boo!

Nov. 7th, 2012 01:08 pm
same_sky: (Default)
[personal profile] same_sky
Oh, how glad I am that the election is over. Yesterday, I was daydreaming about leaving Facebook entirely because I was just so darned tired of everyone thinking that they have an opinion that needs shared. Not just political opinions! It's the constant onslaught of hearing from people in such different stages of life and situations and people I know from so many different places. Family and extended family (the ones that I really wouldn't even know but for Facebook) and high school acquaintances and LiveJournal friends (you guys are among my favorite FB friends!) and a few remaining folks from the diaper sewing forum I was involved with years ago and friends from the online game that I met M on and.. you know how it goes. Usually that's what I love about Facebook, but with the election, it just went nuts. Most of my better friends (like you guys) are also flaming liberals and/or women, which means that I wasn't even being hit with too much anti-Obama stuff. It was just the sheer VOLUME of reactions that made me want to just tune out completely. I'm hoping that they will settle down again now.

I think the weirdest thing about this year's election is that for the first time ever, I was afraid to even ask my husband about his voting experience. He pretty much hates both Romney and Obama equally, and he had a pretty good reason to not want Obama to win. I won't get into the whole thing, as it's his business and not mine and I'm afraid of saying too much. But, since I honestly understood where he was coming from, I didn't even want to ask. The thing about M and me is that we're hopelessly codependent so it just felt so weird to not bring that sort of thing up when we usually talk about everything. And furthermore... it completely didn't matter who either of us voted for anyway. Kentucky is as red as they come and thanks to the electoral college system, my presidential vote never actually counts for anything anyway. (I always go, though, because I do think it's so important and I want Evie to grow up seeing us vote every time. I'm just cynically aware that it's useless to vote for the minority party in a majority state.)

Evelyn missed two hours of school today because I let her sleep in. She was up at 4:30 crying with her ear. I am so sick of the ear thing. I mean, I am not sick of her complaining about her ear, because that would be very coldhearted of me! I am sick of it constantly coming back. Every time that she gets a cold or something, she will end up with an earache a week or two later. The first time she ever got an earache, I asked Google, who told me that modern wisdom is to not treat it with antibiotics because it's usually not bacterial anyway. When it continued to hurt her, I took her to the doctor and I asked him what I should do in the future, and he told me that there was no reason to make her suffer, so I should bring her in when she gets an earache. So that's what I've done. Two or three incidents ago, I took her in because she just hadn't been acting right, hadn't been hearing well, and couldn't shake her cold for six weeks. "It's just fluid! Have some allergy meds!" and then the next day, she screamed all night long, and the next day her ear drum burst. The last time it happened, when we took her into a walk-in clinic out of town after a screaming incident, they were all, "oh! just fluid in her ears! Have some allergy meds!" I took her and her now-leaking ear into her regular doctor when we came home and he gave me the fluid story again and then started in on the Google theory of ear infections--antibiotics not required. And I'm totally against overusing antibiotics but I am also totally against further ear drum bursting incidents because if it's never happened to your kid, it's... disgusting. I've been giving her allergy medication but I may have missed a day or two. I thought it was working this time but no such luck. Anyway, I gave her tylenol and a warm rice bag and laid down with her and she finally went back to sleep, so I let her sleep in. She got up at about nine feeling fine, so I got her ready and took her to school. Today is art and I knew she'd hate to miss it. Now that I've been lectured both to bring her in with earaches and to not bring her in, I don't even know what I'm supposed to do. Ellen? I'm inclined to not take her in this time unless it happens again because it was a relatively "easy" incident. She was crying but not screaming and isn't THAT just how you want to measure how your child is feeling? Ears suck.

But, you know what's adorable? I talked to her this morning and mentioned that I wished so much that I could have made her feel better. "But you did," she said. "Giving you medicine and the boo-boo bag?" I asked, "and snuggling with you?' And my sweet sweet child said, "Yes, but mostly it was being with you." Mommies have special magical healing powers, you know. :) A couple of years ago, she went through a pretty strong phase where she only wanted Daddy and she didn't like me much, which broke my heart, so I'm really happy that she's Mommy's girl again. She's still Daddy's girl, but we get different but equal treatment now.

