Does the body know it's asleep? I had another pee dream last night and I find it weird that my dreams have to resort to symbolism like a sense of urgency, displays of flowing water, loss of control (like becoming suddenly clumsy or in a recent dream, cars riding the sidewalk keeping me from walking safely and confidently), etc. to get the point across that I need to wake up and empty my bladder.
I found myself wondering, why doesn't some character in the dream just say flat out, "Vachon, you need to wake up so I can pee."? Or even more simply, why don't I just wake up? Why is it like I'm in a wussified Nightmare on Elm Street movie rather than something more simple?
Thankfully I've never had an accident though I know it's come close, even in adulthood. I've actually urinated in my dreams and woke up ever-so-thankful that it was "just a dream".
Seriously though, why can't we just wake up when we have to pee? I don't think the language center of the brain is shut down because I have dreams with speech in them. Does the sense of self shut down during sleep? I don't think so because I know it's me when I'm dreaming. I never feel outside of myself.
The only thing I've noticed about dreams, aside from their inherent weirdness and internal inconsistencies, is that dreams only seem to work so long as I'm not concentrating on details. It's like dreams are great whooshes of generalities but I have memories of waking up from several dreams because I got suspicious and simply wouldn't just "go with it".
I remember many years ago having a dream with the First One. Already curious that she would be visiting me at my father's house, I couldn't help but try and focus on her face because something about it wasn't quite right. It doesn't help that I can't remember faces that well at all so in my dream she may have had, for all I know, a mannequin face...featureless. I kept focusing on that detail; I wanted to see. My insistence on detail I think activated some part of my brain that was necessary for consciousness as I would wake up soon after.
I don't know. I mean, c'mon! Just wake up. I gotta pee!!!
Showing posts with label pissed off. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pissed off. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
A TOTALLY GRATUITOUS SWIPE AT THE KARDASHIANS...
I saw this posted on Facebook the other day and it annoyed me. I should probably make this clear that autistic people don't annoy me. To me they're no different than anyone else who's retarded. They get passes for their behavior (within reason) because you know they know not what they do. No, I get mad at their caregivers/parents because they, more often than not, come across with rather unrealistic assessments of their child's present and future capabilities.
I get it. You've been saddled with a burden you never asked for but stop pretending that your burden must now also be our burden. Just as you wouldn't bring a child into a go-go bar or a deaf person to a music concert, you have to be aware that not all venues are appropriate for retarded/developmentally disabled children and adults.
Anyways, I see this post and my assholish thoughts immediately surface. I'll post my thoughts in blue italics and not bother to proofread them to make it easier for you to attack me in the comments' section. Also, the original post had "thou shall" rather than the properly conjugated "thou shalt". This has been corrected.
I get it. You've been saddled with a burden you never asked for but stop pretending that your burden must now also be our burden. Just as you wouldn't bring a child into a go-go bar or a deaf person to a music concert, you have to be aware that not all venues are appropriate for retarded/developmentally disabled children and adults.
Anyways, I see this post and my assholish thoughts immediately surface. I'll post my thoughts in blue italics and not bother to proofread them to make it easier for you to attack me in the comments' section. Also, the original post had "thou shall" rather than the properly conjugated "thou shalt". This has been corrected.
TEN COMMANDMENTS FOR INTERACTING WITH KIDS ON THE AUTISM SPECTRUM:
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
MY TWO BITS ON SNOWDEN...
I fully support what Edward Snowden has done and I agree with Daniel Ellsberg who leaked the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War that this leak surpasses even their own in terms of importance. But why, you ask? It's very simple actually...
The basis of the justice system in our country is presumption of innocence. Whether the job of the government or a prosecutor, it is their responsibility to prove beyond the benefit of doubt that the accused is guilty of a crime. It is not the job of the accused to prove their innocence.
And no, I don't buy into the bullshit claim that one has nothing to fear if one has nothing to hide.
The NSA surveillance programs that were revealed via Snowden's leak turned that presumption on its head. Understand I'm not talking about ordinary spying done by governments against other governments. That has a long history and what they do is fine. The problem here is that it involves U.S. citizens and when what you're doing involves U.S. citizens, the laws of this nation and the spirit of those very same laws must be followed to the letter if not better.
Warrantless spying on U.S. citizens creates a presumption of guilt and I can't stand for that. It's also a violation of the Fourth Amendment which not only requires the government to have a warrant and/or reasonable suspicion to initiate a search, but it must also have a specific target in mind. Law enforcement agents cannot search for anything more than they are allowed to search for. There's a reason these limits on power exist.
The NSA spying program works on the assumption that all citizens are terrorists or are aiding terrorists until shown otherwise. Also, there is nothing specific being searched for nor have the people being searched via this program been charged with or even accused of a crime.
The fact that this isn't being talked about by the press has been infuriating. With rare exception, the mainstream press is actually condemning Snowden rather than the revelations made. This in turn makes me furious because since when did the press become official spokesmen for the government?
At the risk of sounding conspiratorial, it really does bring about the feeling that we are in the opening stages of a dictatorship. Not now...not through President Obama (I'm not that crazy), but soon. That slow transition...
It certainly does feel like the groundwork has been laid.
The basis of the justice system in our country is presumption of innocence. Whether the job of the government or a prosecutor, it is their responsibility to prove beyond the benefit of doubt that the accused is guilty of a crime. It is not the job of the accused to prove their innocence.
And no, I don't buy into the bullshit claim that one has nothing to fear if one has nothing to hide.
The NSA surveillance programs that were revealed via Snowden's leak turned that presumption on its head. Understand I'm not talking about ordinary spying done by governments against other governments. That has a long history and what they do is fine. The problem here is that it involves U.S. citizens and when what you're doing involves U.S. citizens, the laws of this nation and the spirit of those very same laws must be followed to the letter if not better.
Warrantless spying on U.S. citizens creates a presumption of guilt and I can't stand for that. It's also a violation of the Fourth Amendment which not only requires the government to have a warrant and/or reasonable suspicion to initiate a search, but it must also have a specific target in mind. Law enforcement agents cannot search for anything more than they are allowed to search for. There's a reason these limits on power exist.
The NSA spying program works on the assumption that all citizens are terrorists or are aiding terrorists until shown otherwise. Also, there is nothing specific being searched for nor have the people being searched via this program been charged with or even accused of a crime.
The fact that this isn't being talked about by the press has been infuriating. With rare exception, the mainstream press is actually condemning Snowden rather than the revelations made. This in turn makes me furious because since when did the press become official spokesmen for the government?
At the risk of sounding conspiratorial, it really does bring about the feeling that we are in the opening stages of a dictatorship. Not now...not through President Obama (I'm not that crazy), but soon. That slow transition...
It certainly does feel like the groundwork has been laid.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
CARLY McKINNEY IS A ROLE MODEL...
I saw this post on Gawker the other day. It's about a 23 year old math teacher in Colorado who has since been put on "administrative leave" for posts made on a now defunct Twitter account showing herself in various states of PG-13 undress, calling her students jailbait, and implying drug use.
Now I personally do not know if any of the aforementioned tweets have been made on school time. If that's the case, I can understand any suspension and whatnot as I've argued in the past. For the sake of this opinion, I will be assuming that they were not posted during school hours or using school computers and done instead, on her own time (even though under current law, my arguments do not matter according to the NEA - all that needs to happen is for the activity to be declared disruptive to the school: a judgement I'm sure will be found in a totally fair and unbiased manner).
Comments in these articles inevitably point to Ms. McKinney deserving to be fired for failing to be a role model. (examples from the Gawker link)
You can search articles for comments defending her: they're not hard to find. I will be offering my own defenses, however, and these defenses will go beyond the obvious "slut shaming" thing needing to stop as it has happened inexcusably before and will continue to happen again. Because seriously, when was the last time a man was fired for being an underwear model or in porn?
A quick Google search yielded nothing so the slant is fairly obvious.
The teachers linked in the two articles not only did nothing illegal, but even if it's still technically conduct "unbecoming of a teacher" (how 19th century does that sound?), their photos and videos were made prior to them even becoming teachers!
And it is that latter concept which factors into my defense...
Why is Carly McKinney a role model of sorts? Because she demonstrates conclusively (at least up until the point of this media gossip-storm) that perfection is not required for success in life; that yes, you can grow up and with proper education, get a professional career regardless of one's past.
It's the idea that you can still get ahead despite one's "youthful indiscretions". It's this idea that teachers can still be people too and not have to be held to these bizarre Victorian standards of stainlessness in order to be given the authority to teach our children.
Because seriously, what are supposed to tell the stoners, the delinquents, the freaks and other perpetrators of "youthful indiscretions" in high school? That they can never amount to anything because they will be barred from any and all professions regardless of later academic achievement because society will refuse to acknowledge that they can change or gasp! actually be competent despite these faults?
What are we supposed to tell the people who have prostituted themselves, performed in pornography, supported a position publicly that is unpopular, been to prison, and others whether legal or illegal? That despite this being a Christian nation, forgiveness will never come unto them? That they will be considered fuck-ups forever with no possibility for redemption or for simply letting bygones be bygones?
That's the way it goes right now and probably will continue to go for the foreseeable future ever since background checks became so ludicrously easy to perform. And why should it be that way? Why should this system of intolerance and bullying - and yes, it is bullying...bullying in its most insidious degree as anyone who has ever been effectively shunned will recognize - be allowed to persist?
And I don't care if the perpetrator was too young to know better or could have known better or should have known better...it doesn't matter. This gossip whose purpose is to ruin the lives of those who are either trying to make a better one for themselves or who are able to function competently in their jobs/professions despite their vices is entirely conducive to fostering hopelessness.
Great...you made a mistake: now you've got to pay for it forever.
Great...you've done something perfectly legal that petty people frown upon: now you've got to pay for it forever.
Great...there's no point in working hard to achieve: no one will ever let you.
Great...now you can either own up to your past and fail forever or you can hide it, living in perpetual terror that it will one day resurface and be used against you.
What a shitty system.
If it were in my power, I would forgive Carly McKinney, reinstating her with pay immediately and without comment for actions both real and alleged portrayed by her online while off the clock. I would openly and hostilely condemn those who have maligned her for daring to have a life outside of her profession. I would condemn them for being busybodies and gossips. I would condemn those who insist upon such irresponsibly unrealistic purity standards for which a teacher may be judged fit for teaching.
I would forgive those like Stacie Halas and Tiffani Webb, immediately reinstating them and without comment for actions performed by them PRIOR to becoming teachers and even if they were teachers at the time, those same actions were TOTALLY FUCKING LEGAL (and in the case of Stacie Halas for certain, also performed under a pseudonym) and thus would not be subject to firing if they were doing this stuff now (though if they did it in the school, yes...another matter entirely). I would condemn those that would judge these women unfit for duty on the basis of actions performed which were unrelated to their professions. I would condemn them for their inability to move on from their past lives. I would condemn them for holding these women guilty for their non-professional conduct. I would remind them that none of those doing the condemning and shaming are themselves without sin and that if held to their own standards, all of them would almost certainly be out of work.
There are plenty of reasons to fire a teacher (or any professional): these are not any of them.
No, if these women are to be judged, they are to be judged by the quality of their work in the classroom and their conduct therein. They should be judged by their professionalism as directly related their career. If Carly McKinney does an illegal drug in the classroom (or on school grounds): fired. If Stacie Halas films or her showcases her porn scenes in the classroom: fired. If Tiffani Webb models or has students take pictures of her in lingerie in the classroom: fired.
But if they've done, they do or if they even consider doing any of these things (and more) on their own time, tell me again why it matters?
We tell people that life is about making mistakes and learning from them. But increasingly society makes life for people and especially professionals just so terrifyingly unforgiving. Yes, I am most certainly dreaming the dream of the idealist...but I want to live in a world where people are judged for their skills in life and not for their past lives.
It really would only be fair.
ADDENDUM: Turns out a month before I had posted this, the Huffington Post reported that Stacie Halas, the teacher who PRIOR TO BECOMING A TEACHER performed in adult films had lost her appeal to get her job back and create a legal precedent that one's past is not allowed to infringe upon their present. Remember kids, in the eyes of the law: once a fuck up, always a fuck up. No forgiveness. No hope.
 | ||
| Carly McKinney : Yes, I am totally adding these images in a nakedly desperate attempt to get my stupid blog to show up and be visited via a Google Image Search |
Now I personally do not know if any of the aforementioned tweets have been made on school time. If that's the case, I can understand any suspension and whatnot as I've argued in the past. For the sake of this opinion, I will be assuming that they were not posted during school hours or using school computers and done instead, on her own time (even though under current law, my arguments do not matter according to the NEA - all that needs to happen is for the activity to be declared disruptive to the school: a judgement I'm sure will be found in a totally fair and unbiased manner).
Comments in these articles inevitably point to Ms. McKinney deserving to be fired for failing to be a role model. (examples from the Gawker link)
"You can be a party girl famewhore, or you can be a schoolteacher. You cannot be both."
(commenter: Dismissed)
[sarcastically] "Yeah, she should really be rewarded for showing the judgement of a 14 year old while theoretically helping teach people's kids how to get on with life. Thanks for your insightful comment."
