Chase: The NICE Credit Card Company?

Well, being a moron, I accidentally ran my credit card over the limit. I was trying to "overlook" sharing this tidbit with S, when I got a surprising letter in the mail from Chase. The letter so surprised me, though, that I ended up sharing it with him--and, thus, revealing my faux pas with the credit limit. Here's what it said, though:

"We understand that no one likes to pay additional feed as risk losing charge privileges, so we would like to offer you a help in bringing your account balance under its credit limit. Over the next three billing cycles, we will not assess over limit fees on your account. We hope this fee waiver period will provide you with sufficient time and greater ability to return your balance below your credit limit, and bring your account back to good standing.

No over limit fees will be charged during the next three billing cycles. At the end of the three cycles, if your account balance remains over limit and you use your card to make a purchase, the over limit fee will be reinstated..."

So, given the evilness of credit card companies, I am wondering what the catch is. Granted, I did just open a checking account with them. Perhaps this is a nicety for giving them some more business? Yet, they cut my home equity line of credit long ago when the value of my home disappeared. I can't help but be suspicious... yet, it seems like this is just a human thing for the company to do.

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that they keep raising interest rates and making people who pay their bill on time pay them even more. Credit card companies are evil. If a normal person tried to charge 28% on borrowed money, he or she would be charged with loan sharking. If it's a credit card company, though, it's a-okay. Nevertheless, I still think this is a nice gesture... because they could be taking even more advantage of people when they are having tough times than they are.

Way to go, Chase.

My Hero

Sometimes I think animals have more power than we realize.

I will admit that I am a dog person. Although I have deeply loved cats in my life--four of them in particular--dogs have been the pets I couldn't live without. When S came into my life, he brought M, the gorgeous fellow shown on the left. My dogs went to live a few miles down the road with Grandma and Grandpa, but I still see them everyday, all day at work.

Living with M has been different. I can't roughly pet him. I can't make him sit on my lap. I can't spazz out with him; well, sometimes I can. Nevertheless, I quickly learned that our relationship is on his terms, which can be hard for a dog person to comprehend. M does have his moments where he wants to be lovey, though, and those are the times I most enjoy with him. Lately, he's been snuggling next to me on the couch at night--not on my lap--but next to me. He has also crawled into bed with S and I the past couple nights... which brings me to my point.

I was having the worst dream the night before last. I was in a situation I didn't want to be in, and I didn't know how to get out of it. While nothing was going wrong in the dream, I felt trapped, conflicted, and fearful--and I didn't know what to do. It was at that moment that M walked by the car I was dreaming I was in. It took a moment to register, but I was like, "Hey, that's my cat." Then it dawned on me that he was loose and I needed to get him. I was in a busy toll booth area. I got out of the car and he started to run away, leading me away from what I wanted to get away from. Then he ran behind the line of booths. I was held up trying to pass through security, and I kept yelling, "Stop that cat! Please!" Then a nurse grabbed him, but he scratched her. An Asian man met the same fate. Several other people were trying to catch him for me, too. Finally, I was free and starting to run toward him... when I woke up. And when I woke up, I opened my eyes, and M was laying directly in front of my face, staring into my eyes. He gave me this look as if to say, "I want you here; don't go to that place again." Or, to put it in more M-esque lingo, "Stick with me, Kid; you'll be fine."

It just felt like he was looking into my soul. I know that sounds tacky, but he rescued me from that nightmare in a very symbolic way... and he is my furry hero, my step-cat son. It is similar to how the dogs know when I am down and need them, and they magically appear to check on me and make me pet them. M did the same thing... just in his own subtle, cat-like way.

The Nikki Catsouras Tragedy

A couple weeks ago I saw an article on the AOL front page about Nikki Catsouras. I saw a smiling girl, read she had died, thought it was a shame, and chose not to read the article lest I be depressed the rest of the day. Today I found myself thumbing through a Newsweek in a waiting room and found the same picture looking back at me. As I started to read the article, I was appalled to learn of the other pictures of Nikki Catsouras that are circling around the internet--some 3 years after her death in a horrific car crash--and of the torment and pain they have caused her family.

