So, as some of you may be aware, I've had some health issues the last six months or so. I've not gone into much detail, mostly because I figure ya'll don't really want to know, especially since it's girly reproductive system stuff. WARNING: This is ranty and depressing, so you might want to give it a miss. If I post this at all, it'll mostly be for chicks with endo on google, looking for someone to empathize with the hopelessness of their condition.
But I'm really frustrated, and I just need to get this out, so bear with me.
Last fall (late summer, really), I went off birth control. Not because I want kids (as fucking everyone tends to assume), but because I had long suspected there was a hormonal component to my issues with depression and I was sick and tired of the birth control screwing with my head. Having been on it for around 14-15 years, it took a few months to get out of my system, and those months were pretty rough. But, by mid October, moving into November, I had reached a point where I was pretty well normal--no random screaming/crying fits (think like a seizure, only conscious and with less twitching), my periods weren't hurting like they had been those first few months, and I was the most emotionally stable I have quite possibly ever been. Midway through my cycle in November though, I started to hurt. I initially thought it was normal--since going off the pill I'd had some mid cycle pain (mittelschmerz)--but then it was still there the next day. And the next. After a few days of this, I went to my GP, who did a urine test and drew some blood, declared no sign of infection in said fluids, said it was probably a pelvic infection, gave me some antibiotics and told me to use a heat pad. I'd like to point out that at this time, I was in some pretty serious pain--moving around hurt, as did sitting in certain positions. But hey, it got better with antibiotics, so I figured all was going to be well. But as soon as I finished the antibiotics, the pain came back, with a vengeance. After a second batch of antibiotics and my third visit to my GP (who is no longer my GP because of all this), I finally got referred to an OB/GYN. By the time I saw her in mid December, I had been in pain for the better part of a month--and we're talking, I can't sit up straight, standing up long enough to shower has me in tears pain. The GYN did a pelvic exam and a pap (which at no point did my GP do, nor did he even ask when the last time I had had one done was) and finished it off with an ultrasound. When she hit a certain spot in the pelvic exam, it hurt so much that I think I actually blacked out for a second. The ultrasound revealed oodles of ovarian cysts, and a laproscopic surgery to remove them would have to be scheduled. By this point, it was almost Christmas, so it was January before they could get me in. Again, for most of this time, I'd been in pain severe enough that the closest I could get to sitting up was mostly reclined--I actually had to call into work, because I could not sit upright for three hours (which is the most physically strenuous thing required of me there). Early January saw me in surgery (the day after my birthday, I might add), and immediately afterward I felt better, except for the pain caused by the surgery.The good news was that she didn't have to remove an ovary--the bad news was that I have endometriosis.
For those of you who don't know what it is, you know how every month a lining grows in the uterus in preparation for a baby, then it sheds out (i.e. Aunt Flo)? Well, with endometriosis, some of that tissue somehow gets outside of the uterus and does its thing in other places of the body. And because there's no place for the crap it's shedding to go, bad things happen. There is no cure.
The primary treatment is (wait for it) birth control.
So, when we discussed this at my follow up after the surgery, I pointed out the massive emotional issues I've had while on BC (prior to going off it, I'd've said 40-60% was hormonal. Now? 80-90%). I went over this list of formulations I've tried, and her response was, "So, pretty much everything." There was one left that I hadn't tried, mostly because it's less effective for the preventing pregnancy thing. But, because of previous issues, I refused to go back on it without anitdepressants to act as a check. Because of my history, she wasn't willing to prescribe them, so I had to find a shrink.
I eventually did find someone who wasn't crazier than I am, and started on Prozac two weeks before my next period so that it would be in my system when I started the pill (you start the pill either on the day your period starts or the Sunday after). Those two weeks were less than pleasant, because I didn't really need the prozac, and being on too high a dose of that stuff makes me jumpy as hell. But I got through it, and started the pill. I started it late on Friday that week, and by Monday night I was curled in the fetal position (as much as I could curl, anyway--when those fits hit, my movement is kinda limited) sobbing and screaming, and trying to figure out why it wouldn't stop. The husband beared with me (bless his heart), and we both decided that I should stop taking it. Within a few days, I was back to normal (I also quit the prozac, since I didn't need it).
