The Gurly Life

"Other"

Yesterday I had an interesting experience. Someone asked me about lunch plans, and I ended up explaining that I will not be spending any money eating out this month because I’m taking a writing class at Stanford, which takes up the better part of my discretionary income for the month. His reaction was, to say the least, odd. Not entirely unexpected, but odd.

He rolled his eyes and started mocking me in a sing-song voice, something like “Ooh, the poor little girl she has to not eat out for a month because she’s taking a fancy class at STANFORD. I feel so bad for you, having to sacrifice so much.” And then he concluded with a scornful “You are so spoiled, I can’t believe it!”

Frankly, I was speechless. I had not indicated that not eating out was in any way a sacrifice. I was merely explaining why, so it was odd that he went down this tangent. Plus, spoiled would suggest that someone gave me this as a gift just because I'm so fabulous, but I'm paying for it out of my own pocket, with money I earned. How that makes me spoiled is puzzling, but whatever. I was reminded to how much scorn the “educated elite” are subject. I use quotation marks because I’m not so sure that being educated puts me in the elite class, but for the sake of this post, let’s assume that that is the case.

What I wanted to say, but refrained from doing so, was that if he wanted to have a better life or didn’t want to have to spend all his money on his wife and children, he should have gone to law school, gotten a lucrative job, and made different choices instead of pouring his distaste on me. But for diplomatic reasons, I did not. Note that I mentioned that his reaction was not surprising – this is not the first time he has made snarky comments about who he thinks I am. At this point, the next time he goes down that road, I will say something blunt and revoke his teasing privileges. Life is too short to put up with people’s regurgitations of inferiority. Of course, that will likely be followed by a conversation, initiated by me, of course, about how that particular kind of snarkiness is not constructive.

What this also reminded me is that several years ago there was a morning radio host on 98.7, Jamie something, who was loud and irritating and who despised anyone who was remotely educated or sophisticated, including her surgeon husband, lumping us all into a category of stuck-up assholes. Needless to say, said surgeon dumped her ignorant ass.

What is corrosive about this kind of attitude is not so much the specific prejudice, but the prejudice in general. It is yet another way in which people create separation from each other, “other” being the operative word. As soon as I am different from you in some way, I am “other.” I am no longer one of “us,” I cannot be trusted, and I am the fair target of ridicule and disgust. As soon as I am “other,” you no longer need to bother to listen to anything I say, or know who I really am. Everything I do or say is either interpreted to align with your view of me as “stuck-up snob,” “Jew,” “Muslim,” conservative” etc., or it simply does not register.

All of this reflection had an interesting side effect. I got re-inspired by my life all over again. I mean, really, even my worst days are better than most people’s best, and I have been lucky in just about every aspect of my life, even the ones that don’t work. I mean, how fortunate am I to have a career I love, good friends, a great family, cats (my goodness, the luck!), an amazing education, and the privilege to be able to take a writing class at Stanford just because I want to. That is pretty damn awesome.

Some god thoughts

Driving home today I was listening to Speaking of Faith on NPR. The topic was the novelist as god, and here's how they describe today's program: "Novelist Mary Doria Russell shares what she discerned about God and about dilemmas of evil, doubt, and free will."

By the way, if you've never listened to Speaking of Faith, I cannot recommend it more. It is fascinating and thought-provoking. And I encourage you to listen to this particular episode, it is much more interesting than this post.

Russell said something that I thought was both incredibly poetic and mind-bending: she was talking about cosmology, and the theory that the universe might not have simply began at the big bang, but might instead be in a constant state of expansion and then contraction. An incredibly long process, to be sure, but how she relates it to god is that the universe is god's breath. When the universe is expanding, god is breathing out. When the universe is contracting, god is breathing in.

Assuming for a second that this expand/contract theory is accurate, the current universe is 13 billion years old and still expanding. So even if it stopped expanding right now (whiplash!), that is one LOOOOONG breath. Which I believe is pretty good indication that god does yoga. No, just kidding.

