Gone with January. Only eleven more months to make 2004 worth something.

I no longer like the way people see me.

I'm irritated at their assumptions. I'm irritated that they think they know me. Like I'm a finite thing... Something that can be studied in its entirety and then placed on a shelf... Known fully and not expected to change.

It's like people are waiting excitedly for me to get through growing and become a cog in the wheel. Perhaps it comes with the territory. I'm 29, soon to be 30. Perhaps they just think I'll "grow up" soon - which is code for "stop growing".

And what frightens me is that I can feel the noose tightening on my neck.

I feel like I've hit the ceiling, reached the limits. If I keep living where I am, I think I may die.

Peter Berger says that society is a human construct that assigns meaning to events. I have no society anymore. Events are losing meaning. I construct meaning for them in my mind, but no one else can hear me. No one else is a part of my society.

I feel like my choices are either to go back and accept the society around me and its meanings for events or to find a new society - a new group of friends. This has happened before. I know there's no going back. I don't believe anymore and I'm not good at faking. I only wished I didn't have to leave alone. I wouldn't have to leave alone if others were not seduced by safety or caught by comfortability.

How can one be safe in a violent world like this? We can't, of course, yet the illusion is so popular.

How can one be comfortable in this broken world? The chords are off-key... We can't, of course, yet the illusion is so popular.

I'd rather be done with the illusions - they only bring death. Give me reality, but beyond that, give myself to truth...that one thing more real than reality.

God help us all.

posted by Headless-in-GR @ 1/31/2004 04:53:42 PM

What is that thing inside us that tells us something's wrong?
Intuition? Psyche? The common sense bone?
And why, why, why does it not have action?
Only feeling...

Only a feeling that sits...
Sits like a stone.

posted by Headless-in-GR @ 1/31/2004 04:48:07 PM

On a more personal note,

I'm applying for a job at a local "conservative, fundamental" Christian organization. Why? That's a great question. I needed a job and wanted to meet new people who like Jesus. I had no idea it was conservative or fundamental at first - she told me yesterday in my first interview.

And here's my point about all this - I'm applying for a job to answer the telephones. There are three interviews I have to go through! Plus a skills test and an initial interview which got me to this place in order to have three interviews. Again, I will quote my dear friend Anna,

"What position are you applying for? ... Oh, cause it sounds like your applying for the vice-president's job."

Yeah, no kiddin'.

I JUST WANNA ANSWER YOUR STUPID PHONES, OK?!

I'm worried that they'll ask me to raise my right hand and put my other hand on the Bible and swear that the Bible is the third person of the Trinity!

"I believe in the Father, Son and the Holy Bible."

I'll tell you what though, if I get this job, heaven's a sure bet!

posted by Headless-in-GR @ 1/30/2004 09:53:37 AM

I watched the democratic debates last night, and here is my conclusion: it's a political negative to be smart.

Really, the smartest man on that stage was...well it was probably a stagehand in the back, but the smartest candidate was Al Sharpton followed closely by Dennis Kucinich (spelling?) and the Joe Lieberman.

I had never really listened to Sharpton before because the media always made him sound so silly, but by far, that guy is the best debater of all of them, including my little doll, John Edwards.

Kerry and Edwards have been in the speaking business too long because they're careful with every word that comes out of their mouth - so much so that they might as well not say anything most of the time.

Clark looks like a trained puppy. He can do the tricks with familiar commands, "Blah, blah, blah...the war in Iraq" (See Clark roll-over!) but if anyone gives him an unfamiliar command, he just looks silly. Although, he did better this debate than in New Hampshire.

posted by Headless-in-GR @ 1/30/2004 09:39:22 AM

Today's discussion: The (other) 28th Amendment (sorry, ERA).

Yes, I am talking about President Bush's "sorta-kinda" hint at an amendment "clarifying" that marriage is between a man and a woman only and no other arrangements should carry the status of "marriage", as defined above (clause 1 and 2, if you will).

There are of course many issues at hand, not the least of which is the Amendment Ten (states' rights) issue. Certainly there must be a problem if you are married (or "civilly unioned") in Vermont but fly to Houston and cease to be. And there's a problem if Texas has to do what Vermont says. Second, there is the issue of money. If a "partner" is a "spouse", then the partner is eligible for company health insurance, divorce settlements, advantages when filing your taxes, etc... There is also a sociological / religious issue concerning morality in culture as well as the continuation of the social structure we now know it. I'm sure there are many other issues as well, but I want to focus on an aspect of this debate that will certainly (and already has) come up.