I finally got around to calling the doctor to figure out where to go from here, and it was singularly unhelpful. They asked if I'd found a new GP yet (no, because I haven't been sick, and can't afford to seek medical help recreationally) and how bad the pain was, and then basically set me loose.
I actually did have a couple pain free weeks in February, once I'd healed from the surgery, but it's been slowly coming back. Mostly just annoying, but I've been having to take painkillers for most of March. To be honest, I'm home right now because I hurt (it still gets worse a bit before my period and during the monthly massacre in my pants).
The horrifying thing is that you can surgically remove the lesions and whatnot caused by endometriosis, but it comes back. And there's no telling when--it could be a couple years, it could be a couple months. The uncertainty, the, "Should I plan for that or will I be in too much pain to follow through?" is agonizing. Never knowing when I'm going to be in too much pain to live my life. Seriously, I'm almost done with school--am I even going to be able to hold down a real job? And there's nothing I can do. I can take painkillers, but nothing really kills the pain, and I can't take anything more than naproxen without impairing my mental faculties. Looking at support groups and resources online really just makes the situation more bleak--it's all about how birth control can keep the pain from coming back. But what if you can't take birth control? Just suck it up and deal? "Oh, use relaxation techniques, get plenty of sleep, and switch to the endometriosis diet (which ranges from vegetarian to outright vegan)." Riiight. I'd love to get plenty of sleep, but I have shit to do, like class and work. And I'm not giving up meat, cheese, and chocolate (aka. the food that makes life worth living). Can I get some practical solutions here that don't feel like a fucking bandaid? Can I get a practical solution that I can actually life with? "Women who identify with the disease experience less pain." I'm sorry, but I don't want to be defined by what's wrong with me.
And the support groups? When it's not, "I've had six laproscopies and the pain's gotten worse after each one," it's all about the infertility aspect of it (endometriosis can cause infertility). I'm not really that interested in having kids--can I get a support group for women with endo who don't want to breed? Because the focus on fertility is really awkward, because it makes me feel like I should care when I don't. Thank you for the reminder of that. Seriously, looking at support groups only makes it more depressing.
Yeah, sorry to be such a downer. There is no happy ending for this story. I figure I'll probably have a couple more surgeries and have a hysterectomy within about ten years. This isn't based on anything my doctor said, but on the basic trends associated with this disease.
But I did find one bright spot in my internet searching, and I would like to share it.
At least I'm hot.
4.03.2013
2.08.2013
Never Ask a Woman If She's Pregnant, And Other Faux Pas
So, a friend of mine from undergrad has been horribly pregnant (she's having the pregnancy I always imagine I would have) for a while, and I recently discovered she's been keeping a very thoughtful blog about it. Anywho, last week she had a post about how she was out and people were asking if she was pregnant and while it was cool that people were interested...what if she hadn't been?
This struck a chord with me, a big massive terrible rage-a-riffic chord. Because I've never been pregnant. And I've been asked that.
This happened while we were living in North Carolina (for why that should explain everything, refer back to here). I was heavy--I topped 200 lbs at the time, and while I carried it well, I was very sensitive about it. It was even towards the end of our stay there--I think we only had a month or two left, which was a good thing, because the incident in question was one of those, "We can't come back here again," incidents. The hubby and I had innocently gone to the mall food court for lunch, and while the dude at Sbarro was putting together my salad and pizza, the woman in line behind us asked me if I was pregnant (apparently I was glowing or some bullshit). I exploded. I tried to be civil, but I was seeing red, and I think I responded along the lines of, "You don't ask a woman that. I mean, I know I'm heavy, but that's extremely insulting." And, because this was Greenville, the woman didn't say, "Oh, my bad. Sorry." No, she reacted to my outrage with utter bafflement. She honestly couldn't understand what was wrong with her question, and she proceeded to call to her nearby friend and MOCK ME for being upset about being asked if I was pregnant. It was the closest I have ever been to a fight, and if the hubby hadn't intervened I would've taken a swing at her.
