Thursday, December 12, 2013
Friday, December 6, 2013
Have a cell phone? You're getting ripped off.
Do you have a cell phone? So does, it seems, everyone. I know I do and I love the convenience of certain features, but the fact is, we're getting ripped off.
And we're about to get ripped off even more.
I am so frustrated with technology and, currently, the entire wireless takeover, that I am having trouble organizing all my thoughts, so I will begin with:
Creating an expectation
And this really is just the beginning.
Granted, not many people can say they have seen one of these in a functioning capacity for a while:
But my mom still has one of these on her wall which works just fine:
Providers offer "new math" and reps can't fathom reality or choices...
Now, follow along. This is tricky to explain without the piece of paper the rep used to show us how we are "saving money" with the new deals.
Old plan = you sign a contract and get a discount on your phone.
New plan = you have no contracts, no need to be loyal, no rewards for giving their company your hard earned money, and in exchange, you make payments on your phone, but you can get a new one every 12 months.
Old plan - let's just say for kicks I want an iPhone 64 g. Let's say the company I am using has it for $700, but if I sign a 2 year, I can get it for $400. (These are the actual numbers she used last night.) You pay your upgrade fee bringing your total to $440. (Now this is where they start to talk fast so you can't interrupt with "and if I don't need that second phone?) in 12 months, you want a new phone because the newest one is out, or your phone gets lost or broken. Now you have to buy another at $700, plus another upgrade fee and you've forked out $1180, minimum, over the next year.
BUT! With the new plan, the exact same phone is only $62 a month for 12 months. If it gets lost or broken you get a new phone. That's just $744 which is significantly less than $1180!
So I say; that's assuming you want the latest and greatest phone. If you don't, then it's a lot more than the $440 to which she responds that it's covered if it gets lost or broken!
Gee... at least the place where I spent hundreds and hundreds for a new stove let me CHOOSE whether or not I wanted the warranty plan. They let me decide whether I wanted to take my chances and gave me the option to be conservative and cautious so I don't break it in the first 2 years. Of course, my stove is made of WAY better materials.
These phones - no matter what they do - are plastic pieces of crap. When else on earth would you walk into a store and willingly spend your money on such flimsy pieces of pocket lint? I laugh at people online who write reviews of products saying that their new $150 vacuum was made of cheap plastic and not worth the exorbitant cost, but their post gives away that they posted it from a smartphone.
Technology
On top of that, we just got new stupidphones and let me tell you, the technology on those has gone backwards. Why? Probably to bully us into smartphones. This happened at the exact same time Google discontinued its SMS search services... saying that we can just get online to look up addresses and phone numbers. Not if you don't have a smartphone or any kind of expensive (overpriced - seriously... how much are you charging for a few gigs? omg!!) data plan. Thanks a lot, Google. You are a big bully, too.
Conclusion
I get it. The companies are in it to make money. They have a responsibility to their shareholders and they have to make sure the top dogs have enough to buy... what? What do you buy when you make millions for running a company? Most of us will never know and that's the nature of capitalism. The idea is to work harder and smarter and you'll make more money, but the reality is there isn't room for $60 million a year jobs for everyone. I support capitalism, actually, but only in the purest sense and this country hasn't had pure capitalism for 70+ years. Slowly, the purity has been corrupted. I know it's not very popular to admit that I like the idea of capitalism, but I also don't think there is anything wrong with the idea that if you work you have money and if you don't work, you don't. I do think there is a grey area where we can use tax money to help those who cannot work, but I also think there is a difference between a hand-up and a hand-out...
But I am straying from my point. I understand companies make more money by getting you to replace their items instead of using it up, wearing it out, and making do. Frankly, we can afford the phones and the plans and all of that... but we can afford things because we don't throw money away on everything so it makes it really hard to pay such a large bill every month for something that is not a necessity like electricity or a luxury that makes you feel safe like better than the cheapest insurance. I cringe at the satellite bill, too, so it's not phone-exclusive.
At least once a day I consider dumping the cell phone and going back to landline. The only thing I'd miss is texts and the convenience of my customers being able to contact me while I'm at the mechanic waiting for an oil change.
Is that really worth the expense?
Remind me why I have a cell phone at all?
And we're about to get ripped off even more.
I am so frustrated with technology and, currently, the entire wireless takeover, that I am having trouble organizing all my thoughts, so I will begin with:
Creating an expectation
And this really is just the beginning.
Granted, not many people can say they have seen one of these in a functioning capacity for a while:But my mom still has one of these on her wall which works just fine:
Meanwhile, these are being turned into kitchen timers and alternate household gadgets, apparently:
But the best I can hope for this:
...is about 3 years.
We learned early on when we first got our cell phones (even in 2002, we were a little behind the times) that if you tried to make it last any longer, the wireless companies would screw you by no longer providing service to your style of phone. They are coded with certain receivers and those codes are slowly phased out over time so that, eventually, it is a paperweight whether you made it last or not. Those television jokes about people using the old brick-sized Motorolla is just that - a joke - because no company will provide service to that phone unless you are more technically savvy than I and have found some way of tweaking it internally to trick them into thinking it is currently recognized.
Those old phones lasted forever and even when cordless came along, you paid about $80 for a decent one that would last 5-7 years and at the very least, it lasted until the phone itself broke. The companies had not, at that point, figured out how to make your phone obsolete even if you are a frugal, careful person. Why take care of my phone? I'm going to have to replace it anyway no matter how much I like it and how much I DISLIKE the replacement.
Of course, that's not much of an issue considering they are made of cheap plastic parts and flimsy frames so that it breaks easily no matter how careful you are. Women have had to carry junk around in their purse for years so they know how things have to hold together and be made well in order to last. Normally, men wouldn't carry something as delicate as a glass doll in their pockets, but now they do it every day. We all toss them around casually as though the screens won't break from a sideways glance and the cases won't fall apart from a 2 foot fall, but the fact is, these are the two main complaints about phones broken within the first couple months of use. A matchbox car is more durable than a cell phone!
Our phones are basically plastic toys with expensive maintenance plans. How much did you pay for your last phone? Was it worth more than a matchbox car?
But it has all these cool things!
Right. Like a calculator you could buy for $1? And cameras. Even the best cameras on a cell phone (which will run you at least $300) are like the low end, $70-$80 cameras in quality. If you want the best quality for pictures, you have to get a real camera. Yeah, your phone pics look great on the screen and sometimes even on Facebook at 300 square pixels, but you can't blow it up unto an 8x10 or larger photograph like you can with any cheap camera that costs half as much as your new 'camera' phone. Additionally, doesn't require data plans nor will it expire or stop working for YEARS. Granted, these things are handy, but they are handy in the way that free gifts with purchase are sometimes handy. A calculator and stopwatch aren't exactly expensive high-end technology. They're just nifty.
Moving up in technology, of course, are things that are more useful, like GPS, but those don't come on stupid phones. Those are smart phone only features and are often apps which cost money just to add to your phone and again you're looking at $200+ to get a phone like that. (Even most deals with commitment are at least $100, but don't forget your upgrade fees, taxes, etc so $200 is about what you need to have in expendable cash at any given time). Once you have a smart phone, you can't get the free-phone deals anymore and you're generally committed to a data plan (unless you are going to go rogue and use wifi, but most companies will make you pay for the data plan to initiate the phone.)
False Discounts
So they get you to sign new contracts every couple of years by offering "discounts" on phones... which means the same as in any other retail endeavor, mark it up so you can mark it down. The problem is when I go to the grocery store, they've marked up a product approximately 100% (double their cost) so that they can mark it down 10% and still pay overhead.
I don't have a smartphone currently (I'm not against getting one, but I am trying to avoid it...) so let's say I go in to sign a new 2 year contract and get another stupidphone. I'm now committed to paying about $50 a month for 24 months ($1200, but let's say that's all for services - still, they are pretty much guaranteed to collect that amount from anyone who pays their bill) but I get a phone for $1. Score? Sure. Let's call it that. Landline service was $24 a month before we got rid of it, but it didn't have fancy features like text and portability. It did, however, give you the option to cancel at any time.
But wait! No more contracts!
Did we really think it would be that simple? I said immediately when the first company started airing their adverts that they would charge more for the phones in the end to make up for lack of contracts. Forget rewards for loyalty. Of course, since it worked for that company, the others are falling in line. Look at the payments and do some quick math. By the time you're done, you've paid full price for the phone you used to get at a discount if you just signed the contract. Since I really, really like my provider, I don't mind signing contracts. I do mind their "new math", though. A LOT.Providers offer "new math" and reps can't fathom reality or choices...
Now, follow along. This is tricky to explain without the piece of paper the rep used to show us how we are "saving money" with the new deals.
Old plan = you sign a contract and get a discount on your phone.
New plan = you have no contracts, no need to be loyal, no rewards for giving their company your hard earned money, and in exchange, you make payments on your phone, but you can get a new one every 12 months.
Old plan - let's just say for kicks I want an iPhone 64 g. Let's say the company I am using has it for $700, but if I sign a 2 year, I can get it for $400. (These are the actual numbers she used last night.) You pay your upgrade fee bringing your total to $440. (Now this is where they start to talk fast so you can't interrupt with "and if I don't need that second phone?) in 12 months, you want a new phone because the newest one is out, or your phone gets lost or broken. Now you have to buy another at $700, plus another upgrade fee and you've forked out $1180, minimum, over the next year.
BUT! With the new plan, the exact same phone is only $62 a month for 12 months. If it gets lost or broken you get a new phone. That's just $744 which is significantly less than $1180!
So I say; that's assuming you want the latest and greatest phone. If you don't, then it's a lot more than the $440 to which she responds that it's covered if it gets lost or broken!
Gee... at least the place where I spent hundreds and hundreds for a new stove let me CHOOSE whether or not I wanted the warranty plan. They let me decide whether I wanted to take my chances and gave me the option to be conservative and cautious so I don't break it in the first 2 years. Of course, my stove is made of WAY better materials.
These phones - no matter what they do - are plastic pieces of crap. When else on earth would you walk into a store and willingly spend your money on such flimsy pieces of pocket lint? I laugh at people online who write reviews of products saying that their new $150 vacuum was made of cheap plastic and not worth the exorbitant cost, but their post gives away that they posted it from a smartphone.
Technology
On top of that, we just got new stupidphones and let me tell you, the technology on those has gone backwards. Why? Probably to bully us into smartphones. This happened at the exact same time Google discontinued its SMS search services... saying that we can just get online to look up addresses and phone numbers. Not if you don't have a smartphone or any kind of expensive (overpriced - seriously... how much are you charging for a few gigs? omg!!) data plan. Thanks a lot, Google. You are a big bully, too.
Conclusion
I get it. The companies are in it to make money. They have a responsibility to their shareholders and they have to make sure the top dogs have enough to buy... what? What do you buy when you make millions for running a company? Most of us will never know and that's the nature of capitalism. The idea is to work harder and smarter and you'll make more money, but the reality is there isn't room for $60 million a year jobs for everyone. I support capitalism, actually, but only in the purest sense and this country hasn't had pure capitalism for 70+ years. Slowly, the purity has been corrupted. I know it's not very popular to admit that I like the idea of capitalism, but I also don't think there is anything wrong with the idea that if you work you have money and if you don't work, you don't. I do think there is a grey area where we can use tax money to help those who cannot work, but I also think there is a difference between a hand-up and a hand-out...
But I am straying from my point. I understand companies make more money by getting you to replace their items instead of using it up, wearing it out, and making do. Frankly, we can afford the phones and the plans and all of that... but we can afford things because we don't throw money away on everything so it makes it really hard to pay such a large bill every month for something that is not a necessity like electricity or a luxury that makes you feel safe like better than the cheapest insurance. I cringe at the satellite bill, too, so it's not phone-exclusive.
At least once a day I consider dumping the cell phone and going back to landline. The only thing I'd miss is texts and the convenience of my customers being able to contact me while I'm at the mechanic waiting for an oil change.
Is that really worth the expense?
Remind me why I have a cell phone at all?
Friday, November 22, 2013
Pie Obsession
I keep getting stuck in obsession. I think. Because I understand that there is a difference between thinking about something a lot and thinking about it obsessively, I find it hard to know when that line gets crossed and frankly, my life is a series of denial that anything's wrong. The reality is that I almost bled to death due to this determination that nothing is wrong and then afterwards played it off like it was a funny story and no big deal.
So this is about pie. It's absolutely nothing and yet I have thought about it at least 18 times in the last 24 hours and have had to fight myself not to feel bad because of PIE. It's pie, for hell's sake. PIE.
I am in the mood to make pie. I have been in the mood to make pie for weeks. Pumpkin pie. Pecan pie. Lemon Meringue pie. Blueberry pie. Some kind of pudding pie I have yet to decide. I just want to make pie.
