I Think I'm Becoming An Agoraphobic Misanthrope
Oh yay, another political outrage. My hot buttons are becoming lukewarm.
Does it surprise anyone that Florida voting machines have apparently lost 18,000 votes? "Lost," they say. Harrumph. These are, as MoveOn puts it, votes "for Congress--votes almost certain to change the outcome of a close House race in Sarasota." I think the margin is approximately 350 votes.
"This election meltdown demonstrates the insanity of paperless voting machines. There's no way to recount the votes short of holding a new election. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi--along with Republican and Democratic leaders-are deciding now if Congress will tolerate this broken election or call for a new one. The decision could come any day-and once it's made, it's hard to reverse. Can you sign this petition urging Congress to call for a re-vote in Sarasota, Florida and to repair our nation's elections?
And then ask your friends and family to do the same."
If you care, the petition is here: http://pol.moveon.org/floridaelection/?id=9601-3579414-dNasq68VU48K1h4emzGENA&t=2
Truly, regardless of your personal political beliefs, accountability is key in any election.
My comments:
I have not trusted the electronic voting techniques or machines for nearly a decade. We are taxed but not truly being represented (among other things) if votes cannot be checked reliably against machine error or fraud. The possibility of human error, deceit, or technological breakdown are too great.
Why even give a hint of impropriety that would risk further dividing the country politically when accountability can be supported with paper records? Until the population at large is trusted to walk around without paper copies of driver's licences, birth certificates, social security cards, and so on, other important documents and parts of the democratic process must likewise not be transparent or hidden.
You'd think that the uproar over the last two Presidential elections would have nudged decision makers into using some sense on this issues. The public at large demands accountability. If we can't trust Diebold, or partisan officials, for whatever reason, then it is not yet time, and may never be time, for machines that record votes but have no backup data recording. Computers crash. People with partisan goals are tempted to fudge results. Hacking is not out of the question, and the stakes are too high.
We need to stop monkeying around with the vote. People are already discouraged from voting, be it from apathy or the deeply-rooted conviction that their vote doesn't matter and that their officials will not put forth due diligence when it comes time to accurately reflect the will of the people who elected them.
Right now we should be working to close the credibility gap when it comes to voting irregularities. Have documented and verifiable records of each and every vote, and do so, even if it is forever, until the population at large is comfortable with the technology involved with paperless, unverifiable electronic records. If we (collectively) are wise, we will never trust any tallying machine that suffers breakdowns, data loss, the possibility of finagling or hacking, and so on, that does not also have a verifiable hard-copy of each citizen's preferences in each election.
If, and one hopes this is not the case, these multiple voting irregularies are not being tackled as strenuously as they could be because one party and one party's political goals are benefiting from the problems, then those that feel they may benefit or have benefitted from computer-related voting irregularities (now and previously) may well have different feelings when, as is inevitable, popular opinion appears to be running more towards their opponents' candidates and political goals. Why not show good faith by correcting the problem "while you're ahead" rather than waiting for the opposition to initiate steps to take care of the problems once and for all when they hold all the cookies (so to speak) and may be less motivated or more tempted to try and "even the score" by letting themselves benefit for a while from the same disputed issues and vote count irregularities? Just something to consider.
Also, comments attributed to staunchly Republican Diebold executives to "deliver the vote" for their party are worrisome. Was this something that was actually said? I haven't done due diloigence by researching it for myself firsthand, but I have heard this comment, rarely varied much in word choice or tone, repeated from several sources.
One problem we face with the Internet is that with many to many communications, everyone is allowed to comment and everyone's comments are given potentially equal weight. The issue with this is not that we should discount individual opinions, but that inevitably some opinions are going to be less well-informed, and unfortunately less valuable as a result. Fewer people are capable of researching things on their own these days, and fewer still go to an actual "bricks and mortar" library. Even then, you have to rely on the library staff to stock and purchase reliable reference material.
