The film’s award-winning co-director, Brenda Chapman spoke out against the new “sexy” and “sparkly” Merida. She told Marin Independent Journal that ”There is an irresponsibility to this decision that is appalling for women and young girls…Disney marketing and the powers that be that allow them to do such things should be ashamed of themselves.”

A petition was formed at change.org. Angry fans are outraged by the not-so-subtle changes in Merida’s visual appearance.  Her costume now has an off-the-shoulder, low-cut neckline and a tight-fitting curvy bodice. Her newly sculpted face have cat-like eyes with accented upper lids and higher cheek-bones.

Is this a problem?  Not really

Sure, the Disney Princess machine has accentuated the sexuality of a character who really didn’t need it visually or otherwise. Brave’s narrative and Merida’s character reject gender conformity. Merida isn’t a typical Princess. She rips off her head gear and refuses to marry. The new girlie Merida undermines the movie’s basic theme.

However, Disney has redesigned all its princesses and has been doing it this for decades. It is nothing new. Look at Cinderella in the original movie from 1950.

Disney’s Cinderella 1950

Now look at her on the Disney site today:

Look at Belle in Beauty and the Beast (1992)

Still from Disney’s Beauty and the Beast (1992)

Look at Belle now:

From Disney.com

Right from the beginning, Disney Princesses are imagined as the images of “ideal” beauty – a concept borrowed from the old fairy tale narrative itself.  At the point in time when each movie was made, the concept of ideal beauty was different. Therefore, each Princess was originally designed differently.

By the time Disney left the fairy tale genre, this Princess character motif was an ingrained in the Disney Princess formula.  Even those female “princesses” who are external to the traditional fairy tale found themselves created under the same standard. Borrowing from my personal study on Disney Princesses:

Esquire voted Pocahontas, “an original American Princess,” one of the top “Women we love” in August 1995 (Rudnick, 67).  Although the article is tongue-in-cheek, Paul Rudnick describes her as “lusciously sexual” and writes, “she is a Bond girl, a forthright little greenpiece seeking racial justice”(67).

From Disney’s Pochahontas (1995)

Each original princess is a time capsule of sorts. She demonstrates what typified “ideal” beauty to the American mainstream audience at a specific point in time.  In order to keep marketing the princesses, Disney must re-invent them to reflect trends in beauty. It is similar to the re-invention of Mickey Mouse overtime. The product needs to be fresh and culturally relevant

Disney relies on these characters’ marketability. Disney needs little girls to want to be these characters. It is part of the storytelling process. It is a part of the marketing process. It is a part of our culture (for better or worse.) It is true that the princesses are very distilled, hyper-realized visual icons of femininity but they do have a place within our greater cultural text.

If this is normal Disney behavior, why has there been such outrage with Merida? Why don’t we protest the accentuated sexuality and sparkle of the other princesses?  Merida is too young a character. She didn’t need a full make-over yet. She was relevant as she was. As Disney has admitted, they reimagined her in order to remove her Pixar-look and impose the Princess Collection standards. She had to fit-in.

In theory, I don’t mind that work. I love watching the visual evolution of these Disney creations. It’s great cultural fodder. However, Merida’s change was abrupt and contradicts her narrative purpose. Disney could have been more careful.

Other than that, it is time to move on and take the cultural battle somewhere else…

From Disney.com

The post Merida Reinvented appeared first on Miraselena.

Anne makes a good point and one that I advise myself. Evaluate your reaction before taking action. In many of these difficult situations, we have a natural and understandably strong emotional reaction. It may be anger, moral outrage, indignation or the desire to fight and get even. This is very human.

But… and this is a big BUT….the emotional reaction cannot define a public action. Calculated and thoughtful responses are needed in almost all cases. While the emotional response undoubtedly feels satisfying, such a response can cause more damage than good.  It can attract unwanted media attention.  It might generate a legal battle that could have been easily avoided.

Moreover, emotional responses are often disproportionate to the original offense leading to what Anne calls “touchy nerve syndrome.”  Sometimes sh*$% happens and you just need to walk away, punch a pillow, vent to a confidant etc. Or do what I do… drink a glass of wine and sing along to “Do you Hear the People Sing?” from Les Miserables (the Original London Cast.)

