And the family grows again

On Monday, my father's birthday, my sister gave him the most amazing birthday present...she gave him a second grandson.

Isn't he beautiful? I am happy to report that he has reddish hair and blue eyes. He might keep neither but I'm calling it a win. Dillan John was born at 7:13 pm CST in McAlester, Oklahoma. He's 7 lbs, 2 oz (my prediction) and 20 inches long. His mother is a champ - three pushes and he was out. Dad and I, exiled to the waiting room, barely got settled and I got the text from Mom "He's here!"

Kellie said "Dylan" didn't look right when she wrote it, so she went with "Dillan". John is our father's name. I think it's a wonderful tradition - Dalton's middle name is Glenn, his father's middle and paternal grandfather's first name, and now Dillon has his maternal grandfather's name. I guess they're going to have to go out another generation for other boys, but then we get into Odus and Olan....there is a George and Harry, so there's hope.

Our family has grown again, and it feels so much larger than one tiny baby. His brother thinks he's still inside and says "Baby" when pointing to my sister's stomach, while petting his brother the same way he pets his dog. He'll figure it out, and he gets to go through his life with a little brother, who will be the bane of his existence as well as the most amazing friend of his life. My relationship with my sister is the best thing my parents ever gave me. I hope the boys will feel the same way.

Five Women....Minus One

There are five women in my life who know me. They've seen me at my best and worst, they understand me. They are my friends and peers, and those closest to me.

Yesterday, one of those women died.

She taught me incredible lessons on how to be gracious while being sick, something she had copious practice with. She knew and understood me in ways no one else could and she was my example of who to be in areas of my life that are obscure and foreign to most people. I loved her for our unique bond, the fact that she knew the side effects I would experience with every medication since she had been through them and reacted the same way, and that she knew my dosages, just like I knew hers, just in case a doctor was called. We understood each other's stubborn refusal to accept help outside of a very small group of people assigned to such a task and our deep and prevalent fear of appearing weak.

Despite the chair, she was not a weak woman. She was one of the strongest people I've ever met. When we would talk and the pain would be especially bad, she would excuse herself, tell me she was on Dilaudid, then curse a blue streak. Never, though, when sober and never in public. A lady in every way, and one that expected the men around her to be gentlemen, especially those from the South who should know better.

She prepared us for this a hundred times. We talked about funeral arrangements and wills and all that. But when she comes out of it time after time, you begin to discount the reality of the fact. You forget that the odds tend to catch up with you. You begin to believe, as many of us did, that she would outlive us all.

One of my women has died. And I am hollow and empty without her. Grief will pass, the pain will fade. We will eventually say good-bye. But I will never forget my friend, my incredible, strong friend whose quiet strength and fiery spirit sang to me again and again of the kind of woman I strive to be.

Review: Auschwitz: Inside the Nazi State

I will admit that I have a lifelong fascination with the events of WWII and the Holocaust, beginning from when I read Number the Stars and The Diary of Anne Frank in school. Part of this, I think, comes from the fact that I have no connection to it. My family supported the American war efforts, but were not members of the military (my maternal grandfather tried, but he was told he was too short). I am not Jewish nor have a Jewish ancestry. I didn't even know a Jewish person until adulthood, at least to my knowledge. The war and the events that led to it, therefore, have always been removed from me slightly. I feel horrified at what happened, but it's not a personal horror, it's a horror at things that happened to other people and were committed by other people.

In the continued efforts to expand my academic understanding of the era, I watch a lot of documentaries and read a lot of books. I recently began tackling the 6 part documentary Auschwitz: Inside the Nazi State (later released as a box set titled Auschwitz: The Nazis and the Final Solution), which is available on Netflix. It's a monster of a piece, with each 50 minute segment moving chronologically through the events that led to the building, functioning, and liberation of Auschwitz. The last episode, entitled Liberation and Revenge, speaks of what happened to many of the people involved, including the difficulties faced by survivors, as well as the disposition of several SS officers.

