I read Neil Gaiman's online journal everyday. He's one of my favorite authors and someone high on my "I really need to meet him before I die" list. (Yes, I actually have a list)
At random times, Neil will post something that's been sent to him or that he's discovered that just makes you have to stop and think.
Here is a link to one of those things:
NFCTD
If you can figure that one out, you're a step ahead of the class.
2.20.2007
2.19.2007
While it will come as no great surprise to anyone who reads this blog on a regular basis that I have issues with abortion, it might come as a surprise to hear that I am opposed to overturning Roe v. Wade.
Today, Presidential hopeful John McCaine said he favors overturning the 1973 ruling that made abortion a legal choice for women in this country. He also stated that he would want to appoint more justices that will “strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States and do not legislate from the bench.”
Okay, great. So we do away with the freedom of choice and we put a bunch of old, white men on the Supreme Court to make desicions about what's good for all of us. Then what? What does Senator McCaine think is going to happen if he just does away with abortion as a legal choice for women? Does he believe that somehow people are going to stop having sex? Because that worked before 1973, right?
One has to wonder if Senator McCaine has done his homework about the lack of education and resources faced by low income women. How about the statistics linking child abuse to the age and education level of a parent? Or the statistics showing that if a child is born to an unwed parent, they themselves are more likely to become unwed parents? Need more? How about the fact that once a family is on welfare the likelihood that they will get off is very low. In fact, single parent households on welfare tend to raise children who become single parent families on welfare. It's a vicious cycle.
I am an advocate of changing the social structure and the education system to enable women to make choices that will empower them, teach them sel-esteem and help them not be in a situation where making the choice to have an abortion is necessary. Improce the education our children get. Put more money into programs that will mentor and help young men and women feel positive about themselves and their futures. Provide resources that actually help a single mother or father get up and out of the poverty they are in.
If you take the choice away from the women that need it most, you don't solve the problem, you actually make it worse.
The second thing I have issues with is the "strict" interpretation of the Constitution. Okay so....what we're saying here is that nothing has changed in the world since 1776. What kind of idiot actually believes that the strict interpretation of a document written in the 18th century is a good idea? Let's not forget, these were men who owned SLAVES for cripes sake. Men that thought women were good for nothing more than teaching or making babies. Men who actually believed that you were better than someone else based on the family you were born into or the color of your skin. Society was vastly different....hell, the WORLD was vastly different.
The freedom of the press: Placed in because the King of England would not allow anything negative to be said and could have someone put to death as a traitor if they dared to do so. Today: Needs to be upheld, but with common sense. Should someone be able to write whatever they want, even if it means people are killed because of it? Journalistic responsibility needs to be enforced as much as the freedom that allows them to exisit.
The Right to Bear Arms: Placed in because the only men allowed to carry weapons at the time were British soldiers who could kill you for anything and blame it on you. Today: I really doubt Thomas Jefferson was talking about allowing anyone with enough money to walk around packing a fully automatic assault weapon. Say it with me: Common Sense.
I could go on...."strict" interpretation of something, anything can lead to more problems than solutions. All you have to do is look at the Fundamentalist Christian Looney Tunes to know the truth in that. The freedoms we have are a wonderous thing. They allow us to have a society like no other on earth, for all it's flaws and all it's good works. Like anything, that society is fluid, ever changing. Our judicial system has to have the ability to change with it. More importantly, our judiciary has to be able to fulfill it's place in the system of checks and balances.
You get a bunch of Conservatives in the Legislature, stick just one in the White House and then pump up the Supreme Court with more of them....all we're going to end up with is a nation run by Pat Robertson and his buddies over at the "Sunday Come to Jesus" lobby. It's a scary thought.
Today, Presidential hopeful John McCaine said he favors overturning the 1973 ruling that made abortion a legal choice for women in this country. He also stated that he would want to appoint more justices that will “strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States and do not legislate from the bench.”
Okay, great. So we do away with the freedom of choice and we put a bunch of old, white men on the Supreme Court to make desicions about what's good for all of us. Then what? What does Senator McCaine think is going to happen if he just does away with abortion as a legal choice for women? Does he believe that somehow people are going to stop having sex? Because that worked before 1973, right?
One has to wonder if Senator McCaine has done his homework about the lack of education and resources faced by low income women. How about the statistics linking child abuse to the age and education level of a parent? Or the statistics showing that if a child is born to an unwed parent, they themselves are more likely to become unwed parents? Need more? How about the fact that once a family is on welfare the likelihood that they will get off is very low. In fact, single parent households on welfare tend to raise children who become single parent families on welfare. It's a vicious cycle.
I am an advocate of changing the social structure and the education system to enable women to make choices that will empower them, teach them sel-esteem and help them not be in a situation where making the choice to have an abortion is necessary. Improce the education our children get. Put more money into programs that will mentor and help young men and women feel positive about themselves and their futures. Provide resources that actually help a single mother or father get up and out of the poverty they are in.
If you take the choice away from the women that need it most, you don't solve the problem, you actually make it worse.
The second thing I have issues with is the "strict" interpretation of the Constitution. Okay so....what we're saying here is that nothing has changed in the world since 1776. What kind of idiot actually believes that the strict interpretation of a document written in the 18th century is a good idea? Let's not forget, these were men who owned SLAVES for cripes sake. Men that thought women were good for nothing more than teaching or making babies. Men who actually believed that you were better than someone else based on the family you were born into or the color of your skin. Society was vastly different....hell, the WORLD was vastly different.
The freedom of the press: Placed in because the King of England would not allow anything negative to be said and could have someone put to death as a traitor if they dared to do so. Today: Needs to be upheld, but with common sense. Should someone be able to write whatever they want, even if it means people are killed because of it? Journalistic responsibility needs to be enforced as much as the freedom that allows them to exisit.
The Right to Bear Arms: Placed in because the only men allowed to carry weapons at the time were British soldiers who could kill you for anything and blame it on you. Today: I really doubt Thomas Jefferson was talking about allowing anyone with enough money to walk around packing a fully automatic assault weapon. Say it with me: Common Sense.
I could go on...."strict" interpretation of something, anything can lead to more problems than solutions. All you have to do is look at the Fundamentalist Christian Looney Tunes to know the truth in that. The freedoms we have are a wonderous thing. They allow us to have a society like no other on earth, for all it's flaws and all it's good works. Like anything, that society is fluid, ever changing. Our judicial system has to have the ability to change with it. More importantly, our judiciary has to be able to fulfill it's place in the system of checks and balances.