The "Religious Right" (or the remnants of it, whatever way you want to look at it) will and are and have been involved in this issue. Now, I won't go so far as to say that I always oppose the Religious Right - just everytime so far.

Ok, the point is this: WHY do my fellow Christians believe that it would be a good idea to use the government to enforce values? WHERE have they been that this has worked? WHEN did Jesus ever say, "force people to convert through fear of punishment of the governing authority"?

Now listen, YES, government legislates morality. What a stupid institution government would be if it only legislated what was amoral! "We hereby legislate taxes to provide well-paved roads for this nation but we refuse to say or do anything about murder. Just use our nicely paved roads to chase down those you want to kill." That is simply dumb. Of course we legislate morality and should. The difficulty in this country is that we don't know WHO gets to define morality and this problem is absolutely protected by the Constitution.

What do I mean? Morality is religious term. Even if you're an atheist - that is a religious stance. Humans are religious no matter what because humans think and have opinions about God. The only possible exception would be agnostics because they have an opinion about not having an opinion, and that's a rabbit we won't chase. But the point here is that Freedom of Religion is protected. Yes, this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values, and it is those values that protect freedom of religion!

Potential mess? YES! This means that theoretically, on a "slippery slope", we could someday have to deal with a religion that believes in human sacrifice. And guess what? We'd really have to deal with it! We couldn't just sweep it under a rug! It's really not that hard to imagine...we already are dealing with assisted suicide. If we nationally legalize assisted suicide, how far is to go to a religion where people wish to be sacrificed for religious beliefs? Potential mess? Yes!! But it is absolutely protected by the Constitution and by Judeo-Christian values found in it!

How can I say that? I'll tell you how, and this is where the Religious Right is wrong. Fundamental to everything Jesus was about was his insistence that people change inside - in the heart. This is a man who said "Woe to you" (which is Old English for "you're up a creek") to the Pharasees because they were like people who wash the outsides of their cups, but leave the inside filthy. "Woe to you" cause you're like a grave - sculpted marble and beautiful flowers outside and inside - rotting flesh. Why do we want to create a society of Pharasees? Why would we want people to be forced under fear of punishment to act like Christians when they're not?

The thing is God created free will. We can give God the "middle finger" if we want. Not advisable, to be sure, but we can do it. It is not our right or duty or privilege to take away free will, and the moment we do, we become anti-God! We become the anti-christ!

Ok, here's the other side. Jesus was also not promoting a lazier-fare approach to immorality (such as human sacrifice) in society. He did not slip into the lazy-brain phenomenon of believing that it was simply "either/or". He wasn't saying, "if they want to offer themselves as human sacrifices, fine". He never said that! He had another plan.

He said, "You are the salt of the earth... You are the light of the world...".

The United States Constitution is amazing. Really. It has completely opened wide the doors and leveled the playing field for the Church to really be the Church like never before. Those who are not Christians can enter into conversations with those of us who are as humans! Not as groveling dogs or as hypocritical Pharasees! They don't have to be afraid!

Followers of Jesus,

It is fear that makes the soil rocky and love that makes the soil rich.

-Matthew 13

posted by Headless-in-GR @ 1/24/2004 08:42:25 AM

I still have no idea why my blog was posted twice, but one is definitely prior to the spellcheck and the second is after the spellcheck...which doesn't make any sense at all because the spellcheck one should be first because it was done last...

Did that make any sense at all?

posted by Headless-in-GR @ 1/22/2004 05:59:44 PM

I have no idea why the last post showed up twice.

Not one good idea at all.

posted by Headless-in-GR @ 1/22/2004 05:42:23 PM

It is time for me to weigh in on the outlook of the political landscape. Really, I should have done it sooner because I predicted a Kerry win in Iowa - but no one believes me now!

So, tonight the candidates debate in New Jersey. Here are my predictions:

1) Edwards shines as most elequent.
2) Kerry is stayed and destinquished, but a little cold (nothing new in NH).
3) Lieberman is most intelligent, but he just doesn't look like a president.
4) Dean tries to hard and looks fake.
5) Clark has no fire in his belly - he'd be a great grandpa and we'd all like him.
6) Kusinich (sp?) - intelligent and boring and...geez, those ears!
7) Sharpton - entertaining as always - look to see who he can ruffle this time.

