A Childhood Memory...of Why People Suck

I just recalled an incident from when I was eight, which reminded me why I sometimes get really annoyed with people. It also reminded me that adults act like children, or children imitate adults, or people just maintain the same sort of irritating behavior throughout life and only seem more mature because they change their presentation. The memory:

I was in Mrs. Honig's Hebrew school class one evening in third grade. I was reading a passage (in English) and suddenly had the idea so pronounce the "c" in "scissors" when the word came up in the reading. To see if people were listening. To see how they'd react. Well, the decision was made in a split second, I pronounced the "c" and the reaction was incredible. The entire class JUMPED to correct me. Twenty-five eight-year-old Jewish kids, all trying to beat each other to be the first to tell me I was wrong. To look at each other with smug superiority.

I know I'm viewing this through the lens of the slightly socially awkward eight-year-old that I was, but I think that's a far fairer lens than seeing how an adult would have perceived the behavior of the children. They might have been glad the kids knew how to pronounce the word. They might have been glad the kids were listening. They might have been mildly perplexed that one of the better readers in the class had mispronounced a word everyone else knew, but they would have been glad that I had learned from my classmates. But adults seem not to observe the behaviors of kids as other kids do, and I think they therefore miss out on the subtleties of the exchange. Kids do have a pretty intricate social world, and they can be very cruel to each other. A child's comment that may seem innocent or just funny to adults may seem horribly demeaning to other kids. And I think those kids are the ones who get it. The adults don't. And the attitude I got from the other kids in third grade I've seen over and over again in every stage of life. People are incredibly eager to jump on each others mistakes, correct each other, win arguments for the sake of winning, not for learning or teaching or commonly arriving at truth.

If you don't find this story compelling, let me give you another:

I was seeing a high school show with my friend Monica in fourth grade. As we entered the high school she said to me, "Maggie, I think some of the more popular girls are here, so if I see them, can we pretend we didn't come together? I'm just becoming accepted by them, so, no offense but, you know..." And I said, "Oh sure, I understand." And I did.

Perhaps Monica didn't show great virtue, but her actions bothered me so much less than the attitude the third graders gave me in Hebrew School. Again, my perspective let me know where Monica was coming from and the attitude she directed at me. She didn't dislike me or disrespect me, life was just easier if the popular girls liked her, and being with me in front of them would make that a much more difficult goal to achieve. I thought I might do the same thing in her shoes. I actually give her points for saying that directly to me. I think that showed she respected me, that she was able to let me know exactly why she might not stand with me if they came over. She wasn't passive-aggressive. She was assertive. And I have to give it to her for that.

Tip of the Hat, Wag of the Finger, Shrug of the Shoulders

Congratulations to Stephen Colbert for getting referenced in a post title. Bravo, Stephen. You have achieved the highest maggie-centric honor in journalism.

Tip of the Hat
To Judge John E. Jones III for his glorious decision in the Dover "Monkey" Trial. I would sum it up for you, but why should I give you the goods here when I've already done it here. Check out the article. I will give you one teaser quote from the judge:

The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

You tell them, Judge Jones. Also see my article for a doozy of a quote from Richard Dawkins, who never fails to take the appearance of level-headedness right out of his own completely level-headed conclusions. And that's why we love him so.

Wag of the Finger
To President George W. Bush, not for spying, but for whom he's spying on. I have to say, when I first heard about the spying, I was nonplussed. If listening in on known Al-Qaeda operatives is going to help us prevent people from dying, I could see where "wartime exceptions" would be reasonable. I don't know if it's constitutional—I'm really poorly read—but it doesn't totally offend my sensibilities. However, this totally offends my sensibilities. Spying on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" protests? Really? Are those protests a "credible threat?" I vote no. They're generally angry but peaceful. I mean...a kiss-in is about as peaceful as you get.

I love when standards for these things sound like kids talking in a middle school English class...just throwing out creative ideas is good enough; the ideas don't have to be right. Which is really fine for middle school English...I'm all for rewarding free thinking. But it's not OK with logic like "well, clearly they don't like the military...and protests get people worked up, and sexuality gets people worked up, and they want to be allowed into the military, so maybe they're militant..and they'll kill us all!" Or whatever the logic there is.

