We all have weird, neurotic things about personalities. I've been conscious of mine ever since childhood, and while I've outgrown many of those wacky things about me, there are a couple that have stuck with me to this day. There's a point I have here which I'll get into in a bit, but I have to jump forwards and then back up later on to add context.
My therapist and I have been working largely on my various anxieties the last couple months. We've made enough progress that we had recently agreed to meet twice a month now instead of weekly. Obviously if the sky was falling on me for some reason, I could call her and schedule an appointment outside of our routine, but I don't expect that to happen.
Anyway, I had a huge anxiety over an invite I had accepted to attend a bachelor party in Vegas the weekend after my birthday in August. I've been invited to go on all sorts of trips and getaways in the past, and while the invites were always appreciated, I never felt comfortable accepting. I was mostly concerned about affording the cost of the trip, and how things like airfare and hotel rooms would be expensive, but there's also food and drink to add on top. That doesn't even include any kinds of souvenirs I might want to buy while on a vacation.
I hated having to pass up those opportunities because of concern over affording them, but I felt it was a necessary evil. Now that I'm living more comfortably and have some money saved up, I could accept the invite to go on this bachelor party. Here's where my neurotic self came into play though: When the time finally came last week to book the flight for the trip, I suddenly found myself getting gun shy about it.
I was pricing flights and found a reasonable cost on Southwest, but when it came time to hit the "purchase" button on the computer screen, I was clamming up. It was pure commitment phobia; I had no problem telling friends and family that I was going on this trip over the last few weeks. In fact, I was excited to talk about it. But when the moment of truth came along, I felt my stomach turning itself in knots over truly crossing the point of no return.
My thoughts were going in several directions. I thought about whether it would be a good investment of my money to go on this trip at all in the first place. I thought about needing new tires for my car in the next few months, and whether the money used on this trip would be better served there. I thought about whether I'd really enjoy myself out there, and whether I might ruin the trip for others if I wanted to call it a night while the rest of the guys wanted to keep partying (yes, I am completely aware this is Vegas I'm talking about and how it's virtually impossible to be bored out there).
And if you thought that last paragraph was loony, you haven't seen anything yet.
I had intentionally booked my flight to make sure I had a layover. You read that right; I wanted a layover. When I told the bachelor and my buddy also going on the trip about this, they thought I was the craziest man alive. I have a very specific reason why I want a layover on a long flight, and that is my issue with the bathrooms on a plane.
I hate the bathrooms on planes for a number of reasons. While claustrophobia has never bothered me to any great degree, the sheer size (or lack thereof) in those airplane bathrooms bothers me. I'm 6'1, so I'm a fairly large guy, and I don't squeeze into tight spots very well. The bigger problem I have with those bathrooms is the hygiene. Let's not kid ourselves; airplane bathrooms stink. I've never used one on any flight I've ever taken, and it's in large part to the issue over how reliable those toilets are. I don't trust them, and I don't want to be stuck in there if I can avoid it.
Without going into too many more gory details, I will say that I prefer long flights with a layover so I can leave a plane for a little while and avoid the airplane bathroom in the process. I did it when I went to Phoenix several years ago, as well as when I went to the Caymans with my last girlfriend two years ago. I'm well aware this issue prohibits me from going to some pretty exotic places in this world, namely Europe.
By now it sounds like I might need to be put in a strait jacket and hauled off to Sheppard Pratt. I talked about all this with my therapist last night during our session, and she talked some sense into me. Since I was aware of how nutty I sounded, I was probably making her job a little easier in the process. I think my issue with airplane bathrooms is mostly a fear of the unknown - whether the toilet will work properly in there.
Sheesh, the more I write about this, the crazier I think I sound.
The short version of the advice my therapist had for me was, "CALM DOWN." The sky would not fall if I did in fact have to use the restroom on an airplane, especially if I did find myself flying somewhere that wouldn't allow for a layover. She even had recommended taking a Xanax the day prior to my flight so I can be more relaxed on the plane.
A little common sense shockingly can go a long way. My therapist also asked me about what I do to vent stress, and I mentioned this blog, as well as going to the gym that I had recently joined. She thought both ideas were healthy venues to let loose some stress, particularly the gym. I've known for a long, long time that I need to get in better shape, so I'm trying to stick to my schedule of at least 3-4 gym visits a week.
Maybe that's where I've gone wrong for so long. Like I said at the beginning here, everybody has something neurotic about themselves, and it's just a question of how they handle the crazy side. There are clean freaks, there are tightwads when it comes to money, and there are food snobs, just to name a few kinds. My neurosis happens to be bathrooms. It's a sensitive subject, sure, and it's one that not many people are comfortable talking about. I just never did much to really address how to vent stress or anxiety of any kind - bathrooms or otherwise. Now that I have a couple good forms of release, I'll be able to enjoy my trip to Vegas this summer.
Funny how the whole idea of a fun trip for a bachelor party got lost in all that. That's something worth thinking about too.
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Monday, April 21, 2014
Cold, Hard Truth
I went to church yesterday for the first time in years.
Returning to church was something I'd wanted to do for a very long time, and there's been a church I've enjoyed going to for years, though depending on where I was living I couldn't consistently attend it. Now that I'm in an area that is reasonably close to it again, I decided I'd go back for Easter Sunday. The good news is that the church is still very much how I remember it, and I definitely plan on regularly attending again.
Yesterday being Easter, the pastor's sermon was obviously going to surround the death and resurrection of Christ. However, one of the things I've liked most about the pastor about this church was that he has never just picked a random passage from the Bible and chose to talk about its significance in his sermons. Rather, he takes modern-day situations that we all face - addiction, loss, stress, family, you name it - and he applies Biblical principles to it. I've gotten more from his sermons than I probably ever have from previous churches I've been to in life, which is the big reason why I want to continue going.
