Today is my husband's first day back to school! He teaches choir at a high school and we've been busy the last few days getting his classroom set up. His first day back to school means that it's my first day back to having the house to myself during the days. After he left this morning, I realized that a few of the things I was looking forward to doing today aren't the same as they were a year ago!
1. De-cluttering the apartment. We always have stuff lying around that doesn't need to be out. I'm not sure why I don't de-clutter as much when my husband is home, but I get to put everything back where it needs to be!
2. Cleaning the kitchen. Our kitchen is small. This means one of two things: we should eat out all the time or we should have a really great organizational setup so that we never allow anything to accumulate in the kitchen. We do neither of these things. Today I get to do a deep clean of the kitchen and put some organizational tools in place to help us keep it clean!
3. Exercising. Now, to be honest, I've always loved exercising. It has not, however, always been a habit for me. Today I woke up just itching to get going in the beautiful sunshine we have today! I had a wonderful time and I can't wait to go again tomorrow!
4. Making a budget. I love numbers and I like making sure I have enough money to eat, but it's only been in the last few years that I've gotten good at budgets. Today I'm making our expense/income sheets for our new monthly budget!
5. Planning for the future. Well, we got married this summer, so I suppose that means kids are in the works sometime in the next few years! The only problem with that is that I am still self-employed and not exactly raking in the dough. I'm excited to look at what I need to be doing to generate a substantial supplemental income, while still doing something I love!
I think sometime over the last year, I accidentally grew up! These are all things I used to dread or not see as top-priority, but now they all seem rather important and fun. And, as an added bonus, it's always fun to feel like an adult every now and again!
"Be the change you wish to see in the world." --Gandhi
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Thursday, August 8, 2013
"Ditch Mitch": When Will We Have Substance?
 |
| The Capitol. Kinsey Hein, 2013. |
I am not a fan of Senator Mitch McConnell, one of Kentucky's senators. No, it's not because he's a Republican and I'm a Democrat and so of course I should hate him. It's because I don't agree with things he's supported (or loudly not supported) during his tenure in Washington. He has voted for war in Iraq, the Keystone Pipeline project, and a tax break for himself; all issues I see as despicable. He has voted against gun regulation, campaign finance reform, the Violence Against Women Act, affordable health care; all issues with which I have a very personal relationship and believe are necessary for the good of our country.
Mitch McConnell is up for reelection in November 2014. The assumed Democratic candidate running for US Senate is Alison Grimes, the current Secretary of State of Kentucky. She took the office only 19 months ago, so when her name started coming up, I paid attention. I wanted to see what experience she's gotten during her stint as our Secretary of State, seeing as she was a local intellectual property lawyer before she was elected. I've listened to a few of her speeches and I agree with her more than I agree with McConnell on a number of political issues.
I am, however, disappointed by the campaign Grimes is running. Slogans like "Ditch Mitch" and "Team Switch" are all over local television and newspapers. Grimes's bid for the Senate is polling well simply because she's saying that she is not Mitch McConnell. I don't want to vote for someone because they aren't "the other guy;" I want to vote for someone.
I expressed my frustration to my husband about the fact that Kentucky's best hope of a Democratic US Senator is using grade school insults to persuade voters to vote for her. He listened for a minute, and then said, "She has a campaign team that is using polling data that shows what works to get a win."
"Ditch Mitch" works? "Team Switch" will win Grimes the election? If these absurd sayings work, I think we have a lot more to worry about than which candidate won the election. If someone who has only 19 months of public service experience can win a seat at the national level on elementary school level quips and not on her resume or voting record (because she doesn't have a voting record), what does that say about us as a society?
Sure, it might simply mean that more people voted against McConnell than for him.
But what else could Grimes's winning demonstrate? That we don't care who takes a seat in the US Senate as long as it's not "the other guy"? That we are perfectly fine not only supporting, but rewarding the playground insults (that we wouldn't allow our children to say) our elected government officials are using during their "elevated discourse"?
I'm tired. I'm tired of this divisiveness that we insist on clinging to like a lifeline. I'm tired of the die-hards out there who refuse to see the other side of every issue just because of who brought the issues up. I'm tired of the name calling. I'm tired of the holier-than-thous out there who think that people who don't agree with them just aren't smart enough to understand. I'm tired of the staunch patriots on both sides who think anyone on the other side of the aisle is a complete jerk. I can't be the only who's tired of all of this!
