Wednesday, November 11, 2009
THE FOUR HEALING ELEMENTS OF A GENUINE APOLOGY
What is a genuine apology?
Is it filled with defenses, excuses and attempts to justify?
"I'm sorry, but ....." ?
There should never be any "but" to an apology. If there is, it's insincere.
The purpose of apologizing should be to heal. A genuine apology consists of at least three elements, and ideally a fourth:
"I was wrong."
"I'm sorry."
"How can I make it right?"
It also helps if the person apologizing understands WHY their mistake was so hurtful. This shows a deeper level of thinking, and makes their apology ring even truer. Their head and their heart are on the same page.
Sometimes just saying "I'm sorry" isn't enough. Unless one clearly understands the offense they've committed, they're almost certainly doomed to repeat it.
It isn't always apparent, when someone apologizes, if they've arrived at that realization.
Ideally, a fourth element should include:
"I know my behavior was wrong because ...."
If one doesn't know why their behavior was wrong, one should ask to be honestly told. By making a concerted effort to understand, they not only learn, it shows they care.
This, I believe, is the most healing of all.
-- folktress
Thursday, November 5, 2009
SOME HEALTHCARE REFORMS I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ...
Here are some meaningful reforms I would like to see to our present heathcare system:
1. I think it should become illegal for insurance companies to arbitrarily charge women higher premiums than men. This is nothing more than unfair gender discrimination, based on the broad-brush assumption that a woman -- any woman -- will file more claims than a man -- any man.
This is not only unfair, its erroneous. Many more times than not, I have stayed home with symptoms that have caused me concern, instead of rushing out to the clinic where, very likely, some doctor would just blow me off and gladly charge me for the privilege of being blown off.
What often happens is that as soon as I arrive at the clinic and am seated in the waiting room, my symptoms begin to mysteriously subside. Then when I finally get in to see the doctor, I am no longer experiencing them. Prior to arriving at the clinic, these symptoms were indeed present and signaling to me that something quite serious could possibly be wrong. As a matter of prudence, I decide, after waiting awhile at home for them to abate and they don't, to seek medical attention. This is nothing more or less than trying to do the right thing.
On more than one occasion, by the time the doctor has me in the examination room after my symptoms have lessened or vanished, I have been confronted with the attitude of "Why are you here?" All of a sudden, I find myself accused -- subtly if not overtly -- of wasting the doctor's time! Sometimes it's conveyed through a snide look. One nurse actually told me not to see the doctor unless I am having symptoms. This, despite my describing in detail the symptoms I'd been experiencing only a short while before, revealing specifically when they began, what the nature of them was, and providing other information that I believed would be helpful.
Why my symptoms often subside when I arrive at the clinic, I don't know. It certainly doesn't mean that I never had them, or that my reason for visiting the doctor was to intentionally waste his or her time! That kind of attitude is insulting at best, and dangerous at worst!
Because I can anticipate being treated this way, I am more inclined to wait out a spell at home and see if the symptoms go away after awhile on their own. If they do, fine. If they worsen, then prudence and common sense dictate that I do something about it. Getting attitude from the medical profession is unpleasant, and unfortunately, could become a deterrant to seeking help when and if something truly life-threatening occurs.
No, women don't just automatically file insurance claims more often than men. Conversely, there are some men who see doctors and file insurance claims as often or more often than some women. It's simply wrong for an insurance company to charge women higher premiums right from the get-go than they charge men. This practice needs to stop.
2. I do feel the discrimination against pre-existing conditions is also unfair and wrong. For health insurance to really do the greater good, it needs to cover pre-existing conditions as well as conditions which develop after the customer/patient acquires the insurance. A pre-existing condition sometimes leads to a post-developing condition or complication, and, like it or not, the reality is that pre-existing conditions can be contributing factors in later, more serious health problems. This is simply a fact of life, and nobody should be penalized for life's inevitable realities. Denying coverage for problems arising from pre-existing conditions is essentially punishing the customer/patient for needing the coverage in the first place! It's actually a slick, weasel way to wiggle out of paying for legitimate medical expenses that would otherwise be covered if those exact same expenses had occurred for any other reason! This is another form of wrongful discrimination, and should be outlawed, seeing as most insurance providers appear unwilling to rectify this injustice of their own volition. In otherwords, they aren't going to correct this unfair practice unless they're legally forced to do so.
3. I think it would benefit everyone if insurance companies were more willing to cover preventive measures as well as treatment of existing problems. It's actually in the best interests of the insurance companies to cover preventive healthcare. Measures which keep us healthier and prevent a lot of illness and injury help keep down the number of claims being filed, saving the insurance companies from having to make costly pay-outs. I would think the insurance industry would be jumping at the chance to cover preventative healthcare! Instead, they more often than not deny coverage for preventive therapies. This makes little sense in any economy, and even less sense in today's tough economic conditions.
4. Discrimination against alternative therapies is also unjustified. There are many truly effective and beneficial alternative treatments which are far less costly than conventional medicine, and used in conjuction with necessary conventional treatments can often reduce the need for the latter and produce a healthier, more positive outcome, overall.
Alternative therapies such as massage, acupuncture, acupressure and carefully monitored herbal regimens often result in fewer unpleasant and harmful side effects than taking conventional prescription or over-the-counter drugs, many of which get approved by the FDA despite secret knowledge of harmful effects which only come out after good-faith users have been damaged by them. It seems reasonable that insurance companies should look at this and realize that effective and legitimate alternative therapies have the very real potential for saving them money. Instead, many of them stick up their snooty noses at the concept in favor of the more "tried and true." I have news for them: Alternative therapies have been around a lot longer than more recently-developed pharmaceuticals, and have proven themselves tried and true, time and again!
5. Competition across state lines will help eliminate the monopoly factor which keeps insurance premiums prohibitively high, and allowing such healthy competition would go a long way toward driving down costs. Of course, it doesn't appeal to the greed factor so deeply entrenched in today's insurance industry. If competition is opened up across state lines, companies would have to charge more competitive premiums because there would be available to customers many more choices and chances to get fairer deals.
6. Finally, insurance companies using their own doctors instead of the patient's regular doctor to determine whether or not a treatment or therapy is "necessary" is another unfair and potentially dangerous policy. There's little chance a doctor hired by an insurance company is going to make an unbiased judgement or render an impartial opinion about whether or not a prescribed treatment or medication is "necessary" for any particular individual! That doctor is working for the insurance company and is expected to deliver a verdict in the company's favor. Insurance physicians aren't in a position to make wholly objective or unbiased assessments. And it's their opinions and judgements that often influence an insurance company's decision as to whether to pay or deny a claim.
Along this same line, claims need to be resolved in a timely fashion. Even when a claim is eventually paid, approval can be delayed to the point where a patient is unable to receive life-saving treatment in time to do any good. I can't help wonder if this isn't sometimes done with the calculated purpose of achieving that end. A dead patient can't file anymore claims! Delay their treatment just long enough for them to lose their battle with whatever ailment is threatening to kill them, and the insurance company saves thousands of dollars in future pay-outs!
Sounds despicable, doesn't it? I'm certainly not saying that all insurance companies do this. Most probably don't. But it has definitely happened and companies who renege on their obligations to that lethal extent deserve to be held legally accountable, at least civilly and in some cases criminally. There is simply no excuse for that kind of behavior!
All of these are badly-needed, common sense reforms that could be achieved through the private sector at the grass-roots level. The government need only intervene when bad laws on the books hamper this process, and the best remedy there is to repeal those laws.
