A New Philosophy

The Sweet Triumphs and Bitter Failures of NaNoWriMo

Anewphilosophy — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:08:01 GMT

I have two items to discuss here, both on the subject on NaNoWriMo (although the second one is only tangentially related):

1. Dear NaNo writing buddies: STOP BEING SO AWESOME. Everyone else on my buddies' list has, like, 15,000 words already, and I have a little more than 5,000. I was so proud of myself for not falling TOO far behind the daily goals that the stats application on the website suggests, and then I saw my friends' stats and felt horrible.

Why am I not as cool as you guys? WHY? And how do I become more like you?

This novel stuff is teh hard works, yo. I should return to the safe, fluffy world of form poetry, where I belong.

2. After I leave work today, I'll be getting on a bus and going to visit Claire, who, as you all are well aware, is incredibly awesome. My trip will last two hours, so I intend on getting some real, concrete novel-writing done. To facilitate this process, I am allowing myself a rare treat:

I'm going to Starbucks.

Many of you know that I have an inexplicable obsession with Starbucks, mostly because the area where I grew up only had one and my family hardly ever went out for stuff like that, and so it always felt special and exciting to go there. Plus, I like any combination of too much sugar and too many calories in one large, caffeinated beverage.

However, my love for Starbucks must frequently go unconsummated, since A) my husband hates hates hates it, and B) I am poor, and cannot afford such luxuries on a regular basis. Perhaps when Adam and I have clawed our way up from the lower middle class into the world of shabby-but-financially-secure academia, I will be able to indulge myself more often. For now, this is a treat I have not had in over a year.

Today, though, I am going to Philadelphia, and I have two hours in between my arrival home from work and my bus' departure time. I will be away from Adam all weekend (he's going to be in Connecticut for a retreat thingy) and I will be sad about this, and thus need some beverage-related cheering before I step onto the bus. And of course, I neeeeeeed coffee to be able to write. Right?

So here is my question: I heard through the grapevine (i.e., Facebook) that seasonal lattes may have made an appearance at Starbucks today. Can anyone confirm the return of the pumpkin spice latte? Or, more importantly, the peppermint mocha latte?

Title Help?

Anewphilosophy — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:43:13 GMT

As I've previously mentioned here, I'm not very good with titles-- usually I either come up with a title that I never actually develop into a poem/story, or else I write a cool poem/story and then can't think of a suitably cool title. I spent months trying to title my thesis, and in the end, I was still unhappy with what I chose. But I feel like this whole novel thing will be a lot easier if I have a title first, so that I can kind of weave all the themes together with that aspect in mind.

So I wanted to run a few titles by you guys, to see what you think. (And yes, I know book titles should be underlined/italicized instead of contained in quotation marks, but my text formatting buttons won't show up on PNN today for some reason...)

1. "Heavenly Country"

This comes from the Eucharistic part of the Episcopal prayer book; the priest implores God to "bring us to that heavenly country, where with [insert names of some of the priest's favorite saints] and all your saints we may enter the everlasting heritage of your sons and daughters." I'm planning on having Simon, the main character (who is an Episcopal priest) do a little reflection on what "that heavenly country" would be like, if you could get there right now. Might be confusing as a title, though-- I wouldn't want people to think they were about to read an inspirational religious tract and end up with a novel about a mentally ill preacher's wife.

2. "World Without End"

This is also from the Book of Common Prayer, and comes at the end of an invocation. I like this title, mostly because it just sounds so pretty (I love how Anglicans never can just say "forever," or "always"-- we have to say "world without end" or "everlasting") but it's already the title of a British novel about the Black Death, so I dunno.

