Tag Archives | Everything Else

The Gemini in my Eye: My Mostly Not Crazy Split Personality

GEMINI_persephonespath_SmallI was born a Gemini.

I find that detail very fitting, which in turn I find ironic, considering I don’t believe one ounce in the zodiac and the supposed personality traits associated with being born under a certain sign. I don’t even really know what the traits of a Gemini are, but what I do know is that Gemini is the constellation depicting twins. I have always felt a little like there are at least two people inside me.

Not in a Sibyl sort of way, but in a perfectly sane, lovely, quirky, and infuriating way.

I think one of the reasons I’ve never really felt like a conservative, or a liberal politically is that I’ve always had both a logical side and a creative side. Not that one side of the political camp has exclusive rights on one way of thinking, but generalities undeniably exist that separate one side from the other. I don’t believe that logic and creativity are necessarily at odds with each other. The greatest scientists and engineers the world has known have had both of these qualities. I am not a great scientific thinker, but I have always found it easy to understand both a cold, reason-based argument, and an emotional, passion-based one, even when they conflict with each other. Note I said understand, not necessarily agree with.

My first name is Mary and I’ve often heard the rhyme “Mary, Mary, quite contrary” directed at me. As you would expect, hearing it makes me chafe and then prove them right when I yell out “No I’m not!” Despite my protestations, I can see the truth in it, and I think I finally understand why. I find it very easy to understand multiple perspectives and points of view. Left, right, conservative, liberal, crazy, boring… To an extent, I think I can easily see from another’s eyes. I don’t necessarily support or internalize all perspectives, and sometimes I’ll defend positions I don’t support, which probably confuses people, and then makes them think I do support a position I don’t support, thus making people think I’m something that I’m not. Or just appear wishy-washy. Or alternatively, close-minded (another time for that discussion, which I find “amusing”).

Sigh… I’m confusing myself a little, so I feel your pain. This blog is best read very quickly.

Ultimately, I think my internal Gemini is the source of madness for me and people who know me, but I also know I wouldn’t have it any other way (that’s the strong-minded, extroverted twin speaking now instead of the wall-flower twin). This seemingly useless ability is what might make me a good fiction writer some day. The twins have allowed us (yeah, I caught that “us” too) to seek knowledge from a wide swath of topics we find fascinating, and given us the desire to debate those topics with others (sometimes they debate these topics with themselves!), and to truly understand other perspectives I alone might not hold. That is essential to developing good characters, and conflict. A good writer allows the characters to tell their stories, rather than inject herself falsely into their minds.

There’s a frustrating down side. Sometimes having this “split personality,” with a healthy love of discussion and debate has made me feel isolated. I’ve never really felt like I think in the same way as most other people I know. Unconventional is the nice way to put it. I’ve always been able to think about things from a different angle. I’m not unique in that way among humans. I doubt I’m even unique among people I do know. But I have never connected with anyone who sees the world quite like I do.

Except for maybe my “twin.”

 

 

Comments { 3 }

Grading Myself as Blogger; Wimpy with a Side of Gutless

I haven’t quite figured out what this blog is, or more specifically, what type of blogger I want to – or should — be.

Some of you may know this is the third incarnation of my attempt to join the blogosphere.   Most of the meager volume of my earliest posts came from those sites.  For a time, I had two sites going simultaneously for reasons that really don’t matter.  I finally decided to consolidate here for a few reasons:

  • Running multiple blogs sucks
  • I like making new stuff
  • I felt like I was being a coward with the other sites

Regarding that last bullet, when I made Persephone’s Path, I did so knowing that using my PersephoneK pseudonym could lead people who know who I am in real life to learn my thoughts, controversial and mundane.  I had been using the name, or variations of it in various places like Twitter for a while.  A few people who know me follow me there, so I knew it was only a matter of time.  Prior to the presidential election, I made the calculated choice to post a link to my blog about about the proposed Gay Marriage Amendment to my Facebook page.  I felt like I had something important to say on the matter from a specific perspective I hadn’t really seen from others, and it was an important enough issue to me that I decided to take the chance.  Obviously, from then on, all hope for anonymity was lost.

