Gun Control, Mental Illness, and Massacres

So, I ordinarily try to avoid discussing current events.  They rarely stay current for long, and they tend to bring out the irrational in people, so there's a chance I won't bother posting this.

But the reaction to the most recent shooting spree and a few other trends I've noticed have got me a tad nervous, and I want to be sure I'm not the only one noticing these things.

At the time of this writing, it's been a few days since a shooting spree at a grade school in Connecticut.  The first news article I saw mentioned that the shooter had a "personality disorder," and I immediately predicted that it would soon come out that the shooter had been in therapy for years, much like the last one (James Holmes, who, if you'll recall, shot up a movie theater in Colorado).  Now, we haven't gotten any testimony from his shrink yet, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time.

Ordinarily, incidents like this get a public reaction railing against guns, and how we need more gun control, yada, yada, yada.  And there certainly is a contingent doing exactly this right now.  To them I have only this to say:

 

But seriously, you've already made up your mind where you stand on that, and no amount of Willy Wonka pictures is going to change that.  We're not going to go into any depth regarding gun control, because the arguments are already out there.

But we are going to talk about mental illness and guns, because these last couple of shootings have laid the groundwork for a movement that would prevent "mentally ill" people from acquiring firearms.

And there is a lot of talk about this--just google it.  And on the surface, this is a good idea--after all, if we make it so psychopaths can't get guns, they can't go on shooting sprees, now can they? (And if you believe that, let me point you back to Mr. Wonka.)  I mean, I don't want crazy people to have guns.  They're crazy.

But the problem is when you start saying that mentally ill people shouldn't have guns.  Because you know what?  "Mentally ill" covers a heck of a lot of ground, most of which is relatively harmless to others.  And mental illness is not necessarily a life long sentence.  Some people have one episode, and are perfectly fine for the rest of their lives.  Others are able to control their problems with a combination of therapy and meds, and still others just have an iron will.  Banning the mentally ill from having guns means that not only people who are legitimately and dangerously batshit insane will be forbidden from having a firearm (which is good), but it will also prevent people with problems like depression, anxiety, OCD, body dysmorphic disorder, anorexia, bulimia, hypochondriosis, pica, trichotillomania, social phobia, and a host of other so called mental disorders.  Now, I'm not saying there aren't some mental disorders that don't warrant some caution--some psychotics and schizophrenics can get dangerous (but they aren't necessarily always violent), and someone in the middle of a depressive episode probably should not have a gun, just because they're a danger to themselves.  But someone with OCD?  They're probably too busy neatly arranging the bullets to kill anyone.  Someone with bulimia?  Too busy throwing up their dinner.  Heck, somebody with social phobia is going to be too afraid to leave their house, much less shoot people.

According the National Institute of Mental Health, around 26% of adult Americans suffer from a mental disorder (mental illness) in a given year. 

About a quarter of our population suffer from mental illness.

A quarter.  1 in 4 people.

And, if you follow that link, you can see exactly what most of those people suffer from.  Here's a hint: it's depression and anxiety, neither of which prompts people to go on shooting sprees.

Am I saying crazy people should have guns?  Of course not.  But I am saying that if you are going to even attempt to legislate something like this, you need to be damned careful how you define "mental illness."  


Now, on the other end of the spectrum, we have a great hue and cry for better mental healthcare.  And I can't support this strongly enough.  Having been through the system a couple of rounds, our mental healthcare system is failing most of its patients.  It's great if you have a relatively minor problem, or it's an acute issue.  But, to be frank, this profession doesn't really know what they're doing.  When the shrink gives you that Prozac, it's because it helps most people.  Do they know what it does?  Absolutely.  It affects the serotonin levels in your brain.  Do they know why that makes some people less depressed?  No freaking clue.  It's really only been since the fifties that we stopped just locking up mentally ill people, and actually started trying to fix them.  Mental health is in its infancy. What even more disturbing is that most of the "professionals"in the field suffer from a variety of mental disorders themselves (I invite you to explore the psychology section of your bookstore and look at the mental illness memoirs--most of them are written by psychologists).  While this theoretically makes it easier for them to relate to their patients, it also adds a pretty heavy element of "the inmates are running the asylum" to the situation.  I don't know about you, but I don't really want someone with a mental disorder branding me with one for the rest of my life.

And that's where we really get into it.  For years, people with mental illness have been trying to overcome the stigma of being crazy.  And there is a stigma.  But most of these people can't help it anymore than someone with diabetes or heart disease.  We've made such great strides--most of our culture is much more accepting of problems like depression and anxiety, even bipolar.  But by branding these insane killers as being mentally ill, we are inadvertently tarring everyone with the same brush.  We run the risk of making mentally ill synonymous with murderer. 

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to help these people--God knows they need it--but, again, we need to be a damned sight more careful about how we word things. 

I'll admit, most of this is just theory at this point.  But we are dancing on the edge of a very slippery slope right here.   I hope to God I'm wrong, and that we're able to enact laws that will protect our children and our freedoms (I'd like to point out that I'm not even going into the potential conspiracy theories associated with increased gun control).  

And I'm sure that by this point some of you are asking, "But, Linda, if we don't enact stricter guns laws and improve our mental health care, how do we stop this from happening again?"  And I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure.  I suspect that we'd have to change an awful lot of our current attitudes and habits.  We'd have to create a society that doesn't put so much pressure on its people.  In short, we pretty much need to overhaul our entire system.  But that's not a practical solution--changing our entire society would simply take too much time and energy, not to mention more change than most of us are willing to accept.  Honestly, we'll probably experience a full on societal breakdown before it even can happen.

In the meantime?  We'll just have to do what we can to prevent it, and show each other compassion and mercy when we can't. 