3. "This Fragile Earth"

Again, this comes from the prayer book, specifically from Eucharistic Prayer C, when the celebrant discusses the grandiosity of the world God has allowed to come into being: "the vast expanse of interstellar space, galaxies, suns, the planets in their courses, and this fragile Earth, our island home." It's always been one of my favorite passages-- I mean, I'm one of those people who can see science as an expression of God, not as an enemy of faith, and this sentence captures the beauty and terror of our world, as well as the frightening and fascinating delicacy of our civilization's very existence. The way the planet is described here-- "fragile," an "island,"-- suggests so strongly the need to protect it, to be good stewards of what we've been given, and to appreciate all that we have, as it's really pretty amazing that we have it.

Again, though, I don't want to confuse people-- I would hate to have folks think they're reading an environmental tract by, like, Al Gore, only to discover, disappointingly, that they've only found a third-rate novel written by some chick with a totally ridiculous pen name.

I'm putting up a poll on the side-- please help me out by voting for the title you like best. If you don't like any of them, suggestions are welcome! I'd like to stick to the whole religious theme, but it doesn't have to be an Episcopal, or even Christian, reference.

Please Note

Anewphilosophy — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:11:32 GMT

I just want to clarify that the advertisement at the top of this page (the one that claims that the shadowy gay agenda wants to "teach homosexual marriage" in Maine's schools) was not my idea, and is not endorsed by this blog. I've had several awkward and/or inappropriate ads appear at the top of my page in the past, but this one really takes the cake, as I am a vehemently PRO-GAY MARRIAGE BLOGGER.

I am in the process of trying to discover where this ad has originated (is this something run through Google Ads? Does anyone know?) and contacting the advertisers to let them know that I am offended that this ad has appeared on my blog. For the time being, however, please note that the sentiments contained in said ad do not reflect the opinions of this blogger (or, I am sure, the opinions of this blogsite), and I urge you NOT to click the banner above this post.

"Teach homosexual marriage." Hrmph. As though they "teach" any kind of marriage in the schools! And as though teaching kids to be tolerant of others could ever be a BAD thing!

May I Have Your Attention Please

Anewphilosophy — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:27:33 GMT

My darling readers, I have some somewhat insane news:

I'm going to try and do NaNoWriMo this year.

For those of you unfamiliar with this self-inflicted form of torture, NaNoWriMo stands for National Novel Writing Month, a project that requires a writer to churn out a 50,000-word novel between November 1st and November 30th. I'll be working on my crazy-priest's-wife novel, an early draft of which I submitted for a contest on PNN a long time ago.

Characters have been renamed, and section titles are already decided, but the novel's title is still up for debate. Any ideas?

Oh, and I'll be posting each day's work on my new NaNoWriMo tab, so enjoy.

I doubt that, between work and blogging about other stuff and hanging out with Adam and GOING TO PHILADELPHIA THIS WEEKEND TO VISIT CLAIRE, I will be able to finish this. But I'll at least try. Trying is good, right?

Okay. Here we go.

Let's do this thing.

(Fellow NaNoWriMos can add me as a writing buddy under the username phwalker.)

Have a Fun, Safe Halloween!

Anewphilosophy — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:38:07 GMT

HAPPY HALLOWEEN!

Here are some up-close pictures of our Jack-o-Lanterns:

Mine was a cat...

Adam's was a skull!

Enjoy your Halloween— go out and get a free taco, or go to a parade.

Pictures of Adam (as a cow) and I (as a milkmaid) will follow!

Vote NYC

Anewphilosophy — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:28:47 GMT

As many of you will recall from the time we spent together during the 2008 election cycle, I take elections pretty darn seriously. There's nothing I love more than sitting down with a nice big voters' guide and teasing honesty out of the mountains of political-speak!

So even though we've only lived in New York for a little more than two months, I've already made my picks for the November election. Want to know about my favorite candidates? Of course you do!

A New Philosophy's political endorsements for the 2009 New York City elections:

For the office of mayor, A New Philosophy endorses: Frances Villar

I admit, I'm not really all that enthused about the two main candidates for mayor— Mike Bloomburg seems kind of scummy, and Bill Thompson is hard to get excited about, despite his endorsement from President Obama. So this year is a pretty good year to vote for a long-shot third party candidate— and Francis Villar seems cool to me.