You get a bunch of Conservatives in the Legislature, stick just one in the White House and then pump up the Supreme Court with more of them....all we're going to end up with is a nation run by Pat Robertson and his buddies over at the "Sunday Come to Jesus" lobby. It's a scary thought.
2.11.2007
Weigh In
Okay dear readers, it's time for you to weigh in.
Today my husband and I got into a debate and now I want the opinions of the people that read here (all four and a half of you).
Here's the question:
Is using the argument, "You always have a choice." morally ambiguous?
The debate is over the "choice" in that statement. Is having to choose between something that has an effect on other people, in a negative, possibly harmful manner and doing something you would rather not do, the same as choosing to have chocolate or vanilla when you're having ice cream.
Basically, my husbands argument was that even if it isn't a good choice, it's still a choice. My argument was that when it comes to problems or situations that effect others in a life changing manner, it's really not a choice.
I'd like to see where other people land on this one.
What's your view?
Today my husband and I got into a debate and now I want the opinions of the people that read here (all four and a half of you).
Here's the question:
Is using the argument, "You always have a choice." morally ambiguous?
The debate is over the "choice" in that statement. Is having to choose between something that has an effect on other people, in a negative, possibly harmful manner and doing something you would rather not do, the same as choosing to have chocolate or vanilla when you're having ice cream.
Basically, my husbands argument was that even if it isn't a good choice, it's still a choice. My argument was that when it comes to problems or situations that effect others in a life changing manner, it's really not a choice.
I'd like to see where other people land on this one.
What's your view?
2.05.2007
Credit Checks. Not just for credit anymore.
There was an article up today about the growing trend of employers to check a potential employees credit history. It raised the question of race and any possible civil rights issues.
I have worked for three seperate companies that have asked for me to sign a document giving them blanket permission to check not only my criminal background, but my credit history as well. Each time I have gone directly to Human Resources and told them that I will indeed sign a form giving permission for a criminal history check, but that I will not give permission for a credit check. None of these jobs involved a company credit card or expense account. I have also crossed out sentences in these documents that gave permission for the company to speak with "anyone" from my past they deemed fit.
I'm 36, no one at a call center needs to talk to my high school gym teacher and this blanket form also gave permission for them to access medical records. Of all three companies employing these practices, only once was I told my job offer hinged on my signing the documents as they were. I refused the job.
Forms like these are an end run around our civil liberties. If there is a clear case for a through back-ground check, such as involvment with law enforcement, working closley with children or some other sensative situation, I can understand wanting the ablity to speak with anyone in the persons past. If the job has a high stress level or requires specific insurance that can only be obtained by the company after proving the employee has no long standing medical issues, I can understand requesting medical records. If the position requires issuing a company credit card, expense account or some other direct access to company funds, I can understand a credit check. What I do not understand is credit, medical history or overly background checks for positions in places like call centers.
As the article states, there is no information linking credit history with job performance. I believe this is a broader issue than the way ethnic groups may be affected. Any of us that have had to deal with unexpected bills and the reality of living pay check to pay check can attest to the fact that keeping your credit score up is a struggle. How will this practice affect those in our society who are trying to acheive a better life?
We promote a way of life that can only be acheived by living above your means and then punish people when they fall victim to that particular Catch 22.
I will continue to deny companies the right to check my credit history, personal background and medical history. I encourage others to question the practice as well. Require that the company making the request give you a valid reason for accessing that information. It's your personal data, don't be so quick to give it up.
I have worked for three seperate companies that have asked for me to sign a document giving them blanket permission to check not only my criminal background, but my credit history as well. Each time I have gone directly to Human Resources and told them that I will indeed sign a form giving permission for a criminal history check, but that I will not give permission for a credit check. None of these jobs involved a company credit card or expense account. I have also crossed out sentences in these documents that gave permission for the company to speak with "anyone" from my past they deemed fit.
I'm 36, no one at a call center needs to talk to my high school gym teacher and this blanket form also gave permission for them to access medical records. Of all three companies employing these practices, only once was I told my job offer hinged on my signing the documents as they were. I refused the job.
Forms like these are an end run around our civil liberties. If there is a clear case for a through back-ground check, such as involvment with law enforcement, working closley with children or some other sensative situation, I can understand wanting the ablity to speak with anyone in the persons past. If the job has a high stress level or requires specific insurance that can only be obtained by the company after proving the employee has no long standing medical issues, I can understand requesting medical records. If the position requires issuing a company credit card, expense account or some other direct access to company funds, I can understand a credit check. What I do not understand is credit, medical history or overly background checks for positions in places like call centers.
As the article states, there is no information linking credit history with job performance. I believe this is a broader issue than the way ethnic groups may be affected. Any of us that have had to deal with unexpected bills and the reality of living pay check to pay check can attest to the fact that keeping your credit score up is a struggle. How will this practice affect those in our society who are trying to acheive a better life?
We promote a way of life that can only be acheived by living above your means and then punish people when they fall victim to that particular Catch 22.
I will continue to deny companies the right to check my credit history, personal background and medical history. I encourage others to question the practice as well. Require that the company making the request give you a valid reason for accessing that information. It's your personal data, don't be so quick to give it up.
2.04.2007
As the time for kick-off approaches I started thinking about all "yearly" events I don't watch anymore.
(1) The Super-Bowl. I've watched one in my entire 36 years on the planet. It was back in the early 80's, the Bears and the "Fridge" were playing against I don't remember who. What do I remember? The Super-Bowl Shuffle. I cringe.
(2) The Academy Awards. I last watched this show when "The Color Purple" was nominated. Whoppi Goldberg didn't win. I was pissed. I stopped watching. Apparently people have parties and watch the show together? Is that like the Super Bowl for dorks?
(3) The Grammy Awards. When did I watch this last? Let's see, does anyone remember the year Jethro Tull beat Metallica? Yeah, that would be the last year I watched. Not because I was pissed that Metallica lost, but because it was about that time that they started adding in awards for music I couldn't stand and the live performances were by people I wouldn't watch on a street corner.
(4) The Miss America Pagent. Sadly enough, yes, I used to watch this show. I would get a snack, a pad of paper and a pencil and I would sit glued to the television tallying scores and praying for my favorite to win. I idolized these women. I thought they were beautiful and intelligent and I wanted to be them. But then, I also thought Barbie was cool and had a crush on the Prince from the Smurfs cartoon. I was nine. Then I grew up and got a body image and decided that I would rather eat razor blades than suffer through a show where grown women put Vaseline on their teeth and glued their bathing suits to their asses. Thank god!
