Good Thing We're Not Creeps

Back in July a friend and I went to a free concert in the park. We didn't know the band or what kind of music they played. When we got there, it was a big band swing style orchestra made up of grandpas and grandmas. It was AWESOME. 

Out in the audience there were these 2 little boys dancing. They weren't there together and they weren't dancing with each other. Each was getting his own unabashed groove on. One was about 9, and he had a Ben Vereen meets granddaddy shuffle style, with good hip action. The other was about 4, and his was a more modern-lyrical meets mosh pit style. He'd leap and turn in mid-air, and land on all fours and bang his head to the beat of "Sing Sing Sing With a Swing." Both were adorable. 

There were also 2 toddlers playing together right in front of us. One knocked the other down and made him sad, so the mother figure picked them both up. I had assumed they were both there with her, but she started looking around like, "Whose baby is this?"

No one claimed him. 

The stranger / good mom took that little boy off to the left of the audience to find his family. She could've just kept walking to the parking lot and driven away with him before his real mom even noticed he was gone. Furthermore, anyone could've said he was theirs and taken off with him. He was really pleasant, not scared at all, so I doubt if he'd have even cried. He didn't seem to belong to anyone on the left, so she started working her way to the right. When the good mama got to us, the friendly baby bent down to  try to take a sip out of my friend's drink. He didn't know us. He was BEAUTIFUL. All babies are beautiful, but this one had olive skin, brown-black hair, green eyes, cheeks for days, and he was really well behaved. The stranger-mama walked that baby ALL OVER the park for at least a whole song, maybe 2, before his real mom found him. 

Finally Real Mom saw us. She wasn't even bothered. She just smiled and strolled over to get him, then wandered away with him. No, "THERE you are," no "Thanks for watching him," nothing. That poor other mom who walked all over with him; I bet she went to the concert to enjoy the show with her own family, not to babysit a stranger's kid. That lazy mom is so lucky there were no pedophiles at the park that day! Or if they were there, none of them made any attempts on her kid, probably because the good mom was with him. 

I didn't trust this Real Mom lady's competance, so I kept watching their group off and on throughout the rest of the concert. After she got her baby back, she played with him for a bit, then the dad played with him (yes, both parents were there and neither one was watching their kid). Not very long after that, I looked back again and they didn't have him any more. They weren't worried, though, because it was blanket canoodle time. Kissy kissy. I kept my eyes peeled for him for the rest of the concert, over an hour, but I didn't see the baby. I assumed / hoped that his grandma had come to pick him up or something. Then when the concert was over, I finally spotted him. I don't know where he'd been or who was taking care of him that whole time, but I'm really glad his parents got a nice date while some strangers babysat their kid for free.

As my friend and I walked back to the parking lot we noticed the lazy parents just in front of us, drifting that direction like pollen on the breeze, carrying their vagabond baby. The parking lot was maybe 30 yards away from the seating area. They were almost all the way to the cars when the dad looked around and said, "Billy?" Both parents started looking around with gently creased brows and open mouths as if they were confused. "Wait, is there another kid with them?" I thought. Sure enough, they soon located Billy, who looked about 5, and started calling to him to come on. He'd been playing ball or frizbee with some other children and adults. 

I probably sound like one of those annoying single people who think they know everything about raising kids, but I don't care. People: watch your damn kids! Number one, I don't want them hurt, and number 2, I don't want it to be my job to make sure they're not hurt. I'm not the one who got knocked up. I was and remain flabbergasted at these people. It nice to trust your neighbors, but it's not always a good idea. It's NOT nice to assume your neighbors want to raise your kids for you. They don't. 

Trayvon and Marley

My cousin just posted this on her Facebook page: 

Is this for real? I'm going to treat this like it's genuinely asking the question for a minute. Let's see, one difference is that they lived and died in different states. It says so right there on the picture. Is that the right answer?