A Party for Socialism and Liberation candidate, Villar is also a working mom and a college student. She believes in free, open education from Kindergarten through college, and wants to tax the Wall Street fat cats in order to help pay for the programs needed to combat the recession. And of course, she's a socialist, and I can't resist a socialist candidate for major public office. I mean, where else could you find a candidate who openly— proudly!— admits to being a socialist? I love this city!

For the office of public advocate, A New Philosophy endorses: Maura DeLuca

Another fabulous socialist, this time from the Socialist Workers' Party! I can't get enough of these socialist candidates, especially coming from a place where the only candidates ever to run for public office were Blue Dog Democrats or folksy, cowboy-boot-clad Republicans.

DeLuca emphasizes raising the minimum wage (yay!), nationalizing several different industries, and reinforcing a woman's right to choose. I'm not sure I'm behind ending ALL income taxes on workers (as long as it's proportional), but at least she's being specific— unlike Bill de Blasio, the only other acceptable candidate for Public Advocate. I like him, but his campaign promises tend to be more along the lines of, "I understand the importance of a quality education or "I will work to restore [a fair] vision to New York City," instead of, "I will do X, Y, and Z in order to accomplish these goals." DeLuca's specificity is what wins my vote.

For the office of comptroller, A New Philosophy endorses: John C. Liu

He's smart, he's qualified, he's competent, and he's the only liberal candidate for the office whose political party doesn't actually contain a swear word (cf. Salim Ejaz, of the Rent Is Too Damn High Party. No, I am not making this up.)

For the office of Manhattan borough president, A New Philosophy endorses: Tom A. Baumann

Here is the entire reason for my endorsement (taken straight from Baumann's statement in the NYC Voters' Guide):

"I explain the need for a working-class revolution to take state power out of the hands of the propertied ruling class--the only answer to the expanding capitalist crisis and the frontal assault the capitalist rulers are beginning to wage against our class."

Plus he's, like, my age. AWESOME.

For the office of city council member (3rd district), A New Philosophy endorses: Christine C. Quinn

Not only is Quinn a gay activist— she's also tried (sadly, unsuccessfully) to get the stupid Ancient Order of Hibernians (what a silly name!) to let gay people march in the New York City St. Patrick's Day Parade. As chair of the Health Committee on city council, Quinn sponsored the Equal Benefits Bill (which required that city contractors provide the same benefits to domestic-partnered couples as they did to married ones) and the Health Care Security Act (which guaranteed health benefits for grocery workers).

Quinn is my kind of politician!

I still haven't decided how I feel about the ballot issues. Fellow New Yorkers— what do you think about the two ballot proposals?

It's Almost Here...

Anewphilosophy — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 03:42:17 GMT

Tomorrow is the designated trick-or-treat day for the kids at the seminary, which means I'll have to hurry home from my doctor's appointment to help Adam hand out candy.

It also means Adam will be buying said candy from the store tomorrow— bags and bags of it. OMFG HALLOWEEN CANDY YUMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!

Seriously, folks, Halloween is all about the sugar. So many delectable sweets, so little time!

When I was little, Halloween was one of my favorite holidays; I loved choosing a costume, preparing for the big day, dressing up, getting free candy, and seeing all my friends look so different. Going to school was always awesome on Halloween— Power Rangers and black cats roamed the halls, and witches and doctors taught us math and science as we snacked on mini Snickers bars.

Of course, grown-ups were always trying to spoil the fun. My parents were usually pretty cool about it, and although they did ask to glance over my candy every year before I ate it, they never confiscated anything. (By the way, did you know that Halloween candy poisoning is an urban legend? I was interested to learn that the only recorded cases of poisoning through Halloween candy were intentional poisonings— like the dad who sprinkled poison in his son's Pixie Stix so he could collect on a life insurance plan he'd taken out in the boy's name.)

