Valentines Day is approaching, and for the first time in three years, I will be completely single for it.
And honestly, that's a-ok with me. I've actually really been enjoying being single. This may sound lame, but it's actually kind of empowering; not only have I become totally independent, but it has given me an excuse to be totally selfish.
Now, I've "dated", or at least allowed myself to entertain interests post-breakup five-ish months ago. The first three interests all turned out to have been in relationships (the last one actually turned out to be married). Needless to say, I was slightly discouraged. However, the situation was almost comical; I mean, what were the chances that this would happen to me three times in a row! Some of you may wonder how I found this information out (which, by the way, I luckily found it out relatively soon after meeting the guys). Well, lets just say my skepticism apparently pays off in the dating world; everyone is now subject to a thorough Google search.
Thankfully, guy #4 passed my informal (and I admit, potentially creepy) background check that I conducted. So far, we've only had a few dates, but I'm really interested in him. Since he lives back home though, things are kind of on hold, but he seems like a viable option that I may pursue come my return in May. Although don't worry folks, my pessimist side is still prepping myself for the worst, you know, like to find out he's a felon, an active polygamist or something equally horrifying yet humorous.
All this being said, I still remain an eternal optimist when it comes to love. My roommate and her boyfriend broke up about the same time as I did, so we became ice-cream eating, wine-drinking, men-bashing friends from the get go. They had been together for five years, so needless to say she was devastated. Recently, she read a self-help book about getting over a breakup, and she's been constantly telling me what the book says. A couple things really stuck out to me. For one, it emphasized that when you begin dating again, don't focus on trying to sell yourself to the other person. Instead, make the date all about you. You need to see if they meet your standards, so don't worry if you don't meet theirs. Dating is all about YOU in the beginning, so be selfish! (By the way, I've practiced implementing this tactic, and I must say, it's a BLAST, and totally takes the pressure off dating. I love it!)
The second thing the book said to do was to make a list of the top five qualities you NEED in a significant other. When entering a new relationship, make sure the person meets these standards you've set. Realize that you deserve to get what you want out of a relationship, and thus you need to really reflect on and understand what things are necessary to make you happy. Most importantly, stick to these standards, and don't compromise because even if it doesn't bother you initially, it may catch up with you months, or maybe even years later.
I'm sure you see where I'm going with this. Here I come to the heart of my thesis (and in typical Katherine fashion, I rambled on for several paragraphs before arriving at what I actually set out to say). Without further adieu, my list:
Do-er = Alright, so it's not the sexiest or most intelligent sounding word, but it is the most all-encompassing word that I could think of. By this I mean exactly what it sounds like: I need someone who does stuff. This doesn't mean we need to go jump out of planes every weekend, but it does mean that I don't want to sit at home watching TV every day of my life. While that may work for some people. I've learned that doesn't work for me. I want to be active, whether it's going to a comedy show, going hiking, going to baseball games or seasonal festivals. Even going on a walk or playing frisbee in the park. I want someone who wants to do things too. I don't want monotony. Similarly, I want them to be motivated, passionate and a do-er in their individual lives. They need not only have aspirations, but must work to achieve them. On a relationship level, "doing" is especially important. If something comes up that causes a problem or if things aren't going well, I need someone who's going to work with me to do something to fix it, not just sit back and watch things unravel.
Loyalty = While yes, I do mean loyalty in the you-better-not-cheat-on-me kind of way, I use this to imply more. Faithfulness is an expectation of mine (reasonably so) however I demand that someone is not just physically or monogamously loyal, but that they are emotionally loyal. When things get rough, I want to know that person will stand by me. Life is bound to test you individually and as a couple, but isn't that one of the biggest benefits of having a partner; knowing you have someone else there to go through those hardships with you? I need to know I have someone who cares deeply about me and is committed not only to our relationship, but to my personal well-being.
Passion= I've seen couples, not holding hands, not kissing, not even physically affectionate, yet I can immediately tell that they are "together". Maybe it's the way they look at or interact with each other, but you can tell that they are madly in love. Conversely, we all know the couples that act as if they were siblings, and while they may like and even love each other, their relationship seems platonic and lacking that special something. The difference? Passion. Yes, I agree that a couple should be best friends, but being solely "friends" isn't good enough for me (if it was, then why don't we all just marry our best friends, regardless of their sex?). Passion is hard to sustain, but not impossible. I want that got-to-have-you passion. And passion, for clarification is not limited to sexual passion; it's the passion and adoration shown in a look, an interaction and a conversation. It's all encompassing and it is ultimately what differentiates a friend from a partner.
