Home Decorating Trends I Just Can't Get Behind

As my husband can tell you, I have lots of home renovation/ decorating ideas. Now that we own our home, I am planning and plotting even more for the day we feel like we have the time and money to tackle some of the big projects we have planned someday. But there are a few things people are currently going gaga over that I cannot get behind.

Penny tile or small hex tile I hate cleaning grout. A lot. And I don't really think I am alone in this. If you like cleaning grout, you should probably start a grout cleaning business because you would probably make a lot of money. So why would you want to add a massive amount of grout to your bathroom/laundry room/ whatever? I can't look at these little tiny tiles and see anything but a lot of work. Honestly, I have a very hard time looking at them and thinking they even look clean. 

Stainless Steel I know the tide is kind of turning on this one already for may of my reasons. Stainless steel shows finger prints. And water spots. And wipe marks. It just almost always looks a little dirty.

Grey I like the color grey. I really do. But it is going to make stuff look so super dated. We are considering changing out the carpet in the basement for some waterproof laminate. One of the big problems is that we don't want to go super dark and everything that is on the lighter side seems to have this greyish tinge to it. I can't bring myself to do that because it is going to make the floor so dated. Paint color, sure, that is easy to change. But I don't want people to be able to tell when I put in a floor based solely off the grey tinge it has.

DIY Painted Kitchen Cabinets I know someone somewhere has probably actually done it right. Someone somewhere has probably done it so well I would never know they were not painted originally. But many people many places have done a very bad job of it and kind of ruined the cabinets in the process. And then the cabinets collect grime in all the brush strokes that are showing and the paint eventually chips. And it is bad I tell you. Bad.

Clawfoot Tubs I know they look so old timey to so many. To me they look like work. Call me lazy, but I have no desire to have to clean under my tub. This also goes for any other freestanding tub that leaves gaps behind it as well as any vanity that results in space under or around it that is hard to clean in, but still necessary to clean in. Close them up!

Eliminating Bathtub/ shower combos in Favor of Huge Showers I like taking baths sometimes. But beyond that, I see no purpose to a giant shower. And yes, someday I might be old and struggle with getting into a shower if it is also a bathtub. But I am not there yet, and I don't plan to live my entire life like I am 90. And I really really think most houses should have at least 1 tub for that time you have to soak something huge, and any house that is likely to attract a family should for sure have at least one.

Eliminating Ceiling Fans I understand these are not super beautiful. But they are super functional, even nearly necessary in some places in the country. Remember, you don't just look at pictures of your home, you have to live there.

Fancy Kitchen Chandeliers If you are guessing this is going to have to do with my not wanting to clean something, you are very correct. So there is this stuff that collects in kitchens. It is a mixture of grease and dust and it likes to coat surfaces, like the top of oven hoods and whatever light fixture you have that is not flush to the ceiling. It is not fun to clean. I have no desire to complicate that cleaning process by adding complicated curves and more surfaces to my light fixtures.

I understand some of these things are pretty much just me being lazy. If you want to clean under your tub, by all means, have at it. But for me personally, I will probably never do any of these things.

Hockey, Tom Wilson, and Concussions

So it is Stanley cup time again. I have fortunately moved away from the neighborhood pub I lived near during last playoff time, so I am a little less aware of what is going on; I don't have to compete with all the pub-goers for parking, and I don't hear everyone cheering when the Penguins score.

However, there is a story this time that has really caught my attention: the suspension of Tom Wilson.

First, let me say I really don't know a lot about hockey. I am not going to get into whether he should have been tossed out for the whole series or not suspended at all according to hockey's current rules. I don't know a lot about precedent or what makes something "unavoidable" from a hockey player perspective. However, I do know a little something about physics and brains, so I am going to comment on those aspects of the situation.

First for the physics. There has been a lot of debate about where Tom Wilson hit Zach Aston-Reese first, shoulder or head, but the fact is according to the hockey rules, it doesn't seem to matter. From my understanding, we are trying to determine the main point of contact, not the first point of contact. I have seen videos from lots of angles and I don't know if I can tell a lot from them about the main point of contact, but I can tell you that according to physics, if someone gets hit hard enough to break their jaw badly enough to require surgery and give them a concussion, but their shoulder is more or less okay, they mainly got hit in the jaw, not their shoulder. I can't figure out how someone thinks a guy's jaw was broken by someone hitting mostly his shoulder; that direction of defense for Tom Wilson is pretty flimsy.

