I guess I’ll just jump right in. Finally. For a while—a long while, I’ve felt compelled to speak up about what’s going on in this crazy world we live in. I’ve had so much to say and when I have so much to say, I write (after venting it all out to my husband). I write because it helps me organize and clarify my thoughts. Composing my thoughts in words helps me understand myself better and gets the crazy out and onto paper. It’s better on paper than rumbling around in my head.

And so I’ve done this. I’ve written quite a bit in the past couple of years just to sort out the confusion and the fear I feel living here. And I’ve noticed that a lot of my writing is directed toward an audience. It’s less diary-type writing and more letters of appeal. That’s because I don’t live in this world alone, right? We all have to live among each other and I’d say that we probably are more aware of this than ever. Before the days of the internet and in the days of not bringing up money, politics, and religion, it was probably a bit easier to get along. Easier to not feel like you were living in the twilight zone or the loony bin. But these days, not only is news at our fingertips, so is the opinion of everybody and their brother. And it’s a lot. And it’s overwhelming. And it’s one reason I haven’t wanted to add my own voice to the noise. I’ve felt this hesitation regarding my writing for at least a decade. I’m a writer. Meaning, that, as I explained, I need words written to help me get by. I can’t get away from that. And before I became more aware of the craziness in the political and cultural landscape, I wrote poetry and stories and novels and blog posts. And even then, I was always unsure of whether I wanted to share. There was fear of rejection, of course. There was the over-saturation of voices that made me feel as if I’d easily be drowned out and there was the uncertainty that God was calling me to share my thoughts. That’s always been my biggest concern. I never want to speak anything that would not bring glory to God and I never want to be out of His will. Now, this has translated to immobility that was more due to fear than to waiting on God’s voice or calling. It’s easy to tell myself that without a clear-cut sign, I should just wait. But I think I’m finally at the point that I’m recognizing that immobility for what it is. Quite possibly it’s passivity. Timidity. And I do know that is not what any of us are called to. Humility, yes. Cautiousness, yes. But fear—no. And we live in a culture that creates fear; that thrives and operates on fear. We live in fear of this virus and, too, our own voices and choices. That is by design. But I know, as a Christian, I am to fear no man. So, that’s why, I’m finally jumping in. Just going for it. I’m going to believe that God didn’t give me churning words just so they could churn and torment me. God did not create me to feel alone and without a voice. And my voice is one that can be another added to the chorus. If I feel strongly that we are hearing a narrative-driven by mainly one point of view then I have to assume I cannot be the only one to feel that way. I want to put out there what I’d like to hear. I’m not talking about speaking into a vacuum or an echo chamber. There is that. What I’m talking about is speaking from the place of an ordinary citizen no different than most people.

Years ago, I had a blog I called Confessions of an Average Housewife. I guess, today, if I were going to title the body of writing I’ve got brewing, it would be something similar: Confessions of a Concerned Citizen or Observations of an Average Housewife (or, maybe, “Trigger Warning: Long Content Ahead”). Because, yeah, I’ve got thoughts galore but I’m not an expert, a politician, an influencer, or a journalist. I’m just an ordinary mom with a lot on my mind who worries a lot about what the world’s going to look like for my children and my grandchildren. And I’m hoping that even just a few people would be able to read what I write and that my words would resonate. That, maybe, there are people out there who are like me; who see what’s going on in the world and it scares the hell out of them. But, likewise, they’re afraid to say so outside of safe circles. I think we need to say so outside of our safe circles. Because for one, when we do, the circle widens. And for two, we may not be able to much longer. That sounds alarmist but that is a concern. We have moved past flirtation with censorship and now we’re very much testing the waters of that relationship. It’s only a short matter of time before we’re all in. And part of what’s getting us there is that, maybe, half of us see it (the censorship) but feels it’s for the best. So we’ve lost sight of the bigger picture. Those of us who are old enough to know what we once had. Then there are the newer generations who desperately and rightly want to live in a just world but they don’t have the wisdom to know what could be ahead if we’re not careful.

I know I’ve been talking in vague terms, so far. And I will be more forthright as I continue. (So, maybe, I’m not jumping right in; I’m more dipping my toes in, first). I just want to lay the foundation of where I’m coming from. If I’m going to share, I want to be sure that my words are laced with grace. I don’t want to be so careful that I skirt the truth but I don’t want to let my anger (which is certainly existent) more space than my hope. I do have to come to terms with the fact that if I speak, there will be people who don’t like what I have to say. I will probably lose friends. I need to come to a place where I’m okay with that. But like I said, I’m not necessarily talking to those who agree with me (if they’re out there). I’m hoping to talk to those who don’t. That’s what this is about. That’s why I say I’m appealing. I have more friends than not who believe differently than I. More friends who are unbelievers than who are and more friends who are on the left than on the right. And I have so many questions for them. It does no good for any of us to just throw up our hands and write the other side off as hopeless though it’s often tempting. I really desire that we start to understand each other. We’ve been driven by division and the results are evident. Ironically, it seems the more words that exist out there, the less the words do any good. We’ve lost the art of debate. The skill of listening. I see name-calling, assumptions and anger dominating a great many conversations that take place on the internet. When hurling names ceases to work, I see people discarding friends. I just don’t think it needs to be this way. It’s not good for society and it’s not good for us, individually.

We’re never all going to agree on everything but I do think we can get to a place where we don’t villainize those who think differently. Or, at least, I hope that most of us could. I think we see or read about decisions and reactions happening out there and we can’t fathom what’s behind these decisions and reactions. I want to move beyond our own gut reactions and dig deeper. I want to not view my fellow man/woman as a label but as a human with thoughts and feelings. I want to be viewed the same. I want to understand what seems so hard to fathom and I want to explain what others find hard to comprehend. I want to give people the benefit of the doubt. I want to assume the best. This is difficult when it seems that extending those ideas only goes one way. On any hot-topic issue of the day, could we try and see where the other side is coming from instead of assuming it’s because they’re just stupid or racist. Could we wake up to the fact that this is what’s happening? We’re creating monsters out of people we disagree with and then we’re angry at life. Could we admit that we’re not giving what we’d like to receive? We have very much forgotten about the golden rule. Much of this, I’m saying to remind myself. See, I have volumes (written and unwritten) of thoughts, outrages, bewilderment. And I have to do something with it. I have to share it because I have to know if there’s anywhere we can go from here. As a common people. We have to find common ground. That has to exist. I have to know it does because otherwise I can’t sleep at night because I just fear that we’re f----.

