Earlier last week, one of my best friends died. Not a girlfriend. Not a guy friend. A best friend, someone who loved me no matter what the day, whether the tide was turning or the moments where it wasn't quite in his favor. That's a rarity. I honestly always kind of felt like I had taken advantage in a way. I mean, in spite of some people's view of me at first glance, I've never been a "mean girl". I was the geek. The kid who could read before I was 3, do complex algebra at 10, spoke 4 languages fluently and could correct my teachers' grammer in elementary school. The kid who could remember every conversation, verbatim, like a tape recorder, with a semi-photographic memory. I could describe things that I only saw briefly with gross detail. I also was somewhat fearless. I jumped off a second story roof into a swell of snow that was just about close enough to cover the downstairs windows. I thought nothing about racing cars, dragging on ice, and trying anything I was dared to. I was a bit of a wild child crossed with super geek. Joey was the first person I had ever met that was another, or even close, to the same. He could do calculus in his head, could analyze the most complex mathematical challenge that would take a "smart" person hours to figure out how to begin to solve, let alone calculate, and yet was absolutely a wild child sort. Our kindred spirits were inevitably meshed.
The way I met him was through the military, although I had been out for a couple years. Joey was an instructor and just amazing to watch. As an operator and technician on the training equipment that he was an instructor on, I was amazed at how easily he would pick out the smallest anomaly that other instructors would not only miss but would argue that they were not what they were looking for. The first time I met him was as I waddled, pregnant, back down to the class with the equipment and he stopped me...
"Where is this?" He asked. I directed him, thinking what an oaf (everyone knew where he was asking about from the moment they walked into the building for the first time) and continued on my merry way.
A few months later, a cheating husband and an horribly awkward moment in my life, voila. Joey is the instructor on my equipment. (Well, his, depending upon your point of view.) We became fast friends. His infectious smile, his smarts--oh my God, so friggin smart, and just the way he looked at me made my life as my pregnant ass divorced my cheating dog--well, it made my life bareable. Like a gift from God. The fact that he would be pass out drunk by 5 to 6 pm every single day, well, that just wasn't one of my concerns. I could care less at that point. Finding someone that was so intellectual, without caring he was. I mean, don't get me wrong, but so many "smart" people insist that they need to join Mensa or toot themselves off as "smarter" than anyone else, and frankly, I've always found those people nauseating. We are dealt our brains by God, by hereditary markers, by sheer dumb luck. It's not a justification to act like we are better than anyone else. But to meet someone that didn't care he was that smart, and who believed life was fun, and placed a lot less emphasis on brains than interaction, well, he was impressive. He could, in spite of his alcoholism, debate just about any subject intelligibly--not making stuff up but actually knowing the facts to back his opinion up. Again, just impressive. He was, of course, an attractive man also. As a friend would describe him, "tall, olive and sexy....meow, meow, meow mix".
On his birthday, 17 years ago, he begged me to marry him. I was mortified, not because he had taken a knee at his own party, in front of all his friends, but because, well, I couldn't marry a drunkard. Like I said pass out drunk by 5 to 6 pm. Every day. As amazing smart as he was, he was the epitome of my hero, Nikola Tesla. Exactly like Nikola actually. Slavic in decent, smarter than the average bear, the average scientist and even the grossly above average scientist. And...a grossly misunderstood intellect that drowned his confusion in alcohol. There was no way I could possibly put my children in an alcoholic environment. No possible potential happiness was ever worth that. Of course, that could've just been my sappy ass excuse for saying no to his proposal. But I doubt it. It was more likely that gut feeling, that woman's intuition, screaming like a jet at mach as it did a fly by. The smartest man I've ever known after my father was never going to be more than a drunk.
In spite of his fight with alcoholism, he did guard duty at Arlington for a couple of his last years in the Navy and helped oversee some impressive funerals. But none of that even comes close to what he did as an aircrewman on the P-3 aircraft. Submarine hunting was his forte. No one was better. The thing that always amazed me is that he really never needed a calculator. While everyone else was clicking away on their calculators to estimate the location of the submarine based on the visual information provided by the equipment, Joey would have calculated depth and triangulation in this head. Complex calculations that took others punching buttons several minutes to calculate...all in a couple of minutes in his head, sometimes less.
A few years back, both still single, well, we made a pact. We would marry for his 50th birthday if we were both still unmarried. I entered the pact pretty sure it would never happen. I know, my readers might think, well yea, because I would get married to someone else before that rolled around. But my friends that know what a commitment phob I am and have been, well, this was possibly the only way I would ever get married. I suspect that Joey had reached the point where it would be the only way he would get married too. But the reality was that he was having liver problems, kidney problems, various alcohol abuse related physical problems, and time was not on his side. Odds were against our pact ever seeing that day, and the odds were not wrong. Joey will not see his 50th birthday. He passed away last Wednesday evening. The pact null and void.
He promised he would marry before his last day, and I am glad that he was able to marry a woman who stood by him through his last couple of years before his final hours.
When Joey and I made the pact in the background one of my favorite songs played, "Yellow" by Coldplay. Seems fitting somehow...
"Look at the stars, look how they shine for you, and all the things you do..."
Fairwinds and following seas, my friend. See you on the flip side.
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Petty prejudices....
This past couple of weeks there's been a LOT of hoopla over the Zimmerman case, and the previous blog was a commentary on the facts of the case, peppered with some of my own views. Honestly, I had been on the fence when the whole thing happened. When it first happened, I didn't understand what the kid was doing in a gated community. Likewise, I didn't understand why Zimmerman didn't cease following the boy when told not to. Of course, we didn't know that there had been several break-ins in the neighborhood. They didn't initially tell us about the gated community. The pictures of Zimmerman's face being smashed in were not released for several days after and many thought they were hoaxes, partially because of the timing and partially because--well, people are prejudice. So this isn't about the Zimmerman case. This is about prejudice. Every single one of us suffers from some form of prejudice. The definitions are as follows:
While we all accept #1 as the classic definition, the truth is #2 is far more accurate. There's not a single one of us on this planet that can say that we don't have some sort of "preconceived opinion...favorable or unfavorable". More importantly, #2 doesn't limit it to a preconceived notion "without knowledge, thought, or reason". Often, our preconceived opinions, favorable or not, are based on experiences, teaching--whether thoughtful or reasoned out or not, or just sheer observation. Doesn't mean that our preconceived notions are right or wrong, just that we already have them.
We must start looking at our preconceived notions, our prejudices, and recognize that it just doesn't apply to black and white--African Americans and caucasian Americans, but across the board. A hispanic man (someone called it brown the other day) is not a reason to blame "white" America. Just doesn't make sense. Is there prejudice still? Absolutely, but that knife cuts both ways. Several "whites" I know posted that Zimmerman belonged in jail. They "know" he was guilty and that our country still tosses the "black" man under the bus compared to the "white" man. Well, first, think about the fact that the President of the United States, for the first time in our great nation's history, is NOT "white". Consider that Zimmerman isn't "white". The black-white argument is moot, especially in this case. Yet, so many "whites" are out there running around crying about prejudice. Yes, they should be crying about prejudices. Consider that they have all assumed the "black" kid had to be the victim. None of them, even after a jury found Zimmerman innocent and the facts have basically been released to the public, even considered that they could've been wrong. Their "preconceived opinions" of his guilt already solidified in stone. Are we supposed to be a country where anyone, black, white, brown, purple, orange or otherwise, is guilty until proven innocent?
Not only that, isn't it time we moved away from it being OK to make someone the victim sheerly on their color? The OJ Simpson case? What a travesty. Nicole Simpson's killer has even bragged in public that he got away with murder, because we really didn't want to believe a famous, all star, black athlete would commit such a heinous crime. But it wasn't his fame or all star athletic ability that was tooted off in front of a jury and the world. It was the sob story that he was a profiled black man. Poor OJ. Instead of ignoring the color of the man and dealing with the crimes, he had to be innocent, framed, and victimized by the legal system. We now know he was just a jilted lover with anger issues, severe anger issues. I know, we all know, that the legal system has not always been fair to the black, African-American, community. It's very well documented, and in the 1990s, there was a lot of history--particularly from the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s--that was dealt with in order to prove that the United States of America was making strides towards equality. Bringing Medger Evans killer to justice and other trials were an important turning point. Yet, these strides seem to have simply swung the pendulum the opposite way. Now, a brown man can be accused of acting as a "white" man, and the "white" community is eating the pendulum. Perhaps that might sound fair, what comes around goes around afterall, but the reality is that we as a nation should have no tolerance for that behavior. It's not "reverse prejudice" as some whites would imply or the far right media would call it. It's just good old fashioned shitty prejudice.
Neither blacks, nor whites--or anyone else for that matter--should be letting race decide their opinion on anything. All hispanics are not illegal aliens trying to steal jobs from good Americans. All blacks are not ghetto thugs. All whites are not "crackers". Americans have made great strides in equalizing out the racial inequities. It's not all the way there, but we didn't round up all of the Arab Americans and put them in concentration camps after 9/11. Yes, there are still more black men in prison than white men, but that also has to do with environment. It's hard for any child to grow up as a productive member of society when living in a poor part of any city. Hope just isn't there and many of the community turn to gangs and other illegal organizations just to feel like "family". That's not a color thing. South Boston has turned out some pretty tough gangsters--"white" gangsters. The prejudice that it must be all black is as niave as saying that Mexico doesn't have a cartel problem. Race isn't the reason that anyone becomes a productive citizen or not.