As for the brain; concussions are not something to mess around with. There is really no such thing as a little concussion. Medically, concussions are called TBIs, short for Traumatic Brain Injury; when you hit your head hard enough that your brain has bounced around in your skull, your brain has suffered something traumatic. We don't know everything about what TBIs do to people, but our understanding is growing and from what we do know, it really ain't good. The effects are immediate, but they are also lasting. While people often improve in the short term, each incident increases chances for problems with brain function later in life. Furthermore, concussions are not the only kind of TBIs (in fact, they are considered "minor" traumatic brain injuries, which sounds a bit like an oxymoron to me), and it would be a mistake to assume that all the "concussions" these hockey players are getting are merely a concussion; some of them are certainly more severe TBIs. Furthermore, the more concussions you get, the worse it gets, especially if there has not been sufficient time to heal. It is also completely possible to die almost instantly from hits to the head. All of this together, it is quite possible that if Aston-Reese had been hit just a little differently or had taken a hard hit a few minutes before and suffered an un-diagnosed concussion from that hit, he would have never gotten up or he would have died shortly after in the locker room.

But its hockey, right? That is just the nature of the sport. It is dangerous, but they know that and they get paid a lot to do it. Well, there is something to that argument. I definitely think it is ridiculous how much money we give people to do nothing more productive than play a game and these players have spent enough time playing the game to know they are going to get hurt. But just because someone is willing to do something for money doesn't make it ethical to pay them to do it, nor does the players' willingness erase the responsibility those asking them to play have to try to keep the players safe.

And yes, there are a lot of dangerous jobs out there. However, I would submit that not all other industries with high incidents of accidents are operating in a ethical way either, they just are not the subject of this post. But there is also a key difference between hockey and something like logging (which is the most dangerous job in the country and honestly needs some reform too); one is to entertain people, something societies really only get to dedicate money to when other needs are met, and the other is for the building of shelters and such, a pretty critical need for survival. In other words, the cost-benefit ratios are not even in the same realm of discussion, and there really isn't much point in comparing them. When we pay to go to a hockey game, we are paying someone to do something that, especially with current rules, is likely to result in injuries that will effect the rest of their life because we like to watch people bash each other around for fun. I feel like we may take that a little too lightly.

So, I don't know if Tom Wilson was intentionally trying to hit Aston-Reese in the head and break his jaw (though I have to say laughing on the bench when someone you hit is still laying on the ice doesn't speak well of your character, and, no, it doesn't matter what he was laughing about because even if he was laughing about something else, his attention should have been on the status of the guy he just flattened because that is usual human decency. Honestly, the laughter made me more concerned about Wilson's behavior than the hit itself). I don't know if Wilson could have avoided it. I don't know if suspending him for 3 games is fair given current rules and precedent. What I do know is that it shouldn't really matter what he was trying to do. Something needs to be done to protect people and the way this guy plays hockey seems to hurt people a lot. Thus, the way this guy plays hockey should not be legal.

I have a 5 year old son who is very rambunctious and not very aware of his surroundings sometimes. He has on many occasions hit people in the head and flattened his siblings by running through them, much like Wilson seems to (my son doesn't do it nearly as hard as Wilson and isn't usually trying to make contact with people, but you get the idea). My son isn't a mean kid and I don't think he is doing this stuff on purpose, but his response to these incidents is often "he was standing where I was running!" or "I didn't do it on purpose!" Suffice to say, that is not the end of my discussion with him because it doesn't matter whether you intended to hurt someone, someone did get hurt and behavior should change to avoid it in the future. Maybe I am completely off base, but I feel like most people would feel the need to stress these things to a 5 year old like my son, which is why it kind of baffles me that there is resistance to the same kinds of discussions when it comes to the NHL. Are we seriously holding 5-year-old children to higher standards than grown adults playing a silly game?

And really, the people who are arguing that changing rules to reduce these kinds of injuries it awful don't really have any better logic than my 5 year old. His general thinking is that he wants to do something and his sister getting knocked over was just a natural consequence of the activities that he feels must take place for his enjoyment--which is essentially what hockey people are saying about Aston-Reese's broken jaw when they say changing the rules to avoid the kind of hits that produce these kinds of injuries would be watering down the game too much.

