Better to have loved and lost...

Love...

We have all heard that saying before...It's better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. Think about that for a moment. What's better about it?

I prefer the saying in the photo, better he/she is gone than to have spent your entire life with this selfish psycho who is hell bent on draining anything good from your life. It can be that bad but our society likes to believe both sides are equally wrong. Yes, I blogged about that previously but it's just such an annoying truth I had to say that again. It is possible that one person in a relationship can ruin the relationship. People are not always equally at fault when a marriage dies.

That saying is in my head, on my mind because that is what my co-worker said to me. In the future, if anyone says that to me, my response will be quick and to the point...NO, it's not better. What do you think it better about it? Broken love can create a bitter person who hurts other. Broken love or a broken heart can create a person so afraid of being hurt again that he/she will never love again...by choice. A broken heart, according to some, can even lead to death so who was the idiot who came up with that saying, "It's better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all." It was Lord Alfred Tennyson, who is probably rolling in his grave from how we have mutilated his quote. The quote was not meant to soothe people with a broken heart but an obituary. There is a great difference between losing a loved one to death than having that person walk out on you perfectly healthy. This quote has not only been taken out of context, it has mutated into a meaning that was not meant for the quote in the first place.

Limitless and Trainspotting

I find it interesting how similar these films are. Both are about drug addiction, both end in a manner where the main character seems to have benefited from his journey into addiction. Both main characters take a journey to become clean so why is it that one film makes you wish you had the drug and the other film makes you glad you didn't. Also, Limitless makes you believe the lead character is actually better and going to be successful. In Trainspotting, I was left with the belief that the lead character was not being totally truthful with himself. I was certain he would relapse back into drug usage. But why not the other guy? It was the same type of ending and both were technically still addicts at the end of each film. I firmly believe once an addict, you always have that tendency to go back to that crutch.

Without giving away too much, in Limitless the lead character is a slacker, going no where. He takes a pill that activates his brain basically making him smarter. He is able to do a lot just because his brain is working faster and better...then the side effects kick in. The Trainspotting addicts know they are a mess. They have no delusions of grandeur. They suffer the ill effects of heroin addiction. Our "hero" in Limitless has similar problems with his side effects, including the possibility of death if he stops taking the drug.

I think the appeal of Limitless is that the movie is a fantasy. We all wish we could take a pill that will make us remarkably smart. Most of us would deal with the side effects to be able to use our brains to become wealthy and powerful. Unlike the poor saps in Trainspotting, the guy in Limitless looks great, has a fantastic home, millions of dollars and most of all...respect. This is pretty far from reality, regardless of how so many are looking up to various drug addled celebrities.

In the end, I enjoyed both films for various reasons. I think Trainspotting is the more gritty, realistic film about drug addiction but it got slammed for promoting drug use. If anything, Limitless is the film promoting drug use without consequences. I'm amazed that Limitless is totally escaping being called a film that promotes drug use. Maybe because the drug he used encouraged him to fit into society rather than hang on the fringes, maybe that's what makes it acceptable. Having a stunning pair of blue eyes helps a lot too. Not many women are drooling over Obi-Wan looking like he needs a fix.

Blame, taxes and Ferraro

A conversation I was having with a co-worker last week reminded me of why I don't discuss my failed marriage with very many others. Our society has come to an erroneous conclusion that when a relationship dies, both parties involved are equally at fault. Blame is applied to each person equally because, I've decided, people hearing the reasons for the break-up do not want the chore of deciding who is/was wrong. It's a pattern of thought the courts takes also.

More and more states, probably all by now, have "no fault" divorce. This means that the jerk-wad in a marriage doesn't have to face the errors of his/her ways during the divorce process. The person filing for divorce simply gets to claim the marriage is broken and can't be fixed. That person, male or female, does not have to say who broke the marriage, therefore a person who cheated, spent all the money, beat the other, etc., does not get punished by the courts for being morally wrong to the other. The courts have turned a blind eye to immorality in a marriage in order to expedite the divorce process. While this is good for the courts, it's bad for the innocent spouse and society.

