I finally put away our Christmas decorations this week. My excuse for them still being up so long after Christmas was that I'd been working a lot and hadn't had time, but really they were still up because I enjoy having them up for as long as reasonably possible. I'm not going to have my Christmas tree up year-round, but I will prolong the inevitable by making excuses not to take it down. Holiday decorations, especially a Christmas tree, make me really happy. I can't quite explain it, but the site of a decorated evergreen tree (real or artificial) makes me smile and gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling.
Taking down Christmas decorations makes me sad. Fall is my favorite time of the year, and Christmas is the time to savor late fall and the end of the year in the company of loved ones. When I take down my Christmas decorations I'm admitting autumn is past, winter is here and spring and summer are well on their way in. It means that no one is thinking about how thankful they are for what they have or trying to work through disagreements for the sake of an enjoyable holiday. I hide in Christmas; it's a defense that I use knowing that, for a few weeks every year, my loved ones and I are going to make an effort to be cheery and forget our problems. I guess I wish life were like that all the time.
This week as I took down our decorations, feeling sad that another year had slipped away and that I had to admit that life was returning to normal, I found that I was feeling nostalgic as well. I began thinking of past Christmases, of decorating the tree at my Mom's house with my brother and sisters, and of past Christmases both fun and not so fun. And then I realized nostalgia is a dangerous place for me, especially when I'm already in a slightly sour mood.
It began with a memory of what was probably one of the first Christmases after my dad moved out. Mom was working at a job where she had to go in very early in the morning, and in an effort to have a somewhat normal Christmas morning before leaving for work she'd woken everyone up by 5 a.m. Money was short that year and most of our presents were basic necessities like socks and underwear. I'm sure there were a few toys and gadgets mixed in, but to the four sleepy, disappointed kids, this was the worst Christmas ever. We were such brats. I, the youngest and definitely the most spoiled, was especially a brat.
When I relive memories like this, something bad happens in my brain. I start to jump from one memory of a frustrating or embarrassing event to the next, as far back in time as my memory will allow. I beat myself up about how immaturely I handled situations, how I always seemed to do the wrong thing. I wish I could go back and do it all better, but that's impossible so I just mentally berate myself for my social inadequacies. It's a pathetic thing to do because it doesn't help me learn and move on. If anything, it reinforces my need to keep those nasty little memories handy for a moment of self-loathing when I can whip them out and mentally flagellate myself. It's ridiculous; I know this, but I can hardly control myself.
I've come to realize that I need to work on not dwelling on negative memories. If I can recall a memory, analyze it, and rationally extract a lesson, I will. But so often I can't, and it affects me daily. If I make a mistake and someone brings it to my attention, I'm embarrassed as a wave of memories of other failures washes over my brain. I'm sure that whoever I'm talking to can see those failures too. They can't, of course, and are probably wondering why I'm so mortified and upset about a minor mistake. And this, conveniently, provides me with another memory that I can beat myself up with in the future! What a fun gift to myself, like a self-cloning fruitcake. Or not.....
I'm no mental health professional, but I suspect a lot of people have some sort of ritual like this. So, readers, do any of you have a similar problem? If so, how do you manage it? Sound off in the comments or send me a personal message!
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Friday, January 18, 2013
Conspiracy theorWHAT?!
I have been hearing a lot of conspiracy theories about recent mass shootings, and I want to address them and why I think it is unlikely that the government orchestrated such tragedies or knowingly allowed them to occur. I'm not going to fact check every claim that a conspiracy theorist has made, because there are other things I want to do this week and I really, quite frankly, don't think it's necessary. I'm not writing this like I'm reporting news; I'm not going to report a fair, fact-based story. And while you're free to believe as you choose, I'm going to share my personal doubts and thoughts on the matter.
The first reason I doubt the government is behind mass shootings is because gun violence in the US is not new: the earliest recorded school shooting took place on July 26, 1764, when a teacher and 10 students were shot by American Indians. People have been killing each other since the dawn of humanity and, while guns have certainly helped make attacks more deadly, if someone wants to kill a lot of other people they will probably figure out a way to do it. If there had never been a shooting in a school or public place and suddenly there were half a dozen in one year, I might think there was something to the idea that the government was behind shootings. But that is not the case, and I am not supporting such theories.
