Happy Wednesday!
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Saturday, April 16, 2011
The One With a Picture
It's Saturday. It's Saturday and I'm working and don't have any interesting stories, but I do have a picture I found on my phone.
Here it is. Take that, hipsters!
Here it is. Take that, hipsters!
Thursday, April 14, 2011
The One With Offensive People Reading Books
My apologies to those of you who read this blog in a reader. The html etc. in my last post was messed up in an epic sort of way. I think I got it figured out.
Also, I just realized that, even though they were about a month apart, I began the post before this one and the one before that by talking about how much I love books. Sorry to be repetitive.
When we last met, I told you about offensive books that may or may not actually be offensive. Today is kind of along the same lines, but the offensiveness of the next book in question is more ambiguous. At least, it is to me.
Have you ever had one of those conversations with people that, you THINK you know the other person's opinion on something, but then it turns out you're WAY wrong
Par example, you're talking to someone about American Idol (which. . .I DO NOT WATCH), and the person you're talking to says, "Can you believe the shaggy haired guy?"
Now, their tone of voice leads you to believe that they share your opinion on the shaggy haired guy: that he's the most dreamy, talented man to ever stand behind a microphone. (Note: If there are currently any shaggy haired guys on American Idol, that is just a coincidence. I do not watch.) So you nod emphatically.
Then the other person continues by saying, "Seriously. Don't you have to have some TALENT and SEX APPEAL to be on these shows?"
Whoops.
Had you opened your mouth, the conversation would have ended quite differently, perhaps with a fistfight. Instead, your friend thinks you agree on something, and you know for sure your friend has lousy taste in men.
I think you know the types of conversations I mean. I had one of those today.
This lady and I were discussing banned books, and she said, "Oh, we banned a book once."
I THOUGHT she meant this particular library branch. That someone had complained, and they had removed a book because of it.
"Oh yeah?" I asked, wittily.
"Yeah," she said. "It was this book. . .I think it was called 'Two Princes.' It was about this prince trying to find a princess, but he couldn't find one he liked, and he ended up with another prince. A man."
"Oh," I said, rolling my eyes in a knowing manner. "That's ridiculous." My eyeroll was meant to convey that I, too, thought it was ridiculous that they would ban a book for something as innocuous as a gay king. The misunderstanding of the conversation went both ways, however, as I learned when she continued with, "I know. Can you believe it? A gay king. In a children's book! Once I figured out what was going to happen, I stopped reading the book to my grandchildren immediately!"
Oh.
Oh.
This lady wasn't offended that a book about gay princes had been removed from the library. She was offended there was a book about gay princes written.
"I collected all of them from this library and shipped them off to other branches," she said as she walked away, basking in her own smugness.
. . . . . . .
Apparently, it's in vogue now to promote small-mindedness and lifestyles different than your own. Excellent.
Incidentally, the book she was talking about is King and King by Linda de Haan.
Unfortunately, it looks like that lady won, because we have no copies in the system. But along with the bad, there is some good. The absolute cutest book I think I've seen in life is called "Where's Walrus?" by Stephen Savage. (I'd post a picture, but Blogger is giving me fits today, so you should just click on it to give it a look.) It's about this walrus that escapes from the zoo and hides from the zookeepper by putting on different hats and taking on different jobs. The book has no words, just pictures, but it's awesome. Kind of makes me want to go have a kid so I'd have an excuse to buy it. Maybe next time I'll find something other than books to talk about.
Then Again, Maybe I Won't.
Also, I just realized that, even though they were about a month apart, I began the post before this one and the one before that by talking about how much I love books. Sorry to be repetitive.
When we last met, I told you about offensive books that may or may not actually be offensive. Today is kind of along the same lines, but the offensiveness of the next book in question is more ambiguous. At least, it is to me.
Have you ever had one of those conversations with people that, you THINK you know the other person's opinion on something, but then it turns out you're WAY wrong
Par example, you're talking to someone about American Idol (which. . .I DO NOT WATCH), and the person you're talking to says, "Can you believe the shaggy haired guy?"
