Writers' Agendas

"I'm sick of this show pushing its liberal agenda on us."  "Why can't they just tell a story without cramming their conservative politics up our noses?"  "That book series is a lot of propaganda."

Anyone who has been in a High School or College literature class can tell you about having to psychoanalyze writers.  What is the significance of Harry Potter's glasses?  Why do they run through a series of rooms in The Mask of The Red Death?  How does Dracula illustrate the sexual repression of the Victorian era?   That analysis of the author's psyche is not a lot different from seeking out the agenda.

Everyone has an agenda.  Speaking for myself, as a fiction writer, I don't deliberately plant mine into my stories.  But it leaks in there.  My stories tend to focus on large, loving families.  I put together couples who fit, not really caring about their race or sex.  I don't set my stories in large cities.  I never thought much about those things - I was just enjoying my chosen role as story teller.

I've been guilty of diversity for diversity's sake - which led to the happy accident of Olivia Ross.  My white heterosexual male Owen became an Amerasian* lesbian and for some reason (buried deep in my psyche) this new incarnation blossomed into the rich character Owen never was.  Olivia also taught me not to force these things.  A diverse cast of characters is good, but only if they can bloom as Olivia did.  She isn't "the lesbian" or "the Asian".  She's Olivia.

But I digress.  My point is this - what so many today are calling the writer's agenda is nothing more than their subconscious mind leaking into the tale.  If two characters fit as a couple, it doesn't matter to me what color they are or what genitalia they're packing, so I write them together.  Is that pushing my liberal agenda on my readers?  If my characters go hunting, am I screaming in reader's faces about the Second Amendment?

There are writers out there actively pushing agendas.  It would be foolish to claim otherwise.  I've found that, in that case, the story telling suffers.  All the characters are stereotypes.  Couples that make no sense hook up.  Those writers lose viewers/readers.  I often think that George Orwell didn't sit down to make a comment on Big Government.  If he had, I doubt 1984 would be the classic it is.

A final bit of advice - if you don't like the way the story is going?  Put down the book or change the channel.



*Not sure what the current "correct" term would be.  Olivia has a white American father and a Korean-born mother.  I intend no offense to anyone by my use of this term.  This is the term I imagine Olivia herself using.

Baby It's Cold Outside

People are calling for a ban of a classic song based on their own personal interpretation of the lyrics. 

"Baby, It's Cold Outside" is basically a conversation between a man and a woman, one in which she thinks she should go home and he wants her to stay.  While some of the lines can be problematic ("what's in this drink") it really does boil down to our own interpretation. 

Can it be seen as him sexually harassing her and possibly setting her up for date rape?  Yes.  Can it be seen as both of them wanting more time together and her being concerned about gossip?  Yes.  It's all a matter of interpretation, and if we see something problematic in it, why not use it as a teaching moment? 

My sister loathes "Santa Baby" because of the singer's obvious greed.  Others say it sexualizes Santa because the singer is using her feminine wiles on him.  (Santa's not allowed to be sexual?  Poor Mrs. Claus)  These people have, for decades, simply turned the station.

I hate "Blue Christmas" because, to me, it's a guilt trip.  You go on and have fun - I'll sit in the corner and eat wet cigarette butts. If you hear nothing more than "I miss you", that's fine.  That's probably the actual intent of the song.  But what I hear is what I hear. So I just turn the station.

Does "Rudolph The Red-Nose Reindeer" imply bullying is okay?  Does "Santa Claus is Coming to Town" support the Patriot Act?  "12 Days of Christmas" has human beings as gifts - slavery, anyone?  Should anything be banned because of what you or I read into it? 

It's not like any of these songs are coming right out and saying these things.  We're reading into them, as human beings do, and even if they did...  this is called a teaching moment. 

Elizabeth Warren's DNA

I'm going start off with this:  Any comments about Warren's politics will be deleted.  

Elizabeth Warren has, for years, claimed to be an American Indian.  I have no doubt she believed it to be true and now DNA testing has validated the claim - to a point.  I doubt she can meet the blood quantum of any recognized tribe.  My point here is that Elizabeth Warren is not alone.  There are probably more of us claiming "great-grandpa was an Indian princess" than there are doing the opposite. (That line in quotes?  I totally stole it from a book called How To Talk Trash In Cherokee.)

