This Post Won't Matter in Five Months

Actually, this won't matter in five minutes.  But I'm gonna write about it anyway!  ;o)

Reactions to other people's reactions to "The News":

"Americans are so dumb!  NEWSFLASH: You're not going to die of Ebola! Stop panicking!!"
We know that.  Being interested in developments in the Ebola story is not the same as panicking.  It's only reasonable that people want to know what's happening-- including our country's plan for dealing with it.  Also, the cute comparisons of Ebola and the flu are everywhere.  We've seen them all, now.  You're not impressing anyone, so you can stop. 


"How come people only care about Ebola now that it's in the U.S.?  (Racists...)"
Of course people will pay more attention to a very deadly disease when it is in their own country than when it's contained to an entirely different continent.  That doesn't mean we don't care about the people in other places who are dealing with it-- but come on.  Are you really this dense-- or are you lying to yourself?


"People need to shut up about Renée Zellwegger's face!  Why can't you let women age in peace?!  This is all YOUR FAULT, Western society!!"
Does it "really matter"?  No.  Is R.Z. free to do whatever she wants to her own face?  Obviously.  But she's a famous actress, and as such, she's opened herself up to comment.  That said, few are saying that she's unattractive, now-- or even that she looks much older. ("Ewww!  She's not in her 20s anymore.  That's so gross!")  People are simply shocked that she doesn't look like herself.  Her face has completely changed-- and like it or not, that's kind of odd.  Especially since in the photos I've seen from just a year or so ago, she still looked very young.  It's just... strange for a woman (in this case, one who was known for a certain very distinctive look) to want to change her facial structure so drastically that she's no longer recognizable.  Maybe she had medical reasons for doing so.  Whatever her reasons, it's her right to make whatever changes she wanted-- but I'm not going to feel guilty for noticing and being confused by the transformation.  (I think it's sad that she no longer looks like herself.  She had an interesting face, and now that's gone.)


"Cis-gender this.  Cis-gender that."
(This one seems to have faded somewhat in the past couple of months.  For good, I hope.)
My only comment at the moment: UGH.  Go away-- and never come back.


"Slut shaming!  Plastic surgery shaming!"
Oh. My. Gosh.  Please!  Can this just stop?
I hadn't heard about "plastic surgery shaming" until today, but "slut shaming" has (sadly) been impossible to avoid for quite some time.

Believe it or not, I don't go around telling people that they should be ashamed of themselves for this, that, or the other.  It's not my place, I'm not that confrontational, and I don't want people telling me about the things I should be ashamed of.  (I am already aware of more than a few of them, thank you very much.)  However, I can't help but think that this "slut shaming" crap is a glaring example of the recent trend of thinking that no-one should be judged/shamed/blamed/held accountable for anything, ever.  (Unless they're accused of racism... or are politically or socially conservative...)  How dare you presume?!  You don't know me!  You don't know my life!

Judge not, lest ye be judged?  Yes, I know.  But I think most of us need to feel at least a little afraid of-- or at least worried about-- being "judged" by our fellow man (or God).  It's that bit of incentivizing kick-in-the-rear that keeps you from sliding into worse trouble.

But no.  You can't have people feeling ashamed of bad behavior.  You might hurt someone's feelings-- and you're no better than anyone else, anyway.  We're all just relatively intelligent animals in clothes, right?  Or-- wait... Maybe we're (mortal) gods, now?  I can't keep up... It gets confusing, sometimes.


...So... Is "slob shaming" a thing, yet?  'Cause that could save me a ton of housework...

Major Pet Peeve: Just Report It!

Dear local weathermen/women, anchors, etc.:

I know you're trying to put a personal touch on things, but please, just report the weather.  Don't feel the need to subjectively judge every weather forecast.

I'm so tired of hearing that, hey, it's great news!  No rain for a week!  And oh boy!  Isn't it wonderful that the rain we were expecting today has shifted toward the west, so we'll only get scattered showers?!  YAY!

Everyone hates rain, right?  So everyone will be happy happy happy that there's no rain!

Um, no.
I wanted that rain.  My plants needed that rain.  I don't particularly care if it's scheduled to fall on a holiday weekend; I wanted my darn rain!!  We've been waiting a long time for it, and I'm tired of watering plants with the garden hose.

*SIGH*
A little thing, I know, but it's grating on my nerves.

Could they just stop assuming that everyone hates the rain as much as they apparently do?

Oh, and when winter's rolling around, y'all can just not even start complaining about the cold weather, okay?  Some of us have been praying for it to finally get back below 80 in the daytime. 

*grumble*

Rant: Government Waste & Personal Responsibility

WKRG did it again!  They tweeted a FB link with the teaser, "Who says there's no such thing as a free lunch?"  The link goes to a story with this headline:  "Free Lunches for Mobile Co. Students".  Ooooh, freeeeeee.  Wow-ee.  There really is such a thing as a free lunch, after all.  Cool, man.

...But then you start to wonder... Well, but who is paying for it?  Are the owners of the Food Factory-- you know, that place where all the food gets cranked out, day after day-- donating all these meals out of the goodness of their hearts?  (Nah, just kidding.  Most of these people never think that far.  They hear "free" and, hey, why question it?  Just stick your hand out and grin.  Well, or you can gripe, instead, if your Free Stuff isn't to your liking.) 

