I filled up my car on my way home... for $3.51/gallon. And that's a deal! Or should I say, that's a deal?
I remember oh so many weeks ago when the idea of $3.50 gas had people ready to turn in their cars for bikes, to sell homes and walk to work, to cancel summer vacation plans in favor of that new cheesy media term, a "stay-cation."
But now, all is relative. It amazes me just how fickle the American public can be... how quickly the same number can go from "crisis" to "relative bargain." Since it's been higher, albeit just for a few weeks, people now feel relief when they see this, and are driving more again. Considering Labor Day plans because gas is "cheaper". Cheaper. This same number that was a crisis point on the way up now elicits a sigh of relief on the way down.
I really need a Vespa.
Showing posts with label diatribes and other soapbox issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label diatribes and other soapbox issues. Show all posts
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Monday, July 07, 2008
The Final Rose
I hate to admit it, but I watched the final episode of The Bachelorette tonight. I won't spoil it for those of you who may be taping it (as I just learned my friend is - sorry!), but all I'll say about the outcome is that I would have taken the other one. But to each their own and that is why everyone is said to have a soulmate.
I'm writing more because my mind has been on love a lot lately. One thing that has always bothered me about these love reality shows is the question, is it really love? These shows have the resources to take couples on dream date after dream date. to set up scenarios that whisk them out of reality and into a fantasy world where everything is roses. So are they pledging lifelong fidelity (because even if it doesn't work, it's still a life-long pledge at the time) to someone with whom they're compatible in the real world, or merely in a cotton-candy construct of Hollywood's making?
To watch this woman say she's falling in love with two people at once, but one moreso than the other really reinforces that to me. No reflection on her - she's just a human being plopped down in the middle of an amazing situation. But to fall so hard for two people... to me, just says that she's in love with the emotional journey and the situation just as much as the people.
Not that I have any remarkable insight here, I'm just bothered by this whole thing. I see the contrived scenarios they put these couples in to spark chemistry, and it makes me think of my own love life. I've fallen for someone with whom I don't need grandiose scenery and expensive dates to achieve love and affection. Dancing in an auditorium with a personal concert? I can't imagine it feeling any better than swaying in the living room with the right person as the mix CD we made plays behind us. An individual fireworks show? I get my own sparks when I see him. Now, if only I could see him.
I'm writing more because my mind has been on love a lot lately. One thing that has always bothered me about these love reality shows is the question, is it really love? These shows have the resources to take couples on dream date after dream date. to set up scenarios that whisk them out of reality and into a fantasy world where everything is roses. So are they pledging lifelong fidelity (because even if it doesn't work, it's still a life-long pledge at the time) to someone with whom they're compatible in the real world, or merely in a cotton-candy construct of Hollywood's making?
To watch this woman say she's falling in love with two people at once, but one moreso than the other really reinforces that to me. No reflection on her - she's just a human being plopped down in the middle of an amazing situation. But to fall so hard for two people... to me, just says that she's in love with the emotional journey and the situation just as much as the people.
Not that I have any remarkable insight here, I'm just bothered by this whole thing. I see the contrived scenarios they put these couples in to spark chemistry, and it makes me think of my own love life. I've fallen for someone with whom I don't need grandiose scenery and expensive dates to achieve love and affection. Dancing in an auditorium with a personal concert? I can't imagine it feeling any better than swaying in the living room with the right person as the mix CD we made plays behind us. An individual fireworks show? I get my own sparks when I see him. Now, if only I could see him.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
An Unaddressed Letter with Your Answers
I want their input on where our lives are going. I want to see
their ideas on our future. I admit I am too quick to spout out ideas and dreams, and they are listened to with patient ears. But I am ready to know what is expected of me. Tell me. Ask me. Demand of me. I want to
know.
My ears may be patient, but my mind is not. For every time I bite my lip so as not to pressure you, I have 10 thoughts of where life could go. All I know for certain is that I want you by my side as it unfolds. You should know me well enough to know, I do not make demands. Do not expect that to change in the present situation. You are a person with much on your plate. I am happy right now with what I can get, but there will be more. There will be a time in the future when I am figured into the equation. Until then, I don't know that I can ask for this outright, but in my world, here's what I want.
I want a ring. I want the promise that the future holds. I want a white dress and a flower girl and a ring bearer and crowds of family and friends saying how happy they are. I want well wishes and the hope of tomorrow.
I want stability. I want to know that this time is mine and that time is yours. I want my rock to stop rolling and to stay in one place. When I am in need, I want to know you'll be there, no question. I want you to know you have me always, thick or thin. I want the privilege of being able to ask your time be devoted to me. I want you to ask that my time be for you.
I want experience. I want you to teach me to kayak. I want to teach you the arts. I want to seek out things we've never done and learn them together, one step at a time, and to laugh with each other each step of the way. I want to experience love at its fullest.
I want bravery. You give me the courage I lack. I want to step forward with you and try things that I, myself, am sure to fail. I want to know that you are here. Not there. Here.
I want family. I want love. I want it all. And I want to share it all with you. Sounds easy, yes?
So that's just a glimmer of the many places my mind goes. I have plans. I have ideas. And perhaps, next Christmas, they will be more than just dreams.