Now, their tone of voice leads you to believe that they share your opinion on the shaggy haired guy: that he's the most dreamy, talented man to ever stand behind a microphone. (Note: If there are currently any shaggy haired guys on American Idol, that is just a coincidence. I do not watch.) So you nod emphatically.
Then the other person continues by saying, "Seriously. Don't you have to have some TALENT and SEX APPEAL to be on these shows?"
Whoops.
Had you opened your mouth, the conversation would have ended quite differently, perhaps with a fistfight. Instead, your friend thinks you agree on something, and you know for sure your friend has lousy taste in men.
I think you know the types of conversations I mean. I had one of those today.
This lady and I were discussing banned books, and she said, "Oh, we banned a book once."
I THOUGHT she meant this particular library branch. That someone had complained, and they had removed a book because of it.
"Oh yeah?" I asked, wittily.
"Yeah," she said. "It was this book. . .I think it was called 'Two Princes.' It was about this prince trying to find a princess, but he couldn't find one he liked, and he ended up with another prince. A man."
"Oh," I said, rolling my eyes in a knowing manner. "That's ridiculous." My eyeroll was meant to convey that I, too, thought it was ridiculous that they would ban a book for something as innocuous as a gay king. The misunderstanding of the conversation went both ways, however, as I learned when she continued with, "I know. Can you believe it? A gay king. In a children's book! Once I figured out what was going to happen, I stopped reading the book to my grandchildren immediately!"
Oh.
Oh.
This lady wasn't offended that a book about gay princes had been removed from the library. She was offended there was a book about gay princes written.
"I collected all of them from this library and shipped them off to other branches," she said as she walked away, basking in her own smugness.
. . . . . . .
Apparently, it's in vogue now to promote small-mindedness and lifestyles different than your own. Excellent.
Incidentally, the book she was talking about is King and King by Linda de Haan.
Unfortunately, it looks like that lady won, because we have no copies in the system. But along with the bad, there is some good. The absolute cutest book I think I've seen in life is called "Where's Walrus?" by Stephen Savage. (I'd post a picture, but Blogger is giving me fits today, so you should just click on it to give it a look.) It's about this walrus that escapes from the zoo and hides from the zookeepper by putting on different hats and taking on different jobs. The book has no words, just pictures, but it's awesome. Kind of makes me want to go have a kid so I'd have an excuse to buy it. Maybe next time I'll find something other than books to talk about.
Then Again, Maybe I Won't.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
The One With the Offensive Books
I love books.
I think anyone who knows me knows how I feel about books in general, libraries, reading, etc. Love it.
So today, when one of my new co-workers brought up two books that had been "challenged" in the system by people who wanted them removed, I was interested in what other people find offensive.
The premise of the book is that this monkey is reading a book, and this donkey (introduced in the first couple of pages, actually, as a "jackass") doesn't get that in order to read a book, you don't need all kinds of electronic gadgets.
"How do you scroll down?" asks the donkey.
The monkey replies, "I don't. I turn the page. It's a book."
"Can you make the characters fight?" asks the donkey.
Again, the monkey replies, "No. It's a book."
And on and on. Finally, at the end of the book, the monkey passes over his book to the donkey and then heads out to the library to get another one. "Don't worry!" the donkey calls out. "I'll charge it when I'm done!"
At this point, the mouse that lives under the monkey's hat says, "You don't need to. . ."
And when you turn the page, he finishes his sentence: ". . .it's a book, jackass!"
I laughed when I read that. It was a very funny, very cute, well-illustrated book. The problem? It is categorized in our Easy Reader, picture book section. Call me old-fashioned, call me too PC, say whatever you want, but I agree with whichever patron is it that brought this to our attention.
Can you imagine being up in front of a group of small elementary school-aged kids (and their parents!) and reading this out loud? Admittedly, if you're super-vigilant about what your kids read and you want to avoid profanity (even though yes, I KNOW "jackass" is another word for "donkey." I know this. But the double entendre is clearly intentional), then you should be screening the books beforehand. Sometimes, though, you just can't do that.
