I wish I could say that the reason why I haven't posted anything in two months is because I've been busy, but that has not been the case. I was laid off two and a half months ago, and since I didn't have anything better to do at the time, decided to change up my crazy pill cocktail. This meant being weaned off of the three medications I had been taking so that I could start a new one without any negative drug interactions.
The weaning process took a month, and it was absolute hell. My depressive symptoms returned the second week, at which point I stopped being able to sleep on top of everything else. There really wasn't anything that could be done to relieve my symptoms, either, short of trying to find a sleep aid out there that I haven't already tried (it's a long list) that would be compatible with the new anti-depressant my doctor wanted to try once the weaning was over (a much shorter list). After the detox, there was the usual four to six week waiting period before the new drug would reach a therapeutic level. Fortunately, it's there now, and while the hunt for a new sleep aid continues, I'm back to being a mostly-functional human being.
The anti-depressant my doctor wanted to try is called Parnate, or tranylcypromine. It's in that scary class of drugs known as a monoamine oxidase inhibitor, or MAOI. They've got a bad reputation in pop culture, and a bad reaction to an MAOI has been the cause of death in more than one episode of some crime drama or novel. There's also a wealth of bad information out there about this class of drugs, and what a person can and cannot ingest while taking one, and it makes them seem more dangerous than they actually are. Furthermore, I have to wonder if this bad reputation is the reason why I'm only trying a drug in this class now, after seven years of trying to treat my depression.
MAOIs work by inhibiting an enzyme called monoamine oxidase. Among other things, this enzyme aids in the metabolization of tyramine, a compound commonly found in food. If too much tyramine is ingested, it can lead to a hypertensive crisis-- high blood pressure, essentially. On TV, this means that if you eat a piece of cheese, you'll drop dead within minutes. In reality, though, this is unlikely, unless the person already has very high blood pressure. You might feel quite ill, and should probably seek medical attention if you experience symptoms of high blood pressure, but death is unlikely. Sorry to be the asshole to point out a medical inconsistency in CSI and the like. (I am not actually sorry.)
Anyway, now that my health is more stable, I hope to be updating this blog on a regular basis again.
Friday, October 5, 2012
Saturday, August 4, 2012
Dan Cathy has the right to remain silent, or not
The more people talk about freedom of speech, the more I am forced to conclude that the average person does not know what freedom of speech really mean, or what rights it grants. It has been coming up a lot in response to Chick-fil-A COO Dan Cathy being a homophobe and saying homophobic things and donating money to homophobic organizations, and people deciding to boycott Chick-fil-A as a result (easy for me to do, as they don't have any locations in Canada), and other people countering that by making a point to visit Chick-fil-A to support Cathy and his free speech and blah blah blah.
Why do Cathy's supporters keep talking about freedom of speech in this context? His freedom of speech is not being threatened, and yet Cathy's allies keep citing that as a reason to support him. Some of his fiercest advocates are politicians, and they really should know better than to frame this as a free speech issue, seeing as the First Amendment (or Section 2 of the Charter, if you're Canadian) states that the government cannot prohibit people from expressing their opinions and beliefs. The government is not going to be passing laws anytime soon that will put Dan Cathy's right to spew homophobic vitriol at risk*, nor will the government stop him from donating money to homophobic organizations. Furthermore, because of his aforementioned support from various politicians, and the fact that he is free to donate obscene amounts of money to political campaigns and lobbyists who either agree with Cathy's statements, or at the very least wish to protect his right to say those things, I imagine that his First Amendment rights are safer than those of many of the people speaking out against him.
Nobody, least of all the government, is trying to take away Cathy's freedom of speech. Furthermore, if that was the intention, a boycott of Chick-fil-A isn't a very effective method of doing so. This isn't about free speech, and it never was.
