Alison Wonderland Jewelry · On Herself · On Politics

Enter to Win a Free “Voter” Stick Pin That’s Good for Democracy

img_5450

Fired up about this presidential election? You should really wear one of these pretty little vintage stick pins.  I make them with all sorts of phrases on them, but this week I’m giving away two, that say “Vote” or “Voter.” To enter the giveaway, just go over to Alison Wonderland’s Facebook or Instagram page and follow the easy peasy instructions.

Debate snacks

Politics have been described as sports for nerds. I fully embrace the nerd aspect of that description — my degree is in political science, people. You don’t want to get me started on Plato. And I do treat political events in much the same way other people treat football games. I get together to watch with friends. I make special snacks. I can’t resist showing you our spread at the Vice Presidential debate the other week, which was just the immediate fam.  (Note the cat paw at the top of the photo, my cats are very political.)  And while there is a sports-like aspect to it, let’s not forget that the outcome of the “game” actually amounts to something real. Lives can change. Lives can be improved. Lives can be lost.

When I was in elementary school, I was very inspired by a lesson on Susan B. Anthony, and decided that kids should also have the right to vote. I led a small charge on the school cafeteria, where the voting booths were set up for what I now believe was a school board election. I demanded access to the polling place, and I got sent to the principal’s office.

My 18th birthday very inconveniently occurred less than two weeks after the presidential election of 1992, which meant I missed that election. After which I entered a pious phase and decided to skip all the other local elections, because I didn’t want to pick a political party until I completed my degree and registered for a political party, so as to maintain my objectivity during my studies. This didn’t make a lot of sense, and I was confusing an important principle of journalism with that of citizenship, but hey,  I was 19. I made a lot of bad decisions.After graduating, however, I immediately registered and I simply don’t miss elections. In fact, I get a little misty when I enter a polling place. The franchise is a right and an honor that many people laid down their lives and reputations to secure for us. I am so grateful.

So go vote! Go win yourself one of these pins and by so wearing, encourage other people to vote too.  The fate of our Republic literally is in your hands.

Buy Defiant Sentiments Stick Pin – Vintage Stick Pin – Election 2016

Save

On Herself · On Psychology

On Unringing the Bell

img_0926

Someone I knew quite well during a difficult season of my died this life died last weekend. He was young, and his death was shocking and violent.

We met very soon after I was single, and at a time when I was completely determined not to get involved with anyone who had anything in common with my former husband.

This man seemed exactly that. He was blue collar to ex’s lily white, muscled and handsome, determinedly non-intellectual. in every way he was socio-economically different, not only from the man I’d married at the age of 21, but also from me.

He was very much a creature of routine, who required his ice cream vanilla, his beer, Corona, his bagel plain with plain cream cheese and his pizza from Domino’s. He didn’t know the names of streets in our neighborhood that he didn’t go to, because he didn’t care to.

At the time, friends asked me whether these characteristics were an issue for me, because my friends are smart and they’ve met me, which is to say, familiar with my passion for both a life of the mind, and adventure. But I said the differences weren’t a problem — at first because I didn’t think we were really doing anything serious, and then as it kept going, because I said, look what being in a relationship with someone more “suited” got me.

In fact, I used to say that being with him was like traveling, because although we grew up less than five miles apart, Bronx to Manhattan, and he was six years older than me, our experiences of life were so different that we might as well have been born in different countries. We were forever explaining our worlds to one another.  I learned a lot about standpipes and sprinklers and their proper p.s.i., he learned about studying art — you mean a naked chick just stands in front of the room for everyone to draw? Get the fuck out of here.

And for being as set in his ways as he surely was, he was also willing to try certain new things. For instance, he thought the concept of iced coffee was totally insane, because coffee should be hot, and consumed only in the morning, light and sweet. It was probably a tactical error on my part to have him try Vietnamese Iced Coffee one afternoon. It was too bitter for his palate, he spat it out and declared it nasty, case closed. On the other hand, alcohol should always be cold and so while he would try red wine, he never failed to put an ice cube in it. He’d never had Indian food before we met and he did like that — but I am pretty certain he never ate it outside my presence, ever.