Independence= This requirement I must tackle delicately, as it is the one that requires most balance. I've got to have someone who I have things in common with and whom I enjoy spending time with. I don't want someone who is constantly absent emotionally or physically. However, a level of independence is something I need and something I consider very healthy. Yes, I hope his friends will become my friends and that my friends become his, however I expect to still spend alone time with my friends and I expect the same out of him. Similarly, I don't expect him to come shoe shopping with me all the time, nor do I really want to be expected to always go browse the aisles of NAPA Auto Parts with him. We need to maintain our individual friendships, hobbies and passions. His life and my life need to be compatible, but I never want us to abandon our individual identities for the sake of being a couple.
Humor= This is simple; laughter is a non-substitutable necessity. I need to have fun with someone; laugh, joke and be able to be silly. Life is stressful. Therefore I need someone I can come home to to take a break from the seriousness of life. I don't want someone who's going to be so tightly wound; I want someone who's able to let loose with me, and appreciate the value of laughter and having fun.
Open-minded= I want someone who doesn't live confined inside of a box. I want someone who wants to be more open to the world around them, and on a superficial level this includes trying new activities, new foods and entertain new ideas. I consider myself a realist. Obviously, there are going to be things that my future husband and I disagree on. That's inevitable. And while I don't expect to "change" him or have him "change" me, I want a relationship in which we're open to each others views and thoughts. I want someone open to compromise and someone who realizes that people are different and we need to find a way to embrace that in each other, not resent it. This is especially important in regards to communication. The truth is, people communicate differently, and it is important to understand that and open our mind to trying to see an argument or disagreement from their point of view. I need someone who will be open to working on a relationship for the sake of both people, and doesn't always view our relationship or subsequent problems egocentrically.
Alright, alright, so I realize that I said one should make a list of five qualities yet I listed six. OH WELL, big deal. It's my list, right? And after all, I deserve to get exactly what I want, right? And, I'll admit, I'm a tad high-maintenance, so it's fitting that my list would be longer than normal :)
Enjoy this song from Train; it's a perfect lovey-dovey Valentines Day song. And, it makes me happy, because it is ultimately what I want someday (and what I'm confident that I WILL HAVE someday).
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Monday, January 24, 2011
Tuscon; Two Weeks Later
A fair amount of time has passed since the "Tuscon Tragedy", and the New York Times is no longer completely saturated with stories and editorials regarding the incident. So while I may seem to be a bit late in posting on the issue, bear in mind that I have been giving myself ample time to reflect and become sufficiently informed.
My interest in this topic isn't aimed at discussing our country's increasingly violent political climate, nor is it to discuss Sarah Palin's crosshair debate that garnered such an outcry from the media. The former isn't convincing to a cynic like me that believe that we always have had and always will have dangerous political extremists. That being said, the increase of scale and scope in such extremists' actions is concerning (check out Paul Krugman's column "Climate of Hate". On a side note, he's one of my favorite columnists for the NYTimes) The latter point isn't even worth discussion in my opinion; Sarah Palin was in NO WAY directly responsible for the shooting. Were her actions tasteless? Yes, but it's something I'd expect from this dreadfully ignorant woman.
Instead, the issue that I think merits the most attention is gun control and our current gun-related policies.
Let me start with a few simple disclaimers: I, like most democrats, am not trying to rip away our right to bear arms. Not being "pro-gun" does not mean that one is immediately "anti-gun". This assumption is so commonly made and done so ignorantly (just like if a democrat doesn't support the war, it apparently means they don't support our soldiers). If you would've asked me even four years ago, I would've adamantly shared a very anti-gun, anti-hunting, anti-NRA stance (although I admit, I still DESPISE the NRA). However, I've changed. First off, upon reading Omnivores Dilemma by Michael Pollan, my attitude towards hunting drastically changed, as did my view on the food industry in general. Also, as many of you know, I dated a hunting fanatic for two years who was quite the gun-loving guy. During this relationship I came to embarrassingly admit two things; one, I actually found target shooting kind of fun, and two, I liked the taste of venison. (Although lets be clear, at no point during my two year infatuation with this man did I EVER envision a deer head on my wall, not did I ever plan on actually shooting an animal. I made him well aware that there was no chance in hell either of those two things would happen.
But I digress. Back to Tuscan.