Secondly, conspiracy theories are another phenomenon as old as humanity, or at least as old as the ability to be paranoid. I spoke with Dr. Keith Durkin, Professor of Sociology at Ohio Northern University, and he pointed out that groups usually create conspiracy theories about the government when their political party is out of power. He stated "Conservatives thinking the government orchestrated the Colorado and Connecticut shootings is just the other side of the coin of some liberals claiming 9/11 was orchestrated by Bush to start a police state or invade the middle east for oil."
People distrust their ideological opposites and look for evidence to support their suspicions. Individuals who are paranoid that leaders will pass strict gun control measures will observe events in a way that is tinted by the fact that they are already convinced that the government's goal is to take away the people's guns. In this state of mind they will dismiss the "official story" when they detect an anomaly or shortcoming, even if they have to invent some huge and intricate explanation to fit the "evidence" into their conspiracy theory.
My third reason for doubting conspiracy theories, specifically regarding the Sandy Hook shooting, is that I don't find the evidence they provide to be solid. Emilie Parker, a 6-year-old Sandy Hook student, was reported to have been killed in the shooting, but later conspiracy theorists claimed she was in the photo her family took with President Obama. While the little girl in the President's photo did resemble Emilie and was wearing a dress Emilie wore in an older family photo, I don't think it's proof that Emilie's death was a ruse. There are dozens of pictures of me as a child where I look like my older sister and am wearing her hand-me-down clothes, but that doesn't mean it's a picture of my sister instead of me.
Conspiracy theorists also point to date stamps and schedules on Web sites as evidence the shooting was preplanned government officials. First, there's no way I can verify that screenshots are actually screenshots. I have seen some amazing replicas of Web pages that people have made, and there's no way for me to tell the difference on my computer screen. Also, I know that date and time stamps aren't always accurate. I've posted things on Facebook that have time stamps that are hours off. I don't know why this happens, but I do know that the settings on computers and servers can effect the date and time stamps on e-mails and Web updates. So, don't show me a screenshot with a time stamp and say it's evidence that people knew that the shooting was going to happen and that the government is behind it and expect me to believe you.
Other evidence that's being presented is supposed holes in witness and official reports and inconclusive media coverage. I took only basic psychology in high school and college, and even I know that eye-witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Studies have proved that our memories are subject to change with time, things we've learned since the event took place, and plain forgetfulness. In the upheaval during and immediately after something as shocking as an elementary school shooting, witnesses and officials are going to be frazzled and probably won't put enough thought into their statements. The media are trying to provide up to the minute coverage with second- or third-hand information and witnesses who are half out of their minds, so the live reporting and possibly follow-up coverage are not going to be smooth and concise.
Also, if the government were orchestrating these events, I think the story would be perfect. There wouldn't be holes to point to or oversights to explore, and a little girl who is supposed to be dead certainly wouldn't be photographed with the President. There would be no chaos in the coverage and we'd be handed a neat little package of a mass murder with no evidence that anyone but a single madman was behind the tragedy. This event was too imperfect to be faked.
Furthermore, if the government were diabolical enough to orchestrate shootings, right down to hiring actors to play witnesses and family members, they wouldn't need to. Why go through all that trouble and public scrutiny when they could just place straw men in strategic positions in Congress and the White House while they pushed their agenda through to approval? Even if the government orchestrated recent mass shootings, their efforts have failed because the majority of Americans are content with current firearm regulations and would support changes only to the background check and mental health requirements, and probably would have supported them without so much carnage.
If I sound angry, it's because I am. I am disgusted that people are so willing to blame the government for actions of madmen. By denying that these events are true tragedies, you encourage contempt for the government and disdain for the victims and survivors of mass murder. In my opinion, someone who does this to their fellow countrymen and government is no patriot. But that's beside the point.
The point is that these mass shootings are real and they are a blight on our society. It doesn't matter that they've been going on for hundreds of years, we are a modern nation and we need to address them. Background checks and licensing regulations for firearms purchases are one way, and mental health reform is another. But we, as a society, are letting this happen to ourselves and I don't think the answer is more guns or violence. We need to start at home by teaching our children that life is sacred, that owning and using a weapon of any kind is a powerful responsibility, that there's a difference between fantasy and reality, and that sometimes empathy and caring for someone who needs help is the best way to prevent violence in the first place. These lessons need to start at home, and need to be taught through school and church and any social group children are in. Children sometimes aren't capable of understanding these things, but as parents and teachers and mentors it is up to us to keep trying to teach and, most importantly, to lead by example.
