Is "luxury" a bad word?

The early morning drive to school is tough for my daughter and me, but we have fortunately discovered that the morning news sparks her inquisitiveness and leads to some of our best conversations.

Yesterday morning we heard this story. In Beigjing, officials are cracking down on the advertising of luxury, banning certain words and images from billboards and other ads. My daughter, who dreams of visiting China, piped up,
"What's going on in China? What are they doing there?"
"Well, it sounds like they're banning the advertising of luxury," I respond.
"What's that word, 'luxury?'"
So, the remainder of the ride we talked about the difference between necessity and luxury. Our morning commute is long enough that she had a fairly firm grasp of the concepts by the time we reached her school.

That afternoon, we stopped by my parents' house, and while Aliyah snacked on peanut butter crackers I told my mom that Aliyah learned a new vocabulary word that morning. I briefly summarized the conversations, and my mom said,
"Well, let's see how well you remember, Aliyah. I'll quiz you. Is visiting grandma's house a necessity or a luxury?"
"It's a necessity."
"Very good!" Big hug and a kiss, "And what about homework? Necessity or luxury?"
"Luxury."
"Yes! You understand the words perfectly."

At this point, being the good mother that I am, I rolled my eyes and and questioned the wisdom of ever bringing my daughter back there again.

But maybe they had a point. In my mind, I played out a couple of scenarios. What if her attitude were reversed? Homework is a necessity and visiting grandma is a luxury. Necessity must always come before luxury, so she works hard at achieving the best grades and, eventually, the best-paying job, the most successful business, achieve, achieve, achieve. work, work, work, and when you have leftover time, you can indulge in a few (but only a few, everything in moderation) luxuries like visiting grandma, playing with friends, traveling to China. My mind and spirit are exhausted just thinking about it.

Then I play out the scenario with her answers. Yes, there's the homework, but first, take care of the necessity of visiting grandma, laughing with Papa, digging in the fresh dirt in the garden, riding bikes. Yes, studying this field would have more career potential, but studying the subject where her passion lies is necessary first. Investing time there could lead to a great business opportunity, but China must be visited first.

What if our hearts' desires and longings were the necessities, and we questioned all those things that the culture and authorities try to convince us are a must? What if we didn't blindly accept every time we heard, "You need to..." "You have to...." "You must..."

What if we simply said, "no," and instead chose for ourselves what is necessary and what is luxury? What if we didn't feel the need to justify, explain, or defend our choices to those whose necessity and luxury lists are different from ours? What if we didn't question their lists?

My latest necessity? Summit Mount Elbert.

What Christians misunderstand about Freethinkers and what Freethinkers misunderstand about Christians

Over 50 people packed into the back room of Perkins for the evening's discussion. Armed only with pie an coffee, Christians, atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, and even one or two Wiccans, settled in for an evening of understanding one another. Probably the biggest surprise of the evening was that we actually did.

Fred, the ever brave moderator, kicked off the evening by inviting a couple of testimonies. The first woman shared the story of how she became an atheist. Raised in a Catholic home, she converted to Methodism in college and eventually teamed with her husband to lead a campus ministry. Great personal tragedy led to a struggle with God, which eventually led to questioning the existence of God. She said this was just the starting point, and it was through a long process of searching, questioning, and rationalizing that she finally concluded that she no longer believed in God.

The second testimony sounded like the carbon copy of the first. This young woman was not raised in a religious home, and she made many very unhealthy life choices that led her to a life situation that almost destroyed her. Through the influence of her grandmother and some powerful sermons, she came to understand God's love and said that her faith has kept her from going back down the road of a destructive lifestyle.

To then warm up the crowd for discussion, Fred showed the following 3 clips, allowing a few minutes reaction from the crowd after each:

What we all share in common was already suggesting itself as most people in both groups laughed at the first clip and were drawn to Campolo's passion for feeding the hungry and helping the poor. We were able to begin the discussion of the stereotypes we tend to assume about one another and how, though some may fit the description, the vocal minority often distorts the reality of most.

We were able to peacefully assemble three lists that evening. First:

What do Christians misunderstand about atheists and other non-believers?

