the "unsubscribe" bitchfest heard 'round the homeschool listserv

A close friend of mine signed up for a Nashville homeschooling listserv about two years ago, but ultimately decided not to homeschool her kids. The emails from the listserv were clogging up her inbox, and since she wasn't using the information, she wanted to unsubscribe.

This was nothing against the group or the people in it. Because she never read the emails, she was unfamiliar with the proper way to unsubscribe, other than what some other people had done, which was to send an "unsubscribe" email to the entire list. Unbenownst to her, this would create an online unsubscriber-bashing meleé.

Friend: Unsubscribe. Thanks!

Jacki (list manager, who ends all her posts with "peace within, peace between, peace among"): Unsubscribing info is in the footer of each and every email you receive from the list, just follow the directions. I've copied and pasted them here for you.
Jacki
List mom (but not list slave)

T.H.F.: Wow. How rude. I will now unsubscribe as well.

D.L.: If you thought that was rude, you should unsubscribe. What is rude is signing yourself up for an email list and then not taking the 5 seconds it requires to unsub yourself, but rather asking the list owner to do it for you because obviously they have way more time than you do!

Jacki: Each and every email from the list _has the unsubbing information in the
footer. Also, please note : I just posted this information on Jan 21. Sorry, but, IMO, FWIW, the rude person is not me --the list mom (who is not the list slave) but folks expecting others to perform tasks for them that they are or should be (particularly if they are or are thinking about homeschooling their own children) capable of performing for themselves, now that's rude in my book.

Peace within. peace between. peace among,
Jacki

Friend: For crying out loud, you people are way too emotional! Honest mistake--get over it!

Jen: I think we should all put a 30 minute hold on angry postings. It is really unpleasant to read these tirades and it reflects badly on us all.
Yes, I waited 30 minutes to send this.
P.S. I am going offline the rest of the day, just in case this provokes angry tirades (just joking....mostly).

D.L.: No, it isn't a mistake. It is a blatant act of NOT following simple instructions, which are listed at the end of EVERY email sent to this list.

D.L.: Sorry, Jen, I didn't wait 30 minutes. Mainly because I know Jacki has several other things going on today and simply doesn't need to deal with these petty "unsubscribe" posts. After 12+ years of helping her with these lists, I do tend to get a little aggravated with people who can't/won't do things for themselves.

Friend: Perhaps it's time for you to retire then, before your blood pressure gets the best of you over something so unimportant, in the grand scheme of things, as a listserve.

D.L.: I would if others were willing to step up to the plate, instead of telling us how to do things!

Traci: Looks like we have weeded out the crazies now! LOL

David: Well in the grand scheme of things not much in our lives is important. That just goes to show that the grand scheme of things is of limited usefulness in judging what is important in our everyday lives. I think having your time wasted by inconsiderate people is quite reasonably a matter of some personal importance. And of course if it was the first time it had ever happened it would be easy to let it pass. But when it has been pretty regularly repeated for years, it gets old, very old.

Friend: It's unfortunate that you feel that your reaction to everyday inconveniences is not important in the grand scheme of things. It's also unfortunate that you are a group that does not forgive mistakes. I'm sorry, but not all of us are perfect in every detail of everything we do in life, as you would claim to be.

Amanda: Ok. How about we just unsubscribe from this thread? ;)

That was the best idea someone thought up all day. And that finally ended it.

I think it's time for Jacki to rewrite her goal statement from peace all around and instead try for something a little more attainable, or at least find a new catch phrase that meshes more with her online personality. Also, learning correct punctuation would be beneficial, especially since you are your children's teacher (I corrected a few of the errors so that you don't come off as a complete idiot).

D.L., you should probably schedule yourself for an upper GI to check for an ulcer.

Traci, way to promote your group!

And David, I sincerely hope you find a purpose for living (other than insulting people, whom you don't know, on listservs).

the mini greenhouse I ordered from ebay arrived! (and this is a bad sign)

new year's workout session with exercise guru Denise Austin

I've been working out to Denise Austin videos for several years now. I absolutely love her. The same three routines have endlessly rotated through my DVD machine.

I find them tossed around on the shelves of the entertainment center and replaced by Clone Wars movies all the time. Needless to say, they've acquired their fair share of scratches.