The first reason I doubt the government is behind mass shootings is because gun violence in the US is not new: the earliest recorded school shooting took place on July 26, 1764, when a teacher and 10 students were shot by American Indians. People have been killing each other since the dawn of humanity and, while guns have certainly helped make attacks more deadly, if someone wants to kill a lot of other people they will probably figure out a way to do it. If there had never been a shooting in a school or public place and suddenly there were half a dozen in one year, I might think there was something to the idea that the government was behind shootings. But that is not the case, and I am not supporting such theories.
Secondly, conspiracy theories are another phenomenon as old as humanity, or at least as old as the ability to be paranoid. I spoke with Dr. Keith Durkin, Professor of Sociology at Ohio Northern University, and he pointed out that groups usually create conspiracy theories about the government when their political party is out of power. He stated "Conservatives thinking the government orchestrated the Colorado and Connecticut shootings is just the other side of the coin of some liberals claiming 9/11 was orchestrated by Bush to start a police state or invade the middle east for oil."
People distrust their ideological opposites and look for evidence to support their suspicions. Individuals who are paranoid that leaders will pass strict gun control measures will observe events in a way that is tinted by the fact that they are already convinced that the government's goal is to take away the people's guns. In this state of mind they will dismiss the "official story" when they detect an anomaly or shortcoming, even if they have to invent some huge and intricate explanation to fit the "evidence" into their conspiracy theory.
My third reason for doubting conspiracy theories, specifically regarding the Sandy Hook shooting, is that I don't find the evidence they provide to be solid. Emilie Parker, a 6-year-old Sandy Hook student, was reported to have been killed in the shooting, but later conspiracy theorists claimed she was in the photo her family took with President Obama. While the little girl in the President's photo did resemble Emilie and was wearing a dress Emilie wore in an older family photo, I don't think it's proof that Emilie's death was a ruse. There are dozens of pictures of me as a child where I look like my older sister and am wearing her hand-me-down clothes, but that doesn't mean it's a picture of my sister instead of me.
Conspiracy theorists also point to date stamps and schedules on Web sites as evidence the shooting was preplanned government officials. First, there's no way I can verify that screenshots are actually screenshots. I have seen some amazing replicas of Web pages that people have made, and there's no way for me to tell the difference on my computer screen. Also, I know that date and time stamps aren't always accurate. I've posted things on Facebook that have time stamps that are hours off. I don't know why this happens, but I do know that the settings on computers and servers can effect the date and time stamps on e-mails and Web updates. So, don't show me a screenshot with a time stamp and say it's evidence that people knew that the shooting was going to happen and that the government is behind it and expect me to believe you.
Other evidence that's being presented is supposed holes in witness and official reports and inconclusive media coverage. I took only basic psychology in high school and college, and even I know that eye-witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Studies have proved that our memories are subject to change with time, things we've learned since the event took place, and plain forgetfulness. In the upheaval during and immediately after something as shocking as an elementary school shooting, witnesses and officials are going to be frazzled and probably won't put enough thought into their statements. The media are trying to provide up to the minute coverage with second- or third-hand information and witnesses who are half out of their minds, so the live reporting and possibly follow-up coverage are not going to be smooth and concise.
Also, if the government were orchestrating these events, I think the story would be perfect. There wouldn't be holes to point to or oversights to explore, and a little girl who is supposed to be dead certainly wouldn't be photographed with the President. There would be no chaos in the coverage and we'd be handed a neat little package of a mass murder with no evidence that anyone but a single madman was behind the tragedy. This event was too imperfect to be faked.
Furthermore, if the government were diabolical enough to orchestrate shootings, right down to hiring actors to play witnesses and family members, they wouldn't need to. Why go through all that trouble and public scrutiny when they could just place straw men in strategic positions in Congress and the White House while they pushed their agenda through to approval? Even if the government orchestrated recent mass shootings, their efforts have failed because the majority of Americans are content with current firearm regulations and would support changes only to the background check and mental health requirements, and probably would have supported them without so much carnage.
