|
About This Author
I am SoCalScribe. This is my InkSpot.
|
Blogocentric Formulations
Logocentric (adj). Regarding words and language as a fundamental expression of an external reality (especially applied as a negative term to traditional Western thought by postmodernist critics).
Sometimes I just write whatever I feel like. Other times I respond to prompts, many taken from the following places:
Thanks for stopping by! 
September 30, 2025 at 5:26pm September 30, 2025 at 5:26pm
| |
Prompt #115: If you could magically learn any one skill overnight, what would you choose and what would you do with it?
If I could learn any skill overnight, I think I'd want to suddenly be able to be a really good cook. I love good food and I can follow a basic recipe, but I'm not what you'd call comfortable in the kitchen. It doesn't come naturally to me, and I certainly don't know the first thing about combining ingredients or developing flavors on the fly. So I would love to have a set of culinary skills that allows me to make great food with less effort so that I could enjoy it more often.
I've always struggled with cooking because I hate to waste food, and I know that you have to sometimes get it wrong to practice and develop your craft. But something just seems so wasteful about having to spend money on food and then throw it out because you overcooked it, or messed up the ingredients in some way. I'd love to be able to bypass that entire "trial and error" phase of learning to cook and just instantly know how to throw something together that will taste pretty good, at the absolute worst.
American cuisine would probably be the most obvious choice for what kind of food I'd want to cook well, but I wouldn't mind being good at Italian and French dishes (and barbecue!) as well. But I also know that sometimes it's better when you can just appreciate something without knowing all the ins and outs of how something is made, so I think I'd want to just enjoy Asian inspired dishes (Chinese, sushi, Thai, Vietnamese, etc.) without necessarily being able to create them myself. It would also be nice to be able to bake, although in some ways that's an entirely different skillset.
Anyway, I'd definitely choose to become a skilled chef overnight. I feel like that would be a game-changer in terms of the quality of life my family and friends and I could enjoy. Or at least our tastebuds could enjoy.
|
September 30, 2025 at 12:06am September 30, 2025 at 12:06am
| |
Prompt for September 30, 2025: What does the Bible say about women pastors?
The Bible doesn't say anything explicitly about women pastors.
Now, before I get a bunch of people throwing scriptural citations at me, I will concede that the passage that is most often cited as an argument against women in church leadership is 1 Timothy 2:11-15, which says:
11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearingâif they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
And there have been a lot of churches over the years who have pointed to that as some kind of definitive proof that women cannot serve in church leadership, or worse, are inferior to men in some way. It's a very complementarian interpretation of this passage (i.e., where everyone is spiritually equal, but each gender has very specific roles that complement one another), while the more egalitarian interpretation of the passage would imply that there is a contextual element of this letter that Paul wrote to Timothy, where he may have specifically been writing to the church body in Ephesus (which contained an influential cult of Artemis), and was not intended to be broadly intended to apply to all women for all eternity.
Personally, whenever I come across a piece of scripture that seems incongruent with my understanding of Jesus, I look to other pieces of scripture to see if I can cobble together a better understanding of the issue as a whole. And when I do that, several other excerpts come to mind, such as:
26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abrahamâs seed, and heirs according to the promise.
— Galatians 3:26-29
17 Jesus said, âDo not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, âI am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.ââ 18 Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: âI have seen the Lord!â And she told them that he had said these things to her.
— John 20:17-18
There is a clear message in the Bible that empowers women to preach the Gospel, and yet you'll find people incessantly arguing over the details and semantics, and trying to reconcile the fact that several women played important roles in spreading the Gospel against Paul's numerous other passages where he seems to imply gender roles similar to 2 Timothy 12 in his other epistles.
As I was doing a little research for this topic, I even found a Reddit thread where complementarian users were arguing that preaching the Gospel is not the same thing as preaching behind a pulpit, while egalitarians retorted that formal pulpits didn't exist back then, so whether you're a man or woman, preaching the Gospel in someone's home was essentially church leadership. And there's always someone out there who will counter the "Our God is one of order and he specifically has different roles for men and women" argument with the assertion that Paul was writing his epistles in the first century A.D. and that society at the time wasn't as "enlightened" as the modern world is about gender roles, sexuality, etc.