Shrug of the Shoulders
To the Transit Workers Union, for being a huge pain in New York's ass for a cause that's probably totally reasonable. I haven't reviewed the specs much, and even if I did, I don't really know what's appropriate for them to be getting. So, fight the good fight, TWU; just don't fight the less-than-good fight. Because I was one of 4 people in the office until about 11:30 today, and I'd prefer if that didn't happen too much more. Thanks.

Oh, The Inner Turmoil!

There is much. There is a reasonable quantity of outer turmoil as well (see the rather productive back-and-forth I've been having with a blogger on the "Inexpensive Indulgence" post. also see the article I wrote and the two I interviewed for today, coming out later this week.) Currently, I don't want to argue any more, please anybody, or redefine myself. And right now I'm being provoked by a guy on AIM (friend of a friend who wants me to rant about a kid he knows), scoffed at by my mother because I want time alone, and forced to redefine myself. Of course redefinition is a lifelong process...although it would be lovely if it ended at some point with me not defining myself at all. But I have way too much time on my mind, if not on my hands, and I can't help but dwell and wallow and ponder and think myself into DOOM. Which is what I've been doing this week. Worst/best of all is that recent events are so me and my life...they're just not me and my life right now. Bah. Sulk. Collapse on the couch. Read Narnia.

Good People, Good Art

After Friday evening, the weekend progressed into uncomplicated goodness (nice move, weekend). Yesterday I drove up to Wesleyan—my longest solo drive to date...yes, I realize it's under 2 hours—to see Chayes in "The Faculty Room." The show was lots of fun...in that hard-to-take sort of way. I may have mentioned I love theater/movies/books where you're transported completely into another world...a world that looks a lot like ours and could coexist with ours, but the people there just have slightly different rules for life. This was one of those shows, although it got kicked up a notch by being aware of its weirdness, and then laying weirdness over the awareness. Good stuff. Afterwards, I had Thai food with 3 Jesses (Chayes, Cygler and Kahn), which was lots of fun, and I livened up with some food in me. Food makes such a difference. Go food. On a brief walk afterwards, I chatted with Chayes about the events in my life. Was good to chat.

Today was "Brokeback Mountain" with V, which was, of course, amazing. He drove us in, mostly because he knew he could get a good, free parking space on a Sunday afternoon, and that opportunity was too good to pass up. We listened to showtunes. Need I have even written that? No. Brunch was at a trendy-ish Chelsea place, and we ate and chatted and such. Then came the awesome, awesome movie. Now, V said he'd rather see a movie with great projection than with a good crowd, but I think I may have proven him wrong with this one. The Chelsea crowd was priceless, even if they did interrupt a couple of good moments. One guy whispered "Oh, shit!" right after the cowboys had sex for the first time, as if he were surprised. Everyone cracked up. Also, I loved seeing a line out the men's room door and no line for the women's room. On the ride back I rediscovered exactly how much V hates traffic. He's a total taxi driver...can't stand people who are less able to maneuver than he. He kept saying "I hate people," which eventually caused me to break out into my once-improvised song "I hate people," written in the Best Buy parking lot on Central Avenue.

After the movie, V said this movie showed a good example of why gay men shouldn't get married. I paused. "...to women." Him: "Right." He said that he's seen 3 gay friends of his get married...in two of the occasions, he was left to comfort one of the groomsmen whose sexual relationship with the groom ended at the wedding. Oh, joy. And by joy I mean emotional hell. Also: V always smells good. It's a little weird. Actually, it's really weird. What the hell? It's like the glee club director who never sweats. Sick, sick, none-too-ethnic people.

And You May Ask Yourself...

Tonight my life took a turn for not-like-my-life. I'll chat on an individual basis...maybe...

But everything else paused when a series of likely coincidences took me to the very front spot of the subway. I was almost all the way from union square to grand central, when I realized that my back was immediately to the window that overlooks the track. I turned around and held the bars to either side of the window and just looked forward, a la Kate Winslet in Titanic. Without the imminent doom. So I got a great train's-eye-view of the subway. It's kind of great looking. I recomment riding at the front if you hav the opportunity. Pulling into a station will never be the same again.