1. They do not know that many atheists have a Christian background.

2. They equate atheism with Paganism or Satanism.

3. They say that atheists are amoral or have nothing on which to base morality.

4. They believe that atheists are deficient and need to be saved.

5. They view atheists as unhappy and/or angry.

6. They pity them.

7. Many Christians make these assumptions while admitting they don't even know any atheists.

What do atheists and other non-believers misunderstand about Christians?

1. They think all Christians are Bible thumpers.

2. They think Christians are ignorant and incapable of thinking critically.

3. They think that everyone who claims to be a Christian follows the teachings of Christ.

The longest list of the evening, though was:

What do we have in common?

1. Love

2. Dignity of the individual

3. Humor

4. Integrity

5. Morality

6. Desire for companionship

7. Compassion

8. Freedom

9. Curiosity

10. Diversity

11. Creativity

12. Misunderstood

13. Sex

14. Fear

15. Blood

We ended the evening with a brief presentation of 10 Things Christians and Atheists Can and Must Agree On, as delivered by thoughtful blogger David Wong.

So, all an all, an enlightening and civil evening. But then, it's only the first. Rumor has it that Fred and Cole, the leaders of this newly fused group, have at least 5 more discussion nights planned. It's not too late to join the fun. Go to the meetup site for the latest information and to sign up.

Brian Greene tells us everything may not be all there is

What's it like to stand on the edge, looking beyond known reality to where we might be going next?

It is a life full of uncertainty, anxiety, and discomfort, says Brian Greene, theoretical physicist and author of best-selling book, "The Elegant Universe," "The Fabric of the Cosmos," and newly released "The Hidden Reality."

Yes, that's right. I used "theorectical physicist," and "best-selling" in the same sentence, which is a little like a movie about social networking winning an Oscar for best musical score. It's an unexpected and yet intriguing combination.

Unity on the Plaza was filled to capacity and then some Thursday night for the first speaker of the year in the Linda Hall Library series based on the theme "innovation," and it wasn't just all the geeks of Kansas City congregating. Children, science teachers, musicians, college students, techies, and the intellectually curious sat in rapt attention as Greene managed to weave stories of his children, pictures of ants on a telephone cable, and theories of muliple universes with such mastery that the theories of complex physics were within the grasp of even those who had never passed Calculus.

Before launching into string theory (read the book because I'm not even going to attempt a summary of his summary here) and the seemingly contradictory concept of repulsive gravity, Greene tossed out the provocative idea that, "what we thought was everything may only be a small part of everything."

In fact, Greene opened our minds to so many far-reaching theories that by the time, toward the latter end of his presentation, that he informed us that there may be as many as 10 physical dimensions, we were all actually willing to accept it. "Well, of course there are, Brian," I could hear our collective brains conceding, "how else could you explain this wild, wacky universe, um, multiverse." (The very literary among you might recall that a really smart mathmetician/monk posed a similar idea over 100 years ago in "Flatland").

Really, at times it felt like I had jumped onto a roller coaster that took off before I had time to engage the protective shoulder harness. We raced up and down the concepts of space, energy, time and origins. Our imaginations spun furiously under us, and at times I was barely holding on with my fingertips. It was such fun that I didn't want the ride to end, but the pace was so frantic and the turns so sharp that I was constantly afraid of falling off.

And then it ended, just like that. After an hour and a half of cramming my mind with the infintely large and the inconceivably small, I walked out into the cool night, and my only thought was, "well, here I am. I guess it's time to go home now."

At home, I kissed my little girl good-night, snuggled into the warm embrace of my love, and dreamed of the everything beyond the everything, in which my spirit found great comfort. Why? This I can explain no more than I could explain why there are 10^500 possible shapes to the other 7 dimensions. It just is.

Oklahoma Mayor thinks guns belong in school

When buying school supplies next fall, be sure to add a Colt revolver to the list.

Nathan Bates, the mayor of Stillwater, Oklahoma, the town that hosts Oklahoma State University, wants to lift the ban on concealed weapons on college campuses across the state. After all, he reasons, students are probably already carrying concealed weapons anyway. Lifting the ban would remove the consequences from those who are caught.

He also boasts that if a malicious shooter arrives on campus, students with guns could respond more quickly than the police.

Oh, did I mention that Bates himself is a student at OSU? Yep.