It's the kind of debate someone could spend a lifetime ruminating on. My general feeling on the matter, not that I'm trying to substitute my own opinions in place of God's intentions, is that God has given all of us — both men and women — incredible gifts. And I don't see a clear gender divide in the God-given abilities He's imbued in us. It's not like leadership qualities are only found in men. And if you've been around organized religion for any amount of time, you'll know that just because you're a man doesn't mean you're a good (or even competent) religious leader.
Meanwhile, there are some absolutely phenomenal female leaders in the world, and women who are truly gifted in a spiritual capacity. The idea that God wants them to "keep quiet" in church and let the men lead is essentially denying the church the ability to live up to its full potential. Telling gifted women to stick to their secular leadership roles and running the women's Bible study group while mediocre men do the real "leading" seems unusually narrow-minded and limiting for the church of an omniscient and omnipotent being who created men and women in his image.
So what does the Bible say about women pastors? I suppose you could point to specific passages to support whatever position you want to take on the subject. There's more than enough scripture and context to interpret in either direction. If you're more on the complementarian side of the equation and you think women have no place in ministry (or at least ministry leadership), there are plenty of churches out there that will refuse to let a woman serve in those roles, and I sincerely wish you all the best. I also fervently pray that you are intentional about creating spaces where women in your congregations can bring their full God-given gifts to bear.
But I'm more on the egalitarian side of things, and after years of attending church services where women are allowed to preach and lead alongside the men, I can tell you from personal experience that the congregations I've been a part of are all the better for it.
|
September 29, 2025 at 5:49pm September 29, 2025 at 5:49pm
| |
Prompt #133: Imagine you wake up with a new abilityâjust one. What is it and what changes in your life?
There are two directions I could take this prompt: realistic and fantasy
And you know what? This is my blog so I'm going to do them both! 
In terms of a realistic new ability, I think a natural aptitude for numbers and math would be really helpful. So much of my career has been oriented in the direction of "business administration" but budgets, calculations, and other numbers continue to be difficult for me. They just don't come as naturally as words do, and if I could suddenly have the ability to effortlessly read a P&L statement, or understand the fundamentals of the stock market and investing in general, I think I could take my career (and my personal finances) to a whole other level. I've always thought that I would be a good entrepreneur, if not for the lack of understanding about corporate finances work.
Either that, or I'd want to be one of those people with an amazing metabolism where I could basically eat anything I want and still maintain an excellent physique and level of fitness.
If we're talking about dipping a toe into the fantasy realm for this new ability, I would love to have the ability to teleport. I mean, I would never have to commute again! I could just wake up twenty minutes before I have to be in the office, get ready, then BAMF! suddenly I'm at my office fifty miles away. Or BAMF! and I'm 500 miles away and able to have dinner with my brother and my dad. Or, oh man, you know what sounds good for dinner? Authentic lobster rolls from that place we went to in Maine. Okay, I'll be back in ten minutes! BAMF! There are just so many uses for instantaneous transportation; I feel like that would be life-changing, especially if I could bring people along that I'm touching at the time. Our family vacations would never require a drive or a flight again!
I've always wanted the power of telekinesis, but I feel like that would just make my lazy, if I never had to get up off the couch to get something out of the fridge.
|
September 28, 2025 at 4:35pm September 28, 2025 at 4:35pm
| |
Prompt #149: Youâre tasked with redesigning the modern school system. Whatâs the first thing you change?
*takes out extra large binder with tabbed dividers, indexed by both topic and anticipated cost*
*re-reads prompt and realizes it's only asking for the "first thing" I would do*
*blinks, sighs deeply, puts binder away and prepares to write about only ONE THING*
In all honesty, this is a really difficult topic because there's so much that we need to do to improve and modernize our school system. There's an old quote attributed to Robert Fulghum which says, "It will be a great day when our schools have all the money they need, and our air force has to have a bake sale to buy a bomber." And it would be easy to wave my hand and say that the first thing I would change about the modern school system is to make sure they have enough resources so that every classroom is modernized, every textbook is up to date, and no teacher or staffer has to spend their own money on their classroom, their arts program, their sports team, etc.
But just saying that I'd make sure the school system is properly financed is kind of boring, so let's talk about the first step I'd take after whatever legislative and executive action was needed to open up the coffers and really invest in the educational system. What would I to redesign the school system after it was fully-funded?
