International Careers

Since I am about halfway through both of my majors, I feel pretty confident saying that I made the right choice in my studies. Other degrees still tempt me when I hear students discussing their projects, but it is always my math and German homework that hold my attention and spark my curiosity, even when I’m so frustrated I could throw my textbook across the room. Now that I am settled in my studies, so to speak, my thoughts have been turning to plans after college. The semesters flip by in a blink and I don’t want to be caught at the end of my senior year with no idea where I want to go and what I want to do.

In a way, the Global Engagement Fellowship has made my decision both easier and more difficult at the same time. My increasing language skills and experience with international cultures mean that I am not confined to working within the United States. Rather, I could work with international companies from anywhere in the world. Here is where the choice becomes more difficult. In the face of such diverse options, how can I begin even to consider them? If I decide to pursue a graduate degree, do I turn first to the U.S., Germany, or to another country entirely? Although my attention this time of year is almost fully devoted to my studies, these broader questions lingering in the back of my mind about the future will certainly receive plenty of attention this summer and this fall.

Well-Tread Paths

It's done - I've bought the tickets, made nearly all the plans. After two years, I'm coming back to Europe! Planning this trip has been special and difficult. I was fortunate enough to travel a good bit with family when I was young, but that also means that the meaning of travel has changed for me. I still enjoy the novelty of visiting a brand new place to explore, but I would now much rather go somewhere to see friends or family.

That, however, leaves me in a quandary - do I go somewhere new or rehash the same places with familiar faces? The former choice might be pricier, scarier, and disappointing - but it could also help me explore new places and therefore parts of myself. The latter choice is comfortable, predictable, and almost certainly cheaper - but the people I know have their own lives, and visiting someone's home during your vacation time can cause some strange disruptions and not meet expectations.

To get past this, I've been lucky enough to plan this trip to hit both points. One of my oldest friends lives in Holland but graciously invited me to tag along to her trip to the South of France. I'll be making a pitstop to visit old friends in Dublin, but will be slowing down along the way to explore more of England, the long lost home country that I never really got a chance to get to know. Hopefully somewhere in there I'll be seeing more of Holland itself and new places in Italy - again, to visit a friend. So, for the majority, I've found ways to combine new places with familiar faces - truly the best of both worlds.

Connections

As finals week quickly approaches, and with it the halfway mark of my college career, I am reminded of how much has changed in the past two years. During my first few semesters I met plenty of undergraduates, but the faculty seemed so mysterious and detached. My favorite part of college has been the people, hands down. OU has a broad student body pursuing such radically varied interests with great enthusiasm that the environment is unmatched in my experience. I fell in love with higher education my very first week here. Despite the papers and exams, the stress and the sleep-deprivation, this university is full of people learning, seeking to better themselves and to better the world. The man you bump into on the South Oval has worked with some of the greatest composers of the twentieth century, the woman you pass in the Union on your way to lunch speaks four languages, the man in line with you to get lunch is a professional ballet dancer, the woman next to you in class has just won a Fulbright. It’s both intimidating and incredibly inspiring.

Over the past two years, I’ve slowly been meeting more members of the faculty, particularly those within my major departments. Their complete mastery of the topics they are teaching makes me yearn to understand a subject in such depth. Although I will likely not pursue graduate school immediately after graduation, I highly suspect it to be in my future. There are so many fantastic schools filled with the brightest and most dedicated people, it would be a shame not to meet and learn from at least a few of them.

OK Teacher Walkout

On April 2nd, teachers from around the state of Oklahoma walked out of their classrooms and marched on the Oklahoma state capitol — protesting the last decade of cuts to education and demanding that Oklahoma legislatures provide adequate funding for public education, so as to allow teachers to give their students a quality education. The walkout has now continued for nearly two weeks, as tens of thousands of teachers return day after day to advocate for their students and for the future of our state.

I, too, have spent many days up at the capitol in support of educators in their endeavor and, initially, I wasn’t entirely sure as to why. After all, I haven’t been a student in the OK public school system for nearly 3 years now, I’m not a teacher, and I have no intention of becoming a teacher. It wasn’t until day 3 of the walkout during House session when Representative Scott Inman asked “Why are you here?”  to everyone sitting in the chamber’s gallery, that I really began to consider it. Was I just at the capitol to be a part of the hype — to be a part of the movement — or was I there for something more?

