My friend Sara called me yeaterday afternoon to come over for a drink. She had gotten back from her annual appointment with her onocologist. Good news!
She's STILL cancer-free.
Twenty years ago, she had breast cancer. Ten years ago, she had ovarian cancer. Two cancers, both caught early, both treated agressively, and she's STILL cancer-free!!
Believe me, THAT is something to celebrate.
What does it mean to me?
I only met Sara seven years ago. It means that if she haden't been smart enough to know there was something going on, if she hadn't been smart enough to go in, get diagnosed, and follow the doctors' orders regarding treatment, I wouldn't have a best friend to cook with, to drink with, to laugh with.
Sara and I celebrated last night. I'm still a bit queasy this morning, but it is well worth it!
Late March, early April next year, I want to get drunk and celebrate Sara again!
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
You are What you Write
"Lives of famous men remind us
As we history's pages turn
That we oftimes leave behind us
Letters that we ought to burn"
I don't know who wrote the above doggerel, I remember reading it and memorizing it when I was in grade school. I suspect it was written in the late 19th or early 20th century.
But I got to thinking about it as I read of people who get into trouble for postings on Facebook. Then there was ex-Congressman Weiner and his infamous tweets.
It used to be that what you wrote was (generally) between you and the person you wrote it to. True, if either of you became famous, and if either of you had saved the correspondence, it could well show up on the best-seller list someday.
But the mass of us (those who 'lead lives of quiet desperation') did not have to worry about our private correspondence becoming public.
Today, we have the Internet. Someone has the ability to capture every keystroke you have ever posted. Your e-mail, your tweets, your texts, your Facebook postings.
100 years from now, you too could be featured in "What were they thinking? -- The postings of the early 21st century" Those will be the totally off-the-wall items that you write.
Some student of gerontology will mine the postings of those of us who grew up without the Internet to see how we adjusted to new technology. Another sociologist will do a thesis on the uninhibited postings of those who never experienced social filters on their lives.
Paper and pen fade in time, deteriorate to illegibility, break down to dust.
But the Internet (we are told) endures forever.
As we history's pages turn
That we oftimes leave behind us
Letters that we ought to burn"
I don't know who wrote the above doggerel, I remember reading it and memorizing it when I was in grade school. I suspect it was written in the late 19th or early 20th century.
But I got to thinking about it as I read of people who get into trouble for postings on Facebook. Then there was ex-Congressman Weiner and his infamous tweets.
It used to be that what you wrote was (generally) between you and the person you wrote it to. True, if either of you became famous, and if either of you had saved the correspondence, it could well show up on the best-seller list someday.
But the mass of us (those who 'lead lives of quiet desperation') did not have to worry about our private correspondence becoming public.
Today, we have the Internet. Someone has the ability to capture every keystroke you have ever posted. Your e-mail, your tweets, your texts, your Facebook postings.
100 years from now, you too could be featured in "What were they thinking? -- The postings of the early 21st century" Those will be the totally off-the-wall items that you write.
Some student of gerontology will mine the postings of those of us who grew up without the Internet to see how we adjusted to new technology. Another sociologist will do a thesis on the uninhibited postings of those who never experienced social filters on their lives.
Paper and pen fade in time, deteriorate to illegibility, break down to dust.
But the Internet (we are told) endures forever.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Are State Lotteries a Swindle?
I'm not talking about the astronomical odds of winning. I'm talking about the basis used to justify State lotteries.
I remember before California voted to allow a state lottery. "The profits will go to education." The long-starved schools of California would get money from the state Lottery. Programs that had been cut would be resurrected. Field trips, bands, clubs would once again be available. It was an exciting promise.
The reality? The State legislature cut the education budget since, "They're getting money from the Lottery" Schools are just as financially starved (if not more so) than they were before the lottery was initiated.