The ripple effect of "no fault" divorce is that people in general actually believe both sides in a divorce are equally at fault for the divorce. I know from personal experience that this is just wrong. My ex cheated, abandoned the family and hid money during the marriage. We went to marriage counseling...he attended but never implemented the advice. If the situation wasn't focused on him, he wasn't interested in giving it a try.

When I speak of my bad relationship, I get comments like, "love is blind..." or "you had to know how he was before you married him..." I seriously protest that blanket statement. Love may be blind but it's not deaf, dumb and stupid too. Also, if everyone knew all the bad habits of their future spouse, most marriages would never happen. Those statements simply blame the person for the divorce when in fact, that person has no clue what the marriage was like.

My ex suffers from clinical depression. Since I took my vows seriously, I stayed with him, supporting him through his mental illness only for him to walk out on me when I needed him by my side. The "sucks to be you..." attitude I get from others tells me that they really have no clue what it is like to live with a person with mental disease. Depression is like walking through waist deep mud with a 150 pound weight tied to your feet. I would dread seeing this man I loved because I already knew anything I did was not going to pull him out of this oppressive sadness. What I didn't realize was that once he claimed to be over his depression, his attitude was all about self-satisfaction and therefore, that's what he sought. I didn't matter, standing by his side didn't matter, our son didn't matter either. He only cared about pleasuring himself and that's what he did. People who think divorce is about both sides being equally at fault really isn't paying attention to real life situations. Nothing is equal when it comes to love and war. If I had known that fantastic first date going to see Apollo 13 would move to a marriage with a man who refused to do anything with me at all, I never would have married him.

Taxes

The vote on the earnings tax here in Kansas City is set for April 5. Once again I find great disgust with this city. Advertisements are playing to people's fears instead of logic. I realize many political campaigns do this but I was lucky enough to NOT grow up in an area where this is common. I am even more disgusted by the ads questioning who is paying for the ads supporting the elimination of the earnings tax. Those ads play to the Kansas Citians' fears of people not from the city. I thought I imagined this when I first moved here but now I realize locals really do have a serious aversion to non-locals. This explains a lot.

This aversion to others must come from some historical basis but I have no idea what that basis is but it creates a problem. Kansas City seems to want tourists' money but not the tourists. It touts itself as being a destination place in the Midwest but at the same time doesn't really do much to promote reasons for a tourist come come here. Even while living here, there are events I have no idea are in town until the news says this is the last day. Kansas City is considered one of the birthplaces of Jazz...you wouldn't know it if you came here. 18th and Vine was allowed to horribly deteriorate, it's better now in part from a film crew that needed sets for a movie. Still, nothing is done to promote that district either locally or as a tourist destination.

Advertisements say the earnings tax is 40% of the city budget. Well, with or without that earnings tax, KC has problems. Businesses are leaving and so are people. The city's school district isn't even accredited, why would anyone want to raise a family here if their children can't get a decent education? On top of a bad education, you are paying extra from your paycheck just to live here and get that education. The city sputtering into a suburb and the so-called leaders seem to be clueless as to change that path.

Geraldine Ferraro

I remember when this woman became the first serious candidate for vice president. I was proud to see this happen but I was also painfully aware that many felt it wasn't "time" for a woman. It was time for a black man. Yes...at that time, I heard many say that and the black man they said it was time for was/is Jesse Jackson. Still, Ferraro was on the ticket, which lost by a landslide. She got some of the blame...some tax issues...but in all reality it was probably due to a combination of her taxes and Mondale's lack of charisma. Throw in the fact they were up against that Republican wet-dream Ronald Reagan and they never stood a chance. Still, I admired this woman for having the guts to take this leap into history. She will be missed.

What am I paying for?

Kansas City charges a 1% city tax to live and/or work in this city. If you wonder where I'm going with this one, just read the title. What is this paying for?

Opponents of his tax are fighting the tax with an upcoming vote to repeal the tax. I have to admit, I haven't studied this issue as much as I should but I have to ask that question...what is the money paying for?

