Watching The Neighbors

There are two apple trees in the yard behind the main part of my property. (I have a lot and a half, which my house sits on.) One of the trees is completely dead and the other is half dead. It is my belief that the Virginia Creeper vines are what killed the tree, but I'm not sure. But, that really is beside the point. Anyway, these trees have been at one stage of dying off for quite a few years. They are on the other side of the fence and don't really bother me...they are of no hazard to me or my yard. Actually, I like having them there because they provide a place for birds to sit and they get an awful lot of activity from woodpeckers. A couple of days ago, I heard a chainsaw...

When I'm in the computer room, it is difficult for me to figure out what direction a noise is coming from. (It doesn't help that I have hearing loss and don't wear my hearing aids at home, usually. 😆) Once I got to the kitchen, I looked out and saw that the dead apple tree was being trimmed/taken down. As I watched, it occurred to me that the person doing the cutting probably wasn't very qualified for the job. He was a young guy, no older than early thirties. He was wearing shorts, but had 'chaps' on, covering the front part of his legs. He was wearing sneakers. He had no gloves on or goggles...nothing safety-related, unless the chaps were. He had an extension ladder to climb up into the tree, but had problems with it. At one point, he took the two pieces of the ladder apart, but the remaining section wasn't long enough for him to get to where he needed to be. Then he tried to put the pieces back together, but I really don't think he knew how to do it...it didn't go together properly, but he still was determined to use it to climb on. He continued to try and place the ladder so that it wouldn't shift once he was on it...but he wasn't having much luck. When I saw him go up the ladder while holding onto a chainsaw, I had to leave and go into the other room. I got far too nervous seeing what was happening...and I thought he probably was going to get hurt very badly. By the time I ventured back into the kitchen, the guy was done with what he was doing. I'm not sure if he was okay. However, only the limbs of the tree are gone and the trunk remains. Is he done? Did he HAVE to stop because something went wrong? Will the other tree be trimmed? It all is a mystery. But I'm not too sure he won't be back:  the ladder is still propped on the tree trunk.

Another eventful day in my life. 😁

Trying to be Politically Savvy

It is a constant source of annoyance to have people post political stories that are either partially the truth or outright lies. And whether it is a good or bad thing that is posted, it ALWAYS depends on who they like/dislike politically. And I am seeing this from BOTH sides of the political debate.

I don't watch the news and haven't for about ten years or so. It got too difficult to see how stories were formed in a way to advance or destroy a political agenda. I want the NEWS, NOT an opinion piece...unless I'm looking to read an opinion piece. And that's where I still am, today.

Some might wonder how I stay informed if I don't watch the news. Well, I have a computer. The first thing that comes into my inbox every day are news headlines...from THREE different sources. I get headlines from the 'right,' the 'left,' and from the (relatively) 'neutral.' If a story is interesting enough, I go online and read it. If two sources have headlines that are completely the opposite of each other, I go online to read the story. It is surprisingly easy to find 'the rest of the story' if one is so inclined. I know, I know...who would have thunk it, right?

I am completely amazed at how people, who I thought were reasonably intelligent, allow themselves to be blinded by their political agenda. I don't know what the solution to this is--if there even IS one--but it doesn't look well for this country if things continue in this manner. We are in a world of hurt if things don't change soon. I'm not holding my breath waiting...

Going Postal

I know that it is very easy to complain about the post office, but, REALLY?...

I do my voting by absentee ballot and have done so for a couple of years now.*  While there are a few 'rules' and instructions to follow, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to vote, put the ballot in the envelope, and mail it.  This I did a couple of weeks ago for the upcoming primary election.  Done and done.  Except...

Two days later, the envelope that I had mailed was delivered to our house.  It was canceled, it was addressed properly, there was the proper amount of postage on it, but it was returned to me.  NOT, however, as a 'return to sender,' but as a 'here is the envelope that was mailed to you.'  I cannot for the life of me understand the glitch that happened.  It. Makes. No. Sense.

The Husband took the ballot envelope and went to City Hall to deliver it to the clerk's office, as the post office had already delivered it and wouldn't deliver it again.  He explained to them what happened.  They looked at him as if he had grown another head.  No one has been able to explain this snafu.  The clerk accepted the envelope--after making sure there had been no tampering--and will add it to the absentee ballots to be counted.  And, I suppose, that will be the end of it.  Still, I DO continue to wonder what happened...


*When you have the chance to vote by absentee ballot, do so.  It is SOOOOOO much easier than having to go to the polling place.  You get your ballot weeks in advance and have a considerable amount of time to fill it out.  You can take your time and decide on how to vote without worrying about being rushed.  I don't believe I will ever NOT vote absentee again!

Another Thing I Don't Understand

I won't go into how disappointed, disheartened, depressed, and downright scared I am over the results of Tuesday's election--after all, anyone reading my bio -----> would have a good understanding of the place I am coming from.  Let's just say that I disagree with the majority and leave it at that.  However, there IS one thing that came out of the election that I WILL talk about--and here goes...

Other than fat people, possibly one of the most vilified groups in this country is smokers.  Through the years, it has been the goal of a small group to destroy every freedom any smoker has ever had in this country.  Smokers can no longer do their thing in restaurants, bars, offices, basically anywhere indoors but private residences--and I'm sure THAT will change in the years to come.  Actually, there are some places where a smoker can't even smoke outside--beaches are off-limits and there are some parks where a person can't smoke.  (Of course the biggest park--Walt Disney World--banned smoking quite a few years ago.  Thankfully this was AFTER I quite.  ;))  A smoker is not allowed to be within a certain distance of most buildings before lighting up.  And frankly, I am disgusted by this.  Even though I no longer smoke, I feel it is up to the individual establishment to decide whether or not to be smoking or non-smoking.  I feel this is a case of 'supply and demand' so to speak.  If enough people want to patronize a smoking establishment, then the place will make money.  If people want a non-smoking place to congregate in, then they will stay away from a place allowing smokers.  And this will all work itself out if given the opportunity.  I don't feel as if this is something that should be regulated by the government.  But, this is the world as we know it today.

Other than individual businesses, etc, I feel this is a violation of people's rights.  If a person wants to smoke, let them.  I don't like the idea of the US becoming more and more of a 'nanny state,' legislating the way we live our lives.  We are seeing it in other areas as well, with some cites outlawing 'super sized' soft drinks and disallowing the kinds of ingredients put in foods, all because it isn't 'healthy' for us to eat/drink the stuff.  Again, it is a person's right to eat him/herself to death if s/he so chooses.  Individual freedoms are very quickly being taken away from us and we are allowing it.

