I decided to break up what was going to be the previous post into a few posts. This is about something I've never talked about before here. I volunteer on a website (Fluther.com) as a moderator. I love it. It's great.
The purpose of the website is asking questions and answering questions. But we aren't Yahoo! Answers or anything. The questions and responses are held to standards outlined in a set of guidelines. The guidelines are a living document, which is part of what I like. There is a lot of judgment the moderators have to use to decide what to do. And even once we make that call, if another mod disagrees, we hash it out in email. It's cool. Everyone in charge cares about the site. And so do most of the members.
This is me on the site:
My profile on Fluther
I'll work on getting it to actually show the nifty new badge later, but for now, that's me. I've been a member of the site for almost a year now and a moderator for a few months. I kind of want to talk about the whole process of becoming a moderator -- the emotional process -- especially as it came just when I was being fired from my real job, but I don't think now it *quite* the time yet.
--Lu
Showing posts with label lu. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lu. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Moving, working, and something I haven't talked about before
Well, when last I wrote you I was busily trying to put together my life. Swiftly. Since then, I've got a lot to talk about.
Finding a House.
The first task of any moving adventure is to find a home dwelling. It doesn't have to be glamorous. It just has to exist. Sometimes there are steps to that. In this case, I found roommates. Quickly. Wonderfully. And through them, we found a fabulous apartment that a friend of theirs ran. It was a dreamhouse. Everything you could ever want and more in a place -- inexpensive, but with all sorts of luxuries. Wonderful. In fact, so wonderful that on the day we went to mail the security deposit, he signed a lease with someone else. After no communication beyond the previous notice that if we dropped a check in the mail (which we were doing) it was ours. Great.
We were two weeks away from moving, literally moving, and suddenly had no place. And the guy in charge was not returning our calls. Because there were two guys in charge -- a friend and the guy who screwed us, we wondered if perhaps the lease wasn't actually signed yet. He successfully avoided all communication until we decided we didn't actually care, we weren't putting up with him. And started the process of trying to find a place to move to in two weeks.
Househunts are stressful. Always. It's the nature of the beast. With a deadline like ours and the need to move in immediately, they become more so. Forunately, one of our group was in Pittsburgh already. She could go and look at houses. Less fortunately, ninety percent of all the listings that were in our range were absolutely horrible or scams. The other ten percent were not available for an entire month.
At the last moment -- really, the last moment -- a listing went up. Available immediately. Basically everything the previous place had minus one luxury I desperately desired (gas stove) but will have to live without (hmph). It was about the same as the previous place cost-wise. It was in a good location. Our agent saw it and like it. And just like that we were in a race to fill out applications and get a deposit in before the others (and there were quite a few others) who saw it did. But we won.
That was on Wednesday. On Friday we got the keys. I didn't actually know my move was "go!" until two days before it actually happened. Thank goodness rental reservations are very cancellable. Not that I needed to in the end.
It worked out okay, the place was great, but the extra stress... well. Get your security deposit in fast. Even if everyone assures you it's a done deal.
--Lu
Finding a House.
The first task of any moving adventure is to find a home dwelling. It doesn't have to be glamorous. It just has to exist. Sometimes there are steps to that. In this case, I found roommates. Quickly. Wonderfully. And through them, we found a fabulous apartment that a friend of theirs ran. It was a dreamhouse. Everything you could ever want and more in a place -- inexpensive, but with all sorts of luxuries. Wonderful. In fact, so wonderful that on the day we went to mail the security deposit, he signed a lease with someone else. After no communication beyond the previous notice that if we dropped a check in the mail (which we were doing) it was ours. Great.
We were two weeks away from moving, literally moving, and suddenly had no place. And the guy in charge was not returning our calls. Because there were two guys in charge -- a friend and the guy who screwed us, we wondered if perhaps the lease wasn't actually signed yet. He successfully avoided all communication until we decided we didn't actually care, we weren't putting up with him. And started the process of trying to find a place to move to in two weeks.
Househunts are stressful. Always. It's the nature of the beast. With a deadline like ours and the need to move in immediately, they become more so. Forunately, one of our group was in Pittsburgh already. She could go and look at houses. Less fortunately, ninety percent of all the listings that were in our range were absolutely horrible or scams. The other ten percent were not available for an entire month.
At the last moment -- really, the last moment -- a listing went up. Available immediately. Basically everything the previous place had minus one luxury I desperately desired (gas stove) but will have to live without (hmph). It was about the same as the previous place cost-wise. It was in a good location. Our agent saw it and like it. And just like that we were in a race to fill out applications and get a deposit in before the others (and there were quite a few others) who saw it did. But we won.
That was on Wednesday. On Friday we got the keys. I didn't actually know my move was "go!" until two days before it actually happened. Thank goodness rental reservations are very cancellable. Not that I needed to in the end.
It worked out okay, the place was great, but the extra stress... well. Get your security deposit in fast. Even if everyone assures you it's a done deal.
--Lu
Saturday, June 13, 2009
A Selfish Post About Iran
The Iranian election is disturbing for reasons almost anyone mentioning it at all will cover. But to me, almost the worst part of it is the idea that a leader could just shut down the information network. No cellphones. No internet. Nothing. Can't reach out and touch the world in just a moment's thought. To me, that is terrifying. The power of the Internet is used for good and evil all the time, but to have its massive power simply missing is horrible.
It's something I associate with the worst of disasters: hurricanes, earthquakes, things where you don't know if someone isn't online because they are dead or because they simply lost power. And it's exactly the same thing -- we don't know what is going on because they've lost power. But it could also be something worse.
I know it is selfish to think about it like this, but it's so scary that a leader can just throw citizens into darkness like that.
--Lu
It's something I associate with the worst of disasters: hurricanes, earthquakes, things where you don't know if someone isn't online because they are dead or because they simply lost power. And it's exactly the same thing -- we don't know what is going on because they've lost power. But it could also be something worse.
I know it is selfish to think about it like this, but it's so scary that a leader can just throw citizens into darkness like that.
--Lu
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Gone, but not forgotten
Wow, life has gotten hectic here. You may have thought I was gone, that I was abandoning my co-author to this world of blogging, but you were not entirely correct. I was, you see, fired. Laid-off. A victim of the recession. I was then, of course, re-hired at significantly reduced hours and reduced pay. Not exactly a job offer I was jumping at, but this was always meant to be a stopover on the way to business school. And there was the chance that I wouldn't be fired. My official notice was that there was an 85% chance they needed to reduce my hours or fire me. I took that to mean "start applying to business school, you've got to get out of here!"
So I did. The process was, to put it kindly, grueling. My original ambitions weren't very much. You see, this fall I was supposed to move in with my boyfriend. I basically live with him now, but we were going to live together for real. It was perfect. So my original ambitions for business school were to take the GMAT, then apply to the two very good schools in the area and the one not good at all school. Well, I took the GMAT, but it was too late to apply to one of the good schools. I had three days after getting my GMAT results to apply to the other. I worked on it all weekend and all day Monday and got my application in an hour before it was due. Then I waited.
In the mean time, I started the application for the local so-so school. I was told I'd be notified 10 days after submitting my application. This, I would find out, was only kind of true. About a week later they admitted getting it, then in another two weeks, pointed out a problem (a missing transcript), but eventually everything was in. By the time I submitted the application to the so-so school, two interesting things had happened. One: I was no longer working full time. Two: I was being head hunted.
At first, I thought I was simply getting the same kind of junk mail I got before undergraduate application. You take the SAT and suddenly every college on earth knows who you are, where you live, and sends you crap. It wasn't until I got the first email from Carnegie Mellon that I realized this was different -- schools, very good schools, were asking me to apply and waiving application fees. Considering the first school I applied to cost $250 simply to send an application to them, this was huge.
I looked through the schools, I choose a few to apply to, and I put together a system. For the next month, I applied to one school a week. To say the process was tiring is an understatement. I wrote essays. I rewrote essays. I wrote essays again. My boyfriend edited them. My boyfriend re-edited them. We had fights until I cried from stress over single words. But in the end, I got it done. (He still doesn't like the word "manpower" where I used it in two essays. We fought about it both times. Extensively.) No school I applied to asked for less than three essays. Most wanted four.
