From book averse to bookworm

A few times I've been asked about my sudden change in reading. I grew up very averse to reading because, as expected, we were tested on our reading comprehension in school. I didn't hate reading, exactly, but I hated being assigned anything to read. What was supposed to be a fun hobby would turn into a chore, an assignment, a task to complete. And it wasn't fun. It was the standard "read this because you'll be tested on it". For me, this made reading something I never wanted to do. 

For starters, I'm a very slow reader and my mind wanders very easily. One word can open a Pandora's box in my mind and before I know it, I've daydreamed for half a page before realizing anything. How frustrating! Read half the page, come out of it, and realize your brain was on autopilot but no one was behind the wheel for several paragraphs! Now you've wasted all that time and have to go back again and read everything all over! UGH. 

And don't get me started on summer reading lists. If I was already reading slowly, as it were, the last thing I wanted to deal with was a reading list. 

HERE ARE 50 BOOKS YOU SHOULD READ IN 2 MONTHS. BE READY FOR NEXT FALL! 

Yeah, how about, no? 

I could easily think of numerous other ways I'd rather spend my summer than reading a book that would take me away from friends, exploring, playing video games, playing with my toys, swimming with cousins, or anything else that didn't involve a book, much less a book that would bore me to tears. 

On top of all this, when I was in high school (I graduated in 2000, so that should help date me), we had a program called Accelerated Reader. And I *hated* that program. Whichever book you'd read, there would be a multiple choice test on it. The test would either be 10 or 20 questions. You had to get a 70+ to get any credit. If you missed 4/10 or 7/20 you were screwed and received 0 credit. And the score was part of your class grade. *facepalm* 

I read slowly. My comprehension struggled because my mind wandered so easily. And it became a cycle. If my mind wandered, I'd read without focus and then I'd have to re-read and the cycle repeated itself. It was very frustrating and made reading a loathsome activity. 

I will say, however, despite my overall aversion to reading for literal decades, there were some books I found I enjoyed. As a kid, we had the Berenstain Bears collection and I loved reading and re-reading those books. They were short, fun, relatable, and very enjoyable. Then, I remember my mom trying to hook me onto James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl. The hook was that the main character had my name. That helped and I read it and really liked it. In high school, away from the AR test, we read some other books that I did enjoy: 

A Separate Peace by John Knowles 
The Joy Luck Club by Amy Tan 
The Jungle by Upton Sinclair 
Beloved by Toni Morrison 
Frankenstein by Mary Shelley 

We were motivated to read these books in part because we'd watch the movies later so we could compare how different the movie was from the book and which was better. I remember distinctly that the movie Beloved was horrible while the book was much better. It would take me decades later to realize just how personal one's reading journey can be. In 2023, I read The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison and after finishing it, concluded I couldn't read any more of her work because her writing was too heavy for my taste. And that's fine. 

And a few others. In high school, I also discovered another book called The Caine Mutiny by Herman Wouk. It'd be the thickest book I'd ever read and it turned out to be my favorite fiction at the time. I loved it. So enjoying reading became bittersweet and I liked the idea of reading and being well-read over actually reading books. 

Then I matured enough to read books I had to read for college and graduate school. I wanted to be a good student and read what I had to. Much of it had been nonfiction about music education or music theory, the majors I studied in undergrad and grad school respectively 

Fast-forward to the Trump administration in 2016-2020. In that time, I'd learned about the megahit Broadway musical Hamilton. I'd listened to and became addicted to the soundtrack and learned the musical was based on the biography by Ron Chernow. Because my father is well-read and a history enthusiast, and because I admire his encyclopedic depth of knowledge and value intelligence so highly, I decided to try my hand at reading the very thorough biography that inspired the Hamilton musical. While it took me a little over a year, on and off, to finish, I finished it. Being someone who struggles with resilience, my husband praised my efforts for finishing it even though it took me over a year (13 months). But I noticed something too. Having read and enjoyed a very thick book, it gave me a sense of accomplishment I hadn't had before. 

And then it occurred to me: I was an adult. I could choose to read whatever I wanted to. No one would be testing me on my comprehension. I was free. So I felt compelled to start reading a mix of books that were current and classics on those old high school reading lists I never got to: 

The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood
Lord of the Flies by William Golding 
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
The Iliad by Homer 
The Odyssey  by Homer 
1984 by George Orwell 

...and more. 

This burst of reading happened during the Trump administration which is why when I read 1984, I realized there were elements of that book I was witnessing during his presidency from his supporters. Terms like "doublethink" which was thinking and believing in two contradictory ideas simultaneously. It blew my mind how life was imitating literature. 

