of people have been calling for CPS to take her children away. They cite a lot of good arguments. There's no way that Suleman and her mother will be able to care for eight premature newborns on their own, especially when you throw the six older kids into the mix, one of whom has autism. Their house is small and a mess, and Suleman does not seem mentally stable.

Yet the foster care system is over crowded. The siblings would undoubtedly be separated from each other, and the older ones would witness the break up of their home and experience the grief of the loss of their family. The grandparents would loose their grandchildren whom they have tried their best to raise. Three of the children have disabilities, making permanent placement difficult for them, and all eight of the preemies are at risk for disabilities. It is an option, and may be it is even the best option, but it is not the perfect recourse offered by so many.

Angels in Waiting recently made an enticing offer to Suleman to provide one nurse for each octuplet and a house where Suleman and her older children can stay with them. Angels in Waiting is a nonprofit that provides nursing care to preemies. Surprisingly, Suleman has not responded to this life line and may not accept it. And if she does, residents of California are quick to point out that the nurses get reimbursed for their time through Medi-Cal, California's medicaid system. Meaning that tax payer dollars will go to the care of her infants, making this an unattractive option as well.

But folks, there is more than Suleman's life at stake. The lives of her 14 children are on the table as well. Yes, it was unfair of her to put them in that position, but as they are here we can't ignore their needs. Our taxpayer dollars are going to be spent on them. Even if they are placed in foster care our tax payer dollars will still support them.

There are simply no good solutions. The damage has been done. Punishing Suleman will not help her children. We need to move beyond our anger and try to determine what would be the best course of action for the welfare of her children.

Rethinking Wedding Dance Lessons: Advice From Someone Who’s Been There

2008-12-12T02:05:00.000-08:00

I thought it was a good idea. My now husband thought it was a good idea. Everyone I told about it thought it was a good idea. Taking dancing lessons so that our first dance as husband and wife would be entertaining and fun both for us and the guests. It would also give Andy and I some quality time together during those hectic months of last minute wedding planning. I had read about it on numerous wedding advice sites about what you could do to make your wedding more special and had become enamored with the idea.

Unfortunately, while the sites had pages of information on how to choose the perfect invitations, there was nothing similar for how to pick a dance company. I figured that it couldn't be too hard, though. I created a spreadsheet with the name of the dance company, their number, contact person, and price only to find that things got confusing when it came to the price. It wasn't the simple matter of seeing that store A sold invitations at $50 for 100 while store B sold them at $25 for 100. No, Company A offered several packages where you would receive individual lessons, group lessons, and party sessions for $700 a month while company B offered the same stuff but for $500 for 4 individual lessons, 5 group sessions and 4 party sessions. In other words, it made it very difficult to determine where I could get the best deal.

It was also hard to browse because to come in for a trial lesson you had to plop down at least $100 at most places, meaning that you already have a financial commitment to whatever place you first went to. We ended up going to Arthur Murray because we knew where the studio was and because there was an ad in the paper for a discount on the first session. Now my experience is only with this one studio, but I was not prepared for how heavy handed they are with selling. But more on that later.

What we wanted was simple. I had a song picked out (Dido's "Here With Me") and I'd heard that dance studios would choreograph a routine for the song and teach you how to do it. Neither of us had a notion of setting out to learn ballroom dancing as a whole, but understood that we would have to learn the basics. We also didn't plan to continue the lessons after the wedding.

Here's a word of advice. If you're like me and just want to learn a routine and they start trying to sell you on bells and whistles, leave. If they start insisting that you should go to group lessons, leave. If they aren't interested in creating a routine for the song but in teaching you ballroom dancing as a whole and saying that by the time the wedding arrives you will know how to dance to anything, leave. They are not selling what you want and there are other studios out there that will.

Another word of caution, they are very smooth in how they reel you in. They spent at least thirty minutes complimenting Andy and I on our decision to learn to dance rather than teaching us how to dance. They told us it would be very good for our marriage and it was a strong sign of our commitment to each other that we were doing it. It makes for a persuasive argument. You don't want to doom your marriage by not taking them up on their dance offer after all. And it makes you feel so good about yourself!