Okay, so the reasoning behind the banning of smoking is because it harms those who choose not to smoke.  Fine.  And how do we know this?  We know this because of 'statistics' and 'studies.'  I'm NOT saying that smoking is good for you--other than the fact that it is GREAT for calming a person down--but I know enough about statistics and studies to know you can make them say anything you want in order to prove your point of view.  Is this what has happened with smoking?  To a certain extent I believe it has.  But, I'm not here to debate the smoking vs non-smoking issue--I have one other thing that is bothering the hell out of me...

On Tuesday, Colorado and Washington legalized the smoking of marijuana--and people cheered.  I am not going to come down on either the pro or con side of smoking pot, but I wonder this:  why is it okay to smoke marijuana, but awful to smoke cigarettes?  I will just about guarantee that a good percentage of people ecstatic about the change in the law about pot were equally ecstatic when the smoking of cigarettes was banned.  Something just isn't right here.  And I wish this could be explained to me...

Was It Something I Said?

Our town is run by a city commission.  The commissioners are voted in to 3-year terms and can only serve 6 years in a row.  The commissioners, in turn, vote in a mayor, who can only serve one year at a time.  This works as well--or as poorly, take your pick--as any of the types of governing bodies we have here in the US.

One of our neighbors was a commissioner/mayor several years ago.  For the most part, our commissioners aren't voted in as party members, but it isn't hard to deduce which side of the fence they are on.  The Neighbor and I are polar opposites in almost everyone of our beliefs.  However, I don't know how HE knows this fact.

K is opposed to having signs, posters, decals, bumper stickers on ANYTHING we own.  I'm surprised he 'allows' me to have a Red Wings Skin-It on my cell phone.  ;)  While I DO have a few smaller Red Wing  Skin-Its on the Envoy, K would be just as happy if it was devoid of any personality whatsoever.  (Of course, I would have the entire Envoy covered, but that is another topic.)  We never have political signs in our yard.  We don't have bumper stickers of any kind.  We don't go to political rallies and never endorse, in any way, political candidates.  Yet, our neighbor knows that K is closer to his political views than I am.  And the only way he knows/thinks this about K is that K is a union member.  Frankly, even *I* am not sure how far left OR right K leans.  Politics is not something we discuss often.

As I said, our neighbor has some experience in the political arena.  He wants more.  A few years ago--after his time on the city commission--he tried to get elected to the State House.  I'm not sure he even got out of the primaries.  A few weeks ago, he came by the house with a petition so that he could become a candidate for the commission once again.  Nothing unusual about that, except for HOW he presents these petitions.  And this is the story:

The doorbell rang in the early evening.  This in itself is a very unusual occurrence, but seeing The Neighbor at the door was even more so.  We are neighbors and friendly, but we aren't what you would consider 'friends' with him and his wife.  I opened the door and he asked if K was home.  When K came to the kitchen, The Neighbor told him that he was going to run for City Commission again and asked if K would sign his petition so that he could get on the ballot.  K agreed and The Neighbor left.  Without asking me if *I* wanted to sign the petition.  This is the second time he has done the exact same thing, so I'm assuming he knows that I don't particularly like his politics.  But I don't understand HOW he knows this.  I find this very perplexing.

After The Neighbor left, I asked K if he thought there was any chance of the man getting on the commission again.  K said he didn't know, only that he would NEVER vote him.  I really had to chuckle over that one.  ;)

In Other Words...

A few years ago, Michelle Obama was described as 'uppity.'  This caused an entire sh*tstorm across the country.  The media got involved as well as the interwebs.  (I guess everyone was talking about it, but I personally didn't follow the story, so I'm just assuming.)  From what I understand, the word 'uppity' is racist.  Well blow me away!  I guess my family has been racist all these years and never knew it.  We knew quite a few 'uppity' people and not one of them were black--probably because we didn't have many blacks in our part of the country.  But we certainly knew an 'uppity' person when we saw one.

As unpopular as it might be among some people, I have to say that I DO find Michelle to appear quite snobbish.  (I won't use the 'U' word because I don't want to appear racist.)  In no way, shape, or form can I imagine this woman down here in the trenches with us 'little people.'  I cannot see her shopping at Walmart or taking an hour and a half to do grocery shopping because of comparing prices.  I could never see her driving a used, American-made vehicle or eating at anything but a high-end, elite restaurant.  I really don't think she knows what a Holiday Inn is and would never find herself IN one.  Cost Cutters is beyond her realm, completely.

Now, before anyone accuses me of being racist, I feel as if there was no one more snobbish than Jackie Kennedy.  As much as people admire/d the woman, I believe she didn't even know there was more to the US than the east coast--specifically New York City and Massachusetts.  She was born with a silver spoon in her mouth and died with it firmly in place--and she certainly acted the part.

And don't think I am only targeting Democrats:  I have to voice my disdain for Nancy Reagan.  I think THIS woman didn't even realize that anyone outside of her social circle existed, much less know there was a middle class or middle of the country.  She built an ivory tower for herself and occupied it and only allowed her 'equals' to come and visit--or so it would seem.

The bottom line to all of this is the word 'uppity.'  The dictionary goes along with how I have always understood the word:  self-important; arrogant; conceited; haughty.  Nothing racist here, for sure.  However, I guess it means something different to people in the South?  Oh, well.  I guess I'm completely ignorant, because I never knew this.  And this is just one more reason why I hate political correctness so much:  How can we ever know just what is and what isn't offensive?  Can't any/every word be offensive to someone?  Are we going to have to have a list of approved words, eventually, that we can use just so someone's feelings aren't hurt?  When is all of this bullsh*t going to end?

I Hate Political Correctness

Very rarely will you find me reading the 'advice' columns, ala 'Ann Landers.'  Once they were a regular part of my newspaper-reading experience, but quickly fell into disfavor with me when the answers given began to be more 'all-inclusive' rather than 'morally, socially correct.'  It seems as if these advice columns were politically correct even before the term became common.  And I find that they are absolutely unreadable today.  The advice given is usually what 'should' be done in a 'perfect' world--something that does not exist in reality.  Anyone could be an advice columnist these days--all you have to do is open a copy of "Political Correctness for Dummies" and use it to guide your answers.  You certainly don't find the "Wake up and smell the coffee." advice of years gone by.

For one reason or another--not that I can remember why--I found myself reading 'Dear Prudence' on Slate one day a few weeks ago.  And I read a letter and answer that absolutely astonished me.  I believe this is political correctness gone WAY too far.  I will post the entire thing here:

Dear Prudie,
I have a fifth-grade son who is white and plays basketball on a mostly black team. He has made friends with many of his black teammates and hangs out with them a lot. I’m happy that he's so colorblind, but then I heard him call his new friends "my niggas." I was horrified and immediately talked to him about it. He said that his black friends use the term all the time and told him it was OK for him to use it with them, too. He said that he understood the history of the word and knows that it can be hateful when used wrongly. My son clearly isn't intolerant, but he could get in a lot of trouble throwing that word around. I don't even know if it’s OK for a white kid with black friends to use that word if they all do, and no one means it in a bad way. I usually feel confident guiding my son, but on this one I have no idea what to tell him.