Today the disc kept skipping forward. I went from 15:12 to 16:43 to 17:36 in less than 20 seconds. I didn't complain, of course. I just improvised with a couple of off-beat side steps and chassés.

My exercise mat was stuffed behind the TV where I couldn't reach it, so I stopped the movie to figure out what to do. I could hear Brandon cracking up. He was laughing at the paused face of Denise Austin. Scary and hilarious at the same time!


We decided to make a montage that combines her intense workout expressions with my thoughts while exercising to her videos (when I'm out of shape). Enjoy, and know that you're not alone in the funky faces department.

I'm ready to take-on the weights now. Yes. Yes I am. Here I go. Now.

B, please get off the TV. I can't see what she's doing. You're breaking my concentration. Hey, can you grab the remote off the shelf? I need to run downstairs a minute. What do I need? Just some energy food. Old Christmas candy or something. Or something.

See, this isn't so bad. Really it isn't. If I don't stop trying to smile like Denise, though, I'm going to end up choking on the candy goo that's still in my mouth.

This doesn't seem so fun anymore.



All children and animals need to leave the room immediately.

I think I may be stroking out. Call your father!

I can't believe what you're asking me to do here. This thing was supposed to be low impact. Where do you get off.....??? The nerve!



Forget the Queen...God save me!

Who am I? Where am I?



You've got to be f#&*ing kidding me. I'm done. Done done done! Until tomorrow.

the lortab cycle continues to spin

Today I am angry. And utterly disgusted with humanity.

This morning my husband learned that a woman in her 60's, whom he supervises at work, had her Nashville home broken into. The intruder demanded Oxycontin at gunpoint. She told him that she didn't have any, but when he searched her purse he found three, yes, count that, three Lortab pills. He proceeded to beat her over the head with his gun, then took one of her kitchen knives and stabbed her through the hand for lying to him. The news story is incomplete, but here's the link:

http://www.wkrn.com/Global/story.asp?S=11843690

She was recovering in the hospital and planned to return to work next week, when she suddenly suffered a heart attack. She is now preparing for cardiac surgery.

And if that isn't bad enough, the plot thickens. A health clinic recently opened in the neighborhood where my husband works. They must be handing out narcotics like candy, because groups of downwardly mobile people often come into his store and line up for the pharmacy to get their prescriptions filled. If the wait is too long, they'll stuff merchandise into their pockets to pass the time. My husband, who is security manager of said store, does his job and arrests these shoplifters/narc heads.

The pharmacist there, however, does not want these addicts brought to justice.

He recently pulled my husband aside. "Why do you need to arrest these people for shoplifting?," he asked. "They're good customers for us. We make a lot of money off of them on narcotics. Can't you just frisk them as they're leaving the store?"

I guess ethics in the medical profession is heading out the door.

First of all, the money that the pharmacy is making off of selling the drugs is our money. Most of those prescriptions are paid for with TennCare, which is the public aid form of health insurance in Tennessee. Essentially it is us, the taxpayers, who are footing the bill for the growing dependency on pain medicine.

Secondly, our doctors that so liberally prescribe Lortab and other similar pain medicines are fueling drug habits that are resulting in wasted lives, crime, and death. I'm not sure they always stop to consider this when they're casually scribbling away on script pads just to get patients out the door. They need to. The Nashville City Paper reported in December that "if the country is experiencing an epidemic, Tennessee is a veritable hotbed — with its own startling stats. That’s because the Volunteer State historically issues more prescriptions than any other; it was ranked No. 1 in a 2007 Novartis Pharmacy report on prescriptions per capita, with a rate 1.5 times the national norm. It follows that Tennessee, then, would boast a pharmaceutical drug overdose rate 26 percent higher than the national average."

http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/police-face-new-kind-drug-trade

It is high time for the medical profession to consider the implications of how they handle complaints of pain. In nursing school we were taught that pain is a subjective experience and must therefore be believed. I learned as a nurse in the ER that this is not always the case. People lie and exaggerate to get what they want from the system. It took years for this fact to break through my naive mind.