We ended up going for a package deal with individual lessons, group sessions, and party sessions (where there's a mirror ball and music and you dance). I had planned to space the individual lessons out to once a week for a multitude of reasons. At the time I had a job with a two hour commute time and as it was having to go to an individual, group, and party session meant a commitment of three nights a week unless we could combine them. Andy and I are introverts and prefer not to go out a lot so I was already unsure about being out three nights a week. Further, after a two hour commute I was tired and needed time to unwind after a hard day's work and didn't particularly relish going straight from the apartment to the dance studio.

Yet our instructors insisted that if we didn't go for individual sessions for two nights a week at first we would not retain our knowledge and it would all go to waste. I don't know if this is true, but let's put things into perspective. Andy and I weren't planning on becoming professional dancers. We were doing this as a fun way to destress together before the wedding and so we could have a neat routine to impress people with on the big day. The world was not going to end if our routine was not perfect and I doubt that spacing the lessons out a week apart would not do as much damage as claimed. That, and I think the ultimate goal was lining their pockets more.

Let's talk about the group sessions. They were very hard for me, though. I'm not very comfortable around strangers and I did not set out to take dance to conquer fear of strangers, though some do. There were several classes rated into beginner groups, intermediate groups, and advanced groups. Now a few words about me, and if this sounds like you take it into consideration. I have no sense of direction. I do not know my right from my left and am clumsy. Therefore learning to dance was an awkward experience for me. Further, learning to dance with Andy was one thing because I knew him, trusted him, and felt secure around him. If I stepped on his feet, it was no big deal. Dancing with a complete stranger whom I did not know, trust, or feel secure around? Terrifying.

Worse, if we were there for an individual session on a day when there was an advanced class they would insist that we stay for that class. The instructor giving it would seem to take it as a personal insult sometimes if we didn't. I was more comfortable sticking to beginner classes where I hoped everyone would be learning like me. I didn't want to be the only awkward newbie in an advanced class. They couldn't seem to understand my discomfort with the idea. I also had the unfortunate experience of during one of the early sessions having a member of the group become visibly agitated with how awkward I was and started to make huffing noises whenever he saw I was next in line to dance with.

Now everyone else was very nice and sweet, but it only takes one. And he seemed to be at every group session as well. So I made it a point not to go to the groups, thus causing friction with Andy who was right in that we were paying good money for those sessions and that I shouldn't let one person run me off. So there went our idea of creating more intimacy. It became an additional source of stress that we could have lived without. We did ask about the person in question, but weren't taken too seriously about it.

Now if you're outgoing and always eager to try new things, then I'm sure that group sessions sound wonderful to you and that is all right. But if you share any of the qualities with me, rethink any company that offers group sessions as part of the package.

Finally, clear the air before hand about whether or not you plan to go to dancing competitions. Andy and I had no intention of doing any such thing, but we were heavily pressured to do so and harangued for not doing so. At their worst they said that they needed to do an individual session with each of us so they could separate us and independently pressure us into doing it because our partner would like it. That, and it also ate up two sessions in our package rather than one. Now there's no way to guarantee that you won't be pressure down the line, but it is a good thing to ask about upfront and to let them know that under no circumstances will you go to a competition. Unless, of course, that is your thing.

As we got to the final month before the wedding we knew a few basic steps from several dance styles but not enough to string together into a long song. When we started to talk to them about it they gave us the bogus advice at cutting the song to a minute length, but gave us a routine of walking onto the floor, doing a few twirls, and exiting. Which leads to my final point to consider.

When the day came we were so focused on the mechanics of the dance that we weren't focusing on each other. I don't know that many of the guests even noticed that we took to time to have lessons, but then it's not about the guests. Your wedding is not a song and dance routine put out to entertain them. I had more fun dancing with people who didn't know how to dance because we were focusing on having fun rather than getting it right than I did dancing with my husband on our wedding day.

