I have a stack of chapbooks and library books and unanswered correspondence (which I always get to eventually, no matter what!) and I have been sneaking in some mini-vacations here and there…

This week I went to Lake George and the Adirondacks in upstate New York, the week before I was in Pittsburgh and Lock Haven. This weekend I will be camping and going to the Rocky Horror Picture Show of all things! Haven’t done that in years. But as my daughter gets involved in things, I have been able to relive some of my weird high school memories. It was just something fun to do, somewhere to go with your older friends with cars, somewhere to misbehave.

There’s something about youth that finds comfort in repetition, that makes it pretty easy to watch the same movies over and over. There was the friend that watched “The Wall” over and over, the friends who watched Monty Python religiously…One summer we listened to the same Ramones songs over and over and my boyfriend played the same five songs on his guitar. Over and over. People were fun when they were predictable and could be counted on to perform the same rituals every time you saw them: One friend never pumped the last ten cents of her gas. One friend bought Happy Meals and kept the toys on her dashboard. One girl, too young to drive, walked along the highway and flashed the peace sign whenever she saw a cop drive by. These were just things people did, like going to see Rocky Horror.

It was just something we did.

Speaking of youth and things people do, I love this concept and I just love Michael Kimball. (link) He writes people’s life stories on postcards and mails them. People tell him things about their lives, upbringing, and seem to easily confess things to him. I am struck by how personal the biographies are, and wonder about that. Is there something in our nature that wants to be displayed, are we suckers for sharing our details? Do we crave outlets, people to share ourselves with, or the means to share who we are with strangers? I think part of it is that Michael Kimball asks the kinds of questions that can really get a person going.

The idea is to write one poem every day for the month of August, and send it to the person on the list under your name. And so on. The poems should be new, perhaps in response to the image on the postcard or in response to a poem received, as opposed to previously written poems. If you are interested in participating, the deadline is July 25 so do head over to the site as soon as possible. Also, if you are interested in postcard or mail art exchange in general- let me know. I am still posting mail art at Places of Departure and am working on scanning content for a special online “gallery” of political and feminist mail art. Email me if this interests you in any kind of way, especially if you are new to mail art and postcards and just want to hook up with somebody receptive, enthusiastic, and friendly. Ahem, that would be me.

So I walk away, and turn to a man who had just seen the woman. “Do you think that’s right?” I asked him. It didn’t seem right to me, but then again many things don’t. “Well, it’s her choice and she’s probably rich just because she’s deformed.” Then another man joins in: “It’s no different than a stripper, or an entertainer. No different.” I think about this a little bit. I ask my friend (who will read this and email me that I am over analyzing everything around me again and ask why I can’t just have fun at a fair) and she tells me that maybe this is how she pays her medical bills and supports herself, and what right do I have to judge? Hmmm. Now I am a jerk AND I’m judgemental. “Maybe this is the best thing that ever happened, this gig!”

That’s the way it is. That’s the way it’s been for a long time. Sometimes I am thankful for insomnia because it presents me with the silence I seem to need, but neglect.

So now I am doing laundry and getting ready to head out again, for a week of “stuff”.

Now I have heard the claim many times that small presses and self publishing are like vanity presses, and do not really have ways to account for quality. But that’s not really true because different independent small presses seem to stand out over time and gain a respectable following while others do not. (There are outsiders of the outside, as well) Small press editors, indie gallery curators, and others who must choose who to include are faced with the same pressure to select content from what is available, and are aware that there IS a harsh reality concerning quality that they cannot ignore if they are to remain viable.

Now of course there is a “one hand washes the other” mentality, and a clique mentality that can be easy to spot. But isn’t that true everywhere? On every level? Think everyone who gets a job or a fellowship does it by some anonymous process? Of course not. Otherwise name dropping would not be so pathologically pervasive. So why do we demonize the small press for it? Or the indie gallery? We might say we hate it, but be quick to do it. Really quick.

And just because we can toss out criticism doesn’t really mean that something is without redeeming value.

Fact is, there is a long tradition of independent exchanges of art and ideas and it is an important tradition. This is also not the same as the vanity press, where a “publisher” (term used loosely) takes advantage of a writer’s desire for recognition and publication to sell them their own book. Most people are wise to these schemes, or they get wise soon enough when they realize that the contributors are also the market. (like these anthologies where you have to buy the book to get the book, and often for a high price and without any idea who the hell else is in it! That’s not publication, that’s a damn high school yearbook!)

So what do you think of the small press, the outsider, the DIY publisher, the self taught versus the mighty MFA, the indie versus the corporate?

By the way- thanks for the encouraging words about this new blog, and for those of you that signed the “guest book”.

