Thursday, May 1, 2014
That awful feeling when...
...Your spouse is totally taking you for granted and ignoring you so you tell him you feel neglected and he agrees he can see that it's true, but seems to think that now you've got it off your chest, he can totally ignore you again so you just want to call someone and cry for a minute, but you don't have friends you can do that with so you're pretty much alone and realize you always will be.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
Ethos
It's becoming quite a pass time for me to watch documentaries on Netflix. I admit that.
Well over a year ago, I was told Ethos was *the* documentary to show us the truths of America at this time. Now I've finally seen it and I just shake my head.
First off, was most of this not common knowledge? "Imagine a nightmare scenerio where big business controls the government." Obviously the documentary is not going to show me how that's what we're living. Well, obviously, kids. It's called Free Market economy. You try to show us how things were changed in the past to make this true, but the reality is, it's always been the case. If you don't like it, open your own business. That's the message this capitalist society was built upon.
Now, I'm not denying all the facts of this film. There are actually a lot I know from other more reliable sources *are* facts, but it's interesting that those things are not covered within this film because the message is not to trust the media or government without question... yet you expect us to
listen to you. Without question. It's sort of like taking up smoking to give up alcoholism or becoming Lutheran because you think the Presbyterians believe in God too much.
If you are talking to a society that listens to the media and blindly follows because they make their unsupported points with determined gusto and by making incendiary comments, then I suppose the way you sell them *your* bill of goods is to be incendiary and make your points without bothering to provide supporting information
The problem is I question the government and the media already and I try not to be influenced by commercials (but know the reality is there is not 100% escape if you live within the realms of society) so I hear your message, but all I can think is that you are just as weak in your arguments as they are in theirs. It was a soft blow, to say the least.
I'm fascinated by the number of these anti-government/media/corporation documentaries are narrated or voiced by foreigners. One of those "without question" things I've noticed is that people think those from other countries (specifically English speaking) should be taken more seriously. Those who want to seem sensitive and intelligent tend to pick up that Americans are arrogant, therefore we must be self-loathing which leads to the idea that other countries "have it right" and are doing things in a better way. Is that why these films often have a European accent lilting through their dialogue?
The part of this film I think they have right is pointing out that we can support companies we believe do the right thing by buying from them and shunning those we don't agree with by not consuming their products. however, this is an infinitely complicated problem. Can we decide if the farmer Dan's buys its eggs from is morally better than the one who sells his eggs to Harmon's? I recommend buying locally when possible, but let's be realistic. We're all struggling financially so sometimes the low cost of goods outweighs the desire to be perfect in every purchase.
I resent this documentaries claim that that makes us "obedient consumers" and argue that it means our lives are way more complicated than some Hollywood dude who spoke in the film and your bunch of film makers -- who will, frankly, make money off of this documentary for years to come -- understand. Forgive me if I don't think you really understand the complicated thought process of a regular family who works the daily grind and can't rely on our "art" to pay the bills.
I just felt that, overall, it wasn't eye opening or ground breaking and before taking their word for it, you should question and research every word they say because it's not so cut and dry. Not in the slightest.
I also feel like a lot of the documentaries these days are lacking hard hitting evidence and that the film makers believe we are following blindly. I think "people" are blind, but a person knows what he or she is doing. I think sometimes people are misinformed or confused, but I also think most people are just overwhelmed. They aren't burying their head in the sand as this documentary claims, it's that their lives are so much more complicated than the decisions "they" want us to make and we have many many more factors than are being explored.
Well over a year ago, I was told Ethos was *the* documentary to show us the truths of America at this time. Now I've finally seen it and I just shake my head.
First off, was most of this not common knowledge? "Imagine a nightmare scenerio where big business controls the government." Obviously the documentary is not going to show me how that's what we're living. Well, obviously, kids. It's called Free Market economy. You try to show us how things were changed in the past to make this true, but the reality is, it's always been the case. If you don't like it, open your own business. That's the message this capitalist society was built upon.
Now, I'm not denying all the facts of this film. There are actually a lot I know from other more reliable sources *are* facts, but it's interesting that those things are not covered within this film because the message is not to trust the media or government without question... yet you expect us to
listen to you. Without question. It's sort of like taking up smoking to give up alcoholism or becoming Lutheran because you think the Presbyterians believe in God too much.
