I answered an ad on Craigsist for some freelance editing work. It was supposed to be a service that edits Asian "Engrish" into North American business English.
They sent me a fairly extensive edit test, which I took. Then the contact asked - via email - for my banking information for wire transfers. No secure server, no website, no documentation on the company.
When I said I wasn't comfortable emailing bank information, he said I could do it by phone.
I explained that I wouldn't give that information at all, because "for all I know, this could be an elaborate scam to obtain banking information". I said I could be paid by Paypal.
I have not heard back from them since, and the ad has been removed! I posted a warning on Craigslist.
The work sounded interesting. Too bad it was nonexistent!
I think I will pursue Woti's suggestion of looking for university and graduate students who need their papers and theses edited.
6.15.2007
apathy, laziness, fear?or something else?
If you've done any activism, especially if you've taken a leadership role, then you've experienced the frustration of trying to convince people to join your battle, whatever it happens to be. I'm not talking about changing people's minds. I mean getting people who already agree with you to take action.
My most recent high-stakes activism, while still in New York, didn't involve a lot of recruiting. I was organizing and working with people who were already active. But I recently stepped out into the larger world, and received a face-slap reminder of how frustrating activism can be.
I started a petition asking Major League Baseball to end interleague play. It's not an issue of global importance, nor was I treating it as such. But it's something discussed endlessly around the world of baseball, and something many fans complain about.
My intentions were simple. I thought it would be cool to assemble a large number of signatures, possibly get a little media attention (which in turn would attract more signatures), and then present the signatures to MLB. Here, we're unhappy. We are serious fans, and we hate what you've done to the sport. As consumers, if we're unhappy with a product, management should hear from us. I see a petition as an opportunity for communication and complaint.
I can't invest a lot of time posting the petition to blogs and forums. I did that a little bit, but mostly I'm just hoping people pick it up and it takes off on its own. If it doesn't, it doesn't. I don't have a lot invested in it, it's not the focus of my life, it's just something I put out there in the world. I'm willing to see what happens.
I was totally unprepared for the vehemence of reaction to a simple petition! Not about interleague play itself. I'm used to those debates, I've heard every argument for and against. This is reaction to the idea of circulating a petition. The most common response: "I got news for you, this will never work!"
First, he has news for me. Meaning, I'm naive. I don't know how the world works.
Second, it won't "work", so he won't sign.
I explain that it's not about whether the petition will actually bring about the end of interleague play. I realize it will not. But I want to tell MLB that a significant number of fans dislike this change they have made in the game.
To which the fan replies, "That's stupid! Why are you doing this if you don't even think it will work?"
Sometimes the issue seems to be petitions themselves: "Petitions don't work."
I say, "If you don't agree, don't sign, of course. But if you agree, it only takes a moment. Why not put your name down?"
Because, he says, petitions don't work.
Do these responses contain clues to why more people don't get involved, in any activism? I don't have the time or inclination to bother with people who won't sign a petition to end interleague play. It's not worth my time or energy to try to convince them. But their reaction is something I have to look at.
We often say the biggest obstacle to organizing is apathy. But apathy, a lack of caring, doesn't explain this. These are folks who will work themselves into a lather about sports issues. You can read their angry postings on blogs and message boards, and hear them on talk radio, every day of the week.
But will they take a tiny step to communicate with the people who have the power to change the issue? No. That's stupid, because it will never work.
Is this perhaps an extreme fear of being wrong? Are people afraid that they will invest emotionally in something, and when it "doesn't work," they'll look foolish, having backed a loser? Is this about an extreme need to be right?
In the summer of 2004, our applications to immigrate already filed, I spent most of my time organizing voter registration drives and get-out-the-vote campaigns for John Kerry. I did this, despite believing the election system is fraudulent and corrupt, and despite the fact that I was leaving the country no matter who was elected. Madness, perhaps, but it was something I felt compelled to do.
I chose not to spend any time debating the issues or the relative worth of candidates. I put all my energies into getting people to register to vote, and then to actually vote.
I remember inviting a work acquaintance to join the voter-registration drive. He had the time, he had the skills, and he believed in the cause. He asked, "Will I see results? I only like to do things where I will see results."
I only like to do things where I will see results.
Results of activism are long-term, and can only be seen cumulatively. We can't point to a single action and say this is what brought about change. In any movement, there are hundreds of battles fought simultaneously on dozens of fronts. That's what a movement is.
You can play a part, you can add your voice to be an agent of change, or you can sit on the sidelines and declare that you will only move your butt if the organizer can guarantee you a positive, short-term outcome.
"I only like to do things where I will see results" is the long-form of "it will never work".
For me, personally, activism is a necessary part of life. It's an antidote to helplessness, a balm for frustration. It's a connection with like-minded people, a reminder that I am not alone, that people care, that, although the road is long, we are many, and united, we have power.
Sometimes, that's result enough.
But what is "It will never work"? What does it mean? Why is that the first concern?
My most recent high-stakes activism, while still in New York, didn't involve a lot of recruiting. I was organizing and working with people who were already active. But I recently stepped out into the larger world, and received a face-slap reminder of how frustrating activism can be.
I started a petition asking Major League Baseball to end interleague play. It's not an issue of global importance, nor was I treating it as such. But it's something discussed endlessly around the world of baseball, and something many fans complain about.
My intentions were simple. I thought it would be cool to assemble a large number of signatures, possibly get a little media attention (which in turn would attract more signatures), and then present the signatures to MLB. Here, we're unhappy. We are serious fans, and we hate what you've done to the sport. As consumers, if we're unhappy with a product, management should hear from us. I see a petition as an opportunity for communication and complaint.
I can't invest a lot of time posting the petition to blogs and forums. I did that a little bit, but mostly I'm just hoping people pick it up and it takes off on its own. If it doesn't, it doesn't. I don't have a lot invested in it, it's not the focus of my life, it's just something I put out there in the world. I'm willing to see what happens.
I was totally unprepared for the vehemence of reaction to a simple petition! Not about interleague play itself. I'm used to those debates, I've heard every argument for and against. This is reaction to the idea of circulating a petition. The most common response: "I got news for you, this will never work!"
First, he has news for me. Meaning, I'm naive. I don't know how the world works.
Second, it won't "work", so he won't sign.
I explain that it's not about whether the petition will actually bring about the end of interleague play. I realize it will not. But I want to tell MLB that a significant number of fans dislike this change they have made in the game.
To which the fan replies, "That's stupid! Why are you doing this if you don't even think it will work?"
Sometimes the issue seems to be petitions themselves: "Petitions don't work."
I say, "If you don't agree, don't sign, of course. But if you agree, it only takes a moment. Why not put your name down?"
Because, he says, petitions don't work.
Do these responses contain clues to why more people don't get involved, in any activism? I don't have the time or inclination to bother with people who won't sign a petition to end interleague play. It's not worth my time or energy to try to convince them. But their reaction is something I have to look at.
We often say the biggest obstacle to organizing is apathy. But apathy, a lack of caring, doesn't explain this. These are folks who will work themselves into a lather about sports issues. You can read their angry postings on blogs and message boards, and hear them on talk radio, every day of the week.
But will they take a tiny step to communicate with the people who have the power to change the issue? No. That's stupid, because it will never work.
Is this perhaps an extreme fear of being wrong? Are people afraid that they will invest emotionally in something, and when it "doesn't work," they'll look foolish, having backed a loser? Is this about an extreme need to be right?