The series, produced by BBC, is incredibly detailed, and I have found it hard to watch more than two at a time, not because of the graphic nature of it (there are other documentaries that have been more graphic), but because of the sheer weight of it. The BBC was not interested, it seems, in letting the watcher off easy. They take great pains to make sure that the watcher is aware, deeply, of the meticulous nature in which the mission at Auschwitz was undertaken, that this was a carefully managed and planned affair. It's something I really like about the series, though it does make it hard to digest....but isn't that good?

Some of the survivors interviewed were familiar to me from other documentaries, especially Eva Mozes Kor, who was the subject of Forgiving Dr. Mengele. But the interviewee whose presence struck me the hardest was Oscar Groning, a member of the SS who had been stationed at Auschwitz. He is forthcoming with details, and doesn't seem to be reluctant in the least to be involved, but he is detached, as though he's speaking about someone else. Perhaps that is how he has managed to survive with the knowledge of what happened there, and to make a life for himself. He was asked if he thought it was right that he has lived comfortable while many of the survivors have struggled in attempts to get back portions of their property. His response summed up to "This is the way the world works. Does it help someone else if I live in poverty?" Apparently, he became public about his involvement at Auschwitz to counter Holocaust deniers, which adds a whole other level of complication to him.

An item of surprise to me was how hard those who had survived found it to return home and that their previous property ownership was ignored. Several survivors who were interviewed talked about how the communities that had once been full of their family and friends were not only filled with strangers, but were hostile towards them. It sounded like very few ever truly were able to go home, which adds to the sense of their incredible loss - their own freedoms, their family, their friends...and now their own homes.

Overall, the series left me, who has done a great deal of research and reading on this topic, once again with the impression of the size and scope of the atrocities committed at Auschwitz.  It also reminded me that the pain is ongoing, even 70 years after the camp was liberated and despite it being mostly out of site as those who experienced it are dying. I recommend it.

Understanding Triggers

This is not, despite the title, about guns or a family of a certain ex (or horse, for that matter). Triggers are things that make your system go haywire. They are commonly talked about in relation to depression, anxiety, PTSD, and related conditions. They, in a word, suck.

There are certain things that you expect to be a trigger. If your symptoms are a result of being jumped in an alleyway by a group of people, you can expect dark alleyways and small groups to cause you some problems. Associated triggers might also be dark streets. It grows from there, often logically. One of the first things you learn in dealing with trauma is what your triggers are and how to either avoid them (if they are easily avoidable) or cope with them (if they are not).

Then there are the triggers you never expect. People or situations that seem in no way related to your trauma, but still cause the same reactions. These are the triggers that you have to learn to prepare for if you're going to have any sort of long term recovery. And these are a bitch. They sneak up from nowhere, often disguised innocently enough. Often, they are not what they seem and can take some working to find out what is actually the problem. It's not fun, in fact it can be incredibly painful, but it's necessary in order to move past it.

It's different for every person. For some people, the triggers are closely related to the trauma, but may be extreme. For example, a rape victim might not be able to read about fictional rape without it causing flashbacks. For others, situations that remind the person of the feel of the trauma can be triggers, even if the situation is not similar. If the sufferer struggles with the loss of control from their trauma, any situation in which they feel they have no control can be a trigger, though they might be able to read about their trauma with no effect.

One of the first things that must be understood about PTSD is that it can't be cured. The goal for anyone who has it is to learn how they respond, learn what are appropriate responses, and then be able to move through life with that information. To learn how to recognize when a situation is a trigger, even if it's entirely new, and how to get through or get out of that situation so that it doesn't cause the flashbacks, panic attacks, or violent reactions that can result. The goal is to manage the PTSD so that it doesn't control your life. That means learning to manage your triggers, and hoping the people in your life are understanding.

A Sum of Our Bad Days

We are all familiar with the thin line between explaining something (Sorry I'm late, there was an accident on the 10) and trying to justify bad behavior (Seriously, traffic was awful, omg!). It can be hard to manage as both the receiver and the giver of such information and often comes down to trust in motivations.