If you are talking to a society that listens to the media and blindly follows because they make their unsupported points with determined gusto and by making incendiary comments, then I suppose the way you sell them *your* bill of goods is to be incendiary and make your points without bothering to provide supporting information
The problem is I question the government and the media already and I try not to be influenced by commercials (but know the reality is there is not 100% escape if you live within the realms of society) so I hear your message, but all I can think is that you are just as weak in your arguments as they are in theirs. It was a soft blow, to say the least.
I'm fascinated by the number of these anti-government/media/corporation documentaries are narrated or voiced by foreigners. One of those "without question" things I've noticed is that people think those from other countries (specifically English speaking) should be taken more seriously. Those who want to seem sensitive and intelligent tend to pick up that Americans are arrogant, therefore we must be self-loathing which leads to the idea that other countries "have it right" and are doing things in a better way. Is that why these films often have a European accent lilting through their dialogue?
The part of this film I think they have right is pointing out that we can support companies we believe do the right thing by buying from them and shunning those we don't agree with by not consuming their products. however, this is an infinitely complicated problem. Can we decide if the farmer Dan's buys its eggs from is morally better than the one who sells his eggs to Harmon's? I recommend buying locally when possible, but let's be realistic. We're all struggling financially so sometimes the low cost of goods outweighs the desire to be perfect in every purchase.
I resent this documentaries claim that that makes us "obedient consumers" and argue that it means our lives are way more complicated than some Hollywood dude who spoke in the film and your bunch of film makers -- who will, frankly, make money off of this documentary for years to come -- understand. Forgive me if I don't think you really understand the complicated thought process of a regular family who works the daily grind and can't rely on our "art" to pay the bills.
I just felt that, overall, it wasn't eye opening or ground breaking and before taking their word for it, you should question and research every word they say because it's not so cut and dry. Not in the slightest.
I also feel like a lot of the documentaries these days are lacking hard hitting evidence and that the film makers believe we are following blindly. I think "people" are blind, but a person knows what he or she is doing. I think sometimes people are misinformed or confused, but I also think most people are just overwhelmed. They aren't burying their head in the sand as this documentary claims, it's that their lives are so much more complicated than the decisions "they" want us to make and we have many many more factors than are being explored.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Blackfish
What a sad, sad "documentary". We watched it as a family and found it enlightening, but definitely took it with a grain of salt. When a film uses a lot of obviously old footage and the story seems very one-sided, I don't assume this means that the issue is cut and dry, one side is clearly wrong, the side making the "documentary" is right.
I put quotations around documentary because it seems that this is the accepted description for films these days that are definitely biased. I feel like the History Channel often shows documentaries - films stating facts without drawing opinions. They may not get the viewership of a Michael Moore "documentary", but they are DEFINITELY more accurate, honest, and educational.
And yes. I do believe it is Michael Moore who is the main culprit of ill-informed, biased films. I hate to go so far as to say propaganda, but seeing as how his films have a clear direction and can be misleading while holes can be pierced through his "truths", I suppose propaganda is the right word.
Now we have Netflix who conveniently streams these "documentaries" into our lives and sadly as I talk to people, it seems they take it all as fact and forget the fact that each film maker has an agenda. Whoever made 'Blackfish' seems to be the same agenda we've heard a thousand times before. We can't have aquariums or zoos because no matter what, placing animals in captivity is cruel.
THAT AGENDA completely dismisses the fact that humans learn about animals and humans from captivity. They forget that the only reason they know the things they know to argue AGAINST captivity were learned because of animals IN captivity. So our kids won't learn NOT to put animals into captivity if there are no animals in captivity. Interesting dichotomy, no?
Of course, this is not why we should have animals in captivity. Frankly, I am probably with the majority of people who doesn't think it's right, but who also doesn't think it's wrong. I think zoos, aquariums, and other animal facilities have made incredible strides in my lifetime to make the situation better. Without PETA and other animal activist groups (whose agenda is usually to CLOSE all facilities) those improvements would not come about so we need the people who say it's wrong in order to make things right.
Follow me?
Well, Blackfish is likely to push SeaWorld and other animal captivity facilities to make more improvements so that's a good thing. In the meantime, we are now in a world where everyone feels educated (often more than they actually are*) and we have the internet to boost those feelings. I keep hearing people talk about Blackfish as though they think it's an honest portrayal. Notice the number of happy, current employees on the documentary being allowed to speak their mind? Now how many former employees were represented? Sure, they don't work there anymore so we think they are free to be more "honest", but how do we know they aren't disgruntled? We have know way of knowing that for sure.
