Thursday, February 23, 2012
Friday, January 27, 2012
What is an Abomination?
Have you, or someone you know, ever...
~ cursed at one of your parents?
~ committed adultery?
~ worked on Sunday (or Saturday if you are Jewish)?
~ planted more than one kind of seed in a field?
~ worn clothes made of more than one kind material?
~ had your hair cut?
~ shaved your facial hair?
~ eaten ham? bacon? pork chops? pepperoni?
~ eaten shrimp? crab? lobster?
Do you know, that in the eyes of God, according to the bible, you have committed an abomination, the EXACT same way that being gay is an abomination?
You see the whole idea that gay marriage, or homosexuality even, is wrong, sinful, an abomination, is all based on a passage from the bible. Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (King James Version)
So why is it that all those other so-called sins are now forgivable, but not homosexuality? Why are there no amendments on the ballots to shut down farms, clothing factories, and fast food restaurants, when there are states with amendments to prohibit homosexuals from enjoying the same freedoms as heterosexuals?
Whatever your beliefs about the validity of the bible being the word of God, can you not see, at the very least, the paralyzing hypocrisy of following one of those laws and not the rest?
Because those very sins I listed above are in the SAME book of the bible: Leviticus. According to that book, if someone commits any of the following sins, he or she should be put to death:
~ curse at a parent: Leviticus 20:9 (and Matthew 15:4, Exodus 21:17, Mark 7:10)
~ commit adultery: Leviticus 20:10 (adultery appears many times, but is only worthy of a death sentence in this passage)
~ work on Sabbath: Leviticus 23:32 (and Exodus 31:14-15, Exodus 35:2-3, Numbers 15:32-36)
While these won't incur a death penalty, according to Leviticus, they are very sinful indeed:
~ crop rotation: Leviticus 19:19
~ clothes of blended fabrics: Leviticus 19:19 (and Deuteronomy 22:11-12)
~ cut hair: Leviticus 19:27
~ shave facial hair: Leviticus 19:27
~ eat pork: Leviticus 11:6-8
~ eat shellfish: Leviticus 11:10 (and Deuteronomy 14:9-10)
And so I plead with those who think that homosexuality is immoral, wrong, sinful, or just plain strange: consider your OWN sins before casting aspersions upon another.
Consider for a moment that ALL people are created equal.
Consider that you don't have to LIKE homosexuality, you don't have to LIVE homosexually, you don't even have to LOVE THY NEIGHBOR, as Jesus would like you to do.
Actually, you can forget that homosexuals exist all together if that makes you more comfortable. In fact, if you stop messing around with people's private lives, we can all go back to living them privately and you can pretend everyone is "traditional" just like you.
----------------------------------------------------------
AFTERTHOUGHT
I should have just turned to Aaron Sorkin's brilliance and let HIM make my point:
WEST WING Episode 203 "Midterms" which originally aired in October of 2000
UPDATE May 24, 2012 - This one hit Facebook and I had to include it!
~ cursed at one of your parents?
~ committed adultery?
~ worked on Sunday (or Saturday if you are Jewish)?
~ planted more than one kind of seed in a field?
~ worn clothes made of more than one kind material?
~ had your hair cut?
~ shaved your facial hair?
~ eaten ham? bacon? pork chops? pepperoni?
~ eaten shrimp? crab? lobster?
Do you know, that in the eyes of God, according to the bible, you have committed an abomination, the EXACT same way that being gay is an abomination?
You see the whole idea that gay marriage, or homosexuality even, is wrong, sinful, an abomination, is all based on a passage from the bible. Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (King James Version)
So why is it that all those other so-called sins are now forgivable, but not homosexuality? Why are there no amendments on the ballots to shut down farms, clothing factories, and fast food restaurants, when there are states with amendments to prohibit homosexuals from enjoying the same freedoms as heterosexuals?
Whatever your beliefs about the validity of the bible being the word of God, can you not see, at the very least, the paralyzing hypocrisy of following one of those laws and not the rest?
Because those very sins I listed above are in the SAME book of the bible: Leviticus. According to that book, if someone commits any of the following sins, he or she should be put to death:
~ curse at a parent: Leviticus 20:9 (and Matthew 15:4, Exodus 21:17, Mark 7:10)
~ commit adultery: Leviticus 20:10 (adultery appears many times, but is only worthy of a death sentence in this passage)
~ work on Sabbath: Leviticus 23:32 (and Exodus 31:14-15, Exodus 35:2-3, Numbers 15:32-36)
While these won't incur a death penalty, according to Leviticus, they are very sinful indeed:
~ crop rotation: Leviticus 19:19
~ clothes of blended fabrics: Leviticus 19:19 (and Deuteronomy 22:11-12)
~ cut hair: Leviticus 19:27
~ shave facial hair: Leviticus 19:27
~ eat pork: Leviticus 11:6-8
~ eat shellfish: Leviticus 11:10 (and Deuteronomy 14:9-10)
And so I plead with those who think that homosexuality is immoral, wrong, sinful, or just plain strange: consider your OWN sins before casting aspersions upon another.
Consider for a moment that ALL people are created equal.
Consider that you don't have to LIKE homosexuality, you don't have to LIVE homosexually, you don't even have to LOVE THY NEIGHBOR, as Jesus would like you to do.
Actually, you can forget that homosexuals exist all together if that makes you more comfortable. In fact, if you stop messing around with people's private lives, we can all go back to living them privately and you can pretend everyone is "traditional" just like you.
----------------------------------------------------------
AFTERTHOUGHT
I should have just turned to Aaron Sorkin's brilliance and let HIM make my point:
WEST WING Episode 203 "Midterms" which originally aired in October of 2000
UPDATE May 24, 2012 - This one hit Facebook and I had to include it!
Saturday, January 07, 2012
The Dreaded Hormonster
I recognize that no parent is anywhere near perfect. I also acknowledge that there are thousands of things that my husband and I do as parents that some might deem inappropriate, unnecessary, excessive, controlling, or just plain wrong. I fully accept that I cannot plan for, nor predict, everything our kids might learn from, or need from us, but I can sure as hell try.
I lovingly refer to my early years as a "fractured childhood." Never once, for a moment did I question that I was loved and cared for, but as I grew up, I found myself both naive and ill-prepared for a world beyond the little two-bedroom townhouse I was raised in. As most kids did, and do, I faced puberty alone, a muddled mess of emotions and moodswings, anger, hatred, disappointment, occasionally interrupted by a fleeting moment of joy (which I then worked hard to hide because it so violently conflicted with the rest of my day).
As a result, our boys (now 11 and 13) have heard the term "hormones" for years. I wanted them to be prepared to handle the craziness of pubescence armed with information and understanding. We told them that hormones make you feel extreme emotions, and that sometimes is difficult to deal with, and that it is NORMAL, and EVERYONE goes through it, and it WILL end eventually, but that while hormones were the REASON that those feelings existed, they were NOT an excuse for bad behavior.
Let me tell you this, our family has been TESTED repeatedly.
Simon, as the older son, is the first to experience the "joys" of the teen years. Many times, I can "talk him down" by reminding him that the anger / misery / angst is a temporary fluctuation and help him work through the feelings before the door slamming / stomping / crying behavior takes over. Sometimes though, I want him to handle it himself - to learn how to manage the emotions. I remind him that things can go two ways - he can go off and quietly work through his feelings, or he can pick a fight, participate in a screaming match, be banished to his room, and THEN working through his feelings - followed by the inevitable apology (that I am thankful occasionally comes without prompting).
Despite the slips we both have (because, please, teenagers KNOW how to push buttons), I think we're generally facing the hormonster together as a team quite successfully. Our family is far from perfect, but this time, I think maybe it's going to be okay.
At least until both boys are dealing with pubescent mood swings. I will get back to you on that one.
I lovingly refer to my early years as a "fractured childhood." Never once, for a moment did I question that I was loved and cared for, but as I grew up, I found myself both naive and ill-prepared for a world beyond the little two-bedroom townhouse I was raised in. As most kids did, and do, I faced puberty alone, a muddled mess of emotions and moodswings, anger, hatred, disappointment, occasionally interrupted by a fleeting moment of joy (which I then worked hard to hide because it so violently conflicted with the rest of my day).
As a result, our boys (now 11 and 13) have heard the term "hormones" for years. I wanted them to be prepared to handle the craziness of pubescence armed with information and understanding. We told them that hormones make you feel extreme emotions, and that sometimes is difficult to deal with, and that it is NORMAL, and EVERYONE goes through it, and it WILL end eventually, but that while hormones were the REASON that those feelings existed, they were NOT an excuse for bad behavior.
Let me tell you this, our family has been TESTED repeatedly.
Simon, as the older son, is the first to experience the "joys" of the teen years. Many times, I can "talk him down" by reminding him that the anger / misery / angst is a temporary fluctuation and help him work through the feelings before the door slamming / stomping / crying behavior takes over. Sometimes though, I want him to handle it himself - to learn how to manage the emotions. I remind him that things can go two ways - he can go off and quietly work through his feelings, or he can pick a fight, participate in a screaming match, be banished to his room, and THEN working through his feelings - followed by the inevitable apology (that I am thankful occasionally comes without prompting).
Despite the slips we both have (because, please, teenagers KNOW how to push buttons), I think we're generally facing the hormonster together as a team quite successfully. Our family is far from perfect, but this time, I think maybe it's going to be okay.
At least until both boys are dealing with pubescent mood swings. I will get back to you on that one.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Xmas the 3rd
(Why reinvent the wheel? Just go with it...)
"wee fish"
"ewe"
"a mare"
"egrets"
"moose"
wee fish, ewe, a mare, egrets, moose,
wee fish, ewe, a mare, egrets, moose
and
"a hippo"
"gnu" year!
"ewe"
"a mare"
"egrets"
"moose"
wee fish, ewe, a mare, egrets, moose,
wee fish, ewe, a mare, egrets, moose
and
"a hippo"
"gnu" year!