I’m saying these things not because they were the most important; I realize they sound snobbish. But as we’ve now been apart about as long as we were together, these are the details I can still squint at in my memory.

The Art of the Empty Text
The Art of the Empty Text, 2014. Handbound book, paste paper, transfer letters on packing tape.

 

When you’re trying to get away from something, it helps to know if you’re moving on a flat plane or on a sphere. As it happens, I was on a sphere and in the end, I found myself staring directly at the same issues I’d hoped to avoid by choosing such a different man. Of course, it was an error in logic to decide that my marriage ended because my husband and I were from the same socioeconomic group. Just as it would be to conclude that I ended this relationship because this man and I were not.

In a newspaper story about his death, there is a phrase I’ve read a few times: he could not be saved. The reporter was referring to the paramedics, but it was the conclusion I’d come to about him and us long ago.

I don’t want to get into the details of the way we ended, but suffice it to say that although we remained on cordial terms, I consider the relationship a mistake. His death was a mistake too, although to put them together in a single category is rather absurd.

In very different ways, I’m sorry both happened.

On Creativity - Art, Jewelry, Writing · On Herself

On a Curiosity Delay

IMG_5062
Only trouble is interesting*.

Not because humans are macabre ghouls, but because we need to know how to navigate the obstacles that life consistently throws at us. Art of all kinds, but especially literature, helps us to do just that.

In my two decades as a writer, and in my more recent experience creating jewelry, I’ve seen evidence of this over and over again. When I’ve written about my personal challenges, and have felt naked and exposed, I’ve been encouraged by kind feedback from readers about how my dispatches from a particularly shitty road I’ve endured have helped them endure on theirs. And what else could possibly explain the continuing demand for Alison Wonderland Jewelry’s signature “Fuck This Shit” products?

(In fact, the title of this essay, curiosity delay, is a more polite term for rubbernecking that I’ve heard on traffic reports on occasion. There are hard wired reasons why we can’t help but slow down to look at accidents on the highway, one of which is urgent: we need to be able to avoid our own.)

So lately, you may have noticed, I haven’t been publishing that much. I’ve found myself stuck in a kind of writer’s resin created by the truth that only trouble is interesting.

The good news for me as a person is that I have significant joy in my life. It’s been absorbing, and pleasurable, but not much good for the writing. For one thing, I am certain it will yield writing no more interesting or useful than any Facebook status riddled with exclamation marks. No one rubbernecks a vehicle just zipping happily down the highway. Also my partner in this joy is an intensely private person.

The bad news for me as a person is I also have had plenty of trouble. However, the dark side of my life is also one I have not been exploring in my published writing recently.

This is not to say I haven’t been writing — I have, every single day. But I have felt constrained in publishing this writing in a way that I have never felt before.

When I teach, I often share Ernest Hemingway’s advice to “write hard and clear about what hurts,” and have added that it is almost impossible to avoid writing about those things anyway. But for the first time I’ve realized that being constrained in publishing writing in one area of a life can have a deleterious effect on writing on all subjects. (Understand, of course, I’m not speaking here of producing writing on non-personal subjects — that writing is more like journalism, and I’ve been able to still turn that out when required.) But my personal writing, my essays, much of what I share here — that’s been jammed stuck.

Finally  I realized I could get totally meta and write about that trouble, the writer’s resin,  and what led me into it, and how I might find my way out of it. And maybe you’d find that useful, since I know many of my readers are also writers. And so here we are.

I am still not prepared to give a complete field report on My Troubles, but I do want to make a brief explanation now, which will hopefully serve as an apology for the continuing delay, and, to use the technical term, unjam my works.

So here’s what’s been happening.

For the past 21 months, I’ve been the target of a legal bullying campaign by a person that I’ll here call Mr X.  You can read some more of how he lost the dignity of name and title  —  at this point, he neither deserves the possessive “my,” or the word “husband,” even with “ex” attached. In an apparent attempt to score a perfect record of violating every agreement he’s ever made with me, his aim has been to overturn the settlement that ended our marriage — a contract he’s decided simply doesn’t exist.

