Ok, well, John Edwards...I'm ambivalent toward John Edwards. He seems ok, but I worry about how religion would influence his politics. He seems sincere.
Starting with John Edwards stance on the issues, I really like how his site has it vey clear where to find them. Just go to About, and Issues. 100 is our max, so he doesn't gain any, but hey, doesn't lose any either.
So, here's what he's about and my comments on each:
Restoring America's Moral Leadership in the World--Ok, that's a pretty arrogant statement IMO. Who said we were really the moral leaders? Ok, so we do good things sometimes, but I don't think I'd place us as the top of the moral tree. Arrogance of the statement aside, quite frankly I think we better clean up our OWN morals before we try to set an example for others. He has removing our troops from Iraq there...what he has is a bit closer to a plan, but it's not a plan, another idea. 1 point off, while it's better than Hillary, it's not much better. 99..
Naturally Health Care falls in there..it's a "key" issue--Ok, he gets his point back for having a REAL plan. However, I think we could fix this whole health care issue by not allowing insurance companies and hospitals to gouge the living fuck out of the public. And if it doesn't fix it (though I really think it would), it will come pretty damn close. I'm not sure if I approve of yet more tax cuts. And I don't agree with requiring all Americans can get it. If your plan turns out shitty, well, those that can't afford it are fucked again. Why don't we do a test run and then pay it out. My husband keeps telling me health insurance is not a secret mafia demand for protection money, requiring all Americans to pay for health care does not reassure me he's right.
Eliminating Poverty--Poverty is a very important issue, and he's got a very good, idea that states its goals clearly. But it's still not really a plan. And, not to be a party pooper, but you can't eliminate poverty. It's one thing for us as a nation to help out those that had something bad happen and make them poor. But this doesn't tell us if this plan also applies to those lazy ass bastards who are poor because they don't *want* to work. You know one, I know several, c'mon, do YOU want to support that guy/chick?
Strengthening America's Middle Class--First of all, if you were to actually eliminate poverty, would there be a middle class left? Just curious...this is worse than no plan, this is criticizing our current way of life, but not suggesting even ideas on how to fix it. He says what our goal should be, but how will John Edwards help us achieve that goal? 10 points off for no idea...90
Leading the Fight against Global Warming and Our Addiction to Foreign Oil--I know dick about global warming..I hear all kinds of shit and quite frankly, I have not done the research to come to an informed opinion. I have a feeling the whole things been fucked with so much that I probably won't actually get an informed opinion. However, I'm all for doing things to keep our earth healthy. I completely agree about fighting against our reliance on foreign oil, hell, I want to fight our reliance on oil period. I'm with him on this one. No real plan, but really is this something you CAN plan for? Or just work toward it? I vote give him a break on this one.
I think it's cool he addressed man issues that aren't THE issues...but naturally I want more. I want to know about key issues and small issues. Off to the next step...Since he stated his issues clearly, I actually don't have to do a search through his speeches and such, so we can move right along to his voting recrod at Vote-smart.org.
Oh, wow, I may have to redo Hillary's posting...I should have explored this site more. Well, her'es some more on how Edwards feels (note this is not his voting record, just the stance he takes. If you click on Edwards' name, you can read details):
I support a woman's right to choose and believe this that right is constitutionally protected. I also support funding for family planning.--Hmm..10 points back..not for agreeing with me, but protecting the individual. For what's it's worth, I'm pro-choice, anti-abortion. In fact, I've never met anyone pro-abortion. This means, I support a woman's right to choose, *I* would never choose abortion. But I do not deny that another woman should have the right to choose it, nor will I, or have I, judged her for her choice on it. SOME of us mind our own business and just be there for those we love.
At first I was a bit concerned over the fact that all the budget questions were not answered, however he leaves some information at the bottom: I have laid out a detailed agenda on taxes and spending. My plan includes: increased funding for education, health care, homeland security, and other priorities; funding for a strong national defense; tax fairness, including repeal of the Bush tax cuts for those making over $200,000; and tax cuts for the middle class and working poor. Hmm..well, if there is a detailed agenda, may I suggest putting it up on your website? I did not see a detailed plan. Perhaps though, I missed it. I would suggest putting it up in your navigation bar. Some of us want to see plans, others just want to know you have one, any one, after Bush. 20 points for saying you have a plan, but not leaving it where we can read it. You can't say "I have a plan trust me", ok, you can SAY it, but don't expect intelligent people to actually trust you. You're a politician.
I support a ban on contributions by federal lobbyists to federal officials, public financing of elections, and other measures to reduce the influence of special interests in Washington. I strongly supported the McCain-Feingold bill. I believe in equal rights and dignity for gay and lesbian Americans. --Oh wow, I'm sorry guys, I won't do anything about points with this one as I'll be so damned biased...but I've always DREAMED of banning contributions by federal lobbyists and public financing of elections. I mean I'm creaming all over myself as we speak....Ok, I know the McCain-Feingold bill tries to address this, but it's pretty soft IMO. I of course support gay rights and glad to see him do it, but many people have been fighting for this and the recognition that gays aren't treated equally doesn't wet me enough...a monkey could see that..a DEAD monkey could see that. The fact that ANY politician is talking about coming down hard on the "donations" the politicians get is awesome...And if he actually was to DO it...I think it would kill me...
I support greater emphasis on drug treatment and elimination of mandatory minimums for certain non-violent crimes. I also support the death penalty and reform of our probation and parole systems to provide more support and supervision.--Whoa..he's taken a definitive stance on the death penalty. Shit, I don't think I have a bad thing to say about this...mm..If you want my views on the death penalty and why I support it, I'll be happy to address that in another post. I am however extremely shocked to see his support of it. He always struck me a John Denver lovey dovey type...
I support keeping drugs out of the United States and vigorous prosecution of drug sales. I also support greater funding for drug treatment and alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders such as drug courts. --Really I can't say I support this statement. I'm of the opinion that if you want to fuck yourself up, knock yourself out. Now, vigorous prosecution of selling to children..I support that. To me this kind of statement is still a stand against freedom. If you want to fuck yourself up, go ahead, and if you hurt other people we'll throw the book at you. But hey, he's making a step in the right direction.
I support higher pay for teachers, especially in low-income schools; smaller high schools: afterschool programs; offering a free year of college at a public university to students who work 10 hours per week; and other education measures. --I support higher pay for teachers...smaller high schools, SOME after school programs...but how exactly does he plan to get the money? The free year at college? I'd like to hear more about that..it sounds good..but there could be a problem I'm just not seeing.
I support job training programs, an increase in the minimum wage, greater protection for unionization, and greater help for Americans balancing work and families. --Hmm..job training programs...that's good. Not everyone is cut out for college...and maybe this is a step into accepting an apprenticeship type program in certain jobs. I mean, do you REALLY need to go to 4 years of school to learn to be a plumber? Again, this sounds good, but it does say he SUPPORTS....so he'll support measures assuring these things, but will he instigate any? Is this a priority to him and how high? Just curious more than anything.
I support affirmative action. --I don't. AA was great and needed..but it can't stay forever. There comes a time when it must be phased out. Either your equal, or you get special considerations. These days there are other ways to be sure that someone less qualified and white does not get a job a more qualified black person should get. I'm sorry, but real equality has to start somewhere, and now's better than later. These days the boosts they give to black people to get in college seems more insulting to me. They are effectively saying black people are not up to the same standards as white. I have faith in the black people...I have faith they are up to the same standards as I am and I think it's past time to remove AA and allow black people to surpass the rather insulting standards we have for them.
Unlike President Bush, I support strong environmental protection, higher CAFE standards, protection of ANWR, and American leadership in the world's battle against global warming. --I agree with what the statment is saying for the most part. However, two small bones to pick here..and they are small, and seemingly petty, but if we don't hold our government officials up to some standard of behavior, then they'll just stay as shitty as they are now. 1. Did we really need the "Unlike President Bush"? Seems a bit catty, most of us are well aware the contempt he shows for our environment. Be above that. 2. WTF is with American leadership? Why do WE have to be the ones that lead the world? Why not, I don't know, just work together? For a country supposedly based on freedom and equality, we sure spend an inordinate amount of effort trying to be above the rest of the fuckin' world.
I believe the right to bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment. I also support reasonable measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, including closing the gun show loophole and vigorously enforcing gun laws. --Yay! Someone who wants to leave our guns alone! Look, for those of you watching the Jalestra network: I don't know how you got the absolutely retarded idea that banning guns in this country is going to make guns go away. If you take the guns away from the good guys, only the bad guys will have guns. And while gun crime MAY, MAY go down (due to limiting the ways of getting a gun), the same assholes bound to use them, will still get them. So all your doing is taking those people on the fence off...and then we get to wait until they go crazy in a different, more creative way. I don't like guns either, I think they are stupid. But just because the guns are stupid, doesn't mean I have to be. Another secret, if you EDUCATE your child about guns, they very very very rarely actually shoot someone on accident. If you notice, accidental shootings by children finding guns only increased in the last 15 years...WHEN PARENTS QUIT EDUCATING. Now, I DO agree there is really no reason for the average citizen to have those nice extreme automatic weapons. However, I believe we have the right to those as well. While we may all like to believe we're all too civilized for war(Yeah, right), IF we ever do get a leader bent on turning us into a police state, only our ability to fight back will save us. And I do believe that at some point in the future...there will be another American revolution. *shrugs* It's human nature..
I support a health care plan that would cover every child and millions of vulnerable adults, and also bring down health costs for all Americans. I support a strong Patients Bill of Rights, prescription drug benefit in Medicare, and stem cell research. --WTF do we need health insurance for anyhow. Did you guys know that once upon a time you only got health care to protect you if something really serious happened? And that health care costs were cheaper? Some of us don't really care to pay protection money to the health insurance mafia...Why not lower health costs???
I support policies that welcome immigrants and protect our security, including an earned legalization program for those who work hard and play by the rules. --If you don't support a statement like this you're an asshole or a bigot (or both). We can't shut ourselves off from the world. It'll just make us Christians...some of you might like that, the rest of us are crying now.
I will reorient U.S. assitance toward supporting open societies, giving more aid to nongovernmental bodies, and cutting assistance to dictators uninterested in democracy and upholding human rights. --Ok, I agree..to a point. Why do they have to be interested in democracy? Our form of government is not the best for everyone. If someone has a peaceful monarchy..knock yourself out. Theocracy's scare me, but if some country OTHER THAN AMERICA can pull it off with decency and peace, go ahead. NONE OF MY BUSINESS.
To rebuild Iraq, I will immediately turn over oversight of the civilian authority to the United Nations. The U.S. must play a central role in helping Iraq become safe and secure. I will work with our military to ensure that we have the right mix of forces to handle counter-insurgency and peace enforcement operations, and that we have enough forces on the ground to do the job. I would also involve NATO immediately, with the goal to eventually placing NATO in charge of Iraq's security. I will establish specific timetables to transfer authority to the Iraqis to give them more control over their economy, civilian authority, and security, and to help them create a new government that defends their freedom and represents their diversity. And I will establish an independent oversight commission to ensure that the contract process is competitive, fair, and transparent.--Hmm.. sounds good...draw up some more specifics and get back to me.
For more information about my positions on a range of issues, I urge you to read my detailed, 60-page policy booklet, "Real Solutions for America," which is available at http://www.johnedwards2004.com/real-solutions.asp.
It all sounds good. Maybe it is. I'll take a look over his voting record and we'll move along.
Wow...not too impressed with his voting record. There were some very important votes that he just did't vote on for some reason or another. Scared to rock the boat? Didn't want to alienate someone? Hmm..I'm really not sure what to do about this...his voting record is sketchy and, to me, a bit suspicious. I don't feel John Edwards has been properly tested for being our president. Seems like he has a lot of talk, not so much to back it up....
So, I'd vote John Edwards before Hillary Clinton, but neither is *my* candidate. Kind of a shame..I voted for Kerry in the last election so I was already more positively inclined to John Edwards than any of the other candidates...I feel kind of disappointed...
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
You know what drives me absolutely batshit?
http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVA...=29524&pid=1556
Then there is James E. Enstrom, a cancer research rogue at UCLA. He claims that most research about second-hand smoke reflects the efforts of a vast disinformation campaign that perverts data with hyperbole. Enstrom might be a credible source -- if his research wasn't funded by Philip Morris. A timeline compiled by Jon Krueger, a contributor for tobacco industry watchdog tobacco.org, reveals that Enstrom incessantly begged the tobacco industry for money to support his research. J.R. Reynolds and Philip Morris, over a span of 25 years, gladly obliged, providing more than half a million dollars.
But the difference between studies conducted by the University and researchers like Enstrom is that the University's research probably won't produce data in support of the tobacco industry.
I call bullshit. No, I believe that Enstrom might be funded by Philliip Morris. What I call bullshit on is how it is wrong to accept money from Phillip Morris because of their vested interest in their agenda, but it is NOT wrong to decide public policy based on anti-tobacco funded studies, pharma studies, and government studies. ALL with also a vested interest in their agenda.
Anti-tobacco has an agenda. If you believe this is a health issue, then tell me why tobacco is not banned? And why is anti-tobacco, supposedly so worried about everyone else's health (including forcing smokers to quit) not asking for the ban of it's use, sale, and manufacture? You are aware of how much funding they get to "prove" tobacco is naughty naughty?
Pharmaceautical studies--Did you ever wonder, if nicotine is so dangerous a drug that you can't smoke it, and you can't chew it...why can any 8 year old walk into Wal-Mart and buy nicotine patches and gum? There is nothing against the law about a child buying this stuff. In fact it's encouraged. Ah, I see, kids shouldn't do the evil nicotine unless Pharma sells it. Ah, I see. And umm..how much money do you make again for pushing your products as a "stop smoking" aid when it's been proven that only 24% of those that quit smoking do so with NRT? And wait, how do the rest quit again? Ah, cold turkey...wow...funny how cigarettes are as "addictive as heroin" but heroin users can't seem to jump that ship without more help than a fuckin' patch huh? And who keeps telling you that you'll NEVER succeed quitting cold turkey? Aww...that would be those disinterested Pharma companies huh? No agenda there...
And let's go to goverment--Naughty naughty government, who not only receive (each state) MSA money (that's master settlement) but also receive..hold on, let me check that--14.7 billion dollars to the state of Texas for suing cigarette companies, then let's include the 1.00 tax hikethis year estimated to bring in 986 million dollars
And according to that site smokers cost $10 billion a year to care for. So even IF, IF they were actually using the money to cover smoker's health care (which they aren't,more on that),we're still paying about 5 million more (and if you think the cost of that lawsuit isn't being passed on to the consumer, that's smokers, you're a goddamned idiot). But what they are actually doing with that money is get ready
balancing the state budget and funding education. Yeah, I know that last link says it will fund tobacco education. No it won't. Ricky Perry stated very clearly that it's to fund schools. And in the meantime, the non-smokers see a nice school property tax cut. No vested interest there, huh?
So, umm..where's the hypocrisy? Oh, you bet your sweet ass I call BULLSHIT...
By the way, you better hope I don't quit smoking, or Texas will crash and burn..
I support your child's education, I buy by the carton.
Then there is James E. Enstrom, a cancer research rogue at UCLA. He claims that most research about second-hand smoke reflects the efforts of a vast disinformation campaign that perverts data with hyperbole. Enstrom might be a credible source -- if his research wasn't funded by Philip Morris. A timeline compiled by Jon Krueger, a contributor for tobacco industry watchdog tobacco.org, reveals that Enstrom incessantly begged the tobacco industry for money to support his research. J.R. Reynolds and Philip Morris, over a span of 25 years, gladly obliged, providing more than half a million dollars.
But the difference between studies conducted by the University and researchers like Enstrom is that the University's research probably won't produce data in support of the tobacco industry.
I call bullshit. No, I believe that Enstrom might be funded by Philliip Morris. What I call bullshit on is how it is wrong to accept money from Phillip Morris because of their vested interest in their agenda, but it is NOT wrong to decide public policy based on anti-tobacco funded studies, pharma studies, and government studies. ALL with also a vested interest in their agenda.
Anti-tobacco has an agenda. If you believe this is a health issue, then tell me why tobacco is not banned? And why is anti-tobacco, supposedly so worried about everyone else's health (including forcing smokers to quit) not asking for the ban of it's use, sale, and manufacture? You are aware of how much funding they get to "prove" tobacco is naughty naughty?
