!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
chapbooks with poetry and prose by kuypers

““

the supra groovy

for non-poets


10/22/97 marriage forum

JANET: The topic is marriage. Why do people ask their mate to marry in a private place?
andi: So, they slipped the ring upon their fingers, and shoved cake into each others mouths, and set the stage for years to come of waking up next to the same body every morning.g: I have an 18 to 23 year-old mind. Much older but not ready to be. Birthday’s were ignored, days uncounted, time flew by. The pursuit of the job took me away from everything. I found it, came back, my friend since 5 is engaged.
J: I suppose I lack the fortitude for marriage, the conscience too, and maybe the constitution to afford the possibility of boredom. Maybe I’m just so God damn lazy I can’t put the effort into a relationship. Yeah, that’s it. Chalk it up to character flaw and move on, or maybe no one lets me dress them up the way I’d like to.a: I have no idea. s: uhhhh-what?
T: I am engaged. We don’t know when the big thing will happen. Too many things that need to be done before that time comes. We will explore a number of things before we enter into this lifetime commitment. Too much to do. Too much to explore.
JP: Why would I ask my mate to marry me huh? Yesterday I was taking a shit and it was long and flowing. It rapped around the toilet 2 1/2 times. It was incredible! I don’t think marriage is necessary. Why do you have to make it a legal ceremony. Why can’t you just have fun and do what you want to do. If there is a commitment to be made, why can’t it be done between each other, why does it have to be done ceremoniously to make it mean anything. One changes as life goes on and maybe ones partner changes in a completely opposite direction, then you are no longer suitable for each other and life goes on. Marriage is for the weak, who need a legally stable relationship so if anything goes wrong you’re ok.
Janet: Marriage is for tax purposes. Marriage is to make your parents happy. Marriage is the one thing that men can do to make women feel better. Marriage is the one thing that women can hold over men’s heads. Marriage is the one thing that make women feel like the princesses they read about when they were little girls, dressed in ribbons and pink dresses and patent-leather buckle shoes.So marriage. It makes you feel like your mate actually means it, I suppose. So I feel like I don’t ever want to get married sometimes, and sometimes I want the four bridesmaids dressed identically marching down a line together and I want all ::eyes to be turned on me. I want my day, even if (especially if) my parents would have to spend $20,000 to make it happen.
GPG: I prefer vows sealed by blood - the point of marriage is a ritual that means your lover won’t injure you. It’s a ritual of trust, dig? It’s something you shouldn’t do until you are capable of that form of trust, or are the sort of person that ever .. thinks that trust is important.
Matt: I want to marry, someday in the so distant future. I want that unobtainable perfectness, but not now. Will I ever be ready? If I am so be it, it would seem that the other person would enter in to this and YES sir you are correct sir. Any way fuck this marriage topic and move on. I don’t want to prove anything I just want what I want but who knows what i will or won’t want when so this is all immaterial anyway.andi: I want someone to take my head, and throw it back, and hit me like a ton of bricks so that when he asks me “So what’s your choice?” I can say” I don’t have a Choice!” I don’t want to have any feelings, beside the one that makes me want nothing more than their hand throwing my head back and that nothing more could get me so wet.Lisa: marriage is death clear and simply, it is restricting as a computer that you don’t know how to work, when you’re me, you’re spontaneity and drawn by your pants, whether or not there is something inside to draw them, whether or not it means a ring of energy, and well, to wrap it up if Z; which is my alter ego, ever gets married, then I will give her a cork and not a ring, and that’s not good for anybody, is it?JANET: Oh, God, this is a sick statement of how us poets here in Chicago deal with relationships. Anyone else?JASON: Marriage? Is that the topic? I would like to get married. I seem to be the only writer in the entire city of Chicago who wants to. However, no one wants to get married to me. And that’s all I have to say about marriage.


10/24/97 wishes forum

If you had three wishes, what would they be?

EUGENE: win the nobel prize, achieve eternal happiness, become one with the universe .
JANET: i can’t help but think that achieving eternal happiness would encompass all of the other wishes you could possibly have, you know what I mean? What does becoming one with the universe entail?
EUGENE : Well, I hope to accomplish these things in that order.... becoming one with the universe would be a total understanding of all things around me at all levels and at all times...of course the drawbacks would be awareness of evil and destruction, but maybe my omnitoence could eliminate some of that. Of course, there’s no stopping nature.... I realize that 2 and especially 3 are not likely attainable, but if it were a magical genie, maybe i could get no. 3. You have to earn the Nobel, otherwise, what’s the point?JANET: Well, shouldn’t all happiness be earned? I mean, if someone kept giving you money and you didn’t have to earn it, and people liked you without knowing who you are, wouldn’t anything that would make you happy lose at least some of its value? That’s what makes your first apartment and your first love so grand - because you earned it, not because you wished for it.
EUGENE: Happiness isn’t earned, it’s something that you find, often without looking for it, even if that means being able to accept that things simply are the way they are...to find yourself you must first lose yourself. Therein lies the dilemma, that we must achieve the often lofty goals we set for ourselves or that others set for us, lest we never find true happiness. Happiness can be completely separate from accomplishment.
JANET: How? I don’t understand. If someone does something nice for you, they do it because they care about you, and you earned their friendship. If you get better pay for a job, it is because you do good work and earned the raise. If you get something that can bring you toward happiness without earning it, it is luck, pure and simple, and won’t be constant and will not provide long-lasting, happiness.
EUGENE: Achieving goals can be a source of happiness and love and kindness likewise, gratification is achieved through work and determination, but not necessarily enlightenment. (By the way, I never said I wanted happiness to be dropped in my lap, but this makes for an interesting discussion.) You can achieve tremendous wealth and power of your own accord and still not be happy.
JANET: No, but earning things - working toward goals, whether monetary or pertaining to people and their relationahips or personal - is what makes you happy, isn’t it? If that working and earning means studying texts and learning until you become “enlightened,” I’m sure it would be a better method of achieving enlightenment than say having a chip inserted in your brain and you just getting “enlightened,” for example. Know what I mean? It seems to me you always want fortune (i.e., happiness, on whatever level) dumped in your lap, earned or unearned. And I don’t understand how that could make you happy. Is it that you don’t know how to earn it?
EUGENE: No, enlightenment can not be inserted, it is the result of life (learned) experiences. Fortune just makes the path easier to navigate, regardless of means of acquisition, although theft would not be good. Winning money should not necessarily be considered cheating if it is used appropriately to further achieve goals. I’m not looking for an easy, path made of gold, just one where I don’t get ambushed around every curve. Working towards goals makes you who you are, gives you substance, individual worth.


10/25/97 embarrassing forum

“My date has a normal-sized nose.”
“Take it out on the peanut. It’s all the peanut’s fault.”
So we’re here and it morning in Champaign and it’s before noon and we are at Garcia’s. And Eugene and Scott are getting another pitcher of beer.

Janet: what is the most embarrassing thing that has aver happened to you?
Sara: Well, it’s probably not THE most embarrassing moment of my life, but what sticks out, in light of this weekend, is having to walk out of Joe’s in front of all the damn Pi Kapps, knowing that they all probably knew why we were leaving, and knowing that I had lost for the night. I was really pissed, and felt really stupid. So that’s my answer. Deal with it.
Carol: This is probably not the most embarrassing thing, but at a pep rally in high school, I had the portable mike and was talking to the entire student body (pep rallies were mandatory) and I tripped and fell on my butt right in front of my class.
Scott: I haven’t had one yet.Mike: None of your damn business.
Eugene: There have been so many, I really can’t say...perhaps tripping over a dog or fumbling through a presentation in front of 500 people.now no more questions.Scott, you just don’t know when you should have been embarrassed. You didn’t have to be embarrassed; Sara was plenty embarrassed for you.


10/29/97 friends forum

JANET: I think friendships are based not on class, but on aspirations. If someone doesn’t care about their work, for instance, I think they don’t have any aspirations and they probably aren’t the type of person I want to be friends with. I look for a friend who has drive, talent and ambition, because that’s what I find admirable. And how can you be friends with someone you don’t respect?
BRAD: you pay them.
JUDE: I try not to judge my friends, I think friendship is based on freedom, freedom to be as close to who you really are with people who encourage you - so friendship is based on selfishness for me I guess... I’m selfish because I look to be friends with people who I don’t have to try so hard with. I also get really attached and look for people who will love me as I love them. I don’t have that many friends. I’ve got a lot of people who are in transition and have attached themselves to me. The only lesson I have to give is to use your friends well. Not meaning use them to manipulate them, but to use them to the best of their potential to encourage them.
ADAM: ARE FRIENDSHIPS USEFUL, OR ARE THEY SIMPLY SOCIAL ADORNMENTS? I VIEW FRIENDSHIP AS A DOUBLED JOURNEY INTO THE MYSTERY OF ANOTHER, THE BASIC MYSTERY PRESENTED BY SOMEONE WHO IS DISTINCTLY, FASCINATINGLY NOT OURSELVES, YET WHOSE CONSCIOUSNESS TOUCHES OURS IN ENOUGH INTIMATE AREAS FOR US TO THINK OF THEM AS FRIENDS.
JANET: Ooh, someone doesn’t know how to turn off the caps lock. Your turn...
BETH: Friends need not have anything in common with you. They may be people who judge you but offer this judgement to you with respect and not as a conclusion. They are people who know you may not share everything with. They are people who, even if they are not always true to themselves with you, you know and they know you.
NANCY: friendships....relationships....I try to fill the cup of my life so full, that at times I spill over and need to place a napkin on the saucer I call my soul. Absourb, soak up, clean up, toss out. I feel so much that at times I think I expect too much of my friends because I can’t tend to the every THING that floods my senses. Have gone through the most hurtful period of my life, and my definition of “friend” has become “re-defined”. But I have learned, through this, that I am my own best friend...together with myself, I am learning and experiencing things I never thought possible....am alive and vibrant, and have to thank Janet, for always being there, especially for encouraging and supporting my new found freedom.
JANET: Thanks, sweetie. But this should move over to someone else...
ANDI: My friends have been the most influential and the richest of endeavors I’ve ever willingly put myself through, and sometimes it is most definitely an endeavor.Sabrina - I have only had one friend in my whole life. I love her more than myself sometimes. She is like the first breath I have ever taken, and many times I stare at groups of people in wonder and ask myself if they are suffocating yet. You know, I am not meaning to sound all lame and poetic or anything like that, but I am one of those people who gives my heart to very few people. She is the only one who didn’t drop it. Sometimes I wish that I had more friends, but not really, because what I do have is just so fucking amazing that it just blows other people’s shit out of the water. I don’t know. I only need a love now and I’ll be so high that I just won’t be on earth anymore. Okay, I think I have just spilled too much, but whenever anyone asks me to type my mind, they are going to get way more than they are ever going to want to know. Either way- friends=good, but they have to be real.
Justin- Friends are what life is about. But the bullshit that goes on in new relationships is quite tiring. I find that the relations that were developed as a young child when I and others gave true feelings and opinions, though at times were and are quite painful but truthful are the ones that I adore. All the happy and fake admiration in new relations and fake interest is for someone else. The ones who can call out each of your lies and exaggerations are the ones that keep me on my toes and therefore at my best.dan this was such a great poem first of all because is was so real and true anyway i think the most important things in life are friends and we tend to take them for granted. It’s nice to see someone with such hope and someone who looks at life for the positive. We as a society have gotten in the habit of complaining when things aren’t really that bad. friendships are pure are real and although they seem sappy and corny when expressing how you feel it is all true and real and that’s what’s important in this world. thanks
JANET: Anyone else out there?
JASON: My friends are based entirely on how many piercings they have. None or one -- too square, not worth my time. Two, three or four -- enough to hang out with casually, maybe go to a coffeehouse or say hi to at an open mike. Five or six, including at least one in the eyebrow or nipple -- they’re okay. I can confide my secrets, I can have a one-night-stand, or I can loan them money. Seven, eight or nine, including both nipples and at least one in the genital area -- best friend. I will travel to Wheaton to help them fix a flat tire. Ten or more, including both eyebrows, both nipples, genitals and an anal ring -- well, now you’re talking about my wife.
JANET: Geez, and I thought it was okay to have one hole in each ear, and nothing else.


10/31/97 drunk forum

JANET: It’s Halloween, and I’m drunk off my ass and I’m very sad because I can’t help but feeling that I’ve made a bad decision. I keep thinking that I’ve made a terrible decision and that I’m really *?;*ed. I keep thinking that I’ve lost all of my security and I’ve made a terrible decision. Someone help me. Oh, wait, the owner of the bar just screamed in the bar that you’re not allowed in the bar unless you have an ID. And he told me to “write that in my letter.” Then I asked him why he didn’t ask for my ID. He didn’t have an answer. So anyway, please, someone make me feel better. I’m thinking I’ve just *?;*ed my life over. Oh, and I’m also thinking of bizarre perverted things with this mask that Mike B. brought into the bar with him, well, as far as I can remember he started it, but Hell, I can’t remember anyway. So are there any words of wisdom out there to make me feel better?
MIKE:
JANET: Oh, *?;*, Mike said he wanted to write, but now he wanted to...Ed is reading this now, and he’s a big sweetie. Any comments?
ED:
JANET: He says he doesn’t type. He’s not in the mood to make any comments. So I’m sitting here and no one wants to write to me and I still feel poor. Someone asked my why I was writing, and I said, “for the joy of writing.” And he said, “Oh.”Some people just can’t get it. Anyone help me here? Blow me. If I only had the chance. Oh, wait, just for the record, that was Mike. I think she is drunk off her ass, says Mike... and he’s RIGHT!
(Eugene) I’M SUPPOSED TO WRITE MORE, BUT I HAVENOTHING TO SAY.
MIKE: JDLKFLKSDF. And I mean it. No, what I meant to say is, Janet seems to be very horny tonight. Don’t you agree?
EUGENE: *?;* the journalistic integrity, Janet says. She says, do you think a seem horny to Ed, and he says, I have to be professional. ‘Nuff said.
JANET: Okay, so I’m sitting here typing in between `two drunk men` `and Mi k`1e 1keeps typing the the occasional letter o ` `to *?;* me up. Yeah, he’s cool. I mean cool. I just looked at the top of my screen, and I realized that no one would help me at all. Why am I here? I suddenly feel like no one cares about me. Okay, it’s the half-time report. No one seems interested in this at all, But then again, I’m going at half-speed because I’m drunk. The waitress isn’t even interested, and usually the wait staff is interested in *?;* like this, because it livens their night for a bit . But here I am, like a big *?;*ing dork, ditching my plans for the night and saying I’d rather hang out in a retarded bar with a bunch of losers (present company excluded, of course). Why do I bother. I feel like *?;* sometimes. And I feel comfortatble writing that, because no one reads what I write anyway.
JANET: I’m so wasted!!!!!!
*?;* you, Mike, that was Mike talking. thanks a lot, I’d rather stuff my own words in my own mouth, I write enough that I don’t need someone else writing for me. Happy *?;*ing Halloween. Yeah, I’m horny, but what’s wrong with that? It’s a natural thing. *?;* everyone.


do you know you are not dreaming right now?