*before I get slapped for that remark, I will gladly admit that I am probably not as smart as I think I am. Or observant. I'm also not a very good friend, but that doesn't mean I can't see when someone else is doing it wrong.
I've let the documentary digest for a while. My kid came home from school and said the kids at school have talked about it, but we have explained to her why we felt the film was one sided.
The other day, I read that Bindi Irwin signed on as the new SeaWorld amabassador. People flipped out, saying her father would roll over in his grave. Don't you think he did a better job than that of teaching his children? My first thought was that -YAY- we would have someone with clout (granted through her father's legacy, but people will listen!) to find out the truth and to be an educated facilitator to improve things that need improving.
This brought up the whole thought of the film being propaganda in my mind. Now I feel a little ashamed, though, because that's the word SeaWorld used. Again, we are seeing a biased view, but take some time and read through that article completely. If you think they are lying 100% to respond to 'Blackfish' being 100% true, then I think you have fallen into the trap the makers of 'Blackfish' hoped for in thinking that as long as they publicized the first view, every response would be seen as a lie. This, unfortunately, is where media takes us.
However, if you watched Blackfish and thought the actions were reprehensible, then to be an educated human being, it is only fair that you take in Truth About Blackfish and keep certain facts in mind.
~SeaWorld along with other zoos, aquariums, and animal facilities around the world spend millions to aide in conservation efforts. Without those dollars, where would conservation be? Interesting question I may research later: Do groups like PETA spend more or less on conservation than on campaigns to close zoos, aquariums, etc? If their income is smaller or larger than those facilities, how does the percentage spent on conservation efforts compare to the percentage spent on promoting the closing of facilities and ending educational and conservation efforts of other groups?
~SeaWorld is hugely educational. Yes, what some people see are performing monkeys. What other people realize are the capabilities of other species. Do you think people back in the 1700s were remotely capable of understanding that? No. Because they had no way of seeing what these animals could do.
~If the ex-employees cared so deeply for these animals, why quit, wait for a documentary to be made where you can talk about how terrible it is, and then join these groups who are anti-educational (because any group that puts the rights of animals so high that humans can't reach it are, frankly, not interested in education of the future...) instead of standing up for them at the time? Maybe fear of getting fired, but if you quit, who cares if you get fired? And if you think the animals are being treated that badly, why would you care more about getting fired than those animals? And if you did stand up for those animals (which I don't believe), why not mention it the perfect place to defend yourself - a documentary designed to defend the animals? While you were inside you had a much healthier way to get your point across than some passive-aggressive film, don't you think?
~Listen/read carefully. The words used are artistic, beautiful. There is little to no science in art. It sounds more dramatic to say 'psychotic', but without data from a neuro scientist or (let's face it, SOFT science!) an animal psychologist to confirm that, you're just using artistic words to jump to conclusions.
~I can't say how many decades ago it was, but it was sometime after my parents took me to SW as a child (around 1985), there was an incident with the dolphins. I can't remember any details, but I do remember it was a call for SW to change its practices. SW did so immediately. When I went back in, I think, 1995, things were drastically different. Again, in 2010 when my family went to the one in CA (not the one where the incident occurred), I noticed how many more changes had been brought about to improve the standards for the animals. Each time, the habitats became larger, more natural appearing, more education, and more well-kept.
Sidetrack: The same can be said about my local zoo. If you've ever seen The Last Unicorn, near the end when the spell is removed from all the animals in the cages? That's what our zoo looked like in the 80s. I was 5-15 years old and didn't know any better, but now you wouldn't know it EVER looked like that. The habitats are huge, natural, and I swear you can see the tiger smile these days. They move around so much more and look relaxed when they sleep. Now that I have a basis of comparison, I dare say they habitats were small, uncomfortable, and slightly cruel when I was a kid and frankly the trainers could have been abusing them - they always looked edgy.
The world changes and evolves. It comes with help from one extreme group and great expense to the other extreme, but it does come. Without either, we don't have conservation, education, or enjoyment of the world beyond our computer screens. It's just that this format breeds hatred and ignorance. I don't like that part of it.
SeaWorld says that in the 4 years since the death which Blackfish focuses on, they have worked diligently to make even more improvements. Bringing things to light helps increase animal satisfaction. At the same time, the WAY these propagandists bring it about offends me. Is there not a better way than shaming, publicly lying, confusing people?
Peta says "Don't fall for it."
Don't fall for Peta's propaganda either, okay? That's all I'm asking.
Basically, I think both 'Blackfish' and 'Truth about Blackfish' are pushing their own agendas. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but how will you know where the middle is if you don't look at both sides as objectively as possible?
