It's Only A Paper Rose

I appear to have caught a meme. In all fairness, it's on my favorite subject, so can anyone blame me?

Apparently this is a five-word meme. Reply to this entry and I'll give you five words that remind me of you. You then expand on them in your own blog. Mine came from joyfulleigh, who seems to have declared me her e-sister. (I've never had a sister, but if they're all like Leigh then I'm very definitely pro-sisterhood.)

Karaoke: Yes, I'm one of those disgusting people who's actually good at karaoke. In my defense, I've been doing it for some years now, and have had actual voice lessons into the bargain. I love performing, and have had dreams about pursuing music for some time, but never the actual motivation or opportunity. Karaoke was and is an easy and low-stakes way to hone my musical and performing skill. Whether I'll ever progress beyond it remains to be seen - learning an accompanying instrument seems a logical next step, but has yet to manifest.

Snopes: Leigh and I met on the Snopes LJ feed, which I don't much follow anymore but used to read with some regularity. Snopes is an excellent resource and I still search it now and again when something trips my skepticism meter - "reply all" with a link is a great way to deal with relatives who insist on forwarding you inaccurate/offensive emails in spite of your having asked them repeatedly to stop. I especially appreciate it as a bastion of critical thinking in an Internet full of people willing to believe and take offense at all sorts of untrue pap.

Sandman: The first comic book (*ahem* graphic novel, sorry) series that really grabbed me. Up until that point, sometime in the summer of 2004, I had never been too taken with comics as a format. Don't get me wrong, I knew you could write interesting and important stories with them - my senior-year English class had read Maus - but I'd never come across one that held my attention, and I wasn't used to examining artwork as carefully as reading text. I found the first few volumes of The Sandman on a table at the Barrow library when I was working there, and the phrase "a comic book for intellectuals" caught my eye. I took the first volume home, and proceeded to devour all ten in about a week and a half. And while it took a little while to really find its stride, I still remember the line that sent the "this is really going to be an excellent story" chills down my spine: "Ask yourselves, all of you, what power would Hell have if those imprisoned here could not dream of Heaven?"

Writer: I like to write. Aside from performing, it's probably the thing I've wanted to do the longest - when I was in fifth grade I wrote a short story (thirteen whole pages!) called "The Girl and the Mermaid" that everyone I knew told me was way awesome. (In retrospect, I realize that was implicitly tagged with "for your age", but at the time I figured I had it made.) I wrote thoroughly awful Star Trek fanfiction in early high school, which, fortunately, no one but my ever-patient friend John ever read, as it was before the Internet was a thing. Later, when I was a senior in high school and the Internet *was* a thing, I wrote less-awful-but-still-melodramatic Daria fanfiction that was nonetheless decently well-received; one reviewer even called me "an author to keep your eye on", which pleased me far more than I'd admit to anyone even today. Aside from blogging, most of my writing since then has been either the school-assignment variety or the occasional bit of porn; nonetheless, several of my friends seem absolutely convinced that writing is my calling, and I'm hoping to get over my various neuroses about it to do it more often. I've been working on expanding the YA novel idea I had a couple of days ago, and am actually pretty excited about it. Here's hoping for another successful NaNo, and with an editable-for-potential-sale manuscript at the end, to boot.

Handwritten notes: Isn't that technically six words? The past couple of years, I've taken up the hobby of writing letters to people - actual, physical, handwritten letters and cards (I even apologized to one friend when her letter was typed and printed out because I was in a hurry to get it out to her before I left for Anchorage). It started as a way to feel a little more in touch with friends I'd left behind in Juneau when we moved here to Arizona - something about the sharing of a physical object, especially a beautiful one, is much more personal than a Facebook post - but the majority of my friends have always been online anyway, so it rapidly expanded to all parts of the world. Recently I've even taken to making my own cards, thanks in no small part to the opening of Blissbee, an awesome little mixed-media/papercrafting/art supply store here in town. Some of my friends write back, and some don't; the ones who do get cards and letters more frequently, but I don't harbor any animosity towards those who don't. We're all busy, and letter-writing isn't as rewarding an activity for some people as it is for me. I'm always glad to get an email or Facebook note letting me know they got it, though, and most of my friends are pretty good about that.

I wrote this as a reply to a syndicated column in the newspaper today regarding the distressing rise of comparisons to Nazism in political discourse today. I'm reposting it here, because I think it's something we should all seriously think about.