I think this can be harder for behavior that is legitimately motivated by something beyond the person's control, but about which they feel guilty. I've seen this among friends and others I know who have various mental health issues, like depression, anxiety, and PTSD, especially if they are considered "high functioning". The person who suffers feel awful for letting it take control of their behavior, for acting in a way that they know is unacceptable, but in the moment they didn't have a lot of control over. This is the side I'm familiar with and can attest to the fact that it's awful. When you try to explain what it was like, you still feel guilty and you feel like you're justifying bad behavior. You end up making a lot of statements like "I know that this action is unacceptable, but let me try to explain what was going on in my head".

A friend said to me today that no one with any empathy can hold that kind of behavior against you if they know what's going on. I like the idea, but I don't know if that's true. All you can do, I guess, is to hope that the offended party is open to listening, and that they will see it for what it truly is. That they will recognize that these kinds of problems are fights that exist in you every day, and that some days are better than others, and some days you lose. For some, losing is hiding under the covers all day and letting the depression take over, hoping that tomorrow will be better, and trying not to feel the crushing guilt of not being productive. For others, losing can have much bigger consequences and effect the people in their lives, even running them out of it. In the end, we have to hope that our next bad day won't be as bad as the last one, and that the people we love learn to forgive, accept, and not see us as a sum of our bad days. Because if other people are anything like me, it can be hard not to see ourselves as that, especially when we don't have someone there to tell us otherwise.

Relationship Role Models

So I mentioned in yesterday's post the relationships that I admire. I think relationship role models are important. They give you an idea of what you're looking for, of what it takes to make that happen. They create a realistic expectation. An example:

My primary relationship role model is my parents' marriage of 35 years. Before I knew what it entailed, it set some unrealistic expectations. They got married as kids (they were 17 and 20) and have stuck together this long and raised two kids. It's part of why I got married the first time - I thought that, at 20, I was losing time. Double that when I think that my mother's oldest child (me) was 9 when she was my age. I have felt behind.

But what they taught me, my parents, is the value of fighting for it. That sometimes, one person does the majority of the lifting while the other person coasts, and that it will even out in the end. They had a rough go of it, in part because they were children when they got married and hurt each other a lot without knowing it. But at some point they decided that they were going to fix it, and they did. They let my sister and I see how hard it was, but that it was worth it. Because if it's not worth fighting for, it's not worth the time.

I try to imagine how hard it would be to not have that example growing up. I saw it everyday of my life, so I know it's hard, but that it's worth it. But if you grew up not going that, not seeing that...how do you know what you're supposed to do, how good it can be? Who do you look to for advice? If you're lucky, there are others in your life who can demonstrate that for you. How can someone create a somewhat realistic expectation of a relationship if they don't know what one is supposed to look like? They might look elsewhere, develop the mentality that it's not possible, or create unrealistic expectations. If your only example is what you read in books or see in movies...how do you know?

I have often said that I'm lucky to have been raised the way I was. Lately, that's been more apparent than usual. And I'm thankful for it, despite the problems it can cause.

Independence vs Relationships

So as I've been watching my way through Scrubs, I came across Season 8, episode 9, "My Absence". A patient whose husband of 50 years had recently died passes away and Kelso comments that it was probably because she lost her soul mate. Elliot says she hopes she would have more going on in her life if it was her, though she later bemoans that she's no longer a strong or independent woman because she's miserable with JD out of town (hence of the title of the episode).

Why do we do that? Why we do associate being strong and independent women with being unwilling to put life on hold for someone else, or to wait for what someone else needs?

I've spent most of my adult life in relationships, including one marriage and one engagement (they are not related). I have also spent a lot of it working through the ins and outs - what I want in a relationship, where my stick points are, etc. And I've come to the understanding that I am a strong and independent woman. One thing everyone in my life knows about me is that, no matter what happens in a given situation, I will be fine. I am incredibly resilient. But I am also willing to put aside what I want in the name of what someone else who I care about needs.