So Russell's concept of god is that it is all-encompassing. I mean, imagine a supreme being (if you can even call it that) who takes 13 billion years to breathe out. Actually, I don't think we can fully imagine such a thing. I certainly have a tough time wrapping my mind around it.

That, I find, is a beautiful concept, but it also made me laugh about religion in general. For my religious friends, sorry, please don't take offense, ok? But I thought, my god (hah!) how ironic would it be if we could prove the existence of god and then discovered that god has no awareness of or interest in us. No doubt we would convince ourselves that this is not the true god, but that's another conversation.

Of course, it has always been my opinion that to think that we are made in the image of god and that therefore we hold this high place is the height of arrogance and hubris. I mean, seriously, how self-centered can we be?  I am mystified by all the religions, and the subsets of the religions, all of which are CONVINCED they know the word of god. As Russell said, just because we want so much to matter, does not lead to the logical conclusion that there is anything out there.

This leads to another thought: if we are made in the image of god, then why would we think that we alone are made in its image? Why isn't everything in the universe created in its image, and why would we be any more important than rocks and gerbils? Just because we can think? Mmh. I'm not convinced.

And of course, like religions, this is just an opinion, and I could be wrong.

Oh - and this:

"Defenders of Marriage" by Roy Zimmerman

Found by the brilliant and inspiring Urban Koda.

No escape

Today both Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson passed away. She from cancer, he from a heart attack. All the money and fame in the world, all the beauty, the talent, the popularity - none of it made a difference. In the end, we are all human.

The sociopathy of governorship

Or, WTF??

At this point, I feel compelled to opine, mostly because the ridiculousness has reached stratospheric levels.

My US readers will know to what I refer, but for anyone else who does not, I shall begin with the most recent ridiculousness. Gov. Sanford, South Carolina, went for a hike on the Appalachian Trail to clear his head last Thursday and disappeared. He was gone through Father's Day (he has 4 kids), only to return Monday, explaining that he had taken a weekend trip to Argentina, on an impulse.

This would be weird for the average person (I mean, seriously, who goes for a hike and then ends up in Argentina? I mean, maybe Vegas, but Argentina?), but for the governor of a state, well, this is just bizarre.

Today the good governor revealed in a press conference that he has been having an affair with a woman in Argentina. [Awkward pause.] Yeeaaaahhh... ok, that's not really less weird. Here's how the NYTimes' article begins:

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina said Wednesday that he had been having an extramarital affair with a woman in Argentina for the last year, ending the mystery surrounding his disappearance over Father’s Day weekend and considerably dampening his prospects for a national political career.

But his confession and apology, in a rambling, nationally televised news conference, left other mysteries unsolved, like whether he had lied to his staff members as late as Monday about his whereabouts, whether the affair had definitively ended, whether he would resign from the governorship and whether he would even have acknowledged the affair had he not been met at the airport in Atlanta by a reporter upon his return.

This comes on the heels of Gov. Blagojevich, Illinois, who was recently indicted on 19 counts of violating Federal corruption laws. Which followed on the heels of Gov. Spitzer, New York, "whose rise to political power as a fierce enforcer of ethics in public life was undone by revelations of his own involvement with prostitutes." (Source, NYTimes.) And let's not forget a few years ago Gov. McGreevey, New Jersey, who resigned after admitting to a gay affair, and of course, our favorite, Bill Clinton, who before diddling Monica Lewinsky in the White House, was the philandering governor of Arkansas.

So what is it that has these highly public figures, who wax moralistic and principled, do things that are out of integrity with what they claim to stand for?

I don't know any of these men, not enough to be able to say how related they are to their integrity (and lack thereof). Frankly, I'm not in the mood for a lecture on integrity. I mean, either they get it or they don't, you know? But what strikes me is that anyone who is so much in the public eye would ever think they could do whatever they want, especially in the current climate of 24 hour news cycles. Seriously, the man is the governor of South Carolina and he goes to Argentina for the weekend to get some nookie? Makes a cigar and a stained dress positively quaint, don't it?