Back in the early days of the Internet, comparisons to Nazism as an insult for some trivial offense were so common that an idea spread to combat them. Referred to as "Godwin's Law", it stated that in any argument, as soon as someone brought up Hitler or the Nazis they lost and the discussion was over. This idea came about in large part for the reasons Mr. Pitts describes - because the evil that the Nazis perpetrated was so vast that trivializing it for the sake of an argument was an insult to the millions upon millions of their victims.

Godwin's Law was (and is) necessary because, in this new world of cyberspace where people were represented by strings of characters, participants had little reason to be civil to each other during arguments. Sure, there was a certain level of social conditioning, but once people realized the true extent of their anonymity they had no reason to pull punches - there was nobody to make them take real-life responsibility for their words, and they couldn't see the hurt they'd caused in the other person with their remarks. So in many places discussion on the Internet devolved into vicious, nasty, personal attacks against people with ideas others didn't like. (Sound familiar, Empire board members?) Godwin's Law, and a few other basic rules that are nameless but equally universal (don't post personal attacks, don't "troll" - post inflammatory statements specifically for the purpose of getting a rise out of people, etc.) began to be enforced on various boards, sometimes unofficially by group members, sometimes officially by moderators. While there are still dark corners of the Internet where flamewars continue, in most places online discussion stays on a certain level of civility, because the alternative is chaos.

Here's what scares me. As stated above, nastiness was a problem in the early days of the Internet due to anonymity; in the real world, people remained at least moderately polite to each other because they could be taken to task for their words. But now, the level of discourse among people in the real world is quickly degrading to early-Internet levels. People call in about Nazism on talk shows as if they've never heard of Godwin's Law (which, to be fair, they may have not), pundits make completely false declarations without offering any supporting evidence whatsoever, normal people interrupt town hall meetings (which are supposed to be a forum for rational discussion) to scream about how Obama wants to kill your grandmother, etc. Once upon a time you didn't want to be known as the guy who was on television (or YouTube) saying all that crazy conspiracy stuff; these days, people wear it as a badge of honor.

What's changed? I honestly don't know. Certainly our celebrity-obsessed culture has done its fair share of encouraging behavior like this; when your entire goal is to be recognizable, there's no such thing as bad publicity. Undoubtedly, the aforementioned pundits and the billionaire neoconservatives bankrolling the town-hall protests share some responsibility as well, for encouraging extremist thought. Perhaps even the Internet has played a role - it used to be that you didn't want to offend people who lived near you, but now that literally anyone can go online and find a subset of folks who think exactly like them, their ideas are reinforced and their motivation to avoid stepping on others' toes is reduced.

Whatever the reason, we're rapidly becoming a nation of trolls starting flamewars over politics. How ironic would it be if the moderated Internet became the last bastion of rational, civilized argument?

In which I attempt to answer one of Slate's reader-response questions and end up with one of my usual multi-paragraph arguments. (No, I'm not the daughter of an attorney at all...)

For those who slog through it, however, I'd be interested in your take - both on my answer and on the original question.

I sent this letter in to Slate, but since there's a good chance it'll never make it through the stack, I'd be interested in your opinions on the situation.


Dear Prudence,

A friend of mine and I are having a debate on a finer point of etiquette and were wondering if you could help us out.

He often asks favors of his friends; not huge ones, but not small either. (A typical example would be his asking me to make extra stops on the way home from work to pick up a package for him, as he doesn't currently own a car and getting it himself on the bus would take significantly more time.) This isn't to say he's a freeloader; he does help his friends when they need it, as his resources permit.

What irks me a bit is the way he asks for these favors. I've always assumed that when I ask someone for something significant, I should make a sincere offer of some sort of compensation (not necessarily monetary; movie tickets, help with a project, drinks at my place, whatever's within my resources at the time). Often the person I'm asking will wave the offer away as unnecessary, but to me at least making the offer is an important way of saying "I'm not just trying to take advantage of you, I'll try to do something for you in return".

My friend not only sees this as unnecessary, he feels that people would be insulted if he did so, because they'd think he was saying they wouldn't help him if he didn't offer them something in return. But when he consistently asks me for things without offering anything in return, I feel like he's trying to take advantage of my good feeling toward him.

Am I just being whiny here? Or is it reasonable to expect people to offer help in return for you helping them out?

Does everyone remember this dude? The one who wrote the letter to the paper that was quite literally singing Bush's praises? Yeah. He's jumping on another subject, with equally misinformed enthusiasm.