Many times the average person wakes up in the morning after experiencing a vivid nightmare.
“““Thank God I was only dreaming,” a person might claim. But a question then arises: is it possible to know for a fact, without a shadow of a doubt, that you actually aren’t dreaming right now? After pondering this question, the conclusion only seems evident that you cannot have true (propositional) knowledge about whether or not you are not dreaming right now.
““In order to have true (propositional) knowledge, the three premises from the Justified True Belief Analysis of Knowledge must apply. In other words, one’s argument must possess the following three qualities: 1) What the subject claims to know must be true, 2) The subject must believe that what they claim to know is true, and 3) the subject must be fully justified in believing what they claim to know to be true.
““When it comes to answering the question of whether or not we are not dreaming right now, we cannot fully answer or prove claims 1 or 3 in the Justified True Belief Analysis of Knowledge.
““Therefore, it seems only appropriate to state that we cannot have true (propositional) knowledge concerning whether or not we are not dreaming right now.
““Let us first address the soundness of the premises of the argument stated, concerning ourselves first with the Justified True Belief Analysis of Knowledge. In order to have true (propositional) knowledge, three conditions have to be met: 1) What the subject claims to know must be true. If, for example, I claim that my philosophy professor has blonde hair when in actuality he has very dark brown hair, I cannot have true knowledge about his hair color. The subject cannot make a false claim and also correctly claim that they have knowledge over the particular topic. This can be represented through a diagram of the argument:.
““a) I claim that I have blonde hair.
““b) I do not have blonde hair; I have dark hair.
““----------------------------------------------------------------------.
““c) Therefore I cannot know (have knowledge) that I have blonde hair.
““Without this premise, many arguments would be invalid, for a false conclusion may be made if what the subject claims to know isn’t true.
““2) The subject must believe that what they claim to know is true. To continue with the example used earlier: if I were to claim that my philosophy professor had blonde hair, but I didn’t believe that he had blonde hair, I wouldn’t have knowledge on the subject. A broader example could pertain to religion. I could claim that God exists, but if I don’t believe he exists then I do not have knowledge of the matter. In this case, his existence (premise 1) is irrelevant, for if one doesn’t believe in his existence (premise 2), the argument has already been proven that the subject doesn’t, in this case, have true knowledge. This could be diagramed as follows:.
““a) I claim a statement to be true.
““b) I do not believe my statement to be true.
““c) One must believe in a certain piece of knowledge in order for them to have knowledge in that area.
““----------------------------------------------------------------------.
““d) Therefore I cannot have knowledge that my statement is true.
““3) The subject must be fully justified in believing what they claim to know to be true. In other words, there must be no reason to suppose the subject is wrong in claiming or believing what they know to be true. To provide an example: if I claimed that I owned a dog, and I believed that I owned a dog, but I had no reason to believe that I owned a dog, then I wouldn’t have true knowledge of my “ownership”. Furthermore, if I claimed I knew that I owned a dog because my dead grandmother told me in a dream that I did, I still wouldn’t have knowledge: this is because there is reason to suppose that I am wrong in believing it. In other words, I would not be fully justified in my claim to knowledge on this particular topic. A possible argument may be:.
““a) I claim that I own a dog.
““b) I believe that I own a dog because my dead grandmother told me in a dream that I own a dog.
““c) A claim to knowledge because one’s dead grandmother told them in a dream that their statement is true is not a valid reason.
““----------------------------------------------------------------------.
““d) Therefore I do not have knowledge about the topic (owning a dog).
““This argument does not even address whether or not I do have a dog. It is because of the subject’s unsound reasoning (speculating that they own a dog for some very odd reasons) that the subject cannot have knowledge pertaining to this topic. Whether or not I even own a dog in this case doesn’t matter.
““This argument can also, once again, be applied to religion. If a subject claimed to believe in a God (whether or not a God existed), the subject cannot claim to have knowledge over God’s existence because the subject was not fully justified in believing that a God existed.
““These three premises, when combined, form the Justified True Belief Analysis of Knowledge, which can be diagramed as follows:.
““a) The subject makes a claim, and what the subject claims to know is true.
““b) The subject believes what they claim to know is true.
““c) The subject is fully justified in believing what they claim to know to be true.
““----------------------------------------------------------------------.
““d) Therefore their claim is a valid claim to knowledge.
““These conditions must be made in order for a person to be able to correctly claim that they have knowledge.
““When applying the Justified True Belief Analysis of Knowledge to the question, “Do you know that you are not dreaming right now?”, a problem arises, for there are evident conflicts with premises a and c in the Justified True Belief Analysis of Knowledge.
““Firstly, concerning premise a: we cannot know (positively) that what we claim to know is true.
““As Descartes explains in his Meditations on First Philosophy, we have no way of proving that we are not dreaming right now, and are possibly about to wake up. In Meditation I (concerning those things that can be called into doubt) he explains: Indeed, how often has it happened that during the night I have dreamt these familiar things, that I am here, dressed, sitting by the fire, although I lie undressed in my bed. But now, at any rate, I am surely gazing at this paper with wakeful eyes, this head I am shaking is not heavy with sleep, I am consciously and deliberately extending this hand, and I am feeling it. In sleep what happens would neither be as clear nor as distinct as these things. But, thinking carefully, I recall having often been deceived by similar thoughts in dream. Now, as I think over these matters more attentively, I see so plainly that there are no conclusive signs nor sufficiently certain indications for distinguishing being awake from dreaming that I am almost amazed. And this very amazement almost convinces me that I am dreaming.
““Based on the skeptic’s claim that if something can at all be doubted, or if something cannot be proven to be true then you cannot have true propositional knowledge, the conclusion would be that one cannot be sure that they have true knowledge pertaining to whether or not they are not dreaming right now.
““This can be illustrated as follows: a) In order to have propositional knowledge on a certain topic (for example, knowing whether or not you’re not dreaming right now), the claim must be true (i.e., you must not be dreaming right now).
““b) It cannot be proven, or we cannot know, whether or not we are not dreaming right now. This is because, for example, our senses have deceived us before and they could again, or people have thought that they were awake before when they were actually in a dream and this could be happening now, or because people can have dreams that they are dreaming and “Life” (as we refer to it) could merely be one long dream.
““----------------------------------------------------------------- c) Therefore, since we cannot know if our claim is true, we can’t know if we have knowledge pertaining to whether or not we are not dreaming right now. In other words, we do not know that we know we are not dreaming right now.
““ Furthermore, it can be argued that premise c of the Justified True Belief Analysis of Knowledge in this example cannot be achieved, for it may not be possible to acquire full justification (even if partial justification may seem reasonable enough). Some possible examples for justification will be given later, but it will become evident that although they are reasonable justifications, they do not give full justification. Therefore, one cannot be certain that they ever have true knowledge.
““This can be shown as follows:.
““a) In order to have true knowledge, one must be fully justified in believing that what they claim to know is true.
““b) Concerning the question of knowing whether or not we are not dreaming right now, full justification cannot be provided.
““----------------------------------------------------------------------.
““c) Therefore we cannot have justified true knowledge about whether or not we are not dreaming right now.
““Some possible rebuttals to this argument may lie in the original argument second premise: “When it comes to answering the question of whether or not we are not dreaming right now, we cannot fully answer or prove claims 1 or 3 in the Justified True Belief Analysis of Knowledge.” Critics may state that this is unsound and that it is possible to know the answer to be true or “yes” (premise 1), or that we can be fully justified in believing their conclusion to be answered affirmatively (premise 3).
““In stating that premise 1 in the Justified True Belief Analysis of Knowledge can be true in this instance, a critic may assert that through tests of brain waves, breathing patterns or REM monitoring, differences can be proven between awakened states and dreaming states (because awakened states possess different body functions and patterns than dreaming states). A possible reply to this, however, could simply be that the subject dreams that these tests exist to differentiate sleeping/awakened states. Other arguments could be given, but because this argument alone shows that there is doubt in this proof, no other argument is needed.
““Other critics may state that premise 3 is possible to achieve-- that it is possible to have full justification in believing that one is not dreaming right now. The fallible person would probably claim that full justification can be justification which is possibly uncertain to a slight degree. For example, Descartes’ depiction of an “evil-genius” is unreasonable, and unreasonable accusations don’t necessarily have to be taken into consideration when considering full justification. To make the point clearer, let us suppose that we have a large jar full of 10,000 marbles. We cannot see into the jar, but is it safe to assume that after pulling out the first 5,000 marbles and seeing that they are all green, the next one we pull out will be green? Without a doubt? After 7,500 marbles are pulled out-- can we be sure then? What about 9,999 marbles? Can we be sure that the next marble pulled out will be green, and that there is no chance that there could be a marble of another color in the jar? A fallible person may answer “yes” to any one of these questions; however, the definition of full justification entails having no reason to doubt. No matter what the chances are that the next marble pulled out won’t be green, no matter how thin they are-- there is a chance. Therefore there is a doubt. Therefore there isn’t full justification.
““Therefore, we cannot have true knowledge about whether or not we are not dreaming right now. In summary, this can be proven in the following argument:.
““a) In order to have true knowledge, the following three conditions ( from the Justified True Belief Analysis of Knowledge ) must be met:.
““1) what the subject claims to know must be true,.
““2) the subject must believe that what they claim to know is true, and.
““3) the subject must be fully justified in believing what they claim to know to be true.
““b) When it comes to answering the question of whether or not we are not dreaming right now, we cannot fully answer or prove claims 1 or 3 in the Justified True Belief Analysis of Knowledge.
““----------------------------------------------------------------------
““c) Therefore we cannot have true (propositional) knowledge concerning whether or not we are not dreaming right now.
““Although this argument may seem unreasonable or outrageous in the respect of considering even unreasonable (or almost impossible) possibilities in the achievement of its goal, it is ultimately not farfetched at all. In an endless universe, most anything could happen-- and, more importantly, everything has the opportunity for happening. Even if these ideas seem far-fetched, it doesn’t matter. For as long as there is a slight possibility that there is but a shred of doubt, then that shred of doubt must be taken into consideration.
““In light of this argument, Descartes’ conclusion seems only appropriate. “This very amazement almost convinces me that I am dreaming.”


Driving To Champaign

We took a weekend trip to Champaign, Illinois, before this road trip.

I’m in the car now, and Eugene is driving, and we’re going to Champaign. We stopped by Taco John’s for some burritos and potato olĂ„?s, and now while Eugene is driving he’s also adding hot sauce to his burrito and eating and he’s steering with his knees and we’re on the highway doing 75 miles per hour and it’s got to be relatively unsafe to be in this car, I’m sure, so if I die in this car, I better write something down with some meaning.
So: if this is the last thing I ever write, what should it be?
Oh, they’re playing Depeche Mode on the radio, and it’s always nicer to hear a song you like on the radio instead of playing it on a tape or something, it’s like a present when you hear it on the radio, even the quality of the radio sounds better than a cassette, and you want to hear the whole song and cherish it because if you skip past it, like you would to the next song on a tape, you won’t have the chance to go back and hear it again. This is your chance to hear it; you’ve got nothing else. But now I’m typing through the song, and not really enjoying it anyway.
They said on the radio that they were going to play Depeche Mode, but apparently Eugene didn’t hear that, and so I said I wanted to hear Depeche Mode and he said that they wouldn’t play it. And when the radio did play it within five minutes of my asking Eugene was stunned. “They never play this!”
You know, I’ve done that to him a lot, and he never catches on.
Oh, wait, that wouldn’t be the last thing I wanted to say if I was going to die in this car. I forgot that’s what I was writing about. This is most definitely not what I would want my last words to be. I don’t know what my last words would be, though. Live every day like it is your last. Try to smile more. Try to think more. Value the people who choose to spend their time with you. Take a chance. Go different places. Don’t have regrets.
Now Eugene wants to hear my Depeche Mode tape and I can’t find it in the car. I’ve checked the space between the seats, I’ve checked the glove compartment, and he still won’t let it go. He keeps saying that the tape can’t have just disappeared, that it has to be here somewhere, that this really perplexes him.
Now he’s reaching around and under his seat behind him, and the car is not staying in the lane. In fact, he just grabbed some tapes to re-read the case to see if I just missed it, if I’m blind and can’t recognize my own tapes, and while he was at it he almost ran us into another car on the highway and I had to yell at him to make him look at the road again. Now he’s flipping through the stations, you know, because he can’t just listen to something, being as much of an antsy, impatient person as myself, so he’s scanning through the stations, and of all songs to stop on, he has to stop on “Once, Twice, Three Times a Lady.” So maybe I do want to die in this car.
And all I keep thinking is that we’re supposed to be meeting Sara and Scott at Garcia’s pizza in Champaign, even though we just stopped for Taco John’s, because Eugene just had to stop for tacos, and now we’re running late.
Okay, Now Eugene found another equally crappy song to play, I think it’s Eddie Money or something, and really, I think he’s doing this intentionally to drive me crazy. Okay, he’s clapping along now, like it’s the seventh grade cheerleader tryouts, and I now want to take the steering wheel from right out of his hands and run us right off the side of the road.
Oh, right, so I’m supposed to be writing what my last words would be, if I actually did die in this car. But it’s hard to do that when Eugene does that hacking sound that he does, I mean, has this man ever heard of a tissue.
Okay, if I died. I suppose I’d tell people to not dwell on those silly little details that will always get you down. You know, those details will always be there, there will always be something that can potentially bring you down, and you can always find something to pick on. But the thing is, you should just let go of those things, that’s why they call them details anyway, so don’t let them bother you. Just try to love life a little more.
You know, I’ve gone through a lot of crap in my life. I had beers with a friend tonight before I got on the road to Champaign, you see, that’s why Eugene is driving and I’m sitting here typing about it. And as I said, I was having beers with a friend earlier, and we each got our own pitcher of beer, she got limes to add to her Miller Lite, and when the pitchers came, before we poured our first glasses, I told her we should toast and drink right out of the pitcher, I mean, why not, right? Well, I went out drinking with her because she was down, because it’s her wedding anniversary today. She’s not down about missing her husband that she left just a month ago, you see, she’s down because the concept of a wedding - her wedding - is now destroyed to her. She thought this marriage was going to be good, and what she went through was so bad that she had to pack up her things and leave. And I told her that I had a bad anniversary, too, and it makes me feel bad every year, and that you just have to go through it. That it’s okay to dwell on it today if you have to. But I also thought that she should keep in mind that she has 364 other days a year to revel in the fact that she now has control of her life and her happiness. That when she was in a bad situation she took her life into her own hands, and now she’s free. That she should know that if something doesn’t kill her it will make her stronger and that she can say she’s a stronger woman for going through this and she has learned something from this. She likes herself now, and she wouldn’t be who she was if it wasn’t for what she went through.
You can decide to be a victim or you can decide to learn from life, make the most of it, and be happy. So love life a little more. Make yourself the best that you can be, and never look back.
Okay, Eugene changed the station when they said they were going to be playing Phil Collins next. Maybe things aren’t so bad.


Government Inefficiency

Our gas was shut off today. The gas company had a problem with our bill and shut off our gas without letting us know, while my roommate and I were out. We were not notified that there was a problem with our bill or that anyone was considering shutting off our gas.
So my roommate straightened everything out with the gas company, and they told him that they would be at the apartment sometime between two in the afternoon and eight in the evening.
Now, I won’t go into the fact that when someone you are paying for a service gives you a time estimate for a house visit, they are late over ninety-nine percent of the time.
I won’t complain about that because it didn’t actually happen this time - someone arrived at around three thirty in the afternoon. (Besides, everyone already knows how awful it is to be held hostage in your own house waiting for people who never show up.) The man came by and turned on the gas, and asked to check the burners at the stove. So he did, and then he asked if the water heater was electric. I didn’t know, so he wanted to check, but it was in the basement behind a locked door, and the super was out of town for the weekend. So the guy said he’d have to turn off the gas until I could get the door unlocked to the water heater, to make sure. He said they had people working until midnight and all day tomorrow, so I should call back so someone else could get out here to turn on the gas again.
So I waited for my roommate to come home, and he unscrewed a panel from the basement so we could get to the water cooler before the super got back. When I called the gas company back, I was only on hold for a few minutes (another pleasant surprise). Then when I explained the problem, the man told me that I had the wrong number, that this was an emergency line. Apparently not having gas is not an emergency for the gas company, so he gave me the other number.
I was on hold for at least another ten minutes (no, make it more like fifteen), before a lady got on the line and asked me my problem. I explained what happened, and she said she couldn’t get anyone out there for another week. They were booked tomorrow and couldn’t schedule me in. So, from what I had gathered from the situation so far, our gas was shut off due to a misunderstanding, the person who came to turn on our gas wanted to check something we’ve never had to have checked before and wouldn’t keep our gas on, and then they couldn’t get someone out there to turn on the gas for another week.
Did I mention that it was Fourth of July weekend and we needed to cook?
Oh yes, and bathe. I suppose we could bathe in cold water.
So then my roommate called back and tried to see if there was anything else he could do. When that didn’t work, he asked if there was any competition, or if we had to get our gas from them and we had no choice but to wait a week for gas.
I already knew the answer, but I wanted to hope it wasn’t true, for one brief moment.
When my roommate got off the phone, I started thinking about some of the problems we have because of monopolies. Yeah, it’s not something I’d have a problem with, normally I wouldn’t be complaining about monopolies, but the only place in this country where monopolies exist are in businesses where the government runs or subsidizes the business.
The Post Office. Utility companies. The commuter rail system.
Great.
People complain about monopolies all the time - in our phone companies, with computer giants like Bill Gates - even though there is nothing close to a monopoly in these industries today. Of course there isn’t. The government steps in before competition gets a chance to provide a better product.
But that’s a different rant. Back to the gas company.
The government doesn’t let private businesses get too close to a monopoly. But when it comes to the government stepping in and running businesses, the last thing the government would want is something competing with them.
Especially when any other private business would probably run any operation more effectively than the government. They’d have to; they’d have to make a profit and wouldn’t have the chance to get as much money as they wanted by taking it from people.
Oh, the government calls it a tax. My mistake.
How many times have you heard people complain - for that matter, how many times have you complained - about the long lines and the slow service at your local Post Office? Other than in an overnight package, where you’re paying for the immediacy of a next-day letter, what other opportunities do you have to mail a physical letter?
How many times have you tried to take a train across the country rather than fly? Why are the costs of taking a train comparable to flying when airplanes are faster and more expensive to build and maintain, especially when rail companies get government subsidies in order to stay afloat?
What do you do when your electricity goes out and they say they’ll come out between ten in the morning and two in the afternoon, so they make you stay home from work, and then, of course, they don’t even show up... What do you do - call another electric company for service?
What do you do when the gas company cuts off your gas and says they can’t turn it back on for another week?
Am I making my point here?
My roommate was working outside earlier today removing a tree for a client, but he had called the city’s electrical department and asked them to drop the street light wires on that block during the day. In fact, he called it in and faxed it in - and checked to make sure with the department that the power lines for the street lights would be down so he could cut down this tree. Well, you guessed it - he went there to do his work, and during the entire four hour period where the lines were supposed to be down, no one came by to do the work. In essence, my roommate lost business time because this certain government department didn’t do what they said they would.
If you were a private business and conducted business that poorly, you’d lose clients left and right. But when there’s no competition...
I was working with my roommate, waiting for these city employees to come to our job site and do their job. When I still thought they were going to show up and just be late, I thought of asking them if they liked paying more taxes. When they’d answer no, I’d have to ask them then why they are so inefficient - because it’s their inefficiency that causes taxes to go up, so we can pay more than we should for these services.
I imagine they can’t put two thoughts like that together, though.
Sorry. Now I’m just getting bitter.
But there would be not only increased efficiency in work and therefore better products and services and more choices if the government got out of these businesses, but there would also be less money in taxes to pay, since we wouldn’t be subsidizing the inefficiency of the existing government agencies with money we worked hard for.
My point? Well, I guess you get my point. Nobody likes have to deal with inefficiency, but no one stops to think of where it comes from or what to do about it.
So what do we do about it? Well, I suppose you could complain as much as I do, but then everyone would think that Americans were just a bunch of complainers. (Well, maybe we are...) We could stop voting for government officials who think we want them spending our money on ineffeciency.
Or we could tell our officials that they’re right, we don’t like monopolies... And the first ones we want to get rid of are the ones run by the government.
The government doesn’t have to be running companies for us - we’ve proven that we can do that well enough ourselves - in fact, we can run them better. It’s the government’s hold on companies and industries that’s strangling us.