As an educator, the thought of concealed weapons allowed on a campus is a little frightening. More than once I’ve had to dismiss a student from class, and quite often they’re not too happy with me. There have been times when I was a little nervous about the student’s emotional reaction. My dean is adement about ensuring our personal safety and encourages us all to take precautions. I’ve been cautious, but feel confident and safe in the classroom. This would completely change if concealed weapons were allowed.

Is it possible that one of my student’s has a concealed weapon? Possible, yes, but not likely. Although many may have weapons at home, they know that if they are caught with a weapon on campus the consequences are serious enough that it’s not worth it. If they were allowed to bring weapons to school, many would, and I wouldn’t feel safe teaching and managing my class. I’m not alone in saying I would never teach on a campus that allowed concealed weapons.

I also shudder to think about how the few incidents of students fighting in the hall (not common, but still a reality) would have escalated quickly had weapons been involved.

But what about the idea of protecting the self and others if a shooter arrives on campus? It’s not that simple. Look at the recent shooting in Tucson, Arizona that injured 19 people including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. The shooting happened in a crowded area, and Arizona allows the carrying of concealed weapons, so where were all the weapons of protection? Where were the heroes? Those not present boast that had they been there they would have taken out the gunman, but the truth is, none of us knows how we will react in a given situation until we are in it. I don’t believe that the residents of Arizona are any more cowardly than the rest of the country’s population.

Although they garner huge publicity, the incidents of shooters on a campus is relatively low. Do we really want to increase the risk? There’s the falsity of the idea that there are always, or usually, good guys and bad guys. For the most part we are all just humans who sometimes react, overreact, or underreact. Add concealed weapons to a college campus, a place teeming with young people in high stress, competitive situations, often suffering from lack of sleep, and you’re setting the stage for disaster.

There’s a reason OSU school officials oppose the legislation. Maybe Bates should listen to those whose business it is, and has been for many years, to promote a safe, effective learning environment.

The cost of our cheapness

Last Friday, in a quest for a tortilla press (I was later informed that real Guatemalan women use their hands, not fancy gadgets, but since I’m Puerto Rican, tortillas do not run in my blood the way red beans and rice do, so I need a fancy gadget, so there) I trudged through the snow to the local kitchenware store.

Not too far into my jaunt, something struck me as rather odd. Though the snow on the sidewalk was too deep to detect any signs of said sidewalk- in some places I sunk down knee deep- the street was perfectly clear. The only other pedestrians I passed were those forced to brave the drifts to catch their bus.

Cars zoomed past as I clumsily negotiated the icy sludge. If there was ever a doubt that we cater to motorized vehicles over foot power, this illustration pulverized them.

But clearing the public sidewalks would take immense amounts of money, and we don’t even have a sufficient budget for plowing the streets. Yeah, I get that. We have to save money where we can. Other ways we choose to save money include:

1. Roads devoid of bike lanes. Even new roads in this city do not include a lane for bikes. After all, not that many people bicycle (maybe because they fear being sideswiped by rude, careless motorists?)

2. Highly processed food. Michael Pollan outlines in his book “Ominvore’s Dilemma” the attraction of the cheap crop of inedible corn that creeps into most of the processed food we consume. Sure the preponderance of high fructose corn syrup contributes to painful, debilitating diseases such as diabetes, obesity, and heart failure, that are killing Americans by the millions, but it’s cheap.

3. $0.79/lb chicken breast and $0.89/lb beef. Ever wonder how you could possibly raise a chicken or a cow for this measly amount of money? You don’t want to know. Really. But it’s already hard enough for struggling Americans to feed their families, especially in this economy. Most can’t afford to buy meat at the prices necessary for sustainable farming. But here’s a well guarded secret: we don’t actually need meat at every meal. We don’t even need it once a day. In fact, our over-meat consumption also contributes to the diseases listed above.

4. Education. Let’s look at American businesses. Those who want to excel and beat the competition attract the best and the brightest employees and managers through generous compensation and healthy working environments. Those businesses satisfied with substandard production and sinking revenue try to get as many work hours for the dollar as possible. Which business models do most of our public schools follow? (This is not a slam on teachers or administrators. The ones I know do the very best they can with the resources they’re allotted, sometimes with fantastic results, but some of the very best burn out before their time).