The week before I turned in my application to my number one choice, I was denied at the first school I'd applied to. It was depressing. I knew it was a long shot, I didn't really even want to go there, but it was still depressing. I had a massively important realization then: grad schools should put all denials in the form of LOLcats. Or at least, not send you an email telling you to check your status on their website. Then make you log in. Then make you click a few buttons to check your status (which now reads "deny"), then click on that, then click something else to see the form letter denying you. It cannot possibly hurt to make it automatically email the letter when they change your status to "deny".
Following that, I just wanted to hear from my safety school. I wanted to get in somewhere. Anywhere. Yet, everything changed one Tuesday as I sat at my boyfriend's house, learning to play bridge online. The e-mails started to arrive. The first was from the school I'd applied to most recently -- they'd offered me a special, expedited application process, waived the application fee and no new essays to write (I'd already covered all the prompts well enough that I could re-edit to make old essays fit). So I'd applied. They wanted to interview me. I was excited! Elated! I immediately told my father. And my mother. And everyone in a ten mile radius. Then my first choice emailed me. They, too, wanted an interview. My safety school called -- they were admitting me to the more prestigious program I'd applied to (a dual degree program). The only other school I'd applied to emailed to let me know they were looking at my application. I figured they were jealous everyone else was getting in touch.
So I planned two trips, quickly, and started interview prep. The interviews were null. I felt like I'd enjoyed my time at the first school but couldn't get a read off the interviewer at all. I had no clue how things had gone. That was Friday. By Monday I was halfway across the nation, exploring the campus of my top choice and getting ready for my interview the next day. I was in my hotel room that night when I got the call: I was in. Not just in. In with fellowship.
Things were going better.
I was not only going to go to graduate school, I was going to have some of it paid for.
My interview the next day went really well. I felt like I really connected with my interviewer over some common interests and was really excited about the school. That did not, of course, stop me from tearing myself apart with doubts. "Oh, I should have said this. I shouldn't have said that. She shouldn't have focused on this so much."
It was several days later that I heard from the last school I'd applied to. Honestly, I had discounted them entirely as a school that might accept me. But apparently without reason, they were writing to interview me. Unfortunately, they didn't want to give me an answer until well after I had to respond to the number two school (accepted with fellowship). But since I wasn't that hot on them anyway, I told them my limitations and set up the interview.
That interview went like the others -- I thought it went well, though it was hard to tell. Looking back, I think I may simply interview well. They were open to responding swiftly with an acceptance decision, and so it was just a waiting game. Less than a week later, they were on the phone with me -- I was in! But they made no mention of financial aid of any sort.
It was not until I got their binder in the mail that I found out I was being offered a scholarship. That made them more interesting from a "where should I go?" standpoint, but I was still hesitant. And I had not, most importantly, heard back from my top choice school.
I knew that on that Monday I would hear. And I would know where I was going to school. And I would be able to respond. I was useless on Monday. Absolutely useless. I twitched and flinched and wanted desperately for my email to come. Around noon I realized that all the other schools had called me and thought that, perhaps, I hadn't gotten an email because they were going to call with good news. I then discarded that theory. And picked it up again. And discarded it.
I also theorized: later was better -- rejections take only a form letter and should have gone out first and easiest, simple acceptances also take only a form letter but may require slightly more work and should have gone out second, individualized acceptances -- those including scholar- and fellowships should go out last, requiring the most attention; they might call me; all of this could be wrong.
Finally, in the early evening, my email came. I was in. With a small fellowship that had perks beyond the financial aid involved. I was going to my top choice school. Life is good.
I will be matriculating with the Class of 2011 at the Tepper School of Business at Carnegie Mellon. Now I just have to get ready, find a roommate, pack, and move in less than 8 weeks before my trip abroad that I return from the day before orientation begins... I'll let you know how it goes.
So I did. The process was, to put it kindly, grueling. My original ambitions weren't very much. You see, this fall I was supposed to move in with my boyfriend. I basically live with him now, but we were going to live together for real. It was perfect. So my original ambitions for business school were to take the GMAT, then apply to the two very good schools in the area and the one not good at all school. Well, I took the GMAT, but it was too late to apply to one of the good schools. I had three days after getting my GMAT results to apply to the other. I worked on it all weekend and all day Monday and got my application in an hour before it was due. Then I waited.
In the mean time, I started the application for the local so-so school. I was told I'd be notified 10 days after submitting my application. This, I would find out, was only kind of true. About a week later they admitted getting it, then in another two weeks, pointed out a problem (a missing transcript), but eventually everything was in. By the time I submitted the application to the so-so school, two interesting things had happened. One: I was no longer working full time. Two: I was being head hunted.
At first, I thought I was simply getting the same kind of junk mail I got before undergraduate application. You take the SAT and suddenly every college on earth knows who you are, where you live, and sends you crap. It wasn't until I got the first email from Carnegie Mellon that I realized this was different -- schools, very good schools, were asking me to apply and waiving application fees. Considering the first school I applied to cost $250 simply to send an application to them, this was huge.
I looked through the schools, I choose a few to apply to, and I put together a system. For the next month, I applied to one school a week. To say the process was tiring is an understatement. I wrote essays. I rewrote essays. I wrote essays again. My boyfriend edited them. My boyfriend re-edited them. We had fights until I cried from stress over single words. But in the end, I got it done. (He still doesn't like the word "manpower" where I used it in two essays. We fought about it both times. Extensively.) No school I applied to asked for less than three essays. Most wanted four.
The week before I turned in my application to my number one choice, I was denied at the first school I'd applied to. It was depressing. I knew it was a long shot, I didn't really even want to go there, but it was still depressing. I had a massively important realization then: grad schools should put all denials in the form of LOLcats. Or at least, not send you an email telling you to check your status on their website. Then make you log in. Then make you click a few buttons to check your status (which now reads "deny"), then click on that, then click something else to see the form letter denying you. It cannot possibly hurt to make it automatically email the letter when they change your status to "deny".
Following that, I just wanted to hear from my safety school. I wanted to get in somewhere. Anywhere. Yet, everything changed one Tuesday as I sat at my boyfriend's house, learning to play bridge online. The e-mails started to arrive. The first was from the school I'd applied to most recently -- they'd offered me a special, expedited application process, waived the application fee and no new essays to write (I'd already covered all the prompts well enough that I could re-edit to make old essays fit). So I'd applied. They wanted to interview me. I was excited! Elated! I immediately told my father. And my mother. And everyone in a ten mile radius. Then my first choice emailed me. They, too, wanted an interview. My safety school called -- they were admitting me to the more prestigious program I'd applied to (a dual degree program). The only other school I'd applied to emailed to let me know they were looking at my application. I figured they were jealous everyone else was getting in touch.
So I planned two trips, quickly, and started interview prep. The interviews were null. I felt like I'd enjoyed my time at the first school but couldn't get a read off the interviewer at all. I had no clue how things had gone. That was Friday. By Monday I was halfway across the nation, exploring the campus of my top choice and getting ready for my interview the next day. I was in my hotel room that night when I got the call: I was in. Not just in. In with fellowship.
Things were going better.
I was not only going to go to graduate school, I was going to have some of it paid for.
My interview the next day went really well. I felt like I really connected with my interviewer over some common interests and was really excited about the school. That did not, of course, stop me from tearing myself apart with doubts. "Oh, I should have said this. I shouldn't have said that. She shouldn't have focused on this so much."
It was several days later that I heard from the last school I'd applied to. Honestly, I had discounted them entirely as a school that might accept me. But apparently without reason, they were writing to interview me. Unfortunately, they didn't want to give me an answer until well after I had to respond to the number two school (accepted with fellowship). But since I wasn't that hot on them anyway, I told them my limitations and set up the interview.
That interview went like the others -- I thought it went well, though it was hard to tell. Looking back, I think I may simply interview well. They were open to responding swiftly with an acceptance decision, and so it was just a waiting game. Less than a week later, they were on the phone with me -- I was in! But they made no mention of financial aid of any sort.
It was not until I got their binder in the mail that I found out I was being offered a scholarship. That made them more interesting from a "where should I go?" standpoint, but I was still hesitant. And I had not, most importantly, heard back from my top choice school.
I knew that on that Monday I would hear. And I would know where I was going to school. And I would be able to respond. I was useless on Monday. Absolutely useless. I twitched and flinched and wanted desperately for my email to come. Around noon I realized that all the other schools had called me and thought that, perhaps, I hadn't gotten an email because they were going to call with good news. I then discarded that theory. And picked it up again. And discarded it.
