Jump to content

What's with the ads?


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by AlmiraGulch

  1. My school district supposedly bought glasses for all the kids, but then oops! A bunch of them aren't certified.  So the solution at DD14's high school is to let everyone outside to watch, with glasses, except the freshman.  Ummm....ok?  They won't let the kids take their own to school.  


    She's staying home tomorrow.

  2. My youngest two are 13 and 14. The 14 year old is prone to anxiety when they don't understand things, when they don't feel like they have enough information, and when they have to fill in a lot of blanks on their own.  Fear of the unknown is worse for her than open, frank discussion.  So that's what we do.  It works for our family. 


    I can see, though, how that wouldn't work for others.  

    • Like 2

  3. Oops! I should have said "equation," not "formula."  


    And I also must be more tired than I thought, because I'm only following about 1/2 of what you said.  I should also say that I do this sort of calculation nearly every single day, but today it's as if it's completely foreign.  I think that's a perfect sign that I should go to sleep! :-)  

  4. Say you have a total of $1,000,000, which represents revenue.  


    Now say you have two buckets of widgets, or revenue streams, that add up to that toal of $1,000,000.  


    Bucket A represents 65% of the volume and Bucket B represents 35% of the volume.  So, theoretcally, you can easily figure out how much of the $1,000,000 is coming from each bucket, but the "widgets" in each of the two buckets are not equal.  So...


    Let's say that the widgets in Bucket A provide 30% more value than the widgets in Bucket B.  


    What's the formula for figuring out how much of the $1,000,000 should come from each of the Buckets, given that Bucket A  is 65% of the volume but represents 30% more value than Bucket B, which is only 35% of the volume?





    • Like 1

  5. My sister and I both complained about a bunch of stuff to each other in these four, and were a bit bitter about some of it.  haha


    Then we talked about it all again yesterday, and I like them more now than I did at first.


    I never liked Rory, and that hasn't changed.  What a selfish, whiney little thing she has always been.  Blah. Emily's story line was my favorite, for sure.  


    I need to watch them again.  


    I heard that no kill shelters end up having to move cats out to kill shelters so basically a no-kill shelter is just death row. I guess there may be exceptions but this sounds plausible to me.



    I've worked directly with no fewer than 1/2 dozen no-kill shelters, and they are truly no-kill ,and do not move to kill shelters.  Ever.  That's why it's so hard sometimes to find placement, because they rely on fosters quite a bit to make room for new residents when adoptions are down, and they'll only take so many cats into a facility.  But I have never once experienced a no-kill shelter that transferred to a kill shelter.  (I'm not doubting what you've heard, just saying that in all of my direct work I've never experienced it).

    • Like 1

  7. I know other people who have done the Atlanta to Jackson Hole flight. Keep stalking it. It should go down. Everyone talks about having to book lodging really far in advance and then wait for the airline tickets to drop. They always do. Good luck! It's a beautiful place to visit.


    Yeah, I won 't be booking yet, for sure.  It's just crazy how expensive it is!  We're excited about it, though.  It's a completely different type of vacation for us, as we usually do something caribbean.  


    I just used sky miles to buy 5 tickets to NYC, so my mileage account is a bit depleted.  I'm hoping to have enough built up again to cover at least a couple of the tickets, but we'll see.  The longer I wait to buy, the more miles it takes for the tickets.  Catch 22.  

    • Like 1

  8. I'm not sure how near the next nearest airport is (for Jackson Hole, WY) but you might seriously look at how far you're willing to drive in order to save money, then price those. We did 5 of us to San Diego, by going to Phoenix and driving the rest of the way, and even adding in the car rental, for the week, it was still cheaper than flying direct. Toss in that we were going to rent a car anyway, and the savings increases even more. Just a thought.


    Yes, I've considered that, and it's still under consideration, although not likely.

    Like I said, I fly a lot, so I'll be monitoring flights and prices before I purchase.  Unfortunately, we have limited vacation time, so spending more than 5 hours driving from Salt Lake City, for example, is not really something we're likely willing to do, particularly after flying for 4 hours to get to SLC in the first place!  


    Also, none of the airports in driving distance from my home will be a cheaper origination point, either, as most of them would connect through Atlanta anwyay.  

    • Like 1

  9. I love cats.  I have always had cats.  I will always have cats.  Mine have always been and will always be exclusively indoors.  I have volunteered at cat shelters many times over the years.  I gave my senior cat subcutaneous fluids for the last 3 years of her life.  I am a cat person.


