Or, as my kids say, Chrissolhanakwanzakahsticemas, or Christhanasolkwanzasticekahmas.
At this time of year, we need this. We need some candles to light up the darkness. And a blazing fire to provide heat. We need evergreen trees to remind us that even though all the leaves are gone and the stems appear dead, there is still life in the forests and fields. We need flying reindeer and tiny elves to bring us magic. We need friends and family to celebrate together and remind us that even though it is dark and cold outside, we still have each other to care for and love. We need good food, too much of it sometimes, to remind us that even though nothing seems to be alive outside and growing, we can have full tummies and yummy goodness in our minds and hearts. We need a tiny baby, cared for by loving parents despite the lack of modern amenities, and welcomed by angels and shepherds and wise men as a harbinger of peace and joy. Because underneath all that snow, [or despite the clouds and rain], life is beginning again, stirring and turning over and growing. Spring and sunshine and warmth will return to our world, as it has every year since the beginning of time. And we need to remember that, and celebrate. Every single year.
We need to continue to hope for and work towards peace on earth and goodwill to all humankind.
Merry Chrissolhanakwanzakahsticemas, or whatever you celebrate. Do celebrate, please!
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Parenting tips
I have wanted to write a book on parenting for a long time. Some things that seem really obvious to me, obviously aren't to others. So here goes (nothing):
My mother was very insecure in her parenting. This manifested itself by her carefully following the "rules" set out by doctors and other experts (more on doctors as experts later). By carefully following the rules, she hoped to raise healthy children, but she didn't seem to be able to rely on her own instincts at all. When my oldest brother was a toddler, my dad told me once, she locked him in his room behind a baby gate (not a closed door) and let him cry while she and Dad ate dinner. Dad told me it was often impossible to eat while Fred cried piteously, or trashed his room and got up to other "mischief" such as removing his diapers and playing with them. When I was a baby, I was told, they sometimes would sneak into my room and get me and feed me earlier than the four hours prescribed as the correct "feeding" schedule. Sigh.
Later: Many doctors claim to be experts on parenting and/or mothering, even though many of them (the male doctors in particular) have never ever been mothers. Case in point - one doctor, claiming an expertise he didn't have, said (and I quote as exactly as I remember it from forty years ago) "You never once thought of putting down your baby while you were pregnant." Until this point, I hadn't considered the gender of the author of this particular book, but reading this, I turned to the author, and sure enough MALE. Because in my pregnancy, especially the last three months, I can't remember how many times - but probably at least once a day - I said to myself, if I could only be not-pregnant for ten minutes, is that too much to ask, I will happily resume the pregnancy and continue to the end. Just ten minutes without this baby bump, please. It was not to be. And I survived the pregnancies (all of them). No, I don't have ten children, it just seems like I was pregnant for ten years.
Like my mother said, those last two weeks of your pregnancy are the longest two years of your life, and the twenty years your children spend growing up are the shortest two weeks of your life.
I read every book I could get my hands on about parenting, while I was still pregnant. Some of them were garbage. Some of them flatly contradicted each other - feed your baby when it is hungry VS feed your baby only every four hours. I read books by doctors, by mothers, by experts and by charlatans. Some of them spoke to me, and fit into my view of life, others seemed to be prissy, stagnant, or totally impractical. By the time I took my newborn son home, I was tired of reading.
When my husband was at work, I would lay the baby in the middle of the queen size bed and watch him sleep. I did craft projects while he slept. I remember making a paper mache wastebasket. I also watched soap operas for a brief period. One memorable one ended on a Friday with a real cliffhanger (would the bride allow the groom's interfering mother influence her, or not) and an announcement that this show would not be seen on Monday, but would be replaced by another type of show. My soap opera watching days ended abruptly, but not my fascination with my son's breathing and sleeping.
He spend the first weeks of his life sleeping and eating. Even bathing him was a problem, as he wanted to nurse, then return to sleep, not stay awake for bathtime. I took him outside one afternoon, in order to take pictures of the bath. He was born in New Mexico in June, so afternoons outside were warm, as in HOT. He loved his bath in the warmth, so after that, I made sure to turn the A/C off several hours before bath time. And he stayed awake better. I had learned by this time, nurse on one side, bath and clean clothes, then nurse on the other side. Then he slept.
