The PMS Project

Risk-Reward Life

2011-09-30T21:46:00.001-05:00

Tonight brought me an epiphany. I have certain tendencies that have been derived over years of being kicked back and forth by life. Friends, family, strangers people are designed to look out for themselves, and most are quite happy to do so. In this vein we are capable of some serious damage to each other. Not only physically but arguably more damaging are the long term psychological and emotional injuries. Those aren't as simple to heal. Because when those injuries occur there isn't a stitch or medicine or a visible way to tell when you're hurt much less when you are healed.

Psychological and emotional injuries cause scars that can be evident immediately or not for years down the road. When we accumulate enough of them it is only natural to expect a defense to be constructed. People are also not designed to simply take beating after beating with no response. These defense mechanisms we make are our responses to the anxiety and insecurities that those injuries have caused, and the apprehension that they could happen again. We want to protect ourselves, and while there is nothing wrong with that we are also inhibiting ourselves from experiencing life outside of expecting a beating. When we impose our defense mechanisms on those in our lives we also place them forcibly in the role of those that have hurt us in the past.

I have always had a simple motto in the back of my mind: Your past informs your present, but does not have to dictate your future. I think on some level I knew this day would come. A zero-point where the hurts and scars of the past would have to be released, not forgotten, but simply they would have to be subjected to a place in my mind where they could no longer hurt me. I will always have those experiences, and those scars, and I am wiser for each and every one of them. But they have been dictating my life, and they haven't been doing me any good. My life is a mess. What I have been doing, the point I have been operating from is clearly not working. What do I have to lose by choosing another path? Absolutely nothing. There is risk, but if you can't take a risk on yourself then how can you ever take a risk on someone else?

The hurts of the past didn't kill me, they wanted to, but they failed. I didn't give in. That knowledge gives me a sort of pride, not in the fact that those times did happen, but in the fact that I got through them. It gives me the confidence to know that I can take risks and if I get hurt then I get hurt. Life is one long chain of risk and reward when you think about it. They don't have to balance, you may risk everything and never see a reward, you may get a reward with no risks (hello, trust fund babies!). Most people just aren't like that though. Most people will never see a reward if they don't accept the risk.

Tonight I had a moment where I realized that if you never change your expectations, then your response never changes and you never get a different result. All this because a situation smacked me in the face that reminded me of the past, and those memories came back. I was about to have a panic attack and assume the worse with no indication that the story would be the same. I was already reaching for the walls, the indifference and the detachment before I realized it was one long self-fulfilling prophecy.

Hurts or no hurts, it's worth it. And to hell with the people who had me convinced that I wasn't worth it.

I want my different result, and I will get it.

Untitled Thought

2011-08-30T14:16:00.000-05:00

My enjoyment of the Highlander series is tempered by the knowledge that it inspired a fair few pretentious gits to claim to be Scottish and collect swords for pretentious-git purposes (as opposed to collecting them because swords are cool, which is separate from collecting them because you want to swear up and down that the jewelry you got at Spencer’s and the blades you bought at a flea market are mystical). Similar things have happened with Star Wars and Lord of the Rings.

I've come to the conclusion that basing a major life philosophy or the bulk of your religion on fantasy movies is like saying that ill-thought-out beliefs are a competition, and by God you're going to beat EVERYONE.

Clearly we're all robots. Robot slaves. Or something.

2011-08-30T13:52:00.002-05:00

Raincoat Jed sent me this. I can’t actually think of commentary for the video. I’m that speechless.

I’M JUST GOING TO LEAVE THIS LINK HERE

And I also can’t think of a song that would go with this post. I was a little too boggled by the fact that she thinks that there was electricity in Africa in ancient times. I watched Ancient Aliens too, but come on.
And I guess if she, like a lot of people, wanted to move to Africa, then...cool, I guess. But maybe stay away from South Africa.* It kind of sucks, especially for women.
*The “blacks can’t run a country” comments found on the Seoxys post are idiotic. Ignore them.

I know all parents mess their kids up to a degree, but it's not supposed to be this intentional

2011-07-25T18:32:00.009-05:00

So I've discovered several things today.

1. The revamp of Beavis and Butthead wherein they pan shows like Jersey Shore, et al, is probably something that I will watch. I don't know why. Raincoat Jed likes to send me links to things that spark my interest, like anything that involves the quote, “If they did this chart long enough, they could find out how herpes began.”

2. I don't know if it's because I'm getting older, but apparently my body hates corn chips like Godzilla movies hate continuity.

3. I noticed that someone posted a link to this gem:

"Two classic fairytales have been re-imagined or “sweetened” rather for today’s tots: , “Rapunzel,” by Sarah Gibb and “Twelve Dancing Princesses” by Brigette Barrager. According to The New York Times, these authors have assumed a “gentler” narrative for these gorgeously-illustrated picture books. Yet, despite tactics to make these stories more kid-accessible, sexist attitudes about women and passivity remain.

Pamela Paul at The Times observes:
'As Gibb would have it, the princesses are passive innocents and unaware of the spell – sleepdancing, as it were. They can be rescued only by the handsome young cobbler, Pip, who toils away mending their worn-out shoes. This ends — can you guess? – in a joyous wedding between Pip and the princess Poppy. “And, of course, they all lived happily ever after.” Very attractively, though inactively, so.'

I find it quite telling that sex and violence have been removed from these tales but stereotypes about women remain a kosher part of storytelling. There may no graphic scenes in these picture books but children learning that “passive” princesses can only be rescued from spells by a “handsome young cobbler” is just as damaging. Revamp indeed. Reads like the same old trajectory to me."

First of all, I’ve read the original “Twelve Dancing Princesses.” It is quite possible that it’s been “softened” because there’s not many parents who want to read a story to their daughters about a bunch of chicks who sneak out to party every night. This does not bespeak sexism.

In fact, it looks an awful lot like:

Yeah, that stamp? It may show up a lot.

As another (female) commenter put it:

“So…you wanted them to actually tell a different story? Should only the aggressive princesses have been saved? Should they have scorned the man, and belittled him, before declaring him worthless and then rescuing themselves? Perhaps the prince should have been nerdy and sensitive and passive to his ball-busting career princess, maybe even changing HIS last name this time around? Don’t you think you’re reaching a little to find the insult in this? What kind of damage does this cause again? Let me get this straight: you believe this encourages little girls to believe that passivity is required in order to win the affections of a handsome man…which is wrong…but you wouldn’t assume that this story teaches little girls that magic spells are real, right?? Why does it teach one concept, but not the other? Why not assume that little girls would learn that dancing is bad because you have to be rescued from it? Why wouldn’t they assume that the story is telling them that dancing is fun, and handsome men are lame for interrupting?? Its just so arbitrary to assume that ALL little girls will discern THAT particular message from a story.
Let’s just re-write all books. That way no one’s feelings will be hurt. Like the Third Reict (sp). Any and all stories and books that portray the women as anything less than demi-gods worthy of only the highest respect must be altered or destroyed, along with the authors. Let’s start with the Bible. Then we’ll move on to Shakespeare. After that we’ll change all the history books.”

Second, I love Grimm Fairytales (the originals) because they're so dark and frankly weird. The original Rapunzel, for instance, has Rapunzel getting knocked up by the prince (mazel tov, it's twins). The witch comes back, throws Rapunzel out and blinds the prince. They're separated for a while, but Rapunzel is the one who finds him later (along with their kids) and restores his sight. Then they live happily ever after.
If there's a moral to that story, it's that you have to go through a lot of bullshit in order to get your share of happiness; and let's face it, if you tell your kids that when they're young, it'll come as much less of a surprise later.

If the author of articles like this and the one at the Times is going to cherrypick just one story here and there that they think depicts a princess or two as too "passive" as being sexist, then it's not just reaching, it's bad reporting. If there's a parent out there who really finds the more modern, sanitized fairy tales to be so offensive, then just read your kids the originals.

By the way, the original Grimm's Brothers version of the Pied Piper has the townspeople refusing to pay the piper after he rids the town of rats. So he plays a different tune and leads all their children dancing away into a mountain, whereupon they are never seen again. Vengeance complete, the piper presumably goes on his merry way while the parents wail in grief.

Now, I'd probably read a toddler something about dancing princesses simply because small children just don't analyze things the way adults do. You know why? 'Cause anything that poops itself and likes Barney is not, I repeat not, going to be lecturing in Oxford about the intricacies of literature any time soon.

But I guess if you prefer fairy tales to teach your kids the fine principles of "an eye for an eye and possibly also a leg just to be thorough," then, you know, you have options. Original fairy tales, Rambo movies, religion.

When the children hear about Jesus and how lovin' and carin' he was . . . how he gave his all to God's children and how it got him nailed to a tree, it will be amazin' to see whose eyes light up with hope and whose burn with newfound survival instincts.
--Fred MacIntire, Something Positive

Speaking of S*P, Milholland also did this awesome take on Sleeping Beauty. Also, by quoting his characters and linking to stuff he’s done that I think is cool, I’m not saying that he shares any of my opinions or that I actually know him in any way. Do not pester the Randy just ‘cause of this blog, OK thank you.
Though he replied to me once on Twitter and it totally made my day ‘cause he’s awesome.

Note: If anyone gives a crap about what the rapunzel plant is, it’s an old name for Rampion (Campanula rapunculus), which is apparently a sort of salad green.

And I spake thusly unto the refrigerator: Bring forth much pork and chili and beans, and puddings, and there shalt be A Great Eatening in All The Land

2011-07-11T14:51:00.006-05:00

So hello! Today I have a little helping of WTF for you. As opposed to all the other ones dealing with WTF and WTF byproducts. And I have been told recently that my tendency to be longwinded is “cute,” so this post has got to be adorable.

"Do you find yourself attracted again and again to troubled, distant, moody men -- while "nice guys" seem boring?
Do you obsess over men who are emotionally unavailable, addicted to work, hobbies, alcohol, or other women?
Do you neglect your friends and your own interests to be immediately available to him?
Do you feel empty without him, even though being with him is torment?"

This is from the Amazon.com description of a book titled, “Women Who Love Too Much.” They recommended this to me, theoretically because they have discovered that I do tend to go for the dark, moody/otherwise stable nice guy type.
Then again, they also used to recommend me vibrators, knives, and books on taxidermy, so clearly they know what I do on Friday nights.*
This is a joke. If you did not think it was a joke, then I weep for you.*
*Lie.

First of all, if you need a book to tell you that your emotionally unavailable work addicted alcoholic cheating boyfriend/husband/whatever should perhaps not cause you to neglect your friends and interests in favor of being around for him all the time and that you are also dangerously emotionally codependent, stop reading.
Go kill yourself.
Do it now.
For Jesus. Because he is disgusted with you.
If Jesus were here right now, he would slap you across the face and call you a dumbass.*
*Blatant lie. Theoretically. I mean, it’s not like he didn’t raise his most holy pimp hand to those little punk money-lenders in the temple. There’s a precedent here.
(Upon reading the draft of this blog, my friend Dustin remarked, “Then they'd fall madly in love with him because there's nothing crazy bitches like more than a husband who beats them.”)

How in the hell are there still women (and men) that do this? I grant you, we all got raised with the Beauty & the Beast archetype, and not the relatively cool one with Ron Perlman.

This guy made fantasy soap operas cool for like 3 years,
which is longer than anyone else has done ever.

But the whole underlying plot of the original Beauty and the Beast is that there’s basically this prince who was a huge prick, so he got turned into a beast--essentially, that whole “now the outside matches the inside, muwhahaha” thing. You’d think that would be sort of a warning to Belle, but noooo. No, she goes through the initial “Oh my God why are you keeping me prisoner here” thing (totally her father’s fault), at which point the Beast makes a couple token attempts to not be a dick.
In the original story, these attempts were not aided by talking cutlery.
Then Belle decides that there’s more to the Beast that she initially thought, and then it becomes this whole episode of her being patient and kind in the hopes that he will change.
Luckily, he does; which theoretically means that he also decided that she didn’t look like a tasty little meat snack, what with him being a beast and all. As a result, he falls madly in love with her and all her patience and kindness is rewarded by him turning into a handsome prince. It is presumed that they lived out the rest of their days in his castle, very much in love and probably traumatizing Chip by doing the freaky in every room.

He’s trying to smile but he’s seen too much and now he's dead inside.
SO CUTE

How often does that play out in real life, though? In real life, the guy who is consistently an asshole to you is, provided he’s not just having a streak of consecutive bad days, actually an asshole.
Shocking, I know. Yet there is someone somewhere who decided, much like the other eleven billion self-help book authors like them, that women really can’t figure this out on their own and they need help.

Are enough women really that blind that they need a book?

...Yes.

Dammit.

And if you're feeling really adventurous:

Sometimes I really hate women. Well, everyone really, but today...

2011-07-08T03:40:00.007-05:00

‘Pop stars such as Rihanna and Britney talk about empowering women, but by dressing up in stockings and rubber bodices while dancing provocatively they are pandering to a male fantasy.’
--Louise O’Connell, beauty editor for Glamour UK.

The above quote is from an article on Yahoo! Lifestyle titled, “Why I’m a feminist.”
Now, I don’t wholly disagree with the article. It’s true that once in a while, you will run up against some incredibly awful attitudes based entirely around your gender. It’s also true that women in the US can do nearly everything and anything they like, which is good. However, attempting to explain away looking like a prat with the excuse of “I’m empowered” is a cop out.
It also makes women look stupid. So thanks a lot, all you pop-tarts out there.

Being judged according to different ideals according to gender is nothing new. This happens to both (or all three, if you like) genders. However, part of the “dirty connotation” in the word “feminist” is due entirely to the effects of radical feminism, the winding tentacles of which are why we still have those unusually irritating self-proclaimed feminists who react to what are basically normal relationship dynamics like demons to holy water thrown by the Winchester brothers.

❦In every society, there are groups that are reviled.

In the LBGT community, Transgender individuals may not be as accepted. In the straight community, they may be ostracized. In both, they may be viewed as novelties or as living sex toys.

In areas of countries like Afghanistan or India, the practice of child brides is still in heavy swing. Often, these girls may experience severe injuries from being raped by their new husbands on their wedding nights, or even death from ruptured organs. They may be as young as 5 in some cases.

Most cases of domestic abuse involve battered women and children. A whopping 40% involves battered men, shattering the idea that only men are the aggressors in abuse. Yet women are pretty likely to get away with it if they are the abusers simply because they’re female and society views them as basically harmless, or at least more docile and therefore more likely to be a victim.

Women and children lead in statistics for being victims of rape. However, it is a myth that men do not also get raped, but this is a fact that is largely ignored.

❦The article poses this question: ‘Do you believe men and women are equal?’

For the most part, yes. But I don’t think that they’re interchangeable. The fact is, you can’t claim that men have a monopoly on oppression when women will do the same thing. For instance, you can’t claim that men are inherently more likely to harm their children when “women—who commit less than 13 percent of all violent crimes in the United States—commit about 50 percent of all parental murders.” In addition, “women who kill their children in this country are disproportionately hospitalized or treated, while men who do so are disproportionately jailed, even executed.”
I could make a reference to the Casey Anthony trial here, but frankly, I’m sick of that idiot.

Point being, believing that men are women are equal does make you a feminist, but only by definition. The basic feminist ideology that started with the Suffrage movement (of which my great-grandmother, when she was my age, worked tirelessly to promote and had the great honor of seeing come to fruition in her lifetime) is usually misused. Modern, or radical feminism, is a political ideology rather than a personal one. It is not usually based in reality. And further, it often deals with paper tigers rather than actual issues. For instance, it’s perfectly fine for radical feminists to rant about how women get stared at or catcalled or groped on the street, but female circumcision* in another country? Honor killings? Forced prostitution? Human trafficking? They don’t often care, usually because complaining about it would mean that we, the big bad West, were being inconsiderate and not understanding another culture.
*I know Wikipedia is a crap source, but they have a lot of links in that one--and besides, it summarizes.