(commenter: Paul Tatara)
"...I know it is not right, but if you work in certain jobs, you simply can not behave this way online..."
(commenter: TuMadreTanbien)
"Idiot. You can't do that shit when you're a teacher, full stop. This woman grew up breathing social media if she's anything like other millennials, so there is absolutely no reason she should think any of that is okay. If you're a teacher (or any number of other public positions), you don't post this stuff online."
(commenter: GMaMazur)
You can search articles for comments defending her: they're not hard to find. I will be offering my own defenses, however, and these defenses will go beyond the obvious "slut shaming" thing needing to stop as it has happened inexcusably before and will continue to happen again. Because seriously, when was the last time a man was fired for being an underwear model or in porn?
A quick Google search yielded nothing so the slant is fairly obvious.
The teachers linked in the two articles not only did nothing illegal, but even if it's still technically conduct "unbecoming of a teacher" (how 19th century does that sound?), their photos and videos were made prior to them even becoming teachers!
And it is that latter concept which factors into my defense...
Why is Carly McKinney a role model of sorts? Because she demonstrates conclusively (at least up until the point of this media gossip-storm) that perfection is not required for success in life; that yes, you can grow up and with proper education, get a professional career regardless of one's past.
It's the idea that you can still get ahead despite one's "youthful indiscretions". It's this idea that teachers can still be people too and not have to be held to these bizarre Victorian standards of stainlessness in order to be given the authority to teach our children.
 |
| Being hot should never be a terminable offense for a woman |
What are we supposed to tell the people who have prostituted themselves, performed in pornography, supported a position publicly that is unpopular, been to prison, and others whether legal or illegal? That despite this being a Christian nation, forgiveness will never come unto them? That they will be considered fuck-ups forever with no possibility for redemption or for simply letting bygones be bygones?
That's the way it goes right now and probably will continue to go for the foreseeable future ever since background checks became so ludicrously easy to perform. And why should it be that way? Why should this system of intolerance and bullying - and yes, it is bullying...bullying in its most insidious degree as anyone who has ever been effectively shunned will recognize - be allowed to persist?
And I don't care if the perpetrator was too young to know better or could have known better or should have known better...it doesn't matter. This gossip whose purpose is to ruin the lives of those who are either trying to make a better one for themselves or who are able to function competently in their jobs/professions despite their vices is entirely conducive to fostering hopelessness.
Great...you made a mistake: now you've got to pay for it forever.
Great...you've done something perfectly legal that petty people frown upon: now you've got to pay for it forever.
Great...there's no point in working hard to achieve: no one will ever let you.
Great...now you can either own up to your past and fail forever or you can hide it, living in perpetual terror that it will one day resurface and be used against you.
What a shitty system.
 |
| Once a topless model, always a topless model...because it makes sense to do that to people |
I would forgive those like Stacie Halas and Tiffani Webb, immediately reinstating them and without comment for actions performed by them PRIOR to becoming teachers and even if they were teachers at the time, those same actions were TOTALLY FUCKING LEGAL (and in the case of Stacie Halas for certain, also performed under a pseudonym) and thus would not be subject to firing if they were doing this stuff now (though if they did it in the school, yes...another matter entirely). I would condemn those that would judge these women unfit for duty on the basis of actions performed which were unrelated to their professions. I would condemn them for their inability to move on from their past lives. I would condemn them for holding these women guilty for their non-professional conduct. I would remind them that none of those doing the condemning and shaming are themselves without sin and that if held to their own standards, all of them would almost certainly be out of work.
There are plenty of reasons to fire a teacher (or any professional): these are not any of them.
 |
| Because this clearly happened in the classroom |
But if they've done, they do or if they even consider doing any of these things (and more) on their own time, tell me again why it matters?
 |
| Pictured: personal time |
It really would only be fair.
 |
| As it should be... |
ADDENDUM: Turns out a month before I had posted this, the Huffington Post reported that Stacie Halas, the teacher who PRIOR TO BECOMING A TEACHER performed in adult films had lost her appeal to get her job back and create a legal precedent that one's past is not allowed to infringe upon their present. Remember kids, in the eyes of the law: once a fuck up, always a fuck up. No forgiveness. No hope.
 |
| No forgiveness. No hope. |
Thursday, September 15, 2011
THIS IS WHY THE DEMOCRATS LOSE...
I want to make it clear that I hate the Republican Party, but I really fucking hate the Democratic Party. Do they have any fight left in them whatsoever? The nimrods in genuine leadership positions for the GOP have been lobbing underhand pitches the Democrats for some time now and not a single swing on their part. The amount of shame and scorning for their hypocritical stances, anti-science views, and downright Orwellian propaganda (job-creators anyone?) the Democrats ought to be heaping upon the GOP is downright enormous and yet, the jackass-symboled party remains cowered and silent. What the fuck?
You have the obvious shit like the GOP's sudden turn on fiscal conservativism. NOW debts are a problem? Where the fuck were these assholes during the Bush administration? They seemed to be in place for the last years of the Clinton one, y'know...when the country was generating surpluses for the first time in my life but for Bush? Let's see, you had tax cuts made during a(n undeclared) war - something has NEVER been done in the history of the world - to which another (undeclared) war would be added, huge increases to the military budget, a medicare drug benefit bill, among others...all paid for on borrowed money creating huge annual deficits. But that didn't matter because Vice President Cheney declared that "deficits don't matter."
The biggest hypocrisy is, in my opinion, the party's sheer lack of compassion. Look, I haven't read the Bible cover-to-cover so it's possible I've missed something. However, I'm fairly sure that Jesus was much more likely to support tending to the impoverished, the malnourished, and the sick than to be insuring that the wealthy pay the least amount of taxes possible and making sure that we project overwhelming military authority across the globe rather than overwhelming moral and ethical authority (If you've ever wondered how far we've fallen, check this out. Imagine that ever happening today). Yet the party which has somehow secured itself as the Party of God manages to do exactly none of the things that even an eighth-way decent Christian would do. And do the Democrats effectively call them out on their bullshit? No. And a resounding No at that.
Their anti-science stances are also legendary. Never mind that the power the United States was able to gain over the past century had EVERYTHING to do with education, especially science education; never mind all our advances in medical technology and improvements in the quality of life; never mind all our military advances too; none of it matters. Let our education and educational infrastructure crumble until we become a has-been on the world stage because you're afraid of evolution, unions, sex, and having your religion become marginalized.
But what has one of the many medical fronts we have "declared war on" been in the past fifty years or so? That would be cancer. There's been a "War on Cancer" for some time now. It's hardly won, but a cure has been recently found for cervical cancer and it comes in the form of a three-shot vaccine for the human papillomavirus (HPV). Thousands of women die from this cancer every year and a cure has been found, but Governor Rick Perry and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (and I would bet good money a large share of the Republican Party) are opposed to mandating this vaccine which, to be most effective, must be given to girls before they become sexually active. Any given girl has a 1 in 2 chance of contracting this virus over her sexual lifetime...that's not statistically insignificant...and the virus will ultimately kill about 4000 of those women annually. We've found a cure for a cancer and the GOP does not want you to have it.
It is fair to say that they are not advocating this vaccine (or others) go away, just that you shouldn't be "forced" to get them. Never mind the excellent safety records of ALL vaccines and the literally tens of millions of lives saved by them and that even 1-2% of the population being unvaccinated is enough to negate the benefits of vaccination overall. No, false information about them gets spread like they cause autism (disproven) or retardation or simply making vaccines sound conspiratorial by calling them "government injections." Aside from the fact that I have no idea how these assholes (and others like Jenny McCarthy) don't get sued for libel/slander by vaccine makers for spreading false claims and dangerous misinformation about their products, I can't help but wonder...where the fuck are the Democrats in all this? Whatever happened to fighting fire with fire?
I don't like Republican tactics. I don't like their Orwellian treatment of language and how it seems they're taking orders from unseen leaders (take the time to notice how quickly every Republican and their supporters - most notoriously Fox News and the Wall St. Journal will all be using the same words, phrases, and jingoisms whenever a new one emerges. It's like they got memos). Notice how there are no wealthy or rich people in this country anymore, they're "job creators." And they get to continue to be called "job creators" unchallenged because the Democratic party seemed pathologically incapable of pointing out how there are fewer jobs now than there were in 2001 (y'know, before the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy which were supposed to create jobs and how tax cuts now are supposed to be spurring the same thing, but clearly aren't). This goes back a while now considering that the word "liberal" is now a curseword in politics and conservativism is somehow a badge of honor. In a country founded on innovation, both scientific and entrepreneurial, being conservative (in the political sense of going back to the "good old days" and not the dictionary sense of preserving of the status quo and resistant to change) is like being proud of your ignorance rather than ashamed. Now that I think about it, the difference between conservativism (in the dictionary sense) and Republican conservativism seems exactly analogous to Chris Rock's famous "Black People versus Niggaz" bit from "Bring the Pain" back in 1996. (Nothing makes a Republican happier than not knowing the answer to your question... ;-) )
But what I'm getting at here is where are the attack ads? And by that I mean the attack ads of the caliber I've come to expect from the Republican Party. Y'know, the ones with blatant exaggerations and out-of-context quotations? The ones which make spurious connections that will cause anyone who's not used to thinking critically to accept unquestioningly? Where're the black&white ads with ominous music making claims (rather than cautiously insinuating) that Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann want to withhold a cure for cancer; that these people would rather your daughter die of cancer because preventing it offends them? It makes me want to rip what's left of my hair out. It's way too easy to attack these assholes and attack them viciously on any number of issues and yet...conspicuous silence. Even just the fact that like 99% of Republican voters are actually voting against their self-interests. Republican districts are overwhelmingly dependent on government assistance and yet are the same districts who rail against government in their lives. Those same districts benefit heavily from tax allocation (that is, they receive more money from the government than they pay in taxes) yet decry socialism. It's insane.
The party's supposed to be religious yet no one expects corporations to behave morally and ethically. Shouldn't a company where the officers rake in a shitload of money while simultaneously laying off workers or offshoring them to another country be shamed rather than praised? Shouldn't at least a tithing of the bonuses CEOs make be spread amongst the workers that made it possible? What about the lack of charity? The highest ranking members aren't expected to sacrifice in order to make sure their most vulnerable employees can keep their jobs? When did stockholders become more important than the people in the company? (Oh, right...) But still, the Party of Jesus remains silent on what should be a very big issue.
Ugh... I'm done for now. Too annoyed to go on...
ADDENDUM: Here's an example of how Democrats should fight. They may not win right away using this kind of strategy, but if they keep up with this drumbeat, they will shine...
You have the obvious shit like the GOP's sudden turn on fiscal conservativism. NOW debts are a problem? Where the fuck were these assholes during the Bush administration? They seemed to be in place for the last years of the Clinton one, y'know...when the country was generating surpluses for the first time in my life but for Bush? Let's see, you had tax cuts made during a(n undeclared) war - something has NEVER been done in the history of the world - to which another (undeclared) war would be added, huge increases to the military budget, a medicare drug benefit bill, among others...all paid for on borrowed money creating huge annual deficits. But that didn't matter because Vice President Cheney declared that "deficits don't matter."
The biggest hypocrisy is, in my opinion, the party's sheer lack of compassion. Look, I haven't read the Bible cover-to-cover so it's possible I've missed something. However, I'm fairly sure that Jesus was much more likely to support tending to the impoverished, the malnourished, and the sick than to be insuring that the wealthy pay the least amount of taxes possible and making sure that we project overwhelming military authority across the globe rather than overwhelming moral and ethical authority (If you've ever wondered how far we've fallen, check this out. Imagine that ever happening today). Yet the party which has somehow secured itself as the Party of God manages to do exactly none of the things that even an eighth-way decent Christian would do. And do the Democrats effectively call them out on their bullshit? No. And a resounding No at that.
Their anti-science stances are also legendary. Never mind that the power the United States was able to gain over the past century had EVERYTHING to do with education, especially science education; never mind all our advances in medical technology and improvements in the quality of life; never mind all our military advances too; none of it matters. Let our education and educational infrastructure crumble until we become a has-been on the world stage because you're afraid of evolution, unions, sex, and having your religion become marginalized.
But what has one of the many medical fronts we have "declared war on" been in the past fifty years or so? That would be cancer. There's been a "War on Cancer" for some time now. It's hardly won, but a cure has been recently found for cervical cancer and it comes in the form of a three-shot vaccine for the human papillomavirus (HPV). Thousands of women die from this cancer every year and a cure has been found, but Governor Rick Perry and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (and I would bet good money a large share of the Republican Party) are opposed to mandating this vaccine which, to be most effective, must be given to girls before they become sexually active. Any given girl has a 1 in 2 chance of contracting this virus over her sexual lifetime...that's not statistically insignificant...and the virus will ultimately kill about 4000 of those women annually. We've found a cure for a cancer and the GOP does not want you to have it.