For the relatively few who bother to read the article, this is what they'll see:

MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA -      No need to pack lunch money for students in Mobile County this year. All students will eat lunch for free, and Mobile County is not picking up the tab. The money will come from a federal program with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Mobile County Public School System qualified for the Community Eligibility Provision. This program enables schools with free meals if 75% of students qualify for free or reduced-price lunches.

Parents will not have to fill out any paperwork for the free lunch. More than 59,000 students attend the 89 public schools in the Mobile County school system. According to the school system, they served 7.8 million lunches last year.

Reading the (FB) comments below the story is a (sadly, unsurprising) revelation of the kind of... ignorance?  stupidity? whatever-it-is that has put our country where it is today.

Some people, mysteriously, are not thrilled that their federal tax dollars are going to fund this program (among so many, many others).  (I agree, and I'll get into why, later.)

On the other side of the issue are the respondents (because I can guarantee you that not all of them are "readers", since they couldn't be bothered to read two paragraphs before throwing in their two cents) think it's wonderful news.  Free food!  For the children!  And no-one can complain, because the county isn't "picking up the tab"!

Then you have those who are annoyed with the complainers.  "Didn't y'all even read the story?  Gah!  It's free!"  Or to use one person's exact words: "Did any one read the article?!  Mobile county received a agriculture grant to pay for the free lunches... And what that means is that all mobile county school children will receive free lunch for this year."  Someone else replied, "So glad you pointed this out!!! It's a GRANT not costing the tax payers one dime and it's for one school year!!  These people are killing me."

...~sigh of soul-deep weariness~...

Ladies, where, exactly, do you think this magical "GRANT" money comes from, anyway?  Who, precisely, do you suppose funds grants provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, hmm?  Here's your answer.  Take that first part-- "U.S."-- remove the "dots" (some might call them periods, but in this modern age...)... Now what does that leave you with?  "US".  Yep, us.  We're the ones paying for this.

You're welcome to have your own reaction to this news, but please, for the sake of my sanity, don't persist in this ridiculous notion that the lunches are, ooooh, miraculously FREE, and that the rest of us have no stake in the matter.  We do. 

There's another type of person commenting, too-- those who acknowledge that taxpayers are footing the bill, but think it's great that our tax money is going to this project instead of "War" or "Big Oil", as it surely would, otherwise.  (Yep, those are the three options: War-Making, Big Oil, or Feed the Children.)  Anyone who questions this spending is a bad, selfish, stingy, awful person-- the kind of person who lives to complain about welfare and delights at the thought of snatching food from the mouths of children.  How dare you call yourself a Christian, in fact?!

Well, if we weren't funding grants of this kind-- and others that, I'll admit, are even more infuriating, wasteful, and unnecessary-- we'd be paying less in taxes to begin with.   How about we get to keep more of our own money and spend it as we see fit?  Maybe more people would be able to feed their own kids, then.

Sidetrack:  Seriously, though, how much does it cost to pack a lunch for an elementary-aged kid?  They don't eat that much, at that age.  My parents paid for three kids' lunches-- and breakfasts, suppers, and snacks, too, of course-- all through our childhoods.  I usually brought lunch from home, and I was fine with that.  (Honestly, most of the time, I preferred the contents of my packed lunches to whatever the cafeteria was serving.)  Mom shopped carefully to stay within a budget.  My parents did what had to be done to ensure we were fed.  I'm sure that sometimes that meant they didn't get to do or buy things they'd have enjoyed, but they had a set of priorities.  Why, oh why, can't almost all other people do the same?

If you are truly needy-- elderly, infirm, beset with unpredictable problems, temporarily unable to provide for yourself-- I don't have a problem with our collectively providing you with the necessities.  I do expect that you be truly needy, though-- not wasting money on "wants" and then sticking your hand out when the cost of providing for those "wants" leaves you with too little to pay for "needs".  Also, whenever possible, I expect that you work toward getting off welfare.  It should be a stop-gap measure only. 

I will not be happy to provide for you if you look upon welfare as an entitlement.  I will not give cheerfully if you are careless and have more children than you can support-- often getting pregnant again when you supposedly can't feed the children you already have.  (I will be furious, actually, if you raise your brood of children to believe that this-- living on welfare-- is the way things are supposed to be-- that there's nothing better to strive for-- unless you're lucky enough to win the lottery or make it big in sports/entertainment.)  I will be angry if you're buying expensive luxury items with your welfare card.  (If we can make do with cheaper foods, by golly, you'd better be doing the same.  You make that money stretch or you give it back.) I will be really angry if you're scamming the system-- selling your welfare card to someone for cash, for instance.  That's theft, plain and simple, and I don't take kindly to being robbed.

Because I am unhappy about the current state of our welfare programs, I guess I'm just not Christian enough.  Oh well. ...Also, I guess I missed that Sunday School lesson that teaches you to keep giving and giving, without consideration to how it's being used.  Charity is part of Christianity, it's true, but charity should be tempered with common sense-- and if it's taken from you against your will, it's no longer really charity.  (It's not doing the recipients any long-term favors, either.  Living on welfare for too long makes you complacent-- takes away the will to work for something better.  If you grow up on the system, you may not even realize that there's another, better way to live.)