If you want to be a true feminist, you have to champion causes for both genders. You can’t judge the man who cheats on his wife more harshly than the woman who cheats on her husband. You can’t execute the father who killed his kid while the mother who committed the same crime only gets treatment. You can’t react to women being liberated from the Taliban by sending mostly makeup. You can’t ignore male victims of abuse and rape simply because they’re male. You can’t claim that abortion is only a woman’s issue when it involves both genders.
Welcome to equality.

❦I was going to include this in a different blog, but something that caught my eye recently was an article someone posted on Facebook, which unfortunately I did not bookmark and I’m refusing to go looking for out of stubbornness. The article involves the author talking about how, if women were not oppressed, the terms “femme” or “girly” would not be applied in a pejorative term to boys. The author then went on to say that the reason these terms were used is because society believes that being female is inherently “wrong” and lesser than being male.

Now, I don’t disagree that human sexuality is extremely diverse and is more difficult to classify for some people than others (ie, the gender binary may not apply to everyone, though it applies to me). I certainly don’t disagree with the idea that men naturally have a feminine side and women naturally have a male side--and both of these may come out in interests, mannerisms, etc. Considering that I’m typing this with my legs crossed like a man (ankle on knee) and had my hair cut short for years out of stubbornness (I’ve only recently grown it past my shoulders again), I’m no exception.

However, the idea that calling a boy “girly” means that being a girl is wrong would make more sense if the terms “butch” or “bull dyke” didn’t exist. Implying that a woman is unfeminine carries the connotation that male qualities are undesirable in women, essentially the old “I don’t like peas to touch my mashed potatoes” argument, but applied to gender and behavior.
Things overlap to a degree. They always have, and they always will.

Plus, some guys really do look like girls. And my God, have you ever seen Helen Thomas?

Bachelor Frog vs Myths About Pro-Lifers: The Froggening

2011-06-05T22:47:00.008-05:00

NOTE: This blog was co-written with an alarmingly smart guy, who for what I’m describing as lulzy purposes wants to go by the moniker of “Raincoat Jed.” His argument for this handle is that “[Black] raincoats are actually better [than trenchcoats] because then you can go around perving even when it's raining out.” I then reestablished myself as an awful, awful person by making up a limerick:

No bomber jacket, no plain trench, but a black raincoat carefully chosen
For length of hem and camouflage, for dramatic reveals most unwelcome
Weather is of no matter with the preparations that now come to light
Neither rain nor shine nor dark of night will keep the peen from others' sight.

ON TO THE BLOG

I clicked on another Exmormon.org topic and was greeted with
this thread. 　The initial topic has some solid points; Mormons do tend to get angry about teens being given birth control, though I have not personally run across any who were mad about a cure for HIV. However...

“Think about abortion, for example. These folks *pretend* it's all about being "
‘pro life’. But if you know their views on capital punishment, and social safety-net programs for poor or underage mothers, you quickly surmise it isn't about life at all. It's about punishing a woman for her ‘slutty’ behavior by making sure she has to deal with the consequences.”

What.

“that's very true. it's all about punishing the sinner and her child. no other rational is possible. If you are going to force her to carry the baby to term, then you have to provide services. To not do so is just being plain vindictive.”

Excuse me?

Well, aren’t we full of high-and-mighty today, O Exmormon posts?

It takes a very small mind to think that:

1. Capital punishment and abortion are somehow linked, or that it’s hypocritical to support one but not the other.
2. Services must be provided to people who get pregnant if they are “poor.”
3. Anyone against abortion is trying to “punish a sinner.”

➻Capital Punishment vs Abortion

I’ve always wondered if the people equating abortion with capital punishment--then calling everyone who opposes the former but supports the latter a hypocrite--really know what they’re saying. If it’s true that you’re a hypocrite for being pro-life and also pro-capital punishment, then it shouldn’t be difficult to see that the corollary to that is that it must also be true that if you’re anti-capital punishment and not pro-life, you’re also a hypocrite. That would make quite a lot of pro-choicers hypocrites, since many of them are against capital punishment.

In reality, the issues involved in abortion and capital punishment are very different, and there is no logical reason why a person can’t support one while opposing the other, support both at the same time, or oppose both at the same time. Both issues deal with life and death in some capacity, but that’s the only similarity. A murderer is guilty of having committed a crime. A fetus is not. Most everyone can agree with the belief that criminals should be punished and that innocents should not be, and that the law has an obligation to protect innocents from physical harm from aggressors. The pro-life position is simply that the fetus is an innocent, and thus should be afforded legal protection on the basis of the aforementioned beliefs that we all already share. The pro-choicer disagrees only because he/she does not conceive of the fetus as a real person in the first place. The capital punishment debate, on the other hand, is over to what extent a convicted criminal, who everybody already agrees is both (A) a person and (B) guilty, should be punished.

➻Services Provided vs Providing For Yourself

Sometimes I think leftists must sit in total puzzlement at how women were able to raise children before the advent of the welfare state. I can’t decide whether this is more silly or less silly than accusing pro-lifers of being hypocrites for supporting capital punishment (to the extent that pro-lifers actually support capital punishment). Now, someone may say they’re wrong, but the hypocrisy charge makes no sense. Since, again, pro-lifers do not take the view that a fetus is not a person, you could charge anyone who is against the killing of dependents and also against government welfare of being a hypocrite. If you’re against a mother drowning her five-year-old and also against giving her welfare, are you a hypocrite? If you’re against a man dumping his wheelchair-bound wife off a cliff and also against giving the couple welfare are you a hypocrite? Please.

➻Punishing The Sinners

What an interesting theory. It’s like it was thought up by someone who hates religion and everything associated with it. Oh, wait.

This assertion seems to be the conclusion that is reached once it is falsely determined that pro-lifers are hypocrites. It reduces the pro-life position to a kind of ruse. The reasoning is that they (pro-lifers) aren’t actually interested in the life of the fetus at all since they don’t support the nanny state and oppose the death penalty (<--Now, really, doesn’t that sound stupid?); therefore, it must be that they want to punish women for having premarital sex--or something like that. Who knows. But we know this is silly since we’ve already established that being against killing human fetuses does not logically demand that one also oppose the death penalty and embrace the entitlement culture.
I’m not a hugely religious person myself. I believe in God, but I don’t trust Him in the slightest because the guy is a jerk. Point being, if someone goes off and kills their kid, I feel a certain amount of concern about this. And frankly, I don’t really like most children because I think they’re little sociopaths. And I am certainly desensitized to most blood and gore; which is why I can look at abortion photos with a relatively calm demeanor, acknowledging that I find it vile while still remaining collected. Yet I’m still anti-abortion. Being anti-abortion is not about “punishing” anyone. To arrive at the idea that preventing a woman from aborting a fetus is about “punishing” her, you must have first accepted the idea that a child is an unacceptable burden. When there are so many excellent adoption options and so many people who cannot have children who would be overjoyed to take on such a “burden,” it is hardly a punishment to wait 9 months, deliver, and give the baby the chance at a happy life that it deserves.
I may be in the minority within the pro-life group in some ways. I see nothing wrong with the “morning after pill.” 　I see nothing wrong with birth control, or even vasectomies or tubal ligation, if that is what the person desires. If a pregnancy (such as ectopic, though there are many more examples) would endanger the life of the mother, ending the pregnancy would be an extremely sad option--but I do not believe that it should be taken off the table as an option.

But I get fairly offended at the idea that by being anti-abortion, I am against women’s rights or trying to punish anyone. Unlike my fellow ExMos, I went from being a relatively liberal Mormon to being a Republican with a slight Libertarian list, while they went from being somewhat conservative to far-left. I understand their anger and frustration with the Mormon church, but I often feel that their desire to do the total opposite than what they would have done while in the church can cause them to make choices based on emotion rather than reason, something which they rightly ridicule Mormons for.

During the 2008 election, there were many ExMo women who glorified Hillary as a “feminist” candidate, to the point that I quit the Yahoo! Exmormon group. Many also glorified Obama for his skin color, citing their reasons as being that the Mormon church is disrespectful towards people of color (often true). However, turning your life into a sort of revenge based on hating all things conservative is, at least to me, a poor choice.

Note: “These Three Things” by Type O Negative was written by Steele after, from what I hear, a longtime girlfriend found herself pregnant with his (rumored gender) son. She had an abortion, (rumored to have been) without his knowledge. Being a kind, gentle man who loved children, he was crushed when he eventually found out and penned the song for “Dead Again,” their last (and unfortunately final) album, referring to abortion in an interview later as “killing angels.” I would not want to give the impression that I don’t think that it took some serious balls to put that song out there or imply that I do not greatly admire Peter for writing it--or indeed, greatly admire him in general-- by not placing it as the embedded video for this post and instead as a link. I have chosen to embed the following song by The Cranberries instead simply because even a year after Peter passing away, seeing a Type O video, a picture, discussing him in detail, or unexpectedly hearing the music gives me a very harsh emotional jolt. Please enjoy the music.

Alpha VS Beta: In which the authoress is pissed off and has Mormon flashbacks.

2011-05-17T14:51:00.005-05:00

You know, I'm admittedly not a feminist. I am fond of saying that I love feminism, but hate feminists. The basic idea of women and men being equals is fine with me. It's how that idea gets corrupted that pisses me off. Case in point, the Alpha VS Beta philosophy.
Now, I gave this stuff a chance a while back. It was fine for a while, then it went bad. Live and learn.

While browsing Exmormon.org’s forum again, I found a link to this gem: LDS Alpha.
Now, I get it. Like I said, I have had this point of view explained to me. It’s very convincing when explained to you by someone who approaches it from the same point of view as a missionary: emphasize the good parts and leave out the horse pucky so you can stumble all over it yourself much later. It’s a good method, in a way; it allows you to feel like an idiot for believing it in the first place without having it pointed out to you.

There’s couple of things that I would, in all fairness, consider valid on this guy's blog. For instance, I totally agree that men will marry a hot woman regardless of her intelligence or personality. Of course, then they’ll whine that she’s dumb and has no personality later, and chicks like me will laugh. Hysterically. We will also make fun of these guys. Mercilessly. We’ll also never date them ourselves, because they’re morons--and who wants to be with a moron?
(The fact that the post I just linked to was written by some other Mormon guy and then posted on the LDS Alpha blog is intentional. I said it was on his blog. I never said it was content that he’d written himself that was valid.)

In this case, I ran across a recent post of LDSA’s that made me stop and re-read it. Then I laughed, a little hesitantly, and read it again. Then I sighed heavily and let the rage rise. So let’s examine this little gem, shall we?

So, you asked her out and she said, “Yes.” Now what? Most guys follow a set routine on a first date that marks them as total Beta chumps. On average girls go on more dates than guys so, they go on the same routine over and over and over. Guys who avoid these major mistakes are ahead of 95% of all other guys in the world.

...Really. I can understand the idea behind “Do something different,” but the “Beta chumps” bullcrap is ominous.

The first mistake is dinner. DO NOT TAKE HER TO A NICE DINNER! DO NOT PAY FOR IT! Guys think that they should show off their ability to choose some trendy place to eat. They then want to show off their ability to provide by paying. Guys remember: Beta Provider=Chump. Paying for girls and throwing money around only marks you as Beta.

DO NOT DATE THIS MAN! DO NOT PASS UP THE CHANCE TO KICK HIM IN THE BALLS!
Women think that men should show off their ability to not be assholes by actually paying for the food when they ask a woman out to dinner. Guys, remember: Not Being An Asshole = Second Date. Paying for the dinner marks you as someone that doesn’t have the intelligence of a particularly idiotic piece of cheese.
(And it doesn’t have to be trendy or expensive, but apparently no one told this guy. But if possible, it should not be any place that has a drive-thru. Ever.)

In the modern world younger women earn far more money than men. This means that she can afford to eat and does not need to rely on you for food.

Interesting. Because speaking as a younger woman, you can shove that theory right up your lying ass. I barely make more money than a 19 year old Mormon Missionary. I could have more of a cash flow if I hustled pool. How many “younger women” actually make more than their male counterparts? The answer is very, very few--on account of very few people in their 20s have high-level jobs. And where is this magical land of freakish weirdness where men in their 20s and 30s are only allowed to work minimum wage, no matter what?

This leads to the second mistake. DO NOT TALK ABOUT YOUR JOB! Guys want to show off about their great job and career ambitions. Many guys think that by showing that they can provide for a girl that this will make a girl attracted to them. Again, big mistake! Girls are not ATTRACTED to Betas! By trying to show how well you provide, you will just mark yourself as Beta and kill a girl’s attraction to you. This means that you will have failed in your purpose for a first date.

I can agree with this one, but only partly. I don’t want to hear about the guy’s job because it’s a freakin’ first date. If I am on a date with someone, I don’t care if he’s a CEO or a drives a garbage truck.
But if you’re in the mood to look for someone for a long-term relationship, you do want to have it at least rattling around in the back of your mind that this guy isn’t going to be asking to borrow money to pay off the very understanding but nonetheless menacing bookie waiting out in the alley amongst the many hard and pointy objects. That doesn’t make him a Beta. It makes him able to get and keep a job, which is--and I know this must be shocking--a good quality.

DO NOT ASK HER TO TALK ABOUT HERSELF! Girls get asked the same questions on first dates over and over and over. Do not ask, “So, where did you go to school?” She gets asked this constantly. Do not ask her about her paper pushing job. Either, she will not want to talk about it and then you will have made her close up. Or even worse she will talk a ton about it and make herself seem of really high status, which will lower you in her eyes. Do not ask her to talk about her family. Do not try to build a real deep connection. She will just see that you are trying to build an artificial connection with her. This will mark you as Beta and kill attraction.

You’re right. Don’t ask me where I went to school. Ask me what books I like. Hell, you probably met me in a library anyway. This will lead to movies, and if you’re really looking to score points, it will lead to a potentially humorous discussion of why we’re all here.
(Answer: because God has a phenomenally bad sense of humor/hates us and wanted to see how we’d all treat each other if he made a world full of Alpha males and made normal people deal with them.)
I partly agree with the idea about trying to build a deep connection first off. Artificial connections do come off as desperate and clingy. But a real connection, well. Nothing wrong with having a little meaningful conversation.

DO NOT TAKE HER TO THE MOVIES! Lots of guys do the dinner and a movie thing. Girls go on this date all the time. Going to the movies will just mark you as another boring first date just like all of the other first dates that she has ever been on. At the movies you can’t interact and Demonstrate Higher Value (DHV). All you do is sit there and put your arm around her. Maybe you can get a little kino going, but that is it.

Unless I actually wanted to see that movie, but hey, be inconsiderate. Here’s a thought, get a DVD of something you know I want to see and sit through it with me after helping me cook something. Hint: I dig Rambo movies, love Practical Magic, and seriously liked Lethal Weapon.
And as for “kino,” I’m going to assume he meant “kink.” Yeah baby, nothing like getting pawed in a movie theater to make me all hot. And by hot, I mean steamed. Steamed and violent. It’s not like you were using that eye, so don’t be upset when I decide that it looks better as my new keychain.

DO NOT LET THE DATE BECOME NON SEXUAL! If you get bogged down in conversation about a girl’s life or her family, the date can become non sexual. This will set you up for the path to the friend zone. The friend zone is a place that no guys ever escape. Keep sexual tension in the date. Sexual tension is good, comfort is bad.