It was in that moment that I remembered something else that Representative Inman had said to me nearly four years ago, in the midst of a different education crisis, while I was paging in the House of Representatives. After sitting in on weeks worth of House floor meetings, listening to the GOP’s seemingly endless debate on the merits of 3rd grade testing (much to my distaste), my page group had the chance to talk to both representative Enns and Representative Inman.

Representative Enns spoke to our group first, explaining that our education was a top priority for the Oklahoma legislature and that the Department of Education was one of the most well-funded in the state. He said that I should be proud of the education I was receiving in the OK public school system and, at the time, I was. At the time, I didn’t realize that it was irregular not to have updated textbooks or, in some cases, any textbook at all. I was unaware, at the time, that it was out of the norm to have more than 22 students in a class. And, at the time, I only knew that I had excellent teachers — I did not realize that many of them were working 2+ jobs, and oftentimes struggling to make ends meet.

Representative Inman, on the other hand, was not so blindly optimistic (or blatantly deceitful). He, too, emphasized the importance of our educations and encouraged us all to work hard in school. However, he then went on to tell us some of the facts, like that the Department of Education had been cut annually for the previous five years. He ended the discussion by saying something that has stuck with me ever since. He said: “We are fighting for your education, and the time will come when you might have to fight for your education as well.” As a Senior in high school, I was not overly concerned by this statement. In fact, I disregarded it almost entirely when he said it.

However, two years later, as a student of Economics at the University of Oklahoma, I began to understand what he had meant. I began to understand that the best way to stimulate the economy was to increase government spending on social services like education, health care, transportation, and public security. After coming to this realization, it became increasingly difficult for me to understand why the legislator refused to stop handing out corporate tax breaks to the wealthy while simultaneously de-funding key services that benefit of middle- and low-income families.

I realize now that education is not merely a “teacher issue” or a “student issue;” it is a societal problem, and it impacts all of us. After all, if we fail to fund the education of Oklahoma’s youth today, we will most assuredly pay the price in the future.  This point is made perfectly by the fact that Oklahoma is ranked 48th in education funding and 1st in incarceration. We fail our children from the start, and then we lock them up as punishment for our mistakes. This is a fact that I am simply no longer willing to ignore.

That is why I have spent the last eight days up at the capitol — waiting for hours on end to speak with legislatures, researching tax policy, and reading proposed legislation. The time has come to fight — not for my own education, but for the educations of the thousands of children in Oklahoma that are still in the public schools system. The fight has been difficult, and at times discouraging, as Republican legislators continuously deny the requests of Oklahoma’s teachers to fund the future of our state (despite their obligation to represent the interests of their constituents).

Nonetheless, witnessing OK teachers’ unwavering tenacity in the face of a near-total lack of action by legislatures during these challenging days has been one of the most inspiring and life-changing events of my life. Seeing teachers arrive to the Capitol day after day at the break of dawn, even before their legislators, crowding the halls of the capitol to max capacity and surrounding the building with signs in hand no matter rain, shine, or snow, has given me a renewed sense of faith in the future of our state. I am confident, for the first in years, that our state is on the path to prosperity. I am confident that we will no longer allow our elected officials to place their loyalty to corporate interests and the 1% above their civic responsibility to their constituents. And, if our legislatures refuse to represent our interests, I am now confident that we will have the courage and the resolution to replace them with others who do.

I, like many others I know, was deeply disappointed to hear that the Oklahoma Education Association had pulled their support for the teacher walkout despite our legislator’s and governor’s outright refusal to address (or even consider) our concerns about common education. Certainly, in passing HB 1010xx the legislator took a monumental step in the right direction, but it would be a severe overstatement to assume that this step was enough of an investment into public education. On the contrary, since the beginning of the walkout on April 2nd the legislator has not raised any additional funds for education — only repealed the Hotel/Motel tax that would have raised ~$50M and replaced it with an Amazon tax that is estimated to raise only ~$20M, resulting in a net loss of $3oM for teachers and students.