Conversely, it's sometimes sadly necessary to legally force large, greedy corporations to do the right thing because they simply won't do it of their own accord, and the customer is left powerless to do anything about it because the playing field is so blatantly uneven.
Aside from these special situations where limited intervention is sometimes required for the good of society, and laws need to be passed based on their true merit and necessity, the government should stay out of healthcare.
It's unconstitutional, not to mention unAmerican, to force people to purchase government-mandated insurance of its choosing, not theirs. It's a form of tyranny to forcefully subject the American people to a government-run system they can't control the results of in their own lives, and in which they have no say. It would be demoralizing and perilous to wrest patients away from their own chosen doctors in favor of those who might or might not have those patients' best interests at heart. And exactly WHO is qualified to judge whether or not any particular individual is "worthy" of receiving medical treatment ??? God is perfectly qualified for this. The government isn't!
Healthcare reform is undisputably needed. Those in power need to get the self-serving politics out of this process, start listening to the American people and to their private medical practitioners, and implement reforms that really do mean something and will result in the improvements we need to have made.
This latter should go without saying, and yet we are needing to say it repeatedly, because our own elected, representative government just doesn't seem to be getting it!
When they finally will get it is anyone's guess ...
-- folktress
1. I think it should become illegal for insurance companies to arbitrarily charge women higher premiums than men. This is nothing more than unfair gender discrimination, based on the broad-brush assumption that a woman -- any woman -- will file more claims than a man -- any man.
This is not only unfair, its erroneous. Many more times than not, I have stayed home with symptoms that have caused me concern, instead of rushing out to the clinic where, very likely, some doctor would just blow me off and gladly charge me for the privilege of being blown off.
What often happens is that as soon as I arrive at the clinic and am seated in the waiting room, my symptoms begin to mysteriously subside. Then when I finally get in to see the doctor, I am no longer experiencing them. Prior to arriving at the clinic, these symptoms were indeed present and signaling to me that something quite serious could possibly be wrong. As a matter of prudence, I decide, after waiting awhile at home for them to abate and they don't, to seek medical attention. This is nothing more or less than trying to do the right thing.
On more than one occasion, by the time the doctor has me in the examination room after my symptoms have lessened or vanished, I have been confronted with the attitude of "Why are you here?" All of a sudden, I find myself accused -- subtly if not overtly -- of wasting the doctor's time! Sometimes it's conveyed through a snide look. One nurse actually told me not to see the doctor unless I am having symptoms. This, despite my describing in detail the symptoms I'd been experiencing only a short while before, revealing specifically when they began, what the nature of them was, and providing other information that I believed would be helpful.
Why my symptoms often subside when I arrive at the clinic, I don't know. It certainly doesn't mean that I never had them, or that my reason for visiting the doctor was to intentionally waste his or her time! That kind of attitude is insulting at best, and dangerous at worst!
Because I can anticipate being treated this way, I am more inclined to wait out a spell at home and see if the symptoms go away after awhile on their own. If they do, fine. If they worsen, then prudence and common sense dictate that I do something about it. Getting attitude from the medical profession is unpleasant, and unfortunately, could become a deterrant to seeking help when and if something truly life-threatening occurs.
No, women don't just automatically file insurance claims more often than men. Conversely, there are some men who see doctors and file insurance claims as often or more often than some women. It's simply wrong for an insurance company to charge women higher premiums right from the get-go than they charge men. This practice needs to stop.
2. I do feel the discrimination against pre-existing conditions is also unfair and wrong. For health insurance to really do the greater good, it needs to cover pre-existing conditions as well as conditions which develop after the customer/patient acquires the insurance. A pre-existing condition sometimes leads to a post-developing condition or complication, and, like it or not, the reality is that pre-existing conditions can be contributing factors in later, more serious health problems. This is simply a fact of life, and nobody should be penalized for life's inevitable realities. Denying coverage for problems arising from pre-existing conditions is essentially punishing the customer/patient for needing the coverage in the first place! It's actually a slick, weasel way to wiggle out of paying for legitimate medical expenses that would otherwise be covered if those exact same expenses had occurred for any other reason! This is another form of wrongful discrimination, and should be outlawed, seeing as most insurance providers appear unwilling to rectify this injustice of their own volition. In otherwords, they aren't going to correct this unfair practice unless they're legally forced to do so.
3. I think it would benefit everyone if insurance companies were more willing to cover preventive measures as well as treatment of existing problems. It's actually in the best interests of the insurance companies to cover preventive healthcare. Measures which keep us healthier and prevent a lot of illness and injury help keep down the number of claims being filed, saving the insurance companies from having to make costly pay-outs. I would think the insurance industry would be jumping at the chance to cover preventative healthcare! Instead, they more often than not deny coverage for preventive therapies. This makes little sense in any economy, and even less sense in today's tough economic conditions.
4. Discrimination against alternative therapies is also unjustified. There are many truly effective and beneficial alternative treatments which are far less costly than conventional medicine, and used in conjuction with necessary conventional treatments can often reduce the need for the latter and produce a healthier, more positive outcome, overall.
Alternative therapies such as massage, acupuncture, acupressure and carefully monitored herbal regimens often result in fewer unpleasant and harmful side effects than taking conventional prescription or over-the-counter drugs, many of which get approved by the FDA despite secret knowledge of harmful effects which only come out after good-faith users have been damaged by them. It seems reasonable that insurance companies should look at this and realize that effective and legitimate alternative therapies have the very real potential for saving them money. Instead, many of them stick up their snooty noses at the concept in favor of the more "tried and true." I have news for them: Alternative therapies have been around a lot longer than more recently-developed pharmaceuticals, and have proven themselves tried and true, time and again!
5. Competition across state lines will help eliminate the monopoly factor which keeps insurance premiums prohibitively high, and allowing such healthy competition would go a long way toward driving down costs. Of course, it doesn't appeal to the greed factor so deeply entrenched in today's insurance industry. If competition is opened up across state lines, companies would have to charge more competitive premiums because there would be available to customers many more choices and chances to get fairer deals.
6. Finally, insurance companies using their own doctors instead of the patient's regular doctor to determine whether or not a treatment or therapy is "necessary" is another unfair and potentially dangerous policy. There's little chance a doctor hired by an insurance company is going to make an unbiased judgement or render an impartial opinion about whether or not a prescribed treatment or medication is "necessary" for any particular individual! That doctor is working for the insurance company and is expected to deliver a verdict in the company's favor. Insurance physicians aren't in a position to make wholly objective or unbiased assessments. And it's their opinions and judgements that often influence an insurance company's decision as to whether to pay or deny a claim.
Along this same line, claims need to be resolved in a timely fashion. Even when a claim is eventually paid, approval can be delayed to the point where a patient is unable to receive life-saving treatment in time to do any good. I can't help wonder if this isn't sometimes done with the calculated purpose of achieving that end. A dead patient can't file anymore claims! Delay their treatment just long enough for them to lose their battle with whatever ailment is threatening to kill them, and the insurance company saves thousands of dollars in future pay-outs!
Sounds despicable, doesn't it? I'm certainly not saying that all insurance companies do this. Most probably don't. But it has definitely happened and companies who renege on their obligations to that lethal extent deserve to be held legally accountable, at least civilly and in some cases criminally. There is simply no excuse for that kind of behavior!
All of these are badly-needed, common sense reforms that could be achieved through the private sector at the grass-roots level. The government need only intervene when bad laws on the books hamper this process, and the best remedy there is to repeal those laws.