Libraries justifiably exclude materials such as tabloids from their holdings, but, surprisingly, The Enquirer and Tattler both wrote accurate articles about nuclear waste transport (at one time, passengers and waste cargo were shipped in the same planes and trains across the country and in direct routes over heavily populated areas--that is asking for disaster on a grand scale) and the O.J. Simpson trial (which may have affected the outcome of the civil trial even if most of the information discovered was discovered too late for the criminal trial). That data aside, tabloids are a useful research for certain kinds of researchers. Just as papers are written about the impact of television on popular opinion and vice versa, the tabloid appeals to a certain segment of the population and you can grasp the level of recognition certain celebrities and public figures have by whether or not the tabloids milk them for articles (even fictional ones). Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewart, John Wayne were all recognized by the masses, but no one wanted to read about their foibles in print. Conversely, when Jackie Kennedy married Ari Onassis, the backlash among the audience that reads tabloids was intense. The feeling was that she had gone from Queen of Camelot to Benedict Arnold overnight. Princess Diana was being racked over the coals on the eve of her death for being fat and promiscuous and an irresponsible parent, and then when she became a martyr figure in death, the same papers that villified her deified her. Tabloids may be trash, but they accurately gauge the tide of public opinion and hold value that way, if in no other way. Another point to ponder is that the media has become as celeb-obsessed as tabs used to beand the turning point was not Gary Hart being busted with Donna Rice on the Monkey Business (photos of which tabs scooped first) but perhaps The Sexgate Clinton Lewinski scandal, where reputable news outlets milked the story dry faster and with more heat than the tabs could match, mostly by virtue of their publishing schedule limitations. Where tabs once had the edge in "brutal" reporting, they are not limited to what they can quote, but Court TV will replay pretty much anything, with or without a censor's bleep applied, and thus have the edge in scandal. This is almost the equivalent of what the Hays Act did to movies: some silent films show genitalia and decapitation and racfial insensitivity, and after the Hays Act, what could or could not be shown to the public was locked into a very narrow set of guidelines. Sort of the equivalent of having television and film spouses having to have twin beds and keep one foot on the floor on opposite sides of a mattress at all times to avoid impropriety. If you think about it, older eras do not equate to more puritanical eras (and the Puritans were not exactly as puritanical as we think, if you look at documents from the era, but I digress). The 20s were certainly more freewheeling and wild than the 40s or 50s were. The 60s exhibited more free-thinking (at least that we can observe from the outside) than did the 80s or 90s. We take two steps forward, one back and two off to the side far more often than do we progress in a straightforward fashion. Every freedom of thought or behavior inspires a backlash of fundamentalism and cdlosed-mindedness. We seek balance, perhaps. Those who push freemindedness too far, or value the "wrong" kinds of expression, and push the less comfortable public at large to accept it, often trigger these backlashes. It's like a parent who was allowed to read whatever they wanted by their parents when they were young, but, when they have children, they second-guess the impact of the same reading material on their own children. Or, worse, fail to examine it first and condemn it based on rumor and fear. (How else could anyone condemn the overall harmlessness of Harry Potter books? The worst thing that would have happened to me would have been underscoring what I was learning about Latin and French or Celtic / Greco-Roman legends and mythologies at the time! She's really lighter on Crowley-esque--if they exist at all--and heavier on CS Lewis-ish story arcs.)
These days the five or six tabloids are all owned by the same media conglomerate, a change that few probably noticed. If you aren't the prime market for tabloid purchasing, which I'm not, you wouldn't necessarily even notice a difference. Basically, they all take over certain aspects of each story, and the top three (Globe, Star, Enquirer...I think) leave the two-headed cows, anal-probing aliens, Batboys, World's Fattest [Fill in the Blank] and Ed Anger bigot rants to The Weekly World News and their ilk, which people are not supposed to take seriously anyway.
I mentioned that I got my legacy cheque. Oddly enough, other than buying a pizza or two and some towels, I haven't had any interest or energy in going shopping, even for Christmas or things I need. Now that I have some money, I'm really tight-fisted with it. On reflection, this seems to be a pattern. When I'm stocked up on food, I eat less. When I have money, I'm tight with it. When I have a wholepack of cigarettes, I don't feel the urge to smoke a clove. It's when, as is inevitable, my grocery stockpiles dwindle or my money is tight or I'm down to two or three smokes that I become focused on them and feel the urges and needs more keenly. I wonder if this applies to my love life? When I've got all I want in another human being andamin a relationship, I'm happy and content, but not particularly jealous or worried about my partner. When I'm single, I definitely go through a period where I miss having someone around and analyze and fret and worry that I'll die alone and my dead body will be discovered after it is partially eaten either by the fourteen cats I'll probably own or an Alsatian. Right now I'm in a "don't give a crap either way" frame of mind, which seems to bring the Undesirables out of the woodwork and I couldn't be happier about that. (Duh, sarcasm.)