Basically you're already worried about the multitude of things that could go wrong that are much more important than the dance. Why put yourself under to additional stress of learning a dance routine to amaze the guests with? You may decide differently and for those that do I hope your experience is more positive. And as a whole the idea still isn't a bad one, but it definitely requires more soul searching to decide whether or not it is truly a good idea for you and your spouse-to-be.

I don't typically write things of this nature, but when I looked back I realized there was little information on the web about this wedding day suggestion and hope that my experience may be able to help other researching couples out there. Everything else about the wedding seemed to have way to much information written about it so this was very much an experiment on my part. Good luck with yours.

We Will Not Stop Complaining

2007-08-29T22:08:00.000-07:00

“Quit Complaining” was the title of the column. Linda Chavez is the author who penned it. I read it, amazed once again about how women, so to quote Tori Amos, are pitted against feminist. It is even worse when it is a fellow woman who is doing this, one who has benefited greatly from the feminist movement.

The article was about why women should stop complaining about getting paid less then men. Her reasoning was based on a study conducted by Linda Babcock who works at Carnegie Mellon University. According to Babcock’s research, women make less pay than men because they do not negotiate with potential employers to received a better starting pay.

Well, there you have it. Women make less because we are less aggressive. But wait! As Chavez even points out later on in her article, women who are more aggressive and ask for more money upfront are penalized by potential employers while men who ask for more pay are not!

So it seems to me that women are in a Catch 22. We either take what we’re given so that we can work harmoniously with our future employers, or risk being penalized by being assertive and asking for our fair share.

Of course, Ms. Chavez failed to point that out the Catch 22. Her attitude was either ask for more money or shut up about it.

Further, I visited Linda Babcock’s website. Far from saying, as Ms. Chavez would have you believe, that this was a mere problem to be laid solely on the feet of women, Babcock points out how that it is a societal problem. Women are praised for being self-sacrificing and for trying to please others. They are also criticized for standing up for their own interests.

Yet while the wage gap concerns me, what alarms me is how negatively women view feminists. Especially women like Chavez who hold a job, have run for election, who vote, and have gone to college. You see, Chavez would not have had any of these opportunities had feminists not complained.

The reason that women in this nation have the opportunity to vote in the first place is because feminists complained. The reason that women can run for, and be elected to political office now is because feminists complained. The reason that women can go to college and received more than an MRS is because feminists complained. The reason that women can enjoy a career now is because feminists complained. For that, I would like to thank them, especially seeing as many in our society are so unthankful towards them.

They were told to shut up then, but they didn’t, and because of any woman who enjoys the privileges of voting, education, and a rewarding career has a lot to thank them for. Any woman who has left an abusive spouse, utilized birth control, or has been elected into office also has a lot to thank the feminists for.

Yet there is still work to be done, and until we have achieved equality, we will not stop complaining.

Bibliography:
Babcock, Linda. Program for Research and Outreach on Gender Equity in Society. 29 August 2007.
Chavez, Linda. “Quit Complaining.” Jewish World Review. 3 August 2007. 29 August 2007. http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/chavez080307.php3
Wikipedia. 29 August 2007.

A Little Acceptance

2007-01-23T03:39:00.000-08:00

I am a Secular Humanist Freethinker. I do not believe in Gods or Goddesses. I do not believe in karma, or following the Middle Path, or animism. I believe in what can be measured and evaluated objectively. I believe that salvation lies in the actions of humanity, and that if something needs to be changed, get off your knees and get to work.

I consider myself to be a good person. Other people consider me to be a good person as well, until they learn that I do not believe in any sort of higher power. While nothing about me has changed, suddenly in some peoples’ minds I might as well eat babies for lunch. Ironically I have forsaken the consumption of red meat and pork for humanitarian reasons.

