happy new year blogpost

Maneki-neko: good luck cat (origin Japanese)

The new year is coming. For some of you, it may already be here (as I write this, it is 31 December 2017, 10:07 AM PST, so not yet in this part of the world), and I hope it is treating you well. I hope it will treat all of us well.

Today, I would like to share this photo I carry around with me inside my phone. We have a local store (local to this part of the world) called Uwajimaya, and it is wonderful place, full of color --makes me happy anyway. I regularly take out my phone to take photos when I am there because it is so colorful and so happy. I also pick up groceries, but that's a bit of a tangent ...

This is/was a display they have there: maneki-neko. These cats are seen to be good luck for the owners. The raised left paw is meant to bring good fortune. The lovely thing about technology (such as phones and digital photos and blogs) is that I don't have to keep these cats all to myself --I can share them with you. You may be anywhere in the world, but through the magic that still exists, I can share them with you. There are more than enough to share.

The origin of the symbol is interesting and timely. In the original story, a shopkeeper with nothing used what little he had to feed a cat that came by looking for food one day. The cat --being clever as all cats are --came back, and continued coming back, and the shopkeeper did his best to keep the cat fed, sometimes going without food himself; this was the nature of his hospitality and generosity of spirit. Then a funny thing happened: the cat stayed, and customers followed. The customers enjoyed seeing the cat and they sensed that this was a kind and thoughtful man, and the shop began flourish.

That is the way the world should work. If you see kindness in the world, encourage it; if you have a chance to be kind, do it. I'm not going to spend too much time on bad things going on in the world because that's what the news is for. I'm not going to spend too much time on other people's choices, good or bad. Make your own choices in the new year. Make choices that leave the world in better shape than it was in yesterday when and where you can.

And may 2018 be a year that is kind to us all. Happy New Year.

why poetry? (end of 2017 edition)

• Feelings still matter.
• Memories like to be taken out & dusted off.
• Our thoughts are still our own.
• That time we laughed with a friend about nothing in particular.
• The little mew of the neighbor cat means I'm not alone.
• When we read a poem, we watch acrobats tumble & fly.
• Bigger is not always better.
• Words can be a heartbeat, and a heartbeat is what keeps you alive.
• There's linear, but then there's the rest of us ...
• There is nothing so political as seeing beauty in the everyday.

brief thoughts on hedy lamarr

No, it's not Hedley. That'd be from Blazing Saddles, the excellent Mel Brooks film. No, this is more to do with the film Algiers. Heck, this has more to do with the films Argo and Ratatouille than it does Blazing Saddles. Follow along ...

Hedy Lamarr was a glamorous actress who appeared in the 1938 film Algiers, among others. She also happened to be an inventor who invented a code for radio signals to change frequencies. It worked very well and was the forerunner of the frequency-hopping technology we use today in secure digital communication systems. Here's the thing: she offered her invention to the U.S. Navy during World War II, and they turned her down. She was familiar with the manufacture of Nazi torpedoes, she had this invention which would have prevented the Nazis from jamming U.S. signals to their own weaponry, and the Navy turned her down.

Why?

Fast forward to a couple of months ago. I'm on Twitter (it happens), and someone makes a joke about Dennis Rodman. Obvious in the joke was this person's disdain for Dennis Rodman's intelligence, and the implication that there was no way Dennis Rodman could bring about any kind of resolution in the North Korea/U.S. standoff over nuclear weapons when none of other parties involved --learned, lifetime diplomats, etc. --could do it. I mean, this guy's called "The Worm", right?

Why?

We have these ideas in our heads that only certain types of people can do certain types of work, and that that work has to follow a particular script. Before dismissing people out of hand because how could a movie actress invent groundbreaking code, how could a flamboyant former basketball player bring peace, how could a film crew evacuate hostages, how could a rat create exceptional food, we need to ask ourselves this ...

Why not?

"Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere."  Ratatouille

personal space camp

Good morning, boys and girls!

This morning's lesson is about personal space. I know, I know --you thought it was going to be on a rocket ship, but it's not that kind of personal space camp.