Pharmaceautical studies--Did you ever wonder, if nicotine is so dangerous a drug that you can't smoke it, and you can't chew it...why can any 8 year old walk into Wal-Mart and buy nicotine patches and gum? There is nothing against the law about a child buying this stuff. In fact it's encouraged. Ah, I see, kids shouldn't do the evil nicotine unless Pharma sells it. Ah, I see. And umm..how much money do you make again for pushing your products as a "stop smoking" aid when it's been proven that only 24% of those that quit smoking do so with NRT? And wait, how do the rest quit again? Ah, cold turkey...wow...funny how cigarettes are as "addictive as heroin" but heroin users can't seem to jump that ship without more help than a fuckin' patch huh? And who keeps telling you that you'll NEVER succeed quitting cold turkey? Aww...that would be those disinterested Pharma companies huh? No agenda there...
And let's go to goverment--Naughty naughty government, who not only receive (each state) MSA money (that's master settlement) but also receive..hold on, let me check that--14.7 billion dollars to the state of Texas for suing cigarette companies, then let's include the 1.00 tax hikethis year estimated to bring in 986 million dollars
And according to that site smokers cost $10 billion a year to care for. So even IF, IF they were actually using the money to cover smoker's health care (which they aren't,more on that),we're still paying about 5 million more (and if you think the cost of that lawsuit isn't being passed on to the consumer, that's smokers, you're a goddamned idiot). But what they are actually doing with that money is get ready
balancing the state budget and funding education. Yeah, I know that last link says it will fund tobacco education. No it won't. Ricky Perry stated very clearly that it's to fund schools. And in the meantime, the non-smokers see a nice school property tax cut. No vested interest there, huh?
So, umm..where's the hypocrisy? Oh, you bet your sweet ass I call BULLSHIT...
By the way, you better hope I don't quit smoking, or Texas will crash and burn..
I support your child's education, I buy by the carton.
Mm...
*sigh* My whole presidential discovery thing didn't go so well. In the end I fucked up and appealed to emotionalism..but anyone who has kids gets emotional. Since it was not really about appealing to you, it was my search to be fair...I wasn't appealing to emotionalims, I just got emotional. I'm sorry, there's NOTHING Hillary Clinton can do to get me to vote for her. I understand we have Congress, but quite frankly, the didn't do so well when Bush and Republicans were in office, pardon me if my faith in them is gone.
Understand, I WANT a female president. I believe we're ready for one, I just don't believe Hillary Clinton is that female. If you want ot get down to it, I have a gut feeling that she's going to do more to harm this nation than help it. Not globally, but in THIS country. She'll harm us. I'd rather wait for a better woman to come along. One who understands what being a mother REALLY is. I feel that she must not have actually raised her daughter, or she might understand how the rest of us wouldn't be quite so quick to turn ours over to other people. One who also understands there's a time to talk and a time to fight. That realizes our Constitution is more than a pretty document from a long time ago. I feel that Hillary Clinton has some feeling for her fellow man...but I think maybe she needs to redirect her "nurturing" instinct to her child and not us and ours.
You just don't fuck with my kids.
Understand, I WANT a female president. I believe we're ready for one, I just don't believe Hillary Clinton is that female. If you want ot get down to it, I have a gut feeling that she's going to do more to harm this nation than help it. Not globally, but in THIS country. She'll harm us. I'd rather wait for a better woman to come along. One who understands what being a mother REALLY is. I feel that she must not have actually raised her daughter, or she might understand how the rest of us wouldn't be quite so quick to turn ours over to other people. One who also understands there's a time to talk and a time to fight. That realizes our Constitution is more than a pretty document from a long time ago. I feel that Hillary Clinton has some feeling for her fellow man...but I think maybe she needs to redirect her "nurturing" instinct to her child and not us and ours.
You just don't fuck with my kids.
Analysis of a presidential wannabe
Well, I've decided with the coming presidential race, we should find out some background on our hopefuls. It's never too soon to educate yourself. And I've decided to start with Hillary Clinton, because I fucking HATE her. However, I am aware that the biggest part of my extreme dislike is NOT based on rationality, I just get the feeling she's not a good person. I DO disagree with some of her beliefs on where America should go, but I REALLY dislike her. How much? I would vote for George Bush before I would Hillary Clinton. I truly feel in my heart that she will fuck this country to a fare thee well. Yes, I fully believe she would fuck it up worse than Bush. So, let's found out how right I am, ok, or how wrong I am...*sings songs* but I'm voting I'm riiiight...Ok, I know, I'm going in biased, but hey, I'm Jalestra, not Mother Theresa, work with me here. This is NOT your opportunity to compare her to other candidates. We're not talking about *other* candidates, we are discussing Hillary Clinton. All information is found from her official website HillaryClinton.com
You have to really search for what Clinton believes, while other candidates in MY experience have their views on the front page of their web central, hers were nowhere to be found except in her biography. IMO, that is a strike for *any* candidate. The public wants to know where you stand...we really don't care where you grew up. You guys try to out-poor each other anyhow. Out of 100...Hillary is down to 99..and some questions. Is there some underlying reason that she doesn't want to make it obvious where she stands? Is it *really* necessary for us to explore her entire lifeline instead of to just say it? I think this is at least partly right. Don't want to alienate anyone yet right?
Ok, having read the biography, I'm still clueless on how she stands on the "key" issues. I see how she voted, and that's important, but I want to see what she's telling the American people she stands for. I want to see how what she says aligns with how she voted. I do see she fought for women's rights, but how? I see she sped up and made easier the adoption process...how? I know these are things we can all look up. But when you think of the American people in general we don't think of them educating themselves *cough*Bush*cough*. I take a good chunk of points off for lack of clarity in how she stands. 20 points. At the moment we are the average American..we don't care if you can chase the info down. Clinton drops to 79 points. I'm sorry, but we all know the American people just don't do much reading...and they are very easy to fool...why all the vagueness? Probably because the American people jud don't do much reading and are easy to fool. So she can step up and make as many contradictory feel good speeches as she likes. This is not an attack on Hillary Clinton, they all do it. She's just being quite a bit more vague than I'm used to.
On to the next logical step: Speeches. Surely those will give us a better idea of how she stands...
Wait, I'm a lazy American (or yes, actually even a BUSY American), I don't want to read speeches!? WAit wait, here's Talk Action! Ok, what does it say?
Ending our country's dependence on foreign oil will take real leadership. Hillary proposed a simple idea to help end the cycle of dependence: put some of the oil industry's windfall profits into a fund that would help develop practical new sources of renewable energy.
What do you think about Hillary's plan? Should we use some of the oil company's record profits to fund alternative energy research? What are some other ideas to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?
Ok, for the fucking record--THAT'S NOT A PLAN! That's an idea...when you list pros/cons, how to implement it, costs..predicted results..THAT'S a plan. This is simply an idea. What do I think about her "plan"? Not enough information. I can't tell you what I think except it has possibilities...give me more information, I can tell you if I want to fall behind it!
The President owes an on-going consultation to Congress and owes straight talk to the country. We have to get this right. The Congress should debate our current course, including the current silent-treatment policy toward our adversaries.
We want to know what you think. Read Hillary's speech and share your thoughts with us about the role Congress must play to make sure that President Bush doesn't repeat history.
Title of Speech pretty much says it all: IRAN: No Military Action On Iran Without Congressional Authority
Ok, this is a gimme...I mean, we all can easily agree with that. Does anyone else get the feeling that she's testing the waters before committing an opinion? Jeez, she's not even subtle about it!
Fine, she wants to be vague..then we'll move along to her voting record. However, the fact that she cannot seem to state a flat out opinion one way or the other, plan, something, will definitely stand against her in the end. FWIW, this is not increasing my opinion of the woman. Even with a good voting record, I cannot help but feel that she is deliberately being extremely vague for no other reason than to drum up votes. This "conversation with America" is not helpful at all...I mean, hey, I can talk pretty, that's not a serious discussion. More like being a pain in the ass. Yeah, I know, kiss ass to become president, but really...do you think THIS is the best idea? Hell, it could be the reason we end up with idiots as president is because you manage piss anyone off with a decent, well used brain.
*sighs* Moving on--Vote-smart.org for her voting record. Oh now, momma likes...this is so organized, so clear...fuck Hillary, Vote-smart.org gets 500 points for organization!
Abortion--Now, this isn't just important as a woman's right to her body. This is also an indication of how you intend to vote in the individual freedoms of a people. Abortion is a *personal* choice. Noone's business but the woman's. As such, and since objections to abortion are based on another individual's opinions or beliefs, this is an indication in how important it is to grant man's freedoms based on a rule of freedom rather than a rule of belief. One person's beliefs/feelings should NEVER decide another's course of action in regards to their own life. And while you may feel that is a life inside her, well, she's the one carrying it and her feelings count more than yours.
Now, it doesn't matter how the bill turns out, what matters is how it was voted on.
Hillary Clinton voted yes on hte Unintended pregnancy act. An act that:
- Increases funding and access to family planning services
- Funds legislation that requires equitable prescription coverage for contraceptives under health plans
- Funds legislation that would create and expand teen pregnancy prevention programs and education programs concerning emergency contraceptives
She voted no twice against prohibiting partial birth abortion.
She voted yes to Military Abortion Amendment:
- Would not require public funding of abortions, individual seeking the abortion would be responsible for all cost associated with the procedure
- Would overturn the ban that currently allows abortions in military hospitals only in cases when the life of the woman is at risk, or in cases of rape or incest
Ok, this shows a respect for an individual's choices. Let's hope that continues.
Agricultural she voted yes twice on Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. Go look it up at the site, but this sounds good. Not being a farmer I cannot attest to the effectiveness...but this is basically, as far as I can tell, a good bill..let me rephrase that, the intentions are good. Without more information, well, I can't tell you. I have kids, I can't keep up with *everything*.
Up until education I find that she tends to side with the people more often than not. owever, she voted yes for the No Child Left Behind Act. Quite frankly, everybody said it was a clusterfuck from the beginning, and all I've seen is proof we are right. It would be a small thing except one would think we wouldn't fuck with our next generations' education. A fuck up like this, that is having bad effects years later is not a minor issue. Any suffering in education on this level will effect what these children have learned for years. Education is NOT a minor issue, and I fail to see why she agreed with it. Teachers are "teaching to the test" now more than ever, and the government has done nothing but insure that is what they HAVE to do. Well, believe you me, we'll get into public education another time.
We do well again until:Firearms Manufacturers Protection bill A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.
I think it is extremely unfair to sue *any* company because someone misused their product. I beleive this only encourages the idiot lawsuits we have now. It's one thing to sue a company for making a gun that when fired correctly blows up, and another to say "since you made that gun, YOU are responsible for how people use it". Noone hails Smith &Wesson as heroes when police shoot down a deadly threat, noone should penalize them when a criminal shoots down an innocent. The individual engaging in the behavior is the responsible party, not the creator of the object in question. Do we sue GE because Susie Q stuck John Q's hand in their blender? Or perhaps we ought to just worry about arresting Susie Q, and not blame it on "well, if GE hadn't *made* the blender, it wouldn't have happened*. I have to say that this vote against freedom. REmember, if you want the freedom to do as you please, with it comes the responsibility to take the consequences of your actions.
Ok, so according to her voting record alone, I would have to say that she comes off for freedom more often than against, however, I do feel her stance on the FireArms bill is a huge step against adults taking responsibility for their own actions. Sometimes giving the people what they need is not giving them what they want. I would have to raise her from 79 to an 82.
Now we go into behavior: Well, it really bothers me that we can't get our shit in Iraq straight and she's already entertaining thoughts of attacking Iran. Why don't we clean up one mess before we move on to the next huh? But I find this sentence chilling: "We need to use every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force,"
But Jalestra, you say, they are making nuclear weapons! Are you fuckin' sure? I mean, deja vu? Hello? Hey Dipshit, don't you think we ought to put forth a little more effort this time, a tiny bit, just a smidgeon in MAKING FUCKING SURE!? Holy shit, what kind of fucking moron are you...oh sorry, wrong rant. Anyhow, come fuckin' on, how fuckin' dense do you have to be????
1. Might be smart to be sure that we can get out of our CURRENT war, make sure it's cleaned up, give our troops a bit of a rest. Do a complete investigation? Hmm...or is that too fuckin' easy?
2. WHERE THE FUCK IS BIN LADEN?? You idiots do realize there's a great chance he's hiding out making new plans. And you are aware, right, that HE is the one who instigated ATTACKING our country? We're in one war over a lie, and she's ready to commit to another based on MAYBE??? And we still haven't paid back the fucker who ACTUALLY KILLED PEOPLE IN OUR OWN FUCKIN' COUNTRY. I'm not saying NO to war, I'm just saying, let's make sure THIS time..hmm..a little tiny smidgeon of fuckin' intelligence this time around, I mean, come on, it's not like I'm asking for the MOON! Sorry, with being so quick to jump into yelling about military force I definitely have drop her 30 points...52 points...I'm not saying these guys are trustworthy, but shit, even an idiot ought to see the sense of not jumping on the military balloon quite so quickly. And has anyone ever thought that if she is ready to say military force, after what we did in Iraq, Iran MIGHT go ahead and get started...I mean shit, if someone comes and is having a gun fight with the people next door over a lie, and you disagree with him a tiny bit (even if he's right), if he yells I'm gonna shoot you next, won't you barricade in and start stocking up on weapons? I mean, shit, he's already shooting the neighbors, so he's got a nice history of jumping in with both feet.
Ok, where were we?
Well, actually, we're in the final step. I'm sorry, but this is where Clinton loses all her freedom points. "It takes a village to raise a child". Parents beware..let's go over some ideas Clinton has: *check her book, It Takes a Village*
"a consensus of values and a common vision of what we can do today, individually and collectively, to build strong families and communities."--Ok, and who's values and common vision will we use? Someone's not going to agree, and you can't use everyone's. They contradict each other too much. I mean, let's go...I believe teaching children religion is criminal, You think your child should be exposed to YOUR religion only..so who wins? We both have a point...who wins? I believe that children need freedom to breathe, grow, think..other parents want constant structure...who wins? Wait what if YOU have one child that turns out great and I have one that turns out great, but we COMPLETELY different beliefs in how to raise a child? Who wins?
She insists that there will be times when "the village itself [read: the federal government] must act in place of parents" and accept "those responsibilities in all our names through the authority we vest in government."--Ah, I see, so our children will be raised by the government. Ok, let's ignore the fact that invades our rights as parents to guide our children into life in a way we feel best prepares them for the real world. I've met lots of governmently raised children....they didn't turn out so well for the most part. Yeah, in fact I'd definitely say it's a very bad idea.
Don't worry though single people! You get indoctrinated too! "Videos with scenes of commonsense baby care--how to burp an infant, what to do when soap gets in his eyes, how to make a baby with an earache comfortable--could be running continuously in doctors' offices, clinics, hospitals, motor vehicle offices, or any other place where people gather and have to wait."--ooo..how...1984. Hillary Clinton has had ONE child..ONE...I've had FOUR...I think I got it by now thank you. And really, the purpose of inundating those without children constantly about how to care for them..yeah, that goes over really well.
And quite fuckin' frankly, some of us have ideas that we think are abusive in raising children, although they aren't considered such in society. *I* happen to think teaching children religion is criminal, leashing children like dogs should be outlawed, and sometimes a spanking is what it takes. YOU may find all these thing sthe opposite. Do you really feel you want to put another parent or yourself through the ache in your heart when you feel your child is mistreated? I mean, don't you feel it when someone ELSE's child is mistreated? How would you feel if it was YOURS? That you feel deep deep down, that what someone is doing to a child is wrong and you want to cry? Because I feel that way about leashing children and teaching them religion, and I can just imagine the pain I'd feel when I felt my children weren't being given the respect I feel they deserve in favor of treating them like animals and indoctrinating them. My children don't need 500 parents, they need me, they're mommy...the one who loves them and does the best I can by them. We deserve to have the freedom to give them that...and I guess I know now my dislike of Hillary Clinton does have a rational basis and an irrational one. I love my children...
Hillary, YOU FAIL.
You have to really search for what Clinton believes, while other candidates in MY experience have their views on the front page of their web central, hers were nowhere to be found except in her biography. IMO, that is a strike for *any* candidate. The public wants to know where you stand...we really don't care where you grew up. You guys try to out-poor each other anyhow. Out of 100...Hillary is down to 99..and some questions. Is there some underlying reason that she doesn't want to make it obvious where she stands? Is it *really* necessary for us to explore her entire lifeline instead of to just say it? I think this is at least partly right. Don't want to alienate anyone yet right?
