So the secret is out: Travel & Leisure mag rated Anchorage, Alaska the worst dressed city in the USA.
Oh my, now everyone will know why I really live in Alaska....
So, why is being in the worst dressed city actually a good thing?? I'll tell you why:
1- Anyone can look good amongst the worst. I mean don't put any duct tape patches on your parka and scrape that dog poop off your heel and you are good to go! Everyone is sexy and they know it.
2- The financial savings. I can't believe how much money I have saved in Alaska by never having to update my wardrobe. Anyone who actually buys new clothes is mocked until the habit of shopping simply fades away and dies...
3- The simplicity. No giant closets to worry about or fashion magazines to read. Just grab something non-stinky (stinky in the Valley is ok) wipe the dog hair off your socks, and you are dressed.
I will say that now and then, the blood splattered coveralls at the grocery store, or flannel shirts in nice restaurants do bother be. But I guess it's a small price to pay, in order to march around all day as an Alaskan fashion diva - look at me-- I put on clean pants this morning!
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Alaska, More Socialist Than Europe?
I just read an article about Europe fighting to keep a few 'socialist' traditions amongst angry calls for austerity measures. It actually made me chuckle, as I recognized some of these so called 'socialist' ideas are alive and well in fiercely conservative Alaska.
Most people in the Lower 48 probably assume that Alaska is as "red state Republican" as they come, and maybe so on election day. But secretly there are no other Americans (besides Hawaiins) that value "work / life balance" over all else.
For example, the Europeans are known for enjoying long weekends around Holiday times. Well every Friday in Alaska is considered an unofficial Holiday. Everyone here knows that all Alaska state employees take every other Friday off, my dentist never works Fridays (or Mondays for that matter) , I know accountants, lawyers, office clerks, etc.. who all follow the "Friday is for fun" rule. And if it's sunny and warm out, be glad if you can even get a cashier at the grocery store.
Another fun fact: Alaskans don't pay state taxes. Why is that so? Because we tax the evil oil companies instead. And who voted to increase taxes on big oil?? Well the Tea Party sweet heart, Mrs. Sarah Palin. Heck, just for some more socialist fun, when Sarah was governor, she gave every Alaskan a few extra thousand dollars (from the oil companies), on top of the annual Alaskan dividend check-- take that Chavez--you capitalistic goon!
Profits for profits sake, are also strongly discouraged. After over 10 years in Alaska, we still get annoyed when the store associates scold us for wanting to spend money. A typical exchange: I am looking to install hardwood floors". An Alaskan answer: "what would you want to do that for?" They are much more expensive and won't hold up as well as laminate or vinyl".
I could go on and on with the secret socialism alive and well here, but I just don't want to give it all away, and cause somekind of mass exodus to Alaska, putting us into austerity mode too!
Most people in the Lower 48 probably assume that Alaska is as "red state Republican" as they come, and maybe so on election day. But secretly there are no other Americans (besides Hawaiins) that value "work / life balance" over all else.
For example, the Europeans are known for enjoying long weekends around Holiday times. Well every Friday in Alaska is considered an unofficial Holiday. Everyone here knows that all Alaska state employees take every other Friday off, my dentist never works Fridays (or Mondays for that matter) , I know accountants, lawyers, office clerks, etc.. who all follow the "Friday is for fun" rule. And if it's sunny and warm out, be glad if you can even get a cashier at the grocery store.
Another fun fact: Alaskans don't pay state taxes. Why is that so? Because we tax the evil oil companies instead. And who voted to increase taxes on big oil?? Well the Tea Party sweet heart, Mrs. Sarah Palin. Heck, just for some more socialist fun, when Sarah was governor, she gave every Alaskan a few extra thousand dollars (from the oil companies), on top of the annual Alaskan dividend check-- take that Chavez--you capitalistic goon!
Profits for profits sake, are also strongly discouraged. After over 10 years in Alaska, we still get annoyed when the store associates scold us for wanting to spend money. A typical exchange: I am looking to install hardwood floors". An Alaskan answer: "what would you want to do that for?" They are much more expensive and won't hold up as well as laminate or vinyl".
I could go on and on with the secret socialism alive and well here, but I just don't want to give it all away, and cause somekind of mass exodus to Alaska, putting us into austerity mode too!