I make homemade pizza fairly often but time before last, I made it and it was phenomenal. M and I both craved pizza for days after that, and so I made it again last night and it was again delicious. I used Great Value shredded mozzarella and that's the difference. It's what I used to buy but now I buy name brand/competitor cheese because it's cheaper. (Sales, coupons, price matching, whatever.) I'm not sure if it's the cheese itself or if it's the coarsely shreddedness, or if I'm using more than usual because it's not as finely shredded, but it is freaking delicious. My pizza recipe does not require rising time, but I've found that it's easier to roll out if I give it just a few minutes while I prep everything else. Yesterday I had to take E to violin at 5, so I mixed the dough before I left and it got a full hour and a half of rising time and it was so light and fluffy and bubbly golden brown delicious. So, the burning question is... is it okay to put pizza on the meal plan three times a week? ;)

No cute pictures of my kid trick-or-treating this year because she didn't go. I initially asked her if I could bribe her into not going by letting her pick out a toy at the store, but she wouldn't go for that. Then she said she would like to skip trick-or-treating and go to Steak & Shake instead. So...that's what we did. On Halloween itself, though, I asked her if she would like to go out and do some trick-or-treating even though we had made that deal and she said no. It was really cold and she's sensitive to temperature, plus I think she was creeped out by some of the scary aspects of Halloween. Oh, well. My mom (and some FB friends) were feeling sorry for poor miss underprivileged Evelyn, but truthfully, she really doesn't like trick-or-treating. She doesn't see the point, since we have candy at home, and she doesn't like talking to strangers, asking people for things, walking long distances between houses, scary decorations or being outside in the dark. I mean, seriously, this holiday is not fun for her. So, I didn't feel too bad about it, which is good because I was a bit ill that day myself and didn't feel like it much, anyway.

Anyway, I have a number of paperwork-type things to take care of before it's time to go back to school. I slept in a bit, too, and between that and getting Evie off to school later, this day has completely disappeared.

Date: 2012-11-07 07:22 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] e11en.livejournal.com
Obviously you don't have to say why but that's quite a build up and leaves me wanting to know why he disliked Obama. I'm sorry for you guys that you live in such a hopelessly red state. I couldn't do it so I applaud you for sticking with it and going and voting regardless. Me, I am fucking ecstatic with the results. Gay marriage approved in three states and a ban rejected in another. My state remains 100% Democratic in our federal representation and we added women to the Senate! Most importantly, Obama winning re-election means he, and not Romney, will get to appoint the next supreme court justices. SO relieved about that. Really, like I would seriously have felt we needed to move to Sweden if Romney had won just based on the SCOTUS factor alone.

Date: 2012-11-08 01:33 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] same-sky.livejournal.com
I remembered to ask him this morning and he said he didn't mind if I explained. Or tried to. I really didn't think he would but he wasn't here to ask yesterday.. This will be long because I have to explain it like I understand it and it occurs to me now that it's harder to explain someone else's standpoints than your own. :).

I don't know if you remember this but he works for a place that sells guns. It's mostly mail order/internet sales, with some people coming by to pick stuff up sometimes but it's not a retail store at all, just a warehouse with a call center. They're a smallish company but fairly well-known in the gun world. He got the job through a contact from another job, and at first was going to turn it down because it was just so out there, but it's been a more-or-less nice place to work. Anyway, part of the equation, I think, is just that part of his job involves keeping track of activity on key internet gun boards. They are not fans of the Democratic party on the grounds that one of the things we rather want to do is enforce more control on guns. So, they tend to have political discussions, and he gets a somewhat different view of Obama there than he would from say, CNN. I mean, not the bias parts, but the things that they get upset about are not the things that are a big deal for people who aren't in that group....just like any other subset of voters. Like us, the women, who object to most of what Romney had to say that didn't faze the men out there. There have been several things he's not been pleased with in the last four years, so that's the background--he's not thrilled with his performance in the first place but I think he'd have been less conflicted about it if that's all it was. No one does things that suit everyone, of course..

The big issue, though, is that Obama came right out and said he was going to work on banning assault rifles if elected again. At M's job, you can directly follow their business based on what's going on politically. When Obama was elected, people freaked out and started buying things like crazy because they were afraid they wouldn't be able to much longer. It settled down some because he didn't go after guns as strongly as expected. Every time a new gun law is proposed, they see the results in their sales. Having said that, that kind of law change is what can be expected for a second term, when they don't have to worry as much about re-election, and sure enough, he announced that was part of his plan. The day after the election, the meetings were already started on this ban. With enough new laws and restrictions, it could very well directly put M out of a job, which would be...you know. Bad, for a one-income family. Even if he keeps the job, part of his salary is commissions based, which will be negatively impacted. Right now they're selling stuff like crazy. He sold more in 40 minutes yesterday than he did all day earlier in the week. It's nuts. Stock levels will be impacted soon, though, so that can't last too long.

