Sometimes when people have been lied to too many times, they crave complete and total honesty. Because to them (me) it becomes apparent that anything less gives false hope, and false sense of security. Complete honesty is better because you know the truth and then your mind can wrap it's brain around the truth and deal with things in a straightforward fashion based on that, which seems like it would also eliminate the drama because you cut to the chase, the heart of the matter, get right at it, right? I WISH! But, sadly, no, and I'll tell you why.
What is drama in the sense that we use it today? Posing, over-reacting, acting: creating Shakespearean masterpiece theater out of a greasy bucket of KFC. Why infuse drama? Specifically to NOT deal with life's harsh realities. Drama creates an issue thats more interesting, exciting, non-true than what it actually is, thereby avoiding the issue entirely. The issue remains unsolved and you expended a lot of energy on nonsense. It is stupid and pointless but so many people thrive on it, while professing they don't.
The problem comes back to perspective. Giving creedence to the adage that "it's all about perspective.". What one person perceives as straightforward, and genuine, possibly even thoughtful. Another can perceive as rude, mean, and thoughtless. That's perspective. I was talking to a friend of mine, who, you know, is fat. Were good friends. We speak openly and honesty about everything. She tells me about an out of the blue phone call from old boyfriend. He said he just called to give her closure because his therapist reccommended that he would not be able to move forward without dealing with his guilt. Okay, sounds honorable enough, he really was an ass to her, so okay...I'm listening and respecting all of it, until I hear her start to say that he said she was "the best ever, and it just really messed him up." Huh? I looked at her and thought to myself, honesty was working....she knows that's bullshit, right? She doesn't want to let him get away with that, does she? So, in my clouded judgement I clarify, because it almost seemed like she was buying it:
"Wait. You told him you knew he was full of shit, right? I mean what's the point of therapy if he thinks the solution is to lie his way out it?". Oops, she bought his load of shit: "What is he lying about!? The sex was FANTASTIC!" Hmmmm. Okay. Now, I am not oversimplifying, but their relationship was NOT very sexual. They got along great and talked a lot, but they only had sex twice and the second (and last) time she told him she didn't want to "do" certain things that he did. Then he suddenly was MIA. Ding! Ding! Ding! The clear reason why he jumped ship like a cowardice was because the carrot she was dangling WASN'T the payoff he'd been seeking. I call him a cowardice because he went into
it with my friend knowing what she was wanting and professing the same, then offering no explanation when he just vanished...after that "magical" second night of sex so wonderful his fantasies were shot down. If were going to accept being lied to...shouldn't it at least make sense?
I get it, women want to think that they are the only ones who can do or will be able to do it for this guy physically. In that moment pre during and post coital, theres a euphoria that makes us feel fantastic...assuming we could "O" that is. That's why we all love sex, well, the majority of us do anyway. But, we all come away, if we need to examine it more in depth at least where we realize he can do that to himself, right? That we actually are the preferred receptacle for their seman (encased in latex as it may be), but that other than be a great combination of attractive attributes, whatever they may be, guys can and will generally find someone to do what we won't. And that they put up with whatever non-attractive attributes we all also possess only when we both 1) have nice attributes that outweigh the bad, and 2) allow them to do freaky shit. If you don't have both, your guy might hang around, but he's still wanting an outlet for the freaky shit. If you have both, he'll probably think your golden, at least for awhile...LOL!
So, I digress...with this conversation with my friend, I assumed that the above stated REALITY is known by all of us who've reached a certain age, which I have reached and therefore assumed that she had reached that awareness before me. Well, she hadn't, or at least she chose not to accept it, and chooses to continue thinking that her larger than life attitude, and appeal was THE BOMB in bed, even if she didn't want to entertain his freaky side. He cut his losses, he wasn't that invested in her when the iron curtain came crashing down, and had told her it was not that big of a deal....because, well, he avoided drama on that one. Then he proceeded to avoid her like the plague. It seems so clear....yet she wants to think that he "left" because the sex was so intense that it threw him for a loop. Uh. He's a man. Intense sex...that's a hoop he'd jump through and then turn around and keep jump through as long as the intensity is there. Who gives up great sex voluntarily? How great is the sex when the creativity takes a dive before it even gets underway?
