Hello faithful readers! If I have any... ;)
Well, it's that time of year again! Welcome to the holidays! Now that we're all full of turkey and stuffing, the Christmas season can begin in earnest. I haven't written a post in a while, but sitting here this morning (Having been up since three AM, not to shop but to deal with a wakeful infant) and watching the news about fights breaking out in stores and a shooting in a parking lot at a Kohl's store somewhere in the country, I felt compelled to write about this insane thing that American's do every holiday season.
First off, Christmas comes waaaaay too early for me! I was out shopping for my Thanksgiving supplies earlier in the week, and felt dismayed at hearing Christmas music playing in the store! Now, I love Christmas music, don't get me wrong! But, there is something special to me about saving those songs up all year, and then bingeing on them during the holidays. (sure beats bingeing on candy!)
Christmas time just feels special to me. It's like there is something in the air. People seem a little nicer, happier. The songs and lights and beauty of it all enchants me. It's not about the gifts, though I love buying special gifts for the people I love and getting to see their faces when they open them far more than receiving gifts myself. It's just a really magical time of year.
But our insane society seems hell-bent on ruining it every year with more, and more and more marketing and stuff! Having 'Black Friday' sales on Thanksgiving now! It's just crazy! How did that happen?
I went two years ago to a Thursday night sale. All I wanted was a sewing machine. They were really cheap and it was for myself, not even for a gift. I got there way early, like two hours before the sales would begin. I canvassed the store, planned out my strategy. The aisle where the sewing machines were (there were only 10 of them, that's it) was roped off. So I stood there at the end of the aisle, chatting with other customers as they gathered. A woman pointed out to me a place in a side aisle I could stand to get a closer shot at the machines. Then they unroped the area a half hour or more before the sale was to start. So I went and stood next to the machines. My leg was touching one, I felt pretty good about it all.
Next to the sewing machines was a huge bin of bath towels for like 1.75 each or something. Like super cheap! Turns out most of the people in that aisle wanted those towels. As we stood there jammed together like sardines in a can, waiting for the store to announce the go ahead, people were already digging through the towels to find matching colors and then standing there with there hands on a pile of them. Some people even put them in their carts, even though the store repeatedly announced that you should not be putting sale items in your cart till the sale began. Store employees came by and told people to stop only to be completely ignored. The behavior was completely juvenile!
Finally they began the sale some ten or twenty minutes early. I quickly grabbed my sewing machine and put it in my cart. Then I turned to see the towels disappearing so fast it was almost comical. In a moment of silliness, I dove underneath someone, reached my arm down in the bin and managed to grab three or four of them. I don't know what came over me, it was like mob mentality.
Then I was completely boxed in and couldn't get out of that aisle for nearly half an hour. I kind of had to laugh at the people who were mad that the towels were gone. It took no more than a minute for what had to be maybe a few hundred towels to completely go.
I went around the rest of the store, managed to pick up a few good deals for gifts for the kids, and then made my way to the checkout where I stood in line for ages. When I came out of the store and got home, I felt like the shell shocked survivor of some natural disaster! NEVER again will I put myself through that, I mean seriously, never again.
The stores do this on purpose, build up these frenzied events by playing on human nature. People camping out since last Sunday for deals?! I just can't fathom it!
Thankfully, there does seem to be a movement this year of people that are boycotting this kind of behavior. But so long as people continue to allow the stores to manipulate them, then this sort of thing will go on. We all really need to think about what the holidays mean to us, and figure out if the insanity is really worth it. It isn't to me.
So that's my soap box speech for today! Be safe folks!
Dawn
Friday, November 29, 2013
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Coming out...
Hello readers!
Today I have spent some time, now that I finally got my son to take a nap, arguing with people on a local news Facebook page. Of course, why I do that to myself is beyond me. All it does is raise my blood pressure. Good thing I'm on meds for that, lol. But, it led me to doing some thinking which led to this blog post.
The posting I was arguing on was about the military's announcement that they would extend benefits to same sex spouses of service members. All of you know how I feel about gay rights. I've blogged about it before, and I think I've made it pretty clear what I believe.
However, I think to truly make clear my thinking on this subject, there is something that I need to disclose about myself.
I am bisexual.
It's something I've only recently admitted to myself. I've always felt attraction toward women. I never understood it. I had been with a woman sexually once but wasn't sure at the time what was motivating me and I never told anyone in my life about it. (other than my husband) But it all boils down to the fact that I feel sexually attracted to men AND women. Not one more than the other. I like them both.
But it took a conversation with my husband about things that turn me on to make me say it out loud. That I am bisexual. Guess what? My husband is a million percent cool with it. He loves me for who I am and that hasn't changed. I am the woman that he married. The only difference now is that I really KNOW who I am.
It doesn't make any difference in my marriage. I am 100%, head over heels in love with my husband. He's an amazing man and I am lucky and blessed to have him. Our life and marriage is wonderful and I wouldn't change it, or him, for the world. He doesn't, as some men might, feel threatened by the fact that I'm bisexual. In fact, he thinks it's pretty awesome. :)
So, you may ask, what does it matter? Why 'come out' when it doesn't seem to be necessary. When, because I'm in a heterosexual marriage, I don't have to struggle as do others in the LGBT community, for equal rights?
It is exactly because of that fight for equality that I need to come out. That I proclaim who I am loudly and proudly while I stand alongside others in the LGBT community to fight for equality. I already have equal rights because of my marriage, but what if I had met a woman instead of Kevin? What if she'd been from England? I'd still be living apart from my love by thousands of miles because the US doesn't allow same-sex partners to immigrate. So, while those restrictions don't affect me, they could have.
I also just don't believe that people should have to be secretive about who they are. Everyone deserves the right to be who God made them to be, and I've always been told that God doesn't make mistakes. So, I know that He made me to be who I am.
I've reached a point in my life where I don't feel like I should have to do anything to conform to what other people think is right. My conscience guides my actions. My love for Christ and his commandment to love one another guides my actions. But if I want to dye my hair purple (which I plan to do), get a few more tattoos, or fight for marriage equality because it's the right thing to do, then I'm going to do it regardless of what anyone else thinks.
Do I think that my coming out will lose me some friends? Possibly it will. If it does then I'll be sad for those people. But I will not mourn their loss in my life if they cannot accept me for the person that I am.
So, that's it. That is me in a nutshell. It is very freeing to just say it out loud and just be who I am.
Thanks for reading,
Dawn
Today I have spent some time, now that I finally got my son to take a nap, arguing with people on a local news Facebook page. Of course, why I do that to myself is beyond me. All it does is raise my blood pressure. Good thing I'm on meds for that, lol. But, it led me to doing some thinking which led to this blog post.
The posting I was arguing on was about the military's announcement that they would extend benefits to same sex spouses of service members. All of you know how I feel about gay rights. I've blogged about it before, and I think I've made it pretty clear what I believe.
However, I think to truly make clear my thinking on this subject, there is something that I need to disclose about myself.
I am bisexual.
It's something I've only recently admitted to myself. I've always felt attraction toward women. I never understood it. I had been with a woman sexually once but wasn't sure at the time what was motivating me and I never told anyone in my life about it. (other than my husband) But it all boils down to the fact that I feel sexually attracted to men AND women. Not one more than the other. I like them both.
But it took a conversation with my husband about things that turn me on to make me say it out loud. That I am bisexual. Guess what? My husband is a million percent cool with it. He loves me for who I am and that hasn't changed. I am the woman that he married. The only difference now is that I really KNOW who I am.
It doesn't make any difference in my marriage. I am 100%, head over heels in love with my husband. He's an amazing man and I am lucky and blessed to have him. Our life and marriage is wonderful and I wouldn't change it, or him, for the world. He doesn't, as some men might, feel threatened by the fact that I'm bisexual. In fact, he thinks it's pretty awesome. :)
So, you may ask, what does it matter? Why 'come out' when it doesn't seem to be necessary. When, because I'm in a heterosexual marriage, I don't have to struggle as do others in the LGBT community, for equal rights?
It is exactly because of that fight for equality that I need to come out. That I proclaim who I am loudly and proudly while I stand alongside others in the LGBT community to fight for equality. I already have equal rights because of my marriage, but what if I had met a woman instead of Kevin? What if she'd been from England? I'd still be living apart from my love by thousands of miles because the US doesn't allow same-sex partners to immigrate. So, while those restrictions don't affect me, they could have.
I also just don't believe that people should have to be secretive about who they are. Everyone deserves the right to be who God made them to be, and I've always been told that God doesn't make mistakes. So, I know that He made me to be who I am.
I've reached a point in my life where I don't feel like I should have to do anything to conform to what other people think is right. My conscience guides my actions. My love for Christ and his commandment to love one another guides my actions. But if I want to dye my hair purple (which I plan to do), get a few more tattoos, or fight for marriage equality because it's the right thing to do, then I'm going to do it regardless of what anyone else thinks.
Do I think that my coming out will lose me some friends? Possibly it will. If it does then I'll be sad for those people. But I will not mourn their loss in my life if they cannot accept me for the person that I am.
So, that's it. That is me in a nutshell. It is very freeing to just say it out loud and just be who I am.
Thanks for reading,
Dawn
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Pedestrians who?
Hello readers!
I spent a long while as a pedestrian. For many periods of my life, I did not have a drivers licence, and if I had, I wouldn't have been able to afford a car. So, I walked, rode a bike, took a bus or taxi when I could. But I didn't have that freedom that comes from having a set of wheels to get myself around with. A freedom that now, admittedly, I take for granted. So having been both a pedestrian and a driver, I now feel pretty darn qualified to rant about this subject.
Nearly on a daily basis, or at least so it seems for the last six months or so, I hear about pedestrians being killed by cars on the streets of Indianapolis. Now I don't live in Indy, but I'm a half an hour car ride away from the outskirts and only an hour from the city center. Having driven through downtown Indy, the traffic is scary to say to the least. There is a lot of it and it moves fast. Some of the roads and traffic signals are confusing to say the least. And a lot of the roads are massively wide, multi-lane monsters built to accommodate the huge traffic flow.
I get it that Indy is a big city. But it has to be one of the least pedestrian friendly cities I've ever seen! The most appalling thing about all these deaths, are the comments on the news articles. People blaming the pedestrian, saying it MUST have been their fault. And in some cases, I'm sure it is. But it can't possibly be that in all cases. The utter lack of compassion or empathy is disgusting. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but it still makes me very angry.
Even when I lived in little bitty Winchester, with it's minuscule population, and even though I always followed rules ie: wait for signals, etc. I very nearly got hit several times. I actually had someone waiting to make a left turn decide I wasn't moving fast enough and they sped within inches of my back and honked their horn, scaring the life out of me. When I had the right of way! I also nearly got hit on my bike a number of times, even though again, I followed the traffic rules.
But too many people (and I'm not saying everyone cause I see many people who do give way to pedestrians) just think the road completely belongs to them. They disregard right of way to everyone, pedestrians, cyclists, and other cars. (pickup truck drivers are notorious for this) and seem to act as though traffic laws simply don't apply to them.
Or when the weather is bad, sweltering hot or frigidly cold, pouring with rain or pelting down snow or ice, I've seen people in their nice, air conditioned/heated cars, safe and comfortable from the elements, force a pedestrian to wait while they sped through an intersection. I'm sorry, if you can't wait five seconds for a pedestrian to cross, helping them get out of that weather a little sooner, then you should leave your house earlier if you're worried about being late. Its despicable!
And I've been in cities where the pedestrian takes precedence, and even though drivers don't like it, they put up with it, otherwise they'd have massive fines or jail time on their hands. I've walked the streets of New York City and did not feel the same kind of fear of traffic that I do in Indianapolis. And Indy is a gnat compared to the population of NYC. I've also been to other countries, England and Wales. And while I found the drivers to be a bit crazy sometimes, they still followed pedestrian rules. In England, all traffic, on all four sides of an intersection, stops when pedestrians are given the go ahead to cross. ALL OF THEM! And, there are entire streets of city centers in large cities like Birmingham or Wolverhamton, that are designated to be 'car free'. The road is home only to pedestrians, and you often have little shop booths running right down the center of the road you can peruse. This doesn't seem to bother anyone there, but Americans, it would likely drive them crazy. At least here in Indiana!
Rather than complaining about pedestrians, Indianapolis needs to do something to protect pedestrians from insane drivers who are selfish, self-important fools that act as though the world needs to move out of their way, rather than the other way around. How many more people have to die before they get a clue?