I can make almost anything sexual in my head. We can talk about my life. Seriously. And if the friend zone was something that no guys ever escaped, women would never end up being interested in their male friends--which has happened to me three times--at least with the unmarried ones.
And a guy who is obsessed with keeping the sexual tension in the date is a guy that I will find creepy and avoid. Look, maybe I’m in the minority here, but a guy that I find sexy is generally a guy that I find sexy no matter what. So...shut up. I want to be comfortable. I want to know that the guy I’m on a date with is someone that I can relax around. Someone who isn’t obsessed with keeping up the sexual tension because he thinks that a date is some kind of psychotic competition.

DO NOT DRAG THE DATE OUT! Some guys will use a first date to keep the girl with him for a long time. Especially, if the date is not going too well guys will want to keep it going in the hopes of redeeming himself. If the date is not going well, end it! All that you will do is to dig a greater hole for yourself and make it impossible that she will ever consider going out with you again.

Actually, I agree with this one. But WHY is this not just common sense? Who thinks that a date going badly means that they should try harder? Apparently, crazy people.

It's strange to me to read that blog. When I describe an "Alpha male," I'm thinking of well-spoken, intelligent men who are very capable. They may fix their own cars, etc, as opposed to constant (as in, really unhealthy fixation with) videogames and mental mind-games. They know who they are and they don't lie to themselves or others about this. They tell the truth, know the difference between right and wrong, stay loyal, are mature, kind, and dependable--basically, the type of guy that you look at and go, "That's a durn good man." That type of "manliness" just sort of rolls off of them like fog. This of course varies from man to man, but is unmistakable.

When this guy describes his version of an Alpha male, he's describing what I would refer to as a Beta. The need for constant stroking of the ego is something I associate with a person who is actually quite self-loathing and riddled with anxiety.

Here's an example:
I remember befriending a guy slightly younger than me who demonstrated Beta (my definition) qualities. If someone disagreed with him, he would actively attack them, ripping away at their self esteem in any way he could. Everything was about him trying to convince himself that he was better than everyone else in every way. To him, every woman out there (that he felt he could easily bully) was his inferior, and he treated me accordingly. I found out much later that a mutual friend had been made subject to his abuse, and that she had actually told him that he was going to lose not only her friendship, but also mine if he didn’t change.
This friendship did indeed come to an abrupt end when I realized how just much he was willing to blatantly lie to me in order to hide that he was basically the total opposite of the person I thought he was. That, my friends, is a Beta. But by LDS-A’s standards, he would be an Alpha--and I would be some weak-minded little shrew who passed up on a “real man.”
What is fascinating in terms of my ex-friend is that I sincerely do not think that he is actually capable of change, and probably doesn’t think that he did anything wrong by being untrustworthy and hateful. But that’s a Beta for you.

The fact that LDS-A is a Mormon just makes it more irritating to me. It's like he took the Mormon tendency to be pompous and treat women as lesser, then deliberately sought out a set of ideals that revolve around being pompous. He then, as so many men who fall prey to this kind of thinking do, tries to justify it by claiming that this ideal is not only extremely attractive, but masculine. Sorry, dude. Couldn’t be farther from the truth.
Someone needs a ClueBrick©.

Late Post: Unarmed? I'm OK with that.

2011-05-17T14:30:00.001-05:00

While talking to a friend of mine, the topic came up that some libertarians are upset about the possibility that Bin Laden may have been unarmed at the time he was shot.

Quite frankly, I think that it’s a ridiculous thing to be upset about. Sure, I’m against people being gunned down. But in the case of a terrorist, I am totally fine with members of our fine military strolling in and shooting them.
Because you know the great thing about unarmed terrorists? You can make them dead. Then you can make them more dead, in case they weren’t dead enough. And you can do it without dodging return fire. Which really just makes it easier for everyone.
Except them. But they don’t count, ‘cause they’re jerks. And I for one do not count jerks as members of humanity. Especially murderous jerks who think that killing people in the name of their whacked out religion is totally fine.

And as for that Sharia-compliant funeral which may or may not have been Sharia-compliant, depending on which pissed-off person you talk to, I have varying opinions.

On the one hand, respect for other religions was at least attempted to be carried out in the burial. And I’m cool with that.
On the other hand, it was freakin’ Bin Laden. And if his corpse had been pissed on, toasted gently over a bonfire, and then fed to pigs, I’d be cool with that too.

I mean, his followers will probably just attack us regardless of what happened, because that’s how they react to pretty much anything. Radical Islam is a tuba that only plays one note, and that note has bombs strapped to it and is waving a charred American flag.
Peppy.

What’s irritating me most about this entire situation is more how the White House went, “We’re going to release the photos,” and then went, “Psych!” And before that, the left was just starting to go into full-on orgasmic shrieks of glee with wonder at how Obama had apparently been the one to bring down Bin Laden. Needless to say, their attitude has escalated.
I guess the logic there is that it happened during his administration, therefore it was a direct result of him being in office.
Well, foam platform flipflops finally went out of fashion (partly) during Bush’s administration, but I don’t credit him with that service to humanity.

I mean look, yes, Obama is the president right now, and therefore would have signed off on action being taken to actually shoot Bin Laden. Which is great, and personally I’m shocked that he signed off on it at all, since a little part of me figured it would never happen. But the information leading to him being able to sign off on the operation in the first place would have come from the “torture” methods* from the Bush administration.
*Yes, waterboarding is terrifying. It’s uncomfortable. It’s psychologically startling, to put it mildly. But it isn’t quite the same as, say, putting a blowtorch to someone’s skin or digging out their eyeball. I can think up better torture methods while waiting in line for the ladies’ room than waterboarding. Actually, I can think up better torture methods while just angry in general than waterboarding. Al Qaeda would recruit me if I didn’t have a vagina. Or, you know, hate them.

But when you get right down to it, observing little facts like that would get in the way of hero worship. And I guess no one wants that.

Read All About It!

2011-04-03T03:54:00.003-05:00

Hello, fellow PMS'ers. A couple of weeks back Mary and I decided to add a new feature to the blog. Since the beginning of the blog we have been concerned with what people are (or are not) reading. If you remember, Mary did a lovely piece on the growing problem of lackofbooksitis.

I encourage you to check it out, if you haven't. You can find it right here:

How Not to be an Illiterate Idiot

So in the vein of helping people with this dreadful problem we have come up with a solution: we will be adding somewhat regular book reviews of what we have been reading. Ideally I would like to include fiction and nonfiction, but honestly, I don't read nonfiction as much as I should either. The reviews will include a short overview of the plot (not revealing the ending), a short review of the strengths and pitfalls of the book with our general opinions, and will include a link where the book can be purchased.

This being said, we do suggest that you go directly to your local library as soon as you can. A library card is a much more economical way to go, and most of the time the librarians will be willing to help get you started on your literary journey.

This effort will be limited, of course, to our own preferences in literature. Also, some books that everyone should read will likely be excluded. Not because we haven't read them, but because it has been years since we have and even our memories are not perfect.

Now that all that is out of the way, in the next couple of days I will be posting a review of a book I recently finished.

LITERACY LIVES!

Generation Y We Suck

2011-03-12T12:42:00.008-06:00

There’s really a lot of factors to go into when examining a group, but youth culture can essentially be broken up into facets of pop culture. Because let’s face it, pop culture pretty much is youth culture.

However, for simplicity’s sake we’ll be looking at 3 factors in this post that exhibit what effects youth culture: Fashion, Music, and Ideology. Since most Generation Y’ers came of age in the 00s, that’s the decade I will be comparing to the 90s and the 80s.

The argument that Generation Y is just not as good as Generation X is one that I’ve debated for a good amount of time. Gen X has drawbacks, notably among a percentage of the 40-somethings that share the Boomers’ utter disregard for political sanity, but the Me Generation had something nearly approaching originality. Generation Y is by comparison a bland, reheated leftover, the difference between eating paste and chowing down on a brownie.

Fashion

If I said I thought the styles of the1980s and the 1990s were tasteless compared to today, I would only be partly lying. Sure, I owned the platform sneakers--everyone did--and you pretty much had no choice but to wear mom-jeans because that was what they sold most of the time. The pocket chains remain en vogue today; also, I’m pretty sure the beanie hat ain’t going anywhere. And girl, you know I had jelly shoes.
The 00’s brought us a slew of WTF-ery with basically the philosophy that defines Generation Y: the less taste, the better. The scatter-brained, more-is-better attitude was marketed like so many ridiculously expensive sweatsuits (why would you buy a sweatsuit that you can’t really sweat in?) and Generation Y lapped it right up. Why? Because it was there. Because it was soooo edgy. How do we know it’s edgy? Because we were told it was!
Generation Y is pretty notable for blindly following trends (though every generation can say this). In addition, Generation Y closely associates the purchase of a trendy (and probably expensive) look with, or in many cases replacing, organic satisfaction. In essence, the message that if you just get the perfect pair of shoes, make yourself up just right, lose the right amount of weight, wear all the right clothes, get perfect cosmetic surgery, or wear the precise perfume/cologne advertised, everything in your life will suddenly fall together like a perfect game of Tetris©...well, that message is blaring loud and clear. Buy all the right things and you’ll become a fey, marvelous creature, envied by all, romantically tragic, and therefore marvelously appealing.
As stated on Love Your Style.com:

One escape for a sick soul is materialism, in buying nice clothes and houses and so on, in becoming enviable in your loneliness. [source]

Sure, the message of “Love yourself the way you are” is loud and proud, but often gets misconstrued. The person eating their way to obesity will shout down their detractors with the justifying battle cry of “I love myself the way I am! Don’t judge me,” while the person who spends spends spends on hair dye, a monumental amount of piercings, funky clothing and god knows what else will also shout down their detractors with the same battle cry, yet neither of these examples are openly facing the world as themselves. That is, one is hiding behind massive amounts of food, and the other is also remaking themselves in a new form. In either case, it could be argued that neither new shape is the “real person,” ergo neither of these examples are genuinely accepting of themselves.
This is not to say that all people of a generous build are self-medicating with food. Some are merely endomorphs no matter what. Nor are all people who coat themselves with dye and lacquer attempting to chisel a new persona out of an original that they are unhappy with.

Another side of the “remake yourself in this ideal” is the pro-ana and pro-mia subcultures, composed of young women (and an increasing number of young men) who have forums, LJ communities, etc, to network and enable each other. They also use the “Don’t judge me” battle cry, though in this case it might be the wail of the suicidal. The lure of proclaiming that one loves themselves “just the way they are” runs contrary to nearly everything that’s trendy in Generation Y. Why? Because it’s fashionable.

Eating disorders are by no means new, but they’ve skyrocketed in this generation. Appearance is considered important to the point of obsession. More important is the pursuit of “perfection.” And what is perfection? Why, whatever they tell us it is.

In the fashion world of Generation Y, the follower instinct is strongly at work. Fashion has ingrained itself into what I can only describe as a philosophy, stressing the importance of looking sleek and perfect at all times (according to the approved trends, of course). Essentially, Generation Y places more weight on packaging than content.

Music

In the 80s, hair bands ruled almost all that was before them--and quite frankly, I worship at that altar. And yeah, Luke Goss drummed in a band with his brother, apparently hell-bent on setting a new standard for being part of the movement of MJ-style pop bands with singers that sound eerily like women. Fortunately, Goss has mostly seen the error of his ways and proceeded to give us a rather sexy Frankenstein Monster.

In the 90s, straight up dark rock held their own in the scene, with renowned and still-revered bands like moody, soul-baringly poignant, witty and highly-skilled Type O Negative, love-them-or-hate-them Nirvana, and grunge-soaked Soundgarden delivering a pure and glorious antidote to the sugary-sweet pop of both the current decade and the too-cute-for-words pop of the 80s. These groups, especially the first two, had an impressively large impact and occasionally overlooked influence in the music scene and pop culture from the very day they came to light.

Today, however...we have Lady Gaga, Justin Beiber, and a plethora of rap musicians who are mostly notable for their ability to sound like each other. And the key word in most of their music is not talent, but auto-tuning.
Enjoy Your Style.com notes:

Jihan Forbes, a contributor at Starpulse.com, stated that "Lady Gaga is in some ways a reincarnation of Elvis Presley: She takes cues from other truly forward-thinking and innovative artists of color, and repackages it so that white America can comfortably digest it." At Racialicious, a website on "the intersection of race and pop culture," one reader commented:

“To combat the lack of message in her music is really Gaga’s ultimate weapon: the way she panders to her fans, her “little monsters”. She includes them in on [sic] her charade in a way that no one does, overly praising them on Twitter while penning vague platitudes about living life to the fullest and never giving up. However strong and subversive she may appear in public, she plays coy and victimized to her fans who then feel it is their duty to love and defend her. It’s basic and people fall for it like hotcakes.” [source]

Lady Gaga beautifully exemplifies the Generation Y attitude in music: nothing new, nothing original, but extremely faddish. Essentially, it’s a stylized caricature of itself, a sort of black hole that compels the viewer with a strange fascination with how unbelievably dull and self-destructive it is. Why is this kind of music popular? It features synthesizer hooks and dull, throbbing beats that stick in the mind. The lyrics are pretty much empty shlock, with almost nothing penned to mean something personal. Britney Spears asks in her trademark little-girl nasal purr “If I said I want your body now, Would you hold it against me,” essentially taking a ridiculous pickup line that was sad and tired at first use and making it worse by putting it to music. Rihanna’s “S&M” fares no better, repeating what has been plastered on messenger icons and forum signatures for years: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, But chains and whips excite me.”

These are examples of songs and artists that are given radio play almost to the point of inducing madness, overlooking more talented artists that produce better quality songs. But the talented artists are often much less popular. Lady Gaga is showy and a palatable amount of outrageous; Sinead O’Connor lacks the willingness to make a (large) spectacle of herself and rarely flaunts her sexuality to market her music. Again, Generation Y is far more eager to plunk down cash on packaging than content.

Ideology

Whether it’s protesting fur with the calculatedly hip PETA2 crowd, jeering conservatives based on (badly or un-researched) rumors, or trying to save the polar bears with the global warming groups, Generation Y launches itself at the always-on-sale self-righteousness inherent in all the rabid, frenzied buzzwords of the day that give the consumer a feeling of really knowing what’s going on in the world. The Generation Y’er who finds themselves sucked into yet another black hole of devout faith in pretty much anything, often blindly following their chosen leaders with the kind of devotion approaching or straight up fanatical. I would include links for this section, but it’s so damned depressing. Do your own googling.
Point is, Generation Y cares more for buzzwords and the sense that they’re “really doing something” than actually doing something. It’s easier to rant and rave about whomever the leaders have chosen as the enemy of the day than to do one’s own research. It’s easier to rant about the evils of capitalism while wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt that cost you $10 to $20. Again, packaging is preferred over content. Generation Y cares more about the appearance than anything else.

In short, you can tell a lot about any given group of people by what they produce. And the main thing my generation has produced is what looks like a compelling argument in favor of eugenics.

Women who can't cook and other tales of woe

2011-03-03T06:13:00.003-06:00

I ran across this article, which talked about something that I’d been observing for the last 10 years.

While today's women are advancing in the workplace and making more money, a new study found that few of them know how to do the same domestic chores their mothers and grandmothers did every day.

Researchers found that only 51 percent of women under 30 knew how to cook a roast while 82 percent of baby boomer females thought it was a cinch.

Notably, the young women of today are more likely to simply buy something new instead of repairing it:

McCrindle also noted that because these women have bigger paychecks, they don't feel the need to have to bake a cake from scratch or iron their own clothing when instant mixes and dry cleaners are readily available.

"We live in a throw-away culture where, rather than repair something, we will buy a new one, even if it is just a matter of darning holes or sewing on buttons," he said. "As such, many women have lost these skills. If we do want something repaired, women today are more likely to take it to their local drycleaner because they are busy and can afford it."

