October 14, 2008

Confessions of a Preacher’s Kid (Well, a Few At Least)

As mentioned in previous posts, I am the daughter of pentecostal Christians, one of whom (my father) was a preacher. The stigmas surrounding preacher’s kids (or “PKs,” as those in certain circles refer to us) are bountiful and varied, ranging from the iconic perfect angel to the rebelious jail-bound streetwalker. Earlier today, I googled “preacher’s kids,” and the results were surprising. I expected a lot more anger, a lot more s**t talking and church bashing, and it simply was not there. Where is the rage, folks?! I know it exists. I know I’m not the only one. Maybe the others are so burnt out that they just don’t want to talk about it anymore. Whatever the case, I thought all the non-PKs might like a peek into the world that someone like me grew up in.

First though, I need to give you some context. Pentecostal churches are different from other churches. A Methodist PK is likely to have a different outlook than I do. Pentecostals are in a bizarre and baffling world all their own. So keep that in mind as you read.

My father became a minister when I was two years old, and he was 25 years old. The same age that I am now. He had his own church in California for 10 years, and then we moved to Texas so he could attend Bible school.

[Allow me to deviate for a moment and just state that Bible school is probably one of the biggest scams in modern religious history. A greater, more unforgivable waste of money I cannot think of.]

My parents told me that our reason for moving to Texas was simple: that’s what God had told them to do. I was 12 at the time, and just starting seventh grade (a horrible year to make your child start a new school, I have to say). As you can imagine, middle schoolers are not the kindest of human beings, so when asked why I had moved to Texas, I quickly learned to answer that “my Dad moved for his job,” and then asked them in kind why there were cows outside the math classroom window.

There were always two worlds for me: the world at church, and the world at school and with my friends, and the two mixed together somewhat at home, with religion tending to take the lead in everything. If we were going out to eat, my dad would pray and ask God where we were supposed to go. I don’t really remember doing anything active or fun with him, but he loved to make us sit at the table after dinner and read the Bible. We stopped taking family vacations after we moved to Texas, I assume because our financial status was somewhat diminished; the only trip I remember was the summer when I was 15 – we spent four days in Houston so my dad could go to Lakewood Church (now home to the famous Joel Osteen), and my sister and I spent the entire time in the hotel room by ourselves. If I did something wrong, my father gave me a sermon, not a lecture. Everything I did was supposed to glorify God, so my music (which, looking back, was pretty innocent stuff) was scrutinized, and I wasn’t allowed to watch certain TV shows or movies. He would commit me to church engagements without telling me. I recall one incident – I was supposed to go to a slumber party at my friend’s house for her birthday, but he had promised someone I would go to their church function. So he dropped me off at the party, picked me up and made me go to the event, and then drove me back to the party. I cried and cried but he wouldn’t relent, and I sat in the back of the church with my arms folded the entire time. He didn’t even stay there with me, he just dropped me off.

As you can tell, I guess I’m a little scarred from ordeals like these. Everything in our home life was refracted through the prism of religion. Don’t even get me started on Halloween or Santa Claus.

Sunday after Sunday, my little sister and I would feign illness in an effort to stay home from church; I can recall only two, maybe three times when this actually worked. Being pentecostal, my father delivered fiery sermons with speaking in tongues and people falling down and wailing and screaming. And on the extra fun Sundays, he wouldn’t preach at all – he would just lull the entire congregation into this strange, silent, meditative trance, with everyone lifting their hands, eyes closed, deeply in tune with the Holy Spirit. Personally, I got nothing out of those services, which of course lasted for hours on end. One time my mom and I left the church during one of these spells, went to the mall, came back, and found it hadn’t ended, not even close.

I could always tell that my parents were disappointed by and wary of the fact that I didn’t speak in tongues. Frankly, it always – always, even when I was very young – made me feel very uncomfortable. They said the purpose was to communicate with God when you didn’t know what to say. But I always knew what I wanted to say! Dear God, please help me get an A. Dear God, I really need $10. And the whole falling down thing didn’t sit well with me either. I remember once, when my sister and I were little, we were standing on our parents’ bed and my dad was praying for us (I don’t know why), and we started falling down on the bed like we saw the people in church do. And we thought it was so fun and funny that we kept doing it over and over and giggling to each other. But I clearly remember the look on my parents’ faces, and I think they genuinely believed we were experiencing some kind of holy awakening. Of course, these are the same people who claim to have seen angels and demons.

They never understood why I hated church so much, never truly realizing that I wasn’t getting anything out of it. All I longed for was a straight-up sermon with some simple concept that might help me in a practical way. But all the quiet singing and raising of hands and flailing on the ground did nothing. It just made me resent the fact that I had to be there.

Growing up in this culture also exposed me to a great deal of the hypocrisy and greed of the modern Christian church. For a time, my parents claimed allegiance to the Word of Faith doctrine, which is infamous for its prosperity teachings (not surprisingly, several of the group’s most famous ministers are currently under investigation by the IRS). Essentially, this concept fosters the idea that “if you believe, you will receive” – after, of course, you throw a little dough in the church’s direction. In case you couldn’t deduce this on your own, prosperity teachings are BALONEY. Have you ever tuned in to TBN? If not, I suggest you do sometime. It’s entertaining. There they are, these televangelists decked out in Armani suits on gilt sets next to their plastic-surgery-addicted wives. And they’re begging you for money for their Lear Jet, or they want you buy whatever ridiculous fluff-crammed book they’ve just written. I’m sorry, but they are laughing all the way to the bank.

