Friday, June 22, 2018

Letter to my Senator

Dear Senator Barrasso,
Since you are a medical man, I would be interested in hearing your opinion about what the immigration policy of separating young children from their parents is doing to them psychologically. Do you ascribe to attachment theory, for example? Have you ever medically diagnosed PTSD in children? Are you familiar with the medical and psychological effects of trauma on young children? If so, what do you think is the likely outcome for these children? Is their outcome unimportant because they are not US citizens? Does the hippocratic oath only apply to US citizens? Or did you renounce your oath to "do no harm" when you became a senator? I look forward to your response. 
Sincerely, Amy Amy Kathleen Ryan

His response:

Dear Amy, 

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about immigration issues. It is good to hear from you.

I noted your concerns about the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) policy to separate children from their families after crossing the border illegally. When family groups are detained and adults are referred for prosecution, children accompanying these adults are separated while the case of the adult is determined.

Children are hosted in DHS facilities for no more than 72 hours before they are transferred to the care of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then put in the care of relatives, sponsors, or foster families. Families wishing to apply for asylum and cross the border at legal ports of entry are not separated when family ties can be confirmed.  

I understand the concerns of those who support keeping family groups together. We must do more to fix our immigration system so that the process for legal immigration works. Please know I will keep your concerns in mind as I continue my work in the Senate. 

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I value your input.

John Barrasso, M.D. 
United States Senator

My response to Senator Barrasso:
Dear Senator Barrasso,

I wrote to you begging you to stop the horrific treatment of migrant children at our southern border, and you responded to say children are not separated from parents at legal crossings when when "family ties can be confirmed." Nevertheless there are 20,000 beds on their way to the warehousing facilities where the children continue to be sent. I'm thinking most of these desperate, terrified people don't have documentation. And so their children are taken. And the ones too scared to present themselves at a border crossing? We both know what happens to them. So in fact, the vast majority of people seeking asylum at border crossings, and elsewhere, have their children taken from them. Isn't that right?

I am sure you wouldn't dream of taking a child away from his/her parents without trying every possible means of determining familial relationship. If the parent fleeing gang violence doesn't have time to apply for a passport for their children, I am sure the US could provide speedy DNA tests to determine parentage. Of course as a doctor I am sure you would support any and all methods of determining "familial ties" rather than psychologically scarring a young child by subjecting him/her to the prolonged terror of being separated from their beloved parent in a foreign country after a harrowing journey. Because otherwise, it would seem as though the psychological scarring, and the terror, were the whole point of this miserable exercise.

The world is watching. At what point, Senator, will protecting children supersede your desire to be re-elected?

Sincerely, Amy Ryan

Tuesday, February 13, 2018

Little Read Writing Hood.

Who knew there were so many wolves in children's literature?

A lot of people, apparently.

I brushed up against one wolf when he interviewed me for a teaching job at the university where I was a student. I left my one hour conversation with Mr. Wolf feeling nearly certain he'd offer me a part time teaching gig. Minutes after the interview he emailed to ask me out to dinner. I burst into tears when I read that email, then gathered my wits and politely declined, claiming I was busy.

He didn't offer me that job after all.

Later that week I ran into him and he said, "You didn't think I was..." The sentence fragment dangled in the air between us. He raised his eyebrows, and I swear I saw sweat on his brow. He'd emailed me proof, after all.

"Oh what? Sexually harassing me?! Yeah. That occurred to me," is what I should have said.

But he was an administrator at the university where I had a job and was earning a degree. I wasn't in a position to go to war with him. Besides, I'd heard things about his boss. They had sharp teeth, and I was a little girl in the woods.

I'm not naming names, or the university, (I have more than one degree in several fields, before you go digging,) because I haven't heard complaints from anyone else about this particular person, and it happened a long time ago. But if someone else comes forward who has a more recent story to tell, I will certainly back her up. Until then, I will grant Mr. Wolf the benefit of the doubt because I have some uncertainty about his motives, and because I'm not willing to publicly humiliate someone if his misstep with me was an isolated incident.

After reading this article and the alarming comment section:, I realize how very common my experience actually is. These revelations have provided a new lens through which I view the past.

I've always felt uncomfortable at professional conferences around large groups of writers drinking and socializing. These settings make me feel anxious, which always struck me as strange. I love writers, and I love talking to them. Meeting a writer I admire and talking about our industry is always illuminating and energizing. But the big conferences have never been fun for me, and so I don't attend many. I used to think this was a stupid thing to do because according to conventional wisdom, I should be networking. Now, after reading the article posted above and the comment section, I feel avoiding those wine fueled conversations with other professionals was perhaps wise. My intuition was whispering to me that something wasn't right.

The few conferences I have attended felt skewed toward male writers. More than once I've felt dismayed at how males seemed to be praised more, appreciated more, offered more. Don't misunderstand. Most men that are celebrated in young adult literature deserve their success because they write excellent books. But the VAST majority of writers for young people are women, and many of them are writing excellent books too. So why does it feel like the men are somehow more visible?

Do we laude male writers more? Does all that admiration make predators feel safe in professional settings? Is that partly why they test the boundaries of acceptable behavior?