Naturally, the article ended on a slightly snide note, asking “[If] Over 70 percent of women under 30 admit to taking out the trash, mowing the lawn and washing their own cars, [...] Why is sewing a button back on still a "lady skill" if we've taken over in all of these departments?”

My quick answer to that is that men’s big fingers don’t handle needles well, but I think Charlie Sheen disproves that theory.

What amused and irritated me was the comments on the article. A good amount were from men extolling not the personal satisfaction they get from a woman cooking for them, but the emotional satisfaction.
Predictably, some of the women agreed. And some of them went on rants about how men shouldn’t be cooked for, because apparently cooking for a member of the male gender immediately makes you June Cleaver.

Favorite comments (emphasis mine):

dannyfrom504 said:

i don't think i've evern [sic] had a woman who isn't related to me, cook for me. but then again, i cook quite well. hmmmmmmmmmm.

“E” promptly went ranty on his butt:

E said:

It's a good thing that you cook well for yourself and don't ever hold your breath on a woman cooking for you.....it will be very difficult to find June Cleaver these days...women just do not want all that crap like the women from generations ago....and frankly, I don't blame them! There is more to life than cooking OR cleaning for MEN!

Commenter Joe remarked on the above:

Joe said:

Lord Danny, you do you very best, tell the TRUTH about the matter and you get some female to tell you how WRONG you are! lol Well origamib [sic?] Danny is 100% correct, as far am I go [?] he is anyway. When I see my lady, and yes I MEAN lady, cooking for me and yes even cleaning for me, I not only find that sexy but also am very thankful! How can it be sewxy [sic] you ask? Simple, she's doing something for ME and what she's doing is something that no one "likes" or "wants" to do, she's doing it becuase [sic] she wants to help ME out and THAT is what's so sexy! It's a real shame I have to explain such a simple thing to you but oh well, maybe one day you'll find out that not all men are like to described in your post. Some men not only love their Lady but also respect and even ADORE her as well. So, maybe next time before you begin talking on how men are, maybe you should take a good look into the mirror and ask yourself WHY your man doesn't seem to look at you like we look at our ladies. Then again, I'm veery [sic] sure that you've got it all going on for yourself and have ALL the answers right.

Joe also posted again, saying:

Joe said:

No, it's NOT the females JOB to do the cooking. It would sure be NICE though if the female would cook becuase [sic] she wanted to cook some really nice food once in a while though. I can cook and do a fine job if it and I don't mind it either. What Iv'e [sic] found though is today, females say things like, "it's not my job" or some other very stupid thing. It has NOTHING at all to do with a "job" but rather why can['t] we BOTH cook for OUR family? Why can't they just do something nice becuase [sic] it's nice? Seems like there has always got to be a "reason" to do something for someone. All you females out there who don't cook becuase [sic] of (whatever reason you may have) you just don't get it. Maybe you females don't care all that much if your man cooks for you but by God us men DO care, we LOVE IT when you cook for us. Maybe that's why, maybe today if the female isn't gettting [more sic] something out of it other than a thank you and knowing how much your man loves it, it's just not worth it to you? I have NO IDEA of the real "why" only I know if a woman isn't willing to cook for me once in a while then she's not worth my time. Something as simple as cooking a meal and I'm just not "worth it" to her? Well excuse me lady, but there's the door.

504danny said:

christine- i have 2 sisters (i'm the eldest); and when my mom left my dad, she had ZERO life skills outside being a homemaker. she was on a mission to ensure me and sister's didn't have to depend on the opposite sex. i learned how to do laundry and clean. well, my youngest sis was cool with it, but my older sis wasn't. lol. when my mom tried to explain that there was a bigger picture involved, especially if she was planning on becoming a mother she said, "my husband's gonna have money, i'll get a maid." well reality finally set in when she married a man with 2 kids and she had to feed them; things got real, really quick. she was suddenly behind the bell curve. lol.

but i think what a lot of women forget, is that those "feminine skills" are VERY sexy to us. most women love when a guy does "man things". i used to chuckle the way my girl would just stare as i changed her car's oil, or would fix something at her apartment. it works the same for us. i'd never EXPECT my lady to cook or clean for me, but i really appreciate when she does. and it makes me want to do more to show her how glad i am that i have her in my life.

Commenter Chris pointed out the flip side, which is that a lot of men under 30 really do expect women to do everything for them. I call this learned idiocy.

chris said

@ Danny
your comment was sweet and you sound like a retro man. I can tell you this though.. now a days your luck if you can find a guy to do the so called man things. I know many young men including in my own family that would be sitting in the dark with no clothes and starve to death. The young men of today do not know how to be men they are all about their hair and clothes and material things but heaven forbid something breaks or needs to be cleaned...you wont find them doing it. I know my sis has three boys and a husband and who do I usually see outside mowing the grass or power washing the deck, shovel snow, all the while they are sitting on their butts asking her what is for breakfast lunch or dinner so then she gets to do that as well but now that she is in the house she gets to wash everyones [sic] clothes, vacume [sic] mop, dust, do the dishes and the list goes on and on she will then ask any one of them to take out the garbage (mind you just a short walk from the kitchen to the curb and the answer in reply is from them com'on [sic] cant you see we are in the middle of watching TV can't you take it out. This is her usually [sic] routine in addition to being a school teacher. so...with that said now tell me why on earth would anyone want to get married and have kids now a days I know I don't nor would I want my daughter I would tell her to go have a great life and then if you find someone who you can (not just be in fantasy love with) be a real partner where you compliment each other and pick up the slack where the other needs then great but it should never be one sided where the other one does all the caring and the other does all the taking.

Finally, one of the women doesn't start in whining about the men.

jgholt said:

I really have to agree with Danny and Joe. I am a woman, 50' ish..... I have found that none of the women today can cook a "for real" meal. I am so glad I grew up in a time where microwaves and packaged foods were not around. I think it is very rewarding to cook for a man and I am not married. I do foster care and I love to teach my foster teen girls to cook. Yes, I love to be taken out to dinner or have a man do the bar-be-cuing, but I can cook anything and everything and when I see him take that first bite and know that he realy [sic] appreciates a home cooked meal, well, that warms my heart.

oyvey61 said

I have to agree with 504danny - as busy as I am working full time and trying to fit school in too - there is nothing that makes my husband happier, and like me more than when I cook a meal and straighten up the house. It's not a sexist thing - Doing these things make him feel cared for and that intensifies his affection for me. It's simple math!

Roughly what I said:

I totally agree with Joe, Chris, and Danny. I do find men who can actually do "man things" like handy-work around the house, fixing their car, or even hunting to be sexier than their relatively foppish counterparts. You know why? Because they have skills that I think men should bother to learn. I can fix a cabinet and hang shelves myself, and indeed have a huge tool chest in the house at my disposal, but I like knowing that a man will do those things for me simply because he wants to (this is with the assumption that I have given the guy a reason to want to do things for me, and in my experience, being nice to them and treating them like people--something I think more women should try--is more than enough).

Oh, and I'm in my 20s. My early 20s. I left the man-hating and the irrational belief that every guy who appreciates a woman who can cook is part of "the Patriarchy" in my teens, along with too much makeup and a tendency to listen to Marilyn Manson. Seriously, girls, ease up on the men. They're NOT saying that they think women should be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. They're saying that as men, they perceive women who have domestic skills as extra nice because, well...whether or not you particularly like it, a good woman can be the difference between a house and a home. This is what I call a "guy instinct." Seriously, this kind of thing gives them emotional comfort. And that really is OK. If I get emotional comfort from being wrapped up in strong arms and reassured that whatever I'm worrying about at the moment is going to work out, then I'm not going to be a hypocrite and complain if giving a man a sandwich and a kiss brightens his day.

And do you know why I like men who do "man things?" Because I appreciate that they do them. I show my appreciation with hugs and cooking. Men show theirs in return by changing the oil in the car, etc. This is not a feminist issue. This is just how men and women interact. While there's exceptions to this dynamic in many cases, it's not "bad" or degrading for either.

Then again, I was raised in a family (single mother, grandmother, basically no father figure) where learning skills like sewing, cooking, and housework were NOT encouraged for their husband-snagging potential, but for their practicality. I learned to cook at 8 years old and I'm pretty durn good at it. But I was never once told that men were superior to women. More importantly, I was never told that women were superior to men, either--I was taught that we're all equals, though not interchangeable (men are better suited physically for working on oil rigs, etc). I was also taught by example that knowing how to do "woman things" and also owning and running one's own business is not mutually exclusive. Knowing these skills does not mean you're going to suddenly be some kind of so-called June Cleaver caricature.

Point is, women my age who can't cook, clean, or basically look after themselves are, in my opinion, less self-sufficient than they should be. (I also think men should know these things, but I grew up in Mormon culture, where the boys are often pretty coddled and only get a crash course when they go on their missions.) These are valid, useful skills that ought to be encouraged and admired, but they just aren't anymore. I've grown up watching girls in my age group never learning how to cook anything more than boil-n-bag meals and anything you can put in a microwave. I literally don't even know how to use a microwave because I already know how to cook food from scratch, so what do I need a microwave for!? And I definitely agree with the commenter who said that cooking for yourself results in less weight gain. I have a very organic, relatively low-fat diet. I'm 5'6", slim to average build, only a little jiggly, between 110-120 lbs and around a dress size 4 to a 6, depending. Knowing what goes into your food is invaluable for maintaining a healthy diet. And besides, cooking is FUN. Sewing is FUN (if tricky). Cleaning...ok, cleaning sucks, but it's important to know how to do it.

And for the record, I enjoy homemaking and am happiest when doing little things to make someone I care about happy. This does not make me a June Cleaver, thank you very much. It doesn't make me anything, except someone with more practical skills than most women in my age group. My only regret in regards for this topic is that I have no significant other at this time to unleash loads of pies, casseroles, mended trousers, and smoochies upon. Being a partner in a business is great, but it doesn't provide the emotional satisfaction of seeing the "Aw shucks, thank you!" expression on the face of the man you love when you do something nice for him. And yes, it really can be as simple as a little sandwich. Hardly anything to start a war of the sexes about.

I’ve been told before that my appreciation of men who act like men made me less as a woman. I find that offensive. No one, certainly no other woman, may tell me that I am not female enough for their tastes, especially if they view any shouldering of “traditional” roles as a betrayal. You know what, feminism is supposed to be about choice. If I can be educated according to my career decisions, gainfully employed, AND enjoy cooking for people I care about, then I don’t give a flip if anyone is offended. If anything, the fact that I can be the flirt, the domestic goddess, and the businesswoman makes me rather good at this woman stuff.

Dear obnoxious self-appointed food police: eat me.

2010-12-28T07:13:00.005-06:00

Today my post is about the food police. Not necessarily the same idiots who want/wanted to ban Happy Meals in San Francisco, as opposed to say, not eating that kind of crap. The ban got vetoed, by the way--probably right around the time people started realizing that it was stupid.
By the way, the attitude that it’s “too hard” to buy healthy food and cook it for your kids is not a valid excuse for demanding that local legislation be passed to ban whatever you think is making them fat. Disagree? Ok, riddle me this:
1. Who is buying the junk food for the chubby bebes, O ye concerned parents of the year?

2. Eating healthy is difficult--the finding, the buying, and the cooking. I speak from experience. If you want to stick with it, then you suck it up and find a way. If you don’t, then get used to buying your toddler clothes from the hefty kids’ store. Very simple.

No, this blog post is about the members of the organically-minded community who feel the need to instill their values in others--by insulting them.
Granted, this isn’t far removed from what I myself do, except that I’m not necessarily trying to convert people. Rather, I am being my usual snarky self.
You’re welcome. Truly, I have smiled upon you this day.

Now, one of my lengthy fore-forewords:
I was raised by my grandma and my mother. These two women were convinced that any non-organic anything that passed the lips of anyone anywhere was going to give the person cancer or some other terrible disease. I have, at the time of writing this, lived a bit over two decades on this little mud ball and have never had a doughnut or a Big Mac, and I have only used commercial food coloring once. I eat whole wheat. I eat organic food in general about 96% of the time. I’m about a dress size 4 or 6.
But I’m not a damn food Nazi. A grammar Nazi yes, but food, nein.

The whole thing got kicked off when I saw these:

Are they not beautiful, readers? Are they not the most adorable rainbow pancakes you have ever seen? Damn right they are.

Then I saw this post later, titled “Things Successful Bloggers Do.”
Now, one of her quoted comments from a hate-commenter comes from who I can only imagine is an extremely phobic person involved the words, “I am screaming in fear [because of the food coloring].”

Darling. M’dear.
If you have ever used cheddar cheese that is yellow-orange, it has a colorant in it. If you have ever eaten a food that has any sort of color in it at all, you are eating a colorant. Your toothpaste, if it is other than pure chalky white, has a colorant in it. Granted, the phobic fruitcake who left the aforementioned comment was referring specifically to chemical colorings, which are indeed linked to things like ADD, etc, in children.
However, if you have lived long enough to reproduce and officially be a organic-minded parent yourself and you still don’t know about the growing amount of natural food colorings out there--that have been out there for at least the last 10 frickin' years--go right ahead and hand over your “Self-Appointed Total Food Awareness Guru” card. Yep, pass it forward.
And seriously, “screaming in fear”? From rainbow pancakes? Let’s hope you’re never confronted with some kind of minor catastrophe, or your head might explode from the sheer terror of it all.

I’d also like to point out that a lot of kiddies who are raised by these fear-mongering obsessives (what I like to call the “crazy” side of the community) leave the nest and immediately gorge themselves on junk food.

Most interesting (read: made me want to slap them) comment on her original pancake post?

“Gre-e-e-a-a-at. Trick the little tykes into consuming as much of this worthless nonfood as possible. Bunches of sugar and other empty carbs, cholesterol, etc. Gotta get a jump start on that diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, and stroke.
Gee - you oughta be nominated as be Mother of the Year.”

Ahem.
Dear self absorbed jackass that goes by the screen-name-of-”wizard”:

Firstly, it’s buttermilk pancakes. Not something you should gorge yourself on, but still.
She states she puts one or two drops in the recipe. She also provides a link to the recipe that she used, which contains...
Wait for it...
A whole tablespoon of sugar! YE GODS!
Why, with children eating pancakes (with flax seeds in them) roughly the size of my fist (seriously, that's around how big they look compared to the fork in this photo), perhaps as often as once a month, that is a sure track to diabetes and woe! There will be cancer! Wailing! Gnashing of teeth! Possibly sad musical montages!
Or not.
Granted, children are much more sensitive to chemicals than adults are, which would be why food colorings would affect them so much. But the key thing to bear in mind is that not much coloring was used in the recipe and they aren’t eating it that often.
More importantly, if Rachel’s anyone to go by, kids with ADD may well grow up to be goddamn geniuses. So snarf those pancakes, kiddies.
I kid. Mostly.
Also, kids that are fit (and evidently they are) are reducing their risk of stroke, etc, just by not sitting on their butts all day.
Plus, it’s been argued that eating a (moderately sized) breakfast of carb-a-riffic goodness may actually prevent:

“...many of the dangerous symptoms of metabolic syndrome.
Metabolic syndrome is a constellation of symptoms that includes abdominal obesity, high blood pressure, insulin resistance and high triglycerides. It frequently leads to full-blown diabetes, and even when it doesn't, it puts you at significant risk for heart disease.”

Sure, it’s mostly based around mice, but we’re talking about active children here. Going by the descriptions and the picture on the left side of the blog, you can put them ~~on a wheel~~ out in the yard and they run around like they’re ~~on speed~~ happy little ~~monsters~~ angels.
In closing, Amanda isn’t a bad mother. Her kids look happy and healthy in their pictures, she obviously loves them with every cell in her body, and frankly, it’s none of your damn business if she wants to give her kids rainbow buttermilk pancakes once in a multi-colored moon or not.
Overly judgmental ass.