(5) The Jerry Lewis Telethon. When I was in the first grade I actually got on the local broadcast because I went out and collected money for the telethon. Do they even have a telethon anymore? And if they do, who goes on it?
There are a TON of others, I'm sure. Let's just say that since I hit puberty I haven't watched, or cared about the results of an award show, sports tournament or pagent. Although I will admit to watching the Sci-fi award show that was on Spike a while back. Rob Zombie was on it. Who wouldn't watch that?
(1) The Super-Bowl. I've watched one in my entire 36 years on the planet. It was back in the early 80's, the Bears and the "Fridge" were playing against I don't remember who. What do I remember? The Super-Bowl Shuffle. I cringe.
(2) The Academy Awards. I last watched this show when "The Color Purple" was nominated. Whoppi Goldberg didn't win. I was pissed. I stopped watching. Apparently people have parties and watch the show together? Is that like the Super Bowl for dorks?
(3) The Grammy Awards. When did I watch this last? Let's see, does anyone remember the year Jethro Tull beat Metallica? Yeah, that would be the last year I watched. Not because I was pissed that Metallica lost, but because it was about that time that they started adding in awards for music I couldn't stand and the live performances were by people I wouldn't watch on a street corner.
(4) The Miss America Pagent. Sadly enough, yes, I used to watch this show. I would get a snack, a pad of paper and a pencil and I would sit glued to the television tallying scores and praying for my favorite to win. I idolized these women. I thought they were beautiful and intelligent and I wanted to be them. But then, I also thought Barbie was cool and had a crush on the Prince from the Smurfs cartoon. I was nine. Then I grew up and got a body image and decided that I would rather eat razor blades than suffer through a show where grown women put Vaseline on their teeth and glued their bathing suits to their asses. Thank god!
(5) The Jerry Lewis Telethon. When I was in the first grade I actually got on the local broadcast because I went out and collected money for the telethon. Do they even have a telethon anymore? And if they do, who goes on it?
There are a TON of others, I'm sure. Let's just say that since I hit puberty I haven't watched, or cared about the results of an award show, sports tournament or pagent. Although I will admit to watching the Sci-fi award show that was on Spike a while back. Rob Zombie was on it. Who wouldn't watch that?
2.03.2007
What's next, chastity belts?
Texas Governor Rick Perry has decided that he is the ultimate authority on what's good for the eleven and twelve year old girls of his state. In his ultimate wisdom, Supreme Leader Perry has issued a decree that all girls entering the sixth grade in the dictatorship of Texas must now be vaccinated with Gardisil.
Let's get something straight. I'm all for vaccinating your children. My kids were vaccinated by age two against all the childhood illnesses and I get them flu shots every year. What I'm against here is the forced use of a vaccine that is (1) the most costly and least insured vaccine to date and (2) is so new to the market that no one really knows what the long term side effects may actually be.
Gardisil is produced by Merck Pharmacuticals and according to the Gardisil website:
"GARDASIL may not fully protect everyone and does not prevent all types of cervical cancer, so it is important to continue regular cervical cancer screenings."
It also says: "GARDASIL is the only vaccine that may help guard against diseases that are caused by human papillomavirus (HPV) Types 6, 11, 16, and 18..."
Let's review shall we? Gardasil MAY help protect SOME people against SOME types of HPV.
Yes,oh ye who will jump on me and pound me with large blunt objects, I understand that SOME protection may be better than none. Yes, I realize that cancer kills people and that protecting against it, especially if there is a history of cervical cancer could be a wonderfull thing. I'm against the forced vaccination of ALL young girls with an unproven vaccine.
Before you start in with the "Well the FDA approved it..." speech, let's revisit the Fen-Phen dibocal and who can forget the Thalidomide babies? These are drugs the FDA approved for use, so they obviously aren't infalible. Some drugs do have side-effects that show up only after long-term use in the general population. Drug tests, while a good guard against bad side-effects, are not a promise that there are none.
As a grown woman, I have the ability to do research, ask questions, make an informed choice. As children, these girls don't...they are simply being forced to comply and their ability to get an education is hinged on that compliance. Their parents, who can help make an informed decision, aren't being given a choice. Merck, in my opinion is playing on a parents fear of losing their child. Even worse, playing on societies general fear of cancer as a whole.
They can't force women to take this vaccine. They would never be able to pass a law forcing women over the age of 18 to get vaccinated, so why force our chidren too?
If Merck were able to say 100% that anyone taking this vaccine would NEVER get cervical cancer, I might get on board. But they can't say that. They can't even say that it will protect against the four strains they have listed. It's a crap shoot at this point.
I can only hope that some parent in Texas will stand up and force the issue of legality in forcing this vaccine on the young girls in that state.
Let's get something straight. I'm all for vaccinating your children. My kids were vaccinated by age two against all the childhood illnesses and I get them flu shots every year. What I'm against here is the forced use of a vaccine that is (1) the most costly and least insured vaccine to date and (2) is so new to the market that no one really knows what the long term side effects may actually be.
Gardisil is produced by Merck Pharmacuticals and according to the Gardisil website:
"GARDASIL may not fully protect everyone and does not prevent all types of cervical cancer, so it is important to continue regular cervical cancer screenings."
It also says: "GARDASIL is the only vaccine that may help guard against diseases that are caused by human papillomavirus (HPV) Types 6, 11, 16, and 18..."
Let's review shall we? Gardasil MAY help protect SOME people against SOME types of HPV.
Yes,oh ye who will jump on me and pound me with large blunt objects, I understand that SOME protection may be better than none. Yes, I realize that cancer kills people and that protecting against it, especially if there is a history of cervical cancer could be a wonderfull thing. I'm against the forced vaccination of ALL young girls with an unproven vaccine.
Before you start in with the "Well the FDA approved it..." speech, let's revisit the Fen-Phen dibocal and who can forget the Thalidomide babies? These are drugs the FDA approved for use, so they obviously aren't infalible. Some drugs do have side-effects that show up only after long-term use in the general population. Drug tests, while a good guard against bad side-effects, are not a promise that there are none.
As a grown woman, I have the ability to do research, ask questions, make an informed choice. As children, these girls don't...they are simply being forced to comply and their ability to get an education is hinged on that compliance. Their parents, who can help make an informed decision, aren't being given a choice. Merck, in my opinion is playing on a parents fear of losing their child. Even worse, playing on societies general fear of cancer as a whole.
