Catching Up (Or Trying To)

 So, yeah, I ran just a little behind last week, and didn't get a chance to do my SciFund Challenge homework, and as penance, I'm posting it publicly here.  This might be more punishment for you than for me, and for that I apologize.  But here goes...

Title:  Choose Not the Path of Apathy

Intended Audience: General public, especially those with an interest in the outdoors for recreation of other activities.

I’m sure you’re asking why on Earth one would study the interactions of amphibians and plants, and I don’t blame you one bit.  To most reasonable people, the connection is tenuous at best.  The two groups don’t compete with one another for most resources, neither preys on the other all that often, and they don’t have any parasitic interactions, either.  There’s no intelligent purpose behind looking into the connections of the two groups, any more than there’s any cause to looking at how cell phones impact refrigerators. Unless of course, you're interested in this little frog.

Amphibians - Golden Frogs in a Plant

Until you scratch the surface, that is.  And then you start to see the ways this odd couple of the wetland world belongs together perfectly.  Like plants forming the physical structures of the habitat through which amphibians must navigate.  Or amphibians’ appetite for insects that otherwise consume far more plant tissue and spread pathogens among plants.  And there’s the nitrogenous wastes from amphibians that fertilize plants.  Finally the protection that plants give to amphibians from mammalian, avian, and reptilian predators.  The connection totally makes sense now, right? 

That’s the thing about science, the sense is all there, sometimes you simply need someone to explain it to you, or you need to have a few experiments under your belt before you see it first.  In the US we tend to talk about people who “get” science and math, and people who don’t, as if understanding science is some inherent trait in only select people.  Thankfully, that’s not the case, anyone can understand science, and in fact, all children start out as scientists.  Exploring the world and testing to see cause and effect- that’s science.  Observing what goes on in front of you intently, trying to hear patterns in the sounds others make- that’s science.  Trying one step, having it not work out, trying a different step, and repeating this process until you finally get your feet to work and support your weight- that’s science.  It’s all very rudimentary, but it’s science nonetheless. 

Let’s go back to those amphibians and plants that I study, and think about why on Earth they might be important to you.  Whether you engage in science on a daily basis or not, you matter in the scientific process, because some of dollars help to fund research through taxes, through company Research and Development budgets, and through donations to charitable organizations like the American Cancer Society.  You also matter because much of today’s science- the “applied” portion of it- has as its purpose improving your life in some way, shape, or form, and you matter because the people you elect as your representatives help (or hinder) shape science funding and education policy decisions, for better or worse. 

We’ve established why amphibians and plants matter to each other, but why would these things matter to you?  For one thing, both can be used as ways to measure the quality of a habitat, through the Amphibian Index of Biotic Integrity and Floristic Quality Assessment Index, respectively.  Whether or not you live in a wetland like where these organisms are found (and I truly hope you don’t, for many reasons), those habitats benefit you, through water filtration and flood buffering, as habitat for organisms you might enjoy slightly more than amphibians like migratory birds and waterfowl, as recreational places to visit and enjoy the outdoors, and through increased property values because of access to those high quality recreational areas. 

I could go on and on about why to care about the environment, but I’m running short on time this week so I, cutting out at this point.  Let me know your thoughts in the comments. Is the environment important to you?  Why or why not? 

What a weird world...

This weekend brought an end to the life of Usama bin Laden, possibly one of the humans most feared by the US in a *long* time.  He founded and was the charismatic recruiter for Al Quaida, a terrorist organization that attacked the US on our own soil and beyond.  At the news of his death, there were videos of dancing, singing, whooping-and-hollering celebration in many locations, inside the US and out (mainly US-affiliated bases, embassies, etc. from my understanding).  It was as if evil itself had been conquered.  Even our President broke into broadcast television to announce the news and lauded the event with a proclamation of "Justice has been done."

As a pacifist and a mama, I'm torn right now.  To celebrate the death of a human at the hands of another human is wrong in my eyes.  We are all people, whether good or bad.  And to celebrate this death when it will surely be followed by a new leader seems preemptive and presumptive.  More than that I have to ask why are we celebrating like this?  This is a man with many, many horrible deeds on his head, no doubt, and multiple standing criminal charges against him.  If he was truly the mastermind behind the attacks on September 11th, 2001, then he has over 3,000 deaths that are his responsibility in that one day.  Unfortunately, he will never be brought to trial, so we will never see the evidence for or against his involvement there.  I understand that for many people, they have waited for this day since then, and this brought a bit of closure, but let's please not mistake closure for justice.  I don't know many of us who teach our children that justice means "an eye for an eye" any more, and the best way to teach is by example.  This celebration certainly doesn't teach our children non-violence or respect for life, either. 

While I'm confounded by our response to this event, I'm also baffled at the lack of perspective.  I must state again that yes, this was a very bad man, but I've heard many compare him to Saddam Hussein or Adolph Hitler lately.  How accurate is this?  For one thing, he was never a leader of state- in fact, his own state revoked his citizenship years ago; he was a stateless leader of a stateless group.  The scale, also, is far from similar.  Hitler had the deaths of millions on his shoulders, and Hussein hundreds of thousands.  Here in the US, we have a more similar death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan each, and yet we don't hold our leaders or ourselves responsible for those deaths.  We loose more humans each year to drugs, poverty, gang violence, suicide, and malnutrition each than how many we have lost to bin Laden.  Sixty-six years ago, the suicide of Hitler brought outrage that he would not be held responsible for and face trial for the murders which he instigated, and would therefore he would never face justice.  Two days ago, we declared justice for orders of magnitude fewer deaths to be an assassination. 

How does one person instill so much fear and hatred in an entire nation?  How have we changed so drastically in the time since World War II?  Have we become this much more blood-thirsty and violent?  Have we this little regard for human life?  Is it due to attributes of bin Laden- his skin color, his nationality, or his religion?  Is it because he attacked us on our own soil?  What causes people to think and behave this way?  Whatever it is, it certainly isn't compassion or rationality.  It certainly is nothing that I'm proud to see, let alone be a part of.  How do I explain this to my son- that even though our nation is acting in this way, it is not OK for him to emulate these sentiments, and that I can not condone these actions?  How do I explain this and still teach him to be proud of our country, the principles upon which we were founded, and things we have accomplished?  How do I instill in him this nationalism, pride, and patriotism, when I find it so hard to continue those feelings in my own mind? 