It is fair to say that they are not advocating this vaccine (or others) go away, just that you shouldn't be "forced" to get them. Never mind the excellent safety records of ALL vaccines and the literally tens of millions of lives saved by them and that even 1-2% of the population being unvaccinated is enough to negate the benefits of vaccination overall. No, false information about them gets spread like they cause autism (disproven) or retardation or simply making vaccines sound conspiratorial by calling them "government injections." Aside from the fact that I have no idea how these assholes (and others like Jenny McCarthy) don't get sued for libel/slander by vaccine makers for spreading false claims and dangerous misinformation about their products, I can't help but wonder...where the fuck are the Democrats in all this? Whatever happened to fighting fire with fire?
I don't like Republican tactics. I don't like their Orwellian treatment of language and how it seems they're taking orders from unseen leaders (take the time to notice how quickly every Republican and their supporters - most notoriously Fox News and the Wall St. Journal will all be using the same words, phrases, and jingoisms whenever a new one emerges. It's like they got memos). Notice how there are no wealthy or rich people in this country anymore, they're "job creators." And they get to continue to be called "job creators" unchallenged because the Democratic party seemed pathologically incapable of pointing out how there are fewer jobs now than there were in 2001 (y'know, before the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy which were supposed to create jobs and how tax cuts now are supposed to be spurring the same thing, but clearly aren't). This goes back a while now considering that the word "liberal" is now a curseword in politics and conservativism is somehow a badge of honor. In a country founded on innovation, both scientific and entrepreneurial, being conservative (in the political sense of going back to the "good old days" and not the dictionary sense of preserving of the status quo and resistant to change) is like being proud of your ignorance rather than ashamed. Now that I think about it, the difference between conservativism (in the dictionary sense) and Republican conservativism seems exactly analogous to Chris Rock's famous "Black People versus Niggaz" bit from "Bring the Pain" back in 1996. (Nothing makes a Republican happier than not knowing the answer to your question... ;-) )
 |
| Actual U.S. half-disme pattern. Look at the legend: "Lib(erty) ∙ Par(ent) of Science & Industry" |
But what I'm getting at here is where are the attack ads? And by that I mean the attack ads of the caliber I've come to expect from the Republican Party. Y'know, the ones with blatant exaggerations and out-of-context quotations? The ones which make spurious connections that will cause anyone who's not used to thinking critically to accept unquestioningly? Where're the black&white ads with ominous music making claims (rather than cautiously insinuating) that Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann want to withhold a cure for cancer; that these people would rather your daughter die of cancer because preventing it offends them? It makes me want to rip what's left of my hair out. It's way too easy to attack these assholes and attack them viciously on any number of issues and yet...conspicuous silence. Even just the fact that like 99% of Republican voters are actually voting against their self-interests. Republican districts are overwhelmingly dependent on government assistance and yet are the same districts who rail against government in their lives. Those same districts benefit heavily from tax allocation (that is, they receive more money from the government than they pay in taxes) yet decry socialism. It's insane.
The party's supposed to be religious yet no one expects corporations to behave morally and ethically. Shouldn't a company where the officers rake in a shitload of money while simultaneously laying off workers or offshoring them to another country be shamed rather than praised? Shouldn't at least a tithing of the bonuses CEOs make be spread amongst the workers that made it possible? What about the lack of charity? The highest ranking members aren't expected to sacrifice in order to make sure their most vulnerable employees can keep their jobs? When did stockholders become more important than the people in the company? (Oh, right...) But still, the Party of Jesus remains silent on what should be a very big issue.
Ugh... I'm done for now. Too annoyed to go on...
ADDENDUM: Here's an example of how Democrats should fight. They may not win right away using this kind of strategy, but if they keep up with this drumbeat, they will shine...
Friday, July 22, 2011
THOSE THINGS YOU NOTICE...
I've started scanning my journals again after a long absence. Hard to believe it's been almost 2½ years since I've last spent some time doing this.
As I scan each page, I skim the contents of the upcoming one. While the most common theme is me talking about girls I want and have wanted (and wouldn't've minded wanting), the second most common is rediscovering all these things my friends, both past and present, said they were going to do for me or places we were supposed to go together that ultimately never panned out. It made me think of a journal entry I made in 1994 which may be the first of these examples that survived. So, so many have since followed and I'm sure a great many preceded it, it's just by that point I was writing shit down. I can't even remember them specifically anymore which is what makes reading these entries surprising. While I've forgotten the specifics of each broken promise/intention (with the exception of a few "famous" ones), it all has blended in my mind into this seamless continuum of disappointment in my friends and occasionally family.
As I scan each page, I skim the contents of the upcoming one. While the most common theme is me talking about girls I want and have wanted (and wouldn't've minded wanting), the second most common is rediscovering all these things my friends, both past and present, said they were going to do for me or places we were supposed to go together that ultimately never panned out. It made me think of a journal entry I made in 1994 which may be the first of these examples that survived. So, so many have since followed and I'm sure a great many preceded it, it's just by that point I was writing shit down. I can't even remember them specifically anymore which is what makes reading these entries surprising. While I've forgotten the specifics of each broken promise/intention (with the exception of a few "famous" ones), it all has blended in my mind into this seamless continuum of disappointment in my friends and occasionally family.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
LINE OF THE DAY, part XIV
Gawker posted another article which made me mad this morning which is probably a good thing given the sheer amount of days I've been down these past ten weeks. It was yet another instance of someone getting unfairly punished over a comment made on her own time on Facebook and who was narced on by another student's parent. The student, who was 13 (I mention that as it may be a mitigating factor), made a clearly hyperbolic statement wishing that Osama bin Laden had killed her math teacher.
This is another instance of four things that piss me off. First of all, she made this statement on her own time, not school time, so I don't see how this is the school's business. If anything, perhaps it's time to construe these types of internet violations as something akin to illegally recording a phone call. The LoTD comment ultimately makes mention of a "reasonable expectation of privacy" and that ought to be codified in law thus making it a crime to report something seen on the internet that was not intended to be seen by you the equivalent of a warrantless search. Oh wait, that is a Federal law. It's the Fourth Amendment. What needs to be done then is to extend Fourth Amendment rights to instances like this as well. Secondly, the parent who reported this to the school violated a basic social compact by not going to that child's parents. That parent failed to respect the social chain-of-command and should be publicly shamed for doing so. Thirdly, the principal of this school failed to use discretion in this case. Suspending a student for five days over this is beyond ridiculous. The principal should have understood this to be an instance of hyperbole (because no one's ever said, "Oh God! I wish I were dead!" ever before and actually wanted it to happen. No one's ever wished death upon someone over a perceived injustice and actually wanted that to happen. Assholes...) and used it as a teachable moment for online postings that this girl be more careful in the future as it should now be plain to her that there are people out there with agendas and that you could very easily become a victim of one if you are not careful. And fourthly, can we get a fucking comedy version of the Miranda Warning please already?!
Seriously, it is well past time that we have an actual honest-to-God Federal regulation declaring that all seemingly controversial statements must be considered acts of hyperbole, sarcasm, and/or satire until, and only unless, it can be demonstrated to be otherwise. I am fucking tired of these overreactionary shitheads (which I guess I am now one of albeit from the opposing side). The comments section in the linked article is a joy and frustration to read. There are many worthy comments to post, but I shall focus on this one by lancehubner:
to which iphone_myphone responded:
to which lancehubner responded (and this would be the LoTD):
Just a minor point with the above comment. "Had killed" in the use described would actually be the past tense in the subjunctive mood.
This is another instance of four things that piss me off. First of all, she made this statement on her own time, not school time, so I don't see how this is the school's business. If anything, perhaps it's time to construe these types of internet violations as something akin to illegally recording a phone call. The LoTD comment ultimately makes mention of a "reasonable expectation of privacy" and that ought to be codified in law thus making it a crime to report something seen on the internet that was not intended to be seen by you the equivalent of a warrantless search. Oh wait, that is a Federal law. It's the Fourth Amendment. What needs to be done then is to extend Fourth Amendment rights to instances like this as well. Secondly, the parent who reported this to the school violated a basic social compact by not going to that child's parents. That parent failed to respect the social chain-of-command and should be publicly shamed for doing so. Thirdly, the principal of this school failed to use discretion in this case. Suspending a student for five days over this is beyond ridiculous. The principal should have understood this to be an instance of hyperbole (because no one's ever said, "Oh God! I wish I were dead!" ever before and actually wanted it to happen. No one's ever wished death upon someone over a perceived injustice and actually wanted that to happen. Assholes...) and used it as a teachable moment for online postings that this girl be more careful in the future as it should now be plain to her that there are people out there with agendas and that you could very easily become a victim of one if you are not careful. And fourthly, can we get a fucking comedy version of the Miranda Warning please already?!
Seriously, it is well past time that we have an actual honest-to-God Federal regulation declaring that all seemingly controversial statements must be considered acts of hyperbole, sarcasm, and/or satire until, and only unless, it can be demonstrated to be otherwise. I am fucking tired of these overreactionary shitheads (which I guess I am now one of albeit from the opposing side). The comments section in the linked article is a joy and frustration to read. There are many worthy comments to post, but I shall focus on this one by lancehubner:
She said she wished Osama "had killed" her teacher, not that he would kill her teacher from beyond the grave. She said it in private (or what she thought was private) and it's not worded as a threat--obviously a hyperbolic joke from a frustrated kid, not to mention being in the past tense.
This vice principal needs to get his head out of his ass. And the parent who reported this is a hysterical dong.
This vice principal needs to get his head out of his ass. And the parent who reported this is a hysterical dong.
to which iphone_myphone responded:
If its on fb, its not really private anymore. If she mentioned the teachers name, it becomes a threat.
to which lancehubner responded (and this would be the LoTD):
No, it doesn't. To be a threat you have to threaten someone.
If I write "I wish Osama had killed iphone_myphone" on a piece of paper and put it in a drawer, I didn't threaten you because I didn't say it TO YOU. If I whisper it to a friend it's still not a threat, for the same reason.
She had privacy settings on. She reasonably expected nobody to read it outside her circle of friends, and certainly not the teacher she hates. Ergo, not a threat.
Also not a threat because it doesn't say: I am going to kill you! It says: I wish a person who is now dead had already killed this guy I don't like. How is that a threat? If I say, "I wish Donald Trump had died in a hairspray accident 10 years ago," am I threatening to kill him? Ridiculous!
If I write "I wish Osama had killed iphone_myphone" on a piece of paper and put it in a drawer, I didn't threaten you because I didn't say it TO YOU. If I whisper it to a friend it's still not a threat, for the same reason.
She had privacy settings on. She reasonably expected nobody to read it outside her circle of friends, and certainly not the teacher she hates. Ergo, not a threat.
Also not a threat because it doesn't say: I am going to kill you! It says: I wish a person who is now dead had already killed this guy I don't like. How is that a threat? If I say, "I wish Donald Trump had died in a hairspray accident 10 years ago," am I threatening to kill him? Ridiculous!
Just a minor point with the above comment. "Had killed" in the use described would actually be the past tense in the subjunctive mood.
Friday, March 4, 2011
VITUPERATIVE RAILING
Some e-cards is a fun site posting links that make me giggle daily be it their inane cards or just some random article. Today, the site posted this link regarding an allegedly cheated-on girl selling her now ex-boyfriend's stuff that he left behind on E-bay posing provocatively and semiclad in many of the pictures featuring his items because her boyfriend of FIVE (emphasis mine) years didn't like her dressing sexy or revealing when they were out on dates.
Are girls really this fucking stupid or have I merely had the "misfortune" of meeting only strong-willed women all my life? I mean, what the hell?!! I understand context so if the boyfriend had a problem with her dressing sexy and/or revealing at a funeral (or any place with a dress code), I would totally get it. However, anything else where how you dress really doesn't matter, shut the fuck up you controlling prick. Who the fuck are you to tell your girlfriend how to dress especially when I would put good money down on the idea that that's what made you notice her in the first place. Sorry, but your girlfriend was never only hot to you. If you're dating a hot girl, expect her to be constantly checked out by other men (and some women) because like you, other guys aren't fucking blind. In fact, revel in it...take pride in the fact that yes, now you're the ugly guy with the hot girlfriend after all these years of wondering what some other girl saw in "him"...but don't try to fucking control her in an effort to keep that hotness all to yourself or simply just to be an oppressive asshole.
But as for the girl, who the fuck are you?! If you have a problem with how your guy thinks, find someone else who appreciates you (and how you [presumably] like to dress) for you. Something tells me you won't have a hard time doing so. Yes, it looks like a seemingly trivial detail, but all big things start small. Good general advice (some exceptions apply): If someone is telling you can't do what you like to do anymore; spend time with the people you like spending time with, that's your first clue to get the fuck as far away from these people as you possibly can. "Oh but he LOVES me!" Really? You're not a fucking dog who needs to be trained. You're a grown woman. Stand up for yourself! Being a control-freak is not a sexy masculine trait! Ugh...
Is this why all the assholes have no trouble getting laid? Cuz women are fucking stupid? I really want to respect women, I really do. I see no reason not to treat them as equals. But stuff like this makes me wonder why I bother feeling that way at all; why I bothered to pay attention to those films I had to watch in school as it clearly has gotten me virtually nothing except "You're such a good friend"... Blech...