Despite this obvious funding discrepancy, some Republican legislators and the governor have been adamant in their claims that, by continuing the walkout and demanding additional funding, teachers are being selfish and behaving like “teenagers” that want a better car. Choosing to shut their eyes to reality, these legislators insist upon ignoring the hard facts: that educators were never fighting for a higher pay raise, but for a better future for the state of Oklahoma. Republican legislators have made the same promise day after day: that there is no budget hole and that any revenue reallocated in year 2 will be substituted with new growth revenue, knowing full well that it would be infinitely better to fully fund education now and allocate any additional growth revenue towards the multitude of other departments that have been similarly cut throughout the last decade, as opposed to relying on a revenue that may or may not be generated in the next fiscal year.

For this reason, I will not be reverting back to business as usual on Monday. I, alongside hundreds of parents, concerned community members, and teacher delegations, will continue to pressure my legislators to pass either the capital gains repeal or 0.25% income tax increase as well as a Wind GPT for as long as it takes. And, if at the end of our efforts, legislators are still intent on obstinacy and unwilling to compromise, I am prepared to work with educators to file initiative petitions to allow the electorate to vote on the issues that the legislator refuses to. Furthermore, I am fully intent on campaigning against those legislators whom have proven themselves to be unwilling to represent their constituents’ best interest.

I believe in the Oklahoma public education system. I believe in Oklahoma students and educators. And, more than anything, I believe in the future of this once-great state. That is why I have spent my last eight days at the capital, that is why I will continue to protest come next week, and that is why I will continue to fight for as long as it takes to restore Oklahoma to greatness. That is why I am here.

My Last Global Engagement Day

Today I attended my very last Global Engagement Day, and it was a wonderful way to end my time as a GEF. Every year, fellows get together to lead panels on all sorts of things, from what to pack, to where to study abroad, to telling stories (a panel I participated in last year), to the talk I attended today: women, minorities, and LGBTQ+ students abroad.

As a straight, white woman, 1/3 of these descriptors apply to me, but I found it so valuable to hear the perspectives from everyone on the panel. It was fascinating, and times heartbreaking, and often empowering to hear fellow students tell the stories of how they lived and were treated in places outside the U.S. It’s no secret that our own country often doesn’t treat anyone in these three groups with kindness, but the fact remains that the United States is a fairly liberal country, while some that GEFs travel to (Morocco and Uganda were mentioned in the talks) are not.

It was interesting to hear where these students drew the line between standing up for themselves when they were being oppressed (overtly or covertly) and between staying quiet to avoid making too many waves. As one of them stated, “you’re not there to cause a culture war.” The idea of dressing much more conservatively, or of hiding homosexuality, in a country that basically requires it has always been interesting to me. On the one hand, it’s important to respect cultures you are a guest in. But on the other, shouldn’t you say something if you’re being catcalled, or you are admonished for your homosexuality or your style of dressing? Here in the U.S., we very much have a culture of speaking up (if you feel safe doing so) when you are not being respected. But the dynamic changes significantly when you study abroad.

Ultimately, I have the utmost respect for these students. To hear comments about yourself that make you bristle and to stay calm and respectful is a really admirable course of action. I think they all served as excellent cultural ambassadors for the United States, and I am proud to be a Global Engagement Fellow with them.

It was an excellent panel, and it made my last Global Engagement Day one for the books!

Exclusion or Inclusion? Disability and Community in Late Medieval France

I recently had the opportunity to leave my comfort zone a bit and attend a history of science lecture. Typically, the lectures that I attend are focused on current international events, so it was an exciting change of pace to attend an event focused more on history.

The talk I attended was given by Dr. Sasha Pfau, an associate professor from Hendrix College. I was not sure what exactly to expect from such a lecture, but I found myself quickly fascinated with Dr. Pfau’s research. Her study’s goal was to investigate the treatment of disability in Medieval France. Whenever I think about disability in the Middle Ages, I, like many people think of people locked away from society in mental institutions or shunned in leper colonies. During this talk, I was surprised to learn that this was often not the case.

Dr. Pfau found her evidence by pouring through thousands of pardon letters. These letters were written to the king of France by either convicted criminals or their families or friends requesting pardon. The king granted these pardons as a show of power; he was above the law, and excused people’s crimes in an attempt to flaunt it. Those seeking pardon worked with court scribes and paid a fee to write the letters, and if the king granted the pardon, they could pay extra to have it transcribed in the official books. These approved, transcribed pardons are all that survive, so today, we have no way of knowing how many pardons were approved or what an unapproved pardon looked like, but the letters give modern historians insight into ordinary life at the time.