My father was raised in a country of which he was proud, and he spoke up when he saw it going a way he did not like or approve; he died at a time when we were heading in the right direction and seemed to be getting back on track.  He raised me to be proud of this country, and to believe that we could change- he was sure it would by the time my sister and I had grown up.  I feel like I've been let down, and like he's been let down.  Worst of all, I feel lied to about what a great nation we are.  My consolation is the people with whom I surround myself, and hearing voices of reason ring out above the cacophony of negativity.  It's still an uphill battle, and there's still a lot of fighting left to do in and for this country before we'll be a shadow of our former self, but there are people willing to fight.  We're working together, and finding each other, and slowly we will gain ground.  We will because we must.  We will because the US needs this change toward humanity, compassion, and reason.  We will because the next generation will not be lied to. 

Resourceful

Lately, we've discovered duck eggs.  Never many at a time, just a few here and there mixed in with our meat CSA egg orders.  I love them!  Their wonderfully flavored, beautiful yolks, and slightly different qualities than regular chicken eggs.  In baked goods, they easily rise half again (or more) compared to chicken eggs.  They're also a bit bigger than our usual, but our usual eggs are only about a medium/large size according the standards.  Duck eggs are easily extra large.  Just cooking eggs bring a while new dimension of flavor to omelets and scrambled eggs (although I'll admit, fried chicken eggs are better than fried duck eggs).  They stand out front and center nicely. 

It doesn't seem like there should be much of a difference, comparing chicken and duck eggs, especially when talking about regular old domesticated things.  Farmers have most likely been selecting for similar traits in both birds- size and number of eggs, health as adults, low fragility of egg shells, etc.  But the end-products are worlds apart.  I would assume that it's the little details- little as in actual size.  I don't think there can be many "big" details in an egg of any size, except maybe ostrich eggs.  Differences in the presence or absence of chemicals, the proportions of the chemicals that are in the egg, that sort of thing.  Whatever the reason, I think I've found a new tool in my cookbook.

So what do duck eggs have to do with anything other than culinary matters?  Well, I at least think it serves as a great reminder that even given fairly similar products- even the same packaging- the source matters.  Whether that new T-shirt comes from a local thrift store, an organic manufacturer in the US, or a national brand made in China and sold in a big-box store, the source of two very comparable products can be night and day difference.  I've heard a lot of talk lately (like this story, on our local NPR last week) about fair trade, local, and organic products.  The discussion is typically framed as "Is it worth it?" or "Is it a good value?" or "Can you afford this?" and I get that those are important in our current economy.  But please understand, whoever might be reading this, that in times like this it's especially important to stand up for our principles.  In the case of fair trade, it's a human rights issue.  Why do US workers deserve to make a fair wage, if our brethren in China, Malaysia, or El Salvador don't?  Why do we deserve to feed our families more than workers in developing countries?  In the case of local products, why shouldn't we band together to keep more of our dollars in our community instead of in multi-nation profit margins?  Why shouldn't we help our neighbor keep their shop or farm going instead of keeping stocks high?  And in the case of organics, why shouldn't we reward companies with similar beliefs to ours?  Why shouldn't we support transparency instead of obfuscation? 

These things matter.  We matter.  ALL people matter.  And if we decide now that our pocket books are more important than helping our fellow humans, then we really don't deserve all the gains we've made thus far.  If we can't see the forest for the trees, we don't deserve any of the products from either.  It's when push comes to shove that our principles are tested, and it's then that it's most crucial that we stand up and be counted. 

Perspective

I got into a discussion recently with a friend of mine, and it eventually turned to surrogacy and his ambivalence toward it.  When I inquired, he said that his reservations were due to his respect for the environment and his concern about over-population.  As an ecologist, I can understand this point of view.  Mind you, this same person drives an SUV, has a huge house and regularly leaves appliances on instead of flipping a switch.  He also does some great things from an environmental perspective, but this is still a person who has a child and has a sizable ecological footprint.  Needless to say, my perception that he was calling me a hypocrite stung quite a bit. 

It stung for a reason- his explanation for his feelings were a canard, quite frankly.  Of course over-population is a problem, but so is over consumption by individuals, and he's guilty of his fair share of that.  But if we stick to over-population and surrogacy, we're left with possibly the smallest way to impact the natural increase of the human population that exists.  Surrogacy makes up less than 1% of live births in the US today.  Making surrogacy illegal or prohibitively restricted would cause a change in the birth rate by a pittance.  However, unplanned pregnancies in the US (which includes my friend's daughter and grandson, and my own son) account for approximately 50% of all live births in the US.  Changing that number would do far more good without the question the human rights and ethics entering the equation. 

It was a very difficult discussion, and neither of us felt totally comfortable afterward, but I think it was worth having.  We, as a species, are at a turning point right now, I feel.  We can either learn to get along and respect our differences as we go forward, or we can continue the old ways of discrimination and demonizing the other.  If we can set human rights as definitively a top priority, then we'll be doing much better than we are now, and there's a chance we can make it.  If we can't- if we decide that competition is still more important than co-operation- then we're done.  If we acquiesce our humanity, then we don't deserve to continue.  I feel myself turning more into a cynical nihilist in my old age.  I really dislike the people that promote this change in me. 

Rights and Interests

Specifically here, I'm thinking of children' rights and interests, but also the broader sense of both.  We talk quite a bit about children' rights, although ironically the US is one of the few developed nations that has yet to sign the UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child (but you can help change that here), and some groups have even started talking about the rights of the unborn lately.  I don't think that's a healthy place to go, personally, to consider the "rights" of the unborn, because they are dependent on another person at that point, so you'd have two competing sets of rights and you would essentially have to place a value on one over the other- and valuing people in a hierarchical way leads to bad things. 

We can however speak of the interests of children before they are born, in part because interests don't have the same moral imperative- generally speaking- as rights.  It is in the best interests of a child that they be taken care of by someone with whom they have a close relationship already and not to be sent to a stranger for eight hours a day, but a child simply has a right to be cared for by competent adult(s) who will not be negligent of the child while they are watching them, for one example.  Rights are inalienable, interests are not. 

