Hi Marissa, Hi Brown Bear. Hello Self. Hello houses.

I have been making 2 or 3 ink paintings each day. I really love working with ink. And then some houses I like. Last night I saved over seventy pictures of houses I liked. maybe i will post them slowly over time. or maybe I will post them all in one huge entry. I hope i don't do that. Then a picture from a tea ceremony. There is an old chicken coop in the back yard of this house and I have been converting it into a tea room for tea ceremonies. I will post some pictures of my progress. If any of you come visit me in Olympia we can have a tea ceremony together. Oh, Also posted is a screen shot of Marissa and I video chatting. Isn't her hair pretty?






Here is some zen wisdom I got from Vincent's excellent blog.

This piece comes from zen's Third Patriarch Seng Ts’an:

Let things take their own course,
Knowing the essence can neither go nor stay.

Obey the nature of things,
And you are in concord with the Way,
Calm and easy and free from care. *

Thoughts that are fettered turn from Truth,
Sink into the unwise habit of not liking.

Not liking brings weariness of spirit,
And aversion serves to no purpose.

If you want to follow the doctrine of the One,
Do not reject the world of the senses.

When you are not biased, the world of the senses
Is seen as one with enlightenment.
The wise practise non-interference.
. . . .

To trust in the heart is the not-two,
The not-two is to trust in the heart.

I have spoken - but in vain,
For what words can tell
Of things that have no yesterday,
Tomorrow or today?
. . . .

The whirligigs of Apparent and Void all come from mistaken views;



Or,

*Let your nature blend with the Way and wander in it free from care.

Yes for Marriage (for everyone)

Speaking of all the negative feedback I got on the earlier entry about romance, the last time I got so much negative feedback was a couple years ago when the First Presidency released a statement encouraging members to politically oppose gay marriage. Because I feel so strongly about this subject I began writing as many posts as I could in support of gay marriage and against the Church's opposition to it. I got a lot of negative feedback. Which surprised me. But election time is coming up, and a couple states (I know California and Arizona, perhaps others) have measures about gay marriage again and the church has issued statements and included articles in the most recent ensign encouraging members to oppose gay marriage again. I thought it would be an appropriate time to re-post some of the things I had written before.

It is not that I think that by posting this I will influence anything. Or anyone. I imagine anyone who be persuaded by what I am posted already agrees with me. But it is worth a shot:

We keep hearing that the institution of marriage is suffering, but how so? While it is true divorce rates are higher than many years ago, divorce rates are actually decreasing. The percentage of marriages ending in divorce peaked in 1980 at 41 percent, and have slowly declined resting at 31 percent since 2002. While it is true people are marrying later in life, still 90% are expected to marry in their lifetimes. Besides, studies show marrying later in life slightly decreases likelihood of divorce, so is this even bad?
Aside from this, how in the world would homosexual marriage affect this in anyway? How would preventing homosexual marriages benefit society or marriage? It is not as if preventing homosexual marriage would somehow influence homosexuals to enter into heterosexual relationships, and even if it did, that is not something desirable since most homosexuals attempting heterosexual marriage almost all end with a poor outcome.
What do those opposed to same sex marriage expect of homosexuals? Two options: remain celibate and so unfulfilled for an entire life, or marry heterosexually and remain unfulfilled for an entire life. For what purpose? So people can have in their minds a concept called marriage that does not allow people with attractions different than their own to also call their monogamous lifetime relationships marriage? That is requiring an enormous sacrifice of people just to feel comfortable knowing that the name you attach to your relationship is not also allowed to be attached to those in homosexual relationships.
Imagine being told you had to either had to enter a homosexual relationship and marry someone of your same gender, or remain celibate your entire life. Imagine how awful a scenario that would be for you. But is it any different for homosexuals being told to marry someone their body is not innately attracted?
Of course this raises the issue of if homosexuality is a conscious choice of individuals or a part of a person’s biology they are not able to control. The evidence is overwhelming in favor of the biological position. (as well as a few environmental factors, more so for female homosexuality than male) even BYU biology professor William Bradshaw acknowledges the overwhelming data in favor of homosexuality being a biological trait. These are some of the reasons I am opposed to the marriage protection amendment and feel we should all oppose the church’s support of it.
One might say: “Homosexuality is a choice. Not to say that there may not be biological tendencies toward it, just like a person may be genetically predisposed toward alcoholism or other things. They may be. But it is still a choice.” I would respond: While I agree that engaging in homosexual acts is a choice, I think it is unfair to compare the urge towards homosexuality with alcoholism or any similar vice. Our sexuality is a very fundamental desire within us. So is our desire to pair exclusively with a partner and can be very important for a person's psychological well-being. Studies indicate that in men sexuality is not a sliding scale as it often is in women; it tends to be either one way or the other. Straight or gay, as illustrated by a study published in the New York Times, July fifth of 2005. If homosexual men were 60% gay and 40% straight, or if homosexual men felt some compulsion to other men, but could also be attracted to and satisfied by females then perhaps I could agree with this point. But if one takes seriously the claims of that study and if one reads homosexuals describe their homosexuality this is not the case. Some homosexual men describe their experiences with women as being repulsive (especially after having been with another man, probably similar to what many men feel towards other men). I once dated a girl who had dated a homosexual. He described kissing her as being like kissing his sister. Also studies indicate that people who are 'cured' of their homosexuality through therapy almost always revert back to homosexuality within a short period of time. So I believe saying a person should be compelled to be in a relationship that is sexually repulsive, like kissing a sister, is far different than saying a person should live their lives without large amounts of alcohol.