His sermon was titled "Image Isn't Everything." It was one of those classic moments where I'm socked right in the gut from hearing him speak, like this sermon was written specifically for my ears. He always made great use of props when he spoke, and yesterday was no exception. There was a mirror sitting on a table the entire service, and it wasn't until he delivered his sermon that its relevance was made clear. The crux of his words was mostly about what we all see when we look at our reflections in the mirror. Do we like what we see? Are we happy with ourselves? Or do we look at our physical imperfections instead? Do we keep looking deeper, thinking more about the spiritual aspects that we don't like?
He started writing words on the mirror, mostly negative things that we may think about when we see our reflections. Words like liar, greedy, filthy, ugly, shame, and unworthy. Words that cloud our judgment when we see ourselves in private and keep us from feeling worthy of others who may love us. We deceive ourselves by buying into these lies, which not only hurt our relationships with God, but also with each other. We keep many secrets out of fear that if anyone knew the truth about us, we'd be seen as frauds or hypocrites.
Talk about tough words to hear. I know I've been guilty of doing just that kind of behavior more times than I can count, especially when I've looked at myself in the mirror. I can't begin to guess just how many times over the years I've done that, and I still do it to this day at least on occasion.
The mirror was eventually covered with so many negative words that the pastor's own reflection was barely visible. Then he wrote one more word over top of all the rest, and that word was pride. Pride is a funny little thing. On one hand, there's nothing wrong with taking a little pride in our individual accomplishments in life (I know I have). However, pride can easily translate to stubbornness, and dig even deeper holes for us to be stuck in.
Finally came the zinger. With all those words in marker covering up the mirror, the pastor then said we take things upon ourselves to fix the mess. He took a paper towel and tried cleaning off all the marker, but it only smeared the ink over the mirror. Nothing was left legible or visible. He then said there's another word for what can describe what we do when we attempt to fix our own attempts, and that word was religion.
I know plenty of people who are very opposed to organized religion. Some of my best friends are openly hateful of spirituality and religious beliefs for a multitude of reasons. They regularly point out people who had acted in history in the name of their religious beliefs, only to really be acting in their own personal interests. They also talk about the sheer lunacy of religion in general, questioning why God would allow any kind of tragedy to happen in this world if He truly loved us. I can't really argue with them on either of those points since human logic can't explain either one. Religion has dirtied the concept of spiritualism throughout history, thanks to regular people trying to act in the name of God and failing miserably in the process.
I'm not educated enough on spiritual issues to be able to adequately respond to friends of mine who disagree with religious dogma. Whether I'll ever get to that point is open for debate, but it certainly won't happen with only attending one service on Easter Sunday. I learned something important Sunday, and I took it home with me afterwards. That's far from the first time I've ever learned something from attending this church, and now that I live fairly close by it again I plan on learning a whole lot more from it.
Returning to church was something I'd wanted to do for a very long time, and there's been a church I've enjoyed going to for years, though depending on where I was living I couldn't consistently attend it. Now that I'm in an area that is reasonably close to it again, I decided I'd go back for Easter Sunday. The good news is that the church is still very much how I remember it, and I definitely plan on regularly attending again.
Yesterday being Easter, the pastor's sermon was obviously going to surround the death and resurrection of Christ. However, one of the things I've liked most about the pastor about this church was that he has never just picked a random passage from the Bible and chose to talk about its significance in his sermons. Rather, he takes modern-day situations that we all face - addiction, loss, stress, family, you name it - and he applies Biblical principles to it. I've gotten more from his sermons than I probably ever have from previous churches I've been to in life, which is the big reason why I want to continue going.
His sermon was titled "Image Isn't Everything." It was one of those classic moments where I'm socked right in the gut from hearing him speak, like this sermon was written specifically for my ears. He always made great use of props when he spoke, and yesterday was no exception. There was a mirror sitting on a table the entire service, and it wasn't until he delivered his sermon that its relevance was made clear. The crux of his words was mostly about what we all see when we look at our reflections in the mirror. Do we like what we see? Are we happy with ourselves? Or do we look at our physical imperfections instead? Do we keep looking deeper, thinking more about the spiritual aspects that we don't like?
He started writing words on the mirror, mostly negative things that we may think about when we see our reflections. Words like liar, greedy, filthy, ugly, shame, and unworthy. Words that cloud our judgment when we see ourselves in private and keep us from feeling worthy of others who may love us. We deceive ourselves by buying into these lies, which not only hurt our relationships with God, but also with each other. We keep many secrets out of fear that if anyone knew the truth about us, we'd be seen as frauds or hypocrites.
Talk about tough words to hear. I know I've been guilty of doing just that kind of behavior more times than I can count, especially when I've looked at myself in the mirror. I can't begin to guess just how many times over the years I've done that, and I still do it to this day at least on occasion.
The mirror was eventually covered with so many negative words that the pastor's own reflection was barely visible. Then he wrote one more word over top of all the rest, and that word was pride. Pride is a funny little thing. On one hand, there's nothing wrong with taking a little pride in our individual accomplishments in life (I know I have). However, pride can easily translate to stubbornness, and dig even deeper holes for us to be stuck in.
Finally came the zinger. With all those words in marker covering up the mirror, the pastor then said we take things upon ourselves to fix the mess. He took a paper towel and tried cleaning off all the marker, but it only smeared the ink over the mirror. Nothing was left legible or visible. He then said there's another word for what can describe what we do when we attempt to fix our own attempts, and that word was religion.