My family has always, still to this day, had money problems. They’ve always given their 10% to the church, and to be completely honest, they are worse off for it. There is no return on an investment in the church. It’s easy to get up at the pulpit and say “Give and you will be greatly blessed!” when you’re on the receiving end of all that giving. Give me a break. We had way too many crappy Christmases for me to buy into any of that.

Don’t get me started on faith healing, either.

How did I turn out? Well, I wasn’t a “bad” kid, necessarily. Everyone hears those horror stories about how wild preacher’s kids can be. I didn’t use drugs. I wasn’t promiscuous. I did start drinking in high school, but really, who doesn’t? I moved in with my boyfriend when I was 21, and after five years, we are now married, so I don’t consider that a poor decision. I went to college and grad school and earned pretty respectable grades. I have a decent job and will probably be buying a house in the next year or two, maybe starting a family a few years after that. Things are great, really. But I don’t go to church, I don’t read the Bible, I pray on occasion but I don’t ask for or expect anything, and my religious beliefs could be best characterized as “undecided and seeking” at the moment. So in my parents’ eyes, they failed. Or I guess, I failed.

Do I wish my dad had chosen a different profession? Absolutely. I can say with confidence that my family would be far better off if he’d been a banker, or a plumber, or anything else at all. And it ends with me. I guess my marrying a lawyer could be attributed to a kind of rebelion in some way, the ultimate backlash against the sort of life I grew up in but despised. I don’t know exactly what they could have done differently. I do know that my pentecostal upbringing is the very reason why I refuse to go to church now. I have a physical allergic reaction to church. I don’t even like to think about it, and my own children certainly won’t have to go, unless they want to. I suppose it’s just a case of too much of anything being a bad thing. I got way too much, and now I don’t want any.

October 9, 2008

Why Don’t You Try Bailing Yourself Out, America?

Just a Little Bit of History Repeated

Just a Little Bit of History Repeated

Today is October 9, 2008. The glaring red headline on the MSN homepage currently reads “BREAKING NEWS: Dow down another 500+ points, falls below 9,000.” This upsets me for several reasons, one of them being that my husband purchased some Fannie Mae stock earlier this week because we assumed the government’s $700 billion bailout plan would yield a handsome return. Not so much, as of yet.

It also worries me because of the unknown. My job seems secure (though the powers-that-be did fire off a not-so-reassuring e-mail yesterday regarding the shakiness of company stock). I’m too poor to have any money invested. In fact, with the price of gas dropping as a result of this economic downturn, I’m doing pretty well right now. But who knows what will happen tomorrow. My employer is hardly a big competitor in its industry, and if things get rocky, I think I’d be counted among the dispensable. Maybe we should go ahead and sell our undervalued homes and set up luxury Hoovervilles while we can. If we act now, we can stock the soup lines with the Campbell’s Select variety instead of that condensed s**t. I mean, if we’re gonna be destitute, let’s do it up with a little class, right?

I don’t think we’re in danger of a future quite that grim just yet, but the fear is palpable nonetheless. While my own financial situation is relatively stable, I’ve definitely been affected by this crisis on a personal level. A few relatives (who shall remain nameless) recently decided that, due to their cash poor condition, they just…you know…wouldn’t pay their mortgage for three months. They also thought it would be best not to notify the bank of this decision. Let me preface this with a little history: said relatives owned their house outright at one point but over the years took out several home equity loans to pay for home improvements, computers, cars, a sizable DVD collection, a grand piano, and a $1,000 Hebrew harp, among other “necessary” items. When they, for various reasons, took a financial nosedive and could no longer afford to make their loan payments, they decided to just stop paying, and called on me for a bailout when they faced foreclosure.

My friends, I know nothing about the workings of the stock market, but I am confident that this is why the Dow has been plunging at a record pace.

Punch Face!

Punch Face!

Americans are infamous finger-pointers. And we are victims of that old addage that when you point your finger at someone else, there are three fingers pointing right back at you. Never was this more true than now. Everyone seems to be blaming financial institutions and the government for the economic derangement we’re drowning in right now, when what we really need to do is look in the mirror. True, the banks were handing out loans to unqualified borrowers like singles to a stripper. But I strongly believe that everyone, in any situation, is responsible for their own actions. You have to be pretty Cro-Magnon to think your lack of a credit history and a decent downpayment make you an attractive candidate for a mortgage or home equity loan. (Oh, and you just loved that balloon payment idea, didn’t you? Come on, if you don’t have the money now, you’re not going to have it later. Grow a brain, dipshit.)  And yet thousands upon thousands of people in those or worse circumstances leapt at the opportunity, and this is the result. Hope you’re enjoying that cookie-cutter eyesore you call your “dream home.” It sure is costing us a fortune.

It’s obviously time that we all start exercising some personal accountability and self reliance. Seriously, (to paraphrase a certain Kennedy) ask what you can do for your country, and stop asking your country to fix your problems without raising your taxes. Nothing good in life is free. Maybe we can’t fix Wall Street, but we can certainly try to fix stupid.

October 7, 2008

Shameless Self-Promotion

Feeling a little down today. I’d like to write but can’t think of a worthy subject. So I decided that I’m a pretty worthy subject. While it’s a little too steeped-in-estrogen for me, I occasionally peruse The Women on the Web, and I hijacked the following points of interest from their profiles. Nothing cures the blues like a healthy dose of narcissism…

What Wows Me:

  • Anyone who starts out with very little and goes on to accomplish a great deal. Without complaining along the way.
  • That, and the feeling of being in love.