This is my point. Some of us WANT to lie to ourselves. We just do. We view ourselves in a certain way, we stack our personality blocks as we see fit, and in a way that seems sturdy and aesthetically pleasing so that we can function. But if someone blows to hard and knocks a block down, we think it's all going to come tumbling down. Blocks=self perception=self esteem. So we say, it wasn't the way my blocks were stacked...the wind was just stronger than normal. The way I stacked my blocks was fine, you know maybe there was a tornado down south and it created this weird sort of pressure system that dissipated over the ocean except for one extra powerful gust, that effected no one else, just me....so bizarre, right!?"
Being honest with yourself doesn't mean always readjusting your blocks into a different design, your blocks could be fine...maybe you just need some mortar (standing up for yourself and your values) to strengthen your design. Or maybe you should chip some mortar away to get rid of air pockets that are creating a weak spot in your design, and see that it's maybe not the right design for you (sticking to your guns when it's not really that important, just to
be obstinate and refuse to admit a flaw). Not embracing reality and not being willing to take a step back and look at your self causes drama. Because you're not trying to find the truth, you're just putting your name behind something you haven't taken the time to examine, because you're too afraid that there will be flaws found. Maybe it's not all the other persons fault. It almost never is. It could be no ones fault just a misunderstanding of how things fit. Or it could be that his dumb ass doesn't want the design you have. Why is that so bad? Why do we feel so bad if people don't want us, accept us, or agree with us? Just because we were open to all of that for them? Why do we have to rationalize and make excuses for such a simple, matter of fact reality. You might be beautiful in every aspect of the definition of the word, but
still, that doesn't you'll be everyone's cup of tea. And you wouldn't want to. We all know several guys that we would PREFER didn't want us (unfortunately those are usually the ones that want us the most..LOL, but that's a different topic entirely).
I'm taking about more than just romance. Opinions, thoughts, feelings, style, WHATEVER! Being honest with what is your perception and what is the other persons can allow you tom see the real truth, and accept it for what it is. We all wish truth came in a prettier package, but it often is truly ugly. We've all seen someone ugly tryin' to be pretty...and we know "that ain't pretty." That's drama. Whether what you think you said was rude or not, if the other person interpreted it that way, there will be drama. Were you being rude? If the answer is genuinely no. Then you're good...you can do nothing and deal with dramatic fallout, or you can acknowledge that there was malice behind it, and simply apologize for being rude. Or you can honestly say, "I was trying to be honest, I didn't mean it the way you took it. I'm sorry your feelings were hurt." You can be honest and sensetive/acknowledging without taking it back! If it's truly how you feel you shouldn't take it back allows the other person to validate what may very well be a skewed thought process (i.e., my friend, him letting her believe that the sex was so amazing, when the reality is that it wasn't going the direction he wanted....so she walks around thinking that she's such the bomb that it's become her curse? RIDICULOUS!). It's not up to you to get them to change it, but you can deal with less drama in your life by being honest with them, they can choose how/if they deal with it.
I will continue to advocate for a drama free existence. But in reality, that will never happen. I'll do my part to curb the amount I'll deal with at least. Because I don't want to lie to myself and live in an unrealistic fantasy. I am what I am, and I will never acheive more if all I do is make excuses that won't allow me to evolve as a person. I would much rather have someone tell me. You know what, you're not what I am craving. You're too fat, your stretch marks, your whatever is just not something I can deal with. As rude as that may seem. What's the alternative, that I think I'm okay in his eyes and have him holding back vomit? God, I cannot imagine a worse way to live life than to be with someone who's settling for me. I have tried settling for someone and it's miserable, and unfair, we all deserve to be loved and respected for who
we are, without that, loneliness is only as lonely as you make it.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Friday, May 6, 2011
Ignorance
I feel pretty stupid even doing this blog because I'm using it as an outlet to say everything I feel I can't say otherwise. But last night was a case in point, what do you do with feelings and opinions that you have no outlet for?
