Last night I walked into Nathan's room in the dark to get something. All of a sudden a big sloppy wet drip landed on my head. Light on, water dripping through the middle of his ceiling!
It was raining ridiculously hard last night. Like so hard that Henry didn't even want to go out, and held it in until this morning. So hard that Jango was literally on the porch for 3 seconds but when he came in he ran around like a mad man which he does right after he has a bath.
So Brian went up into the eaves. Yup, officially a leaky roof. We were told by the inspector that we would need a new roof sooner rather than later, but it doesn't make it any less annoying to deal with now :) The cost to fix a roof is pretty darn outrageous, and something we can't afford right now. Also, do roofers work in December?
Seems like you never realize the problems with home ownership until you are in them. Everyone always talks about the "American Dream" of owning their own home. But to be honest, we've been in our house for almost 3 years and it has been one big ball of anxiety from the beginning. Don't get me wrong, I like my house, I like it a lot. But it is far too expensive for far too little space. We've had to make a number of fairly pricey updates, including a whole new heating system, windows, and insulation. On top of that, the value has dropped about $40k since we bought, so we have no equity for selling or for home equity loans for repairs. If I had the option, I would DEFINITELY go back to renting right now. Then the roof is the landlord's problem.
Guess I know what my tax return is going to this year, if we get one...
Monday, December 13, 2010
Friday, December 10, 2010
Fat Santa
We know that obesity, particularly childhood obesity, is a dangerous epidemic sweeping our nation. There have been many initiatives started to combat obesity, but perhaps not enough.
Today I heard on the radio that we should stop projecting Santa as a fat jolly old soul who likes to eat milk and cookies. Why? Because that makes him a bad role model for kids. Kids will try to emulate Santa and act like him and think that milk and cookies should be a staple to their everyday diet.
I have 2 problems with this:
a) don't ALL kids think that milk and cookies should be a staple of their everyday diet, regardless if they are Santa believers or not?
b) Should Santa really be seen as a "role model"? I mean, do kids really strive to be LIKE Santa? Or do they just want to get a visit from him on Christmas Eve?
I agree that obesity is a problem and healthy living guidelines should be part of the education system. But things like making Santa buff and thin, or making the cookie monster not ONLY eat cookies anymore (I hear he has a much more diverse diet now), does that really do anything to combat the problem?
Today I heard on the radio that we should stop projecting Santa as a fat jolly old soul who likes to eat milk and cookies. Why? Because that makes him a bad role model for kids. Kids will try to emulate Santa and act like him and think that milk and cookies should be a staple to their everyday diet.
I have 2 problems with this:
a) don't ALL kids think that milk and cookies should be a staple of their everyday diet, regardless if they are Santa believers or not?
b) Should Santa really be seen as a "role model"? I mean, do kids really strive to be LIKE Santa? Or do they just want to get a visit from him on Christmas Eve?
I agree that obesity is a problem and healthy living guidelines should be part of the education system. But things like making Santa buff and thin, or making the cookie monster not ONLY eat cookies anymore (I hear he has a much more diverse diet now), does that really do anything to combat the problem?
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Charles Dickens and Christmas
I was talking with Brian the other day about the over secularization of Christmas. Where did all of our material desires come from? Why has it come away from being a generally Christian holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ, to a custom in which Atheists and Agnostics and non-practicing Christians alike participate?
He told me it was due to Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol. So I decided to look it up.
Prior to the release of A Christmas Carol in 1843, the spirit of Christmas had been dwindling. In the U.S. Christmas lost popularity in the post -Revolutionary War era because it was thought to be a British custom, and we were all things non-British at that point.
Charles Dickens was a literary stud in his day. You could say he was one of the first celebrity authors. He popularized the "book tour" and many things which are commonplace now in our society. I think pretty much anyone with a high school education could quote you one Dickens line, even if it is only "Bah! Humbug!" The purpose was to revive the Christian spirit in the secular way.
If you notice when reading A Christmas Carol, there is little to no focus on religion. Dickens wanted to highlight the other important parts of Christmas...a general season of good cheer and spirit, excellent food and drink, family gatherings, and goodwill. He was the first, essentially, to take the "Christ" out of modern Christmas, and "made" Christmas a secular tradition for many Atheists, Agnostics, and non-practicing Christians it is today!
At the time Dickens wrote A Christmas Carol, Britain was kinda-sorta still celebrating the 12 Days of Christmas (from December 25th - January 5th, the time thought to be when the Magi brought gifts to the new baby Jesus). Dickens revised that in his novel to be just one day of family and friends and good tidings, much like we have today.
Dickens was very progressive for his time, and this actually helped his "reinvention" of Christmas.
I have nothing against Dickens. In fact, A Tale of Two Cities was quite possibly one of my favorite books read in high school. A Christmas Carol is one of my all time favorite stories (particularly the Muppet adaptation!) :) I think what Charles Dickens did for Christmas is pretty darn amazing, actually. Had he not written A Christmas Carol, Christmas would probably be just another day of the year today. But he revived the festive spirit and the holiday goodwill which was beginning to dwindle. And perhaps due to the revival of these things also came a revival in the Christian celebration of Christmas, although that seems to have dwindled a bit in the past few decades.