Like Elizabeth Warren, I've grown up with stories of American Indian ancestry.  I've never claimed to be anything but the white girl I am, because I've got no documentation and because it's so far back I've probably got like one chromosome.  Most of the tales agree it came down the Parker line, and photographs of my mother and her father enforce that theory.

All the documentation I've found on my genealogy, however, lists the race as white.  This isn't proof that we're "lying" about the DNA being there.  Many American Indians chose to pass as other races, largely to avoid things like The Trail Of Tears.  Some claimed to be black, which speaks volumes about how they were treated... they'd prefer to be seen as black even before the Civil War!  I suspect something like this happened in my family.

Why do I insist on still believing it?  Because there is other evidence.  Physical Anthropology recognizes three skeletal types - one of which is Asian/American Indian.  Some of the physical markers?  High arches in the foot -- My mother had trouble finding shoes that fit comfortably. (Not that she wore them often, but I digress.)  Winged incisors and shovel-shaped teeth. High cheekbones, of course.  Shape of the eye socket.

With the skin on, of course, you also get the skin color.  All of these things are present in my documented-white family, varying in degree by individual.  Other physical indicators I've heard, but honestly have not deeply researched:  second toe being longer and slightly separated from the big toe.  Tendency toward diabetes and thyroid issues. All present in my family.

A note about DNA tests:  DNA can "fall away".  If Elizabeth Warren's test had not shown her native ancestor, it's possible he might still exist, especially considering the number of ensuing generations.  There is also the possibility that said ancestor was adopted into the tribe and therefore not genetically a part of said tribe.

When all the fuss started about Elizabeth Warren lying about her heritage, I was insulted.  She believed it to be true.  Just like me. If the university in question took her at her word, not requiring documentation, that's hardly her fault.  To say she lied is to say every one of us seeking our own hiding ancestry is a liar. 

I'm Unbalanced

And no, I'm not referring to my mental health this time.  All my life, I've had problems with balance.  When I was a pre-teen, a classmate noted that everyone has a certain "walk".  Mine involves leaning slightly to one side.  It's a running joke that I ride a bicycle like I'm drunk.  When walking down the sidewalk, I drift to one side or the other.  A google search tells me that "listing" is a symptom of all kinds of scary illnesses, but I don't have any of the other symptoms.

There are two likely suspects for this.  The first is DNA...  the ear is the organ of balance and ear issues run in my family.  A lot of us (me included) have hearing issues.  My father's vertigo was so bad, he was forced to retire.  At least one of my siblings also has vertigo.

The second is a longer story.  When I was a toddler, I played Tarzan on a light-pull string.  Over a cement floor.  I was unconscious for, I've been told, five minutes.  I was not taken to the hospital or doctor.  I've had also had syncope (fainting spells) all my life, and the only time it was mentioned to a doctor was after rejection for military service.  I often wonder if my syncope and balance problems are because of the Tarzan Incident.

For the most part, I've learned to live with it.  It really is, for me, a minor inconvenience.  I take a little extra care on ladders and stairs.  I get funny looks some times, but I don't mind.  I'd probably wonder about some lady going down the steps in the weird posture, myself!  It's pretty common for a relative walking with me to say "You're drifting" because I'm pushing them off the sidewalk.

My syncope, my dysthymia, and definitely my diabetes are larger issues.  I've even learned to tell the difference between an attempt to faint from a sugar low.  I take my medicines and try to follow doctor's orders.  But the balance issues?  I wave my hand dismissively at them.

He Said/She Said

Yet another famous person is being accused of rape or uninvited groping or similar misconduct (sexual or otherwise).  People who have never been in the victim's situation, obviously, can't understand why they didn't report it at the time.  Why they didn't report then is less the issue in my mind than this:  Why are they reporting now?

Rape victims in particular are reluctant to come forward.  There's a lot of shame, a lot of emotional trauma involved.  Some of us (yes, us) even feel we are somehow to blame.  Again, I'm not questioning the lack of reporting at the time.  I'm questioning why report years, even decades, later?

