On Sexism Against Women (Sean O’Connor’s Public Comment video diary vlog– episode #19)

...out of six women candidates, to suggest that they’re all uniquely unqualified in contrast the remaining 18 men would be highly suggestive of an appearance of a prevailing misogynistic or sexist impulse in our politics.

I see no reason why, after over two centuries of male leadership in the executive branch, at a time when a quarter of the candidates are female, a woman should be denied the presidency at this point. I do believe there is a role for inclusiveness in things…when there is a disproportionate amount of people excluded from something I think we need to ask how there can be more inclusion.

TRANSCRIPT:

It delights me to chat with you today folks. (By the way, I’m searching for the right greeting. I’m sick of “greetings ladies and gentlemen!” because it assumes everyone watching is a lady or a gentleman” ((not that I’m assuming impolite society is watching here but I do strive for as much accuracy and objectivity and as few assumptions as possible)) and “greetings” as I’ve said in videos for over a decade now just sounds too…generic…to me. Greetings?What kind of greetings? Right?)

Anyway…today I’ll be chatting with you exclusively about women.

Evidence suggests that my vlogs–almost entirely… fail to interest the female sex, compared to men and this troubles me. Last night before bed I was contemplating this issue, worrying, thinking, wow, what the hell is wrong with me? How could I so unilaterally repel– virtually– an entire sex?

You see, I use an application called “Tube Buddy” to track how many or how few people watch my YouTube vlogs. For example, Tube Buddy tells me that 60.7 percent of my viewers are between the ages of 25-34. 68.4 percent of my audience watches these vlogs on a desktop computer.

Now, when it comes to male versus female viewership, 94 percent of my audience, according to Tube Buddy is male.

I find this unacceptable on my part and this means I do need to seriously evaluate possible causes. Forgive me if something seemingly, and implicitly sexist ever came out of my mouth for I seek to live as decent person.  

My friend from William Paterson University, Rahinne Ambrose, suggests I ask you directly- what issues are important to you? So I’m asking you: gals out there…lasses (i love the words “lad” and “lass) what issues are important to you? And I suppose another thing I’d like to know– do you have any thoughts on why men might not prioritize these issues as much as you do?

In the meantime, I’m an extremely impatient person so I wanted to start researching this issue of matters that women care about in 2019 to gain a better understanding now.

Three particular articles struck me most this morning.

The first is an article from ThoughtCo which highlighted sexism and gender bias as a top issue on the female mind these days.

In the context of this as a video-diary vlog of a white, straight, heterosexual male, I wonder, what might be the most appropriate and meaningful way for me to appreciate this particular concern of sexism and gender bias?

I suppose taking the time to think and talk about it would be a good start.

I feel especially sensitive to this issue of sexism and gender bias.

I lived for a time under the roof of a single mother. My mother left my father when I was three. So that would have been around 1990. I remember the day we “left.”

My mother picked me up from preschool and said we were moving. I said “is Dad coming?” and she said “no.” Strange though it may seem, I didn’t appear on the surface worry about my father not moving with us. I had not seen him so much up to that point in my life. Or if I did, I don’t have any memories except for one…him sticking his dirty, hairy feet in the bath tub when my little brother and I were taking a bath. To the best of my knowledge my father worked long days and come home late and wasn’t so much a part of my earliest upbringing.

I don’t really know the full details of why the marriage between my mother and father ended. But to bring this story back to the topic of sexism and gender bias I actually, just upon thinking about this, note some things.

My mother had custody of my little brother and I. Yes, every other weekend I saw my father and that was okay, but what does that signify about my father’s view of fatherhood, man’s role in raising children, in contrast to the woman’s?

I do realize my mother was bound to be the one who had custody over us…but that to me is a major point for consideration. My mother took responsibility for raising my brother and I…she did so in a manner that was quite gung-ho.

What did this mean to my father?

To what extent (if it all) and how (if it all) might he have grappled with this?

In some respects his apparent negligence really seems without excuse.

My father was a psychologist who specialized in couples counseling. To say he couldn’t have wrapped his mind…intellectually– around a father’s responsibility to his children, not just as a father to his children, but as a partner in parenting with the woman he had children with, as someone with concern about her well-being in the situation, quite regardless of their romantic relationship …I just think that seems like an illogical supposition.

My father liked, also, to cling to how awful his father was.