So, for those of you who still don't understand why it's wrong to ask a woman if she's pregnant, I'll attempt to explain. Please keep in mind that I have difficulty understanding how anyone could ever think that's okay, so coming down enough to clarify it may be tricky. Fundamentally, it comes down to body image issues. Women in our country are constantly being told (overtly and subliminally, through pretty much every media outlet) that you can never be too thin. And by that, I mean that we have it shoved in our faces that we are always too fat. This results in some pretty poor self images, not to mention a variety of eating disorders. And, with America's ever increasing girth, we grow even more sensitive about our size. "Fat" has become a new four letter word. You wouldn't walk up to a woman and say, "Wow, you're fat!" she'd deck you.
When a woman is pregnant, she gains a lot of weight--her body stores extra nutrients to feed the baby, you've got the baby itself, and her boobs get bigger because they're getting ready to spurt out milk. Even the smallest woman in the world gets pretty huge when she's pregnant.
So, if you ask a woman if she's pregnant, you're implying that she looks big enough to be pregnant. Which, if she's not hauling around a baby inside, means that all that extra size is made up of fat.
That's right, asking a non pregnant woman if she's preggers is the same as calling her fat.
And it can be hard to tell. Here, look at this picture I found on the internet:
When we're overweight, we know it. And, usually, we feel awful about it. Every time we look in the mirror and see that extra chin, we call ourselves fat. When we're talking to our adorable skinny friends, we feel like fat cows. And the bitch of it is, our adorable skinny friends probably feel the same way when they look in the mirror and talk to their even more adorable and even skinnier friends. For the love of god, don't ask us questions that imply that we are just as big as we feel!
But that's actually not the worst emotional baggage you can bring up by asking a woman if she's pregnant. What if she recently miscarried? What if she's been trying to get pregnant, but can't? Congratulations, you just reminded her that she doesn't have the baby she so desperately wants.
While we're on the topic of kids, let's talk about the other big faux pas people make when asking women about their reproductive history. Don't ask a woman when she's going to have kids. Just don't. Wonder to yourself, ask her mom when she's not around, but don't ask a woman when she's going to have kids. Those of you who know me will assume that it's because some women don't want kids, which is true. Personally, I think I can live a fulfilling life and die satisfied without ever popping out another human being. But that's a topic for another post (yes, I have that many reasons for not having kids).
No, the primary reason you don't ask a woman when she's going to have kids is this: infertility.
See, like I just mentioned, there are plenty of women out there who want kids, but for whatever reason, they can't have them. Maybe their hubby's shooting blanks, maybe they have endometriosis or some other disorder, maybe their health and lady bits are such that having a baby would kill them. Doesn't matter. What does is that they can't have a baby of their own, even though they want one and would be the most awesome mom in the world. Just imagine yourself in their shoes. I expect the internal monologue runs along the lines of, "When am I going to have kids? Never." Cue tears and sobbing. Knowing that there are women out there who want kids but can't have them kinda makes me feel guilty about not wanting to have them at all, and often has me hoping that I'm infertile myself.
On a similar note, when a woman tells you she's pregnant, don't always assume it's a good thing. Most times it is--a majority of women do want to have kids. But there are a lot of circumstances under which pregnancy is not good news. If they've been trying, by all means, congratulate them and ask for updates periodically. If you don't know, well.... I know for a fact that if I peed on a pregnancy test and it came out positive, the first words out of my mouth would be a string of expletives. Watch their body language and tone when they announce it, and respond accordingly. If you're still not sure whether congratulations or condolences are in order, ask (politely).