Sometimes they say it's because he is now in a position of power that she fears will endanger others.  Sometimes it's because they only recently recovered the memories or got up enough guts to speak out. Those are valid reasons.  

But the physical evidence is likely long gone.  There's the question of remorse - has the attacker, quite frankly, learned better in the intervening years?  The people who wouldn't believe you then are less likely to believe you now.  The shame, the self-blame, is going to be multiplied by the Court of Public Opinion.  Unless you can stand with a group of his other victims, or with witnesses, why report it at all?  

That's what I can't understand about these reports. 

*Technically, what happened to me was not rape.  But neither are many of the incidents celebrities are being accused of, so I'm including myself here.

** My use of  "he" and "she" are not intended to imply only males victimize only females.  It's simply to simplify the language.

Mainstreaming

I see a lot in the news about special needs children being mistreated in schools.  This is one of the reasons I am not a fan of mainstreaming.  I am of the opinion that if your child is not capable of following the basic rules or doing the work, they should not be mainstreamed.

In the 1970s and 1980s, when I was in public school, we had a Special Education class.  They got the extra help they needed without disrupting anything.  If they only needed help in certain subjects, they attended regular classes for the others.  I had "sped" friends -- one of them is my sister-in-law now.  The system was hardly perfect, but it worked.

Too many children today are being mainstreamed who simply should not be.  I saw a story about an autistic boy being "slammed onto the ground and handcuffed" because he was acting out in class.  More research revealed that the boy was a danger to himself and others.  He was handcuffed for that reason only - and had thrown himself to the ground.

A child who can follow the basic rules and can do the work with a little extra help?  No problem.  Get them a tutor, or a Special Education class, and go for it.  Let a nonverbal child do an oral report as a written one.  The student with leg braces might have to violate the dress code.  Those things I can back. 

Mainstreaming is meant to be a kindness, but it really isn't.  Not for the children with more severe issues or for their classmates.  The classmates are expected to learn in a chaotic environment.  The child is going to go out into the world upon graduation, thinking that they can succeed.  In what field is 60% excellent work?  In what profession is it acceptable to hit yourself or others? 

Proponents of mainstreaming say it's good for the child's self-esteem.  I support that.  But we also have to teach them how the world works.  Build them up within their limitations.  "Yes, you have problems with X, but you are so good at Y."

As for bullying... Bullying isn't going anywhere.  There will always be bullies, everywhere.  At school, at work, at family reunions.  If you take their ammunition, they will find something else.  Example: School uniforms stop bullying about clothes - until they see each other outside of school.  Uniforms do nothing when a student is bullied about weight.  The same logic applies to mainstreaming.  In fact, mainstreaming exposes some children to more bullying.

"No child left behind." Mainstreaming might do that, but at what cost?  We end up with completely unprepared adults, with excellent self-esteem, getting left behind.  Some children should be left behind, out of the main stream.  They become the adults who maintain the tranquility of the shallows.

You Are Enough

This blog entry is for a contest:  You Are Enough, hosted by Positive Writer.

I write fiction.  I've got two completed novels under my belt, a work that's either a short story or a novella depending on your definition, and one work in progress that is likely to end up in the same nebulous category.  I also have a "Barbie Blog" in which I tell photo stories with dolls.  I've written a few fan fictions.  Those who have read my work tell me it's good, but almost none of it have been shared with the general public.  What's the point of writing if not to be published, to make a little money, to put it out there?

The purpose of this, my usual blog, is persuasive writing.  If I can't convince my readers to agree with me, I hope to bring them to an understanding of my position.  Today I intend to convince you that You Are Enough.

Storytelling is as old as mankind.  Most societies have had a special place for the spinners of tales.  I feel sorry for the ones who don't, to be perfectly frank.  Stories are how groups transmit values and history. If you are a storyteller, you are part of that tradition.