They can't force women to take this vaccine. They would never be able to pass a law forcing women over the age of 18 to get vaccinated, so why force our chidren too?
If Merck were able to say 100% that anyone taking this vaccine would NEVER get cervical cancer, I might get on board. But they can't say that. They can't even say that it will protect against the four strains they have listed. It's a crap shoot at this point.
I can only hope that some parent in Texas will stand up and force the issue of legality in forcing this vaccine on the young girls in that state.
2.01.2007
And we needed Harvard to tell us this?
A new study that was done by Harvard and McGill Universities shows that US companies are not family friendly. I have one thing to say to that: DUH!!!!
Anyone that has family and has worked ANYWHERE in this country knows that. There are a few companies that have taken it upon themselves to provide a more family friendly environment, but it's not required by law. We ranked right down there with countries like Swaziland and Liberia.
With two children, I can say that I have actually had to choose between my kids and my job on more than one occassion. When I was a single parent, it was worse. Companies expect that you will treat your job like it is the only really important thing in your life. "Madatory" overtime? No paid sick leave? Not allowing women breaks in order to breast feed?
My husband is a Type 1 diabetic. He has to get a note from his doctor stating that due to his condition he is likely to have to urinate more frequently than other employees. (No, I did not make that up.) Without that note, he faces being written up for excessive time away from the job floor.
This study is generating a lot of talk on Capital Hill where the debate is on about scaling back protections like the Family and Medical Leave Act. Well great. Because it isn't hard enough to support a family as it is.
I know the argument that comes right behind this one: "If you don't want to deal with the reality, don't have children." Should that really be the only choice? Men and women have the right to both, a career that they do well in and a family that they can be proud of. It's insane that people have to choose between the two.
Anyone that has family and has worked ANYWHERE in this country knows that. There are a few companies that have taken it upon themselves to provide a more family friendly environment, but it's not required by law. We ranked right down there with countries like Swaziland and Liberia.
With two children, I can say that I have actually had to choose between my kids and my job on more than one occassion. When I was a single parent, it was worse. Companies expect that you will treat your job like it is the only really important thing in your life. "Madatory" overtime? No paid sick leave? Not allowing women breaks in order to breast feed?
My husband is a Type 1 diabetic. He has to get a note from his doctor stating that due to his condition he is likely to have to urinate more frequently than other employees. (No, I did not make that up.) Without that note, he faces being written up for excessive time away from the job floor.
This study is generating a lot of talk on Capital Hill where the debate is on about scaling back protections like the Family and Medical Leave Act. Well great. Because it isn't hard enough to support a family as it is.
I know the argument that comes right behind this one: "If you don't want to deal with the reality, don't have children." Should that really be the only choice? Men and women have the right to both, a career that they do well in and a family that they can be proud of. It's insane that people have to choose between the two.
1.31.2007
I'm a Grown woman for cripes sake!
My son is watching Bambi. Where am I? I'm hiding in my room. I can't watch Bambi, it makes me cry. Not just cry a little, but cry as in, "Jeez, somebody get that woman a Kleenex!"
Everytime it comes to the scene where they shoot Bambi's mom? Yeah...I lose it.
You would think that by the age of 36 a cartoon wouldn't effect me so strongly, huh?
Everytime it comes to the scene where they shoot Bambi's mom? Yeah...I lose it.
You would think that by the age of 36 a cartoon wouldn't effect me so strongly, huh?
1.30.2007
Forced Vaccines?
Last week, there was a big discussion about reproductive freeedom and what that means. This week, in the same vein, I give you this little gem.
They can't even force you to vaccinate your children against chicken pox and now they want to tell me that I have to get my 13 year old daughter a shot that may or may not protect her against SOME types of cervical cancer? I don't think so.
This is a prime example of why lobbyists need to be restricted. They are paying legislators in Texas to put this on the floor. Now who could possibly benefit from this? Oh yeah, the pharmacutical company. Funny thing is if you check up on Gardasil you find out that it MIGHT protect you against SOME kinds of HPV. Okay, so they want to force parents to give their children a vaccine that hasn't even been on the market a full year and that may or may not actually protect said child? Yeah, there's no bias involved there.
This idiocy ever makes it's way to Utah and you can damn well bet I'll be standing on the steps of the Capital Building with a sign in my hot little hands.
They can't even force you to vaccinate your children against chicken pox and now they want to tell me that I have to get my 13 year old daughter a shot that may or may not protect her against SOME types of cervical cancer? I don't think so.
This is a prime example of why lobbyists need to be restricted. They are paying legislators in Texas to put this on the floor. Now who could possibly benefit from this? Oh yeah, the pharmacutical company. Funny thing is if you check up on Gardasil you find out that it MIGHT protect you against SOME kinds of HPV. Okay, so they want to force parents to give their children a vaccine that hasn't even been on the market a full year and that may or may not actually protect said child? Yeah, there's no bias involved there.
This idiocy ever makes it's way to Utah and you can damn well bet I'll be standing on the steps of the Capital Building with a sign in my hot little hands.
The Throw Away Children
As of the year 2003 there were over 500,000 children in foster care in the United States. The numbers have only continued to increase. An alarming number of the children currently in foster care will "age out" of the system on their 18th birthday. What this means is that once the child reaches the age of majority, the state basically pats them on the back, hands them a little cash and says, "Hope we taught you how to take care of yourself, have a nice life."
Recently there has been a growing trend to highlight the plight of children in foreign countries and a rise in the number of adoptions from these countries. Today, as I was flipping through the channels, looking for cartoons for my son, I stopped briefly on the Oprah Winfrey show. She was talking to a group of upper class southern families who had adopted older children from a Liberian orphanage.
First, I'm glad that these children will have the love and support of a family to help them develop into solid adults. Second, where were these people when children right here in this country needed that same love and attention?
It frightens me that it seems to be considered a great thing to do, generous and worthy of news attention, when someone adopts a child from a foreign country and yet no one seems to care that we are creating an entire generation of throw-away children.
The states remove these kids from abusive or neglectful homes and they spend the next years of their lives bouncing from place to place, never really knowing the love and support of a family. People are willing to adopt bright eyed babies, but these older children waste into the background of our society.
Where is the call for help for these children? Who will stand up for them and urge those who are financially able and emotionally willing to give them a home and parents to guide them? Why are there no news stories about celebrities adopting boys and girls who were beaten, neglected and overlooked right here at home? Is it just not "hip" enough? Are they not poor enough? Pitiful enough?
