On Cupcakes on a Plane

This article reminds me of my own attempt to classify a certain foodstuff as a solid, rather than a gel.

For the record, I totally disagree with the author of this article. Considering the fact that I accidentally got a 20oz bottle of water (filled approximately a third of the way full) through airport security last week, I’d argue that they’ve got more important things to do than catch ladies with cupcakes. You know, things like actually follow the spirit of these regulations rather than the letter and see how that fares for them. Nit-picking about frosting isn’t going to help until we’ve set a precedent. I am going to need signs with pictures showing me that I cannot bring Jell-O, or frosting, or hair gel, or whipped cream, or mousse. I want those juxtaposed right up next to the axes, knives, handguns, and scissors.

(Advice to the lady: open the jar. Lick all frosting. Close jar and continue with your screening process. Eat cupcake sans frosting in future.)

10/2012 @ 3:36PM |2,753 views

Cakes On A Plane: Cupcakegate And You

Photo Courtesy of Consumertraveler.com

By now you’ve heard of the Incident of the Confiscated Cupcake. It seems that one Rebecca Hains, of Peabody, Mass., was returning home from Las Vegas last month, when Transportation Security Administration agents confiscated her cupcake on the grounds of excessive frosting, which the TSA classifies as a gel.

On the one hand, dude, it’s a cupcake! On the other hand, the incident raises questions about both airport security and the American diet.

The diet first. Call me a curmudgeon, but despite the trend sweeping the nation from Boston to Beverly Hills, I firmly believe that a cupcake should never be more frosting than cake. Go back to the old-school cupcake-to-frosting ratio, and I’m convinced that the percentage of obese Americanswould decline from 33.8% to, oh, say, 33.75% (hey, you gotta start somewhere, right?). Plus, too much frosting is just gross. If this requires TSA enforcement, then I’m all for it.

Seriously, though: although regular readers know that I don’t have much sympathy for ham-fisted TSA tactics, this time I come down on the side of the folks in blue.

Turns out that this was no ordinary cupcake. It was in a glass jar. Who the heck carries a cupcake in a glass jar? And TSA rules on glass jars containing gels are clear: no larger than three ounces, packed together with your other gels and liquids in a clear, quart-size plastic bag. Ms. Hains’s cupcake, no matter how darling, violated these rules. If the cupcake needed to be in a jar, she could have put it in her checked luggage. If she needed a dessert in a jar to eat on the plane, how about honey-roasted walnuts?

“When you think about it,” writes TSA blogger and erstwhile security officer Bob Burns, “do you think an explosive would be concealed in an ominous item that would draw attention, or something as simple as a cute cupcake jar?” Makes sense to me. Read the rest of his post here.

Bottom line: if you need to take cakes on a plane, how about just carrying them in the box they came in?

source: Forbes

I don’t know about you, but cupcakes in a jar sound amazing to me.

I have been on a weird kick lately where I’ve been trying to fully embrace the adulthood that’s threatening to overwhelm me (you should see what I bought off of Amazon.com today – six boxes of tea, a novel, and two seriously motivational career woman books….I’m rolling my eyes at myself right now. I have not yet subscribed to Amazon Prime, so some remnants of my youth remain.)

But this means research. I’ve been reading cooking blogs. I’ve been reading design blogs. I’m hoping that in ten years (or, more realistically, thirty to forty), when I can finally afford a house/condo, Future Me have some sense of structure, order, etc. I think this means fashion, so I guess I’d better work on dressing myself before I work on dressing my house. (I realized last night that Kevin hasn’t seen me wearing makeup in days. It might even be weeks. I’ve fallen into a rut, mostly.)

But….cupcakes in a jar remind me of cheesecake in a jar, which is going to be my first project once I get all settled back into my apartment (with Carlos, of course!)

This must happen this weekend. The moving, not the cheesecake making. Baby steps.

Virtual Picnic- Cheesecake in a Jar

by JAMIE on APRIL 22, 2011 

(snagged the pictures and the recipe from My Baking Addictionwhich I am totally addicted to!)

Post image for Virtual Picnic- Cheesecake in a Jar(photos from My Baking Addiction)

Cheesecake in a Jar

YIELD: 4-6 servings depending on size of jars used

INGREDIENTS:

½ cup plus 2 tablespoons granulated sugar
zest of one lemon
2 packages cream cheese, 8 oz each; room temperature
2 large eggs; room temperature
¼ cup heavy cream
1 ½ teaspoons pure vanilla extract

1 cup fresh berries

DIRECTIONS:

1. Preheat oven to 350 degrees F.

2. Begin to boil a large pot of water for the water bath.

3. In the bowl of your stand mixer fitted with your paddle attachment, combine the sugar and lemon zest and mix until the sugar is moistened and fragrant. Add in the cream cheese and cream together until smooth. Add eggs, one at a time, fully incorporating each before adding the next. Make sure to scrape down the bowl in between each egg. Add heavy cream and vanilla and mix until smooth.

4. Pour batter into canning jars until about ¾ of the way full. Place jars into a larger pan and pour boiling water into the larger pan until halfway up the sides of the jars.

5. Bake 25 to 30 minutes, the edges will appear to be set, but the center will still have a little jiggle to it.

6. Carefully remove the cheesecake jars from the water bath and place on a cooling rack to cool completely. Once the cheesecakes are completely cooled, place them into the refrigerator for at least 5 hours. Top will fresh berries and serve.

NOTES:

– For glossy berries, simply add 1 tablespoon of hot water to ¼ cup apricot preserves. Blend until combined and thinned out. Place the berries in a bowl and gently brush and toss the berries with the apricot and water mixture.
– If you are not a fan of lemon, simply omit the zest.
– If you are missing the graham cracker crust, serve with graham sticks.
– The jars pictured above are Weck (7.4 ounce) Tulip Jars.

On Virginia and Adoption

So Virginia wants to let state-funded (but private) adoption agencies discriminate based on the belief system of the agency? Doesn’t the government protect against that sort of discrimination?

Obviously, adoption is important. It so often gets overlooked. About a third of the kids currently sitting in Virginia foster care hope to eventually be adopted. Granted, those adoptions aren’t going to be arranged through these private agencies, but we’re talking about allocation of government funds. I say take funding away from any organization that wants to practice discrimination (in violation of federal law) and put that funding back into the badly broken foster system so that those kids can have a chance at a family.

You can’t guarantee that a set of potential parents that fits the “ideal” picture of a family is going to end up as an”ideal” set of parents. I mean, my family – heterosexual, white, Catholics – ended up divorced and really grumpy. What was once a rosy image of the perfect family was eventually shattered – just like half of the other rosy pictures of hetero families in the US. But G-d forbid we let the gays adopt! They’ll turn this country into a hub of immorality and sin! It’s like one commenter wrote sarcastically: “But what if the kids catch the gay?” What if, indeed.

Virnia adding ‘conscience clause’ to adoption laws

By ,

RICHMOND — Virginia will likely become the second state in the nation — after North Dakota — to allow private adoption agencies to turn away parents based on sexual orientation or religious and moral beliefs.

The General Assembly is considering a measure that would add a “conscience clause’’ to Virginia law that would allow state-funded, faith-based agencies to choose which parents are suitable for adoption based on the agencies’ beliefs.

Daniel Gri and James Abbott, who adopted two sons in California, say that through the proposed guidelines their adopted home of Virginia is further hampering gay people from adopting.

“It makes it seem like it’s not about sexual orientation,” said Gri, who lives in Oakton. “That’s a technique anti-gay organizations use.’’

But supporters of the legislation say it would protect religious freedom by ­allowing birth parents to choose an agency — and as a result, adoptive parents — who adhere to their religious beliefs.

“This measure will chisel into law the principle that people of faith can adhere to their convictions without fear of reprisal from those who would discriminate against their religious beliefs regarding how we should raise our children,” said House Deputy Majority Leader C. Todd Gilbert(R-Shenandoah).

The legislation’s fate became clear after Republicans took control of the state Senate and gained an even heftier majority in the House. The House voted overwhelmingly to pass the measure last week, largely along party lines, while the Senate is expected to vote this week.

Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) is expected to sign the legislation. He has repeatedly said that faith-based organizations should be able to make their own policies.

Virginia has 77 private agencies, 16 of them faith-based. They placed 557 of the state’s 2,503 adoptions last year, according to state figures. In total, the agencies and 120 local social services departments received $144 million in state and federal funds for child placement last year.

Who can adopt, and who can’t

The bill does not change who can adopt. State law does not allow unmarried couples — homosexual or heterosexual — to adopt. But it is possible for single people, including gays, to adopt.

