does it make a difference?

(spoiler: YES!)

Last night I was semi-watching part of 60 Minutes while Mister Melancholy (that's what I'm going to call him from now on; "my husband" sounds too smug and weird, and the "DH" blogging custom is just icky) had it on. There was a short blurb saying that after a segment aired on a homeless family in Florida, viewer donations poured in, giving the family money, job offers, housing, and even college scholarships.

While it's good to know that this one family will be on their feet and much more comfortable, that after-segment still felt kind of gross to me.

This one family dealt with a lot of hardships, losing their jobs and home. Millions of families have dealt with just as many, or even more. Some families never even have jobs or homes to begin with. (Most homeless and people in poverty are women and children, by the way.)

So the fact that the viewers sent money to help one family (there may have been two or three featured?)--that is wonderful for that family and their future.

But I wonder how many viewers realized that the family portrayed was representative of untold numbers of people in similar or worse situations. I wonder how many people thought to donate to food banks, homeless shelters, shelters for battered women and children. I wonder if anyone was driven to get out and volunteer with one of those places. I wonder if anyone thought to write to their representatives in government to bring needed attention to the everyday life that so many people live in poverty (for years or just recently). I wonder how many people realized that helping this one family whose faces they saw is doing nothing to help the bigger problem. That it kind of seems like a selfish reaction, actually, to focus on the people on the screen, rather than all the people behind it. I also wonder if 60 Minutes did that thing at the end of the original segment where they say, "for more information about helping poverty-stricken or homeless people in your area, contact [food bank/charity navigator/national shelter information/something like that]."

This sparked an interesting debate between Mister M and me. I said all of this to him and then asked if he donates to charity. He said that he doesn't feel like him donating $50 or whatever really makes a difference; is he supposed to do that to feel good? That's a drop in a leaky bucket, or a raindrop in the ocean.

I stared at him. To me this sounded like he was implying there's no reason to give a little bit because it couldn't possibly solve anything. He clarified that writing a small check makes him depressed, because even if he donated his entire net worth, it still wouldn't do anything to solve a real problem. And that since he works in policy, he's kind of working to solve it that way.

I replied indignantly, You can't eat policy! If I were to donate $10 to a food bank, that would mean that one person or one family had dinner that night.

Him: Sure, but that's only 1/1000th of the problem for just the next year! 

Me: Right, exactly! Every little bit helps!

Him: I would rather start working out a way to fix it on a large scale so nobody's hungry.

Me: But people need to eat today!

It's interesting; I'm a textbook pessimist at times. But apparently when it comes to the concept of giving back, I'm a full-on optimist.

I spent ten solid months doing service projects around the United States, and then I volunteered regularly for several years after that. I saw for myself that giving back is easy, and it's such a win-win for everyone. Giving back to your community is so much bigger than whatever small project you do for a few hours. You meet new people, you become proof that people care about other people, and somehow that spreads to the ether of feel-good. AND you get things done!

He's heard this from me before, but I said that I wondered how many people volunteered or even donated money. In all my years of being involved with giving back, I was never joined by anyone. No one I knew thought it would be worthwhile to join me and some others for a few hours even for just one day. Now, sure, perhaps they did other volunteering on their own that I never heard about, but based on the reactions I got talking about it and inviting people, most people were confused or put off by the idea.

That makes me sad. Volunteering is a lot of fun. No matter what you're doing. I've done things as mundane as raking leaves in the forest, and as meaningful as constructing walls for Habitat for Humanity. It's all a great time! And it all makes a difference! I hope that if you've never volunteered, you take the next opportunity that comes up. It will be worth it, to you and to the organization, I promise!

(Also, I'd like to state for the record that I think teachers give back to the community in a MAJOR way. So do nurses, doctors, people who staff non-profits, etc.)

I don't have a lot of money to spare. Really I shouldn't be sparing any. But if I can bring myself to buy two books from a local bookstore, or buy a Twix PB at the drugstore, I can find ten to fifteen dollars a month at a minimum to help with a worthwhile cause. In the past I've donated to TrailBlazers, Save the Children, the Nature Conservancy, and Heifer International. I've volunteered many times with the Hands On Network, in Seattle, New York, and New Orleans. Last December I participated in Help Portrait (though I didn't participate this year; it was last weekend). Recently I found this great list from Oprah.com: Spend a Little and Give a Lot. This year, I'd like to donate to the Food Bank of NYC, which is running a matching campaign for the holiday season.


I hope you will join me in helping the community--and not just because it's the holidays. I hope you'll join me in creating a culture of giving back. It's not about the amount, it's about the effort. Do you have causes you support, with volunteering or donation? I'd love to learn about new worthy organizations!

humbug

Look, I enjoy the holiday season. I keep Christmas music on my ipod year-round because I like it so much. (My favorite songs are O Holy Night and Do You Hear What I Hear?)