It angers me to think that simply because they were born in this country they will live their lives without someone to kiss their hurts away, tell them how proud they have made someone or hold their hands the first time love breaks their heart. I am saddened that we as a nation seem to have forgotten an entire generation of children.
If you read this and it makes you think, take a moment and write to your congressman or woman. Ask them to make finding adoptive families for these children a priority. Write a letter to your local paper asking why no one has taken the time to write about the children in your community who are in need. Call your local news station and ask why there are no stories about the eleven year old girl with no mother to love her. Take the time. Help bring these children out of the shadows.
Recently there has been a growing trend to highlight the plight of children in foreign countries and a rise in the number of adoptions from these countries. Today, as I was flipping through the channels, looking for cartoons for my son, I stopped briefly on the Oprah Winfrey show. She was talking to a group of upper class southern families who had adopted older children from a Liberian orphanage.
First, I'm glad that these children will have the love and support of a family to help them develop into solid adults. Second, where were these people when children right here in this country needed that same love and attention?
It frightens me that it seems to be considered a great thing to do, generous and worthy of news attention, when someone adopts a child from a foreign country and yet no one seems to care that we are creating an entire generation of throw-away children.
The states remove these kids from abusive or neglectful homes and they spend the next years of their lives bouncing from place to place, never really knowing the love and support of a family. People are willing to adopt bright eyed babies, but these older children waste into the background of our society.
Where is the call for help for these children? Who will stand up for them and urge those who are financially able and emotionally willing to give them a home and parents to guide them? Why are there no news stories about celebrities adopting boys and girls who were beaten, neglected and overlooked right here at home? Is it just not "hip" enough? Are they not poor enough? Pitiful enough?
It angers me to think that simply because they were born in this country they will live their lives without someone to kiss their hurts away, tell them how proud they have made someone or hold their hands the first time love breaks their heart. I am saddened that we as a nation seem to have forgotten an entire generation of children.
If you read this and it makes you think, take a moment and write to your congressman or woman. Ask them to make finding adoptive families for these children a priority. Write a letter to your local paper asking why no one has taken the time to write about the children in your community who are in need. Call your local news station and ask why there are no stories about the eleven year old girl with no mother to love her. Take the time. Help bring these children out of the shadows.
For no other reason than it made me laugh....
"Nothing is as embarrassing as a homemade pussy accident."
That's it. Nothing else to say. That sentence is the funniest damn thing I've read all week.
(Please Note: I have linked to the blog from which it came! Do yourself a favor, visit.)
That's it. Nothing else to say. That sentence is the funniest damn thing I've read all week.
(Please Note: I have linked to the blog from which it came! Do yourself a favor, visit.)
1.29.2007
Come on!
My son is two. Anyone who reads here ever will know that. My son is also one of the cutest people I know.
He has had trouble speaking and has been slow to develop a full vocabulary. We aren't sure why, but there you have it. We've been working with him and it's finally paying off. Sentences are springing up out of nowhere...the latest in his little phrase book? "Come on!"
This phrase is used when he needs my attention, when he wants to play or when he's hungry. It is always accompanied by a tugging on my shirt sleeve or my hand and is usually said with some impatience. It makes me laugh EVERY time he does it!
I am proud to say that along with his new found enunnciation the words,"please" and "thank you" are making a debut. Does my heart good.
The only down side to his chattiness? On Saturday we went outside to play. He was upset when I made him come in. His response? A sad, slow sob under his breath, "Dumb Mama".
He has had trouble speaking and has been slow to develop a full vocabulary. We aren't sure why, but there you have it. We've been working with him and it's finally paying off. Sentences are springing up out of nowhere...the latest in his little phrase book? "Come on!"
This phrase is used when he needs my attention, when he wants to play or when he's hungry. It is always accompanied by a tugging on my shirt sleeve or my hand and is usually said with some impatience. It makes me laugh EVERY time he does it!
I am proud to say that along with his new found enunnciation the words,"please" and "thank you" are making a debut. Does my heart good.
The only down side to his chattiness? On Saturday we went outside to play. He was upset when I made him come in. His response? A sad, slow sob under his breath, "Dumb Mama".
Something interesting I found...
It's amazing the things you can find inside of used books. I found this tonight. I especially like the little note on the back asking for suggestions on how they can imporve service. It makes me wonder about the person that owned this book before me.
1.27.2007
Ahh...memories
The inspiration for this little walk down memory lane came from a post I read at CUSS.
Do you remember being twelve? I do. I remember turning twelve and thinking to myself, "Only six more years and I don't have to do anything I don't want to." It was a very liberating feeling.
I also remember it as the time of the roller rink. Friday nights. The smell of bad pizza and the sound of popular music and video games. From seven to nine on Friday nights I was free of my parents and able to do just about anything I wanted. Okay, so at the age of twelve this meant eating to much and failing to flirt with the boys I thought were cute, but still. It was a time and a place where I could taste the freedom I was dreaming of. My friends and I would meet up and spend two hours discussing all the really important things. Who had how many friendship rings. Who we liked and didn't like and most importantly which boys were looking at us and which boys were not. It was goundbreaking stuff.
As I got older, the rollerskating craze died out. We moved on to other entertainments. Innocent giggles and whispers behind our hands gave way to more adult talk and less innocent pursuits. The joy I felt at anticipating my 18th birthday began to fade as I learned what it really meant...a job, bills and less time to do the things I loved.
The memory of being twelve never left me though. I hung around in my mind like a friend you only see once or twice a year.
Two years ago, shortly after I had my son, my husband and I were at the local thrift store browsing. In the back room, hidden under old baseball gloves and dented bike helmets I found a pair of white ladies rollerskates. I got all kinds of nostalgic and excited and gladly laid out the $5.00. At home with my new found piece of childhood I put them on and after a couple of turns around the kitchen table, I went outside to bask in the feeling of the wind on my face and sun in my hair.
I realized two things almost instantly: (1) I hadn't rollerskated in twenty years and (2) I lived on a hill.
Now, these two things may not mean much by themselves, but combined with the wheels attached to my feet....well, you get the idea.
The little girl across the street stood in her driveway and watched me, a puzzled expression on her face. As I slammed into the tree at the end of my drive, she asked asked me what I was doing. When I said, "Rollerskating," she shook her head and said, "You aren't very good at it are you?" I laughed, clung to the tree and replied, "No. No I'm not very good at it."
And then I began to laugh. I had come outside to relive a part of my childhood and falied miserably, but the feeling of being twelve, of discovering myself and something new was clinging with me to that tree in that moment. I slid down to the sidewalk and took the skates off. I hadn't laughed that hard in years.