I know plenty of people who are very opposed to organized religion. Some of my best friends are openly hateful of spirituality and religious beliefs for a multitude of reasons. They regularly point out people who had acted in history in the name of their religious beliefs, only to really be acting in their own personal interests. They also talk about the sheer lunacy of religion in general, questioning why God would allow any kind of tragedy to happen in this world if He truly loved us. I can't really argue with them on either of those points since human logic can't explain either one. Religion has dirtied the concept of spiritualism throughout history, thanks to regular people trying to act in the name of God and failing miserably in the process.
I'm not educated enough on spiritual issues to be able to adequately respond to friends of mine who disagree with religious dogma. Whether I'll ever get to that point is open for debate, but it certainly won't happen with only attending one service on Easter Sunday. I learned something important Sunday, and I took it home with me afterwards. That's far from the first time I've ever learned something from attending this church, and now that I live fairly close by it again I plan on learning a whole lot more from it.
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same
Yesterday was the 40th anniversary of Hank Aaron breaking Babe Ruth's all-time home run record. The Braves put together a big ceremony to commemorate the event, and several newspapers and news outlets have interviewed Aaron on a number of subjects in the last few days. One such interview was in USA Today, and Hank Aaron commented on some of the racist threats he had faced while chasing the Babe's record, as well as how racism has changed, if at all, over the years.
I have several thoughts in reaction to Hank's comments, but before I get into them let me start with this: I hate that anyone had threatened him while he was chasing 715 home runs. I hate such a momentous occasion was sullied somewhat because some supremacists didn't like Hammerin' Hank because he's black. I hate that some of those same supremacists exist today and still hold grudges over Hank 40 years later. I don't even like using the word "hate" in conversation often, but I think this is one of the few times it truly applies.
No matter what kind of hate-mongering Hank Aaron had faced back in the 70s, nothing will ever take away from a timeless moment like this one:
My thoughts on Hank's comments are more about where racism is today. He said that 40 years ago, racists were easy to spot because they wore white hoods. Now they're in $1000 suits and designer ties. We've made progress, he said, because we have our first-ever black President, now in his second term in office. But there's still work to do in his eyes, for a number of reasons. First, he said Obama has had to deal with racist backlash from Republicans in Congress. In the world of baseball, he also noted how the number of black players had dropped from what it was in 1974 to what it is now.
I agree with some of those comments. Yes, a racist's "look" certainly has changed, and many of them do wear suits now. The number of black players in baseball has diminished in the last 40 years as well. What Aaron had failed to note is baseball has evolved to include players of all kinds of ethnic backgrounds. There is an extremely large number of Latino players in baseball now, as well as a significant number of Asian-born players. Moreover, the number of black athletes in sports like basketball and football has dramatically increased in the last four decades, so it's not like the number of black athletes across the board has dropped (though I do realize the obvious special place Hank Aaron has for baseball in his heart).
There's a much larger issue here though. I strongly disagree with Aaron on ethnic slandering in politics. Republicans don't dislike Obama because he's black; they dislike him because of his political philosophies. Hilary Clinton could be in the White House and Republicans would dislike her for the same philosophical reasons (though in her case, they'd likely be categorized as misogynists). I may be a white, moderate conservative, but I can tell you Obama's ethnicity isn't even something that enters my mind when I think about my opinions of him. It's fairly insulting to presume that any Republican would dislike Obama solely or primarily because he's black.
The irony to Hank's thought that Republicans are hate-mongering supremacists is that no one seems to recall the story of George Wallace, the former governor of Alabama during the 1960s. He was the infamous man behind the effort to keep black students from attending the University of Alabama in September 1963 (you know, the part where Forrest Gump just followed a woman who had dropped her book while entering the school). He fought with every breath to keep segregation in effect, and he was a Democrat. Has everyone forgotten about this piece of history?
My biggest beef with Aaron's comments, as well as anyone with ethnic hate-mongering ideas, is the fundamental flaw with the concept of racism. Maybe it's because I'm a simple-minded moderate conservative, but I can't help but think that people who have darker skin tones than me aren't a different race. A different ethnicity, sure, but not a different race. Whites, blacks, Asians, etc - we're all human beings. A single race. No one ethnicity is superior to any other. It's classic Occam's Razor, and it doesn't need to be any more complicated than that. I don't even know how such a simple concept came to be so convoluted and complicated, but it has. If the mass public realized the concept of racism is a paradox, I think the idea of ethnic superiority would become a distant memory.
I have several thoughts in reaction to Hank's comments, but before I get into them let me start with this: I hate that anyone had threatened him while he was chasing 715 home runs. I hate such a momentous occasion was sullied somewhat because some supremacists didn't like Hammerin' Hank because he's black. I hate that some of those same supremacists exist today and still hold grudges over Hank 40 years later. I don't even like using the word "hate" in conversation often, but I think this is one of the few times it truly applies.
No matter what kind of hate-mongering Hank Aaron had faced back in the 70s, nothing will ever take away from a timeless moment like this one:
My thoughts on Hank's comments are more about where racism is today. He said that 40 years ago, racists were easy to spot because they wore white hoods. Now they're in $1000 suits and designer ties. We've made progress, he said, because we have our first-ever black President, now in his second term in office. But there's still work to do in his eyes, for a number of reasons. First, he said Obama has had to deal with racist backlash from Republicans in Congress. In the world of baseball, he also noted how the number of black players had dropped from what it was in 1974 to what it is now.