—Stumped

Dear Stumped,
If only our 10-year-olds could stay so innocently well-intentioned. Unfortunately, even though you’ve had one conversation about this, and your son knows some of the history of this word, you have to revisit this so that your boy doesn’t find himself the subject of a complaint and the object lesson in a lecture at a school assembly. Perhaps when he was tiny you had some comic, endearing names for your son such as Mr. Stinkbottom or Sir Droolsalot. (If not, pretend you did.) You can tell him that within families people can call each other things that might be insulting if said to an outsider, but among relatives it’s done with a tone of teasing affection. That’s what’s going on with his friends on the team. Yes, the whole team is a kind of family, but for many people their ethnic or racial group also has the feel of a family. Because of that, there are things that the black players can call each other but which sound very different coming from his mouth. You can say you know his teammates have encouraged him to say it, but if a teacher, parent, or coach heard him, it’s likely that person wouldn’t understand. It’s possible that a parent of his teammate could be offended and report his remark, no matter how affectionately it was said. Say you know this doesn’t seem fair, but the history of this word still has the power to cause great pain. So as a sign of respect to those who might be hurt by it, he needs to understand that his friends can use the phrase with him, but he must refrain from returning it.    

—Prudie

I understand the reasoning behind telling the kid to stop using 'that' word, but how sad is that he has to be frightened for his safety when he's done/doing nothing wrong?  I can't help but think of a foster/adopted family situation where there might be kids of different races NOT being allowed to tease each other or use 'improper' words while talking to each other.  Things are just getting so out of control!

This reminds me so much of the problem we had with our local high school's logo/mascot/nickname a few years ago. The logo is a Native American in full headdress and the nickname is 'Redmen.'  (The nickname has NOTHING to do with Native Americans--it is in reference to the color of iron ore that is mined in our county and the fact that the miners were 'red' after a long day's work.)  As in so many other communities, the usage of a Native American as a logo upset some people.  There was a drive to get the high school to abandon the logo and nickname and it divided our community and caused long-term bad feelings amongst many.  My youngest was in school at the time, so we watched this very closely--the meetings were even broadcast on our cable system for those who couldn't attend.  When it was finally all done, the logo/mascot/nickname remained the same, despite the efforts of a certain group of people--and I believe the community is happy with the results to this day.

So, how did we manage to keep a politically INcorrect logo for our school?  I believe it boiled down to one thing:  the people/group who were opposed to it in the first place.  As it turned out, the people who were 'hurt' by this were part of the university community and NOT natives to our town /county/community.  Someone decided that this was disrespectful and got a bunch of PC supporters to make a protest about how horrible this entire thing was.  This, in turn, got the school board to run scared and decide that 'something had to be done about this atrocity!'  Funny thing is, very few of the locals--which includes a large group of Native Americans--had ANY problem with the logo, whatsoever!  So, a problem that WASN'T a problem, became a problem and was solved through a lot of unnecessary fighting, yelling, and tears.  How sad.

How did we get to this point in this country?  When did EVERY community have to be exactly like every other community and have to think and do things the same way?  What made this country so exciting and vital was the fact that anywhere you went would be an adventure--you could find something you were unfamiliar with and learn something new.  It seems as if we are slowly being forced into a homogeneous blend of absolute mediocrity--NO segment can be any more colorful/interesting than any other segment of society.  And some people won't be satisfied until there are actually NO differences among us.  Again, how sad.

"Just Sayin'..."

The other day, one of my Facebook 'friends' posted a bunch of videos from a drag show she had attended.  She also posted this:

"If you do not like the videos I am posting, PLEASE keep ur comments to yourself, these are friends of mine!  Just Sayin'...thanks!"  

AND:

"...if someone is thinking about it, they better stop before they even do, cuz if ur gonna bash 'em, that is bullying & cause for me to delete ur a$$ for being ignorant!" 

This got under my collar a bit and I was getting ready to send her an email in response, but decided against--she is a family member, so I didn't want to start a war.  ;)  Instead, I will post my thoughts here for all to see.


An Open Letter To The Internet

Dear Interwebs User/s,

There is NOTHING you can put online that will keep everyone happy.  Everything you post will have at least one person disagreeing with you.  (Hell, I can think of two or three people that I know who would argue with me if I said "The sky is blue."!!!!!)  And then you go and post something provocative and expect NOTHING to be said.  What the hell century were you born in?!?!?!  You are just looking for a fight, right?  And just because you add "PLEASE keep your comments to yourself..." etc, doesn't mean you won't hear things you don't want.  Right, wrong, or otherwise, not everyone will agree with you on everything, nor will everyone like the same things you do.  And you KNOW this, otherwise you wouldn't have written any 'warnings' to detractors.  If you don't want to hear anyone else's opinions about things, then STFU!!

I would like to ask, once and for all, WHY someone not agreeing with you is bullying and not to be allowed?  YOU are stating your opinion, so why can't someone with an opposing viewpoint state THEIR opinion without getting bashed for it?  We do have the right of free speech--for the time being, anyway.  Aren't YOU, in turn, doing the same bullying that you accuse others of?  I really don't understand this mindset.  I have quite a few friends/acquaintances who do NOT share my beliefs on a number of very serious topics.  I try not to step on their toes, as I am sure they try not to step on mine.  (And we DEFINITELY don't call each other 'ignorant'--even if we think that's the case!)  We have an understanding--spoken or not--where we will agree to disagree on certain subjects and not discuss them.  Case closed, problem solved.

However, when and if I DO post on a sensitive issue, I expect to have disagreements--or, at the very least, comments from those who oppose my beliefs.  And that is fine--otherwise, *I* would keep my thoughts to myself.  I still believe all are entitled to express their own opinions, despite the fact I may get angry with said opinion.  If I didn't want to hear opposing views, I would stay quiet.  And then I wouldn't have to issue any 'warnings.'

So, grow up already.  It is not cool to try and provoke people into fights.  If you want drama in your life, I'm sure there are other ways of getting it--but you probably are a wuss and don't want to have any kind of confrontation in person.

And believe it or not, if you read this carefully, it can apply to ANYONE, no matter WHICH side of the liberal/conservative line you happen to fall.

"Just Sayin'..."

As always,
ME

Love and Forgiveness

In 1970, the movie 'Love Story' came out and it brought to the world one of the most famous taglines ever:  "Love means never having to say you're sorry."  In our minds, that was one of the most profound and wonderful things that we had ever heard.  Considering we were probably sobbing so hard that our brains were muddled or we were on an acid trip and EVERYTHING seemed wonderful, I can forgive everyone for thinking this.  However, through the years I have come to realize that the statement is just so much bullshit--sounds good and means absolutely nothing.  (Kind of like politicians...)