I Don’t Care What They Say:

  • Vegans are annoying.
  • You can never spend too much on shoes.
  • Having more than four children is a crime against society.
  • I do look down my nose at you because you didn’t go to college. Even if you make more than I do.
  • I don’t think recycling is going to make a dent.
  • Sometimes, you really just need a cigarette.
Mmmm....Corporatey Goodness

Mmmm....Corporatey Goodness

My Drinks:

  • Coffee
  • Diet Coke
  • SoCo and Lime
  • Guwertztraminer

My Shoes:
Well…I buy the cutest ones I can find on sale. But someday my closet will be lined with Christian Louboutins!

My Foods:

  • Any kind of pasta, preferably with arrabiata.
  • Arabic and Indian food.
  • Egg whites with black beans and black bean salsa and a side of turkey bacon.
  • French fries. I try not to eat them too often, but in all honesty, I could eat them 24 hours a day.
  • Pretty much anything my husband cooks. He’s an amazing chef!
  • Claussen pickles. I could eat an entire jar in one sitting if left to my own devices.

My remedies:

  • Tylenol PM and sleep for a hangover.
  • Vogue and Audrey Hepburn movies for a cold or the flu.
  • Pinot Grigio for a broken heart.

I Love(d) Reading:

The Original Gonzo Journalist

The Original Gonzo Journalist

  • East of Eden, John Steinbeck
  • A Moveable Feast, Ernest Hemingway
  • Hell’s Angels, The Rum Diary, and The Proud Highway, Hunter S. Thompson
  • Revolutionary Road, Richard Yates
  • On the Road, Jack Kerouac
  • Breakfast of Champions, Kurt Vonnegut

I Love(d) Listening to:

  • “Shelter from the Storm,” Bob Dylan
  • “In My Life,” The Beatles
  • “Nothing in My Way,” Keane
  • All of OK Computer, Radiohead
  • “Our Love is Here to Stay,” Frank Sinatra
  • The sound of rain in the morning, while I’m still in bed.
Cooking just got sexy.

Cooking just got sexy.

I Love(d) Watching:

  • “Mad Men”
  • “The Office”
  • “Ugly Betty”
  • Anthony Bourdain’s “No Reservations”
  • The Graduate
  • Vanilla Sky
  • Breakfast at Tiffany’s
  • Lots more…


I Wish I Lived In:

  • A spacious dog-friendly penthouse in one of the following:
  • The 1960s
  • Paris
  • New York
  • Boston (I’m pretty close at the moment)
  • London

I Hoard:

  • Pictures.
  • Shoes.
  • Kisses.

Things I am Miserly About:
Movies and music. Huge waste of money when there are plenty of means of enjoying them without paying a dime.

La Joie de Vivre!

La Joie de Vivre!

I Want to Own:

  • A small Parisian cafe/bookstore in Back Bay.
  • A Mercedes.
  • A passport with dozens of stamps in it.
  • Another Great Dane.
  • A vast and priceless wardrobe.
  • My destiny.

I’m Addicted to:

  • Black eyeliner.
  • “Mad Men.”
  • Lip gloss.
  • Blank notebooks.
  • Carbs.

The First Thing I Do in the Morning is:
Turn on the coffeemaker and wish desperately that I didn’t have to go to work.

I Use:

  • Purple pens.
  • The NYT Web site.

I Miss:
I can’t think of anything. I’m content with almost everything in my life right now.

I Admire:
Barack Obama!

I Respect:
Teenagers who can keep it in their pants.

Dead to Me:

  • The Republican Reich.
  • Skinny jeans.

What Makes Me Sweat:
My family.

What Makes Me Mad:

  • Republicans.
  • “Extreme Home Makeover” when the family doesn’t deserve the house. Oh, you have 12 kids? Sounds like a personal problem.
  • People who hurt animals.
  • People who are mean for no reason (I guess that’s me sometimes).
  • People who take their jobs too seriously.

October 2, 2008

I’m just going to say this, come what may: I’m pretty sure we came from apes…and I also believe in God.

As you may have deciphered from previous posts, I am at somewhat of a crossroads when it comes to religion/spirituality/morality, etc. So in honor of Bill Maher’s upcoming “Religulous,” which I am anxiously awaiting with the eagerness of a kid on Christmas Eve, I thought I’d flesh out my beliefs on creationism vs. science.

I bring this up because I’ve heard that “Religulous” makes a pit stop at the Creation Museum, a massive, multi-million dollar monument to closed-minded stupidity located in Petersburg, Kentucky (*please see my post on the Holy Land Experience as well). Few things anger me more than blatant ignorance and the refusal of über right-wing Christians to accept scientific facts as, well, facts! According to an ABC news poll, 60% of Americans believe that God created the world in six days, meaning six literal, 24-hour days. I really hope that there were a bunch of people who voted multiple times in that poll, because 60% seems disturbingly high. Although, only about 30% of Americans hold a bachelor’s degree…

Regardless, let’s say that 60% of Americans really do take the book of Genesis word for word. The educated among us know better. We understand that the complexities of the universe took billions of years to carve out the world as we know it today. But the Creation Museum caters to those millions of people who cleave to their biblical fairy tales well into adulthood and adopt them as fact. The “museum” posits a biblical chronology for the creation of the world, animals, and human beings. And it does so to a fault. For example, they refute the idea (increasingly accepted among scientists) that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Recent discoveries in velociraptor bones indicate that they had feathers, which supports the theory that birds are their descendants. But dinosaur models at the Creation Museum are inaccurate, no doubt in order to support creationist beliefs. According to my good friend Wikipedia, their Utahraptor is without feathers (despite recent scientific findings to the contrary) and has anatomically incorrect forearms. Now why would that be?