The medical profession needs to jump off the bandwagon of loose and casual narcotic-prescribing before more lives are unnecessarily destroyed and lost forever. If this doesn't happen soon, the pain we feel as a society is going to trump anything that a bad back could ever inflict.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/19/crimesider/entry6115808.shtml

home security systems...

...are no match for TP'ers!

January, a month of contemplation. And facebook-dodging.

I used to dread January. Being stuck in the house, the frosty air, the draft coming through the cracks in the doors and windows, and never getting the heat set just quite right.

But now I look at it like this: I don't have to pull any weeds, because even though they're still alive, the frozen ground has cemented them down. I don't have to feel like I should be out cruising around in my car enjoying the wind whip my hair into knots; instead, I can sit in front of the crackling fire with my family and watch a movie together with smooth knot-free hair. My freckles are fading from less sun. I get to spend more time reading through cookbooks and garden tomes. I don't have to cut the grass every week. I mean, my husband doesn't. :)

Continuing on with the stillness theme from Christmas Eve, it's a time for reflection on my life. I seem to have a lot of these, actually. I guess that's good, since I can't really seem to get it right and backslide every so often. Time to check myself. Thanks, good old January.

I'm going off the "grid," so to speak, to welcome back the real world--the sky, the stars, seed catalogs, writing, knitting, music, trees, my house, kids, husband, job, appearance (haha)--you know, that which I should be focusing most of my attention on, away from the constant jibber-jabber of social networks. I've temporarily ditched my facebook account so I can figure out what I really need it for, what purpose it is serving in my life, and how I can turn it around to a good thing from what it has become for me: a nuisance/time-waster/forum for old friends to hit on me/opportunity for coworkers to recite my posts verbatim at work in jest/agent of hurt feelings between relatives/bearer of frequent obnoxious outbursts by me.

And so goes my love/dear john letter to facebook:

Dear Facebook,

I'm still not sure if I love you or hate you. I let you into my life about a year ago, when I was trying to figure out if what my teenage daughter was doing with her friends was either illegal or dangerous or both. She refused to "friend" me for awhile, so it was just you and I and another wayfarer on my sad little one-friend list.

But then the infatuation started. As I slowly searched out people I knew, random names from my childhood appeared like a pyramid scheme, one name leading to ten more familiar people. Excitement blossomed into giddiness as I was befriended (or is it refriended?), over and over again. I felt validated as a person. The funny thing is, I didn't care for some of those people back when I knew them in real life; but no matter, we were all adults now, right? Surely the grudges from 20-something years ago would be instantly dissolved as soon as I shot them a few emoticon smiley faces(:-D). Who could resist such cuteness?

But, dearest one, it seems like you're trying to take over my life. You occupy my thoughts more than the leftover Christmas candy that I stashed up high where the kids can't reach. You're blurring the lines between fantasy and reality. And I think I'm getting early carpal tunnel syndrome because of you.

How does that saying go again? Something like 'parting is the sweetest sorrow?' Maybe I've got it all wrong. Maybe I've got you all wrong too. And maybe someday I'll give you another chance. But for now, I need to get a real life. You're no longer sustaining me with your imaginary zoo world, and I'm afraid that I may have killed half of my animals off.

Until my next log-in,
Clementine

Now, as it is, facebook has become the future of family feuds. My husband's family had it out publicly because pizza was served for Easter. I've seen long relationships start and end (as in "have a nice life"). I've read as people seriously contemplated the existence of their mental health and spouses complained about one another. I've watched closely as married people (who weren't married to one another) unapologetically flirted. And I've perused more drunk photos than I can count.

What I'm wondering then...is it appropriate to post what should be intimate--such as words of regret, love, sympathy, and support--on a web page that unrelated people can read? Is it proper to hash-out family arguments over whether one should eat pizza or ham for Easter, when my old high school acquaintances are privy to all of those silly debates?

Facebook has become a show, and I have unwittingly and unwillingly become an entertainer. People actually look forward to reading the ridiculous things I write. This has led to somewhat of a celebrity mentality--a false popularity, an ego skyscraper built upon quicksand, a fool's gold of friends. But do they like me for me, or for what I am posting? This is a question that I have agonized over. I've put more energy into trying to find the answer to this than what it is worth.