Lately, I find that charitable impulses wither in my heart.  It's hard to feel charitable when you see the waste-- the sense of entitlement.  It's not easy to feel like giving of your own volition when the government forces you (through taxes) to "donate" so much to causes and people you don't support.  ...I'm sorry, but if that makes me a bad person, I'm getting worse by the year!


P.S.  And to those who so kindly remark that anyone who has a problem with this is the type of person who would actually be happy to see these poor, innocent little angels dropped straight from HEAVEN go hungry, just to spite their irresponsible parents...  Here's the thing:  I don't believe for a minute that most of these parents are incapable of feeding their kids.  If it comes down to it, most can make adjustments-- even a sacrifice or two-- and those kids will be fed.  (Maybe they'll think twice before having another kid, too, if they know the rest of us are done filling in for the deadbeat baby-daddies.)

For the ones who honestly can't provide a lunch, yes, you need to have a safety net in place.  (Very, very few people would be willing to see a child go hungry and not stop to help.)  The key is that it needs to be a sufficient but spartan and temporary safety net-- not a perpetual bouncy-house.  And yes, I know that I am SO MEAN for not wanting to support millions of someone else's kids forever. 

Trying to Stay Away From *IT*, But...

...I couldn't resist the pull of Twitter... and then the trending topics.

As always, it was a bad, bad idea to click the trending topics.  It truly makes you fear for our future.


One random woman (among many of the fawning):  "He looks every inch a President!!"

Yes, looks are all-important.  So long as he looks "presidential", we're in good shape.

(For the record, I don't recall hearing anyone deny that he looks "every inch a President".  The problem is that his looks seem to be almost all that so many voters care about.  His physical appearance and the big "D" by his name.  But whatever.  We're in for another four years of this utter crap, so at this point I might as well shut up.)


And apparently he's addressing climate change in his inaugural speech.

To quote the Twitterverse:  "YES!!  Finally!  Thank you, O Glorious One!"

(Well, ok, maybe that last bit was a mild exaggeration.  They didn't tweet that; it's just what they were thinking.)


...But I thought that the rise of the oceans had begun to slow, planet began to heal, etc., etc. way back in 2008, when he won the primaries... So confusing...

Penny Sales Tax

I heard this morning that our county superintendent has said that if we don't renew the "temporary" penny sales tax (B-------n Amendment 2), they'll "have to" close five schools, consolidate four others, fire teachers and other employees, and cut programs.  The five schools they'll "have to" close include both the local R-------n Elementary and the school where I went as a child-- E------r Elementary.  I guess both would be diverted to R-------e, instead.  

That whole situation just makes me mad.  Tell people you'll tax them for three years, then when the three years are up, tell them that-- whoops!-- you apparently don't own a calendar-- didn't plan ahead-- whatever.  The point is, you need more money for the children.  What kind of awful person wouldn't support a measly little penny tax for the sake of the children?  Even if you don't have children or grandchildren in the school system, yourself, don't you have fond memories of your own school days? Where's your school pride?  Do you really want that schoolhouse to sit empty... doomed to eventual decay or demolishment?  They know that many will hear these sob stories and begrudgingly vote in favor of the tax-- just like when a city needs more money and the very first thing at the very top of their "To-Cut" list is... you guessed it, police and firemen.  Oh no!  But we gotta have our police!  It's not safe, otherwise... Gosh, give 'em all the money they need-- whatever they ask for!  ...Whew!  That was a close call!"

It's amazing how the school systems always need more money, yet we also keep hearing that (no matter how much money they get) student performance isn't where it needs to be... It's almost like we've reached a point of diminishing returns or something... Like there's this mysterious point at which more money doesn't really improve the quality of education... Hm.  

It's strange how children of the past managed to get an education in a one-room schoolhouse, often with only one teacher to tend to the needs of students of all ages and abilities.  Alright, I'm not saying that's ideal or that every student would get the best modern education from such a situation... but look how far we've come from those days-- and yet we get too many graduates who can barely write a coherent paragraph.  

Seriously, look at the "School Exhibition" in Little Town on the Prairie.  Those kids parsed sentences and did long division in their heads.  No paper.  No blackboard.  Just sharp-as-a-tack minds and an incredible command of the necessary skills.  How much do you think it cost to educate them, adjusted for inflation, etc.?  How many pennies per every dollar we spend today?

I think most of us can agree that there's waste-- and frills that simply are not required when providing even an excellent education.  And yet we're bad guys if we can look at the quivering, pouty lips and teary eyes of children and dare to say NO.  

*SIGH*

Oh, and One More Thing ;o)

Since writing my last post, it has come to my attention that the "no closer than 40 feet" rule has something to do with a goal to "Preserve the Beautiful Rural Nature of B-------- County's Roads" (or some other such nonsense to that effect).