Up until a couple of years ago, I would have said that I'd eliminate tenure and significantly increase teacher salaries and perqs to make teaching a merit-based position. If you're a great teacher, you deserve to be making a salary that's on par with your average corporate executive, and be eligible for bonuses, incentives, etc. It should be a prestigious and honorable job. But if you're a terrible teacher, there should be a mechanism to incentivize those teachers to find another job. I think education is too important to have it be a "lifer" type of job where once you get into the position, it's very hard to get you out of it, even if the quality of your work drastically degrades.
I've changed that opinion in recent years, though, for two reasons.
First, it assumes that the biggest problem in education today is "bad teachers," and I simply don't believe that's the case. There are some, sure. But I also think a lot of "bad teachers" are really just burned out teachers, unappreciated teachers, under-resourced teachers, etc. who, once we met the basic threshold of properly funding education, would significantly improve the results they're getting with their students.
Second, teachers' jobs have gotten harder in recent years. There are a lot more activist parents than there used to be, the kind who are willing to call the school, or the district, to complain about a particular choice of book being read in the classroom, or a particular teaching method being used. When I was in school, if a teacher called home, my parents would be like, "Sorry, Jeff did what? OMG I am so sorry, I will speak with him." Now? Half the time when a teacher calls home, the parents are like, "Sorry, Jeff did what? OMG he would never do that. I don't believe you. You just don't understand his unique needs. It must have been your fault."
Teachers are being blamed for low test scores, behavioral issues, and even character flaws in their students. Teaching, as a profession, is getting less respect and less deference as the years go on. So getting rid of tenure and making it easier to fire teachers is a terrible idea in an environment where teachers are being increasingly scapegoated for any deficiencies a child might exhibit, and where parents are more hostile to educators than ever before. You shouldn't have at-will employment of educators when any parent who doesn't like the fact that your students are reading Toni Morrison can get you fired.
So now we come to the new suggestion for the first thing I'd do to redesign the education system...
I'd stipulate that any role that has any input into the classroom (be it the school administration, school board, department of education, etc.) has to either have a relevant degree in education, childhood development, or something along those lines... or they have to have a minimum number of years — say, five to ten — working in a relevant area of the field of education in order to be able to influence educational decisions.
My wife is an educator. In order to become a teacher, she had to complete a Bachelor's Degree, then study for an additional two years (and pass multiple state exams) to get her teaching credential. On top of that, she has a Master's Degree in curriculum design and individualized instruction. And she's been teaching for over 15 years. And despite all that, she still has parents (many of whom have no college education at all) telling her that she doesn't know what she's talking about, and they know better than her how she should be teaching her class.
I think teachers (and their school administrators) should be able to legally say to those kinds of parents, "You're not qualified to make the decision of what's taught in this classroom."
It would have to be paired with very robust and clear rules about things like homeschooling and alternative education options because parents should have some choice over whether their kid attends a particular school if they disagree with its educational goals, philosophy, etc., but I think parents have increasingly expected way too much deference and personalized accommodation in recent years, and I would like to see educators more freely able to say, "My college degree and years of professional experience overrule your personal feelings on the matter. And if you'd prefer to educate your child yourself according to your own beliefs, here's all the information you need to make an informed choice about homeschooling or private school options."
I know it wouldn't be easy, and there would be a ton of hurdles to have to jump over and complications to work through, but without changing the field of education back to a dynamic where the professional educators receive deference and latitude to do what they need to do, I don't think much else about the system will improve.
|
September 28, 2025 at 1:03pm September 28, 2025 at 1:03pm
| |
Prompt #169: Youâre given a 10-second rewind button. How do you use it?
I would use a 10-second rewind button all the time, probably mostly to take back dumb things I say without thinking! Seriously, there are so many times where, the minute I've said something, I think to myself, "Why did I say that? I didn't have to say that," and regret it for several minutes.
Mostly, it's in the context of critical or harsh comments that I realize were me overreacting in the moment, but I also can't rule out using this for the purposes of improving my zingers or quips in conversation. "Oh that devastating burn didn't land quite like I wanted it to... do over!" 
In all seriousness, though, this would be an amazing ability to have. Not just for use in conversation, but I think about all the time ten seconds would erase a dumb decision.
Like when you pull into a parking space and accidentally scrape another car. BOOP! Now you can try that parking attempt again.
Or when you're not looking where you're going and step in a deep puddle that soaks your shoe and sock. BOOP! Now you can avoid that mistake.
And even when you have moments that you wish you would have caught on camera. BOOP! Now you have ten seconds to get that phone out and snap a pic.
