Category Archives: viewpoint

Sensationalist, so-called “educational”, and chain-letter style emails

Posted on by
2

My mother just sent me an email that made me cringe. Although I understand why she forwarded it to me (we had only just had a discussion about switching to butter from margarine within the last few days), I wish she had done some homework before she’d mass-mailed that nonsense out to others.

But here’s the thing: I know how my mother works, I know how she thinks, and I know what she’s thinking more than half the time. We have a bond that goes beyond your normal mother-daughter bond. We are synced in ways that scare me a lot of times. If I have a particularly bad headache for no good reason, chances are it’s because my mother is having some kind of headache as well. We’ve proven this on so many occasions that I don’t have to second-guess anymore. I take it for granted.

Emails that come from our friends and trusted acquaintances, and even from some respected officials are in “black and white”. They are comparable to the “written word”. If it came from my church pastor, it’s got to be legit – right? Especially since this person is normally a intelligent person. And for most people, that’s enough for them.

The problem is that my parents, whether deliberately or inadvertently, taught me to question everything. And I do mean everything. I take absolutely nothing at face value unless my husband, father, or mother is telling me about it in a situation where long deliberation and research is unattainable or ill-advised. (And even then, sometimes, I have to go looking for information after the fact, just to quell the noise in my head.)

When you’ve been playing around online as I have for as long as I have (I think I might be just past my second decade), some things become familiar. Anything sparkly and colourful online is likely to be an advertisement or rubbish designed to look like gold.

And by the way: another thing my parents taught me: all that glitters is not gold.

So when an email comes to me designed in bright colours, with multiple images, and emphasis in places (like red, bolded fonts to make a statement stick out) I am immediately suspicious. Solid verifiable information online is usually boring black and white sans-serif text on a white background; couple that fact with my instinctive desire to question everything, and what you get is a snotty bitch who thinks she knows everything.

My response to Mom’s email: a reply-to-all (I considered replying just to her, but the probative value outweighed my feel-good instinct) which said “Not all entirely true and some of it misleading and sensationalist in nature.” with a link to the explanation on snopes.com.

Yes; bitch I am indeed. Though no malice was intended, nor did I want to sound arrogant and egotistical. I simply wanted to say “Thanks; appreciate the thought. Here’s me thinking about you in return: get your facts straight before you spread ‘em.”

And all that to say this: just because it makes its way into your inbox/snail-mailbox/front stoop from some trusted friend, family member, or official does not make it gospel. Question everything. Let everyone know you aren’t easily fleeced. Say “I don’t believe it”; then go read up and say “I should have believed you; you were right” or be able to say “I was right;  it isn’t to be believed.”

Know for sure; then make it known to others. Sounds like a good motto – no?

Gun control = extreme constitutional violation? Yeah – right.

Posted on by
1

DISCLAIMER: rampant political incorrectness and blatant tongue-pulling ahead. I am ranting. I am being ridiculous. I am sarcastically advocating for extremes that might be offensive. Proceed with caution!

Continue reading →

A powerful piece of writing …

Posted on by
1

Lee Child is my new favourite author. This is a stunning conclusion for me to make since my lifelong favourite has thus far been Stephen King. Child does not compare to King in any way, shape, or form other than to say they are two highly accomplished authors.

King is outstanding to me for several different reasons but the most significant reason is that he weaves humour and horror together in an almost indecipherable pattern that works in ways that are phenomenal. I will never ever forget laughing my head off while cowering in fear at Pennywise the clown as I read through It. As annoying as Richie’s “beep-beep” moments got, as tired and old as it got, I laughed every single time. Even in the midst of the most horrifying moments crafted in writing … ever.

Child, however, has managed within the space of a few paragraphs to surpass all of King’s awesomeness. In one scene, he has summed up the most difficult confrontations in history … ever.

His main character, Jack Reacher, finds himself at odds with a particular special forces unit and decides he needs to counteract their bullying in a very visible and unrepentant manner. He walks into their domain, and pushes through their non-verbal bullying gestures. A room filled with hostile and highly-trained men, all silent, all watching him, all moving to obstruct his passage through their domain. He pushes through it all to one end of a long room, turns around and pushes through back to the door. It’s about 10 paragraphs describing maybe 5 minutes of activity – something Child excels at in ways I can only hope to rise to in future. He describes every muscle movement, every breath, every thought in detail … and when he’s done you feel as if you’ve just experienced it yourself.