In the summer of 2004, our applications to immigrate already filed, I spent most of my time organizing voter registration drives and get-out-the-vote campaigns for John Kerry. I did this, despite believing the election system is fraudulent and corrupt, and despite the fact that I was leaving the country no matter who was elected. Madness, perhaps, but it was something I felt compelled to do.
I chose not to spend any time debating the issues or the relative worth of candidates. I put all my energies into getting people to register to vote, and then to actually vote.
I remember inviting a work acquaintance to join the voter-registration drive. He had the time, he had the skills, and he believed in the cause. He asked, "Will I see results? I only like to do things where I will see results."
I only like to do things where I will see results.
Results of activism are long-term, and can only be seen cumulatively. We can't point to a single action and say this is what brought about change. In any movement, there are hundreds of battles fought simultaneously on dozens of fronts. That's what a movement is.
You can play a part, you can add your voice to be an agent of change, or you can sit on the sidelines and declare that you will only move your butt if the organizer can guarantee you a positive, short-term outcome.
"I only like to do things where I will see results" is the long-form of "it will never work".
For me, personally, activism is a necessary part of life. It's an antidote to helplessness, a balm for frustration. It's a connection with like-minded people, a reminder that I am not alone, that people care, that, although the road is long, we are many, and united, we have power.
Sometimes, that's result enough.
But what is "It will never work"? What does it mean? Why is that the first concern?
6.13.2007
happy birthday to me
Hey, this is weird. I just realized I'm now closer to 50 than 40. Even though that's technically been true since last June 13, I just noticed it today.
I've been alive on this earth 46 years. It's good.
I've been alive on this earth 46 years. It's good.
6.12.2007
he is tyler
Last week I had the opportunity to interview a young man named Tyler, a high school senior from Waterloo, Iowa.
For his Eagle Scout project, Tyler made this video. Check it out. (Running time 11 minutes.)
I'm Tyler.
For his Eagle Scout project, Tyler made this video. Check it out. (Running time 11 minutes.)
I'm Tyler.
6.11.2007
hunger and plenty
James passed along this photo essay from Time magazine: What The World Eats.
It shows a week's worth of food from 15 different homes, all over the world.
The photographs are from the book Hungry Planet, by photographer Peter Menzel and writer Faith D'Aluisio. Here's more about the book from NPR.
It shows a week's worth of food from 15 different homes, all over the world.
The photographs are from the book Hungry Planet, by photographer Peter Menzel and writer Faith D'Aluisio. Here's more about the book from NPR.
porportional representation redux
There's some new info in the proportional representation thread, courtesy of MSS of Fruits and Votes.
Let's be tidy and keep the comments there. Thanks.
Let's be tidy and keep the comments there. Thanks.
peace claws
Catching up on the news this morning, I saw this headline on truthout: Cindy Sheehan Sells Protest Site to LA Radio Host. When I clicked, the name of the purchaser jumped out at me: Bree Walker! Walker is a smart, strong feminist and disability-rights activist. I lost track of her career over the years, and was thrilled to see that's she still working and successful.
Walker has a condition called ectrodactyly, which fuses her fingers and toes together, making her hands appear somewhat claw-like. When she was younger, she used to hide her hands under prosthetics, but later decided to be proudly herself. When she first "came out," I noticed that in interviews she would fix her hair or otherwise make her hands visible where she could have easily hidden them from view.
Walker's success in front of the camera was hailed by people with disabilities everywhere. It doesn't hurt that she is conventionally beautiful, but then, her disability is thought of as a "deformity". She's not a beautiful woman sitting poised in a wheelchair that you can't see. She's a beautiful woman with lobster hands.
Wouldn't you know it, Walker was publicly criticized for having children - ectrodactyly is genetic - then further criticized for getting her children surgery to help alleviate the condition! File that under one my favourite truisms: if you're a woman, your reproductive choices will be condemned no matter what you do, so you damn well better do what you want.
And guess what? Walker's buying Camp Casey from Cindy Sheehan and turning it into a peace memorial.
Walker has a condition called ectrodactyly, which fuses her fingers and toes together, making her hands appear somewhat claw-like. When she was younger, she used to hide her hands under prosthetics, but later decided to be proudly herself. When she first "came out," I noticed that in interviews she would fix her hair or otherwise make her hands visible where she could have easily hidden them from view.
Walker's success in front of the camera was hailed by people with disabilities everywhere. It doesn't hurt that she is conventionally beautiful, but then, her disability is thought of as a "deformity". She's not a beautiful woman sitting poised in a wheelchair that you can't see. She's a beautiful woman with lobster hands.
Wouldn't you know it, Walker was publicly criticized for having children - ectrodactyly is genetic - then further criticized for getting her children surgery to help alleviate the condition! File that under one my favourite truisms: if you're a woman, your reproductive choices will be condemned no matter what you do, so you damn well better do what you want.
And guess what? Walker's buying Camp Casey from Cindy Sheehan and turning it into a peace memorial.
6.10.2007
"the united states is not a democracy, nor was it ever intended to be"
Gore Vidal was in Toronto this week, speaking in the Grano Lecture Series. Today the Star, who helps sponsor the Series, ran a portion of a transcript.
William Thorsell: Is there a Europe? I mean, this whole idea of Europe has got so diffused. The EU gets bigger, and so on. We talk about Europe as though there were a place or a society. We're not talking about foreign policy or anything, just is there a European civilization any more that can pick up if the United States falters?
GORE VIDAL: Oh, sure there is, and every bit of it is like my fellow illuminata here. It is the Europe of the la lumière. And it is a great Europe since the Protestants' appearance at the Renaissance. One other thing that we neglected to do, and we could have done in '45 when the mandate of heaven, as Confucius would have said, came to us after World War II, we had a chance to develop a civilization. We were number one in everything, really by accident: ballet, something nobody had known about before; literature, poetry particularly; theatre. I mean, it was extraordinary.
After the Depression, in which I grew up in Washington, and I spent three years in the army in the Pacific and the Aleutian Islands, suddenly we all came back, filled with energy, ready to begin a life. And there it was, everything. The world was ours, and from Lenny Bernstein writing On the Town, it was just a chorus of great talent released at last after depression and war, and we blew it all because Harry Truman wanted to impress Stalin, so he drops the atomic bomb, forever darkening our reputation.
This is not generally known but every major military man in World War II, from Admiral Nimitz to General Eisenhower, begged Truman not to use the bombs. They said, "We'll be hated for all time. We have enough problems as it is with the world." He went right ahead and did it, because he wanted to scare Stalin. That's spite. God knows, it's stupidity which makes me very excited but... there is a Europe. The problem is, where is America?
We seem to be vanishing... I spent 30 years doing the history of the United States through a series of novels, through one family a bit like my own, and that's the way I educated myself, since the schools are not going to educate anybody else that I can tell, unless you are from a rich family and you can send them, as I was sent, to Phillips Exeter Academy, which was not all that good. It was more indoctrination than it was education. But we were taught our place as the premiere empire of the world. We filled it. We had a lot of Theodore Roosevelt's rant behind us and Franklin Roosevelt's meliorative, tentative attempts to give us a degree of socialism, which might make us as civilized as Canada.
THORSELL: It's probably a pretty self-centred thing, but what's your sense of this country? Do you have a sense? Does this country project any sense of itself beyond the borders of itself, and do you have any sense of this country or any sense of where it could fit in the world?