What a perfect time of year to want to make pie! Everyone loves homemade pie at Thanksgiving, right? And I would take the following personally if I hadn't been complimented on my pies in the past years so many times that I feel secure my pies are delicious. (And this confidence about the taste of my pies coming from the girl who got good grades in college and writes novels, but can still be convinced she's utterly stupid.)
I have been told that "they like store bought pies better" so I should not bring pie to dinner. So, I don't want to go to dinner there. Maybe that seems petty, but I've been married to their son for 16 years and I am still not allowed to bring a damned pie to dinner?
I want to make pies. I make good pies. Who wants me for Thanksgiving? Because I'm sure not feeling wanted.
I keep thinking I need to forget about it and do whatever I want, but I cannot stop thinking about it. I can't stop stressing out about it. I can't stop thinking that I want to send my family to his family for dinner, cook the pies I want to cook, and then sit on the kitchen floor crying and eating it out of the pan with a fork like the lonely fat kid who lives inside and feeds on this sort of shit.
And it's just PIE. Could I be upset about something more insignificant?
So this is about pie. It's absolutely nothing and yet I have thought about it at least 18 times in the last 24 hours and have had to fight myself not to feel bad because of PIE. It's pie, for hell's sake. PIE.
I am in the mood to make pie. I have been in the mood to make pie for weeks. Pumpkin pie. Pecan pie. Lemon Meringue pie. Blueberry pie. Some kind of pudding pie I have yet to decide. I just want to make pie.
What a perfect time of year to want to make pie! Everyone loves homemade pie at Thanksgiving, right? And I would take the following personally if I hadn't been complimented on my pies in the past years so many times that I feel secure my pies are delicious. (And this confidence about the taste of my pies coming from the girl who got good grades in college and writes novels, but can still be convinced she's utterly stupid.)
I have been told that "they like store bought pies better" so I should not bring pie to dinner. So, I don't want to go to dinner there. Maybe that seems petty, but I've been married to their son for 16 years and I am still not allowed to bring a damned pie to dinner?
I want to make pies. I make good pies. Who wants me for Thanksgiving? Because I'm sure not feeling wanted.
I keep thinking I need to forget about it and do whatever I want, but I cannot stop thinking about it. I can't stop stressing out about it. I can't stop thinking that I want to send my family to his family for dinner, cook the pies I want to cook, and then sit on the kitchen floor crying and eating it out of the pan with a fork like the lonely fat kid who lives inside and feeds on this sort of shit.
And it's just PIE. Could I be upset about something more insignificant?
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
'Switched at Birth' is about to make me either very happy, or very mad.
Jane and I found this show a few months ago when it hit Netflix with some new episodes. I took ASL in college, Jane has a deaf friend who has been teaching her so that was the initial appeal. The next appeal is that even though it is not about adoption, it certainly addresses the issues of what makes a parent quite well. Yeah, it's idealized and sometimes a little naive, but they have spent some time touching on some of the emotions and situations I've either dealt with or thought about.
Certain things annoy me, but I won't bring them into it unless it really starts to upset me.
Right now SPOILERS! they are addressing parenting through one of the parents who seems to think having a one night stand with a woman gives him the right to take "his" kid back from the parents who adopted him. One of the daughters opposes it. Great. So how will it end? Either with me happy or mad. Time will tell.
I must throw this line out there which was spoken which I loved, but it was really about the *way* it was said... "My parents" and then she hesitates as she realizes what she has said "Are still my parents."
Movies I love: Juno, August Rush
Movies I should probably see: The Odd Life of Timothy Green
Shows I can't watch because it is more likely to make me angry than pleased: Secret Life of an American Teenager
Oh, and I tried the Fosters, but I couldn't get into it. Meanwhile, I heard there is a problem where one parent treats her birth child differently than her foster kids. That is probably enough to piss me off right there....
Jane and I found this show a few months ago when it hit Netflix with some new episodes. I took ASL in college, Jane has a deaf friend who has been teaching her so that was the initial appeal. The next appeal is that even though it is not about adoption, it certainly addresses the issues of what makes a parent quite well. Yeah, it's idealized and sometimes a little naive, but they have spent some time touching on some of the emotions and situations I've either dealt with or thought about.
Certain things annoy me, but I won't bring them into it unless it really starts to upset me.
Right now SPOILERS! they are addressing parenting through one of the parents who seems to think having a one night stand with a woman gives him the right to take "his" kid back from the parents who adopted him. One of the daughters opposes it. Great. So how will it end? Either with me happy or mad. Time will tell.
I must throw this line out there which was spoken which I loved, but it was really about the *way* it was said... "My parents" and then she hesitates as she realizes what she has said "Are still my parents."
Movies I love: Juno, August Rush
Movies I should probably see: The Odd Life of Timothy Green
Shows I can't watch because it is more likely to make me angry than pleased: Secret Life of an American Teenager
Oh, and I tried the Fosters, but I couldn't get into it. Meanwhile, I heard there is a problem where one parent treats her birth child differently than her foster kids. That is probably enough to piss me off right there....
Friday, May 31, 2013
New recommendations
I saw a commercial for Reelz Recommends and thought 'hey, I can do that'.
We read a lot and watch a lot of movies. The thing is, while he is a little cliche and likes action and comic book movies (I like them, too, just not as much), I don't often go for the romantic comedy chick flicks. What we watch commonly are independent, foreign, and other non-blockbuster hopefuls.
Generally, when talking to a friend, I get to know things they like and then make recommendations based on that. Most of the time I think I do pretty well because they don't often come back and say they hated it. It has happened, but pretty rare.
Not that anyone is even reading this blog, but I am not going to play it safe. I don't know you, your threshhold for sex and violence, or your personal tastes, but for the sake of saying "I think these things are really, really cool!" I'm going to recommend just one book and one movie a month. Once in a while I'll throw in a show that's easily obtained on Netflix, etc. Also note, when I refer to something, it's probably going to be the things I think are awesome, not necessarily the thing others would use as reference. You'll get the hang of it.
Kick off.
Survivor by Chuck Palahniuk. Sometimes people like a link to something familiar, so I will mention he is the author of Fight Club. I've read a few of his books, but this one holds as my favorite; perhaps because I read it first. Seriously, give it a shot if you like a dark, twisted satire.
Velvet Goldmine directed by Todd Haynes. It gets better every time I see it. Christian Bale (after Swing Kids, but before Batman), Jonathan Rhys Meyers (The Tudors), Ewan McGregor (Life Less Ordinary, Shallow Grave, Trainspotting) Toni Collette (If you haven't seen her yet, you are crazy. She's done a million awesome things. This is after Clockwatchers and Muriel's Wedding, but before Dead Girl and United States of Tara)
We read a lot and watch a lot of movies. The thing is, while he is a little cliche and likes action and comic book movies (I like them, too, just not as much), I don't often go for the romantic comedy chick flicks. What we watch commonly are independent, foreign, and other non-blockbuster hopefuls.
Generally, when talking to a friend, I get to know things they like and then make recommendations based on that. Most of the time I think I do pretty well because they don't often come back and say they hated it. It has happened, but pretty rare.
Not that anyone is even reading this blog, but I am not going to play it safe. I don't know you, your threshhold for sex and violence, or your personal tastes, but for the sake of saying "I think these things are really, really cool!" I'm going to recommend just one book and one movie a month. Once in a while I'll throw in a show that's easily obtained on Netflix, etc. Also note, when I refer to something, it's probably going to be the things I think are awesome, not necessarily the thing others would use as reference. You'll get the hang of it.
Kick off.
Survivor by Chuck Palahniuk. Sometimes people like a link to something familiar, so I will mention he is the author of Fight Club. I've read a few of his books, but this one holds as my favorite; perhaps because I read it first. Seriously, give it a shot if you like a dark, twisted satire.
Velvet Goldmine directed by Todd Haynes. It gets better every time I see it. Christian Bale (after Swing Kids, but before Batman), Jonathan Rhys Meyers (The Tudors), Ewan McGregor (Life Less Ordinary, Shallow Grave, Trainspotting) Toni Collette (If you haven't seen her yet, you are crazy. She's done a million awesome things. This is after Clockwatchers and Muriel's Wedding, but before Dead Girl and United States of Tara)
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Smartphone Arrogance.
I'm coining a new term today. Smartphone Arrogance. It seems pretty straightforward. Do I mean the way people show off their smartphones? Am I talking about the way they have to have the latest and greatest? What about the way they make a habit of selling last year's model for outrageous amounts because they need the money to buy the newest phone? Sure, that's the first thing that bothered me.
What followed is the things I knew would annoy me later. Send out an email and assume everyone will get it in real time because their smart phone will notify them. Know who has texting and who doesn't. You might actually be required to call someone and leave a message, but if they don't have a smartphone, at least send a text. I do not have my laptop tied to my hip. Of course there are other things; people assuming you have a data plan and can just look things up on the smartphone at the drop of a hat, but on Tuesday, I was caught in a hole because I did happen to see an email that said Jane's game practice was definitely on, but this was sent only minutes before we left the house. I had a feeling I better check because it had been raining hard off and on all day. Well, we got to the field, no one was there. Not a single sole. It was still raining. I also could not look up on my phone whether or not it was supposed to clear up. We left, assuming the lady must have emailed out a cancellation because she sends out these last minute emails frequently. We get home and it has finally cleared up. Go back? We decide not to, but I check email and no cancellation. Still thinking about going back, but if they were going to be there - 25 girls and 3 coaches, shouldn't SOMEONE have been there? We usually park at this parking lot where only about half the people park. This time we parked at the end where the coach normally parks so that we could see him arrive and know for sure. Not a sign of him anywhere.
After practice, Jane's friend who can be pretty smug sometimes calls and says the coach won't let her play in Saturday's game now because she missed a practice. WTH? They can show up late and then blame us for not having smartphones to find out what's up? Because we never got their phone numbers, only emails as contact info, but they have all of our phone numbers!
I get really really annoyed by smartphone owners a lot. I feel it's a bit like people who drive huge suburbans. They lose sight of the fact that there are others on the road and become bullies. I'm sure if I ever get a smartphone, I'll be prone to the same things, but I am pretty sure I will remember the reality. If you need someone to know something immediately, call them. Use phone numbers. Remember that texting is for things you want people to know soonish, but not necessarily NOW and email is for things that you need people to know eventually.
Plus, don't assume your smartphone is a great way to email because half the time, the email comes into my gmail garbled with ? and most smartphone people are too lazy to use punctuation and frankly, I don't even want to interpret your garbage anymore.
And if you have a smartphone and data plan, don't complain to me about money. I'm not saying we're broke, but we do have to choose between smartphone and satellite TV. I mean, we are in a world where people who have hundreds of dollars worth of electronic equipment can't figure out how to pay their power bills and people who think satellite TV and data plans are utilities like power and water. We've lost all perspective on what's necessary and what is a luxury so we work hard and still never seem to have money.
What followed is the things I knew would annoy me later. Send out an email and assume everyone will get it in real time because their smart phone will notify them. Know who has texting and who doesn't. You might actually be required to call someone and leave a message, but if they don't have a smartphone, at least send a text. I do not have my laptop tied to my hip. Of course there are other things; people assuming you have a data plan and can just look things up on the smartphone at the drop of a hat, but on Tuesday, I was caught in a hole because I did happen to see an email that said Jane's game practice was definitely on, but this was sent only minutes before we left the house. I had a feeling I better check because it had been raining hard off and on all day. Well, we got to the field, no one was there. Not a single sole. It was still raining. I also could not look up on my phone whether or not it was supposed to clear up. We left, assuming the lady must have emailed out a cancellation because she sends out these last minute emails frequently. We get home and it has finally cleared up. Go back? We decide not to, but I check email and no cancellation. Still thinking about going back, but if they were going to be there - 25 girls and 3 coaches, shouldn't SOMEONE have been there? We usually park at this parking lot where only about half the people park. This time we parked at the end where the coach normally parks so that we could see him arrive and know for sure. Not a sign of him anywhere.
After practice, Jane's friend who can be pretty smug sometimes calls and says the coach won't let her play in Saturday's game now because she missed a practice. WTH? They can show up late and then blame us for not having smartphones to find out what's up? Because we never got their phone numbers, only emails as contact info, but they have all of our phone numbers!
I get really really annoyed by smartphone owners a lot. I feel it's a bit like people who drive huge suburbans. They lose sight of the fact that there are others on the road and become bullies. I'm sure if I ever get a smartphone, I'll be prone to the same things, but I am pretty sure I will remember the reality. If you need someone to know something immediately, call them. Use phone numbers. Remember that texting is for things you want people to know soonish, but not necessarily NOW and email is for things that you need people to know eventually.