Some of my friends weren't so lucky. In elementary school, we all pitied the Jehovah's Witness kids, who had to leave the room and do math worksheets while the rest of us ate homemade cupcakes and played trivia games. In middle school, it was the evangelical kids (or the kids whose parents were extreme right-wing Catholics) who got sympathetic looks, since their parents banned the celebration of Halloween under the guise of "it's the devil's work!"

Now that I'm a grown-up, Halloween is definitely still fun, and I get to celebrate it however I want! We're going to go to the infamous Halloween parade in the village (we hear there might be drag queens there, and some of you may recall that my husband has a deep affection for drag queens— he says it "really takes balls to wear a tight dress and heels like that") and we're going to the campus Halloween party, too. Our costumes? A cow (Adam) and a milkmaid (me)!

As I write this, part of me looks forward in time— past this Halloween to Thanksgiving (my mother-in-law and one of my sisters-in-law are coming to visit us) and Christmas (we're going back to Ohio to visit with family members from the 24th of December until the 3rd of January). And an even smaller, quieter part of me looks even further into the future, to a time when we have a little ghost or alligator or princess to take around the neighborhood, when my sisters and I can take our kids out together and spend time arguing about which of us let her child dress inappropriately or unseasonably this year. (I'm looking at you, Sarah! :P)

Holidays are fun, not just because of what you do during them, but because of who is there with you, and because it gives you a kind of window into both your past and your future— you can remember old childhood traditions and you can anticipate continuing those traditions with other people down the line. I just love the feeling of simultaneously being both young— with so much of my future ahead of me— and mature— with so many great memories of the past to remember.

Don't Know Where To Start

Anewphilosophy — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 02:33:52 GMT

I really want to start running— not just a quick twenty minutes every other day, but as a real hobby. I've heard a lot of folks talking about their 5k and 10k races, and I'd really like to try it out!

But I don't really know how to go about it— how do you find races to run? This website has some advice, but no 5k races seem to be going on in NYC right now, and I'd like to start small.

Plus, how do I train? How long should I practice, and how many days per week? Will my asthma affect my training?

Also, I don't have enough money for any fancy gear or nice new shoes. All I have are old sweatpants, shoes I bought in sixth grade, and an iPod that's apparently already outdated despite the fact that I only bought it three years ago.

Starting new things is fun, but it's so hard and confusing sometimes!

So Poor People And Immigrants Don't Deserve Health Care?

Anewphilosophy — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:02:28 GMT

Y'know, I thought I'd heard every single excuse that these anti-reform folks have concocted to prevent the advancement of health care reform. But here's a new one, brought to you by CNN:

"The president will use the money squeezed from Medicare to extend some form of coverage to the 35 million to 40 million people estimated to lack health insurance. And who are these people?

About one-quarter of them are foreign-born. Recent immigrants to the United States -- unlike the immigrations who arrived between World War II and 1970 -- have tended to be very low-skilled. Their labor is just not worth enough to their employers to support the high cost of an American health insurance plan: $13,000 a year, on average, for a family of four."

That's right: David Frum is arguing that people who are uninsured don't deserve medical coverage if they're 1) foreign-born Americans, or 2) people who never had a chance to go to college.

Who knew that conservatives thought only native-born, college-educated people deserve to be healthy? And wait, how is it that they're always accusing liberals of being "elitists"?

It gets even freakier and more xenophobic as you read on:

"Over the opposition of some 80 percent of the American people, your government allowed millions of poor newcomers to enter the country, many of them illegally. (Over the past 10 years, half of all immigrants to the United States have arrived illegally.)

These people cut the lawns of your more affluent neighbors, tended their babies, cleared their tables after their restaurant meals."

Does anyone else realize that a MAJOR NEWS OUTLET has published an editorial that says that poor people working service jobs don't deserve health insurance? That only wealthy people or the elderly should get to go to the hospital?

I officially give up. If this is the quality of the national debate over this issue right now, I'm done. Conservatives must not be taking this seriously if they're going to argue that a professor deserves to get affordable prescription drugs while a gardener or a nanny does not.