The thing is this - unfortunately we pick our presidents based on looks. Lieberman is just a nice guy and a smart guy and he just will never be president because he doesn't look like one. It's like running Bob Dole against Clinton. Dole was a good man - what the heck was the Republican party thinking though?!

Democrats have a better grasp on the "looks game". Which means Edwards will be back if he's not offered the VP this year. The thing with Edwards is that he just can't get rid of that Southern accent - and probably doesn't want to. It's charming to me, but sadly we know that Southern accents do not carry with them the best conitations. Another thing with Edwards - I really think he needs to tell us how old he is again, because he looks to young to be president. But even in NH, expect him to do better than the poles say (which wouldn't be hard).

Kerry will be the nominee. He should, if he has any brains, take Edwards with him as VP. However, I don't think this will beat Bush because when Bush and Kerry square off in the debates, Bush will just be too likable for those in the middle. Kerry will be too reserved. The swing votes are going to come not from the northeast, but from Missouri, Arizona and the like, and people in these states will go for the more relaxed, "having fun" candidate - Bush.

There is this difficulty with Bush getting re-elected. The tight race in the Democrat Party has caught the attention of otherwise sleepy-eyed Democrats - those who would have forgotten about the whole thing. The more people paying attention, the more people get invested, the more people turn out at the poles.

In the end it will be close, but I predict a Kerry/Edwards campaign to lose to the Bush/Cheney(?) campaign. Don't worry, though, Edwards will be back.

Oh, and Sharpton won't ruffle Edwards, even if he tries.

"pundited" by Lois

posted by Headless-in-GR @ 1/22/2004 05:16:46 PM

It is time for me to weigh in on the outlook of the political landscape. Really, I should have done it sooner because I predicted a Kerry win in Iowa - but no one believes me now!

So, tonight the candidates debate in New Hampshire. Here are my predictions:

1) Edwards shines as most eloquent.
2) Kerry is stayed and distinguished, but a little cold (nothing new in NH).
3) Lieberman is most intelligent, but he just doesn't look like a president.
4) Dean tries too hard and looks fake.
5) Clark has no fire in his belly - he'd be a great grandpa and we'd all like him.
6) Kusinich (sp?) - intelligent and boring and...geez, those ears!
7) Sharpton - entertaining as always - look to see who he can ruffle this time.

The thing is this - unfortunately we pick our presidents based on looks. Lieberman is just a nice guy and a smart guy and he just will never be president because he doesn't look like one. It's like running Bob Dole against Clinton. Dole was a good man - what the heck was the Republican party thinking though?!

Democrats have a better grasp on the "looks game". Which means Edwards will be back if he's not offered the VP this year. The thing with Edwards is that he just can't get rid of that Southern accent - and probably doesn't want to. It's charming to me, but sadly we know that Southern accents do not carry with them the best connotations. Another thing with Edwards - I really think he needs to tell us how old he is again, because he looks to young to be president. But even in NH, expect him to do better than the poles say (which wouldn't be hard).

Kerry will be the nominee. He should, if he has any brains, take Edwards with him as VP. However, I don't think this will beat Bush because when Bush and Kerry square off in the debates, Bush will just be too likeable for those in the middle. Kerry will be too reserved. The swing votes are going to come not from the northeast, but from Missouri, Arizona and the like, and people in these states will go for the more relaxed, "having fun" candidate - Bush.

There is this difficulty with Bush getting re-elected. The tight race in the Democrat Party has caught the attention of otherwise sleepy-eyed Democrats - those who would have forgotten about the whole thing. The more people paying attention, the more people get invested, the more people turn out at the poles.

In the end it will be close, but I predict a Kerry/Edwards campaign to lose to the Bush/Cheney(?) campaign. Don't worry, though, Edwards will be back.

Oh, and Sharpton won't ruffle Edwards, even if he tries.

"pundited" by Lois

posted by Headless-in-GR @ 1/22/2004 05:16:26 PM

Good morning!

posted by Headless-in-GR @ 1/22/2004 10:30:53 AM

I must post this conversation that my sister picked up. The credit, I believe, goes to Max Munton. To learn more about him, go to "graciepies house", which is located on the right of my blog. (I can't figure out how to get a link here - I'm working on it!)