Personal space is one's body and the immediate space around it. Needs for personal space change from situation to situation, and they may differ from culture to culture. With a stranger, there needs to be more distance; with family and friends, less distance, etc.

Why?

Autonomy.

Autonomy is the idea that each individual is separate. I can't feel what you feel, I don't know what you know, I may like Brussels sprouts and you don't, and so on. Autonomy means you don't have to eat Brussels sprouts if you don't want to. Personal space is one form of autonomy --I am not you or yours, and you are not me or mine. We each have our own space, and physical contact needs to be consensual or it is perceived as an aggression against our autonomy. Those were big words, I know --it just means you don't have to eat Brussels sprouts or get grabbed by anyone if you don't want to.

Well, hello, what's this? A handout from a child's physical exam? What is this doing here? Hmm. Let me read it. Won't be a second ...

"Discuss personal boundaries and acceptable versus inappropriate touch. Let your child know that no one should ask to see/touch their private parts, and no adult should ask for help with their private parts."

Just a little more. You don't mind, do you? Just a moment ...

"If your child is being bullied, be available to listen and support them. Do not blame them. Explain the difference between protecting oneself/getting help and retaliating. Ask your child what they need to feel safe, and talk to the teacher/principal for further support. Let you child know it is okay to say "no" (and explain why) if a friend or bully asks them to do something harmful or scary."

So, boys and girls, if someone touches you without your permission, unless it is to keep you safe, it is wrong. You have permission to say "no". If that person does not accept your "no", they do not accept that you are a person and as such allowed to have autonomy. Therefore, since they do not accept your autonomy, you can feel free not to accept theirs and kick them wherever will hurt most --their autonomous regions! Only to regain your personal space and autonomy, of course.

In all seriousness, we teach this (with the exception of that last part about kicking ...) to children. Surely we can understand something a 7-year old can get? It's not rocket science.  

friday microblog

It's Friday, 6 October 2017. 

Only happens once, but it happens for 24 hours straight.

What's in yours?

famous person says ...

Please stand for our National Anthem ...

Okay, you don't really have to, for a couple of reasons: 1) I'm not sure which country you're reading this in; and 2) even I were to play the National Anthem of any given country, you wouldn't hear it anyway because this is a blog post and you are reading and can't hear what's going on here. Please remain seated (or lay down or stand on your head --whatever you like).

I was merely referencing current events. No, not the current events about threats to the end of humanity or ongoing war or natural disasters. No, not those. I was referring to football players choosing to protest inequities by not being present for or kneeling for the National Anthem of the United States prior to football games. Some people see this as disrespectful to a variety of things including the United States, U.S. Veterans, and Donald Trump.

Feel what you like about this issue, but I am very intrigued by one criticism that keeps popping up.

These players gets paid millions of dollars to play football and they're lucky to be able to do that and receive that salary. Somehow, this means they're supposed to not say anything because the system, as it currently stands, benefits them. They have fame and fortune, so what do they have to complain about?

A similar criticism is leveled at other celebrities of all political persuasions who have political opinions. The assumption is that they are abusing their position by stating their beliefs, and that somehow they are unqualified to have opinions on the basis of their participation in the arts or sports.

Here's the thing: they are citizens, too.

Are they in a peculiar position? 

Absolutely. People listen to them --lots of people listen to them. 

Does that mean that they cannot have or state their political beliefs? 

No. 

And what makes them qualified to have political beliefs? 

I would respond to this question with a question. My question would be, what the hell kind of question is that? 

Are you? Yes? 

Am I? Yes? 

Then why on Earth would they be any different?

Like any other citizen, one would hope that the politically-minded celebrity would educate themselves on the issue they are interested in. Sometimes, they don't.

Guess what, though: we do that, too. And it is up to us, not them, to consider how we form our opinions. They simply get the issue publicity by virtue of choosing to speak publicly. It is up to us to decide if we agree or disagree by seeking out additional information. It doesn't mean they shouldn't speak their mind. Freedom of speech applies to all citizens.

