Creative Writers Online

My employer, Catholic Community Services-St. Mary's for Men, was asking its employees for quotes so that they can put them up on the wall of our building. So I decided to create my own and it says: "True happiness isn't obtained or purchased. True happiness comes from within and everyone is entitled to it because what's within all of us is God." --Tamara Nicholas, October 1, 2009

I thought it was befitting for a Catholic facility. Apparently the gal accepting the quotes didn't agree with me because she didn't use it. Does it suck that bad?

On the subject of this gal (who will remain nameless) at work who was accepting the quotes... Three or four weeks ago the RCA (that's what I am) who works weekdays, day shift went to the hospital ER with chest pain. It turned out he had a torn aorta and needed emergency open heart surgery. Well, he was in ICU several days then transferred to telemetry for about a week then discharged. As you can imagine his medical bills were expected to be more than he could handle since the position of RCA only pays between $9.00 and $10.00 an hour. Our insurance benefits (which our employer pays 100% of the premium on the employee only) doesn't cover jack shit.

So, this "gal" at work who does the payroll sent out a company-wide email stating that all employees who wish to contribute to a fund for the employee who was in the hospital could do so via their payroll check. It was to be an after tax deduction of whatever amount we wished to contribute. I thought it was very nice for them to do this for my co-worker. I, myself, have been going through many health issues and have had several ER visits, blood work, radiology tests, and doctor visits (even a colonoscopy and endoscopy which total over $1800.00 for the two scopes alone). I was forced to file a chapter 13 after being out of work for over two years and having several huge kidney stones which took six months and many ER visits, blood work, radiology tests, and doctor visits for the "professionals" to find the stones. After they found them I had lithotripsy done to break them up so I could pass them which (after the COBRA insurance paid their portion I was left owing $700 for that procedure alone - not to mention that the premiums for the COBRA were over $300/month) back in 2008.

Anyway, medical bills exceeding $5000 on top of my insurance premiums and having to use credit cards in order to eat and buy gas to transport me to job interviews and my husband to work (not to mention I lost my business due to this prolonged illness that could have been diagnosed immediately if any of the "professionals" knew what they were doing) forced us into bankruptcy court. I know this is a long story but the point I'm trying to set up here is that I have been accruing tons and tons of medical bills after filing for chapter 13 so I can not add these newer medical expenses to the bankruptcy. I have to pay everything I owe (which is over $5,000 at this point due to the crappy coverage and pre-existing clause) or they will send me to collections who will then garnish 25% of my pay - one creditor at a time which could go on for quite a while.

My point? Well, even though I am financially ruined (myself) I knew that my friend at work would need help because his bills would be so high. Even though I struggle to meet my basic needs with the menial income I have and the overwhelming amount of debt I owe I still sent an email reply to this "gal" in payroll telling her to take $20 out of my check to donate to the friend in need. I am not expecting koodos because that's not what motivated me to help. What the final moral to this story is goes like this. When my friend's daughter came in to pick up his first check after going into the hospital the woman from "upstairs" came to give her the check and told her, "there's an extra $20 as well." I about lost it inside my head. I couldn't believe that no one else contributed to help this guy out. Many, many more "higher-ups" who have much higher salaries than me or the guy in the hospital couldn't find an extra $5.00 or even $1.00 to contribute. Not one other person, not even the "gal" who drafted and sent the email asking for donations. How jacked up and greedy has our society become for this to be true?

I was appalled when I heard my former boss who took a promotion out of that position tell his daughter, "there's an extra $20" like that was something fucking spectacular. It was a disgrace. That money (by itself, ie, only $20) would have been better served if I'd kept it and applied it to my own heavy medical expenses. Twenty dollars, alone, will not do a thing for this man and all the bills he'll be stuck paying. If that doesn't make anyone else say, "what the fuck?" Then, apparently, I'm the only one in the world who has retained their intelligence and/or sanity.

People make me so fucking sick sometimes (most of the time). I really wish there were more good-hearted and generous people in the world because the world wouldn't be such a shit-hole if that were the case. Unfortunately (for all of us who still have a conscience left within ourselves) the world is a shit-hole ran by ass-bags who aren't worthy to breathe our air. They are sucking the oxygen that we need while they get rich doing it, screwing us both physically and financially all the way to the bank. But hey, they can afford to get sick. They are the ones who get to live and live well. Shouldn't we be happy sacrificing our own health and quality of life to assist such cold-hearted, conscience lacking individuals to further evolve and spread their sickness of greed and selfishness? I think not. I say that they start selling hunting licenses to all the decent people in the world allowing for open season on ass-bags.

That's all. But who really gives a shit anyway?