I moved to New Mexico. Here, the lottery proceeds are not given to the schools. Instead, there are "Lottery Scholarships" If a student graduates from a New Mexico high school and attends a State supported higher education program, so long as they maintain an acceptable grade-point average, the state pays their tuition from the Lottery proceeds.
Better system?
Not yet.
The State legislature cuts funding to higher education, forcing the colleges to raise tuition. Last week, it was announced that if the tuition continues to increase at the current rate, in less than five years, the Lottery funds will not be sufficient to pay the tuition of all of the qualifying students.
Lotteries were promoted as providing suppplemental funding for schools. Instead, state lawmakers have found a way to justify cutting the amounts schools receive because they also receive "lottery money"
I don't know if this is happening in other states. I suspect that it is.
If so, we were all scammed by the lottery promoters. We were also scammed by our state legislators, and by ourselves. We thought that the lotteries would give the schools "something for nothing" Instead, the legislators are using the availability of lottery money to "keep taxes low" while our children suffer.
I remember before California voted to allow a state lottery. "The profits will go to education." The long-starved schools of California would get money from the state Lottery. Programs that had been cut would be resurrected. Field trips, bands, clubs would once again be available. It was an exciting promise.
The reality? The State legislature cut the education budget since, "They're getting money from the Lottery" Schools are just as financially starved (if not more so) than they were before the lottery was initiated.
I moved to New Mexico. Here, the lottery proceeds are not given to the schools. Instead, there are "Lottery Scholarships" If a student graduates from a New Mexico high school and attends a State supported higher education program, so long as they maintain an acceptable grade-point average, the state pays their tuition from the Lottery proceeds.
Better system?
Not yet.
The State legislature cuts funding to higher education, forcing the colleges to raise tuition. Last week, it was announced that if the tuition continues to increase at the current rate, in less than five years, the Lottery funds will not be sufficient to pay the tuition of all of the qualifying students.
Lotteries were promoted as providing suppplemental funding for schools. Instead, state lawmakers have found a way to justify cutting the amounts schools receive because they also receive "lottery money"
I don't know if this is happening in other states. I suspect that it is.
If so, we were all scammed by the lottery promoters. We were also scammed by our state legislators, and by ourselves. We thought that the lotteries would give the schools "something for nothing" Instead, the legislators are using the availability of lottery money to "keep taxes low" while our children suffer.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Secure Our Borders
In the on-going discussion of immigration policy, there has been a call to "secure our borders" What, exactly does this mean?
My home is secure. No one can peaceably enter without my consent. I am secure because I have walls and locks (and an alarm system)
So, is that what is meant by a "secure" border? Secure, because no one can enter without the consent of the country? Just how would the US go about securing our borders?
The most common concept appears to be a fence, running the length of the border with sensors and cameras and such to prevent anyone from entering without consent.
There are historic models that can be examined for efficacy. Hadrian’s Wall was built to secure the Romans from the marauding Scots. The Great Wall of China was built to secure the empire from the outside armies. In the 20th Century, the Berlin Wall was built, not to secure East Berlin but to prevent the citizens of East Berlin from emigrating to the West.
All three of these "Border Security" events failed in their purpose.
Why would one here be any better?
The Berlin wall appears to be the closest approximation to what is needed here. Are we willing to pay for a barrier of this magnitude? Are we eager to create "Dead zones" of land mines along our Southern border? Who will we hire, train and ORDER to shoot to kill people attempting to cross into our territory?
What do you REALLY mean by "Border Security" and what are you willing to pay?
It seems a bit disingenuous to call for a delay in discussing an over-haul of immigration until we "secure our borders" when we are not willing to either expend the necessary monies to build a barrier or to engage in the security behavior that would make such a barrier secure.
Let me re-phrase that last remark: Are we absolutely willing to post soldiers with “Shoot to kill” orders along our borders?
My home is secure. No one can peaceably enter without my consent. I am secure because I have walls and locks (and an alarm system)
So, is that what is meant by a "secure" border? Secure, because no one can enter without the consent of the country? Just how would the US go about securing our borders?