Next time: We will be returning to the bike trails series as soon as possible.  I've been kinda sick and not overly mobile, so my information gathering has been stalled.  There's one thing I absolutely have to check on the next one, and it'll be kind of exciting, so be sure to tune in! 

Bike Trails of Lexington--Liberty Trail

Parks and rec lists the length of this trail as 1.3 miles, but that's really going to vary depending on where you access it.  With five different start points, this is definitely one of the more accessible trails in the area.  You'll find it just next door to Hamburg, and about as navigable as the shopping area (i.e. you're probably going to get lost).  I started my exploration at one of the two access points one Flying Ebony Dr.--yes, there are two start points on the same street. 

Here's the first entrance.

 The second is much further down the street than you would expect.

It's also worth mentioning that the trail from the further entrance runs right next to the road, making you question why you bothered.

I really was not overly impressed with this trail.  There's not a lot of shade, and while the multiple entrance points provide easy access, they also make for some confusing intersections.

And they all look like this.

This is particularly bad, as one of these forks leads to yet another entry point, which is in a completely different and unconnected neighborhood.

If you live in that neighborhood, this is what you're looking at.

 

 The only people who will use that entrance are the one who live in the Killington subdivision, a neighborhood accessible only from Liberty Rd. (at a point where there's not even a shoulder to bike along).  Having inadvertently wound up over here the first time, I also find it important to note that the maps app on your smartphone may be completely useless.  I know mine was.  There's nothing like getting lost and pulling up a map, only to find out the street you're on doesn't exist.  There are about a million dead ends and a steep hill, too, so be careful not to wind up over here by mistake.

Once you've managed not to get turned around and lost, you'll soon pass by the fourth entry point, which is actually kinda cool.  There's a path that leads down from Liberty Elementary, so, presumably, teachers can take their classes for a walk.

I would have a better picture, but it was recess, and I didn't want anyone to think I was photographing the kids.

Once you get past the school, things are pretty straight forward.  You'll go under a bridge...

 

Okay, this is the other side.  But there's not that much of a difference.

...and then you'll pass by the fifth entrance, which is off of Red Leaf Dr. in The Shetlands neighborhood.

At least this one has a clear view of the street.

From this point, it's all up hill.  Seriously.  It's steep, and there is absolutely no shade.  This is not a trail for hot summer days, trust me.  But hey, surely there will be something interesting at the top of the hill, right?  Maybe the trail connects to nearby Liberty Rd.?

 

Or maybe it just ends in the middle of a depressing field.

Actually, it just sort of ends.  You go through all that effort to get to the top, and the trail just stops.  Never mind that if it extended maybe 100 ft to the right it would connect up to the sidewalk on Liberty Rd.

Numerical ratings:


All areas are out of five with one being bad and five being good.

terrain (steepness): 2 (that hill is a beast)
shadiness:1
length: 3
scenery: 2 (these photos were taken the same day as the ones for Hamburg Trail)
accessibility: 5

Overall: 13/20

Other comments:  The layout makes the trail confusing and annoying.  Not recommended unless you live in one of the adjacent subdivisions.

Bike Trails of Lexington--Hamburg Trail

So,at the risk of making it easier for the internet to find me, I've decided to explore my local bike/walking trails.  I thought it might be nice to review each one, just in case you wanted to bike/walk around the area.  That, and it gives me a good excuse to get out there and get exercise while the weather is decent.  I'll be covering this roughly by area of town, but otherwise in no particular order.  So, without further ado, let's get started!

Hamburg Trail

Parks and Rec describes this as a shared use (bike/walking) trail from Sir Barton Way to near Winchester Rd.  They give its length at about .3 miles.  It has three access points.

Point #1--Sir Barton Rd.

Point #2 (that really long staircase on the left) Lowe's parking lot

 Point #3 (ramp extends to the left, as well as staircase) Walmart Parking lot

If you're driving, you can park at Lowe's or Walmart (top of the hill), but you will have a steep climb back up to your car.  For our review, I came in from Sir Barton.  Having seen the trail from the parking lot, I can say without a doubt that this is the easiest and prettiest place to start this trail--it also give you the longest route and avoids annoying hills.   This trail is surprisingly scenic for its location, and has a bonus horse cemetery.

 

I'm dead serious about the horse cemetery.  This is Kentucky.

Scenic view towards the cemetery.

You'd never guess this was next door to a Walmart.

I'd say its biggest drawbacks are its short length and the way it just sort of dead ends, instead of looping back on itself.

 

Seriously, they couldn't have connected it to another parking lot or a sidewalk or something?

Still, not a bad trail for a lunch time walk.  I also noticed some lamp posts, so it may be doable at night, too.

Numerical ratings:

All areas are out of five with one being bad and five being good.

terrain (steepness): 5 (1 if approached from the parking lot)
shadiness: 3
length: 1
scenery: 3 (average for central KY)
accessibility: 5

Overall:  17/20

Other comments:  Would use on a regular basis.

Poking the Wasps Nest, or, Let's Talk About Politics!

So I generally avoid talking about politics, mostly because a) I don't care that much b) I tend not to be overly informed on the subject and c) people who talk about politics tend to be a lot like rabid dogs.

Only rabid dogs are more rational.

But I've noticed that lately, people seem to be paying a bit more attention to the circus that our electoral system has become.  And when I say that, I mean that people are starting to notice the media focus on relatively unimportant side issues, and the way that only certain inflammatory statements by particular people make it to the front page.  It gives me hope that maybe, one day, the people might rise up, say, "Enough," and actually do something about our broken system.

Of course, in order to fix the system, you have to acknowledge and identify the problem.  And that's the point we're at now.  In an effort to get one more voice out there pointing out the inconsistencies (and get myself on yet another watch list), let's talk about some of them, and the possible reasons behind them.