I think I'm in a process of trying to determine Needs v. Wants. I WANT to find some velvet jackets in pretty season-spanning colours. I NEED some pants that fit. I WANT some cute pointy shoes. I NEED some warm winter boots that fit. I WANT a new ferret to keep the one I have company. I NEED a larger ferret habitat for him. I WANT a digital picture frame, and have, for a while now. (How cool are they? I have a thing for Mod Minimalism in my bones one frame, 1,400 images, no clutter!) I NEED to see if the sticky controls on my existing camera can be repaired. I WANT to get my car details. I NEED to take it to Jiffy Lube for an oil change. And so on.
I both NEED and WANT a new computer, but I'm freaked out by the inevitable cost and worried that whatever I buy will be technologically obsolete or have Expensive Issues or not run the pricey software I have on my current machine already.
I haven't shopped in approximately five years. For anything. I don't know what stores have what. I hate crowds. I hate Christmas music. I hate traffic. I NEED groceries (if not for me, as I could TECHNICALLY subsist on overpriced pizza and soda for years, for my pet) but I don't WANT to get out of my warm, fugly sweats and put on my semifashionable clothing and some cover stick and face the neighbors at Food Lion or Kroger.
I miss Kozmo.com. That was the Nazz, man. Everything BUT cute shoes delivered right to your door. The cost of gasoline and time saved was greater than the delivery fee. Alas, poor Kozmo, I knew him well; an Internet company of infinite convenience.
The cooler weather makes me hermitty anyway.
I don't know what I'm going to do about Christmas gifts. My check isn't so grand that I can run out and buy people new cars or anything. Not even the anticipated larger one or two I'm due soon could do that. Basically, it's like I'm working minimum wage fulltime all month, but not having to actually listen to "Frosty The Snowman" and shrieking toddlers and brittle fundies getting personally offended over "Happy Holidays" rather than Jesus-centric "Merry Christmas" crap everywhere (hello, not everyone is in The Cult of The Jesus, the Nice Dead Jewish Man Unfairly Nailed To a Tree (and what about the tree's feelings in the matter, the pagans might say?), and some of those who are find you fundie types to be tedious and embarrassing, anyway) for ten hours a day in painful shoes.
I can't even order online because I no longer know my size. "Bigger" is probably the best bet. And yet, not Condemned To Lane Bryant and Elastic Waistbands big. (I think I'd prefer to wear a muumuu if that were the case. Lane Bryant thinks fatter--i.e., not bulimic twig-type--gals like looking like defensive ends (what's with the shoulda-ma-pads?), Crayola boxes, Christmas trees or Easter baskets (yeah, putting glitter and ribbons on something makes it look visually SMALLER...not), and fire hydrants with boobs. Lane Bryant makes Rubensesque gals look like trailer park residents, or Joan Cusack in Working Girl. It's a bad thing. Then again, maybe there's been a sea change in old LB over the past 5-6 years and they don't have the whole "cute holdiay sweater and stirrup leggings" fashion aesthetic anymore.)
Basically, I think my issue is that I have the tools now to make some changes in my life, be it as frivolous as "cute shoes that weren't made twenty years ago" or as important as a laptop that doesn't suck, and I'm scared of making bad decisions. Really scared. I keep pining for a job, and I think that's less because I seriously think I'd have TIME to be employed and rush to finish grad school and more because I don't want to spend several hundred dollars without having more money coming in to shore that stockpile of financial ease back up.
Or maybe I'm mentally tweaked and unable to relax for a little while and enjoy the fact that I don't feel this crushing weight gripping my heart and stomach all the time over money worries. It's like I don't know what to do with myself, and I don't trust the feeling to last. Which, of course, it won't if I use the windfall unwisely. There's legitimate concern involved. I have two spending modes when I have money super responsible, saving for a specific goal, thrifty and then there's the mode I went into 15 years ago, where a year's worth of unwise purchases made to blanket over depression and heartache and stress ruined my credit. Not really fair,is it, that years of smart financial behavior could be undone in less than 12 months due to a bout of shopaholism. But it was. And subsequently living on the edge of poverty or as a student has forced me not to indulge my material goods-related whims. Those fashion TV shows where the hosts are constantly poo-poohing sticker shock really irk me. I'm sorry, I don't need a $4000 handbag or $900 pair of shoes. I just don't. You can make the guests feel like they are being yokels when they gape at the price tags, but I'm with them in spirit, at least up to a point. (You should buy quality things, classic cuts, durable clothing and pay more for that; save your cheapness for trendy things. In my humble opinion. So you have on $200 wool pants tailored especially for you and a $5 tee-shirt in a colour that suits you. So what? The pants will be around, the tee will be given to charity or reused for an art project or recycled into an art project (only if you're actually craftsy, please) and you won't feel so bad about it.) It's that fine line between being cheap and being smart that's hard to define. I HATE buying pants. My bum can go from a size 8 to a 14, and that's depending on stress and manufacturer sizing and time of the month. I can't just point to something online and say "I like those, mail them to me!" and expect them to fit. Oh no, I must take a whole day to get half nekkid in a grungy niche and feel obese because most of the cutest pants won't fit or the rise will be pornographic in its tininess or the ankles will taper (gross) or the wash will be weird (acid wash is 80s, y'all, cut it out) or the pockets will be wrong or I'll just plain feel ugly. I HATE BUYING PANTS. Alas, 99% of the time, I WEAR pants. See the problem? Also: I HATE buying shoes (but my feet have Issues that make most shoes torturous to wear, it's not that I lack the female gene for Cute Shoe Lustings totally) and resist buying them in "fun" colours.