Friday, July 08, 2011
Busy Revisted
Last spring, I wrote a blog post about the fact that the year was sailing by too quickly. I was, as I always seem to be, keeping very busy, which means the time appears to pass even more quickly. In an attempt to figure out where my days go, I thought I'd collect my all my busyness in one place.
In addition to homeschooling, and raising, Simon and Greg (12 and 10 respectively) which is, without question, a full time job in and of itself (lesson planning for six subjects for middle schoolers is NOT easy - even if there are only two of them!), I wear a lot of hats. The first is as C-something something (CFO would indicate there are finances to manage and CEO seems pretentious - how about CCP? Chief Creator and Producer) of Quality Hand Made Cards. I am also a Stampin' Up demonstrator; I sell crafting adhesive online; and run a semiannual scrapbooking and paper-crafting retreat.
Additionally, I run several homeschool curriculum support groups online; very occasionally assist my extremely busy real estate broker husband cull data; I run a monthly "breast check club" where I send an email out to remind women to do their self exams; I help my friend Janette with public relations and marketing for her SiriusXM radio show Janette's Show and do some similar work for my friend Gina's theatre Uptown. These last two entries require a healthy chunk of time spent on various social networking sites which is not altogether unpleasant. In fact, none of what I do (outside of the actual domestic chores at home - laundry, scrubbing toilets, you get the picture) is difficult or bothersome. I am lucky that most of my many hats actually bring me pleasure!
The thing that makes me most happy, outside my family, is my time on stage and with my improv family at Carolina Improv Company. As I said a little over a year ago: I might be working long hours, and feeling a little overwhelmed at times, but honestly, I love my life. I have a fantastic husband who is caring and kind and generous, and two really remarkable kids. It's just past 2am and I am done for today. Back to it bright and early tomorrow!
In addition to homeschooling, and raising, Simon and Greg (12 and 10 respectively) which is, without question, a full time job in and of itself (lesson planning for six subjects for middle schoolers is NOT easy - even if there are only two of them!), I wear a lot of hats. The first is as C-something something (CFO would indicate there are finances to manage and CEO seems pretentious - how about CCP? Chief Creator and Producer) of Quality Hand Made Cards. I am also a Stampin' Up demonstrator; I sell crafting adhesive online; and run a semiannual scrapbooking and paper-crafting retreat.
Additionally, I run several homeschool curriculum support groups online; very occasionally assist my extremely busy real estate broker husband cull data; I run a monthly "breast check club" where I send an email out to remind women to do their self exams; I help my friend Janette with public relations and marketing for her SiriusXM radio show Janette's Show and do some similar work for my friend Gina's theatre Uptown. These last two entries require a healthy chunk of time spent on various social networking sites which is not altogether unpleasant. In fact, none of what I do (outside of the actual domestic chores at home - laundry, scrubbing toilets, you get the picture) is difficult or bothersome. I am lucky that most of my many hats actually bring me pleasure!
The thing that makes me most happy, outside my family, is my time on stage and with my improv family at Carolina Improv Company. As I said a little over a year ago: I might be working long hours, and feeling a little overwhelmed at times, but honestly, I love my life. I have a fantastic husband who is caring and kind and generous, and two really remarkable kids. It's just past 2am and I am done for today. Back to it bright and early tomorrow!
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Spiritual Beyond Belief
I consider myself a spiritual person, particularly with regard to the human spirit. I think that in most cases, people are, at their core, honest, good and moral. (Obviously, there are exceptions: Charles Manson, Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer. And I believe in MOST of those exceptions, mental disease or defect plays a huge role - whether naturally occurring [hormone imbalance, chemical imbalance] or artificially induced [drug or alcohol abuse].) Yes, I believe at their core, most people are moral and good - as long as being so is easy - add a little hardship and sometimes that sense of morality slips away. What I don't believe is that God (or whatever your label: Yahweh, Jesus, Deus, Bog, Ishvara, Deva, Allah, Krishna-Vasudeva, Vishnu, Zeus, Hari, Guanches, Tenerife, Achamán, or Savior) governs a person's morality. But hey, if knowing and loving your god helps you to be a more moral, loving, generous and good person, well more power to you.
There has been an evolution of my lack of belief over the course of my life. My first memory of questioning the existence of God was in grade three. My class was learning about the people we now refer to as Native Americans. These Indians, we were told, created gods - like a harvest god and a moon god - to explain things in nature that they didn't understand. We were told of different legends about these various gods and I was entranced. I raised my hand, "Isn't that," I asked innocently, "what we did with our God?"
And so it goes.
At eight years old, I was already questioning one of the major governing powers in our world. I went to church regularly with my very religious grandmother and thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it. We went to a grand cathedral, where the pomp and circumstance, the organ and the flowers, the throngs of people and the glorious songs were all a fantastic experience. My grandmother, Minnie, was a beautiful singer and I reveled in the opportunity to sing out with her, loudly and proudly, for every hymn. I honestly believed that EVERYONE in the church was pretending to believe because they loved to sing like I did.
Despite regular weekly visits to church, I don't ever really remember religion being a big influence my life. The Deacon would say hello in the grocery store; Minnie had lots of friends from church; I knew a few Jewish kids (and a few African American kids - I lived in a lily white town, but do not remember racism or religious persecution at all - we were a very accepting community, at least to the little girl who lived there). But religion really wasn't a "big deal" the way it seems to be now. (Perhaps the "now" view is a product now living in the deep south, the very buckle of the bible belt, as I say.) In fact, in grade four, when I read Judy Blume's Are You There God, it's Me, Margaret? I didn't understand one of the core threads of the story, which was Margaret's conflict in deciding whether to join the Y or the Jewish Community Center.
I even joined the church youth group. I don't really remember there being a lot of God stuff in our activities, but I enjoyed hanging out with friends. I remember talking to other friends about scary movies and upside-down crosses, and devil worshipers, and other myths and urban legends, but the only experience I had with facing religion head-on was when I was about fifteen and decided I was NOT going to church to participate in a worldwide farce and conspiracy which was created because a young girl, who got knocked up, didn't want to admit the truth. I suspect teen angst and hormones played a role in that stand, as I remember being pretty pissed off when I made the statement to my mother (who really didn't care one way or the other if I went to church).
It took me another twenty years to actually come around to labeling myself, and another five to get comfortable enough in my own skin to say it out loud - in fact, even now, only a few of my closest friends know the truth (and now you, dear reader): I am an atheist. (Cue the horrified gasp, and the black and white footage of elderly women fainting.)
I stayed a closeted atheist for a long time because I was afraid of people judging me (again, buckle of the bible belt!). In my 40's, however, I have embraced the "me that I am" and although I don't intend to put an "I'm an Atheist" bumper sticker on my car, I don't really care who finds out. I just don't plan to take out a newspaper ad; let people find out organically.
It also helped that I have met a few "real life" atheists in the last year. Several are open, others are private. Either way, it makes my feelings somehow more legitimate. Mike, my proud atheist friend, encouraged me to be more open. He said that the more "normal" people who come out as atheists, the less people will believe that we are all satan-worshiping baby-eaters. True enough. But until I met these "real people" atheists, Julia Sweeney (in Letting Go of God), Penn Jillette and Bill Maher (in Religulous) were the only people I could look to. Recently, I found out that other people I respect, Janette Barber, Ricky Gervais (in The Invention of Lying) and Seth MacFarlane are also atheists. Not bad role models, if you want the truth.
Here's the thing. I'm not going to try to convince you that you are wrong to believe in God, the "man in the sky" or whomever your god might be. Just as I ask others not to preach to me about whatever gods they choose to worship. You know why? Because I believe in the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (I do understand the immediate irony that this is based on a quote from the bible, but actually it dates farther back to ancient times in Babylon, Egypt, Persia, India, Greece, Judea, and China.)
In the end, I believe that morality and ethics* have little to do with organized religion. In fact some of the most moral people I know are non-believers, just as some VERY religious people are amoral, or even immoral, sinning in every way imaginable (believing that two hours in the pews every Sunday makes up for everything). As I said before, if believing in heaven, the Rapture, Jesus the Savior or any other religious tenet helps you to be a better person, then praise (your) God.
I choose to be good because it is the right thing to do. I choose to be kind because doing so, helping others, makes me feel good. I choose to follow "the rules" (be they laws or just common decency) because doing so gives me peace that I am contributing to the greater good. In the end, isn't that really all that matters?
* Though often confused, morality and ethics are two different things: morality has to do with your own personal conduct and belief system; ethics has to do with a group's code of conduct, be it within a company, sisterhood or community.
There has been an evolution of my lack of belief over the course of my life. My first memory of questioning the existence of God was in grade three. My class was learning about the people we now refer to as Native Americans. These Indians, we were told, created gods - like a harvest god and a moon god - to explain things in nature that they didn't understand. We were told of different legends about these various gods and I was entranced. I raised my hand, "Isn't that," I asked innocently, "what we did with our God?"
And so it goes.
At eight years old, I was already questioning one of the major governing powers in our world. I went to church regularly with my very religious grandmother and thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it. We went to a grand cathedral, where the pomp and circumstance, the organ and the flowers, the throngs of people and the glorious songs were all a fantastic experience. My grandmother, Minnie, was a beautiful singer and I reveled in the opportunity to sing out with her, loudly and proudly, for every hymn. I honestly believed that EVERYONE in the church was pretending to believe because they loved to sing like I did.
Despite regular weekly visits to church, I don't ever really remember religion being a big influence my life. The Deacon would say hello in the grocery store; Minnie had lots of friends from church; I knew a few Jewish kids (and a few African American kids - I lived in a lily white town, but do not remember racism or religious persecution at all - we were a very accepting community, at least to the little girl who lived there). But religion really wasn't a "big deal" the way it seems to be now. (Perhaps the "now" view is a product now living in the deep south, the very buckle of the bible belt, as I say.) In fact, in grade four, when I read Judy Blume's Are You There God, it's Me, Margaret? I didn't understand one of the core threads of the story, which was Margaret's conflict in deciding whether to join the Y or the Jewish Community Center.