It is amazing to realize how much of the world runs on mutual consent: that truth exists and is knowable, that laws and contracts and signatures matter. It is sobering to realize how long rich white men can get away with violating these norms — which are after all what keep us from chaos — before they face real consequences. (In roughly the same time period, I have watched the tactics of the Donald Trump campaign unfold, in an almost perfect echo of my private world; the two men could be advising one another.)

Mr X has waged his particular war in several court houses. He’s been losing, badly, having neither facts nor law on his side. And while my victories so far have been gratifying — hearing him described as a “marital scofflaw” by a federal judge was a good moment —  the battle has come with personal, physical and psychological costs.

It is these costs that are the source of the writing which will eventually emerge from this hot mess. And it is precisely these costs I do not want to detail at this moment.

I’d like to be clear that at this point, I’m not waiting for the legal hostilities to cease to emerge from my silence.  Although I’m aware that Mr X hungrily combs my various publications for word on himself,  I don’t believe that writing hard and clear about my experience will hurt me.  I do believe that personal writing on my experience will be helpful to others who are similarly victimized, but who don’t have my resources, which include, among other things, strong family support, undergraduate pre-law studies which render me somewhat more comfortable with legal language, and an ability to do my own research.

But I am still waiting for a certain clarity to emerge from this experience. There’s some information I lack — what he’s actually after in these increasingly futile attacks, for example, when he will tire of fixating on me.

I realize I may never have those answers, so I guess, more accurately I’m waiting for some meaning I can put to the particulars of my experience, some insight that will move it beyond just a mere recounting of what I’ve endured . Until then, on this topic, I will remain in the writer’s resin, on a curiosity delay.

 

And — I hope — I will soon write of other things.

*Janet Burroway, Writing Fiction, although it applies to many other forms of literature and art.
On Herself · On Politics

Barack Obama is Not a Person 

Barack Obama is not a person.

I am not a person.

You are not a person, either, if you are involved in any kind of a legal situation. Which, as a member of a society under the rule of law, you are by default, although it won’t become apparent to you unless you are either elected to public office, or involved in a legal action.

Since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the media has been full of conversation about Scalia’s writing style. When I was an undergraduate studying constitutional law, his opinions were was my favorite to read, although I disagreed with almost everything he wrote so amusingly. I’ve always been attuned to language, and so in these past four years, as my divorce and its aftermath became an apparently endless legal quagmire, I’ve been tracking the use of language in legal documents — motions, decisions, and so on. (It is my opinion that lawyers are some of the best writers not widely read in the country.)

I remember looking at the first court filling in the divorce, which I downloaded on my phone, while sitting on a green lawn at a cheese festival in Vermont. I dwelled for a long time on the word “versus” on the first court filing in my divorce, me versus him, him versus me, how did it come so suddenly to that?

Getting back to Obama. One of the things that struck me immediately about these legal filings is that your name is immediately substituted for that of a character, with the use of parentheses and quotation marks.

A few days before Scalia died, I happened to make a list of the characters I have been known as legally in these past four years of conflict:

Alison Stein MarriedNameRedacted, (“Wife”) (“Plaintiff”) (“Defendant”) (“Priority Creditor”).

This shorthand helps everyone to follow along, and, since our system operates on precedent, it helps future lawyers and judges to strip away the relevant information for future conflicts. But it feels strange to be reduced to a character in this way. Everything I am, my memories, my accomplishments, the jokes I’ve made, the things I’ve learned, the people I’ve loved, the tears I’ve cried, are stripped away. What matters only are my rights, responsibilities and various burdens as “defendant.”

I understand that this a dehumanization is part of justice as we understand it. That by stripping away the particulars of a person, you can extract a principle that you can apply evenly to everyone in a similar situation.