I agree with some of those comments. Yes, a racist's "look" certainly has changed, and many of them do wear suits now. The number of black players in baseball has diminished in the last 40 years as well. What Aaron had failed to note is baseball has evolved to include players of all kinds of ethnic backgrounds. There is an extremely large number of Latino players in baseball now, as well as a significant number of Asian-born players. Moreover, the number of black athletes in sports like basketball and football has dramatically increased in the last four decades, so it's not like the number of black athletes across the board has dropped (though I do realize the obvious special place Hank Aaron has for baseball in his heart).
There's a much larger issue here though. I strongly disagree with Aaron on ethnic slandering in politics. Republicans don't dislike Obama because he's black; they dislike him because of his political philosophies. Hilary Clinton could be in the White House and Republicans would dislike her for the same philosophical reasons (though in her case, they'd likely be categorized as misogynists). I may be a white, moderate conservative, but I can tell you Obama's ethnicity isn't even something that enters my mind when I think about my opinions of him. It's fairly insulting to presume that any Republican would dislike Obama solely or primarily because he's black.
The irony to Hank's thought that Republicans are hate-mongering supremacists is that no one seems to recall the story of George Wallace, the former governor of Alabama during the 1960s. He was the infamous man behind the effort to keep black students from attending the University of Alabama in September 1963 (you know, the part where Forrest Gump just followed a woman who had dropped her book while entering the school). He fought with every breath to keep segregation in effect, and he was a Democrat. Has everyone forgotten about this piece of history?
My biggest beef with Aaron's comments, as well as anyone with ethnic hate-mongering ideas, is the fundamental flaw with the concept of racism. Maybe it's because I'm a simple-minded moderate conservative, but I can't help but think that people who have darker skin tones than me aren't a different race. A different ethnicity, sure, but not a different race. Whites, blacks, Asians, etc - we're all human beings. A single race. No one ethnicity is superior to any other. It's classic Occam's Razor, and it doesn't need to be any more complicated than that. I don't even know how such a simple concept came to be so convoluted and complicated, but it has. If the mass public realized the concept of racism is a paradox, I think the idea of ethnic superiority would become a distant memory.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
2014 MLB Predictions Sure to Go Wrong
You'd never know it if you looked out a window in the Baltimore area today, but spring starts this week. With spring also comes the return of baseball, and there will be much rejoicing at Oriole Park at Camden Yards. Of course, that also means another round of my predictions that are bound to be seen as laughable by season's end.
1. The Yankees will miss the postseason for the second straight year. Hank Steinbrenner's head will likely explode if this were to happen. If the Yankees did fail to play October baseball again, it would be the first time in over 20 years such a feat occurred (heads across the league office and TV networks would also likely explode). My argument is based largely on the Yankees' lineup; it's a mishmash of veterans way past their prime (e.g. Brian Roberts, Vernon Wells, Brian McCann, Ichiro, and Carlos Beltran) and a bunch of guys who don't generally hit for power (e.g. Jacoby Ellsbury, Derek Jeter, and Eduardo Nunez). The main power bats in the lineup will be Mark Teixeira and the aforementioned McCann and Beltran, which is a far cry from some of their lineups over the last decade. The only way they can possibly try competing is if they change their philosophy to play small ball to generate runs, which I don't see as a likely switch to happen.
2. The Orioles will win the AL East. Homer pick alert!! Yes, my heart is getting a little bit of the best of me, but compare the Orioles lineup and rotation to the rest of their division. Their offense is arguably the best, and their pitching staff is probably third in the division behind Tampa and Boston. Dan Duquette shopped wisely in the offseason by adding Ubaldo Jimenez and Nelson Cruz, and if Jimenez is anything like he was in the second half of last season, the Orioles' pitching will be markedly better overall.
3. The Phillies will have a firesale come July. If this were 2006, the Phillies would have one of the best teams in baseball. Unfortunately, their lineup is much like the Yankees, filled with veterans well past their prime. Chase Utley and Cliff Lee will probably be the most valuable trade chips for Ruben Amaro to rebuild the franchise, and they've already put Jimmy Rollins on the trading block. Who would be interested in acquiring any of their aging vets and how they'd work out the remaining dollars on some of those huge contracts are the million dollar questions.
4. The Angels will still finish under .500. The Angels are without question the most disappointing team over the past two seasons. They managed to finish 2012 strong and only missed the Wild Card by 4 games, but last year was an atrocity that nearly cost Mike Scioscia his job. Texas has rebuilt itself, the A's will still be great, and Seattle will be improved. The only reason the Angels will avoid finishing in last place is because Houston is in their division.
5. Danny Salazar will have a breakout year. Full disclosure: I never heard of this kid until after I had accidentally drafted him in fantasy baseball. I was ready to drop him right away until I did a little reading and research on him. He's one of the Indians' top pitching prospects, and was called up late last season as the Indians made their run for the playoffs. His fastball has already been clocked in the high 90s, and that's supposedly not even his best stuff. He probably won't throw more than 160 innings or so this year since he's so young, but he'll be a household name by the end of the season.
6. None of last year's Wild Card teams will return to the playoffs in 2014. And yes, I realize that includes the Rays and Pirates. The Pirates were last year's darling team, finally breaking a streak of over 20 years without finishing over .500. They will be this year's version of the 2013 Orioles: a team who is in the hunt until close to the end, but still find themselves on the outside looking in. As for the Rays, I don't have that much faith in their offense being able to consistently put up enough runs on the board to support their incredible pitching staff. I also expect the Indians and Reds to slightly regress from last year.