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Truth Abouth Skinny People
I always enjoy writing posts about 'truth' or what I perceive it to be--so here's another one.
A few years back, my husband and I lost quite a bit of weight. His secret was a drastic dietary change, mostly gluten free, replaced by lean protein. Icy Jane on the other hand, went on her infamous "Bitch and Moan" diet, which is really very simple. I'll share the recipe here:
Wake up and eat a grapefruit and 4 cups of coffee for breakfast, allow one cup of yogurt for lunch, followed by an average dinner. Continue for 10-14 days. You will be dizzy and cranky. Spend time on the couch bitching and moaning, as exercising (at least for me) just makes me hungrier and destroys all dietary progress. Do not operate heavy machinery.
In about 14 days: it's a miracle--20 pounds are shed.
So here's the truth part: losing the weight was easy, keeping it off harder (as if you haven't heard that before). You will have to drastically reduce the portions, snacks and meals you are used to eating. Then accept that you will feel hungry all the time. Get used to it. The feeling in your belly gets a bit better --(it's been over a year now for me), but sometimes I can't even remember if I ate lunch or not--because the feeling is the same.
My husband has a slower metabolism, so he barely eats at all. No joke. Black tea, yogurt, fruit and nuts as snacks, and a gluten free dinner--and he exercises like crazy--six hours per week. Poor thing.
The other truth--we are always cold. Now it doesn't help that we reside in friggin Alaska, but Eskimos know best--fat is good in the arctic! Without the extra layer of insulation, it is soooo cold.
You need to have a certain amount of vanity to put up with constant hunger and shivering just to have a good body. Although personally, we feel it was worth it--at least it saves money on the grocery bill!
A few years back, my husband and I lost quite a bit of weight. His secret was a drastic dietary change, mostly gluten free, replaced by lean protein. Icy Jane on the other hand, went on her infamous "Bitch and Moan" diet, which is really very simple. I'll share the recipe here:
Wake up and eat a grapefruit and 4 cups of coffee for breakfast, allow one cup of yogurt for lunch, followed by an average dinner. Continue for 10-14 days. You will be dizzy and cranky. Spend time on the couch bitching and moaning, as exercising (at least for me) just makes me hungrier and destroys all dietary progress. Do not operate heavy machinery.
In about 14 days: it's a miracle--20 pounds are shed.
So here's the truth part: losing the weight was easy, keeping it off harder (as if you haven't heard that before). You will have to drastically reduce the portions, snacks and meals you are used to eating. Then accept that you will feel hungry all the time. Get used to it. The feeling in your belly gets a bit better --(it's been over a year now for me), but sometimes I can't even remember if I ate lunch or not--because the feeling is the same.
My husband has a slower metabolism, so he barely eats at all. No joke. Black tea, yogurt, fruit and nuts as snacks, and a gluten free dinner--and he exercises like crazy--six hours per week. Poor thing.
The other truth--we are always cold. Now it doesn't help that we reside in friggin Alaska, but Eskimos know best--fat is good in the arctic! Without the extra layer of insulation, it is soooo cold.
You need to have a certain amount of vanity to put up with constant hunger and shivering just to have a good body. Although personally, we feel it was worth it--at least it saves money on the grocery bill!
Monday, April 2, 2012
Can Children Dare to be Different??
Recently there has been quite a bit of media attention around the increasing amount of autistic spectrum diagnosis. Now, I do not mean to make light of a situation that is obviously a serious issue for many children, I do however have an issue with "autism paranoia".
Years ago, I experienced some "concerned" comments about my own child. There was a slight speech delay and a tendency to "line up toys". It was implied that I was not a great parent for having these issues evaluated, tested and the child tortured. It did not matter that I knew this child was happy and fine....
Then there is another childhood quirk called "flapping", namely a child gets excited and flaps their hands while hopping up and down. My child does this and we find it very cute. But with "autism paranoia" in the air, this same tendency (if you Google it) is considered a horrible red flag and needs to be (and I quote) "redirected to a more appropriate gesture such as clapping". What the hell??
Why am I supposed to redirect my child to become a robot? He is happy, gets good grades, well behaved, and has more empathy towards others than I ever did. It just seems that once again, "fitting in" trumps all rational thinking. Doesn't anyone see that if we only focus on making our children "normal", they will never be extraordinary and dare to achieve greatness??
