Defining Self in the Face of Big Change

As I contemplate my transition from "not being a mother" to "being a mother", I find myself working diligently to tie up all the loose ends in my life.  There are physical loose ends to tie up, like cleaning out  the closet that will become my daughter's closet; and there are personal/emotional loose ends to tie up.  One prominent personal/emotional loose end to tie up is: who am I, anyway?  Yes, I just went there- to the completely philosophical.  But this seems important because I feel that it would be nice to have a sense of self in order to be a proper guide for my daughter as she develops her sense of self in the upcoming years.

Maybe I don't need to completely and perfectly define "who I am"; but it would be nice to tidy up my quest so it becomes manageable and sustainable.  For instance, I sat down today to tally up the blogs I have going and their purpose in my life.  Here's the tally:

• myersfamilylove.com, which is a place where I attempt to keep up-to-date posts and pictures of my family-of-origin.  This blog allows me to sit and contemplate my family and my place in it. 
• cottonfamilylove.blogspot.com, which is a place where I can share pertinent information about my current nuclear family with anyone who cares to keep up-to-date.
• christopherandkate.com has not been updated in years.  Christopher set it up just before our wedding to give us a way to share info with people coming from out-of-town.  But then I decided that I didn't like wordpress, or was reluctant to learn it, and so I used it maybe once since the wedding and christopher has not used it at all.
• katecotton.com never really took off, because I wasn't sure what I wanted to say at the time, and I had used the program iweb to create it and that anchored me to a certain computer.  Furthermore, iweb is a bit of a pain.
• teacher.katecotton.com is where I started a professional web site advertising my teacher skills.  The question became "who am I advertising these skills to anyway?".  I still don't know and it also suffers from the iweb problem so it has not been updated since it's creation.

That brings me to this very blog.  I started this blog after my first AWA (Amherst Writers and Artists) meeting (thanks for introducing me to that Joslyne!!!).  I posted what I wrote that day.  And then I posted what I wrote in subsequent sessions. Over time, it became the place where I write things (or paste quotes) that are personal to me (not my family or husband or anyone else).

This site has been a great outlet for certain things I want to articulate, but I have not been able to shake some underlying insecurity about it, namely:

• Who would care to read the rambling thoughts that I write?
• Will I say something that I later disagree with myself about, and regret?  Or will I write stuff that will reveal the true, boring, philosophical, nerd that I am, and then anyone who reads this will cease to like me anymore?
• What if someone actually does care to read it, and I'm then held responsible for what I write (should this blog be closed to others)?

I'm sure I have other insecurities, but I like lists of three. :)  (OCD anyone???)

I think that finding an answer to those three questions will provide me with a little more certainty about what I'm doing here and how to proceed with purpose.  In general, I like the idea of keeping a little space on the web that reflects me, and allows me self-expression, but when my insecurities come up I get doubtful that it is worth it.

For now, I will sit with the uncertainty and see where this site takes me. 

I Like This Einstein Quote

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society.

This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights. — Albert Einstein, Monthly Review, May 1949[1]

The Big Business Economy

I am not an economist, and I don't have an academic language about macroeconomics,  but I have read some books on economics and keep track of the political point-of-view on the economy.  There is a thought that I have been having about my own habits and the subsequent impact on the economy around me.


The topic is this: what is supposed to happen when the Republicans fully reduce taxes for wealthy big business?  If I understand correctly, the reduced tax burden on businesses is supposed to free more of their revenue, causing them to "invest" in their businesses.  I have taken this to mean that they will grow their business and ultimately need more employees, thereby creating jobs.


There is one small aspect of this plan that I've been thinking about.  Christopher and I try to live simply so as to minimize our impact on the environment.   We are avoiding buying "reusable" stuff as much as possible (napkins, paper and plastics).  We enjoy shopping at Goodwill stores and finding awesome stuff without having to go "new".  It makes us feel good.  The problem is this, if we aren't buying stuff, then who is?  When I was a child, Goodwill stores had a stigma: only the poor shopped there.  My mother would not shop there as a matter of pride.  She loved new things and felt good providing "stuff" for us. How many people still live how my mother did?  I hear of people buying stuff at Goodwill all the time, and it is not spoken about in shame, but with pride of finding something "cool".


Add to that the Dave Ramsey effect.  Dave is on a mission to get more and more Americans living debt-free.  Christopher and I have been influenced by this movement.  Our house is paid off, our cars are paid off, and when we want something big we save up for it before we buy it.  Because we have few recurring expenses, saving up does not take long.  But, if we are not paying off a loan, then some bank is not making interest off of us.  The more people get out of debt, the less interest banks will make.  Again, I am no economist, but I can only conclude that this trend leads to fewer jobs (banking jobs).


So what's going to happen?  The big business who sells a widget will have a tax break and how will they spend their money expanding?  I'm guessing the first thing they will do is get more aggressive about marketing to their target demographic to get them to buy more, more more.  What happens when that demographic contains lots of people like me who are happy living simple lives and really don't want more, more, more?

Public School, What Should It Accomplish? Be Concrete.

What should public school in any country ultimately accomplish?  The answer to that question elicits all kinds of generalizations that all people can agree on.  But the answer I want is more concrete.  And I'm disappointed that there is not more concrete discussion about the ultimate goal of education.  Let's take an internet tour to see what official "big picture" organizations see as the big picture...

From www.ed.gov:

The mission of the Department of Education is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. It engages in four major types of activities:

1. Establishes policies related to federal education funding, administers distribution of funds and monitors their use.
2. Collects data and oversees research on America's schools.
3. Identifies major issues in education and focuses national attention on them.
4. Enforces federal laws prohibiting discrimination in programs that receive federal funds.