IS THE DOCTRINE OF DOUBLE EFFECT PLAUSIBLE??

When pondering the questions that arise in a situation where Euthanasia is concerned, a question that must be considered is:
““Can one do something that one knows will have a certain consequence without intending to produce that certain consequence?
““When studying the doctrine of Double Effects, the answer becomes more and more apparent.
““The doctrine of Double Effects states that an action having both good and bad effects is plausible and permissible if the following two conditions are adequately served:
““1) the bad effect is not intended in the certain situation as being the means or as the end, and
““2) the good effect outweighs the bad effect.
““In the situation of euthanasia, or in any situation where there can be both good effects and bad effects, the first condition deems itself as extremely important. In the euthanasia case, the first condition states that death is not an intended result of the actions that are incurred. Therefore, it does seem plausible that, for example, a person who’s life is being supported by machinery and who is in a great deal of pain can receive medication that would in fact shorten that person’s life.
““However, it can then be argued that it is not considered morally right to give that patient a lethal dose of medication in order to alleviate that pain. A supporter of the doctrine of Double Effects would say in that situation that giving a lethal dose of medication would only serve to the end of killing that patient, instead of merely alleviating the pain. This, the supporter of the doctrine of Double Effects would say, is going against the first, and definitely more important, condition of permissibility in the doctrine itself, for one cannot administer the lethal medication if the intention of administering that medication is to in fact kill the patient.
““Death in these cases cannot be the means or the end.
““Therefore, according to the doctrine of Double Effects, an action in a particular situation can have a certain consequence without the subject intending on that certain consequence to actually happen.


Kafka’s Metamorphosis and the Social Implications for the Handicapped

As Gregor Samsa woke up one innocent morning to prepare for work as he usually did, his nightmares became a reality. Never before did he wake up with such difficulty; never before did he wake up unable to move in the ways he was so accustomed to. His legs seemed unable to move as freely, and his arms felt like untrained appendages. His back felt harder than a shell.
Unexplainable as it was to him, he arose this one particular morning not as a human. He was a cockroach.
Adrenalin rushed through his body as he tried to figure out how to get out of bed without killing himself. Gregor could not do the things he used to do, and although he felt disabled, he did not want to alarm his family. But what little he said to his family through the door of his locked bedroom sounded like a squeaking gibberish to them, while to Gregor his voice sounded perfectly natural. Since he never arose from his bed and went to work, the manager from his office eventually stopped by to see what the problem was. As Gregor tried to explain that he was trying to unlock his door to his family and his manager, he struggled with his stick-like arms. “It was an animal’s voice,” thought the manager as he tried to understand what had happened. Samsa only wished for support from his family in achieving this astronomic task of unlocking his bedroom door, but eventually received only shock, horror and coldness.
As he finally opened the door, a wave of disbelief pierced through his mother like a knife. His father only possessed a menacing air upon the sight of his son, an air that made you think that he wanted to beat Gregor until he got back into his room. Gregor tried to tell his manager that nothing was really wrong and that he would be at work shortly, for he felt as if nothing was terribly wrong with himself. But his manager only ran out of the house, terrified at the sight he saw.
As time passed on, the days became the same. He was always locked in his room, for not only were his parents too frightened to even look at him, but they were also too afraid and too ashamed to let anyone else see him. They couldn’t understand how they were supposed to accept Gregor. They couldn’t understand how they were supposed to integrate this creature into their lives. They seemed to feel as if they couldn’t accept this task. As he would try to listen to the conversation in the living room that could usually be heard in his household through the bedroom door, he found that his family suddenly became particularly silent.
Gregor didn’t like the same foods anymore. Milk disgusted him. His eating habits eventually became a routine where daily his sister Grete would come into his room and lay out rotten food for him to eat. However, he would hide under the couch whenever she came in, for he knew that she would be too frightened by his sight. She never looked at him. His family feared being alone in the same house as him, and yet they feared leaving him in the house alone - so they decided that there would always have to be two people in the house at the same time.
Eventually Grete and their mother decided that emptying the furniture out of his room would give him more space to move, for with Gregor’s new body shape he needed more floor space to turn around and walk about. The empty room left Gregor with no mementos to help him remember his life the way it used to be. He eventually began to feel as if he was not longer human, and never was human in the first place.
Because Gregor was no longer making money for the family, the other members of the family started to work. As they continued to function efficiently on their own because of necessity and slowly started to take care of him less and less, Gregor became more and more depressed. He couldn’t sleep, and he hardly ate. Because of a fit that his father had once where he threw an apple that jabbed Gregor in his side and stayed stuck there, Samsa began to lose his agility.
Grete didn’t take care of him as much. She seldom cleaned his room anymore, and there was dirt and dust everywhere. Feeding became more and more sporadic. He felt as if he had become a misfortune to his family.
His family, in order to make more money, rented out rooms in their house to tenants. Once when Grete was playing the violin for their tenants, Gregor snuck out of his room to listen. He wondered then if he was human - for only a human could have this appreciation for music. But his handicaps told him otherwise.
As they all listened to the music, the tenants eventually saw Gregor and demanded that they would not have to pay for their rent up to date because of their lack of knowledge about what they were living with. They moved out immediately. His father threw him back into his bedroom where Gregor’s legs gave way under the extreme physical - and emotional - pressure.
That evening, Grete decided that she couldn’t take anymore of the life that she - and her family - had been living. She told her father that they would have to “get rid of it.” Her father only agreed. The family could not believe that this animal was still their son. They often only seemed to be scared of him, and at the same time they seemed to pity him. But they never had any love for him.
That night, after being unable to sleep until nearly daybreak, Gregor, in the depths of depression, passed away.
In the morning, when the family eventually found out about his death, they suddenly felt a great burden lifted off of their backs. Because they no longer felt that this animal was their son, they were actually relieved that it had finally passed away. They were then able to move into a smaller, more affordable place, in a neighborhood where they were not known as well. Grete was able to grow up into a young lady after the experience, especially since they had no one else to worry about.
They felt as if there was nothing more that they could have done for their handicapped son.
Franz Kafka’s Metamorphosis struck the hearts of many when it was written in the nineteenth century, during the period when social thinkers like Herbert Spencer and later Emile Durkheim were making their own waves. The role of the handicapped person in society has always been questioned because of the differences between them and “average” people in society. To many they are merely considered “socially deviant” and therefore do not have a place in society. But questions that pertain to the role of the individual in society, the role of the state in accordance with handicapped people, the degree of social conflict and the possible solutions to these social problems have to be answered in order to eliminate any problems and any misfortunes like the terrible case of Gregor Samsa.
How does this all relate to the conflict of the handicapped person and their role in today’s society? What are the implications for the future? A better ability to judge and come to possible conclusions may be easily arrived at upon examination of the analysis of past social thinkers.
Many people cannot understand or explain why members of society seem to foster negative views toward the handicapped person in society. Although people don’t want to admit or don’t want to believe that these negative attitudes exist, they do - and understanding many of the theories of social thinkers throughout the years may help people to understand why. Let this be the next step in the understanding process.
Going back to the Pagan times of Aristotle, one may come to the conclusion that “humans are only rational animals”, and that the parallel of the human to the cockroach in this story is merely a parallel that had always existed. However, most Pagan thinkers may reply that the change that Kafka was postulating was merely a change that disallowed other humans to communicate with him. Because in this example the family could no longer communicate with him, they thought that it was because Gregor no longer had the ability to communicate or think rationally at all. They seemed to believe that he was no longer thinking and living through reason, but only through instinct, and that because of this factor he could no longer be considered Gregor Samsa. This is where the conflict arose. A possible solution to these problems may be found in bridging the communication problems between people with handicaps and people without or attempting to eliminate misconceptions about handicapped people.
If we look toward social thought that was closer in time to the time in which this book was written, more specific concrete ideas may be found. After all, it is possibly because of the conflicts that were in discussion at the time the book was written that the book was even written in the first place. We will start with thinkers that preceded the Darwinian Revolution like Hume and Rousseau.
David Hume may have concluded that because human beings have an innate sympathetic sense, we may feel compelled to help them, or at least pity them the way that Gregor Samsa’s family does in Metamorphosis. However, the characteristics that humans like in other humans, characteristics such as wisdom, kindness, integrity, benevolence, generosity, courage or a sense of responsibility, aren’t easily found in the handicapped, many may argue. Because of this, people may have a difficult time in trying to have respect or admire handicapped people. This may result in the negative feelings that Gregor’s family felt toward him. This can be seen in the fact that they were scared of him. If the theories postulated by Hume are correct, there may be nothing that society can do about the treatment of handicapped people. because it is the human innate sense that compels them to have these views. According to Hume, there may be nothing wrong with the beliefs that people have about the handicapped.
Rousseau may state that the handicapped person has no proper place in society. In a social contract, everyone works for the good of everyone else. Because a handicapped person may not be able to do this, they cannot fill their social contract and therefore are not a useful addition to society. This may be why there are negative feelings for handicapped people: because, unlike other people, they cannot take care of themselves. Rousseau’s solution may be to either find menial things for the handicapped to do so that they can fill a better role in society (which may ultimately be inefficient to the society as a whole) or to somehow eliminate them from a society that generally requires a lot from their members. (which doesn’t seem to be a very feasible solution to the problem).
The Darwinian Revolution expanded on the five understandable aspects of nature (with a population in an environment, reproduction will inevitably produce a surplus of a species and therefore a shortage of foods and the consequential competition for those goods) by stating that all offspring are going to have different traits, and some traits will be better than others. Charles Darwin called these differences in traits fortuitous variations. He furthermore stated that a natural selection would occur, which generally meant that species members with better traits would survive because they were better suited for their environment. These notions startled the people of the nineteenth century, but these people may have come to the conclusion that handicapped people were not suited for their environment, and therefore would not easily survive. Because according to this theory handicapped members of the species may eventually die out, there may seem to be no point in helping them out. This may console the family that feels that there is nothing that they can do for the handicapped family member who doesn’t even seem to possess any human traits any longer and eventually gets tired of working to help this member out with no evident success.
Herbert Spencer expanded on this idea and framed it in a social context. His theory of the survival of the fittest depended on adaptation in order to survive. A handicapped person cannot adapt well. Furthermore, Spencer took from the Lamarckian theory of the inheritance of acquired traits and stated that it may be necessary to work to adapt. It was basically the handicapped person’s own fault if they could not or did not work to adapt. This again rested the burden on the handicapped person and not on the rest of the society.
A great deal of information can be inferred through the work of Emile Durkheim. For example, it can be viewed that Kafka’s animals are totems (a concept in which Durkheim elaborates on in The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life), and that there is this totemic identification between beast and man. In Kafka’s works, this identification is symbolic and literal. Symbolically, the beast may be a symptom of unconscious conflicts (similar to the conflicts that Sigmund Freud would find in psychoanalysis), or a representation of the disabilities of the handicapped person trying to function in society. Literally, the beast is in his own person a true friend, and in some respects, another self (remember that once Gregor’s furniture was removed from his room he had trouble keeping as his “human” self and started to become more and more like his “animal” self).
It is possible that Kafka is trying to show that man is trying to act out some kind of animal-identity within himself. It should also be kept in mind that totemism depends heavily on the contagiousness of sacred and profane characteristics, and that the “symbolicness” of something isn’t possessed by the object but by the people that view it. This would have to be considered when viewing the role of the symbol of the cockroach in Kafka’s Metamorphosis.
Further information can be inferred by studying other points of Durkheim’s works like Suicide.
For example, the homo duplex states that there are two parts to people: the animal characteristic and the human characteristic. Kafka clearly defines differences between the handicapped person and the rest of the society by referring to the handicapped person in his story as a cockroach.
Furthermore, the animal characteristic according to Durkheim is based on desires and is a lower level of functioning, while the human characteristic is based on reason and is a product of society.
Therefore the handicapped person is not a product of society but merely an animal that rests it’s existence on desires and other basic needs. This concept, like others postulated by older social thinkers discussed so far, again sheds a poor light on the role of the handicapped person in society.
When looking at Hegel, one may assume that the conclusion of his theory of history going to a certain point where perfection will eventually be reached would be that the handicapped person does not fit into the idea of perfection in society and that they may somehow be eliminated (possibly in a Darwinian sense) before perfection is reached. This further enhances the idea that the handicapped person should not necessarily be a part of society, and that something must be done or that perfection that history draws nearer and nearer to will never actually be reached.
Emmanuel Kant’s idea of the Categorical Imperative, however, seems to contradict the general notions so far that have been produced by social thinkers. His universalized Golden Rule can be elaborated upon to state that the treatment of handicapped people should be no different or no worse than a person’s treatment of other human beings. Furthermore, it can possibly be inferred that the handicapped person should be accommodated for in any way possible, for it may be considered morally wrong to treat another person poorly. However, others may argue that altering the treatment of handi- capped people may help the handicapped people, but it may ultimately help the handicapped people alone and inversely hurt the society as a whole because some positive production for society would be eliminated by focusing on this particular minority.
This may be reason enough to have a negative view toward handicapped people.
Karl Marx believed that it was not the particular histories that would ultimately reach perfection and that had to be studied, but it was the ideas behind each culture that had to be examined.
Furthermore, he stated that he believed that communism would be the ultimate ideological structure, and eventually it would be world-wide communism that would be achieved. However, in a communistic society people work to their full extent and receive what they need - and this system would ultimately be unfair and biased toward the handicapped, for they would be unable to work and would inversely require a large sum of money in order to sustain life in the same way that the rest of society does. This too may foster the negative attitudes that many people hold toward handicapped people.
Fredrich Nietzsche recognized that the word “good” among the ancient Greeks meant not selfless, altruistic acts but aristocratic values (like nobility, power or dignity). “Bad” seemed to mean anything vulgar or lower class. This was closely associated with the social classes. When he comes to the conclusion that humans most importantly want power (over things and yourself - a freedom that is most importantly a control over yourself), the question then arises: where does the handicapped person fit in? The “will to power” entails the ability to confront obstacles and produce constructive outputs. Self-control and self-discipline are necessary. This naturalistic foundation stems from Darwin and again poses problems for the handicapped person.
It only seems that in all of the views generated so far, only negative attitudes have been uncovered in reference to the handicapped. These might explain our feelings today.
American social thought even reflected these ideas. The economist Edward Bellamy, for example, wanted a vast disciplined industrial class and no leisure class. However, even in this case the handicapped person does not seem to fit in to this plan.
Thorstein Veblen, who was influenced by Bellamy, Marx, Spencer and Darwin, felt that it was money that ultimately brought a person ahead. But the handicapped person who cannot make any money can therefore never get ahead in the world. Because they are therefore of a lower class, they are then looked down upon. Self-esteem is a reflection of social opinion, Veblen felt, and the accumulation of wealth enhances that self-esteem. This never happens for the handicapped person, and they therefore also are never able to gain any self-respect.
G. H. Mead, in his differentiation of the “I” and the “Me”, may end up postulating that people would think that the handicapped person has only an “I”, a more basic instinctual level of functioning, when it is actually the case where people just can’t communicate with the “Me” part, or the higher level of functioning part, of the handicapped person.
These social thinkers may have been able to reflect upon the reasons for the conflict concerning handicapped people, but questions still have to be answered: what kinds of solutions are there to these social problems? How drastic are the solutions? What is the role of the state and the individual in solving these matters?
Some of the possible solutions that have been presented seem to have their faults, and many seem too drastic (relatable to a revolution versus a reform). Finding a role for the handicapped person in society seems to be a difficult position to fill, because there are not only varying degrees of severity in being handicapped, but there is also the moral consideration of typecasting the handicapped person and not allowing those people the opportunity to work to become better people. The concept of their eventual elimination somehow does not seem to give today’s society a good enough justification for condemning them. So the question of the problems and the social conflicts that arise in today’s society because of the handicapped still does not seem to be fully answerable.
But people have to keep looking toward a solution for the future. The belief in certain theorists may cause one to believe that the condition of being handicapped will eventually disappear and everything will ultimately work itself out. The belief in other theorists may cause one to believe that it is only right to treat handicapped people in the best way possible. There may be a day where a conclusion - and a solution - can be reached.