I'm not saying its always the drivers fault, but stop assuming it is always the pedestrian too. I think people do that simply because they can't admit to themselves they've probably almost hit a pedestrian from time to time. That would mean admitting they are wrong, and who likes to do that?
Okay, rant over, thanks for listening!
Dawn
I spent a long while as a pedestrian. For many periods of my life, I did not have a drivers licence, and if I had, I wouldn't have been able to afford a car. So, I walked, rode a bike, took a bus or taxi when I could. But I didn't have that freedom that comes from having a set of wheels to get myself around with. A freedom that now, admittedly, I take for granted. So having been both a pedestrian and a driver, I now feel pretty darn qualified to rant about this subject.
Nearly on a daily basis, or at least so it seems for the last six months or so, I hear about pedestrians being killed by cars on the streets of Indianapolis. Now I don't live in Indy, but I'm a half an hour car ride away from the outskirts and only an hour from the city center. Having driven through downtown Indy, the traffic is scary to say to the least. There is a lot of it and it moves fast. Some of the roads and traffic signals are confusing to say the least. And a lot of the roads are massively wide, multi-lane monsters built to accommodate the huge traffic flow.
I get it that Indy is a big city. But it has to be one of the least pedestrian friendly cities I've ever seen! The most appalling thing about all these deaths, are the comments on the news articles. People blaming the pedestrian, saying it MUST have been their fault. And in some cases, I'm sure it is. But it can't possibly be that in all cases. The utter lack of compassion or empathy is disgusting. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but it still makes me very angry.
Even when I lived in little bitty Winchester, with it's minuscule population, and even though I always followed rules ie: wait for signals, etc. I very nearly got hit several times. I actually had someone waiting to make a left turn decide I wasn't moving fast enough and they sped within inches of my back and honked their horn, scaring the life out of me. When I had the right of way! I also nearly got hit on my bike a number of times, even though again, I followed the traffic rules.
But too many people (and I'm not saying everyone cause I see many people who do give way to pedestrians) just think the road completely belongs to them. They disregard right of way to everyone, pedestrians, cyclists, and other cars. (pickup truck drivers are notorious for this) and seem to act as though traffic laws simply don't apply to them.
Or when the weather is bad, sweltering hot or frigidly cold, pouring with rain or pelting down snow or ice, I've seen people in their nice, air conditioned/heated cars, safe and comfortable from the elements, force a pedestrian to wait while they sped through an intersection. I'm sorry, if you can't wait five seconds for a pedestrian to cross, helping them get out of that weather a little sooner, then you should leave your house earlier if you're worried about being late. Its despicable!
And I've been in cities where the pedestrian takes precedence, and even though drivers don't like it, they put up with it, otherwise they'd have massive fines or jail time on their hands. I've walked the streets of New York City and did not feel the same kind of fear of traffic that I do in Indianapolis. And Indy is a gnat compared to the population of NYC. I've also been to other countries, England and Wales. And while I found the drivers to be a bit crazy sometimes, they still followed pedestrian rules. In England, all traffic, on all four sides of an intersection, stops when pedestrians are given the go ahead to cross. ALL OF THEM! And, there are entire streets of city centers in large cities like Birmingham or Wolverhamton, that are designated to be 'car free'. The road is home only to pedestrians, and you often have little shop booths running right down the center of the road you can peruse. This doesn't seem to bother anyone there, but Americans, it would likely drive them crazy. At least here in Indiana!
Rather than complaining about pedestrians, Indianapolis needs to do something to protect pedestrians from insane drivers who are selfish, self-important fools that act as though the world needs to move out of their way, rather than the other way around. How many more people have to die before they get a clue?
I'm not saying its always the drivers fault, but stop assuming it is always the pedestrian too. I think people do that simply because they can't admit to themselves they've probably almost hit a pedestrian from time to time. That would mean admitting they are wrong, and who likes to do that?
Okay, rant over, thanks for listening!
Dawn
Saturday, June 8, 2013
Losing someone to cancer.
Until recently, I was one of the lucky ones. I had never lost anyone particularly close to me to cancer. Not to say I hadn't lost people before. My Dad died from a heart attack when I was ten. My Step-father in a car accident when I was in my early twenties. And my son to a tragic accident when he was 8 months old. I've experienced loss. But losing someone to cancer seems to me to be different from all those.
I'm now losing a person I hold dear to my heart. An amazing woman who has touched so many lives, including mine, in special and profound ways. My pastor, Cherie Isakson, is dying from cancer. She is weak, confused, and sleeps most of the time at this point, and is no longer able to eat. It won't be long now, and her daughter and best friend are both here to look after her till the end.
Cherie was diagnosed with uterine cancer last year, underwent surgery and chemo, and all seemed well. She told us her scans had come back clear. Things were good, and then life carried on as usual. Cherie, as our friend Alison is fond of saying, is a woman who "Walks the walk." She lead us spiritually and also lead by example of the Spirit.
Cherie isn't just my pastor, she's my friend. She was always there when I needed advice, a shoulder to lean on, or even a car to borrow. If you needed her to be somewhere, she would usually find a way to get there. If she couldn't be there she would use her extensive knowledge of local pastors to help you. When my husband was in the hospital with his emergency surgery, she couldn't make it right away and sent a pastor she knows in our town to pray with Kevin before his surgery, and then made it over here herself afterward, and helped very pregnant me get him home. She opened her home to those that needed it, whether for a dinner or a place to stay.
But not to say she was perfect. She could be grumpy, particularly if people didn't make their commitments. She argued with people, and was a bit of a control freak. Also a planner, she didn't like doing anything last minute. She'd be the first to tell you she had flaws. Often admitted to them in her Sunday sermons. Human and flawed, like all children of God.
Cherie being Cherie, she didn't say anything when her scans started coming back with not so good results. I think she figured that so long as she felt good enough to work, that they were only numbers on a page. She kept all her commitments, went on a vacation, and was helping to plan bible school. Then within just two weeks, she ended up where she is now. To say that many of us at church were blindsided would be an understatement.
Living an hour away, I was really out of the loop and had no idea she'd been in hospital for a morphine reaction. When we stopped by to visit her a week ago after my doctor appointment, to find her in her den in a hospital bed, on hospice care and actively dying from cancer, was a shock, to say the least. It all seemed to have happened so fast. Only a week later, she is no longer able to see people or talk very much. I'm really glad we got to see her when we did. When she was still the Cherie that I know and love. When she could still banter, and laugh and talk with us as she's always done.
I guess that is what I find so awful about cancer. The deaths that I have experienced have all been quick ones. Sudden and abrupt crises that you deal with and then begin the process of grieving and moving on with your life. Cancer on the other hand, is a slow thing. Robbing a person of their body function and mind until there is nothing left and they finally drift off. When Cherie first told us she had cancer, and that it was a difficult one to treat, I knew that at some point we'd likely have to face this. But when things were going so well, it was so easy to forget that. So easy to pretend that things were all ok and that this stuff that's happening now seemed like it could be years away. And then, all of a sudden, it's not. Some cancers work fast and others slow, and obviously hers was working on her longer than any of us knew. But because she seemed so well, it all feels so rapid and sudden now and we all feel totally unprepared to deal with it.
Currently I'm dealing with it in the best way I know how. Since I can't do anything for Cherie, I've taken it upon myself to do things for those that are caring for her. Preparing food to bring, or using my church connections to make sure they get the things that they need while they take care of my beloved friend. Being there for my church family as much as I can even though I live an hour away. Kevin and I can't imagine going to church anywhere else. It's where we feel we belong, and to us it's worth the two hour round trip to do church on Sunday and to make sure I get there for session meetings, etc.
But now when I see all the things on TV and around me in my community about fighting cancer, I finally understand on more than just an intellectual level. Before, I knew that cancer was bad and while I supported folks in their causes against cancer by donating, etc, I was still pretty detached from what they were doing. Now? Now I have that gut wrenching, visceral reaction at the thought of the very word, cancer. I understand on a much deeper level what it means to lose someone to cancer. Now, I get it, and good Lord I wish I didn't.
I'm angry and sad in turns. It seems so unfair that a person so good, so filled with grace and so present in this world in all she did to help the poor, the mentally ill, the drug addicted, that this person of all people would get cancer and die when she's still in the prime of her life (early sixties). Sounding like my six year old, "It's not fair!". But my mother always used to say that life isn't fair. The older I've gotten the more I've understood that.
So many people do manage to survive cancer, which is so amazing. But when you're losing someone to cancer, when the end result becomes inevitable, you can't help but think, "Why can't they cure this one, dammit!?" Why can they cure some and not others? Obviously, I know why. I know that all cancers are different and all people are different. But I still can't help thinking that anyway. Why not just this one? Sigh...
I don't know how long Cherie has left, but in my mind she is really already gone. The Cherie that I knew has already been taken from us, and now God merely needs to bring her the rest of the way home. I comfort myself knowing that when she was lucid she was at peace with her situation, and at peace with God. All I can do at this point is pray for her caregivers, pray that she doesn't suffer, and pray for my church family who now have to figure out how we move forward without her.
I guess that is all any of us can do. But now I know, now I know what it means to lose someone to cancer.
Dawn
I'm now losing a person I hold dear to my heart. An amazing woman who has touched so many lives, including mine, in special and profound ways. My pastor, Cherie Isakson, is dying from cancer. She is weak, confused, and sleeps most of the time at this point, and is no longer able to eat. It won't be long now, and her daughter and best friend are both here to look after her till the end.
Cherie was diagnosed with uterine cancer last year, underwent surgery and chemo, and all seemed well. She told us her scans had come back clear. Things were good, and then life carried on as usual. Cherie, as our friend Alison is fond of saying, is a woman who "Walks the walk." She lead us spiritually and also lead by example of the Spirit.
Cherie isn't just my pastor, she's my friend. She was always there when I needed advice, a shoulder to lean on, or even a car to borrow. If you needed her to be somewhere, she would usually find a way to get there. If she couldn't be there she would use her extensive knowledge of local pastors to help you. When my husband was in the hospital with his emergency surgery, she couldn't make it right away and sent a pastor she knows in our town to pray with Kevin before his surgery, and then made it over here herself afterward, and helped very pregnant me get him home. She opened her home to those that needed it, whether for a dinner or a place to stay.
But not to say she was perfect. She could be grumpy, particularly if people didn't make their commitments. She argued with people, and was a bit of a control freak. Also a planner, she didn't like doing anything last minute. She'd be the first to tell you she had flaws. Often admitted to them in her Sunday sermons. Human and flawed, like all children of God.
Cherie being Cherie, she didn't say anything when her scans started coming back with not so good results. I think she figured that so long as she felt good enough to work, that they were only numbers on a page. She kept all her commitments, went on a vacation, and was helping to plan bible school. Then within just two weeks, she ended up where she is now. To say that many of us at church were blindsided would be an understatement.
Living an hour away, I was really out of the loop and had no idea she'd been in hospital for a morphine reaction. When we stopped by to visit her a week ago after my doctor appointment, to find her in her den in a hospital bed, on hospice care and actively dying from cancer, was a shock, to say the least. It all seemed to have happened so fast. Only a week later, she is no longer able to see people or talk very much. I'm really glad we got to see her when we did. When she was still the Cherie that I know and love. When she could still banter, and laugh and talk with us as she's always done.
I guess that is what I find so awful about cancer. The deaths that I have experienced have all been quick ones. Sudden and abrupt crises that you deal with and then begin the process of grieving and moving on with your life. Cancer on the other hand, is a slow thing. Robbing a person of their body function and mind until there is nothing left and they finally drift off. When Cherie first told us she had cancer, and that it was a difficult one to treat, I knew that at some point we'd likely have to face this. But when things were going so well, it was so easy to forget that. So easy to pretend that things were all ok and that this stuff that's happening now seemed like it could be years away. And then, all of a sudden, it's not. Some cancers work fast and others slow, and obviously hers was working on her longer than any of us knew. But because she seemed so well, it all feels so rapid and sudden now and we all feel totally unprepared to deal with it.
Currently I'm dealing with it in the best way I know how. Since I can't do anything for Cherie, I've taken it upon myself to do things for those that are caring for her. Preparing food to bring, or using my church connections to make sure they get the things that they need while they take care of my beloved friend. Being there for my church family as much as I can even though I live an hour away. Kevin and I can't imagine going to church anywhere else. It's where we feel we belong, and to us it's worth the two hour round trip to do church on Sunday and to make sure I get there for session meetings, etc.