Also, I was happy to read this post on my latest (and most creative) addition to the Seed website.

The Downside of Vanity

These are the last three entries you get when you google my name:

anal-intercourse-story.notbad.net.ru - anal intercourse story

lesbian gone wild

GIRLS GONE WILD - THE GREATEST XXX SITE . FREE GAY TEENAGER XXX

Yet, I still think it's a good idea to spend as much of my life as possible writing stories about monkey porn and broken virginity pledges. And making atrocious puns (see an article to be posted tomorrow). Hey, if a Salon journalist can write, "He attempts to answer the question, 'Why should we care so much about boys when men still run everything?' Dowd-ing Thomases might put it thusly: If men aren't necessary, should we care?" (my bold), I can pun as badly as I want to!

I've Got A Little List

Through a brief-ish but productive AIM conversation with Vaughan, I've started compiling a list. The document consists of "things I know little to nothing about, but should know about if I don't want to be an embarrassment to my family, my country, and myself." The working list is included below this entry. Feel free to suggest things I may not know about that I should investigate.

I also realized that I never talked about the real indulgence relevant to my post yesterday. While it's nice not to criticize harshly, it's really luxurious to praise unabashedly. Try doing it sometime. It's amazing! It has all the creativity of a good lambasting with none of the guilt. You can be even more creative, because the field is less explored (this isn't really the same as love poems and religious praise). Try telling someone they're so un-fucking-believably fabulous. It's stunningly good! "You just blew me right out of the water, like, dropped to your knees and took me from the pit of the ocean to fucking heaven. I'm pissing ambrosia on Zeus, that was so awesome." You know. Just ride with it. It's so amazingly satisfying.

OK, here's the working list:

Things I should know

Genocides
Rwanda
Sudan
Khmer Rouge
Serbia-Bosnia
West Africa?

Conspicuous Absences
Stalin
Pol Pot
Argentina

How Things Work

US
How a bill becomes a law
Constitutional amendments
SCOTUS, how a case gets there, what happens
Lower courts: who are they? how do they work?
Candidates for president
How presidential election works

International
The UN
How the EU works
WTO and how it interacts with the G8
How currencies fluctuate
How Canada and the UK elect their leaders

How the regions got their structures
How the EU was formed
Why africa is structurally fucked
Yugoslavia
USSR
The Koreas
One Germany
Northern Ireland/Ireland
Palestine/Israel
Individual mideast countries
Apartheid

OK, some of those I know more about than others (how we elect the president). But some I know absurdly little about. Feel free to add things along these lines, and for other categories, including "things that will kill us all, or at least tens of thousands of us."

Inexpensive Indulgence

The greatest thing I learned from my crazy mania professor Eric Schwab (I'll say 'hello, eric schwab,' because I'd put him just barely in the self-googling half of the world) is that it is legitimate, nay, desirable, even, to read a text and not criticize it. Just take from it everything you can. You don't have to endorse it or support it or praise it...just use the text to see what you can get out of it. Go on. Whatever you want. Be selfish. Take from the text. Perhaps this wasn't how he phrased it, but he did come down hard on the frequent practice of reading with a mind toward ridicule.

Why do people so frequently read this way? I understand you get something valid out of criticism; you practice discerning valid arguments and therefore practice forming strong opinions and arguments of your own. Plus one for critique. Fair enough. But you lose so much. You, number one, get really tense and have that insecure satisfaction of gossip, especially when you critique poorly. You (and realize, of course, that 'you' always means 'I') feel like a dirty, dirty, bad person. And that's not a good feeling at all. "Sure, religious people: there's an invisible omnipresent being pulling all the strings and setting the world up so science can explain everything, but really science isn't the way to answer our questions because he's just testing our faith. Like he is when he kills tens of thousands of people in Asia. He's not cruel. Noooooo. He's just got a plan!" See. I feel dirty now. That's not good. Whereas if I legitimately consider the opinion (unlikely at this point; I've done a lot of that already), or just try to see how the impulse to believe in God reveals something about what it means to be human (very likely), I feel good. And satisfied. Try it! I think you'll like it.