I, belatedly, discovered Instagram reels last week. I laughed my arse off at a lot of them. And I also thought, who are these people? These happy funny people? I’m not seeing happy funny people on my Facebook feed or in my emails or on the news. Is this an entirely different cohort? But there can’t be just two choices, right? I could just watch reels in the morning instead of read the news. My day would probably go a bit better but the truth is that stuff is happening that we do need to know about. The news is relevant. And so we have to sort it out somehow. This is how I intend to.

I don’t, entirely, know what that looks like. I have no platform, no audience, just words and thoughts galore. I’m nothing if not long-winded. I could write a book with all my worries. For now, I’m just starting the practice of throwing them out into the vast sea of so many voices and hoping someone, somewhere will hear and find something that, maybe, resonates.

#politics #opinion #politicallandscape #fear #censorship

What is with the left’s choice and use of words? Do they expand and add to vocabulary definitions purposefully or are they just not careful with their selections? I try not to let the little stuff get to me but I’m not sure this is actually little stuff. Words and their definitions are important. Language can be used to bless and to curse. To manipulate and move. To build up or tear down. So, especially, as a writer, I find myself beyond irked when I see words tossed out carelessly. The latest case in point is the reaction that Aaron Lewis’ latest song has garnered.

I only heard the song for the first time last night. This was the first time I had heard of Aaron Lewis, as well, though I, of course, had heard of Staind. My husband played the song for me and I kind of liked it. Then he told me that the song was making liberals crazy and that one music blogger went so far as to call it heinous. I listened to the song again, this time for elements that could be considered “utterly odious or wicked” as the definition of heinous would imply. I couldn’t find any. Maybe someone could enlighten me. This irritated me enough that I decided to dig in a bit. I googled Aaron Lewis’ name and the name of his song. The first article I see is from Vice titled, “The Guy From Staind is an Alt-Right Darling Now and His Label Loves It.” So, now I have to look up alt-right. I mean, I know that anyone outspoken and who the left disagrees with earns themselves this label but still. So, I find: “in the US) a right-wing ideological movement characterized by a rejection of mainstream politics and by the use of online media to disseminate provocative content, often expressing opposition to racial, religious, or gender equality.” I can get on board with the notion that the people they give this label to reject mainstream politics. Sort of; but when I think of who makes the list and I try and match those people to expressions of opposition towards equality I can’t make the connection. Candace Owens and Ben Shapiro? A Black woman and a Jewish man? I’m not saying that the alt-right doesn’t exist or that its members aren’t racists but the problem is when you throw people into a category like this and it doesn’t fit you end up diminishing the meaning of the title of the category. Reserve it for the actual racists.

I don’t know what Aaron Lewis has done to make him an ‘alt-right darling’ but I’m disinclined to believe that he is based on the other personalities placed on the list. Drew Schwartz writes in his Vice article that Lewis’ song may “as well be called ‘Fuck the Libs.’” Schwartz follows this with the statement that, “You’ll learn pretty much everything you need to know about it from this one lyric:

‘Are you tellin’ me / That I’m the only one willin’ to fight / For my love of the red and white / And the blue, burnin’ on the ground / Another statue comin’ down / In a town near you.’”

…..Um. That equates to fuck the libs? Am I missing something? Schwartz then quotes the music blogger Bob Lefsetz’ whose take on the song was that, “It’s HEINOUS!” and insisted that the CEO of the music label who took Aaron Lewis on should drop him. Because free speech is bad. I guess.

Still perplexed by these reactions, I kept reading. Variety had an article titled, “Big Machine’s Scott Borchetta Defends Promoting Aaron Lewis’ Liberal-Bashing, Fox-Baiting Country Song.” The author, Chris Willman, states that the single “trashes Bruce Springsteen and avows support for Confederate statues.” The lyric Willman is referring to as trashing Springsteen says, “Am I the only one who quits singin’ along / Every time they play a Springsteen song?” That’s considered trashing someone? Maybe dissing but trashing? Really? The line that equates to avowing support for Confederate statues is the one I referenced earlier. Later Willman states that Lewis is advocating for keeping Confederate statues. These seem like rather long jumps to me. Pointing out that statues have been torn down while making an obvious point about where we’re at as a country in how we handle our opinions and disagreements is not the same as a call to keep these statues standing. Maybe that is what Lewis would like. Maybe he, actually, supports the Confederacy and its flag. I don’t know. I don’t think you can make that assumption on what he says in the lyrics. Could I also point out that plenty of statues were pulled down that were not Confederate statues. George Washington. Abraham Lincoln. Theodore Roosevelt. The point isn’t whether any of these statues, Confederate or otherwise, deserve to remain standing or not. The point is that using words and phrases like, avows support and advocating keeping are deliberately assumptive and accusatory. It’s also a willful misinterpretation of the subject matter. A willful refusal to even understand that your article is an example of the very thing the singer is singing about and an example of why the song appeals to people.

Interestingly, Willman describes Lefsetz’ rant against the song which not only calls it heinous but calls Lewis a right-wing wanker as a ‘take-down.’ So the song is an example of bashing and a big fuck you to liberals but when the artist is called names that’s just a take-down? He also quotes Rick Sorkin who implies that this song or songs like it may inspire ’the next homegrown Republican terrorist attack (or the one after that) based on mis-and disinformation.” Seriously, read the lyrics and tell me what about these lyrics qualifies as misinformation and what would inspire a loon to commit a terrorist attack. The logical connection being that country music listeners are so stupid that any solidarity expressed will no doubt give them the courage to shoot places up? Does this apply then to rap music? Is it responsible for rape and sexual assault? No? Oh, I see. The left make the rules. What seems arbitrary isn’t. It’s simply what they like and don’t like that’s either deemed okay or not okay or rather heinous or not.

Read the lyrics. Listen to the song. Does it strike you as belligerent? Hostile and aggressive? Do those on either side of the aisle really hear things so differently? What’s funny is that a lot of Aaron Lewis’ songs prior to this one actually could be considered antagonistic and hostile so I don’t quite understand what it is about this one that’s getting to them so much? The only thing I can figure is the fact that this one gained rapid popularity. Or, maybe, it bothers them that the singer changed. They didn’t expect that one day he would take this type of stand? Espouse beliefs contrary to theirs so they feel betrayed? Tricked? I’m having to guess because, logically, the reaction seems extreme. And I care less about either the message of the song or the response from those perpetually offended than I do about how language has been manipulated and wrongly used in the responses.