After having read 1984, another thought dawned on me. I'm a public school elementary teacher and I'm surrounded by children who look to me as a positive role model. We're constantly promoting reading in school and I was a teacher that didn't like reading...much. And this gave me the motivation to walk the walk. How could I be a teacher, promote reading, and not be a reader myself? I couldn't. I had to overcome that for my kids' sake. They need to see adults loving reading. 

So in 2022, I finally applied some structure. I set a modest goal of reading 12 books. I was prepared to keep my own expectations low so I wouldn't set myself up for failure. Read 1 book per month and you'll be fine. That's doable. It's realistic. And that's when something happened. I didn't read 12 books in 2022. I read 25--I surpassed my goal by over 200%. (!!!)

So in 2023, my husband suggested I go for 30, a modest challenge to be more aggressive. So I set my goal for 2023 for 30 books. In 2023, I read 54, roughly 1 per week, a feat I didn't think I had in me. 

Now it's 2024 and my goal is 60 books. I've read both fiction and nonfiction and gone into genres in fiction I didn't think I'd be interested in and it turns out I love: fantasy and mystery, for starters. My nonfiction preferences have been about history, Black history, sexuality, politics, and more. And I've definitely been interested in reading banned books. That's where the good stuff is! I discovered Libby, the library app through which I check out ebooks and audiobooks, and have found my favorite way to read is full immersion: read the book while listening to the narrator (especially when they're a voice actor who can do voices!). 

On my reading journey, I've also encountered the moments where: 

- I started reading a book that was highly promoted, but it turned me off 
- I'd start off interested and then get bored and quit it 

I've started at least one book that I got to the last chapter and couldn't finish. And that experience is a bit frustrating because you spend hours reading something only to not finish. Reading shouldn't be a bother. It should be fun. It should bring you pleasure. It should make you feel deeply. You should fall in love and get invested in the characters and their journeys. You should look forward to reading authors whose work excites you because you like their style. 

A couple of the things that have happened to me that I really, really like: 

- Identifying different writing styles and discerning which kinds you can read and which bore you. 
- When a sentence you read is so beautifully crafted and packs a punch; the word choice is exquisite and you realize you're reading the words of a masterful author who knows exactly how to say what they want to say to elicit the strongest reaction out of the reader. *Those* are the best moments in reading. 

My ToBeRead (TBR) list on Goodreads is long and I've bought more books than I currently have time to read. I've gone to book signings and have attended the Texas Book Festival twice now, the 2nd time purchasing 10 books and getting all but 1 signed. My husband and I now have a collection of autographed books too. Upon finishing one book, I wrestled with which book--of my many waiting for me--to read next. Some books have sat on my shelf for at least 6 months. I typically choose to read 1 fiction and 1 nonfiction concurrently and other times feel like only reading fiction since that's truly for entertainment instead of learning. There were also times I was reading up to 4 books at once! 

I've also realized one helpful thing to keep me on track of my reading goals: If I check out an ebook or audiobook (while reading the physical copy) from the library, I'm inclined to prioritize that book and finish it sooner because I have a deadline. I've found that some libraries give you 3 weeks to finish while others give you 2. 

Having now been on this converted journey for 2 years, I can definitely say everyone's reading journey is different and only you, as the reader, can decide how you want to make it work. The bottom line is that whatever you read should be something you like, that appeals to you. Reading a book is a time commitment and there's nothing wrong with abandoning a book you don't like after all. It says nothing about you other than you're not connecting with that book. I am still struggling with being okay with abandoning books too. I've abandoned about 5 so far. And a couple I'm considering trying again later. 

In a ludicrous time like now when we're experiencing numerous book bans, it's all the more important to read. Get a library card from your local library branch. Hell, go library hopping! Let's normalize that! Check out indie bookstores instead of buying books on Amazon. Here are a few of my go-tos in the Austin, TX area: 

Reverie Books 
Black Pearl Books 
BookPeople 
The Book Burrow 
BookWoman 

And the website Bookshop.org is a partner for online indie booksellers. You purchase a book on Bookshop and a portion of your purchase goes to the indie bookstore of your choice. 

Happy reading! 👀📚

Do you believe, or do you know?

Words are powerful. 

Take, for instance, these words: 

smell
scent
fragrance
odor
stench 

Already, these words--all related--each connote a different notion over the same idea. 

Now let's take these words: 

Believe and Know 

Believe, according to the dictionary, means "to accept something as true". 

On the other hand... 

Know, according to the dictionary, means "to be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information". 

To believe something often means you agree that an idea is true without evidence to prove or disprove the idea. 

To know something often means you have experienced whatever you know about. You've been educated through some sort of means. 

I used to believe that Santa Claus was real. Now I know he's not. 