At the end of this narrative, Reacher’s companion (a black woman MP), says to him “Now you know.” Reacher asks “Know what?”

And her response is dead simple. She says:

“How the first black soldier felt. And the first woman.”

No judgement. No indictment. Just powerful observation.

What’s more potent is that in reading the book, one discovers that this sort of reaction to Reacher is as unfounded as it is against all people of colour, all women, all sexual orientations. There’s no reason to bully people because you think they may be guilty of something you classify as heinous … because more often than not when the facts come to light, you end up having to eat your words.

In short: you may feel wronged; hell you may even be wronged. It doesn’t give you the right to wrong me.

Product warnings are a waste of resources

Aside

You heard me. Product warnings are a waste of time, energy, ink, and effort.

It occurred to me as I changed the garbage bag in my trash bin just now that the bag itself has a large written warning on it: “Choking hazard”. The warning itself says something more, but I didn’t read it. Which is telling because I’m a big reader. I read everything. I read things that most people don’t even realise are there. I read the product labels for all my meds and I read the tampon leaflet almost every time I buy a new box. That I didn’t bother to read the warning on the garbage bag this time told me something.

And it got me thinking about the average person. How many of you really read product warnings anyway? How many of you can say that the reason why you know plastic bags are choking hazards is because your mother or father (or some other responsible adult) told you it was?

And further, what does it say about our collective intelligence that we have to put product warnings on plastic bags anyway? This is a debate I had with my friends in high school: if you have to tell someone how to use shampoo by placing detailed instructions on the bottle or how to eat peanuts, then what does that say about the people who are using the products?

Back then, as teenagers, we thought it was hilarious. Now I think it’s just plain sad.

Amazon vs. BandN: the difference a day (or two) makes

Posted on by
Reply

I have been a member of Amazon.com since … well, the first order in my order history is listed as being placed on March 15, 2000. I have dim shadows of a memory that goes back about 3 years earlier than March 2000, but I can’t find any proof.  Nevertheless, that’s still a 12-year-old relationship. Remarkable, yes?

Here’s the thing with me and Amazon: I joined when the whole concept of the global marketplace was still new. A few places shipped to Jamaica, but most of them ceased to do so within the following few years after the ’90s. Amazon soldiered on, however. I was able to continue to place orders for a wide variety of products with Amazon for years using my Jamaican based dual-currency credit card. I like to think it was because we had a trusted relationship, Amazon and I. In reality, I know better. Simply put, Amazon recognized that my money was just as good as anyone else’s. It’s a realization I wish other entities in this brave new world would make.

But the main reason why I stay with them, is that they have phenomenal processes. Buying a book on Amazon gives me the opportunity to get that book to me by the next day (if I order early enough on the day before). It’s guaranteed. (I am a Prime member). It almost never fails; and when it does, I hear about way ahead of time. So whenever I have to deal with other merchants, I realize just how spoiled I am.

I got a gift card for Barnes and Noble for my birthday this year. Being the big book fiend that I am, I didn’t waste too much time finding and ordering books. For the record, I am also a member of Barnes and Noble – I have always loved that bookstore experience and despite having converted most of my library over to digital form, I still love that bookstore experience.

Being a member means I get “Expedited Shipping” (with the obligatory disclaimer that it has to be “on select items”). I was excited. My new books could get here before the long weekend! I ordered enthusiastically, was told my order qualified for expedited shipping and to stay tuned to my inbox for shipping dates and delivery estimates.

That was 2 days ago. Today I hear my delivery estimate for 2 of the 3 books is next Wednesday and the other one is USPS mail – so no telling when that one will get here.

The disappointment is almost tangible. Had I bought at Amazon, the books would most likely be getting here today. Instead I get to wait a week, at best.

Amazon has a good thing going. It’s like a drug. Once you get hooked, every other experience is measured based on the standards they have set in stone. This is why the other book store chains are dying a slow, torturous death. And this is why everybody is out to get them any way they can.

Here’s my question: if Amazon can do it, did do it, doesn’t that say that others could have (and maybe still can) tap into some of those resources and do it too?

Incidentally, that I love the bookstore experience, but failed to walk into the brick and mortar store is an irony that is not lost on me. Had I walked into my neighbourhood Barnes and Noble, I might have the books in hand now. Maybe that’s what they’re trying to do? Force the bookstore experience back into mainstream in as big a way as they can? Or is that being a little too conspiracy-theorist?