For those who don’t know, 18 year-old Nikki Catsouras crashed her father’s Porsche while driving around 100 mph and with traces of cocaine in her system. Her body was so disturbing that the coroner didn’t allow her parents to identify it. Then, by some mysterious accident, the crash photos that were taken for the California Highway Patrol’s investigation were leaked by two officers, Thomas O’Donnell and Aaron Reich (who received slap on the wrist punishments), including one of the teen nearly decapitated and still strapped into the car. Subsequently, the photos went viral on the net and were published on over 1,600 websites. While many sites have pulled them, many others have not because it is their “right” to post them--and because the people who run these sites are in an apparent competition for title of the most pathetic excuse for a human being on the planet.

While the internet is filled with macabre images, we often don’t think in our desensitized society that those images can cause people pain. In this case, the photos and the scum of society who have posted them have caused a grieving family to relive the horror of their loss on a daily basis. Not only do they deal with the fact that their daughter’s privacy is being violated as cretins laugh and spread the pictures, but they have been personally targeted with the pictures. Nikki's father received an email claiming to be regarding a real estate deal; however, when he opened it, it contained a gruesome photo of his deceased child and the text, “"Woohoo Daddy! Hey daddy, I'm still alive." Nikki's mother went to pull up the directions to a hair salon named “Legends.” When she entered that name and her city, Nikki’s death displayed because she has become the “legend” of her town. One of Nikki’s sisters was in school and listening to an auto-safety lecture when a firefighter brought up her sister; overwhelmed, the young girl ran from the room. Her schoolmates added to her pain by putting copies of the photos of her dead sister into her locker; needless to say, Nikki’s sisters are now being home schooled. The entire family is not only having to deal with the loss of their loved one, but the heartless spread of information about her—which stemmed from the release of her car crash photos.

Newsweek reports that that entire family is in therapy and that they have taken out a second mortgage on their home in order to pay for legal expenses in their fight to ultimately be able to put their daughter—and the photos—to rest. So far their legal battle has resulted in one judge stating that a deceased person’s privacy does not extend beyond the deceased. The family has appealed, and on June 1st they will be before another judge. Some experts believe their case should be overturned, especially since, according to Newsweek, “the Supreme Court ruled that the government could deny Freedom of Information Act requests for the photos based on a family's right to survivor privacy."

When one thinks of all the pieces of the case, he or she has to ask, “Why?” It is a hard question to answer. Has humanity sunk this low? I used to believe people were more “good” than they are. A situation like this one, though, makes me understand S’ argument that the “vast majority of people are despicable.” From the email Nikki’s father received to the pictures stuffed in her sister’s locker to the billboard someone wanted to rent near the family’s house to display the photos, I am wondering why people want to torment others so much. Why is there so much hate? And I think I have at least one answer for this case: jealousy.

Several sites have referred to Nikki as everything from “Porsche Girl” to “whore” to “coke head.” Others have posted things like, “What a waste of a Porsche” or “R.I.P. Porsche.” The epitome of jealousy was the comment: “The rich bitch deserved it.” Apparently, money is all these envious people care about. They see a pretty, privileged girl and their own self-loathing for their situations fuels their anger and hated. No site I saw mentioned the facts of Nikki’s life, which include the following from the aforementioned Newsweek article:

“The family's life wasn't as idyllic as it seemed. In third grade, Nikki was diagnosed with a brain tumor that doctors didn't think she'd survive. It turned out to be benign, but 8-year-old Nikki had to undergo intensive radiation, and doctors told her parents the effects of that treatment on her young brain might show up someday—perhaps by causing changes in her judgment, or impulse control. Her family believes that's why, the summer before the accident, Nikki tried cocaine and ended up in the hospital in a cocaine-induced psychosis. She used cocaine again the night before the accident, her family says. Lesli and Christos discussed checking her into a hospital, but decided against it: she was to visit a psychiatrist the next day, a specialist on brain disorders. So they let her sleep it off.”