Conversely, it's sometimes sadly necessary to legally force large, greedy corporations to do the right thing because they simply won't do it of their own accord, and the customer is left powerless to do anything about it because the playing field is so blatantly uneven.
Aside from these special situations where limited intervention is sometimes required for the good of society, and laws need to be passed based on their true merit and necessity, the government should stay out of healthcare.
It's unconstitutional, not to mention unAmerican, to force people to purchase government-mandated insurance of its choosing, not theirs. It's a form of tyranny to forcefully subject the American people to a government-run system they can't control the results of in their own lives, and in which they have no say. It would be demoralizing and perilous to wrest patients away from their own chosen doctors in favor of those who might or might not have those patients' best interests at heart. And exactly WHO is qualified to judge whether or not any particular individual is "worthy" of receiving medical treatment ??? God is perfectly qualified for this. The government isn't!
Healthcare reform is undisputably needed. Those in power need to get the self-serving politics out of this process, start listening to the American people and to their private medical practitioners, and implement reforms that really do mean something and will result in the improvements we need to have made.
This latter should go without saying, and yet we are needing to say it repeatedly, because our own elected, representative government just doesn't seem to be getting it!
When they finally will get it is anyone's guess ...
-- folktress
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
ON STOPPING THE INSANITY OF VIOLENT CRIME ...
First, little Somer Thompson, only seven years old. Then, Elizabeth Holten, nine. Finally, Morgan Harrington, 20. And these are only the most recent victims. Over the years -- over many decades -- children and young adults of both genders and all ages have fallen prey to the scum of our society, and worse. This, despite their having done all the right things, despite their having been taught how to avoid placing themselves into dangerous situations. Even when families and police respond promptly and appropriately, it often isn't enough to save innocent lives.
WHEN IS THIS GOING TO STOP ???
It will stop, first and foremost, when our judicial system stops releasing these dangerous felons back into society via plea bargains, technicalities, or undeserved parole. It's not enough to require that pedophiles be registered when they populate particular communities. They shouldn't be there to begin with. Nobody who attacks and violates innocent children, or for that matter innocent adults, in such a senseless and hideous manner should ever be allowed back into the mainstream populace. Those who commit those kinds of crimes are a menace to everyone and anyone who just happens to be walking down the street, who is left alone in a schoolyard or grocery store for only a few moments, or who believes, mistakenly, they are safely locked behind the doors of their own residences. From the human predators of this world, nobody is completely safe at any time, anywhere.
First, law enforcement needs to make absolutely certain, when they arrest someone for this kind of heinous crime, that they really do have the perpetrator. This means irrefutable proof, whenever possible, and not merely circumstantial "evidence". That's the only way the actual offenders can be removed from the streets.
Secondly, we need to stop coddling these heinous criminals. And we also need to use common sense. We need to quit cluttering up and overcrowding our penetentaries with people who commit less harmful offenses and use that valuable space for those who truly are a serious danger to society. Make those lesser offenders perform community service, or keep them under house arrest. Impose a curfew, if necessary. If they go on to commit more serious crimes, then increase the severity of the punishments accordingly. It's just as foolish and unproductive to give a petty shoplifter twenty years as it is to parole a murderer or pedophile after only six! Rapists are often given lenient sentences, largely because the law blames the victim instead of the criminal. None of that makes any sense! It's sheer madness, and we have to stop it.
That, I believe, is where our trouble lies -- when punishments fail to fit the crimes. If they consistently did so, none of these dangerous perverts would ever get released. Experience has shown that few of these folks, if any ot them, can truly be rehabilitated.
And this nonsense of plea bargaining has got to stop. Premeditated murder is premeditated murder. It makes no sense whatever to plea it down to second-degree murder or manslaughter.
In short, if true justice were to consistently prevail in these cases, law-abiding citizens would once again be free to safely walk the streets of our nation, and folks wouldn't have to worry about locking their doors at night -- or wonder if doing so is really going to keep them safe.
I am an advocate of the death penalty in these cases, providing there is hard, irrefutable forensic and physical evidence that the person being convicted really did commit the crime. When a death sentence is mistakenly carried out, there's no second chance to get it right.
Common sense seems to have taken a very long vacation from our judicial system. Judges and juries render verdicts and sentences that often seem to ignore important facts and more importantly, truths that lay behind those facts. Having that kind of power carries with it a very grave responsibility to use it properly. No, it's not a perfect world, nor a perfect system, but we certainly can do a lot better than we have been doing!
My heart goes out to those families who have lost their loved ones. The best case scenerio would have been for these tragedies to have never occurred. We as a society need to band together to finally put a stop to this scourge, once and for all.
We need to thoroughly overhaul an ineffective and often corrupt justice system that is more concerned about making closed-door deals to minimize charges against criminals and reduce their sentences than to protect law-abiding citizens who are just trying to live their everyday lives in peace and productivity. We need to restore true justice and common sense to the courtrooms of America, and remove the politics, power-playing and egotism from the process. We need to uphold our Constitution in both its spirit AND its letter. Interpretations need to speak the truth, not just cater to unfair prejudices or reflect the idiocy of some oddball whim. From some of the judgements I've seen handed down by both magistrates and juries, I frequently am left wondering what these people have been smoking.
We the people need to take back our streets, our homes, our country and our lives. Where judges are elected, we need to replace those who are incompetent or corrupt with those who are conscientiously willing and able to do a proper job -- to uphold the law and to responsibly and correctly interpret the law.
Where judges are appointed, we need to vote out of office those responsible for appointing them who seem incapable or unwilling to make decent choices.
Where laws are flawed, they need to be amended, and bad laws need to be expunged from the books.
Where police departments and lawyers are misbehaving, swift and effective remedies need to be implemented. Transparancy and accountability need to prevail throughout the entire judicial process. Where mistakes are being made, we need to correct them. In order to correct them, those involved must first be willing to admit and acknowledge them, and if they won't do so, WE need to do it for them. We, the people, have more power over this than we seem willing to exercise. Only when we begin exercising it can we finally put an end to much of this insanity.
Once again, folks, it's up to us ... No more excuses or complacent inaction. Enough is enough! This has to stop, and WE have to stop it!
-- folktress
WHEN IS THIS GOING TO STOP ???
It will stop, first and foremost, when our judicial system stops releasing these dangerous felons back into society via plea bargains, technicalities, or undeserved parole. It's not enough to require that pedophiles be registered when they populate particular communities. They shouldn't be there to begin with. Nobody who attacks and violates innocent children, or for that matter innocent adults, in such a senseless and hideous manner should ever be allowed back into the mainstream populace. Those who commit those kinds of crimes are a menace to everyone and anyone who just happens to be walking down the street, who is left alone in a schoolyard or grocery store for only a few moments, or who believes, mistakenly, they are safely locked behind the doors of their own residences. From the human predators of this world, nobody is completely safe at any time, anywhere.
First, law enforcement needs to make absolutely certain, when they arrest someone for this kind of heinous crime, that they really do have the perpetrator. This means irrefutable proof, whenever possible, and not merely circumstantial "evidence". That's the only way the actual offenders can be removed from the streets.