Barack Obama is, of course, a person. A person whom you are free to admire, or despise. But legally, he is not a person, he’s President of the United States, a position vested with various executive powers and obligations, among them: “He shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint…judges of the Supreme Court.” (Article II, Section 2)

It seems to me that the Republican Senators who are vowing to obstruct the replacement of Justice Scalia have forgotten that in this instance, Barack Obama is not Obama, but, simply “President.” And they are not individual people with opinions either. Not, Mitch McConnell, but “Senator.” Whatever their personal feelings about the man, and whoever the man or woman happens to be, the rule of law only works if we all agree to be depersonalized in this way, elected officials especially. 

To struggle against this is to call for a dismantling of our entire legal system, which has older roots than the U.S. Constitution, but includes it. 

To struggle against this is to support a system based on personal favors and favorites, which is to say, to support tyranny.

On Herself · On Politics

Barack Obama is Not a Person 

Barack Obama is not a person.

I am not a person.

You are not a person, either, if you are involved in any kind of a legal situation. Which, as a member of a society under the rule of law, you are by default, although it won’t become apparent to you unless you are either elected to public office, or involved in a legal action.

Since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the media has been full of conversation about Scalia’s writing style. When I was an undergraduate studying constitutional law, his opinions were was my favorite to read, although I disagreed with almost everything he wrote so amusingly. I’ve always been attuned to language, and so in these past four years, as my divorce and its aftermath became an apparently endless legal quagmire, I’ve been tracking the use of language in legal documents — motions, decisions, and so on. (It is my opinion that lawyers are some of the best writers not widely read in the country.)

I remember looking at the first court filling in the divorce, which I downloaded on my phone, while sitting on a green lawn at a cheese festival in Vermont. I dwelled for a long time on the word “versus” on the first court filing in my divorce, me versus him, him versus me, how did it come so suddenly to that?

Getting back to Obama. One of the things that struck me immediately about these legal filings is that your name is immediately substituted for that of a character, with the use of parentheses and quotation marks.

A few days before Scalia died, I happened to make a list of the characters I have been known as legally in these past four years of conflict:

Alison Stein MarriedNameRedacted, (“Wife”) (“Plaintiff”) (“Defendant”) (“Priority Creditor”).

This shorthand helps everyone to follow along, and, since our system operates on precedent, it helps future lawyers and judges to strip away the relevant information for future conflicts. But it feels strange to be reduced to a character in this way. Everything I am, my memories, my accomplishments, the jokes I’ve made, the things I’ve learned, the people I’ve loved, the tears I’ve cried, are stripped away. What matters only are my rights, responsibilities and various burdens as “defendant.”

I understand that this a dehumanization is part of justice as we understand it. That by stripping away the particulars of a person, you can extract a principle that you can apply evenly to everyone in a similar situation.

Barack Obama is, of course, a person. A person whom you are free to admire, or despise. But legally, he is not a person, he’s President of the United States, a position vested with various executive powers and obligations, among them: “He shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint…judges of the Supreme Court.” (Article II, Section 2)

It seems to me that the Republican Senators who are vowing to obstruct the replacement of Justice Scalia have forgotten that in this instance, Barack Obama is not Obama, but, simply “President.” And they are not individual people with opinions either. Not, Mitch McConnell, but “Senator.” Whatever their personal feelings about the man, and whoever the man or woman happens to be, the rule of law only works if we all agree to be depersonalized in this way, elected officials especially. 

To struggle against this is to call for a dismantling of our entire legal system, which has older roots than the U.S. Constitution, but includes it. 

To struggle against this is to support a system based on personal favors and favorites, which is to say, to support tyranny.

Daybook · On Creativity - Art, Jewelry, Writing · On Design & Art · On Herself · On Places & Travel

On Journals and Being a Moron

This May marks my 99th month of keeping a daily journal electronically. Before this, and ever since I graduated from college, I used notebooks for this purpose (college ruled, five subject, I’d tear out the dividers). There are boxes upon boxes of these in my uncle’s shed upstate. Someday, I’ll need to revisit them and… Continue reading On Journals and Being a Moron