Monday, February 25, 2008

Love Letter To a Little Man

.....

Dear Oscar,

I don't really know where to begin. I've never been good about things like this - so I'm just going to jump right in and see what happens. Okay? Here goes.

I have a crush on you, sweetie pie.

I've had a crush on you for years, actually. I can't pinpoint the day you first caught my eye, but you still capture my imagination.

I've followed your career pretty closely. You're kind of a cad (how many past winners have kissed and caressed you in front of the world? But I forgive you). You've made some poor choices with past loves (James Cameron as Best Director? The man is insane, Oscar; I expect better from you). But you have also had some shining moments, and the way you help others to reach such levels of joy is truly admirable.

And that year you were stolen?! I was outraged. Those horrible thieves! Don't they know you must be wooed and won, not snatched up like some common household tchotchke?!

So there you have it. Now you know. It's okay if you want to play hard to get. Frankly, I know how that game works. I'm not too worried. I'll do the work on my end. I'll arrange for us to meet... and when that night comes...

Let me take you home, baby. I promise I'll be good to you. I'll hold your hand in front of my friends. I'll always remember the night we met. And I can't wait to introduce you to my parents.

So how 'bout it?
xxoo
Beth

Monday, February 18, 2008

Ain't No Party Like a Political Party...

It's hard to abide by the old adage: never talk religion or politics in mixed company... particularly when you call the "bible belt" home. Religion and politics are the border around so many snapshots of life down here. The "mixed company" part is tough, too - because often the assumption is, the company's not so mixed. More often than political debate, I hear people toss off a political statement with the clear ease of someone who assumes that everyone around him agrees with everything he says.

An assumption of homogeneity in political thought is certainly not unique to the South. Just as the generalization is often made that all Southerners are knee-jerk red-state conservatives, the generalization is often made that everyone in Berkeley, Ann Arbor, Boston are knee-jerk blue-state liberals. Those generalizations are a large part of the problem with any given political conversation.

I offer the following harsh, stereotypical definitions often associated with the two main American political labels:
  • Conservative (typically a.k.a. Republican). Someone who is small-minded, insular, judgmental, and utterly convinced that their way is right and everyone else's way is wrong.
  • Liberal (typically a.k.a. Democrat). Someone who is loosey-goosey, ethics, morals, and values-free, generally all-too-willing to quickly relinquish revered traditions and societal institutions.
These definitions are really, really helpful when it comes to crafting SNL skits, cracking one-line jokes, and making movies like Team America. They sure aren't helpful in getting people to connect, find common ground, and have more productive conversations about our shared society.

Last week, two of my friends posted Facebook blogs about their political views. (One of them, BK2, also shared his on a blogspot blog.) One posted from the point of view of a "conservative," the other a "liberal." The refreshing thing about both posts was that the authors both wrestled with their definitions, mentioned respectfully that not all their friends necessarily agreed with their views, and sought to articulate their individual positions rather than a strict party line.

I would argue that both of these friends defy the negative stereotypes of the groups they represent. (I should mention that they, too, are friends with one another.) I applaud this defiance. I generally tend to avoid labeling myself politically, but based on many of my opinions, I'm more often slapped with the "liberal label." However, as I noted in the last politically-themed blog I wrote, while in Ann arbor, rather than the political l-word, I had the political c-word tossed my way a few times. What does this show? The divisiveness and arbitrariness of these labels. I feel pretty confident that many of my conservative friends, who might call me a liberal, would likely in the same breath vouch for my ethics and clarify on my behalf that I'm far from being morally "loosey-goosey."

I get nervous when political conversations are less about reflection and more about rhetoric. I get inspired when friends on two sides of the fence can eloquently share their stances. I feel hope when I think that good, thoughtful people, across lines, can agree on the importance of mutual respect and working together to better our country and our world.

I still don't like the labels we currently have available to us. Thus at the risk of sounding cheesy, I declare here and now that my political affiliation is "Thinker." That's my stance. Consider yourself invited to the party.





Monday, February 11, 2008

On Regret (A Haiku)

Regret: feeling bad
about things you cannot change?
That's not productive.

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Don't Shave A Husky!

Author Karen Pryor wrote a book several years back called "Don't Shoot the Dog!: The New Art of Teaching and Training." She grabbed your attention with that first admonition - don't shoot the dog! - and it alluded to her deeper philosophical point: all too often, when things go wrong, we blame the dog (wait... didn't quite mean to make that joke...) rather than the trainer, the training methods, the process that yielded the product.

Pryor argues that rather than shooting the dog (or taking it to the pound, but that made for a more cumbersome title), we should look at changing our own methods. Really, it's sort of an animal take on Ghandi: be the change you wish to see in the world. All right, that's kind of a stretch, but she did a good job driving home the point that training impacts the trained, and re-examination of our own methods when interacting with pets, children, co-workers, spouses, and so on, is generally more productive than just writing off said pets, children, etcetera.

So what do I mean by "don't shave a husky"?

Do I mean it as a metaphor for not just taking the easy way out? Because it is true that with the suddenly skyrocketed temperatures down here earlier this week, my husky Sofia started shedding like nobody's business, and it was making me crazy. So I took her to a groomer and asked them to give her a trim, so that maybe my house could be a little less hairy. Rather than vacuuming three times daily, lint-rolling my clothes constantly, and investing all that time in Sofia Hair Management, I took the easy route and let the groomers attack the root of the hair problem. So perhaps we can learn from this:

"Don't Shave A Husky!" It's the easy way out! If you've committed to a fluffy-haired pet, commit to its impact on your life!

"Don't Shave A Husky!!" Altering the natural, beautiful state of something just because it's inconvenient is a selfish, materialistic move. Are clean sofas really worth messing with another creature's appearance? Let's make the case for natural beauty!

"Don't Shave a Husky!!!" SEE! I could have a larger, transcendent point, just like Karen Pryor! Lessons from animals also apply to people! Don't take the path of least resistance!! The easy road leads to nowhere!!! Natural is beautiful!!!!

Well, now. Maybe there's something to all that.

But mostly, by "don't shave a husky,"I just mean that my dog got shaved today, and she looks really, really stupid.




*See how she won't even turn to face the camera! She is too ashamed! But imagine her still-fluffy head matched with a shaved little body. The tail should give you some idea. Look at the tail - my heavens, THE TAIL!