But now when I see all the things on TV and around me in my community about fighting cancer, I finally understand on more than just an intellectual level. Before, I knew that cancer was bad and while I supported folks in their causes against cancer by donating, etc, I was still pretty detached from what they were doing. Now? Now I have that gut wrenching, visceral reaction at the thought of the very word, cancer. I understand on a much deeper level what it means to lose someone to cancer. Now, I get it, and good Lord I wish I didn't.
I'm angry and sad in turns. It seems so unfair that a person so good, so filled with grace and so present in this world in all she did to help the poor, the mentally ill, the drug addicted, that this person of all people would get cancer and die when she's still in the prime of her life (early sixties). Sounding like my six year old, "It's not fair!". But my mother always used to say that life isn't fair. The older I've gotten the more I've understood that.
So many people do manage to survive cancer, which is so amazing. But when you're losing someone to cancer, when the end result becomes inevitable, you can't help but think, "Why can't they cure this one, dammit!?" Why can they cure some and not others? Obviously, I know why. I know that all cancers are different and all people are different. But I still can't help thinking that anyway. Why not just this one? Sigh...
I don't know how long Cherie has left, but in my mind she is really already gone. The Cherie that I knew has already been taken from us, and now God merely needs to bring her the rest of the way home. I comfort myself knowing that when she was lucid she was at peace with her situation, and at peace with God. All I can do at this point is pray for her caregivers, pray that she doesn't suffer, and pray for my church family who now have to figure out how we move forward without her.
I guess that is all any of us can do. But now I know, now I know what it means to lose someone to cancer.
Dawn
Monday, June 3, 2013
So you're different...
Hello readers!
Those of you who actually do read my blog know that I don't blog often. Heck, only my husband follows me on Google. People read my blog, sometimes, when I post it on Facebook. That doesn't stop me from blogging though, because whenever I find something that either makes me mad, intrigues me, or that I feel passionate about, I have to write about it. It's a great outlet to get out your feelings and just put your thoughts out there. Sometimes my blogs have sparked discussions, other times my blogs are largely ignored. But I won't ever stop writing them, even if only my husband ever reads them.
That said, as usual I've found something that bothers me so I want to write about it :)
I was watching a show I recorded yesterday called "Taboo". The series covers a variety of topics, and this episode covered physical or mental disorders that cause people to be outside what society views as 'normal'.
One was a man a little older than myself who had severe OCD. Despite using medicine and therapy to combat it, his OCD was pretty severe and some of the worst I've seen. Another was a woman whose body has basically no fat on it. It makes her look prematurely old and she is so skinny she looks severely anorexic, despite the fact that she eats constantly and loves fast food, which makes most of us fat. Another was a man with severe Asymmetry on his body, one side was much larger than the other.
In all the cases of these people, the thing that stood out to me most was how they talked of being bullied, ostracized and teased. How people looked at them like they are crazy, particularly the guy with OCD. The young woman who was so skinny found a you tube video of herself calling her the 'worlds ugliest woman' and comments on the video saying they'd give her tips on how to kill herself and doesn't she wish her mother had aborted her.
These sort of things make me seriously ANGRY! People who are ill through absolutely no fault of their own, being shunned by society because they are different. Being seen as less because they don't fit the status quo. There are so many different types of people out there. No two are exactly alike, even when you take identical twins into account there are differences that exist. So who are any of us to judge someone?
I admit, there are times in my life where I've seen someone behaving oddly and I thought, 'Okay, that was weird.'. But I would never shun or outright make fun of someone for being different. I suppose growing up with a brother who is severely mentally handicapped, and also who became mentally ill with Paranoid Schizophrenia, I'm a little more tolerant than some folks. I like to think that some people have been sheltered and just not had to deal with folks with special needs or strange disorders, so I like to hope that their ignorance is simply unintentional and a result of never having been exposed to these things.
Unfortunately that isn't often the case. Some people believe that mental disorders and things simply don't exist. Others make a snap judgement and once their mind is made up you can show them all the scientific evidence in the world and they still won't believe you, because their belief is now set in stone. Others simply lack basic human compassion and poke fun at these people for their own amusement. Those are the ones that really tick me off!
And I know that some things wouldn't even be said if it weren't for the internet. The inherent anonymity of it makes people bold and brings out the jerk in many. They say things online that they could never say in person to someone because they aren't brave enough to be that hideous.
I can understand people hundreds of years ago, not having the knowledge of science and the human brain that we have today, being irrationally afraid of someone different, because they didn't know any better. But in today's more educated and civilized society, this should no longer be the norm but it should be in the minority. Yes there are people not as well educated but again, those should be in the minority.
But its not and that is what makes me so mad. I suppose that is why I like watching shows that talk about rare disorders and people who look different. Mainly because I want to educate myself, and be prepared for what life may throw my way. You never know when your own child can be stricken with one of those rare, one in a million type of conditions that the doctor doesn't know anything about. Being informed as to what is out there, can lessen the shock of it.
I have to say I admired the folks in that show. The young woman has aspirations of being a motivational speaker and already speaks at schools about bullying. The guy with OCD holds down a normal job as a waiter, and has roommates and friends and family who are supportive of him. He tells his roommate to tell him its the OCD when it starts getting a little out of control, which helps him snap out of some of his compulsive behaviors.
One of the interesting things I learned about OCD watching that show is that the people who have OCD, are fully aware that their behavior is not normal and appears ridiculous, but they still can't help doing it. He explained it like having an itch you simply can't resist scratching. If they don't do the compulsion it's as though something bad is going to happen. The anxiety builds and builds till they can't handle it.
I admire anyone who perseveres and overcomes a health issue or disorder to really make something of themselves. Even if that means only being independent. I hope that anyone who reads this thinks twice before they judge the guy in the grocery making strange faces, or the autistic child flapping their hands or twirling. Be tolerant of your fellow man and be loving as Jesus taught us to be. After all, he hung out with the misfits, so too can we. They can surely bring a lot more life to the party, I'll tell you ;)
Thanks,
Dawn
Those of you who actually do read my blog know that I don't blog often. Heck, only my husband follows me on Google. People read my blog, sometimes, when I post it on Facebook. That doesn't stop me from blogging though, because whenever I find something that either makes me mad, intrigues me, or that I feel passionate about, I have to write about it. It's a great outlet to get out your feelings and just put your thoughts out there. Sometimes my blogs have sparked discussions, other times my blogs are largely ignored. But I won't ever stop writing them, even if only my husband ever reads them.
That said, as usual I've found something that bothers me so I want to write about it :)
I was watching a show I recorded yesterday called "Taboo". The series covers a variety of topics, and this episode covered physical or mental disorders that cause people to be outside what society views as 'normal'.
One was a man a little older than myself who had severe OCD. Despite using medicine and therapy to combat it, his OCD was pretty severe and some of the worst I've seen. Another was a woman whose body has basically no fat on it. It makes her look prematurely old and she is so skinny she looks severely anorexic, despite the fact that she eats constantly and loves fast food, which makes most of us fat. Another was a man with severe Asymmetry on his body, one side was much larger than the other.
In all the cases of these people, the thing that stood out to me most was how they talked of being bullied, ostracized and teased. How people looked at them like they are crazy, particularly the guy with OCD. The young woman who was so skinny found a you tube video of herself calling her the 'worlds ugliest woman' and comments on the video saying they'd give her tips on how to kill herself and doesn't she wish her mother had aborted her.
These sort of things make me seriously ANGRY! People who are ill through absolutely no fault of their own, being shunned by society because they are different. Being seen as less because they don't fit the status quo. There are so many different types of people out there. No two are exactly alike, even when you take identical twins into account there are differences that exist. So who are any of us to judge someone?
I admit, there are times in my life where I've seen someone behaving oddly and I thought, 'Okay, that was weird.'. But I would never shun or outright make fun of someone for being different. I suppose growing up with a brother who is severely mentally handicapped, and also who became mentally ill with Paranoid Schizophrenia, I'm a little more tolerant than some folks. I like to think that some people have been sheltered and just not had to deal with folks with special needs or strange disorders, so I like to hope that their ignorance is simply unintentional and a result of never having been exposed to these things.
Unfortunately that isn't often the case. Some people believe that mental disorders and things simply don't exist. Others make a snap judgement and once their mind is made up you can show them all the scientific evidence in the world and they still won't believe you, because their belief is now set in stone. Others simply lack basic human compassion and poke fun at these people for their own amusement. Those are the ones that really tick me off!
And I know that some things wouldn't even be said if it weren't for the internet. The inherent anonymity of it makes people bold and brings out the jerk in many. They say things online that they could never say in person to someone because they aren't brave enough to be that hideous.
I can understand people hundreds of years ago, not having the knowledge of science and the human brain that we have today, being irrationally afraid of someone different, because they didn't know any better. But in today's more educated and civilized society, this should no longer be the norm but it should be in the minority. Yes there are people not as well educated but again, those should be in the minority.
But its not and that is what makes me so mad. I suppose that is why I like watching shows that talk about rare disorders and people who look different. Mainly because I want to educate myself, and be prepared for what life may throw my way. You never know when your own child can be stricken with one of those rare, one in a million type of conditions that the doctor doesn't know anything about. Being informed as to what is out there, can lessen the shock of it.
I have to say I admired the folks in that show. The young woman has aspirations of being a motivational speaker and already speaks at schools about bullying. The guy with OCD holds down a normal job as a waiter, and has roommates and friends and family who are supportive of him. He tells his roommate to tell him its the OCD when it starts getting a little out of control, which helps him snap out of some of his compulsive behaviors.
One of the interesting things I learned about OCD watching that show is that the people who have OCD, are fully aware that their behavior is not normal and appears ridiculous, but they still can't help doing it. He explained it like having an itch you simply can't resist scratching. If they don't do the compulsion it's as though something bad is going to happen. The anxiety builds and builds till they can't handle it.
I admire anyone who perseveres and overcomes a health issue or disorder to really make something of themselves. Even if that means only being independent. I hope that anyone who reads this thinks twice before they judge the guy in the grocery making strange faces, or the autistic child flapping their hands or twirling. Be tolerant of your fellow man and be loving as Jesus taught us to be. After all, he hung out with the misfits, so too can we. They can surely bring a lot more life to the party, I'll tell you ;)
Thanks,
Dawn
Friday, May 24, 2013
Scouts honor?
Hello readers,
It's been about a month since my last post, so here I am again to bug you all! As usual, when something controversial comes up, I like to weigh in, so here we go.
As long as you don't live under a rock, you've heard about the recent decision by the Boy Scouts of America to allow openly gay youth to join their ranks, yet still disallow openly gay adults to serve as leaders. This has, as you may imagine, caused a lot of ruckus. I often wonder why I allow myself to read the comments from people on articles posted on Facebook from the various news organizations I follow, but I do find it interesting to see where peoples viewpoints lie. I'm also always continually flabbergasted by the sheer stupidity out there, but that's a post for another day.
I was driven to want to write this blog post when I saw that the brother of a good friend of mine, who is an Eagle scout, is pulling his own son out of scouts and mailing back the Eagle award that took him 14 years to earn. He's spent the majority of his life either in scouts or leading his son in scouts. One thing that I knew was inevitable with the scouts decision was that more conservative members would leave the group. Either in protest over a decision they disagree with, or based on an irrational fear of they or their child coming into contact with 'gayness'.
Truthfully, I find his decision to be a very sad one. He blames it on the scouts bowing to pressure to conform with society, rather than stick to their so-called 'biblical principles'. He even posted a mocking new scout pledge that addressed that.
I've seen some people blaming the government, or the constitution, etc for the this change in the boy scouts. But what so many conservative members of the scouts don't stop to think about, is that the shift came not from societal pressure, but from within their own organization. Closeted gay members who want to be able to admit, 'this is who I am'. Straight members who believe that everyone should be given equal opportunity to succeed in life. There is no doubt that the scouts have done amazing things for people. I've never heard anyone speak poorly of their experiences in scouts. But they are woefully behind in helping a group of people who could benefit from their help the most, and are only now addressing it.
Gay youth can stand to benefit so much from the scouts. For a child who is ostracized by many around them to the point that so many choose suicide, scouts could potentially be a lifesaver. Yet, at the same time I worry that conservative members who remain in scouts may be allowed to continue the abuse and that the organization as a whole won't get anywhere with it's attempt at diversity. Oh, they'll draft rules and policies, but how many individual scout leaders will turn a blind eye in the more conservative parts of the country? More than they would like to admit I'll bet.
