I've never been one who was prone to idealize romanticism. As anyone who has read my previous posts knows, I'm not a very romantic person. At least not stereotypically romantic. I can do without the flowers, the poems, the sappy movies, blah blah blah. That's just not my style. When I would daydream about being in love it was more about someone 'getting' my jokes, or understanding my oddball references. Never have I fantasized about being swept off my feet by the prince, charging in on his white steed. My version of a fairy tale has always been something more along the lines of cuddling on the couch with my guy, watching Office Space while quoting lines and laughing. For me, the deep, satisfying closeness of a well developed rapport is far more attractive than the butterflies one experiences during the early days of a relationship.
I find it interesting, however, that as we achieve the closeness and safety that comes with said rapport, we often lose the niceties and subtleties that made the beginning of the relationship enjoyable. As we add up the months and years and finally reach the stage where we really know and deeply love someone, we begin to neglect the little things. It's ironic isn't it? The more you love someone, the less you are likely to do the things that were done to attract them. Men open doors with less frequency. Women shave their legs less often. Compliments go by the way side. Physical affection decreases (get your minds out of the gutter. I'm talking hand holding, people). As time goes by we're more inclined to let our partners see 'the real us', which, let's face it....probably isn't that great. The real me means I have on no make-up, my hair is tied in a knot, a razor hasn't graced my skin for a few days, I'm clothed in the U of R's finest knitwear, and I'm sporting my very best worn out tennis shoes. Does my husband love me in spite of all this...yes. But, why should he have to? Why should we accept a decline in effort as a natural response to closer, deeper love? It should be the exact opposite.
All things working as they should be, with each page turned on a calendar (ok, I'm dating myself now. Does anyone other than me actually use a paper calendar anymore?) we should gain more respect for, desire more love from, and display more affection towards our partners. It's not as hard as we make it seems. Nike says it best....Just Do It! Pick up a Gillette, open a door and enjoy each other again. You'll both be glad you did.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Our poor teachers.
For the last couple of weeks as I've been on Facebook I've noticed that a few of my 'friends' have had the same note show up in their posts. It's the one titled 'Are you sick of highly paid teachers?' Obviously this is a moot question because, as we all know, teachers don't make what anyone would call an extravagant wage. So the answer to the Facebook question is, no. I am not sick of highly paid teachers. I'm just sick of whiny teachers.
To avoid any confusion, let me state at the outset that I am very good friends with several teachers. They all know my viewpoint (something I've been working on lately is expressing my opinions more freely). And so we are all on the same page here, I want it known from the get go that, while I have nothing but respect and admiration for the hard working teachers of the world, I don't believe that there is anything inherently noble about becoming a teacher.
Are there many, many great teachers who seek out their profession because they want to educate and mold the minds of our future? Yes. Are there many teachers who spend countless hours both inside and out of their classroom preparing wonderfully enriching lessons for our kids? Yes. But let's be honest. There are also many, many teachers who become teachers as a fall back (I've heard it said a couple of times a year since I've been at the U of R.....'if I can't get a job in my field of study I can always teach for a few years'). There are many teachers who do the bare minimum and find the students to be a necessary evil that they must tolerate in exchange for working only eight months a year.
And to bring us back to the question on Facebook....NEWSFLASH: It's no big secret that teachers don't become millionaires. To me this is the central point. I get so tired of people making choices and then doing nothing but complaining about the results. How scary is it that the people charged with educating our children and molding their minds can't even figure out a principle as simple as cause and effect? If you want to make more than $50,000 average per year then don't teach! No one is forcing you to walk into my kid's classroom. I've yet to hear about the teacher brigade that storms into your home in the middle of the night and forces you to the local school.
Smokers who sue Tobacco companies. Drivers who get angry when they order hot coffee that burns them when it spills. Teachers who complain about their wages. These are all people who don't seem to have any critical thinking skills and certainly don't seem to want to take responsibility for their choices. In the case of teachers this is not only annoying but it's downright unnerving. How can you teach something (critical thinking, judgement, problem solving) if you don't understand and practice the concept yourself? Infuriating.