These are not problems. It's nice to say that my biggest problem right this second is a lack of motivation to go out into the chill and deal with frantic holiday shoppers. I'm going to have to suck it up and go grocery shopping tonight (hell, I may just swallow my pride and GO in my ratty sweats...something I never, never do in public; and, to be fair, even at home I'd be more likely to slum around in a nice robe and flattering jammies all day if I were to be slothful...I mean, I owned but rarely actually WORE sweats until last year; the ones I dug out are left over from 20 years ago). They make me do boring aerobics, at least.
WHy am I hating people so much lately? No one specific is irking me. I think there may be something to a study that found that people who watch telly more are more cynical. The onlyflaw with this theory is that I tended to be cynical even when I hadn't seen TV in 6 years. Maybe a wee bit less so. Perhaps less news and more "cute shoes!" showsb are in order.
I still won't buy a $900 pair of shoes. That's ridiculous. Even if / when I'm a millionaire, I think I'll draw the line there. What's wrong with people? If you're vain enough to buy $900 shoes for the season, then you have to maintain that the next season. And you can't wear the same $900 pair of shoes each and every day, they'll rot on your feet, so you can't buy just ONE pair of $900 shoes. It's just nuts. Makes about as much sense to me as mink underwear or diamond suspenders. Wasteful.
You know where I HAVE wasted money? Overpriced cosmetics. I was cleaning out my cupboards in the bathroom the other day and whereas much of it was gifted by friends working for MAC or Lancome or whatever, I've given Ulta 3 and Sephora somebucks before. I admit it. And then I hate to use them, because they are so expensive and they never look as appealing once they've been half-used. Craziness. Even then, I have limits. $20 for a lipstick? Hell no. I only actually use the same eyeshadow quad, the same two-three types of mascara, the same two-three shades of lipstick, the same two-three shades of rouge, the same wet and the same powder foundation, the same cover stick. Rarely all at once. I have a few brand loyalties. My brand of clove cigarettes. My perfume. My hair conditioner. My cover stick. My lip balm. All else is up for grabs. I try to deviate, I go back to the old standbys. I get cranky when they discontinue things. (My cloves. My perfume.)
I guess spending $30 on a cosmetic goodie once every five years or so isn't too crazy. Did I mention I bought a flat iron? I'm feeling guilty about that. Misplaced guilt. I'll feel guilty if I actually find and buy some pretty velvet jackets in colours other than basic black. (I don't know what my thing about tactile fabrics is. Doesn't hurt anyone, though, so...) Even when I made an effort to steer away from unrelieved acres of blackness in my wardrobe, I managed to be particular about any deviations. And I'd wear them with black. About ten years ago,I made an effort to wear outfits in different colours, like pale powder blue from head to toe, but I always go back to black, red/burgundy, forest, silver, shades of deeper blue, occasional purples and fuschias, but even now I wear everything with black. At least I match. :)
I suspect that I'll wait to buy anything for myself (unless the perfect jacket presents itself) until after the holidays. I'll make a list of Christmas gift "obligations" (so to speak) and get them all bought in a day (though WHICH day is up for grabs) and feel a sense of relief (and sudden poverty, because I'm not used to shopping and will be spending over a hundred bucks in ONE DAY, Oh my GOD! The horror!!) when I get home away from the crowds and "Jungle Bells" and rum-pa-pum-pum and stress.