VIDAL: It's a good model for us, particularly in medical care, and every now and then there are wistful looks at "Our Lady of the Snows" up here, where you need not die of, you know, whatever happens to be wrong with you at that moment. You might be cured, looked after.
No. I mean, the shadow of England is a dense one. I had a fan letter from a Canadian lady. I had made a reference to the phantom Crown of England and I was talking about the political situation, you know. They have a parliament. They are a far more democratic country than the United States but, I said, "You know, everywhere that phantom Crown has cast a shadow." She said, "What phantom Crown? Lilibet (Queen Elizabeth II) has more power. She drove that awful man you like, (Gough) Whitlam, out of office in Australia." Well, she didn't, but the Tories did. And I thought, What is going up here with Our Lady of Snows? They are still people who are waiting for, well, maybe they're waiting for Charles the III..."
THORSELL: At this point, I think we'll throw you to the circus.
MICHAEL ADAMS: Is the United States of America a democracy?
VIDAL: No. The United States is not a democracy, nor was it ever intended to be. This is where the schools have got it all wrong and where the media daily gets it wrong.
The one thing they feared the most was tyranny, another King George the Third or a dictator, another Cromwell.
Many of us are descended from Cromwell's men. That's how we became to be such vicious Protestants. Well, if you want to see any of the founders, read the federalist papers. Any one of them looks like he's near apoplexy, he's about to have a stroke when he's talking about the people. They hate the people. They want the people out of government. Their idea of bad government is Pericles in Athens. And that's just, you know, forbidden country for our founders. They were Republicans, and they wanted a republic based on Rome, secretly based on slavery and based on imperial progress elsewhere in the world.
So from the beginning, we've been imperial. From the beginning, we've missed the whole point of the republican effort to create a republic in this brave new world. And I think we had a pretty good beginning. We were well served until Lincoln. It's not his fault, but with Lincoln came new elements. The power of money. The power of sheer greed and the power of military might.
You know, Bismarck, who had the best army in Europe or wanted to have, sent observers to our Civil War. He wanted to see what we knew – we had created a war machine the world had never seen. Now, how this little agrarian republic pulled that off is the trick of the week. Bismarck used to say, "God looks after drunks, little children and the United States of America." For a long time, He did.
6.09.2007
"the rope around us is getting tighter"
Did you all hear about this? The 1943 diary of a 14-year-old Jewish girl living in the Bedzin ghetto, near Auschwitz, has been revealed. Rutka Laskier gave her diary to a friend, Stanislawa Sapinska, who held onto it for 60 years. Sapinska, who is not Jewish, recently revealed the diary. After it was authenticated, Sapinska donated the diary to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial museum in Israel.
Of course I read The Diary of Anne Frank as a child, but it was only when I re-read it as an adult that I appreciated its power. I was stunned by the clarity and immediacy of the writing, by the force of that prematurely wise voice speaking across the vast gulf in experience.
The excerpts in the news stories about this diary have the same quality.
Another thread of Rutka's story really moved me, too.
This sounds identical to adoption stories, where people feel a deep and immediate connection with their birth families, whether or not they've ever met.
If you have not visited the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam, I highly recommend doing so if you ever have the opportunity. Physically being in that tiny, cramped attic feels like a form of witness. It boosts that exercise in imagination we all experience when we think about round-ups and exterminations.
The Museum portion of the house ends with a global perspective on genocide, bringing you from Frank's specific, personal story to the universality of its themes.
Of course I read The Diary of Anne Frank as a child, but it was only when I re-read it as an adult that I appreciated its power. I was stunned by the clarity and immediacy of the writing, by the force of that prematurely wise voice speaking across the vast gulf in experience.
The excerpts in the news stories about this diary have the same quality.
"The rope around us is getting tighter and tighter," Rutka Laskier wrote in 1943 shortly before she was deported to Auschwitz. "I'm turning into an animal waiting to die."
. . .
"I simply can't believe that one day I will be allowed to leave this house without the yellow star. Or even that this war will end one day. If this happens I will probably lose my mind from joy," she wrote on Feb. 5, 1943. "The little faith I used to have has been completely shattered. If God existed, He would have certainly not permitted that human beings be thrown alive into furnaces, and the heads of little toddlers be smashed with butt of guns or be shoved into sacks and gassed to death."
Reports of the gassing of Jews, which were not common knowledge in the West by then, apparently filtered into the Bedzin ghetto, which was near Auschwitz, Yad Vashem experts said.
The following day she opened her entry with a heated description of her hatred toward her Nazi tormentors, but then, in an effortless transition, she speaks about her crush on a boy named Janek and the anticipation of a first kiss.
"I think my womanhood has awoken in me. That means, yesterday when I was taking a bath and the water stroked my body, I longed for someone's hands to stroke me," she wrote. "I didn't know what it was, I have never had such sensations until now."
Later that day, she shifted back to her harsh reality, casually describing watching a Nazi soldier tearing a Jewish baby away from its mother and killing it with his bare hands.
"I have a feeling that I am writing for the last time," Rutka wrote on Feb. 20, 1943, as Nazi soldiers began gathering Jews outside her home for deportation. "I wish it would end already! This torment; this is hell. I try to escape from these thoughts of the next day, but they keep haunting me like nagging flies. If only I could say, it's over, you only die once ... but I can't, because despite all these atrocities I want to live, and wait for the following day."
However, Rutka would write again. Her last entry is dated April 24, 1943, and her last written words are: "I'm very bored. The entire day I'm walking around the room. I have nothing to do."
In August, she and her family were shipped to Auschwitz, the largest Nazi concentration camp. She is believed to have been murdered upon arrival.
Another thread of Rutka's story really moved me, too.
Rutka's father, Yaakov, was the family's only survivor. He died in 1986. But unlike Anne Frank's father, he kept his painful past inside. After the war, he moved to Israel, where he started a new family. His Israeli daughter, Zahava Sherz, said her father never spoke of his other children, and the diary introduced her to the long-lost family she never knew.
"I was struck by this deep connection to Rutka," said Sherz, 57. "I was an only child, and now I suddenly have an older sister. This black hole was suddenly filled, and I immediately fell in love with her."
This sounds identical to adoption stories, where people feel a deep and immediate connection with their birth families, whether or not they've ever met.
If you have not visited the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam, I highly recommend doing so if you ever have the opportunity. Physically being in that tiny, cramped attic feels like a form of witness. It boosts that exercise in imagination we all experience when we think about round-ups and exterminations.
The Museum portion of the house ends with a global perspective on genocide, bringing you from Frank's specific, personal story to the universality of its themes.
6.08.2007
"working class immigrants need not apply"
From an Op-Ed in the Star, by Pedro Barata, Vilma Filici, and Victor Wong, of the Portuguese Canadian National Congress, the Canadian Hispanic Congress, and the Chinese Canadian National Congress, respectively.
I'm very glad to see that more attention will be paid to undocumented workers and other hard-working people who want to immigrate to Canada. As the writers say, "Canada faces many challenges that require our undivided attention – climate change, poverty, competitiveness and good jobs, to name just a few. The last thing we should be doing is wasting valuable financial and human resources hunting down hard-working families and removing them from jobs for which there is no one else to take their place."
I couldn't agree more. But it's also odd for me to read this, because I consider myself working class. Allan and I have one university degree between us and no grad school; we work at staff-level positions; we rent our home; we own one car. While we earn more than a hotel cleaner, we earn less than a successful plumber, electrician or carpenter.
