Canada: A Nation for ALL People

Dear Pride Supporters,

This article left my jaw hanging this morning... It's a Star article, describing the reactions of the Conservative party to a tourism stimulus grant that was given to support Pride Week, here in Toronto.

Pride week draws in millions of tourists who come to celebrate diversity and recognition of the equality for all persons. For some who hail from more "socially conservative" countries/regions, Canada is held in high esteem, and Pride week is considered the pinnacle celebration. I have a friend who runs a Bed and Breakfast, and his inn is full to the rafters before, during, and after pride. His visitors hail from all over the world, many of them being from our neighbouring US. During Pride week, bars and restaurants in the Church/Wellesley area are perpetually full of thirsty, hungry customers... the revenues from Pride are relied upon to turn accounting book ink from red to black. For the tourism engine in Toronto, Pride week provides a nice salvo to help it run smoothly.

Since I moved to Toronto, I've partaken in Pride week events every year. During Pride week, Torontonians who support Pride are encouraged to hang rainbow striped flags in their windows or on their homefronts. Honestly, I find it so overwhelming when I tour around Toronto during Pride week and see all those welcoming flags... It's like seeing a zillion little candles, welcoming weary travellers a place to rest in the dark hours of night. Somehow Toronto just feels more welcoming, safer even, during Pride.

Apparently, some of the "Social Conservatives" from Stephen Haper's Conservative party were incensed that a Federal grant was given to a cultural group that does not reflect "family values" and "pro-life" agendas. The article is below if you want to read it yourself.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/662566


Back in the day, "Conservative" in the political sense USED to mean economically conservative. Since when did political conservatism come to represent such ambiguous and arbitrary ideas as "family values?"

As far as I'm concerned, no government is allowed to dictate what happens in my bedroom. Furthermore, no government, sorry, no POLITICAL PARTY is entitled to decree exclusive ownership to the definition of morality, nor are they allowed to force me to live under the strictures of their definition.

I can make choices about my conduct and morality on my own, thank you very much. And if what I do is determined to be against the values of our vast, nature loving nation, as these values our etched out in our semi-secular laws, well then, try me in a court of peers and if I'm found guilty, just put me in jail. That's what our justice system is there for, to create a climate where ones conduct can be tried and judged against existing, writ rules, among their peers.

I'm adding this to my list of reasons NOT to vote Conservative. As if I needed more.

Incensed at the audacity of a minority of people within a minority government,
O.

PS. Harper, pretty bold of you to let this kind of shit storm leak out of your office. You must be feeling confident lately.

I'm calling you out Globe

Dear Readers of Newspapers and Consumers of Media,

I have a lot of respect for the Globe and Mail right now, a Canadian news publication.

Now, I'm not normally one to go off trumpeting the merits of various media or consumer products, but the Globe truly is doing a good (or better) thing. Right now, the paper is running a series of articles on mental health and the issues that surround it. In fact, an entire section of their online paper is dedicated to mental health. It's called the Breakdown Series.

I'm not quite sure why they've picked up on mental health, since most media outlets spend a lot of time either provoking contention in events that involve mental health, or they simply ignore the greater (and more serious) issues for want of an outrageous headline.

But here they are, the grand Globe, a national rag, doing a series on the lowliest and least popular of all health (and social) issues. And they're even trying to be sensitive to boot, it seems!

But I have an issue with their most recent online article relating to mental health, and this is an issues that has appeared in more than one article, by more than one author. (I know, I know, I should never expect perfection... and maybe I should be grateful for the ink we have right now, but I'm not one for table scraps under any circumstances!)

In Patients' rights frustrate families, the ugly issue of nomenclature - what to call people with schizophrenia - rears its ugly head.