Cartoon or Dogma? You decide.

As someone who was raised by Pentecostal Christians and indoctrinated from a young age into this school of un-thought (if you will), I am well-versed in the ways of the science-hating Christian. And there is absolutely zero logic behind this way of thinking. Many Christians, in particular the sort who might frequent said Creation Museum, accept a literal interpretation of the Genesis story: God hung the stars, made the sun and the moon, and created the Earth as we know it in no more than six days. And I think according to this story, we’ve only been around for something like 6,000 years (maybe less). Archaeological findings and DNA evidence indicate that homo sapiens have been around for about 200,000 years. Dinosaurs were around from 230 million years ago until they became extinct 65 million years ago. Humans and dinosaurs did not live at the same time. And yet, rumor has it that the Creation Museum has on display a dinosaur sporting a saddle. Holy crap (literally).

Question: On what day did God create Spinal Tap, and couldn’t he have rested on that day too?

Sorry, I just had to throw that in there.

Why Christians are so violently opposed to scientific fact is beyond me. I’m not sure where I fit into the religious spectrum right now, but at the very least, I do believe that there is something bigger and much, much smarter than us behind things. Something like a benevolent man behind the proverbial curtain. Anyway, in my opinion, science serves to explain the mechanisms through which God has worked, not to disprove His existence. And as for Genesis, I think of it like this: when a five-year-old asks where babies come from, you tell him something benign about a stork or a cabbage patch or something; you don’t try to explain the gory logistics and biology of it all. In the same way, if Genesis truly is the divine word of the Christian God, do you really think He would bother trying to explain how He created the entire universe? It would blow our minds! So he had to dumb it down for us and package it all up in a nice little fairy tale. The thing is, a five-year-old eventually grows up and realizes he wasn’t dropped off by the stork, but Christians grow up and keep on clinging to their ignorant, self-righteous fairy tales. I think Bill Maher makes this point in “Religulous.” Let the right-wing backlash begin…

FOLLOW UP: I saw “Religulous” on Friday and it was all that I hoped it would be. It is certainly time that we stop looking up and start looking around.

September 22, 2008

Why I Love “Mad Men” and Don’t Want You to Watch It

Last summer, my husband went to Ireland for a month for school. Naturally, I used to opportunity to lose 10 pounds, indulge in daily, guilt-free cocktail hours, and watch all the TV shows I usually don’t when he’s around. Sole possession of the remote control is a beautiful thing, and it led me to my TV-viewing Holy Grail: “Mad Men.”

After watching the first season, waiting with bated breath for each week’s new episode, I was enamored. I am confident that TV has never been so intelligent, so artful, so sinfully entertaining. I watched the entire telecast of last night’s intensely boring Emmys just to see if “Mad Men” would win for Best Drama. I am glad to say it did.

Many people may not have heard of the show. Or they have and haven’t given it a shot. Or they gave it a shot or two and then gave up. Viewership is low for “Mad Men.” Normally this would make me worrisome for the show’s future, but not in this case. Granted, my knowledge of ratings, commercial revenue, and other cogs in the television industry machine are highly limited, but I suspect that a basic cable program with stellar critical reviews and six Emmys after its first season is bound to stay on the air.

And I know why viewership is low: in short, there are a lot of dumb people out there, people who have neither the IQ nor the patience to appreciate a show of this caliber. And that is fine with me. I enjoy being part of an elite and eclectic conglomeration of insightful individuals who love “Mad Men” for all that it is and all that it isn’t. I could write tomes about my thoughts and theories on every single episode. I could sing the show’s praises for hours on end. And the fact that you can’t and (to borrow a line from Jack Nicholson) the fact that I get it makes me feel good, about me.

Why am I so smitten? Let me count the ways…

#10 All of the sexism, in all of its glory.
It’s magnificent, really, seeing how different things were back then makes you appreciate how good they are now. And it makes you realize how far we have to go. And the show explores so many facets of the 20th century female. Betty Draper is the iconic 1950s housewife, contrasted by the secretaries at Don’s office (some of whom want to be just like Betty, and some of whom (very few) actually want a career) and the women Don sleeps with (who are all vastly different from one another except for the fact that they are all headstrong and independent). It is shocking and wildly entertaining to see how the men treat the women.  I don’t know how accurate or exaggerated the portrayal is, but it makes you wonder. I can’t imagine my boss calling me “sweetheart” and tapping me on the ass for a job well done, or my husband telling me to change out of a two-piece swimsuit because it’s immodest.

#9 The fashion. Ohhhh the fashion!
Ok, I understand that we’ve come a long way, ladies. But I secretly think it would kind of fun to strap myself into all sorts of sexy/odd contraptions and mold my body into a pointy-boobed, voluptuous, come-hither hourglass. I love the sweaters, the pencil skirts, the full skirts, the flashy jewelry. In one episode, Joan tells Don’s new secretary to change her shirt at lunch because her “decolletage” is showing. Fabulous.

#8 The sex.
1960 was a fascinating time, with the sexual repression of the 1950s butting heads with the newly emerging sexual revolution. It’s not that these things were never going on behind closed doors before, but no one really talked about them. And “Mad Men” talks about them.