My vote on this one? Keep the book in the system (because it really is good), but put it in Juvenile Fiction, or even Adult Humor. Most of the story would go over young kids' heads anyway. (What little kid knows what a blog is? Or Twitter?)
Book #2 was "The Polar Bears Are Hungry" by Carol Carrick.
The story is about a mother polar bear and her cubs looking for hard-to-find food and ending up trying to break into a house to get food, being brought to "bear jail" and then being re-released into the wild. The pictures are beautiful. There is a vague liberal global warming agenda, but while it would be pretty obvious to astute parents, unless a parent wanted to say, "And all this is happening because of X, Y, and Z," kids wouldn't get it. How frightening the book would be would, in all actuality, depend on the tone of voice of the adult reading it.
The person who complained said there were pictures of bears viciously eating seals (not true. It just mentioned the bear was hunting seals. Which. . .they do.); that they "drugged" the bears and sent them to "jail" (true, but not as frightening as the lady made it out to be); and she said that it was "propegating" the "theory" of global warming, which is SO UNTRUE, because everyone smart knows that the Earth has, throughout the years, goes through periods of extreme heat and extreme cold.
I'd like to pause a moment here and comment that, um, did she not just disprove herself? She said the Earth isn't any hotter than it was 20 years ago, but then she goes on to say that the Earth continually gets hotter and colder.
Um?
She suggested that we get rid of every copy of that book in our system and send them back to the publisher, and that we then buy books about the REAL eating habits and habitats of polar bears. Which, I'm pretty sure this book has all of those things.
I guess some people just need to complain and be indignant.
One of my co-workers suggested maybe she just wants us to have copies of books about how polar bears hang out at the North Pole, where it's always frigid, with Santa and his elves.
That made me laugh.
If I haven't bored you enough yet, more about books in my next post, including offensively gay books and the cutest book I've ever read.
So what do you guys think? Should we ban profanity and books about the natural life cycle?
I think anyone who knows me knows how I feel about books in general, libraries, reading, etc. Love it.
So today, when one of my new co-workers brought up two books that had been "challenged" in the system by people who wanted them removed, I was interested in what other people find offensive.
Book #1 was "It's a Book" by Lane Smith.
The premise of the book is that this monkey is reading a book, and this donkey (introduced in the first couple of pages, actually, as a "jackass") doesn't get that in order to read a book, you don't need all kinds of electronic gadgets.
"How do you scroll down?" asks the donkey.
The monkey replies, "I don't. I turn the page. It's a book."
"Can you make the characters fight?" asks the donkey.
Again, the monkey replies, "No. It's a book."
And on and on. Finally, at the end of the book, the monkey passes over his book to the donkey and then heads out to the library to get another one. "Don't worry!" the donkey calls out. "I'll charge it when I'm done!"
At this point, the mouse that lives under the monkey's hat says, "You don't need to. . ."
And when you turn the page, he finishes his sentence: ". . .it's a book, jackass!"
I laughed when I read that. It was a very funny, very cute, well-illustrated book. The problem? It is categorized in our Easy Reader, picture book section. Call me old-fashioned, call me too PC, say whatever you want, but I agree with whichever patron is it that brought this to our attention.
Can you imagine being up in front of a group of small elementary school-aged kids (and their parents!) and reading this out loud? Admittedly, if you're super-vigilant about what your kids read and you want to avoid profanity (even though yes, I KNOW "jackass" is another word for "donkey." I know this. But the double entendre is clearly intentional), then you should be screening the books beforehand. Sometimes, though, you just can't do that.
My vote on this one? Keep the book in the system (because it really is good), but put it in Juvenile Fiction, or even Adult Humor. Most of the story would go over young kids' heads anyway. (What little kid knows what a blog is? Or Twitter?)
Book #2 was "The Polar Bears Are Hungry" by Carol Carrick.