Also, Trayvon was stalked and killed by his attacker while Marley's tragedy seems to have been a robbery gone wrong, so there's another difference for you. Not that it makes either one of them less dead or less important for having lived, but you asked what the difference was between them, like a riddle, and I’m trying to figure it out. Let’s see if we can think of any other differences between these kids.

Well, clearly, their families had different lawyers / PR people. If Marley didn't get national media coverage it's because no one in charge thought of it or was able to make it happen, not because he was white as this seems to be implying.  

Is someone honestly trying to say that, generally speaking, white kids in peril don’t get enough media coverage? Is anyone buying it? I would argue that there is NEVER enough media coverage when a kid of any background gets killed or nabbed or attacked. White kids seem to get the hookup more often than black kids, though. Of all the high profile cases you can think of from recent history, how many of the victims were white and how many were "other?" Is the white column longer? I thought so. Does that mean white kids get attacked more than kids of any other race? Highly doubtful. Or, wait, is it trying to say that because Marley's killer was black he's being protected from the media while Trayvon's killer is getting all his dirty laundry aired because he's half white? That's even more ridiculous. 

The media coverage is why the president was expected to comment, obviously. This was a high profile case, whether that's fair or not. I doubt the president cared more about a black kid's death than any other unlawful killing. He can't make a statement about every youth who gets shot because, unfortunately, there are far too many.

I hate this kind of crap. This stupid meme is as bad as all that mess about how Trayvon wasn't really the sweet little boy he was portrayed to be in social media. I’m not so sure Marley was, either. "Officials say Lion pulled into the parking lot to sleep after a party.” So, he was sleeping it off in his car after a night of underage drinking? Maybe; maybe not. I don’t know, but that’s something these kids had in common: they both have social media campaigns that set them up as little angels in an effort to play on our emotions about youth and goodness and race, as if any of those things make it worse to kill them.

Here’s something else they had in common: Neither of these boys deserved to die. Both of them deserve justice. It seems to me that the black one didn’t get it. Maybe the white one will.

Too Late Now

I think it would've been more entertaining if Kim and Kanye had named their baby North Kardashian. North West lacks subtlety.

My Job and Elementary School Teachers Suck in Equal Proportions

One thing I've noticed is that adults are not good at following directions, particularly the directions they've been given since childhood. They talk when the instructor is talking, think the rules apply to everyone but them, and don't wait for the answers to the questions they're asking. They act out for attention, cluck their tongues and roll their eyes, and generally behave like bratty 8-year-olds. In college courses, dance classes, and at work in customer service I consistently come in contact with adults who should know better. A further irony is that elementary school teachers seem to be the worst perpetrators. Maybe they only seem like the most frequent offenders because it's twice as irritating when they are, but it does happen far more often than it should.

I think it's because they're so used to being in charge - being dictators of their tiny kingdoms of  people who are yet physically, emotionally, and mentally undeveloped - that they're completely unwilling to give up that "power," even to help themselves out. Rather than learning from their own lessons about life and decency, they learn to be above the law. No one can talk while they're talking, therefore whenever they decide to talk is socially acceptable. I bet at first it's just within their own classrooms, but soon enough it leaks into everyday life, until one day they're in a pottery class at the YMCA or a movie theater and they're busily talking out of turn as if they owned the joint. Students are not allowed to gossip, chatter, roll their eyes, raise their voices, or sass back, which is as it should be, but none of those rules apply to teachers. They frequently accuse kids of being "disrespectful," (and rightly so, I'm sure), but think back with me, how many times in school did this happen: Your teacher got onto the class for being too noisy (read: disrespectful). Then, while heads were dutifully bent over papers and the only sound was pencil lead on notebooks and the occasional textbook page flap, another teacher-friend wanders into the room and they proceed to cartoon-whisper with their mouths behind a folder, their eyes locked and loaded on a specific kid. "Habidda habbida blah blah Parent Called habbida habbida Principal blah blah whisper blah Conference habbida habbida NO! Mmhm, I mean whisper whisper habbida habbida..." How respectful is that, I ask you? It happened at least once a week for several years in a row for me. It happened frequently enough that I remember in vivid detail, and I was rarely the poor kid in question.