Has your writing touched another?  Writing fiction in any form is creating worlds.  (In the case of fan fiction, expanding upon a world created by another might be more accurate.)  You are populating these worlds with people.  Bringing these fictional people to life, making them real, is an accomplishment in and of itself.  Making your reader care means you succeeded, even if the reader is "just your sister". 

Have you held your own in a civil debate?  To present a position and defend it is a victory.  To convince others to join you, even more so.  Even realizing you have faulty logic is a win - you learned something.

If you have not yet touched or convinced a reader, don't despair.  Hone your craft and you will eventually do so.  For the time being, focus on why you are enough for yourself.  Some of my early writings, technically speaking, were garbage.  If you are at this stage, know that improvement is possible.  You have it in you to do so.

Writing is art.  Art is, at the core, about self-expression.  The desire to create, to persuade, to touch another, is enough.  You are that desire.  You are enough.  And so am I.

Representation

Lots of talk about minorities being represented in movies and television, on both sides of the issue.  I've never had to deal with my race being under-represented, but I fall into lots of other categories that are.  I'm female, poor, rural, mentally ill, and even left-handed. 

Besides stereotypes, which I don't really mind if they are meant in good humor, I saw very little of those groups in my mass media.  I still have trouble finding realistic models of some of them, but I blame that more on Hollywood Logic than anything else.  (We had ten people in a three bedroom, one bath house.  Can you imagine seeing that on TV as a realistic scenario?)  

Granted, the lefty thing isn't much of an issue.  The stigma was largely gone by the time I started school, but my older sister had teachers trying to make her use the "correct" hand, so it hadn't been gone long.  Imagine my delight when I realized (with the release of Twilight Princess on the Wii) that LINK is a lefty!  Most players are righties and the way the Wii is set up, his being a lefty was problematic for them.  There was a bit of a controversy.  

Until recently, the mentally ill were played for laughs if they weren't the bad guys.  Now even my limited consumption of mass media gives me a few "crazy but useful" characters.  Walter Bishop (Fringe) is a wonderful example.  I am nowhere near as crazy as he is, but I identify with the regrets he lives with and with forgetting his limitations until they slap him in the face. 

Rural...  well, in my day that was limited to The Beverly Hillbillies.  The rural folk I see now are well rounded characters.  Television is rather limited to the urban and suburban settings because there are simply more stories, more drama, in those place. 

The poor, though...  well, see my previous comment about Hollywood Logic. 

Hobbies Are Selfish?

Imagine you're in a thrift store and you overhear the following exchange by the baby clothes:

Lady: How old is your little one?

Second Lady: I don't have a little one.  I use this fabric for a hobby.

Lady: You take from impoverished babies for your hobby?!  That's very selfish!  You should be ashamed of yourself!  

(BTW - this did not happen to me.  It happened to a member of the on-line doll community.)

Who made anyone the boss of what we can and can't do for hobbies?  Even if you think the hobby in question is dumb, or selfish in this case, why attack a total stranger?  Hobbies only appear selfish until you look at the bigger picture.

Hobbyists contribute.  Second Lady's money goes to supporting whatever charity runs the thrift store, or simply to a local business.  My father quilted and often his work sold at his church's fund raisers.  That money went on to help others.  He gave them to family, which both saved money and spread a little joy.

Hobbyists are less likely to act out harmfully.  Why do I write novels I'm too scared to submit to publishers?  Why play with dolls at 52?  Why have a flowerbed?  Why collect anything?  So I don't lose the few marbles I have left and hurt someone. 

Flower gardeners (both the chaotic sort and the neat grouping sort) spread joy and help pollinators keep the planet functional.  Vegetable gardeners do both and feed people.  Collectors just might have something that can put Junior through college.  Art of any sort fills proven psychological needs.

Hobbies are not selfish. 






 

Laura Ingalls Wilder = Racist?

The Laura Ingalls Wilder Award is now named the Children’s Literature Legacy Award.   Why?  "Racial insensitivity" in a fictionalized memoir written in the 1930s by a woman who grew up in the pioneer west.  The name change, in and of itself, is not the real issue.

The real issue is the implication that Laura was a racist.    