Ok, having read the biography, I'm still clueless on how she stands on the "key" issues. I see how she voted, and that's important, but I want to see what she's telling the American people she stands for. I want to see how what she says aligns with how she voted. I do see she fought for women's rights, but how? I see she sped up and made easier the adoption process...how? I know these are things we can all look up. But when you think of the American people in general we don't think of them educating themselves *cough*Bush*cough*. I take a good chunk of points off for lack of clarity in how she stands. 20 points. At the moment we are the average American..we don't care if you can chase the info down. Clinton drops to 79 points. I'm sorry, but we all know the American people just don't do much reading...and they are very easy to fool...why all the vagueness? Probably because the American people jud don't do much reading and are easy to fool. So she can step up and make as many contradictory feel good speeches as she likes. This is not an attack on Hillary Clinton, they all do it. She's just being quite a bit more vague than I'm used to.
On to the next logical step: Speeches. Surely those will give us a better idea of how she stands...
Wait, I'm a lazy American (or yes, actually even a BUSY American), I don't want to read speeches!? WAit wait, here's Talk Action! Ok, what does it say?
Ending our country's dependence on foreign oil will take real leadership. Hillary proposed a simple idea to help end the cycle of dependence: put some of the oil industry's windfall profits into a fund that would help develop practical new sources of renewable energy.
What do you think about Hillary's plan? Should we use some of the oil company's record profits to fund alternative energy research? What are some other ideas to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?
Ok, for the fucking record--THAT'S NOT A PLAN! That's an idea...when you list pros/cons, how to implement it, costs..predicted results..THAT'S a plan. This is simply an idea. What do I think about her "plan"? Not enough information. I can't tell you what I think except it has possibilities...give me more information, I can tell you if I want to fall behind it!
The President owes an on-going consultation to Congress and owes straight talk to the country. We have to get this right. The Congress should debate our current course, including the current silent-treatment policy toward our adversaries.
We want to know what you think. Read Hillary's speech and share your thoughts with us about the role Congress must play to make sure that President Bush doesn't repeat history.
Title of Speech pretty much says it all: IRAN: No Military Action On Iran Without Congressional Authority
Ok, this is a gimme...I mean, we all can easily agree with that. Does anyone else get the feeling that she's testing the waters before committing an opinion? Jeez, she's not even subtle about it!
Fine, she wants to be vague..then we'll move along to her voting record. However, the fact that she cannot seem to state a flat out opinion one way or the other, plan, something, will definitely stand against her in the end. FWIW, this is not increasing my opinion of the woman. Even with a good voting record, I cannot help but feel that she is deliberately being extremely vague for no other reason than to drum up votes. This "conversation with America" is not helpful at all...I mean, hey, I can talk pretty, that's not a serious discussion. More like being a pain in the ass. Yeah, I know, kiss ass to become president, but really...do you think THIS is the best idea? Hell, it could be the reason we end up with idiots as president is because you manage piss anyone off with a decent, well used brain.
*sighs* Moving on--Vote-smart.org for her voting record. Oh now, momma likes...this is so organized, so clear...fuck Hillary, Vote-smart.org gets 500 points for organization!
Abortion--Now, this isn't just important as a woman's right to her body. This is also an indication of how you intend to vote in the individual freedoms of a people. Abortion is a *personal* choice. Noone's business but the woman's. As such, and since objections to abortion are based on another individual's opinions or beliefs, this is an indication in how important it is to grant man's freedoms based on a rule of freedom rather than a rule of belief. One person's beliefs/feelings should NEVER decide another's course of action in regards to their own life. And while you may feel that is a life inside her, well, she's the one carrying it and her feelings count more than yours.
Now, it doesn't matter how the bill turns out, what matters is how it was voted on.
Hillary Clinton voted yes on hte Unintended pregnancy act. An act that:
- Increases funding and access to family planning services
- Funds legislation that requires equitable prescription coverage for contraceptives under health plans
- Funds legislation that would create and expand teen pregnancy prevention programs and education programs concerning emergency contraceptives
She voted no twice against prohibiting partial birth abortion.
She voted yes to Military Abortion Amendment:
- Would not require public funding of abortions, individual seeking the abortion would be responsible for all cost associated with the procedure
- Would overturn the ban that currently allows abortions in military hospitals only in cases when the life of the woman is at risk, or in cases of rape or incest
Ok, this shows a respect for an individual's choices. Let's hope that continues.
Agricultural she voted yes twice on Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. Go look it up at the site, but this sounds good. Not being a farmer I cannot attest to the effectiveness...but this is basically, as far as I can tell, a good bill..let me rephrase that, the intentions are good. Without more information, well, I can't tell you. I have kids, I can't keep up with *everything*.
Up until education I find that she tends to side with the people more often than not. owever, she voted yes for the No Child Left Behind Act. Quite frankly, everybody said it was a clusterfuck from the beginning, and all I've seen is proof we are right. It would be a small thing except one would think we wouldn't fuck with our next generations' education. A fuck up like this, that is having bad effects years later is not a minor issue. Any suffering in education on this level will effect what these children have learned for years. Education is NOT a minor issue, and I fail to see why she agreed with it. Teachers are "teaching to the test" now more than ever, and the government has done nothing but insure that is what they HAVE to do. Well, believe you me, we'll get into public education another time.
We do well again until:Firearms Manufacturers Protection bill A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.
I think it is extremely unfair to sue *any* company because someone misused their product. I beleive this only encourages the idiot lawsuits we have now. It's one thing to sue a company for making a gun that when fired correctly blows up, and another to say "since you made that gun, YOU are responsible for how people use it". Noone hails Smith &Wesson as heroes when police shoot down a deadly threat, noone should penalize them when a criminal shoots down an innocent. The individual engaging in the behavior is the responsible party, not the creator of the object in question. Do we sue GE because Susie Q stuck John Q's hand in their blender? Or perhaps we ought to just worry about arresting Susie Q, and not blame it on "well, if GE hadn't *made* the blender, it wouldn't have happened*. I have to say that this vote against freedom. REmember, if you want the freedom to do as you please, with it comes the responsibility to take the consequences of your actions.
Ok, so according to her voting record alone, I would have to say that she comes off for freedom more often than against, however, I do feel her stance on the FireArms bill is a huge step against adults taking responsibility for their own actions. Sometimes giving the people what they need is not giving them what they want. I would have to raise her from 79 to an 82.
Now we go into behavior: Well, it really bothers me that we can't get our shit in Iraq straight and she's already entertaining thoughts of attacking Iran. Why don't we clean up one mess before we move on to the next huh? But I find this sentence chilling: "We need to use every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force,"
But Jalestra, you say, they are making nuclear weapons! Are you fuckin' sure? I mean, deja vu? Hello? Hey Dipshit, don't you think we ought to put forth a little more effort this time, a tiny bit, just a smidgeon in MAKING FUCKING SURE!? Holy shit, what kind of fucking moron are you...oh sorry, wrong rant. Anyhow, come fuckin' on, how fuckin' dense do you have to be????
1. Might be smart to be sure that we can get out of our CURRENT war, make sure it's cleaned up, give our troops a bit of a rest. Do a complete investigation? Hmm...or is that too fuckin' easy?
2. WHERE THE FUCK IS BIN LADEN?? You idiots do realize there's a great chance he's hiding out making new plans. And you are aware, right, that HE is the one who instigated ATTACKING our country? We're in one war over a lie, and she's ready to commit to another based on MAYBE??? And we still haven't paid back the fucker who ACTUALLY KILLED PEOPLE IN OUR OWN FUCKIN' COUNTRY. I'm not saying NO to war, I'm just saying, let's make sure THIS time..hmm..a little tiny smidgeon of fuckin' intelligence this time around, I mean, come on, it's not like I'm asking for the MOON! Sorry, with being so quick to jump into yelling about military force I definitely have drop her 30 points...52 points...I'm not saying these guys are trustworthy, but shit, even an idiot ought to see the sense of not jumping on the military balloon quite so quickly. And has anyone ever thought that if she is ready to say military force, after what we did in Iraq, Iran MIGHT go ahead and get started...I mean shit, if someone comes and is having a gun fight with the people next door over a lie, and you disagree with him a tiny bit (even if he's right), if he yells I'm gonna shoot you next, won't you barricade in and start stocking up on weapons? I mean, shit, he's already shooting the neighbors, so he's got a nice history of jumping in with both feet.
Ok, where were we?
Well, actually, we're in the final step. I'm sorry, but this is where Clinton loses all her freedom points. "It takes a village to raise a child". Parents beware..let's go over some ideas Clinton has: *check her book, It Takes a Village*
"a consensus of values and a common vision of what we can do today, individually and collectively, to build strong families and communities."--Ok, and who's values and common vision will we use? Someone's not going to agree, and you can't use everyone's. They contradict each other too much. I mean, let's go...I believe teaching children religion is criminal, You think your child should be exposed to YOUR religion only..so who wins? We both have a point...who wins? I believe that children need freedom to breathe, grow, think..other parents want constant structure...who wins? Wait what if YOU have one child that turns out great and I have one that turns out great, but we COMPLETELY different beliefs in how to raise a child? Who wins?
She insists that there will be times when "the village itself [read: the federal government] must act in place of parents" and accept "those responsibilities in all our names through the authority we vest in government."--Ah, I see, so our children will be raised by the government. Ok, let's ignore the fact that invades our rights as parents to guide our children into life in a way we feel best prepares them for the real world. I've met lots of governmently raised children....they didn't turn out so well for the most part. Yeah, in fact I'd definitely say it's a very bad idea.
Don't worry though single people! You get indoctrinated too! "Videos with scenes of commonsense baby care--how to burp an infant, what to do when soap gets in his eyes, how to make a baby with an earache comfortable--could be running continuously in doctors' offices, clinics, hospitals, motor vehicle offices, or any other place where people gather and have to wait."--ooo..how...1984. Hillary Clinton has had ONE child..ONE...I've had FOUR...I think I got it by now thank you. And really, the purpose of inundating those without children constantly about how to care for them..yeah, that goes over really well.
And quite fuckin' frankly, some of us have ideas that we think are abusive in raising children, although they aren't considered such in society. *I* happen to think teaching children religion is criminal, leashing children like dogs should be outlawed, and sometimes a spanking is what it takes. YOU may find all these thing sthe opposite. Do you really feel you want to put another parent or yourself through the ache in your heart when you feel your child is mistreated? I mean, don't you feel it when someone ELSE's child is mistreated? How would you feel if it was YOURS? That you feel deep deep down, that what someone is doing to a child is wrong and you want to cry? Because I feel that way about leashing children and teaching them religion, and I can just imagine the pain I'd feel when I felt my children weren't being given the respect I feel they deserve in favor of treating them like animals and indoctrinating them. My children don't need 500 parents, they need me, they're mommy...the one who loves them and does the best I can by them. We deserve to have the freedom to give them that...and I guess I know now my dislike of Hillary Clinton does have a rational basis and an irrational one. I love my children...
Hillary, YOU FAIL.
Monday, February 26, 2007
FUCK!!!
I've been reading a new blog..link in the side pocket there. It's an old entry on this fundie's problem with "profanity". And I kind of felt the need to leave a comment, but why? But I did feel the need to point something out:
Ok, so I admit I probably wouldn't use FUCK so much if people hadn't managed to make it so FUN. To address several points about profanity:
1. Fuck sounds great. Darnit just doesn't really get the point across. FUCK..well listen to it, it's a very harsh word...it sounds good when you've been frustrated beyond all reasonableness (is that a word? I don't care, it is now).
2. Yes, it gets attention, and makes it painfully aware how you feel about the subject. I will admit it's overuse is making that more difficult, BUT, I have no qualms with that. I still like the word.
3. However, I do not think (hmm..hold on, I just hammered my thumb, and it hurts like hell, what's a good way to get attention..oh, of course, I'll yell FUCK!). I really don't. What I'm actually thinking is "FUCK! That fuckin' hurt!" I don't know why every time I hammer my thumb, stub my toe, chop off a finger (yeah I'm exaggerating, but my dad did almost lose his thumb and what he said first was FUCK, so I probably would too) I say FUCK. But I do. I could no doubt try to consciously change what I yell, but name me one person that stops to think after they stub/hammer/etc. I have a feeling I'll be using "fuck" for a long time to come. It's ingrained, for whatever reason, and since I'm not hurting anyone, well, fuck it.
4. The biggest point, YES, if it hadn't been made SOOOO interesting, I probably wouldn't use it any more than I use any other word. Quite frankly, that's your fault. Not me saying it, just you making it so fuckin' interesting. One thing I've learned with my children: if you don't make the word interesting, with interesting things happening when they say it, they don't really say it. My kids did the same thing they do with every word they learned: you say it a few times, turn it over in your mouth, and when it becomes just another word, you stop. What's funny is I *permit* it and they don't curse at home all the time. My mother-in-law freaks out over it and you guessed it--instant grandma attention getter! They curse at her house all the time. I told her to stop it, she's just making it worse, but *shrugs* I guess she doesn't seem to get it.
Quite frankly, this is all your fault. It's just a word. Who decided it was a "bad" word? Is there even such a thing as a "bad" word? Did "fuck" go rob a bank and kill innocent people or something? Words only have the power you give to them. If you make it a "special" word, then it has the power to offend and harm. Black people wanted to take back "nigger", make it something that couldn't hurt them. Except they fucked up, it's still "special", because if a white person uses it, then black people get pissed off and offended. It's still a power word.
Retarded didn't use to be a power word, just a descriptive one accepted everywhere. Now because people use it to insult people of little intelligence, it's become a power word and we had to make up a new "acceptable" word. Guess what, now people of little intelligence are called mentally challenged, do we get yet another "acceptable" word (ok, that one is two words, but I don't write the rules) and another "bad" word? How stupid is that?
Perhaps, maybe we should just stick to the words we have. Quit making words so crazy. I admit words carry some weight. But it's HOW you say those words, what YOU mean by them. I think context is what carries the real weight. I mean, if a person goes up and calls another person a retard I think it's real easy: If he's a retard, then well, he's a retard. If he's not a retard, then that guy calling names has problems and we just won't hang out with him.
It doesn't matter if I call you a poopiehead or a shithead, either way I think I've made it clear what I think of you.
Edit: While I take all responsibility for all bad grammar and mispelled words, please realize 2 things:
1. I have small children, I type fast in short bursts.
2. I have conjuncitivitis and while they say that doesn't interfere with your vision, well something is....
Ok, so I admit I probably wouldn't use FUCK so much if people hadn't managed to make it so FUN. To address several points about profanity:
1. Fuck sounds great. Darnit just doesn't really get the point across. FUCK..well listen to it, it's a very harsh word...it sounds good when you've been frustrated beyond all reasonableness (is that a word? I don't care, it is now).
2. Yes, it gets attention, and makes it painfully aware how you feel about the subject. I will admit it's overuse is making that more difficult, BUT, I have no qualms with that. I still like the word.
3. However, I do not think (hmm..hold on, I just hammered my thumb, and it hurts like hell, what's a good way to get attention..oh, of course, I'll yell FUCK!). I really don't. What I'm actually thinking is "FUCK! That fuckin' hurt!" I don't know why every time I hammer my thumb, stub my toe, chop off a finger (yeah I'm exaggerating, but my dad did almost lose his thumb and what he said first was FUCK, so I probably would too) I say FUCK. But I do. I could no doubt try to consciously change what I yell, but name me one person that stops to think after they stub/hammer/etc. I have a feeling I'll be using "fuck" for a long time to come. It's ingrained, for whatever reason, and since I'm not hurting anyone, well, fuck it.
4. The biggest point, YES, if it hadn't been made SOOOO interesting, I probably wouldn't use it any more than I use any other word. Quite frankly, that's your fault. Not me saying it, just you making it so fuckin' interesting. One thing I've learned with my children: if you don't make the word interesting, with interesting things happening when they say it, they don't really say it. My kids did the same thing they do with every word they learned: you say it a few times, turn it over in your mouth, and when it becomes just another word, you stop. What's funny is I *permit* it and they don't curse at home all the time. My mother-in-law freaks out over it and you guessed it--instant grandma attention getter! They curse at her house all the time. I told her to stop it, she's just making it worse, but *shrugs* I guess she doesn't seem to get it.