Necessary Conversation

Max says: What's the opposite of life?
David says: Tough one
Max says: Could it be the only thing without an opposite?
David says: It could be Death, but that could be described as the absence of life...
Max says: can't be because the opposite of death, is birth
David says: Or conception really
David says: Hmm
Max says: that would be the opposite of after-life
David says: After life is the opposite of life?
Max says: of conception
David says: After-life could simply be a continuation of life in another form
Max says: i guess a baby in the womb, is pre-life in another form
David says: True, or pre-birth
David says: Because it is alive
Max says: so would that make it the opposite of dead?
David says: Why?
Max says: "Because it is alive"
Max says: (i'm talking about pre-birth)
David says: Which makes it a part of life
David says: ..Which, as we have talked about, may have no opposite
Max says: I don't think we're getting any closer
David says: It's an interesting concept though
Max says: but is the only reason that it doesn't have an opposite because it's an actual thing?
Max says: like there might be no opposite of chair
Max says: or is that table
David says: No, chair has no exact opposite
Max says: ah
Max says: guitar?
David says: I don't think objects can really have opposites
David says: Ideas can e.g. Right and Left
David says: Or right and wrong
Max says: is life an object?
David says: It's a state of being
Max says: with no opposite
David says: It would seem that way
Max says: funny that
David says: It is
Max says: i'm gonna put this conversation on my blog

And I'm out.

posted by Headless-in-GR @ 1/21/2004 10:21:59 PM

Well, it seems I must respond to my dear sister. Let me first post her words below:

Grace:

I'm not sure who my sister associates with all the time so that she still thinks women are expected to be submissive and inferior. Maybe she really did just spend too much time in Mt. Pleasant. Really, though, why is that still an issue? It's done with. Finding a man is not the ultimate goal; that's stupid. You don't have to be a stereotypical female to find love. That's been established. She, of course, thinks it's stupid too, but apparently she still feels like she has resist the urging by society to conform to weird female standards before she can be loved, and furthermore, being loved by some guy is her implied life goal. I mean where does she get this? (sorry Lois, if you're reading this, but it's a message to everyone). That's such an archaic mindset on the part of people who enforce it. Here is the difference between me and her:

I don't think about the heinousness of women seeking men as a spiritual leader, life giver, master, commander, employer, and obvious superior.

I don't think about that at all. Because I don't doubt that it's stupid.

Who still thinks these things? I don't know anyone. Except maybe my uncle(s), and I don't pay attention to him. He laughs at my dreams of being a filmmaker. Really though, he's a great guy, just too anchored to the past. It doesn't bother me.

Yes, I sometimes get perturbed at the repeated adoration of ditzy cookie cutter girls by naive and typical and empty boys. But who wants naive typical and empty boys?

I've never experienced this alledged discrimination. (expect for maybe to a small extent in Tech I, but those were mostly just people being jerks and it faded quickly. No biggie)

Makes me wonder if it's not mostly just in her head.

Or, if not, if she's seriously just hanging out with the wrong people, because people are not like that the world-over.

If I felt as though I had to lower my IQ and turn into a ditz for Said Prince Charming, then who the hell wants that anyway?

SERiosly.

pssh

// pondered by Grace

Now, anyone who knows Grace or reads her work knows that she is a genius (much like her sisters) and when she has an opinion, one would be wise to engage it for it quite possibly might have pearls of wisdom or truth or reality or a combination of the three hidden in the crevices. So, I would like to respond first to Grace's question, "Who still thinks these things?" with this opening statement, coined so elegantly by my dear friend Anna Rapa...

"Hello Grace? This is Grand Rapids calling..."

Yes, sadly, the fact is the town/city I live in along with many, many others absolutely hold steadfast to "archaic" patriarchal beliefs. Of course there are many people in this town who agree with Grace and Anna and I about the equality of women. The issue at hand and the reason I write are the social structures in place in towns and cities across America that cause young girls and young boys to grow up accepting harmful lies without even knowing it.

I spoke to a very educated Christian gentleman the other day who is a licensed psychiatrist and is not from Grand Rapids. This is his conclusion about Grand Rapids: "This place is a freaking time warp!"