Each letter included the story of the crime with a justification. It is these stories that Dr. Pfau was interested in; though the stories may have been embellished, they reflected plausible, normal events at the time. Thus, any treatment of disability that came up in the letters was likely indicative of how disability was regularly treated in those days. Dr. Pfau said that most letters did not contain any mention of disability; she had to read hundreds of letters to find what she was looking for. However, the letters she did come up with painted a picture of disability treatment that looks very different from my assumptions. From these letters, it is apparent that those living in late Medieval France included disabled people as members of society and practiced a great deal of familial care. Rather than casting the disabled out, they were brought into the fold and included as much as possible.

Her case studies varied from a disabled man who participated with his friends in a bar fight to a blind man who was killed by his wife for intentionally sabotaging her work. In each case, the disability was never the focus of the letter, but the reader could see that it was often treated very differently to what many have previously imagined. When the disabled were mistreated, it was due to their own negative actions, rather than their disabilities. Their families felt and upheld the responsibility to care for their disabled family members, and the disabled were as integrated into society as possible.

I was impressed with Dr. Pfau’s ability to make such a strong case for something so surprising to me, as well as her method of obtaining it. Before this talk, I had never heard of pardon letters, nor had I given much thought to the treatment of disability throughout history. The lecture was a fascinating reminder that often, dominant historical narratives are not accurate; they are shaped by biased historians choosing the version of history that they want to pass down. I learned some interesting things about Medieval France and had some of my preconceived notions of history shattered. It was a nice reminder that, while studying current events is immensely important, studying historical events can be equally so.

Nuclear War versus Diplomacy

Last week, a diverse group of OU students and faculty as well as members of the Norman community gathered for a lecture by Dr. Trita Parsi, one of America’s leading experts on the Middle East and particularly US-Iran relations. In an era increasingly defined by fake news and bigotry, Dr. Parsi brought a message of hope, describing how diplomacy had prevented a war and allowed two very different nations to reach a tentative peace. Having worked in Washington throughout this process, Dr. Parsi brought a behind-the-scenes view of this profound diplomatic victory. According to Dr. Parsi, the current political landscape in the Middle East, especially in regards to US-Arab relations, was not inevitable. Over the decades, there have been many opportunities for diplomacy to bridge gaps and forge strong and lasting connections between the Middle East and the West. However, these opportunities have been systematically misused or neglected, particularly by the United States. However, under President Obama, diplomacy won the day and nuclear war was averted. Dr. Parsi’s lecture aimed to explain how this unthinkable peaceful solution was attained.

After the Persian Gulf War ended, the Israelis and Iranians who had fought together against Iraqi power in the region turned against one another. Israel convinced the US to broaden its containment of Iraq to include Iran as well, devastating Iran. In attempts to be released from containment and recognized as a major power in the Middle East by the US, Iran began its nuclear program. After containment was broken by the US instigation of the Iraq War, Iran redoubled its efforts to gain recognition, while Israel took a hardline position against uranium enrichment in Iran. Knowing Iran could never accept such a deal, Israel hoped to force the US and Iran into armed conflict, which would shatter Iranian power and influence throughout the region. Meanwhile, the US had an impossible set of goals to achieve: prevent war, prevent nuclear development in Iran, prevent Israel from embroiling itself in war (which would require the US to also go to war), and prevent Iran from defining the new geopolitical order of the Middle East.

Presidents Bush and Obama originally pursued similar strategies of embargoes, sanctions, and cyberwarfare. President Obama even convinced the EU and other developed nations to partner with the US in the worst sanctions imposed on any country in history, causing Iranian GDP to contract by 25% in 3 years and devastating the national economy. In response, Iran did the only thing they could see to do—further expand the nuclear program until the US broke. US-Iranian relations had dissolved into a global game of chicken composed of nukes versus sanctions with the addition of the Israeli wildcard.

In early 2012, John Kerry approached President Obama to convince him that a secret negotiation channel was needed between the US and Iran to provide the possibility of a diplomatic solution, since the official channels were simply feelers to see if the other party was close to breaking. The country of Oman, long friends with both the US and Iran, volunteered to host these secret meetings, with the first taking place in July of 2012. After two years of tense negotiations, riddled with distrust on both sides, the Sultan of Oman carried the US deal to Tehran, where the Iranian government accepted the terms. Iran would be allowed to maintain a modest stockpile of low-enrichment uranium but would cease increased enrichment. In return, the US and its allies would lift the sanctions.