I personally am happy to live in a place where all citizens are encouraged to participate in political discourse, be it for the status quo or against it. I am encouraged that people who are in otherwise very comfortable positions choose to deflect some of that glory onto people who don't always get heard. I am thankful for nonviolent protest because it shows us where things aren't working or where we need more dialogue.

Anyhow, you can agree with what a famous person says or disagree with them --just like you can with your uncle or coworker or stranger on the street corner. Their opinions hold no more importance than any of those other citizens, and I think that's where confusion comes into the situation.

Civic engagement can take many forms, and that's a good thing.

america

Disclaimer: I'm just me. This is not the work of a political expert.

Charlottesville. Everyone knows what happened there recently, and I have no need to replay the incident. And I have written about race and growing up in Virginia in a past blogpost --while that blogpost had nothing to do with the Civil War, it had everything to do with the Civil War. So does this one. It has to do with the Revolutionary War. It has to do with the founding of the United States, and what that means today.

There is no one America, and there never has been.

I've thought long and hard about how to explain 'American' to friends who don't know or martians who might randomly drop from the sky. The truth is, in order to explain 'American', you have to be willing to give whatever adjective or example you like and there will be plenty of adjectives and examples that contradict what you say. 

There have been families here since the founding in the 17th-Century; there are families who arrived yesterday; there are families who have been here since centuries before the founding.

There are families who came here for economic opportunity; there are families whose ancestors were brought here against their will.

There are people who descend from one race; there are people who descend from more than one race and may not be aware; there are people who descend from many races.

There are people who can afford gold-plated toilets; there are people who clean those gold-plated toilets and may not be able to afford rent; there are people who cannot fathom why anyone would need a gold-plated toilet (the vast majority, I would assume).

There are people who speak English; there are people who don't speak English.

There are people of all religions; there are people of more than one religion (yes, it is possible); there are people of no religion.

There are people who love jazz and country music; there are people who love jazz, but not country; there are people who love country, but not jazz; there are people who tolerate both; there are people who hate music in general.

Etc.

And yet, they are all American.

We are a nation of contrasts. We are a study in cognitive dissonance.

When I read people saying about what happened in Charlottesville, "This is not what America stands for" --it's not entirely true. 

Since the beginning, we have been a nation founded on high ideals like equality and freedom and opportunity, but we have also been a nation that --in practice --was founded on inequality and the lack of freedom and opportunity of some.

Going forward, we need to have hard conversations and acknowledge that. This may not be what we want America to stand for, but it is part of what America has been and is. It needs addressed. The one glimmer of hope in all of this horrible situation is that it is being addressed out in the open.

I have no answers, but I hope all of us --from leadership down --can try and move towards our ideals, so that we can in the future say it and mean it: this [hatred, fear and oppression] is not what America stands for. We can't truly be the Land of the Free until we figure it out.

let's talk about socks, baby: a human interest story

Where Do Lonely Socks Go? 

By AGNES BOOKBINDER  July 25, 2017

Seattle, WA -- Everyone has them: those socks who lose their pairs in the dryer. White cotton socks. Burly wool socks. Those 'tiny nylon socks that don't quite peek over the shoe' socks. Every day, across the United States, socks emerge from the dryer, sad and alone and looking for their mates.

Chester Toefungus (yes, that is his real name, but no, his parents didn't name him that --he just really loves his job) of the Capitol Hill neighborhood in Seattle has developed a way for these foot coverings to feel less alone in the world: Internet dating. His new company, Puppets 'n' People, matches single socks that have lost their pair in the dryer and have been converted into sock puppets  with single people who also have trouble finding mates.

"When the socks come to me, they are very lonely and without purpose. I mean, no one wants to wear only one sock at a time, and mismatched socks just look bad. Here, they are lovingly converted into puppets with personality," Mr. Toefungus explains. "Linda adds little things they might be missing, to make them more puppet-like --button eyes, things like that. And when they're done, we use my special algorithm to match them with their appropriate human mates. Extroverts get matched with pinks with silver stars and rainbows with unicorns, introverts get matched with more understated blues and greys, and so on. So far, so good, & business is up."