The Canadian immigration system does favour professional people with advanced degrees, but ever since the point threshold was lowered from 75 to 67 in 2003, many working class people with good employment prospects have been able to make the grade. Many skilled trades, such as electrician and machinist, are listed among the professions recognized on the application. The category that most of us apply through is called "skilled worker class".
Perhaps the writers are exaggerating to make a point. Or perhaps my definition of working class is askew.
Read the essay here.
Working-class immigrants need not apply.
Although these words do not actually show up on Canadian immigration application forms, they might as well. After all, carpenters, plumbers, cleaners, hotel workers and others eager to fill positions in industries that are desperate for new recruits don't have a prayer of qualifying for permanent residency under Canada's points-based immigration system.
Yesterday, Ottawa took the first important step toward rectifying this situation. Parliament passed a motion to put a moratorium on further deportations and to seek sensible solutions aimed at regularizing the status of undocumented migrants and finally overhauling the immigration and refugee determination system.
The motion, which was passed by a 147 to 115 vote, with most of those opposing it being Conservative MPs, presents a forthright recognition that Canada's immigration system is unsustainable and that many sectors in our economy would suffer without the contributions of today's undocumented migrants.
Immigrant groups, employers, labour unions and faith communities will now be watching closely to ensure that Parliament puts its words into action.
The urgency of the situation certainly calls for decisiveness. Although precise numbers are unavailable, it is estimated that thousands of undocumented migrants live, work and attend schools wherever employment gaps are glaring throughout Canada.
Without their contributions, construction sites for condos, residential homes, new industrial developments, new factories and office buildings could well shut down by the end of the week. The food industry would likely grind to a halt. Maintenance of our homes, office towers and hotels as well as many other industries would be crippled.
How did we get to this point? Who made up a points system that excludes the very people that are needed by our economy? And who decided that the only worthy economic migrants to Canada are those with university degrees, high technical skills, or plenty of money?
I'm very glad to see that more attention will be paid to undocumented workers and other hard-working people who want to immigrate to Canada. As the writers say, "Canada faces many challenges that require our undivided attention – climate change, poverty, competitiveness and good jobs, to name just a few. The last thing we should be doing is wasting valuable financial and human resources hunting down hard-working families and removing them from jobs for which there is no one else to take their place."
I couldn't agree more. But it's also odd for me to read this, because I consider myself working class. Allan and I have one university degree between us and no grad school; we work at staff-level positions; we rent our home; we own one car. While we earn more than a hotel cleaner, we earn less than a successful plumber, electrician or carpenter.
The Canadian immigration system does favour professional people with advanced degrees, but ever since the point threshold was lowered from 75 to 67 in 2003, many working class people with good employment prospects have been able to make the grade. Many skilled trades, such as electrician and machinist, are listed among the professions recognized on the application. The category that most of us apply through is called "skilled worker class".
Perhaps the writers are exaggerating to make a point. Or perhaps my definition of working class is askew.
Read the essay here.
reconsidering ashley
A few weeks ago, I blogged about the medical abuse by her parents of a girl known as "Ashley X". Kids On Wheels, the magazine I help write and edit, ran a letter in response to their article on those parents' choice. I'm posting the outstanding letter with permission of the author.
Thank you, Marsha Katz. I'm ashamed that I didn't even think of the sexism and misogyny inherent in Ashley's abuse.
I appreciate Katz's clear indictment, and I appreciate her anger.
I love your magazine, but I was frankly appalled when I read "Considering Ashley" (Wheel Life, Winter 2007). For all of us to have to worry that ethics committees and families might consider mutilating a little girl, and subjecting her to experimental hormone injections as a preferable alternative to institutionalizing or even euthanizing her, is so far off the charts that I am left speechless. Ashley is not the problem. The problem is that all the Ashleys and their beleaguered families don't have the supports they need.
We would never be having this discussion if Ashley had been a boy, and the parents had cut off his penis and testicles. Nor would we be having this discussion if Ashley did not have a disability. Ashley's parents said they wanted to spare her from the discomfort of large breasts and the potential for breast cancer, so they cut out her breast buds. Yet, both her mother and her sister still have their breasts. How did the parent's access the crystal ball that assured them that if she was allowed to become a woman she would absolutely have painful large breasts and a high risk for breast cancer?
Removing Ashley's uterus was rationalized by saying the goal was prevention of menstruation and menstrual cramps and potential pregnancy. If, as they stated, no one is allowed to care for Ashley but her parents and grandmothers, how would she ever be subject to becoming pregnant, assuming she was even physically able to become pregnant in the first place? Why is the concern for pregnancy, not for the potential of being sexually abused? How is that being prevented? Because if sexual abuse is being prevented, then so is any potential for pregnancy. And there are definitely medically approved ways to prevent menstruation without removing body parts.
And now that Ashley's parents have been able to create this designer "pillow angel," who will hold them accountable to their stated rationale of caring for Ashley for the rest of her life? The answer is no one, because whether or not her parents had sought the "Ashley treatment," there is never a guarantee about what the future holds. Life happens. Her parents could die or become disabled, or just get tired, or something else unexpected could happen, and they might have to consider alternative living arrangements for Ashley. And make no mistake, those alternative arrangements would in no way be limited to an institution! Stating that an institution or euthanasia are the alternatives to surgery and hormones is patently false, and a great disservice to all the families and service providers that care for children and adults with the most significant disabilities in their own homes and communities every day. Even at this tender age, Ashley could be cared for by another family in that family's home, if her parents were unable or unavailable to care for her.
I am further dismayed that Ashley's parents have had no trouble "showing and telling" every intimate detail about her on their website, but they have chosen to protect the privacy and confidentiality of themselves and their other children by blacking out their faces in the pictures. Why are they allowed that dignity and respect for privacy, yet Ashley is not? Why is it OK to display Ashley and tell the world what they did to her? Is it OK because, after all, Ashley has a disability, and she'll never know? Does anyone else not see the double standard here? Does anyone else not see what's wrong with this picture?
Thanks for KIDS ON WHEELS. Our youth definitely need to develop a sense of community at the earliest possible age. Their very survival depends on it!
Marsha Katz
ADAPT Montana
Thank you, Marsha Katz. I'm ashamed that I didn't even think of the sexism and misogyny inherent in Ashley's abuse.
I appreciate Katz's clear indictment, and I appreciate her anger.
active threads
The proportional representation discussion and the creation museum discussion are still active. Just thought I'd let you know.
the job front
It's a good-news-bad-news kind of post, so let's get the bad news out of the way first. There's a resounding silence on the job front. No weekend spots at all.
However... it's looking like this is leading me to make another change in how I earn my living. I'm excited about the potential, but I'm concerned about our income during the transition.
I've discovered that colleges and universities hire people to take notes for hearing-impaired students. The notetakers attend classes with the students, take notes on a laptop, then email the file to the student. This sounds like a great fit for me in many ways: I'm a great notetaker, a fast typist, and I like the idea of attending different classes at area colleges. The work is flexible and cyclical, following the school term, and I like that, too. The pay is not fantastic, but it's all right, and it has the potential to increase greatly with experience.
I heard about this work shortly after we moved to Canada, through someone who might even be reading this post, the wonderful "V". We were working with V so she could take care of Buster while we went to New Jersey for US Thanksgiving in 2005. (Alas, that was not to be, as by the time the holiday came, we had lost him.)