Don't get me wrong, I like teachers. I have been a student to many great teachers, and I have some friends in that profession who are good, smart, reasonable people. I respect them for what they've done for me, personally, and for what they do in general for society. Their job is as thankless as they come, having to deal with parents, school board politics, and kids with no home training; being told, "Here, you raise him," and "How DARE you discipline my child" all in one breath; not getting paid enough. Still, I've noticed that, generally, 2 kinds of people become teachers (particularly elementary school teachers): Those who want to change the world by imparting knowledge to the beautiful minds of the young, and sadistically megalomaniacal tyrants. I've had both.

Today I was on a phone call with a lady who told me she was a teacher. She wasn't able to log into her account because her password wasn't working, so I was walking her through resetting it online. I told her to click on the link that says, "Forgot password," which she did. This takes people to an uncluttered screen with very simple instructions. It says, "Request Account Password," at the top, and under that:

Account ID Number: ____________ < blank space for requested information

E-Mail: ____________ < blank space for requested information

<< Two CAPTCHA nonsense words to prove you're a real live human >>

Enter the words above: ____________ < blank space for requested information

<< Submit Button >>

Now, I'm the first to admit that sometimes our web sites aren't as user-friendly as the code writers think they are, especially for those who don't work with computers every day. However, I don't think this is one of those times. This teacher disagreed.

"Do I put in my ID and then hit Submit, then put in my email, etc.?... No?... Well, maybe it's the teacher in me, but the instructions should be more clear. They should all be listed at the top of the page."

I got flashbacks to my 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade teachers saying over and over again, "Read ALL of the instructions on the worksheet before you begin!" It may have made me smile if she didn't use such a condescending tone of voice, and if this was a long questionnaire I'd probably agree with her, but there are 3 instructions. Three. Common sense dictates that she should answer those 3 questions and then hit "Submit." If she had read all 3 of the instructions before beginning she would've figured that out. She declared that we should put a statement at the top along the lines of, "Please fill in the requested information and then hit Submit." Maybe it's the customer service agent in me, but I can tell you from experience that if we were to put up a statement like that, people would skip right over it and still call in to ask us what to do. Because they didn't listen to their elementary school teachers. Still, I don't think I'd have been ANNOYED by her silly suggestion if it wasn't for her haughty air, or if she hadn't then continued to willfully disregard my directions.

Once people fill out those 3 questions an email is sent with a brand new password, which is why we ask for the email address in the first place. I told her to go to her email account, find the new password, and enter it on the login screen. She said, "I want to use my old password. I'm going to try that one first." Remember, she called in because her old password wasn't giving her access to her account. I said, "Well, we just reset it, so the old password isn't going to work." She repeated that she liked her old password and wanted to try it, so I said, "Ok, go ahead and try it." Now, you're probably reading this conversation as if she said her part and then I said my part and so on. That is incorrect. She'd say her part, I'd start to reply, and she'd refuse to wait for my answer like the fabled interrupting cow. She then asked me if she should enter her old password where it says, "password," and I said, "No, it won't work, you need to use the new one," (while thinking, "Lady, why are you asking me this when a) I've already told you and b) you're just going to do what you want to do anyway?"). She said again that she didn't want to do that and she tried her old password. Would you believe it didn't work? After that she went to her email account, found her new password, and logged in. I should've probably just told her to do that in the first place.

I had this other lady today who didn't know how to wait for the answer to her question, either. Her problem was that she didn't know enough about the company to even ask a question that made sense. It was along the lines of, "Did you walk to school or carry your lunch?" When that happens, I HAVE to answer in complete sentences. I know this is so frustrating when all you want is a yes or a no (scratch that, when all you want to is a, "Yes, of course, whatever you want, madam,"), but trust me, it's necessary. I wouldn't do it if it wasn't. She wouldn't let me finish clarifying / answering her question before asking it again in an equally nonsensical manner. I don't know if she was a teacher, but she was old enough to know better. You'd be surprised at how often this happens.