(That is one thing he opened up to me about quite vividly in our final years together).

The story goes, as I know it, that my father’s dad, according to my father, only married his mother because he wanted to know he could have her…to have sex with her and make her his wife and that after this he no longer was interested in marriage or family life and so he went to fight in World War II.

Upon returning he started a new family with a new wife, had a daughter and acted for many years as if he was not my father’s dad.

I am told my father once went to visit him at the insurance agency where he worked for decades and when my father introduced himself to his father’s secretary asking to see him the secretary said something to the effect of: “I’ve known your father for so many years and he never once said anything about having a son,” and this is something my father pointed to as traumatizing for him.

I don’t doubt that but still don’t believe this excuses his lack of emphatic parental responsibility and respect for the undue burden this put on my mother, who for a time, went to night school, while working a job…meanwhile, how very comfortably my father lived with his substantial income as a private psychologist. I don;t claim to know the economic/ fiduciary details of talks and agreements or lack there of or issues between my mother and father but I have no evidence that he went out of his way to help my mother out in any truly substantive way beyond child support money which was often late.

What exactly explains my father’s treatment of my mother and his fatherhood role?

He was perhaps not so different in certain respects from his father because he can’t even claim to have some kind of intellectual disinterest in women considering the fact that one of his life passions was photographing nude women and speaking at length of his views on the justification of sexual liberation, pornography, and things of that sort.

It almost seems…but I won’t say I can quite claim…but still it seems…as though my father actually objectified women and viewed them mostly as sex objects, prioritizing his nudist photography and stock pile of pornography over a substantive relationship with a woman.

Of course…things are never that simple.

Philosophical, psychological and contextual questions would need to be addressed.

By that I mean….what was the source of my father’s view of women?

I think a Nietzschean examination would be interesting. One of Nietzsche’s most interesting points…to me… is his Will To Power idea…his idea that people cling to that which they believe brings them so much power. A possible suggestion then, from this point of view, might be that my father viewed…sexual prowess or sexual indulgence as more empowering than husband life and fatherhood?

That seems still like an over simplification though.

And meanwhile, maybe I’m talking too much about him right now and not enough about my amazing mother.

He had the experience of retreating from the demands of day to day parenting and all the stress and complexities, from the psychological, to the economic to the practical, et cetera, that my mother did not have.

I cannot help but think of that line by Jason Isbell

all the years I took from her just by being born.

What if it could have been the other way around? If my mother could have explored something in life (for my father it was psychology, and sex…it would seem) that deeply interested her beyond parenting, and intense economic concern (not that we were poor so much as we grew up mindful that we were not rich and that every dollar counted. In contrast, my father often didn’t hesitate to hand me a fifty dollar bill and say “get outta here.”)  

I’m not suggesting my mother would have wanted it another way, or not significantly another way.

I understand that being a mother is something she was interested in.

But how could her life have been better if she had been treated better by my father.

By the way…I am not saying that has to mean I wish they stayed together. I love my stepfather and every way I imagine the possibilities I see him as the best thing in the world for her. My stepfather treats my mother right– he openly speaks about his interest in her well-being.

Sadly, I do not recall my father ever saying “how is your mother?” Maybe he did and I just forget but clearly then he never went out of his way in such a fashion that it burned in memory.

I think my father may have indeed been a sexist.

 He failed at marriage three times. Now I have no right whatsoever to delve into the details behind precisely how those marriages ultimately failed but I can tell you I saw more of an indication from my father that women served a purpose of sexual thrills than deep relationships that took interest in the wider well-being of the women he was most intimate with…well at least in the case of my mother.  

I don’t begrudge my father’s deep interest in sexuality, or his deep interest in sexual connections with women. That seems to me, unfair, over simplifying things, even to a point of mistreating women…because women are sexual just as men are and those aspects of life are important aspects of life…but did it take precedence over my father’s view of the ramifications of a society where men and women did not and still do not often quite fare the same? Did my father feel profound concern for my mother’s economic well-being? Did he feel concern about how his negligence in the field of parenting negatively impacted my mother and how deeply unfair and harmful it was?

Another article I came across that struck me is an article published by the American Psychological Association. In this article I read in the introduction that

a large number of cross-sectional, longitudinal, and cohort-sequential studies have provided evidence that across cohorts, samples, and measures […] men tend to have higher self esteem than women

This is another troubling finding about our society today and I believe in fact that the topic of self-esteem stretches beyond sex and/or gender though for the remainder of my time with you, I will confine this to the element of this topic concerning women.