The story is about a mother polar bear and her cubs looking for hard-to-find food and ending up trying to break into a house to get food, being brought to "bear jail" and then being re-released into the wild. The pictures are beautiful. There is a vague liberal global warming agenda, but while it would be pretty obvious to astute parents, unless a parent wanted to say, "And all this is happening because of X, Y, and Z," kids wouldn't get it. How frightening the book would be would, in all actuality, depend on the tone of voice of the adult reading it.
The person who complained said there were pictures of bears viciously eating seals (not true. It just mentioned the bear was hunting seals. Which. . .they do.); that they "drugged" the bears and sent them to "jail" (true, but not as frightening as the lady made it out to be); and she said that it was "propegating" the "theory" of global warming, which is SO UNTRUE, because everyone smart knows that the Earth has, throughout the years, goes through periods of extreme heat and extreme cold.
I'd like to pause a moment here and comment that, um, did she not just disprove herself? She said the Earth isn't any hotter than it was 20 years ago, but then she goes on to say that the Earth continually gets hotter and colder.
Um?
She suggested that we get rid of every copy of that book in our system and send them back to the publisher, and that we then buy books about the REAL eating habits and habitats of polar bears. Which, I'm pretty sure this book has all of those things.
I guess some people just need to complain and be indignant.
One of my co-workers suggested maybe she just wants us to have copies of books about how polar bears hang out at the North Pole, where it's always frigid, with Santa and his elves.
That made me laugh.
If I haven't bored you enough yet, more about books in my next post, including offensively gay books and the cutest book I've ever read.
So what do you guys think? Should we ban profanity and books about the natural life cycle?
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
The One Where HarperCollins Hates Libraries
Sorry for the hiatus, y'all. Lots going on, not feeling like talking about most of it.
There comes a time in everyone's life, I think, where you realize that big companies, with their millions of dollars of income every year, are really just out to screw you. I've already said my piece about insurance companies, but now I have a new company upon which to unleash my (completely justified!) bile: HarperCollins.
Most of you know I work in a library. I refer to myself as a librarian even though I haven't found the money to go back for my degree to make it official. But here's one thing I don't need a degree for: I love books. I love books as much as I love food, and you guys know that's a LOT.
When e-Books started being a thing, I worried. I worried that the printed book was going to go out of style in a few years, and I worried that I'd be forced to get an e-Reader just to read the books I love so much.
My house is full of books. There are books everywhere. I'm always reading. Books and reading and all that are all very important aspects of my life.
(I know I'm jumping around here, but I'm getting to the point.)
HarperCollins has decided that they are going to limit the number of times they are going to let libraries check out e-books. I've linked to the letter they posted, but the basic gist of it is that libraries may purchase e-books for check out, but they can only be checked out 26 times. HarperCollins has decided that after these 26 times are used up, the libraries must purchase the books again.
This is. . .infuriating to me. If libraries made a habit of buying books that would only last until they were checked out 26 times, we'd have nothing. We'd have no books on the shelves, and the point of libraries would be moot. HarperCollins is just going for the money. They don't care about getting the books out. They don't care about people reading. They care about the money.
If you go here, you can read a very eloquent open letter to HarperCollins that says everything I'd love to say here, but for some reason, am missing the words to say.
The writer of HarperCollins' "open letter to librarians" said, "Twenty-six circulations can provide a year of availability for titles with the highest demand, and much longer for other titles and core backlist."
Any book that lasts just a year? Has no room in a library. And if e-readers are the wake of the future and all that, why would you make it so hard for someone to get books on it? Why are you punishing people who maybe don't like holding books, but who like reading? (Like people who, up until this point, maybe used audio books.)
It seems that many libraries are boycotting HarperCollins or HarperCollins' e-books or whatever. I've got a whole list of things I'm boycotting, so maybe we just need to add HarperCollins to that list.
I'm not suggesting they give unlimited views for one price forever, but 26 views? Ridiculous.
What do you think? I think HarperCollins is all about how much money the can eke out of libraries who already are having to cut their budgets way, way down, and who just want to provide an inexpensive service to their patrons. I'm not saying we should get anything for free. But be reasonable, HarperCollins. All you're doing is pissing off the people who use you the most.