Customer satisfaction is said to be near 100%, although this is based on anecdotes Mr. Toefungus and Linda shared over coffee, and it could not be verified. No customers wanted to go on record as being happy with their matches, but Mr. Toefungus reports at least three weddings alone set for this weekend. Only one incident has been reported where a missing pair has found its way back from wherever they go when they get lost and things got awkward --Mr. Toefungus says, in general, both socks and humans alike are satisfied with their new matches.

"Nothing brings me more contentment than knowing two lonely souls have been brought together. Although I feel for the socks who have lost their loved ones to home appliance mishaps, I look forward to continuing to bring joy into sock's and people's lives in the future."

i don't know

There is an answer to every question, and sometimes, that answer is, "I don't know."

It seems like, nowadays, everyone is expected to be an expert at everything. This leads to trouble. If we feel like we can't say, "I don't know," it means we have to know. That's not a comfortable feeling.

We lash out.

We disappear with embarrassment.

We pretend we know and potentially mislead others.

We alienate other people.

I work with students who need to be explicitly taught that they are allowed to say, "I don't know". The difference in behavior is significant once they learn "I don't know" is an acceptable answer. When they think they have to know the answer to everything, they become highly agitated and use all means at their disposal to get out of the situation. Once they understand that they are not expected to know everything and can communicate when they don't, they relax. 

I think most people are similar to my students in this way.

When we can say we don't know, we can seek assistance. When we can say we don't know, we can ask questions. When we can say we don't know, we can listen to answers. 

When we can say we don't know, we can learn.

I don't know everything, but I do know that.

nothing at all to do with the state of the world

This blog post has nothing to do with the state of the world. 

This is a mushroom. There are things that are only here for a short moment, like this mushroom, and you miss them if you're not paying attention. It's good to remember to enjoy them while they're here.

Similarly, there are things that were here before we got here and that will likely be here after we're gone. This tree is high up in the mountains. It withstands brutal winters. It stands like a testament in the rocks. It's good to remember that some things have seen more than we have and will see more than we ever will.

Perspective is good. I said that this blog post had nothing to do with the state of the world, but that's not entirely true. It has nothing to do with politics or current events. It has everything to do with the state of the world, though. There is a world beyond us, and it's good to think about that from time to time.

dear cassandra levesque

For background, please read this New York Times article detailing the state of the legal age of marriage in different states in the U.S.

Dear Cassandra Levesque:

You don't know me, but I am an adult who recently read of your attempt to change the age at which individuals can get married in the state of New Hampshire. I am writing to applaud your sense of civic responsibility and the effort it must have taken to get the bill introduced.

Many times, older people --you were very young at 16! --misunderstand what kids are about these days. We think you're all selfish and glued to your iPhones. You have proven us wrong, and thank you for that.

I would like to encourage you to keep going, despite the shortsightedness of your legislature. Adults don't like to admit this can happen very often, but you are right and the adults responsible for the laws of your state are wrong. 

How can a kid be right when you're just a kid? Because you are speaking up for yourself. Not only are you speaking up for yourself, you are doing it in a way that helps other people your same age, including some who may not be able to speak up for themselves. You are doing it in a way that operates within the law. It was very clever, actually, and shame on them for discouraging someone like you (they may have tried, but I seriously doubt they could!).

I would like to encourage you to keep going. Please consider going into politics or doing something related to law when you are of a legal age to do so. You've got your heart in the right place, and we need that. 

Thank you for trying. You are a role model for adults across this country. I wish more of us would be like you.


Update 6/4/2017: Your mother told me you'll be going to school to become an elementary teacher (because you're 18 --must work on my fact-checking!) and will continue your advocacy for children. Best news I've had all day! Please see below.

no one would blame you

What happened last night in Manchester was terrible.

When things like this happen, there are people who have to deal with them and cannot take breaks. Those people are the immediately affected, their families and friends, the emergency services, and --behind the scenes --the investigators. Those are the people in the immediate area who can render appropriate assistance. Shortly afterwards, that  group will include everyone who helps with the grief and related stresses, rehabilitative services, and those involved in rebuilding in every sense of what that means.