Bashing, trashing, alt-right, heinous, disinformation, belligerent. Ugh. Can’t you say you don’t like something in an honest manner? What exactly is it you don’t like? Be specific. Be clear. Don’t attach words that could just as easily be used to describe a murder or a rape or even a genocide to a damn country song that simply gives expression to a worldview you don’t approve of.

#heinous #aaronlewis #amitheonlyone #countrymusic #vice #altright #drewschwartz #politics #ricksorkin #chriswillman #variety

What is with the left’s choice and use of words? Do they expand and add to vocabulary definitions purposefully or are they just not careful with their selections? I try not to let the little stuff get to me but I’m not sure this is actually little stuff. Words and their definitions are important. Language can be used to bless and to curse. To manipulate and move. To build up or tear down. So, especially, as a writer, I find myself beyond irked when I see words tossed out carelessly. The latest case in point is is the reaction that Aaron Lewis’ latest song has garnered.

I only heard the song for the first time last night. This was the first time I had heard of Aaron Lewis, as well, though I, of course, had heard of Staind. My husband played the song for me and I kind of liked it. Then he told me that the song was making liberals crazy and that one music blogger went so far as to call it heinous. I listened to the song again, this time for elements that could be considered “utterly odious or wicked” as the definition of heinous would imply. I couldn’t find any. Maybe someone could enlighten me. This irritated me enough that I decided to dig in a bit. I googled Aaron Lewis’ name and the name of his song. The first article I see is from Vice titled, “The Guy From Staind is an Alt-Right Darling Now and His Label Loves It.” So, now I have to look up alt-right. I mean, I know that anyone outspoken and who the left disagrees with earns themselves this label but still. So, I find: “in the US) a right-wing ideological movement characterized by a rejection of mainstream politics and by the use of online media to disseminate provocative content, often expressing opposition to racial, religious, or gender equality.” I can get on board with the notion that the people they give this label to reject mainstream politics. Sort of; but when I think of who makes the list and I try and match those people to expressions of opposition towards equality I can’t make the connection. Candace Owens and Ben Shapiro? A Black woman and a Jewish man? I’m not saying that the alt-right doesn’t exist or that its members aren’t racists but the problem is when you throw people into a category like this and it doesn’t fit you end up diminishing the meaning of the title of the category. Reserve it for the actual racists.

I don’t know what Aaron Lewis has done to make him an ‘alt-right darling’ but I’m disinclined to believe that he is based on the other personalities placed on the list. Drew Schwartz writes in his Vice article that Lewis’ song may “as well be called ‘Fuck the Libs.’” Schwartz follows this with the statement that, “You’ll learn pretty much everything you need to know about it from this one lyric:

‘Are you tellin’ me / That I’m the only one willin’ to fight / For my love of the red and white / And the blue, burnin’ on the ground / Another statue comin’ down / In a town near you.’”

…..Um. That equates to fuck the libs? Am I missing something? Schwartz then quotes the music blogger Bob Lefsetz’ whose take on the song was that, “It’s HEINOUS!” and insisted that the CEO of the music label who took Aaron Lewis on should drop him. Because free speech is bad. I guess.

Still perplexed by these reactions, I kept reading. Variety had an article titled, “Big Machine’s Scott Borchetta Defends Promoting Aaron Lewis’ Liberal-Bashing, Fox-Baiting Country Song.” The author, Chris Willman, states that the single “trashes Bruce Springsteen and avows support for Confederate statues.” The lyric Willman is referring to as trashing Springsteen says, “Am I the only one who quits singin’ along / Every time they play a Springsteen song?” That’s considered trashing someone? Maybe dissing but trashing? Really? The line that equates to avowing support for Confederate statues is the one I referenced earlier. Later Willman states that Lewis is advocating for keeping Confederate statues. These seem like rather long jumps to me. Pointing out that statues have been torn down while making an obvious point about where we’re at as a country in how we handle our opinions and disagreements is not the same as a call to keep these statues standing. Maybe that is what Lewis would like. Maybe he, actually, supports the Confederacy and its flag. I don’t know. I don’t think you can make that assumption on what he says in the lyrics. Could I also point out that plenty of statues were pulled down that were not Confederate statues. George Washington. Abraham Lincoln. Theodore Roosevelt. The point isn’t whether any of these statues, Confederate or otherwise, deserve to remain standing or not. The point is that using words and phrases like, avows support and advocating keeping are deliberately assumptive and accusatory. It’s also a willful misinterpretation of the subject matter. A willful refusal to even understand that your article is an example of the very thing the singer is singing about and an example of why the song appeals to people.

Interestingly, Willman describes Lefsetz’ rant against the song which not only calls it heinous but calls Lewis a right-wing wanker as a ‘take-down.’ So the song is an example of bashing and a big fuck you to liberals but when the artist is called names that’s just a take-down? He also quotes Rick Sorkin who implies that this song or songs like it may inspire ’the next homegrown Republican terrorist attack (or the one after that) based on mis-and disinformation.” Seriously, read the lyrics and tell me what about these lyrics qualifies as misinformation and what would inspire a loon to commit a terrorist attack. The logical connection being that country music listeners are so stupid that any solidarity expressed will no doubt give them the courage to shoot places up? Does this apply then to rap music? Is it responsible for rape and sexual assault? No? Oh, I see. The left make the rules. What seems arbitrary isn’t. It’s simply what they like and don’t like that’s either deemed okay or not okay or rather heinous or not.

Read the lyrics. Listen to the song. Does it strike you as belligerent? Hostile and aggressive? Do those on either side of the aisle really hear things so differently? What’s funny is that a lot of Aaron Lewis’ songs prior to this one actually could be considered antagonistic and hostile so I don’t quite understand what it is about this one that’s getting to them so much? The only thing I can figure is the fact that this one gained rapid popularity. Or, maybe, it bothers them that the singer changed. They didn’t expect that one day he would take this type of stand? Espouse beliefs contrary to theirs so they feel betrayed? Tricked? I’m having to guess because, logically, the reaction seems extreme. And I care less about either the message of the song or the response from those perpetually offended than I do about how language has been manipulated and wrongly used in the responses.