Unfortunately, prejudice is still alive and well in the USA. Not like it was before, not even close. But let's not try to dial the clock back to "punish" anyone of today. Society needs to start recognizing it's not the color of the skin that determines a person's innocence or guilt. It's the facts. No color, no race, no preconceived notions. Just facts. Until then, we will be a nation divided over one of the most petty reasons conceivable.
While we all accept #1 as the classic definition, the truth is #2 is far more accurate. There's not a single one of us on this planet that can say that we don't have some sort of "preconceived opinion...favorable or unfavorable". More importantly, #2 doesn't limit it to a preconceived notion "without knowledge, thought, or reason". Often, our preconceived opinions, favorable or not, are based on experiences, teaching--whether thoughtful or reasoned out or not, or just sheer observation. Doesn't mean that our preconceived notions are right or wrong, just that we already have them.
We must start looking at our preconceived notions, our prejudices, and recognize that it just doesn't apply to black and white--African Americans and caucasian Americans, but across the board. A hispanic man (someone called it brown the other day) is not a reason to blame "white" America. Just doesn't make sense. Is there prejudice still? Absolutely, but that knife cuts both ways. Several "whites" I know posted that Zimmerman belonged in jail. They "know" he was guilty and that our country still tosses the "black" man under the bus compared to the "white" man. Well, first, think about the fact that the President of the United States, for the first time in our great nation's history, is NOT "white". Consider that Zimmerman isn't "white". The black-white argument is moot, especially in this case. Yet, so many "whites" are out there running around crying about prejudice. Yes, they should be crying about prejudices. Consider that they have all assumed the "black" kid had to be the victim. None of them, even after a jury found Zimmerman innocent and the facts have basically been released to the public, even considered that they could've been wrong. Their "preconceived opinions" of his guilt already solidified in stone. Are we supposed to be a country where anyone, black, white, brown, purple, orange or otherwise, is guilty until proven innocent?
Not only that, isn't it time we moved away from it being OK to make someone the victim sheerly on their color? The OJ Simpson case? What a travesty. Nicole Simpson's killer has even bragged in public that he got away with murder, because we really didn't want to believe a famous, all star, black athlete would commit such a heinous crime. But it wasn't his fame or all star athletic ability that was tooted off in front of a jury and the world. It was the sob story that he was a profiled black man. Poor OJ. Instead of ignoring the color of the man and dealing with the crimes, he had to be innocent, framed, and victimized by the legal system. We now know he was just a jilted lover with anger issues, severe anger issues. I know, we all know, that the legal system has not always been fair to the black, African-American, community. It's very well documented, and in the 1990s, there was a lot of history--particularly from the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s--that was dealt with in order to prove that the United States of America was making strides towards equality. Bringing Medger Evans killer to justice and other trials were an important turning point. Yet, these strides seem to have simply swung the pendulum the opposite way. Now, a brown man can be accused of acting as a "white" man, and the "white" community is eating the pendulum. Perhaps that might sound fair, what comes around goes around afterall, but the reality is that we as a nation should have no tolerance for that behavior. It's not "reverse prejudice" as some whites would imply or the far right media would call it. It's just good old fashioned shitty prejudice.
Neither blacks, nor whites--or anyone else for that matter--should be letting race decide their opinion on anything. All hispanics are not illegal aliens trying to steal jobs from good Americans. All blacks are not ghetto thugs. All whites are not "crackers". Americans have made great strides in equalizing out the racial inequities. It's not all the way there, but we didn't round up all of the Arab Americans and put them in concentration camps after 9/11. Yes, there are still more black men in prison than white men, but that also has to do with environment. It's hard for any child to grow up as a productive member of society when living in a poor part of any city. Hope just isn't there and many of the community turn to gangs and other illegal organizations just to feel like "family". That's not a color thing. South Boston has turned out some pretty tough gangsters--"white" gangsters. The prejudice that it must be all black is as niave as saying that Mexico doesn't have a cartel problem. Race isn't the reason that anyone becomes a productive citizen or not.
Unfortunately, prejudice is still alive and well in the USA. Not like it was before, not even close. But let's not try to dial the clock back to "punish" anyone of today. Society needs to start recognizing it's not the color of the skin that determines a person's innocence or guilt. It's the facts. No color, no race, no preconceived notions. Just facts. Until then, we will be a nation divided over one of the most petty reasons conceivable.
Monday, July 15, 2013
Personal actions and choices. Malicious intent is still malicious intent....
There's a moment in our lives where we have to start accepting the consequences of our actions. It's not a color thing, race thing, male/female thing. It's a fact thing. The Zimmerman trial has everyone that thought the kid was murdered in an uproar. A jury of Zimmerman's peers found him innocent. Those of us that weren't on that jury have no idea why when it comes right down to it. But the idea that the young Trayvon was innocent isn't really true either. If it was, George Zimmerman would be going to prison. Is it a travesty? I don't know for sure, but my bet is that the jury saw Zimmerman as a zealous neighbor who called the cops and made sure to follow the kid in order to "deter" him from committing any crimes in the neighborhood. Unfortuately, we've become so "soft" on crime over the years that criminals have taken to home invasions--robberies in broad daylight are not uncommon anymore. We've all heard stories of someone coming up to someone's door and asking for help only to bust in the doorway. A woman in NJ was beaten, all caught on a nanny cam, by a robber who after beating her threw her down the stairs, presumably leaving her for dead. I don't like when any of those sales people come to my door. I don't care what they're selling; it mortifies me that I might have to defend myself.
Should a boy be cutting through a neighborhood after buying Skittles? I don't know. I'm not from that area, and therefore, have no idea what the layout of the land was. Was his neighborhood anywhere near there or did it seem like he was "casing out the neighborhood"? Since Zimmerman lived in a gated community and the young man did not live in the gated community, it seems a little odd to me that he would be wandering in the community at all. Gated communities typically have guarded entrances and high fences all the way around to make it difficult to cut through them. Was jumping a fence to take a short cut, particularly one around a gated community, easier than wandering around the community? It all strikes me as odd. I don't live in a gated community, but I live in a neighborhood that is smaller and at the edge of other neighborhoods before entering farm country. If someone was wandering around our neighborhood, it would seem extremely odd, and honestly, I would want my neighbors to pay attention, call the police, follow them and ensure that they didn't break into someone's home. It would mortify me if I found out that I hadn't kept an eye on someone and then my neighbor's house was broken into, and/or worse yet, my neighbor was hurt. I can completely understand why Zimmerman would've followed this kid. It was a gated community that the kid wasn't a member of. Could he have been there for honest reasons? Sure, but no one from the community has come forth and said so. So why in the heck was a kid cutting through a gated community that we know he had to leap some kind of wall or fence to even wander anyway?
Was Zimmerman right in confronting the kid? Not sure. It sounds more like the kid got antsy because he was being followed and turned around and confronted Zimmerman--by the excerpt played on television of his friend that was on the phone with him said. He called her, said he was being followed and by her own statements didn't seem "scared" at all. So the kid according to Zimmerman turns on him and confronts him. He's leaping a fence or wall into a gated community and he looks suspicious. It seems even more suspicious that he would turn and confront the guy following him. If he wasn't up to "no good", then why not say something like, "gee, sorry, I just wanted to cut through because it was faster (or whatever)". Seems kind of stupid to call the guy following him a "cracker" to his friend on the phone, and racist--but let's not go there, and a bit like he had a chip on his shoulder about where he was anyway. At that point, he sounds like he might have been looking for the altercation. Sure, why not? Some old dude versus a teenager. Odds are very good to the kid that he can take the old guy. From the pictures of Zimmerman after the altercation, the boy did exactly that. Turned, confronted, and thought he could beat this old guy up. Wouldn't that be funny? I've got a son who over the last 3 to 5 years has hung around with jackasses that I could see behaving like that. Honestly, I'm a little mortified to say that I could see my son getting stupid like that. I'd hope that he would be smarter than that, but he's 20 now and I've got no say. Doesn't look like Trayvon's mother had a lot of say in her son's behaviors either. Unfortunately, that is how it works. We raise them the best we can, and sometimes no matter how good (or not) we have tried, we have no say in the mistakes that they make. Should this kid have known better? Probably. Who's fault is that? It's not Zimmerman's. It's not his mother's. Is it partially society's? Perhaps that's the real reason we feel so torn, but ultimately it is Trayvon's decision to turn around and confront Zimmerman. It is his decision that ended badly.
Is society partially to blame? We've told our teenagers that the world revolves around them, to the point that many people don't like to go to malls if teenagers are hanging out in droves. Signs don plenty of mall entrances that kids can only be in groups less than 5 or 3 or whatever. We built in our own fears because we bought into all that Dr. Spock crap about treating kids with "respect". We don't learn "respect" by "respect". I'm all about "lead by example", but at 5 years old, there is no "reasoning" with a child. The child's mind is quite different than an adult's mind. The message they get loud and clear when we try to reason with them is that there are no consequences for their own bad behavior. Sitting in a corner versus a spanking? Seriously, I would've loved to sit in a corner when I was little. I'd have sung to myself or made faces at the wall or gotten mad and acted out worse. Not what happened though, I got a good old fashioned spanking and was told that is not the way to behave. When I was a teenager, a spanking would've been worthless, and if we don't teach them from early on, well, it's too late once they're teenagers. They pick the habits of their friends up, they have their own minds, and reasoning with them at that point is all going to go back to the foundation that we've taught them much earlier on. We all are starting to recognize that we are part of the problem, and we don't want a kid to die because we didn't set limits on them, on their peers or on behaviors. So this tragedy, we know is partially our fault. The boy didn't belong behind the walls of the gated community, but many adults act like they can go anywhere or do anything that they want. As adults we know the risk, as a teenager, this boy should've too. But we've sent mixed messages to their generation. We make media mogals of "bad people" like serial killers, school shooters, and other heinous people. Then we expect a kid who hopped a wall he shouldn't have, have enough sense to not attack a guy following him through the community...it might be partially our own fault and we are now just realizing it.