Bigotry will never die; it’s part of the human condition

Posted on by
2

I believe that bigotry will never die because it is integral to the human condition. We either make the conscious effort to work through the issues ourselves and thereby become an enlightened, functioning member of the human race, or we stick close to our prejudices, embracing them as we would that warm, cozy, blanket of familiarity.

Today was the first time I thought to look up the exact words uttered by Mr. Dan Cathy, President of the Chick-Fil-A chain of restaurants here in the US. At first, I wasn’t in the least bit concerned about what he said for many reasons, not the least of which was that I respect the rights of others to come out and say whatever the hell they want to say, whenever they want to say it. My only condition be that they abide by the consequences of their actions. With regards to this latest fiasco, I have never eaten at Chick-Fil-A, and by the looks of things, I never will.

My initial impression to the whole brouhaha was that as usual people think the right to free speech is limited only to sentiments that do not elucidate a dissenting opinion. As it turns out, it seems as if my initial reaction is not that far off from the truth.

From all I’ve been reading, his stance on this matter has been speculated about for a while. Even store policies seem to underline said speculations. However, coming right out and saying what they stand for is apparently a faux pas of uncommon parallel. I might agree that voicing such an unpopular opinion is likely to spurn the very people this corporation wants to woo (“our mission is to create raving fans“). However, at worst Mr. Cathy’s statement and the subsequent clarifications of same only say that Mr. Cathy takes his right to free speech seriously.

It might be hypocritical to suggest that certain statements be kept under wraps for the good of the business, but if the business is what you care about, then it doesn’t seem an unreasonable suggestion to me. It just seems fundamentally capitalistic; which in this country is perfectly acceptable – yes?

However, if what you care about is, as Mr. Cathy has stated, is the “biblical definition of a family” (I cannot emphasise how nauseated that phrase makes me feel), then he and his company have every right to shout their views from all the mountain tops… so long as he realises that doing so is going to inherently affect his popularity ratings and the success of his restaurant.

What I don’t get is why people are protesting so violently against Chick-Fil-A. Wouldn’t it send a much potent message to just stop supporting them? If people feel so strongly about their statement and their stance, just don’t support them anymore. Believe me, they will feel the effects of that decision far more strongly than if we were to stand in front of their stores and yell and pace. Besides, doesn’t standing in front of their stores yelling and pacing seem to spit in the face of freedom of speech on some level?

To be completely honest, I am in two-minds about what he actually said. If you can stand to read everything that has been said surrounding this nonsense, and take the whole thing in its entirety, it is easily seen that he is expressing his personal feelings about gay marriage yet stating that he respects the right of others to feel differently from him. If that is not the true essence of free speech, then I don’t what is.

Look here – money talks. My bottom line is this: if a corporation states equivocally that they do not stand with you in your cause, then take your money to those who do support you. Mr Cathy has the right to his opinions and beliefs and we ought to be able to recognise and respect him for exercising of his right. Even if that means respecting it right out the door and over to KFC, or any other fast-food, greasy-spoon chain, instead.

A little morning politics with your coffee?

Posted on by
Reply

I noticed 3 things about a news item this morning. You know; that one where President Obama is pushing Congress to extend tax cuts for people who earn less than $250,000 a year.

The first is that Obama has to petition Congress to make a decision that is likely to benefit a huge cross-section of the American population. I would like to point out that the current makeup of the U.S. Congress has the Democratic Party representation outnumbered by the Republican representation. That should mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. It really shouldn’t since the nation and its best interests should be free of political rancor.  I mean, it really should be, shouldn’t it?

Unfortunately, that just tells me simply that with the agenda the current crop of Republicans seem to have – which is “throw Obama out no matter what because he is the worst thing to ever happen to the great United States of America” – then there is very little the President can get done that is likely to be of any use to anyone.

I keep telling my mother that politicians remind me of the playground spats I used to witness as a kindergartener. It doesn’t matter what the “odd kid” is doing or even if he’s doing anything at all; the big kids, the older ones, the ones with “more experience” are going to haul the “odd kid” into the sandbox if they have to, just so they can dramatically throw him out later on.

The second thing I noticed about this news item this morning is that the Romney camp is insisting that it’s an all or nothing thing and they will not stand by and allow only a partial extension.

There’s nothing particularly wrong with petitioning for an all or nothing – at least not on the surface; but thanks to a Twitter peep of mine (thanks @Jherane_), I read an article that suggests that an extension for the big wigs is not something we really want; that historically, when the rich are taxed at higher rates there has been stronger economic growth.