Unfortunately, this hopeful end has not been stable. President Trump has consistently threatened to break the deal with Iran and impose new sanctions. This uncertainty has prevented businesses from returning to Iran and stymied economic growth. At the same time, the President has offended many international allies, further eroding the US’s influence globally. Lastly, funding cuts to the state department have left many key embassies understaffed. South Korea, our main buffer against possible North Korean aggression, does not currently have a US ambassador. Such actions make future diplomatic negotiations by the US nearly impossible. The Iranian Nuclear Deal is precarious and ready to fall. Unfortunately it may only be a precursor to what is to come.

I really enjoyed Dr. Parsi’s lecture. His credentials working alongside both parties in the Iranian Nuclear Deal gave him a fascinating perspective. He also was able to flesh out the underlying motives of all parties involved. I had never really studied Iran and the nuclear deal before now, but I feel like I have a working understanding of the situation after the lecture. Yes, the US could have gotten a better deal. However, by the time the US was willing to engage with the Iranians, the nuclear program was much too far along for a better deal than what we got. Therefore, one of the key takeaways from this lecture was to start diplomacy early. If we had opened negotiations with Tehran when the Iranians first sought a diplomatic solution, Iran may not have had nuclear capabilities today. The second key takeaway is that America needs allies. The nuclear deal could not have been concluded without Oman, an Arab Muslim state that made an active effort to see diplomacy rule the day. We could not have negotiated on our own. Lastly, I think this situation serves as a reminder of the importance of empathy and perspective. Each party had its own needs and objectives. However, it is very possible that all three countries could have seen their objectives fulfilled years earlier if they had only been willing to honestly and transparently deal with one another. These three lessons are the most important in my opinion from the lecture and the US-Iran Nuclear Deal.

 

The Iran Nuclear Deal

Hello! It is difficult for me to believe that I’m now in my last semester at OU. As cheesy as it sounds, it really does seem like just yesterday that I was starting up this blog. I’m amazed at how much has happened in under four years – I’ve traveled to eight countries since then, had several awesome internships, developed passions I didn’t know that I had, and come up with a viable plan for my future. None of this means that I know what I’m doing yet, but I’ve had an amazing time finding my way.

Tonight, I had the immense pleasure of going to a talk by Dr. Trita Parsi at the Sam Noble Museum on the Iran nuclear deal. I’ve spoken before about how much I enjoy listening to experts discuss their fields, and tonight was no different. Dr. Parsi was eloquent, engaging, and extremely knowledgable, and I learned a great deal about the intricacies of the U.S.-Iran relationship over the last several decades. Dr. Parsi advised the Obama administration on the Iran nuclear talks and was also in conversations with Iranian officials. If anyone is an expert on this topic, it is this man.

He spoke of the historical roots of the relationship between Iran and the United States, and the complicated role that Israel played in the relationship. It was fascinating to hear about how things have changed over the years: in the 80s, Iran and Israel often worked together against common threats, such as Saddam Hussein and the USSR. However, in the early 90s, the USSR collapsed and the two countries became rivals. Iran refused to recognize Israel and the two countries no longer got along. The U.S. has gained and lost power of influence in the region over the years. As with all international disputes, the situation is complex with no clear solutions.

My two main takeaways from the talk are that effective diplomacy often requires creativity and that this creativity is often impossible without friends. During his time in office, President Obama imposed the harshest sanctions to date on Iran, crippling their economy for several years, in an attempt to get them to stop their nuclear program. These sanctions were only effective because Obama had international clout and got buy-in from many U.S. allies, who stopped buying Iranian oil. When Iran found ways to get around the sanctions, the U.S. then got creative, creating a secret channel to Iran through Oman in order to expedite nuclear talks.

Through this secret channel, American diplomats offered to let Iran keep a certain low number of centrifuges enriching uranium in exchange for their participation in the deal. The U.S. could not write down this offer for fear of upsetting its U.N. allies, who were still participating in the official nuclear talks, and Iran could not take a verbal agreement from the U.S. To get around this, the U.S. got the Sultan of Oman, a close ally to Iranian officials and to us, to personally deliver the offer. The Iranians could not refuse a personal offer from such a close friend lest they appear to be publicly distrusting an ally. Thus, the Iran nuclear deal was born. It would not have been possible without creativity and friends – unilaterally, the U.S. would have gotten nowhere.