What I think people are doing- perhaps intentionally so- is telling the public that because Cathy has the right to freedom of speech, he also has the right to be free from criticism of that speech. Here is a lesson for those many people who don't understand the First Amendment: if you talk like an asshole, other people are equally free to tell you to shut the fuck up. Both Cathy and his opponents are protected by the same rights that many idiots seem to think people are trying to take away from Cathy. I feel like this should be blindingly obvious, but I guess not; I suspect some people are deliberately misinforming others about these rights, which is contributing to the confusion. Either way, the result is that people are hiding their homophobia behind this veil of free speech. People say they're standing behind Cathy and/or Chick-fil-A because they want to protect his rights; really, they just don't like gay people. They're supporting Cathy because they agree. in whole or in part, with the things he is saying, and pretend that they're sticking up for the First Amendement when really what they're doing is trying to silence those who would boycott Chick-fil-A. (What about their free speech, hmm?)
A boycott of Chick-fil-A doesn't threaten anybody's free speech, but it will cost Dan Cathy money. A successful boycott would mean that Cathy no longer has huge profits from this company that he can turn around and donate to homophobic organizations. If the result is just one less person being subjected to harmful "pray away the gay" techniques, that's a success.
Obviously I understand that some people may not support Cathy, but might still visit Chick-fil-A for reasons that may be outside of their control; personally, I hate that so many clothes and shoes are made in sweat shops, and I absolutely do not want to support companies that exploit their workforce, but I'm also low income and because of my back problems, there are very specific things I need when buying shoes. Sometimes, I have to give my hard-earned money to companies with practices I do not support because there's no affordable alternative. Many people, however, are in a position where eating at Chick-fil-A is a choice, and those people should be aware that their money is going to homophobic organizations. If you do not support those organizations, you should not spend your money there.
Finally, to the people who try and claim that this is a free speech issue, please shut up-- and I say that not because I'm trying to take away your precious rights, but because you need to stop talking and learn more about what the First Amendment actually means.
* I realize that hate speech laws may limit the vitriol a person can spew, but I'm not familiar with how they work in the United States, nor do I know whether or not LGBTQI people are protected by hate speech laws. From what I know of Canadian hate speech laws though, I'm pretty sure Cathy's statements, however repugnant, are not in violation of those laws.
Why do Cathy's supporters keep talking about freedom of speech in this context? His freedom of speech is not being threatened, and yet Cathy's allies keep citing that as a reason to support him. Some of his fiercest advocates are politicians, and they really should know better than to frame this as a free speech issue, seeing as the First Amendment (or Section 2 of the Charter, if you're Canadian) states that the government cannot prohibit people from expressing their opinions and beliefs. The government is not going to be passing laws anytime soon that will put Dan Cathy's right to spew homophobic vitriol at risk*, nor will the government stop him from donating money to homophobic organizations. Furthermore, because of his aforementioned support from various politicians, and the fact that he is free to donate obscene amounts of money to political campaigns and lobbyists who either agree with Cathy's statements, or at the very least wish to protect his right to say those things, I imagine that his First Amendment rights are safer than those of many of the people speaking out against him.
Nobody, least of all the government, is trying to take away Cathy's freedom of speech. Furthermore, if that was the intention, a boycott of Chick-fil-A isn't a very effective method of doing so. This isn't about free speech, and it never was.
What I think people are doing- perhaps intentionally so- is telling the public that because Cathy has the right to freedom of speech, he also has the right to be free from criticism of that speech. Here is a lesson for those many people who don't understand the First Amendment: if you talk like an asshole, other people are equally free to tell you to shut the fuck up. Both Cathy and his opponents are protected by the same rights that many idiots seem to think people are trying to take away from Cathy. I feel like this should be blindingly obvious, but I guess not; I suspect some people are deliberately misinforming others about these rights, which is contributing to the confusion. Either way, the result is that people are hiding their homophobia behind this veil of free speech. People say they're standing behind Cathy and/or Chick-fil-A because they want to protect his rights; really, they just don't like gay people. They're supporting Cathy because they agree. in whole or in part, with the things he is saying, and pretend that they're sticking up for the First Amendement when really what they're doing is trying to silence those who would boycott Chick-fil-A. (What about their free speech, hmm?)
A boycott of Chick-fil-A doesn't threaten anybody's free speech, but it will cost Dan Cathy money. A successful boycott would mean that Cathy no longer has huge profits from this company that he can turn around and donate to homophobic organizations. If the result is just one less person being subjected to harmful "pray away the gay" techniques, that's a success.