7. The Diamondbacks will be the upstart team of the season. Arizona finished at .500 each of the past two seasons, and they lost their best starter in Patrick Corbin to the dreaded Tommy John surgery for the year. However, Paul Goldschmidt is going to put this team on his back for the bulk of the season, and lead them into October. The Dodgers will still win the NL West by a healthy margin, but the Diamondbacks will snag one of the Wild Cards.
8. Yu Darvish and Gio Gonzalez will be this year's Cy Young winners. Both guys have been incredibly dominant over the last couple years, though Gonzalez has flown under the radar somewhat in his first two seasons with the Nationals. I expect both the Rangers and Nationals to play some October baseball, with their rotations anchored by these two guys.
9. Mike Trout and Paul Goldschmidt will be the league MVPs. Neither pick here is terribly original or surprising, especially in the case of Trout. They also each finished second in MVP voting in their respective leagues last year, so jumping up a spot won't be that much of a leap. Still, Mike Trout will finally win the award he came so close to winning each of the last two years, and Arizona will look like a bunch of thieves for signing Goldschmidt to a six-year deal prior to last season.
10. The Oakland A's will defeat the Atlanta Braves in 6 games in the World Series. My World Series pick is already in serious jeopardy considering both teams have at least one starting pitcher hurt; the Braves already have Kris Medlen headed for Tommy John surgery and the A's are losing Jarrod Parker for the same reason. On top of that, the Braves' Brandon Beachy may well need Tommy John surgery also, and the A's will be without A.J. Griffin for at least the start of the season. I'm still sticking with it though, mostly out of stubbornness and clinging to a small hope that both teams will make a play for a starter or two by the trade deadline. I'm also counting on the A's Sonny Gray and the Braves' Julio Teheran to have big years.
1. The Yankees will miss the postseason for the second straight year. Hank Steinbrenner's head will likely explode if this were to happen. If the Yankees did fail to play October baseball again, it would be the first time in over 20 years such a feat occurred (heads across the league office and TV networks would also likely explode). My argument is based largely on the Yankees' lineup; it's a mishmash of veterans way past their prime (e.g. Brian Roberts, Vernon Wells, Brian McCann, Ichiro, and Carlos Beltran) and a bunch of guys who don't generally hit for power (e.g. Jacoby Ellsbury, Derek Jeter, and Eduardo Nunez). The main power bats in the lineup will be Mark Teixeira and the aforementioned McCann and Beltran, which is a far cry from some of their lineups over the last decade. The only way they can possibly try competing is if they change their philosophy to play small ball to generate runs, which I don't see as a likely switch to happen.
2. The Orioles will win the AL East. Homer pick alert!! Yes, my heart is getting a little bit of the best of me, but compare the Orioles lineup and rotation to the rest of their division. Their offense is arguably the best, and their pitching staff is probably third in the division behind Tampa and Boston. Dan Duquette shopped wisely in the offseason by adding Ubaldo Jimenez and Nelson Cruz, and if Jimenez is anything like he was in the second half of last season, the Orioles' pitching will be markedly better overall.
3. The Phillies will have a firesale come July. If this were 2006, the Phillies would have one of the best teams in baseball. Unfortunately, their lineup is much like the Yankees, filled with veterans well past their prime. Chase Utley and Cliff Lee will probably be the most valuable trade chips for Ruben Amaro to rebuild the franchise, and they've already put Jimmy Rollins on the trading block. Who would be interested in acquiring any of their aging vets and how they'd work out the remaining dollars on some of those huge contracts are the million dollar questions.
4. The Angels will still finish under .500. The Angels are without question the most disappointing team over the past two seasons. They managed to finish 2012 strong and only missed the Wild Card by 4 games, but last year was an atrocity that nearly cost Mike Scioscia his job. Texas has rebuilt itself, the A's will still be great, and Seattle will be improved. The only reason the Angels will avoid finishing in last place is because Houston is in their division.
5. Danny Salazar will have a breakout year. Full disclosure: I never heard of this kid until after I had accidentally drafted him in fantasy baseball. I was ready to drop him right away until I did a little reading and research on him. He's one of the Indians' top pitching prospects, and was called up late last season as the Indians made their run for the playoffs. His fastball has already been clocked in the high 90s, and that's supposedly not even his best stuff. He probably won't throw more than 160 innings or so this year since he's so young, but he'll be a household name by the end of the season.
6. None of last year's Wild Card teams will return to the playoffs in 2014. And yes, I realize that includes the Rays and Pirates. The Pirates were last year's darling team, finally breaking a streak of over 20 years without finishing over .500. They will be this year's version of the 2013 Orioles: a team who is in the hunt until close to the end, but still find themselves on the outside looking in. As for the Rays, I don't have that much faith in their offense being able to consistently put up enough runs on the board to support their incredible pitching staff. I also expect the Indians and Reds to slightly regress from last year.
7. The Diamondbacks will be the upstart team of the season. Arizona finished at .500 each of the past two seasons, and they lost their best starter in Patrick Corbin to the dreaded Tommy John surgery for the year. However, Paul Goldschmidt is going to put this team on his back for the bulk of the season, and lead them into October. The Dodgers will still win the NL West by a healthy margin, but the Diamondbacks will snag one of the Wild Cards.
8. Yu Darvish and Gio Gonzalez will be this year's Cy Young winners. Both guys have been incredibly dominant over the last couple years, though Gonzalez has flown under the radar somewhat in his first two seasons with the Nationals. I expect both the Rangers and Nationals to play some October baseball, with their rotations anchored by these two guys.