At one writers' gathering, early in my career, I met an older, famous male writer who seemed very happy to meet me. He gave me advice that I appreciated. I knew he was attracted to me at the time, and subtly hitting on me, but I wasn't interested and I moved on to other conversations thinking nothing of it. Years later I had a couple more books to my name and saw him at a large conference. I approached him when he was talking to someone else, waited for the other person to walk away, and told him how what he'd said years before had really helped me. He was openly hostile, completely different from years before. Was he hostile because I came up to him when he was hitting on a young woman, and she took the opportunity to walk away? Or did he remember me as a young writer who hadn't responded to his advance? I don't really know, which is, again, why I'm not naming names.

This uncertainty protects the wolves, and the wolves know that. Some of the wolves are women. Some of them are gay. This problem doesn't just belong to straight men.

These thoughts have been with me a long time, but I've been silent because I was afraid to seem like I was speaking out of jealousy, or sour grapes, or hubris. And so I hid.

Its time to drop the cape, pick up an axe, and be my own huntsman. I don't know what that means yet. But I'll probably be going to more conferences. I have a feeling I'll enjoy myself more now, partly because I'll have changed, but also because as a community, we're all a lot wiser.

Saturday, November 11, 2017

The situation.

If you look at their platform and actions, it becomes clear the Republican Party's underlying motivation is to shunt money to billionaires at the expense of services for the middle class and poor. This seems self evident once you take some things into account:

--They seek to harm access to affordable healthcare, which will kill thousands or more, so that they can keep a little more of their money. 

--They create gun purchasing laws and apply them to one kind of gun store, but undermine this law by allowing the loophole of gun shows.
--Despite proof that the fossil fuel industry is raising the temperature of our planet to dangerous levels, they continue opening up pristine wilderness for exploration. 
--Their most recent attempt at legislation, the proposed tax overhaul, gives massive tax cuts to the wealthiest citizens and removes lots of tax credits that help middle class and poor families. The rich pay less, the poor pay more. This will create a deficit that will necessitate cuts to social programs such as social security.

The examples go on and on. How can a party that has such terrible intentions for the rest of us still be in power? It's got to be a combination of a few things: 

--very smart PR people, 

--an ideology that denigrates science and forbids government help for the individual,

--a gullible populace, 
--an incredibly wealthy ruling class that is, as we speak, trying to hijack our system of democratic government, and has the financial resources to achieve it.

This ruling class, or let's call it an oligarchy because that's what it is, has managed to make themselves the figureheads of government in a few countries. One of those countries is Russian, where Vladimir Putin, one of the wealthiest men in the world, has taken over the government with the help of his billionaire friends and has a stranglehold over the entire country. Their methods are brutal and unscrupulous, including the murder of journalists, the imprisonment and murder of political rivals, and joining forces with other equally brutal dictatorships such as Syria.

It's worrying to see a man like Putin take an interest in Donald Trump, who might have ideas about making the United States a lot like Russia. In proof, I offer these quotes from the man himself: "Putin is a strong leader. He's made mincemeat out of our president," and about Hillary Clinton, "If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the second amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know." Here he is inciting violence against his political rival, a very Putinesque thing to do. 

Not all billionaires are pitching in to this effort to make American government a seat of power for the billionaire oligarchy. There are plenty who stand on the side of the middle and lower classes. George Soros, Bill and Melinda Gates, and Warren Buffet have all thrown their lot in with the majority of humanity, not only because they're basically good people, but because they understand doing so is the wisest course for themselves. Not even billionaires would be safe if the government of the greatest power on earth is taken over by unscrupulous people. This can only lead to instability and death for many. In other words, they are civic minded.

Donald Trump and the billionaires who support him are not civic minded, impossible to be if they are willing to accept help from a man like Vladimir Putin. So what is motivating them to support a man who obviously wants to enjoy the benefits of dictatorship, at least for this term, maybe for the next, and the next? My only conclusion is that oligarchy's interest in the platform of the Republican Party is not about ideology like it is for their puppets Paul Ryan etc... It's about money. The Trump presidency is a good business decision, and good business decisions take precedence over absolutely everything else. They're in a knife fight right now with the media and career public servants in our federal government, some of whom can likely be bought.

This is, presently, our situation.

Reasons for hope:

--President Obama and Eric Holder are going after the practice of gerrymandering, which in most cases benefits Republican candidates. If they manage to redraw district lines to be less attuned to voters' political orientation, they may help bring congress into better balance, and stop the increasing polarization of districts.
--As I mention above, we have billionaires on our side too.
--Our responsible news media is viciously attentive to all of this and,
--so are the majority of Americans.
--I can still write this blog post, and you can still read it.
--There's still a special counsel investigation being headed by Robert Mueller, who so far seems determined to uncover the conspiracy.

The oligarchy is not going to win. Believe that. Some of the billionaires who supported Trump must see that if Trump made America into an authoritarian system, the results could be bad FOR THEM. These are not stupid people.

So, with a sigh and a furtive look around the room, I'm still going to write this: I think it's going to be okay. America will remain a democracy; I really believe that. But the world may never be quite the same again. The only thing to do is the very best we can, and call congress when we need to, and stay alert and informed. I think we're all concerned enough to stay on top of it. 

That's because we understand how much there is at stake.