However, as I've mentioned I frequent the debate boards, and have found among the countless Christmas threads that Atheists and Agnostics often spite Christians for pretty much consuming December. Christmas is everywhere you look, everywhere you go. It is essentially impossible to escape, and Christians are often the scapegoat for the long shopping lines and mall craziness, the overspending, the tacky decorations, and annoying Christmas music. But what they are seeing in plain sight is 99% of the time not related to the Christian celebration, but the Dickens type celebration of Christmas. And I don't think his idea of using the Christmas holiday to spread holiday cheer, festive spirit, gather with family, and share goodwill is anything to be spiteful of.
Likewise, Christians shouldn't take it so personally if an Atheist, Agnostic, or non-Practicing Christian wants to participate in Christmas traditions. Afterall, we may not even have those traditions if it weren't for Charles Dickens' agnosticism (at least in this case, because it is said he actually was a Christian*), we wouldn't have Christmas as we know it today!
*Note: "Agnostic" wasn't actually a term until 1869, long after the publication of A Christmas Carol.
He told me it was due to Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol. So I decided to look it up.
Prior to the release of A Christmas Carol in 1843, the spirit of Christmas had been dwindling. In the U.S. Christmas lost popularity in the post -Revolutionary War era because it was thought to be a British custom, and we were all things non-British at that point.
Charles Dickens was a literary stud in his day. You could say he was one of the first celebrity authors. He popularized the "book tour" and many things which are commonplace now in our society. I think pretty much anyone with a high school education could quote you one Dickens line, even if it is only "Bah! Humbug!" The purpose was to revive the Christian spirit in the secular way.
If you notice when reading A Christmas Carol, there is little to no focus on religion. Dickens wanted to highlight the other important parts of Christmas...a general season of good cheer and spirit, excellent food and drink, family gatherings, and goodwill. He was the first, essentially, to take the "Christ" out of modern Christmas, and "made" Christmas a secular tradition for many Atheists, Agnostics, and non-practicing Christians it is today!
At the time Dickens wrote A Christmas Carol, Britain was kinda-sorta still celebrating the 12 Days of Christmas (from December 25th - January 5th, the time thought to be when the Magi brought gifts to the new baby Jesus). Dickens revised that in his novel to be just one day of family and friends and good tidings, much like we have today.
Dickens was very progressive for his time, and this actually helped his "reinvention" of Christmas.
I have nothing against Dickens. In fact, A Tale of Two Cities was quite possibly one of my favorite books read in high school. A Christmas Carol is one of my all time favorite stories (particularly the Muppet adaptation!) :) I think what Charles Dickens did for Christmas is pretty darn amazing, actually. Had he not written A Christmas Carol, Christmas would probably be just another day of the year today. But he revived the festive spirit and the holiday goodwill which was beginning to dwindle. And perhaps due to the revival of these things also came a revival in the Christian celebration of Christmas, although that seems to have dwindled a bit in the past few decades.
However, as I've mentioned I frequent the debate boards, and have found among the countless Christmas threads that Atheists and Agnostics often spite Christians for pretty much consuming December. Christmas is everywhere you look, everywhere you go. It is essentially impossible to escape, and Christians are often the scapegoat for the long shopping lines and mall craziness, the overspending, the tacky decorations, and annoying Christmas music. But what they are seeing in plain sight is 99% of the time not related to the Christian celebration, but the Dickens type celebration of Christmas. And I don't think his idea of using the Christmas holiday to spread holiday cheer, festive spirit, gather with family, and share goodwill is anything to be spiteful of.
Likewise, Christians shouldn't take it so personally if an Atheist, Agnostic, or non-Practicing Christian wants to participate in Christmas traditions. Afterall, we may not even have those traditions if it weren't for Charles Dickens' agnosticism (at least in this case, because it is said he actually was a Christian*), we wouldn't have Christmas as we know it today!
*Note: "Agnostic" wasn't actually a term until 1869, long after the publication of A Christmas Carol.
So, anyone got an extra $10k laying around?
As some of you may know, or may have read from previous blog posts, I'm a Titanic enthusiast. I have read 2 books lately about the disaster and have always found myself fascinated by it.
April 14-15, 2012 marks 100 years since the tragedy. Being a Titanic fan, I decided I would look to see if there would be any memorial events happening in April of 2012. I thought maybe it would be a nice excuse to take a trip to Belfast or Southampton, or in the poorest of circumstances, Halifax or New York.