He slept for three and a half hours at a time, right from day one. The nursing and diaper change took about a half hour. So every four hours, round the clock, I fed him.
I worried. Breastfed babies, I had learned, liked to nurse often, even every two hours. They were apt to be irregular, sleeping for ten minutes here, and four hours there. Not my child. He ate, he slept. When asleep, he could be moved from place to place without waking him. So he could be put to sleep in the living room, and moved to his bedroom later on. Or taken to the store for a quick shopping trip without interrupting his nap. Or go to sleep in our bed, or my rocking chair, and plopped in his crib when convenient. It didn't bother him.
I learned that you spend the first six weeks, especially, but the first whole year, really, getting to know your child. One of our friends at that time had firmly announced before their daughter was born, that they were not going to let any child of theirs cry itself to sleep. Oh, no, their child would be gently soothed to sleep in their loving arms or allowed to play quietly in the crib before sleep, but crying would be responded to. Sheepishly, about three months later, they admitted that their daughter seemed to go to sleep much more easily and quickly if she was allowed to cry, well, fuss, for a few minutes after being put down.
I read a very interesting book before my children were born. Interestingly, this was the one book my mother recommended, indeed she insisted I read it. It was called The Rights of Infants and it talked about ten traits that some reseachers had identified as seeming to be inborn and lifelong. These traits included liking vs. disliking new things, regularity vs. irregularity of daily schedule, level of activity and so forth. While the book presented the traits as either or, I believe that they are a continuum, with some children falling at either end, but most falling somewhere in the middle.
For instance, my son was clearly pretty regular in his eating and sleeping schedule, and that trait has seemed to follow throughout his life, making planning for his meals and naps easier than if he had been the type to eat lots and often one day and next to nothing the next, the way some kids seem to be. Also, he seem to be near the top of the activity level, and liked and was attracted to new things.
He loved his first oatmeal, his first ice cream, and his first black olive. He didn't like his first taste of tomato, but since there was a bowl of cherry tomatoes on the table, he tasted several, in case the first one was a mistake. He still doesn't like tomatoes, but likes almost all other foods. While these traits may seem like good things, you try parenting a child who is always on the go, and enjoys tasting new things, like poison ivy and the little chlorine balls that didn't get completely dissolved in the kiddie pool at the park.
The book emphasized that the inheritance of these traits was still a mystery, and a couple who both enjoyed a very regular schedule could still end up with an infant who wanted a ten minute nap one day, and a five-hour nap the next, playing havoc with their ideas of a carefully regulated life. And that it seems to be easier to enjoy a child whose traits match yours, but since it doesn't seem to be a given that your child will echo your traits, you ought to learn to parent the child you have, not try to shovel your child into a mold that doesn't fit him.
Learning to parent the child you have is the key to happy parenting. If your child enjoys his first taste of solid food, loves the first outing to the park, embraces strangers as new friends, and generally enjoys new things, you can skip the chapters on introducing your child to daycare, first days of school, adjusting to new teachers, and the like. He/she won't have these problems.
Okay, I'm tired now, so more later. :)
My mother was very insecure in her parenting. This manifested itself by her carefully following the "rules" set out by doctors and other experts (more on doctors as experts later). By carefully following the rules, she hoped to raise healthy children, but she didn't seem to be able to rely on her own instincts at all. When my oldest brother was a toddler, my dad told me once, she locked him in his room behind a baby gate (not a closed door) and let him cry while she and Dad ate dinner. Dad told me it was often impossible to eat while Fred cried piteously, or trashed his room and got up to other "mischief" such as removing his diapers and playing with them. When I was a baby, I was told, they sometimes would sneak into my room and get me and feed me earlier than the four hours prescribed as the correct "feeding" schedule. Sigh.