I’m conflicted by having people who know me read these posts.

On the one hand, I would love if it opened more dialogue and discussion with people I already care about in my life, or maybe expanded my small circle of close friends to others who I only consider acquaintances.  But the converse result to sharing is the risk of alienating existing friends.  As much as I hate it, I deeply care about what others think of me.  Sometimes in life I move forward and express my thoughts despite that, leading some to believe I don’t care at all what the perception of me is, but the truth is, I care more than is probably healthy.  It consumes my thoughts daily.  I hate it, but its reality. And I know that fear (it’s really a fear of being rejected or thought of as stupid or ignorant) would lead me to censor my thoughts, and thus not be true to the spirit of this blog.

Persephone’s Path… I chose that name partly for the alliteration of my pseudonym, but mostly because it best expressed what I want this place to be.  I’m constantly tweaking my world view by learning new ideas, and throwing out old ones that don’t fit in with my values, don’t make sense to me any longer, or simply aren’t as good as newer ideas.  I don’t think I’m wishy-washy.  I’ll hold onto a belief that makes sense to me until something better replaces it, but the person I am today will not be who I am next year.  Who I was last year, or ten years ago, or especially twenty years ago, is not who I am now…  But I am most definitely on a lifelong journey informed by reason, science, and logic, and framed and adjusted by the knowledge and perspectives of others I meet along the way. 

For me, and I suspect for many writers, writing is therapy (and sometimes why we need therapy!).  But blogging is about connecting with other humans through written (or graphical) ideas.  Sharing and learning from each other.  If I simply wanted the catharsis of writing, I would merely keep a private journal on my nightstand.  I want to be heard and hear others.  I want dialogue.  But if I’m not expressing fully genuine ideas and emotions, the words are empty fabrications.  I don’t want you to waste your time with me, any more than I want to waste my time playing it safe. 

So far, I give myself a grade of a solid C.  And that is unfortunate.  I want to be able to lay my soul bare here, but I’m not sure if I ever will be able to.  I want to challenge myself and be challenged.  But I also don’t want to float in between two vibrant worlds, not really living in either.  That’s what I’m doing now as a blogger.  I guess it helps very few people actually read these posts, but that could change.  I both welcome possible change, and fear it.  Maybe that’s how it should be.

So, let me end by asking you to share your thoughts.  I want to know, would you risk real world relationships in order to deliver honest content, or would you censor yourself and hold back in certain areas you know will be sensitive points for those you care about? Please share!  Persephone’s Path is nothing without dialogue.

 

Cheers,

PersephoneK

Comments { 5 }

Better Angels, Triumphant

What can anyone say after a tragedy like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that is remotely adequate?  For me, there was almost so much to say that I had nothing at all to say.  Simply no words were sufficient.  Horrific might be the single best word, but even that grossly pales.  Last Friday, the nation glimpsed the worst of humanity, and we wept.

Inevitably following such an event, social and mainstream media, and everyone around the water cooler has been a-buzz with discussions about gun control (for and against), mental illness, the degradation of society, the loss of god in our culture/schools, and countless other proposed reasons to what’s “wrong with our society” and how to fix it, how to prevent such a terrible act from ever happening again. 

Instead, I find myself thinking over and over again about something else entirely.  I keep thinking that I feel lucky to be alive, in this country, in this point in time of human existence.  I keep thinking about how good life actually is right now, right here.