Smooches,
Mary

Murder By Bully: The Hot New Trend

2010-10-16T20:37:00.010-05:00

Sladjana Vidovic.
If you don’t recognize the name, don’t wrack your brain too hard; she isn’t a spray-tanned bimbo toting a 2 ounce dog and she isn’t singing about burning a picture. Nonetheless, it turns out that it’s pretty important that you know her name. You see, she was a perfectly normal girl, one of thousands of nameless and faceless bullying victims, but her story is making headlines.
For now.

Sladjana Vidovic was 16-years-old in 2008 when she hung herself by tying one end of a rope to her bed, the other around her neck and then jumped out her bedroom window. This came after she endured a fatally full day of bullying at Mentor High School. Students reportedly mocked her Croatian accent, and called her names like 'Slutty Jana' or 'Slut-Jana-Vagina'. One boy reportedly pushed her down the stairs and another girl hit her in the face with a water bottle.

Now, I admit that sometimes I dismiss accounts of high school bullying with the words, “That’s life.” In this case, and quite a few more like it, it just pisses me off. Because in these cases, it’s the exact opposite of just life. And it’s not just that this poor girl felt that suicide was her only option. It was her murderers’ reactions:

Even at her funeral her family said they saw the girls who had tormented her, walk up to Sladjana's casket and laugh at her dead body.

In another version of this article, it revealed that not only was her little sister the one to have found her body, but can you imagine the entire grieving family having to endure their child’s tormentors walk up to the casket and laugh at her?
I make plenty of jokes here and there about violence, but I also only mean them maybe 8% of the time. This is one of those times. I can say with all honesty that if I had been that kid sister, I would have taken those arrogant, smug, worthless self-absorbed little bitches apart. With a hairbrush and my teeth. And people, it would entirely be worth being locked up for life--or possibly taken out by a SWAT team. Whichever.
Granted, I have a mildly psychotic reaction to people I care about being hurt. And by “mildly psychotic,” I mean my face turns red and I start looking around for all manner of objects to lodge in their spleen. Also perhaps something to set them afire with, just to break up the tedium of my attempts to wrench their head from their body and break all the major bones. So because I am a little sister myself (extended family counts), this story grinds on a nerve for me.

I don’t consider there to be any excuse for driving someone to suicide. For one thing, high school is rough. Bullies are everywhere. But the fact that it has come to this point, where the schools can not handle the situations, and repeated instances of parents not seeming to care, that points a spotlight on these tragedies. It has come to the point where advocacy groups are calling attention to these situations more than the parents--who, by the way, are the people who are supposed have the best interests of the kids at heart--and the kicker is that the advocacy groups are seeming to get more done and make a bigger impact. Parents, please. Stop fiddling while Rome burns.

Now, it's not really far-fetched to say that the bully-girls ought to be prosecuted. Protective parents extolling what limited virtues their little monsters have be damned--these little sociopaths killed someone and then displayed an alarming amount of glee about it.

So, what is the definition of Involuntary Manslaughter? Read on:

There are two types of involuntary manslaughter statutes: criminally negligent manslaughter and unlawful act manslaughter. Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs when death results from a high degree of negligence or recklessness. Modern criminal codes generally require a consciousness of risk and under some codes the absence of this element makes the offense a less serious Homicide.

And:

Unlawful act manslaughter occurs when someone causes a death while committing or attempting to commit an unlawful act, usually a misdemeanor. Some states distinguish between conduct that is malum in se (bad in itself) and conduct that is malum prohibitum (bad because it is prohibited by law). Conduct that is malum in se is based on common-law definitions of crime; for example, an Assault and Battery could be classified as malum in se.

While Wikipedia is not the best source, I include this quote for the argument:

Constructive manslaughter is also referred to as ‘unlawful act’ manslaughter. It is based on the doctrine of constructive malice, whereby the malicious intent inherent in the commission of a crime is considered to apply to the consequences of that crime. It occurs when someone kills, without intent, in the course of committing an unlawful act. The malice involved in the crime is transferred to the killing, resulting in a charge of manslaughter.

Rachel (the future law student who can make sense of all this) remarks that the unlawful act was emotional torture, which resulted in this poor girl's death.

In addition, Criminally negligent manslaughter is another option:

Criminally Negligent manslaughter is variously referred to as criminally negligent homicide in the United States, gross negligence manslaughter in England and Wales. In Scotland and some Commonwealth of Nations jurisdictions the offense of culpable homicide might apply.
It occurs where death results from serious negligence, or, in some jurisdictions, serious recklessness. A high degree of negligence is required to warrant criminal liability. A related concept is that of willful blindness, which is where a defendant intentionally puts himself in a position where he will be unaware of facts which would render him liable.

Rachel remarks that Criminally Negligent Manslaughter appears to fit because mental, verbal and sometimes physical abuse should be classed as reckless. She goes on to say that if they can find corroboration for any physical abuse, that is assault, which is of course another unlawful act.

NOTE: Neither of us are legal experts or hold legal degrees. We are, however, concerned citizens that are more than a little pissed of that justice is being ignored. Rachel also points out that we found these two legal opportunities researching on the web for maybe 30 minutes, and it is probable that a legal professional could find other opportunities.

It’s not a secret that teens generally begin to consider their parents to be some kind of strange, totally lame oddments right around 13. They don’t tell them about their problems for a variety of reasons. They deal with peer pressure about everything under the sun--and I hate to be the one to tell you this, especially if you’ve been living under a rock for the last decade (welcome to the Internet, by the way): Mean Girls are trendy.
I could ramble on about how much I think Lindsay Lohan is a worthless twat, but I’m trying to stick to the point here. Mean Girls was shocking...to the parents. I’m pretty sure every teenage girl out there has had to deal with their own version of The Plastics at some point, which is probably part of what made the movie so popular.
And now we have a new TV series called Pretty Little Liars.
Interestingly, it’s based around the concept of a small group of girls and one dead mutual friend. The kicker? Her death may have been their fault. Somehow, it’s a hit.

For every bullied girl, it’s great to have a media escape where you can imagine being airbrushed perfection in itty bitty clothes. You get the guy, you ruin the Bitch Girl’s life...all in great fun set to a fabulous soundtrack. Self-esteem rises, you refuse to believe the trash people talk about you, blah blah blah, roll credits.

Here’s how it is in real life. The bullied girl probably won’t ever achieve airbrushed perfection because, hello, she’s human. The guy will end up being gay or a jerk. Or a gay jerk, you can never tell. The Bitch Girl will contract herpes and will either end up in a trailer park or in an upper middle class home with an upper middle class husband. It’s a pretty good bet that she won’t remember the bullied girl in 20 years. If she does, it’s because she showed up at the reunion with money, a tiny ass, and a raving desire to prove to everyone who could care less that she’s still wicked awesome.

And if you’re the Bitch Girl in real life, that high self-esteem is more like an over-inflated ego. Refusing to believe the “trash” people talk about you is denial about reality. Dismissing them as “haters” is so much easier than pausing and trying to objectively decide whether, say, driving another girl to suicide for the fun of it makes you a bad person or not.
Oh, and you’re probably not a size 00. And if you are, have fun with your eating disorder.* I’m sure that eroding your teeth with stomach acid definitely sets you aside from all the total losers who aren’t too lazy to actually work out...or just allow themselves to eat more than 300 calories a day so that they don’t collapse.

My point is, Mean Girls have been glorified. Sure, the Plastic Queen Bee is eventually derailed--but dang, didn’t Regina look cool the whole time? Oh, and the power she wielded! And she had lackeys! And in Pretty Little Liars, aren’t the Queen Bees so pretty! Much like how The Simpsons makes having little money and much stupidity seem charming, glorifying Mean Girls and their ilk makes bullying seem like a fun lark, filled with trendy clothes and totally awesome comebacks.

Every teenage girl’s dream: accolades, attention and minions.

And you know what makes the bullied girls watch these things in the media? Because in Scripted-Life Land, revenge is sweet--and justifiable, because the Bitch Girls always lose.
In real life, they just step it up.

Unfortunately, Sladjana paid a very big price for her tormentors’ ego-maniacal shenanigans. Her memory and the memories of all the others that share her story, including every gay student who has committed suicide because of being harassed endlessly, ought to be remembered by taking more of a stand against this kind of BS.

Because there is no excuse. So get up, do something. You might save a life.
And if you know of someone who is or may be a victim of bullying, please pass this on to them:

HopeLine

1-800 SUICIDE

SAFE (Self Abuse Finally Ends)

1-800 DONT CUT

PFLAG (Parents Families Friends of Lesbians and Gays)

RAINN (Rape Abuse & Incest National Network)

1-800-656-HOPE

And finally, if you are a victim of bullying, please do not harm yourself or take your life in response to the actions of petty morons. They are not worth it and there is help out there from people who have either been in your situation or will do their best to move heaven and earth for you.

♥♥And last but not least, please remember you are loved.♥♥

*I am aware that some people are naturally skinny. I am not referring to them in this post. I am referring to the girls who starve themselves or vomit in order to maintain a stick-thin little figure.

Death Count Rises, Border Drug War Continues

2010-10-03T22:43:00.006-05:00

Yeah, Arizonans are just paranoid...

Why has this not been leading the news over the weekend? I would say grenade attacks that close to the US border is a big damn deal ladies and gents. Read that carefully, please. Death toll, 34; a further dozen people hurt. And those figures are merely a portion of much bigger and bloodier picture. This is only part of the reason that people in Arizona, especially those who live along the border, feel it is necessary to pass tough enforcement laws. If the federal government is unwilling to ensure their safety, then they are appealing to their state law makers to do the job. It makes absolutely no sense why the American citizens who are dealing with this kind of violence so close in proximity to their homes are the ones being vilified.

"The bombings in Monterry took place amid a new wave of drug related killings, mostly in northern Mexico, close to the lucrative US drug market that has claimed nearly three dozen lives over the past few days.
In the town of San Jose de la Cruz, in an isolated mountain region in the northern state of Durango, presumed rival gangs clashed in a bloodbath that left 14 people dead, the local prosecutor said Saturday.
In Chihuahua another 20 murders took place, nine of them in Ciudad Juarez. Meanwhile, police intensified their search Sunday for 20 Mexican tourists kidnapped by gunmen last week in the beach resort city of Acapulco."

That is absolutely astonishing! The warnings to American tourists in, or those going to, Mexico have made it into a few news casts. Some colleges and universities have warned students planning trips to not vacation in Mexico. But, I would hazard a guess that Americans are grossly under-informed about exactly what is happening south of the border. I am betting that people are complacent and apathetic... it’s in Mexico, not the US after all. Americans have long ignored the politics and waves of upheaval that rock through Mexico every so often. Frankly, we pay more attention to the region because of Hurricanes and recent land and mudslides. The truth is, however, that we share a hundreds of miles long border with the country, and the fighting is for control of that region. Do you get it yet? These are the people that are trying to find the quickest and most efficient en routes to our country. Do you still think the border is unimportant? It may be just a desert, but to drug trafficking organizations it is some of the most valuable real estate in the entire world. Reports estimate that about 28,000 deaths in Mexico over the last 4 years can be blamed on drug violence (that is more than either Middle East war).

Other articles:

10th Mexican Mayor Gunned Down

21 Dead Near Border in Sonora
Acapulco kidnappings.

One Little Ray of Sunshine Later

2010-10-02T00:24:00.008-05:00

The Headlines, with commentary:

Ladies and Gentlemen, I thank you for joining me on this most auspicious of occasions. I have finally found reason to have hope in the intelligence of our President. I know, this coming from anyone at this blog is quite jarring to the senses, but just hang in there, all will reveal itself in due course.

You see, our fearless leader has gone around whoring himself to the media as usual, but several interviews and/or stories made a deep impression on me. I will go over some of the more special news events of the past couple days.

Obama to Dem Voters: You're Apathetic!
In this lovely piece of presidential desperation, Mr. Obama points out that for some reason people who are usually sympathetic to the Democrat way of political life seem to be unhappy. I couldn’t ever imagine why. Could it be because they finally realized that while they were so happy about a change-touting politician they forgot to pay attention to what kind of changes he was touting? Well that couldn’t be it, Obama would never mislead them! But he will feel free to treat them like a bunch of two year olds having a tantrum.

"People need to shake off this lethargy. People need to buck up,"

This is what Mr. Obama is saying to his own constituents in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine. He did go even further in saying that:

"If people now want to take their ball and go home, that tells me folks weren't serious in the first place."

Well gee, Barack, whatever would give you that impression? I am guessing that people are starting to wipe the Snake Oil out of their eyes and get a clear picture on what is really going on. If that is the case they are realizing that what change has occurred is far from for the better, and most of what is going on is merely a continuation of previous policy.

"It is inexcusable for any Democrat or progressive right now to stand on thesidelines in this midterm election," Obama said.

I for one am just ecstatic that Obama isn’t one of those politicians that would lead his flock out to the pasture and then give them the intellectual leash to choose their own path. Apparently in all his trips around the country no one has told him that old horse-to-water phrase.

In a description of the interview with Rolling Stone, a Yahoo!© reporter states that,

“He [Obama] portrayed a clear choice between an administration that despite some warts has helped advance its agenda, and a Republican Party that would offer disastrous policies for the economy and civil liberties.”

I am all for dramatics and colorful adjectives, but to say this administration has had ‘some warts’ is like saying that Helen Thomas bears only a passing resemblance to a warthog. As for those disastrous policies regarding economy and civil liberties...

1) Obama’s policies are to a large degree identical to those of the despised GWB.

2) The left would never infringe on personal (civil) liberties like forcing people to partake in a health insurance industry against the threat of monumental fines.

In the final part of the Yahoo!© article, Obama comments on his campaign promises with a severely depressing thought:

“The president said he keeps a checklist of his campaign promises and that he has met, by his account, about 70 percent of them.
As for the rest: "Well, that's what the next two years is for, or maybe the next six." Obama would need to win re-election in 2012 for that latter timeframe to occur.”

Please Democrats, be as apathetic as you want. Just don’t make me suffer through another 2-6 years.

Awww, He Didn’t Sell It Properly?
Lo and behold, another article reported in September that Obama was blaming himself for the poor response to his healthcare bill.
Well, I blame him too, but that’s neither here nor there. Granted, there’s been an ungodly amount of misinformation on nearly every presidential cock-up since the first piece of bad legislation wiggled its way through Congress on calloused knees, but the fact remains that a costly chunk of bad legislation passed through emotional pleas and whining is still bad legislation. It’s like why you don’t let men that aren’t gay pick your clothes; a $3,000 dress that makes you look like a whore is still a dress that makes you look like a whore--specifically, one that’s selling something that will make you pay like hell later. And baby, Barack has never looked so fetching.
Fact of the matter is, the bill is costly. Regardless of the reporter’s snide commentary about “death panels” at the bottom of the article, that doesn’t discount the billions that will be spent on what is a legislative black hole. And according to the article, Barack’s delightful little pinata of ick (?) is going to be bursting over everyone’s heads. This includes such lovely inclusions as:

“The biggest changes in the legislation, such as the new purchasing pools and requirement for everyone to carry insurance, don't kick in until 2014. Among changes taking effect this week:
_Young adults can remain on family health plans until they turn 26.
_Free immunization provided for kids.
_Free preventive care provided, such as mammograms and cholesterol screenings.
_No more lifetime coverage limits, and annual limits start to phase out.
_Plans can't cancel coverage for people who get sick.
_No denial of coverage for kids with pre-existing health conditions.”