When we heard about the tragedy at Sandy Hook, who didn't hug their kids a little tighter that night? I can tell you it wasn't just Democrats who did.
When the death of Osama bin Laden was announced, who didn't feel a little tiny sense of relief knowing that he had finally been brought to justice? I can tell you it wasn't just Republicans who did.
Whenever we hear about kids who have bad schools or people without food or young moms who get laid off, who doesn't feel for them? We all do.
We all have common goals. We all have the same things we care about more than anything else in the world. Shake off that grade school sense of "I've gotta call this guy a bad name to make myself look better." Move on from that childish yearning for victory, just so you can say you've won, even if you haven't earned it. Become that person, that leader, who is willing to question his own opinion to give the other side a chance to be heard. Become a leader and, for the good of your country, reach across the aisle and shake the hand of someone who, deep down, is just like you.
"Be the change you wish to see in the world." --Gandhi
Sources:
McConnell's voting record
2014 KY Senate Polling Statistics
KY Secretary of State Legislative Initiatives
Monday, August 5, 2013
The Bechdel Test: Women's Roles in Film
This morning I was doing my usual Facebook browsing while drinking my coffee, and came across an interesting status from one of my friends:
I'm lucky to have my friend Kelley. A month or so ago (to make a point) she asked me about naming movies which contain a scene where two or more women carry on a conversation W/O a man present and on a topic OTHER than men/ the male protagonist. A month later I've come up with "Fried Green Tomatoes" and not much else...can you help me out Face-bookers?
It got me thinking. And thinking. And then I became intrigued! I went through my DVD collection and out of 103 movies, the only two I have in which women are having a conversation without a man present and on a topic other than a man or men in general are "The Devil Wears Prada" and "Little Women."
The official test name for a piece of media in which there is a scene with a) at least two women present, b) the women talking to each other, and c) them talking about something other than a man is the Bechdel Test (not having a man present during the conversation is another criterium added to my friend's challenge). This test was first suggested by Virginia Woolf in regards to literature back in 1929, but became introduced by Alison Bechdel in 1985 in a comic strip. Kay Steiger refers to the Bechdel test as "the standard by which feminist critics judge television, books, movies and other media."
But why should it be used by only "feminist" critics? If we are truly interested as a society in achieving equality between men and women, shouldn't all critics be interested in this criteria? Shouldn't we want to see movies in which women are talking together about things other than relationships with men? This is not just about the feminist agenda; it's a cultural slap in the face to 150 million women. And what's worse is that we are all conditioned to it.
And we don't even realize it:
I previously mentioned that I have two movies that pass the Bechdel test. After going through my DVDs, I had a thought: what about movies in which men have a conversation on a topic other than a woman or women in general? The opposite of the Bechdel test, if you will. Out of 103 movies I own, 57 of them fit this criteria. Every superhero movie, every comedy, and every political or spy thriller fits this criteria but not the other.
I am what I would like to consider a rather forward thinker. Yet, over half of my movies have scenes in which men talk about things other than women and only two of my movies have scenes in which women talk about things other than men! I, an incredibly tuned-in fan of equality, have been watching and purchasing movies that are massively male-dominated!
But what does it mean?
We are still developing into the society a lot of people like to think we already have. A lot of people like to think that women have the same opportunities men have and that if we didn't have kids, we could be equally successful. That's not true yet. Many people like to think that racism is a thing of the past in our country. That's not true yet. A huge number of people in our country like to think that if you "want it badly enough and work hard enough," you can "get out" of wherever you come from and be whatever you want. That's not true yet. These are all ideals that we desperately crave and I feel like we assume they're already fact because we want so badly for them to be true.
But we have to realize where we come from; we, the American culture. It's been male dominated from the start, if you don't count the Native Americans as having started our culture (and let's be honest here, how many of us remember that they were American before our ancestors were?). It's been white dominated from the start. And it's been capitalist driven from the start. Can we expect our culture to change? Absolutely. Can we demand that there must be a change? Yes! But change is slow; it took us 150 years from the declaration of us being American to get to the white, male, capitalist part of who we are as a culture. We've only been burning bras and allowing our daughters and sisters to have opinions and jobs away from the home for 65 years. Yes, we've made some changes and yes, we're getting closer to the ideal society that we so deeply desire, but we're not there.
Yet.