    All that to say.....if you're certain there isn't an underlying medical condition, either find a no-kill shelter to take the cat (which isn't always easy because they are often full), or have him euthanized.  It is no longer a healthy situation for your family or for the cat. Pets should enhance your lives and you theirs.  Right now, you're barely tolerating him (understanably so) and he knows that, so he's not happy with you, either.  



    • Like 3

  10. I fly often, at least 3 times a month, for work, and I book my own travel.  Ticket prices vary wildly, but generally speaking if you're flying a route with a lot of competition, the flight will be cheaper.  


    I'm about to book a flight from Atlanta to Pensacola to Jacksonville to Atlanta.  Cost?  $1100.  You read that right.  It's just that hardly anyone flies into Pensacola, so that's the big kicker for me.  


    I'm also looking at flights from Atlanta to Jackson Hole, Wyoming.  It's not until next June, so I'm not booking, just looking.  I have to buy 5 of them, and it's about $1100 each or so right now, because there aren't a ton of flights into Jackson Hole.  That one hurts, because it's on my own dime instead of company money!  


    Anyway, I can also go today and buy a flight to Los Angeles for less than $300.  Major hub to major hub is what makes the difference.

    • Like 2

  11. It's easy, coming from the majority, to feel like identity politics are divisive.  Because, as someone said on the locked thread, when you're in the majority, you don't have to march.  When you're in the majority, the culture at large "fits."  



    On some aspects of identity (race, sexual orientation) I am personally "with" the majority; on another (religion) I am part of a minority, so I straddle both sides of this line.  I wrote out a long rambling response, but I think a clearer one might be: On the one hand, people who are gay or black or Muslim or Jewish (etc) have "other-ness" thrust upon us whether we like it or not.  The lived experience is *different* from that of the majority in ways that are not evident to the majority.  Some of those differences threaten lives.  Others limit opportunities, erode livelihoods and corrode self and relationships.  


    On the other hand, those same identity elements are who we are.  A million years ago, a black friend of mine, who'd just been cheerily informed by a third friend that "I don't even notice that you're black; to me you're just a person!" answered something to the effect of, then you really don't know me at all.  Because not an hour goes by, when I don't feel black.  You don't see that, you're not seeing me.


    I feel the same way about my religion.  I have no interest in denying it, or its importance to me, or how it affects my lived experience to "pass"; or make the the majority feel more comfortable.  (And I in this current society have the option: others with other kinds of differences --like Jews in prior eras in other societies-- do not... which comes back around to Otherness Thrust Upon Us.)




    MLK's famous line about his dream that his children be judged on the content of their character spoke of an ideal we emphatically have not yet reached.


    Even when, God willing, justice is achieved, we still will have differences.  A just society does not require that minorities deny the expression of their identities / language / music / religious practices / etc. for the comfort or convenience of the majority.  A just society does not insist that identity differences are erased or submerged or invisible or unacknowledged.



    Today's "color-blind" doctrine has warped into something very close to color-denial.  The implications of the insistence that "differences shouldn't matter, we're all just people" is that all we have to do about injustice against minority groups is... nothing.  There's no problem, except these [email protected]<script data-cfhash='f9e31' type="text/javascript">/* */</script> identity politic people complaining about problems.  If they'd just put a lid on it, we'd go back to being great again.


    From what you wrote about your friend, it does not sound as if s/he means to convey this message -- on the contrary, it sounds as though s/he wants to play a constructive role but is trying to unravel the difference between identity politics and justice.  The colorblind drumbeat beats pretty loud in some circles.


    This is a worthwhile exploration of the issue; you might take a look and maybe pass it along. 





    (Sigh.  This one got almost equally long!  Sorry.)


    Amazing.  Yes.  


    As for the bolded, you're spot on.  She actually has said on many occasions that she just doesn't see color.  That has never sat well with me but I couldn't figure out why.  You hit the nail on the head.  She certainly does not judge others based on it, and truly strives base opinions on content of character.  But the color blindness thing, to me, takes away part of a person's identity. This post, and others, may help her understand that.  Thank you.