Our justified condemnation and outrage over an atrocity like children and teachers being murdered in the classroom tells me how far we have come as a species, a culture, and as a nation.  Our reflexive response tells us how rare an event this truly is, and how much we value the lives of children and the adults who want to protect them.  I’m sure as a result of what happened, our political leaders will rush to create new laws and limits on our freedom, and generally the people will support that reaction.  How could we not?  It’s to protect children, right?  Anyone speaking out against it risks being labeled insensitive, or stupid.   I do not intend for this to be a political discussion.  I think there are plenty of valid points on all sides of many of these debates.  From my perspective, creating new laws – at least immediately – is completely unnecessary, and is another nail in the coffin of liberty, and the reason for America’s existence.  Each one risks pushing our society backwards towards eventual despotism.   Knee-jerk responses to create more laws are unnecessary because by any reasonable standard, the world is getting better, partly as a result of increased liberty.  Often our emotional rush to action creates many more unintended consequences that are problematic (Department of Homeland Security, anyone??).  What I wish is before any decision is made about what actions to take is for us to take a collective breath and reflect on how wonderful our lives and society actually are.  

Recently I started reading the brilliant Steven Pinker’s “[easyazon-link asin=”B0052REUW0″ locale=”us”]The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined[/easyazon-link]”  The title is a nod to Abraham Lincoln’s beautiful sentiments in his First Inaugural Address in 1861.  Pinker’s book is thus far so extraordinary, that I recommend you stop reading this blog right now, and go read his book for yourself.  Pinker more eloquently states, with gobs (that’s the scientific term) of data, what I (and countless others before Pinker) have observed and believed about humanity for years: 

By almost every measurable standard, life is better now than it was in our past (recent and distant) for almost every human society, even the poorest among us.  And violence is undoubtedly on the decline. 

It’s sometimes difficult to believe those truths.  Some people willfully deny them despite there being ample evidence to the contrary.  Human society is more peaceful than it has ever been.  

Compared to the age of the earth and even compared to the time modern humans have walked on earth, our life spans are short (though getting longer all the time).  A generous one hundred years next to 200,000 is miniscule.  The blink of an eye.  We have an extremely difficult time comprehending times longer than a few decades, much less those on the scales such as these.  So, we get wrapped up in the here and now and compare something like what happened in Connecticut on Friday against our typical daily existence (which is usually quite peaceful, and relatively easy, especially in the west).  We are barraged daily by the media about the threat of terrorism, America’s homicide rate, and this atrocity and that one.  The news is littered with stories about murders, rapes, kidnappings, wars, and we think, what have humans descended to?  When will the violence end?  Surely, it wasn’t like this in the good ole’ days!  The truth is that more than ever before, humans are showing an ascendance of virtue.  We just have a natural tendency to remember the irregularities over the far more prolific prosaic experiences.

And the good ole’ days weren’t really that good after all.

Humans most certainly have a dark side.  Violence has always been a part of our species’ existence.  The capacity to commit violence has been evolving in us for millions of years along with other traits like competitiveness, ambition, empathy, compassion, and love. But consider this:  Only 2000 years ago, the greatest civilization in the world – the Roman Empire – regularly entertained themselves in great arenas by watching animals and humans rip other animals and humans to shreds in regular bloodbaths. This was their sport of choice. Gladiators were the Champions and heroes, the rock stars of their day.  People would spend an entire day eating, laughing, drinking while unbelievable carnage happened in front of them.  Today, in America, our bloodlust is channeled into the “violence” of football on Sunday afternoons, and into violent, but fictional, video games and movies. 

The Romans would have thought we are a weak society with those notions of violence.  They are welcome to that opinion.  But it is notable to consider how far we’ve come.  The Romans – the epitome of advanced and civilized society for their day – would have thought nothing of a game of football that resulted in mass homicide for one or both sides.  Simply for entertainment.

We have progressed.  We continue to do so.

We are fooling ourselves if we believe violence will evolve out of us anytime soon, (millions of years from now, perhaps) if ever. I’m often frustrated when people talk about the decline of our “culture.”  What this usually means is the loss of morality defined by religion.  Or the loss of some sort of repressed “Leave it to Beaver” style existence of post World War II America.  The fact is the murder of children, adults, sacrificial animals, is repeated over and over again within the bible (particularly the old Testament), and other holy books.  Violence was a far more acceptable and expected in everyday life for our ancestors than it is for us today.  Thankfully, we are moral in spite of some of the lessons taken from our holy books.  We are able to rationalize away, modify, or outright ignore those terrible stories of our religions’ (while retaining our religious beliefs) because we know that human suffering – especially the suffering of children — is bad.  