I even joined the church youth group. I don't really remember there being a lot of God stuff in our activities, but I enjoyed hanging out with friends. I remember talking to other friends about scary movies and upside-down crosses, and devil worshipers, and other myths and urban legends, but the only experience I had with facing religion head-on was when I was about fifteen and decided I was NOT going to church to participate in a worldwide farce and conspiracy which was created because a young girl, who got knocked up, didn't want to admit the truth. I suspect teen angst and hormones played a role in that stand, as I remember being pretty pissed off when I made the statement to my mother (who really didn't care one way or the other if I went to church).
It took me another twenty years to actually come around to labeling myself, and another five to get comfortable enough in my own skin to say it out loud - in fact, even now, only a few of my closest friends know the truth (and now you, dear reader): I am an atheist. (Cue the horrified gasp, and the black and white footage of elderly women fainting.)
I stayed a closeted atheist for a long time because I was afraid of people judging me (again, buckle of the bible belt!). In my 40's, however, I have embraced the "me that I am" and although I don't intend to put an "I'm an Atheist" bumper sticker on my car, I don't really care who finds out. I just don't plan to take out a newspaper ad; let people find out organically.
It also helped that I have met a few "real life" atheists in the last year. Several are open, others are private. Either way, it makes my feelings somehow more legitimate. Mike, my proud atheist friend, encouraged me to be more open. He said that the more "normal" people who come out as atheists, the less people will believe that we are all satan-worshiping baby-eaters. True enough. But until I met these "real people" atheists, Julia Sweeney (in Letting Go of God), Penn Jillette and Bill Maher (in Religulous) were the only people I could look to. Recently, I found out that other people I respect, Janette Barber, Ricky Gervais (in The Invention of Lying) and Seth MacFarlane are also atheists. Not bad role models, if you want the truth.
Here's the thing. I'm not going to try to convince you that you are wrong to believe in God, the "man in the sky" or whomever your god might be. Just as I ask others not to preach to me about whatever gods they choose to worship. You know why? Because I believe in the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (I do understand the immediate irony that this is based on a quote from the bible, but actually it dates farther back to ancient times in Babylon, Egypt, Persia, India, Greece, Judea, and China.)
In the end, I believe that morality and ethics* have little to do with organized religion. In fact some of the most moral people I know are non-believers, just as some VERY religious people are amoral, or even immoral, sinning in every way imaginable (believing that two hours in the pews every Sunday makes up for everything). As I said before, if believing in heaven, the Rapture, Jesus the Savior or any other religious tenet helps you to be a better person, then praise (your) God.
I choose to be good because it is the right thing to do. I choose to be kind because doing so, helping others, makes me feel good. I choose to follow "the rules" (be they laws or just common decency) because doing so gives me peace that I am contributing to the greater good. In the end, isn't that really all that matters?
* Though often confused, morality and ethics are two different things: morality has to do with your own personal conduct and belief system; ethics has to do with a group's code of conduct, be it within a company, sisterhood or community.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Merry Christmas 2.0
(Why reinvent the wheel? Just go with it...)
"wee fish"
"ewe"
"a mare"
"egrets"
"moose"
wee fish, ewe, a mare, egrets, moose,
wee fish, ewe, a mare, egrets, moose
and
"a hippo"
"gnu" year!
"ewe"
"a mare"
"egrets"
"moose"
wee fish, ewe, a mare, egrets, moose,
wee fish, ewe, a mare, egrets, moose
and
"a hippo"
"gnu" year!
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Can it really be nearly April?
Doesn't it seem like just a few short days ago that we were trying to decide between saying "twenty-ten" or "two thousand ten" for the year? (For the record, I thought I would say "two thousand ten" because the idea of saying "twenty-eleven" was not one I cherished, but I seem to use both interchangeably.)
And here it is, nearly April. My life seems even crazier and busier, but that is always good. Staying away from idle time is what keeps me sane. There is an old English saying, "Idle hands make the devil's tools." Apparently, there is a reference to a similar saying in a Chaucer work, dating back to the 12th Century. All I know is that too much time idle, means too much time to contemplate what ISN'T right. So I usually try to stay busy with what IS!
To that end, I thought I might list everything that is keeping me busy (outside of the usual mother, wife, cooking, cleaning, taxi-driving, nurse-maiding and homeschooling): I substituted for ten days at the local Catholic school (mostly in a first/second/third grade split!); I performed at the local Improv Comedy theatre (student performance - I audition to be a full-fledged player next month); I co-hosted two full day card-making workshops; I worked "front of the house" at the Improv Comedy theatre four nights; I designed and sold seven Easter "boxits" and 35 Easter Bunnies; I designed a dozen and made over 100 new cards (shameless plug #1); I worked with two friends to put together a three day scrapbook weekend to be held next month; I fulfilled orders for paper crafting adhesive (shameless plug #2); I placed orders for my Stampin' Up business (shameless plug #3); I worked on two custom card orders - one for notecards and birthday cards, one for wedding invitations; I help Rich with research for BPO's (my part is all data culling); I do daily postings of the rental properties his real estate firm has available; I tutor a middle school student in math once a week; I am scheduled to teach card-making classes at the county rec center three days per month; I publish a LOST blog weekly; I am a co-moderator of several homeschooling yahoo groups; I am secretary for our book club; I run a monthly "breast check club" where I send an email out to remind women to do their self exams; oh and I started, and am promoting, a radio show that airs an hour a day, four days a week! And that is just in March! Tired yet? LOL.
I might be working long hours, and feeling a little overwhelmed at times, but honestly, I love my life. I have a fantastic husband who is caring and kind and generous, and two really remarkable kids. It's just past 2am and I am done for today. Back to it bright and early tomorrow!
And here it is, nearly April. My life seems even crazier and busier, but that is always good. Staying away from idle time is what keeps me sane. There is an old English saying, "Idle hands make the devil's tools." Apparently, there is a reference to a similar saying in a Chaucer work, dating back to the 12th Century. All I know is that too much time idle, means too much time to contemplate what ISN'T right. So I usually try to stay busy with what IS!
To that end, I thought I might list everything that is keeping me busy (outside of the usual mother, wife, cooking, cleaning, taxi-driving, nurse-maiding and homeschooling): I substituted for ten days at the local Catholic school (mostly in a first/second/third grade split!); I performed at the local Improv Comedy theatre (student performance - I audition to be a full-fledged player next month); I co-hosted two full day card-making workshops; I worked "front of the house" at the Improv Comedy theatre four nights; I designed and sold seven Easter "boxits" and 35 Easter Bunnies; I designed a dozen and made over 100 new cards (shameless plug #1); I worked with two friends to put together a three day scrapbook weekend to be held next month; I fulfilled orders for paper crafting adhesive (shameless plug #2); I placed orders for my Stampin' Up business (shameless plug #3); I worked on two custom card orders - one for notecards and birthday cards, one for wedding invitations; I help Rich with research for BPO's (my part is all data culling); I do daily postings of the rental properties his real estate firm has available; I tutor a middle school student in math once a week; I am scheduled to teach card-making classes at the county rec center three days per month; I publish a LOST blog weekly; I am a co-moderator of several homeschooling yahoo groups; I am secretary for our book club; I run a monthly "breast check club" where I send an email out to remind women to do their self exams; oh and I started, and am promoting, a radio show that airs an hour a day, four days a week! And that is just in March! Tired yet? LOL.
I might be working long hours, and feeling a little overwhelmed at times, but honestly, I love my life. I have a fantastic husband who is caring and kind and generous, and two really remarkable kids. It's just past 2am and I am done for today. Back to it bright and early tomorrow!
Friday, December 25, 2009
Animal Christmas...
(just go with it...)
"wee fish"
"ewe"
"a mare"
"egrets"
"moose"
wee fish, ewe, a mare, egrets, moose,
wee fish, ewe, a mare, egrets, moose
and
"a hippo"
"gnu" year!
"ewe"
"a mare"
"egrets"
"moose"
wee fish, ewe, a mare, egrets, moose,
wee fish, ewe, a mare, egrets, moose
and
"a hippo"
"gnu" year!
Thursday, November 26, 2009
The State of our Schools
For someone who doesn't have a horse in the race, I sure spend a lot of time considering where the race went wrong. Not to take the metaphor too far, the state of public schools, in general, is pretty bleak. There are dozens of reasons why, very few of which can be corrected with any quick fix.
It is difficult to decide where to start when listing the issues facing our schools, so let's begin with one which many people find controversial. Equal rights for women. Don't get me wrong, of COURSE women should have equal rights and equal pay for equal work (and by the way, we still don't). But over the course of a generation, we went from women being ALLOWED to work, to women WANTING to work, to women feeling they SHOULD work, to women feeling they HAVE to work just to make ends meet and survive - especially in this economy. And though this is fantastic for women's rights, it means that many children spend eight hours a day at school then two or three hours at daycare or home alone, and what little time they HAVE with their parents is spent doing homework, or rushing to sports, or fighting over chores and housework. Many children spend more time with their peers, learning bad habits and street smarts, than in the loving embrace of their parents and family. Parents don't have much time to PARENT - to share their values and resources with their children. The children suffer for it.
Let me be clear - I do NOT blame working mothers! This is NOT a judgment, it is simply stating a fact: generally, children spend less time with their parents than they used to. Might this contribute to the problems our schools face? I think it might.
Though it will not be popular to say, women's equality has affected our schools in another way. Fifty years ago, if a woman wanted to work, and make a difference, outside the home, she had two choices - to be a nurse or a teacher. This meant that the smartest and most dedicated women were in two of the most important, and influential, positions. With our new found equality, there is no end to the opportunities for women, which often means that nursing and teaching positions are left open, or filled with less than the MOST qualified applicants. This is not to say that there are not loving, dedicated and qualified teachers out there, just that not EVERY ONE of the teachers in schools is.