Quite frankly, this is all your fault. It's just a word. Who decided it was a "bad" word? Is there even such a thing as a "bad" word? Did "fuck" go rob a bank and kill innocent people or something? Words only have the power you give to them. If you make it a "special" word, then it has the power to offend and harm. Black people wanted to take back "nigger", make it something that couldn't hurt them. Except they fucked up, it's still "special", because if a white person uses it, then black people get pissed off and offended. It's still a power word.
Retarded didn't use to be a power word, just a descriptive one accepted everywhere. Now because people use it to insult people of little intelligence, it's become a power word and we had to make up a new "acceptable" word. Guess what, now people of little intelligence are called mentally challenged, do we get yet another "acceptable" word (ok, that one is two words, but I don't write the rules) and another "bad" word? How stupid is that?
Perhaps, maybe we should just stick to the words we have. Quit making words so crazy. I admit words carry some weight. But it's HOW you say those words, what YOU mean by them. I think context is what carries the real weight. I mean, if a person goes up and calls another person a retard I think it's real easy: If he's a retard, then well, he's a retard. If he's not a retard, then that guy calling names has problems and we just won't hang out with him.
It doesn't matter if I call you a poopiehead or a shithead, either way I think I've made it clear what I think of you.
Edit: While I take all responsibility for all bad grammar and mispelled words, please realize 2 things:
1. I have small children, I type fast in short bursts.
2. I have conjuncitivitis and while they say that doesn't interfere with your vision, well something is....
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Jesus was a hippie
Hippies rebelled against established institutions, criticized middle class values, opposed the Vietnam War. Hippies opposed "political and social orthodoxy", choosing a "gentle and nondoctrinaire" politics that favored "peace, love, and personal freedom.". They perceived the dominant culture as a corrupt, monolithic entity that exercised undue power over their lives, calling this culture "The Establishment," "Big Brother," or "The Man."
I'm so tired of Christians. "You dayumned libruls..." Guess what, Jesus (if he existed) would be a "librul". He loved everyone, fought the man, and believed in peace. He opposed war and the establishment. He had long hair and would have lived in a commune(with his disciples, if it wasn't for that whole traveling thing). And y'know the man could have thrown a party with that whole water into wine thing.
But he still would not have voted for Hillary Clinton.
I'm so tired of Christians. "You dayumned libruls..." Guess what, Jesus (if he existed) would be a "librul". He loved everyone, fought the man, and believed in peace. He opposed war and the establishment. He had long hair and would have lived in a commune(with his disciples, if it wasn't for that whole traveling thing). And y'know the man could have thrown a party with that whole water into wine thing.
But he still would not have voted for Hillary Clinton.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
I'm sooo vacationing in the UK
Ok, gotta post the whole article here, but link up top too!
So much for "America". What choices?
Fat Fighters: We Couldn't Make This Stuff Up
By
ConsumerFreedom.com
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
The obesity panic fueled
by crazed food activists is now spreading across the ocean.
Today Marks & Spencer, one of Britain's largest grocery store chains, announced its plan to hire 1,500 food police to patrol supermarket aisles and lecture shoppers on the contents of their carts. Reminiscent of grade-school Hall Pass Monitors, these health food patrols will donofficial Healthy Eating Adviser badges while harassing customers about the fat, sugar, and salt levels of their purchases. Not to be outdone, retail competitor Sainsbury's has launched its own set of gastro guards to walk the beat. And the store donated £3 million ($5.9 million) to MEND (Mind, Exercise, Nutrition and Do It!), a government sponsored program that trains "food advisors" and deploys them at stores and classrooms. With more patrols, police, and monitors filtering into every aspect
of life, the United Kingdom's big brother looks increasingly like a vice
squad.
The English city of Bolton is a prime example. The city's director of
public health admitted to the town's local paper that "just providing
information on healthy lifestyles is not enough." Instead, officials rely on
strong-arming citizens through community initiatives. So Bolton health and education officials have teamed up to deploy squads of fat fighters and surveillance teams to local schools. Taking from the workload of local bullies, these groups will actually pull kids out of class for mandatory
weigh-ins.
The Center For Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit coalition supported
by restaurants, food companies, and consumers, working together to promote
personal responsibility and protect consumer choices.
It's gonna be great! I'm going to camp out in the grocery stores waiting for someone to get punched! I swear there will be at least ONE riot and I sure don't want to miss it!
And I swear by all that's existing in this world, if anyone EVER tries this shit on me or yanks my kid out of class for a fuckin' weigh in there will be HELL to pay. Revelations will look like a fuckin' vacation resort utopia. Of course, America is right behind in this kind of fucked up shit so we're not far.
NYC councilman asks: How much caffeine?
FCC wants to regulate TV violence
So much for "America". What choices?
Good Samaritan; Injustice
Ahhh...try to be a good person, get criminal charges. So nice to see our government in action, fucking up once again. Way to go in ensuring that if he ever hears a person scream again that he will be sure to just lock his doors and turn up the tv.
So, dude hears a woman screaming, fears she's being raped, and like a REAL man, a GOOD man, goes to save her. Naturally taking some kind of weapon. And finds out the neighbor is watching a porno. Not only is he embarassed, but now he gets criminal charges. What exactly did he do wrong? Yes, he damaged the apartment door, but y'know, if it was me being raped, I don't think I'd mind a damaged door. He scared the poor guy shitless....too fuckin' bad. If you're a decent human being, then you understand. And you ought to be comforted that there is someone nearby who gives a shit if you ever need him. You should also turn your fuckin' tv down dipshit. In a time when everyone is too cowardly to "get involved", too much of a selfish bastard to come help someone in need, we ought to be grateful for every guy not ashamed to go help someone he believes is in trouble. I myself have been known to take off acrossed my front yard with a baseball bat to go after a man attacking his wife in HIS front yard. *I* was a hero and a cool person...(I'm just damned if I see a 6'1" 200 lb man beat the shit out of a 4'6" 98 lb chick). This guy is what? A criminal? For trying to help a woman in trouble? What kind of fucked up law enforcement are we running here? Surely we don't have a Retard 102 station...
Just be sure ladies and gentlemen that if you ever hear someone who needs help, a woman being raped, a man being robbed, you just turn your head and shut your ears. Do NOT help them...or the only way you'll be able to tell the good from the bad...shit, you won't be able to, both will be in jail! Let's hope the judge is a hell of a lot smarter than the idiots who answered the call. And if he isn't, then the truth is well known, our "justice" system is a clusterfuck on crack.
BTW, if you ever hear ME being raped, please feel free to NOT give warning by knocking on the door, and KICK that door in like it's the winning kick at the Super Bowl!
So, dude hears a woman screaming, fears she's being raped, and like a REAL man, a GOOD man, goes to save her. Naturally taking some kind of weapon. And finds out the neighbor is watching a porno. Not only is he embarassed, but now he gets criminal charges. What exactly did he do wrong? Yes, he damaged the apartment door, but y'know, if it was me being raped, I don't think I'd mind a damaged door. He scared the poor guy shitless....too fuckin' bad. If you're a decent human being, then you understand. And you ought to be comforted that there is someone nearby who gives a shit if you ever need him. You should also turn your fuckin' tv down dipshit. In a time when everyone is too cowardly to "get involved", too much of a selfish bastard to come help someone in need, we ought to be grateful for every guy not ashamed to go help someone he believes is in trouble. I myself have been known to take off acrossed my front yard with a baseball bat to go after a man attacking his wife in HIS front yard. *I* was a hero and a cool person...(I'm just damned if I see a 6'1" 200 lb man beat the shit out of a 4'6" 98 lb chick). This guy is what? A criminal? For trying to help a woman in trouble? What kind of fucked up law enforcement are we running here? Surely we don't have a Retard 102 station...
Just be sure ladies and gentlemen that if you ever hear someone who needs help, a woman being raped, a man being robbed, you just turn your head and shut your ears. Do NOT help them...or the only way you'll be able to tell the good from the bad...shit, you won't be able to, both will be in jail! Let's hope the judge is a hell of a lot smarter than the idiots who answered the call. And if he isn't, then the truth is well known, our "justice" system is a clusterfuck on crack.
BTW, if you ever hear ME being raped, please feel free to NOT give warning by knocking on the door, and KICK that door in like it's the winning kick at the Super Bowl!
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
ME!ME! Roth
Me!Me! Roth has decided that you have an "obligation" to stay fit for others, whether it's your family or well just the public in general. Me!Me! Roth has an objection to fat women. Whatever her reasons (and due to her claims of fighting her own inner fat person, one must wonder if she just REALLY wishes she could have a cookie), it's patently obvious she looks down on a woman who is fat. She wants to turn on an obesity "epidemic" because you live your individual life and choose what you eat and she's decided that apparently YOU are offenisve. And for all her harping on SIZE, well good for her to encourage the next generation of anorexics and bulemics!
Me!Me! decided that making people feel accepted for who they ARE is not good enough, women must conform to HER view of healthiness. One must wonder under what obligation we are to to remain healthy for others? Because we're mothers? Because we have loved ones? Mmm..well, according to Me!Me! we are encouraging our children into a "fat" lifestyle. Ah, do we hear it...yes yes, FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!! Ahhhh...the cannon fodder for whatever agenda is on the books...load the cannon with FOR THE CHILDREN and watch normally intelligent adults fall all over themselves trying to prove they LOVE THE CHILDREN. If you're a parent, until you prove me wrong, I will assume you love your children. Don't worry, Me!Me! and her ilk will not make me wonder how devoted you are to your little ones if you don't run after her in a fear of your image as a parent or human being or whatever that cry is supposed to make you afraid of. Be yourself here. I know you love your little ones, I don't need you to prove it. No need to follow that orgasmic cry..(don't smoke after!)
Sorry, kind of rambling because well, Me!Me! has so many little viewpoints that are so important. She's judging you by your weight. One would think the doctor would be able to tell you that being overweight is unhealthy and then YOU would be able to decide what you want..but no apparently we need Me!Me! to go after "fake food"..WTH is fake food? If you can eat it, it's real food. Anyhow, no we need Me!Me! to make sure you know you are a bad parent for BEING fat, no matter how well your kids are doing. And that if your family and friends love you anyhow, well they are encouraging your abuse (of yourself). Apparently, skinny people should not love you if you're fat if they REALLY love you. Don't believe me? Redbook. She wants Redbook boycotted because as part of an article series they did "Whether your size 2 to 20W, we love you". Redbook damn sure doesn't want to start off a whole new batch of anorexics and bulemics. Me!Me! didn't read the next article in the 3 part series, something about a beautiful and healthy makeover". Let me make clear here, Me!Me! is not a doctor, well, at least she doesn't say she is. She doesn't appear to be a nutritionist. Quite frankly, she seems to be nothing but a skinny woman out to put down fat people. In fact, apparently the only thing she's done is organize a wedding gown challenge to spend the rest of your life in the same size as you were when you got married. Ok, ladies, we'd all like that, wouldn't we...however, when do we have time? I'm a SAHM who lives lower mid income. Is Me!Me! going to pay my gym membership? Babysit my kids? Yes, there is stuff you can do at home...mmm..so what do we say when the 3 year old gets kicked in the face from those Tai Bo videos...oops? Do it at naptime...mmmm..so yeah, one kid is napping, that's the baby, my 3 year old does not nap...Of course, these are all just excuses to Me!Me! because well, SHE does it.
Jeez, so much to address..this must seem a mess. But well, I'm greatly perturbed that because SOME people can't seem to keep their children's weight down Me!Me! finds justification in removing our rights as parents and apparently, our foods. Her website makes it clear she's out to eliminate some foods. Me!Me! obviously has enough time left over from parenting (I hope she's parenting) to come raise our kids too! Well of course she doesn't, instead she'll do like the anti-smoking agenda and legislate it so she doesn't have to. She's even coined the term "2nd Hand Obesity". Mmm..Glantz says good grasshopper. Quite frankly, well I think she's an idiot. A skinny person on a mission to denormalize fat people like smokers. It's not "normal" to be fat. The funny thing is who is SHE to decide it's not. Maybe it is. What the hell is normal anyhow except one person's perception of how things are supposed to be?
"Somewhere between the wedding reception and delivery room, many women abandon their brains, body and libido."--Ah, let's take this one apart here. Abandon brains? So if you're fat you're stupid? Libido--I have a fairly healthy sex life. In fact, I know quite a few fat women with a healthy sex life. Quite a few fat men too. And well, if we're happy, what business is it of YOURS. Body--I haven't abandoned my body, I'm still in it. Do you mean abandoned the media perception that counting rib bones is healthy? Yeah, I definitely abandoned that. I'm hooking toward 145 and that's where I intend on stopping. I could care less about BMI, at which I can assure you I will be over. That's when I look my sexiest and feel my best. I refuse to drop down to 125 and look sickly and feel sickly like an idiot.
"It's wrong to be fat. It's easy, but it's wrong." It's wrong? Who says it's wrong? YOU? So what about those fat women who are wonderful, nice people who do good things? I guess they are still the assholes here because they are fat. If you are deciding someone is wrong based on their WEIGHT and not their behavior, you're the one with a problem. I've known some wonderful generous fat women and some skinny little cunts. And vice versa...I can assure you, weight has nothing to do with it. Being skinnier will not make you a better person, and THAT'S what's important.
Look, buy the girl scout cookies, if you're weight is bothering you give them to a friend, throw them in the trash, eat one cookie instead of a box. I know I'm harsh on the fat people. And unfortunately I agree with Mrs. Idiot that it's YOUR fault you're fat. Hell, I am fat and it's my fault. However, if YOU are happy with yourself then I don't care. It's none of my concern. You are not stupid, you are not wrong, you are just you.
Be fat, be skinny, smoke, don't smoke, just be good to one another. Be happy, be considerate, be honest, be loyal. If I meet you and love you, I'll love you fat and all, skinny and all, smokes and all, If you're just an arm I'll love that arm with all I"ve got. If you can't even get out of your bed, I'll do the same. And Me!Me! sweetie, if you can't love yourself, noone else will. I'm sure it's easy to go jump on fat people because you're dissatisified with your own looks. If looks is all that important to you, then go surround yourself with shallow people who never are an ounce over the "acceptable" and have the perfect hair. Myself, I'm gonna go out and find a really nice fat person and make her my friend, and just to piss you off I'm gong to tell her everyday how beautiful she is..because even if she may not be outside, she probably is inside. I surround myself with beautiful people, not beautiful bodies.
Me!Me! decided that making people feel accepted for who they ARE is not good enough, women must conform to HER view of healthiness. One must wonder under what obligation we are to to remain healthy for others? Because we're mothers? Because we have loved ones? Mmm..well, according to Me!Me! we are encouraging our children into a "fat" lifestyle. Ah, do we hear it...yes yes, FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!! Ahhhh...the cannon fodder for whatever agenda is on the books...load the cannon with FOR THE CHILDREN and watch normally intelligent adults fall all over themselves trying to prove they LOVE THE CHILDREN. If you're a parent, until you prove me wrong, I will assume you love your children. Don't worry, Me!Me! and her ilk will not make me wonder how devoted you are to your little ones if you don't run after her in a fear of your image as a parent or human being or whatever that cry is supposed to make you afraid of. Be yourself here. I know you love your little ones, I don't need you to prove it. No need to follow that orgasmic cry..(don't smoke after!)
Sorry, kind of rambling because well, Me!Me! has so many little viewpoints that are so important. She's judging you by your weight. One would think the doctor would be able to tell you that being overweight is unhealthy and then YOU would be able to decide what you want..but no apparently we need Me!Me! to go after "fake food"..WTH is fake food? If you can eat it, it's real food. Anyhow, no we need Me!Me! to make sure you know you are a bad parent for BEING fat, no matter how well your kids are doing. And that if your family and friends love you anyhow, well they are encouraging your abuse (of yourself). Apparently, skinny people should not love you if you're fat if they REALLY love you. Don't believe me? Redbook. She wants Redbook boycotted because as part of an article series they did "Whether your size 2 to 20W, we love you". Redbook damn sure doesn't want to start off a whole new batch of anorexics and bulemics. Me!Me! didn't read the next article in the 3 part series, something about a beautiful and healthy makeover". Let me make clear here, Me!Me! is not a doctor, well, at least she doesn't say she is. She doesn't appear to be a nutritionist. Quite frankly, she seems to be nothing but a skinny woman out to put down fat people. In fact, apparently the only thing she's done is organize a wedding gown challenge to spend the rest of your life in the same size as you were when you got married. Ok, ladies, we'd all like that, wouldn't we...however, when do we have time? I'm a SAHM who lives lower mid income. Is Me!Me! going to pay my gym membership? Babysit my kids? Yes, there is stuff you can do at home...mmm..so what do we say when the 3 year old gets kicked in the face from those Tai Bo videos...oops? Do it at naptime...mmmm..so yeah, one kid is napping, that's the baby, my 3 year old does not nap...Of course, these are all just excuses to Me!Me! because well, SHE does it.