Secondly, we need to stop coddling these heinous criminals. And we also need to use common sense. We need to quit cluttering up and overcrowding our penetentaries with people who commit less harmful offenses and use that valuable space for those who truly are a serious danger to society. Make those lesser offenders perform community service, or keep them under house arrest. Impose a curfew, if necessary. If they go on to commit more serious crimes, then increase the severity of the punishments accordingly. It's just as foolish and unproductive to give a petty shoplifter twenty years as it is to parole a murderer or pedophile after only six! Rapists are often given lenient sentences, largely because the law blames the victim instead of the criminal. None of that makes any sense! It's sheer madness, and we have to stop it.
That, I believe, is where our trouble lies -- when punishments fail to fit the crimes. If they consistently did so, none of these dangerous perverts would ever get released. Experience has shown that few of these folks, if any ot them, can truly be rehabilitated.
And this nonsense of plea bargaining has got to stop. Premeditated murder is premeditated murder. It makes no sense whatever to plea it down to second-degree murder or manslaughter.
In short, if true justice were to consistently prevail in these cases, law-abiding citizens would once again be free to safely walk the streets of our nation, and folks wouldn't have to worry about locking their doors at night -- or wonder if doing so is really going to keep them safe.
I am an advocate of the death penalty in these cases, providing there is hard, irrefutable forensic and physical evidence that the person being convicted really did commit the crime. When a death sentence is mistakenly carried out, there's no second chance to get it right.
Common sense seems to have taken a very long vacation from our judicial system. Judges and juries render verdicts and sentences that often seem to ignore important facts and more importantly, truths that lay behind those facts. Having that kind of power carries with it a very grave responsibility to use it properly. No, it's not a perfect world, nor a perfect system, but we certainly can do a lot better than we have been doing!
My heart goes out to those families who have lost their loved ones. The best case scenerio would have been for these tragedies to have never occurred. We as a society need to band together to finally put a stop to this scourge, once and for all.
We need to thoroughly overhaul an ineffective and often corrupt justice system that is more concerned about making closed-door deals to minimize charges against criminals and reduce their sentences than to protect law-abiding citizens who are just trying to live their everyday lives in peace and productivity. We need to restore true justice and common sense to the courtrooms of America, and remove the politics, power-playing and egotism from the process. We need to uphold our Constitution in both its spirit AND its letter. Interpretations need to speak the truth, not just cater to unfair prejudices or reflect the idiocy of some oddball whim. From some of the judgements I've seen handed down by both magistrates and juries, I frequently am left wondering what these people have been smoking.
We the people need to take back our streets, our homes, our country and our lives. Where judges are elected, we need to replace those who are incompetent or corrupt with those who are conscientiously willing and able to do a proper job -- to uphold the law and to responsibly and correctly interpret the law.
Where judges are appointed, we need to vote out of office those responsible for appointing them who seem incapable or unwilling to make decent choices.
Where laws are flawed, they need to be amended, and bad laws need to be expunged from the books.
Where police departments and lawyers are misbehaving, swift and effective remedies need to be implemented. Transparancy and accountability need to prevail throughout the entire judicial process. Where mistakes are being made, we need to correct them. In order to correct them, those involved must first be willing to admit and acknowledge them, and if they won't do so, WE need to do it for them. We, the people, have more power over this than we seem willing to exercise. Only when we begin exercising it can we finally put an end to much of this insanity.
Once again, folks, it's up to us ... No more excuses or complacent inaction. Enough is enough! This has to stop, and WE have to stop it!
-- folktress
Sunday, October 18, 2009
ON CELL PHONES IN AUTOMOBILES AND ZERO TOLERANCE POLICIES ...
Yes, believe it or not, there is an appropriate time and purpose for using a cell phone inside of an automobile. It's not for mere chatting or texting while one is driving! I would hate to see arbitrary, zero-tolerance laws passed totally banning the use of a cell phone inside a vehicle at any time and for any reason, because:
Cell phones are handy and could be life-savers in the event of an emergency. When one is in trouble on the road, has pulled off the road whenever possible and taken their vehicle out of the line of traffic, dialing 911 or calling a tow truck could mean the difference between life and death either for the driver using the phone, or for injured others at the scene of a witnessed accident.
Pulling off to the side of the road and stopping to phone for directions when one is lost is also perfectly appropriate -- and sometimes necessary.
The important provisio here is that the cell phone is being used while the vehicle is stopped and safely off the road, whenever possible (and sometimes it isn't possible to completely pull one's vehicle out of traffic because there simply is no room to move over). Common sense, of which there is a shocking lack these days, needs to be used. Assuming anyone still has common sense! Those in power certainly don't seem to. And far too many drivers don't, either.
Hubby and I recently went on a cross-country trip, as far east as Ohio. We drove through many states, northern and southern. While we ultimately arrived home unscathed, we also had a few near-misses. Why? Because nearly every other driver we encountered on the road was either talking or texting on a cell phone. These folks simply weren't paying attention. It's a good thing for both them and us that we were!
Folks, when you talk or text on a cell phone while driving, there's no way you can be fully concentrating on your driving, and on the road ahead, behind and around you. Perhaps unintentionally, you end up slowing down to the point where you hold up long lines of vehicles behind you, often in places where other drivers can't pass. When you talk or text on a cell phone, it's difficult to keep track of your speed.
You might not be aware of where your vehicle is in the driving lane, and you can end up veering over and side-swiping someone, or cutting them off much too closely, especially if you're texting! We experienced some of that while we were on the road, and invariably, the drivers involved were using a phone.
We saw one lady run a red light and turn dangerously in front of us while our light was green and we were already in the intersection! We had to stop to avoid a collision. She, too, was on a cell phone.
Using cell phones while driving is simply dangerous. It's dangerous, and it's discourteous and disrespectful to others using the roads. It shows a flagrant disregard for the rights of anyone else to be able to drive safely, even while driving defensively. It's also extremely selfish. It conveys the attitude, "I can do whatever I please regardless of consequences." Such a mindset has no business behind the wheel of any moving vehicle!
So yes, folks, DO keep a cell phone in your vehicle. Just having one isn't the problem. It's inappropriate and unsafe use that causes a hazard. Heaven forbid, should you find yourself in an emergency situation and you can pull over and stop, or if you're lost and need directions, by all means take your vehicle out of traffic as much as you can safely do so, and use that phone to summon help or clarify how to get to where you need to be going. If you're running late and you need to inform the babysitter or significant other, fine. Just don't jeopardize the safety of anyone else in the process.
For those living in states where severe snow becomes a serious hazard in winter, it's prudent to carry a TRAK phone in your vehicle. You might need to be pulled out of a ditch or snow bank, or have help reach your vehicle before it becomes buried in snow where nobody can find you. A cell phone used for that purpose is perfectly legitimate, and shouldn't be outlawed.
Unfortunately, when zero-tolerance laws are passed, they often hurt people as well as help them. In rare circumstances, zero-tolerance is a good thing. I'm all for zero tolerance for bullying classmates or teachers in school or on the playground. There's no justification for bullying, at all. Schools are for education, and nobody should have to fear for their lives, or for their physical or emotional well-being while attending them.
I'm all for banning weapons in school, but let's use some common sense in defining what constitutes a "weapon" and what doesn't. I say it's intent as well as circumstances. Anything and everything can be potentially used as a weapon. Are we going to ban anything and everything because of it? This amounts to punishing everyone for the bad behavior of a few. I blogged about that in a previous post -- it's not only unfair, it's simply bad policy. And it can have serious, even tragic consequences.
These examples may seem off of my original topic, but actually, they tie into it. When it comes to cell phones in automobliles, trucks and other vehicles on the roads, there are safe and proper ways to use them, just as there are safe, proper and appropriate ways to use anything and everything. Authorities totally banning them can be just as foolish and dangerous as those who mis-use them.