I wasn't always able to do that. I'm good at short term care taking, especially physical things. But putting aside my own long term wants and desires for someone else is not my specialty. I think I saw it as weak, a special blend of feminist and military mindsets, and a fear of losing myself in someone else. But as I've gotten past the age where I care so much about those kinds of things, I've realized that the relationships that I admire all have a sense of sacrifice to them. They are the people who are willing to put aside the 'me' for the 'us'...and who do that by recognizing that sometimes, making the 'us' better means fostering the other side. There has to be faith that it will be reciprocated if the time comes, that when my career or my goals are at stake, the partner will sacrifice in return.

That faith is the hard part. It's much harder than love. But if achieved, it bolsters a love that is so much better than the quick and easy (and inherently selfish) love without sacrifice. At least, that's what I'm told.

Review: China's Lost Girls (2004)

This has been sitting in my Netflix queue for awhile, but I actually watched it the other day. It follows American families on their way to China to adopt little girls while examining the effect the one child policy along with the preference for males has had on China's population. This was one of those that caught my attention for no particular reason, but I'm really glad I watched it.

The emotional story is there, of course. Little baby girls abandoned in parks and on streets because their mothers need a boy, then adopted by American families. A mother discusses how her husband said he would send her back to her family if she produced a daughter and how she paid a fine to keep her second child, a girl, after giving her husband a son. The families include a couple that has one adopted Chinese girl already, and they show where she was left and we meet her foster mother. The entire thing is really touching.

More striking to me was the effects that the one child policy has had on China. I've read a lot of articles about how the divorce rate among young Chinese is very high, which is believed to stem from a culture of single children. But this looks at young children, a population of whom is overwhelmingly male. One of the most visible effects of this is that many of the children (male and female) are overweight. An interviewed teenager comments that their parents' generation suffered so much that they want to indulge their children. The word used repeatedly is "spoiled". There are concerns about how violence against women, prostitution, and forced marriages are already rising, and that it will happen more as the disparity continues to rise.

It's a really interesting examination of the policy through the eyes of the adoptive families who benefit from the one of the greatest efforts to curb population in civilized history.Worth watching, absolutely.

Review: The Buccaneers (1995)

This showed up as a recommendation in Netflix because of my love for costume dramas. It's a 5 part miniseries (though Netflix compresses two of the episodes so that it airs as 4) with each part being around an hour. I admit, it was a little slow of a start, in part because it's hard to tell the four girls apart at first. But the characters develop nicely and the story is rather engaging.

The Buccaneers is Edith Wharton's last novel and was unfinished until the 90's when it was finished in multiple versions, one of which is for this miniseries. It's about 4 young American women (compressed from 5 in the book) who go to England to seek husbands. It has Mira Sorvino (as a brunette!) and Carla Gugino as two of the young women and the overall cast is rather fantastic.

This has all the period drama I love. The pressure to marry well (whether you need money or title), disapproving family, baby-drama, lovers...all the awesome. Plus pretty costumes and houses. What more could a girl want?

The series is excellent and worth watching - just get past the first 20 minutes or so. It's on Netflix Streaming.

Review: Rose: My Life In Service to Lady Astor by Rosina Harrison

Most people know I'm a huge fan of Downton Abbey, so it's no surprise that one of the books used by Julian Fellows for reference is on my nightstand. I got it for Christmas and devoured it in a few weeks.

The book is written in first person from Rosina Harrison's perspective and it reads much as I suspect Harrison sounded in life (she passed away in 1989 at 90-years-old). There are several sentences that I had to read twice because the word placement was odd, but if you read it with a Yorkshire accent in your mind's ear, it helps a great deal. I don't want to say it's unintelligible - it's not. But the tone is conversational, which can produce some interesting word usage. Either way, it's a fast read in great part because of the tone. It's as easy to get caught up in the story of Harrison's life as it would be if she was sitting in front of you.

And it is a story of her life. While Lady Nancy Astor factors heavily into as the woman Harrison served for 35 years (until Astor's death and Harrison's subsequent retirement), the book is about Harrison's life in service, which begins in 1918 and ends in 1964. It's a story of a life and a mindset that seems foreign to us now, but is so fascinating. Her commentary on visiting America and our "color problem" in comparison to a servant's life is really eye opening. She addresses various Astor related scandals that happened while she was in service for them from the perspective of someone who knew the people, even though she was never part of the political world that they occurred in.