For gay-rights group Equality Virginia, the ACLU and others, the legislation merely perpetuates discrimination.

“Let’s just speak the truth and tell it like it is,’’ Del. David L. Englin (D-Alexandria) said. “This legislation is about ensuring that foster placement agencies that do not want to place children . . . with same-sex couples are able to do that.’’

Democrats, outgunned in the newly Republican-controlled legislature, have unsuccessfully tried to amend the legislation and pass their own bill, which would have banned discrimination by agencies that receive state funds. Nine states prohibit discrimination in adoption.

“Any bill that sanctions discrimination is unfortunate and misguided,’’ said Sen. A. Donald McEachin (D-Henrico), who attempted to amend the bill last week.

The bill would prohibit the state from rejecting or revoking agencies’ licenses because they turn away prospective parents. Currently, about 4,407 children are in foster care in Virginia. About 1,300 of them have a goal of adoption.

Supporters of the measure say it merely puts into law a standing practice that has been in place in Virginia for decades.

“A majority of Virginians recognize that these agencies are critical to providing the best possible outcomes for children,’’ said Victoria Cobb, president of the Family Foundation. “This legislation . . . allows these important agencies to continue doing the vital work they’ve been doing for decades.’’

But opponents say the bill goes far beyond just faith-based agencies to all private agencies, far beyond just adoption to foster care and far beyond religious reasons to moral reasons.

“This is establishing a whole lot of new precedent that we have not had before or seen before,’’ said Claire Guthrie Gastanaga, general counsel to Equality Virginia and a former chief deputy attorney general.

The bill codifies a decision by the State Board of Social Services last year to allow faith-based organizations to reject prospective parents based on gender, age, religion, disability, sexual orientation and family status. The federal government protects against discrimination based on race, color or national origin.

The proposed regulations, part of a massive overhaul of adoption rules, are to take effect May 1.

‘Focus’ on the child

“Our focus is really on the best placement of the child,’’ Virginia Social Services Commissioner Martin Brown said.

About 2,279 same-sex couples are raising about 4,558 children in Virginia, according to the Family Equality Council, a gay-rights organization. Most were adopted in Virginia, allowing only one parent to have custody.

Fifty-five percent of Virginians say that gay couples should be able to legally adopt children, according to a Washington Post poll released last year.

Fifty-nine percent of Virginians say that state-run agencies should not ban prospective parents based on sexual orientation, while 35 percent say they should, according to aQuinnipiac University poll, also released last year. But that same poll indicates that Virginians are split on whether church agencies should be able to do that — 48 percent to 45 percent.

“Virginians expect any public agency or agency licensed by Virginia to treat all the state’s citizens fairly and justly and serve their best interests,’’ the Family Equality Council said in a statement.

But Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William), who does not think single or gay people should be allowed to adopt, said the law is needed so that faith-based organizations do not close down, as they have in other states, including Massachusetts.

“These agencies should be able to practice the ethical views of their organizations,’’ said Marshall, who adopted three children with his wife through Catholic Charities.

Gri and Abbott, legally married in California, adopted their children — Caleb, 14, and Alfred, 11, — through government foster care, not a private agency. They grew up with religion and are active in a church in the District.

But while they both say they are more than likely to vote for conservative candidates because of their pro-business, low-regulation approach, they believe legislators may be wrong on this issue.

“I think definitely this law is not in the best interest of the children,’’ Gri said.

source: The Washington Post

"I was born a poor black child"

Sometimes I’m grateful that my attention span is equivalent to that of a golden retriever. It leads me places I never expected to go. Today, I was reading about legal issues involving lawyers accessing sensitive information from their iPads, smartphones, etc and I got sidetracked, thus stumbling on this gem of an opinion piece from Gene Marks in Forbes.

Marks spends two pages talking about how he’s a lucky white man in his mid-40s, reaping the benefits of his white privilege, and then he decides to posit that black kids from the inner cities are going to be fine if they just learn how to read, and learn how to write code, and somehow stumble on the right answers and the right direction. 
He gets points for freely admitting that it’s circumstance that places kids on such separate paths from birth – the circumstances of color and economic standing. But he fails so hard at realizing that what he’s trying to get across – this idea of the self-made man, the epitome of the American Dream – is just that, a pipe dream. 
He starts out just fine here:

The President’s speech got me thinking.  My kids are no smarter than similar kids their age from the inner city.  My kids have it much easier than their counterparts from West Philadelphia.  The world is not fair to those kids mainly because they had the misfortune of being born two miles away into a more difficult part of the world and with a skin color that makes realizing the opportunities that the President spoke about that much harder.  This is a fact.  In 2011.
I am not a poor black kid.  I am a middle aged white guy who comes from a middle class white background.  So life was easier for me.  But that doesn’t mean that the prospects are impossible for those kids from the inner city.  It doesn’t mean that there are no opportunities for them.   Or that the 1% control the world and the rest of us have to fight over the scraps left behind.  I don’t believe that.  I believe that everyone in this country has a chance to succeed.  Still.  In 2011.  Even a poor black kid in West Philadelphia.

But that’s also where he starts to go wrong. Sort of. I’m not wowed by the fact that of course it’s the poor black kids in these inner-city neighborhoods – I realize that to make his point he has to give an example that’s stereotypical enough to make sense to a wide variety of readers, but then again, he’s just reinforcing the lack of expectations that we have for our black citizens. He’s unintentionally setting “poor black kids” up for failure based solely on their color. This annoys me – there are a ton of white kids who come from wealthy neighborhoods who somehow manage to never make anything of themselves, just as there are a ton of kids of all colors who do the same. Just like there are a ton of motivated, successful, intelligent people who come from diverse backgrounds. 
But his article ends without ever really exploring the real obstacles to success.  Marks completely ignores entire segments of life that can’t be forgotten when trying to figure out why inner-city kids are so screwed. 

President Obama was right in his speech last week.  The division between rich and poor is a national problem.  But the biggest challenge we face isn’t inequality.   It’s ignorance.  So many kids from West Philadelphia don’t even know these opportunities exist for them.  Many come from single-parent families whose mom or dad (or in many cases their grand mom) is working two jobs to survive and are just (understandably) too plain tired to do anything else in the few short hours they’re home.  Many have teachers who are overburdened and too stressed to find the time to help every kid that needs it.  Many of these kids don’t have the brains to figure this out themselves – like my kids.  Except that my kids are just lucky enough to have parents and a well-funded school system around to push them in the right direction.
Technology can help these kids.  But only if the kids want to be helped.  Yes, there is much inequality.  But the opportunity is still there in this country for those that are smart enough to go for it.

Marks touches on the sociological impact that the neighborhoods these kids are growing up in has on them, but he doesn’t explore it, and that’s where I find the most fault with this article. He’s looking at his “poor black kid” self without realizing that there’s a lot more to it than desire. There’s a lot more to it than drive, than ignorance. I mean, yeah, not knowing what’s out there can really hurt you. But Skype-ing with other students in your school who want to succeed just like you do is a dumb suggestion.

That’s never going to fly. Why is that? Because of the expectations of masculinity that we place on our boys. We’ve been hearing all about how black men are falling behind black women as black women become more and more educated; we hear about the decline of the black family, caused by the decline in marriage. We put this on the black women, some of whom don’t want to marry a black man based on the fact that she’s out-earning him and that she’s far more successful. We have completely forgotten about our black men. We don’t want them to be super nerdy, we don’t want them to be thugs, we don’t value them if they don’t conform to the white elite’s expectations of what a black man should be.

But all of that starts at a much younger age. These black kids – who grow up to be black men – are receiving mixed messages. They’re watching the glorification of gangsters in pop music, in pop culture, in movies and tv shows. They’re watching their friends and relatives go to prison (the odds are that 1 in 5 that a black man will go to prison at some point in his life). But more than that is the fact that to fit in and thrive in this social environment – the entirely socially constructed idea of “black”, they must mirror the actions and behaviors of their peers as a way to earn respect. This is where the problem of black being equal to ghetto becomes problematic. There is no need for such associations, and yet we all make them. And kids grow up thinking that to own their identity is to engage is behaviors that correspond with the perceptions of what that identity is.

White people – men, specifically – don’t have to work for that respect as hard because they have it. Their power is less tangible. It’s in their jobs. It’s in their suits. It’s in their bank accounts. But for a black man, one who is going to be targeted and profiled by police and just about everyone he’ll meet in his life, power and respect have to be earned in a more physical way. This is where the violence begins. To be super brainy and black in an inner city school isn’t going to make you friends. And the kind of bullying that goes on there is much different than the kind of bullying we are seeing at upper-class white middle schools.