Welp, I found one. The cream of the crop.
http://www.voyages-to-remember.com/reservations.html
What the above website details is a "Voyage" across the Atlantic. The ship leaves Boston (SOOOO close!) and heads to Halifax on April 9, 2012. After a day or two exploring Halifax, the ship heads off to the Titanic wreck site, about 300 miles south east of Newfoundland. There it stays, giving passengers real-time video of the wreckage until the end of April 15, 2012, when she heads back to Boston. Aboard the ship there will be experts and enthusiasts and Titanic historians giving presentations. There will be information for collectors and "Titaniacs" (which is just weird in my opinion). There will be family members of survivors (the last survivor died in May 2009 - she was 9 weeks old when Titanic sank) giving presentations.
In addition the accommodations are supposedly very luxurious and include high end food and beverage.
An interior stateroom (no windows) and all of the above can be yours for just...
$4,899 PER PERSON!!!
Talk about bursting my bubble. I was very excited about it. Knew it would be expensive...thought maybe we could save for it. But $10k is not happening.
I should add that the most expensive cabins on this ship are going for a cool $14,999 per person (Club World Owners Suite - only six left!)
Maybe I can go to the doc when the ship leaves and wave to those who, if this were 1912, could've afforded first class accommodations with private promenade decks. Definitely no steerage passengers on this voyage...
April 14-15, 2012 marks 100 years since the tragedy. Being a Titanic fan, I decided I would look to see if there would be any memorial events happening in April of 2012. I thought maybe it would be a nice excuse to take a trip to Belfast or Southampton, or in the poorest of circumstances, Halifax or New York.
Welp, I found one. The cream of the crop.
http://www.voyages-to-remember.com/reservations.html
What the above website details is a "Voyage" across the Atlantic. The ship leaves Boston (SOOOO close!) and heads to Halifax on April 9, 2012. After a day or two exploring Halifax, the ship heads off to the Titanic wreck site, about 300 miles south east of Newfoundland. There it stays, giving passengers real-time video of the wreckage until the end of April 15, 2012, when she heads back to Boston. Aboard the ship there will be experts and enthusiasts and Titanic historians giving presentations. There will be information for collectors and "Titaniacs" (which is just weird in my opinion). There will be family members of survivors (the last survivor died in May 2009 - she was 9 weeks old when Titanic sank) giving presentations.
In addition the accommodations are supposedly very luxurious and include high end food and beverage.
An interior stateroom (no windows) and all of the above can be yours for just...
$4,899 PER PERSON!!!
Talk about bursting my bubble. I was very excited about it. Knew it would be expensive...thought maybe we could save for it. But $10k is not happening.
I should add that the most expensive cabins on this ship are going for a cool $14,999 per person (Club World Owners Suite - only six left!)
Maybe I can go to the doc when the ship leaves and wave to those who, if this were 1912, could've afforded first class accommodations with private promenade decks. Definitely no steerage passengers on this voyage...
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
So Freakin' Cold
So it is really freakin' cold today. It was really cold yesterday and the day before too. The last 3 days we've been running below average temperatures and it doesn't look like we'll recover until the weekend.
I always say I'd rather be cold than hot. But that is only until it is really cold. The coldest I ever saw it get at UMass was -6, and that is just absolutely ridiculous. This morning when I left at 8am, the car said it was 22 degrees. Yick. Just the start of winter?
It was 37 degrees in Florida this morning.
What was that about global warming again? Oh right, that's why we changed the term to "climate change" :)
I always say I'd rather be cold than hot. But that is only until it is really cold. The coldest I ever saw it get at UMass was -6, and that is just absolutely ridiculous. This morning when I left at 8am, the car said it was 22 degrees. Yick. Just the start of winter?
It was 37 degrees in Florida this morning.
What was that about global warming again? Oh right, that's why we changed the term to "climate change" :)
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Tax Cut Extension
There has been a lot of talk recently about extending the tax cuts instated by Bush temporarily and set to expire at the end of December 2010. If congress did nothing, the tax cuts would expire and every tax-paying American would see an increase in their withholdings come January 1. Up until the past few days, there was very little knowledge about where taxes would stand on Jan 1, which in my opinion is completely unacceptable. Individuals and businesses deserve to know what they will be facing in terms of taxes long before they have to start paying them.
That being said, there are many different schools of thoughts on this. Conservatives want to keep the tax cuts for everyone. They think that raising taxes on anyone in the midst of a recession, or recovery from a recession, will stifle economic growth and inihibit a recovery in employment. There is valid concern there. The United States is a consumer-driven economy. We rely completely on purchases and investments for our economic health. If you take more money out of peoples' and businesses' pockets, the less they can spend/invest.
The other argument among conservatives is trickle down economics. They didn't want th expiration of the tax cuts on just the top tier of income earners because it is their belief that it is those making over $250k that provide the jobs to most Americans. Americans rely on small business a lot for employment, and many small businesses fall just over that $250k threshold. The theory is that those small businesses will be deincentivized to hire, and thus it will stifle job growth. This is known as the trickle down myth and I have yet to see really convincing evidence that it ever actually works.
Among the more liberal points of view is that the tax cuts should expire for those making over $250k, but should remain for those making under that mark. Their rationale is that the "rich" can afford it, and that NOT allowing these tax cuts to expire will only "cost" the country more and add to the deficeit. Also a valid concern, and I completely empathize with that point of view. They are also disbelievers in trickle down economics and (generally) believe that the top income earners are greedy SOBs who want to do nothing other than pocket their profits (vs. investing in human capital, etc).