Admittedly, sometimes the decision on whether to act or not-to-act is tough.  And sometimes the “how-to-act” is even harder.

Getting back to the editorial, Anne did suggest that our community overreacted to the Fox News’ “trollish shenanigans.” She notes that Pagan media pundits failed to highlight the positive points of the story with the exception of Covenant of the Goddess’ media statement. Ironically, I’m both The Wild Hunt writer who failed to focus on the positive and the CoG Public Information Officer who wrote media statement that publicly thanked Mizzou.  I’m not sure where that leaves me in all this….

Incidentally, I also wrote the Lady Liberty League article, published in the current issue of Circle Magazine, that reviews the entire two-week engagement with Fox.  Did we, as Anne suggest, overact?  No. Fox needed “corrective feedback” and the world needed to see that we do exist in force.  Most Pagan organizations did respond appropriately. However, I do agree that there were some individual reactions on social media that were a bit over-the-top. That can’t be controlled. With the internet’s wild and wide availability, these very public over-reactions, good or bad, are going to happen (in every community.)

Anne, nor I, are suggesting that we stand-by and let our rights be trampled. We just need to get a little better at evaluating our reactions before taking public action. In addition, we need to spend as much energy in celebrating the forward strides, no matter how small, as in fighting those nasty steps backward.  This is sage advice – something to which I personally adhere and also advocate within my own work – time and time again.

The post Evaluating our Response within the Pagan Community appeared first on Miraselena.

(Adapted from the Crash Davis monologue, Bull Durham 1988)

The post If Crash Davis was Pagan…. appeared first on Miraselena.

What is my theology? To start, I need to focus on the words “God” or “Goddess.” These terms are at the center of Teo’s post but they have never played a big role in my personal practice. Growing up “none” has made many iconic religious terms (like God, Prayer, Faith etc) foreign and very difficult for me to digest.  While I understand them on an intellectual level, I don’t typically use them to describe my experience.

As a practicing Wiccan Priestess, I have learned to adapt to these words in order to create and function within a group sacred space. Additionally, I do honor the concepts of deity in my own way. They come through in the natural rhythms of life and its seasonal celebrations and all of the found beauty within nature.

However, I do prefer the word spirit. I prefer the word energy.  In my understanding, the universe is made up of pure energy, pure light and pure spirit – all of which manifests into many things and everything.  I ground my practice in the elementals – Earth, Fire, Water, Air – and their manifestations.  I focus on the Sun and Moon; the trees, the mountains, the oceans and stars. Through these natural and concrete manifestations of spirit, I find my connection to the beyond.

~Magickal Graphics~

Ever since, I have been a practicing Wiccan. Of course, that practice itself has evolved. It is now a combination of the Phoenix Wiccan tradition and my deep connection with the elemental world.

I am guided by the ethics of the Wiccan way and a deep sense of personal responsibility. Yet at the very heart of my theology is still that wondrous universal spirit  that allows each of us to manifest a life of our choosing.

My belief centers on personal empowerment, comfort in connection, exploration into the mysteries, and the beauty of the here-and-now.  I am tasked daily with the evaluation and understanding that everyone I meet, even the animals, are just trying to make their own way. I seek to understand and to learn. I consciously experience that magickal energy in everything that I do.  And I strive  to give something back, daily or over a lifetime, from that beauty that I have witnessed. Life has become my Pagan ritual.

That is my theology.

How do I stay focused and grounded without becoming lost in the drudgery? I use music, dance, art, philosophy, writing, gardening and a connection to community.  Every day, I wake up and remind myself that this life is beautiful – Make the day count!  

Own your life!   

(Oh and one more thing… I laugh a whole lot!)

The post My Pagan Theology appeared first on Miraselena.

Let me be clear. I’m not a sailor. I like stable ground. But I do love the ocean and its creatures. I have been known to camp out in front of shark week and have had a season passes to the Georgia Aquarium in Atlanta since its opening. On one Florida vacation, I became enraged with a large group of beach-goers who were poking and prodding a dying sea turtle.  ”Leave it along and let it go back to the ocean and die in peace.That is where it belongs,” I screamed.  Then I stomped off with tears in my eyes.