Approximately half of all pregnancies in the US are unplanned, so I'm willing to bet that in about half of all US pregnancies no one has considered the best interests of a child until the pregnancy is underway.  It's not a question tons of people think about before they have kids- "Is bringing a child into this situation in the child's best interest?"  Often, the question is framed from the parents' point of view- "Is now a good time to have a child?"  Maybe it's a subtle difference, but it is a difference, and there are definitely times when this distinction could lead to very different answers. 

Specifically, in the case of balancing time and money.  When one has the time for children, one may not have the money for children, and vice versa.  Children need both, and a lot of each.  As a society, we tend to say that the first scenario (time but not money) is a bad thing.  We talk about children having more children to more greatly benefit from social services, or that a financially strapped couple "should have waited" and so on.  The second case (money but not time), we tend to brush off as not a problem.  The parent will hire a nanny, take extended leave, whatever, but the presence of money makes the scenario perfectly alright.  As a society, we ignore the fact that both scenarios lead to stress.  Financial stress in the first case, but time stress in the second.  In either case, the child is being brought into the life of a parent or parents who are going to be under stress before the child is born.  Is that in the best interests of any child? 

And more importantly, is it in the best interests of our society to essentially value the lives and families of the rich more than the poor?  If children of lower class families are worthy of our scrutiny concerning whether or not their parents made the right choice, aren't the children of the upper class worthy of the same scrutiny?  Conversely, aren't both families equally worthy of us butting out of their parent's business so long as the children are happy, healthy and well-loved?  In the US, money most definitely buys added rights, it seems.

Generalizing Specifics

Earlier this week, I got into a rather heated argument with someone whom I had considered a friend.  We knew that we had very different religious views, mine being still in flux in the agnostic/atheist range, and hers being very much settled on fundamentalist Christian.  She believes in the literal interpretation of the Bible and the unchanging nature of faith.  I believe in correcting position as data indicates and in religious texts as wonderfully symbolic stories.  I trust Ocham's Razor, she trusts her prayers.  And in the end, she decided that I was anti-god and anti religion and called me thus.  I offer my deepest apologies for coming across this way if anyone else has taken that meaning- it is not my intent, and I will do my best to not be like that.

What she didn't realize is that I am not anti-god, I just don't agree with her view of god; I am not anti-religion, just anti-her-religion.  I am perfectly fine accepting all kinds of religious beliefs, until they affect more than the individual believer.  The whole idea of "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose".  Everyone has the right to their religious beliefs, until those beliefs start to affect others or until it leads to the denial of reality.  Then, you've hit some one in the nose instead of stopping your fist.

It's a common mistake for humans- generalizing in inappropriate circumstances.  Generalizing has it's usefulness.  Generalizing lets us have expectations, and gives us an advantage on knowing how to react in a situation.  If our ancestors recognized all large cat-like creatures as dangerous, we don't have to wait for the first person to be mauled before deciding that a new species of large cat should be feared and beginning to run away.  But generalizing our fellow humans, especially in today's globalized world where we interact with so many more people, can be even more dangerous than not generalizing large cats.  False generalities can lead to incorrect expectations, misinterpretations and wrong assumptions. All of this can lead to more difficulty than is necessary as well as strife, conflict and pain.

Dealing in facts instead of Truths tends to have this effect in most cases.  The important truths that Dwight and I are trying to teach Ken are Peace, Love, Honesty, Respect, Work, Humility and Community.  It's not an easy battle.  As a four year old, he grapples constantly with the idea of good and bad guys.  He wants to know along what lines he can divide the world into these simple binomials, when simple binomials are nearly existent in humans.  Even something as simple as sex isn't really neatly divided into male and female.  Humans are filled with continua.  For this reason, we're trying to stress to him that things people are not good or bad- god and bad are reserved for actions.  Everyone has good and bad things that they do, but that doesn't define them.  The same goes for things and ideas- they are not good or bad, they are tools that can be used for good or bad purposes.  It's pointless to be pro- or anti-any THING.  Things, people, ideas all exist, and can not be made to no longer exist, for their being here has changed the world in some way.  Instead, be pro- or anti-harmful actions.  Life is much more simple that way.  And most likely, the pain will be less.

Play the Changes

Tonight was the Yo-yo Ma/Silk Road Ensemble concert for Ken and I at Blossom Music Center.  It was kind of last minute-ish as I only really noticed anything about it this week.  We managed to get lawn tickets, and kids under twelve are free on the lawn for Blossom Festival shows, so it was a great cheap evening and come on- kids need to see great cellists, right? 

I'll admit it was about 180 degrees from what I had expected, but it was spectacular none the less.  Yo-yo Ma- my original reason for wanting to go- was there mainly as a concert master and for one encore piece only.  The show was very much about his Silk Road Ensemble, a group composed of a whole range of ethnicities, cultures, and musical traditions, all sharing the common thread of being somehow associated with the historic Silk Road.  Inspiration for their compositions range from traditional Chinese songs, to Persia, to gypsy to Greek influences.  Lots of traditional instruments like the khaen (or a relative), the gaita, the pipa and the tabla.  Really, it's fusion music to the Nth degree.

There's no hiding the fact that this summer has been difficult for Ken and I.  Two passionate individuals with a healthy dose of obstinance in each, and very different goals for their time together.  To say we butt heads periodically is the understatement of the year.  Lately, with my time even more limited due to teaching, it's been getting worse.  I approached tonight with at least a little trepidation, especially considering how the day started at home.  The start to the day include blatant disobedience and much intentional button-pushing.

Come 7:30 PM, we were settled on the lawn at Blossom and discussing the evenings events.  He had some time to unwind (read- go crazy) and the show started at eight.  As soon as the music started, it was like a switch was flipped.  He was listening intently, and asking questions (quietly, even!), staring in rapt attention at the performers.  He was describing what images the music brought to his mind, and the images tied in to the actual descriptions we had read, showing that he most likely paid attention to our conversation.  It was a magical and Earth-shaking night, and something of which I was in desperate need. 

I never imagined myself as a mother.  My image of motherhood had been so broken after dad died, I was positive that my being in that position as primary care-giver and nurturer would be a disaster.  Now I can't imagine life without the title of "mama" or "parent" being part of my experiences.  Being a parent is a beautiful, horrific, devastating, uplifting series of events.  It's the thrill of discovery and the joy of true love and the humility of an education all wrapped into one day, or even a few moments.  It's the only thing I can think of that is every bit as tortuous as it is ecstatic, with a fair share of flat out disgusting thrown in for good measure. 