So, let's everyone driving on our nation's roads, please try to be considerate of others and respect their right to also be there, and to arrive safely to and from their destinations. If you need to use a phone, use it -- but use it safely and for the right reasons. Use common sense, please ...
And those in the position of passing our laws, PLEASE, PLEASE, use decent judgement! Don't let your egos get in the way of fairness. If you want to be a dictator, move to a country that has that form of government. It has no place here -- never has and never should.
Please, folks -- stay safe and live well ...
-- folktress
Cell phones are handy and could be life-savers in the event of an emergency. When one is in trouble on the road, has pulled off the road whenever possible and taken their vehicle out of the line of traffic, dialing 911 or calling a tow truck could mean the difference between life and death either for the driver using the phone, or for injured others at the scene of a witnessed accident.
Pulling off to the side of the road and stopping to phone for directions when one is lost is also perfectly appropriate -- and sometimes necessary.
The important provisio here is that the cell phone is being used while the vehicle is stopped and safely off the road, whenever possible (and sometimes it isn't possible to completely pull one's vehicle out of traffic because there simply is no room to move over). Common sense, of which there is a shocking lack these days, needs to be used. Assuming anyone still has common sense! Those in power certainly don't seem to. And far too many drivers don't, either.
Hubby and I recently went on a cross-country trip, as far east as Ohio. We drove through many states, northern and southern. While we ultimately arrived home unscathed, we also had a few near-misses. Why? Because nearly every other driver we encountered on the road was either talking or texting on a cell phone. These folks simply weren't paying attention. It's a good thing for both them and us that we were!
Folks, when you talk or text on a cell phone while driving, there's no way you can be fully concentrating on your driving, and on the road ahead, behind and around you. Perhaps unintentionally, you end up slowing down to the point where you hold up long lines of vehicles behind you, often in places where other drivers can't pass. When you talk or text on a cell phone, it's difficult to keep track of your speed.
You might not be aware of where your vehicle is in the driving lane, and you can end up veering over and side-swiping someone, or cutting them off much too closely, especially if you're texting! We experienced some of that while we were on the road, and invariably, the drivers involved were using a phone.
We saw one lady run a red light and turn dangerously in front of us while our light was green and we were already in the intersection! We had to stop to avoid a collision. She, too, was on a cell phone.
Using cell phones while driving is simply dangerous. It's dangerous, and it's discourteous and disrespectful to others using the roads. It shows a flagrant disregard for the rights of anyone else to be able to drive safely, even while driving defensively. It's also extremely selfish. It conveys the attitude, "I can do whatever I please regardless of consequences." Such a mindset has no business behind the wheel of any moving vehicle!
So yes, folks, DO keep a cell phone in your vehicle. Just having one isn't the problem. It's inappropriate and unsafe use that causes a hazard. Heaven forbid, should you find yourself in an emergency situation and you can pull over and stop, or if you're lost and need directions, by all means take your vehicle out of traffic as much as you can safely do so, and use that phone to summon help or clarify how to get to where you need to be going. If you're running late and you need to inform the babysitter or significant other, fine. Just don't jeopardize the safety of anyone else in the process.
For those living in states where severe snow becomes a serious hazard in winter, it's prudent to carry a TRAK phone in your vehicle. You might need to be pulled out of a ditch or snow bank, or have help reach your vehicle before it becomes buried in snow where nobody can find you. A cell phone used for that purpose is perfectly legitimate, and shouldn't be outlawed.
Unfortunately, when zero-tolerance laws are passed, they often hurt people as well as help them. In rare circumstances, zero-tolerance is a good thing. I'm all for zero tolerance for bullying classmates or teachers in school or on the playground. There's no justification for bullying, at all. Schools are for education, and nobody should have to fear for their lives, or for their physical or emotional well-being while attending them.
I'm all for banning weapons in school, but let's use some common sense in defining what constitutes a "weapon" and what doesn't. I say it's intent as well as circumstances. Anything and everything can be potentially used as a weapon. Are we going to ban anything and everything because of it? This amounts to punishing everyone for the bad behavior of a few. I blogged about that in a previous post -- it's not only unfair, it's simply bad policy. And it can have serious, even tragic consequences.
These examples may seem off of my original topic, but actually, they tie into it. When it comes to cell phones in automobliles, trucks and other vehicles on the roads, there are safe and proper ways to use them, just as there are safe, proper and appropriate ways to use anything and everything. Authorities totally banning them can be just as foolish and dangerous as those who mis-use them.
So, let's everyone driving on our nation's roads, please try to be considerate of others and respect their right to also be there, and to arrive safely to and from their destinations. If you need to use a phone, use it -- but use it safely and for the right reasons. Use common sense, please ...
And those in the position of passing our laws, PLEASE, PLEASE, use decent judgement! Don't let your egos get in the way of fairness. If you want to be a dictator, move to a country that has that form of government. It has no place here -- never has and never should.
Please, folks -- stay safe and live well ...
-- folktress
Friday, October 16, 2009
THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG ....
None of the following is earth-shattering by any means, but isn't it fun to remember some of the simpler and nicer aspects of our past that aren't so simple or nice, today? And aren't we just a little sad when we recollect broader freedoms we once enjoyed that have gradually been taken away from us, and are still being usurped at this very moment?
Who recalls, for instance, when kitchens were colorful? Instead of the cold stainless steel appliances so prevalent today, or the limited choices of white, almond or black, consumers could once have harvest gold, avocado green, a rich warm chocolate brown, or even a bright red refrigerator, dishwasher, sink or myriad other smaller appliances and fixtures in lovely colors no longer available today.
What happened? Have we become more bland in our effort to be more "practical"? Since when were these richly colored amenities any less "practical" than the ones we now use? Can't modern technological advancements be incorporated into colorful appliances and features just as well as they can into the boring ones we must now put up with? Offering a visually pleasing package doesn't affect the performance or efficiency of the product, it makes it nicer to look at, and what's wrong with that?
Remember when bathroom tissue came in a wide variety of solid pastel colors, such as green, pink, blue, yellow, orange, even lilac? Today, no matter where one shops, one can only find white. Consumers had the option of white back when the colors could also be purchased, but now we have no option, at all -- only white, take it or leave it. Those of us who are interior decorators at heart (a form of artist) would love to once again enjoy the coordinating opportunities these little details formerly provided.
Ditto for paper towels, which also used to come in a wide variety of solid pastel colors. We still can get various designs and patterns in colors against a white background, but gone are the solid orange, blue, yellow or green rolls that were once commonplace on supermarket shelves. The question begs -- why?
I had to compromise when we purchased our latest refrigerator; I had wanted all black, since colors are no longer being offered. Black is still warmer and more aesthetically appealing than stark white, bland almond or cold stainless. I ended up with a combination of stainless steel front and black sides.
Guess what, folks? If you are an avid collector of refrigerator magnets, they won't stick to stainless steel! The textured black sides of my frig will still hold magnets, but not the front. And since only a two-inch-wide strip of the black side sticks out beyond the wooden cubby-hole the frig was designed to fit into as part of our built-in cabinetry, I can display only a few magnets, and then I have to stack them vertically.
Now our chest freezer is another matter. It's almond. Again, the only available "color", if one can call it that. At least its frontal surface still has some iron in it, which allows magnets to adhere to it. You can bet I have quite an interesting assortment there!