Bashing, trashing, alt-right, heinous, disinformation, belligerent. Ugh. Can’t you say you don’t like something in an honest manner? What exactly is it you don’t like? Be specific. Be clear. Don’t attach words that could just as easily be used to describe a murder or a rape or even a genocide to a damn country song that simply gives expression to a worldview you don’t approve of.

#heinous #aaronlewis #amitheonlyone #countrymusic #vice #altright #drewschwartz #politics #ricksorkin #chriswillman #variety

The lock on the door that does not keep the children out;

every size of sock, balled up,

scattered everywhere, unpaired;

deep-red, dead roses drooping, heads bowed down,

stems entombed in an opaque vase−−

only eleven--strange;

wood-framed depiction

of a laughing Jesus ( a gift because I always wondered if He did)

beneath a canvas of our names in cursive

inside a heart of petals;

bought for twenty dollars at a yard sale,

end of day, two velvet

violet couches covered

in dog hair,

one doubling as a desk, the other as a hamper;

on the coffee table, another vase, this, tinted pink

holding withered flowers—

these, of a such and such variety but purple

and too many to count.

Plants do not fare well here.

Edges everywhere,

crossed, overlaid: books, furniture, shoes overlapping

the edge where carpet meets tile;

edge of dresser, mantle, nightstands,

all surfaced with papers, trinkets, valuables, and not-so-valuables,

threatening to topple

off. There are no clear lines here.

Sharp-played piano keys

sound out. I cannot tune it out. Not plunking of rote song for memory

but rather impromptu melody played by small fingers, moving

like geed horses

and also bullet-voices marking breaks, shooting through these flimsy walls.

Bluest blue

sky, seen from my window; subtler blues inside: copycat shades on candles, glass,

mane on a portrait where I was favoring experimentation, in photographs,

scarves, sheets;

lip balm in a small, round tin that I can’t open but won’t throw out;

few spots free.

A dismal mess.

Signaling disorder in our marriage? So says a study.

Blanket thrust off the bed, still crumpled on the floor.

What calm I can recall: a ruse believed sub rosa, wrought carefully

with such intricate threads of denial. Words,

words, words,

meandering across pages and pages−−

poems, prayer

journal, notebooks full of distilled hope (such shallow thirst),

attempts to release heavy weight of this;

damaged trust hidden in a drawer; half-truths pandering to sentiment

hanging on all the walls.

Media in vitae in morte sumus. Paperwork combed through for clues;

in bowls, matching rings, unworn; captured

in a photo, enlarged and mocking smile;

the muck of bad luck evidenced in disarray; indulged- in urges;

distinct aroma of your cologne; written rants; and more than what is written here

or even seen.

But, oh, beautiful, imperfect man−−

my room was a mess before you moved in.

#poetry #bedroom #marriage #secrets

Notes To Self:

It wasn’t supposed to be like this. My mother only just died.

How long is it appropriate to say, just? It’s been two months. Just over.

Now everything is different and it’s all the same. Note to self:

grieve.

#grieving #poetry #death #mother

I hate being a poet…and by hate, I mean love.

And by love, I mean only, that I am compelled,

driven here.

I hate that I can’t write about Israel,

or sunsets and daisies, or in the voice of Sophocles.

I hate that I still write best in the language of a teenager

full of angst−− and by best,

I mean, I’m most satisfied.

I hate that I write poems to you

and that I write poems about writing poems.

That emotions

more than imagery

crowd the page, panting.

That I forget that moods aren’t facts.

I hate the need −− the greed for words. I hate that I tend

to complicate with forced routine.

I hate that I’m readable and relatable and I hate that I just presumed that.

I hate that I’m confessional. I hate that I’m not more academic,

scholarly, referential, clever, or elusive.

I hate that that’s a fact. I hate that I worry

I’m meant to write not poems but rather drivel in a diary

and that I want to

wring the little neck of Philomel.

Most of all, I hate that I sling words like hate and words like love around.

I hate that the evidence is in.

#love #poetry #poet #hate #writing #confessional #words #israel #routine

This year many of us are questioning our right to celebrate Fourth of July in light of the recent acknowledgment our country has been making that not everyone was made free. Many see focusing on America's independence from British rule is another indication of America’s wrong-headed nationalism and hypocrisy. Does Fourth of July is signify an exclusive attitude? An attitude that speaks of superiority? Is pride in one’s country supercilious? Maybe. Sometimes. But what if there are different definitions of nationalism? Which there are. What if one definition states that nationalism is only self-supporting and excludes other nations to their detriment; this the nationalism Germany fell prey to, and yet another definition states that nationalism can define simply a nation’s desire and support for political independence. Is there anything wrong with recognizing one’s own strengths and celebrating them? These are honest questions. China, India and other countries make up 66.2 percent of the world population. Are we meant to look at the fact of that majority to remember that we are somehow insignificant? I think that there is a benefit of looking at it like that. To see ourselves as only one small portion of the world and remember that we are not the only people that matter. I also think that there’ s nothing wrong with saying or thinking that despite our measly 4.3% share of the population, we are a great (not perfect) 4.3%. I would go so far as to say that for as such a small country as we are and despite our many wrongs, we have still stood out among the nations. I, for one, would not like to live in China or the Middle East or South America. I prefer to live in a country where I am not persecuted (yet) for my religion, not demeaned because I am a woman (to the degree of genital mutilation and stoning) and am fortunate to live somewhere that is not by and large poverty stricken and where opportunity is harder to come by (I do understand that in America these opportunities and class distinctions are varied and not the same for all of our citizens). So, I have no problem saying that I think if we’re not getting it right, per se, we’re still getting it better than other places. I don’t say or think that as an insult. I say it from a perspective that understands the undeserved blessing it was to be born an American citizen. I have a responsibility in that. I don’t think it’s wrong to identify what works and what doesn’t. And that is not all a matter of perspective. China remains opposed to basic human rights. So do many other countries in the world. Supporting and defending human rights, unfortunately, is not something many countries are interested in. If I come from a nuclear family with a mom and a dad who are happily married and brothers and sisters who get along and have been spared the heartaches of major dysfunctions such as drug addiction, alcoholism, violence, and incest, should I feel that it is wrong to say that the family that raised me must have done something right? Do all of the other families matter? Of course. They are no less worthy. I have been undeservedly blessed again and am therefore responsible to help others but it would not be helpful to insist that my family didn’t function any better than the family with a father in jail, a mother who had to work two jobs, and a heroin addicted brother. Then we’re all just drowning. It makes no sense to diminish my own family’s accomplishments in order to relate to and love those less fortunate. What does make sense is to help other families also achieve happiness. This can’t be applied directly to countries but, for me, I do think that creating analogies based on microsocieties helps me understand how larger societies function. It’s not America’s place to disrupt and harm a country under the false illusion of helping. It is our responsibility to truly be benevolent and help other countries who are struggling. We need to be able to speak the truth if we hope to do that.