Let's look at this a little further.  Forgiveness is pretty much part of the foundation of civilization.  We do something wrong--big OR small--and we are expected to feel remorse and ask for forgiveness from the person/people we wronged.  We see this in our courts and we see this on television and we read this in print.  Entire crime/law shows are written just so we can see the criminal allocute in court--and the criminal usually gets a lighter sentence for confessing, feeling remorse, and saying "I'm sorry."  How often have we seen politicians or celebrities take to the airwaves and apologize for saying or doing something the rest of the world sees as wrong?  And then the person usually goes off and continues with his/her career as if s/he did nothing wrong whatsoever--and we allow it because of the "I'm sorry."  (The Chris Brown 'incident/s' come to mind, however, I'm not 100% sure he ever used the words "I'm sorry.")

How often have we been wronged personally?  When our child lashes out at the age of three and slaps us, we INSIST on an apology and a promise to never hit again.  How many more divorces would there be if a spouse never apologized for wrong behavior?  Anything from leaving the wet towels in the middle of the bathroom floor to an affair can be rectified by a heartfelt "I'm sorry and will never do it again."  So, where does the statement "Love means never having to say your sorry." fit into anyone's concept of a loving relationship?

Therapists tell us--and clergy people, as well--that we CAN move forward if someone doesn't apologize for wronging us--we just need to forgive and move on.  This is something I have tried to do with The Family, and while I haven't been able to as of yet, I'm working on it.  To forgive a person's bad behavior when s/he doesn't think s/he did anything wrong takes a very strong person.  (I haven't become that strong, yet.)  We always like to have our feelings validated, that we were hurt in some way--and when the person doing the hurting doesn't see this, it minimalizes our feelings and shows just how little the wrongful person feels for us.  Causing hurt and pain to another person DEMANDS an apology and when that doesn't happen, how can a relationship continue in a loving way?  Instead of "Love means never having to say you're sorry" it should read "Love is saying you're sorry--and MEANING it."

Haters Be Hating

COMIC SANS FONT

The last time I really worried or thought about whatever font I was using was when I was the superintendent of our Sunday School.  I used to do a 'talk' every Sunday and used visuals whenever I could--and this included computer generated visuals.  I also did posters and other displays for the walls of the Sunday School and the classrooms. At the time, I wanted to do something 'different' as often as possible and I am certain I used Comic Sans at some point.  I never thought too much about what font I was using, only that it was something I didn't use the week before.

I don't know if I would particularly want to read an entire book published in Comic Sans, but I certainly don't hate it.  I find it easy to read and pleasing enough.   However, I think there IS a time and place for its usage, but even if it IS used poorly, I don't feel as if that is any reason for the pure venom that some pour out over this issue.

For some time now, I have read about all of the hate people have for the font.  In some circles, I would fear for my life if I even mentioned 'Comic Sans,' so I decided to do some interweb searching to find out just what was wrong with this font.  And I have come to one conclusion:  there is nothing wrong with i.

It seems as if most of the people who hate Comic Sans have no real reason for it.  Most of these people are sheeple who are hating because other pretentious idiots are haters.  The biggest reason that anyone will give for the hate--IF they give a reason--is that it is overused and used in inappropriate places.  Now, I can understand the not liking something that is used inappropriately, but the hatred goes much, much deeper.  There actually are entire websites devoted to the hating of Comic Sans.  Some people are trying to get it BANNED forever from the world.  Many haters seem to be 'designers' (or something) and are so pretentious that they must have a hard time breathing the lofty air where they live.  And we wonder what is wrong with this world when far too many are concerned and consumed with hating a fricking FONT!  Give me a break!

I also found it far too often that many of the haters seem to be haters of Microsoft--the company that brought Comic Sans into this world.  And I wonder if THAT isn't the big reason why the font is hated:  its association with Microsoft.

Men Are Perplexing

It is obvious that God, after he made Man, saw that he could do a bit better--and then he decided to create Woman.  And just so we wouldn't get too full of ourselves, he made sure that we would NEVER understand men and why they do the things they do.  I was confronted with this, yet again.

The new TV season has just begun.  This means that there are new shows being aired for the first time and there are new episodes of returning programs.  Also, football season is underway, so that means anyone can watch a game at any time of the day or night for the next few months.  And to top it all off, the comedian Jeff Dunham--who is probably The Husband's favorite--had his newest special air on Comedy Central last night.  My husband, who I don't understand at all, watched none of these.  Instead, he watched, for the 3,462 time, a rerun of Lord of the Rings.  On network TV.  With commercials and edits.

So, why should this bother me?  It bothers me because we own the entire Lord of the Rings collection.  Actually, we own TWO SETS of the Lord of the Rings.  Instead of getting up from the couch, going to the DVD shelf, taking a DVD and putting it in the player, and watching it in all of its uninterrupted glory, my husband watched it on network TV.  And he didn't even watch it in high definition!

I will never understand men.

A Little Obvious

Living in this part of the country, I find I don't have nearly as many options as people in other parts of the US when it comes to purchasing items.  While things are getting better, we REALLY are limited in what we can get in a brick-and-mortar store.  We don't have the 'common' places that more urban areas have--for crying out loud, we JUST got a Walgreen's within the last couple of years!  Our chain stores are limited and the mom-and-pop stores just don't always have the inventory where you can pop in and buy what you want.  This is why the interwebs have been such a great addition to our lives--we can go online and order anything we can think of and have it shipped to our houses.  HEAVENLY--except, of course, for the waiting for delivery.  ;)  But, I have gotten used to the fact that I have to be patient--at least for a few days--when I want something.  It also means that UPS and FedEx have trucks that can navigate their own way to my house.

Today I got a package.  When we were in St Paul, K decided that he needed to upgrade our GPS system and bought a new TomTom.  While it has a bigger screen and free lifetime maps, I don't see much of a difference from the old one, but I'm not the one that uses it.  With the gadget being bigger, we now face the problem of where to put it when it's in use.  K used to just place the old one in one of the cup holders and things were okay--not so much with the new one, as it is just too big.  K won't mount the GPS system on the dashboard or window, as he doesn't like 'marking up' the vehicle permanently.  (And that makes it VERY difficult for me to turn my Envoy into a 'Wing-mobile,' but that is for another discussion.)  So this, along with needing an in-house charger, brought me to the interwebs for a solution and shopping.  I found what I wanted, placed the order, and waited until it was delivered today.  Nothing earth-shattering to report, just that I got a package, which was left on my back porch.  The thing that pretty much put me over the top about this whole thing is this:  There was a label slapped onto the package--obviously put there by whoever delivered it.  The label stated "Your package has been delivered."  Excuse me!?!?!?!?!?  I'm holding the package IN. MY. HANDS.  And you have to put a label on it to tell me it has been delivered?  Okay, I have, rarely, had a package put somewhere that wasn't obvious because of weather or such--they HAVE put packages in one of the vehicles or delivered them to the neighbor's if we weren't there to accept delivery--and a label has been put on the door telling where it was left, but I've not seen this.  It just kind of seemed to be a waste of a label AND the deliverer's time.