Obviously I understand that some people may not support Cathy, but might still visit Chick-fil-A for reasons that may be outside of their control; personally, I hate that so many clothes and shoes are made in sweat shops, and I absolutely do not want to support companies that exploit their workforce, but I'm also low income and because of my back problems, there are very specific things I need when buying shoes. Sometimes, I have to give my hard-earned money to companies with practices I do not support because there's no affordable alternative. Many people, however, are in a position where eating at Chick-fil-A is a choice, and those people should be aware that their money is going to homophobic organizations. If you do not support those organizations, you should not spend your money there.
Finally, to the people who try and claim that this is a free speech issue, please shut up-- and I say that not because I'm trying to take away your precious rights, but because you need to stop talking and learn more about what the First Amendment actually means.
* I realize that hate speech laws may limit the vitriol a person can spew, but I'm not familiar with how they work in the United States, nor do I know whether or not LGBTQI people are protected by hate speech laws. From what I know of Canadian hate speech laws though, I'm pretty sure Cathy's statements, however repugnant, are not in violation of those laws.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Cheesecake: A recipe
Whenever I make cheesecake, I follow the same recipe, which was given to me by the awesome Urs of Brunchma.com. My bookmark to that recipe no longer works, so I had to spend some time searching for it just now. I shall post it here so that I don't lose it again, and also because it's just an awesome recipe.
Preheat oven to 300 degrees F
Crust:
About 18 Oreos
2 tablespoons of melted butter
1/2 cup chocolate or white chocolate chips
Grind the Oreos up in your food processor, mortar and pestle, coffee grinder, but don't chew them up and spit them into a bowl. That's nasty. Add the butter, mix well, and press the crumbs into your springform pan. What? For Pete's sake, go to the store and spend $10 on a springform pan.
Toss the pressed crust into the oven for 8 minutes, just to get it hot, then pull it out and scatter the chips in it. Give them a minute to get melty, and gently spread the molten chocolate/white chocolate/peanut butter/whatever goodness over your crumb crust with the back of a spoon. This will help seal the crust and keep it from getting soggy. Also, who will argue with a layer of chocolate? A jerk, that's who. If someone argues, punch him in the dick, and don't give him any cheesecake.
Cake:
3 8-oz packages of cream cheese (or neufchatel, if you're worried about fat. Oh, hey. Wait. If you're worried about fat, DON'T EAT CHEESECAKE.), softened.
1 14-oz (regular sized, kinda smallish, the shit's dense) can of sweetened condensed milk. (Nope, there isn't a sugarfree variant of this recipe. If you're worried about sugar, DON'T EAT CHEESECAKE.)
3 eggs*
1 teaspoon flavoring (vanilla, peppermint extract, lemon zest, amaretto, chambourd, wasabi, worchestershire)
Cream that shit together.
For chocolate chips: Toss a cup of chips in a teaspoon of plain flour to coat, then fold them in. The flour keeps them suspended instead of rising or sinking.
Pour the batter into the sealed crusts, and bake at 300F for about an hour. Letting the cake cool in stages (turn off oven after 45 minutes, crack the door at an hour, remove the cake a half-hour later, let counter-cool for 2 hours, then refrigerate) will help prevent cracking. If it cracks, start over and eat the evidence.
* If you give the eggs a light beat before adding to the rest, they'll integrate faster and you'll reduce the risk of overbeating. Overbeating is what happens when the proteins of the eggs start congealing or some biochemical reaction occurs that Alton Brown would tell you about and probably get off while he did so, but it makes your cheesecake feel unpleasantly eggy and foamy when you eat it, and if you don't care, then it means more cheesecake for you. Jerk.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Soda Cracker Diet
Every so often at work people will organize a potluck, and we had one last week-- probably the last one we'll have before the place closes. I planned to make a cheesecake, but the day before the potluck, when I was going to make said cake, my anxiety kicked it up a few notches, and the idea of getting out of bed was suddenly panic-inducing, so alas, no cheesecake. There were still plenty of other delicious things, however, and we all stuffed ourselves silly and regretted it afterwards, like we always do.
Most of us, anyway.