Jeez, so much to address..this must seem a mess. But well, I'm greatly perturbed that because SOME people can't seem to keep their children's weight down Me!Me! finds justification in removing our rights as parents and apparently, our foods. Her website makes it clear she's out to eliminate some foods. Me!Me! obviously has enough time left over from parenting (I hope she's parenting) to come raise our kids too! Well of course she doesn't, instead she'll do like the anti-smoking agenda and legislate it so she doesn't have to. She's even coined the term "2nd Hand Obesity". Mmm..Glantz says good grasshopper. Quite frankly, well I think she's an idiot. A skinny person on a mission to denormalize fat people like smokers. It's not "normal" to be fat. The funny thing is who is SHE to decide it's not. Maybe it is. What the hell is normal anyhow except one person's perception of how things are supposed to be?
"Somewhere between the wedding reception and delivery room, many women abandon their brains, body and libido."--Ah, let's take this one apart here. Abandon brains? So if you're fat you're stupid? Libido--I have a fairly healthy sex life. In fact, I know quite a few fat women with a healthy sex life. Quite a few fat men too. And well, if we're happy, what business is it of YOURS. Body--I haven't abandoned my body, I'm still in it. Do you mean abandoned the media perception that counting rib bones is healthy? Yeah, I definitely abandoned that. I'm hooking toward 145 and that's where I intend on stopping. I could care less about BMI, at which I can assure you I will be over. That's when I look my sexiest and feel my best. I refuse to drop down to 125 and look sickly and feel sickly like an idiot.
"It's wrong to be fat. It's easy, but it's wrong." It's wrong? Who says it's wrong? YOU? So what about those fat women who are wonderful, nice people who do good things? I guess they are still the assholes here because they are fat. If you are deciding someone is wrong based on their WEIGHT and not their behavior, you're the one with a problem. I've known some wonderful generous fat women and some skinny little cunts. And vice versa...I can assure you, weight has nothing to do with it. Being skinnier will not make you a better person, and THAT'S what's important.
Look, buy the girl scout cookies, if you're weight is bothering you give them to a friend, throw them in the trash, eat one cookie instead of a box. I know I'm harsh on the fat people. And unfortunately I agree with Mrs. Idiot that it's YOUR fault you're fat. Hell, I am fat and it's my fault. However, if YOU are happy with yourself then I don't care. It's none of my concern. You are not stupid, you are not wrong, you are just you.
Be fat, be skinny, smoke, don't smoke, just be good to one another. Be happy, be considerate, be honest, be loyal. If I meet you and love you, I'll love you fat and all, skinny and all, smokes and all, If you're just an arm I'll love that arm with all I"ve got. If you can't even get out of your bed, I'll do the same. And Me!Me! sweetie, if you can't love yourself, noone else will. I'm sure it's easy to go jump on fat people because you're dissatisified with your own looks. If looks is all that important to you, then go surround yourself with shallow people who never are an ounce over the "acceptable" and have the perfect hair. Myself, I'm gonna go out and find a really nice fat person and make her my friend, and just to piss you off I'm gong to tell her everyday how beautiful she is..because even if she may not be outside, she probably is inside. I surround myself with beautiful people, not beautiful bodies.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Voters are morons
Ok so apparently some of you don't know how this voting thing works. I'm already hearing some really stupid shit for the 2008 race. Let's go ahead and get this ongoing bitchfest started.
1. If you vote for a candidate who has agrees with your "key issue" and that's it, not only are you a moron, but you're a selfish jackass not interested in America, only in your life in America.
2. If you vote for a candidate only because he follows your belief system (religious or otherwise), not only are you moron, but you're NOT an American. Read your Constitution, 1st Amendment, y'know that AMERICAN document that we have to study in history class?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
What that actually means is our government at any level cannot ENDORSE a religion. That does NOT mean you can't practice yours. It's just not the government's job to interfere. And those government funded schools can't back religion either. America is diverse. Many people, many systems of belief. A nation for all to come to and be free of persecution. Not ONE religion be free, ALL are free. I would NEVER endorse a candidate who wanted to eliminate religion, please respect me and don't vote for one that would FORCE me into a religion, or your religions idiotic views on what's "right".
3. This is not about YOU. This is about EVERYONE that lives in this country. I know YOU don't want to be exposed to outside ideas, I suggest you stay home. The gays have a right to marriage, children, and *gasps* interaction without threat. The blacks have the same. So do christians, catholics, satanists, methodists, pagans, smokers, the child "free", the parents, the men, the women. If you want the freedom to decide what's best for YOU, I suggest you not vote for people who are in favor of curtailing the rest of us. If a dictator gets in charge and does something YOU don't like, you are no better off than the rest of us,and we will not let you in the revolution. Assuming anyone can get the balls up to have one.
4. If you vote for Hilary Clinton because she's a woman, or Barack Obama because he's black, it doesn't matter if one of them actually happens to work out, you are still an idiot. Somehow I just can't buy into that being an intelligent decision. Just because a broken watch has the correct time twice a day doesn't change the fact that it's broke. You deserve to be shot. And while *I* won't shoot you, I'm not above cheering if someone else does.
5. For you authoritorian followers, (don't ask me what it is, use YOUR brain and look it up...however you may have to do some simple math first so you don't blow a gasket when all those gears kick back in), nothing will change you. You're fuckin' morons on a mission, any mission, do me a favor and find a nice Kool-Aid camp. The guy holding the jug is very very nice and everyone gets free drinks!
I REALLY REALLY hate people, especially at this time. If the backbiting doesn't kill you, the "American" people will.
1. If you vote for a candidate who has agrees with your "key issue" and that's it, not only are you a moron, but you're a selfish jackass not interested in America, only in your life in America.
2. If you vote for a candidate only because he follows your belief system (religious or otherwise), not only are you moron, but you're NOT an American. Read your Constitution, 1st Amendment, y'know that AMERICAN document that we have to study in history class?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
What that actually means is our government at any level cannot ENDORSE a religion. That does NOT mean you can't practice yours. It's just not the government's job to interfere. And those government funded schools can't back religion either. America is diverse. Many people, many systems of belief. A nation for all to come to and be free of persecution. Not ONE religion be free, ALL are free. I would NEVER endorse a candidate who wanted to eliminate religion, please respect me and don't vote for one that would FORCE me into a religion, or your religions idiotic views on what's "right".
3. This is not about YOU. This is about EVERYONE that lives in this country. I know YOU don't want to be exposed to outside ideas, I suggest you stay home. The gays have a right to marriage, children, and *gasps* interaction without threat. The blacks have the same. So do christians, catholics, satanists, methodists, pagans, smokers, the child "free", the parents, the men, the women. If you want the freedom to decide what's best for YOU, I suggest you not vote for people who are in favor of curtailing the rest of us. If a dictator gets in charge and does something YOU don't like, you are no better off than the rest of us,and we will not let you in the revolution. Assuming anyone can get the balls up to have one.
4. If you vote for Hilary Clinton because she's a woman, or Barack Obama because he's black, it doesn't matter if one of them actually happens to work out, you are still an idiot. Somehow I just can't buy into that being an intelligent decision. Just because a broken watch has the correct time twice a day doesn't change the fact that it's broke. You deserve to be shot. And while *I* won't shoot you, I'm not above cheering if someone else does.
5. For you authoritorian followers, (don't ask me what it is, use YOUR brain and look it up...however you may have to do some simple math first so you don't blow a gasket when all those gears kick back in), nothing will change you. You're fuckin' morons on a mission, any mission, do me a favor and find a nice Kool-Aid camp. The guy holding the jug is very very nice and everyone gets free drinks!
I REALLY REALLY hate people, especially at this time. If the backbiting doesn't kill you, the "American" people will.
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Christian Persectuion aka ME ME ME
What a bunch of wienies. Me me me, this is CHRISTIAN DISCRIMINATION, this is against CHRISTIANS. Well I have a couple of questions:
1. How does NO RELIGIOUS PARAPHANELIA target ONLY christians? Last I heard LOTS of religions include little emblems that can be turned into jewelry. You don't have the monopoly on religious jewelry.
2. NO RELIGION IN SCHOOLS...noone said no CHRISTIAN religion, they said NO RELIGION. That doesn't mean just Christians, that means, no Wiccan religion in school, no Pagan religion in school, no Muslim religion in schools...
You're "War on Christianity" is nothing more than enforcing rules and not only against "christians", but against EVERYONE.
I love this list of the "persecution" suffered by christianity (btw, christians, go talk to a Jew with a number tattooed on their arm they didn't ask for, then you might have an inkling what persectution is). Here'st he list:
The federal government abridges the free exercise of religion in America by:
Regulating churches and other religious organizations through its tax laws.
Limiting religious liberty in the area of public and private education.
Forbidding non-denominational prayer in public schools and at educational ceremonies.
Excluding the Bible from school classrooms and from other school property.
Refusing to permit the religious displays on public property, such as Christmas and Chanukah.
The City council in Oceanside, CA banned public prayers that begin or end with the phrase "in the name of Christ."
Ok ok, let me say first of all, this is all BS. This is expected of EVERY religion, not just "christians". Selfish little bastards, all they want is THEIR religion up, not anyone elses. Notice their gripe is with the state backing a religion, that the state is not backing THEIRS. I don't see them fighting to have Muslim precepts posted beside the 10 Commandments (commandments the most vocal of the "christian" religion can't even seem to follow), they also aren't allowing Wiccan or Pagan precepts up. No no, JUST the 10 Commandments. Somehow though, the word persecution doesn't seem to apply, I mean, I don't see "nailing us up on crosses" on the list, nor "hot irons applied to the feet", nothing like "fired because I was christian" or "arrested because I was christian" nor do I see "run out of town for being christian" or "tried to run me out of town for being christian'. However I can sure find signs of christians persecuting others!
30 Muslim workers fired for praying on job at Dell
http://tennessean.com/local/archives/05/03/66733769.shtml?Element_ID=66733769
Of course, a prayer of 5 minutes is unflexible for an employer, but christians refusing to work on Sundays is not?
Muslim Pilot Fired Due to Religion and Appearance, EEOC Says In Post- 9/11 Backlash Discrimination Suit
http://www.eeoc.gov/press/7-17-03a.html
"Woman says firm fired her for being Wiccan"
http://wwrn.org/article.php?idd=22062&sec=39&con=4
We could go on and on. However, you do see cases of christians fired, yes, and it seems it's always about following rules. Math teacher fired for preaching in class...yes, perhaps because he's a MATH teacher at a PUBLIC school. Woman fired for wearing her cross, yes perhaps because the policy there was NO RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS. See the trick of the eye there? WOMAN FIRED FOR WEARING CROSS, but only later is it pointed out that umm..NO religious symbols were allowed. They weren't firing her for the cross, they fired her for BREAKING THE RULES. I have never heard of an instance of an employer being accused of finding out Bob is a christian and firing him over it. But you hear many cases of finding out that Jill was Pagan, Tom was Muslim....ad nauseum.
What irritates me is not that christians want their rights, it's that convenient hearing thing they got. NO GOVERNMENT BACKED religion they actually seem to hear NO GOVERNMENT BACKED RELIGION except for Christians. NO RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS seems to translate as NO RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS except for Christianity. Wrong, no means no, none means none. And danged if these idiots don't get the job and proceed to disobey and then bitch about it. "*sputters* Well surely they don't mean me!" Yes! You TOO!
To me it's an all or nothing deal here: Either all religion in school or none. You post the 10 Commandments there will have to be equal time AND space for all other religions. You want the Bible in Class, then you must have all other religious books. You want Bible class, you better all religious classes. Or you take it all out. Quite frankly, if you stop and think of how much education these kids will miss just so you can be sure they will hear the Bible and the rest of us be sure all religions get equal time and treatment, you're better off taking it all out. Not to mention somehow I think the christians might rethink their view when we get past Bible Class. In fact, I would make it mandatory that Bible Class appear later than other religions at a random spot so parents can't force our kids to attend Bible class and then yank their kids out so they won't hear "Satan's Wild Ride" (Satanism IS a religion y'know).
We should do that, let's give the christians what they want under the law of our nation. Equal time with the rest of the world religions, in fact, I ask that it's mandatory that all students must attend or cannot graduate....yeah, the christians might get what they want, but boy will they hate it...and they might know how the rest of us feel...
1. How does NO RELIGIOUS PARAPHANELIA target ONLY christians? Last I heard LOTS of religions include little emblems that can be turned into jewelry. You don't have the monopoly on religious jewelry.
2. NO RELIGION IN SCHOOLS...noone said no CHRISTIAN religion, they said NO RELIGION. That doesn't mean just Christians, that means, no Wiccan religion in school, no Pagan religion in school, no Muslim religion in schools...
You're "War on Christianity" is nothing more than enforcing rules and not only against "christians", but against EVERYONE.
I love this list of the "persecution" suffered by christianity (btw, christians, go talk to a Jew with a number tattooed on their arm they didn't ask for, then you might have an inkling what persectution is). Here'st he list:
The federal government abridges the free exercise of religion in America by:
Regulating churches and other religious organizations through its tax laws.
Limiting religious liberty in the area of public and private education.
Forbidding non-denominational prayer in public schools and at educational ceremonies.
Excluding the Bible from school classrooms and from other school property.
Refusing to permit the religious displays on public property, such as Christmas and Chanukah.
The City council in Oceanside, CA banned public prayers that begin or end with the phrase "in the name of Christ."
Ok ok, let me say first of all, this is all BS. This is expected of EVERY religion, not just "christians". Selfish little bastards, all they want is THEIR religion up, not anyone elses. Notice their gripe is with the state backing a religion, that the state is not backing THEIRS. I don't see them fighting to have Muslim precepts posted beside the 10 Commandments (commandments the most vocal of the "christian" religion can't even seem to follow), they also aren't allowing Wiccan or Pagan precepts up. No no, JUST the 10 Commandments. Somehow though, the word persecution doesn't seem to apply, I mean, I don't see "nailing us up on crosses" on the list, nor "hot irons applied to the feet", nothing like "fired because I was christian" or "arrested because I was christian" nor do I see "run out of town for being christian" or "tried to run me out of town for being christian'. However I can sure find signs of christians persecuting others!
30 Muslim workers fired for praying on job at Dell
http://tennessean.com/local/archives/05/03/66733769.shtml?Element_ID=66733769
Of course, a prayer of 5 minutes is unflexible for an employer, but christians refusing to work on Sundays is not?
Muslim Pilot Fired Due to Religion and Appearance, EEOC Says In Post- 9/11 Backlash Discrimination Suit
http://www.eeoc.gov/press/7-17-03a.html
"Woman says firm fired her for being Wiccan"
http://wwrn.org/article.php?idd=22062&sec=39&con=4
We could go on and on. However, you do see cases of christians fired, yes, and it seems it's always about following rules. Math teacher fired for preaching in class...yes, perhaps because he's a MATH teacher at a PUBLIC school. Woman fired for wearing her cross, yes perhaps because the policy there was NO RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS. See the trick of the eye there? WOMAN FIRED FOR WEARING CROSS, but only later is it pointed out that umm..NO religious symbols were allowed. They weren't firing her for the cross, they fired her for BREAKING THE RULES. I have never heard of an instance of an employer being accused of finding out Bob is a christian and firing him over it. But you hear many cases of finding out that Jill was Pagan, Tom was Muslim....ad nauseum.
What irritates me is not that christians want their rights, it's that convenient hearing thing they got. NO GOVERNMENT BACKED religion they actually seem to hear NO GOVERNMENT BACKED RELIGION except for Christians. NO RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS seems to translate as NO RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS except for Christianity. Wrong, no means no, none means none. And danged if these idiots don't get the job and proceed to disobey and then bitch about it. "*sputters* Well surely they don't mean me!" Yes! You TOO!