Ten seconds isn't a lot of time, so I'm struggling to think about other uses for such a power other than "quick, get a do-over on the last thing that happened!" Now, if I could extend the do-ver button to a minute, or an hour, or a day, then we'd really be talking about options...
|
September 27, 2025 at 7:21pm September 27, 2025 at 7:21pm
| |
Prompt #39: What's your favorite kind of gift to receive? What kind of gifts do you think are overrated?
My favorite kind of gift is one of two things: either something that's either very intentional or personalized... or cash/gift cards. The gifts that I think are overrated are the things that are given without much thought, even if the value of the gift is considerable.
Since I tend to buy myself the things that I really want, cash and gift cards are always appreciated (as long as, in the case of a gift card, it's to somewhere general like Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Target, etc.). I know a lot of people think they're impersonal, but I actually appreciate the consideration of, "Hey, I didn't know what to actually get you but here's some money for a place that you like to shop and I hope you're able to buy something that you're really excited about."
And I do very intentionally associate my gift cards with the person who gave them (I try very hard not to just toss them in a drawer and forget about them for months at a time). I'll also try to send them a note whenever possible. "Hey, just wanted to know that your Apple gift card is going to help pay for the new MacBook I'm saving up for. Thanks so much!" For all those reasons, I think gift cards are actually a great gift for someone like me, who doesn't exactly maintain a year-long wish list of things I'd love to buy but for whatever reason haven't yet.
I also really love personalized or individualized gifts, where it's clear there's thought behind it. There was one year at work where it seemed like every time I was in a meeting, I was fixing someone else's screw up, predicting problems that people would ignore only to have that prediction come true, etc. And, like, YES, that's my job most of the time, but it was a particularly notable span of several months where it was happening so often that other people were noticing. And in my department that year, my coworkers got me all kinds of themed gifts: a "Fixer of Everything" name plaque for my desk, a work notebook that had "All the Things I was Right About" printed on the cover, a mousepad with a dumpster-fire on it that said, "Everything's Fine" ... I loved it because they were amusing gifts that said, "Hey, I see you."
The same goes for people who put thought into where the gifts come from. "I know you're really into D&D right now, so I bought you this sourcebook that seemed cool." Or, "You always talk about how into Formula 1 racing, so I got you a gift certificate to a racing simulator." Even if it's something that isn't a perfect match to what I would want for myself, the fact that someone put thought into it makes it special.
At the other end of the spectrum are gifts that don't have any thought put into them. My wife's family is famous for this, where their love language is gift-giving, but it's not so much what the gift is, as much as it is the fact that a gift was given. A few of the family members will literally go to the bargain shelves at a bookstore or order a bunch of stuff of the Amazon "lightning deals" page without any other family member particularly in mind, and then wrap everything up and you get what you get. For them, it's more important that you, say, have a gift to unwrap under the Christmas tree, than it is ensuring that the book they got you is an author you actually care to read.
Those are the kinds of gifts that I really struggle with, because I don't like material things cluttering up my space, and if it's not something I specifically want, it will probably go unused and just collect dust on a shelf until I'm doing a decluttering one day and realize that I have a perfectly good decorative salad bowl that I've never even opened the box to, that will be going out in the next run to the Goodwill donation center.
Overall, I've never really been big on gifts. It's probably my least important of the five love languages. I can certainly appreciate a good gift when it's given, but overall things just aren't a huge priority for me.
|
September 27, 2025 at 3:42pm September 27, 2025 at 3:42pm
| |
Prompt #F6: Genre in Miniature. Capture an entire genre in 500 words or less (think âthe worldâs smallest epicâ or âa haiku-length westernâ). (Genre)
Intertwined bodies interact in interchangeable circumstances, authors pairing off perverts for the purpose of provocativeness. Sometimes, it's a naive young thing matched up with a billionaire; other times, it's a naive young thing matched up with a celebrity. Or a professional athlete. Or a successful businessperson who's had great success at business things, but whose true talent surfaces between the sheets.