I'm trying hard to engage as minimally as possible in things (people) that frustrate me, but because of my circumstance I'm forced to listen to Bill O'Reilly as I get ready for bed. The name of his show is the "the no spin zone". Yet, the whole show is nothing but his spin on stuff. So, because my little girl started waking up when I came in to change and I started to snuggle her, I asked her father to please turn it off so she didn't wake up and stay awake. He wouldn't. His contention holds some water. He was watching it and she didn't start to wake up until I came in and started to change. But in my glorious irrationality, I'll go ahead and blame Bill for waking her up! LOL
I couldn't help myself though, I broke my rule and I Engaged.
"Why on earth do you watch this moron, again?" I say while simultaneousy putting a hand over my daughters ears and patting her back to get her back to sleep, deciding to engage beyond what's immediately relevant.
Here we go. He proceeds to goon and on about how he agrees with his side more than Democrats. He's sick of working and paying taxes for all of his money to go to the poor people of Bridgeport that elected governor Malloy, and now money gets taken out of his check and goes to them, because that's how Malloy will thank them.
What?! He's a smart man. Partly because it reminds me of our incredibly dysfunctional relationship, that he neither knows me at all nor listens to anything that I say, partly because he's the father of two of my children and I don't want them hearing this nonsense, but mostly because he's perpetuating the biggest problem in our country. Ignorance.
Making blanket statements about a whole socio-economic class and what they value IS ignorant. Of course he got hung up on that word and refused to hear anything else I said. But, that's normal. He says, "you know what I meant". No, I don't. How could I? Have I ever seen him around "poor people"? No, I haven't. Welfare is not the problem. Are there people to try to milk the system. Of course. Many could draw straws about who doesn't. How many people "overestimate" their charitable contribution on their taxes? Many who share his opinions decide that last years taxes should count toward that.
I don't mean to oversimplify. I truly am an Independent, neither republican or democrat. I feel that they're equally on opposite sides of the spectrum, and then too often equally neutral on the issues that need to be addressed...a person who is milking the system is in the wrong. But there are not so many of them that they are what's raising taxes. Connecticut is the "tax you to death" state...all residents would agree. But, just as I said in my last post these extreme journalists perpetuate this ignorance. I have a better knowledge of government programs than the average person for sure, as I worked in that industry. However, you don't need any specialized training to educate yourself or at least be aware that if you have not been there..if you have not been raised on welfare, or been a recipient that you have no right to generalize or speculate about how those people think, feel, or view their circumstances...which are as varied as you and your neighbors.
These programs...not just welfare, but other programs that are designed to educate, and improve the ability of those in dire circumstances to rise above and both create and want more for themselves....are not perfect but at the core are designed to be temporary. There are many, who like yours truly have used them in just that way. When I was very young my Dad fell off the roof at his job and was in a wheelchair. Thanks to government programs, he was able to go back to school and gain some education that allowed him to improve his work situation. He did this in order to qualify for the help that he needed in order to make ends meet for his young family. He went back to work before he was healed since he was going to school and was able to see a desk in his work situation. Should my Mom have had to go back to work and leave my wheelchair bound father to care for an infant and a two year old? Today that's what would have been required, but back then it was allowed and accepted for a parent to be at home with the kids....the system has changed since then. The other time in my life that I was on assistance that I can remember was when I was working on my degree, had four kids, AND decided to get a divorce. Yes, all of it was my fault. I am not blaming my situation on anyone other than my own messed up mentality, and my ex-husband. Oh, she was on welfare!? No, I wasn't. Because I was able to get child support garnished from my deadhead ex. If you can get child support, you don't qualify for assistance. And you have to give them info, they'll get it for you. If you can't get it (for whatever reason, the state will do everything they can to try to find him) you are only able to qualify for 36 months of assistance lifetime max...that applies for both you and your kids. If you received welfare from ages 3-6, and you need it when you're older, you cant get it. The idea behind this Clinton passed guideline is that it's temporary. You can't live off of assistance. It's not enough. My child support for four kids was $656. My qualifiable assistance amount? $639. Most people get more than that for less kids with child support and can't make it. Because I had already gotten two years of school done I was able to qualify for a program to help me get my bachelors (normally this would be for an associates...hardly enough education to do much with, but the point is to get a skill to better your situation. Did I get paid to go to school? No. Did I get my tuition paid for? No. I did get $2500 from a Pell Grant that helped with my tuition. But I have student loans for the rest. The program paid for my daycare costs while I went to work and school, I had to continue full time at school to qualify, and had to work at least 20 hours a week. Ironically, and most people are smarter than me and have less kids (though some have more...just had to out that out there...lol). My daycare costs were more than my income and child support combined. And that's with only after school care for two of them.