Of course, among commenters fighting over this decision, the bible does come up and verses get tossed around left and right. I've done my fair share of research over the years, but have found it impossible to convince people that are so entrenched in their beliefs that they are being hypocritical. I wonder how many people who talk about the bibles stance on homosexuality have paid attention to the bits about divorce? Yet divorce is pretty acceptable and almost necessary in our society today and is certainly not as frowned upon as it once was. Are divorced people allowed to lead in scouts? Are kids with divorced parents allowed to be in scouts? Certainly! But yes the bible is very specific, and talks far more about the evils of divorce, than it does about homosexuality. So where is that principle in an organization that claims to be biblical?
Something I find inherently disturbing is the comparisons made between homosexuality and pedophilia. People argue that, "Oh gay people say they're born that way, but so do pedophiles!" Really?? There are some glaring, huge differences between both of these states. Homosexuality was declassified as a mental illness in 1975. (much later than I would have guessed!) It is also, in this country at least, not a criminal act to engage in homosexual activity with another consenting adult. The key words here being consenting adult.
Pedophilia on the other hand is considered a mental disorder, a sickness. It is harmful to the targeted victim because that victim is too young to consent or understand what is happening to them. Also, though science has tried to find a biological reason for it, there seem to be none. Instead, I found this passage from minddisorders.com that sums it up pretty well:
Most experts regard pedophilia as resulting from psychosocial factors rather than biological characteristics. Some think that pedophilia is the result of having been sexually abused as a child. Still others think that it derives from the person's interactions with parents during their early years of life. Some researchers attribute pedophilia to arrested emotional development; that is, the pedophile is attracted to children because he or she has never matured psychologically. Some regard pedophilia as the result of a distorted need to dominate a sexual partner. Since children are smaller and usually weaker than adults, they may be regarded as nonthreatening potential partners. This drive for domination is sometimes thought to explain why most pedophiles are males.
There is some interesting research regarding possible biological causes of homosexuality as well as evolutionary theories. I suggest, if you're interested, that you take a look. Are research studies always completely conclusive? No they aren't. But it will really give you food for thought. I've said this before and I'll say it again: our brains can be wired in millions of different ways. Some of those ways are harmful, which is why they are classified as mental illnesses, that are harmful to others and to the person with those illnesses. Other ways are pretty benign, such as homosexuality. In a consenting relationship, homosexuality harms no one. It doesn't harm me to see a gay couple holding hands when they walk down the street, or even kiss one another. It is merely societies extreme views, often brought about by religion, that cause people to have a problem with it. But the sheer number of gay people tells me that this is something that isn't an abnormality that just happens once in a while. It's just a normal part of the spectrum of society. No different than being left handed (which, by the way, also was once frowned upon).
But back to the boy scouts. Many who know me know that I'm getting ready to have a baby boy here in just under six weeks. Unless things shift seismically, I don't plan on my son ever being in scouts. Not for the reasons chosen by the brother of my friend, but because until they choose to include all people, it's an organization I don't want my son to be a part of. I think they didn't go far enough. I think they need to allow gay men to serve as leaders. They aren't going to turn your children gay if they aren't already. I think that's another fear of some parents. That they might have a gay child, but that child can 'resist' being gay so long as they don't come into contact with someone who actually 'is' gay. It's a justification so many parents use when they can't cope with the fact their child is gay.
Truthfully, in my lifetime, or at least in the lifetimes of my children, I expect that this debate in our country over homosexuality will become a memory for history books, something people shake their heads over and wonder how we could have been so backward. Go further down the road, and even churches may end up someday saying, "Oh yeah, we really had it wrong that time." It is, at least, what I hope for. That equality can be had for all.
Thanks for reading,
Dawn
It's been about a month since my last post, so here I am again to bug you all! As usual, when something controversial comes up, I like to weigh in, so here we go.
As long as you don't live under a rock, you've heard about the recent decision by the Boy Scouts of America to allow openly gay youth to join their ranks, yet still disallow openly gay adults to serve as leaders. This has, as you may imagine, caused a lot of ruckus. I often wonder why I allow myself to read the comments from people on articles posted on Facebook from the various news organizations I follow, but I do find it interesting to see where peoples viewpoints lie. I'm also always continually flabbergasted by the sheer stupidity out there, but that's a post for another day.
I was driven to want to write this blog post when I saw that the brother of a good friend of mine, who is an Eagle scout, is pulling his own son out of scouts and mailing back the Eagle award that took him 14 years to earn. He's spent the majority of his life either in scouts or leading his son in scouts. One thing that I knew was inevitable with the scouts decision was that more conservative members would leave the group. Either in protest over a decision they disagree with, or based on an irrational fear of they or their child coming into contact with 'gayness'.
Truthfully, I find his decision to be a very sad one. He blames it on the scouts bowing to pressure to conform with society, rather than stick to their so-called 'biblical principles'. He even posted a mocking new scout pledge that addressed that.
I've seen some people blaming the government, or the constitution, etc for the this change in the boy scouts. But what so many conservative members of the scouts don't stop to think about, is that the shift came not from societal pressure, but from within their own organization. Closeted gay members who want to be able to admit, 'this is who I am'. Straight members who believe that everyone should be given equal opportunity to succeed in life. There is no doubt that the scouts have done amazing things for people. I've never heard anyone speak poorly of their experiences in scouts. But they are woefully behind in helping a group of people who could benefit from their help the most, and are only now addressing it.
Gay youth can stand to benefit so much from the scouts. For a child who is ostracized by many around them to the point that so many choose suicide, scouts could potentially be a lifesaver. Yet, at the same time I worry that conservative members who remain in scouts may be allowed to continue the abuse and that the organization as a whole won't get anywhere with it's attempt at diversity. Oh, they'll draft rules and policies, but how many individual scout leaders will turn a blind eye in the more conservative parts of the country? More than they would like to admit I'll bet.
Of course, among commenters fighting over this decision, the bible does come up and verses get tossed around left and right. I've done my fair share of research over the years, but have found it impossible to convince people that are so entrenched in their beliefs that they are being hypocritical. I wonder how many people who talk about the bibles stance on homosexuality have paid attention to the bits about divorce? Yet divorce is pretty acceptable and almost necessary in our society today and is certainly not as frowned upon as it once was. Are divorced people allowed to lead in scouts? Are kids with divorced parents allowed to be in scouts? Certainly! But yes the bible is very specific, and talks far more about the evils of divorce, than it does about homosexuality. So where is that principle in an organization that claims to be biblical?
Something I find inherently disturbing is the comparisons made between homosexuality and pedophilia. People argue that, "Oh gay people say they're born that way, but so do pedophiles!" Really?? There are some glaring, huge differences between both of these states. Homosexuality was declassified as a mental illness in 1975. (much later than I would have guessed!) It is also, in this country at least, not a criminal act to engage in homosexual activity with another consenting adult. The key words here being consenting adult.
Pedophilia on the other hand is considered a mental disorder, a sickness. It is harmful to the targeted victim because that victim is too young to consent or understand what is happening to them. Also, though science has tried to find a biological reason for it, there seem to be none. Instead, I found this passage from minddisorders.com that sums it up pretty well:
Most experts regard pedophilia as resulting from psychosocial factors rather than biological characteristics. Some think that pedophilia is the result of having been sexually abused as a child. Still others think that it derives from the person's interactions with parents during their early years of life. Some researchers attribute pedophilia to arrested emotional development; that is, the pedophile is attracted to children because he or she has never matured psychologically. Some regard pedophilia as the result of a distorted need to dominate a sexual partner. Since children are smaller and usually weaker than adults, they may be regarded as nonthreatening potential partners. This drive for domination is sometimes thought to explain why most pedophiles are males.
There is some interesting research regarding possible biological causes of homosexuality as well as evolutionary theories. I suggest, if you're interested, that you take a look. Are research studies always completely conclusive? No they aren't. But it will really give you food for thought. I've said this before and I'll say it again: our brains can be wired in millions of different ways. Some of those ways are harmful, which is why they are classified as mental illnesses, that are harmful to others and to the person with those illnesses. Other ways are pretty benign, such as homosexuality. In a consenting relationship, homosexuality harms no one. It doesn't harm me to see a gay couple holding hands when they walk down the street, or even kiss one another. It is merely societies extreme views, often brought about by religion, that cause people to have a problem with it. But the sheer number of gay people tells me that this is something that isn't an abnormality that just happens once in a while. It's just a normal part of the spectrum of society. No different than being left handed (which, by the way, also was once frowned upon).
But back to the boy scouts. Many who know me know that I'm getting ready to have a baby boy here in just under six weeks. Unless things shift seismically, I don't plan on my son ever being in scouts. Not for the reasons chosen by the brother of my friend, but because until they choose to include all people, it's an organization I don't want my son to be a part of. I think they didn't go far enough. I think they need to allow gay men to serve as leaders. They aren't going to turn your children gay if they aren't already. I think that's another fear of some parents. That they might have a gay child, but that child can 'resist' being gay so long as they don't come into contact with someone who actually 'is' gay. It's a justification so many parents use when they can't cope with the fact their child is gay.
Truthfully, in my lifetime, or at least in the lifetimes of my children, I expect that this debate in our country over homosexuality will become a memory for history books, something people shake their heads over and wonder how we could have been so backward. Go further down the road, and even churches may end up someday saying, "Oh yeah, we really had it wrong that time." It is, at least, what I hope for. That equality can be had for all.
Thanks for reading,
Dawn
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Let's talk about sex baby...
Yep, I went there...
Hello faithful readers!
I know this post title is likely going to get a lot of attention, turn a few heads and maybe cause a few jaws to drop, but I think it's a discussion that needs to be had and that people, far too often, shy away from. I want to talk about sex in terms of how its viewed in our society, and how it affects women by causing them mountains of self-doubt and shame. Because it's always the woman's fault...isn't it? Well, it is according to many in our culture and many others.
We're taught and told from a fairly young age that sex is forbidden (Equate also: scary, abnormal, wrong). Some parents can't even bring themselves to say the word 'sex' to their children. It's as though they are afraid the very word itself will unleash a terrible curse and plant an idea into their child's head, no matter the age, that they need to go out and have sex, right then! We avoid discussions of sex, sidestep our children's questions as they get older, and then, when they become of age, we fling them out into the world with no education whatsoever on the subject, figuring, we worked it out for ourselves, so will they. I honestly believe that this is doing our children a great disservice.
Now, my girls are young, my oldest are 12 and 10 respectively. Kaia (the ten year old) asked me what sex was when she was 7 because she'd heard about it from friends. So I told her what it was. I made sure to talk about it in terms of its something that happens when you are a grown-up, and that it can cause babies so you want to wait till you're settled in life. But I explained to her what physically happens when two people have sex. She knows what a penis is, she knows what a vagina is. She was, unsurprisingly given her age, grossed out by the whole conversation. But I was determined that my daughter would learn about sex from a reliable source, namely me, instead of from her peers who really have absolutely no clue whatsoever. Did I feel ready to have that conversation with her at the age of 7? God no!! But I did, because I felt that to do otherwise, would be wrong.
Because I'm currently pregnant we've also had a lot of discussions about our bodies, how babies are made and born, etc. They still get really grossed out when I use the word 'vagina' its pretty hilarious. :) But I know they are absorbing the info in their brains for later. That is good enough for me.
Our society seems to feel these days that we need to protect our children from all the things that are a part of life, but fails to prepare them to then deal with these very natural, normal things once they become of age. We don't just do it with sex. How many people don't teach their kids how to handle money and finances? How to keep a checking account balanced? How to pay your bills responsibly? Etc, etc. It's a list I could probably add to for hours, but it goes off topic and is a post for another day.
Many people subscribe to the theory that the more we tell kids about sex, the more they'll want to go out and do it, thereby causing more teen pregnancy and teen STD's, etc. But what I have found as a parent and even as just a normal twenty-something adult (when I was one...sigh) is that the more mysterious something is, the more people want to investigate it. If you take the mystery out of something it goes from something you obsess over to, "Oh, is that all?" It loses its allure.
I liken it to a silly game I play on my phone. The games pops up treasure chests from time to time. Sometimes they are free to open and sometimes you have to spend the game 'money' in order to open them. Often, the more you have to spend to open it, the less worth it your reward is. So you might spend 8K $ of the game money only to get back 4K...is that worth it? Nope! But I often open the chest anyway, even after I vowed not to, because what if that one time I might get 20K back? The allure and mystery of the chest is too much to resist. I think that's a great analogy for the mystery that we place around sex.