( Scholarships? Bah! People who use scholarships abuse the system! )

Coming recently from the land of broke-student-ness (and being hopped up on a double shot mocha this morning), you can imagine that this got me well and truly pissed off. So, as people who know me might guess, I decided to write back.

( I don't know when you went to college, but $1600 a semester does not cut it these days... )

Maybe sticking that last bit about Bush in there was a cheap shot, given his previous letter, but the hypocrisy really gets me angry...

ETA: That's it, no more reading the paper after coffee. I'm really so mad I could eviscerate someone. =/

I know there've been some interesting letters printed in the Empire before, but today there was an absolute doozy.

( Letter reprinted here in case link gets broken )

I really, really wish I could say that this is someone being sarcastic (and it's so over the top that I'm almost tempted to think so), but it does seem to be human nature to deny any and all evidence contrary to one's opinions - especially in this era of hyper-information where it only takes a few mouse clicks to find support for literally any viewpoint. But if it is someone being sincere, than either this person believes very strongly in the "liberal media", or he literally hasn't picked up a newspaper or watched a news program (with the possible exception of Fox News) in the last six years. Heck, most of the Republicans I know are either ambivalent towards or very unhappy with Bush's performance. But then, I guess that's the world for you...takes all kinds, and all that.

ETA: Y'know what this really makes me think of is one of Brian's problems with the administration - basically that not only are they pulling all this illegal crap (pretty much every administration does to one extent or another, it's just part of being in power), but they're so utterly inept at covering any of it up. In his opinion (and I'd have to say mine too), you'd have to be an idiot to buy any of the lines that they've been feeding us - I guess this person either (to borrow a line from an article I linked to earlier) was born on the wrong side of clever or just lives in a bubble of willful ignorance.

So the Empire's printed a couple of anti-Planned-Parenthood letters lately. They've at least appeared to be thoughtfullly written on the surface, although many of the arguments they've made have been based on faulty assumptions (something that the pro-choice people aren't entirely free of, either). One of them that really made me laugh was claiming that since Planned Parenthood was a business like any other, their entire purpose in offering discounted birth control and whatnot was to line women up for the big-ticket item - an abortion. That was so fallacious on so many levels I didn't even think it was worth responding to. A more serious letter had a response printed today that I thought was very reasonable:


I'm fascinated by the letter written by the president of Alaskans for Life (Empire, Feb. 3). I sincerely hope this was a bad example of their views, because Ms. Barnack made some pretty arrogant assumptions.

She says no one needs an abortion. I'd love to hear that said to a woman who has ever had pregnancy that occurred in her fallopian tube, for one thing. Or to the woman who would be beaten to a pulp if their partner found out they were pregnant, or to the rape victim or to the victim of incest.

Abortion is not only about medical need. Pregnancy is as much as an emotional and psychological state as it is a physical one. Is the president of Alaskans for Life arguing that a woman should have to go through a pregnancy just because? No matter how traumatized and unready they may be? Can we really say that yes, definitely, absolutely that is the better choice in all situations for all women? Is it wrong to put the mother's life, including her emotional well-being, at a higher priority than her pregnancy? Why is that so distasteful for us?

For those out there who morally oppose abortion, that's fine. Really. Seriously. No asterisks. No sarcasm. If you feel that life on a spiritual and religious level starts at conception, there's not really much to argue with. I'm not going to tell you that abortion is always the moral and ethical choice, because it's not my place and I don't know. And that, my pro-choice, pro-life and in-between friends, is what we should go on: I respect your right to do things I disagree with. You don't have to support abortion. You don't have to get one. But can you say that it is your place to make one of the most serious, major life decisions there is for another person?

This is the point that so many people (pro-choice, pro-life, Democrat, Republican, gay, straight, whatever societal label you want to give them) seem unable or unwilling to understand - people should be able to make their own decisions. That's what free will is all about. If you believe homosexuality is the scourge of the earth and should not be allowed under any circumstances, fine - but let those people who consider themselves homosexual discover that for themselves. After all, if you're right, they'll find out sooner or later, right?

Or to use the issue at hand - leave well enough alone. Women are people, they have free will, and while they may make decisions they'll regret, that's their lesson to learn, and it's not your job to prevent them from learning it. Or it's possible they won't regret it at all and it would in fact be better all around. The point is - you don't know, it's not your life, so let them live it.

Ooookay, this went on a bit long. I think I'm going to step down off the soapbox for a while...