I guess the whole point of this rambling quasi rant comes down to this: a woman's reproductive capabilities are none of your business (unless you're her fella or her OB-GYN). Don't ask. It's a sensitive subject. I'm not advocating political correctness but basic human sensitivity and a respect for other people's privacy. You don't have a right to know what's going on in my uterus. If you think I'm glowing, then just give me a compliment, "You look amazing." If you think I'd be a great mom, put some kids near me and tell me how good I am with them. We women have to put up with so much crap from our bodies, we don't need you giving us more.
Worry about your own reproductive parts, and keep your nose out of mine. If I want you to know, I'll tell you.
This struck a chord with me, a big massive terrible rage-a-riffic chord. Because I've never been pregnant. And I've been asked that.
This happened while we were living in North Carolina (for why that should explain everything, refer back to here). I was heavy--I topped 200 lbs at the time, and while I carried it well, I was very sensitive about it. It was even towards the end of our stay there--I think we only had a month or two left, which was a good thing, because the incident in question was one of those, "We can't come back here again," incidents. The hubby and I had innocently gone to the mall food court for lunch, and while the dude at Sbarro was putting together my salad and pizza, the woman in line behind us asked me if I was pregnant (apparently I was glowing or some bullshit). I exploded. I tried to be civil, but I was seeing red, and I think I responded along the lines of, "You don't ask a woman that. I mean, I know I'm heavy, but that's extremely insulting." And, because this was Greenville, the woman didn't say, "Oh, my bad. Sorry." No, she reacted to my outrage with utter bafflement. She honestly couldn't understand what was wrong with her question, and she proceeded to call to her nearby friend and MOCK ME for being upset about being asked if I was pregnant. It was the closest I have ever been to a fight, and if the hubby hadn't intervened I would've taken a swing at her.
So, for those of you who still don't understand why it's wrong to ask a woman if she's pregnant, I'll attempt to explain. Please keep in mind that I have difficulty understanding how anyone could ever think that's okay, so coming down enough to clarify it may be tricky. Fundamentally, it comes down to body image issues. Women in our country are constantly being told (overtly and subliminally, through pretty much every media outlet) that you can never be too thin. And by that, I mean that we have it shoved in our faces that we are always too fat. This results in some pretty poor self images, not to mention a variety of eating disorders. And, with America's ever increasing girth, we grow even more sensitive about our size. "Fat" has become a new four letter word. You wouldn't walk up to a woman and say, "Wow, you're fat!" she'd deck you.
When a woman is pregnant, she gains a lot of weight--her body stores extra nutrients to feed the baby, you've got the baby itself, and her boobs get bigger because they're getting ready to spurt out milk. Even the smallest woman in the world gets pretty huge when she's pregnant.
So, if you ask a woman if she's pregnant, you're implying that she looks big enough to be pregnant. Which, if she's not hauling around a baby inside, means that all that extra size is made up of fat.
That's right, asking a non pregnant woman if she's preggers is the same as calling her fat.
And it can be hard to tell. Here, look at this picture I found on the internet:
Pregnant, or overweight?
Now, given that I found the picture on a site dedicating to helping obese women with their pregnancies, and the crib in the background, I think it's safe to say she's probably pregnant. But if you saw her on the street, would you be able to tell?
When we're overweight, we know it. And, usually, we feel awful about it. Every time we look in the mirror and see that extra chin, we call ourselves fat. When we're talking to our adorable skinny friends, we feel like fat cows. And the bitch of it is, our adorable skinny friends probably feel the same way when they look in the mirror and talk to their even more adorable and even skinnier friends. For the love of god, don't ask us questions that imply that we are just as big as we feel!
But that's actually not the worst emotional baggage you can bring up by asking a woman if she's pregnant. What if she recently miscarried? What if she's been trying to get pregnant, but can't? Congratulations, you just reminded her that she doesn't have the baby she so desperately wants.