Be ruled by your brain, not by your emotions.
I put quotations around documentary because it seems that this is the accepted description for films these days that are definitely biased. I feel like the History Channel often shows documentaries - films stating facts without drawing opinions. They may not get the viewership of a Michael Moore "documentary", but they are DEFINITELY more accurate, honest, and educational.
And yes. I do believe it is Michael Moore who is the main culprit of ill-informed, biased films. I hate to go so far as to say propaganda, but seeing as how his films have a clear direction and can be misleading while holes can be pierced through his "truths", I suppose propaganda is the right word.
Now we have Netflix who conveniently streams these "documentaries" into our lives and sadly as I talk to people, it seems they take it all as fact and forget the fact that each film maker has an agenda. Whoever made 'Blackfish' seems to be the same agenda we've heard a thousand times before. We can't have aquariums or zoos because no matter what, placing animals in captivity is cruel.
THAT AGENDA completely dismisses the fact that humans learn about animals and humans from captivity. They forget that the only reason they know the things they know to argue AGAINST captivity were learned because of animals IN captivity. So our kids won't learn NOT to put animals into captivity if there are no animals in captivity. Interesting dichotomy, no?
Of course, this is not why we should have animals in captivity. Frankly, I am probably with the majority of people who doesn't think it's right, but who also doesn't think it's wrong. I think zoos, aquariums, and other animal facilities have made incredible strides in my lifetime to make the situation better. Without PETA and other animal activist groups (whose agenda is usually to CLOSE all facilities) those improvements would not come about so we need the people who say it's wrong in order to make things right.
Follow me?
Well, Blackfish is likely to push SeaWorld and other animal captivity facilities to make more improvements so that's a good thing. In the meantime, we are now in a world where everyone feels educated (often more than they actually are*) and we have the internet to boost those feelings. I keep hearing people talk about Blackfish as though they think it's an honest portrayal. Notice the number of happy, current employees on the documentary being allowed to speak their mind? Now how many former employees were represented? Sure, they don't work there anymore so we think they are free to be more "honest", but how do we know they aren't disgruntled? We have know way of knowing that for sure.
*before I get slapped for that remark, I will gladly admit that I am probably not as smart as I think I am. Or observant. I'm also not a very good friend, but that doesn't mean I can't see when someone else is doing it wrong.
I've let the documentary digest for a while. My kid came home from school and said the kids at school have talked about it, but we have explained to her why we felt the film was one sided.
The other day, I read that Bindi Irwin signed on as the new SeaWorld amabassador. People flipped out, saying her father would roll over in his grave. Don't you think he did a better job than that of teaching his children? My first thought was that -YAY- we would have someone with clout (granted through her father's legacy, but people will listen!) to find out the truth and to be an educated facilitator to improve things that need improving.
This brought up the whole thought of the film being propaganda in my mind. Now I feel a little ashamed, though, because that's the word SeaWorld used. Again, we are seeing a biased view, but take some time and read through that article completely. If you think they are lying 100% to respond to 'Blackfish' being 100% true, then I think you have fallen into the trap the makers of 'Blackfish' hoped for in thinking that as long as they publicized the first view, every response would be seen as a lie. This, unfortunately, is where media takes us.
However, if you watched Blackfish and thought the actions were reprehensible, then to be an educated human being, it is only fair that you take in Truth About Blackfish and keep certain facts in mind.
~SeaWorld along with other zoos, aquariums, and animal facilities around the world spend millions to aide in conservation efforts. Without those dollars, where would conservation be? Interesting question I may research later: Do groups like PETA spend more or less on conservation than on campaigns to close zoos, aquariums, etc? If their income is smaller or larger than those facilities, how does the percentage spent on conservation efforts compare to the percentage spent on promoting the closing of facilities and ending educational and conservation efforts of other groups?
~SeaWorld is hugely educational. Yes, what some people see are performing monkeys. What other people realize are the capabilities of other species. Do you think people back in the 1700s were remotely capable of understanding that? No. Because they had no way of seeing what these animals could do.
~If the ex-employees cared so deeply for these animals, why quit, wait for a documentary to be made where you can talk about how terrible it is, and then join these groups who are anti-educational (because any group that puts the rights of animals so high that humans can't reach it are, frankly, not interested in education of the future...) instead of standing up for them at the time? Maybe fear of getting fired, but if you quit, who cares if you get fired? And if you think the animals are being treated that badly, why would you care more about getting fired than those animals? And if you did stand up for those animals (which I don't believe), why not mention it the perfect place to defend yourself - a documentary designed to defend the animals? While you were inside you had a much healthier way to get your point across than some passive-aggressive film, don't you think?