To me it's an all or nothing deal here: Either all religion in school or none. You post the 10 Commandments there will have to be equal time AND space for all other religions. You want the Bible in Class, then you must have all other religious books. You want Bible class, you better all religious classes. Or you take it all out. Quite frankly, if you stop and think of how much education these kids will miss just so you can be sure they will hear the Bible and the rest of us be sure all religions get equal time and treatment, you're better off taking it all out. Not to mention somehow I think the christians might rethink their view when we get past Bible Class. In fact, I would make it mandatory that Bible Class appear later than other religions at a random spot so parents can't force our kids to attend Bible class and then yank their kids out so they won't hear "Satan's Wild Ride" (Satanism IS a religion y'know).
We should do that, let's give the christians what they want under the law of our nation. Equal time with the rest of the world religions, in fact, I ask that it's mandatory that all students must attend or cannot graduate....yeah, the christians might get what they want, but boy will they hate it...and they might know how the rest of us feel...
Monday, November 20, 2006
Where do we start today? Idiots of the world unite!
Please unite, it's very difficult sometimes to know what part of who's being a moron today when you have to pick and choose between so many options.
Ah why not cover something local for a change?
Last night we are on our way back from the MIL's house (that's mother in law) and for the last 3 days there's been heavy enough smoke over the area to blanket us in a fog. So as we pass and I realize that yet again we're going to have to run the baby through this into the house, I think to myself "Thank goodness Beaumont implemented a smoking ban because it's sooo much worse than this!" I thought by their little smoking ban they were saying "we want clean air". Well where the fuck is it? I thought by banning smoking they were all yelling "We want clean poison free air!" Ok, then WTF? Ok ok, let me get this straight:
You want "clean air" and so ban smoking from places you don't HAVE to go to and that noone HAS to work at (there were many non smoking establishments, I know because I kept a list of where NOT to go and they all needed help because we are still recovering from those in the hurricane last year too scared to return to the area), and where's the damn clean air? You mean to tell me it's not acceptable for my ONE cigarette (or in the case of a restaurant, 10 people's ONE cigarette each) in favor of a plant that is burning who knows what and putting out enough air pollution to BLANKET THE AREA IN FOG? And of course there's not just one plant around here, no no no, there are MANY. And the plant puts out enough smoke that you have no choice but to breathe it in, NO CHOICE at all. It even gets into your house. Ok ok, so we can't smoke in places your too stupid to vote with your feet and not come to, but apparently we should all breathe deep in our homes of a type of pollution not even matched in car exhaust? Talk about NO CHOICE, talk about being FORCED to inhale unwanted toxins. I never ever forced anyone to breathe in cigarette smoke, at no time have I ever waited until people were home and then pumped thier house with smoke....but I'M the asshole? It goes to show you, this is not, nor has it ever been for the health of anyone. This is all about we don't want you here. But you do want me to fund your child's education?
Texas raised the tobacco tax simply for child's education. Don't try that guilt trip bullshit on me, emotional blackmail "but you can't object cuz it's fer da chilren". You know what that means, because you don't smoke you obviously don't support education. hmm..gonna go by a t-shirt...
I want to know Beaumont, where's the clean air promised to all the inhabitants of this area? No smoking in Beaumont, that's automatic clean air..where is it?
Ah why not cover something local for a change?
Last night we are on our way back from the MIL's house (that's mother in law) and for the last 3 days there's been heavy enough smoke over the area to blanket us in a fog. So as we pass and I realize that yet again we're going to have to run the baby through this into the house, I think to myself "Thank goodness Beaumont implemented a smoking ban because it's sooo much worse than this!" I thought by their little smoking ban they were saying "we want clean air". Well where the fuck is it? I thought by banning smoking they were all yelling "We want clean poison free air!" Ok, then WTF? Ok ok, let me get this straight:
You want "clean air" and so ban smoking from places you don't HAVE to go to and that noone HAS to work at (there were many non smoking establishments, I know because I kept a list of where NOT to go and they all needed help because we are still recovering from those in the hurricane last year too scared to return to the area), and where's the damn clean air? You mean to tell me it's not acceptable for my ONE cigarette (or in the case of a restaurant, 10 people's ONE cigarette each) in favor of a plant that is burning who knows what and putting out enough air pollution to BLANKET THE AREA IN FOG? And of course there's not just one plant around here, no no no, there are MANY. And the plant puts out enough smoke that you have no choice but to breathe it in, NO CHOICE at all. It even gets into your house. Ok ok, so we can't smoke in places your too stupid to vote with your feet and not come to, but apparently we should all breathe deep in our homes of a type of pollution not even matched in car exhaust? Talk about NO CHOICE, talk about being FORCED to inhale unwanted toxins. I never ever forced anyone to breathe in cigarette smoke, at no time have I ever waited until people were home and then pumped thier house with smoke....but I'M the asshole? It goes to show you, this is not, nor has it ever been for the health of anyone. This is all about we don't want you here. But you do want me to fund your child's education?
Texas raised the tobacco tax simply for child's education. Don't try that guilt trip bullshit on me, emotional blackmail "but you can't object cuz it's fer da chilren". You know what that means, because you don't smoke you obviously don't support education. hmm..gonna go by a t-shirt...
I want to know Beaumont, where's the clean air promised to all the inhabitants of this area? No smoking in Beaumont, that's automatic clean air..where is it?
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Where are all these 5 year olds getting the money?
Boy, what is this, a race to see if I kill myself or you over the stupidity of the majority of the human race?
Yeah yeah, I'm here, having a baby and a surgery keeps you plenty busy I tell you. So anyhow, I have a question...where the fuck are all these kids getting the money and for the record how the hell are they sneaking out and grabbing up some mcnuggets? I'm not going to quote it here, there's the link, now RTFA.
We have two conclusions to draw here, one or both of which must be correct:
1. The children have all the money. The 5 year olds are deciding how to spend the paycheck (no wonder the world's finances are all kinds of fucked up)
2. Parents are too (stupid/retarded/weak/lazy/stupid..oh, I said that) to say NO to their children.
Wait, wait, there's a 3rd...out of the 15 billion people in the world there's 10,000 who overfeed their children for whatever reason (as a indication of love, cuz they don't care, whatever).
Guess what, if your kid looks like Violet from Willy Wonka after she eats the berry, in 98% of the cases one of these is you. There is one thing you can draw from all 3 of these conclusions: You're a fuckin' moron. Yes, Jalestra is back in full, non PC swing. Get the rope and burning torches.
1. If you let your children control your finances I can't help you. You're way too stupid to breathe, do me a favor and kill yourself.
2. If for whatever reason you have a problem telling little Jimmy no, you have two options: Learn to say NO, practice it, and then let little Jimmy have it (the NO you twit, not an uppercut) OR...kill yourself. You're doing your child no favors if your kissing his ass. In fact, you're just making another little punk for me to play trippee with in the grocery isle. While I enjoy the game, I would hope it would not be necessary since you'd be TEACHING your children instead of giving them everything they want and making my life even more miserable the few times I'm stupid enough to venture outside of my home.
3. Ok, some of you I feel sorry for, some of you should die. If you don't care about your kid, give him to me, I'd happily give him the kind of love and care any child deserves. Especially if it means keeping yet another little bastard from springing forth. I like kids...just not yours, especially after they grow up and try to rob me. For those replacing love with food, or feel that food is how you show your love, it's easy: Get a therapist, hug your kids, and try to learn how to relate to them. Pretend your a silly drunk and fingerpaint with them. The silly drunk act is great when interacting with children. If you've never been silly drunk, I'm sure you've seen it. (not to be mistaken for the crybaby drunk or the violent drunk).
In the meantime, remember, YOU are why you're kid is a fatass. Now this is not to disparage the overweight, I've been there, however, I knew who's fault is was (that would be MINE). And if you want to eat til they get a crane to take you to the hospital, that's your business not mine. Being overweight is NOT a dealbreaker for me. I've dated overweight men, I have overweight friends, I was once overweight myself. However, sometimes you have to be flat out rude to get people to look up from their 6th (by choice) Whopper and cut to the chase. If your kid is a fat ass, YOUR fault, leave MY food alone. Just because your too stupid to eat with some intelligence (no, not bean sprouts you twit, I eat Whoppers too, just not SIX of them), not my problem.
"We're all here to help one another." No, we aren't. We really aren't. Nobody knows what the fuck we're here for. Quite frankly, we are probably just here because we developed faster and stronger than the other animals. My body says if it's starving and your starving, I'm not splitting the fucking fish, it's MINE and if I'm big enough to kick your ass I get to keep it. Yes, sharing is the NICE thing to do, but as we'll eventually find out, when the food supply is low it's every man for himself. And whoever accused me of being nice? I'm not here to monitor your feeding habits or have you interfere with my life because you can't be a parent. I'm not here to help you parent. It does NOT take a village to raise a child. I've seen one person do it lots of times and everyone turned out fine. Everytime you get the village involved, poor kid is shot to hell because noone can agree if you should bust his ass or give him a cookie.
So, take the whopper and/or the money away from the child and leave me alone.
Yeah yeah, I'm here, having a baby and a surgery keeps you plenty busy I tell you. So anyhow, I have a question...where the fuck are all these kids getting the money and for the record how the hell are they sneaking out and grabbing up some mcnuggets? I'm not going to quote it here, there's the link, now RTFA.
We have two conclusions to draw here, one or both of which must be correct:
1. The children have all the money. The 5 year olds are deciding how to spend the paycheck (no wonder the world's finances are all kinds of fucked up)
2. Parents are too (stupid/retarded/weak/lazy/stupid..oh, I said that) to say NO to their children.
Wait, wait, there's a 3rd...out of the 15 billion people in the world there's 10,000 who overfeed their children for whatever reason (as a indication of love, cuz they don't care, whatever).
Guess what, if your kid looks like Violet from Willy Wonka after she eats the berry, in 98% of the cases one of these is you. There is one thing you can draw from all 3 of these conclusions: You're a fuckin' moron. Yes, Jalestra is back in full, non PC swing. Get the rope and burning torches.
1. If you let your children control your finances I can't help you. You're way too stupid to breathe, do me a favor and kill yourself.
2. If for whatever reason you have a problem telling little Jimmy no, you have two options: Learn to say NO, practice it, and then let little Jimmy have it (the NO you twit, not an uppercut) OR...kill yourself. You're doing your child no favors if your kissing his ass. In fact, you're just making another little punk for me to play trippee with in the grocery isle. While I enjoy the game, I would hope it would not be necessary since you'd be TEACHING your children instead of giving them everything they want and making my life even more miserable the few times I'm stupid enough to venture outside of my home.
3. Ok, some of you I feel sorry for, some of you should die. If you don't care about your kid, give him to me, I'd happily give him the kind of love and care any child deserves. Especially if it means keeping yet another little bastard from springing forth. I like kids...just not yours, especially after they grow up and try to rob me. For those replacing love with food, or feel that food is how you show your love, it's easy: Get a therapist, hug your kids, and try to learn how to relate to them. Pretend your a silly drunk and fingerpaint with them. The silly drunk act is great when interacting with children. If you've never been silly drunk, I'm sure you've seen it. (not to be mistaken for the crybaby drunk or the violent drunk).
In the meantime, remember, YOU are why you're kid is a fatass. Now this is not to disparage the overweight, I've been there, however, I knew who's fault is was (that would be MINE). And if you want to eat til they get a crane to take you to the hospital, that's your business not mine. Being overweight is NOT a dealbreaker for me. I've dated overweight men, I have overweight friends, I was once overweight myself. However, sometimes you have to be flat out rude to get people to look up from their 6th (by choice) Whopper and cut to the chase. If your kid is a fat ass, YOUR fault, leave MY food alone. Just because your too stupid to eat with some intelligence (no, not bean sprouts you twit, I eat Whoppers too, just not SIX of them), not my problem.
"We're all here to help one another." No, we aren't. We really aren't. Nobody knows what the fuck we're here for. Quite frankly, we are probably just here because we developed faster and stronger than the other animals. My body says if it's starving and your starving, I'm not splitting the fucking fish, it's MINE and if I'm big enough to kick your ass I get to keep it. Yes, sharing is the NICE thing to do, but as we'll eventually find out, when the food supply is low it's every man for himself. And whoever accused me of being nice? I'm not here to monitor your feeding habits or have you interfere with my life because you can't be a parent. I'm not here to help you parent. It does NOT take a village to raise a child. I've seen one person do it lots of times and everyone turned out fine. Everytime you get the village involved, poor kid is shot to hell because noone can agree if you should bust his ass or give him a cookie.
So, take the whopper and/or the money away from the child and leave me alone.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
getting married in Second Life
Ok, I really have to get this up even if my page is down.
That is so wierd, my husband and I were discussing this the other day. My question was how many people roleplay themselves into a real life divorce? I can only wonder if they really truly know what they are getting into.
While I consider many of my friendships, not just in SL, but on the net as very real, I just cannot see throwing over your entire real life for a person that may or may not be real. Is this the person you will see when you meet? I know I'm a whole 'nother character when I log on. In second life I am comfortable being silly, nice, and friendly/socialable. But that is something that I cannot acclompish in real life. I just can't get over that mental hump that would allow me to be that way in the real world. I'm a whole different person in the real world; quiet, rude, I find it hard to get to know people or talk to them (makes me extremely uncomfortable). The me you see is not the me you will get when you meet. I mean, SL Jales will still be there and a little more forthcoming than usual...but you see a whole side of me you would never see. How many people are the same? How can anyone accept a SL persona as THE person when you are leaving out so much of their personality???
I guess one could say that this is more of the person than you might ever see in real life. That this is purely them, but no, it can't be purely them. Even in SL you may find yourself in a real life situation (cheating on your SL spouse with another married persona??? ack! LOL), your reaction will still be different for many reasons. Take the cheating instance, even if it is a little extreme:
1. You have no fear you will get shot or the shit beat out of you, so your reaction will be based on that. No fear, so will you wrap your arms around your dolled darling and tell him to go fuck himself? STand up and tell him what a man he's not? Ooo..what a shoutfest...and hey, you can log when you get sick of it.
2. Ok, you probably don't feel badly. Your SL wife comes in and she's been IM'ed with the news from the jealous husband "Your husband was found with my wife in my house today". That much easier to tell her to go fuck herself. I mean, you can do what you want right? And it's not like it's your real life wife (let's negate the whole discussion for the moment on whether you are cheating on her by being married in SL)
You know as well I do that there are no real consequences of your actions. The guys at work are most likely not going to hear about this. There is no real shame involved..well maybe in a very few cases, but you get my point.
So that's not YOU, maybe you are a coward and if this would have happened in real life this dolled darling's shining knight would have been on his knees begging for mercy. Not so pretty a picture now.
So hey geekboy, put down the "uber hottie" avatar here slowly and back away. Little miss plain jane, drop the "sex goddess" avatar. Remember, you don't really KNOW this person, not really. They may have deep thoughts and a great personality online, but don't throw your real wife/husband away for someone you can talk to (no, sex is NOT necessary! imagine that!) without punishment.
Tomorrow: Why the hell would you wanna fuck via avatar? I mean, if you can't touch it, where's the damn fun?
That is so wierd, my husband and I were discussing this the other day. My question was how many people roleplay themselves into a real life divorce? I can only wonder if they really truly know what they are getting into.
While I consider many of my friendships, not just in SL, but on the net as very real, I just cannot see throwing over your entire real life for a person that may or may not be real. Is this the person you will see when you meet? I know I'm a whole 'nother character when I log on. In second life I am comfortable being silly, nice, and friendly/socialable. But that is something that I cannot acclompish in real life. I just can't get over that mental hump that would allow me to be that way in the real world. I'm a whole different person in the real world; quiet, rude, I find it hard to get to know people or talk to them (makes me extremely uncomfortable). The me you see is not the me you will get when you meet. I mean, SL Jales will still be there and a little more forthcoming than usual...but you see a whole side of me you would never see. How many people are the same? How can anyone accept a SL persona as THE person when you are leaving out so much of their personality???
I guess one could say that this is more of the person than you might ever see in real life. That this is purely them, but no, it can't be purely them. Even in SL you may find yourself in a real life situation (cheating on your SL spouse with another married persona??? ack! LOL), your reaction will still be different for many reasons. Take the cheating instance, even if it is a little extreme:
1. You have no fear you will get shot or the shit beat out of you, so your reaction will be based on that. No fear, so will you wrap your arms around your dolled darling and tell him to go fuck himself? STand up and tell him what a man he's not? Ooo..what a shoutfest...and hey, you can log when you get sick of it.