I also theorized: later was better -- rejections take only a form letter and should have gone out first and easiest, simple acceptances also take only a form letter but may require slightly more work and should have gone out second, individualized acceptances -- those including scholar- and fellowships should go out last, requiring the most attention; they might call me; all of this could be wrong.
Finally, in the early evening, my email came. I was in. With a small fellowship that had perks beyond the financial aid involved. I was going to my top choice school. Life is good.
I will be matriculating with the Class of 2011 at the Tepper School of Business at Carnegie Mellon. Now I just have to get ready, find a roommate, pack, and move in less than 8 weeks before my trip abroad that I return from the day before orientation begins... I'll let you know how it goes.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
This Week In Congress
Also, note: the "This Week In Congress" e-mail kind of blew this week. Eli may choose to individually talk about it, but we probably won't discuss it together. With any luck I'll convince her we should be talking about Rihanna and Aasiya Zubair Hassan instead.
-- Lu
-- Lu
Drinking to drink to tell
Woot.com is a fairly well known website. It was the first website to offer the one deal per day set up. This means they sell only one item per day, often mocking the item in the description, and if it sells out, you're out of luck until the next day. It became hugely popular with everyone I knew while in college. Eventually they expanded to other sites including shirt.woot (a new t-shirt every day, but always for $10 and free shipping), sellout.woot (an affliation with Yahoo!) and wine.woot. This entry is actually about wine.woot.
Wine.woot.com originally had one offer a week. It soon became popular enough to do two offers a week -- one on Monday and one on Thursday. They also figured one of the best ways to sell wine on a website, even with a loyal following, was through samples and education. The education over there is completely nifty. It just is. The wine-makers and -sellers often (read: almost always) visit the site while their offer is available and answer questions about the making and cellaring of the wine. When I started visiting wine.woot regularly, I was entirely of the opinion that wine was too expensive to ever really buy online and I was only going to visit for the educational properties as I was just starting to drink wine. But eventually the deals were too good, and I gave in and purchased.
I'm still pretty cheap when it comes to wine, so I read obsessively all the thoughts others offer on the wine before I decide to go in for it. It's got to be pretty skippy for me to be willing to try it out because when the wine isn't expensive, it usually comes in 4 - 6 packs. I don't want six bottles of crappy wine hanging about the place, you know? Anyway, this served me well and good until the mead showed up.
Last week, they offered up a bit of mead. Mead is delicious. It's great. So when I saw the mead for sale, I knew I wanted it. Especially as it was coming cheaper than I could get it locally and had been well reviewed before. I was also excited because knowing I wanted it so swiftly meant I would be able to participate in something that sets the site apart from anything I've ever heard of before. By making an early purchase, I was in the group eligible to "labrat". Every week wine.woot sends free bottles of wine to random purchasers to taste and report back on. They still get their full order later, but they also play a part in convincing other to buy or not to buy. You cannot, that I know of, cancel an order after tasting it.
Anyway, I wouldn't be telling this story if I didn't get a FedEx delivery on Friday of two bottles of mead: regular and raspberry. As I mentioned before, I really started hanging out there to learn more about wine, so I definitely don't have a super refined palate or dictionary of winese at my disposal. All I have are opinions and hopefully a coherent form of expressing them. (There are many people with both a refined palate and full mastery of wine-speak at wine.woot, I'm just not one of them.) I was, of course, ridiculously excited at the prospect of free booze and the chance to tell others about it and have them listen to me.
Friday night, I popped open those babies, tasted, and reported like a good rat. We tried the mead chilled. We tried it mulled. I say "we" because I got other opinions. I posted at night, I posted again in the morning. I probably took my duty waaaaaay too seriously. But it was all worth it for one comment I got:
It helped in pushing the "publish" button originally that, um, after enough mead you don't worry so much. And now it helps because I've got positive feedback.
-- Lu
Wine.woot.com originally had one offer a week. It soon became popular enough to do two offers a week -- one on Monday and one on Thursday. They also figured one of the best ways to sell wine on a website, even with a loyal following, was through samples and education. The education over there is completely nifty. It just is. The wine-makers and -sellers often (read: almost always) visit the site while their offer is available and answer questions about the making and cellaring of the wine. When I started visiting wine.woot regularly, I was entirely of the opinion that wine was too expensive to ever really buy online and I was only going to visit for the educational properties as I was just starting to drink wine. But eventually the deals were too good, and I gave in and purchased.
I'm still pretty cheap when it comes to wine, so I read obsessively all the thoughts others offer on the wine before I decide to go in for it. It's got to be pretty skippy for me to be willing to try it out because when the wine isn't expensive, it usually comes in 4 - 6 packs. I don't want six bottles of crappy wine hanging about the place, you know? Anyway, this served me well and good until the mead showed up.
Last week, they offered up a bit of mead. Mead is delicious. It's great. So when I saw the mead for sale, I knew I wanted it. Especially as it was coming cheaper than I could get it locally and had been well reviewed before. I was also excited because knowing I wanted it so swiftly meant I would be able to participate in something that sets the site apart from anything I've ever heard of before. By making an early purchase, I was in the group eligible to "labrat". Every week wine.woot sends free bottles of wine to random purchasers to taste and report back on. They still get their full order later, but they also play a part in convincing other to buy or not to buy. You cannot, that I know of, cancel an order after tasting it.
Anyway, I wouldn't be telling this story if I didn't get a FedEx delivery on Friday of two bottles of mead: regular and raspberry. As I mentioned before, I really started hanging out there to learn more about wine, so I definitely don't have a super refined palate or dictionary of winese at my disposal. All I have are opinions and hopefully a coherent form of expressing them. (There are many people with both a refined palate and full mastery of wine-speak at wine.woot, I'm just not one of them.) I was, of course, ridiculously excited at the prospect of free booze and the chance to tell others about it and have them listen to me.
Friday night, I popped open those babies, tasted, and reported like a good rat. We tried the mead chilled. We tried it mulled. I say "we" because I got other opinions. I posted at night, I posted again in the morning. I probably took my duty waaaaaay too seriously. But it was all worth it for one comment I got:
Great report. While I(and probably many others) value the reports from the "pros" here, yours and those like yours are equally important... esp to non-pros like myself(rpm- lots of corks to pull, and remember the wines). Actually, I considered your report professional... just without some of the "winese" terms.Be still my beating heart! I'm so easily taken in by flattery! I put my opinions out there and was rewarded! This experience has actually encouraged me to apply to do the same thing (put my opinions out there) in a category I'm a bit better with. As such, I've applied to review tea elsewhere. It's a bit odd how this one experience that was totally up to chance has completely given me confidence in the writing area.
It helped in pushing the "publish" button originally that, um, after enough mead you don't worry so much. And now it helps because I've got positive feedback.
-- Lu
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
...because getting an abortion isn't hard enough yet
Thank you, Jezebel for the heads up on this issue. I'll hope Eli is prepping her own post on this too.
The short version is this: the religious right isn't happy simply taking your right to choose away. While you can choose, they want you to choose life. We've known this for a while, but they are also trying to legislate things that will make it harder and harder to choose an abortion. In this case, various states are forming ultrasound laws -- that is laws that require health care providers to offer an ultrasound so you can see your speck before you definitely decide to abort it.
Abortion is already a hard decision for many. These laws simply exist to try and emotionally blackmail people. Regardless of the reasons for getting an abortion, this plays on someone in a hard situation's emotions in a way that I think is underhanded and dirty. Beyond that, the cost of the ultra-sound is just one more hoop making it more and more difficult to get on with your life. If you followed the link ("In this case") you saw that there's a law in the works in SC to force you to wait a full 24 hours post-ultrasound view to think about what you're going to do. Like getting sent to your room. That's another clinic visit. Which means another payment. Another scheduling. Another difficulty.
I have no doubt these laws will work to limit abortions -- those who were scraping together to afford them before will be even less able to afford them now. Those who were on the fence about going to the clinic, not because they want to keep the child, but for outside reasons, now have one more hoop (or possibly two in SC). The groups behind this will see it as a victory, fewer abortions. But I would rather see people freely able to make choices about their life and their body without a host of people they've never met getting involved.