In the course of the novels, and of her life, Laura lived in actual danger from the Osage.  This is a matter of historical record.  Her family settled on Osage land when she was a child.  She heard the ceremonial dancing - which may have been the "war whoops" she mentions.  She also defended their right to be angry (a child speaking to her mother) and felt bad for them when they relocated under duress.  

I believe it's in a later book that her father is quoted as saying "That's a good Indian" and no, he was not referring to a dead one.  That oft-quoted line was not spoken by an Ingalls.

Her life, and those of her family, was saved by a black man.  In retelling that story, his race is barely mentioned.  Again, a matter of historical record. 

There is the matter of the minstrel show.  At the time of the event, if not of the writing, minstrel shows were the norm.  They were seen as harmless fun.  Even by the population being mocked.  

All of these facts add up to one thing: By the standards of the time and place in which she lived, Laura was no racist.  It is unfair to label her thus, even by implication.  

Erasing the past is less of a threat.  Laura is a beloved author, after all, and thinking parents know how to read these stories to the little ones and discuss the issues involved.  I've been doing just that since the 1980s.  Even "people thought it was a big deal back then" is sometimes sufficient.   

It's the right of the award committee to change the name.  I don't agree with their reasoning but I'll defend them.  I will not, however, allow out-of-context quotes to demean a good woman.  I will not pretend the bad parts of history never happened.  

The Cost of Independent Politics

Partisan politics has always been a problem for me.  I spent most of my life hearing my own parents play "It's okay if my party does it" and never understood the logic.  My own politics is some kind of mutated hybrid of ideals, but it is built on my own critical thinking.  I've even been known to change my mind during a civil discussion. 

The most recent presidential election has fanned the fires of partisanship to a degree I would have believed impossible.  I've lost, and am apparently losing, friends on both sides of the road.  I don't think either the orange man (sworn in as POTUS) or the society matron (who tried to be POTUS) is a good person.  I don't think either of them is Evil Incarnate.  I will defend either one from hatemongers.  I will call either one on shoveling manure.  

I can sit here and tell you there are a dozen punk children in the yard. What if there are actually 13?  If I were a party politician, the opposite party zombies would shout "Liar" and  "Schmidt calls all children punks".  My own zombies would defend me blindly.  No one would look at the context.  

Use of context clues tells us a great deal.  How, exactly, is punk defined in my hypothetical quote?  How, exactly, is children defined?  Was this a casual comment or something official?   For that matter, are we counting the sidewalk as part of the yard?  What was my tone of voice and facial expression?  This is critical thinking, folks.

If I lose friends because I prefer to think before forming opinions, so be it.  I refuse to drink the proverbial Kool-Aid no matter what flavor it might be. That stuff will make you go blind.  

Observations, Unconnected

It's that time of year.  Prom Season.  What do you associate with Prom?  Romance? Expense? Dancing?  How about sex and guns?  From the look of social media (and even one politician's campaign ad) it's become the norm to meet your daughter's Prom date with a gun.  Far too many people seem to see this as acceptable.  I've even seen this nonsense applied to everyday dating.

Mind you, I'm not talking about the jokers.  Let's get that out of the way.  We all fear our children being hurt and most of us joke about what scares us.  But the joke is lost on a certain demographic.  Some of us still believe a virgin daughter is still a valuable commodity and not a person.  Some of us never teach our daughters about these things and then wonder why they aren't safe.  Some of us even think sex on Prom Night is some kind of obligation.

I would say "And they vote" but they probably don't. They do, obviously, breed.

****

If you were born before 1967, you're a senior?  I'm pretty sure 50 qualifies as middle-aged.  Or did the definition of that change, too, like "entitlement" and "white"?  An entitlement is something you're entitled to, that you've earned, or at least it used to be.  I can remember a time when the only white people were those with ancestry in the parts of Europe that didn't touch the Mediterranean.  Italians, Spaniards, and Greeks were a category in and of themselves.  There used to be a distinction between biological sex and "gender".

I understand, and have even argued in defense of, the evolution of language and Common Usage.  Maybe I'm just showing my age (apparently I'm a senior) but those things are supposed to happen slowly.  Day-to-day conversations between people speaking the same language shouldn't require a translator.