A person also might argue “so when will it stop, if you allow people to marry those of their same gender, what comes next? People marrying animals or children?” I feel this is also an unfair comparison. A person who is attracted to animals or children is still capable of having fulfilling romantic relationships with a person their same age and species.

I hope in one hundred years we look back at the church's teachings on same sex marriage the same way we look back now at the church's teachings on interracial marriage:
"Shall I tell you of the law of God in regards to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty under the law of God is death on the spot. This will always be so" (Brigham Young, Journal Of Discourses 10:110)

That quote by Brigham Young may be pretty shocking to our modern ears, but it is important to put it in the proper historical context. Even as late as the 1920's forty-two states still banned inter-racial marriage. In Brigham young's day inter-racial marriage was probably as offensive to many people as same-sex marriage is to religious people today. This is an example of something common, a cultural value being placed in a religious framework and given a moral implication.
I think the great value that comes from studying history and other cultures is learning about things, that to us seem inherently evil or sacred can be products of our cultural expectations. For example something as offensive as sexual relations between a teenage male and a prepubescent male is actually an important daily ritual in one New Guinea society.
It is nearly impossible to step outside of one's own cultural framework and see things objectively. Studying history and cultures gives us an opportunity to see values very different than our own and, if we allow ourselves to be open, cause us to question the merits of our own traditions.
I could well be wrong on this point, but I cannot help but feel our church's opposition to same-sex marriage is not very much different than it’s former opposition to interracial marriage. It can take a long time for new ideas to spread from the intellectuals and bohemians to mainstream society, and frequently religious institutions are the very last to embrace such reforms. Slowly our church is coming to accept what science is showing and gratefully no longer urging homosexuals to marry heterosexually in an effort to overcome their homosexuality. Our children will grow up in a society where these ideas are common, how many steps away from this is allowing same-sex marriage?
What do I mean when I say I believe the church should and may one day allow same sex marriages? Do I mean the church should allow temple marriages of same-sex couples? Perhaps, but not necessarily. Not necessarily even sanction same-sex marriages within their chapels, but at the very least, allow people in committed same-sex relationships full fellowship within the church.
I realize that marriage is a fundamental part of church doctrine and to allow same-sex couples to marry would seemingly be denying them of the blessings taught about eternal progression, but with the church's recent shift in policy, no longer encouraging homosexuals to marry heterosexually, in acknowledgement of the enormous divorce rates when such marriages are attempted, homosexuals are already being denied enormous blessings on this earth. Something I believe is far too difficult a thing to ask of most people, and is unnecessarily alienates the homosexual population from our church.