The short version is this: the religious right isn't happy simply taking your right to choose away. While you can choose, they want you to choose life. We've known this for a while, but they are also trying to legislate things that will make it harder and harder to choose an abortion. In this case, various states are forming ultrasound laws -- that is laws that require health care providers to offer an ultrasound so you can see your speck before you definitely decide to abort it.
Abortion is already a hard decision for many. These laws simply exist to try and emotionally blackmail people. Regardless of the reasons for getting an abortion, this plays on someone in a hard situation's emotions in a way that I think is underhanded and dirty. Beyond that, the cost of the ultra-sound is just one more hoop making it more and more difficult to get on with your life. If you followed the link ("In this case") you saw that there's a law in the works in SC to force you to wait a full 24 hours post-ultrasound view to think about what you're going to do. Like getting sent to your room. That's another clinic visit. Which means another payment. Another scheduling. Another difficulty.
I have no doubt these laws will work to limit abortions -- those who were scraping together to afford them before will be even less able to afford them now. Those who were on the fence about going to the clinic, not because they want to keep the child, but for outside reasons, now have one more hoop (or possibly two in SC). The groups behind this will see it as a victory, fewer abortions. But I would rather see people freely able to make choices about their life and their body without a host of people they've never met getting involved.
Twelve Year Old Mistaken for Hooker Mistrialed
The trial against Dymond Milburn, the 12-year-old mistaken for a hooker, has been declared a mistrial. When Dymond was twelve years old, a circuit breaker flipped in her house, she went outside to fix it. Three men jumped out of a van and tackled her, she called for her father and fought them. They hurt her so badly, she had to go to the hospital. When she was released, she was arrested for assaulting police officers.
According to the Milburn family, the policemen did not announce themselves as such and jumped out of an unmarked vehicle. According to the police, they naturally did announce themselves. Either way, she was treated for head injuries at the hospital, then arrested three weeks later for not allowing three strange men to take her into a van. At the age of twelve.
I think this case falls into the crevice Jezebel has discussed before (there are better articles discussing it, but my cursory Google didn't return them): there is a specific demographic that you must fall into to garner national attention when you go missing (or in this case, get beaten for no real reason, then brought to trial for not peacefully getting taken from your home). If you aren't white, a lady, and a well thought of group (rich, middle class, or military), you probably aren't going to get a lot of national media attention-help. In this case, the girl is white (the complaint about hookers was about white hookers) but lives in a low-income area. Add to that, her case really got going in August of an election year and you have a recipe for total media dismissal. And that is dismal.
This girl's story should have been blasted across the nation so that parents everywhere could be outraged. Instead it was quietly reported a few places and then basically ignored.
According to the Milburn family, the policemen did not announce themselves as such and jumped out of an unmarked vehicle. According to the police, they naturally did announce themselves. Either way, she was treated for head injuries at the hospital, then arrested three weeks later for not allowing three strange men to take her into a van. At the age of twelve.
I think this case falls into the crevice Jezebel has discussed before (there are better articles discussing it, but my cursory Google didn't return them): there is a specific demographic that you must fall into to garner national attention when you go missing (or in this case, get beaten for no real reason, then brought to trial for not peacefully getting taken from your home). If you aren't white, a lady, and a well thought of group (rich, middle class, or military), you probably aren't going to get a lot of national media attention-help. In this case, the girl is white (the complaint about hookers was about white hookers) but lives in a low-income area. Add to that, her case really got going in August of an election year and you have a recipe for total media dismissal. And that is dismal.
This girl's story should have been blasted across the nation so that parents everywhere could be outraged. Instead it was quietly reported a few places and then basically ignored.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Elvis lives, the moon landing was faked, and what Holocaust?
Oh! And of course, the ever-famous Scarlett Johansson is a clone!
People believe some wacky things. There are some theories that have a strong desire behind them as well as the possibility of falsehood (9-11 was faked by the government, for example). In those scenarios it's not what happened that is denied, but how perception of it is cared for. Which is to say, the buildings came down but the purpose behind it is darker than we've been "led to believe" by our government. In the Scar-Jo clone scandal, there is a claim made that we don't have the science to back up or the DNA from Scar-Jo One. Mostly it comes off as a crazy way someone spent their weekend. Elvis lives -- well, with so many impersonators I think we all know where this gets started. The moon landing was faked -- again, it was such a fantastic event, it's almost easier to believe it didn't really happen and you know, we weren't all there.
Which brings me to Holocaust deniers and the most useful source of information on the Internet: Wikipedia. How is this even a question? That something that happened a generation ago can already be questioned by survivors as ever having happened to the extent that we currently are taught it did. I'll be the first to admit that a lot is left out of American history, mostly because we're concerned with American history the most, but our grandparents basically all fought in WWII. It's not like there's a real chance for us to say, "Grams and gramps and all their friends mass-hallucinated."
Instead of addressing these beliefs bit by bit, I have no intention of starting an argument against someone who can be convinced this to begin with, I will simply say that I have actually visited Auschwitz-Birkenau. It is... one of the most sobering and distressing experiences I've ever had. To visit a place like that. When you hear "X million dead", you -- or at least I-- cannot really comprehend what that means until they show you the hair, shoes, glasses, pots and pans, etc. left from the last group of prisoners to go through Auschwitz. At which point it becomes more and less comprehensible. But most assuredly sticks with you for the rest of your life.
I wouldn't bring this up at all, but the Pope rehabilitated (or un-excommunicated, as I prefer) some folks recently who are HDs. Of all the conspiracy theories out there, they are the least rational. Now, the Pope is not okay with all this HD-talk, but he's wanted to bring them back in to the fold for a while. The only way I can find this acceptable is through a massively anti-religious statement, which is to say, the Church cannot afford to excommunicate people just because they are easily led to believe ridiculous things. While I could understand outcry from other Catholics, after all this man was consecrated without Papal consent, I don't understand why other religious groups think they should get a say in how the Catholic church operates. The Pope isn't supporting this moronic belief, he's just saying this guy shouldn't be ex-communicated for something completely non-related.
Of course, on the other hand this man says there is no evidence that Nazis used gas chambers, when both the creation of the chambers and their use was painstakingly chronicled at Auschwitz, so I'm not exactly inclined to think kindly towards him. But it does give me an opening to bring up that Auschwitz is in dire need of funding. The museum is running out of money and everything is crumbling, given it wasn't exactly carefully erected to begin with. They need to maintain the place as constant evidence against morons who decide the Holocaust never happened or gas chambers weren't used. They were developed at Auschwitz. If it crumbles, they will be gone forever. And that is a horrifying idea -- it should never be easier for someone to deny this happened. And we should keep these places to remind us of what once happened.
-- Lu
People believe some wacky things. There are some theories that have a strong desire behind them as well as the possibility of falsehood (9-11 was faked by the government, for example). In those scenarios it's not what happened that is denied, but how perception of it is cared for. Which is to say, the buildings came down but the purpose behind it is darker than we've been "led to believe" by our government. In the Scar-Jo clone scandal, there is a claim made that we don't have the science to back up or the DNA from Scar-Jo One. Mostly it comes off as a crazy way someone spent their weekend. Elvis lives -- well, with so many impersonators I think we all know where this gets started. The moon landing was faked -- again, it was such a fantastic event, it's almost easier to believe it didn't really happen and you know, we weren't all there.
Which brings me to Holocaust deniers and the most useful source of information on the Internet: Wikipedia. How is this even a question? That something that happened a generation ago can already be questioned by survivors as ever having happened to the extent that we currently are taught it did. I'll be the first to admit that a lot is left out of American history, mostly because we're concerned with American history the most, but our grandparents basically all fought in WWII. It's not like there's a real chance for us to say, "Grams and gramps and all their friends mass-hallucinated."
Instead of addressing these beliefs bit by bit, I have no intention of starting an argument against someone who can be convinced this to begin with, I will simply say that I have actually visited Auschwitz-Birkenau. It is... one of the most sobering and distressing experiences I've ever had. To visit a place like that. When you hear "X million dead", you -- or at least I-- cannot really comprehend what that means until they show you the hair, shoes, glasses, pots and pans, etc. left from the last group of prisoners to go through Auschwitz. At which point it becomes more and less comprehensible. But most assuredly sticks with you for the rest of your life.
