The Week

I don’t get a kickback and I have no vested interest, but for those of you who would like a news source that doesn’t confirm your own biases, might I suggest The Week. In a world of opinion masquerading as news, this magazine does an excellent job of providing reaction to events from both the left and right. You’ll see opinions from the (for example) Wall Street Journal and Weekly Standard as well as Mother Jones or Salon. 

Is it completely objective? Well, I like to think so, but I also admit to drifting left of center. If you believe everything emanating from the talking heads from the right or left, perhaps you’ll detect a bias. I don’t know how you could, but if you’ve perjoratively used the phrases like “liberal media,” “mainstream media,” “lame stream media,” “right wing talk machine,” “Faux News,” etc., then perhaps you’re not a candidate to make a judgment about objectivity. The same is true if you think only MSNBC/Fox (pick one, if you feel you must) can report news.

If you’re interested in trying it out (remember, I get no commission, I’m just trying to offer an option, as well as do my bit to preserve print media), I get inserts and other offers to give 4-issue trial subscriptions (or you can just go to their website, where there’s a standard banner or sidebar ad). Just let me know and I’ll make it happen.

Oh, and may I also suggest PolitiFact.com and PunditFact.com to follow or consult on the issues of the day. Again, I find both these sites useful sources in weeding out the partisan hyperbole from reality. 

On the other hand, if you’re constantly repeating and reposting partisan shots, whatever the agenda, well, “Move along, nothing to see here.”

Fakes & Phonies: Authentically Artificial or Artificially Authentic?

Every so often, but with some regularity, I read on Facebook derisive comments about some who, either through a fashion choice or appearance alteration somehow automatically now qualify as “fake,” or “phony,” or “artificially hip.” A recent such observation inspired me to dredge up the draft and edit the following previously written, but unpublished, piece.

Based on trips to both coasts over the last year it would be almost impossible not to notice that many people go to great trouble and expense to create or maintain an image. Before the movie came out, I re-read Girl on Fire (Hunger Games trilogy) where denizens of the capitol change their appearances to fit the dictates of mercurial fashion leaders. I have previously written about “acting one’s age.” Not all that long ago we were treated to numerous references to J.D. Salinger, the creator of Holden Caulfield and his rants on being “phony.”

We all (well, maybe not ALL – I still cringe remembering my father’s propensity for loudly opining, “Obesity is an epidemic in this country” every time a person of girth passed us in a restaurant – and since he seemingly always wanted to eat at IHOP or Cracker Barrel….) like to think we’re not judgmental. We like to think we’re tolerant. I would suggest that we can be both tolerant and judgmental. Nevertheless, this collision of random thoughts and events makes me wonder....

Like Holden's references, this piece is only about adults; teens, and even young adults, are still trying to figure out their true identities and entitled to try on as many as they need to be comfortable in their own skins. Actually, now that I consider it, aren’t we all? Isn’t our identity-search an ongoing process? How many of us are the same person now we were when we were younger? And if we are, is that a good thing?

Most of us, if we’re being truly honest with ourselves, do not have a great deal of respect for others whom we perceive as “fake” or “phony,” while we, of course, are completely authentic, true to ourselves and our nature. Very few of us would admit otherwise. We might rationalize that we occasionally have to put on a political front in certain situations, usually with family or co-workers, but our friends and loved ones know and can count on who the “real us” is.

But what exactly constitutes authenticity? Can you modify your looks and still be authentic? For example, does using make-up turn a woman (or man, I guess) into a fake, someone inauthentic? How about changing hairstyle or color? Adding or subtracting facial hair? Piercings, tattoos, or other body modifications? Cosmetic surgery? Wearing a certain style of clothing? I’d suggest those are superficial changes and are not, in and of themselves, enough to make someone “fake.”

Cannot appearance-altering, using cosmetic or chemical enhancements, be an attempt to become more authentic, to bring into line what we see in the mirror with the person we think we are, or want to be? Do those actions make us artificially authentic or authentically artificial? Cannot someone who aggressively disregards artifice in order to present a certain “natural” image be just as “fake” as one who pursues an “improved” (in their mind) image? What of those who use a shocking appearance as a political or personal statement? Are they, too, fake?

In the end, doesn’t it all come down to being true to ourselves, our motivation for the appearance we present? Is not how we act, how we treat people, more important than the appearance we present? At least, is that not what we claim to believe, ignoring the boatloads of evidence that attractiveness increases the odds of success in our society? How can we judge someone else based solely on his or her appearance, no matter how “fake,” inauthentic, unattractive, or downright bizarre it may appear to us? Can we really judge another’s attempts, no matter how misguided, to make him or herself attractive as “phony”? Is vain or superficial the same thing as fake?

I’m not saying I won’t look askance (discretely, I hope) at the next person I see who has created an incongruous image for him or herself or one that doesn’t conform to my definition of attractive, that my mind won’t scream, “What is (s)he thinking!?” But I do hope I can continue to be generous enough in thought to live and let live and not affix the “fake” label to them until I actually know them, and have it apply to something more significant than their appearance, like their actions.

For Father's Day

If you have siblings, there is one thing you can be pretty certain of: your view of your father is different than theirs.

Two-plus years ago, as I listened to my brothers speaking at my father’s funeral, I remember wondering if we had existed in parallel universes. Their descriptions of the man were very different than mine, but much more similar to each other’s. I’m not claiming my memory of him was more accurate than theirs (although I’m clearly the most objective and accurate of the four of us), but the person they described was not the person I knew.

Carolyn’s perception of her father is also very different than that of her brothers and sisters (“those” may perhaps be the more accurate pronoun, because each probably has his/her own perception). That I shared her high opinion of him probably also differentiates me from my brothers- and sisters-in-law. 

None of this is particularly surprising, because our views of our fathers are distinguished by our personal views of the world around us, as well as our father’s place in it. Our view of our fathers is also based on their relationships with us, and our actions and reactions are certainly at least partly responsible for that. Birth order, family dynamics, marital relations, life events, all change us; we need to recognize and remember they changed our fathers, as well.

I apparently found my father, at least during my childhood and adolescence, less overbearing and controlling than my brothers, perhaps because I tended to be (again, in my view) either more compliant or less confrontational. Our conflicts came later, when I, at long last, established my independence and my own identity.

I have my theories as to why Carolyn had the closest relationship with her Dad of her siblings, but that she thought he was great certainly colored my view of him. I also acknowledge that I owe him a lot for the important role he played in her life and growth.

It is just one more advantage of having only one child. While Nicci certainly changed me, made me a better person, a better husband, a better teacher, her view of me has no competition. Although maybe, given my various personality incarnations, perhaps even that’s not true. My old joke used to be, “If you don't like me, just wait a few years; I’ll be somebody different.” Usually I was. I just hope that each variation ended up with me being a better person.

A Quick Look Back

There are any number of conclusions you can draw from this. I’m just throwing out a little information of no particular importance (actually none, to me) and you can take it for what it’s worth or what you paid for it (which might well be same).

While filling up at the gas station ($3.59 per gallon, by the way and apropos of nothing) I saw signage for beer: $1.39. That triggered a memory of when I was a beginning teacher (1973) moonlighting at Skagg’s in their liquor department. Beer was then also $1.29 or $1.39. Of course, that was for a six-pack, not a single can. After taxes and other expenses, I probably made enough per hour to buy one of those six-packs for each hour I worked. The job DID improve my basic math skills, though.

Make of this what you will. Just a piece of whimsy.