The most common concept appears to be a fence, running the length of the border with sensors and cameras and such to prevent anyone from entering without consent.
There are historic models that can be examined for efficacy. Hadrian’s Wall was built to secure the Romans from the marauding Scots. The Great Wall of China was built to secure the empire from the outside armies. In the 20th Century, the Berlin Wall was built, not to secure East Berlin but to prevent the citizens of East Berlin from emigrating to the West.
All three of these "Border Security" events failed in their purpose.
Why would one here be any better?
The Berlin wall appears to be the closest approximation to what is needed here. Are we willing to pay for a barrier of this magnitude? Are we eager to create "Dead zones" of land mines along our Southern border? Who will we hire, train and ORDER to shoot to kill people attempting to cross into our territory?
What do you REALLY mean by "Border Security" and what are you willing to pay?
It seems a bit disingenuous to call for a delay in discussing an over-haul of immigration until we "secure our borders" when we are not willing to either expend the necessary monies to build a barrier or to engage in the security behavior that would make such a barrier secure.
Let me re-phrase that last remark: Are we absolutely willing to post soldiers with “Shoot to kill” orders along our borders?
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Why We Need The Draft
I blogged about it before. Were we opposed to US involvement in Viet Nam, or were we opposed to the draft?
PEW Research Center findings out today. Our "volunteer" army does NOT think that Iraq and Afghanastan are worth it. A large percentage enlisted due to the economy. Nearly 1/3 report PTSD.
Why a draft would be better:
1. If it were my child, my nephew (or niece, let's abolish sexism in military service) who was facing forced military service, I would be demanding clear objectives, clear goals, clear times to wind down our military adventures.
2. SEXISM When I was transferring colleges, before I received my acceptance from my new shcool, I received mail from various military recruiters. Because my name was relatively gender-neutral, they didn't realize that I was female. Of course, when I showed up at the recruiting station with the invitation to become a fly-boy, the recruiters were immediately scrambling as to why I couldn't. After all, they had said I met the basic qualifications. Of course, in 1973, they didn't state that the most basic qual was that I be male. I have read paragraphs describing the conditins that soldiers on the front lines experience with the plea, "No woman should have to serve under those conditions." Frankly, no HUMAN should have to.
3. When the Senator's son (or daughter) is likely to have to serve, the Senator is going to pay a LOT more attention to what is going on.
And those are essentially the very same reasons that absent a direct, identifiable, foreign attack of war on our country, a draft will not exist. We cheered when it was allowed to die. 40 years later, we ought to realize that we may have made a mistake.
PEW Research Center findings out today. Our "volunteer" army does NOT think that Iraq and Afghanastan are worth it. A large percentage enlisted due to the economy. Nearly 1/3 report PTSD.
Why a draft would be better:
1. If it were my child, my nephew (or niece, let's abolish sexism in military service) who was facing forced military service, I would be demanding clear objectives, clear goals, clear times to wind down our military adventures.
2. SEXISM When I was transferring colleges, before I received my acceptance from my new shcool, I received mail from various military recruiters. Because my name was relatively gender-neutral, they didn't realize that I was female. Of course, when I showed up at the recruiting station with the invitation to become a fly-boy, the recruiters were immediately scrambling as to why I couldn't. After all, they had said I met the basic qualifications. Of course, in 1973, they didn't state that the most basic qual was that I be male. I have read paragraphs describing the conditins that soldiers on the front lines experience with the plea, "No woman should have to serve under those conditions." Frankly, no HUMAN should have to.
3. When the Senator's son (or daughter) is likely to have to serve, the Senator is going to pay a LOT more attention to what is going on.
And those are essentially the very same reasons that absent a direct, identifiable, foreign attack of war on our country, a draft will not exist. We cheered when it was allowed to die. 40 years later, we ought to realize that we may have made a mistake.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
FREEDOM!!!
