Loving On Shorts

Short stories, that is.

This or some other year of this has been living on my nightstand recently...

I love reading.  Always have.  When I was a child, I would sneak read late into the night under the blanket with a light.  At least I thought I was being sneaky.  Mom or dad would usually come around at some point and tell me to get some rest already, which likely means they were onto me.  Throughout high school, I was of the nerd variety that didn't view assigned reading and the subsequent class discussions and essays as a chore.  I loved it!...well except for when we read Ethan Frome.  That was a snooze of a story if I may say so.

At some point thought, I strayed away from regular reading.  I'm not quite sure when it happened.  I'll still pick up a book and plow through it on an airplane and on vacation, but in my day to day life I've gotten too "busy."  In other words, I don't make the time to make it a priority.  That got me to thinking on something much larger recently.

To often, we stop educating and developing ourselves as adults.  Or maybe that's just me.  I've been working to make a conscious effort to pick up that dropped ball on that end.  This blog (and regularly writing, even if it's not highly edited and critique worthy) is part of that conscious decision.  Reading shorts has been a wonderful way for me to get back to nightly reading.

Part of what I do at my current job (well only for one more week) is festival planning and adult workshop planning.  We regularly struggle to fill seats in our adult workshops, but come family festival time it seems we can't have enough staff and volunteers on hand to assist with the turnout.  One thing I've learned is that parents will take the time to bring their children out to learn about gardening, butterflies, insects, the environment, composting, etc, yet adults don't make that time for themselves.  It's been eye opening.

I spent New Year's Eve in Phoenix with my family and some cousins and uncles/aunts (Hiiiii Phoenix Hetts!).  My Aunt Barbara got creative on us for an activity for the evening.  She whipped out a bunch of canvases and paint and told us to get to work.  No if, ands or buts.  The reaction from us at first was somewhat reluctant.  I'm not an artist.  I don't paint.  What am I going to do with that great big canvas?  Then my younger brother (who's not so young) who is mentally handicap and attends a dayhab 3 times a week that keeps he and his friends busy with life skills development and activities jumped right in and began painting with no hesitation.  Dayhab does for him something I don't do for myself -- it continues to develop him.  Seriously though, can I go to dayhab?  The rest of us got motivated.  It was relaxing and required us to channel our creativity.  I can't remember the last time I did that.  The final result.  That's mine on the far right.  Dan's is on the far left.

Seriously though, when was the last time you painted?  Planned a trip to a museum for fun?  Played an instrument?  Attended a lecture or workshop?

For me, I've decided it's too few and far between.  Time to make a change.

When Loyalty Seems Better Than Awkwardness

Surprisingly, my post about Bare Minerals has elicited quite a few comments from people in passing.  Mostly girls who:
1. Agree something has gone downhill in the quality of the product.
2. Want to be kept updated on what new makeup I settle on.
The latter is still a work in progress, but it's had me thinking a lot about brand loyalty and my brand loyalty in particular.  This could get dangerous.  We're talking the jeans I buy and the friend who cuts my hair.

At some point last week one of my friends, Hsu, shared this article on Tide, their brand loyalty and a recent spike in crime related to shoplifting the product off grocery store shelves.  It's a fascinating article, not just for what it shares about brand loyalty and some of the psychological reasons for it, but it also sheds some insight into the black market of retail.  And of course drugs.  Drugs are sexy and make good news, right?  Something like that.

Now, I'm not a Tide user, so I was shocked to hear the the high rate of loyalty it inspired from its' customers, especially those in low-income brackets who one might assume is instinctively buying a cheaper product because they're on a budget.  Once I thought about it a bit longer, I wasn't surprised.  I'm a creature of habit in most of my purchases, from haircuts to pancake syrup (Mrs. Butterworth's only please!).  I've kicked off a makeup "testing" spree this week and let me tell you, I think one of the biggest obstacles to change is that it's awkward and contrary to how every salesperson treats customers.

What do I mean by that?  Stop right now and think about how you feel when you run into your hairstylist and it's obvious you've allowed someone else to cut your hair.  That feeling is what I'm talking about.

I'm also talking about how employees in retail want to make the sale and I don't blame them.  Especially at the makeup counter (and the Nordstrom shoe department).  They especially don't want to see you walking next door to their opponent once you're done with them.  And that's exactly what I've been doing this week.  A couple of friends recommended makeup that I ought to give a whirl.  Instead of going out and throwing down around $20 a bottle to strike out by trial and error, I've went in to each make up counter (and to Ulta) and asked for samples.  There's something incredibly awkward for me to approach the makeup person, explain what I'm doing, that I'm a little lost as to what product to by cause I haven't changed base in 6 years and ask them to give me a sample after testing a couple products on my face.  It feels like for all their help, you should reward them with a purchase and explaining that I want to trial and see how the makeup wears throughout the day just FEELS weird.  It feels like I'm personally rejecting them when I'm not purchasing their product at the end of their work/spiel.  That's not to say they look at me sideways or appear disgruntled and I know it's not a rational feeling, but it is the feeling.  They're more than happy to give me the sample, it's just not how we're used to shopping.  Shopping and marketing has been geared to encourage the impulse purchase...and it works on me (and most people, I think), is all I'm saying.