The most amusing part is that Frum is arguing that these poor people make so little money because they're somehow stupid, or unskilled. As a Bush conservative, this guy would probably oppose raising the minimum wage or increasing federal grants to help poor people go to college— and yet he thinks the poor shouldn't have health insurance precisely because they're apparently worth so little as unskilled workers. How does his head not explode from the cognitive dissonance?

This is not a serious argument, and I'm offended that CNN even allowed this to be published. Guys, when you've come up with some real talking points, come talk to me.

Crossed Fingers...

Anewphilosophy — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 03:35:01 GMT

So...I applied for another job. And this job really is my dream job— because it's right here at the seminary!

I was surfing Idealist.org, just looking for volunteer stuff, and I figured, hey, why not look at the jobs, just to see what else is out there? After all, my job isn't bad, but it's basically New York City minimum wage, it's a long-ass commute, and I don't do anything really challenging or exciting. I know these aren't valid complaints, and I know I should simply be appreciative that I have a job in the first place...but if I can find something better, shouldn't I at least give it a try?

So I entered "New York City" into the city/town box, and I chose "Religious, Spiritual, and Metaphysical Issues" from the drop-down list of potential employment sectors.

And the first thing that came up, at the very top of the page, was an administrative job (database manager/administrative assistant) at General Theological Seminary.

I applied, of course, and really, how perfect would this be? I'd go from having a forty-five minute walk to a five-minute cross-campus stroll. I'd be able to participate in seminary life in the same way other spouses can (which is currently prevented by my work schedule, as I leave at 8 am and don't get back until 6:30 pm). Bad weather would never be an issue, and I'd always be home for dinner on time. My vacations would correspond more closely with Adam's vacations from school. And I'd be doing smart person things, with more responsibility and more challenging projects, in a field I love and for the Church to which I have devoted so much of my life. Plus, how good would this job look on an application to a seminary?

I would be great for this job, which is why I will naturally never, ever get it. Every single great job for which I've applied has been out of my reach, apparently. I never ever hear back from most employers, let alone get interviews. This job I have now I found through a temp agency, and I consider myself lucky to have found it at all, even though it's not remotely what I want to be doing in the long term. Most of the people I know from Vassar are now unemployed (like some of my Vassar acquaintances, who haven’t even been able to snag wait staff jobs here in New York), underemployed (i.e., paid $7/hour or kept on part-time status so the company can save money) or employed at a company they hate, with a boss they hate, doing things they hate. Really, I'm incredibly lucky— at least I don't hate my job, and I really really like some of my co-workers, and it's not horribly stressful or anything.

But this other job...oh, I dunno. I hate to get my hopes up, only to have them dashed again. I don't even know if seminary spouses are allowed to apply or not. And maybe they'd rather give the job to someone older or something.

It's just...some shit has been going down here, lately, shit that I can't post about here, because it's about someone else, but also about me, too...oh, it all sounds confusing, but the important part is that I feel like I could really use a little good luck.

And maybe a nice new job.

Yoga Cats

Anewphilosophy — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 05:01:34 GMT

I'm telling you— I'm turning into a crazy cat lady. I talk to my cats. I play games with my cats. I have a special spot for my cats on the bed. Adam and I refer to one another as "daddy" and "mommy" when addressing the cats directly.

I even do yoga with my cats.

Apparently, my cats like yoga! I've been using it for stress relief, and every single time I get out the mat, the cats run over to stare at me with bemused, fascinated expressions.

Lenore even appears to do the poses with me. When I lie on my back, she lies on hers; when I sit up to do seated positions, she sits up with me.

Charlotte will usually watch nearby, although occasionally she will become incredibly agitated and alarmed if I lie still on the floor for too long, and will begin to paw at me and yowl. Sometimes she even pulls on my hair with her teeth. My theory is that she thinks I'm lying still on the ground because hurt; after all, whenever I'm very upset and I start to cry, she does the same thing. Once Adam was tickling me on the couch and I was squeaking with shrill laughter, and Charlotte seemed to think I was screaming and that Adam was hurting me, because she RACED into the room, terrified, and began mewing hysterically and pawing at my head.