    • Like 2

  12. The argument is flawed because it starts out with a flawed premise in two ways (probably more than two, but two that stick out right away). First, that celebrations of uniqueness = "othering" = marginalizing. A group can have it's own unique culture, and take joy in that, without being marginalized. That's how we celebrate our difference. I am not African American, but I can appreciate a festival that celebrates their culture. They are not (generally) German, but there's a HUGE black presence at our city's Octoberfest every year, particularly in the tents that learn traditional dances. Being "other" in the sense of celebrating what makes each group's culture unique is not a bad thing. Being marginalized, as in not receiving equal treatment or opportunities, is an entirely different beast.


    The second flawed premise is that people can marginalize themselves. BLM, LGBTQ, etc, aren't choosing to be marginalized. They are being "othered" by a majority which is not used to them and has instinctively separated them because they ARE different. They would not, by being silent about their differences, cease to be "othered". They've been silent for... well, all of history up until the recent past. The fact that they weren't loud about being marginalized then does NOT mean it wasn't happening. It was worse then! They tried silence (or rather, they were oppressed into silence) and it failed. The idea that they are only othered because they are TALKING about being othered is seeing it backward. (I feel like I'm saying the word "othered" so often that it's losing all meaning, lol.)


    Does that help?


    This is what I've been trying to say, and failing. Thanks for this.  

  13. It's a similar dynamic with any kind of oppression or abuse: to be neutral is to support the oppressor. If she has any experience with any other kind of oppression, she may be able to better get it. If a couple divorces and she is alleging that it's because he's been emotionally abusive and their friends stay "neutral," they are essentially supporting the status quo. And the status quo is that which the oppressor has created. So if friends insist on inviting both to the same parties because they don't want to "choose sides" guess who will come and who will be left out. 


    When she says, "we could all just be people" with others "just living their lives" she means that she thinks their lives would be no different than hers if they would just stop "othering" themselves. Many people have a hard time believing that their experience is not what everyone else experiences. 


    This.  Yes.  Thank  you.


    For the record, she does understand completely that her experience is not that of others.  She just seems to think that it could be the same if people just lived that way and stopped separating themselves.  What she's failing to see is that people aren't separating themselves, they're being separated because of the way they are being treated by people in power.  And she GETS that people are being abused by the powerful, but can't seem to make the natural extension to the last part (that people are oppressed and separated because of the powerful, not that they separate themselves and so oppression and separation is the result).  

    • Like 1

  14. How does she propose who gets to decide what the standard to which everyone should conform is? Does she want everyone to pretend to be WASPs? What if the standard becomes something she isn't? Is she an egalitarian socialist? (LOLZ. If she's like any of the people spouting that junk on my FB, I'm guessing no...)


    She isn't proposing anything.  She has an opinion, but presented with logical explanations and evidence she is not opposed to changing it.  That's why I'm asking.


    I think she's more of the "why can't everyone just be who they are and stop separating themselves so vocally" mindset.  That's my interpretation, not what she has said.  I don't know why, but I simply cannot find the right words to explain to her "Because it doesn't work that way."  That's why I'm here.  Smart people and all.  

  15. That's not really what I'm saying, no. But can you answer the other question - how do you change the mindset of the majority to accept a minority that wants to remain separate or 'other'? It's a change of mind or heart, right? How do you do that with animosity or force? I suppose the only options are conquer or teach. I prefer the latter by far, but it's a long, slow slog and and easily disrupted. Revolution is the other option, and that's ugly and brutal. A minority revolting against a majority without garnering understanding and sympathy from the majority doesn't usually work.


    Maybe one needs both. But getting there is challenging. That doesn't mean it isn't worth all the effort and time to try.


    Those are my thoughts on the subject. I'm not arguing or leveling accusations, but this isn't at all a clear cut or easy subject and clear thinking, caring people can disagree, including your relative. It's something worth talking about for sure.


    No, I don't think that's what you mean, just that it's how that argument in general feels to me.  Hope that makes sense.


    I think my response to your question, though, is that it isn't that the minority groups (big generalization here) don't want to be seen as less-than.  They want to be able to celebrate their differences and cultures and uniqueness without being oppressed because if it.


     For example, we have Oktoberfest to celebrate German heritage.  We have Greek festivals.  We have Irish parades.  Italians proudly profess their Italian-ness (yes, I made up a word), even on t-shirts, but there is no negative connotation, generally speaking, associated with those things.  I realize there used to be, per your first post, but no more.  It's all very mainstream.  So it seems to me that those that are currently suffering from at the hands of the majority are striving to get to the same place that those that carried the burden previously have gotten to. do we do that?  I have no idea, truthfully, but ignoring the transgressions won't make them go away. It'll just make it more comfortable for the majority. 