#7 A glimpse of the world our parents grew up in.
I guess I’m dating myself on that point. Maybe it’s the world you grew up in. If so, then I’m sure that “Mad Men” serves up some powerful nostalgia. Personally, I enjoy seeing the way things were for my parents and grandparents. It is my opinion that today’s children are going to be coaxed along and overly-coddled into whining, spineless adults with an unwarranted sense of entitlement. Give me the metal monkey bars and asphalt playgrounds of yesteryear! Kids need to man up! We can’t pave their road to the real world with purple dinosaurs and G-rated drivel.

#6 The men.
They are handsome, well-to-do, and deliciously flawed. Their flashes of brilliance afford them the luxury of not really having to work that hard at all; there’s always someone on a lower rung of the creative ladder to do the less glamorous work. And there’s always a pretty secretary to flirt with during the down time. Somehow, I don’t hate them for their infidelity. On the contrary, I understand it. The nature of their work leaves them always looking for something bigger and better and more exciting, but at the end of the day, they want a hot meal and place to call home when things get out of control (Roger Sterling seemed for a moment to love his wife when a heart attack sent him to the emergency room). But of course, in my fantasy I’m the other woman, and not the woman scorned.

#5 Curves!
In a recent episode, Don and Betty attend a swimsuit fashion show at a country club, and all of the girls are curvy, if not chubby, by today’s standards. I love it. If I could shuttle myself back to 1960, I might look anorexic! I love Joan, the antithesis to the Nicole Richies and Lindsay Lohans of 2008. She’s gorgeous, sexy, seductive. As one of the ad men quips, Joan is not a Marilyn Monroe, Marilyn Monroe is a Joan.

#4 Homophobia, fully fleshed out.
As we faithful viewers recently ascertained, Salvatore has a “beard,” a sweet little wife who is no doubt starved for affection and possibly wise to her husband’s sexual preferences. Of course, this is a small sampling of life for a gay man in the 1960s, but I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that arrangements like theirs truly existed. Joan has her own lesbian proposition, which she tactfully declines, and the girl goes on to let a gentleman caller have his way with her, denying her instincts to placate the norm. It’s so interesting to see what was taboo back then and consider what’s taboo now.

#3 The reality.
My favorite was the real commercial for JFK’s election, a sing-songy “Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy” tune that stuck in your head. And a commercial with Jackie O speaking Spanish to Mexican voters. There are also shots from real TV shows and magazine ads. Matthew Weiner is meticulous in his recreation of all things ’60s, and it’s evident in every detail of every scene. I read that once, while filming, he noticed that some apples on a table were too red and large, and had them changed out for less genetically enhanced versions more fitting of the time period.

#2 The smoking.
Wow.

#1 The booze.
I’m not sure how accurate the deptiction is, but the constant imbibing is delightfully ridiculous. I recently watched an episode of “South Park” in which one of the boys’ dads gets a DUI and is required to go to AA, where he develops a drinking problem because they tell him that alcoholism is a disease; his son wisely tries to convince him that he’s not an alcoholic, he just needs to not drink so much. I think the “Mad Men” set would tend to agree. I’m not saying that the frequent consumption of massive quantities of alcohol is a good thing, but I think our grandfathers had something right. Have a tough problem at work? A major failure? A major success? Have a drink! I myself would keep a flask in my desk if I didn’t have to drive home from work and it weren’t prohibited by company policy. I’d imagine it makes the day a lot more interesting!

Suffice to say, I miss the ’60s, and I didn’t even live through them. I miss the days when women fixed their hair and men could hold their liquor, when music was just getting started and drug-soused writers tackled…well, everything. No global warming ’cause we didn’t know better. No reality television. No tartlet pop stars. Just cigarettes and booze and warm bodies and the untarnished American Dream.

I mean, that’s how it was, right?

September 15, 2008

Dear World, Please Throw Me a Freakin’ Bone

It’s 10:18am, and I’m sitting at my desk at work, blogging when I suppose I ought to be working. I am also compulsively checking my e-mail every 30 seconds or so. And I’m doing that because I sent my resume to a dozen or so places yesterday and am desperately hoping for a response. Suffice to say, my job is not a career, and I’m definitely at the end of my rope in the frustration department.

It’s the Curse of the English Major. I’ll give you a breakdown of my resume. I worked for an accountant for three years while I was in college. I finished my BA in English at the University of Texas at Austin in December 2004 and jumped right into grad school. I finished my master’s in journalism in August 2006. During grad school, I worked as a graduate assistant for a PR course, and I worked for my now husband’s family business doing all the things that no one else had time to do (phones, payroll, errands, etc.). Then we moved to New Hampshire and it took me two months to find my current job at the poor man’s Princeton Review. I won’t name names, but I’ll leave it at this: we should NOT be called a publisher. We “publish” the same exact things every year, for the most part, and if anything new does come along, we lowly editors don’t get to do any of the fun stuff.

I’m in a slump. I don’t think I’ve ever felt accomplished or satisfied in my job. I don’t feel like I’m working my way up toward something better. I believe my salary will definitely be capped much lower than I would like if I don’t do something to change this status quo.

But what.

The resumes I sent out yesterday went to marketing and PR firms. I think that would give me some more creative leeway and perhaps I wouldn’t be chained to a desk all day. It would be fun to have my own firm eventually, so I need to learn the ropes.

The thing is, nothing I’m interested in will accomodate the lifestyle I really want. A big, beautiful New England home outside of Boston; private schools for the kids; an immaculate and ever-growing wardrobe; a sizable shoe allowance; a couple of horses; frequent vacations overseas; an apartment in New York (since we’ll be there quite a bit), etc.