Regardless of the particulars, praise be to the genre that never fails to find new and inventive ways to depict two (or more!) people (or non-humans!) to bone.
first comes the meet-cute,
then a dollop of story,
and then the fucking.
|
September 27, 2025 at 11:29am September 27, 2025 at 11:29am
| |
Day 3956: On this day in 1954, Late night talk show "The Tonight Show," hosted by Steve Allen, premieres on NBC-TV. Steve Allen, is credited with pioneering many elements of the modern late-night talk show format., The program has been hosted by six comedians: Steve Allen (1954â1957), Jack Paar (1957â1962), Johnny Carson (1962â1992), Jay Leno (1992â2009 and 2010â2014), Conan O'Brien (2009â2010), and Jimmy Fallon (2014âpresent). Did you know The Tonight Show is the world's longest-running talk show and the longest-running regularly scheduled entertainment program in the United States? Are you a fan of late-night talk shows? Which of the six hosts did you watch from the Tonight Show?
I grew up in the Jay Leno era of The Tonight Show (his first time around). I stuck around for Conan's short stint, and then stopped watching late night programs with any regularity after Leno took over again for the second time.
I've watched quite a few episodes of Fallon's version of the show over the years, usually when there's a guest on that I particularly want to watch or, more likely, when there's an especially good monologue or bit that I'll watch on YouTube. I liked his "Slow Jam the News" sketch, and loved his "Classroom Instruments" sketch where they perform hit songs using grade-school instruments like the kazoo, recorder, etc., and "Lip Sync Battle" was amazing before it was spun off into its own show.
Late night shows are something that I really respect as an art form, but I don't really pay that much attention to myself. I think it's a great place for comedy writers to get their start, somewhere that can really do a lot of social commentary on the stories of the day, and which is fun and entertaining to watch. That said, the sheer number of late night programs and the tendency to have the same format (monologue, interview, musical guest, a couple of special segments sprinkled in) kind of burned me out after watching so many episodes growing up, so it's not something that I go out of my way to watch regularly anymore.
Ironically, the host that turned me off of late night shows was Jay Leno during his second time hosting The Tonight Show. Part of it was the perceptions around Conan getting kicked off the show (although I don't think Leno was ever definitively proved to be involved in those decisions; it just seemed like it since he was the direct beneficiary of those decisions).
Also, when I first started watching late night shows, I got the sense that a little light roasting of people in the news (celebrities, politicians, etc.) was just the "format" that the shows used. And I'm certainly someone who can appreciate a risqué or off-color joke, but I just found Leno's brand of humor to be particularly sexist and mean-spirited toward certain people, often grasping at the lowest-hanging fruit in an effort to get a quick laugh.
Even other comedians commented on it, like when Patton Oswalt was quoted as saying, "Comedians who don't like Jay Leno now, and I'm one of them, we're not like, 'Jay Leno sucks' ... it's that we're so hurt and disappointed that one of the best comedians of our generation willfully has shut the switch off."
I do think that the late night space is fascinating, and there's a ton of history in it, especially in who's hosted over the years, which shows have competed for audiences against one another, etc. And the current HBO comedy Hacks does a great job of making stand-up comedy, and late night show-hosting a central element of its overall story, which has rekindled my affection for the format.
|
September 25, 2025 at 5:16pm September 25, 2025 at 5:16pm
| |
Day 3954: On this day in 1928, Chicagoâs new Galvin Manufacturing Corporation is officially incorporated. In 1930, Galvin would introduce the Motorola radio, the first mass-produced commercial car radio. (The name had two parts: âmotorâ evoked cars and motion, while âolaâ derived from âVictrolaâ and was supposed to make people think of music.) Did you know car radios had been around this long? What year was your first car? Did you listen to the radio when you're driving or did you prefer silence? How about now music or silence?
I didn't know that car radios had been around since the 1930s, although I'll admit that I've never really given it all that much thought because radio was just always present when I was growing up. My first car was a 1990 Jeep Cherokee Laredo that I bought from my parents (it was my mom's car for years before that, and when I got my driver's license, she sold me her car and bought a new one for herself), but even before then, radio was a constant in the car as I was growing up. We'd always listen to the radio in the morning on the way to school (in the days of drive-time radio morning shows mixed with music), and is probably why I have a lot of affection for certain types of music like oldies from the 50s and 60s, classic rock from the 70s and 80s, and adult contemporary/easy listening from the early 90s.
I still listen to a lot of music while I'm in the car, although I've upgraded from the radio to Spotify and Apple Music mostly to avoid the commercials and have greater variety in my music choices. But I also listen to a lot of podcasts and audiobooks for long drives, like my commute. I probably listen to more of those in the car than I do music these days; music is something I listen to more when I work or when I'm excercising; or when I'm driving while really tired and need something to keep me awake more than just people talking.