That's why I do what I do.  Every person that desires it, deserves to have the experience of parenting.  And I, admittedly selfishly, enjoy being a part of that process.  I like helping others get to that point.  Surrogacy and egg donation are often described as "journeys" and they very much are just that.  Just as a shirpa guides travelers to go where they wish, surrogates and egg donors assist others attain what they want.  It's a struggle for all involved, their are extreme physical demands, and their may be bumps, and the outcome may be less than what was intended, but together all parties involved walk side by side and help each other navigate the path. 

That journey continues into parenthood, with the parent and child taking up the hiking staffs.  Ken has risen to the challenge of me, and I have risen to the challenges that are parenthood.  We have stooped down to pick each other up when we fell.  And together we continue- up and down, right and left, creating a dance that is every bit as creative and destructive and just as important as the dance of Shiva and Kali.  Together, we have grown a hundred feet taller than I ever thought either of us could be.  I would not be the person I am today without him, and he would not be the person he is without me- for better or for worse.  All I can do is fight the human parts of myself and try my best to ensure that there are more notches on the "better" side than the "worse" side of the equation.  All I can do is try my best to help him to be better than me, and to leave the world a little better than we found it.

Yes, I still exist; no, I'm not in London

If, we've emailed in the past, you may have received an unfortunate email from me recently.  This email stated that I was in London, England, had been mugged, and was receiving no assistance from the embassy or the police.  The simple reason I wasn't getting any help from anyone- I wasn't in London.  I was at home.  The person who sent the email was also not in London, but in Nigeria (not joking!).  My email account was hacked.  It's now back under control, albeit in much disarray.  The perpetrator not only sent out fraudulent emails, but ransacked my space by deleting all contacts, sent emails, my inbox, and all other emails in that account.  They also changed a bunch of security settings and forwarded my email address to lkregulla@yahoo.com (note the two "L"s).  I'm back in the process of restoring order to my cyber-world.

Proximally, no harm was done.  No one with whom I've had communication sent any sensitive information to the scam artist.  There was no rash of slander, libel, absurdity, or meanness.  I did, however, hear from many people with whom I don't have as much communication as I would like, through no fault of anyone's, just the byproduct of hectic lives.  That was the only upside of the whole thing- the outpouring of concern and reconnecting. 

Ultimately, the episode has severely shaken my faith in humanity.  I've heard of internet scam artists, I've been the recipient of fraudulent emails, but I've always viewed it with an air of humor.  Surely, no one believes these emails, right?  Everyone knows enough to be skeptical about requests for money or claims of international lottery winnings, right?  And the email addresses utilized for this end are dedicated emails without an honest, real person on the other side, right?  How wrong one can be. 

I had a strong password.  I used different passwords for different accounts.  I don't use public computers.  I thought I did everything right.  Again, how wrong one can be.  I'm thankful that there was no horrible, or even a bad outcome to this situation.  I'm hurt to be reminded that people do engage in malicious and fraudulent behavior.  I'm glad to know that if push came to shove, I have friends that would have my back.  And they can recognize me from some stranger- mainly due to having the "mouth of a poetic sailor", my good grammar, and my invulnerability.  I <3 my friends.

I mentioned earlier that the scam artist was most likely from Nigeria.  This assertion is based on their IP address, and I do realize that IP addresses can lie (not that I have any experience- cough- Doctor Who- cough).  But it seems ironic that this particular person originated from Nigeria, the stereotyped home of internet scams.  Nigeria also happens to have a history of violence and economic disparity possibly worse than our own economic divide.  There's arguably a reason people are desperate and resort to desperate measures there.  Is this what we want for more of the world?  Ethnic/sectarian divisiveness, economic and social oppression, and general melee to make individuals resort to tactics of last resort?  This is a globalized world, and national borders no longer contain criminals, violence, oppression and hopelessness.  National boundaries also cannot contain hope, justice, love, equality, freedom and tolerance.  Which world are you helping to create?  How are you helping to shape the future?

Perfection

In today's world, it's easy to get wrapped up in flaws and short-comings.  There is a huge selection of "self-help" books based on the premise that you should do better.  Diet industries point out our physical size and proportions.  Tutoring and test-preparation services point out our intellectual needs.  Seminars, retreats, and meetings exist to help us overcome our flaws. 

At the same time, we are shown by marketers an ever increasingly false depiction of humans.  Airbrushing, Photoshopping, extensive makeup, multiple "handlers" and specialized clothing (support garments, for one) give the impression of perfection when trying to sell us products.  The message is that "Perfect people buy this.  You can be one step closer to perfect if you do, too."  We are pressured to be our best and recognize all our faults- that's how producers make money.  Many entrepreneurs are billionaires because they could recognize a way to make money off of insecurity. 

Contrast this with the message of "Love is blind."  I'm not going to go into the religious aspects of it, because I think the phrase itself has come to mean something far bigger than just its spiritual ties.  I'm also not entirely sure that I agree with the statement.  I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments, but not the exact words.  Love between humans does see flaws, but loves them as part of you, or wants to help you overcome them, not that humans delude ourselves into thinking our beloved is faultless.  Real, true, deep love is about the person, and flaws are a part of people.  To love while not seeing flaws is to worship blindly, and in human relationships, that isn't a healthy thing.  That leads to some pretty big disappointments.  Love means loving the person, faults and all.

All that being said, I think everyone deserves one person in their life who equates them with perfection.  One person that idolizes you and worships you.  That person may come into your life and leave, or they may eventually come to love you as they discover the flaws, but to have that feeling that you have no flaws, you have no short-comings- that is something that everyone deserves at some point.  We all also deserve to learn from the pain that comes when we're found out to be mortals.  We only grow by challenging ourselves to do better and over coming obstacles.

Who is your perfect person, who idolized you, and how did those situations resolve?  For me, my father was my perfect person; I learned of his mortality through lyposarcoma. 