At that time, I was very intrigued with the notetaking idea, but I quickly found a good law-firm job, and that was that. But now that I'm unemployed, I've had time to investigate it more thoroughly. I've discovered three different agencies that hire "computerized notetakers", as they're called, and I'm preparing my applications with all of them.
Of course there's a catch. Work wouldn't start until September, and I've already been unemployed a month. I have some income from writing and editing work, but it's not adequate.
There is some legal word-pro work I can get, with a schedule I really don't want. But for various reasons, it's not really feasible to do that temporarily while I keep an eye on the notetaking route. One precludes the other.
I'm seeing an avenue through which to transform this job loss into an opportunity for change, and I want to take it. But I have to figure out the finances to make it work.
May I add this is the stupidest time in the world to be throwing a party? No, I'm not cancelling. And no, I'm not making it pot-luck. Just come and enjoy.
However... it's looking like this is leading me to make another change in how I earn my living. I'm excited about the potential, but I'm concerned about our income during the transition.
I've discovered that colleges and universities hire people to take notes for hearing-impaired students. The notetakers attend classes with the students, take notes on a laptop, then email the file to the student. This sounds like a great fit for me in many ways: I'm a great notetaker, a fast typist, and I like the idea of attending different classes at area colleges. The work is flexible and cyclical, following the school term, and I like that, too. The pay is not fantastic, but it's all right, and it has the potential to increase greatly with experience.
I heard about this work shortly after we moved to Canada, through someone who might even be reading this post, the wonderful "V". We were working with V so she could take care of Buster while we went to New Jersey for US Thanksgiving in 2005. (Alas, that was not to be, as by the time the holiday came, we had lost him.)
At that time, I was very intrigued with the notetaking idea, but I quickly found a good law-firm job, and that was that. But now that I'm unemployed, I've had time to investigate it more thoroughly. I've discovered three different agencies that hire "computerized notetakers", as they're called, and I'm preparing my applications with all of them.
Of course there's a catch. Work wouldn't start until September, and I've already been unemployed a month. I have some income from writing and editing work, but it's not adequate.
There is some legal word-pro work I can get, with a schedule I really don't want. But for various reasons, it's not really feasible to do that temporarily while I keep an eye on the notetaking route. One precludes the other.
I'm seeing an avenue through which to transform this job loss into an opportunity for change, and I want to take it. But I have to figure out the finances to make it work.
May I add this is the stupidest time in the world to be throwing a party? No, I'm not cancelling. And no, I'm not making it pot-luck. Just come and enjoy.
6.07.2007
proportional representation? why or why not?
In my recent post about the Creation Museum, Lone Primate mentioned that this is why he doesn't support proportional representation: the opportunity for fringe parties that many of us consider dangerous and anti-democratic to share a role in government.
My instincts and my reading tell me this is not the case, but I'm not well-versed enough in the issues to argue effectively. So I tapped someone who is; I invited Idealistic Pragmatist over to comment.
Since I don't have time to write anything original right now, I'll rerun their discussion here, and I'll invite MSS of Fruits and Votes to join us. MSS is a professor of political science who specializes in elections.
Here's the story so far.
Lone Primate:
Idealistic Pragmatist:
LP:
IP:
LP:
Feel free to jump in. Fact, opinion, gut reaction - all are welcome.
My instincts and my reading tell me this is not the case, but I'm not well-versed enough in the issues to argue effectively. So I tapped someone who is; I invited Idealistic Pragmatist over to comment.
Since I don't have time to write anything original right now, I'll rerun their discussion here, and I'll invite MSS of Fruits and Votes to join us. MSS is a professor of political science who specializes in elections.
Here's the story so far.
Lone Primate:
...this is the reason I get cold feet every time someone waxes eloquent about proportional representation. Sure, sounds great when you imagine it's just Latin for "the NDP gets more seats"... till you realize it also means folks like this, who couldn't get elected God catcher under the present system, suddenly wind up guaranteed a handful of reps who will give cheer and encouragement to the like-minded as they wind up on the CBC every night, quoted ad nauseam in The National Post, and potentially hold the balance of power in a system that promises minority government after minority government.
They're out there.
Let's KEEP 'em out there.
Idealistic Pragmatist:
Fortunately, this isn't actually true. Only two potential systems have floated for use in Canada, the one currently under consideration in Ontario (Mixed-Member Proportional) and the one currently under consideration in B.C. (Single Transferable Vote). BOTH of these systems have thresholds that would prevent small fringe parties from being elected unless they had significant support. Scroll down in my FAQ to the question about "small regional or ethnic parties" for the full explanation.
LP:
"BOTH of these systems have thresholds that would prevent small fringe parties from being elected unless they had significant support."
Yeah, and the GST was "revenue neutral". As you've pointed out, it's possible under the current system for these people to get elected, with "significant support". We've had upwards of, if I remember correctly, six parties in the Commons at any given time, and some of these parties have significant support out west. Anything that lowers the threshold of what constitutes "significant support" makes me nervous. It gives them a voice that would almost certainly bleed off right-wingers who figure at least their vote counts for something if they vote Tory/Reform/CCRAP, whatever. Empowering a move away from moderation towards fragmentation... cripes, isn't that trend bad enough in this country already? I certainly think so.
I suppose it's bound to come to this sometime. All I'm saying is when you're tiptoeing through the tulips of democracy, be prepared to step... or even slip... in the fertilizer.
IP:
My point is that proportional representation wouldn't lower the threshold for significant support--and in some ways, it would raise it. If anything, first past the post is far, far more dangerous in this respect than either of the two PR-based systems proposed for Canada, as the inflated seat count of the Bloc Quebecois indicates. We've been slipping in the fertilizer for years, and it's time to wake up and smell the democracy.
And your assumption about "more fragmentation" isn't particularly warranted if you look at what happens in other jurisdictions. It's not impossible that PR would create more parties, but I actually find that highly doubtful, given how many we have already (I suspect there would be a realignment of the current parties instead, with lots of politicians changing teams for a year or two). Regardless, though, there would still be less fragmentation under PR because it demands true intraparty cooperation within stable, majority coalition governments. If you're sick of the infighting and grandstanding, PR is actually the solution, not something that would create more of the same problems.
(See also six reasons to support proportional representation and myth #1: proportional representation leads to minority governments.)
LP:
You've done little to reassure me, I'm afraid. I understand how coalitions work — they're the issue for me. We effectively had one for most of Mulroney's tenure; he'd co-opted the sovereigntists and his constitutional and economic peddling to them and their eventual defection nearly brought an end to our country. Without their support, it's highly unlikely he would have won in 1984 and certain he wouldn't have in 1988. Thank God Harper has had the sense not to step into that mine field... but he does have to watch his step with them, all the same. I foresee even more dances with the Devil in a system that pretty much assures no single party in Canada will ever be able to plot a course without worrying about shoals around the fringe.
I look at Italy. The place has had nearly as many governments since WWII as it's had years. Israel is a country full of bright, progressive, educated people whose political process is perennially in thrall to a handful of people who really believe Samuel was right to denounce Saul for merely enslaving the Amalakites instead of killing them man, woman, and child as God commanded — a big part of the reason the place can never find peace with its neighbours or the rest of the people of the very same land.
Coalitions. And so a coalition between the minority Tories and, say, the Family Party? Would the recent vote on same-sex marriage been the non-issue it was under such circumstances? What would it mean for abortion rights? Immigration? The equality of faiths? The independence of the judiciary?