Golly gee. Doesn’t get much better than that, if you’re in favor of the government having an unusually large stake in your healthcare. Now, for those of us who do take advantage of healthcare insurance, these changes aren’t necessarily bad. I like most of these changes, but the thing is this could have gotten accomplished with 50% less pomp and next to no circumstance. If Congress had been paying attention to experts in the field, they would have known that increasing competition by allowing interstate insurance plans would have led to such conditions. Simply put, if you are allowed to entertain offers from companies around the countries then they will have to compete for you. It works on the same principle that eBay does, where the person with the best offer gets the merchandise.

In the piece the President is quoted as saying, “We just got to give people some basic peace of mind," Well ... you could start by resigning, but I won’t hold my breath on that one either.

When talking about the possibility of a Republican-led congress repealing the law Obama had this to say, "It makes sense in terms of politics and polls," Obama said of the GOP position. "It doesn't make sense in terms of actually making people's lives better." He does have a point, like so many other entitlement programs it is nearly impossible to repeal once it has been signed, however, there are pending law suits regarding it’s constitutionality. If the law is found to be unconstitutional, which it should, the law would be ruled null and void. There is also the possibility of bringing it before The Court based on violations of anti-trust laws. Since this law would effectively monopolize the insurance industry, these rumors are music to my ears.

Ding! Dong! The Dumbass is Gone!
Once the glitter and ticker-tape is swept off my block from the party I am throwing I may be able to look at this a tad more objectively, but not for now. From the video attached to the article you can clearly see that Dear Ole Rahm is visibly upset and highly emotional about his departure. I would be too. After all, the ventriloquist and his puppet are a pair; get too far from each other and the act falls apart.
Now you may ask, like I did, what Rahm could possibly be giving up the metaphorical key to Emerald City in exchange for. Well, the suspense is not needed, of course he is crawling back into the filth that is Chicago politics. Scum misses scum, after all. It’s almost poetic, if it wasn’t so damned depressing. While it is very exciting that we are finally seeing some of the old junk being cleared out of the White House, it is depressing that most likely this particularly stinky vestige of mob-style politics is going to be getting his very own town to run further into the ground. It was a balancing act: I didn’t want Rahm in the White House whispering into the Puppet-in-Chief’s ear, but I also wasn’t prepared for him to have a political office all his own.
The only thing I can hope is that there are some voters left in Chicago that can see through Obama and all of his cronies and have the good sense to rail against Rahm’s agenda. So here is my warning Chicago: He will make promises, he will promise to create change, and he will seem to want Chicago’s best interest. Just remember what he has lobbied for and promised with Obama, and remember what they have actually delivered.

There is only one other thing I would like to comment on:

Doh! History Bites Us in the Ass Again...
So, it has recently come to light that in the late 1940s American scientists conducted STD research in Guatemala on human subjects that were confined to a mental hospital(s). According to research notes, Dr. John C. Cutler conducted research that intentionally infected possibly hundreds of patients. This man may also sound familiar as one of the leading researchers of the Tuskegee experiment, where hundreds of African American men infected with syphilis were observed (without treatment) to see the progression of the virus. The Tuskeegee experiment ended in the early 1970s, Cutler defended the project until his death.
In the Guatemalan version the researchers infected hundreds of people, many of them mental patients, with both gonorrhea and syphilis, and further encouraged infected patients to pass the diseases on to uninfected individuals. While the patients did not know, or give their permission to be part of the experiment, the Guatemalan government did.
All of this research was basically forgotten, until Tuskeegee experiment expert Susan Reverby found it by complete accident in the archives of the University of Pittsburgh.
Everyone has issued apologies to everyone.
I am already sick of this story. We are judging these practices by current standards, and that is impossible. It is true that these things are despicable, but they weren’t out of line for the time period (you can’t make that argument with Tuskegee). The fact is that science has brutal roots, get over it. If you have ever taken an antibiotic or had a shot in your entire life you have no reason to complain, because like it or not this is medical history. The important thing associated with this story should not be the amount of apologies issued, it should be a firm resolution not to have these kinds of experiments run ever again. People aren’t focusing on that though, they would rather complain about how much of a monster the US is and how this is just what we dominant cultures do in the developing world. I have to applaud Clinton and Sebelius, not for the damn apology, but for their commitment to investigating current US drug trials in foreign countries, and making sure they meet ethical standards. According to articles on this subject around eight percent of drugs approved in the US had clinical trials exclusively in foreign countries; with a full eighty percent of drug approvals having had data collected outside of the US. So instead of focusing on the past, let’s learn from it and make sure we are taking care of people now and in the future.

The Great Illegal Debate

2010-09-30T23:21:00.004-05:00

Illegal Immigration:
Perspectives across the Continuum

My continuum of immigration is here separated into categories based on the perspectives the situation is analyzed from. There are any number of perspectives on the issue, but I will break it down into a few of my favorite. And while I know that a continuum should not be broken into categories, categories are the reality here because they are a decent representative sample, and I don’t have all the time in the world!

Necessary Evil
Open the Border to All!
Luxury for the people who deserve it.
Disrespectful of those who came before.
Why not, it’s justice for prior bad acts?

My own opinion of the issue really isn't what matters, but there are a few gems that I will pick on because … well I just can't resist sometimes. It's just too much fun!

Necessary Evil:

The people that take this opinion are really quite common because while they don't like illegal immigration, they recognize a certain quality of benefits that can be gained from the practice. Usually they are also the ones who take the viewpoint that illegals will be here temporarily, rolling up their sleeves, and getting dirty doing the jobs that no American really wants to do.

This rosy view might indeed be true, but it certainly is not a universal truth across the spectrum of illegal immigrants. The truth is that many of these people are the same as us, with fewer opportunities. They will work like dogs for far less wages, and be thankful doing it because they want to feed their family, both nuclear and extended.

Another truth that only a select few, politically incorrect, people tend to point out is that the reverse is also true. There are enterprising and smart people that come across the border illegally to take advantage of the system that is wasting millions upon millions of dollars every year. When you look at it objectively, who can blame them? Stay in a country that doesn't want you, where there is little to no work, even less pay, and far more violence? Why? When you can take a notably dangerous trek through the desert and arrive in a country that is just itching to pay you to do nothing. There are innumerable American citizens who find clever ways to take advantage of our government assistance programs in precisely the same ways. Unless you think that illegal immigrants are inherently more stupid than these Americans, why would you think that at least some of them would be willing to do the exact same thing?

Open the Border to All!

Alright, I will admit up front that I think the people who agree with this position are shortsighted and probably take a Utopian view that would make Moore blush. There is, however, one area where I have to agree with them. Everyone does deserve an opportunity to immigrate if they so desire, but that should come with some strict guidelines and enough of a procedure to make sure that we aren’t letting in Hannibal Lector’s illegal protege.

The problem I see with this method would be exactly what the heading says: “All.” If that doesn’t put some trepidation in your decision making process then you clearly are not as pessimistic as I am. Congratulations on that. Already the United States is criss-crossed with enough drug highways to keep enforcement busy for the next thousand years, and if the borders were open to everyone it would stand to reason that this would get worse. I know that there are very few people who really mean to keep it open to everyone with no system of documentation in place, but these kinds of systems are in place now and yet the border might as well be fenced with Swiss Cheese.

My next problem is that unless you grant everyone immediate amnesty and/or citizenship upon arrival, you are basically giving them a green card with no expiration. It is incredibly easy for people to disappear once they get into the country, so if you made getting in so easy there would be no way to get a decent representative number of population demographics. This is key to the way that our Republic functions; with no accurate numbers, different districts would either be grossly under or over represented.

Luxury for those who deserve it.

This perspective usually accompanies the people who believe that the border does need to be secured, patrolled, and respected as a legal zone. Citizenship in the United States is not something that should be taken for granted, and the benefits that come with that status were hard won. The old motto, “Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses longing to be free...” is a battle cry for those who believe we have abandoned the principles the founding father set forth for us on immigration. The problem is that phrase, lovely as it is, is not one from the founding fathers, not any of them. It is from “The New Colossus” by Emma Lazarus. It was inscribed on the statue of liberty, yes, but it was never actually uttered by the founding fathers as it was not written until 1883. I happen to believe that Ms. Lazarus’ background made her write this, because she was on the front lines of many waves of immigration from countries who no longer wanted these people. She witnessed, first hand, people coming off boats onto Ellis Island looking for another chance. One line at the end of the sonnet sums up the situation quite nicely, “...I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” She knew exactly what a chance to live here would mean to these people on the lowest rungs of other countries, it would mean that with work they would get their chance.

Now, why can we not share that opinion in this millennium? It is idealistic. Who is going to determine who deserves it and who doesn’t? It would probably come down to some government panel shut up in D.C. somewhere that has no real grip on life in this country, much less any other. And government has proven itself to be such a rational entity hasn’t it? I happen to favor this position, but even I can see that it would be logistical nightmare to manage the immigration requests from around the world and handpick from the lists who is deserving and who isn’t.

Disrespectful of those who came before.

I know I said my opinion doesn’t matter, and it really doesn’t, but in the interests of full disclosure I must admit that I agree with this position very much.

Those of us who can claim this perspective often believe that immigration is a luxury, and it is one that generations of people from all over the world have fought for, respected, and honored. It used to be that people immigrated to the US because it was seen as the land of opportunity and people had to fight for the right to come here, and then a good number of them applied for citizenship and never left. There are countless stories of so-and-so’s grandmother/father that studied their butts off for the citizenship test, and then worked even more of their ass off to learn the language. They wanted to be American. I am sure (but don’t know for certain) that most of them never intended to disrespect their heritage or culture by doing this, but I would hazard a guess to say that they wanted more than anything to count themselves as American in every way that they could.

I can’t imagine what those people, who kicked, screamed, and clawed their way through the legal procedure must be thinking. I can imagine it would feel like a kick in the teeth to see the people who refuse to make any effort to abide by the laws or assimilate. Those people who protest cracking down on illegal immigration by waving the flags of some foreign country that doesn’t give a rat’s ass about them. I can’t wait for the day when these geniuses realize that most of these countries have far more harsh penalties for trying to immigrate back into them than the US has for trying to illegally get in.

I am all for keeping your culture alive, your traditions as pure as possible, and I respect your right to be proud of where you came from, but please do not cram it down my throat at every available opportunity. And please, remember how many generations of legal immigrants you are slapping in the face everyday with your BS.

Why not, it’s justice for prior bad acts?

I don’t know why, but I almost forgot to include this perspective. Shocking, I know. I think it has to do with my pure unadulterated hatred of this asinine social justice hippy-dippy-trippy cause. I am not even going to try to be objective with this review, so if you don’t agree with it you might as well skip ahead to the comments section and attempt to rip me a new one. I emphasize attempt there.

The very idea that you can make up for what was a horrible injustice in forcing various groups of indigenous peoples off their ancestral lands, by allowing completely different populations to run rampant over the border, is quite frankly about the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my life. There is one glaringly obvious way to tell this is not about social justice at all. Because the groups that were harmed are in no way helped by this proposal, and the groups that can take advantage of this don’t (for the most part) contain anyone that was originally harmed. If you wanted to help Native Americans for being forced to endure the Trail of Tears, I am all ears. But how exactly is being flooded with more people going to make up for land restrictions and take overs that were enacted one hundred plus years ago?

Furthermore, I don’t think encouraging foreign nationals to break international laws are a good thing. Do you see the mess that a large portion of the middle east is in, and what that has done to the world? So next time we attempt to make good on a prior bad act, let us remember that there is a reason that prior bad acts are inadmissible in a court of law.

Besides, what kindergarten graduate among us has not heard that two wrongs do not make a right? Come on people, when in doubt go back to what you have learned from Disney movies (the classics, not the crappy modern ones).

And because I have a new appreciation for her:

The New Colossus
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Emma Lazarus, 1883

P.S. To the distinguished Mr. Murdoch:

There is no frickin’ such thing as a “law abiding” illegal alien residing in the US, thanks for the oxymoron courtesy of one of the richest men in America.

O'Donnell isn't a witch, but apparently people don't care

2010-09-19T11:59:00.004-05:00

Bill Maher is someone I don't give a crap about usually, and I'll tell you why. Because until recently, I didn't really place him as being unique among the plethora of weasel-faced little idiots that reign over the airwaves. Once you've been revolted by one, you've been revolted by 'em all.

Now, our own lovely Malkin raises a good point: the blogs losing their minds over Christine O'Donnell's "witchcraft" comments neglect to take into account the actual context, which Michelle so helpfully provides.
Malkin further clarifies for anyone who can't make out exactly what's going on in the video, since apparently "having a discussion" in the world of TV involves talking over the other person as much as possible:

At 1:03 in the video, one of the panelists on the show criticizes O’Donnell for criticizing Halloween — “Wait a minute, I love this, you’re a witch, you go ‘Halloween is bad,’ I’m not the witch, I mean wait a minute.” She responds by explaining that she opposes witchcraft because she has had first-hand experience with what they do.

So, she tried it. She rejected it. And she learned from it.

So, once and for all: NO DAMMIT, O'DONNELL IS NOT A WITCH.

Maher making a big deal about her supposed witchitude is pretty hilarious considering that the left generally claims that they are the ones who are all about religious freedom. I have news for you: Neo-Paganism is accepted as a valid religion now--certainly not by everyone, but it is by no means persecuted on the level that most people, including many Neo-Pagans themselves, believe. No one gets burned at the stake or put to death for being Pagan, Satanic, or even a Scientologist. You can actually declare yourself to be a Jedi in the good ol' US of A and it gets friggin' recognized.

I'm certainly not a fan of O'Donnell saying she opposes Halloween because of what "they" do. You know what, she's allowed her opinion. And I'm allowed to think that she's unfairly lumping the non-crazy people in with the regular old crazy people. For one thing, you always get that one "Satanist" coven or whatever that actually uses some kind of blood. You know why? Because in every group, there is a douchebag. And usually, he's got friends.

The honest truth is that most Pagans and Wiccans nowadays celebrate Halloween with a bit of wine, maybe a little prayer, and some loving meditation focused on the memories and spirits of loved ones that have passed over. No blood is involved unless that's just how your menstrual cycle works this year.

What does she have to do to convince less-than-observant morons that she's not a witch? Maybe she should prove herself to be lighter than a duck.

Just sayin'.

----------------
Listening to: Practical Magic - Alan Silvestri

Lisa Murkowski: Moron of the Day

2010-09-17T22:29:00.003-05:00

Ladies, gentlemen, and whatever that is in the corner with the godawful shirt:

This is a RINO.

Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has decided that because she lost her bid for re-election to Joe Miller, she is going to run as a write-in candidate. Chicks On The Right has a great entry about this.

Lisa, honey. Can we talk?

Not only do you look like Nancy Pelosi's brain-damaged twin, but you're a really bad loser. In this case, practice does not make perfect. Trying to throw off the race after you've been booted out is like stalking your ex after he's dumped you. Sure, he might take you back for a week--but he'll regret it. Especially after you set fire to his car. Metaphorically speaking, you've set a couple fires and the voters are trying to put out the flames. Also, you're nuts. That isn't a metaphor.

Thing is, if the voters have basically said that they prefer Miller, you need to accept that. Now be a good girl and quit embarrassing the rest of the Republican women. I can understand that goshdarnit, you really want that election to go your way because you need it and Daddy never did get you that pony and your therapist says you shouldn't mix Prozac with alcohol because it makes you wear gold-plated vagina weights as earrings, but...no. Oh honey, just no.

And for another thing, if you really feel the need to ~~throw a pity party~~ do one of those Lifetime Movie musical montage things where you pretend to be the Little Engine that could(ish), then you need an appropriate song.

Just my two cents, lady.

----------------
Listening to: Dip - THC

One Sixth of a Puppy

2009-08-08T04:22:00.005-05:00

Written by Rachel, but posted by Mary, because Blogger was acting weird and wouldn't cooperate.