Plus, don't assume your smartphone is a great way to email because half the time, the email comes into my gmail garbled with ? and most smartphone people are too lazy to use punctuation and frankly, I don't even want to interpret your garbage anymore.
And if you have a smartphone and data plan, don't complain to me about money. I'm not saying we're broke, but we do have to choose between smartphone and satellite TV. I mean, we are in a world where people who have hundreds of dollars worth of electronic equipment can't figure out how to pay their power bills and people who think satellite TV and data plans are utilities like power and water. We've lost all perspective on what's necessary and what is a luxury so we work hard and still never seem to have money.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Well, since I get to spend my birthday babysitting someone else's kid - oh joy - my brain is turning to mush so I could ramble some more.
High school reunions. So, I was on the lost list at the 5th. I was rather fine with that since a) I never fit in and b) it makes a hilarious story. After high school, I lived at home and went to college. After finishing my Junior College work, I moved to a college in the same state and went for the upper division level work. I still had all my mail delivered home since I came home every weekend. Ran out of money, moved back home and transferred credits to the University of Utah - the college I bet a majority of my classmates attended. Got engaged, marrried, moved about 2 miles from the home I lived in when I attended HS. My parents still lived there and they weren't even forwarding all of my mail yet. They didn't bother to send an invite to my parents. I found out I was on the lost list from a friend who had moved to Missouri.
Anyway, at the 10 year, I made myself found, helped with the webpage, and attended the reunion. I don't know why. It just seemed like if you don't go, you're saying you're afraid of these kids who used to tease you, I guess. Instead I learned that if you're an outsider in HS, you're still one at the reunion. Seemed like a bunch of shallow, bored wives with snooty attitudes and guys who were bored with their lives and their jobs. The rest of the people were trying so hard to prove that they were better off and awesome, that they seemed boring and pathetic to me.
I had a 3 year old adopted daughter, a hubby who made me happy and who, at the time, enjoyed his job, and things were good. No complaints. So, nothing to talk about. I got bored and went home after letting my kid play at the park for a bit.
Hubby went to his 20 year and he had a good time, but I have to be honest. Unless one of my friends wanted to go, I can't see the point. Everyone will be trying to prove they've made something of themselves. Maybe I'm insecure because I haven't. If only I had a published novel then, well, I still wouldn't care what they think so...what.... I would go use it for marketing? Yeah, that sounds like good times.
I still have a couple friends from HS. There are a few I wouldn't mind seeing, but half of them were a year ahead so wouldn't be at my reunion anyway and the other half didn't go to the 10 so who cares? I know they say if they were really friends, you'd have kept in touch, but things don't really work that way for everyone.
HS reunions. Why do we go? Do we care?
High school reunions. So, I was on the lost list at the 5th. I was rather fine with that since a) I never fit in and b) it makes a hilarious story. After high school, I lived at home and went to college. After finishing my Junior College work, I moved to a college in the same state and went for the upper division level work. I still had all my mail delivered home since I came home every weekend. Ran out of money, moved back home and transferred credits to the University of Utah - the college I bet a majority of my classmates attended. Got engaged, marrried, moved about 2 miles from the home I lived in when I attended HS. My parents still lived there and they weren't even forwarding all of my mail yet. They didn't bother to send an invite to my parents. I found out I was on the lost list from a friend who had moved to Missouri.
Anyway, at the 10 year, I made myself found, helped with the webpage, and attended the reunion. I don't know why. It just seemed like if you don't go, you're saying you're afraid of these kids who used to tease you, I guess. Instead I learned that if you're an outsider in HS, you're still one at the reunion. Seemed like a bunch of shallow, bored wives with snooty attitudes and guys who were bored with their lives and their jobs. The rest of the people were trying so hard to prove that they were better off and awesome, that they seemed boring and pathetic to me.
I had a 3 year old adopted daughter, a hubby who made me happy and who, at the time, enjoyed his job, and things were good. No complaints. So, nothing to talk about. I got bored and went home after letting my kid play at the park for a bit.
Hubby went to his 20 year and he had a good time, but I have to be honest. Unless one of my friends wanted to go, I can't see the point. Everyone will be trying to prove they've made something of themselves. Maybe I'm insecure because I haven't. If only I had a published novel then, well, I still wouldn't care what they think so...what.... I would go use it for marketing? Yeah, that sounds like good times.
I still have a couple friends from HS. There are a few I wouldn't mind seeing, but half of them were a year ahead so wouldn't be at my reunion anyway and the other half didn't go to the 10 so who cares? I know they say if they were really friends, you'd have kept in touch, but things don't really work that way for everyone.
HS reunions. Why do we go? Do we care?
Non-conformist is the new conformist
I remember when I was in High School (omg, my 20th reunion is this August. UGH!) and they were known as "mod" shortly followed by "goth". I am sure I was put into this group because I wore black and walked around depressed, but the fact is, even the goths had their own clique going on and I wasn't really accepted by them as a group either. In HS, I ran around with one or two people from each clique so it's not like I didn't have friends at all, but I was never accepted by any of the groups, even the subversive ones, so I had a different kind of outcast feeling than what I see in movies and television. Yet, these subversive groups were very small. You could look at the general student population and see the rockers, the preps, the archetypes explored in Breakfast Club, but the dark, depressed characters were a very small percentage of the student population.
Now I watch the kids walking home from school thinking they are the subversive non-conformists in their emo gear that looks like it was picked up at Emo R Us (remember being in HS and being goth? You had to shop a dozen stores and pick through the clearance racks to find the stuff no one else wanted. Our black was simple black jeans and black tee because we didn't have options.) Their clothes are just as designer as the preppy kids, but now the preppy kids are the small percentage of the student population. Almost all the kids look like they stepped out of Hot Topic. They have fully conformed to the idea of what makes them non-conformist. They are the definition of conformity, but more amusing than that, they don't know it.
I can't follow rules. I tried. I spent a lot of time beating myself up and feeling like a failure because the rules did not work for me.
I'm not talking about rebelling for the sake of being defiant or breaking laws and rules that are inconsiderate to others. I think it's really important to remember that others exist and deserve to be treated with respect.
But I sat in church feeling like there was something inherently wrong with me because I didn't think the things they taught made sense and I felt like I was evil because of the things I thought that made me happy. I had trouble committing to jobs (understatement. I tried very hard to fit in at various jobs - started out excited, got depressed, quit, felt stupid for quitting, and was never really in my right mind)
I tried losing weight at a Weight Watchers type group (done through the hospital, not affiliated, but same concept) and using online groups, but I failed harder than when I went on my own. I join writers groups and try so hard to find success by associating with others, but even that doesn't seem to work.
I don't know my point here, to be honest. I just think it's really funny to see the stream of kids coming from school thinking they are different, but they are all the same. I bet the generation above me thought the same thing. Plus, I guess I thought talking about how I felt like a failure when I did what I was "supposed" to do would be therapeutic, but I find myself in the exact same place... wishing I had the strength to do more with my life, but also loving the artistic lifestyle I'm living.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
My food isn't pretty, but it tastes damned good.
Jane asked me to make this cake for her birthday:
This is how it turned out.
We used the red velvet cake that I cut away to make the "blood" crumbles. She loved it. Yeah, clearly I'm no pro, but it was fun and I'm not interested in all that perfection. I actually can make cakes look nicer. I just don't care to...(still not pro)
I did not do the cake from scratch. I did not have any red dye and it was cheaper to buy a box mix that to gather the ingredients I have run out of in my house. I did splurge and try a fancy box mix, though.
I admit, it was almost as moist and lovely as a home made cake - which I do prefer to Betty Crocker, Pillsbury, and other box mixes. It cost me $4 instead of around $1, but when you consider buying a cake (My favorite store cake is $17 from Costco, but that is also among the cheapest) $4 doesn't seem like much. The frosting is home made cream cheese. I don't think I've bought canned frosting more than 3 times in my life and every time I'm disappointed so now I refuse.
Yeah, his box seems super pretentious. I have been avoiding these products popping up all over the place, but I wanted to make a good red velvet cake for her birthday and I did not want to deal with lots of red food coloring so I took my chances. Also pretty pretentious that it costs 4X more than the cheapest box on the shelf, but it was definitely better than the generic mixes I've tried in the distant past.
This is how it turned out.
We used the red velvet cake that I cut away to make the "blood" crumbles. She loved it. Yeah, clearly I'm no pro, but it was fun and I'm not interested in all that perfection. I actually can make cakes look nicer. I just don't care to...(still not pro)
I did not do the cake from scratch. I did not have any red dye and it was cheaper to buy a box mix that to gather the ingredients I have run out of in my house. I did splurge and try a fancy box mix, though.
I admit, it was almost as moist and lovely as a home made cake - which I do prefer to Betty Crocker, Pillsbury, and other box mixes. It cost me $4 instead of around $1, but when you consider buying a cake (My favorite store cake is $17 from Costco, but that is also among the cheapest) $4 doesn't seem like much. The frosting is home made cream cheese. I don't think I've bought canned frosting more than 3 times in my life and every time I'm disappointed so now I refuse.
Gun Control
A perfect example.
See, I'm not opposed to listening to both sides of an argument. Maybe that's why I wonder how people think it's so easy to come down on one side or the other of these major debates. In the case of at least three people I know personally, it's because they listen to their own party's agenda, read their propaganda and buy unquestioningly into every spin their side puts onto the other side's perfectly good arguments.
So, I watched this whole thing and this is exactly what I'm talking about. It starts out sounding like a great argument, but within 2 minutes, he's talking as though what the gun control advocates are talking about is *taking away all guns from citizens everywhere*. People do have the right to protect themselves everywhere and yeah, often a person uses their weapon to defend themselves, but until I hear the gun control opponents talking about this issue in sweeping statements as though the advocates are not talking about taking away ALL guns, we won't get anywhere!
Just like we won't get anywhere if the advocates don't stop saying that taking away high powered rifles is going to solve a damned thing. Both sides have cute metaphors that make a lot of sense, but neither side actually addresses the real problem. They talk about taking away guns or not taking away guns. They say we need to address crime, but don't offer any specific details on how to go about that. Advocates think better background checks will help, but either way bad people are bad people and will kill. Guns help. Not having high powered rifles might slow it down a bit and that sounds damn good when you hear about all the innocent small children recently lost because of high powered weapons. Still, the argument continues with each side saying the same things over and over again. Meanwhile, the opposite side isn't asking for the same things. What they ask changes. The answer doesn't apply to the new question. NO ONE IS LISTENING. They're all too busy trying to figure out what they are going to say that they don't hear the question.
My question? What ARE you going to do about it? Stop talking and do something.
Look, the fact is, you are both wrong, but you keep spouting the exact same propaganda over and over which is why WE WILL NEVER GET ANYWHERE. AT ALL. EVER.
I am also impressed by this graphic, though it is a little too "advocate" heavy...
See, I'm not opposed to listening to both sides of an argument. Maybe that's why I wonder how people think it's so easy to come down on one side or the other of these major debates. In the case of at least three people I know personally, it's because they listen to their own party's agenda, read their propaganda and buy unquestioningly into every spin their side puts onto the other side's perfectly good arguments.
So, I watched this whole thing and this is exactly what I'm talking about. It starts out sounding like a great argument, but within 2 minutes, he's talking as though what the gun control advocates are talking about is *taking away all guns from citizens everywhere*. People do have the right to protect themselves everywhere and yeah, often a person uses their weapon to defend themselves, but until I hear the gun control opponents talking about this issue in sweeping statements as though the advocates are not talking about taking away ALL guns, we won't get anywhere!
Just like we won't get anywhere if the advocates don't stop saying that taking away high powered rifles is going to solve a damned thing. Both sides have cute metaphors that make a lot of sense, but neither side actually addresses the real problem. They talk about taking away guns or not taking away guns. They say we need to address crime, but don't offer any specific details on how to go about that. Advocates think better background checks will help, but either way bad people are bad people and will kill. Guns help. Not having high powered rifles might slow it down a bit and that sounds damn good when you hear about all the innocent small children recently lost because of high powered weapons. Still, the argument continues with each side saying the same things over and over again. Meanwhile, the opposite side isn't asking for the same things. What they ask changes. The answer doesn't apply to the new question. NO ONE IS LISTENING. They're all too busy trying to figure out what they are going to say that they don't hear the question.
My question? What ARE you going to do about it? Stop talking and do something.
Look, the fact is, you are both wrong, but you keep spouting the exact same propaganda over and over which is why WE WILL NEVER GET ANYWHERE. AT ALL. EVER.
I am also impressed by this graphic, though it is a little too "advocate" heavy...
My bigger point in posting that is to make the point that we talk and talk and talk about the amendment giving people the right to have guns, but read it, please. The whole thing. Not just that one line. Where is the well-regulated militia? How is private gun ownership contributing to the security of freedom? Remember this amendment was created so that those who had branched out and struggled greatly to establish themselves in what became the US could come together and defend themselves against big bad government at the time - the monarchy.