While I do not believe politics ever serves as a panacea, I do believe policies can have tremendous cultural impacts.

In light of this, I believe, with the 2020 Democratic primary election coming up we are in a unique position to bring special attention to women’s issues.

6 of the 24 candidates for president in the Democratic primary election are women. Now….I’m very poor at math but I know 6 x 4= 24 which means one fourth, one quarter of the candidates are female.

In my thinking….out of six women candidates, to suggest that they’re all uniquely unqualified in contrast the remaining 18 men would be highly suggestive of an appearance of a prevailing misogynistic or sexist impulse in our politics.

I see no reason why, after over two centuries of male leadership in the executive branch, at a time when a quarter of the candidates are female, a woman should be denied the presidency at this point. I do believe there is a role for inclusiveness in things…when there is a disproportionate amount of people excluded from something I think we need to ask how there can be more inclusion.

We have the means for women to become much more inclusive in American politics than ever before in this election. I believe this is something we ought to do. And I believe this could pay major dividends in elevating the self esteem not just of women but all oppressed groups.

I believe this would be taking a lesson from winning corporate practices in Europe. As the economist reports in the February 17, 2018 article “Ten years on from Norway’s quota for women on corporate boards:”

In 2008 Norway obliged listed companies to reserve at least 40% of their director seats for women on pain of dissolution. In the following five years more than a dozen countries set similar quotas at 30% to 40%. In Belgium, France and Italy, too, firms that fail to comply can be fined, dissolved or banned from paying existing directors.

Following this notion of a quota, of ensuring inclusiveness, I believe pledging to support a female candidate, when so many women are running, is a good move.

Public Comment is a personal journal vlog where I share my free thoughts on politics, culture, and self.

Please feel free to share your thoughts with me at sean.publiccomment@gmail.com or follow me on Twitter at 
https://twitter.com/sopubliccomment 

On Social & Digital Media (Sean O’Connor’s Public Comment video diary vlog– episode #13)

Most of my social life has been rather marred by anxiety and shyness. Lately I’ve been opening up though, on social media, experimenting with self expression beyond the written word into digital audio and video. But is digital better than print?  

IN THIS EPISODE:

This vlogging/podcasting endeavor is the most interesting and exciting endeavor I ever undertook even despite the intimidating complexities of social and digital media. I don’t know what the most suitable and efficient multimedia integration consists of just yet. Today I switched from Facebook live streaming to YouTube live streaming because YouTube has much better video quality.

What Facebook lacks in video quality it gains in the likelihood that I might reach a wider audience in the short term, but as I am in this for the long term, I’m willing to produce videos of sharper quality than immediately reach more people. But what about Vimeo? And do I really need to record my videos live? The one advantage on that front is that the live streamed YouTube videos seem to upload faster. But I haven’t experimented enough with video editing and uploading different formats and such.

Vlogging and podcasting are interesting as one might categorize them as mere social media (like a more thoroughly produced status update?) while others might view them as more “professional” (?) media productions. I view it as a kind of hybrid venture: one the one hand, I like the notion of this being very direct, personable, social interaction between you and I. On the other hand, I strive to produce each episode with the utmost in thoughtfulness and quality– at least to the best of my ability.

My investment in this experimental project, from the “social media” perspective is actually surprising to me because whether or not you can tell, despite my political and philosophical assertiveness throughout my life, I have always tended to be quite shy, and even terribly anxious socially.

I did not have a plethora of friends growing up. I had more “internet friends” than “in person” friends. (What is it about the blockade of the computer screen that seems to filter out the fundamentals of social anxiety?)

(Not to say I was friendless, by the way. I was blessed with a few amazing friends!)

One fascinating aspect of social media to me is how it democratizes the marketplace of ideas and products. MSNBC and NPR may have more resources to give them a competitive advantage over me, for example, in their audience reach, but so long as the underdog of social media competition has access to a Twitter or Facebook account, it is quite possible to have an unpredictably massive social impact. As someone who believes very strongly in standing up for his politics and values, I find this notion extremely motivating and inspiring!

I wonder though…are my digital media products that I share on social media safe from material degradation over time? I came across this interesting article on preserving digital materials which links to this product called M disk which is supposed to preserve digital media for up to 1000 years! I’d love to know what major media organizations like the New York Times or NBC think about this topic.