You need to understand, this is a highly contentious issue, even among people themselves who live with the condition. Apparently no one likes to be called "patient;" and "nutbar" or "frutcake" or "schizo" are certainly unacceptable. And so a zillion fairly inaccurate euphemisms have been conceived and parlayed into our language; consumer, survivor, mentally ill, person with lived experience, client, and on and on and freakishly on and on. A million and one ways to politically or not-so-apolitically say something without saying it: A person who has the condition of schizophrenia. (Keep in mind that many of the euphemisms I stated are also generic catch-alls for basically any condition affecting mental health, and many have nuanced connotations... also so many are misnomers in and of themselves and their usage that I could likely write a volume of books about misnomers in mental health.)

So what evil word did Picard, the author of the article, use to describe a person with schizophrenia? He used the modifier "schizophrenic" in the 6th staccato sentence of an article of considerable length. He used the word schizophrenic to describe Matt, and basically every other person who lives with the condition of schizophrenia.

To be fair, Picard first described the inspiration for this article, Matt, as a person "who suffers from schizophrenia." And that's nice. We get an idea at least, that we are talking about a person with a disease that is harming them, until we get to pretty much the next sentence which basically identifies Matt (and people with schizophrenia in general) as a walking-talking disease process. To be sure, Matt's not got an easy ride, based on the description of his current circumstances, but I find it unfair to reduce the identity of a person to a disease process... to reduce all people who live with this condition... to the limited concept of what schizphrenia is.

And we know that the concept of schizophrenia as a condition affecting health is limited... especially in our media. Mostly our media is concerned with conjuring up images of the negative mythology that surrounds this illness. The media myths suggest that people with schizophrenia are crazed murderers, unpredictable people, untamable monsters with no access to logic or reason, and... you get the picture.

Since the Globe appears to be interested in dealing with the social issues surrounding problems and conditions of mental health, I have asked the Globe to put their money where their mouth is; to make a clear committment to a cause that they themselves seem to support.

We all know that the mythology that is heavily circulated in the media exacerbates the public's negative (and in my opinion, harmful) perception of mental health conditions. And so here is my comment (more of a request) to them:

And the Globe and Mail can make a simple yet profound change by retiring the word "schizophrenic" to the annals of journalistic anachronisms that don't belong in a newspaper any more.

People have schizophrenia. They are not schizophrenia, and schizophrenia is not them. Furthermore, "schizophrenic" is not an accurate modifier to describe a human being... it says far too much about a health problem (and more to the point... the negative mythology surrounding a health problem), and far too little about the person who happens to have a health problem.

Let us put our proverbial money where our mouths are, dear Globe... if we are going to report on the social injustices of mental health care or lack thereof in Canada?

Unacknowledged and unarticulated widespread systemic discrimination is the foremost among those social injustices, and is the primary cause of the "secondary symptoms" of mental illness (the poverty, the instability, the homelessness, skewed laws, and distorted public perception among them).

So please, for the love of humanity, retire the word Schizophrenic. Be the first major media outlet to humanize, instead of sensationalize, this very serious condition of health.

My blog: addressed2occupant (dot) blogspot (dot) com


And so dear reader, what will the Globe do? Will they rise to the occasion of this challenge... to commit themselves to the social issues not only in the breadth of topics they cover, but also in the depth of how they write about the topics they cover?

We shall see.

Respecting the power of words,
O.

I don't *do* myths...

Dear Mythbusters,

We need you! Now! Fer realz!

Okay, we need to talk about psychosis and myths. We need to talk about those health conditions that make you lose contact with reality (psychosis as it relates to schizophrenia, severe depression, and bi-polar), and we need to talk about the myths that surround them.

Myth #1: People with psychosis are crazy axe murders.

The origins of this myth lie in two key areas: a) popular media; b) the heinously oversensationalized actions of people who are unwell.

Interestingly, the two origins of this myth conveniently play into one another. Popular media, like movies, for example, uses the medical condition of psychosis because it creates an alluring and seemingly complicated character that will do things that "normal" people would never do. And so axe murders are often described as psychotic, or insane, since it's just beyond comprehension that a person in possession of sanity would do such things.

When people with psychosis are in poor health, and are locked in the grips of a psychotic event, sometimes odd and even very unfortunate behaviour can happen... which tends to wind up in our news... over and over again, for any number of years following the event. Furthermore, since the behaviour of one in the grips of a psychotic event can be so unusual, this tends to make great fodder for semi-truthful, fictionalized tales, which supports the perpetuation of the mythology.