We don't teach kids the mechanics of sex, or of the mechanics of their bodies. I had no clue what arousal meant when I was a teenager and started going all crazy and hormonal and having these weird 'feelings' and not understanding what they were. In fact, it wasn't until I was older that I started researching about sex and about my body and really learned how to understand what sexual arousal and release meant and how to properly achieve it. It was so liberating to learn what sex was supposed to feel like. How to make it better for myself and my partner, and yes, even how to just pleasure myself. A surprising number of women don't know where their clitoris is, and it's a VERY important piece of the puzzle when it comes to orgasm!
But so many women don't do what I did. They hang on to that fear of sex that their own mothers may have instilled in them. Because their mothers also didn't know any better. Generations and generations of telling women that there is something wrong and shameful and yes, even sinful about the things their bodies make them feel has affected us still today. There are plenty of women out there today who know better, thank God for the sexual revolution, but there is still a high number of women who don't understand sex, even beyond just the basic 'Rod A is inserted into slot B...'. They know that much, but they don't know how to make it feel better for themselves so they lose interest. Then in steps the pharmaceutical companies...
I watched a terrific documentary called "Orgasm INC" talking about the myth of 'female sexual dysfunction'. The documentary offered some fairly convincing evidence that FSD is a 'disease' that has basically been made up by pharmaceutical companies in order to give them something to make a pill, or patch or cream for, in order to make money. I'm on the fence as to whether or not that is true. It seems to me, that the pharma companies figured if men can be helped by these sorts of drugs, then what about women? And then it sort of spiraled out of control. There is no doubt that some women do experience difficulty with sex, but there are a host of reasons why beyond just 'mechanics'.
Unlike with male 'erectile dysfunction' in which there is an obvious indicator that there is a problem, there is no way to measure or determine how a woman is having problems sexually. There are also many, many external factors that affect sex drive, arousal, ability to orgasm, etc. Such as relationship problems, work stress, kid stress, busy lives, age, etc. There is also the myth that all women should be able to achieve orgasm through sexual intercourse and if they don't there is something 'wrong' with them. (Note: Not wrong with the man...with them.) When the reality is that 70% of women need some other form of stimulation aside from or in conjunction with intercourse to achieve orgasm! Wait, what? So that means the 30% of women who can achieve orgasm through intercourse alone are the abnormal ones? Who knew!
It was amazing to me watching the movie what some women were willing to go through in order to achieve what they felt was a 'correct' sex life. They profiled an older women, maybe in her mid 50's, who felt that it was a problem that she couldn't achieve orgasm through intercourse. So she signed up for a clinical trial of a product called the 'Orgasmitron'. Scary right?! It was! The device is that you basically have a doctor insert an electrical probe into your spine that is connected to a remote. Supposedly setting the device was supposed to help you increase sexual arousal and have orgasm during intercourse. What did it do for this woman? It made her leg twitch...In her own words she said, "That's good if you get turned on by a good kick in the butt..." LOL! Oh my I laughed so hard when she said that. But this woman was willing to risk spinal injury in her quest for that elusive big O during sex. Even though she told the filmmaker that she had no problem achieving orgasm by other means. By the end of the movie the woman decided, she wasn't 'diseased' she was perfectly normal. Thank goodness for her! But so many women still feel like they are 'wrong' somehow.
For a long time women have had to rely on men to 'teach' them about sex. What does a man know about a woman's body? Admittedly there are exceptions, but many men don't know what to do with all those parts down there. Their own part is pretty easy to figure out. So why are we asking a bird to teach a fish to swim?
As with so many things in life, education is the key. As women we need to be responsible in not only working to learn about our own bodies, but also teaching our daughters about theirs as they get older. I would much rather my girls know what sex is, how to protect themselves (even if that means buying them condoms or putting them on the pill) than have them happily clueless until some boy comes along they are madly in love with and convinces them to have sex, which in turn might end up being a painful and/or humiliating experience that could end in having an STD or an unwanted pregnancy.
I've honestly never felt uncomfortable talking about sex. Sometimes the best way to learn about something is to talk with a close friend who is comfortable with the subject. Or even talk with your doctor, especially your Gyno. It might seem embarrassing at first, but once you learn some of this stuff, you'll be amazed at how quickly you get over the embarrassment and want to learn more! ;)
So that's it for my controversial topic for the day. I actually started this post a few weeks ago and got sidetracked and am only now just finishing it. Feel free to comment and let me know what you think!
Dawn :)
Hello faithful readers!
I know this post title is likely going to get a lot of attention, turn a few heads and maybe cause a few jaws to drop, but I think it's a discussion that needs to be had and that people, far too often, shy away from. I want to talk about sex in terms of how its viewed in our society, and how it affects women by causing them mountains of self-doubt and shame. Because it's always the woman's fault...isn't it? Well, it is according to many in our culture and many others.
We're taught and told from a fairly young age that sex is forbidden (Equate also: scary, abnormal, wrong). Some parents can't even bring themselves to say the word 'sex' to their children. It's as though they are afraid the very word itself will unleash a terrible curse and plant an idea into their child's head, no matter the age, that they need to go out and have sex, right then! We avoid discussions of sex, sidestep our children's questions as they get older, and then, when they become of age, we fling them out into the world with no education whatsoever on the subject, figuring, we worked it out for ourselves, so will they. I honestly believe that this is doing our children a great disservice.
Now, my girls are young, my oldest are 12 and 10 respectively. Kaia (the ten year old) asked me what sex was when she was 7 because she'd heard about it from friends. So I told her what it was. I made sure to talk about it in terms of its something that happens when you are a grown-up, and that it can cause babies so you want to wait till you're settled in life. But I explained to her what physically happens when two people have sex. She knows what a penis is, she knows what a vagina is. She was, unsurprisingly given her age, grossed out by the whole conversation. But I was determined that my daughter would learn about sex from a reliable source, namely me, instead of from her peers who really have absolutely no clue whatsoever. Did I feel ready to have that conversation with her at the age of 7? God no!! But I did, because I felt that to do otherwise, would be wrong.
Because I'm currently pregnant we've also had a lot of discussions about our bodies, how babies are made and born, etc. They still get really grossed out when I use the word 'vagina' its pretty hilarious. :) But I know they are absorbing the info in their brains for later. That is good enough for me.
Our society seems to feel these days that we need to protect our children from all the things that are a part of life, but fails to prepare them to then deal with these very natural, normal things once they become of age. We don't just do it with sex. How many people don't teach their kids how to handle money and finances? How to keep a checking account balanced? How to pay your bills responsibly? Etc, etc. It's a list I could probably add to for hours, but it goes off topic and is a post for another day.
Many people subscribe to the theory that the more we tell kids about sex, the more they'll want to go out and do it, thereby causing more teen pregnancy and teen STD's, etc. But what I have found as a parent and even as just a normal twenty-something adult (when I was one...sigh) is that the more mysterious something is, the more people want to investigate it. If you take the mystery out of something it goes from something you obsess over to, "Oh, is that all?" It loses its allure.
I liken it to a silly game I play on my phone. The games pops up treasure chests from time to time. Sometimes they are free to open and sometimes you have to spend the game 'money' in order to open them. Often, the more you have to spend to open it, the less worth it your reward is. So you might spend 8K $ of the game money only to get back 4K...is that worth it? Nope! But I often open the chest anyway, even after I vowed not to, because what if that one time I might get 20K back? The allure and mystery of the chest is too much to resist. I think that's a great analogy for the mystery that we place around sex.
We don't teach kids the mechanics of sex, or of the mechanics of their bodies. I had no clue what arousal meant when I was a teenager and started going all crazy and hormonal and having these weird 'feelings' and not understanding what they were. In fact, it wasn't until I was older that I started researching about sex and about my body and really learned how to understand what sexual arousal and release meant and how to properly achieve it. It was so liberating to learn what sex was supposed to feel like. How to make it better for myself and my partner, and yes, even how to just pleasure myself. A surprising number of women don't know where their clitoris is, and it's a VERY important piece of the puzzle when it comes to orgasm!
But so many women don't do what I did. They hang on to that fear of sex that their own mothers may have instilled in them. Because their mothers also didn't know any better. Generations and generations of telling women that there is something wrong and shameful and yes, even sinful about the things their bodies make them feel has affected us still today. There are plenty of women out there today who know better, thank God for the sexual revolution, but there is still a high number of women who don't understand sex, even beyond just the basic 'Rod A is inserted into slot B...'. They know that much, but they don't know how to make it feel better for themselves so they lose interest. Then in steps the pharmaceutical companies...
I watched a terrific documentary called "Orgasm INC" talking about the myth of 'female sexual dysfunction'. The documentary offered some fairly convincing evidence that FSD is a 'disease' that has basically been made up by pharmaceutical companies in order to give them something to make a pill, or patch or cream for, in order to make money. I'm on the fence as to whether or not that is true. It seems to me, that the pharma companies figured if men can be helped by these sorts of drugs, then what about women? And then it sort of spiraled out of control. There is no doubt that some women do experience difficulty with sex, but there are a host of reasons why beyond just 'mechanics'.
Unlike with male 'erectile dysfunction' in which there is an obvious indicator that there is a problem, there is no way to measure or determine how a woman is having problems sexually. There are also many, many external factors that affect sex drive, arousal, ability to orgasm, etc. Such as relationship problems, work stress, kid stress, busy lives, age, etc. There is also the myth that all women should be able to achieve orgasm through sexual intercourse and if they don't there is something 'wrong' with them. (Note: Not wrong with the man...with them.) When the reality is that 70% of women need some other form of stimulation aside from or in conjunction with intercourse to achieve orgasm! Wait, what? So that means the 30% of women who can achieve orgasm through intercourse alone are the abnormal ones? Who knew!
It was amazing to me watching the movie what some women were willing to go through in order to achieve what they felt was a 'correct' sex life. They profiled an older women, maybe in her mid 50's, who felt that it was a problem that she couldn't achieve orgasm through intercourse. So she signed up for a clinical trial of a product called the 'Orgasmitron'. Scary right?! It was! The device is that you basically have a doctor insert an electrical probe into your spine that is connected to a remote. Supposedly setting the device was supposed to help you increase sexual arousal and have orgasm during intercourse. What did it do for this woman? It made her leg twitch...In her own words she said, "That's good if you get turned on by a good kick in the butt..." LOL! Oh my I laughed so hard when she said that. But this woman was willing to risk spinal injury in her quest for that elusive big O during sex. Even though she told the filmmaker that she had no problem achieving orgasm by other means. By the end of the movie the woman decided, she wasn't 'diseased' she was perfectly normal. Thank goodness for her! But so many women still feel like they are 'wrong' somehow.
For a long time women have had to rely on men to 'teach' them about sex. What does a man know about a woman's body? Admittedly there are exceptions, but many men don't know what to do with all those parts down there. Their own part is pretty easy to figure out. So why are we asking a bird to teach a fish to swim?
As with so many things in life, education is the key. As women we need to be responsible in not only working to learn about our own bodies, but also teaching our daughters about theirs as they get older. I would much rather my girls know what sex is, how to protect themselves (even if that means buying them condoms or putting them on the pill) than have them happily clueless until some boy comes along they are madly in love with and convinces them to have sex, which in turn might end up being a painful and/or humiliating experience that could end in having an STD or an unwanted pregnancy.
I've honestly never felt uncomfortable talking about sex. Sometimes the best way to learn about something is to talk with a close friend who is comfortable with the subject. Or even talk with your doctor, especially your Gyno. It might seem embarrassing at first, but once you learn some of this stuff, you'll be amazed at how quickly you get over the embarrassment and want to learn more! ;)
So that's it for my controversial topic for the day. I actually started this post a few weeks ago and got sidetracked and am only now just finishing it. Feel free to comment and let me know what you think!
Dawn :)
Monday, March 18, 2013
Judgement
Hello readers!
Seems I'm a little more fired up about things than usual these days and felt like I needed to write another blog post. It is a very cathartic thing, to organize ones thoughts about something that makes you angry into a coherent and thought out document. It seems to clear the system of negative energy, so I'm glad to have the opportunity to do that for the few of you who actually read my blogs. :)
Let me start with an oft quoted bible verse...
Luke 6:37 "Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven."
The part of that verse you hear most often is "Judge not, and you will not be judged..." It's a verse I've always liked but admit that at times I had a tough time living up to. I mean, come on, we all judge right? And my husband made a good point last night of saying that we should listen to our judgments sometimes, because they can keep us safe from harm. That's a good point. It's not unwise to cross the street when you see a creepy looking guy walking your way, even though he might be completely harmless. You don't want to judge but you want to be smart enough to keep yourself safe.
As I've gotten older, I have found that I am far less judgmental than I was as a young person. I'm not saying I don't judge at all, because I do. But I don't do it as much and I think more about things before I do make a judgement call about something.