In the abstract, I love the idea of PR. It is more fair. It does give people more of what they want. But I'm not such a democrat and I'm not so generous that I don't look at what that means in practical terms in this country and look away in sang froid. When I think of what we have to lose, and I look at how close the example of that is even in a two-party system, I find myself retreating to the safer shores of known waters.
Feel free to jump in. Fact, opinion, gut reaction - all are welcome.
6.06.2007
swamped
I have lots to write about, but no time to write it. My Kids On Wheels and New Mobility assignments have all exploded at the same time, and I have to focus on that.
Do you know, if I were paid normal writing fees for my KOW work, I wouldn't need a full-time job (whether three days or five days) in the first place? Of course, if Kids On Wheels could pay standard rates, it would be a standard magazine, and not the great work that I love and care so much about. But still.
I'll be back when I can. See you all soon.
Do you know, if I were paid normal writing fees for my KOW work, I wouldn't need a full-time job (whether three days or five days) in the first place? Of course, if Kids On Wheels could pay standard rates, it would be a standard magazine, and not the great work that I love and care so much about. But still.
I'll be back when I can. See you all soon.
6.05.2007
numberless diverse acts of courage and belief
It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and . . . those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.
These words were spoken by Robert F. Kennedy during a 1966 visit to South Africa. Kennedy, acting on an impulsive dare from an American civil rights worker, toured that country when only a tiny handful of Americans knew aware of the brutal apartheid regime.
It would be another 15 years before the issue would strike public consciousness worldwide, and another decade 13 years before the dismantling of apartheid would begin.
I'm not posting this because it's Kennedy; that's irrelevant here. This is about movement, and progress, and time. More on this soon.
6.04.2007
only in america? (maybe not)the creation museum
Many of you probably already know about this reading from evolution blogs, but not being a visitor to that world, my eyes popped.
There's a creation museum in Kentucky.
The country of my birth grows ever stupider, and ever more divided.
There's a creation museum in Kentucky.
The country of my birth grows ever stupider, and ever more divided.
rom revisit
Since my post about Torontonians' reaction to the new addition to the Royal Ontario Museum attracted a lively discussion, here's a bit of follow-up.
According to the Star, reaction at the opening was generally positive. Of course it's an extremely skewed sample, since I doubt people who loathe the building, or who don't care about architecture, would attend the opening. Still, I was cheered to read that thousands of people showed up. A major addition to the Toronto streetscape deserves the attention.
On the subject of whether or not the two structures, old and new, belong together, James sent me this neat snippet.
Canadian icon Leonard Cohen recently collaborated with the great composer Philip Glass, part of Toronto's Luminato festival (which I confess I haven't paid any attention to). The Daily Dose of Imagery photoblog posted this photo of Glass and Cohen in conversation about the project. The caption reads:
Lovely! Here are the Daily Dose's photos of the ROM Opening.
I've been very much anchored in Mississauga these days - between writing deadlines, unemployment and the gorgeous weather (that is, my love of my own backyard), I haven't had time, money or inclination to wander around Toronto. My mom is visiting in early July, and I've saved the ROM's ancient Peru exhibit for us to do together. That will be my first visit to the museum, and probably my first view of the completed and unveiled crystal.
According to the Star, reaction at the opening was generally positive. Of course it's an extremely skewed sample, since I doubt people who loathe the building, or who don't care about architecture, would attend the opening. Still, I was cheered to read that thousands of people showed up. A major addition to the Toronto streetscape deserves the attention.
So what will the verdict be? An architectural wonder or a risky monstrosity?
The crowds waiting all day to get their first glimpse inside the now-infamous Crystal, which opened this weekend as part of Luminato's Open Weekend Festivities, were downright split as to what they thought of the museum's $270-million makeover.
"I think it's a very daring building. It's nice to see such bold architecture in Toronto," said Lianne Raymond, as she stood in line about the building's exterior.
In a hurried city like Toronto, Raymond says it might take a structure like the Crystal for people to slow down.
Rosemary Bishop, who was waiting in line with her friend, Lana Grill yesterday afternoon, went even further.
"I am really proud of it," she said. "I think it's a real architectural wonder."
But for others, there was still something that troubled them.
"I don't think it works for the space. I am disappointed that there's not more glass," Phyllis Wharton said.
"I think it loses something," said Alexandra Zalucky. "You would have had much more of a beautiful impact if it is made of glass.
"It's interesting but not beautiful."
Still, she says she is curious to see how it looks inside.
"I think it's interesting it's open all night," she said.
"It would be cool to check out the museum at night."
It's a sentiment that Wharton echoes. "I am dying to see it from the inside," she said.
For Lana Grill, it's the juxtaposition between old and new that caught her fancy.
"It's so unexpected between two old buildings," said Grill.
"We are impressed from the outside."
As for Evguenia Ioussoufovitch, she says she has mixed feelings about what she describes as "controversial" project.
"It's a risky move when it's a fusion of stuff," adding "it's nice to have something new as long as it fits."
On the subject of whether or not the two structures, old and new, belong together, James sent me this neat snippet.
Canadian icon Leonard Cohen recently collaborated with the great composer Philip Glass, part of Toronto's Luminato festival (which I confess I haven't paid any attention to). The Daily Dose of Imagery photoblog posted this photo of Glass and Cohen in conversation about the project. The caption reads:
Leonard Cohen jokingly described the collaboration: "It shouldn't have worked, but it did. Like that iceberg crashing into that museum . . . a beautiful catastrophe!" comparing the piece to Daniel Libeskind's new architectural addition to Royal Ontario Museum.
Lovely! Here are the Daily Dose's photos of the ROM Opening.
I've been very much anchored in Mississauga these days - between writing deadlines, unemployment and the gorgeous weather (that is, my love of my own backyard), I haven't had time, money or inclination to wander around Toronto. My mom is visiting in early July, and I've saved the ROM's ancient Peru exhibit for us to do together. That will be my first visit to the museum, and probably my first view of the completed and unveiled crystal.
6.02.2007
on luck
In an earlier post about our work life in Canada, I wrote:
Then I wrote a capsule version of how I got to this place, in terms of my writing career and my day-jobs, which involved huge amounts of hard work, persistence and drive. Then I said:
Some readers questioned my downplaying of the role of luck, citing luck or the lack of it in their own and others' lives.
That made me think about why the "you're so lucky" comment irritates me so much, and the role of luck in our lives generally.
I can't count how many times I've written on this blog how fortunate I feel, how lucky I consider myself to be, and that has expressed only a fraction of my feelings.
I regard myself as very privileged. I feel extremely fortunate in all the major, important parts of life. Hey, I'm a woman, and I am Jewish. How lucky am I to be born in North America in the latter half of the 20th Century?
I am lucky that my body is in generally good working order (something I wish all women realized that when they beat themselves up over the size of their hips or thighs).
I'm lucky to have grown up with one parent who gave me unconditional love and support. I wasn't so lucky with the other parent, but lots of people never have parental love and support at all. I have family - siblings, sibs-in-laws, nieces, nephews - who love me. I have a life partner and soulmate. That is very lucky, but I will say that our happiness is not a function of luck. Meeting the right person is luck; building and maintaining a relationship takes hard work and commitment.
And I'm lucky to have found meaning in life, through my writing and my activism.