So it feels bad to ridicule and good not to ridicule. You also get much better reactions when you don't ridicule. When you argue with an attitude, people get defensive and it sucks. You wind up in one of those arguments where there's no aim to prove or disprove the original point, you just find an objection to everything the other person says. Those arguments are frustrating. If you remain amicable and ask the person to explain his or her thoughts, you can present challenges and get the person to respond to them thoughtfully. People are much more likely to present their opinions fully and be receptive to constructive criticism this way. If you take the conversation in another direction, they'll be happy to go with you.

And you just get more out of it. You have the power to make the reading of the text or the listening of the speech as useful to yourself as possible. You can use it to explore the topic that means the most to you and resonates most with what was presented. It's a great, open opportunity. Go for it.

If the argument or information really just blows? Ignore it. Move on. Find something else. If there's absolutely no entertainment value, humor, decent points, food for thought, cute facts or anecdotes, consider the time you've spent reading a sunk cost and do something else.

Some people think it's weak not to criticize harshly if something's bad. Why? I don't think it's weak. It's being the bigger, more selfish man. It's doing exactly what you want. It's putting your remaining time to use that works for you. Excellent.

Unsurprisingly, this post is spurred because every negative comment written about my work hits me hard. This is the problem with going public, especially with a poor sense of what should be censored, a creative mind, and relatively little experience in the field. I'm fledgling. I'm learning. I'd appreciate if people criticized constructively...and I'm not convinced they get anything meaningful out of doing otherwise. I know I don't get anything out of that except a quick, guilt-ridden high. But, in my little utilitarian scheme, if it actually benefits them, I can't stop them. I can't stop them anyway.

We Could Be Wrong

So, let's say there is a God. A likely situation? In my opinion, no. In the opinion of others, very. But, as pretty much everyone will concede, a possible situation. Not one we can ever conclusively say is untrue. That's the frustrating beauty of all the theistic arguments. So, anyway.

Given: ∃ God

And therefore everything we know is wrong. Of course, maybe everything we know isn't wrong, and God is one of those Gods who sparked the big bang and evolution and pretty much left the world to function given physical principles and He did so with infinite lovingkindness. Possible. But I'm not talking about that situation. I'm talking about any situation where everything we know is wrong. God created the heavens and the earth. God created man pretty much as he is.

So, IF this is the case. What is science? Is it still taking all of these testables and, well, testing them? Would we still go about our merry way, finding out what we could via these methods, hoping that the consistency we've seen in this world holds up a little more? Or would we claim that the answers to these questions, even if we couldn't test them, are ultimately the scientific answers, because they are truth? Or would science just be dead/useless altogether?

Of course there's always the question of how we know there's a God. So we have to assume it was revealed to us in some awfully convincing but non-repeatable way. Like the whole booming voice from the heavens, mountains lifted, every person told what he or she is thinking, and then nothing. Heck, I'd be convinced. But it's non-repeatable. OK, now that we have that out of the way...

Is the first priority of science truth? I think it's pretty clearly not. It's just that we're very convinced we can find truth through a system that makes a lot of sense and has some pretty remarkable successes in the past.

On a less extreme note than the "science fails!" scenario, what about the several times scientists have gotten it wrong...such as with the ether. I mean, the ether wasn't a horrible hypothesis. It's not immediately intuitive that light should be the fulcrum of the universe. So, in their science classes they taught the ether. Should they not have? I think they should have. So we kind of tacitly consent to teach untruths as long as they're arrived at via this tried-and-usually-true methodology. Seems mildly messed up. I'll ride with it, but I do kind of feel we should be qualifying everything.

I guess that's what I'll concede to IDers. Not that evolution should be singled out as being flawed, hell no, it's one of the theories with the greatest ratio of explanatory power to problems that we've got. But aside from repeating the steps of the scientific method ad nauseum, I think kids should be given a clearer picture of science: What it's based on, how it operates, what it will not answer, all the incredible things it's done, and how there may be things that are wrong and always will be uncertainties. And that's part of the discipline. The good news, you can tell them, is good science is set up so that it will seek out and find what's wrong. And that's it's greatest virtue. So take the answers as truth with only a small grain of salt.