I'm writing my thoughts on these two words because I find that people often use the word believe when they need to make more use of the word know. 

Do you believe in climate change or do you know that it exists and is threatening our planet and our existence? 

Do you believe that racism is over or do you know that it's not only over, but that our country suffers from systemic racism? 

Do you believe everything you read on social media to be true especially if it aligns with your political views or do you know that you need to fact-check before you share content to prevent spreading disinformation? 

Do you believe that Barack Obama was a Muslim and was not born in the US or do you know he was born in Honolulu, HI (therefore an American citizen), and practiced Christianity? 

Do you believe anything Donald Trump says because you trust him because of his "tells it like it is" style of speaking or do you know that he has been found to be a pathological gaslighter? 

(Yes, I know became pointed with the points I'm making with how we use these words. These examples help to illustrate my point.) 

Believe and know are two words that I think need more attention especially because of this yard sign I've seen pop up at homes and businesses: 

Saying we believe is aspirational and inspiring. But if you were to change the statement to read We Know, then the message communicated changes from being an admirable philosophy to a non-negotiable statement. It becomes a hard fact rather than sound like an idea up for debate. To say we believe says it's how you think about something, as in you're still on your journey. But if you say we know, then you're not learning anymore. You've arrived. You've acquired information. You've had the experience and can speak to it and about it. There's nothing left to wonder or be curious about or disagree over because you know. 

So. 

What do you believe, and what do you know? How often do you interchange these words as if they mean the same thing? 

Choose your words carefully when sharing content online or when speaking to anyone about anything. What do you believe and what do you know? 

More importantly, how can you turn something you believe into something you know? 

In my opinion, believing is good, but knowing is better. 

Christianity v. Humanity

We're in 2020. A few years ago, we witnessed historic progress in the movements for civil equality for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) movements.

To sum up, it started with a handful of states starting to legalize same-sex marriage. In 2012, elections for both candidates and amendments across the country took a big progressive step forward. In some states, proposed conservative marriage amendments were defeated. Other states passed laws legalizing same-sex marriage. Then a year later in 2013, the Supreme Court handed down two landmark decisions about marriage equality. First, from California, its marriage ban (aka Proposition 8) that went back and forth in its legality was declared unconstitutional, once and for all by the Court. Likewise, a key section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was also struck down as unconstitutional, thereby requiring the federal government to recognize all legally married same-sex couples. That particular case's decision (Windsor v. United States) set a precedent that became the catalyst for a record of momentous LGBTQ victories around the country. In their own respective federal courts, state after state was having its marriage ban declared unconstitutional. It eventually came to 37 states having had their bans struck down, permitting more and more loving LGBTQ couples to start tying the knot. Finally, on June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution does indeed grant gay couples the right to marry granting complete marriage equality to ALL Americans in all fifty states; all states were required to issue marriage licenses, and each state was required to recognize out-of-state licenses. Love won.

As these legal victories kept coming up, a frequently marginalized group of the LGBTQ community - the "T" (transgender) - started getting more and more of the spotlight. As their issues started becoming more common conversation topics, I started thinking and reflecting about the species that are homosapiens, or human beings.

There are those that will cling to the Bible and declare that the only legitimate homosapien is either male or female, as God created them to be. And as their arguments grew louder and louder, my thoughts started to dig deeper and deeper. Though I was raised a devout Catholic, simply questioning and applying logic started to make many of my taught beliefs come undone. A string was pulled, and the curtains started to rise. I started seeing my world with so much clarity.

For some, it would seem that being transgender is absolutely impossible. How can one be born into the wrong body? (Or as transgendered people properly specify, they are assigned [insert sex here] at birth.) Well, ask a trans person and find out. The ones I've met have really opened my eyes, and they've made me realize something about trans individuals--and God--that I hadn't considered.

Devout Christians will hold fast to the belief that God doesn't make mistakes and that "he created them male and female". While they can cite that verse all they want, it appears to me that Christians, insisting that God only makes things a certain way, are doing what I find blasphemous: putting human limitations on a deity. Who are they to say what God can or cannot do? If God is THE creator, who are we humans to limit what God's powers are, what God's intentions are, what God's choices or decisions are? How many times does a believer say in the Lord's Prayer "thy Will be done"? They are literally saying they accept and even support *w h a t e v e r* God wants to do. Who's to say, if God is indeed the one behind ALL creation, that God doesn't want to make the human race more interesting by creating individuals who find themselves assigned to the wrong sex at birth, or even don't identify as either male or female (non-binary)?

"No! God doesn't do that, he created them male and female!"

Oh yeah?

"Thy Will be done."

"His Will is male and female! It says so right in the Bible!"

"Who wrote the Bible?"

"Men who were divinely inspired!"