As we all know, the gunman was tackled when reloading. Unfortunately, the damage had already been dome. Why is this noteworthy? Because the gunman's weapon of choice, a Glock 19, semiautomatic handgun, held an oversized 33 round clip, making him capable of firing more than one shot per second, killing six, without pause or hesitation. His eventual pause to reload after his clip emptied allowed two rather heroic citizens to restrain him. If he hadn't had such a weapon, he surely would have still kill or wounded at least one person, but would the results have been as devastating as they were? The media has pointed out that this particular weapon is not made for hunting, or even for protection purposes. Instead, it's used to do the most amount of damage in the shortest amount of time. If that is so, why is there a place in our society for a weapon capable of mass murder? And why does the average citizen have a right to have such a weapon? Only a couple states have banned large-capacity ammunition magazines. Most states do not regulate or limit magazine capacities. Maybe it's just me, but I think that's terrifying.
The second thing that upsets me is that Jared Loughner even was able to legally obtain a weapon at all. As the media has shown, Loughner had many previous problems that should have been seen as red-flags. Luckily, most states require a special permit to carry a concealed weapon (although Arizona, Alaska and Vermont do not). However this is not sufficient. Clearly reform needs to happen with our screening process. Obtaining a gun should be a lengthy process. It should be thorough, and we shouldn't be placing guns in the hands of people that are clearly mentally instable (which, many who knew Loughner have attested to). This will surely increase costs of purchasing firearms, but isn't that a fair price to pay for at least a little more security and peace of mind?
I went to the grocery store last night. I walked in and imagined how scary it would be if someone opened fire right then and there. We live in a great country, but we all deserve to feel safe. We need to know that our government is working to try to limit such tragedies from happening, and that means we need to stop blaming this incident on our current issues of political polarization, and instead objectively look at and adjust our gun policies.
My interest in this topic isn't aimed at discussing our country's increasingly violent political climate, nor is it to discuss Sarah Palin's crosshair debate that garnered such an outcry from the media. The former isn't convincing to a cynic like me that believe that we always have had and always will have dangerous political extremists. That being said, the increase of scale and scope in such extremists' actions is concerning (check out Paul Krugman's column "Climate of Hate". On a side note, he's one of my favorite columnists for the NYTimes) The latter point isn't even worth discussion in my opinion; Sarah Palin was in NO WAY directly responsible for the shooting. Were her actions tasteless? Yes, but it's something I'd expect from this dreadfully ignorant woman.
Instead, the issue that I think merits the most attention is gun control and our current gun-related policies.
Let me start with a few simple disclaimers: I, like most democrats, am not trying to rip away our right to bear arms. Not being "pro-gun" does not mean that one is immediately "anti-gun". This assumption is so commonly made and done so ignorantly (just like if a democrat doesn't support the war, it apparently means they don't support our soldiers). If you would've asked me even four years ago, I would've adamantly shared a very anti-gun, anti-hunting, anti-NRA stance (although I admit, I still DESPISE the NRA). However, I've changed. First off, upon reading Omnivores Dilemma by Michael Pollan, my attitude towards hunting drastically changed, as did my view on the food industry in general. Also, as many of you know, I dated a hunting fanatic for two years who was quite the gun-loving guy. During this relationship I came to embarrassingly admit two things; one, I actually found target shooting kind of fun, and two, I liked the taste of venison. (Although lets be clear, at no point during my two year infatuation with this man did I EVER envision a deer head on my wall, not did I ever plan on actually shooting an animal. I made him well aware that there was no chance in hell either of those two things would happen.
But I digress. Back to Tuscan.
As we all know, the gunman was tackled when reloading. Unfortunately, the damage had already been dome. Why is this noteworthy? Because the gunman's weapon of choice, a Glock 19, semiautomatic handgun, held an oversized 33 round clip, making him capable of firing more than one shot per second, killing six, without pause or hesitation. His eventual pause to reload after his clip emptied allowed two rather heroic citizens to restrain him. If he hadn't had such a weapon, he surely would have still kill or wounded at least one person, but would the results have been as devastating as they were? The media has pointed out that this particular weapon is not made for hunting, or even for protection purposes. Instead, it's used to do the most amount of damage in the shortest amount of time. If that is so, why is there a place in our society for a weapon capable of mass murder? And why does the average citizen have a right to have such a weapon? Only a couple states have banned large-capacity ammunition magazines. Most states do not regulate or limit magazine capacities. Maybe it's just me, but I think that's terrifying.
The second thing that upsets me is that Jared Loughner even was able to legally obtain a weapon at all. As the media has shown, Loughner had many previous problems that should have been seen as red-flags. Luckily, most states require a special permit to carry a concealed weapon (although Arizona, Alaska and Vermont do not). However this is not sufficient. Clearly reform needs to happen with our screening process. Obtaining a gun should be a lengthy process. It should be thorough, and we shouldn't be placing guns in the hands of people that are clearly mentally instable (which, many who knew Loughner have attested to). This will surely increase costs of purchasing firearms, but isn't that a fair price to pay for at least a little more security and peace of mind?