To sum up.....teachers, if you want to vent about how kids can be rude/disrespectful in the classroom or how you don't have the parental support that you need to successfully educate our kids, I'll be your biggest and loudest cheerleader. But please, don't expect me to feel sorry for the size of your paycheck. Because while you are enjoying your week off at Thanksgiving (and Christmas and Spring Break and three months off every summer) my husband has to go to work six days a week to make the same amount that you do. And he doesn't whine about it either. That was his choice.
To avoid any confusion, let me state at the outset that I am very good friends with several teachers. They all know my viewpoint (something I've been working on lately is expressing my opinions more freely). And so we are all on the same page here, I want it known from the get go that, while I have nothing but respect and admiration for the hard working teachers of the world, I don't believe that there is anything inherently noble about becoming a teacher.
Are there many, many great teachers who seek out their profession because they want to educate and mold the minds of our future? Yes. Are there many teachers who spend countless hours both inside and out of their classroom preparing wonderfully enriching lessons for our kids? Yes. But let's be honest. There are also many, many teachers who become teachers as a fall back (I've heard it said a couple of times a year since I've been at the U of R.....'if I can't get a job in my field of study I can always teach for a few years'). There are many teachers who do the bare minimum and find the students to be a necessary evil that they must tolerate in exchange for working only eight months a year.
And to bring us back to the question on Facebook....NEWSFLASH: It's no big secret that teachers don't become millionaires. To me this is the central point. I get so tired of people making choices and then doing nothing but complaining about the results. How scary is it that the people charged with educating our children and molding their minds can't even figure out a principle as simple as cause and effect? If you want to make more than $50,000 average per year then don't teach! No one is forcing you to walk into my kid's classroom. I've yet to hear about the teacher brigade that storms into your home in the middle of the night and forces you to the local school.
Smokers who sue Tobacco companies. Drivers who get angry when they order hot coffee that burns them when it spills. Teachers who complain about their wages. These are all people who don't seem to have any critical thinking skills and certainly don't seem to want to take responsibility for their choices. In the case of teachers this is not only annoying but it's downright unnerving. How can you teach something (critical thinking, judgement, problem solving) if you don't understand and practice the concept yourself? Infuriating.
To sum up.....teachers, if you want to vent about how kids can be rude/disrespectful in the classroom or how you don't have the parental support that you need to successfully educate our kids, I'll be your biggest and loudest cheerleader. But please, don't expect me to feel sorry for the size of your paycheck. Because while you are enjoying your week off at Thanksgiving (and Christmas and Spring Break and three months off every summer) my husband has to go to work six days a week to make the same amount that you do. And he doesn't whine about it either. That was his choice.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
In Defense of Choice.
In our country there are certain questions, that when answered, define a persons' personality and belief system. Typically opinions are very clearly delineated, with very few exception. These are serious questions. The type of which there is no room for waffling.
For example: a) Elvis or b) The Beatles.
a) Coke or b) Pepsi.
a) Chevy or b) Ford.
a) Lakers or b) Celtics
a) Pro-Life or b) Pro-Choice.
a) Smoker or b) non-smoker.
(The correct answers are b-a-b-a-b-a).
For the record, I am not a smoker. I have never been a smoker (minus one week in Jr. High when I pretended to smoke with Becky Tank). I will never become a smoker. I think that we have ample information about the detrimental effects on your health when you choose to smoke. It's my opinion that people who have such information and choose to begin smoking anyway are idiots. However, for the most part I fall clearly on the 'side' of the smoker.
To begin I'd like to argue that us non-smoking types really don't care about the health of 'the children'. How could we? Those of us who don't smoke aren't purchasing cigarettes thus not paying the exorbitant taxes which finance many of the Child's Health programs in our state. Obviously if I was truly concerned for the welfare (pardon the pun) of needy children I'd start a pack a day habit.
Then we come to restaurants and bars. Ok, I get that you may not want to sit down for dinner and have to smell the smoke from the college kids at the table next to you. And I get that we are supposed to care about the poor waitresses who choose that profession with full knowledge that they'll be breathing smoke all night long. But I come at this from the perspective of someone who is quickly becoming a Libertarian in her old age. To me, it is absolutely wrong for the guv-ment to tell me what I can/can't do in my place of business. And before you go off half cocked and say something silly like 'SOOO business owners should be able to do whatever they want, huh? How about selling porn to handicapped kids on school campuses, eh?'....what I mean is that if something is LEGAL (which for the foreseeable future smoking will be because it makes one heck of a lot of money for said govt.) then each individual business owner should be able to decide for themselves. As should each patron. If I own a restaurant... and I CHOOSE to make my business a smoking establishment... and no one CHOOSES to come to eat my steak...then I go out of business. Problem solved. No government intervention needed.