Obsessions and a Master Race

I don't understand the obsession so many of my generation have for WWII.  It was a war, it was history, but it WAS before our time--get over it!  K is one of the obsessed.  Whenever he is channel-surfing--ALL the time, by the way--if he comes to anything to do with WWII, he has to stop and watch it.  It doesn't matter if it is a movie, mini-series, documentary, or propaganda film, he HAS to watch it because it deals with WWII.  It completely baffles me.

Today I was dusting in the living room and caught a bit of the program--a WWII documentary--that K had on.  It was all about the Nazis wanting to build a master race and the steps they went through to achieve their objective.  Of course, the WAY the Nazis went about this was very, very horrifying, but it got me thinking:  What if, at some point in time, humans decided to help evolution along and try to breed the best and the brightest that could be.  If race and ethnicity had been taken out of the equation, would people have objected so much to trying to build a better race of humans?  Is it possible that this could have been achieved, or would those that weren't 'good' enough rebel?  Quite an intriguing thing to think about, right?

You Have GOT To Be Kidding

There is a financial crisis in far too many governments--local, state, AND federal--and it seems as if the powers-that-be can't figure out why.  Most of the 'common, little people' have a bit of a clue as to the reason:  OVERSPENDING!  And where is this money going to?  Services, salaries, and just, plain redundancy, in many cases.  While this story is NOT one of government excess, it does illustrate a problem that is seen far, far too often in this country.

Not too long ago, I told the story of a friend of mine, Pete, and the way he is dealing with his leukemia.  As I said in the post, he was diagnosed with AML almost one year ago.  He has spent a good deal of his time in various hospitals since getting this diagnosis--dare I say almost 50% of his days?  It has been AT LEAST one-third of his time spent in the hospital and much more of this time sick, while being under DIRECT medical care for almost all of this past year.  In that time he has been stuck with more needles than he could possibly count, been poked and prodded more times than the average person could be in several lifetimes, had more tests done, and had to give up more bodily fluids to medical personnel than a 500 pound man has in his entire system.  You would think they couldn't ask for anything more--especially considering his blood-marrow transplant is going to happen sooner, rather than later.  WRONG!!

Yesterday, Pete got a package from the hospital that he has spent so much of his time in this past year.  In the package was a 'test kit,' asking him to swab the inside of his cheek so that they could test his HLA type.  (HLA testing is what they do to find a bone marrow donor.)  Once he did this, he was supposed to send this package back--Fed-Ex Priority Mail, nonetheless.  After all of this time, after all of the testing he's gone through, the hospital neglected to test for his HLA type in anticipation of his transplant--something he was told many months ago is probably his ONLY chance for a full and (possibly) permanent remission/cure.  So, instead of doing a cheek swab when they actually had him there in person, they SENT a kit to him--via priority mail--and want him to send it back to them--via priority mail.  UNBELIEVABLE.

While, in the whole scheme of things, this is a drop in the bucket in terms of cost--I don't even WANT to know how much Pete and his wife are going to have to spend for his 'cure'--it is a redundant cost.  If this country--not to mention our health care system--is run so inefficiently, is it a wonder we are going broke?  Is it a wonder our health-care is so expensive?  If we could only get some common-sense people to become 'powers-that-be,' could we get back to being the great country that we once were?  Unfortunately, I don't know if even a change in those in power can help things along.  After all, "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Interesting Things Seen On Our Travels

Part of our time out-of-town last week was spent shopping.  While I do my best to shop locally, I HAVE to go out-of-town to get certain things.  For example, our fabric stores--of which we have one (2?) and Wal Mart (what a joke)--lack anything that I would want or need for most sewing projects.  So, I need to shop whenever we do our road trips.  K, also, needs to shop away from home, at times, and this is where this post comes from.

K is required to wear steel-toed boots at work.  While they aren't hard to find, K has a hard time finding anything comfortable, so he continues to get the one brand that he KNOWS will fit fine.  It has been easiest for him to get his boots whenever we go to Wisconsin, partly because he works for a Wisconsin company and gets a discount at the store he buys from.  This past weekend found us at the strip mall where the shoe store is located.  Because I had no particular reason to go into the store, K went by himself and I stayed in the Envoy and people-watched.   As I was looking around, I noticed the signage for some of the stores:

 

You can see there is a Sally Beauty Supply and a Fantastic Sams and a  Game Stop, along with a cash store.  The sign that caught my eye, though, was the blue one, so I needed a closer look:

 

 

And there, right in the middle of a strip mall is a place called Any Lab Test Now!  Really?!?!  It just blew me away.  Does ANYONE need lab work done NOW! and without a doctor's order?  WHY would you need this?  Maybe I'm just old-fashioned and think a doctor should be the one to order lab tests, but what do I know?  I guess there might be 'emergency situations' where you need lab tests RIGHT NOW!  Might help in determining your kid's Baby Daddy before the wedding, I suppose.

A Shared Belief

Many people don't understand others who have strong religious/spiritual beliefs.  Now, I'm not talking about the ultra-conservative, right-wing nut jobs that the media would have you believe are what ALL people of faith are--I'm talking about your everyday people who live their lives according to their faith and use their faith to help them get through.  Two of these people I would like to talk about.

The first man I want to tell you about, I don't REALLY know.  The man is Brian Rafalski and he is a hockey player.  Today, he retired from the Red Wings and had a press conference to announce it.  In his speech, he gave his reasons for walking away from the $6 million he was to earn next year.  Among the reasons were his health and his family.  He said that this past year had been hard on him physically, mentally, and spiritually and after talking to his wife and advisers, he felt that God was leading him in a new direction.  He said that his life is now about serving God, his family, and others, and that hockey is not a priority, so he is retiring.  He made it clear that God was very much in his decision-making process and was very humble about it.  Quite a few people were extremely bummed about his saying this.  As a person of faith, everything that he does WILL involve God.  He didn't stand there and try to get anyone else to believe the way he does, he just gave his reasons for what he is doing and the process involved in coming to this decision.  If he would have come out and said he used voodoo dolls and a Ouija board to decide his life, I really think there would have been much less of a hullabaloo.  I'm very saddened by the way some people reacted to this and the amount of intolerance, which bordered on hatred.  If someone were to say they called on their earth goddess to help in all decisions, I certainly wouldn't belittle them in public.  I don't know why Brian Rafalski wasn't given the same consideration and why, at the least, his remarks were considered 'eye-brow raising.'