Kids who are smart and well-read are still going to fall through the cracks, even if they have the support systems that Marks assumes they lack. He’s correct in bringing up that they may not have the family backing – but he seems to be negating the importance of familial expectations and involvement. There is no way that a 10 year old kid who has to make sure his siblings have dinner, get baths, and get into bed on time is going to have time to seek out extracurricular scholastic help. And he’s not going to find leadership and mentors through sports programs – the gear and economic involvement required to be a part of the team can’t possibly be met by a struggling family.

So let’s not assume that Skype, EverNote, etc. are going to be the tools that launch this hypothetical “poor black” Marks into the 1%. He talks about private school scholarships and how black kids just need to get on the internet and let these elite school boards know how they can improve the appearance of diversity for only the cost of reduced tuition. Wow. Let’s talk about devaluing personhood for a second.
No poor black kid should have the self-awareness to use that angle. No kid should have to use their skin color as a bargaining chip. By doing so, they are saying that they are not worth the same amount that those rich white kids are. That’s already the message that the white elite is hammering home, let’s not force kids to have to de-value themselves in order to get a better education.

We haven’t even covered college yet. But wait, Marks does. Just for a second.

There is financial aid available. There are programs available. And no matter what he or she majors in that person will have opportunities. They will find jobs in a country of business owners like me who are starved for smart, skilled people. They will succeed.

Oh, how could we have forgotten? Financial aid. The magical salve that heals all and makes dreams come true. I’m calling shenanigans. Financial aid and programs aren’t going to send you to the Ivy League school of your dreams, the ones those “poor black kids” might be reading about on their low-cost computers that they manged to buy (how, again?). Even if you end up at your local community college, your success is in no way guaranteed. Financial aid only gets you so far. And then you have travel expenses. And then you have books. And pens. And those stupid class projects that require the purchasing of dumb materials. And then there’s eating. And oh, wait, not again – that whole fitting in thing. Being a poor kid at a rich school is not a cakewalk.

Having a college degree doesn’t make you successful. Wanting something better for yourself doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find it. Yeah, the dream is alive. But that doesn’t meant that we should assume that it’s attainable. It’s not just as simple as, “Oh, I want to go to college and learn stuff so I can get a great job!” and pow! Holy shit, that’s one successful middle-aged black dude right there.

There’s a lot more to it. Being white and assuming that everyone will be afforded the same luxuries as you isn’t helping anything. Being white and segregating isn’t helping either. You’re putting black kids into a box that it’s really hard to get out of. You’re making nasty assumptions. You’re fostering racist attitudes that have perpetuated social and racial problems in the US for too long.

This isn’t about the 1%, or the American Dream. This is a sad excuse for technology-based journalism.

(By the way, most of the commenters didn’t take too kindly to the article either.)

Source: Forbes 

On Abortion Opinion Pieces (this is one of them)

I realize that there are different sets of beliefs on this planet. I really try to see the other side of things. It’s so hard to understand where people who don’t believe the same things as you are coming from. To understand that is the first step toward being able to rationalize their thought process. Or perhaps for mutual respect and compromise. Oh wait, compromise isn’t real.

I get that you, believing whatever it is you believe, might want to turn a news story into something that fits your own agenda. So you write an opinion piece and then you publish it. People read it. That’s great. Now they’re aware of your opinion and they’re seeing the connection between whatever it is that you wrote and your agenda.

Below is an article about how Steve Jobs’ adoption “defied Planned Parenthood’s abortion agenda.”

Seriously? That’s how you want to use his death? I guess it got my attention, so you must be doing something right.  Actually, I was distracted while reading an article that used such terminology as “the abortion business” and how Planned Parenthood, said “abortion business”, by offering birth control such as free condoms, is bilking Medicaid out of millions of dollars. Since I couldn’t verify the validity of the article – and I tried – I could not tweet it for the healthcare company I do contracted social media work for. So naturally, my next move was to spend twenty minutes digging through this site reading anti-everything articles. To my surprise, there was a very rational one about Gardisil (the HPV vaccine) and religion, abstinence, and parenting. I recommend reading it.  And then getting your kids vaccinated. 

Abortion accounts for only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s services. 3%. Their agenda is not in fact abortion. It’s not to kill of all the unborn babies. They’re not grim reapers sitting in dark alleys waiting for pregnant women to happen by so they can lure them into killing the kid. They do a lot of other things, too. Good things. Cancer screenings, free condoms, birth control, testing. 
As someone who was adopted (and was arguably closer to the possibility of abortion than most of you who came from married people or single mothers who chose to raise you), I am so pro-life it’s ridiculous. While I would personally never have an abortion, I do see it as a viable option for those who fall pregnant in really bad circumstances. Of course it’s not birth control. Of course it’s actually not that hard not to get pregnant. But accidents happen. And abortion – in serious moderation – isn’t the end of the world. (See the second article, below the Steve Jobs one, for 10 questions for pro-lifers.) 
(I put a socio-economic rant in here but then deleted it. In conclusion: life is really beautiful, but it can be really ugly, too. Also, insert medical issues that could affect mothers’ health. Those can get problematic under anti-abortion laws. Abortion isn’t really the issue for me. It’s not my thing. It’s the fact that laws that govern abortion really govern my body. And my body belongs to me. I worry that it’s a slippery slope from anti-abortion to anti-…well, anything. I don’t want the government to be able to assert eminent domain over anything connected to my reproductive system or any other system either.) 
This really bothers me on a personal level. Steve Jobs’ biological mother was a graduate student. She made an active decision to give him up to a family. She made them promise he’d go to college. She wasn’t plucked from the operating table mid-abortion to achieve some sort of salvation for the future-tech-god living inside of her. She made a choice that didn’t involve Planned Parenthood at all. But again, it’s just an opinion piece.

Steve Jobs’ Adoption Defied Planned Parenthood’s Abortion Agenda

by Ciara Matthews | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 10/10/11 10:21 AM
Opinion

Following the news last week, the nation is in mourning over the loss of one of this country’s greatest innovators, a man who has shaped technology, communications and human interaction and networking in a profound and unprecedented way. Apple visionary and co-founder Steve Jobs has left an eternal footprint on mankind that will be forever seen in the way we interact and connect with the world around us.
But, if Planned Parenthood had any say over his destiny, chances are he would have never been given the chance to live such an extraordinary life and lead the next generation of technological advancements.
Born February 24, 1955, Jobs was given up for adoption by his parents because of pressure his biological mother received due to her relationship with his biological father. He was adopted as an infant by Clara and Paul Jobs who named their new son Steve Paul Jobs. And, the rest, as they say, is history.
Thankfully, the man the world has come to know and love due to his success as Apple co-founder, CEO, revolutionary, innovator, and entrepreneur as well as Chief Operating Officer at Pixar Animation Studios, was given a chance at life, a life that Planned Parenthood denies approximately 330,000 unborn babies each year. According to Planned Parenthood’s own numbers, in 2008 it was reported, the organization gave 2,405 adoption referrals the entire year. In that same time they performed 324,008 abortions. This means that for every adoption referral Planned Parenthood gives, it performs 134 abortions.
Clara and Paul Jobs valued the life of a child Planned Parenthood labels a “crisis,” and Steve Jobs did not become just another “problem” Planned Parenthood attempted solve.  Steve Jobs adoptive parents, as well as his birth parents, what Planned Parenthood refuses to see – a helpless life with the potential for greatness.  He could easily have been an abortion statistic.  The world has been touched by Steve Jobs because he parents recognized the value his life held. While the beginning of his life may have been “unintended,” the life and legacy of Steve Jobs had meaning and purpose. He accomplished great things in his 56 years. Unfortunately, the abortion industry has ensured that the potential and greatness of millions of boy and girls will never be realized.
Learn more about other great thinkers, entertainers and leaders that were given a chance to accomplish great things thanks to their mother’s decision to choose life.