So, what is the truth? Are people with psychosis any more murderous or criminal than the regular population? Well, not really. The truth of the matter is that *most* crimes are committed by those who we would consider fairly sane people. However, people with psychosis still do commit crimes, at a fairly consistent rate with the rest of the population.

Can people with psychosis commit crimes that are motivated by their psychotic event? Of course. But you know how we can avoid that? By taking mental health seriously, and by ensuring that everyone has equal, compassionate, and appropriate access to preventative education and (if needed) timely treatments. (I'll discuss treatments and what I mean by this last sentence in another post, on another day.)

Just a last point about criminal behaviour and people: Crimes are more likely to be committed against us by people we know. The idea of "stranger danger" is a myth. And so the truth is that you will know, most likely, in some manner, the person who has broken into your home. Also, you are more likely to be assaulted, raped, and even murdered by someone you know and/or love than you are by a "crazed" stranger. Keep that in mind the next time you walk out your front door.


Myth #2: People with psychosis are possessed.

The origins of this myth lie in: Religion/Spirituality/Mysticism/Explaining the unexplainable by making up interesting tales that are not realistic given the information about the brain and its workings that we have today.

Okay, I'm not super religious, and I don't believe in spirits. I can understand that if you do believe in religion/spirits/ghosts/possession that this myth makes sense to you, since spirits are known to be pretty nasty, according to religious or spiritual lore.

But the truth is, psychosis is medical condition that has fairly clear symptoms, a pretty predictable progress, and a clear pattern in the activities and chemical actions in the brain. There is no definitive "test" for psychosis, but some tests will show unusual brain activity, and more refined tests (that are experimental and not used on people) will show problems with dopamine transmission. Furthermore, since medicine that deals with dopamine (and/or very good age-and-situation specific therapy) can help relieve the symptoms of psychosis, this gives us a lot of reason to think that this is a condition better treated by doctors, therapists, and loving families than preists or spiritual experts.

Consulting a doctor (or two, sometimes three) first, to rule out psychosis, would be more helpful than just attempting an exorcism or spiritual ceremony.


Myth #3: People with psychosis have access to "another dimension," "another world," "a different spiritual plane."

Origins of this myth: Religion/Animism/Shamanism/Mysticism/Delusional Thinking Itself (Yes, I said that one out loud.)

This myth is an interesting one, since it is heavily supported by some religious groups/belief systems. It is also supported by the condition itself, which can sometimes lean towards delusional thinking. (Delusions are what we call "false and fixed beliefs." They are beliefs that are not likely to be realistic, and they are beliefs that are held with a feeling of certainty, even if there is a lot of evidence to show they are wrong.) Furthermore, this myth is also supported by some older theories relating to mental health and its causes. (Perhaps I'll write more about this last point in another post as well, since I'm sure it begs for clarification!)

You know, I really wish that my psychotic event gave me visions of another world. I really wish it did. That would be a lot of fun, and it would make me a very special person who had a special view of life that others did not have access to.

But the truth is, my psychotic event really just gave me a lot of confusing and anxious feelings. What I think it did was mix up my memories and distort my concept of time, and spit it all out into the present like it was real and happening at that moment, with no order or clear logic that belonged to the context I was in. I was having thoughts and doing things that only made sense to me, and that sense of logic was next to impossible to describe to others, even though I did (and still do) understand it myself.

Confusing. Not fun. Not access to a new dimension. Definitely not "a vision." Really, I do wish it was a vision, since that would give meaning to an event that seems like it should be so meaningful.

I think my point is that the experience of psychosis can be very interesting, and can even seem insightful, but that mythologizing the "insights" or visions that come out of a condition of mental health can be very harmful. Many of us with psychosis experience painful emotions (anxiety, fear, suspicion, confusion), and feel disconnected from our loved ones when we first start to feel the symptoms of the condition. Things escalate and then our behaviour changes and people, our friends, families, and neighbours, find reasons to actively shun us for doing behaviours that none of us can predict.