The next day, however, Nikki suddenly took the car she wasn't allowed to drive and lost her life. I wonder if one person who posted horrid things about her even knew about her struggle… or even faced such a struggle in his or her own life.

I hate to admit it, but I did research sites claiming to have Nikki’s crash photos. I wasn’t doing it because I wanted to see the pictures; rather, I wanted to see what sites were still posting and advertising them in order to find out who is responsible for the sites. You see, I recently received the following notice for some domains I own:

“In accordance with ICANN (Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers) Whois Data Reminder Policy (WDRP) resolution 03.41, this message is a reminder to help you keep the public WHOIS contact data associated with your domain name registration up-to-date... If any of the information above is inaccurate, you must correct it by contacting your domain name supplier, hosting company or web services provider by either calling them or visiting their web site. If your review indicates that all of the information above is accurate, you do not need to take any action. Please remember that under the terms of your registration agreement, the provision of false Whois information can be grounds for cancellation of your domain name registration.”

Knowing this tidbit of information, I wondered if the a-holes who owned the sites that psoted pictures were abiding by the rules of ICANN. And guess what? They aren’t. Miraculously, all info on the worst site that is out there is listed as “unknown” on one whois search. Another whois search of that same site listed the owner as being someone in the Ukraine with a phony email address. In fact, the database lists 47 whois changes on that one record. It looks like someone is running scared. I mean, it takes balls to post these pictures and then hide your identity, doesn’t it? The only good thing about this fact is that the owner of the site can be reported and possibly have the domain pulled if they do not post valid information. Even if the person privately registers the name, their information is on record so a court-order can be served to make the person pull the photos if the Catsouras' are sucessful in their lawsuit... and hopefully papers a civil lawsuit can be served against the person as well.

I have one word for those who are spreading these pictures and making hateful comments: karma. What comes around does go around. Eventually you will lose someone you love. You will hurt in ways you never imagined. And hopefully you will suffer from the knowledge the pain you caused others who were in a similar situation--others who included little girls, as young as 6 yearsold, who lost their big sister. You will be lucky if you experience this pain. Because if you do, you may agonize over your actions so much that you truly pray for forgiveness. I think that is one of the only things that is going to save you from sweating profusely for all eternity.


********

To help the family of Nikki Catsouras:

There is a tribute site up for Nikki at http://www.supportnikki.org. Unfortunately, the petition on the site isn’t working. However, another petition exists at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/661936431. There aren’t many signatures yet, so sign it and forward it. You can also visit another tribute site for Nikki at http://www.myspace.com/300948762. This site also provides the contact info for Governor Schwarzenegger (http://gov.ca.gov/interact) and President Obama (http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/); it can’t hurt to send them an email about this situation. You can also contact ICANN at http://www.icann.org/cgi/contact/ and report that there is faulty registration information on nikkicatsouras.net. As the June 1st trial date approaches, other opportunities to help may also be posted on other websites. Finally, you can always say a prayer for Nikki’s family that they may finally find some peace.

The Reader

I just finished watching The Reader, a film based on a novel by Bernhard Schlink. I have to say that I am left with an empty feeling that I just can't describe. It is a similar emptiness to the feeling I had after watching The Lover. I feel drained and hollow.

When this movie came out, talk swirled about the image of the Holocaust it presented, the impropriety of an underage sexual relationship, and the superb acting skills of Kate Winslet. So much focus was one Winslet and her character that I think most people missed that fact that this film actually delves most deeply into the character of Michael, her co-star, portrayed by Ralph Fiennes and David Kross.

A Wikipedia entry describes the story as dealing "with the difficulties which subsequent generations have in comprehending the Holocaust; specifically, whether a sense of its origins and magnitude can be adequately conveyed solely through written and oral media." I disagree. The Holocaust is not the focus of this story, and if one thinks it is, he or she is missing the mark. Additionally, the IMDB database tags the film with the line, "How far would you go to protect a secret?" And a great portion of the film is dedicated to answering that question. However, it also misses the mark. While it is easy to focus on the shock of Hanna's history, we have to remember that it is actually Michael and the struggle his character faces--not only with what Hanna did while working as a Nazi but also with the ramifications of their affair on his entire life--who is the underlying focus of the film.