From another part of www.ed.gov:

OVERVIEW
An Overview of the U.S. Department of Education
November 2009

The U.S. Department of Education is the agency of the federal government that establishes policy for, administers, and coordinates most federal assistance to education.

Feeling well-informed and inspired?  I'm not.  So let's go to the TN department of ed site (since I teach in TN) Tennessee Department of Education Welcome to the Tennessee Department of Education. A quality education is the fundamental right of every child in Tennessee. The department provides many services, and it is our responsibility to ensure equal, safe, and quality learning opportunities for all students, pre-kindergarten through 12th grade. Therefore, our mission is to help teachers teach and children learn. This department consists of several divisions – Special Education, Vocational-Technical Education, Resources and Support Services, Office of Early Learning and Teaching and Learning. Remembering our priority of putting teachers and students first drives the department’s daily operations: Service: We are here to support the 136 school districts and 1,677 schools in Tennessee and to help them in their daily efforts to educate our children. We also provide services to approximately 575 private schools and thousands of home-schooled students across the state. When making inquiries to our department, you should expect prompt, thoughtful, and courteous responses. Accountability: The department fills a role as a keeper and distributor of pertinent education data. This information is used to demonstrate academic performance, to reward schools performing well, and to provide additional resources and assistance to schools in need of improvement. Partnership: We believe that more can be accomplished when we all work together rather than separately. By partnering with local schools, parents, businesses, and organizations, we can provide more books, more awards, more grants, and more expertise. This means more, and better, educational opportunities for our students. Innovation: The way children learn is changing every day. We are committed to using technology in the classroom. We are also working to involve parents and community leaders to ensure that students are equipped with the skills necessary for higher levels of education, the world of work, and lifelong learning.

Bottom line:  a lot of words are written, but I have no more clear idea of why we are educating our population.  I believe that we would do a whole lot better if we had a clear idea of why we are educating our kids.  Things like "being competitive in the world" NEED to be fleshed out in more concrete (and ideally more inspiring) terms.

Poetry Reading

For the first time ever, I attended a poetry reading.  One of the featured poets is my friend Lisa D.  As it coincidentally turned out, I knew one of the other poets because she is the daughter of a co-worker of mine.  To sum up my experience, it was great.  Poems come more alive for me when they are read with feeling; when I read them I don't get the same effect.  The poets were inspiring, smart and creative.  


The experience stimulated my inner creativity in ways that I find hard to define.  So I'm just going to go with the feeling and see what comes up.  Who knows...

Karl Marx a Misogynist?

I was reading Ill Fares the Land by Tony Judt and was reminded that I wanted to read A Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles for a while now and I have it on my shelf.  And so I put down Ill Fares the Land and started reading A Communist Manifesto

I came across this sentence and found it misogynistic.  "The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labor, in other words, the more industry becomes developed, the more is the labor of men superseded by that of women.  Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class.  All are instruments of labor, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex".

Not that I expected Karl Marx to be a feminist activist, but I was surprised to find this sentence nevertheless.

Thoughts I Want to Put Down (But I'm Not Sure They Make Sense)

So in the night I woke up and couldn't sleep for a bit.  Random thoughts happen then, so reader beware.  By random, I mean potentially boring for you.  But the thoughts seemed so well formed and normal at that point.  I'm going to try to recreate them here and see just how, ahem, normal they seem now.

First, the reader should be aware of how much opinion news/politics shows I watch.  I TiVO Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann every day and get to actually watch them most days.  I also have been listening to a podcast when I run long runs called "Best of the Left".

So last night I was thinking about tax cuts.  Huh?,  you say.  Right, I say.  Middle of the night.  Tax cuts.

Anyway, I was thinking about the philosophy of tax cuts for the wealthy as a way to improve the economy via "trickle down" economics.  And I was thinking of our consumer-generated economy.  How the American Pursuit of Stuff underpins the entire global economy (am I making Americans too important here- ah, fodder for another post).  But I digress.  Back to the topic.  So Americans are counted on to buy stuff, and then throw it into the landfill when done and then buy more stuff.  At least, that's my current opinion on the matter.

But then I got to thinking about Christopher's and my habits, and the cultural mores around buying "new" (I think that thrift shop shopping and craigslist buying is a growing trend, correct me if I'm wrong) and I think we are on dangerous ground if we give tax cuts to the wealthy.  Now, Christopher and I do not fit the definition of "wealthy" according to the tax cutoff (over $250,000) but we are comfortable.  And we are in the market for baby stuff.  And we are so happy and excited when we find something that is gently used so we don't have to buy new.  Our decision is not based on our income (because we have the income to buy new).  But we care about the landfills getting too big and overflowing.  And we care about the pollution that factories making "new" stuff are generating.  And we know our use of this baby stuff will be relatively short in the grand scheme of things so we don't want to get to saddled with "stuff" we will shortly have to get rid of in order to reduce clutter.

And so, my middle of the night meanderings led me to this conclusion.  We need to discuss the efficacy of  "trickle down" economics in the context of our current cultural paradigm.  And I would love it if that's what the Republicans/Libertarians/Tea Party Folks would explain and defend.  But I know that will never happen. :(  It seems painfully obvious, *really obvious*, that a trend towards "less regulation" and "smaller government" brings us exactly back to the late 1800's and early 1900's.   At that time, there was unfettered wealth held by a few, small government and little regulation.  The wealth did not "trickle down" but rather led to the hugest plummet of American quality of life ever in the history of this country (IMHO)- the Great Depression.

Why are so many middle class Americans fighting for pre-depression conditions in this country?  Because the field of psychology in the area of marketing is so advanced.  And the wealthy know how to find the experts who will convince the average American that tax cuts for the wealthy are good for them too.  Oh sad.  So sad.