Furthermore, in most cultures, a condition like psychosis has very serious social consequences. Even though a person can be revered for having visions by some groups, they are usually also feared (this is an interesting and tense paradox), and live on the fringes of society... Kind of like tigers in a zoo: fun to look at, interesting to interact with, but mostly unpredictable and fearsome, and thus always treated very, very carefully, and best if generally avoided.

In North America, we don't really think that people with psychosis have access to a special reality, and we just tend to think people with this condition are loonies or psychos or axe murderers... and so those of us with psychosis get pushed to edges of our social networks... this means, for us, fewer jobs, fewer friends, even being ostracized by our families. And really, all of that just amounts to a hell of a lot of loneliness and poverty and confusion for everyone involved.

This one is a harmful myth indeed. A soothing myth for the egos of some, maybe, but a very harmful one.

Myth #4: Psychosis is caused by a demanding and abusive world that won't accept people who deviate from what is "normal."

Origins of this myth: Early psychiatry. Reductionist environmental/social psychology.

Early psychiatry and even modern environmental psychology has invested a lot of time and energy trying to explain that psychosis is caused exclusively by the life and circumstances of the person who develops the condition. This is known as the Environmental/Social Model.

Another model is also trying to explain psychosis, this is called the Biopsychosocial Model. Before I tell you about the Biopsychosocial Model, I want to talk about one of science's Great Debates: Nature vs. Nuture. This is an important debate to talk about, since it will help us to understand why resolving this myth is important, and it will help us better understand the Biopsychosocial Model.

One of the big discussions that is happening in healthcare and mental health and psychology is what is called the nature/nurture debate. This debate is trying to pinpoint the origins of all kinds of things affecting people. On the "nature" side, we would bring up things relating to the genes (the traits that we inherit from our parents, like hair colour, skin colour, and on and on) and we discuss how a variety of things are caused by or related to our genes or our basic biology. On the "nurture" side, we talk about how our looks or behaviour or ideas are related to or caused by the places and people we grow up with.

And so if we were to take an issue like psychosis, the nature side would say: having an event of psychosis is a condition that is related more closely to the biology of the person who has it. We think this because psychosis can run in families; you are more likely to have a psychotic event if you have a family member who has lived with a condition related to psychosis (schizophrenia, severe depression, bi-polar). There is early genomic evidence that shows that psychosis (the psychosis that appears in schizophrenia) exists in a number of genes.

More support for the nature side says that psychosis happens when you change the dopamine levels; specifically, increases in dopamine amounts can increase your likelihood of having a psychotic event. And so changing the chemicals in the brain tells us that this is a condition that happens in the wiring/transmissions that happen in our heads.

For the other side, the nurture side, the debate tells us that people who grow up in certain environments or with certain life circumstances are more likely to get psychosis. In families where there is a lot of stress, there is also a tendency for more psychosis. And so psychosis can happen more often in families where a number of crises or tragedies occor, or when the family is poor and can't have the "stabilizing" effects of financial prosperity (talking about a stable supply of healthy food, a stable supply of medications for family members with health problems, access to supportive or even just higher education systems, stable access to transit to get to work or even to get to a doctor if needed!) In short, the nature debate tells us that those who are "assaulted" by life consistently, in terms of poverty, abusive or neglectful social/family conditions, food/necessity shortages, and unstable finances and housing, or just major life changes, are more likely to develop psychosis.

Well, here's the truth to this psychosis myth: In this case, both the nature and nurture debators win. Nature tells us that psychosis can be passed down through families. Nature tells us there are "genes" for psychosis, just like there are genes that mark cancer, just like there are genes that dictate eye colour. Nature tells us that we can change a person's brain chemistry to "create" or "take away" psychosis.

But!