LJ is making me break this up, more in next comment.

Date: 2012-11-08 01:34 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] same-sky.livejournal.com
And one might think, well, that's unfortunate if the worst case scenario were to happen, but a few jobs lost compared to the huge benefits of this ban on scary assault rifles is worth it, sorry about your luck. I was always a huge proponent of gun laws because I think they're scary. However, I have come to realize, with a great deal of discomfort, that the issue is not as easy as I used to think. The thing is, gun laws are mostly stupid. I mean, I would still love to see gun laws that make sense, and that keep guns out of the hands of criminals. I am ALL for that. M is for that and even the die-hard gun fans want that. They're hobbyists. They don't want crazies out there killing people and giving them all a bad name and causing more laws to be written. The problem is that these laws are being written by people who don't understand guns. As soon as a big scary thing happens, like the theater shooting recently, people come out and say, "okay, we need to ban some more guns. Okay, what makes this one bad?" And then they start checking out the characteristics of the gun that was used, and they clue in on THE WRONG THINGS. I don't know much about guns, either, because I have basically 0 interest and they creep me out, but even I can see it when it's explained to me by someone who actually is a gun authority. (M is now famous is certain gun circles for his gun expertise, which makes me laugh because hello, he's SWEDISH. He's not supposed to have guns!) It's the equivalent of saying, "let's ban all purple guns." The color is totally irrelevant to the safety of the weapon but it looks bad-ass, right? (Okay, a purple gun probably wouldn't, but you get the idea.) In this assault rifle ban--which is a completely new official category of gun, they've picked out a handful of characteristics and they're idiotic and almost entirely based on what LOOKS scary. It is an assault rifle if it has a piece of metal on which you can attach a bayonet, because those look kind of fierce, and you know what problems there are with drive-by stabbings, right? Attaching a knife makes it dangerous? Because people carry knives all the time. I have lots in my kitchen, Having a pistol grip makes it an assault rifle, and that is just about how you hold the thing. Also, the ability to fold the gun up slightly makes it an assualt rifle. Having a barrel shroud makes it an assault rifle, and...

Here is an excellent example of why politicians cannot be trusted to write these laws without supervision: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo and let's not forget that what she's saying in avoidance to the question is about the kind of gun used in those shootings, and yeah, THAT is not the kind of gun that she's talking about banning. They're banning guns that are generally not being used in criminal activity.

The worst part, and the part that M is most troubled with but that I don't have the energy to go into as thoroughly as I probably should because I have been writing this for EVER by now, is that it's directly against the Constitution. M is very unhappy with a president that is trying to go against what is clearly written in the Constitution. I see that point, but in my case, I don't care that much about guns and I do care about other issues, so it doesn't really bother me like it probably should.

So, his stance was that he could not, in good conscience, vote for Obama on those grounds. On the other hand, he could also not, in good conscience, vote for Romney. He ended up writing in a candidate. *lol* Again, though, our votes were symbolic at best. Had we been in a state where it would have made a difference, he said he thought he would have sucked it up and voted for Obama anyway, but he was glad he didn't have to. I can live with that. :)

I think it's interesting how different people have such different reasons for their vote, based on which issues are most important to them. :)

Date: 2012-11-08 05:38 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] e11en.livejournal.com
I'll put my reply after this one since I think it will be most relevant to the part above.

Yes, I can imagine that when you work inside an industry, you have a much different view of how these laws work. Much like when there was that internet copyright law that all of us were worried about because congresspeople are notoriously sheltered from actually using the internet and wrote a ridiculously stupid law that threw the baby out with the bath water. Luckily there was enough opposition to it, since everyone else in the country does use the internet, that it fell apart.

I think the gun issue is so much trickier. One interesting story I remember concerns Kirsten Gillibrand, the democratic senator from NY who took Hillary Clinton's place 4 years ago. She was an upstate representative whose family had always been hunters and she herself was quite a shot and had grown up in that community. She was appointed by the governor but had to win a special election to keep the seat. At first she faced strong opposition from the NYC area where having backing from the NRA is not seen as a good thing. I remember hearing an interview with her where she said that she had to go around in NYC and listen to people's concerns about guns and she realized that where people live puts a whole different spin on the issue. There's the rub. People who live in cities see the bad side of guns and there are more of those people.