I was alarmed to see Christmas decorations go up literally the day after Halloween. I saw a Christmas tree at the Atlantic Terminal mall two weeks ago. Gingerbread house kits at Costco several weeks before that! I have a problem with all this jumping forward and extending the consumerism of the Christmas season by the retail industry. It makes me cranky; it just shouldn't be this way.

I'm also kind of alarmed how quickly so many regular people (as opposed to the stores) are jumping into Christmas. The day after Thanksgiving, it seems like everyone started showing off their Christmas trees. I know that technically Christmas season can start after Thanksgiving, and that some people start decorating asap. But this year it seems like all the people. Like everyone's been holding their breath waiting until the first possible moment to hurdle into Christmas. I don't know, it's just weird. It's all too fast! Too much!

We'll put up our fake tree and buy a real one across the street. We'll take out our ornaments, adding special ones from this year to our collection. I'll starting gathering/replacing strands of fairy lights. We'll put out our Advent calendar that has treat boxes. I'll listen to Christmas songs on purpose instead of hearing them occasionally on shuffle. But it will be December when all this happens.

Please don't be offended; I'm a cranky old lady. Who will eventually get into the holiday spirit.

down with pop culture

I've long hated reality television. I remember when Survivor started and all the drama that was shown in advertising clips--I found it distasteful and uncomfortable. I used to watch MTV's Road Rules (fun! adventures!) and Real World, back when they tried to force the people to have a job and do something. There were a few casting specials, and I remember that the producers were fairly transparent about choosing people who would make a good story (ie, stir the pot and cause scenes).

Now there are all these awful shows that venerate ridiculous yelling and drama, or even violence and bad behavior. Take this with a boulder of salt because I don't watch any of them, but when I see ads for Bad Girls' Club, the Real Housewives, Jersey Shore, those kind of shows, my lip curls in disgust. It's seriously gross what these shows do for the media, and don't do for humanity.

Today someone posted this article on Facebook: "Why Kim Kardashian's Divorce is Good for America and Women."

An excerpt:

So, what do these shows teach us? To start, that all a groom needs to qualify as “Prince Charming” is a fat wallet (why, hello there, “Joe Millionaire”). That “every girl” wants to—and can--become a “princess” bride, so long as she is skinny, vapid, and emotionally undemanding (the longest-running dating franchise, ABC’s “The Bachelor” and “The Bachelorette,” set this template early). TV networks have collaborated with embedded advertisers to convince us that the only thing "real women" should aspire to is becoming “Mrs. Something” (as a former Miss USA contestant put it on “Who Wants to Marry My Dad"). And that ludicrously expensive weddings are the key to lifelong happiness, no matter what happens behind the scenes.

It’s tempting to laugh all this off as harmless fluff, but the impact is real. Dating shows in particular portray women as bitchy, catty and desperate. These shows also tend to exclude intellectual, professionally accomplished women--preferring contestants like a bubby 24-year-old on "The Bachelor," who promised she’d “make the best wife” because “I will be a servant to him.” According to a recent Girl Scouts survey of 1,100 girls, young women who regularly watch reality TV are more likely than non-viewers to “accept and expect a higher level of drama, aggression, and bullying” in their lives. They’re also significantly more likely to believe that “It’s in girls’ nature to be catty and competitive with one another,” that "It’s hard for me to trust other girls,” and that girls “have to compete for a guy’s attention.”

The article linked to this article about a new documentary that I want to see but also sounds really difficult to watch:

It makes me sad and angry that shows like this exist, that they have huge viewerships, franchises, and "fame." It seems like they multiply every year, and the producers manufacture more and more drama, and the American populace grows dumber and grosser every time they grin delightedly when watching shows about people being shitheads. People think they can be complete assholes and instigate all kinds of ridiculousness, while claiming "I'm just honest!" I hate all of it.

I do watch the Amazing Race, which is technically a reality show. And there is certainly an element of drama that they highlight as teams bicker or fight with each other or with other teams. And I hate those parts. They make me really unhappy and uncomfortable. Happily, most of the show revolves around interesting tasks in interesting places all around the globe, and I feel that overall, the show is about growth, personal strength, team unity, and endurance rather than showing off how mean people can be to each other.

I know it's stupid to get upset about something 'trivial' like television, but as that article points out, the effects on the viewers are real, and they are not good. I really want to find a way to just stop the stupidity.

I have shameful confession.

Oh dear. I am so embarrasssed. Please don't hold it against me.

...I taped American Idol last night.

I know! I'm sorry! I knew it was wrong even as I pushed that evil red button, but I just couldn't help myself.

You see, I had turned on the tv to watch some DVD episodes of Due South, and there was AI, just beginning the SF auditions. I got sucked in to that insane girl who wouldn't stop mugging for the camera and laughing like a hyena. I stood there transfixed, remote in hand, disbelieving sneer on my face.