From Ms. magazine:

10 Questions for Anti-Choice Candidates

October 20, 2011 by  · 65 Comments 

Amanda Marcotte posted an interesting rant at Double X yesterday about the cognitive dissonance between the desire of anti-choice individuals to make abortion illegal and their unwillingness to address the legal issues that would arise if that happened:
The widespread delusion that advocating for bans on abortion won’t mean that abortion is, you know, banned, runs so deep that if you ask a typical anti-choice obsessive how much time women should do for breaking the law they wished existed, they straight up can’t answer the question because they’ve quite literally never thought that banned means banned.
Click the link above and you’ll see what she means–many anti-choice individuals haven’t ever thought about that detail before. It made me think: There are a lot of questions I’d like to ask candidates running for office over the next year.
1. How many years do you consider to be a fair prison term for a woman who has an abortion?
2. How many years for a doctor who performs one?
3. Will the punishments be greater the second time around? 
4. Where will the state get the money necessary to prosecute one-third of all American women for this crime?
5. Forty-two percent of women who have an abortion have incomes below 100 percent of the federal poverty level (that’s $10,830 for a single woman with no children, if you’re counting). When women are forced to have children they cannot afford to raise, will those children become wards of the state or simply new Medicaid recipients? Where will the state find the money necessary to support them?
6. Will you be willing to watch your wife die in front of you when her life is threatened by an unsafe pregnancy that no one is allowed to do anything about? Your daughter?
7. Will rapists have to pay child support to women who are forced to have their children?
8. Will the child of incest be in the custody of its rapist father or the father’s teenaged daughter, his mother? In fact, 18 percent of women who have an abortion in America are teenagers. Will they be required to drop out of high school to raise their children or will the state provide free childcare?
9. Will upper-class white women be prosecuted as vigorously as other women who have abortions?
10. You are aware that upper-class white women have abortions, aren’t you?
Help me out here, what else would you like to have asked? The only way to hold people accountable for their views is to question them relentlessly. These people are running for office–ask them what kind of society they envision creating.
.

On Sluts. And the Racism/Feminism divide.

I’ve written about SlutWalks before, but a quick history: they stem from comments made by a police officer giving a speech. In it, he implied that women could avoid being raped by not wearing provocative clothing. The comments prompted so-called SlutWalks in major cities across the world. Women (and men) have marched (and are still marching) in protest.

To be clear, I really hate the word “slut.” It’s not a word I feel any inclination to reclaim. I don’t want to be called “slut.” I don’t want to call myself “slut.” It sends shivers up my spine. But I really like how moved people were to try and do something about it.

We live in a culture that is not supportive of women, of their clothing, or of their victimization. Rape victims are often reprimanded. Rather than addressing the rapists, we address the victims with criticism, complaints, judgement. New Jersey just passed a law to ensure that victims don’t have to pay for their own rape kit processing. As of August 15, it hadn’t been signed.

We were driving out of Chicago last summer and passed a scantily clothed woman on the South Side. “She’s just asking for it,” said my passenger. I nearly slammed on the brakes and made him walk. I turned to him and, while agreeing that her clothing was inappropriate for 4pm on a weekday, asked him how he’d feel if it was me who was being judged. Or how he’d feel if I got raped. “Would it be my fault?” I asked him. I often wonder what would happen, since I’m so outspoken about sexuality and sexual issues. Were I to be raped, would anyone believe me? Would I lose the respect of my peers?

Granted, there are things you can do to help mitigate the potential for rape, but often, nothing can be done. Rape is not the fault of the victim, no matter the circumstance.

The article below, published on the Ms. magazine website October 5, 2011, addresses the issues of racism within the feminist movement.

A few months ago, I purchased Girl Drive, a  look at everyday women across America. What struck me was the disconnect that people reported feeling between feminism and their cultures. They spoke about feminism being for white girls. I actually fit the definition of their idea of what a feminist was: it’s the academic, middle-class, white girl (basically college me). They spoke about being black rather than being a feminist. Or about being black before being a feminist. It’s as though the idea of being a black feminist was impossible. Culture comes first. And sometimes, there’s not enough room for both.

On the surface, it seems simple to bridge the gap between race and feminism. But it’s not. Peace and love is way harder than you’d think.

Another article, mentioned in the article below, discusses other issues associated with black feminism. It argues that white women have benefited from the “racialized virgin/whore dichotomy,” by fostering distrust of white women and blinding the white women to “what a SlutWalk would look like in solidarity with black women, with low-income women” etc. I don’t entirely agree with that. I don’t think that any women have benefited from the dichotomy, and that separation of women (by race, by income level, by immigration status, etc) only hinders our progress as we must fight among ourselves before we can fight for something else.

[Some] White women embrace feminism and that shouldn’t be a reason that anyone else can’t embrace feminism as well. People do. There are feminists of all colors. There are poor feminists and rich feminists.  Feminists who are double-jointed and feminists who aren’t. Feminists who have longer second toes. Feminists who have wonky ears and who have no taste in music.

I am finding that more and more of racial tension (in specific situations and circumstances, not across the board) stems from our attempts to address and acknowledge differences because regardless of our own color, we’re so hypersensitive to it. (It exists. We all see it. I absolutely accept that I have “white privilege” but disagree that it blinds me entirely.)

I realize that racism is still alive and well. Racism happens every day in institutions, from schools to prisons, in the media, in government. By acknowledging race before we acknowledge any other characteristic, we’re limiting the scope of our focus. We can’t see any further. Therefore, we make no progress.

I think that to move past it, we must put it aside. As educated individuals, we must simply step over it rather than letting it be a line that both sides draw. It has to start somewhere. It will trickle out around us. It will grow in the minds of our children. Progress.

As women, we can be that beginning. We can work together as women united by a stronger cause. We can embrace our differences, learn from each other, and begin to create a strong network of support. Regardless of color, women must realize that other women are not the enemy. Neither are men.

The enemy is the idea of inequality, of implied consent. The enemy lies in assumptions.

It is possible to be many things at once. Our connections, our histories, all of those things could lead us to create powerful webs of community. Instead, we let them divide us. We must stop seeing everyone as fractured statistics and start seeing them as whole people before we make any progress on this.

I agree with the author (of the second article – linked here) when she closes by saying:

There’s a reason why many rape survivors don’t come forward with their experiences. They do not want to be subject to such words by a larger society that still blames victims. At least the SlutWalk boldly takes on that word, and in doing so, invites us to empty it of its power and its racist, classist, hetero/sexist meanings.  Whether that’s possible is another debate, but for now, it’s useful to remember what Emi Koyama once wrote: “Everyone is safe when sluts are safe.”

What NYC SlutWalk Was, and What It Wasn’t

October 5, 2011 by  · Leave a Comment 
Union Square was packed when I arrived at this weekend’s inaugural New York SlutWalk. The crowd was mostly women, mostly young and mostly white. Clothing styles ranged from topless to scanty to normal street garb to formal. One woman wore a business suit. A common thread was “slut” in red and black markers across foreheads, arms, backs and chests. The red-and-black writing was striking: People silently write “slut” across a girl’s chest everyday, but here it was, literalized.
I wandered through the 3,000-person crowd amid signs such as “Women are Souls, Not Holes” and “If I was asking for it, I would ask for it.” “This is what I was wearing when I was raped” read one sign held by a woman in pajamas. Another held pictures of her battered body from a sexual assault a few weeks prior. As I talked with her and other NYC SlutWalkers, they all kept using the same word: empowerment. For many of them, it was the first time they had ever participated in a march about women’s rights, and it was the first time they felt surrounded by other people who “got it.”
When I finally found my way to the SlutWalk organizers, I was feeling pretty slutty and powerful myself. I’d even found a “Slut Pride” pin and attached it to my shirt. But as I reviewed my prepared questions, I remembered the serious qualms I and other feminists had with SlutWalk, such as the recent criticisms from women of color. When I asked Holly Meyer, one of the organizers, about these critiques, she had a simple response:
We have always been inclusive. We’ve always said anyone is welcome to come to our meetings, we’ve never excluded any group. It’s unfortunate that some people have that perspective and don’t feel welcome, but our message is to end sexual violence.
Plain and simple. The point of SlutWalk isn’t complicated. Or, at least, the NYC SlutWalk organizers don’t seem to think so.
Holly was proud to say that many of rally’s official performances were by women of color. From what I witnessed, those performers focused on calling for solidarity and inclusiveness, but did not get into the unique experiences that black and other marginalized women have had with sexual violence and words like “slut.” For example, Amber Stewart of Radical Women said during her performance:
We have to work to tear down racism, because there is no place in this movement for an Us versus Them mentality. We need all voices, all concerns brought to the table.
Holly told me some other great things about the NYC SlutWalk, like its pressure on the NYPD to have sensitivity trainings or its calls to the FBI asking for a change in the FBI’s definition of rape.
Despite all this, it’s easy to criticize the NYC SlutWalk as a rally for privileged white feminists, especially when women of color at the rally were few and far between. I also couldn’t help but wince when I saw a group of men staring, mouths open, at the woman in lingerie pole-dancing on the back of bike during the march. If I talked to those men today, I doubt they could tell me what the march was about.
Overall, however, I left the NYC SlutWalk feeling like it was a work in progress. Yes, it should focus more squarely on women of color issues. But it brought out thousands of New Yorkers against sexual violence at a time when Brooklyn NYPD are telling women not to wear skirts to avoid being raped. It allowed 3,000 New Yorkers to feel like they were in power for a few hours on a Saturday. We should ask SlutWalks to graduate to a higher level of feminist thinking that addresses race and deeper issues within rape culture, but I think we should also recognize them for the work in their freshman year.
Photo of SlutWalk NYC sign holder from Flickr user David Shankbone under Creative Commons 2.0.