My cats are not people, and I'm aware of that. But they ARE intelligent, and they DO have emotions, and they even recognize words and phrases. I think most animals do.

For example, I was hanging out with a few other seminary gals this evening, and the hostess' dog was really, really shy. When I asked why she was so shy, I was told that she was originally from Cuba, and had been horribly mistreated as a puppy.

"If a car is going down the street blaring merengue music, she becomes upset," the hostess told me. "If there's a guy outside the building speaking Spanish, she freaks out."

It's not the first bilingual dog I've ever met, either— when I was in France, the family I stayed with had a dog who had once belonged to an English lady. The dog responded to commands in both English and French, and knew certain words (walk, dinner, toy) in both languages. Sometimes, that damn dog was the only person in the whole house with whom I could converse in English.

I know that we anthropomorphize animals to a large extent, but still, it's remarkable how intelligent they are, and how startlingly human they can seem at times.

No On Issue 2

Anewphilosophy — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:42:54 GMT

My friend Erin May lives with her family out on Heron Hill Farm outside of Kent, Ohio, and yesterday, she sent this email (via Facebook) out to all her friends in Ohio. While I don't live in Ohio anymore, and I can no longer vote there (I'm officially a New York voter now!), I know that a lot of you can vote in Ohio, and I think you might be interested in having her perspective on Issue 2. After all, Issue 2 deals with changes to agricultural practices in the state, and if anyone knows about agricultural practices, it's Erin!

So if you're an Ohio voter, please read the letter below.

Dear Friends,

I realize that many of you may not still be voting in Ohio, but please share this information with any Ohio voters you know, especially if you find the arguments against Issue 2 in any way compelling. Our opposition may be impressive, but a concerted push must be made to try to override this proposed amendment.

ALL OHIO VOTERS, please! Small-time, sustainable agriculture needs your help:

Vote NO on Issue 2!

This is incredibly important! I cannot stress emphatically enough how detrimental an impact this uncalled for constitutional amendment will have on all independent, local, sustainable farmers AND anyone who values what these farmers contribute to the community.

Most of you know that I have grown up on and around local Ohio farms my whole life, and that I currently live and work (not to mention subsist) on a sustainable, organic farm owned and operated by my parents in Brimfield, Ohio. I know that there are loads of bright, shiny, alluring signs and ads out there telling you that Issue 2 is GREAT for the small farmer, GREAT for our livestock, GREAT for our food, but I ask you this: just who do you think has the money and the power to pay for all that bright and shiny propaganda? The small time farmer? The environmental and health-conscious consumer? The livestock themselves, maybe? Obviously not. The gross, overblown promotion of Issue 2 is coming entirely from the corporate farming industry. Small time farmers have neither the funds nor the sway to get their voice out there, and you can be certain that unless it boosts their bottom line, agribusiness is not going to do it for them.

To quote ohioact.org, "the most serious concern over this ballot initiative is that it is not simply a new law, but an amendment to the Ohio state constitution, a point the Ohio groups supporting Issue 2 downplay." The main threat embedded in this constitutional amendment is that it will establish a Livestock Care Standards Board, which may sound all well and good, but this board will have "no accountability to voters. Their decisions will be final. There is no further review or evaluation of the standard, no established forum for public comment, and no ability to appeal their decisions."

Now, to be fair, "the standards the board makes could favor one method of production over another based on the undemocratic decisions of a dozen political appointees." Clearly this could go either way, but modern conventional thought is already leaning in favor of the factory raised animal rather than the sustainable small farm model and agribusiness is known for its influential lobbyists, so it is reasonable to presume that "this could easily mean implementing standards that would make raising food in an organic or sustainable manner excessively expensive or burdensome [or, to be completely realistic, even illegal in some cases*], driving small farmers out of business and hurting local economies." Basically, there is nothing to stop them from ruling against organic, sustainable farming practices and many logical reasons to assume they would!