Merry Christmas, dear.
Labels:
diatribes and other soapbox issues,
dreams,
holidays
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Stereotype...busted!
Road rage doesn't discriminate. ANYONE can get pissed at the way people drive these days.
Want proof? I got some this afternoon.
So I'm leaving Target and sitting that the red light behind a new Ford Five Hundred with a handicapped placard and an elderly couple inside. (Note - I'm very cautious with the use of elderly...but these both had grey hair and gnarled fingers, so I believe I'm accurate here.)
The light turns green. The Ford doesn't move. I'm in no rush, so I wait...however, when no one moves, the sensor trips rather quickly and it's back to red. Okay - one light cycle down. I keep sitting.
The light turns green. The Ford doesn't move. I'm starting to wonder if everything is pkay in the car ahead of me. That and I'm getting ever so slightly impatient (Hey - I can admit my shortcomings!). So I honk the horn.
The brakelights on the Ford go off. As it starts to roll forward, the man at the wheel and his female companion turn to look at me, and the man flips me off!
So much for kindy older gentlemen in the South!
Want proof? I got some this afternoon.
So I'm leaving Target and sitting that the red light behind a new Ford Five Hundred with a handicapped placard and an elderly couple inside. (Note - I'm very cautious with the use of elderly...but these both had grey hair and gnarled fingers, so I believe I'm accurate here.)
The light turns green. The Ford doesn't move. I'm in no rush, so I wait...however, when no one moves, the sensor trips rather quickly and it's back to red. Okay - one light cycle down. I keep sitting.
The light turns green. The Ford doesn't move. I'm starting to wonder if everything is pkay in the car ahead of me. That and I'm getting ever so slightly impatient (Hey - I can admit my shortcomings!). So I honk the horn.
The brakelights on the Ford go off. As it starts to roll forward, the man at the wheel and his female companion turn to look at me, and the man flips me off!
So much for kindy older gentlemen in the South!
Friday, April 20, 2007
Supreme Court makes a mistake
At least, in my opinion they did.
(disclaimer: I wrote this on Tuesday when the decision came down - please keep that in mind when looking at the time references)
Today, the justices of the nation's High court entered the abortion debate through a different door. Instead of trying to regulate the availability, the Court, for the first time, made a ruling that regulates the medical procedure itself. In Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court upheld a ban on partial-birth abortions. The Washington Post does a wonderful job of explaining the issue and the ruling.
The logic behind it was:
1) The law at issue doesn't tell women they can not get an abortion, only which procedure they can not have;
2) and it leaves other procedures available to women;
3) and it will only impact a small portion of the women in America who choose abortion;
4) therefore it will not fly in the face of Roe v Wade and is constitutional.
I can't say that I agree. Stepping outside the abortion debate and the firsts for the Court in that arena, let's look at this for a second. Today's decision has now allowed the Supreme Court to legislate medicine in this country. If the justices can be convinced through a strong legal argument that a certain form of chemotherapy is undesireable, or that a certain surgery isn't being regulated properly by the AMA, they now have precedent to step in. This bothers me.
Doctors have peer review to govern their acts because peers know the profession, the risks, the new technology, and the history of failures and successes. Laywers have the same. As do any number of professional groups who are better off being regulated by their comrades than their government. Even a federal appeals court agreed last week, saying they had no constitutional right to step into the debate over mercury in dental fillings just because one group didn't think the FDA was taking the claims seriously.
The Supreme Court has bypassed the clamoring media circus at the gates and entered the abortion debate from a side door. I only hope that this ruling doesn't send safe and honest service providers slinking out the back door.
(disclaimer: I wrote this on Tuesday when the decision came down - please keep that in mind when looking at the time references)
Today, the justices of the nation's High court entered the abortion debate through a different door. Instead of trying to regulate the availability, the Court, for the first time, made a ruling that regulates the medical procedure itself. In Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court upheld a ban on partial-birth abortions. The Washington Post does a wonderful job of explaining the issue and the ruling.
The logic behind it was:
1) The law at issue doesn't tell women they can not get an abortion, only which procedure they can not have;
2) and it leaves other procedures available to women;
3) and it will only impact a small portion of the women in America who choose abortion;
4) therefore it will not fly in the face of Roe v Wade and is constitutional.
I can't say that I agree. Stepping outside the abortion debate and the firsts for the Court in that arena, let's look at this for a second. Today's decision has now allowed the Supreme Court to legislate medicine in this country. If the justices can be convinced through a strong legal argument that a certain form of chemotherapy is undesireable, or that a certain surgery isn't being regulated properly by the AMA, they now have precedent to step in. This bothers me.
Doctors have peer review to govern their acts because peers know the profession, the risks, the new technology, and the history of failures and successes. Laywers have the same. As do any number of professional groups who are better off being regulated by their comrades than their government. Even a federal appeals court agreed last week, saying they had no constitutional right to step into the debate over mercury in dental fillings just because one group didn't think the FDA was taking the claims seriously.
The Supreme Court has bypassed the clamoring media circus at the gates and entered the abortion debate from a side door. I only hope that this ruling doesn't send safe and honest service providers slinking out the back door.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)