9. Mike Trout and Paul Goldschmidt will be the league MVPs. Neither pick here is terribly original or surprising, especially in the case of Trout. They also each finished second in MVP voting in their respective leagues last year, so jumping up a spot won't be that much of a leap. Still, Mike Trout will finally win the award he came so close to winning each of the last two years, and Arizona will look like a bunch of thieves for signing Goldschmidt to a six-year deal prior to last season.
10. The Oakland A's will defeat the Atlanta Braves in 6 games in the World Series. My World Series pick is already in serious jeopardy considering both teams have at least one starting pitcher hurt; the Braves already have Kris Medlen headed for Tommy John surgery and the A's are losing Jarrod Parker for the same reason. On top of that, the Braves' Brandon Beachy may well need Tommy John surgery also, and the A's will be without A.J. Griffin for at least the start of the season. I'm still sticking with it though, mostly out of stubbornness and clinging to a small hope that both teams will make a play for a starter or two by the trade deadline. I'm also counting on the A's Sonny Gray and the Braves' Julio Teheran to have big years.
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Follow Up
Some good news regarding my mom's condition came through last week. To recap, while she was in the hospital a neurologist had ordered both a CAT scan and MRI. Both tests were negative, and the doctor had wanted my mom to come back in a few days for an EEG. If there was anything to find, the EEG would show it.
Within a few days after being dismissed from the hospital, my mom started feeling quite a bit better, save a few fleeting moments of dizziness. Signs were pointing towards her seizure being a fluke at that point, but we still wanted to find out the cause if at all possible.
I took her to her appointment, which was nearly a week after her hospital stay. The appointment took nearly two hours, and she emerged wearing this headdress of sorts that was connected by a tube to a battery pack. She had to wear this unit for the entire weekend, and any headaches or dizzy spells would be recorded for further evaluation.
I stayed with her most of the day before having to leave. She wanted to be on her own for the weekend to see if she could take care of herself after spending the past week with my sisters and me taking care of her. By Sunday night, she had removed the unit and was going to return it the next morning. She told me she had no symptoms at all, and felt pretty close to her normal self.
On Thursday she was due for her test results. The EEG came back negative as well, which all but confirmed the seizure was a fluke after all. The cause was still a mystery, but we're out of the woods. My mom is still not allowed to drive for the next 10 weeks, but it's a small nuisance to make sure this doesn't become a recurring problem.
The first 24 hours or so after her seizure was initially very scary. My mom has been in fairly good health her entire life, and she's even taken measures to improve her health by getting some regular exercise and switching to a predominantly gluten-free diet. We're all relieved that her condition isn't debilitating or long-term. Still, we're all lucky she was able to get in the hospital as quickly as she did, or else this post would have a very different tone to it.
I took her to her appointment, which was nearly a week after her hospital stay. The appointment took nearly two hours, and she emerged wearing this headdress of sorts that was connected by a tube to a battery pack. She had to wear this unit for the entire weekend, and any headaches or dizzy spells would be recorded for further evaluation.
I stayed with her most of the day before having to leave. She wanted to be on her own for the weekend to see if she could take care of herself after spending the past week with my sisters and me taking care of her. By Sunday night, she had removed the unit and was going to return it the next morning. She told me she had no symptoms at all, and felt pretty close to her normal self.
On Thursday she was due for her test results. The EEG came back negative as well, which all but confirmed the seizure was a fluke after all. The cause was still a mystery, but we're out of the woods. My mom is still not allowed to drive for the next 10 weeks, but it's a small nuisance to make sure this doesn't become a recurring problem.
The first 24 hours or so after her seizure was initially very scary. My mom has been in fairly good health her entire life, and she's even taken measures to improve her health by getting some regular exercise and switching to a predominantly gluten-free diet. We're all relieved that her condition isn't debilitating or long-term. Still, we're all lucky she was able to get in the hospital as quickly as she did, or else this post would have a very different tone to it.
Friday, March 7, 2014
Too Close For Comfort
I've been sitting and stirring over writing about what happened late last week, unsure over whether I'd talk about it on here or what I'd have to say about it. Blogging has been very therapeutic for me since I started writing over 4 years ago, so I figured I might as well discuss it here.
I got a call last Friday night into Saturday morning around 2:30 AM from my sister. I knew something had to be up just from the sight of her name on my caller ID. Before I even had answered the phone, I was a little nervous about what this was about.
She said our mom had some kind of seizure that night and was already in the hospital. At that point, there was also the possibility she had had a stroke, though no one was sure what exactly she had experienced. To say I was shocked and unprepared for that kind of news would be an understatement. My sister went on to say that she and her boyfriend were going to head to the hospital to stay with her the rest of the night. My mom was already set to have both a CAT scan and MRI, though neither had been performed just yet.
We hung up, and I laid in bed wondering what to do next. Do I get dressed now and head to the hospital as well? Should I wait until morning?
I wound up trying to go back to sleep and would go to the hospital in a few hours. Going back to sleep was almost out of the question since my mind was racing in all kinds of directions.
At that point, I was somewhat hoping my mom had a seizure instead of a stroke. It felt like the lesser of two evils, considering recovering from a seizure is a much less daunting task than doing so from a stroke. I've known people who have dealt with seizures since childhood, and they're able to live fairly normal lives. Strokes can be much more severe (from the little that I know of them), and I didn't want to think about what kind of effect a future stroke could have on my mom.
By morning, I called my sister back to check up on her. She was quite frazzled to say the least, and even got pretty emotional over the sight of our mother laying in a hospital bed. Mom had already had her CAT scan by then, and the doctors found no abnormalities on her. The MRI was coming later, so we had to play the waiting game on that.