While we're on the topic of kids, let's talk about the other big faux pas people make when asking women about their reproductive history. Don't ask a woman when she's going to have kids. Just don't. Wonder to yourself, ask her mom when she's not around, but don't ask a woman when she's going to have kids. Those of you who know me will assume that it's because some women don't want kids, which is true. Personally, I think I can live a fulfilling life and die satisfied without ever popping out another human being. But that's a topic for another post (yes, I have that many reasons for not having kids).
No, the primary reason you don't ask a woman when she's going to have kids is this: infertility.
See, like I just mentioned, there are plenty of women out there who want kids, but for whatever reason, they can't have them. Maybe their hubby's shooting blanks, maybe they have endometriosis or some other disorder, maybe their health and lady bits are such that having a baby would kill them. Doesn't matter. What does is that they can't have a baby of their own, even though they want one and would be the most awesome mom in the world. Just imagine yourself in their shoes. I expect the internal monologue runs along the lines of, "When am I going to have kids? Never." Cue tears and sobbing. Knowing that there are women out there who want kids but can't have them kinda makes me feel guilty about not wanting to have them at all, and often has me hoping that I'm infertile myself.
On a similar note, when a woman tells you she's pregnant, don't always assume it's a good thing. Most times it is--a majority of women do want to have kids. But there are a lot of circumstances under which pregnancy is not good news. If they've been trying, by all means, congratulate them and ask for updates periodically. If you don't know, well.... I know for a fact that if I peed on a pregnancy test and it came out positive, the first words out of my mouth would be a string of expletives. Watch their body language and tone when they announce it, and respond accordingly. If you're still not sure whether congratulations or condolences are in order, ask (politely).
I guess the whole point of this rambling quasi rant comes down to this: a woman's reproductive capabilities are none of your business (unless you're her fella or her OB-GYN). Don't ask. It's a sensitive subject. I'm not advocating political correctness but basic human sensitivity and a respect for other people's privacy. You don't have a right to know what's going on in my uterus. If you think I'm glowing, then just give me a compliment, "You look amazing." If you think I'd be a great mom, put some kids near me and tell me how good I am with them. We women have to put up with so much crap from our bodies, we don't need you giving us more.
Worry about your own reproductive parts, and keep your nose out of mine. If I want you to know, I'll tell you.
1.13.2013
Five Books Everyone Should Read
This is a subject I normally avoid, mostly because a) reading a book covering a given topic is usually more important than the specific book and b) it's virtually impossible to determine a book that is relevant to everyone. But I was reading 1984 at work and one of the guys was totally unfamiliar with it and I suddenly realized that there are books that I think everyone should be familiar with. And so, this list. It was originally going to be ten, but I couldn't come up with ten specific books that I genuinely thought everybody needs to have read. I did well to come up with five, to be honest.
Before we get to the list, I do want to take a moment to go over the criteria I used to make my selections. Firstly, I'm going to define everyone as being relatively Western--i.e. European, North American, or Australian. Loosely, we can say first world nations. African tribesman and Chinese sweatshop workers are off the hook, although I think this would certainly be an excellent introduction to western culture. Secondly, I want it noted that these are not the only books everyone should read--there are billions of books out there. There's a lot of ground to cover out there. If you want a longer list, ask me for authors or subjects.
The criteria are as follows:
And so, without further ado....
5. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, by J.K. Rowling
The Why: All too often, we focus on serious, literary works with all sorts of meaning and allegories and moral struggles and all kinds of bullshit. While you can certainly read that into Harry Potter, at its core it's just a fun story. Yes, you have your good vs. evil stuff and you have your extra special hero, but really, that's just the basis for a good story. Everyone should read a good, fun adventure with nasty villains, mysterious legends, and a fairly unremarkable hero. While it's part of a series, book one can safely stand alone, and encompasses an innocence that the later books loose. Plainly put, it's good clean fun, and everyone needs to experience a fun book. It allows the reader to a) escape b) use their imagination c) enjoy the act of reading. While there are a lot of books out there that accomplish this, I've picked Harry because of his accessibility. It's not a difficult read, and we can all relate to him on one level or another.