Do you think that artists, musicians, or scientists "fit in"?? No-- they do not--what makes them awesome are their differences and ability not to fear them.. If we continue to obsess about every childhood quirk, molding our kids to be exactly like everyone else, don't be surprised when their most daring aspiration is to become an ordinary administrative assistant at beige interiors limited....
Years ago, I experienced some "concerned" comments about my own child. There was a slight speech delay and a tendency to "line up toys". It was implied that I was not a great parent for having these issues evaluated, tested and the child tortured. It did not matter that I knew this child was happy and fine....
Then there is another childhood quirk called "flapping", namely a child gets excited and flaps their hands while hopping up and down. My child does this and we find it very cute. But with "autism paranoia" in the air, this same tendency (if you Google it) is considered a horrible red flag and needs to be (and I quote) "redirected to a more appropriate gesture such as clapping". What the hell??
Why am I supposed to redirect my child to become a robot? He is happy, gets good grades, well behaved, and has more empathy towards others than I ever did. It just seems that once again, "fitting in" trumps all rational thinking. Doesn't anyone see that if we only focus on making our children "normal", they will never be extraordinary and dare to achieve greatness??
Do you think that artists, musicians, or scientists "fit in"?? No-- they do not--what makes them awesome are their differences and ability not to fear them.. If we continue to obsess about every childhood quirk, molding our kids to be exactly like everyone else, don't be surprised when their most daring aspiration is to become an ordinary administrative assistant at beige interiors limited....
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
The Ugly Truth
The other day, I had the unfortunate experience of recognizing my own naivete, regarding how many humans actually want to be humane.
As I was sorting some old papers and articles, I came about an old book review of the "Bell Curve". Race controversy aside, the book seems to statistically explain a common phenomena I observed working with poor and disadvantaged social groups, usually white. It kinds of hits you in the face that the ability to rise up and achieve in society is very often determined by genetic intelligence. Simply put, the smarter your parents were, the more likely you'll make good decisions and be somewhat successful..
Now then, it seemed really obvious to me (and to folks like Warren Buffet) that this genetic tendency towards success or failure naturally shows a good reason to help the unfortunate with more social programs, right? Wrong.
As I read further in the book review, they stated that conservative think tanks embraced the "Bell Curve" findings from a public policy perspective, as it justified eliminating food stamps, medicaid, housing assistance, etc. Say what? I had to re-read this part. As I continued, the article clarified: since these impoverished social groups with lower intelligence will always be poor and never achieve middle class lifestyles, there was no point to subsidize their offspring and encourage breeding.
The only thing they left out, was the logical conclusion of this argument-- that the poor and stupid should just die.
I could not believe this ugly truth.. The same argument I had been using for years to justify social programs - they were using as an argument against ! I always thought Ayn Rand was something of a cruel anomaly with her rants about the "dullards" needing to die, but now I see she is not alone. What a cruel, cruel world we live in.
As I was sorting some old papers and articles, I came about an old book review of the "Bell Curve". Race controversy aside, the book seems to statistically explain a common phenomena I observed working with poor and disadvantaged social groups, usually white. It kinds of hits you in the face that the ability to rise up and achieve in society is very often determined by genetic intelligence. Simply put, the smarter your parents were, the more likely you'll make good decisions and be somewhat successful..
Now then, it seemed really obvious to me (and to folks like Warren Buffet) that this genetic tendency towards success or failure naturally shows a good reason to help the unfortunate with more social programs, right? Wrong.
As I read further in the book review, they stated that conservative think tanks embraced the "Bell Curve" findings from a public policy perspective, as it justified eliminating food stamps, medicaid, housing assistance, etc. Say what? I had to re-read this part. As I continued, the article clarified: since these impoverished social groups with lower intelligence will always be poor and never achieve middle class lifestyles, there was no point to subsidize their offspring and encourage breeding.
The only thing they left out, was the logical conclusion of this argument-- that the poor and stupid should just die.
I could not believe this ugly truth.. The same argument I had been using for years to justify social programs - they were using as an argument against ! I always thought Ayn Rand was something of a cruel anomaly with her rants about the "dullards" needing to die, but now I see she is not alone. What a cruel, cruel world we live in.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Add Your Mobile Phone Number
I need to take a moment and comment on the overly bossy request to "add my mobile phone number" when logging into "Blogger". This same bossy little request is also suggested by my email account provider...