Just as religion is important to some people, my lack of religion, or rather, my philosophies of belief, are important to me. They guide my moral compass and influence what causes I campaign for. In fact, one of those causes happen to be letting people know that while I am a non-believer, I am also a good person, and that there are many other non-believers out there that are good people as well. This is very important to me, as someone who was born and raised an atheist. Yet the word atheist sounds so dirty, as if I were cussing by merely describing my belief system. It’s why I prefer saying that I am a Secular Humanist Freethinker.

For four years I have been in a relationship with a devout Catholic, and this summer we will be tying the knot. The journey has not been easy. Indeed, we had to iron issues out with pre-marital counseling. Yet we both decided that we want to make this work.

I must have a masochistic streak in me somewhere, however.

One thing about atheists in general that I have noticed is that we tend to have an overwhelming need to be accepted unconditionally for who we are. You need not look farther than the Christian culture to find the root of this need. Once people get over the shock that someone they know could be an atheist, most come around and resume friendly relationships. The only difference is that they want you to change.

I’ve heard all of the arguments. Many a time an eager Christian comes to me thinking they’ve found the perfect argument that will cause me to see the light, only to find that I shoot it down midway through and debunk it before they can even blink. Those who don’t actively try to convert me make the subtle (or sometimes not so subtle hints) that I will one day convert.

How can these people truly be my friends when they can’t accept me unconditionally, however? How can they be my friend when they wait in the hope that a core center of my identity will one day change?

I tend to not hang around those people, preferring to hang around with those who do accept me in the here and now. Fortunately my fiancé accepts me as is. His family is a different matter.

In fact, when we visiting his mother after announcing our engagement one of the first things she started talking about was how I would convert after the children were born because her son-in-law did. Talk about a warm welcome to the family. Worse still, as the years go by and I remain as atheistic as I always have, I will most likely bare the brunt of her resentment, even though she has herself to thank for her continued delusions that I will one day convert.

Worse still when reading the scant information about interfaith relationships online I find little about people in a believer-non-believer pairing. What I find generally plays to the tune of the non-believer should just submit to what the believer wants because it doesn’t mean anything to the non-believer. Talk about insensitive. As I mentioned before, my non-belief means a lot to me.

When people say that the non-believer should attend church services with the believer they have little idea on what a scary, stressful, and socially isolating event church services are for some of us. Let’s start with why church services are scary.

I live in the Bible Belt. In elementary school, in my innocence I told my classmates that I was an atheist. Big mistake. No one would be my friend. I was bullied on the playground. I also had it easy. I know one girl who was actually suspended from school for being an atheist. I knew a young man who was beaten up, and when he report the hate crime to the police, they would do nothing about it. Now can you possibly envision why entering a church full of devout Christians might possibly be a scary experience?

Now let’s talk about stressful. Studies have shown that pretending to be something you are not is stressful. This is a common problem that closet homosexuals have when they attempt to act straight by marrying people of the opposite gender, etc. Going to church I have two options. I can pretend to pray, gesticulate, go through the Communion line, etc. and take it safe while at the same time wonder if doing all of that makes me a hypocrite, or I can remain politely seated and observe the ceremonies and hope that no one asks me any awkward questions later. Thrilling choices.

The most predominate factor, however, is social isolation. Churches and other places of worship are places where people who believe the same thing gather to celebrate that belief. Upon entering a church, people know that they have something in common with the other people attending that service: that they share the same religious philosophy. They use that to build relationships. There is nothing wrong with that. I do it in secular communities.

I remember the first day of my Philosophy of Science Fiction college course. I signed up as soon as I learned about it, brimming with excitement over all of the sci-fi enthusiasts I would meet. During class, our professor had us introduce ourselves and name our favorite sci-fi ‘thing.’ Gradually we made our introductions, and we talked passionately about our favorite sci-fi book, TV show, or movie, except for two of the girls. They had no interest in sci-fi at all, they admitted with a somewhat red face, but they needed the credits. My presence in a church is like the presence of those two girls. The rest of us didn’t really know what to make of them, just as people in church don’t know what to make of me.