If I sound angry, it's because I am. I am disgusted that people are so willing to blame the government for actions of madmen. By denying that these events are true tragedies, you encourage contempt for the government and disdain for the victims and survivors of mass murder. In my opinion, someone who does this to their fellow countrymen and government is no patriot. But that's beside the point.
The point is that these mass shootings are real and they are a blight on our society. It doesn't matter that they've been going on for hundreds of years, we are a modern nation and we need to address them. Background checks and licensing regulations for firearms purchases are one way, and mental health reform is another. But we, as a society, are letting this happen to ourselves and I don't think the answer is more guns or violence. We need to start at home by teaching our children that life is sacred, that owning and using a weapon of any kind is a powerful responsibility, that there's a difference between fantasy and reality, and that sometimes empathy and caring for someone who needs help is the best way to prevent violence in the first place. These lessons need to start at home, and need to be taught through school and church and any social group children are in. Children sometimes aren't capable of understanding these things, but as parents and teachers and mentors it is up to us to keep trying to teach and, most importantly, to lead by example.
Friday, January 11, 2013
The Importance of Being Pretty
My original post was going to be mainly focused on the (in my opinion) ridiculous outcome of an Iowa legal dispute in which a dentist fired his assistant because he found her too attractive and "irresistible," and felt she was a threat to his marriage. If you want to read more about the case, click here. However, after thinking about this case and my own personal experience, I realize that there's a big question surrounding women in today's society: How important is it to be pretty?
I have personally been affected by other people's opinions of my attractiveness, both casually and in the workplace. I could even argue that I've both received and lost jobs based on my appearance. But, in the end, should a person's employability be based on his or her physical assets rather than professional skills? While I think not, I still find myself judging others for both "trying too hard," and "not trying hard enough" to look good.
I have to wonder why, despite my belief that appearance should not be so important, I judge people without even realizing I am. Am I really so shallow, or have I unconsciously accepted that people, especially women, must strike a fine line in their appearance and, if they fail, they are to blamed for how they are treated? And so, again, how important is it to be pretty?
Honestly, I don't like leaving the house without makeup on and a decently flattering outfit. It's not that I want male attention; in fact, I get really embarrassed when I'm hit on. And, despite the speculation that women dress up to impress each other, I'm not trying to show off for other women. I want to look nice because when I do, I feel better about myself. I wish I could walk out the door bare-faced and still feel confident, but I don't. So, personally, feeling like I look nice is important not because of how others perceive me, but because of how I perceive myself.
I know I am not the only person who thinks looking nice is important. Studies show that attractive people tend to make more money, have better jobs, and are generally happier than their less-attractive counterparts, and it's clear that our society values physical attractiveness. But why? I know it could really all be broken down to genetics and ideal mates and so on, but are we no better than animals looking to associate with the best-looking of our kind in an attempt to better ourselves?
In short, YES. We are animals, and we want to be pretty and be around pretty people. As a society, we spend a lot of money to look good, and we judge people who we feel don't try hard enough and, in reverse, we judge people to try too hard. It's a fine line to hit, and we can be very unforgiving of those who either fall short or overshoot.
But is it really acceptable to value someone based almost solely on their appearance? I really don't think it is. It's fine to appreciate physical attractiveness, but as individuals I think we all need to make more of an effort to appreciate people for their other attributes. Furthermore, I think that we need to appreciate the confidence it takes to choose to not share society's obsession to always make oneself prettier.
Men, women, children: we're all people, and we're much more complicated than what the eye can see. Put your best foot forward, and try not to be a jerk to someone who doesn't cover theirs with designer shoes.
I have personally been affected by other people's opinions of my attractiveness, both casually and in the workplace. I could even argue that I've both received and lost jobs based on my appearance. But, in the end, should a person's employability be based on his or her physical assets rather than professional skills? While I think not, I still find myself judging others for both "trying too hard," and "not trying hard enough" to look good.
I have to wonder why, despite my belief that appearance should not be so important, I judge people without even realizing I am. Am I really so shallow, or have I unconsciously accepted that people, especially women, must strike a fine line in their appearance and, if they fail, they are to blamed for how they are treated? And so, again, how important is it to be pretty?