~Listen/read carefully. The words used are artistic, beautiful. There is little to no science in art. It sounds more dramatic to say 'psychotic', but without data from a neuro scientist or (let's face it, SOFT science!) an animal psychologist to confirm that, you're just using artistic words to jump to conclusions.
~I can't say how many decades ago it was, but it was sometime after my parents took me to SW as a child (around 1985), there was an incident with the dolphins. I can't remember any details, but I do remember it was a call for SW to change its practices. SW did so immediately. When I went back in, I think, 1995, things were drastically different. Again, in 2010 when my family went to the one in CA (not the one where the incident occurred), I noticed how many more changes had been brought about to improve the standards for the animals. Each time, the habitats became larger, more natural appearing, more education, and more well-kept.
Sidetrack: The same can be said about my local zoo. If you've ever seen The Last Unicorn, near the end when the spell is removed from all the animals in the cages? That's what our zoo looked like in the 80s. I was 5-15 years old and didn't know any better, but now you wouldn't know it EVER looked like that. The habitats are huge, natural, and I swear you can see the tiger smile these days. They move around so much more and look relaxed when they sleep. Now that I have a basis of comparison, I dare say they habitats were small, uncomfortable, and slightly cruel when I was a kid and frankly the trainers could have been abusing them - they always looked edgy.
The world changes and evolves. It comes with help from one extreme group and great expense to the other extreme, but it does come. Without either, we don't have conservation, education, or enjoyment of the world beyond our computer screens. It's just that this format breeds hatred and ignorance. I don't like that part of it.
SeaWorld says that in the 4 years since the death which Blackfish focuses on, they have worked diligently to make even more improvements. Bringing things to light helps increase animal satisfaction. At the same time, the WAY these propagandists bring it about offends me. Is there not a better way than shaming, publicly lying, confusing people?
Peta says "Don't fall for it."
Don't fall for Peta's propaganda either, okay? That's all I'm asking.
Basically, I think both 'Blackfish' and 'Truth about Blackfish' are pushing their own agendas. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but how will you know where the middle is if you don't look at both sides as objectively as possible?
Be ruled by your brain, not by your emotions.
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Save money!
I don't clip coupons. Okay, I do, but not to the extent of Extreme Couponing. I like to save money, but I hate to buy junk.
Recently, it seems everything's going crap. Of course it had to because our household income increased significantly last November so stuff had to break before we had a chance to catch up from living paycheck to paycheck, right?
First our dishwasher. We got lucky, though, and got this one
for 44% off retail price. Woohoo! And once we sent in for the power company's rebate, that was another $30 in our pocket. It happened that they had tried to put it in someone's house, but it didn't fit. In the process, the box got lost and there was a scratch and a dent. Yeah, do you see a scratch? A dent? Nope. Where it sits, the scratch is barely noticeable and the dent is all but invisible, but those problems added up to HUGE discount.
About 2 weeks ago, we paid off that dishwasher before the "same as cash" period ended so we paid no interest. Feeling good about that, we should have known it couldn't last. The washer started feeling lazy. The next week, the dryer stopped drying. I've had repairmen out a bunch of times to fix these issues. It has been mostly the same problem over and over and getting closer together. At some point, you gotta say "this washer is 17 years old and the dryer is 15. Do we really call the repairman again?"
Well, today I'm feeling good. They just delivered our new washer and dryer. This time, we only saved 35%, but then again, best sale I've seen is about 15%. It's still quite a relief. Oh, and this time we will get $100 back from power and gas. Plus they are supposed to be all efficient and stuff to help with utility bills in the future. We looked all over the place and couldn't even find any decent top loaders for much less ($30 a piece, but doesn't qualify for the $100 cash back so...not worth it.) I hate white - was hoping for grey (and I was expected to HAVE to get top loaders) but when you're saving about $760, you care a lot less about color. These ones were floor models, but since they don't hook them up or anything, they're really new. Also, this one doesn't have a dent. Our old dryer had this huge dent in the front because it was a floor model, but that worked in our favor because we didn't have a lot of money at that time either. Too bad you can't get floor models for $200 anymore. I might have saved money going to this place that does refurbished appliances, but I have trouble trusting "refurbished" and besides, we would have to pay cash. This way we have 12 months on credit to pay it back. The other place couldn't give us that.