So what do I think should happen? Well, it would be great if society in general would realize that getting entertainment from people getting bashed around in ways that lead to lasting effects is kind of a despicable way to be and if hockey players would just decide they were not going to behave that way anymore, but we all know that isn't likely to happen. So I feel like as a society we need to reevaluate the ethics of entertainment at the expense of others, regardless of how willing a participant those others are. For hockey, I think hits to the head should be illegal, regardless of intent. Certainly there will be instances where someone gets penalized for something they didn't mean to do, but there are consequences for accidents and mistakes in other aspects of our lives as well.  Hockey players should be responsible for playing the game in a way that doesn't seriously injure others, and if they won't play that way, we should refuse to pay them to play. Instead of saying we pay them millions to accept the risk of dying as part of the sport, we should pay them to accept the responsibility of avoiding killing--or seriously injuring--people as part of the sport. I really wouldn't mind saying that if you injure a player, you will be out for as long as they are--if you end a career, you end your own as well. Because yes, accidents do happen, but as human beings, we have a responsibility to do everything in our power to keep others from getting injured as a result of our actions.

Perhaps this will water down hockey too much and it will no longer be enjoyable, but if that is the case, perhaps we should consider if hockey is a rather barbaric form of entertainment and it would be best to put it to rest anyway.

To the Judgmental Posts About Sick Kids

Yes, when your kids are sick, you should try very hard not to take them into public, especially somewhere there are lots of kids. I will give people that. However. . .

I have seen a ton of posts lately telling everyone that they are horrible people for making the poster's kids sick by bringing all their kids out in public sick. Notably, people are getting upset because they seem to always get sick on Monday after church. But here is the thing: it takes several days for a cold to become symptomatic, but not as long for it to be contagious. This means 2 things. First, many of the times your kid has picked up something from someone in public, the terrible, inconsiderate person you are criticizing who you seem to think brought their kid out in public just to give your kid germs may not have had any indication their child was sick. And second, if your kid comes down with a cold on Monday after church, it was you who just gave that cold to the whole ward, not the other way around. Similarly, if your school-age child comes down with something on Wednesday, they have probably been spreading those germs since Monday.

Yes, I have spent what seems like months unable to go anywhere with my sick kids and it is irritating. I just flat out kept my second son home for several months during a period where measles had been in the area and he was still too young to be vaccinated. We have switched which parent is staying home in the middle of church so that we can both fulfill obligations in different parts of church, and that is a pain. And we have also come down with runny noses on Monday and I have felt a bit guilty because we probably just gave that cold to the whole congregation. Actually, I have had my kid come back to me after nursery with a runny nose he definitely didn't have when I dropped him off. But even though I have a cold today that I probably caught on Sunday I am not going to assume that someone knowingly sent their kid with a cold. I won't even assume it about the kid that once coughed in my face. And I won't assume that every kid I see with a runny nose in public has terrible, inconsiderate parents. After all, runny noses happen for a lot of reasons, many of which are not contagious (like crying or allergies, for instance) and they also can start up in the middle of nursery just as well as any other time of the week. Germs happen and in winter they get passed a lot. We can all hope we will do our best, but criticizing everyone else isn't helpful.

Also, you know that sick mom in the grocery store with the sick kids? At some point, she needs to eat as well and you don't know anything about her situation regarding having someone else to watch the kids or grocery shop, so unless you are volunteering to do so, please stop asking why she is there.

And don't even start on getting on planes sick. It is all well and good to say "just fly some other time." Except really think about that for a second. So, your family flies to Hawaii for Christmas break and all of your kids get a cold while there. Apart from the fact that re-booking a flight home after everyone is better is most likely prohibitively expensive, you have to get back to work, your kids have to get back to school (when they are better), you have to pick up your dog from the family that is watching him, the person who is watering your plants is going out of town now, and you don't really have anywhere to stay until everyone gets better except the hotel that you would then have to stay longer at (and pay for). Are you really telling me you are just staying until everyone gets better? Or maybe it is a funeral everyone is flying to. Or maybe they are moving and starting a new job the next day. I guess what I am saying is that is it pretty presumptuous to assume that every person has all the flexibility in the world to just have a sick day.

Here is what I would rather see happen when you see someone with sick kids. Instead of worrying about how they will make your precious angels sick, maybe wonder what you can do to help them. When your kids come down with something maybe worry about helping them feel better instead of cursing that person who got you sick. And maybe just pull yourself out of this fantasy world where you have never ever sent your kids anywhere with cold germs and admit that you have been the person who unintentionally made everyone sick.