My point is that these programs don't make anybody rich. They are designed to be temporary, and they have all kinds of rules, regulations, and documentation requirements, and full disclosure to qualify for. Do some people find ways around these and cheat the system. Of course. But some people rob banks too. To say that these few who work that hard to be lazy and get not enough money to live on are the entire problem is like saying you have to pay interest at your bank just to cover these robberies. Let's educate ourselves. I am a contributing member of society. I am self sufficient, and debt free (except my mortgage and my student loans...of course). These programs need to be monitored and try to catch those people who are cheating, and they are. This is tax money too.
While I am grateful that the under a year assistance that my father received when I was a baby helped him to move my family from working class to middle class. And I am grateful forth daycare assistance I received for 16 months so I could get my degree to better allow me to support my family. I was forced to live on a very tight budget, which taught me to be responsible with my money. I refuse to pay interest on silly things like credit card debt. I live within my means, and that, in this day and age is an education that many who never were on assistance still haven't learned...and that is truly the biggest financial crisis in our country today. Perspective is key and before you try to make a point by making ignorant statements like "inner-city poor people just get all the money and don't care that we break our backs and get nothing in return for them to get a hand out". Do yourself, and the future generation you're raising that is hearing you spout off, a favor and take a drive through the inner-city and find out about those programs and their requirements for qualification. Educate yourself! Don't just be dismissive of an entire group of people, first understand that you likely have no real life understanding of their circumstances. And you have no understanding at all of the programs that exist.
I'm trying hard to engage as minimally as possible in things (people) that frustrate me, but because of my circumstance I'm forced to listen to Bill O'Reilly as I get ready for bed. The name of his show is the "the no spin zone". Yet, the whole show is nothing but his spin on stuff. So, because my little girl started waking up when I came in to change and I started to snuggle her, I asked her father to please turn it off so she didn't wake up and stay awake. He wouldn't. His contention holds some water. He was watching it and she didn't start to wake up until I came in and started to change. But in my glorious irrationality, I'll go ahead and blame Bill for waking her up! LOL
I couldn't help myself though, I broke my rule and I Engaged.
"Why on earth do you watch this moron, again?" I say while simultaneousy putting a hand over my daughters ears and patting her back to get her back to sleep, deciding to engage beyond what's immediately relevant.
Here we go. He proceeds to goon and on about how he agrees with his side more than Democrats. He's sick of working and paying taxes for all of his money to go to the poor people of Bridgeport that elected governor Malloy, and now money gets taken out of his check and goes to them, because that's how Malloy will thank them.
What?! He's a smart man. Partly because it reminds me of our incredibly dysfunctional relationship, that he neither knows me at all nor listens to anything that I say, partly because he's the father of two of my children and I don't want them hearing this nonsense, but mostly because he's perpetuating the biggest problem in our country. Ignorance.