Moral: Everyone needs to go back to kindergarten to learn how to take turns, follow directions, and be nice. Everyone. Especially teachers. Especially kindergarten teachers.

Fresh Out of Booty

This is me:



And so is this:



I've never participated in a PG rated booty call, but I bet I'd be just darling at it.

A Hot Button

You know what folks are talking about these days? The gay marriage. Here are my 2 cents, given as reluctantly as if I were a miser: 

I believe that God does not approve of gay marriage. That being said, our government has a separation of church and state, and therefore should be able to make laws despite the Bible or any other religious texts. 

["Wait, what did she just say about God? Who does she think she is?"] Now, before you get too angry with me, please notice the words I used and the words I didn't use. I did not say that God doesn't love homosexuals, or that I don't like gays, or down with freedom and individuality, or nuke the whales, or sex is evil, or gay-love makes hurricanes, or get out of my life if you don't agree. I know that God loves His gay children. He knows them, He cherishes them, He created them. They are His. I don't know why He would give someone same-sex attraction and also make a rule that she isn't allowed to act on it, or why He would make the rule and then give someone the preference, or which is the chicken and which is the egg in this scenario. I don't know. I've struggled with that question for a long time. I still struggle, but I have come to accept it as "above my pay grade." I don't understand it, but I know that I don't have the best view of the universe and eternity and the whole big picture from where I'm sitting now. I've had to ask myself if I trust God, if I trust the scriptures, and if I trust my church leaders, and I've found that I do trust them. I have to continuously pray for humility and patience and trust that someday I'll be granted a better understanding. It's still very vexing in the mean time. 

It's hard for me to talk about gay marriage. People will say it's not a religious issue, it's a human rights issue, or vice versa. Really it's both. The word "right" keeps coming up. Is marriage a right? If so, I should probably apply at the local marriage welfare. Marriage is more of a rite than a right, isn't it, which implies roots in religion rather than politics, but that's neither here nor there. At this point it matters in both sectors. It's difficult for me to talk about religion and it's difficult for me to talk about politics, and if you put them both in one supercharged, hot-button issue, you can pretty much forget about me opening my mouth.  

I have been very uncomfortable with my church's stance on this issue. Well, not their stance, but their active opposition to it. I believe people should have the right to marry who they love despite anyone else's opinion about it. I didn't understand why the church couldn't be more, "Live and let live," about this, especially in light of our own history. We had some funny ideas about marriage in the past that others didn't approve of and thought immoral, and we wanted to be left alone about it. Aside from that, gay people exist in and contribute to our society. Whether or not they have the right to marry each other, they will be in our lives and our children's lives. Denying them the right to marry won't make them go away (not that I want them to) and it won't prevent them from adopting or procreating or starting families any way they can. Whether a same-sex couple wants to refer to their commitment to each other as a partnership, union, or marriage, I don't see how it makes much difference in the long run. It all means the same thing: they are together. Why does it matter what they call it? More than that, I believe that gay couples should have the same rights as straight couples. If 2 men spend 60 years in love with each other, living together, building a life, of course they should be considered each other's next of kin in all legal situations. They have to be the ones choose whether to pull the plug, how to run the funeral, and what to do with the inherited property. They've chosen each other. We can't choose someone else for them. We shouldn't want to. 

