The Face of a Woman

Great #art project addressing #sexism and cat calls. Written comments are even more telling. pic.twitter.com/ofC6bcAwV1
— YK Hong (@ykhong) March 9, 2013

In June, I discovered this tweet.  I haven't stopped thinking about it.  Yesterday was Women's Equality Day.

Since spotting this tweet, I can't tell you the number of times I have been going about my business, carrying the loss of my mother and other enormously back-breaking life events with me, and I've been told to smile or somehow alter the somber expression on my face.  

Then, it occurred to me, this has often happened to me throughout my life on the rare occasion I wasn't smiling.  I never really thought about it.

On a daily basis, I am the first person to smile.  I'll greet you, smile and say "how are you?"  I am delighted to listen and hear more.  I am joyful and inquisitive.  My greatest joy is to brighten a person's day.  I approach everyone first with, of course, a smile.  

I like to carry a smile with me and "share the bug".  

But, there is more to a smile that is undeniable.  There is a history to smiling that is often not acknowledged.  There was a time when "football players never smile" was freely spoken, understood, and admired.  Honest and humorous.  I think we were safer then. 

There is no one who believes more in joy, love, peace, and compassion than I do.  However, this beautiful piece of art, remembered again on Women's Equality Day, reminds us that, sadly enough...smiles are not equal.  

In some cases, with heads and hearts that hold dark thoughts, a smile, on The Face of a Woman, can be an invitation, seen as a flirtation, to disaster.

Smile...and be mindful.  Remember those who can smile freely when they are happy and remember those who may be told to smile.  And never forget those who when they did smile, as they were told, may later face an accusation that since they did smile, they "asked for it".

We still have not reached equality when a woman's, or girl's, smile of innocence may not be treated for what it is.  In 2013, it would be politically incorrect to say so.  

Attitudes can be held in darkness...or behind a smile.

Prejudice? Read the label...

It SAYS "Chunky", but buyer beware?

Chunky or creamy?  Which one are you?  Maybe, you can swing either way?

Me?  I'm a chunky.  Or...no peanut butter at all, thank you.  Ya.  Pretty uptight and inflexible, I know. I guess we all have our "things".

I've been thinking a lot about judgment lately, and then, this peanut butter dropped into my shopping basket.  All of the sayings and deep thoughts came to mind.   "Judging a book by its cover", "leaping to conclusions", "buyer beware", "not getting what you pay for", "buying what you're selling me"...and, ultimately, prejudice and first impressions fused together in my now, favorite jar of all time.  Here she is!  Chunky Peanut Spread?

I ask...do YOU see a single, precious nut chunk in there?  

Me?  I didn't see a one.  My son (a chunky young man himself -- very thin, but a Chunky Man) was much more inquisitive and open-minded.  He looked very closely and gave an additional test.  He raised the jar to his NOSE, and he smelled the peanut butter.  As a peanut butter connoisseur, and he is (well-initiated to the nuances of good peanut butter I may add), he said, "this is DEFINITELY chunky". Whoa.  Texture is not everything!

We have a split home.  Three chunky.  Three creamy.  So, this was easy.  We grabbed a "creamy jar" to compare.  We unscrewed the creamy and sure enough he was right!  Even without the chunks, chunky and creamy SMELL vastly different!!

You can read the label and feel deceived.  Duped.  Short-changed.  Maybe you even feel like the victim of a terrible lie.  Betrayed.  You can return to the store and insist on a replacement.  "Chunky!  I bought Chunky!"  You can write the company a note and hope for a crate of pure, unadulterated Chunky Spread in return for their negligence.  Shoot.  You could call a lawyer.  

Me?  Somehow, I loved this crazy jar.  If it was possible, I would have kept this jar forever.  A piece of art.  I'd call it "People Butter" and rest it in a very special spot.

The outside may lead to a certain determination or hasty conclusion, but remember it's all about what's INside.  And, even upon closer inspection,  peering into the "jar of People Butter", there may be some truth to what the label said all along.

For me, one thing IS for sure.  When I see Chunky Peanut Butter Spread...when I "buy what you're selling"...when you're advertising "chunky" all over?  

You better have the nuts.

Gun Control: Who's in the Crosshair, Ms. Lukas?

Sandy Hook Elementary School Mourns
(Mario Tama/Getty Images and Emmanuel Dunand/AFP/Getty Images)

If a picture speaks a thousand words, there are no words convey the message and feelings following the Sandy Hook Elementary School Nightmare.