"Be the change you wish to see in the world." --Gandhi
I'm lucky to have my friend Kelley. A month or so ago (to make a point) she asked me about naming movies which contain a scene where two or more women carry on a conversation W/O a man present and on a topic OTHER than men/ the male protagonist. A month later I've come up with "Fried Green Tomatoes" and not much else...can you help me out Face-bookers?
It got me thinking. And thinking. And then I became intrigued! I went through my DVD collection and out of 103 movies, the only two I have in which women are having a conversation without a man present and on a topic other than a man or men in general are "The Devil Wears Prada" and "Little Women."
The official test name for a piece of media in which there is a scene with a) at least two women present, b) the women talking to each other, and c) them talking about something other than a man is the Bechdel Test (not having a man present during the conversation is another criterium added to my friend's challenge). This test was first suggested by Virginia Woolf in regards to literature back in 1929, but became introduced by Alison Bechdel in 1985 in a comic strip. Kay Steiger refers to the Bechdel test as "the standard by which feminist critics judge television, books, movies and other media."
But why should it be used by only "feminist" critics? If we are truly interested as a society in achieving equality between men and women, shouldn't all critics be interested in this criteria? Shouldn't we want to see movies in which women are talking together about things other than relationships with men? This is not just about the feminist agenda; it's a cultural slap in the face to 150 million women. And what's worse is that we are all conditioned to it.
And we don't even realize it:
I previously mentioned that I have two movies that pass the Bechdel test. After going through my DVDs, I had a thought: what about movies in which men have a conversation on a topic other than a woman or women in general? The opposite of the Bechdel test, if you will. Out of 103 movies I own, 57 of them fit this criteria. Every superhero movie, every comedy, and every political or spy thriller fits this criteria but not the other.
I am what I would like to consider a rather forward thinker. Yet, over half of my movies have scenes in which men talk about things other than women and only two of my movies have scenes in which women talk about things other than men! I, an incredibly tuned-in fan of equality, have been watching and purchasing movies that are massively male-dominated!
But what does it mean?
We are still developing into the society a lot of people like to think we already have. A lot of people like to think that women have the same opportunities men have and that if we didn't have kids, we could be equally successful. That's not true yet. Many people like to think that racism is a thing of the past in our country. That's not true yet. A huge number of people in our country like to think that if you "want it badly enough and work hard enough," you can "get out" of wherever you come from and be whatever you want. That's not true yet. These are all ideals that we desperately crave and I feel like we assume they're already fact because we want so badly for them to be true.
But we have to realize where we come from; we, the American culture. It's been male dominated from the start, if you don't count the Native Americans as having started our culture (and let's be honest here, how many of us remember that they were American before our ancestors were?). It's been white dominated from the start. And it's been capitalist driven from the start. Can we expect our culture to change? Absolutely. Can we demand that there must be a change? Yes! But change is slow; it took us 150 years from the declaration of us being American to get to the white, male, capitalist part of who we are as a culture. We've only been burning bras and allowing our daughters and sisters to have opinions and jobs away from the home for 65 years. Yes, we've made some changes and yes, we're getting closer to the ideal society that we so deeply desire, but we're not there.
Yet.
"Be the change you wish to see in the world." --Gandhi
Monday, July 29, 2013
Anthony Weiner: Chronic Cheater
I have a visceral negative reaction to cheating, no matter who is doing the cheating and regardless of whether or not I'm personally involved. The first time I ever heard of anyone "cheating" was the Monica Lewinsky scandal back when I was 10 years old. I was completely horrified by it! Why would a husband do that to his wife? What did Hillary do to deserve that? How could a father do that to his daughter? I was very upset with Bill Clinton in my little kid mind.
Fifteen years later, I haven't changed much when it comes to this topic. If anything, I take a harder line on it. Eight years ago I was on the "Monica" side of a cheating situation. I was 17 and when I realized how morally wrong everything I was doing actually was, I was the one who ended it. He is still married to the same woman. I've recently found out that he has continued cheating on her for seven years with at least three other girls.
Three years ago when I heard about Tiger Woods cheating on his wife with multiple women, I was destroyed. My dad had been through two heart surgeries and used the inspiration he got from Tiger's golf game to help himself get through physical therapy. Suddenly all of that meant nothing. Sure, his game still stood, but what did Tiger himself stand for?
