Mar 082018
 

Parkland shooting teen survivorsYou see them after every tragedy: the husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, friends, and colleagues who have lived through what is an unimaginable event for most people. Somehow, instead of hiding away, they are out front, dealing with the inevitable mash of cameras, microphones, journalists, bloggers, well-wishers, and hangers-on. To add to their suffering, they must deal with entitled opinionistas, naysayers, trolls, and the genuinely ugly folks who feel compelled to issue threats via social media.

Yet they persevere, these physically and psychically injured people. Despite pain, loss, and soul-crushing grief that would lay most people low, they’ve appeared in public shortly after their experiences. They ask for understanding. More often than not, they advocate for change. A few might insist on assigning blame; far more insist on accountability.

Recently, a group of teenagers at Florida’s Parkland High School escaped death by yet another mass shooting. Now, some of them are calling on legislators to control, regulate, or ban the kinds of weapons favored by shooters at malls, rock concerts, and schools. These weapons–semi-automatic, self-loading, or whatever we choose to call them–are designed to inflict maximum damage in a minimum amount of time and they’ve been easy to procure by people who are crazy or just angry.

While the teens are widely supported, they’ve also encountered plenty of social media haters quick to accuse them of being either naïve children dazzled by the attention or opportunistic spot-light seekers backed by calculating adults. Some suggest that activism in the wake of tragedy is inappropriate. There are even those who suspect—or pretend to suspect—these poised and focused teens are paid actors.

How familiar that all sounds.

My husband died on 9/11. I spent a little time thrashing around my empty house. Social media didn’t really exist in 2001, just a few AOL chat rooms where eager participants engaged in conspiracy theories. When the journalists first called, I spoke about my husband. It helped, a little, but I remained at home and that was not a good place for me to be. My first steps at advocacy involved getting help for the families and also, to be honest, trying to articulate the painful peculiarity of our position: our grief was personal but also shared. We were in the public eye, like it or not. My voice, which had literally disappeared after my husband’s death, began to return. My will to live followed, although it returned far more slowly than I let on.

Finally, I screwed up the courage to express myself about the fallout from the attacks: a war with Iraq (a country that produced none of the hijackers), a deep division about how to treat Muslim-Americans, the ways in which 9/11, like so many tragedies before and since, became a shield for bad policy-making and fodder for the haters. Some of what I said put me at odds with other family members, or with talking heads, particularly on Fox News. The push-back hurt. I didn’t exactly shrug it off, but I didn’t stop, either.

The students who’ve chosen to be front and center impress me. I get why they’re speaking out. Because they’ve identified a single, absolutely relevant issue around which they can unite. Because they’re articulate, in the way smart, engaged teens can be. Because, yes, they want to make sense of an event that upended their young lives and ended the lives of their friends. Because the grief is too strong to lay quietly within them. They’re grieving, yes, but in their grief, they’ve become hyper-attuned to anyone who is trying to tell them how they should behave or how they should feel.

I can see it in their eyes and hear it in their voices. They push back against the critical, envious outsiders and against those who try to politicize their actions, as if safety and common sense were simply one side of an argument. No, they insist, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t call us children and still fail to protect us. You can’t call us opportunists and then fail to listen to what we say. You can’t take our grief, our pain, and our resolve and use it to further your own agenda. We call that b.s.

I call it hope.

Dec 152017
 

 

Christmas ornamentIt’s that time of year when some of us feel compelled to put forth our version of an inspirational message. In times past, I’ve been inspired by both baser and higher impulses. I’ve written about gratitude on more than one occasion, although, truth be told, I find the collective impulse to remind ourselves and everyone else to be grateful to be a little, well, grating. Most of the people I know are well aware of what they have; it doesn’t mean they can or should ignore what they—what we all—might be missing.

On the other hand, words of doom and gloom seem particularly inappropriate this time of year. Not that it’s a happy time for many people I know. I have a number of friends, some virtual, some not, who have faced enormous health and financial challenges this year. I hurt on their behalf. Hell, I hurt on behalf of all the fearful people in the world, myself included.

In my case, the fears are both ordinary and extraordinary, micro and macro. I worry about growing old and becoming infirm, sure. I don’t like the idea of being alone or otherwise disconnected.

Most of all, though, what I fear is an increase (or no visible decrease, at any rate) in illogical, closed-minded intolerance. I call it non-thinking, the visceral reactive state that has far too many people clinging to their beliefs as if they were life preservers. It’s difficult for me to understand how, in 2017 (the twenty-first century!), whole swaths of folks adhere to a values hierarchy that has little to do with morality. They hold fast to outdated or outright false Biblical, biological, and generational maxims at the expense of anything approaching humanity. How else does a cruel, narcissistic adulterer become a touchstone for so many? How else does false equivalency gain credence, while “fake news” is defined as anything remotely critical, regardless of objectivity? How can groups of people be dismissed because of who they are, what they believe, or how they love? How do we live in a world where dictators are heroes and heroes are maligned?

