North Pole Report

This post is best if you have recently seen the Burl Ives’ version of Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer.

North Pole- Santa Claus is facing a potential lawsuit for fostering a hostile work environment after a young buck is segregated from his first reindeer games.

The bullied buck’s name is Rudolph. He is the son of Donner and Mrs. Donner.

Young Rudolph showed up to the first day of reindeer games. After a successful first flight, Rudolph’s nose, which had been covered in enough dirt to impede his breathing by his father, was revealed to glow bright red.

Rudolph was promptly ostracized by the other young bucks. The leader of Rudolph’s games team, Comet, is quoted as saying that, “from now on we’re not going to let Rudolph play in anymore reindeer games.”

Claus, who was present at the event, did nothing to stop the mistreatment of the young buck. Witnesses claim that Claus even blamed Donner for not “fixing” Rudolph’s nose, implying that the buck would not be able to have a spot on Santa’s team without a black nose. Rudolph went missing shortly after this all transpired and hasn’t been seen since.

Now, charges are being brought against Claus. “This isn’t the first time that he [Claus] has not shown tolerance within his workforce,” one elf confided to this reporter. “Not to long ago, his head elf fired a guy for wanting to be a dentist. And Santa did nothing to stop it!”

The elf in question showed an interest in dentistry to his superior, hoping to create a dental practice amongst Claus’s workers. The elf was abused and heckled by his superior before being fired. At the time the elf was doing his job, working on toys.

In his defense, the head elf has said, “We already have dolls that walk, talk, blink, and run a temperature. We don’t need any chewing dolls!”

Both of these dubbed “misfits” have not been seen since the events stated above. Claus is being charged for allowing a hostile work environment to flourish under his supervision. With the holidays looming nearer, the delays from Claus and other witnesses being in trial, may make it impossible to perform all the duties necessary to get gifts to all the kids on the nice list.

“Santa claims that if the work doesn’t get done, he’ll just cancel Christmas,” says one elf, “He’s tried to do it before, but we don’t really think it’s fair to all the kids.”

Claus refused to comment for this article.

Miss. Bossypants

Today, I had a moment where I completely understood this video.

My freshman seminar this semester was about classic rock. We had our final day of class today. As an assignment, our teacher wanted us, as a class, to make a top ten list of the best classic rock songs.

He leaves the room for thirty minutes to give us a chance to debate. I’m sitting at the head of the table. Now, I generally have a plan for this stuff, and I’m not really clammy in front of my peers. So, I speak up, pencil already in hand, ready to get this show on road. I call for votes, ask individuals for input, etc. Actually, for someone who in leadership positions can have some trouble delegating, I thought I did a pretty good job of trying to get everyone’s opinion in.

The entire time, though, as I’m writing down everything, I’m preparing the apologies I’m going to make to everyone after I’m done. Especially to the guys. It’s not a reflection of the guys in my class; they’re all pretty nice guys (even the guy who tried to insist that “Twist and Shout” was the best Beatles’ song, jeez).

Maybe my guilt is derived from the fact that I decided that I was the best suited for the job of process leader, and we didn’t really vote on it. That’s the look that I feel like I get from the girls. “Who does she think she is?” their eyes seem to say. Now, it could just be that the poor things do kind of have resting “yuck face”. The girls who’s opinions I actually value in that class, where helpful in the process. Nobody resisted me. But, still, I felt guilty that I just took the leadership role without clearing it with anyone first.

Maybe it’s because I don’t trust who my peers would’ve chosen for their leader. In middle school when a popular kid was chosen as leader, I usually just made myself available to them, and using them as mouthpiece, most of my ideas came to pass (generally because I did a lot of the work as well…).

That’s the thing I think spawns some of my apologetic feelings. A good leader is persuasive and able to sense how his followers are feeling. But, it’s a fine line between persuading and manipulating, and I’m always scared I’ll cross it.

Still, I wish I could’ve ended that meeting feeling good about helping my class reach a consensus fifteen minutes early (yeah that’s right!). Instead, I just felt unnecessarily bossy and remorseful. I felt like I had to test the water with everyone after leaving class.