ADDENDUM: I enjoy how in the article this woman claims to not be "a vindictive person by any means, but when you spend five years of your life [with someone and they] do that to you, it started out as a way to get back at him". Uh...you can't claim to not be a vindictive person and then do something that is PRECISELY vindictive you nimrod! Ugh...
 |
| a portion of the relevant listing on ebay |
Are girls really this fucking stupid or have I merely had the "misfortune" of meeting only strong-willed women all my life? I mean, what the hell?!! I understand context so if the boyfriend had a problem with her dressing sexy and/or revealing at a funeral (or any place with a dress code), I would totally get it. However, anything else where how you dress really doesn't matter, shut the fuck up you controlling prick. Who the fuck are you to tell your girlfriend how to dress especially when I would put good money down on the idea that that's what made you notice her in the first place. Sorry, but your girlfriend was never only hot to you. If you're dating a hot girl, expect her to be constantly checked out by other men (and some women) because like you, other guys aren't fucking blind. In fact, revel in it...take pride in the fact that yes, now you're the ugly guy with the hot girlfriend after all these years of wondering what some other girl saw in "him"...but don't try to fucking control her in an effort to keep that hotness all to yourself or simply just to be an oppressive asshole.
But as for the girl, who the fuck are you?! If you have a problem with how your guy thinks, find someone else who appreciates you (and how you [presumably] like to dress) for you. Something tells me you won't have a hard time doing so. Yes, it looks like a seemingly trivial detail, but all big things start small. Good general advice (some exceptions apply): If someone is telling you can't do what you like to do anymore; spend time with the people you like spending time with, that's your first clue to get the fuck as far away from these people as you possibly can. "Oh but he LOVES me!" Really? You're not a fucking dog who needs to be trained. You're a grown woman. Stand up for yourself! Being a control-freak is not a sexy masculine trait! Ugh...
Is this why all the assholes have no trouble getting laid? Cuz women are fucking stupid? I really want to respect women, I really do. I see no reason not to treat them as equals. But stuff like this makes me wonder why I bother feeling that way at all; why I bothered to pay attention to those films I had to watch in school as it clearly has gotten me virtually nothing except "You're such a good friend"... Blech...
ADDENDUM: I enjoy how in the article this woman claims to not be "a vindictive person by any means, but when you spend five years of your life [with someone and they] do that to you, it started out as a way to get back at him". Uh...you can't claim to not be a vindictive person and then do something that is PRECISELY vindictive you nimrod! Ugh...
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
OBAMA REALLY NEEDS TO GROW A PAIR, part II
A quick foray into politics again. This time about the budget.
Simply put, I am what I guess would be referred to as a deficit hawk. I don't like the idea of being in debt at all though I will grant allowances for both emergencies and investments. Personally I don't think the United States should be allowed to run budget deficits except during declared wars and economic depressions. Since neither situation is politically palatable, it's something that would rarely come up.
Despite what you may think, the United States is not at war. War has not been declared by Congress since the 1940s. That would mean, under my rules, the Korean Conflict, the Cold War, Vietnam, the first Gulf War, the Kosovo action, Afghanistan, and the second Gulf War (as well as any of the various minor insurgencies like Somalia that the USA has conducted over the years) would all had to have been paid for up front either through raised overall taxes or surtaxes whereas World Wars I & II could have been paid for through bond programs and promissory notes.
Our last economic depression was in the 1930s so the huge deficits of the past decades would also not have been permitted.
Now, I'm not a total hard-ass on this stuff. I understand investments. Things like highways (and roads in general) are designed to last for a certain number of years before replacement so setting up a bond program to pay for the building of the Interstate Highway System would have been totally justified, setting up a bond program to electrify the nation would have been totally justified, setting up a bond program to build sewer systems would have been totally justified, but setting up the TARP fund to bail out banks whose greed and arrogance caused them to fuck up so badly as to put the US economy into a tailspin however, would not have been justified for deficit spending. The current military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq are not justified under my rules for deficit spending since no formal Declaration of War has been issued. I don't care if declaring war sounds quaint these days, it's the Constitutional duty and SOLE authority of Congress to do so. Passing legislation effectively delegating the decision to the President by authorizing the use of force sounds Unconstitutional to me. And while I'm annoyed that President Obama did not order a full retreat upon entering office, that's not the point of this uneducated rant.
The Republicans, after decades of deficit spending on their watch, are suddenly against deficits again and all they wanna cut are bullshit programs that don't add up to nearly enough to reduce deficits or even eliminate them. They're not suggesting the return of "PayGo" either. While it's fairly clear at this point that their real agenda is a careful blend of hypocrisy, misogyny, and fucking the poor, no one is effectively calling them out on it. Now, I'm not suggesting that they be openly accused of hating women, no. They've made it a campaign platform that deficits are killing America, blah, blah, blah. Well, the New York Times several months ago presented a kind of game to allowing the reader to "Fix the Budget". They provided a list of options and such and I personally had no problem not only reducing the budget but eliminating it entirely and putting the US back in the black. I personally have no problems with raising taxes (they offered Clinton-era rates) and cutting the military down to size (I'm personally very annoyed to know we currently have troops stationed in over 150 countries...no, the US is not an empire, not at all *rolls eyes*) among other things.
What I don't get is, why not play chicken with these hypocritical Republicans and present to them a balanced budget? Hell, use the NY Times game to help figure it out. Balance the budget through a mix of tax hikes and budget cuts and balance it THIS YEAR, not ten years down the road and certainly none of this "we'll halve the deficit in ten years" bullshit. What's that supposed to mean? We're never gonna pay our bills? Balance the budget this year and fucking challenge these deficit-hawk hypocrites to not pass it. All their hemming and hawing about how the deficits are killing America - make them admit they're hypocrites. They'd have to pass it or admit that it's all bullshit.
Am I the only one who wants to play politics these days? Some days I really wish I were electable...and had a metal plate in my head like Shishio to protect against my likely assassins.
Turns out you can do it with cuts alone. I raised no taxes nor did I restore any old rates. Just cuts. See here.
This is what I personally would prefer. See here. If you would like me to explain the reasoning behind anything I've chosen, ask me in a comment.
Simply put, I am what I guess would be referred to as a deficit hawk. I don't like the idea of being in debt at all though I will grant allowances for both emergencies and investments. Personally I don't think the United States should be allowed to run budget deficits except during declared wars and economic depressions. Since neither situation is politically palatable, it's something that would rarely come up.
Despite what you may think, the United States is not at war. War has not been declared by Congress since the 1940s. That would mean, under my rules, the Korean Conflict, the Cold War, Vietnam, the first Gulf War, the Kosovo action, Afghanistan, and the second Gulf War (as well as any of the various minor insurgencies like Somalia that the USA has conducted over the years) would all had to have been paid for up front either through raised overall taxes or surtaxes whereas World Wars I & II could have been paid for through bond programs and promissory notes.
Our last economic depression was in the 1930s so the huge deficits of the past decades would also not have been permitted.
Now, I'm not a total hard-ass on this stuff. I understand investments. Things like highways (and roads in general) are designed to last for a certain number of years before replacement so setting up a bond program to pay for the building of the Interstate Highway System would have been totally justified, setting up a bond program to electrify the nation would have been totally justified, setting up a bond program to build sewer systems would have been totally justified, but setting up the TARP fund to bail out banks whose greed and arrogance caused them to fuck up so badly as to put the US economy into a tailspin however, would not have been justified for deficit spending. The current military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq are not justified under my rules for deficit spending since no formal Declaration of War has been issued. I don't care if declaring war sounds quaint these days, it's the Constitutional duty and SOLE authority of Congress to do so. Passing legislation effectively delegating the decision to the President by authorizing the use of force sounds Unconstitutional to me. And while I'm annoyed that President Obama did not order a full retreat upon entering office, that's not the point of this uneducated rant.
The Republicans, after decades of deficit spending on their watch, are suddenly against deficits again and all they wanna cut are bullshit programs that don't add up to nearly enough to reduce deficits or even eliminate them. They're not suggesting the return of "PayGo" either. While it's fairly clear at this point that their real agenda is a careful blend of hypocrisy, misogyny, and fucking the poor, no one is effectively calling them out on it. Now, I'm not suggesting that they be openly accused of hating women, no. They've made it a campaign platform that deficits are killing America, blah, blah, blah. Well, the New York Times several months ago presented a kind of game to allowing the reader to "Fix the Budget". They provided a list of options and such and I personally had no problem not only reducing the budget but eliminating it entirely and putting the US back in the black. I personally have no problems with raising taxes (they offered Clinton-era rates) and cutting the military down to size (I'm personally very annoyed to know we currently have troops stationed in over 150 countries...no, the US is not an empire, not at all *rolls eyes*) among other things.
What I don't get is, why not play chicken with these hypocritical Republicans and present to them a balanced budget? Hell, use the NY Times game to help figure it out. Balance the budget through a mix of tax hikes and budget cuts and balance it THIS YEAR, not ten years down the road and certainly none of this "we'll halve the deficit in ten years" bullshit. What's that supposed to mean? We're never gonna pay our bills? Balance the budget this year and fucking challenge these deficit-hawk hypocrites to not pass it. All their hemming and hawing about how the deficits are killing America - make them admit they're hypocrites. They'd have to pass it or admit that it's all bullshit.
Am I the only one who wants to play politics these days? Some days I really wish I were electable...and had a metal plate in my head like Shishio to protect against my likely assassins.
Turns out you can do it with cuts alone. I raised no taxes nor did I restore any old rates. Just cuts. See here.
This is what I personally would prefer. See here. If you would like me to explain the reasoning behind anything I've chosen, ask me in a comment.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
I THOUGHT STUDENTS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE ALL LIBERAL AND STUFF
Staying true to the name of this blog, this article came out late last year. It was about a female student in North Carolina who basically got expelled for bringing a paring knife to school. And the kicker to it all was that the knife wasn't even in her lunch...it was her father's lunch. The paring knife was intended to be used (by him) as a tool to cut apart the apple he packed for himself but that his daughter took to school accidentally.
There are a lot of things in this article that both baffle me and piss me the fuck off.
First of all, context anyone? Did nobody ask themselves why this girl had a tool knife with her before simply charging her with weapons possession. I assume she will be cleared on this charge seeing as how even from the article it's rather clear that this knife was not brought to school to be used on another person. Even if the lunch was in fact the student's, the knife was clearly meant to cut the apple and not human flesh. It's not a weapon if it's meant to be used as a tool. Even so, defending against this erroneous charge will cost her family money which even if they have the money to do so, is simply unfair to her.
Further contextual points could be simply her student record. We know from the article that she is academically gifted, is an athlete, and has never been in trouble before. The first two are not particularly relevant but the last one is. Did nobody think to have a talk with this girl about why she had a knife in her possession? I'm not saying we should be bringing knives into school here, what I'm saying here is that the punishment should be at least related to the accused's intent and her intent was clearly not causing harm to another. Remember, even a pencil can be used as a weapon but most likely it's gonna be used as a tool for writing. Should students who sharpen their pencils to fine points instead of dull ones be considered threats? I mean, why else would they need such a sharp point if not for harming others? But no, she's been suspended for the rest of her school year, charged with misdemeanor weapons possession, and banned from the campus. All because nobody could take some fucking context into mind.
The article doesn't say here if this student's punishment was the result of a "zero tolerance policy". In fact, it mentions that the principal does have authority to determine the punishment on a case-by-case basis. The superintendent points out (note the passing of the buck) that the punishment in such cases can be less severe when done accidentally and if the student reports it first to the principal and not a teacher but since this student was both unaware of the knife in the first place and was the victim of a random sweep for drugs, how could she have done so?
That being said, this punishment does have the air of a zero-tolerance policy. Where did these policies come from? And they always start with bullshit rhetoric too that no one gets called out on. "Our school has a zero-tolerance policy towards drugs/violence/bullying/whatever" --- they say that like up until that point they did have a tolerance for it. We always have a zero-tolerance for bad things but that doesn't mean we codify it. How many car accidents do we have every year? How many people die as a result of them? So does that mean our tolerance for automobile fatalities is anything even close to 42,000 dead a year? No! The answer is we tolerate ZERO fatalities on the road every year...but they happen, and when they do we deal with them rationally: assigning blame, cleaning up the scene, assessing damage, etc. We don't go around banning cars because people die because of them every year. There'd be nothing left to do if we went around banning things in a zero-tolerance fashion simply because somebody could conceivably get hurt or die from its use or exposure to it or whatever. So how is it that schools can have "zero-tolerance" policies?
No one wants to be bullied or bludgeoned or stabbed or etc. but it happens. The rational response is to assess the situation, find the context, restore order, and assign blame (not necessarily in that order). It is entirely irrational to simply say if you do this, you will be effectively expelled without regards to context; that you will not be given a chance to defend yourself, face your accusers, etc. Zero tolerance policies effectively kill discretion and discretion is a duty imposed upon those in positions of power. Police officers use it all the time. You know this when you weren't pulled over for going 66 mph. You know this whenever you were pulled over, that you weren't cited for what were probably a dozen separate violations that you didn't even know you were breaking. Teachers and principals are supposed to use discretion too.