For me the ocean is a place of the unknown.  It is filled with danger and beauty. When you walk into the ocean, you can’t see what is happening beneath you.  Do you enter that world?  It’s the mystery that is alluring. Is the fin a shark or a dolphin?

Instead of talking about the negative effects that we have (including the Sonar issues that prompted this post), I’d like to focus on one man’s positive activist work in the name of ocean conservation.

In 2004, I was introduced to the work of Wyland, an environmental artist. Born in 1956, he grew up loving the oceans and was inspired by the famous Jacques Cousteau.  Due to his own physical ailments, he was unable to swim. To satisfy his love of water, he began using his artistic talents to depict life under the seas.  Eventually he overcame his condition and turned his hobby into a cause.

In 1981, Wyland began painting enormous ocean murals to raise awareness for Ocean Conservation.  There have been 100 “Whaling Walls” decorating buildings throughout the world. The first one was done in Laguna Beach, California. The 100th one was done on canvas during the Beijing Olympics in 2008. That fall it was displayed on the Washington D.C. Mall. Not all the murals still exist but many do. Is there one near you? 

Cleveland Ohio #75

In 1993, Wyland established the Wyland Foundation for Ocean Conservation. It’s mission is “to promote, protect, and preserve the world’s oceans, waterways, and marine life. The foundation encourages environmental awareness through education programs, life-size public arts projects, and community events.”  Wyland has also hosted related T.V. shows, sponsored children’s educational programs and been honored as one of the foremost environmental artists of our time.

I was astounded to find a Whaling Wall in my own city. I had seen it many times but never once thought it more than just a commissioned piece. The Atlanta Mural is in downtown but Underground Atlanta.

Atlanta #50

Wyland had a great idea. One of the ways to get people to pay attention to important causes is to them involved and make the cause part of the community. An easy way to do this is through artistic expression.  Art can be a very powerful tool. In 2004 I asked a local elementary school to sponsor a Whaling Wall. It was to be painted by the children and displayed in the building.  That spring It was done. The children of Summit Hill Elementary School painted three beautiful ocean canvases that now hang in different locations throughout the school.

Shortly after I had the unique opportunity to swim with dolphins and learn more about their amazing world. That only reinforced my connection to these creatures.  I will continue to speak for the oceans, eat seafood responsibly and support programs and ideas like Wyland’s Art for the Oceans.

What can we do? Think globally but act locally. Our local waterways (rivers, streams etc) lead to the oceans…don’t pollute. Contribute to watershed education projects and cleanup. Teach children about ocean conservation through a language they understand – art.  It works!  Donate to research organizations and activist work. Write regularly to local government about the problems with Sonar and other eco-damaging program.

Finally, create for the love the ocean…in all of its mysteries.  I’d love to see some of your Ocean Art… contact me and I’ll post it.

The post Art for the Ocean Conservation appeared first on Miraselena.

For me this is not about love. For me this is about our Constitutionally-provided civil rights and freedoms, pure and simple.

Every citizen in our country is offered equal treatment under the law.  Amendment #14 states:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Let’s read that again.  ”….or DENY to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…”

Married couples can take advantage of a variety of fiscal and legal benefits. Married couples can hold legal domain over each other and each others holdings. As such, these federal and state benefits should not be denied to any person within [U.S.] jurisdiction. However, they are. Why? Because our “one nation under God,” has defined marriage as the union between a man and woman.

Where did it get this definition?  Religion.  Although not expressly stated, this traditional definition is implied in the Bible and has been restated ad nauseum by its adherents.

Now, let’s look at Amendment #1 states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

If SCOTUS is using the Bible as the key to defining marriage, than it would stand to reason that our government is “respecting an establishment of religion.”  In order to uphold the Constitution, our “one nation” needs to redefine “marriage” using a secular source.  The courts might have to consult a variety of sources to create a suitable, contemporary definition.

How does Webster’s, a  traditional dictionary, define marriage?  

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

It distinguishes between the two types of marriages but, ultimately, includes both. Most of the online dictionaries either follow Webster’s lead or use the more traditional Biblical definition. Now, here’s one from Psychology Today, “Marriage is the process by which two people who love each other make their relationship public, official, and permanent.”  I like this definition.