There comes a time in everyone's life, I think, where you realize that big companies, with their millions of dollars of income every year, are really just out to screw you. I've already said my piece about insurance companies, but now I have a new company upon which to unleash my (completely justified!) bile: HarperCollins.
Most of you know I work in a library. I refer to myself as a librarian even though I haven't found the money to go back for my degree to make it official. But here's one thing I don't need a degree for: I love books. I love books as much as I love food, and you guys know that's a LOT.
When e-Books started being a thing, I worried. I worried that the printed book was going to go out of style in a few years, and I worried that I'd be forced to get an e-Reader just to read the books I love so much.
My house is full of books. There are books everywhere. I'm always reading. Books and reading and all that are all very important aspects of my life.
(I know I'm jumping around here, but I'm getting to the point.)
HarperCollins has decided that they are going to limit the number of times they are going to let libraries check out e-books. I've linked to the letter they posted, but the basic gist of it is that libraries may purchase e-books for check out, but they can only be checked out 26 times. HarperCollins has decided that after these 26 times are used up, the libraries must purchase the books again.
This is. . .infuriating to me. If libraries made a habit of buying books that would only last until they were checked out 26 times, we'd have nothing. We'd have no books on the shelves, and the point of libraries would be moot. HarperCollins is just going for the money. They don't care about getting the books out. They don't care about people reading. They care about the money.
If you go here, you can read a very eloquent open letter to HarperCollins that says everything I'd love to say here, but for some reason, am missing the words to say.
The writer of HarperCollins' "open letter to librarians" said, "Twenty-six circulations can provide a year of availability for titles with the highest demand, and much longer for other titles and core backlist."
Any book that lasts just a year? Has no room in a library. And if e-readers are the wake of the future and all that, why would you make it so hard for someone to get books on it? Why are you punishing people who maybe don't like holding books, but who like reading? (Like people who, up until this point, maybe used audio books.)
It seems that many libraries are boycotting HarperCollins or HarperCollins' e-books or whatever. I've got a whole list of things I'm boycotting, so maybe we just need to add HarperCollins to that list.
I'm not suggesting they give unlimited views for one price forever, but 26 views? Ridiculous.
What do you think? I think HarperCollins is all about how much money the can eke out of libraries who already are having to cut their budgets way, way down, and who just want to provide an inexpensive service to their patrons. I'm not saying we should get anything for free. But be reasonable, HarperCollins. All you're doing is pissing off the people who use you the most.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
The One With the Craigslist Postings
I kind of love craigslist. I've sold things on there, and although I've never actually purchased anything from the site, we did get our IKEA loveseat from there, free. It has a rip in the cushion, but if you flip the cushion over, it looks fine.
A few months back (actually, more than a year ago), D was looking for some freelance stuff on craigslist. Cary is a town not too terribly far from where we were living at the time, so when he came across this ad, he had to respond:
Need pro quality pics of "guys standing still"
A few months back (actually, more than a year ago), D was looking for some freelance stuff on craigslist. Cary is a town not too terribly far from where we were living at the time, so when he came across this ad, he had to respond:
Need pro quality pics of "guys standing still"
I am lead singer of a hard rock band in the Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill area, and we are looking to hire a professional photographer to take pics for our upcoming first cd. We are planning on hitting the scene hard, playing all the major rock venues in the area, and eventually getting our album in the hands of the top record producers in LA.
But first, before we can do this, we need to have some hard-edged images taken of us to put in our album, fliers, and posters. We have looked at many photographs of the most successful local bands, and have found that they all have really cool pics of all the band members standing still, looking badass into the camera. Usually the most important member of the band is up front (the lead singer, which is "I") and usually the least important person, being the drummer, in the back. I wouldnt mind having a few hot chicks in it too, but as long as you cant see their faces bc most of them are a little busted in the face.