It gets complicated. The genes, science is thinking, become "activated" by a stressful environment. (Stress is translated by the body through a chemical called cortisol... A stressful event happens or even if you *think* a stressful event will happen, and your body makes more of this hormone, and then your body reacts to it by doing all kinds of things like having a faster heartbeat, feeling very hot or very cold, feeling nervous, and so on... more fodder for the biology discussion.) And so someone can be born with a "tendency" towards having this condition (the same way one can have a higher chance of getting a type of cancer because of their genes). But the condition may or may not come out, depending on the life circumstances/stressors/sensitivity to cortisol (stress) hormones of the person who has the genes.

And so people with a lot of stress in their lifetime would find these genes activated. And we're not just talking once in awhile work pressure stress, we're talking fairly consistent patterns of stressors. Stress that relates to uncertain living circumstances... stress that relates to being poor, like worrying all the time about food, medicine, and how to pay the next bill... stress that relates to big life changes, like going to university or even getting married... and you get the picture.

This blending of both sides, nature AND nurture, is called the biopsychosocial model of psychosis. It takes into account the traits a person is given to by their parents (bio), the environment and circumstances of the person (social), and even the person him or herself in terms of their age and experience and how they deal with life and its details (psycho).


Forever chipping away to find the truth and hoping these tidbits have helped a bit,
O.

Introducing the SISD Award

Dear Fellow Members of the Human Race,

Based on the "if you don't laugh, you cry" adage, I have introduced an award for Addressed2Occupant. It's called the Stupid Is, Stupid Does Award.

This award is reserved for those people who have a strong desire to make the world a miserable place, and will be given to deserving people who have a strong focus on promoting social inequality and injustice for those living with problems of mental health.

Why anyone would want to promote inequality and injustice, no one knows. Perhaps for the same reasons people of African descent were at one time considered sub-human, for the same reasons women weren't allowed to vote, for the same reasons people wanted to kill off those of Jewish descent, and so on, ad. infinitum.

*sigh, sniff* (Allow me a moment to collect myself.) The impacts of inequality and injustice are frustrating and depressing, but are mostly heinous in their capacity to destroy lives. So in an effort to fight this, or at least highlight incidences of injustice, the SISD Award was developed.

Drumroll please, perhaps even cue the theme song from Star Wars:

*ta dah*

So please, when sharing your opinions, make sure to take your foot out of your mouth so you aren't forced to speak from your ass. Otherwise, the Fruit will find you. They will hunt you down, and they will mess you up. (Don't fuck with the Fruit!)

Keeping our streets clean one mess at a time,
O. + the SISD Fruit

Dear Robert Quinn from Japan,

robert quinn from Japan writes: Well, I see Emma's posted, so I feel duty-bound to kick sand all over her comments, and every other certain-to-be-offended sufferer. You, the hordes of mentally ill (20% of the population, according to Michael Kirby...why is it old soldiers fade away but old Liberals end up with lucrative government sinecures? And when you factor in the multitudes with cancer, spina bifida, Carpel Tunnel Syndrome, heroin addiction, existential ennui, etc., it's a wonder there's anyone capable of showing up for work), who spend their days feeling misunderstood, picked on, ignored or suicidal, may be missing the big picture. A nurse with many years of experience once told me such is what happens when one-pound babies survive. For whatever reason--bad luck, bad genes--there's something wrong with your wiring. Sorry. But it could be no amount of money, drugs or professional bafflegab will help. Long ago, a lion would have spotted you lagging behind, distraught, and...culled you. All things considered, that might not have been the worst thing to happen, in a circle-of-life sense. Maybe you really would be happier dead. The question should be: Could I feel worse than I do right now if I top myself? And if you're dead, and an atheist, the answer has to be...no. There are organizations other than the Mental Health Commission that can satisfy your sincere longing for an EXIT from emotional hell. No pain, no shame. / (excerpted from the comments section of the Globe and Mail.)


Dear Robert,
While you do reserve the right to have an opinion in all matters, sometimes you just shouldn't voice those opinions. Why? Because they can fall under the legal classification of "Hate Crime."

Hate Crimes are defined as abusive/aggressive/aggravating/victimizing behaviours that are directed towards individuals (or groups) based on their cultural or religious backgrounds, their sexual orientation, their disability, age, gender, identity, or political affiliation.