She published the book in 1975 and it was republished in 2011, I assume because of the success of Downton Abbey. It's a quick read at 354 pages and worth a few hours, just to see the world through someone else's eyes for a few hours.

Review: Gangster Squad (2013)

I have always liked gangster movies and I love a period piece (especially set from the 30s - 50s) so I was excited to see Gangster Squad. I also like the primary cast a lot, which is an added bonus.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie. Despite portraying some real people (Sean Penn as Mickey Cohen, Nick Nolte as Bill Parker, and a few other minor characters) the movie is not historically accurate. It's best to treat it as what it is - a work of fiction that uses some real names and places as setting material.

I really like Emma Stone (did you know she's a natural blonde? Red suits her so well...) and I enjoyed her vampy look and her general performance. The huskiness of her voice was nice on this character. Sean Penn is always fun to see on screen and I love him as a bad guy. He had great flamboyance as Mickey Cohen. Nick Nolte had very little screen time as Bill Parker, but he never needed a lot of time to make an impression, which he does as the Chief of Police trying to clean up Cohen's operation.

Now to the titular Squad itself. Josh Brolin as John O'Mara was fantastic. He's believable as a veteran who never really left the way and he has the look for the role with his square jaw and reluctant smile. Since Men in Black 3, I think of him as "little Tommy Lee Jones", and this is the kind of roll Jones might have taken when he was younger. Ryan Gosling was...well, he was Ryan Gosling. So pretty. Looks aside, he gave a solid performance as Wooters, the playboy. Everyone in the Squad held their own, but my love falls to the spook. Giovanni Ribisi was awesome as the slightly nerdy wire tapper. Having worked with similar people, I also found him highly believable.

Finally, I have to give recognition to Mireille Enos as Connie, John O'Mara's wife. I liked Enos in Big Love and The Killing, so no surprise that I would like her here. We saw more range from her in this, I thought, since she (or her characters) tend to be a little stoic and guarded. She handled the role as a knowledgeable, but frustrated and concerned wife really well.

All in all, I enjoyed the movie. It suffered from some pacing problems, but it was pretty and fun, which is what I had expected it to be.

Women in Combat

After I posted a link to the NYT's article on women serving in combat to my G+, I was asked for my expanded thoughts. I'm torn on this issue because I can see the argument on both sides and both sides have valid points.

For:

Women are already in combat, they just don't have the training. We don't have a front line anymore and the danger is real to everyone in uniform. Chow halls get blown up and I can assure you that women eat in those halls the same as men. Supply lines are dangerous and women are allowed in transportation and supply positions. All this does is say that women can now receive the training for the infantry and artillery positions they have been previously denied. This also opens them up to the types of advancement that combat positions have access to and which stymies women in the promotion process.

Against:

I've asked many of my friends who have served as dedicated front-line fighters (infantry, artillery, etc) about how they feel about this topic. Their responses, generally, were the same. None of them doubted that the women could do the job and complete the mission. It was the men they were concerned about. In order to kill people on a daily basis, you have to regress to a primal mindset. That mindset is fine when it's just a bunch of men, who might beat the snot out of each other, but nothing more. The concern they all had was inserting women into that environment and what it might mean for their safety. It's easy to say "They should learn to control themselves", but it's not quite so easy to implement. There is also a concern that men would do stupid things to keep their female cohorts safe in crisis, which might not be best for the mission.

As a counter to both, my answer is training. Women will begin to appear in combat training, which should acclimate the men to their presence. The second concern, about men trying to save the women, is one that has been pervasive in the military since they allowed women in at all, so I'm confident that the appropriate training will be able to curb that behavior.

None of the information I've read thus far says if women will be allowed to apply for Special Forces training and units. There also has been no mention of how this will effect the Selective Service, though I maintain that if we are going to have the Selective Service as a contingency plan, we should open it up to every resident of the US between 18 and 25, not just male residents. Of course, I think we should do away with it and instead have a two year mandatory military service, but that's me.