Inactive

I've been spending the past few days visiting with family on Ohio's north coast (yes, Ohio has coastline- it's Lake Erie).  My mother in law rents a cottage every year at a Chattaqua community in Ohio for her church's annual conference, and invites the family to come along.  It's kind of nice- I cook and clean and try to get something done, and we get a little family vacation thing. 

For those of you that don't know them, Chattaqua villages were planned as religious communities in the 19th century.  A place to learn about religion, study, pray, and have community.  Obviously, I'm not there for the religious aspect but there are always some interesting conversations to be had.  Dwight and I aren't opposed to religion, we just haven't found one that fits our family yet.  It's a little insight for us into current issues in the Christian church, or at least this denomination. 

One thing really struck me this year, about the conference and about the attendees.  That was the level of inactivity.  Resolutions were passed on important subjects like conservation, human trafficking, and fair trade.  Resolutions not to do anything, but to become more informed, or think about, or try.  All of these were non-binding resolutions. 

One conversation in particular struck me.  Apparently a teen asked of the fair trade resolution whether that meant he had to buy more expensive stuff if the cheaper stuff was made with child labor, or if he could still buy cheap.  To me, as an outsider, that seems like it would be the perfect time to point out that happiness is wanting what you have not having what you want, or that another person's right to earn a fair wage outweighed your right to lots of cheap stuff, or that simply child labor was wrong.  Apparently, as an outsider, I would be wrong on all of these counts, and instead the right thing to do is to point out that the resolution was non-binding and simply asked for information. 

To say I was disappointed would be a vast understatement.  What happened to being active in advancing morals and ethics?  What happened to encouraging people to strive for improving the community and helping those less fortunate?  What happened to walking the walk instead of just talking the talk?  What happened to bettering ones self?  This is the stuff I have a problem with- when religion is there to help people feel good about themselves for no good reason.  When religion is about personal wellness more than doing what's right for the broader community, it's time to rethink a few things. 

Boundaries

Boundaries, in general, are a good thing.  Biologically speaking, the boundary created by our skin keeps us from desiccating and the cell membrane helps to define the cell from the rest of the world.  Boundaries help to define, protect, and limit.  On the other side of the coin, boundaries can also keep unwanted materials in, reinforce unsubstantiated differences, and restrict.

Boundaries can also be restrictions and limits on behavior.  In this context as well, boundaries can be good or bad.  Boundaries help to define acceptable and unacceptable behavior, help ease communication by providing certain circumscriptions or limit definitions and ideas, and allow a measure of decency or prevent honest expression of thoughts and ideas.

As an adult, I both respect boundaries and challenge them- depending on which boundary is being discussed.  I think we tend to put up too many boundaries as a society, but they do serve a purpose and some boundaries make maintaining a society possible.  As the saying goes, "Your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins."  Ignoring important boundaries could lead to a lot of noses out of joint, not to mention state sanctioned religion, hazardous materials going unchecked, exploitation, and abuse of power.  A stupid person blindly accepts all boundaries and an arrogant person ignores all boundaries.  I don't want to be either.

This makes parenting difficult.  How can I teach a four year old about boundaries by example?  I can't impose boundaries expecting Ken to obey them without question, but I can't teach him that all boundaries are pointless either.  There is no easy approach.  And unfortunately, he's caught on to my ambiguity around boundaries, and tries out this new knowledge by imposing his own boundaries and testing mine.  Which leads to some very long days recently.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again- I love my son, even if he is high maintenance.  I just have to remind myself that the traits he's exhibiting are traits that I admire in adults and they should be fostered.  Possibly the hardest thing about parenting that no one ever told me is the difficulty in reinforcing positive adult traits in a child.

"Patriotism is supporting your country always, and your government when it deserves support." ~Mark Twain.

There are no successful ecologists

Or rather, the typical measures of "success" in society or academia really aren't well suited to ecology.  Defining success by the number of papers authored, chapters written, grants won, citations, books edited or written- not so relevant to improving our environment.   Defining success by species named vastly favors ecologists that may have never even considered the term ecology, let alone called themselves such.  Certifications and degrees may be useful, but they simply mark one accomplishment.  Defining success by on-the-ground measures such as species saved, habitats restored, or hectares conserved may accurately measure the success of a person in ecology, but those successes usually can't be attributed to a single person.  Instead, it takes dozens if not hundreds of people including legislators, managers, lay activists, volunteers, land owners, non-profit workers, and more, so a single individual's contribution may be relatively small.  Describing a new ecological theory or building a comprehensive model of some system definitely can change the way the world thinks of ecology and how ecologists research, but it's a lofty goal that very few people- even those currently considered "successful ecologists"- ever attain. 

How do we measure the success of an ecologist then?  I propose that we define success in ecology by living the life we teach- living sustainably, and lowering our own ecological impact as best we can, and the number of people we encourage to live similarly.  If it takes a village to raise a child, it takes the whole world to save our biome.  And thus, I tender my resignation from the pursuit of "success" in ecology.  The other goals I listed above are important also, but they don't define and aren't the primary factor in defining success in this academic discipline. 

Ecology is a process, and as such, one's success in ecology isn't an endpoint, but a process.  If you've written your theory and now do little else while living a comfortable life utilizing lots of resources, you're not a successful ecologist.  You may have once been, but you aren't any longer.  In this case I'd argue this person is a less successful ecologist than the child that helps pull garlic mustard all summer and participates in citizen scientist endeavors regularly.  Maybe the reason so many US citizens have disdain for ecologists is because we're too busy trying to measure our success in disingenuous ways.  Shall we change that?  Will you join me?

More on boys

A while back, I wrote on gender equality in education from the mother-of-a-boy perspective, and today I wanted to continue in that vein of thought, but in regards to bodily integrity and medical autonomy.

For a while, female genital mutilation, or female circumcision gained a lot of attention as the human rights cause celebre.  Female circumcision has a number of variations, all including the removal of some part or all of the clitoral hood, and may also include removal of some part of the labia as well, and in extreme cases the suturing of the vaginal opening to a reduced size.  It is practiced mostly in African and Middle Eastern cultures, but also in parts of Asia and in immigrant communities in North America and Europe.  The reasoning for the outcry was that this was a cosmetic procedure with no medical benefit and the creation of medical risks, performed on an underage and often unwilling female in traditional societies.  There has since been some push-back, as women who chose to be circumcised have come forward asking that us nosy Westerners stay out of their cultural practices, and accusations of cultural imperialism.  It is important to note, however, that the acceptance of the practice and the reports of voluntary circumcision are by far the minority view in this matter.