Do you remember being twelve? I do. I remember turning twelve and thinking to myself, "Only six more years and I don't have to do anything I don't want to." It was a very liberating feeling.
I also remember it as the time of the roller rink. Friday nights. The smell of bad pizza and the sound of popular music and video games. From seven to nine on Friday nights I was free of my parents and able to do just about anything I wanted. Okay, so at the age of twelve this meant eating to much and failing to flirt with the boys I thought were cute, but still. It was a time and a place where I could taste the freedom I was dreaming of. My friends and I would meet up and spend two hours discussing all the really important things. Who had how many friendship rings. Who we liked and didn't like and most importantly which boys were looking at us and which boys were not. It was goundbreaking stuff.
As I got older, the rollerskating craze died out. We moved on to other entertainments. Innocent giggles and whispers behind our hands gave way to more adult talk and less innocent pursuits. The joy I felt at anticipating my 18th birthday began to fade as I learned what it really meant...a job, bills and less time to do the things I loved.
The memory of being twelve never left me though. I hung around in my mind like a friend you only see once or twice a year.
Two years ago, shortly after I had my son, my husband and I were at the local thrift store browsing. In the back room, hidden under old baseball gloves and dented bike helmets I found a pair of white ladies rollerskates. I got all kinds of nostalgic and excited and gladly laid out the $5.00. At home with my new found piece of childhood I put them on and after a couple of turns around the kitchen table, I went outside to bask in the feeling of the wind on my face and sun in my hair.
I realized two things almost instantly: (1) I hadn't rollerskated in twenty years and (2) I lived on a hill.
Now, these two things may not mean much by themselves, but combined with the wheels attached to my feet....well, you get the idea.
The little girl across the street stood in her driveway and watched me, a puzzled expression on her face. As I slammed into the tree at the end of my drive, she asked asked me what I was doing. When I said, "Rollerskating," she shook her head and said, "You aren't very good at it are you?" I laughed, clung to the tree and replied, "No. No I'm not very good at it."
And then I began to laugh. I had come outside to relive a part of my childhood and falied miserably, but the feeling of being twelve, of discovering myself and something new was clinging with me to that tree in that moment. I slid down to the sidewalk and took the skates off. I hadn't laughed that hard in years.
1.26.2007
There are a surprising number of people talking about a subject that came up on the Today Show recently. They did a piece about drinking, mom's and whether or not it's a good idea to do it with your children present.
For me, this is a clear cut issue. It is not okay to drink around you children. As parents we are responsible for showing our children acceptable ways to communicate, deal with anger and stress and basically everything else it takes to be a grown-up. Just like you wouldn't smack someone around in front of your children and then say, "Don't hit.", you shouldn't drink in front of your children and then say , "Don't drink."
The host and the psychologist on the Today Show piece are being called to the mat over some of the issues they raised, in particular the difference between "social drinking" and "problem drinking" and comparing drinking at playdates with a babysitter who drinks. I come down on both sides of the fence here.
First, the difference between "problem" and "social" drinking is extremely thin. It can go from being one, to being the other very quickly. And who decides? Also, it leaves out the fact that people are using the alcohol to "relax" from what they feel has been a long a trying day of doing what women have been doing for centuries, taking care of their children. As crass as it sounds, and I know it sounds crass, if you have to drink to "unwind" because of your children? Maybe you shouldn't have children.
I get stressed out. I roll my eyes at the things my children do. Sometimes I sit in the bathtub and day dream about the jet-set lifestyle I could have "if only..." Yet somehow the idea of getting together with Jane and Mary from down the street to have a glass of wine and let the kids play has never popped into my head. Alcohol has become pervasive and still people wonder why more and more teenagers are becoming addicted.
On the second point: Mothers are not babysitters. While I can appreciate the point that was trying to be made, it was an altogether bad analogy. You pay a babysitter to do a specific job. The issue wouldn't be them having A drink while watching the kids, it would be them drinking on the JOB. As far as I know, unless you're three martini lunching it in a VERY expensive suit, this is never okay. The girl behind the cash register can't slip out at lunch have a couple of glasses of wine and not get in trouble for it, and THAT job is considerably more stressful than watching a two year old. A better way to make the point might have been to ask, " If you came home and your husband had his buddies over and they were drinking beer while watching the children, would THAT be okay?" This is a level playing field. It's a comparison between the parents and the behavior that is expected.
It all comes down to just one thing in the end, personal choice. I make decisions every day that I'm sure would make other mother's shudder. I made a personal choice not to allow alcohol around my children. That was my decision. Other parent's make different choices. I may not agree, but as long as the children aren't being endangered, I'm not going to cry foul on them either.
It's a topic that should be discussed, but not something these mom's should be called to the mat for.
For me, this is a clear cut issue. It is not okay to drink around you children. As parents we are responsible for showing our children acceptable ways to communicate, deal with anger and stress and basically everything else it takes to be a grown-up. Just like you wouldn't smack someone around in front of your children and then say, "Don't hit.", you shouldn't drink in front of your children and then say , "Don't drink."
The host and the psychologist on the Today Show piece are being called to the mat over some of the issues they raised, in particular the difference between "social drinking" and "problem drinking" and comparing drinking at playdates with a babysitter who drinks. I come down on both sides of the fence here.
First, the difference between "problem" and "social" drinking is extremely thin. It can go from being one, to being the other very quickly. And who decides? Also, it leaves out the fact that people are using the alcohol to "relax" from what they feel has been a long a trying day of doing what women have been doing for centuries, taking care of their children. As crass as it sounds, and I know it sounds crass, if you have to drink to "unwind" because of your children? Maybe you shouldn't have children.
I get stressed out. I roll my eyes at the things my children do. Sometimes I sit in the bathtub and day dream about the jet-set lifestyle I could have "if only..." Yet somehow the idea of getting together with Jane and Mary from down the street to have a glass of wine and let the kids play has never popped into my head. Alcohol has become pervasive and still people wonder why more and more teenagers are becoming addicted.
On the second point: Mothers are not babysitters. While I can appreciate the point that was trying to be made, it was an altogether bad analogy. You pay a babysitter to do a specific job. The issue wouldn't be them having A drink while watching the kids, it would be them drinking on the JOB. As far as I know, unless you're three martini lunching it in a VERY expensive suit, this is never okay. The girl behind the cash register can't slip out at lunch have a couple of glasses of wine and not get in trouble for it, and THAT job is considerably more stressful than watching a two year old. A better way to make the point might have been to ask, " If you came home and your husband had his buddies over and they were drinking beer while watching the children, would THAT be okay?" This is a level playing field. It's a comparison between the parents and the behavior that is expected.