I wouldn't bring this up at all, but the Pope rehabilitated (or un-excommunicated, as I prefer) some folks recently who are HDs. Of all the conspiracy theories out there, they are the least rational. Now, the Pope is not okay with all this HD-talk, but he's wanted to bring them back in to the fold for a while. The only way I can find this acceptable is through a massively anti-religious statement, which is to say, the Church cannot afford to excommunicate people just because they are easily led to believe ridiculous things. While I could understand outcry from other Catholics, after all this man was consecrated without Papal consent, I don't understand why other religious groups think they should get a say in how the Catholic church operates. The Pope isn't supporting this moronic belief, he's just saying this guy shouldn't be ex-communicated for something completely non-related.
Of course, on the other hand this man says there is no evidence that Nazis used gas chambers, when both the creation of the chambers and their use was painstakingly chronicled at Auschwitz, so I'm not exactly inclined to think kindly towards him. But it does give me an opening to bring up that Auschwitz is in dire need of funding. The museum is running out of money and everything is crumbling, given it wasn't exactly carefully erected to begin with. They need to maintain the place as constant evidence against morons who decide the Holocaust never happened or gas chambers weren't used. They were developed at Auschwitz. If it crumbles, they will be gone forever. And that is a horrifying idea -- it should never be easier for someone to deny this happened. And we should keep these places to remind us of what once happened.
-- Lu
Friday, January 23, 2009
Sexiest site on the Internet
This is the sexiest site on the Internet. It's where I'm getting all my joy from these past few days. Learn it. Love it.
-- Lu
-- Lu
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Obama-Watch 2009, Day Three
Well, it's day three (full day two) of Obama's Presidency. He was re-sworn in after the oath got bungled. Today, the new Press Secretary for the White House got to take his first press conference with Obama as president. I watched, he got a bit beaten up over this issue. He said again and again that they were just being overly cautious in doing this. And again. And again. But this one reporter kept harping on it -- probably because they aren't used to having more than one question per session and he didn't really know what to do. I thought overall New Guy handled it well. I mean, he didn't just lose his cool and say, "We did it to keep jerks like you from harping on it for the next four years", so he's doing good in my book.
But I'm really here to talk about the Executive Orders from yesterday. If you listened to the speech he gave before Joe Biden swore in a bunch of the senior staff and cabinet, you already know about both of them. And frankly, it was an amazing speech that puts both orders in plain terms. In the plainest terms, one of them makes it way harder to cross interests between lobbying and governing, the other makes it far easier to get information under the freedom of information act.
But it is much, much better to hear all of this in our esteemed leader's own words:
I'd like to repeat that last bit:
Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.
And that, friends, is how you change America. He didn't just talk the talk, now he's walking the walk.
But I'm really here to talk about the Executive Orders from yesterday. If you listened to the speech he gave before Joe Biden swore in a bunch of the senior staff and cabinet, you already know about both of them. And frankly, it was an amazing speech that puts both orders in plain terms. In the plainest terms, one of them makes it way harder to cross interests between lobbying and governing, the other makes it far easier to get information under the freedom of information act.
But it is much, much better to hear all of this in our esteemed leader's own words:
Now, the new rules on lobbying alone, no matter how tough, are not enough to fix a broken system in Washington. That's why I'm also setting new rules that govern not just lobbyists, but all those who have been selected to serve in my administration.
If you are enlisting in government service, you will have to commit in writing to rules limiting your role for two years in matters involving people you used to work with, and barring you from any attempt to influence your former government colleagues for two years after you leave. And you will receive an ethics briefing on what is required of you to make sure that our government is serving the people's interests, and nobody else's -- a briefing, I'm proud to say, I was the first member of this administration to receive last week.
...
But the mere fact that you have the legal power to keep something secret does not mean you should always use it. The Freedom of Information Act is perhaps the most powerful instrument we have for making our government honest and transparent, and of holding it accountable. And I expect members of my administration not simply to live up to the letter but also the spirit of this law.
I will also hold myself as President to a new standard of openness. Going forward, anytime the American people want to know something that I or a former President wants to withhold, we will have to consult with the Attorney General and the White House Counsel, whose business it is to ensure compliance with the rule of law. Information will not be withheld just because I say so. It will be withheld because a separate authority believes my request is well grounded in the Constitution.
Let me say it as simply as I can: Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.
I'd like to repeat that last bit:
Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.
And that, friends, is how you change America. He didn't just talk the talk, now he's walking the walk.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Newsletter day!
Today my completely awesome cousin forwarded an e-newsletter to me from Congress.org. The letter highlights stuff going on in Congress, giving examples of bills that were introduced and explains them in easy plain English. It also links to the full text so that you can go read it.
Eli: Oh, awesome on the second one!
Prove that my work sucks, bitch, or pay me more!
Woo, repealed Congressional auto-raises!
And FUCK life at fertilization. What are they going to do with spontaneous abortions? And yay voting on the weekends!
Lu: I mean a lot of them are stupid. But I like that you can click and go see the bill and sponsors and stuff
Eli: I'm on the fence about the citizenship thing, and uncertain what "caller ID honesty" means.
Like, it is necessary that some IDs come up blocked.
Lu: Right
I'm realllllly pro HR 414 though
Eli: Yay noose=intimidation, boo reparations.
Lu: I do not think you should be able to take stealth pictures
Eli: YES.
But.
Lu: Um... I'm less noose=intimidation=HATECRIME
I was pro-it when I read it
Eli: Depends on the situation, I think. Because the Jena situation was clearly a hate thing.
Lu: but now I'm thinking. Like, yeah a lot of the time a noose is hate crimey.
But sometimes it's just Halloweeny
Eli: Ooh, yeah, that's a problem.
Lu: and I don't think we should legislate away the Halloweeny stuff just to take care of the Hate Crimes
Eli: And as for the camera phone thing, a lot of the time you just don't want to hear a damned clicking every time you're myspacing it up.
Lu: Also, now that I am getting this weekly, do you want to make discussing it a weekly part of the blog?Eli: Yes.
So there you have it. We'll be getting this newsletter once a week and be talking about it. We weren't really intending to post this, so it's not exactly our collected thoughts. Mostly just gut reactions like "Oh, I like this!" followed by a lot of "Oh, actually, when I think about it, do I really want that legislated?" In the future, we hope to, you know, have gotten past that when we talk about it. Or maybe not. We'll also post links to the actual bills when we discuss them I hope.
Anything to add Eli?
--Lu
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Mathetmatics, programming, and boozy brownies
In which I discuss everything a lady nerd needs to be happy: the Internet, mathematics, programming, learning, booze, chocolate, and baking. Actually, for the majority of people, I'd be willing to shorten that list to the Internet, booze, and chocolate, but for the purposes of this post, keep the longer version in mind.
A friend of mine (not Eli) has challenged me to Project Euler. Yeah, I didn't know what that meant either. So Project Euler is a bunch of math problems that you eventually need programming skills to solve, basically, and until then need some pretty mad spreadsheet skills. Well, there was one that was totally pen and paper, but other than that, mad skills. My friend and I are doing it to learn nifty new math and promgramming. According to the website:
A friend of mine (not Eli) has challenged me to Project Euler. Yeah, I didn't know what that meant either. So Project Euler is a bunch of math problems that you eventually need programming skills to solve, basically, and until then need some pretty mad spreadsheet skills. Well, there was one that was totally pen and paper, but other than that, mad skills. My friend and I are doing it to learn nifty new math and promgramming. According to the website:
Project Euler is a series of challenging mathematical/computer programming
problems that will require more than just mathematical insights to solve.
Although mathematics will help you arrive at elegant and efficient methods, the
use of a computer and programming skills will be required to solve most
problems.The motivation for starting Project Euler, and its continuation, is to
provide a platform for the inquiring mind to delve into unfamiliar areas and
learn new concepts in a fun and recreational context.
We're challenging ourselves to see who can do more faster. He started out ahead of me by doing a few while everyone else was playing Apples to Apples. Then I got in gear and started to kick is ass before getting hung up on an Excel function I couldn't figure out. I kicked it today and did two while at lunch.
It's fun, but also more than fun.
If that's not your cup of tea, here's a recipe for boozy brownies for you:
Preheat your oven to 325*F.