4. Where The Wild Things Are, by Maurice Sendak
_cover.jpg)
The Why: Picture books, while usually for small children, don't get the credit they deserve. From a cultural perspective, they are instrumental in teaching children about the world--these books are one of the first ways we begin to teach kids how the world works. However, picture books also have value for adults both as artistic pieces, and as reminders of what it is to not be bitter, jaded, and all grown up. The ability to see the world through someone else's eyes--nothing does this like a picture book. I selected Where The Wild Things Are firstly because of its art. There are a lot of beautifully illustrated kids books out there, but Sendak has a very unique style. Of his works, this one stands far above the rest in detail and in color. All too many kid's book have lame illustrations, or really cartoony ones. Sendak is one of the very few whose work could stand on its own in a gallery setting. As for the story itself, our hero is a very real character--he's no angel, spouting virtues. He's a kid who won't listen to his mom and gets punished accordingly. He runs away, and then realizes that maybe--just maybe--his mom was right. On a grander scale, we all do that. We may not literally run away, but we've all had that moment where we thought our parents were full of crap, did what they said not to, and then realized they might have had a point there after all. And best of all, when Max realizes that and comes home, Mom's forgiveness sits silently on the table in the form of a steaming bowl of soup. You can guess where I'm going with this. The point is, if you're going to pick a kid's book with fabulous art and a surprising amount of meaning in very few words, this is it.
3. A Clockwork Orange, by Anthony Burgess
The Why: Okay, now I will admit, this one is pushing it on the readability scale, but once you get accustomed to the quasi-Russian slang it's not too bad. What, you didn't think it was all going to be kiddie books, did you? Anyway, the why on this one is pretty easy. A lot of your critics and reviewers go on about the violence (rape victims should hold off on this one until they've finished their therapy), but that's not really the main point of the book. Your take away from this one is the importance of free will in the whole good vs evil quandry. Seriously, Burgess pretty well bludgeons us with this in the end, so if you miss it, you might want to just watch the movie (which is not only excellent, but also beautiful). As a society, we tend to gravitate towards the quick fix, especially when it comes to morality. It is all too easy to equate a forced good act with goodness itself. You can't make someone good by force--it has to be a choice.
2. 1984, by George Orwell
The Why: 1984 is always classed as science fiction, most likely because it's a tale of the future (of course, so is our previous entry on the list, but that one goes in fiction). You can call it a dystopian horror story, but I like to think of it as a cautionary tale. Orwell is great for those. This is the only fiction book I've read that is less fictional and more real every time I read it. There are so many concepts in this book that are relevant today--the idea of Big Brother watching us (this is where the term was coined), those in power reducing the freedoms of the people in order to maintain control, the mutability of history, and the way the masses allow it all. If you don't get nervous reading this book, you're not paying attention. This is very much a warning from the past, and one we would do well to heed.
1. Cosmic Trigger I, by Robert Anton Wilson
The Why: This may be a bizarre number one choice for a book that everyone should read, but hear me out. Firstly, I'd like to point out that while it's part of a trilogy, it can stand alone very well, and you can go on your merry way without reading the other two volumes. That said, those of you with more eclectic reading habits will probably recognize this one and either love me or hate me for it. The rest of you should be thoroughly baffled at this point, and for you I'll elaborate.
Cosmic Trigger serves two purposes: firstly, it is the best primer on conspiracy theories, new agey weirdness, and alternate theories of consciousness that you will ever find. It's Kookery 101. At least half of it is complete and utter crap, but it's up to you to figure it out. Once you've gotten over that hump (the realization that the author is not taking this nearly as seriously as you might expect), it's a passable deprogramming manual. If you take nothing else out of this book, it should be that you should be paying more attention and asking more questions. Don't take everything you're told for granted.