Here is where I stand on this issue. I really have no inner turmoil about the tax cuts expiring for the top income earners. I do think they *can* afford it, and as I mentioned above, haven't seen any concrete evidence that trickle down economics helps during tough economic times. However, I am a true libertarian and believe the least amount of taxation as possible to get by is sufficient. I think that raising taxes on ANYONE in this economy cannot possibly be a good thing. I also believe that $250k is not anywhere close to "rich" and if they wanted to go that route they should raise that threshold to $750k or $1m. There'd still be plenty of people to tax.
President Obama compromised on this yesterday. The proposal is for the tax cuts to be extended for everyone for another 2 years. In exchange the congressional Republicans would have to accept an extension of unemployment benefits for 1 year. The liberals I know are very unhappy with the compromise. I haven't yet heard much from the conservatives. In a way, I'm glad Obama compromised because it shows his ability for team work and not trying to steamroll people. But I wish he compromised in letting the tax cuts expire for anyone making over $1m instead. That way the U.S. would generate more tax revenue to put towards the deficeit and yet still protect the most vulnerable businsses among us.
There is still a lot of negotiating to do and Congress has until 12/31 to figure it out. I hope it is much sooner than that!
That being said, there are many different schools of thoughts on this. Conservatives want to keep the tax cuts for everyone. They think that raising taxes on anyone in the midst of a recession, or recovery from a recession, will stifle economic growth and inihibit a recovery in employment. There is valid concern there. The United States is a consumer-driven economy. We rely completely on purchases and investments for our economic health. If you take more money out of peoples' and businesses' pockets, the less they can spend/invest.
The other argument among conservatives is trickle down economics. They didn't want th expiration of the tax cuts on just the top tier of income earners because it is their belief that it is those making over $250k that provide the jobs to most Americans. Americans rely on small business a lot for employment, and many small businesses fall just over that $250k threshold. The theory is that those small businesses will be deincentivized to hire, and thus it will stifle job growth. This is known as the trickle down myth and I have yet to see really convincing evidence that it ever actually works.
Among the more liberal points of view is that the tax cuts should expire for those making over $250k, but should remain for those making under that mark. Their rationale is that the "rich" can afford it, and that NOT allowing these tax cuts to expire will only "cost" the country more and add to the deficeit. Also a valid concern, and I completely empathize with that point of view. They are also disbelievers in trickle down economics and (generally) believe that the top income earners are greedy SOBs who want to do nothing other than pocket their profits (vs. investing in human capital, etc).
Here is where I stand on this issue. I really have no inner turmoil about the tax cuts expiring for the top income earners. I do think they *can* afford it, and as I mentioned above, haven't seen any concrete evidence that trickle down economics helps during tough economic times. However, I am a true libertarian and believe the least amount of taxation as possible to get by is sufficient. I think that raising taxes on ANYONE in this economy cannot possibly be a good thing. I also believe that $250k is not anywhere close to "rich" and if they wanted to go that route they should raise that threshold to $750k or $1m. There'd still be plenty of people to tax.
President Obama compromised on this yesterday. The proposal is for the tax cuts to be extended for everyone for another 2 years. In exchange the congressional Republicans would have to accept an extension of unemployment benefits for 1 year. The liberals I know are very unhappy with the compromise. I haven't yet heard much from the conservatives. In a way, I'm glad Obama compromised because it shows his ability for team work and not trying to steamroll people. But I wish he compromised in letting the tax cuts expire for anyone making over $1m instead. That way the U.S. would generate more tax revenue to put towards the deficeit and yet still protect the most vulnerable businsses among us.
There is still a lot of negotiating to do and Congress has until 12/31 to figure it out. I hope it is much sooner than that!
First Day Headaches
Why is it absolutely inevitable that I get a headache on my "first day" of anything? Yesterday was my first day of work at a new job. Headache. I remember getting decently bad headaches on every first day of school. I realize it is inevitable, so I've come to expect them, but it is doesn't change how annoying they are!
Especially when they continue into the night (keeping me up), and repeat for the next day...today. It is difficult to concentrate on a load of new information when the lights in this office are piercing into my brain! I think I am starting to be a mini migraine sufferer. They are not debilitating, but annoying, frequent, and quite localized to my left temple just behind my eye.
Enough for now, I have a lot to say about the tax cut extensions...will write later this afternoon!
Especially when they continue into the night (keeping me up), and repeat for the next day...today. It is difficult to concentrate on a load of new information when the lights in this office are piercing into my brain! I think I am starting to be a mini migraine sufferer. They are not debilitating, but annoying, frequent, and quite localized to my left temple just behind my eye.
Enough for now, I have a lot to say about the tax cut extensions...will write later this afternoon!
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Grocery Shopping
I really dislike the entire process of grocery shopping. I really don't find anything about it enjoyable.