So, what has happened? Why have our choices become so limited? If one wants a warm avocado green bathroom basin these days, one has to find an older one in good condition. We did, and it graces our downstairs vanity. Nothing wrong with it, at all. No reason why designers and manufacturers couldn't continue offering vibrant colors today, even if in smaller numbers, for those of us who still enjoy visual richness in our home environments.
What does this lack of selection say about us, today? One thing it tells me is that just as certain concepts and practices are being crammed down consumers' throats, like it or not, we are also being denied and deprived of individual choices we once had, and this refusal to accommodate our personal aesthetic tastes and preferences is likewise being crammed down our throats, like it or not!
Alarmingly, this reflects a totalitarian mindset that is being thrust upon us from the top down and from the bottom up. It not only has permeated the very fabric of our daily living from our kitchens to our bathrooms, but is beginning to affect other aspects of our personal lives, as well. We are increasingly being told, "This is IT. This is all you can get. Take it or leave it!" If that's not a form of petty dictatorship, I don't know what is!
And while much of this certainly isn't earth-shattering -- yet -- I don't think it's safe to complacently accept it, either. It's the tip of the iceberg, in my opinion -- it reflects a larger danger looming on the horizon.
-- folktress
Who recalls, for instance, when kitchens were colorful? Instead of the cold stainless steel appliances so prevalent today, or the limited choices of white, almond or black, consumers could once have harvest gold, avocado green, a rich warm chocolate brown, or even a bright red refrigerator, dishwasher, sink or myriad other smaller appliances and fixtures in lovely colors no longer available today.
What happened? Have we become more bland in our effort to be more "practical"? Since when were these richly colored amenities any less "practical" than the ones we now use? Can't modern technological advancements be incorporated into colorful appliances and features just as well as they can into the boring ones we must now put up with? Offering a visually pleasing package doesn't affect the performance or efficiency of the product, it makes it nicer to look at, and what's wrong with that?
Remember when bathroom tissue came in a wide variety of solid pastel colors, such as green, pink, blue, yellow, orange, even lilac? Today, no matter where one shops, one can only find white. Consumers had the option of white back when the colors could also be purchased, but now we have no option, at all -- only white, take it or leave it. Those of us who are interior decorators at heart (a form of artist) would love to once again enjoy the coordinating opportunities these little details formerly provided.
Ditto for paper towels, which also used to come in a wide variety of solid pastel colors. We still can get various designs and patterns in colors against a white background, but gone are the solid orange, blue, yellow or green rolls that were once commonplace on supermarket shelves. The question begs -- why?
I had to compromise when we purchased our latest refrigerator; I had wanted all black, since colors are no longer being offered. Black is still warmer and more aesthetically appealing than stark white, bland almond or cold stainless. I ended up with a combination of stainless steel front and black sides.
Guess what, folks? If you are an avid collector of refrigerator magnets, they won't stick to stainless steel! The textured black sides of my frig will still hold magnets, but not the front. And since only a two-inch-wide strip of the black side sticks out beyond the wooden cubby-hole the frig was designed to fit into as part of our built-in cabinetry, I can display only a few magnets, and then I have to stack them vertically.
Now our chest freezer is another matter. It's almond. Again, the only available "color", if one can call it that. At least its frontal surface still has some iron in it, which allows magnets to adhere to it. You can bet I have quite an interesting assortment there!
So, what has happened? Why have our choices become so limited? If one wants a warm avocado green bathroom basin these days, one has to find an older one in good condition. We did, and it graces our downstairs vanity. Nothing wrong with it, at all. No reason why designers and manufacturers couldn't continue offering vibrant colors today, even if in smaller numbers, for those of us who still enjoy visual richness in our home environments.
What does this lack of selection say about us, today? One thing it tells me is that just as certain concepts and practices are being crammed down consumers' throats, like it or not, we are also being denied and deprived of individual choices we once had, and this refusal to accommodate our personal aesthetic tastes and preferences is likewise being crammed down our throats, like it or not!
Alarmingly, this reflects a totalitarian mindset that is being thrust upon us from the top down and from the bottom up. It not only has permeated the very fabric of our daily living from our kitchens to our bathrooms, but is beginning to affect other aspects of our personal lives, as well. We are increasingly being told, "This is IT. This is all you can get. Take it or leave it!" If that's not a form of petty dictatorship, I don't know what is!
And while much of this certainly isn't earth-shattering -- yet -- I don't think it's safe to complacently accept it, either. It's the tip of the iceberg, in my opinion -- it reflects a larger danger looming on the horizon.
-- folktress
Thursday, October 15, 2009
A GLIMPSE INTO OUR FUTURE ...
The year is 2020. I'm 70 years old. An armed guard is posted outside my front and back doors, as is the case with every one of my neighbors. Those with additional egresses have additional armed guards posted by each means of entry or exit. So has decreed our government.
Every American citizen is under mandatory house arrest. Not that we've done anything wrong; the government wants to keep constant tabs on us. We have chips implanted in our bodies that enable us to be tracked wherever we go.
Today, I'm going to the grocery store. I've been given a government allowance that is supposed to last me for three months. It might -- if I don't buy anything at all. Unfortunately, I still have to eat.
Not that there's much of a selection, anymore. Members of Congress, our President and the Supreme Court judges get first dibs on the best produce which farmers now must raise collectively on communes. They stock up, and whatever is left over, the American people get -- within the bounds of some very limiting restrictions.
You see, we can't purchase candy, anymore. Back in 2010, they taxed the dickens out of it, but now they've prohibited it from being sold -- or even possessed. Ditto for soda-pop, cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, etc. All of these have been outlawed entirely. If anyone is caught with any of these food items in their homes or on their persons during surprise searches which don't require warrants, the penalties are stiff. The contraband is seized, and its owner imprisoned for up to 12 years.
We can purchase a rationed amount of fresh veggies and fruits, meat only when permission is granted, and then it can't be red meat like beef or pork. We as consumers are considered by our government to be mindless and therefore unable to make our own choices.
Today, I have a bit of a cold. I need to purchase a box of tissues. This is a luxury item and priced through the roof, but all the handkerchiefs I once owned have been confiscated. The guard feared I would tie them together and try to escape through my second-story window. So, I'm off to spend over half my allotment on the only brand of tissue available in the stores, now -- the government mandated brand, which is thin, flimsy, and requires using four layers at once to avoid a blow-through. Of course, it doesn't last at that rate, and I may have to resort to using clean dust rags, which would present its own set of problems.
You see, I need my dust rags to do the mandatory housecleaning which the government has ordered every homeowner and renter to complete once every week. There's no pack-ratting or collecting of anything allowed, and if one's house doesn't pass meticulous inspection, one forfeits one's allowance for the next three month period. If, after this penalty time, one's residence still fails inspection, the allowance continues to be withheld until inspection is passed. A single speck of dust is all it takes, and whole families can starve to death.
Water is rationed, although we have refined the technology to filter seawater into a state where it is perfectly safe and delicious to drink. There's plenty of water available, but our government has decided it can maintain more power over us if it keeps every individual slightly dehydrated. Even if we still had the right to vote, we would all be too weak to travel to the polls, or even to mail in a ballot.
Now, if one is lucky enough to be a member of Congress or another governing body, these inhumane rules never apply. Since the American people can't vote anymore, the only way to acquire an official government position is to either be the descendant of someone already in government, or bribe the appropriate officials. Since our income is rationed in the manner I've described above, that hardly is possible.