Do I care about the verdict? Not really. I 'm glad that the jury thought Zimmerman was in the right only because I don't want someone wandering in my community, a neighbor doing the same thing--following them and making sure they didn't break into anyone's home--having the wanderer turn around on them, attack them, and then cry victim. It's not about race. I don't care about race. I've got friends of all colors, shapes and sizes. It's about not wanting someone breaking into my neighbor's home or mine, for that matter. Those people that have been perpetrating the home invasions might want to think twice after hearing the verdict, and frankly, I'm good with that too. Do I think the kid "deserved" to die? Not sure, but the kid obviously didn't consider all the consequences. He certainly didn't consider that he could end up in jail because of assault and that circumstances would look very bad for him since he had jumped a wall to be in the community he was in. He certainly wasn't worried about juvenile hall or possibly being tried as an adult for his actions, and from my point of view, he damn well should've. Why he didn't isn't really my concern. Just the actions, the reactions, and what impact it has on someone that might be wandering in my neighborhood that might decide on malicious actions.
Should a boy be cutting through a neighborhood after buying Skittles? I don't know. I'm not from that area, and therefore, have no idea what the layout of the land was. Was his neighborhood anywhere near there or did it seem like he was "casing out the neighborhood"? Since Zimmerman lived in a gated community and the young man did not live in the gated community, it seems a little odd to me that he would be wandering in the community at all. Gated communities typically have guarded entrances and high fences all the way around to make it difficult to cut through them. Was jumping a fence to take a short cut, particularly one around a gated community, easier than wandering around the community? It all strikes me as odd. I don't live in a gated community, but I live in a neighborhood that is smaller and at the edge of other neighborhoods before entering farm country. If someone was wandering around our neighborhood, it would seem extremely odd, and honestly, I would want my neighbors to pay attention, call the police, follow them and ensure that they didn't break into someone's home. It would mortify me if I found out that I hadn't kept an eye on someone and then my neighbor's house was broken into, and/or worse yet, my neighbor was hurt. I can completely understand why Zimmerman would've followed this kid. It was a gated community that the kid wasn't a member of. Could he have been there for honest reasons? Sure, but no one from the community has come forth and said so. So why in the heck was a kid cutting through a gated community that we know he had to leap some kind of wall or fence to even wander anyway?
Was Zimmerman right in confronting the kid? Not sure. It sounds more like the kid got antsy because he was being followed and turned around and confronted Zimmerman--by the excerpt played on television of his friend that was on the phone with him said. He called her, said he was being followed and by her own statements didn't seem "scared" at all. So the kid according to Zimmerman turns on him and confronts him. He's leaping a fence or wall into a gated community and he looks suspicious. It seems even more suspicious that he would turn and confront the guy following him. If he wasn't up to "no good", then why not say something like, "gee, sorry, I just wanted to cut through because it was faster (or whatever)". Seems kind of stupid to call the guy following him a "cracker" to his friend on the phone, and racist--but let's not go there, and a bit like he had a chip on his shoulder about where he was anyway. At that point, he sounds like he might have been looking for the altercation. Sure, why not? Some old dude versus a teenager. Odds are very good to the kid that he can take the old guy. From the pictures of Zimmerman after the altercation, the boy did exactly that. Turned, confronted, and thought he could beat this old guy up. Wouldn't that be funny? I've got a son who over the last 3 to 5 years has hung around with jackasses that I could see behaving like that. Honestly, I'm a little mortified to say that I could see my son getting stupid like that. I'd hope that he would be smarter than that, but he's 20 now and I've got no say. Doesn't look like Trayvon's mother had a lot of say in her son's behaviors either. Unfortunately, that is how it works. We raise them the best we can, and sometimes no matter how good (or not) we have tried, we have no say in the mistakes that they make. Should this kid have known better? Probably. Who's fault is that? It's not Zimmerman's. It's not his mother's. Is it partially society's? Perhaps that's the real reason we feel so torn, but ultimately it is Trayvon's decision to turn around and confront Zimmerman. It is his decision that ended badly.
Is society partially to blame? We've told our teenagers that the world revolves around them, to the point that many people don't like to go to malls if teenagers are hanging out in droves. Signs don plenty of mall entrances that kids can only be in groups less than 5 or 3 or whatever. We built in our own fears because we bought into all that Dr. Spock crap about treating kids with "respect". We don't learn "respect" by "respect". I'm all about "lead by example", but at 5 years old, there is no "reasoning" with a child. The child's mind is quite different than an adult's mind. The message they get loud and clear when we try to reason with them is that there are no consequences for their own bad behavior. Sitting in a corner versus a spanking? Seriously, I would've loved to sit in a corner when I was little. I'd have sung to myself or made faces at the wall or gotten mad and acted out worse. Not what happened though, I got a good old fashioned spanking and was told that is not the way to behave. When I was a teenager, a spanking would've been worthless, and if we don't teach them from early on, well, it's too late once they're teenagers. They pick the habits of their friends up, they have their own minds, and reasoning with them at that point is all going to go back to the foundation that we've taught them much earlier on. We all are starting to recognize that we are part of the problem, and we don't want a kid to die because we didn't set limits on them, on their peers or on behaviors. So this tragedy, we know is partially our fault. The boy didn't belong behind the walls of the gated community, but many adults act like they can go anywhere or do anything that they want. As adults we know the risk, as a teenager, this boy should've too. But we've sent mixed messages to their generation. We make media mogals of "bad people" like serial killers, school shooters, and other heinous people. Then we expect a kid who hopped a wall he shouldn't have, have enough sense to not attack a guy following him through the community...it might be partially our own fault and we are now just realizing it.
Do I care about the verdict? Not really. I 'm glad that the jury thought Zimmerman was in the right only because I don't want someone wandering in my community, a neighbor doing the same thing--following them and making sure they didn't break into anyone's home--having the wanderer turn around on them, attack them, and then cry victim. It's not about race. I don't care about race. I've got friends of all colors, shapes and sizes. It's about not wanting someone breaking into my neighbor's home or mine, for that matter. Those people that have been perpetrating the home invasions might want to think twice after hearing the verdict, and frankly, I'm good with that too. Do I think the kid "deserved" to die? Not sure, but the kid obviously didn't consider all the consequences. He certainly didn't consider that he could end up in jail because of assault and that circumstances would look very bad for him since he had jumped a wall to be in the community he was in. He certainly wasn't worried about juvenile hall or possibly being tried as an adult for his actions, and from my point of view, he damn well should've. Why he didn't isn't really my concern. Just the actions, the reactions, and what impact it has on someone that might be wandering in my neighborhood that might decide on malicious actions.
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Hello sheeple....
Seriously, I know I generally try to present things for people to think about and reconsider their own positions, but this isn't going to be that "politically correct". I'm frankly sick of people that assume that someone that disagrees with them on one point HAS to disagree with them on all points. Are some of you really that GD ignorant? Really? Have the media and the political parties spoon fed you your opinions to the point that you can't form an opinion of your own?!??! The party lines shouldn't be able to match every single one of your opinions, and if they do, newsflash: you are probably a sheeple. No one, and I mean NO ONE, agrees on everything. If you somehow have managed to agree with every single line of the Republican, Democrat, Tea Party or any other party for that matter, then you have sold out your own mind to be a spoon fed moron that does and thinks what others tell you to. Bigger newsflash: You are the PROBLEM. The reason our country is so polarized is because you offend anyone that disagrees with you forcing the person you're talking to choose the opposite side. Dumbasses.
That was for the morons that want one sentence, one paragraph, can't read more than a sentence, because they want to be spoon fed. For the rest of you, it's still not going to be a politically correct blog. I have no party. I'm technically a registered Republican and have been since I was 18. I was raised a Republican and was, and still am, very proud of President Reagan. But honestly, the Republican party lost me in the late 80s/early 90s when the "pro-lifers" made anti-choice the primary agenda of the party. They would float pictures of 8 month fetuses claiming that they were 3 month fetuses--and these were college educated morons!! They would make up lies and feed them and/or eat them up like sheeple. The statistics that they gave were not sound, and they would toot them off as fact. It isolated a lot of young Republicans, and worse yet, a large majority of the female young Republicans. We wanted no part of their lies and deceit, and many eventually, because of the barrage of "you're either with us or against us" mentality, turned and went to the Democrats. Nice job, jackasses. The Republican party is still trying to figure out how to get women back to the party. A statement from Nancy Reagan at the Republican Convention in 1992 that she was pro-choice made no difference. The Reagans were no longer the Father & Mother of the Republican party, and that portion of her speech was buried by both the Republicans and the liberal leaned media.
Being pro-choice, doesn't mean that I'm opposed to the death penalty as a spoon fed minion accused me of today. I'm actually for the death penalty, and in the words of Ron White, I'm all for every state following Texas' lead and putting in a "fast lane". Three convinctions for crimes so heinous that each could have been a life sentence or death penalty case should be considered for a "fast lane" to the needle. We have our laws not to judge others, but to keep people from infringing on the rights of others. If someone insists on committing major crimes--murder, serial killers, to me--even serial rapists--these people don't deserve our sympathy. They've made their own choices, and yes, God will judge them. But doesn't mean that we need to food and house them for decades and doesn't mean that we should release them back into society to hurt another person, another family and devastate others because of our love of freedom. Freedom is guaranteed to each of us, but only if we don't infringe on another's freedom. Murder pretty much is a permanent infringement, wouldn't you say?