Combine 1 1/4 stick butter, 1 1/4 cups sugar, 3/4 cup cocoa, and 1/4 tsp salt
in a pan over medium-low heat. Stir until butter is melted and sugar
seemed to have melted in, is less grainy.In a separate bowl, add 1/2 tsp pure vanilla, 3 tbsp fancy brandy (it's
half brandy, half congac), two eggs and stir until combined. Eggs
should be scrambled nicely.Add 1/2 cup flour to chocolate mix. Fold in.
Add egg mixture. Stir until completely mixed in together.
Add nuts or anything you want.
Put in greased baking dish and cook 20 - 25 minutes until fork inserted
comes out clean. I use a flat oval baking dish of sorts my mom gave
me. The original recipe calls for an 8x8 pan. These brownies are
super dense and super fudgy, so I'd say the more spread out the better.
Let them cool a bit before eating and make SURE you have milk on hand.
They are pretty intense.
And there you have it -- math and chocolate. Two of my favorite things. Now if I could only figure out the biggest palindrome made from 2 three digit numbers....
(Seriously, this is addictive, I just stayed 20 minutes late at work thinking about it.)
--Lu
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
High Fructose Corn Syrup
It's happened to all of us, I think. You see someone about to eat something or do something and you go, "Really?" They of course respond, "why not?" You start to talk but then realize that while you know it's wrong, you don't have exact studies and science to back you up. Further, they use their more easily accessible knowledge and possibly better debating skills to trounce you. You end up feeling like an idiot, but with the burning feeling that you really were right. You just didn't know how to express yourself.
I'm not willing to get into a fight without having exact examples, usually. So when someone says something I'm fairly certain is false about a sensitive topic (my boyfriend's ex-roommate does this all the time), I bite my tongue until I can come back with something solid. The result, of course, is that it looks like the other side "wins". ("I thought you gave in on that point," my boyfriend says to me later. "No, she's a moron, but I'm not going to argue with her unless I have the data to back up my point. Ah, here it is now. See?" I reply.)
So I can sympathize with the people in those High Fructose Corn Syrup commercials who end up in the same, infuriating, frustrating position. Where they try to warn someone about HFCS and that other person walks all over them with iffy information, portraying it as perfect and true. As Michael Pollan points out in his book, In Defense of Food, we really don't know that much about nutrition. Further, many of our discoveries now make the discoveries from a few years ago totally useless in their findings. So saying HFCS is nutrionally the same as sugar isn't saying much. Further, enjoying HFCS in moderation sounds good, but unless you're a complete perimeter shopper*, you're enjoying it in your diet. Probably in places you weren't even aware of.
Honestly, if the food is prepped ahead of time and isn't raw, you should probably assume it has some in it. Bread? Usually. Soda? Almost always. Frozen meals? Of course! Even a lot of "health" food has it (though a lot doesn't because of its bad rep). Check the label on everything you eat today. You might be surprised at how much corn is there.
But beyond MP, my literary, foodie crush, there are tons of studies that certainly would give that woman at the park or that man on a picnic a bit of a punch. Just try this replacement commercial. What he doesn't mention is that table sugar is far less processed than HFCS. All signs point to the less processed something is, the more easily we can digest it, the better it is for us. Of course, that wouldn't have sounded nearly as good as spouting off all those studies.
But aside from just spreading misinformation, I don't like the debating style used because I feel so much sympathy for the person getting steamrolled. I mean, they aren't even a strawman. You have to get set up before you get knocked down in that case. They just stutter a moment. Like those "I'm a Mac" commercials, I feel like this one misses its mark: I feel way more sympathy for the woman and man who get steamrolled than I do empowered by the people doing it to them. Their debating methods just reflect the overall iffiness of the industry they represent.
At this point, it just so happens that I made a delicious soup last night. It reminded me very strongly of the Chunky Beef Vegetable soup I had all the time in my youth. It always grossed me out a bit coming from the can, but it tasted good. Some Google-fu gave me the ingredients in the Pot Roast soup and would you believe it: HFCS! So in exchange for this rant about debating styles and HFCS, I give you delicious and easy beef vegetable soup:
Mushrooms (sliced)
Carrots (peeled and cut)
Small potatoes (cut in half if they are biggish)
Chuck roast (cut into squares)
Onions (sliced)
2 cloves garlic (chopped)
2 cups red wine
4 cups chicken broth
Olive oil.
Put a bit of olive oil in a pot and heat.
Brown the meat squares in pot. Remove and set aside.
Add more olive oil.
Cook onions in pot until brownish and soft.
Add garlic and mushrooms, cook until soft.
Add wine, broth, meat, potatoes, and carrots.
Simmer three hours or until carrots and potatoes are cooked. Or longer, whatever. Take your time. Don't rush.
Add more water if too much liquid escapes or cover pot to begin with.
Season with salt as necessary.
Eat. Is delicious.
I realize it's not the most exacting of recipes, but soup is very forgiving. Add some other stuff, don't put all of this in, it doesn't really matter that much. I suggest one bottle of wine: two cups in the soup and the rest in you.
-- Lu
*perimeter shopper: you shop only around the grocery store perimeter -- nothing from the middle, where the processed foods usually are.
I'm not willing to get into a fight without having exact examples, usually. So when someone says something I'm fairly certain is false about a sensitive topic (my boyfriend's ex-roommate does this all the time), I bite my tongue until I can come back with something solid. The result, of course, is that it looks like the other side "wins". ("I thought you gave in on that point," my boyfriend says to me later. "No, she's a moron, but I'm not going to argue with her unless I have the data to back up my point. Ah, here it is now. See?" I reply.)
So I can sympathize with the people in those High Fructose Corn Syrup commercials who end up in the same, infuriating, frustrating position. Where they try to warn someone about HFCS and that other person walks all over them with iffy information, portraying it as perfect and true. As Michael Pollan points out in his book, In Defense of Food, we really don't know that much about nutrition. Further, many of our discoveries now make the discoveries from a few years ago totally useless in their findings. So saying HFCS is nutrionally the same as sugar isn't saying much. Further, enjoying HFCS in moderation sounds good, but unless you're a complete perimeter shopper*, you're enjoying it in your diet. Probably in places you weren't even aware of.
Honestly, if the food is prepped ahead of time and isn't raw, you should probably assume it has some in it. Bread? Usually. Soda? Almost always. Frozen meals? Of course! Even a lot of "health" food has it (though a lot doesn't because of its bad rep). Check the label on everything you eat today. You might be surprised at how much corn is there.
But beyond MP, my literary, foodie crush, there are tons of studies that certainly would give that woman at the park or that man on a picnic a bit of a punch. Just try this replacement commercial. What he doesn't mention is that table sugar is far less processed than HFCS. All signs point to the less processed something is, the more easily we can digest it, the better it is for us. Of course, that wouldn't have sounded nearly as good as spouting off all those studies.
But aside from just spreading misinformation, I don't like the debating style used because I feel so much sympathy for the person getting steamrolled. I mean, they aren't even a strawman. You have to get set up before you get knocked down in that case. They just stutter a moment. Like those "I'm a Mac" commercials, I feel like this one misses its mark: I feel way more sympathy for the woman and man who get steamrolled than I do empowered by the people doing it to them. Their debating methods just reflect the overall iffiness of the industry they represent.
At this point, it just so happens that I made a delicious soup last night. It reminded me very strongly of the Chunky Beef Vegetable soup I had all the time in my youth. It always grossed me out a bit coming from the can, but it tasted good. Some Google-fu gave me the ingredients in the Pot Roast soup and would you believe it: HFCS! So in exchange for this rant about debating styles and HFCS, I give you delicious and easy beef vegetable soup:
Mushrooms (sliced)
Carrots (peeled and cut)
Small potatoes (cut in half if they are biggish)
Chuck roast (cut into squares)
Onions (sliced)
2 cloves garlic (chopped)
2 cups red wine
4 cups chicken broth
Olive oil.
Put a bit of olive oil in a pot and heat.
Brown the meat squares in pot. Remove and set aside.
Add more olive oil.
Cook onions in pot until brownish and soft.
Add garlic and mushrooms, cook until soft.
Add wine, broth, meat, potatoes, and carrots.
Simmer three hours or until carrots and potatoes are cooked. Or longer, whatever. Take your time. Don't rush.
Add more water if too much liquid escapes or cover pot to begin with.
Season with salt as necessary.
Eat. Is delicious.
I realize it's not the most exacting of recipes, but soup is very forgiving. Add some other stuff, don't put all of this in, it doesn't really matter that much. I suggest one bottle of wine: two cups in the soup and the rest in you.