Once upon a time, many of us had large bank accounts, stock or bond portfolios, or retirement nesteggs that kept us secure throughout our later years. The government first raised taxes so high that most of our surpluses got nearly wiped out, then they came in and confiscated whatever was left. Now, nobody has anything except what the government permits us to have.
Oh, for the good old days! But, wait! I had better stop saying these things, lest I get thrown into the pokey. We've lost our First Amendment right to free speech, as well!
Well, I had best be on my way. The store will close, soon. Here I go, checking in with the guard.
"Where do you think you're off to?" he asks.
"Gotta go shopping," I reply
"Give me your list."
I comply. I haven't a choice.
"Hmmmm. Now, remember, when you purchase this tissue, you'll have to demonstrate that you know the government-mandated method of blowing your nose. If you can't show you can do it just right -- NO tissue! Do you recall this morning's lesson?"
"Oh, yes. I know how to do it exactly the way the nose agent taught me."
"Okay, you can go. But remember the curfew."
"I will. Goodbye."
Of course the secret police are watching my every move. I'm not to stop and speak with anyone on the street -- not even my family members or close friends. In fact, I'm not supposed to have any friends, close or otherwise. When friends get together, they can start plotting -- and of course that simply cannot be enabled!
You know, at age 70, I'm pretty lonely, now. That guard doesn't know it, but I'm not coming back. See those train tracks over there? I was a free American for far too long to not recall how things once were. I know they'll get better, but not in this world ...
-- folktress
Every American citizen is under mandatory house arrest. Not that we've done anything wrong; the government wants to keep constant tabs on us. We have chips implanted in our bodies that enable us to be tracked wherever we go.
Today, I'm going to the grocery store. I've been given a government allowance that is supposed to last me for three months. It might -- if I don't buy anything at all. Unfortunately, I still have to eat.
Not that there's much of a selection, anymore. Members of Congress, our President and the Supreme Court judges get first dibs on the best produce which farmers now must raise collectively on communes. They stock up, and whatever is left over, the American people get -- within the bounds of some very limiting restrictions.
You see, we can't purchase candy, anymore. Back in 2010, they taxed the dickens out of it, but now they've prohibited it from being sold -- or even possessed. Ditto for soda-pop, cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, etc. All of these have been outlawed entirely. If anyone is caught with any of these food items in their homes or on their persons during surprise searches which don't require warrants, the penalties are stiff. The contraband is seized, and its owner imprisoned for up to 12 years.
We can purchase a rationed amount of fresh veggies and fruits, meat only when permission is granted, and then it can't be red meat like beef or pork. We as consumers are considered by our government to be mindless and therefore unable to make our own choices.
Today, I have a bit of a cold. I need to purchase a box of tissues. This is a luxury item and priced through the roof, but all the handkerchiefs I once owned have been confiscated. The guard feared I would tie them together and try to escape through my second-story window. So, I'm off to spend over half my allotment on the only brand of tissue available in the stores, now -- the government mandated brand, which is thin, flimsy, and requires using four layers at once to avoid a blow-through. Of course, it doesn't last at that rate, and I may have to resort to using clean dust rags, which would present its own set of problems.
You see, I need my dust rags to do the mandatory housecleaning which the government has ordered every homeowner and renter to complete once every week. There's no pack-ratting or collecting of anything allowed, and if one's house doesn't pass meticulous inspection, one forfeits one's allowance for the next three month period. If, after this penalty time, one's residence still fails inspection, the allowance continues to be withheld until inspection is passed. A single speck of dust is all it takes, and whole families can starve to death.
Water is rationed, although we have refined the technology to filter seawater into a state where it is perfectly safe and delicious to drink. There's plenty of water available, but our government has decided it can maintain more power over us if it keeps every individual slightly dehydrated. Even if we still had the right to vote, we would all be too weak to travel to the polls, or even to mail in a ballot.
Now, if one is lucky enough to be a member of Congress or another governing body, these inhumane rules never apply. Since the American people can't vote anymore, the only way to acquire an official government position is to either be the descendant of someone already in government, or bribe the appropriate officials. Since our income is rationed in the manner I've described above, that hardly is possible.
Once upon a time, many of us had large bank accounts, stock or bond portfolios, or retirement nesteggs that kept us secure throughout our later years. The government first raised taxes so high that most of our surpluses got nearly wiped out, then they came in and confiscated whatever was left. Now, nobody has anything except what the government permits us to have.
Oh, for the good old days! But, wait! I had better stop saying these things, lest I get thrown into the pokey. We've lost our First Amendment right to free speech, as well!
Well, I had best be on my way. The store will close, soon. Here I go, checking in with the guard.
"Where do you think you're off to?" he asks.
"Gotta go shopping," I reply
"Give me your list."
I comply. I haven't a choice.
"Hmmmm. Now, remember, when you purchase this tissue, you'll have to demonstrate that you know the government-mandated method of blowing your nose. If you can't show you can do it just right -- NO tissue! Do you recall this morning's lesson?"
"Oh, yes. I know how to do it exactly the way the nose agent taught me."
"Okay, you can go. But remember the curfew."
"I will. Goodbye."
Of course the secret police are watching my every move. I'm not to stop and speak with anyone on the street -- not even my family members or close friends. In fact, I'm not supposed to have any friends, close or otherwise. When friends get together, they can start plotting -- and of course that simply cannot be enabled!
You know, at age 70, I'm pretty lonely, now. That guard doesn't know it, but I'm not coming back. See those train tracks over there? I was a free American for far too long to not recall how things once were. I know they'll get better, but not in this world ...
-- folktress
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
SOME INSIGHTS INTO (MY) FEMININE PSYCHE...
I can't speak for other women. Therefore, I'm not going to attempt to explain the feminine psyche in general, but only how a major aspect of it applies to me, personally. Those who can relate because it also applies to them will get whatever they get out of it. Those who can't relate will probably stop reading. That's okay.
I wish to address the frequent complaint by men that women "nag". Again, I can't speak for other women, but I certainly can shed some insight on why I nag. The answer is really quite simple: I nag because I have to. Not due to any genetic predisposition, although I must admit that my mother also nagged, and I was the victim of her incessant needling. She finally stopped when I moved out, from sheer desperation to get away from it.
No, I don't nag for that reason. Nor do I enjoy nagging. Believe me, if I didn't have to continually repeat myself, I wouldn't do it. And that's what nagging basically is -- reminding another person, over and over, of something the reminder feels they need to pay attention to, but aren't hearing or heeding.
So, here's my personal experience with this:
If my own man would just listen to me when I try to communicate with him, would at least make an effort to hear what I'm saying and give a reasonable response in a timely fashion, and at least try to understand, I would be able to reduce my nagging to nearly none!
That's all it is, folks! This woman (and probably many others) nags because she isn't being heard! And she isn't receiving a reasonable response within a reasonable time frame.
Case in point: When we moved into our custom log house, we had a disassembled medicine cabinet that lay in pieces for three years on the basement carpet because, despite my numerous reminders and urgent pleading, hubby kept finding one excuse after another to delay installing it in the wall of the downstairs bathroom.
Of course, I was willing to assist him in the installation. But for three years, I kept having to walk around these large and tiny pieces and parts, avoid vacuuming them up, and just generally put up with the eyesore on the basement rug that took up valuable space.
FINALLY, he decided to install it and with my assistance we FINALLY are able to USE this standard bathroom feature -- and an ugly hole in the wall has been plugged, AT LAST !!!