If the mass slaying of 6-year-olds isn't enough to move the United States of America, it's about time we consider:  what will?

The world is moved.  The world is watching.  The world is still...waiting...

The urgency to reform gun laws and the price paid for our long-standing cutbacks in mental health services could not be made clearer than with this story.  Our negligence in tending to responsible social issues lies naked -- raw -- before us.  Our most vulnerable have paid the ultimate price for our neglect and stalemates.

Those we are entrusted to care for, raise, nurture, and protect have been lost.  Anywhere else, anytime else, anyone else, we know the answer.  We've done it before and would do it again.  The United States would declare war.

Agree or disagree, that's what we do in America.  Our soil, our children, our reason, our response.  War.

No small irony.  The United States would resort to weapons.

I am not debating that issue now.  In fact, to the contrary.

However, given that the United States would respond with a "justified military response" in any other situation resembling this attack on our most vulnerable, I find the position of Ms. Carrie Lukas, Managing Director of the Independent Women’s Forum and Forbes Contributor, much more than a surprise.  Apparently, Ms. Lukas wants to leave the kids out of the debate...and talk.  Finally.  Talk. 

This is amazing news.  A new response to bloodshed.  A new supporter of discussion and peaceful response.  However, Ms. Lukas, can we make it fast?  There's a "message" in the picture.  We're running late.

I'm not debating gun laws here.  I'm noting the problems we are facing in simply beginning to discuss the issues.  I'm writing about what I see going on with our elected parties and those who speak as pundits.  It's no surprise that the United States is getting nowhere with any issues right now.

If we wonder why Washington struggles with action and reform, Carrie Lukas may typify the mindset best.  The insight provided in her Forbes article, Using Children To Pass Gun Laws Is Grotesque and Childish, explains a lot about politics right now.

Lukas expressed a number of points that I found troubling; however, the gist of her article is what I found unimaginably sad, yet telling.  There is a futility masking any possibility of progress in ending escalating terror and violence.  Ms. Lukas is an example of those representing us in Washington right now.  It's no surprise that America's hopes for change are looking grim.

My first point.  Lukas' title.  Involving children in anything to do with guns is "Grotesque and Childish".  That is the point after all.  That is exactly why we find gun control stories in the headlines everyday now.  Those who own guns know that this incident was different.  Grotesque.  This gunman was able to use young children as targets in his psychotic rage and as objects for his horrific illness.  This sick young man used guns...and children...  Grotesque is exactly how the world sees it.

Lukas' insight was that the president was posing with children.  Yes.  Obama was pictured with children who wrote letters to the White House in an effort to take action, be heard, and begin discussions about the possibility for help.  Kids leading the cause to pass laws to solve a looming constitutional and social issue.  Her conclusion,  "let’s have that conversation as adults, and leave the children out of it" was stronger and longer than how the United States government can saves the lives of our babies and everyone else.

Ms. Lukas, I think you're missing the point.  Using children is grotesque...and we have to do something about it.  Now! 

In 2001, stories ran with President Bush posing on top of disintegrating concrete and twisted steel graves.  According to Lukas, most of us missed the point.  As readers, we were deceived.  The man had motives.  A tasteless GOP photo op. 

World Trade Center (Stan Honda/AFP - Getty Images File and Doug Mills/AP)

At that time, I'm sure Lukas was equally appalled by President Bush.  Likely, she was rendered incapable of discussing terrorism...disgusted with the Commander-and-Chief himself... demanding the president just leave the World Trade Center out of the pictures.

Ms. Lukas, I think I get your point?

Personally, when I saw President Bush posing on top of the World Trade Center ruins in 2001, the last thing I thought or cared about was how the scene was serving President Bush.  Your non partisan message is that the president was using the exclusive photos of the carnage for the repulsive purpose of political gain.  The message in the "ink blot" of the story?  What we should have seen.  Courtesy of Ms. Carrie Lukas.  You fell mysteriously silent then, when we needed you to speak to us and educate us about motives and giant conspiracies.

Ms. Lukas, if "adults" like you are waiting to act on how to stop these man-made catastrophes, holding out on any attempt to regulate and update antiquated laws, making it impossible to pass legislation and effect real change, we're all in trouble.  Finally, it's time to let go of your own paranoia.  President Barack Obama is not the evil, conniving threat you perceive here.