Point Number 1:  
In that case, O Brilliant Minds of Local Government, why not have a rule that you can't build within 40 feet of the road (as opposed to one's property line)?  If I didn't make it abundantly clear before, we live-- and our property line lies-- way off the road.  There's no way our garage will affect the nearest county road at all.  I doubt you'll even see it from the road, and if you do, you'll have to be looking for it (which isn't a safe driving practice).  In the next twenty or thirty years, two or three more houses could easily be built between our garage and that road.  So... basically what I'm saying is that you need to re-write your dumb rule for it to make any sense at all.

(Oh, and if/when we alter the property lines so that our proposed garage will satisfy the zoning ordinance or whatever it is, the garage will be the exact same distance from the road as it would be if you DIDN'T put us to this unnecessary expense and trouble.  ~youdarnstupididiots~   ...See my point?  No?  Oh.  Well, I tried...)


Point Number 2:
I am a native and lifelong resident of this county, and in general, I like it (though you shouldn't ask me what I think about its government, right now).  I think that it has at least its own fair share of natural and man-made beauty-- but let's just be honest.  Like most large counties, there are also plenty of eyesores right off many roads, in very plain view.  Junky trailers.  Run-down or abandoned buildings.  Overgrown fields of weeds.  Our proposed garage, even if it was closer to the road and not hidden by eleventy-hundred trees and shrubs, would not be as offensive to the eye as hundreds of other extant spots along the county roads.

Just sayin', is all (as the cool folks put it).

On Building Permits & Idiotic Zoning Laws

You decide to build a garage on your property, which is way off the nearest county-maintained road.  You try to follow the rules by going to get a building permit, even though you really feel that it isn't any of the county's business, anyway, where / when / how you build said garage.  (Seriously, why must you pay the local government for the privilege of building a simple garage on your own-- decidedly rural--  property, which you own free and clear?)

But still, you go to apply for the permit.  And then they inform you that you are not allowed to build it where you've planned it (and in fact, have already had dirt brought in and leveled, because who could have foreseen that there would be an issue?).  No, they say, it's too close to the property line.  You see, that's the property line that faces the nearest county-maintained road (which, again, is way off through hundreds of yards of trees), and any structures built on your property must be at least 40 feet away from that property line.  Now, if it were the side property line, 15 feet would be enough of a buffer.  (Our buffer is currently about 18 feet.  We had no idea our rural area even had zoning laws.  I am SO VERY VERY HAPPY to know, now, that it does.  Yippee, hurray, hurrah.)

You explain that you are way off the county road, and that the proposed garage, like the already existing house, will face the (non-county-maintained) easement... so really, that is the front of your property. (Through gritted teeth:) ...Right? 

Sorry, not so!  We, the Mighty and All-Powerful County Zoning Poo-Bahs do hereby proclaim that the front of your property is now and forever shall be that north-facing side, because of how it is oriented regarding the nearest county-maintained road.  But no biggie.  Just move the garage (extremely inconvenient) or have the property line moved.  Simple as that!  Then (and only then) we'll be more than happy to accept your money and generously grant you permission to build ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY.  You're welcome.

Oh, and have a nice day! 
We're always happy to serve!

They don't care that no-one lives anywhere near that property line.  Neither are they moved by the information that the land is owned by family, who would not care about the location of the garage and would sign a document to that effect.  Nope.  (In robo-voice:)  Does not compute.  Must not build within 40 feet of front property line.  MUST NOT-- MUST NOT-- MUST NOT...

~soul-weary sigh~

We're fortunate that my family owns that land, and there's not a house or something already on it-- so we can work something out-- but still, incredibly infuriating. 

One of the things I want in our garage, should it ever actually be built, is a punching bag.  No, seriously.  I mean it.  I need an outlet for my rage.  In the meantime, I guess I'll just have to hold it in.

Good Grief!

This sounds familiar, so I've probably heard it before, but seeing it in print makes a stronger impression on me:

"In the 1970s, one in 50 Americans were on food stamps-- today that figure is one in seven."

Well, I'm sure no bad can come of that. 

(Quotation from this story:  USDA uses Spanish soap operas to push food stamps among non-citizens, citizens.  ...Which makes you wonder, if one in seven Americans are currently on food stamps, how many non-citizen residents are, too...)

My "First World Problem"?

So, I know you're really interested in this...  It turns out that my "first world problem" (of the moment, at least) is the phrase "first world problem".

I doubt I could put together a strong argument for why I dislike it, but it just... irks me.

It reminds me of a teacher I had in elementary school who (at least once) chided a student (honestly can't remember if it was me or someone else) for saying s/he was "starving", before lunch.  She thought it was flippant and wrong to use the word "starving" to mean "hungry" when there were people out there really, truly starving.  Now, I understand what she meant-- and I guess her lesson worked on me, at least, because I don't think I ever say that I'm starving... But I don't know... I'm sure that the kid she "corrected" meant no harm, and I have some bad memories of adults coming down a little too hard on sensitive kids for saying/doing something harmless/without understanding that it could be taken the wrong way.  They don't realize how long those things stick with a person and the bad taste it leaves in your mouth, being made to feel guilty for something when you scarcely understand why.  (And yet I'll probably still do the same thing in my own interactions with children; it seems difficult to avoid, when you're trying to teach them how to behave and present themselves in society.  Oh well.)