#speakthetruth #nofearoftruth #fourthofjuly #nationalism

Was the Indian Removal Act terrible and inhumane? Was slavery also so? Absolutely. Were either in any way justifiable? Absolutely not. The level of arrogance inherent in any people who think they have the right to another people’s land is abhorrent, the right to another's body just evil. However, I think we need to be honest about humans and human nature. If we continue to look to the sins of the past, of our ancestors, we may think we are better able to address problems of today but what if all we’re doing is subconsciously deflecting. Of course, we need to look at the past, call out what was wrong, take steps to not repeat history’s mistakes. But if we become obsessed, we run the risk of bitterness and I’m would argue that maintaining bitterness is unhealthy for our own souls.

I question the trend of contempt shown for whiteness on two counts. One, should white people really live in such shame for their ancestor’s sins and identify so strongly with them that they denounce a part of who they are? They were born white. Was that just an unfortunate accident? Does it make them less worthy of love? Is racism inescapable? Are whites destined to be racist due to their race? If so, what hope is there?

For many years, I hated it when people would point out that Blacks in Africa sold their own people into slavery. Aside from the specifics of that, itself, I found it to be akin to the statement of, “all lives matter”: beside the point and not particularly helpful. Yet, lately, as we live in tumultuous times, examining ourselves in relation to the world around us, I have found that it is relevant. Not relevant in that it excuses what was done by whites or Americans but significant when looking at the bigger picture of humankind. Human nature can be a very ugly thing. It was and it is. From the beginning of time, people of all races and creeds have struggled to be merely decent. As a Christian, this seems obvious. I don’t know how unbelievers explain sin. For me, it’s not about sharing the blame or pointing fingers, it’s about acknowledging the need for all of us to do better. We have fallen into a trap of grading sins. We all do it. I do it. That’s human nature, too. The pedophile is worse than the bank robber is worse than the shoplifter. We need to do this to maintain a justice system that makes any kind of sense. And yet, if we can look at people as a whole, in regards to sins of the past, we can see that we’ve all come along way and we all have a long way to go. I doubt that the Native Americans of the past were all members of peace-loving tribes before our arrival. I also doubt that they were as ritually violent and at war with each other to the extent that we were taught. Too often, we tend to see things in extremes. We act in an extremist way, we think in extremist ways and we judge others on an extremist scale. I think most of our problems could be better addressed by acknowledging that there are gray areas in motives, the retelling of history, and in actions committed. Thank God, we have become a more enlightened people in some ways. I do tend to worry that we are simply more civilized in our brutality, if that makes sense. But the point remains. We wouldn’t tolerate half of the stuff that happened “in the old days,” in this day and age. And that’s good. We shouldn’t. Just as we would find it disgusting to engage in slavery in America, we would also find it barbaric to find entertainment in gladiators. But if we carry all of the shame for all of the sin, we not only weigh ourselves down to the point that we will not be able to rise but we also rob others of the necessary act of acknowledging their own truth. It may seem convenient to simply rewrite history. We have been guilty of doing this and we are still guilty. If before, we erased our own sin in the history books, it makes no more sense, to now take it all. Who’s to say what would have happened to the Native Americans or the Africans if we had minded our own business. We should have. Certainly. We should have seen the land as occupied, returned to Europe and left well enough alone. But we didn’t. And so here we are. I understand that in light of that, many people believe there is now nothing redeemable in America. I think that is a very mistaken notion. The Bible says that what satan meant for harm, God used for good. Please, please, please understand me. I am in no way saying that it was better for the Native Americans that we took over or that it was better that Africans were kidnapped from their native homes and treated as cattle. I am saying that possibly, God saw what was happening; saw an evil people (as He had been witnessing evil for millenia) and hated what they were doing and despised our actions but that nonetheless, He didn’t abandon any of us. He forgave those who sought it. He did not smite America. I believe God grieves when He saw slavery in the past and He grieves current day slavery. He grieves the sex trade, forced child labor in Haiti, forced labor in Thailand, bride-buying, debt bondage in India, labor camps in North Korea and China, and the slave trade in Libya. “...according to U.N.’s International Labor Organization...there are more than three times as many people in forced servitude today as were captured and sold during the 350-year span of the transatlantic slave trade.” So, to fixate only on slavery in North America in the past is somewhat self-centric. We fail to see what’s right in front of us and what we can do right now to make the world a better place. Sadly, we cannot change what has happened in the past but we can make a living amends. For sure, we need to look at racism that still exists here and work toward eradicating it but we also need to be honest enough to admit that no one in America really has it so bad when we put things in perspective. By putting things into perspective we are not denying the suffering that exists here. We are, however, allowing ourselves the opportunity to take what we’ve been given and use it to help those who still have not been freed in actuality or otherwise. There is also a certain conceit that exists in judging ourselves more harshly than any other. I have been guilty of it. I used to say that the white man was more to blame for their behavior (specifically, western culture) because we should know better. With all the advancements we have made, there is no way we can excuse our brutality. Yet, doesn’t this in a way undermine the abilities and intelligence of others? Who are we to say that more is to be expected of us?

#racism #slavery #nativeamericans

I’ve never been a fan of J.K.R. I thought she was a bit overrated but I’ve been following the reactions she has received for voicing her opinions and making her defense. Some people have gone so far as to state that her “transphobia” has rendered their childhood experience false. And that’s probably the kindest comment I’ve seen.