-- Lu
*perimeter shopper: you shop only around the grocery store perimeter -- nothing from the middle, where the processed foods usually are.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Fuck Sea Kittens.
Wow, now that I've read about PETA's new campagin to re-name fish as "sea kittens", I kind of want to take back all my self important rambling about organic cosmetics long enough to say this: fuck you, PETA.
Fish are delicious and healthy. Yes, they are hunted for food and sport. Yes, they are over hunted and it is a problem. Yes, they are intelligent and feel pain. But seriously? Sea kittens? We're aware of the problem enough without attaching silly, gimmicky names to it. You aren't going to reach a new audience really and those who already care will be at home rolling their eyes. Like I am.
And I'm still going to eat sushi, even if I have to call some of it raw sea kitten instead of raw fish.
-- Lu
Fish are delicious and healthy. Yes, they are hunted for food and sport. Yes, they are over hunted and it is a problem. Yes, they are intelligent and feel pain. But seriously? Sea kittens? We're aware of the problem enough without attaching silly, gimmicky names to it. You aren't going to reach a new audience really and those who already care will be at home rolling their eyes. Like I am.
And I'm still going to eat sushi, even if I have to call some of it raw sea kitten instead of raw fish.
-- Lu
Organic Cosmetics
I admit it. I eat and drink organic. Not always, not as a rule, but most of the time. I don't do it as a method of moral superiority, sometimes I'm actually a bit embarassed about it. I want to say to co-workers who roll their eyes at my juice boxes that splash the word ORGANIC about like it is more important than the beverage, "I'm sorry!" But sometimes, organic is all you've got. For instance, when I say "juice box", it should be clear that I'm talking about single serving chocolate milk terapaks with collapsable straws. I haven't found them in "normal". I'm not ribbed even a little bit about my juice box milk though, oh no, it's that my juice box chocolate milk is organic that seems to invite ridicule.
And fair enough, drinking anything out of a juice box at my age, no matter how convenient, deserves at least a smile.
But I've read The Omnivore's Dilemma and In Defense of Food, I love food with all my heart, and I strive to eat the food that tastes best, is good for the environment, and to be honest means the shortest walk for me. So I buy the majority of my food at the farmer's market. I can sample before I buy and it's across the street. Great all around.
Despite all that, I have a lot of trouble getting behind some of the weirder organic trends. I'm okay, for example, with my bamboo tights. The bamboo isn't organic, but is sustainably grown, super comfy, and cheap. I'm a bit weird about paying approximately a bajillion to have my clothing flown in from who-knows-where with the super exciting label "organic". I mean, if you're that down with the environment, just buy used.
So I was more than a bit sceptical about organic cosmetics. On the one hand, I'm certainly in the crowd that hears "organic" and thinks "oh, healthier, less processed, I bet it's better for my face" regardless of how true that is. On the other hand, I kind of roll my eyes and wonder if we really need organic makeup. What exactly goes into makeup that makes Brand A organic while Brand B isn't -- do I really want to know the animal and plant things they're using or would I rather leave the makeup a mystery?
I've already admitted that I'm a bit embarrassed about using "weird" organic things. Mostly because a lot of them are less green in some ways than their (un?)traditional counterparts. Makeup falls into that category -- strange enough that I don't really want to admit I'm using the organic version. It costs more, it probably doesn't actually help the environment that much, and ... well, you can see how much space I've already taken up to try and justify the following fact: Of all the makeup I've used, ever, the organic stuff I've bought lately is absolutely the best and makes me look fabulous.
I got some organic powder (Physician's Formula) for a recent big date. It was a bit of a lark -- I almost never wear makeup, it would be funny to tease him by saying it was organic. It was amazing. My face has rarely, if ever, looked that good. It was also ridiculously easy to use. But it was one product, so I kind of wrote it off. Then I noticed that Softlips has gone organic. Even the tube is made from 50% post industrial recycled plastic. Softlips has long been my go-to source for, well, soft lips. That stuff is amazing. And organic? Damn.
I guess in a way, I was surprised that products I viewed (or would have viewed) as having gimicky price-rasiers (the USDA organic seal) were also really high quality. There is not reason they shouldn't be, but I'd been seeing organic as a gimmick for so long (see: bananas) that in a way, I forgot it wasn't all infomercial nonsense.
-- Lu
And fair enough, drinking anything out of a juice box at my age, no matter how convenient, deserves at least a smile.
But I've read The Omnivore's Dilemma and In Defense of Food, I love food with all my heart, and I strive to eat the food that tastes best, is good for the environment, and to be honest means the shortest walk for me. So I buy the majority of my food at the farmer's market. I can sample before I buy and it's across the street. Great all around.
Despite all that, I have a lot of trouble getting behind some of the weirder organic trends. I'm okay, for example, with my bamboo tights. The bamboo isn't organic, but is sustainably grown, super comfy, and cheap. I'm a bit weird about paying approximately a bajillion to have my clothing flown in from who-knows-where with the super exciting label "organic". I mean, if you're that down with the environment, just buy used.
So I was more than a bit sceptical about organic cosmetics. On the one hand, I'm certainly in the crowd that hears "organic" and thinks "oh, healthier, less processed, I bet it's better for my face" regardless of how true that is. On the other hand, I kind of roll my eyes and wonder if we really need organic makeup. What exactly goes into makeup that makes Brand A organic while Brand B isn't -- do I really want to know the animal and plant things they're using or would I rather leave the makeup a mystery?
I've already admitted that I'm a bit embarrassed about using "weird" organic things. Mostly because a lot of them are less green in some ways than their (un?)traditional counterparts. Makeup falls into that category -- strange enough that I don't really want to admit I'm using the organic version. It costs more, it probably doesn't actually help the environment that much, and ... well, you can see how much space I've already taken up to try and justify the following fact: Of all the makeup I've used, ever, the organic stuff I've bought lately is absolutely the best and makes me look fabulous.
I got some organic powder (Physician's Formula) for a recent big date. It was a bit of a lark -- I almost never wear makeup, it would be funny to tease him by saying it was organic. It was amazing. My face has rarely, if ever, looked that good. It was also ridiculously easy to use. But it was one product, so I kind of wrote it off. Then I noticed that Softlips has gone organic. Even the tube is made from 50% post industrial recycled plastic. Softlips has long been my go-to source for, well, soft lips. That stuff is amazing. And organic? Damn.
I guess in a way, I was surprised that products I viewed (or would have viewed) as having gimicky price-rasiers (the USDA organic seal) were also really high quality. There is not reason they shouldn't be, but I'd been seeing organic as a gimmick for so long (see: bananas) that in a way, I forgot it wasn't all infomercial nonsense.
-- Lu
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Love, Twu Love
I feel like this article's been all over blog-land, lately but I just took the time to actually sit down and read it. It's the one about True Love and how it really can last a lifetime. A large part of me has wanted to say since hearing about it -- of course love really can last a lifetime. We wouldn't have so many stories idealizing it if it didn't happen to someone. And we wouldn't always be hearing about our grandparents, parents, neighbors, or cousins if it wasn't happening with some regularity.
The thing that shocked me about the article upon actually review it was this: unless I'm reading it wrong, the results are a lot worse than they are reporting. According to CNN, they scanned the brains of couples who'd been together for 20 years and couples newly in love. They found that 10% of the couples who made it to 20 years retained that same level of chemical reaction as the newbies.
But that's out of the couples that make it to 20 years! How many actually do that in this day and age? So a goodly amount (yes, I do think 10% is a goodly amount) of the people who have the stuff to make it stick are still as ridiculously in love now as they were then, but that's only out of the people who had the stuff to make it stick. And! Because we obviously haven't had time to research anything based on these findings, what happens when their brain chemistry does change? Will they progress similarly to a fairly new couple, meaning that they may easily fall out with each other? Or will they progress in a way closer to the other "we've made it this far" couples? I guess, in a way, I'm trying to ask: So we know a tiny number of couples do this, but is it really a good thing? Or should we be lauding the couples who've matured in their relationship and passed this point?
According to this old NYT article, only about half of couples make it to married 20 years. And that's married 20, not "together 20". I don't know the exact parameters of the True Love study. But 10% of "about half" is really more like 5%. True love is getting more and more elusive! And I'm still not sure that I even want to be in the 5%. I'd love to still go nuts over my boyfriend/husband in 20 years, but I'd also like to think we'd both mature emotionally in that time. Because I'm not sure I can handle 20 years of, "He's so fluffy!" as an answer to... everything. And only emotional maturity is going to change that one.