What do we look at in answering that kind of question? We might start by looking at the degree of choice and necessity. And are there consequences that can be linked to the limits of a device, and is this a public resource that some cannot utilize? If these screens were necessary to vote without an alternative, we might view this whole thing differently as disenfranchisement. On the other hand, if this device was for gaming, we might tell these complainers to get a life and go buy something else. There are certainly people who have problems with small type or blinking ad banners, and people who have sleeping babies who might object to websites with an automatic burst of music that loads and scares the crap out of people. Most times, the answer is something like “too damn bad”.
There are lots of devices, and lots of accommodations that can be made for different problems. For the most part, manufacturers are free to accommodate as much or as little as they wish and this is mostly true as long as we are clear that this is in the private sector and that they do not present a risk.

But what really is discrimination? Does it involve things we cannot change, or things that we should not be forced to change? How far should society go in trying to accommodate preferences versus disabilities? How far should people go to accept that things are just mass produced without accounting for every user variation?
Now there are people who will read about this fingernail bit and shake their heads, thinking it probably serves them right for such a vain and impractical thing as long nails. There are people who will say that this is directed at women. There are people who will shrug and say “buy something else or shut up and get the stylus”. But discrimination? Where is the bar on that? That’s what I’m thinking about. What it is, and what it isn’t. This seems like the latter to me. But then I have to get to the point about why.

So the gist of this is that parents who have child support orders are immature and somehow incapable of “working out” their parenting? The custodial parent is distrustful of the commitment of the other parent if they have some kind of a clear agreement?

See this bothers me for many reasons.

1. When parents “support” in any manner that they choose, it is under their control and is subject to all kinds of factors. This can not only lead to bitterness down the road but complicates things when a spouse remarries and perhaps a new income is involved. It can be complicated in all kinds of ways and even if it is not- isn’t it hard enough to parent without wondering when some arbitrary help will come your way?
2. I can’t help but feel that this is related to the stigma of women (though not always women!) asking for support and enforcing it. We need to step away from viewing child support standards as “greedy” or punitive or as some kind of sign that the parents are selfish or without coparenting skills.
3. In the end, this is also about consistency and predictability and a way to make things fair. Even in the best scenarios, it is very difficult to keep things fair. Would I want to have somebody give me twenty bucks and say “Hey, you know I give what I can.” Or would I want to have some consistency? Is that really selfish, or is budgeting a part of parenting? See I think it takes some planning, especially if one is low income. Even under great circumstances, it takes some planning.
4. Intimidation. The law sets a standard, and enforces that standard, and it is the law. It is not really an option precisely because, as one child support worker I know put it: “This is about the child in question, and when a parent is manipulated or made to feel guilty about support that ultimately hurts the child and also causes conflict that increases tension, also not good for the child. This is about the child, protecting their interests whether the custodial parent feels inclined or not.”
5. The time factor. When there is no order in place, it can be lengthy and ridiculous to get one going and can result in months of animosity and hardship. Why not have the order in place, but then make these “mature” arrangements? Why would a man like this be so afraid of a child support order if they are so above money talk?
6. Public assistance: should you ever need it, you better believe they will make you get an order or have that other parent reimburse them for your assistance. That’s also the law.
7. Financial Aid: a sad reality about college is that they include the other parent’s income whether there is some “understanding” or not. This might be a parent that a child has not seen in ten years. But some schools will count it all as family income. Some formulas may include the step-parents as well. Your child could be penalized for income of a parent that is out of the picture.
8. Do you think two people ever had a disagreement about what a child needs? One thinks braces are important, the other says they can deal with it. Can you imagine trying to parent every day with somebody having veto power over the things they do not want to help with? “Can we split the cost of Johnny’s sneakers?” Can you imagine trying to get anything done like that? Talk about off the hook by default.

I think many women can relate to the hassles of child support: leniency, joke back payments, long waits, forms, the accusations of greed, the demands to know what this money is for, the sense that there is some dollar figure that a single mother can put on missed opportunities… How many women don’t take jobs because they have to worry about a school bus, or decide against a class or college or training because of the challenges of child care? What about the need for more space, gas to drive them, all of the little things that in aggregate can be difficult to manage but that don’t necessarily have a dollar amount?
Single parents have limited freedom, often their movements are restricted and their lifestyle scrutinized by the other parent who would gladly haul you back to court. Especially if they don’t want to pay the support. Now sure, there are many parents who do not go through these hardships and I do not mean to imply resentment about the challenges. Many custodial fathers and mothers gladly face these things and never look back, they do so with love and sacrifice things willingly. But the point I am making is that child support is often seen as some kind of punishment, and yet it does not even begin to compare to the responsibilities of active parenting. Not by a long shot.