I’m definitely at a crossroads. I’m 25. I think this is my now-or-never moment, but I don’t know what move I’m supposed to make. I feel like my hands are tied and I’m going nowhere fast at my current job. One of the stipulations for my next job will be that I REFUSE to answer the phone. I’ve been answering the phone since I was 16.

But nothing else seems like it would be much better. Of course, I want to be a writer. That would be the ultimate happiness. A brownstone in Back Bay with a desk by a window overlooking the street where I could sit and pen New York Times bestsellers all day. But even successful writers don’t make that much, and nothing has happened to me that’s interesting enough to write about. I stink at fiction. What to do…

I wonder where I’ll be a year from now.

September 11, 2008

Ignorance, thy name is Average American Voter

Does anyone else find it kinda’ disturbing that just about everyone over the age of 18 is allowed to vote in this country?

Ok, let me back up. While I find it disturbing, I also recognize how fabulous it is. What’s truly disturbing is the fact that all too recently, women and minorities didn’t even have the right to vote. I am so grateful to live in a democracy when there are so many people in the world don’t have a voice in their country’s politics. But is it wrong for me to wish that intelligence were a factor in who’s allowed to cast a ballot? Mind you, I’m pretty sure that I myself would fail some kind of political knowledge litmus test, but I do think I’m slightly more informed than the Average American Voter.

Alan Ehrenhalt’s recent Newsweek article “In Search of Rational Voters” makes some excellent and frightening points. We’re all allowed to vote, but are we all truly qualified to vote? Is there any chance for an intelligent, rational electorate? Ehrenhalt quotes political scientist V.O. Key Jr., who boils it down to this: voters make their decisions based on how well things are going for them under the rule of the current political party. Personally, I’m not so sure. If that was the case then Barack Obama would win by a landslide, but the polls so far seem to have him neck and neck with John McCain.

But voters (mainly Republican voters, I believe) are infamous for absorbing information without fact checking. Ehrenhalt gives the following example:

“Polls consistently have shown that for most of the past seven years, a majority of Americans believed Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks. A larger majority believed him to be in league with Al Qaeda somehow. And even more were ready to brand him as an international terrorist.

“(Rick) Shenkman believes, and I think he is right, that the war never would have achieved popular support in this country had most voters known that all of these assertions were false. The truth—that Saddam was a brutal thug, but not an international terrorist—was available to anyone who wished to learn it. The bipartisan 9/11 commission declared definitively in early 2004 that Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. The presidential election was held that fall with roughly half the country utterly mistaken on an issue of vital importance.

“None of this is to say that anyone who voted for George Bush in 2004 was a fool. But anyone who voted for him on the grounds that he had dethroned an international terrorist was, if not exactly a fool, at least badly fooled.

Damn, the truth hurts. But what hurts even more is that I don’t think hindsight is 20/20 for Republicans. I doubt many of them would admit to the aformentioned misinformation. And it’s happening again. They love to blindly accept anything that helps their “cause” and makes the Democrats seem incompetent, unpatriotic, or shockingly liberal. I submit the following two examples, because they are part of the political zeitgeist, but I’m sure there are many, many more.

An article in today’s NYT boldly defended Obama against a new attack ad in which McCain asserts that his opponent is in favor of comprehensive sex education for kindergarteners, and that an Illinois bill responsive to that idea was his only accomplishment in education. Obviously, no one would support equipping kindergarteners with bananans and condoms and warning them about teen pregnancy and venereal disease. That’s absolutely absurd. What Obama was in favor of was administering age-appropriate sex education to all students, with parents given the option of withdrawing their children from any instruction they deemed inappropriate. As for kindergarteners, the objective was to teach them how to protect themselves against sexual predators. “Learning about sex before learning to read?” asks the narrator in the McCain ad.

It must also be said that Barack Obama has a fine, if not stellar, record in bettering education for American students.

“In another part of the advertisement, Mr. McCain maintains that Mr. Obama’s sole achievement in education was the sex-education bill. In reality, Mr. Obama not only helped administer a $49 million education project in Chicago in the 1990s, but also sponsored or co-sponsored measures that increased the number of charter schools in Illinois, and expanded federal grants to summer school programs and to historically black colleges.”

What bothers me more than the lies in the ad is that Republicans are going to buy into it without doing the research, because they like anything negative about Barack Obama and they either don’t care enough or aren’t smart or forward-thinking enough to investigate further. It’s infuriating!

Equally Cro-Magnon are their diatribes against Barack Obama’s completely innocent use of “lipstick on a pig.” It’s a metaphor. I’m sorry that Sarah Palin is a woman, and women happen to wear lipstick, and the word “lipstick” appears in the metaphor. Playing the gender card in this situation is like saying the mention of a black hole is racist. And I have to note that even if Palin were the butt of a joke, she would be the lipstick, not the pig. But again, Republican voters love this stuff. They can’t get enough of it. I heard a Republican radio host say recently that he loves it when people call him by his full name – Barack Hussein Obama – because “that many more people won’t vote for him.” I love how he touted the ignorance of his own party. That’s impressive.

In closing, my friends, I ask that you arm yourselves with truth and an open mind before you head to the polls. And if we have to wake up to the McCain/Palin Reich on January 19, I suggest arming yourself with strong drink and a visa application.

September 10, 2008

I Gave My Word to Stop at Third

Ok, I can’t take credit for that. I saw it on a T-shirt. But it aptly summarizes the rant I’m about to engage in.