In the interests of relative brevity, I'll jump ahead a bit to her MRI. Those results didn't show anything either, and a neurologist examined my mom as well. All signs and symptoms had pointed towards seizure, and my mom had talked about feeling dizzy at times over the previous few weeks. The doctor wondered about the possibility that my mom had experiences seizures during her sleep and woke up not even aware of what may have happened overnight.
My mom was discharged from the hospital on Sunday, and this week my sisters and I have taken shifts over watching her and taking care of her. I'm on duty as I write this, and later today I have to take her in for an appointment to conduct an EEG. My mom is in much better condition now than she was on Saturday, and we're more concerned about determining the cause of the seizure than anything else now.
Still, this entire ordeal got me thinking about something from a much more macro perspective than the immediate fact that my mom was in the hospital. As children - and to our parents, we are all still children even once we become grown adults - it's easy to think our parents will always be around. We may even take them for granted in that regard, possibly thinking of them as immortal. After the first phone call with my sister, my mind started to picture what life might be like without my mother. Those thoughts had scared me more than most anything else I had thought about in a very long time.
It's probably fairly selfish of me to think that I'm not willing to part with my mom yet. I have several friends who have lost at least one of their parents, and they've been able to keep on living after the grieving period. My mom is still fairly young though; she just turned 59 in January. She's even been fairly conscious of her health prior to this incident, so she's been eating healthier foods and getting regular exercise. She's worked on adding years on her life, and frankly I hope that I don't have to think about the idea of losing her again for a very long time.
During my second year of college, I took a sociology class. One thing that has stuck with me from that class nearly 15 years later was an exercise my professor had conducted one day. He told us all we would have to write down an instinctive response as an answer to a question about a scenario, and we wouldn't have time to think about what we were going to say. The scenario was this: You're stuck on a life raft with your mother, spouse, and child after your boat out in the ocean had capsized. Suddenly, a storm comes in, and waves rock the raft back and forth. Everyone in the boat is thrown clear, and you have only enough time to save one of the three other people in your boat. Write down which person who you're going to save.
My professor yelled out, "WRITE IT!"
Everyone in the class was obviously startled, and my instinctive answer was "child." That was the most popular answer in the class by far, but once my professor had tallied up all the numbers he pointed out something very interesting. In our country, our natural response would be save the child since the kid has virtually his or her entire life to live. However, in other places across the globe - especially the Far East - the most popular answer to that question by far would be mom. The logic behind it is in such a dire situation, a person could theoretically marry again and/or have more children later in life, but an individual is only ever going to have one mother. A mother - or father, for that matter - can't be replaced.
I suppose I sound like a mamma's boy in writing this post, and to some extent that's true. But when I think about what may have happened had one or two details of this story been different, I don't mind being a mamma's boy.
I got a call last Friday night into Saturday morning around 2:30 AM from my sister. I knew something had to be up just from the sight of her name on my caller ID. Before I even had answered the phone, I was a little nervous about what this was about.
She said our mom had some kind of seizure that night and was already in the hospital. At that point, there was also the possibility she had had a stroke, though no one was sure what exactly she had experienced. To say I was shocked and unprepared for that kind of news would be an understatement. My sister went on to say that she and her boyfriend were going to head to the hospital to stay with her the rest of the night. My mom was already set to have both a CAT scan and MRI, though neither had been performed just yet.
We hung up, and I laid in bed wondering what to do next. Do I get dressed now and head to the hospital as well? Should I wait until morning?
I wound up trying to go back to sleep and would go to the hospital in a few hours. Going back to sleep was almost out of the question since my mind was racing in all kinds of directions.
At that point, I was somewhat hoping my mom had a seizure instead of a stroke. It felt like the lesser of two evils, considering recovering from a seizure is a much less daunting task than doing so from a stroke. I've known people who have dealt with seizures since childhood, and they're able to live fairly normal lives. Strokes can be much more severe (from the little that I know of them), and I didn't want to think about what kind of effect a future stroke could have on my mom.
By morning, I called my sister back to check up on her. She was quite frazzled to say the least, and even got pretty emotional over the sight of our mother laying in a hospital bed. Mom had already had her CAT scan by then, and the doctors found no abnormalities on her. The MRI was coming later, so we had to play the waiting game on that.
In the interests of relative brevity, I'll jump ahead a bit to her MRI. Those results didn't show anything either, and a neurologist examined my mom as well. All signs and symptoms had pointed towards seizure, and my mom had talked about feeling dizzy at times over the previous few weeks. The doctor wondered about the possibility that my mom had experiences seizures during her sleep and woke up not even aware of what may have happened overnight.
My mom was discharged from the hospital on Sunday, and this week my sisters and I have taken shifts over watching her and taking care of her. I'm on duty as I write this, and later today I have to take her in for an appointment to conduct an EEG. My mom is in much better condition now than she was on Saturday, and we're more concerned about determining the cause of the seizure than anything else now.
Still, this entire ordeal got me thinking about something from a much more macro perspective than the immediate fact that my mom was in the hospital. As children - and to our parents, we are all still children even once we become grown adults - it's easy to think our parents will always be around. We may even take them for granted in that regard, possibly thinking of them as immortal. After the first phone call with my sister, my mind started to picture what life might be like without my mother. Those thoughts had scared me more than most anything else I had thought about in a very long time.
It's probably fairly selfish of me to think that I'm not willing to part with my mom yet. I have several friends who have lost at least one of their parents, and they've been able to keep on living after the grieving period. My mom is still fairly young though; she just turned 59 in January. She's even been fairly conscious of her health prior to this incident, so she's been eating healthier foods and getting regular exercise. She's worked on adding years on her life, and frankly I hope that I don't have to think about the idea of losing her again for a very long time.