Mind you, I really don't care how you label me.  White, old, female, whatever.  I shrug at you.  But stop confusing me!

****

And my last unconnected observation for the day: Stop assuming the worst about total strangers and mere acquaintances.  If I see one more person fumbling to explain they meant no offense to someone who won't listen...  Jeez.  Seriously.

Let People Enjoy Things

One thing I really hate about social media, and the Internet in general, is the complete lack of respect some have for the interests of others.  I'm all for civil debate, some would say I thrive on it, but why would anyone make it a point to seek out those they disagree with simply to be rude?

News articles online often have a comment area.  Almost any NFL related post is fated to elicit "I'm boycotting" and "Nobody cares".  Articles about TV Shows not only get "Who cares", they get "This show sucks" and "Should be cancelled".  Let's get one thing out of the way - if you take the time to read and comment on articles, you are not boycotting the subject and you obviously do care. 

I can understand to a point if it's on social media - it came up on your wall.  Plenty of things come up on my wall that I don't care about or that mention a show I don't (or no longer) watch.  I feel no need to inform all my friends who still watch Once Upon A Time that I quit watching several years ago, that the show sucks or should be cancelled.  I don't care about the superhero stuff, but it'd be presumptuous to declare that no one else does.  Contrary to popular belief, I even manage to ignore posts I find mildly offensive. 

Another trend that annoys me, a variation of this theme, is the "real" thing.  I'm a huge fan of The Walking Dead and I roll my eyes every time someone asks why Maggie hasn't had her baby yet.  But I don't say "A real fan knows that it's only been a couple months according to the show's timeline". Of course not - there are plenty of franchises I fall short of being a "real" fan of.  I know how I'd feel if I got that kind of response in one of their forums.  "Real" men can wear pink.  "Real" women can fix a flat tire.  As for a "real" Christian...  I'm pretty sure none of us is God and therefore qualified to decide that one.

Let people enjoy things differently than you do.  Let people enjoy things you don't.  Let people enjoy life in general.  They aren't hurting you.  They probably aren't hurting anyone. 


 

Project Mc2 doll

I've been eyeballing these dolls for a while now.  They're aimed at getting girls interested in STEM classes (always something I can get behind) and have joints at knees, hips, wrists, elbows, shoulders, and neck.  However, they have huge noggins and I've heard not of the best quality.

I found one for $7.50.  A standard Barbie (joints at neck, shoulders, and hips only) generally runs 7-10 bucks.  I've never seen a Mc2 doll with painted eyes.  Usually they have "glass" eyes.  Maybe that was the reason for the low price.  She did still have the giant head, but that wasn't a problem, since she was going to be the body donor for a head swap.

Her included science project was a plastic volcano and the classic vinegar-and-baking-soda directions.  Her joints are slightly flimsier than in similar dolls, but she didn't fall apart when I undressed her.  (Yes, I've had knock-offs do that.) 

I compared the skin tone to the gals awaiting a head swap and made the switch.  New head promptly fell off.  Her neck was even skinnier than Barbie's!  I have figure out how to keep that head on, but remember seeing that in a DIY blog.   

Then I noticed it.  She was only 10 inches tall.  Lucky for me, the face mold on the doll I used was "less mature".  She is a bit more developed than Skipper and friends, but so are the High School Musical dolls and Alex, so it worked out well.

Not bad for the mark-down price.  Especially considering the lack of articulated 10 inch dolls.  My other young teens are jealous!

Walk Up, Not Out

Like many well-intended people, I was sharing the "Walk Up" notion all over my social media, but some folks for whom I have respect have pointed out a few problems. 

Some of those against "Walk Up" claim there's no proven connection between school shootings and bullying.  There's no proven connection of ANYTHING and school shootings because there's never been a real study made of it.  However, even the shooters "proven" not to be bullied left behind evidence they felt bullied.  I was badly bullied in junior high and, had my mind already had a violent bent, I could have gone there and done that. The connection, although unproven, is possible. 