So look forward to some reviews of some make up in the future, specifically on under eye concealer and liquid foundation.  That said, I'm not a fashion/makeup blogger and don't intend to turn this into one.  You probably won't be fortunate enough to find me posting pictures of my face for you to judge yourself, you're just gonna have to trust me or judge me when you see me out and about :)

And maybe go out and pick up a few samples at some counters yourself.

In Defense of the Bubble Gum Girl

A month or so ago, my brother shared this article by Camille Paglia with me: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/taylor-swift-katy-perry-hollywood-398095.

Let me throw this out there first.  This may surprise you because of my conservative and libertarian leanings, but I love reading Camille Paglia's political writings.  When she took a leave from Salon Magazine to work on her new book, I was sad not to have her monthly ruminations to read.  She has a refreshingly honest, albeit liberal, take on politics.  She can admit when her team is screwing the pooch.  She is an advocate of "picking your battles" politically and occasionally I find myself scratching my head along with her watching the political theater go down.  Most importantly, even if I don't agree with her, Camille appears to have a consistent argument and set of values she is advocating.  That I can appreciate.  So to read her critical, confusing, hyper feminist take on Taylor Swift (who I love) and Katy Perry, followed by her defense of Rihanna was mind boggling.

A friend just shared this Tina Fey quote from Bossypants on facebook: “It is an impressively arrogant move to conclude that just because you don’t like something, it is empirically not good. I don’t like Chinese food, but I don’t write articles trying to prove it doesn’t exist."  I haven't read Bossypants and I don't know what context Tina was sharing this in, but it seems fair to apply it here.  So Camille doesn't like Taylor Swift and Katy Perry's bubblegum girl image, but why exactly did she feel the need to convert other people to her side and write a lengthy article on it?

Because they don't fit her feminist movement image of what she fought for.

And that's where I get angry.  Because Camille isn't the only one and this isn't just about Taylor Swift and Katy Perry.  Wasn't the feminist movement about the freedom and choice?  The freedom and choice to break the glass ceiling, to excel in academia, to work that 9-5 job and raise a family OR the freedom to stay home, be a bubblegum girl, enjoy baking and sewing, shopping and other girly things.  How about both.  Or neither.  It seems to me lately that all the women who held the torch and fought for my right to wear pants, work, stay single or raise family, etc want to come back now and tell me and my peers what we should be doing and how we should be exercising the rights they fought for.

I'm an unabashed fan of Taylor Swift.  Her music isn't a "guilty pleasure" for me.  I openly embrace and enjoy her music.  I don't expect everyone to, but I can't tell you how many times I hear something along the lines of, "She's too nice.  It's just an act."  Well YEAH.  Britney Spears being a virgin was "just an act."  So was her subsequent turn to slutty, which was "just an act."  Ok, let's get real here, Britney wasn't acting slutty, she was in fact tragically crazy and slutty.  Camille's beloved Rihanna's S&M shtick is "just an act."  Katy Perry's bubblegum world is "just an act."  Ke$ha is "just an act."  They're all just acts.  These women all stand on a stage under a spotlight, after all.  What did you think they were showcasing, a regular day in the life of an American girl?  Puh-lease.

The truth is all these men and women who spend time judging Taylor Swift for being an act are really irritated that being nice and wholesome is selling.  Camille says it herself, "There’s Taylor Swift, America’s latest sweetheart, beaming beatifically in all her winsome 1950s glory from the cover of Parade magazine in the Thanksgiving weekend newspapers. In TV interviews, Swift affects a “golly, gee whiz” persona of cultivated blandness and self-deprecation, which is completely at odds with her shrewd glam dress sense. Indeed, without her mannequin posturing at industry events, it’s doubtful that Swift could have attained her high profile."  Even worse, I think Camille and those who share her disdain for Taylor are upset that she really might be that modern-day version of the wholesome 1950s girl her generation learned to hate so well.  Weren't the feminists fighting for Taylor and Katy as well as Rihanna?  Why is "acting" slutty or trashy or sexual inherently better than "acting" bubblegum?  That's my question.  Why is Taylor Swift and her music something to be looked down on while Rihanna and her music is elevated?  Did we all forget that Rihanna is such an empowered woman that she allowed a man to beat the shit out of her and THEN GO BACK TO HIM?!  So who's really acting and who's really the empowered woman here?


Basically, to quote Tina Fey again, this time from Mean Girls, "You all have got to stop calling each other sluts and whores.  It just makes it OK for guys to call you sluts and whores."  Can I add an addendum to that?  We've got to stop tearing down the bubble gum girl and turning wholesome into a 4 letter word.

