Day 57: Clark County Class of '02 by the numbers

This past weekend I traveled to Kahoka, Mo., Peter's hometown of about 2,000, for his 5-year high school reunion and county fair.

At one point during the small reunion (out of a class of 67, only about 15 people showed up) the girl who organized it went through a list of everyone in the class and read updates she had gathered about them. Wow. Just, wow. In a surprising, sad, ridiculous way. Here's the (estimated) stats:

Marriages: 15
Divorces: 4
Double divorces: 1 (yes, a 23-year-old has been divorced twice)
Jailed classmates: Currently 2; a guy showed up who had previously been in jail though
Kids: 40? Maybe? There were a lot, that's all I know. Most did not include a marriage. Some had as many as three kids. And some raise kids from their husband/boyfriend's previous escapades too.
Flying J employees: 2 or 3; yes, there were several people who did not come to the reunion who worked at the Flying J gas station about 2 miles away.
Classmates who drove the 195 miles to the reunion on a motorcycle and possibly carried their 2-year-old with them: 1

Now, my class is two years younger than Peter's, but our current stats include one engagement and one baby, as far as I know. That's out of 308 classmates. Two different worlds.

Day 52: My norm of homogany

I'm in a social psychology class online through Mizzou this summer. I'm so glad i'm taking it online. It's cake and actually kind of fun discussing the topics with classmates on our discussion board. This weeks topic is a good one: interpersonal relationships aka LOVE. The talk was about what we find desirable in a mate and what we think of pick up lines. Here are my thoughts (edited for readability):

For me physical attractiveness isn't as much measured by natural looks, but by how the person puts himself together and acts. I don't really notice if someone is unattractive as long as they groom themselves and have an attractive personality. It's also not uncommon that a really hot guy will become almost physically ugly in my mind if I get to know him and realize he is a jerk. And vice versa - an awkward-looking guy who is sweet and funny will seem more physically attractive after I get to know him.

I definitely see elements of the norm of homogany in my relationship style. Although I've dated different types of guys, they all have had many characteristics in common with me -- usually race, education, age and socioeconomic status. I would venture to say that none of those traits are super important to me, but they are just the type of people I have been most exposed to through school and social activities. There are two characteristics that are very important to me though: level of intellect and religion.

Level of intellect is the less important of the two, although I have trouble trusting someone who I think is less intelligent than I am and I do find it very desirable to be intellectually challenged in general. But Peter has helped me to realize that religion is a very important part of a serious relationship for some people. When we first started dating we had a conversation where he said he could never marry a non-Christian. I was a little taken aback by it and argued, "but what if the person you fall in love with happens to be Muslim? You can't deny true love!" He said it wouldn't matter; it just wouldn't work. At the time, I didn't fully understand why that was so important. Since my transition from Catholic to Christian -- only now do I understand what a big difference there is -- I know exactly where he was coming from when he said that.

My religion is such a huge part of my life that it would be impossible for me to be happy married to someone who doesn't share it with me. It defines my values, behavior, opinions and basically everything about me and it would be utterly contradictory for me to be with someone who doesn't share or understand those things. Imagine raising kids with someone with different values than yours -- it would be a constant battle and the kids would just end up confused. Even without kids in the picture, I share an understanding with other Christians that I don't with non-Christians, and that understanding is essential for me in a relationship. I would imagine that anyone who is deeply religious, Christian or not, would share my feelings. Someone very passionate about their political or moral views would relate too. I have friends who are not religious, and we still have great friendships even though we differ in a lot of ways, but my partner for life needs to stand beside me and behind me on that which is most important to me.

As for pick up lines... if they aren't meant as a joke then they're usually pretty sad. For instance:
Guy I just met: Have we met before?
Me: I don't think so... where would we have met?
Guy: What high school did you go to?
Me: Benet.
Guy: I went to St. Viator. I swear you look so familiar! Did you ever go to basketball games in high school? We played you.
Me: Um... a few.
Guy: I know! I bet I saw you at a game and noticed how hot you are and checked you out.
Me: (Speechless. Does he actually expect me to believe that? If so, does he think I would appreciate being "checked out" at a high school basketball game and then remembered several years later?)