Later: Many doctors claim to be experts on parenting and/or mothering, even though many of them (the male doctors in particular) have never ever been mothers. Case in point - one doctor, claiming an expertise he didn't have, said (and I quote as exactly as I remember it from forty years ago) "You never once thought of putting down your baby while you were pregnant." Until this point, I hadn't considered the gender of the author of this particular book, but reading this, I turned to the author, and sure enough MALE. Because in my pregnancy, especially the last three months, I can't remember how many times - but probably at least once a day - I said to myself, if I could only be not-pregnant for ten minutes, is that too much to ask, I will happily resume the pregnancy and continue to the end. Just ten minutes without this baby bump, please. It was not to be. And I survived the pregnancies (all of them). No, I don't have ten children, it just seems like I was pregnant for ten years.
Like my mother said, those last two weeks of your pregnancy are the longest two years of your life, and the twenty years your children spend growing up are the shortest two weeks of your life.
I read every book I could get my hands on about parenting, while I was still pregnant. Some of them were garbage. Some of them flatly contradicted each other - feed your baby when it is hungry VS feed your baby only every four hours. I read books by doctors, by mothers, by experts and by charlatans. Some of them spoke to me, and fit into my view of life, others seemed to be prissy, stagnant, or totally impractical. By the time I took my newborn son home, I was tired of reading.
When my husband was at work, I would lay the baby in the middle of the queen size bed and watch him sleep. I did craft projects while he slept. I remember making a paper mache wastebasket. I also watched soap operas for a brief period. One memorable one ended on a Friday with a real cliffhanger (would the bride allow the groom's interfering mother influence her, or not) and an announcement that this show would not be seen on Monday, but would be replaced by another type of show. My soap opera watching days ended abruptly, but not my fascination with my son's breathing and sleeping.
He spend the first weeks of his life sleeping and eating. Even bathing him was a problem, as he wanted to nurse, then return to sleep, not stay awake for bathtime. I took him outside one afternoon, in order to take pictures of the bath. He was born in New Mexico in June, so afternoons outside were warm, as in HOT. He loved his bath in the warmth, so after that, I made sure to turn the A/C off several hours before bath time. And he stayed awake better. I had learned by this time, nurse on one side, bath and clean clothes, then nurse on the other side. Then he slept.
He slept for three and a half hours at a time, right from day one. The nursing and diaper change took about a half hour. So every four hours, round the clock, I fed him.
I worried. Breastfed babies, I had learned, liked to nurse often, even every two hours. They were apt to be irregular, sleeping for ten minutes here, and four hours there. Not my child. He ate, he slept. When asleep, he could be moved from place to place without waking him. So he could be put to sleep in the living room, and moved to his bedroom later on. Or taken to the store for a quick shopping trip without interrupting his nap. Or go to sleep in our bed, or my rocking chair, and plopped in his crib when convenient. It didn't bother him.
I learned that you spend the first six weeks, especially, but the first whole year, really, getting to know your child. One of our friends at that time had firmly announced before their daughter was born, that they were not going to let any child of theirs cry itself to sleep. Oh, no, their child would be gently soothed to sleep in their loving arms or allowed to play quietly in the crib before sleep, but crying would be responded to. Sheepishly, about three months later, they admitted that their daughter seemed to go to sleep much more easily and quickly if she was allowed to cry, well, fuss, for a few minutes after being put down.
I read a very interesting book before my children were born. Interestingly, this was the one book my mother recommended, indeed she insisted I read it. It was called The Rights of Infants and it talked about ten traits that some reseachers had identified as seeming to be inborn and lifelong. These traits included liking vs. disliking new things, regularity vs. irregularity of daily schedule, level of activity and so forth. While the book presented the traits as either or, I believe that they are a continuum, with some children falling at either end, but most falling somewhere in the middle.
For instance, my son was clearly pretty regular in his eating and sleeping schedule, and that trait has seemed to follow throughout his life, making planning for his meals and naps easier than if he had been the type to eat lots and often one day and next to nothing the next, the way some kids seem to be. Also, he seem to be near the top of the activity level, and liked and was attracted to new things.
He loved his first oatmeal, his first ice cream, and his first black olive. He didn't like his first taste of tomato, but since there was a bowl of cherry tomatoes on the table, he tasted several, in case the first one was a mistake. He still doesn't like tomatoes, but likes almost all other foods. While these traits may seem like good things, you try parenting a child who is always on the go, and enjoys tasting new things, like poison ivy and the little chlorine balls that didn't get completely dissolved in the kiddie pool at the park.