I would not try to convince M to see the issue from the other side because I am obviously unqualified to speak about guns at all. And actually, I'm more or less writing this is a reply to you and not him anyway. However, I would say two things about Obama and that statement about banning assault rifles.

1) And on this point I'd have to say it's kind of an uncool move but, I think it was said as a way to garner support but that he probably knows it can't be done and I wouldn't worry too much about him actually doing it. 2) Plus, if his previous record can be used as a guide, he farms shit out to congress a lot and that would just be a hopeless clusterfuck that dies in committee somewhere. So, big talk, little action, scores points with his base voters. Douchey? Yes. Actually going to happen? I'm guessing no but maybe we should ask Nate Silver. Furthermore, any ban like that is going to immediately be challenged and the Supreme Court would likely overturn it.

As a former Constitutional law professor, I believe he reveres the Constitution and is not actually trying to go against what is written there. Like in so many other areas, a document that is over 200 years old is not specific enough to handle the modern world we live in and it was written directly following a revolution where people owning their own guns was kind of the only way that the nation could have come into being. I feel like if such a ban were to come up, he is more knowledgeable than any of the other recent presidents we've had as to what's actually written in the Constitution. The problem is he wouldn't actually be the one writing it. It would be a bunch of people like you cited above.

Date: 2012-11-08 01:34 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] same-sky.livejournal.com
I split it unevenly and I still didn't get it all into two comments. Here's the last part:


(I never would have imagined myself arguing on this side of the gun debate, but they truly are stupid laws and they will do bad things to a lot of people. I would really like to have more safety training and more restrictions on crazy persons owning guns. The problem is usually that the people who commit these horrible crimes are also people who walked into a gun shop and fit all the criteria for owning a gun and received it with no problem. As much as we want to, we can't legislate random.)

Date: 2012-11-07 07:51 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] carrieb.livejournal.com
Yay! A post from you! A kid who doesn't like trick or treating? Her arguments make sense. Lucky you. I am not a fan myself in my old age, but my kids love it. Erik has already forgotten about the candy, but Elsa just came up to me and started asking for her pumpkin. I am going to have a sugared up kid now. Dandy.

I am so curious about M's objection to Obama. Totte needs to rise again!

Date: 2012-11-08 01:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] same-sky.livejournal.com
I remembered to ask him this morning and he said he didn't mind if I explained. Or tried to. I really didn't think he would but he wasn't here to ask yesterday.. This will be long because I have to explain it like I understand it and it occurs to me now that it's harder to explain someone else's standpoints than your own. :).

I don't know if you remember this but he works for a place that sells guns. It's mostly mail order/internet sales, with some people coming by to pick stuff up sometimes but it's not a retail store at all, just a warehouse with a call center. They're a smallish company but fairly well-known in the gun world. He got the job through a contact from another job, and at first was going to turn it down because it was just so out there, but it's been a more-or-less nice place to work. Anyway, part of the equation, I think, is just that part of his job involves keeping track of activity on key internet gun boards. They are not fans of the Democratic party on the grounds that one of the things we rather want to do is enforce more control on guns. So, they tend to have political discussions, and he gets a somewhat different view of Obama there than he would from say, CNN. I mean, not the bias parts, but the things that they get upset about are not the things that are a big deal for people who aren't in that group....just like any other subset of voters. Like us, the women, who object to most of what Romney had to say that didn't faze the men out there. There have been several things he's not been pleased with in the last four years, so that's the background--he's not thrilled with his performance in the first place but I think he'd have been less conflicted about it if that's all it was. No one does things that suit everyone, of course..

The big issue, though, is that Obama came right out and said he was going to work on banning assault rifles if elected again. At M's job, you can directly follow their business based on what's going on politically. When Obama was elected, people freaked out and started buying things like crazy because they were afraid they wouldn't be able to much longer. It settled down some because he didn't go after guns as strongly as expected. Every time a new gun law is proposed, they see the results in their sales. Having said that, that kind of law change is what can be expected for a second term, when they don't have to worry as much about re-election, and sure enough, he announced that was part of his plan. The day after the election, the meetings were already started on this ban. With enough new laws and restrictions, it could very well directly put M out of a job, which would be...you know. Bad, for a one-income family. Even if he keeps the job, part of his salary is commissions based, which will be negatively impacted. Right now they're selling stuff like crazy. He sold more in 40 minutes yesterday than he did all day earlier in the week. It's nuts. Stock levels will be impacted soon, though, so that can't last too long.