Being for the death penalty doesn't mean I'm against human rights. I served in the United States military and I'm quite proud of what we did in the 90s in Somalia and other countries for human rights. I'm mortified to this day that we didn't follow through and go into Iraq after Saddam after chasing the Iraqi invaders out of Kuwait. We did it in WW2 with the Germans, and we damn well should've back in 1991. We didn't and an estimated 250,000 Iraqis lost their lives because of our lack of follow through. Men, women and children who's only crimes were that they dreamt of freedom. Shame on us.
Just because I served in the military, doesn't mean that I think we should be involved in every conflict in the world. I often am torn over the whole Afghanistan thing. It's been an on-going nightmare since the USSR was there when I was just a little kid. I believe that we have made better strides than any other country in bringing peace to the region because we are genuinely interested in creating democracy. However, there's always another Hitler wanna-be that pops up that wants to create a polarized opposition and use the polarization to annihilate their competition. Pretty much like how Obama won the last 2 elections.
Nope, can't stand Obama. Doesn't make me a racist. I've read Bob Woodward's books about him. He's arrogant, thinks his way is the only way, storms off like a child if he doesn't get his way, makes compromises then underhandedly goes to the media and tanks the whole compromise, untrustworthy (read compromise statement again if you need to), and has polarized rather than try to bring together a country. The damage he's done is worse than the GD Vietnam War. We had really started to move away from racism in the 1990s. I've watched him and his wife play the race card so much it's nauseating. I'm ashamed of how much he has polarized our country and the races. He's turned back the race card to 20 years ago. It will likely be a rough road back once his ass is out of office.
Just because I think that we've taken a wrong turn in race relations, doesn't mean that I'm going to be out there blaming the "whites" for it or any other race. The reality is far more complicated. We as a people have become so used to being spoon fed our information in snipits that we forget that life isn't that simple. I watch CBS news sometimes--used to watch it every morning. It would infuriate me the way they would give us the news peppered, sometimes drowned, with their opinions. I took journalism classes in college and a true journalist gives us just the facts. Not that the United States news associations have ever really done that. We know that the plantation owners used newspapers to help shape the view of the Civil War for decades before they started it. It was never over States' Rights; it was over one States' Right. The right to own slaves. Since most people in the South didn't own slaves, the wealthy southerners needed to stir sentiment with another direction. No non-slave owner would have fought for the plantations' owners way of life otherwise. The media has definately spoon fed the race card over the last few years and every time I've seen it it has infuriated me. I could blame George W. Afterall, you don't get whiter--old Texas money, stereotypical white college boy image that the media created a feeding frenzy with, and of course a very political family.
Of course, although I think George W's image also fed into the race problems, doesn't mean that I'm too stupid to realize that it was inevitable that the race pendulum would swing back a bit. There are still plenty of dumbass racists out there on both the white and black sides of the fence. I'm not so niave as to not realize that racists don't only come in white. Racism is a fear of others, a judgment passed on another by only the color of their skin. It's ignorant to be sure, but then, who am I kidding? So is jumping on a bandwagon, taking on all the opinons of the bandwagon as your own, and running with it.
I've got no bandwagon. I prefer to look at the facts and make up my own mind. I'm pro-choice. I'm for the death penalty. I'm for environmental protections. I'm against infringing on the right to bear arms. I'm for gay marriage. I'm for free commerce. I'm against animal cruelty, but I'm not opposed to rats being used in scientific studies. I believe a woman should be President, but I think Sarah Palin is a moron who plays that "girl next door" routine so much that she should be doing a duet with Taylor Swift. On the other side, I believe Hillary Clinton would sell her soul to the devil to be President--afterall, she pulled that "stand by your man" routine to be a Senator and look how far she's gotten for it. C*nt, set women's rights back a decade or more with that lay on your back and take it so you get what you want. Between the two of them, they represent all the classic stereotypes of women that we have to manipulative c*nts to get what we want. I'm for welfare, albeit not as a lifelong commitment. I'm for lower taxes, but not at the expense of our national defense. I still remember vividly the World Trade Centers coming down. I'm for families and believe the best environment is where there are two parents that love each other and can support each other. I don't define those two parents' sexes, because there are literally thousands upon thousands of children in the foster care system that need stable homes. I believe in debate, but don't really care to bother anymore with people that don't have the ability to get passed the snipits fed to them on the television or other media. I believe education is the key to success, but I don't believe a college education necessary defines that. Tesla, Einstein, Ford...some of the greatest minds of the last century had no "formal" education. I want the world to be better for my boys, but honestly, I'm not sure that's what we are leaving for them. It's not the environment part or the political part or the financial burdens we might be creating that gives me the greatest pause. It's the burden of polarization, the "my way or the highway" attitudes, the ignorance of ignoring the Bill of Rights, the idiotic bandwagons without any thought to whether one actually agrees or disagrees...these could create a world where only a few people spoon feed the masses and everyone is either a sheeple or a criminal. I fear that we will turn our great country into a facist regime and go along holding hands as we decide that either all Republicans or all Democrats are evil and we round up anyone that doesn't agree with the winning team. To those of you that made it this far in this blog, congratulations. You're probably not a sheeple and you might have something to think about. To those that didn't, well, congratulations, you don't even know that you might be one.
That was for the morons that want one sentence, one paragraph, can't read more than a sentence, because they want to be spoon fed. For the rest of you, it's still not going to be a politically correct blog. I have no party. I'm technically a registered Republican and have been since I was 18. I was raised a Republican and was, and still am, very proud of President Reagan. But honestly, the Republican party lost me in the late 80s/early 90s when the "pro-lifers" made anti-choice the primary agenda of the party. They would float pictures of 8 month fetuses claiming that they were 3 month fetuses--and these were college educated morons!! They would make up lies and feed them and/or eat them up like sheeple. The statistics that they gave were not sound, and they would toot them off as fact. It isolated a lot of young Republicans, and worse yet, a large majority of the female young Republicans. We wanted no part of their lies and deceit, and many eventually, because of the barrage of "you're either with us or against us" mentality, turned and went to the Democrats. Nice job, jackasses. The Republican party is still trying to figure out how to get women back to the party. A statement from Nancy Reagan at the Republican Convention in 1992 that she was pro-choice made no difference. The Reagans were no longer the Father & Mother of the Republican party, and that portion of her speech was buried by both the Republicans and the liberal leaned media.
Being pro-choice, doesn't mean that I'm opposed to the death penalty as a spoon fed minion accused me of today. I'm actually for the death penalty, and in the words of Ron White, I'm all for every state following Texas' lead and putting in a "fast lane". Three convinctions for crimes so heinous that each could have been a life sentence or death penalty case should be considered for a "fast lane" to the needle. We have our laws not to judge others, but to keep people from infringing on the rights of others. If someone insists on committing major crimes--murder, serial killers, to me--even serial rapists--these people don't deserve our sympathy. They've made their own choices, and yes, God will judge them. But doesn't mean that we need to food and house them for decades and doesn't mean that we should release them back into society to hurt another person, another family and devastate others because of our love of freedom. Freedom is guaranteed to each of us, but only if we don't infringe on another's freedom. Murder pretty much is a permanent infringement, wouldn't you say?
Being for the death penalty doesn't mean I'm against human rights. I served in the United States military and I'm quite proud of what we did in the 90s in Somalia and other countries for human rights. I'm mortified to this day that we didn't follow through and go into Iraq after Saddam after chasing the Iraqi invaders out of Kuwait. We did it in WW2 with the Germans, and we damn well should've back in 1991. We didn't and an estimated 250,000 Iraqis lost their lives because of our lack of follow through. Men, women and children who's only crimes were that they dreamt of freedom. Shame on us.
Just because I served in the military, doesn't mean that I think we should be involved in every conflict in the world. I often am torn over the whole Afghanistan thing. It's been an on-going nightmare since the USSR was there when I was just a little kid. I believe that we have made better strides than any other country in bringing peace to the region because we are genuinely interested in creating democracy. However, there's always another Hitler wanna-be that pops up that wants to create a polarized opposition and use the polarization to annihilate their competition. Pretty much like how Obama won the last 2 elections.
Nope, can't stand Obama. Doesn't make me a racist. I've read Bob Woodward's books about him. He's arrogant, thinks his way is the only way, storms off like a child if he doesn't get his way, makes compromises then underhandedly goes to the media and tanks the whole compromise, untrustworthy (read compromise statement again if you need to), and has polarized rather than try to bring together a country. The damage he's done is worse than the GD Vietnam War. We had really started to move away from racism in the 1990s. I've watched him and his wife play the race card so much it's nauseating. I'm ashamed of how much he has polarized our country and the races. He's turned back the race card to 20 years ago. It will likely be a rough road back once his ass is out of office.
Just because I think that we've taken a wrong turn in race relations, doesn't mean that I'm going to be out there blaming the "whites" for it or any other race. The reality is far more complicated. We as a people have become so used to being spoon fed our information in snipits that we forget that life isn't that simple. I watch CBS news sometimes--used to watch it every morning. It would infuriate me the way they would give us the news peppered, sometimes drowned, with their opinions. I took journalism classes in college and a true journalist gives us just the facts. Not that the United States news associations have ever really done that. We know that the plantation owners used newspapers to help shape the view of the Civil War for decades before they started it. It was never over States' Rights; it was over one States' Right. The right to own slaves. Since most people in the South didn't own slaves, the wealthy southerners needed to stir sentiment with another direction. No non-slave owner would have fought for the plantations' owners way of life otherwise. The media has definately spoon fed the race card over the last few years and every time I've seen it it has infuriated me. I could blame George W. Afterall, you don't get whiter--old Texas money, stereotypical white college boy image that the media created a feeding frenzy with, and of course a very political family.