I'm not right. *sigh*
At least I have the perfect journal entry icon: a cat who really, REALLY loves shoes. :)
Does it surprise anyone that Florida voting machines have apparently lost 18,000 votes? "Lost," they say. Harrumph. These are, as MoveOn puts it, votes "for Congress--votes almost certain to change the outcome of a close House race in Sarasota." I think the margin is approximately 350 votes.
"This election meltdown demonstrates the insanity of paperless voting machines. There's no way to recount the votes short of holding a new election. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi--along with Republican and Democratic leaders-are deciding now if Congress will tolerate this broken election or call for a new one. The decision could come any day-and once it's made, it's hard to reverse. Can you sign this petition urging Congress to call for a re-vote in Sarasota, Florida and to repair our nation's elections?
And then ask your friends and family to do the same."
If you care, the petition is here: http://pol.moveon.org/floridaelection/?id=9601-3579414-dNasq68VU48K1h4emzGENA&t=2
Truly, regardless of your personal political beliefs, accountability is key in any election.
My comments:
I have not trusted the electronic voting techniques or machines for nearly a decade. We are taxed but not truly being represented (among other things) if votes cannot be checked reliably against machine error or fraud. The possibility of human error, deceit, or technological breakdown are too great.
Why even give a hint of impropriety that would risk further dividing the country politically when accountability can be supported with paper records? Until the population at large is trusted to walk around without paper copies of driver's licences, birth certificates, social security cards, and so on, other important documents and parts of the democratic process must likewise not be transparent or hidden.
You'd think that the uproar over the last two Presidential elections would have nudged decision makers into using some sense on this issues. The public at large demands accountability. If we can't trust Diebold, or partisan officials, for whatever reason, then it is not yet time, and may never be time, for machines that record votes but have no backup data recording. Computers crash. People with partisan goals are tempted to fudge results. Hacking is not out of the question, and the stakes are too high.
We need to stop monkeying around with the vote. People are already discouraged from voting, be it from apathy or the deeply-rooted conviction that their vote doesn't matter and that their officials will not put forth due diligence when it comes time to accurately reflect the will of the people who elected them.
Right now we should be working to close the credibility gap when it comes to voting irregularities. Have documented and verifiable records of each and every vote, and do so, even if it is forever, until the population at large is comfortable with the technology involved with paperless, unverifiable electronic records. If we (collectively) are wise, we will never trust any tallying machine that suffers breakdowns, data loss, the possibility of finagling or hacking, and so on, that does not also have a verifiable hard-copy of each citizen's preferences in each election.
If, and one hopes this is not the case, these multiple voting irregularies are not being tackled as strenuously as they could be because one party and one party's political goals are benefiting from the problems, then those that feel they may benefit or have benefitted from computer-related voting irregularities (now and previously) may well have different feelings when, as is inevitable, popular opinion appears to be running more towards their opponents' candidates and political goals. Why not show good faith by correcting the problem "while you're ahead" rather than waiting for the opposition to initiate steps to take care of the problems once and for all when they hold all the cookies (so to speak) and may be less motivated or more tempted to try and "even the score" by letting themselves benefit for a while from the same disputed issues and vote count irregularities? Just something to consider.
Also, comments attributed to staunchly Republican Diebold executives to "deliver the vote" for their party are worrisome. Was this something that was actually said? I haven't done due diloigence by researching it for myself firsthand, but I have heard this comment, rarely varied much in word choice or tone, repeated from several sources.
One problem we face with the Internet is that with many to many communications, everyone is allowed to comment and everyone's comments are given potentially equal weight. The issue with this is not that we should discount individual opinions, but that inevitably some opinions are going to be less well-informed, and unfortunately less valuable as a result. Fewer people are capable of researching things on their own these days, and fewer still go to an actual "bricks and mortar" library. Even then, you have to rely on the library staff to stock and purchase reliable reference material.