Two years ago, Anthony Weiner was caught sexting many women. His wife, Huma, was pregnant with their son and I cried when I heard the news. Huma is a role model for women everywhere and she was publicly humiliated by her husband. A lot of women wanted her to leave Anthony because we all knew it was a chronic problem, not just a one-time occurrence (not that having a one-time fling is okay--Bill Clinton--it just changes the game a little bit).
Two weeks ago, Weiner got caught again. And it's not like the sexting was from 2011--it's from one year ago. A year ago is also around the same time he was in People Magazine saying he felt "like a different person."
When the new sexts came out a few weeks ago, people were shocked. Why? We need to learn that when people have a chronic cheating problem, it's chronic. That means that it does not go away. Men (and women) who cheat over and over, promising they'll "never do it again" every time they get caught, do not change.
Some people argue that rehab helps. Sure, just like it helps an alcoholic or drug user: that person will be fine until something triggers them and they need control or a "high" or whatever they use their addiction for.
Anthony Weiner is not a "different person." Neither is Tiger Woods or the guy I was involved with eight years ago. These chronic cheaters will always cheat. So don't let them cheat you by voting for them.
"Be the change you wish to see in the world." --Gandhi
Fifteen years later, I haven't changed much when it comes to this topic. If anything, I take a harder line on it. Eight years ago I was on the "Monica" side of a cheating situation. I was 17 and when I realized how morally wrong everything I was doing actually was, I was the one who ended it. He is still married to the same woman. I've recently found out that he has continued cheating on her for seven years with at least three other girls.
Three years ago when I heard about Tiger Woods cheating on his wife with multiple women, I was destroyed. My dad had been through two heart surgeries and used the inspiration he got from Tiger's golf game to help himself get through physical therapy. Suddenly all of that meant nothing. Sure, his game still stood, but what did Tiger himself stand for?
Two years ago, Anthony Weiner was caught sexting many women. His wife, Huma, was pregnant with their son and I cried when I heard the news. Huma is a role model for women everywhere and she was publicly humiliated by her husband. A lot of women wanted her to leave Anthony because we all knew it was a chronic problem, not just a one-time occurrence (not that having a one-time fling is okay--Bill Clinton--it just changes the game a little bit).
Two weeks ago, Weiner got caught again. And it's not like the sexting was from 2011--it's from one year ago. A year ago is also around the same time he was in People Magazine saying he felt "like a different person."
When the new sexts came out a few weeks ago, people were shocked. Why? We need to learn that when people have a chronic cheating problem, it's chronic. That means that it does not go away. Men (and women) who cheat over and over, promising they'll "never do it again" every time they get caught, do not change.
Some people argue that rehab helps. Sure, just like it helps an alcoholic or drug user: that person will be fine until something triggers them and they need control or a "high" or whatever they use their addiction for.
Anthony Weiner is not a "different person." Neither is Tiger Woods or the guy I was involved with eight years ago. These chronic cheaters will always cheat. So don't let them cheat you by voting for them.
"Be the change you wish to see in the world." --Gandhi
Friday, July 12, 2013
Rate-Your-Men App: Creepy, Sexist
Author's Note: It's good to be back! I had a wonderful wedding and honeymoon! Thank you all for being so patient and continuing to visit the site and blog while I've been gone. Wedding article coming soon!
Today I came across this news story about an app called "Lulu." It is a "girls-only" free app on which you can rate your male Facebook friends, including ex-boyfriends. You give them a number between 0 and 10 and then can leave descriptions, as well as positive and negative hashtags about them for other girls to see. The Lulu app is supposed to use "the power of collective wisdom to offer insights on life and love, and everything in between," according to its description on the App Store.
To write this piece with appropriate research, I downloaded the app. It might be one of the creepiest apps I've ever had! Every guy on your Facebook friends list is imported into this collage called a "dashboard." You can see their average score from all the girls who have rated them. When you click on a guy's photo, you see who has rated them: "friend," "hookup," "together," or "crush" and what hashtags they've used to describe them.
The screenshot to the right shows a guy who has had two hookups in a month. What happens when he wants a serious relationship? Are girls going to be scared off because of his "ratings?"
In this other screenshot I took, it shows the hashtags that girls have given him. What on earth does #QuestionableSearchHistory mean? The "best" hashtags include things like #RespectsWomen and #4.0GPA. What happened to the first date?! Why can't we find these things out on our own like we used to? And just because there's a hashtag on a guy, does that mean it's true? Is this now a digital way to pass up potential guys based on a hashtag, much like we used to dismiss guys based on their looks?