First, you have to make a list and figure out what you want to buy. When you're under a tight budget that means shopping all of the circulars and trying to fit whatever is on sale into your meal planning for the week.
Then you have to find the time to go to the store. For a household of 2 full time workers, that means its either nights or weekends, and you can pretty much forget about nights. Unfortunately, everyone else has the same sentiment and you have to carriage battle your way through the throngs of people also shopping on a Sunday afternoon.
Then there's the cost factor and the inner turmoil I personally go through every time I shop. Obviously, fresh fruits and veggies are the best for you, but they are also the most expensive...particularly if you've felt the need to buy things organic lately. Each organic apple I put into the little plastic bag is accompanied by a little "ching" sign in my mind as the costs add up.
The other inner turmoil I struggle with is actually the FOOD. I think I can admit I have a food "problem". I'm an emotional eater, and that includes ALL types of emotions. Since I'm a pretty emotional person, I eat all the time :) But I'm on Weight Watchers right now and trying to watch it. So as I'm walking through the aisles and seeing all the delicious looking cookies and pastries and chips and cheeses, I am constanty reminded that I can't have them.
Then there's checking out. Loading it all onto the belt, helping to bag if there happens to be a baggers shortage that day, and dealing with a kid cashier (at least today) who literally had to count my cash 4 times to make sure he got it right.
*Here comes my ONE small glimmer of light in this process. I wait to give my store discount card until the end. Then I watch the total decrease. I like to see how much I was able to save shopping the sales. That's about it.
So then you have lug it all out to the car, lug it into the house, and clean out the fridge of the old, gross stuff. By the time it is all done I'm exhausted! And the worst part is, this isn't a once in a while process...it is a weekly ordeal, at least in our household.
And I usually do it WITHOUT any kids in tow!
When I'm rich, I will hire someone to do my grocery shopping for me...I dislike it that much!
First, you have to make a list and figure out what you want to buy. When you're under a tight budget that means shopping all of the circulars and trying to fit whatever is on sale into your meal planning for the week.
Then you have to find the time to go to the store. For a household of 2 full time workers, that means its either nights or weekends, and you can pretty much forget about nights. Unfortunately, everyone else has the same sentiment and you have to carriage battle your way through the throngs of people also shopping on a Sunday afternoon.
Then there's the cost factor and the inner turmoil I personally go through every time I shop. Obviously, fresh fruits and veggies are the best for you, but they are also the most expensive...particularly if you've felt the need to buy things organic lately. Each organic apple I put into the little plastic bag is accompanied by a little "ching" sign in my mind as the costs add up.
The other inner turmoil I struggle with is actually the FOOD. I think I can admit I have a food "problem". I'm an emotional eater, and that includes ALL types of emotions. Since I'm a pretty emotional person, I eat all the time :) But I'm on Weight Watchers right now and trying to watch it. So as I'm walking through the aisles and seeing all the delicious looking cookies and pastries and chips and cheeses, I am constanty reminded that I can't have them.
Then there's checking out. Loading it all onto the belt, helping to bag if there happens to be a baggers shortage that day, and dealing with a kid cashier (at least today) who literally had to count my cash 4 times to make sure he got it right.
*Here comes my ONE small glimmer of light in this process. I wait to give my store discount card until the end. Then I watch the total decrease. I like to see how much I was able to save shopping the sales. That's about it.
So then you have lug it all out to the car, lug it into the house, and clean out the fridge of the old, gross stuff. By the time it is all done I'm exhausted! And the worst part is, this isn't a once in a while process...it is a weekly ordeal, at least in our household.
And I usually do it WITHOUT any kids in tow!
When I'm rich, I will hire someone to do my grocery shopping for me...I dislike it that much!
Friday, December 3, 2010
Babycenter
I've been a Babycenter.com member since July of 2008. At first I just used it for the tools - due date calculator, what not to do during pregnancy. I also used it for their community. I found a group called "Happily Trying After a Loss". It was an amazing group of women who had suffered miscarriages and were sick of being sad about it. There were other groups for miscarriages, but they seemed very doom and gloom. This group was to look forward to trying again and being excited about our future babies. Sometime in the fall of 2008 Babycenter changed their community. My miscarriage board didn't like the new format, so we switched to a private board. We still frequent it, and we're still friends 2.5 years later. We even met up in Kansas City, MO this year. It has been invaluable to me.
But I found around the time of the 2008 Presidential election that I was feeling an immense amount of anger and passion and was just all over fired up. I wanted to scream from the rooftops. Brian told me he couldn't wait for the election to be over so "I can have my wife back" :) I was pregnant with Nathan, hormonal, and upset with our political direction.
So I somehow stumbled onto a Political Debate board on BBC and as an extension the Debate Team board. Usually I don't care what people on these boards say, especially on the PD board because it isn't usually personal or questioning ones choices (unless it means identifying with a particular ideology). But the DT is a place where people go to debate parenting choices, and all other things. The most common threads are about formula vs. breast feeding, stay-at-home-moms vs. work-outside-of-home-moms, circumcision vs. intact. And then there are some policy type threads on there about abortion, or legalization of pot, or welfare reform.