It all comes down to just one thing in the end, personal choice. I make decisions every day that I'm sure would make other mother's shudder. I made a personal choice not to allow alcohol around my children. That was my decision. Other parent's make different choices. I may not agree, but as long as the children aren't being endangered, I'm not going to cry foul on them either.
It's a topic that should be discussed, but not something these mom's should be called to the mat for.
1.25.2007
What? A politician with something intelligent to say?
I read Neil Gaiman's blog and he usually has links to very cool things that I would never have found otherwise. Today, he posted this little piece from The Guardian Unlimited .
Usually politicians are just blowing smoke out their asses and don't really have anything useful to say. This gentleman has a lot useful to say. Even better it's all tempered with...COMMON SENSE!!!! I had thought it impossible that the words "common sense" and "politician" could be used in the same sentence without causing some sort of terrible tear in universe, but there you have it.
Give it a read, pass it on. Spread the common sense around.
Usually politicians are just blowing smoke out their asses and don't really have anything useful to say. This gentleman has a lot useful to say. Even better it's all tempered with...COMMON SENSE!!!! I had thought it impossible that the words "common sense" and "politician" could be used in the same sentence without causing some sort of terrible tear in universe, but there you have it.
Give it a read, pass it on. Spread the common sense around.
1.22.2007
"Blogging For Choice"
I have done the unforgivable. I expressed an opinion that upset feminists and called into question the issue of personal responsibility. How dare I? What was the hot button issue? Abortion. I am now being called ridiculous and reminded that no woman should be forced to raise a child. My feelings on this subject are not religiously based. I have had three unplanned pregnancies in my lifetime. None were convienent. None were well timed. I have made the choice to have the children and place them for adoption.
Let's look at a couple of things here, shall we?
Look, I'm just going to say it, I believe that abortion as a means of birth control is wrong. Anyone wishing to lambast me will please read the sentence again and notice I did not say we should all rush right out and make abortion illegal and strip women of the right thereby plunging us directly back into the dark ages (because we all know that limiting abortion would lead to women being stripped of the vote, the right to work and possibly even the right to wear pants in public.) ....but using it as a method of birth control because being pregnant isn't "convienent" is wrong. Rape, incest, cases of physical danger to the mother or a second child (twin births)? Totally different story. For me it comes down to personal responsibility. Birth control is readily available, even to low income persons...state Medicade programs will pay for most birth control methods, up to and including surgical sterilization. The 72 hour pill is readily available through doctor's offices and Family Planning clinics.
Using the 72 hour pill, you are preventing a pregnancy from taking place. Going to a clinic and having a pregnancy terminated means you are choosing to end another human life. Attach all the emotion you want to that statement, but the medical and scientific facts are that at two to three months the fetus is breathing, has fingers and toes forming, is moving and has started developing major organ systems. That's not just one or two cells, that's a person taking shape. Arguing that "a baby isn't really a baby during the first trimester" makes my stomach lurch. Within the first three months that little tiny being has started to develop organ systems and is moving. Again, this isn't based on anything other than hard science.
The argunment that, "It's my body and I should be able to do what I want with it" has never set well with me. If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have unprotected sex. And yes, it really is that simple.
I am astonished at how easily people are able to dismiss the fact that an abortion ends a human life and in place of that they have substituted concerns like weight gain and life-style change.
In my original comment about this issue, I simply asked the question, "When do we make people responsible for their choices?" I was told that choosing to have an abortion is being responsible. I disagree, choosing to have an abortion is simply the fastest method of dealing with an unwanted situation. Not only has the issue of ending a life been removed from the argument, but most people gloss over that fact that having an abortion has life-long psychological ramifications, just like adoption does. The difference? Women who have abortions tend not to seek professional counseling after having the procedure. They mostly seem to try and pretend they were never pregnant at all.
My feelings on this issue are definatly based on emotion. Having made the decision to carry children to term and place them for adoption has given me new perspective on it. Seeing the beauty that is a newborn child and seeing the equally beautiful look on the faces of a couple that thought they would never be able to experience the joy of being parents, I have a hard time understanding how anyone can remove the actual child in question from the decision. That makes me biased, I realize that. It's also the reason I don't attend Pro-Life rallies and scream for an end to abortion. Unlike the people who will attack me, I recognize that no matter what MY beliefs are, I don't have the right to force them on others.
I do, however, have the right to say them as loudly and as often as I want to.
Let's look at a couple of things here, shall we?
Look, I'm just going to say it, I believe that abortion as a means of birth control is wrong. Anyone wishing to lambast me will please read the sentence again and notice I did not say we should all rush right out and make abortion illegal and strip women of the right thereby plunging us directly back into the dark ages (because we all know that limiting abortion would lead to women being stripped of the vote, the right to work and possibly even the right to wear pants in public.) ....but using it as a method of birth control because being pregnant isn't "convienent" is wrong. Rape, incest, cases of physical danger to the mother or a second child (twin births)? Totally different story. For me it comes down to personal responsibility. Birth control is readily available, even to low income persons...state Medicade programs will pay for most birth control methods, up to and including surgical sterilization. The 72 hour pill is readily available through doctor's offices and Family Planning clinics.
Using the 72 hour pill, you are preventing a pregnancy from taking place. Going to a clinic and having a pregnancy terminated means you are choosing to end another human life. Attach all the emotion you want to that statement, but the medical and scientific facts are that at two to three months the fetus is breathing, has fingers and toes forming, is moving and has started developing major organ systems. That's not just one or two cells, that's a person taking shape. Arguing that "a baby isn't really a baby during the first trimester" makes my stomach lurch. Within the first three months that little tiny being has started to develop organ systems and is moving. Again, this isn't based on anything other than hard science.
The argunment that, "It's my body and I should be able to do what I want with it" has never set well with me. If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have unprotected sex. And yes, it really is that simple.
I am astonished at how easily people are able to dismiss the fact that an abortion ends a human life and in place of that they have substituted concerns like weight gain and life-style change.
In my original comment about this issue, I simply asked the question, "When do we make people responsible for their choices?" I was told that choosing to have an abortion is being responsible. I disagree, choosing to have an abortion is simply the fastest method of dealing with an unwanted situation. Not only has the issue of ending a life been removed from the argument, but most people gloss over that fact that having an abortion has life-long psychological ramifications, just like adoption does. The difference? Women who have abortions tend not to seek professional counseling after having the procedure. They mostly seem to try and pretend they were never pregnant at all.