Which circles back to scary. I’m scared to talk to the people there. Scared that they’ll find out that I’m a foreign, polluting element. So after a year of the mental anguish, I stopped going to mass with my fiancé. Things have improved since.

Indeed, we have found that our relationship works best when we keep our religious lives separate. The wedding, however, has caused them to mix painfully.

Catholic weddings are not easy when both of the people involved are Catholic. It’s a nightmare when one person is not Catholic. Sadly, the Catholic Church has been the main force behind stamping out the enjoyment I was receiving from my wedding planning. Worse still, they feel that I should feel privileged to be marrying with in the church!

One of the most tedious programs they put us through was mentoring with a sponsor couple. It was either that or a weekend retreat with a bunch of devout Catholic couples. Through out this program I was indirectly bombarded with messages that were insulting to my lifestyle. My fiancé and I should pray together because it will strengthen our relationship, and that families who stay together pray together.

I thought of my parents, both of whom are atheists, who after nearly twenty-seven years of marriage still act like a couple who are dating. In fact, my Christian friends loved staying at my house growing up because my parents weren’t fighting, weren’t divorced, weren’t abusive, etc. Further, if the family that prays together truly does stay together, then why do atheists have the lowest divorce rate? I’m not lying, atheists have the lowest divorce rate, not Christians. In fact, Christianity as a whole lags far behind us.

Pamphlets they passed out extolled that children should be raised in a religious environment. Considering that my sister and I were not raised religiously but still managed to get into the National Honors Society makes me doubt those claims (and for those of you not in the know, I had the added disadvantage academically as I have multiple learning disabilities. I was not in special ed classes in high school, though, I did it on my own without a divine being).

Further, scientific evidence does not back this claim. Children need to be raised in loving households where discipline is consistent and the parents are actively involved in their child’s progress. Religion has nothing to do with it.

Yet despite these and other indirectly negative comments, I was told that I should consider joining some church activities with my fiancé. Why? So I can be indirectly insulted? As so I can be ‘friends’ with a bunch of people who one day hope that I will convert?

Which brings me back to what I really crave from other people. I crave their acceptance. I want them to accept me as I am, as a person, as a woman, as a science and sci-fi enthusiast, as a bookworm and an author, and as an atheist. Sadly I don’t find this often.

Bibliography:
Robinson, B.A. “U.S. Divorce Rates For Various Faith Groups, Age Groups, and
Geographic Areas.” Religious Tolerance. 8 February 2006. 23 January 2007
< http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm>.

Schwartz, Allen. “The Emotional Challenges of Interfaith Marriage.” PsychCentral.
12 December 2006. 23 January 2007
marriage?pp=1>.

Of Panaceas and Magic Lamps: The School Uniform Delusion

2006-12-12T23:09:00.000-08:00

There are many things that I appreciate about the Japanese school system that I wish that the US would import. Teaching children study skills and doing activities to help their attention span grow, rather than just throwing children into a classroom expecting them to magically know how to learn, for instance. However, we imported the uniforms, something that I am less enthralled with.

Let’s forget the fact that it is boring to see a group of kids dressed a like and look at the arguments for uniforms. The most ubiquitous argument is that school uniforms magically help children to behave and enables them to improve their study habits so that their grades improve. I don’t buy this argument for several reasons.

I had the unique opportunity to work as a substitute teacher for the Arlington Independent School District as many school were transitioning to using school uniforms. I noticed no difference in the behavior of the students in schools with uniforms from students in schools without uniforms. In fact, some of the best classes I subbed for were in schools without uniforms!

I also had the privilege of subbing in one school before they adopted uniforms and then later after they had adopted uniforms. I was extremely lucky to get the same class in both instance, and surprise of surprises, there was no noticeable change in their behavior.

However, my experience is rather subjective. While I might not have noticed a difference, another person might. Luckily there have been studies conducted on the effectiveness of school uniforms, and they have come to the same conclusion that I have. School uniforms “did not lead to an improvement in attendance, behavior, drug use, or academic achievement” (Brunsma, Rockquemore).