Many people have lost this aspect of the film by becoming too caught up in the hollywoodization of the Holocaust to let themselves see and feel this underlying current of the film. Some will argue the film was about the redemption of a person who took part in atrocities, and others will argue it is about the realization that we do not know everything about those we love. While those elements are parts of the film, the bigger picture--when seen from Michael's perspective--is that it is a film on the consequences of our actions and the vulnerability associated with letting ourselves love. So while there's been much discussion about the portrayal of the Holocaust, about the post-war guilt of Winslet's character, and the realization of one generation's wrongs by another, those arguments focus too much on Hanna. In reality, The Reader is about just that: the reader, Michael. It is his plight we see, his pain we feel. And, through his story, we learn this story is about the disturbing realization that one choice can effect our entire life, a choice that may or may not be our own.

In The Reader, a choice was made in the first few minutes of the film: a rain-soaked Hanna offers to help to an ill Michael. Had that help not been offered, and had that help not been accepted, the ensuing tale, which is predominately about Michael, would not have come to be. During the entire film, we see Hanna's life through the window of Michael's life. We see the after-effects of their affair resonate throughout his years. Even though the majority of the plot is about Hanna, the emotion the viewer feels is for Michael and the fact that is whole life is framed by a single choice he made when he was 15 years-old. Hanna was the first woman he knew, and her lack of emotion and his coming to terms with her actions deeply scars him and still haunts him 40 years later. His entire view of women is effected by that solitary choice. We see that he cannot be open with girlfriends through the years, nor, we assume, his wife whom he divorces. He goes to one of Hanna's female victims, at Hanna's bequest, and blankly turns to her for an answer that isn't coming. He doesn't even trust his own daughter until the end of the film--and he only does so after he comes to terms with his feelings for Hanna.

Attention is obviously focused during the film on what Hanna did as an SS officer to the Jewish women she monitored and the harm she caused them. However, she also effected Michael's entire life by their one summer affair. Can the argument be made that she harmed him more than the women? It may be a stretch, but it is worthy of discussion. We see the torment he faces over the sudden loss of Hanna when she disappears. We see him struggle as he comes to terms with the horrors the woman he believed he loved committed. We see him fight himself to allow her to make her own choice, even though it hurts her. We see him come to terms with Hanna's lack of humanity. And we see him grieve her death. Yet, that pain Hanna causes him isn't his only suffering. Because of Hanna and how consumed he is with her, the ramifications of their affair effect him in his relationships with other women and ultimatley lead him to live a life not unlike Hanna's: while she is locked in a physical prison, Michael is locked in an emotional one--until he breaks free and reaches out to another woman, his daughter.

Once this film is viewed and digested, we forget about Hanna. We forget about Michael. Yet, we still have an emptiness. Why? It is the knowledge of what one choice can do. It is the deep fear of making a mistake that we all have. We wonder: is life predetermined? Are things meant to be? Is it fate? Is it God? Why do we follow the path we do? And how do we deal with regret when we make a decision that effects us the rest of our lives? To me, Michael's life is regret. He was an innocent, and he was more plagued by regret than Hanna, who had every reason to live with it every day. Whether she did or didn't face that regret is up to the viewer to interpret. Whether she was redeemed is up to the viewer. Whether she is forgiven is up to the viewer. Also up to the viewer is the decision of whom Hanna most victimized, was it actually Michael? Was it, in fact, the reader?