Now, to Grace and others, College Station, Texas may seem like a time warp, but I am here to tell you that it really is not. Yes, you may look over while driving down the street and see a beat-up truck with the confederate flag hanging in the window - let me assure you, I know Bubba is still there. But, ideologically College Station is quite commonplace among "college towns". The social structure that you have grown up in is far more "liberal" than ordinary towns in America, which incidentally, outnumber college towns significantly.

Furthermore, most seniors in high school have never applied for a job or tried for any position (economic or not) that requires much more than the ability to do rote mental or physical behaviors such as pushing buttons on a cash register or scooping up popcorn. There is nothing wrong with that! Be sure to understand that I, in no way, am looking down my 29 year old nose at seniors in high school. But let me assure you there are studies that show that women compose a very small minority of CEO's in America. They are only a very small minority of pastors in American. The compose 0% of the Presidents or Vice Presidents in our government. They make approximately 50% to 30% less in salary as compared to men. These studies are not hard to find, and should anyone challenge me on this issue, I am willing to locate these studies and others on the internet and post their sites.

But let me take one step further and say the opportunity for women to advance economically and even probably politically (Go Condi Rice! Go Hillary!) does exist in this country. For all its faults, the values the US was founded on are truly "a girl's best friend" in terms of women's rights. The problem, though, are the beliefs that women have in their heads about themselves, not the laws on the books. Opportunity exist, but many women do not step into it, not because they are not gifted. They do not step into it because their reality has been defined by the society they are living in and that they continue to create by agreeing with it. Poverty is the same. Poverty creates a reality in the heads of people who are raised in it. Yes, some come out of it, but most simply grow into their parents. Poverty is a generational curse. Sexism is a generational curse as well.

Grace, it seems, is completely liberated from these silly notions (I'm glad!), but certainly she cannot miss the ads and commercials! Certainly we cannot miss the obvious message of "sell by sex" ads, "You could have sex with a woman like this, if you buy our product." Do your own survey - how many commercials or banners in the mall say "You could have sex with a man like this..." In fact, the unspoken message to men is "you could have a sex object if you buy our stuff." The message to women is "you could be a sex object if you buy our products" which are, of course, really short skirts, low-cut shirts that are "sticky" or my personal favorite, sweatpants with words on the butt.

Let me just take a moment here. How many men have you seen wearing sweatpants or shorts that have "Varsity" tattooed across the butt? I haven't seen any. Women, though, wear them all the time. It is a male joke on women who are athletic, a perfect excuse to look at their butts. And for those who wear words on their butts and do not belong to the athletic crowd (where it started) does this not almost audibly say, "Look at my butt"? I wonder how many headbands you could sell that say "liberated" across the forehead? I'm guessing it would be a less popular trend. How short are guys shorts? Last time I looked, you were lucky to see knee. How many men wear high-heels, which make your legs look longer, but are incredibly uncomfortable? Look at the way we dress and tell me that we are not a society that holds firmly to the idea that the best women are sexy, not smart. Culture always produces clues of its values. Ask any anthropologist.

Furthermore, in response to Grace's assertion that "people are not like that [believing in the inequality of the sexes] the world over", I must respond that sadly, yes they are. See, the "world-over" is unquestionably sexist. In fact, taking in the world population and calculating the percentage of individuals who believe in the equality of the sexes would reduce Grace, Anna, myself and other fans of equality to about 2%, if we are lucky.

In unnamed countries (out of respect), women are used like beast of labor. They work all day in the fields, prepare meals, watch the children and live in danger of being beaten or experiencing that unfortunate phenomenon of "accidentally" catching on fire in the kitchen. For those who do not know what I am talking about, there is a practice in some countries of "wife burning". This happens when men get tired of their wives, so they wait until their wife is in the kitchen, walk in and throw gasoline and a lit match on her and leave. The next day, it is reported as an "accident" in the papers, if it gets reported at all.

The big question is, why do women stay in these situations? Why not raise themselves out of this mess? And the answer is: Beliefs. If all the women in these cultures decided they had enough and simply protested by withholding sex until they got their rights; they would get their rights.

And sexism is alive and well in America.