Well, I guess this isn't actually much of an update, since the pro-lifers haven't written anything to the paper (or at least, nothing that's been published). However, a couple other people have written in decrying the "PP offers nothing of value to a community" comment. Here's my favorite, since it says more or less what I first thought (but didn't write because, being the elitist that I am, I wanted to present a more thoughtful and balanced viewpoint):

I laughed out loud at Sid Heidersdorf's remarks in the recent article announcing the new Planned Parenthood clinic in Juneau. He dismissed Planned Parenthood as not offering anything good to the community and complained that "they just serve as a lightning rod for protests." Well, duh. As the local representative of the extremist groups that show up and bang the drums at those protests (pardon the mixed metaphor), Sid is blaming the victim for his own behavior. He reminds me of the schoolyard bully who pummels another kid with his own arm and then asks, "Why are you hitting yourself?" If the phrase weren't so ironic, I'd tell Sid to get a life.

Props to you, Lynn Escola. =)

Further updates as events warrant...

Quickest turnaround I've ever had on a letter to the editor - submitted it yesterday morning, and they printed it this morning. I made some comment in the subject line of my email that this was likely going to be the first letter of many on the subject, and the woman from the Juneau Empire who did the confirmation call told me that I was right, and she was glad that mine was so well written. Given some of the incoherent rants I've seen on the subject (abortion seems to be one of those issues that takes people down to third-grade-level debating), I don't envy her her job over the next few weeks.

I especially like the title they gave my letter; that should cause a bit of stir. *evil grin*

Planned Parenthood can prevent abortions

We'll see if anyone comes up with some well-thought-out responses over the next few weeks...

After having almost no caffiene aside from the occasional soda for some time, this morning I made Dead Man's Reach (Raven's Brew's hypercaffienated blend) for Brian and I, and drank it on an empty stomach. I am so very, very awake right now.

It's been a while since we had a "Rose argues in a public forum" feature, mostly because all the letters to the Juneau Empire recently have been either the usual bipartisan attacks, rehashings of positions on the "bridge to nowhere" that I already wrote about, or attacks on the Jualin mine. However, today there was an article in the Empire about the potential opening of a Planned Parenthood clinic here in Juneau this fall - a full service Planned Parenthood clinic. Which should provide all sorts of interesting fodder for the "Letters to the editor" section, especially since I'm told that some of the pro-lifers in Juneau are the most bitter, vitriolic people you can find outside of a white supremacy group. (I'm not going to mention the quotee's name for reasons of privacy, and I can't vouch for it myself one way or the other; but given Juneau's already-insular attitude, it wouldn't surprise me a whole lot.) The head of the local pro-life coalition was even quoted as saying that Planned Parenthood brings nothing of value to a community and merely acts as a lightning rod for protests.

Why yes, they do act as a lightning rod for protests - and I'm going to say this very slowly and clearly so that you can understand me - because...people...like...you...don't...respect...other...people's...privacy...and...insist...on...protesting...what...should...be...a...PERSONAL...DECISION.

*sigh*

I'm really starting to think I'm allergic to such blatant stupidity. Anyway, this being one of the issues I actually care enough about to get up off my arse and write something, here's the letter I sent in.

I was very glad to read your article on the possible opening of the
Planned Parenthood clinic here in Juneau this fall.  However, I'm
afraid that I must take issue with the statement that the clinic
provides nothing of value to a community.

Birth control options in Juneau are fairly limited for people of my
demographic (late teens and twenties). If one can't afford regular
visits to a family physician and is not a University student, the only
place for affordable birth control is the Public Health Center, which
already has enough on its plate trying to serve Juneau's lower class
on its limited budget.

In addition, education about birth control options is something that
is necessary in any community.  Alaska's schools are a wonderful tool
in that respect; however, the information they give is not always
complete, as they have to contend with the complaints of parents and
school board members.  Planned Parenthood often operates booths at
community gatherings to educate both teenagers and adults on the
options available, as well as the costs, risks and side effects
associated with each of these options.

Since the statement about Planned Parenthood's supposed uselessness
was made by the president of Juneau's pro-life movement, I will assume
that their beef with Planned Parenthood is about the fact that they
provide abortion services.  While they're entitled to their opinion on
abortion, I suggest that they work with the Planned Parenthood
educational services rather than fruitlessly protesting against them.
The more people we can educate about methods and uses of birth
control, the fewer abortions will be necessary - or wanted.