When I think of the sum of all this good fortune, I believe I am, to paraphrase my favourite baseball player, the luckiest person on earth.
In the bad luck I've had - I am a rape survivor, I had an abusive parent and quite a bit of craziness growing up - I was still lucky. I had help and support, and I came through in one piece. I turned the damage into growth. Some of that was luck. Some of it was hard work, and my refusal to yield.
So let's call all this big-picture luck. In the big picture, I've been damned lucky.
The "you're so lucky" comment that I find so irritating attributes things for which I've worked to what I'll call small-picture luck.
Having a three-day-a-week job so I can have more time to write was not luck. If a job was there when I looked for it, that was luck - and I could sure use some of that right now. But arranging my life to be able to write wasn't luck. It was a deliberate choice.
Finding a portable, marketable skill and becoming very good at it - so that if a job existed, I could get it - wasn't luck. Right now, I'm brainstorming for other suitable income-earning ideas, in case I can't find a legal doc-pro job that works for me. I'm not waiting around to get lucky.
If you're hard-working and persistent like I am, then you've known lots of people who are lazy, or mired in inertia, or who quit at the first obstacle, and then blame the world around them for their failure to get what they want. And those are usually the people who pronounce me lucky.
I didn't grow up this way. I was told I was "smart but lazy". All through grade school and into high school, I sailed through, getting top grades without trying. There were plenty of things I couldn't do (sports, advanced math), so I simply didn't do them. (What passed for parental advice in my home was, "You can't be good at everything.") I did what came easy and the rest I let slide.
I didn't discover the motivation to work hard until university. Maybe that's why I value my own hard work and persistence so much: it's an acquired skill. (I just thought of that, right now. The power of blogging.)
Then there's the other side of the coin. You can be hard-working and persistent and come up empty-handed. That's one of the hardest lessons I've learned.
I rearranged my life so I could write, which included incurring parental disapproval and entering into voluntarily poverty. While working as a nanny and a proofreader, I wrote a book, then did everything I could to get it published. Then I wrote another one, and did the same. The first was a "starter novel," I'd have been shocked if it was published. The second deserved to be published. Still does. Yet neither are.
I am persistent to a fault. Giving up is very hard for me. But I had to let go. I had publishers tell me, "15 years ago we would have snapped this up, but it's not in style now..." My agent told me houses that used to publish 30 young-adult titles a year were now publishing 3. The book never got published. I have to think that was bad luck.
[However, had it been published, if someone had said, "You're lucky your book is published," I would have burst a blood vessel. Small-picture luck to finally get that much-needed break, yes. But that break would have been just one step along the path I had paved myself.]
So I kept writing, and eventually my writing was recognized. Someone offered me an opportunity. I took it. I built on that. I tried different kinds of writing, and different venues. And slowly I became a working, published writer.
I needed a break, for sure. But I got the break by writing, by putting my work out there, by persisting. Without my own hard work and persistence, that break never would have found me. It took a lot of work to get to the point where that small-picture luck was relevant.
You can do all the right things and never get the small-picture luck. And apparently you can do nothing right and get lucky anyway. Life is not fair. The world is not a garden of just rewards. The industrious fail and the indolent prosper. That's the annoying truth.
But when you've worked hard and gotten what you worked for, you want to believe your choices and actions had something to do with it. Maybe it's an illusion I cling to. Or maybe the apparent absence of luck is an excuse to do nothing.
People often note that I am "lucky" because my job gives me the time and freedom to pursue my writing career. That irritates me, because it's not a function of luck.
Then I wrote a capsule version of how I got to this place, in terms of my writing career and my day-jobs, which involved huge amounts of hard work, persistence and drive. Then I said:
Of course, we, all of us, are fortunate to achieve what we strive for, and you know I am grateful for good fortune. You can work hard at something and still not achieve it, through no fault of your own. (I ought to know that: I have two unpublished novels.) But I seriously bristle at the implication that I accidentally fell into my life. I didn't. I built it.
Some readers questioned my downplaying of the role of luck, citing luck or the lack of it in their own and others' lives.
That made me think about why the "you're so lucky" comment irritates me so much, and the role of luck in our lives generally.
I can't count how many times I've written on this blog how fortunate I feel, how lucky I consider myself to be, and that has expressed only a fraction of my feelings.
I regard myself as very privileged. I feel extremely fortunate in all the major, important parts of life. Hey, I'm a woman, and I am Jewish. How lucky am I to be born in North America in the latter half of the 20th Century?
I am lucky that my body is in generally good working order (something I wish all women realized that when they beat themselves up over the size of their hips or thighs).
I'm lucky to have grown up with one parent who gave me unconditional love and support. I wasn't so lucky with the other parent, but lots of people never have parental love and support at all. I have family - siblings, sibs-in-laws, nieces, nephews - who love me. I have a life partner and soulmate. That is very lucky, but I will say that our happiness is not a function of luck. Meeting the right person is luck; building and maintaining a relationship takes hard work and commitment.
And I'm lucky to have found meaning in life, through my writing and my activism.
When I think of the sum of all this good fortune, I believe I am, to paraphrase my favourite baseball player, the luckiest person on earth.
In the bad luck I've had - I am a rape survivor, I had an abusive parent and quite a bit of craziness growing up - I was still lucky. I had help and support, and I came through in one piece. I turned the damage into growth. Some of that was luck. Some of it was hard work, and my refusal to yield.
So let's call all this big-picture luck. In the big picture, I've been damned lucky.
The "you're so lucky" comment that I find so irritating attributes things for which I've worked to what I'll call small-picture luck.
Having a three-day-a-week job so I can have more time to write was not luck. If a job was there when I looked for it, that was luck - and I could sure use some of that right now. But arranging my life to be able to write wasn't luck. It was a deliberate choice.
Finding a portable, marketable skill and becoming very good at it - so that if a job existed, I could get it - wasn't luck. Right now, I'm brainstorming for other suitable income-earning ideas, in case I can't find a legal doc-pro job that works for me. I'm not waiting around to get lucky.
If you're hard-working and persistent like I am, then you've known lots of people who are lazy, or mired in inertia, or who quit at the first obstacle, and then blame the world around them for their failure to get what they want. And those are usually the people who pronounce me lucky.
I didn't grow up this way. I was told I was "smart but lazy". All through grade school and into high school, I sailed through, getting top grades without trying. There were plenty of things I couldn't do (sports, advanced math), so I simply didn't do them. (What passed for parental advice in my home was, "You can't be good at everything.") I did what came easy and the rest I let slide.
I didn't discover the motivation to work hard until university. Maybe that's why I value my own hard work and persistence so much: it's an acquired skill. (I just thought of that, right now. The power of blogging.)
Then there's the other side of the coin. You can be hard-working and persistent and come up empty-handed. That's one of the hardest lessons I've learned.
I rearranged my life so I could write, which included incurring parental disapproval and entering into voluntarily poverty. While working as a nanny and a proofreader, I wrote a book, then did everything I could to get it published. Then I wrote another one, and did the same. The first was a "starter novel," I'd have been shocked if it was published. The second deserved to be published. Still does. Yet neither are.
I am persistent to a fault. Giving up is very hard for me. But I had to let go. I had publishers tell me, "15 years ago we would have snapped this up, but it's not in style now..." My agent told me houses that used to publish 30 young-adult titles a year were now publishing 3. The book never got published. I have to think that was bad luck.