Since only a few of us are tatted out, either the photographer could photoshop some hardcore tats on our chests and forearms, or they could use body parts from other "less successful" bands that they have already shot. Its ok to have one or two of us sitting on the ground, or in a really cool old chair (this could be a great idea for our band bc our bassist is a lanky tall odd looking ginger dude ). We are all in our mid to late thirties, so being able to do age-reducing photoshop on us, add a little hair to one or two of us, and give us cool emo-style doos (possible a cool Adam Lambert-esque style hairdo would make me look edgy and relevent), is a must.
As for location, it is up to the photographer. Just really want to emphasize we need it to look badass! So run down environment (Cant be at any of our houses bc we live in apartments in Cary), rugged/vintage look, but most importantly, they REALLY REALLY need to have us standing up, looking straight into the camera. Hot band chicks in it, a nice plus - NO FATTIES.
We will discuss compensation when you contact us with your ideas, rates, and availability. We are under a limited budget, but when we get our album in the hands of the big LA execs, this will be a great way for a local talented artist to get their foot in the door, not to mention, become our official photographer.
BTW, our band is called ..... DEAD HORSE, the album is called ..... BEAT A DEAD HORSE
PLEASE INCLUDE A LINK TO YOUR WEBSITE OR SOMEWHERE IN WHICH THE GUYS AND I CAN SEE EXAMPLES OF YOUR WORK AND MAKE SURE THEY HAVE THE REQUIRED AMOUNT OF BADASS WE ARE LOOKING FOR
Um. . .this might be the most awesome thing I've read in the history of life. All of the spelling and punctuation is from the original posting, which I have saved in my e-mail for an occasion such as this. There's nothing not awesome about this, from the fact that they want tattoos photoshopped on them to the fact that the drummer is a tall, weird-looking ginger dude to the fact that they want hot chicks, but none that are busted in the face.
Interesting fact: To this day, I use the expression "busted in the face" solely due to this posting.
So there's that.
Then there's another one I found a couple days ago that just made me laugh.
Looking for an experienced Mexican lady
Looking for an experienced Mexican lady who can cook Mexican food and also hot dogs, french fries, hamburgers etc in a grocery grill near Oxford.
Need someone who is hardworking, honest, clean and dependable.
Part time hours available leading to Full-time.
I don't even really know what to say about this one. I'm not sure what kind of experience they want in their Mexican lady, but I hope they find it.
So what about you guys? Any craigslist weirdness you've come across?
But first, before we can do this, we need to have some hard-edged images taken of us to put in our album, fliers, and posters. We have looked at many photographs of the most successful local bands, and have found that they all have really cool pics of all the band members standing still, looking badass into the camera. Usually the most important member of the band is up front (the lead singer, which is "I") and usually the least important person, being the drummer, in the back. I wouldnt mind having a few hot chicks in it too, but as long as you cant see their faces bc most of them are a little busted in the face.
Since only a few of us are tatted out, either the photographer could photoshop some hardcore tats on our chests and forearms, or they could use body parts from other "less successful" bands that they have already shot. Its ok to have one or two of us sitting on the ground, or in a really cool old chair (this could be a great idea for our band bc our bassist is a lanky tall odd looking ginger dude ). We are all in our mid to late thirties, so being able to do age-reducing photoshop on us, add a little hair to one or two of us, and give us cool emo-style doos (possible a cool Adam Lambert-esque style hairdo would make me look edgy and relevent), is a must.
As for location, it is up to the photographer. Just really want to emphasize we need it to look badass! So run down environment (Cant be at any of our houses bc we live in apartments in Cary), rugged/vintage look, but most importantly, they REALLY REALLY need to have us standing up, looking straight into the camera. Hot band chicks in it, a nice plus - NO FATTIES.
We will discuss compensation when you contact us with your ideas, rates, and availability. We are under a limited budget, but when we get our album in the hands of the big LA execs, this will be a great way for a local talented artist to get their foot in the door, not to mention, become our official photographer.