Focusing On Side Issues:  If you listen to the media, the key issues for this years presidential election are women's rights and gay marriage.  Now, I'm not saying those aren't important issues--as a woman, having a say in what happens to my body is important to me, and who doesn't know a wonderful gay couple or three who deserve the rights and privileges that a legally sanctioned marriage provides?  However, I'm pretty sure that there are one or two things that are just a wee bit more important.  Like jobs.  Yeah, yeah, I know unemployment rates have gone down.  I also know that's there's a limit on how long you can collect benefits, and there's a lot of people who have passed that limit.  Unemployment has gone down because people have run out of benefits, or gone back to school to retrain (or to hide out until things get better), or because people have settled for two or three crap jobs just so they can pay the bills.  Go check the want ads--the jobs that are available are either highly specialized (i.e. require specific training) or shit jobs that nobody wants because they don't pay anything (like fast food).  How many people do you know who have had to move back in with their parents, or take on an additional roommate, or who have lost their job, or who can't afford to replace their broken down car, much less pay their bills? That probably describes about half the people I know, and if you can say the same, I think we definitely have an employment problem in our fine country.  So why isn't the media covering that?  There could be a lot of reasons.  My theory?  By focusing on side issues like gay marriage and women's rights (both of which will eventually resolve themselves for the best), it gives the candidates the chance to hide the fact that they don't have a solution for the job problem.  Alternatively, if you go in for your conspiracy theories, it could even be a way to hide the fact that the main candidates don't want to solve the problem.  Pick your reason for why.  Either way, it's a ploy to distract our attention from what's really important.

This is what's going through my head whenever I think of this.

Manipulating The System:  Now, I'll admit we're traipsing into conspiracy theory here.  At the same time, some things just don't add up.  For example, let's take a look at the debacle that was the republican primary.  How many candidates got put out there for president?  It doesn't really matter, because pretty much all of them were crackpots, crazy, or otherwise horrible candidates.  Seriously, next to the republican hopefuls anyone would look good--especially Obama.  I'm not saying he had a hand in it, or that there someone somewhere is pulling strings.  But after the demolition derby that was the primary, I question who can take the republicans seriously at all.

You saw a primary.  I saw Thunderdome.

Whatever your position, it's looking pretty good for Obama.  But wait, you say, what about third party candidates?  Surely someone else is running.  Yes, Sally, there is.  However, there are these things called ballot access laws.  I didn't even know about this until it was brought to my attention.  You see, in order to be on the ballot, a candidate has to pay a fee and get so many signatures on a petition.  The exact numbers vary from state to state, but you get the idea.  However, if a candidate is backed by a third party--i.e. not republican or democrat--they have to not only pay a higher fee, but get substantially more signatures (think 2000 as opposed to 200).  And, of course, those signatures can be challenged, which means at best a delay in getting on the ballot, at worst not being there at all, if they can invalidate any of those signatures (and something as simple as writing the wrong zip code can invalidate one).  Our current third party candidates are having to do this, and last I was aware of, at least one was dealing with a challenge in Pennsylvania.  If they refuse him ballot access, he'll probably still be a write in candidate, but you tell me how many people are going to know of him.  On the other hand, if he's on the ballot, there's a good number of people who will look at Romney and Obama and say, "Oh, hell no, let's go with the other guy."

The Two Party System:  While I paid as little attention as possible in my history classes, one thing that always stuck out to me was the number of political parties and the way they seemed to change around every few decades, at least to start with.   Now?  We pretty much have two parties and a bunch of fringe groups.  Those two parties have been on top since about Lincoln.  To top things off, we haven't had a serious contender from a third party since Nixon (George Wallace of the American Independent party garnered a whopping 46 electoral votes in 1968).  What's the deal here?  I'm going to go out a limb here and say it's money.  Let's face it, at this point, the winner is whoever can get their name out there the most, and the more money you have, the better you can do that.  It's like voting for prom queen in high school.

Seriously, they have billboards and everything.

The republican and democratic parties have so much more funding than our third party guys.  The other guys simply don't have enough money to compete on the same level.  But at least they still try, even if it means standing on a street corner with a sandwich board.

Voting Against The Other Guy:  Okay, this isn't really the media, but I hear this a lot and have to challenge it.  The idea here is that the third party candidates have no chance, so, even if you hate both the republican and the democrat, you should vote for the one you hate less, just so the other one doesn't get into office.  This always reminds me of a particular passage in a Douglas Adams book, as follows:

"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see...."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."

• Douglas Adams, in So Long, And Thanks For All The Fish (1984) Ch. 36.

(Thanks to wikiquotes, from whom I shamelessly copied and pasted.)

Yes, the candidate that you so despise doesn't get in.  But the one who does is still a bloody lizard.  Either way, you have just elected someone who doesn't truly represent the people or has their best interests in mind.  I mean, with our current election--who actually believes that Romney or Obama has the slightest clue what the average American is going through right now?  They're both millionaires.  Seriously, we just had Romney defining the middle class as topping out at $250,000 a year.  Of course, it got twisted a little, but I think we can all agree that if your income has more than five digits in front of the decimal place, you are not in the middle class (unless you have like ten kids).  For actual middle class, you're looking at more like $30,000-$70,000.  Either way, you're electing someone who has no idea what you're going through and honestly doesn't give a shit (they just pretend to to get your vote).  You're still voting for a lizard.  Now, I'm not saying the third party candidates aren't lizards, but there's a chance one of them might be a human in a lizard suit.  Maybe if everyone voted for the candidate they most agree with instead of against the one they most disagreed with, these other guys might have a chance.  I'd love to see how many people vote for Obama because they don't want Romney vs. how many people vote for Obama because they think he 's the best choice. 