Exactly. Men who didn't know science and told stories to make sense of a world they didn't understand. And that was two millennia ago.

I honestly can't think of why any person would choose to be transgender, just like I can't see anyone choosing to be gay, bi, lesbian, queer in any form, etc. Why? Because they know there are people out there who think the world is simple, black and white, and those people cannot handle a simple world having so any natural variations. But the irony is that the simplicity they think their faith decrees exists is the same simplicity that can be challenged by viewing the very deity they worship, who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. It's honestly laughable to watch humans humanize a deity because they are clearly explaining that their god sees the world the same way they do, and--here's the kicker--they find the scripture that justifies their opinion. And many times it's taken out of context. But they don't care; their opinions about life are now validated by the scripture that serves as their instruction manual for living.

If you want to believe your god can do whatever s/he wants, because they're GOD, then logic dictates God can do whatever the fuck God wants to do. YOU, believer, don't get a say. Why?

"Your Will be done."

The next time you see someone who doesn't fit the mold you think everyone is prescribed to...you have a choice:

1. Praise your deity for a new masterpiece, especially if said masterpiece is beyond your own comprehension.
2. Pay lip service to your god while you make a fellow human being's life miserable because they don't fit the mold you think everyone needs to be in. It's not their fault you don't see unique beauty in your god's creation. That's YOUR fault. And what's worse is if you make that special creation of god feel shitty because of it.

You love your god? You believe your god created EVERYTHING in this world? Then embrace the most unique creations that are here to behold.

After all, the one whom you're calling incomplete or sick is already stronger than you because they have to be ready to face ignorance for the rest of their lives. That takes strength. It takes perseverance. It takes confidence. It takes intelligence. And it takes compassion because they know their challenges are simply people who are misguided by their own blindness in their own faith.

The fear of free speech

I'm an emotional person. I wear my heart on my sleeve. I can overreact. I can take things personally that don't need to be taken personally.

Because I'm so emotional, I am susceptible to making permanent decisions based on temporary emotions. I can run my mouth. I want to be opinionated. I want to be outspoken. I enjoy the attention of discussing controversial topics, except what comes out of my mouth is the same propaganda I read and see online and on TV. I can run my mouth as if I'm speaking factually about any given topic I'm passionate about, but if I'm challenged in my thinking, I shut down.

Because I like to share my thoughts and enjoy debate, I like to post my opinions on social media, only later it can end up biting me in the ass because I end up putting my foot in my mouth. A lot. I've had more "Why did I say that?" moments than I care to count.

I started this blog as a venue to express myself freely, because I'm starting to limit myself on Facebook. I have a Twitter account, but I really don't tweet. I pretty much just keep up with the news and current events on Twitter, though you can do that with Facebook too.

Lately, more and more stories have been surfacing online where someone makes a sarcastic comment, the comment goes viral, and then they're whisked away by the authorities because someone took what they said seriously and reported it...the whole "You shouldn't even joke about that" idea.

Despite wanting to maintain a blog (on which I now rarely post) to vent and let loose, I'm seeing more and more that sometimes silence is safer and speaking out. Social media is LOUD with opinion and commentary. If I speak out about anything I'm passionate about, I'm just joining the BILLIONS of other voices that are doing the same thing. Everyone wants to be heard, and I think people feel validated when they have an audience to read their thoughts. Some may take pride in being uncensored in their postings.

Even I, at various points, have started blog posts, and left them in draft mode, not bothering to post them. Because when I post them, I share the link to the post on Facebook. And from there, I watch to see how many LIKES or comments I receive about the post. It gives me a false sense of being a writer with thoughts others love to read about. When in reality, I have a medium to share thoughts, but when it comes time to click that button, I refrain, because I've become increasingly timid about sharing my thoughts with the world.

I think the one place where one's voice needs to be heard the most is in politics. And when it comes to that, it's easy to get an emotional response from anyone...especially social issues. And most of the time, the most emotional social issues are marriage equality and women's heath. I've heard the saying that "The only thing worse than an evil man is a good man who does nothing." And so many choose to do nothing because they may feel jaded that nothing they can do can fix anything for the better. They may figure it's a waste of their time.

And then you have those who refuse to stay silent about anything. Because they're so emotionally passionate about certain issues, that passion motivates them to take it to the streets, get the community involved, and start a movement to help make a change for a cause they believe in.

And then you have rare instances like in the case of Edward Snowden who leaked a bunch of information about the NSA's practices. He saw something that violated his conscience, brought it to national attention, and is now a federal fugitive.