On #OccupyDenver, #OccupyWallSt

It started here yesterday, a show of solidarity with those who have been gathered in New York for 12 days, protesting nearly everything, but agreeing on only one thing: We are the 99% vs the 1%. 


(Read this for more information: 

https://occupywallst.org/

and read this just because: 

http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/  )


I love the idea of protests. I think that we haven’t done enough of them in last twenty years. I think that a lot of hope can be fostered, and a lot of information can be spread. 


That said, I agree that protesters are often ill-informed and easily distracted away from their original purpose. 

I haven’t decided where I stand on these protests – I’m not sure that they’re focused enough to actually be making specific demands, but it seems like they’ve gotten only more organized since they started. I like that they’ve got the resolve to stick it out, and I fully support a more vocal movement from the citizens of the US. So I guess I’m behind it.


If you’re on twitter, check out #occupydenver or #occupywallst for up to date information on what’s going on. 


And as always, if you’re protesting, write a lawyer’s number somewhere on your body, drink plenty of water, and do nothing to disrespect or disrupt the marches/protests. Be respectful, peaceful, and wise.  



Occupy Wall Street Protest: 12 Days and Little Sign of Slowing Down

Michael Nagle / Getty Images

A protestor looks in his bag in Zuccotti Park, where demonstrators against the economic system have been gathering since September 17
Michael Nagle / Getty Images
Nearly two weeks ago, an estimated 3,000 people assembled at Battery Park with the intention of occupying Wall Street. They were an eclectic group, mostly young, some with beards and tattoos, other dressed in shorts and sneakers; a few even wore suits for the occasion. But nearly everyone was angry at what they saw as a culture of out-of-control greed. They didn’t succeed — at least not geographically, forgoing Wall Street for nearby Zuccotti Park, just around the corner from Ground Zero.
News outlets put the crowd there at several thousand, but that seemed to overestimate its true numbers. When I visited the park on Sept. 17, I counted backpacks and sleeping bags, trying to differentiate the tourists and casual marchers from those who were in it for the long haul. I came up with about 200 people.
Over the past 12 days, however, those numbers have grown. On a late-night visit to Zuccotti Park on Tuesday, the fecklessness and disorganization reported earlier in the New York Times seemed largely absent. A protest that began in utter dysfunction has given way to a fairly organized movement with a base camp for its most stalwart members, now numbering more than 300 people, who have slept in the park for 12 nights straight–and who say they intend to stay.
Perhaps no incident galvanized the protesters more than their march north to Union Square on Sept. 24. Police arrested nearly 80 people whom they say were blocking traffic, and video of a penned-in female protester being pepper sprayed by a police officer went viral on the web. The protesters have posted the video on their website and a picture of the woman adorns the board at the entrance to the park, at what’s now become the groups quasi-official information booth. At small table, posterboards lay out the schedule for the day, which includes marches down to Wall Street for the stock exchange’s opening and closing bells, each followed by a “General Assembly” where the various groups gather to discuss their goals, their current status and what might come next.
The park has become a semi-permanent home, complete with a medical station and a distribution point for food and water. The protesters have organized themselves into committees to remove the garbage, roam the camp to enforce a ban on open flames (an evictable offense in the eyes of the NYPD) and engage with the people in the area. A couple of pizza joints, a Burger King and a deli have let the protesters use their bathrooms; some have even donated food. In the middle of the park is a media center where protesters send out Twitter updates and live-stream the latest news on their website. At 1 am Wednesday, more than 3,000 people were sending in questions while a young woman in a yellow poncho answered them on a live feed.
But while “Occupy Wall Street” has become more organized, its demands haven’t coalesced into a coherent message. The only thing its various constituent groups appear to have in common is a deep-seated anger at inequality in this country. For them Wall Street symbolizes that unfairness, but the groups have other concerns as well. Many want to redistribute wealth; others want to enlarge government social programs. Some are protesting against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Daniel Levine, a journalism student from upstate New York, said he was taking a stand against the controversial method of natural gas extraction known as hydrofracking in his hometown – but also noted that the practice can bring jobs to economically disadvantaged regions.
Just as it lacks a single message, the “Occupy Wall Street” movement has been defined by the absence of a clear leader. Participants say that is by design, and point to the committees that have sprung up to tend to the daily needs of those camped in Zuccotti Park. It isn’t clear that they want a single leader, and many think the movement is better of without one. “It’s kind of cool how it’s growing organically,” one said. “People just need to give it time and it’ll come together.”
Assuming organizers can keep the protest on the good side of the law, all indications are that it will continue for a long time. A sign by the information booth held a wish list: hats, gloves, tarps, and warm clothing. On live streams on the website, organizers answered questions about what supporters could bring or send. If last weekend is any indication, the numbers could swell this Saturday as supporters come in from out of town. For those who eventually leave again, Levine hopes that they take the skills they’ve learned back to their communities to continue to protest for whatever cause they support. “Every person who’s been here more than three days can completely organize a protest in their hometowns,” Levine says. “This is the most productive homelessness I’ve ever seen.”

Read more:http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/09/29/occupy-wall-street-12-days-and-little-sign-of-slowing-down/#ixzz1ZNxdcB2p

On 9/11

I really hate talking about tragedies. I think that often they serve as an opportunity to capitalize, rather than an opportunity for reflection.

September 11, 2001. I’m in 7th grade. I’m at Dad’s house that week. I’m in the bathtub in the apartment at Deerfield. I’m doing the usual procrastination routine (for some reason, it took 12-year old me like an hour and a half to get ready for school), when Dad knocks on my door and tells me to turn on the tv.
I get out. I’m wrapped in that striped blue and yellow towel with the red ends.
I turn on the tv sitting on my dresser (the one exciting part about divorce was cable!) and stare.
I started watching before the second plane hit.
I saw that little speck fly across the screen, hit the building, and burst into flames. The smoke rippled out and up, away.

That’s what I remember about 9/11.
We went to school. They wouldn’t tell us anything. At our lockers, we whispered that the White House had been blown up, that everything was destroyed. There was talk of letting us watch the coverage, but that never happened.

My cousins were born that day. Little premature babies coming into the world. They were life in the middle of all the hopelessness. Everyone was worried that they wouldn’t make it. That they were too early. They would. They had to.

On the tenth anniversary, I hope that all of America stops and reflects about the past decade. About how that day really did change us all; it changed our outlook; it took our trust.

But I am very critical of how we treated Muslims after that. The way we’re still treating Muslims. The way we look at the Arab world and make blanket statements. It’s not healthy for us to live these two-faced lives: the one of freedom and strength and the other of cowardly fear and oppression.

It is true that Osama bin Laden wanted us to get into a war we could never escape from. And we’ve managed to do it twice. So, honestly, he gets a point or two for that. We didn’t think through our actions – we acted instead. You all know I’m the first person to advocate acting first and thinking later, but not when it comes to peoples’ lives. To tax dollars. To innocent civilians.
We acted incorrectly. We went into Iraq, not because of 9/11 (but yeah, sort of), but to find WMDs that didn’t exist. We should have left. Instead, we just blew more stuff up.

No one won 9/11.
Bin Laden lost his freedom, his power, and eventually his life.
We lost much more than that.
Not only did we lose so many of our own unsuspecting civilians, fathers and mothers, and families, we lost our future. Arguably, we lost our superpower status.

Not everything that has happened in the last decade happened because of 9/11.
We’re not the same, we’ve lost a lot.
But we are stronger than that day.

America is more than that day.

So hug your family and be grateful for them. Even though our country is mired in a hot mess of hell right now, we are a wonderful place to be.
I personally am grateful for all of my freedom as a woman. My freedom of expression. My independence.  My education. My life, even though it super shitty sometimes, is full of endless possibilities.