Science. or Science...

Forgive me for oversimplifying the issue and painting either side in broad strokes, but it bothers me when people are inconsistent in their argument.  When the political left talks about controversial topics like teaching evolution in schools or women's health care or drugs or many many other social issues, they often cite "science."  Science is the reason we teach the theory of evolution in schools.  Science is the reason we do not teach creationism.  Statistics say x% of the population lacks access to basic health care services.  Studies prove this or that about pot.  You, over there, on the right.  You "cling to your religion and guns."  We've got science and facts.  We win.

Well fine then, what is it?  Science.  Period.  The end of discussion.  Or is it science........when I like what it tells me?

Cause when we're talking about gun control and mental health care there are scientific studies.  Lots of them.  They control for age, race, sex, socio-economic status, population size, environment, etc.  They span over the last few decades, depending what you're looking at and for.  They tell us the same story and it is not the same story we're hearing from the science loving talking heads on the left who are pushing an agenda based on pure emotion this week.  Namely:

• The 1994 Assault Weapon Ban didn't work.  Sure, you can ask WHY someone would need an assault weapon.  I don't know, I don't want one.  On the same token, I could ask WHY someone needs pot or an abortion. - http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf
• Strong civil commitment laws result in 1/3 fewer homicides.  Want to decrease the crime rate?  Make it easier to commit mentally unstable people who are a danger to themselves or others.  Shhhhh!  Don't tell the ACLU! - http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00127-011-0450-0/fulltext.html
• "Gun-free zones" do not decrease crime.  In fact, the biggest deterrent to violent crimes is allowing the public to carry concealed hand guns anywhere they damn well please. - http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/41.lott_.final_.pdf
• Every single public shooting since 1950, with the exception of the attack on Senator Giffords, EVERY SINGLE ONE has occurred in a "gun free zone."  The National Review points out nicely in this article that the Aurora Batman Movie Theater shooter did not pick the movie theater closest to him, but the only one within a 20-minute drive that posted signs banning guns.
• Depending on who you listen to and what studies you follow, the crime rate, including crimes involving guns, has gone down since the 1980s and continues to go down or has stayed relatively steady.  Increasing consequences for committing a crime decreases the occurrence of the crime.  Banning guns does not.  Surprise! - http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st229 and http://prospect.org/article/violent-crime-increasing

One of my bio professors in college said something in a lecture once that stuck with me.  He reminded us that scientific theories are often revisited, adjusted, refuted and replaced.  That is the nature of science.  Science is a method, not a set of facts, and adhering to the method was our responsibility, not preaching science as infallible because often the time comes when we find out that a theory was fallible.  His advice was to be careful standing on a high & mighty "science" horse.  As our understanding of our world and ourselves grows, our science evolves.  The best scientist is a humble and critical thinking one.

So perhaps all this science means little.  Perhaps a great portion of the population would find comfort in enacting gun control laws and that alone is enough.  Perhaps another brilliant scientific mind will come around and publish a study that refutes all of the above, but if we're standing on science, then the lefty gun control advocates lose today.  Period.

Fido & Kitty Request Your Company...

As a person who is allergic to what seems like nearly everything under the sun, this post is rooted in my sympathy for fellow allergy prone friends.  I'm allergic to corn and ragweed and wheat and pollen and milk and dust mites and the list goes on.  The only reason I'm still alive is probably because I am fortunate enough to react in the form of eczema or sinuses to most of these things, not by my face swelling or throat closing.  Some girls have all the luck, eh? 

Funny fact: I am not allergic to poison ivy.

I'm also allergic to cats.

Growing up, my dad was (and still is) allergic to pretty much anything with hair -- cats, dogs, horses, bunnies.  You name it, the man has an allergy to it.  Growing up, I recall arriving at many a party only to find out the owners had a cat or dog.  That inevitably meant our stop would need to be cut short for the evening.  Now, my dad's allergies are so severe that what I'm about to suggest probably wouldn't have helped him any other than to let him know to stay away from your party, but it can surely help some people.

The past few weekends of holiday parties got me thinking though, why don't party hosts and hostesses kindly inform their guests of their furry four-legged roommates in advance?  Before you balk, please keep in mind, this is coming from a dog owner.  Just a thought for your next fbook invite or evite or (heaven forbid!) formal mailed invitation.  The number of times I've been texted or called by a friend from a party asking me to bring allergy meds for them (my reputation as a walking allergy pharmacy precedes me) because they were surprised by a cat or dog is off the charts.  If they had known in advance, they could have popped a pill before visiting or brought their own just in case.  I know many a thoughtful host who has said, "Oh, I put Fido in the other room!" or "I vacuumed and dusted all the hair up before the party."  That's wonderful and I suppose if you don't have an allergy yourself, you don't quite understand, but that only goes a small way to getting rid of the irritant.

Just my two cents.  I know I would appreciate it.