I happen to agree with J.K.R.’s statements. I actually had a newfound respect for her after reading her essay. For two reasons. One, sticking to one’s guns and defending one’s stance is rare anymore. Apologies are much more common. Apologies are good and right, of course, when one is in the wrong. I respected that Rowling took the time to explain herself. She didn’t respond in a completely defensive manner nor did she back down. She thoughtfully explained where she was coming from and if we don’t encourage people to do that then we are on dangerous ground. Secondly, I respect her for sharing her thoughts because for a long while now, I have been confused by the feminist movement and her words shed light on my own thoughts.

I consider myself a feminist in that I believe women should be treated as equals. I would not say I could ever align myself with the modern approach to feminism and there are many reasons why. One is that so much of what they espouse seems to contradict initial feminist causes. As someone who cares deeply about women’s advancements, I think that there are ways in which that advancement is impeded by the trans-movement. Women have worked hard to gain equal rights and, to me, placing trans-women in the same category can be harmful. Specifically, I am thinking of sports and the celebratory honoring of women. I have a hard time not seeing the trans-movement as possibly being another way of men encroaching on women’s spaces and rights. Maybe it would be easier if I used a term different than men because I do understand the argument that transwomen are women. Maybe if I said people who were once considered men or who were allotted a greater amount of testosterone at birth. I do believe that allowing room for this new definition of gender can crowd out those who have always lived under the definition of old. I also don’t believe science has changed but rather, language. Language and word usage are huge factors in this debate and many other debates of the day.

Isn’t there a school of thought that says race is a social construct? Wouldn’t that then lend itself to the idea that one could feel they were a different race than to the one they were born. What if we had advanced medically to the point where we could effectively color our skin to match the skin we felt we should be in. And then, white born people sought to align themselves with people of color and embrace all of that struggle as something belonging, now, also to them. I think it would be a hard sell. If people can recognize that, I think it would be kind of them to, at least, see the similarities in this so as to try and understand better where some women are coming from. I don’t believe it’s a from a place of phobia but rather of warranted self-protection. Women have needed to self-protect forever and it’s not fair to ask them to simply stop because times have changed.

Many people expressed that by sharing her personal experience of abuse, Rowling conflated two separate issues. They think that she is using the fact that she was abused as an excuse for what they see as transphobia. Clearly, (or, maybe, not so clearly) she did not believe she was fusing to unrelated issues. To her, the two were connected. She attempts to make clear why. She shares her concerns and concerns are just that. Concerns. Worthy of discussion. And discussions, of course, consist of language and of words. We need to, then, look at the words we are all using and which we are all throwing around rather easily of late. We are using harsh terms to describe most anything or anyone we don’t agree with. I think that’s our first problem. We need to put down our standard go-to terms and thoughtfully consider any opinion or viewpoint.

I find it interesting that so many of those opposed to Rowling’s essay have nothing to say in response to her revelation of the attacks she has received in light of all of this. Is this just considered fine? Are we to assume that verbally abusing people who have problematic viewpoints is justified and acceptable? I think this plays into why we can’t listen to each other anymore. We are lacking kindness and common decency in our rebuttals. Rowling shares that she first came under scrutiny for simply befriending a lesbian who didn’t believe that she should be made to feel as if she needed to be open to dating people with penises. I can’t believe that we’ve so quickly moved from a place of fighting for an individual’s right to be attracted to and marry whomever they please to a place where we shame people for preferring one set of genitalia to another. Rowling shares that she received threats of violence and was called all number of truly misogynistic names. Here is another contradiction. The open-minded fail to remain so when their own beliefs are questioned. How is it any better for an advocate of trans people to call any woman a cunt than it is for any man to do so? Isn’t that a term rife with contempt for women? So, pro-women, pro-trans-women can use this term with no sense of irony?

Anyway, Rowling makes a very thorough case for herself. She shares multiple reasons for why she holds the beliefs that she does. Arguments that are, of themselves, noble. To worry about social deprivation and medical research, to have thoughts on how our new society will impact education and children, to desire to protect free speech, and to express concern over statistics that show a startling trend in Autistic girls ( as much a vulnerable group as are all the other groups in question who feel insulted by Rowling) are not petty discussion points. They are valid, in at least, the need to bring them to the table for discourse. She also shares that she knows there is such a thing as gender dysphoria and states that she understands why some people transition. I don’t believe that at any point she expressed doubt in the reality of gender dysphoria or any desire to prevent the act of transitioning. What she has a problem with is a more narrow issue: the issue of what constitutes recognition of womanhood under the law.

She then brings in the viewpoint of how misogyny has and does effect us. She is absolutely correct that women are being dehumanized at an alarming rate. She states that she feels dehumanized by being reduced to a vulva or a menstruator or non-menstruator. This seems, to me, to be a completely reasonable and understandable feeling. Finally, she does tie in her abusive past with the current issue by explaining that she does fear having no safe space as a woman. The very fact that such vitriol has been so easily directed at her, I would say, does nothing to alleviate those fears.

I think that her thoughts and opinions are all worthy of consideration. I think we need to put down our battle axes and our throw-around terms and try to calmly see things from other people’s point of view. We don’t need to come to agree with them but can we at least try and have compassion and not be quick to jump to conclusions and accusations. Jumping straight to name calling is easy. Carefully reflecting upon another person’s experiences and thoughts is not. Shouldn’t we challenge ourselves to not take the easy way out. If we truly hope for change we need to be looking at issues from all angles. If we want something to be accepted, we need to understand those who push against it.

There were so many angry accusations in the comments and so many of those comments employed the same words. I think it’s time we start questioning our use of some of these words. Not just in regards to this debate but in general. However, I’ll stick to this topic. Someone took umbrage with what they saw as Rowling placing incels and sexual abusers within the same category as trans-people. I would argue that if the trans-people she seems to be referring to are the ones who are expressing a desire to punch people they disagree with or who are suggesting reeducating those they disagree with, then they have aligned themselves with incels and sexual abusers. Abuse is abuse is abuse.

Comment after comment describe Rowling as transphobic or anti-trans. The second word is sort of a sloppy word, in my opinion, because in the way its being used, an argument could be made for adding the prefix ‘anti’ to anything opposite or even anything slightly critical of a given thing. For example, if I say men can prove dangerous to women, am I anti-man? So, let’s look at just transphobia. The definition of transphobia states it is a dislike or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people. I think Rowling was very clear that she did not have a dislike for them. So, then, does she have prejudice? Well prejudice means an opinion that is preconceived and not based on reason or actual experience. It could also be behavior which is hostile or unjust which derives from such an unfounded opinion. So, I would say that she is not expressing prejudice as her thoughts and opinions are based on reason. Her own thought-out reasoning. And I don’t think her behavior is hostile or unjust. Another word for hostile is unfriendly. I did not think that was the tone of her essay. Rather, the reactions she’s received could be considered hostile.

