reflection on parenting...

In this NYT article, I found myself laughing outloud when I read the following:

"Most of my married friends now have children, the rewards of which appear to be exclusively intangible and, like the mysteries of some gnostic sect, incommunicable to outsiders. In fact it seems from the outside as if these people have joined a dubious cult: they claim to be much happier and more fulfilled than ever before, even though they live in conditions of appalling filth and degradation, deprived of the most basic freedoms and dignity, and owe unquestioning obedience to a capricious and demented master."

That is funny...

Civility

I have written several posts regarding the decline I have noticed of basic civility. There has been some disagreement, which may have come because I stated that the lack of civility had increased in anger and contempt and gave a specific example of the swastika in the grass with Obama's name next to it. But, I am still not convinced that things aren't worse than they have ever been...I will retract my argument as to the cause, but will not retract my comment about the fact - people are more outwardly hateful now.

My father is the head of a public school district in the United States. He has in the last several months received anger-filled attempts to change things such as using a "spanish name" on one of their new high schools or having Obama's speech to the children broadcast in the schools (he was called a facist pig in one email)...but there are hundreds of emails bearing the same tone. I would never keep people from having the opinions that they do. The problem? Why is my dad a "facist pig" if what they don't agree with is a policy of a President of their country speaking to their children. This is where civility is lost; Personal attacks, fear-mongering and hate.

Read this: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-mormon-ethic-of-civility

The Niqab

Shaikh of Al-Azhar, Shaikh Tantawi announced that there would be a ban of the fully veiled face called, niqab or a burqa in all-female areas of public universities. There was a protest against this by women who wanted to wear it. This is an admittedly tough issue for me. The fully-veiled body has damaging effects on women. Rickets leads to prolonged labour and eventual death because these women don't get any sunlight. There is something that wretches in me when the justification for such is because men can't control themselves and so women must be the one who is controlled. However, I voice loudly that women who do not CHOOSE to wear this covering should be free from contempt, rape, violence and even death. So if women should be free to choose not to, a full-out ban on those who do, makes equally no sense. The key is choice...and fear of the burning hell if they don't, makes me nervous that 'choice' has relinquished its true application in the name of religion. This is peculiar since many Islamic scholars, including the body of deciders in this case, have determined that full covering was never a tenet of Muhammad's Islam, but rather a practice of tribal groups that extremism has adopted (including the punishments for not wearing the complete covering...)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/10/13/niqab/index.html

Relative Hate...

As a follow-up to my previous post, the type of hate described in this article:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113966999

outweighs the kind of hate we have just been discussing. I think the most poignant statement is from a witness to it all "I have never seen such violence in my life. I swear that this is the first time in Guinea that we have witnessed women's bodies being treated as if they were battlefields." I can hardly breathe when I acknowledge that human beings are doing this to one another - and women are often the most injured, the most violated and the most destroyed.

A discussion of the dangers of mob violence must be examined as the woman in the article who escaped her kidnap and subsequent horror explained that she escaped because a member of the "mob" was forced to step out and realize that she was an INDIVIDUAL. He knew her. She was human to him...not just chattle.

Message of Hate.

Where are the conservative pundits now? Are they reviling this sort of hate? Have they stated, "we disagree with Obama's political policies but we do not support hate." I haven't seen it. This is a representation of the dangerous hate and height of anger that has taken over the right, this last nine months. Dangerous.

Public Schools

Last night I was at a discussion group re: "the future of schools". I am a huge advocate of public schools and stand by the claim that schooling available to all is what makes this country thrive. In contrast, I have visited many countries where education is offered only to the rich or male population, if offered at all. So my closing statement was this - "of course there are problems in our school systems. Of course improvements are needed, and of course, there is disparity within the system itself. But it is offered to all. Public schools are the source of equality..." There was a public teacher in attendance who made the astute followup by saying, "Being a teacher in the system, in the trenches, all we hear is about how 'public schools are failing our kids'. It is nice to finally see that there are people who have hope in the system".

This made me think - there are thousands trying their absolute best for a pittance. What are we doing publicly that destroys what self-made morale these teachers may have?

I am interested in people's opinions on paternalism in schools. Read this...it is interesting: http://www.mocharterschools.org/pdf/Recent_Press_National/An_Appea_%20to_Authority.pdf

Why Obama?

I am not in the practice of discussing my votes...but since I am a Canadian citizen and cannot vote here, I suppose it would be ok if I gave a sneak preview into my political sways. A friend asked me to explain if it was so that I would have voted for Obama - why? This is what I answered...(*note* this is not representative of my entire thought process or reasoning. I only approached two hot topics superficially...foreign policy and healthcare reform.)


Obama: Yes, I would have voted for him. Just like in any election, you vote for the better person, not because they represent me in every way, shape or form. He is smart - and it has been awhile since a really intelligent person was in office.

He is eloquent, inspiring and stands for good values. ie. wanting 1,000,000 people volunteering in the PeaceCorps and Americorps. These things encourage us to look outside ourselves and help others. He encouraged school children to work hard and
succeed inspite of their surrounding circumstances. I think our generation is extraordinarily selfish and we value ourselves by "things" and "possessions". No one ever gets married and slowly upsizes their houses and cars, for instance. Everyone bought houses that were the size, or larger, than their parents'. Our work ethic is down and we are becoming disconnected as human beings - internet, texting etc. So little changes like that, I think he was inspiring.

Policies? - Healthcare MUST change. I have had a very unique view of it actually being in the field. There is billions of dollars of waste in the current system - one of the main criticisms of any govt involvement - in the privatized system...the difference? The cost of waste gets passed to the consumer (hence the premium increase of well over inflation over the last several years) so it isn't recognized as waste. At the end of the day, there is going to be give and take in all systems - including a new one. But is the positive more than a perceived negative? I say yes. Criticism of Obama (because i think every rational person should see the weaknesses of their position or person they support) he is OVERLY bipartisan. He is feeling the pressure of a minority of people and bending his plans TOO much. This could be a problem because by the time a healthcare bill comes through, it will be so watered down and may lose its "change" goals.

Foreign policy - I too am a pacifist. Of course I believe we need a military, and they do great things. But I am NEVER in favour of a preemptive strike (Iraq); I am always in favour of acting with the world's players, not unilaterally; I am in favour of coming to the table and talking to some of our worst enemies. I could never understand Bush policy and subsequently McCain policy that they wouldn't even talk to Iran (Ahmedinejad). How can talking to someone insinuate that you believe in their policies? In fact, it gives us, the USA, a chance to sit in a civil setting and discuss our demands and expectations. It is better than public talk AT each other which solves nothing - it only increases misrepresentation and tensions. He has done a lot for the world...one reason I began to support him over Hilary was because she had become toO militaristic in her statements, like McCain. That had not worked for us the last 8 years and in fact has only engendered further distaste for the US and its policies. Diplomacy, in my view, should always be exhausted first. Nothing is solved by war - sometimes necessary - but it never ends well.