I went to the grocery store last night. I walked in and imagined how scary it would be if someone opened fire right then and there. We live in a great country, but we all deserve to feel safe. We need to know that our government is working to try to limit such tragedies from happening, and that means we need to stop blaming this incident on our current issues of political polarization, and instead objectively look at and adjust our gun policies.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Sydney, I'll Come Runnin'- Brett Dennen
For those of you who don't know, I am absolutely in love with Brett Dennen. His new album, Loverboy, comes out in April, and I am so stoked. Here's a preview of one of his songs; take a listen and enjoy! :)
Saturday, January 15, 2011
The Platinum Rule
I just returned from training for work. Luckily, I love my job and the people I work with, so the five hours I spent there wasn't a total waste of time. We played games and did some bonding activities that were really quite cool.
One was particularly touching; it involved us filling out an anonymous survey in which we answered yes or no to about 50 questions. The questions were very personal, and it created a very serious, somewhat somber setting. We then collected everyone's survey, then redistributed random ones back to random people. The 40 of us all stood in a big circle as someone read the survey questions aloud. If our sheet had a yes on it, we took a step forward (keep in mind, we weren't stepping forward for our own responses, but were representing someone else's sheet of paper). We then stepped back. The point was to anonymously see what all of our coworkers had been through, to realize everyone endures hardships, and to realize that we aren't alone. Seeing the results was incredibly powerful. About 8 of the 40 stepped forward to say that they had been on welfare at some point in their life. About 16 stepped forward to say they had had an eating disorder in the past. Half stepped forward to admit they were on a daily medication. Five people admitted to attempting suicide.
It was sad to realize that this fun, enthusiastic group of people I work with dealt with such hard issues. At the same time though, it was inspiring to be in such an uplifting environment in which we were able to share this with each other and realize that we had a "work" family that supported us.
While I learned a lot during that activity, there was something else worth noting that was discussed in an activity; that being "The Platinum Rule". This replaces the "Golden Rule", which we all know means to treat others as we would like to be treated. The Platinum Rule demands that we treat others how THEY would like to be treated. I thought this was an incredibly innovative, and totally awesome concept. After reflecting on it, I realize it makes perfect sense; how we want to be treated may not be how someone else wants to be treated. For example, while someone may not mind jokes being made at their expense, someone else may be more sensitive to such jokes and may find them offensive and hurtful. Or, someone may not mind being interrupted when talking, but for someone else it may be considered disrespectful.
The egocentric Golden Rule is now obsolete, and the Platinum Rule is now my new way of looking at things. It can do a world of good to look at how OTHERS feel and how OTHERS would like to be treated instead of simply assuming that they have the same wants and desires as YOU. It's all in all a great concept; one that I encourage everyone to implement in their daily lives.
One was particularly touching; it involved us filling out an anonymous survey in which we answered yes or no to about 50 questions. The questions were very personal, and it created a very serious, somewhat somber setting. We then collected everyone's survey, then redistributed random ones back to random people. The 40 of us all stood in a big circle as someone read the survey questions aloud. If our sheet had a yes on it, we took a step forward (keep in mind, we weren't stepping forward for our own responses, but were representing someone else's sheet of paper). We then stepped back. The point was to anonymously see what all of our coworkers had been through, to realize everyone endures hardships, and to realize that we aren't alone. Seeing the results was incredibly powerful. About 8 of the 40 stepped forward to say that they had been on welfare at some point in their life. About 16 stepped forward to say they had had an eating disorder in the past. Half stepped forward to admit they were on a daily medication. Five people admitted to attempting suicide.
It was sad to realize that this fun, enthusiastic group of people I work with dealt with such hard issues. At the same time though, it was inspiring to be in such an uplifting environment in which we were able to share this with each other and realize that we had a "work" family that supported us.
While I learned a lot during that activity, there was something else worth noting that was discussed in an activity; that being "The Platinum Rule". This replaces the "Golden Rule", which we all know means to treat others as we would like to be treated. The Platinum Rule demands that we treat others how THEY would like to be treated. I thought this was an incredibly innovative, and totally awesome concept. After reflecting on it, I realize it makes perfect sense; how we want to be treated may not be how someone else wants to be treated. For example, while someone may not mind jokes being made at their expense, someone else may be more sensitive to such jokes and may find them offensive and hurtful. Or, someone may not mind being interrupted when talking, but for someone else it may be considered disrespectful.