Then I come back to my room and I see this video. I begin to wonder: is it a woman thing? Guys have made it clear through various sitcoms, guides, and rude conversations that bossy women are naggy witches. Girls, wanting to make the guys happy, try to accommodate them by throwing other female bosses under the bus because, I don’t know, for some reason women aren’t very supportive of the queen bee without some incentive. Also, I think it’s because all women really know, deep down, that a whiny unhappy tantrum-throwing man is a thousand times worse that a grumpy woman.

I’m not trying to turn this into a battle of the sexes, but I do think there’s a bit of a double standard with female leaders. There’s this idea that a girl leading a co-ed meeting is either quaint or just an over-controlling she-man.

Some of it I get. Women are much more rooted in feeling then men. Or they think they are because women are more outward with feelings. Both sexes think they’ve mastered the expression of feelings, and neither is really that much healthier than the other. But, women like to pretend they’re way is better, and men get tired of having to listen to women tell them over and over again what they should be doing instead.

But, I think this leaves female leaders with limited options. Either they over compensate and have to become more masculine, inherently loosing the benefits they bring to the table as women. Or, they have to act too passive, and that limits their strength as a leader.

I know I’m projecting a feeling that maybe only I have onto my entire sex. But, I think I forget that in a world that seems really progressive, that there is still a double standard. And sometimes that standard effects me.

My Favorite Character is the Selfish One

We’re going to start off today’s post with by retelling this part of a Grey’s Anatomy episode. Here goes:

So Seattle Grace, home of the craziest, most implausible surgeries ever, is playing host to a serial killer. And Dr. McDreamy doesn’t want to use his brain healing magic to save the serial killer because McDreamy’s dad was killed by a robber. Now, McDreamy stomps around being self righteous and not doing anything extra for this guy (actually it’s not McDreamy’s most annoying moment).

But, Meredith, known for her self-proclaimed “dark and twisty” side, realizes through interactions with this guy, that she’s actually kind of sympathetic towards him. Not for him killing a bunch of people. Just what a terrible husk of a person he is, and how sad it is that there’s no chance his life will be worth anything more. It’s one of the moments where I actually follow some of Meredith’s reasoning.

So now to me. I’m watching Scandal right now with some friends, and it’s a show that is full of interesting characters to both love and hate. We have the girl we all want to be, Olivia, who wears Calvin Klein, never eats, and is so awesome she has everyone on the show a little bit in love with her. You have the sexy president all the female poly sci majors have fantasized about and the damaged CIA guy and the suave black guy who dresses the best of anyone on the show and that annoying red-headed girl.

And, while all the characters on the show have something going for them, and I like all of them, I have chosen as my favorite character, the rather unlikable grumpy chief of staff who orders hits on people and does his fair share of lying. My friend does not understand or approve of this choice in the slightest.

I don’t really know why either. It may be just that I have watched too much House of Cards, and that some how rewrote my political good-guy bad-guy o-meter.

But I don’t really think that’s it. It’s not like the character I like is anyone I aspire to be or see really much resemblance of myself in. It might be because I realize to be successful in politics, one must have a slightly subjective morality (though ordering hits on people is never okay). I find him compelling. And I think it’s because he’s the one who has his head out of the cave who didn’t go back in to tell the others about it. In a show full of slightly self-righteous characters who talk about how moral they are or aren’t or they’re suffering, he’s just the one who shows up and says, “So, are we doing something about the obstacle in our path or not? Because I think we need to do something about that.”

He’s kind of like Tyrion Lannister from Game of Thrones. He totally gets that the Lannisters suck and nobody likes them and they’re all horrible. Yet he’s still on their side, and we all still like him! Maybe it’s because he just gets how messed up everyone is, and actually says something about it. It’s like he’s in on the joke with the audience. We all can see that Papa Lannister is awful, but why Jamie and the rest of them besides Tyrion can’t see it in that house is beyond me. 