Are you like me? Do you have no clue why a complete overhaul of our healthcare system has to be done in three months? Welcome to the club! Membership is free, but beware: we are "extremist right-wing conservatives," so anything could happen. Let us laugh all the way to the bank with our "fat checks that were sent by special interest groups and rich people that are SCARED of Obamacare!"

Disclaimer:
Today’s rant was made possible by my inability to keep my mouth shut and fingers off the keyboard while browsing Politico.com. Please remember to keep your eyes open and your brain engaged during the reading of this blog. Remember kids, do not try this blog at home. We don’t want the SS (Secret Service) to show up on our doorsteps! All remarks made in this blog are the sole responsibility of its author and she is very proud of every bit of sarcasm that will drip off your screen.

"White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel warned liberal groups this week to stop running ads against Democratic members of Congress.

The powerful top aide to President Obama made his feelings known at the weekly closed-door strategy session of an array of progressive organizations, according to two sources who were there.

Emanuel’s request came on the same day that Obama himself told a meeting of Democratic senators that he didn’t like seeing dollars used by liberal groups to target congressional Democrats." [1]

Gee, really Rahm? You want your friends to stop making fun of the little blue dog puppets that you so skillfully direct everyday? Whyyyy?

Wow, Rahm, that actually sounds dangerously like threats. You would threaten your friends on the far left? But...they are your buds aren't they? Oh, I forgot. That is just the Chicago way. See, most of us don't understand your big city ways. All you genius cityfolk are just so slick, what with manipulating everything you can possibly get your pathetic little mitts on.

"Organizing for America, the president’s political arm, is engaged in an intensive grassroots effort to rally support for healthcare reform legislation, going so far as to air ads in the states and districts of targeted Democratic members of Congress. But the spots were tame, not mentioning the names of the members, and White House officials indicated that they were being run to give their allies air cover to support the legislation." [2]

See, the problem is that if you truly need an organization that touts the Obama brand like the Sierra Club tout baby polar bears, then it really isn't GRASSroots. Think of it more like WEEDroots, unsightly and popping up in between the cracks of a smooth operation; except our weed spray is the truth from real Americans that are sick and tired of fronting your handouts. The reason you need these little offshoot groups of losers to come and harass real people that are trying to restore real HOPE is because your programs are doomed to failure. Everybody knows it except your little bunch of idiots, and the other idiots that you convinced to go along with you this last time.
These programs have played themselves out around the globe, and not once have they proved to be anything resembling sustainable. They ALWAYS FAIL. But, I don't expect this kind of basic knowledge of economic history among people who can't decide if the U.S. is a great country or not. That is probably the simplest question that you could be faced with; or it was, before you people got your egocentric moneygrubbing little claws into us. These are just a few reasons why you have to recruit losers who are too stupid or lazy to go get real jobs to go out and spin your little pathetic webs of spit, so that all the newly glistening threads of bullshittery can be woven together by the Messiah Himself to form an "authentic" grassroots campaign.

"Democracy for America, the organization founded in the wake of Howard Dean’s presidential bid, is partnering with another progressive group to target Democrats and has tangled with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who suggested the ads being aired against him made it less likely that a healthcare bill would pass.

“We have not heard from the White House,” said Jim Dean, the chair of Democracy for America and the former DNC chair’s brother. “The ads are part of a much larger campaign that we are conducting to mobilize one million DFA members to engage all congressionals – Republicans and Democrats alike — in various ways (meetings with staff, petitions, ads, etc.) to support the President's plan.” " [3]

And here is yet another example of the prime genius that I mentioned just two seconds ago. I am not making this stuff up people; in ONE article there are three organizations (OFA, DFA, and another unnamed organization) being mobilized to rescue the healthcare reform argument. Yet, I didn't need anything but my own common sense to get mobilized against it.

***By the way, I am still waiting on my check from the special interest groups and the extreme right-wing conservatives. Come to think of it, I never even got a stimulus check...

Personally, I love it when the democrats go after each other. Please, continue. Who needs the Libertarian Party (to which I am a member) to fight, when the moonbat liberals will just implode on their own! We need munchies for this show. So, who's gonna get the popcorn?

Seriously though, they mobilize troops (that may be literal before long, folks) to support this plan that was cooked up in one MONTH. They drive these people to rallies, give them mass produced signs to wave around and then round them back up when it is time to go on to the next event. In the middle of this little choreographed dance they do they also like to rough people up including senior citizens and innocent men handing out Gadsden flags. Yeah, you can’t be REAL Grassroots© unless you are a badass and knocking around the elderly and ganging up on unsuspecting people. Oh, or how about slapping people who don't agree with you? Wow, Shaft has nothing on these people--they must be the real badd muthas.

Here are a few more links of just such behavior if you are interested, and you should be, this could be your mother, father or grandparent next. These are mostly middle aged to elderly people who believe in their hearts that Obama and his health plan would leave them to fend for themselves, or just die. They are fighting for their lives essentially.

Human Events article.
And more evidence on YouTube.

Even the comments on the above YouTube video by "InModeration1" are threats toward an opponent to Obamacare who was just voicing his opinion.

Meanwhile, does anyone know what the members of that crazy angry right-wing conservative mob do?
They take off work (the work that pays for most of the lazy bums in these organizations), they make signs that aren't all that clever but are HOMEMADE instead of mass-produced, they drive their own cars to meetings and try to be heard like they deserve to be. Some politicians are making that more and more difficult, though. Virtual townhalls, phoning it in, one on one meetings.
People, that is not democracy. We have an inherent right and responsibility to confront our elected officials when they get THIS out of hand. And I have news for you lawmakers that are so appalled at this behavior, here's that vicious troublemaking mob you have heard so much about:
FreeColorado.com
"It wasn't a mob until they showed up."
"Meet the mob."
And the man who was attacked by SEIU union thugs speaks.

If you had actually listened to the People in the first place and not gone against every principle that got you elected you wouldn't have these problems. I know the Messiah is memorizing. Why, I can hardly keep from barf- uhh… I mean staring when he speaks.
I will try to make this simple so tiny brains don’t just melt-- and that means you too San Fran Nan, God only knows what would happen to the environment if all that Botox escaped from your flesh… think of the Polar Bears!

*Serious voices everyone!*

The number of Representatives a state has is decided by the population of that state, while each state has only two Senators regardless of landmass or brain matter present (unfortunately on the latter). Now let us take the lame brother’s-cousin’s-ex girlfriend’s-best friend’s-husband’s-mother that no one likes to talk about … yes, I mean California.

The state population in California, as of 2008, was estimated at 36,756,666 (I didn’t make up that last part-though fitting). California is the most populous state, so it has the most representatives, currently numbering 53. Representatives are paid, as of January 2009, $174,000 - more for the speaker and party leaders. Can anyone do that math? Yeah, but California has lots of money, it can afford to pay these salaries to people who are already more rich than you and I could ever dream of being…right? But this isn’t just California, these salaries are nationwide. Oh, and did I mention that they get a cost of living adjustment (COLA - no not the Pepsi kind) EVERY year? When is the last time you got a cost of living adjustment? They are even eligible for lifetime benefits after only five years! That includes a pension, social security benefits and those primo healthcare benefits that they are so sure none of us need. They are dead set on believing (and preaching) that this new bill proposes a plan that is plenty for the American people, but they don’t even want to think about being on it themselves and especially not their families subjected to Obamacare! But wait…aren't they American too? Aren’t they subject to the laws that they write? Why, of course not! That would interfere with them being more important than us lowly constituents - I mean citizens.

See, this is the grim reality now: we are supporting these people FOR LIFE. And not only will they not listen to us when we try to use our inside voices, they say that we are an angry mob using terrorist tactics when we yell a little louder! Well, what else is left? If we can’t get through your thick skulls with respectful discourse and we aren’t allowed to yell anymore … Hell we might as well not talk at all. So that is what I want people to do next time they are at one of these townhall meetings. Don’t talk. No. Seriously, don’t. Here is what you do:

Cheer! Do you remember those lame cheers that the little blonde airheads did In high school? Bring those back! My personal favorite was always this little number:

"LET’S GET A LITTLE BIT ROWDY. R. O. W. D. Y."

Now maybe you can mix that up with a little bit of “WE THE PEOPLE” or “REMEMBER THE VOTERS” maybe even a raucous version of “CONSTITUTION”.
Fitting eh?

I still don’t know why it is unreasonable to ask President Obama to spend AT LEAST as much time on healthcare reform than he did when picking out the puppy for his daughters. For those of you that didn’t keep track, he took 6 months to pick a puppy. He wanted healthcare done in about a month. So, your health is essentially worth 1/6 of a puppy.

Sources:
1,2,3 Politico.com
QuickFacts.Census.Gov
Wikipedia

The Idiots: In Five Easy Steps

2009-06-17T00:50:00.006-05:00

Folks, here it is. We are not only handing over the keys, but we are officially handing them over to lawyers and bankers. Yeah, that'sa recipe for good times.

First up: Monopoly (aka The Fed)!
"The Federal Reserve, already arguably the most powerful agency in the U.S. government, will get sweeping new authority to regulate any company whose failure could endanger the U.S. economy and markets under the Obama administration's regulatory overhaul plan."
And yes, we have found that everything Obama touches turns to gold, the fish are singing and the polar bears are cheering. People, COME ON! The gold is spray-painted manure, the fish are screaming in terror, and the polar bears don't give a crap, because they're polar bears. Do you really think they need more power? Do you want them showing up on the front step of your business the first month your sales don't meet their expectations? I am a business owner, and I can tell you quite honestly that if they show up on my doorstep they will have a traditional Southern greeting (note I didn't say which traditional greeting).

This is just another example of the Obama administration's love of Chicago mob tactics. If you aren't meeting the expectation (that they set) your business will no longer be yours. Your reputation will be ruined, you will have no business, and absolutely no recourse, all because you were deemed a "threat" to the US economy. Since when? Business is the backbone of this country, especially the small kind. As a woman who's Southern by the grace of God, I can happily say that unlike the rest of the evidently mentally challenged sheeple, I don't have to step in shit to know I'm on a horse path. And I assure you, this is one heaping pile.

Second: Finances are keeping him awake!
"President Barack Obama said on Tuesday that worrying about the U.S. government's finances "keeps me awake at night" and the country needed to start planning now to tackle soaring deficits."
Well you know what would have tackled the soaring deficit? NOT CREATING IN THE FIRST PLACE, YOU INCOMPETENT MORON! Let's see... We could not have spent that first 800 Billion that the other incompetent moron spent before you, but you had to act like a kid at a carnival and top it. So not only did you do another heaping round of bailouts, you also bought GM (and gave part of it to the UAW-great idea), put money away for socialized-universal-government healthcare that if it doesn't make us go bankrupt will kill all the sick, elderly and non-productive. Let us take a moment now and clap for the brilliance of the anointed one!

*SILENCE*

So let's examine the situation. You (and your predecessor) spent money that we don't have. You know we are completely out of money and operating in the red, but that's ok because it "keeps you awake at night." Meanwhile, you are gradually selling us to China. What happens when everyone finds out that we are not good for that debt? Yeah, that won't just keep you up, it will give you a migraine the size of Texas. I know of only one thing that might really save us. We need to get rid of you as soon as possible. Look forward to that crushing defeat in 2012, will ya? But before that, just next year, watch and look on in amazement of how many Senate and House Democrat seats vanish in front of your miserable face.

Third: You might want to duck the missiles!
"The Pentagon's second-in-command says North Korea's missiles could threaten the continental United States if the reclusive rogue nation continues to develop its weapons."
Well, we shouldn't worry too much. We do have the most sophisticated missile defense in the world. Oh wait...The Anointed One cut the missile defense budget didn't he? Damn, there he goes again, cutting us off at the knees. This is what happens in a lawyer's brain: they think they can argue their way out of anything and come out spotless. NO! Any good military person worth half a star will tell you that the best national offense is a spectacular defense.
Oh wait! What am I talking about, surely Mr. Obama has had military strategic training! I mean he did go to Columbia and Harvard. Well, his Columbia time taught him a lot about getting ready for Law School (they just completely skipped history). Lord knows that Harvard is one of the top Law Schools in the country, and they did teach him spectacularly well, because no one knows how to shred and manipulate the Constitution like Barack Obama.

Fourth: Look Out! California Crash Ahead!
"Speaker of the Assembly Karen Bass, a Los Angeles Democrat, said higher taxes and fees are needed instead of all $16 billion in cuts proposed by Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. His reductions would eliminate entire welfare programs and leave 1 million children without health insurance. Democrats yesterday suggested a $15 automobile license fee and said they may consider a 9.9 percent per-barrel charge on oil produced in the state."
This is how a Democrat brain works. They have spent, spent, SPENT for years upon years and never worried about balancing a budget. Now when the fruits of their labors are upon them they decide to punish everyone else for their own idiocy. This is similar to their argument that we must push global warming legislation because the polar bear babies are gonna starve. This woman wants you to focus on those 1million crying babies instead of the responsible citizens of CA that are getting kicked in the nuts (repeatedly). Why weren't they working to get people OFF welfare? Oh yeah, I know why: because if they did that, then there would be that many more votes to buy some other way. Sounds horrible doesn't it? It is! Welfare doesn't help, it enslaves people to the government. Welfare assumes that you are too stupid to provide for yourself or your family, so they do it for you. Republicans get called evil 'cause they want to cut welfare. Well, I want to cut welfare too! If you cut welfare, then taxes wouldn't be so high because I wouldn't have to support these people who believe that they are entitled to everything, unlike the rest of us. I am fine with the people who genuinely cannot work for one reason or another, but I am not fine with these people who pop out kids just so their check gets bigger. I am not fine with these people who get psych evaluations and pretend they are crazy so they can go on disability (and yet go to college-on the taxpayer dime). I am gonna say this once to those people: GET A DAMN JOB!
Instead of crying about the babies on welfare that won't have insurance. how about you stop rewarding people on welfare for having more kids than they would normally be able to afford. And please, Ms. Bass, don't insult our intelligence. We know you don't give a damn about those kids, because if you did, you would be trying to better their lives; not just funding their existence.

Five: Forget TV, Get Obama-vision.
"On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm! "
Yes! At least now things will be simpler. ABC won't have to wait the whole 5 minutes (maybe) it would take to get the reports from the White House to parrot the President, they can just telecast from inside his house. Hell, why not call a spade a spade. This is a private news organization campaigning for the President. They don't want to televise any alternate views, so much for journalism, ethics, being an objective observer or reporting facts. People in journalism classes should be ashamed. They should be looking at this outraged, how one man can hijack an entire nations media and is using them for his own warped message (there was a historical figure that desired this above all else: Hitler). They don't report on the broken promises, they don't even mention the perils of this kind of massive spending, and they don't mention the fine print in these twisted programs that he is dreaming up. If this kind of thing were happening in Nixon's day Watergate would never even have made the news, much less caused him to step down. Imagine if the national media had just shrugged off the Monica days. There are scandals coming out of this administration everyday. Not only do we not hear about them from the mainstream media, but we hear them with the official White House spin on the story prepackaged and tied with a pretty bow. So not only is the mainstream media making sure Obama comes home everyday spotless, they make sure he smells like a rose.
And they say there's a "vast Right-Wing conspiracy." Riiiiight. "Vast Left-Wing thugocracy" is more like it.

My Big Fat Union Rant of Awesomeness

2009-06-13T02:43:00.006-05:00

Ok, I know everyone has been waiting with baited breath for another blog. Rest assured: it is true, I have gotten pissed off again. I was/am pissed off enough that I had to ignore my ADD/OCD long enough to blog. Yeah. It is that serious. So now that I have your attention, let me call to your attention the subject of my pissed-offness: Unions.