Further reading on the controversial nature of the film:
http://mjhblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/my-thoughts-on-reader.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2210804/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/jan/02/the-reader-kate-winslet-film

Mean Carrie Prejean

My nausea meter is maxing out on the whole Miss California gay marriage thing. I was happy that it finally seemed to be blowing over. Then I read the May 25th issue of Time and saw it mentioned yet again. It was in the “Briefing” section, where a head shot was posted on the predictability meter. Under “Shockingly Predictable” it read: “Miss California passionately defends her right to infringe on others’ rights.” And, I thought, “Really?”

Let’s actually take a look at this claim…

First, since when is it infringing upon a right to state one’s opinion? If I say that hamsters shouldn’t wear pink tutus and eat PopTarts, am I infringing upon hamsters’ rights? Since when has stating an opinion been infringing? I live in a state where the KKK has had their first amendment right protected, via police intervention, so they could spew hatred. So they are allowed to preach white supremecy and be protected, yet a woman can’t say she believes a marriage is between a man and woman in a beauty pageant without infringing on someone’s rights? Really?

Second, since when is stating a commonly accepted belief wrong or an infringement? Isn’t that just normal? If I state that I don’t think we should drive through red lights, am I infringing upon others’ rights to do so? Granted there isn’t a law against gay marriage as there is a traffic law against running red lights, but how different is it? Gay marriage creates an exception to a current, commonly accepted norm. Today, 11 states allow gay marriage. 78% have not written in a new law to allow it. Miss California isn’t speaking anything that the majority of lawmakers in her state--or the majority of lawmakers in the majority of states--disagree with. President Obama even agrees with her. Yet, the beauty queen is an infringer? Really?

Finally, how did Carrie Prejean “infringe on others’ rights” when gay marriage is not a right? Again, 78% of states don’t allow it. It is not a right. Whether you support it or do not, it still isn’t a right. So how can it be infringed upon? Simple: it can’t be. And Time was either just plain moronic or incredibly biased to make such a ludicrous claim. REALLY.

********

UPDATE: A new story just broke in the last 3 hours! A woman claims to have dated Carrie Prejean’s mom! Wow! My nausea meter just exploded on my computer screen!

********

The reason I wrote this blog was truly about how this Prejean-thing is being blown out of proportion and how the media is skewing it. However, it seems almost impossible to ignore what happened after writing about it—and two things happened. First, a woman was actually asked a topical question at a beauty pageant. And that is a shocker. The problem is that she was asked a question by a biased person with both an agenda and vendetta. Nevertheless, I say it took moxie to answer the way she did, especially in an industry that has so many people who would be against her. She put herself out there. She stood up for her belief in marriage and her belief in God. It would have been a lot easier for her just to give a “world peace” type of answer, but I commend her for not being a vapid airhead. I think all contestants should be asked real life, intellectual questions. Not that I expect a diatribe on the economics of underdeveloped countries, but let the women be appreciated for their brains as well as their bodies. The fact that Prejean was asked a real question and honestly answered it is enough reason for her to win a crown; she had an actual opinion, was poised and confident enough to state it, and she looks great in a bikini. That should be the trifecta of a modern day patriarchal contest.

However, something else happened: a contestant lied on her application and faced no repercussions. And, despite whether the witch-hunt that caused this information to come out is right or wrong, it’s out. Just like lies have gotten out and taken a myriad of politicians and other celebrities on the ride of their lives. Just think about the number of politicians who have shut up and dropped out of races because people found dirt on them. If you put yourself out there, and someone doesn’t like you, they will find dirt on you. You have to be prepared for that… or have a lot of money to silence people. In the end, the average person really has to practice what he or she preaches. Because Carrie Prejean has been one to speak form a religious perspective, I have to comment on her in that way: she chose to follow God’s example on some things but not others. She thinks gay marriage is wrong because of God’s teaching, but she broke commandment nine and lied. And that hurts her credibility. No one but God is perfect. But Carrie Prejean lied on her application--and several times after that to try to cover it up. Her actions were neither moral nor ethical. Granted, if she had kept her mouth shut like a good, little girl, it may not have come out. But it did. And she should have lost her crown.