What makes me feel most insecure and high-schoolish about facebook is that you can lose a friend at the click of a button without so much as a goodbye. "Nice re-meeting you for the past 3 months after 25 years, but you're really not that interesting. Yeah, I'm sorry that your grandpa is sick and your husband spends too much time ignoring you. I don't want to read that stuff though, and some of your musical choices really suck. I like it when you're witty, but you don't do that enough. Goodbye." If only we got something along those lines of an explanation. But we don't.

Some of my readers will counter by saying "I don't really care about those people on facebook--they're mostly from my past, and I stopped talking to them years ago." So why bother posting anything at all? And why do we call them "friends"?

The internet is slowly redefining the entire concept of friendship. A facebook friend is the public equivalent of a pen pal. However, there is no obligation to respond. And most people don't care if you do or not. The difference is that emails and letters require time and work and a commitment to staying in touch with a person.

I don't want my important friendships to be public. And I can see, as I look back on the past year of social networking, that most of them are not. Yet some of them are skirting gossip status. And what about the others--those "friendships" that rely on updates and wall posts? Well, those say both a lot to me and about me, and I need to figure out the best way to handle them. While I'm thankful to have found some of these long-lost people, I am still old-fashioned when it comes to relationships. And I hope upon all hopes that private, personal communication never goes out of style.

But maybe I'm looking at this from the wrong angle. Perhaps facebook is nothing more than a fun website to take quizzes that answer the eternal questions of "Which rock star was I in a past life?" and "How many lovers will I have?", and surveys about your friends such as "Do you think so-and-so farts silently in public?". If so, then it has definitely been a worthwhile ride. :-)

peace and darkness

Tonight is Christmas Eve. We are being smattered by pouring rain, while in the states south of us there are tornado watches, and over a foot of snow in Oklahoma. Even Texas will get a white Christmas.

I went to a candlelight service at a nearby church that I hadn't been to before. Since we moved here I've been intermittently attending a nondenominational "mega-church." Not much like me, considering that I was raised in what seems to be one of the most oppressive Protestant religions around. I won't name the church, because it already seems to be having enough trouble with the congregation without me helping it along.

The service wasn't exactly my idea of a candlelight service. I mean, they did light candles, but they kept the lights on. So it was hard for me to really focus on the service as I like to do when I attend these sort. I had too many distractions: holes in each of the big toes of my socks where I could feel them poking through, like a loose tourniquet (poor choice in socks--what was I thinking?); the headache I've had all day that Advil won't alleviate; my eyes going spazzy from the overhead lights, needing to constantly look down and not be able to watch the pastor speak, feeling rude; being tired from the end of a long day preparing for the big family meal tomorrow, mixing up desserts, vacuuming, scrubbing down bathroom walls.

I'd like so much to find peace and God in a church, but my body distracts me from it. I would think that most people, as they get older, tend to enjoy longer sermons. I've never asked anybody this question, but I would think that older people would be more patient with a long-winded pastor. But not me. The older I get, the more I want to get out. No, that's wrong. What I mean is that I love to listen to the teachings--I could listen all day--but the damn eyes won't let me just sit there and listen quietly. And even the noise from a crying baby makes it hard for me to stare straight. They seem to have a mind of their own lately.

I find more peace in my car, driving in the dark late at night when the roads are empty, than anywhere else. Tonight while I was heading home, the rain was coming down hard and my brights were on. I suddenly came upon a possum walking across the road. I was probably 8 feet away when I actually saw it. The little guy kept strutting along as if he didn't notice the large machine bearing down on him. That's one of those major decisions in life that are not very fair--where there is no turning back if you are wrong, yet you aren't given enough time to figure out the correct course of action. And I was wrong. Hoping he would stop walking and move safely through the underside of my car as I drove over him, I hit the brakes just slightly in order to give him a little more time to get between the wheels. But it didn't work, and I could feel the car slice into him as I rolled over his body with my right front tire. I cupped my hand over my mouth and tensed up. The thought went through my mind that possums are unfriendly creatures and hiss and bite when people come near, just for a split second, maybe as if to unconsciously exonerate myself from the murder of this animal. I drove most of the way home in a state of very little movement. What small amount of peace that I may have found in church while singing Christmas carols and taking communion was gone.