Making blanket statements about a whole socio-economic class and what they value IS ignorant. Of course he got hung up on that word and refused to hear anything else I said. But, that's normal. He says, "you know what I meant". No, I don't. How could I? Have I ever seen him around "poor people"? No, I haven't. Welfare is not the problem. Are there people to try to milk the system. Of course. Many could draw straws about who doesn't. How many people "overestimate" their charitable contribution on their taxes? Many who share his opinions decide that last years taxes should count toward that.
I don't mean to oversimplify. I truly am an Independent, neither republican or democrat. I feel that they're equally on opposite sides of the spectrum, and then too often equally neutral on the issues that need to be addressed...a person who is milking the system is in the wrong. But there are not so many of them that they are what's raising taxes. Connecticut is the "tax you to death" state...all residents would agree. But, just as I said in my last post these extreme journalists perpetuate this ignorance. I have a better knowledge of government programs than the average person for sure, as I worked in that industry. However, you don't need any specialized training to educate yourself or at least be aware that if you have not been there..if you have not been raised on welfare, or been a recipient that you have no right to generalize or speculate about how those people think, feel, or view their circumstances...which are as varied as you and your neighbors.
These programs...not just welfare, but other programs that are designed to educate, and improve the ability of those in dire circumstances to rise above and both create and want more for themselves....are not perfect but at the core are designed to be temporary. There are many, who like yours truly have used them in just that way. When I was very young my Dad fell off the roof at his job and was in a wheelchair. Thanks to government programs, he was able to go back to school and gain some education that allowed him to improve his work situation. He did this in order to qualify for the help that he needed in order to make ends meet for his young family. He went back to work before he was healed since he was going to school and was able to see a desk in his work situation. Should my Mom have had to go back to work and leave my wheelchair bound father to care for an infant and a two year old? Today that's what would have been required, but back then it was allowed and accepted for a parent to be at home with the kids....the system has changed since then. The other time in my life that I was on assistance that I can remember was when I was working on my degree, had four kids, AND decided to get a divorce. Yes, all of it was my fault. I am not blaming my situation on anyone other than my own messed up mentality, and my ex-husband. Oh, she was on welfare!? No, I wasn't. Because I was able to get child support garnished from my deadhead ex. If you can get child support, you don't qualify for assistance. And you have to give them info, they'll get it for you. If you can't get it (for whatever reason, the state will do everything they can to try to find him) you are only able to qualify for 36 months of assistance lifetime max...that applies for both you and your kids. If you received welfare from ages 3-6, and you need it when you're older, you cant get it. The idea behind this Clinton passed guideline is that it's temporary. You can't live off of assistance. It's not enough. My child support for four kids was $656. My qualifiable assistance amount? $639. Most people get more than that for less kids with child support and can't make it. Because I had already gotten two years of school done I was able to qualify for a program to help me get my bachelors (normally this would be for an associates...hardly enough education to do much with, but the point is to get a skill to better your situation. Did I get paid to go to school? No. Did I get my tuition paid for? No. I did get $2500 from a Pell Grant that helped with my tuition. But I have student loans for the rest. The program paid for my daycare costs while I went to work and school, I had to continue full time at school to qualify, and had to work at least 20 hours a week. Ironically, and most people are smarter than me and have less kids (though some have more...just had to out that out there...lol). My daycare costs were more than my income and child support combined. And that's with only after school care for two of them.
My point is that these programs don't make anybody rich. They are designed to be temporary, and they have all kinds of rules, regulations, and documentation requirements, and full disclosure to qualify for. Do some people find ways around these and cheat the system. Of course. But some people rob banks too. To say that these few who work that hard to be lazy and get not enough money to live on are the entire problem is like saying you have to pay interest at your bank just to cover these robberies. Let's educate ourselves. I am a contributing member of society. I am self sufficient, and debt free (except my mortgage and my student loans...of course). These programs need to be monitored and try to catch those people who are cheating, and they are. This is tax money too.