Through our intellect, capacity for reason, and the power of civilization (which despite popular belief to the contrary is the driving force of our mundane, peaceful lives), most of us are able to suppress the violent tendencies of our nature, ignore the casual and prolific violence of most of our history and our myths, and even decry with outrage when those tendencies are expressed in a rare event like Sandy Hook.  The better angels of our nature are far more prevalent today than they ever have been in our history as a species.  The atrocity of Friday, December 14, 2012 should not propel us to take emotional, and unnecessary actions that could be a step backwards from the progress of freedom and liberty that have helped bring those angels out to play far more than ever before.  At least not right now.  Not in the immediate wake of destruction when emotions are running high, and our rational sides are suppressed.  

We should mourn the loss of life.  We should remember them and cry over the lives shortened by the unspeakable evil that struck down so many before their lives had even really begun.  We should honor the heroic efforts of the protectors who died trying to save them.  We should support the families and friends of those lost.  We should try to figure out if anything reasonable can prevent another terrible day like that one, and talk about it without demonizing each other.  We should continue to progress and strive to eradicate violence from our nature, despite it being a fool’s errand.

But most of all, we should remember that life is precious.  Life is short.  Life is beautiful.  And this kind of evil is not who most of us are.  Not anymore.

 

Peace,

PersephoneK

[easyazon-image align=”none” asin=”B0052REUW0″ locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51De3EFfS1L._SL160_.jpg” width=”105″]
Comments { 2 }

My Plea to Anyone Voting “Yes”: A Libertarian Marriage Amendment Perspective

[easyazon-image align=”left” asin=”B000EUKR2C” locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41RZVN56TAL._SL160_.jpg” width=”100″]On Election Day this year, Minnesotans – like myself — will vote on whether or not to add a ban of gay marriage to the state’s constitution.  This is an open letter to anyone planning on, or considering, voting “Yes”, as in, planning on voting to add the amendment to the constitution and thus ban gay marriage by law.  Even if you’ve made up your mind, I implore you to let me bend your ear (or eyes), and I promise in return to respect your choice, whatever it may be.  It can never hurt to have another perspective.  

Let me say upfront, I understand where you’re coming from.  Fifteen years ago or so, I would have absolutely voted “yes.”  My position at that time was largely informed by my religious values.  I’m not here to argue those views (if you share them) because they are unarguable.  If you hold certain religious beliefs, you hold those beliefs.   Nothing I can say here would change that, nor do I wish to try.  The debate on the merits of religion is not relevant to this issue, despite it being entwined with the issue in the media.

What is relevant is how you regard freedom, and the covenant We the People have with our government as expressed in the US Constitution.

You may say this amendment merely impacts a state constitution, but all state constitutions must adhere to the US Constitution as the ultimate law of the land.  If you read the US Constitution, you’ll note that all of the Amendments, except for the 19th (Prohibition of Alcohol), preserve the rights of the people, not limit them.  That one amendment limiting freedoms was repealed soon after it was enacted.  It didn’t work.

This is a powerful concept:  Laws limit freedoms; Constitutions preserve them. 

The US Constitution was designed so that no law could be created that limits freedoms (of the majority and the minority alike) preserved within it.  I am not going to argue that gay marriage is protected in the Constitution.  It’s not.  Not directly.  But the Founders very carefully crafted the original Bill of Rights with the intent of enabling individuals to pursue their own individual happiness without stepping on the rights of others to do the same.  That is the primary purpose of the Constitution.  

I’ll say it again in another way.  The Constitution is there to ensure you can do anything you want – anything – so long as you do not infringe on another person’s right to do the same.  

This new amendment if enacted, clearly limits the rights of certain individuals to pursue their own happiness.  This amendment if not enacted, does no such thing to any individual.  I take it as a very serious matter any law that restricts freedom for any reason.  You can disagree with a behavior and not require that it be set into law.  The creation of any law – much less one set in a constitution – should be undertaken with extreme caution, and thoughtful reason, and not merely on the basis of trying to mold the world into a single group or individual’s ideal.  We are all doomed to having our freedoms limited if we misunderstand that truth.