What I find entertaining, besides the disconnect with reality, is the hyperbolic naughtiness. I mean, they're like the Lex Luthors of the political world: spending thousands of dollars on prostitutes (you can't tell me a blowjob is ever worth $4,000!), flying to Argentina to a secret lover, selling senate seats, having not just an affair but a gay affair! 

Ah, the absurdity. My favorite...

A nutritional allegory

Slim Jim Factory Explodes, Kills Three, Requires HazMat Team 

By Lucy Bayly, 8:16 AM on Thu Jun 11 2009

A ConAgra plant near Raleigh, N.C., that makes and packages Slim Jim beef jerky was rocked by a huge explosion on Tuesday, killing three employees and sending dozens of workers and three firefighters to hospital with severe burns or "exposure to toxic fumes."

ConAgra spokespeople have been quick to offer funding for workers affected by the plant collapse, but not quite quick enough to explain why the heck they need 34,000 gallons of ammonia to make a spicy meat stick in the first place. [Ammonia is used to refrigerate the meat. -Ed.] The blast occurred in the packaging area of the plant.

Slim Jims are one of the most disgusting packaged "foods" out there. I have never eaten a Twinkie, but if the only option was a Twinkie and Slim Jims, the Twinkie would take it. For those who know me, that should tell you how disgusting I think Slim Jims are.

Perhaps ConAgra should consider that a food that requires ammonia in the preparation, and which can BLOW UP AN ENTIRE FACTORY, kill people and require hazmat teams to clean up, should either not be made at all, or the ingredients seriously need revising. If you follow the Slim Jim link above, it takes you the fund for the families of the deceased, if you are inclined to donate a little something.

This incident is not just allegorical, but ironical, too. To wit, a Slim Jim ad:

A curious phenomemononoemon

I can't say that word. Not the point.

Facebook came up with a new upgrade, which allows you to name your FB page so you don't just get facebook.com/andabunchofnumbers. So, for example, my FB pages is now facebook.com/elena.gerli. I think lots of people, many of whom I know, rushed to get "their" name registered, or claimed, or whatever. And those of us who did that, especially if we knew there were lots of other us's, were feeling pretty victorious that we got there first.

The point of this completely escapes me, and so far, has escaped everyone else. No one, so far, has been able to explain why it was so necessary to claim our name on FB.

This got me thinking about names and our human tendency to claim things and to bolster our identity. I have to admit that I jumped on the name bandwagon too, all the while thinking how pointless it was, but that by god I was not going to let anyone else have my name. Of course, my name is their name if they also have the same name.

I still have no clue what the point is about having the name on the FB link, other than it'll be easier for people to Google me. But so what? They can't see my page unless they're FB friends already. I suppose if it's someone out there in the world who is trying to find me and they don't know where to look, this will make it easier. If they're not on FB, though, they'll have to sign up before they can contact me.

But in reality, this is pretty pointless. The age of the internet has made it so that just about anyone who wants to find me, has. And as for privacy issues: who the hell cares? Every government agency in the country has my prints and all my information already.

I'm done with the old guys

Or, better the evil you know.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against old guys (in fact, I hear that old guys rule!). However, by old I don't mean chronologically old, but mentally old. Often the two go together, but not always. I know old people of all ages, and also young people of all ages. I say this so that no one is offended who really should not be.

Several months ago, my doctor, who I liked immensely, got married and moved away. I am happy she got married, but was very miffed that she moved. Not personally miffed, obvy, but I think you all know how crucial it is to find the right doctor.

After my surgery, I asked my orthopedist if he could refer me to a PCP (primary care physician). He didn't know anyone, but he asked his colleagues and they sent me to my current PCP. Well, his colleagues must have been old guys, too, because my current doctor is an old guy. I mentioned to you my first visit, wherein not one computer was to be found (Cedars has all its records in electronic form now so that doctors can access them from their office), and semi-naked men wandered the halls to and from the x-ray room. I was not inspired.

When I recently returned to said PCP for my wrist and back, he referred me to ... an old guy! He wasn't even that old, but he was one of those "I do things old school" kinda guys who don't much care for all this newfangled technology. The waiting room was full of tacky people, including a loud middle eastern couple who needed to get a hotel room, and the guy really didn't need to speak loudly on his phone for 10 minutes, pacing in front of the No Cellphones sign. This does not necessarily speak to the doctor's competence, but it's never a good sign, I think, when everything looks cheap and broken down.