As we all know, society changes. Our forefathers knew that as well. They created a governmental system that could evolve with change. And, times certainly have changed. Now, our nation’s definition of marriage must be reconsidered in order to uphold our country’s most sacred and secular of texts: The Constitution.  The vast majority of LGBT community members are taxpaying citizens who are within the jurisdiction of the U.S. and should be granted “the equal protection of the laws.”

This is not about love. Love doesn’t need the government or a church blessing. Love grows and endures regardless of all surroundings. Love is not at stake. Nor is religion at stake. Nobody is forcing churches or temples to perform LGBT marriages. That would be illegal. If a particular community feels that same-sex marriage is a sin, that belief won’t change because LGBT couples can check spouse on their tax forms.  Think about it.  Alcohol consumption is considered a sin and nobody is complaining about its legal use … anymore.  Don’t drink alcohol and don’t perform LGBT marriages.

The legalization of same-sex marriage will have no effect on anyone’s life – except those in that community.  And that change will be monumentally positive.

This is a civil rights issue whose time has come.

Photo Credits:
“LGBT Love” from So So Gay

The post Equal Rights for All or So Says the Constitution appeared first on Miraselena.

What does this mean “living in a bubble?” The idea brings such negative connotations to mind that I become claustrophobic just thinking about it.  Excuse me while I step outside to get some fresh air. Pop!

Now that I’m back, I will bravely engage in this conversation. So, what is this bubble?  For me, “living inside a bubble” has always meant confinement and limitation.  The bubble is a constraint created by the self or by others. I have no love for shackles of any kind – even in a pretty bubble form.

“Nobody puts Baby in a corner.”  Where is Patrick Swayze when you need him?

In my mind, the bubble creates a homogeneous lifestyle with no challenges or excitement. Each day is the same. There is a cap on what you can do and where you can go. I’m getting a rash just thinking about the very idea.

But can bubbles, as I have defined, play positive roles in our lives?  A long time ago, I wrote the following as it relates to the female experience. It was originally written in French:

Il ya plus de deux cents ans, Les femmes habitaient dans de grandes bulles – chaque femme dans sa proper bulle….Le monde de la femme restait dans la bulle et, donc, son esprit et sa puissance étaient complètement interne.   C’est-à-dire que les femmes n’avaient pas besoin d’autres pour survivre.  Elles étaient protegées dans les bulles.  Elles étaient très forte.

[Over two centuries ago, Women lived in large bubbles, each woman in her own bubble. The feminine world existed within that bubble therefore her spirit and power were derived internally.  As such, women did not need others to survive.  They were protected by their bubble and strengthened by it.]

Please understand that my contemplation was embedded inside of pseudo-folklore. I went through a “feminist-French-folklore” writing phase. (Don’t knock it until you try it!)

Extrapolating meaning from this old text, the bubble here is defined as a natural protector and a provider of security. It nurtures the growth of personal strength and spirit. As such the bubble can be a positive place for those who need time to focus on self-growth. Kids need bubbles, for example, as would the elderly and perhaps the mentally challenged. Bubbles are also good for meditation and healing.

In the case of communities, a bubble can allow members the opportunity to focus on nurturing tradition, challenging thought and promoting pride. Think of the Amish or the Hasidic Jewish community.  As far as we are concerned, Pagans can certainly benefit from this type of inward engagement but I’m not convinced that we exist in this sort of bubble.

Does the presence of a strong sub-culture equate to a bubble?  Are we restricted in anyway or protected from the outside world?

One of Teo’s post “commentors” accused the Jewish community of living in a bubble for years.  Yes, Judaism can be exclusionary.  Its culture teaches the importance of tradition with a marked distinction between Jewish and non-Jewish. However, the culture also teaches assimilation, education, political awareness and acceptance of global society. This is not a bubble. The sub-culture is strong and self-perpetuating but maintains an adaptive presence in its particular society.   American Jews are very different than Israeli Jews.