Of course, no where in there does it take into account the fact that we have so many people and such a poor record on keeping crime at bay that ordinary citizens feel they need to carry a weapon to defend themselves because they can't trust that anyone else will help them...
Monday, April 15, 2013
Last week was Jane's birthday. She turned 12 which I consider an important birthday. It feels like the unofficial passage from older child to young adult. We took her to dinner at Outback so she could try a 'bloomin' onion' which she had heard about on Buffy: The Vampire Slayer - a show she has been enjoying for the last few months. She loved it, of course, but I just love the fact that when it comes to her birthday and she is allowed to pick a restaurant, she almost always picks something new.
At dinner began the scavenger hunt. Scott came up with an amazing gift for her - 2 tickets to P!nk - and wanted to make the giving a special event so he created a scavenger hunt where she had to do good deeds in order to earn puzzle pieces which she put together over the weekend and learned about this great gift. She's a huge fan. I enjoy her music and attitude a lot, too, so I'll be the adult in charge of taking her. (I know. Quite the sacrifice!) It made her birthday memorable and I hope was a good connection for her and her father.
I'm looking forward to these teenage years. It's going to be rough, I'm sure, but seeing her grow so far has been pretty amazing. The next few years will define her future and she has great plans for that.
At dinner began the scavenger hunt. Scott came up with an amazing gift for her - 2 tickets to P!nk - and wanted to make the giving a special event so he created a scavenger hunt where she had to do good deeds in order to earn puzzle pieces which she put together over the weekend and learned about this great gift. She's a huge fan. I enjoy her music and attitude a lot, too, so I'll be the adult in charge of taking her. (I know. Quite the sacrifice!) It made her birthday memorable and I hope was a good connection for her and her father.
I'm looking forward to these teenage years. It's going to be rough, I'm sure, but seeing her grow so far has been pretty amazing. The next few years will define her future and she has great plans for that.
Friday, April 12, 2013
Advertising...
Hilarious. I entered a contest using Facebook to win a gift card from Target. I don't know what made me hit the "comments" on the Target post right afterwards, but I did.
People lose their cool for the dumbest things. These are examples of the stupidity, but each one has at least a dozen other people saying the exact same things in different words.
1) "Too bad you require birthdate. I wish retailers would realize that not everyone is willing to give out all this personal information so easily online. Would have preferred a drop down menu with age ranges."
You entered your birthday to get a Facebook account, and FB is designed to share your information with more companies than hookers during shore leave. Additionally, how many FB users get hacked daily? At least 30% of my FB friends have been hacked at some point or another. No one using Target has been hacked, to my knowledge.
2) "I would love to enter but DO NOT feel I should have to open my fb file"
Use your brain and read. It said to link to FB *IF* you want to use FB to fill out your information...for your own convenience. You could type it in yourself if you wanted to do so.
3) "You CANNOT submit unless you grant access to FB friends and contact list. This is an unfortunate scam."
You're wrong. I unchecked the box and filled out the form and it submitted fine so I think it is user error (read: you are stupid!) that it wouldn't let you submit. Scam? Where's the scam? Too quick to use that word.
4) "This a thinly disguised means at gathering consumer information - right?"
Isn't everything? Right now, everyone in society is freaking out that companies are gathering information so that they can sell to you. Admittedly, it's a little creepy when I look at prices for hotels for a vacation, then the next time I am on FB, I get an advert telling you to book a room at the destination you were researching, but that's the nature of the internet beat right now. Block the cookies that allow tracking and you can't even use FB. It makes me nervous about personal information, of course, so I am cautious, but look past paranoia and you realize this is how companies are making products that are more specific to *you*.
I don't like being advertised to all the time. We're bombarded by things that we like, are useful, and we want or need. No matter how much money a household makes, there is a way to spend it all, plus more. Things that used to be free in the world and online are not anymore. Common courtesy of providing services because you can is gone and every company (and people, too!) are living by the code that you should not provide anything if there is any possible way to charge money for it. It's the reality of a global economy and fight it all you want, it might be annoying and a huge inconvenience, but at the same time, it is forcing manufacturers to stop thinking about what is convenient for them and focus on what is convenient for their customers.
Additional thought about advertising:
Since the convenience of TiVo/ DVRs have been available, we have seen an increase of banner ads during our television shows. They grow longer and increasingly imposing. Years ago, we made fun of the way shows would advertise during the program - made hilarious in Wayne's World as he threw up Doritos, Pizza Hut, etc, and made the advertising obvious. I know part of the reason this went away was syndication - they had to account for those product placements every time the show airs and also DVD releases.
On top of that, I used to record my shows and cut commercials so I could enjoy them again later. I'd cut opening songs and closing credits, too, so that we could fit as much as possible onto a VHS tape. We remember this, right? Penny pinchers had to do everything they could to get enjoyment where possible. Back then, an hour long program took up about 45 minutes. (Yeah, the old days, it probably took 55 minutes, but hey, I'm not that old.) Now it's about 42 minutes. Comedies take little more than twenty minutes.
I have to admit as I lose precious minutes of the best suspense programs and as I see a flashlight come across the screen, flash "in my eyes" and take up 1/3 of the screen, I've been wondering why there can't be new, comprehensive agreements for product placement in our shows to help pay for advertising space. Personally, I'm cool with seeing my favorite characters eat my least favorite potato chips if it means I get to focus on the actual show and they continue to have time to actually tell their story. I mean, it's okay right now, but when will the trend take us to shows no longer than an SNL skit? I may loathe a slippery slope argument, but there it is.
People lose their cool for the dumbest things. These are examples of the stupidity, but each one has at least a dozen other people saying the exact same things in different words.
1) "Too bad you require birthdate. I wish retailers would realize that not everyone is willing to give out all this personal information so easily online. Would have preferred a drop down menu with age ranges."
You entered your birthday to get a Facebook account, and FB is designed to share your information with more companies than hookers during shore leave. Additionally, how many FB users get hacked daily? At least 30% of my FB friends have been hacked at some point or another. No one using Target has been hacked, to my knowledge.
2) "I would love to enter but DO NOT feel I should have to open my fb file"
Use your brain and read. It said to link to FB *IF* you want to use FB to fill out your information...for your own convenience. You could type it in yourself if you wanted to do so.
3) "You CANNOT submit unless you grant access to FB friends and contact list. This is an unfortunate scam."
You're wrong. I unchecked the box and filled out the form and it submitted fine so I think it is user error (read: you are stupid!) that it wouldn't let you submit. Scam? Where's the scam? Too quick to use that word.
4) "This a thinly disguised means at gathering consumer information - right?"
Isn't everything? Right now, everyone in society is freaking out that companies are gathering information so that they can sell to you. Admittedly, it's a little creepy when I look at prices for hotels for a vacation, then the next time I am on FB, I get an advert telling you to book a room at the destination you were researching, but that's the nature of the internet beat right now. Block the cookies that allow tracking and you can't even use FB. It makes me nervous about personal information, of course, so I am cautious, but look past paranoia and you realize this is how companies are making products that are more specific to *you*.
I don't like being advertised to all the time. We're bombarded by things that we like, are useful, and we want or need. No matter how much money a household makes, there is a way to spend it all, plus more. Things that used to be free in the world and online are not anymore. Common courtesy of providing services because you can is gone and every company (and people, too!) are living by the code that you should not provide anything if there is any possible way to charge money for it. It's the reality of a global economy and fight it all you want, it might be annoying and a huge inconvenience, but at the same time, it is forcing manufacturers to stop thinking about what is convenient for them and focus on what is convenient for their customers.
Additional thought about advertising:
Since the convenience of TiVo/ DVRs have been available, we have seen an increase of banner ads during our television shows. They grow longer and increasingly imposing. Years ago, we made fun of the way shows would advertise during the program - made hilarious in Wayne's World as he threw up Doritos, Pizza Hut, etc, and made the advertising obvious. I know part of the reason this went away was syndication - they had to account for those product placements every time the show airs and also DVD releases.
On top of that, I used to record my shows and cut commercials so I could enjoy them again later. I'd cut opening songs and closing credits, too, so that we could fit as much as possible onto a VHS tape. We remember this, right? Penny pinchers had to do everything they could to get enjoyment where possible. Back then, an hour long program took up about 45 minutes. (Yeah, the old days, it probably took 55 minutes, but hey, I'm not that old.) Now it's about 42 minutes. Comedies take little more than twenty minutes.
I have to admit as I lose precious minutes of the best suspense programs and as I see a flashlight come across the screen, flash "in my eyes" and take up 1/3 of the screen, I've been wondering why there can't be new, comprehensive agreements for product placement in our shows to help pay for advertising space. Personally, I'm cool with seeing my favorite characters eat my least favorite potato chips if it means I get to focus on the actual show and they continue to have time to actually tell their story. I mean, it's okay right now, but when will the trend take us to shows no longer than an SNL skit? I may loathe a slippery slope argument, but there it is.
Monday, April 8, 2013
Sports
My daughter wanted to play lacrosse (lax) and I thought "Sure!" Being educated and informed, I know there are many fantastic benefits of a kid being involved in sports. She's done karate and swimming so "active" is not new in her list of descriptions, but team sports are a whole new beast.
Team sports. I don't watch them on telly. Over the years I've had opportunities to see them live and those are much more interesting to watch, like a play or any live performance, of course, but I don't really care to spend money on these things. I've been to kids games a couple times to show support. Before elementary school put Jane on a T-ball team for the summer, but the following year we moved out of the area, she started school, and she progressed in karate then started swimming so I didn't give ball games another thought. I am neither a sports fan, obviously, but I am also not a part of that subversive group that hates team sports or harbors ill will from either exclusion or bad experiences.
Not that I am free of those, either. I did like to play basketball in gym at school, but because I was chubby, no one would ever pass me the ball. I also liked volleyball. I wasn't very good, but I tried really hard. Then the girls would make fun of me or rudely say in front of everyone that I shouldn't be allowed to serve because I didn't get it over the net very often.* I wasn't very good at many group games, but I wasn't that horrible. Even still, I was outcast for even trying. Let's not discuss how my weight may have been affected if I just felt included in the sports things, huh?
So when she wanted to start lacrosse, I immediately saw the great things about team sports. Camaraderie, active lifestyle, clear mind, clear body, watching out for others, integrity; yes I know the list goes on and on. I knew it meant I had to deal with those particular women who think that pushing their kids in sports meant they love their kid more than I do. I was ready to sit at games, bored out of my mind, but cheering when my kid made a goal or blocked a pass or whatnot.
What I forgot is the reason why I always felt alienated by "sports" types. This is different from athletic, I don't know if you've noticed. An athletic person just uses life as an excuse to play sports. Sports types are something that I know I'll spend the next few months learning to understand. I'm hesitant to put my feelings into words because in the near future I might learn a lot more. For now, I don't think my opinions are negative, but if they are I don't intend them to be. It seems to me that the sports types are the ones who are amateur cheerleaders. They are more interested in the sports fashion and a certain look than the actual game. They focus on raising money, picking uniforms, and thinking that school spirit relates directly to the sports teams - all very important things, but not the only things in life. Any choice you put first, it feels, that isn't about your kid's sport means you don't care about your kid. Homework is important, as long as it doesn't interfere with game day schedules. Money should be endless for sports even if it means giving up everything else.
Everyone's been generally nice. I know they look at me and hubby and think "fat people=not athletic" which, if they are like me, means "I am not sure how to relate to this person, but let's talk and maybe we'll find something in common!" Sometimes it obviously means "Stupid, lazy, and therefore not really worth my respect, time, conversational skills, or equal treatment." I'm used to that. Been true my whole life.
Still, the first day of practice, we showed up and one of the coaches looked us up and down, then looked at Jane and asked if she had played before. We said no. He responded with "well, she looks pretty fit so maybe she'll do okay." We kindly took the hit and said that she had been in karate before, but is that something he would say to a skinny couple? For years, I just tried not to see these things and give the benefit of the doubt, but lately, I have started to notice just how much people are totally judgmental of fat people and treat us like, generally, we don't have feelings. These people are new in our lives and have no idea how much we've lost. They have no idea that we lead a much healthier lifestyle than, sometimes, they do, but now our bodies have to catch up.
Last weekend, there was a three hour event for all lax players associated with Brighton. This meant boys and girls in grades 4 though 12th. They were doing some fundraisers, I knew, which was great because I know lax is recognized by the schools, but not actually sponsored by them so they have to raise a lot of money to play. Information also said there would be raffle, drills, and more. We dropped off Jane and her friend, then went to find a parking spot. Parking was atrocious so we parked elsewhere about half a block away. This meant it took about 5 minutes to get back to the park and by then, they were doing catch drills with some older girls which I thought was awesome of them. I like two of them because the one was being friendly. She asked the other youth questions like what's your name? What other sports do you like? Do you enjoy school? The other girl was being a real mentor. "If you do this when you catch the ball, then you're ready to throw faster." And she did it very sweet so that it didn't feel like she was criticizing the girl, just making her a better player.