The city has advertisements out saying it is 40% of the city budget and pays for police, fire and ambulance services. People will die if we repeal the tax. The world will basically end if this tax is stopped. I guess the sky will fall also. Other cities that don't have such a tax manage to survive. Kansas City has this tax and the ugly truth is KC is dying a slow death. Not to mention using scare tactics is not the best way to get people to support spending money. We all know that the city will find an alternative way to tax us that will make up the balance of the money it will lose.

When you speak to locals here, even they criticize the city. Something a co-worker said just yesterday was that St. Louis has everything downtown and KC is the opposite of that. The real ugly truth is KC is rapidly becoming a suburb. People are leaving this city for a variety of reasons and moving to where the culture/action exists because it's not in KC.

With a tax such as this, many businesses have left the city. Why pay extra to have a business in a city with several vacant buildings, no downtown culture/life and a City Council that seems to be lost? A great example of lost business is the proposed soccer stadium. City leaders said the stadium was to come to KCMO, it didn't. One reason the project was moved to Kansas is the city tax here in Kansas City, MO. The city is losing residents and businesses because of this tax so honestly, how much good can this tax be?

San Francisco vs. Kansas City, with a bit of James Franco on the side

I love the city of my birth...San Francisco, Ca. There are a number of reasons for this, I used to think it was just because I was born there. However, many people are born places and hate the city/town of their origin. Being born in SF has nothing to do with my love of the city...it's just a fringe benefit. Not may people can make the claim of being born in the City by the Bay. The hospital where I was born isn't even there anymore, thank you George Lucas. Hey, George...another MAJOR reason to prefer SF over KC! Simply put, SF is known around the world. Most people have no idea where Kansas City is even located.

What I can't ignore is that San Francisco had a huge influence on this "Blue Girl" who finds herself in a Red State. One of the significant things I have found is my constant need to defend my love of SF because people here only hear KC bashing. OK...I admit it, I DON'T like Kansas City. In fact, I would say it is pretty close to hate, not simple dislike. When I say this, the next question is, "Why are you here? Why don't you move back?" Personal reasons brought me here; finances keep me here. The longer answer is most of my family is here and being a single mom, I can use as much family support as possible. However, if my family lived in Alaska then that's where I would be now. My move to KC wasn't because I love the Midwest.

Still, there are nice things about Kansas City. The photo is a picture of Crown Center Plaza, a rather nice Christmas photo. Hallmark is headquartered here so one would expect the city would be especially decked out for the holidays...any holiday. But there is the issue, huh...Kansas City doesn't DO much of anything to promote anything. As a result, I think Kansas City works very hard to kill its own appeal. Hallmark is a huge corporation that is known around the world. I wonder how many people know it is headquartered in Kansas City. I wonder how many locals know this fact. Not promoting Hallmark is one way KC shoots itself in the foot. That festering wound will not heal any time soon.

Folgers Coffee is scheduled to shut down its plant located in downtown KC. If you want to hear about something I love about Kansas City...it is the wonderful smell of fresh coffee that fills the air of downtown, especially on cold mornings. While I applaud the efforts of average citizens to save this landmark and 180 jobs, I am critical of city leaders who appear to do NOTHING in trying to build up this city. Maybe they are working behind the scenes but I seriously doubt that. This city has a long history of selfish politicians and corruption, AKA The Pendergast Machine. What is more troubling than anything is how many Kansas Citians know nothing of Mr. Pendergast, another reason to NOT like KC...the citizens' ignorance of their own city's history. When I mention these facts, I am told these things happen everywhere...uh, no they don't. In fact, saying it happens everywhere is a sign of ignorance, isolation and apathy.

I have many more reasons to say why I don't like KC but I'd rather talk about James Franco now.

First, it takes A LOT of confidence for a man to dress up like Marilyn Monroe for a huge television event. It's even more impressive that if you look at the make up job on his face, he is STILL very attractive. Not many men can do drag and remain attractive. Yes...looking at the arms, shoulders and lack of breasts...uh...he's NOT a pretty woman. But...looking at his face, he's a pretty man.