The book emphasized that the inheritance of these traits was still a mystery, and a couple who both enjoyed a very regular schedule could still end up with an infant who wanted a ten minute nap one day, and a five-hour nap the next, playing havoc with their ideas of a carefully regulated life. And that it seems to be easier to enjoy a child whose traits match yours, but since it doesn't seem to be a given that your child will echo your traits, you ought to learn to parent the child you have, not try to shovel your child into a mold that doesn't fit him.
Learning to parent the child you have is the key to happy parenting. If your child enjoys his first taste of solid food, loves the first outing to the park, embraces strangers as new friends, and generally enjoys new things, you can skip the chapters on introducing your child to daycare, first days of school, adjusting to new teachers, and the like. He/she won't have these problems.
Okay, I'm tired now, so more later. :)
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Nothing to rant about
The Royal Wedding went off without a hitch. I had watched "Chuck and Di" years ago, while in CA visiting my mother and brothers. My daughter has no recollection of this. Watched reruns then, as now, as two am is just not on my radar. But thanks to a very loving DH, I had a lovely tape of the whole thing (five or six hours or so) and may therefore watch it again.
I am starting a new blog "Suzie's 52", hoping to be able to complete 52 projects in 52 weeks, starting May 5, 2011, and ending May 5, 2012. Do the dates ring a bell for anyone? Yes, it is Cinco de Mayo in which the whole country of Mexico and the states of Texas, NM, AZ, and California celebrate, uh, something.
I am happy with my medications (thyroid, adderall), the amount of daylight (up today at six am, and it was light out), and my plans for the next few weeks. I still don't get enough done, but then, I always plan to do too much.
I am starting a new blog "Suzie's 52", hoping to be able to complete 52 projects in 52 weeks, starting May 5, 2011, and ending May 5, 2012. Do the dates ring a bell for anyone? Yes, it is Cinco de Mayo in which the whole country of Mexico and the states of Texas, NM, AZ, and California celebrate, uh, something.
I am happy with my medications (thyroid, adderall), the amount of daylight (up today at six am, and it was light out), and my plans for the next few weeks. I still don't get enough done, but then, I always plan to do too much.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Various Rants
I want to rant about taxes, and how the government can't do it all, and how we should quit expecting government to provide for everybody, and just do it ourselves.
I really think that this economic downturn should be an opportunity for government bodies at various levels to rethink their mission(s) and redo their budgets to fund only those things which are most important for a government to do. I cannot imagine roads being build by anyone else but larger governmental units (federal, state, and county, mainly) but art in public places, definitely a function that non-government entities should handle. Education for all children must be government funded, since private funding would lead to only the rich being able to send their kids to good schools and the poorest kids being not sent to school at all (and lets not talk about how that is the case right now, okay) but does the government need to fund medical research directly. Is that the best way to spend our tax dollars? Parks are a definite plus for communities, but could some of the costs be bourne by volunteers and/or corporate groups. Fire and police protection is a definite government function. Just remember the hooplah when some poor sucker didn't pay his fire tax (where it was voluntary) so the fire department let his house burn down. Sorry, but that sort of payment should not, cannot be, voluntary. Everybody needs fire and police protection, taxpayers must provide it.
Well, I could go one, and I will, at a later date.
Chow. (I was so surprised to find out that that is really spelled C-I-A-O, or something. No fair, English language and borrowed phrases.)
I really think that this economic downturn should be an opportunity for government bodies at various levels to rethink their mission(s) and redo their budgets to fund only those things which are most important for a government to do. I cannot imagine roads being build by anyone else but larger governmental units (federal, state, and county, mainly) but art in public places, definitely a function that non-government entities should handle. Education for all children must be government funded, since private funding would lead to only the rich being able to send their kids to good schools and the poorest kids being not sent to school at all (and lets not talk about how that is the case right now, okay) but does the government need to fund medical research directly. Is that the best way to spend our tax dollars? Parks are a definite plus for communities, but could some of the costs be bourne by volunteers and/or corporate groups. Fire and police protection is a definite government function. Just remember the hooplah when some poor sucker didn't pay his fire tax (where it was voluntary) so the fire department let his house burn down. Sorry, but that sort of payment should not, cannot be, voluntary. Everybody needs fire and police protection, taxpayers must provide it.