Of course, although I think George W's image also fed into the race problems, doesn't mean that I'm too stupid to realize that it was inevitable that the race pendulum would swing back a bit. There are still plenty of dumbass racists out there on both the white and black sides of the fence. I'm not so niave as to not realize that racists don't only come in white. Racism is a fear of others, a judgment passed on another by only the color of their skin. It's ignorant to be sure, but then, who am I kidding? So is jumping on a bandwagon, taking on all the opinons of the bandwagon as your own, and running with it.
I've got no bandwagon. I prefer to look at the facts and make up my own mind. I'm pro-choice. I'm for the death penalty. I'm for environmental protections. I'm against infringing on the right to bear arms. I'm for gay marriage. I'm for free commerce. I'm against animal cruelty, but I'm not opposed to rats being used in scientific studies. I believe a woman should be President, but I think Sarah Palin is a moron who plays that "girl next door" routine so much that she should be doing a duet with Taylor Swift. On the other side, I believe Hillary Clinton would sell her soul to the devil to be President--afterall, she pulled that "stand by your man" routine to be a Senator and look how far she's gotten for it. C*nt, set women's rights back a decade or more with that lay on your back and take it so you get what you want. Between the two of them, they represent all the classic stereotypes of women that we have to manipulative c*nts to get what we want. I'm for welfare, albeit not as a lifelong commitment. I'm for lower taxes, but not at the expense of our national defense. I still remember vividly the World Trade Centers coming down. I'm for families and believe the best environment is where there are two parents that love each other and can support each other. I don't define those two parents' sexes, because there are literally thousands upon thousands of children in the foster care system that need stable homes. I believe in debate, but don't really care to bother anymore with people that don't have the ability to get passed the snipits fed to them on the television or other media. I believe education is the key to success, but I don't believe a college education necessary defines that. Tesla, Einstein, Ford...some of the greatest minds of the last century had no "formal" education. I want the world to be better for my boys, but honestly, I'm not sure that's what we are leaving for them. It's not the environment part or the political part or the financial burdens we might be creating that gives me the greatest pause. It's the burden of polarization, the "my way or the highway" attitudes, the ignorance of ignoring the Bill of Rights, the idiotic bandwagons without any thought to whether one actually agrees or disagrees...these could create a world where only a few people spoon feed the masses and everyone is either a sheeple or a criminal. I fear that we will turn our great country into a facist regime and go along holding hands as we decide that either all Republicans or all Democrats are evil and we round up anyone that doesn't agree with the winning team. To those of you that made it this far in this blog, congratulations. You're probably not a sheeple and you might have something to think about. To those that didn't, well, congratulations, you don't even know that you might be one.
Monday, July 8, 2013
"We're not the same, but we get to carry each other"
A few years ago, an acquaintance chose the song "One" by U2 as her wedding song. The song has been tooted off with several different possible meanings to the words: a gay son to his family, the German reunification, or a time where U2 was in the middle of breaking up. The following is one of the most provocative stanzas in the song:
"Have you come here for forgiveness?
Have you come to raise the dead?
Have you come here to play Jesus?"
I'm thinking it was a piss poor choice for a wedding song, but I'm sure she was focusing on the words: "Love is a temple; love the higher love" in spite of the words that follow:
"You ask me to enter
But then you make me crawl"
The song is hardly a love song. It's a painful song about loss, about divide, and dragging someone through the mud, forcing them to do what you want while pretending to let them be free, and asking the most poignant question that goes through anyone's mind when in that position: Why?
The Pledge of Allegiance is supposed to be the words, the dedication that we make as American citizens of our devotion to our Country and the Rights she affords us. There are often social media posts about the Pledge of Allegiance. Most are posts about the words "under God". Two little words. The original pledge read as follows:
"I pledge allegience to the flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
It was published in The Youth's Companion in 1892. A socialist preacher, Francis Bellamy, who wrote it, hoped that it would be used by citizens in any country. He didn't write it for us. He didn't write it for America at all. In 1922, the allegience used in most schools across the country and words were altered from "the flag and the Republic" to "the flag of the United States". The words "of America" were added in 1923. It was formerly recognized by Congress by most accounts in 1942. In 1954, due to fears of communists, the Cold War, and the religiously motivated, the words "under God" were added.
I'm a little mortified to know the history of how "under God" was added. The 1950s were a terrifying time. People spent a lot of time and money on bomb shelters. Many believed nuclear war, was not only a possibility, but eminent. Fallout, nuclear fallout, shelter signs doned school walls well into the 1980s.
We grew up in fear of nuclear weapons, of the "God-less communists", and we saw the effects of veterans abandoned by a nation divided by a lack of rights for various citizens based on race, sex, age, hippies and "draft dodgers" versus draftees and volunteers in our military. Our own hypocrisy began to eat us up like a cancer. It was a totally different time from the 1950s to the late 1980s than is even conceivable to now.
In the 1950s, the Supreme Court upheld adding the words "under God" when the Jehovah's Witnesses sued because their faith doesn't allow for the swearing of allegiance to anything other than God. (Probably where they got the "bad" name that they have to this day.) Starting in the 1980s, the controversy over the two little words began to re-rear its ugly head again. As the Berlin Wall crumbled, the USSR fell, and as democracy began to spread, all of the sudden, these words became an issue again. In 1992, California schools were sued by an atheist because he didn't want his daughter to have to recite the Pledge with the words "under God". High schools have been sued over the years because it indirectly forces youth by peer pressure to say the words to appease the surrounding spectators and participants. In 2002, the Supreme Court stated that the addition of the 2 little words went against the Bill of Rights and the 1st Amendment, The Freedom of Religion.
Since the Supreme Court ruling, many schools no longer require the Pledge of Alliegence every morning. The two little words have become more important than ensuring that American children learn the pride that my generation and the generations before us learned since pubic schools started to take shape in the 1880s. The pride in our Country, instilling that pride, is taking a back burner to TWO words. Our children barely know to stand up as Old Glory goes by. Hell, some of them don't even know what "Old Glory" means. Some don't know to put their hand over their hearts, because this is something that used to be taught at a very young age in school. Now, our children learn it at baseball games. Why not? Their heroes are now video game avatars, professional athletes and reality television contestants who won half a million dollars.
There are plenty of eCards and quotes all over the internet, Facebook and ales, where American citizens demand that it's all about "under God". The Pledge, our great Country, is all founded on religion. Yet, the first words of the First Amendment are the following:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment ofreligion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."
The very first line of our precious Freedoms states there can be nothing to prevent us from worshiping or not worshiping. Just by allowing anyone to follow any religion, we guarantee the right to follow none.
Our Founding Fathers could probably never imagine such a petty argument dividing what has become the Greatest Nation. It is not the "lack of God" deteroriating the United States. It is petty arguments that are deteroriating the Country that we love. Often the same arguments made by the Westboro Church when they protest at a fallen soldier's funeral are the same arguments made for two little words in the Pledge of Allegiance. If religion is the reason, then we need to recognize what we were truly founded on--a respect for the fact that not everyone follows the same religion. That is our First Amendment.
Recognize that "under God" doesn't work for everyone. Some might believe in Mother Nature, some may believe in a higher power but don't refer to that power as "God", and still some might believe "ashes to ashes; dust to dust". We don't have to agree. We just have to recognize that our fellow Americans don't have to agree and we don't have the right to "force" them to. We are not "come here to play Jesus". Time we recognize we are "one" not in spite of our differences, but because we are allowed our differences.
"We're not the same but we get to carry each other."
"Have you come here for forgiveness?
Have you come to raise the dead?
Have you come here to play Jesus?"
I'm thinking it was a piss poor choice for a wedding song, but I'm sure she was focusing on the words: "Love is a temple; love the higher love" in spite of the words that follow:
"You ask me to enter
But then you make me crawl"
The song is hardly a love song. It's a painful song about loss, about divide, and dragging someone through the mud, forcing them to do what you want while pretending to let them be free, and asking the most poignant question that goes through anyone's mind when in that position: Why?
The Pledge of Allegiance is supposed to be the words, the dedication that we make as American citizens of our devotion to our Country and the Rights she affords us. There are often social media posts about the Pledge of Allegiance. Most are posts about the words "under God". Two little words. The original pledge read as follows:
"I pledge allegience to the flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
It was published in The Youth's Companion in 1892. A socialist preacher, Francis Bellamy, who wrote it, hoped that it would be used by citizens in any country. He didn't write it for us. He didn't write it for America at all. In 1922, the allegience used in most schools across the country and words were altered from "the flag and the Republic" to "the flag of the United States". The words "of America" were added in 1923. It was formerly recognized by Congress by most accounts in 1942. In 1954, due to fears of communists, the Cold War, and the religiously motivated, the words "under God" were added.
I'm a little mortified to know the history of how "under God" was added. The 1950s were a terrifying time. People spent a lot of time and money on bomb shelters. Many believed nuclear war, was not only a possibility, but eminent. Fallout, nuclear fallout, shelter signs doned school walls well into the 1980s.
We grew up in fear of nuclear weapons, of the "God-less communists", and we saw the effects of veterans abandoned by a nation divided by a lack of rights for various citizens based on race, sex, age, hippies and "draft dodgers" versus draftees and volunteers in our military. Our own hypocrisy began to eat us up like a cancer. It was a totally different time from the 1950s to the late 1980s than is even conceivable to now.