I know some of my co-workers are on diets and trying to lose weight. One in particular is on one of those weird programs where there is a list of foods you're allowed to eat, and you must not deviate from that list or you fail at dieting and life. Or something. I say it's a weird diet because it even forbids eating certain vegetables, and what the fuck kind of diet does that? This co-worker sat at a different desk than usual so she wouldn't be near the food, nor could she see it.
I hate diets. I hate the whole concept of dieting. I especially hate diets that restrict you to certain foods. I know that dieting doesn't work, and that the vast majority of people who diet will gain the weight back, and that this sort of yo-yoing is even worse health-wise than being overweight. (And being overweight isn't necessarily unhealthy, either.) No one has asked me for my opinion on this diet or dieting in general, and while normally that doesn't stop me, my workplace is not the place for a soap box.
The day after the potluck, I left work an hour early feeling very, very sick to my stomach, and I haven't been back at work since then. From what I've heard, though, other people have also been absent at work for the same reason. The rumour was food poisoning, but the symptoms don't match. It's not that important, though. The point is that my co-workers are vomiting a lot, and of course this is something to be shared on Facebook.
One of my co-workers posted that she had finally succumbed to the illness that had taken out a bunch of us already. I replied, comparing my symptoms with that of the others, and mentioned that I was on a soda cracker diet for a few days. Clearly I should not have mentioned the D-word, because it was at that point when things got silly.
One co-worker replied that "it" (she didn't specify if she was referring to the illness itself or my soda cracker comment) was the best diet ever.
Another co-worker replied to mention how much weight she had lost since becoming sick.
I was-- and still am-- flabbergasted at those comments. There are people who believe that wanting to puke up everything you try to put in your stomach-- even water-- isn't so bad, because at least you're losing weight! At least you're not cheating your diet!* And I feel like I'm the only one participating in that conversation who sees that sort of attitude for what it is: potentially destructive, disordered eating behaviour at worst, and a very unhealthy attitude towards food and weight loss at best.
It's so frustrating to see comments like that, because there's really nothing I can do. I tried combating opinions on dieting and weight loss and just being fat in the past at work, and I ended up hitting a brick wall so hard it was hurting my own mental health and attitude towards food. I don't have it in me to fight that battle again.
I still have all the supplies for making cheesecake, and I think I'm going to make it tomorrow. Originally I was going to bring it to work, to make up for not bringing anything to the original potluck, but fuck that; I'm going to bring it to my DnD session tomorrow night, and I think it'll be enjoyed a lot more there amongst people who don't seem to give a shit about calorie content.
*Actually, soda crackers probably aren't allowed on weird restrictive diets because evil carbs, or something like that.
Most of us, anyway.
I know some of my co-workers are on diets and trying to lose weight. One in particular is on one of those weird programs where there is a list of foods you're allowed to eat, and you must not deviate from that list or you fail at dieting and life. Or something. I say it's a weird diet because it even forbids eating certain vegetables, and what the fuck kind of diet does that? This co-worker sat at a different desk than usual so she wouldn't be near the food, nor could she see it.
I hate diets. I hate the whole concept of dieting. I especially hate diets that restrict you to certain foods. I know that dieting doesn't work, and that the vast majority of people who diet will gain the weight back, and that this sort of yo-yoing is even worse health-wise than being overweight. (And being overweight isn't necessarily unhealthy, either.) No one has asked me for my opinion on this diet or dieting in general, and while normally that doesn't stop me, my workplace is not the place for a soap box.
The day after the potluck, I left work an hour early feeling very, very sick to my stomach, and I haven't been back at work since then. From what I've heard, though, other people have also been absent at work for the same reason. The rumour was food poisoning, but the symptoms don't match. It's not that important, though. The point is that my co-workers are vomiting a lot, and of course this is something to be shared on Facebook.
One of my co-workers posted that she had finally succumbed to the illness that had taken out a bunch of us already. I replied, comparing my symptoms with that of the others, and mentioned that I was on a soda cracker diet for a few days. Clearly I should not have mentioned the D-word, because it was at that point when things got silly.
One co-worker replied that "it" (she didn't specify if she was referring to the illness itself or my soda cracker comment) was the best diet ever.