Day 50: I should drink coffee every day... maybe

There was free specialty coffee (from a brand new coffee maker) and donuts today at work. I was all set on not delving into the candy drawer today, but then of course I had to have a donut.

I also had a delicious Milky Way latte (yes, they have awesome drinks like that). Now, I usually try to stay away from caffeine (except in chocolate of course). It makes me feel different. In a bad way. I usually burn my tongue on hot coffee. Espresso makes me wide-eyed and jittery. It dehydrates me (I'm obsessed with drinking water). Overall, I just know it's a bad habit.

But today... well, today the caffeine had all of those effects, plus the bonus I never think I need but apparently do: energy. I was so totally on top of things. I didn't take my lunch break until 2:00, and although earlier in the morning I was itching to read Harry Potter (and the Deathly Hallows, of course) for that hour, while heading down to the Weatherbird Cafe for lunch all I wanted to do was go for a long run.

Imagine that! A craving for a run right when I can't go on one. But it was fine, I thought, because I still had HP and all the deaths and hallows (that's not a spoiler... I'm only on page 200) to look forward to during lunch. And of course right after work I will hit the dusty trail and run for a nice 30 minutes, I said to myself.

But of course now that I'm almost off work, I am only craving another donut and another dose of Harry Potter. Why can my cravings for runs not come at times when I actually can act on them? Today it's because of that demon called caffeine. It's positive effects have worn off and now I remember why I don't drink it in the first place.

What CNN does that your local TV news doesn't:

Uses camera shots that include pans, zooms, fades, freeze frames, slow motion, animated jump shots and other shenanigans. And they label every frickin story as "DEVELOPING STORY" or "BREAKING NEWS." They also repeat the same footage multiple times within a story (it's as redundant as the structure of that sentence). That's misleading.

There's something nice and sincere about your local TV news. It may seem amateur in comparison to big, bold CNN and their "developing stories," but it shows life as it really is - with still camera shots and no fades or spinning screen transitions or footage repeated multiple times so it seems more impactful. As much as I laugh at local news, it's somewhat comforting.

Day 46: Bigotry

I realized the other day how much it drives me crazy when people call Christians - or anyone for that matter - bigots. It's a cheap shot really. It's like saying, "I don't know why you believe what you do and I can't even justify learning why, so therefore I am assuming you are acting on pure hate when you speak out against something." It's so ignorant.

Then I looked up Merriam-Webster's definition of bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.


The word obstinate means "perversely adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion." Now, this reveals that there is something inherently biased about using the word bigot. If a person "obstinately" adheres to their own opinions, then that implies that their opinion is wrong and they are stubbornly refusing to listen to "reason."

Calling someone a bigot is a cheap shot because it implies that they are holding on to false and unreasonable beliefs. Everyone has a reason for believing what they do. Just because you can't see, understand or agree with someone's beliefs does not mean they are unreasonable.

I see the word bigot pop up most often in the debate about homosexuality. Many people are trigger-happy when it comes to using the word on Christians who do not support homosexuality. They are so quick to call Christians intolerant that they end up the intolerant ones themselves, unwilling to understand or tolerate the Christian perspective (which is not unreasonable at all - just different). Christians have very real reasons for not supporting or accepting homosexuality. To say they "obstinately" stick to their opinions is false.

That brings me to another point. Tolerance is marketed as such a virtue, but I think intolerance is more admirable. If you have conviction in your beliefs, then why would you tolerate, and therefore validate, contradictory beliefs? Would it be virtuous for someone to tolerate and accept their best friend's drug abuse even though they know it's wrong? Not at all. Was English antislavery pioneer William Wilberforce intolerant when he crusaded to end slavery? You bet he was. If you truly disagree with something, you shouldn't have to tolerate it. I'm not encouraging hate, but you should never accept something as right when you know it's wrong.

Day 42: Should a 12-year-old be tried as an adult?

For the past three weeks or so, I've been blogging in the Talk of the Day blog on STLtoday.com. It doesn't take a whole lot of creativity, but I always take the time to research hot news topics in order to stir up discussion. Sometimes it works really well and extremely heated debates boil up. Last week I asked the question, "Should a 12-year-old be tried as an adult?" and got a record 81 comments in the blog. I'm posting the blog entry below, followed by my favorite comment of the insane conversation that followed:

"Last week we discussed the heinous crimes committed by youngsters. Now it’s time to think about the repurcussions.