Just the other day I had a guy look at me and say, "But Lois, women were made to be men's helpers, it says so in the Bible." This is precisely what I am talking about. He was referring to Genesis 2, where God decides to make a "helper" for Adam. Because this man grew up in our society, he reads Genesis 2 as God looking for an administrative assistant for Adam, who needed some filing done because naming all the plants and animals got a little out of hand. The truth is, if you read it, God says it's not good for the man to be alone. Adam was lonely. So God brings all the animals to Adam and none of them can be intimate with him because none of them think like him, feel like him, experience like him, in other words, his equal. So God creates a "helper" for him. Now the word helper is used 21 times in the ancient Hebrew text that we more commonly know as the Old Testament (the New Testament was written in Greek). Twice "helper" is used to refer to the woman in Genesis 2. Twice it refers to a military ally and 17 times it refers to God. The word helper is anything but submissive. It is powerful. It is someone who rescues. Yet, this fair boy, raised in our culture reads into Genesis his society's beliefs and promotes them as biblical!.

My point, again, is that it is in the head.

And so, I think I have written quite enough - in fact too much - but I will end it here with one last thing. I emphatically deny that I am looking for a man. It was programmed into me by my younger years, but I have been totally released from it and it is amazingly freeing. It is this freedom I wish for all women, so that those who do marry may marry a person, not a dream.

posted by Headless-in-GR @ 1/21/2004 07:43:49 PM

Good evening!

posted by Headless-in-GR @ 1/18/2004 08:56:12 PM

Question of the Day:

Why do you think God created a "subconscious"? I mean, do you know how much trouble these things cause people?! Why would God think it was cool to let us absorb all these weird, whacked-out beliefs and then stick 'em in some dark corner of our brains. And there they sit, just waiting to bite us in the buttocks...and what's worse is that we don't even know where the attack is comin' from!

It's like a man minding his own business, walking down the street and suddenly he starts just pounding himself to a pulp! Briefcase flying! Glasses shattered! Dresscoat in the snow! Blood running down his face! Everyone's staring in horror! And then...

He stops...collects his things...
And limps off mumbling something about "this part of town"!

"Dude, do you need a doctor?"

Ya-huh, buddy, he needs a doctor and a padded wall.

Here's what I think...God didn't make the "subconscious", we made it. God made us to be whole people, not people divorced from ourselves. Yet, that is what we are. On the whole, we are unwilling and afraid to look inside. We are unwilling and afraid to admit our own responsibility for the messes we make. We are unwilling and afraid to suggest that we might be living our lives out of lies. Unwilling and afraid to be honest with ourselves.

God didn't make the subconscious, we made it. Each and everyone one of us make our own day after day after day.

Let me just give this one caveat. I do understand that much of the subconscious is created in childhood as a way of protecting ourselves against things that children cannot understand. I don't mean to be yelling at children! My concern is with folks walkin' around in adult bodies who are still living like children.

So let us now examine the subject of this blog in light of the subconscious. When a young woman grows up in an environment where she is taught that her position in life is to be always under the authority of a man, she will incorporate that into the structure of her world.

Men are to be the "head of the household", the "spiritual leader". Women must "submit" to their husbands, need "male authority" over their heads.

Now, couple these thoughts with the fairytales that tell little girls that the greatest thing that could happen in their lives would be to get married to Prince Charming.

Come with me now and visit imagination. See with me this young girl sitting in her Sunday School class. She is intelligent and gifted and even at this young age, she seeks God. Suppose now her teacher asks some Sunday School question. She knows the answer, but no one else does. So, she answers. Suppose this is a recurring theme. She knows the answers and no one else seems to know - or as children are sometimes prone to - no one else seems to care.

What will happen when this girl begins to be interested in boys? Her highest goal is to find "Prince Charming" and marry him. Clearly, Prince Charming is suppose to her "spiritual leader". Only, unfortunately it's hard to follow someone who's behind you!

The choice is quite clear. Lie about who you are (hear: become stupid, ditzy girl) and be "loved" or be honest and never reach your highest goal.

And so, hidden in the subconscious of many "submitting" women is the realization that they actually have the power to stand on their own. What do you think this may lead to?

Until next time, ponder that.

posted by Headless-in-GR @ 1/15/2004 05:54:54 PM

haha I hacked my sister's blog.

- Grace

posted by Headless-in-GR @ 1/05/2004 07:55:46 PM