[However, had it been published, if someone had said, "You're lucky your book is published," I would have burst a blood vessel. Small-picture luck to finally get that much-needed break, yes. But that break would have been just one step along the path I had paved myself.]
So I kept writing, and eventually my writing was recognized. Someone offered me an opportunity. I took it. I built on that. I tried different kinds of writing, and different venues. And slowly I became a working, published writer.
I needed a break, for sure. But I got the break by writing, by putting my work out there, by persisting. Without my own hard work and persistence, that break never would have found me. It took a lot of work to get to the point where that small-picture luck was relevant.
You can do all the right things and never get the small-picture luck. And apparently you can do nothing right and get lucky anyway. Life is not fair. The world is not a garden of just rewards. The industrious fail and the indolent prosper. That's the annoying truth.
But when you've worked hard and gotten what you worked for, you want to believe your choices and actions had something to do with it. Maybe it's an illusion I cling to. Or maybe the apparent absence of luck is an excuse to do nothing.
immigration reform on both sides of the border
Several readers have expressed surprise that I haven't blogged about the proposed massive changes to US immigration policy. If adopted, these changes would make the US's immigration policy similar to Canada's, which favours skilled workers, educated professionals and the middle class, while also offering legal status to illegal immigrants already in the US.
From a mainstream news story about the bill:
Although I am an immigrant from the United States, I don't follow immigration issues to the US closely, if at all, so I don't have a clear opinion on it.
The US adopting an immigration system like Canada's presupposes that the countries have the same population and labour issues. Canada needs the population and the professional work force. Does the US? As far as I know, it does not - but again, I haven't studied the issues.
My concerns about immigrants in the United States are pretty simple. I want to see all workers, whether or not they have legal documentation, treated humanely. I want families to be able to stay together, and persecuted people to find refuge.
The National Organization for Women (NOW) calls for meaningful immigration reform that includes these principles:
In New York, a huge, mostly legal immigrant population comprise a huge percentage of the small business owners and nonprofessional labour force. The enormous influx of legal immigrants in the last 25 years, who have come to the US via family sponsorship, has revitalized New York's economy, and transformed the outer boroughs that were decimated by the white flight of the 1950s and 60s.
The segment of the Brian Lehrer show linked above includes immigration experts explaining the proposed point system in the US immigration bill, and how Canada's system works.
My understanding is that Canada has completely different immigration needs. While Canada encourages a skilled immigration force from all over the world, the pressing issues are how to help that population succeed once they are here. The shorthand anecdote for these issues is the doctor who is driving a taxi while the city he lives in suffers from an acute shortage of doctors.
Minister of Immigration and Citizenship Mike Colle has announced a pilot program to address the key problems that undermine the success of Canada's immigration policy:
That Canada sees itself in competition with other countries to attract immigrants, and is trying to help immigrants thrive and contribute to Canada, strikes me as a pretty basic difference between the two countries' attitudes toward immigration.
From a mainstream news story about the bill:
A bill being discussed would legalize millions of illegal immigrants, tighten border security and mandate that employers verify they are hiring legal workers.
The bill includes conservative-backed initiatives such as the worker verification program to prevent illegal immigrants from getting jobs, and a new point system to prioritize skills and education over family in deciding who can immigrate in the future.
Liberals decry the point scheme as unfair to families and are vehemently opposed to a guest worker program that would let laborers come to the US for temporary stints without a guarantee they would be able to stay and eventually gain citizenship.
But it also includes a long-sought liberal priority — granting legal status to the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. Conservatives view that as an unacceptable amnesty program.
Although I am an immigrant from the United States, I don't follow immigration issues to the US closely, if at all, so I don't have a clear opinion on it.
The US adopting an immigration system like Canada's presupposes that the countries have the same population and labour issues. Canada needs the population and the professional work force. Does the US? As far as I know, it does not - but again, I haven't studied the issues.
My concerns about immigrants in the United States are pretty simple. I want to see all workers, whether or not they have legal documentation, treated humanely. I want families to be able to stay together, and persecuted people to find refuge.
The National Organization for Women (NOW) calls for meaningful immigration reform that includes these principles:
- a legalization program that will allow undocumented immigrants living in the US to apply for residency,
- enforcement of existing federal labour laws for all workers, including domestic workers, most of whom are female,
- improvements in the family reunification program
- adequate health care for all children, including US-born children of undocumented immigrants,
- family-planning health care coverage for all immigrant women regardless of legal and economic status, and
- adoption of the provision of the WISH Act which provides safe harbor and safety-net benefits to immigrant victims of sexual and domestic violence.
In New York, a huge, mostly legal immigrant population comprise a huge percentage of the small business owners and nonprofessional labour force. The enormous influx of legal immigrants in the last 25 years, who have come to the US via family sponsorship, has revitalized New York's economy, and transformed the outer boroughs that were decimated by the white flight of the 1950s and 60s.
The segment of the Brian Lehrer show linked above includes immigration experts explaining the proposed point system in the US immigration bill, and how Canada's system works.
My understanding is that Canada has completely different immigration needs. While Canada encourages a skilled immigration force from all over the world, the pressing issues are how to help that population succeed once they are here. The shorthand anecdote for these issues is the doctor who is driving a taxi while the city he lives in suffers from an acute shortage of doctors.
Minister of Immigration and Citizenship Mike Colle has announced a pilot program to address the key problems that undermine the success of Canada's immigration policy:
...long delays in processing applications; the disconnect between the qualifications of immigrants and their success in the labour market; and the concentration of immigrant settlement in major urban centres like the GTA that combine high living costs with often limited employment opportunities.
With an aging population and a low birth rate, increases in the labour force increasingly depend upon Canada's ability to attract highly qualified immigrants. In competition with Australia, the United States and European Union countries, Canada's global immigration strategy uses a point system to recruit highly educated, skilled and experienced immigrants who can readily find employment and contribute to economic growth.
However, numerous studies point to the same troubling conclusion: Canada is losing its status as a destination of choice as delays in the processing of applications and growing awareness of difficulties finding employment related to their education, skills and work experience deter highly qualified immigrants.
Currently, applicants for admission to Canada as independent class or economic immigrants – 60 per cent of all immigrants – face an 18- to 30-month processing time. The waiting list is more than 800,000. Once admitted, based on existing trends, slightly more than 50 per cent of the projected 141,000-158,000 economic-class immigrants in 2007 will settle in Ontario, the overwhelming majority in the GTA.
After a brief period of adjustment, many economic immigrants find employment and fulfill their expectations, but despite high levels of education, skill and work experience, the majority face a high risk of unemployment, underemployment and poverty.
The cost of processing delays and unsuccessful settlement is high, both for the immigrant and their dependants and the Ontario economy due to the underutilization of their skills and expertise at a time of emerging labour shortages.
Ontario's new provincial nomination program will enable employers in the health, education, manufacturing and construction sectors to recruit employees for jobs in 20 occupations, matching job vacancies with the qualifications of prospective immigrants. Citizenship and Immigration Canada will fast-track the admission of nominated immigrants and their families and the program will allocate 50 per cent of nominations to communities outside of the GTA to encourage more balanced immigrant settlement throughout the province and contribute to regional economic development.
[From an Op-Ed in the Star by Ryerson University professor Arthur Ross]
That Canada sees itself in competition with other countries to attract immigrants, and is trying to help immigrants thrive and contribute to Canada, strikes me as a pretty basic difference between the two countries' attitudes toward immigration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)