There's also the possibility of making a kid feel even more singled out than they already do.  Why are you falling all over yourself to be nice to me when yesterday you ignored my very existence or were overtly hostile to me?  Pity?  Fear? If I am violent, you just made yourself more of a target, and if not - well, you just insulted a harmless classmate.

And then there's the perception that this is a Blame The Victim thing.  Go befriend the guy who, yesterday, you were actively bullying?  WTF?  Why not just say it - the murdered students brought it on themselves.  (Look how they were dressed!)

Last of all, there is a small possibility that such overtures will make a dangerous kid latch onto you.  Another bit of anecdotal evidence:  I latched onto a guy because he was nice to me.  God only knows how bad it would have been a few years earlier, during the the worst of it.  As it was, he finally had to be really mean to me and then we talked it out.  But what would have happened, had I been violent?  When I found out he didn't want to marry me and live happily ever after, would I have killed him?

Here's my version of "Walk Up".  Just be a little bit nicer to everyone. As a former pariah, I can tell you - a smile and nod as you pass in the hallway goes a long way.  One of the kindest things a classmate did for me was to tell me she liked me -- and then ask me not to tell anyone because she didn't want to be bullied, also.   Strange but true. 

Even if the connection to bullying doesn't exist, a touch of kindness that singles out no one can't hurt.   

The minds of the young, part 2

I just had an intelligent discussion of gun control with a child.  He is all for it - use both hands!  Okay, seriously, it was actually about how stupid people think teenagers are.  It started with his mentioning WW2 and how young the soldiers were.

Many memes play on the disconnect between how those men were seen and how men of the same age are seen today.  "Boys" stormed the beaches of Normandy.  Today, apparently, those same "boys" would be eating Tide Pods.  What happened?

My considered opinion, and that's really all this is, is this:  If anyone over the age of five (barring medical issues) is unable to think critically, their adults have failed them.  My minions are and were all over the charts on physical, social, and mental development.  Some of them were brighter at 10 than others at 30.  Some of them choose not to think critically, but that isn't the same thing as not being able.

Obviously, humans with still-developing brains are unable to understand things on a certain level.  I never expected them to.  "Don't stick your hand in the campfire" doesn't require a prolonged explanation of third degree burns.  "Those two men are married" doesn't need to include the Kama Sutra.  But I always have and always will respect the thinking abilities they have.

The young man I was talking to today is 13.  In many societies past, present, and probably future, he is considered a man.  He is expected to make adult choices.  But in modern America, he's still a child and therefore his brain is cottage cheese.  Yet he could discuss issues in elementary school.  Because his adults taught him to think.

There have always been Tide-Pod-Eaters.  Even now, they are not the majority.  As the song says, children are the future.  Teach them now and let them lead the way.

Universal Health Care and Gun Control

At the risk of being one of those people who uses a tragedy to push a political agenda, I'm blogging my thoughts on the subject.  One subject, because the two topics are connected.  Hear me out.

Let me get this out of the way first - if you don't want Universal Health Care because your tax dollars shouldn't support the lazy:  They already are.  The tiny percentage of Welfare people who are truly lazy and the do-nothings in office are already using your tax dollars for their Viagra.  UHC, on the other hand,  would help that couple who are working two jobs each to pay the bills (including student loans), the widow of a soldier who is working her way through college, and the guy with a temporary lapse in employment...  all of whom the Welfare department rule ineligible for benefits.

In the wake of the recent school shooting in Florida, the debate on Gun Control is back in force.  The hard-liners on both sides shout so loudly we shades-of-gray folks get drowned out.  The fact of the matter is simple:  both sides are correct, but only to a point.  Banning AK47s is not going to stop the determined, but it might slow them down.  The Second Amendment does exist, but like most things held sacred, is subject to interpretation.

Here's where I get to the connection.  Lots of Gun Control Advocates like to hold up other countries as a model - Nogunlandia has only had 1 mass shooting in 57 years!  Going by statistics, Nogunlandia likely also has UHC.

Every shooter I've heard of has been mentally ill and not getting proper treatment.  (The anti-prozac folks made sure I heard about that.)