She’s accused of being a misogynist which I really think is a misnomer. She is not expressing hate for women. Period. Not transwomen or other women. Someone went on to say that transphobia was rooted in misogyny. I’m not sure how that is. That’s an honest question. Rowling is also called a bigot, a term for people who are intolerant toward those holding different opinions. I think, maybe, the name-callers might want to examine themselves.

And honestly, when will we tire of these identity politics? Conservatives are death eaters? I don’t even know what that means but a wildly popular author who happens to be a woman and who has made a lot of money from her books now has no right to have an opinion? And the opinion that she so audaciously shared is called, here, “wrong.” Well, we might need to look into more definitions. Opinions are not facts. To call them ugly is one thing, wrong another. Furthermore, can we remember that Rowling is talking about self-identification, specifically pointing out the problem with letting men who say they identify as women go wherever they want. That is an issue. It is real and it needs to be looked at. Can we say the decision to let all self-identifying women into women’s shelters is purely without risk? I’m also confused on whether she hates men or transwomen or both?

Misogyny, phobia, hate, manifesto, pseudoscience, half-baked theories. I wonder what a discussion would look like absent of all of these types of terms. Would an argument be able to exist without labels? I would be interested in hearing just one. It would hold a lot more weight for me. And if we really want to get honest, we need to acknowledge that science is operated under popular opinion. That is a reality. So, all of the scientific arguments defending the relationship between gender and sex are not being funded or published. And, interestingly, it’s easy enough to find articles from the U.K. where men have simply said they identify as women and then assaulted women. I would assume it’s not more common in the U.K. than here but rather that we are not openly talking about it. There is some data from 2017. So, how is talking about something that does at times happen invalidating transpeople? “Trans women are women. Period.” How far does this sentiment extend?

I see a lot comments stating that because she fears men, she hates them. Does this thought process apply to the #metoo movement? Not all men rape. Are they, as a whole, entirely safe and trustworthy? Do I hate men, if I bring up sexual assault and rape? There are so many complexities in this discussion and, sadly, it’s being reduced and simplified. Rowling is being viciously accused of inflammatory language but I didn’t see any of that in her essay. I did see plenty of it in the reactions.

Hostile: unfriendly; antagonistic.

Unfounded: having no foundation or basis in fact.

Bigot - a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

tolerant -showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

#definitions #fearofmen #trans #misogyny #opinion #listening #womanhood #jkrowling

I’m finding it increasingly difficult to stay silent. I don’t really know why I bother—no one else does. Maybe, I just miss the old, old days of keeping a certain three topics off limits. I want to like and be liked. I wish I didn’t care so much about being liked. Isn’t that rather middle-schoolish? I wish I’d fully grown out of that. But, too, a less selfish reason for why I try to steer away from various hot topics or more inflammatory subjects is because as a Christian, I want to be careful not to align my anger with my personal beliefs. I don’t want to alienate others. I want to stay open-minded so that I can allow God in to confirm or convict me on any opinion I hold too tightly to. I want to respect other’s rights to share their beliefs. And I don’t think that everything needs to be publicly debated. I want to appreciate my friends for who all they are rather than judge them simply on their politics or their religion and I would like that consideration to be given to me in return.

While there’s nothing about me that is more important than my relationship with God, I would like to presume that there are many interesting aspects to my personality that extend beyond my political beliefs. I don’t want to be judged solely on who I did or did not vote for. I try to grant others the same. All of that said, I am still human and we are living in a very divided society. I cannot pretend that my eyes are closed to the turmoil around me. I try to keep my side of the street clean, to be not impartial but understanding. I want my love for others to be evident, not my distaste. Because the love comes from God and the distaste comes from my flesh. I don’t like to offend. This is not easy in a society that operates from a perpetually offended stance.

Ecclesiastes reminds us that it is not wise to listen to everything people say about us. There’s a saying in Al-Anon that says what other people think of me is none of my business. Proverbs says, “A person’s discretion makes him slow to anger, and it is to his credit that he ignores an offence” and “He who corrects a scoffer gains abuse for himself, and he who rebukes the wicked gets hurt.[a] 8 Do not rebuke a scoffer, lest he hate you; rebuke the wise and he will love you” and that a wise man stays cool when insulted. James 1:19-20 says, “...let every man be quick to listen but slow to use his tongue, and slow to lose his temper. For man’s temper is never the means of achieving God’s true goodness.” 2 Timothy says that as a servant of the Lord, I should not strive (be quarrelsome) but rather be gentle to all men. Exodus tells me that the Lord will fight for me and I should hold my peace. The Bible also tells me that Jesus and His words will be offensive to some. I include all of this because I try to live by the Word of God (falling short, often). I try to remember that we are human beings having a spiritual experience. Of course, many do not believe this but if I do, then I need to behave accordingly.

I need to balance this knowledge with my human desire to address, correct, fix, rebuke. I need to always see if my outrage or worry or desire to speak up aligns with what God would have me do. Most of the time, I find that it is not only safer but probably wiser to stay silent. However, there are times and circumstances in which I think we are called to speak. So just as we should question any inclination towards speaking up, any time we choose silence, I think we need to ask ourselves why we are making this choice. Sometimes we don’t speak out of fear, sometimes we rightly discern that the battle is God’s and sometimes we find that our voices have been drowned out by others. I am coming more and more to believe that right now, too many of us are staying silent. And I think that’s dangerous. That if we continue, there will come a day where we look to the past and realize that we should have done something. We should have, at least, attempted to prevent the insidious silencing of our voices. We can’t go on hoping others will speak up for us or on our behalf. I think we need to be braver. Be willing to risk losing friends or being misunderstood or erroneously labeled. Honestly, if we lose friends for speaking our own truth, were they truly friends? Were they truly people we need in our lives?