So, my dear Robert, in your lovely comment, you have not so subtly told a rather large group of people who fall under the umbrella of "disability" that they simply do not deserve to live among the rest of the members of the planet. Furthermore, you also suggested that said group of people engage in what pretty much amounts to mass suicide.

Legally, this constitutes verbal harrassment.

So fuck you very much for your abrasive, unwanted, and ignorant opinions. Since I can't track you down to bring you to justice for your crimes, I would like to impose upon you the most serious of curses that I have recently learned of: May the flies of a thousand camels infest your nether regions.

Sincerely yours,
O.

PS. robert quinn from Japan is the first ever winner of the SISD award. The Stupid Is, Stupid Does Award goes out to those wonderful people who have a bizarre desire to make the world a crappy place for all.

What do they see when they start on their path?

Dear People With "Lived Experience,"

Little hypothetical story here to clarify the nature of this post:

Okay, so say you're 20ish or something. And you've been dealing with some problems of hearing voices, and thinking that people are out to get you. And maybe you've been hiding away from people and neglecting your hygiene.

Somebody says, let's get you to a doctor to see what's up.

So you go. You do some tests. Some of them are pencil and paper tests. Some of them are verbal tests. Some of them are performance tests. Maybe others are medical tests.

Tests come back, everyone's suspicions are confirmed: you are now diagnosed with a condition you've only heard about in the movies. Schizophrenia or maybe even Bi-polar if you have some cycling going on.

/story.


So you look at your life. What do you see?


Based on the media, it's not a rosy picture.

Based on public perceptions, it doesn't seem to be any rosier of a picture.

Based on the statistical likelihood of being gainfully employed, well, the picture is just nosediving now.

Based on discriminatory laws across the world the picture just sinks to unfathomable proportions. (limitations of travel, limitations on insurance, limitations on housing, limitations on employment, limitations on serving your country or your community, limitations imposed by the way the legal system is organized... limitations, limitations, limitations... )


So with a diagnosis, I see a lot of limitations. Funny thing is, I only see these limitations after living with my diagnosis for 11 years. I'm no longer a child living under anyone's protective wing. I'm an adult, trying to carve out a life for myself. When I was younger and living with my diagnosis, these things just didn't affect me, since I didn't really have to move outside of my comfort zone too much.

To be honest my diagnosis is fucking hard to deal with in the real world... The real world being the world that dictates that I need to find a job because I have bills to pay, and I need to feed myself and my ravenous furkids. The real world that makes me crave the companionship, friendship, and intimacy of a lover. The real world that tells me that one day I may want to have children, and god forbid, achievable dreams! (The real world that tells me that all of these things are "healthy" and are "milestones of recovery.") And now that I'm starting out in my adult life, I'm seeing exactly how profound my limitations are. And I'm seeing the barriers that life forces me to hurdle just to reach those milestones... achievements that seem relatively effortless for people standing on the other side of the fence.

And the paradox in all of this is that I've tried to find the best place for me in this world. I shaped my life consciously from the time I was diagnosed to find a place where I would have the greatest likelihood for personal and economic success for someone of my education and experience. And so I thought I found my "place." And I'm looking at that place, I'm standing on the threshold watching everyone move around and interact in that place, and I still don't fit in. I'm beginning to think I just don't fit in anywhere.

Too sick for the "real" world. Too healthy for the services and amenities provided to people who live with a diagnosis like mine. Too different ideologically from the people who are trying to build a new, supposedly inclusive, system... a "new" system that paradoxically believes that by labelling me and "outing" me, it is setting me free.

I'm not trying to get anyone down. I'm not trying to make anyone feel helpless, even though I'm feeling a little helpless at the moment.

I think what I'm asking is: What can we do about it?

How do we fix this?

Why do I, after living with this disease for 12 years... after spending nearly 12 years learning how to cope and make sure that I am the healthiest person I can be... why do I have to deal with THESE particular issues now?

These "particular issues" being issues that relate exclusively to social injustice and discrimination.