Again, did not inspire confidence.

So, I switched back to the doctor who replaced by beloved PCP. I don't care for him much but at least he's younger and uses a computer. I figure I'm more likely to find the right PCP in that circle than in the old guys circle.

Last post on Rick Warren

This is a follow-up to my previous posts regarding Rick Warren at the inauguration. Posts are here and here.

Melissa Etheridge on The Huffington Post, December 22, 2008, takes an open-minded view. While I find some of Warren's comments despicable, it has never been the case that people's hearts and minds have opened as a result of being maligned for their beliefs, no matter how absurd and bigoted they might be. The reality is that many people feel that homosexuality is a sin (and much worse). They are out there, and while it may be that we've reached critical mass with respect to gay rights and that it's only a matter of time, there is fight and anger and hatred in them. Shutting them out, however, does nothing to change their minds. Forcing them to accept the inevitable, while an option, is not ideal.

So after having reflected on both sides of this issue, I come down on the side of agreeing with Obama's decision. I disagree with Rich regarding Obama's ego being out of control on this one. I think by accepting all Americans, even the ones who really still have their white hoods in the closet, we have a chance to communicate and bring tolerance where there is none now. And don't think this position is easy for me to take, if I went with my personal feelings about this, I would advocate for some of these right-wingers to be shot. But love, in the end, is stronger than fear.

Anyway, enough chit-chat, here are Melissa's thoughts:

This is a message for my brothers and sisters who have fought so long and so hard for gay rights and liberty. We have spent a long time climbing up this mountain, looking at the impossible, changing a thousand year-old paradigm. We have asked for the right to love the human of our choice, and to be protected equally under the laws of this great country. The road at times has been so bloody, and so horrible, and so disheartening. From being blamed for 9/11 and Katrina, to hateful crimes committed against us, we are battle weary. We watched as our nation took a step in the right direction, against all odds and elected Barack Obama as our next leader. Then we were jerked back into the last century as we watched our rights taken away by prop 8 in California. Still sore and angry we felt another slap in the face as the man we helped get elected seemingly invited a gay-hater to address the world at his inauguration.

. . .

Brothers and sisters the choice is ours now. We have the world's attention. We have the capability to create change, awesome change in this world, but before we change minds we must change hearts. Sure, there are plenty of hateful people who will always hold on to their bigotry like a child to a blanket. But there are also good people out there, Christian and otherwise that are beginning to listen. They don't hate us, they fear change. Maybe in our anger, as we consider marches and boycotts, perhaps we can consider stretching out our hands. Maybe instead of marching on his church, we can show up en mass and volunteer for one of the many organizations affiliated with his church that work for HIV/AIDS causes all around the world.

Read the entire article here.

Rick Warren should have a seat at the table, too...

I've been disappointed that some of my fellow liberals (or progressives, as we like to call ourselves) have been negative about Obama's choice of Rick Warren at the inauguration. Not to put too fine a point on it, you can't whine about how intolerant the religious right is and then scream like an intolerant pig when your president, elected on a platform of bipartisanship and commonality, picks someone you disagree with. Because then, all you're really saying is that we can all get along as long as the other people all agree to agree with you. Tolerance, in short, is a two-way street.

As Frank Schaeffer recently put it in The Huffington Post: Unlike his lefty critics lamenting Obama's ideological impurity, the President-elect is actually positioning himself to help gay rights. That is because he is going to actually govern, not stand on the sidelines complaining. As such he needs to do all he can to soothe the idiots, when it comes to the tough social/political issues that are the residue of 30 years of culture wars.

In inviting Warren, President-elect Obama is sending a signal that as President he is going to stick with resolve to doing the tough things when it comes to using some political capital on behalf of the gay community. He knows symbols are important and is softening the blow for the vast number of evangelicals to whom Warren is a hero.

I continue to be proud to have voted for Obama. Thanks to Allison A. for the forward.