Jane's counterpart was talking to her friend the entire time about school drama. Don't know if Jane learned a thing, but at least she played catch. I watched and now I think I'm going to hit the thrift shops and garage sales to see if I can find a stick so I can practice with Jane to the best of my ability. Better than nothing, I figure. I can't run and scrimmage and I'm not the best catcher, but I can definitely be someone to keep the ball moving.
Later, these same girls were out on the street selling blankets to raise funds (a $20 minky for $55 because it says Bengals! and, you know, if it says something about the school, it's for sports. Don't see anyone selling these items at German Club, but whatever.) It was in that moment that I realized where 'Woo Girls' (search HIMYM if this is an unfamiliar term) come from and where they go. They are not just women on the town who have nothing going so they have to woo. No, they start out on the side of the road trying to entice drivers to honk in support of the teams, buy blankets, and instead of yelling "Come get your car washed by a cheerleader!" they just yell "WOOOO!!!!"
Then they must go through the phase discussed on How I Met Your Mother and the next thing you know, they are soccer moms. "Wooo!" = someone bought a bake sale cupcake! "Woooo!" = someone showed up at practice!
I don't woo. I am not like Lily who was willing to try. Okay, I take that back. If I was out in public and someone said the new episode of Doctor Who was going to be written by Douglas Adams third cousin, I would definitely yell "WOOO!" but my sports related woos tend to be a lot more subdued. They won't be for Jane's big moments, I hope, but in generally, I just don't get that thrilled.
This weekend, they've been trying to drum up interest in some Ice Breaker Tournament. Well, we are just barely past paying for equipment, practice clothes, three types of registration (each with their own fee) and all the other ways that putting your kids into sports sucks up any extra money you have unless you happen to be a larger income household. They did not tell us what is involved with this tournament, what times it takes place, or anything other than it is on Thursday (Jane's birthday), Friday (the day we were going to take her out for a special dinner) and Saturday (the day we were going to spend cleaning for her party, baking her birthday cake, and sending her on a scavenger hunt for a super special gift Scott bought her). The timing sucks for that reason, but I told her if she wants to do it, we will do it. Of course, it's yet another fee. I am not quite sure where I will pull it from, because with all these things, it's not like we ever have a chance to put money into some magical savings account, but it's also not like we're struggling SO hard that we can't come up with it. I'm just annoyed because it's ANOTHER FEE. $$$$$$$$ Who says it's the last? Are they going to start emailing in two weeks about some other special thing that's great for the girls that only costs another $40, $60, whatever number of dollars? It's "only" a certain number of dollars to you guys, okay? We spend our money on other things besides sports like books so stop saying its "only" this amount when it all adds together until it's just not possible to squeeze another dollar out of us. I mean, with the internet, everyone charges some fee to participate, a small fee, but it all adds up. I don't fall into that advertising so I don't like feeling manipulated here.
We told Jane that getting into this tournament means cancelling other plans this week. She told her friend she doesn't know if she wants to do it, so her friend argues why she can still make it work with all these other plans. She can say she isn't all that experienced and they'll argue it's good practice. This is another point of contention I feel with all people these days, not just the sport types. Those of us raised with good manners have a hard time saying "no" so we say "we have to wash our hair" er, I mean, "I'm not that experienced and it says it's for people who know what they are doing", "I have other plans", and other polite excuses, but these day, people don't take a hint. They just argue their point until you say no. Well, that's a mannerism I'm okay to lose (I am less flexible about losing manners like how to behave in a nice restaurant and how to treat people who are different...) so I told her if she wants to say no, it's okay to just say no. I have a feeling her friends will talk her into it anyway. This is what "nice girls" get. If she ends up doing something she isn't sure she wants to do and has to give up doing the things she wants to do, isn't that a cousin to bullying?
I feel like we are stuck in a world where people are finally eschewing the tight bounds of spending their lives pleasing other people, but instead of compromising, they just all want it their way now and the meek are left to give in. The loud don't listen to the quiet because they feel the quiet should be loud if they want anything. Who decided pushy is the better way to be? We teach our kids to be assertive, then are surprised when they get confused and turn into bullies. We call it confidence to steamroll over others, and are then hurt when someone steamrolls over us.
I hope Jane loves playing lacrosse, but it's equally important to me that she not only does well in school, but that she excels. I've always felt people lose sight of intelligence when sports enter the picture. Athletes can be intelligent, of course, but is it the priority? Or do sports become the priority? And should they? In this world where people criticize weight and claim it's about health, where do those whose heart race at a good book or live for writing or art fit in?
*Personal side-track: The part where I hold ill will is that one gym teacher used this as the reason she marked me down for my gym grades. She specifically said it was because I didn't ever have the ball in my hands. With volleyball, I started counting other people and observed that if you are skinny and NEVER get it over the net, this is less reason to be teased that being fat and only doing it 30% of the time. I always kinda felt that the other kids should have been marked down for not including me, but gym grades can't be based on test scores, so the question becomes what should they be based upon? Supposedly, they we going to be based on improvement in those presidential workouts like doing more situps in a minute and running the mile faster, but not all of my teachers did so. The one that really made me mad was that I would get up and participate every single day. One girl used her menses for a week every month, stood around, often sat in the corner and hid from the games, and generally tried not to be seen not participating and received a higher grade. I do not think we should ever get rid of gym class, but I don't think a person's grade should depend on their looks.
Team sports. I don't watch them on telly. Over the years I've had opportunities to see them live and those are much more interesting to watch, like a play or any live performance, of course, but I don't really care to spend money on these things. I've been to kids games a couple times to show support. Before elementary school put Jane on a T-ball team for the summer, but the following year we moved out of the area, she started school, and she progressed in karate then started swimming so I didn't give ball games another thought. I am neither a sports fan, obviously, but I am also not a part of that subversive group that hates team sports or harbors ill will from either exclusion or bad experiences.
Not that I am free of those, either. I did like to play basketball in gym at school, but because I was chubby, no one would ever pass me the ball. I also liked volleyball. I wasn't very good, but I tried really hard. Then the girls would make fun of me or rudely say in front of everyone that I shouldn't be allowed to serve because I didn't get it over the net very often.* I wasn't very good at many group games, but I wasn't that horrible. Even still, I was outcast for even trying. Let's not discuss how my weight may have been affected if I just felt included in the sports things, huh?
So when she wanted to start lacrosse, I immediately saw the great things about team sports. Camaraderie, active lifestyle, clear mind, clear body, watching out for others, integrity; yes I know the list goes on and on. I knew it meant I had to deal with those particular women who think that pushing their kids in sports meant they love their kid more than I do. I was ready to sit at games, bored out of my mind, but cheering when my kid made a goal or blocked a pass or whatnot.
What I forgot is the reason why I always felt alienated by "sports" types. This is different from athletic, I don't know if you've noticed. An athletic person just uses life as an excuse to play sports. Sports types are something that I know I'll spend the next few months learning to understand. I'm hesitant to put my feelings into words because in the near future I might learn a lot more. For now, I don't think my opinions are negative, but if they are I don't intend them to be. It seems to me that the sports types are the ones who are amateur cheerleaders. They are more interested in the sports fashion and a certain look than the actual game. They focus on raising money, picking uniforms, and thinking that school spirit relates directly to the sports teams - all very important things, but not the only things in life. Any choice you put first, it feels, that isn't about your kid's sport means you don't care about your kid. Homework is important, as long as it doesn't interfere with game day schedules. Money should be endless for sports even if it means giving up everything else.
Everyone's been generally nice. I know they look at me and hubby and think "fat people=not athletic" which, if they are like me, means "I am not sure how to relate to this person, but let's talk and maybe we'll find something in common!" Sometimes it obviously means "Stupid, lazy, and therefore not really worth my respect, time, conversational skills, or equal treatment." I'm used to that. Been true my whole life.
Still, the first day of practice, we showed up and one of the coaches looked us up and down, then looked at Jane and asked if she had played before. We said no. He responded with "well, she looks pretty fit so maybe she'll do okay." We kindly took the hit and said that she had been in karate before, but is that something he would say to a skinny couple? For years, I just tried not to see these things and give the benefit of the doubt, but lately, I have started to notice just how much people are totally judgmental of fat people and treat us like, generally, we don't have feelings. These people are new in our lives and have no idea how much we've lost. They have no idea that we lead a much healthier lifestyle than, sometimes, they do, but now our bodies have to catch up.
Last weekend, there was a three hour event for all lax players associated with Brighton. This meant boys and girls in grades 4 though 12th. They were doing some fundraisers, I knew, which was great because I know lax is recognized by the schools, but not actually sponsored by them so they have to raise a lot of money to play. Information also said there would be raffle, drills, and more. We dropped off Jane and her friend, then went to find a parking spot. Parking was atrocious so we parked elsewhere about half a block away. This meant it took about 5 minutes to get back to the park and by then, they were doing catch drills with some older girls which I thought was awesome of them. I like two of them because the one was being friendly. She asked the other youth questions like what's your name? What other sports do you like? Do you enjoy school? The other girl was being a real mentor. "If you do this when you catch the ball, then you're ready to throw faster." And she did it very sweet so that it didn't feel like she was criticizing the girl, just making her a better player.
Jane's counterpart was talking to her friend the entire time about school drama. Don't know if Jane learned a thing, but at least she played catch. I watched and now I think I'm going to hit the thrift shops and garage sales to see if I can find a stick so I can practice with Jane to the best of my ability. Better than nothing, I figure. I can't run and scrimmage and I'm not the best catcher, but I can definitely be someone to keep the ball moving.
Later, these same girls were out on the street selling blankets to raise funds (a $20 minky for $55 because it says Bengals! and, you know, if it says something about the school, it's for sports. Don't see anyone selling these items at German Club, but whatever.) It was in that moment that I realized where 'Woo Girls' (search HIMYM if this is an unfamiliar term) come from and where they go. They are not just women on the town who have nothing going so they have to woo. No, they start out on the side of the road trying to entice drivers to honk in support of the teams, buy blankets, and instead of yelling "Come get your car washed by a cheerleader!" they just yell "WOOOO!!!!"
Then they must go through the phase discussed on How I Met Your Mother and the next thing you know, they are soccer moms. "Wooo!" = someone bought a bake sale cupcake! "Woooo!" = someone showed up at practice!
I don't woo. I am not like Lily who was willing to try. Okay, I take that back. If I was out in public and someone said the new episode of Doctor Who was going to be written by Douglas Adams third cousin, I would definitely yell "WOOO!" but my sports related woos tend to be a lot more subdued. They won't be for Jane's big moments, I hope, but in generally, I just don't get that thrilled.
This weekend, they've been trying to drum up interest in some Ice Breaker Tournament. Well, we are just barely past paying for equipment, practice clothes, three types of registration (each with their own fee) and all the other ways that putting your kids into sports sucks up any extra money you have unless you happen to be a larger income household. They did not tell us what is involved with this tournament, what times it takes place, or anything other than it is on Thursday (Jane's birthday), Friday (the day we were going to take her out for a special dinner) and Saturday (the day we were going to spend cleaning for her party, baking her birthday cake, and sending her on a scavenger hunt for a super special gift Scott bought her). The timing sucks for that reason, but I told her if she wants to do it, we will do it. Of course, it's yet another fee. I am not quite sure where I will pull it from, because with all these things, it's not like we ever have a chance to put money into some magical savings account, but it's also not like we're struggling SO hard that we can't come up with it. I'm just annoyed because it's ANOTHER FEE. $$$$$$$$ Who says it's the last? Are they going to start emailing in two weeks about some other special thing that's great for the girls that only costs another $40, $60, whatever number of dollars? It's "only" a certain number of dollars to you guys, okay? We spend our money on other things besides sports like books so stop saying its "only" this amount when it all adds together until it's just not possible to squeeze another dollar out of us. I mean, with the internet, everyone charges some fee to participate, a small fee, but it all adds up. I don't fall into that advertising so I don't like feeling manipulated here.
We told Jane that getting into this tournament means cancelling other plans this week. She told her friend she doesn't know if she wants to do it, so her friend argues why she can still make it work with all these other plans. She can say she isn't all that experienced and they'll argue it's good practice. This is another point of contention I feel with all people these days, not just the sport types. Those of us raised with good manners have a hard time saying "no" so we say "we have to wash our hair" er, I mean, "I'm not that experienced and it says it's for people who know what they are doing", "I have other plans", and other polite excuses, but these day, people don't take a hint. They just argue their point until you say no. Well, that's a mannerism I'm okay to lose (I am less flexible about losing manners like how to behave in a nice restaurant and how to treat people who are different...) so I told her if she wants to say no, it's okay to just say no. I have a feeling her friends will talk her into it anyway. This is what "nice girls" get. If she ends up doing something she isn't sure she wants to do and has to give up doing the things she wants to do, isn't that a cousin to bullying?