I went to visit my mother. We went clothes shopping. She tried on blouses.
My mother is 94 years old. Roughly 5 years ago, she had a RADICAL masectomy. One breast FULLY removed. Her worry? She was afraid that they would take lymph nodes and that she wouldn't be able to swim her mile per week anymore.
She lost her ability to float in water after her heart procedure when she was 90+. Somehow, she lost her bouyancy. She is sorry she cannot still swim. On her 90th birthday, she swam her usual 1/3 mile.
Anyway, we picked out some blouses, and went into the dressing room.
THAT was when I realised that my mother (in most cases) no longer wears a bra.
HELLO!! She's 94, and only has one breast. Yes, she has a fill-in, but she really doesn't like wearing it.
At first, I was bothered. An old lady with only one boob, not wearing a bra?
OK, other than a slightly uptight daughter (that would be me) WHO is bothered/offended/ or even notices?
My mother is comfortible, society is satisfied by the fact that she is covered, WHO is offended/hurt??
SHE doesn't care how she looks. She's not looking to attract anyone of either sex. WHO CARES??
I need to loosen up. Actially, if I weren't terribly self-conscious about my appearnce, and wanting to still look either desireable or at least socially acceptable, I think doing without a bra would be wonderfully comfortable!!
But I am incredibly vain. I want to think that I look at a minimum acceptable, and (if you're very short-sighted) appealing, so I will continue to wear a bra.
Sorry waistline, you aren't going to share my chest measurement just yet!
My mother is 94 years old. Roughly 5 years ago, she had a RADICAL masectomy. One breast FULLY removed. Her worry? She was afraid that they would take lymph nodes and that she wouldn't be able to swim her mile per week anymore.
She lost her ability to float in water after her heart procedure when she was 90+. Somehow, she lost her bouyancy. She is sorry she cannot still swim. On her 90th birthday, she swam her usual 1/3 mile.
Anyway, we picked out some blouses, and went into the dressing room.
THAT was when I realised that my mother (in most cases) no longer wears a bra.
HELLO!! She's 94, and only has one breast. Yes, she has a fill-in, but she really doesn't like wearing it.
At first, I was bothered. An old lady with only one boob, not wearing a bra?
OK, other than a slightly uptight daughter (that would be me) WHO is bothered/offended/ or even notices?
My mother is comfortible, society is satisfied by the fact that she is covered, WHO is offended/hurt??
SHE doesn't care how she looks. She's not looking to attract anyone of either sex. WHO CARES??
I need to loosen up. Actially, if I weren't terribly self-conscious about my appearnce, and wanting to still look either desireable or at least socially acceptable, I think doing without a bra would be wonderfully comfortable!!
But I am incredibly vain. I want to think that I look at a minimum acceptable, and (if you're very short-sighted) appealing, so I will continue to wear a bra.
Sorry waistline, you aren't going to share my chest measurement just yet!
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Sometimes
There are times when I just want to reach out an hug everyone in my blogmunity. Linda is flying to Germany to watch the women's world cup. Laura is buying a new condo. Cynthia's daughter is getting married. (I last saw her when she was about 10)
I've never met Linda or Michael IRL, and yet they are as much my good friends as anyone I HAVE physically touched.
Tig is celebrating her party's win in Thailand.
I once said that one of the curses of the internet is that we are now subjected to EVERYONE'S opinion.
One of the blessings of the internet is that we now can connect with everyone we have ever met (and liked) and many people we like but have never met.
I've never met Linda or Michael IRL, and yet they are as much my good friends as anyone I HAVE physically touched.
Tig is celebrating her party's win in Thailand.
I once said that one of the curses of the internet is that we are now subjected to EVERYONE'S opinion.
One of the blessings of the internet is that we now can connect with everyone we have ever met (and liked) and many people we like but have never met.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