  16. I hear what you're saying.  It's basically what she's saying.  


    I just don't think that it's possible to do that as long as the oppressors continue to oppress, and I don't think that people should have to give up those identities to "fit in" (my words, paraphrasing my interpretation of some of yours).  That rings to me of "gay people should act less gay" or "Black people should act more White."  I don't believe that's your intent, mind you, but that's how it sounds to me as a general rule, and it feels....gross.

  17. On more than one occasion, someone I'm very close to, who generally understands the scourge of systemic racism, and the power of her privilege as a white person in this country, has expressed a sentiment that I can't properly rebuke.  Meaning, I don't agree with what she's saying, but I don't know how to properly articulate why I don't agree.  


    Can you help me?


    The viewpoint in question is that racism persists because everyone "others" themselves.  She doesn't understand how we can ever move toward unity when minority groups continue to have civic leaders that highlight them as "other."  So, Gay Pride, NAACP, Black Lives Matter, etc.  My explanation usually says something to the effect of when members of marginalized groups are no longer marginalized in society (insert any number of examples here) they will no longer feel the need to raise awareness (simplified, but that's it in general).  Her response usually is a "yes, but if they would stop going on about it and just live their lives, and we could all just be people, they separation would just naturally dissolve."


    I don't know how to properly communicate the message, but I'm sure many of you do.  Anyone care to jump in?

  18. Interesting topic and responses.


    To answer the question, I have a two drink limit if I'm driving.  Technically, I could likely drink more than that and be well under the legal limit.  I know for sure, because not long ago I was at a Brunch Festival with my sister.  We took Uber there, because food and drinks were unlimited.  They also had police there with a booth set up with breathalyzers for you to voluntarily test your BAC.  We both tested when we got there, just for fun,  and both blew a 0.0, as we should have.  Then we ate a bit and drank more than a bit for a couple of hours.  Enough that I absolutely would not have even considered driving.  We went back to the booth and blew again, and I was at less than half the legal limit.  My sister had had much more than I  to drink, and she was at .07.  Legal limit here is .08. 


    That said, regardless of what is allowed, legally, I definitely felt impaired and would absolutely not have driven.  My sister, who also would not have driven because she knew how much she had consumed, felt fine, she said.  But she's a 50+ year old woman with years of life experience.  I wonder if a 20-something would have the self-awareness level to understand that even if you don't "feel" it you could still be impaired.  I'm guessing no.  


    Like I said, interesting topic.


  19. My parents will celebrate their 59th anniversary in August.


    My husband's parents divorced when he was 18 or 19.  His mother remarried shortly after and has been married to him every since.  His father has been with the same woman since about that time, too, although they just finally married less than 10 years ago.


    Of the six of us "kids,"  two are on their 3rd marriages (although one is about to divorce again), one has been married and divorced twice and is now in a long-term relationship, although not married. I'm on my second marriage.  Two have married only once and are both still married.


    Cousins?  Ummm.....I have one that was married very young and divorced in short order.  She has been married to her current husband forever.  One is on her third marriage.  One is on his second.  That's it for divorces in my generation, out of 17 of us.  Not too bad, except for my immediate family.  We've always been the black sheep, though!  

  20. We were just there for a day and a half and crammed in A LOT of stuff!


    We stayed in Brooklyn, so we took the train into the city, but here's what we did.  Oh, and I was there with my husband, ex-husband, and three kids (19, 13, and 12).  We all had a fabulous time.


    Day 1 (1/2 day, really):  Lower Manhattan.  9/11 Memorial and Museum, Wall Street and the Financial District, Battery Park

    Day 2:  Today Show filiming, NBC studio tour (so cool!), Top of the Rock, then walked to St. Patrick's Cathedral, uber to the Intrepid Museum, then uber to Central Park, where we walked a ton of it. Uber to Times Square, because we love it best at night.


     We considered doing the Met that day, but skipped it.  We also were going to do the Museum of Natural History, but ran out of time.  DD19 went the next day with her dad.  


    Unlike a previous poster, I find the train really easy to navigate, but because we were so pressed for time, we ubered (actually Lyft, because it's cheaper), a lot.  NYC taxis really can't fit more than 4 people (some will cram in 5, but they are not required to, legally), so Uber XL or Lyft Plus were perfect for us.  Abundant and quick, and you always get discounts the first time you use the apps.

    • Like 3
  • Create New...