So, unless you like the idea of cementing corporate agribusiness into the Ohio Constitution and further marginalizing sustainable farming, VOTE NO on Issue 2!

If you would like more information on Issue 2 and its affect on the food and farming industries, this page ( http://www.oeffa.org/alerts.php ) from the Ohio Ecological Food & Farm Association and this pdf ( http://www.ohioact.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Issue2.pdf ) from ohioact.org provide well-argued, accurate information.

Thank you for your consideration of this crucial issue.

Your friend,

Erin May

*There is valid concern amongst sustainable farmers and devotees that these cases may include the implementation of standards that would force the injection of antibiotics and certain hormones into livestock, as well as eliminate the right to raise free-range poultry, grass-fed beef, and distribute raw milk (the sale of which is already illegal in the state of Ohio)--all under the misguided pretense of "health and safety!" My opinion on this matter may be biased, however, due to the fact that I have my current consumption of such foods as raw dairy, grass-fed beef, and hormone and antibiotic-free meat to thank for my current level of good health and relief from chronic illness. (If you can't already tell, I am very passionate about this issue. But like I said, maybe I'm biased...)

My Sister Rocks!

Anewphilosophy — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 02:27:28 GMT

I spoke to my sister Sarah today, and she told me a very interesting story.

Apparently, several kids wore anti-choice shirts to her school last week, complete with Bible verses (though I'm curious as to which verses they chose, considering the Bible doesn't discuss abortion). This week, a few of Sarah's friends wore pro-choice shirts in retaliation, and included slogans about keeping one's religion away from their bodies.

The pro-choice kids were suspended. The anti-choice kids were not.

The rationale for this was, apparently, that the pro-choice shirts were made using fabric markers, which counts as writing on one's clothes, and is therefore banned by the dress code. The anti-choice shirts, however, were professionally made.

I'm still in the process of collecting information on this, so I can't confirm any information via school officials until I make a few calls tomorrow. But I just wanted to use this opportunity to address a few people.

First off, I'm truly skeptical that the pro-life kids came up with this idea on their own. Making some shirts out of a few Wal-Mart tees and some puffy paint/fabric markers is one thing; wearing professionally made shirts is another thing altogether, and suggests to me that these kids were either encouraged by their parents or acting as part of some incendiary group as a reaction against that guy who got shot outside a high school last month. I mean, how many high school kids do you know who pool their allowance in order to buy religiously motivated tee-shirts? Why isn't the school talking to the parents of these kids?

Secondly, I say to the school district: this is amateur bullshit. Suspending one politically active group of kids over another— are you freaking kidding me? Are you asking for public ridicule? It's obvious to anyone with a brain that if any of these kids sue you, the mainstream media are going to turn Struthers into a circus. It doesn't even matter how the trial goes, whether or not the school is held responsible— because if there ever is a trial, this makes the entire city of Struthers look like backwards, ignorant extremists. How could you ever let it get this far? Why wouldn't you simply suspend both groups, or leave both alone? Why did you have to make such a stupid, obvious screw-up?

But mad props go to my sister Sarah, who, by the way, doesn't seem particularly pro-choice to me. In our conversations together, she's always been very against abortion. But it clearly upset her that the school is so blatantly playing favorites, and that her friends are being punished for standing up for their beliefs, and so she told me this today, over the phone, as she baked a Halloween-themed cake.

More kids ought to be like Sarah. More kids ought to be able to look at a situation and say, "Well, while I agree with the sentiment, the ways in which this was executed have really been unfair and unjustified." I'm so proud of her— at sixteen, she's clearly already a critical thinker, and she's clearly able to make up her own mind (it can't be easy being pro-life when your own grandmother had an abortion) and to recognize when other people might be right, even if she disagrees with them in other ways.