It is an excellent place to vent and occasionally you can bring up a substantial topic and expect it to be actually discussed (very occasionally!). But because BBC is anonymous, posters will essentially say what they wouldn't say to someone in real life because they can hide behind the veil of a screen name. I often feel bullied when I'm there (even though I try really hard not to take things personally), yet I keep going back! I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, I just like expressing my opinion.
Brian still finds it amusing that I get into very deep and convoluted political discussions about taxes and foreign policy on a parenting website. Surely there's a political one dedicated for this purpose? :)
But I found around the time of the 2008 Presidential election that I was feeling an immense amount of anger and passion and was just all over fired up. I wanted to scream from the rooftops. Brian told me he couldn't wait for the election to be over so "I can have my wife back" :) I was pregnant with Nathan, hormonal, and upset with our political direction.
So I somehow stumbled onto a Political Debate board on BBC and as an extension the Debate Team board. Usually I don't care what people on these boards say, especially on the PD board because it isn't usually personal or questioning ones choices (unless it means identifying with a particular ideology). But the DT is a place where people go to debate parenting choices, and all other things. The most common threads are about formula vs. breast feeding, stay-at-home-moms vs. work-outside-of-home-moms, circumcision vs. intact. And then there are some policy type threads on there about abortion, or legalization of pot, or welfare reform.
It is an excellent place to vent and occasionally you can bring up a substantial topic and expect it to be actually discussed (very occasionally!). But because BBC is anonymous, posters will essentially say what they wouldn't say to someone in real life because they can hide behind the veil of a screen name. I often feel bullied when I'm there (even though I try really hard not to take things personally), yet I keep going back! I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, I just like expressing my opinion.
Brian still finds it amusing that I get into very deep and convoluted political discussions about taxes and foreign policy on a parenting website. Surely there's a political one dedicated for this purpose? :)
Race
It's a heavy topic. No one likes to talk about it, but everyone seems to have a hand in it. I spend a lot of time on Babycenter, and race threads emerge all the time. It usually ends up calling white people "supremacists", or try to make European-heritaged Americans feel bad about being white, or to knock the founding fathers because they governed in a time when slavery was legal.
I'll be the first to admit that racism still exists and is alive and well. But there are all types of racism. Racism is the belief that your race is superior to another. Therefore, it is not always the majority group that displays racism. It is possible for any race to be racist against another. But there are those that hold the opinion that there can never be racism against white people because white people, as a condition of their whiteness alone, have never been persecuted.
But Brian spent some time in Jamaica. He told me about the racism he experienced first hand being in the vast minority. Kingston, Jamaica is not known for its safety. He told me about the names he was called, and the extortion he was subjected to.
My beef is not with the acknowledgment of racism. It's there. In Massachusetts I'm lucky to see little of it, but it still exists. What I can't understand is what we are supposed to do about it. We are told over and over and over again that we need to STRIVE for equality. Great! Excellent! But then I'm told by some (at least on the message boards) that we will never ever attain equality. That its impossible.
So is there never a time when we can hope to actually attain something relatively close to equality? Seems like your damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I'll be the first to admit that racism still exists and is alive and well. But there are all types of racism. Racism is the belief that your race is superior to another. Therefore, it is not always the majority group that displays racism. It is possible for any race to be racist against another. But there are those that hold the opinion that there can never be racism against white people because white people, as a condition of their whiteness alone, have never been persecuted.
But Brian spent some time in Jamaica. He told me about the racism he experienced first hand being in the vast minority. Kingston, Jamaica is not known for its safety. He told me about the names he was called, and the extortion he was subjected to.
My beef is not with the acknowledgment of racism. It's there. In Massachusetts I'm lucky to see little of it, but it still exists. What I can't understand is what we are supposed to do about it. We are told over and over and over again that we need to STRIVE for equality. Great! Excellent! But then I'm told by some (at least on the message boards) that we will never ever attain equality. That its impossible.
So is there never a time when we can hope to actually attain something relatively close to equality? Seems like your damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Autobiographies = Arrogant?
I had this thought today when I read in a book that one of the engineers working on the Titanic expedition has an autobiography. So it got me thinking...
I understand biographies. I'm interested in reading one on Judy Garland and one on Teddy Roosevelt in the relatively near future. Biographies are generally researched and written by an objective third party, by someone who may be a fan, or may be a family member, but isn't the person themselves. That makes sense to me, particularly if the person being written about has done something worthwhile in their lives, or has some sort of fascinating experience.
But I'm curious about autobiographies. When one looks at one's life, what type of personality does it take to say "heck, I should write an autobiography! I'm the coolest, people want to know about me!" Doesn't it take a certain amount of arrogance to believe that your life is worthy of a full autobiography?
This always has irked me. Barack Obama has 2 memoirs...for 47 years of his life...just sayin...