20 beautiful, promising children and 6 caring, amazing adult school staff members lost their lives on December 14, 2012, in one of the most gruesome horrors this country has ever seen.

Rather than discussing what we can do to solve the issue, Ms. Lukas doesn't like the picture.  As an adult, it was my belief we were supposed to progress to "using our words" to communicate.  With or without your perception of the picture, Ms. Lukas.

Lukas advises that we choose not to focus on the children, but the manipulative, scheming, grotesque democratic message?  What is really grotesque here?

What do I see in the picture of Obama with the children?

• We're late.  It took a grotesque act such as this to get our attention.

• There are kids MISSING in the picture.  The children who lost their lives.

• Children are relaying the message for children lost.

• If we had acted sooner, there would be no children in the picture.  Leave the kids out of it?  There they are..."kids...scratch(ing) out some tear-jerking pleas for the President to put an end to nightmares"?

• Not exactly President Obama seizing the occasion as a photo op.

Lukas is not the only person guilty of dragging her feet, questioning motives, looking for some hidden, pointless meaning in pictures...and delaying progress.  This is a very serious issue for Washington --- before we can even begin to discuss guns, rights, freedom, the Constitution, and our most precious resource.  Our children.

Ms. Lukas, it's time for YOU to put down the fairytale book with the pretty pictures and join "a real conversation about the efficacy of gun laws and what measures might prevent mass shootings and keep deadly weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill."  It is generally accepted that most of us across the world possess the "natural instincts... to want to shield children from life’s pain... and honor the universal, human "desperate desire to protect children from harm".  Your insistence that these drives and passions serve to "distract from the truly important, adult business of assessing what solutions are actually available" may well be our problem.  Grotesque.

In California, right now, children experience a new drill.  Children aren't "left out of it".

School and classroom exits are locked on a daily basis now.  Door windows, that used to give a glimpse into the hallways, are blacked-out so that no one in the hallway can see into classrooms.  Fire and Earthquake Drills continue, but now, the "Lock-down Drill" is performed more than any other.  Alarms sound, K-12 kids crawl beneath their desks, teachers take shelter, and now a new, more "realistic" technique has been added.  Last week, counselors ran down the hallways, pounding loudly on each door while the kids and teachers were seeking shelter.  Kids screamed.  Teachers jumped -- even knowing this additional act of realism was about to take place.  Children could hear the pounding on doors approaching their own classroom and then, progressing down the hallway to the next and next.  America's children have a reminder of those little children at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  I only wish we could leave our children out of it.  I think Ms. Lukas has been "offer(ed) a fresh pillow, inviting her to think that somehow it will foster only happy visions"...leaving her out of it.

Ms. Lukas, it was grotesque that children became involved, grotesque that they are living with these re-enactments each day, and grotesque that you can claim to even try to leave kids out of it.  Perhaps, you can visit a classroom and explain your thoughts and feelings as the alarm blasts and our kids practice taking cover and strain to hold back tears of terror.  You can explain to them that their fear is childish and math and science are only part of a good education.  My fear is that maybe, one day, they will actually get used to the drills, because we didn't tend to our "true adult business".

While you are engaged in the "adult discussion" of ensuring stalemates in gun control legislation and President Obama's publicity tactics, children practice how to survive in school and teachers explain to the curious, "I will throw desks and chairs at anyone coming in.  We must stay in our positions until we hear from a uniformed police officer outside."

I get your point, Ms. Lukas.  Now, maybe, you can listen to mine.

The pictures that have been chosen are the only pictures the news outlets can share.  After all, the real carnage at Sandy Hook Elementary could not be printed.  The story was so horrific that we see the only pictures fit to view.  That is the saddest and most grotesque reality of all.  There are first responders who will relive that horrendous day until there last breathe.  I'm sure they could tell you a thing or two about pictures...and children...and "Nightmares and soft pillows".

Let's get to this real conversation you speak of Ms. Lukas.  Move mountains.  Work across the aisle.  Show us what adults do!

Perhaps, you had a point.

We have to do something.  You are either with us and the children, or you are on the side of mentally-ill, child-murdering maniacs. 

Based upon your entire article, there is more truth in that statement than I ever wanted to hear or believe.   Now that you have finished analyzing the most tasteful photo that could be taken to reference the horrors of the Sandy Hook story, perhaps you can move on and get to the "adult business of assessing what solutions are actually available."  Discussion, compromise, change, action and "getting along well with others" may be good starting points in this adult brainstorming session you reference.  Why put off 'til 2016 what should have been handled on the Capitol Hill Playground in 1990?  Why did a "crazed gunman" (perhaps an injured and neglected child himself) drag children into the issue of gun control, and why did you fail to see the picture for what it is:  a representation of all that we haven't done, are doing too late, and who is missing...and left standing...to defend the rights of our children?