Contrast this with the case of male circumcision: a practice that originated as a minority religious tradition, with questionable medical value, and also done on under age males, usually infants, but a practice that is unquestioned as "good" for the person to whom it is done.  Both circumcisions involve the removal of similar tissue- the foreskin removed by male circumcision is homologous to the clitoral hood removed in female circumcision, although it is common for female circumcision to go further that that, as I've stated.  Where the removal of tissue is concerned, the difference is mostly quantitative as opposed to qualitative, although the stitching of the vaginal opening is definitely a qualitative difference.  There have been some studies to show a decrease in the risk of AIDS and STD transmission with circumcision, but none of those studies to my knowledge have dealt with neonatal circumcision in Western societies, instead focusing on adult men in developing countries, so I question how well the results can be extrapolated from one paradigm to the other.

Essentially, my biggest problem is just what I stated at the beginning of this post- the issue of bodily autonomy.  Why is the usurpation of a male infant's bodily autonomy considered perfectly normal and natural and parents who choose not to do so are seen as "fringe" community members, while to do the same thing to a female is considered unthinkable and a human rights violation?  Granted, the bodily autonomy extends further than just this one example, and can favor either sex, but the stark differences in how the circumcision of males and females is treated really draws my ire.  Human rights are human rights, and if one sex has the right to choose whether or not they will have cosmetic surgery, then the other does as well, and no one else can take that right, least of all the parents.  We still have a long way to go on gender equality, I fear, and no one is a winner so long as there are losers in the world.

Responsibility and Right

Since the passage of the health care reform bill, I've heard lots of talk about personal freedoms and how they're being infringed, often with an admonishment that "This is America, you have to work for what you get!" which distinctly implies personal responsibility, in my opinion.  As the argument goes, the requirement to buy insurance or face financial consequences directly goes against one's personal freedom.  Most states also require the buying of auto insurance in order to legally drive, but no one claims that to be an abridging of personal freedom, at least no one that I know of in their right mind.  Left mind, maybe. 

This is an imperfect analogy, I realize, because driving a vehicle is not required to live.  It is, in itself, a right that is balanced with a responsibility, and that makes sense to most people in the US.  If you don't want to buy auto insurance, then don't drive.  Simple, in theory if not in practice in many parts of our country.  But I'm not writing this to discuss public transit, I'm writing about health care, so I digress.

What seems to be left out in the current discussion is the existence of EMTALA, the Emergency Medical Transportation and Active Labor Act.  This act requires a hospital to provide emergency and stabilizing care regardless of insurance or ability to pay.  If you present with an emergency situation, the hospital must stabilize you (and active labor is considered an emergency under this law) FIRST, then they can worry about how or if you are going to pay. 

What EMTALA does is give you the patient the right to prompt, life saving care, without the wait to check your financial or insurance status.  But this right is balanced by nothing on your part.  In my opinion, the health care reform law balances EMTALA by giving patients the responsibility to attempt to take care of themselves financially by having health insurance.  We do have the option of balancing the equation by taking away EMTALA, but I don't want to be the one to explain to a laboring woman or a man having a heart attack "Please wait here while we check if you have insurance or can otherwise pay for our services". 

Essentially, when faced with the choice between personal responsibility and social responsibility in the United States, we have chosen personal responsibility.  We provide *very* little social support system, on the basis of the Protestant Work Ethic where one works for what they have, and gets what they earn.  However, we require emergency medical care to be provided outside of this framework and without regard to payment ability.  If we put that responsibility onto hospitals, then we need to have patients bear some responsibility as well, and that responsibility on patients is health insurance.  No other profession is required to provide services in this manner. 

Aside from revoking EMTALA, the only other viable option we have is single-payer health care like most other developed nations.  Our choice really comes down to 1) do we want to be a civilized nation that values life, or 2) do we want everything including health care to be based upon the system of desert and assert ourselves finally and irrevocably as a country that values money.

Broader Reach

It has of late come to the forefront of my attention exactly how much our perception of one thing can influence our evaluation of something completely different.  I am as guilty of this as anyone, although I try my utmost to avoid this contamination of prejudice.  Kind of like an extended negative association.  Negative association is the psychological phenomenon that lead Watson to seriously damage little Albert by connecting in his mind negative consequences (in this case fear caused by a loud noise) with a benign object, in this case white fur.  The child was so traumatized that the child couldn't be approached by women in fur coats for years after the experiments, so the historical story goes.

Likewise, if you are highly opposed to supplements, then you may extrapolate that dislike to other things associated with supplements, even simply items in the same aisle of the grocer's as supplements- energy drinks, Ensure-like supplements, Emergen-C, air-sickness bands, or Ora-Gel for example.  There's nothing that inherently links these items other than there placement in a store, but that association with supplements creates a dislike towards the other items.  That's not to say there isn't a reason to dislike some of these things; supplements especially have questionable contents, little to no regulation and are far over-marketed.Our minds play funny tricks like that.  Similarly, a bad experience with Aunt Edna's* latest "low-fat, low-sugar, high-fiber" recipe may be so bad as to turn a person off any food that claims to be "healthier" or "natural". 

The worst thing that I can think about in regards to this scenario is when the phenomenon leads to discrimination against a group of people.  This week, it appears that our Congress will debate and possibly vote upon the biggest health care reform legislation since the creation of Medicare/Medicaid.  This possibility has created serious tensions and much backlash, especially from those in the Tea Party movement.  Reports in my state's capitol of Columbus this week included the heckling and harassment of a peaceful pro-health care reform protester who happened to also have a disability.  The Tea Partiers went so far as to throw money at this man, and proclaim such things as "I'll decide when you get money" and "There's no handouts here- you have to work for what you get."  These were not illiterate high school drop outs, either, but instead well-dressed, professional looking individuals.  In our country's capitol, there were ethnic, racial, and sexual orientation slurs thrown about, and spittle hurled at some of our members of Congress.