Based on the text of the article, it would seem to me the proper response would have been to assess the situation and figure out the context. It would not have taken more than a phone call to this girl's father to have him corroborate his daughter's side of the story. The principal would know that this girl had not had prior discipline problems and the school counselor would be able to say that her mental state was fine. She could still be scolded for having the knife on school grounds and I would not begrudge the school seizing it from her permanently (or at least until one of her parents came to pick it up). She should've been let off with a warning and the whole incident should've been kept quiet to preserve her reputation. Seems simple enough to me and even if the school had reporting requirements, no one needed to know. If more than one of the sweepers noticed it, then that's where the principal comes in and does his leadership thing in reminding them that the school is not a police state and that people do in fact make mistakes and that it's not worth ruining this girl's academic life and reputation in the name of zero-tolerance.
And it's not like schools don't supply students with weapons. Remember using compasses to draw circles in art class? Good stabby weapon right there but ooh! a perfect circle (with a dot in its center). Shop class is full of hammers, awls, screwdrivers, powered sanders, saws, and routers perfect for bludgeoning, stabbing, and/or mutilating an annoying classmate. Home Ec. had knives, fire, boiling water. Hell, I handled fucking nitric acid in Chemistry class. Do you have any idea what that would do if it got on your skin or in your eyes? [And those guillotine paper cutters in art class. What kind of medieval schools did I attend growing up?] Or do they not have Shop and Home Economics anymore because of zero tolerance policies?
But that's obviously not what happened which brings me to the students. What the fuck? Seriously... Does nobody protest anymore? It's not like this was grade school and they wouldn't know better, this is fucking high school. At the very minimum, did nobody petition the school? Did no group of students show support for this girl by bringing in paring knives of their own the next day (non-threateningly of course, or even plastic knives if you wanna be a pussy about it)? How hard is that to protest a stupid rule? They can't suspend like twenty or thirty students over this and to that degree. It would embarrass the school and create the perception that they cannot control their students. Students DIED protesting the Vietnam war, they staged walkouts over dress codes when my father was in school (boys used to have to maintain crew cuts and wear button-down shirts and dress pants; girls had to have skirts and blouses) and a lot of them got in trouble...but they also got the rules overturned. The students in this school should be ashamed of themselves acting like sheep. They're just simple herd animals aren't they? This is the future of America folks...they've been trained well by their overprotective parents and oppressive school system into being afraid to express themselves, afraid to compete with each other, and afraid to stand up for themselves. It's really fucking sad.
And I don't really want to hear that it's against the law to bring weapons to school. No one's contesting that. What I'm contesting is the overapplication of arbitrary rules and regulations. Just like not all pushing can be considered fighting (sometimes it's just horseplay) and not all teasing can be considered bullying (sometimes it really is done out of love) and not all taunts can be considered malicious (sometimes it really is just a competitive spirit), a teacher upon seeing that a student is in possession of a banned item/substance/behavior should do his duty and interfere. However the path from interference to punishment should not be so clear-cut. It's not an A to B thing. As humans we believe in context otherwise we would all be Inspector Javerts. Sometimes a "knock it off!" or a "put that away" or a "tone it down" is really the appropriate response. If a student is pointing a chicken finger as a mock gun at a student, he shouldn't be suspended. The correct response would seem to be "knock it off". Personally I used to draw pictures of me shooting things in school inspired by movies like Star Wars and video games like Missile Command (yes, I'm old). Today a student doing the same thing would be suspended. I kid you not when I say that I handed in for Thanksgiving when I was in first grade, a drawing I made of a Pilgrim shooting a turkey, bullet in transit. In 1984 that was cute. I hesitate to think what that would've earned me if I were six today.
Saying it's all "zero tolerance" is really just passing the buck. It's basically saying "I'm a leader, but I don't want to have to do any of that pesky leading stuff". Teachers, principals, and really anyone who's in positions of authority should always be against zero tolerance policies as it deprives them of their ability to lead. It makes a mockery of their position, not only marginalizing them but placing them increasingly under the burdens of micromanagement. Why should a student trust his teacher with anything if the teacher is merely a tool of the establishment? Zero tolerance policies foster the idea that schools are police states and that teachers and principals are merely enforcers and to be feared. Why would I tell a teacher about something that's bothering me (e.g. I'm aware that another student is going to beat up after school or the case where a student took a knife away from a suicidal student and got suspended for it) if I fear that what I say may simply come back to haunt me. The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination...but not at school apparently. Teachers are supposed to be trusted, not feared and zero tolerance policies do nothing to promote trust in authority figures.
Ach, I'm too annoyed to continue...but I'll end with this, is it ironic that I have zero tolerance for zero tolerance...or merely hypocritical? :-)
There are a lot of things in this article that both baffle me and piss me the fuck off.
First of all, context anyone? Did nobody ask themselves why this girl had a tool knife with her before simply charging her with weapons possession. I assume she will be cleared on this charge seeing as how even from the article it's rather clear that this knife was not brought to school to be used on another person. Even if the lunch was in fact the student's, the knife was clearly meant to cut the apple and not human flesh. It's not a weapon if it's meant to be used as a tool. Even so, defending against this erroneous charge will cost her family money which even if they have the money to do so, is simply unfair to her.
Further contextual points could be simply her student record. We know from the article that she is academically gifted, is an athlete, and has never been in trouble before. The first two are not particularly relevant but the last one is. Did nobody think to have a talk with this girl about why she had a knife in her possession? I'm not saying we should be bringing knives into school here, what I'm saying here is that the punishment should be at least related to the accused's intent and her intent was clearly not causing harm to another. Remember, even a pencil can be used as a weapon but most likely it's gonna be used as a tool for writing. Should students who sharpen their pencils to fine points instead of dull ones be considered threats? I mean, why else would they need such a sharp point if not for harming others? But no, she's been suspended for the rest of her school year, charged with misdemeanor weapons possession, and banned from the campus. All because nobody could take some fucking context into mind.
The article doesn't say here if this student's punishment was the result of a "zero tolerance policy". In fact, it mentions that the principal does have authority to determine the punishment on a case-by-case basis. The superintendent points out (note the passing of the buck) that the punishment in such cases can be less severe when done accidentally and if the student reports it first to the principal and not a teacher but since this student was both unaware of the knife in the first place and was the victim of a random sweep for drugs, how could she have done so?
That being said, this punishment does have the air of a zero-tolerance policy. Where did these policies come from? And they always start with bullshit rhetoric too that no one gets called out on. "Our school has a zero-tolerance policy towards drugs/violence/bullying/whatever" --- they say that like up until that point they did have a tolerance for it. We always have a zero-tolerance for bad things but that doesn't mean we codify it. How many car accidents do we have every year? How many people die as a result of them? So does that mean our tolerance for automobile fatalities is anything even close to 42,000 dead a year? No! The answer is we tolerate ZERO fatalities on the road every year...but they happen, and when they do we deal with them rationally: assigning blame, cleaning up the scene, assessing damage, etc. We don't go around banning cars because people die because of them every year. There'd be nothing left to do if we went around banning things in a zero-tolerance fashion simply because somebody could conceivably get hurt or die from its use or exposure to it or whatever. So how is it that schools can have "zero-tolerance" policies?
No one wants to be bullied or bludgeoned or stabbed or etc. but it happens. The rational response is to assess the situation, find the context, restore order, and assign blame (not necessarily in that order). It is entirely irrational to simply say if you do this, you will be effectively expelled without regards to context; that you will not be given a chance to defend yourself, face your accusers, etc. Zero tolerance policies effectively kill discretion and discretion is a duty imposed upon those in positions of power. Police officers use it all the time. You know this when you weren't pulled over for going 66 mph. You know this whenever you were pulled over, that you weren't cited for what were probably a dozen separate violations that you didn't even know you were breaking. Teachers and principals are supposed to use discretion too.
Based on the text of the article, it would seem to me the proper response would have been to assess the situation and figure out the context. It would not have taken more than a phone call to this girl's father to have him corroborate his daughter's side of the story. The principal would know that this girl had not had prior discipline problems and the school counselor would be able to say that her mental state was fine. She could still be scolded for having the knife on school grounds and I would not begrudge the school seizing it from her permanently (or at least until one of her parents came to pick it up). She should've been let off with a warning and the whole incident should've been kept quiet to preserve her reputation. Seems simple enough to me and even if the school had reporting requirements, no one needed to know. If more than one of the sweepers noticed it, then that's where the principal comes in and does his leadership thing in reminding them that the school is not a police state and that people do in fact make mistakes and that it's not worth ruining this girl's academic life and reputation in the name of zero-tolerance.
And it's not like schools don't supply students with weapons. Remember using compasses to draw circles in art class? Good stabby weapon right there but ooh! a perfect circle (with a dot in its center). Shop class is full of hammers, awls, screwdrivers, powered sanders, saws, and routers perfect for bludgeoning, stabbing, and/or mutilating an annoying classmate. Home Ec. had knives, fire, boiling water. Hell, I handled fucking nitric acid in Chemistry class. Do you have any idea what that would do if it got on your skin or in your eyes? [And those guillotine paper cutters in art class. What kind of medieval schools did I attend growing up?] Or do they not have Shop and Home Economics anymore because of zero tolerance policies?
But that's obviously not what happened which brings me to the students. What the fuck? Seriously... Does nobody protest anymore? It's not like this was grade school and they wouldn't know better, this is fucking high school. At the very minimum, did nobody petition the school? Did no group of students show support for this girl by bringing in paring knives of their own the next day (non-threateningly of course, or even plastic knives if you wanna be a pussy about it)? How hard is that to protest a stupid rule? They can't suspend like twenty or thirty students over this and to that degree. It would embarrass the school and create the perception that they cannot control their students. Students DIED protesting the Vietnam war, they staged walkouts over dress codes when my father was in school (boys used to have to maintain crew cuts and wear button-down shirts and dress pants; girls had to have skirts and blouses) and a lot of them got in trouble...but they also got the rules overturned. The students in this school should be ashamed of themselves acting like sheep. They're just simple herd animals aren't they? This is the future of America folks...they've been trained well by their overprotective parents and oppressive school system into being afraid to express themselves, afraid to compete with each other, and afraid to stand up for themselves. It's really fucking sad.
And I don't really want to hear that it's against the law to bring weapons to school. No one's contesting that. What I'm contesting is the overapplication of arbitrary rules and regulations. Just like not all pushing can be considered fighting (sometimes it's just horseplay) and not all teasing can be considered bullying (sometimes it really is done out of love) and not all taunts can be considered malicious (sometimes it really is just a competitive spirit), a teacher upon seeing that a student is in possession of a banned item/substance/behavior should do his duty and interfere. However the path from interference to punishment should not be so clear-cut. It's not an A to B thing. As humans we believe in context otherwise we would all be Inspector Javerts. Sometimes a "knock it off!" or a "put that away" or a "tone it down" is really the appropriate response. If a student is pointing a chicken finger as a mock gun at a student, he shouldn't be suspended. The correct response would seem to be "knock it off". Personally I used to draw pictures of me shooting things in school inspired by movies like Star Wars and video games like Missile Command (yes, I'm old). Today a student doing the same thing would be suspended. I kid you not when I say that I handed in for Thanksgiving when I was in first grade, a drawing I made of a Pilgrim shooting a turkey, bullet in transit. In 1984 that was cute. I hesitate to think what that would've earned me if I were six today.
Saying it's all "zero tolerance" is really just passing the buck. It's basically saying "I'm a leader, but I don't want to have to do any of that pesky leading stuff". Teachers, principals, and really anyone who's in positions of authority should always be against zero tolerance policies as it deprives them of their ability to lead. It makes a mockery of their position, not only marginalizing them but placing them increasingly under the burdens of micromanagement. Why should a student trust his teacher with anything if the teacher is merely a tool of the establishment? Zero tolerance policies foster the idea that schools are police states and that teachers and principals are merely enforcers and to be feared. Why would I tell a teacher about something that's bothering me (e.g. I'm aware that another student is going to beat up after school or the case where a student took a knife away from a suicidal student and got suspended for it) if I fear that what I say may simply come back to haunt me. The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination...but not at school apparently. Teachers are supposed to be trusted, not feared and zero tolerance policies do nothing to promote trust in authority figures.
Ach, I'm too annoyed to continue...but I'll end with this, is it ironic that I have zero tolerance for zero tolerance...or merely hypocritical? :-)
Monday, December 20, 2010
CHRISTMAS IS ALSO A NATIONAL HOLIDAY
It's that time of year again for the so-called "Christmas Wars" and neither side does anything for me. I like Christmas, don't get me wrong. But where you may be getting ME wrong is in what I mean by "Christmas".
For those of you who know me, I am irreligious. I also celebrate Christmas. Is that a contradiction? No, it isn't. It would only be a contradiction if I celebrated the Mass of Christ. I celebrate Commercial (or American) Christmas.
Christmas is both a religious holiday and a national (Federal technically) holiday. If there's anything unfortunate about that, it's that they share the same name. They are different holidays and you can celebrate one or the other or both.