Ms. Lukas, who is doing the less important adult business of answering for "Our natural instincts... to want to shield children from life’s pain"?  Who is "fixating on our desperate desire to protect children from harm"?  Not you.

What would get you to move or be moved?  When would you stand up and put all politics aside?  The picture you paint with words is grotesque and inexcusable.

Children.  Leave them out of the business of gun control?  The pictures seem to say that it's too late for that.

Show us what big kids do.  Take care of the little ones, Ms. Lukas.

Where's the PC in Peace and Compassion?

His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama Meets with Thai Buddhist Scholars

I'm struck by the notion that there is a "political correctness" attached to peace and compassion.  When, in fact, peace and/or compassion is "right".

In 2012, Californians voted to uphold the death penalty.  In 2012, the world witnessed war, upheaval, and atrocities at every corner of the earth.  In 2012, we continue to determine when "an eye for an eye" is justified.

My questions remain.  When are peace and compassion universal truths and not just words to use at this time of year or words to invoke during a healthy meditation exercise?

When are retaliation and punishment "acceptable"?  Do peace and compassion begin with the individual and ripple out to our family, neighbors, nation, and world?  Do the rules change for a nation under siege?  Do numbers of lives lost constitute a repeal of a compassionate response?

Is war different from a single slaying?  Is the children's song, "Let Peace Begin with Me", a hope, dream, fairytale?

We seem to assign an appropriateness to morality.  We seem to decide when it is OK to "show mercy" and when we can stray from that ideal.  Does this judgment and determination defeat the entire concept of peace and compassion?  Is a compassionate life conditional?  Are we capable of deciding when it is OK to wish ill upon another?  How many people have to arrive at a conclusion to make an exception to our moral code?  When is the consequence "it's all right to take a life under these circumstances" acceptable?

Does the anonymity of a group vote make a difference?  Are we safer casting our judgment and punishment when we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with fellow executioners? Do we dilute our personal responsibility and personal cognitive dissonance?

It is not always politically correct to say that peace and compassion should be exercised in some personal and global situations.  It will not win you a popularity contest.

In an article on this site, we discuss the notion of refraining from voicing opinions about issues or situations of which we know nothing.  But, we all do that.  Our jury system counts on that.  We are specifically removed from cases in which we DO have personal or business experience that may impact the case.  In fact, the more we know and experience, the less we are wanted on a jury.  Biased with first-hand knowledge and experience.

I've been called to jury duty again.  I get called to serve every year without fail.  If you believe in the concept that we bring about events in life that we dread or fear, time and time again, until we deal with our issues, I am an example for you.  Judgment.  A concept that I dread delivering when I am not the individual impacted by the horribly painful deeds of a perpetrator.  Most recently, following the Sandy Hook Elementary shootings, we saw Robbie Parker, father of 6-year-old Emilie Parker, express compassion in a situation requiring supernatural fortitude.

I have lived, forever grateful, that there are laws and law enforcers in the world.  I am extremely grateful that we have willing jurors who actively participate in our system as well as the "couch critics" who are steadfast and confident in their own determination of meting out punishment.  I get hung up in the details.  I get tied up in the contradictions.  And...I feel "who am I to say" what punishment fits the crime.  The victim may be sitting across from me in the courtroom or in another country.  I'm being asked to give my opinion in something I know nothing about and worse than that...I'm not the one in agony.

It would be easy for me to crusade in the name of peace and compassion.  It would be easy for me to dole out righteous punishment.  Neither would give me peace.

How many wars are fought in the name of peace and compassion?

Even the youngest of all have a sense of what is "right".  Even the weakest and meekest know peace, compassion, fairness, and goodness when they see it.  No matter how rudimentary their understanding may be.

In The Moral Life of Babies, Professor of Psychology, Paul Bloom of Yale University, discusses his research.

Morality... is a synthesis of the biological and the cultural, of the unlearned, the discovered and the invented. Babies possess certain moral foundations — the capacity and willingness to judge the actions of others, some sense of justice, gut responses to altruism and nastiness. Regardless of how smart we are, if we didn’t start with this basic apparatus, we would be nothing more than amoral agents, ruthlessly driven to pursue our self-interest.