In that same fifty years, teachers and nurses' salaries have not grown enough to compete with some of the other careers available. Teachers are responsible for molding and educating the people who will one day run our world - should they not be paid accordingly?
Another issue is that, in many states, a school's hands are tied when it comes to terminating a bad teacher's contract. John Stossel wrote about an example in New York City: It took years to fire a teacher who sent sexually oriented e-mails to "Cutie 101," a 16-year-old student. Klein said, "He hasn't taught, but we have had to pay him, because that's what's required under the contract."
Only after six years of litigation were they able to fire him. In the meantime, they paid the teacher more than $300,000. Klein said he employs dozens of teachers who he's afraid to let near the kids, so he has them sit in what are called rubber rooms. This year he will spend $20 million dollars to warehouse teachers in five rubber rooms. It's an alternative to firing them. In the last four years, only two teachers out of 80,000 were fired for incompetence. Klein's office says the new contract will make it easier to get rid of sex offenders, but it will still be difficult to fire incompetent teachers. You can read the entire article here.
Let's be frank: there are plenty of AMAZING public schools - there are thousands of FANTASTIC teachers. But until every school is amazing, and every teacher is fantastic, there is much work to be done!
Parents' attitudes have changed over the last generation as well. Maybe it comes from the guilt of not having enough time with their kids. Maybe it stems from their visions of their own childhood injustices. But, when I went to school, if you got INTO to trouble AT school, you got into MORE trouble at home. Today, if a child misbehaves at school, the parent(s) come in and cause holy heck, make excuses, and get the punishment reversed, or threaten to sue. (This harkens to our overly litigious society, but I think that is another post altogether!) As a result of the parents' actions, teachers' authority has been so undermined, that teachers have no power left to hold over the student.
Money is a problem which needs to be addressed, but it isn't necessarily that there isn't enough money in education, just that it might be used more efficiently.
Teachers are clearly overworked. The red tape, paperwork, statistical analysis and record keeping take up HOURS of non-class time. During school, teachers are so busy trying to get kids to sit still, be quiet, pay attention, and focus, that they have so little time to teach. And don't forget that children are being pulled out of the classroom to be medicated, or for Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy and / or Speech Therapy, or to go doctor's appointments and dentist appointments. Then there are weeks of preparation for mandated standardized tests (upon which many teachers' future salaries are based either directly or indirectly). WHEN are the children supposed to LEARN something!?
Teaching-to-the-test seems to be a fact of life these days. While I understand the need for a nationwide minimum standard, it would appear that these tests have taken over most, if not all, of each year's academic focus. This limits a teacher's ability to excite and inspire his or her students. A young child has an innate love of learning which is systematically beaten out of him or her within a year of starting formal education.
There have been dozens of articles written about the state of our schools. It doesn't do any good to rehash them, so I will simply list them at the bottom of this post. But, how to FIX things? Well that remains to be seen. The lack of solution, I think, stems from the problems being so sweeping and wide spread and deep and broad, that they seem overwhelming. Where do we start? What do we do? Many times grass-roots solutions, those that start at the bottom and work up, are the most successful. Herein, lies another obstacle to the solution: grass-roots organizing requires years of work - people gathering to discuss and improve issues at their core. But when something requires SO MUCH time to work through, the people "in the trenches" have kids who age out before a solution is found. That makes it difficult to recruit those grass-roots soldiers!
So while we wait for "someone" to rescue our schools, we must each do what we can to help our kids - for Whitney was right - they ARE our future, we must treat them well! For some of us, homeschooling, or private schools, is the solution. But however our children are educated, we must commit to staying involved, parenting properly, helping with homework, supporting teachers, loving our kids and doing our number one job as parents: providing a safe, happy, loving environment for children who will grow up to be productive, happy members of society.
Stupid In America by John Stossel
American Education Problems by Sandra Price, Reason to Freedom
Problems Facing American Education by Boyer and Hamil, Mississippi State University
Problems of Education by Pearson Allyn and Bacon, Social Problems Supersite
Education Problems in Public Schools by Ningthoujam Sandhyarani, Buzzle.com
Problems in Education and Society by unknown, Cyber Essays
Officials Identify Education Problems by Cameron Dux, GW Hatchet
Public Education System Problems by C. Johnson, Ex-Teacher
It is difficult to decide where to start when listing the issues facing our schools, so let's begin with one which many people find controversial. Equal rights for women. Don't get me wrong, of COURSE women should have equal rights and equal pay for equal work (and by the way, we still don't). But over the course of a generation, we went from women being ALLOWED to work, to women WANTING to work, to women feeling they SHOULD work, to women feeling they HAVE to work just to make ends meet and survive - especially in this economy. And though this is fantastic for women's rights, it means that many children spend eight hours a day at school then two or three hours at daycare or home alone, and what little time they HAVE with their parents is spent doing homework, or rushing to sports, or fighting over chores and housework. Many children spend more time with their peers, learning bad habits and street smarts, than in the loving embrace of their parents and family. Parents don't have much time to PARENT - to share their values and resources with their children. The children suffer for it.
Let me be clear - I do NOT blame working mothers! This is NOT a judgment, it is simply stating a fact: generally, children spend less time with their parents than they used to. Might this contribute to the problems our schools face? I think it might.
Though it will not be popular to say, women's equality has affected our schools in another way. Fifty years ago, if a woman wanted to work, and make a difference, outside the home, she had two choices - to be a nurse or a teacher. This meant that the smartest and most dedicated women were in two of the most important, and influential, positions. With our new found equality, there is no end to the opportunities for women, which often means that nursing and teaching positions are left open, or filled with less than the MOST qualified applicants. This is not to say that there are not loving, dedicated and qualified teachers out there, just that not EVERY ONE of the teachers in schools is.
In that same fifty years, teachers and nurses' salaries have not grown enough to compete with some of the other careers available. Teachers are responsible for molding and educating the people who will one day run our world - should they not be paid accordingly?
Another issue is that, in many states, a school's hands are tied when it comes to terminating a bad teacher's contract. John Stossel wrote about an example in New York City: It took years to fire a teacher who sent sexually oriented e-mails to "Cutie 101," a 16-year-old student. Klein said, "He hasn't taught, but we have had to pay him, because that's what's required under the contract."
Only after six years of litigation were they able to fire him. In the meantime, they paid the teacher more than $300,000. Klein said he employs dozens of teachers who he's afraid to let near the kids, so he has them sit in what are called rubber rooms. This year he will spend $20 million dollars to warehouse teachers in five rubber rooms. It's an alternative to firing them. In the last four years, only two teachers out of 80,000 were fired for incompetence. Klein's office says the new contract will make it easier to get rid of sex offenders, but it will still be difficult to fire incompetent teachers. You can read the entire article here.
Let's be frank: there are plenty of AMAZING public schools - there are thousands of FANTASTIC teachers. But until every school is amazing, and every teacher is fantastic, there is much work to be done!
Parents' attitudes have changed over the last generation as well. Maybe it comes from the guilt of not having enough time with their kids. Maybe it stems from their visions of their own childhood injustices. But, when I went to school, if you got INTO to trouble AT school, you got into MORE trouble at home. Today, if a child misbehaves at school, the parent(s) come in and cause holy heck, make excuses, and get the punishment reversed, or threaten to sue. (This harkens to our overly litigious society, but I think that is another post altogether!) As a result of the parents' actions, teachers' authority has been so undermined, that teachers have no power left to hold over the student.
Money is a problem which needs to be addressed, but it isn't necessarily that there isn't enough money in education, just that it might be used more efficiently.
Teachers are clearly overworked. The red tape, paperwork, statistical analysis and record keeping take up HOURS of non-class time. During school, teachers are so busy trying to get kids to sit still, be quiet, pay attention, and focus, that they have so little time to teach. And don't forget that children are being pulled out of the classroom to be medicated, or for Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy and / or Speech Therapy, or to go doctor's appointments and dentist appointments. Then there are weeks of preparation for mandated standardized tests (upon which many teachers' future salaries are based either directly or indirectly). WHEN are the children supposed to LEARN something!?
Teaching-to-the-test seems to be a fact of life these days. While I understand the need for a nationwide minimum standard, it would appear that these tests have taken over most, if not all, of each year's academic focus. This limits a teacher's ability to excite and inspire his or her students. A young child has an innate love of learning which is systematically beaten out of him or her within a year of starting formal education.
There have been dozens of articles written about the state of our schools. It doesn't do any good to rehash them, so I will simply list them at the bottom of this post. But, how to FIX things? Well that remains to be seen. The lack of solution, I think, stems from the problems being so sweeping and wide spread and deep and broad, that they seem overwhelming. Where do we start? What do we do? Many times grass-roots solutions, those that start at the bottom and work up, are the most successful. Herein, lies another obstacle to the solution: grass-roots organizing requires years of work - people gathering to discuss and improve issues at their core. But when something requires SO MUCH time to work through, the people "in the trenches" have kids who age out before a solution is found. That makes it difficult to recruit those grass-roots soldiers!
So while we wait for "someone" to rescue our schools, we must each do what we can to help our kids - for Whitney was right - they ARE our future, we must treat them well! For some of us, homeschooling, or private schools, is the solution. But however our children are educated, we must commit to staying involved, parenting properly, helping with homework, supporting teachers, loving our kids and doing our number one job as parents: providing a safe, happy, loving environment for children who will grow up to be productive, happy members of society.