I'm not saying third party candidates are the solution to our problem.  They probably aren't.  What I am saying is that instead of getting distracted by the slight of hand and logical fallacies, we need to be examining how each candidate stands on the issues, and voting accordingly.  If you look at how Romney stands and genuinely believe that he's the best man for the job, you should vote for him.  If that's how you feel about Obama, go with him.  Personally, I'm for Gary Johnson, but hey, it's your decision.  The point is, if we keep electing idiots who benefit from our broken system, it will never get fixed, and this problem exists on every level right now.  The presidential race isn't even the most important one (just the most publicized).

Let's stop electing the damned lizards, okay?




Rational discussion welcome below.  Trolls, people who refuse to acknowledge logic, and people who attempt to start a flame war will have their comments deleted.

Girly Fru Fru Stuff!

So, a while back I was wandering the internets and I happened upon a blogger who mentioned this thing called Birchbox.  It's a subscription thing where you get a box of various and sundry toiletry samples each month.  I've been exploring my girly side, so I decided to check it out.  It's $10 a month (less if you get a full year--I opted for the monthly so if I decided to cancel I wouldn't be out as much).  It's also high end stuff, so it's a cheap way to try out products you might not be able to spend the money on.  There was a waiting list, so it was a month or two before I was able to sign up.

The reason I tell you all this, of course, is because my first one came in and I wanted to share/show off my loot.  Now, before you menfolk run away, I do want to point out that they do have a men's box.  Anywho, I'm super excited because a) I didn't expect it to get in until Friday and b) it's like a tiny Christmas!

This is what was in my mailbox.

Apparently, they theme each box, which is pretty neat.  This month is a back to school theme.  Inside the mailer was the packaging you see on  the website--a brown box with their logo.  And inside that....

So cute!

And because that photo is way blurrier than it was on my phone (yes, I know I have a spiffy camera, but the battery was dead) let's do some closeups, shall we?

 The small jar turned out to be pomegranate scented shaving cream.  It smells really good.

 Also included was a razor, with coupons for blade refills.  Convenient, yes?

 And then there was a cute little tissue wrapped package.  I love packages inside packages!

And inside that was a gel lip stain, perfume, and a hair tie.  

The perfume actually doesn't smell half bad, which was a pleasant surprise.  I'm usually not overly keen on most perfumes.  The little booklet that came with it all also had the full name of each item, and the price (the whole idea is that if you like the stuff you can order a full size version).  I'd just like to point out that the full size perfume is like 70 bucks for a small bottle, so that's probably why it's tolerable (it's also like the third most expensive thing they sent out samples of).

Overall, I'm pretty pleased with my first box.  I'm actually looking forward to the next time I shave my legs (did I mention the shaving cream smells really good?)  and I can't wait to see if my husband likes the perfume (he's at Gencon right now--I'm not going up until Friday, so I'll have to wait).  And, of course, I'm looking forward to next month's box now, too.  I love getting packages, and it's extra fun when it's a surprise!

I may make this a regular thing for ye old blog, mostly because it's fun for me.  And who knows, maybe some of you guys are also still discovering how this whole girl thing works (I'm a late bloomer, I know).  I will say you don't have a whole lot of choice for your samples (the surprise is what makes it fun), so if you have allergies you may want to give it a pass, or share your bounty with your friends.

Don't worry, I'll try to keep up with some of the zany fun you've come to expect, although I'll admit, it's been a bit tough lately.  Things have been kinda boring/stressy, and I hate to go into rant mode too often.  But it'll all be good, so you kids have fun till next time!

Girls With Glasses

Before we get started, I just want to let you know that this was almost a post about how not to pick up girls (hint: you should get out of your car, unless she's a hooker) or a rant about how people are always needlessly invading my space.

I think you got lucky.

Because today's subject is girls wearing glasses.  Which, based on the search results also appears to be some sort of fetish--somewhere around half the results are galleries filled with pictures of hot girls wearing glasses.  It's both scary and reassuring.  At the same time, I'm pretty sure none of those girls wear glasses on a regular basis (there's this thing you get in the area around the nose pieces).

I also learned of a quote that apparently still gets bandied about, even though the supposed originator  has been dead for over forty years:  "Men seldom make passes at girls who wear glass," Dorothy Parker.

Knowing that I wear glasses, I think you can guess how I feel about that.  I mean, I've worn glasses since the third grade.  I've worn glasses for so long, that sometimes I go looking for them and freak out, only to realize that they're on my face.  I feel like I should have heard about this whole glasses are unattractive movement a long time ago.  I mean, I remember trying to go without them at one point in grade school because they weren't cool, but cool and attractive were two very different things to me as a child (and still are, to be honest).  Of course, I did grow up with a mother who wore glasses, and none of my friends ever really picked on me about them.  But men not liking women who wear glasses?  There's just so much wrong with that statement.  Firstly, a woman's life is about more than just finding a man.  While that statement might have been relevant in a time when a woman's place was to find a man, settle down, and pop out babies, we have a lot more options these days.  Let's leave outdated concepts of the role of women in the past, shall we?  Secondly, it's just plain wrong.  There are apparently lots of guys who find girls with glasses sexy, otherwise the following wouldn't exist (I apologize for the list of links instead of pics.  For the guys who stumbled upon this looking for pics, congrats, you now have a list of sites to check out):

girls with glasses
girls with glasses
sexy girls in glasses
The 20 Hottest Girls In Glasses
Hot Girls With Glasses
30 reasons girls with glasses are hot
curves and glasses
20 Hot Girls In Glasses
girls with glasses on reddit  (link is SFW, links from it are not)
Asian girls with glasses
Hot nerdy girls with glasses (excessive autoplay ads, be warned)
Pretty Black Girls In Glasses

And I'm tired of looking at all these pictures, so we'll leave it there.  Trust me, there are a lot more.  Either way, I think we can pretty well say that while not all guys dig a chick with specs, enough of them do.  So suck it, Dorothy Parker.  