I know he is being slammed hard for the Oscar hosting. Anne seems to be skating by with less criticism. I even have to say James seemed a bit stiff and there was zero chemistry between the two. However, no slam to Ms. Hathaway...but...James is a PhD candidate and had to leave immediately following the show to return to school. He actually had a class early the next morning and he made it there on time, still wearing his tuxedo pants. Since my mom is also a PhD candidate, I have witnessed the work it takes...and she's not even going to Yale as Mr. Franco is. Did anyone think just -maybe- the man is a bit distracted by school work. This is a big step for the man who obviously wants more for his life than pretending to be someone else on film. Since he is studying English, I have a bigger soft spot for him. He's hot, talented, driven, educated and looks good in a dress...what more can you ask for?

Did you hear what I said? or...Shut up and LISTEN!

I was having what I thought to be a conversation about weight problems with a co-worker when I realized I was becoming really angry with every word spoken. I could not figure out what it was about this conversation that was getting my panties into a bunch. Let me say this first, I don't get angry easily. I tend to be a pretty easy-going person. I love debating issues but only if there is mutual respect. BINGO!

I didn't realize the issue until my drive home. There was nothing mutually respectful in our conversation. When I think back to the conversation, I realize this woman who I believed to be the typical "nice lady" was regularly speaking over me without really paying attention to my points, opinions and comments.

Example...I said weight loss is a more complicated situation than just eating less or following a plan. Her comment was that "anyone" can lose weight if they just stick to a weight loss plan. I disagree. Her comment ignores genetics, psychology, outside factors and a host of other influences on the average person's appetite. People eat for reasons that may or may not include hunger and her comments ignore that also.

I am a heavier person, call me fat if you like, it's what I am, therefore I took this woman's comments rather personally. Her opinions were simple...if you follow ANY dieting plan you WILL lose weight.

My argument was more complex. I agreed that following a plan would yield weight loss but there are several mitigating circumstances that should be considered, not the least of which being is the plan sustainable. That comment was the only one that seemed to shut her up. A person can live on bread and water but that person will never thrive on such a meager diet. You will lose weight, but once you begin eating normally, the weight will return and bring along friends, therefore her theory has a huge failure flaw. What is the point of losing weight if you will simply re-gain?

As I said, differences of opinions are fine, lack of respect is what gets me charged up. This woman consistently disregarded all my statements about weight loss and health to maintain her dictate that anyone can lose if they just follow a plan. If it were that simple, dieting wouldn't be a multi-million dollar business. The most confusing thing about this woman is that she is fat also. That left me with a rather harsh opinion of her...just because she has failed diet plans for lack of discipline, she presumes that everyone other fat person is fat for the same reasons.

That blanket view is simply not true. Some people, like myself, have medical issues that contribute to weight gain. Others can not exercise due to physical injury. Others really have eating disorders. For some people, losing weight isn't a very important thing. Weight is an extremely personal issue. Saying that your personal reasons for being fat or not being able to lose weight is a rather arrogant point of view. Each individual has their individual issues and even if you don't agree, respect should be given. I have strong opinions but I definitely don't disregard other opinions in favor of mine. As the saying goes, everyone has one...I just wanted this woman to shut up, listen, consider the information and have a discussion. Instead, I got to hear how her opinion was right and my opinion was excuses...whatever chicky-girl.

The other shoe drops...

So now Charlie Sheen, A.K.A. Carlos Estevez, has had his sons taken away by child protective services. Apparently, the order was delivered the twin boys' mom...who just happens to be in a treatment facility for substance abuse. Do these kids have a chance?

Ultimately, substance abuse and mental illness are both terrible tragedies for the person suffering and those who love those people. Carlos seems to be in a place where he can't accept that he may need help. Maybe those who think he needs help are all wrong. Maybe the drug known as "Charlie Sheen" IS that amazing. Maybe not...

As a person who has knows several people with mental illnesses and/or drug addiction problems, I know that unless that individual decides to seek help it doesn't matter what others think/believe.