Stupid In America by John Stossel
American Education Problems by Sandra Price, Reason to Freedom
Problems Facing American Education by Boyer and Hamil, Mississippi State University
Problems of Education by Pearson Allyn and Bacon, Social Problems Supersite
Education Problems in Public Schools by Ningthoujam Sandhyarani, Buzzle.com
Problems in Education and Society by unknown, Cyber Essays
Officials Identify Education Problems by Cameron Dux, GW Hatchet
Public Education System Problems by C. Johnson, Ex-Teacher
Sunday, November 08, 2009
STOP! WAIT! Hold everything!
Yesterday on the news, I heard that the USS New York was being dedicated. The newsworthy part of the story was that the ship was built using about seven and a half tons of steel from the fallen World Trade Center buildings. Cue the dramatic music! Cue the double exposed view of the ship, with an American flag washed across the screen.
STOP! WAIT! Hold everything!
Seriously, back up a second. The Navy commissioned an assault ship to be constructed, in part, of reclaimed steel from the buildings that collapsed on 9/11. But according to the official story, that steel melted at temperatures FAR lower than it should have. (Steel generally melts at 2500 degrees, where jet fuel tends to burn at 550 degrees.) So why on EARTH would the US Navy commission the construction of a ship using this compromised steel? Is anyone worried about this?
And wouldn't building the ship have proven more difficult given the odd characteristics of this steel? Surely this metal, which has a melting point 1/4 the temperature it SHOULD have, made the construction of the ship problematic?
And shouldn't the public be a) outraged at the company that manufactured this faulty steel to begin with, or b) worry for the safety of every person who works in any tall building, or c) be curious why, except for September 11th, 2001, no other building, in the history of civilization, has never collapsed into its own footprint without controlled demolition?
So either, we accept the official story, and worry for the safety of the men and women who will serve aboard this ship, or we don't accept the official story, because this is just one more hole in it. Think about that.
There are hundreds, possibly thousands, of reasons why we shouldn't accept the official story. Set aside a few minutes to think about just ONE of the holes in the story. It really is mind-boggling. One example is the fact that WTC7 fell to the ground in dust, despite the fact that it was not hit by a plane!
There is an old Chinese proverb that says: A wise man makes his own decisions; an ignorant man follows public opinion. Do some research; ask some questions; look for answers.
It is in the unanswered, or inaccurately-answered, questions that you will find your OWN opinion.
STOP! WAIT! Hold everything!
Seriously, back up a second. The Navy commissioned an assault ship to be constructed, in part, of reclaimed steel from the buildings that collapsed on 9/11. But according to the official story, that steel melted at temperatures FAR lower than it should have. (Steel generally melts at 2500 degrees, where jet fuel tends to burn at 550 degrees.) So why on EARTH would the US Navy commission the construction of a ship using this compromised steel? Is anyone worried about this?
And wouldn't building the ship have proven more difficult given the odd characteristics of this steel? Surely this metal, which has a melting point 1/4 the temperature it SHOULD have, made the construction of the ship problematic?
And shouldn't the public be a) outraged at the company that manufactured this faulty steel to begin with, or b) worry for the safety of every person who works in any tall building, or c) be curious why, except for September 11th, 2001, no other building, in the history of civilization, has never collapsed into its own footprint without controlled demolition?
So either, we accept the official story, and worry for the safety of the men and women who will serve aboard this ship, or we don't accept the official story, because this is just one more hole in it. Think about that.
There are hundreds, possibly thousands, of reasons why we shouldn't accept the official story. Set aside a few minutes to think about just ONE of the holes in the story. It really is mind-boggling. One example is the fact that WTC7 fell to the ground in dust, despite the fact that it was not hit by a plane!
There is an old Chinese proverb that says: A wise man makes his own decisions; an ignorant man follows public opinion. Do some research; ask some questions; look for answers.
It is in the unanswered, or inaccurately-answered, questions that you will find your OWN opinion.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Medicine: "Public" is a dirty word?
It seems strange that there are so many people who think that a Public Option for health care is so awful. Like the idea of it being public is somehow repugnant to them. I make great efforts to understand others' points of view, and the best that I could come up with is that there are people who feel like *they* would be paying for *the public* to have health care.
That got me thinking...
*they* are already paying for *the public* to have an education. Is health care NOT as vital to our country as education? Don't misunderstand me, I am not extolling the virtues of government schools - I doubt there is an American alive who doesn't know that there are inherent flaws in the system. But isn't keeping our population healthy as important as educating them?
Perhaps if those opposed to a public option for health care were to see the ramifications of losing the public option for education, things might change. Suppose the government decided that it was too expensive to keep running public schools, so the only option was to close them down.
Those wealthy enough to afford private school, could educate their children. A few others might start homeschooling. But what about the millions of children currently educated in government schools? They would be left to fend for themselves. It would be a matter of a single generation before a camera crew could film a piece for "feed the children" in the streets of any city or town on the map. NOT educating the *public* just isn't an option.
So why the resistance to the same for health care? Yes, it all comes down to money. But in the end, if EVERY citizen is entitled to health care - either through their own insurer, cash or the public option, the cost for health care will go DOWN. Once every person has access to preventative care, and people can be treated when they first get sick, people won't get AS sick, and it won't take as much money to treat them.
The price of care in a hospital is based on the costs that hospital incurs. Right now, hospitals have to cover the expenditures they make while treating the indigent in the ER (for things like ear infections and the flu) and the way to do that is to spread those costs among its paying patients. If hospital ERs could be limited to TRUE emergencies, the hospital costs would be reduced, and costs for other services could be lowered. How do we keep non-emergency patients out of the ER? By offering them health care in a doctor's office! It seems so simple.
The issue of health care is NOT a simple one. There are many corporations to please, many people to consider. I do think, however, that the issue of CARING for people's HEALTH is a simple one - we must. We must find a safe, simple and cost-effective way to keep people healthy. (Ask a nurse - I bet he or she would have some ideas.)
I look forward to a day when we can say, "Can you believe it? There was a time when sick people just DIED because they couldn't afford health care. There was a time when poor people couldn't be healed."
So let's get everyone healthy... then maybe we can figure out how to get our schools back in prime working order.
That got me thinking...
*they* are already paying for *the public* to have an education. Is health care NOT as vital to our country as education? Don't misunderstand me, I am not extolling the virtues of government schools - I doubt there is an American alive who doesn't know that there are inherent flaws in the system. But isn't keeping our population healthy as important as educating them?
Perhaps if those opposed to a public option for health care were to see the ramifications of losing the public option for education, things might change. Suppose the government decided that it was too expensive to keep running public schools, so the only option was to close them down.
Those wealthy enough to afford private school, could educate their children. A few others might start homeschooling. But what about the millions of children currently educated in government schools? They would be left to fend for themselves. It would be a matter of a single generation before a camera crew could film a piece for "feed the children" in the streets of any city or town on the map. NOT educating the *public* just isn't an option.
So why the resistance to the same for health care? Yes, it all comes down to money. But in the end, if EVERY citizen is entitled to health care - either through their own insurer, cash or the public option, the cost for health care will go DOWN. Once every person has access to preventative care, and people can be treated when they first get sick, people won't get AS sick, and it won't take as much money to treat them.
The price of care in a hospital is based on the costs that hospital incurs. Right now, hospitals have to cover the expenditures they make while treating the indigent in the ER (for things like ear infections and the flu) and the way to do that is to spread those costs among its paying patients. If hospital ERs could be limited to TRUE emergencies, the hospital costs would be reduced, and costs for other services could be lowered. How do we keep non-emergency patients out of the ER? By offering them health care in a doctor's office! It seems so simple.
The issue of health care is NOT a simple one. There are many corporations to please, many people to consider. I do think, however, that the issue of CARING for people's HEALTH is a simple one - we must. We must find a safe, simple and cost-effective way to keep people healthy. (Ask a nurse - I bet he or she would have some ideas.)
I look forward to a day when we can say, "Can you believe it? There was a time when sick people just DIED because they couldn't afford health care. There was a time when poor people couldn't be healed."
So let's get everyone healthy... then maybe we can figure out how to get our schools back in prime working order.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Being Broke Bites - Big Time
My husband has a really good saying about people who lack wealth. I am paraphrasing, but essentially he says that there is a difference between being broke and being poor. People who are broke, are without wealth temporarily. Being poor is a lifestyle.
I hope that's true, and for now, I will say we are flat broke. While the "rest of the world" only noticed the economic downturn with the collapse of Lehman Brothers, we've been feeling the pinch for over a year. The cloudy skies of the economy were felt first in the real estate business and it was just about a year ago when we first started tightening our belts and cutting out expenses. There were lots of things on the market, but everyone was being careful with their money. Rich had, and continues to have, a LOT of work, but deals aren't CLOSING so the pipeline has dried up.
Truthfully, it goes way beyond broke. The financial experts always say that folks should have six to eight months of "reserves" in savings to cover expenses when something happens with work. By June of last year, we were already three months into those reserves. We've maxed out our credit limit on the cards that weren't canceled, and the creditors are calling. It isn't pretty.
We've stretched every dollar farther and farther. The boys quit gymnastics last June, and karate in December. We spend nothing on anything that isn't absolutely necessary - I don't remember the last time I bought ANYTHING other than groceries! Other than a fast food dollar menu treat once in a while, we have only eaten out for super special occasions (Richard's birthday and Mother's Day) since last November - and even those times we were very careful.
I've started selling my cards online (shameless plug) here. And trying to drum up work where I can. I even applied at (gasp!) WalMart but I don't think even THEY are hiring, because while I believe I am fairly employable, I haven't heard anything yet.
The crazy thing is that it isn't a lot of FUN to live this way, but I am kind of used to it. And even though we'd love to buy the boys new bike helmets and a new toy or two (and honestly, I could really use some new underwear - mine have far more than the required three holes), every DAY I am thankful for what we DO have. I have a loving, HEALTHY family (good thing, since we gave up health insurance in December!), we have a house to live in, clothes on our backs, (and friends with hand-me downs since the boys are growing SO quickly,) we have food to eat (thanks to the food stamps we have FINALLY been approved for - I thought I would be ashamed of it, but you know what? I'm not. My kids need to eat.) and are surrounded by amazing people both literally -our local friends - and figuratively - our friends and family all around the world.