Or Sherlock. Rewatching Sherlock, he isn’t very nice. He’s actually pretty mean sometimes, especially to John who really cares about him. He doesn’t have a psychosis either. He’s just Sherlock, and that’s how John lives with it. And that’s how we all live with it too. With Sherlock we cut through all the crud and pomp, and we get to see “the battlefield”, as Mycroft says it, but without corrupting ourselves. We don’t have to become Sherlock to do it.

We’re always trying to classify people in this world into good and bad. It’s easier and quicker, and it makes you feel better about yourself if you’re on the good. But, there are people who ride the line. People who see a truth in the world that they don’t try to fix or clean up. How do you treat those people? How do we treat the Sherlocks or the Anna Kareninas (who walks that line for a very different reason). If we just condemn them, then isn’t that pushing them toward the bad? Isn’t it like walking up to someone walking on the edge of the roof and pushing them off? What does that do? If they’d done that to Jean Valjean he would’ve just gone back to prison. We loose another person.

Meredith having sympathy for the serial killer didn’t mean she justified his actions. It didn’t mean she thought Derrick was wrong for not liking what the man and acts represented. It just meant that she saw that beyond just this is good or bad. It meant she saw what could’ve been or what might’ve happened once. It just means she let a little gray into the picture. And by doing that, she was less corrupted by his influence than white knight Derrick was.

 

In Memorial

Unfortunately, the time has already passed here on the east coast. But, it is still a certain day on the west coast and more importantly in Hawaii. It is the day that President Roosevelt so correctly stated was a day that, “would live in infamy.”

 

Infamy, according to Webster’s Dictionary, is a noun that means “the condition of being known for having done bad things or for being evil.” December 7, Pearl Harbor day, is the day that “lives in infamy.” Meaning Pearl Harbor day is not just labeled as infamous; it is not just associated with an evil act. It does not just receive the label. But, it is a day that actively lives in “an evil or terrible act.” As if it were placed in hell by God himself.

 

What Roosevelt meant that day was different to everyone. But, for many, it was the battle-cry for our great nation to step into a conflict we were attempting to avoid. We tried to turn a blind eye to the racism of Hitler, to the destruction of our allies, to the terror in Britain. But, when, on December 7^th, we were attacked, that day was forever marred by a horrible and unforgivable act.

 

Historian’s today will argue the U.S. had already made their allegiances known. That pure technicality was keeping us from being officially in it. Conspiracy theorists will say that Washington D.C.’s higher ups knew, and they let it happen anyway.

 

But, it is December 7^th that is the day. The real day the entire nation entered the war together. The real day we were burned, and felt the first, most horrible wound of the deadly conflict to come. They had indeed awoken the sleeping giant.

 

When Roosevelt said those words, so long ago, he thought, as everyone did, that we would never forget Pearl Harbor Day. Just like we would never forget Korea or Vietnam. Like we would never forget Kennedy’s assassination. Just like we’ll never forget the World Trade Center.

 

Sadly, we as human beings are often too quick to forget tragedy. We think it does us no good to wallow in it, and so we move on because that emotional depth is just too much for us to take for so long. It’s easier to forget. But it isn’t right.

 

Today, we pretend to forget these tragedies. We claim to do it so that the world can move forward, and so that we can forgive and heal. But forgiveness and forgetfulness are only similar in the first two letters.

 

We should never try to forget these days. They should never pass without proper remembrance and solemnity . We should know why the flag is at half-mast. We should know why this day, “lives in infamy.”

 

The goal of this is not to suffer. It’s not to make our children feel hopelessness or hatred. It is the opposite. For from every tragedy, we as Americans rise, committed to each other and our nation. And it is a good nation. A just nation. And while it hurts to feel that shock and sadness and anger in that moment, it is nothing compared to what those we lost felt that day. What they went through. And what their families felt that day when they lost them. It is only fair to their memories. They do not deserve to be forgotten. They deserve to be remembered as heroes. And we can suffer a little to give them that.

 

If we remind ourselves of that pain, instead of trying to forget it, then maybe we can remember why on December 8^th, we swore never again. We can remember why we went to battle, and why we try, to this day, to protect our future against an evil like what arose December 7^th.