There is a danger in concentrating too much on the details of horrific events as they unfold. The people who are actively dealing with it now need people around them who can share a bit of strength with them because events like this are hard to deal with emotionally, physically, and spiritually, and because there is no sense in this. They have to deal with it --they have no choice, and they will have no rest right now.

It is your responsibility as a bystander (talking to myself here, but if you can take something away from it, please do) to choose respite because you can. The worst thing you can do in a situation like this is take it on because it will make you feel powerless. It is your responsibility to preserve your strength because the people who have to deal with it now, who can't take breaks, will need it in the weeks, months, and years to come. It is your responsibility not to forget and to be there for those people, but to take breaks so you can do that more effectively.

Today, I will go work with children. I will appreciate their laughter even more than usual, and I will approach them with an extra dose of patience. I'm sure no one would blame me.

the lion & the mouse: a modern retelling

Once upon a time, not so long ago since this is a modern retelling, there lived a lion. 

He was the King of the Jungle. He gained his status through accident of birth (he was born into a family of lions instead of into, say, a family of aardvarks). Later, he maintained his position through brute strength at some times, and cunning at others. It wasn't important how he got there --he would have gotten there, regardless. He was more majestic than the rest of the beasts, so he was the King.

The other animals gave up challenging the lion after a while. After that last time, when the monkey challenged him, they learned: you don't challenge the King. That poor monkey. No, none of the other animals wanted that to happen to them. And besides, sometimes, he threw one of the other animals a scrap from whatever he was gorging himself on. He could be generous, as long as you told him how resplendent his mane was or complimented his ever-increasing mighty figure.

Time passed. The King remained king, and the other animals kept out of his way, except when they had to bring him something to eat. Then, they crept up quietly, in case he was sleeping, and dropped off his meals. I won't go into what he was eating, but I will say the Jungle was no place for the old or infirm. Everyone was required to bring his meals. It was quite something when it was the smallest creature Mouse's turn. Dragging that carcass took every ounce of energy she had in her small body! She was exhausted by the time she got to the lion, and so, she was careless when she dropped the elephant off for him to eat. The trunk landed on his left paw.

"WHAT?" he roared, startling awake.

"I'm sorry, sir!"

All of the animals moving nearby froze in place, as did Mouse, who was sure she would be eaten as an appetizer before he started on the elephant.

"I was sleeping --SLEEPING! How dare you, you pathetic little critter? You! Gazelle! Come here!"

Gazelle slowly neared the two and the elephant carcass. Gazelle was chastising himself for not being somewhere else at that exact moment.

"Take this ...mouse and drop it into the river. I am too busy doing important things, or I'd teach it a lesson myself." He licked his chops and prepared to eat the elephant. The mouse was not worth eating, so drowning it in the river made more sense.

Gazelle hesitated.

"DO IT!" he roared. "Or I'll call Cheetah over!"

Gazelle gathered Mouse by gently gripping her tail with his teeth and carried her off towards the river. 

On the way, Mouse pleaded with Gazelle, "Oh, please don't drown me! I was so tired! I didn't mean to drop the elephant, but it was so heavy ..."

Gazelle set Mouse down by the river. "Don't worry about it. I'm not going to drown you. That guy's a jerk. He wouldn't notice if I drowned you or not. In fact, why don't we stay over here for a while? I might invite a few friends to join us."

So Gazelle and Mouse continued to live by the river and the other animals began to join them. There were a few animals who didn't move right away --Hyena and Vulture, for example, refused to believe that things were changing since they did alright for themselves under Lion, and he must surely be as powerful as he kept telling them all to have kept power for so long. Even they began to recognize that Lion's meals were shrinking, however, and thought maybe they too should be moving along.

In the end, Lion was left alone, bewildered about who would bring him his meals. He wanted to go look for the others, to get them back in line, but found he had difficulty standing on his own.

Mouse, in the meantime, thrived. So did Gazelle. So did the other creatures. Not dragging the dead to feed the King did wonders for them all.

an idea ...

I'm getting political again. Somebody stop me ...