In the 1950s, the Supreme Court upheld adding the words "under God" when the Jehovah's Witnesses sued because their faith doesn't allow for the swearing of allegiance to anything other than God. (Probably where they got the "bad" name that they have to this day.) Starting in the 1980s, the controversy over the two little words began to re-rear its ugly head again. As the Berlin Wall crumbled, the USSR fell, and as democracy began to spread, all of the sudden, these words became an issue again. In 1992, California schools were sued by an atheist because he didn't want his daughter to have to recite the Pledge with the words "under God". High schools have been sued over the years because it indirectly forces youth by peer pressure to say the words to appease the surrounding spectators and participants. In 2002, the Supreme Court stated that the addition of the 2 little words went against the Bill of Rights and the 1st Amendment, The Freedom of Religion.
Since the Supreme Court ruling, many schools no longer require the Pledge of Alliegence every morning. The two little words have become more important than ensuring that American children learn the pride that my generation and the generations before us learned since pubic schools started to take shape in the 1880s. The pride in our Country, instilling that pride, is taking a back burner to TWO words. Our children barely know to stand up as Old Glory goes by. Hell, some of them don't even know what "Old Glory" means. Some don't know to put their hand over their hearts, because this is something that used to be taught at a very young age in school. Now, our children learn it at baseball games. Why not? Their heroes are now video game avatars, professional athletes and reality television contestants who won half a million dollars.
There are plenty of eCards and quotes all over the internet, Facebook and ales, where American citizens demand that it's all about "under God". The Pledge, our great Country, is all founded on religion. Yet, the first words of the First Amendment are the following:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
The very first line of our precious Freedoms states there can be nothing to prevent us from worshiping or not worshiping. Just by allowing anyone to follow any religion, we guarantee the right to follow none.
Our Founding Fathers could probably never imagine such a petty argument dividing what has become the Greatest Nation. It is not the "lack of God" deteroriating the United States. It is petty arguments that are deteroriating the Country that we love. Often the same arguments made by the Westboro Church when they protest at a fallen soldier's funeral are the same arguments made for two little words in the Pledge of Allegiance. If religion is the reason, then we need to recognize what we were truly founded on--a respect for the fact that not everyone follows the same religion. That is our First Amendment.
Recognize that "under God" doesn't work for everyone. Some might believe in Mother Nature, some may believe in a higher power but don't refer to that power as "God", and still some might believe "ashes to ashes; dust to dust". We don't have to agree. We just have to recognize that our fellow Americans don't have to agree and we don't have the right to "force" them to. We are not "come here to play Jesus". Time we recognize we are "one" not in spite of our differences, but because we are allowed our differences.
"We're not the same but we get to carry each other."
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
A different perspective on marriage as we celebrate living in the Land of the Free
Well, this has been a long time coming. The problem with this blog is that it is such a polarized subject, and well, I try to make it so my blogs let someone think and make a decison on their own. I'm not trying to "spoon feed" anyone or lead them anywhere. I just want people to read it and think to themselves "hmm, never thought of it that way", but "gay" marriage is one of those subjects that almost everyone has their opinion. Trying to present it so that people sit and think about it in a different way, from some other point of view, is at best difficult and in some cases, downright impossible. So how to present a concept that many people already have a staunch opinion?
So, this blog isn't going to be about "gay" marriage. Instead, it's about marriage, just marriage. Marriage is a novel concept. Today we think it means "love" and proof of that enduring commitment to love someone, for better, for worse, in sickness and in health. The guarantee that we will stand by our spouse through the best of times and through the worst of times. We will share the good, the bad, the ugly and we agree we shall triumph or fail as a pair. Most women dream of being the bride, walking down the aisle, dressed in a white gown, escorted by their father, and handed off to their version of Prince Charming. Most men wait for that one that they want nothing else than to make her happy and want to spend the rest of their lives with. It's really something that society has drilled into us from a young age. Marriage represents love today, but it wasn't always that way.
Only 100 years ago, women couldn't own property unless given to them. Most commonly, women received land from a family member's will or as part of a dowery when they married. As a married woman, technically, the dowery land would actually belong to her husband. This was a time where women couldn't vote and even earlier that only land owners could vote. So allowing a husband the rights to her land, especially if he had none of his own, was a requirement to guarantee to be part of the democratic process of our great country. It sounds so ridiculous now, but it was simply how the world was then. Women who came from financially sound families were placed on allowances and lived in their parents' home until they found a suitable husband. Women were in effect property. A man could beat his wife, rape her if she refused his advances, and often could be institutionalized if her husband chose to do so, regardless of whether her mental health justified it. My great aunt Gertrude was institutionalized by my great grandfather because she refused to wear dresses once she came "of age". She preferred slacks. Aunt Gertrude was 14 when she was institutionalized in the nineteen-teens. She was extremely well read, very articulate and yet, she spent all of her life in a mental health facility. In the 1950s, the doctors thought she had been wrongfully placed and released her. She had already spent 30 years in the institution and could not adjust to life in the "real" world. She actually begged to go back. This was the fate of women that refused to tow the line, follow the rules as written for them by their fathers and husbands, and/or behave as women were expected to behave. The "Fried Green Tomatoes" version where the little girl was witness to her favorite older brother's death and her antics as a tomboy well into her adulthood were not only a rarity, but just generally impossible. Family was encouraged to put them into institutions immediately, not just for their own "safety" but for the "good" of society. Towing the line wasn't just a means to an end, but the only means of survival. A husband wasn't an option; it was a requirement. Those that refused to fit the bill, well, life was far more unfair than it is today.
Marriage well into the 1960s was a bit of a gamble. There was sex before marriage, but in general, it was frowned upon and only considered even remotely appropriate if a couple were going to marry. No one "lived" together before getting married, so if the wife or husband turned out to be a total lazy slob or an abusive jerk, it was technically too late to back peddle. Divorce was truly unheard of. My Grams told me once, "We didn't go to all the trouble of earning the vote, proving we could be more than school teachers, nurses, and housewives, so that you girls could suffer our fates. ...When we got married, we got what we got. You girls can live with them, determine what they are really like, before you make a lifelong commitment." If a woman was unhappy in her marriage, her options were extremely limited. She couldn't work in most cases. Divorcees were not kept as school teachers because of the negative social status of a divorce. It was better to be a spinster than a divorcee. There were no court orders of child support. Women that wanted to leave abusive husbands were told that their children would become wards of the state. Marriage was a financial commitment that a man made to a woman and the offspring she produced for him. Not very romantic when we think about it. While some marriages were made of love and continued to produce "love", there is the old saying that a woman marries her father and a man marries his mother. Well, if this is the case, the divorce rate in the 1980s says a lot about those marriages the Baby Boomers grew up in. They definately were not all "Ozzie and Harriet".
Divorce became a very common word in the 1970s and 80s. With many, even one of my aunts, marriage became a joke, a cycle of 4 or 5 years, divorce, find someone new, marry, 4 or 5 years--give or take, divorce, repeat. There was almost a total disregard for what marriage actually was supposed to be about--with a divorce rate in the early 80s that topped 62%. The current percentage is still more than 45%. This is not very promising when we consider it. The half that stay married must be doing OK though since the actual average length of a marriage currently is 32 years. Of course, there have been a lot of changes in the make up of marriage too. Women are the "bread winners" in 53% of marriages in the United States. The average age of getting married has increased by 3.5 years overall since the early 80s. The average divorce age in 1983 was 35; in 2013, the average age is 43. In 1980, approximately 60% of the adult population were married. Today it's less than 50%. In 1980, 20% of the adult population had never been married. In 2010, 28% of the adult population had never been married. Marriage isn't as popular as it used to be. It's tedious to get out of, and it's no longer a requirement to sustain oneself financially. Divorce is very often regarded now as justifiable especially in cases of child and/or spousal abuse, adultery, and even irreconcilable differences. The sanctity of marriage has been marred by the fact that it was until only half a century ago a financial institution first, a religious institution second, and an emotional institution third (or not at all for some).
So, if as we've evolved as a society, the financial institution of marriage has become unnecessary, and the religious institution should be completely based on the individuals marrying, then what about that emotional institution? The one where we promise to love and cherish, in sickness and in health, for better or for worse, where we dedicate a part of ourselves--love, trust, care, mutual respect, etc., what happens to that as we've evolved? In my humble opinion, it's all we have left. That is what marriage is now. It is no longer a means to an end to guarantee a roof over one's head. It's no longer the only way one can interact in society. It's no longer just about the sanctity under a religious umbrella. It's about love, caring, sharing, intimacy, lifelong partnership, making our lives more complete by sharing our days and nights, our hopes and our fears, with someone that makes our days more bearable, who sees in us the light and vice versa and who has promised to be there through the darkest hours as well as the brightest days. Marriage is a commitment to never leave that person alone to the wolves, to be there for support, for advice, for confidence, for comfort, and for love.
When we eliminate the things that vary individually, like religion, and the need or requirements for financial stability, we're left with two people that either love each other and will make a commitment to each other based on that love and mutual respect or not. If love is the real reason that people get married now, then why should someone be barred from it simply because of our religious beliefs differing from theirs? If our religious beliefs are that they should not marry because it goes against our religious beliefs, is that truly an acceptable view on marriage? Who is to make those decisions? Catholics, Methodists, Muslims? Perhaps, if the individuals follow those religions. But if they don't, if you don't, do you want them choosing for you? Do you want someone telling you who you can or cannot love? If not, why would any of us assume it would be OK for us to tell anyone else who they can or cannot marry? It might not suit us, or our beliefs, but love is so slender and fragile in this world statistically. We've made marriage about love. We should consider that before we tell anyone they should not marry--be it our children, our friends, complete strangers, straight, gay, interracial or otherwise.