A million times a day, lately, I have these thoughts. It’s near impossible not to whenever I’m online. The news and social media provide a barrage of opinions and claims of truth and we are bombarded with anger and discord. We are going to have differences of opinion. We have been able to understand that we do not all believe in a universal truth. That’s fine. Or it used to be fine. We used to be a nation built on an idea that we had freedom. Freedom of belief and freedom of speech. We have the freedom to be wrong. This is not so, anymore. Somewhere along the line, an idea of universal truth did take hold and surprisingly it did not come from Christians. Christians do, of course, believe in a universal truth but we were not the ones who decided to stand up and impose our view of what that truth was on others. Truth left the realm of religion and implanted itself within politics. Thus politics became religion. We are conservative or liberal, democrat or republican before we are atheists or Buddhists or Christians. If this is not the case, it sure looks like it.

We, unabashedly “cancel” whatever or whomever we don’t agree with. Whoever offends us for some reason assuming that we have the right to not be offended. I have no idea where we would have gotten that notion. It’s pretty insane. And to demand that everyone agree with you lest they be silenced is rather frightening. To decide that we are the arbiters of truth and acumen is simply arrogant. To call for firings, silencing, and sometimes violence upon the people with whom we disagree is outrageous and cruel.

Yesterday, I came across an article highlighting books which could be considered classic literature that have been banned. Again. As a society, we’ve often sought to ban certain books. I can’t believe that in 2020, we still seek this. Why would we not know this is dangerous? Why would we believe that any content in any book is more dangerous than the push to censor? Has anything good ever come from censorship? I’ll wait. Who are we that we believe we know what society as a whole should be subjected to. It is one thing to lead as a parent; to make choices for our children, deciding what we think is healthy or unhealthy, to weigh movies, video games, books against our own personal beliefs and make the choice to either allow or disallow for any of these. But one group in society deciding for all other groups? How dare we? Many claim to not believe in God yet have no problem at all playing God.

I’m rereading 1984 by George Orwell. Did others not have to read this in school? Or has its message been forgotten? It reads like a playbook for how we behave today. It was meant to be read as a warning. When and how did we decide it was an instruction manual? If you haven’t read it or it’s been a while, I would recommend that you pick it up. I could write pages of commentary on the similarities between today and the society depicted in that work of fiction. I probably will soon. Yet, I haven’t had much time to dwell on my fear concerning the banning of books because I turned around and was face to face with another troubling matter. So much is under attack and I feel like we are the frog in the boiling water. We’ve allowed things to progress to a point that we may not be able to turn it around. We may be slowly dying in that water, too stupid to jump out.

I re-posted a quote attributed to Serena Williams on my wall. The gist of the quote was that we are, as a society, undeniably divided and that this division has taken over. The writer of the quote says they are sick of the division, of groups at each others’ throats, of the nastiness that’s permeating society. It states that we should all be able to believe what we want to believe, vote for whomever we want but that we should stop thrusting these beliefs or preferences on others. We should stop being upset that not everyone agrees with us. It makes the audacious claim that we are all individuals and beautiful. That we don’t have to agree with another person in order to be their friend or believe that they are a mostly decent human being. Well, Politifact swooped in to issue a warning, covering the post with an announcement that this was partly false information. I should be able to stop there and know that everyone can see why just the warning in and of itself is disturbing. We are no longer trusted to read anything without the powers that be determining whether or not it’s safe for us. We need to be educated by the smarter members of our society. We shouldn’t be trusted to just read whatever we want, post whatever we want. The information might be (gasp!) wrong. Not two hours later, The Associated Press added their own fact-check to the post just in case I didn’t believe Politfact.

The first point is that not only is our freedom of speech being suppressed but so, too, is our freedom of thought. It turns out Serena Williams did write this but not the famous tennis playing Serena Williams. Of course, I think it’s important that quotes be attributed to the correct people. That’s not the point. The point is that there exists so-called fact-checkers designed to correct and keep people in check. Is misinformation more dangerous than a nanny state? Do we believe ourselves so ignorant that this is necessary? I don’t believe we do. I do believe we think others are so ignorant that this is necessary. We want other people to be held accountable, put in their place, fact-checked.

But, fine, thank you Politfact for clearing things up for me. It is good to know who really authored the statement. What alarmed me more than the warning placed on the post was the explanation given by Politifact. They clarified that they weren’t fact-checking the content which, I dare say, is kind of them since the content was an opinion. Rather, they were just clarifying that this post has been shared often and it was manipulated to look as if it was authored by someone who did not author it. The explanation goes on to opine that “the viral post does not sound like something Williams the tennis star would say. She has supported causes related to the Black Lives Matter movement.” Politfact shares that Williams has expressed that she has been wronged because of her race. She has also been quoted as asking why anyone would want to look at Confederate statues because they represent the mass killings of innocent people. Polit-fact’s “ruling” is that the words in the post were written by a different Serena Williams and also, that “based on recent interviews,” Serena Williams the tennis star “probably wouldn’t agree with the sentiment.” Did. You. Catch. That? Politi-fact is allowed to “rule” not only that the quote was wrongly attributed but that the person it was attributed to would “probably” not agree with it. How does this not discredit them as a qualified and serious fact checker? If we needed fact checkers, why would we need fact-checkers that share their opinion with us? Are we talking facts or opinions? And as soon as opinion enters, the status of “independent” becomes false. To me, this is so obvious but somehow so many of us either don’t care or it’s lost on us.

Finally, can we just discuss what in the sentiment there is to disagree with? I listen to a lot of Dave Rubin. A little over a year ago he interviewed two liberal atheist men who were speaking about how scarily religious secularism and academia have become. They discuss the blind following of social justice in academia. Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay. Anyway, they said something interesting in the interview. They suggested asking someone who is offended, what it was that was wrong with the opinion or stance that offends them. So, applying that, I would like to know what is wrong with saying that we should have the choice of who to vote for? What is wrong with saying that we should be able to believe in whatever we want? What is wrong with saying that having our own minds is what makes us all individual. What is wrong with saying that we should be able to be friends with people who hold opposing viewpoints? How could someone not agree with those “sentiments?” I honestly don’t know. I do know that we seem to be living in some sort of twilight zone where sentiments proclaiming freedom and individuality and kindness are no longer agreed upon by a majority.

We need to call these things out. The loudest groups right now have no problem calling out everything they see as wrong. We need to voice our disagreement or we may lose the opportunity to do so forever.

#Christianity #voice #viewpoints #factcheckers #opinion #froginboilingwater #cancelculture #censorship #freedoms #friends