The other creepy thing about this app is that it has a "Last Seen" section to let all the ladies out there know where this eligible (or not eligible) man was seen. This seems a little too close to stalking. The guys are not providing this information--the girls are!
Now that we've explored the general creepiness of this act, there's something a little more morally questionable about the Lulu app: if guys had an app like this to rate the girls they know, there would be a lawsuit in less than 24 hours and it would get shut down. There is no way our society would support guys "objectifying women" and "pigeon-holing them with things such as hashtags." I am willing to bet that the same girls running around rating all the guys on Lulu would be horrified if there were guys rating photos of them in their bikinis and talking about their last "hookup."
Our society is in a habit of calling out sexism when men do it to women, but calling it "women's empowerment" and "collective wisdom" when women do it to men. This is a really good example of this blatantly obvious double standard.
This app was created by women, for women. Ladies, let's have a little self-respect. Women still struggle every day to get real, tangible equality. Do you really think teaching girls that it's okay to stalk the men they're interested in and that it's okay to say mean (oh--I mean "wise") things about guys because "they'll never see it" has any integrity? Is it good for girls to be used to objectifying men and then be massively offended when a guy makes an offhand comment about their looks because they feel that they are "only wanted for their looks?"
Lulu is an app that is, in my opinion, more destructive than helpful. It is extremely creepy and sexist. This is the kind of app that we need to speak out against and not allow to take hold in our already struggling society.
"Be the change you wish to see in the world." --Gandhi
Today I came across this news story about an app called "Lulu." It is a "girls-only" free app on which you can rate your male Facebook friends, including ex-boyfriends. You give them a number between 0 and 10 and then can leave descriptions, as well as positive and negative hashtags about them for other girls to see. The Lulu app is supposed to use "the power of collective wisdom to offer insights on life and love, and everything in between," according to its description on the App Store.
The screenshot to the right shows a guy who has had two hookups in a month. What happens when he wants a serious relationship? Are girls going to be scared off because of his "ratings?"
The other creepy thing about this app is that it has a "Last Seen" section to let all the ladies out there know where this eligible (or not eligible) man was seen. This seems a little too close to stalking. The guys are not providing this information--the girls are!Now that we've explored the general creepiness of this act, there's something a little more morally questionable about the Lulu app: if guys had an app like this to rate the girls they know, there would be a lawsuit in less than 24 hours and it would get shut down. There is no way our society would support guys "objectifying women" and "pigeon-holing them with things such as hashtags." I am willing to bet that the same girls running around rating all the guys on Lulu would be horrified if there were guys rating photos of them in their bikinis and talking about their last "hookup."
Our society is in a habit of calling out sexism when men do it to women, but calling it "women's empowerment" and "collective wisdom" when women do it to men. This is a really good example of this blatantly obvious double standard.
This app was created by women, for women. Ladies, let's have a little self-respect. Women still struggle every day to get real, tangible equality. Do you really think teaching girls that it's okay to stalk the men they're interested in and that it's okay to say mean (oh--I mean "wise") things about guys because "they'll never see it" has any integrity? Is it good for girls to be used to objectifying men and then be massively offended when a guy makes an offhand comment about their looks because they feel that they are "only wanted for their looks?"
Lulu is an app that is, in my opinion, more destructive than helpful. It is extremely creepy and sexist. This is the kind of app that we need to speak out against and not allow to take hold in our already struggling society.
"Be the change you wish to see in the world." --Gandhi
Friday, June 14, 2013
"NSA Collects Data." And We're Surprised Because...?
Author's Note: Thank you to my readers for being so patient between articles. I'm now two weeks away from my wedding, so I'm running around like a crazy person!
Last week Edward Snowden shared the news that the NSA collects data from phone customers and keeps it for its use as it sees fit. Apparently it also collects user data from Google, Facebook, and some other sites.
After the first year anniversary of dating my boyfriend, I started getting engagement ring ads on Facebook (why I got them and he didn't, I don't know!). After we got engaged, Facebook started giving me wedding dress ads. Google ads always seem to "know" where I am or what I'm interested in: concert ticket ads for bands I like, flower ads in my wedding colors, jewelry ads, etc. If Facebook and Google "know" these things about me, why are people shocked by the revelation that the NSA knows all of that plus our phone numbers and emails?