See, I greatly admire people like stand-up comics who "tell it like it is" or "say what the rest of us are thinking". They get applause, some criticism, but they're hailed as heroes to those who really agree with their observations. I find myself wanting that support sometimes. I find myself wanting to tell it like it is, except they have one skill I lack: wit. If they're challenged by anyone, they can fire back; I can't. I don't know how. But also, if someone doesn't like what they have to say, all that happens is they don't buy tickets to their shows. The comic doesn't get arrested or end up on tabloids for what they said. Rather, they may just end up having their comments going viral on social media, burning it up in the blogosphere, where everyone and their cat puts in their 2¢ about what they said.

All that being said, I have (I think) many sides to my personality. My husband has seen them all and chooses to stay with me. I have moments where I'm vulgar and others when I'm prudent. I have moments when I'm very "toned down" and others where I get so flamboyant, those around me might look around for a fire extinguisher in case the need should arise. Basically, whichever side shows itself depends on my mood and my social environment.

I do my best to be myself, and regardless of what comes out of my mouth, or to whom it's directed, one thing remains the same: I don't want to offend anybody. If I've done that, then I've made a mistake, which is hurting or disrespecting someone. And if I do hurt someone, my emotional response is dwelling on that mistake. And many times, that dwelling can last for days. I end up feeling horrible about myself, even wanting to rectify the relationship back to the level it once was...if that's even possible.

I do test boundaries to see how much of "me" I can get away with. With which side(s) of me is this person comfortable?

I see plenty of people who share and share and share. They insist they don't give a shit about what others think.

But I do.

And that might be my problem. Does one have to care about what others think? It depends.

There's the adage: Better to remain silent and have others think you're an idiot than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Yeah, I don't want to be that person. But then again, what's good about speaking up? What's good about staying silent and keeping your opinions to yourself?

What's good about sharing your thoughts? The good I find there is when someone shares a thought they're shy about sharing, and several people express relief, thanking that person for sharing because now they feel less alone.

I think it's okay to share one's thinking. But it's also important to filter what or how you say it. Will it piss off someone? Okay, it will. Fine. Are you okay with that? No? Then STFU.

Maybe you're like president Donald Trump whose words always gets mixed reactions: anger from his critics, cheers and praise from his supporters.

Some would argue it's best to play it safe and not overshare, or only share your thoughts if they won't put you in jeopardy in some way. But what about those people out there who feel so alone and feel less alone when someone else thinks like them?

I think anyone would say,  "It depends on what they're thinking."

And that's absolutely true. Otherwise with much of what Trump has said, we probably wouldn't have a reinvigorated rise in neo-Nazis coming out of the woodwork.

When all is said and done about "free" speech, one must look to the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech."

Your free speech is violated if you're arrested, that is, if the government comes after you.

Your free speech is NOT violated if you share on social media and you receive a backlash. That's simply a consequence of you sharing what's probably a stupid, ignorant thought.

Interesting, huh? We live in a country that prides itself on freedom of speech. But how to imperfect people manage imperfect people?

Good luck with that. Whatever you say, try to be smart about it. Otherwise, you will remove all doubt.

Just a dance

I love dancing, especially intimate dances where the partners hold each other, turn each other, and especially that dip. That brings out the hopeless romantic in me!

One of the places where my heart starts to race is at a wedding reception. Well, for starters, attending a wedding with my partner is bittersweet enough. I mean, we're watching a straight couple become a recognized couple by community, church, and local, state, and federal law. Their union is recognized. Those moments make me happy for the couple, but jealous at the same time, because we want the same thing.

And yes, it's legal in a number of states, but Texas won't recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages, which is technically illegal according to the equal protections clause of the 14th amendment of the US Constitution.

But I digress.

Besides getting legally married to my partner, one of the other dreams I have is to dance with him as a couple, in a public place, and enjoy that moment. Typically, that public place is a wedding reception, where I'm around many familiar faces. Dancing with someone at such social occasions makes a statement that you came together, and as one, you're sharing the newlyweds' joy by moving intimately to music. As married couples enjoy their love again on the dance floor, it makes a statement that says, "You're one of us now, married for life." Besides the just plain fun that comes with dancing with a partner, there's a lot of symbolism in these activities.

There are 2 reasons why I don't dance with my partner at receptions:
1. He's not fond of dancing
2. I have a horrible feeling that if we danced on the dance floor, it'd be viewed as a scandal, an attention-seeking stunt, when in reality, I just want to dance with my partner the same way everyone else is dancing with their spouse.

It's such simple hypothetical scenarios like this that make me tread that line of Do I care what they think or not? 

I want to not care. I want to not care soooo badly. And yet, the fact that I'm dedicating a blog post to this proves that I do care, and I can't seem to stop caring. 