True freedom is messy.  True freedom requires that we live among people who do not hold our values.  True freedom requires that we work together, if not to live in harmony, then to at least leave each other alone.  Each law we add to the books tears down the fabric of true, voluntary (free) society a little more.  Would you rather your neighbor adopted your beliefs because they are beliefs worth having or because they are required by law to do so?

Another argument for voting “no” is more esoteric.  The discussion always turns to the idea that those who are pro-gay marriage want to “redefine” marriage.  The problem is that marriage has had vastly different definitions during our relatively short time as a country, much less throughout all our existence as social creatures.  If you have the time, I’d encourage you to read a fascinating book called [easyazon-link asin=”B000EUKR2C” locale=”us”]Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage[/easyazon-link] by Stephanie Coontz.  It is quite dense, but it is immensely thorough in its study of the history of marriage throughout human history, from ancient cultures, to our own.  One thing is certain: Marriage has never had a consistent definition.  

Marriage has been through many upheavals and re-definitions throughout its existence.  For example, marriage licenses required by states and other governments are a recent phenomenon.   Until very recently, the state had no business in “defining” marriage.  That was done by religious institutions and local custom.   In some cultures, a couple merely had to say “we’re married” for it to be binding.  Just as easily, they could say “I divorce you.”  The point being that marriage was a contract between individuals.  Some hold it as a religious sacrament, and that is fine.  Nothing prohibits you from getting married in a church, and having that recognized by God without getting a “legal” marriage certificate.  True, there are many “benefits” bestowed upon married couples in today’s law crazy world.  The stakes are high for deciding who is married.  I would solve that by saying the state should have nothing to do with deciding anything about marriage.  Leave that to We the People.  Leave that to your churches, mosques, and synagogues.  Leave that to you and your partner (gay or straight) to decide what commitment you want to have to each other and how you want that defined.   

Laws never succeed in changing behaviors as much as social pressure and good ideas do.  True democracy comes from the bottom up – from us – not from the top down via mandate.  Prohibiting alcohol did not eradicate its use, and alcohol abuse has arguably done much more to destroy the fabric of society and family than gay marriage could ever dream of doing.  I am not asking you to give up your beliefs about gay marriage.  As I said when I began this essay, I once believed as you do.  I understand why you hold those beliefs and do not wish to demonize them despite having significantly changed my own beliefs on the topic.  But I implore you to not be part of setting something in near stone because it does not conform to how you believe your life should be lived. 

The beautiful thing about this country and the ideals upon which it was founded is that people with vastly differing opinions and beliefs about how life should be rightly lived can literally live side by side in peace.  Thomas Jefferson was speaking of religious tolerance when he said the following, but I think it equally applies to the idea of marriage:

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”  

The only way to ensure that one day your own ideals won’t be made illegal is to preserve the rights of others to be different — even if you don’t agree with their lifestyle — as long as they do not hurt you, take your property, or infringe upon your own rights to purse Life, Liberty, and Happiness.  Voting “Yes” on this Amendment is about far more than gay marriage or marriage in general.  Voting “yes” sets us down the path to giving up on this Great American Experiment and deeming it a failure.  

That is the ultimate tragedy. 

I doubt I have convinced you to change your vote, but I hope I have at least given you something to consider.  Thanks for reading.  Vote “No!”

Cheers,

PersephoneK

Comments { 4 }

SCOTUS Ruling on ObamaCare Sad Day for Liberty

Shock and sadness. 

Those are the raw emotions that have been cycling through my body for the past several minutes after learning of the Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) ruling over ObamaCare (or the Affordable Care Act, ACA).  I did not see this coming.  I fully expected, naively so it would seem, for this law to be overturned, and ruled unconstitutional.

I was wrong. 

More surprisingly, conservative Justice Roberts, of all Justices, weighed in as the swing vote.  BAM!  Knockout punch.  Down for the count.