Had I not continually reminded him, communicating my frustration more strongly and vehemently each time, had I not literally begged and pleaded for him to finish this job (it felt like I was having to beg and plead!) and had I not finally threatened to hire someone to come in and do it, I would STILL be looking at that disassembled mess and that ugly hole in the wall, today!
This is all it is, folks. Not rocket science at all. Just a matter of how you treat your significant other. Do you dismiss and ignore her communications because you don't feel they're important to you? What about what's important to her?
Do you know on some level of your intellect that something really does need doing around the house, in the yard, or with the car or truck, and despite knowing it needs to be done, you've continued to put it off -- and off -- and off, off, off? Something that really isn't expensive and isn't that difficult to do, especially when you have help, which does take some time if it's to be done right, but is indisputably worth doing and really should be taken care of?
Has your significant other reminded you that you need to get this done within a reasonable time frame and not six-months to a year from now? Certainly not two or three years from now? Is your continual procrastination causing your significant other ongoing frustration and emotional duress? Has she finally just given up, and you can't understand why she will no longer talk to you?
Do you continually ignore the situation, give excuses or become defensive? Do you send your significant other away even more frustrated? It might not be important to you, but it's obviously important to your partner, and shouldn't you be respecting that and taking it more seriously?
Especially since you also know the task in question should be finished and that you've been putting it off way too long?
This is just one example, folks, but I'm sure you see my point. Nobody likes to nag, but when placed into the frustrating position of having to nag in order to finally realize the needed results, then it should be obvious that the nagging is going to continue until the REASON for the nagging is resolved! DUH!
Now why am I having to explain something so simple and basic as the importance of listening and taking care of business as it needs to be taken care of? Chalk it up to the human condition, I guess. But that doesn't excuse it; it only offers one explanation.
Now if there are legitimate reasons for having to delay a project that both partners recognize needs completion -- such as not having the money to do it anytime soon, or not having enough time (although I've often found that if one decides to make time, it can be done), or insufficent knowledge or experience to do the job right, in which case a professional needs to be hired which calls money into question again, or ill health is preventing the work from continuing, that's different. These are valid reasons why the project can't be completed as soon as it ought to be.
More often than not, however, things get put off simply because someone would rather do something else instead, and it's often something they want to do, exclusively, rather than doing what should be done and getting it finished, once and for all. In otherwords, they just don't feel like doing it at the moment, and continue to not feel like doing it long -- too long -- into the future. I hate to bring up the "l" word, but laziness also enters into the picture.
So if you are sick and tired of being nagged at incessantly, perhaps you should consider why the nagging is occurring and take measures to address the underlying problem. Believe me, once that problem is properly resolved, that nagging will cease because there will no longer remain any reason to nag about it! DUH!
Maybe this will help some people, maybe a lot of people, I don't know. But trying to view the feminine psyche from the feminine perspective could go a long way towards improving and enhancing personal relationships.
It just might be worth some serious reflection.
-- folktress
I wish to address the frequent complaint by men that women "nag". Again, I can't speak for other women, but I certainly can shed some insight on why I nag. The answer is really quite simple: I nag because I have to. Not due to any genetic predisposition, although I must admit that my mother also nagged, and I was the victim of her incessant needling. She finally stopped when I moved out, from sheer desperation to get away from it.
No, I don't nag for that reason. Nor do I enjoy nagging. Believe me, if I didn't have to continually repeat myself, I wouldn't do it. And that's what nagging basically is -- reminding another person, over and over, of something the reminder feels they need to pay attention to, but aren't hearing or heeding.
So, here's my personal experience with this:
If my own man would just listen to me when I try to communicate with him, would at least make an effort to hear what I'm saying and give a reasonable response in a timely fashion, and at least try to understand, I would be able to reduce my nagging to nearly none!
That's all it is, folks! This woman (and probably many others) nags because she isn't being heard! And she isn't receiving a reasonable response within a reasonable time frame.
Case in point: When we moved into our custom log house, we had a disassembled medicine cabinet that lay in pieces for three years on the basement carpet because, despite my numerous reminders and urgent pleading, hubby kept finding one excuse after another to delay installing it in the wall of the downstairs bathroom.
Of course, I was willing to assist him in the installation. But for three years, I kept having to walk around these large and tiny pieces and parts, avoid vacuuming them up, and just generally put up with the eyesore on the basement rug that took up valuable space.
FINALLY, he decided to install it and with my assistance we FINALLY are able to USE this standard bathroom feature -- and an ugly hole in the wall has been plugged, AT LAST !!!
Had I not continually reminded him, communicating my frustration more strongly and vehemently each time, had I not literally begged and pleaded for him to finish this job (it felt like I was having to beg and plead!) and had I not finally threatened to hire someone to come in and do it, I would STILL be looking at that disassembled mess and that ugly hole in the wall, today!
This is all it is, folks. Not rocket science at all. Just a matter of how you treat your significant other. Do you dismiss and ignore her communications because you don't feel they're important to you? What about what's important to her?
Do you know on some level of your intellect that something really does need doing around the house, in the yard, or with the car or truck, and despite knowing it needs to be done, you've continued to put it off -- and off -- and off, off, off? Something that really isn't expensive and isn't that difficult to do, especially when you have help, which does take some time if it's to be done right, but is indisputably worth doing and really should be taken care of?
Has your significant other reminded you that you need to get this done within a reasonable time frame and not six-months to a year from now? Certainly not two or three years from now? Is your continual procrastination causing your significant other ongoing frustration and emotional duress? Has she finally just given up, and you can't understand why she will no longer talk to you?
Do you continually ignore the situation, give excuses or become defensive? Do you send your significant other away even more frustrated? It might not be important to you, but it's obviously important to your partner, and shouldn't you be respecting that and taking it more seriously?
Especially since you also know the task in question should be finished and that you've been putting it off way too long?
This is just one example, folks, but I'm sure you see my point. Nobody likes to nag, but when placed into the frustrating position of having to nag in order to finally realize the needed results, then it should be obvious that the nagging is going to continue until the REASON for the nagging is resolved! DUH!
Now why am I having to explain something so simple and basic as the importance of listening and taking care of business as it needs to be taken care of? Chalk it up to the human condition, I guess. But that doesn't excuse it; it only offers one explanation.
Now if there are legitimate reasons for having to delay a project that both partners recognize needs completion -- such as not having the money to do it anytime soon, or not having enough time (although I've often found that if one decides to make time, it can be done), or insufficent knowledge or experience to do the job right, in which case a professional needs to be hired which calls money into question again, or ill health is preventing the work from continuing, that's different. These are valid reasons why the project can't be completed as soon as it ought to be.
More often than not, however, things get put off simply because someone would rather do something else instead, and it's often something they want to do, exclusively, rather than doing what should be done and getting it finished, once and for all. In otherwords, they just don't feel like doing it at the moment, and continue to not feel like doing it long -- too long -- into the future. I hate to bring up the "l" word, but laziness also enters into the picture.
So if you are sick and tired of being nagged at incessantly, perhaps you should consider why the nagging is occurring and take measures to address the underlying problem. Believe me, once that problem is properly resolved, that nagging will cease because there will no longer remain any reason to nag about it! DUH!
Maybe this will help some people, maybe a lot of people, I don't know. But trying to view the feminine psyche from the feminine perspective could go a long way towards improving and enhancing personal relationships.
It just might be worth some serious reflection.
-- folktress
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