While I am grateful that the under a year assistance that my father received when I was a baby helped him to move my family from working class to middle class. And I am grateful forth daycare assistance I received for 16 months so I could get my degree to better allow me to support my family. I was forced to live on a very tight budget, which taught me to be responsible with my money. I refuse to pay interest on silly things like credit card debt. I live within my means, and that, in this day and age is an education that many who never were on assistance still haven't learned...and that is truly the biggest financial crisis in our country today. Perspective is key and before you try to make a point by making ignorant statements like "inner-city poor people just get all the money and don't care that we break our backs and get nothing in return for them to get a hand out". Do yourself, and the future generation you're raising that is hearing you spout off, a favor and take a drive through the inner-city and find out about those programs and their requirements for qualification. Educate yourself! Don't just be dismissive of an entire group of people, first understand that you likely have no real life understanding of their circumstances. And you have no understanding at all of the programs that exist.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Bin Laden Media Hype
So my friend calls and tells me that there's an 11:00pm President speech. Okay. So? SO! What on earth does this mean? Are we going to war again? It's 11:00pm! Oh. Is that abnormal? I guess, but that's the time the news comes on anyway. What do I know? My normal day ends at 1am and begins at 6am? If Pres. Obama was trying to usurp media speculation, why on earth did he take almost an hour to come on and make us listen to all kinds of media speculation in the interim? Journalists are suppose to be concerned about credibility. They tell us that he's going to announce that Bin Laden was captured, then dead? How? They don't know. Then they have these other journalists speculating on what this means for Terrorism. Uh? What? How about nothing? It took us 10 years to find him, do they think he hasn't had Al Quaida cronies running everything while he's been hiding in caves anyway? The dude is OLD! They're the ones who report to us that other terrorists have been running his show for quite some time, AND...is Al Quaida the only terrorist organization? Hell NO! One dumb ass journalist said that this will mean a complete revision of Afganistan's foreign policy now. WTF? American's aren't ignorant enough? This means nothing to Afganistan, they've got terrorists running amok over there. Taliban anyone?! Bin Laden is some hysterical nostalgic capture/kill for American's only, and well, it's significant only because of what he did to us. BUT, it doesn't change ANYTHING! If anything, we have to look out for revenge type missions now.
What I hate is media hype, speculation, and spin. I hate Fox News because it distorts crap and glorifies ignorant religious-based superiority and closemindedness. I hate the three major networks because they speculate and try to spin things to the other extreme. All of it's nonsense. It is what it is. America sought it's vendetta, and after ten years, a lot more lives have been lost, and one leader is dead, who "master minded" a horrific attack on the U.S. Okay. The cronies who carried it out died along with their victims. Chalk it up as a "V" for the U.S. then. But, no one really wins, terrorism is still running rampant. It doesn't change anything. Perspective, people, perspective.
No more hype, I can't stand it....wish their was a non-bias news source who didn't over dramatize and magnify things to hysterical levels of hype based on circumstancial opinions of people who got their degree in journalism, not foreign affairs. When that was exhausted (before President Obama had still come on) they turned their focus to speculation about how the world would react. Nothing more credibly solid than speculation about speculating...on a global level. Enough already.
What I hate is media hype, speculation, and spin. I hate Fox News because it distorts crap and glorifies ignorant religious-based superiority and closemindedness. I hate the three major networks because they speculate and try to spin things to the other extreme. All of it's nonsense. It is what it is. America sought it's vendetta, and after ten years, a lot more lives have been lost, and one leader is dead, who "master minded" a horrific attack on the U.S. Okay. The cronies who carried it out died along with their victims. Chalk it up as a "V" for the U.S. then. But, no one really wins, terrorism is still running rampant. It doesn't change anything. Perspective, people, perspective.
No more hype, I can't stand it....wish their was a non-bias news source who didn't over dramatize and magnify things to hysterical levels of hype based on circumstancial opinions of people who got their degree in journalism, not foreign affairs. When that was exhausted (before President Obama had still come on) they turned their focus to speculation about how the world would react. Nothing more credibly solid than speculation about speculating...on a global level. Enough already.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)