I have known the second man for somewhere around 45 years.  Pete is a shirt-tail relative of mine, but I have always considered him more of a friend.  We used to talk on the phone a lot and we would go out as friends to the movies once in a while.  As we got older, our lives took us on very different paths.  We saw each other only a few times the last 30 years, but we seem to take up where we left our friendship the last time.  Whenever we were together, we had an easiness between us that comes with being friends for many years.  And, no romance between us--we're both long-time married.  ;)

A few months ago, I got some very distressing news about Pete.  On 22 July of last year, Pete was diagnosed with acute myelogenous leukemia--AML.  He had a sub-type that killed half of all those diagnosed with this devastating disease within 9 months.  He underwent chemotherapy, but was told he needed a bone marrow transplant to ever be considered 'cured.'  And so, he has been working toward that end for months and was expecting to have the transplant in the next couple of months.  Pete, too, is a man of faith and through this entire ordeal, he has had the attitude that whatever happened was how it should be.  He never wavered in his belief that God was in control.  The other day, he was told that his chance of ALREADY being cured is in the 20-40% range and each month he has no signs of the cancer, means he is closer to being declared cured.  Somehow or another--and the doctors don't know why--the chemo worked, despite the odds being extremely low, and he has had no cancer since December.  As it stands right now, having a marrow transplant might be the worst thing for his condition, as the procedure isn't without risk.  He will continue to take it a day at a time and see what God has planned for him.  He will trust that any advice he gets will be the correct advice.  He will use his faith to make the decisions he has to.

Both men have a deep faith and both men rely on it for help in making life-changing decisions.  Neither one is shy when it comes to acknowledging where his strength comes from.  In private and in public, both let people know Who is in charge of whatever happens to him.  Neither one is obnoxious about his faith, but many would deem it inappropriate for them to say what role their faith has in their lives.  Why there is so much intolerance, I don't know.  It seems as if people would be so much happier and easier to accept if someone was to say that advice came from the neighbors or psychic or deli owner than they are when God is given the credit.  It really is a sad state in our world when tolerance is at such an all-time low--especially when everyone 'says' how tolerant they are.

This Is News?

I have said, ad nauseum, that I don't bother with the news anymore.  I really think I used to be a news junky, but the stuff that passes for news these days has completely turned me off.  And we have three 'stories' that put me over the edge--the kind of things that make me want to shoot my TV.  (Again, there IS a reason I don't own a gun...)

Our first story deals with a group of organizations trying to strong-arm McDonald's into retiring Ronald McDonald.  Their idea is that HE is a big part of the fattening of America's kids.  Bullshit.  I'll say it again:  BULLSHIT!  Okay, okay--I see what everyone else sees and I do realize that there is a problem here in the US when it comes to weight.  (Believe me, all I need do is look in the mirror.)  But, cartoon characters selling food is the least of the reasons for it.  The number one problem in this country is this:   a family can be fed McDonald's food OR Kraft Mac & Cheese or any number of processed foods for MUCH, MUCH less money than it costs to buy fresh fruits and vegetables.  Until the cost of fresh, 'healthful' (sorry, but I HATE that word) food is as cheap as processed food, people WILL gravitate toward what they can feed their children for less.  And, with the number of mothers who also hold jobs outside the home (I also HATE the term 'working mothers'), time is also a factor--and it does take a lot more time to cook a meal with fresh foods than with packaged.  Obesity in America is more than commercials and it would take days for me to write my impressions--which I won't do here.  Food and exercise are not the only factors at play here--we have society and career choices and other things, as well.  I'm sorry, Michelle O, but getting kids to 'move' is NOT the big solution to the problem we have here.

The second story that sent me reeling was about a 'pageant mom' who Botoxes her 8-year-old daughter and then went on Good Morning America and TALKED about it!  Is there ANYTHING that can be said about this story?  To begin with, I have hated 'beauty pageants' since I was quite young--I always thought the participants were ridiculous.  And then when they came out with pageants for little girls--who, by the way, dress up like little sluts--I was completely appalled.  To find out that these poor little tykes are getting Botox injections isn't surprising, but IS completely disgusting.  This is another reason why the rest of the world hates America.  (And with that statement, I'm thinking that little girl beauty pageants are mostly a US thing--although I COULD be wrong.) 

Story number three has to do with the Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver split.  To begin with, this is a non-story for me.  I'm really surprised they lasted as long as they did--they just looked awkward together.  So, the split isn't surprising.  The story that sent me over the edge comes from the LA Times and it is titled 'How To Talk To Kids About Arnold Schwarzenegger's Infidelity.'  Really?  Is he relevant enough these days for kids to even know who he is?  I asked The Oldest about this and she said the story wouldn't even be on her kids' radar, as not one of them knows--or cares--who Arnold is.  So, who exactly is making this a much bigger deal than it is?  Don't most kids have friends who have gone through parents splitting up and haven't parents had the 'talk' with them?  This is a topic that most parents have to get to at some point--just like they have to do the 'facts of life' talk.  So why is this a topic that is so upsetting to kids just because it involves Arnold and Maria?  Am I smelling a publicist at work here?  Unbelievable.

When stories such as these are headline-inducing, I wonder if it IS true that the world is going to hell in a hand basket.  Far too many issues are being ignored by the news people and we allow it.  If we quit 'following' the junk news and actually tried looking for relevant stories, maybe we would go back to the days of insightful and meaningful and informative journalism.  But I highly doubt it.  And so, I will continue to ignore the news and wrap myself in a little cocoon of isolation.



 

He and She and She and She

I KNOW this isn't the right way to begin this post, but I have to do it like this.  I am NOT trying to be judgmental with what I am about to write--I really am confused and wanting to understand.  The questions I have concerning this topic have nothing to do with my feelings of whether any of this is right or wrong.  Now, with that said, on to my post.

I remember when Renee Richards became a woman.  It quite possibly was the first time that a sex-change was talked about openly, even though it still was discussed in slightly hushed tones.  Now, almost 40 years later, sex changes are discussed quite matter-of-factly on talk shows and in magazines.  A bit of a difference.  Agree or disagree, this is something that is here to stay.

While I don't understand why someone would want to undergo a sex change--sorry, sex reassignment surgery (damn PC police!)--I don't think those of us who are comfortable in our own skins are really supposed to.  This is another of those things that is supposed to be between a person and his/her doctor and shouldn't concern anyone else.  From what I understand, a person is supposed to go through quite a bit of counseling and therapy so that it can be determined if there is a just cause to having the surgery and not just some whim--and thank goodness for that!  I would assume that reversing the surgery wouldn't be a walk in the park, by any means.  A psychiatrist/counselor is supposed to determine that the person seeking sex reassignment is, in fact, a male/female trapped inside a female/male's body before the surgery takes place--and this is for the good of everyone involved.