Hm.  I got off on a tangent, there.  (g)

Back to my annoying elaboration on why I find "first world problems" irritating.

By the logic of "FWP" ("first world problems"), no-one should ever complain about anything, EVER, because, trust us, someone has had it worse.  While I agree that many of us ought to complain less about small problems-- make a joyful noise instead-- it's human nature to complain (for some, a larger part of our natures than for others).  It's one thing to be aware (and thankful) that you were fortunate enough to be born in a wealthy nation, to have had parents who took good care of you, to not have to worry about whether you'll have enough to eat tonight.  It's another to obsess about it to the point that you can't make an everyday comment on something that's frustrating you in your daily life without feeling that you have to put a disclaimer at the end of it.

Some people use FWP as some sort of excuse to make themselves feel better (I guess?) about themselves.  "Yeah, I'm complaining about relatively small problems in my average-to-luxurious life, but I'm gonna put this 'first world problem' tag right here at the beginning or end of my complaint so that you'll know that I know that it's not really a big deal, and I should totally be happy to have this sort of problem... to sort of assuage my guilt about posting about it to begin with... Mmkay?"  

Yes, we know that when the grocery store stops carrying our favorite kind of chicken burritos, it's nowhere near the same level of problem faced by someone with a serious medical problem.  (Hint: That's why we never said it was the same sort of thing.)  But what kind of life is it if you have to feel guilty about commenting on any problem that isn't life-threatening?  Personally, I hate walking on eggshells.  If your problem is so trivial, perhaps you should reconsider writing about it in the first place.  Or go ahead and do write about it, like I am now.  Just don't make me watch you take a self-inflicted FWP guilt-trip in addition to reading your complaints. 

I wonder if people who frequently use the FWP tag are judging others who don't do so.  "That Michael is such a spoiled first-worlder.  Writing a whole blog entry about how hard it was to choose a vacuum cleaner from the eleventy-billion models available on-line!   She doesn't know how lucky she is!"  Would the handy-dandy FWP stamp redeem me, in their eyes?  ;o)  (No.  At this point, I know I am completely, utterly lost, as far as they're concerned.  Well, I would be if they were even reading this, which I trust they are not, since hardly anyone does.)

Most of the time I see people using it in a joking way.  I may even have thought it was funny the first time I saw it, but now?  It's been done to death, so please, find a new meme. 

(Note:  I've almost never seen anyone use FWP against someone else, though apparently some do, or have in the past.  That would be infuriating and well-deserving of a virtual smack-down.  No, it's bad enough when people use it-- somewhat jokingly-- as a commentary on something they themselves have just written.)

...On the other hand, in the grand scheme of things, it's not much to complain about.  Especially not while there are still people out there using the disgusting "FML" tag for every little irritant under the sun.  Out of cereal?  FML!  Broke a nail?  FML!   It's just wrong.

Whew!  ...Ok.  I'm all whined out!

...And yes, I know that being annoyed by irritatingly over-used "catch phrases" is such a First World Problem.

ETA:
I would be remiss if I didn't also mention that I cannot stand the modern, slangy (over)usage of the word "epic" (frequently presented in EPIC all-caps).  It seems like it is finally, mercifully fading in popularity, but for a while there, my eyes were at risk of a serious strain from all the violent rolling.

Pet Peeves of "Window Treatment" Photos

I'd like to sort out the "window treatment" situation in a few rooms of our house.  We've been making do for years; it would be nice to gradually upgrade to something nicer. 

(And I guess we've already started, in at least the breakfast room.  I like the thicker, faux wood blinds we put in however-long-ago so much that we may not even need any curtains/shades/whatever else in there-- but I'd like to find a way to fix it so that the cornices (?) that came with them sit straight.  They tend to slide down too far on one side, which is painfully obvious from the bright light that sneaks through the gap.  This bothers me more than it ought to.  Anyway, as I was saying... )

So I'm trying to figure out what might look nice in different rooms (and what curtain rods we need to make those looks possible).  Of course this eventually leads to looking online for inspiration photos-- which in turn leads to the titular pet peeves.


Pet Peeve #1:  Where are the blinds?


It seems very rare that these photos include blinds.  Maybe this is just another way in which I am weird, but I must have blinds on (almost all) our windows.  (Exceptions: the window over the kitchen sink and the windows in the doors.) 

Partly this is due to a wish for privacy without completely blocking out the light and the view with curtains.  (Yes, those airy, billowing sheers next to the bathtub are lovely, but-- privacy?  Or maybe this is an upstairs bathroom-- and they live on their own personal island in the Caribbean.) 

Partly it is because I live in a place where it gets insufferably hot in the summer, and to cut down on the heat in the house-- and the electric bill for the A/C-- we use blinds to block the direct sunlight.  (Maybe these people live above the arctic circle and don't have to bother about grueling summertime heat.  Lucky.) 

So there are all these gorgeous curtain arrangements-- but none of the photos give me a good, realistic idea of how a similar curtain might look in our house, because we are weirdos who use blinds.  No matter how hard I try, my curtains will never look as nice as theirs, because I use blinds.  (Boo hoo.)