And 12 months to pay this one before interest kicks in. I hope we manage. I don't like paying interest if I don't have to...
Recently, it seems everything's going crap. Of course it had to because our household income increased significantly last November so stuff had to break before we had a chance to catch up from living paycheck to paycheck, right?
First our dishwasher. We got lucky, though, and got this one
About 2 weeks ago, we paid off that dishwasher before the "same as cash" period ended so we paid no interest. Feeling good about that, we should have known it couldn't last. The washer started feeling lazy. The next week, the dryer stopped drying. I've had repairmen out a bunch of times to fix these issues. It has been mostly the same problem over and over and getting closer together. At some point, you gotta say "this washer is 17 years old and the dryer is 15. Do we really call the repairman again?"
Well, today I'm feeling good. They just delivered our new washer and dryer. This time, we only saved 35%, but then again, best sale I've seen is about 15%. It's still quite a relief. Oh, and this time we will get $100 back from power and gas. Plus they are supposed to be all efficient and stuff to help with utility bills in the future. We looked all over the place and couldn't even find any decent top loaders for much less ($30 a piece, but doesn't qualify for the $100 cash back so...not worth it.) I hate white - was hoping for grey (and I was expected to HAVE to get top loaders) but when you're saving about $760, you care a lot less about color. These ones were floor models, but since they don't hook them up or anything, they're really new. Also, this one doesn't have a dent. Our old dryer had this huge dent in the front because it was a floor model, but that worked in our favor because we didn't have a lot of money at that time either. Too bad you can't get floor models for $200 anymore. I might have saved money going to this place that does refurbished appliances, but I have trouble trusting "refurbished" and besides, we would have to pay cash. This way we have 12 months on credit to pay it back. The other place couldn't give us that.
And 12 months to pay this one before interest kicks in. I hope we manage. I don't like paying interest if I don't have to...
Thursday, March 6, 2014
Penn. man wants to take child from adoptive parents
Adoption in the news
Legally, we need to close the loophole that allows this to happen. That's the first thing I have to say. I understand that even though the things I have to say on the subject are going to make it sound like I don't care about this guy's feelings.
But here's the thing. That baby has known only his adoptive parents for 2 years. That's pretty formative. For me, it was also the hardest part of raising a kid so I'm probably biased in saying it's too damned late to take the kid away. I think that the news is pretty good at portraying the side of the wronged biological father. They have pretty much always managed to make that side pretty clear and I don't want to discount that side of it, but we all know it. We hear it. The question, though, is it better to rip the kid from his parents' arms because you weren't on good terms with the biological mother when she gave up the kid for adoption? Or for all the months she was pregnant and came to this decision? I don't particularly care to hyperbolize with the word 'rip', but have you ever taken a 2 year old away from the arms of their parents when they didn't want to go? For longer than a night of babysitting?
I reiterate, we need to close this loophole! I've heard people terrified of adopting because they hear these stories. They don't want to become attached to a child only to have it taken away. They need to be allowed to feel like that child is their child. If they have fear that the baby they have just adopted can be taken by a biological parent at any point along the way, it will affect every little action of how they raise and think of that child! Whether it is in relation to an adopted child or any other experience we have as humans, our responses are, consciously or sub-consciously, going to be affected. When the only news reports we hear about adoption are related to kids being taken from the only families they know, the result can only be adoptive parents treating their adopted children slightly differently.
Meanwhile, adoptive parents and the children they have adopted have created this family of their own. A family is love, but it is also knowledge of each other. Trust. Being able to predict others' behaviour because we know them that well! Familiarity. Comfort. Attachment.
Yes, a two year old can re-establish those bonds with a new family. It happens when a young child's parents get divorced, the parents remarry, and they end up liking their step-parents. It happens when a toddler's parents are killed in a car accident and they go to love with beloved aunts and uncles. It happens, that is true, but if a biological father loves his kid so much, then shouldn't the thought of what it will do to the child at least cross his mind? Is it really because it breaks your heart not to see the kid or because you can't let got of something you think you should possess? If someone steals your car, you want to take them to court, prove it's yours and get it back. No one thinks about how the car feels, but the victim is likely to say things like "I love that car. It's my car. It belongs to me."