What madness has possessed people to sink to such blatant straw-man attacks rather than discuss the merits and drawbacks of the legislation at hand?  It hurts to see humanity sink to this level.  It hurts more to see this happen in my own country, and my own time.  This is not the Spanish inquisition.  This is not Selma, Alabama in the 1960's.  This is not the McCarthy hearings of the 1950's.  This is 2010, in the United States- a country founded by rational thinkers of the Enlightenment period. 

*For the record, I have no Aunt Edna of which I know.  There might be a great-aunt with that name somewhere, but no aunt, so I'm not actually libeling anyone.  :)

Answers

A family member recently expressed concern about answers- mostly dismay at those who act like they have all the answers.  This is a family member that very vocally proclaims that Christianity is the correct religion and that Jesus Christ is the only path to eternal salvation.  This is also a family member whom I love and admire, and one of the few on my mother's side that I've felt a real connection to ever since I was a child.  The woman I remember from my childhood was much more accepting, or maybe I was more naive; in either case, it has only been in my adulthood, and fairly recently at that, that she and I have discovered our distinct differences of opinion.  Needless to say, she and I have of late had a few words that were not necessarily heated, but not very warm either.  Her comment stung, because framed by discussions we had previously had and other circumstances, it felt like the comment was targeting me. 

I'll be the first to admit that I don't have all the answers.  If asked a question, I'll either tell you the answer (if I know it) or say I don't know.  I don't like pretending.  I like to find answers to questions that I don't yet know the answer.  I also know that many of the big questions may have answers that vary based on the person.  Given ethical, moral, or philosophical questions, two people with similar knowledge of the situation may very well come to drastically different conclusions based on individual histories and experiences.  And I'm OK with that.  I'm also OK with staunchly defending the answer at which I have arrived on those big questions when the answer is one that suits me and someone tries to sway me a different direction.  I have a right to my answer, provided it does not infringe on anyone else' rights, just like others have a right to their answers, again provided they don't infringe on another person's rights.  That's one answer that I don't think is open to interpretation- that individuals can disagree, and so long as no one is harmed or rights are abridged, the disagreement does not need to be changed.  These varying answers add spice and variety to life.  They make it more interesting.

So please, unless the question is a subjective one, let our answers differ and our lives go on.  Until someone is actually affected by the difference of opinion, there's no harm and no foul, but we've both been exposed to a different view point and had our horizons broadened.  I say this as much for my own benefit and reminder as for anyone else.

Coming to the Table

A friend and I recently attended a meeting of the Kent City Schools Wellness Advisory Board.  By recently, I mean about a month ago or more, but it's taken awhile for me to sort this out and, well, life got in the way.  We went to that meeting planning on talking about how we wanted to see better food in the schools.  we wanted food not to be used as an incentive.  We value children' health and want to see obesity rates lowered.  We're afraid of the corn-flavored sodium pellets that is "industrial sized" cans of corn.  We are acutely aware that ketchup does not actually count as a vegetable.  In short, we came to the table to share my concern about they were feeding children, mine and others and talk about how to improve food choices.

Imagine my surprise when the teachers and school employees that were in attendance started expressing their concern over what parents were feeding children.  The teachers were frustrated that they could only control what food and nutrition messages children received at school.  They were afraid that children would come to school, learn good nutrition, and then go home and be fed nothing but Doritos and soda by parents.  In short, they came to the table to talk about how best to educate children.

Both of these things- good options and good education- are necessary to beat something like the childhood obesity epidemic.  Both sides were right in our concerns.  However, little was done at that meeting and I have little hope for things to change in the near-term future.  Granted, this was more of an organizational meeting than a planning meeting, but even for what it was, there was little really accomplished.

Part of the lack of any movement on the subject is the lack of trust that both parties exhibited and felt, I think.  I realize Ken doesn't have the normal "kid" diet.  He doesn't get high fructose corn syrup or artificial food coloring if he's at home.  This helps his diet as well as my sanity- you don't want to know what his reaction is to Red #40, it's not pretty.  He also gets the vast majority of his grains as whole grains.  We eat mostly organic.  No store-bought canned veggies; just fresh when they're in season, frozen, and home-canned from fresh.  He's mostly vegetarian, although we have been letting him try meat at home  lately, where we know what the animals have been fed and how they have been treated.  I don't fit the school's idea of their student's parents lack of education.

The school where the meeting was held also wasn't what I had envisioned.  At the high school, there were things that I would almost consider eating.  They have a salad bar and a burrito bar.  They have real food, by US standards.  The school cafeteria that I remembered from my childhood was only a small portion of the options that were present.  This cafeteria more resembled a mall food court than the cafeteria in which I grew up.  It didn't fit my preconception of the food choices available.  It was also not what the lower grades' cafeterias looked like and those are closer to my view of a cafeteria, I was told by one of the teachers.

In retrospect, we all would have done better to leave our preconceptions at the door before coming to the table.  We would have done better not to have pre-judged the other side.  We would have done better to think outside of the "us" and "them" style of combative mentality.  We would have done better to trust each other until proven otherwise.  I think these are good lessons for accomplishing goals in many more areas of life.

Frustration

Ken and I walked down to have some Chinese tonight because it has been a long couple of days and I needed a break.  I know, bad mama.  We've had some uncharacteristic-for-Ohio-warm-weather, and by uncharacteristic, I mean nearly 60 today.  Gorgeous.  I had gotten up early, finished stuff for my class and sent it off to students, had a celebratory breakfast coffee, delivered supplies to the classroom for another teacher, volunteered four hours at our local NPR station WKSU 89.7, had an eye appointment and did some grocery shopping.  All with boy in tow (well, except volunteering, but he'll be with me Thursday when I go in again).  At home, we cleaned up the yard some.  Melted snow had uncovered bits and pieces of trash in the yard, as well as the usual spring sticks and pine-cones, so we were off to collect those and put them in their proper place.  Under the guise of practicing for the upcoming egg-hunt.  I love my easily bribed child.

What does any of this do with frustration, you ask?  Wasn't Ken behaved like a model child?  Actually, for once, he was.  No complaints there.  I know- shock.

My frustration is with the lack of general respect.  I'm not sure if it's just a by-product of the winter's neglect now being exposed, or heightened sensitivity to it because of the stray human upstairs who lacks respect in spades, or just the spring winds.  We moved to the area in which we currently reside in part out of a feeling that you can not change something from the outside.  If you want to help people, you do it by becoming part of their community, full time, not just on organized work days or before going home for the night.  You help by getting in there and living among those you want to help.  And Dwight and I both have a streak of social justice, so we moved to the "poor" side of town in hopes of learning and helping while living a frugal life. 