I feel like we are stuck in a world where people are finally eschewing the tight bounds of spending their lives pleasing other people, but instead of compromising, they just all want it their way now and the meek are left to give in. The loud don't listen to the quiet because they feel the quiet should be loud if they want anything. Who decided pushy is the better way to be? We teach our kids to be assertive, then are surprised when they get confused and turn into bullies. We call it confidence to steamroll over others, and are then hurt when someone steamrolls over us.
I hope Jane loves playing lacrosse, but it's equally important to me that she not only does well in school, but that she excels. I've always felt people lose sight of intelligence when sports enter the picture. Athletes can be intelligent, of course, but is it the priority? Or do sports become the priority? And should they? In this world where people criticize weight and claim it's about health, where do those whose heart race at a good book or live for writing or art fit in?
*Personal side-track: The part where I hold ill will is that one gym teacher used this as the reason she marked me down for my gym grades. She specifically said it was because I didn't ever have the ball in my hands. With volleyball, I started counting other people and observed that if you are skinny and NEVER get it over the net, this is less reason to be teased that being fat and only doing it 30% of the time. I always kinda felt that the other kids should have been marked down for not including me, but gym grades can't be based on test scores, so the question becomes what should they be based upon? Supposedly, they we going to be based on improvement in those presidential workouts like doing more situps in a minute and running the mile faster, but not all of my teachers did so. The one that really made me mad was that I would get up and participate every single day. One girl used her menses for a week every month, stood around, often sat in the corner and hid from the games, and generally tried not to be seen not participating and received a higher grade. I do not think we should ever get rid of gym class, but I don't think a person's grade should depend on their looks.
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Parenting tip
Parenting tip #73. (Don't go looking. I just make up numbers.)
When I read The Baby Whisperer, one thing she said that made a lot of sense was "Start as you mean to go on." As I recall (a decade later so I expect she said much more on the subject) was that you need to think in terms of the baby's habits... like sleeping in your bed or feeding schedules.
In reality, this is a great piece of advice which you can relate to many many subjects. Not only start as you mean to go on, but also have you kids behave at home as you would like them to behave elsewhere.
Based totally on my own observation, I think parents lose perspective when they are with their kids; particularly stay-at-home moms. Yeah, I'm one, but I did think in these terms which I *believe* reduced the annoying things my kid did. At least, I got lots of compliments about how well behaved she was and it was partly because I respected her so she respected me and others.
Specific examples of what I'm saying: If you let you kid jump on the couch at your house, they'll do it on other couches. Fine if you don't care about your own furniture, but stop and think for a minute. If your mom just bought a new, nice couch, would you want to bring your kids in and start letting them jump on it in muddy shoes? No. Do you really think it's polite to let them do it at, say, the library? No. So maybe, even if it doesn't bother you, you should not let them do it at home. It doesn't have to be a big punishment deal, just show that you expect them to not jump on the furniture and eventually they'll learn not to do it. Let them learn this at home instead of having them do it at someone's house and waiting until your friend looks frustrated, upset, and doesn't want your kids to come over anymore. That creates a feeling they should be punished for jumping on it. If they aren't really allowed at home, then you don't have to punish, over time it becomes something you just don't do. Like throwing food. Kids do it, but you don't let them continue to do it, do you? But you also don't have to yell and scream to make them stop. You just have to give a look that says you are not amused and say "Please don't do that." They'll do it again, of course, but I haven't seen very many 4 year olds who throw their food across the room unless they are totally neglected. Why is jumping on furniture more allowed?
I mean, I just see a lot of kids whose parent or baby sitter entertains them all day - in their face, talking, leading games, etc. There should definitely be a certain amount of structured play, but as adults, they won't have someone to entertain them. If they learn how to entertain themselves, it encourages their creativity and teaches them that it's okay to take chances, but also gives them practice on finding ways to entertain themselves. Sometimes a mom becomes so accustomed to the life and lose perspective that they don't realize other things. I've seen situations where a mom thinks it is amusing that her kid wants to join her in the bathroom. Later I'll hear from someone who babysat the same kid that the kid walked in on them in the bathroom - awkward! So teach you kids boundaries and respect by giving them boundaries and showing them respect. How will they learn to live in the world if you don't make them live in it every day? If you make your house too kid friendly and let the kids set the patterns for every little thing, it's not a real world.
When I read The Baby Whisperer, one thing she said that made a lot of sense was "Start as you mean to go on." As I recall (a decade later so I expect she said much more on the subject) was that you need to think in terms of the baby's habits... like sleeping in your bed or feeding schedules.
In reality, this is a great piece of advice which you can relate to many many subjects. Not only start as you mean to go on, but also have you kids behave at home as you would like them to behave elsewhere.
Based totally on my own observation, I think parents lose perspective when they are with their kids; particularly stay-at-home moms. Yeah, I'm one, but I did think in these terms which I *believe* reduced the annoying things my kid did. At least, I got lots of compliments about how well behaved she was and it was partly because I respected her so she respected me and others.
Specific examples of what I'm saying: If you let you kid jump on the couch at your house, they'll do it on other couches. Fine if you don't care about your own furniture, but stop and think for a minute. If your mom just bought a new, nice couch, would you want to bring your kids in and start letting them jump on it in muddy shoes? No. Do you really think it's polite to let them do it at, say, the library? No. So maybe, even if it doesn't bother you, you should not let them do it at home. It doesn't have to be a big punishment deal, just show that you expect them to not jump on the furniture and eventually they'll learn not to do it. Let them learn this at home instead of having them do it at someone's house and waiting until your friend looks frustrated, upset, and doesn't want your kids to come over anymore. That creates a feeling they should be punished for jumping on it. If they aren't really allowed at home, then you don't have to punish, over time it becomes something you just don't do. Like throwing food. Kids do it, but you don't let them continue to do it, do you? But you also don't have to yell and scream to make them stop. You just have to give a look that says you are not amused and say "Please don't do that." They'll do it again, of course, but I haven't seen very many 4 year olds who throw their food across the room unless they are totally neglected. Why is jumping on furniture more allowed?
I mean, I just see a lot of kids whose parent or baby sitter entertains them all day - in their face, talking, leading games, etc. There should definitely be a certain amount of structured play, but as adults, they won't have someone to entertain them. If they learn how to entertain themselves, it encourages their creativity and teaches them that it's okay to take chances, but also gives them practice on finding ways to entertain themselves. Sometimes a mom becomes so accustomed to the life and lose perspective that they don't realize other things. I've seen situations where a mom thinks it is amusing that her kid wants to join her in the bathroom. Later I'll hear from someone who babysat the same kid that the kid walked in on them in the bathroom - awkward! So teach you kids boundaries and respect by giving them boundaries and showing them respect. How will they learn to live in the world if you don't make them live in it every day? If you make your house too kid friendly and let the kids set the patterns for every little thing, it's not a real world.
Monday, March 18, 2013
Cooking
I've divided myself into so many pieces I don't know how to become one again. Note to the right, I have several blogs. Well, I probably should just have one for everything. Was dieting, working on low cal menus and such, but lately I don't care and I also miss baking A LOT.
So:
Pinata apples. Just found these at local farmer's market. Well, they call themselves a farmer's market, but I'm a little hesitant because one bonus of farmer's market shopping is supposed to be supporting the local economy and reducing the emissions of transportation, yet this particular place ships products from all over central and south america. Still, their fruits and veg last longer so we shop there often. Pinata apples are super crisp and just the right amount of sweetness I personally like. Plus, of course, they're pretty!
BBQ beef sandwiches. Used this bread recipe (from my sister's webpage) to make the buns and will be putting the bbq pork version on our webpage soon. The bun was perfect with this sandwich! I'll be doing that from now on.
I could go on and on, but I just did a bunch for St. Patrick's Day. We started off with a "traditional" breakfast...according to sources on the internet that don't seem overly reliable, but at the same time it makes sense. Ireland is full of farmers, moisture, and people who would likely raise goats, pigs, sheep, and/or chickens. The ingredients are easy to grow, farm, or produce in such climate so it seems pretty logical. Oh, and of course a side of coffee with Bailey's Irish Cream Creamer (made into a cheap latte, basically. I don't spend $5 of lattes. I just use sweetener and extra cream as a treat sometimes. Tastes even better than Starbucks, imo.)
Next we made soda bread. It was a very traditional recipe until we added the craisins and dried blueberries. It was good, but I think I can do better. Jane loves. I mean, it really is pretty good, but Sprouts Market (the aforementioned farmer's market) makes a really sweet and tasty one we have bought for dessert. This is much more bread, less sweet. I'm thinking it might make a delightful piece of french toast later this week. YUM. (The vein of green is food coloring, just to be clear. Hubby helped mix it up.)
For dinner, I've never been fond of the smell of cooking cabbage. Corned beef can be pricey and, well, beefy. I don't like beef a lot. We're sort of weaning all meat from our diet, but very slowly. Since my hysterectomy, I can't see a huge logical reason to need much iron, vitamin b, than we can get from beans, spinach, and a well rounded diet. Anyway, we went for another popular dish in the area - Bangers and Mash. These are apple and sage chicken sausages Only, mine's satanic bangers and mash. With an Irish sharp cheddar smile. Then I moved it around and added more delicious tomato.
Afterwards, we went for the greener side of the day; mint brownies. These were delicious, but didn't turn out very pretty. As usual, the brownie part was blah. I have tried half a dozen home made brownie recipes and have yet to find one that is half as good as Ghiradelli's box mix. I know, I know! I have never, ever said home made is not as good as box mixes before, but I just cannot find a recipe with the perfect blend, texture, and taste of that mix I pick up at Costco - although I haven't bought it since we went on our diet. Even though we are, in most senses, off of our diet, I still try not to buy mixes and keep that kind of thing around the house. I figure if I want it, I'll have to make it from scratch - which often keeps me from making goodies - better for waistline. It doesn't always work, but it helps.
So:
For dinner, I've never been fond of the smell of cooking cabbage. Corned beef can be pricey and, well, beefy. I don't like beef a lot. We're sort of weaning all meat from our diet, but very slowly. Since my hysterectomy, I can't see a huge logical reason to need much iron, vitamin b, than we can get from beans, spinach, and a well rounded diet. Anyway, we went for another popular dish in the area - Bangers and Mash. These are apple and sage chicken sausages Only, mine's satanic bangers and mash. With an Irish sharp cheddar smile. Then I moved it around and added more delicious tomato.
Afterwards, we went for the greener side of the day; mint brownies. These were delicious, but didn't turn out very pretty. As usual, the brownie part was blah. I have tried half a dozen home made brownie recipes and have yet to find one that is half as good as Ghiradelli's box mix. I know, I know! I have never, ever said home made is not as good as box mixes before, but I just cannot find a recipe with the perfect blend, texture, and taste of that mix I pick up at Costco - although I haven't bought it since we went on our diet. Even though we are, in most senses, off of our diet, I still try not to buy mixes and keep that kind of thing around the house. I figure if I want it, I'll have to make it from scratch - which often keeps me from making goodies - better for waistline. It doesn't always work, but it helps.
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
It's all about the money...
Due to circumstances beyond her control, Jane had to quit karate last summer. Next belt, brown. Get a couple levels, then she would have been a black belt. ARGH! We offered to let her take them somewhere else, but she felt too burned by the whole situation so while she can defend herself pretty well, she won't ever be able to say she has a belt anyone can recognize as tough. Oh well.
Now, Jane wants to start up lacrosse. Ok! Great activity. Fun. I'm not much into sports, but it could be great for her. No objections, really. It's not like if we got her into a different karate school it would not have cost us a small fortune every month, but still...
Slap, smack, wallop! First they say you have to register with US Lacrosse in order to register with the Utah Lacrosse Association. $25. Now you must register with ULA to get assigned to a team. $95. (Good thing I started looking early. If I had waited until this month, it would have been $120). I talked to ULA on the phone and they said "Yes, you must pay both fees, but once you do, you're all registered and that's it".
Well, not exactly. She wanted to be on the Brighton team with her friend which is great, but then they say you have to pay $45 to register with them. Next email specifies this is not related to the other two fees.
I bought cheap equipment for $80 after looking for used, online classified, asking friends, etc. Will likely have to replace the stick at some point because I have read a bunch that starter sticks are just that. A decent stick will likely be well over $120. She wanted the cool fang mouth guards. $14. New sneakers $45. An outfit, $10. Now they asking about inform sizes so I hope it's included and I don't have to pay another fee for that.