Public Comment is a personal journal vlog and podcast where I share my free thoughts on politics, culture, and self.

Please feel free to share your thoughts with me at sean.publiccomment@gmail.com or follow me on Twitter at 
https://twitter.com/sopubliccomment 

On Failure, Free Thought, and Time (Sean O’Connor’s Public Comment video diary vlog–episode #9)

Listen to the Public Comment podcast

Between my failed attempt turn my self-published book, my three failed runs for political office, and my failed pursuit of a teaching assistantship position as a graduate school student I’ve had enough failure to feel like I’m an expert on the topic. But, like Elon Musk, I refuse to be defined by my failures, so today I imagined myself as the Montaigne of the personal vlog, digressing from topic to topic as I pleased, from failure to time, thinking of Hootie and the Blowfish, when they sing: “Time, why you punish me?”

On Graduating College (Sean O’Connor’s Public Comment video diary vlog– episode #8)


-From an F in Math in fifth grade to a 3.98 GPA and a Bachelor’s Degree in Liberal Studies at 33 years old… my views on education have evolved significantly-

LISTEN TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT PODCAST

The philosopher and writer Michel de Montaigne– whose work I had the opportunity to study in college– continues to influence and inspire me. I revere his contribution to the development of the “personal essay” and the written treatment of individual subjects from the perspective of reflection on experience with/connection to such subjects. In this context one can learn about the person in particular, the human soul in general, the topic, in a conversation as opposed to a lecture or pure argument. And in the case of essays such as the sort Montaigne wrote, there’s the freedom to digress, in his case, in and out of history, philosophy, politics, et cetera.

I think of Montaigne now, as I contemplate my extemporaneous, thinking-out- loud- as- I- go approach to vlogging and podcasting, and as I touch on the subject of graduating college, from the perspective of someone who once received an F in fifth grade and dropped out of college multiple times to someone who fell in love with academia, graduated with a  3.98 GPA and was granted the privilege to speak at his college graduation. That is to say, there is, among the ironies, the irony that while I possess some “academically” derived thoughts on my academic experiences—I mean, based on scholarly articles, and university research from which I could merely synthesize that sea of research—I could not speak with accuracy if I detached from my personal connection to this subject.

To graduate at 33 as opposed to 22 years old, at points in my reflection, brings sadness and regrets because sometimes it can seem like all this does is confirm some notion of myself as slow compared to my smarter peers. Yet I don’t think that way about those who are my age or my elders who earn their college degrees later than is “conventional.” That would be to do what Ayn Rand referred to as “context dropping.” As one former professor of mine once said, “you never know where you are in someone else’s narrative.” She was actually citing a former professor of hers. Moreover, what is the problem with not going right to college or never going? College simply offers an array of specific opportunities to receive specific sets of knowledge. Seemingly countless resources of knowledge exist beyond the college setting. What matters is not whether one attends a university or not but rather the question of what one seeks to learn and what one aspires to achieve with that knowledge. (This is not to say that I downplay the incredible value, especially of community, that various types of schools, whether university, college or trade school, can offer. I think too much autodidacticism might lead to isolation and a kind of anti-social philosophy; at least this turned out to be the case in my experience).

Central to the context behind my academic struggles was mental illness (depression an anxiety specifically) combined with incorrect and poorly defined, fundamental philosophical principles. Even when I possessed a scientific epistemology, I didn’t think about how it applied to much more than science. I had no real sense of values. Not because my family failed to instill them but because I wasn’t taught, in high school, any kind of serious intellectual presentation of theories of values and ethics. How much of a difference would that have made? How much difference would consistent mental/psychological check-ups have made? I don’t believe in torturing myself with “what if’s” but I do like gaining an understanding of context behind how events transpire. That is something I gained from the many history courses I took.

So, with psychological and philosophical reasons for detaching from “school” from elementary school through my first few years of college, I retreated to the arts. In my childhood, horror stories, movies, writing, and acting were my refuge.

As inclined to the arts as I may have been, with very few exceptions, I treated my artistic endeavors with profound narcissism. That is to say, the concentration I put into writing, passionate though I may have been in some sense, I feared any kind of real feedback and thus, while I always hoped for people to praise whatever poem or performance I shared with them, really, alas, I didn’t think about it as constructive feedback to help me produce anything meaningfully consequential. It was largely my escape from academic standards at play.       