While bubbles can offer this notable protection, security comes at a price. A bubble implies that you are cut off from the rest of reality. This is what makes me itch. Back to the old text:

“Parce que les femmes habitaient dans une bulle, les homes pouvaient les mettre ou ils voulaient; quand ils voulaient.  Il est difficile de courir quand on habite dans une bulle.   Deuxiement, quelquefois  les femmes se sentaient isolees.  Si les homes les regardaient, ells seraient mieux.”

[Because women lived in bubbles, men were able to put them wherever they wanted; when they wanted.  It is tough to run away when you live in a bubble.  Additionally, sometimes women felt isolated.  If men looked at them, they would be better.]

More feminism.  Let’s extrapolate…

A bubble creates isolation and stagnation. When you live inside a bubble, you can feel impervious to external events and as a result fall victim to predators.  You can’t run away if you have created walls. And if you do manage to get out, how do you survive in the big, bad world?

There are affluent suburban communities that are terrible bubbles.  I’ve personally seen the repercussions.  Think of the Stepford Wives.  Each McMansion is virtually the same with parents making well into the six-digits. The communities are safe, the schools are well-funded and the kids all get a new Honda at sixteen. Now that’s a bubble! Funny enough, Madeleine Levine did a study on such communities and found teen drug abuse to be as prevalent there as in lower income neighborhoods.   Apparently the pressure of “privilege” can be as devastating as the pressure of poverty.

For me stagnation is far more frightening that anything else. My grandmother encapsulated herself in a bubble circa 1979. Time left her behind and her avocado refrigerator gave that away. Maybe that will happen to all of us at some point?  I hope not.

I understand that bubbles exist and that sometimes the confinement welcome. Bubbles create safe space that would be useful, for example, in mourning and in magical practice even. However, I personally have never done very well for very long with definitive these type of definite limitations. There is a big bad world out there and I am just too curious to waste my time stuck in one place. I choose to defy the bubble! I spit in its general direction!

Generally speaking, I don’t believe we have a Pagan bubble.  What we have is a strong sub-culture that allows us to freely express and enjoy like-minds and spirits in common space.

However, if a bubble forms, y’all can have fun with that.  I’m going stand outside and party like its 1999 2099.

Photo Credits:

“Bubbles” By Steve Jurvetson (Bubble Rain) [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
“Jewish Star” Courtesy of Alex Proimos at Fotopedia.com

The post Common Space versus the Bubble appeared first on Miraselena.

Oz is an unbalanced film that spends an inordinate amount of time flexing its CGI muscles and not enough time telling its story. The film’s photography is indeed spectacular including the computer generated images, the cinematography, the clever referential use of black-and-white photography and the entire artistic imagining of Oz.  However, like a spoiled pageant queen, the film knows it’s beautiful. How many minutes did we spend floating in bubbles, spinning in balloons and walking on paths while the narrative nearly stops to allow us to gawk at what a super fine job the cinematographers have done? It was 3-D movie adventure ride first and a visual narrative story second.

The film skims along the plot without letting the audience savor dramatic intensity or dynamics. It shows us the story. It doesn’t tell us the story. For example, the river fairies are completely irrelevant to the story. Oz knew he wasn’t “in Kansas anymore.”  The important Theodora-Oz exchange is overshadowed by the vivid photography. We pay more to her bright red jacked and lips than inter-character dynamics.  As a result, I didn’t believe  Theodora’s obsession. On the other hand, maybe the film’s discomfort with depth was meant to mirror Oz’s own superficiality? If so, this was done at the risk of entertainment.

The acting didn’t help. Rachael Wiesz (Evanora) lacked the bitter intensity that would have simultaneously attracted and repelled a viewer. When she unleashes electricity from her hands, it seems more like a parlor trick than the weapon of an truly evil witch.  Perhaps she needs a few more lessons from the Sith School of Darkness.

After her transformation, Mila Kunis (Theodora) does display that deep bitter anger. But the quality of her voice with its gritty, strained school-girl whine upstaged those emotions. At times, it felt like the cast of “That Seventies Show” was playing “Wizard of Oz.”  Additionally, her green face looked oddly swollen almost like a Henson Muppet.