I feel like I may have gotten sidetracked there.  I also feel like I've been looking at porn after finding those links for you, so I hope you appreciate it.  Ugh.  I don't even want to see what the most popular search terms on my traffic are going to be after this one.

Still, even though we have a surprisingly large group of supporters out there, popular culture still holds to the Dorothy Parker school of thought.  Seriously, how many ugly duckling movies have you seen where they take the nerdy "ugly" girl and transform her into a beautiful princess.  What's the first thing they do?  Get her contacts.  We see this over and over in movies, and not just your teen feel good crap.  How many romance movies portray the heroine as a frumpy woman in glasses (because nothing says frump like spectacles), then take those glasses off to reveal the sexy girl beneath?  I'm pretty sure I've seen this gimmick in almost every genre.  While we may not outright say it, our culture is permeated with the message that glasses are not attractive.  Models don't wear glasses, unless they're modeling them, or going for the naughty intellectual look.  People in movies and TV only wear glasses to look smart and nerdy. 

But I've known stupid people who wear glasses.  And I've know beautiful, sexy girls who wear glasses--and are beautiful and sexy in them.

So what do we do?  Do we accept the standard our culture has given us?  Do we rock the naughty librarian look for the fetishists? Or do we look for a third option?  How about we show society that just because a girl wears glasses, it doesn't mean she's a nerdy ugly duckling.  You wouldn't ask an amputee to take off her leg to increase her sex appeal.  And for many of us who wear glasses, those lenses are just as necessary for getting around as that leg (just a whole lot cheaper).  If you want to take off your glasses or wear contacts so you can get a certain look, that's fine.  But you shouldn't feel pressured to do so because of society's crazy standards (they're not always right--remember lead based makeup?).


Let's focus on accepting ourselves and our flaws, and making changes because we want to, not because society says we have to.

3D Is Overrated, Especially If You Have Astigmatism

And for the record, I used to think that was two words for the longest time.  That it was "a stigmatism", as in, "My stigmatism!  Noooo!"

But seriously.  This weekend I saw my first movie in RealD 3D.  I'd seen stuff with the older 3D (the red/blue or red/green), and it made me violently ill.  Something about my astigmatism makes me unable to properly process it.

 

This is pretty much what I see with the glasses on.  Maybe a bit less blurry.

Understandably, I'd been avoiding the newer 3D for that reason.  I mean, I have to keep the 3D on my 3DS off or I get ill--and that doesn't even require glasses.  Yeah, there were several levels of Super Mario Land that were almost impossible because of that.

But this weekend, I found myself at a showing of Pirates! Band of Mistfits in 3D (it was a friends thing and I didn't find out about the 3D until it was too late).  Now, it was definitely not the best example of 3D, but there were a few bits where things really popped out and it didn't make me sick!  Yay!  No nausea or vomiting!

 

Unfortunately, I couldn't find the image of her popping out of the dumbwaiter.  That was pretty terrifying.

Of course, it wasn't really a movie that needed 3D and you could tell they just added in the effects so they could use the gimmick.  Finally, I was able to experience 3D and it was disappointing (the movie was entertaining, though, so it wasn't a total loss).

But all was not lost, because The Amazing Spiderman came out this week.  Those of you who know me will know of my Spiderman fangirlness.  I absolutely love my man, Peter Parker.  I still hold a grudge against Iron Man for outing him in the Civil War storyline several years ago and Joe Quesada's still on my shit list for Brand New Day.  While I can't sit through some of the older shows (sorry, 60's Spiderman), I will gleefully watch almost anything that involves Spidey.  I watched all three of the previous movies--and enjoyed them (which hurt ever so slightly in #3).  This could have starred Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart, and I would have gone to see it.  

 

 I even like the amazing Spiderham, Peter Porker.

Now what with timing and everything, we wound up at the 3D showing (we couldn't wait that extra fifteen minutes).  I was excited, because I knew there would be some really awesome 3D effects.  How could there not be?  I was a little irked because I had to face the screen straight (no snuggling with the hubby) or everything got really blurry, but I had high expectations.

And they were met.  Andrew Garfield is a truly amazing Spiderman, and captured the awkwardness of Peter Parker perfectly.  The only thing I didn't like was how they criminalized Dr. Connors (he's a very tragic character), but considering some of the crap they've pulled in the comic recently (Future Foundation, anyone?) I'm giving up on complaining about minor issues.  The key thing here is how well they captured the various characters and stayed faithful to the overall feel of Spidey's life.  Also notable is a return to the webshooters, actually doing something with his parents, using Gwen Stacey as the first love of his life, and avoiding the use of the most annoying phrase in the comic.  It was awesome, go see it.  Now.  I'll wait.

 

 Om nom nom.

All righty, now that you've seen it (and maybe even in 3D), allow me to confess that I found the 3D somewhat lacking.  I mean, there were some obvious ones (like the opening credits), but I really didn't see much, and it felt very much like the 3D was just kind of wasted.  I mean, it was hardly there for most of the webslinging, and....

If you saw it in 3D, you will immediately realize there's a problem with that last statement.  My husband did.  A couple days later, we were discussing it and I made that very point, and he was all, "What?  Seriously?"

Apparently all of the webslinging was in 3D.  The husband followed with a list of scenes that had serious 3D effects--that I apparently completely missed.  I seriously didn't see half of the movie in 3D, and I was wearing the glasses!  

So, yeah.  On the plus side: Yay! I can watch movies in 3D now!  On the minus side: Boo!  I can't see half the 3D.

On a completely unrelated note, the trailers for Spiderman included the last Twilight movie.  I'm not seeing a lot of overlap in audience here.  The husband said it was for the girlfriends and wives, but I was all, wait, why wouldn't they want to see Spiderman instead?