By my sophomore year of college—when I attended Florida Gulf Coast University—I experienced further ironies. While convinced of my incompetence and lacking “belief” in knowledge, I was nonetheless engaged in philosophizing and extracurricular study of poets who interested me, including Kerouac, Ginsberg, Dylan, Morrison, Rimbaud, Baudelaire, Ovid, Sappho, Shelley, Lennon—all the ones I considered the “rebels” of poetry. Even after I dropped out (then returned, then dropped out again, then returned, then dropped out again…), I remained avid as a reader, and persistent in my desire to be something of an intellectual artist or an artistic intellectual, delving into Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, William James, John Dewey, Dostoevsky, Napoleon Hill and eventually Ayn Rand.

My Ayn Rand phase with even more ironic yet because I became an “objectivist” who now believed in “knowledge” staunchly so, and spent all my free time reading non-fiction books, yet I still maintained my “anti-academia” perspective. This newfound objectivism, alas, failed to facilitate my eradication of the frustrating poverty and tedium of cashiering, even when it led to my first run for political office. As I thought more and more about my life logically it occurred to me I ought to return to college and there I saw, gradually, the pile of contradictions that made up my puritanical sort of “objectivism” (I call myself, for a lack of better words thus far, a “clarificationist” because I believe we can strive for objectivity and gain ever greater clarity but never quite get a point of absolutism or pure objectivity). Likewise, I saw the flaws with my libertarianism as I took courses on poverty, Native Americans, women and the law, the Holocaust/Nazi Germany, the U.S. judicial system, et cetera, and learned how leaving people “free” to exploit and abuse leads to exploitation and abuse. Not in every case, but often enough that it remains rampant today.

I thought, as my college education reached its final chapter, that an MFA in Creative Writing was in my future. This seemed to me the ultimate way I could build a community of greater person- to -person understanding, empathy, intellectual freedom or free thought (which is what Creative Writing came to mean to me as a concept) (I mean, as a “creative writer” and professor of the subject) and even though I’ve been offered an opportunity to study at graduate school, the last five months out of college have thrust me into deeper questions about the meaning of practicality, contributing the world, making money, finding a place in these revolutionary times, and making the most of the college education I received.

Navigating Through the Debris of Information Overload (Sean O’Connor’s Public Comment video diary vlog–episode #7)

LISTEN TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT PODCAST

How can we gain a sense of the world, of life, living it to the fullest, appreciating all that’s “out there” with such a bombardment and deluge of information…an overwhelming plethora of options to contemplate everywhere? How does this impact the way we process, say, the news, for example, when historical, monumental, complex events transpire: I’m thinking of President Trump’s Attorney General William Barr who faces Contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with the House Judiciary Committee’s subpoena for the unredacted Mueller report, and how this thrusts us, (say Judiciary Committee Nadler and Speaker Pelosi) into a “constitutional crisis.” What does that mean? What does it mean for the future of our country, our democracy, and the rule of law as the president persists in obstruction of justice and his executive branch plays along?

This conflict of prioritization has bothered me for a long time. Back in the Spring of 2011, for the first time, I identified my “priorities” of awareness. This was when I discovered the value and importance of the news, politics, & philosophy.

Read the New York Times article: “House Panel Approves Contempt for Barr After Trump Claims Privilege Over Full Mueller Report

Since then though, the struggle to determine exactly how much attention one should pay to the news has been yet another complex question for me, which persists, not because I’m a news enthusiast or “politics junkie.” Rather, I cherish basic awareness; I consider it a fundamental ethical principle.

And then I wonder: which news sources should I prioritize. I love the New York Times and the Washington Post, but I can’t read every article they publish. What about Foreign Affairs, Newsweek, The Daily Beast, Politico, et cetera?

And what about the challenge of sorting through all of the news’ complexities? The details, the confusing concepts and contexts which require deeper understanding…additional research?

And beyond the news reports (the articles, the television commentaries, interviews, segments, et cetera) there’s accounting for, and mentally processing official government business: official documents, pending legislation, proposed budgets– to name some examples.

Read the resolution recommending Barr be held in contempt of congress

And what about the rest of the day?

How do we fit in our meditation, exercise, work, entertainment, cleaning, paperwork, social media feeds, all the while trying to acquaint ourselves further with art, science, technology?