Guess what? A kid is not a car. Why does the thought never come up that these guys think about that kid's feelings? Why do we never hear a tale where he's saying "Hey, maybe it's for the best. I just want to know what's going on in my kid's life. Maybe some pictures and letters or let me visit as a family friend." No. It is always the immediate jump to "I must have my child back." What are you going to provide that child? What plans do you have to offer that child more than it is getting right now? I see how that comes dangerously close to saying that a rich family deserves to keep a kid more than a single poor guy. I do not believe that. There is much more to raising a kid than money like love, attention, and desire to have that kid around. I understand these biological fathers have those things, but sometimes love is about giving the person what they want and what's better for them than about what you want. Isn't sacrifice the purest show of love?
I also notice the news never asks about what the bio-mom has to say to defend herself. I fully support the idea that bio-mom's should discuss her plans with bio-dad before making any decisions about the baby, but let's keep something huge in mind. We want men and women to be treated equally, but they will never really be equal and one of the most defining reasons for that is the ability to get pregnant. Women know from childhood that this is their contribution and responsibility to the world. By the time they can have babies, they realize that they have to think about it every time they are with a guy. Do you think guys spend that much time thinking about what could happen if they fertilize the wrong egg? Of course not. We've sort of taught our young women that one way they can behave equally to men is to engage in sex as frivolously as they do. They have the right to be promiscuous without being sluts (let me come back to that comment in a second....) and they do, but a guy never ever ever has to worry about the consequences of a mistake the way a woman does. At the back of his mind he knows that if he gets her pregnant, he can choose whether or not to be involved in the decision. A women doesn't get that choice, does she?
Quick tangent on that comment. The same people who think that a biological parent has more rights over a kid often seems to be the same kind of person who will still call a woman a slut in this age of "enlightenment", but the dude is a playa, not a slut. He's not a jackass for skipping necessary precautions to avoid pregnancy or, say, skipping the sex altogether. No, a man doesn't really have to look at it the same way as woman, does he? I mean, this is a huge issue.
In the story above, we're talking about a young man who is now of legal age who broke off relations with the girl because she was younger than he was first told. Well, it's not like the age he *thought* she was is particularly upstanding either. As far as the age argument goes in my world, there isn't a lot of difference between a 40 year old wife and a 53 year old husband, but there is an ENORMOUS difference between an 16 year old and an 18 year old. Starting high school and thinking about college or a career are two different lives completely.
So you know what, dude? It is unfair. It is unjust. It's unfair to you. It's unjust to the child. Still, can you take five seconds to think about how unfair and unjust it will be to the baby if you snatch him from the only parents he has ever known? Parents who, btw, had a reason for adopting. Maybe they've had their own struggles. The idea of adopting your kid didn't come easily to them, you know, and I would like to hear at least one of these guys admit that they have given at least as much thought to taking the kid away, the complexity, the grey area, as the bio-mom who carried it in her womb and contemplated 24/7 for nine months or the people who came to the decision to adopt a child for whatever reason they came to that decision. Stop and think for a minute. If you're taking the kid back like a toy someone stole or you are more upset that the chick who gave birth to this baby lied to you than anything else, maybe you need to spend more time thinking about it.
Letting your kid be adopted isn't a reflection that you're a bad person. It doesn't mean you'll be a bad father someday. A person isn't selfish because they let that sperm create a great kid and then became less involved in that kid's life. It actually shows that you are strong, selfless, and humble to be able to forget the law and do what's best for the child.
Legally, we need to close the loophole that allows this to happen. That's the first thing I have to say. I understand that even though the things I have to say on the subject are going to make it sound like I don't care about this guy's feelings.
But here's the thing. That baby has known only his adoptive parents for 2 years. That's pretty formative. For me, it was also the hardest part of raising a kid so I'm probably biased in saying it's too damned late to take the kid away. I think that the news is pretty good at portraying the side of the wronged biological father. They have pretty much always managed to make that side pretty clear and I don't want to discount that side of it, but we all know it. We hear it. The question, though, is it better to rip the kid from his parents' arms because you weren't on good terms with the biological mother when she gave up the kid for adoption? Or for all the months she was pregnant and came to this decision? I don't particularly care to hyperbolize with the word 'rip', but have you ever taken a 2 year old away from the arms of their parents when they didn't want to go? For longer than a night of babysitting?
I reiterate, we need to close this loophole! I've heard people terrified of adopting because they hear these stories. They don't want to become attached to a child only to have it taken away. They need to be allowed to feel like that child is their child. If they have fear that the baby they have just adopted can be taken by a biological parent at any point along the way, it will affect every little action of how they raise and think of that child! Whether it is in relation to an adopted child or any other experience we have as humans, our responses are, consciously or sub-consciously, going to be affected. When the only news reports we hear about adoption are related to kids being taken from the only families they know, the result can only be adoptive parents treating their adopted children slightly differently.