Now here’s my question to you: why in the name of all that is good and gracious would you want to oppose something like this? Oh wait … for the same reasons that you want to oppose a healthcare insurance bill that benefits far more people than it hurts any one person or group of persons. Spite is a helluva thing, my dears.

So anyway, the third thing I noticed is that this is timed strategically within the short term memory span that is required if you want voters to remember it when it’s time to go to the polls. And this is the sad part: as much as I despise this current trend of browbeating on the President for all kinds of stupid reasons, I maintain my cynical view of “once a politician, always a politician”. Doesn’t matter how much good any one politician does or gives the impression of doing; for me, they will always be the lying, cheating bastards they have always been. I would like to know why this couldn’t have been petitioned two years ago as a medium-term fix to the economic situation.

Bah – who cares what I think or say anyway – right? I’m just a migrant and a soldier’s wife. I know nothing about any of this shit. In fact, I know so little about it that I think I’ll just shut my mouth right here and now.

“Forced healthcare”, “socialism”, and other myths about PPACA

Posted on by
Reply

I have seen a number of people criticising the healthcare bill PPACA (or derisively known as ‘Obamacare’) and stipulating that they’re “moving to Canada” and that it’s “socialist”; I’ve even seen people go as far as to term it “communist”. Which just goes to show you how much these people even know about socialism or communism; or even Canada! The problem here is not the healthcare bill at all. And in fact, from my end, this bill is a lot of good, with a few iffy bits and then a couple bits that make me literally quake in my shoes.

I have to admit some amount of ignorance on my part in the beginning because I know bills of this kind are generally multi-faceted and complex structures and with this one in particular, I had no concrete knowledge of all it’s faces until now. All I had heard up to a point was the sheep bleating about being forced to buy healthcare insurance; which in my boat can’t be a bad thing considering how expensive I know medical care to be.

Once, on a business visit to the US, I had occasion to visit a critical care clinic to seek medical attention. I had to fork out in excess of US$300 for the visit and another hundred or so dollars for medication. That was one visit. I can’t stress this enough – one visit. And oh yes, this was at least 10 years ago. I could afford it then because the people I worked with understood that life is not cheap and I had enough money to pay for care.

Now that I am living in the country and working here, I am realising that kind of corporate intelligence isn’t very common in this country. I know that were it not for healthcare insurance, I would be fatally ill or even dead already. (Some conditions can escalate fatally if not treated – did you know that a simple urinary tract infection can climb into your kidneys and shut them down? Do you know what happens when your kidneys shut down?) So when I hear the President is proposing a bill that will ensure that everybody can afford and get healthcare insurance, that makes me happy.

Not so most other people who so despise the Democratic party members and the President himself that they would stand up and de-cry his efforts not on the basis of the efforts but on the basis of his face, name, race, parentage, birth … you name it. I liken this nonsense to me standing up and saying “Breakfast is an important meal” and you standing in front of me saying I am socialist and forcing people to eat breakfast. Talk about biting off your nose to spite your face!

What’s more, most of the naysayers already have health insurance, have possibly always had health insurance, and therefore have never known the difficulty in getting medical care without being covered by health insurance. To all the naysayers, I say this: shut up, read, comprehend, and then I’ll listen to you. Until then, I am tuning you out as so much white noise.

You want something to be worried about? Then worry about that bit of the bill that says that in 2015, doctor remuneration from the government will depend on quality of care and not quantity of patients. Now that bit is what has me worried. Although, 2015 is a long way off and there is many a debate on how this will be seen, implemented, etc., it still worries me.

Look … political ignorance is not a new concept to me. There’s plenty of it in Jamaica. Tons. As I am sure there is in every single country in the world. It’s not new and it’s not limited to the United States . But I have been living here for 4 years and debatably within the arms of one of the most political groups that exist and I am sick of the political ignorance. Everybody has something to say, and almost none of it makes any sense when it gets down to brass tacks. Really … I am disgusted by it. I really wish everyone could shut up for just a minute and think.

The gender debate

Posted on by
2

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” — Mahatma Gandhi 

A friend of mine said to me today that people are weird. Without getting into details with her, it became clear that the “people” she was referring to was a woman. At least I think it was. The conversation turned towards the fact that it seems to often be the women in our lives who befriend us, establish a rapport, and then turn around and stomp all over that rapport… and us.