Fortunately, the film’s powerful visuals save the Wicked Witch of the West’s reputation. I loved the use of shadow as Theodora first rises in her new form (which is later repeated in the village.) This was the ultimate homage to the original classic. I wanted to cackle myself.  At that very moment, we all knew who Theodora had become.  Moreover, Disney did a great job on her promotional poster as well. If only the characters were as well-conceived as their imagery.

The other actors, including the pre-green Theodora, were adequate enough. My favorite character was the adorable well-conceived CGI China Doll. Unfortunately, she is just a nifty plot device and a tribute to L. Frank Baum.

Now, those are the reason why I didn’t like the film.  However, interestingly enough, within that emaciated narrative, Oz does manage to squeak out some underlying conservative, almost misogynistic, themes.  One would think that these patriarchal-based pentimenti might have come from the original Baum stories. But they don’t.  In The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (1900) Baum appears to celebrate the internal power of women through Dorothy and her silver slippers.  At the end of the story, both Dorothy and witches prove to have more power than the Wizard.

However, Oz uses a more typical Hollywood patriarchal construction that juxtaposes the good woman with an evil woman through their relationship to a man.  ”Glinda the Good” (Michelle Williams) derives her powers only through her father and Oz. Taking that one step further, Glinda can only perform magic through a wand – a classic phallic symbol.  As noted by Evanora, if that wand is broken, she loses her power. In this world, a “good” woman is powerful only when contained within the patriarchy.

As for the bad girls, they are also waiting for Oz. However, they want to kill him to ensure their own power.  As expected, they are marked by dark dramatic clothing, dark hair and, albeit moderate, sexuality. Theodora’s inner rage turns her green, literally, with envy. In her new form, she no longer needs or wants the love of a man.  She is now evil.  As opposed to Glinda, these two witches wield magical power from their own body as electricity and fire balls. They do not need  a wand. They do not need a phallus.  They do not need a man.

The film is punctuated with Christian theological symbols and thematic constructions. Oz’s journey could be one of redemption with the Land of Oz is the gateway to Heaven. He must face his ethics to prove himself righteous enough to live forever in the Emerald City. The movie’s journey tests morality through friendship (monkey), the care for a children (the China Doll), the need for true love (Glinda) and the sacrifice of one’s own goals for the common good (the Wizard). In this configuration, the blonde haired Glinda, adorned in pure white and glitter makeup, plays the role of an angel who leads Oz to goodness. It is not surprising that she floats in bubbles and produces white puffy clouds.

There are several other similar allegorical constructions. Oz could be a Jesus figure who is the prophesized savior.  Through death and resurrection, he achieves his glorious position above the throne in the Kingdom.  The film’s narrative envisions Elenora as a devil character. She uses seduction, glamoury and magic to achieve her goals. When her innocent sister is pained with jealousy, she tempts the child to evil with a poison apple – the forbidden fruit. In eating the fruit, Theodora is cast out of goodness into evil and transformed into a beast.

Like all of those other eager ticket holders, my love for the Wizard of Oz (1939) is what sent me to the theater and is also what pulled me through the movie itself. I wanted to see how this movie reconciled its ending with the start of the next one. The references to the old film were abundant and amusing.  But, overall, the movie is disappointing.  It is beautiful but lacks the charm and dynamic power of the 1939 classic that still reigns as one of the best Hollywood films ever made.

The post Review: Oz the Great and Powerful appeared first on Miraselena.

I’m not looking for sympathy while a lone violin plays in the pit. My writing gets plenty of attention in other forums (The Wild Hunt, Circle Magazine) or through my publicity work both Pagan and mundane.

In 2006, I ran a moderately successful blog in the parenting world.  At that time, I was on a mission to build a mommy-following. It was an age when blogging was still new and shiny. On average, I posted 3-4 times a week with humorous, yet thought-provoking, anecdotes about life with kids.  That was fun…for awhile.

I eventually lost the need to talk about my kids.  Since I was responsible for these little people 24-7, I really didn’t want to spend my oh-so precious “alone-time” talking about them.  So I archived that portion of my writer’s life and moved on. (To be fair, they can do some funny things that made great blog fodder.)

Now I blog here to an empty auditorium.  I do little to no self-publicizing with the aim of building a sustainable readership.  Why? Frankly, I am too busy with other projects to worry about this blog’s identity-crisis. I have a public (and a job) waiting elsewhere.