So the real hero of the day is not the pro-choice movement or the pro-life movement; it's Sarah, and how smart and brave she's been in standing up for what she believes is fair.

What To Do, What To Do?

Anewphilosophy — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:12:45 GMT

I may have made a career decision... I think I'll go back to school and get my PhD in theology once Adam's done with his degree.

Over this past year, I've realized that, while I love being a writer, I really need to learn some more stuff about which I can write. Whining about my feelings and arguing over politics on my blog or in online articles isn't gonna cut it forever, folks. Getting an advanced degree and becoming an academic would really give me a lot of opportunity to exercise my awesome writing abilities, and maybe even write a sweet book.

I've also realized (what with all the crappy day jobs and all) that I need a flexible job, a job where I can have less work in the summers, and time off over the holidays so we can go to Ohio and see our families (and later on, so we can take our kid to see his/her grandparents for Christmas), a job with benefits and job security. Being a professor provides all that— and I should know, since my dad's been a prof his whole life.

And of course, being a professor would satisfy my deep and abiding urge to show off just how smart I can be. Showing off would kind of be my JOB.

The problem is: how would we do this, logistically speaking? I'd have to wait another two and a half years, since SOMEONE has to be making the money to keep us from starving. And how willing are we to shoulder a SECOND debt burden? We already have these stupid school loans from Adam's degree, and we'll have to be paying those off ASAP. As many of you are aware, I don't like debt, and it's not like professors or priests make ridiculous amounts of money. (I mean, they do okay, but they don't make as much as, say, lawyers or doctors or businessmen.)

Also— where exactly would I go for this degree? I could go here to General for my M.A., but then I think I'd want to go somewhere a little bit bigger— like Union, or maybe Yale— for my PhD. I mean, I love General, but they seem more focused on practical-minded M.Div. students (i.e., future priests) than on people who are getting degrees just because they want to know more stuff.

And y'know, I'm worried— what if, after all this time, they don't WANT me? What if no school wants to take me? Who would I ask for letters of recommendation, anyway? It's not like my professors from Vassar will have a clear picture of my abilities after five years. What if divinity schools look at me and say, "Ewwwwwww, gross! She's lame!"

Ah, well. I guess I have a long time to think about it. Longer than I'd like, in fact. I can't wait till it's my turn for school! :D

Who On Earth Can Still Oppose Female Suffrage?

Anewphilosophy — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 02:52:57 GMT

Y'know, I've always known that the far right is absolutely made of crazy, but usually they manage to hide that crazy underneath layers and layers of smooth rhetoric. Lately, though, I have to say, they're having a hard time keeping the insanity in check.

For example: did you know that John Derbyshire, a columnist for the conservative National Review, has recently written a book— a book that contains a section entitled, "The Case Against Female Suffrage"?

Apparently, according to a recent radio interview, Derbyshire thinks women shouldn't vote (damn, I can't believe I'm even writing this sentence) because 1) women tend to vote for Democrats (well, at least he's being pragmatic), and 2) because, in his words, "They want someone to nurture, they want someone to help raise their kids, and if men aren’t inclined to do it — and in the present days, they’re not much — then they’d like the state to do it for them.”

Oh, but it gets better, because Ann Coulter also thinks we shouldn't vote. "It’s kind of a pipe dream," she said of eliminating the female right to vote; "It’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women."

Ha! "Single women." Because we all know that married women never vote for Democrats, right? Clearly, she's never met my mother. Or my grandmother. Or my aunts. Or, y'know, me. (And y'know, it takes a lotta nerve to generalize the voting patterns of married women, considering that Coulter has never been married herself.)

If the Republican Party would just openly and officially break with these morons, we wouldn't have a problem. But you know what? Elected, mainstream, well-known Republicans continue to encourage and condone the things these insane folks say. And when you start talking about taking away women's voting rights, well, you've gone too far.

Pssssst...conservatives! Your crazy is showing!