I understand biographies. I'm interested in reading one on Judy Garland and one on Teddy Roosevelt in the relatively near future. Biographies are generally researched and written by an objective third party, by someone who may be a fan, or may be a family member, but isn't the person themselves. That makes sense to me, particularly if the person being written about has done something worthwhile in their lives, or has some sort of fascinating experience.
But I'm curious about autobiographies. When one looks at one's life, what type of personality does it take to say "heck, I should write an autobiography! I'm the coolest, people want to know about me!" Doesn't it take a certain amount of arrogance to believe that your life is worthy of a full autobiography?
This always has irked me. Barack Obama has 2 memoirs...for 47 years of his life...just sayin...
Titanic
I think it is safe to say that Titanic is the most famous ship of all time. You could pretty much ask anyone in Western civilizations what "Titanic" is and they will at least be able to tell you 1) huge ship, biggest of its time, thought to be unsinkable 2) hit iceberg on maiden voyage, and 3) sunk, more than, the large majority of passengers and crew froze to death
And those are just the basics. Anyone who's paid the slightest attention at all to Titanic would know the stories of the order of "women and children first", the band that played until the end, the ignored ice warnings, the cowardly escape of J. Bruce Ismay, too few lifeboats launching with two few passengers, the massive stern rising out of the water until it cracked and split the ship in two, and finally sunk at 2:20am on April 15, 1912.
I consider myself a Titanic enthusiast. I have been fascinated by Titanic since I was a little kid. I remember reading about Titanic and seeing pictures in books at the reading tables at Hanover Middle School library, and just being in total awe. The movie, which came out in 1997 when I was 14 years old, only solidified my fascination.
But James Cameron got some things quite wrong and it is hard to shake that when you've seen the movie so many times. He added some things for dramatic effect, and then new information has been discovered which basically debunks his entire view of the sinking.
Dramatic effect:
a) there is only one small anecdote that Ismay knew anything about the ice warnings. There is NO evidence that he told captain Smith to speed up to get to NY faster
b) there is no evidence to say that Titanic was travelling at its top speed through the ice field when it hit the berg.
c) Murdoch was Titanic's first officer. In the movie, he shoots himself in the head after shooting a passenger trying to get onto a lifeboat. While there is one or two anecdotes about an officer committing suicide, there isn't evidence it was Murdoch.
These are just a few of the things I could come up with off the top of my head. New information which was discovered in 2005 has really changed the perspective of the sinking. Both American and British authorities decided that Titanic sank intact. There was insufficient evidence to suggest she had broken on the surface. Then when Titanic was found for the first time in 1985, it was in two very separate pieces, suggesting that it broke up on the surface. So we come to the theory that Titanic's stern was 50-60 degrees off the waterline before she broke mid-ship and sank.
But the new information doesn't support that theory. New information has discovered that Titanic was actually a very weak ship. She was so large (give it to the men in business to try to outdo eachother for the biggest phallic symbol of the time!), that engineers didn't actually know how she would respond to the ocean. They noticed when they had launched Olympic, Titanic's older sister, that the hull was "panting", which it shouldn't do. So they added extra steel to Titanic. But they kept the same expansion joints that were existent in Olympic, a technology that was never very good to begin with.
The new theory considers the fact that Titanic had a fatal flaw in her expansion joints. There was no way she could've sustained the kind of tension present had the ship been 50-60 degrees when cracking. It could've been as low as 11 degrees and her steel would've cracked at the expansion joints. Therefore, the take away is:
1,504 people didn't die just because Titanic hit an iceberg and sunk. 1,504 people died because Titanic hit an iceberg, and had a weak hull, thereby causing it to crack, fill with water, and sink MUCH faster than it should've. If Titanic hadn't cracked in the middle, it is reasonable to think she would've stayed afloat until Carpathia reached her.
So what does this mean? Who really cares? On a personal level, the deaths of the people on Titanic would've been much more horrific than originally thought. There were accounts that the passengers seemed unconcerned with the danger of the sinking. The slow and low rise of the stern would've pushed the obviousness of her imminent sinking much closer to when she actually went down. Therefore, there was little to no warning. People didn't have enough time to "save themselves". They assume that had there been more time of "panic" that people would've rigged together rafts and floats from things like the deck chairs to keep them partially out of the water and give them a chance. It makes the sinking of Titanic much more sad.
Another sad fact that I recently learned. After collecting the survivors and clearing the boats (all accounted for), Carpathia set the collapsible lifeboats adrift. A time later, another ship picked up the collapsible boat and it had three bodies in it. This suggests that there were survivors that were never picked up, yet who found the boat, got in with hopes of rescue, and later died of exposure and starvation.
Titanic will be gone soon. She's rusting and eroding heavily by the day. I think we will continue to discover new things about her for some time. We've been looking at her on the ocean floor now for 25 years...and the fascination has never waned. I hope it continues...