Now we will examine the story of an individual who had reassignment surgery.  We'll use a male as an example.  We'll call him Sam.  Sam always felt as if he wasn't 'right.'  He always gravitated more towards the feminine and as he got older, he KNEW that he was in the wrong body, that he was meant to be a girl.  Over the years, he tried to deny his true self and be 'one of the guys'--he drank, played football, dated, had sex, but it didn't 'feel' right.  Eventually, he sought sex reassignment.  After the surgery, Sue--as she was now called--was happier than she ever had been.  She loved to dress in feminine clothes and have her hair and nails done.  She embraced her femininity to the point where she was almost a stereotype/cliche, but she was happy.  And, finally, she began to date again.  And she dated women, because she now was a lesbian.

Using the above example as a starting point, here is my problem:  If someone wants to be the opposite sex because he is 'in the wrong body,' shouldn't he have been gay BEFORE the surgery?  Wouldn't he have been attracted to men because he truly was a woman inside?  Doesn't this just prove that he WASN'T a woman trapped in a man's body all along?  It doesn't make any bit of sense to me and I really wish it could be explained in a way I could understand.  But then, I guess I'm not meant to understand.

We'd Rather Have The Money

My husband, K, is one of the last of a dying breed:  He will retire from the only place he has ever worked.  (While he WAS in the Navy, I don't really consider that a job--more of a school/training sort of thing.  AND a way to pay the country back.)  So, he has put in over 30 years at the same power plant he was hired into a few months after he got out of the Navy.  The job is one that he likes and the pay has been good enough that I never had to go out and work.  As far as employers are, K hasn't complained too much, nor has he piled praise--it just is what it is.

A lot of work places have taken the direction that many schools have and that is to reward everyone for everything.  "You did SUCH a good job of washing your hands after using the toilet!  Here's a certificate for that!"  "You got here on time for FIVE days in a row!  Here's your gold ribbon for that!"  And on and on and on.  Don't get me wrong, I think it's good that people are appreciated, but sometimes companies go a bit far--like rewarding employees for doing what they SHOULD do, their normal jobs.  Yesterday, K got one of those rewards.

Working in a power plant can be very dangerous.  There have been severe accidents that could possibly have been avoided.  Many things can go wrong:  explosions, electrocutions, falls, etc.  And it is up to every worker to do everything in his/her power to do right and not have an accident, or cause one.  The company pounds safety into the employees' heads at every opportunity, which isn't a bad thing.  Unless it is because the company is more concerned about how much they would have to pay an employee if he/she was injured rather than the health and safety of the workers.  And sometimes I think it is just that. 

Anyway, the company is constantly giving safety rewards.  We will get $10 gift certificates and the crew will get pizza bought for them.  And they are appreciated, but not really necessary.  However, the reward that came home yesterday just kind of made all the employees who got it say "WTF?"  In a nice enough presentation box--faux velvet-lined, black with gold lettering--was a (solidly nice, I suppose) key chain and a laminated card stating safety 'rules' to be worn on the id card lanyard every employee wears.  Okay.  While a lot of people would wonder what the problem here is, let me tell you.  First, everyone thought the laminated cards were completely ridiculous.  Next, not everyone wants a key chain with the company logo embossed in it--no matter HOW nice it is.  Besides, who DOESN'T have about thirteen key chains laying around that they don't use already.  And last, WHY the hell the special presentation boxes?  While the company gets them at a good price, I would suppose, these are not all that cheap--so why?  I guess the bottom line is this:  Why spend all of this money on something that no one wants or can possibly appreciate?  I think most of the employees would much rather have a couple extra bucks in their paychecks, rather than some of this stuff that the company gives.

So, is this wrong to feel this way?  Is this a waste of money on the part of the company?  Are the employees just being completely ungrateful?  Input would be appreciated.

Breasts and Other Lady Parts

There was a time, if someone (read that as 'a guy') wanted to touch my breasts (or look at them naked, for that matter), certain conditions had to be met.  First, I had to know his name--and his entire history and genealogy.  We had to have been together for a fair amount of time and we had to be in love.  Considering I only have had three loves in my life, not many guys have seen 'the girls.'  (So I have Puritanical morals--sue me!  ;))  This is why what happened to me yesterday is so different than what has been 'usual' in my life.  I allowed someone to poke and prod, stretch and knead, squeeze and hold my unclothed breasteses.  I don't remember the person's name, I never saw her before, and I most likely will never see her again.  Yes, I had my annual mammograms.

From what I understand, many women have a hard time going for mammograms.  Some women are very emotional about the experience--The Mother cries like a baby, for example.  Other women have a great deal of pain having the procedure done--my friend with the tiny boobies suffers greatly with the stretching of the skin.  For me, the entire ordeal is quite routine and I never have had an entirely negative experience.  (Now, I'm not saying that it is pleasant, by any means, it's just that I don't suffer a lot having this done.) I guess one of the things that has made this a process that I don't worry about is the fact I have only had one 'problem'* with a mammogram in all of the years I've had them done.

After having my annual 'squeeze,' I DO find myself thinking 'what if' until I get the 'all good' report.  Of course, I've never been faced with deciding what to do in the case of breast cancer--or, thank God, ANY cancer--but I think about it from time to time.  While many women tell their doctors to do everything that can be done to save their breast, I think I would go the opposite way and say "Get rid of the damn thing and make sure all of the cancer is GONE!"  I'm not afraid to die--I got into this a few posts ago--but I am terrified of dying in pain.  Cancer causes pain.

I've never sat down and had a heart-to-heart talk with a breast cancer survivor.  I admire anyone who has battled through cancer and I would never judge, but for me, I cannot understand wanting to save a body part over a fool proof complete cure.  But, some women feel as if their womanhood is somewhat diminished if some of their 'lady bits' go missing.  Again, I'm not judging, it's just that I can't comprehend that.  And I only have my own life to use as a gauge when I think about it.