And so is yours.

Race and Stuff…

I’ve been meaning to blog about racism for awhile now, but I found this article today, and until I get around to finally actually blogging about it, I think this will do:


Back in the Jim Crow days, there were two basic approaches to racism in the segregated South. You were an aggressor—a lawmaker wedded to segregation, a member of a lynch mob, a scientist trying to prove non-white people were inferior, or your garden variety white person who might use a racial epithet. Or you were a bystander—someone who maintained the status quo by saying, “We don’t want any trouble.”

Nowadays, being racist in public is less acceptable, so people come up with all kinds of excuses for prejudice. Like, “Just kidding!” Or, “I’m not racist, I’m just honest. (Variation: I’m just exercising my First Amendment Rights.)” “I have black friends.” “Posting on Facebook can’t be racist.” And so on. Even amid claims that America is now post-racial, one of the tried-and-true ways to be racist has endured: the argument that fighting against bigotry is more trouble than it’s worth.

Take, for instance, what happened recently at an Arkansas graduation: A black teen mom named Kymberly Wimberly was the top student at McGehee Secondary School in Little Rock. Despite these accomplishments, a white co-valedictorian was named along with her. Was it because this white student had the same GPA? Nope, it was because school officials worried that making Wimberly valedictorian would result in a “big mess” at the majority-white school.

This response may seem antiquated, but it’s not uncommon—and neither is the old-school racism it defends. When Prescott, Arizona, residents shouted racial epiphets at non-white students while they were painting a school mural, the administration’s first thought wasn’t to speak out against racism. It was to lighten the skin of the Hispanic boy depicted on the mural. Why? They wanted to avoid “a controversy.”

As late as last year, schools in states like Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama have held segregated proms for black and white (and sometimes Hispanic) students. Overt racism still exists—one parent in Charleston, Mississippi reportedly said in 2008, “I’m not going to have any of those niggers rubbing up against my daughter”—but others prefer these divided dances because they want to side-step “racial flareups, a fight.”

In this case, fear of violence is code for fear of change. And that’s not much different from the Jim Crow era. A student named Chasidy Buckley, ensnared in the Mississippi prom fight, didn’t mince words when she described what was at the heart of the segregation: “The [school] said, ‘why change now? Let’s just keep going.’ That’s the whole thing with our town. Everybody’s afraid of change. It’s just horrible.”

I’m embarrassed for America.


We have so much hate. It’s not just directed at Blacks, or Latinos, or Asians. It’s directed at everyone – gays, lesbians, women, minorities. (I apologize for any missteps in capitalization – I’m not hip to the politically correct shit these days.)

I remember my high school English teacher Mr. H drawing boxes on the whiteboard and explaining that people need to think in categories.

I’ll give him that.

I personally put myself in many boxes, all at once. The two that stand out are White and Woman. I was so excited to receive a book I ordered just before I went to Chicago about the modern definition of feminism written by two girls about my age.

The one thing that struck me as I was reading the book was how many women said that they never really explored feminism proper because they thought it was for white women. The term “feminism” was too academic, too Ivory Tower, too haughty for the regular woman’s vernacular. And so they avoided it. It didn’t mean that they weren’t living it, engaging in it, defining it for themselves. It just meant they weren’t calling it that.

But they had a hard time seeing themselves as both Black (or Latina, or whatever they were) and as a woman. It was like they didn’t think it was possible to be two things at once. (It’s hard, especially when one or more of the boxes you’ve put yourself in – or are put in – are minorities.)

I’ll give Americans the opportunity to think in categories. Race, gender, economic standing – those things are all categories. You’re free to make observations. But you’re forgetting to observe other important stuff to.
Instead of: “Hey I bet that Black kid is going to steal that lady’s purse. Look at his baggy pants; the kids these days.” It should be: “How nice of that young man to help that lady across the street. Look as his baggy pants; the kids these days.” (You’re still an ageist ass, but better that than a racist, right? I’m just kidding, I’ve got an ageism rant you’re probably dying to hear. – I just made myself laugh.)

But we’ve failed at educating people how to stop it all at observation. Instead, we’ve let our categorical thinking invade our lifestyles, our habits, our daily lives.
We categorize, we lump people together, we judge.

We don’t embrace all of our categories, our weirdness, our faults. We push them away and instead pick the thing we like the best.

I’m a marketer.

I’m a doctor.

Well, what else are you?

It’s a hard habit to break, I know.

There are a lot of pieces that make each of us a whole person – color, gender, passions. I wish we as Americans could try to look for the whole person.

We’re too sensitive to race. Let’s stop focusing on it because we’re creating the “other.” We’re providing the boxes to put people in. Let’s focus on humanity.

Fuck the statistics, we just keep living up to them. You tell someone what they will be and they’ll be it. You’re going to end up in prison. You’re going to end up the President. You’re going to get pulled over if you keep speeding.

I am sad to say that I’m ashamed of how we act like we stand up for rights, and the American dream, and advancement, and equality, and education, and morality – and really, we display very little of that to the world.

We are not a nation of equal people. We are not a nation of prosperity. One in seven of our citizens is on food stamps. (To qualify for food stamps, you have to make 130% of the poverty level or less.) We are a nation of hatred, of bigots, of uneducated, arrogant fools. And until we learn to accept and tolerate, we will get nowhere.

Let’s get together and create a better future.

For everyone.


America

I’m disappointed in myself, a little bit.
Lately, I’ve really been struggling to understand other people’s political viewpoints.
I pride myself on being really open-minded. But with this political-viewpoint problem, I can’t wrap my mind around how someone could think some of the things that I disagree with.
I spend a lot of time trying, too. I sit there. I get the pro-life thing (to a certain extent). I get the death penalty thing (again, to a certain extent). I get the religious thing (don’t know why – definitely disagree, but I at least understand). But most of it – I guess it’s the whole package, seems absolutely absurd to me.

But what I’m going to talk about today sort of goes past the politics (but not far), and delves into what I think of as a human rights problem.

I read an article today about a man who has been detained for 6 months with no charges filed against him in Switzerland (WikiLeaks related).
So I sent out a little tweet about it:
katiemarybarry 

Who defines them as “unlawful combatants” or as “Islamist extremists” or that they “want to kill us”? We do. And that’s the part that’s messed up.

mjgranger has written a book about how Guantanamo Bay has saved our lives and blah blah blah, so he’s probably just trolling twitter trying to find people to engage in arguments with so the book can be labeled controversial.

Censorship: Why you shouldn’t advocate for it

I wasn’t allowed to watch the movies that my friends were watching and I hated it. All I wanted to was to see Titanic. I’ll never forget one of my classmates not letting me see a page in her Titanic movie companion book because she knew I wasn’t allowed to see the movie. 
My mom still cringes when I mention my first R-rated film (Ronin, when I was in the fourth grade). I don’t think I saw another R-rated film until high school. I still have only seen about five episodes of the Simpsons. I remember getting into angsty adolescent skirmishes with my dad because he wouldn’t let me buy CDs (when people still bought those) with the “Parental Advisory” stickers on them. My parents were careful, and surprisingly united in their cause to protect us from content they deemed inappropriate.
However careful my parents were to keep me from playing violent video games and from viewing violent images, they neglected to monitor my reading to a certain extent. I’d wait eagerly for mom to finish reading Reader’s Digest so I could have it, and she’d always tell me not to read certain articles. 
So those were the first ones I read. And yes, some of them were probably inappropriate for an 8-year old, but they also opened my eyes to the reality of the world around me. (I also watched both the morning and evening news, and Dateline, and stuff like that. I’m consequently terrified of fireworks, boiling water in glass bottomed containers, and swimming pool drains. But as a result, I’m also still alive.) 
Reader’s Digest wrote about female genital mutilation years before it was a mainstream topic. Now, they’re making a movie about Waris Dirie, the woman whose story appeared in that magazine at some point during my youth. I don’t consider that inappropriate at all. I’m grateful. It allowed me to understand something I might not have been able to – and it allowed me to learn without being embarrassed to ask awkward questions. 
As a child, I devoured books. It didn’t matter whether they were aimed at children, young adults, or adults, I read them all. My particular favorites were murder mysteries. I loved them. Agatha Christie, Lillian Jackson Braun, and so on. 
One year, someone bought me a big book of murder mysteries from Barnes and Noble. I’ll never forget it. That purple and black cover, the fact that it was at least a thousand pages. I thought it would last at least a week (I read so fast that I had to start choosing books based on thickness so they’d last). And I started reading. 
Not far into the book, I came upon a story so grotesque, I had to stop reading. (It concerned the rape and murder of a young girl.) My usual morbid curiosity was gone. I was haunted by what I’d read. I closed the book and hid it at the bottom of my drawer. I never again picked up that book. 
Perhaps my parents would never have given it to me if they’d known what it contained. But it was given to me with the best of intentions – they knew I loved murder mysteries. 
I was young, yes, but I was also old enough to make the decision not to continue reading for myself. 
The article that this post is based on calls into question the maturity of young adults to choose for themselves. What are we exposing our kids to? Today’s popular books don’t have any new themes in them…Shakespeare wrote about suicide, bloody battles, sex, etc. What is scandalous today becomes blasé tomorrow. 
I didn’t only learn about sex because of romance novels – one night, I couldn’t sleep and Mom gave me a book and told me not to read past a certain page. I started reading and fell in love with the characters. I read the entire book that night. It remains one of the most romantic stories I’ve ever read, not because it was inappropriate (it wasn’t), but because it was beautiful. I laughed and I cried. I slept well that night, knowing that somewhere, a fictional couple had found that love that all humans strive for. 
Books taught me about history, and tragedy, and famine, and war. I learned about the triumphs of humanity, the beauty of the natural world, the greed that comes with power. 
I don’t regret the exposure I had through novels. They prepared me to lead the life I lead today. They taught me about inner strength, gratitude, poise, passion, intelligence, the best way to silence an enemy, all sorts of poisons, drugs, politics, the justice system, common sense, fact, fiction, wild adventures, and magic. They were my greatest escape, my greatest indulgence, the source of much of my happiness. 
Thank you, Mom and Dad, for letting me read. 
The text below comes from a Wall Street Journal article published on June 4, 2011:

Darkness Too Visible

Contemporary fiction for teens is rife with explicit abuse, violence and depravity. Why is this considered a good idea?

Amy Freeman, a 46-year-old mother of three, stood recently in the young-adult section of her local Barnes & Noble, in Bethesda, Md., feeling thwarted and disheartened.
She had popped into the bookstore to pick up a welcome-home gift for her 13-year-old, who had been away. Hundreds of lurid and dramatic covers stood on the racks before her, and there was, she felt, “nothing, not a thing, that I could imagine giving my daughter. It was all vampires and suicide and self-mutilation, this dark, dark stuff.” She left the store empty-handed.

How dark is contemporary fiction for teens? Darker than when you were a child, my dear: So dark that kidnapping and pederasty and incest and brutal beatings are now just part of the run of things in novels directed, broadly speaking, at children from the ages of 12 to 18.

Pathologies that went undescribed in print 40 years ago, that were still only sparingly outlined a generation ago, are now spelled out in stomach-clenching detail. Profanity that would get a song or movie branded with a parental warning is, in young-adult novels, so commonplace that most reviewers do not even remark upon it.
If books show us the world, teen fiction can be like a hall of fun-house mirrors, constantly reflecting back hideously distorted portrayals of what life is. There are of course exceptions, but a careless young reader—or one who seeks out depravity—will find himself surrounded by images not of joy or beauty but of damage, brutality and losses of the most horrendous kinds.
Now, whether you care if adolescents spend their time immersed in ugliness probably depends on your philosophical outlook. Reading about homicide doesn’t turn a man into a murderer; reading about cheating on exams won’t make a kid break the honor code. But the calculus that many parents make is less crude than that: It has to do with a child’s happiness, moral development and tenderness of heart. Entertainment does not merely gratify taste, after all, but creates it.
[yalit]Raul Allen
If you think it matters what is inside a young person’s mind, surely it is of consequence what he reads. This is an old dialectic—purity vs. despoliation, virtue vs. smut—but for families with teenagers, it is also everlastingly new. Adolescence is brief; it comes to each of us only once, so whether the debate has raged for eons doesn’t, on a personal level, really signify.
As it happens, 40 years ago, no one had to contend with young-adult literature because there was no such thing. There was simply literature, some of it accessible to young readers and some not. As elsewhere in American life, the 1960s changed everything. In 1967, S.E. Hinton published “The Outsiders,” a raw and striking novel that dealt directly with class tensions, family dysfunction and violent, disaffected youth. It launched an industry.
Mirroring the tumultuous times, dark topics began surging on to children’s bookshelves. A purported diary published anonymously in 1971, “Go Ask Alice,” recounts a girl’s spiral into drug addiction, rape, prostitution and a fatal overdose. A generation watched Linda Blair playing the lead in the 1975 made-for-TV movie “Sarah T: Portrait of a Teenage Alcoholic” and went straight for Robin S. Wagner’s original book. The writer Robert Cormier is generally credited with having introduced utter hopelessness to teen narratives. His 1977 novel, “I Am the Cheese,” relates the delirium of a traumatized youth who witnessed his parents’ murder, and it does not (to say the least) have a happy ending.
Grim though these novels are, they seem positively tame in comparison with what’s on shelves now. In Andrew Smith’s 2010 novel, “The Marbury Lens,” for example, young Jack is drugged, abducted and nearly raped by a male captor. After escaping, he encounters a curious pair of glasses that transport him into an alternate world of almost unimaginable gore and cruelty. Moments after arriving he finds himself facing a wall of horrors, “covered with impaled heads and other dripping, black-rot body parts: hands, hearts, feet, ears, penises. Where the f— was this?” No happy ending to this one, either.
In Jackie Morse Kessler’s gruesome but inventive 2011 take on a girl’s struggle with self-injury, “Rage,” teenage Missy’s secret cutting turns nightmarish after she is the victim of a sadistic sexual prank. “She had sliced her arms to ribbons, but the badness remained, staining her insides like cancer. She had gouged her belly until it was a mess of meat and blood, but she still couldn’t breathe.” Missy survives, but only after a stint as one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