Given all that has happened, let’s think about what we taught young girls with all this hoopla. They should still be judged on their beauty. Being pretty—even if you surgically enhance beauty or starve yourself to achieve it—is good. If you speak what is one your mind, it is bad. You could get into a lot of trouble and get a lot of people mad at you. If you are pretty, though, you get away with a lot and things like lying don’t matter. You can shake your butt or implants for an old, rich white guy and you won’t get into any trouble. In fact, he will let you lie to him, break rules, and then commend you for it… so long as you are pretty. That is the moral of the Prejean saga that young women learned. And it is truly unfortunate.

I was a Prejean supporter until the fact that she lied on her application came out. She knowingly lied, and she should have been punished. Is what happened to her fair? Probably not. If she hasn’t answered that incendiary question honestly would this have come out? Probably not. However, other women did not apply for the competition because they had taken semi-nude/nude photos. How is that fair to them? It’s simply not.

I mean, I am sorry that when Prejean appeared on television in her bra and panties she didn’t understand how people could see that as appearing semi-nude. And I am sorry that she was a minor/wasn’t a minor when semi-nude photos were taken of her after she answered that she had never posed for semi-nude photos on her application. (Her rep even said, "It's not a semi-nude pose because she is modeling lingerie." Yeah, Oookay!) And I am sorry that she responded to the first picture by lying, "There are no other photos of me. This was the only one I took..." before multiple other photos surfaced. And I am sorry that the "wind" blew open her vest during a photo shoot and exposed her nipple right when the photographer shot five or six photos... each in a different pose... and each with her hair adjusted differently. But I am really sorry that this young woman had the potential to be a role model, and now she isn’t; she should have stepped-up and stepped-down, taken accountability for her actions, and moved on.

"Swine" Flu... oh, I mean " H1N1" Flu

One more comment on the whole "Swine Flu," which I feel has been blown completely out-of-proportion to the point it should be called "Swine Paranoia." I used to joke that it should be renamed the "Pig Flu." I thought it sounded better. However, after reading about all the pigs that were slaughtered in Egypt, I am no longer laughing.

How stupid are people? I mean really.

In the case of the pigs that were culled in Egypt, one has to look at the motivation for the action. First, the government had been criticized in the past for not handling problems fast enough or thorough enough: case and point the bird flu. It seems like they were just looking to jump--as many people were--to get rid of the problem by getting rid of pigs since it was called "Swine flu." Brilliant. It didn't hurt that the leaders of the nation didn't generate any cash from the pigs, ingest the pigs, or need the pigs for their families' very survival.

Second, one also has to wonder if there were other motivations for the action; for example, perhaps it was also done to take advantage of the impoverished Christians who struggle in the Muslim nation--especially since no cases of swine flu had even been found there at the time of the slaughter. There are mixed feelings on what happened from Muslims, but only one side mentions religion. According to the AP, "Some militants posted online that swine flu was God's revenge against 'infidels.'" Apparently, since the 90% Muslim majority views pigs as "unclean," it didn't seem so bad to do away with them and give an added kick to those pesky 'infidels' in their country.

I do wonder what would have happened if it had been "Chicken Flu" or something that effected the entire population. Would all the chickens have been slaughtered? I am thinking not. At least the Muslim government was nice enough to let the poor farmers sell the meat from the cull... so that the government could justify not compensating the farmers for their loss. How generous, especially given the fact there was no grounds for their action and that they were acting out of fear of criticism and sheer paranoia.

However, on the flip side, the AP also reported that, Abdullah Kamal, a Muslim writer of a pro-government newspaper, criticized the order to slaughter the estimated 300,000 pigs arguing that "Killing (pigs) is not a solution, otherwise, we should kill the people, because the virus spreads through them." Sometimes it seems like only people outside of government have functioning brains.