Now, some of you may be asking why I would include a new agey book, but not more traditional religious tomes (i.e. the Bible, the Koran, etc.). That's pretty simple. If I were to include any one holy book, I'd have to include them all. Not out of political correctness, but to give the hypothetical reader of this list balance. I sincerely believe that no one religion has all of the answers, so to only provide one holy book would make the list biased. There's also the fact that religion should be approach on an individual basis--there's no one size fits all solution. Besides, at this point, most of us have taken our sides in that argument, and all of the big religions are respected. It's the little ones that get written off as being new age mumbo jumbo, in spite of the fact that a lot of that new age crap is no more or less ridiculous than the more "legitimate" belief systems (72 virgins? A guy rising from the dead? A pantheon of gods repeatedly killing each other?).
The point here is, look at what you're dismissing before you dismiss it. Make your own decisions.
Think for yourself.
That's why my number one pick is Cosmic Trigger. By drawing a wide array of connections, it will force you into thinking for yourself, if only because you can't trust the narrator (Or can you? A disturbing amount of what he mentions checks out).
Before we get to the list, I do want to take a moment to go over the criteria I used to make my selections. Firstly, I'm going to define everyone as being relatively Western--i.e. European, North American, or Australian. Loosely, we can say first world nations. African tribesman and Chinese sweatshop workers are off the hook, although I think this would certainly be an excellent introduction to western culture. Secondly, I want it noted that these are not the only books everyone should read--there are billions of books out there. There's a lot of ground to cover out there. If you want a longer list, ask me for authors or subjects.
The criteria are as follows:
- I have to have read it. (Which covers a lot more ground than one might expect--I average at least 3-4 books a week.)
- cannot be a series or trilogy, but it can be part of one (e.g. The Lord of the Rings is right out, but The Fellowship of the Ring is okay)
- it must either have unique topical content, or be the epitome of its kind (e.g. The Lord of the Flies, The Hunger Games, and Battle Royale all have the same theme and it's debatable which is the best, so none of them is on the list)
- the content must be relevant to "everyone" as defined earlier (e.g. Twilight has nothing to offer anyone with a penis)
- the book should be relatively readable (i.e. not exceedingly boring or overly difficult to decipher--Chaucer is right out)
- the content should be such that it warrants rereading (i.e. you get something different every time)
- the content should positively affect your brain (i.e. loosely speaking, there should be some sort of intellectual value--again, loosely speaking)
And so, without further ado....
5. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, by J.K. Rowling
The Why: All too often, we focus on serious, literary works with all sorts of meaning and allegories and moral struggles and all kinds of bullshit. While you can certainly read that into Harry Potter, at its core it's just a fun story. Yes, you have your good vs. evil stuff and you have your extra special hero, but really, that's just the basis for a good story. Everyone should read a good, fun adventure with nasty villains, mysterious legends, and a fairly unremarkable hero. While it's part of a series, book one can safely stand alone, and encompasses an innocence that the later books loose. Plainly put, it's good clean fun, and everyone needs to experience a fun book. It allows the reader to a) escape b) use their imagination c) enjoy the act of reading. While there are a lot of books out there that accomplish this, I've picked Harry because of his accessibility. It's not a difficult read, and we can all relate to him on one level or another.
4. Where The Wild Things Are, by Maurice Sendak
The Why: Picture books, while usually for small children, don't get the credit they deserve. From a cultural perspective, they are instrumental in teaching children about the world--these books are one of the first ways we begin to teach kids how the world works. However, picture books also have value for adults both as artistic pieces, and as reminders of what it is to not be bitter, jaded, and all grown up. The ability to see the world through someone else's eyes--nothing does this like a picture book. I selected Where The Wild Things Are firstly because of its art. There are a lot of beautifully illustrated kids books out there, but Sendak has a very unique style. Of his works, this one stands far above the rest in detail and in color. All too many kid's book have lame illustrations, or really cartoony ones. Sendak is one of the very few whose work could stand on its own in a gallery setting. As for the story itself, our hero is a very real character--he's no angel, spouting virtues. He's a kid who won't listen to his mom and gets punished accordingly. He runs away, and then realizes that maybe--just maybe--his mom was right. On a grander scale, we all do that. We may not literally run away, but we've all had that moment where we thought our parents were full of crap, did what they said not to, and then realized they might have had a point there after all. And best of all, when Max realizes that and comes home, Mom's forgiveness sits silently on the table in the form of a steaming bowl of soup. You can guess where I'm going with this. The point is, if you're going to pick a kid's book with fabulous art and a surprising amount of meaning in very few words, this is it.