2. Ok, you probably don't feel badly. Your SL wife comes in and she's been IM'ed with the news from the jealous husband "Your husband was found with my wife in my house today". That much easier to tell her to go fuck herself. I mean, you can do what you want right? And it's not like it's your real life wife (let's negate the whole discussion for the moment on whether you are cheating on her by being married in SL)
You know as well I do that there are no real consequences of your actions. The guys at work are most likely not going to hear about this. There is no real shame involved..well maybe in a very few cases, but you get my point.
So that's not YOU, maybe you are a coward and if this would have happened in real life this dolled darling's shining knight would have been on his knees begging for mercy. Not so pretty a picture now.
So hey geekboy, put down the "uber hottie" avatar here slowly and back away. Little miss plain jane, drop the "sex goddess" avatar. Remember, you don't really KNOW this person, not really. They may have deep thoughts and a great personality online, but don't throw your real wife/husband away for someone you can talk to (no, sex is NOT necessary! imagine that!) without punishment.
Tomorrow: Why the hell would you wanna fuck via avatar? I mean, if you can't touch it, where's the damn fun?
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Ah, the joys of small town living...and of course, idiots
For the record, before I get off on my little bitchfest, I'm moving the blog to a personal page of my own where I can set up everything exactly as I want it....as soon as I have everything exactly as I want it. I will link it when I get it done.
I spoke with several members of my family yesterday and caught up on what's going on with them. Well, my gran wanted to know if I knew so and so and I said no. He ran for some small town office back when we lived there, but I never knew him personally. He ran for like mayor or judge or something. It was before we moved and I don't recall if he won or not (obviously not now that I think about it). Don't really care. And the town isn't big enough to actually use a website for the news (hell, they barely have a newspaper) so no linkage ftm. Hmm..might check Abilene news..one sec. Nah, guess not..maybe soon. Anyhow, so the fella was somehow implicated in child porn. His home was searched, and boy is he guilty. Pictures found (ones HE took, not downloaded ones), etc.
Apparently this man was left with a baby daughter to raise when he got divorced years ago (and who knows what he did with her and her friends *shudders*). And apparently this all came about when his daughter moved out and he was still picking up young girls and having them stay the night. HIs modus operandi seems to be buying the girls gifts, extending to even new cars. I think as a parent, I'd be a bit suspicious if my little girl brought back a vehicle one day and I didn't pay for it! Not to mention cell phones and lingerie....So apparently these rumors of his proclivities have been going around for YEARS. So, here's the questions:
I KNOW small town gossip, I lived in this town off and on for years as an adult and a child. This guy was a "upstanding figure", so you could be deaf and you heard people talking about him. Where the hell were the parents and what were they thinking? A man is picking up your young daughter (13-16 and there's the possibility of younger) to come stay the night at his house, gives her nice gifts, NOT SUSPICIOUS???? Ok ok, so you can't lock your child in a box, gotcha, I agree. However, someone starts buying gifts for my child and she's asking to stay over, I would definitely say the "safe than sorry" route would be paramount in my mind. Of course, I also don't believe the tv is a babysitter, so I'm a little wierd to start with I guess.
Why is it people think just because someone is "upstanding" means they can do no wrong? Especially considering the news today. Congressmen picked up for child porn, Jeffrey Dahmer, but yet Joe Blow who ran for county judge can't be any less than a swell guy because well, he did run for judge! And stop and think about this, you are not blowing off a guy who might come in and steal your tv. You are blowing off a man that can hurt your CHILD. Really people, is it worth the fucking chance???? Have you lost your everloving minds???? This isn't an adult or a tv, this is a CHILD. You know, young, naive, defenseless?? Are you getting a picture here? We're talking YEARS of therapy, possibly medication, unwanted pregnancies, their future in ruins, and the possibility that they become so messed up that they become sickos themselves. THIS is what you want for your child just so you can say "I know this guy"????
Now, I'm not one of those "everything for the children". Nope, can't stand it myself. I truly believe that when it comes to the things I do, I'm no longer a child and refuse to halt my behavior just because you want to raise your child in a vacuum. However, in those cases we are talking about cursing, watching violent television. We are NOT talking about the rape/molestation of a child.
He moved one girl in: So um, hey mom, what the fuck were you doing? What kind of mother lets her young daughter move in with a middle aged man and shower her with gifts?????
Maybe I'm getting a bit irate at the wrong thing. Having come from this town (and boy has this happened before there), I know some girls there are a lot less than innocent. However, isn't it our job as parents to watch out for these things and to keep them from happening to our children? Even if our children are a lot less than innocent, does that negate our responsibility to teach them that they are not prostitutes? Or to protect them from those that would take advantage of them? Has society succumbed to lazy parenting? YES, it has.
With the government running more and more of our households, taking decisions away from parents that used to be the parents decisions, we have encouraged parents to let society raise our children and not ourselves. Who knows our children better than we do? Who knows what our individual children need more than we do? Who knows what signs our children are showing more than we do? Damn sure not 100 guys across the country who's never met US, let alone our children!
Our job as parents is to protect our children and guide them to be good adults that are happy with themselves. By protection I do NOT mean "no tv except Disney" and "cover up that statue of David so little Annie doesn't see a penis". I mean that sometimes to protect you have to educate. And you CAN educate your child without scaring the living shit out of them or making them terrified of everyone who passes them. I've discussed sexual molestation since before my girls could understand what I'm talking about. Make it a regular occurence and stay within what they can understand. Even a 4 year old knows pain and shame. It's not too hard to say "If someone touches you somewhere that bothers you or makes you feel bad or hurt you, you come tell me". And don't leave it at that! These predators are masterful manipulators! They will say things to convince your child not to tell, and they are GOOD. You can use the feelings your child has to help them. You know almost all children believe that mommy and daddy are invincible and can save the world. USE THAT! "No matter what anyone says, you come tell me. Noone is big enough to kill me, especially if they have hurt you." "Don't ever let someone tell you that if you tell me something I won't love you anymore. I will always love you no matter what happens." And SHOW them...a child cannot believe in your love, have faith in your protection unless you show them that it's warranted. And for goodness sake, pay attention to your children. I know where my kids are at all times. I know how they react to stress, I know how they act when they've done something wrong, I know how they react when they feel they've been denied fairness or justice or have been unfairly punished. Don't stop mentioning just because now they are 13. Reinforce it! Now they are dealing with a whole new set of possibilities. Like the girls in the town, now they are getting to an age where they are learning they can get a man's attention (or a woman's, this doesn't sexually discriminate) and that sometimes you can get stuff out of a man. And at this point this is not just about rape/molestation, this is also about values and self respect. This is about the new things they will be told and tempted to give into or believe. Remember back to when you were a teenager and the goofy shit you fell for...your kid is no more immune than you are to fall for the goofy shit. And sometimes the goofy shit can hurt them (my mother once told me that there was a rash of bouncing girls when she was a teenager because some of the guys told the girls that if they jumped up and down after sex they wouldn't get pregnant, big surprise a bunch ended up pregnant huh?)
Ah, why bother? Red flags were thrown up about this guy for years and so many ignored them. The good parents are already paying attention and the rest never will...
I spoke with several members of my family yesterday and caught up on what's going on with them. Well, my gran wanted to know if I knew so and so and I said no. He ran for some small town office back when we lived there, but I never knew him personally. He ran for like mayor or judge or something. It was before we moved and I don't recall if he won or not (obviously not now that I think about it). Don't really care. And the town isn't big enough to actually use a website for the news (hell, they barely have a newspaper) so no linkage ftm. Hmm..might check Abilene news..one sec. Nah, guess not..maybe soon. Anyhow, so the fella was somehow implicated in child porn. His home was searched, and boy is he guilty. Pictures found (ones HE took, not downloaded ones), etc.
Apparently this man was left with a baby daughter to raise when he got divorced years ago (and who knows what he did with her and her friends *shudders*). And apparently this all came about when his daughter moved out and he was still picking up young girls and having them stay the night. HIs modus operandi seems to be buying the girls gifts, extending to even new cars. I think as a parent, I'd be a bit suspicious if my little girl brought back a vehicle one day and I didn't pay for it! Not to mention cell phones and lingerie....So apparently these rumors of his proclivities have been going around for YEARS. So, here's the questions:
I KNOW small town gossip, I lived in this town off and on for years as an adult and a child. This guy was a "upstanding figure", so you could be deaf and you heard people talking about him. Where the hell were the parents and what were they thinking? A man is picking up your young daughter (13-16 and there's the possibility of younger) to come stay the night at his house, gives her nice gifts, NOT SUSPICIOUS???? Ok ok, so you can't lock your child in a box, gotcha, I agree. However, someone starts buying gifts for my child and she's asking to stay over, I would definitely say the "safe than sorry" route would be paramount in my mind. Of course, I also don't believe the tv is a babysitter, so I'm a little wierd to start with I guess.
Why is it people think just because someone is "upstanding" means they can do no wrong? Especially considering the news today. Congressmen picked up for child porn, Jeffrey Dahmer, but yet Joe Blow who ran for county judge can't be any less than a swell guy because well, he did run for judge! And stop and think about this, you are not blowing off a guy who might come in and steal your tv. You are blowing off a man that can hurt your CHILD. Really people, is it worth the fucking chance???? Have you lost your everloving minds???? This isn't an adult or a tv, this is a CHILD. You know, young, naive, defenseless?? Are you getting a picture here? We're talking YEARS of therapy, possibly medication, unwanted pregnancies, their future in ruins, and the possibility that they become so messed up that they become sickos themselves. THIS is what you want for your child just so you can say "I know this guy"????
Now, I'm not one of those "everything for the children". Nope, can't stand it myself. I truly believe that when it comes to the things I do, I'm no longer a child and refuse to halt my behavior just because you want to raise your child in a vacuum. However, in those cases we are talking about cursing, watching violent television. We are NOT talking about the rape/molestation of a child.
He moved one girl in: So um, hey mom, what the fuck were you doing? What kind of mother lets her young daughter move in with a middle aged man and shower her with gifts?????
Maybe I'm getting a bit irate at the wrong thing. Having come from this town (and boy has this happened before there), I know some girls there are a lot less than innocent. However, isn't it our job as parents to watch out for these things and to keep them from happening to our children? Even if our children are a lot less than innocent, does that negate our responsibility to teach them that they are not prostitutes? Or to protect them from those that would take advantage of them? Has society succumbed to lazy parenting? YES, it has.
With the government running more and more of our households, taking decisions away from parents that used to be the parents decisions, we have encouraged parents to let society raise our children and not ourselves. Who knows our children better than we do? Who knows what our individual children need more than we do? Who knows what signs our children are showing more than we do? Damn sure not 100 guys across the country who's never met US, let alone our children!
Our job as parents is to protect our children and guide them to be good adults that are happy with themselves. By protection I do NOT mean "no tv except Disney" and "cover up that statue of David so little Annie doesn't see a penis". I mean that sometimes to protect you have to educate. And you CAN educate your child without scaring the living shit out of them or making them terrified of everyone who passes them. I've discussed sexual molestation since before my girls could understand what I'm talking about. Make it a regular occurence and stay within what they can understand. Even a 4 year old knows pain and shame. It's not too hard to say "If someone touches you somewhere that bothers you or makes you feel bad or hurt you, you come tell me". And don't leave it at that! These predators are masterful manipulators! They will say things to convince your child not to tell, and they are GOOD. You can use the feelings your child has to help them. You know almost all children believe that mommy and daddy are invincible and can save the world. USE THAT! "No matter what anyone says, you come tell me. Noone is big enough to kill me, especially if they have hurt you." "Don't ever let someone tell you that if you tell me something I won't love you anymore. I will always love you no matter what happens." And SHOW them...a child cannot believe in your love, have faith in your protection unless you show them that it's warranted. And for goodness sake, pay attention to your children. I know where my kids are at all times. I know how they react to stress, I know how they act when they've done something wrong, I know how they react when they feel they've been denied fairness or justice or have been unfairly punished. Don't stop mentioning just because now they are 13. Reinforce it! Now they are dealing with a whole new set of possibilities. Like the girls in the town, now they are getting to an age where they are learning they can get a man's attention (or a woman's, this doesn't sexually discriminate) and that sometimes you can get stuff out of a man. And at this point this is not just about rape/molestation, this is also about values and self respect. This is about the new things they will be told and tempted to give into or believe. Remember back to when you were a teenager and the goofy shit you fell for...your kid is no more immune than you are to fall for the goofy shit. And sometimes the goofy shit can hurt them (my mother once told me that there was a rash of bouncing girls when she was a teenager because some of the guys told the girls that if they jumped up and down after sex they wouldn't get pregnant, big surprise a bunch ended up pregnant huh?)
Ah, why bother? Red flags were thrown up about this guy for years and so many ignored them. The good parents are already paying attention and the rest never will...
Monday, March 27, 2006
Simple People
Gravity kills, smoking kills, obesity kills, breathing kills. People actually believe this shit...People. Are. Idiots.
Let's go into how this all started: Yesterday my daughter asked a question about gravity. Actually, she asked about inertia, but she didn't know that when she asked. She ASKED about gravity and was corrected. Anyhow, that's really not the point. The point is the subject came up. Later she makes the statement "gravity kills". Naturally S and I want to know where this conclusion comes from. As far as we know, gravity has never killed anyone. So H explains how if you jump from a 10 story building you will die. Ok, I laughed. Not the demeaning "you're an idiot" laugh. Just the simplistic child view of things that is generally amusing. So I explain that no, gravity doesn't kill and neither does falling, it's the sudden stop at the end that gets you. At which point, with all of a child's logic (and from her end of things this is quite logical and technically I could suppose she is correct), that if there was no gravity then it wouldn't kill you.
And then it hit me. How many fuckin' adults have the logic of a 10 year old child and refuse to progress to something more advanced. My 10 year old actually now grasps why one would be wrong to say "gravity kills", however she has acclompished something that many, hell most, adults have yet to acclompish...reasonable thought is in her grasp. And I thought about it, and the fallacy in the statement, and yet how many otherwise intelligent people continue to make such idiotic statements AND DEFEND THEM! Even when normally they wouldn't!
Let's go here: "Smoking kills". Big anti tobacco thing, you just say smoking kills and watch the little idiots run in fear, screaming their heads off. However, if you say "breathing kills", these EXACT SAME PEOPLE will SCOFF at you for being so simplistically ridiculous. They will even give you the EXACT SAME ARGUEMENT that proves why "smoking kills" is such a ridiculous statement and yet if you point it out, these idiots have the unmitigated gall to actually say "well that's different". But it's not.
While technically the statement "gravity kills" is ultimately correct, it's a highly misleading statement. If gravity kills, then we'd all be dead if we jumped 4 cm off the ground. As I've yet to see a rash of jumping related deaths, I'm going to assume gravity works the same as usual. You jump from a 20 story building, no parachute, make it through the fall as usual, hit the ground and die. You jump froma 20 story building, parachute, make it through the fall, land lightly on the ground, live. So there are two several seperate factors here: parachute possession, impact with the ground, gravity, building size. Now, building size is the same, so that's not what makes you live. You don't die from the fall, so gravity is not the issue here. You have two things that changed; 1. You had a parachute in one, and not in the other 2. The impact with the ground was changed by the parachute. While being slightly more honest one could stop here and say lack of parachutes kill, but that's not really the case is it? I mean, that's a pretty broad statement. People go without parachutes all the time and they don't die. One could say height kills, but being up high didn't kill you either. In fact, both times all was actually going very well until you got to the impact part. There is the fundamental difference! One could stop there and say Impact kills, and you'd be a hell of a lot closer to correct than gravity kills is..however, there are various kinds of impact right? At what level is impact fatal? So you do 500 experiments with different heights etc until you can narrow it down, then you release a completely accurate statement: "Impact with hard objects are fatal from 20 miles an hour on up if you land on your head"Maybe you release 30 statements "Impact with hard objects with your legs are fatal at 30 miles and up" "Impact with hard objects from a height of 20 stories no matter what you land on are fatal" Whatever. But all are now accurate and thoroughly educating statements. So what we now know is that you can jump and play in gravity all day long and nothing will happen to you, but if you climb a large building and jump and impact with a hard surface at certain speeds, you will die. Obviously a statement of some significance or we'd lose the entire sport of basketball...In fact, if we had been raised on the simple statement of "gravity kills", we wouldn't have had basketball, jump ropes, and a good portion of follow the leader would be gone. All this is very logical. In fact, it's so naturally accepted we don't even quote studies anymore to prove that gravity does not kill, impact with the ground from certain heights or at certain speeds do. It's pretty much common sense that gravity does not kill.