I very rarely drive in silence, although I'm trying to do that more often. I've been thinking a lot about how much of my time is occupied with noise (podcasts, music, conversations, viewing, etc.) and how little time I spend these days just alone with my own thoughts. So every once in a while, I will turn off the stereo in the car, or go for a walk without my earbuds just to experience a world where I can be present and not have my attention divided in multiple directions.
 
Prompt for September 25, 2025: Should Christians recycle goods or trash?
I honestly can't imagine a theology that would make a cohesive case for Christians not recycling or caring about trashing the planet. Sure, maybe there's nuances to be debated with specific programs and policies (like, whether Christians are obligated to use paper straws, or whether you're going to Hell if you put those plastic milk cartons in the trash rather than the recycling bin at home), but by and large, being a well-intentioned steward of the planet, at least to me, falls firmly within the Christian tenets of putting other people first, selflessness, etc. I would imagine that the kind of person who thinks, "I don't need to care about the quality of the planet for other people because one day I'll leave it and be up in heaven" are probably the kind of people whose vantage point of Earth from the afterlife won't be one where they're looking down from on high.
|
September 25, 2025 at 3:07pm September 25, 2025 at 3:07pm
| |
Prompt #38: Have you ever written or called one of your government representatives? If so, who was it and what did you say? If not, what issue or concern would make you reach out to them?
For the past ten-plus years, I've lived in a very purple district of Orange County, California, which has had both Republican and Democratic representation in Congress over the past several elections. In some ways, that's really stressful because every election is very close and very stressful. But in other ways, it's genuinely nice to be in a part of the country where our elected representatives have to stand on their own because it's not a given that the Republican or Democratic candidate will automatically win, and the primaries are therefore an exercise in moderation, not trying to pander to one party's base or another.
I tend to pay relatively close attention to what my representatives do while they're in office. I don't obsessively follow their entire voting record and schedule or anything, but I subscribe to their campaign mailing lists and office newsletters, I look for news items where my representative is listed, I check their official social channels and website for policy positions and formal statements about their stance on certain issues, etc.
For the past few election cycles, I've been relieved to have an elected official that aligns relatively closely with own values and policy positions. Not perfectly, of course, but I've had to be less concerned with how they're going to vote than in previous years when I've had a representative that I fundamentally disagreed on most issues.
When I agree with my representative, I tend to not feel the need to call or write just to voice my support for the same thing they already support. When I disagree with my representative, that's when I call or write, to let them know that not everyone in their district agrees with the votes they've taken, the positions they have, or even the issues that they personally find important.
Living in a relatively affluent area of Orange County, we get a lot of elected representatives that are pressured by affluent residents or special interests for unusually specific and (in my opinion, frivolous) issues. Things like the "air traffic noise" from the local airport flight paths over the million dollar homes on the coast. Or trying to restrict the public from beach access in certain places. Or finding additional loopholes to reduce taxes for those who are wealthy enough to take advantage of it.
And I accept that there's a certain amount of that nonsense that our representatives have to put up with (rich people are still also their constituents after all), but I tend to get frustrated when it feels like my representatives are spending all their time focusing on that stuff over working for the less-affluent constituents who live a little farther away from the beach. So that's when I'll tend to write to my representatives as well, as a reminder that not everyone in their district has a multimillion-dollar beach house or owns a successful business. Some of us are just regular families trying to get by and care less about stopping homeless people from sleeping on the beach than we do about affordable groceries or access to a quality public school option.
At the end of the day, I view civic engagement as a responsibility that we all have as residents of a particular area, and while that includes voting at the very least (for those who are eligible to do so), it also includes making sure that the person you send to the legislature — or the county board of supervisors, or the municipal water district, or whatever it is that you're passionate about — actually represents your interests while they're there. There's no point in voting if it's not an informed decision, and there are few better things to inform your decision than what the incumbent has already done in office with their time there.
Which, ideally, should reflect the values of the people they represent. Which they have no way of knowing if you never reach out and tell them what you think. So don't be shy about contacting your representatives if you have something to say!
|
© Copyright 2025 Jeff-o'-lantern đ (UN: jeff at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Jeff-o'-lantern đ has granted InkSpot.Com, its affiliates and its syndicates non-exclusive rights to display this work.
|
Comment • View 4 comments 