BTW, our band is called ..... DEAD HORSE, the album is called ..... BEAT A DEAD HORSE
PLEASE INCLUDE A LINK TO YOUR WEBSITE OR SOMEWHERE IN WHICH THE GUYS AND I CAN SEE EXAMPLES OF YOUR WORK AND MAKE SURE THEY HAVE THE REQUIRED AMOUNT OF BADASS WE ARE LOOKING FOR
Um. . .this might be the most awesome thing I've read in the history of life. All of the spelling and punctuation is from the original posting, which I have saved in my e-mail for an occasion such as this. There's nothing not awesome about this, from the fact that they want tattoos photoshopped on them to the fact that the drummer is a tall, weird-looking ginger dude to the fact that they want hot chicks, but none that are busted in the face.
Interesting fact: To this day, I use the expression "busted in the face" solely due to this posting.
So there's that.
Then there's another one I found a couple days ago that just made me laugh.
Looking for an experienced Mexican lady
Looking for an experienced Mexican lady who can cook Mexican food and also hot dogs, french fries, hamburgers etc in a grocery grill near Oxford.
Need someone who is hardworking, honest, clean and dependable.
Part time hours available leading to Full-time.
I don't even really know what to say about this one. I'm not sure what kind of experience they want in their Mexican lady, but I hope they find it.
So what about you guys? Any craigslist weirdness you've come across?
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
The One With the Crying
I have a really embarrassing problem.
I cry. Like, a lot.
I've done it since I was a kid, and it made my parents nuts.
"Sarah. . .STOP crying," was pretty much something I heard all the time. It wasn't like I was doing it on purpose, though, and I know this because the trait has stalked followed me into adulthood.
I cried when I was having a bad day. I cried when I was frustrated. I cried when I thought someone might possibly be looking at me wrong. I cried for no real good reason at all.
This has also frustrated people I've dated, who I've fought with. I'll get into some kind of impassioned discussion, or a fight, and I'd cry. Not because I was sad, and not because I was upset. . .it's just because, for whatever reason, when I'm put into stressful situations, I'll cry, even if there's no cause for tears.
This took D a while to get used to, I think. Because if there's even the first hint of unpleasant conversation, I'll cry. And then I get frustrated that I'm crying, and that makes me cry more. And it's all downhill from there. Even once I calm down, if a conversation along the same lines is begun too soon after I manage to finish crying, I'll start again.
The reason this is so frustrating is actually kind of three-fold. One, once I start, it's really hard to stop, and that makes conversation pretty much impossible.
Two, it accomplishes nothing, and I just look like one of those people who cries to get their way. I've been pulled over by cops a few times, and let me tell you this: I've cried every time, and I've gotten a ticket every time. So it's not like it helps me. If I were doing it on purpose, I would have stopped by now, because it does not work.
Third, it just makes me look pathetic. This is kind of an offshoot of number two, but really, I just look pathetic, like I'm crying to try to get my way. I'm NOT. It just happens.
I called my insulin pump supply company this morning, because I'm almost out of supplies. The back story here is that I called their financial assistance people almost a month ago, and it's been one giant game of phone tag since then. When I finally got someone on the phone, he told me that because I'm employed part-time, they couldn't help me. Predictably, I cried.
I called today to order some and see if they'd let me pay for half a box today and half of it on my next payday. (The back story HERE is that I can only afford one box of 24 tube things at a time, at about $140 per box. However, those people with no insurance, like myself, have to pay for them upfront. They won't bill you later for it.)
Unfortunately, I don't HAVE $140 to spend on pump supplies right now. I have rent money and half a box of supplies money, but that's about it.
So I called and asked, and the lady was like, "No. We can't do that."
So, of course, I cried. But I at least asked to speak to her supervisor. Not because of her, but I figured someone higher than her might be able to help me.
I was on hold for a little while, and managed to regain my composure while I was waiting for her to pick up.
When she did pick up, I immediately started to cry again. It's SO. EMBARRASSING. It's embarrassing, and I wish I knew how to stop it.
(If you're wondering the ending to this story, she did allow me to do the pay half now, pay half later thing. But now I have this fear that, on my account, they've made a note that says, "Cries. A LOT.")
So that's the story. I've done it my whole life, and I want to know how to stop. Because it's annoying. And embarrassing.
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)