So when people tell me they do not pay support for their children because they have this great relationship with the other spouse, I applaud that level of selfless superiority. I sincerely do. But I think they should have that great relationship and STILL have an order, something concrete and specific. Letting somebody show up with a bag of groceries is not an understanding- it is inherently one sided. One parent must support that child through thick or thin, the other has the option.  Society needs to affirm the rights and importance of children, not treat the rights of a child as some kind of statement. And we need to stop thumbing our hippie noses at people who see child support as an important part of the mix, a part of equality for women, a part of validating the real experiences of single parents, a part of affirming the rights and value of children.  Don’t want to support your kids? Don’t blame your highbrow values. You aren’t “above” child support, you are a master of rationalizations. Use birth control or step up to the plate. Yeah. That’s how I feel.

I was awake before five this morning, and since I wanted to be quiet I decided to stay in bed reading. That is when I realized that I am in the middle of like FIFTEEN books, more than half dry as hell and only one with any humor. I’ve got to get a life. I am not even sure what I am looking for with all these books. To settle on some sort of philosophy, to settle on some kind of way to make sense of the world? To find comfort in some “ism” that at last really speaks to me, that I can grab onto, that I can staple to my head so I can get on with other thoughts? …I envy people with clear, consistent thinking. I hate this sense of intellectual limbo, like I never know what will come out of my own mouth. I hate that I indulge in wishful thinking. I hate that there are times when I know I am inconsistent and I try to make my pieces fit, I try to make it right. I am aware of this, for example, when we talk about the rights of physicality. I am aware of this when we talk about collapse. I am aware of this when we talk about privilege. I am aware of this with humor, the simple act of permitting myself to laugh. Or not. Believe it or not, there was a time when I was more laid back and did not politicize everything. Really.

So I ask my friend Freya if there is anything about people that she knows for sure. She tells me that people are blind to their goodness, to the extent that it is irrelevant and unreachable, rendering us beyond redemption. She says that accepting this, knowing this, will quiet the mind just as certain death quiets the heart.

Freya really knows how to brighten a room.

I think I need to go watch “Desperate Housewives” or something. Feh.

“Finally, a major periodical puts a spotlight on the most emotionally charged and inaccurately reported medical controversy in modern history. And what does Time do? Blame parents for a crisis in confidence created by public health officials. If you were hoping to learn the “truth” about vaccinations, you are not going to find it in this issue of Time. ”

Now my point here is not to get into the debate itself, but to point out the problem with it’s coverage as she writes about how parents are portrayed as clueless dolts while safety reassurances come from industry plants. Many times when I read about the vaccination controversy, I ask the same questions…

1. Why do we blame parental ignorance and not the regulators that we know let harmful drugs slide? We know that the officials at the FDA get their payoffs or cushy jobs later on, so why don’t we blame these issues for the lack of confidence that parents have these days? It goes beyond vaccinations- many parents are unsure about food, toys, medicine. Whose fault is it that parents are distrustful?
2. Why do we tolerate a system that seems to allow for harmful substances until the public can prove otherwise? Shouldn’t there be more of a burden on the producers, as opposed to some apology and recall later on? Some things are approved without real testing. Kids are not guinea pigs.
3. Why are the fines, if any, so small?
4. What about this idea that the more toxic vaccines have a longer shelf life, and were used to save money. Some say that the cheaper costs are necessary to vaccinate the poor. Can’t we do better than that? Give me a break.
5. This one is very difficult: SHOULD parents be forced to vaccinate? Yes, for the “greater good”? Or no because of the rights of parents and the safety questions? Should we mandate something we cannot even seem to reassure people about? And reassurances from drug manufacturers don’t count.
6. Do the benefits, in any case, outweigh the risks?

There are a few things that concern me about this idea that people could buy insurance but are just busy buying flat screen televisions: First, that is not at all true for many people. Second, it is an insult to many people that reminds me of the accusation that people are homeless because they enjoy it or that people receive food stamps because they don’t want to work. Third, what would happen to people in high risk categories as they face being forced to buy insurance? My guess is that the insurance companies will not be sympathetic. I also wonder if it’s possible, just possible, that some might raise their rates if they know it is mandatory? Now some say competition would address this. Really? Because last I checked, there is still an “assigned risk” category for auto insurance. There’s also evidence of collusion to keep rates high. So one wonders how it would be very different for a diabetic with heart disease. What would these premiums look like?

Now I can hear it already: Maybe this would make people be healthier, take control of their health. But now we are talking about rationalizing a forced purchase on the grounds that the heavy cost might motivate certain people to make lifestyle changes. Once again, using the law to influence personal behavior.

What about people that just get sick? With congenital problems? This will “motivate” them to make lifestyle changes? Do you see how we are manipulated by the politics of blame and shame? And dare I ask if anyone thinks this argument about the pressure of high costs to influence healthy changes would extend to companies using toxic chemicals?