So, this blog isn't going to be about "gay" marriage. Instead, it's about marriage, just marriage. Marriage is a novel concept. Today we think it means "love" and proof of that enduring commitment to love someone, for better, for worse, in sickness and in health. The guarantee that we will stand by our spouse through the best of times and through the worst of times. We will share the good, the bad, the ugly and we agree we shall triumph or fail as a pair. Most women dream of being the bride, walking down the aisle, dressed in a white gown, escorted by their father, and handed off to their version of Prince Charming. Most men wait for that one that they want nothing else than to make her happy and want to spend the rest of their lives with. It's really something that society has drilled into us from a young age. Marriage represents love today, but it wasn't always that way.
Only 100 years ago, women couldn't own property unless given to them. Most commonly, women received land from a family member's will or as part of a dowery when they married. As a married woman, technically, the dowery land would actually belong to her husband. This was a time where women couldn't vote and even earlier that only land owners could vote. So allowing a husband the rights to her land, especially if he had none of his own, was a requirement to guarantee to be part of the democratic process of our great country. It sounds so ridiculous now, but it was simply how the world was then. Women who came from financially sound families were placed on allowances and lived in their parents' home until they found a suitable husband. Women were in effect property. A man could beat his wife, rape her if she refused his advances, and often could be institutionalized if her husband chose to do so, regardless of whether her mental health justified it. My great aunt Gertrude was institutionalized by my great grandfather because she refused to wear dresses once she came "of age". She preferred slacks. Aunt Gertrude was 14 when she was institutionalized in the nineteen-teens. She was extremely well read, very articulate and yet, she spent all of her life in a mental health facility. In the 1950s, the doctors thought she had been wrongfully placed and released her. She had already spent 30 years in the institution and could not adjust to life in the "real" world. She actually begged to go back. This was the fate of women that refused to tow the line, follow the rules as written for them by their fathers and husbands, and/or behave as women were expected to behave. The "Fried Green Tomatoes" version where the little girl was witness to her favorite older brother's death and her antics as a tomboy well into her adulthood were not only a rarity, but just generally impossible. Family was encouraged to put them into institutions immediately, not just for their own "safety" but for the "good" of society. Towing the line wasn't just a means to an end, but the only means of survival. A husband wasn't an option; it was a requirement. Those that refused to fit the bill, well, life was far more unfair than it is today.
Marriage well into the 1960s was a bit of a gamble. There was sex before marriage, but in general, it was frowned upon and only considered even remotely appropriate if a couple were going to marry. No one "lived" together before getting married, so if the wife or husband turned out to be a total lazy slob or an abusive jerk, it was technically too late to back peddle. Divorce was truly unheard of. My Grams told me once, "We didn't go to all the trouble of earning the vote, proving we could be more than school teachers, nurses, and housewives, so that you girls could suffer our fates. ...When we got married, we got what we got. You girls can live with them, determine what they are really like, before you make a lifelong commitment." If a woman was unhappy in her marriage, her options were extremely limited. She couldn't work in most cases. Divorcees were not kept as school teachers because of the negative social status of a divorce. It was better to be a spinster than a divorcee. There were no court orders of child support. Women that wanted to leave abusive husbands were told that their children would become wards of the state. Marriage was a financial commitment that a man made to a woman and the offspring she produced for him. Not very romantic when we think about it. While some marriages were made of love and continued to produce "love", there is the old saying that a woman marries her father and a man marries his mother. Well, if this is the case, the divorce rate in the 1980s says a lot about those marriages the Baby Boomers grew up in. They definately were not all "Ozzie and Harriet".
Divorce became a very common word in the 1970s and 80s. With many, even one of my aunts, marriage became a joke, a cycle of 4 or 5 years, divorce, find someone new, marry, 4 or 5 years--give or take, divorce, repeat. There was almost a total disregard for what marriage actually was supposed to be about--with a divorce rate in the early 80s that topped 62%. The current percentage is still more than 45%. This is not very promising when we consider it. The half that stay married must be doing OK though since the actual average length of a marriage currently is 32 years. Of course, there have been a lot of changes in the make up of marriage too. Women are the "bread winners" in 53% of marriages in the United States. The average age of getting married has increased by 3.5 years overall since the early 80s. The average divorce age in 1983 was 35; in 2013, the average age is 43. In 1980, approximately 60% of the adult population were married. Today it's less than 50%. In 1980, 20% of the adult population had never been married. In 2010, 28% of the adult population had never been married. Marriage isn't as popular as it used to be. It's tedious to get out of, and it's no longer a requirement to sustain oneself financially. Divorce is very often regarded now as justifiable especially in cases of child and/or spousal abuse, adultery, and even irreconcilable differences. The sanctity of marriage has been marred by the fact that it was until only half a century ago a financial institution first, a religious institution second, and an emotional institution third (or not at all for some).
So, if as we've evolved as a society, the financial institution of marriage has become unnecessary, and the religious institution should be completely based on the individuals marrying, then what about that emotional institution? The one where we promise to love and cherish, in sickness and in health, for better or for worse, where we dedicate a part of ourselves--love, trust, care, mutual respect, etc., what happens to that as we've evolved? In my humble opinion, it's all we have left. That is what marriage is now. It is no longer a means to an end to guarantee a roof over one's head. It's no longer the only way one can interact in society. It's no longer just about the sanctity under a religious umbrella. It's about love, caring, sharing, intimacy, lifelong partnership, making our lives more complete by sharing our days and nights, our hopes and our fears, with someone that makes our days more bearable, who sees in us the light and vice versa and who has promised to be there through the darkest hours as well as the brightest days. Marriage is a commitment to never leave that person alone to the wolves, to be there for support, for advice, for confidence, for comfort, and for love.
When we eliminate the things that vary individually, like religion, and the need or requirements for financial stability, we're left with two people that either love each other and will make a commitment to each other based on that love and mutual respect or not. If love is the real reason that people get married now, then why should someone be barred from it simply because of our religious beliefs differing from theirs? If our religious beliefs are that they should not marry because it goes against our religious beliefs, is that truly an acceptable view on marriage? Who is to make those decisions? Catholics, Methodists, Muslims? Perhaps, if the individuals follow those religions. But if they don't, if you don't, do you want them choosing for you? Do you want someone telling you who you can or cannot love? If not, why would any of us assume it would be OK for us to tell anyone else who they can or cannot marry? It might not suit us, or our beliefs, but love is so slender and fragile in this world statistically. We've made marriage about love. We should consider that before we tell anyone they should not marry--be it our children, our friends, complete strangers, straight, gay, interracial or otherwise.
Monday, July 1, 2013
Pearl, Green, White, Yellow, Vidalia, or somewhere in between?
Who hasn't heard someone refer to someone else as shallow? Shallow, depending upon the person being described and the person doing the describing, can have a myraid of interpretations--shallow in the way they perceive others in regards to money, shallow in that they have no conceptual capabilities, shallow in the way they act, et cetera. It generally means that the person being tooted off as shallow lacks depth, lacks the ability to have depth, or lacks the ability to perceive depth--whether it be in another person or concept or even in themselves. I don't particularly care for the word honestly. My Grams used to say that some people were children's books, some were novels, some were volumes and still every so often some were just a paragraph. It's true in some ways, although the pages once written don't grow or have the capacity for change. A good writing always follows some amount of congruity--opening, body supporting the precepts in the opening, flow from one part of the body to the next, and a closing that loops back to the precepts in the opening, expresses briefly the body, and closes. People are not that simple. Ironic that a saying to describe people doesn't follow "nature". Is it true? Probably, but it alludes a false assumption that we don't change. A children's book is always a children's book. The words are there for education, to spark imagination or simply to lull to sleep. But Dr. Seuss' Green Eggs and Ham will always be Green Eggs and Ham. It has no ability to grow into Tolstoy's War and Peace or Tocqueville's Democracy in America. Unlike a book, although the reference to depth is clear, a person may choose to always be Green Eggs and Ham but it is highly unlikely that life experiences will allow it. Even the most ridiculously shallow of human beings, the single paragraph, has the ability to choose to stay that single paragraph or become something more. We have the free will to become more than what we are; it is our choice to grow.
Like books, onions have layers of depth. Some onions lack size and substance, but can be very sweet--pearl onions for example. Almost everyone loves pearl onions. There is very little variation in size of pearl onions and like garlic they only have one protective layer. It can take them 2 years to become sweet enough for consumption. When you compare to other onions, that's a ridiculous time to wait for an onion to be edible. Yet, some people take a lifetime (or more if you believe in reincarnation) to become a palatable person. Often people choose to be very closed minded--what some refer to as "small-minded". The type of person that disagrees with everything anyone else says, throws insults at anyone different than they are, believes their way is the only way and belittles anything or anyone that attempts to broaden their minds. Yes, little pearl onions typically have fewer layers than larger onions, just like people who refuse to broaden themselves seem to be more "shallow", lack "depth" or are a simple "paragraph" in a world full of novels and volumes. Still, they have the ability, if they so choose, to become the sweetest, most wonderful people around. It's time that changes them and a choice to become more than a sour onion.