Modern Day Footbindings and the Oppression of Women

I have never been one to think about my predicament. It’s a common predicament-- I have to face it every day of my life, and it indirectly causes me problems wherever I go. I can’t walk alone at night because of it. I can’t look a male stranger straight in the eye because of it. I have to worry about the kind of clothes I wear, the implications of the statements I make, and even the way I walk because of it. But I’ve never given it a second thought.
My predicament is that I am a woman. At first it doesn’t seem to sound like a predicament at all, but the more one thinks about the lack of freedom sentenced to a woman solely because she is a woman, the word ‘predicament’ becomes more of an understatement. In this male-oriented society, women are reduced to objects: pornography sells more than the top news magazines, the videos that MTV broadcast flaunt the woman’s body for just anyone to see, and instances of rape are at an all time high. Women today are held down by forces that are blind to many - society has evidently become a jail cell so large that its prisoners cannot even see the bars. But there are bars, and if we only look for them and see them for what they really are, we may then be able to make the changes that will make this society a more equal one. And a safer one.
In China, one man created the custom of wrapping up the woman’s foot so tightly that it restricted the woman’s walking because it caused so much pain. It was a way for men to be sure that women in their society were entirely dependent on them. In many third world countries, women are forced to wear dresses that cover up their entire body, for one man has no right to look at another man’s possessions. They call it tradition. If this is so, then tradition dehumanizes the woman.
Even in the United States these bindings are all around us, and these indirect restrictions are so commonplace that we have failed to notice that they are even there, keeping us “in our place”. I will only give one example. I feel that only one example is necessary.
I used to get a subscription to a women’s magazine. I enjoyed flipping through the pages of Glamour, even if it did only make me feel inadequate as a woman and as a person. As I read, as I flipped through the pages and saw the photographs of beautiful women staring me in the face telling me that I was no good unless I was beautiful and was able to attract the best looking men, I began to feel that I had to change my image in order to become the objectified model that society had typecast to be “the best”. These women’s magazines devote about one fourth of their contents to careers, and probably about three fourths of their magazines to looking good. These magazines focused on looking like the stereotypical woman, looking sexy, and doing this all for a man. That’s half of the problem right there.
But just the other day I looked through a neighbor’s recent issue of Glamour magazine, and I came to a startling realization. As I flipped through the colossal number of advertisements that appear in the first half of these magazines (you often can’t find an article until you reach page 50), I looked at the women. I looked at the underlying messages that these advertisements were relaying. And I couldn’t believe my eyes.
Here is an example that illustrates my point. “Every Valentine Needs A Hero.” The quote itself, from one of the first ads that I saw, gives the impression that a woman needs a man in order to survive. As romantic as the ad may look, I couldn’t help but notice the subtle signs: the woman is lying down on the bed, looking up at the man; the man is standing over her, looking down on her. Her back is turned to the camera, so that you can’t see the expressions on her face and so that you can’t see her humanness. The woman’s arms are crossed, evidently covering herself. A rose is placed right in the middle of the tray (remember-- nothing in advertising isn’t planned). Yes, the man is the hero, and the woman needs him for support. How would she function otherwise?
“Valentine... I got you just what you wanted.” This ad, as I looked at the couple plastered on the page, seemed to scream “submission” to me. As the woman’s face is turned toward the man, she is turned away from the camera - and becomes more of a body than an actual woman. Her arms are folded around him in a way that makes the viewer feel that she is clinging on to the only thing that matters to her. Furthermore, the two wide silver bracelets on her hands give the impression that she is handcuffed-- attached to the man, whether or not by force. The man, however, is merely smiling (maybe “smirking” is a better word) as he looks away from the woman. His happiness seems to stem from the fact that he has this relatively valuable possession.
Even the words in this advertisement are misleading. How handy it is that the woman has given her man just what he wanted. And she should, too. It’s her duty. She’s a woman. And what exactly did she get him? Why, “she got him a year of...” wait a minute, let’s put a little pause in there, one just long enough to make your mind wander... “GQ”. This relatively innocent ad has taken on a different meaning altogether in this new light.
Then I turned the page and saw another advertisement--and it appeared to be a centerfold. My only question was: how on earth is a clothing company supposed to advertise clothes when the clothes are barely on the model? Then, I’m afraid to say, I answered my own question. This company, like most others, isn’t advertising for the product that they are selling, for their products have become the means to another end, as opposed to the end itself. They are advertising an image-- an image of the woman being dependent on her looks in order to achieve success. Keep in mind that this - good looks - is the possible extent of a woman’s success. The concept of talent has seemed to fall by the wayside.

After looking at the images that bombarded me, I couldn’t help but wonder if I was reacting rather harshly. But then I began to think: what about the images that you see on billboards? What about the flaunting of women on television programs and commercials? What are these images teaching the children of today - the adults of tomorrow that will shape society? I couldn’t help but wonder if these signals were related to the increase in crimes against woman that are so prevalent today. If they are related, when will this ever change? Or will we be forever bound to the system?
Needless to say, I don’t get those magazines anymore. I try to explain to others how women are metaphorically abused inbetween the glossy pages of these magazines. But it’s only one source. One of many. And it seems that even if we as women were capable of removing one form of this degradation, other bars would still be up to keep us in our cell. Only until we break down the walls will we be able to say that we are free.


MORAL JUSTIFICATION OF FAMILY PUNISHMENT

X punished Y for doing Z by doing W.
person (parent)punished offender (child) for doing wrong action by punishing (penalizing) them.

What makes certain punishments within a family morally right or wrong? What makes the parent morally justified in punishing their child?
The rights based view in reference to punishment is a very general viewpoint. In the book Right Conduct, the rights based view is elaborated upon: however, it is only elaborated upon in reference to capital punishment. But what types or sorts of viewpoints should be taken into consideration when it comes to raising a child? The family situation poses quite a number of new questions when it comes to the appropriate punishment of a child. What forms of punishment are too harsh?? When should punishment be used? These questions may seem hard to answer, but when taking on the standpoint of a believer of the rights based viewpoint, the conception of the best, most correct, most appropriate, or the healthiest method of punishment for a child in a family situation is much more clearly outlined.
In teaching a child “rights” and “wrongs”, the child is usually taught that they cannot do something wrong (something which will badly or poorly effect others). Hitting a sibling causes harm to the object-- in this case the sibling-- therefore, it is wrong for the subject-- in this case the child-- to do the action (hitting the sibling). The child not cleaning their room as they were told to do forces someone else, usually a parent, to clean it, causing them undue stress and work and a reduction of their time. This is not the right thing for the child to do-- not only because they were told by their parents to clean their room, but also because their not doing it caused someone else-- in this case, one or both of the parents-- extra work.
In respect to the protection of the rights of the offended (in the family case, the parents): the parents have the ability and the right to use force to defend their rights, and more importantly in reference to the preliminary factors of the case of punishment for a child, the parents have the ability and the right to “make threats”.
The parents, in essence, have the right and the duty to inform the would-be violators (in this case, the child) of possible punish- ment. This can simply be referred to as “threatening”, for the parent has the right to threaten the child with possible punishment if they feel that the child is planning to (“threatening to”) or going to deviate from what the family household heads consider “right”.
Following with this thought, it would seem plausible that if a parent has the right to protect their rights, then a parent would have the right to coerce their child by way of threats in order to stop the child from doing something wrong, and in turn violating the parent’s rights. When a parent threatens a child, with bodily harm or otherwise, on the condition that the child violates the rights of the parent, or, say, another sibling or friend (the rights of a third party), the parent still doesn’t remove from the child the liberty of violating those rights. However, the liberty that is removed from the child is the liberty to violate the rights of others without having those said “threats” or conditions actually inflicted upon him or her.
An aspect that now needs to be addressed is that there are two consequences to the fact that the parents each hold the right to punish.
1) Guilt is a necessary condition of the permissibility of punishment. Because there is no logic and no reason for punishing a child when they have not violated anyone else’s rights, it cannot be allowed.
2) It is not allowed or permissible to punish a child without having previously stating the threat of punishment. If the intent to punish was not previously announced in the past, then the child should not be punished because the child did not know that they were actually doing something wrong. Never stating the threat or the intent to punish allows the statement to follow that the parent cannot carry out a threat that they did not make.
These guidelines can be summarized in the following equations:
1) X cannot punish Y for doing Z if Y did not do Z.
2) X cannot punish Y for doing Z by doing W if Y did not know that they would be punished for doing Z.
When determining the appropriate amount of punishment of a child after the child has committed a crime, it is necessary to consider the extent of the “crime” that had been committed-- in other words, there is a direct relationship between the extent of the deviance on the part of the child and the extent of the punishment on the part of the parents. Then there are three basic points in determining the correct or appropriate amount of punishment to inflict upon the child.
1) The proportionality of the degree of severity of the punishment of the child by the parent should be directly proportional to the degree of severity of the deviation on the part of the child.
This statement was said in the preceding paragraph. An example is as follows: it would be inappropriate for the parent to yell at their child after the child hit their sibling, if in another situation the parent would hit the child if the child was only yelling at their sibling. A constancy of punishment helps the child develop a better understanding of their guidelines.
2) There is an upper limit to the amount of punishment a parent should give their child, and that upper limit is never to exceed the importance of the rights of the child. In other words, the child’s rights that the parents are removing through punishment cannot be of greater value that the rights that the child was removing by going against the parent’s wishes. As an exaggerated example, it can be said that a parent cannot kill their child because the child hit the parent, because the parents would be removing a more important right from the child than the child was removing from the parent (although killing the child would be wrong for a variety of other reasons as well, of course). The most (in the physical sense) that the parent could do to punish their child would be to hit them. However, some may argue that it is morally wrong to hit a child, and that point will not be addressed in this essay.
3) It is not correct morally for the parent to use more than the minimum necessary punishment in order to teach the child the sense of right and wrong in a particular situation. In the example of a child hitting a sibling, it may be permissible for the parents to ground the child for a month. However, if all that the child needs in order for them to learn their lesson is to be grounded for a week, then it is morally wrong to punish them for an entire month. If it is not necessary to infringe the rights of the child, then it is not permissible.
These guidelines can also be summarized in the following equations: 1) X cannot infringe upon the rights of Y if Y’s rights to M are greater than X’s rights to N.
2) X cannot infringe upon the rights of Y if it is possible to only infringe upon rights that are of less importance for Y than M.
M and N in these cases are the rights of the child and the parent, respectively, that would be infringed upon in the event of the child acting in a deviant behavior to their parent’s wishes and in the event of the parent punishing the child for the action.
However, one must always keep in mind that there never seems to be a clear- cut and entirely appropriate form of punishment for a deviant child. Raising a child in the best way possible means so much more to the parent than the appropriate form of punishment for a criminal in a court of law (which is the reference that the book Right Conduct makes to the concept of the rights based viewpoint, which has been elaborated upon in this essay). Furthermore, the growing years in a child’s life are absolutely crucial-- the childhood and adolescent years in a child’s life are where they learn their exact sets of standards and morals and values. Even in the infancy years showing the appropriate amount of restraint toward the child’s abilities shows the child that there is a certain set of “rights” and “wrongs” that the child must adhere to. It is imperative to build a framework for the child to follow, for building a framework for the child to follow with an exact set of standards enables the child to know exactly what is considered right and wrong, and enables the child to know exactly what the consequences are for doing the wrong thing versus the right thing. Studies show that psycho- logically disturbed adolescents and children often come from parents that each possess different frameworks when it comes to punishing their children. One parent may be too harsh while the other parent may be too lenient, and the child often then becomes confused and disturbed. Children that are insecure tend to come from a household where the parents both had weak and fluctuating standards when it came to punishing their children. The child wouldn’t know what was right or wrong because their parents never taught them, and the child wouldn’t know what the consequences were for their actions, for the consequences for their actions were always different because their parents had no strict guidelines when it came to punishing their children. Children can grow up to be meek and fearing if their parents were too strict in their punishments, and children can grow up to be overly defiant if their parents were too lenient in their punishments. It is not possible to even begin to explore the possibilities for what is considered too strict or too lenient of punishment. Some may argue that hurting a child through punishment is morally wrong and should not be done, whereas some people may argue that sometimes punishment through, for example, hitting a child, is the only thing that will help the child learn that what they did was wrong. The question of the harshness of punishments can often only be addressed in particular cases and in particular families.
As a general remark, it is very possible to adversely effect a child by inappropriate punishment.
The best way to ensure that the child grows up in the healthiest way possible is to develop a solid set of standards or guidelines for the child to follow, let the child know what those standards are, and then follow through on them.


Interview with Nation Magazine

They originate from Chicago, but Janet Kuypers’ poetry and prose can be found in little magazines across the United States. The work is personal, with a definite message, and you can always spot a Kuypers piece without difficulty. Her “i”s are lowercase and the words flow in a stream of consciousness. The work cries out to be heard like a lost soul at confession. Janet Kuypers isn’t a lost soul. She’s an active soul, productive because her heart is anything but lost. She knows herself, can articulate herself. The words, flow, the actions are swift due to this unerring direction.
Where did Janet Kuypers come from and where will we see her next month or next year? At twenty-six, she’s tackled all forms of media with success. Yet, she remains incredibly personal, accessible., More accessible, even than the individual without such accomplishments. It’s a people mission, a quest to interact with the world.
More engaging than her autobiographical poetry or prose, watching Janet’s life unfold is a captivating experience. Not many people out in the world are like Janet.