I shared my feelings with other friends once, and they recommended that in the future, I simply ask the bride and/or groom if it was a problem for me to dance. As much as I appreciated their input, it got me to thinking, Who the hell else would ask such an inane question?

If my partner and I danced at a reception, I can already imagine the questioning that might follow:

Attendee: Why were you dancing with him?
Me: Because I wanted to dance with my partner of almost 7 years.
Attendee: Do you realize how many people you made uncomfortable, watching you dance?
Me: We didn't hurt anyone. We were enjoying ourselves. If they were offended, that's their problem, not ours. They need to get over it. Do you know how unfair it is to me to watch them dance, and not feel like I can't do the same thing with the person I love?
Attendee: You took attention away from the newlyweds. That's not cool!
Me: What's not cool is letting a couple of guys dancing together distract attendees from the main celebration.

Despite my concerns, there is also the complete possibility that if we were to dance, no one would say anything to our face, or even behind our backs. It wouldn't be of great enough importance to even bring it up.  

Yeah, they danced. So? They've been together forever.

Later, I could imagine someone coming up to us and complimenting our "courage" in being ourselves.

My partner's and my 7th anniversary is coming up in just 3 months. We're still not allowed to get married, and we've faced many challenges as a couple, and have survived each one, growing in deeper love and commitment as we go through our lives together.

Just once...

Just once I want to be in his arms, and he in mine, as we glide along the dance floor together as the loving, committed couple we are.

Because when you're fearlessly being yourself, you become free.

When it's time to get a new fence

Central Texas recently suffered from a day of VERY strong wind gusts...well, not like hurricane or tornado winds, but pretty damn close. I was at school the same day, outside in the morning and afternoon getting kids out of cars, and putting them back in. The gusts were so strong, I wouldn't have been surprised if one of the kids flew away. In a more comically sad note, a friend of mine has a Chihuahua. She took him outside to pee, and when he lifted his leg, he was knocked over from the gusts.

Hubs and I live in a Homeowner's Association (HOA) community where the houses are models in a series, you pick the model that best fits you with the trimmings you need/want, they build it quickly, and it looks all purdy and stuff when you move in. Now don't get me wrong. We LOVE our house. It's beautiful on the inside and out, spacious, and has a great floor plan. I swear, when I first saw the model, I thought I was on the set of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition.

Two problems I have with these houses is that neighbors' houses are, like, 10 feet away, and the fences are made from cheap wood, and consequently don't last very long. 

That being said, we share our fence with 3 houses: 1 on either side, and 1 behind us. So far, it's the back part of the fence that is standing strong the best. Our house faces north, and lately, when it's windy or gusty, the winds have been blowing east or west, with nothing but our fences "containing" them. Part of the problem with the fence construction is that the posts themselves are stuck 2' directly into the ground, without cement or anything. Further, the fences have 2 crossbars, a lower and upper, and then the planks that actually go along the fence are probably 3" wide, and maybe ½" thick, but 6' long. And they're cheap wood. 

Now, we moved into our home back in June 2008, and it's now March 2013, so nearly 5 years later, and one side of our fence is essentially dead, thanks, in part to the gusty winds, but mostly because of cheap materials and installation.

My dream fence would be a wall made of those heavy, gray cinder blocks, but that would cost easily $10K. And a teacher can't afford anything like that unless we made it into a 4-year loan finance deal.

On the plus side of all this homeowner drama, the neighbor on the other side of my dying fence is a gardener/landscape artist, that, from what I can tell in his back yard, is pretty damn good at his job. So we made a deal: he'd cover the labor if we paid for the materials. So as bad as it looks out there right now, in a few days, it'll be the BEST part of the fence. We're getting metal posts (likely in cement) to make the fence stand longer than a single digit number of years.

To return to the aforementioned HOA, I remember attending a meeting for homeowners, and I asked why the fences were so...well...crappy. The answer I was given is that the fences were meant to define property lines, not built to last. So MY question is, how will they continue to define property boundaries if they DON'T last? 

My house is great. My fence is crap, and Mother Nature can be rude sometimes. So my advice to anyone interested in buying a home in the future, ask about your fences, and make sure you invest in them whatever you need to make them last. If you signed your life away for 30 years like we did, you want something pleasant to welcome you home. Take care of it, and it'll take care of you.

New year: new thoughts, new choices

NOTICE: This post will examine controversial topics including marriage equality, church dissent, and abortion. The opinions herein are strictly my own, including explanations about how I arrived at these conclusions. I am not telling others how or what to believe, I'm just explaining what I believe and why.

Wow. I haven't posted anything since October, and that was in defense of "the essential profession", that being education. I'm going to let this post finally declare some things I hadn't openly declared the way I typically declare stuff...like on facebook.