Anyone who saw the 2008 VMAs on Sunday knows that comedian Russell Brand took more than a few jabs at the Jonas Brothers’ purity rings, and by Monday morning the inevitable backlash was well underway. Were the comments inappropriate? That is entirely a matter of personal opinion. I’m sure he offended the Jonas Brothers (by the way, who the hell are these kids? and why do they have more money than me?) but anyone familiar with Brand’s brand (haha) of comedy should be prepared for such remarks.

Among his critics was singer and purity-ring-wearer Jordin Sparks, who said, while accepting an award, “It’s not bad to wear a promise ring because not everybody, guy or girl, wants to be a slut.” This is a ridiculous and ignorant comment. Choosing to have sex does not make one a slut. My now husband and I lived together for five years, sans purity rings, before getting married. And according to Sparks, that makes me a slut.

(Sidenote: Ironically, one Ms. Paris Hilton (a.k.a. Sex Tape McGee) chimed in in support of the Jonases (Joni?). Please.)

What exactly is a purity ring? Let’s turn to my good friend Wikipedia:

“Purity rings,  or chastity rings, originated in the United States in the 1990s among Christian affiliated sexual abstinence groups. The rings are sold to adolescents, or to parents so that the rings may be given to their adolescent children as gifts. It is intended that wearing a purity ring is accompanied by a religious vow to practice celibacy until marriage. The ring is usually worn on the left ring finger with the implication that the wearer will remain abstinent until it is replaced with a wedding ring. Although the ring is worn on the hand, where others can see, its main purpose is to serve as a constant reminder to the wearer of their commitment between themselves and God to remain pure until marriage.”

......until prom night.

......until prom night.

Ok, first of all, I need to stress how absolutely CREEPY it is that these kids are making a purity vow to their parents. Your parents should have nothing to do with your sexuality (or non-sexuality). And one of these traditions involves girls pledging their virginity to their fathers, something I cannot begin to wrap my brain around because I’m too busy throwing up. Case in point: Miley and Billy Ray Cyrus. Ick. Ick. Ick.

On to the politics of these shenanigans. For the most part, Christians and Republicans (ha! as if the two weren’t one and the same) believe in abstinence-only sex education. Hence the purity rings. I know I’m supposed to be a good Democrat and leave Sarah Palin’s family alone, but her daughter’s pregnancy is proof positive that abstinence-only sex education is ineffective. According to the Guttmacher Institute, “approximately 14% of the decline in teen pregnancy between 1995 and 2002 was due to teens’ delaying sex or having sex less often, while 86% was due to an increase in sexually experienced teens’ contraceptive use.” The fact is, teenagers are going to have sex, and many of them will be wearing promise rings when they do so. Parents need to recognize that abstinence may not be their child’s choice (six in 10 women and five in 10 men have had sex before their 18th birthdays – you think none of them were Christians?) and they are only hurting them by not informing them about contraceptives. If your kid is not going to remain a virgin, would you rather have them healthy, or knocked up and riddled with STDs?

Don’t believe me? I myself was brought up in an abstinence-only household. Yeah…didn’t stick. I didn’t make any unrealistic vows to myself or my parents, but I knew I could never go to them to talk about contraceptives. And if I had gotten pregnant (I was smart enough not to), they never would have found out, if you know what I mean. Luckily, my small town high school in Big Red Texas offered pretty thorough sex education curriculum. I remember abstinence being stressed as the only fool-proof method of evading pregnancy and STDs (and eternal hellfire), but we also learned about other practical means of preventing those things. I also recall watching a circa 1970 cartoon about gonorrhea (a big green germ who said, “Hi, I’m gonorrhea! I attack your genitals!”). That’ll scare you straight.

My point is, parents are ignoring the truth if they think their kids will definitely, without a doubt, wait until marriage. And while I understand they have the best of intentions, teenagers who make these purity promises aren’t being realistic. I’m sure there are many who make it down the aisle having successfully kept it in their pants (I remember a guy at my parents’ church who was getting married. He was 30. And a virgin. I’m sorry, that doesn’t make you awesomely pure, it makes you a loser. Ten more years and they could’ve made a movie about him). But I think a lot of these teenagers are saying one thing when what they really mean is “I promise to wait until.” Until I move out. Until college. Until I fall in love. Until I meet Michael Phelps. Etc.

And that’s fine. But the idea that sex outside of marriage is a sin is a matter of personal opinion. Furthermore, I find it very offensive that they use the term “purity,” which implies that all non-virgins are inherently impure, which simply is not true. It is very holier-than-thou to get upset when their choices are made fun of when they themselves are casting a world of judgment on everyone who makes a different choice.

I do believe that sex is something special, if not sacred. But I think it is irresponsible to teach teenagers that there’s only one option, to wait until marriage. It just won’t happen. Right, Mrs. Palin?

September 3, 2008

A Newborn Epicurian: Things That Make Me Happy

George Carlin once said that he had decided to stop praying to God and start praying to Joe Pesci, as praying to either yielded the same 50/50 success rate, and because Joe Pesci “looks like a guy who can get things done.” While I haven’t decided to stop praying to God, I have decided to stop asking Him for things. I don’t believe He is nearly as involved in our day-to-day lives as Christians (and Muslims and Jew and others) would have us believe. I think God expects us to be a great deal more self-reliant than we think we are capable of being. And I think that the most we can expect of Him is to give us peace and clarity of thought during difficult times.

So in my never-ending quest for truth and happiness, I’ve decided that my current state of mind could best be described as Epicurean. And of course, this conclusion was reached through select readings from Wikipedia. Epicureanism is based on the teachings of Epicurus, a Greek philosopher who believed the greatest good lies in pursuing pleasure (in moderation) and avoiding pain, and therein lies the greatest happiness one can achieve.

