Writing and Emotions

In October this blog will be ten years old.  In blog years, well, that's pretty damn old.  So many blogs have come and gone since I started this, far more than I can actually remember.  Anyway, that fact...coupled with a lot of work I'm doing on/for myself...got me to thinking about recently about why I do this thing.  Well, outside of the obvious part about liking to do this thing.

I've always been writing things.  In college, I would write voluminous letters.  When I started with my last employer, I kept something of a journal.  I would, in fact, journal quite a bit over the years.  Much of that stuff still exists in notebooks that are stuck in boxes and corners, awaiting my untimely demise, ready to find some emo-esque enjoyment on the part of my children no doubt.

Prior to the formality of my own URL, I was writing on another social media platform.  Side note:  I really do need to recycle...or at least read...some of that old content.

Anyway, the point is made:  I write a lot.  But why?

I think it's because writing allows me to process things that are sometimes too difficult for me to process otherwise.

Growing up, well let's just say that emotional expression wasn't exactly encouraged by my sole engaged parent.  As I've noted here from time to time, I think it was everything my Mother could muster just to keep four boys fed and clothed.  Granted that the Albert boys...

(circa 1970)

...could be something of a handful, but more than a half-century and my own parental experiences later, I can say with some certainty that we were actually among the better crop of young men in our respective age brackets.  Recent deep ponderings on my part yield the fact that there was likely more going on with my Mother, which for better or worse, pushed things like encouragement, developing healthy relationships, self-confidence, and managing adversity out of scope for us as life-lessons (at least as taught by my Mother).

Many of these skills I have learned...some the hard way, I will note...later in life, and I am grateful for that fact.  I do, however, think my late brother Chris may have struggled even more than yours truly when it comes to some of these lessons.  Let's hope that there is an afterlife and that he's there now, fully redeemed.

Anyway, I didn't learn how to manage emotions in a healthy manner growing up.  For some, that could equate to a lifetime of, for example, anger management issues, or maybe even self-medication/substance abuse.  For me?  It manifests itself through what I've learned is a kind of intellectualization of emotions.  Basically, I have difficulty understanding and expressing my feelings, so my lifetime coping mechanism has been to try and parse things out into logical chunks that I could more readily understand.  I turn how I am feeling into an exercise in data analysis, mostly because:

1) I am good at analyzing things

and

2) See above...I never learned about the healthy expression of emotions

I actually have to be careful here, as I could end up being guilty of the same set of actions in this very posting.  Simply put, it's easier for me to deal with emotions intellectually than it is for me to actually feel them.

The above is a workable strategy, to a point.  The wheels came off though with the rapid-fire loss of a job and a brother.  I've learned that there is no amount of logic could help me through the heartache of losing my brother.  In tandem, the anger I felt at the way in which I lost my last job defied a logical, intellectual understanding (see THIS posting).  I've actually felt guilty over feeling angry in that case.  In totality though, my ability to simply intellectualize my feelings was overwhelmed by the dual loss of a job and a sibling.  Rightfully so, I will add.

Now the rainman gave me two cures
Then he said, “Jump right in”
The one was Texas medicine

The other was just railroad gin

An’ like a fool I mixed them

An’ it strangled up my mind

An’ now people just get uglier

An’ I have no sense of time

For me, there is no Texas medicine (or railroad gin) that would actually help, which is actually a pretty good thing.  No, what happened to me has forced a kind of re-assessment of how I experience parts of the world...mostly the part of the world that sits inside my own head.  While I am grateful for the opportunity that my losses have given me for reflection and growth, part of me is a bit saddened at the revelnation/prospect of just how much I missed growing up.  Reflection will do that sometimes.  Now no parent is perfect, me especially, but I hope was able to provide more encouragement...more permission to feel...to my children than what I was given.  Hopefully, I've broken a cycle before it could continue.