It could be argued of course that the world has gone “niche” but it seems so cheap to me to abandon a holistic perspective, as if it leads to a denigration of life…of the universe and the miracle of experience.

Extemporaneous Speaking & Guns (Sean O’Connor’s Public Comment video diary vlog– episode #6)

…YOU CAN LISTEN TO THE PODCAST

The most microscopic aspects of things complicate if you delve into them enough, zooming into the depths like…a microscope. So sometimes when it comes to making choices it can feel quite challenging. For example, I could mull over every word in every sentence I want to say to you and spend months attempting to perfect my verbal expression, and in the meantime, miss out on things I want to tell you now, that will end up cast aside (is this just prioritizing?) or…one can just…and I’ll quote John Mayer here, when he sings “say what you need to say”…

The opportunity to talk directly to you here and now… I view it as its own “art” in contrast to “writing” in the more “literary” sense. Not to say I wish to be arbitrary. I don’t. It’s important to spend time just thinking, researching, processing, analyzing…having something to talk about…kind of like prepper for a jazz performance? Wasn’t THIS what especially the “Beat Poets” were really after? The art of talking? So that is what I am going for here, aesthetically, medium-wise, contextually. I want to talk to you from where I am psychologically and metaphysically.

In today’s video blog this is my first topic. But then I move onto the topic of gun policy. Instead of getting into the depths of the “politics” of gun “policy” though, I’ve decided to delve more specifically into the philosophy behind gun politics. Why do we say one has a “right” to own a gun? Sure, you can cite the U.S. constitution, but the U.S. Constitution is not the “golden words” of some “God” (I believe in a God but I do not say “I know a God exists”; a belief is different than knowledge). What is a “right?” I take a look at some dictionary definitions and propose my own, for your consideration.

And how do we determine then, what a “right” is?  There are epistemological and ethical considerations here. Do you believe in thinking objectively? If so, how do we think logically and objectively about this? Do you believe in ethics/morality? It’s fundamental ethics that lead to fundamental policy views. This means, what rights do you think we should have, and why? And tied to this, how much do you value human life? Do you value human life enough to grant that there is an ethical need to keep guns out of the hands of those who are mentally unwell  and seek to murder?

One other point: some statistics. There are significantly more homicides per 100,000 people in the U.S. than in the U.K. Moreover, you are more likely to get stabbed to death in California or in Texas than you are in the U.K. In the UK there were 285 knife/stabbing related homicides between March of 2017 and 2018 in a population of roughly 66 million people. In contrast, there were 280 knife/stabbing related murders in 2015 in California in a population of merely a rough 39 million…or Texas where there were 175 knife/stabbing related deaths out of a population of roughly 29 million.

I bring these points up because I hear from conservatives and libertarians this idea that in the UK even if they don’t have a gun problem, they have a stabbing problem, so the real problem is world wide homicide, not homicide by guns in the U.S. They are wrong. Homicide is a bigger problem in the U.S. than it is in much of the world. It’s not about guns versus knives. It’s about homicide, guns and knives and we must take measures to address all of these issues.

In Search of Independence (Sean O’Connor’s Public Comment video diary vlog– episode #5)

If you’ve heard Bob Dylan’s song “It’s Alright Ma (I’m Only Bleeding)” then perhaps you will understand? Here’s the sense of conflict: this deep rooted desire for all-encompassing independence– economic, ideological, political, intellectual– thinking something like: “To Hell with academia!” To Hell with the corporations and ‘big business!’ To Hell with everyone who stands to gain a profit of the information they sell us! To Hell with the ‘Main Stream Media!’ To Hell with Religion!” To Hell with so called ‘art!’! et cetera…and you think it because you have a vision that just doesn’t seem to fit with all the many standards out there (ironically enough!)– too blunt to be a poet, too academic to be a journalist, too populist to be an academic, too conceptual to establish a conventional ‘narrative,’ too self preserving to be “corporate,” too “independent” to belong to a political party…

Yet, I’m not the anti-social type. I enjoy academia, I enjoy the big businesses –main stream media for example, like MSNBC — and while I’m not religious, I’m deeply influenced by Christian ideas like that wonderful maxim “forgive them of their sins, they know not what they do.” So I strive to find a balance between maintaining a sense of independence while also engaging in my love for community. This is what I talk about on this episode of the Public Comment Blog which you can watch or listen to.