Nation: Exactly how prolific are you?
JK: Well, I’ve finished my fourth book. I’m 26, and have seriously written since I was 18. I’ve written about 50 pieces of poetry since the beginning of the year, but that doesn’t mean I’ll use all of them - maybe I’ll use 15 or so. I don’t write every day, but when I do write I write a lot. I write prose and short stories as well as poetry, and sometimes I write journal entries that make their way into stories of mine. I try to write, just to keep myself sane.
Nation: Your name seems to find itself in circles of all variety.
JK: I don’t believe in having to be published in the “right places,” although it’s nice when it happens. I like being published anywhere, knowing that someone thinks what I have to say is worth listening to - and as long as I have a soap box, I love that fact that people listen. Whether they’re the university or the underground crowd.
Nation: Can you give us some of your writing background, as well as why and how you got into the publication circuit?
JK: I started writing in junior high school - poetry, that is. Then I started writing a journal after high school because of a high school English teacher. The assignment she gave us one particular day was to write a letter to yourself at age 64 (yeah, from the Beatles tune, she was a visionary, I know). So instead of writing what everyone else did, that yes, I had a perfect life, I loved my job, I had two-point-three kids, the white picket fence, the whole nine yards, I wrote what i thought would happen. that I’d go into a career I didn’t like. that I’d marry a man I didn’t love. that I’d forget my love of writing and photography. And my teacher saw my letter, and she told me not to let that happen. And so I started writing a journal. And since then... When I started work it was at a company that kept me occupied 10 out of 40 hours a week... And so when I started submitting poetry to magazines and kept getting rejected, I thought, “If I was an editor of a magazine, they wouldn’t reject me.” Because I knew my work was good and that it deserved attention. So I started Children, Churches and Daddies. Now it’s like a baby to me. I get published on my own, but Children, Churches and Daddies is my baby, and I don’t want to let that die. So I guess that’s how I got into publishing. It’s a matter of knowing I have something important to say, and finding any way I can to say it. And apparently, people are listening.
Nation: Isn’t pegging yourself as someone who is going to marry an individual they don’t love and neglect their inspirations a harsh prediction?
JK: Yes, but I saw a divorce rate of 50%, and unhappy marriages that stuck together anyway. I saw that men weren’t knocking down my door (I was pretty, but not stunning, and my beauty was in my brains, which isn’t particularly feminine) to go out with me and that in order to avoid the “old maid” syndrome I’d have to find someone, anyone that would tolerate me, whether or not I loved them or they loved me.. Yes, that’s what I thought. It was a harsh prediction. But also, often, an accurate one.
Nation: Did you know something at an early age, or was this just pessimism?
JK: It was pessimism, because I (at that point) found no one worthy of love. No one with a real set of values. No one that loved their work. No one with passion - for anything. I wanted to live, but I was raised (subconsciously) to repress anything interesting, to be like everyone else, to not make waves.
Nation: How have things gone so far?
JK: A few years after I wrote that letter I met someone who taught me how to live. They worked their ass off, simply because it was what they loved - and needed - to do. They didn’t care about what was the current fashion. They did things that startled and amazed me, and they always kept me on the edge of my seat. I learned that there are people out there worthy of respect, and love. And it made me have the same outlook in my life. I found the kind of work I love to do - graphic design. It made me excel at school and at work and do anything I wanted to in my spare time (I’ll rest when I’m dead). I got my first job in graphic design, but it didn’t satisfy me enough, so I started Scars Publications and Design. I started the literary magazine Children, Churches and Daddies. I started getting my own poetry published. Then I published my first book, Hope Chest in the Attic. And when I started living like this, I seemed a bit strange to people, but some people saw the life in me and liked it. Now the men, in some respects, are knocking down my door. I don’t think about that anymore, because it will fall into place when I want it to. Since then I’ve published three more books of my own: The Window, Close Cover Before Striking and (woman.). I’ve also published three collection books (that include my writing): Sulphur and Sawdust, Slate and Marrow and Blister and Burn. And looking back, with every new project I do, with every book I complete, I get this great rush when I finally see the book. I still love the work I do, I still love the feeling of accomplishment I get. This is what I’ve learned that I thought I could never do before. Whatever anyone thinks they’re capable of, you’re probably capable of ten times more and are just underestimating yourself. This society is sometimes stifling, and you’ve probably been raised to do what’s expected of you, and not what would genuinely make you happy. (not you personally, mind you; people in general.) When you break from that, when you do something solely for you to accomplish a goal for yourself that you want, you feel so alive. That’s what living is.
Nation: Are you holding to your premonition, or breaking the mold?
JK: I’m breaking the mold. At this point I’d definitely rather be alone than hate my life. I’ve learned how to love solitude. I should have done that all along, but never knew how. Now I can be alone, because I choose to be alone, not because no one likes me. I can always work, and that makes me happy. Besides, how can I spend my life with someone I don’t respect? I’m beginning to wonder if I will be alone for the rest of my life. Yes, I know I have time, I’m not worried that my biological clock is ticking or anything, but it’s really hard to find someone who is willing to live, someone I can respect and wholly love. I’ve dated a lot, men are interested in me, I’ve even received a few marriage proposals. I’m sure I’ll figure out what I want eventually in that respect. I’m not worried about it, though.
Nation: How is Janet Kuypers at 26?
JK: Much less dysfunctional. Much more intelligent. Less depressed. Less meek. Stronger. More obnoxious. I belch out loud sometimes now. Just because I’m a woman and I’m not supposed to. I’m not a little girl doing what she’s told if it’s not right.
When is the last time people looked at the world from a different angle? When is the last time any of them have lived? I see people now, fighting with their problems, and I think, “That was me, but I learned how to deal with it.” I try now to take every bad thing that happens in my life and learn from it, make myself better from it.
It’s questioning what society says is okay. Granted, we all live in this society, and we all choose to live within the guidelines, we all choose to follow and uphold cultural ideas, but some of the details - like why it’s more acceptable for men to burp than women - could stand to be questioned. I worked in acquaintance rape education four or five years ago - ran workshops, created pamphlets, brochures, flyers, newspaper ad campaigns - and while doing this work I thought a lot about sexism, and that is reflected in a lot of my writing. I try to think about why there are different sets of standards for men versus women, where they come from, why we choose to live by them. My fourth book, in fact, is called “(woman.)”, and is a collection of old and new poetry, short stories, essays and art about sexism.
Nation: Where do you draw the line when it comes to social rebellion, and how do people generally see you as a consequence?
JK: Social rebellion? I see something that I know is right and I incorporate it into my beliefs. For me the easiest way then to get it out into the light is to act on my beliefs, be proud of my beliefs, and be fully prepared to explain them. If I can discuss where I’m coming from when it comes up, if I can make logical arguments for doing what I do, no one can argue with me. Even if they still choose to disagree with me, they at least understand where I’m coming from, can see why I’d think and act the way I do, and can respect me for having a cohesive set of values.
Nation: How long do you think, realistically, it will take to create true equality between the sexes?
JK: I don’t know. I don’t even know if I care, really, or if that’s a completely good thing. I mean, some people think that if we were equal we’d lose our differences. I know the concept of “feminism” is what allows women to be meek, docile, and easier to be oppressed, but it also at times allows women to feel attractive, or unique.
What is true equality? In rape education classes, we were often taught that the way you dressed or your mannerisms could put you into a risky situation, and that certain things could in theory be avoided... Like dressing like a “slut,” for instance. But telling women to not dress the way they want to, even if it is to highlight their sexual and biological differences from men, is not the right way to go - you eliminate the rights of the women to be able to wear what they want to wear in order for them to avoid the possibility of being raped. (I’m not even covering the point that rapes occur to women of all age groups, dressed in all different ways, and avoiding dressing like the proverbial “slut” does not protect any woman from rape.)
Is true equality having women act like men? The nurturing nature of femininity is something we definitely need. Is it accepting everyone as people and not making judgments on how they look? I’ll be the first person to admit that looks are the first criteria you can - and do - judge a person on (I mean, you look at a person before they can speak to you, their looks are going to make an impression on you). Is it accepting everyone as people and not making judgments on what kind of work they do? People will have opinions about one job versus another, whether it’s being a janitor or a CEO or a mother, because people make those choices for themselves in their own careers.
For now, is it at least the idea that women should be able to get paid comparative salaries for the work they do, or that they should feel like they can walk down the street confidently without a group of construction workers giving her shit for it. Or that they should be looked at as people and not sexual organs, or servants, or stupid.
I mean, it’s fascinating to me that women can be treated like crap because they think that they’re worth more than that. Men don’t have to degrade a woman that already feels degraded. Every action a woman does, or thinks of doing, is clouded by how she will be perceived as a woman. How she walks. How she sits. I’m not saying men don’t sometimes feel pressure to be “manly,” but I think there’s a difference. Men have the power. Women always feel like they have to watch how they behave.
Nation: Will there ever truly be equality, or will a fundamental gap keep things unbalanced?
JK: I don’t know, I don’t think so. You’d be amazed at how pervasive societal influences are, and I don’t just mean beer ads versus make-up ads. I mean that baby girls get a pink room, boys a blue one. Girls get dresses, bows in their hair, pretty shiny black shoes. boys get pants, shorts, t-shirts, sneakers. Girls are given barbie dolls to play house with (we won’t even go into the fact that she’s this distorted super-perfect image of women, entirely unachievable), boys are given GI Joe dolls to ride in tanks and blow up stuff with. Girls are given baby dolls, so they can act like a mom. Boys are given model cars, so they can race around. Girls are encouraged to play with their best friend indoors. Boys are encouraged to build forts with a group of boys outside. I could go on. It happens at home, by the parent. It happens at school, by the teacher, and even by the other students. Kids learn this early, and when they get to school, can use it as a way to judge whether other kids are socially acceptable or not. I think it’s really in every aspect of our lives. It would be hard for me to be able to strip all of that and then judge whether or not there were genetic differences too. Besides, it doesn’t really matter, at least not now. Most people don’t even think about the fact that these influences exist, much less whether they should change.
Nation: Are men and women, when you drive past cultural upbringings, really as different as people like “Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus” author John Grey suggests?
JK: What I’m concerned with, more than anything, is not whether the sexes are different, or whether that should entirely change. I’m more concerned with telling women that they’re allowed to think and act how they feel is right, because I think women are taught to do things because “that’s the way they are,” or “you don’t want to make waves.” I think many women could be making more in corporate America, if they stood up for themselves, but all their lives they’ve been told not to. I think less women could be victims of acquaintance rape, if they stood up for themselves and fought back, instead of initially being concerned that they might hurt their date’s feelings. My point is that they should be thinking about their feelings.
And I don’t try to tell anyone that what they do is wrong, I just try to lead by example. I try to show people that an intelligent woman can be obnoxious as well as feminine, or that she can be nice but firm. That that’s a women worthy of respect.
Nation: What started your interest in acquaintance rape, and the need to liberate the female from society’s watchful eye?
JK: I think because I felt stifled, and by liberating the female I could liberate myself. I also saw the statistics about rape: That one in four women during college are raped, one in three women in their life times. And 80 percent of those rapes are committed by someone the women knew... A friend, a coworker, a boyfriend, etc. Those are startling numbers. And friends of mine had these stories. And frat houses made it easy for men at parties to do this to women. And there were campaigns all over campus for better education. I wanted to help women feel like they could stand up for themselves, that they didn’t have to take this. And for the victims, I wanted to do something to let them know how to deal with it, to let them know they weren’t alone, that it wasn’t their fault. That things will get better. It amazes me that women can even think that a rape is their fault, yet victim blaming is one of the main reasons acquaintance rape is such a vastly underreported crime. Women shouldn’t feel ashamed. They should feel alive. And no one should do something like this to them.
Nation: Changing directions a bit, could you launch into detail on the origins of your musical history?
JK: I have no formal musical training, other than a little choir in school... I remember when I was four, my older sister would dress me up in sequined costume clothes, put on of my mother’s blonde wigs on my head, glue back cardboard eyelashes to my face... And I’d use a sheet music stand as a microphone and sing songs. My family even tells me that while I was still in my crib I woke up the family once in the middle of the night by singing at the top of my lungs, “You’re So Vain.” But apparently (still being a toddler and all) it sounded like “you pro-blee think this song is abough-tyew, doan-chew, doan-chew, doan-chew...”
The point of all that was that I’ve always loved to sing, all my life. I sang in a choir or two, then did some acappela stuff in late high school. I did a singing telegram or two in college. Once out of school I convinced two friends of mine, both acoustic guitar players, to play stuff for me to sing. Then we did a few radio shows and played live in clubs in Chicago. People said my voice was great, but I needed more of a full band in order to get anywhere. I like working acoustically because it lets me play more with my voice; I’m not fighting the instruments, they’re more accompanying my voice than competing with it. We did a compact disc, just for our own records more than anything. We haven’t played since August 1996, but occasionally talk about doing a song or two.
I’m also interested in combining music with spoken word, and putting some of my poetry to music, or at least background noises. Something Laurie Anderson-ish, leaning toward her spoken word storytelling style.
Nation: A few years back I remember seeing an advertisement in Children, Churches and Daddies for your musical ensemble. What happened with the group, then and now?
JK: That group was the acoustic band I was just talking about - Mom’s Favorite Vase. We were all friends, and it was fun... I was the only one setting up shows and radio spots, though, and I got tired of doing it all (yes, I’m a control freak, but...). Brian and Warren are both wonderful people. Warren’s the depressed artist trapped in a suburban man’s body. Brian is the type the brings his guitar to parties and strums “Staying Alive.” And me? I’m a mix between Natalie Merchant and George Michael ? alternative yet soulful. Well, I’m not as good as them, but you get the idea. Either way, I love to sing. That’s all it comes down to. Music is so expressive ? I love listening to lyrics and I love to belt out tunes.
Nation: Can you recall a memorable moment in the group’s history?
JK: I remember when we’d first go to open mics and what a good reaction we’d get. One bar manager telling me I was better than Janice Joplin. I was thrilled when someone would call in to a radio station we were playing at live asking who we were, that we sounded great. I loved getting a positive reaction from people. We had fun goofing around, and I have a lot of good memories. At our last show someone requested Brian play “I Will Survive” so he started playing it, but told me on stage I’d have to sing it, so I belted it out without practicing, and it was hysterical. Everyone loved it.
Nation: Having hit nearly all forms of print media and, in appears, delving into music-land, is there any other popular media that you might try?
<B>JK: I’d love to play with film. I’ve been on television with short films reading my work. I have a short story that I think could become a five-minute film. I love to act. The thing is, I love getting out in people’s faces and affecting them somehow. By good acting. By reading good poetry. By writing a chilling story. By analyzing philosophy and religion in an essay. By taking good pictures. By charming them with my voice. By designing something that catches someone’s eye. Whatever medium I have to use - whatever medium I can use - to get my messages out to the world, I’ll use them all, as long as I can use them well. And I hope I do.
Nation: You say that one of your short films has been aired on TV?
JK: Yes. It was a short I did of one of my poems, “Too Far.” The sentence structure is very short, and it’s all about a woman who keeps doing different things to make herself look better. She first diets, using rice cakes to wheat germ to diet pills and shakes, she exercises, but she only loses twenty pounds. So she gets a perm, She straightens her teeth. So then she goes to the spa, gets her skin peeled, soaks herself in mud, wraps herself in cellophane, tried the amino acid facial creams, all the while knowing they really didn’t work. So she goes to the doctor, gets her nose slimmed, her tummy stapled... She thinks about getting a rib or two removed, to look thinner, but she figures those ribs have to be there for something. And hey, that’s just going too far. So I did this short film where the scenery was exactly the same but at every phrase I changed my clothes and my position, so it looked like some sort of confessional taping of these women going through this. That and a couple readings of other poems of mine made it to a cable show in Tennessee.
Nation: How did that come about, and was this local access, a cable network, or something else?
JK: Joe Speer ran the show, and he’s an editor and writer himself, so he knew my magazine and my work. One day he asked me if I had any video footage of me reading any of my work. I didn’t, but I made some for him.
Nation: Where do you find the time to engage in all this expression?
JK: When you love what you do you make the time. I work on my computer every day, after work, as well as on the weekends. I may only work for fifteen minutes, but I work at it. I’ve only dabbled in film or television, but would like to do more, if only I had the time. I read poetry at bars, and that’s a social outlet for me. Or go to readings and write poetry while I’m there. Open mics for music was a social event for me, too. I have to find a way to make it all fit. I don’t watch movies or television as much as the average American, I think, so maybe that’s where all my time comes from.
Nation: How do you fit a career, social life, recreation and all the various mediums into your life?
JK: I don’t know. I’m a fast worker, I guess. I try to fit my creative outlets into my social life when I can. I just keep thinking, I want to live my life so that there are never any regrets. If I knew I was capable of doing all of the things that I have done over the past five years, but didn’t do them, I’d hate myself. I couldn’t be like that. I want to do things. I want to accomplish things. I can’t let time waste. I don’t know how. When I rest I know it’s because I need to, not because I’m lazy, or bored. I fidget too much. I always have to be doing something.
Nation: What aspects are you forced to leave uncultivated?
JK: I guess I could be more social, but I try to go out at least three or four nights a week. But when you get older, your group of friends dwindles - people get married, people move away, people go their separate ways. So I guess I could make a better effort in cultivating new friends... And I know that as a girlfriend I can be a real pain in the ass, too. Oh, and I could stand to have a cleaner apartment. I mean, what’s the point in fixing your bed if no one is going to see it fixed and you’re just going to mess it up that evening anyway? Not that I’m a complete slob or anything, but I could pick up my clothes more often.
Nation: Active in a plethora of mediums, how do you manage to get them all out to the public?
JK: Children, Churches and Daddies got my name out there, so that I could be published in other magazines. The web sites have helped out a lot, too. Getting electronic was a great help for my writing career, and I love computers - I use them for all my graphic design, and I originally went to college for Computer Science Engineering. Now, with a web site, I can have downloaded sound clips of my music or my poetry readings for anyone to access. Or all my poetry. And I can easily submit many pieces of writing to many magazines. And many people have responded to my work, because responding electronically is so easy. For example, I don’t know if Speer would have bothered to contact me about his cable show unless he could send a quick note electronically. And the new band I’m working with, the guitarist was a friend of mine from college that I hadn’t talked to in years, and when he happened upon my web site, he dropped me a line. I would have never made contact with him and started working on this new project unless we were both on the net.
Nation: You create a poem, and it finds its way into an anthology. You sing, and there is a CD. You concoct a film, and it winds up on TV. Did this come about through extensive training, or did you always have the knack?
JK: If I wanted to do something, I learned how. I contacted book publishing groups. I found someone who would master a Compact Disc cheaply. I’m thinking of purchasing my own writable CD-ROM drive for my computer, so I can do all the work myself. The films are just me and a video camera; the quality is low but I can play more with lighting conditions. I guess I have the knack for doing something when I want to do it. I get the biggest rush over accomplishing something like getting published, or making a film of my poetry, or writing a song. So I have to try.
Nation: What is your formal training?
JK: Let’s see... In music, other than the occasional choir group, nothing. In film, definitely nothing. In writing... Well, I excelled in writing through high school, and in college was a journalism major with emphasis in creative writing and poetry - at which I did very well. Photography? It was my minor in college, but even before that, it just came naturally to me. Making people feel comfortable in front of me. Finding good composition. I also focused on graphic design in college, and that’s what I’ve been doing for the past five years. I’m the Art Director for a publishing company by day, and I supervise the design of three magazines, and soon possibly a fourth.
Nation: Do you plan to stay involved with magazines, or are there plans to branch out into newspaper layout, or book design?
JK: I used to do newspaper work. There is something fascinating about newspapers, that something can come together so quickly and get into so many hands, but I also don’t like it being discarded so easily. When I worked for newspapers, I liked working in the weekly sections, or special sections, because those were something the reader would spend a little more time on. My time for newspaper work has passed.
Books? I design books now, with Scars Publications. I’ve managed over three collection books so far, each between 160 and 200 pages. I’ve done a book contest winner, and 88-page book by Sydney Anderson. I’m finishing a book for Rochelle Holt and Virginia Love Long. I like doing books on consignment, as well as my own books. My new book, “(woman.)”, is all designed. The stories use different fonts and type sizes for different words in paragraphs. I play with it more. The books I do I try to make graphically interesting, not merely scrolling text, like most paper-back books. And I’ve heard only good things about their layout. I don’t go overboard, though - you want the thing to be easy to read, and more timeless than a magazine.
I like doing books a lot. There’s a much greater sense of accomplishment when I finish a book and see it in print than the feeling I get after completing an issue. To me, the issues of a magazine have to get done, they’re on a schedule. For books, each books is an end in itself, not an issue in a series, so it’s a complete accomplishment in and of itself.
Nation: Where is your career, and all the art, headed?
JK: The art? I don’t know. I don’t even know where I want the writing to go. And a part of me would like to get an in in the music industry and become a rock star. I know, I know, I’m so practical sometimes... I don’t know where it’s going to take me. I don’t know how long I plan to stay at my current job, or long I even plan on staying in Chicago. As a woman, I also think of how to incorporate these things with my personal life - when will I get married? Do I want a child, and how do I want to raise it? I think that’s why I’d like to run my own magazine; I could do a lot of the work electronically and be able to spend time with my child. If I ever have one, that is. A part of me has this plan, the idea that I’d like to build my own home in the middle of nowhere and be able to manage my business electronically. Have my own space, not touched by a landscape of buildings. I love what man has accomplished in our world, but I’d also love a place where there were trees. And a small lake. And right in the middle I’d stick my home, with lots of cables for direct links to my web site and my office in the city. I’d plant some vegetables. Have control over some of the food I eat. Enjoy my surroundings. I don’t mean I want to live like a hermit, or become entirely self-sufficient - I love technology, and I love people - I think I’d just like to have the option of both.
Nation: Will they always be two separate entities, or do you have some grand unification in mind; will you be graphic designer by day, author by night, or will the two aspects eventually meet at one, all-encompassing purpose?
JK: I think if I was the publisher of my own magazine/book publishing company I’d be overseeing the editing and the design, and my own writing would be printed. I don’t know where it’s going to take me. All I know is that writing is something I have to do. I think I currently mix them in different ways; maybe I’ll find a greater unification of them. All of these media overlap for me. I sing, but I’m also doing spoken word readings with background sound effects, incorporating my writing with music and sound. The same goes for film, I’ve just added the visuals to it as well. A part of me would like to make a CD-ROM that combines all of these things, short film, sound, text and graphics. I think in some ways they all do combine right now. Maybe I’ll find ways to combine them in the future. Currently my career is in graphic design. Maybe I’ll continue combining them, then move just to writing as I get older. I don’t know. I try not to set too much in stone like that, in case I want to change my mind. All I know is that if I want to do it, I will. I’m confident that if I want to combine them in other ways, I’ll do it, I’ll accomplish it, somehow.
Nation: Let’s go back to your ideal cottage. You are 26 (or 27?), and that’s just a hop, skip and a jump away from 30. Do you ever worry that these dreams will go unrealized?
JK: The only reason they’d go unrealized is if I didn’t do them. Since currently I don’t know where I will be working for the next five years, or who and when I’ll marry, the dream-house is a part of a constantly-changing goal of mine. The house idea, I might have specific details about it, like it needs a hot tub, and a darkroom, and an office, but beyond that, if other parts of it don’t fit into the plans I have for my career and my personal life, then it’s no problem for those things to change. My dream house isn’t my dream house if it doesn’t fit into my life.
Nation: Earlier you mentioned that things would come into place when they were meant to occur, but what if you never DO find that ideal mate?
JK: I don’t worry about things like that. I know that even if people aren’t perfect I can find someone I could spend the rest of my life with. And if I don’t, I have me. I love solitude sometimes, because I’m allowed to think, and create, and do what I need for myself. You can’t go through your life wondering, “What if?”, because you’ll spend your time in fear, worrying, and not doing, and accomplishing, and making everything work out.
Nation: Is there another picture of your life, one without the cottage and the family?
JK: It’s not a definite image I have that I need the house by 35, and the husband by 28, and the kids by 36, and the business by 33. It’s just looking for long-term goals and working through them. Right now I’m working out the here-and-now. When the time comes, I’ll look for what I want next.
Nation: Does this image scare you, or is there no immediacy to it all?
JK: There’s no immediacy at all. Nothing scares me about my future, to be honest. I know that I can handle every decision I’ll have to make. And I know I will have made the best decisions I could have made with the information I had and the opportunities I had available to me.
Nation: Also, do you have anything particular in mind? A particular area of the country, or the world, that interests you?
JK: I don’t know. I’d probably stay in the States, because I like freedom (granted, the United States keeps slipping more and more into socialism, but considering the other choices, I think I’d still choose the States), but where? Somewhere where I could still get a lot of land in the middle of nowhere for relatively cheap. Somewhere moderate. Somewhere a few hours away from a cool city. I don’t know. I’ll cross that bridge when I get to it.
Nation: How realistic or unrealistic are your dreams?
Look what I’ve done so far. I never make a goal that I don’t think - and know - I can and will accomplish.
Nation: Have you always been well adjusted? At the start of the interview you mentioned your old pattern of conformity. What was your childhood like, and what were the defining challenges you faced as an adolescent girl and a young woman?
JK: My childhood? I was a smart kid, and all the other kids picked on me, like you wouldn’t believe. I had friends, but boy, did I have enemies. What are we teaching our kids when they learn at such an early age to hate things that are good - because they’re good? How do they learn envy without even being able at that age to consciously define it? But I was taught to not fight back, not to argue with the kids, but to just keep being a good, smart little girl. What should a parent say, give the bully a good right hook? I gained more and more friends, but no one was a great friend, and no one seemed real or genuine. I took going off to college as having a clean slate - I even dyed my hair, changed how I look, as well as changed how I acted. I faced a whole new set of definitions people placed on me, like being a flirt instead of being a brain. That’s when I started dealing with the sexism issue. I was growing up, and it was affecting me more directly. The point is, I had to learn how to survive - and thrive from them. I try to take every bad thing that happens to me and at least learn something from the experience, so that I’m a better person for it.