Onto parks and beaches. It's now illegal to smoke in a park/on a beach. Really? Please try to explain to me (without laughing because it is obviously so ridiculous) how the smoke from the dude on the blanket 50 feet away from you is going to cause your lung cancer. You may find it irritating or inconvenient but it certainly isn't a health issue. And if we are going to start legislating to prevent inconvenience then I want to see the 'Your Kid is a Brat-Get Him Out of This Restaurant' bill up for a vote at the next election. Or perhaps the 'Hey Fat Lady - You Smell - Move Over' law enacted immediately.
What it boils down to for me is consistency. Don't say that smoking is a horrible terrible thing and then finance programs for kids with the money. Don't pussy foot around the issue. Make a clear, consistent decision. If smoking is something that we as a society deem too problematic or dangerous to continue, then grow a pair, make a decision, and make it illegal. Until then back off of the smokers. I want to live in a country where I have the option of walking a little further away from the dude on the beach or picking a different dinner destination. Either way, keep your damn kids quiet while I eat.
For example: a) Elvis or b) The Beatles.
a) Coke or b) Pepsi.
a) Chevy or b) Ford.
a) Lakers or b) Celtics
a) Pro-Life or b) Pro-Choice.
a) Smoker or b) non-smoker.
(The correct answers are b-a-b-a-b-a).
For the record, I am not a smoker. I have never been a smoker (minus one week in Jr. High when I pretended to smoke with Becky Tank). I will never become a smoker. I think that we have ample information about the detrimental effects on your health when you choose to smoke. It's my opinion that people who have such information and choose to begin smoking anyway are idiots. However, for the most part I fall clearly on the 'side' of the smoker.
To begin I'd like to argue that us non-smoking types really don't care about the health of 'the children'. How could we? Those of us who don't smoke aren't purchasing cigarettes thus not paying the exorbitant taxes which finance many of the Child's Health programs in our state. Obviously if I was truly concerned for the welfare (pardon the pun) of needy children I'd start a pack a day habit.
Then we come to restaurants and bars. Ok, I get that you may not want to sit down for dinner and have to smell the smoke from the college kids at the table next to you. And I get that we are supposed to care about the poor waitresses who choose that profession with full knowledge that they'll be breathing smoke all night long. But I come at this from the perspective of someone who is quickly becoming a Libertarian in her old age. To me, it is absolutely wrong for the guv-ment to tell me what I can/can't do in my place of business. And before you go off half cocked and say something silly like 'SOOO business owners should be able to do whatever they want, huh? How about selling porn to handicapped kids on school campuses, eh?'....what I mean is that if something is LEGAL (which for the foreseeable future smoking will be because it makes one heck of a lot of money for said govt.) then each individual business owner should be able to decide for themselves. As should each patron. If I own a restaurant... and I CHOOSE to make my business a smoking establishment... and no one CHOOSES to come to eat my steak...then I go out of business. Problem solved. No government intervention needed.
Onto parks and beaches. It's now illegal to smoke in a park/on a beach. Really? Please try to explain to me (without laughing because it is obviously so ridiculous) how the smoke from the dude on the blanket 50 feet away from you is going to cause your lung cancer. You may find it irritating or inconvenient but it certainly isn't a health issue. And if we are going to start legislating to prevent inconvenience then I want to see the 'Your Kid is a Brat-Get Him Out of This Restaurant' bill up for a vote at the next election. Or perhaps the 'Hey Fat Lady - You Smell - Move Over' law enacted immediately.
What it boils down to for me is consistency. Don't say that smoking is a horrible terrible thing and then finance programs for kids with the money. Don't pussy foot around the issue. Make a clear, consistent decision. If smoking is something that we as a society deem too problematic or dangerous to continue, then grow a pair, make a decision, and make it illegal. Until then back off of the smokers. I want to live in a country where I have the option of walking a little further away from the dude on the beach or picking a different dinner destination. Either way, keep your damn kids quiet while I eat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)