There is a historical precedent for god allowing people to live lesser laws when the higher laws are not able to be achieved. For example the laws of Moses instead of Christ's new covenants, or the law of tithing instead of the law of consecration.
So why not allow homosexuals to live a sort of lesser law? Grant them permission to marry one another while on this earth, and retain the blessings of church membership, and if it is the case that after this life they then have heterosexual attractions, well, church doctrine allows for them to be sealed to someone of the opposite sex for eternity after death.
Although marriage for eternity is a key part our doctrine, it is not always necessary for this life. A person can even be sealed for time only within the temple. Many may see this as sacrilegious, but why not allow a homosexual, for time only, temple sealing?
Members may also feel at conflict because of the first presidencies recent statements in opposition to gay marriage. Feeling that as a church member it is their responsibility to follow this council. In (some year i can't remember) the first presidency issued a statement in opposition to an amendment which would require citizens to join unions, but later rescinded this statement because of popular opposition by church members. Illustrating first presidency statements are not necessarily inspired, and do not claim to be, but are often merely the opinion of the first presidency.

I realize the proclamation on the family may seem like an insurmountable challenge to this notion. In 1875 the church published the Proclamation on the Economy (note this is not speaking of the united order but of secular governments) that is no longer something sustained by the church (though I wish it was!) To Illustrated that even something like a proclamation signed by the twelve and first presidency can fall into disuse.

Arizona:



California:

Isobel

My niece Isobel finally got the doll I made for her.

A while ago Isobel, who is....four? Got an email address and began sending me emails. In thinking of what to respond to her I got the idea to tell her I would mail her a present. I didn't know what I would mail her, but then the idea occurred to me I could make her a doll with a ceramic head of herself.

I didn't realize how much work it would have been, and if I had I probably wouldn't have made it. I am happy I didn't know how much work it would take, because I am happy I made it. I am very pleased with the results, and want to make a bunch of dolls using my friends faces as models. Now that I have done one, making more will be much easier.

While I am very pleased with the results, the face did not turn out quite like I had hoped. The face doesn't look too much like Isobel. This was the first time I had ever sculpted a face. I thought whatever ability I had in drawing a face would translate into sculpting ability, but it did not at all. It was like learning how to draw a face for the first time all over again. Plus, I only had one photo to work with. It would have been much easier if I had photos of her face from multiple angles, which I ended up asking for, but by then it was too late to make any significant changes.

Also, the glaze turned out different than I had hoped. I put a thin layer of skin color over the entire face, allowing it to pool in some places to cause interesting changes in color, but the pigment entirely burnt out in the areas where it was not pooled.

also, I had to break the back of the head with a hammer cause it did not maintain its original shape and caused the face to constantly be facing upwards. I realized it was risky taking a hammer to the doll, and was happy I only broke the area I intended. To cover up the broken area I glued doll hair onto the missing area.

also, after my brother saw a picture of the doll, I learned I had spelled her name wrong. There is no 'E' at the end. Fortunately the letters were just ironed on patches and the 'E' was easily peeled off. Photos:





When my other niece, Chloe,6, saw the doll she said 'cool, I don't think Isobel is going to like it.' I asked her why not and she said 'cause the face looks like your face'

When my nephew, Mitchel, also 6, saw the doll he said it looked like the face was covered in blood.

When Greg saw it he said it looked scary. I asked him why and he said because of the hair. I asked him why the hair is scary and he said it is because it looks like dead person hair.

This is the email Ricky, her father, sent me, my mom and sister:
The moment you have all been waiting for has arrived. Isobel's reaction to her doll. I still haven't seen it, I'm excited to go home and talk to her about it, this is what carie said:

isobel just got her doll from Chris. She was pretty excited about it having her name on it but once I took the bubble wrap off the head she kind of stayed quiet for a minute. She said she is scared by it but that she likes it. She also said, "It's face is funny. it's glass, can you put it up now?" meaning she wants it on a shelf to be displayed. She really liked the couch and bed furniture that he also sent. She keeps saying you will be so surprised when you get home and see it.