I should also say I was pretty shocked by the marriage statistics from the NYT article. I thought we were having a lot more divorces. Oops!
-- Lu
The thing that shocked me about the article upon actually review it was this: unless I'm reading it wrong, the results are a lot worse than they are reporting. According to CNN, they scanned the brains of couples who'd been together for 20 years and couples newly in love. They found that 10% of the couples who made it to 20 years retained that same level of chemical reaction as the newbies.
But that's out of the couples that make it to 20 years! How many actually do that in this day and age? So a goodly amount (yes, I do think 10% is a goodly amount) of the people who have the stuff to make it stick are still as ridiculously in love now as they were then, but that's only out of the people who had the stuff to make it stick. And! Because we obviously haven't had time to research anything based on these findings, what happens when their brain chemistry does change? Will they progress similarly to a fairly new couple, meaning that they may easily fall out with each other? Or will they progress in a way closer to the other "we've made it this far" couples? I guess, in a way, I'm trying to ask: So we know a tiny number of couples do this, but is it really a good thing? Or should we be lauding the couples who've matured in their relationship and passed this point?
According to this old NYT article, only about half of couples make it to married 20 years. And that's married 20, not "together 20". I don't know the exact parameters of the True Love study. But 10% of "about half" is really more like 5%. True love is getting more and more elusive! And I'm still not sure that I even want to be in the 5%. I'd love to still go nuts over my boyfriend/husband in 20 years, but I'd also like to think we'd both mature emotionally in that time. Because I'm not sure I can handle 20 years of, "He's so fluffy!" as an answer to... everything. And only emotional maturity is going to change that one.
I should also say I was pretty shocked by the marriage statistics from the NYT article. I thought we were having a lot more divorces. Oops!
-- Lu
Crickets chirping in the night
It looks like Eli hasn't shown up yet to introduce herself. I'm a little hesitant about posting again before she gets here, but I don't want to leave us with crickets chirping as yet another blog falls into the land of forgotten ideas and New Years Resolutions to Write More. (Though I didn't make any NYRs and certainly didn't make one to Write More.)
So I'll post some filler by telling you about Big Project of the New Year Number One. I generally start a LOT of projects. I finish very few. This is one project that I'm almost desperate to finish. Both to show that I can do it and because it's so freaking cool. I'm making a weighted companion cube quilt.
The weighted companion cube is probably the iconic image from the video game Portal. (It's a tie between the cube and a cake, but since the cake is a lie and the cube is really there, I'm going with it.) Portal is a really fun logic game that, admittedly, I've never actually finished. I gotten about halfway through. Now this isn't surprising, I never finish video games. I never even finished Kingdom Hearts which I played obsessively, loved, and completed all but the final boss battle. And I do mean all -- I did the minigames, even the ones I hated, in the name of completion. Just not that last battle.
Portal is really fun, the cube is highly recognizable, and frankly it gets put in a lot of crafts. For my pursposes, it's going to be a bit tricky to sew, as I'm not half assing it. As my first sewing project in about a year, I'm going to fully quilt it. For me, that means 256 five inch squares that I expect to sew down to four inch squares (I'd hope for quarter inch seams, but I'd also be dreaming) on a new machine.
Right now, I have the pink squares cut and the black, edging squares cut. I only have gray and dark gray to cut. But I want to start the heart anyway. If you look to the "quilt" I don't really like, you can see the overlap of pink from how they made the heart. Now, if you pull out a Betty Crocker style half apron, you can see what I plan to do by looking at the pockets. It's more complex sewing, but I think it looks nicer. Unfortunately, I've only ever done it once before. To make a Betty Crocker style half apron. Wish me luck!
-- Lu
So I'll post some filler by telling you about Big Project of the New Year Number One. I generally start a LOT of projects. I finish very few. This is one project that I'm almost desperate to finish. Both to show that I can do it and because it's so freaking cool. I'm making a weighted companion cube quilt.
The weighted companion cube is probably the iconic image from the video game Portal. (It's a tie between the cube and a cake, but since the cake is a lie and the cube is really there, I'm going with it.) Portal is a really fun logic game that, admittedly, I've never actually finished. I gotten about halfway through. Now this isn't surprising, I never finish video games. I never even finished Kingdom Hearts which I played obsessively, loved, and completed all but the final boss battle. And I do mean all -- I did the minigames, even the ones I hated, in the name of completion. Just not that last battle.
Portal is really fun, the cube is highly recognizable, and frankly it gets put in a lot of crafts. For my pursposes, it's going to be a bit tricky to sew, as I'm not half assing it. As my first sewing project in about a year, I'm going to fully quilt it. For me, that means 256 five inch squares that I expect to sew down to four inch squares (I'd hope for quarter inch seams, but I'd also be dreaming) on a new machine.
Right now, I have the pink squares cut and the black, edging squares cut. I only have gray and dark gray to cut. But I want to start the heart anyway. If you look to the "quilt" I don't really like, you can see the overlap of pink from how they made the heart. Now, if you pull out a Betty Crocker style half apron, you can see what I plan to do by looking at the pockets. It's more complex sewing, but I think it looks nicer. Unfortunately, I've only ever done it once before. To make a Betty Crocker style half apron. Wish me luck!
-- Lu
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Awkard Things
Dear lord, I hope we change this "theme" soon. Eli, you're in charge of picking something less like kindergarten.
In other news, I can't think of a better way to introduce myself than my current dilemma. I spend a lot of time at my boyfriend's house. I get a long great with his roommates and spend the night regularly. As of late, however, I've noticed a small problem. His lady roommate and I use the same tampons and pads (different pantyliners). While I know which tampons are mine (despite the same brand and style, I get the multi-pack while she gets the normal size packs), I don't know which pads are mine. We get exactly the same ones.
I would never dream of stealing hers, but during my last period, I noticed my pads were exactly where I thought they were, kind of chucked to the back of, admittedly, her shelf. (Please note: I don't have a shelf in the bathroom, it's not like I live there.) So I grabbed one and did my thing and didn't really think anything of it. Until I realized that they were disappearing at a rate unlike my consumption. It became my belief that we were pulling from the same pack.
Not a problem, I recently replaced the pack and honestly don't really care, but how do you approach the topic that either I was taking hers or she was taking mine? To some extent, I'm not interested in approaching it as long as when they are gone, they get replaced by someone before another 11pm walk to the store in the middle of the cold, snowy winter has to be made, but at the same time, part of me really wants to know: are they mine or hers?
Deep down, I think my worry is that despite remembering chucking the pack onto her shelf, despite having just replaced them, I may have been taking her pads. And that seems like an incredibly poor thing to do to someone who doesn't even complain when you spend enough time at their house that you have to keep all of these things there.
--Lu
In other news, I can't think of a better way to introduce myself than my current dilemma. I spend a lot of time at my boyfriend's house. I get a long great with his roommates and spend the night regularly. As of late, however, I've noticed a small problem. His lady roommate and I use the same tampons and pads (different pantyliners). While I know which tampons are mine (despite the same brand and style, I get the multi-pack while she gets the normal size packs), I don't know which pads are mine. We get exactly the same ones.
I would never dream of stealing hers, but during my last period, I noticed my pads were exactly where I thought they were, kind of chucked to the back of, admittedly, her shelf. (Please note: I don't have a shelf in the bathroom, it's not like I live there.) So I grabbed one and did my thing and didn't really think anything of it. Until I realized that they were disappearing at a rate unlike my consumption. It became my belief that we were pulling from the same pack.
Not a problem, I recently replaced the pack and honestly don't really care, but how do you approach the topic that either I was taking hers or she was taking mine? To some extent, I'm not interested in approaching it as long as when they are gone, they get replaced by someone before another 11pm walk to the store in the middle of the cold, snowy winter has to be made, but at the same time, part of me really wants to know: are they mine or hers?
Deep down, I think my worry is that despite remembering chucking the pack onto her shelf, despite having just replaced them, I may have been taking her pads. And that seems like an incredibly poor thing to do to someone who doesn't even complain when you spend enough time at their house that you have to keep all of these things there.
--Lu
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)