Books We can Recommend for Young Adult Readers

BOOKS FOR YOUNG MEN:
Ship Breaker by Paolo Bacigalupi (2010)
This grueling post-apocalyptic National Book Award winner earns its scenes of menace and the odd expletive by believably conjuring a future in which people survive by scavenging materials from the rusting hulks of oil tankers. In a pitiless semi-civilization, one single act of decency launches a young man on a terrifying journey.
Peace by Richard Bausch (2009)
For older teens, a taut World War II novel set in 1944 that evokes the conflicting moral struggles of war. When a detachment of American GIs tramping through the Italian countryside discovers an escaping German soldier and a young woman hiding in the back of a cart, the resulting bloodshed—is it murder or self-defense?—sets off profound reverberations in the men’s hearts.
Old School by Tobias Wolff (2004)
Set in a smart New England prep school in the 1960s, this story of a young man’s search for authentic identity captures the mixture of longing and ambition that causes so many adolescents to try, if only for a time, to shape themselves along other people’s lines. Here, the admired models are writers—Ernest Hemingway, Ayn Rand, Robert Frost—who visit the school and for whom the young protagonist contorts himself in painful and revealing ways.
Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury (1953)
A science-fiction classic that offers surprisingly mordant commentary on contemporary American life. In a society where rampant political correctness has resulted in the outlawing of books, Guy Montag works as a “fireman” tasked with destroying intellectual contraband. His wife spends her days immersed in the virtual reality projected on screens around her. When Guy accidentally reads a line from a book, he finds himself strangely stirred—and impelled to an act of recklessness that will change his life forever. Teenagers whose families are maddeningly glued to screens may find Guy’s rebellion bracingly resonant.
The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time by Mark Haddon (2003)
Told (with the occasional expletive) from the unreliable perspective of a high-functioning autistic teenager, this mystery recounts 15-year-old Christopher’s effort to solve the killing of a neighborhood dog. When the boy himself falls under suspicion in the animal’s death, his violent response propels him toward discoveries that will ultimately overturn his understanding of his own family.
True Grit by Charles Portis (1968)
The movie versions are fine, but they only approximate the drollery and tenderness of this tale of Wild West vengeance. Narrated in retrospect by a rawhide-tough woman named Mattie Ross, the novel recounts her girlhood quest to hunt down her father’s killer in lawless Indian Territory, with the aid of dissolute U.S. Marshal Rooster Cogburn. The brilliance is all in the tone: Beneath Mattie’s blunt manner lies a fierce intelligence and wagon-loads of grit. Girls will love this one, too.
BOOKS FOR YOUNG WOMEN:
What I Saw and How I Lied by Judy Blundell (2008)
The events swirling around 15-year-old Evie in this sophisticated National Book Award winner seem to her, in the blinkered way of teenagers, mainly the backdrop to her own sexual awakening. In a story involving deceitful parents, stolen Jewish treasure, a handsome ex-GI, adultery and murder, all set in louche, off-season Palm Beach, it is only when Evie must decide whether to lie—and whom to save—that it is apparent that she is no longer a child.
Ophelia by Lisa Klein (2006)
An inventive retelling of the story of Hamlet from the perspective of beautiful, bewildered Ophelia. In Shakespeare’s play, we are meant to understand her as a love-struck medieval girl gone mad. Here she is an intelligent if impractical Elizabethan who, with the help of Queen Gertrude, secretly marries Prince Hamlet, fakes her own death and runs away with—well, that would be telling, wouldn’t it?
Angelmonster by Veronica Bennett (2005)
This elegant novel introduces us to 16-year-old Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin, future author of “Frankenstein,” shortly before she meets the dashing poet Percy Bysshe Shelley. The events that ensue seem as jolting today as they were to the couple’s early 19th-century contemporaries: an adulterous escape from London to Europe, the births and deaths of two children, a sojourn in Italy with the “mad, bad, and dangerous to know” Lord Byron (which included a famous night of telling ghost stories), and Percy Shelley’s tragic death at sea.
Z for Zachariah by Robert C. O’Brien (1973)
A post-apocalyptic novel for adolescents that is all the more frightening for its restraint. It has been a year since all-out nuclear war has left Ann Burden apparently the only girl in the radioactive remains of the United States; thanks to a quirk of geography, her family’s farm (but not her family) survived the cataclysm. When she sees a column of distant smoke, Ann realizes that she is not alone, and soon she is nursing back to health a man who turns out not to be the person to play Adam to her Eve.
A Tree Grows in Brooklyn by Betty Smith (1943)
This vivid novel of early 20th-century Brooklyn is proof that mature material can be rendered with such subtle humanity that a younger teen can read it with as much enjoyment as a person many years older. I got my copy in a used bookstore when I was 11 and was so entranced by the story of book-loving Francie Nolan and her impoverished Irish-Catholic family—her beautiful mother, her handsome drunken father and various other misbehaving or censorious relatives—that I read it over and over throughout adolescence. Only years later did I grasp everything that happened between the adult characters. Isn’t that what being a young reader, or indeed a teenager, is all about?
The argument in favor of such novels is that they validate the teen experience, giving voice to tortured adolescents who would otherwise be voiceless. If a teen has been abused, the logic follows, reading about another teen in the same straits will be comforting. If a girl cuts her flesh with a razor to relieve surging feelings of self-loathing, she will find succor in reading about another girl who cuts, mops up the blood with towels and eventually learns to manage her emotional turbulence without a knife.
Yet it is also possible—indeed, likely—that books focusing on pathologies help normalize them and, in the case of self-harm, may even spread their plausibility and likelihood to young people who might otherwise never have imagined such extreme measures. Self-destructive adolescent behaviors are observably infectious and have periods of vogue. That is not to discount the real suffering that some young people endure; it is an argument for taking care.
The novel “Scars,” a dreadfully clunky 2010 exercise by Cheryl Rainfield that School Library Journal inexplicably called “one heck of a good book,” ran into difficulties earlier this year at the Boone County Library in Kentucky, but not because of its contents. A patron complained that the book’s depiction of cutting—the cover shows a horribly scarred forearm—might trigger a sufferer’s relapse. That the protagonist’s father has been raping her since she was a toddler and is trying to engineer her suicide was not the issue for the team of librarians re-evaluating the book.
“Books like ‘Scars,’ or with questionable material, those provide teachable moments for the family,” says Amanda Hopper, the library’s youth-services coordinator, adding: “We like to have the adult perspective, but we do try to target the teens because that’s who’s reading it.” The book stayed on the shelves.
Perhaps the quickest way to grasp how much more lurid teen books have become is to compare two authors: the original Judy Blume and a younger writer recently hailed by Publishers Weekly as “this generation’s Judy Blume.”
The real Judy Blume won millions of readers (and the disapprobation of many adults) with then-daring novels such as 1970’s “Are You There, God? It’s Me, Margaret,” which deals with female puberty, 1971’s “Then Again, Maybe I Won’t,” which addresses puberty from a boy’s perspective, and 1975’s “Forever,” in which teenagers lose their virginity in scenes of earnest practicality. Objectionable the material may be for some parents, but it’s not grotesque.
By contrast, the latest novel by “this generation’s Judy Blume,” otherwise known as Lauren Myracle, takes place in a small Southern town in the aftermath of an assault on a gay teenager. The boy has been savagely beaten and left tied up with a gas pump nozzle shoved down his throat, and he may not live. The protagonist of “Shine,” a 16-year-old girl and once a close friend of the victim, is herself yet to recover from a sexual assault in eighth grade; assorted locals, meanwhile, reveal themselves to be in the grip of homophobia, booze and crystal meth. Determined in the face of police indifference to investigate the attack on her friend, the girl relives her own assault (thus taking readers through it, too) and acquaints us with the concept of “bag fags,” heterosexuals who engage in gay sex for drugs. The author makes free with language that can’t be reprinted in a newspaper.
In the book business, none of this is controversial, and, to be fair, Ms. Myracle’s work is not unusually profane. Foul language is widely regarded among librarians, reviewers and booksellers as perfectly OK, provided that it emerges organically from the characters and the setting rather than being tacked on for sensation. In Ms. Myracle’s case, with her depiction of redneck bigots with meth-addled sensibilities, the language is probably apt.

But whether it’s language that parents want their children reading is another question. Alas, literary culture is not sympathetic to adults who object either to the words or storylines in young-adult books. In a letter excerpted by the industry magazine, the Horn Book, several years ago, an editor bemoaned the need, in order to get the book into schools, to strip expletives from Chris Lynch’s 2005 novel, “Inexcusable,” which revolves around a thuggish jock and the rape he commits. “I don’t, as a rule, like to do this on young adult books,” the editor grumbled, “I don’t want to compromise on how kids really talk. I don’t want to acknowledge those f—ing gatekeepers.”

By f—ing gatekeepers (the letter-writing editor spelled it out), she meant those who think it’s appropriate to guide what young people read. In the book trade, this is known as “banning.” In the parenting trade, however, we call this “judgment” or “taste.” It is a dereliction of duty not to make distinctions in every other aspect of a young person’s life between more and less desirable options. Yet let a gatekeeper object to a book and the industry pulls up its petticoats and shrieks “censorship!”

It is of course understood to be an act of literary heroism to stand against any constraints, no matter the age of one’s readers; Ms. Myracle’s editor told Publishers Weekly that the author “has been on the front lines in the fight for freedom of expression.”

Every year the American Library Association delights in releasing a list of the most frequently challenged books. A number of young-adult books made the Top 10 in 2010, including Suzanne Collins’s hyper-violent, best-selling “Hunger Games” trilogy and Sherman Alexie’s prize-winning novel, “The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian.” “It almost makes me happy to hear books still have that kind of power,” Mr. Alexie was quoted saying; “There’s nothing in my book that even compares to what kids can find on the Internet.”

Oh, well, that’s all right then. Except that it isn’t. It is no comment on Mr. Alexie’s work to say that one depravity does not justify another. If young people are encountering ghastly things on the Internet, that’s a failure of the adults around them, not an excuse for more envelope-pushing.

Veteran children’s bookseller Jewell Stoddard traces part of the problem to aesthetic coarseness in some younger publishers, editors and writers who, she says, “are used to videogames and TV and really violent movies and they love that stuff. So they think that every 12-year-old is going to love that stuff and not be affected by it. And I don’t think that’s possible.”

In an effort to keep the most grueling material out of the hands of younger readers, Ms. Stoddard and her colleagues at Politics & Prose, an independent Washington, D.C., bookstore, created a special “PG-15” nook for older teens. With some unease, she admits that creating a separate section may inadvertently lure the attention of younger children keen to seem older than they are.

At the same time, she notes that many teenagers do not read young-adult books at all. Near the end of the school year, when she and a colleague entertained students from a nearby private school, only three of the visiting 18 juniors said that they read YA books.

So it may be that the book industry’s ever-more-appalling offerings for adolescent readers spring from a desperate desire to keep books relevant for the young. Still, everyone does not share the same objectives. The book business exists to sell books; parents exist to rear children, and oughtn’t be daunted by cries of censorship. No family is obliged to acquiesce when publishers use the vehicle of fundamental free-expression principles to try to bulldoze coarseness or misery into their children’s lives.