Then he sent this in reply to my reply to his email:

i think isobel likes her doll more than the email may have let on, she thinks it's very special. i think it will be one of those keepsake things that she probably won't play with really but will always want to have and will grow more attached to it the older she gets. or more scared of until she is so terrified of it she smashes it against the wall to end her nightmares. -totally yankin yer chain dude!!!!!

'I will sleep through every single dawn and those I see I will not comprehend'

My class only meets together two times a week. Monday and Tuesday mornings. The rest of the week is open studio time. Later I will write more about my class and how much I love both the class and teacher.

This entry is specifically about the early meeting time of those two days we do meet.

Because we meet so early Monday and Tuesday, on these days I need to wake up around 7:30 A.m. if I want to be in my seat on time. Sometimes in the morning the marsh land I live in is foggy. I think it is beautiful when this happens. These photos were taken from inside my bedroom.






Having to wake up that early the first two days of the week shifts my normal sleep cycle a few hours early than normal for every other day of the week. I am happy about this.

During the summer I generally woke up around 9 or 10 a.m. each day. I would have preferred to have woken up earlier, but having nothing external motivating me to wake up early and condition my body to the habit, my desire to experience mornings was overshadowed by my desire to avoid the pain that is waking up earlier than one is used to.

I want to explain how special the morning is to me. I think I will just repeat a passage by Thoreau that does well in capturing my feelings(I still laugh when I think about L. Tom Perry, my agnostic friend Tom Perry's grandpa, giving a General Conference talk based on Thoreau's Walden. And I can't believe he used that as a basis in blaming the financial crisis on individual excess of the average citizen rather than unethical banking/lending and lack of regulation) The quote (from chapter 2 of Walden):

The morning, which is the most memorable season of the day, is the awakening hour. Then there is least somnolence in us; and for an hour, at least, some part of us awakes which slumbers all the rest of the day and night. Little is to be expected of that day, if it can be called a day, to which we are not awakened by our Genius, but by the mechanical nudgings of some servitor, are not awakened by our own newly acquired force and aspirations from within, accompanied by the undulations of celestial music, instead of factory bells, and a fragrance filling the air--to a higher life than we fell asleep from; and thus the darkness bear its fruit, and prove itself to be good, no less than the light. That man who does not believe that each day contains an earlier, more sacred, and auroral hour than he has yet profaned, has despaired of life, and is pursuing a descending and darkening way. After a partial cessation of his sensuous life, the soul of man, or its organs rather, are reinvigorated each day, and his Genius tries again what noble life it can make. All memorable events, I should say, transpire in morning time and in a morning atmosphere. The Vedas say, "All intelligences awake with the morning." Poetry and art, and the fairest and most memorable of the actions of men, date from such an hour.-----We must learn to reawaken and keep ourselves awake, not by mechanical aids, but by an infinite expectation of the dawn, which does not forsake us in our soundest sleep.'

Like most Thoreau, the quote is good and inspiring, but also reflects Thoreau's unpleasant side of arrogance and his sense of superiority to others. 'the man who does not believe that each day...... has despaired of life...is pursuing a darkening way' Come one h.d. take a chill pill.

In the mornings, when it is not raining, I like to walk around our property, picking and eating wild blackberries. I sit on the back porch and pet Mr. Mouser, the stray cat we feed that has finally over come his fear of me and even sits in my lap, though still freaks out if I try and pick him up.









This is me drinking from my favorite cup(when Greg, Laura Barlow and I went to Portland a few years ago, Greg bought it at a wonderful Pottery Studio, knowing how much I admired the cup he later, generously gave it to me.)(This picture was taken last year, when I lived alone in a cabin in the woods on the shore of the Puget Sound, but it is the cup I generally use each morning for tea or coffee):









I drink coffee and read on the couch. This particular couch.