Veggies of the World Unite

I’d like to tell you something about myself that usually scares most red-blooded Americans. I don’t want you to think I’m going to try to brainwash you, I don’t want you to think I’m going to give you a lecture. Just brace yourself, and hear me out.
I’m a vegetarian.
Okay, okay, don’t fly off the handle, I know you think I’m some sort of wacko that’s going to throw paint at you or chain myself to a tree. I swear, no such activities ever cross my mind (except in occasional circumstances that differ greatly from saving the planet, and that’s another story for another time).
If you don’t think I’m crazy, well, thanks. But most everyone else seems to, and I honestly don’t know why. I’ve chosen to think about what I put in my mouth and why I put it there, and for that I’m considered crazy.
Here, let me explain how I got to this point.
I was travelling around the East Coast by car for New Year’s one year, I think it was three years ago. And I noticed that whenever we stopped for fast food I was eating a chicken sandwich. (Yes, this one odd little point is relevant in the story, just read on.) At one point in our trip we stopped at a hotel in the Pocinos for a night, and the hotel was a series of cabins instead of the usual high-rise. So as we were going to out room, outside, we found a cat. She had a collar on, so we knew she belonged to someone, someone probably travelling as well. She was a very friendly cat, an affectionate cat. So when we started to open the door to our hotel room, I said to the cat (why do we talk to animals anyway? It’s not like she ever would understand what I was saying), “Do you want to come in?” I thought she would stay outside and we could go into our rooms and that would be that. But she turned around and marched right into our room before us.
So we had a new visitor.
We played with the cat, we even took pictures of the cat, seeing that we had our cameras, being on vacation and all. And the cat knew humans. The cat responded to humans. The cat understood joy and pain. I could see that in what little interaction I had with the cat.
Eventually we figured we better let the cat outside, she’s going to need to go to the bathroom, and besides, her family is probably looking for her. So we let her go.
And we got in the car the next morning and started to drive home, still ten hours away.
And then we approached lunch. We were stopping at a fast-food joint, I think Burger King.
And then I made the connection.
We in America look at certain animals as thinking, and certain animals as glorified plants. But it’s really only how we’ve been raised to think of these animals, the distinctions are only in our minds. That cat I saw the night before was a living, feeling creature. And in China that cat would have been hanging in the front window of a store, considered a delicacy.
And in India the cow is sacred.
So I said, let me try to not eat meat for a little while. You know, if I feel the urge to eat meat, I can have a chicken sandwich once every two weeks.
But let me try this, to see how I feel about it.
And with every day that passed, I wanted the consumption of meant out of my life more and more. I knew I made the right decision.
It was a strange decision for me to make. I had never thought of being a vegetarian before. I don’t know why it popped into my head at that moment - why I decided to make this kind of change then. I always knew that cats and dogs were eaten in other cultures. I always knew that the cow was sacred in India. I always knew that meat was eaten the most in America - because of our global overabundance of wealth.
So I decided to try it. And I’ve never looked back.
Okay, now comes the onslaught of questions, I’m sure. So, do you try to convert others? So, do you harass hunters and people who wear fur coats?
Well, I don’t think so... Well, okay, maybe a little.
So sue me for wanting to make the world a better place.


Victim Blaming

No... I don’t victim blame.
Nobody wants to think that they are at fault. When it seems that the accused is too innocent looking, when it seems that the boy next door is the one being accused of rape, it may only seem appropriate to think that somehow the victim caused the incident to happen. And especially when we are bombarded by society with messages that state that if the victim of sexual harassment was wearing a tight dress, was drunk or flirting, then they were at fault, how could we not come to that conclusion on our own?
But just as a burglar has no right to steal, a rapist has no right to rape.
That last sentence is often never considered, however. Most seem to feel that an act of rape - acquaintance or stranger - is just too bizarre to actually have no reason for happening. It may seem too strange to think that a man you’ve never met before could just come out of a bush, pick you out and attack you. It may seem too strange to think that a friend, or a boyfriend, or someone that you thought you could trust, could turn on you in such a way for no apparent reason and hurt you so much. In this world, things don’t just happen - there’s a reason for things, and there is sense in the world. Besides, the victim probably brought themselves into the trouble and therefore deserved what they got. If we as onlookers just don’t make the same mistakes that they did, we won’t have the same problems that they did. In this way unexplainable, traumatic acts such as rape can be explained away and therefore be easier to handle.

This is the line of reasoning that many people go through. If a woman can victim blame another woman, then she can eventually say to herself, “That’s never happened to me, so it must have been something that she did. Well, if I don’t do what they did, then I will be safe.” Since women live with the fear of rape all the time, victim blaming makes them feel better about the irregularities of the world. If a man victim blames a woman, it may be because he can’t understand that another man - possibly someone that he knows, possibly a friend - can do what the accused did. If another man has the capacity to do that, than that male onlooker may have that capacity, too. It’s a frightening thought to think that you could be a rapist. The man may eventually say, “I couldn’t do that, and therefore that other guy couldn’t do that. It must have been something that she did.”
The reason I find is the most believable is the reason that there is sense in the world and that there is a reason for everything. If there is a reason for everything, then there must be a reason for something as insane as rape - even if the reason doesn’t seem immediately apparent. Maybe, as many come to think, maybe the reason that it happened is because the victim led her attacker on or didn’t do enough to stop him. When someone blames the victim, the behavior is then correctable, and when the victim corrects that ’wrong’ behavior, then they feel not only safer, but also a better person for correcting their own faults.

I have often found myself victim blaming, and although I may realize that it is irrational for me to do so, I can’t seem to help it. What I have noted, however, is that I only seem to victim blame when it comes to myself. Maybe I do that because experiences that happen to someone else aren’t as hard-hitting as experiences that happen to yourself. You hear news casts of people dead in a plane accident, or of people held hostage by irate third world terrorist groups, or of a woman beaten to death after she was raped, but these experiences, possibly because we don’t experience them first hand but only hear about them, don’t seem to affect us. Sadly enough, when I hear of these experiences, they don’t affect me and I therefore don’t have to explain them away through victim blaming. But when I live through an experience and it seems as if there is no reason for the violence or the trauma, I can’t help but try to explain it away through investigating my own behavior.
When I hear of another person that has gone through a traumatic experience such as rape, I never think that it was their fault or that they deserved it. When it comes to my own experiences, because I have to explain them away (when I don’t have to explain away other’s experiences), I find myself victim blaming.
I have always been taught respect and kindness for others. I have always been taught to turn the other cheek when I am hurt, and I have been taught to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Because I possess these qualities, I often have a tendency to think of them as faults and see them as a cause for victim blaming - when it comes to myself.
I was forced into a traumatic sexual experience, and although I had no choice in the matter, I still to this day can’t help but feel that there still was something that I could have done. I should have been more explicit in what I wanted. I shouldn’t have had so much to drink. I should have seen that he was trying to get me drunk. I shouldn’t have been so nice to him. I should have said something afterwards: to him, to the police, to myself. I keep thinking that if I just keep looking over the pieces of the puzzle, something will fall into place and make it all understandable, all comprehendible. I keep thinking that if I keep looking for what I did wrong, once I find it I will be able to explain away what happened.