Oops, too late.

First of all, that my idea is at all political strikes me as odd. It is human. It involves politicians, however, so I suppose that is what shifts it from the realm of the human to the realm of the political.

I had this idea a month or so ago, but a tweet I saw on Twitter while I was taking my virtual evening stroll tonight reminded me of it. This evening, Alice Kirby (@Alice_Kirby), a disability activist based in the UK, brought up a similar idea. Maybe it's time to revisit it and put it out into the world, since evidently, I'm not the only person with this idea?

Alice Kirby tweeted (wrote, for those of you who don't speak Twitter) to the current Prime Minister of the UK, Theresa May, "How do you expect disabled people who are unfit for work to survive off £73 per week? Could you live off that?".

I've seen similar sentiments from others, as well. For example, when town halls were happening in the U.S. earlier this year (well, in places where the politicians actually showed up to meet with their constituents, but that's another discussion ...), people were asking the Congress to use the same health insurance as everyone else uses.

It's reasonable to ask our representatives to try to understand what we experience in our lives. How can a legislator legislate wisely without having some understanding of the practical implications of their decisions? And what better way of understanding is there than experience? I've written on this theme before, and it holds true here.

My idea: have legislators try to live on what they ask others to live on. It can be for a limited amount of time, but at least try it, no cheating.

Pick a benefit, any benefit, and try it out.

In my original idea, I was thinking about food stamps (also called SNAP). Here is an explanation of the benefit in an easy to read table, courtesy of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

In case you are wary of doing math, this is roughly $48 a week for a single person for groceries, or just under $7 per day, and this includes everything (including coffee!). 

Legislators should try it, in order to understand the human impact of decisions they make. At the very least, they should probably speak to people who have to use this benefit before voting on related legislation. Just a thought.

Alice Kirby's idea was also a good one. Legislators could try to live off of £73 (roughly US $93) per week --I don't know about unemployment benefits in the US off-hand, so I can't offer the comparable figures. That's a little over $13 a day for lodging, utilities, transportation, etc.

The legislators would only need to do it for a limited period of time, of course. Their constituents don't actually want them to suffer too much. And even if they resume their base salaries of $174,000 a year (for a Member of Congress --it goes up for Senators, Speaker of the House, and such), that small period of time ...say, a month, will have saved the taxpayers enough to fund something like Meals on Wheels from now until the end of eternity.

A slight exaggeration, but it would be interesting to see what could happen if our politicians were to try to see the world through the eyes of the people in their communities.

 

judge one, judge all

There are many people in my 'categories' I have a lot in common with. There are many people I don't, though. 

Similarly, I have little in common with some people from different 'categories' (think race, gender, age, size, ...). Some of them, I do, though.

If you were to put me in the box of white woman, early 40s, size 6, living in the Pacific Northwest of the US, you would expect me to be a certain way. But I'm not big on boxes.

When bad things happen --and they will, just as good things and neutral things will happen --there may be people attached. Sometimes, it's accidental. Sometimes, it's on purpose. Regardless, the person or people responsible are the ones who are responsible, not the entire group.

Can you see how it happened? Yes. You can usually trace things back, if you're willing to take the time. Can it be prevented? Maybe. Again, if you're willing to take the time.

Blaming entire groups for anything works in the short term because you have closed yourself off from everything: it's hard to get hurt when no one can get near. But that's no way to live, and in the long term, it causes damage.

I prefer to take each person as they come, an amalgamation of parts that makes them uniquely them. Each one has strengths. Each one has challenges. Does this mean I don't consider individuals to be threatening? Sure I do, but it's a case-by-case thing. A label isn't going to be the thing that does it.

I try to judge a person by their actions, how they treat themselves, how they treat me, and how they treat others.

With events today, I certainly judge the man who attacked the Parliament in the UK. I do not judge Men. I do not judge Blacks. I do not judge Muslims. I judge one man who had a chance to do the right thing, and he turned away from that. He's not here to judge anyhow.

Please think before you make judgments about groups based on the actions of a few.

Thoughts with the families of all who were lost and with the injured.