The main thoughts I've had recently have made me a draw some conclusions that I feel best suit my life.

RELIGION

I was born and raised Catholic. I'm 31 and for the vast majority of my life, I've been a devoted Catholic, following all church and faith teachings. However, once New York passed marriage equality back in 2011, I started witnessing church leaders doing horrid things against God's gay children. I realized I could no longer spiritually invest myself in a church that didn't love me the way I know God does.

So I stopped attending church. I've become fed up with listening to men on pulpits judging others' lives when they serve an institution infamous for sexually abusing children. Now, are all priests and bishops bad people? Of course not. But that doesn't change the fact that there are many priests who abused kids, and whose bishops helped them avoid accountability. Having done that, they have NO room to judge the sins in my life, of which being in a long-term, monogamous, gay relationship isn't one of them.

After much discussion, reflection, and deep scrutiny, I no longer see my formerly beloved church as a home of unconditional love, but rather an exclusive club for boys who think they have a closer connection to God than the rest of us, and therefore believe they have the authority to tell the masses how to live. So to make my relationship with God front and center, I've omitted my church's involvement in it, and I frankly feel very liberated! I hold no grudges or ill will towards any of my Catholic friends or family who still choose to abide by what the church teaches. But my perspective of it all has changed...possibly permanently...unless the glacier-slow-to-change church can admit and ask forgiveness for its trespasses. But for the many who see the church as an infallible institution guided by the Holy Spirit, I think they need to reflect on whom they follow: a bunch of guys managing a building known as the headquarters of a global church, or the deity that church serves? Because according to Scripture, if you find THAT inerrant, you can't serve two masters.
My biggest complaints with the church is that it focuses so much two things:

-abortion/contraception
-marriage equality

Abortion/Contraception
Like in most social debates, there are two sides; for this, you're either pro-life ("Lifers"), or pro-choice ("Choicers"). Lifers believe abortion should be outlawed, and that life begins at conception, an idea the the Catholic church affirms. Choicers - and let me make this CLEAR - Choicers do NOT advocate abortion. Choicers advocate CHOICE to carry a pregnancy to term, or to terminate the pregnancy. Lifers say "You have a life in there, and it has a right to LIVE!" Choicers say, "It's my life, my body, and I'll make my own decisions with the help of my doctor!" Lifers believe they're speaking for those without a voice (i.e., the unborn baby). Choicers believe in people's privacy in making delicate, sensitive, personal decisions.

My opinion is that reproductive choice opinions should only be had by the ones it affects: women. And who runs the Catholic church? Men...men who'll never have to be in that position. These men will never, in their positions of power, have to deal with the social stigma that an unwanted pregnancy brings. Now, if you want to prevent unwanted pregnancies, there are two ways to do that:

-abstain or only have sex with the intention to procreate (as the church instructs)
-use contraception

If you're going to have sex for pleasure, the church only approves of that if you're married and use natural family planning, thereby completely avoiding the use of any artificial contraceptives. And if you get pregnant anyway, well at least you're married. Now you have to have this baby because clearly it was God's plan.

This brings me back to this fact: the church invades privacy by telling women how to live their lives, going so far as being in the bedroom with their rules about something none of them will ever do. I just think that when it comes to issues of such a private, personal matter, no one should have any say in how you live your life. Everyone (i.e., believers) will come to judgment on their day. When a woman makes a choice to keep or terminate a pregnancy, that's between her, her doctor, and her deity of choice. 

With contraception, that's against church teachings because those are artificial solutions as a method of pregnancy prevention. This goes back to the church teaching that all sexual activity must be open to procreation. So, again, the church is micromanaging your sex life. The church can preach and teach about sexual ethics all it wants (though it doesn't have room to talk, really). In reality, this one institution cannot keep every woman or every man from only having sex under such structured circumstances. Further, contraceptives like "the morning after pill" are in the church's cross hairs. But they also discourage the use of condoms for men, as that prevents semen from fertilizing any egg that the woman may have ovulated. But if all this anti-contraception warfare is happening, why are church leaders not advocating that men get vasectomies? I get the feeling it's because since men run the church, they can easily vilify women.

Marriage Equality
The church supports and advocates for the "traditional marriage" which is one man, one woman, and at least one child. When Catholics take their marriage vows, one of them is to "accept children willingly from God", to which the couple is expected to reply, "We do." Among the church's arguments, marriage is strictly for procreation that is supported by a life-long commitment to a spouse. And the church most often refers to a verse in the Bible that reads "and for this reason, a man shall leave his mother and father, be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."

Side note: I may not be able to tell exactly where certain verses are, but I can make plenty of accurate plot references. 