And it is here where we meet the first of the two sides of this Christmas War debate that I can't stand: The Conflationists. The Conflationists are people who insist that commercial (or folklore) symbols like Santa Claus, flying reindeer, decorated pine trees, candy canes, giftgiving, Frosty the Snowman, stockings, glittering colored lights, etc. are somehow connected to the religious observance of the birth of Jesus Christ. They're not. They have NOTHING to do with one and other. These are usually the people who are suing their local towns and boroughs over their Christmas displays or the fact that they're even using the word Christmas saying that they're offensive to their religious beliefs or that it violates the separation of Church and State. It doesn't. Those are secular symbols of the national holiday of Christmas. If anything, you're offending me as an American by trying to get rid of such displays. Commercial Christmas is for everyone of all faiths, creeds, races, and ethnicities. The holiday's cool like that in the same way that Thanksgiving, Independence Day, and Veterans' Day is to name a few. Commercial Christmas has evolved a bit over the years but it is every part of American tradition as is Thanksgiving. We may deride it for its crass consumerism, but it is still a holiday about family and generosity to others (even if it's only reserved for people you know). The fact that "Christ" is in the name is merely a coincidence as far as I'm concerned. It would probably be more rightly referred to as "Yule" but the songs have already been written so deal with it. Commercial Christmas can be celebrated by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Shintoists, atheists, and everyone else I've left out because it's an AMERICAN holiday. You celebrate the coming together of family and goodwill towards men as AMERICANS, not as Christians and whatnot. So, to all the Conflationists who ignorantly insist that Santa Claus is somehow Jesus in a red suit...shut the fuck up. You don't know what you're talking about and you're only hurting people with your rhetoric. Now if there's a Nativity scene or a menorah or other religious symbols in this public display, that's different and yes, on the basis of the First Amendment, such displays should be removed from public lands.
The other side of the debate are The Shoehorners. These are religious Christians (and to a lesser extent Jews) who will offer up convoluted explanations for the commerical symbols of Christmas to show that they are in fact, religious symbols before arguing that we need to return to a purer observance one of the high holy Christian holidays. They are essentially the same as the Conflationists but are coming at the argument from a different angle. Instead of seeing two separate celebrations, they see only one and feel that the birth of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ must be a part of it (or in the case of the menorah displays, that we have to show regard for all religions or none at all). Sometimes it's really crass too. If you haven't heard the song in a while, give a listen to "Santa Claus is Coming to Town". However, the Shoehorners don't bother me nearly so much as the Conflationists because at least they're not trying to take away from people's celebration of Christmas, they just want those celebrations in the public square to be of a more religious nature (and not even necessarily a wholly religious one - it sometimes really feels like a "Hey! Don't forget about me!" nature). The problem that arises from this group is that their ignorance of (and possible refusal to accept) the national version of the holiday only serves to fuel the fiery passions of the Conflationists.
This all follows along basic historical trends. It's been pointed out many times that the birth of Christ could not possibly have happened on December 25th. The descriptions in the Bible tend to point more towards sometime in March. The truth is, we'll never know. Early Christianity was not particularly concerned with birth days. The important day was the day a saint was martyred or ascended into Heaven. Jesus's birth wasn't even celebrated early in this country. The Puritans didn't care for it and early Congresses even met on Christmas Day and thought nothing of it. The reason that the birth of Christ is celebrated when it is was not based on ignorance but rather strategy. All the old pagan religions put significance on the solstices and equinoxes. The Winter Solstice festivals were particularly important as it was a celestial bottom. The days from then on would grow longer and warmth would soon return. Now if you're a relatively new and easily persecuted religion, you don't go around celebrating your festivals on conspicuous days and conspicuous here will be defined as "you're the only ones celebrating something". No, you do it when something else is going on or you co-opt symbols in those festivals or both. For the Vernal Equinox, they were serving pastry buns already so putting a drizzle in the shape of a cross won't hurt. It's both branding and artistic. Celebrating the birth of your Lord and Savior during Saturnalia (Rome's Winter Solstice festival) helped to not make you stand out so much which is important when you're not in a favorable position with the State.
The same thing would happen again later but this time with the commercial version. It too co-opted an existing holiday and placed their own symbols in it alongside it so as to brand itself. Considering the holiest of Christian holidays, the Resurrection has also been commercialized and symbolized with a hare bearing decorated eggs, it could very well have been business interests trying to widen their sales bases back in the day. And like with Christmas, this holiday has its Conflationists and Shoehorners too. That I honestly don't know and am truly speculating...but then, so are all my rants here: unresearched rambling :-)
Either way, stop telling me I can't celebrate (Commercial) Christmas in schools and public squares you unAmerican douchebags!
ADDENDUM: I suppose it could also be argued that there must be two separate Christmases anyway since it is in fact a Federal holiday and has been so since 1870. If the First Amendment prohibits the Federal government from endorsing any particular religion, then the Federal holiday of Christmas must be a secular one or else it would be unConstitutional, right? That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. :-) Even though it was very likely that it was rooted in the Christian holy day, it has clearly since changed. "In God We Trust" was added to this nation's coins in 1864 for clearly religious reasons, but the motto has since been ruled to be a form of "ceremonial deism" which is considered to be not a religious endorsement by the Supreme Court. So the way I take it is that something can start off on the wrong foot in this country, it can come to mean something else, and then later not be judged for its original intent but rather by its current meaning. Therefore, American Christmas is a secular holiday which can celebrated by all.
For those of you who know me, I am irreligious. I also celebrate Christmas. Is that a contradiction? No, it isn't. It would only be a contradiction if I celebrated the Mass of Christ. I celebrate Commercial (or American) Christmas.
Christmas is both a religious holiday and a national (Federal technically) holiday. If there's anything unfortunate about that, it's that they share the same name. They are different holidays and you can celebrate one or the other or both.
And it is here where we meet the first of the two sides of this Christmas War debate that I can't stand: The Conflationists. The Conflationists are people who insist that commercial (or folklore) symbols like Santa Claus, flying reindeer, decorated pine trees, candy canes, giftgiving, Frosty the Snowman, stockings, glittering colored lights, etc. are somehow connected to the religious observance of the birth of Jesus Christ. They're not. They have NOTHING to do with one and other. These are usually the people who are suing their local towns and boroughs over their Christmas displays or the fact that they're even using the word Christmas saying that they're offensive to their religious beliefs or that it violates the separation of Church and State. It doesn't. Those are secular symbols of the national holiday of Christmas. If anything, you're offending me as an American by trying to get rid of such displays. Commercial Christmas is for everyone of all faiths, creeds, races, and ethnicities. The holiday's cool like that in the same way that Thanksgiving, Independence Day, and Veterans' Day is to name a few. Commercial Christmas has evolved a bit over the years but it is every part of American tradition as is Thanksgiving. We may deride it for its crass consumerism, but it is still a holiday about family and generosity to others (even if it's only reserved for people you know). The fact that "Christ" is in the name is merely a coincidence as far as I'm concerned. It would probably be more rightly referred to as "Yule" but the songs have already been written so deal with it. Commercial Christmas can be celebrated by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Shintoists, atheists, and everyone else I've left out because it's an AMERICAN holiday. You celebrate the coming together of family and goodwill towards men as AMERICANS, not as Christians and whatnot. So, to all the Conflationists who ignorantly insist that Santa Claus is somehow Jesus in a red suit...shut the fuck up. You don't know what you're talking about and you're only hurting people with your rhetoric. Now if there's a Nativity scene or a menorah or other religious symbols in this public display, that's different and yes, on the basis of the First Amendment, such displays should be removed from public lands.
The other side of the debate are The Shoehorners. These are religious Christians (and to a lesser extent Jews) who will offer up convoluted explanations for the commerical symbols of Christmas to show that they are in fact, religious symbols before arguing that we need to return to a purer observance one of the high holy Christian holidays. They are essentially the same as the Conflationists but are coming at the argument from a different angle. Instead of seeing two separate celebrations, they see only one and feel that the birth of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ must be a part of it (or in the case of the menorah displays, that we have to show regard for all religions or none at all). Sometimes it's really crass too. If you haven't heard the song in a while, give a listen to "Santa Claus is Coming to Town". However, the Shoehorners don't bother me nearly so much as the Conflationists because at least they're not trying to take away from people's celebration of Christmas, they just want those celebrations in the public square to be of a more religious nature (and not even necessarily a wholly religious one - it sometimes really feels like a "Hey! Don't forget about me!" nature). The problem that arises from this group is that their ignorance of (and possible refusal to accept) the national version of the holiday only serves to fuel the fiery passions of the Conflationists.
This all follows along basic historical trends. It's been pointed out many times that the birth of Christ could not possibly have happened on December 25th. The descriptions in the Bible tend to point more towards sometime in March. The truth is, we'll never know. Early Christianity was not particularly concerned with birth days. The important day was the day a saint was martyred or ascended into Heaven. Jesus's birth wasn't even celebrated early in this country. The Puritans didn't care for it and early Congresses even met on Christmas Day and thought nothing of it. The reason that the birth of Christ is celebrated when it is was not based on ignorance but rather strategy. All the old pagan religions put significance on the solstices and equinoxes. The Winter Solstice festivals were particularly important as it was a celestial bottom. The days from then on would grow longer and warmth would soon return. Now if you're a relatively new and easily persecuted religion, you don't go around celebrating your festivals on conspicuous days and conspicuous here will be defined as "you're the only ones celebrating something". No, you do it when something else is going on or you co-opt symbols in those festivals or both. For the Vernal Equinox, they were serving pastry buns already so putting a drizzle in the shape of a cross won't hurt. It's both branding and artistic. Celebrating the birth of your Lord and Savior during Saturnalia (Rome's Winter Solstice festival) helped to not make you stand out so much which is important when you're not in a favorable position with the State.
The same thing would happen again later but this time with the commercial version. It too co-opted an existing holiday and placed their own symbols in it alongside it so as to brand itself. Considering the holiest of Christian holidays, the Resurrection has also been commercialized and symbolized with a hare bearing decorated eggs, it could very well have been business interests trying to widen their sales bases back in the day. And like with Christmas, this holiday has its Conflationists and Shoehorners too. That I honestly don't know and am truly speculating...but then, so are all my rants here: unresearched rambling :-)
Either way, stop telling me I can't celebrate (Commercial) Christmas in schools and public squares you unAmerican douchebags!
ADDENDUM: I suppose it could also be argued that there must be two separate Christmases anyway since it is in fact a Federal holiday and has been so since 1870. If the First Amendment prohibits the Federal government from endorsing any particular religion, then the Federal holiday of Christmas must be a secular one or else it would be unConstitutional, right? That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. :-) Even though it was very likely that it was rooted in the Christian holy day, it has clearly since changed. "In God We Trust" was added to this nation's coins in 1864 for clearly religious reasons, but the motto has since been ruled to be a form of "ceremonial deism" which is considered to be not a religious endorsement by the Supreme Court. So the way I take it is that something can start off on the wrong foot in this country, it can come to mean something else, and then later not be judged for its original intent but rather by its current meaning. Therefore, American Christmas is a secular holiday which can celebrated by all.
Merry Christmas EVERYBODY °<|:-D>
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
PRESIDENT OBAMA REALLY NEEDS TO GROW A PAIR...
The latest round of political bullshit going around is what to do about the expiring Bush II-era tax cuts. Personally, I say let them all expire. Not just the top 2%...EVERYBODY. This country is deep as fuck in debt and there's clearly a vacuum of political will to make the hard decisions necessary to put this country's financial house in order (which would be a collection of both tax increases AND spending cuts affecting all areas of the budget including each side's sacred cows like Social Security benefits and the military). Now is not the time to extend those even-at-the-time inadvisable tax cuts...we can't afford it both financially and politically. But for now, fuck the financially part, it's the political part that's actually pissing me off...a lot.
President Obama's proposal of extending the tax cuts another year or so for those making less than $250K a year and allowing those cuts to expire on those making more already WAS a compromise bill but the Republicans will have none of this. They want the tax cuts for everybody while not simultaneously proposing which programs would be cut to plug up the massive deficit which would result if this were to be done. The Republicans aren't offering a counterproposal...they aren't offering ANYTHING. It's their original position...period. They're like children throwing a tantrum. Either President Obama and the Democratic party does it the Republican way or no way at all. That's not compromise: That's a bullying tactic and it's sickening and the fact that President Obama is urging the Democrats to give in to this atrocious behavior provided they get an extension of unemployment benefits is just fucking sad. The President was quoted as saying (and I'm paraphrasing here) that the American people need to know that their taxes won't be going up next year.
How about you play politics with this one? How about you point out the hypocrisy of the Republicans by going on record as saying you will veto any spending bill that isn't Pay-Go which is every new expenditure must be paid for either through a tax increase or a spending cut elsewhere1. That way you force the Republicans to talk about how they would plug up the nearly trillion dollar deficit that would be created by extending these cuts. How about you point out that the Republicans are fighting awful hard for 2% of the country and are willing to sacrifice the other 98% to do so. I dunno. Anything, ANYTHING other than giving in.
Personally, I say let them all expire. Our taxes and I say "our" because I cannot believe I will ever have a reader in that elusive 2% bracket will not rise that much. The news points out about $1000 a year for the "average" American. I don't make "average" wages but if I did, that's $20 a week. For me, it'd likely be $10 a week. I can swing that and I already live pretty close to the razor's edge. I hate both the Democrats and the Republicans but seriously, fuck the Republicans. I can only hope these newbie Tea Partiers recently elected will muck up the system with their misplaced idealism. I'm waiting desperately for this party to pay for its propaganda.