The egocentric Golden Rule is now obsolete, and the Platinum Rule is now my new way of looking at things. It can do a world of good to look at how OTHERS feel and how OTHERS would like to be treated instead of simply assuming that they have the same wants and desires as YOU. It's all in all a great concept; one that I encourage everyone to implement in their daily lives.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Grocery Woes
I learned yesterday that you can't use federal assistance money for swiss cheese.
This came off another observation I made a few weeks ago; you also can't buy skim milk with such money.
I don't want to get into a debate about our countries welfare programs. While for the most part I'm an avid supporter of such programs, my point here is not to advocate for its purpose. My point is instead to debate its current implementations, and the clear deficiencies I perceive regarding such federally funded support programs.
I witness these two aforementioned unfortunate events from the uncomfortable, and very awkward, position of the next person in line. Both times, the patrons buying the products had to run back to get an alternate product; cheddar and 2% respectively. Both times they returned and embarrassingly apologized to me for the wait and inconvenience "they caused".
But the truth is, they did not cause it. Instead I view both events as a tragic reflection of our country, and point the finger singlehandedly at the government. As if using food stamps wasn't humiliating enough, (which, I'll admit for some it isn't, but I stand behind my belief that for most it is) the government is going to further restrict the type of foods one is allowed to purchase. They claim to be helping, but this help is not accommodating or supportive, but instead is restrictive, and even oppressive. Centuries ago, Christian-run cities would allow Jews to reside in their limits, yet would tell them where to live, confining them to a certain neighborhood. These horrific restrictions caused the formation of ghettos. In the 1960's, we allowed blacks to eat at restaurants or attend school; but these privileges were limited to only certain restaurants, and only certain schools. These acts are now viewed as discriminatory based on their limitations. However isn't this food stamp issue a similar incident? We'll allow our nations poor to eat, but we will control exactly what they eat? How have we progressed? How can we feel good about ourselves and claim we are "helping"?
The customers in these scenarios were not flagrantly wasting government money. They weren't putting it to destructive uses, buying drugs or even alcohol. They weren't even spending their money on upscale products; not even organic milk or expensive brie.
Out of curiosity, I were to check the price differential between the cheddar and swiss.
The difference?
The swiss was a mere $0.21 more.
I've concluded that it's not about economics. It's not about budgets or curtailing spending. I'ts simply a power trip. A way to embarrass. A way to exert control over. A way for the government to demonstrate superiority, and remind the nations poor that in the eyes of the United States, they are inferior.
This came off another observation I made a few weeks ago; you also can't buy skim milk with such money.
I don't want to get into a debate about our countries welfare programs. While for the most part I'm an avid supporter of such programs, my point here is not to advocate for its purpose. My point is instead to debate its current implementations, and the clear deficiencies I perceive regarding such federally funded support programs.
I witness these two aforementioned unfortunate events from the uncomfortable, and very awkward, position of the next person in line. Both times, the patrons buying the products had to run back to get an alternate product; cheddar and 2% respectively. Both times they returned and embarrassingly apologized to me for the wait and inconvenience "they caused".
But the truth is, they did not cause it. Instead I view both events as a tragic reflection of our country, and point the finger singlehandedly at the government. As if using food stamps wasn't humiliating enough, (which, I'll admit for some it isn't, but I stand behind my belief that for most it is) the government is going to further restrict the type of foods one is allowed to purchase. They claim to be helping, but this help is not accommodating or supportive, but instead is restrictive, and even oppressive. Centuries ago, Christian-run cities would allow Jews to reside in their limits, yet would tell them where to live, confining them to a certain neighborhood. These horrific restrictions caused the formation of ghettos. In the 1960's, we allowed blacks to eat at restaurants or attend school; but these privileges were limited to only certain restaurants, and only certain schools. These acts are now viewed as discriminatory based on their limitations. However isn't this food stamp issue a similar incident? We'll allow our nations poor to eat, but we will control exactly what they eat? How have we progressed? How can we feel good about ourselves and claim we are "helping"?
The customers in these scenarios were not flagrantly wasting government money. They weren't putting it to destructive uses, buying drugs or even alcohol. They weren't even spending their money on upscale products; not even organic milk or expensive brie.
Out of curiosity, I were to check the price differential between the cheddar and swiss.
The difference?
The swiss was a mere $0.21 more.
I've concluded that it's not about economics. It's not about budgets or curtailing spending. I'ts simply a power trip. A way to embarrass. A way to exert control over. A way for the government to demonstrate superiority, and remind the nations poor that in the eyes of the United States, they are inferior.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)