Now the bricks lay on Grand Street
Where the neon madmen climb

They all fall there so perfectly

It all seems so well timed

An’ here I sit so patiently

Waiting to find out what price

You have to pay to get out of

Going through all these things twice

                                                                       

The song lyrics, by the way, are from Bob Dylan's "Stuck Inside of Mobile with the Memphis Blues Again".  Highly recommended.

So where to from here?  Why even write this?

Well, I feel a bit unsure about posting this, but that hasn't stopped me before.  Besides, I do feel a kind of need to now "get on" with some things in my life, and I do think this is a part of the process.  What kind of chronology of my life would this be if it didn't include revelations of both the small and the big? 

In the end, I still can't give a complete voice to how I feel over Chris' death, but I do feel more at peace with having those feelings.  What's more, I have an understanding why the process of expressing those emotions has been so very difficult for me over this past year.

I'll call the above a win, all be it a hard-fought one.

Defunding Planned Parenthood

A few thoughts about the abortion issue and Planned Parenthood* specifically.

I think that, based on years of my experiences, most people who support Planned Parenthood are not "pro-abortion"; rather I suspect that they just wish that somehow every pregnancy was planned and that the reasons driving women to consider having an abortion, including rape and incest, never occur.  Count me in on that list.  But these things do happen in the real world.  All of this noted I am disturbed by the notion that a government...any government mind you...can reach inside a woman's body and make a reproductive decision for her; how is this not government intrusion at its very worst?  How is that not the antithesis of a conservative philosophy of small government?  Now I'm equally if not more so disturbed by the idea that, for example, an abortion can occur simply out of a gender preference, but my personal objection shouldn't equate to governmental policy, especially a policy that can reach into someone else's body. 

I'll take this one step further.  It's my opinion that, while abortion is the stated and primary reason for many who want to de-fund Planned Parenthood, a strong secondary (and in fact, maybe primary) reason among politicians and others is in the area of contraception.  You see, some (mainly religious) groups also want to limit or even end access to the contraception services that Planned Parenthood provides.  Serial presidential candidate Rick Santorum has said that individual states should be able to ban contraception, advocating for the overturning of the Griswold v. Connecticut decision.  Ponder that one for a moment:  It's not simply enough to reach into a woman's body, the government also wants a role in the intimate life you share with your husband/wife/partner.  Why?  Well, it's because some have a personal, religious belief that the only purpose for intimacy is procreation. Again, we come back to the idea that another person's personal, religious convictions shouldn't automatically equate to a policy that impacts everyone else.  It comes down to the very notion that some want a very big and very intrusive government to have an awful lot of control over you.  

By the way, the argument that "I know my tax dollars don't directly fund abortions, but giving tax dollars to Planned Parenthood allows them to free up other money that can then go to funding abortions"  is a red herring.  Why?  Here's an analogy:  I believe that it is wrong for the government to collect cell phone data on innocent American citizens, but I also know that my tax dollars don't directly go to funding NSA operations that engage in this very activity.  Should I though, as a matter of principle, be able to withhold part of my federal income taxes because that money goes somewhere else that in turn allows other money to be used for NSA spying?  Of course not.  The "replacement money" argument is just a smokescreen (in my opinion) to punish Planned Parenthood for providing contraception services.  

Respecting Differences
One of the biggest problems with the whole abortion debate in this country is that we've allowed the fringe elements to consume most of the air time.  In fact, just where the fringe elements begin isn't really all that clear anymore.  Think about it:  A rally with people yelling while carrying plastic fetuses on poles makes for a better television story than rational folks having a civil conversation about the abortion issue.  That's life in a 24/7 media universe.  Anyway, I really do believe that reasonable people can respect each other while having differing and even nuanced views on the topic of abortion.  I also genuinely do understand the zeal that some approach this issue, and I do have problems with supporters on both extreme ends of the abortion spectrum.  However, this has to come down to a matter of personal choice for one simple reason:  No government should have the right to tell anyone what to do with what's inside of their body.  What's more, banning abortion will not end abortion, it will simply drive the practice underground as well as making it a choice that only the wealthy (and their political supporters) can afford, while the poor suffer through botched and life-threatening self-induced abortions.