The sole exception that I have found was made by a study funded by French Toast, a leading maker of school uniforms. Call me cynical, but I suspect that they have a bias.

Okay, so school uniforms aren’t the panacea to all of our school problems. That still doesn’t mean that they couldn’t be helpful. The other argument I’ve heard is that is prevents kids from being teased because they can’t afford the latest fashion in clothing. If only it were that easily.

Sadly, some of the kids in the places I have subbed for came from such economically disadvantaged households that their clothes were rags. Their clothing had permanent stains, was threadbare and torn, but still managed to make the dress code. So instead of being the children who couldn’t afford the Calvin Klein shirt, they were still the children who can’t afford clothes that aren’t ratted and torn.

Secondly, this type of thinking stems from the erroneous belief that children are bullied because of their clothes, and that by merely changing their clothes they will cease to be bullied. The sad truth is that once a child becomes a target for a bully, there is little that the victim can do to stop it.

I know this from experience. I was bullied in school because I did not have fashionable clothes. So my parents bought me some. Unfortunately, the problem was not stopped. They simply found something else to tease me about. Sadly, my experience is not the exception to the rule: it is the rule. Bullying makes the bully feel powerful. The bully will not give that power up just because his or her victim gets a wardrobe update.

Further, bullies do not merely target what their victim is wearing. They can target anything. Being too fat, being too skinny, having curly hair, having dark skin, having light skin, stuttering, etc. The perspective bully has an endless list of things they can choose from to bully any child with. So, I will make this point clear. STOP TELLING THE VICTIM OF THE BULLY THAT THEY ARE THE ONE WHO NEEDS TO CHANGE!

The problem is not with what the victim is wearing. It is not the victim’s weight, height, color, or creed. The problem is with the bully, and therefore to end school bullying, you must target the bully, not the victim!

These first two arguments fall into what I term the Magic Lamp Category. It’s where people see that there is a problem, ex: school violence, and look for a quick fix rather than taking the time to fully investigate the cause and implement programs that will take a lot of effort and money to fix. These quick fixes give the impression that they are doing something constructive, when in reality they are merely sidestepping the issue. Real change does not happen over night, it is slow, but it is also more enduring.

The third argument I’ve heard is that it saves children the time of waking up before school to decide what to wear. I find this argument laughable. If it is really that much of a hassle then do what my mother did when my sister and I were in elementary school: have them pick out an outfit the night BEFORE school and lay it out so that it will be ready for them to change into in the morning.

In fact this practice was so nice, that I even got into the habit of packing my school stuff in my backpack the night before and left it by the door so it would be ready for me in the morning so that I wouldn’t have to scramble for it. And to this day I do it with lunch. I hate waking up early in the morning to pack my lunch, yet the alternative is to eat fast food junk that I’m trying to cut out of my diet. So I pack my lunch the night before work.

So in my mind, it is actually a good idea for children to learn to get ready for the next morning during the evening because it becomes a useful lifelong habit.

The final argument I encounter is that school uniforms are cheaper. I price compared the items I found at French Toast with those that I found at Wal-Mart and found them to be comparable. And the stuff at Wal-Mart was much cuter, in my opinion.

So there you have it. The first two arguments are mere wish fulfillment, and the second two are flimsy. In my opinion, if educators are smart, they will start pursuing more constructive means of tackling problems facing our school system rather than rubbing ancient oil lamps in the hope that a genie will appear.