During my second year of college, I took a sociology class. One thing that has stuck with me from that class nearly 15 years later was an exercise my professor had conducted one day. He told us all we would have to write down an instinctive response as an answer to a question about a scenario, and we wouldn't have time to think about what we were going to say. The scenario was this: You're stuck on a life raft with your mother, spouse, and child after your boat out in the ocean had capsized. Suddenly, a storm comes in, and waves rock the raft back and forth. Everyone in the boat is thrown clear, and you have only enough time to save one of the three other people in your boat. Write down which person who you're going to save.
My professor yelled out, "WRITE IT!"
Everyone in the class was obviously startled, and my instinctive answer was "child." That was the most popular answer in the class by far, but once my professor had tallied up all the numbers he pointed out something very interesting. In our country, our natural response would be save the child since the kid has virtually his or her entire life to live. However, in other places across the globe - especially the Far East - the most popular answer to that question by far would be mom. The logic behind it is in such a dire situation, a person could theoretically marry again and/or have more children later in life, but an individual is only ever going to have one mother. A mother - or father, for that matter - can't be replaced.
I suppose I sound like a mamma's boy in writing this post, and to some extent that's true. But when I think about what may have happened had one or two details of this story been different, I don't mind being a mamma's boy.
Monday, February 24, 2014
Something Must Be in the Water
'Tis the season for breakups, apparently.
Since last fall, no fewer than five of my friends who had been in serious relationships of various lengths of time found themselves suddenly single. They included, but not limited to, my ex-roommate, my new roommate, one of my closest buddies (who has quickly become my wingman and vice versa), and the latest addition the list, that being another buddy of mine who was supposed to get married last fall. Unfortunately he lost his job and had to push back wedding plans until sometime in 2014. This past weekend I found out he and his fiance had been dealing with issues for the past two months, and officially called it off earlier this month.
What is going on here, exactly?
I've never been in a circle of friends where so many breakups happened in such a short period of time. There's an element of solidarity to appreciate in knowing I'm not the only one who's had to deal with a longterm relationship suddenly crumble, but there's only so much solace to take from that. A pat on the back and a "Hey things will get better," feels phony and cliche after a while.
Only recently have I come to terms with my breakup and gotten to the point where I'm ready to starf dating again. There's no specific lass on the horizon or anything yet, but my therapist has worked with me fairly extensively over the last couple months in helping me address my areas of weakness so I'm better prepared for when I do meet someone.
Still, it's amazing to think that so many relationships could end in a fairly short period of time. It also put things in perspective for me because as much as I had griped to myself and vented to my therapist over how I had to restart my entire life all over again, I realized my problems were fairly simple and quickly resolved compared to some of my friends and their breakups. For instance, my buddy who was engaged has a house with his now-ex, so they have to settle ownership of that house and who has to move out. That's way more stressful than anything I went through last year.
There is relief in knowing that my circle of friends is tight enough that we've all been there to pick each other back up. That goes for both those of us who had been through the breakups, as well as those who didn't have to deal with a relationship ending. I've always been grateful for my friends, but I think three years ago when I had lost my job my eyes were really opened to just how lucky I am to have them. The last six months or so has been a reminder to me of how good a group they are, even if they have a little too much liquor in their systems on a given night.
Maybe that's how I can pay things forward. I hope that I can help pick up one of my friends when they're down or dealing with some kind of stress with an ex. Life won't slow down at all after a breakup even though many of us may need a breather (which I surely did), and that's when a friend can lend a helping hand the most.
Since last fall, no fewer than five of my friends who had been in serious relationships of various lengths of time found themselves suddenly single. They included, but not limited to, my ex-roommate, my new roommate, one of my closest buddies (who has quickly become my wingman and vice versa), and the latest addition the list, that being another buddy of mine who was supposed to get married last fall. Unfortunately he lost his job and had to push back wedding plans until sometime in 2014. This past weekend I found out he and his fiance had been dealing with issues for the past two months, and officially called it off earlier this month.
What is going on here, exactly?
I've never been in a circle of friends where so many breakups happened in such a short period of time. There's an element of solidarity to appreciate in knowing I'm not the only one who's had to deal with a longterm relationship suddenly crumble, but there's only so much solace to take from that. A pat on the back and a "Hey things will get better," feels phony and cliche after a while.
Only recently have I come to terms with my breakup and gotten to the point where I'm ready to starf dating again. There's no specific lass on the horizon or anything yet, but my therapist has worked with me fairly extensively over the last couple months in helping me address my areas of weakness so I'm better prepared for when I do meet someone.
Still, it's amazing to think that so many relationships could end in a fairly short period of time. It also put things in perspective for me because as much as I had griped to myself and vented to my therapist over how I had to restart my entire life all over again, I realized my problems were fairly simple and quickly resolved compared to some of my friends and their breakups. For instance, my buddy who was engaged has a house with his now-ex, so they have to settle ownership of that house and who has to move out. That's way more stressful than anything I went through last year.
There is relief in knowing that my circle of friends is tight enough that we've all been there to pick each other back up. That goes for both those of us who had been through the breakups, as well as those who didn't have to deal with a relationship ending. I've always been grateful for my friends, but I think three years ago when I had lost my job my eyes were really opened to just how lucky I am to have them. The last six months or so has been a reminder to me of how good a group they are, even if they have a little too much liquor in their systems on a given night.
Maybe that's how I can pay things forward. I hope that I can help pick up one of my friends when they're down or dealing with some kind of stress with an ex. Life won't slow down at all after a breakup even though many of us may need a breather (which I surely did), and that's when a friend can lend a helping hand the most.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)