So that's my background for what I want to talk about. Because lately I've come up against some of the most judgmental people I've ever seen in my life, and I just need to try and wrap my head around why these people are like this!
The worst of it I'm finding is on the RTV6 news Facebook page. I only started following them, to be honest, to try and win a contest, but I started reading their articles and the comments that inevitably follow, and this is where I've found this group of folks casting judgement around as if they were the hand of God or something. It's disturbing on so many levels. I want to tell you about a couple examples of why this makes me so angry.
The first was a few weeks ago, a story about a teen mother, homeless, with a four month old baby. She was helped out when a local organization that helps teen Mom's contacted a blogger with a large following in Florida to see if they could get the money raised to be able to take this girl in. They can only help so many girls and kids at a time, and didn't have the funding to help her. So this blogger took to the net and was able, in a very short amount of time, to raise over 85 thousand dollars which helped not only this girl but another who needed help as well. Heartwarming story right? Not to a lot of the people who follow RTV6 on facebook...
The picture posted with the article was a close up shot of a girl with her hands on her pregnant belly with pink painted fingernails. No face, nothing like that, just the belly and the hands. Instantly, people were ranting about her having a 4 month old and another on the way and why should we help someone who can't make good decisions. If she opens her legs she should face the consequences, how could she afford to get her nails done but not have a place to live... I could take up days of your time but that was the gist of most of the comments. My husband and I both ended up arguing with these people, many of whom had read ONLY the headline, and saw the picture. They hadn't read the article. Having worked at a newspaper for four years, I knew the look of a stock photo when I saw one, and so I contacted RTV6 both on Facebook and by email to find out if the picture was the actual girl, or if it was a stock photo. My suspicions were confirmed. It was merely a stock photo.
So, the girl wasn't pregnant with another child (the pic was at least a 5 month or more pregnant belly, she has a fourth month old child...I commented to folks, do the math) and no one knows whether or not this girl had her nails painted. So first of all people were making judgement over a picture that really had nothing to do with the story and was not a wise decision by those who decided to use it, and there was a complete lack of compassion for this girls situation. No matter what you feel about her decision making skills, should you not be happy a sweet, innocent four month old baby is off the streets and somewhere safe and warm?
Apparently not, they would rather just start a lynch mob for the poor kid who made a bad choice. We don't know this young woman, her circumstances, how she ended up where she is. All people cared about was that she was going to end up a drain on taxpayer dollars and oh we have to support her and her spawn...Really? I'm sorry, do you consider your grandchildren to be 'spawn'? What if your son loses his job and can't support his family and ends up on welfare?
Anyway, I won't go into that anymore, but it was one example of people with NO CLUE making judgement. The number of people that just go off the headline and don't read the articles before they start spouting off opinions just baffles my mind.
Another example is a very sad story that started last night when an infant was found in a creek. Today's update says that the infant was a newborn (no specified age, which could mean it's anywhere from a day old to 28 days old according to my research). There is no news yet on the baby's cause of death, how long it was in the creek, etc.
Of course I started reading the comments, and among the many sad condolences for this poor, sweet angel, there are just as many calls for the mother to 'face the consequences' and "How can someone do this to a baby I hope she rots in hell." and "Why couldn't she just take advantage of 'Safe Haven' laws and drop the baby off at a hospital." or "So many people wish desperately for a child, they would have loved to have this baby!" the list goes on and on.
I pointed out that no one knows anything about the baby's mother, nor about how the baby actually died. It could have been stillborn in a sudden home birth or died from SIDS and if the mother was a teen maybe she panicked and put the baby in the creek because she thought she'd be blamed. It could have been killed by an abusive father and dumped by him. The point being that we don't know what happened, and should we judge this mother before we have all the facts?
So someone comments back at me, "So you would dump a stillborn or unwanted baby in a creek if you were a teen?"
*crickets*
Seriously, this was a direct response to my remarks. Wow.
I've had to restate my remarks at this woman several times now because she just doesn't get it. She was called out by a couple others (for her politics actually for other remarks she'd made) and she says, "How is what I said about others defending what happened a political statement."
I was floored! She actually sees me as defending a child murderer. Seriously? Talk about taking remarks out of context. I have restated myself a couple times, saying I'm not defending anything because we don't know what happened. If it turns out the mother did indeed kill this child either on purpose or through severe neglect, then yes, I'll be as outraged as anyone. People that do that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But NO ONE knows what happened yet, so to cast judgement is simply foolish. I admit that in the majority of cases it turns out that it is the mother or both parents that are the cause of these sorts of things. But we don't know that yet in this case, and isn't everyone considered innocent until proven guilty?
My point in all this, is that we should be try to be more compassionate and that we should ALWAYS look at the facts before we make a judgement on something or someone. All those who act high and mighty now may fall someday, and who will be there to catch you? Probably some of the same people or organizations or the government that you once criticized.
I suppose some will say it's just human nature to be judgmental and perhaps it is. But as thinking, growing, changing human beings, we should try our best to rise above that. It just makes me so angry to see words thrown around, condemning speech, when there is no basis yet for the anger. In the case of that poor baby, we should be sad for him and his family until we find out what actually happened. But angry? No, save that until the case presents you with something to be angry about. Unnecessary anger is, to me, wasted brain cells.
So that is how I feel about judgement. Feel free to chime in with your own thoughts, stories or experiences.
Thanks for listening, as always,
Dawn
Seems I'm a little more fired up about things than usual these days and felt like I needed to write another blog post. It is a very cathartic thing, to organize ones thoughts about something that makes you angry into a coherent and thought out document. It seems to clear the system of negative energy, so I'm glad to have the opportunity to do that for the few of you who actually read my blogs. :)
Let me start with an oft quoted bible verse...
Luke 6:37 "Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven."
The part of that verse you hear most often is "Judge not, and you will not be judged..." It's a verse I've always liked but admit that at times I had a tough time living up to. I mean, come on, we all judge right? And my husband made a good point last night of saying that we should listen to our judgments sometimes, because they can keep us safe from harm. That's a good point. It's not unwise to cross the street when you see a creepy looking guy walking your way, even though he might be completely harmless. You don't want to judge but you want to be smart enough to keep yourself safe.
As I've gotten older, I have found that I am far less judgmental than I was as a young person. I'm not saying I don't judge at all, because I do. But I don't do it as much and I think more about things before I do make a judgement call about something.
So that's my background for what I want to talk about. Because lately I've come up against some of the most judgmental people I've ever seen in my life, and I just need to try and wrap my head around why these people are like this!
The worst of it I'm finding is on the RTV6 news Facebook page. I only started following them, to be honest, to try and win a contest, but I started reading their articles and the comments that inevitably follow, and this is where I've found this group of folks casting judgement around as if they were the hand of God or something. It's disturbing on so many levels. I want to tell you about a couple examples of why this makes me so angry.
The first was a few weeks ago, a story about a teen mother, homeless, with a four month old baby. She was helped out when a local organization that helps teen Mom's contacted a blogger with a large following in Florida to see if they could get the money raised to be able to take this girl in. They can only help so many girls and kids at a time, and didn't have the funding to help her. So this blogger took to the net and was able, in a very short amount of time, to raise over 85 thousand dollars which helped not only this girl but another who needed help as well. Heartwarming story right? Not to a lot of the people who follow RTV6 on facebook...
The picture posted with the article was a close up shot of a girl with her hands on her pregnant belly with pink painted fingernails. No face, nothing like that, just the belly and the hands. Instantly, people were ranting about her having a 4 month old and another on the way and why should we help someone who can't make good decisions. If she opens her legs she should face the consequences, how could she afford to get her nails done but not have a place to live... I could take up days of your time but that was the gist of most of the comments. My husband and I both ended up arguing with these people, many of whom had read ONLY the headline, and saw the picture. They hadn't read the article. Having worked at a newspaper for four years, I knew the look of a stock photo when I saw one, and so I contacted RTV6 both on Facebook and by email to find out if the picture was the actual girl, or if it was a stock photo. My suspicions were confirmed. It was merely a stock photo.
So, the girl wasn't pregnant with another child (the pic was at least a 5 month or more pregnant belly, she has a fourth month old child...I commented to folks, do the math) and no one knows whether or not this girl had her nails painted. So first of all people were making judgement over a picture that really had nothing to do with the story and was not a wise decision by those who decided to use it, and there was a complete lack of compassion for this girls situation. No matter what you feel about her decision making skills, should you not be happy a sweet, innocent four month old baby is off the streets and somewhere safe and warm?
Apparently not, they would rather just start a lynch mob for the poor kid who made a bad choice. We don't know this young woman, her circumstances, how she ended up where she is. All people cared about was that she was going to end up a drain on taxpayer dollars and oh we have to support her and her spawn...Really? I'm sorry, do you consider your grandchildren to be 'spawn'? What if your son loses his job and can't support his family and ends up on welfare?
Anyway, I won't go into that anymore, but it was one example of people with NO CLUE making judgement. The number of people that just go off the headline and don't read the articles before they start spouting off opinions just baffles my mind.
Another example is a very sad story that started last night when an infant was found in a creek. Today's update says that the infant was a newborn (no specified age, which could mean it's anywhere from a day old to 28 days old according to my research). There is no news yet on the baby's cause of death, how long it was in the creek, etc.
Of course I started reading the comments, and among the many sad condolences for this poor, sweet angel, there are just as many calls for the mother to 'face the consequences' and "How can someone do this to a baby I hope she rots in hell." and "Why couldn't she just take advantage of 'Safe Haven' laws and drop the baby off at a hospital." or "So many people wish desperately for a child, they would have loved to have this baby!" the list goes on and on.
I pointed out that no one knows anything about the baby's mother, nor about how the baby actually died. It could have been stillborn in a sudden home birth or died from SIDS and if the mother was a teen maybe she panicked and put the baby in the creek because she thought she'd be blamed. It could have been killed by an abusive father and dumped by him. The point being that we don't know what happened, and should we judge this mother before we have all the facts?
So someone comments back at me, "So you would dump a stillborn or unwanted baby in a creek if you were a teen?"
*crickets*
Seriously, this was a direct response to my remarks. Wow.
I've had to restate my remarks at this woman several times now because she just doesn't get it. She was called out by a couple others (for her politics actually for other remarks she'd made) and she says, "How is what I said about others defending what happened a political statement."
I was floored! She actually sees me as defending a child murderer. Seriously? Talk about taking remarks out of context. I have restated myself a couple times, saying I'm not defending anything because we don't know what happened. If it turns out the mother did indeed kill this child either on purpose or through severe neglect, then yes, I'll be as outraged as anyone. People that do that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But NO ONE knows what happened yet, so to cast judgement is simply foolish. I admit that in the majority of cases it turns out that it is the mother or both parents that are the cause of these sorts of things. But we don't know that yet in this case, and isn't everyone considered innocent until proven guilty?
My point in all this, is that we should be try to be more compassionate and that we should ALWAYS look at the facts before we make a judgement on something or someone. All those who act high and mighty now may fall someday, and who will be there to catch you? Probably some of the same people or organizations or the government that you once criticized.
I suppose some will say it's just human nature to be judgmental and perhaps it is. But as thinking, growing, changing human beings, we should try our best to rise above that. It just makes me so angry to see words thrown around, condemning speech, when there is no basis yet for the anger. In the case of that poor baby, we should be sad for him and his family until we find out what actually happened. But angry? No, save that until the case presents you with something to be angry about. Unnecessary anger is, to me, wasted brain cells.
So that is how I feel about judgement. Feel free to chime in with your own thoughts, stories or experiences.
Thanks for listening, as always,
Dawn
Friday, March 8, 2013
Hunger...An unacceptable and unnecessary problem
Hello readers!
As usual, I write a blog post when I get fired up about something, and I am tonight. Recently, my Pastor Cherie Isakson recommended a documentary. Now I'll tell you, I have become a documentary junkie in the last six months or so. I LOVE them! So I decided to check this one out. Never, in all the docs I've watched, have I been so emotionally wrung and so angry. So very, very angry.
The documentary is currently in theaters and is also available On Demand from Comast cable and it's called 'A Place at the Table' I watched it on my own yesterday and then again this evening with my husband. It is amazingly eye opening, well thought out, and very, very well done. One would have to be brain dead to not feel more strongly about the hunger issues facing our country today after watching this movie. If you are able to watch it, please do. It's not yet available on Netflix, but as they do have a great selection of documentaries hopefully they'll have it sometime in the future.