In recent mornings I have been reading the Koran, comparing the two different translations I have. I have recently acquired an excellent translation of the Bible, which has in several ways altered my perspective on Jesus teachings(more on this later.)

I like to read inspiring writings during morning hours. Books such as the Koran or Bible(which I did not used to find inspiring at all, but I do this Oxford translated Bible). Other mornings I read Baha'i or Buddhist writings. Sometimes the Bhagavad-gita. I have an excellent book titled 'Jesus and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings', which is a collection of their overlapping teachings and actions (which is the great majority of them. Jesus: not unique or original. But still good and valuable.), This book I always find insightful.

I find reading something inspirational or uplifting things each morning helps set a tone of calm peace for my day. Something I wrote about in more depth here.

Some mornings I may meditate(my favorite type of meditation so far is Mindfulness) or Falun Gong(Which is the same thing as Falun Dafa. I do not understand entirely the double name. I strongly recommend mindfulness and Falun Gong to all people, be ye black or white. J/k, only white people.). Although I am generally more inclined towards those activities in the late afternoon or evenings when the opportunity to slow down and be calm has greater impact, rather than the morning when I am already in a calm and slow state of mind.

I live in a wonderful place to be able exploit the resource that is called morning. This comfortable house, on this beautiful property, with warm, intelligent and funny roommates, two cats, an apple tree, a greenhouse, blackberry bushes, fresh coffee each morning made by my roommate.






Each morning I wake up happy and excited to be living in Olympia, to be attending the school that is my number one choice, in a class that is as good as I could hope for, to know and be connected with a wise, funny and peaceful girl named Marissa. I miss Marissa, (hi Marissa) because she is on the other side of the world for two more months, but we are able to talk free, online, via Skype, for as long as we want, which can frequently be longer than 8 hours at a time. Before I don't know if I had ever had longer than a 3 hour telephone conversation with anyone, now longer conversations are a regular part of my life. There are moments, often as I lay in bed waiting to be overcome by sleep, where I miss her so much it is difficult, but aside from the missing, every day is exciting to wake up to.








This morning I noticed a new spider web had been made the night before on our back porch. I found it pretty and hope the spider who made it is able to thrive and not have his or her web destroyed.




I also like doing the dishes in the mornings. I enjoy washing dishes by hand more than using a dishwashing machine. I enjoy the slow, meditative process. I also like being able to do a small gesture that I know adds something nice to the lives of my roommates.

This is the table where I am sitting and writing:





This is a close up on the tile you see on the wall in the photo above. I made it this summer. The text is adapted form a list of virtues in the Bhagavad Gita








Here is a picture of me, wearing what I have been wearing for the past several days, my thobe, with a flannel on top, which is pretty much like I am wearing a skirt. But the thobe is amazingly warm. Keeps me warm in this chilly pacific northwest fall weather. It makes me a heart thobe. that is Marissa's joke. Marissa loves word play jokes.

addie

Thank you to Adrienne B. for letting me know the name of the Elder I had referred to in the previous entry. Elder Corbridge. I looked him up and confirmed that yes, he is a life long member. I re-listened to the talk and realized he did not say 'insanity', but 'madness'. Those words or synonymous enough it doesn't affect what I wrote. But I think the tone of madness is worse than of insanity. Madness seems like someone who is going to become a killer. Or a scientist.

Re listening to the talk I realized he was more explicit than I had first realized. He repeatedly mentioned that ANY other way, whatever it may be, leads to despair.

Because of how over-the-top and unsettling his talk was I want to write more about it, yet his point was so obviously and unquestionably untrue I don't know what else I could say.
(in writing and speaking I make an effort to avoid extreme language and hyperbole, as I wish to communicate as effectively and sincerely as possible. I questioned myself in using the terms 'obviously' and 'unquestionably', but decided they accurately reflect my feelings and will stay)

Morning.

One more thing

Just one more thing about Conference. Based on something said after I wrote my other entry.
I wasn't familiar with the speaker but he said something to this effect: 'the only way to happiness is through Jesus. Everything else leads to insanity.' !!