And learn I have indeed.  I can't speak for Dwight because he does in fact have his own mind.  Again- shock, right?  I've learned that if people aren't shown respect in their society, they learn that they don't deserve respect.  If someone has no self-respect, respect for anyone or anything else- including the environment- is a lost hope.  That person then shows others no respect, and they in turn learn that they don't deserve respect, and a vicious cycle ensues.  This cycle is broken not by teaching each and every person that they do in fact have worth, but by teaching society as a whole that all people have worth.  We do it by rebuilding community from the inside out, a little at a time, slowly, and eventually life looks very different. 

So Ken and I started by demonstrating the respect for our community on our walk- we picked up some trash.  Really, quite a bit.  Not all, but a lot.  And we talked to our neighbors after our long winter's nap.  A couple of them even joined in the task.  We did something.  I know it's not a lot, but it's something that I hope to continue doing now that the weather is warming.  Even little mundane tasks like this can make a huge difference.  Hopefully, it's for the better.

As an aside, I'd like to point you to Time Banks.  We might be getting one in Kent, and it looks like another great way to help rebuild communities from the inside.  In fact, I think I may just go ahead and do it.

To Leidy

Dwight, Kenny and I got some great news yesterday- one of our sponsored children, Leidy, will be graduating this summer!  I'm just as thrilled hearing this news as I am hearing of Ken's accomplishments at pre-school.  We've been amazingly proud of all three of our graduated children, cried when one child died from dysentery, and been sadly shaken when a field office that served our child closed.  They're not at all related to us, we haven't even met them, just letters exchanged and not enough of those to boot- but we love them and are proud to have them in our lives, however little that may be.

Now, before you start, I do understand the myth of direct giving.  Unlike Jack Nicholson in "About Schmidt", I realize that our checks do not go to Leidy and her family.  There is no bank account into which our deposits go that is just for our sponsored children and their families.  Our money simply goes into a pot, and from that pot there is work done to help children, families, and communities throughout the service area of Children International and Plan USA. 

Honestly, I realize all this, and yet I still believe in the myth of direct giving.  It has nothing to do with the administrative reality of direct giving, but everything to do with the relationship that it creates.  I know our sponsored children, I care for them, they are part of my life.  I hear about their families, I see their writing improve, I send them pictures of our little life when I remember.  Our family feels connected to them, and their societies by extension.  We have extended our family to India, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Kenya, the Philippines, and Uruguay thanks to our sponsored children.  It's solidified our idea of our family as that of the global family. 

That's the beauty of humans, in my humble estimation.  We have the capacity for logic, and we have the capacity to utterly ignore logic when necessary.  Sometimes we ignore more logic than we need to, but we sometimes get it right, too.  The arts would not exist but for our ability to ignore logic, and what is compassion if not the art of loving?  It's this ability to put aside logic that makes my faith in humanity continue.  As an ecologist, I have a serious dislike (read- deep seated hatred) of invasive species, and humans are the most invasive species yet to evolve. 

This leaves me in quite a quandary.  I believe in diversity, but humans really don't contribute to biological diversity, and in fact destroy much of it.  Life on this planet would be better for so many organisms if humans were to disappear, but out disappearance would decrease biodiversity by a small degree, but cultural diversity by a vast magnitude.  So I fear, as much as I disagree typically with control, it is control or mitigation that must occur in the case of Homo sapiens instead of eradication.  We can not get rid of ourselves or all the beauty that we can create will be gone with us, but for the sake of all other life, it is our prerogative to lessen our impact as much as possible.

Now back to your regularly scheduled mental wanderings.

Normalcy

Today the APA releases a new draft for its latest revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, or DSM, due out in 2013.  This is a big book of all recognized psychiatric/psychological disorders, their symptoms, and how to treat them.  It's a tome that is pretty fun to just browse through on occasion, to confirm that you're still crazy.  The recommendations include two revisions that are getting a bit of attention in the media, or at least on NPR.  There will no longer be a diagnosis of Asperger's syndrome just a broader spectrum for autism, and childhood bipolar cases are being relabeled as temper dysregulation disorder.  I find both of these moves interesting, and the piece on NPR was especially enlightening. 

As for the temper dysregulation disorder label, personally I feel it's in the vein of just labeling a variation of normal behavior so as to excuse the behavior.  There's a quote by A Gabrielle Carlson in the NPR piece about how the diagnosis of childhood bipolar began with children that had been diagnosed with conduct disorder.  Conduct disorder basically included extremely unruly kids.  What was so great about diagnosing children with bipolar instead?  "We don't have good treatments for [conduct disorder]. We've got parent-training kinds of treatment, very strict behavioral modification kinds of things, but the evidence that therapy makes a big difference is not wonderful."  (my emphasis added)  I know enough people with severe allergies, and wonder how much of this behavior in kids is attributable to undiagnosed allergies or simply not being taught how to control their behaviors. 

The Asperger section in the NPR story was shorter, but also interesting.  Michael Carley, executive director of the Global and Regional Asperger Syndrome Partnership, pointed out that while Asperger's syndrome might be seen as a positive since it is associated with the likes of Einstein and Edison, autism is more often characterized by "somebody who might have to wear adult diapers and maybe a head-restraining device."  This perception of others who now have the same diagnosis as himself is apparently causing some difficulty for Carley.

Running through both of these stories, in my mind, is the question of normalcy.  What is normal, how do we define normal, how do we treat those outside of normal, how does our perception of ourselves as normal or not change our behavior, is normal necessarily better than not normal- these are all big questions that I've fought with on and off for years.  There's a certain pride I take in not being "normal" as defined by our society, and I'm trying to teach that to Ken while instilling in him the importance of some social norms, like not intentionally farting on people in public.  It's a delicate balance.  How far can a person be on one side or another of the spectrum that is "normal" and still be functional?  Can we, as a society, focus more on the functionality of people and their lives, and less on fitting individuals into a the mold of a "normal" human being?  I know it takes more work, but can we embrace a larger view of normal and provide assistance to those outside of normal to make sure they can function, while allowing to be what is comfortable to themselves?