The trouble is, these fine folks at Blogger and elsewhere, seem to imply I must actually have a Mobile Phone. Why is it assumed that any live human being, breathing and online, must have a cell phone??
We did temporarily try to fit in with "society" and acquired a "Go-phone" or some sort of similar apparatus. I believe it took about two weeks before my husband lost it in the Bush. (not like a forsythia or something--but off the road system in rural Alaska). Now how does that make our life more secure?
Here are other things we don't have (in case Blogger insists we do): A bathtub, stairs, central heat, or a doorbell. Things we do have: an outhouse, antique glass carboys, moose poop, and stray dogs. Now how I do I enter those numbers upon logging in??
The trouble is, these fine folks at Blogger and elsewhere, seem to imply I must actually have a Mobile Phone. Why is it assumed that any live human being, breathing and online, must have a cell phone??
We did temporarily try to fit in with "society" and acquired a "Go-phone" or some sort of similar apparatus. I believe it took about two weeks before my husband lost it in the Bush. (not like a forsythia or something--but off the road system in rural Alaska). Now how does that make our life more secure?
Here are other things we don't have (in case Blogger insists we do): A bathtub, stairs, central heat, or a doorbell. Things we do have: an outhouse, antique glass carboys, moose poop, and stray dogs. Now how I do I enter those numbers upon logging in??
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Confusion at the Party
As an outsider, who seems to be blessed by constant exposure to nothing but conservatives and/or Republicans..let me explain why their party is currently so confused...
Conservatives and Republican aren't the same thing--but they think they are. (very funny)
The easiest way to categorize these folks would be to split them in half: Urban Republicans and Rural Republicans.
Urban Republicans like less government, big money, hard liquor, and tend to be socially tolerant. They have no problem with working wives, day care, "government schools" and college. In their opinion, poor people get what they deserve, as they are just lazy. Urban Republicans are secretly quite suspicious of church, home schooling and vegetables.
Rural Republicans, really like the word "conservative". They care more about social issues than making big money. University educations don't really make sense to them, except that they may do more harm than good as they encourage things like "choosing to be a homosexual"...Rural Republicans actually care about the poor, but want to help them without government spending.
The only thing I see these two sides actually having in common is mutual distrust of government. I believe less government makes more sense in the world of the Rural Republicans, as their churches actually perform many government type services on a smaller scale. Urban Republicans simply want to be rich oligarchs--and they know that Government is just standing in their way of world domination..
I would say that's it in a nutshell. It's quite ridiculous, as the Republican party has no idea how to deal with these pretty much opposing view points. Currently they have candidates that represent both sides (Gingrich is an Urban Rep., Santorum Rural Rep.). Interestingly enough, this only helps awaken their voters to the inconvenient problem of two types of Conservatives trying to squeeze under the same hat--and it just doesn't fit.
Conservatives and Republican aren't the same thing--but they think they are. (very funny)
The easiest way to categorize these folks would be to split them in half: Urban Republicans and Rural Republicans.
Urban Republicans like less government, big money, hard liquor, and tend to be socially tolerant. They have no problem with working wives, day care, "government schools" and college. In their opinion, poor people get what they deserve, as they are just lazy. Urban Republicans are secretly quite suspicious of church, home schooling and vegetables.
Rural Republicans, really like the word "conservative". They care more about social issues than making big money. University educations don't really make sense to them, except that they may do more harm than good as they encourage things like "choosing to be a homosexual"...Rural Republicans actually care about the poor, but want to help them without government spending.
The only thing I see these two sides actually having in common is mutual distrust of government. I believe less government makes more sense in the world of the Rural Republicans, as their churches actually perform many government type services on a smaller scale. Urban Republicans simply want to be rich oligarchs--and they know that Government is just standing in their way of world domination..
I would say that's it in a nutshell. It's quite ridiculous, as the Republican party has no idea how to deal with these pretty much opposing view points. Currently they have candidates that represent both sides (Gingrich is an Urban Rep., Santorum Rural Rep.). Interestingly enough, this only helps awaken their voters to the inconvenient problem of two types of Conservatives trying to squeeze under the same hat--and it just doesn't fit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