Libraries justifiably exclude materials such as tabloids from their holdings, but, surprisingly, The Enquirer and Tattler both wrote accurate articles about nuclear waste transport (at one time, passengers and waste cargo were shipped in the same planes and trains across the country and in direct routes over heavily populated areas--that is asking for disaster on a grand scale) and the O.J. Simpson trial (which may have affected the outcome of the civil trial even if most of the information discovered was discovered too late for the criminal trial). That data aside, tabloids are a useful research for certain kinds of researchers. Just as papers are written about the impact of television on popular opinion and vice versa, the tabloid appeals to a certain segment of the population and you can grasp the level of recognition certain celebrities and public figures have by whether or not the tabloids milk them for articles (even fictional ones). Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewart, John Wayne were all recognized by the masses, but no one wanted to read about their foibles in print. Conversely, when Jackie Kennedy married Ari Onassis, the backlash among the audience that reads tabloids was intense. The feeling was that she had gone from Queen of Camelot to Benedict Arnold overnight. Princess Diana was being racked over the coals on the eve of her death for being fat and promiscuous and an irresponsible parent, and then when she became a martyr figure in death, the same papers that villified her deified her. Tabloids may be trash, but they accurately gauge the tide of public opinion and hold value that way, if in no other way. Another point to ponder is that the media has become as celeb-obsessed as tabs used to beand the turning point was not Gary Hart being busted with Donna Rice on the Monkey Business (photos of which tabs scooped first) but perhaps The Sexgate Clinton Lewinski scandal, where reputable news outlets milked the story dry faster and with more heat than the tabs could match, mostly by virtue of their publishing schedule limitations. Where tabs once had the edge in "brutal" reporting, they are not limited to what they can quote, but Court TV will replay pretty much anything, with or without a censor's bleep applied, and thus have the edge in scandal. This is almost the equivalent of what the Hays Act did to movies: some silent films show genitalia and decapitation and racfial insensitivity, and after the Hays Act, what could or could not be shown to the public was locked into a very narrow set of guidelines. Sort of the equivalent of having television and film spouses having to have twin beds and keep one foot on the floor on opposite sides of a mattress at all times to avoid impropriety. If you think about it, older eras do not equate to more puritanical eras (and the Puritans were not exactly as puritanical as we think, if you look at documents from the era, but I digress). The 20s were certainly more freewheeling and wild than the 40s or 50s were. The 60s exhibited more free-thinking (at least that we can observe from the outside) than did the 80s or 90s. We take two steps forward, one back and two off to the side far more often than do we progress in a straightforward fashion. Every freedom of thought or behavior inspires a backlash of fundamentalism and cdlosed-mindedness. We seek balance, perhaps. Those who push freemindedness too far, or value the "wrong" kinds of expression, and push the less comfortable public at large to accept it, often trigger these backlashes. It's like a parent who was allowed to read whatever they wanted by their parents when they were young, but, when they have children, they second-guess the impact of the same reading material on their own children. Or, worse, fail to examine it first and condemn it based on rumor and fear. (How else could anyone condemn the overall harmlessness of Harry Potter books? The worst thing that would have happened to me would have been underscoring what I was learning about Latin and French or Celtic / Greco-Roman legends and mythologies at the time! She's really lighter on Crowley-esque--if they exist at all--and heavier on CS Lewis-ish story arcs.)
These days the five or six tabloids are all owned by the same media conglomerate, a change that few probably noticed. If you aren't the prime market for tabloid purchasing, which I'm not, you wouldn't necessarily even notice a difference. Basically, they all take over certain aspects of each story, and the top three (Globe, Star, Enquirer...I think) leave the two-headed cows, anal-probing aliens, Batboys, World's Fattest [Fill in the Blank] and Ed Anger bigot rants to The Weekly World News and their ilk, which people are not supposed to take seriously anyway.
I mentioned that I got my legacy cheque. Oddly enough, other than buying a pizza or two and some towels, I haven't had any interest or energy in going shopping, even for Christmas or things I need. Now that I have some money, I'm really tight-fisted with it. On reflection, this seems to be a pattern. When I'm stocked up on food, I eat less. When I have money, I'm tight with it. When I have a wholepack of cigarettes, I don't feel the urge to smoke a clove. It's when, as is inevitable, my grocery stockpiles dwindle or my money is tight or I'm down to two or three smokes that I become focused on them and feel the urges and needs more keenly. I wonder if this applies to my love life? When I've got all I want in another human being andamin a relationship, I'm happy and content, but not particularly jealous or worried about my partner. When I'm single, I definitely go through a period where I miss having someone around and analyze and fret and worry that I'll die alone and my dead body will be discovered after it is partially eaten either by the fourteen cats I'll probably own or an Alsatian. Right now I'm in a "don't give a crap either way" frame of mind, which seems to bring the Undesirables out of the woodwork and I couldn't be happier about that. (Duh, sarcasm.)