Well, I could go one, and I will, at a later date.
Chow. (I was so surprised to find out that that is really spelled C-I-A-O, or something. No fair, English language and borrowed phrases.)
Monday, March 28, 2011
Unemployment compensation and other backfires
Unemployment insurance is designed to help someone who has lost his/her job by providing some income to partially replace that which was lost when the job was lost. L&I insurance works on a similar principal, if one can no longer work at one's job because of a job-related injury, L&I insurance provides some income to replace the lost wages. This seems to be a no-brainer: it is good, right. We should continue to provide unemployment payments to the unemployed until the economy recovers and everybody is back to work.
ONLY, in no case will "everybody" be back to work. There are always unemployed persons. We measure a recession by the percentage of people looking for work who cannot find it RIGHT NOW, and lower numbers are better. Ten percent, bad. Five percent good. Four percent, great. But that still means out of 100 workers, four are currently unemployed. And in some L&I situations, the worker will NEVER be able to return to the job he/she held before the injury. NEVER.
Still, it seems that as soon as the unemployment payments run out, the person finds work. I know in my case, I was unemployed for about four months when my children were little. In my case, I did not have unemployment insurance, but had money enough to live on for four months before it ran out. Just as this money (from the sale of a house) ran out, I received not one, but two, job offers. I had my choice. Despite looking "full time" for four months, I received NO job offers until the funds dried up, then I received two very nice, very desirable job offers. Hmm.
I think it is like this. Losing a job is like losing your house to a fire or flood. It is like having a spouse die unexpectedly. It is like losing an arm or leg in a horrible accident. It is awful. You mourn. You try to get it back. You cry. You curse the fates. You stay in bed under the covers and read bad mysteries. You gossip with likeminded people about how unfair it all is. But finally, at some point, you should move on.
Elizabeth Kuebler-Ross (check name and reference) outlined the five steps that dying people go through, DABDA: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance. But, because the people she studied were dying, she missed the last step, the one that the dead don't have to take in our world. The step of moving on. It becomes DABDAM.
Many confuse acceptance with moving on. They are two really different things. Acceptance is "I am going to die, here's what I want at my funeral, here's who should have my most valuable possessions." Acceptance is "Our new house isn't so bad really", "I'm giving away his clothes so someone else can use them", "The doctor says I can wear slacks, and no one will ever know I have a prosthesis". Acceptance is good, it is necessary, it is important.
There needs to be a further step if one is to live the full and rich life that one deserves. You must MOVE ON. Moving on is beyond acceptance. It comes (well, it came for me) when I realized that I could no longer imagine what my life would have been like if I hadn't lost (in my case) my infant son. Moving on is "I finally get to have that craft room I always wanted", "I'm going back to school to learn to be a (fill in the blank) because (fill in the blank)", "I'm helping the therapist design a prosthesis which will enable me to (fill in the blank); they don't think it has ever been done before."
Moving on is embracing the new direction your life has taken, even if it wasn't the direction you had thought you were heading prior to the incident which lead to DABDAM. It is not denial. It is not forgetting, or even forgiving (which people might be urging you to do in the case of divorce, for instance.) Acceptance is standing by waving as the train you thought you were going to take departs for the vacation you won't ever have now. Moving on is getting onto a bus to another destination entirely.
Unemployment insurance and L&I insurance basically are designed to provide an income for the DABDA part of DABDAM, and perhaps provide some bus fare for the new destination. If it lasts too long, it can feed the acceptance, and never provide a push to move on. As long as I have an income, why should I look for a job in a different field entirely, which I don't know anything about. As long as I have an income, I can just keep looking for a replacement for the old job, and not even see the opportunities out there for other endeavors that WILL NOT REPLACE the old job, but which will provide an income and a career which is also suitable to my skills and temperament.