(Related:  These windows never seem to have screens.  Ours do, of course.  Screens are ugly, but necessary, if the window is ever to be opened.  I hate flies, mosquitoes, wasps, etc. more than I dislike the ugliness of screens.)  


Pet Peeve #2:  Why are all the windows so FANCY?

This isn't as much of an issue-- because there are fairly regular, plain-jane windows in some photos-- but very often, these photos of curtains and "window treatments" (which phrase I cannot use without the quotation marks, sorry) are set in such fancy, perfect rooms!  And ok, that's just the way it's usually going to be in any home decorating photo, but still, the windows!  The very windows are all so FANCY that I think to myself, "Why are you even bothering with curtains at all?  You're hiding your fancy (and obviously expensive) windows!" 
 
Well, possibly that's an exaggeration, but you get my point, right?  Once again it's a case of  "no matter how nice my new curtains are, they cannot make my plain window into something that extravagant, and by the way, thank you for making me a little bit dissatisfied with my plain windows". 




...You know what?  I don't really enjoy figuring out "window treatments", at all.   Another tick against me as a perfect homemaker.  Shoot, and I was going to be so close to perfect, other than that one little thing! ;o)

How Can You Have Any Pudding...?

Ah, the eternal question:  How can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat? 

Ok, that has hardly anything to do with the topic du jour, except that it refers to pudding/sweets.  And it just popped into my head.  (That's what happens when you're exposed to Pink Floyd from infancy. (g)) 

The story:

A Florida lawmaker is pushing a bill that would ban the use of food stamps to purchase snacks and sweets, such as cookies and cakes.

Republican State Sen. Ronda Storms, of Valrico, says her goal is to stop a small percentage of recipients who misuse food stamps.

Her bill would also require food stamp recipients to take state-run classes on healthy eating and how making your own baked goods is cheaper than store-made sweets.

The bill is moving through state committees in Tallahassee.

Critics say the government shouldn't be telling people what to eat.

Democratic Rep. Gwyndolen Clarke-Reed, of Pompano Beach, also says the educational provision is demeaning to minorities and the poor by implying they aren't smart enough to make their own choices.

At first glance, at least, I don't see a problem with putting restrictions on what food stamps can buy.

In response to those who argue that "the government shouldn't be telling people what to eat," I laugh.  First, some elements of the government would love to be able to tell all of us what we can and cannot eat, and that would be wrong-- but they still want to do it (and we are told that we are ridiculous or just plain wrong for worrying about the slippery slope).  However, when it comes to food stamp purchases, it seems completely reasonable that there be limits on what is and is not allowed.  If you don't like being restricted in your purchases, find a way to earn more money and get off food stamps. 

And as for Clarke-Reed's statement that "the educational provision is demeaning to minorities and the poor by implying they aren't smart enough to make their own choices"... some might ask if she isn't being demeaning to minorities by implying that they make up the majority of those on food stamps-- and the ones buying unhealthy sweets instead of fruit or the more affordable ingredients for baking their own sweets at home. 

Besides, it's not a matter of intelligence.  It seems more a matter of laziness.  (Yes, I said it.  Er, wrote it.)  Let's face it:  People don't buy sweets instead of baking them because they aren't smart enough to bake-- or to figure out that it's cheaper to bake sweets themselves.  People buy pre-made sweets (and other convenience foods) because they're easy.

It feels like the law-abiding, tax-paying citizen's choices are being limited on several fronts-- or at least there's a feeling that our choices are increasingly threatened by those who salivate over the thought of controlling how parents choose to educate their children, what we eat, how we handle our health care, what we drive-- even something as silly and simple as what light bulbs we can use.  And yet we're supposed to get upset when someone suggests tightened control in one of the few areas that could benefit from it.

Sorry if it sounds callous, but if you're on food stamps, there ought to be some limits on what you can and can't buy with them.  Ever hear the old saying "beggars can't be choosers"?

...The idea of requiring classes on healthy eating and how to bake, on the other hand... I'm not so crazy about that.  I imagine only a tiny percentage of people would benefit from such classes-- and it's just one more program we'd have to fund.  And aren't you supposed to learn about that sort of thing in school?  Good grief!  Why even bother with schooling at all, if we're not learning something as simple as basic nutrition?  Seriously, how can you be alive in the U.S., with our current obsession with health and food and not pick up a few pointers on healthy eating?  Anyone with a TV has access to tons of information.  All those cooking shows!  All those health-focused snippets in the morning news shows!  There's really no excuse.  The answer is that by far the majority know good and well what to eat for health; they simply don't want to do it, because it's not easy and/or it doesn't taste as good.  It requires a sacrifice of some sort-- either of time, or of quantity of food, or of comfort/pleasure-- and we don't like to sacrifice of ourselves on a daily basis.  (I speak from experience.)

Above It All

The thing I do not "get" today:

People Who Claim They Won't Vote if _________ is the Republican Nominee

I guess they're just too principled-- too much above it all-- to dig out the old nose-clothespin and cast a vote for the lesser of two evils. 