If I blame myself for what happened, I feel that then the problem is solvable, avoidable, and correctable. It makes my world make sense again.
But the thing is, I can’t. I can’t try to depend on the myths that surround us to explain away unexplainable behavior. I can’t try to hurt myself by blaming myself for something that wasn’t my fault.
But sometimes that pain seems better than shattering everything I’ve always believed in.<


WHAT YOU OUGHT TO DO VERSUS WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO

Moral judgments often arrive to the conclusion that one person (the subject in a particular situation) ought to do something in a given situation. However, it has also been said in certain cases that a person had to do what he or she did (note the word had, as opposed to the word ought, is the word that makes the difference in the two statements). The question then arises:
Some moral judgments are to the effect that a certain person had to do what he or she did. How does this differ from the case where what a person ought to have done was what he or she did?
To fully understand the question at hand, the question must be appropriately analyzed - what exactly is the intent of the question? What is the question asking? Generally, it can be said that the question is asking for the comparison of two slightly different statements, and these statements are:
a person had to do what he or she did, and a person ought to have done what he or she did.
The differences, then, between these two statements, are the differences between the two concepts of having to do something and of doing what ought to have been done. To then fully understand the differences between these two concepts or cases (if there actually are and differences in the first place), the full understanding of these two phrases or words (had, in the context of “having to do something”, and ought, in the context of “having ought done something”) have to be understood, for the differences in the two parts to the question only boil down to (if any) the differences between the two different words that must be examined.
The definition of the word “had” is as follows:
had: to be compelled, obliged, or required (considering that “having to do something” can only be applied to the concept of “having to do something” in a specific framework.) And the word “ought” even has the same words used to describe it, for the definition is as follows:
ought: used to express obligation (ought to pay your debts), advisability (ought to take care of yourself), natural expectation (ought to be here by now), or logical consequence (the result ought to be infinity). Moral obligation, duty.
(the preceding definitions of the word “ought”, particularly visible considering the definition as a moral obligation, can only be considered as, for example, a moral obligation or a duty in a certain framework or society, much in the same way as the definition of the word “had”.) Even in their definition they share the same words, denoting their similarity in their meanings.
Upon further investigation of each of the singular words being compared, yet more enlightening information arises. In considering the word “ought” as a moral obligation (as one of the definitions of the word implies), the concept of having “ought” do something transfers into having “ought” to do the right thing. The word “right” must then be further examined, for one of the definitions that can be accepted for the word right is Acting in the most desirable way in a given situation or society ...which is very similar to the definition of the word “conform”, for the meaning of conformity is Action in accordance to some specified standard or authority. To be obedient or compliant.
The concept of being compelled or required in a given situation to accomplish a specific action (which entails the majority of the definition of the word “had”) is very similar in it’s meaning to the definition of the word “conform” (which has just been defined above). Obligation, which is a word that has been used in the definitions of both the word “had” (in the sense of “had to do”) and of the word “ought” (in the sense of “ought to do”), can also be directly related to the said definitions of the words “conformity” and “conform”. Because of these notes on the meanings of the two words, it can be said that in a number of cases (leaving out cases for the case where this line of reasoning may not apply; however, it does not seem that this safeguarding action necessarily needs to be taken), the word “had” has a similar meaning to the word “ought”, and in some instances the only reason that a person had to do something in a specific setting is because that person ought to have done or accomplished that something in that particular situation.
Put in variable terms, the following statements that have been made as the premise for this argument, 1) X had to do Y in S, therefore X did Y in S. and 2) X ought to have done Y in S, therefore X did Y in S.
(where X is the subject, Y is the action that had to be done or ought to have been done, and S is the specific situation or particular framework that the actions by the subject apply to.) ...are the same statements because of the fact that the definitions of the phrases “had to do” and “ought to have done” are often applied in the same fashion and have generally the same meaning.
In this light, and according to the preceding line of reasoning, it can then be stated that the only reason that a person had or has to do any certain specific action in a particular situation is because according to the standards of morality in the specific framework that they are in, they were acting in a certain way because they OUGHT to have acted in that certain way. In other words, the only way that a person HAS to do something is because they feel that they OUGHT to do that particular something.
The only possible difference in the two different phrases or statements (considering every possible difference in the definitions between the two words) is in the fact that the word “had” doesn’t on the surface seem to entail a sense of a moral obligation (although the true reason for the subject feeling as if they “had” to do something may actually be because of a moral obligation and simply not stated), where the word “ought” has the concept of a moral obligation in it’s meaning and automatically seems to imply it more when that particular term is used.
Therefore, a conclusion can then be drawn about the original question at hand, for now all of the evidence has been thoroughly examined. The question asked what the difference was between the following two cases:
1) a certain person had to do what he or she did in a certain situation.
2) what a certain person ought to have done in a certain situation is what he or she did in that certain situation.
The conclusion drawn from the information gathered is that there are not many differences at all.
How do they differ? In most, or even in all cases, they really don’t.
And the only possible difference between the two cases is the fact that the use of the word “had” doesn’t imply the sense of a moral obligation (although there may still be that sense of a moral obligation, even if it is not said) in the same way that the word “ought” does. In any other respect of the definitions or meanings of these words, the phrases or even the entire statements, they two different cases have the same meaning. It is also possible that when the majority of the average people use the word “had” (in the sense that someone had to something), they may not be taking into consideration the fact that the reason that the person “had” to do that specific action was because that that particular person felt the moral obligation within themselves to actually do that certain something, or, in other words, that person may not have realized that they felt that they OUGHT to have done that particular action.
This train of thought not only states that these two cases are extremely similar, but it also states that these two cases or examples my even be more similar than can be described, for the sense of ought may underlie everything that a person does.


in love I abide

well you started a commotion when you walked in the place
I was flooded with emotion when I first saw your face
So I had to find out if there was a chance we could be
But I couldn’t understand how you could only want me

and as time went by my love grew stronger than before
but I never dreamt I’d get what I was wishing for

so don’t be afraid
to let your feelings show
because our love has stayed
and I won’t let you go

in love I abide
for to love I am bound
and I’ll stay by your side
with this love that I’ve found

well you parted all the people when you walked in the room
when i saw your ice blue eyes i knew you would be mine soon
but i couldn’t understand how i fell for you so fast
and i only hoped our feelings for each other would last

well do you believe that fate could make us feel this way
because i know that a love like this is gonna stay

so don’t be afraid
to let your feelings show
because our love has stayed
and I won’t let you go

in love I abide
for to love I am bound
and I’ll stay by your side
with this love that I’ve found

and as time went by my love grew stronger than before
but I never dreamt I’d get what I was wishing for

so don’t be afraid
to let your feelings show
because our love has stayed
and I won’t let you go

in love I abide
for to love I am bound
and I’ll stay by your side
with this love that I’ve found

in love I abide
for to love I am bound
and I’ll stay by your side
with this love that I’ve found


like the dreams in your heart

like the flower
that is laced with thorns
I can cut you

like the white dove
that comes in peace
I fly away

like the dreams in your heart
I can take a hold of you
I can tear you into two
I can make you scream out
like the dreams in your heart

like a cigarette
that is held too long
I will burn your hands

like a mistress
that doesn’t call
I creep in your mind

like the dreams in your heart
I can put you in a trance
I can pull you to your feet
I can take away the pain
like the dreams in your heart

I can make you feel the pain
like the dreams in your heart

like the dreams in your heart
I can take a hold of you
I can tear you into two
I can make you scream out
like the dreams in your heart
I can put you in a trance
I can pull pull you to your feet
I can take away the pain
like the dreams in your heart


there is a fire in my heart

there is a fire in my heart
you’re my desire from the start
well you inspire the best in me
I’ll never tire of you, you see

that I think about you all night long
it’s your image that keeps me strong
and though we’re separated by miles
I still think about you all the while

just holding hands down by the lake
I never planned the love we’d make
our love will stand the test of time
everything’s grand I know you’re mine

and I think about you all night long
it’s your image that keeps me strong
and though we’re separated by miles
I still think about you all the while


why

why... do you tear me all to pieces
why... are you so far away?
I... cannot stand to take the pain
I... will do it anyway

I have been trapped by the things that you do
I cannot see why I’ve fallen for you
I cannot live so I will give in
I cannot fight so I’ll let you... win

say... we can be together
say... that you will be mine
stay... and make my dreams come true tonight
stay... until the end of time

I have been trapped by the things that you do
I cannot see why I’ve fallen for you
I cannot live so I will give in
I cannot fight so I’ll let you... win

hey... now I feel so lonely
hey... it’s something I can’t bear
yeah... I think I can take you on
yeah... I’ll take you anywhere

I have been trapped by the things that you do
I cannot see why I’ve fallen for you
I cannot live so I will give in
I cannot fight so I’ll let you... win


language

animals:
fox, chick, bitch, pussy, beaver,
(horse, cow, sow, pig, ass)

children:
girl, baby, babe

food:
tomato, peach, tang, cheesecake, cherry, cherry pie, pie, a piece of meat, pineapple, melons,
sugar, brown sugar, honey

inanimate objects:
hoe, her hole, her box, her slit, her bush, knockers, doll, her crack

sex:
banging, nailing, hammering, screwing, bagging, scoring, slamming, bumping, making a home
run, getting some, grinding, pushing,

jokes:
she can’t wrestle, but you should see her box
liquor in the front, poker in the rear
smells like fish, tastes like chicken

man/woman
male/female
he/she
woman is “different from other”

chairman
the average joe
manning a booth

don’t be a girl, etc. women’s names used to really cut down men
mama’s boy - meaning a man is weak
women are called terms for men in order to make them look strange - “she’s butch”
“his” is used for gender-neutral terms, i.e. “the average person did well - he made $40,000.”
jokes about women far outweigh jokes degrading men


Fish

It’s a pretty miraculous thing, I suppose, making the transition from being a fish to being a human being. The first thing I should do is go about explaining how I made the transition, the second thing, attempting to explain why. It has been so long since I made the decision to change and since I have actually assumed the role of a human that it may be hard to explain.
Before my role in human civilization, I was a beta — otherwise known as a Japanese fighting fish. Although we generally have a beautiful purple-blue hue, most people familiar with different species of fish thought of us as more expensive goldfish. I was kept in a round bowl, about eight inches wide at it’s longest point (in human terms, that would be living in quarters about 25 feet at the widest point). It may seem large enough to live, but keep in mind that as humans, you not only have the choice of a larger home, but you are also able to leave your living quarters at any point in time. I did not have that luxury. In fact, what I had was a very small glass apartment, not well kept by my owners (and I at that point was unable to care for it myself). I had a view of the outside world, but it was a distorted view. And I thought I could never experience that world first-hand.
Previous to living anywhere else, before I was purchased, I resided in a very small bowl - no longer than three inches at the widest point. Living in what humans would consider an eight foot square, I had difficulty moving. I even had a hard time breathing. Needless to say from then on I felt I needed more space, I needed to be on my own. No matter what, that was what I needed.
I lived in the said bowl alone. There was one plastic tree in the center of my quarters — some algae grew on it, but that was all I had for plant life in my space. The bottom of my quarters was filled with small rocks and clear marbles. It was uneventful.

Once they put another beta in my quarters with me — wait, I must correct myself. I thought the put another beta there with me. I must explain, but please do not laugh: I only came to learn at a later point, a point after I was a human, that my owner had actually placed my quarters next to a mirror. I thought another fish was there with me, following my every motion, getting angry when I got angry, never leaving me alone, always taking the same moves as I did. I raced back and forth across my quarters, always staring at the “other” fish, always prepared to fight it. But I never did.
Once I was kept in an aquarium for a short period of time. It was a ten-gallon tank, and I was placed in there with other fish of varying species, mostly smaller. I was the only beta there. There were different colored rocks, and there were more plastic plants. And one of the outside walls was colored a bright shade of blue - I later came to discover that it was paper behind the glass wall. Beyond the other fish, there was no substantial difference in my quarters.
But my interactions with the other fish is what made the time there more interesting. I wanted to be alone most of the time — that is the way I felt the most comfortable. I felt the other fish didn’t look like me, and I often felt that they were specifically out to hamper me from any happiness. You have to understand that we are by nature very predatorial — we want our space, we want dominance over others, we want others to fear us. It is survival of the fittest when it comes to our lives. Eat or be eaten.
I stayed to myself most of the time in the aquarium; I occasionally made shows of strength to gain respect from the other fish. It made getting food from the top of the tank easier when no one tempted to fight me for the food. It was lonely, I suppose, but I survived — and I did so with better luck than most of the others there.

Then one day it appeared. First closed off to the rest of us by some sort of plastic for a while, then eventually the plastic walls were taken away and it was there. Another beta was suddenly in my space. My space. This was my home, I had proven myself there. I was the only fish of my kind there, and now there was this other fish I would have to prove myself to. Eat or be eaten. I had to make sure — and make sure right away — that this other fish would never be a problem for me.
But the thing was, I knew that the other fish had no right to be there. I didn’t know how they got there, what those plastic walls were, or why they were there. But I had to stop them. This fish was suddenly my worst enemy.
It didn’t take long before we fought. It was a difficult battle, all of the other fish got out of the way, and we darted from one end of the aquarium to the other. It wasn’t long until I was given the opportunity to strike. I killed the other beta, its blood flowing into my air. Everyone there was breathing the blood of my victory.
Almost immediately I was removed from the aquarium and placed in my other dwelling — the bowl. From then on I knew there had to be a way to get out of those quarters, no matter what I had to do.

I looked around at the owner; I saw them walking around the tank. I knew that they did not breathe water, and this confused me, but I learned that the first thing I had to do was learn to breathe what they did.
It didn’t take much time before I was constantly trying to lift my head up out of the bowl for as long as I could. I would manage to stay there usually because I was holding my breath. But then, one time, I went up to the top in the morning, they way I usually did, and without even thinking about it, I just started to breathe. I was able to keep my full head up out of the water for as long as I wanted and listen to what was going on outside my living quarters.
Everything sounded so different. There were so many sharp noises. They hurt me to listen to them. Looking back, I now understand that the water in my tank muffled any outside noises. But beyond that, no one in my living quarters made noise — no one bumped into things, no one screamed or made noises. But at the time, all these noises were extremely loud.
I then knew I had to keep my head above water as much as possible and try to make sense of the sounds I continually heard. I came to discover what humans refer to as language only through listening to the repeated use of these loud sounds.
When I learned I had to breathe, I did. When I understood that I had to figure out their language, I did. It took so long, but I began to understand what they said. Then I had to learn to speak. I tried to practice under the water, in my dwelling, but it was so hard to hear in my quarters that I never knew if I was doing it correctly. Furthermore, I had become so accustomed to breathing air instead of water that I began to have difficulty breathing in my old home. This filled me with an intense fear. If I continue on with this experiment, I thought, will my own home become uninhabitable to me? Will I die here because I learned too much?
I decided that I had no choice and that I had to ask my owner for help. I had to hope that my ability to produce sounds — and the correct ones, at that - would be enough to let them know that I am in trouble. Furthermore, I had to hope that my owner would actually want to help me. Maybe they wouldn’t want me invading their space. Eat or be eaten.

But I had to take the chance. One morning, before I received my daily food, I pulled the upper half of my body from the tank. My owner wasn’t coming yet, so I went back down and jumped up again. Still nothing. I kept jumping, until I jumped out of the tank completely. I landed on the table, fell to the floor, coughing. I screamed.
The next thing I remember (and you have to forgive me, because my memory is weak here, and this was seven years ago) is being in a hospital. I didn’t know what it was then, of course, and it frightened me. Doctors kept me in place and began to study me. They sent me to schools. And to this day I am still learning.

I have discovered one thing about humans during my life as one. With all the new space I have available to me, with all of the other opportunities I have, I see that people still fight each other for their space. They kill. They steal. They do not breathe in the blood, but it is all around them. And I still find myself doing it as well, fighting others to stay alive.


letter to a troubled friend

I’ve never been able to tell you how I feel, because you never let me. When I try to say something, and believe me, I try to do it in the most tactful way possible and I only begin to scrape the surface, you react in one of the following ways:
1) You cut me off, get defensive, say you never do these things.
2) You go through denial, and say I’m overreacting, because your behavior is normal.
3) You apologize, but the behavior never changes.
No one wants to deal with a sour reaction, especially when you’re trying to tell them something is wrong. I’ve pussy-footed around you through subjects such as your work, your family, the men in your life and the men in mine, your surgery - you name it, and all because I can never tell you when there is something wrong. I’ve wanted to confront you, but you make it impossible. I really feel like I have gone above and beyond the call of duty when it comes to maintaining a friendship with you. In fact, I think that a lot of the time the work I have put into it has been very uneven in comparison to what you have done. But I was willing to do it; I cared about you as a friend.
I’ve noticed a change in you in the past few years. When you were in college, you were still being supported by your parents, you had the love of your life with you. Since you have been on your own, you have no direction and no one to share your life with. From what I can gather, this behavior now relates to your feeling insecure about yourself and seeking positive reinforcement in men. They can be men with whom you have no future with, men that are gay and you have no chance with, men you have no interest in, or men who are abusive at best. You’ve gone after men that fit all of these examples. They can even be men I’ve expressed interest in, or men I’m dating - and then they would be an additional boost to you because someone would like you more than me.
I have seen this self-destructive behavior in you and I have known that for the most part there was nothing I could do or say about it, because you never listen to me. You don’t want to hear it from me. You get angry when I try to tell you what I see. You call me a therapist. And I don’t want to get the third degree when I’m trying to help you.
If you think you really need other people to boost your ego, maybe you should realize that the only person that can make you feel good is you. All this work you are doing in manipulating other men only makes you feel worse inside - because it is costing you yourself. You have to start working on what the real underlying problems in your life are and finally face them head-on. Until then you are only going to lose more friends, be used by more men, and feel like you have gone nowhere in life.
I have overlooked many double-standards in our friendship. If I talk to my boyfriend more than you in a single conversation, you pout and get mad, but as long as you have another friend with you, you can ignore me for literally hours in a social setting, then ditch me, and I’m not supposed to be angry. Yes, this has happened before. My boyfriend putting his arm around me in front of you would remind you of your ex and depress you, but when you make out with a friend of mine - after he flies across the country to visit me for only a short time - I’m not allowed to react. You expect me to take all of my savings and my only weeks vacation and spend it alone with you when I could be with the man I planned to marry, but if you were still going out with your ex, I would never see you, much less have the chance to think about spending a vacation with you. In fact, if I ever suggested a vacation where your boyfriend wasn’t allowed (and yes, you flat-out said my boyfriend wasn’t allowed with us), you’d scream at how inconsiderate I was. You can call me every swear word in the book, but I can say one wrong word - call you child for acting like one, for instance - and you’ll instantly be set off into another mood swing.
I flew across the country and entertained you for a weekend because I wanted you to be happy. It’s not as if I’ve ever had anything but your interests in mind. Only now have I realized how much it has cost me. How much you have hurt me.
I’ve tried telling you over and over again when something is wrong, and your reaction is usually denial or defensiveness. Especially last time. A guy I’ve gone on two dates with doesn’t matter to me. You do. And that’s why it hurt more than most anything any other friend has done to me. I saw your behavior. You were drunk, and paying every ounce of your attention to him. If you weren’t planning anything, you wouldn’t have waited outside my apartment after I said good-bye to you in order to see him. You did it secretly, behind my back, because you didn’t want me to know what you were doing. You say you don’t remember our discussion (if that’s how drunk you were), but in my bedroom, I told you about me and him, that we had gone on dates, that I was somewhat interested in him, because I noticed your behavior earlier in the evening, and it was hurting me even then. Your response was, “Oh, Janet, I would never do anything like that.” Then that’s exactly what you did. You threw any trust I had for you in my face. You really showed me in one evening how little you cared for me. You can’t tell me otherwise.
If this is another example of how you seem to need attention from men, then realize that you were willing to jeopardize what you called your best friend for it, and that you have a problem. If you don’t remember anything from the evening, then you may have a drinking problem. Either way, there are issues there that you have to address, and I don’t think I am strong enough to carry your problems quietly for you anymore when you are unwilling to face those problems yourself.