Would I CHOOSE to be broke? Never. I much prefer to be on the giving end of things! I LIKE to play Santa, or anonymous samaritan, and help people out and I miss that. But one day, when we're flush again, I think I will appreciate the extra things just a little bit more. Like buying underwear when I need it.
I hope that's true, and for now, I will say we are flat broke. While the "rest of the world" only noticed the economic downturn with the collapse of Lehman Brothers, we've been feeling the pinch for over a year. The cloudy skies of the economy were felt first in the real estate business and it was just about a year ago when we first started tightening our belts and cutting out expenses. There were lots of things on the market, but everyone was being careful with their money. Rich had, and continues to have, a LOT of work, but deals aren't CLOSING so the pipeline has dried up.
Truthfully, it goes way beyond broke. The financial experts always say that folks should have six to eight months of "reserves" in savings to cover expenses when something happens with work. By June of last year, we were already three months into those reserves. We've maxed out our credit limit on the cards that weren't canceled, and the creditors are calling. It isn't pretty.
We've stretched every dollar farther and farther. The boys quit gymnastics last June, and karate in December. We spend nothing on anything that isn't absolutely necessary - I don't remember the last time I bought ANYTHING other than groceries! Other than a fast food dollar menu treat once in a while, we have only eaten out for super special occasions (Richard's birthday and Mother's Day) since last November - and even those times we were very careful.
I've started selling my cards online (shameless plug) here. And trying to drum up work where I can. I even applied at (gasp!) WalMart but I don't think even THEY are hiring, because while I believe I am fairly employable, I haven't heard anything yet.
The crazy thing is that it isn't a lot of FUN to live this way, but I am kind of used to it. And even though we'd love to buy the boys new bike helmets and a new toy or two (and honestly, I could really use some new underwear - mine have far more than the required three holes), every DAY I am thankful for what we DO have. I have a loving, HEALTHY family (good thing, since we gave up health insurance in December!), we have a house to live in, clothes on our backs, (and friends with hand-me downs since the boys are growing SO quickly,) we have food to eat (thanks to the food stamps we have FINALLY been approved for - I thought I would be ashamed of it, but you know what? I'm not. My kids need to eat.) and are surrounded by amazing people both literally -our local friends - and figuratively - our friends and family all around the world.
Would I CHOOSE to be broke? Never. I much prefer to be on the giving end of things! I LIKE to play Santa, or anonymous samaritan, and help people out and I miss that. But one day, when we're flush again, I think I will appreciate the extra things just a little bit more. Like buying underwear when I need it.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Happy Mother's Day
Mother's Day has definitely improved as my kids have grown. This morning, I got breakfast in the chaise (ever so much more civilized than in bed - and definitively less messy!). Followed by a scavenger hunt which led me to potted honeysuckle (which I really wanted), coupons for housework (like cleaning the cat box!), a shadow box they created, and finally more potted plants - this time veggies for the beginning of a vegetable garden!
I feel very loved.
Happy Mother's Day to every mother everywhere, whether your children are young, old, in utero, or covered in fur or feathers or scales, enjoy this day!
I feel very loved.
Happy Mother's Day to every mother everywhere, whether your children are young, old, in utero, or covered in fur or feathers or scales, enjoy this day!
Friday, November 28, 2008
The theatre lights dimmed, the orchestra began, applause exploded, the curtain opened, and Rosie O'Donnell appeared. It was surreal. It was a once-in-a-lifetime experience, one in which only 500 or so people participated, and I was one of those people.
Just two days earlier, I received notice, by email, that I had won two tickets to see ROSIE Live. It was only a matter of hours before my wonderful husband had figured out a way for us all to go, so that we could be together on Thanksgiving (even if it was only to drive home that day!). He found us an inexpensive hotel on the New Jersey side of the Hudson, half-price tickets to take the boys to see Hairspray, and several places along I-95 to get cheap gas.
I had two tickets to see the show, but no one under 18 was admitted (so I couldn't take one boy and leave the other with Rich) and we didn't have anywhere to leave the boys in NYC, so I couldn't take Rich either. I emailed my friend Mike to see if he would like to go with me. When he didn't get back to me, I Im'ed my friend Kelly, a RoBlogger, but she was heading out of town to spend Thanksgiving with her family. Kelly told me about another RoBlogger, Deb whom she thought would LOVE to go to the show. After reading Deb's blog, and seeing that we were like-minded in many ways, I left a comment on her blog to contact me. Then Mike emailed me back. What a quandry! I talked with Kelly, who also hadn't heard from Deb and thought maybe she was out of town. So I emailed Mike back, we exchanged cell phone numbers and made plans to meet at the theatre at 6pm on Wednesday.
The drive to NYC was fairly uneventful. We left around 1am on Wednesday morning and arrived at the hotel just after noon. Rich took the boys to the pool while I rested and then I got ready and headed into the city, while they rested.
I arrived at the theatre around 5pm and the will-call line was already forming. I had a quick bite at Papaya Dog and got in line, followed shortly by fellow blogger Doris and her daughter. It is always fun to talk to other fans at these events and they were no exception. There was a darling young intern Kelly, who was so friendly and helpful. She made everyone feel very welcome.
Eventually, we got our tickets and I headed over to meet Mike at 6pm. After a quick catch up on the year since we met, we headed back to the theatre and after a short wait, were admitted to the lobby.
By about 6:30pm, we were in our seats. All the bloggers were in one section, so we all had a chance to chat. I recognized quite a few from the book signing. I also saw Deb, and found out later that she also won tickets. We did a lot of people-watching as the "important" folks took their seats. We saw Ro's wife Kelli, their children Parker, Chelsea, Blake, Vivi, and nanny Geraldine (as well as several of Geraldine's sisters from Ireland). We also noticed Ro's bff Jackie, columnist Liz Smith, Cynthia McFadden, Georgette Mosbacher, Sharon Gless, producer Janette Barber, and publicist Cyndi Berger. Then Julie Halston (whom we referred to as "Martini Lady" because we could not remember her name and she looked like the kind of woman who would have a martini after work), came out into the audience and spoke with us. She was gathering information for her audience warm-up. She was so charming and ebullient, I knew she would be fun to watch.
On the way back from a quick trip to the bathroom, Joe Dziemainowicz of the New York Daily News interviewed me for about twenty minutes! Sadly, I was not mentioned in his VERY short article.
At last, Julie came out and started talking to the audience. We had to practice applause, and laughter - which in itself, I found to be hilarious. She was very funny and I enjoyed her banter. At one point, I guess I was laughing loudly enough that she recognized it was me and said, "That's South Carolina, I love you, South Carolina!"
Then the show began. It really was phenomenal. Ro came out and did a short monologue (including a bit about spanx being a onesie for plus size 40-somethings!) and then Liza Minnelli appeared. It was overwhelming to see them doing the "big splashy opening number" together.
At the commercial break, a George-Burns-as-god like voice came over the PA system to tell Ro that she was already a little heavy. (This is a term used when a live-show is going over its planned timing.) Ro jokingly responded that she thought they had decided no one was going to discuss such things in a public forum, as if the producer was talking about her weight. They had a short discussion about how they would compensate for the time and then we were back LIVE in five-four-"applause"-three-two...
I won't give a blow-by-blow of the actual performances, since, if you wanted to know about the show, you would have watched it. However, the list of stars who appeared was very long: Alec Baldwin, Conan O'Brien, QTpa2Ts tap-dancing, The Lombard Twins, Jane Krakowski, Clay Aiken, Ne-Yo, Nancy Grace, Kathy Griffin (as Nancy Grace), Harry Connick, Jr., Anti-Gravity, Jennifer Cody (as Little Sally), Alanis Morissette, Gloria Estefan, and Rachael Ray.
After Jane Krakowski's performance, I said to Mike that I couldn't wait to get home to watch it on TiVo because I was too busy looking at the screen (at all our fabulous prizes) to really watch her number. She is an amazing talent. During the commercial break after that, Ro jokingly asked 13-year-old son Parker if he enjoyed her "little striptease" much. Then the George-Burns-as-god like voice said that the show was now a full two-minutes heavy. Ro replied, "Didn't I TELL you that this would happen?" To the audience, she said, "We were three minutes light at dress, and everyone was freaking out. I told them we didn't have an audience, and that the applause would kill that three minutes PLUS some." They discussed which intros and exits to cut, which jokes to cut and other ways to trim the show accordingly.
Watching it back on tv late Thursday night, (after our VERY long day traveling home - the return trip took fourteen hours!) I understand why there were some critical reviews. The dark theatre and intimate performances really didn't translate to television. The complaints that the show didn't flow were likely because of the segues and intros that were hastily cut. Sadly, the ratings weren't great, and Ro has already announced on her blog that there will be no more. That's really too bad, because the variety show genre deserves a true fan to be the one to resurrect it. I am sure the ratings weren't great because it was the day before Thanksgiving. Plus, the TV Guide grid had the show slated at 9pm. I wonder how many Rosie fans tuned in to see the Live show, only to be treated to a "turkey day" version of Deal or No Deal?
After the show was over, we got to do a lot more people watching because we had to remain in our seats to complete paperwork to accept (and pay taxes for) our prizes, and then go out, in groups of twenty, to collect them. Our group was one of the last to leave the theatre about 10:30pm.
The entire experience was truly wonderful. I feel so lucky and honored to have been among the few who experienced it live. I am so thankful to everyone involved. I am also grateful that I have the show on TiVo so that I can revisit the experience whenever I want to! Now if I can only figure out how to TiVo my memories!