I can understand if they're not thrilled with their options.  (I mean, I really understand.)  I can understand if they're disappointed because "their guy" (or woman) is no longer in the running.  I can understand if they're disgusted with the political process in general-- wondering why for heaven's sake we couldn't find a truly outstanding, inspirational candidate, this (or the last) time around.  (I mean, really.  Is this the best we could do?  This is not the cream of our crop.  The cream doesn't want to deal with the muck of the battle for the presidency.)  

But you know what?  I don't care if our party's eventual presidential candidate isn't perfect.  If someone really cares about the direction our country's going-- and anyone who lives here ought to-- he needs to get off his (or her) oh-so-principled behind and vote anyway.  He needs to lower his exceptionally high, unimpeachable Standards for the twenty minutes it takes to cast a vote, just like the rest of us will have to do.   

*sigh*

What is wrong with people?   

Random Gripe o' the Day

Good grief.

So, since the government couldn't afford to (immediately) enforce the 100-watt incandescent bulb phase-out, they're relying on the honor system.  Anyone selling such contraband should feel deeply ashamed.  Very dishonorable of you, you know. 

This is such an important issue.  Thank goodness the powers that be are staying on top of it. 

...If we can't be trusted to decide what kind of light bulbs to use in our own personal private lamps and fixtures at home, no wonder "They" think we can't handle our own retirement accounts and health insurance...

Sometimes you don't know whether to laugh or cry... or buy a punching bag to take out your frustrations on...

What in the...

So, apparently 60 Minutes edited the following statement out of their recent interview with Obama:

“The issue here is not going be a list of accomplishments. As you said yourself, Steve, you know, I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln — just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history. But, you know, but when it comes to the economy, we’ve got a lot more work to do.”

                              
...Okay...  Whatever you say, man. 

Good grief!  The sheer ego of some people!

More VITAL News Via Twitter

"Mythbusters" put a canonball through a home and a minivan (on accident, which isn't necessarily immediately obvious, with that program), and some idiotic head teacher in Britain turned off his school's heating on one of the coldest days of the year to show students how the school could reduce its carbon footprint.  (Because simply lowering the heat wasn't bold enough, I guess.  I wonder if anyone explained to him how much more energy it takes to heat a very cold building versus keeping it fairly level at moderate warmth...)

On the other hand, Alec Baldwin was kicked off an airplane (before take off, in case you were wondering) because of his immature behavior... So it's not all bad news, this morning...

Ugh.

That's all.
Just UGH, about every single little thing.

(Well, somebody's in a bad mood this morning...)

...Sometimes you really need a private blog, so you can gripe about every tiny thing that's irking your very soul at a given moment, without everyone in your circle of family and friends learning about your deepest, darkest inner brat.  This is one of those times.  I blame my lack of sleep.  (Thanks again, Trixie, for the latest pre-4 A.M. wake-up call.  [One of a set.  Collect them all!]  *SIGH*  At this rate, I'm going to start going to sleep at 8:30, just so I can get a decent night's rest, once in a while.)

Lie to the Children About Your Favorite Color...

...It's the only way to fight racism!! 

"Dress witches in pink and avoid white paper to prevent racism in nurseries, expert says."

Other great ideas for the prevention of racism:

• Dress fairies in darker shades (rather than the traditional pastels).
• Provide paints and crayons in "the full range of flesh tones", reflecting the diversity of the human race. (Aren't there already lots of different flesh tones in a good box of crayons?)
• When asked about their favorite colors, members of staff should be prepared to lie to the children-- for their own good.  "In the interests of good race relations, answer 'black' or 'brown'."  

That'll make so much difference in those children's lives and racial relations, I'm sure.  Yeah, more likely the kids will give the staff member a weird look.  Besides, how many people would ever name "white" as a favorite color?  Aren't blue, red, purple, and green more common choices?  How could it be construed as negative toward any race to say you like blue the best? 

"This is an incredibly complex subject that can easily become simplified and inaccurately portrayed," she [Anne O'Connor, the "expert"] said.

"There is a tendency in education to say 'here are normal people and here are different people and we have to be kind to those different people', whether it's race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age or faith.

"People who are feeling defensive can say 'well there's nothing wrong with white paper', but in reality there could be if you don't see yourself reflected in the things around you. “As an early years teacher, the minute you start thinking, 'well actually, if I give everyone green paper, what happens’, you have a teaching potential.

“People might criticise this as political correctness gone mad. But it is because of political correctness we have moved on enormously. If you think that we now take it for granted that our buildings and public highways are adapted so people in wheelchairs and with pushchairs can move around. Years ago if you were in a wheelchair, then tough luck. We have completely moved and we wouldn’t have done that without the equality movement.” 

 Well, that must be the problem, then.  It's simply too complex for my simple brain to comprehend.  Thank goodness there are sharp-witted heroes like Anne O'Connor out there, saving the world from white paper and storybook witches clad in ~whisper~ black.

Over $1.4 Million Per Job, to Date

***Understatement Alert!!***

"Seattle green jobs program falls short of goals".

Last year, Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn announced the city had won a coveted $20 million federal grant to invest in weatherization. The unglamorous work of insulating crawl spaces and attics had emerged as a silver bullet in a bleak economy - able to create jobs and shrink carbon footprint - and the announcement came with great fanfare.