Green onions are also lacking in size like pearl onions. Green onions are what many use for "flavoring" in their cooking--sometimes raw, sometimes cooked. Green onions aren't overbearing and are pretty appealing. Some even grow to larger sizes. The stalks of the onion are edible and just as palatable but empty. Often the most "palatable" people are great. They're easy going; they're wonderful to everyone. They enjoy everything and complain about nothing. But often, for the more complicated people, the lack of depth is frustrating. They commit to nothing, they don't appear to have any true loyalties, and they often seem to blend where others do not and the substance that many look for may appear to be empty as the stalks of the green onion. In some cases the stalks are simply there as camoflage as the green onions can grow to large sizes, and people who we assume just would rather blend often grow to want to be much more. To many of them, being the "green onion" can be just as burdensome or in time they simply begin to make choices as life experiences give them a view that is ever growing and changing. Ironically, chefs often complain if shallots get too big, that the flavor becomes more overbearing and that it is not as subtle and non-intrusive to the overall dish. Likewise, as people that might have started as unobtrusive grow, they often become more flavorful, more bearing albeit not usually overbearing, and in fact, their layers prove to be as many and as complicated as other larger onions.
White and yellow onions are of course the most common. They are sometimes sweeter, sometimes harsher, sometimes small and sometimes huge. This is probably most people on the planet. A variation of layers and sizes and flavors. Some are more simple, some are more complicated--6 layers versus 12 layers. Some are sweet, but assuming the larger onion isn't as sweet as a smaller onion is ridiculous. In truth, the sweeter onions are typically the larger onions. Like onions, people that are more complicated and have more layers may be the ones that have more ability to sympathize. An array of complexities and differences--the soil that an onion was grown in--can change the flavor and the size of an onion. Likewise, the majority of people are an array, a collection of the things around them. The depth, the numbers of layers, are a choice but also a conglomerate of life experiences. The irony is the larger onions, like Vidalias, tend to be the sweeter onions. It seems that for the majority of people this is true also. The majority that would be the average human beings--not the exceptions like pearl or green onions--become sweeter as the layers, the depth of those layers, become larger. Most of the time when looking for a cooking onion, we want one that is middle to larger in size for the sweeter but yet still a touch of bitter. Yet, the larger Vidalia are the ones that most people agree are the best uncooked for a burger. Likewise, the deeper the layers of most people, the more interesting they are, the more they have to offer in conversation and the more intriguing they are. While no onion is the perfect flavor for everyone, it is those that expand themselves the most that are the truly most palatable to be around.
Red onions are the showboats of the onion community and have yet all their own unique flavor. They've become very popular in the recent years. The funny thing is most people didn't use to like red onions. They are crisper, colorful and often people assumed were bitter. That's not actually true though. They are not actually bitter but generally a different flavor of onion altogether. Some people are like red onions. These are the people that stand out in a crowd and no one ever really knows what they are like unless they take the time to get to know them. Like red onions, some people are just a very different flavor than other people. They march to the sound of their own drum and they don't care if others don't like it. Sometimes they can be very sweet; at other times, they can be very much the opposite. But the mix of their life experiences, how they look at life, how they perceive themselves and how others perceive them is very different than the average onion. Just by being so different, people that are like red onions are complicated, but like everyone else--be it like a pearl onion or a vidalia type, they choose to grow and expand their minds. Some are larger, and some are not. And like the red onion, they don't choose to stick out in the crowd. It's just that they are so different, they can't help but stick out in the crowd. Standing out in the crowd isn't always what anyone wants. In fact, no one wants to all the time, but if someone is like a red onion, they're going to stick out in a batch of other onions whether they want to or not. These people often have to come to grips with having to stand out and either hermit or embrace who they are. Like red onions can't change their color, some people can't change that they attract attention regardless and they have to learn that not only do some people not like their flavor, but refuse to even try to get to know them because they are so different.
Pearl onions don't usually go well with red onions--likewise a person that is sour and hasn't grown isn't going to like someone that is so different from themselves. Yet, take a little balsamic vinegar, red wine, a touch of salt and pepper, a little brown sugar and some pearl onions and sliced red onions, reduce to a sauce and serve over a steak. It's amazing what a mix of the right ingredients can do with just a little time and effort. Likewise with people, we need to recognize that we are all different, we all have varying levels of depth, varying numbers of layers, and that every flavor that we come in doesn't necessarily mean that we can't interact and actually enjoy someone that is different than we are. It's what makes us grow and become sweeter, better people.
Like books, onions have layers of depth. Some onions lack size and substance, but can be very sweet--pearl onions for example. Almost everyone loves pearl onions. There is very little variation in size of pearl onions and like garlic they only have one protective layer. It can take them 2 years to become sweet enough for consumption. When you compare to other onions, that's a ridiculous time to wait for an onion to be edible. Yet, some people take a lifetime (or more if you believe in reincarnation) to become a palatable person. Often people choose to be very closed minded--what some refer to as "small-minded". The type of person that disagrees with everything anyone else says, throws insults at anyone different than they are, believes their way is the only way and belittles anything or anyone that attempts to broaden their minds. Yes, little pearl onions typically have fewer layers than larger onions, just like people who refuse to broaden themselves seem to be more "shallow", lack "depth" or are a simple "paragraph" in a world full of novels and volumes. Still, they have the ability, if they so choose, to become the sweetest, most wonderful people around. It's time that changes them and a choice to become more than a sour onion.
Green onions are also lacking in size like pearl onions. Green onions are what many use for "flavoring" in their cooking--sometimes raw, sometimes cooked. Green onions aren't overbearing and are pretty appealing. Some even grow to larger sizes. The stalks of the onion are edible and just as palatable but empty. Often the most "palatable" people are great. They're easy going; they're wonderful to everyone. They enjoy everything and complain about nothing. But often, for the more complicated people, the lack of depth is frustrating. They commit to nothing, they don't appear to have any true loyalties, and they often seem to blend where others do not and the substance that many look for may appear to be empty as the stalks of the green onion. In some cases the stalks are simply there as camoflage as the green onions can grow to large sizes, and people who we assume just would rather blend often grow to want to be much more. To many of them, being the "green onion" can be just as burdensome or in time they simply begin to make choices as life experiences give them a view that is ever growing and changing. Ironically, chefs often complain if shallots get too big, that the flavor becomes more overbearing and that it is not as subtle and non-intrusive to the overall dish. Likewise, as people that might have started as unobtrusive grow, they often become more flavorful, more bearing albeit not usually overbearing, and in fact, their layers prove to be as many and as complicated as other larger onions.
White and yellow onions are of course the most common. They are sometimes sweeter, sometimes harsher, sometimes small and sometimes huge. This is probably most people on the planet. A variation of layers and sizes and flavors. Some are more simple, some are more complicated--6 layers versus 12 layers. Some are sweet, but assuming the larger onion isn't as sweet as a smaller onion is ridiculous. In truth, the sweeter onions are typically the larger onions. Like onions, people that are more complicated and have more layers may be the ones that have more ability to sympathize. An array of complexities and differences--the soil that an onion was grown in--can change the flavor and the size of an onion. Likewise, the majority of people are an array, a collection of the things around them. The depth, the numbers of layers, are a choice but also a conglomerate of life experiences. The irony is the larger onions, like Vidalias, tend to be the sweeter onions. It seems that for the majority of people this is true also. The majority that would be the average human beings--not the exceptions like pearl or green onions--become sweeter as the layers, the depth of those layers, become larger. Most of the time when looking for a cooking onion, we want one that is middle to larger in size for the sweeter but yet still a touch of bitter. Yet, the larger Vidalia are the ones that most people agree are the best uncooked for a burger. Likewise, the deeper the layers of most people, the more interesting they are, the more they have to offer in conversation and the more intriguing they are. While no onion is the perfect flavor for everyone, it is those that expand themselves the most that are the truly most palatable to be around.
Red onions are the showboats of the onion community and have yet all their own unique flavor. They've become very popular in the recent years. The funny thing is most people didn't use to like red onions. They are crisper, colorful and often people assumed were bitter. That's not actually true though. They are not actually bitter but generally a different flavor of onion altogether. Some people are like red onions. These are the people that stand out in a crowd and no one ever really knows what they are like unless they take the time to get to know them. Like red onions, some people are just a very different flavor than other people. They march to the sound of their own drum and they don't care if others don't like it. Sometimes they can be very sweet; at other times, they can be very much the opposite. But the mix of their life experiences, how they look at life, how they perceive themselves and how others perceive them is very different than the average onion. Just by being so different, people that are like red onions are complicated, but like everyone else--be it like a pearl onion or a vidalia type, they choose to grow and expand their minds. Some are larger, and some are not. And like the red onion, they don't choose to stick out in the crowd. It's just that they are so different, they can't help but stick out in the crowd. Standing out in the crowd isn't always what anyone wants. In fact, no one wants to all the time, but if someone is like a red onion, they're going to stick out in a batch of other onions whether they want to or not. These people often have to come to grips with having to stand out and either hermit or embrace who they are. Like red onions can't change their color, some people can't change that they attract attention regardless and they have to learn that not only do some people not like their flavor, but refuse to even try to get to know them because they are so different.
Pearl onions don't usually go well with red onions--likewise a person that is sour and hasn't grown isn't going to like someone that is so different from themselves. Yet, take a little balsamic vinegar, red wine, a touch of salt and pepper, a little brown sugar and some pearl onions and sliced red onions, reduce to a sauce and serve over a steak. It's amazing what a mix of the right ingredients can do with just a little time and effort. Likewise with people, we need to recognize that we are all different, we all have varying levels of depth, varying numbers of layers, and that every flavor that we come in doesn't necessarily mean that we can't interact and actually enjoy someone that is different than we are. It's what makes us grow and become sweeter, better people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)