My only resort tonight is to go into the dark to find the calming love of Christ. We originated from the dark--the earth, our bodies, our knowledge--and we will someday return to it in death. It is in the dark where rest and growth occurs. And it is in this restful place where I will go when I need to be moved.

christian liberals

In Defense of the Christian Liberal
October 12, 2002
By Frank Lovato

Traits I have observed in the behavior of many political conservatives that irritate me is their absolute confidence that they are "right" about anything and everything, and their misuse of the Christian religion to justify the inhumanity of many of their words and actions.

I remember a line in the movie "Inherit the Wind" in which the William Jennings Bryan character asks the Clarence Darrow character "Does right have no meaning to you?" to which he responds, "No! Right has no meaning to me, but truth does."

Conservatives tend to act as if "right" were revealed to them by a higher power and that everything they say is so because they believe it is "right." "Truth" they are willing to subvert, and in many cases violate, to further their perception of "right."

As a case in point, W scares me. He is quoted as saying, "I believe that what I believe is right." His own ignorance and stupidity are an asset to him because study and the knowledge gained from study might undermine his being "right." These attributes make him currently popular with some of the American public because they mistake ignorance for directness and stupidity for single-mindedness.

Willingness to examine one's position and to realistically appraise it is the hallmark of a mature and educated person, and it seems most conservatives never reexamine their positions because it might lead to the terrible prospect of being wrong.

In stark contrast, we liberals seem to always be questioning and rethinking our convictions and the reasons for those convictions. Maybe that is one of our political weaknesses; we think too much to always present a solid united front. But yet again, maybe that is one of our greatest personal assets.

The second thing that irritates me is the misuse of the Christian religion by many conservatives to justify their position in a political situation. It seems to be a planned conservative strategy to couch themselves as "godly" and "religious," as opposed to liberals who are "ungodly" or "non-religious." The Clinton impeachment debacle is a case in point.

Under his leadership the country was running great, but his abilities were completely overshadowed by his "sins." Conservative congressmen and senators went after him as if his sexual transgressions were the most terrible of all crimes. But when their own conservative leadership was found out to also be guilty of the same things, it was passed off as no harm, no foul.

It was all right for them to sin because they were "godly" people who made a small mistake, but even as Bill publicly confessed and asked for forgiveness, the conservatives pronounced that he was not truly repentant, and because he was "ungodly" he must be punished for his sins. Even the FBI was so busy trying to get him to lie to them that they completely forgot the possibility that terrorists could be planning something much more devastating than a little hanky-panky in the White House.

A very personal reason why this use of Christianity by the conservatives annoys me so much is that I consider myself a Christian, and I am also very politically liberal. I firmly believe a person who really tries to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ would be much more likely to be a political liberal rather than a conservative.

Despite all the religious trappings that conservatives are so prone to flaunt, most look down on their fellow man, especially if he is poor or non-Christian, and more so if he makes any demands upon their wealth or time. I like to call these people "Old Testament" Christians because they like to quote the Old Testament and never the words of Jesus Christ as related in the New Testament. I can very well see why they do this, because the Old Testament is absolutely full of death and revenge while Christ taught only life and peace. The various parables of Christ as related in the New Testament teach love and forgiveness and never revenge or war or judgment.

Christ taught us not to judge our fellow man, but the Pharisees (the conservatives of their time) ignored him because they thought they had every right to judge others because they were perfect, since they kept all the Jewish laws and the "sinners" did not. These present-day Pharisees are not much different from the old ones, and in their "righteousness" they quote the Old Testament because it justifies their lack of love or concern for their fellow man.

When asked by one of the Pharisees which was the most important of the commandments, Christ answered the most important was the first commandment concerning the love of God, but then he likened it to the second about the love of fellow man. Why did he do that? Because Christ knew it is impossible for a person to love God and at the same time not love his fellow man. Conservatives camouflage this lack of love by insisting that their overriding concern is for having people take responsibility for themselves and their actions. Noble-sounding, but it also lets them off the hook for providing for the needs of others. In a word, conservatives tend to be just plain cheap.