I think I'm in a process of trying to determine Needs v. Wants. I WANT to find some velvet jackets in pretty season-spanning colours. I NEED some pants that fit. I WANT some cute pointy shoes. I NEED some warm winter boots that fit. I WANT a new ferret to keep the one I have company. I NEED a larger ferret habitat for him. I WANT a digital picture frame, and have, for a while now. (How cool are they? I have a thing for Mod Minimalism in my bones one frame, 1,400 images, no clutter!) I NEED to see if the sticky controls on my existing camera can be repaired. I WANT to get my car details. I NEED to take it to Jiffy Lube for an oil change. And so on.
I both NEED and WANT a new computer, but I'm freaked out by the inevitable cost and worried that whatever I buy will be technologically obsolete or have Expensive Issues or not run the pricey software I have on my current machine already.
I haven't shopped in approximately five years. For anything. I don't know what stores have what. I hate crowds. I hate Christmas music. I hate traffic. I NEED groceries (if not for me, as I could TECHNICALLY subsist on overpriced pizza and soda for years, for my pet) but I don't WANT to get out of my warm, fugly sweats and put on my semifashionable clothing and some cover stick and face the neighbors at Food Lion or Kroger.
I miss Kozmo.com. That was the Nazz, man. Everything BUT cute shoes delivered right to your door. The cost of gasoline and time saved was greater than the delivery fee. Alas, poor Kozmo, I knew him well; an Internet company of infinite convenience.
The cooler weather makes me hermitty anyway.
I don't know what I'm going to do about Christmas gifts. My check isn't so grand that I can run out and buy people new cars or anything. Not even the anticipated larger one or two I'm due soon could do that. Basically, it's like I'm working minimum wage fulltime all month, but not having to actually listen to "Frosty The Snowman" and shrieking toddlers and brittle fundies getting personally offended over "Happy Holidays" rather than Jesus-centric "Merry Christmas" crap everywhere (hello, not everyone is in The Cult of The Jesus, the Nice Dead Jewish Man Unfairly Nailed To a Tree (and what about the tree's feelings in the matter, the pagans might say?), and some of those who are find you fundie types to be tedious and embarrassing, anyway) for ten hours a day in painful shoes.
I can't even order online because I no longer know my size. "Bigger" is probably the best bet. And yet, not Condemned To Lane Bryant and Elastic Waistbands big. (I think I'd prefer to wear a muumuu if that were the case. Lane Bryant thinks fatter--i.e., not bulimic twig-type--gals like looking like defensive ends (what's with the shoulda-ma-pads?), Crayola boxes, Christmas trees or Easter baskets (yeah, putting glitter and ribbons on something makes it look visually SMALLER...not), and fire hydrants with boobs. Lane Bryant makes Rubensesque gals look like trailer park residents, or Joan Cusack in Working Girl. It's a bad thing. Then again, maybe there's been a sea change in old LB over the past 5-6 years and they don't have the whole "cute holdiay sweater and stirrup leggings" fashion aesthetic anymore.)
Basically, I think my issue is that I have the tools now to make some changes in my life, be it as frivolous as "cute shoes that weren't made twenty years ago" or as important as a laptop that doesn't suck, and I'm scared of making bad decisions. Really scared. I keep pining for a job, and I think that's less because I seriously think I'd have TIME to be employed and rush to finish grad school and more because I don't want to spend several hundred dollars without having more money coming in to shore that stockpile of financial ease back up.
Or maybe I'm mentally tweaked and unable to relax for a little while and enjoy the fact that I don't feel this crushing weight gripping my heart and stomach all the time over money worries. It's like I don't know what to do with myself, and I don't trust the feeling to last. Which, of course, it won't if I use the windfall unwisely. There's legitimate concern involved. I have two spending modes when I have money super responsible, saving for a specific goal, thrifty and then there's the mode I went into 15 years ago, where a year's worth of unwise purchases made to blanket over depression and heartache and stress ruined my credit. Not really fair,is it, that years of smart financial behavior could be undone in less than 12 months due to a bout of shopaholism. But it was. And subsequently living on the edge of poverty or as a student has forced me not to indulge my material goods-related whims. Those fashion TV shows where the hosts are constantly poo-poohing sticker shock really irk me. I'm sorry, I don't need a $4000 handbag or $900 pair of shoes. I just don't. You can make the guests feel like they are being yokels when they gape at the price tags, but I'm with them in spirit, at least up to a point. (You should buy quality things, classic cuts, durable clothing and pay more for that; save your cheapness for trendy things. In my humble opinion. So you have on $200 wool pants tailored especially for you and a $5 tee-shirt in a colour that suits you. So what? The pants will be around, the tee will be given to charity or reused for an art project or recycled into an art project (only if you're actually craftsy, please) and you won't feel so bad about it.) It's that fine line between being cheap and being smart that's hard to define. I HATE buying pants. My bum can go from a size 8 to a 14, and that's depending on stress and manufacturer sizing and time of the month. I can't just point to something online and say "I like those, mail them to me!" and expect them to fit. Oh no, I must take a whole day to get half nekkid in a grungy niche and feel obese because most of the cutest pants won't fit or the rise will be pornographic in its tininess or the ankles will taper (gross) or the wash will be weird (acid wash is 80s, y'all, cut it out) or the pockets will be wrong or I'll just plain feel ugly. I HATE BUYING PANTS. Alas, 99% of the time, I WEAR pants. See the problem? Also: I HATE buying shoes (but my feet have Issues that make most shoes torturous to wear, it's not that I lack the female gene for Cute Shoe Lustings totally) and resist buying them in "fun" colours.