And those are just the basics. Anyone who's paid the slightest attention at all to Titanic would know the stories of the order of "women and children first", the band that played until the end, the ignored ice warnings, the cowardly escape of J. Bruce Ismay, too few lifeboats launching with two few passengers, the massive stern rising out of the water until it cracked and split the ship in two, and finally sunk at 2:20am on April 15, 1912.
I consider myself a Titanic enthusiast. I have been fascinated by Titanic since I was a little kid. I remember reading about Titanic and seeing pictures in books at the reading tables at Hanover Middle School library, and just being in total awe. The movie, which came out in 1997 when I was 14 years old, only solidified my fascination.
But James Cameron got some things quite wrong and it is hard to shake that when you've seen the movie so many times. He added some things for dramatic effect, and then new information has been discovered which basically debunks his entire view of the sinking.
Dramatic effect:
a) there is only one small anecdote that Ismay knew anything about the ice warnings. There is NO evidence that he told captain Smith to speed up to get to NY faster
b) there is no evidence to say that Titanic was travelling at its top speed through the ice field when it hit the berg.
c) Murdoch was Titanic's first officer. In the movie, he shoots himself in the head after shooting a passenger trying to get onto a lifeboat. While there is one or two anecdotes about an officer committing suicide, there isn't evidence it was Murdoch.
These are just a few of the things I could come up with off the top of my head. New information which was discovered in 2005 has really changed the perspective of the sinking. Both American and British authorities decided that Titanic sank intact. There was insufficient evidence to suggest she had broken on the surface. Then when Titanic was found for the first time in 1985, it was in two very separate pieces, suggesting that it broke up on the surface. So we come to the theory that Titanic's stern was 50-60 degrees off the waterline before she broke mid-ship and sank.
But the new information doesn't support that theory. New information has discovered that Titanic was actually a very weak ship. She was so large (give it to the men in business to try to outdo eachother for the biggest phallic symbol of the time!), that engineers didn't actually know how she would respond to the ocean. They noticed when they had launched Olympic, Titanic's older sister, that the hull was "panting", which it shouldn't do. So they added extra steel to Titanic. But they kept the same expansion joints that were existent in Olympic, a technology that was never very good to begin with.
The new theory considers the fact that Titanic had a fatal flaw in her expansion joints. There was no way she could've sustained the kind of tension present had the ship been 50-60 degrees when cracking. It could've been as low as 11 degrees and her steel would've cracked at the expansion joints. Therefore, the take away is:
1,504 people didn't die just because Titanic hit an iceberg and sunk. 1,504 people died because Titanic hit an iceberg, and had a weak hull, thereby causing it to crack, fill with water, and sink MUCH faster than it should've. If Titanic hadn't cracked in the middle, it is reasonable to think she would've stayed afloat until Carpathia reached her.
So what does this mean? Who really cares? On a personal level, the deaths of the people on Titanic would've been much more horrific than originally thought. There were accounts that the passengers seemed unconcerned with the danger of the sinking. The slow and low rise of the stern would've pushed the obviousness of her imminent sinking much closer to when she actually went down. Therefore, there was little to no warning. People didn't have enough time to "save themselves". They assume that had there been more time of "panic" that people would've rigged together rafts and floats from things like the deck chairs to keep them partially out of the water and give them a chance. It makes the sinking of Titanic much more sad.
Another sad fact that I recently learned. After collecting the survivors and clearing the boats (all accounted for), Carpathia set the collapsible lifeboats adrift. A time later, another ship picked up the collapsible boat and it had three bodies in it. This suggests that there were survivors that were never picked up, yet who found the boat, got in with hopes of rescue, and later died of exposure and starvation.
Titanic will be gone soon. She's rusting and eroding heavily by the day. I think we will continue to discover new things about her for some time. We've been looking at her on the ocean floor now for 25 years...and the fascination has never waned. I hope it continues...
To Start
I've been telling myself to start a blog for a long time now. It seems like the "cool thing to do", but I can understand why. As humans we have a lot to say, and we want to believe that someone out there actually wants to hear it :) Blogging is like having a therapist who just listens and doesn't talk back. Best of both worlds?
I have a lot to say. I have a ton of information and ideas floating in my head, swirling around daily, sometimes making it difficult to sleep! I also, as it so happens, have a terrible memory. I will think I know about something but then when I try to regurgitate the details (sometimes of ideas I created!), I find myself unable.
So I titled this blog "Pensieve" because I am going to treat it like Dumbledore's Pensieve. This is what he has to say about it:
"I use the Pensieve. One simply siphons the excess thoughts from one's mind, pours them into the basin, and examines them at one's leisure."
-Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire
I have a lot to say. I have a ton of information and ideas floating in my head, swirling around daily, sometimes making it difficult to sleep! I also, as it so happens, have a terrible memory. I will think I know about something but then when I try to regurgitate the details (sometimes of ideas I created!), I find myself unable.
So I titled this blog "Pensieve" because I am going to treat it like Dumbledore's Pensieve. This is what he has to say about it:
"I use the Pensieve. One simply siphons the excess thoughts from one's mind, pours them into the basin, and examines them at one's leisure."
-Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)