Meanwhile, adoptive parents and the children they have adopted have created this family of their own. A family is love, but it is also knowledge of each other. Trust. Being able to predict others' behaviour because we know them that well! Familiarity. Comfort. Attachment.
Yes, a two year old can re-establish those bonds with a new family. It happens when a young child's parents get divorced, the parents remarry, and they end up liking their step-parents. It happens when a toddler's parents are killed in a car accident and they go to love with beloved aunts and uncles. It happens, that is true, but if a biological father loves his kid so much, then shouldn't the thought of what it will do to the child at least cross his mind? Is it really because it breaks your heart not to see the kid or because you can't let got of something you think you should possess? If someone steals your car, you want to take them to court, prove it's yours and get it back. No one thinks about how the car feels, but the victim is likely to say things like "I love that car. It's my car. It belongs to me."
Guess what? A kid is not a car. Why does the thought never come up that these guys think about that kid's feelings? Why do we never hear a tale where he's saying "Hey, maybe it's for the best. I just want to know what's going on in my kid's life. Maybe some pictures and letters or let me visit as a family friend." No. It is always the immediate jump to "I must have my child back." What are you going to provide that child? What plans do you have to offer that child more than it is getting right now? I see how that comes dangerously close to saying that a rich family deserves to keep a kid more than a single poor guy. I do not believe that. There is much more to raising a kid than money like love, attention, and desire to have that kid around. I understand these biological fathers have those things, but sometimes love is about giving the person what they want and what's better for them than about what you want. Isn't sacrifice the purest show of love?
I also notice the news never asks about what the bio-mom has to say to defend herself. I fully support the idea that bio-mom's should discuss her plans with bio-dad before making any decisions about the baby, but let's keep something huge in mind. We want men and women to be treated equally, but they will never really be equal and one of the most defining reasons for that is the ability to get pregnant. Women know from childhood that this is their contribution and responsibility to the world. By the time they can have babies, they realize that they have to think about it every time they are with a guy. Do you think guys spend that much time thinking about what could happen if they fertilize the wrong egg? Of course not. We've sort of taught our young women that one way they can behave equally to men is to engage in sex as frivolously as they do. They have the right to be promiscuous without being sluts (let me come back to that comment in a second....) and they do, but a guy never ever ever has to worry about the consequences of a mistake the way a woman does. At the back of his mind he knows that if he gets her pregnant, he can choose whether or not to be involved in the decision. A women doesn't get that choice, does she?
Quick tangent on that comment. The same people who think that a biological parent has more rights over a kid often seems to be the same kind of person who will still call a woman a slut in this age of "enlightenment", but the dude is a playa, not a slut. He's not a jackass for skipping necessary precautions to avoid pregnancy or, say, skipping the sex altogether. No, a man doesn't really have to look at it the same way as woman, does he? I mean, this is a huge issue.
In the story above, we're talking about a young man who is now of legal age who broke off relations with the girl because she was younger than he was first told. Well, it's not like the age he *thought* she was is particularly upstanding either. As far as the age argument goes in my world, there isn't a lot of difference between a 40 year old wife and a 53 year old husband, but there is an ENORMOUS difference between an 16 year old and an 18 year old. Starting high school and thinking about college or a career are two different lives completely.
So you know what, dude? It is unfair. It is unjust. It's unfair to you. It's unjust to the child. Still, can you take five seconds to think about how unfair and unjust it will be to the baby if you snatch him from the only parents he has ever known? Parents who, btw, had a reason for adopting. Maybe they've had their own struggles. The idea of adopting your kid didn't come easily to them, you know, and I would like to hear at least one of these guys admit that they have given at least as much thought to taking the kid away, the complexity, the grey area, as the bio-mom who carried it in her womb and contemplated 24/7 for nine months or the people who came to the decision to adopt a child for whatever reason they came to that decision. Stop and think for a minute. If you're taking the kid back like a toy someone stole or you are more upset that the chick who gave birth to this baby lied to you than anything else, maybe you need to spend more time thinking about it.
Letting your kid be adopted isn't a reflection that you're a bad person. It doesn't mean you'll be a bad father someday. A person isn't selfish because they let that sperm create a great kid and then became less involved in that kid's life. It actually shows that you are strong, selfless, and humble to be able to forget the law and do what's best for the child.
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)