These are not problems. It's nice to say that my biggest problem right this second is a lack of motivation to go out into the chill and deal with frantic holiday shoppers. I'm going to have to suck it up and go grocery shopping tonight (hell, I may just swallow my pride and GO in my ratty sweats...something I never, never do in public; and, to be fair, even at home I'd be more likely to slum around in a nice robe and flattering jammies all day if I were to be slothful...I mean, I owned but rarely actually WORE sweats until last year; the ones I dug out are left over from 20 years ago). They make me do boring aerobics, at least.
WHy am I hating people so much lately? No one specific is irking me. I think there may be something to a study that found that people who watch telly more are more cynical. The onlyflaw with this theory is that I tended to be cynical even when I hadn't seen TV in 6 years. Maybe a wee bit less so. Perhaps less news and more "cute shoes!" showsb are in order.
I still won't buy a $900 pair of shoes. That's ridiculous. Even if / when I'm a millionaire, I think I'll draw the line there. What's wrong with people? If you're vain enough to buy $900 shoes for the season, then you have to maintain that the next season. And you can't wear the same $900 pair of shoes each and every day, they'll rot on your feet, so you can't buy just ONE pair of $900 shoes. It's just nuts. Makes about as much sense to me as mink underwear or diamond suspenders. Wasteful.
You know where I HAVE wasted money? Overpriced cosmetics. I was cleaning out my cupboards in the bathroom the other day and whereas much of it was gifted by friends working for MAC or Lancome or whatever, I've given Ulta 3 and Sephora somebucks before. I admit it. And then I hate to use them, because they are so expensive and they never look as appealing once they've been half-used. Craziness. Even then, I have limits. $20 for a lipstick? Hell no. I only actually use the same eyeshadow quad, the same two-three types of mascara, the same two-three shades of lipstick, the same two-three shades of rouge, the same wet and the same powder foundation, the same cover stick. Rarely all at once. I have a few brand loyalties. My brand of clove cigarettes. My perfume. My hair conditioner. My cover stick. My lip balm. All else is up for grabs. I try to deviate, I go back to the old standbys. I get cranky when they discontinue things. (My cloves. My perfume.)
I guess spending $30 on a cosmetic goodie once every five years or so isn't too crazy. Did I mention I bought a flat iron? I'm feeling guilty about that. Misplaced guilt. I'll feel guilty if I actually find and buy some pretty velvet jackets in colours other than basic black. (I don't know what my thing about tactile fabrics is. Doesn't hurt anyone, though, so...) Even when I made an effort to steer away from unrelieved acres of blackness in my wardrobe, I managed to be particular about any deviations. And I'd wear them with black. About ten years ago,I made an effort to wear outfits in different colours, like pale powder blue from head to toe, but I always go back to black, red/burgundy, forest, silver, shades of deeper blue, occasional purples and fuschias, but even now I wear everything with black. At least I match. :)
I suspect that I'll wait to buy anything for myself (unless the perfect jacket presents itself) until after the holidays. I'll make a list of Christmas gift "obligations" (so to speak) and get them all bought in a day (though WHICH day is up for grabs) and feel a sense of relief (and sudden poverty, because I'm not used to shopping and will be spending over a hundred bucks in ONE DAY, Oh my GOD! The horror!!) when I get home away from the crowds and "Jungle Bells" and rum-pa-pum-pum and stress.
I'm not right. *sigh*
At least I have the perfect journal entry icon: a cat who really, REALLY loves shoes. :)