In the final analysis, if your religious views tell you that abortion is morally wrong, that life truly begins at the very moment of conception, well then I respect your views and I know why you shouldn't have an abortion.  You can also tell others that abortion is morally wrong with all the personal conviction you can muster and with all the means at your disposal.  That's your right, and I hope that you acknowledge others have a similar right to express differing views.  Conversely, if you consider yourself pro-choice, then I hope you can respect the passion and heartfelt convictions of those who disagree with you.  However, and this is a big "however", we all have a right to live in a society where there is a difference between religious and secular laws, in spite of what you may hear coming from the Franklin Graham's of this world.  Sometimes these things intersect, but when they do it has to be a matter of almost universal consensus in order for society to function.  The contrary, where there is no line between religious and secular laws, is well on display for us in such garden spots of personal freedom as Iran and Saudi Arabia.

(*) By way of disclosure, I have financially supported Planned Parenthood for a number of years.  I do this for my three daughters because I don't want them living in a world where mainly older white men get to decide what happens to their bodies.

* * * * * *

Post Script:  Please save the commentary about "...but Margaret Sanger supported eugenics..." for someone else who is not quite so gullible.  I am well versed on Ms. Sanger's biography, as I am that of conservative icon Ayn Rand (see below).  If you are a conservative and dismiss Sanger for her early views on eugenics, should you not also dismiss conservative icon Rand for her views of any number of other topics, including abortion?

In fact, there are no "perfect" people, and all of us can disagree with the some of the views of people like Sanger and Rand without demonizing all of their work in the process.  It's that painting with broad brush strokes that I think is half the problem in this country, and one of the reasons why, I suspect, so few decent people actually want to run for public office.

For the record, here's what Ayn Rand has written about abortion:

An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?

Source HERE.

Women's March

If you are a man and you're scratching your head struggling to understand why all these women were marching yesterday, well let me help.

Let's transport into an alternative universe, one where a woman has been elected president, a woman vice-president and there is a virtually all-female congress.

That new president and congress have publicly stated that men shouldn't have the right to decide what happens in their bodies related to reproduction, that they...the women running the federal government...know best.  In fact, some of these women have also publicly stated that, even in cases where a man was raped or assaulted by a family member, that they still should be the ones who decide what healthcare options would be available to men.

They've also threatened to cut off funding to a national organization that provides significant healthcare services to economically poor men...all because these women running the federal government have a religious objection* to 3%** of the services that the organization in question provides.  Oh, in many of the locations where this organization exists, there simply are no alternative providers of these services, especially in rural areas of the country (example).

These new women leaders are also hostile to marriage equality.  In fact, the new vice-president once said that being gay was a choice and that "societal collapse was always brought about following an advent of the deterioration of marriage and family" (source:  Businesinsider.com).  The new president has committed to appointing justices to the United States Supreme Court who will overturn marriage equality (source:  HRC), apparently because state governments (in our alternative universe also filled with mostly women) should be able to decide whether two consenting adults who love each other should be allowed to marry.  Why?  Because they believe that government...run by women...knows what's best, especially for men.

Frightening, isn't it?  If you're a man...living in our real universe...what I'm suggesting is that you engage in some basic empathy.  Many women are genuinely fearful, and in my opinion, rightfully so (hence this posting).

In the end, I have no doubt that my wife and I will be okay during the Trump years.  Heck, we may even get a tax cut.  But I worry about my daughters living in a world where a federal or state government can reach into their bodies to make reproductive choices for them or decide whether or not they can marry the person they love.  I simply don't want any government to have that much power.