Epicurus

Epicurus, Kick-Ass Philosopher

Well, all-pleasure/no-pain is certainly a philosophy I can get in bed with. But I’m not one of those logical thinkers for whom there absolutely cannot be a God. In my mind, there logically has to be a God. I have no scientific basis for my belief in God, but it is clear that the world is simply teeming with supportive evidence. And humans are just too weird, to vastly different from all other creatures to be the result of some universal game of chance. I believe in evolution – obviously, that’s how we got here. But evolution does not explain a soul, and I’m convinced we all have one.

But I digress. My point is that any philosophy I’m going to adhere to has to have a God explanation. God through an Epicurian lens is as follows (quoth Wikipedia): The gods are as real as we, but they live in a different realm and don’t intervene in ours. The Riddle of Epicurus tackles the problem of evil (does that have anything to do with original sin?):

“God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can. If he wants to and cannot, then he is weak – and this does not apply to god. If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful – which is equally foreign to god’s nature. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful, and so not a god. If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them?”

All excellent questions, and ones I’d like to figure out myself. Almost 2,300 years since the guy died and we’re no closer to an answer.

I like this. Epicurus gets me. Have fun. Avoid discomfort. Never stop asking questions. Believe in God but rely on yourself. And as for death? “Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist.” I think I can run with this for awhile.

All of that said, I’d like to start enumerating the things that make me happy, the things that bring me pleasure, since (for as long as this newly adopted ideology serves to get me through the night) those things should be the focus of my existence. Voila:

  • kisses from my husband
  • Buddy, my dog, and how happy he is to see me when I get home
  • sleeping in (but not too late) on Saturday
  • rain, rain, rain, rain, rain
  • rainy weekends
  • any book I can’t put down
  • writing, when it flows
  • Italian food and a good glass of wine
  • movies that make me cry
  • love, when it’s unexpected
  • a nice wedge of brie
  • walking through Boston Common with a cup of coffee
  • lingering at a bar with a good friend
  • the feeling of accomplishment
  • New York City in the winter
  • Paris, absolutely any time
  • staying in bed with a cold and a stack of magazines
  • knee-deep snow
  • dressing up
  • The Beatles
  • just about anything from the 1960s, for that matter
  • traveling
  • my favorite TV shows: Mad Men, The Office, Seinfeld, Anthony Bourdain
  • coffee and PostSecret on Sunday morning
  • the feeling of being up before the sun and driving to the airport
  • Christmas
  • successfully doing something I thought I couldn’t do

More to come. Suffice to say, I’m feeling pretty content right now.

August 14, 2008

The Road Quite Frequently Taken (or, Dear Stay-at-Home Moms, Please Stop B***hing About Your Lives)

I, a 20-something, recently married, gainfully employed, and as yet childless woman, enjoy reading parenting articles, especially those targeted at the proverbial Stay-At-Home Mother.  Why? I am inexplicably fascinated by women who choose this career path.  It boggles my mind for numerous reasons well beyond my comprehension.  To a certain extent, I understand the desire to spend copious amounts of time with your child(ren), being able to wield a powerful influence over their still malleable little lives.  But I simply cannot grasp why any woman would want to sacrifice contact with other adults, spend an inordinate amount of time cleaning up the most foul of human substances, fold clothes, cook, clean, carpool…and perhaps most of all, I couldn’t stand the idea of living off of my husband and making zero financial contribution to my family.  I understand that many mothers justify this with explanations ranging from the cost of day care exceeding whatever income the wife could bring in, to the belief that the role of homemaker is, in fact, a job, and a priceless one at that.

Par exemple, I submit the following Today Show article:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26141692/

I believe the gist of this story is that stay-at-home moms are staying home even more because of the country’s economic crisis.  The cost of gas is too high to take Johnny on daily play dates.  Going to the movies is too expensive so these destitute families must go to Blockbuster instead.  What a pity.

I guess my problem is the fact that these women are complaining about the lives they have chosen.  No one has to have children.  And it is my contention that with nearly seven billion people in this world, if you decide to make even more you’d better have a damn good reason.  It’s not like there’s a people shortage. So, you don’t have enough money because your family is surviving on one income and you can’t get a job because you have to stay at home with your kids and day care is too expensive.  Well, that was your CHOICE!  You could have had no kids and you and your husband could both have a job and you wouldn’t be stretched to the limit financially.  But you chose to have children, and then you have the gall to get on-line and complain to the world about it?  Well frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.

Furthermore, if you are only capable of working at a job the barely covers the cost of day care, you probably aren’t in a financial position that facilitates the raising of your spawn.  I also don’t appreciate you bringing your screaming toddlers to otherwise quiet places.  If you’re spending so much time with them, you’d think they’d behave a little better.

It is 2008, not 1950.  We are capable of doing so much more with our lives, ladies.  And we CAN have it all – the wonderful husband, the beautiful kids, and the successful career.  Anna Wintour.  Michelle Obama.  Maureen Orth.  The fabulous Nancy Pelosi has five children and seven grandchildren, and she rocks the House of Representatives!

Successful working mothers set a great and important example for their children.  Sons will learn the merits of assertive, independent women and seek that out in their future mates; more importantly, it is likely that they will learn to understand and appreciate the workings of a household in which both husband and wife share domestic duties.  And daughters will learn that they can do so very much in life.

I don’t know about you, but I plan to pull up to the soccer game in a Mercedes, not a minivan.