I’ve been through it so many times that I often ask myself why I continue to make the effort and make friends among women. This is especially hard for me being a woman because I don’t relate to this kind of behaviour… I can’t. I don’t understand the concept of maintaining two faces. I do understand the concept of having to suppress my real face around most people. Most people won’t understand me. But I don’t understand the concept of becoming someone entirely new. Suppressing my real face just means I come across subdued and reclusive. That’s fine with me. I am somewhat of an introvert anyway.

My mother used to tell me over and over that I needed to learn to be diplomatic; that people won’t appreciate my candour and that I need to perfect the art of being tactful. I guess that when I’m talking to the people who see my suppressed face, diplomacy is not a bad thing because then at least they aren’t likely to be shocked silly when I speak my mind. But I’ll tell you this – if the suppressed me is unlikely to find you to be someone with whom I can relate to, then the unsuppressed me is just as unlikely to find you otherwise. I will be civil and polite, but I won’t be friendly – at the end of the day, there is no doubt that we cannot be bosom buddies. The reverse is also true – if we have things in common then you will know it immediately.

The more I learn about life, people, and myself is the more I have realised that nothing is gained by beating around the bush. Life is so much simpler when you say what you think and mean. ’Honesty is the best policy.’ I forget who said that or where I’ve heard it, though I’ve heard my mother recite often enough. That ‘the truth hurts’ is one I’ve heard lots too. When you are brutally honest about your opinions, feelings, and observations someone is likely to feel hurt – that is a given. The trick is to deal with the fact of the matter before dealing with the emotions of it.

Ever been accused of “leading him on”? This is what is meant: you give off “let’s be friends” vibes and then when it gets down to brass tacks, you leave. It’s deceptive; untruthful; dishonest; two-faced; hypocritical. It’s not worth it. Find out who you are. Be that person. Be honest with yourself and those around you. Life is way too short to do otherwise. Diplomacy is all well and good until it gives the wrong impression of your true intentions, because in the end you’re the only one who loses.

It’s play time! Shall we watch TV or read a book?

Posted on by
Reply

I have always thought that television viewing dulls the senses. I don’t know where that idea came from to begin with, but I do recall that the state of being vapid is closely associated with the boob tube in my head. As a child, I always opted for the book over the television, although I can’t say that was as a result of not wanting to become vapid. I suspect that was as a result of being restricted from watching the television and being strong-armed into the world of reading by my parents. Chances are, it was them who wanted to prevent me from becoming vapid.

When I find words like vapid, I tend to use them over and over until their meaning is stuck in my head. I guess this is why my vocabulary is a bit larger than you might expect. My husband accuses me of using “big words” all the time to show him up. I tell him that I don’t think about it like that at all. It’s simply a matter of using those words ordinarily to myself and them bleeding over into my everyday conversations. Quite like how I used the word “vapid” 5 times in this piece already and still counting.

Anyway, the idea of empty-headedness being associated with the TV was sort of confirmed for me when hubby was deployed in April 2010. It was the TV that saved me from dealing with those crippling emotions of loneliness and abandonment in the days following his departure. I was especially tense since his departure had been postponed twice and he didn’t leave at the time and date that we were initially told.

Those first couple of days, and indeed throughout most of the deployment, the television proved to be my best friend because it gave me the mindless escape that I needed to postpone dealing with emotions I felt too fragile to deal with. Whenever I found myself in that puddle of despair on the bedroom/bathroom/living room/kitchen floor, I’d turn on that TV because that was my way of shutting out the world until I could pull my ass up off the floor and think it through. To be completely honest, it is during that year long deployment that I found myself finding and becoming addicted to TV shows. It is while hubby was overseas that I found and watched the entire series of Lost in but a few weeks.

The final straw in this hat for the fate of television and it’s mindlessness was reading Stephen King, of all people. In his book “On Writing”, he says: “…you could do worse than strip your television’s electric plug-wire, wrap a spike around it, and then stick it back into the wall. See what blows, and how far. Just an idea.” Although his thoughts are centered on advice for aspiring writers, I think it goes far beyond that. King even goes on to say explicitly that “…turning off that endlessly quacking box is apt to improve the quality of your life…”

Meh … I like to read and I am perfectly well aware that there people in the world who have no idea why that might be. To them, reading is like listening to grass grow. That’s fine. I respect that. Different strokes, right? This post is about my experience of reading compared to watching the TV. It’s not intended to be any kind of debate on the wholesomeness of TV (or not) in general nor is it intended to be an indictment on those who don’t read.

But then, that’s what this blog is about, isn’t it? My perspectives?