McGinn had joined Vice President Joe Biden in the White House to make it. It came on the eve of Earth Day. It had heady goals: creating 2,000 living-wage jobs in Seattle and retrofitting 2,000 homes in poorer neighborhoods.

Well, I'm going to be brutally honest here... I think that their stated goal of weatherizing a mere 2,000 homes with the whopping $20 million was (how shall I put this?) pathetic.  That's $10,000 per home, and that's ridiculous (imnsho).  I don't believe it should cost that much to insulate a single home-- particularly a home in a "poorer neighborhood", which one assumes would most likely be modestly sized.  However, from the headline, we know that they didn't even manage to do that.

(Also, should it really take 2,000 people to weatherize 2,000 homes?  You're obviously not going to have all the projects going on at the same time, and it shouldn't take a crew of capable workers that long to complete one project and move on to the next.  I'll admit I'm no business genius or construction know-it-all, but that sounds like more people/jobs than would be required for the task, does it not?)

So... How many houses do you think they were able to "weatherize"?  Three quarters of their goal?  Half?  Even a measly one quarter?

But more than a year later, Seattle's numbers are lackluster. As of last week, only three homes had been retrofitted and just 14 new jobs have emerged from the program. Many of the jobs are administrative, and not the entry-level pathways once dreamed of for low-income workers.

Only three homes.  Fourteen new jobs (many of which are administrative-- so surprising, considering that this is the government we're talking about).  In over a year.  (The article goes on to explain how and why local officials are cautiously optimistic, blah blah blah.)

Wouldn't it be nice if this kind of inefficiency and waste were rare enough to be genuinely surprising? 

Just to Say...

This is just to say that I am (nobly ;o)) fighting the urge to copy, paste, and reply to some of the nonsense I've read on Twitter this morning regarding Obama's speech last night and the general debt limit increase... and taxes... and how you are evil and selfish and Just Plain Bad if you don't want to pay more taxes... and how apparently the rich aren't paying their "fair share" (which is probably impossible for them ever to do to the satisfaction of everyone else).  According to some, if you are rich, you should be paying more taxes than poor people.  (What a novel idea.)  Thing is, I thought the rich already were (and are) paying more in taxes than the poor... This is puzzling, because I keep hearing something about how the top 1% of taxpayers earn 20% of all income, yet pay nearly 40% of all taxes.  And then you have 51% of wage earners who pay no federal income taxes at all!  It certainly seems like the rich would already be paying (much) more than the poor...  I must just not be smart enuff to figger out how all them newfangled math'matics and percentigers work.  Or sumthin'.

*sigh*
Replying to such nonsense here wouldn't do any real good, of course, because the people who wrote those things won't ever see this, and even if they did, I seriously doubt I could ever get through to them.  Yet I'm too non-confrontational (and cognizant of the fact that it wouldn't do a thing except maybe make me angry and sick and jittery) to reply directly to them.  Oh well.  Such is life.  Class warfare is easy.  Rich people are BAD people (so why does everyone want more moolah?)! Why trouble our pretty little heads about anything of more substance?

Rainbow Fish

I guess this Rainbow Fish storybook came along after I was out of elementary school, so no well-meaning teacher never read it aloud to my class.  Having heard it mentioned a few times over the years, today I finally took a minute to look it up.

Get ready to roll you eyes, if you must, but I have to agree that it is somewhat troubling.

Most of all, however, it's boring.  It seems that the people who remember loving the book as children mostly just liked looking at the glittery/shiny scales in the illustrations.  The story itself is a real snoozer.

Then there's the "moral" that in order to be accepted by others, you have to sacrifice whatever it is that makes you unique.  If you possess something that others desire, you really ought to give it to them.  Otherwise, you're just a big old meanie and no-one will ever want to play with you.  (Another moral:  You shouldn't hesitate to ask for whatever you want, even if it happens to belong to someone else.  Heck! Why should they have it, if you don't?  But maybe I'm overly sensitive on that point; I've always found that kind of thing particularly annoying...)

As for it being A Child's Garden of Socialism... Yes, I can see why some shudder at it, but I can also see why others roll their eyes.  Basically... I wouldn't read it to my own theoretical children.  For one thing, there are just way too many better stories available.  For another, I wouldn't want to teach young, impressionable minds that individuality (and individual property) must be modified (or divided) to fit the mold (or make things "fair").

Sure, you want kids to learn about sharing, but there are limits to how much anyone should be expected to share.  Would people view this story differently if Rainbow Fish hadn't been quite so rude to the little fish when it first asked for a scale?  Let's say Rainbow Fish had answered in a more neutral voice, "I'm sorry, but no.  If I give one to you, everyone else will want one, too, until there are none left at all.  Besides, your own blue scales are very pretty just as they are!" (And from that point, it turns into a story about knowing and valuing your own special qualities.)  Would that have been acceptable?  Would Rainbow Fish still have been expected to pull its own scales out (which, ew, by the way) and hand them out to the other bratty fish? (Well, they did shun Rainbow Fish whey he/she/it didn't want to part with his/her/its scales, and that wasn't very nice, either, was it?)

Ugh! ...This story is just depressing.  And annoying.
(Which seem to be the only types of things I ever blog about anymore.  Sorry.)