Another co-worker replied to mention how much weight she had lost since becoming sick.
I was-- and still am-- flabbergasted at those comments. There are people who believe that wanting to puke up everything you try to put in your stomach-- even water-- isn't so bad, because at least you're losing weight! At least you're not cheating your diet!* And I feel like I'm the only one participating in that conversation who sees that sort of attitude for what it is: potentially destructive, disordered eating behaviour at worst, and a very unhealthy attitude towards food and weight loss at best.
It's so frustrating to see comments like that, because there's really nothing I can do. I tried combating opinions on dieting and weight loss and just being fat in the past at work, and I ended up hitting a brick wall so hard it was hurting my own mental health and attitude towards food. I don't have it in me to fight that battle again.
I still have all the supplies for making cheesecake, and I think I'm going to make it tomorrow. Originally I was going to bring it to work, to make up for not bringing anything to the original potluck, but fuck that; I'm going to bring it to my DnD session tomorrow night, and I think it'll be enjoyed a lot more there amongst people who don't seem to give a shit about calorie content.
*Actually, soda crackers probably aren't allowed on weird restrictive diets because evil carbs, or something like that.
Friday, June 8, 2012
Why a study on using positive thinking to treat depression has me cynical, not hopeful
From the BBC:
On the surface, this looks like something that could potentially help some people manage their depression. There's nothing wrong with that. My concern is how this will feed into the narrative that people with depression might feel better if they just think positively!
Yes, because thinking wonderful thoughts is the secret to flight and the cure for depression.
Obviously, this attitude aggravates me to no end. It's easy for someone who isn't mentally ill to conjure up happy thoughts. Someone with depression, on the other hand, might find that a bit more difficult. It's important for any article discussing mental illness and possible new treatments to be aware of the stigma and prevalent narratives surrounding said illness, and to ensure that the article doesn't further those things.
Yes, this research has potential. I won't be pleased if people who are not familiar with depression cite it when telling a depressed person to think happy things, though.
Cardiff University researchers used MRI scanners to show eight people how their brains reacted to positive imagery.
After four sessions of the therapy the participants had seen significant improvements in their depression.The most glaring critique of this research is the sample size: only eight people?! The people conducting the research acknowledged that more research is necessary, however. That's not why I'm feeling cynical about the study, however.
On the surface, this looks like something that could potentially help some people manage their depression. There's nothing wrong with that. My concern is how this will feed into the narrative that people with depression might feel better if they just think positively!
Yes, because thinking wonderful thoughts is the secret to flight and the cure for depression.
Obviously, this attitude aggravates me to no end. It's easy for someone who isn't mentally ill to conjure up happy thoughts. Someone with depression, on the other hand, might find that a bit more difficult. It's important for any article discussing mental illness and possible new treatments to be aware of the stigma and prevalent narratives surrounding said illness, and to ensure that the article doesn't further those things.
Yes, this research has potential. I won't be pleased if people who are not familiar with depression cite it when telling a depressed person to think happy things, though.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Bill 13 Passes
Light on the posting since I need to pick up extra hours at work (and Civ, I'll be honest), but I wanted to write a quick note to say that Bill 13, the Accepting Schools act (of which I have previously written) has passed its final reading, and will become law in time for school to start in September. The Liberals and NDP voted in favour of the bill, and the Tories opposed; no surprises there. The provision that students be allowed to form Gay-Straight Alliance clubs (and call them by that name) was left intact, and both public and Catholic schools must abide by it.
My younger brother starts grade 9 this fall, and he has opted to attend the local Catholic high school instead of a public one. (My parents gave us all a choice in picking our high school; my sister, just a grade below me, went to the local public school.) I started grade 9 twelve years ago, and while it's quite likely that the textbook used in religion classes has changed since then, I'd still love to get my hands on my brother's copy.
I want to see if any pages have been ripped out.
My younger brother starts grade 9 this fall, and he has opted to attend the local Catholic high school instead of a public one. (My parents gave us all a choice in picking our high school; my sister, just a grade below me, went to the local public school.) I started grade 9 twelve years ago, and while it's quite likely that the textbook used in religion classes has changed since then, I'd still love to get my hands on my brother's copy.