I didn't think it would be so bad because, you know, tax returns. Then teeth (bad problems, expensive!!) new tires, where else did all the money go? I can't even remember it all, but I know almost all of it was important stuff. Oh, and Scott's eye. His implant slipped. A specialist says "We can't see you until your regular eye Dr sees it. $30 copay. Then to specialist. $30. "Oh, I'm so amazing that even though I am affiliated with a hospital covered by your insurance, I refuse to do it there. We have to do it here." Call insurance. They will cover 60% of what they think the surgery should cost. Call around. And around. Allowable charges are around $1500. This guy's place is over $2000 so insurance will cover only 60% of 1500 and then we have to pay the 40%, PLUS his extra fees. So, it's not about him being so amazing he's arrogant; it's about him screwing people over for MORE MONEY.
So now we have to find ANOTHER guy. Well, this other doctor was considered the best dr. in utah for years and put the implant in when Scott was 22. Let's call his office. "Oh yes. Such and such took over and he can do it." $30 and then he says he can't. This is after each Dr says he can't use the previous dr.s records so he has to run all his own tests - with eye problems, this means a day of migraines automatically, btw. Finally we have an eye surgeon who can do it, but it will be yet another $30 and then we'll have to pay for the surgery (because it's still only 80% covered in a facility approved by the insurance.)
It picks and picks at your funds when you finally have them until there is nothing left. It's getting harder and harder to save money, too, so that we have something set aside in case stuff like this happens. Does making more money really solve anything? I'm sure it seems like it should, but the more money we make, the more things seem to go wrong.
Now, Jane wants to start up lacrosse. Ok! Great activity. Fun. I'm not much into sports, but it could be great for her. No objections, really. It's not like if we got her into a different karate school it would not have cost us a small fortune every month, but still...
Slap, smack, wallop! First they say you have to register with US Lacrosse in order to register with the Utah Lacrosse Association. $25. Now you must register with ULA to get assigned to a team. $95. (Good thing I started looking early. If I had waited until this month, it would have been $120). I talked to ULA on the phone and they said "Yes, you must pay both fees, but once you do, you're all registered and that's it".
Well, not exactly. She wanted to be on the Brighton team with her friend which is great, but then they say you have to pay $45 to register with them. Next email specifies this is not related to the other two fees.
I bought cheap equipment for $80 after looking for used, online classified, asking friends, etc. Will likely have to replace the stick at some point because I have read a bunch that starter sticks are just that. A decent stick will likely be well over $120. She wanted the cool fang mouth guards. $14. New sneakers $45. An outfit, $10. Now they asking about inform sizes so I hope it's included and I don't have to pay another fee for that.
I didn't think it would be so bad because, you know, tax returns. Then teeth (bad problems, expensive!!) new tires, where else did all the money go? I can't even remember it all, but I know almost all of it was important stuff. Oh, and Scott's eye. His implant slipped. A specialist says "We can't see you until your regular eye Dr sees it. $30 copay. Then to specialist. $30. "Oh, I'm so amazing that even though I am affiliated with a hospital covered by your insurance, I refuse to do it there. We have to do it here." Call insurance. They will cover 60% of what they think the surgery should cost. Call around. And around. Allowable charges are around $1500. This guy's place is over $2000 so insurance will cover only 60% of 1500 and then we have to pay the 40%, PLUS his extra fees. So, it's not about him being so amazing he's arrogant; it's about him screwing people over for MORE MONEY.
So now we have to find ANOTHER guy. Well, this other doctor was considered the best dr. in utah for years and put the implant in when Scott was 22. Let's call his office. "Oh yes. Such and such took over and he can do it." $30 and then he says he can't. This is after each Dr says he can't use the previous dr.s records so he has to run all his own tests - with eye problems, this means a day of migraines automatically, btw. Finally we have an eye surgeon who can do it, but it will be yet another $30 and then we'll have to pay for the surgery (because it's still only 80% covered in a facility approved by the insurance.)
It picks and picks at your funds when you finally have them until there is nothing left. It's getting harder and harder to save money, too, so that we have something set aside in case stuff like this happens. Does making more money really solve anything? I'm sure it seems like it should, but the more money we make, the more things seem to go wrong.
Monday, March 11, 2013
I should know things by now that would make a difference, but I never learn.
I am pissed today for no good reason. When I'm angry for no reason, I think it means I'm depressed. Does it always appear as sad and lethargic? I mean, I know when I'm sad sometimes I'm just sad, but sometimes I'm depressed.
The other thing I don't really learn is what to do about it. I mean, at times I eat better, do service, distract myself, and exercise. Other times, I am still depressed or there are times when I know I'm depressed but it's kind of too late because I today I could probably do service, distract myself, do a dance video, or stop drinking this cup of coffee and eating this muffin, but I don't. Because I don't care. I mean, why should I? What I don't get is people saying "This is what you do to not be depressed" Well, who cares? No one cares if I'm happy, sad, angry, or, frankly, existent so why am I under such obligation to do a damn thing about it?
And I pointed out to my friend that I get soo sooo sick of people saying that happiness is a choice and if you just make yourself be happy, it will work. Or things like the only people who say it's impossible to be happy all the time are people who aren't happy. Well, I guess that can be true, but happiness is a bite in the ass. If I'm happy, then I can be sad. The only way I have figured out how not to be sad or angry is to shut off all emotion altogether and that only works so long before a person gets tired and just can't take it anymore. Then they are either dead inside or sad. I can be super positive sometimes, but I just don't understand how some people can criticize people who are unhappy and act like they have no idea what it's like to be unhappy. Can someone explain this to me? It baffles me a lot of the time.
I'm just angry. I'm not in a bad bad place because I'm not worried about myself, really. Just don't like being angry, yet I am not able to un-angry myself so far or care about doing the things that might even work.
I've been writing and editing the last few weeks which is the only thing that makes my heart sing. It's not something I was able to do for a few months so I think it's a good sign.
Then today came.
I am pissed today for no good reason. When I'm angry for no reason, I think it means I'm depressed. Does it always appear as sad and lethargic? I mean, I know when I'm sad sometimes I'm just sad, but sometimes I'm depressed.
The other thing I don't really learn is what to do about it. I mean, at times I eat better, do service, distract myself, and exercise. Other times, I am still depressed or there are times when I know I'm depressed but it's kind of too late because I today I could probably do service, distract myself, do a dance video, or stop drinking this cup of coffee and eating this muffin, but I don't. Because I don't care. I mean, why should I? What I don't get is people saying "This is what you do to not be depressed" Well, who cares? No one cares if I'm happy, sad, angry, or, frankly, existent so why am I under such obligation to do a damn thing about it?
And I pointed out to my friend that I get soo sooo sick of people saying that happiness is a choice and if you just make yourself be happy, it will work. Or things like the only people who say it's impossible to be happy all the time are people who aren't happy. Well, I guess that can be true, but happiness is a bite in the ass. If I'm happy, then I can be sad. The only way I have figured out how not to be sad or angry is to shut off all emotion altogether and that only works so long before a person gets tired and just can't take it anymore. Then they are either dead inside or sad. I can be super positive sometimes, but I just don't understand how some people can criticize people who are unhappy and act like they have no idea what it's like to be unhappy. Can someone explain this to me? It baffles me a lot of the time.
I'm just angry. I'm not in a bad bad place because I'm not worried about myself, really. Just don't like being angry, yet I am not able to un-angry myself so far or care about doing the things that might even work.
I've been writing and editing the last few weeks which is the only thing that makes my heart sing. It's not something I was able to do for a few months so I think it's a good sign.
Then today came.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Writing.
Have a lot to do today, but I am still making these goals. Edit 2 chapters. Begin writing short story.
For the week, I would like to write this whole short story, but it hasn't fully come to me yet, so it depends on creativity. Creativity has been missing since my last bout of depression. I would also like to get much more of this book edited.
The parts that go in between these lines are as follows, but a little backwards.
I finished my first book a decade ago. I had decided in high school that I am not creative or smart, so I decided not to be a writer. After that, I read a high percentage of non-fiction, but also some fiction. The way my friends read now (2-5 books a week) is how I used to read, but I forget that and feel inadequate now because I feel good of I finish 2 in a month. I was also in college so reading text books and assigned literature. Additionally, I dabbled a little in writing and honestly only minored in English so I could take upper division creative writing classes which. While I continued to feel inadequate because the teachers thought I did will, technically, but never praised me even slightly, I knew it was an excuse to write. After college, I wrote, but kept it secret from everyone. Well, if you decide you are going to quit writing, you can't lie to yourself, but I tried. I look back and some poems and short ideas I wrote out sporadically, lots of starts and spurts, but no conclusions, and laugh at myself because I thought I wasn't writing. Years late I found some floppy disks with notes about what is on them. I could not retrieve them and have since thrown them out, but I read the scribbles on them or with them explaining what was on those disks and remember that I wasn't a writer at that point. Hilarious.
In the next transition of my life, I got caught up in fan fiction. I will never bash on fanfic, I hope, but I will say that having the characters already there for you to use is a little easier than writing novels. This was perfect because I had married and moved to another state. In the course of those fanfic years, I did not work and we adopted out daughter. I can't decide if it was a perfect transition back into writing or the curse of the plot bunnies which brought me back to writing fiction. Ideas flooded my brain.
So I wrote. I wrote my first book in no time at all and it felt great. Soon I started my second, but then I got slowed down. We moved back and I felt like writing was not a legitimate reason not to spend my days doing everything everyone else asked of me. I still feel that way, but the requests have slowed down. I fill up my time with cleaning, selling Avon, doing things for those who still ask, and being there for my family, but this does still give me time to write. I've written a couple other novels, edited them (I hate the editing part!) and prepped them to certain degrees, but I keep coming back to the first and changing it, making it better, I feel certain, but never quite done. It seems like in these years I should have been able to write a dozen novels, but the problem then becomes my mood and leads to the other part mentioned at the beginning.
I read authors who say you have to dedicate certain time each day or week; it's a job. Yes, that is excellent advice and I do try to do that. It's not like I can only write when the mood strikes me or that it is not important to me, but there are times where pushing myself to write just makes things worse. I have ups and downs and sometimes the ups just don't let me focus enough to write and then the downs don't let me care about writing which is normally the most important thing to me. I'm loathe to use terms to describe myself since I haven't seen a professional therapist since I was 15, so I will just say that these problems have always existed in aspects of my life. I would get a job, be high, and then get so low I would quit. I might regret it later, but I just did not know how to survive through the depressed periods and maintain my jobs which means I had many jobs in my life.
So, as much as I try to make it my job so I can churn out a book a year, I just don't think that plan is realistic for everyone. Then I have friends and family who know I write and feel compelled to tell me about authors who put out two books a year or who have published 80 in their lifetime, etc. This kills me. I wish I could be this prolific, but I just can't. Does that make me a failure? Does that make me less of an artist or less worthy of the title 'author'? I hope not. I have hopes of being published someday, but right now what I imagine as the perfect end goal is a finished story, not a book contract so just writing works for me. This is enough.
Which brings me to the now. I am back to editing that first book again (many times later) and I am convinced this is THE ONE, if I can get through to the end, but I have many chapters to go. I also have an idea for a short story novel and am hoping a minimum of ten stories so I'd like to do about one a month so I can have a collection soon. I do have one finished that needs tweaking. I only have two other ideas. Must keep mind open for more.
For the week, I would like to write this whole short story, but it hasn't fully come to me yet, so it depends on creativity. Creativity has been missing since my last bout of depression. I would also like to get much more of this book edited.
The parts that go in between these lines are as follows, but a little backwards.
I finished my first book a decade ago. I had decided in high school that I am not creative or smart, so I decided not to be a writer. After that, I read a high percentage of non-fiction, but also some fiction. The way my friends read now (2-5 books a week) is how I used to read, but I forget that and feel inadequate now because I feel good of I finish 2 in a month. I was also in college so reading text books and assigned literature. Additionally, I dabbled a little in writing and honestly only minored in English so I could take upper division creative writing classes which. While I continued to feel inadequate because the teachers thought I did will, technically, but never praised me even slightly, I knew it was an excuse to write. After college, I wrote, but kept it secret from everyone. Well, if you decide you are going to quit writing, you can't lie to yourself, but I tried. I look back and some poems and short ideas I wrote out sporadically, lots of starts and spurts, but no conclusions, and laugh at myself because I thought I wasn't writing. Years late I found some floppy disks with notes about what is on them. I could not retrieve them and have since thrown them out, but I read the scribbles on them or with them explaining what was on those disks and remember that I wasn't a writer at that point. Hilarious.