Hunger is an issue both my husband and I know very well. We both agreed that as children, we didn't face hunger. We both remember having enough to eat and having good food to eat. Vegetables, fruit, etc. But both of us faced hunger as young adults. When I first lived on my own, after my monthly expenses for housing, heat, electric, etc (and keep in mind I didn't have cable, cell phone, internet, etc at that time) I often had little money left for food. When I worked at McDonald's the free meal I got was often all I had that day.
Then, when I left McDonald's to work in telemarketing, was when I really felt the lack of food. I was making less money when I first started, working days. At one point, I stood in my kitchen with 10 cents in my pocket and half a box of spaghetti noodles in my cupboard (nothing in my fridge) and wondered how I was going to eat because I didn't get paid for a week or more yet. Luckily at the time my parents were able to come to my rescue and they showed up on my doorstep with 3 big bags of groceries. But other people aren't so lucky.
When my husband was young and in University in England, while his housing was paid for, he didn't have money for food and heat. So he allowed himself use of a heater only an hour or so an evening and ate one small personal pizza per day. He ended up with frostbite on the tips of his fingers and in hospital with malnutrition. So that gives you a little background of what both of us know of hunger.
Right now, over 50 million Americans suffer from hunger. When we began to watch the documentary though, Kevin said, "But these people don't look hungry." and I told him to wait, that it would be addressed. And it most certainly was. Hunger is at an all time high, but so is obesity. "What?" you say, "If people are obese they are obviously getting enough to eat!" WRONG! So much of it has to do with the quality of food that people have access to.
I used to think that farm subsidies were a good thing, when I was under the misapprehension that farm subsidies helped out the little guy. Hometown farmers out there working land they've had in their family for generations. I was very wrong. Farm subsidies now benefit huge agri-businesses, mega-farms, if you will, and they only subsidize foods that turn a high profit. Rice, corn, wheat, soy, and cotton were the biggies. What do we get from from these crops? Highly processed foods with little to no nutritional value.
Where are the subsidies for fruits, and vegetables like celery and carrots? They don't exist because they are produced in much smaller quantities and are less hardy and less likely to have good yields than the big cash crops. I was blown away.
I was also blown away by finding out that in the seventies, during the Nixon administration, we nearly eradicated hunger in America with programs designed to get people fed. Food stamps, WIC, elderly feeding programs, etc. Then the eighties, the decade of excess happened, and those programs began to be underfunded, and we now have the inefficient programs you see today that are extremely difficult to qualify for and don't do enough for those that do qualify.
I watched as they documented the fight in congress to increase spending on children's school lunches, only to not only take the president's recommendation of 10 billion over 10 years down to 4.5 billion, but they paid for it by cutting money for food stamps...Really? I mean really?!? Are you kidding me?! Those damn politicians were so smug about it too. What did the president want to do? Take away subsidies from rich (rich being the operative word) landowners to fund the program. That proposal died in less than 24 hrs...
I was astonished at the affect hunger and poor nutrition has on children. Not just physically, but their brain development. So what you have is kids whose brains don't develop properly because they are hungry when they are young, then they grow up unable to learn and with behavior issues their parents can't do anything about because it stems from brain issues, who then can't become functioning, tax paying, successful members of society. Who are then ridiculed, ostracized and picked on by conservatives who tout 'personal responsibility' as the most important virtue in life, and say "Oh why can't you go out and get a good job?"
The ONLY way we are going to end the cycle of poverty in this country and give our citizens a snowballs chance in hell of succeeding, is to start with the core problems. Social welfare isn't the problem. Corporate welfare is what is bankrupting our nation. The increase of 4.5 billion to the school lunch program (which translates to an increase of just .06 cents per child) is nothing compared to the 700 billion we paid to bail out the banks when they would have failed. Banks that are now making record profits and the dow jones is now higher than it has EVER BEEN!
We need to stop letting corporations support politicians that only have THEIR interests in mind. We need to put the money where it is needed most. To give people a chance to succeed. Kevin told me that in Britain they were able to lower the crime rate simply by providing free vitamins to people. Which enabled better nutrition, thereby better learning, thereby better citizens who could get jobs instead of turning to crime and ending up on the taxpayers dime by being in jail. Novel concept huh?
If our citizens had better nutrition and access to better quality food we could create citizens that could play a roll in building a better nation, a nation that COULD BE the greatest nation on earth. It certainly isn't now. I love Obama and support him wholeheartedly, but the section of the documentary that showed a snippet from one of his speeches where he said that was what we were, made me more angry than anything else in that documentary did. We ARE NOT the greatest nation on earth, and WILL NOT BE until we address the huge problems that face us. And the national debt and budget deficit pale in comparison to the ripple effect that hunger has on this nation.
If people had access to better food and more affordable healthcare, the costs would go down because people would be healthier. Rather than throwing money away on the end effects of hunger, combat the problem at the start. The effect on everything, INCLUDING the national debt and deficit, would be astonishing.
The worst thing about all this is the perception, created by conservatives who believe big government is evil, is that the poor deserve what happens to them. They deserve the struggles they endure because they are irresponsible and stupid. And what we have as a result of that, is a widening gap between the poor and the wealthy. A gap that will never get narrower if we continue to allow things to go on as they are. Not because the rich should give all their money to the poor, but if all those who were able gave a little, to lift up those who are poor and help those who can become productive citizens, then we could virtually eradicate hunger and poverty in this country. Not by making the government Robin Hood and steal from the rich to give to the poor. But by giving everyone an equal footing to succeed. That is something that does not exist in this country now.
And as I always say in these sort of posts, are there people who will game the system? Yep! Are there people who will try to take advantage and do what they can to not have to work? Yep again! But those people are not the majority, as conservatives would have you believe. Most people who need social welfare fight tooth and nail to stop from having to go on it, and then do so only as a last resort. I was one of those, working 40 hours a week, and still needing food stamps to feed my family. The movie covered this part of hunger as well, highlighting several people who worked hard, but still struggled to buy food to feed their kids.
It's unacceptable, in a country in which there is ENOUGH food, that people go hungry. That children go hungry. Let's work toward making this a country where there truly is opportunity for all, and not just the few, the rich and the privileged.
Thanks,
Dawn
As usual, I write a blog post when I get fired up about something, and I am tonight. Recently, my Pastor Cherie Isakson recommended a documentary. Now I'll tell you, I have become a documentary junkie in the last six months or so. I LOVE them! So I decided to check this one out. Never, in all the docs I've watched, have I been so emotionally wrung and so angry. So very, very angry.
The documentary is currently in theaters and is also available On Demand from Comast cable and it's called 'A Place at the Table' I watched it on my own yesterday and then again this evening with my husband. It is amazingly eye opening, well thought out, and very, very well done. One would have to be brain dead to not feel more strongly about the hunger issues facing our country today after watching this movie. If you are able to watch it, please do. It's not yet available on Netflix, but as they do have a great selection of documentaries hopefully they'll have it sometime in the future.
Hunger is an issue both my husband and I know very well. We both agreed that as children, we didn't face hunger. We both remember having enough to eat and having good food to eat. Vegetables, fruit, etc. But both of us faced hunger as young adults. When I first lived on my own, after my monthly expenses for housing, heat, electric, etc (and keep in mind I didn't have cable, cell phone, internet, etc at that time) I often had little money left for food. When I worked at McDonald's the free meal I got was often all I had that day.
Then, when I left McDonald's to work in telemarketing, was when I really felt the lack of food. I was making less money when I first started, working days. At one point, I stood in my kitchen with 10 cents in my pocket and half a box of spaghetti noodles in my cupboard (nothing in my fridge) and wondered how I was going to eat because I didn't get paid for a week or more yet. Luckily at the time my parents were able to come to my rescue and they showed up on my doorstep with 3 big bags of groceries. But other people aren't so lucky.
When my husband was young and in University in England, while his housing was paid for, he didn't have money for food and heat. So he allowed himself use of a heater only an hour or so an evening and ate one small personal pizza per day. He ended up with frostbite on the tips of his fingers and in hospital with malnutrition. So that gives you a little background of what both of us know of hunger.
Right now, over 50 million Americans suffer from hunger. When we began to watch the documentary though, Kevin said, "But these people don't look hungry." and I told him to wait, that it would be addressed. And it most certainly was. Hunger is at an all time high, but so is obesity. "What?" you say, "If people are obese they are obviously getting enough to eat!" WRONG! So much of it has to do with the quality of food that people have access to.
I used to think that farm subsidies were a good thing, when I was under the misapprehension that farm subsidies helped out the little guy. Hometown farmers out there working land they've had in their family for generations. I was very wrong. Farm subsidies now benefit huge agri-businesses, mega-farms, if you will, and they only subsidize foods that turn a high profit. Rice, corn, wheat, soy, and cotton were the biggies. What do we get from from these crops? Highly processed foods with little to no nutritional value.
Where are the subsidies for fruits, and vegetables like celery and carrots? They don't exist because they are produced in much smaller quantities and are less hardy and less likely to have good yields than the big cash crops. I was blown away.
I was also blown away by finding out that in the seventies, during the Nixon administration, we nearly eradicated hunger in America with programs designed to get people fed. Food stamps, WIC, elderly feeding programs, etc. Then the eighties, the decade of excess happened, and those programs began to be underfunded, and we now have the inefficient programs you see today that are extremely difficult to qualify for and don't do enough for those that do qualify.
I watched as they documented the fight in congress to increase spending on children's school lunches, only to not only take the president's recommendation of 10 billion over 10 years down to 4.5 billion, but they paid for it by cutting money for food stamps...Really? I mean really?!? Are you kidding me?! Those damn politicians were so smug about it too. What did the president want to do? Take away subsidies from rich (rich being the operative word) landowners to fund the program. That proposal died in less than 24 hrs...
I was astonished at the affect hunger and poor nutrition has on children. Not just physically, but their brain development. So what you have is kids whose brains don't develop properly because they are hungry when they are young, then they grow up unable to learn and with behavior issues their parents can't do anything about because it stems from brain issues, who then can't become functioning, tax paying, successful members of society. Who are then ridiculed, ostracized and picked on by conservatives who tout 'personal responsibility' as the most important virtue in life, and say "Oh why can't you go out and get a good job?"
The ONLY way we are going to end the cycle of poverty in this country and give our citizens a snowballs chance in hell of succeeding, is to start with the core problems. Social welfare isn't the problem. Corporate welfare is what is bankrupting our nation. The increase of 4.5 billion to the school lunch program (which translates to an increase of just .06 cents per child) is nothing compared to the 700 billion we paid to bail out the banks when they would have failed. Banks that are now making record profits and the dow jones is now higher than it has EVER BEEN!
We need to stop letting corporations support politicians that only have THEIR interests in mind. We need to put the money where it is needed most. To give people a chance to succeed. Kevin told me that in Britain they were able to lower the crime rate simply by providing free vitamins to people. Which enabled better nutrition, thereby better learning, thereby better citizens who could get jobs instead of turning to crime and ending up on the taxpayers dime by being in jail. Novel concept huh?
If our citizens had better nutrition and access to better quality food we could create citizens that could play a roll in building a better nation, a nation that COULD BE the greatest nation on earth. It certainly isn't now. I love Obama and support him wholeheartedly, but the section of the documentary that showed a snippet from one of his speeches where he said that was what we were, made me more angry than anything else in that documentary did. We ARE NOT the greatest nation on earth, and WILL NOT BE until we address the huge problems that face us. And the national debt and budget deficit pale in comparison to the ripple effect that hunger has on this nation.
If people had access to better food and more affordable healthcare, the costs would go down because people would be healthier. Rather than throwing money away on the end effects of hunger, combat the problem at the start. The effect on everything, INCLUDING the national debt and deficit, would be astonishing.
The worst thing about all this is the perception, created by conservatives who believe big government is evil, is that the poor deserve what happens to them. They deserve the struggles they endure because they are irresponsible and stupid. And what we have as a result of that, is a widening gap between the poor and the wealthy. A gap that will never get narrower if we continue to allow things to go on as they are. Not because the rich should give all their money to the poor, but if all those who were able gave a little, to lift up those who are poor and help those who can become productive citizens, then we could virtually eradicate hunger and poverty in this country. Not by making the government Robin Hood and steal from the rich to give to the poor. But by giving everyone an equal footing to succeed. That is something that does not exist in this country now.
And as I always say in these sort of posts, are there people who will game the system? Yep! Are there people who will try to take advantage and do what they can to not have to work? Yep again! But those people are not the majority, as conservatives would have you believe. Most people who need social welfare fight tooth and nail to stop from having to go on it, and then do so only as a last resort. I was one of those, working 40 hours a week, and still needing food stamps to feed my family. The movie covered this part of hunger as well, highlighting several people who worked hard, but still struggled to buy food to feed their kids.