President Obama really needs to call their bluff and simply refuse to go along with the Republican strategy which seems to be "fuck everyone". He really needs to grow a pair of balls. I've lost all my respect for him. Sometimes I really wonder why the Republicans hate him so much when he so readily goes along with their ideas in the name of "bipartisanship" which these days really just seems to be defined as "whatever the Republicans are doing". The President seems like the most Republican President we've ever had.
I'm already convinced the pussy solution of "give the Republicans what they want" strategy will ultimately prevail. It's just so frustrating and depressing to endure...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1 not actually my idea. I read it in a comment on Gawker.com here specifically this one but I'm going with it.
President Obama's proposal of extending the tax cuts another year or so for those making less than $250K a year and allowing those cuts to expire on those making more already WAS a compromise bill but the Republicans will have none of this. They want the tax cuts for everybody while not simultaneously proposing which programs would be cut to plug up the massive deficit which would result if this were to be done. The Republicans aren't offering a counterproposal...they aren't offering ANYTHING. It's their original position...period. They're like children throwing a tantrum. Either President Obama and the Democratic party does it the Republican way or no way at all. That's not compromise: That's a bullying tactic and it's sickening and the fact that President Obama is urging the Democrats to give in to this atrocious behavior provided they get an extension of unemployment benefits is just fucking sad. The President was quoted as saying (and I'm paraphrasing here) that the American people need to know that their taxes won't be going up next year.
How about you play politics with this one? How about you point out the hypocrisy of the Republicans by going on record as saying you will veto any spending bill that isn't Pay-Go which is every new expenditure must be paid for either through a tax increase or a spending cut elsewhere1. That way you force the Republicans to talk about how they would plug up the nearly trillion dollar deficit that would be created by extending these cuts. How about you point out that the Republicans are fighting awful hard for 2% of the country and are willing to sacrifice the other 98% to do so. I dunno. Anything, ANYTHING other than giving in.
Personally, I say let them all expire. Our taxes and I say "our" because I cannot believe I will ever have a reader in that elusive 2% bracket will not rise that much. The news points out about $1000 a year for the "average" American. I don't make "average" wages but if I did, that's $20 a week. For me, it'd likely be $10 a week. I can swing that and I already live pretty close to the razor's edge. I hate both the Democrats and the Republicans but seriously, fuck the Republicans. I can only hope these newbie Tea Partiers recently elected will muck up the system with their misplaced idealism. I'm waiting desperately for this party to pay for its propaganda.
President Obama really needs to call their bluff and simply refuse to go along with the Republican strategy which seems to be "fuck everyone". He really needs to grow a pair of balls. I've lost all my respect for him. Sometimes I really wonder why the Republicans hate him so much when he so readily goes along with their ideas in the name of "bipartisanship" which these days really just seems to be defined as "whatever the Republicans are doing". The President seems like the most Republican President we've ever had.
I'm already convinced the pussy solution of "give the Republicans what they want" strategy will ultimately prevail. It's just so frustrating and depressing to endure...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1 not actually my idea. I read it in a comment on Gawker.com here specifically this one but I'm going with it.
Friday, August 27, 2010
MY ROOMMATE HAS SCORCHED POCKETS
My roommate has been unemployed since March of this year, happily sucking off New Jersey's ample unemployment insurance teat, and only as of this month actually (barely) seeking employment. It's been a really frustrating experience considering how brutally hot this Summer has been. Had he been working, I could've been enjoying the relative coolness of the living room but no, I've been confined to my fucking hot room with a fan blowing hot air on me.
In desperation, he has posted an ad on Craig's List as a "masseur"...we all know what that means. He's actually gotten responses and has been happy as fuck (so to speak) that he has been able to earn money in this manner. He ecstatically points out that he will now have no problem covering next month's rent...hooray! (what about the other eight months?)
Now, if you were chronically broke because you've had difficulty holding down a job for whatever reason, what do you do once you are again employed? Do you vigorously save your cash because your next bout of unemployment may be merely months away or do you decide to celebrate by taking you and your not-quite boyfriend out to dinner? He's been living paycheck-to-paycheck (unemployment check-to-unemployment check) for a long time now not because he's been terribly unlucky in the job market but basically because he's terminally stupid when it comes to money matters. He had a decent job for an entire year earning slightly more than me. He has no savings from this job to draw on, even before he was fired. He pissed it all away fiddling away like some Aesopian grasshopper rather than taking on the role of the ant. I've even found out that he owes his best friend thousands of dollars -- for years now -- of which he has paid back exactly nothing...but he's got the money to take his fuckbuddy out to dinner, to buy expensive gifts for his now ex-boyfriend...what an asshole to treat his friend like that. Not even token repayments to show that he intends to do the right thing. It's like he's waiting for a windfall rather than be responsible about it.
I'm also getting wind that he is thinking of moving out in January like he can just walk away from a lease without consequences. I really don't want to sue one of my friends for money owed but he clearly has no idea how a legal contract works and seeing as how he has made no effort to repay his other friend over the years, trusting him to an oral contract would be an act of utter stupidity on my part. How retarded do you have to be to think you can renege on a contract like it's no big deal? Holy fuck... I really don't want to sue him but he really needs to grow the fuck up and if me doing that causes him to do so, then maybe that will make me a good friend to him after all.
In desperation, he has posted an ad on Craig's List as a "masseur"...we all know what that means. He's actually gotten responses and has been happy as fuck (so to speak) that he has been able to earn money in this manner. He ecstatically points out that he will now have no problem covering next month's rent...hooray! (what about the other eight months?)
Now, if you were chronically broke because you've had difficulty holding down a job for whatever reason, what do you do once you are again employed? Do you vigorously save your cash because your next bout of unemployment may be merely months away or do you decide to celebrate by taking you and your not-quite boyfriend out to dinner? He's been living paycheck-to-paycheck (unemployment check-to-unemployment check) for a long time now not because he's been terribly unlucky in the job market but basically because he's terminally stupid when it comes to money matters. He had a decent job for an entire year earning slightly more than me. He has no savings from this job to draw on, even before he was fired. He pissed it all away fiddling away like some Aesopian grasshopper rather than taking on the role of the ant. I've even found out that he owes his best friend thousands of dollars -- for years now -- of which he has paid back exactly nothing...but he's got the money to take his fuckbuddy out to dinner, to buy expensive gifts for his now ex-boyfriend...what an asshole to treat his friend like that. Not even token repayments to show that he intends to do the right thing. It's like he's waiting for a windfall rather than be responsible about it.
I'm also getting wind that he is thinking of moving out in January like he can just walk away from a lease without consequences. I really don't want to sue one of my friends for money owed but he clearly has no idea how a legal contract works and seeing as how he has made no effort to repay his other friend over the years, trusting him to an oral contract would be an act of utter stupidity on my part. How retarded do you have to be to think you can renege on a contract like it's no big deal? Holy fuck... I really don't want to sue him but he really needs to grow the fuck up and if me doing that causes him to do so, then maybe that will make me a good friend to him after all.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
BANGING MY HEAD AGAINST MY DESK...
My roommate is my friend and while he is a good friend, he is a lousy roommate. I'm not sure if this thus makes him a lousy friend. Does it carry over?
If your friend takes advantage of you, s/he is considered a bad friend so if my roommate is "allowing" me to do like 95-98% of the work around the apartment, is he not taking advantage of me and if so, does that make him a bad friend? Emotionally I feel that connection while logically, I separate them. I mean, I won't lend even my best friends money if I believe that I won't be paid back but that doesn't mean I think them a bad friend, just bad when it comes to money. I'm torn.
Maybe it has to do with the fact that he has been unemployed since March and for nearly five months, did NOTHING to look for new work. Like a douchebag, I actually brought home an advertisement for Census work...y'know, a GOVERNMENT job...jobs which are practically synonymous with excessive pay. He would've been let go by now, it's temporary work...but it would've been temporary work at $20/hr. Instead, no...he's looking (or so he says) for work only now.
The point being that he has basically been home all day doing NOTHING around the apartment. He actually had the gall to tell me when first fired that "now that he has all this extra free time, that he should really start doing more around the apartment since I'm doing it all the time." How fucking offensive is that? When you include travel time, I'm working over 40 hours a week, I still have to sleep and eat, and yet somehow, I have all this free time to do EVERYTHING around this apartment. I wanna believe that it's the "night shift fallacy" but I'm really having trouble with that.
The "Night Shift Fallacy" is an assumption made by non-night shift workers. They believe that because we are home all day that we have more time to do stuff than they who have to work during more normal hours. Those who make this assumption, of course, have failed to take into account that WE HAVE TO SLEEP TOO. It's just we have to sleep during the day. When working the night shift, you have two options: you either have the morning or the afternoon, but not both. I personally choose to have the morning (going to sleep around noon). I've done the afternoon (going to sleep at about 7 a.m. and getting up at 3 p.m.) but without something to do, it's hard to get up on time. The temptation to sleep in is tremendous. WORK-LEISURE-SLEEP is the way I prefer to do it. WORK-SLEEP-LEISURE all too often becomes WORK-SLEEP-SLEEP SOME MORE :-)
Anyways... I am completely convinced that he is not only perfectly content with the situation as is, but that he honestly believes that I am being an awesome roommate by doing it all for him rather than he is being a fucking lousy roommate by not doing his share. I would have never described him as narcissistic before, but I'm coming to that conclusion now. Even if it's not narcissism, it's definitely a parasitic relationship and it speaks poorly of him as a friend to allow this situation to continue.
Should I say something? You would think so. He really offended me with his "all this free time/more around the apartment" comment. First of all, in order to do "more", you must first do SOMETHING. Maybe once a month, he will wash the dishes. And even then, I still have to do the dishes because he (for some reason) never washes the pots still on the stove. So even when he does the dishes, I have to do the dishes. Vacuum? Ha! Dust? What's that? Sweep the kitchen floor? Eh...the bugs'll get it. Wipe off the hair catch in the bathtub after a shower? Of course not! I think I've handled his pubic hair more than all his boyfriends/flings combined. Clean any room in the apartment? I must be insane... Clean his own room? Not even once...not that it matters seeing as how he has turned the living room into his de facto bedroom. Nah, I didn't wanna watch some television today. Put more cans of soda in the 'fridge when there's only one or two left (and especially when you've taken the last one)? Nah, I don't get thirsty... Once in a blue moon, he will take the garbage and recyclables out. And I would bet good money that he honestly believes he is contributing when he does so.
Even when I'm cleaning the bathroom practically right in front of him, you would think that that alone might inspire him to maybe clean the living room or kitchen, but no. Why would he deprive me of my apparent purpose in life? He's such a thoughtful friend. He doesn't want me to think I am unneeded around here so he leaves it all for me to do.
This apartment has a shitty circuit set-up so we can only have one air-conditioner and that A/C is not in my room, it's in his bedroom...I mean living room. If he were employed, this would not be a problem. On those really hot days this Summer has been sadistically throwing at us this year, I may have actually been able to rest comfortably in the living room but no, Mr. Deliberately-Unemployed gets to enjoy it while I try to sleep in a room that regularly topped 92+° for a lot of days this past July. While I've gotten used to it, at 92° it is almost impossible to sleep. I would open the door, but there's only so much noise I can sleep with and even then, the A/C can't cool my room. But he gets to relax comfortably. Fucking A! I even bought curtains to seal off the living room so the A/C doesn't have to work so hard and he just leaves them open. Thanks asshole. And does he even buy a fan so that the A/C doesn't have to run NON-STOP for a month? No. Even those few days when it was actually seasonably cool and I opened the windows. He would close them as soon as I would go to my room and turn the A/C on. Fucker. He says he can't afford a fan and yet he managed, like a drunk who's chronically broke yet never without a drink, to find the $35 necessary to buy a book of artwork for The Last Airbender cartoon. The fan I use cost less than that and it's rather effective.
I am effectively being shut out of an apartment I co-rent because he won't get a fucking job. It's not as though the economy is the worst it's been since the early 1980s right? Oh wait, it is. Nah, it's easy to find work that pays $12+/hr. when unemployment is cresting 10%. And yet, because I am good at hiding my emotions, he actually believes that I am not bothered at all by this. Then he drops another bomb on me.
He actually had the gall to tell me that if he couldn't find a job, that I might have to find a new roommate. Oh really? I'm just gonna room with a total stranger in an apartment where I can't lock my bedroom door? I'm out of friends who will live with me (though if you can afford $650/mo. plus half utilities (about $100-$150/mo.) I'm listening). You can't just dump a roommate on me. I have to have approval of it. And quite frankly, I won't. I simply don't trust anyone else that much (or at least don't trust anyone that much who is currently available and wanting the small bedroom in a 2BR apartment). Go ahead and leave me. Break the lease you signed and that I have an extensive paper trail of you paying half-rent for. Breaking contracts isn't illegal...no! Judge Judy would totally award me a judgement whereby you still pay what you owe. Yes, you've pissed me off to the point where I would have no qualms about suing you for what you owe. Congratulations.