Dinosaur Addendum

So, I totally just realized that I did my Dinosaur World post and forgot to use the best picture I took.  I could just add it in as an edit, but then those of you who already read it might miss it.  I could just post it to my facebook, but I think this is one that deserves to be set free on the internet.

Behold!

SOON.

I might make this my wallpaper on my computer.  Then again, the shark fighting the narwhal is pretty epic.

My Weekend Was Better Than Yours (except that one part)

So, this weekend the darling hubby and I went on a road trip.  Our destination?  Octagon Hall, for a day (and night) of ghost hunting.  Now, Octagon Hall, for those of you too lazy to click the link, is in southwestern Kentucky, south of Bowling Green.  We probably could've driven down on Saturday, but the hubby didn't want to rush, so we left Friday afternoon.  This left us with some extra time before the thing started on Saturday, so we decided to go to Lost River Cave.  Most of western Kentucky is riddled with caves, and this particular one is right in the middle of of Bowling Green.  It also involved a boat ride.  While there are better caves in the area (Mammoth cave comes to mind) it was a nice (and quick) diversion for the afternoon.  The spiel the tour guides had was also quite entertaining (such as the bit about the wishing rock--if you didn't duck, you'd wish you had).  It was a very young cave, and still actively being formed.

From there we headed down to Octagon Hall for our event.  It was a big organized event with some of the folks from Ghost Hunters and a couple of other well known people in the field  (John Tenney was amazing).  I don't think the organizers thought things through really well though, because they didn't allow for a dinner break (there was a concession stand, but a hot dog and chips only goes so far) and the first half of it was presentations and meet and greets--on the site, in a tent, with only port a johns and no plumbing.  It might have worked better to do that part at the hotel, methinks.  We did finally get around to the ghost hunting bit around 10 pm.  The ghosts were pretty quiet, but we did get a little activity.  It was pretty interesting, and the only time I've ever been in a situation where it was appropriate to talk to empty air.

However, as awesome as the rest of the trip was, the coup de grace was on the way back.  See, as we were heading down, we passed a sign for Dinosaur World.

Dinosaur World.

Of course, we had to stop on the way back.

How do you say no to this?

Yes, this is where I took all my pictures (it didn't help that I forgot my camera and phone charger, so my battery was dead for the other two).    I could tell you about how awesome all the dinosaurs were, or I could show you the pictures.

Even the ashtrays were awesome!

The factual information was questionable, but the life size dinosaurs were fabulous.  Of course, who goes to Dinosaur World for facts?

You go to Dinosaur World for dinosaurs looking at you suggestively.

You also go for creepy headed scary dinosaurs.

 

And for giant dinosaurs who want to eat you.

And for cute little baby dinosaurs.

Don't worry, I won't ruin them all for you.  Still, the whole thing is very much like someone said, "Damn, I've outgrown my toy dinosaurs.  I know!  I'll make them lifesize!"  The coloring and sculpts are very toy like, which adds to the fun.

And they still found a use for the toy dinos in the museum.

Even the bathrooms were covered in dinosaurs.

...so this is how I paint our bathrooms?

It was definitely worth the stop, even if we did wind up getting stuck in traffic afterwards for an hour (before we made a u turn and went back to the last exit) and had to spend another hour detouring around the wreck that held us up.  A detour which spat us out a measly three miles ahead of where we'd been, mind you (that's the part that wasn't better than your weekend).

All in all it was a great trip, and both us would love to head out that way again for a mini vacation.  I don't think I'd like to live there, but Western Kentucky was a nice place to visit.

Taxidermy and Necromancy Or, No You Can't Bring That Thing In My House

This week's post comes to you courtesy of a typical dinner conversation between my husband and me.  I had been having a rough day and was telling him about how I pulled myself out of the slump of the day.  Thoroughly depressed, I found myself on the internet, which, for those of you who've never dealt with depression, is a terrible place to be.  You tend to lose even more faith in humanity.  But I persevered.  I managed to find my fluffy bunnies.  I watched some nyan cat, looked at pictures of animals with stuffed versions of themselves (and by stuffed I mean plush), and looked at a couple of my favorite comedic blogs.  Among the latter was the site of the oh so wonderful and possibly a doppelganger of myself, the blogess.  Yes, this is actually relevant.

You see, one of the things I do not have in common with the blogess is her love of taxidermied animals.  This became a discussion point over our tacos, shrimp, and beans. That's right, there we are, enjoying a lovely dinner, and talking about taxidermy.  Probably better than actually doing it during dinner.  I expect the blood would be awkward.

Blood.  It's awkward.

Now let's get one thing straight here.  I do care about animals, and am not keen on the idea of killing them for our entertainment and decorative purposes.  If I had to kill everything I ate, I would probably be a vegetarian (mostly because of the mess, but, having accidentally killed a couple of things,  I can also say that killing innocent creatures is pretty damned unpleasant).  However, humans were designed to be able to eat, among other things, meat.  That's what the incisors are for.  They're for tearing meat, which only come comes from animals.  So, yeah, as long as I don't have to deal with it before it's cooked, I'm okay with meat.  I'm also okay with other animal products, like leather, bone, or fur.  I feel like if we're going to kill an animal, we should use as many parts of it as we can, so that it's death is purposeful (yes, I know that we keep separate cows for beef and leather, but let me pretend, okay?  It's how I sleep at night).  I'd also like to point out that animals in nature kill each other all the time.  It's called the food chain, and we're at the top.  So, it's really kinda part of life, and using all the parts of the animal is just practical.  Also, some of the parts really can't be imitated well.  Leather is a very strong material, and less likely than a synthetic to melt into a puddle of goo on your skin if you catch it on fire. Sure, you could use kevlar, but it's going to cost a lot more.  And, as much as I hate to admit it, there is no stiffening agent as strong as rabbit skin glue.