3. A Clockwork Orange, by Anthony Burgess
The Why: Okay, now I will admit, this one is pushing it on the readability scale, but once you get accustomed to the quasi-Russian slang it's not too bad. What, you didn't think it was all going to be kiddie books, did you? Anyway, the why on this one is pretty easy. A lot of your critics and reviewers go on about the violence (rape victims should hold off on this one until they've finished their therapy), but that's not really the main point of the book. Your take away from this one is the importance of free will in the whole good vs evil quandry. Seriously, Burgess pretty well bludgeons us with this in the end, so if you miss it, you might want to just watch the movie (which is not only excellent, but also beautiful). As a society, we tend to gravitate towards the quick fix, especially when it comes to morality. It is all too easy to equate a forced good act with goodness itself. You can't make someone good by force--it has to be a choice.
2. 1984, by George Orwell
The Why: 1984 is always classed as science fiction, most likely because it's a tale of the future (of course, so is our previous entry on the list, but that one goes in fiction). You can call it a dystopian horror story, but I like to think of it as a cautionary tale. Orwell is great for those. This is the only fiction book I've read that is less fictional and more real every time I read it. There are so many concepts in this book that are relevant today--the idea of Big Brother watching us (this is where the term was coined), those in power reducing the freedoms of the people in order to maintain control, the mutability of history, and the way the masses allow it all. If you don't get nervous reading this book, you're not paying attention. This is very much a warning from the past, and one we would do well to heed.
1. Cosmic Trigger I, by Robert Anton Wilson
The Why: This may be a bizarre number one choice for a book that everyone should read, but hear me out. Firstly, I'd like to point out that while it's part of a trilogy, it can stand alone very well, and you can go on your merry way without reading the other two volumes. That said, those of you with more eclectic reading habits will probably recognize this one and either love me or hate me for it. The rest of you should be thoroughly baffled at this point, and for you I'll elaborate.
Cosmic Trigger serves two purposes: firstly, it is the best primer on conspiracy theories, new agey weirdness, and alternate theories of consciousness that you will ever find. It's Kookery 101. At least half of it is complete and utter crap, but it's up to you to figure it out. Once you've gotten over that hump (the realization that the author is not taking this nearly as seriously as you might expect), it's a passable deprogramming manual. If you take nothing else out of this book, it should be that you should be paying more attention and asking more questions. Don't take everything you're told for granted.
Now, some of you may be asking why I would include a new agey book, but not more traditional religious tomes (i.e. the Bible, the Koran, etc.). That's pretty simple. If I were to include any one holy book, I'd have to include them all. Not out of political correctness, but to give the hypothetical reader of this list balance. I sincerely believe that no one religion has all of the answers, so to only provide one holy book would make the list biased. There's also the fact that religion should be approach on an individual basis--there's no one size fits all solution. Besides, at this point, most of us have taken our sides in that argument, and all of the big religions are respected. It's the little ones that get written off as being new age mumbo jumbo, in spite of the fact that a lot of that new age crap is no more or less ridiculous than the more "legitimate" belief systems (72 virgins? A guy rising from the dead? A pantheon of gods repeatedly killing each other?).
The point here is, look at what you're dismissing before you dismiss it. Make your own decisions.
Think for yourself.
That's why my number one pick is Cosmic Trigger. By drawing a wide array of connections, it will force you into thinking for yourself, if only because you can't trust the narrator (Or can you? A disturbing amount of what he mentions checks out).
12.16.2012
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!
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 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!
11.30.2012
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
10.26.2012
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.
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.
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.
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.
9.15.2012
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.
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.
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.
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."
"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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)