Just two days earlier, I received notice, by email, that I had won two tickets to see ROSIE Live. It was only a matter of hours before my wonderful husband had figured out a way for us all to go, so that we could be together on Thanksgiving (even if it was only to drive home that day!). He found us an inexpensive hotel on the New Jersey side of the Hudson, half-price tickets to take the boys to see Hairspray, and several places along I-95 to get cheap gas.I had two tickets to see the show, but no one under 18 was admitted (so I couldn't take one boy and leave the other with Rich) and we didn't have anywhere to leave the boys in NYC, so I couldn't take Rich either. I emailed my friend Mike to see if he would like to go with me. When he didn't get back to me, I Im'ed my friend Kelly, a RoBlogger, but she was heading out of town to spend Thanksgiving with her family. Kelly told me about another RoBlogger, Deb whom she thought would LOVE to go to the show. After reading Deb's blog, and seeing that we were like-minded in many ways, I left a comment on her blog to contact me. Then Mike emailed me back. What a quandry! I talked with Kelly, who also hadn't heard from Deb and thought maybe she was out of town. So I emailed Mike back, we exchanged cell phone numbers and made plans to meet at the theatre at 6pm on Wednesday.
The drive to NYC was fairly uneventful. We left around 1am on Wednesday morning and arrived at the hotel just after noon. Rich took the boys to the pool while I rested and then I got ready and headed into the city, while they rested.
I arrived at the theatre around 5pm and the will-call line was already forming. I had a quick bite at Papaya Dog and got in line, followed shortly by fellow blogger Doris and her daughter. It is always fun to talk to other fans at these events and they were no exception. There was a darling young intern Kelly, who was so friendly and helpful. She made everyone feel very welcome.
Eventually, we got our tickets and I headed over to meet Mike at 6pm. After a quick catch up on the year since we met, we headed back to the theatre and after a short wait, were admitted to the lobby.
By about 6:30pm, we were in our seats. All the bloggers were in one section, so we all had a chance to chat. I recognized quite a few from the book signing. I also saw Deb, and found out later that she also won tickets. We did a lot of people-watching as the "important" folks took their seats. We saw Ro's wife Kelli, their children Parker, Chelsea, Blake, Vivi, and nanny Geraldine (as well as several of Geraldine's sisters from Ireland). We also noticed Ro's bff Jackie, columnist Liz Smith, Cynthia McFadden, Georgette Mosbacher, Sharon Gless, producer Janette Barber, and publicist Cyndi Berger. Then Julie Halston (whom we referred to as "Martini Lady" because we could not remember her name and she looked like the kind of woman who would have a martini after work), came out into the audience and spoke with us. She was gathering information for her audience warm-up. She was so charming and ebullient, I knew she would be fun to watch.
On the way back from a quick trip to the bathroom, Joe Dziemainowicz of the New York Daily News interviewed me for about twenty minutes! Sadly, I was not mentioned in his VERY short article.
At last, Julie came out and started talking to the audience. We had to practice applause, and laughter - which in itself, I found to be hilarious. She was very funny and I enjoyed her banter. At one point, I guess I was laughing loudly enough that she recognized it was me and said, "That's South Carolina, I love you, South Carolina!"
Then the show began. It really was phenomenal. Ro came out and did a short monologue (including a bit about spanx being a onesie for plus size 40-somethings!) and then Liza Minnelli appeared. It was overwhelming to see them doing the "big splashy opening number" together.
At the commercial break, a George-Burns-as-god like voice came over the PA system to tell Ro that she was already a little heavy. (This is a term used when a live-show is going over its planned timing.) Ro jokingly responded that she thought they had decided no one was going to discuss such things in a public forum, as if the producer was talking about her weight. They had a short discussion about how they would compensate for the time and then we were back LIVE in five-four-"applause"-three-two...
I won't give a blow-by-blow of the actual performances, since, if you wanted to know about the show, you would have watched it. However, the list of stars who appeared was very long: Alec Baldwin, Conan O'Brien, QTpa2Ts tap-dancing, The Lombard Twins, Jane Krakowski, Clay Aiken, Ne-Yo, Nancy Grace, Kathy Griffin (as Nancy Grace), Harry Connick, Jr., Anti-Gravity, Jennifer Cody (as Little Sally), Alanis Morissette, Gloria Estefan, and Rachael Ray.
After Jane Krakowski's performance, I said to Mike that I couldn't wait to get home to watch it on TiVo because I was too busy looking at the screen (at all our fabulous prizes) to really watch her number. She is an amazing talent. During the commercial break after that, Ro jokingly asked 13-year-old son Parker if he enjoyed her "little striptease" much. Then the George-Burns-as-god like voice said that the show was now a full two-minutes heavy. Ro replied, "Didn't I TELL you that this would happen?" To the audience, she said, "We were three minutes light at dress, and everyone was freaking out. I told them we didn't have an audience, and that the applause would kill that three minutes PLUS some." They discussed which intros and exits to cut, which jokes to cut and other ways to trim the show accordingly.
Watching it back on tv late Thursday night, (after our VERY long day traveling home - the return trip took fourteen hours!) I understand why there were some critical reviews. The dark theatre and intimate performances really didn't translate to television. The complaints that the show didn't flow were likely because of the segues and intros that were hastily cut. Sadly, the ratings weren't great, and Ro has already announced on her blog that there will be no more. That's really too bad, because the variety show genre deserves a true fan to be the one to resurrect it. I am sure the ratings weren't great because it was the day before Thanksgiving. Plus, the TV Guide grid had the show slated at 9pm. I wonder how many Rosie fans tuned in to see the Live show, only to be treated to a "turkey day" version of Deal or No Deal?
After the show was over, we got to do a lot more people watching because we had to remain in our seats to complete paperwork to accept (and pay taxes for) our prizes, and then go out, in groups of twenty, to collect them. Our group was one of the last to leave the theatre about 10:30pm.
The entire experience was truly wonderful. I feel so lucky and honored to have been among the few who experienced it live. I am so thankful to everyone involved. I am also grateful that I have the show on TiVo so that I can revisit the experience whenever I want to! Now if I can only figure out how to TiVo my memories!
Monday, November 10, 2008
Rights / Equality
Prop 8 (a proposition in California which would ban gay marriage) seems to have passed. I find this so disheartening not only because I believe that all people should receive equal treatment; not only because I have gay friends whom I believe should have the same rights that I do; not only because it is wrong to discriminate; but also because in a country which was created on the idea of freedom, Prop 8 TOOK AWAY the freedoms of a group of people. To me, that is wrong.
I have some thoughts on a way to really equalize the marriage laws and allow the neo-conservatives, fundamentalists and religious zealots to get what they want. It seems that those who are against gay marriage are most protective of the WORD marriage. They want to (constitutionally) DEFINE the word marriage. I doubt they will ever back down, so we need to remove the power that word has.
Perhaps the government should recognize ONLY "civil unions" (or whatever they want to call them). In the eyes of the government, any person, who has signed the documents to legally bind him or herself to another, would be consider legally bound to that person until said document is legally revoked.
All pairs bound by this document receive the same legal rights and tax benefits. Doing this would allow us to refrain from constitutionally changing the definition of marriage because in the eyes of the government, there would be no such thing. Doing this would give the same rights to any legal paired couple, gay or straight.
Therefore the word "marriage" would mean nothing legally to anyone. People who want to be "married" simply find the person of their choice to perform a ceremony... in a church, in a backyard, on a beach, skydiving, etc. People can be as protective as they wish about the word "marriage" because it holds no legal meaning.
I want to keep god out of government and government out of the bedroom. I think perhaps this might solve both.
EDIT: I found this clip of Keith Olbermann with a special comment on the passing of Prop 8. It doesn't particularly futher my point, but I found it compelling.
EDIT: I can't have a Prop 8 post without including this hilarious web-movie I just found, starring (among others) Jack Black, Kathy Najimy, Alison Janney, Margaret Cho, Neil Patrick Harris, Rashida Jones, Maya Rudolph, Jenifer Lewis, Sarah Chalke, Andy Richter and John C. Reilley. It was staged Marc Shaiman (also at the piano) and directed by Adam Shankman. The two previously collaborated on the "Hairspray" movie musical. Enjoy!
I have some thoughts on a way to really equalize the marriage laws and allow the neo-conservatives, fundamentalists and religious zealots to get what they want. It seems that those who are against gay marriage are most protective of the WORD marriage. They want to (constitutionally) DEFINE the word marriage. I doubt they will ever back down, so we need to remove the power that word has.
Perhaps the government should recognize ONLY "civil unions" (or whatever they want to call them). In the eyes of the government, any person, who has signed the documents to legally bind him or herself to another, would be consider legally bound to that person until said document is legally revoked.
All pairs bound by this document receive the same legal rights and tax benefits. Doing this would allow us to refrain from constitutionally changing the definition of marriage because in the eyes of the government, there would be no such thing. Doing this would give the same rights to any legal paired couple, gay or straight.
Therefore the word "marriage" would mean nothing legally to anyone. People who want to be "married" simply find the person of their choice to perform a ceremony... in a church, in a backyard, on a beach, skydiving, etc. People can be as protective as they wish about the word "marriage" because it holds no legal meaning.
I want to keep god out of government and government out of the bedroom. I think perhaps this might solve both.
EDIT: I found this clip of Keith Olbermann with a special comment on the passing of Prop 8. It doesn't particularly futher my point, but I found it compelling.
EDIT: I can't have a Prop 8 post without including this hilarious web-movie I just found, starring (among others) Jack Black, Kathy Najimy, Alison Janney, Margaret Cho, Neil Patrick Harris, Rashida Jones, Maya Rudolph, Jenifer Lewis, Sarah Chalke, Andy Richter and John C. Reilley. It was staged Marc Shaiman (also at the piano) and directed by Adam Shankman. The two previously collaborated on the "Hairspray" movie musical. Enjoy!