(I wish I knew who the guy was so I could make sure this is accurate, but I am assuming this man has been a life long member. When the talk is posted online I will double check this.)

It is odd to me that someone who has only known one way of living could feel justified in claiming that their exists one way of living, which just happens to be the way he has been brought up in, that is the only path to happiness.

Fortunately this is a very easy claim to test. Aside from personal experience and what I have observed of numerous others, this subject has been well examined by researchers.
As I have discussed before, it is well studied that while religion or spirituality in one's life does, in general, increase levels of happiness, no one religion stands out above the others. If the statement above was correct researchers would be able to see a distinct difference in the levels of happiness between Christians and non-Christians. (or Mormons and those of other religions) Especially if it were true that all non-Christians are insane. Yet this has not been observed.

Perhaps when the speaker said 'insane' he meant to suggest that the non-christians perception of reality becomes so unlike what he believes to be the correct world view that it has become insanity. However, that interpretation is of insanity is incorrect. Beliefs based on faulty premise does not, in and of itself equal what we mean when we use the word 'insane'. I doubt this man would consider ancient people who believed the sun revolved around the earth insane because of their mistaken belief.

Neuroscience, through brain scans can actually see a person's level of happiness. The happiest man ever recorded by this means has been a Buddhist monk, Matthieu Ricard.

If one considers the statements of Jesus saying 'By their fruit you will recognize them....A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.' One would think that by this standard Matthieu Ricard is good, bearing good fruit, and not insane.

conference.

This morning I remembered today was General Conference.

So, as I sit here this morning, eating the carrot soup I made yesterday, listening to the rain outside, and making pictures with the chinese ink and ink brush I bought a few days ago,( inspired by the excellent inkings done this summer by isaac,), and waiting till it is time to go to school, I am also watching General Conference online.

I actually enjoy watching conference much more now that I am not a member and watch it with the perspective of a curious outsider rather than as a devotee seeking instruction. I enjoy it in a way similar to how I enjoy listening to Christian radio stations when driving through rural areas or watching Scientology lectures on Youtube. It is fascinating to listen to what values and ideas people attempt to instill in others.

As I listen and watch I am frequently overcome with enormous gratitude that I am no longer a member. Listening to these wealthy businessmen and lawyers who I have little in common with and do not admire or find enlightening, make statements like 'how we dress indicates the degree to which we understand and appreciate the activity in which we participate' (in reference to participating the sacrament ritual*), or quoting Henry David Thoreau in weird, out of context ways often taking his statements to mean the opposite of what Thoreau intended, or the irony of Elder Uchtdorf quoting Camus (referring to him as simply: 'one writer') my heart swells with thankfulness that I no longer feel any sense of obligation to take seriously the instruction of these uninspiring men.

Since leaving the Church I have been more happy, content and centered than I thought I would be able to attain in this life. The reasons are various and many directly linked to having left The Church. Sometime I will discuss this more in depth, but one major factor is that the sort of people held up by Mormonism as role models and examples of what sort of person we should try to be are very different than me and very different than how I want to be. Also very different than the sort of people I admire and am influenced by.
This caused in me some degree of cognitive dissonance as well feelings of inadequacy. When the sort of person repeatedly emphasized as being ideal is at odds with my self and my values, it instilled in me a lingering sense of being, in some ways deficient. The example above about clothing was perfect illustration. When it comes to attitudes about clothing I much more side with Jesus (see below) than with whoever it was who made the statement above.
(A side note, while the reasons for the increased happiness I wrote above are a great bonus to me since leaving the church, those reasons had little no impact on why I left the church. My reasoning was based on philosophical and historical issues, not lifestyle or self esteem reasons.)


*contrast that with what Jesus had to say on the subject (Matthew 6:25,28&29)

25)
Therefore I tell you, do not worry ... what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?


28) And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin.

29Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these.

also see Matthew 15:1-18

vp debate.