Looking after the poor and needy effectively is costly and generally means the use of tax money, and to conservatives those are fighting words. Help to the poor and needy can also be provided through charity, and conservatives are now introduced a new wrinkle. They are now willing to provide government funding for aid to the poor and needy through "faith based" charities. Why are they now so willing to provide funds to the poor and needy through charity and not through direct government support?

If a person is beholden to charity, he has no say in how assistance is administered or what that assistance entails. Being a recipient of alms, he can only keep his mouth shut and be grateful. If, on the other hand, the government were the source of the aid, the recipient, by the fact of being a citizen, would have a voice in the kind and administration of the aid. That in a word is entitlement, and that word causes shivers to run down the spine of any true conservative. Government assistance to the poor and needy through "faith based" charities is just another way of disenfranchising them.

Liberals, whether or not they are Christians, are often more Christian-acting than the more vocal conservatives, because they are truly concerned about the well being of people and do not rush to judge the righteousness of their fellow man. The Bible has a passage that states "Judge not least you be judged." A very good idea, but in any and every social controversy conservatives are there to judge who is right and who is wrong and believe they have every right to do so.

Conservatives are also very quick to shed tears over the death of innocent babies killed in abortions but not one for the killer on death row. I am firmly against abortion, but I am also firmly against the death penalty. In my opinion, it would seem that a true Christian society would be willing, if not eager, to provide a means by which a killer could save his soul and not prematurely end his life before he has had every opportunity to repent of his sins. If he repents, there will be great celebration in Heaven, and if he does not the responsibility is all his. Christian teaching holds that the innocent unborn child and the hardened killer are both precious to God, and not one more than the other. But the conservative is the first to defend the death penalty and cry out for revenge.

But as far as the abortion question goes, conservatives preach about how every unborn child is precious and how each one should be provided the maximum protection under the law. I agree, but just ask them if the government should provide funds to care for these children after they are born and for their mothers who would provide them care. They immediately fall back on the old line that it is their fault and they should take responsibility for their actions. This is a win-win argument in that conservatives can sound holy and still not have their holiness cost them anything.

Sometimes I get the feeling that the thought of sinners writhing in hell makes these folks really feel good. I read recently about a minister picketing a theater performance of a play about the homosexual young man that was killed in Wyoming. He seemed almost elated to announce with absolute certainty that the young man had already been in hell for two years. That doesn't sound very Christian to me. What do you think Jesus would say?

All these traits I mentioned are irritating, but the most dangerous to our American democracy is the conservative's use of government to forward their religious and philosophical views. They try to pack the courts with themselves, try to pass legislation that aids them in gaining control of government, and take every opportunity to label the opposition as traitors or at best unpatriotic. And they are ruthless in their attacks. Again, remember the Clinton impeachment.

They use government policy to further their own strange interpretation of scripture. They believe the United States should support Israel--not because of any affection for the Israelis, but because they believe the establishment of a Jewish state will speed or assist their concept of the second coming of Christ and, ironically, the conversion or elimination of the Jewish people.

They ridicule natural resource conservation because they believe the imminent second coming of Christ makes conservation of the environment unnecessary and even silly.

They espouse causes such as the anti-abortion movement because it gains them the support of Catholic voters while still avowing that the Catholic Church is the "whore of Babylon" and that the Pope is the "anti-Christ". They cite their extremely literal interpretation of the Bible as if it were fact and justify their vile and often untruthful attacks on others as being a service to God.

They ridicule Islam for its insistence that the words of the Prophet Mohamed are the only truth, while doing exactly the same thing with what they profess are Christian beliefs.

I hope, and yes, even pray, that this is just a passing phase in the political history of our country, and that soon we will wonder how a country supposedly based on the concept of freedom and fair play can have drifted so far from this concept. The mere suspicion of hostile intent and the possible possession of weapons of mass destruction by another country (this time Ira--who knows who will be next?) are grounds to make war against that country and encourage its citizens to overthrow their government.

Conservatives are turning our country, that historically has been a believer in the rule of law, into an international bullyboy who throws its weight around merely because he can. For a time, we liberals have got to adopt one the traits of the conservatives by standing united in our opposition to these terrible policies that threaten the safety and virtue of our beautiful country.

an abandoned farmstead

The long arm of progress awaits the past

I am one with the mud.

A Dickens of a Christmas, 2009