My feelings on this issue are definatly based on emotion. Having made the decision to carry children to term and place them for adoption has given me new perspective on it. Seeing the beauty that is a newborn child and seeing the equally beautiful look on the faces of a couple that thought they would never be able to experience the joy of being parents, I have a hard time understanding how anyone can remove the actual child in question from the decision. That makes me biased, I realize that. It's also the reason I don't attend Pro-Life rallies and scream for an end to abortion. Unlike the people who will attack me, I recognize that no matter what MY beliefs are, I don't have the right to force them on others.
I do, however, have the right to say them as loudly and as often as I want to.
1.12.2007
Cocaine? No Problem! Nudie pictures? How Dare you!
Apparently Donald Trump thinks that underage drinking, public lewdness and an addiction to cocaine are A-Okay, but God forbid you should pose for pictures without your panties on.
Trump recently fired Miss Nevada, Katie Rees, because pictures of her " partying and posing in various stages of undress emerged on the Internet". What the hell?
Can you say double standard Don? How much do you want to bet the other chic gave The Don a little "incentive" to let her keep her crown.
Trump recently fired Miss Nevada, Katie Rees, because pictures of her " partying and posing in various stages of undress emerged on the Internet". What the hell?
Can you say double standard Don? How much do you want to bet the other chic gave The Don a little "incentive" to let her keep her crown.
1.09.2007
I have recently begun discovering that I am hopelessly out of touch and more than a little un-cool. The un-cool thing is nothing new, I have never been "cool", but damn it, I used to keep up with things.
I was reading at jmadigan.net tonight and after commenting on a wonderful piece about his daughters that made me laugh I saw a little link in the top bar that said : Subscribe. I clicked on it, innocently believing I was about to get a name and a password and all that fun stuff that makes you feel like you belong to some kind of exclusive club.
This was NOT what happened. I was taken to a page that asked me to "Choose a reader". A what? What the hell is a reader? I can read just fine on my own thanks. I hear people talk about things like Google Reader and other such mythical beasts, but I have no idea what it means, it's like a foreign language.
I'm sure that if I took the time to investigate things I would figure it out in no time, but I'm not sure if this is knowledge I need. Is a "feed reader" something I need to live my life? Will my children be shunned if I don't have one? Am I hopelessly outdated if I simply add the websites I like to my favorites and visit them that way?
Why do I suddenly feel like I'm trapped in a bad soap opera? Tune in tomorrow and find out.
I was reading at jmadigan.net tonight and after commenting on a wonderful piece about his daughters that made me laugh I saw a little link in the top bar that said : Subscribe. I clicked on it, innocently believing I was about to get a name and a password and all that fun stuff that makes you feel like you belong to some kind of exclusive club.
This was NOT what happened. I was taken to a page that asked me to "Choose a reader". A what? What the hell is a reader? I can read just fine on my own thanks. I hear people talk about things like Google Reader and other such mythical beasts, but I have no idea what it means, it's like a foreign language.
I'm sure that if I took the time to investigate things I would figure it out in no time, but I'm not sure if this is knowledge I need. Is a "feed reader" something I need to live my life? Will my children be shunned if I don't have one? Am I hopelessly outdated if I simply add the websites I like to my favorites and visit them that way?
Why do I suddenly feel like I'm trapped in a bad soap opera? Tune in tomorrow and find out.
Blogging for Books Entry
I'm reposting this as an entry for "Blogging for Books" on The Zero Boss I don't usually enter contests, but the concept of time is something I spend a lot of time thinking about, so I decided, "What the hell."
This post was originally written in an old, beat up journal while sitting in damp grass waiting for a bus. I had just met someone new, was starting a new job...things were in a state of flux, and the damn bus was late. I kept wanting to know what time it was but everytime I pushed up my sleeve, I was reminded I didn't own a fucking watch. I still don't.
I need a watch.I hate not knowing what time it is. Sitting and staring. Wondering," Am I late, or am I early?" Not that I'm, particularly good at waiting to begin with, 'cuz I'm not. I suck at it. I shift. I pace. I get annoyed. And I seem to be in a perpetual state of waiting.Waiting for payday. Waiting for work to end. Waiting for him to call. Waiting for the bus. Waiting for sleep to come. Waiting..... always waiting. It's just so anti-climatic. Because finally payday does come. And work is over. And he does call. And the bus arrives. And sleep comes. And then what? Where are all the bells and whistles that reward us for the hours we wasted.....waiting. For the days, weeks, months....hell, even years of limitless patience and fortitude? Quietly sitting, not complaining. There are none. You pay the bills. You go home. You talk for a minute. You get on the bus. You dream for a moment. And then?Back to waiting.It's like waiting to die. Just moving through life with no real destination. I get tired of it. I step out of line.Do something new. Anything new. Never helps, doesn't change it. There's still more waiting.Waiting for the color to take. For the polish to dry. For the movie to start. For dinner to get done. For that new book to come in.Always waiting for something.Damn.......I really need a watch.
This post was originally written in an old, beat up journal while sitting in damp grass waiting for a bus. I had just met someone new, was starting a new job...things were in a state of flux, and the damn bus was late. I kept wanting to know what time it was but everytime I pushed up my sleeve, I was reminded I didn't own a fucking watch. I still don't.
I need a watch.I hate not knowing what time it is. Sitting and staring. Wondering," Am I late, or am I early?" Not that I'm, particularly good at waiting to begin with, 'cuz I'm not. I suck at it. I shift. I pace. I get annoyed. And I seem to be in a perpetual state of waiting.Waiting for payday. Waiting for work to end. Waiting for him to call. Waiting for the bus. Waiting for sleep to come. Waiting..... always waiting. It's just so anti-climatic. Because finally payday does come. And work is over. And he does call. And the bus arrives. And sleep comes. And then what? Where are all the bells and whistles that reward us for the hours we wasted.....waiting. For the days, weeks, months....hell, even years of limitless patience and fortitude? Quietly sitting, not complaining. There are none. You pay the bills. You go home. You talk for a minute. You get on the bus. You dream for a moment. And then?Back to waiting.It's like waiting to die. Just moving through life with no real destination. I get tired of it. I step out of line.Do something new. Anything new. Never helps, doesn't change it. There's still more waiting.Waiting for the color to take. For the polish to dry. For the movie to start. For dinner to get done. For that new book to come in.Always waiting for something.Damn.......I really need a watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