I hope I never have to hear Sarah Pallin say the word 'maverick' again. It seems that her fall back for not knowing how to answer a question is to speak about John Mccain having this title.
I thought it was pretty funny when she said she wasn't going to answer questions the way Biden or the moderator wanted. Then why even bother showing up for the debate? The way she phrased it seemed to imply there is something wrong with Biden and the moderator's desire for her to answer questions directly. As if giving direct, honest answers that don't refer to her or Mccain being a maverick is just something liberal elitists do, but regular folk like her prefer answers that don't address the question or say anything at all.
When I imagine Sarah Pallin (or Mccain)being in leadership of this country it honestly brings a tear(of sadness) to my eye. That about half of the country thinks these people should run our country is almost incomprehensible to me. I wonder if the issues of abortion and homosexuality were not such a hot issue, obscuring people's judgment about what is important in a leader, how much support these two people would have.
If we are able to pull out of this financial crisis, yet it shows to the American people how deeply destructive republicans can be when allowed to deregulate as they wish, then perhaps these financial difficulties will ultimately be to our benefit.

I came to know this guy cause he left a comment on one of my flickr photos where my thobe was tucked into my underwear reading: 'I tuck, too. Makes a lot of sense.' Perusing his flickr photos I was pleased to see that underwear tucking is a prominent theme in his life. I really like this video in a non-ironic or humorous way and have watched it numerous times. It feels so human.

Kari Jorgensen.

I bet Kari will never kill Bardhi.

Beauty queen. Drug dealers.

It is funny how being a beauty queen seems to confer life long status in our society. Like being a senator or governor or astronaut (hi marissa).
I just saw a news item about a missing women and the headline mentioned she had been a beauty queen. She is 30 years old now, several years away from her pageant days, yet beauty queen is still her identity. When Sarah Pallin was nominated her having been a beauty pageant contestant seemed to be one of the first things I knew about her.

It is interesting the way news organization identify people. I have recently been noticing when the victim of a crime, even a murder, is a drug user or a prostitute, this is always mentioned even if it has no other relevance to the story, and the reference always seems to be in a sense of saying: it is unfortunate the crime happened, but not too big of a deal because it was just a prostitute or drug user.

To be fair, I can see where one might be coming from in feeling that a crime which has occurred to someone in that realm of society is somehow distinct from a crime affecting the average citizen. People are more interested in and afraid of things which could possibly happen to them. Hearing of a college student getting raped is scarier because that is the world we occupy and it reveals our vulnerabilities. Hearing of a prostitute or drug user getting raped might feel different, they inhabit a seperate world from us, what happens in that world is different than what happens in our world.

However, I believe this way of thinking is overly simplistic. It creates this notion that people who have this label of 'drug user' or 'prostitute' spend all day every day sitting in some trashy apartment shooting heroin and having sex.

I confess I have never actually known a prostitute, but I know many drug users, and anyone else who knows a drug user realizes their is much more to their life than using drugs. To describe someone, as news outlets so often do, with the phrase of drug user is like describing someone as being prescribed an anti-depressant. Imagine a news article reading, 'Pinocchio-Bones Jones, who is prescribed an anti-depressant was murdered and set on fire while celebrating his birthday.' That description would feel irrelevant to the content of the story, and expressing an obvious bigotry, as if somehow their victimization is less meaningful, yet so often that is how drug users or prostitutes are treated in news stories.

Granted, sometimes the information IS relevant, for example if a serial killer was targeting prostitutes, or if the crime happened during a drug deal gone awry, but very often the victims status of drug user/prostitute is mentioned and has no relevance at all to the story, except to say: a crime happened, but don't worry, it wasn't to someone like us. It didn't happen, thank god, to a former beauty queen.

Also, I was surprised how controversial my last entry has been. To all who expressed disagreement, go to hell! J/k, your all cool. I often feel somewhat torn when people leave a comment in disagreement. A part of me wants to provide a point by point refution, but then another part of me doesn't want to be harsh and overbearing. Especially when it is an issue, I don't necessarily feel strongly about.