LJ is making me break this up, more in next comment.

Date: 2012-11-08 01:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] same-sky.livejournal.com
And one might think, well, that's unfortunate if the worst case scenario were to happen, but a few jobs lost compared to the huge benefits of this ban on scary assault rifles is worth it, sorry about your luck. I was always a huge proponent of gun laws because I think they're scary. However, I have come to realize, with a great deal of discomfort, that the issue is not as easy as I used to think. The thing is, gun laws are mostly stupid. I mean, I would still love to see gun laws that make sense, and that keep guns out of the hands of criminals. I am ALL for that. M is for that and even the die-hard gun fans want that. They're hobbyists. They don't want crazies out there killing people and giving them all a bad name and causing more laws to be written. The problem is that these laws are being written by people who don't understand guns. As soon as a big scary thing happens, like the theater shooting recently, people come out and say, "okay, we need to ban some more guns. Okay, what makes this one bad?" And then they start checking out the characteristics of the gun that was used, and they clue in on THE WRONG THINGS. I don't know much about guns, either, because I have basically 0 interest and they creep me out, but even I can see it when it's explained to me by someone who actually is a gun authority. (M is now famous is certain gun circles for his gun expertise, which makes me laugh because hello, he's SWEDISH. He's not supposed to have guns!) It's the equivalent of saying, "let's ban all purple guns." The color is totally irrelevant to the safety of the weapon but it looks bad-ass, right? (Okay, a purple gun probably wouldn't, but you get the idea.) In this assault rifle ban--which is a completely new official category of gun, they've picked out a handful of characteristics and they're idiotic and almost entirely based on what LOOKS scary. It is an assault rifle if it has a piece of metal on which you can attach a bayonet, because those look kind of fierce, and you know what problems there are with drive-by stabbings, right? Attaching a knife makes it dangerous? Because people carry knives all the time. I have lots in my kitchen, Having a pistol grip makes it an assault rifle, and that is just about how you hold the thing. Also, the ability to fold the gun up slightly makes it an assualt rifle. Having a barrel shroud makes it an assault rifle, and...

Here is an excellent example of why politicians cannot be trusted to write these laws without supervision: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo and let's not forget that what she's saying in avoidance to the question is about the kind of gun used in those shootings, and yeah, THAT is not the kind of gun that she's talking about banning. They're banning guns that are generally not being used in criminal activity.

The worst part, and the part that M is most troubled with but that I don't have the energy to go into as thoroughly as I probably should because I have been writing this for EVER by now, is that it's directly against the Constitution. M is very unhappy with a president that is trying to go against what is clearly written in the Constitution. I see that point, but in my case, I don't care that much about guns and I do care about other issues, so it doesn't really bother me like it probably should.

So, his stance was that he could not, in good conscience, vote for Obama on those grounds. On the other hand, he could also not, in good conscience, vote for Romney. He ended up writing in a candidate. *lol* Again, though, our votes were symbolic at best. Had we been in a state where it would have made a difference, he said he thought he would have sucked it up and voted for Obama anyway, but he was glad he didn't have to. I can live with that. :)

I think it's interesting how different people have such different reasons for their vote, based on which issues are most important to them. :)

Date: 2012-11-08 01:36 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] same-sky.livejournal.com
I split it unevenly and I still didn't get it all into two comments. Here's the last part:


(I never would have imagined myself arguing on this side of the gun debate, but they truly are stupid laws and they will do bad things to a lot of people. I would really like to have more safety training and more restrictions on crazy persons owning guns. The problem is usually that the people who commit these horrible crimes are also people who walked into a gun shop and fit all the criteria for owning a gun and received it with no problem. As much as we want to, we can't legislate random.)

Date: 2012-11-08 04:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] e11en.livejournal.com
Forgot to reply about the ear issue.

Do you need to get a referral to go so see an ear, nose, throat doctor? If the allergy medicine doesn't work and you don't want to keep her on antibiotics and/or the ear infections come back as soon as she's off them, my experience is time for tubes.

You'll remember Anders fit the bill I described above and after the tubes, no more ear problems.

June 2015

S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
212223242526 27
282930    

Most Popular Tags