Believe it or not, I would take the loss of money and pay for this apartment by myself for a few months had he put in his part around here, had he honestly been looking for work the WHOLE time he was unemployed, had he actually done MORE (or even all) the work around this apartment while unemployed (y'know, to make up for the fact that he's not bringing in income). Yes, he has unemployment so while he has made his bills on time, he pisses me off by being such a willing recipient of the aid. Am I the only one who would actually be EMBARRASSED that I was collecting unemployment? Something tells me that if he qualified for foodstamps that he'd be happy as a pig in shit. But no, that's not how it's been happening. He's a leech to the system and a parasite of a friend.
So why don't I say anything? The fact is, I am in no rush to start fighting with a friend I've known both for over a decade and with whom I have never actually fought with. That first one is always a doozy. The other fact is that he is a grown man and more importantly, that I am not his parent. No one told me to clean the bathroom, kitchen, living room, and my room. No one told me to sweep the floor, take out the garbage, vacuum, and dust. I just do it. Why? Because it's fucking dirty. That's why. And it's not like I clean totally at random. I do the dishes first thing upon getting home from work (I'm still in "work mode" so I get it out of the way before I settle down for my leisure period). He has from noon to when I get home if he were to do them practically every fucking day, but no and if by chance yes, I still have to wash the pots for some fucking reason. I understand not wanting to vacuum while I'm sleeping but I get up at eight and noise restrictions don't begin until ten. That's two fucking hours to do some noisy cleaning and all fucking day to do the quiet cleaning but no...and no, there has never been a yes to this. If he even knows how to work a vacuum, I would be surprised. His mattress, after a year, still lies on the floor like he's a squatter. He never bought a bedframe during the time he was working preferring to buy DVDs instead and waiting four months to finally buy a fucking couch for the living room (which I now practically regret as the couch has become his bed) cuz he didn't want to borrow money from me to do so. I hesitate to wonder what might be growing/living under that mattress since he has never changed the sheets on it.
The other thing I don't get is he brought with him an old desktop computer. He got a laptop shortly thereafter. He ALWAYS works on the laptop, never the desktop yet the desktop is still in his room and it's on 24/7. Why? That one still baffles me. He has a desk he could be doing his work at yet instead he's in the living room so he leaves his virtually abandoned desktop to run constantly in his room. Did you ever just want to bang your head against a desk until it bled just because it all doesn't make any sense? How did I get stuck with this shit?
If your friend takes advantage of you, s/he is considered a bad friend so if my roommate is "allowing" me to do like 95-98% of the work around the apartment, is he not taking advantage of me and if so, does that make him a bad friend? Emotionally I feel that connection while logically, I separate them. I mean, I won't lend even my best friends money if I believe that I won't be paid back but that doesn't mean I think them a bad friend, just bad when it comes to money. I'm torn.
Maybe it has to do with the fact that he has been unemployed since March and for nearly five months, did NOTHING to look for new work. Like a douchebag, I actually brought home an advertisement for Census work...y'know, a GOVERNMENT job...jobs which are practically synonymous with excessive pay. He would've been let go by now, it's temporary work...but it would've been temporary work at $20/hr. Instead, no...he's looking (or so he says) for work only now.
The point being that he has basically been home all day doing NOTHING around the apartment. He actually had the gall to tell me when first fired that "now that he has all this extra free time, that he should really start doing more around the apartment since I'm doing it all the time." How fucking offensive is that? When you include travel time, I'm working over 40 hours a week, I still have to sleep and eat, and yet somehow, I have all this free time to do EVERYTHING around this apartment. I wanna believe that it's the "night shift fallacy" but I'm really having trouble with that.
The "Night Shift Fallacy" is an assumption made by non-night shift workers. They believe that because we are home all day that we have more time to do stuff than they who have to work during more normal hours. Those who make this assumption, of course, have failed to take into account that WE HAVE TO SLEEP TOO. It's just we have to sleep during the day. When working the night shift, you have two options: you either have the morning or the afternoon, but not both. I personally choose to have the morning (going to sleep around noon). I've done the afternoon (going to sleep at about 7 a.m. and getting up at 3 p.m.) but without something to do, it's hard to get up on time. The temptation to sleep in is tremendous. WORK-LEISURE-SLEEP is the way I prefer to do it. WORK-SLEEP-LEISURE all too often becomes WORK-SLEEP-SLEEP SOME MORE :-)
Anyways... I am completely convinced that he is not only perfectly content with the situation as is, but that he honestly believes that I am being an awesome roommate by doing it all for him rather than he is being a fucking lousy roommate by not doing his share. I would have never described him as narcissistic before, but I'm coming to that conclusion now. Even if it's not narcissism, it's definitely a parasitic relationship and it speaks poorly of him as a friend to allow this situation to continue.
Should I say something? You would think so. He really offended me with his "all this free time/more around the apartment" comment. First of all, in order to do "more", you must first do SOMETHING. Maybe once a month, he will wash the dishes. And even then, I still have to do the dishes because he (for some reason) never washes the pots still on the stove. So even when he does the dishes, I have to do the dishes. Vacuum? Ha! Dust? What's that? Sweep the kitchen floor? Eh...the bugs'll get it. Wipe off the hair catch in the bathtub after a shower? Of course not! I think I've handled his pubic hair more than all his boyfriends/flings combined. Clean any room in the apartment? I must be insane... Clean his own room? Not even once...not that it matters seeing as how he has turned the living room into his de facto bedroom. Nah, I didn't wanna watch some television today. Put more cans of soda in the 'fridge when there's only one or two left (and especially when you've taken the last one)? Nah, I don't get thirsty... Once in a blue moon, he will take the garbage and recyclables out. And I would bet good money that he honestly believes he is contributing when he does so.
Even when I'm cleaning the bathroom practically right in front of him, you would think that that alone might inspire him to maybe clean the living room or kitchen, but no. Why would he deprive me of my apparent purpose in life? He's such a thoughtful friend. He doesn't want me to think I am unneeded around here so he leaves it all for me to do.
This apartment has a shitty circuit set-up so we can only have one air-conditioner and that A/C is not in my room, it's in his bedroom...I mean living room. If he were employed, this would not be a problem. On those really hot days this Summer has been sadistically throwing at us this year, I may have actually been able to rest comfortably in the living room but no, Mr. Deliberately-Unemployed gets to enjoy it while I try to sleep in a room that regularly topped 92+° for a lot of days this past July. While I've gotten used to it, at 92° it is almost impossible to sleep. I would open the door, but there's only so much noise I can sleep with and even then, the A/C can't cool my room. But he gets to relax comfortably. Fucking A! I even bought curtains to seal off the living room so the A/C doesn't have to work so hard and he just leaves them open. Thanks asshole. And does he even buy a fan so that the A/C doesn't have to run NON-STOP for a month? No. Even those few days when it was actually seasonably cool and I opened the windows. He would close them as soon as I would go to my room and turn the A/C on. Fucker. He says he can't afford a fan and yet he managed, like a drunk who's chronically broke yet never without a drink, to find the $35 necessary to buy a book of artwork for The Last Airbender cartoon. The fan I use cost less than that and it's rather effective.
I am effectively being shut out of an apartment I co-rent because he won't get a fucking job. It's not as though the economy is the worst it's been since the early 1980s right? Oh wait, it is. Nah, it's easy to find work that pays $12+/hr. when unemployment is cresting 10%. And yet, because I am good at hiding my emotions, he actually believes that I am not bothered at all by this. Then he drops another bomb on me.
He actually had the gall to tell me that if he couldn't find a job, that I might have to find a new roommate. Oh really? I'm just gonna room with a total stranger in an apartment where I can't lock my bedroom door? I'm out of friends who will live with me (though if you can afford $650/mo. plus half utilities (about $100-$150/mo.) I'm listening). You can't just dump a roommate on me. I have to have approval of it. And quite frankly, I won't. I simply don't trust anyone else that much (or at least don't trust anyone that much who is currently available and wanting the small bedroom in a 2BR apartment). Go ahead and leave me. Break the lease you signed and that I have an extensive paper trail of you paying half-rent for. Breaking contracts isn't illegal...no! Judge Judy would totally award me a judgement whereby you still pay what you owe. Yes, you've pissed me off to the point where I would have no qualms about suing you for what you owe. Congratulations.
Believe it or not, I would take the loss of money and pay for this apartment by myself for a few months had he put in his part around here, had he honestly been looking for work the WHOLE time he was unemployed, had he actually done MORE (or even all) the work around this apartment while unemployed (y'know, to make up for the fact that he's not bringing in income). Yes, he has unemployment so while he has made his bills on time, he pisses me off by being such a willing recipient of the aid. Am I the only one who would actually be EMBARRASSED that I was collecting unemployment? Something tells me that if he qualified for foodstamps that he'd be happy as a pig in shit. But no, that's not how it's been happening. He's a leech to the system and a parasite of a friend.
So why don't I say anything? The fact is, I am in no rush to start fighting with a friend I've known both for over a decade and with whom I have never actually fought with. That first one is always a doozy. The other fact is that he is a grown man and more importantly, that I am not his parent. No one told me to clean the bathroom, kitchen, living room, and my room. No one told me to sweep the floor, take out the garbage, vacuum, and dust. I just do it. Why? Because it's fucking dirty. That's why. And it's not like I clean totally at random. I do the dishes first thing upon getting home from work (I'm still in "work mode" so I get it out of the way before I settle down for my leisure period). He has from noon to when I get home if he were to do them practically every fucking day, but no and if by chance yes, I still have to wash the pots for some fucking reason. I understand not wanting to vacuum while I'm sleeping but I get up at eight and noise restrictions don't begin until ten. That's two fucking hours to do some noisy cleaning and all fucking day to do the quiet cleaning but no...and no, there has never been a yes to this. If he even knows how to work a vacuum, I would be surprised. His mattress, after a year, still lies on the floor like he's a squatter. He never bought a bedframe during the time he was working preferring to buy DVDs instead and waiting four months to finally buy a fucking couch for the living room (which I now practically regret as the couch has become his bed) cuz he didn't want to borrow money from me to do so. I hesitate to wonder what might be growing/living under that mattress since he has never changed the sheets on it.
The other thing I don't get is he brought with him an old desktop computer. He got a laptop shortly thereafter. He ALWAYS works on the laptop, never the desktop yet the desktop is still in his room and it's on 24/7. Why? That one still baffles me. He has a desk he could be doing his work at yet instead he's in the living room so he leaves his virtually abandoned desktop to run constantly in his room. Did you ever just want to bang your head against a desk until it bled just because it all doesn't make any sense? How did I get stuck with this shit?
Thursday, August 5, 2010
WHAT THE FUCK GOOGLE?
How many goddamned sites do I have to be a member of these days? Everything's an impedence to communication all the sudden.
Want to send a message? Just sign up for "Friend Connect" and then you'll be able to post one right away! Fuck that! How about a link and I can send a message? I'm getting real tired of this shit.
I know the days of the "Wild West Internet" are waning. Soon we'll likely have to pay for all our content like we do for our cellphones and our cable. It won't be so bad, really. Remember when cable was still fairly new and the idea of paying for television was deemed absurd because you could get it for free over the air? Now people look at you funny if you don't pay for cable. The internet will be the same. It'll mark our age to future generations when we talk about how it used to be a free-for-all.
I'm just really hoping against hope that this multi-signup thing isn't part of the deal. I know there's this new trend to have a single log-in site now (I imagine it is a furious competition that Google will likely win). I have to admit I'm suspicious of it. It reminds of the old TV/VCR combo-sets they used to offer. The only problem with that is if one broke down, the whole thing became worthless. The analogue to that is why I'm leery of single log-in sites. If that log-in gets compromised, the EVERYTHING gets compromised. But I have digressed...
Seriously, stupid internet sites. Cut it out. I'm a member of Blogger.com. Allow me to send messages to those who have actually decided to follow me without having to sign up for a whole new service. My password load is already quite heavy.
I still wonder what it would feel like to come home to find all the dishes had been washed... That'd be nice...
Want to send a message? Just sign up for "Friend Connect" and then you'll be able to post one right away! Fuck that! How about a link and I can send a message? I'm getting real tired of this shit.
I know the days of the "Wild West Internet" are waning. Soon we'll likely have to pay for all our content like we do for our cellphones and our cable. It won't be so bad, really. Remember when cable was still fairly new and the idea of paying for television was deemed absurd because you could get it for free over the air? Now people look at you funny if you don't pay for cable. The internet will be the same. It'll mark our age to future generations when we talk about how it used to be a free-for-all.
I'm just really hoping against hope that this multi-signup thing isn't part of the deal. I know there's this new trend to have a single log-in site now (I imagine it is a furious competition that Google will likely win). I have to admit I'm suspicious of it. It reminds of the old TV/VCR combo-sets they used to offer. The only problem with that is if one broke down, the whole thing became worthless. The analogue to that is why I'm leery of single log-in sites. If that log-in gets compromised, the EVERYTHING gets compromised. But I have digressed...
Seriously, stupid internet sites. Cut it out. I'm a member of Blogger.com. Allow me to send messages to those who have actually decided to follow me without having to sign up for a whole new service. My password load is already quite heavy.
I still wonder what it would feel like to come home to find all the dishes had been washed... That'd be nice...