Now, Jesus, in all four gospels, never says a thing about gay people. The only places any reference to homosexuality is mentioned in in Leviticus in the Old Testament, and a few letters written by St. Paul in the New Testament. Many who've supported traditional marriage typically cite Leviticus 18:22 about how "Man shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination".

Another side note: I know THAT verse because I've been attacked with it repeatedly.

My thing is this: You want to make a biblical point? Fine. Did you realize that Leviticus also condemns wearing mixed fabrics, eating pork or handling pig skin, working on Sundays, or eating shell fish?  Did you know that in Deuteronomy (I forgot where), if a woman isn't a virgin upon marriage, she must be stoned to death?

Moving on, what about straight couples who get married, but don't have kids? Should their marriage be annulled? What about all the straight couples who are NOT good parents, or the woman who carried her pregnancy to term, but chose to gave the baby up for adoption? So, since the church opposes marriage equality partly because of the procreative aspect, would it be so bad if an abandoned child grew up with two loving parents who happen to be the same sex?

What about women who want to be mothers, but don't want to be married?

Another common argument is that if kids have gay parents, they'll likely turn out gay because that's the example of a relationship they see before them. Well, I'm the product of a straight marriage, and *I* turned out gay. Every person in existence was, is, or will be brought into this world because of a sperm that fertilized an egg: most likely through male-female sexual intercourse. Some of the offspring of these unions turned out straight, some bisexual, some lesbian, some gay, some transgender, but mostly straight. So if straight couples are the ones having kids that turn out gay, how on earth will two gay parents turn their non-biological children gay as well? Maybe straight couples should be the one to stop having kids. With all their procreating, one of them is bound to turn out gay because it's IN them. Sexual orientation is a gift from God. I believe some gifts He gives us are for serving Him through helping others, and other gifts He gives us are to humble us. 

Further, if being gay was a choice, the gay rights movement wouldn't have a leg on which to stand. We chose to be gay the same day you, dear presumably straight reader, chose to be straight. I sure as hell didn't choose to be gay, not that it's bad, but because it's extremely inconvenient. Thankfully, with more minds and hearts changing in favor of recognizing that gay people are only different by how they love, marriage equality is advancing around the country. Even in conservatives states like mine, Texas, the popular opinion is shifting to a more socially progressive one. Back in 2005, Texas passed an amendment to its constitution outlawing marriage equality. Eight years later, minds have changed simply because who someone loves is nobody's fucking business. As a result, some law makers are working to repeal the discriminatory amendment. And now, in the next few months, even the U.S. Supreme Court will possibly give a ruling on marriage equality!

HEALTH

I love animals, and for a number of months in 2012 I started eating less and less meat, which is a bit of a feat from someone who grew up in a Texas-Mexico border town! I gradually weaned myself off in baby steps, starting with simple choices at the grocery store; instead of buying hamburgers, nuggets, or cold cuts, I started replacing them with their vegetarian equivalents. The scale was finally tipped when I saw a documentary called VEGUCATED, about 3 carnivores going vegan (completely plant-based diet). This documentary also included slaughter house footage, and I could no longer justify loving the cow, chicken, or pig, and eating the burger, nugget, or bacon strip. So I'm now a complete vegetarian.

While there are many reasons one might be vegetarian (health, environment, animal ethics), my main reason is my love for animals. But studies have indeed shown that vegetarians have a reduced risk of heart disease, among other fatal ailments. Having seen the documentary also changed my perspective in the grocery store. When I walk by the deli section, I no longer see the main dish at a party, or get recipe ideas. Instead, I simply see dead animals who very well may likely have been treated inhumanely before being dismembered, processed, placed in those packages, and slapped with a bar code waiting to be scanned at checkout.

I'm naturally an empathetic person, and so being a vegetarian has enabled me to live a kind life by enjoying a kind diet. By the way, being a vegetarian makes Fridays during Lent so easy!

GAY ADVOCACY

I love discussions about gay rights. I work in the elementary education field, so when I get the "Are you married?" question, I respond with "That's none of your business." But because I'm not going to just go up to someone and ram my views down their throat, and because I'm a musician who loves to sing, I've joined the Capital City Men's Chorus...yes...a choir of gay men. The mission of the chorus is to uplift and promote a positive image of the gay community in the city through the performance of beautiful music. So when our straight fellow music lovers come to our concerts and hear the beautiful music we make together, discriminating against us gets ideally harder to do...thereby helping our fellow LGBT brothers and sisters finally get the equality to which we're entitled.

We've had a few concerts, and this season (2012-13) is the choir's 24th season. We've had 3 performances this year, and have at least 2 more to go. And I'm having a BLAST!

Well, now that I feel I'm more caught up after almost 6 months since my last post, I'll bid thee farewell.

Thanks for reading!