In light of this, I am concerned with the U.S. government’s current treatment of diplomacy. An “America first” policy seems to serve only to alienate our closest allies. Additionally, many of our international embassies are currently without ambassadors. We appear to be ignoring attempts at diplomacy in a time when we need them the most; this talk proved that we NEED allies if we have any hope of solving our greatest international problems. During his talk, Dr. Parsi drew alarming parallels between talks with Iran over the last decade and the situation between the U.S. and North Korea now. If we are to look to our past and avoid the same mistakes, the government would do well to keep in mind that creative diplomacy and the curation of strong international friendships will likely be they key to an effective solution.

Learning Greek

 

A mosaic at Sepphoris I saw this summer

A couple years ago, I posted here about my experience learning German, the first foreign language I’ve ever seriously tried to learn. Even though I’m far from my goal of being fluent by the end of my college career, I’m still reviewing and learning, and I’m excited to be in a conversation class in the fall. I got so excited about German that I decided to start on a couple more languages – Latin and Greek – since I want to continue studying classics in grad school.

What is the difference between modern Greek and ancient Greek? Ancient Greek is much different from modern Greek. I’ve done a very small amount of research to learn just how different, and it seems like the difference between ancient and modern Greek, according to some website, is like the difference between English and Latin. Much more of a difference than I had thought. Some words are mutually intelligible – I can guess, for example, that the Latin rosa means “rose” – but other times I might guess incorrectly but have related meanings – I wouldn’t be able to simply guess that domus means “house” though I would recognize the derivative “domestic” or “domicile.” From what I gather, the relationship between ancient and modern Greek is similar. Modern Greek speakers can pick out words with varying degrees of difficulty.

Learning Greek is really interesting. It’s also one of the most difficult undertakings I’ve begun in college. First, there’s an entirely difficult alphabet. It’s not difficult to internalize, but it adds an extra layer of decoding to every exercise. Then, Greek, like Latin, is also an inflected language, and full of participles and dozens of forms of verbs that I still don’t recognize, even just after a single semester.

Even though ancient Greek is not a modern language, I still have taken some things away that remind me that language and culture tightly intertwined. I never that language has a profound effect on the way we think until I started learning different languages. “Shame” and “modesty” in Greek are the same word, and shame seems to have a positive connotation rather than negative. Groups of people are not “they” but rather “hes” or “shes” in a sense, and if a group is made up of a hundred females and a single male, the group is still a group of “hes.” Epicene nouns are nouns that have a masculine gender, but their articles can simply be changed to feminine to indicate that the thing in question is feminine. From these things, what are the implications about gender in Greek culture? I’m fascinated to think about things like this, and I’m learning to apply the same mode of thinking in examining modern American culture and other cultures I encounter.

 

Media as a Mirror

I have always strived to keep up with world news. It is important to me that I remain aware and ready to discuss recent and vital happenings. The media helps me do this. Over the years, I have pared down the multitude of sources big and small to only the ones I trust the most. Some of these have even been deemed "fake news" by a certain world leader, but I have found their mission and motivations to be relatively pure - the best news organizations have a mission of truth, to educate the populace on events with no distortion of that truth. And when they're wrong, they admit it.

As I said, I used these news sources to keep up with events abroad. While I was taking a course earlier this year on the events of the Arab Spring of 2011, I was able to read the news each day and connect the events of today with those of 6 years prior.

Since the end of last year, however, I have increasingly noticed those top headlines being more relevant to me than not. My friends from abroad would ask, How is everything over there since the election? Mass shootings, incendiary Tweets, seeming threats to "unalienable" rights, a mass reckoning for sexual harassers everywhere.

More and more, I have seen the lens on the world turned back in towards my own country. We're in every news cycle, always for a new (and usually worse) reason. The lens has turned into a mirror, reflecting back on myself and my surroundings.

I am forced to consider my role in society like never before. Each challenge brings up memories of times I have been witness to microagressions that contribute to the larger whole. How many times have I let a questionable joke slide? Forgotten about instances of gender discrimination without reporting them? Hoped something would get better without putting the work in myself?

Reading about other places helped me idealize my own home - because it didn't seem that bad. But things have to change. And I'll be here to help change them.