Honestly, I don't like leaving the house without makeup on and a decently flattering outfit. It's not that I want male attention; in fact, I get really embarrassed when I'm hit on. And, despite the speculation that women dress up to impress each other, I'm not trying to show off for other women. I want to look nice because when I do, I feel better about myself. I wish I could walk out the door bare-faced and still feel confident, but I don't. So, personally, feeling like I look nice is important not because of how others perceive me, but because of how I perceive myself.
I know I am not the only person who thinks looking nice is important. Studies show that attractive people tend to make more money, have better jobs, and are generally happier than their less-attractive counterparts, and it's clear that our society values physical attractiveness. But why? I know it could really all be broken down to genetics and ideal mates and so on, but are we no better than animals looking to associate with the best-looking of our kind in an attempt to better ourselves?
In short, YES. We are animals, and we want to be pretty and be around pretty people. As a society, we spend a lot of money to look good, and we judge people who we feel don't try hard enough and, in reverse, we judge people to try too hard. It's a fine line to hit, and we can be very unforgiving of those who either fall short or overshoot.
But is it really acceptable to value someone based almost solely on their appearance? I really don't think it is. It's fine to appreciate physical attractiveness, but as individuals I think we all need to make more of an effort to appreciate people for their other attributes. Furthermore, I think that we need to appreciate the confidence it takes to choose to not share society's obsession to always make oneself prettier.
Men, women, children: we're all people, and we're much more complicated than what the eye can see. Put your best foot forward, and try not to be a jerk to someone who doesn't cover theirs with designer shoes.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
My New Year's Resolution
Despite this being my first ever blog entry, I will be brief. A few weeks ago, I read 6 Harsh Truths That Will Make You a Better Person and, after briefly being offended, I realized that David Wong is absolutely right: society IS only interested in what you have to offer, and if you want to get along well it's up to you to develop skills that people demand. It's not enough to be a good person; you have to be able to do something most people can't if you want to be treated like an asset to society.
As I said before, I was at first offended by such tough-love advice, but I had an epiphany after I realized that these 6 Truths were absolutely true. I realized the few years of adulthood I've experienced have been filled with professional failure and unhappiness, and it's because I'm not giving the world what I have to offer.
It doesn't matter what my job is or if I'm using my skills there; I'm a trained writer and I need to write. I hope that regularly writing and sharing my work in a public forum will negate the disappointment in my so far lackluster career, even if it doesn't bring me great professional success, monetary gain, or personal fame. I'm going to write not because I think I'll become famous doing it, but because it makes me happy and fulfilled.
So this is my New Year's resolution: I will write at least one document a week for public consumption and keep a private journal to improve my creative process. I will continue to do this no matter what changes in my life, professionally or privately, for all of 2013. This way at the end of the year, even if I'm still dissatisfied with my career, I will have more than 50 documents to show how I made use of my time and the skills I've worked so hard to develop.
I invite all of you to read my blog and any other documents I create to share. I don't know what I'll write about every week, but I will rely on current events and my brain for inspiration. If there's something you think I should write about, please let me know! I hope that my work will somehow benefit you, and that you will help hold me accountable to my resolution. Happy 2013, everyone!
As I said before, I was at first offended by such tough-love advice, but I had an epiphany after I realized that these 6 Truths were absolutely true. I realized the few years of adulthood I've experienced have been filled with professional failure and unhappiness, and it's because I'm not giving the world what I have to offer.
It doesn't matter what my job is or if I'm using my skills there; I'm a trained writer and I need to write. I hope that regularly writing and sharing my work in a public forum will negate the disappointment in my so far lackluster career, even if it doesn't bring me great professional success, monetary gain, or personal fame. I'm going to write not because I think I'll become famous doing it, but because it makes me happy and fulfilled.
So this is my New Year's resolution: I will write at least one document a week for public consumption and keep a private journal to improve my creative process. I will continue to do this no matter what changes in my life, professionally or privately, for all of 2013. This way at the end of the year, even if I'm still dissatisfied with my career, I will have more than 50 documents to show how I made use of my time and the skills I've worked so hard to develop.
I invite all of you to read my blog and any other documents I create to share. I don't know what I'll write about every week, but I will rely on current events and my brain for inspiration. If there's something you think I should write about, please let me know! I hope that my work will somehow benefit you, and that you will help hold me accountable to my resolution. Happy 2013, everyone!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)