This is why it felt so awkward when the church was advertising so much about Prop 8. I was against Prop 8 (or for it, I can't remember which now; I was for allowing gay marriage). Adamant opposition to letting gay folks marry each other made us look like bad guys, and that made me uncomfortable. It was also hard to be encouraged to oppose something that I'm not really opposed to. The church's stance is, "Don't approve of sin but love the sinner anyway. Be nice to everyone, let others choose their own beliefs, but don't falter on your own in an effort to be accommodating. Be firm, but kind," (that's not a direct quote, y'all, I'm paraphrasing). It's hard to understand how we were being kind by actively trying to deny this right, and even harder to explain it. Is it kind to say, "I'm allowed, but you're not?" No. However it is kind, or at least kinder, to say, "I want you to have all the rights with your one-and-only that I have with mine, but I want you to call it something else," which is what the church has said. That may not be enough according to some gay rights activists, but it is much more accepting than, say, "Burn in hell, queer, this town's not big enough for the both of us," which is the rather un-Christian stance some other churches took. In any case, the church is trying to strike a balance between standing up for what it believes and letting others choose to believe something else.

In light of all this, I expected to be glad that the Supreme Court has repealed the federal law against same-sex marriages, allowing each state to choose for itself. I was shocked to feel a tiny twinge of fear when I read the news. What the? FEAR?! I'm not afraid of homosexuals! I love them, both individually and as a group! What's going on?  

I figured it out. There is a little part of me that is worried that this legislation is the first step in a process that will make it so that my church will somehow be forced to accept gay marriage. Just as I believe that gay folks should be allowed to get married if they want, I also believe that individual sects should have the right NOT to approve of or preform same-sex marriages within their own walls and congregations. Even if the law recognizes these unions as marriages, no one should be required by law to endorse or preform one. I realize that nobody is asking for that. No one is saying, "I want to marry my gay boyfriend, and I want YOU to officiate, now hop to it!" Most people want a more supportive environment on their wedding day; they don't want to have to twist your arm to get you to participate, and they don't want to have to look at your judgey-face all day long. Still, the more it becomes an accepted part of American life that homosexuals in love can get married to each other, the more strange and unfair it will seem that some people don't think they ought to. That's fine, everyone can have their own opinions. You can think your pastor is a jerk for refusing to marry your Aunt Edith and her friend Rose. You can think he's behind the times. You can even stop attending his meetings because of it, but no one should ever say that he is acting unconstitutionally, or that he is infringing on their right to marry by refusing to marry them himself. I think this is what most people who are against gay marriage legislation are afraid of. They don't want to open the door on that can of worms and have it slide all down the slippery slope, as it were. They don't want to be penalized for choosing to follow their own beliefs any more than the Out-and-Proud members of society do. I don't think this is very likely, or that it will happen very quickly, but I do think we should be prepared to guard against it. Humans are notorious for over-correcting. 

The other news item that has me scared (and more than a twinge) is this: The vote on Prop 8 way back when determined that gay marriage would not be legal in California. Not long after that, a judge overruled that outcome, and the supreme court has recently decided to uphold that ruling. My concern is not about gays in California being able to marry each other, it's about the processes to decide whether or not they can marry each other. It doesn't matter who was campaigning for which side of the argument, how hard they were working, or how much money was spent, the bottom line is that the voters in California went to the polls and voiced their opinions. All those opinions were then overruled by 1 person. Since when can a judge, or any person, say, "That didn't turn out how I wanted / expected --" or even, "I don't think everyone who meant to vote my way got themselves to the polls, so I'm going to throw it out?" That's pretty much the exact opposite of how this democratic republic of ours is supposed to work, isn't it? Regardless of your stance on the gay marriage issue, I hope you can see that this isn't ok. I'm not saying that he and the other supporters of same-sex marriage should've just given up. I just think they should've gone through the proper channels. I mean, let's pretend the vote was about something else, like whether we're having pancakes for breakfast tomorrow. Ok, so there's a reunion going on and the whole extended family is supposed to vote about pancakes. About a third of the people don't bother to vote for whatever reason, and the results come up against pancakes. Then your 3rd cousin's wife decides no one else's opinion counts because she really really likes pancakes, and Grandma and Grandpa back her up. What the heck, lady? It's a dangerous precedent to set. Can any judge now overturn any vote? I don't know, but he or she can sure try, and they now have this Supreme Court ruling to cite as backup. It starts to unbalance the balance of power, and it disregards the voice of the people. Even if the people are idiots, who gets to say so? Who watches the watchmen? 