If the 12-year-old boy accused of fatally stabbing Alexus Purtty is tried as an adult, he will become the youngest suspect in the St. Louis area to stand trial as an adult for murder. The court will decide Sept. 17 if this will happen. They will take several things into account:

Kathryn Herman, assistant city juvenile court administrator, said the law requires a review of 10 factors, including viciousness of a crime, the suspect’s record and home life, and his or her age.

A 2003 Associated Press story challenges whether young teenagers should be tried as adults. It discusses a study on the cognitive abilities of kids to understand court proceedings:

Subjects were given intelligence tests and asked to respond to several hypothetical legal situations, such as whether to confess to a police officer. The results found that one-third of those 11 to 13 and one-fifth of those 14 or 15 could not understand the proceedings or help lawyers defend them. The study recommends that states reconsider the minimum age for juveniles to be tried as adults or to develop a system for evaluating young defendants’ competence.

How do you think courts should try and punish children in murder cases? Is a 12-year-old competent enough to stand trial as an adult?"

Below is the most controversial comment (it raised a flurry of responses in agreement and quite a few in utter disagreement). Looking beyond any perceived racism, I tend to agree with the commenter. It's insane how many people think it was society's/his parents'/the government's/the police's fault that he murdered this girl. My honest opinion is that the law follows the rule of CRIME and PUNISHMENT. If you commit a crime, you must be punished for it. It's really irrelevant whether you feel bad about it or not. And there's no reason this crime should be erased from his record at age 21. He murdered. He should be tried the same way as any other murderer. Here's the #1 most replied to comment:

That this black thug could so easily take the life of a young girl and have people like yourselves defending him goes a long way towards explaining how we got to this point in our country, and why there is no going back.

I guess the absurdities that are accepted in the black culture have finally just become acceptable to everyone else as well - meaning that you all probably think that this murderer is just a “baby,” and that he isn’t responsible for his horrific actions because he’s just a “disadvantaged youth,” and that this black girl’s life didn’t matter because, hey, “She jus’ a FEE-male.” Ironically, this poor girl, in her willingness to actually confront the black thug in the first place, when she suspected him of trespassing at her house, demonstrated self-respect, bravery, a belief in fairness, and concern for her family - qualities which are not only admirable, but which are in complete contradiction to traditional black female behavior. And how very sad, but typical, that her own mother, even in the wake of her death, refuses to exhibit any of these qualities, as evidenced by the fact that she had no trouble getting on TV, not shedding a tear, and blaming the PO-leece, the city, etc. - everyone, of course, but that black male who murdered her daughter.

But hey, it’s good to know that you all are so concerned for this murdering “baby.” Because, after all, once all of these “babies” have taken over our country, I’m sure they’ll reciprocate your decency, and sensitivity, and tolerance, and generosity.
Comment by Carrie K. — July 11, 2007 @ 11:59 pm

Day 39: Disaster cliches

The most valuable part of my internship this summer at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch is working with some very experienced journalists. Harry Levins is my 65-year-old coworker and journalist extrarordinaire. He has been in the business for two of my lifetimes and I always enjoy getting little bits of wisdom from him. He's a word man.

Today's lesson: cliche natural disaster verbs in ledes

Hurricanes lash.
Fires sweep.
Floodwaters pour over.
Tornadoes touch down.
Earthquakes shake (and sometimes rattle).
Typhoons pound.
and my favorite... Buses plunge.

The solution? Lead with the number of deaths and amount of destruction. That's what people care about. We know what a hurricane does in general, so give us some specifics up front. Thanks, Harry!

Day 38: Fridge raider

I forgot to rant about this yesterday, so I'm doing you the pleasure of ranting about it now.

Someone stole my container of Dannon Light 'n Fit yogurt out of the fridge at work. I couldn't believe it when I went to retrieve my lunch. It was gone!

This isn't leftover pizza in the weekend kitchen of the ZTA house, people!

Needless to say, I was quite disappointed and only had half a lunch.

Day 37: A booky summer

Why is it that I'm reading everything EXCEPT the one book that is really important?