I almost didn’t write this letter. I’ve asked friends what I should do.
One person, who didn’t know you, said I should give you another chance. They were the only one that said that.
One said that you didn’t care enough about me, that I tried as hard, or harder, than was ever expected of me, and nothing will change with you, so I should just let it go.
One said it was about time I ended our friendship, because all I have been doing was complaining and struggling to keep you happy.
One said they can’t see me as a difficult person to be friends with, because I’m forgiving and don’t ask for much. That these problems in our friendship don’t stem from a lack of my trying, and don’t even stem from me.
One person, after seeing you at the party, was very disturbed with your behavior in general. They said they would swear you were on drugs, and I couldn’t tell them if they were right or not. They said you looked like you have seen something the rest of the world doesn’t know about, and that it had made you very depressed, like you were over the edge, like there was absolutely no hope, and that you just didn’t seem to care about yourself anymore.
I can’t fight that. I can’t fight feelings like that.
If you feel like you hate yourself, then there is nothing I can do for you. If you really think nothing matters, that you can’t feel anything anymore, if you’re not willing to help yourself, then I can’t help either, and I never could. Trying to help you was then pointless. Trying to please you was pointless.
In all the times I’ve tried to tell you how I feel, I usually got defensiveness or denial from you. Never once were you concerned about how I felt. I told you over the phone that last time that you hurt me more than you ever had - more than probably any friend ever had. You didn’t care about that, though. I don’t think you ever did.
And that is what also hurts. I don’t think you do care, and I don’t think you know how to care.
I don’t know what to do anymore, and I don’t know that there is anything that I can do. Or should do. The ball is not in my court, as you have put it in the past, but it is in yours. It always has. It is up to you to make yourself better. To help yourself. This is not a healthy friendship. You have to make yourself whole first.
I’ve seen you degenerate over the past few years. It was one thing when we were still growing up to not know what you wanted to do with your life. It was even normal to feel so confused that you’d go through mood swings. But it has gotten worse. Mood swings become event where you have to tip-toe around, be careful of everything you say. Sometimes knowing that there’s nothing you can say.
I don’t know what to say anymore. You don’t let me say anything. You don’t listen. You need attention, but I can’t give you enough. I don’t think anyone can.
I’m not writing this letter in an effort to save our friendship. I’ve received no indication that you want to change, to help yourself. Even your last letter to me was only an effort to clear your name, to make you look better, to make sure someone knew what you thought. You didn’t write that letter for me; I’ve seen you go through this with some of your men, wanting to write them letters to get the last word in. You wrote it for you, to make yourself feel like you’ve had your say. It wasn’t out of concern for me. It never is.
You are the one that did this to yourself, and only you can change you. Remember that: you are the one that did this, to you, to me, to what friendship we had. All of this is because of you. There is nothing I can do about it anymore, and I’m not going to sit back and take your behavior anymore. I shouldn’t have to.
You’ve been in therapy for years. You’ve spent a lot of time and money talking to a person every week for years. What has it shown you? What have you learned? You’ve told me that you sometimes won’t tell her things solely because you don’t feel like talking about something, or because you don’t think she should know it. If you’re not willing to share there things, how is she supposed to help you? She doesn’t see a full picture of who you are. Are you just going to her for the attention?
I hope you actually read this letter, not read it and then throw it away because it’s not what you want to hear, but read it, and listen to what I’m telling you. Show it to your therapist. Let her see a different side of the story. Listen for yourself to a different side of the story. You’ve never thought of how other people perceive you, at least not realistically.
Figure out what it takes to make you like yourself again. Or for the first time. I can’t make you do that. No one can. Not your family, friends, not your therapist, not your current abusive man. Most of those people are out for themselves as well, and might hurt you in the process. Find yourself. I don’t know where your hope lies, or if you could ever still have hope. I just know that if you don’t change, and I’ve seen no reason to believe you will, and if I still remain your friend, you’ll only keep hurting me, having no regard for me. A friend shouldn’t make me feel this way. I have to let go. You hurting me is doing neither of us any good. I’ve been a crutch to you; you’ve been a burden to me. I can’t take that burden anymore, and you shouldn’t have the crutch. Do something for yourself. I can’t be your friend if you keep falling the way you have been. I don’t want you to fall, but I can’t pick you up anymore. Only you can help you.


Prom ‘97...or Doing Things Right

My mother just gave me a bunch of her cocktail and formal dresses that she wore when she was young. Floor length dresses, usually with some beadwork, all really spectacular, unique formal dresses, and I thought, wow, these are really great, I’d love to wear these dresses, and then I thought, wait, I have nowhere to wear these dresses, and then I thought, wait, no one I know of would have any place to wear these dresses, these are dresses that look like they should be worn to award ceremonies in southern California and there’s nothing like that going on around here in Chicago and if there was, I’m sure I couldn’t afford to go to it. So then the thought struck me, like a sequin that caught the light and glared into my eye from the shoulder of a floor-length one-shoulder satin dress with matching stole: I could have a formal party. Host it in my living room. Decorate the whole place. Well, then, since it was mid-May and and I couldn’t get a limo rented for a friend’s birthday because they were being used by a bunch of sleazy seventeen-year-olds wasting their parents’ money, it occurred to me that ten years ago this year I went to my own prom, and then the vision struck me with even more clarity. I was to have a prom party.
Prom ‘97, it was, I had to decorate and make it prom, except more fun, because we’re older now and probably have a better idea of how to actually have fun. So, where to start, where to start. Needed streamers, hanging down from door frame to floor in every door way. Needed lighting... Got my white christmas lights out from storage in the basement and strung lights all around my living room and dining room, on the tables, on the walls. Needed balloons, so I got 75 large silver balloons, blew them all up and let them cover the floor. Bought a crystal punch bowl, made a punch that would force people to eventually have fun, got a ton of food for the buffet, sprinkled glitter and streamers and confetti all over the place, even got a disco ball.
Needed to make favors, remember at formal dances you’d get little booklets with the name of the prom and the location and the theme song and the class president? Well, had to make those, and they should match the invitations, and come to think of it, there’s usually a photographer with a backdrop in the corner of the dance floor so you could get your portrait taken... Hmmm... I’d have to borrow the grey portrait backdrop my sister made by painting over one of those maps they have in elementary schools, that roll down over the chalkboard like a projection screen and put it in one of the bedrooms so my friends could have their portrait taken.
And my friend Brian was even coming into town for this party, because in high school nine years ago I asked him to prom and he turned me down and we’ve always sworn that if we could do it over again, we’d go together. So I thought I’d surprise him, and since I sing I got my four-track recorder out and taped my voice over a slow George Michael song, kissing a fool, because we were both dorks in high school and both loved George Michael, and anyway, I sang over this song and was going to have us dance to it together.
So people start showing up for my party, and I’m playing big band and swing music, Frank Sinatra, Tony Bennett, Harry Connick Jr., The Glenn Miller Orchestra, because you see, I have taste now and wouldn’t play the kind of crap you’d hear at say, your prom or a wedding, like “When a Man Loves a Woman” by Michael Bolton or “At This Moment” by Billy Vera and the Beaters or “Truly” by Lionel Ritchie or Mariah Carey or Whitney Houston or Natalie Cole without her dead dad’s voice in the background. And people are complimenting me on my punch, that it tastes really good, but I don’t dare tell them that it’s Absolut vodka and Absolut citron and rum and banana liqueur and a little whiskey and some left over red wine from my last party, all with a splash of orange juice and Ne-Hi fruit punch soda. And Scott is already starting to spill his drink on the floor and bump into people and it’s only like eight o’clock so I’m thinking, this is going to be a good party.
And then Helen comes in with Steve, her fiancee, and she’s got a new eyebrow ring, and I say, wow, did that hurt, and she said no, it hurt more to look in the mirror and see this big metal circle piercing through the flesh above my eyebrow, but no, when I got it done it didn’t hurt at all. And minutes later I hear my roommate talking to her, saying that there’s a theory among psychologists and such that if someone gets into multiple piercings or piercings in unconventional places or tattoos, that’s a sign that they were abused when they were a child. So my roommate is asking Helen, “So, were you abused as a child?”, and I try to cut in to halt this social faux pas, and Helen responds with “No, not really.” So I think, okay, I need to know what that means, so I ask, “What do you mean, not really?” and she answers, “Well, my parents were Columbian and I went to a Catholic school. It’s a wonder I’m not a serial killer.” And I think, okay, maybe Helen’s fiancee won’t try to start a fight with my roommate after all, maybe things are actually going to be okay.
And more people start showing up, Rachel strolls in wearing her old prom dress, and her and her friend made wrist corsages out of broccoli and spinach leaves. And Dave shows up, that sweet thing, with corsages that match a few of my dresses for me, and I decide to change into dress number two, I mean, there are only so many occasions where I’d have the chance to wear more than one formal dress to a function, I might as well take advantage of it, and everyone seems to be having a grand ol’ time, and we start taking pictures and then I decide that Brian, the prom date that never was, should dance with me.
So I turn off all the Christmas lights so that all that’s going is the disco ball and I play this goofy George Michael song and start dancing with Brian, and he’s laughing hysterically that I remembered that he liked George Michael all those years ago and that I actually sung over this song, and we’re dancing together, and then the says, “Oh, wait a minute. If this is supposed to be prom, I better act like I did at prom,” and then he pushed me away and acted all stiff and started doing the box step and stepping on my feet, and it just made me laugh harder and harder.
And then I decided I needed to have everyone vote for a king and queen of prom, so everyone whispered in my ear who they thought should win, and I picked two women and two men so it wouldn’t be such an elitist thing, and one of the kings won only because he got nearly as many votes for queen as he did for king. So when I tallied it all up in my very drunk head, all while wearing dress number four, I picked up the Burger King crowns I picked up last week just for this occasion and crowned the winners, and told everyone we should all dance.
So by the end of the evening we changed the music in the stereo so we were listening to the Bee Gees and Abba and Duran Duran and old early eighties crap that we could just thrash around to, and we were singing to all the songs and jumping around, and it was two in the morning, but we didn’t care, because we were all at prom and having a perfectly good time.
And I thought about Brian dancing the box step and stepping on my feet, acting stiff and scared because the high school prom was a time for awkwardness and uncomfortableness, and I thought, yeah, we really are more comfortable now. Everyone should have a prom when they’re old enough to enjoy it.


stalker

And she got out of her car, walked across her driveway, and walked up the stairs to her porch, trying to enjoy her solitude, trying not to remember that he followed her once again. She thought she was free of him; she thought he moved on with his life and that she would not have to see his face again.
Why did he have to call her, on this one particular day, years later, while she was at work? Maybe if she could have been suspecting it, she might have been braced for it. But then again, she didn’t want to think about it: she was happy that she was finally starting to feel as if she had control of her life again.
It had been so many years, why would she have expected him to follow her again? Didn’t she make it clear years ago that she didn’t want him waiting outside her house in his car anymore, that she didn’t want to receive the hang-up calls at three in the morning anymore? Or the calls in the middle of the night, when he’d stay on the line, when she could tell that he was high, and he’d profess his love to her? Or the letters, or the threats? No, the police couldn’t do anything until he took action, when it was too late. Why did he come back? Why couldn’t he leave her alone? Why couldn’t it be illegal for someone to fill her with fear for years, to make her dread being in her house alone, to make her wonder if her feeling that she was being followed wasn’t real?
All these thoughts rushed through her head as she sat on her front porch swing, opening her mail. One bill, one piece of junk mail, one survey.
It was only a phone call, she had to keep thinking to herself. He may never call again. She had no idea where he was even calling from. For all she knew, he could have been on the other side of the country. It was only a phone call.
And then everything started to go wrong in her mind again, the bushes around the corner of her house were rustling a little too loud, there were too many cars that sounded like they were stopping near her house. Her own breathing even scared her.
I could go into the house, she thought, but she knew that she could be filled with fear there, too. Would the phone ring? Would there be a knock on the door? Or would he even bother with a knock, would he just break a window, let himself in, cut the phone lines so she wouldn’t stand a chance?
No, she knew better. She knew she had to stay outside, that she couldn’t let this fear take a hold of her again. And so she sat.
She looked at her phone bill again.
She heard the creak of the porch swing.
She swore she heard someone else breathing.
No, she wouldn’t look up from her bill, because she knew no one was there.
Then he spoke.
“Hi.”
She looked up. He was standing right at the base of her stairs, not six feet away from her.
“What are you doing on my property?”
“Oh, come on, you used to not hate me so much.” He lit a cigarette, a marlboro red, with a match. “So, why wouldn’t you take my call today?”
“Why would I? What do I have to say to you?”
“You’re really making a bigger deal out of this than it is,” he said, then took a drag. She watched the smoke come out of his mouth as he spoke. “We used to have it good.”
She got up, and walked toward him. She was surprised; in her own mind she never thought she’d actually be able to walk closer to him, she always thought she’d be running away. She stood at the top of the stairs.
“Can I have a smoke?”
“Sure,” he said, and he reached up to hand her the fire stick. She reached out for the matches.
“I’ll light it.”
She put the match to the end of the paper and leaves, watched it turn orange. She didn’t want this cigarette. She needed to look more calm. Calm. Be calm.
She remained at the top of the stairs, and he stood only six stairs below her. She sat at the top stair.
“You really think we ever got along?”
“Sure. I mean, I don’t know how you got in your head -”
“Do you think I enjoyed finding your car outside my house all the time? Did I enjoy seeing you at the same bars I was at, watching me and my friends, like you were recording their faces into your memory forever? Do you think I liked you coming to bother me when I was working at the store? Do you -”
“I was.”
She paused. “You were what?”
“I was logging everyone you were with into my head.”
She sat silent.
“At the bars - I remember every face. I remember every one of them. I had to, you see, I had to know who was trying to take you away. I needed to know who they were.”
She sat still, she couldn’t blink, she stared at him, it was just as she was afraid it would be.
And all these years she begged him to stop, but nothing changed.
She couldn’t take it all anymore.
She put out her right hand, not knowing exactly what she’d do if she held his hand. He put his left hand in hers.
“You know,” she said, then paused for a drag of the red fire, “This state would consider what you did to me years ago stalking.”
She held his hand tighter, holding his fingers together. She could feel her lungs moving her up and down. He didn’t even hear her; he was fixated on looking at his hand in hers, until she caught his eyes with her own and then they stared, past the iris, the pupil, until they burned holes into each other’s heads with their stare.
“And you know,” she said, as she lifted her cigarette, “I do too.”
Then she quickly moved the cigarette toward their hands together, and put it out in the top of his hand.
He screamed. Grabbed his hand. Bent over. Pressed harder. Swore. Yelled.
She stood. Her voice suddenly changed.
“Now, I’m going to say this once, and I won’t say it again. I want you off my property. I want you out of my life. I swear to God, if you come within fifty feet of me or anything related to me or anything the belongs to me, I’ll get a court order, I’ll get a gun, I’ll do whatever it takes to keep you away forever.”
“Now go.”
He held his left hand with his right, the fingers on his right hand purple from the pressure he was using on the open sore. He moaned while she spoke. She stood at the top of the stairs looking down on him. He slowly walked away.
She thought for a moment she had truly taken her life back. She looked down. Clenched in the fist in her left hand was the cigarette she just put out.



Copyright Janet Kuypers. All rights reserved. No material may be reprinted without express permission.


This page has been by more than visitors