I want to see if any pages have been ripped out.
Friday, June 1, 2012
Tim Hortons pays workers a living wage, people upset
From the National Post:
The locations are operating at a loss, and the hospital is having budget problems as a result. (I also doubt that Tim Hortons is the only reason why the hospital has budget problems.) The blame is being pinned on the people working at the Tim Hortons, however, and I don't think that's fair. Those workers are being paid a living wage; why do so many people see that as a problem?
Are they being paid more than the average Tim Hortons worker? Yes, absolutely. The problem, however, is that the average Tim Hortons worker is underpaid, especially considering how physically taxing their job can be. I've worked at Tim Hortons, and it hurts! The people who own Tim Hortons can make huge profits, and those profits are made on the backs of their underpaid workers. It saddens me that people are complaining about the wages of the Tim Hortons employees at Windsor Regional Hospital when the real problem is that their work is horrifically undervalued. It also completely ignores the fact that the losses experienced by those locations might have causes other than the wages of its employees. Why is no one considering that?
The average Tim Hortons worker, and those working similar jobs, does not earn a living wage. This is a serious problem, especially if the government follows though on its proposed Employment Insurance changes and forces more people into those jobs. (The idea that I might have no choice but to work at my local Tim Hortons again actually scares me.) The obvious solution is to increase minimum wage, but this all too often just leads to an increase in the cost of living (because heaven forbid businesses take a small cut in profits rather than raise prices on the goods and services they offer). I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that attitudes of the people who wrote that National Post article I linked to above, and similar articles, needs to change before a solution can be found. People earning a living wage should be something to strive for, not a cause for so much criticism.
The hospital could hire as many as five more registered nurses with the money their Tim Hortons loses every year. However, is giving the 40 or so Tim Hortons workers a living wage such a bad trade-off?
Taxpayers are subsidizing the shortfall at the hospital’s three kiosks featuring Tim Hortons — one of the most successful restaurant chains in Canada — largely because the coffee-pourers are well-paid CAW workers.I've seen a lot of articles headlining the fact that the people working at the Tim Hortons locations in this hospital are earning $26 an hour. This is quite biased against the workers. Their actual wage, as stated in the above quote, is $20 per hour; the additional $6 is the value placed on the benefits those workers receive.
Windsor Regional Hospital servers make about $26 an hour — $20 in wages, the rest in benefits. At regular Tim Hortons outlets, which are typically profitable, wages vary. One employee told The Star she started at the Ontario minimum wage of $10.25 an hour.
The locations are operating at a loss, and the hospital is having budget problems as a result. (I also doubt that Tim Hortons is the only reason why the hospital has budget problems.) The blame is being pinned on the people working at the Tim Hortons, however, and I don't think that's fair. Those workers are being paid a living wage; why do so many people see that as a problem?
Are they being paid more than the average Tim Hortons worker? Yes, absolutely. The problem, however, is that the average Tim Hortons worker is underpaid, especially considering how physically taxing their job can be. I've worked at Tim Hortons, and it hurts! The people who own Tim Hortons can make huge profits, and those profits are made on the backs of their underpaid workers. It saddens me that people are complaining about the wages of the Tim Hortons employees at Windsor Regional Hospital when the real problem is that their work is horrifically undervalued. It also completely ignores the fact that the losses experienced by those locations might have causes other than the wages of its employees. Why is no one considering that?
The average Tim Hortons worker, and those working similar jobs, does not earn a living wage. This is a serious problem, especially if the government follows though on its proposed Employment Insurance changes and forces more people into those jobs. (The idea that I might have no choice but to work at my local Tim Hortons again actually scares me.) The obvious solution is to increase minimum wage, but this all too often just leads to an increase in the cost of living (because heaven forbid businesses take a small cut in profits rather than raise prices on the goods and services they offer). I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that attitudes of the people who wrote that National Post article I linked to above, and similar articles, needs to change before a solution can be found. People earning a living wage should be something to strive for, not a cause for so much criticism.
The hospital could hire as many as five more registered nurses with the money their Tim Hortons loses every year. However, is giving the 40 or so Tim Hortons workers a living wage such a bad trade-off?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)