I'm not foolish enough to believe UHC would stop every incident.  There will always be those who won't or can't seek help.  There will be, and probably have been, shooters who are not mentally ill.  However, I believe that proper and timely treatment of mental illness, especially the nascently dangerous, would go a long way toward that goal.

My own experience with mental illness has taught me that the existing system will not help you unless you can pay and/or have commited a crime.  Far too many doctors toss pills at the problem without educating or following up with the patient.  UHC would at least help with the first problem.

It is my considered opinion that Universal Health Care would prevent mass shootings.  No one thing is going to be a cure-all, but it could be a cure-most.

The Fashion Doll Market

Lots of news reports tell us that Mattel is foundering, that their signature doll lines are losing money.  I've been thinking about why that is and what they (and other companies) can or should do about it.  I realize the odds of anyone in power at those companies seeing this are slim.  I just want to get it out there, maybe stir up some conversation about it.

Monster High pushed Barbie off her throne a few years ago.  The first time I saw a Monster High doll, I was intrigued.  The offspring of classic movie monsters as fashion dolls?  And look at the articulation!  The striking hair colors and face paint!  Detailing on the wardrobe!

They lost their appeal for me, though, upon further inspection.  For one thing, I find them way too skinny and their heads are disproportionate.  They look like a lemon balanced on a chopstick.  I've never been a fan of anime eyes on dolls, either.

As I understand it from Monster High fans, the problem with the line is that product quality has fallen.  The Monster High dolls have lost the fantastic detailing.  The face paint is suffering - these formerly dynamic personalities are beginning to suffer from Vapid Face.  Yet Mattel's prices have remained the same, or even gone up.

Barbie doesn't seem to be suffering from a quality assurance problem so much as a customer feedback one.  They introduced different body molds and skin tones and reintroduced the sisters, which gave the line a boost, but then Mattel... sat on their hands.  I've yet to see those new body molds on anything but the Fashionistas and the sisters are stagnating while Mattel pushes 200 dollar dollhouses that can spy on you.

The sisters could be a cash cow. They could bring back the "sharing sisters" sets or even just make the sisters individual fashions.  I've heard that Skipper will be getting some friends, but Stacie has none.  And, oh, the play set potential!  Yet all Mattel gives them is yet another horse or dog.  Those horses really drive the price up, too.

Articulation was and is a big selling point on most doll lines, but your standard Barbie has very little.  The head turns and they move at the hips and shoulders.  Why would a parent pay as much for that as for another doll that can bend the elbow and knee?  Maybe even wrist and ankle?

All of the popular dolls lines are rooted in friendships. Kids are going to buy the "best friend" or "sweetheart" of the doll they already have.  Adult collectors are likely to do the same, for display purposes.  Most of the lines are officially set in a High School.  Teen Drama sells.

The companies need to get back to basics.  Kids want to use their imaginations.  Adult collectors want stunning detail work, and not in a motherboard.  Parents want a good value.  Stop with the amazing technology and just give us, you know, dolls.

Regifting

I have a niece who, for reasons beyond the control of either of us, I did not know very well.  I bought her gifts using her age and sex as a guideline. So, Barbies.  Eventually, I learned that she just wasn't a Barbie girl.  Simple communication could have prevented the whole situation, but that's beside my point.  She got unwanted and unneeded gifts.  What should she have done with them?    Kept them forever?  Threw them at me?

Regift like you have some sense, of course.  Don't open it and blurt out "I don't want this."  Don't turn around and hand it to Aunt Martha right in front of the giver.  But by all means, if I give you something you can't or won't use, pass it on.  Thank me for the thought, take it home (or wait til I leave) and wrap it up pretty to give Aunt Martha at her birthday.  Donate it to the charity of your choice,even.

The best course of action is to know what the receiver wants, of course.  I love the idea of registering for gifts when you marry or have a baby.  Kids write letters to Santa.  If you're close enough to them, you don't even need a list.  Items will jump off the shelves and scream their names at you.

Anyway, I have no problem with and even encourage regifting done well.  I'd much rather see Aunt Martha with it, if she'd love it and you don't.  If I get rich, I promise not to cut you out of my will for it.  Unless you did throw it at me.