So why do I bother even writing here at all? Because I have to. I am writer and I’m always writing.  Even when I’m not writing, I’m writing.  In other words, in my head, I’m always writing.  Confused?  So am I.  That’s why I have to write.

If I look as if I’m staring into space, I’m probably writing the great American novel.  Or maybe, it’s a strategic media release for Covenant of the Goddess.  Or, maybe I’m just crafting an email that politely tells someone where they can stick it.  In any case, I’m always writing.

So here in this empty hall with my microphone in hand, I type away to release the words and thoughts from the prison that is my brain. Doing this makes room for new ideas and new writings.  This blog, then, is my dumping ground.  It really doesn’t matter whether it is read by anyone.  And, really there is a certain artistic freedom in knowing there is no audience expectation.

Write like nobody is watching ….

So I write because I have to. I will always write. And if my work makes a difference in just one person’s life for the better, I will have fulfilled my purpose as an artist.   The rest is just gravy.

Photo credits
Empty Theater by Flickr’s zokah_921

The post Why Write? appeared first on Miraselena.

Often we talk about our human duty to give through political activism, campaigning for the environment, donating to charity, championing one cause or another with blood, sweat and tears. No doubt, most of these projects are worthy.

However, it is easy to get lost in the sheer magnitude of most global ventures. I sometime ask, “Is my money really helping?”  ”Did my time actually affect any type of change?” I would guess that I’m not alone. Often charity goals are so big that they are out of sight or can’t be realized in one lifetime. Activists often burn-out when there are no signs of progress.  Donors stop giving and move on, putting their funds in new projects.

I believe that humans do want to help. However, there must be a return on investment; some emotional pay-off.  That sounds awful but its true.  We want to know that we are helping.  We want that warm and fuzzy feeling that you get when you “do good.” That’s a psychological return on the investment. It feeds hope, lightens the spirit and gives us the incentive to continue the volunteer work.  If the payoff never happens, the hope for change can die and most people will move on.

While I was in Target, an older man, in his seventies, was preparing for his work shift.  He saw me waiting at the Starbucks counter. He stopped stacking boxes to ask if I needed assistance. When I told him that I was just waiting on the barista, he went to find her.  At the end of my shopping trip, I saw this man again. He was smiling and pushing buggies around.  When he saw that I had a lot of bags, he came over and took my buggy.  Because of his small gesture, I didn’t have to walk clear across the store to my car with loads of heavy bags.

After telling him “Thank You,” I began to think about small gestures.  This stranger made my life easier.  He had a positive impact on my life. Was his act of charity any less impactful than my donation to the Red Cross; than my writing of press releases to defend religious freedom?

Small gestures can mean a whole lot in someone’s life. They can lead to big change; if not in a global way, in a personal way – both for the giver and the recipient.  When you perform a small gesture, whether it be a hug or hand, you have the immediate gratification of knowing that your spirit touched another.  You make an immediate difference in a life.  And, who knows?  Maybe a compliment can give someone the courage to apply for new job, embark on a trip or just make it through a really tough day.  That’s impactful on both ends.

The result of small gesture can be as big or bigger than any act of charity. Last Thanksgiving, I participated in a Church-funded food bank. We passed out hot meals, in truck loads, to depressed communities in South Carolina. The overall operation was quite big.  But the gesture of handing a tray of piping-hot food was small.  As I handed the food trays out and said “Happy Thanksgiving,” I could feel positive energy weaving through space.   This small gesture was big for each family; affecting just that day or maybe their lives.

Small gestures provide the warm fuzzy feeling that only comes when you know that your work and your human spirit of love has really touched another; has really made a difference.  Big time activism is good but not always feasible or long-lasting. We can lose the hope and miss the fuzzy feeling.

Therefore, it is important to emphasize the small gestures, the daily acts of kindness.  Do one, two or three everyday. It will feed your soul and ground your energy.  Plus, if we all did that as part of practice, we might raise the positive vibrational level of the entire planet – and that’s really big.

Photo Credit:
Deviant Art User: dRixlr8t

The post The Importance of Small Gestures appeared first on Miraselena.