Long story short, while I'm not keen on killing animals to eat and use for parts, I'm okay with the necessity of it. 

This brings us to taxidermy.  Now, I am aware that not all animals that are stuffed in this manner are killed for it.  Plenty die of natural causes.  But something about preserving and stuffing a dead animal's remains just creeps me the hell out.

I could've picked the turtle snake for this.  But I didn't.

I mean, when you have the parts--be it meat, hides, or bones, the animal is pretty thoroughly dead.  It's definitely passed on.  There's literally nothing left for it, unless it wants to haunt my leather coat.  and let's face it, cows don't really have enough going on to a) be troubled enough to become ghosts or b) be entertaining ghosts at all.

"MOOoooOOOoo!"  Ghost cow.  Terrifying.

And while not all leather is made from cows, most other animals used are equally boring.  Sheep, deer, pigs, and goats are equally boring.  An alligator ghost might be kinda creepy, but what's it going to do?  Bite you with it's nonexistent teeth?  Either way, by the time it's been processed, the parts are completely dead.  It's obvious.  There is no attempt here to keep the animal alive, in memory or appearance.

With taxidermy, on the other hand, the goal is to make that dead thing look as alive as possible.  You want people to see your stuffed tiger and crap their pants.  You want to show off the antlers of that deer you killed.  Never mind that you could have made a coat rack or attractive pens or something out of it.  No, you need to have them still on the head for perspective.

You could have done something like this.  But did you?  No.

Whatever the animal, the entire goal of taxidermy is to make it look as lifelike as possible.  I should not need to tell you how creepy this is.

My google search was for "cute taxidermy".  There is nothing cute about this.  These cats are DEAD!

I mean, seriously, you wouldn't stuff a human and put them on display for decades, would you?

"Wow, Billy's grandma, you look great!"

"Actually that's my great great great great great great great grandmother.  Granddad had her stuffed.  She's been in the family for years."

(No offense meant to whoever's grandmother this is.  I'd've used my own, but sometimes family reads this and they'd probably get pissed.)

It's like in trying to capture that lifelike look, taxidermists are secretly trying to capture animal's souls, like some sort of bizarre ritual necromancy.  "Well, Ted, I figger if we can make it look alive enough, that there deer might get up and walk, and then we can shoot 'er agin!"  Or maybe it's more along the lines of, "Gordammit, Bill, you killed it too soon!"  "Sorry, Bubba, I just don't know what went wrong!"  "Well, let's stuff this bugger and bring it back to life.  Maybe Lord Cthulu won't notice."  

Or maybe someone just wants that extra special undead army.  I don't know.  All I can say is, not in my house.

Nope, not even if it's that cute.  What if it strangles me in my sleep?

 

As a final note, let me leave you with a link.  I had to scroll through a lot of disturbing images for my research on this one.  I feel it's only right that I share some of the better ones.  Although, I have to say, I am horrified that the crab squirrel came up in the search for "cute taxidermy".  There is nothing cute about that abomination. (It's at the bottom of the link, for your enjoyment.  Or nightmare fuel.  Whatever.)

Linda's Guide to Suburban Cycling

So, a few years back, I started riding my bike again.  Mostly it was the move to NC that did it--we lived close to campus, and if I biked I didn't have to buy a parking permit.  While it kinda sucked as a primary transport, I have found it's a fun way to get some exercise, and it's also fun to bike to places, provided you don't have to do it.  Since we've gotten back home and gotten a house, I've taken up biking a bit more, and I've learned something very important.  The driving laws regarding bicyclists?  Those are for ideal conditions. 

The suburbs are not ideal conditions. 

I mean, sure, if you're just riding around your neighborhood, it's fine.  Or if you're riding in an urban area with bike lanes.  But, let's face it, there are some situations where if you take your right to the road, you are going to die, or at least wind up a quadriplegic using the single finger you can still move to tap out your life story in Morse code. 

And so I have taken it upon myself to put together a handy guide with some tips to help keep the novice bike rider a little safer.  Learn from my mistakes, that way you don't have to change your underwear every time you go for a ride.

However, don't think it's all for the cyclists.  I'd actually like to start off with an agreement that I think everyone who intends to use the road should make.  Half is for drivers, half is for cyclists.

The Driver's Agreement:
I agree to share the road with cyclists.
I agree to not run over cyclists, or pass them so closely that they fall over.
I agree not to passively aggressively follow a cyclist very slowly, then gun it when I pass them to show them they were in my way.
I agree to safely pass cyclists by not driving into oncoming traffic.
I agree to not honk at cyclists unless they are behaving in a manner that might cause an accident.
 
The Cyclist's Agreement:
 I agree to share the road with cars.  This means keeping to the right and not blocking traffic. 
I agree to pull over and let faster traffic by, if cars are backing up behind me.
I agree to obey traffic signals.
I agree to make sure my bicycle has reflectors on it, and whatever other lights are necessary for visibility at night.
I agree to avoid cycling on dangerous, high speed roads.

Long story short, everyone has a right to the road.  Drivers tend to hate cyclists for being slow (I know I do), and cyclists tend to hate drivers for trying to run them down (I hate that, too).  Some cyclists get pretty militant and almost try to provoke drivers.  This is just as inappropriate as trying to run a cyclist down with your car.

That said, let's get started, shall we?

I think it goes without saying that the suburban cyclist should take whatever safety precautions are necessary.  There's no law saying you should wear a helmet (at least not where I live), but it's never a bad idea.  I've personally never had a bike accident where it would have saved me, but I also have a friend who would have had a tree branch in his brain if not for his helmet.  Your choice.  Also, make sure your bike is in good condition--brakes are really important, and you want to make sure it's mechanically sound.  Having sufficient air in your tires will also make a world of difference.  If you don't have a compressor at home, you will probably pass a gas station on your trip at some point.  I've found that if I fill it up to the max pressure marked on the tires, I have a much smoother ride.  Also, pack a cell phone for emergencies.  You can totally listen to music if you want, but keep the volume low.  You need to be able to hear what's going on around you.  The most important thing you can do for your personal safety is to pay attention to your surroundings!