At the age of 34, I decided to have a hysterectomy.  I began having periods about the age of 11 or 12 and every year brought more problems with my reproductive system.  I was the poster girl for bad, painful periods.  In high school, there were times when I had to leave school because I was in such pain--and it wasn't anything I could hide.  I would turn pale and find myself praying to the porcelain gods, heaving my guts out.  Of course, this wasn't EVERY month.  I could go several months with a fairly 'normal' period--just long enough to think I was getting better--and then I would get blasted all over again.  Going to doctors didn't help much.  I was given many different pain pills and one doctor even put me on amphetamines.  Nothing helped.  The only relief I ever got was when I'd find myself in the ER and the doctor ordered Demerol injections--that's goooood drugs.  Of course, I couldn't be on Demerol every month, so the relief was short-lived.  Finally, I was put on birth control pills.  Everything changed for me then--and the biggest change was NO PAIN!  I thought I had found the Holy Grail and I was ecstatic.  For six months.  And the pain started to come back.  Going back to what was 'normal' for me came very gradually, but it was apparent that The Pill wasn't going to be my cure-all and I decided to quit taking it.  This then brought me an entirely new set of problems.  After I went off of The Pill, I would go for three months or so at a time without a period.  To bring it on, I had to go to the doctor and get a prescription--if I wasn't pregnant, I'd get my period and if I WAS, then nothing would happen.  With The Husband away sailing the Seven Seas, there was no chance of a pregnancy, so I took the pills.  This happened to me after each of the two times in my life when I was on birth control pills--and it took me at least a year each time to get back to my 'normal' cycle after going off of the pills.  It wasn't a fun time for me, at all.

Early on, the diagnosis of 'endometriosis' was suggested by a doctor.  The only thing he told me was that everything would get better once I had gone through a pregnancy.  And nothing more was said.  I didn't think much more about this and without the interwebs available like they are now, I didn't have a place where I could do any research into this problem.  I just tried to learn to live with it.  Now, of course, I realize that all of the problems I had were because of endo.  When The Husband got out of the Navy, we settled into our lives and went about the business of making babies.  Only, I just couldn't seem to do what came naturally to most of the women I knew.  It took us five years into our marriage before we had The Oldest--partly due to the endo.  (Some of the problem was The Husband and me being apart for long periods of time, but that was only part of the problem.)  After having our first child, I didn't have ANY relief from my symptoms as the one doctor said I would.  And once again, I suffered from infertility problems--it took SIX years for The Youngest to come along.  For most of the time that we tried to get pregnant, we didn't use birth control, thus the reason I say I suffered with infertility.  As it turns out, the doctor who did my hysterectomy said I was lucky to ever have gotten pregnant even one time--infertility is one of the results many women suffer with having endometriosis.

By the time The Youngest was five, I was not living a 'normal' life.  My monthly cycle was about 35 days long and for only a week out of those 35 days, I felt almost normal.  The rest of the time I suffered with PMS and painful periods.  And I mean SUFFERED.  With two young girls to take care of, I couldn't completely take to my bed the seven days of my period, but I came close.  Whenever K was home, he was in charge and I was in bed, in a fetal position, rocking back and forth, trying not to moan because of the pain I was in.  At times I thought I was hemorrhaging because the flow was so heavy.  I could barely walk because my thighs were so weak and sore and my lower belly was distended and throbbing.  It felt as if all of my body parts were about to be discharged from my vagina because of the pressure I experienced in my pelvic 'floor'.  And these were the 'good' days.  (joking)  During my non-period, bad days, I had breasts that swelled like footballs and felt as if they would burst open if they were touched--and they hurt.  I had a painful, bloated belly and leg pain.  My moods were extremely erratic.  PMS to the nth degree was the order of the day.  And every month, things seemed to get a little worse and I had had enough.

Finally, the pain and problems got to a point that I couldn't go on living with them, so I decided to try talking to a doctor one more time about what was going on.  I had never told my GYN the extent of my problems before because no doctor had ever done much to help me previously.  But, with this appointment, I decided I wasn't going to leave until I had some answers and a possible solution.  As I started to read down my list of symptoms, the doctor joined me and finished the list without ever having read what I had written.  He said I had a classic, text-book case of endometriosis.  To be sure, he was going to do a laparoscopy on me to make the final diagnosis, but he had no problem with diagnosing me before the surgery.  And then we discussed solutions.  He said he could put me on medication that was proving to be helpful, but the side-effects were not fun.  (Weight gain--possibly to the extreme--was only one of the side effects.)  Or he could do laser surgery to remove the 'bad' tissue--the only problem with that is he could not be sure of getting all of the endometrial tissue, as it has a tendency to travel throughout the body in women with endo.  Or he could do a hysterectomy.  This would--in all likelihood--completely cure me of my problems.  Removal of the ovaries--and the stopping of estrogen production by the body--was the only 'cure' that he would come close to guaranteeing.  (Some women don't find this as the answer to their endo--they can't tolerate the hormone replacement therapy I went on.)  Even though I left his office knowing that I would be getting a second opinion and doing some thinking about what he had to say, I knew in my heart of hearts that I WAS going to get the surgery.  As I told him during my follow-up visit, "I'm done using the lady parts, so we might as well get rid of them."

Since having this surgery done, I have become addicted to The Gore and have done a lot of research into how other women have and do cope with endo and hysterectomies.  Solutions to endo are pretty much the same as they were when I had my hysterectomy, but far fewer hysterectomies are being done--and more people are frowning on the solution.  While it IS an extreme solution to a problem that may not be life-threatening, that doesn't seem to be the reason so many are against the practice.  I guess a lot of women feel 'castrated' and less of a woman once a hysterectomy has been done.  They seem to define themselves by how many lady parts they have.  This is a mind set that I cannot understand.  I'm not condemning anyone who feels this way, it just doesn't make sense to me.  A couple of months after my surgery, when I was feeling better than I had felt at any point in my life, I told someone that I would have had the surgery done ten years earlier if it wouldn't have meant not having The Youngest.  I cannot imagine my life if I wouldn't have done the surgery--and I don't feel any less of a woman because I have no uterus or ovaries.  Yes, I've had to take a pill every day since the surgery, but as I get older, pills are just a way of life for me--as is the case with a lot of older people.  The HRT hasn't been a factor in any health issues I have and, despite what some reports MIGHT indicate, I feel as if it has helped me.  Given the chance again, I would choose to have a hysterectomy in a heartbeat--it was the best decision I ever made for my health.

I do hope that every woman faced with having to make the decision of whether to have a hysterectomy or not would do a lot of research and get both sides of the story.  Too many people are condemning hysterectomies as too extreme--even likening them to misogyny on the part of male doctors.  While I don't believe that, to each his--or her--own.  I just beg any woman to do a great amount of research before making any decisions, don't buy into any 'politically correct' ideas just because, and make up your own mind without being influenced by others.  It is YOUR body and YOU have to live with it.  And if God created you a woman, just because some of your lady parts are gone, that doesn't change who, or what, you are.




*A couple of years ago I needed to have follow-up mams and ultrasounds of my right breast.  There was a cyst--which they had been tracking for several years--that was larger than it had been and they wanted to make sure nothing was going to come of it. By the time I had my follow-up, the cyst had gone back to the size it had been and there was no need for any more action, other than some extra mams to make sure everything was status quo.  I have had no more scares since.