Bibliography
Brunsma, D.L. and Rockquemore, K.A. “Effects of Student Uniforms on Attendance,
Behavior Problems, Substance Abuse, and Academic Achievement.” The
Journal of Education Research 92.1 (1998): 53-62.
French Toast: Official School Wear. 12 December 2006.
< http://frenchtoast.com/jump.jsp?itemID=0&itemType=HOME_PAGE>.
Wal-Mart. 12 December 2006. .
Williams, Darlene. “School Uniforms: The Raging Debate.” The Polk County School
Uniforms Page. 12 December 2006.
< http://www.gate.net/~rwms/UniformDWilliams.html>

Hard Lessons Learned

2006-12-12T00:11:00.000-08:00

That people make mistakes is an undisputed fact of life. Another fact to throw in, however, is that some people’s mistakes are more costly than others, and when these costly mistakes are made, everyone knows about it. Think of the adolescent who attempts to, or succeeds in, committing murder. The thought of an adult committing such an act is horrible in and of itself, but for a child to do so is unthinkable.

Yet it happens. The perpetrator of these tragedies is thrust into a whirlwind of publicity. Their life story is closely dissected by an eager press, and everything from their incarceration, trial and, if they are so lucky, their release from jail is vehemently monitored.

There are a lot of ways to mess up your life, yet landing in jail for attempted murder or murder means that you’ve hit rock bottom. In the eyes of the public, you are an incurable criminal.

Which is perhaps why I have an interest in those perpetrators who do turn their lives around when they leave prison. The three I have in mind are Amy Fisher, Juliet Hulme, and Pauline Parker. The crimes which these ladies committed were reprehensible, and they will be the first to admit it. Yet all three, upon their release, have managed to turn their life around. In their case, jail was not a death sentence for them, and they were able to make a positive influence on society.

Juliet Hulme and Pauline Parkers’ cases are linked. To say that they were best friends is an understatement. They were so close that when Hulme’s family made plans to move, the girls convinced themselves that if they murdered Parker’s mother, Honora, that Parker would be allowed to move with the Hulme family.

The girls lured Honora into a park where they bludgeoned her to death with a brick wrapped in a stocking. Their cover story was quickly blown, and the diary that Parker kept was extremely incriminating. The plan for the murder had been laid out within.

The girls served five years in prison and were released on the condition that they never see each other again. Pauline Parker has faded completely from the public eye. She resides in New Zealand, and has had yet to partake in another criminal offense. Juliet Hulme, on the other hand, still remains in the public eye, but is now known as Anne Perry, a popular mystery novelist. Like Parker, she also has yet to commit another crime.

Then there is Amy Fisher. When she was sixteen, she became romantically involved with a married man twice her age named Joey Buttafuoco. Buttafuoco introduced Fisher to a world of sleazy hotels, life as an escort, and the idea that life would be better if she would kill his wife, Mary Jo. Luckily, Fisher did not succeed in her attempt to kill Mary Jo, but it wasn’t from lack of trying.

The media was quick to portray Fisher as an incurable nymphomaniac so obsessed with Joey Buttafuoco that she would do anything to have him. The premise is debatable, but what is more solid is that after her seven years spent in prison, she managed to better herself upon her release.

She wrote a formal apology to Mary Jo Buttafuoco, lamenting the pain she has caused her. She now works as a writer and campaigns for prison reform. She is married now, with two children, and no further criminal record.

Nothing can reverse the damage that these girls wrought on society. Because of Hulme and Parker, Honora is dead. Nothing can bring her back. Amy Fisher could easily have killed Mary Jo Buttafuoco, and while this did not happen, the pain that the incident caused Mary Jo and her children is something they will always live with.

I’ve read many letters of outcry against their release from prison. I’ve read letters from people who doubt that these girls have truly been reformed. And then there are people who believe that they messed up so badly they should never be released, or even put to death. An eye for an eye is their motto.

Yet what I see is the potential for redemption. While I feel that these girls made a stupendous mistake, and while I feel that they deserved their prison sentences, but I also feel that it was right to give them a second chance. They took it, and did well with it.

Bibliography
Fisher, Amy. If I Knew Then… Lincoln: iUniverse, Inc., 2004.
McGraw, Seamus. “All About the Pauline Yvonne Parker and Juliet Hulme Case.” Crime
Library: Criminal Minds and Methods. 12 December 2006
.