In the "olden" days, death lead to a specific length of mourning for the survivors. Cousin meant black gloves for such and such a period of time, parent meant black garmets for such and so, and the death of a spouse was marked by black clothing and no parties for six months, followed by "half-mourning" dark purples and no dancing for an additional six months. At the end of the year, you might mark the occasion in some way-visiting the grave, purchasing a new outfit, etc. At the end of the year, you were expected to "suck it up", put off your blacks, and get on with your life.
In modern times, we have forgotten these old, basically helpful rules. We allow people to wallow in their misery. Lawyers promise to provide money to restore us to what we were before the flood/fire/coffee spill. UI and L&I provide an income so we can have a mourning period for our lost job, and perhaps lost career.
But in the end, we are adults. The unemployed need to suck it up, put off their misery, and get on with their lives. If this means working in a convenience store for minimum wage for the rest of their lives, well then they probably didn't have what it actually takes to be employed at their old jobs, and would have been fired sooner or later anyway.
I have no sympathy. I knew a guy who fell off a building in the course of his employment and ended up completely paralized except for some movement in one hand. His wife had to take care of his every physical need. He sold insurance or stocks or something over the telephone (this was before the internet), and they were making it, they were earning a living and taking care of each others needs. Another story I heard about was a navy doctor who was an intern or something, and got polio and wound up unable to sit or stand. Since he had not completed his residency, he thought about what kind of a doctor he could be when he couldn't even stand up himself unassisted. So he became a psychiatrist. Yet another man lost an arm and leg or so in a horrific automobile crash, made worse by the fact that he was very drunk at the time. He became a crusader for telling new drivers about the dangers of driving after drinking. I remember him saying, I can't imagine what my life would have been like if I still had two arms and two legs. I love my wife, my kids are fantastic, I have a job I love. Would I have gotten these great things in my life if I hadn't been in that crash? I wouldn't want it any other way.
So let's not be too quick to extend unemployment benefits, increase L&I payments, and make it "easier" for those "poor" "unfortunate" to wallow in their misery. See I just saved the government (read taxpayers) a ton of money.
Wow, that's a load off my mind and into this blog.
ONLY, in no case will "everybody" be back to work. There are always unemployed persons. We measure a recession by the percentage of people looking for work who cannot find it RIGHT NOW, and lower numbers are better. Ten percent, bad. Five percent good. Four percent, great. But that still means out of 100 workers, four are currently unemployed. And in some L&I situations, the worker will NEVER be able to return to the job he/she held before the injury. NEVER.
Still, it seems that as soon as the unemployment payments run out, the person finds work. I know in my case, I was unemployed for about four months when my children were little. In my case, I did not have unemployment insurance, but had money enough to live on for four months before it ran out. Just as this money (from the sale of a house) ran out, I received not one, but two, job offers. I had my choice. Despite looking "full time" for four months, I received NO job offers until the funds dried up, then I received two very nice, very desirable job offers. Hmm.
I think it is like this. Losing a job is like losing your house to a fire or flood. It is like having a spouse die unexpectedly. It is like losing an arm or leg in a horrible accident. It is awful. You mourn. You try to get it back. You cry. You curse the fates. You stay in bed under the covers and read bad mysteries. You gossip with likeminded people about how unfair it all is. But finally, at some point, you should move on.
Elizabeth Kuebler-Ross (check name and reference) outlined the five steps that dying people go through, DABDA: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance. But, because the people she studied were dying, she missed the last step, the one that the dead don't have to take in our world. The step of moving on. It becomes DABDAM.
Many confuse acceptance with moving on. They are two really different things. Acceptance is "I am going to die, here's what I want at my funeral, here's who should have my most valuable possessions." Acceptance is "Our new house isn't so bad really", "I'm giving away his clothes so someone else can use them", "The doctor says I can wear slacks, and no one will ever know I have a prosthesis". Acceptance is good, it is necessary, it is important.
There needs to be a further step if one is to live the full and rich life that one deserves. You must MOVE ON. Moving on is beyond acceptance. It comes (well, it came for me) when I realized that I could no longer imagine what my life would have been like if I hadn't lost (in my case) my infant son. Moving on is "I finally get to have that craft room I always wanted", "I'm going back to school to learn to be a (fill in the blank) because (fill in the blank)", "I'm helping the therapist design a prosthesis which will enable me to (fill in the blank); they don't think it has ever been done before."