So wtf is wrong with people that they accept these scare tactic statements that "obesity kills" or "smoking kills"? Hell, with the simplistic, childish arguements like this, I can prove with NO effort that breathing kills, because you wouldn't stop breathing if you weren't breathing to start with.
Let's go into how this all started: Yesterday my daughter asked a question about gravity. Actually, she asked about inertia, but she didn't know that when she asked. She ASKED about gravity and was corrected. Anyhow, that's really not the point. The point is the subject came up. Later she makes the statement "gravity kills". Naturally S and I want to know where this conclusion comes from. As far as we know, gravity has never killed anyone. So H explains how if you jump from a 10 story building you will die. Ok, I laughed. Not the demeaning "you're an idiot" laugh. Just the simplistic child view of things that is generally amusing. So I explain that no, gravity doesn't kill and neither does falling, it's the sudden stop at the end that gets you. At which point, with all of a child's logic (and from her end of things this is quite logical and technically I could suppose she is correct), that if there was no gravity then it wouldn't kill you.
And then it hit me. How many fuckin' adults have the logic of a 10 year old child and refuse to progress to something more advanced. My 10 year old actually now grasps why one would be wrong to say "gravity kills", however she has acclompished something that many, hell most, adults have yet to acclompish...reasonable thought is in her grasp. And I thought about it, and the fallacy in the statement, and yet how many otherwise intelligent people continue to make such idiotic statements AND DEFEND THEM! Even when normally they wouldn't!
Let's go here: "Smoking kills". Big anti tobacco thing, you just say smoking kills and watch the little idiots run in fear, screaming their heads off. However, if you say "breathing kills", these EXACT SAME PEOPLE will SCOFF at you for being so simplistically ridiculous. They will even give you the EXACT SAME ARGUEMENT that proves why "smoking kills" is such a ridiculous statement and yet if you point it out, these idiots have the unmitigated gall to actually say "well that's different". But it's not.
While technically the statement "gravity kills" is ultimately correct, it's a highly misleading statement. If gravity kills, then we'd all be dead if we jumped 4 cm off the ground. As I've yet to see a rash of jumping related deaths, I'm going to assume gravity works the same as usual. You jump from a 20 story building, no parachute, make it through the fall as usual, hit the ground and die. You jump froma 20 story building, parachute, make it through the fall, land lightly on the ground, live. So there are two several seperate factors here: parachute possession, impact with the ground, gravity, building size. Now, building size is the same, so that's not what makes you live. You don't die from the fall, so gravity is not the issue here. You have two things that changed; 1. You had a parachute in one, and not in the other 2. The impact with the ground was changed by the parachute. While being slightly more honest one could stop here and say lack of parachutes kill, but that's not really the case is it? I mean, that's a pretty broad statement. People go without parachutes all the time and they don't die. One could say height kills, but being up high didn't kill you either. In fact, both times all was actually going very well until you got to the impact part. There is the fundamental difference! One could stop there and say Impact kills, and you'd be a hell of a lot closer to correct than gravity kills is..however, there are various kinds of impact right? At what level is impact fatal? So you do 500 experiments with different heights etc until you can narrow it down, then you release a completely accurate statement: "Impact with hard objects are fatal from 20 miles an hour on up if you land on your head"Maybe you release 30 statements "Impact with hard objects with your legs are fatal at 30 miles and up" "Impact with hard objects from a height of 20 stories no matter what you land on are fatal" Whatever. But all are now accurate and thoroughly educating statements. So what we now know is that you can jump and play in gravity all day long and nothing will happen to you, but if you climb a large building and jump and impact with a hard surface at certain speeds, you will die. Obviously a statement of some significance or we'd lose the entire sport of basketball...In fact, if we had been raised on the simple statement of "gravity kills", we wouldn't have had basketball, jump ropes, and a good portion of follow the leader would be gone. All this is very logical. In fact, it's so naturally accepted we don't even quote studies anymore to prove that gravity does not kill, impact with the ground from certain heights or at certain speeds do. It's pretty much common sense that gravity does not kill.
So wtf is wrong with people that they accept these scare tactic statements that "obesity kills" or "smoking kills"? Hell, with the simplistic, childish arguements like this, I can prove with NO effort that breathing kills, because you wouldn't stop breathing if you weren't breathing to start with.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Personal Responsibility
It's funny how that phrase has altered so much in the last few years. It does not mean that one must act in the socially defined "responsible" way. It means that an individual be responsible for the choices they make.
Accepting personal responsibility includes:
Acknowledging that you are solely responsible for the choices in your life.
Accepting that you are responsible for what you choose to feel or think.
Accepting that you choose the direction for your life.
Accepting that you cannot blame others for the choices you have made.
Tearing down the mask of defense or rationale for why others are responsible for who you are, what has happened to you, and what you are bound to become.
The rational belief that you are responsible for determining who your are, and how your choices affect your life.
Pointing the finger of responsibility back to yourself and away from others when you are discussing the consequences of your actions. (not btw, how MY actions influence you, but YOUR OWN actions and choices)
Realizing that you determine your feelings about any events or actions addressed to you, no matter how negative they seem.
Recognizing that you are your best cheerleader; it is not reasonable or healthy for you to depend on others to make you feel good about yourself.
Recognizing that as you enter adulthood and maturity, you determine how your self-esteem will develop.
Not feeling sorry for the ``bum deal'' you have been handed but taking hold of your life and giving it direction and reason.
When you have not accepted personal responsibility, you can run the risk of becoming:
Chronically hostile, angry, or depressed over how unfairly you have been or are being treated.
Fearful about ever taking a risk or making a decision.
Overwhelmed by disabling fears.
Over responsible in your need to rescue others in your life.
What do people believe who have not accepted personal responsibility?
I want you to fix me.
How can you say I am responsible for what happens to me in the future? There is fate, luck, politics, greed, envy, wicked and jealous people, and other negative influences that have a greater bearing on my future than I have. (Yeah, blame McDonald's and the smokers)
What terms are used to describe those who have not accepted personal responsibility?
martyrs. self-pitying, depressed, losers, quitters, chronically angry, BLAMERS, fearful, hostile, aggressive, irresponsible, weak, neurotic, obsessed
In order to accept personal responsibility you need to develop the ability to:
Be open to new ideas or concepts about life and the human condition.
Refute irrational beliefs and overcome fears.
RECOGNIZE THAT YOU ARE THE SOLE DETERMINANT OF THE CHOICES YOU MAKE.
RECOGNIZE THAT YOU CHOOSE YOUR RESPONSES TO THE PEOPLE, ACTIONS, AND EVENTS IN YOUR LIFE.
Realize that you are the party in charge of the direction your life takes.
Which shows you how the notion of "personal responsibility" gets easily twisted . Nowadays it means that each individual, even in his deepest, most intimate choices is actually responsible to Society at Large-- a fine Maoist concept-- or else to His Employer-- a fine Fascist concept. (Walt)
So for those unsure of what personal responsibility actually is, here is a definition of what personal responsibility means:
So for those unsure of what personal responsibility actually is, here is a definition of what personal responsibility means:
Accepting personal responsibility includes:
Acknowledging that you are solely responsible for the choices in your life.
Accepting that you are responsible for what you choose to feel or think.
Accepting that you choose the direction for your life.
Accepting that you cannot blame others for the choices you have made.
Tearing down the mask of defense or rationale for why others are responsible for who you are, what has happened to you, and what you are bound to become.
The rational belief that you are responsible for determining who your are, and how your choices affect your life.
Pointing the finger of responsibility back to yourself and away from others when you are discussing the consequences of your actions. (not btw, how MY actions influence you, but YOUR OWN actions and choices)
Realizing that you determine your feelings about any events or actions addressed to you, no matter how negative they seem.
Recognizing that you are your best cheerleader; it is not reasonable or healthy for you to depend on others to make you feel good about yourself.
Recognizing that as you enter adulthood and maturity, you determine how your self-esteem will develop.
Not feeling sorry for the ``bum deal'' you have been handed but taking hold of your life and giving it direction and reason.
When you have not accepted personal responsibility, you can run the risk of becoming:
Chronically hostile, angry, or depressed over how unfairly you have been or are being treated.
Fearful about ever taking a risk or making a decision.
Overwhelmed by disabling fears.
Over responsible in your need to rescue others in your life.
What do people believe who have not accepted personal responsibility?
I want you to fix me.
How can you say I am responsible for what happens to me in the future? There is fate, luck, politics, greed, envy, wicked and jealous people, and other negative influences that have a greater bearing on my future than I have. (Yeah, blame McDonald's and the smokers)
What terms are used to describe those who have not accepted personal responsibility?
martyrs. self-pitying, depressed, losers, quitters, chronically angry, BLAMERS, fearful, hostile, aggressive, irresponsible, weak, neurotic, obsessed
In order to accept personal responsibility you need to develop the ability to:
Be open to new ideas or concepts about life and the human condition.
Refute irrational beliefs and overcome fears.
RECOGNIZE THAT YOU ARE THE SOLE DETERMINANT OF THE CHOICES YOU MAKE.
RECOGNIZE THAT YOU CHOOSE YOUR RESPONSES TO THE PEOPLE, ACTIONS, AND EVENTS IN YOUR LIFE.
Realize that you are the party in charge of the direction your life takes.
Monday, March 06, 2006
more stuffage
Getting closer and closer...not sure if it will be much longer until the baby is born. Signs are showing it's imminent. In the meantime I've been preparing for the arrival of Junior here.
The guys showed up to fix the house for 2 days. Ripped 2 ceilings down, put up the replacements, then left. They still have to paint and put my ceiling fan back up, but I haven't seen them for a week, so I guess they will get around to it *sighs*. If it's AFTER the baby is born I have to say NO, can't have the new baby breathing shit in like that. I'm half tempted to call the landlord and tell him that, but due to my lack of diplomacy, Steve doesn't want me to do that. *whistles innocently*
M seems to have done something with my Sims 2 game. I guess she thought she was helping one day while cleaning and tossed it for me. So I guess I'll have to buy a new Sims 2 game. Sure would like to pick that up today, may do that. Steve is home sick. Poor guy feels like hell. But it's about a week late. He ALWAYS gets sick this time of year. Hell, it's the ONLY time of year he gets sick. I hope he'll feel a bit better in a bit and can tell me what exactly is wrong so I know what kind of medicine to buy. Until then it's best to let him sleep. No fever though, just sore throat as far as I know. Like I said, will have to wait until he's awake to find out all that's wrong. Ok, breakfast time. Later.
The guys showed up to fix the house for 2 days. Ripped 2 ceilings down, put up the replacements, then left. They still have to paint and put my ceiling fan back up, but I haven't seen them for a week, so I guess they will get around to it *sighs*. If it's AFTER the baby is born I have to say NO, can't have the new baby breathing shit in like that. I'm half tempted to call the landlord and tell him that, but due to my lack of diplomacy, Steve doesn't want me to do that. *whistles innocently*
M seems to have done something with my Sims 2 game. I guess she thought she was helping one day while cleaning and tossed it for me. So I guess I'll have to buy a new Sims 2 game. Sure would like to pick that up today, may do that. Steve is home sick. Poor guy feels like hell. But it's about a week late. He ALWAYS gets sick this time of year. Hell, it's the ONLY time of year he gets sick. I hope he'll feel a bit better in a bit and can tell me what exactly is wrong so I know what kind of medicine to buy. Until then it's best to let him sleep. No fever though, just sore throat as far as I know. Like I said, will have to wait until he's awake to find out all that's wrong. Ok, breakfast time. Later.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Sports, Acting, and Dicks
Something I noticed the other night; apparently it's quite acceptable to be a complete and utter dick in sports and acting. Case of epiphany: Bobby Knight. I don't watch sports, but my husband does....alot. I've heard of this guy before. He's abusive to his players, loses it on a regular basis, is a complete and utter asshole. So I see him on tv and I asked my husband, "Isn't that the guy that's such an asshole?" And he says yes, so I ask "So why is he on tv and still employed?". I ask this because this isn't a case of he's just an asshole, this is a case of he's a fuckin' psycho. My husband says, "Yes, but he's the best basketball coach there is. Do you know how many wins he's responsible for?" So I get to thinking, and that's also the case in acting. You say, boy that (fill in actor's name here) is a real dick (or bitch) and the response will be similar; "Yeah, but do you know how many movies he sells??"
You know, noone says that about anyone else? Noone says "boy that John's a prick, but he's a fireman. Do you know how many lives he's saved?" or "Man, that Sandy is a bitch, but she's a cop. Do you know how many bullets she's taken for people?" Noone excuses the asshole-ness of the regular folk. If John or Sandy act like an asshole then they are just assholes. There's no quantifier. This is only one sign of the complete lack of perception inherent in people. It's completely acceptable for a sports "star"/actor to behave in a completely unacceptable manner, and people will still fawn over them. What is wrong with you people?
You know, noone says that about anyone else? Noone says "boy that John's a prick, but he's a fireman. Do you know how many lives he's saved?" or "Man, that Sandy is a bitch, but she's a cop. Do you know how many bullets she's taken for people?" Noone excuses the asshole-ness of the regular folk. If John or Sandy act like an asshole then they are just assholes. There's no quantifier. This is only one sign of the complete lack of perception inherent in people. It's completely acceptable for a sports "star"/actor to behave in a completely unacceptable manner, and people will still fawn over them. What is wrong with you people?
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Stuffage
Ah, what's going on the last couple of days...went to a regular doctor's appt and all is well. Went again to a second for glucose testing, I'm assuming if all is not well they will call me. I am a bit annoyed tho...
Does NO doctor actually finish his job?? I have an awesome doctor, I really like him alot and I'm very comfortable with him. However, what is wrong with these doctors? I'm delivering a baby. I go to all the effort to find a good doctor that I am comfortable with and feel I can trust to get me and my baby through this safely...but if he's not on call or it's not during the week, well, he's not delivering. WTF? Why go to the effort at all to find a doctor? Why not just have all the doctors line up like an assembly line and you just go to the first available. I asked the nurse about this and she says "Do you really think he'd let someone do it who's incompetent?" Well, it's a matter of trust. I chose my doctor for his age, he's an old man. The reason being is that older doctors are much less likely to be the ones passing out pills for every little ill, usually take a common sense approach to medicine, and tell you what you NEED to hear instead of what you want to hear. Now, one of his associates is a doctor I tried to go to at the beginning of my pregnancy and she was such a bitch I left in the middle of the appt. She's a very competent doctor, but she's got a serious attitude problem. Now, not knowing her personally, who's to say that she isn't someone who would do something spiteful? Or unnecessary? Not to mention, who the fuck wants a cunt (yeah yeah, I hear you, hahaha) at their delivery? She delivered my last baby (again, MY doctor wasn't available), and when I tore (yeah, TORE) she said, that's your fault, you shouldn't have stopped pushing. Hello? You can only push so much before you have to get a breath and try again. If you could just continually push, then no woman would ever tear. Ah, phone, might finish this bitch fest later.
Does NO doctor actually finish his job?? I have an awesome doctor, I really like him alot and I'm very comfortable with him. However, what is wrong with these doctors? I'm delivering a baby. I go to all the effort to find a good doctor that I am comfortable with and feel I can trust to get me and my baby through this safely...but if he's not on call or it's not during the week, well, he's not delivering. WTF? Why go to the effort at all to find a doctor? Why not just have all the doctors line up like an assembly line and you just go to the first available. I asked the nurse about this and she says "Do you really think he'd let someone do it who's incompetent?" Well, it's a matter of trust. I chose my doctor for his age, he's an old man. The reason being is that older doctors are much less likely to be the ones passing out pills for every little ill, usually take a common sense approach to medicine, and tell you what you NEED to hear instead of what you want to hear. Now, one of his associates is a doctor I tried to go to at the beginning of my pregnancy and she was such a bitch I left in the middle of the appt. She's a very competent doctor, but she's got a serious attitude problem. Now, not knowing her personally, who's to say that she isn't someone who would do something spiteful? Or unnecessary? Not to mention, who the fuck wants a cunt (yeah yeah, I hear you, hahaha) at their delivery? She delivered my last baby (again, MY doctor wasn't available), and when I tore (yeah, TORE) she said, that's your fault, you shouldn't have stopped pushing. Hello? You can only push so much before you have to get a breath and try again. If you could just continually push, then no woman would ever tear. Ah, phone, might finish this bitch fest later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