So, you have your bike and you're ready to go.  You have a variety of options for the path to your destination, and it's important to pick the safest one.  For our example, let's go to the park. This is actually the route I take to a large park about 4.5 miles from my house.  That's right, I rode 9 miles to take these pictures for you, so look close!

Keep in mind, this is a casual guide, more for folks looking to get off their sofa than for serious cyclists.  Our goal here is to keep you safe, so you can do it again. 

Neighborhood streets are pretty easy, so we'll skip those--keep to the right and you're fine.  Next up is the best thing a cyclist can find: a bike path.

Ah, the bike path.  No cars, few pedestrians, and no low hanging branches to smack you in the face.

If there is a bike path heading even vaguely in the direction that you are going, take it.  It might be further as the crow flies, but it will probably be more level (the one in our illustration sure is) and it's about as safe as you can get (except after dark, when it's the rape path).  In our case, this actually is the best route, so let's move on.

The best roads will have an actual bike lane for you to ride in.  I include a picture of one for those of you who will never see one.

Okay, you caught me.  This one I took on the way home.

A good shoulder is also an excellent option for staying away from the cars.

The rumble strips usually stop the cars before they hit you.

 However, I do want to give you a word of warning.  A lot of debris gets thrown to the shoulder or bike lane.  This can make for a hazardous and bumpy ride.  Watch out for gravel, rocks, glass, and dead things.  All of these have the potential of knocking you off balance, and could even puncture a tire.  And if you're questioning the presence of dead things on this list, I'd just like to point out that I passed one dead opossum, four dead birds, and one dead snake, on this ride alone.  I would've taken pictures, but most of them were decaying, and that's just gross.

Unfortunately, not all roads will be so kind to you. Our next is a fairly unforgiving road, even for motorists.--four lanes of traffic, no bike lane, no shoulder, and a speed limit of 45.  I have seen cyclists riding along this road in the right lane.  While there is nothing legally wrong with that, it is, if you will forgive my language, fucking stupid.

Sorry I couldn't get you rush hour pics.  It's much scarier then.

On a road like this, ride on the sidewalk.  Yeah, you're not supposed to do that, but as long as you yield to pedestrians, there's not a cop in the country who would ticket you for it.  Unless you can do 45 on your bike, don't even try the driving lane.  Most of these cars will be doing a good 50 mph, at least.  At best you'll hold up traffic for miles (because there's no room to pass you), at worst people will clip your handlebars until you go down.  Generally speaking, unless you can maintain a speed of over 35 mph on your bike, don't ride on streets with a posted limit over 35, at least if there's no bike lane or shoulder (or sidewalk).  Some roads just aren't safe for cyclists.  On these roads, use the sidewalk.  If there's not a sidewalk, use an alternate route.  Actually, for our destination, there is another road we could be using, but it's 55mph, with no shoulder, bike lane, or sidewalk, and the grass alternates between a steep hill and a ditch.  So, if you're biking in the burbs, the sidewalk is an option.  You should still stick to the road when possible, but don't be a hero.

Of course, even when there is a bike lane or shoulder to ride on, things can still get tricky.  Intersections are particularly dangerous, because you usually have several different lanes, all going in different directions.

I want to go left, but the bike lane is three lanes away!

This is an issue that you're going to have to deal with on a case by case basis.  If you're riding on the sidewalk, follow pedestrian rules.  Cross one direction, then the other.  If you're on the street, well, according to law, you should use hand signals and I guess change lanes to the turn lane.  Honestly, the guide's kinda fuzzy on the multiple lanes/have to turn issue.  Personally, I fall over if I try to use hand signals, and I'm pretty sure almost nobody under the age of 30 knows what they are, anyway.  I usually wait until it's clear, then get into the lane I need--keeping to the right of the lane in question.  If need be, stop by the curb and wait for a hole.  Or go on up to the intersection and use the crosswalk.  The key thing here is to be careful and watch for cars.  They aren't psychic, they don't know what they're going to do (you could signal, but I'll be honest, every cyclist I've ever seen signal did it in the middle of a turn, and it's kinda too late then).  Also make sure to watch for cars even when you're going straight.  Some will turn right across the bike lane, or even veer into it as you cross the intersection.  Again, be aware of your surroundings!

We're facing a right turn lane that crosses the shoulder (the safest place to ride on this particular street).  I have almost been hit several times here, and even had one guy honk at me. There's no stop or yield sign for the turn lane, so both cyclists going straight and cars turning right technically have the right of way.  What's our solution here?  Legally speaking, cyclists have right of way over vehicles (because they break more easily), but let's face it, if you're driving along at 60 mph, you're not going to want to slow up.  This is when you play it safe and watch for cars.  If nothing's coming, go ahead.  If someone wants to turn, see if they slow up to let you cross.  If not, let them go.  It's not worth your life to make a point.

So, just to recap, safety is key when cycling around cars.  Whenever possible, take neighborhood streets or a bike path.  If you can't do one of those, try to use a road with a bike path or shoulder.   When all else fails, ride on the sidewalk.  If the speed limit is over 35 and you don't have any of these options available, find an alternate route.  However, the best thing you can do for your safety is to be aware of what's going on around you.  If you see or hear the car coming up behind you, you've got a much better chance of dodging it if it's a sorority girl on a cell phone.

Hopefully this'll give you a good start safely riding your bike in areas that aren't as cyclist friendly.  By paying attention to drivers who aren't paying attention to you, you can minimize your risks and still have a good time.