I need to be more concise with my writing. For instance: "On the subject of this gal (who will remain nameless) at work who was accepting the quotes... " should be written On the subject of this "gal" at work who was accepting the quotes (who shall remain nameless)... That's one example. Another is: "So, this "gal" at work who does the payroll sent out a company-wide email stating that all employees who wish to contribute to a fund for the employee who was in the hospital could do so via their payroll check." Should go like this: So, this "gal" at work, who does the payroll, sent out a company-wide email stating that CCS was putting together a fund for the RCA in the hospital. All employees who wish to contribute to the fund for this RCA could do so via their payroll check. There are many more sentences that could have been written better to be more "proper English" but I won't bore everyone with my own editing.

I need to be more concise with my writing. For instance: "On the subject of this gal (who will remain nameless) at work who was accepting the quotes... " should be written On the subject of this "gal" at work who was accepting the quotes (who shall remain nameless)... That's one example. Another is: "So, this "gal" at work who does the payroll sent out a company-wide email stating that all employees who wish to contribute to a fund for the employee who was in the hospital could do so via their payroll check." Should go like this: So, this "gal" at work, who does the payroll, sent out a company-wide email stating that CCS was putting together a fund for the RCA in the hospital. All employees who wish to contribute to the fund for this RCA could do so via their payroll check. There are many more sentences that could have been written better to be more "proper English" but I won't bore everyone with my own editing.

So, were you wanting a critique on this post, or were you just blowing off steam? Either way is fine; I guess we just need to know what you were hoping for.

I am sorry no one responded to this, whatever you were expecting. Things are rather slow here. I'm hoping that eventually we'll get things moving. Until then, there's a bit of an echo in here.

To the comment about the quote not being accepted -- my guess was that she was looking for a quote from a "third-party" source, since anyone can quote themselves. Usually when someone is looking for quotes to motivate others, they're looking for something from "impressive" names -- you know, Mother Teresa, Mark Twain, whatever. If that's what she was after, she could have made it a little clearer up front, although she may have figured it would be understood. And she may not have known how to tell you that your quote wasn't what she had in mind.

Of course, if she accepted "self-quotes" from others, then just ignore what I said.

As for the other issue, you're right, it sucks. However, since you can't control what others do, the best you can do is console yourself that you, at least, did the right thing.

Now, if you want a creative critique....

I just noticed this was posted under "Please Critique" as well as "General Discussions", so I'll critique it as soon as I get a chance.

As a stream-of-consciousness rant, this works just fine. But if you want this to represent a serious essay on a topic that has aroused your indignation, it needs a lot of work.

To begin with, choose just one topic to address. Since the vast majority of the piece deals with your coworker's illness and the lack of support for him, your best bet is to completely cut off the first two paragraphs. The business with the quote is just a rabbit trail that has nothing to do with the rest of the piece. It doesn't even really reveal anything about the woman that casts any light on the main issue.

Open immediately with the incident of the RCA's illness, but first state your premise and then go on to support or explain it. For example: "I hear all the time about how generous we Americans are, and perhaps we are as a society when we don't have to get personally involved. But bring it down to the individual level, and I have to wonder."

Then pick up the story of your coworker. Keep it very basic. The reader doesn't need to know, for example, that he works day shift weekdays. This adds nothing to the understanding of the situation. At this point, you're a journalist, reporting the facts of the story in a way that will make it clear to the reader.

Try to avoid editorial comment as you go. Present the facts as objectively as possible, up through the discovery that yours was the only donation. Keep it as short as possible while still getting in all the important points. Then, when you've finished reporting the news, you can launch into your commentary. (Listen to some of the TV/radio commentators and see how they do it. I don't care if it's Keith Olberman or Glenn Beck, for the most part they give the basic story first, then their commentary. The transition may not always be clear, but it's almost always there.)

Unless you want to be another Rush Limbaugh, try to keep the name-calling to a minimum. Remember that, chances are, if you start insulting people haphazardly, you'll end up offending the very people you want to convert to your point of view, and they'll just tune you out.

For something like this, one of the best things you can do is write it out, then set it aside and come back when you're not so angry and can look at it more objectively. You want to keep your fury under control. You don't have to make it bland, nor do you have to avoid all sarcasm or strong language. But make sure that every rhetorical technique you use points the reader toward your conclusion and is not just a random spewing of venom. Don't forget that your whole purpose is to convince the reader that your conclusions are more sensible and logical than whatever you're writing against and that they should abandon whatever they believe and adopt your way of looking at things.

Frankly, there are enough vituperative blowhards out there, from Michael Moore to Rush Limbaugh. We don't need more of them; we need people who can present a carefully thought out, balanced commentary -- not bland, but not petty and nasty in its approach. Cultivate that, and you'll probably win all sorts of people to your side.