This isn't some vague tale where I read articles on some CNN website, or saw a few random clips on FOX and was just SHOCKED how these cancerous little lumps could still exist. This is the tale of my father's union, and the stupidity that they have been and probably will continue to shout from the rooftops like some demented Juliet looking for her Romeo. I have interspersed that with some history and some common themes that are now occurring in the broad scope of unions.

Unions are a massive poison--a sort of toxin that infects everything they touch. Think of them like heroin. They eliminate all of the autonomy from the workers they "represent" in order to make sure that they are dependent (addicted), then they drain all of the money from the workers (junkies), and shift it to their own committees (the drug dealers). Sounds real familiar, now doesn't it? Meanwhile, the poor junkies down there on the lowest rung of the totem pole are simply perplexed. They rack their brains and still can't figure out why their health insurance is continuing to refuse covering their family, why their once envied pension plan is shrinking worse than the, uh, "package" of someone on 12 different kinds of steroids, and all the while they still pay their dues like a good little sheep because (as they were told by the union president) if it is this bad WITH the union working so hard for them, just imagine what it would be like without the union.

Recently my fathers union (the Boilermakers) enacted a policy that they resurrected from the 1970's. Basically, the policy says that if you fail to pay your dues for three months straight (even if you are out of work), you will be required to pay an extravagant reinstatement fee. They have already gotten rid of their "out of work" dues so that everyone pays the same, and even those have gone up the last 5 times they voted on it. Now, if the member can't afford the dues for three months straight, what in the name of hell makes these idiots think that the reinstatement fee is even going to be an option? Yeah, I couldn't think of an answer either. Wanna know why? Because there is no answer. They know this. Everyone knows exactly what this is.

I mean call me crazy (and I assure you I am everyday), but I take that as a direct threat. Not only is the union not representing it's members, it's threatening them (at best) and extorting them (at worst). I am going to take the 'at worst' version, because that is the one that I truly believe is going on.

This, my friends, is extortion, pure and simple. You may be familiar with this concept from TV shows like Law and Order, or maybe The Sopranos. Other people may remember a little movie called The Godfather (including any of the sequels). Just for the people who live under gigantic rocks or in caves that have limited American influence, I will get you some references real quick.

The Dictionary on extortion

"1: The act or practice of extorting especially money or other property ; especially : the offense committed by an official engaging in such practice."

Wikipedia: The ultimate source

" 'Extortion', outwresting, or exaction is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence or a lawsuit[citation needed] which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence or lawsuit[citation needed] is sufficient to commit the offense."

What the law says about extortion.

"Most states define extortion as the gaining of property or money by almost any kind of force, or threat of 1) violence, 2) property damage, 3) harm to reputation, or 4) unfavorable government action. While usually viewed as a form of theft/larceny, extortion differs from robbery in that the threat in question does not pose an imminent physical danger to the victim.

For example, Dan goes to Victor's place of business and demands monthly payment from Victor for the business's "protection" from vandalism and after-hours theft. Fearing that he or his business will suffer harm otherwise, Victor agrees to pay Dan."

Now take this last entry especially. Change it to Dan is guaranteeing Victor's job, insurance and even pension in exchange for payment, then all of a sudden Dan makes it nearly impossible for Victor to pay this amount. MMHMM! I had the same reaction.

And now we come to the history portion of our proceedings. Does anyone know why unions were created? Everyone remembers from history class when they were talking about how the big evil factories were using child labor in extremely dangerous working conditions all day long and paying about a quarter (yes, 25 cents) a day. That is the type of thing that lead to the formation of unions. They were dedicated to making sure that children were not abused, that people had reasonable work hours, that they had working conditions that were not almost always fatal, and actually got paid enough to survive. Here is a wikipedia article if you don't believe me. Wikipedia on Unions

Personally, I love the purpose behind the original unions, they had a noble cause. What they have morphed into, however, is an unholy abomination of the original intention. You know how in the movie "The Matrix" how Neo has to pick either the red or blue pill? Well apparently the union is now the guy behind all those television screens that are pushing around all the irrelevant players (the workers) and he is doing so on their dime--and a lot of the workers refuse to take the red pill, instead opting to remain as the "batteries" for the unions. That movie is a good metaphor for unions, because eventually the workers in the union do catch on, show up and break all the televisions. Nothing good comes for the guy sitting in the chair after that, so it is in their best interest to keep that seat of power for as long as possible.

Unions now do absolutely nothing. The purposes for which they were created are null and void, because everything they were organized to address is now regulated by the government and mandated by law (such as workplace safety, work hours, adequate compensation and representation). You have things like OSHA now. Wikipedia on OSHA

We even have the government to thank for pay regulation, that's what that pesky minimum wage thing is. Even healthcare and pensions can be organized directly through the company they work for (and if you wait much longer, directly through the government itself). And all of this regulation and oversight is taken care of in the taxes that these workers pay already such as income tax, property tax, sales tax, etc. So why must we still go on with this ridiculous charade of charging outlandish dues for absolutely no service?

I don't know either.

We are allowing these people an interest in our lives that they do not deserve. They are sneaky and underhanded in the dealings that they do. They contribute millions to political campaigns (WTF!?!). What purpose could that possibly serve? Are they trying to expedite the process of donations to those politicians? No. They are serving their own interests. They hand pick the politicians that they know will not limit them (and will in fact extend their power). They have no motivation to be fair.

Boilermaker's endorse Obama

If you notice, every candidate they drooled over is a democrat. There is a reason. The democrat does NOT represent or defend average workers. It is their job to represent the union. Sure that sounds nice, but given everything we have gone through already I am sure you know exactly how traitorous this is.

I thought they were supposed to represent the workers. They don't people, they haven't for a very long time. The only thing they represent now is their own interest in keeping their cushy jobs, inflated pay, and completely ridiculous vacations all on the dime of the worker. So next time your back aches from all those union bills and you reach for the Tylenol, how 'bout instead getting the gorilla (aka Union) off of you and away from your pocket.

Courage at a Beauty Contest

2009-05-06T00:16:00.007-05:00

Catch up on the story!

The Question and Answer

Miss CA Respond's to controversy

When did it become a bad thing in this country - hell, in this WORLD - to speak your mind and stand up for the beliefs of your heart? When did we decide to go overboard on political correctness to the point of demonizing a 20-something girl for having courage in her convictions? I think we could learn something from this young woman. Even if we don't agree with her, what she did took guts and a level of maturity that it seems the entire country has not reached.

This is sad considering how nearly everyone (myself included) makes fun of beauty pageant contestants for that stereotypical, "world peace" answer. You know you did the same thing! So why now, when a contestant finally breaks out of that little box, do we feel the need to shoot her down at every available opportunity?

Some people would like us to believe that it would have been better for her to 'be a good little girl' and just feed everyone the usual line of BS that political correctness demands. Those people are of course the very same ones that were right next to me in line to take a swing at past beauty pageant contestants for their mind numbingly-stereotypical-shallow-idiotic lines about how "We all just need to get along, with smiles and giggles and sparkly unicorn farts, tee-hee!"

Pardon me, but holding hands and singing around a camp fire is just not my brand of fun, and I am glad that they finally found a contestant that could actually have an opinion and still maintain existence.

So my take on the situation is…

We have been silent for too long. And what has that silence gotten us? This is the fruit of our silence:
We can no longer disagree with political policy because we are called racist.
We can't tell a woman she is beautiful without being called sexist.
And, we can't criticize a certain senator anymore because we are called ageist.
What's the point? Yeah, these are awful things to be called and hard accusations to get rid of, but at this point who cares? I think the silence has gone on long enough. Can you even imagine where it will end up if we continue this ridiculous charade of political correctness? If we can't criticize the socialists, we're going to have a new Holocaust. If we can't criticize the people claiming that (insert any group) people are evil and should be killed, we're going to have a genocide. If we can't criticize the terrorists - people whom we know are just itching to kill us, our country is going to fall under severe attack.
We are so concerned with not offending someone that we put a gag in our own mouths in an effort to not hurt someone's feelings, and in the process, we sacrifice our own hearts and minds on the altar of 'social acceptance.' And it's not just social acceptance, it is the social acceptance of a bold and vocal few who have been using this era of political correctness to their own gain. And forgive me, but I always believed that America was about the desires of the many, not the disciples (and decibels) produced by the few. That isn't freedom, that's just peer pressure. Political Correctness is straight out of the halls of high school, and ought to have been left there. That's how it goes, the loud and proud misguided crowd offers the rest of us the forbidden fruit, and those who succumb to peer pressure take that bite that changes history - and the way things are going, it was one hell of a poisoned apple.

I would like to take this opportunity to offer you some advice: If you are doing things right, then you will piss people off, so use this as your gauge to how effective your argument is. The more furious they get, the more proud of yourself you can be (providing you are using a good argument and can actually back up your claims). If their only response is blind anger then you know they were incapable of responding with logic, and that is a good sign.

I say this not as an expert in arguments, but as a person who has spent much of her life arguing with people, defending one controversial view or another, and intentionally starting flame wars all over the place.

We all have a right to have our own personal opinions. Or do you agree that someone else's rights (or fight for those rights) trump someone else's? The Bill of Rights is not a game of Spades! If you will notice, the girl said that she personally believes marriage is between a man and woman, and good for her. What she didn't say is that gay people are freaks who don't deserve the right to marry. So why is everyone so up in arms as if that is what she said, word for word? What she said was not offensive; it was quite a polite way of expressing an opinion that is shared with much of the country (evidenced by the recent votes).

We are apparently living in a time that is Freedom of Speech-Lite: all the substance of speech with none of that pesky Freedom stuff that everyone is so tired of these days.

So here is this woman who is trying to live her life by her own beliefs and not compromising on them - good for her! We could take a lesson on that, too.
Compromise never gets you the best. It gets you less than the worst.

So what we are left with is this new frontier for Free Speech and Courage: Beauty Pageants.
God help us if we now require beauty queens to make us realize what is wrong with this country.

Letter to the President

2009-04-01T23:59:00.004-05:00

In the interest of full disclosure we here at the PMS Project will be posting the letters we have composed and sent to our leaders in Washington. This is one that I wrote a couple of days ago, under the news that Geithner will be asking for the authority to control wages. These days the government is out of control, and that bit of news sent me over the edge and into a rant, this is the result of that exercise.

Dear Mr. President,

Greetings from Alabama! I am a college student; it’s only in the last three years that I have taken a serious interest in what the government does. I have to say the previous administration disappointed me greatly, but Sir, your administration is making my faith in our government seriously waver. In your first 75 days in office you have already transformed the nation into something that will soon be unrecognizable. I find this despicable. I fell in love with this nation in history class when it dawned on me that for all of our faults and bumps in the road we still managed to be the greatest country on earth. I never wanted to live anywhere but here; that is, until now.

I am sure you have heard the phrase, “As easy as stealing candy from a baby.” Your budget, to me, does just this. You are stealing money that hasn’t even been earned yet from future generations while claiming to make life better for them. Your budget would enslave my children and grandchildren to your debt. I firmly believe this kind of budget is unconstitutional --- though your dismissal of our amazing and in some ways miraculous constitution makes me believe you don’t really care about that at all. It is becoming more and more apparent that the only real reason you specialized in constitutional law is so that you would know how to get around it and manipulate it even better. I find this kind of character loathsome in a man of your office.

Furthermore, your penchant for pushing through massive legislation that spends billions upon billions of dollars before anyone has a chance to read the entire bill is unquestionably unconstitutional. Not to mention it is a practice that ensures the public has no idea of what you are trying to do. Sir, this is beyond contemptible. Our elected officials are supposed to represent us, and in effect the citizens are supposed to be the superiors of the government. I realize that you have no real private sector experience and that fact may well contribute to your ignorance of how real business life works, but in the real America if you do something that completely changes a business without the permission of the owner of that business, you get fired and then sued. How can you in good conscience take the faith the voters (misled and foolish as they may be) that voted for you and twist that around in such a way?

I know you have immensely important things to do, what with your constant attacks on the people who question you and your guiding the unwaveringly faithful media in the direction of the fake news. But Sir, I do not see how the bonuses at AIG are at all illegal. If someone could cite the law that is violated, please? The people who were at fault for the problems at AIG are long gone! The people you are demonizing now are the people that were brought in to fix the problems --- they agreed to work for $1.00 a year, WITH the understanding that they would be compensated later on in the form of bonuses. That is not outrageous. What is offensive and highly dishonorable is your continual efforts to find a scapegoat for the things that are your fault and the fault of your cronies in Washington. Sir, it is very easy to look up who wrote the language of the contracts that included the bonuses. It was the people on YOUR staff. I am sorry, Sir, but you are a ridiculous parody of the kind of man that we need as president in these troubled times.

The most encouraging thing that I have seen recently is the breakout of Tea Parties all over the country. There are 4 planned in my great state alone. This helps me to remember that people are wising up, and it helps me to remember that your reign of terror may soon be over. I can not express how happy I am about that fact. I believe that if you had any semblance of honor and integrity you would step down from the post you won with lies and doubletalk.

Sincerely,

Rachel (last name omitted)

How Not To Shut Up

2008-10-21T20:28:00.008-05:00

Have you noticed that during the course of this presidential campaign anyone with half of a criticism of Barack Obama or his policies is quickly and efficiently labeled a racist? This is nothing more than an intimidation tactic to get those people to shut up, and a further benefit of this tactic is that your new racist has been completely discredited. Let’s face it, in this politically correct world no one wants to risk being called a racist because it is right up there in the list of hot button words that evoke a strong emotional response. Even if it is unfounded and completely false. So people harbor their questions and go on about their daily lives just hoping someone else will have the courage to step up and ask the potential President of The United States a question. Pointing out that these allegations of racism usually come when someone asks a question that can't or hasn't been answered yet. Do you think that is a coincidence? When people deflect questions in this kind of way and do so repeatedly there is a problem especially when these allegations come against widely respected people. When did it come to this point? Isn’t questioning our leaders our right? And if indeed, like I fear, people can no longer question our leaders what separates our wonderful freedom and Bill of Rights from a fascist dictatorship? If you fail to question your leaders, McCain included, then you have no say in anything they do. The latest and most grotesque evidence came just recently when, Congress and the Senate passed the 700 billion dollar bailout bill, even though an overwhelming majority of the country was (and still is) opposed to it. These people, who have gotten even less accomplished than President Bush, went against their own constituents. Those constituents were not the silent majority either, they stood up against the bailout, they sent mail (sometimes even hate mail), they called their representatives they did everything you are supposed to do to make your opinion known to the politicians in Washington. Apparently the politicians were busy putting on their blinders and stuffing their ears with cotton that week though because, like I said before, we were ignored.

Now my point is this: if you can’t question your leaders without fear of being metaphorically burned at the stake then democracy ceases to exist. You are then putting your future in the hands of one person, their one vote, and their one opinion. And that my friends is NOT America. If you let your fear of being labeled and cast out take over then you have joined the sea of scared silent people who have no right to complain the next time a politician does something you are against. Because just like voting, questioning is your duty. You are responsible for keeping these people in check with your opinions, not the other way around. America was not founded so that we could have the will of the few imposed on us, it was founded so that we the people could follow our own path. So if you like having the ability to decide your own future, make sure you keep it. Don’t sit around and be a party to the death of our freedoms and essentially our country. Personally, the 1st and 2nd Amendments are my two favorites. These two ensure the majority of our rights and those are the two that are in the most jeopardy at the moment, so please don't offer them up without a fight.

Call me a racist if you want. I am here to tell you I will still have opinions, I will still be loud, and I will still be questioning whoever gets elected. I am sure that there are people who criticize Senator Obama on the grounds of racism, but I am not one of them and I hope you aren’t either.

Bottom line: Please don’t shut up!

By Rachel