If the disease itself doesn't kill you, the injustices that come along with it certainly will.


When we talk about suicide and the despair of mental illness; the despair isn't having to live with the disease. The despair isn't really about having to wrestle with symptoms or deal with medications.

The despair is about the social injustices we confront. The social injustices that affect us on a day to day basis. The social injustices that tell me that I'm not equal to every other person in the country I live in.

This is what kills us off when we stare down that long tunnel of life.


What do WE do? This issue is bigger than me. This issue feels stronger than me. I'm at a loss. I really am.

My instinct is to fight. But what does that mean? What am I fighting? Who am I fighting? How long is the fight going to be? What will it cost me, and what will it achieve?


I keep telling myself before I go to bed that when I wake up, tomorrow will be a better, brighter day. Tomorrow I will wake up, and I won't have to worry about my safety, my comfort, or my security.

I think the only thing that keeps me going is my hope for the future, since my present is a very grim place.


Keeping my fingers crossed for a brighter day (and sorry if I killed your buzz!),
O.

PS:
*tomorrow will be a better day, tomorrow will be a better day, tomorrow will be a better day, tomorrow will be a better day, tomorrow will be a better day, tomorrow will be a better day, tomorrow wil be a better day... *

Dear Cruel World

Dear Fellow Sufferers,

Yes, folks, the world is a cruel place.

I hate to post after such a long time and be so cryptic, but life is such at the moment that every place I turn to I have nowhere to rest my weary soul.

I'm tired.

I want stability.
I want to know that I will be able to have a roof over my head.
I want to know that I will have food in my mouth.
I want to know that I can have the life I dream of having, and have the life that is promised to every person who "plans" and "does the right thing." (Whatever that is!)

I'm not asking for big things here. I just want to have some shelter, and some food, and someone to keep me warm at night. I want to be able to dream about the things that other folks get to dream about... like having kids, maybe going for a trip somewhere, maybe I'd even dare to dream of the things I'd like to accomplish before I kick the bucket.

I want to know that people can love me and be in my life without sacrificing their own lives and security.

I just want to know that it's going to work out, for all involved.

If this were only about me, I really wouldn't care. But there're others involved. And it bothers me that everyone who touches me needs to think twice before they can do anything with their lives.

I've done the best I can. Really I have. Now it's your turn to hold up YOUR end of the bargain.

Please. Just do the right thing. All of you.

Sincerely,
O.

ghosts don't scare me... they make me sad

Dear invisible woman I saw sitting on the street on a freezing winter day,

Yes. I saw you. In fact, I'm pretty sure everyone who passed you saw you, even though we all pretended not to in our rush to get to where we thought we had to be.

You were sitting there, on a small chunk of cardboard, bundled in your scruffy sweaters and coats and scarves. If you were a different person, you might have been very warm, but you weren't someone else, you were you.

Homeless. Invisible. Alone, as you sat among the post-holiday rush passersby, you with steaming tears running in rivers down your weathered cheeks, many of us with gift cards and holiday cash burning in our pockets.

If we had acknowledged you, it would have forced us to consider your plight... perhaps even to have empathy for it. We would have wondered what unfortunate series of events in your life collided so that you to wound up on this particular corner, on this particularly unforgiving day. Maybe we would have wondered how our actions or inactions contributed to that unfortunate series of events.

It is possible that acknowledging you would have made us question the things we have, and why we do not share our things, and why we continue to want more and more things, while you have very close to nothing. It would have made us ponder, for a second, why we have become comfortable with this.

Had we acknowledged you, it would have forced us to stop and help you. If one person had stopped, maybe others would have felt compelled to do the same. But since no one stopped, no one gawked, and no one really even glanced, everyone felt justified in moving past you without a hint of acknowledgment.

Hundreds of people must have walked past you in a matter of moments. No one even looked in your direction, and when one of us had the misfortune to glance your way, we looked through you as if you were a ghost, as if we were suddenly interested in the bank of dirty snow behind you.

I'm sorry I was one of the people who walked by. I just want you to know that.

With great regret,
O.