It's unacceptable, in a country in which there is ENOUGH food, that people go hungry. That children go hungry. Let's work toward making this a country where there truly is opportunity for all, and not just the few, the rich and the privileged.
Thanks,
Dawn
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Socialism and Me.
Hello all!
It's been some time since I blogged, and I've noticed that I only tend to blog when something comes up that I feel strongly about. Tonight I posted a Facebook status that caused a bit of discussion. My point with this post tonight is not to try and 'convert' anyone to my way of thinking. Frankly, I know that that's impossible. Instead, I just want to explain what I believe and why I believe it. You can choose to take it or leave it, but I don't plan on getting into any incendiary discussions over it. It's what I believe, simple as that.
My adventure began tonight because I was a bit bothered about being attacked by someone on Facebook who doesn't know me, doesn't know anything about my beliefs other than that I agree with Liberals, and who felt the need to tell me to "Open my eyes." When I vented about that, it caused some discussion involving myself and my very liberal husband, and some extremely conservative friends and family.
A long time ago, I had a pretty small worldview. I believed the way many American's do and was somewhat on the conservative side. Then I did some traveling, visited other countries, and fell in love with a man from the UK. I learned that the "American Way" isn't all it's cracked up to be. I opened my eyes to social issues to see that many of my fellow American's are suffering and that a minority of very rich folk pay a lot of money to put people in office who keep it that way. My beliefs began to evolve and change as I looked around me and saw what was happening.
Before you say, "Well, your husband must have brain-washed you..." let me stop you right there. I have my own mind. All my husband did was help to open my eyes to what is there, and let me make my own decisions. That, and my own experiences as a member of the 'working poor'. Someone who worked very hard, but still needed to rely on welfare to survive. Yes, I admit that, and I'm not ashamed of it.
I have seen with my own eyes how socialism can work. Take the UK health service for example. My husband and I had to be apart for 4 years, and over that time period, particularly toward the end of our time apart, I saw my husband go through two major surgeries, both times he got six weeks off work with full pay (women on maternity leave get up to a year), as well as rehab for his shoulder, all free at point of service. Do people pay tax for it? Sure they do. He paid a decent portion of his wages in tax for medical, but that is no different than what we pay in insurance premiums. (and he didn't have to pay massive copays on top of it...) Anyone who works pays a fair amount, so that everyone benefits. They've developed a comprehensive system to eliminate wasteful spending, so that everyone can receive care. Not once did my husband have to wait an unreasonable amount of time for care, as so many people wrongly think, and he was treated well and they took excellent care of him.
Are there horror stories? Yes, I'm sure there are. Any medical system that huge is going to have it's fair share, just like the medical practices here in the US. There are going to be people unhappy with their service. But they are a very small minority compared to those who are successfully treated and who don't have to go bankrupt paying for medical bills.
All of that is mandated by the government, and it actually works. Businesses don't collapse because of mandated sick time, disability time, etc. They don't collapse by government controlling what is allowed in marketing. They profit, very well, and their employees are happier and more productive because they know they are taken care of.
Let me copy and paste some info here on two types of Socialist government that seem to work pretty well for the countries involved:
These governments and economies work. Perfectly? No, but they do work. And the people are happy for the most part.
A main motivation for me to believe in Socialism is the fact of it's inherent compassion. The belief that all people should have basic needs met and if they can't meet them themselves, then society should help them along. What is so repugnant about that? If I am doing well, then why shouldn't someone else be able to at least live?
Also, and this makes conservative Christians howl, Jesus was the ultimate Socialist. Don't believe me? Read the bible. There are tons of examples.
Acts 4:32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had.
Matthew 19:21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
Matthew 9:35 Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness. (NIV)
Free health care anyone?
I'm sure that folks could find other verses that counteract these, but the very nature of the bible is contradictory. It's a reality that as Christians we choose what parts of the bible we believe, which is why women don't go around in braids and robes anymore, and we don't stone people for infidelity.
I could go on and on, but those are some reasons that I find Socialism appealing.
Are there people who abuse the system, both in our country and in Socialist countries? Yep! There will always be people like that. They are the way they are, but to me that doesn't make them 'undeserving'. Just sad, and they should be helped.
I don't believe that everyone should just live off the government. I believe that as part of entitlement programs we should also focus on educating the unskilled so that if they are able to learn they can go on to get off benefits and find gainful employment and contribute. What is most important is breaking the cycle of poverty and giving people who are capable a hand up and helping those who simply cannot help themselves to at least have a basic quality of life.
I know a lot of people will likely have counter arguments for what I've said here, but I feel strongly about what I believe and have not seen any evidence thus far in my own experience or in research to convince me that I should change what I believe. What I do know is that no system is perfect, and trying to reach for some sort of Utopia is impossible and absurd. I believe that a middle ground is what is needed, but I don't realistically seeing that happening in my lifetime. Perhaps in my children's or grandchildren's but not mine.
For now I'm happy though to go on believing what I do and while I don't agree with many people, I will respect your right to believe as you will. Please respect my right to believe as I do.
Thanks,
Dawn
It's been some time since I blogged, and I've noticed that I only tend to blog when something comes up that I feel strongly about. Tonight I posted a Facebook status that caused a bit of discussion. My point with this post tonight is not to try and 'convert' anyone to my way of thinking. Frankly, I know that that's impossible. Instead, I just want to explain what I believe and why I believe it. You can choose to take it or leave it, but I don't plan on getting into any incendiary discussions over it. It's what I believe, simple as that.
My adventure began tonight because I was a bit bothered about being attacked by someone on Facebook who doesn't know me, doesn't know anything about my beliefs other than that I agree with Liberals, and who felt the need to tell me to "Open my eyes." When I vented about that, it caused some discussion involving myself and my very liberal husband, and some extremely conservative friends and family.
A long time ago, I had a pretty small worldview. I believed the way many American's do and was somewhat on the conservative side. Then I did some traveling, visited other countries, and fell in love with a man from the UK. I learned that the "American Way" isn't all it's cracked up to be. I opened my eyes to social issues to see that many of my fellow American's are suffering and that a minority of very rich folk pay a lot of money to put people in office who keep it that way. My beliefs began to evolve and change as I looked around me and saw what was happening.
Before you say, "Well, your husband must have brain-washed you..." let me stop you right there. I have my own mind. All my husband did was help to open my eyes to what is there, and let me make my own decisions. That, and my own experiences as a member of the 'working poor'. Someone who worked very hard, but still needed to rely on welfare to survive. Yes, I admit that, and I'm not ashamed of it.
I have seen with my own eyes how socialism can work. Take the UK health service for example. My husband and I had to be apart for 4 years, and over that time period, particularly toward the end of our time apart, I saw my husband go through two major surgeries, both times he got six weeks off work with full pay (women on maternity leave get up to a year), as well as rehab for his shoulder, all free at point of service. Do people pay tax for it? Sure they do. He paid a decent portion of his wages in tax for medical, but that is no different than what we pay in insurance premiums. (and he didn't have to pay massive copays on top of it...) Anyone who works pays a fair amount, so that everyone benefits. They've developed a comprehensive system to eliminate wasteful spending, so that everyone can receive care. Not once did my husband have to wait an unreasonable amount of time for care, as so many people wrongly think, and he was treated well and they took excellent care of him.
Are there horror stories? Yes, I'm sure there are. Any medical system that huge is going to have it's fair share, just like the medical practices here in the US. There are going to be people unhappy with their service. But they are a very small minority compared to those who are successfully treated and who don't have to go bankrupt paying for medical bills.
All of that is mandated by the government, and it actually works. Businesses don't collapse because of mandated sick time, disability time, etc. They don't collapse by government controlling what is allowed in marketing. They profit, very well, and their employees are happier and more productive because they know they are taken care of.
Let me copy and paste some info here on two types of Socialist government that seem to work pretty well for the countries involved:
In the UK, the Labour Party was influenced by the British social reformer William Beveridge, who had identified five "Giant Evils" afflicting the working class of the pre-war period: "want" (poverty), disease, "ignorance" (lack of access to education), "squalor" (poor housing), and "idleness" (unemployment).[117] Unemployment benefits, national insurance and state pensions were introduced by the 1945 Labour government. Aneurin Bevan, who had introduced the Labour Party's National Health Service in 1948, criticised the Attlee government for not progressing further, demanding economic planning and criticising the implementation of nationalisation for not empowering the workers with democratic control of operations.
The UK Labour Government nationalised major public utilities such as mines, gas, coal, electricity, rail, iron, steel, and the Bank of England. British Petroleum, privatised in 1987, was officially nationalised in 1951,[118] and there was further government intervention during the 1974–79 Labour Government[119] Anthony Crosland said that in 1956, 25 per cent of British industry was nationalised, and that public employees, including those in nationalised industries, constituted a similar percentage of the country's total employed population.[120] The Labour government, however, did not seek to end capitalism, and the "government had not the smallest intention of bringing in the 'common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange'",[121]Labour re-nationalised steel (1967, British Steel) after the Conservatives denationalised it, and nationalised car production (1976, British Leyland).[122] In 1977, major aircraft companies and shipbuilding were nationalised.
The National Health Service provided taxpayer-funded health care to everyone, free at the point of service.[123] Working-class housing was provided in council housing estates, and university education became available via a school grant system. Ellen Wilkinson, Minister for Education, introduced taxpayer-funded milk in schools, saying, in a 1946 Labour Party conference: "Free milk will be provided in Hoxton and Shoreditch, in Eton and Harrow. What more social equality can you have than that?" Clement Attlee's biographer argued that this policy "contributed enormously to the defeat of childhood illnesses resulting from bad diet. Generations of poor children grew up stronger and healthier, because of this one, small, and inexpensive act of generosity, by the Attlee government".[124]
The "Nordic model"
Main article: Nordic model
The Nordic model refers to the economic and social models of the Nordic countries (Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland). This particular adaptation of the mixed market economy is characterised by more generous welfare states (relative to other developed countries), which are aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy, ensuring the universal provision of basic human rights and stabilising the economy. It is distinguished from other welfare states with similar goals by its emphasis on maximising labour force participation, promoting gender equality, egalitarian and extensive benefit levels, large magnitude of redistribution, and liberal use of expansionary fiscal policy.[125] This has included high degrees of labour union membership. In 2008, labour union density was 67.5% in Finland, 67.6% in Denmark, and 68.3% in Sweden. In comparison, union membership was 11.9% in the United States and 7.7% in France.[126] The Nordic Model, however, is not a single model with specific components or rules; each of the Nordic countries has its own economic and social models, sometimes with large differences from its neighbours.
A main motivation for me to believe in Socialism is the fact of it's inherent compassion. The belief that all people should have basic needs met and if they can't meet them themselves, then society should help them along. What is so repugnant about that? If I am doing well, then why shouldn't someone else be able to at least live?
Also, and this makes conservative Christians howl, Jesus was the ultimate Socialist. Don't believe me? Read the bible. There are tons of examples.
Acts 4:32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had.
Matthew 19:21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
Matthew 9:35 Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness. (NIV)
Free health care anyone?
I'm sure that folks could find other verses that counteract these, but the very nature of the bible is contradictory. It's a reality that as Christians we choose what parts of the bible we believe, which is why women don't go around in braids and robes anymore, and we don't stone people for infidelity.
I could go on and on, but those are some reasons that I find Socialism appealing.
Are there people who abuse the system, both in our country and in Socialist countries? Yep! There will always be people like that. They are the way they are, but to me that doesn't make them 'undeserving'. Just sad, and they should be helped.
I don't believe that everyone should just live off the government. I believe that as part of entitlement programs we should also focus on educating the unskilled so that if they are able to learn they can go on to get off benefits and find gainful employment and contribute. What is most important is breaking the cycle of poverty and giving people who are capable a hand up and helping those who simply cannot help themselves to at least have a basic quality of life.
I know a lot of people will likely have counter arguments for what I've said here, but I feel strongly about what I believe and have not seen any evidence thus far in my own experience or in research to convince me that I should change what I believe. What I do know is that no system is perfect, and trying to reach for some sort of Utopia is impossible and absurd. I believe that a middle ground is what is needed, but I don't realistically seeing that happening in my lifetime. Perhaps in my children's or grandchildren's but not mine.
For now I'm happy though to go on believing what I do and while I don't agree with many people, I will respect your right to believe as you will. Please respect my right to believe as I do.
Thanks,
Dawn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)