Moving on is embracing the new direction your life has taken, even if it wasn't the direction you had thought you were heading prior to the incident which lead to DABDAM. It is not denial. It is not forgetting, or even forgiving (which people might be urging you to do in the case of divorce, for instance.) Acceptance is standing by waving as the train you thought you were going to take departs for the vacation you won't ever have now. Moving on is getting onto a bus to another destination entirely.
Unemployment insurance and L&I insurance basically are designed to provide an income for the DABDA part of DABDAM, and perhaps provide some bus fare for the new destination. If it lasts too long, it can feed the acceptance, and never provide a push to move on. As long as I have an income, why should I look for a job in a different field entirely, which I don't know anything about. As long as I have an income, I can just keep looking for a replacement for the old job, and not even see the opportunities out there for other endeavors that WILL NOT REPLACE the old job, but which will provide an income and a career which is also suitable to my skills and temperament.
In the "olden" days, death lead to a specific length of mourning for the survivors. Cousin meant black gloves for such and such a period of time, parent meant black garmets for such and so, and the death of a spouse was marked by black clothing and no parties for six months, followed by "half-mourning" dark purples and no dancing for an additional six months. At the end of the year, you might mark the occasion in some way-visiting the grave, purchasing a new outfit, etc. At the end of the year, you were expected to "suck it up", put off your blacks, and get on with your life.
In modern times, we have forgotten these old, basically helpful rules. We allow people to wallow in their misery. Lawyers promise to provide money to restore us to what we were before the flood/fire/coffee spill. UI and L&I provide an income so we can have a mourning period for our lost job, and perhaps lost career.
But in the end, we are adults. The unemployed need to suck it up, put off their misery, and get on with their lives. If this means working in a convenience store for minimum wage for the rest of their lives, well then they probably didn't have what it actually takes to be employed at their old jobs, and would have been fired sooner or later anyway.
I have no sympathy. I knew a guy who fell off a building in the course of his employment and ended up completely paralized except for some movement in one hand. His wife had to take care of his every physical need. He sold insurance or stocks or something over the telephone (this was before the internet), and they were making it, they were earning a living and taking care of each others needs. Another story I heard about was a navy doctor who was an intern or something, and got polio and wound up unable to sit or stand. Since he had not completed his residency, he thought about what kind of a doctor he could be when he couldn't even stand up himself unassisted. So he became a psychiatrist. Yet another man lost an arm and leg or so in a horrific automobile crash, made worse by the fact that he was very drunk at the time. He became a crusader for telling new drivers about the dangers of driving after drinking. I remember him saying, I can't imagine what my life would have been like if I still had two arms and two legs. I love my wife, my kids are fantastic, I have a job I love. Would I have gotten these great things in my life if I hadn't been in that crash? I wouldn't want it any other way.
So let's not be too quick to extend unemployment benefits, increase L&I payments, and make it "easier" for those "poor" "unfortunate" to wallow in their misery. See I just saved the government (read taxpayers) a ton of money.
Wow, that's a load off my mind and into this blog.
Update on medication and other joys
The doctor prescribed a different, but similar, antidepressant. She said to wean myself off the Zoloft in (I think) six days, then start the other. So I weaned myself off, and never started the other. I have the meds, but have not taken them. Hey I'm feeling good, and antidepressants are for "not feeling so good".
She also prescribed a nasal spray, and guess what, I no longer have a slight cough and nagging headache all the time. Wow, who knew.
Followup tomorrow.
She also prescribed a nasal spray, and guess what, I no longer have a slight cough and nagging headache all the time. Wow, who knew.
Followup tomorrow.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Going to visit doctor
I hemmed and hawed about a visit to the doctor in December, then put it off too long and we were off the CA.
Promised I would make an appointment as soon as we got back. Apparently "as soon as" is defined as a week or so later. I did make the appointment. Will go tomorrow.
Will read over blog posts before that to refresh meself on the timeline.
Promised I would make an appointment as soon as we got back. Apparently "as soon as" is defined as a week or so later. I did make the appointment. Will go tomorrow.
Will read over blog posts before that to refresh meself on the timeline.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)