In the next transition of my life, I got caught up in fan fiction. I will never bash on fanfic, I hope, but I will say that having the characters already there for you to use is a little easier than writing novels. This was perfect because I had married and moved to another state. In the course of those fanfic years, I did not work and we adopted out daughter. I can't decide if it was a perfect transition back into writing or the curse of the plot bunnies which brought me back to writing fiction. Ideas flooded my brain.
So I wrote. I wrote my first book in no time at all and it felt great. Soon I started my second, but then I got slowed down. We moved back and I felt like writing was not a legitimate reason not to spend my days doing everything everyone else asked of me. I still feel that way, but the requests have slowed down. I fill up my time with cleaning, selling Avon, doing things for those who still ask, and being there for my family, but this does still give me time to write. I've written a couple other novels, edited them (I hate the editing part!) and prepped them to certain degrees, but I keep coming back to the first and changing it, making it better, I feel certain, but never quite done. It seems like in these years I should have been able to write a dozen novels, but the problem then becomes my mood and leads to the other part mentioned at the beginning.
I read authors who say you have to dedicate certain time each day or week; it's a job. Yes, that is excellent advice and I do try to do that. It's not like I can only write when the mood strikes me or that it is not important to me, but there are times where pushing myself to write just makes things worse. I have ups and downs and sometimes the ups just don't let me focus enough to write and then the downs don't let me care about writing which is normally the most important thing to me. I'm loathe to use terms to describe myself since I haven't seen a professional therapist since I was 15, so I will just say that these problems have always existed in aspects of my life. I would get a job, be high, and then get so low I would quit. I might regret it later, but I just did not know how to survive through the depressed periods and maintain my jobs which means I had many jobs in my life.
So, as much as I try to make it my job so I can churn out a book a year, I just don't think that plan is realistic for everyone. Then I have friends and family who know I write and feel compelled to tell me about authors who put out two books a year or who have published 80 in their lifetime, etc. This kills me. I wish I could be this prolific, but I just can't. Does that make me a failure? Does that make me less of an artist or less worthy of the title 'author'? I hope not. I have hopes of being published someday, but right now what I imagine as the perfect end goal is a finished story, not a book contract so just writing works for me. This is enough.
Which brings me to the now. I am back to editing that first book again (many times later) and I am convinced this is THE ONE, if I can get through to the end, but I have many chapters to go. I also have an idea for a short story novel and am hoping a minimum of ten stories so I'd like to do about one a month so I can have a collection soon. I do have one finished that needs tweaking. I only have two other ideas. Must keep mind open for more.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Ouch, more guns and mental health....
Because it's been all over the place again.
Where it all starts, mainly, is the 2nd amendment right. People quote pieces here and there and bungle the words, then tell how whichever half of it they have quoted supports their position.
It's actually my feeling that people should sit down and read the constitution on its own without and bias, point of view, articles, or research at least once every 10 years. It's quite an enlightening experience. Even taking one bill of rights by itself feels out of context when you read through the whole thing, but here I will begin by quoting the bill (as ratified by the states):
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
We know this came about so American could defend themselves against the British, right? It, of course, because useful almost immediately, but that was the initial purpose. Now people want the right to have guns to be about any number of things.
First, it makes sense that they want to be prepared or feared by their own government, but let's face it, that's unrealistic because the government NOW will always have bigger and badder weapons. They own us. It sucks, but we are going to have to be way more creative than weaponry to defend ourselves in an upheaval. Besides, this requires an organized militia which we haven't seen since the days of limited weaponry like the Civil War. Right or wrong, the South had complete right to form a militia and defend their beliefs. That is what, I believe, the amendment is about; not about the right to have an arsenal.
Second, some just want to defend themselves against criminals, but there are as many stories about people pulling a gun on a robber and getting shot as there are stories of people actually defending themselves.
I could go on and on and frankly I do think that people do have the right to bear arms, but here is a very enlightening article about the NRA. The gist is that the NRA was originally a group to support gun control in a way that would allow people to own guns, but force it to be in a very responsible way. (At least, that's my watered down, quick interpretation). Now, I believe the NRA could care less about responsibility. They feed the comments like "If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns" and "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" into the mouths of all those who follow them, but whenever I hear those, I don't think the person is defending their right to have guns, I think they are followers who don't think for themselves. It's rather silly.
I addressed the former quote last time, but really I keep thinking that, by a similar line of thought, I believe that the only reason for a person to own a gun would be to kill someone. Not protection, not hunting purposes, nothing other than to KILL. Now, I don't believe this which is why I also don't believe the line about criminals. It's silly.
Speaking of silly, I want to address the latter now. A post has gone around FB a little where a guy tells the story of how he put his rifle in a wheelchair (so it could get around) and left it at the front door. The day went as usual. The gun killed no one. Proof, of course, that guns don't kill people.
While I found this amusing and clever, I heard Eddie Izzard in the back of my head... "Yeah, but the guns help." I addressed this last time, too, but poisons and knives are things used by people committing a personal, targeted crime. Guns are really the only easily available weapons used to kill strangers on massive scales.
No one is saying a gun is a criminal. What I am saying is that when someone with a repeating rifle can walk into a school or movie theater and kill a dozen people before anyone has time to react, we have a problem. WE CLEARLY HAVE A PROBLEM. People are scrambling to feel safe and fix it, but gun owners could care less about other people wanting to feel safe or stopping these things from happening again, right? The perception they leave is that they are heartless beasts who just want their guns and protect them like we're trying to euthanize household pets who have never attacked anyone.
Curses - I have lost the article and cannot find it, but this week in our local paper, our (not so) wonderful representatives got together and talked about guns and mental health. Their stance is that mental health gets pulled into the gun debate unfairly.
Well, I can see it is unfair in the sense that labeling these murderers and mentally ill makes people who have mental illness and are not violent feel like they are being labeled a threat, but are we not, as a society, beyond that? Do we not, for the most part, defend mentally ill people who have not shown signs of danger? I mean we no longer throw them into sanitariums or deny the fact that they have mental issues at all. I think for the most part we are enlightened and if we focus on that, we will become even more so. That's what we need.
I also wonder how they can say that. I mean, if it's true that the majority of people who have committed this enormous crimes have been on anti-psychotic, anti-depressant, or other mental health drugs, can we really say it's NOT related? If they were on these drugs and were not mentally unstable, then the problem lies in prescribing these drugs (which I will reiterated, I do believe they are OVER prescribed and UNDER monitored).
I'm not trying to create an unfair stigma of mental health here. What I really hope for is a push for better understanding by the public as well as extension in research. I want to help people and I think there are people who need help and don't seek it. I want it to be seen as seriously as heart disease. What I see is that if people keep saying "I'm mentally ill and if you blame these crimes on mental illness, you're hurting me" or otherwise taking things personally, then we'll never see it as seriously as heart disease. It's time to recognize that people have problems and have the right to get help for it, but that sometimes it goes awry and we should fix it any way we can even if that means managing the mental health industry more.
And there is a modicum of truth, I suppose, to the stigma. I mean, people tend to think all sociopaths and schizophrenics are violent ticking time bombs. Thousands upon thousands of people suffer from these serious problems, but the mental health industry can only prescribe meds and send them home. Some of them don't like what the meds do, so they stop taking them. This cannot be put on the psychiatrist, but the majority of those who don't take them never commit a crime or hurt other people. Yes, we should not think that these people are ticking time bombs, but at the same time, they need help. They deserve help. That help should be easy to get and plentiful without locking them up in some facility. They may never commit a crime, but they could hurt themselves and is that any better? Even if they never hurt themselves physically, there are certain symptoms that come with it that you cannot deny are mentally hurtful to those around which is enough reason to need help. Any way you look at it, it need to be a better system - related to the gun argument or not.
Where it all starts, mainly, is the 2nd amendment right. People quote pieces here and there and bungle the words, then tell how whichever half of it they have quoted supports their position.
It's actually my feeling that people should sit down and read the constitution on its own without and bias, point of view, articles, or research at least once every 10 years. It's quite an enlightening experience. Even taking one bill of rights by itself feels out of context when you read through the whole thing, but here I will begin by quoting the bill (as ratified by the states):
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
We know this came about so American could defend themselves against the British, right? It, of course, because useful almost immediately, but that was the initial purpose. Now people want the right to have guns to be about any number of things.
First, it makes sense that they want to be prepared or feared by their own government, but let's face it, that's unrealistic because the government NOW will always have bigger and badder weapons. They own us. It sucks, but we are going to have to be way more creative than weaponry to defend ourselves in an upheaval. Besides, this requires an organized militia which we haven't seen since the days of limited weaponry like the Civil War. Right or wrong, the South had complete right to form a militia and defend their beliefs. That is what, I believe, the amendment is about; not about the right to have an arsenal.
Second, some just want to defend themselves against criminals, but there are as many stories about people pulling a gun on a robber and getting shot as there are stories of people actually defending themselves.
I could go on and on and frankly I do think that people do have the right to bear arms, but here is a very enlightening article about the NRA. The gist is that the NRA was originally a group to support gun control in a way that would allow people to own guns, but force it to be in a very responsible way. (At least, that's my watered down, quick interpretation). Now, I believe the NRA could care less about responsibility. They feed the comments like "If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns" and "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" into the mouths of all those who follow them, but whenever I hear those, I don't think the person is defending their right to have guns, I think they are followers who don't think for themselves. It's rather silly.
I addressed the former quote last time, but really I keep thinking that, by a similar line of thought, I believe that the only reason for a person to own a gun would be to kill someone. Not protection, not hunting purposes, nothing other than to KILL. Now, I don't believe this which is why I also don't believe the line about criminals. It's silly.
Speaking of silly, I want to address the latter now. A post has gone around FB a little where a guy tells the story of how he put his rifle in a wheelchair (so it could get around) and left it at the front door. The day went as usual. The gun killed no one. Proof, of course, that guns don't kill people.
While I found this amusing and clever, I heard Eddie Izzard in the back of my head... "Yeah, but the guns help." I addressed this last time, too, but poisons and knives are things used by people committing a personal, targeted crime. Guns are really the only easily available weapons used to kill strangers on massive scales.
No one is saying a gun is a criminal. What I am saying is that when someone with a repeating rifle can walk into a school or movie theater and kill a dozen people before anyone has time to react, we have a problem. WE CLEARLY HAVE A PROBLEM. People are scrambling to feel safe and fix it, but gun owners could care less about other people wanting to feel safe or stopping these things from happening again, right? The perception they leave is that they are heartless beasts who just want their guns and protect them like we're trying to euthanize household pets who have never attacked anyone.
Curses - I have lost the article and cannot find it, but this week in our local paper, our (not so) wonderful representatives got together and talked about guns and mental health. Their stance is that mental health gets pulled into the gun debate unfairly.
Well, I can see it is unfair in the sense that labeling these murderers and mentally ill makes people who have mental illness and are not violent feel like they are being labeled a threat, but are we not, as a society, beyond that? Do we not, for the most part, defend mentally ill people who have not shown signs of danger? I mean we no longer throw them into sanitariums or deny the fact that they have mental issues at all. I think for the most part we are enlightened and if we focus on that, we will become even more so. That's what we need.
I also wonder how they can say that. I mean, if it's true that the majority of people who have committed this enormous crimes have been on anti-psychotic, anti-depressant, or other mental health drugs, can we really say it's NOT related? If they were on these drugs and were not mentally unstable, then the problem lies in prescribing these drugs (which I will reiterated, I do believe they are OVER prescribed and UNDER monitored).
I'm not trying to create an unfair stigma of mental health here. What I really hope for is a push for better understanding by the public as well as extension in research. I want to help people and I think there are people who need help and don't seek it. I want it to be seen as seriously as heart disease. What I see is that if people keep saying "I'm mentally ill and if you blame these crimes on mental illness, you're hurting me" or otherwise taking things personally, then we'll never see it as seriously as heart disease. It's time to recognize that people have problems and have the right to get help for it, but that sometimes it goes awry and we should fix it any way we can even if that means managing the mental health industry more.
And there is a modicum of truth, I suppose, to the stigma. I mean, people tend to think all sociopaths and schizophrenics are violent ticking time bombs. Thousands upon thousands of people suffer from these serious problems, but the mental health industry can only prescribe meds and send them home. Some of them don't like what the meds do, so they stop taking them. This cannot be put on the psychiatrist, but the majority of those who don't take them never commit a crime or hurt other people. Yes, we should not think that these people are ticking time bombs, but at the same time, they need help. They deserve help. That help should be easy to get and plentiful without locking them up in some facility. They may never commit a crime, but they could hurt themselves and is that any better? Even if they never hurt themselves physically, there are certain symptoms that come with it that you cannot deny are mentally hurtful to those around which is enough reason to need help. Any way you look at it, it need to be a better system - related to the gun argument or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)