Are these over-generalizations? Perhaps. They were just the thoughts running through my head spurred on by frozen calves. But then I read this in this morning’s paper, about the ever escalating percentages of Americans with unhealthy diets, weights, and life-styles, despite the increasing amount spent on gyms, diets, and workout equipment. It’s not an individual by individual problem. It’s a massive social issue that requires massive social change.

Because our cheapness is costing us billions of dollars and millions of lives.

I'm on the library's most wanted list

This is not normal for me. I'm usually fairly responsible person; I pay my bills on time, I'm prompt, I keep my house fairly clean- well, clean enough. I just have this little problem with library books and that whole bring-them-back concept that libraries are so uptight about. So, for the first time in my life, I had a bill sent to collections and, although I finally did return most of the books (still can't find one) my fines were high enough that I had to set up a 3-month payment plan with the library.

It's embarressing and a little surprising, so I spent some time digging down deep within myself to discover why I struggle so much with responsible library patronage. Here's what I finally came up with:

I don't like returning books.

I mean, I really, really don't like returning books.

I love them. I love to hold them, smell them, listen to that sweet crackling when they are opened, spend hours bonding with them, scribble thoughts in their margins ( another big library no-no, admit turn out), stay awake all night sharing a bottle of wine with them, and drifting off to sleep with them. Returning those who have come to mean so much to me after only a few short weeks seems crude and heartless.

Now, if I were advancing in my spiritual practices, this is where I would talk about the need to release our attachment to the things of this world. I would even rejoice over this discovery of another fetter in need of breaking.
I'm not going to do it. Not just because I'm stubborn (which I am), but also becuase I have discovered freedom in the discovery. Instead of purging myself of this relationship with books which I find so nourishing and pleasurable, I need to adjust my lifestyle so that I no longer damages my credit or taxes the patience of those sweet librarians.
So, no more removing books from the library for me. Research will only be conducted within it's walls; books with whom I would like a deeper relationship I will buy (Half Price Books is my new best friend) and, once the relationship has run its course, will sell back.

If the rules of the game don't work for me, then it's time to change the game. I'm at peace with that, as are all of my new lovely books.

Tweaking Twain: Publisher introduces new and improved "Tom Sawyer" and "Huckleberry Finn"

Read this on the news a couple of days ago. I had to double check the website to make sure it wasn’t a satirical news website. It wasn’t: it’s true. They’re coming out with new and improved Mark Twain, rest his soul.

To make Twain’s classics “Huckleberry Finn” and “Tom Sawyer” more palatable for readers, publisher NewSouth Books in Alabama is working with Twain scholar Alan Gribben to publish the classics with some revisions, such as replacing each occurrence of the word “nigger” with the word “slave.” Gribben claims this word is less offensive to readers and so people will be more likely to embrace the classic novels.

You know, kind of like deep-fat batter frying okra. It’s a southern thing.

Which issue do we tackle first? Well, for starters, I’m offended by the idea that the word “slave” is somehow less offensive. A human who owns another human like any other property- cattle, clothing, a house- is absurd, inhumane, and evil. That this word is somehow more acceptable might be a clue as to why we have more slaves in the United States now than we did before the civil war. It’s just not offensive enough to us.

But let’s get back to that dirty n-word. Is it an offensive word? Absolutely. Is it demeaning to an entire race of people? No doubt. Does it need to be completely purged from our current vocabulary? Certainly. Should we pretend like it never happened? No.

Twain didn’t write fairy tales. And though the protagonists in these books are children, they are not children’s books. He wrote about and for the times, often using humor as the medium for his cutting criticisms of society, a society deeply entrenched is racism, who used words like “nigger” because a majority of them believed that black people were inferior human beings. To turn our eyes from this reality, to pretend it didn’t happen, that it is not a prominent part of our country’s history, is to doom us to ignorance, stagnation, and repetition.

You may disagree with me. You may think that works like Twain’s have no place in a cultured, educated person’s library. Fine. Keep it off your shelves. But for god’s sake, don’t bastardize the man’s writing. If, 100 years from now, someone were to republish my writing removing or changing all the little parts they found offensive, I would rise up out of my grave and knock them over the head. Assuming that Mark Twain was no less spirited than I, let’s not risk it.