So far this summer I've read/listened to:
1. Boys Life by Robert McCammon
2. Because She Can by Birdie something or other
3. The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel
4. The Calling by someone unknown and unexciting
5. Lake Wobegon Days by Garrison Keillor

I am currently reading/listening to:
6. The Frog King by Adam Davies
7. The Fellowship of the Ring by J.R. Tolkien

A week from Friday I will begin:
8. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows by J.K. Rowling

I'm really a reading machine. Well, three of them have been on CD, but it's the same thing. But I KNOW the Bible is the only book I need to read. It's the one book that matters. The one I could truly benefit from, and can't live without. But somehow I just can't stick myself to it.

I can though. There's no reason not to. If I dedicate 1/4 as much time to the Bible as I have been to the ridiculous and not even very interesting "Frog King" then I'll be doing myself wonders.

Day 36: Life with love

Life with Love is wonderful. Blissful. Incredible. Fulfulible. And so much FUN!

This past week was spent with true Love. Five nights with him. He came Tuesday night and stayed till Sunday. The only downside was that I had to work on Thursday and Friday. But, let me tell you, work is fine when you're coming home to Love.

I asked him on day six of our bliss if he was sick of me yet. The answer? Of course not.

Good. I wasn't sick of him either.

Day 35: Bright lights

I've been back for a week now, but let me backtrack and write about Vegas.

O.
M.
G.
It was unreal. I didn't really have a clear picture of what I expected it to be like, but Vegas definitely exceeded whatever smoky image was in my head. Mom, Amanda, Mrs. Jacobs and I stayed at the Paris, where the inside feels like outside on a partly cloudy French day and the outside feels like you're at the Eiffel Tower except in the middle of the desert (yes, 100+ degree heat).

Speaking of Eiffel Tower, I ate probably one of the nicest meals of my life in the Eiffel Tower restaurant, which is about a quarter of the way up in the tower. A host in a cocktail dress greeted us at the elevator and after we told her we'd never been there before she said, "Oh. Well, you're in for a treat!" Truer words have never been spoken by a restaurant hostess. We sat in a horseshoe shaped booth with a view of the Bellagio water show out the window. The waiter put my napkin in my lap for me and recommended a glass of the best wine I've ever tasted (note to self: Pino Noir).

We saw Cirque de Solei: LOVE. Wow. Just, wow. It was set to remixed, insane Beatles music and it blew my mind. Humans can do THAT with their bodies?? Preposterous! They were like human jumping beans popping up and down on stage, throwing themselves against walls and climbing, twisting, flying, flipping, skating, gyrating.... just doing the most unimaginable things. So funky and fresh.

Overall Amanda and I got carded about 294,930 times. It's okay though. I'm legal and proud.

Our first day in Vegay we were wandering around the Bellagio feeling thoroughly amazed, yet out of place, and I decided, what the heck, I'm shootin' some craps. I had just learned how on the plane ride there thanks to a handy tutorial Mom printed out before we left. While I was losing $5 chip after $5 chip, behind me Mom, Mrs. Jacobs and Amanda could not contain their giggles and whispers. "WHAT?!" I hissed. "We'll tell you later, just keep playing." I couldn't wait till later. I ditched my game.

There was a $100 chip - yes, a single chip worth one hundred dollars - laying on the floor about two feet away from them. What a terrible, wonderful situation to be in. What do you do? Do you pick it up? Do you ask the person standing next to it (a 7-foot tall black guy with crazy white pants and a golf hat on) if it's theirs? Do you ignore it? Tell a casino worker? Step on it then sneakily pick it up? Drop a $5 chip next to it and "accidentally" grab them both? What a conondrum!

In the end, Mrs. Jacobs was honest. She tapped the basketball-player-like guy on the back and informed him he must have dropped it. "Oh," he said nonchalantly. "You can have it?" he offered, holding the chip out to Mrs. J. Was this some sort of joke? She just stared at him, and he said, "Well if I this wins, it's yours," and proceeds to place it as a bet on the 12. The TWELVE! Practically the worst odds on the whole table. Jeez! Less than two seconds later our $100 chip was gone. Lost. In an instant. He shrugged.

Rich bastard. She should've taken it when he offered.