In the end, I think this will prove to be the correct course of action. There will be bumps along the way and I think the three year implementation suggested in the article is a good one since there will be infrastructure issues to address (like training barracks for females on previously male-dominated bases) as well as unit issues. Careful implementation is important, especially to the Army and Marines, who are most effected. In 20 years, I think we will look back and agree that this was the right decision.

Review: Les Miserables (2012)

As a big fan of the musical, I was skeptical. Movie versions of musicals don't always translate well, but my utter love for Dreamgirls and Mamma Mia spurred me on, and so I approached with good faith.

My good faith was rewarded with a beautiful film.

We'll start with the acting. The acting was incredibly well done, but that wasn't in question with such a stellar cast. The large roles were played by reliable, excellent actors who took the desperation and hope of the story and expressed them with every expression and word. The chemistry between Hugh Jackman as Val Jean and Russell Crowe as Javert was incredible. As important as that relationship is onstage, it's doubly so when the audience can see the flash of determination and the glint of unwavering righteousness in the actors' eyes.

The singing was my biggest fear. I was familiar with Amanda Seyfried's voice from Mamma Mia and expected exactly what I got - a clear soprano that uses a bit more vibrato at the high ranges than I like, but is understandable for someone who isn't a professional singer and thus doesn't use her voice enough to develop a really strong high range. I thought she did beautifully. I've never liked the role of Cosette (partly because I like Eponine so much), but I at least like the character more under Seyfried's management.

The surprise for me came with Anne Hathaway. I knew the woman could act, but I was unprepared for what a stunning voice she has. Fantine is a tragic and heart-wrenching role and Hathaway did it not only justice, but embraced it in a beautiful way. Her rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream" broke my heart. Stunning.

The men were less stunning vocally. As actors, I can't say a word against them - both carried the intensity and conviction of their roles on broad shoulders. Val Jean's death is beautifully done. Neither actor could carry the role vocally onstage, as Jackman's voice is a little thin and Crowe doesn't have the range. But for a movie, Jackman was good and Crowe's singing didn't detract from his moving performance.

Finally, I was really happy to see both Samantha Barks and Colm Wilkinson onscreen. Barks reprised her role as Eponine (Barks performed the role on the West End and sang it for the 25th Anniversary Concert) and proved she could do it with a camera in her face. I really like her voice and I was very happy to see that she translates nicely to film, since not everyone does. Colm Wilkinson was a treat. I have a deep love for that man's voice and to see him in the role of the Bishop was lovely. The addition of him to the death of Val Jean was perfect.

The scale of the drama as presented on the screen was phenomenal. Stagecraft creates a breathtaking moment with the building of the barricade, but to see the prison, the barricade, Paris, onscreen in full scope...I think it brought the message of the production home.

Review: Rise of the Guardians

I saw Rise of the Guardians shortly after it opened and I love this movie. I will own it once it's available in March, it's that good.

To recap the plot, the Guardians are tasked with the protection of the things that make children sacred - wonder, hope, memories of childhood, and dreams. They consist of Nicholas St. North (Santa, voiced by Alec Baldwin), E. Aster Bunnymund (the Easter Bunny, voiced by Hugh Jackman), Tooth (the Tooth Fairy, voiced by Isla Fisher), and Sandy (the Sandman, who does not speak). They are informed by the Man in the Moon that they need to bring Jack Frost (voiced by Chris Pine) on board to deal with Pitch Black (the Boogeyman, voiced by Jude Law), who is turning Dreams into Nightmares and killing the belief in the Guardians.

The voice acting is fantastic. I love Jude Law as a villain and all the Guardians are well voiced.  I'm a sucker for a beautiful movie and this one fits the bill, both with plot and visuals. The animation is so beautiful and avoids the hyper-realism that animation leans towards, which annoys me. Hugh Jackman is always a favorite, but him as the masculine, Australian Easter Bunny is really enjoyable.

I highly recommend this movie and encourage everyone to see it. It restores hope.