For me, this decision was never (mostly) about Americans’ rights to medical care.  Healthcare and access to insurance are complex issues in my mind, and I’m not completely sure where I fall on the morality side of all points of the issue.  I have been a major flip-flopper over the past decade.  I’ll save that discussion for another time perhaps. 

The ObamaCare ruling has always been about the amount of power We The People want our federal (and really any level of) government to hold over us. 

Without having yet had the chance to read the full opinion (so I reserve the right to modify this position later), it is my understanding that the primary basis SCOTUS used in upholding the “individual mandate” portion of the law, which essentially requires everyone to purchase health insurance, is that they deemed it a “tax” as opposed to a fee.  This effectively removed the Commerce Clause from the equation, in their minds.  Once that was done, SCOTUS ruled that since Congress has the constitutional power to implement taxes on the people, it has the power to implement the individual mandate portion of the law.  The individual mandate portion of the law was the glue holding everything together.  If they’d struck it down, the entire law likely would have been thrown out.  They kept it in, so the law stays too.  Justice Roberts did make the point to say that the decision does not comment on the wisdom of the law, but rather on its constitutionality. 

Fine.  Done.  Not good.

I feel SCOTUS took the easy off-ramp on this one.  Once they removed the Commerce Clause from the argument, this was an easy victory for the President.  Of course Congress has the power to tax (how much or whether or not they should, is a completely different discussion also for another time), but I will concede, this is one of its powers. 

In my opinion, the individual mandate is not a tax.  It is an automatic “opt-in” program (unless my state opts-out??? but we’ll put a pin in that for now), with a penalty assessed to “opt-out.”  Either way, I pay.  Just for having been born in this country, I must pay for something that the government has no business in controlling in the first place.  I pay either for myself, or for others, or both of us.  I pay for something that should be left up to the marketplace.

Oops.  I said I wasn’t going to get into the broader healthcare vs. government discussion, but here I am. It’s all so intertwined.  While I would love to live in a world where money is never a consideration to whether or not someone receives the best medical care, I don’t. We don’t.  We never will.  It is a utopian dream that is impossible to realize.  Everything has a price.  Everything is paid for in some way.  Socialism in its various forms never works because it denies the basic laws of economics.  It is what we (some of us) want the world to be, not what it is.  When I was seven, I wished endlessly for the Millennium Falcon to appear on my front lawn, but it never did.  No matter how much I wanted it to be true, it just wasn’t possible.

The next best thing we have in Human society to an impossible Utopia is the Free Market system of Capitalism, and the presumption that “all men are created equal… endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights… that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”  It’s not perfect.  It’s sometimes not pretty.  But by using the power of the markets, and the rule of law to protect individual liberty, we allow individuals to decide what is best for themselves, provided they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same. 

Today, President Obama said this in his victory response: “I did it because I believed it was good for the American people.”  Thank you Mr. President, but I do not need you to decide what is good for me.  I need you to execute the laws of the land, and uphold the ideals for which this country was founded through centuries of blood, sweat and tears, and framed so perfectly the beautiful sentence I cited above from the Declaration of Independence.  That is what I want from you.  I want nothing else.  

Unfortunately, now that ObamaCare has been vindicated by the highest court in the land – a decision I respectfully, but strongly disagree with – I fear that this president, those who follow, and Congress will feel emboldened to even more vigorously impose their wills upon us, strip us of more freedoms, all in the name of doing me “good” as if I were a child – or a small dog.  This is a path I’m terrified of traversing.  Government, and government power grows ever larger.  It seems to be a one way directional machine.  The more we allow this to happen, the more complicity we are in our eventual total loss of freedom.  It’s not without precedent.  After all, that is how this nation came to exist in the first place.  Power corrupts; Absolute power corrupts absolutely.  We’re not quite there, but it’s only a matter of time before history repeats itself.

Cheers,

PersephoneK

Comments { 0 }

Persephone’s Path Under Redesign

My apologies as I tweak the look and feel of the site.  I haven’t quite settled on how I want this thing to look.

Comments { 0 }