See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Lovin' Pumpkin Time
I love this time of year. The nip of the autumn breeze. The colors of the trees. The bright orange pumpkins and the feeling of fun in that hangs in the air like the smoke from the burning leaves (the smell of which, I could do without!). It probably has something to do with my birthday being this time of year. Some of my earliest memories are of the excitement I would feel as a little girl seeing the pumpkins and feeling the chill and knowing that my birthday was around the corner!
This year, for the first time in recorded history, Simon and Greg LOVED their costumes AND didn't complain once - about being itchy, feeling scratchy, being too hot or too cold or too tired. They didn't fight about what their costumes would be. Simon wanted to be Captain Hook and Greg chose Peter Pan. All the work that went into making their costumes was worth it! I just hope that I can get a few more "good years" out of them before they deem themselves too cool for Trick-or-Treating!
: ) P
Monday, August 11, 2008
Back to the Sanctuary
I've said it before, and I will say it again, I LOVE NEW YORK!
Don't get me wrong, I love the west coast, too! Sunshine, surf, sand, all good. I've got California in my blood, but I think I have New York in my soul!
We took the boys there to celebrate Greg's eighth birthday (08/08/08) in Chinatown, since in Asia, eight is considered the luckiest number, especially in multiples. Going to China wasn't in the budget, so Chinatown it was. We ate Dim Sum lunch at the Triple 8 Palace (also called 88 Palace) on 88 E. Broadway. The only way we could have been luckier would have been if we had eight people in our group!
The most wonderful thing for me, though, was taking the boys to their first Broadway show. We went to the Saturday matinee of Wicked and from the first notes of the orchestra, the boys were completely engaged, not even moving for the first hour! At one point, Greg leaned over and said, "Mom, I got GOOSEBUMPS!" It was amazing to be in that moment with them both. Afterwards, Simon told me, "On a scale of one to ten, where one is no way, never, and ten was I want to see that again every day... it was about a nine, Mom. That was awesome."
I've said before that musical theatre is a religious experience for me... it moves me in ways I never thought possible. And judging from their choruses of "Popular" and "For Good" and "Loathing," I think my boys are pretty happy about it, too.
Gotta love that.
Don't get me wrong, I love the west coast, too! Sunshine, surf, sand, all good. I've got California in my blood, but I think I have New York in my soul!
We took the boys there to celebrate Greg's eighth birthday (08/08/08) in Chinatown, since in Asia, eight is considered the luckiest number, especially in multiples. Going to China wasn't in the budget, so Chinatown it was. We ate Dim Sum lunch at the Triple 8 Palace (also called 88 Palace) on 88 E. Broadway. The only way we could have been luckier would have been if we had eight people in our group!
The most wonderful thing for me, though, was taking the boys to their first Broadway show. We went to the Saturday matinee of Wicked and from the first notes of the orchestra, the boys were completely engaged, not even moving for the first hour! At one point, Greg leaned over and said, "Mom, I got GOOSEBUMPS!" It was amazing to be in that moment with them both. Afterwards, Simon told me, "On a scale of one to ten, where one is no way, never, and ten was I want to see that again every day... it was about a nine, Mom. That was awesome."
I've said before that musical theatre is a religious experience for me... it moves me in ways I never thought possible. And judging from their choruses of "Popular" and "For Good" and "Loathing," I think my boys are pretty happy about it, too.
Gotta love that.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
The Character of America
A few months ago, Nancy Gibbs wrote an essay for Time Magazine which really stuck with me. It was called Our Armies, Ourselves, and subtitled How we treat our veterans says a lot about America's character. These days, it isn't pretty.
The full article can be found here (for a while at least).
The article is still stinging me because it is filled with haunting facts about the war in Iraq. It is no secret to those who know me that I am, and have always been, AGAINST this atrocity, the war in Iraq. As Americans, we were led blindly, I feel, into a rage against a people who did nothing to us, using falsified intelligence, against the United Nations, and without the support of most of the free world, into an ILLEGAL war.
Don't misunderstand me, I support our troops, the brave men and women who signed up to fight for the fabric of America. The freedoms which make America special are worth fighting for and I wholeheartedly support the people who make it their livelihood, and often give up their lives, to do so. I support them so much that I want to bring them home. And I want them properly cared for when they are home.
From Ms. Gibb's essay: "Wars are like icebergs: much of the cost remains hidden, and the near doubling of the defense budget since 2001 does not cover what lies ahead. Better body armor and trauma care mean new life for thousands of soldiers who would have died in any earlier war. But many are broken or burned or buried in pain from what they saw and did. One in five suffers from major depression or posttraumatic stress, says a new Rand Corp. study; more than 300,000 have suffered traumatic brain injury. The cost of treating them is projected to double over the next 25 years. Four hundred thousand veterans are waiting for cases to be processed. The number seeking assistance for homelessness is up 600% in the past year."
DID YOU READ THOSE STATISTICS?
She continued, "In the face of so much need, too often comes denial. At a May 6 hearing, lawmakers lit into officials from Veterans Affairs after an e-mail surfaced from Ira Katz, its chief of mental health, on suicide rates of soldiers in its care. The subject line: "Shhh." The VA had been insisting there were fewer than 800 suicide attempts a year by vets in its care; the real number was closer to 12,000."
For the love of Pete, let's bring those brave souls home and start taking CARE of them properly!
EDIT: An anonymous poster took a position that the war is, in fact, legal. As I said in my reply, legality is a fact, not an opinion. And so, I give references to that fact below:
Kreiger
Other links
The full article can be found here (for a while at least).
The article is still stinging me because it is filled with haunting facts about the war in Iraq. It is no secret to those who know me that I am, and have always been, AGAINST this atrocity, the war in Iraq. As Americans, we were led blindly, I feel, into a rage against a people who did nothing to us, using falsified intelligence, against the United Nations, and without the support of most of the free world, into an ILLEGAL war.
Don't misunderstand me, I support our troops, the brave men and women who signed up to fight for the fabric of America. The freedoms which make America special are worth fighting for and I wholeheartedly support the people who make it their livelihood, and often give up their lives, to do so. I support them so much that I want to bring them home. And I want them properly cared for when they are home.
From Ms. Gibb's essay: "Wars are like icebergs: much of the cost remains hidden, and the near doubling of the defense budget since 2001 does not cover what lies ahead. Better body armor and trauma care mean new life for thousands of soldiers who would have died in any earlier war. But many are broken or burned or buried in pain from what they saw and did. One in five suffers from major depression or posttraumatic stress, says a new Rand Corp. study; more than 300,000 have suffered traumatic brain injury. The cost of treating them is projected to double over the next 25 years. Four hundred thousand veterans are waiting for cases to be processed. The number seeking assistance for homelessness is up 600% in the past year."
DID YOU READ THOSE STATISTICS?
She continued, "In the face of so much need, too often comes denial. At a May 6 hearing, lawmakers lit into officials from Veterans Affairs after an e-mail surfaced from Ira Katz, its chief of mental health, on suicide rates of soldiers in its care. The subject line: "Shhh." The VA had been insisting there were fewer than 800 suicide attempts a year by vets in its care; the real number was closer to 12,000."
For the love of Pete, let's bring those brave souls home and start taking CARE of them properly!
EDIT: An anonymous poster took a position that the war is, in fact, legal. As I said in my reply, legality is a fact, not an opinion. And so, I give references to that fact below:
Kreiger
Other links
Saturday, December 08, 2007
Morality and the Modern Girl
I was talking online with a stranger (long story, quite funny, but not necessary at this moment) who happened to be a Catholic. His attitude seemed to be that it really didn't MATTER what sins he committed as long as he confessed about them later.
That got me thinking. I mean, are there MANY people who feel that way? Do people think that as long as you repent, apologize, confess or in some way offer restitution after the fact, it doesn't matter what you did?
I so completely DON'T live that way, and really thought I was in the norm. But maybe I am not.
I went on to tell this person that not EVERYONE uses the bible as a moral compass. He was shocked, he believed it was the ONLY guidance to morality. I replied, (and I quote), "Now here, we are at an impasse, because you believe that the only guidance to morality is a bunch of books written thousands of years ago; and I believe that there is a moral human compass inside each of us and whether or not we choose to listen to it is up to each person - some people look to the bible for guidance, others do not - does not make any one thing more right than the other."
It was then that I realized that maybe I think completely differently than the average person. I mean I know I do in some ways, but I suppose I had no idea that there is an entire population that believes that any act is FINE as long as you repent. Wow. I mean, doesn't that sound as though IF you believe in the bible, it doesn't matter how you act?
Because I believe that if something is wrong, it is just wrong. It will still BE wrong even if I ask for forgiveness or absolution. So I just try not to do things that are wrong, EVER. I am not always completely successful, but never-the-less, I make my best effort.
But now I have to question everything anyone else does. I don't think I like that very much.
That got me thinking. I mean, are there MANY people who feel that way? Do people think that as long as you repent, apologize, confess or in some way offer restitution after the fact, it doesn't matter what you did?
I so completely DON'T live that way, and really thought I was in the norm. But maybe I am not.
I went on to tell this person that not EVERYONE uses the bible as a moral compass. He was shocked, he believed it was the ONLY guidance to morality. I replied, (and I quote), "Now here, we are at an impasse, because you believe that the only guidance to morality is a bunch of books written thousands of years ago; and I believe that there is a moral human compass inside each of us and whether or not we choose to listen to it is up to each person - some people look to the bible for guidance, others do not - does not make any one thing more right than the other."
It was then that I realized that maybe I think completely differently than the average person. I mean I know I do in some ways, but I suppose I had no idea that there is an entire population that believes that any act is FINE as long as you repent. Wow. I mean, doesn't that sound as though IF you believe in the bible, it doesn't matter how you act?
Because I believe that if something is wrong, it is just wrong. It will still BE wrong even if I ask for forgiveness or absolution. So I just try not to do things that are wrong, EVER. I am not always completely successful, but never-the-less, I make my best effort.
But now I have to question everything anyone else does. I don't think I like that very much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