We are in an age of oversharing: people are willingly putting all the little details of their lives in public places. I don't think it's surprising at all that corporations and the government are using what we give them. Sure, there are "privacy policies" on Facebook and Google, but come on; who really thinks they have a private Facebook page? It seems ridiculous to even put "private" and "Facebook" in the same sentence!
In all honesty, I've always assumed that the government knows everything I put online, every phone call I make, and everywhere I go that has a guest list. I don't mind that at all; it's my choice to "check in" when I get to certain places, use a cell phone, and "like" different things online. I am willingly sharing my life with my friends, strangers, and government, so I don't feel like I should be very upset that all of that data is collected.
What I do mind is the part of Snowden's report that explains that the government can use any and all of the data it's collecting now (and has been collecting) in the future to paint someone as something they're not. For example, ten years from now, let's say I write an inflammatory article condemning something the government does. Let's say it gets lots of attention and the government doesn't like it. The government could come back to this article that I'm writing now, find all my other articles, and paint me as someone who is argumentative, jumps on big news stories, and likes attention, thereby either discrediting me or turning me into this long-time radical political activist who needs to be--*cough, cough, wink, wink*--detained.
Do I get to choose what I share with the government? Kind of. Do I get to choose how the government uses the information I share? Not a chance! So. Is it ethical for the government to collect the information I willingly share with anyone who can find it on the internet? I'm going to go ahead and say, "sure." Yes, "requesting" my provided information from companies is different than "collecting" information unknowingly, but the government has made thousands of requests for personal information from Facebook and Google and I'm willing to bet that it was unbeknownst to those users. If the government "collects" my information without my knowledge, fine.
Technically, any one of us can "collect" any information on anyone we want and we definitely don't have to tell them. I'm willing to bet that out of my 1,000+ Facebook friends, I could find at least 10 where I could go back in their "timelines" and find something that I could twist to make look horrible and get them fired from their jobs. Frankly, I am more concerned about the prospect of a Facebook "friend" that I met once five years ago trying to ruin my career for their own amusement than I am about the fact that the government is "collecting" my information.
This is a massive debate that is important to have, but we need to realize that it will be ongoing for as long as technology advances. I think we need to come to terms with the fact that while technology helps us and gives us access to things we couldn't even have imagined 50 years ago, it also gives strangers an inside look at our own personal lives; strangers that (for now) include the government.
"Be the change you wish to see in the world." --Gandhi
P.S. Hi, NSA, CIA, and/or FBI agent who's reading this to make sure I'm not a terrorist! Spoiler alert: I'm not. Hope you guys and gals have a wonderful day!
Saturday, June 8, 2013
Grateful
My fiancé's parents are getting us a new washer and dryer for our wedding! Last night we went shopping with my future mother-in-law for them. We looked at all sorts of different kinds of washers and dryers: with or without fabric softener, digital or knobs, and top loaders vs. front loaders. We ended up settling on a really great Whirlpool set that saves water, energy, and doesn't have more digital technology than the first moon lander.
Through all of this, though, I had a thought: a decade ago, I was thrilled that we had a wringer in Vanuatu to wring out our hand-washed clothes instead of having to wring them out by hand before hanging them to dry. We always washed our clothes by hand in Vanuatu--there wasn't electricity to run a washer. And drying them, well, that's what a clothesline was for!
So, today I am grateful to have been born here. Even though I have all these awful medical things "wrong" with me, I won the genetic lottery: I live in a country that allows me to be successful, rich (compared to 5/6 of the world), and very picky about things that people in other countries can't even imagine.
Be grateful.
"Be the change you wish to see in the world." --Gandhi
Through all of this, though, I had a thought: a decade ago, I was thrilled that we had a wringer in Vanuatu to wring out our hand-washed clothes instead of having to wring them out by hand before hanging them to dry. We always washed our clothes by hand in Vanuatu--there wasn't electricity to run a washer. And drying them, well, that's what a clothesline was for!
So, today I am grateful to have been born here. Even though I have all these awful medical things "wrong" with me, I won the genetic lottery: I live in a country that allows me to be successful, rich (compared to 5/6 of the world), and very picky about things that people in other countries can't even imagine.
Be grateful.
"Be the change you wish to see in the world." --Gandhi
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)