When you look at what happened to Egypt's 300,000 pigs--and the suffering that has come to the farmers who lost them--there really is one person to blame: the idiot who dubbed this virus "Swine flu." I am serious. Granted, the media spread the fear of this illness faster than a bunny on Viagra reproduces, but the person who thought of the name is truly to blame. I would happily nominate them for the Darwin Award of the Century. I want to know who it was who did it. Seriously. This genius has caused so much suffering by thinking of such a moronic name, and I want to know that there will be repercussions. And, oh yeah, changing its name to "H1N1 Flu" really helps NOW. That's some more genius thinking. I'm sure everyone will start calling it that now...

It was known early on that the "Swine flu" was a mixture of swine, bird, and human flu. And given the fact that it seems nearly impossible that this flu could have been created naturally in the environment, one can also wonder where it really came from. (I am smelling another blog.) Nevertheless, it was also known early that humans didn't this flu from pigs. So, why the name? If it had been called the Mexico Flu, since it originated there, the tourist industry there would have taken forever to rebound. So, who is after the pork industry and why? I mean, with the whole "Swine Flu" fear, who is running out to buy a big ol' ham for Sunday dinner? I am guessing no one, even though you can't get the Swine Flu from ingesting pork. (Case and point the monumental losses the beef industry faced from Mad Cow Disease, which really did come from the aforementioned animal.) Not that I am defending the potbellies in the pork industry or am even concerned about them, especially since they are no more friendly to the pigs than the Egyptians were, but... it makes one wonder, doesn't it?

Maybe the pork industry didn't donate enough to Obama's campaign.


Further Reading:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jVjq5eEi7w7p4zgIjnSIiBIZ7RkQD97TEKMO0
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090501/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_egypt_scapegoating_pigs
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090503/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_egypt_swine_flu
http://ydr.inyork.com/ci_12252751

Infectious Guilt

Well, I am sick. Actually, I am getting over it now. I think I was infected by my cousin when I went to visit for a funeral. Usually I am infected by carrier monkies--oops, I mean "children--when I visit. This time, though, my adult cousin assured me she wasn't sick anymore before hugging me. Uh huh. The worst part is that I got S sick, and I feel awful for that. He took care of me the last 11 days. Then, bam. I thought we were in the clear. Apparently not.

Aside from wishing I could do anything to have him not be sick, I am reflecting on surviving this cold. See, a few years back, I had a horrible sickness that lasted over 3 months. I lost my hearing, had to have my eardrum vacuumed, and basically went slowly insane. I had no control over my body or senses. It was very hard on me. Before that episode, I didn’t care about getting sick. It was just something you got through. Since then, though, I have been panicked about it. This cold was the first time I didn’t freak out. I tolerated it. I was patient. And I had someone who loved me caring for me.

S really did take care of me, too. He even researched remedies online and rubbed essential oil in the soles of my feet to help me stop coughing. I didn't expect that. Maybe I didn't think I was worth it. In a way, it was reminiscent of my mom when I was younger. I can't explain it. It was just like I was safe and loved. And the last time I was sick, my situation was far different. Anyway, I have ended up having to take steroids because my lungs got inflamed and I got the dreaded “seal bark” cough of asthma. I am getting through, though. And S is dealing with the barking.

I just hope he gets over this quickly. I can’t stand to see him suffering. I also feel awful because I infected him. Plus, he is so used to being on his own that he doesn’t let me help him much. He doesn’t ask for help. He doesn’t want to take help. I, on the other hand, whined and he looked after me. I felt so loved. I wish I could return that for him.

I am also worried because I don’t know if I am a great comforter. My main example of comforting comes from my mom. She always seemed to know just what to do to make me feel better. So I try to remember those things to do. It is just hard knowing how much comforting he wants. I also ask a lot of questions, which can be annoying. “Would you like some tea?” “Can I get you some Chloraseptic?” “Do you need anything?” I sound like a broken record. So, I am giving him his space and hoping he lets me know if he needs anything. I don’t want him to think I don’t care, but I don’t want to be a pest. I tread such a fine line.

And I think I am leaning toward pest.

P.S. To everyone who has seen me in public: I don’t have the swine flu. Everyone who has a cough does not have it. You don’t need to run the other direction. (But I can understand why you do… because I usually do when I see you cough.)