* * * * * *

(*) Count me firmly in the court of fully respecting the religious choices of every American.  But I also ask that other Americans not insist on making their religious choices policy for everyone else.   Put another way, if your religion teaches you that abortion is murder and that homosexuality is a sin, well, then you better not be gay and you sure as heck better not have an abortion...but you shouldn't have the power to make those choices for those who have sincerely held but different convictions.

(**) http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/ 

Advice to My Daughters: There Is No Instruction Manual

There is no instruction manual in life.  Especially when you become an adult.

Life is, at its very heart, a process of trial and error.  Of taking educated risks.  Of learning from your mistakes.  Of doing the very best you could under the circumstances at hand.

Life is a continuous journey towards something, but at times we're just not sure what that "something" actually is.  And this is okay.  There are lots of little stops and milestones along the way; enjoy them and learn from them, but they really aren't the "something".  T.S. Eliot was right:  It's about being on a journey where you end up arriving at the place you started and you know that place for the very first time.

Life is ultimately even-handed.  The most wealthy and famous among us sometimes suffer the most, and sometimes not-so-wealthy and unknown manage to live wonderful, fruitful lives.  Why?  Because the things in life that matter the very most can't be purchased and they have nothing to do with being well known or famous.  Our wealth and our notoriety (or lack thereof) don't dictate what kind of life we live...our actions and our attitudes do that instead.

Life is about kindness.  That kindness has to include yourself for it to have any real meaning though.

Life is about resisting advertising.  It's not the big, flashy things that matter the most or truly bring joy...rather, it's the simple things.  No expensive perfume purchased at Saks Fifth Avenue ever smelled better than a lilac bush in early May.

Life is about living within your means, but not because that's hard, prudent or what your parent's want you to do; no, it's about doing that because you deserve a life where you aren't held a slave to trinkets and things that are fleeting anyway.

There's so much death...

...it's as if you can't watch or read the news without hearing about about more people dying in senseless acts of violence somewhere.

So many questions that can't be easily answered, and yet it's those easy sound-byte answers that will fill the airwaves for yet another round of posturing by talking heads.

Enough already.

Enough of the violence.

Enough of the "we just need to arm..." or "we just need to ban..." answers.

No amount of arming or banning will solve our problems.  Rather, we've allowed our civil society to become remarkably uncivil.  It's no longer sufficient to disagree with someone like the President...now it's almost required, in many circles, to HATE him.  It's no longer sufficient to be anti-abortion...it's now required to HATE Planned Parenthood.

(cartoon from Pat Bagley...by the way, this was published 6 years ago)

I know, I'm singling out one side here, but so be it.  Just as Muslims have a special obligation to call out the extremists in their religion, so to do the reasonable folks on the political and social Right in this country.  For far too long far too many on the Right have accepted increasingly vile levels of rhetoric from the likes of folks like Rush Limbaugh to go unchallenged.  Rhetoric from people like Rush Limbaugh contribute...I would argue greatly...to the climate of hate that exists in this nation.

It's time, right now, to dial back the hateful rhetoric, whether it's spewed by a presidential candidate or some advocacy group.  Political Right or Political Left, it doesn't matter.  We can disagree without hating our opponents.  We can seek justice without out resorting vengeance.  We have to realize that the only way to stop killings is to stop killing.

We should protect ourselves, but we can't do that at the expense of senselessly harming others.  What good is our safety and security if it deprives someone else of theirs?

Dear Congress,

The following are two things that the United Stated federal government does that deeply offend me:

1) Spying on U.S. citizens

I find it inexcusable that innocent individuals, right now, are having their private communications intercepted by government employees.

2) Spend money in support of the two major political parties

See THIS and many other examples of tax dollars being used to subsidize two political parties.

I pay federal income tax.  In fact, I pay more than my share of federal income tax.  While I know that my individual federal tax dollars don't directly go towards spying and political party support, I do know that they go towards other things that then allow other dollars to go towards spying and political party support.

I therefore respectfully request that I no longer be required to pay federal income tax, at least for the next year.

Kindly get back to me.

Thanks,

- Steve