Babies have an understanding of morality and we can be grateful for that.  In our  "adult wisdom", we understand when morals are conditional?  Is maturity knowing when compassion and kindness are no longer appropriate?

When legal and/or political "paperwork" is in order, are we "free and covered" to proceed without honoring our code for a compassionate response?  With the proper documentation, our transgressions from the natural, biological, innate moral code can be usurped.  Our "grown-up, "mature" cultural moral code includes a clause to dismiss ethics and compassion for all?  When is "do unto others" dismissed and retribution the "right" course of action?

Do peace and compassion "begin with me"?  I like to believe so.

I like to believe we are all active participants in the "ripple".  But, when circumstances change, when there are numerous victims involved, when countries are threatened, are we all Charlie Brown?  Is our moral code essentially Lucy's football?

Contracts and declarations cover our departure from the moral code?

If we speak of peace and compassion on a global scale... our voice may not only be ignored, but likely censored if it is determined that the "unrest" that "peace talk" may bring will put lives at stake.  No small irony.  Sometimes, "peace and compassion talk" can be the greatest threat of all.

Journalism, in particular, has always courageously treaded in this territory.  Journalists hear the not-too-subtle message from powers that be, "Hush.  We have our 'reasons' to depart from (ethical conduct) here".  Of course, ethical conduct gets redefined.  Truth and fairness get redefined.  Retaliation and retribution may now BE ethical.  Suddenly, what is in the "public interest" and what will save lives (peace and compassion) is no longer the answer.  Fundamental TRUTH itself has changed.  Reality changes.  Peace and compassion are not PC.

Many single, courageous voices in history have proven the dangers of peace and compassion.  In fact, peace and compassion may be the most dangerous and fearless position of all.

Those who walk the walk, and talk the talk, following these standards and codes are the most steadfast of all.  In fact, with no weapon and no retribution, those who live lives of complete peace and compassion hold the greatest power and make the greatest lasting changes we all enjoy long after their often-too-soon departure.

Often, they give their lives staying true to what is good, right, peaceful, and compassionate.  Staying true to our nature.  With or without realizing it, they remain the greatest threat.  Their weapon.  Peace and compassion.  Perhaps more feared than any automatic weapon or drone strike.  If they speak about peace and compassion, they are not PC.  Perhaps, most unfortunate of all, they are completely misunderstood.  They are not heard to be speaking out for saving the lives of ALL of those in harm's way.

To those who don't understand the deepest meaning of peace and compassion, peace and compassion in certain instances, under certain conditions, is just not PC.  At some point, I think most of us fall into that category.  Most of us can only aspire to become more like Robbie Parker, father of Emilie.

But, peace and compassion is for all.  Peace and compassion is for those fighting in the name of peace and compassion.  Peace and compassion needs to come out from the closet and be spoken about in ALL circumstances.  

We are only human.  But, we have people speaking and living with higher ideals.  Higher moral codes are possible.  Are we using excuses?  Reasons?  Is there an excuse to stray from what is "right"?

We knew what was fair and right from the beginning.  As babies, we had a moral compass.  What are we so afraid of now?

Freedom is at stake.  Are we "free" at all when we react against our morals and ethics and lose ourselves to something we know to be wrong in the first place?  Are we prisoners and victims for the offenders?  Controlled by their deeds?  Or, are we pioneers and free to act true to ourselves?  As is true in so much of life...we may need to look to the children.

Humanitarians Work in Regions of Conflict

Humanitarians often work in regions
of conflict while risking their own lives

It is not surprising that people react with hatred toward those who humiliate them, control their movement, or deny their rights. There is nothing theoretically interesting in the individual or collective experience of anger and hate as a reaction to power that imposes helplessness on us or denies our very being. This is hatred as a response to power.  (Aljazeera.com)

Human rights, oppression, politics...and psychoanalysis?  In this Season of Giving, Gratitude, and Peace, Niza Yanay discusses the psychology of hatred as being the repression of love, denial of attachment, and fears of dependence that may play a role in political relations. She considers the "enemy" as the "forever lost friend" and peace as possible.  What do you think?  Can such volatile relations lead to positive change if we embrace a new understanding of peace, love, and "the other" as "one of us"?  Do the answers lie with humanitarians who risk their lives each day living with a collective respect for peace and the health of all of humanity -- while celebrating diversity?