Now, give me a little credit. The next day when I pressed 'play,' I only lasted two minutes before stopping and erasing the whole episode.

Whew, that was close.

I do solemnly swear.

(seen on a downtown Brooklyn produce stand)

The city has been abuzz with Obamaness and Inauguration Fever. Bars and restaurants celebrated with extra specials over the weekend and several public spaces served as gathering areas to watch the events. I personally would have been too timid and cold to join strangers in a square somewhere, so I watched at home. On the DVR.


The crowds were unbelievable. I'm not jealous of the thousands and thousands of people jostling in and around the capital, but obviously it was worth it to see history live and in person.

Speaking of history, that's what I was teaching for the last four months. The first week back from break, we were examining the Constitution. I made sure to have the students locate the Presidential Oath--"These are the words that you will hear Barack Obama speak, words that were written over two hundred years ago." Though these kids were pretty obsessed with Mr Obama, they didn't seem too interested in the connection between past and present, the living document the Framers created that still directs everything the country does. Will they remember that class? Will they remember me? The information and questions that I tried to impress upon them? Did they learn anything at all? I know from experience that teachers who disappeared were instantly deleted from the school consciousness, never to be spoken of again.

It's a new start for the country. I choked up at the swearing in, and marveled over the fact that yes, we did it! President Obama (I can still hardly believe it!) is not a superhero and he cannot single-handedly fix the US. Even my kids, back in November, understood that the problems are too big and the pressure to rectify them all immediately is impractical. But we can all have hope and get to work together. The chance for something different, something new, that's what's inspiring us young people.

What an interesting time for me to be at a personal crossroads as well. I've scheduled several interviews this week, for various ventures, and I'm continuing the search for more opportunities. It's overwhelming at times--so many listings! So many things I might maybe be qualified for! So much competition in this ridiculous job market! Yesterday I found an absolutely perfect job for me, and I crafted a special cover letter trying to convey just that. It's frustrating that I have to keep looking, mostly for things that aren't meaningful for me. While I like making money, I'm much more concerned with finding something interesting and that makes me happier than I've been. And for some silly reason, I can't force a hiring manager to stop interviewing others and hire me on the spot!

For all of us, life goes on. Many things remain the same, with hints of exciting changes on the horizon.

For Shame!

I saw on a random blog today that this is Blog Against Racism week.

Oh, the irony.

Now, I've only been in New York since 2004, but it didn't take me long to figure out that the Post and Daily News were disgustingly sensationalistic excuses for newspapers. But apparently I underestimated them--the Post is also openly racist. Not surprised? Yeah, me neither. Still disgusted? Yep, me too.

I'm not the most informed of citizens (too much of the news is sensationalized, silly [Lohan and Hilton escapades?], or too upsetting [our President?]), and I'm not the most articulate writer, so I apologize for my bumbling efforts, but even I can't ignore this.

The Post has published two very racist, name-calling articles about the woman trying to open the Khalil Gibran school in Brooklyn.

"Almontaser, a community activist and Muslim, has said the new grade 6-12 public school will be modeled on other dual-language city schools and have no religious component."

"Intifada is a war. Isn't that what Arafat had?" said Pamela Hall, a Manhattan mom opposed to the academy on the grounds that it violates separation of church and state."

So many things wrong in just these two sentences. First, calling her a community activist but then basically qualifying it by referencing her religion and cultural background? This reporter has taken an innocent direct quote from Almontaser, but by invoking Muslim as basically a racial epithet, implies that she cannot be trusted and is wrong or lying.

For who is a better judge and expert on Middle East troubles than narrow-minded Manhattan moms who clearly can't read?

So naturally, the next step is to actually call the educator and activist the 'Intifada Principal.' Read on into the article, and the controversial t-shirts,

"were being sold by an Arab activist group headquartered in the same storefront as a Yemeni-American association that Almontaser heads."

So what exactly did she do to 'earn' this slur? Merely be of Middle-Eastern descent and work NEAR another Middle-Eastern group. Propinquity now determines guilt?

An established educator has been working for years to get this school going, a school that would TEACH future generations about different and foreign cultures and ways of thinking (has that reporter ever even read any Khalil Gibran? Read before you throw stones, please), which, one hopes, would help those future generations to be more accepting and open-minded; instead, the racism she's trying to overcome is thrown right back in her face.

I am literally trembling with anger and disgust. These stories make me sick to my stomach.

SHAME on you, NYPost. SHAME on you, anyone who fell for this racist claptrap.

Something needs to be done about this all-too-pervasive attitude, in New York City and in the United States in general. You know what's 'revolting,' Post? Your small-minded tabloid attitude and its 'tenuous' grasp of ethics and cultural acceptance. Shame on you.