But doom and gloom don’t move us forward any more than do lectures on gratitude or syrupy seasonal wishes. Which is why, after cruising through holiday messages of yore, I’ve gone back to a statement I penned several years ago and lifted from my book Hope in Small Doses. It’s a sort of declaration, not of war or even of independence but of resolve. I have to revisit it from time to time, but now it’s part of my DNA. If it suits or serves you moving into 2018, then by all means, let this be my gift to you.

small christmas tree“I choose hope, at least in small doses. I choose to assign myself a purpose, and embrace the journey that leads to the fulfillment of that purpose. I acknowledge the risk of stumbling along the way, of never completely accomplishing what I set out to do, or of discovering that I inadvertently changed course. I accept as a working theory that humans live their best lives when they ascribe meaning to their lives. I take as a matter of faith that it is within each of us to live meaningful lives, to love, to interact, to connect in fellowship; and that how long our reach, or wide our influence, is far less important than the path we set for ourselves. I realize I will always feel some disappointment and may come to conclusions and discoveries late in life that I wish I’d reached earlier. But so what? That only means I’ve been growing and learning. It also means I’m human…and being fully, completely human is always going to be my most important accomplishment.

I don’t propose to know how hope will continue to fit into my life. I only know that in some small measure, I want it. I need it. I deserve it. We all do.”

Happy holidays whoever and wherever. Here’s to a bright 2018.

Jul 012017
 

I love Canada. I’ve biked in Vancouver and strolled through Butchart Gardens. I’ve driven around Nova Scotia and up to Prince Edwards Island. I even studied one summer at Université Lavalle. We were two Midwest high school girls whose young chaperone ran off the second day. Suddenly unsupervised, we promptly cashed in our lunch stipend and used the money to visit bars amenable to underage drinkers where we hung with the local boys. A great way to learn colloquial French.

But I digress.

I’ve thought about living in Canada. Where would I head? The bustling province of Ontario, which holds nearly forty percent of the nation’s population? The fast-growing west? Somewhere in between? It’s a big country. Surely there’d be room for me.

My comfort level with the United States has been dropping precipitously. Even before the presidential election unleashed an undercurrent of ugly and entitled resentment, I considered an exit strategy. Blame the lack of gun control. How can anyone trust a nation so cavalier about mass shootings? Where regulations are loosening in all but seven states? Where the NRA releases thinly veiled calls to violence with every new ad? Where I can’t go into a Starbucks without worrying about getting caught in the cross-fire generated by misunderstanding or long-standing grievances?

Canada, with its open spaces, clean air, hot young leader and atmosphere of tolerance, beckoned. Cold, sure, but that’s what parkas are for. I wanted Canada. But did Canada want me, a semi-retired writer with hope in her heart?

The most common way to gain permanent residency is via Express Entry. In 2015, the Canadian government instituted the program to seek out skilled workers, entrepreneurs or investors. Six factors determine eligibility: education, language, employment experience, age, arranged employment, adaptability. One’s eligibility is calculated on a points system per an initial evaluation offered on the government website. If you reach 67 out of 100 points, you may be a candidate for immigration. No guarantees.

I felt cautiously optimistic. I had no job waiting and let’s face it, age will never again work in my favor. Yet I have several things going for me. I speak excellent English and passable French. This is point-worthy, non? An advanced degree? Mais oui. And I am nothing if not adaptable.

But as I continued to wade through the evaluation, my spirits sank. Employment experience means work history relevant to future employment, something I can’t predict. Would I be willing to invest millions, launch a startup, buy and manage a farm. Sadly, no. I couldn’t even point to family in Canada. No one waited to welcome me with open arms, save a couple of friends.

I saw the handwriting on the wall. Don’t apply. Tu n’es pas éligible.

Undaunted, I found the name of an apparently reputable law firm online, one of literally hundreds that offer free or inexpensive consultations for would-be immigrants. I caught the attorneys during a busy time. Unsurprising, given how appealing Canada looks to the rest of the world right about now.

Over three days, three attorneys were able to give me between one and four minutes apiece. Briskly, politely, or regrettably, they told me my age and lack of ties to Canada counted against me. Just what a gal needs to hear.

The third offered a thin lifeline. I could try to fill out something called a Generic Application as a self-employed person. Again, no guarantees, of course.

Nevertheless, I felt buoyed. Yes, my income is negligible and my royalties paltry, but I have listed myself on my U.S. tax forms as a writer for more than a decade. I have two published books and countless published essays to show for it. Je suis écrivain!

Have I participated in world-class cultural events, asks the application form? I’ve spoken at Harvard and signed books at Princeton. These are world-class universities. Tell me this counts.

Never mind: I’ll fill out the form and send in the fifty dollars. Meanwhile, though, I am compelled to search out other creative, original, and unique ways to convince Canada I can contribute to its culture. For instance, I could:

  1. set my new novel in Canada
  2. hire a Canadian editor
  3. write for a local paper
  4. write a new verse to the national anthem (although it’s fine, really)
  5. write about moving to Canada
  6. write a reality show in which a sophisticated older American woman selects from among a group of eligible Canadian men vying for her hand in marriage.

O Canada, I pledge my love and allegiance. Please let me in.