It's hard to be a grownup and have it be my responsibility to care about these things. It's hard for it to be my responsibility to know and care and act, but to still feel so insignificant and ill-equipped. 

Abercrombie and Psh!

I'm sure everyone saw this Abercrombie and Fitch thing. Just in case you missed it, here it is (taken from John Green's blog, with commentary).

Like most everyone else, I was bugged to read what the CEO of Abercrombie and Fitch had to say. However, I wasn't shocked about it. His company projected elitism as hard as they could, even before he said those words. Who is really surprised that he feels this way? Furthermore, I'm sure he's not the only designer who doesn't want to see his clothes on ugly, uncool, overweight, poor people. If he was, a lot more things would be a lot more affordable, there'd be a lot more variety in what models look like, and nobody would have to overpay for jeans at The Big Fine Woman Store. 

I remember seeing the actress Camryn Manheim on a talk show in the 90s. She had been nominated for some big award. When that happens, designers will contact the actress and say, "Hey, let me make you a super fantastic dress. You don't have to pay me for it, just say my name on the red carpet." It's a win-win: the actress gets a great outfit and one less thing to worry about, the designer gets publicity, each is elevated by association with the other's acclaim, and the fans of both get to see their favorite thing looking awesome on TV. It's a whole system and it's worked for years. Camryn was approached by several designers, and each time she'd ask, "Do you normally make clothes in my size?" Often they'd reply, "Well, no, but we CAN. We would for YOU," and she'd be all, "Mkay. I'm not gonna wear your smelly dress. Take your design and shove it up your nose, so you can use it to snort drugs because it's the 90s and 'heroin chic' is in," (that's not verbatim). I love this story. I love that she didn't jump at the chance to sit at the cool table. I think she did finally find a designer up to her moral code and got her dress. Even if she'd had to buy off the rack I'd still love this story because she didn't compromise. 

The thing is, companies get to make their own brand and culture. He can make his brand reflect his values and he can market those values along with his product however he likes. We all want to make the world a better place, and there are many definitions of "better." To some people, a better world may be a few million more over-sexualized children with unlimited disposable incomes flouncing through hallways their granddaddies paid for, playing sports for the enjoyment of being seen playing sports, and taking half nude pictures of each other as they look down their beautiful noses at the rest of the world in order to reaffirm their own superiority, which exists in their own minds. To each his own, I say. This may sound like I'm defending him. I'm not. I think he's a terrible human. You get to make your own choices, sure, but you don't get to choose the outcome of those choices. I just saw this campaign against his brand. 

I have mixed feelings about this. I was a little bugged because it seemed like the kid behind the movement is being a bit hypocritical. "He's a jerk for calling people ugly, so I'm gonna call him ugly." "He's a jerk for looking down on people, so I'm gonna give his clothes to the undesirables upon whom we all look down so he won't be cool anymore." Then I realized he was using this CEO's definition of "cool" and I felt better about it. Also, I can't help but get excited at the idea of the CEO getting knocked down a peg.  

There are a couple of reasons I want to see this guy go down. 

1) I learned in church that pride is supposed to be followed by a fall. I realize that when and how and where somebody falls is really none of my business, and I ought to be worried about myself and forgiving of others, but I am human and I have my own faults. It would be very satisfying to see him get his comeuppance. 

2) I learned from 80s movies that the preppy douche always gets it in the end. His empire crumbles, his street cred runs out, and nobody thinks he's cool anymore. That's what would happen if John Hughes wrote and directed the Internet. You can do it for John, or you can do it for your inner 17-year-old, whatever works for you. 

Either way, if you've been shopping at Abercrombie and Fitch it'd be awesome if you stopped (not necessarily forever; I don't want to make the guy destitute, I just want to make him sweaty and uncomfortable for a while). Also, giving clothes to the homeless is a good thing to do, regardless of what brand you're giving out. I see another win-win here.